二諦義 1.18

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.