English (machine translation)
Translation of 二諦義
- Language
- English
- Extent
- 187 passages, 73,736 words
- Text
- complete digital text
- Source
- pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1854 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…
Contents
Text
1.1
Preface to the Recarving of the Chapter on the Two Truths
1.2
The three fascicles of the Chapter on the Meaning of the Two Truths composed by Great Master Jiaxiang [Ji]zang have circulated in our country for barely more than a thousand years; they were treasured away in old famous monasteries and not widely transmitted for a long time. Formerly, the venerable Ryuuhou Yo happened to obtain the upper and lower volumes, and straightaway carved them on woodblocks to distribute them throughout the realm. But like a precious tripod missing one leg, was this not regrettable? Recently, a certain bookseller fortunately obtained a complete old exemplar and came to request that I once again apply Japanese readings to it and transmit it down through a thousand years. Thereupon, comparing the two exemplars, Master Yo's text not only lacked the middle fascicle, but also had more than twenty sheets missing from the upper fascicle; moreover, errors like mistaking 'pig' for 'hai' or 'phoenix' for 'wind' were ubiquitous. Sighing deeply, I exclaimed: 'I had previously heard its name without obtaining the text, like a thirsty man hearing of plums. Yet even though it was occasionally transmitted, for how many years was it deficient and incomplete! Now, having fortunately seen the complete text, that which was previously called thirst is completely quenched. If this is so for me, who else would not feel the same? If it is now to be widely circulated throughout the realm, how could I shrink from the toil of this undertaking?' This is why I forgot my own narrow unrefinedness and did not dare refuse his request. Now, for the upper and lower fascicles, I directly used Master Yo's carved version without re-carving, and wherever there were scribal errors, differences between the two exemplars, unresolved doubts, or where I feared a certain character must be missing, I noted them all in the top margin of the fascicle, never once altering them according to my personal opinion, striving solely to preserve antiquity. Thereupon, it may truly be said that the precious tripod has once again become a whole vessel—how delightful! Since this is so, how do we know that the Great Master who authored the chapter is not smiling faintly in joy within his nāga-samādhi, and how do we know that Master Yo is not leaping with joy beneath the earth? This is the preface.
1.3
A day in the first month of spring, the year Gengyin, the seventh year of Hōei [1710].
1.4
Respectfully written by the Śramaṇa Keikyoku Jaku of Gochisan, western Kyōto, at the Wangluting [Pavilion of Forgetting Cares].
1.5
Preface to the Engraving of the Chapter on the Two Truths
1.6
Indeed, if one does not understand the two truths, then the object that tallies with reality and the cognition that illuminates the conventional cannot merge and penetrate; and for one whose object and cognition do not merge and penetrate to enter the ocean of sarvajñā has never occurred. How fitting it is that the Buddhas always teach the Dharma in reliance upon the two truths! In China, men of the study of the Dao who have expanded upon the ultimate and the conventional and handed down the tradition to posterity are also not few. Moreover, regarding the two truths, although the clans of the twenty houses of debate each stated their views, they never applied effort to the key and crucial points; is this not what is meant by skin-deep sectarian posturing and superficial boasting of mere echoes? The Eminent Monk Jizang appeared during the Sui dynasty and inherited the learning of Master Lang. His spiritual understanding was inconceivable, and there was nothing of its essence he did not extract. He ultimately composed profound commentaries on various sūtras to assist the teaching vehicles, amounting to I know not how many tens of millions of words. Among them, coming to the present chapter, which distinguishes non-existence and non-emptiness yet duality and non-duality, the rat and the basket, the chestnuts and the table melon, and so forth, he enlightened the lack of understanding of old masters and brought forth the brilliance of unique insight. How could such a work be neglected? Alas! Since the Middle Ages, this learning was not transmitted, and his writings were on the verge of disappearing. In the treasury of an old celebrated temple, I happened to obtain this fine brocade exemplar; filled with reverence, I held and read it, unable to contain my leaping joy. Promptly adding punctuation and collating it, I handed it over to the bookseller. At this time, in the twelfth month, an auspicious day, the year Dingchou, the tenth year of Genroku [1697], the printing was thus completed.
1.7
Inscribed by Ryuuhou Jitsuyō of Sendai in Tōoku, beneath the peaks of Otowasan in Kyōto.
1.8
Composed by the foreigner Jizang.
