二諦義 2.92

2.92

Question: Why does this sūtra clarify these ten kinds of two truths? Explanation: It clarifies these ten kinds of two truths in order to answer the objection. Mañjuśrī and the great assembly doubted that there were two truths, directly raising the objection that there are no two truths; therefore the Tathāgata unfolded ten kinds of two truths in response. This, then, clarifies the two truths in order to resolve the objection that there are no two truths: speaking of two is done to refute non-duality; once the two are eliminated, non-duality is also not retained. Therefore the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Refuting the one without clinging to the two.' Furthermore, speaking of two expresses non-duality. Now, by relying on the two, one awakens to non-duality: the two are non-existent, and non-duality is non-existent. However, among these ten kinds, setting aside the first kind, there are nine kinds of two truths within the reply to the objection. Previously it clarified the two truths as teaching, and next it clarified the two truths as perspective; here it directly clarifies the meaning of the two truths. From self and no-self onwards, within conventional truth itself there are differences in depth, extensively treating the meaning of the two truths across phenomena. However, regarding these seven kinds of two truths, one must determine their breadth and narrowness and discern their depth one by one. For instance, the two truths of self and no-self are clarified only in terms of persons and not distinguished in terms of phenomena; this meaning is narrow. Having both name and reality and having a name without reality determine the two truths by insubstantiality and reality; this meaning is broad, and its meaning can be known. They must be explained one by one.