二諦義 1.15

1.15

問：若為失耶？解云：如來說有為表不有、說無為表不無、說二令識不二，舉指令得月。而眾生聞有住有、聞無住無，守指忘月、住教遺理，豈非是失耶？若爾，此則有二種於諦：一者所依於諦、二者迷教於諦。所依於諦，有得有失；迷教於諦，二皆是失。所依於諦是本，迷教於諦是末。所依於諦是本者，且約釋迦一化為論。釋迦未出之前已有此二於諦，釋迦依此二諦為眾生說法。何者？諸佛說法無不依二諦，故發趾即依二諦而說，當知所依於諦是本也。迷教於諦是末者，眾生稟如來有無二諦教，作有無解成於，故此於諦在後也。又有三異，謂前後、能所、通別。從後釋之。言通別者，所依於諦則通，迷教於諦則別。所依於諦通者，世間顛倒謂有，於世間是實，為世諦；諸賢聖真知顛倒性空，為第一義諦。此之二諦，通一切凡聖，如《涅槃經》。《涅槃經》云：文殊問云：「世諦之中有第一義不？第一義中有世諦不。如其有者，即是一諦；如其無者，將非如來虛妄說耶？」佛答云：「世諦即第一義諦，隨眾生故分別說二。世人知者名世諦，出世聖人知者名第一義諦。」此即世出世兩人判於二諦。《中論》文正爾「世間顛倒謂有為世諦，此諸賢聖真知顛倒性空為第一義諦。」故此二於諦通也。言迷教於諦別者，如來說有無二諦，為表不二之道。有方便者聞二悟不二，識理悟教，名教諦；無方便者聞二住二，不識理迷教，名於諦。於諦但是無方便者，所以是別也。言能所者，所依於諦則是能化，迷教於諦則是所化。此一往偏約第一義諦邊說耳。何者？論云「諸賢聖真知顛倒性空」，故是能化。此如《涅槃經》。經云「一切世諦，若於如來是第一義諦。」只世諦於如來是第一義，故此第一義諦是能化。論正爾「凡夫顛倒謂有。諸賢聖唯知此顛倒性空不生不滅，於聖人是第一義諦。」若爾，當知此第一義諦是能化諦也。迷教於諦是所化者，稟教成於，雖復是聖，終是稟教，以稟教故是所化也。言前後者，與本末不異。所依於諦是本是前，迷教於諦是末是後。發趾依於諦說，然後眾生稟教，有方便悟理成教諦、無方便不識理成於諦，故前後為異也。次更簡一句，前云「諸賢聖真知顛倒性空，於聖人名第一義諦」，如《涅槃經》「一切世諦，若於如來是第一義諦」。

Question: In what way are they a loss? / Explanation: The Tathāgata speaks of existence to reveal non-existence, speaks of non-existence to reveal non-non-existence, and speaks of duality to cause one to realize non-duality; he points the finger so that one may obtain the moon. Yet sentient beings, hearing of existence, abide in existence, and hearing of non-existence, abide in non-existence; they cling to the finger and forget the moon, abide in the teaching and abandon the principle—how could this not be a loss? / If so, then there are two kinds of truth from perspective: first, the truth from perspective that serves as the basis; second, the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching. For the truth from perspective that serves as the basis, there is attainment and loss; for the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching, both are a loss. The truth from perspective that serves as the basis is the fundamental; the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is the derivative. / As for the truth from perspective that serves as the basis being fundamental: taking it provisionally with respect to the single transformation of Śākyamuni to discuss it, before Śākyamuni appeared in the world, these two truths from perspective already existed, and Śākyamuni relied on these two truths to expound the Dharma for sentient beings. Why? When the buddhas expound the Dharma, there is none who does not rely on the two truths; therefore, at the very outset of their steps they speak relying on the two truths. You should know that the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is fundamental. / As for the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching being derivative: sentient beings receive the Tathāgata's teaching of the two truths of existence and non-existence and form an understanding of existence and non-existence, thereby forming a perspective; hence, this truth from perspective comes later. / Furthermore, there are three distinctions: prior and posterior, converting agent and those to be converted, and universal and particular. Let us explain them in reverse order. / As for universal and particular: the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is universal, whereas the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is particular. That the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is universal means that the world inverted[ly] regards [things] as existing, which is real from the perspective of the world and constitutes conventional truth; the worthy and noble sages truly know this inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which constitutes ultimate truth. These two truths universally apply to all ordinary beings and sages, as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states that Mañjuśrī asked: "Is there the ultimate within conventional truth? Is there conventional truth within the ultimate? If there is, then it is a single truth; if there is not, would this not mean the Tathāgata spoke falsely?" The Buddha answered: "Conventional truth is ultimate truth; it is in accordance with sentient beings that they are discriminatively spoken of as two. What worldly people know is called conventional truth; what world-transcending noble persons know is called ultimate truth." This is the two persons, worldly and world-transcending, determining the two truths from perspective. The text of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is precisely like this: "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." Therefore, these two truths from perspective are universal. / As for the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching being particular: the Tathāgata speaks of the two truths of existence and non-existence to reveal the non-dual path. Those with skillful means, hearing of the two, awaken to the non-dual; realizing the principle, they awaken to the teaching, which is called truth as teaching. Those without skillful means, hearing of the two, abide in the two; not realizing the principle, they are deluded by the teaching, which is called truth from perspective. Truth from perspective applies only to those without skillful means, which is why it is particular. / As for converting agent and those to be converted: the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is the converting agent, whereas the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is those to be converted. This is provisionally spoken biased toward the side of the ultimate truth. Why? The treatise says that "the worthy and noble sages truly know the inversion to be of the nature of emptiness"; hence it is the converting agent. This is like the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. The sūtra states: "All conventional truths, if from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth." Merely conventional truth, from the perspective of the Tathāgata, is ultimate; hence this ultimate truth is the converting agent. The treatise states precisely: "Ordinary beings inverted[ly] regard [things] as existing. The worthy and noble sages know only that this inversion is of the nature of emptiness, unarisen and unceasing; from the perspective of the noble person, it is ultimate truth." If so, you should know that this ultimate truth is the truth of the converting agent. That the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is those to be converted means that receiving the teaching forms the perspective; although one may again be a sage, ultimately one receives the teaching, and because of receiving the teaching, one is those to be converted. / As for prior and posterior: this is not different from fundamental and derivative. The truth from perspective that serves as the basis is fundamental and prior; the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is derivative and posterior. At the outset of one's steps, one speaks relying on the truth from perspective; thereafter, sentient beings receive the teaching: those with skillful means awaken to the principle, forming the truth as teaching; those without skillful means do not realize the principle, forming the truth from perspective. Hence they differ in being prior and posterior. / Next, we further distinguish one phrase: earlier it was said that "the worthy and noble sages truly know the inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which from the perspective of the noble person is called ultimate truth," just as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "all conventional truths, if from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth."