T45n1854_二諦義
大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1854 二諦義
No. 1854
補刻二諦章敘
嘉祥藏大師所撰二諦義章三卷。傳流吾國已來。僅一千年奇矣。寵藏之古名藍之間。而不以廣其傳者也久矣。曏者龍寶與公。偶得上下兩通。輒刻木以布海內。譬諸寶鼎之闕一足。不亦恨乎。近有書林某者。幸得古本之全者而來。請余重施國字而傳於千歲之下矣。於是兩本對撿。則與公之本。非但闕中卷。亦于上卷中。脫二十餘紙。況且豕亥鳳風比比有之。余慨然喟言。曾聞其名未得其書。如渴者聞梅。然而雖偶得傳之。闕而未完全者幾許年所。今也幸得見其全書。前之所謂渴云者頓息矣。余既然則人誰不爾乎。今將廣行於天下。此舉豈辭勞乎。是余之所以忘固陋而不敢辭其請也。而今上下兩卷。直用與公之所刻者。不復改雕。其中或文字寫誤者。或兩本相異者。或疑而未決者。或恐此處必脫某字者。則皆標之卷眉。而一處未嘗以私意改易之。務在存古耳。於是乎可謂。寶鼎再得為完器也。何其快哉。其既然則安知。章主大師之不熙怡微笑于那伽定中也。又安知。與公之不忻躍于地下也。是為序。
寶永七年歲次庚寅孟春日
洛西五智山沙門慧旭寂謹書于忘慮亭
鐫二諦章敘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1854 二諦義
No. 1854
補刻二諦章敘
嘉祥藏大師所撰《二諦義章》三卷，傳入我國已經差不多一千年了。它被珍藏在古老的名剎之中，卻未能廣泛流傳，時間已經很久了。先前龍寶和某公，偶然得到上下兩卷，就刻板印刷以傳播到各地。但這就像寶鼎缺少一隻腳，不是很遺憾嗎？最近有書商某人，幸好得到古本的全本而來，請求我重新用現代文字出版，流傳到千年之後。於是將兩本對照檢查，發現與某公的版本相比，不僅缺少中卷，而且在上卷中，也脫落了二十多頁。況且像『豕』寫成『亥』，『鳳』寫成『風』這樣的錯誤比比皆是。我感慨地說，以前只聽說過它的名字，沒有得到它的書，就像口渴的人聽說有梅子一樣。然而即使偶然得到傳播，缺失而不完整的狀態也有好幾年了。現在有幸見到它的全書，之前所說的『渴』的感覺頓時消失了。我既然這樣，那麼別人誰不這樣呢？現在將廣泛地在天下流傳，這件事難道會覺得勞累嗎？這就是我忘記自己的淺陋，而不敢推辭請求的原因。現在上下兩卷，直接使用與某公所刻的版本，不再重新雕刻。其中或許有文字抄寫錯誤的地方，或者兩本版本不同的地方，或者有疑問而未決定的地方，或者恐怕此處必定脫落了某個字的地方，都全部標註在書眉上，而一處也沒有用自己的意思改動它。務求儲存古書的原貌。這樣就可以說，寶鼎再次得到，成為完整的器物了。多麼令人愉快啊。既然這樣，那麼怎麼知道章主大師不會在那伽定（Naga Samadhi，龍禪定）中欣喜微笑呢？又怎麼知道某公不會在地下高興跳躍呢？這就是序言。
寶永七年歲次庚寅孟春日
洛西五智山沙門慧旭寂謹書于忘慮亭
鐫二諦章敘
【English Translation】 English version Taisho Tripitaka Volume 45, No. 1854 The Meaning of the Two Truths (Erti Yi)
No. 1854
Preface to the Re-engraved Chapter on the Two Truths
The three-fascicle chapter 'The Meaning of the Two Truths' (Erti Yi Zhang) written by Great Master Jiaxiangzang (Jiaxiangzang Dashi) has been circulating in our country for almost a thousand years. It has been treasured in ancient famous temples, but it has not been widely disseminated for a long time. Previously, Longbao and a certain Mr. Gong (Gong) accidentally obtained the upper and lower fascicles and had them printed to spread throughout the country. But this is like a precious tripod missing a leg, is it not regrettable? Recently, a certain bookseller (Shulin Mou), fortunately obtained the complete ancient version and came to request me to republish it in modern characters to be passed down for thousands of years. Therefore, comparing the two versions, it was found that compared to Mr. Gong's version, not only was the middle fascicle missing, but also more than twenty pages were missing from the upper fascicle. Moreover, errors such as writing '豕' (shi, pig) as '亥' (hai, the last of the Earthly Branches) and '鳳' (feng, phoenix) as '風' (feng, wind) were common. I said with emotion, I had only heard of its name before, but had not obtained the book, like a thirsty person hearing of plums. However, even if it was accidentally obtained and disseminated, the state of being incomplete and missing had lasted for several years. Now, fortunately, I have seen the complete book, and the feeling of 'thirst' mentioned earlier has disappeared. Since I am like this, then who else would not be? Now it will be widely circulated throughout the world, would I feel tired doing this? This is why I have forgotten my own shallowness and dare not decline the request. Now the upper and lower fascicles directly use the version engraved by Mr. Gong, without re-engraving. Where there may be copying errors in the text, or where the two versions differ, or where there are doubts that have not been resolved, or where it is feared that a certain character must be missing, all are marked on the eyebrow of the book, and not a single place has been altered according to my own opinion. The aim is to preserve the original appearance of the ancient book. In this way, it can be said that the precious tripod has been obtained again and has become a complete vessel. How delightful! Since this is the case, then how do we know that the master of the chapter will not be smiling happily in Naga Samadhi (Naga Samadhi, dragon samadhi)? And how do we know that Mr. Gong will not be jumping for joy in the underworld? This is the preface.
Dated the day of the first month of spring, the seventh year of the Baoei era, cyclical year Gengyin (1710)
Respectfully written by the Shramana Huixu Ji of Wuzhishan (Five Wisdom Mountain) in Luoxi (west of the capital), at the Wanglv Pavilion (Forget Worry Pavilion)
Engraving the Preface to the Chapter on the Two Truths
夫不了二諦。則契實之境。照俗之智。不可融徹。境智不融徹。而入薩波若海者。未有之也。宜哉。諸佛說法。常依二諦矣。支桑道學之士。亦恢張真俗。垂統於後昆者不少。且夫二諦二十家往復之族。雖各述其所見。關鍵緊要之處。未嘗著工夫。豈非膚立持門戶皮相矜影響之謂乎。吉藏上人。間出隋世。而稟朗公之學。靈知難思。無不克擢其髓。遂乃制諸經玄疏。翼贊教乘者。不知其幾千萬言。就中至如今章辨非有非無而二不二鼠婁栗案菰等。啟沃舊師之未了。發特見之明也。如此其可忽。諸噫嘻中世以隆。其學不傳。其書將泯。余屬日名寺藏中得此之錦本。欣戴捧讀不堪雀躍。率加點挍授書林。於時歲次丁丑元祿十年臘月穀日殺青斯竟。
東奧仙臺龍寶實養題于洛之陀峰下
二諦義捲上
胡吉藏撰
睿師中論序云。百論治外以閑邪。斯文祛內以流滯。大智釋論之淵博。十二門觀之精詣。尋斯四論者。真若日月在懷無不朗然鑒徹矣。若通此四論。則佛法可明也。師云。此四論雖複名部不同。統其大歸。併爲申乎二諦顯不二之道。若了於二諦。四論則煥然可領。若於二諦不了。四論則便不明。為是因緣。須識二諦也。若解二諦。非但四論可明。亦眾經皆了。何以知然。故論云。諸佛常依二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果不能瞭解二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦），那麼契合實相的境界和照亮世俗的智慧就不能完全融合貫通。境界和智慧不能融合貫通，卻想要進入薩波若海（sarvajna-sagara，一切智海），這是不可能的。所以，諸佛說法，總是依據二諦。支桑（Ji Zang）門下的學道之士，也弘揚真俗二諦，為後世樹立典範的也不少。而且，研究二諦的二十家學派，雖然各自陳述他們的見解，但在關鍵緊要之處，卻未曾下功夫。這難道不是隻注重表面，持有門戶之見，在皮毛上賣弄影響嗎？吉藏（Ji Zang）上人，生於隋朝，秉承朗公（Lang Gong）的學說，靈敏的智慧難以思議，沒有不能深刻領會其精髓的。於是他撰寫了諸經的玄妙疏解，輔助弘揚佛教教義，字數不知幾千萬。其中像如今本章辨析非有非無，以及二不二、鼠婁栗案菰等問題，啓發了舊師們未曾了悟之處，闡發了獨特的見解。如此重要的著作，怎麼可以忽視呢？唉，可惜中世以後，他的學說沒有流傳下來，他的著作也將要泯滅。我從日名寺的藏經中得到這部精美的版本，欣喜地捧讀，高興得手舞足蹈。於是加以校點，傳授給書林。時在丁丑年元祿十年臘月吉日，殺青完畢。 東奧仙臺的龍寶實養題于洛之陀峰下 二諦義捲上 胡吉藏撰 睿師（Rui Shi）的《中論序》說：『《百論》（Śata-śāstra）治理外道，以消除邪見；這部著作祛除內在的迷惑，以疏通滯礙。』大智（Maha-prajna）的《釋論》（釋摩訶般若波羅蜜經論，Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）淵博深邃，《十二門論》（Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra）的觀察精妙透徹。尋繹這四部論著，真像日月在懷，無不朗然照徹。如果通達這四部論，那麼佛法就可以明白了。師父說：『這四部論雖然名稱和部類不同，但總的來說，都是爲了闡述二諦，彰顯不二之道。如果瞭解二諦，四部論就能煥然貫通；如果對二諦不瞭解，四部論就變得不明瞭。』因為這個緣故，必須認識二諦。如果理解二諦，不僅四部論可以明白，而且所有的經典都能明白。為什麼知道是這樣呢？所以《論》中說：『諸佛總是依據二諦說法。』
【English Translation】 English version: If one does not understand the two truths (satya-dvaya, conventional truth and ultimate truth), then the state of being in accordance with reality and the wisdom that illuminates the mundane cannot be completely integrated. If the state and wisdom are not integrated, yet one wishes to enter the ocean of omniscience (sarvajna-sagara), this is impossible. Therefore, the Buddhas always teach according to the two truths. Among the scholars of the Ji Zang school, there are also many who promote the two truths of conventional and ultimate, setting an example for later generations. Moreover, the twenty schools that study the two truths, although each states their own views, have not put effort into the crucial points. Isn't this just focusing on the surface, holding sectarian views, and showing off influence superficially? The Venerable Ji Zang, born in the Sui Dynasty, inherited the teachings of Lang Gong, and his keen wisdom was inconceivable; there was nothing he could not deeply understand its essence. Thus, he wrote profound commentaries on various sutras, assisting in the propagation of Buddhist teachings, with tens of millions of words. Among them, like the current chapter analyzing non-being and non-non-being, as well as the issues of non-duality and non-non-duality, shu lou li an gu and so on, he enlightened what the old masters had not understood, and elucidated unique insights. How can such important works be ignored? Alas, unfortunately, after the Middle Ages, his teachings were not passed down, and his works are about to disappear. I obtained this exquisite version from the collection of Rinameiji Temple, and joyfully held it and read it, dancing with joy. So I added punctuation and taught it to the book forest. It was completed on an auspicious day in the twelfth month of the tenth year of Genroku, the year of Dingchou. Ryūhō Jitsuyō of Tōō Sendai inscribed this at the foot of Mount Rota. The Meaning of the Two Truths, Volume 1 Written by Hu Ji Zang Rui Shi's preface to the Madhyamaka-karika (Zhong Lun) says: 'The Śata-śāstra governs external paths to eliminate wrong views; this work removes internal confusion to clear obstructions.' The Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra of Maha-prajna is profound and deep, and the observations of the Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra are subtle and thorough. Examining these four treatises, it is truly like having the sun and moon in one's heart, illuminating everything clearly. If one understands these four treatises, then the Buddha-dharma can be understood. The master said: 'Although these four treatises have different names and categories, in general, they are all to expound the two truths and reveal the path of non-duality. If one understands the two truths, the four treatises can be understood clearly; if one does not understand the two truths, the four treatises become unclear.' For this reason, it is necessary to recognize the two truths. If one understands the two truths, not only can the four treatises be understood, but also all the sutras can be understood. How do we know this is so? Therefore, the treatise says: 'The Buddhas always teach according to the two truths.'
