大乘玄論 1.11.3

1.11.3

今問：世諦唯可說、真諦不可說，豈非定性耶也？ 答：今義，世諦雖可說，說即真不可說，真不可說即俗可說，故非是定性。 問：俗即真故不可說，此為是俗不可說？ 為是真不可說。 還是真不可說者。 若爾，即俗無不可說義，豈非定性耶？ 答：今總觀經論，具有四句：一世諦說、真不說； 二真說、世不說； 三俱說； 四俱不說。 此四句有多門，今具敘之。 一者世諦說生滅、真諦不說生滅，故云世諦說、真諦不說也。 二真諦說不生滅、俗不說不生滅，故真諦說、世諦不說也。 三世諦說生滅、真諦說無生滅，故二諦俱說。 四世諦不說無生滅、真諦不說生滅，故二諦俱不說也。 問：此四句出何處？ 答：《釋論》初卷云「人等世諦故有，第一義故無，如法性等。 」第一義故有、世諦故無，即是斯義。 二者明生滅此是世諦說、不生滅是世諦不說。 不生不滅是真諦說、非不生非不滅是真諦不說，是即二諦俱說、俱不說也。 三者說生滅說不生滅，皆是世諦故說； 真諦不說生滅，亦不說不生不滅，故云世諦說、真諦不說也。 四真諦說、世諦不說者，世諦雖說生滅不生滅，實無所說； 真諦雖無所說，而無所不說。 問：世諦雖說而無所說，無所說即入真諦； 真諦無所說而無所不說，還是世諦。 何處有世諦不說、真諦說耶？ 答：有所得定性，義如此耳。 世諦自是說，若無所說即屬真諦； 真諦自無所說，若有說還屬世諦。 如此真俗皆是障礙法門。 今明諸佛菩薩無所得空，有因緣無礙，故空是有空、有是空有。 空是有空，雖空而有； 有是空有，雖有是空。 說是不說說、不說是說不說。 說是不說說，故雖說而不說； 不說是說不說，故雖不說而常說。 故得世諦不說而真說也。 問：《中論》云「俗諦有言說，第一義諦無言說。 」諸人言：真諦無名言，一切名言皆是世諦。 若言教為真諦者，言教生滅，故真諦應生滅。 若真無生滅，汝今何以言真諦並是教耶？ 答：不以言教為真諦，乃言說真說俗故言真俗耳。 四者顯不顯明得失。 有所得有無，定住有無，不能顯道。 無所得有無，方能顯道，故言顯不顯門。 五者理教得失門。 他但有理無教，今有理教。 六者淺深門明得失。 他但明空有為二諦故淺，今明四重二諦故言深。 七者理內外門明得失。 一理外義、二理內義。 若心行理外，故云理外； 心行理內，故云理內。 八者無定性門明得失。 如一色未曾自性，亦非是假，於性緣成性、於假緣成假。 理內外、得無得亦然。 如一色未曾真俗，貪人見色為淨，不淨觀人色為不淨也。 九者約相待門明得失。 問：此對治何人耶？ 答：凡有三義。 一為學《攝論》人不執三性、存三無性理。 三性者，依他分別真實。 分別性者，即是六塵為識所分別故，言分別性。 依他性者，本識為種子所依，故名依他。 真實性者，二無我真如。 三無性者，知塵無相，故言分別無相性。 依他無生性者，知本識無生，故言無生性。 知無我理無性，故真實無生性。 三論云無性法亦無，他家不遣三無性，今論遣三無性，故言皆得相待也。 十者泯得失門。 若見上來諸義為失，以無內外泯性假為得，故皆為失。 若能無得無失，不知何以目之，強稱為得。 故以十門分別他今二義也。