1.9
Master Rui's Preface to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'The Śataśāstra corrects external [heretics] to ward off heterodoxy; this text removes internal [attachment] to dispel stagnations. The depth and breadth of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the refined attainment of the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra—those who examine these Four Treatises truly feel as if the sun and moon were held in their bosom, shining with complete clarity and penetrating insight. If one masters these Four Treatises, the Buddha Dharma can be illuminated.' The Master said: Although these Four Treatises differ in name and classification, surveying their general purport, they all equally expound the two truths and reveal the Way of non-duality. If one understands the two truths, the Four Treatises can be clearly grasped. If one does not understand the two truths, then the Four Treatises will not be illuminated. For this reason, one must know the two truths. If one understands the two truths, not only can the Four Treatises be illuminated, but all the sūtras will also be understood. How is this known to be so? Because the treatise says: 'The Buddhas always rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma.' Since the Buddhas of the ten directions always rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma, none of the sūtras go beyond the two truths. Since the sūtras do not go beyond the two truths, if the two truths are illuminated, then all sūtras will be understood. However, while all Four Treatises have statements concerning the two truths, we now temporarily distinguish them relying on the text of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The text of the treatise states: 'The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings: first, conventional truth; second, ultimate truth.' When the Master was about to pass away, he ascended the high seat and entrusted his disciples: 'Since I left the mountains, I have taken the two truths as the correct path. I have taught the two truths in some twenty different formulations, either dispersed or gathered, either dividing into chapters and sections or not distinguishing parts, sometimes opening into three stages, and temporarily making ten tiers. The reason for making ten tiers was precisely to counter Dharma Master Kaishan's meaning of the two truths. His explanation of the meaning of the two truths had ten tiers; to counter those ten tiers, I therefore explained ten tiers, distinguishing and correcting them tier by tier.' The Master only spoke of tiers of meaning in this context; for all other doctrines, he never opened [such tiers]. If there are tiers, they were not taught by Master Xinghuang. The ten tiers begin with the general meaning of the two truths and end with the identity and difference of the two truths. Now, the first is to explain the general meaning of the two truths. When the Master spoke of the meaning of the two truths, he mostly relied on two sources: first, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā; second, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Now, we temporarily explain the meaning of the two truths in reliance upon the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The reason for relying on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā to explain the two truths is that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā takes the two truths as its central theme; if one understands the two truths, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā can immediately be illuminated. For this reason, we explain the two truths relying on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The 'Examination of the Four Truths' in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings.' These words are difficult to understand. How do they rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma? The explanation is: the two truths are the root, and teaching the Dharma is the branch; the two truths are the basis, and teaching the Dharma is the dependent. Yet these words startle the ear, not being what has traditionally been known.
1.10
Question: How is it known that when the Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma, the two truths are the basis? The explanation is: It comes from the treatise and does not depend on human explanation; hence it is said that because sūtras have treatises, their meaning is easily understood. Now we explain it relying on the treatise. In the 'Examination of the Four Truths', the treatise first explains the two truths, and next explains relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma. First, explaining the two truths, it says: 'As for conventional truth, all phenomena have the nature of emptiness, yet the worldly in their inversion call it existent; to the worldly this is real, and it is named conventional truth. The noble ones truly know that the inversion has the nature of emptiness; to the noble ones this is real, and it is named ultimate truth.' Next, it says: 'The Buddhas rely on these two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings.' This means that having first finished explaining the two truths, it then reveals that the Buddhas rely on these two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings. Therefore, we know that the two truths are the root, and teaching the Dharma is the branch; the two truths are the basis, and teaching the Dharma is the dependent; in reliance upon these two truths they teach the Dharma for sentient beings. Question: It has traditionally been said that the Buddhas relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma means teaching the conventional for ordinary people and teaching the ultimate for noble ones, teaching existence for ordinary conditions and teaching emptiness for noble conditions, and this is called relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma. Since it says they rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings, how can one say that teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones is relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma? Now we clarify that, as above, existence is real to ordinary people and named conventional truth, and emptiness is real to noble ones and named ultimate truth; relying on these two truths, they teach the Dharma for sentient beings.
1.11
Furthermore, question: For what purpose do the Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma? The explanation is: Desiring to clarify that whatever is taught by the Buddhas of the ten directions is real, they therefore rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma. Why? 'Truth' means 'real': existence is real to ordinary people, and emptiness is real to noble ones; both of these are real. The Buddhas teach the Dharma in reliance upon these two realities, and therefore whatever the Buddhas teach is real. For what reason is what the ninety-six kinds of tīrthikas teach false and unreal? Because they do not rely on the two truths; therefore it is false and unreal. Because the Buddhas teach the Dharma in reliance upon the two truths, whatever Dharma they teach is real. Because whatever the Buddhas teach is real, the Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma.
