宗鏡錄 67.35

67.35

答。夫一切諦智。皆從無諦而起。無諦者。即絕待真心。非是對有稱無。故云絕待。猶如虛空。非對小空而稱大空。從此無諦。立一實諦。此一實之名。是對三權而名一實。待虛名實。此是對待得名。又從此一實。對機約教。或分開二諦等。此二諦者。約情智而開。如涅槃經云。如出世人之所知者。名第一義諦。世間人知者。為世諦。仁王經云。於解常自一。於諦常自二。所以仁王雖分二諦。智照常一。涅槃本唯一諦。解惑分二。斯則二而不二。不二而二。一二自在。為真二諦。故昔人頌云。二諦並非雙。恒乖未曾各。即其義也。生公云。是非相待故。有真俗名生。梁攝論云。智障甚盲闇。謂真俗別執。然法相務欲分析。法性務在融通。各據一門。勿生偏滯。何者。若但分析而不融通。法成差異。若不分析。事成混濫。又無可融通。則性相歷然而非異。事理融即而非同。非異。非同。圓中妙理。又境則不礙真而恒俗。智則不礙寂而常照。意以心寂對於境真。心照對於境俗。以照對俗。則心境非一。以寂對真。則心境非異。雖雙融空有二境。寂照二心。終不得言。境則不礙真而恒俗。智則不礙照而恒寂。境則不礙俗而恒真。智則不礙寂而常照。中觀論偈云。若人不能知。分別於二諦。則於深佛法。不知真實義。金剛般若不壞假名論云。佛所說法。咸歸二諦。一者俗諦。二者真諦。俗諦者。謂諸凡夫。聲聞獨覺。菩薩如來。乃至名義智境。業果相屬。真諦者。謂即於此。都無所得。如說第一義。非智之所行。何況文字。乃至無業。無業果。是諸聖種性。是故此般若波羅蜜中。說不住布施。一切法無相。不可取。不可說。生法無我。無所得。無能證。無成就。無來無去等。此釋真諦。又說內外世間出世間一切法相。及諸功德。此建立俗諦。又台教約四教。四證。三接。立七種二諦。及五種三諦。如法華玄義云。夫經論異說。悉是如來善權方便。知根知欲。種種不同。略有三異。一謂隨情。二隨情智。三隨智。隨情說者。情性不同。說隨情異。如毘婆沙明。世第一法。有無量種。真際尚爾。況復餘耶。如順盲情。種種示乳。盲聞異說而諍白色。豈即乳耶。眾師不達此意。各執一文。自起見諍。互相是非。信一不信一。浩浩亂哉。莫知孰是。若世三說及能破者。有經文證。皆判是隨情二諦意耶。無文證者。悉是邪見。謂同彼外道。非二諦攝也。隨情智者。情謂二諦。二皆是俗。若悟諦理。乃可為真。真則唯一。如五百比丘各說身因。身因乃多。正理唯一。經云。世人心所見。名為世諦。出世人心所見。名第一義諦。如此說者。即隨情智二諦也。隨智者。聖人悟理。非但見真。亦能了俗。如眼除膜。見色見空。又如入禪者。出觀之時。身虛心豁。似輕雲藹空。已不同散心。何況悟真而不了俗。毘曇云。小雲發障。大雲發障。無漏逾深。世智轉淨。故經偈云。凡人行世間。不知世間相。如來行世間。明了世間相。此是隨智二諦也。若解此三意。將尋經論。雖說種種。於一一諦。皆備三意也。二正明二諦者。取意存略。但點法性為真諦。無明十二因緣為俗諦。於義即足。但人麁淺。不覺其深妙。更須開拓。則論七種二諦。一一二諦。更開三種。合二十一種二諦。若用初番二諦。破一切邪。謂。執著皆盡。如劫火燒。不留遺芥。況鋪後諸諦迴出文外。非復世情圖度。所言七種二諦者。一者實有為俗。實有滅為真。二者幻有為俗。即幻有空為真。三者幻有為俗。即幻有空不空共為真。四者幻有為俗。幻有即空不空。一切法趣空不空為真。五者幻有幻有即空皆名為俗。不有不空為真。六者幻有幻有即空皆名為俗。不有不空。一切法趣不有不空為真。七者幻有幻有即空皆為俗。一切法趣有趣空。趣不有不空為真。實有二諦者。陰入界等。皆是實法。實法所成森羅萬品。故名為俗。方便修道。滅此俗已。乃得會真。大品經云。空色色空。以滅色故。謂為空色。不滅色故。謂為色空。病中無藥。文字中無菩提。皆此意。是為實有二諦相也。約此亦有隨情智等三義。準此可知。幻有空二諦者。斥前意也。何者。實有時無真。滅有時無俗。二諦義不成。若明幻有者。幻有是俗。幻有不可得。即俗而真。大品經云。即色是空。即空是色。空色相即。二諦義成。是名幻有二諦也。約此亦有隨情。情智。智等三義。隨智小當分別。何者。實有隨智。照真。與此不異。隨智照俗不同。何者。通人入觀巧。復局照俗亦巧。如百川會海。其味不別。復局還源。江河則異。俗是事法。照異非疑。真是理法。不可不同。只就通人出假。亦人人不同。可以意得。例三藏。出假。亦應如是。幻有空不空二諦者。俗不異前。真則三種不同。一俗隨三真。即成三種二諦。其相云何。如大品明非漏非無漏。初人謂非漏是非俗。非無漏是遣著。何者。行人緣無漏生著。如緣滅生使。破其心還入無漏。此是一番二諦也。次人聞非漏非無漏。謂非二邊。別顯中理。中理為真。又是一番二諦也。又人聞非有漏非無漏。即知雙非。正顯中道。中道法界。力用廣大。與虛空等。一切法趣非有漏非無漏。又是一番二諦也。大涅槃經云。聲聞之人。但見於空。不見不空。智者見空。及與不空。即是此意。二乘謂著此空。破著空故。故言不空。空著若破。但是見空。不見不空也。利人謂不空是妙有。故言不空。利人聞不空謂是如來藏。一切法趣如來藏。還約空不空。即有三種二諦也。復次一切法趣非漏非無漏顯三種異者。初人聞一切法趣非漏非無漏者。諸法不離空。周行十方界。還是瓶處如。又人聞趣。知此中理。須一切行來趣發之。又一人聞一切趣。即非漏非無漏具一切法也。是故說此一俗。隨三真轉。或對單真。或對複真。或對不思議真。無量形勢。婉轉赴機。出沒利物。一一皆有隨情。情智。智等三義。若隨智證。俗隨智轉。智證偏真。即成通二諦。智證不空真。即成別入通二諦。智證一切趣不空真。即成圓入通二諦。三人入智不同。復局照俗亦異。何故三人同聞二諦。而取解各異者。此是不共般若。與二乘共說。則深淺之殊耳。大品經云。有菩薩初發心。與薩婆若相應。有菩薩初發心。遊戲神通。淨佛國土。有菩薩初發心。即坐道場為如佛。即此意也。幻有無為俗。不有不無為真者。有無二故為俗。中道不有不無不二為真。二乘聞此真俗。俱皆不解。故如啞如聾。大涅槃經云。我與彌勒。共論世諦。五百聲聞。謂說真諦。即此意也。約此亦有隨情。情智。智等三義。圓入別二諦者。俗與別同。真諦則異。別人不空。但理而已。欲顯此理。須緣修方便。故言一切法趣不空。圓人聞不空理。即知具一切佛法。無有缺減。故言一切趣不空也。約此亦有隨情等三義。圓教二諦者。直說不思議二諦也。真即是俗。俗即是真。如如意珠。以珠譬真。用以譬俗。即珠是用。即用是珠。不二而二。分真俗耳。約此亦有隨情。情智等三義。身子偈云。佛以種種緣。譬喻巧言說。其心安如海。我聞疑網斷。即其義焉。

Answer: All truths and cognitions arise from the truthless. The 'truthless' is the absolute, true mind. It is not called 'truthless' in contrast to existence; hence it is called 'absolute' (non-relative)—just as space is not called 'great space' in contrast to 'small space'. From this truthless [ground], the single real truth is established. The name 'single real' is named in contrast to the three provisional [vehicles]; 'real' is named in dependence on the 'false'—this is a designation obtained through relativity. Furthermore, from this single real truth, in adapting to faculties and according to teachings, it is divided into two truths and the like. These two truths are deployed according to delusion and wisdom. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'That which is known by people of the supramundane world is called the ultimate truth; that which is known by people of the mundane world is the conventional truth.' The Benevolent Kings Sūtra says: 'In terms of understanding, it is always naturally one; in terms of truths, it is always naturally two.' Therefore, although the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] divides them into two truths, the illumination of wisdom is always one; the Mahāparinirvāṇa [Sūtra] is fundamentally only one truth, yet understanding and delusion divide it into two. Thus they are two and yet not two, not two and yet two; being freely one or two constitutes the true two truths. Hence an ancient verse says: 'The two truths are by no means a pair; / though ever contrary, they were never separate.' This is precisely the