二諦義 1.29

1.29

問：依第一義諦說第一義悉檀者，諸賢聖真知諸法性空，還依彼所悟性空而說諸法本來無生寂滅，此可解。若為依一世諦說三悉檀耶？解云：三悉檀竝依世諦故說。瓶衣車乘等法，於世間為實，名之為世諦。依世諦說世界悉檀，如說輪軸輻輞和合為車，五陰和合為人。如此說者，即世界悉檀。故《大論》云「人等，世界故有，第一義即無。」此即依世諦說世界悉檀也。依世諦說對治悉檀者，眾生略有三毒之病，廣即八萬四千塵勞之病。有三法藥八萬四千波羅蜜對治此病，名對治悉檀。何故名對治？以藥撥病、以藥治病，名對治悉檀。如此藥病相治，即依世諦說對治悉檀。故論云「對治故有，實性即無」，當知是依世諦說對治悉檀也。依世諦說各各為人者。前明三法藥八萬四千波羅密，治三毒八萬四千塵勞，即明一切法盡，更何所論耶？解云：於各各為人中更欖之。何故諸佛經中或說我或說無我，適說常斯須說無常？何故或說是舍那或說是釋迦？或說淨或說不淨？何故前後更相違反耶？是故次明各各為人悉檀。昔為邪常，故說無常，明諸佛緣覺尚捨無常身，今為三修封執故說常。昔為鈍根故說三，今為著三故說一。為大根緣故說是舍那，為小乘人故說是釋迦。如此等竝是為緣不同，無相違也。此即依世諦說三悉檀也。依第一義諦說第一義悉檀者，卷前三種，明不生不滅、不動不倚。何處有人有車、有藥有病、有人有法、有常有無常、有三有一？如是畢竟清淨，名第一義悉檀。為是義故，云依二諦說四悉檀法也。此即依二諦說四悉檀法竟。今次明依二諦就二諦門說法。然四悉檀唯是二諦，但合離為異。離二諦為四悉檀，合四悉檀為二諦。四悉檀實義名二諦，二諦究竟義名四悉檀。就二諦門說法者，大有三意：一者說世諦說第一義諦令眾生悟第一義諦；二者說二諦令離有無二見；三者說有無令悟非有非無，說二悟不二也。說二諦令悟第一義諦者，如最初所辨。世間顛倒謂諸法有，於世間是實，名之為諦；諸賢聖真知顛倒性空，於聖人是實，名之為諦。此則開凡聖得失二諦，令眾生悟第一義諦，明凡夫世人顛倒謂有、聖人真知顛倒性空，令捨有入空、改凡悟聖、舉失從得。眾生改凡成聖者，悟第一義故也。若不悟第一義諦，則不能改凡成聖、捨失從得。良由悟第一義諦，乃能改凡成聖、捨失從得。為是義故，開真俗凡聖得失二諦，令悟第一義諦也。說二諦令離有無二見者，故《大品經》云「菩薩住二諦，為眾生說法。」論釋云「為著有見眾生說第一義諦、為著無見眾生故說世諦，為著有無二見眾生，故菩薩住二諦說法」也。肇師論亦爾，借有以出無、借無以出有。借有以出無，住世諦破無見；借無以出有，住第一義破有見。故說二諦破二見也。說二諦令悟不二者，如《華嚴》明一切有無法了達非有非無，此即說有無悟非有非無、說二悟不二，此即理教義也。一切經論凡有所說者，不出此三種也。然前說二諦令悟第一義諦，此二諦即有得有失。諸法性空，顛倒謂有名諦，即是失諦；諸賢聖真知性空，即是得諦。故此二諦有得有失也。次說二諦令離二見者，此二諦竝是失。何者？為著有眾生說第一義、為著空眾生說世諦，此有無竝是眾生所著，是故皆失也。次說二悟不二，此二諦竝得。何者？因二悟不二，二即是理教、不二即是教理，二即中假、不二即假中，二即體用、不二即用體，故此二諦是得也。次詺前二諦凡諦、聖諦。世諦是凡諦，性空即聖諦。第二二諦竝是凡諦。為著有眾生說空、為著空說有，借有破無、借無破有，此之有無竝是凡夫諦也。然復有聖諦義。何者？所借有無是病皆凡，能借有無竝藥皆聖也。第三二諦，二悟不二假中義，此二諦竝聖。何者？如《中論》云「因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。」從來明此是三、是義：一因緣即是空、二是假、三是中。此之二諦，豈凡夫所知？唯聖能了。又非二乘所及，但菩薩境界也。

Question: Regarding the expounding of the ultimate-meaning siddhānta based on the ultimate truth: the noble ones truly know that all phenomena are empty of self-nature, and based on that nature of emptiness which they have awakened to, they expound that all phenomena are originally unarisen and tranquil—this is understandable. But how are the three siddhāntas expounded based on the single conventional truth? It is explained: All three siddhāntas are expounded based on the conventional truth. Things such as jars, robes, and carts are real in the world, and are named "conventional truth." Based on conventional truth, the mundane siddhānta is expounded: as in expounding that the aggregation of wheels, axles, spokes, and rims constitutes a cart, and the aggregation of the five aggregates constitutes a person. What is expounded in this way is precisely the mundane siddhānta. Therefore the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Persons and so forth exist through the mundane, but do not exist in the ultimate." This is expounding the mundane siddhānta based on conventional truth. Expounding the individual-adaptation siddhānta based on conventional truth is this: sentient beings summarily have the illnesses of the three poisons, and in detail eighty-four thousand afflictive illnesses. There are three Dharma-medicines and eighty-four thousand pāramitās to counteract these illnesses, which is called the individual-adaptation siddhānta. Why is it called "counteractive"? Because an illness is removed by medicine and cured by medicine, it is called the counteractive siddhānta. This mutual cure between medicine and illness is precisely expounding the counteractive siddhānta based on conventional truth. Hence the treatise says: "It exists through counteraction, but lacks real nature." One should know that this is expounding the counteractive siddhānta based on conventional truth. Expounding the individually tailored siddhānta based on conventional truth: previously it was explained that the three Dharma-medicines and eighty-four thousand pāramitās cure the three poisons and eighty-four thousand afflictions, which already encompasses all phenomena exhaustively; what more is there to discuss? It is explained: within the individually tailored siddhānta, it is gathered up again. Why is it that in the sūtras the Buddhas sometimes speak of a self and sometimes speak of no-self, or having just spoken of permanence, in an instant speak of impermanence? Why do they