二諦義 1.42

1.42

問：諸有二者無道無果，何故明二耶？解云：為對他無智有境，今明由智故境、由境故智，境智因緣不二二也。然今明二諦是教門者，正為拔二理之見。彼埋二理見深，有此二理終不可改。為是故，今明唯有一理無有二理。何者？如來說有說無，為表一道。此之有無乃是道門，非是理。為是故明二諦是教、非是理也。二者有相無相義。從來云：山門得無相義，他家明有相。何故他是有相，山門明無相耶？解云：他有有有相、無有無相。有若無相即無有有，無若無相即無有無，便無二諦。既道理有二諦，即有有有相、無有無相，名為有相義。今明有無有相，有表不有；無無無相，無表不無。有無表不有不無，故名無相義。以無相故，故名教門也。三者得無得義。他有得義，今明無得義。他有有可得、有無可得。若無有可得、無無可得，即無二諦。既有二諦，故有有無可得名為有得。今明有不住有、有表不有，無有可得；無不住無、無表不無，無無可得，故名無得義。以無得有無，有無名為教也。四者明理內外義亦爾。他真俗理外，今真俗理內。以理內故，名之為教也。五者明開覆。他二諦是理即覆，今明二諦是教即開。何者？他有住有、無住無，此有無覆如來因緣有無也。今明二諦是教，有表不有、無表不無、有無表不有無，如來教即開，無有壅滯。故經云「譬如秋月處空顯露」。今亦爾，故有無名教也。六者明滿半義。他家二諦是半，今明二諦是滿。何者？他唯有二無不二，故唯教無理，名為半字。今明具足理教，名為滿字。一往如此。他既無滿，是即無半。何者？半是滿半，既無滿，何得有半？安師云：「減滿為半，足半為滿。」既無滿，何所減為半？故無滿即無半也。七者明他二諦愚者，今是智者。何者？《涅槃經》云「明無明，愚者謂二，智者了達其性無二。」明無明既然，真俗亦爾，真俗二即愚者、不二即智者。不二之性即是實性，故知不二是理、二是教也。八者今明體用。彼但有用無體，無體即無用；今則具有體有用也。九者明本末。不二是本、二是末。他既無本，何有末？今具有二不二、具有本末，故云二諦是教、不二是理也。十者明了義不了義。由來釋了義不了義者，明小乘教為不了義、摩訶衍教為了義。就大乘教中復有二：《般若》、《法華》等為不了義。第五《涅槃》常住教為了義。此就五時教中，有了義不了義。如此二諦義，為有了義不了義別耶？解云：彼明若以三假為世諦理、四忘為真諦理，此之二諦唯是了義，無不了義也。今明如此二諦皆是不了。何者？我二諦說有欲顯不有、說無欲顯不無、說有無顯不有不無，名為了義。汝有住有、不表不有，無住無、不表不無，有無不表非有非無、二不表不二，即不能顯道，故非了義。今明因緣有無，有表不有、無表不無，有無二為顯清淨不二之道，故名了義。所以《大經》云「如是二語，為了一語」也。今亦爾，因緣二為顯不二。此因緣二，悟不二故，二為教門也，不取兩語為教門也。然今家非但有了義，亦有不了義，具有了不了義。何者？只是一二諦教門，有方便即聞二不住二、因二悟不二，名了義；無方便即聞二住二、不悟不二，名不了義。故今時具有了不了義也。略明十種，判學二諦有得有失義如此。更撮十種者：一者理教義、二者相無相、三者得無得、四者理內外、五者開覆、六者半滿、七者愚智、八者體用、九者本末、十者了不了云云。次都總料簡。前云他但有教無理，今具足理教。此事不然。何者？開善云：二諦者，法性之旨歸、一真不二之極理。又云：不二而二，中道即二諦；二而不二，二諦即中道。若爾，彼有理教、有二不二。何以言無耶？責云：汝二諦，為是道理、為是方便？彼明：二諦是道理也。難：若二是理，即無不二理；若有不二理，即成三理。汝唯有二理，無有三理，故無中道不二理也。今明二諦非理，乃是方便教門。如三車門外，門外實無三車，方便說三令悟不三。今亦爾，實無二諦，方便說二令悟不二，故二諦是教門也。又責：汝明不二是中道。中道為在二諦外、為二諦攝耶？汝明二諦攝一切法盡。真諦上超涅槃、下絕生死，四句斯忘、百非洞遣。一切無即是真諦、諸法有是世諦，外無處有法。若爾，唯有二諦理，何處有中耶？又且汝非有非無是何物耶？非有還是無、非無還是有，還是有無斷常，何說中道耶？為是故今明二諦是教門、不二是中道也。又他無不有無、有有無，今有不有無、無有無，反之也。他唯有有無二理、無不二之道，今即唯有不二之道、無有無也。

Question: Whatever has duality has neither the path nor the fruit; why clarify duality? Explanation: To respond to the other side's [view of] having objects without cognition, we now clarify that due to cognition there is the object, and due to the object there is cognition; object and cognition are conditioned co-arising, non-dual [yet] dual. However, our present clarification that the two truths are gates of teaching is precisely to uproot the view of two principles. Their view of two principles is deeply buried; possessing these two principles, they can never change. For this reason, we now clarify that there is only one principle and there are not two principles. Why? The Tathāgata speaks of existence and speaks of non-existence in order to express the single path. This existence and non-existence are merely gates to the path, not the principle. For this reason, we clarify that the two truths are teachings and not principles. Second is the meaning of possessing marks and lacking marks. Traditionally it is said: The Mountain Gate (Sanlun) attained the meaning of signlessness, while the other schools clarified possessing marks. Why do the others possess marks while the Mountain Gate clarifies signlessness? Explanation: They have existence possessing the mark of existence, and non-existence possessing the mark of non-existence. If existence lacked marks, there would be no existence; if non-existence lacked marks, there would be no non-existence; and there would then be no two truths. Since by principle there are two truths, there is existence possessing the mark of existence, and non-existence possessing the mark of non-existence; this is called the meaning of possessing marks. We now clarify that existence has no mark of existence, for existence expresses non-existence; non-existence has no mark of non-existence, for non-existence expresses non-non-existence. Existence and non-existence express neither existence nor non-existence; hence it is called the meaning of signlessness. Because of signlessness, they are called gates of teaching. Third is the meaning of with appropriation and without appropriation. Others have the meaning of appropriation, whereas we now clarify the meaning of without appropriation. For them, existence can be appropriated, and non-existence can be appropriated. If existence could not be appropriated and non-existence could not be appropriated, then there would be no two truths. Since there are two truths, existence and non-existence can be appropriated; this is called 'with appropriation'. We now clarify that existence does not abide in existence, and existence expresses non-existence, so there is no existence to be appropriated; non-existence does not abide in non-existence, and non-existence expresses non-non-existence, so there is no non-existence to be appropriated; hence it is called the meaning of without appropriation. By taking existence and