二諦義 1.40

1.40

問：若為教諦有真俗耶？解云：說俗名俗教諦，說真名真教諦。問：說俗名俗教，教是俗；說真教，教是真不？說真之說，此是言教，那忽是真？若說俗之說，說是俗諦；說真之說，說亦是俗諦者，即成他義。他亦明真不可說，寄俗說真，說真之說還屬俗諦。今亦爾，故同舊義。三論之義，還是我義也。所以成論暄正讀中論，《中論》云「言說是俗諦，第一義諦不可言說。」若爾，言說皆是俗諦，何得言二諦竝是教耶？若又二諦是教，教唯是俗諦者，即學二諦成一俗諦。前來諸人學二諦成一諦既失，汝今學二諦成一諦，失之甚也。又難：他家明二諦是境，境中有真俗。汝明二諦是教，教為但俗、為具真俗？若但俗，即失真諦，便同他家；若具二諦，乖論文，義復不可。論云「言說是俗諦，真不可言說。」又難：言說若為是真諦，今為取言說空名真諦、為取空言說為真諦耶？若取言說為真者，言說是有，那是真諦？若云言說空為真諦者，空言說為是何物？汝只應云空說為世諦、說空為真諦。若云只說空為真諦者，說空之說是真不？若說空之說是真，即竝難。若說空與空說皆為真諦者，色空與空色皆真諦，反詰云云。前來至此，都有四難未解，後當釋之。

Question: How does truth as teaching have ultimate and conventional? Explanation: Speaking of the conventional is called the conventional truth as teaching; speaking of the ultimate is called the ultimate truth as teaching. Question: Speaking of the conventional is called conventional teaching, and the teaching is conventional; speaking of the ultimate teaching, is the teaching ultimate or not? The speech that speaks of the ultimate is spoken teaching; how could it suddenly be ultimate? If the speech that speaks of the conventional is conventional truth, and the speech that speaks of the ultimate is also conventional truth, then this becomes the other school's doctrine. They also explain that the ultimate cannot be spoken, and relies on the conventional to speak of the ultimate; the speech that speaks of the ultimate still belongs to conventional truth. Now you are also like this, and therefore identical to the old doctrine. The doctrine of the Three Treatises would just be my doctrine! Therefore Xuanzheng of the Tattvasiddhi school read the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, which says: "Verbal expression is conventional truth; ultimate truth cannot be verbally expressed." If so, verbal expression is entirely conventional truth; how can one say that both of the two truths are teaching? Furthermore, if the two truths are teaching, and teaching is exclusively conventional truth, then studying the two truths turns out to be just one conventional truth! Previously, various people's studying the two truths turned into one truth, which was already an error; now your studying the two truths turns into one truth, which is an even graver error! Another objection: The other school explains that the two truths are objects, and within objects there are ultimate and conventional. You explain that the two truths are teaching; is teaching merely conventional, or does it possess both ultimate and conventional? If it is merely conventional, then one loses ultimate truth, and it becomes identical to the other school; if it possesses both truths, it contradicts the text of the treatise, and the principle is again inadmissible. The treatise says: "Verbal expression is conventional truth; the ultimate cannot be verbally expressed." Another objection: How can verbal expression be ultimate truth? Now, do you take the emptiness of verbal expression to be ultimate truth, or do you take empty verbal expression to be ultimate truth? If you take verbal expression to be ultimate, verbal expression is existence, so how could it be ultimate truth? If you say that the emptiness of verbal expression is ultimate truth, what thing is empty verbal expression? You should only say that empty speech is conventional truth, and speaking of emptiness is ultimate truth. If you say that only speaking of emptiness is ultimate truth, is the speech that speaks of emptiness ultimate or not? If the speech that speaks of emptiness is ultimate, this faces the same objections. If speaking of emptiness and empty speech are both ultimate truth, then form-emptiness and empty-form are both ultimate truth, countering with cross-examination, and so on. Up to this point, there are four unresolved objections altogether, which shall be explained later.