二諦義 1.46

1.46

問：何故前開理內外異，後復合明之耶？解云：開合竝為對緣。前開理內外，正為對由來人。由來人唯知有一種有無二諦，不知有兩有無二諦；唯知有一三假四忘，不知有兩三假四忘。今明有兩有無、有兩三假、有兩四忘。他有有故有、有無故無，有三假故三假、有四忘故四忘，此竝是理外二諦。今明因緣有無、因緣三假四忘，是理內二諦。開理內外得失，令彼識理內外得失，捨失學得、從外入內也。所以合明者，此為三論學者。三論學者聞說理內外，便謂有理內外異，更成理內外二見。為此人故明二諦何曾有二？特是無方便不了者詺為理外、有方便了者即名理內，然二諦實無異。為是故明開合兩種也。

Question: Why did you previously open the difference between within and outside the principle, and later combine and explain them again? Explanation: Both opening and combining are in response to conditions. Previously opening within and outside the principle was precisely in response to people of tradition. People of tradition only know of one kind of two truths of existence and non-existence, but do not know there are two [kinds of] two truths of existence and non-existence; they only know of one threefold provisionality and fourfold forgetting, but do not know there are two threefold provisionalities and fourfold forgettings. Now we explain that there are two existences and non-existences, two threefold provisionalities, and two fourfold forgettings. For others, existence exists because of existence, and non-existence is non-existent because of non-existence; the threefold provisionality is threefold provisionality because of threefold provisionality, and the fourfold forgetting is fourfold forgetting because of fourfold forgetting—these are all the two truths outside the principle. Now we explain that conditioned existence and non-existence, and conditioned threefold provisionality and fourfold forgetting, are the two truths within the principle. Opening the gain and loss within and outside the principle enables them to recognize the gain and loss within and outside the principle, to abandon loss and study gain, and to enter the inside from the outside. The reason for combining and explaining them is for students of the Three Treatises. When students of the Three Treatises hear talk of within and outside the principle, they then maintain that there is a difference between within and outside the principle, further creating the two views of within and outside the principle. For the sake of such people, it is explained: how could the two truths ever be two? It is merely that when one lacks expedient means and does not understand, it is designated as outside the principle; when one has expedient means and understands, it is then designated as within the principle. Yet the two truths are in truth not different. It is for this reason that both opening and combining are explained.