中觀論疏 2.12

2.12

次二諦合具八不合明二諦中道者，此有二義：一者合論二諦以釋中道、二者泯二歸乎不二辨於體中。就合明二諦為中復有三義：一者欲釋經論但明二諦義，即二諦攝法義周，不須明於三諦。二者單明二諦此是單明用中，合明二諦合辨用中。第三明非真非俗方是體中。此釋經中三諦義也。問：云何但明二諦為中耶？答：則關內影師舊二諦中道義是也。彼云「真故無有、俗故無無。真故無有，雖無而有。俗故無無，雖有而無。雖無而有，不滯於無：雖有而無，不累於有。不滯於無故不斷，不累於有故不常。即是不有不無、不斷不常中道。」此合釋四不之義，以生常是有、滅斷為無故也。不一不異者，例上應云，以俗諦故非一、以真諦故不異。俗故無一，雖異而一；真故無異，雖一而異。雖異而一，故不滯於異；雖一而異，故不著於一。不一不異名為中道。若對破立者，開善謂真俗一體，故名為一。龍光謂真俗異體，故名言異。今俱斥之，故云不一不異。所以天親釋《大品》明十種散動，而一異是二種散動，故知真俗不可一異。東陽傅大士二諦頌云「二諦並非雙，恒乖未曾各。沈浮隨不隨，飄颺泊無泊。」其人本不學問，尚知二諦不可一異，況尋經論者有定執乎？不來不出者，真諦空故不來、俗諦有故不出。出猶去也。例上可知。問：各明二諦中道已竟，何故復合明二諦中道耶？答：但明俗諦、不明真諦即偏墮有邊，但明真諦、不明俗諦即偏墮空邊，今合明二諦離此二邊，故名中道。大朗法師教周顒二諦，其人著《三宗論》云「佛所以立二諦者，以諸法具空有二，所以不偏，故名中道。」問：世諦絕性、真諦絕假，合明二諦治何偏耶？答：但明世諦絕性、不明真諦絕假，即名為偏；但明真諦絕假、不明世諦絕性，在義亦遍。以具明二諦俱絕假實，即義始圓正，故名中道。問：云何是二諦合明中假耶？答：合明離二偏為中，合明二諦因緣故是假也。

Next, regarding the two truths combined having the eight negations, jointly clarifying the middle way of the two truths: here there are two meanings. The first is discussing the two truths jointly to explain the middle way; the second is eliminating the two to return to the non-dual to elucidate the middle of the essence (substance). As for jointly clarifying the two truths as the middle, there are again three meanings: First, wishing to explain the meaning in the sūtras and śāstras that only clarify the two truths—namely, that the two truths subsume dharmas comprehensively, so there is no need to explain three truths. Second, clarifying the two truths separately is clarifying the middle of function separately; clarifying the two truths jointly is elucidating the middle of function jointly. Third, clarifying that which is neither ultimate nor conventional is the middle of essence. This explains the meaning of the three truths in the sūtras. Question: How is it that only the two truths are clarified as the middle? Answer: It is precisely the former meaning of the middle way of the two truths of Master [Tan]ying of the Guanzhong region. He said: "Because of the ultimate, there is no existence; because of the conventional, there is no non-existence. Because of the ultimate there is no existence, yet though non-existent, it exists. Because of the conventional there is no non-existence, yet though existent, it is non-existent. Though non-existent it exists, not stagnating in non-existence; though existent it is non-existent, not burdened by existence. Not stagnating in non-existence, it is not annihilated; not burdened by existence, it is not permanent. This is precisely the middle way of neither existence nor non-existence, neither annihilation nor permanence." This jointly explains the meaning of four negations, because arising and permanence are existence, and ceasing and annihilation are non-existence. Regarding "neither unity nor difference": by analogy with the above, one should say that on account of the conventional truth, it is not one; on account of the ultimate truth, it is not different. Because of the conventional there is no unity: though different, they are one; because of the ultimate there is no difference: though one, they are different. Though different, they are one, hence one does not stagnate in difference; though one, they are different, hence one does not cling to unity. Neither unity nor difference is called the middle way. If treated in terms of refutation and establishment: Kaishan claimed that the ultimate and the conventional are of one essence, hence calling them "unity." Longguang claimed that the ultimate and the conventional are of different essences, hence saying they are "different." Now both are rejected, and thus it is said to be neither unity nor difference. Therefore, when Vasubandhu commented on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, he clarified ten kinds of mental distractions, and unity and difference are two kinds of mental distractions; therefore we know that the ultimate and conventional cannot be one or different. The Mahāsattva Fu of Dongyang in his verse on the two truths says: "The two truths are not a pair, / ever diverging, never apart. / Sinking and floating, following and not following, / fluttering, anchored yet unanchored." That man originally did not study, yet he still knew that the two truths cannot be one or different; how much less should those who examine the sūtras and śāstras harbor fixed attachments? Regarding "neither coming nor departing": because the ultimate truth is empty, it does not come; because the conventional truth exists, it does not depart. "Departing" is like "going away." It can be understood by analogy with the above. Question: Having already clarified the middle way of the two truths separately, why clarify the middle way of the two truths jointly again? Answer: If one only clarifies the conventional truth and does not clarify the ultimate truth, one falls biasedly to the side of existence; if one only clarifies the ultimate truth and does not clarify the conventional truth, one falls biasedly to the side of emptiness. Now, clarifying the two truths jointly departs from these two extremes, and is therefore called the middle way. Dharma Master Dalang taught Zhou Yong the two truths, and that man authored the Treatise on the Three Theses, saying: "The reason why the Buddha established the two truths is that all dharmas possess both emptiness and existence, so they are not biased; hence it is called the middle way." Question: The conventional truth transcends intrinsic nature, and the ultimate truth transcends the provisional. When clarifying the two truths jointly, what bias is remedied? Answer: If one only clarifies that the conventional truth transcends intrinsic nature and does not clarify that the ultimate truth transcends the provisional, it is called biased. If one only clarifies that the ultimate truth transcends the provisional and does not clarify that the conventional truth transcends intrinsic nature, in principle it is also biased. When one clarifies both truths comprehensively, both transcending the provisional and the real, only then is the principle complete and correct, and thus it is called the middle way. Question: What is the middle and provisional when jointly clarifying the two truths? Answer: Jointly clarifying departure from the two biases is the middle; jointly clarifying the dependent origination of the two truths is the provisional.