宗鏡錄 67.35

67.35

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.