二諦義 3.38

3.38

次明二諦同異義第七。然此義前諸章中已明，今更略辨。何者？第一約《涅槃》、《大品》二經明二諦同異、第二明眾家釋二諦同異。言二經明二諦同異者，大師舊云：《大品》以空有為世諦，有空為真諦。涅槃明有空為世諦、空有為真諦。何故爾？《大品》是摩訶衍之初，《涅槃》是摩訶衍之後。說此二經，各治病不同。《大品》摩訶衍之初，正對三藏明諸法是有，多明有所得義，故經云「有所得者，聲聞緣覺。」以小乘是有所得故，欲淨此有病，明說諸法有者乃是世諦，諸法畢竟空為第一義諦。所以爾者，叡師《大論．序》云「見邪思之自起，故阿含為之作；知滯有之為惑，故般若為之照。」若涅槃空為世諦、有為真諦者，正對破三修斷無涅槃。小乘明灰身滅智得無餘涅槃，以為妙極。故肇師云「智為雜毒、形為桎梏，智以形惓、形以智勞，故滅身以歸無、絕智以淪虛。」涅槃對此斷無之病，故明斷無乃是世諦耳。若常住涅槃三點具足、四德圓滿妙有涅槃，是為第一義諦。師云：若約此義而論，得作斯判；若約餘義，則不得也。此是二諦一枝之別義耳。今次通明之。《大品》、《涅槃》一切摩訶衍經，皆以空有為世諦、有空為第一義諦。此義《大品》故自有文，《涅槃》亦有此釋。故《涅槃》答文殊問中開十種二諦，皆以有為世諦、空為第一義諦。又經論中並明諸佛常依二諦說法，明所依二諦有為世諦、空為第一義諦。今依《大品》有為世諦、空為第一義諦。涅槃反此者，唯《大品》依二諦，《涅槃》應不依二諦。既云諸佛常依二諦說法，豈釋迦一佛說兩經便爾相背耶？以此而椎，故知有為世諦、空為第一義諦。此義則通也。又《大品》云「諸法如幻如化，涅槃如幻如化」。涅槃經亦如此，故文云「迦毘羅城空，大般涅槃亦空。」是故空有二諦，通二經也。又《大論》明四悉壇通十二部經八萬法藏。四悉壇中，前三是有、後一是無，故四悉壇即是二諦。四悉壇既通，二諦即通也。又二諦空有二境，生權實二智，照有是權智、照空是實智。然從來人，空有二智是般若二智，動靜二智是維摩二智。今明不爾。空有、權實二智，十方三世諸佛法身父母。故《維摩》云「智度菩薩母，方便以為父。一切眾導師，無不由是生。」既是一切導師皆由二智而生，豈止在《大品》而不通《涅槃》耶？以二智通，故二諦亦通也。又《大論》云「若如法觀佛、般若及涅槃，是三無異相」也。又動靜二智亦不的在《維摩》第三時教。何者？內靜照為實、外變動為權，此則自行為實、化他為權。始自發心、終於窮覺，皆有此之二智，豈止局在《維摩》耶。為是義故空有二諦通一切經。空有二諦既然，三節二諦亦爾。又約叡師《喻疑論》意釋之。何故大品明空、涅槃辨有？彼云：《大品》為除虛妄，《涅槃》為顯妙有故也。然此兩語相成，要除虛妄，妙有得顯；亦妙有得顯，虛妄即除。雖復兩經相成，要前洗於虛妄，妙有方顯也。然此即是今家涅槃有所無、無所有義。洗妄即涅槃有所無義，顯有即是涅槃無所有義。故經云「空者二十五有，不空者大般涅槃」也。一往如此，再往皆無。故經云「智者見空及與不空」。智者既了生死空不空，即知涅槃有不有。斯則顯諸法非空非有、非生死非涅槃也。此即有三節義，如前可知。次明二諦同異者。古來有鼠婁栗二諦、案苽二諦。婁栗二諦，即空性不空，假假為世諦，性空為真諦也。案苽二諦，假為世諦，假體即空為真諦。廣如常解云云。次周顒明三宗二諦。三宗者：一不空假、二空假、三假空。野城寺光大法師用假空義；開善亦用，用中最不得意者，如醜人學西施嚬，轉益醜拙。彼知美嚬，不知嚬之所以美。開善用三宗不得意，猶是學嚬之類也。然三宗義，不空假還是鼠婁栗，空假是案苽。今家所辨初節二諦，是假空義。假故空，雖空而假宛然；空故假，雖假而空宛然。空有無礙。略明二諦義竟。有常別當廣述云云。

Next is the seventh section, clarifying the meaning of identity and difference between the two truths. Now, this meaning has already been explained in the preceding sections, but is now briefly set forth once more. What is it? First, clarifying the identity and difference between the two truths based on the two sūtras, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā; second, clarifying the various masters' explanations of the identity and difference between the two truths. As for clarifying the identity and difference between the two truths based on the two sūtras, the Great Master previously said: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā takes emptiness and existence as conventional truth, and existence's emptiness as ultimate truth; the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explains existence's emptiness as conventional truth, and emptiness's existence as ultimate truth. Why is this so? The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā is at the beginning of the Mahāyāna, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is at the end of the Mahāyāna. The preaching of these two sūtras cured different illnesses. At the beginning of the Mahāyāna, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā directly countered the Tripiṭaka's teaching that all phenomena exist, which mostly explained the meaning of having appropriation; hence the sūtra states: "Those with appropriation are śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." Because the Hīnayāna involves appropriation, wishing to cleanse this illness of existence, it explained that the assertion that all phenomena exist is conventional truth, while the ultimate emptiness of all phenomena is ultimate truth. For this reason, Master Rui stated in his Preface to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: "Seeing that erroneous thoughts arise on their own, the Āgamas were made for them; knowing that clinging to existence constitutes delusion, prajñā illuminates it." If the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra takes emptiness as conventional truth and existence as ultimate truth, it directly counters and refutes the three practices' nirvāṇa of annihilationist non-existence. The Hīnayāna explains annihilating the body and extinguishing cognition to attain nirvāṇa without remainder, considering this to be the marvelous culmination. Thus Master Zhao stated: "Cognition is a compounded poison, and form is a fetter; cognition wearies because of form, and form toils because of cognition; therefore one extinguishes the body to return to non-existence, and cuts off cognition to sink into vacuity." Facing this illness of annihilationist