二諦義 1.44

1.44

問：彼學因緣成自性天然之理，為當取此理、不取此理耶？解云：具有取不取。言取者，今時亦有此二理。何者？於凡有凡理、於聖有聖理。有於凡有理、空於聖有理，然理實未曾有二，於二緣故有二理。故論云「淺智見諸法，若有若無相，是即不能見，滅見安穩法。」非有非無名安穩法，見有無相即不見安穩之法。好言為淺智、惡詺則是愚人，見有無相，理實非有無。理實非有無，於彼有有無二理也。若翻此謂即云：深智見諸法非有非無相，是則皆得見滅見安穩法也。言不取者，都無此有無之理。何者？謂有有理、謂有無理，有無是謂情。既有是謂情有，豈有此有理？無是謂情無，豈有此無理？都無此有無也。既畢竟知無如此有無，有何物法？唯有四倒八倒。實無有常，倒謂有常；實無無常，倒謂無常。實無有，倒謂有；實無無，倒謂無也。彼即云：我有有無二諦道理，云何言無耶？今現見有有無法，非是妄，那忽言不見？又有三世法，過未無、現在有，諸法從未來為生、謝過去為滅，有生有滅、有有有無，何得言無耶？為是故，龍樹出世求撿此執。汝言有有理，若箇是有理？汝言有無理，若箇是無理？求有不可得，云何言有有理？求無不可得，云何言有無理？如此有無生滅，特是汝顛倒，橫謂為是耳。故《中論》云「若謂以現見，而有生滅者，是即為癡妄，而見有生滅。」若爾，癡妄故見有無生滅，實無汝所見有無生滅也。前取即於二緣有二理，今破謂有實無有也。

Question: When they study conditioned origination so that it becomes an innate principle of inherent nature, are we to accept this principle or not accept this principle? Explanation: It includes both accepting and not accepting. As for saying 'accepting': in our view now, there are also these two principles. Why? Relative to the ordinary person there is the principle of the ordinary, and relative to the noble one there is the principle of the noble. Existence is a principle relative to the ordinary person; emptiness is a principle relative to the noble one. Yet the principle in truth has never been two; it is relative to the two conditions that there are two principles. Thus the treatise states: 'When of shallow cognition see phenomena / as having characteristics of either existence or non-existence, / they are then unable to see / the tranquil Dharma wherein views are extinguished.' Neither existence nor non-existence is called the tranquil Dharma; seeing the characteristics of existence and non-existence, one then does not see the tranquil Dharma. Put gently, they are of shallow cognition; put harshly, they are foolish people. They see the characteristics of existence and non-existence, whereas the principle in truth is neither existence nor non-existence. Although the principle in truth is neither existence nor non-existence, relative to them there are the two principles of existence and non-existence. If one turns this around, it means: when those of deep cognition see phenomena as having characteristics of neither existence nor non-existence, they are then all able to see the tranquil Dharma wherein views are extinguished. As for saying 'not accepting': there is entirely no such principle of existence and non-existence. Why? To maintain that there is a principle of existence, or to maintain that there is a principle of non-existence—existence and non-existence are conceptual sentiments. Since existence is the existence of conceptual sentiment, how could there be this principle of existence? Since non-existence is the non-existence of conceptual sentiment, how could there be this principle of non-existence? There is entirely no such existence or non-existence. Since it is ultimately known that there are no such existence and non-existence, what kind of dharmas could there be? There are only the four inversions and the eight inversions. In truth there is no permanence, yet in inversion one maintains there is permanence; in truth there is no impermanence, yet in inversion one maintains there is impermanence. In truth there is no existence, yet in inversion one maintains there is existence; in truth there is no non-existence, yet in inversion one maintains there is non-existence. They would then say: 'I possess the principle of the two truths of existence and non-existence; how can you say it does not exist? Now we see present dharmas of existence and non-existence, which are not false; how can you suddenly say they are not seen? Furthermore, there are dharmas of the three times: the past and future do not exist, whereas the present exists. Dharmas arise from the future as birth and pass away into the past as cessation. There being birth and cessation, there are existence and non-existence; how can you say they do not exist?' For this reason, Nāgārjuna appeared in the world to investigate and examine this attachment: 'You say there is a principle of existence—which one is the principle of existence? You say there is a principle of non-existence—which one is the principle of non-existence? Seeking existence, it cannot be found; how can you say there is a principle of existence? Seeking non-existence, it cannot be found; how can you say there is a principle of non-existence? Such existence and non-existence, arising and ceasing, are purely your inversion, which you arbitrarily claim to be so.' Therefore the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'If one asserts that on the basis of what is presently seen / there are arising and ceasing, / that is merely through delusion and falsity / that one sees arising and ceasing.' If so, it is because of delusion and falsity that one sees existence, non-existence, arising, and ceasing; there are in truth no existence, non-existence, arising, and ceasing that you see. The previous 'accepting' was that relative to the two conditions there are two principles; the present refutation is that what is claimed to exist in truth does not exist.