二諦義 1.21

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'.