宗鏡錄 67.43

67.43

答。不得中道。故稱隨情。諸佛如來。不空說法。雖非中道。第一義悉檀。不失三悉檀益。大概判之。皆屬隨情為麁耳。次明三諦者。妙却前兩種二諦。以不明中道故。就五種二諦得論中道。即有五種三諦。約別入通。點非有漏。非無漏。二諦義成。有漏是俗。無漏是真。非有漏非無漏是中。當教論中。但異空而已。中無功用。不備諸法。圓入通三諦者。二諦不異前。點非漏非無漏。具一切法。與前中異也。別三諦者。彼俗為兩諦。對真為中。中理而已。圓入別三諦者。二諦不異前。點真中道。具足佛法也。圓三諦者。非但中道具足佛法。真俗亦然。三諦圓融。一三三一。判麁妙者。別圓入通。帶通方便故為麁。別不帶通為妙。圓入別。帶別方便為麁。圓不帶方便最妙。約五味教者。乳教說三種三諦。二麁一妙。酪教但麁為妙。生酥熟酥。皆是五種三諦。四麁一妙。此經唯一種三諦。即相待妙也。開麁顯妙者。決前諸麁入一妙。三諦無所可待。是為絕待妙也。又明一諦者。大涅槃經云。所言二諦。其實是一。方便說二如醉末吐。見日月轉。謂有轉日。及不轉日。醒人但見不轉。不見於轉。轉二為麁。不轉為妙。三藏全是轉二。同彼醉人。諸大乘經。帶轉二說不轉一。今經正直捨方便。但說無上道。不轉一實。是故為妙。諸諦不可說者。諸法從本來。常自寂滅相。那得諸諦。紛紜相礙。一諦尚無。諸諦安有。一一皆不可說。可說為麁。不可說為妙。不可說亦不可說。是妙亦妙。言語道斷故。若通作不可說者。生生不可說。乃至不生不生不可說。前不可說為麁。不生不生不可說為妙。若麁異妙。相待不融。麁妙不二。即絕待妙也。

Answer: Because they do not attain the Middle Way, they are called 'according with sentiments.' The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, do not preach the Dharma in vain; although it is not the Middle Way, as the supreme-truth siddhānta it does not forfeit the benefits of the other three siddhāntas. Broadly judging them, they all belong to according with sentiments and are merely coarse. Next, clarifying the three truths: They set aside the former two kinds of two truths because they do not clarify the Middle Way. With reference to the [remaining] five kinds of two truths, the Middle Way can be discussed, and so there are five kinds of three truths. In terms of the Separate accessing the Shared, identifying the non-contaminated and non-uncontaminated, the meaning of the two truths is perfected: the contaminated is the conventional, the uncontaminated is the ultimate, and the non-contaminated and non-uncontaminated is the Middle. In discussing it according to that teaching, it is merely different from emptiness and nothing more; the Middle has no efficacy and is not endowed with all dharmas. As for the three truths of the Perfect accessing the Shared, the two truths are not different from the former, but identifying the non-contaminated and non-uncontaminated, it is endowed with all dharmas, which differs from the Middle of the former. As for the Separate three truths, their conventional constitutes the two truths, and set against the ultimate, it is the Middle; it is merely the principle of the Middle. As for the three truths of the Perfect accessing the Separate, the two truths are not different from the former, but pointing to the ultimate Middle Way, it is fully endowed with the Buddha-Dharma. As for the Perfect three truths, not only is the Middle Way fully endowed with the Buddha-Dharma, but the ultimate and conventional are also like this; the three truths are completely interfused, one being three and three being one. Judging the coarse and subtle: The Separate and the Perfect accessing the Shared are coarse because they entail the expedients of the Shared; the Separate is subtle because it does not entail the Shared. The Perfect accessing the Separate is coarse because it entails the expedients of the Separate; the Perfect is most subtle because it entails no expedients. In terms of the teachings of the five flavors: The milk teaching speaks three kinds of three truths, two coarse and one subtle. The curd teaching is merely coarse [regarded as] subtle. Raw butter and clarified butter are both five kinds of three truths, four coarse and one subtle. The present sūtra has only one kind of three truths, which is relative subtlety. Opening the coarse to reveal the subtle resolves all the former coarseness into the single subtlety; the three truths have nothing to be relative to, and this is absolute subtlety. Furthermore, clarifying the single truth: The Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'What are called the two truths are in truth one; they are spoken of as two by way of expedient means. It is like an intoxicated person who has not yet vomited, seeing the sun and moon rotating, and thinking that there is a rotating sun and a non-rotating sun. A sober person sees only that which does not rotate, and does not see rotating.' Rotating as two is coarse; not rotating is subtle. The Tripiṭaka entirely consists of rotating as two, identical to that intoxicated person. The various Mahāyāna sūtras entail the rotating two while speaking of the non-rotating one. The present sūtra straightforwardly abandons expedients and speaks only of the unsurpassed Path, the non-rotating single reality; therefore it is subtle. As for the truths being ineffable: 'All dharmas from their origin are constantly of the characteristic of quietude and cessation.' How could there be various truths tumbling over each other in mutual obstruction? When even a single truth does not exist, how could various truths be present? Each and every one is ineffable. The expressible is coarse; the ineffable is subtle. What is ineffable and also ineffable is both subtle and subtle, because the path of words is cut off. If one generally takes them as ineffable: arising arising is ineffable, up to non-arising non-arising is ineffable. The former ineffables are coarse; non-arising non-arising being ineffable is subtle. If coarse is different from subtle, they stand in mutual opposition and are not interfused; when coarse and subtle are non-dual, this is absolute subtlety.