1.12
Again, question: How does teaching the Dharma in reliance upon the two truths make teaching the Dharma entirely real? The explanation is: The noble ones realize according to reality that all phenomena have the nature of emptiness; the Tathāgata speaks in reliance upon that realization according to reality, and therefore what the Buddhas speak is also real—this is teaching the Dharma in reliance upon ultimate truth being real. Worldly people take vases, robes, and so forth to be real; the Buddhas teach vases and robes in accordance with convention, and therefore what they teach is also real. As the Śataśāstra says: 'The Buddha enters the city of Śrāvastī; because he accords with conventional speech, there is no error.' This is teaching the Dharma in reliance upon conventional truth being real. Because they speak in reliance upon those two realities, the Buddhas' teaching of the Dharma is entirely real. Earlier it was said: speaking in reliance upon the ordinary truth is called teaching the Dharma in reliance upon conventional truth; speaking in reliance upon the noble truth is called teaching the Dharma in reliance upon ultimate truth. The statement 'relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings' must not be lost. Now we ask: Regarding relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma, is the truth from perspective that serves as the basis correct, or is it an error, or is it both correct and an error? Truth as teaching also poses this question. However, the Great Master said: 'Truth from perspective is an error; truth as teaching is correct. Why? To say truth from perspective is an error means: existence to ordinary people is real existence, and emptiness to noble ones is real emptiness; these, emptiness and existence, being respectively real to the ordinary and noble, are therefore an error. To say truth as teaching is correct means: the Tathāgata's true and veracious words, relying on ordinary existence, speak of existence, yet existence does not abide in existence, and existence signifies non-existence; relying on noble non-existence, they speak of non-existence, yet non-existence does not abide in non-existence, and non-existence signifies not non-existence. Thus the two—existence and non-existence—signify the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence; duality is non-dual, and non-duality is dual. Non-duality being dual is principle-teaching; duality being non-dual is teaching-principle. Teaching-principle responds to teaching; principle-teaching signifies principle. The conditioned arising of the duality and non-duality of principle and teaching is what is correct.' Yet while truth as teaching is like this, even though it is like this, it is not yet understood. Why? When you say 'relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma', are both 'relying on the two truths' and 'teaching the Dharma' truth as teaching, or not? If both are truth as teaching, that contradicts the text of the treatise. The treatise says: 'All phenomena have the nature of emptiness, yet the worldly in their inversion call it existent, which is conventional truth; the noble ones truly know that the inversion has the nature of emptiness, which is ultimate truth.' The Buddhas rely on these two truths to teach the Dharma; how could they all at once both be truth as teaching? Now we correct this single sentence to clarify that in 'relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma', the basis is truth from perspective, and the teaching of the Dharma is truth as teaching.
1.13
Question: As to whether the two truths as the basis are correct or an error, the treatise itself determines this. The treatise says: All phenomena have the nature of emptiness, yet the worldly in their inversion call it existent, which is truth to the ordinary. The noble ones truly know that the inversion has the nature of emptiness and non-arising, which is truth to the noble. This opens the distinction between the two truths of the ordinary and the noble. Although the ordinary and noble are non-dual, non-duality is dual: there are the ordinary truth and the noble truth. The ordinary truth is an error, and the noble truth is correct. Why? Since it says that all phenomena have the nature of emptiness and in inversion are called existent, while the noble ones truly know that the inversion has the nature of emptiness, we therefore know that the ordinary truth is an error and the noble truth is correct. Why? Because the ordinary truth is an inversion, it is an error; because the noble truth is non-inversion, it is correct. This is opening ordinary truth and noble truth, inverted truth and non-inverted truth.
1.14
Question: If the two truths that serve as the basis possess inverted and non-inverted aspects, this is incomprehensible. Why? The Buddha may speak relying on the non-inverted; how could he speak for the sake of sentient beings relying on the inverted? If one says that both truths from perspective are non-inverted, that contradicts the text of the treatise. The treatise says: "The world inverted[ly] regards [things] as existing, which constitutes conventional truth; the worthy and noble sages truly know this inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which constitutes ultimate truth; relying on these two truths, [the buddhas] expound the Dharma for sentient beings." Thus we know that he speaks relying on both the inverted and the non-inverted. If one conforms to the treatise text, how could buddhas and bodhisattvas rely on what is inverted to expound the Dharma? Going forward or backward, it is difficult to understand, and this remains unexplained. / Question: It was stated previously that the two truths as the basis from perspective involve attainment and loss; does this not contradict what the Master said? The Master said: "Both truths from perspective are a loss." Now how can you judge that the two truths from perspective involve attainment and loss? / Explanation: You say that truths from perspective are entirely a loss—from where do these words come? What is explained now as "truths from perspective are entirely a loss" is not that the truths from perspective which serve as the basis are entirely a loss, but rather that by receiving the teaching, a perspective is formed, and these truths from perspective are entirely a loss. Why is this? The Tathāgata speaks of existence to reveal non-existence, speaks of non-existence to reveal non-non-existence, and speaks of duality to reveal non-duality. Those [listeners], hearing of existence, form an understanding of existence; hearing of non-existence, form an understanding of non-existence. Hearing of existence and forming an understanding of existence, existence is real from the ordinary perspective, which is called conventional truth; hearing of non-existence and forming an understanding of non-existence, non-existence is real from the noble perspective, which is called ultimate truth. Both of these two truths are a loss.