諦說法。既十方諸佛。常依二諦說法。故眾經莫出二諦。眾經既不出二諦。二諦若明故眾經皆了也。然四論皆有二諦之言。今且依中論文以辨之。論文云。諸佛依二諦為眾生說法。一以世俗諦。二第一義諦也。然師臨去世之時。登高座付屬門人。我出山以來。以二諦為正道。說二諦凡二十餘種勢。或散或束。或分章段或不分分時。或開為三段。乍作十重。所以為十重者。正為對開善法師二諦義。彼明二諦義有十重。對彼十重故明十重。一一重以辨正之。師唯道此義有重數。所餘諸義。普皆不開。若有重數者。非興皇者說也。十重者。初則二諦大意。最後二諦同異。今第一明二諦大意也。然師道二諦義。多依二處。一依大品經。二依中論。今且依中論明二諦義。所以依中論道二諦者。中論以二諦為宗。若了二諦。中論即便可明。為是義故。依中論說二諦也。中論四諦品云。諸佛依二諦。為眾生說法。此語即難解。若為依二諦說法耶。解云。二諦是本。說法是末。二諦是所依。說法是能依。然此語驚耳。非從來所知也。問何以得知諸佛依二諦說法二諦是所依耶。解云出論。不假人解。故云。經有論故義即易解。今依論釋之。論四諦品。前釋二諦。次釋依二諦說法。前釋二諦云。世俗諦者。一切諸法性空。而世間顛倒謂有。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦（Satya）說法。十方諸佛（Buddhas of the ten directions）總是依據二諦（two truths）說法，因此所有經典都離不開二諦。既然所有經典都離不開二諦，那麼如果明白了二諦，也就理解了所有經典。雖然《四論》（Four Treatises）中都有關於二諦的論述，但現在暫且依據《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）來辨析。論中說：『諸佛依據二諦為眾生說法，一是世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya），二是第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）。』 然而，鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）法師臨去世時，登上高座囑咐門人：『我自從出山以來，一直以二諦為正道。』他講解二諦有二十餘種方式，或分散或集中，或分章節或不分，有時分為三段，有時分為十重。之所以分為十重，正是爲了應對開善法師（Kāyastha）的二諦義。開善法師闡明二諦義有十重，爲了應對他的十重，所以我也闡明十重，每一重都加以辨正。鳩摩羅什法師只說此義有重數，其餘諸義，普遍都不展開。如果有重數，那一定就是興皇法師（Xinghuang）所說的。這十重是：最初是二諦的大意，最後是二諦的同異。現在首先闡明二諦的大意。 鳩摩羅什法師講解二諦義，大多依據兩處：一是《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra），二是《中論》。現在暫且依據《中論》來闡明二諦義。之所以依據《中論》講解二諦，是因為《中論》以二諦為宗旨。如果明白了二諦，《中論》也就容易理解了。爲了這個緣故，依據《中論》來說二諦。《中論·四諦品》（Chapter on the Four Noble Truths）中說：『諸佛依據二諦，為眾生說法。』這句話很難理解。為什麼要依據二諦說法呢？解釋說：二諦是根本，說法是末。二諦是所依，說法是能依。然而這句話聽起來令人震驚，不是我們一直以來所知道的。問：如何得知諸佛依據二諦說法，二諦是所依呢？解釋說：出自論典，不需要人的解釋。所以說：經典有了論典，義理就容易理解。現在依據論典來解釋。論典《四諦品》先解釋二諦，然後解釋依據二諦說法。前面解釋二諦說：世俗諦，就是一切諸法性空，而世間顛倒地認為實有。
【English Translation】 English version The Tathāgata (One Thus Gone) preaches the Dharma (teachings). All Buddhas of the ten directions constantly teach according to the two truths (dve satye), therefore all sutras (discourses) do not go beyond the two truths. Since all sutras do not go beyond the two truths, if the two truths are understood, then all sutras are understood. Although the Four Treatises (Catur-śāstra) all contain discussions of the two truths, I will now provisionally analyze them based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way). The text says: 'The Buddhas, relying on the two truths, preach the Dharma to sentient beings, one being the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), and the other being the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya).' However, when Master Kumārajīva was about to pass away, he ascended the high seat and instructed his disciples: 'Since I came out of the mountains, I have always regarded the two truths as the correct path.' He explained the two truths in more than twenty ways, sometimes scattered, sometimes concentrated, sometimes divided into chapters, sometimes not, sometimes divided into three sections, sometimes made into ten layers. The reason for making ten layers is precisely to respond to the two truths doctrine of Dharma Master Kāyastha. Dharma Master Kāyastha elucidates the two truths doctrine in ten layers, so in response to his ten layers, I also elucidate ten layers, and each layer is rectified. Master Kumārajīva only said that this doctrine has multiple layers, and the remaining doctrines are generally not elaborated. If there are multiple layers, then it must be what Dharma Master Xinghuang said. These ten layers are: the first is the general meaning of the two truths, and the last is the similarities and differences of the two truths. Now, first, I will elucidate the general meaning of the two truths. Master Kumārajīva's explanation of the two truths mostly relies on two sources: one is the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra), and the other is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Now, I will provisionally elucidate the two truths based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The reason for explaining the two truths based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā takes the two truths as its principle. If the two truths are understood, then the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā will be easy to understand. For this reason, I will explain the two truths based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter on the Four Noble Truths (Ārya-satya-parīkṣā), says: 'The Buddhas, relying on the two truths, preach the Dharma to sentient beings.' This sentence is difficult to understand. Why preach the Dharma relying on the two truths? The explanation is: the two truths are the root, and preaching the Dharma is the branch. The two truths are what is relied upon, and preaching the Dharma is what is able to rely. However, this sentence sounds shocking, and it is not what we have always known. Question: How do we know that the Buddhas preach the Dharma relying on the two truths, and that the two truths are what is relied upon? The explanation is: it comes from the treatise, and it does not require human explanation. Therefore, it is said: with the treatise explaining the sutra, the meaning is easy to understand. Now, I will explain it based on the treatise. The Chapter on the Four Noble Truths in the treatise first explains the two truths, and then explains preaching the Dharma relying on the two truths. The previous explanation of the two truths says: the conventional truth is that all dharmas (phenomena) are empty in nature, but the world mistakenly believes that they exist.
於世間是實。名為世諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。于聖人是實。名第一義諦。次云。諸佛依是二諦。為眾生說法。此則前釋二諦竟。然後明諸佛依是二諦為眾生說法。故知。二諦是本。說法是末。二諦是所依。說法是能依。依此二諦。為眾生說法也。問從來云諸佛依二諦說法者。為凡說俗。為聖說真。為凡緣說有。為聖緣說空。名為依二諦說法。既云依二諦為眾生說法。何得言為凡說有為聖說空為依二諦說法耶。今明。如上有于凡為實名俗諦。空于聖是實名第一義諦。依此二諦。為眾生說法也。又且問。諸佛何意依二諦說法耶。解云。欲明十方諸佛所說皆實故。依二諦說法。何者。諦是實義。有于凡實。空于聖實。是二皆實。諸佛依此二實說法。是故諸佛所說皆實也。外道九十六種所說。何意虛假不實。以其不依二諦故。所以虛假不實諸佛依二諦說法故。凡所說法皆實。以諸佛所說皆實故。所以諸佛。依二諦說法也。又問。若為依二諦說法。說法皆實耶。解云。諸賢聖。如實悟諸法性空。如來依彼如實悟而說故。諸佛所說亦實。此則依第一義諦說法是實。世人于瓶衣等是實。諸佛隨俗說瓶衣故。所說亦實。如百論云。佛入舍衛城。隨俗語故無過。此則依世諦說法是實。依彼二實而說故。諸佛說法皆實也。前云依凡諦說名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在世間認為是真實的，這被稱為世俗諦（Satyadvaya，兩種真理）。諸位賢聖以真實的智慧認知到顛倒的自性本空，這對於聖人來說是真實的，被稱為第一義諦（Paramarthasatya，最高的真理）。接下來講到，諸佛依據這兩種真理，為眾生說法。這便是之前解釋的二諦。然後說明諸佛依據這二諦為眾生說法。因此可知，二諦是根本，說法是末端；二諦是所依據的，說法是能依據的。依據這二諦，為眾生說法。 問：一直以來都說諸佛依據二諦說法，那麼是為凡夫說世俗諦，還是為聖人說真諦？是為凡夫因緣說有，還是為聖人因緣說空？才被稱為依據二諦說法？既然說依據二諦為眾生說法，怎麼能說是為凡夫說有，為聖人說空，就是依據二諦說法呢？現在說明，如上文所說，對於凡夫來說是真實的，名為世俗諦；空對於聖人來說是真實的，名為第一義諦。依據這二諦，為眾生說法。 又問：諸佛為何要依據二諦說法呢？解釋說：爲了說明十方諸佛所說都是真實的，所以依據二諦說法。為什麼呢？諦是真實的意思。有對於凡夫是真實的，空對於聖人是真實的，這二者都是真實的。諸佛依據這兩種真實說法，所以諸佛所說都是真實的。外道九十六種所說，為何虛假不實？因為他們不依據二諦，所以虛假不實。諸佛依據二諦說法，所以凡所說法都是真實的。因為諸佛所說都是真實的，所以諸佛依據二諦說法。 又問：如果依據二諦說法，說法就都是真實的嗎？解釋說：諸位賢聖，如實地領悟到諸法自性本空，如來依據他們如實的領悟而說，所以諸佛所說也是真實的。這就是依據第一義諦說法是真實的。世人認為瓶子、衣服等是真實的，諸佛隨順世俗的說法說瓶子、衣服，所以所說也是真實的。如《百論》所說：『佛陀進入舍衛城（Sravasti），隨順世俗的語言，所以沒有過失。』這就是依據世俗諦說法是真實的。依據這兩種真實而說，所以諸佛說法都是真實的。之前說依據凡夫的真理來說，名為...
