[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [二諦義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt) › 2.7 # 二諦義 2.7 English (machine translation) 2.7 - **Language:** English ### [2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2.7) Question: By what cause do the two truths from the perspective of delusion and cognition come to exist? Explanation: One perspective has only one \[truth\]; one perspective has two. As for the one perspective having only one: ordinary persons are inverted, taking conditioned phenomena such as jars and robes to be existent. These things such as jars and robes are constantly existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, whether a Buddha is present or no Buddha is present. Just as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Whether a Buddha is present or no Buddha is present, the nature and characteristics of the twelve links of dependent origination are eternally present.' Yet in the Hīnayāna, there are two masters who interpret this: the Vibhajyavādin says that it is an unconditioned, eternally present dharma; the Sarvāstivādin refutes this, saying that being constantly conditioned is eternal. Just like fire, which is constantly hot whether a Buddha is present or no Buddha is present—one cannot say that fire is hot when a Buddha is present and not hot when no Buddha is present; being constantly hot whether a Buddha is present or not is \[its\] eternity; the twelve links of dependent origination are also like this. Now it is explained that conventional truth is also like this: conditioned phenomena are constantly existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, constantly having conventional truth. As for one perspective having two meanings: this refers to the worthy and holy ones truly knowing that conditioned phenomena are empty, which constitutes the ultimate. Speaking of two meanings is explained in terms of the two senses of the fundamental and the trace. In the sense of the fundamental and the trace, it exists because the Buddhas appear in the world. When the Buddhas appear in the world, they know that the aforementioned inverted conditioned phenomena are empty of nature. In the sense of the trace and the fundamental, the dharmakāya of the Buddhas fundamentally knows that inversion is empty of nature. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: 'With the Buddha-eye I observe and see sentient beings in the six destinies'—this means that on the ground of the dharmakāya, it fundamentally knows that inversion is empty of nature. Briefly investigating the names of the two truths, their fundamental and grand purport is like this. However, regarding the meaning, one must grasp its root and understand its grand purport; if one does not grasp the purport, the meaning is of no use. Just as the preface to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states that people of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna did not understand the Buddha's purport in speaking of emptiness and existence, and so fell into error. Earlier, the preface says of the Hīnayāna: 'Those of dull faculties in the semblance dharma age seek determined characteristics in the twelve links of dependent origination, the aggregates, sense fields, and realms, not understanding the Buddha's purport and merely clinging to the written words.' Next, the preface says of the Mahāyāna: 'Hearing the teaching of ultimate emptiness, they do not understand by what causes and conditions it is empty.' For the sake of this meaning, Nāgārjuna appeared in the world and composed the treatise, elucidating the Buddha's intended meaning in the teaching. Since there is a clear model, we now begin to study it. Next question: Since there are the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching, with what intention did the Buddha speak of the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching? Explanation: The reason why the Tathāgata spoke of the two truths from perspective is because he wished to make sentient beings turn at one stage and turn at two stages, speaking of perspective to make them awaken to neither perspective nor non-perspective. Why? In the midst of that which is without names and characteristics, names and characteristics are forcibly spoken; speaking names where there are no names makes them awaken to names being without names, and also neither perspective nor non-perspective. Speaking of perspective for the sake of sentient beings is to make them awaken to perspective being neither perspective nor non-perspective. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Knowing that existence is not existent, the original nature is pure.' It also says: 'Wishing to make sentient beings deeply recognize the ultimate truth, he speaks conventional truth.' It also says: 'Thoroughly penetrating that all existent and non-existent phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent.' It is for this reason that he spoke of perspective, to make them awaken to neither perspective nor non-perspective. What is meant by 'turning at one stage and turning at two stages'? Turning at one stage means: speaking of existence being true from the perspective of ordinary persons, and speaking of emptiness being true from the perspective of holy ones. Making this kind of statement makes sentient beings turn away from existence and enter into emptiness. Why? Existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons; this existence is truly non-existent. Proclaiming that existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons makes them know that this existence is non-existent. This is precisely for ordinary persons: ordinary persons think that conditioned phenomena are truly existent, so now it is spoken that this existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons. If one knows that existence is existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, one immediately knows that this existence is non-existent; this, then, is awakening to non-existence by means of existence. The sūtra says: 'Knowing that existence is not existent.' The sūtra also says: 'Wishing to make sentient beings deeply recognize the ultimate truth, he speaks conventional truth.' The treatise also says: 'If one does not rely on the conventional, one cannot attain the ultimate.' Turning at two stages means: speaking of existence being real from the perspective of ordinary persons; in contrast to existence being real from the perspective of ordinary persons, speaking of emptiness being real from the perspective of holy ones—these are called the two truths from perspective. Since it is spoken that emptiness and existence are two from the perspective of conditions, one immediately knows that from the perspective of the two, they are non-dual; speaking of them from the perspective of the two reveals non-duality. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Thoroughly penetrating that all existent and non-existent phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent.' If properly explained: regarding the two from perspective, it clarifies that they are not two, not that there is a 'non-two'. If one says that perspective of the two is to reveal non-duality, this statement is mediocre and dull. If one has sharp understanding, regarding the two from perspective, it clarifies that they are not two, and it is not meant that there is a 'non-two'; one should also uplift it and must not suppress it. Uplifting it brings about dual detachment. Why? Being from the perspective of the two is not being two, which departs from the two; not meaning that there is a 'non-two' does not cling to non-duality. This is awakening to neither two nor non-two, neither one-sided nor non-one-sided, the pure and correct path. However, when spoken in this way, the truth from perspective is precisely the truth as teaching. Where else could there separately be a truth as teaching? Merely designating the truth from perspective in this way is precisely the truth as teaching; this is precisely preaching the Dharma by relying on the two truths. People hitherto have heard their masters speak of the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching and interpreted them as two truths, merely reciting words like a parrot's beak or a kite's feet. Now it is clarified that, as explained above, there is no separate truth as teaching; speaking of perspective is itself the teaching. - [Previous: 2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2.6) - [Next: 2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2.8) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2) ## Linked texts (1) - [二諦義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854.2.7) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1854~en-mt.2.7) · Pramāṇa