1.15
Question: In what way are they a loss? / Explanation: The Tathāgata speaks of existence to reveal non-existence, speaks of non-existence to reveal non-non-existence, and speaks of duality to cause one to realize non-duality; he points the finger so that one may obtain the moon. Yet sentient beings, hearing of existence, abide in existence, and hearing of non-existence, abide in non-existence; they cling to the finger and forget the moon, abide in the teaching and abandon the principle—how could this not be a loss? / If so, then there are two kinds of truth from perspective: first, the truth from perspective that serves as the basis; second, the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching. For the truth from perspective that serves as the basis, there is attainment and loss; for the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching, both are a loss. The truth from perspective that serves as the basis is the fundamental; the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is the derivative. / As for the truth from perspective that serves as the basis being fundamental: taking it provisionally with respect to the single transformation of Śākyamuni to discuss it, before Śākyamuni appeared in the world, these two truths from perspective already existed, and Śākyamuni relied on these two truths to expound the Dharma for sentient beings. Why? When the buddhas expound the Dharma, there is none who does not rely on the two truths; therefore, at the very outset of their steps they speak relying on the two truths. You should know that the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is fundamental. / As for the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching being derivative: sentient beings receive the Tathāgata's teaching of the two truths of existence and non-existence and form an understanding of existence and non-existence, thereby forming a perspective; hence, this truth from perspective comes later. / Furthermore, there are three distinctions: prior and posterior, converting agent and those to be converted, and universal and particular. Let us explain them in reverse order. / As for universal and particular: the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is universal, whereas the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is particular. That the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is universal means that the world inverted[ly] regards [things] as existing, which is real from the perspective of the world and constitutes conventional truth; the worthy and noble sages truly know this inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which constitutes ultimate truth. These two truths universally apply to all ordinary beings and sages, as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states that Mañjuśrī asked: "Is there the ultimate within conventional truth? Is there conventional truth within the ultimate? If there is, then it is a single truth; if there is not, would this not mean the Tathāgata spoke falsely?" The Buddha answered: "Conventional truth is ultimate truth; it is in accordance with sentient beings that they are discriminatively spoken of as two. What worldly people know is called conventional truth; what world-transcending noble persons know is called ultimate truth." This is the two persons, worldly and world-transcending, determining the two truths from perspective. The text of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is precisely like this: "The world inverted[ly] regards [things] as existing, which constitutes conventional truth; the worthy and noble sages truly know this inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which constitutes ultimate truth." Therefore, these two truths from perspective are universal. / As for the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching being particular: the Tathāgata speaks of the two truths of existence and non-existence to reveal the non-dual path. Those with skillful means, hearing of the two, awaken to the non-dual; realizing the principle, they awaken to the teaching, which is called truth as teaching. Those without skillful means, hearing of the two, abide in the two; not realizing the principle, they are deluded by the teaching, which is called truth from perspective. Truth from perspective applies only to those without skillful means, which is why it is particular. / As for converting agent and those to be converted: the truth from perspective that serves as the basis is the converting agent, whereas the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is those to be converted. This is provisionally spoken biased toward the side of the ultimate truth. Why? The treatise says that "the worthy and noble sages truly know the inversion to be of the nature of emptiness"; hence it is the converting agent. This is like the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. The sūtra states: "All conventional truths, if from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth." Merely conventional truth, from the perspective of the Tathāgata, is ultimate; hence this ultimate truth is the converting agent. The treatise states precisely: "Ordinary beings inverted[ly] regard [things] as existing. The worthy and noble sages know only that this inversion is of the nature of emptiness, unarisen and unceasing; from the perspective of the noble person, it is ultimate truth." If so, you should know that this ultimate truth is the truth of the converting agent. That the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is those to be converted means that receiving the teaching forms the perspective; although one may again be a sage, ultimately one receives the teaching, and because of receiving the teaching, one is those to be converted. / As for prior and posterior: this is not different from fundamental and derivative. The truth from perspective that serves as the basis is fundamental and prior; the truth from perspective that deludes regarding the teaching is derivative and posterior. At the outset of one's steps, one speaks relying on the truth from perspective; thereafter, sentient beings receive the teaching: those with skillful means awaken to the principle, forming the truth as teaching; those without skillful means do not realize the principle, forming the truth from perspective. Hence they differ in being prior and posterior. / Next, we further distinguish one phrase: earlier it was said that "the worthy and noble sages truly know the inversion to be of the nature of emptiness, which from the perspective of the noble person is called ultimate truth," just as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "all conventional truths, if from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth."