【English Translation】 English version What is considered real in the world is called Samvriti-satya (conventional truth). The wise and noble ones, with true knowledge, realize that the nature of delusion is emptiness, which is real for the saints and is called Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth). Next, it is said that all Buddhas preach the Dharma to sentient beings based on these two truths. This is the explanation of the two truths mentioned earlier. Then it explains that all Buddhas preach the Dharma to sentient beings based on these two truths. Therefore, it can be known that the two truths are the root, and the Dharma preaching is the end; the two truths are what is relied upon, and the Dharma preaching is what can be relied upon. Based on these two truths, the Dharma is preached to sentient beings. Question: It has always been said that all Buddhas preach the Dharma based on the two truths. Then, is it preaching the conventional truth to ordinary people, or preaching the ultimate truth to saints? Is it saying existence based on conditions for ordinary people, or saying emptiness based on conditions for saints? Only then is it called preaching the Dharma based on the two truths? Since it is said that the Dharma is preached to sentient beings based on the two truths, how can it be said that preaching existence to ordinary people and preaching emptiness to saints is preaching the Dharma based on the two truths? Now it is explained that, as mentioned above, what is real for ordinary people is called Samvriti-satya; emptiness is real for saints and is called Paramartha-satya. Based on these two truths, the Dharma is preached to sentient beings. Also asked: Why do all Buddhas preach the Dharma based on the two truths? It is explained: In order to explain that what all Buddhas in the ten directions say is true, the Dharma is preached based on the two truths. Why? 'Satya' means truth. Existence is true for ordinary people, and emptiness is true for saints. Both of these are true. All Buddhas preach the Dharma based on these two truths, so what all Buddhas say is true. Why is what the ninety-six kinds of heretics say false and untrue? Because they do not rely on the two truths, so it is false and untrue. All Buddhas preach the Dharma based on the two truths, so all that is preached is true. Because what all Buddhas say is true, all Buddhas preach the Dharma based on the two truths. Also asked: If the Dharma is preached based on the two truths, is all Dharma preaching true? It is explained: All wise and noble ones truly realize that the nature of all dharmas is emptiness. The Tathagata preaches based on their true realization, so what all Buddhas say is also true. This is because preaching the Dharma based on Paramartha-satya is true. Ordinary people think that bottles, clothes, etc. are real. Buddhas follow the conventional saying of bottles and clothes, so what is said is also true. As the Sata-sastra says: 'The Buddha entered Sravasti (Savatthi), followed the conventional language, so there is no fault.' This is because preaching the Dharma based on Samvriti-satya is true. Because it is said based on these two truths, all Buddhas' Dharma preaching is true. Earlier it was said that preaching based on the truth of ordinary people is called...
依世諦說法。依聖諦說名依第一義諦說法。依二諦為眾生說法。此語不可失也。今問。依二諦說法。所依于諦。為是得為是失。為亦得亦失。教諦亦作此問。然大師云。于諦是失。教諦是得。何者言于諦失者。有于凡是實有。空于聖是實空。此空有于凡聖各實。是故為失也。言教諦得者。如來誠諦之言。依凡有說有。有不住有。有表不有。依聖無說無。無不住無。無表不無。此則有無二。表非有非無不二。二不二不二二。不二二則是理教。二不二則教理。教理應教。理教表理。理教二不二因緣。是為得也。然教諦如此。雖如此而復未可解。何者。汝依二諦說法。依二諦與說法。皆是教諦不。若皆是教諦。則違論文。論云。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有為世諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空為第一義諦。諸佛依此二諦說法。那忽並是教諦耶。今正此一句。明依二諦說法。所依是于諦說法是教諦也。問所依二諦為得為失者。論自判。論云。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有。于凡是諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空無生。于聖是諦。此則開凡聖二諦異。凡聖雖復不二。不二而二。有凡諦聖諦。凡諦即是失。聖諦即是得。何者。既云諸法性空顛倒謂有。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。故知。凡諦失聖諦得。何以故。凡諦是顛倒故是失。聖諦是不顛倒故是得。此即開
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 依據世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）說法，依據勝義諦（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理）說，名為依據第一義諦說法。依據二諦（二種真理）為眾生說法，此話不可輕率。現在問：依據二諦說法，所依據的諦，是得還是失？是亦得亦失？教諦（Upadesha-satya，教導的真理）也可以這樣問。然而大師說：『于諦』是失，『教諦』是得。為什麼說『于諦』是失呢？因為在凡夫看來，『有』是真實存在的；在聖人看來，『空』是真實空性的。這種『空』和『有』，對於凡夫和聖人來說各自是真實的，所以說是『失』。說『教諦』是得，是因為如來誠實的話語，依據凡夫的『有』而說『有』，『有』不住于『有』，『有』表達了『非有』；依據聖人的『無』而說『無』，『無』不住于『無』，『無』表達了『非無』。這樣，『有』和『無』二者，表達了『非有非無』的不二之理。二和不二，不二和二，不二就是理教（真理的教導），二不二就是教理（教導的真理）。教理應合於教，理教表達真理。理教二不二的因緣，這就是『得』。然而教諦雖然如此，仍然難以理解。為什麼呢？你依據二諦說法，依據二諦和說法，都是教諦嗎？如果都是教諦，就違背了論文。論文說：『諸法性空，世間顛倒認為有，這是世俗諦；諸賢聖真正了知顛倒性空，這是第一義諦。』諸佛依據這二諦說法，怎麼能都是教諦呢？現在糾正這一句，明確依據二諦說法，所依據的是『于諦』，說法是教諦。問所依據的二諦是得還是失，論文自己判斷。論文說：『諸法性空，世間顛倒認為有，對於凡夫是諦；諸賢聖真正了知顛倒性空無生，對於聖人是諦。』這說明了凡聖二諦的差異。凡聖雖然不二，不二而二，有凡夫諦和聖人諦。凡夫諦就是失，聖人諦就是得。為什麼呢？因為論文說諸法性空，世間顛倒認為有，諸賢聖真正了知顛倒性空。所以知道，凡夫諦是失，聖人諦是得。為什麼呢？因為凡夫諦是顛倒的，所以是失；聖人諦是不顛倒的，所以是得。這說明了這一點。
【English Translation】 English version: According to the Samvriti-satya (conventional truth), it is called speaking according to the first Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth). Speaking to sentient beings based on the two truths (two kinds of truth), this statement should not be taken lightly. Now I ask: When speaking based on the two truths, is the truth relied upon a gain or a loss? Is it both a gain and a loss? The Upadesha-satya (teaching truth) can also be asked in this way. However, the great master said: 'Regarding the truth' is a loss, 'teaching truth' is a gain. Why is it said that 'regarding the truth' is a loss? Because to ordinary beings, 'existence' is truly existent; to sages, 'emptiness' is truly empty. This 'emptiness' and 'existence' are each real for ordinary beings and sages, therefore it is said to be a 'loss'. Saying that 'teaching truth' is a gain is because the truthful words of the Tathagata, based on the 'existence' of ordinary beings, speak of 'existence', 'existence' does not abide in 'existence', 'existence' expresses 'non-existence'; based on the 'non-existence' of sages, speak of 'non-existence', 'non-existence' does not abide in 'non-existence', 'non-existence' expresses 'non-non-existence'. Thus, the two, 'existence' and 'non-existence', express the non-duality of 'neither existence nor non-existence'. Two and non-two, non-two and two, non-two is the principle of teaching (the teaching of truth), two and non-two is the teaching of principle (the teaching of truth). Teaching and principle should accord with the teaching, and the principle of teaching expresses the truth. The cause and condition of the non-duality of teaching and principle, this is 'gain'. However, even though the teaching truth is like this, it is still difficult to understand. Why? You speak based on the two truths, and the basis of the two truths and the speaking are all teaching truths, aren't they? If they are all teaching truths, then it contradicts the treatise. The treatise says: 'All dharmas are empty in nature, and the world mistakenly believes in existence, this is the Samvriti-satya; all sages truly know that the nature of delusion is empty, this is the Paramartha-satya.' All Buddhas speak based on these two truths, how can they all be teaching truths? Now, correct this sentence, clarify that speaking based on the two truths, what is relied upon is 'regarding the truth', and speaking is the teaching truth. Asking whether the two truths relied upon are gain or loss, the treatise itself judges. The treatise says: 'All dharmas are empty in nature, and the world mistakenly believes in existence, this is the truth for ordinary beings; all sages truly know that the nature of delusion is empty and without arising, this is the truth for sages.' This explains the difference between the two truths of ordinary beings and sages. Although ordinary beings and sages are non-dual, non-dual and dual, there are the truths of ordinary beings and the truths of sages. The truth of ordinary beings is loss, and the truth of sages is gain. Why? Because the treatise says that all dharmas are empty in nature, and the world mistakenly believes in existence, and all sages truly know that the nature of delusion is empty. Therefore, it is known that the truth of ordinary beings is loss, and the truth of sages is gain. Why? Because the truth of ordinary beings is deluded, so it is loss; the truth of sages is not deluded, so it is gain. This explains this point.
凡諦聖諦倒諦不倒諦也。問若所依二諦有倒不倒者不可解。何者。佛可依不倒說。云何依顛倒為眾生說耶。若言二于諦皆不顛倒。則乖論文。論文云。世間顛倒謂有為世諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空為第一義諦。依是二諦。為眾生說法。故知。依倒不倒說。若順論文。諸佛菩薩。豈得依顛倒說法耶。進退難解未釋云云。問前云所依於二諦有得有失。將不乖師所說耶。師云二于諦是失。今何得判二于諦有得有失耶。解云。汝言于諦並是失。是何處語耶。今明。于諦皆失者。非是所依于諦皆失。乃是稟教成於。此于諦皆失。何者。如來說有為表不有。說無為表不無。說二為表不二。彼聞有作有解。聞無作無解。聞有作有解有。于凡實名俗諦。聞無作無解無。于聖實名第一義諦。此之二諦皆失。問若為失耶。解云。如來說有為表不有。說無為表不無。說二令識不二。舉指令得月。而眾生聞有住有。聞無住無。守指忘月。住教遺理。豈非是失耶。若爾此則有二種于諦。一者所依于諦。二者迷教於諦。所依于諦。有得有失。迷教於諦。二皆是失。所依于諦是本。迷教於諦是末。所依于諦是本者。且約釋迦一化為論。釋迦未出之前已有此二于諦。釋迦依此二諦為眾生說法。何者。諸佛說法無不依二諦。故發趾即依二諦而說。當知。所依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：凡是真諦、俗諦、顛倒諦、不顛倒諦。問：如果所依據的二諦有顛倒和不顛倒，這無法理解。為什麼呢？佛陀可以依據不顛倒的真諦來說法，怎麼能依據顛倒的俗諦為眾生說法呢？如果說二諦都不顛倒，就違背了經文。經文說：『世間的顛倒，指的是有為法的世俗諦；諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒的自性是空，這是第一義諦。』依據這二諦，為眾生說法。所以知道，是依據顛倒和不顛倒來說法。如果順從經文，諸佛菩薩怎麼能依據顛倒的俗諦說法呢？進退兩難，難以解釋。問：前面說所依據的二諦有得有失，這難道不違背老師您所說的嗎？老師說二諦是失，現在怎麼又判斷二諦有得有失呢？解釋說：你說二諦都是失，這是哪裡說的話呢？現在說明，二諦都是失，不是指所依據的二諦都是失，而是指稟承教法而成的二諦都是失。為什麼呢？如來說有為是爲了表明非有，說無為是爲了表明非無，說二是爲了表明不二。他們聽聞有就執著于有，聽聞無就執著于無，聽聞有就理解為有，對於凡夫來說，這實際上是世俗諦；聽聞無就理解為無，對於聖人來說，這實際上是第一義諦。這兩種諦都失去了。問：怎麼會失去呢？解釋說：如來說有為是爲了表明非有，說無為是爲了表明非無，說二是爲了讓人認識到不二。舉起手指是爲了讓人看到月亮，而眾生聽聞有就執著于有，聽聞無就執著于無，守著手指而忘記了月亮，執著于教法而遺忘了真理，這難道不是失去嗎？如果這樣，那麼就有兩種二諦：一種是所依據的二諦，一種是迷失於教法的二諦。所依據的二諦，有得有失；迷失於教法的二諦，兩種都是失。所依據的二諦是根本，迷失於教法的二諦是末節。所依據的二諦是根本，且以釋迦牟尼佛一生的教化為例。釋迦牟尼佛未出世之前，就已經有這兩種二諦。釋迦牟尼佛依據這二諦為眾生說法。為什麼呢？諸佛說法沒有不依據二諦的，所以一開始說法就是依據二諦而說。應當知道，所依據的二諦是根本。
【English Translation】 English version: They are true satya (truth) and conventional satya (truth), inverted satya (truth) and non-inverted satya (truth). Question: If the two satya (truths) relied upon have inversion and non-inversion, it is incomprehensible. Why? The Buddha can rely on the non-inverted to speak. How can he rely on inversion to speak for sentient beings? If it is said that the two satya (truths) are not inverted, then it violates the text. The text says: 'The inversion of the world refers to the conditioned mundane satya (truth). The wise and holy truly know that the nature of inversion is emptiness, which is the ultimate satya (truth).' Based on these two satya (truths), the Dharma is spoken for sentient beings. Therefore, it is known that it is based on inverted and non-inverted speech. If following the text, how can all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas speak according to inverted satya (truth)? It is difficult to understand in both directions, and it has not been explained. Question: Earlier it was said that the two satya (truths) relied upon have gain and loss. Will this not contradict what the teacher said? The teacher said that the two satya (truths) are loss. How can it now be judged that the two satya (truths) have gain and loss? Explanation: Where did you say that the two satya (truths) are all loss? Now it is clear that the loss of the two satya (truths) does not mean that the two satya (truths) relied upon are all loss, but rather that the two satya (truths) formed by receiving teachings are all loss. Why? The Tathagata (Buddha) speaks of the conditioned to indicate non-existence, speaks of the unconditioned to indicate non-non-existence, and speaks of two to indicate non-duality. Those who hear of existence cling to existence, those who hear of non-existence cling to non-existence, and those who hear of existence understand it as existence. For ordinary people, this is actually the conventional satya (truth). Those who hear of non-existence understand it as non-existence. For the holy, this is actually the ultimate satya (truth). These two satya (truths) are all lost. Question: How are they lost? Explanation: The Tathagata (Buddha) speaks of the conditioned to indicate non-existence, speaks of the unconditioned to indicate non-non-existence, and speaks of two to make people aware of non-duality. Raising a finger is to let people see the moon, but sentient beings cling to existence when they hear of existence, and cling to non-existence when they hear of non-existence, holding onto the finger and forgetting the moon, clinging to the teachings and forgetting the truth. Is this not a loss? If so, then there are two kinds of satya (truths): one is the satya (truth) relied upon, and the other is the satya (truth) lost in the teachings. The satya (truth) relied upon has gain and loss; the satya (truth) lost in the teachings is all loss. The satya (truth) relied upon is the root, and the satya (truth) lost in the teachings is the branch. The satya (truth) relied upon is the root, and let's take Shakyamuni Buddha's (釋迦牟尼佛) entire life of teaching as an example. Before Shakyamuni Buddha (釋迦牟尼佛) appeared in the world, these two satya (truths) already existed. Shakyamuni Buddha (釋迦牟尼佛) spoke the Dharma for sentient beings based on these two satya (truths). Why? All Buddhas speak the Dharma based on the two satya (truths), so from the beginning of speaking the Dharma, it is based on the two satya (truths). It should be known that the satya (truth) relied upon is the root.
