二諦義 1.53

1.53

次就三種二諦中論廢不廢，明無方便三即廢、有方便三即不廢。無方便三廢者，明此三倒謂有三，實無此三，是故須廢。如陽炎謂是水，實無水也。然亦無有廢。何者？有水可廢；既無水，何所廢？而言廢者，約彼謂有，故言廢也。有方便三不廢者，即不壞假名說諸法實相，不動等覺建立諸法。既云不壞假名說諸法實相，豈當得不二廢二？若得不二廢二，即壞假名說諸法實相、動等覺建立諸法。唯假名即實相，豈須廢之？如《中論》云「是假即中」，廢假名即廢中。既不廢中，豈當廢假？斯即空有有空、二不二不二二，橫竪無礙。故肇師云「欲言其有，有非真生；欲言其無，事像既形」，又云「譬如幻化人，非無幻化人，幻化人非真人也」。此唯幻化人非人，非人不無幻化人。幻化人非人，非人人。諸法亦爾，故不廢也。此就有方便無方便、因緣不因緣論廢不廢如此。次更就謂情生滅無生滅二觀明廢不廢。何者？由來云：小乘即斷二輪煩惱，得見思兩解。大乘斷五住地惑，得十地解。此即見思伐二惑，十地解斷五住地惑。此廢惑立解、廢凡立聖。若不斷二惑，見思無由成；不伐五住，佛果即不立。故大小乘皆斷惑成聖也。今依《法華經》望，併除糞人。何故謂為除糞人？欲鄙之耳。故經云「念子愚劣，樂為鄙事。」二乘斷惑既是除糞，菩薩斷惑亦是除糞，齊而過甚。何者？同斷故是齊，斷少多故過甚。二乘除糞，蓋是不足言。菩薩時長、除糞廣故，過之甚也。今明菩薩知惑本不生、今不滅，何所斷？斯即生在佛家、種姓尊貴，如轉輪聖王皇太子也。唯見客作賤人除糞，何曾聞長者之兒擔屎？故今明菩薩不斷惑。何者？菩薩知惑本不生、今不滅，故無所斷也。所以《淨名經》云「法本不生，今則無滅」，《法華》云「諸法從本來，常自寂滅相」。從來云：菩薩無生滅觀。何故明無生滅耶？如向所辨，知本不生、今無所滅，故言菩薩不生不滅觀也。

Next, discussing negation and non-negation within the three kinds of two truths: the three without expedient means are negated, while the three with expedient means are not negated. That the three without expedient means are negated means: these three invertedly conceive that there are three, while in reality there are no such three; therefore they must be negated. It is like a mirage conceived to be water, when in reality there is no water. Yet there is also no negating. Why? If there were water, it could be negated; since there is no water, what is there to negate? To speak of 'negating' is said in view of their conceiving it to exist; hence one speaks of 'negating'. That the three with expedient means are not negated means: without destroying nominal designations, one speaks of the true mark of all phenomena; without moving from equal awakening, one establishes all phenomena. Since it is said that without destroying nominal designations one speaks of the true mark of all phenomena, how could one attain the non-dual and negate the dual? If one attained the non-dual and negated the dual, that would destroy nominal designations in speaking of the true mark of all phenomena, and move from equal awakening in establishing all phenomena. The mere nominal designation is itself the true mark; why should it be negated? As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'This nominal [designation] is itself the Middle [Way]'; negating nominal designation is negating the Middle. Since the Middle is not negated, how could nominal designation be negated? This is emptiness-existence being existent-emptiness, duality and non-duality being non-dual duality, unobstructed horizontally and vertically. Therefore Master Zhao said: 'If one wishes to speak of its existence, its existence is not real arising; if one wishes to speak of its non-existence, its forms and marks have already taken shape.' And further: 'It is like an illusory person: it is not that there is no illusory person, but the illusory person is not a real person.' This is only that the illusory person is not a person, and not being a person does not preclude the illusory person. The illusory person is not a person, [yet] is a non-person person. All phenomena are also like this; therefore they are not negated. Discussing negation and non-negation in terms of having expedients or lacking expedients, and being conditioned or unconditioned, is like this. Next, further explaining negation and non-negation in terms of the two contemplations of arising-and-perishing and non-arising-and-perishing according to subjective conception. Why? Traditionally it is said: Hīnayāna severs the afflictions of the two wheels, attaining the two understandings of seeing and thinking. Mahāyāna severs the afflictions of the five entrenchments, attaining the understanding of the ten stages. This means seeing and thinking subdue the two afflictions, and the understanding of the ten stages severs the afflictions of the five entrenchments. This is negating affliction to establish understanding, and negating the ordinary to establish the noble. If one does not sever the two afflictions, seeing and thinking cannot be completed; if one does not subdue the five entrenchments, the Buddha-fruit is not established. Thus both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sever afflictions to accomplish noble status. Now, viewed in light of the Lotus Sūtra, both are dung-cleaners. Why are they called dung-cleaners? It is to disparage them. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Thinking the son foolish and base, delighting in base tasks.' Since the two vehicles' severing of afflictions is cleaning dung, the bodhisattva's severing of afflictions is also cleaning dung—they are alike, yet [the latter is] even more extreme. Why? Because they equally sever, they are alike; because what is severed is little or much, it is more extreme. The two vehicles' cleaning dung is hardly worth mentioning; because the bodhisattva takes a long time and cleans dung broadly, it is far more extreme. Now we explain: the bodhisattva knows that afflictions are originally unarisen and currently unperished; what is there to sever? This is being born in the Buddha's household with noble lineage, like the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king. One sees only hired, lowly men cleaning dung; when has one ever heard of an elder's son carrying excrement? Therefore we now explain that the bodhisattva does not sever afflictions. Why? The bodhisattva knows that afflictions are originally unarisen and currently unperished, so there is nothing to sever. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Dharmas are originally unarisen, and currently they do not perish.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'All phenomena from their very origin / are eternally of the characteristic of quietude and cessation.' Traditionally it is said: the bodhisattva has the contemplation of non-arising and non-perishing. Why is non-arising and non-perishing explained? As distinguished just now, knowing that they are originally unarisen and currently unperished, one speaks of the bodhisattva's contemplation of non-arising and non-perishing.