1.16
Question: Since it says that all conventional truths, from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth, can one also say that all ultimate truths, if from the perspective of ordinary beings, are conventional truth? / Explanation: It is indeed so; this simply comes from the text of the treatise. The treatise states: "As for conventional truth, all dharmas are of the nature of emptiness, yet the world inverted[ly] regards them as existing; from the perspective of worldly people, this is real, and it is called truth." In explaining conventional truth, it first brought forward "all dharmas are of the nature of emptiness" to explain it, clarifying that all dharmas are of the nature of emptiness, but the world inverted[ly] regards them as existing, which is real from the perspective of worldly people, and called truth. You should know that all ultimate truths, from the perspective of ordinary beings, are conventional truth. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "All dharmas have no existence, yet exist in this manner; existing in this manner, they have no existence." Existing in this manner, from the perspective of the noble person, has no existence, which means conventional truth is ultimate truth. Having no existence, from the perspective of ordinary beings, exists in this manner, which means ultimate truth is conventional truth.
1.17
Question: For what reason does one open up the two truths of the ordinary and the noble? / Explanation: Now, opening up the two truths of attainment and loss of the ordinary and the noble is done to show the attainment of the noble and the loss of the ordinary so as to induce transformative awakening, clarifying: "this is the ordinary truth, this is the noble truth; this is the inverted truth, this is the non-inverted truth." Showing what is ordinary and noble induces one to abandon the ordinary and emulate the noble, to cast off the inverted and follow the non-inverted. For the sake of this meaning, one opens up the two truths of attainment and loss of the ordinary and the noble. / How is this known to be so? It is fully set forth in the sūtras and treatises. The Great Sūtra states: "Wishing to cause sentient beings to deeply realize ultimate truth, the Tathāgata therefore proclaims conventional truth. If sentient beings did not awaken to ultimate truth by means of conventional truth, the Tathāgata would never speak of conventional truth; he speaks of conventional truth to cause them to realize ultimate truth." Furthermore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "If one does not rely on conventional truth, one cannot attain the ultimate. If one does not attain the ultimate, one does not attain nirvāṇa." Speaking of conventional truth causes one to attain the expounding of the ultimate; speaking of the ultimate causes one to attain nirvāṇa; hence the two truths are opened up. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "Prajñāpāramitā arises for the sake of a great matter, namely to show what is the path and what is not the path." What is not the path is precisely the inverted; what is the path is precisely the non-inverted. Showing what is the path and what is not the path causes one to discard what is not the path and follow the path; it also shows the inverted and shows the non-inverted, causing one to discard the inverted and follow the non-inverted. For the sake of this meaning, one opens up the two truths to show attainment and loss, causing one to reform and awaken. / However, broadly determining the two truths involves three sections: first, determining the two truths with respect to the inverted and non-inverted among the ordinary and noble; second, determining the two truths within the noble itself; third, determining the two truths within the ordinary itself. / As for determining the two truths with respect to the ordinary and noble: what is understood by the ordinary is conventional truth; what is understood by the noble is ultimate truth. This determination of the ordinary and noble determines the ordinary and noble with respect to knowing the nature of emptiness and not knowing the nature of emptiness: not yet knowing the nature of emptiness constitutes an ordinary being; knowing the nature of emptiness constitutes a noble person. It is with respect to this that the two truths are determined. / As for determining the two truths within the noble itself: the noble person thoroughly realizes that existence is empty existence, and emptiness is existent emptiness. Both of these two truths are noble two truths. Why? Just as with the four truths, suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path are all called noble truths. The two truths are also like this: both the ultimate and the conventional are noble truths.
