二諦義 2.51

2.51

問：他亦明二諦是二境、二境是二見，今亦明二諦是二教、二教亦是二見，與彼更何異耶？解云：他二諦定是二境。今明二諦是教，不定是教，表理則名教、所照則為境、宣智為智，無有定相。既知教不定教，即知境不定境。若如此解，即是悟理。悟時悟教非教，即知理非理教、理非教理，如幻如化、空谷之嚮、明鏡之像，雖如幻化而理教宛然也。

Question: Others also explain that the two truths are two objects, and two objects are two views; now you also explain that the two truths are two teachings, and two teachings are also two views. What further difference is there from them? Explanation: For others, the two truths are definitely two objects. Now we explain that the two truths are teaching, yet not definitely teaching: expressing the principle it is named teaching, that which is illuminated it is the object, and declaring cognition it is cognition—it has no fixed characteristics. Since one knows the teaching is not definitely teaching, one knows the object is not definitely the object. If one understands in this way, this is awakening to the principle. At the time of awakening, one awakens to the teaching as non-teaching, and then knows that the principle is neither principle nor teaching, and the principle is neither teaching nor principle; like an illusion, like a transformation, an echo in an empty valley, an image in a clear mirror—though like an illusion and a transformation, principle and teaching remain distinct.