[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [二諦義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854) › 3.16 # 二諦義 3.16 二諦義 3.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.3.16) 問：何處有經文的明中道為二諦體耶？解云：《中論》偈即是。彼云「因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦是為假名，亦是中道義。」此偈是經是論。何者？此是《華首經》中偈，龍樹引來即是論。既云假名即中道，故中道二諦體也。又《華嚴》云「一切有無法，了達非有無。」達有不有、達無不無、達有無不有無，故不有無為有無體也。又《仁王經》云三諦，亦是不二為體，有諦無諦即是教，非有非無中道第一義諦即是理也。彼云：我亦明非真非俗中道者。不然。且問：汝非真非俗是何物耶？非真還是俗、非俗還是真，非有還是無、非無還是有，還是有無二見，故無中道第一義諦也。又《中論》云「是故知虛空，非有亦非無，非相非可相，餘五同虛空。」只六種非有非無、非真非俗。何者？六種是俗、無六種是真，既非有非無，即非真非俗也。又《涅槃》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。黑法白法、漏無漏、真俗二，皆例爾。又云：前於摩訶般若中說我無我不二，我即俗、無我即真，我無我不二，即真俗不二也。又《法華》云「若有若無等，依止此諸見，具足六十二。」若見有見無，即具六十二見。若能捨有無二見，即悟中道也。如此處經文無量，故知無有二理，唯有一理也。 > Question: Where is there a scriptural text that clearly explains the Middle Way as the essence of the two truths? Explanation: The verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is precisely it. It says: 'Whatever dharma originates dependently, I state to be emptiness; it is also a provisional designation, and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.' This verse is both sūtra and treatise. How so? This is a verse found in the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha Sūtra, and when Nāgārjuna cited it, it became a treatise. Since it states that provisional designation is itself the Middle Way, the Middle Way is the essence of the two truths. Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Completely penetrating all dharmas of existence and non-existence as not being existence or non-existence.' Penetrating existence as not existence, penetrating non-existence as not non-existence, and penetrating existence and non-existence as not existence and non-existence; hence, neither-existence-nor-non-existence is the essence of existence and non-existence. Furthermore, the Renwang jing speaks of three truths, which also have non-duality as their essence: the truth of existence and the truth of non-existence are teaching, while the ultimate truth of the Middle Way that is neither existent nor non-existent is principle. \[An opponent\] might say: 'I too explain the Middle Way as neither ultimate nor conventional.' This is not so. Let us ask you: what is your neither-ultimate-nor-conventional? That which is not ultimate is still conventional; that which is not conventional is still ultimate; that which is not existent is still non-existent; that which is not non-existent is still existent. These are still the two views of existence and non-existence, and therefore lack the ultimate truth of the Middle Way. Furthermore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Therefore, one knows that space is neither existent nor non-existent, neither a characteristic nor something characterized; the remaining five \[elements\] are the same as space.' These six kinds are solely neither existent nor non-existent, neither ultimate nor conventional. How so? The six kinds are conventional; the absence of the six kinds is ultimate. Since they are neither existent nor non-existent, they are neither ultimate nor conventional. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Light and ignorance: fools consider them two; the wise fully penetrate that their nature is non-dual.' The non-dual nature is true nature itself. Dark dharmas and bright dharmas, defiled and undefiled, ultimate and conventional as two—all follow this pattern. It also says: 'Previously, in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, I stated that self and non-self are non-dual.' Self is conventional; non-self is ultimate. Self and non-self being non-dual is precisely the ultimate and conventional being non-dual. Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra says: 'Beliefs in existence, non-existence, and the like: relying on these views, they fully possess the sixty-two \[views\].' If one perceives existence or perceives non-existence, one fully possesses the sixty-two views. If one can abandon the two views of existence and non-existence, one awakens to the Middle Way. Scriptural passages like this are countless, so one knows that there are not two principles, but only one principle. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.3.15) - [Next: 3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.3.17) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.3.16) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.3.16) · Pramāṇa