1.18
Question: Where is this stated? Answer: As explained at the end of the "Chapter on the Four Means of Embracing" in the Prajñā[pāramitā Sūtra]. While subjective inclinations can shift through a thousand variations, at times one must rely on the explicit textual authority, and now it is proper that the textual meaning be clearly distinguished. That text says: "If an ordinary person knew the conventional truth, they would be a srotāpanna up to a Buddha." If so, ordinary people do not know conventional truth or ultimate truth; only noble ones know these two truths. Therefore, these two truths are both noble truths. This is the general distinction. Furthermore, within the noble ones there are immeasurable varieties, as the Mahā[parinirvāṇa] Sūtra says: "Once, when I was discussing conventional truth with Maitreya on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa, the five hundred śrāvakas were unaware and uncomprehending, to say nothing of the profound ultimate truth." Discussing it from this perspective, those of the two vehicles do not know the two truths; only bodhisattvas know the two truths. This refutes the traditional doctrine. Why? Traditionally it is said: The three vehicles all realize the ultimate truth and equally understand the two truths. Noble ones truly understand the two truths, while worthy ones have a semblance understanding of the two truths; the seven expedients of the Hīnayāna and the thirty minds of the Mahāyāna have a semblance understanding, while those from the stage of patience with suffering upward in the Hīnayāna and those from the first bhūmi upward in the Mahāyāna truly understand the two truths. Understanding conventional truth generally relies on semblance principle; understanding ultimate truth cuts off the four [propositions] and negates the hundred [negations]—thus the three vehicles equally understand the two truths. Yet if the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explains that the five hundred śrāvakas did not know the two truths—not even knowing conventional truth, to say nothing of the profound ultimate truth—then the traditional doctrine cannot stand. In our present doctrine, this meaning can indeed hold. Why? Those of the two vehicles possess minds of arising and ceasing, of annihilation and eternity; they do not practice the Middle Way and do not see the Buddha-nature. The Middle Way is the root; since they do not recognize the root, how could they know the branches? Since they do not see the principle, how could they understand the teaching? Why is that? For them, existence cannot be non-existence, and non-existence cannot be existence; existence cannot function as non-existence, and non-existence cannot function as existence; duality cannot function as non-duality, and non-duality cannot function as duality. They are obstructed both horizontally and vertically. For a bodhisattva, however, existence functions as emptiness, and emptiness functions as existence; duality functions as non-duality, and non-duality functions as duality; hence, there is no obstruction either horizontally or vertically. As for distinguishing the two truths within ordinary people, all of it is simply what has traditionally been explained as the two truths. They say: The three designations and seven actuals are conventional truth; cutting off the four [propositions] and negating the hundred [negations] is ultimate truth. The three designations cannot be the cutting off of the four [propositions], and the cutting off of the four [propositions] cannot be the three designations; elimination cannot be existence, and existence cannot be elimination; cessation cannot be non-cessation, and non-cessation cannot be cessation. Such two truths are both the two truths of ordinary people. How is this known? The Mahā[parinirvāṇa] Sūtra says: "There are generally two kinds of views generated by sentient beings: first, eternalist views; second, annihilationist views." They possess both views of existence and non-existence, annihilation and eternity. Furthermore, existence is real for ordinary people and is thus a truth, and emptiness is also real for ordinary people and is thus a truth. Because this emptiness really exists, emptiness is a truth; hence, ordinary people also have two truths. Thus, all three kinds of two truths are opened. The two truths of traditional scholars spontaneously fall into the two truths of ordinary people. Why? I have three kinds of two truths: first, distinguishing the two truths between ordinary and noble; second, distinguishing the two truths within the noble; third, distinguishing the two truths within ordinary people. As for the ordinary two truths, the three designations are the conventional truth of ordinary people, and cutting off the four [propositions] is the ultimate truth of ordinary people. What is your doctrine? In your doctrine, the three designations are conventional truth and cutting off the four [propositions] is ultimate truth. You naturally fall into my category of the ordinary two truths, without my intentionally placing you there. Just like the doctrine of one school concerning inside and outside the principle, the doctrine you formulate falls by itself into my category of outside the principle. The treatise says: "The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings." The brief explanation of 'relying on the two truths' has now been completed.
1.19
Next is to explain 'teaching the Dharma for sentient beings relying on the two truths'. Question: Since it says 'teaching the Dharma relying on the two truths', for what person and what kind of Dharma is taught? Various people, apprehending the Great Master's words, say: Teaching the Dharma of existence for ordinary people, and teaching the Dharma of emptiness for noble ones. Teaching the two Dharmas of emptiness and existence for the two kinds of people—ordinary and noble—is called 'teaching the Dharma relying on the two truths'. Question: Did the Master make this statement or not? Answer: Yes, the Master did make this statement, but there is a proper context for using these words. People only grasp these words without understanding their intended meaning. Why? Teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones is called 'teaching the Dharma for sentient beings relying on the two truths'—what kind of talk is this? The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings; how could one say that teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones is what is meant by 'the Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings'? Furthermore, does one rely on the ordinary to teach existence and then again teach existence for the ordinary, or rely on the noble to teach emptiness and then again teach emptiness for the noble? The treatise says: "The worthy and noble truly know that inversions are empty in their nature." Since they already know that all phenomena are empty in their original nature, why teach emptiness for them again? What is explained now follows the treatise's commentary. The treatise says: "The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings." It explicitly states 'relying on the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings'—when does it say 'teaching the Dharma for noble ones'? It teaches the Dharma for ordinary sentient beings, not for noble ones.
