大乘法苑義林章 2.47

2.47

問答分別者，問曰：雖說二諦四種不同，此中何者名為安立？何者名非安立？答：《顯揚論》說「四種俗諦皆是安立」。《瑜伽論》說「第四勝義是非安立」，故前三真亦是安立，體即是俗，後三諦故。問：若是安立諦，已立為諦，何故復說非安立諦？答：《瑜伽論》中六十四云「唯說安立，離非安立，二種解脫不應理故。一者於相縛、二於麁重縛。若有行於諸安立諦，行皆有相，於諸相縛不得解脫。相不脫故，於麁重縛亦不解脫。若有行於非安立諦，不行於相，不行相故相縛解脫，相縛脫故於麁重縛亦得解脫。」問：若非安立已立為諦，何須復說安立諦耶？答：六十四說「為令資糧及方便道得清淨故，有所厭捨、有所修習、有所進趣、有所了知，故立安立。」問：若行有相，二縛解脫有何過失？答：六十四說「有極善定心，依第四靜慮，於順決擇分善法中轉。緣諸諦時，於二種縛應得解脫究竟清淨。以有相心，相縛猶在。若能治心許有相者，與所治心竟有何別？又世出世道二種有殊，故行有相不得解脫，要依無相非安立諦。」由此證知，無分別智定無相分而能斷惑。問：但立一俗一真即得，何須立四？答：此諦但應攝行歸真總立一諦。《勝鬘經》說「一實諦是，唯如來藏，是為一實，餘有起盡。或是所取非一實故。」若以事理安立非安立而論，但應立二。六十四說「一真法界名為勝義，餘名世俗。」《仁王經》中說二亦爾。若隨人法有勝有劣，應各立二。《涅槃經》中隨人隨法亦說二諦，或俗及真皆有二諦。若以空及事、理、義、得、行殊，《顯揚論》等二諦之中皆有三種。若以諸法有無、事理、淺深、詮旨義各別故，二諦之中各說四重。又《瑜伽》釋言「世俗勝義皆有世間所成、道理所成、證得所成、真理所成。由是世俗及勝義諦各分四種。於劣法中，世間所成等立四世俗；於勝法中，世間所成等立四勝義。」故非增減。問：此二諦為同為異？答：亦同亦異。《仁王經》云「世諦之中無第一義，智不應二。若言有者，智不應一。」《涅槃經》言「世諦者即第一義。有別方便，隨順眾生說有二諦。」故不可說定同定異。第一世俗有名無體，俗中極劣無可過勝，假名安立唯俗非真，是名為異。第四勝義體妙離言不可施設，真中極勝，超過一切，唯真非俗，是名為異。餘可為同。由此二諦四句分別：有俗非真，謂第一俗。有真非俗，謂第四真。有真亦俗，謂前三真、俗後三諦。有非真俗，謂除前相。第四勝義不能自勝，待於四俗故名勝義，故前三真亦名為俗。第一世俗不能自俗，待於四真名為世俗，故後三俗亦名為真。第一勝義待一俗名勝，第二勝義待二俗名勝，第三勝義待三俗名勝，第四勝義待四俗名勝。第一世俗待四真名俗，第二世俗待三真名俗，第三世俗待二真名俗，第四世俗待一真名俗。故若有俗時亦必有真，若有真時亦必有俗。俗是真家俗，真是俗家真。有俗亦有真，無真亦無俗，故非遣依他而證圓成實。非無俗諦可得有真，真俗相依而建立故。如是所說四種二諦，經論雖有、諸德雖傳，然諸後學未能疎演。基隨翻譯之次，略纂所聞，其間委細後更諮審。所以編集以為一章，庶後學徒詳而易矣。可謂義高千葉、理光萬代，讚詠吟諷何以暢其歡情。所恨徒響伯牙之琴，虛盡卞和之璧耳。

