二諦義 3.15

3.15

Question: Now you clarify that the Middle Way is the substance of the two truths: what is the reason for this? What sūtras does it explain? What treatises does it interpret? What disease does it counter? The explanation is: as for the reason why the Middle Way is clarified as the substance of the two truths, it is that the two truths express the principle of non-duality. Just like a finger pointing at the moon, the intention does not lie in the finger, but intends to make one apprehend the moon. The teaching of the two truths is also like this: the two truths express non-duality; the intention does not lie in duality, but is to make one attain non-duality; therefore non-duality is taken as the substance of the two truths. Furthermore, now we clarify that the two truths are an approach through teaching, meant to lead through to non-duality. Hence the Master of the Mountains said: 'Opening the gates of ultimate and conventional, he preached the teaching of the two truths.' Thus the two truths are an approach through teaching. The approach through teaching is meant to lead through to the principle of non-duality; therefore non-duality of the Middle Way is taken as the substance. This clarifies that truth as teaching takes non-duality as its substance in this manner. Next, to distinguish how truth from perspective takes non-duality as its substance: the Way has no duality, but is dual from the perspective of the two conditions. Once one knows that it is dual [only] from [these] perspectives, this reveals non-duality; therefore non-duality is the substance. Thus, both truth from perspective and truth as teaching have a purpose; hence non-duality of the Middle Way is taken as the substance. Moreover, the reason why the Middle Way is the substance of the two truths is precisely to counter the deeply buried root of the two views from of old. Why? As distinguished above, divided specifically there are five schools, but discussed generally there are only three explanations: the first says the ultimate is the substance; the second says the conventional is the substance; the third says the ultimate and conventional each have their own substance. Although there are three explanations, ultimately they do not transcend the two truths. If ultimate truth is the substance, then in terms of principle there is this non-existence as the substance; if conventional truth is the substance, then in terms of principle there is this existence as the substance. If the two truths have different substances, then existence is the conventional substance and emptiness is the ultimate substance; in terms of principle there is duality, which means sentient beings of the two views. Now, in order to counter this, we clarify that the non-dual Middle Way is the substance. Countering this disease is precisely explaining the sūtras and treatises. Thus the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Those of shallow wisdom see phenomena / as having characteristics of existence or non-existence; / they are unable to see / the pacifying, secure Dharma where views are extinguished.' Now, when each of you sees existence and sees non-existence, this is precisely shallow wisdom; you cannot see the secure Dharma. The secure Dharma is precisely the non-dual Way. The secure Dharma is neither existence nor non-existence; because you see existence and non-existence, you do not see it. Furthermore, the Buddhas have only one Way. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Mañjuśrī's Dharma is always thus: / the Dharma King has only a single Dharma; / all persons of fearlessness / transcend birth and death by a single Way.' Since there is only one Way, there are not two ways; since there is only one principle, there are not two principles. Furthermore, if the two truths had two principles, this would constitute appropriation. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Views with appropriation are called dual views. What are dual views? Namely, regarding eye and form as two, and so forth for everything.' It also says: 'All those that are dual are without the Way and without the fruit.' Since sentient beings fundamentally have the disease of the two views, if the Buddhas were further to teach that in terms of principle there is duality, this would fail to remove the old disease and would instead increase new delusion. For this reason, the Buddhas accord with sentient beings and say that there are two truths, but in terms of principle there is no duality. Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'There are no two truths; through skillful means, according with sentient beings, he spoke of two truths.' Furthermore, when three truths are spoken of, how are they to be understood? The Renwang jing clarifies the doctrine of three truths; [others] then misinterpret sūtras such as this, and these are all points where they encounter obstacles. Now we clarify that there is no obstruction: at times they are taken as three truths—the truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the ultimate truth of the Middle Way; at times 'neither ultimate nor conventional' is principle, and the ultimate and conventional are teaching. When principle and teaching are discussed together, there are therefore three truths.