1.20
Question: According to what meaning is it determined that the two truths are taught for sentient beings? Answer: This is determined as teaching or not teaching in terms of delusion and awakening, and in terms of agent and object: it clarifies that because sentient beings are deluded about existence and non-existence and have not awakened to existence and non-existence, existence and non-existence are taught for sentient beings, making clear that 'this is existence, this is non-existence; this is ordinary, this is noble; this is inverted, this is non-inverted', causing sentient beings to enter non-existence from existence, and to abandon the ordinary to take up the noble. For this reason, the two truths are taught. If someone is a noble one who is already awakened, why would there be a need to teach them? Because the ordinary have not yet awakened, the two truths must be taught for them. The ordinary, not being awakened, receive the teaching; the noble, having already awakened, do not receive the teaching. Regarding agent and object: all conventional truths, from the perspective of the Tathāgata, are ultimate truth. Since they are ultimate truth from the perspective of the Tathāgata, he is the converting agent. Could the converting agent teach the Dharma for the converting agent? All ultimate truths, from the perspective of sentient beings, are conventional truth; since sentient beings are those to be converted, the Dharma must be taught for sentient beings. Next, this meaning will be established and explained by adducing two passages from the "Chapter on the Examination of Phenomena" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the commentary on the "Chapter on Rebirth" in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The "Chapter on the Examination of Phenomena" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: / "The Buddhas have spoken of a self, / and they have also spoken of non-self. / Within the true nature of all phenomena, / there is neither self nor non-self." / In the prose commentary it explains: teaching self and non-self for ordinary people, and also teaching self and non-self for noble ones who have attained the path. Self and non-self are indeed the two truths. Thus, the first chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Persons and the like exist because of conventional truth, but are non-existent according to ultimate truth." One should know that self is conventional truth and non-self is ultimate truth. Since self and non-self are taught for ordinary people, and self and non-self are taught for noble ones, then the two truths are taught for ordinary people, and the two truths are taught for noble ones. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in commenting on the "Chapter on Rebirth", says: "Question: The preceding chapter on 'Practicing in Accordance' explained that without bodhisattvas there is no going and coming; why does it now say that there are bodhisattvas and there is going and coming? Answer: They do not contradict each other. For ordinary people, no going and coming is taught; for noble ones, going and coming is taught. For noble ones, no going and coming is taught; for ordinary people, going and coming is taught." Yet going and coming versus no going and coming are still the two truths; thus the two truths are taught for ordinary people, and the two truths are taught for noble ones. The general meaning is identical to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. However, the Master further explained that teaching existence for ordinary people, teaching emptiness for noble ones, and teaching emptiness and existence for both ordinary and noble constitute in total three sections explaining the meaning of the two truths. Previously, teaching the two truths for ordinary people and not teaching the two truths for noble ones was also determined in terms of delusion versus awakening and agent versus object, as stated above. Next is the explanation of the "Chapter on Phenomena". Question: For what reason does the "Chapter on Phenomena" teach the two truths for ordinary people and teach the two truths for noble ones? Answer: Teaching self and non-self for ordinary people is like the previous case of teaching existence and non-existence for ordinary people, causing them to transform and awaken to the non-existence of both existence and non-existence. Self and non-self are also like this. Sentient beings are deluded about self and non-self; self and non-self are taught for them to cause them to depart from self and non-self. Departing from self means departing from eternity; departing from non-self means departing from annihilation. Causing them to depart from annihilation and eternity and awaken to the Middle Way, self and non-self are taught for ordinary people. As for teaching self and non-self for noble ones: noble ones understand self and non-self, and therefore self and non-self are taught for noble ones. Previously, self and non-self were taught for ordinary people because ordinary people were deluded about self and non-self; teaching self and non-self for noble ones is not because noble ones are deluded about self and non-self that self and non-self are taught for them, but rather that when noble ones hear self and non-self they immediately understand self and non-self, and therefore self and non-self are taught for them. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa cites the Devaparipṛcchā Sūtra, which asks: "Can an arhat in his final body speak of self and non-self?" The explanation says: He can speak of them, and therefore noble ones understand self and non-self. It also says: Just as with a secret military watchword, only the guards understand it, while others do not understand; when self and non-self are spoken of, only noble ones understand, while other people do not understand. Because noble ones can understand self and non-self, self and non-self are taught for noble ones. Since this is so in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the "Chapter on Rebirth" can be understood by analogy.