non-existence, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explained that annihilationist non-existence is merely conventional truth. If it is the eternal presence of nirvāṇa, complete with the three dots and perfected with the four virtues—the nirvāṇa of subtle existence—that is ultimate truth. The Master said: If discussed in terms of this meaning, one may make this distinction; but if discussed in terms of other meanings, one cannot. This is merely a particular branch-meaning of the two truths. Now, next we clarify it universally: In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, and all Mahāyāna sūtras, existence is conventional truth, and emptiness is ultimate truth. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā inherently has this text, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra also contains this explanation. Thus, in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's reply to Mañjuśrī's question, it opens up ten kinds of two truths, all of which take existence as conventional truth and emptiness as ultimate truth. Furthermore, the sūtras and treatises uniformly clarify that the Buddhas always rely on the two truths in preaching the Dharma, clarifying that of the two truths relied upon, existence is conventional truth and emptiness is ultimate truth. Now, if we rely on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā's taking existence as conventional truth and emptiness as ultimate truth, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra were contrary to this, then only the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā would rely on the two truths, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra would not rely on the two truths. Since it is said that the Buddhas always rely on the two truths to preach the Dharma, how could Śākyamuni as one Buddha contradict himself so between the two sūtras? Deductions made on this basis show that existence is conventional truth and emptiness is ultimate truth; this meaning is universal. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "All phenomena are like an illusion, like a transformation; nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a transformation." The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is also like this; hence its text states: "The city of Kapilavastu is empty; great parinirvāṇa is also empty." Therefore, the two truths of emptiness and existence apply universally to both sūtras. Moreover, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa clarifies that the four siddhāntas pervade the twelve divisions of scriptures and the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma. Among the four siddhāntas, the first three are existence and the last one is non-existence; hence the four siddhāntas are just the two truths. Since the four siddhāntas are universal, the two truths are likewise universal. Furthermore, the two objects of the two truths, emptiness and existence, generate the two cognitions of provisional and real: illuminating existence is provisional cognition, and illuminating emptiness is real cognition. However, traditional scholars hold that the two cognitions of emptiness and existence are the two cognitions of prajñā, whereas the two cognitions of movement and stillness are the two cognitions of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. We now clarify that this is not so. The two cognitions of emptiness and existence, provisional and real, are the father and mother of the dharmakāya of the Buddhas of the ten directions and the three times. Thus the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "Wisdom is the mother of the bodhisattva, and expedient means is the father; of all the guides of living beings, there are none who are not born from them." Since all guides are born from these two cognitions, how could they be restricted to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and not extend to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra? Because the two cognitions are universal, the two truths are also universal. Moreover, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "If one contemplates the Buddha, prajñā, and nirvāṇa in accordance with the Dharma, these three have no different marks." Furthermore, the