大乘玄論 1.4

1.4

As for the two truths, they are the comprehensive expression of the verbal teachings, provisional designations based on mutual dependence, the wondrous reality of emptiness and quiescence, and the ultimate designation fathoming the Middle Way. They clarify that the Tathāgata always expounds the Dharma relying on the two truths: the first is conventional truth, and the second is ultimate truth. Therefore, the two truths are solely approaches of teaching, having no concern with cognitive objects and principle. Yet practitioners have their skillfulness and clumsiness, and consequently there are differences between gain and loss. Therefore, if one possesses skillful expedient wisdom and studies these two truths, one achieves non-attainment; if one lacks skillful expedient wisdom, studying the teaching immediately results in attainment. Therefore, the three masters of the ordinary tradition phrased their positions differently: [Master] Kaishan stated: "The two truths are the ultimate purport of the Dharma-nature, the supreme principle of the single real non-dual." [Master] Zhuangyan stated: "The two truths are the superior cognitive objects for expelling delusion, the true ford for entering the Path." [Master] Guangzhai stated: "The two truths are the distant spring of the sacred teaching, the profound storehouse of spiritual gnosis." Although these three explanations differ—some expressions containing cognitive understanding, others incorporating the sacred teaching—they all agree in taking cognitive objects and principle to be the truth. If one relies on Dharma Master Daliang of Guangzhou, he determinately takes the verbal teachings to be the truth. Now [we] do not agree with these various masters. Question: Why did [the Master of] Sheling, Xinghuang, take the verbal teachings to be the truth? Answer: There is a profound meaning in this. Because it was in response to taking principle to be truth all along, he made a provisional explanation in response to conditions. Question: The Madhyamakaśāstra states, "The Buddhas expound the Dharma relying on the two truths." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra states, "Because they accord with sentient beings, they expound the two truths." Which truth is this? Answer: That which relies is the truth as teaching; that upon which it relies is truth in relation to cognition. Question: Is truth in relation to cognition a loss, and truth as teaching a gain? Answer: In relation to ordinary beings, it is a loss; in relation to the Tathāgata, it is a gain; in relation to the noble ones, it is both gain and loss. When masters say that truth in relation to cognition is a loss and truth as teaching is a gain, this is because studying the teaching turns into delusion. The original relation [to cognition] is a general delusion; the relation [to cognition] in studying the teaching is a specific delusion. The general delusion is the root; the specific delusion is the branch. The root is the earlier delusion; the branch is the later delusion. Question: Why establish the two truths in relation to cognition of ordinary beings and noble ones? Answer: It shows the gain and loss of ordinary beings and noble ones, in order to transform ordinary beings into noble ones. Question: If truth in relation to cognition is a loss, why is it called truth? Answer: The treatise itself explains: "All phenomena are empty of intrinsic nature. The world, being inverted, calls them existent. In relation to worldly people, this is real, and it is called 'truth'. The worthy and noble ones truly know this inversion to be empty of intrinsic nature. In relation to the noble ones, this is real, and it is called 'truth'." These are the two truths in relation to cognition; the Buddhas expound relying on these, and this is merely called truth as teaching. Question: Why is the teaching named truth? Answer: There are several meanings. First, it is expounded relying on reality, so what is expounded is also real; therefore, it is named truth. Second, these are the sincere and true words of the Tathāgata; therefore, they are named truth. Third, the teaching expounding existence and non-existence can truly express the Path; therefore, it is named truth. Fourth, expounding the Dharma can truly benefit conditions; therefore, it is named truth. Fifth, what is expounded is not inverted; therefore, it is named truth. In its differences from other traditions, there are ten kinds of difference: First is the difference between principle and teaching. They explain that the two truths are principle, the three designations are the conventional, and the four cut-offs are the ultimate. Now we explain that duality is the teaching, and non-duality is principle. Other traditions have principle without teaching; now we explain having both teaching and principle. Second is the difference between having marks and marklessness. Other traditions abide in existence and non-existence, and therefore have marks. Now we explain that existence expresses non-existence, and non-existence expresses not non-existence; not abiding in existence or non-existence, it is therefore named markless. Third is the difference between attainment and non-attainment. Other traditions abide in existence and non-existence, so it is called having attainment. Now we explain not abiding in existence or non-existence, so it is called non-attainment. Fourth is the difference between being within and outside principle. Other traditions abide in existence and non-existence, so they are outside principle. Now we explain not abiding in existence or non-existence, so it is within principle. Fifth is the difference between opening and concealing. Others abide in existence and abide in non-existence; this existence and non-existence conceals the Tathāgata's existence and non-existence of dependent co-arising. Now we explain that the two truths are teaching: existence expressing non-existence, and non-existence expressing not non-existence; this