于諦是本也。迷教於諦是末者。眾生稟如來有無二諦教。作有無解成於故。此于諦在後也。又有三異。謂前後能所通別。從后釋之。言通別者。所依于諦則通。迷教於諦則別。所依于諦通者。世間顛倒謂有。於世間是實為世諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空為第一義諦。此之二諦通一切凡聖。如涅槃經。涅槃經云文殊問云。世諦之中有第一義不。第一義中有世諦不。如其有者。即是一諦。如其無者。將非如來虛妄說耶。佛答云。世諦即第一義諦。隨眾生故分別說二。世人知者名世諦。出世聖人知者名第一義諦。此即世出世兩人判於二諦。中論文正爾。世間顛倒謂有為世諦。此諸賢聖。真知顛倒性空為第一義諦。故此二于諦通也。言迷教於諦別者。如來說有無二諦。為表不二之道。有方便者。聞二悟不二。識理悟教名教諦。無方便者。聞二住二。不識理迷教名于諦。于諦但是無方便者。所以是別也。言能所者。所依于諦則是能化。迷教於諦則是所化。此一往偏約第一義諦邊說耳。何者。論云諸賢聖真知顛倒性空故是能化。此如涅槃經。經云。一切世諦。若於如來是第一義諦。只世諦于如來是第一義故。此第一義諦是能化。論正爾。凡夫顛倒謂有。諸賢聖唯知此顛倒性空不生不滅。于聖人是第一義諦。若爾當知。此第一義諦是能化
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 于諦（Yudi，真諦）是根本。迷惑于如來所說的諦理是末節。眾生稟受如來所說的有無二諦之教，卻執著于有無的理解，因此背離了真諦。所以說，這種對於諦的理解是滯後的。又有三種不同，即前後、能所、通別。從后往前解釋，說到通別，所依之於諦是通用的，迷惑于教法的于諦是分別的。所依之於諦是通用的，世間顛倒執著于有，對於世間來說這是真實的，是世諦（Shidi，俗諦）。諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒的本性是空，這是第一義諦（Diyi Yidi，勝義諦）。這二諦貫通一切凡夫和聖人。如《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）所說，《涅槃經》中文殊菩薩（Wenshu Pusa，Manjusri Bodhisattva）問道：『世諦之中有第一義諦嗎？第一義諦中有世諦嗎？如果存在，那就是一諦。如果不存在，難道如來說的是虛妄之語嗎？』佛陀回答說：『世諦即是第一義諦。隨順眾生的根器而分別說為二。世人所知的是世諦，出世聖人所知的是第一義諦。』這是世間人和出世聖人對於二諦的判斷。《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）也是這樣說的：世間顛倒執著于有，這是世諦。諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒的本性是空，這是第一義諦。所以說，這二諦是貫通的。說到迷惑于教法的于諦是分別的，如來說有無二諦，是爲了表明不二之道。有方便的人，聽聞二諦而悟入不二之理，認識到理而領悟教法，這稱為教諦（Jiaodi，教之真諦）。沒有方便的人，聽聞二諦而執著於二諦，不認識理而迷惑于教法，這稱為于諦。于諦只是沒有方便之人的境界，所以是分別的。說到能所，所依之於諦是能教化，迷惑于教法的于諦是所教化。這大致是從第一義諦的角度來說的。為什麼呢？《中論》說，諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒的本性是空，所以是能教化。這如《涅槃經》所說，《涅槃經》中說：『一切世諦，對於如來來說就是第一義諦。』只是世諦對於如來來說是第一義諦，所以這第一義諦是能教化。《中論》也是這樣說的：凡夫顛倒執著于有，諸位賢聖只是了知這顛倒的本性是空，不生不滅。對於聖人來說，這是第一義諦。如果這樣，應當知道，這第一義諦是能教化。
【English Translation】 English version Yudi (Truth) is the root. Being deluded by the teachings on Truth is the branch. Sentient beings receive the teachings of existence and non-existence from the Tathagata (Rulai, Thus Come One), but they cling to the understanding of existence and non-existence, thus deviating from the true meaning. Therefore, this understanding of Truth is lagging behind. There are also three differences, namely, before and after, the able and the object, and the general and the specific. Explaining from the back to the front, when it comes to the general and the specific, the Truth that is relied upon is general, and the Truth that is confused by the teachings is specific. The Truth that is relied upon is general. Worldly inversions cling to existence, and for the world, this is real, which is Shidi (Conventional Truth). All the wise and holy ones truly know that the nature of inversion is emptiness, which is Diyi Yidi (Ultimate Truth). These two Truths penetrate all ordinary beings and sages. As the Nirvana Sutra says, in the Nirvana Sutra, Manjusri Bodhisattva asked: 'Is there Ultimate Truth within Conventional Truth? Is there Conventional Truth within Ultimate Truth? If it exists, then it is one Truth. If it does not exist, then is the Tathagata speaking falsely?' The Buddha replied: 'Conventional Truth is Ultimate Truth. It is spoken of as two according to the capacity of sentient beings. What worldly people know is Conventional Truth, and what transcendent sages know is Ultimate Truth.' This is the judgment of worldly people and transcendent sages on the two Truths. The Madhyamaka-karika also says: Worldly inversions cling to existence, which is Conventional Truth. All the wise and holy ones truly know that the nature of inversion is emptiness, which is Ultimate Truth. Therefore, these two Truths are interconnected. When it comes to being deluded by the teachings on Truth being specific, the Tathagata speaks of the two Truths of existence and non-existence to show the non-dual path. Those with skillful means hear the two Truths and awaken to the non-dual principle, recognizing the principle and understanding the teachings, which is called Jiaodi (Truth of Teaching). Those without skillful means hear the two Truths and cling to the two Truths, not recognizing the principle and being confused by the teachings, which is called Yudi. Yudi is only the realm of those without skillful means, so it is specific. When it comes to the able and the object, the Truth that is relied upon is the able to transform, and the Truth that is confused by the teachings is the object to be transformed. This is roughly from the perspective of Ultimate Truth. Why? The Madhyamaka-karika says that all the wise and holy ones truly know that the nature of inversion is emptiness, so they are able to transform. This is as the Nirvana Sutra says, in the Nirvana Sutra it says: 'All Conventional Truth, for the Tathagata, is Ultimate Truth.' It is only that Conventional Truth is Ultimate Truth for the Tathagata, so this Ultimate Truth is able to transform. The Madhyamaka-karika also says: Ordinary people are inverted and cling to existence, and all the wise and holy ones only know that the nature of this inversion is emptiness, neither arising nor ceasing. For the sages, this is Ultimate Truth. If so, it should be known that this Ultimate Truth is able to transform.