meaning. Master [Daosheng] said: 'Because right and wrong are mutually relative, the names "ultimate" and "conventional" arise.' The She dasheng lun (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) of the Liang says: 'The hindrance of knowledge is utterly dark and blind, referring to separate attachment to the ultimate and conventional.' However, the characteristics of dharmas strive to analyze, while the nature of dharmas strives to merge and integrate. Each bases itself on one gate; do not give rise to biased clinging. Why? If there is only analysis without integration, dharmas become disparate; if there is no analysis, events and matters become confounded and chaotic, and there would be nothing to integrate. Thus nature and characteristics are distinct yet not different; matters and principle merge and identify yet are not identical. Neither different nor identical: this is the wondrous principle of the consummate middle. Moreover, the objective sphere does not obstruct the ultimate while remaining ever conventional; wisdom does not obstruct quiescence while remaining ever illuminating. The intent is that the mind's quiescence corresponds to the ultimate sphere, and the mind's illumination corresponds to the conventional sphere. In contrasting illumination to the conventional, mind and object are not one; in contrasting quiescence to the ultimate, mind and object are not different. Although the two spheres of emptiness and existence and the two minds of quiescence and illumination are mutually integrated, one can never say: the objective sphere does not obstruct the ultimate while remaining ever conventional, wisdom does not obstruct illumination while remaining ever quiescent; the objective sphere does not obstruct the conventional while remaining ever ultimate, and wisdom does not obstruct quiescence while remaining ever illuminating. A verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'If one cannot know / the distinction between the two truths, / then regarding the profound Buddha-Dharma / one does not know the real truth.' The Jin’gang bore buhuai jiaming lun says: 'The dharmas taught by the Buddha all resolve into two truths: first, the conventional truth; second, the ultimate truth. The conventional truth refers to ordinary persons, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and tathāgatas, up to names, meanings, wisdom, objects, and the mutual connection of karma and result. The ultimate truth refers to the fact that right within these, nothing whatsoever is apprehended. As it is said, the ultimate truth is not within the scope of wisdom, much less of words and letters—up to having no karma and no karmic result; this is the lineage of all the noble ones. For this reason, in this Prajñāpāramitā, it is taught not abiding in giving, that all dharmas are devoid of characteristics, cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken, that persons and dharmas are without self, that there is nothing to be attained, no one who realizes, no achievement, no coming, no going, and so forth. This explains the ultimate truth. Furthermore, it expounds all the characteristics of dharmas and all virtues, internal and external, mundane and supramundane. This establishes the conventional truth.' Furthermore, the Tiantai teaching establishes seven kinds of two truths and five kinds of three truths according to the four teachings, four realizations, and three transitions. As the Fahua xuanyi says: 'The disparate explanations in the sūtras and treatises are all the Tathāgata’s skillful expedients, knowing capacities and desires in their varied differences. Broadly there are three differences: first, according to feeling [of beings]; second, according to feeling and wisdom; third, according to wisdom. Teaching according to feeling means that because emotional natures differ, teachings differ according to feelings. As the Vibhāṣā clarifies, there are immeasurable kinds of the mundane supreme dharma. If even the limit of reality is like this, how much more so the rest? It is like presenting milk in various ways to suit the feelings of blind persons; the blind hear different explanations and dispute about the white color—how could that be the milk itself? The various masters, failing to