non-existence without appropriation, existence and non-existence are called teachings. Fourth, the clarification of the meaning of within and outside the principle is also like this. For them, the ultimate and conventional are outside the principle; for us now, the ultimate and conventional are within the principle. Because they are within the principle, they are called teachings. Fifth is the clarification of revealing and concealing. Their two truths being principles entails concealment; our present clarification that the two truths are teachings entails revealing. Why? For them, existence abides in existence and non-existence abides in non-existence; this existence and non-existence conceal the Tathāgata's conditioned existence and non-existence. We now clarify that the two truths are teachings: existence expresses non-existence, non-existence expresses non-non-existence, and existence-and-non-existence expresses neither existence nor non-existence; thus the Tathāgata's teachings are opened up and revealed without obstruction. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Like the autumn moon dwelling in the sky, fully manifest.' Our view is also like this; hence existence and non-existence are called teachings. Sixth is the clarification of the meaning of complete and half. The other tradition's two truths are the half, while our present clarification of the two truths is the complete. Why? They only have duality and lack non-duality; therefore, they have only teaching and lack principle, which is called the 'half-word'. We now clarify that principle and teaching are fully complete, which is called the 'complete-word'. Provisionally it is like this. Since they lack the complete, they consequently lack the half. Why? The half is the half of the complete; since there is no complete, how could there be a half? Master An said: 'Subtracting from the complete makes the half; adding to the half makes the complete.' Since there is no complete, what could be subtracted to make the half? Therefore, lacking the complete, there is also no half. Seventh, it clarifies that their two truths belong to the foolish, while ours belong to the wise. Why? The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Regarding illumination and ignorance, the foolish regard them as dual, while the wise thoroughly comprehend that their nature is non-dual.' Illumination and ignorance being thus, conventional and ultimate are also like this: the duality of ultimate and conventional belongs to the foolish, while non-duality belongs to the wise. The nature of non-duality is the real nature; hence we know that non-duality is the principle, and duality is the teaching. Eighth, we now clarify substance and function. They only have function without substance; without substance, there is no function. We, however, possess both substance and function. Ninth is the clarification of root and branch. Non-duality is the root, and duality is the branch. Since they lack the root, how can they have branches? We now possess both duality and non-duality, possessing both root and branch; therefore we say that the two truths are teachings and non-duality is the principle. Tenth is the clarification of definitive meaning and non-definitive meaning. Traditionally, when explaining definitive meaning and non-definitive meaning, they clarified that the Hīnayāna teaching is of non-definitive meaning and the Mahāyāna teaching is of definitive meaning. Within the Mahāyāna teaching there are again two: the Prajñā, Lotus, and so forth are non-definitive meaning; the fifth, the Mahāparinirvāṇa teaching of eternal presence, is definitive meaning. This distinguishes definitive and non-definitive meaning within the teachings of the five periods. In such an understanding of the two truths, is there a distinction between definitive and non-definitive meaning? Explanation: They explain that if one takes the three designations as the principle of conventional truth and the four oblivions as the principle of ultimate truth, these two truths are exclusively of definitive meaning, with nothing non-definitive. We now clarify that such two truths are entirely non-definitive. Why? Our two truths speak of existence intending to reveal non-existence, speak of non-existence intending to reveal non-non-existence, and speak of existence and non-existence intending to reveal neither existence nor non-existence; this is called definitive meaning. Your existence abides in existence and does not express non-existence; your non-existence abides in non-existence and does not express non-non-existence; existence and non-existence do not express neither existence nor non-existence, and