諦也。迷教於諦是所化者。稟教成於。雖復是聖。終是稟教。以稟教故是所化也。言前後者。與本末不異。所依于諦是本是前。迷教於諦是末是后。發趾依于諦說。然後眾生稟教。有方便悟理成教諦。無方便不識理成於諦。故前後為異也。次更簡一句。前云諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。于聖人名第一義諦。如涅槃經。一切世諦。若於如來是第一義諦。問既云一切世諦于如來是第一義諦者。亦得言一切第一義諦若於凡夫是世諦不。解云。如此只出論文。論云。世諦者一切法性空。而世間顛倒謂有。於世人為實。名之為諦。解世諦。前舉一切法性空以釋之。明一切法性空。世間顛倒謂有。於世人是實名為諦。當知。一切第一義諦。于凡是世諦也。如大品云。諸法無所有如是有。如是有無所有。如是有于聖人無所有。即世諦為第一義諦。無所有于凡如是有。第一義諦為世諦也。問何意開凡聖二諦耶。解云。今開凡聖得失二諦者。示聖得凡失令轉悟。明此是凡諦此是聖諦此是倒諦此是不倒諦。示是凡聖。令舍凡學聖棄倒從不倒。為是義故開凡聖得失二諦也。何以知然。具出經論。大經云。欲令眾生深識第一義諦。是故如來宣說世諦。眾生若不因世諦悟第一義諦。如來終不說於世諦。說世諦令識第一義諦也。又中論若不依俗諦不得第一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦（Dì，真理）也。迷失於諦的教義是所教化者。領受教義而成就，即使是聖人，最終也是領受教義。因為領受教義，所以是被教化的。所說的『前後』，與『本末』沒有不同。所依據的諦是本是前，迷失於諦的教義是末是后。首先依據諦來宣說，然後眾生領受教義。有方便法門可以領悟真理而成就教諦，沒有方便法門就不能認識真理而成就於諦，所以說前後不同。接下來進一步簡要說明一句。前面說諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒的自性是空。對於聖人來說，名為第一義諦（Dìyìyìdì， ultimate truth）。如《涅槃經》（Nièpán Jīng， Nirvana Sutra）所說，一切世諦（Shìdì， conventional truth），如果對於如來（Rúlái， Tathagata）來說，就是第一義諦。問：既然說一切世諦對於如來是第一義諦，那麼也可以說一切第一義諦如果對於凡夫來說就是世諦嗎？答：這樣說只是引出論文。論文說：『世諦就是一切法性空，而世間的顛倒認為有，對於世人來說是真實的，名為諦。』解釋世諦，前面舉出一切法性空來解釋它，說明一切法性空，世間的顛倒認為有，對於世人來說是真實的，名為諦。應當知道，一切第一義諦，對於凡夫來說就是世諦。如《大品》（Dà Pǐn， Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）所說，諸法無所有如是有，如是有無所有，如是有于聖人無所有，即世諦為第一義諦，無所有于凡如是有，第一義諦為世諦。問：為什麼要開示凡聖二諦（Fánshèng èr dì， two truths of the mundane and the supramundane）呢？答：現在開示凡聖得失二諦，是爲了顯示聖人的得和凡夫的失，使之轉變覺悟。明白這是凡夫的諦，這是聖人的諦，這是顛倒的諦，這是不顛倒的諦。顯示凡聖，使人捨棄凡夫之學，學習聖人之道，拋棄顛倒，遵循不顛倒。爲了這個意義，所以開示凡聖得失二諦。憑什麼知道是這樣呢？詳細引出經論。《大經》（Dà Jīng， Mahayana Sutra）說：『想要讓眾生深刻認識第一義諦，所以如來說世諦。眾生如果不通過世諦來領悟第一義諦，如來終究不會說世諦。』說世諦是爲了讓人認識第一義諦。又，《中論》（Zhōnglùn， Madhyamaka-karika）說，如果不依靠俗諦，就不能得到第一義諦。
【English Translation】 English version It is truth (Dì, Satya). Being deluded by the teachings on truth is what is to be transformed. Attaining through receiving teachings, even if one is a sage, ultimately one is still receiving teachings. Because of receiving teachings, one is what is to be transformed. The terms 'before' and 'after' are no different from 'root' and 'branch'. What relies on truth is the root, is before. Being deluded by the teachings on truth is the branch, is after. First, one relies on truth to speak, and then sentient beings receive the teachings. Having expedient means allows one to realize the principle and attain the teaching of truth. Without expedient means, one cannot recognize the principle and attain truth. Therefore, 'before' and 'after' are different. Next, let's further simplify a sentence. Earlier it was said that all virtuous sages truly know that the nature of invertedness is emptiness. For sages, it is called the ultimate truth (Dìyìyìdì, Paramārtha-satya). As the Nirvana Sutra (Nièpán Jīng) says, all conventional truths (Shìdì, Saṃvṛti-satya), if for the Tathagata (Rúlái, Tathagata), are the ultimate truth. Question: Since it is said that all conventional truths for the Tathagata are the ultimate truth, can it also be said that all ultimate truths for ordinary beings are conventional truths? Answer: This only comes from the treatise. The treatise says: 'Conventional truth is that all dharmas are empty in nature, but worldly inversions consider them to exist. For worldly people, it is real, and is called truth.' Explaining conventional truth, it first cites that all dharmas are empty in nature to explain it, clarifying that all dharmas are empty in nature, but worldly inversions consider them to exist. For worldly people, it is real, and is called truth. It should be known that all ultimate truths for ordinary beings are conventional truths. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Dà Pǐn) says, all dharmas are non-existent as if existent, as if existent are non-existent, as if existent are non-existent for sages, that is, conventional truth is the ultimate truth, non-existent as if existent for ordinary beings, the ultimate truth is conventional truth. Question: Why are the two truths of the mundane and the supramundane (Fánshèng èr dì) revealed? Answer: Now, revealing the two truths of gain and loss of the mundane and the supramundane is to show the gain of sages and the loss of ordinary beings, so that they can transform and awaken. Understand that this is the truth of ordinary beings, this is the truth of sages, this is the inverted truth, this is the non-inverted truth. Showing the mundane and the supramundane, it makes people abandon the learning of ordinary beings, learn the way of sages, abandon inversion, and follow non-inversion. For this meaning, the two truths of gain and loss of the mundane and the supramundane are revealed. How do we know this is so? The sutras and treatises are cited in detail. The Mahayana Sutra (Dà Jīng) says: 'Wanting to enable sentient beings to deeply recognize the ultimate truth, therefore the Tathagata speaks of conventional truth. If sentient beings do not realize the ultimate truth through conventional truth, the Tathagata will ultimately not speak of conventional truth.' Speaking of conventional truth is to enable people to recognize the ultimate truth. Also, the Madhyamaka-karika (Zhōnglùn) says, if one does not rely on conventional truth, one cannot attain the ultimate truth.
義。不得第一義則不得涅槃。說世諦令得說第一義。說第一義令得涅槃。故開二諦也。又大品云。般若波羅蜜。為大事故起。所謂示是道是非道。非道即是倒。是道即非倒。示是道是非道。令舉非道從道。亦示倒示不倒。令舉倒從不倒。為是義故。開二諦示得失。令改悟也。然二諦大判有三節。一者凡聖就倒不倒判二諦。二者就聖中自判二諦。三者就凡中自判二諦。就凡聖判二諦者。凡所解為世諦。聖所解為第一義諦。此判凡聖者。就知性空不知性空判凡聖。未知性空為凡。若知性空為聖人。就此判二諦也。就聖中自判二諦者。聖人了有是空有空是有空。此之二諦。皆是聖二諦也。何者。如四諦者。苦集滅道皆名聖諦。二諦亦爾。真俗兩種。皆是聖諦也。問何處作此說耶。解云。如般若四攝品末所明。自有時情轉千開。有時須文義明據。今宜須文義分明也。彼文云。凡夫若知世諦。應是須陀洹乃至於佛。若爾凡夫不知世諦第一義諦。唯是聖人知此二諦。故此二諦皆是聖諦也。大判如此。就聖中復有無量種。如大經云。我一時與彌勒在耆阇崛山。共論世諦。五百聲聞不覺不知。何況甚深第一義諦。約此而論。二乘不知二諦。唯菩薩知於二諦也。此則從來義壞。何者從來云。三乘皆會真諦。並解二諦。聖則真解二諦。賢則
【現代漢語翻譯】 義（含義）。不得第一義（最高真理）則不得涅槃（寂滅）。說世諦（世俗諦）令得說第一義（第一義諦）。說第一義（第一義諦）令得涅槃（寂滅）。故開二諦（真諦和俗諦）也。又《大品般若經》云：般若波羅蜜（智慧到彼岸），為大事故起，所謂示是道（正道）是非道（邪道）。非道即是倒（顛倒），是道即非倒（不顛倒）。示是道（正道）是非道（邪道），令舉非道（邪道）從道（正道）。亦示倒（顛倒）示不倒（不顛倒），令舉倒（顛倒）從不倒（不顛倒）。為是義故，開二諦（真諦和俗諦）示得失，令改悟也。然二諦（真諦和俗諦）大判有三節。一者凡聖就倒不倒判二諦（真諦和俗諦）。二者就聖中自判二諦（真諦和俗諦）。三者就凡中自判二諦（真諦和俗諦）。就凡聖判二諦（真諦和俗諦）者，凡所解為世諦（世俗諦），聖所解為第一義諦（第一義諦）。此判凡聖者，就知性空不知性空判凡聖。未知性空為凡，若知性空為聖人。就此判二諦（真諦和俗諦）也。就聖中自判二諦（真諦和俗諦）者，聖人了有是空有空是有空。此之二諦（真諦和俗諦），皆是聖二諦（真諦和俗諦）也。何者？如四諦（苦集滅道）者，苦集滅道皆名聖諦。二諦（真諦和俗諦）亦爾，真俗兩種，皆是聖諦也。問何處作此說耶？解云：如《般若經》四攝品末所明。自有時情轉千開，有時須文義明據。今宜須文義分明也。彼文云：凡夫若知世諦（世俗諦），應是須陀洹（入流果）乃至於佛。若爾凡夫不知世諦（世俗諦）第一義諦（第一義諦），唯是聖人知此二諦（真諦和俗諦）。故此二諦（真諦和俗諦）皆是聖諦也。大判如此。就聖中復有無量種。如《大般涅槃經》云：我一時與彌勒（慈氏菩薩）在耆阇崛山（靈鷲山），共論世諦（世俗諦），五百聲聞（阿羅漢）不覺不知，何況甚深第一義諦（第一義諦）。約此而論，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）不知二諦（真諦和俗諦），唯菩薩知於二諦（真諦和俗諦）也。此則從來義壞。何者從來云：三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）皆會真諦（真諦），並解二諦（真諦和俗諦）。聖則真解二諦（真諦和俗諦），賢則
【English Translation】 English version: Meaning. Without understanding the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya), one cannot attain Nirvana (extinction of suffering). Explaining the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) leads to the understanding of the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya). Explaining the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya) leads to Nirvana (extinction of suffering). Therefore, the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) are expounded. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: 'Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom) arises for a great purpose, which is to show what is the Path (Mārga) and what is not the Path (A-mārga). What is not the Path (A-mārga) is delusion (viparyāsa), and what is the Path (Mārga) is non-delusion (a-viparyāsa). Showing what is the Path (Mārga) and what is not the Path (A-mārga) causes one to abandon the non-Path (A-mārga) and follow the Path (Mārga). It also shows delusion (viparyāsa) and non-delusion (a-viparyāsa), causing one to abandon delusion (viparyāsa) and follow non-delusion (a-viparyāsa). For this reason, the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) are expounded to show gain and loss, leading to change and enlightenment.' However, the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) are broadly divided into three sections: first, the distinction between ordinary beings and sages based on delusion and non-delusion; second, the distinction of the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) within the sages themselves; and third, the distinction of the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) within ordinary beings. In the distinction between ordinary beings and sages, what ordinary beings understand is the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), and what sages understand is the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya). This distinction between ordinary beings and sages is based on whether they know emptiness (Śūnyatā) or do not know emptiness (Śūnyatā). Those who do not know emptiness (Śūnyatā) are ordinary beings, and those who know emptiness (Śūnyatā) are sages. The Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) are distinguished based on this. In the distinction of the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) within the sages themselves, sages understand that existence is emptiness, emptiness is existence, and existence and emptiness are both. These Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) are both the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) of the sages. Why? Just as the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ārya satyāni) – suffering (duḥkha), origination (samudaya), cessation (nirodha), and path (mārga) – are all called Noble Truths, so too are the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya). Both the true and conventional aspects are Noble Truths. Question: Where is this stated? Answer: As explained at the end of the Four Embracing Dharmas chapter of the Prajñā Sūtra. Sometimes, personal feelings change a thousand times, and sometimes, clear textual evidence is needed. Now, clear textual evidence is necessary. That text states: 'If ordinary beings knew the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), they should be Stream-enterers (Srotāpanna) and even Buddhas.' If that were the case, ordinary beings would not know the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) and the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya), and only sages would know these Two Truths (Satya-dvaya). Therefore, these Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) are both Noble Truths. This is the broad distinction. Within the sages, there are countless variations. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'At one time, I was with Maitreya (the Bodhisattva of Loving-Kindness) on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain (Vulture Peak), discussing the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), and five hundred Śrāvakas (Arhats) were unaware and did not understand, let alone the profound First Truth (Paramārtha-satya).' Based on this, the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) do not know the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya), and only Bodhisattvas know the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya). This contradicts the traditional meaning. What is the traditional meaning? The traditional meaning is that the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna) all converge on the Ultimate Truth (Paramārtha-satya) and understand the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya). Sages truly understand the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya), while the virtuous
似解二諦。小乘七方便。大乘三十心相似解。小乘苦忍以上。大乘初地已上。真解二諦。解世諦通緣似理。解真諦四絕百非。三乘並解二諦。若是涅槃經。明五百聲聞不知二諦。尚不知世諦。況甚深第一義諦。故從來義不成也。今時得有此義。何者。二乘生滅斷常心。不行中道。不見佛性。中道是本。既不識本。豈能知末。既不見理。豈能識教。何者。彼有不得無。無不得有。有不能無用。無不能有用。二不能不二用。不二不能二用。橫豎皆礙。若是菩薩。有為空用。空為有用。二為不二用。不二為二用。橫豎無礙故也。就凡中自判二諦者。一切皆是。只從來所釋二諦是也。彼云。三假七實為世諦。四絕百非為第一義諦。三假不得四絕。四絕不得三假。亡不得有。有不得亡。絕不得不絕。不絕不得絕。如此二諦。皆是凡夫二諦也。何以知爾。大經云眾生起見凡有二種。一者常見二者斷見。具有有無斷常二見也。又有于凡實為諦。亦空于凡實為諦。實有此空故空為諦。所以凡亦有二諦也。此則皆開三種二諦。從來人二諦。任運墮凡夫二諦中。何者。我有三種二諦。一凡聖判二諦。二就聖中自判二諦。三就凡中判二諦。凡二諦者。三假為凡俗諦。四絕為凡真諦。汝義若為耶。汝義三假是俗諦。四絕是真諦。自墮我凡二諦中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 （關於）相似地理解二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）：小乘（Hinayana）的七方便位（sapta-upaya）；大乘（Mahayana）三十心位的相似理解。小乘于苦忍（duhkha-ksanti）以上；大乘于初地（prathama-bhumi）以上，（才是）真正理解二諦。理解世俗諦（samvrti-satya）是通達因緣，相似於真理；理解真諦（paramartha-satya）是四絕百非（catuh-kotika）。三乘（triyana）都理解二諦。如果是《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）所說，五百聲聞（sravaka）不瞭解二諦，尚且不瞭解世俗諦，更何況甚深的第一義諦（paramartha-satya）？所以，從來的解釋是不成立的。現在有時會有這種說法，為什麼呢？二乘（sravakayana和pratyekabuddhayana）以生滅斷常之心，不行中道（madhyama-pratipada），不見佛性（Buddha-dhatu）。中道是根本，既然不認識根本，怎麼能知道末節？既然不見真理，怎麼能認識教法？為什麼呢？因為他們有不得無，無不得有，有不能無用，無不能有用，二不能不二用，不二不能二用，橫豎都有障礙。如果是菩薩（Bodhisattva），有為（sasrava）可以為空用，空可以為有用，二可以為不二用，不二可以為二用，橫豎都沒有障礙。在凡夫中自己判斷二諦的人，一切都是這樣，只是從來所解釋的二諦是這樣。他們說，三假七實為世俗諦，四絕百非為第一義諦。三假不得四絕，四絕不得三假，亡不得有，有不得亡，絕不得不絕，不絕不得絕。這樣的二諦，都是凡夫的二諦。為什麼知道是這樣呢？《大般涅槃經》說，眾生（sattva）生起見解，凡有二種：一者常見（sasvata-drsti），二者斷見（uccheda-drsti）。具有有無斷常二見。又有人認為凡夫的實有為諦，也有人認為空于凡夫的實有為諦。因為真實有此空，所以空為諦。所以凡夫也有二諦。這些都是開出三種二諦。從來人的二諦，任運墮入凡夫二諦中。為什麼呢？我有三種二諦：一、凡聖判二諦；二、就聖中自己判斷二諦；三、就凡夫中判斷二諦。凡夫二諦是：三假為凡夫俗諦，四絕為凡夫真諦。你的意思怎麼樣呢？你的意思是三假是俗諦，四絕是真諦，自己墮入我的凡夫二諦中。
【English Translation】 English version Similar understanding of the two truths (satya-dvaya): The seven expedient stages (sapta-upaya) of the Hinayana; the similar understanding of the thirty minds of the Mahayana. The Hinayana is above the forbearance of suffering (duhkha-ksanti); the Mahayana is above the first bhumi (prathama-bhumi), (which is) the true understanding of the two truths. Understanding the conventional truth (samvrti-satya) is to understand dependent origination, which is similar to the truth; understanding the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) is the four negations and hundred denials (catuh-kotika). The three vehicles (triyana) all understand the two truths. If it is as stated in the Nirvana Sutra, the five hundred sravakas (sravaka) do not understand the two truths, and do not even understand the conventional truth, let alone the profound ultimate truth (paramartha-satya)? Therefore, the traditional explanation is not valid. Now, there are times when this kind of statement is made, why? The two vehicles (sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayana) use the mind of arising, ceasing, permanence, and annihilation, do not practice the Middle Way (madhyama-pratipada), and do not see the Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu). The Middle Way is the root, and since they do not recognize the root, how can they know the branches? Since they do not see the truth, how can they recognize the teachings? Why? Because they cannot have without non-existence, cannot have non-existence without existence, existence cannot be without non-usefulness, non-existence cannot be without usefulness, two cannot be without non-dual use, non-dual cannot be without dual use, and there are obstacles in all directions. If it is a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva), conditioned (sasrava) can be used as emptiness, emptiness can be used as existence, two can be used as non-dual, and non-dual can be used as two, and there are no obstacles in any direction. Those who judge the two truths themselves among ordinary people, everything is like this, only the two truths that have always been explained are like this. They say that the three provisionalities and seven realities are the conventional truth, and the four negations and hundred denials are the ultimate truth. The three provisionalities cannot obtain the four negations, the four negations cannot obtain the three provisionalities, extinction cannot obtain existence, existence cannot obtain extinction, negation cannot obtain non-negation, and non-negation cannot obtain negation. Such two truths are all the two truths of ordinary people. How do we know this is the case? The Nirvana Sutra says that sentient beings (sattva) give rise to views, and there are two kinds: one is the eternal view (sasvata-drsti), and the other is the annihilation view (uccheda-drsti). They have the two views of existence and non-existence, permanence and annihilation. Also, some people consider the reality of ordinary people as truth, and some people consider emptiness of the reality of ordinary people as truth. Because there is truly this emptiness, emptiness is truth. Therefore, ordinary people also have two truths. These are all opening up three kinds of two truths. The two truths of the people from the past, naturally fall into the two truths of ordinary people. Why? I have three kinds of two truths: first, judging the two truths based on ordinary and holy; second, judging the two truths oneself among the holy; third, judging the two truths among ordinary people. The two truths of ordinary people are: the three provisionalities are the conventional truth of ordinary people, and the four negations are the ultimate truth of ordinary people. What do you mean? You mean that the three provisionalities are the conventional truth, and the four negations are the ultimate truth, and you yourself fall into my two truths of ordinary people.
。非故安處也。如一家理內外義。汝作義自落我理外中也。論文云諸佛依二諦為眾生說法。前來略釋依二諦竟。次釋依二諦為眾生說法。問既云依二諦說法。為何人說何物法耶。諸人領大師語云。為凡說有法。為聖說空法。為凡聖兩人說空有二法。名依二諦說法。問師有此語不。答然師實有此語。但用此語有處。人唯得此語不解此意。何者。為凡說有。為聖說空。名依二諦為眾生說法。此成何物語。諸佛依二諦為眾生說法。何得言為凡說有為聖說空。名諸佛依二諦為眾生說法耶。又且豈依凡說有還為凡說有。依聖說空還為聖說空耶。論文云。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。既知諸法本性空。云何更為說空耶。今所明者如論釋。論云諸佛依二諦為眾生說法。親道依二諦為眾生說法。何時道為聖說法耶。為凡夫眾生說法。不為聖人說法也。問此就何義判為眾生說二諦耶。解云。此就迷悟能所。判為說不為說。明眾生迷有無未悟有無故。為眾生說有說無。明此是有此是無此是凡此是聖此是倒此是非倒。令眾生從有入無舍凡取聖。為此義故說二諦。若是聖人已悟。何須為說。以凡未悟故。須為說二諦。凡未悟故稟教。聖已悟故不稟教也。言能所者。一切世諦。若於如來皆是第一義諦。既于如來是第一義諦故是能化。豈能化為能化說法耶
。一切第一義諦。若於眾生則是世諦。以眾生是所化所以。須為眾生說法也。次將中論觀法品及大論釋往生品二處文。釋成此義。中論觀法品云。諸佛或說我。或說于無我。諸法實相中。無我無非我。長行中釋。為凡夫說我說無我。又為得道聖人說我說無我。我無我即是二諦。故大論初品云。人等世諦故有。第一義諦即無。當知。我是世諦。無我是第一義諦。既為凡說我無我。為聖說我無我。則為凡說二諦。為聖說二諦也。大論釋往生品云。問云。前習應品。明無菩薩則無去來。今何故說有菩薩有去來耶。釋云。不相違。為凡說無去來。為聖說有去來。為聖說無去來。為凡說有去來。然去來無去來還是二諦。則為凡說二諦。為聖說二諦。大意與中論同也。然師復明為凡說有為聖說空為凡聖說空有。此都三節說二諦義。前為凡夫說二諦。不為聖人說二諦。亦就迷悟能所判如前也。次釋法品。問法品何意為凡說二諦。為聖說二諦耶。解云。為凡說我無我。如前為凡說有無令轉悟不有無。我無我亦爾。眾生迷我無我。為其說我說無我。令離我無我。離我即離常。離無我即離斷。令其離斷常悟中道故。為凡說我無我也。為聖人說我無我者。聖人解我無我。是故為聖人說我無我。前為凡說我無我。凡迷我無我。為聖人說我無我。
非是聖迷我無我故為說我無我。但聖人聞我無我。即解我無我故。為說我無我。大論引天問經中說。羅漢最後邊身能說我無我不。解云。能說故聖人解我無我也。又云。如軍防密號唯防人解余不解。說我無我。唯聖人解。餘人不解。以聖人能解我無我故。為聖人說我無我也。中論既然。往生品類爾可知也。問凡夫迷我無我。為凡說我無我。令悟我無我。可有益。聖人解我無我。為聖人說何益耶。解云。此不就利益為說。直明凡不解我無我聖解我無我。以聖解我無我故。為聖說我無我。此為益凡。利他不自利。如阿難稱我聞。為益眾生也。次大師云。為凡說有為聖說空者。此之凡聖是所化緣。稟教凡聖。有于凡實。為凡說有令悟不有。空于聖實。為聖說空令悟不空。令凡聖說有無悟不有無。亦令凡悟不凡。令聖悟不聖。不凡不聖中道正法。故云。非凡夫行。非賢聖行。是菩薩行也。又為凡說有為聖說空者。明隨凡說有隨聖說無如一色。于凡有于聖無。隨凡說色有。隨聖說色無。色未曾有無也。此正為對由來人義。彼云。三假為世諦理。四亡為真諦理。有二諦道理。今明。隨凡說有。隨聖說無。乃是隨凡隨聖說有無。何處有二諦道理耶。為是義故。云爲凡聖說有無也。此則釋為眾生竟。次釋說法。然說法凡有三種。或具說