grasp this intention, each cling to a single text, personally giving rise to disputes over views, mutually affirming and denying, believing one and disbelieving another, in a vast confusion, not knowing which is right. If mundane three-fold explanations and those that can refute them have scriptural evidence, they are all judged to be the intent of the two truths according to feeling. Those lacking textual proof are all erroneous views, deemed identical to those of non-Buddhists and not subsumed under the two truths. As for [the two truths] according to feeling and wisdom: feeling considers there to be two truths, both of which are conventional; if one awakens to the principle of truth, only then is it the ultimate. The ultimate is only one. Just as five hundred monks each stated the cause of the body—causes of the body were many, but the correct principle was only one. A sūtra says: "What is seen by the minds of mundane people is called the conventional truth; what is seen by the minds of supramundane people is called the ultimate truth." Such an explanation is the two truths according to feeling and wisdom. As for [the two truths] according to wisdom: when the noble ones awaken to the principle, they not only see the ultimate, but can also discern the conventional. It is like an eye having a film removed: it sees both form and space. It is also like one entering dhyāna: upon emerging from contemplation, the body is empty and the mind open, like light clouds floating in the sky, already unlike a distracted mind; how much less could one awaken to the ultimate without discerning the conventional? The Abhidharma says: "Small clouds generate obstruction; great clouds generate obstruction. The deeper the uncontaminated [wisdom], the purer the mundane wisdom becomes." Thus a sūtra verse says: "Ordinary persons walking in the world / do not know the characteristics of the world; / the Tathāgata walking in the world / clearly understands the characteristics of the world." These are the two truths according to wisdom. If one understands these three intentions, and uses them to investigate the sūtras and treatises, although diverse things are taught, in every single truth all three intentions are fully present. Second, properly clarifying the two truths: capturing the essential meaning and keeping it concise, merely pointing to dharma-nature as the ultimate truth and ignorance with the twelve links of dependent origination as the conventional truth would suffice for the doctrine. But people are crude and shallow, not aware of its profound wonder; it must be further expanded into an exposition of seven kinds of two truths. Each of the two truths is further opened into three kinds, combining to make twenty-one kinds of two truths. If one uses the initial set of two truths to refute all heterodoxies, attachments are entirely exhausted, as when the kalpa fire burns without leaving a single mustard seed behind. How much more so when the subsequent truths are set forth, transcendentally exceeding words, no longer measurable by mundane thoughts! The so-called seven kinds of two truths are: 1. Real existence is the conventional; the cessation of real existence is the ultimate. 2. Illusory existence is the conventional; the emptiness of illusory existence itself is the ultimate. 3. Illusory existence is the conventional; the emptiness and non-emptiness of illusory existence itself together are the ultimate. 4. Illusory existence is the conventional; illusory existence being identical to emptiness and non-emptiness, and all dharmas converging into emptiness and non-emptiness, is the ultimate. 5. Both illusory existence and illusory existence being identical to emptiness are called conventional; neither existence nor emptiness is the ultimate. 6. Both illusory existence and illusory existence being identical to emptiness are called conventional; neither existence nor emptiness, with all dharmas converging into neither existence nor emptiness, is the ultimate. 