two cognitions of movement and stillness are not exclusively situated in the third-period teaching of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa either. Why? Inwardly, tranquil illumination is real; outwardly, adapting and moving is provisional; thus, one's own practice is real, and converting others is provisional. From the initial arousal of the aspiration [for awakening] to the culmination of awakening, both of these two cognitions are present; how could they be confined solely to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa? For this reason, the two truths of emptiness and existence apply universally to all sūtras. Since the two truths of emptiness and existence are thus, the three tiers of the two truths are also like this. Furthermore, we may explain this based on the meaning of Master Rui's Yu yi lun (Treatise Clarifying Doubts). Why does the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā clarify emptiness, while the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra distinguishes existence? He said: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā serves to eliminate false delusion, whereas the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra serves to reveal subtle existence. Yet these two statements complement each other: false delusion must be eliminated for subtle existence to be revealed; and when subtle existence is revealed, false delusion is eliminated. Although the two sūtras complement each other, false delusion must first be washed away before subtle existence can be revealed. Now this is precisely the meaning in our tradition of nirvāṇa having something that is non-existent, and being without something that exists. Washing away delusion is the meaning of nirvāṇa having something that is non-existent; revealing existence is the meaning of nirvāṇa being without something that exists. Hence the sūtra states: "That which is empty is the twenty-five realms of existence; that which is not empty is great parinirvāṇa." At first glance it is thus; looked at further, neither exists. Hence the sūtra states: "The wise see the empty as well as the non-empty." Once the wise understand that saṃsāra is empty and non-empty, they know whether nirvāṇa exists or does not exist. This reveals that all phenomena are neither empty nor existent, neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa. This then contains the meaning of the three tiers, as can be understood from the above. Next, clarifying the identity and difference between the two truths: From ancient times there have been the two truths of the [rat-eaten] chestnut and the two truths of the pressed melon. The two truths of the chestnut mean that emptiness is nature's non-emptiness: the designation of a designation is conventional truth, and the nature of emptiness is ultimate truth. The two truths of the pressed melon take the designation as conventional truth, and the designation's substance being empty as ultimate truth. This is explained extensively as usual. Next, Zhou Yong clarified the three lineages' two truths. The three lineages are: first, non-empty designation; second, empty designation; third, designated emptiness. Dharma Master Guangda of Yecheng Monastery adopted the meaning of designated emptiness; Kaishan also adopted it, but his usage was the least comprehending among them, like an ugly woman imitating Xi Shi's furrowed brow, turning out all the more grotesque and clumsy. She knew that furrowing the brow was beautiful, but did not know why furrowing the brow was beautiful. Kaishan's failure to grasp the three lineages is just like this imitation of the brow. Now, regarding the meanings of the three lineages, non-empty designation is still the chestnut; empty designation is the pressed melon. What our tradition explains as the first tier of the two truths is the meaning of designated emptiness: because it is designated, it is empty, yet although empty, designation is plainly apparent; because it is empty, it is designated, yet although designated, emptiness is plainly apparent. Emptiness and existence are unimpeded. A brief explanation of the meaning of the two truths is concluded. Permanent existence will be expounded in detail separately.