二諦。或但說第一義諦不說世諦。或但說世諦不說第一義諦。此三種並出經論。大智論釋往生品云。問曰。前習應品。明菩薩習應波若。不見菩薩。不見波若。無菩薩無波若。今何意復說有菩薩往生來生耶。答曰。前明無菩薩無波若者。就第一義諦門說波若。今說菩薩往生者。就世諦門說波若。此就二諦說波若也。又涅槃經云。善男子莫入甚深空定。何以故。大眾鈍故。當以世諦而解說之。此亦就二諦說涅槃不聞聞義。前云莫入甚深空定大眾鈍故。即是就第一義諦門說。當以世諦而解說之。此即是就世諦門說也。大智論云欲說第一義悉檀故。說波若波羅蜜經。此即但說第一義諦。又大經云與彌勒共論世諦五百聲聞不覺不知。此。即但說世諦。雖復三種不同。如來所說。不出二諦也。問何意如來說法不出二諦耶。解云。二諦即是四悉檀。三悉檀即是世諦。第一義悉檀即是第一義諦。四悉檀攝十二部經。攝八萬四千法藏。攝法既盡。二諦攝法亦盡。此就不盡盡明義也。以二諦攝法盡故。如來就二諦說法也。問曰。二諦與四悉檀攝法皆盡。何意諸佛依二諦說法。不依四悉檀說耶。解云。通皆得。既依二諦說。亦依四悉檀說。別即不例何者此有義。欲明諸佛所說皆實。金剛波若云。如來是真語者實語者。是故依二諦說。四悉檀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二諦：有時只說第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦，指超越世俗認知的真理），而不說世諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦，指世俗認知的真理）；有時只說世諦，而不說第一義諦。這三種情況都出自經論。《大智度論》解釋《往生品》時說：『問：前面的《習應品》中，闡明菩薩修習般若（Prajñā，智慧），不見菩薩，不見般若，沒有菩薩也沒有般若。現在為什麼又說有菩薩往生來生呢？』答：『前面說沒有菩薩沒有般若，是從第一義諦的角度來說般若。現在說菩薩往生，是從世諦的角度來說般若。』這是就二諦來說般若。《涅槃經》中說：『善男子，不要進入甚深空定（Śūnyatā-samādhi，空性禪定）。為什麼呢？因為大眾根器遲鈍，應當用世諦來解釋。』這也是就二諦來說涅槃不聞聞義。前面說不要進入甚深空定，因為大眾根器遲鈍，就是從第一義諦的角度來說。應當用世諦來解釋，就是從世諦的角度來說。《大智度論》說，想要說第一義悉檀（Paramārtha-siddhānta，第一義成就），所以說《般若波羅蜜經》（Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra，般若波羅蜜多經）。這只是說第一義諦。又《大經》說，與彌勒（Maitreya，慈氏菩薩）共同討論世諦，五百聲聞（Śrāvaka，聞法者）不覺不知。這只是說世諦。雖然這三種情況不同，如來（Tathāgata，佛陀）所說的，都不超出二諦。 問：為什麼如來說法不超出二諦呢？解釋說：二諦就是四悉檀（Catursiddhānta，四種成就）。三悉檀就是世諦，第一義悉檀就是第一義諦。四悉檀涵蓋十二部經，涵蓋八萬四千法藏。涵蓋法既然窮盡，二諦涵蓋法也窮盡。這是就不盡盡來闡明意義。因為二諦涵蓋法窮盡的緣故，如來就二諦說法。問：二諦與四悉檀涵蓋法都窮盡，為什麼諸佛依據二諦說法，不依據四悉檀說呢？解釋說：總的來說都可以。既可以依據二諦說，也可以依據四悉檀說。分別來說就不能類比。為什麼呢？因為這裡有意義，想要闡明諸佛所說都是真實的。《金剛般若》（Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra，金剛般若波羅蜜多經）說：『如來是真語者、實語者。』所以依據二諦說，四悉檀。
【English Translation】 English version The Two Truths: Sometimes only the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya, Ultimate Truth, referring to the truth beyond worldly perception) is spoken of without mentioning the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya, Relative Truth, referring to the truth perceived by the world); sometimes only the Conventional Truth is spoken of without mentioning the First Truth. These three situations all come from scriptures and treatises. In the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom), in the chapter on Rebirth, it says: 'Question: In the previous chapter on Practice and Response, it was explained that Bodhisattvas (Enlightenment Beings) practice Prajñā (Wisdom), but do not see Bodhisattvas, do not see Prajñā, there is no Bodhisattva and no Prajñā. Why is it now said that there are Bodhisattvas who are reborn?' Answer: 'The previous statement that there is no Bodhisattva and no Prajñā is speaking of Prajñā from the perspective of the First Truth. The current statement about Bodhisattvas being reborn is speaking of Prajñā from the perspective of the Conventional Truth.' This is speaking of Prajñā in terms of the Two Truths. Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Good men, do not enter into profound emptiness meditation (Śūnyatā-samādhi). Why? Because the masses are dull. You should explain it using the Conventional Truth.' This is also speaking of Nirvana in terms of the Two Truths, regarding the meaning of hearing and not hearing. The previous statement about not entering profound emptiness meditation because the masses are dull is from the perspective of the First Truth. The statement about explaining it using the Conventional Truth is from the perspective of the Conventional Truth. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, 'Wanting to explain the First Truth Achievement (Paramārtha-siddhānta), the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) is spoken.' This is only speaking of the First Truth. Also, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'Discussing the Conventional Truth with Maitreya (the future Buddha), five hundred Śrāvakas (Listeners) are unaware and unknowing.' This is only speaking of the Conventional Truth. Although these three situations are different, what the Tathāgata (Buddha) speaks of does not go beyond the Two Truths. Question: Why does the Tathāgata's teaching not go beyond the Two Truths? The explanation is: The Two Truths are the Four Siddhāntas (Catursiddhānta, Four Accomplishments). The three Siddhāntas are the Conventional Truth, and the First Truth Siddhānta is the First Truth. The Four Siddhāntas encompass the Twelve Divisions of Scripture and the eighty-four thousand Dharma teachings. Since the encompassing of the Dharma is exhausted, the encompassing of the Dharma by the Two Truths is also exhausted. This is explaining the meaning in terms of exhaustion and non-exhaustion. Because the Two Truths exhaustively encompass the Dharma, the Tathāgata teaches according to the Two Truths. Question: Since both the Two Truths and the Four Siddhāntas exhaustively encompass the Dharma, why do the Buddhas teach according to the Two Truths and not according to the Four Siddhāntas? The explanation is: Generally speaking, both are possible. One can teach according to the Two Truths and also according to the Four Siddhāntas. Specifically speaking, they cannot be compared. Why? Because there is a meaning here, wanting to explain that what the Buddhas say is all true. The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Diamond Sutra) says: 'The Tathāgata is a speaker of truth, a speaker of reality.' Therefore, one teaches according to the Two Truths, the Four Siddhāntas.
名。不的主實。是故不依四悉檀說也。問不依四悉檀說法。用四悉檀何為。解云。二諦是所依。依二諦說四悉檀法。此亦兩種。各取一義明。實而說義名四悉檀。說而實義稱二諦。此即依於二諦。方便屬緣不同。是故有四種悉檀也。問若為依二諦說四悉檀耶。解云。依第一義諦說第一義悉檀。依世諦說三悉檀。依第一義諦說。合而不開。依世諦說。開而不合。以依第一義諦還說第一義悉檀故。合而不開。依世諦說三悉檀故。開而不合也。問何意依第一義諦合而不開。依世諦開而不合耶。解云。既有二諦。那匆併合開。真俗因緣。開合因緣也。問等是二諦因緣。何故第一義諦合而不開。世諦開而不合耶。解云。世諦是空有。第一義諦是有空。第一義諦。差別無差別。世諦無差別差別。第一義諦二不二。世諦不二二。為是故。世諦開而不合。第一義諦合而不開也。
問依第一義諦說第一義悉檀者。諸賢聖真知諸法性空。還依彼所悟性空。而說諸法本來無生寂滅。此可解。若為依一世諦說三悉檀耶。解云。三悉檀並依世諦故說。瓶衣車乘等法。於世間為實。名之為世諦。依世諦說世界悉檀。如說輪軸輻輞和合為車。五陰和合為人。如此說者。即世界悉檀。故大論云。人等世界故有。第一義即無。此即依世諦說世界悉檀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名。不以實為根本。因此不依賴四悉檀（Siddhantas，四種成就）說法。問：如果不依賴四悉檀說法，那麼四悉檀有什麼用呢？答：二諦（Two Truths，真諦和俗諦）是所依賴的基礎。依據二諦來說四悉檀法。這也有兩種方式，各自取一種意義來說明。以真實的方式來說明意義，稱為四悉檀；以說明的方式來體現真實意義，稱為二諦。這便是依據二諦，方便法門因緣不同，所以有四種悉檀。問：如何依據二諦來說四悉檀呢？答：依據第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）說第一義悉檀。依據世諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）說三種悉檀。依據第一義諦來說，是合而不開；依據世諦來說，是開而不合。因為依據第一義諦來說第一義悉檀，所以是合而不開；依據世諦來說三種悉檀，所以是開而不合。問：為什麼依據第一義諦是合而不開，依據世諦是開而不合呢？答：既然有二諦，為何要全部合併或分開呢？真諦和俗諦有各自的因緣，開和合也有各自的因緣。問：同樣是二諦的因緣，為什麼第一義諦是合而不開，世諦是開而不合呢？答：世諦是空和有，第一義諦是有和空。第一義諦是差別和無差別，世諦是無差別和差別。第一義諦是不二和二，世諦是二和不二。因此，世諦是開而不合，第一義諦是合而不開。 問：依據第一義諦說第一義悉檀，諸位賢聖真正了知諸法性空，然後依據他們所悟到的性空，而說諸法本來無生寂滅，這可以理解。那麼如何依據世諦來說三種悉檀呢？答：三種悉檀都依據世諦來說。瓶、衣服、車乘等法，在世間被認為是真實的，稱之為世諦。依據世諦來說世界悉檀（Lokasiddhanta，世界成就）。例如說輪軸、輻條、輪輞和合成為車，五陰（Skandhas，五蘊）和合成為人。如此說法，就是世界悉檀。所以《大智度論》說，人等是由於世界而存在，在第一義諦中則不存在。這就是依據世諦來說世界悉檀。
【English Translation】 English version: Name. Not based on reality. Therefore, it does not rely on the Four Siddhantas (Siddhantas, four kinds of accomplishments) for its teachings. Question: If it does not rely on the Four Siddhantas for its teachings, what is the use of the Four Siddhantas? Answer: The Two Truths (Two Truths, ultimate truth and conventional truth) are the foundation upon which it relies. The Four Siddhanta teachings are based on the Two Truths. There are two ways to do this, each taking one meaning to explain. Explaining the meaning in a real way is called the Four Siddhantas; expressing the real meaning through explanation is called the Two Truths. This is based on the Two Truths, and the expedient methods have different conditions, so there are four kinds of Siddhantas. Question: How are the Four Siddhantas based on the Two Truths? Answer: The First Meaning Siddhanta is based on the Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth). The three Siddhantas are based on the Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth). Based on the Paramārtha-satya, it is combined and not opened; based on the Saṃvṛti-satya, it is opened and not combined. Because the First Meaning Siddhanta is based on the Paramārtha-satya, it is combined and not opened; because the three Siddhantas are based on the Saṃvṛti-satya, it is opened and not combined. Question: Why is it combined and not opened based on the Paramārtha-satya, and opened and not combined based on the Saṃvṛti-satya? Answer: Since there are Two Truths, why should they all be combined or separated? The ultimate truth and the conventional truth have their own conditions, and opening and combining also have their own conditions. Question: Since they are both conditions of the Two Truths, why is the Paramārtha-satya combined and not opened, and the Saṃvṛti-satya opened and not combined? Answer: The Saṃvṛti-satya is emptiness and existence, and the Paramārtha-satya is existence and emptiness. The Paramārtha-satya is difference and non-difference, and the Saṃvṛti-satya is non-difference and difference. The Paramārtha-satya is non-duality and duality, and the Saṃvṛti-satya is duality and non-duality. Therefore, the Saṃvṛti-satya is opened and not combined, and the Paramārtha-satya is combined and not opened. Question: The First Meaning Siddhanta is based on the Paramārtha-satya, and the sages truly know that all dharmas are empty in nature. Then, based on the emptiness of nature that they have realized, they say that all dharmas are originally unborn and quiescent. This can be understood. So how are the three Siddhantas based on the Saṃvṛti-satya? Answer: All three Siddhantas are based on the Saṃvṛti-satya. Things like bottles, clothes, and vehicles are considered real in the world, and are called Saṃvṛti-satya. The Lokasiddhanta (world accomplishment) is based on the Saṃvṛti-satya. For example, it is said that the axle, spokes, and rim combine to form a vehicle, and the five Skandhas (Skandhas, five aggregates) combine to form a person. Such a statement is the Lokasiddhanta. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that people and so on exist because of the world, but do not exist in the Paramārtha-satya. This is based on the Saṃvṛti-satya to explain the Lokasiddhanta.
