二諦義 2.66

2.66

次釋真於諦也。問：俗於諦既然，可得真於諦亦爾不？實無有，於凡有；實無空，於聖空不耶？解云：一往發趾開真俗二於諦，不得如此。何者？說於凡有，亦為化凡；說於聖空，亦為凡。說此二諦，竝為化凡。何者？說俗於，為顯迷；說真於，為顯悟。如《中論》所明，諸法性空，凡夫顛倒謂有，諸賢聖真知諸法性空。正開凡聖真俗，明此是凡於、聖於，此是真於、俗於。正示其是迷是悟、是真是俗，示俗於是迷、示真於是悟。《大品》云「波若為大事故起，所謂示是道是非道。」今亦爾，說俗於示非道、說真於示是道。為是故，於凡有不有、聖空是真空，此即第一節也。第二節併轉，於凡有既不有、於聖空亦不空。諸法非是有，於凡有；諸法非是空，於聖空。既知於空有，即知不空有，於二即知不二。關中曇鸞法師，舉漁人與餓鬼譬。漁人入則鼓棹揚波、餓鬼入則炎火燋體，然水未曾水、未曾火，於人見水、於鬼見火。火有兩微，觸具能燒、色具能照。水有三微，《成論》云「天雨無香」。人中水具四微，餓鬼見則成兩微、漁人見則成四微。於鬼兩微、於人四微，水未曾二之與四也。諸法亦爾，於凡有、於聖空。於凡聖空有，實非空有；於凡聖二，實非二。此則於二為世諦，不二為真諦。故經云「明與無明，愚者謂二；智者了達其性無二。」無二之性即是實性，故知不二始是真實諦也。次第三節，二不二竝是俗。何者？於二於不二，正道非二非不二。正道既非二，豈是不二？但於凡夫聲聞二、於菩薩不二耳，道何曾二不二耶？如《淨名》云「身子見穢，梵王見淨」。《華嚴》五百聲聞不見法界，諸菩薩見法界。於身子見穢、於梵王見淨，正士非淨非不淨。亦於五百聲聞不見、於諸菩薩見，正道非見不見，兩人竝非見。一往聲聞修別異善根、菩薩修無得善，故聲聞不見、菩薩見，望道併不見也。

Next, the ultimate truth from perspective is explained. Question: Since the conventional truth from perspective is like this, can the ultimate truth from perspective also be like this: really without existence, but existing from the perspective of ordinary people; really without emptiness, but empty from the perspective of noble ones? Answer: At the outset, when first taking a step to open the two truths from perspective of ultimate and conventional, it cannot be like this. Why so? Speaking of existence from the perspective of ordinary people is also to convert ordinary people; speaking of emptiness from the perspective of noble ones is also for ordinary people. Speaking these two truths is entirely to convert ordinary people. Why so? Speaking of conventional "from perspective" is to reveal delusion; speaking of ultimate "from perspective" is to reveal awakening. As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā explains: all phenomena are empty in nature; ordinary people, through inversion, say they exist, while all worthies and noble ones truly know that all phenomena are empty in nature. Directly opening ordinary and noble, ultimate and conventional, clarifies that this is the ordinary "from perspective" and the noble "from perspective," this is the ultimate "from perspective" and the conventional "from perspective." It directly indicates whether it is delusion or awakening, whether it is ultimate or conventional: indicating conventional "from perspective" is delusion, and indicating ultimate "from perspective" is awakening. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "Prajñā arises for the sake of a great matter, which is to say, to indicate what is the path and what is not the path." Here it is also like this: speaking of conventional "from perspective" indicates what is not the path; speaking of ultimate "from perspective" indicates what is the path. For this reason, existence from the perspective of ordinary people is non-existence, while emptiness from the perspective of noble ones is true emptiness; this is the first stage. In the second stage, both are turned together: existence from the perspective of ordinary people is already non-existence, and emptiness from the perspective of noble ones is also non-emptiness. Phenomena are not existence, yet from the perspective of ordinary people they exist; phenomena are not emptiness, yet from the perspective of noble ones they are empty. Once one knows emptiness and existence from perspective, one immediately knows neither emptiness nor existence; from the perspective of duality, one immediately knows non-duality. Dharma Master Tanluan of Guanzhong cited the simile of the fisherman and the hungry ghost: when the fisherman enters [the water], he rows oars and stirs up waves; when the hungry ghost enters, blazing fire scorches its body. Yet the water has never been water, nor has it ever been fire; from the perspective of humans water is seen, and from the perspective of ghosts fire is seen. Fire possesses two subtle elements: the tactile property can burn, and the visual property can illuminate. Water possesses three subtle elements; the *Satyasiddhiśāstra* says, "Heavenly rain has no fragrance." Water among humans possesses four subtle elements; when a hungry ghost sees it, it becomes two subtle elements, and when a fisherman sees it, it becomes four subtle elements. From the perspective of the ghost there are two subtle elements, and from the perspective of the human there are four subtle elements, yet the water has never been two or four. All phenomena are also like this: from the perspective of ordinary people they exist, and from the perspective of noble ones they are empty. Empty and existent from the perspective of ordinary people and noble ones, they are in reality neither empty nor existent; dual from the perspective of ordinary people and noble ones, they are in reality not dual. This, then, is: duality from perspective is conventional truth, and non-duality is ultimate truth. Therefore the sūtra says: "Light and ignorance are regarded as two by the foolish; the wise thoroughly comprehend that their nature is not two." The nature of non-duality is the true nature; hence we know that non-duality only begins to be the true and real truth. Next is the third stage: duality and non-duality are both conventional. Why so? Duality from perspective and non-duality from perspective [are such that] the correct path is neither dual nor non-dual. Since the correct path is not dual, how could it be non-dual? It is merely that from the perspective of ordinary people and śrāvakas it is dual, and from the perspective of bodhisattvas it is non-dual; how has the path ever been dual or non-dual? As the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa* says, "Śāriputra saw impurity, while the Brahmā king saw purity." In the *Avataṃsaka*, the five hundred śrāvakas did not see the dharmadhātu, while the bodhisattvas saw the dharmadhātu. From the perspective of Śāriputra impurity was seen, and from the perspective of the Brahmā king purity was seen, but the correct reality is neither pure nor impure. Likewise, from the perspective of the five hundred śrāvakas it was not seen, and from the perspective of the bodhisattvas it was seen, but the correct path is neither seen nor not seen; both people equally do not see it. Broadly speaking, śrāvakas cultivate distinctive good roots while bodhisattvas cultivate good without appropriation; therefore śrāvakas do not see and bodhisattvas see, but when compared to the path, neither sees it at all.