二諦義 1.41

1.41

今更簡得失義。前得失凡有四種，今簡最後學二諦失二諦者。若是小乘，不足可簡，但正為學二諦失二諦人也。明他家辨二諦義，今時亦辨二諦義，何異？解此凡有十句異：一者明理教義。他二諦即無理教，今明二諦有理教。他無理教者，彼明二諦是理，三假是世諦理、四絕是真諦理。今明二諦是教，不二是理。故經云「文殊法常爾，法王唯一法。一切無畏人，一道出生死。」又云「一切有無法，了達非有無。」故知有無二是教、非有無不二是理，具有理教也。唯他有二無不二，則唯有教無理，可謂世閒法者有字無義。一往如此，再往奪併無。何者？字本詮義，既無有義，字何所詮？故理教皆失。今明有無是教，表不有無理。此則有理有教，理教具足也。作如此說者，為對他、為釋經云云。次明稟二諦教發生二智，教轉名境。何故作此語耶？亦為對由來。由來云：真俗是天然之境，三假是俗境、四忘是真諦境，迷之即六道紛然、悟之即有三乘賢聖，常有此境。若是智從修習生，境即常有、智即始生，未有智時前已有境，境智非因緣義。今對此明真俗是教，悟教生智，教轉名境，由智故境、由境故智，境能為智所、智能為境所，境所為智能、智所為境能，境智因緣不二而二也。

Now we shall further differentiate the meanings of success and failure. Previously, there were four types of success and failure; now we differentiate the last one: those who study the two truths but miss the two truths. If they belonged to the Hīnayāna, they would not be worth distinguishing; [this discussion] is solely for those who study the two truths yet miss the two truths. In clarifying the distinction between the other tradition's formulation of the meaning of the two truths and our present formulation of the meaning of the two truths, what is the difference? In explaining this, there are altogether ten propositions of difference: First is the clarification of the meaning of principle and teaching. Their two truths lack principle and [possess only] teaching, whereas our present clarification of the two truths possesses both principle and teaching. As for their lacking principle and [possessing only] teaching: they explain that the two truths are principles—the three designations are the principle of conventional truth, and the four eliminations are the principle of ultimate truth. We now explain that the two truths are teachings, and non-duality is the principle. Thus the sūtra says: 'Mañjuśrī's Dharma is ever thus; the Dharma King has only one Dharma. All fearless people transcend birth and death by a single path.' It also says: 'Thoroughly comprehending all phenomena of existence and non-existence as neither existent nor non-existent.' Hence we know that the duality of existence and non-existence is teaching, while the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence is principle; thus both principle and teaching are fully present. It is only that they have duality but lack non-duality, so they have only teaching and lack principle; this can be described as worldly phenomena having the words but lacking the meaning. Provisionally it is like this; pushing further to depose it completely, [they have] neither. Why? Words originally express meaning; since there is no meaning, what do the words express? Thus both principle and teaching are lost. We now explain that existence and non-existence are teachings which express the principle of neither existence nor non-existence. This then has both principle and teaching, with principle and teaching fully complete. Speaking in this manner is to respond to others, to interpret the sūtras, and so forth. Next, we clarify that receiving the teaching of the two truths gives rise to the two cognitions, and the teaching shifts to be named the object. Why make this statement? It is also to respond to the traditional view. The traditional view states: Conventional and ultimate are inherently natural objects; the three designations are conventional objects, and the four oblivions are ultimate objects. If one is deluded about them, the six paths are turbulent; if one awakens to them, there are the noble ones of the three vehicles; these objects are ever-present. As for cognition, it arises from cultivation: the object is ever-present, while cognition is newly born; before there is cognition, the object already exists prior to it. This is not the meaning of the conditioned co-arising of object and cognition. Now, in response to this, we clarify that the conventional and ultimate are teachings. Awakening to the teachings generates cognition, and the teachings shift to be named objects. Due to cognition, there is the object; due to the object, there is cognition. The object can be the object-domain of cognition; cognition can be the cognizing agent of the object. The object-domain is the agent of cognition; the cognizing agent is the object-domain of the object. Object and cognition are conditioned co-arising, non-dual yet dual.