二諦義 2.88

2.88

問：既有二諦，若為言虛妄耶？解云：有兩義故虛妄：一者即事虛妄、二者遠望虛妄。言即事虛妄者，那得有二諦，諦是實義，唯有一實、唯有一諦；若有二諦，則應有二道。諸有二者，無道無果。道既無二，諦那應有二？故云「將非如來虛妄說耶」。言遠望者，明若第一義中無有世諦，乖大乘經。佛從來於諸摩訶衍經中說真即俗、俗即真。如《大品》須菩提問云：「世諦、第一義諦異耶？」佛答云：「世諦如即第一義諦。如是二，無二無別。」今若有二諦者，將非如來虛妄說耶？進退兩關難也。「善男子！世諦即第一義諦。」此佛答彼二難。答二難者，即前一關通、後一難印。前者明世諦即第一義諦，「如汝所言」也。答後者，明此難虛設。「何者？我明唯有一諦，無有二諦。但明有義、不明無義，故無虛妄之過」也。斯則一即之言，二難雙拆也。「世尊！若爾即無二諦。」此更別難，若世諦即第一義諦，即無二諦，佛何意從來說有二諦，又云諸佛常依二諦說法耶？佛答云：「有善方便，隨順眾生說有二諦。」即答前一難，明道理唯有一真諦，無有二諦。而言二諦者，善巧方便，隨順眾生說有二諦，隨凡有說有、隨聖空說空，隨兩緣故說二諦也。然此兩隨但為一緣，兩隨不同也。兩隨但為一緣者，隨凡說有為凡，隨聖說空亦為凡也。隨聖說空亦為凡者，聖如實悟空，今還說聖所悟，引化凡夫也。兩隨異者，隨凡說有為凡、隨聖說空不為聖。一往開得失二諦，此是能化之聖，何須為說耶？

Question: Since there are two truths, why speak of falsehood? Explanation: It is false on account of two meanings: first, immediate falsehood; second, distant falsehood. As for immediate falsehood: how could there be two truths? "Truth" means what is real; there is only one real and only one truth. If there were two truths, there should be two paths. Wherever there is duality, there is neither path nor fruit. Since the path is not dual, how could truths be dual? Therefore it says: "Would that not be the Tathāgata speaking falsely?" As for distant falsehood: it clarifies that if there is no conventional truth within the ultimate truth, it contradicts the Mahāyāna sūtras. The Buddha has always stated in the Mahāyāna sūtras that the ultimate is identical to the conventional, and the conventional is identical to the ultimate. As in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, Subhūti asks: "Are conventional truth and ultimate truth different?" The Buddha replies: "The suchness of conventional truth is identical to ultimate truth. Such two are non-dual and without distinction." Now, if there are two truths, would that not be the Tathāgata speaking falsely? This is an objection presenting a dilemma. [The Buddha said:] "Good son! Conventional truth is itself ultimate truth." Here the Buddha answers those two objections. Answering the two objections means resolving the first dilemma and confirming the latter objection. The former clarifies that conventional truth is itself ultimate truth, meaning "it is as you say". Answering the latter clarifies that this objection is set up in vain. "Why? I clarify that there is only one truth and no two truths. I only clarify the meaning of existence and do not clarify the meaning of non-existence; hence there is no fault of falsehood." Thus, by the single word "is itself", both objections are dismantled at once. [Mañjuśrī said:] "World-Honoured One! If so, then there are no two truths." This is a further separate objection: if conventional truth is itself ultimate truth, then there are no two truths; why has the Buddha always spoken of there being two truths, and also said that the Buddhas always rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma? The Buddha replied: "Through skillful means, in accordance with sentient beings, I teach that there are two truths." This answers the previous objection, clarifying that in principle there is only one ultimate truth and there are not two truths. That two truths are spoken of is through skillful means: in accordance with sentient beings, two truths are taught; in accordance with the ordinary [perspective of] existence, existence is taught; in accordance with the noble [perspective of] emptiness, emptiness is taught; in accordance with both conditions, the two truths are taught. However, these two accordances are solely for the sake of one condition, yet the two accordances are not the same. That the two accordances are solely for the sake of one condition means that teaching existence in accordance with the ordinary is for the ordinary person, and teaching emptiness in accordance with the noble is also for the ordinary person. Teaching emptiness in accordance with the noble is also for the ordinary person because the noble one truly awakens to emptiness, and now one repeats what the noble one has awakened to in order to guide and convert ordinary persons. That the two accordances are different means that teaching existence in accordance with the ordinary is for the ordinary person, whereas teaching emptiness in accordance with the noble is not for the noble person. Temporarily opening the two truths of attainment and loss: these [noble ones] are the converting agents; why would one need to teach for them?