二諦義 3.9

3.9

次時更簡二諦相即義。然他家明二諦是兩理兩境，今明約何物義明二諦耶？解云：今明二諦有二種，一於二諦、二教二諦。道理未曾二不二，於二緣故有二諦，又隨順眾生故說有二諦。既於眾生有二諦、隨順眾生有二諦，道理實無二諦。既無二諦，論何物即與不即？教化眾生故有二諦，亦為教化眾生故有即不即也。總判如此。別明即於諦亦有即義、教諦亦有即義。於諦即者，論云「世俗諦者，一切法性空，世間顛倒謂有，於世人為實；諸賢聖真知諸法性空，於聖人為實。」發初開二諦，明唯真是實是諦、俗虛妄顛倒不實非諦，正欲令眾生改凡成聖、捨有入空，得一重悟也。次捨有入空，知有是顛倒、空是真實，便謂捨有入空、拆色入空，是故為說色本性即空，非是破拆方空。此即於諦中第二重明色即空。前發趾開色空二，令捨色入空，便言：色與空異、拆色入空，是故為說色即空，色性自空非拆色空。故論云「諸賢聖真知顛倒性空」，只顛倒性本空也。

Next, we further differentiate the meaning of the mutual identity of the two truths. Other schools clarify that the two truths are two principles and two objects; on what basis does our present teaching clarify the two truths? The explanation states: We now clarify that there are two kinds of two truths: first, the two truths from perspective; second, the two truths as teaching. The principle has never been dual or non-dual; because of the two perspectives, there are two truths, and also in accord with sentient beings it is taught that there are two truths. Since there are two truths from [the perspective of] sentient beings and there are two truths in accord with sentient beings, in principle there are truly no two truths. Since there are no two truths, what identity or non-identity could be discussed? For the purpose of teaching and transforming sentient beings there are two truths, and also for the purpose of teaching and transforming sentient beings there is identity and non-identity. Such is the general judgment. In specific explanation, there is the meaning of identity in the truth from perspective, and there is also the meaning of identity in the truth as teaching. As for identity in the truth from perspective, the treatise says: "As for conventional truth, all phenomena are empty of nature; the world in its inversion deems them to exist, which is real from the perspective of worldly people. The worthy ones and sages truly know that all phenomena are empty of nature, which is real from the perspective of the sages." Opening the two truths at the very outset clarifies that only the ultimate is real and is a truth, while the conventional is false, inverted, unreal, and not a truth; this is precisely to cause sentient beings to transform from ordinary to sage, to abandon existence and enter emptiness, attaining one level of awakening. Next, having abandoned existence and entered emptiness, knowing that existence is inverted and emptiness is true and real, one then thinks of abandoning existence and entering emptiness, of breaking down form to enter emptiness; therefore, for their sake it is taught that form's original nature is itself empty, not that it becomes empty only after being broken down and dismantled. This is the second level of clarifying that form is itself empty within the truth from perspective. At the outset, form and emptiness were opened as two to cause them to abandon form and enter emptiness; then they said that form is different from emptiness and that one breaks down form to enter emptiness; therefore, for their sake it was taught that form is itself empty, that form's nature is naturally empty, not empty by breaking down form. Hence the treatise says: "The worthy ones and sages truly know that inversion is empty of nature"—it is simply that the nature of inversion is originally empty.