二諦義 2.81

2.81

第二節，明俗於凡是諦、真於聖是諦，真俗竝非諦，非真非俗乃是諦者，《仁王經》何故云三諦，有諦、無諦、中道第一義諦耶？解云：實唯一諦、無有三諦，但隨順眾生說有三諦，隨真俗緣故說真俗諦。所以《涅槃經》明世諦即第一義，次即云「世人知者名世諦，出世人知者名第一義諦」也。脫真諦三藏明有三諦義，今明此三諦竝隨眾生故說耳。二諦既是隨眾生說，中道第一義諦亦是隨眾生說。何者？既非二，豈是不二？故《中論》云「若有無成者，非有非無成」。有無既不成，非有非無何成？一切皆淨。師云：四諦、二諦、一諦無異，只是一諦耳。然復有一種四諦、二諦、一諦義。若爾，有兩義四諦、二諦義。前四諦二諦一諦，此無深淺；後四諦二諦一諦，則淺深大異。言四諦者，即無量四聖諦，次卷四諦為二諦，次卷二諦為一諦。真俗不俗、俗真不真，不真不俗名一實諦。次卷一諦成無諦，真俗二、不真俗不二，二不二、非不二不二，二非二、非二非不二，名無諦。次舒即無諦、一諦、二諦、四諦，無句、一句、二句、四句、無量句。卷舒明義，故此兩種異也。前鹿盧唯有一諦，凡夫以有為實，不知性空，於凡唯俗是諦，真非諦。聖人以性空為實，知俗虛妄不實，於聖唯真是諦，俗非諦。菩薩即唯非真非俗是實是諦，餘則非諦。於三緣有三諦，三緣中趣舉一緣唯一是諦，餘悉非諦。然經論正意，明唯真是諦、俗非諦。何故爾？真是實義、俗非實義，故唯真是諦，俗非諦也。

The second section clarifies that the conventional is truth to the ordinary person, the ultimate is truth to the noble one, both ultimate and conventional are not truth, and neither ultimate nor conventional is truth. Why, then, does the Benevolent Kings Sūtra speak of three truths: the truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the middle-way ultimate truth? Explanation: In reality, there is only one truth and no three truths; it is merely in compliance with sentient beings that three truths are spoken of, and in accordance with conditions of the ultimate and conventional that the ultimate and conventional truths are spoken of. Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra clarifies that conventional truth is itself the ultimate, and immediately follows by saying: "What worldly persons know is called conventional truth; what world-transcending persons know is called ultimate truth." If Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha expounded the doctrine of three truths, we now clarify that these three truths are all spoken merely in compliance with sentient beings. Since the two truths are spoken in compliance with sentient beings, the middle-way ultimate truth is also spoken in compliance with sentient beings. How so? Since it is not two, how could it be non-dual? Thus the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "If existence and non-existence were established, neither-existence-nor-non-existence would be established." Since existence and non-existence are not established, how could neither-existence-nor-non-existence be established? All are entirely purified. The master said: The four truths, two truths, and one truth are no different; they are just one truth. However, there is another meaning of four truths, two truths, and one truth. If so, there are two meanings of four truths and two truths. In the former four truths, two truths, and one truth, there is no depth or shallowness; in the latter four truths, two truths, and one truth, the depth and shallowness differ greatly. Regarding the four truths: they are the immeasurable four noble truths; next, the four truths are rolled up into two truths; next, the two truths are rolled up into one truth. Ultimate and conventional are not conventional, and conventional and ultimate are not ultimate; neither ultimate nor conventional is called the one real truth. Next, rolling up the one truth results in no-truth: ultimate and conventional are two, neither ultimate nor conventional is non-dual; two is not non-dual, non-dual is not non-dual; two is not two, neither two nor non-dual—this is called no-truth. Next, unfolding it yields no-truth, one truth, two truths, four truths; no-clause, one clause, two clauses, four clauses, and immeasurable clauses. The meaning is clarified through rolling up and unfolding, hence these two types differ. In the former windlass [metaphor], there is only one truth: ordinary persons take existence as real and do not know the nature of emptiness, so to ordinary persons only the conventional is truth, and the ultimate is not truth. Noble ones take the nature of emptiness as real and know that the conventional is insubstantial, false, and unreal, so to noble ones only the ultimate is truth, and the conventional is not truth. Bodhisattvas take only neither-ultimate-nor-conventional as real and truth, and the rest as not truth. In relation to the three conditions there are three truths; taking any single condition from among the three conditions, only that one is truth, and all the rest are not truth. However, the primary intention of the sūtras and treatises is to clarify that only the ultimate is truth, and the conventional is not truth. Why so? Because ultimate means reality and conventional does not mean reality; therefore, only the ultimate is truth, and the conventional is not truth.