二諦義 1.14

1.14

問：若所依二諦有倒不倒者，不可解。何者？佛可依不倒說，云何依顛倒為眾生說耶？若言二於諦皆不顛倒，則乖論文。論文云「世間顛倒謂有為世諦，諸賢聖真知顛倒性空為第一義諦，依是二諦為眾生說法。」故知依倒不倒說。若順論文，諸佛菩薩豈得依顛倒說法耶？進退難解，未釋云云。問：前云所依於二諦有得有失，將不乖師所說耶？師云「二於諦是失」，今何得判二於諦有得有失耶？解云：汝言於諦竝是失，是何處語耶？今明於諦皆失者，非是所依於諦皆失，乃是稟教成於，此於諦皆失。何者？如來說有為表不有、說無為表不無、說二為表不二。彼聞有作有解、聞無作無解。聞有作有解，有於凡實，名俗諦；聞無作無解，無於聖實，名第一義諦。此之二諦皆失。

Question: If the two truths that serve as the basis possess inverted and non-inverted aspects, this is incomprehensible. Why? The Buddha may speak relying on the non-inverted; how could he speak for the sake of sentient beings relying on the inverted? If one says that both truths from perspective are non-inverted, that contradicts the text of the treatise. The treatise says: "The world inverted[ly] regards [things] as existing, which constitutes conventional truth; the worthy and noble sages truly know this inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which constitutes ultimate truth; relying on these two truths, [the buddhas] expound the Dharma for sentient beings." Thus we know that he speaks relying on both the inverted and the non-inverted. If one conforms to the treatise text, how could buddhas and bodhisattvas rely on what is inverted to expound the Dharma? Going forward or backward, it is difficult to understand, and this remains unexplained. / Question: It was stated previously that the two truths as the basis from perspective involve attainment and loss; does this not contradict what the Master said? The Master said: "Both truths from perspective are a loss." Now how can you judge that the two truths from perspective involve attainment and loss? / Explanation: You say that truths from perspective are entirely a loss—from where do these words come? What is explained now as "truths from perspective are entirely a loss" is not that the truths from perspective which serve as the basis are entirely a loss, but rather that by receiving the teaching, a perspective is formed, and these truths from perspective are entirely a loss. Why is this? The Tathāgata speaks of existence to reveal non-existence, speaks of non-existence to reveal non-non-existence, and speaks of duality to reveal non-duality. Those [listeners], hearing of existence, form an understanding of existence; hearing of non-existence, form an understanding of non-existence. Hearing of existence and forming an understanding of existence, existence is real from the ordinary perspective, which is called conventional truth; hearing of non-existence and forming an understanding of non-existence, non-existence is real from the noble perspective, which is called ultimate truth. Both of these two truths are a loss.