二諦義 2.59

2.59

問：何意舉大小釋耶？解云：此引例通。前明俗亦諦亦非諦，彼即云：若是則應言是、非則應言非，云何猶豫，云亦是亦非耶？即為是故舉㮈釋。如一㮈亦大亦小，望苽小、望棗大。何妨俗亦諦亦非諦，望凡是諦、望聖非諦耶？將㮈釋俗既然，將㮈釋真亦爾，望聖為諦、望凡非諦，故真亦諦亦非諦也。他問：此明俗亦諦亦非諦，此是是非相待。二諦若為言待耶？他二諦是空有虛實，可得言待；汝二諦竝實，云何待耶？今且反難彼二諦待義。師云：徑有人竪三假義。問相待假義，汝世諦待何物耶？彼云：俗待不俗。責：不俗是何物耶？彼云：不俗是俗。難：俗待不俗，不俗還是俗，乃俗待俗。長待不長，不長還是長，則長待長也。彼又云：俗待真。難：汝真諦四念都絕，何得俗待真耶？汝義俗有三假、真非三假。汝今既俗待真，真則是相待假。何者？長待短，長是能待、短是所待，能待所待皆是待。俗待真，俗是能待、真是所待，能待所待皆是待。若爾，二諦皆是相待假也。彼脫又解云：俗諦待真諦名，真諦體絕不可待，但真諦名待也。責：汝真諦名是何物耶？若言名是俗諦，則俗還待俗；若名是真諦，那得言真絕名？進退無通也。前明諦非諦義未訖。若為未訖耶？前云俗亦諦亦非諦，俗於凡是諦、於聖非諦。真亦爾，亦諦亦非諦，真於聖是諦、於凡非諦。

Question: Why cite large and small to explain this? Answer: This brings in an example to resolve [the objection]. Earlier it was explained that the conventional is both truth and not truth. The other party then said: "If it is so, one should say 'it is'; if not, one should say 'it is not.' Why vacillate, saying it both is and is not?" It is for this reason that the crab apple was cited as an explanation. Just as a single crab apple is both large and small—small when compared to a melon, and large when compared to a jujube—what prevents the conventional from being both truth and not truth: truth when compared to ordinary people, and not truth when compared to noble ones? Just as using the crab apple to explain the conventional is like this, using the crab apple to explain the ultimate is also like this: truth when compared to noble ones, and not truth when compared to ordinary people; hence the ultimate is also both truth and not truth. Another asks: "Here it is explained that the conventional is both truth and not truth, which is a mutual dependence of 'is' and 'is not.' How are the two truths said to be dependent? In the other [system], the two truths are emptiness and existence, insubstantial and real, so one may speak of dependence; but in your [system], the two truths are both real, so how are they dependent?" Now, for the moment, let us turn the objection back against their own doctrine of the dependence of the two truths. The master says: Someone directly established the doctrine of the three designations. When asked about the meaning of the designation through mutual dependence, [one asks]: "What does your conventional truth depend on?" They say: "The conventional depends on the unconventional." Rebuttal: "What is the unconventional?" They say: "The unconventional is the conventional." Objection: "If the conventional depends on the unconventional, and the unconventional is still the conventional, then it is merely the conventional depending on the conventional. If long depends on what is not long, and what is not long is still long, then long depends on long." They further say: "The conventional depends on the ultimate." Objection: "In your ultimate truth, all four applications of mindfulness are transcended; how could the conventional depend on the ultimate? In your doctrine, the conventional has the three designations, while the ultimate is not the three designations. Now, since your conventional depends on the ultimate, the ultimate would then be a designation through mutual dependence. Why so? When long depends on short, long is that which depends and short is that on which it depends; both that which depends and that on which it depends are dependent. When the conventional depends on the ultimate, the conventional is that which depends and the ultimate is that on which it depends; both that which depends and that on which it depends are dependent. If so, both of the two truths are designations through mutual dependence." If they further explain by saying: "Conventional truth depends on the name of ultimate truth; the substance of ultimate truth is transcendent and cannot be depended upon, but only the name of ultimate truth is depended upon." Rebuttal: "What is your name of ultimate truth? If you say the name is conventional truth, then the conventional still depends on the conventional; if the name is ultimate truth, how can you say that the ultimate transcends names? Either way, you cannot get through." The previous explanation of the meaning of truth and non-truth is not yet complete. In what way is it not complete? Earlier it was said that the conventional is both truth and not truth: the conventional is truth to ordinary people, and not truth to noble ones. The ultimate is also like this, being both truth and not truth: the ultimate is truth to noble ones, and not truth to ordinary people.