7. Both illusory existence and illusory existence being identical to emptiness are conventional; all dharmas converging into existence, converging into emptiness, and converging into neither existence nor emptiness, is the ultimate. Regarding the two truths of real existence: the aggregates, sense fields, and elements are all real dharmas. The myriad diversified categories formed by real dharmas are therefore called conventional. Having cultivated the path through expedients and extinguished this conventional, one only then accords with the ultimate. The Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "Empty of form, form is empty." Because form is extinguished, it is called empty form; because form is not extinguished, it is called form emptiness. There is no medicine within illness; there is no bodhi within words—these all convey this meaning. Such is the character of the two truths of real existence. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, wisdom, etc.; one may know by analogy. The two truths of illusory existence and emptiness refute the previous intent. Why? When there is real existence there is no ultimate; when existence is extinguished there is no conventional: the meaning of the two truths cannot be established. If one clarifies illusory existence: illusory existence is conventional; illusory existence is ungraspable, so the conventional itself is the ultimate. The Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "Form is empty; emptiness is form." Emptiness and form being mutually identical, the meaning of the two truths is established. This is called the two truths of illusory existence. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, and wisdom. According to wisdom, a slight distinction should be made. Why? Real existence according to wisdom illuminating the ultimate is not different from this; but according to wisdom illuminating the conventional, it differs. Why? When the practitioner of the Common [Teaching] enters contemplation skillfully, their returning phase to illuminate the conventional is also skillful. Just as the hundred rivers meet in the ocean and their taste is not different, but upon turning back and returning to their sources, the rivers and streams are distinct. The conventional is the dharma of matters: that illumination differs is not in doubt; the ultimate is the dharma of principle: it cannot be different. Just within the practitioner of the Common Teaching emerging to the provisional, each person also differs; one can grasp this conceptually. By analogy with the Piṭaka [Teaching], emerging to the provisional should also be like this. As for the two truths of illusory existence and emptiness/non-emptiness: the conventional does not differ from before, but the ultimate has three different kinds. One conventional following three ultimates constitutes three kinds of two truths. What are their characteristics? As the Pañcaviṃśati clarifies "neither contaminated nor uncontaminated": the first person considers "neither contaminated" to mean not conventional, and "nor uncontaminated" to dispel attachment. Why? The practitioner clings upon encountering the uncontaminated, as when defilements arise upon encountering cessation; by breaking their mind, they return to the uncontaminated. This is one set of two truths. The next person hears "neither contaminated nor uncontaminated" and considers it to mean neither of the two extremes, distinctly revealing the principle of the middle, with the principle of the middle being the ultimate. This is another set of two truths. Yet another person hears "neither contaminated nor uncontaminated" and immediately knows that the negation of both directly reveals the Middle Way; the dharmadhātu of the Middle Way has immense power and function, equal to empty space, and all dharmas converge into neither contaminated nor uncontaminated. This is yet another set of two truths. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Śrāvakas only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness; the wise see emptiness as well as non-emptiness." This is precisely the meaning. The two vehicles are attached to this emptiness; to break the attachment to emptiness, it is said to be "non-empty." If attachment to emptiness is broken, it is only seeing emptiness, not seeing non-emptiness. A person of sharp faculties considers non-emptiness to be wondrous existence, hence it is said to be "non-empty." When a person of sharp faculties hears "non-empty," they consider it to be the tathāgatagarbha, and all dharmas converge into the tathāgatagarbha. Again, in terms of emptiness and non-emptiness, there are three kinds of two truths. Furthermore, regarding all dharmas converging into neither contaminated nor uncontaminated revealing three kinds of differences: the first person hears that all dharmas converge into neither contaminated nor uncontaminated, [meaning] all dharmas do not depart from emptiness, pervading the worlds of the ten directions, being nothing other than the suchness of the place of the jar. Another person hears "converging" and knows that this middle principle requires all practices to approach and activate it. Still another person hears "all converge" and [realizes that] neither contaminated nor uncontaminated possesses all dharmas. Therefore, it is said that this single conventional changes according to the three ultimates: either contrasted with a single ultimate, a dual ultimate, or an inconceivable ultimate. Immeasurable variations adapt subtly to capacities, appearing and disappearing to benefit beings; each and every one has the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, and wisdom. If realized according to wisdom, the conventional shifts according to wisdom. When wisdom realizes the biased ultimate, it becomes the Common two truths. When wisdom realizes the non-empty ultimate, it becomes the Distinct entering the Common two truths. When wisdom realizes the non-empty ultimate into which all converge, it becomes the Consummate entering the Common two truths. The three people's entry into wisdom differs, and their returning phases to illuminate the conventional also differ. Why do the three people, hearing the same two truths, take different understandings? This is the unshared prajñā shared in teaching with the two vehicles, thus having distinctions of depth and shallowness. The Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "There are bodhisattvas who, at initial aspiration, correspond with sarvākārajñatā; there are bodhisattvas who, at initial aspiration, sport with supernormal powers and purify Buddha-lands; there are bodhisattvas who, at initial aspiration, sit on the bodhimaṇḍa and become like Buddhas." This is precisely the meaning. Regarding illusory existence and non-existence being conventional, and neither existence nor non-existence being the ultimate: existence and non-existence being two constitutes the conventional; the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence of the Middle Way is the ultimate. The two vehicles, hearing of this ultimate and conventional, understand neither, hence they are as if dumb and deaf. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "I discussed the conventional truth with Maitreya, and five hundred śrāvakas thought we were speaking of the ultimate truth." This is precisely the meaning. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, and wisdom. In the two truths of the Consummate entering the Distinct: the conventional is the same as in the Distinct [Teaching], while the ultimate truth differs. For the person of the Distinct [Teaching], non-emptiness is merely the principle and nothing more; to reveal this principle, one must rely on cultivating expedients, hence it is said that all dharmas converge into the non-empty. When the person of the Consummate [Teaching] hears the principle of non-emptiness, they immediately know that it inherently possesses all Buddha-dharmas without deficiency; hence it is said that all converge into the non-empty. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, etc. As for the two truths of the Consummate Teaching: it directly expounds the inconceivable two truths. The ultimate is the conventional; the conventional is the ultimate. It is like the cintāmaṇi jewel: using the jewel to illustrate the ultimate, and its function to illustrate the conventional. The jewel itself is the function; the function itself is the jewel. Not two yet two: this merely differentiates the ultimate and conventional. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, etc. Śāriputra's verse says: "The Buddha, through various causes, / metaphors, and skillful words, / has a mind as calm as the ocean; / hearing him, the net of my doubts was cut." This is precisely its meaning.