二諦義 2.83

2.83

問：經復有二諦，故云隨順眾生說有二諦。又世人知者名世諦，出世人知者名第一義諦。既有二義，云何相待耶？然唯有一諦，隨眾生故說有二諦。此一句語所淨事大。何者？此語若成，他義則壞。非但義壞，亦不得讀《涅槃經》。今時得作此釋，非但經如此，論亦復然。由有論故解經，所以云經有論故義則易解也。前問云既有二諦云何相待者，從來解云：真俗待、二諦不待。若諦相待，則長長相待。故真俗待、二諦不待也。且難：真俗不自，諦是不自不？若真俗與諦皆不自，真俗與諦皆相待。若真俗待、諦不待，真俗不自，諦應是自也。今明無非因緣、無非相待。故師云：我佛法中，無非因緣。若非因緣，乃是外道義也。

Question: Sūtras also have two truths, hence it is said that two truths are spoken of in compliance with sentient beings. Moreover, what worldly persons know is called conventional truth, and what world-transcending persons know is called ultimate truth. Since there are these two meanings, how are they mutually dependent? Indeed, there is only one truth, and two truths are spoken of in compliance with sentient beings. What this single phrase purifies is of great consequence. How so? If this statement is established, other theories are refuted. Not only are theories refuted, but they also could not read the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. That we are now able to provide this interpretation is not only because the sūtra is like this, but the treatises are also like this. Because treatises exist, we can understand the sūtras; hence it is said that with treatises, the meaning of the sūtras is easy to understand. As for the earlier question asking how they are mutually dependent since there are two truths: previous explanations said that ultimate and conventional are mutually dependent, but the two truths are not mutually dependent. If truths were mutually dependent, it would be a mutual dependence between long and long. Therefore, ultimate and conventional are mutually dependent, but the two truths are not mutually dependent. Let us challenge this: ultimate and conventional do not exist of themselves; does truth not exist of itself or not? If ultimate, conventional, and truth are all not of themselves, then ultimate, conventional, and truth are all mutually dependent. If ultimate and conventional are mutually dependent while truth is not mutually dependent, then while ultimate and conventional are not of themselves, truth would have to be of itself. We now clarify that there is nothing that is not causal condition, and nothing that is not mutually dependent. Thus the Master said: "In our Buddhadharma, there is nothing that is not causal condition. If it were not causal condition, it would be the doctrine of tīrthikas."