二諦義 3.25

3.25

問：用此語何為？解云：欲判凡聖得失迷悟。何者？眾生迷故見有、聖人悟故不見有。若爾，同夢虎，空華義，迷故見有、悟故不見有也。又今悟不見眾生，則唯真無俗，感應不交、凡聖兩隔，斯即孤真獨存、逈聖單立也。解云：聖人知於聖空、知於凡有，以知於凡有，故得化也。難：今不問汝知，但問汝為見、為不見耶？若不見，化道即隔；若見，即還是迷。汝親判迷故見有、悟不見有，今既見有，即還是迷也。何者？《中論》偈云「若謂以現見，而有生滅者，是則為癡妄，而見有生滅。」長行釋云「從顛倒無明故有眼，眼故見。」今若見，還是癡妄也。次解云：迷故見有故有、見柱故柱，今悟則知有是不有有、柱是不柱柱。然此雖能解，而大有失。一者同《成論》、二同《地論》、三復著難。言同《成論》者，《成論》明有假實兩惑、有假實二境，迷假實境故名假實二惑。如柱是假、四微是實，迷即見有故有、柱故柱，悟假實二境，即知是假柱，不柱柱、不有有。他亦明迷見有、悟知不有有。今亦爾，則與他無異也。同《地論》者，彼云：只一樹，若作相心取，則有漏樹；若作無相心取，則無漏法林樹。是還是迷悟，迷故有相、悟故無相，迷故樹故樹、悟則不樹樹也。若悟時見不有有，則同《成論》及《地論》；若悟不見者，同夢虎、空華義，夢故有虎，覺則不見有虎。諸法亦爾，迷故見有、悟故不見也。梁武何故作夢虎空華義？為此故作此義。若悟猶見猶迷，迷故見、悟故不見也。又同大頓悟義，此是竺道生所辨。彼云「果報是變謝之場、生死是大夢之境，從生死至至金剛心皆是夢，金剛後心豁然大悟，無復所見」也。又有小頓悟義，明七地悟生死無所有。此出《大論》。《大論》云「譬如人夢中度河，作諸𮅴筏，運手動足而去；此覺都無所有。七地菩薩亦爾，生死已來至六地已還，如夢所見；七地菩薩豁然而悟也。」師為此義，故云迷故有、悟則不有有。作此語，正為對夢虎空華義，彼悟時都無所見。今對彼故云見不有有也。第三難且並。汝前云迷故有、悟故空，則迷故見、悟故不見。今遂不有有，則不見見、不迷迷也。然見有、不見有，此未悟耳。且問：那得此有？只瓶柱三界果報，那得此果耶？為倒業所起、不倒業所起耶？倒業起，唯迷見、悟不見。若言不倒業起則不然。諸佛菩薩，三界之業已盡，豈更得三界之果？故不可也。若言三界眾生倒業所起，諸佛菩薩入三界化眾生者，是亦不然。諸佛入三界化眾生，為見三界故化、為不見故化耶？見則同迷，不見何所化？此義進退不可云云。難今家如此，亦得難他人。汝言三界，何業所起？十二因緣，過去無明與行，感得五果。無明即煩惱、行即業，業煩惱所感。諸佛斷五住惑盡，無復煩惱業，則不應見三界。見則同迷，不迷則不見。彼云：諸佛斷假實上惑，不無假實二境，故雖無煩惱，故見也。責：只問所見境何業所起，悟業起、迷業起？若迷業起者，悟則不見；悟業起，則無此理也。次難《地論》相心見樹有漏、無相心取則無漏法林樹。只問此樹何業所起，為妄業起、為真業起？若妄業起者，悟真則不見；若真業起者，何有真業起於妄樹耶。故此義難解也。