sometimes say it is Vairocana and sometimes say it is Śākyamuni? Or why do they speak of the pure or of the impure? Why do earlier and later statements contradict each other? Therefore, the individually tailored siddhānta is explained next. Formerly, for the sake of wrong views of permanence, impermanence was expounded, clarifying that even Buddhas and pratyekabuddhas relinquish their impermanent bodies; now, for the sake of those rigidly clinging to the three cultivations, permanence is expounded. Formerly, for those of dull faculties, the three [vehicles] were expounded; now, for those attached to the three, the one [vehicle] is expounded. For those with conditions of great faculties, it is explained as Vairocana; for persons of the Hīnayāna, it is explained as Śākyamuni. All such cases simply adapt to different conditions and do not contradict one another. This is expounding the three siddhāntas based on conventional truth. Expounding the ultimate-meaning siddhānta based on the ultimate truth means rolling up the previous three kinds and clarifying that there is neither arising nor ceasing, neither movement nor leaning. Where is there any person or cart, any medicine or illness, any person or phenomenon, any permanence or impermanence, any three or one? Being completely pure in this manner is called the ultimate-meaning siddhānta. For this reason, it is said that the teaching of the four siddhāntas is expounded based on the two truths. This concludes [the discussion of] expounding the teaching of the four siddhāntas based on the two truths. Next, expounding the Dharma based on the two truths and from the approach of the two truths will be clarified. In fact, the four siddhāntas are nothing other than the two truths; they differ only in integration and separation: separating the two truths makes the four siddhāntas; integrating the four siddhāntas makes the two truths. The real meaning of the four siddhāntas is called the two truths; the definitive meaning of the two truths is called the four siddhāntas. Expounding the Dharma from the approach of the two truths broadly has three purposes: first, expounding conventional truth and expounding ultimate truth to lead sentient beings to awaken to ultimate truth; second, expounding the two truths to cause them to abandon the two views of existence and non-existence; third, expounding existence and non-existence to lead them to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence—expounding duality to bring awakening to non-duality. Expounding the two truths to lead them to awaken to ultimate truth is as analyzed at the very beginning: the world, through inversion, claims that all phenomena exist, which is real for the world and is called a truth; the noble ones truly know that this inversion is empty of self-nature, which is real for the noble ones and is called a truth. This differentiates the two truths of the noble and the ordinary, and of gain and loss, to lead sentient beings to awaken to the ultimate truth—clarifying that ordinary worldly people mistakenly deem things to exist, while the noble ones truly know that this inversion is empty of self-nature, thereby causing them to abandon existence and enter emptiness, transform the ordinary and awaken to the noble, and bring forth [the recognition of] loss to follow gain. That sentient beings transform the ordinary to become noble is because they awaken to the ultimate [truth]. If they do not awaken to the ultimate truth, they cannot transform the ordinary to become noble, nor abandon loss to follow gain. It is precisely through awakening to the ultimate truth that they can transform the ordinary to become noble and abandon loss to follow gain. For this reason, the two truths of the real and conventional, ordinary and noble, and gain and loss are distinguished, so as to cause them to awaken to the ultimate truth. Expounding the two truths to cause them to abandon the two views of existence and non-existence: hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "The bodhisattva abides