Now it is asked: If the conventional truth is solely expressible and the ultimate truth is inexpressible, does this not entail an intrinsic nature? Answer: According to our present doctrine, although the conventional truth is expressible, the expressed is the ultimate and is inexpressible; and the inexpressible ultimate is the expressible conventional. Thus, there is no intrinsic nature. Question: If conventionality, being identical to the ultimate, is inexpressible, is this the inexpressibility of the conventional, or the inexpressibility of the ultimate? If it is still the inexpressibility of the ultimate, then the conventional lacks the meaning of being inexpressible; how then is it not an intrinsic nature? Answer: When we look comprehensively at the sūtras and treatises, they comprise a catuṣkoṭi: first, the conventional truth is expressed while the ultimate is unexpressed; second, the ultimate is expressed while the conventional is unexpressed; third, both are expressed; fourth, both are unexpressed. This catuṣkoṭi has many approaches, which shall now be set forth in full. First, the conventional truth speaks of arising and ceasing, while the ultimate truth does not speak of arising and ceasing; hence it is said that the conventional truth is expressed while the ultimate truth is unexpressed. Second, the ultimate truth speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing, while the conventional truth does not speak of non-arising and non-ceasing; hence the ultimate truth is expressed while the conventional truth is unexpressed. Third, the conventional truth speaks of arising and ceasing, and the ultimate truth speaks of the absence of arising and ceasing; hence both truths are expressed. Fourth, the conventional truth does not speak of the absence of arising and ceasing, and the ultimate truth does not speak of arising and ceasing; hence neither of the two truths is expressed. Question: Where does this catuṣkoṭi come from? Answer: The first fascicle of the Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā] states: "Persons and the like exist on account of conventional truth and do not exist on account of ultimate truth, just like the dharma-nature, etc." Existing on account of ultimate truth and not existing on account of conventional truth is precisely this meaning. Second: Explaining arising and ceasing is the conventional truth expressing it; non-arising and non-ceasing is the conventional truth not expressing it. Non-arising and non-ceasing is the ultimate truth expressing it; neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is the ultimate truth not expressing it. This means that both truths are expressed and both are unexpressed. Third: Speaking of arising and ceasing and speaking of non-arising and non-ceasing are both expressions on account of conventional truth; the ultimate truth does not speak of arising and ceasing, nor does it speak of neither arising nor ceasing; hence it is said that the conventional truth is expressed and the ultimate truth is unexpressed. Fourth, regarding the ultimate truth being expressed and the conventional truth not being expressed: although the conventional truth speaks of arising and ceasing or non-arising and non-ceasing, in reality nothing is expressed; although the ultimate truth expresses nothing, there is nothing it does not express. Question: If the conventional truth speaks and yet expresses nothing, expressing nothing enters into the ultimate truth; and if the ultimate truth expresses nothing and yet leaves nothing unexpressed, this is still the conventional truth. Where then is there a case where the conventional truth is unexpressed and the ultimate truth is expressed? Answer: For those with attainment who hold to an intrinsic nature, the meaning is indeed like that. Conventional truth in itself is expression; if there is no expression, it pertains to the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth in itself is without expression; if there is expression, it again pertains to conventional truth. In this way, both the ultimate and conventional become obstructive dharmas. We now explain that for the buddhas and bodhisattvas, non-attainment is emptiness, and dependent co-arising is unobscured; therefore emptiness is the emptiness of existence, and existence is the existence of emptiness. Emptiness being the emptiness of existence, although empty, it exists; existence being the existence of emptiness, although existing, it is empty. Expressing is the expression of non-expression; not expressing is the non-expression of expression. Because expression is the expression of non-expression, although expressing, it does not express; because non-expression is the non-expression of expression, although not expressing, it constantly expresses. Hence it is established that conventional truth is unexpressed while the ultimate is expressed. Question: The Madhyamakaśāstra states, "The conventional truth has verbal expression; the ultimate truth has no verbal expression." Others say: "The ultimate truth is without names and words; all names and words are conventional truth." If verbal teachings are the ultimate truth, then since verbal teachings arise and cease, the ultimate truth ought to arise and cease. If the ultimate is without arising and ceasing, why do you now say that the ultimate truth is entirely teaching? Answer: We do not take verbal teaching to be the ultimate truth; rather, we speak of it as the ultimate and conventional merely because it is the expression of the ultimate and the expression of the conventional. Fourth is clarifying gain and loss through revealing and not revealing. Existence and non-existence held with attainment fixate upon existence and non-existence, and cannot reveal the Way. Existence and non-existence of non-attainment can only then reveal the Way; hence this is called the approach of revealing and not revealing. Fifth is the approach of gain and loss regarding principle and teaching. Others possess only principle without teaching; we now possess both principle and teaching. Sixth is clarifying gain and loss through the approach of shallow and deep. Others only clarify emptiness and existence as the two truths and are therefore shallow; we now clarify the fourfold two truths and are therefore deep. Seventh is clarifying gain and loss through the approach of inside and outside the principle. The first is the meaning of outside the principle, and the second is the meaning of inside the principle. If the mind's activity is outside the principle, it is called outside the principle; if the mind's activity is inside the principle, it is called inside the principle. Eighth is clarifying gain and loss through the approach of no intrinsic nature. Just as a single form has never had intrinsic nature of its own, nor is it a provisional designation, yet relative to intrinsic conditions it becomes an intrinsic nature, and relative to provisional conditions it becomes provisional. Inside and outside the principle, and attainment and non-attainment, are also like this. Just as a single form has never been ultimate or conventional: a lustful person sees form as pure, while a person practicing the contemplation of impurity sees form as impure. Ninth is clarifying gain and loss in terms of mutual dependence. Question: What person does this counter? Answer: There are three meanings in total. First, it is so that those who study the Mahāyānasaṃgraha will not grasp at the three natures, nor preserve the principle of the three non-natures. As for the three natures, they are paratantra, parikalpita, and pariniṣpanna. The parikalpita nature refers to the six sense objects being conceptualized by consciousness; hence it is called the parikalpita nature. The paratantra nature refers to the fundamental consciousness serving as the basis for the seeds; hence it is named paratantra. The pariniṣpanna nature is the true suchness of the two kinds of selflessness. As for the three non-natures: knowing that sense objects have no marks, one speaks of the nature of the marklessness of conceptualization. As for the nature of non-arising of paratantra: knowing that the fundamental consciousness is without arising, one speaks of the nature of non-arising. Knowing that the principle of selflessness is without nature, pariniṣpanna is thus of the nature of non-arising. The Sanlun states that dharmas without nature are also non-existent; other traditions do not eliminate the three non-natures, whereas this treatise eliminates the three non-natures, and therefore it is said that they are all mutually dependent. Tenth is the approach of obliterating gain and loss. If one sees the aforementioned meanings as loss and takes the obliteration of nature and provisionality through the absence of inside and outside as gain, these are all losses. If one can be without gain and without loss, not knowing what to call it, one forcibly designates it as gain. Thus, by means of these ten approaches, the two doctrines—the others' and our own—are distinguished.