Regarding the analysis through questions and answers, the question asks: Although it is said that the two truths each have four different types, which among these is termed "constructed" (saṃskṛta/pratyupasthāpya) and which is termed "unconstructed"? The answer states: The Xianyang shengjiao lun says, "All four conventional truths are constructed." The Yogācārabhūmi says, "The fourth paramārtha is unconstructed." Therefore, the preceding three ultimate [truths] are also constructed; their substance is identical with the conventional, being the latter three truths. Question: If the constructed truth has already been established as a truth, why then speak of the unconstructed truth? Answer: The Yogācārabhūmi, in fascicle sixty-four, says, "If one were only to speak of the constructed and omit the unconstructed, two kinds of liberation would not be logically admissible. The first is liberation from bondage to signs (nimitta-bandhana); the second is liberation from bondage to coarse heaviness (dauṣṭhulya-bandhana). If someone practices the constructed truths, their practice will entirely involve signs, and they will not attain liberation from the bondage to signs. Because they are not liberated from signs, they are also not liberated from the bondage to coarse heaviness. If someone practices the unconstructed truth, they do not practice with respect to signs; because they do not practice with respect to signs, they are liberated from the bondage to signs; and because they are liberated from the bondage to signs, they also attain liberation from the bondage to coarse heaviness." Question: If the unconstructed has already been established as a truth, what need is there to speak of the constructed truth? Answer: Fascicle sixty-four says, "It is in order to purify the path of provisions and the path of skillful means, so that there is something to revile and abandon, something to cultivate, something to advance toward, and something to fully understand, that the constructed is established." Question: If practicing with signs were to liberate from the two bondages, what fault would there be? Answer: Fascicle sixty-four says, "There may be an extremely well-concentrated mind that, relying on the fourth dhyāna, operates within the wholesome dharmas conforming to the aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya). When taking the truths as its object, it ought to attain liberation and ultimate purity from both kinds of bondage. Yet because of having a mind with signs, the bondage to signs still remains. If the antidotal mind is admitted to possess signs, what ultimate difference would there be between it and the mind that is the counteracted object? Furthermore, mundane and supramundane paths are two distinct things; therefore, practicing with signs cannot yield liberation, and one must rely upon the signless, unconstructed truth." From this it is proven and known that non-conceptual wisdom is definitely free of the objective aspect (nimittabhāga) and yet is able to sever afflictions. Question: Merely establishing one conventional and one ultimate truth would suffice; what need is there to establish four? Answer: As for this truth, one could simply subsume all practices into the ultimate and establish just one truth overall. The Śrīmālā-sūtra says, "The one real truth is this: only the tathāgatagarbha is the one reality; others have arising and ceasing, or they are what is grasped, and thus are not the one reality." If one discusses it in terms of phenomena and principle, constructed and unconstructed, only two should be established. Fascicle sixty-four says, "The one true dharmadhātu is called paramārtha; the rest are called conventional." The Renwang jing also speaks of two in this manner. If [classified] according to persons and dharmas being superior or inferior, two should be established for each. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra also speaks of two truths according to persons and according to dharmas; alternatively, both the conventional and the ultimate have two truths each. If [classified] according to emptiness and the distinctions among phenomenon, principle, meaning, attainment, and practice, there are three types within each of the two truths in texts such as the Xianyang shengjiao lun. If [classified] according to the distinctions of the existence and nonexistence of dharmas, phenomena and principle, shallowness and depth, and the expressed and the intended meaning, four tiers are spoken of within each of the two truths. Furthermore, the commentary on the Yogācārabhūmi says, "Conventional and paramārtha both have what is established by worldly consensus, established by reason, established by realization, and established by the true principle. Therefore, the conventional and paramārtha truths are each divided into four kinds. Among inferior dharmas, what is established by worldly consensus and so forth establish the four conventional [truths]; among superior dharmas, what is established by worldly consensus and so forth establish the four ultimate [truths]." Therefore, there is neither addition nor subtraction. Question: Are these two truths identical or different? Answer: They are both identical and different. The Renwang jing says, "Within conventional truth there is no ultimate meaning; cognition should not be two. If one says it exists, cognition should not be one." The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says, "Conventional truth is none other than the ultimate meaning. There are different skillful means: in accordance with sentient beings, two truths are spoken of." Therefore, they cannot definitely be said to be identical or definitely different. The first conventional [truth] has name but no substance; it is the most inferior within the conventional, with nothing surpassable, being a constructed nominal designation, solely conventional and not ultimate—this is termed "different." The substance of the fourth paramārtha is subtle and transcends words, incapable of being established [by description]; it is the most superior within the ultimate, transcending all, solely ultimate and not conventional—this is termed "different." The remaining can be regarded as identical. Accordingly, there is a fourfold proposition regarding the two truths: there is what is conventional and not ultimate, which refers to the first conventional [truth]; there is what is ultimate and not conventional, which refers to the fourth ultimate [truth]; there is what is both ultimate and conventional, which refers to the first three ultimate [truths] and the latter three conventional truths; there is what is neither ultimate nor conventional, which refers to what excludes the preceding characteristics. The fourth paramārtha cannot be superior on its own; it is called paramārtha in relation to the four conventional [truths], and therefore the first three ultimate [truths] are also called conventional. The first conventional cannot be conventional on its own; it is called conventional in relation to the four ultimate [truths], and therefore the latter three conventional [truths] are also called ultimate. The first paramārtha is called superior in relation to one conventional [truth]; the second paramārtha is called superior in relation to two conventional [truths]; the third paramārtha is called superior in relation to three conventional [truths]; the fourth paramārtha is called superior in relation to four conventional [truths]. The first conventional is called conventional in relation to four ultimate [truths]; the second conventional is called conventional in relation to three ultimate [truths]; the third conventional is called conventional in relation to two ultimate [truths]; the fourth conventional is called conventional in relation to one ultimate [truth]. Therefore, whenever there is the conventional, there must also be the ultimate; whenever there is the ultimate, there must also be the conventional. The conventional is the conventional of the ultimate; the ultimate is the ultimate of the conventional. If there is the conventional, there is also the ultimate; if there is no ultimate, there is also no conventional. Thus, one does not eliminate the dependent nature (paratantra) to realize the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna). It is not the case that without the conventional truth, the ultimate can exist, for the ultimate and conventional are established in mutual dependence. As for the four types of two truths thus explained: although they exist in the sūtras and treatises and have been transmitted by the virtuous of the past, later students have not yet been able to explicate them thoroughly. Kuiji, following the course of the translation work, has briefly compiled what he heard; the details therein will be further investigated later. That is why they are collected to form a single essay, so that future students may find it clear and easy. It can indeed be called meaning elevated over a thousand leaves and principle illuminating myriad generations; how could praise, chanting, and recitation fully express its joyous feeling? The only regret is that Bo Ya's zither was played in vain, and Bian He's jade was presented for nothing.