in the two truths to expound the Dharma for sentient beings." The commentary explains: "For sentient beings attached to the view of existence, they expound the ultimate truth; for sentient beings attached to the view of non-existence, they expound the conventional truth. For sentient beings attached to the two views of existence and non-existence, the bodhisattva abides in the two truths to expound the Dharma." Master Zhao's treatise is also like this: "Borrowing existence to bring forth non-existence; borrowing non-existence to bring forth existence." Borrowing existence to bring forth non-existence means abiding in conventional truth to refute the view of non-existence; borrowing non-existence to bring forth existence means abiding in the ultimate truth to refute the view of existence. Therefore, the two truths are expounded to refute the two views. Expounding the two truths to lead to awakening to the non-dual: as the Avataṃsaka clarifies, thoroughly comprehending that all existent and non-existent phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent—this is expounding existence and non-existence to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence, and expounding duality to awaken to non-duality; this is the meaning of principle and teaching. Whatever is expounded throughout all sūtras and treatises does not go beyond these three modes. Now, in the first case of expounding the two truths to lead to awakening to the ultimate truth, these two truths involve gain and loss: all phenomena being empty of self-nature, yet inverted [minds] deeming them to exist and calling this a truth, is the truth of loss; the noble ones truly knowing the nature of emptiness is the truth of gain. Hence these two truths have gain and loss. In the next case of expounding the two truths to cause abandonment of the two views, both of these two truths are loss. Why? Because expounding the ultimate [truth] is for sentient beings attached to existence, and expounding the conventional truth is for sentient beings attached to emptiness; these [views of] existence and non-existence are both attachments of sentient beings, and are therefore both loss. Next, in expounding duality to awaken to non-duality, both of these two truths are gain. Why? Because through duality one awakens to non-duality: duality is principle-teaching, non-duality is teaching-principle; duality is middle-provisional, non-duality is provisional-middle; duality is essence-function, non-duality is function-essence. Therefore, these two truths are gain. Next, the first pair of two truths is termed the ordinary truth and the noble truth: conventional truth is the ordinary truth, and the nature of emptiness is the noble truth. In the second pair of two truths, both are ordinary truths: expounding emptiness for sentient beings attached to existence, and expounding existence for those attached to emptiness—borrowing existence to refute non-existence and borrowing non-existence to refute existence—these [views of] existence and non-existence are both ordinary truths. However, they also possess the sense of noble truth. Why? The borrowed existence and non-existence, being illnesses, are entirely ordinary; the borrowing existence and non-existence, being medicines, are entirely noble. In the third pair of two truths, which is the meaning of provisional and middle in which duality awakens to non-duality, both of these two truths are noble. Why? As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'Whatever phenomena arise from conditions, / I declare to be emptiness; / it is also a provisional designation, / and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.' Historically it has been explained that these are three, and are meanings: first, conditioned arising is emptiness; second, it is provisional; third, it is the middle. Could these two truths be something known by ordinary people? Only the noble are able to fathom them. Furthermore, they are beyond the reach of the two vehicles, and are the domain of bodhisattvas alone.