1.21
Question: Ordinary people are deluded about self and non-self; teaching self and non-self for ordinary people to cause them to awaken to self and non-self can be beneficial. Noble ones already understand self and non-self; what benefit is there in teaching it for noble ones? Answer: This is not spoken of in terms of benefit; it simply clarifies that ordinary people do not understand self and non-self while noble ones understand self and non-self. Because noble ones understand self and non-self, self and non-self are taught for noble ones to benefit ordinary people—benefiting others, not benefiting themselves. Just as Ānanda proclaimed 'Thus have I heard' for the benefit of sentient beings. Next, when the Great Master said, 'teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones', these ordinary and noble ones are the conditions to be converted, the ordinary and noble ones who receive the teaching. Existence is real for ordinary people, so existence is taught for ordinary people to make them awaken to non-existence; emptiness is real for noble ones, so emptiness is taught for noble ones to make them awaken to non-emptiness; this causes ordinary and noble ones to be taught existence and non-existence so as to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence. It also causes the ordinary to awaken to the non-ordinary, and causes the noble to awaken to the non-noble—the correct Dharma of the Middle Way which is neither ordinary nor noble. Hence it is said: 'Neither the practice of ordinary people nor the practice of the worthy and noble is the practice of a bodhisattva.' Furthermore, regarding teaching existence for ordinary people and teaching emptiness for noble ones, it clarifies that existence is taught in accord with the ordinary, and non-existence is taught in accord with the noble. Just as a single form exists for ordinary people and is non-existent for noble ones: form is spoken of as existent in accord with ordinary people, and form is spoken of as non-existent in accord with noble ones, while form itself has never been either existent or non-existent. This directly counters the doctrine of traditional scholars. They say: The three designations are the principle of conventional truth, and the four eliminations are the principle of ultimate truth—positing a principle of the two truths. We now clarify that teaching existence in accord with the ordinary and teaching non-existence in accord with the noble is merely teaching existence and non-existence in accord with the ordinary and in accord with the noble; where could there be an objective principle of the two truths? For this reason, it is said that existence and non-existence are taught for the ordinary and the noble. This concludes the explanation of 'for sentient beings'.
1.22
Next is the explanation of "expounding the Dharma." Expounding the Dharma broadly consists of three modes: either expounding both of the two truths in full, or expounding only the ultimate truth without expounding the conventional truth, or expounding only the conventional truth without expounding the ultimate truth. All three modes are found in the sūtras and treatises. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in commenting on the "Chapter on Rebirth," states: "Question: In the preceding 'Chapter on Conforming Practice,' it was explained that when a bodhisattva conforms to prajñā in practice, they see neither bodhisattva nor prajñā; there is neither bodhisattva nor prajñā. For what reason is it now said again that there are bodhisattvas who depart for rebirth and come to rebirth? Answer: What was explained previously about there being neither bodhisattva nor prajñā was expounding prajñā in terms of the approach of ultimate truth. What is now said about bodhisattvas departing for rebirth is expounding prajñā in terms of the approach of conventional truth." This is expounding prajñā with reference to the two truths. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states: "Good sons, do not enter the profound samādhi of emptiness! Why? Because the great assembly is dull; one must explain it by means of conventional truth." This is also expounding the meaning of hearing the unhearable in nirvāṇa with reference to the two truths. The earlier statement, "Do not enter the profound samādhi of emptiness, because the great assembly is dull," is expounding in terms of the approach of ultimate truth; "one must explain it by means of conventional truth" is expounding in terms of the approach of conventional truth. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Because of desiring to expound the ultimate-meaning siddhānta, [the Buddha] expounded the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra." This is expounding only the ultimate truth. Furthermore, the Great Sūtra [Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra] states: "When discussing conventional truth with Maitreya, five hundred śrāvakas were unaware and uncomprehending." This is expounding only conventional truth. Although these three modes are different, what the Tathāgata expounds does not go beyond the two truths.
1.23
Question: For what reason does the Tathāgata's expounding of the Dharma not go beyond the two truths? It is explained: The two truths are precisely the four siddhāntas: the three siddhāntas are the conventional truth, and the ultimate-meaning siddhānta is the ultimate truth. Since the four siddhāntas subsume the twelvefold scriptures and subsume the eighty-four thousand Dharma stores so that they subsume all phenomena without remainder, the two truths also subsume all phenomena without remainder. This explains the doctrine in terms of exhaustive subsumption. Because the two truths subsume all phenomena exhaustively, the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma in terms of the two truths.
1.24
Question: Since the two truths and the four siddhāntas both subsume all phenomena exhaustively, for what reason do all Buddhas expound the Dharma based on the two truths and not based on the four siddhāntas? It is explained: Generically, both are permissible: since they expound based on the two truths, they also expound based on the four siddhāntas. Specifically, they are not parallel. Why? There is a reason for this: [the Buddha] wishes to make clear that all that the Buddhas speak is real. The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "The Tathāgata is one who speaks the true, one who speaks the real." Therefore, they expound based on the two truths. The designation "four siddhāntas" does not specifically emphasize the real, and therefore they do not expound based on the four siddhāntas.
1.25
Question: If they do not expound the Dharma based on the four siddhāntas, what is the purpose of using the four siddhāntas? It is explained: The two truths are the basis; based on the two truths, they expound the teaching of the four siddhāntas. Here too there are two perspectives, each adopting one meaning to clarify [the matter]: expounding while being real is termed the "four siddhāntas"; being real while expounding is called the "two truths." That is to say, based on the two truths, because skillful means adapt to different conditions, there are four kinds of siddhāntas.
First 25 of 190 passages. Read on