duality does not express non-duality; thus it cannot reveal the path, and is therefore not of definitive meaning. We now clarify that in conditioned existence and non-existence, existence expresses non-existence, and non-existence expresses non-non-existence; the duality of existence and non-existence is for revealing the pure, non-dual path; hence it is called definitive meaning. Therefore the Great Sūtra says: 'Such two words are for clarifying the one word.' It is also like this now: conditioned duality is for revealing non-duality. Because this conditioned duality brings awakening to non-duality, duality serves as a gate of teaching; we do not take the two words themselves to be the gate of teaching. However, our school does not merely have definitive meaning; it also has non-definitive meaning, possessing both definitive and non-definitive meaning. Why? In this single gate of teaching of the two truths, if one possesses skillful means, then upon hearing duality one does not abide in duality, and due to duality awakens to non-duality—this is called definitive meaning; if one lacks skillful means, then upon hearing duality one abides in duality and does not awaken to non-duality—this is called non-definitive meaning. Thus our present [teaching] fully possesses both definitive and non-definitive meaning. The ten types have been briefly clarified, and differentiating the success and failure of studying the two truths is like this. To summarize the ten types once more: first, the meaning of principle and teaching; second, possessing marks and lacking marks; third, with appropriation and without appropriation; fourth, within and outside principle; fifth, revealing and concealing; sixth, half and complete; seventh, foolish and wise; eighth, substance and function; ninth, root and branch; tenth, definitive and non-definitive, and so forth. Next is a general evaluation. Earlier it was said that the others have only teaching and lack principle, while we now fully possess both principle and teaching. This is not so [they might object]. Why? Kaishan says: 'The two truths are the ultimate import of the Dharma-nature, the supreme principle of the one real and non-dual.' He also says: 'Non-dual yet dual, the middle path is the two truths; dual yet non-dual, the two truths are the middle path.' If so, they possess both principle and teaching, possessing both duality and non-duality. Why say they lack them? We interrogate them: Are your two truths principles, or are they skillful means? They explain: The two truths are principles. Refutation: If duality is principle, then there is no non-dual principle; if there is a non-dual principle, then there would be three principles. You only have two principles and do not have three principles, so you lack the middle path of the non-dual principle. We now clarify that the two truths are not principles, but are gates of skillful teaching. Just as outside the gate with the three carts, outside the gate there are actually no three carts, but three are expediently spoken of to cause awakening to the non-three. Now it is also like this: in reality there are no two truths, but two are expediently spoken of to cause awakening to non-duality; therefore the two truths are gates of teaching. Again we interrogate: You explain that non-duality is the middle path. Does the middle path exist outside the two truths, or is it subsumed by the two truths? You explain that the two truths completely subsume all phenomena: the ultimate truth ascends beyond nirvāṇa and descends cutting off birth and death, the four propositions are forgotten, and the hundred negations are thoroughly eliminated; all non-existence is precisely the ultimate truth, and the existence of all phenomena is the conventional truth; outside of them there is nowhere that phenomena exist. If so, there are only the principles of the two truths; where is there any middle? Furthermore, what kind of thing is your 'neither existent nor non-existent'? 'Neither existent' is still non-existence, and 'neither non-existent' is still existence; it is still existence and non-existence, annihilationism and eternalism—how can you speak of the middle path? For this reason, we now clarify that the two truths are gates of teaching, and non-duality is the middle path. Furthermore, they lack non-existence and non-non-existence, while possessing existence and non-existence; we now possess non-existence and non-non-existence, and lack existence and non-existence, reversing it. They have only the two principles of existence and non-existence and lack the non-dual path; we now have only the non-dual path and lack existence and non-existence.