二諦義 2.9

2.9

Another question: For what reason are the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching spoken of? Explanation: There are two reasons. First, to interpret the sūtras and read the treatises, for both sūtras and treatises have these words. Second, to respond to others. Others explain that the two truths are natural objects, that there are these two principles. Now, the two truths being called objects and also called principles means: matching the two truths gives rise to two cognitions, so they are called objects; and in principle there are two truths, so they are called principles. In principle there are these two principles; in principle there are these two objects. Now, responding to them, we clarify that these are the two principles from perspective, and these are the two objects from perspective; it is not that in principle there are these principles and there are these objects. If so, at present there are two objects and two principles. The two objects are: first, the object from perspective; second, the object as teaching. The two principles are: first, the principle from perspective; second, the principle as teaching. For this reason, the truth from perspective and the truth as teaching are clarified. However, when the Tathāgata directly speaks of the two truths from perspective, there are generally three propositions: namely, correct, erroneous, and both correct and erroneous. If it is directly stated in this way, how is understanding attained? Now when the Buddha directly speaks of the two truths from perspective, how is it understood? Answer: Now it is clarified that the Buddha's exposition of the truth from perspective has three propositions: first, both correct; second, both erroneous; third, both correct and erroneous. As for 'both correct and erroneous': this refers to the previous two truths from perspective; conditioned phenomena are existent from the perspective of ordinary persons, and this existence is erroneous; the worthy and holy ones truly know that conditioned phenomena are empty, and this emptiness is correct. Showing their emptiness and existence makes them recognize correctness and error, makes them abandon existence to study emptiness, and transform from ordinary persons into holy ones. As for 'both erroneous': both are perspectives, therefore both are erroneous. Being existent from the perspective of ordinary persons: existence is already erroneous; being empty from the perspective of holy ones: emptiness is also erroneous. Why? Conditioned phenomena have never been empty or existent; from the perspective of ordinary persons they are thought to be existent, and from the perspective of holy ones they are thought to be empty. Just as a single form has never been empty or existent: a person of existent views thinks form is existent, while a person of emptiness contemplation thinks form is empty. A single form becomes empty or existent from the perspective of the two conditions of emptiness and existence; therefore, this emptiness and existence are both erroneous. As for 'both correct': merely knowing the two from perspective, one immediately knows non-duality; below this, all five propositions are pure. Being two from the perspective of conditions—how could it be two?