二諦義 1.38

1.38

次明二諦是教義。攝嶺、興皇已來，竝明二諦是教。所以山中師手本《二諦疏》云「二諦者，乃是表中道之妙教、窮文言之極說。道非有無，寄有無以顯道；理非一二，因一二以明理。故知二諦是教也。」所以明二諦是教者，有二義：一者為對他、二者為釋經論。為對他明二諦是境，彼有四種法寶：言教法寶、境界法寶、無為果法寶、善業法寶。二諦即境界法寶，有佛無佛常有此境，迷之即有六道紛然、悟之即有三乘十地，故二諦是迷悟之境。今對彼明二諦是教也。言釋經論者，《中論》云「諸佛依二諦，為眾生說法」，《百論》亦爾，「諸佛常依二諦」，是二皆實不妄語也。《大品經》云「菩薩住二諦中，為眾生說法」，又《涅槃經》云「世諦即第一義諦，隨順眾生故說有二諦」。以經明二諦是教，故今一家明二諦是教也。誦得師語，復知其意竟。何者？知為對他、知為釋經論。但此義未可解。何者？汝言二諦是教，說二諦有二諦，未說二諦應無二諦。若已有二諦，即同他家；若不同他家，說二諦始有二諦，未說二諦即應無二諦也。又難：說二諦始有二諦，未說二諦未有二諦者，說色空始有色空，未說色空應無色空。未說之前自有色有空。若爾，未說二諦已有二諦，已有即同他云云。然二諦是教義若可了，二諦義即可解，三論文亦可解。若不了此義，二諦義即不可解，三論文則不可解。何者？他明二諦是境，汝今明二諦是教。說法是教，二諦亦是教不？若二諦是教，即違論文。論文云諸佛依二諦說法，那忽言二諦是教耶？解云：有兩種二諦，一於諦、二教諦。於諦者，如論文。諸法性空，世間顛倒謂有，於世人為實，名之為諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒，性空於聖人是實，名之為諦。此即二於諦，諸佛依此而說，名為教諦也。

Next, explaining the principle that the two truths are teaching. From Sheling and Xinghuang onward, both clarified that the two truths are teaching. Therefore, the master of the mountain's personal manuscript of the Commentary on the Two Truths states: "The two truths are the wondrous teaching that expresses the Middle Way, the ultimate discourse that exhausts written words. The Way is neither existing nor non-existing, but relies on existence and non-existence to manifest the Way; the principle is neither one nor two, but depends on one and two to illuminate the principle. Hence we know that the two truths are teaching." There are two reasons for explaining that the two truths are teaching: first, to counter others; second, to interpret the sūtras and treatises. In countering others, they explain that the two truths are objects. They have four kinds of Dharma-jewels: the Dharma-jewel of spoken teachings, the Dharma-jewel of objects/realms, the Dharma-jewel of unconditioned fruits, and the Dharma-jewel of wholesome karma. The two truths are the Dharma-jewel of objects/realms: whether a Buddha exists or does not exist, this object is always present; being deluded about it, there are the six paths in confusion; awakening to it, there are the three vehicles and ten stages. Thus the two truths are the objects of delusion and awakening. Now, to counter them, we explain that the two truths are teaching. As for interpreting the sūtras and treatises, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "The Buddhas rely on the two truths to preach the Dharma for sentient beings." The Śataśāstra also states: "The Buddhas constantly rely on the two truths; these two are both true and not false speech." The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "Bodhisattvas abide within the two truths to preach the Dharma for sentient beings." Moreover, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states: "Conventional truth is ultimate truth; in accordance with sentient beings, it is spoken of as having two truths." Because the sūtras clarify that the two truths are teaching, our school now clarifies that the two truths are teaching. Having recited the master's words, we furthermore understand his intention completely. What is it? Understanding that it is to counter others, and understanding that it is to interpret the sūtras and treatises. However, this principle is not yet readily understandable. Why? You say the two truths are teaching: when the two truths are spoken, the two truths exist; before the two truths are spoken, there should be no two truths. If the two truths already existed, then you are the same as the other schools; if you are not the same as the other schools, then only when the two truths are spoken do the two truths begin to exist, and when the two truths are not spoken, there should be no two truths. Another objection: If only when the two truths are spoken do the two truths begin to exist, and before the two truths are spoken the two truths do not yet exist, then only when form and emptiness are spoken do form and emptiness begin to exist, and when form and emptiness are not spoken, there should be no form and emptiness. Yet before they are spoken, form and emptiness naturally exist. If so, before the two truths are spoken, the two truths already exist; if they already exist, this is the same as the others, and so on. However, if the principle that the two truths are teaching can be understood, then the meaning of the two truths can be understood, and the text of the Three Treatises can also be understood. If one does not understand this principle, the meaning of the two truths cannot be understood, and the text of the Three Treatises cannot be understood. Why? Others explain that the two truths are objects, whereas you now explain that the two truths are teaching. Preaching the Dharma is teaching; are the two truths also teaching or not? If the two truths are teaching, this contradicts the text of the treatise. The treatise says that the Buddhas rely on the two truths to preach the Dharma; how can you suddenly say that the two truths are teaching? It is explained: There are two kinds of two truths: first, truth from perspective; second, truth as teaching. Truth from perspective is as in the treatise: All phenomena are empty in nature, but the world, being inverted, calls them existing; for worldly people, this is real, and so it is called truth. The noble ones truly know this inversion; that the nature is empty is real for the noble ones, and so it is called truth. These are the two truths from perspective; the Buddhas rely on these to preach, and this is called truth as teaching.