二諦義 1.20

1.20

問：此就何義判為眾生說二諦耶？解云：此就迷悟、能所判為說不為說，明眾生迷有無、未悟有無故。為眾生說有說無，明此是有、此是無，此是凡、此是聖，此是倒、此是非倒，令眾生從有入無、捨凡取聖。為此義故說二諦。若是聖人已悟，何須為說？以凡未悟，故須為說二諦。凡未悟故稟教，聖已悟故不稟教也。言能所者，一切世諦若於如來皆是第一義諦。既於如來是第一義諦，故是能化。豈能化為能化說法耶？一切第一義諦若於眾生則是世諦，以眾生是所化，所以須為眾生說法也。次將《中論．觀法品》及《大論》釋〈往生品〉二處文，釋成此義。《中論．觀法品》云「諸佛或說我，或說於無我。諸法實相中，無我無非我。」長行中釋：為凡夫說我說無我，又為得道聖人說我說無我。我無我即是二諦。故《大論》初品云「人等，世諦故有，第一義諦即無。」當知我是世諦、無我是第一義諦。既為凡說我無我、為聖說我無我，則為凡說二諦、為聖說二諦也。《大論》釋〈往生品〉云「問云：前習應品明無菩薩則無去來，今何故說有菩薩有去來耶？釋云：不相違。為凡說無去來、為聖說有去來。為聖說無去來、為凡說有去來。」然去來無去來還是二諦，則為凡說二諦、為聖說二諦，大意與中論同也。然師復明，為凡說有、為聖說空、為凡聖說空有，此都三節說二諦義。前為凡夫說二諦，不為聖人說二諦，亦就迷悟能所判如前也。次釋法品。問：法品何意為凡說二諦、為聖說二諦耶？解云：為凡說我無我，如前為凡說有無，令轉悟不有無。我無我亦爾。眾生迷我無我，為其說我說無我，令離我無我。離我即離常、離無我即離斷，令其離斷常、悟中道，故為凡說我無我也。為聖人說我無我者，聖人解我無我，是故為聖人說我無我。前為凡說我無我，凡迷我無我；為聖人說我無我，非是聖迷我無我故為說我無我，但聖人聞我無我即解我無我，故為說我無我。《大論》引《天問經》中說「羅漢最後邊身，能說我無我不？」解云：能說，故聖人解我無我也。又云：如軍防密號，唯防人解，餘不解。說我無我，唯聖人解，餘人不解。以聖人能解我無我，故為聖人說我無我也。《中論》既然，〈往生品〉類爾可知也。

Question: According to what meaning is it determined that the two truths are taught for sentient beings? Answer: This is determined as teaching or not teaching in terms of delusion and awakening, and in terms of agent and object: it clarifies that because sentient beings are deluded about existence and non-existence and have not awakened to existence and non-existence, existence and non-existence are taught for sentient beings, making clear that 'this is existence, this is non-existence; this is ordinary, this is noble; this is inverted, this is non-inverted', causing sentient beings to enter non-existence from existence, and to abandon the ordinary to take up the noble. For this reason, the two truths are taught. If someone is a noble one who is already awakened, why would there be a need to teach them? Because the ordinary have not yet awakened, the two truths must be taught for them. The ordinary, not being awakened, receive the teaching; the noble, having already awakened, do not receive the teaching. Regarding agent and object: all conventional truths, from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth. Since they are ultimate truth from the perspective of the Tathāgata, he is the converting agent. Could the converting agent teach the Dharma for the converting agent? All ultimate truths, from the perspective of sentient beings, are conventional truth; since sentient beings are those to be converted, the Dharma must be taught for sentient beings. Next, this meaning will be established and explained by adducing two passages from the "Chapter on the Examination of Phenomena" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the commentary on the "Chapter on Rebirth" in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The "Chapter on the Examination of Phenomena" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: / "The Buddhas have spoken of a self, / and they have also spoken of non-self. / Within the true nature of all phenomena, / there is neither self nor non-self." / In the prose commentary it explains: teaching self and non-self for ordinary people, and also teaching self and non-self for noble ones who have attained the path. Self and non-self are indeed the two truths. Thus, the first chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Persons and the like exist because of conventional truth, but are non-existent according to ultimate truth." One should know that self is conventional truth and non-self is ultimate truth. Since self and non-self are taught for ordinary people, and self and non-self are taught for noble ones, then the two truths are taught for ordinary people, and the two truths are taught for noble ones. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in commenting on the "Chapter on Rebirth", says: "Question: The preceding chapter on 'Practicing in Accordance' explained that without bodhisattvas there is no going and coming; why does it now say that there are bodhisattvas and there is going and coming? Answer: They do not contradict each other. For ordinary people, no going and coming is taught; for noble ones, going and coming is taught. For noble ones, no going and coming is taught; for ordinary people, going and coming is taught." Yet going and coming versus no going and coming are still the two truths; thus the two truths are taught for ordinary people, and the two truths are taught for noble ones. The general meaning is identical to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. However, the Master further explained that teaching existence for ordinary people, teaching emptiness for noble ones, and teaching emptiness and existence for both ordinary and noble constitute in total three sections explaining the meaning of the two truths. Previously, teaching the two truths for ordinary people and not teaching the two truths for noble ones was also determined in terms of delusion versus awakening and agent versus object, as stated above. Next is the explanation of the "Chapter on Phenomena". Question: For what reason does the "Chapter on Phenomena" teach the two truths for ordinary people and teach the two truths for noble ones? Answer: Teaching self and non-self for ordinary people is like the previous case of teaching existence and non-existence for ordinary people, causing them to transform and awaken to the non-existence of both existence and non-existence. Self and non-self are also like this. Sentient beings are deluded about self and non-self; self and non-self are taught for them to cause them to depart from self and non-self. Departing from self means departing from eternity; departing from non-self means departing from annihilation. Causing them to depart from annihilation and eternity and awaken to the Middle Way, self and non-self are taught for ordinary people. As for teaching self and non-self for noble ones: noble ones understand self and non-self, and therefore self and non-self are taught for noble ones. Previously, self and non-self were taught for ordinary people because ordinary people were deluded about self and non-self; teaching self and non-self for noble ones is not because noble ones are deluded about self and non-self that self and non-self are taught for them, but rather that when noble ones hear self and non-self they immediately understand self and non-self, and therefore self and non-self are taught for them. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa cites the Devaparipṛcchā Sūtra, which asks: "Can an arhat in his final body speak of self and non-self?" The explanation says: He can speak of them, and therefore noble ones understand self and non-self. It also says: Just as with a secret military watchword, only the guards understand it, while others do not understand; when self and non-self are spoken of, only noble ones understand, while other people do not understand. Because noble ones can understand self and non-self, self and non-self are taught for noble ones. Since this is so in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the "Chapter on Rebirth" can be understood by analogy.