二諦義 3.9

3.9

Next, we further differentiate the meaning of the mutual identity of the two truths. Other schools clarify that the two truths are two principles and two objects; on what basis does our present teaching clarify the two truths? The explanation states: We now clarify that there are two kinds of two truths: first, the two truths from perspective; second, the two truths as teaching. The principle has never been dual or non-dual; because of the two perspectives, there are two truths, and also in accord with sentient beings it is taught that there are two truths. Since there are two truths from [the perspective of] sentient beings and there are two truths in accord with sentient beings, in principle there are truly no two truths. Since there are no two truths, what identity or non-identity could be discussed? For the purpose of teaching and transforming sentient beings there are two truths, and also for the purpose of teaching and transforming sentient beings there is identity and non-identity. Such is the general judgment. In specific explanation, there is the meaning of identity in the truth from perspective, and there is also the meaning of identity in the truth as teaching. As for identity in the truth from perspective, the treatise says: "As for conventional truth, all phenomena are empty of nature; the world in its inversion deems them to exist, which is real from the perspective of worldly people. The worthy ones and sages truly know that all phenomena are empty of nature, which is real from the perspective of the sages." Opening the two truths at the very outset clarifies that only the ultimate is real and is a truth, while the conventional is false, inverted, unreal, and not a truth; this is precisely to cause sentient beings to transform from ordinary to sage, to abandon existence and enter emptiness, attaining one level of awakening. Next, having abandoned existence and entered emptiness, knowing that existence is inverted and emptiness is true and real, one then thinks of abandoning existence and entering emptiness, of breaking down form to enter emptiness; therefore, for their sake it is taught that form's original nature is itself empty, not that it becomes empty only after being broken down and dismantled. This is the second level of clarifying that form is itself empty within the truth from perspective. At the outset, form and emptiness were opened as two to cause them to abandon form and enter emptiness; then they said that form is different from emptiness and that one breaks down form to enter emptiness; therefore, for their sake it was taught that form is itself empty, that form's nature is naturally empty, not empty by breaking down form. Hence the treatise says: "The worthy ones and sages truly know that inversion is empty of nature"—it is simply that the nature of inversion is originally empty.