二諦義 3.5

3.5

Question: Since the sūtras are not uniform, how can you arbitrarily treat them as uniform? Answer: The reason they are not uniform is now explained. The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] specifically explains the meaning of truth (satya): it clarifies that only the ultimate is real, and therefore only the ultimate is a truth; the conventional is false and unreal, and therefore the conventional is not a truth. For this reason, it only explains that conventional truth is identical with the ultimate, and one cannot say that the ultimate is identical with the conventional. But the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā does not aim to explain the meaning of truth; it straightforwardly clarifies that emptiness is identical with form and form is identical with emptiness, using both equally. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa also uses only one side: one can only say that the nature of form is inherently empty and that it is not that emptiness arises from the destruction of form; one cannot say that the nature of emptiness is inherently form and that form arises from the destruction of emptiness. Broadly speaking, both would hold. Yet the reason it now only says that the nature of form is inherently empty and that it is not that emptiness arises from the destruction of form is precisely to counter the doctrines of the people of the two vehicles who have appropriation. People of the Hīnayāna analyze form to seek emptiness; in response to this, it clarifies that the nature of form is inherently empty, and that it is not that one extinguishes this form and only then is there emptiness. This initiates the two contemplations and distinguishes the two emptinesses: it clarifies the contemplation of emptiness by analyzing form among Hīnayāna people, and the contemplation of emptiness as identical with form among Mahāyāna people; it clarifies emptiness by analyzing form for Hīnayāna people, and the original emptiness of the nature of form for Mahāyāna people. It is for this reason that it only clarifies that the nature of form is inherently empty and not that emptiness arises from the destruction of form. Although there are passages from these three sūtras, the various masters mostly rely on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā to explain that form is identical with emptiness and emptiness is identical with form. However, this meaning is difficult to comprehend. Dharma Master Daren said: "For thirty years I pondered this meaning and did not understand it; upon meeting the Dharma Master in the mountains, I attained awakening." Once this master was awakened, he began to believe in the Three Treatises and so forth. In the tradition of interpreting the meaning of mutual identity, there have been three great Dharma masters. Guangzhai offered no distinct interpretation; for this master, his [work on the] Lotus Sūtra flourished widely, while his [tradition of the] Tattvasiddhi-śāstra came completely to an end. Now we set forth the interpretations of the mutual identity of the two truths by the three masters Zhuangyan, Kaishan, and Longguang. Zhuangyan said: "Causal provisionality cannot be differentiated from emptiness, and therefore the conventional is identical with the ultimate; the fourfold transcendence cannot be differentiated from existence, and therefore the ultimate is identical with the conventional. Although the conventional is identical with the ultimate, name and characteristics can never be made into the absence of name and characteristics; although the ultimate is identical with the conventional, the absence of name and characteristics can never be made into name and characteristics. Therefore, the non-difference of the two truths constitutes mutual identity." Next, Kaishan explained: "The provisional has no self-nature; arising, it is yet not existent, and therefore the conventional is identical with the ultimate; the ultimate has no nature that could be provisional, and therefore the ultimate is identical with the conventional. The conventional being identical with the ultimate, apart from non-existence there is no existence; the ultimate being identical with the conventional, apart from existence there is no non-existence. Therefore, non-dual yet dual, the middle way is the two truths; dual yet non-dual, the two truths are the middle way."