immediately opens the Tathāgata's teaching without obstruction. Sixth is the difference between the half-letter and full-letter [teachings]. Other traditions only have duality and lack non-duality; therefore, they only have teaching without principle, and this is called the half-letter. Now we explain possessing both principle and teaching completely, which is called the full-letter. Seventh is the difference between foolishness and wisdom. The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states, "Regarding light and darkness, the foolish consider them dual, while the wise thoroughly comprehend that they are non-dual." Duality of ultimate and conventional is foolishness; non-duality is wisdom. Therefore, know that non-duality is principle and duality is teaching. Eighth is the difference between essence and function. They have function without essence; now we completely possess both essence and function. Ninth is the difference between root and branch. Non-duality is the root, and duality is the branch. Others only have the branch without the root; now we completely possess both root and branch. Tenth is the difference between definitive and non-definitive. The two truths of other traditions abide in existence and non-existence, so they are called non-definitive. Now we explain that expounding existence seeks to reveal non-existence, and expounding non-existence seeks to reveal not non-existence; existence and non-existence reveal neither existence nor non-existence, and so this is called the definitive meaning. Others merely take existence as conventional truth and emptiness as ultimate truth. Now we explain that both existence and emptiness are conventional truth; only neither emptiness nor existence is first called ultimate truth. Third, emptiness and existence are dual; neither emptiness nor existence is non-dual. Both duality and non-duality are conventional truth; neither duality nor non-duality is called ultimate truth. Fourth, these three kinds of two truths are all approaches of teaching. Expounding these three approaches is to cause one to awaken to non-triplicity, where there is nothing relied upon or attained; this is first called principle. Question: Are the former three all conventional truth, and non-triplicity ultimate truth? Answer: It is so. Question: If so, what is the difference between principle and teaching? Answer: Naturally, taking the two truths as teaching and non-duality as principle are all adaptations suited to conditions; there is no contradiction. Question: Why construct these four tiers of two truths? Answer: In contrast to the Abhidharma's two truths of phenomena and principle, the first tier of the two truths of emptiness and existence is clarified. Second, in contrast to the Tattvasiddhi masters' two truths of emptiness and existence: your two truths of emptiness and existence are my conventional truth, and only neither emptiness nor existence is ultimate truth; thus there is the second tier of the two truths. Third, in contrast to the Mahāyāna masters' taking the duality of paratantra and parikalpita as conventional truth, and the non-dual pariniṣpanna nature—unborn paratantra and markless parikalpita—as ultimate truth: now we clarify that both duality and non-duality are my school's conventional truth, and only neither duality nor non-duality is ultimate truth; thus there is the third tier of the two truths. Fourth, the Mahāyāna masters further state: the three natures are the conventional, and the non-posited truth of the three non-natures is the ultimate truth. Therefore, now we clarify that your duality of paratantra and parikalpita and your non-duality of pariniṣpanna are posited truth; neither duality nor non-duality and the non-posited truth of the three non-natures are both my conventional truth; only when words are forgotten and thoughts cut off is it ultimate truth. The text contains many meanings, which will be explained later. Question: If existence and non-existence as teachings express the principle of neither existence nor non-existence, why not use the teaching of neither existence nor non-existence to express the principle of neither existence nor non-existence? Why must one use the teaching of existence and non-existence to express the principle of neither existence nor non-existence? Answer: One cannot point to the moon with the moon; one should point to the moon with a finger. If it were a bodhisattva of sharp faculties, it should be expounded like that; but ordinary beings are attached to existence and non-existence, so existence and non-existence are used to express neither existence nor non-existence. Question: If one expounds truth in relation to cognition for sentient beings, this would further increase their afflictions; why expound the Dharma relying on the two truths in relation to cognition? Answer: Ordinary beings are attached to existence, and the two vehicles are stuck in emptiness. Now we clarify that the Tathāgata's existence and non-existence of dependent co-arising are provisional existence and provisional non-existence: because it is provisional existence, it is not existent; because it is provisional non-existence, it is not non-existent. How could it increase afflictions? Question: The Tattvasiddhi masters state that the sixteen views are not subsumed under the two truths; the sixteen views do not exist in principle, as they stem from the arbitrary imputations of non-Buddhists, and thus are not conventional truth. Since they are not conventional truth, their identity with emptiness is also not ultimate truth. What does this mean? Answer: If one says that the sixteen views stem from the arbitrary imputations of non-Buddhists and are not subsumed under the two truths, then the aggregates, realms, and sense fields also stem from the arbitrary imputations of ordinary beings; how could one say they are subsumed under the two truths? If what is seen by ordinary beings were conventional truth, ordinary beings would be noble ones.