二諦義 1.21

1.21

問：凡夫迷我無我，為凡說我無我，令悟我無我，可有益。聖人解我無我，為聖人說，何益耶？解云：此不就利益為說，直明凡不解我無我、聖解我無我。以聖解我無我故，為聖說我無我，此為益凡，利他不自利。如阿難稱我聞，為益眾生也。次大師云：為凡說有、為聖說空者，此之凡聖是所化緣、稟教凡聖。有於凡實，為凡說有，令悟不有；空於聖實，為聖說空，令悟不空；令凡聖說有無悟不有無。亦令凡悟不凡、令聖悟不聖，不凡不聖中道正法。故云「非凡夫行、非賢聖行，是菩薩行」也。又為凡說有、為聖說空者，明隨凡說有、隨聖說無，如一色，於凡有、於聖無，隨凡說色有、隨聖說色無，色未曾有無也。此正為對由來人義。彼云：三假為世諦理、四亡為真諦理，有二諦道理。今明隨凡說有、隨聖說無，乃是隨凡隨聖說有無，何處有二諦道理耶？為是義故，云為凡聖說有無也。此則釋為眾生竟。

Question: Ordinary people are deluded about self and non-self; teaching self and non-self for ordinary people to cause them to awaken to self and non-self can be beneficial. Noble ones already understand self and non-self; what benefit is there in teaching it for noble ones? Answer: This is not spoken of in terms of benefit; it simply clarifies that ordinary people do not understand self and non-self while noble ones understand self and non-self. Because noble ones understand self and non-self, self and non-self are taught for noble ones to benefit ordinary people—benefiting others, not benefiting themselves. Just as Ānanda proclaimed 'Thus have I heard' for the benefit of sentient beings. Next, when the Great Master said, 'teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones', these ordinary and noble ones are the conditions to be converted, the ordinary and noble ones who receive the teaching. Existence is real for ordinary people, so existence is taught for ordinary people to make them awaken to non-existence; emptiness is real for noble ones, so emptiness is taught for noble ones to make them awaken to non-emptiness; this causes ordinary and noble ones to be taught existence and non-existence so as to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence. It also causes the ordinary to awaken to the non-ordinary, and causes the noble to awaken to the non-noble—the correct Dharma of the Middle Way which is neither ordinary nor noble. Hence it is said: 'Neither the practice of ordinary people nor the practice of the worthy and noble is the practice of a bodhisattva.' Furthermore, regarding teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones, it clarifies that existence is taught in accord with the ordinary, and non-existence is taught in accord with the noble. Just as a single form exists for ordinary people and is non-existent for noble ones: form is spoken of as existent in accord with ordinary people, and form is spoken of as non-existent in accord with noble ones, while form itself has never been either existent or non-existent. This directly counters the doctrine of traditional scholars. They say: The three designations are the principle of conventional truth, and the four eliminations are the principle of ultimate truth—positing a principle of the two truths. We now clarify that teaching existence in accord with the ordinary and teaching non-existence in accord with the noble is merely teaching existence and non-existence in accord with the ordinary and in accord with the noble; where could there be an objective principle of the two truths? For this reason, it is said that existence and non-existence are taught for the ordinary and the noble. This concludes the explanation of 'for sentient beings'.