二諦義 1.12

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.