Question: What is the purpose of using these words? Explanation: The intention is to distinguish between the ordinary person and the noble one, between loss and gain, delusion and awakening. How so? Ordinary beings, being deluded, see existence; noble ones, being awakened, do not see existence. If that is so, it is the same as the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers: being deluded, one sees existence; being awakened, one does not see existence. Furthermore, if through awakening now one does not see sentient beings, then there is only the ultimate and no conventional; responsiveness and resonance do not intersect, and ordinary and noble are separated into two. This would mean that the ultimate stands isolated on its own, and the noble one remains solitary and aloof. Explanation: The noble one knows that from the perspective of the noble one it is empty, and knows that from the perspective of the ordinary person it exists. Because he knows that from the perspective of the ordinary person it exists, he can effect transformation. Objection: Now I am not asking about your knowing; I only ask whether you see or do not see. If you do not see, the path of transformation is severed; if you see, you are still deluded. You yourself determined that, being deluded, one sees existence, and, being awakened, one does not see existence; now that you see existence, you are still deluded. Why? A verse in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'If one asserts that by perception / there are arising and ceasing, / that is foolish delusion / which sees arising and ceasing.' The prose commentary explains: 'Due to inverted ignorance, there is the eye; due to the eye, there is seeing.' If you see now, it is still foolish delusion. Next explanation: Being deluded, one sees existence and therefore there is existence, and sees a pillar and therefore there is a pillar; now, awakened, one knows that existence is the existence that is non-existent, and a pillar is the pillar that is not a pillar. However, although this can explain it, it has great defects: first, it is identical to the Chengshi lun; second, it is identical to the Dilun; third, it again falls into difficulties. As for being identical to the Chengshi lun: the Chengshi lun explains that there are two afflictions of the provisional and the real, and two objective realms of the provisional and the real; being deluded regarding the provisional and real objective realms is termed the two afflictions of the provisional and the real. Just as a pillar is provisional and the four subtle elements are real, when deluded one sees existence and therefore there is existence, sees a pillar and therefore there is a pillar; awakening to the two objective realms of the provisional and the real, one then knows it is a provisional pillar, a pillar that is not a pillar, an existence that is non-existent. They also explain that through delusion one sees existence, and through awakening one knows it is non-existent existence. If it is also so now, then it is no different from theirs. As for being identical to the Dilun: they say that regarding a single tree, if grasped with a mind with marks, it is a tree with outflows; if grasped with a mind without marks, it is a tree of the forest of Dharma without outflows. This is still delusion and awakening: being deluded, there are marks; being awakened, there are no marks; being deluded, a tree is therefore a tree; being awakened, it is not a tree as a tree. If at the time of awakening one sees non-existent existence, then it is identical to the Chengshi lun and the Dilun; if when awakened one does not see, it is identical to the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers: because of dreaming there is a tiger, but upon waking one does not see that there is a tiger. All phenomena are also like this: being deluded, one sees existence; being awakened, one does not see it. Why did Emperor Wu of Liang formulate the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers? It was for this reason that he formulated this meaning. If, upon awakening, one still sees, one is still deluded; being deluded, one sees, and being awakened, one does not see. It is also identical to the doctrine of the great sudden awakening, which was expounded by Zhu Daosheng. He said: 'Retribution is the arena of change and decay; saṃsāra is the realm of a great dream. From saṃsāra up to the vajra-mind is all a dream; after the vajra-mind, one has sudden great awakening and there is no longer anything seen.' There is also the doctrine of the small sudden awakening, which explains that on the seventh stage one awakens to saṃsāra as having nothing that exists. This comes from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Just as a person crossing a river in a dream constructs rafts and floats, moves hands and feet, and goes across; upon waking, there is nothing at all. The bodhisattva on the seventh stage is also like this: from saṃsāra onward up to the sixth stage, it is like what is seen in a dream; on the seventh stage, the bodhisattva suddenly awakens.' It was for this reason that the master said that being deluded there is existence, and being awakened it is non-existent existence. Making this statement was precisely to counter the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers, where at the time of awakening there is nothing seen at all. Now, to counter them, he said one sees non-existent existence. A third objection directly confronts [this]: You previously said that being deluded there is existence and being awakened there is emptiness, which means that being deluded one sees and being awakened one does not see. Now you ultimately [posit] non-existent existence, which means seeing without seeing and being deluded without being deluded. Yet seeing existence or not seeing existence—this is not yet awakening. Moreover, let me ask: How is this existence obtained? Take just the retribution of vessels, pillars, and the three realms—how does one obtain such results? Is it produced by inverted karma, or produced by non-inverted karma? If produced by inverted karma, only the deluded see it, while the awakened do not see it. If you say it is produced by non-inverted karma, that is not correct. For the buddhas and bodhisattvas, karma of the three realms is already exhausted; how could they again obtain results of the three realms? Hence that is untenable. If you say it is produced by the inverted karma of sentient beings in the three realms, and buddhas and bodhisattvas enter the three realms to convert sentient beings, that is also not correct. When buddhas enter the three realms to convert sentient beings, is it because they see the three realms that they convert them, or because they do not see them that they convert them? If they see them, they are identical to the deluded; if they do not see them, what do they convert? This point cannot be sustained either backwards or forwards, and so forth. Objecting to our school in this way also allows us to object to others: You say the three realms—by what karma are they produced? In the twelve links of dependent origination, past ignorance and karmic formations bring about the five fruits. Ignorance is affliction, and karmic formations are karma; they are brought about by karma and afflictions. The buddhas have eradicated the delusions of the five entrenchments completely, and no longer have afflictions and karma; hence they should not see the three realms. If they see them, they are identical to the deluded; if they are not deluded, they do not see them. They reply: The buddhas have severed the afflictions regarding the provisional and the real, but the two objective realms of the provisional and the real are not absent; therefore, although they are without afflictions, they still see them. Rebuttal: I only ask: by what karma is the objective realm that is seen produced? Is it produced by awakened karma, or produced by deluded karma? If it is produced by deluded karma, then upon awakening one does not see it; if it is produced by awakened karma, there is no such principle. Next, we object to the Dilun's view that seeing a tree with a mind with marks is with outflows, while grasping it with a mind without marks is a tree of the forest of Dharma without outflows. I only ask: by what karma is this tree produced? Is it produced by erroneous karma, or produced by true karma? If produced by erroneous karma, upon awakening to the true one does not see it; if produced by true karma, how could true karma produce an erroneous tree? Hence this doctrine is difficult to explain.