二諦義 3.15

3.15

問：今明中道為二諦體，有何所以？釋何物經？解何物論？對何物病耶？解云：所以明中道為二諦體者，二諦為表不二之理，如指指月，意不在指，意令得月。二諦教亦爾，二諦為表不二，意不在二，為令得於不二，是故以不二為二諦體。又今明二諦是教門，為通於不二。故山中師云「開真俗門說二諦教」，故二諦是教門。教門為通不二之理，故以中道不二為體也。此則明教諦不二為體如此。次辨於諦不二為體者，道無有二，於二緣故二。既知於二，即顯乎不二，故不二為體也。此即於教二諦皆有所為，故以不二中道為體也。又所以中道為二諦體者，正為對由來埋二見根深。何者？如上所辨，別開即有五家，總論但有三釋：一云真為體、二云俗為體、三云真俗各體。雖有三釋，終不出二諦。真諦為體，則道理有此無為體；俗諦為體，則道理有此有為體。二諦異體者，有為俗體、空為真體，道理有二，則是二見眾生。今對此故明不二中道為體。對此病即是釋經論，故《中論》云「淺智見諸法，若有若無相。是即不能見，滅見安穩法。」汝今各見有見無，即是淺智，不能見安穩之法。安穩法者，即是不二之道。安穩法非是有無，汝見有無，故不見也。又諸佛唯有一道。故《華嚴》云「文殊法常爾，法王唯一法，一切無畏人，一道出生死。」既唯有一道，無有二道；唯有一理，無有二理也。又若二諦有二理，即成有所得。《大品》云「有所得見，名曰二見。云何二見？謂眼色二，乃至一切皆爾。」又云「諸有二者，無道無果。」眾生既本有二見之病，諸佛若更說道理有二，便是故病不除更增新惑。為是故諸佛隨順眾生說有二諦，道理無二也。故《涅槃經》云「無有二諦，善巧方便隨順眾生說有二諦」也。又說有三諦，作若為解耶？《仁王經》明三諦義，彼便曲解如此等經，皆是他妨礙之處。今明無礙，或時為三諦，有諦、無諦、中道第一義諦；或時非真非俗為理，真俗為教。理教合論，故有三諦也。

Question: Now you clarify that the Middle Way is the substance of the two truths: what is the reason for this? What sūtras does it explain? What treatises does it interpret? What disease does it counter? The explanation is: as for the reason why the Middle Way is clarified as the substance of the two truths, it is that the two truths express the principle of non-duality. Just like a finger pointing at the moon, the intention does not lie in the finger, but intends to make one apprehend the moon. The teaching of the two truths is also like this: the two truths express non-duality; the intention does not lie in duality, but is to make one attain non-duality; therefore non-duality is taken as the substance of the two truths. Furthermore, now we clarify that the two truths are an approach through teaching, meant to lead through to non-duality. Hence the Master of the Mountains said: 'Opening the gates of ultimate and conventional, he preached the teaching of the two truths.' Thus the two truths are an approach through teaching. The approach through teaching is meant to lead through to the principle of non-duality; therefore non-duality of the Middle Way is taken as the substance. This clarifies that truth as teaching takes non-duality as its substance in this manner. Next, to distinguish how truth from perspective takes non-duality as its substance: the Way has no duality, but is dual from the perspective of the two conditions. Once one knows that it is dual [only] from [these] perspectives, this reveals non-duality; therefore non-duality is the substance. Thus, both truth from perspective and truth as teaching have a purpose; hence non-duality of the Middle Way is taken as the substance. Moreover, the reason why the Middle Way is the substance of the two truths is precisely to counter the deeply buried root of the two views from of old. Why? As distinguished above, divided specifically there are five schools, but discussed generally there are only three explanations: the first says the ultimate is the substance; the second says the conventional is the substance; the third says the ultimate and conventional each have their own substance. Although there are three explanations, ultimately they do not transcend the two truths. If ultimate truth is the substance, then in terms of principle there is this non-existence as the substance; if conventional truth is the substance, then in terms of principle there is this existence as the substance. If the two truths have different substances, then existence is the conventional substance and emptiness is the ultimate substance; in terms of principle there is duality, which means sentient beings of the two views. Now, in order to counter this, we clarify that the non-dual Middle Way is the substance. Countering this disease is precisely explaining the sūtras and treatises. Thus the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Those of shallow wisdom see phenomena / as having characteristics of existence or non-existence; / they are unable to see / the pacifying, secure Dharma where views are extinguished.' Now, when each of you sees existence and sees non-existence, this is precisely shallow wisdom; you cannot see the secure Dharma. The secure Dharma is precisely the non-dual Way. The secure Dharma is neither existence nor non-existence; because you see existence and non-existence, you do not see it. Furthermore, the Buddhas have only one Way. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Mañjuśrī's Dharma is always thus: / the Dharma King has only a single Dharma; / all persons of fearlessness / transcend birth and death by a single Way.' Since there is only one Way, there are not two ways; since there is only one principle, there are not two principles. Furthermore, if the two truths had two principles, this would constitute appropriation. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Views with appropriation are called dual views. What are dual views? Namely, regarding eye and form as two, and so forth for everything.' It also says: 'All those that are dual are without the Way and without the fruit.' Since sentient beings fundamentally have the disease of the two views, if the Buddhas were further to teach that in terms of principle there is duality, this would fail to remove the old disease and would instead increase new delusion. For this reason, the Buddhas accord with sentient beings and say that there are two truths, but in terms of principle there is no duality. Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'There are no two truths; through skillful means, according with sentient beings, he spoke of two truths.' Furthermore, when three truths are spoken of, how are they to be understood? The Renwang jing clarifies the doctrine of three truths; [others] then misinterpret sūtras such as this, and these are all points where they encounter obstacles. Now we clarify that there is no obstruction: at times they are taken as three truths—the truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the ultimate truth of the Middle Way; at times 'neither ultimate nor conventional' is principle, and the ultimate and conventional are teaching. When principle and teaching are discussed together, there are therefore three truths.