也。依世諦說對治悉檀者。眾生略有三毒之病。廣即八萬四千塵勞之病。有三法藥八萬四千波羅蜜。對治此病。名對治悉檀。何故名對治。以藥撥病。以藥治病。名對治悉檀。如此藥病相治。即依世諦說對治悉檀。故論云。對治故有。實性即無。當知。是依世諦說對治悉檀也。依世諦說各各為人者。前明三法藥八萬四千波羅密。治三毒八萬四千塵勞。即明一切法盡。更何所論耶。解云。于各各為人中。更欖之。何故諸佛經中。或說我或說無我。適說常。斯須說無常。何故或說是舍那或說是釋迦。或說凈或說不凈。何故前後更相違反耶。是故次明各各為人悉檀。昔為邪常故說無常。明諸佛緣覺尚舍無常身。今為三修封執故說常。昔為鈍根故說三。今爲著三故說一。為大根緣故說是舍那。為小乘人故說是釋迦。如此等並是為緣不同。無相違也。此即依世諦說三悉檀也。依第一義諦說第一義悉檀者。卷前三種。明不生不滅不動不倚。何處有人有車有藥有病有人有法有常有無常有三有一。如是畢竟清凈名第一義悉檀。為是義故。云依二諦說四悉檀法也。此即依二諦說四悉檀法竟。今次明依二諦就二諦門說法。然四悉檀唯是二諦。但合離為異。離二諦為四悉檀。合四悉檀為二諦。四悉檀實義名二諦。二諦究竟義名四悉檀。就二諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。依據世俗諦來說對治悉檀（Siddhanta，意為究竟的理論或結論）的，眾生大致有貪、嗔、癡三種毒害的疾病，廣泛來說有八萬四千種塵勞的疾病。有三種法藥和八萬四千種波羅蜜（Paramita，意為到彼岸），來對治這些疾病，這叫做對治悉檀。為什麼叫做對治呢？因為用藥物去除疾病，用藥物治療疾病，所以叫做對治悉檀。像這樣藥物和疾病相互治療，就是依據世俗諦來說的對治悉檀。所以論中說：『因為對治的緣故而有，從實性上來說是沒有的。』應當知道，這是依據世俗諦來說的對治悉檀。 依據世俗諦來說各各為人的悉檀，前面說明三種法藥和八萬四千種波羅蜜，治療三種毒害和八萬四千種塵勞，這不就說明一切法都窮盡了嗎？還討論什麼呢？解釋說：在各各為人中，更要詳細地說明。為什麼諸佛的經典中，有時說『我』，有時說『無我』？剛剛說『常』，一會兒又說『無常』？為什麼有時說是毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana），有時說是釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni）？有時說『清凈』，有時說『不清凈』？為什麼前後互相違背呢？所以接下來說明各各為人悉檀。過去因為執著于邪常，所以說無常，說明諸佛和緣覺（Pratyekabuddha）尚且要捨棄無常的身軀。現在因為三乘的修行者固執己見，所以說常。過去因為鈍根的人，所以說三乘。現在因為執著於三乘，所以說一乘。爲了大根器的人，所以說是毗盧遮那佛。爲了小乘的人，所以說是釋迦牟尼佛。像這些都是因為因緣不同，沒有互相違背。這便是依據世俗諦來說的三種悉檀。 依據第一義諦來說第一義悉檀的，卷首的三種，說明不生不滅，不動不倚。哪裡有人，有車，有藥，有病，有人，有法，有常，有無常，有三乘和一乘呢？像這樣畢竟清凈，叫做第一義悉檀。爲了這個意義，所以說依據二諦來說四悉檀法。這便是依據二諦來說四悉檀法完畢。現在接下來闡明依據二諦，就二諦之門說法。然而四悉檀只是二諦，只是合起來和分開來有所不同。離開二諦就是四悉檀，合起來四悉檀就是二諦。四悉檀的真實意義叫做二諦，二諦的究竟意義叫做四悉檀。就二諦來說
【English Translation】 English version: Also. According to the conventional truth (世諦, Satya) is the 'Counteractive Siddhantha' (對治悉檀, Pratipaksa-siddhanta). Sentient beings generally have the disease of the three poisons: greed, hatred, and delusion. Broadly speaking, they have the disease of eighty-four thousand defilements. There are three Dharma medicines and eighty-four thousand Paramitas (波羅蜜, Pāramitā, perfections) to counteract these diseases. This is called the 'Counteractive Siddhantha'. Why is it called 'Counteractive'? Because medicine removes disease, medicine cures disease, so it is called 'Counteractive Siddhantha'. This mutual treatment of medicine and disease is based on the 'Counteractive Siddhantha' according to the conventional truth. Therefore, the treatise says: 'Because of counteraction, there is existence; in reality, there is non-existence.' It should be known that this is based on the 'Counteractive Siddhantha' according to the conventional truth. According to the conventional truth is the 'Each-for-Him Siddhantha' (各各為人悉檀, Prthagjanika-siddhanta). The previous explanation of the three Dharma medicines and eighty-four thousand Paramitas, which cure the three poisons and eighty-four thousand defilements, doesn't that explain the exhaustion of all Dharmas? What else is there to discuss? The explanation is: In the 'Each-for-Him', it should be explained in more detail. Why do the Buddha's scriptures sometimes speak of 'self' and sometimes speak of 'no-self'? Just now speaking of 'permanence', and in a moment speaking of 'impermanence'? Why is it sometimes said to be Vairocana Buddha (毗盧遮那佛, Vairocana) and sometimes said to be Sakyamuni Buddha (釋迦牟尼佛, Sakyamuni)? Sometimes speaking of 'purity' and sometimes speaking of 'impurity'? Why are they contradictory before and after? Therefore, next is explained the 'Each-for-Him Siddhantha'. In the past, because of attachment to the false permanence, impermanence was spoken of, explaining that even Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas (緣覺, Pratyekabuddha, solitary realizer) must abandon the impermanent body. Now, because practitioners of the Three Vehicles are attached to their views, permanence is spoken of. In the past, because of dull-witted people, the Three Vehicles were spoken of. Now, because of attachment to the Three Vehicles, the One Vehicle is spoken of. For people of great capacity, it is said to be Vairocana Buddha. For people of the Small Vehicle, it is said to be Sakyamuni Buddha. These are all because of different conditions, there is no contradiction. This is based on the three Siddhanthas according to the conventional truth. According to the ultimate truth (第一義諦, Paramārtha-satya) is the 'Ultimate Meaning Siddhantha' (第一義悉檀, Paramartha-siddhanta). The three types at the beginning of the scroll explain non-birth and non-death, non-movement and non-reliance. Where are there people, carts, medicine, disease, people, Dharma, permanence, impermanence, the Three Vehicles, and the One Vehicle? Such ultimate purity is called the 'Ultimate Meaning Siddhantha'. For this meaning, it is said that the Four Siddhanthas are explained according to the Two Truths. This is the end of the explanation of the Four Siddhanthas according to the Two Truths. Now, next, it is clarified that according to the Two Truths, the Dharma is spoken from the perspective of the Two Truths. However, the Four Siddhanthas are only the Two Truths, only the combination and separation are different. Separating from the Two Truths is the Four Siddhanthas, combining the Four Siddhanthas is the Two Truths. The true meaning of the Four Siddhanthas is called the Two Truths, the ultimate meaning of the Two Truths is called the Four Siddhanthas. Speaking of the Two Truths
門說法者。大有三意。一者說世諦說第一義諦。令眾生悟第一義諦。二者說二諦令離有無二見。三者說有無令悟非有非無。說二悟不二也。說二諦令悟第一義諦者。如最初所辨。世間顛倒謂諸法有。於世間是實。名之為諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。于聖人是實。名之為諦。此則開凡聖得失二諦。令眾生悟第一義諦。明凡夫世人顛倒謂有。聖人真知顛倒性空。令舍有入空改凡悟聖舉失從得。眾生改凡成聖者。悟第一義故也。若不悟第一義諦。則不能改凡成聖舍失從得。良由悟第一義諦。乃能改凡成聖舍失從得。為是義故。開真俗凡聖得失二諦。令悟第一義諦也。說二諦令離有無二見者。故大品經云。菩薩住二諦。為眾生說法。論釋云。為著有見眾生。說第一義諦。爲著無見眾生故說世諦。為著有無二見眾生故。菩薩住二諦說法也。肇師論亦爾。借有以出無。借無以出有。借有以出無。住世諦破無見。借無以出有。住第一義破有見。故說二諦破二見也。說二諦令悟不二者。如華嚴明一切有無法了達非有非無。此即說有無悟非有非無。說二悟不二。此即理教義也。一切經論。凡有所說者。不出此三種也。然前說二諦令悟第一義諦。此二諦即有得有失。諸法性空。顛倒謂有名諦。即是失諦。諸賢聖真知性空。即是得諦。故此二諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於說法者，有三大意義。第一，宣說世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，指世俗層面的真理）和第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，指究竟真理），使眾生領悟第一義諦。第二，宣說二諦，使眾生遠離有見和無見兩種偏見。第三，宣說有和無，使眾生領悟非有非無的道理。宣說二者是爲了領悟不二的境界。 宣說二諦使人領悟第一義諦，就像最初所辨析的那樣。世間顛倒地認為諸法是存在的，對於世間來說這是真實的，所以稱為諦。諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒的本性是空性的，對於聖人來說這是真實的，所以稱為諦。這就是揭示凡夫和聖人在得失上的二諦，使眾生領悟第一義諦。闡明凡夫世人顛倒地認為存在，聖人真正了知顛倒的本性是空性，使人捨棄有而進入空，改變凡夫的境界而領悟聖人的境界，拋棄失去的而追求得到的。眾生改變凡夫的境界而成就聖人的境界，是因為領悟了第一義的緣故。如果不能領悟第一義諦，就不能改變凡夫的境界而成就聖人的境界，拋棄失去的而追求得到的。正因為領悟了第一義諦，才能改變凡夫的境界而成就聖人的境界，拋棄失去的而追求得到的。爲了這個意義，揭示真俗、凡聖、得失這二諦，使人領悟第一義諦。 宣說二諦使人遠離有見和無見兩種偏見。《大品經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中說：『菩薩安住於二諦，為眾生說法。』論釋中說：『爲了執著于有見的眾生，宣說第一義諦；爲了執著于無見的眾生，宣說世俗諦。爲了執著于有無二見的眾生，菩薩安住於二諦而說法。』鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）的理論也是如此，藉助有來破除無，藉助無來破除有。藉助有來破除無，是安住於世俗諦來破除無見；藉助無來破除有，是安住于第一義諦來破除有見。所以宣說二諦是爲了破除兩種偏見。 宣說二諦使人領悟不二的境界，就像《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）闡明一切有法和無法，了達非有非無的道理。這就是宣說有和無，領悟非有非無，宣說二者是爲了領悟不二的境界。這就是理、教、義的體現。一切經論，凡有所說的，都離不開這三種意義。 然而，前面所說的宣說二諦使人領悟第一義諦，這二諦就包含有得有失。諸法的本性是空性的，顛倒地認為存在名為諦，這就是失諦。諸位賢聖真正了知本性是空性的，這就是得諦。所以這二諦...
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the expounder of the Dharma, there are three main meanings. First, to expound the conventional truth (Samvriti-satya, truth on the conventional level) and the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya, the ultimate truth), enabling sentient beings to awaken to the ultimate truth. Second, to expound the two truths, enabling sentient beings to be free from the two views of existence and non-existence. Third, to expound existence and non-existence, enabling sentient beings to awaken to the principle of neither existence nor non-existence. Expounding the two is for awakening to the non-dual state. Expounding the two truths enables people to awaken to the ultimate truth, just as analyzed at the beginning. Worldly people, being deluded, think that all dharmas exist; for the world, this is real, so it is called truth. All virtuous sages truly know that the nature of delusion is emptiness; for sages, this is real, so it is called truth. This is to reveal the two truths of gain and loss for ordinary people and sages, enabling sentient beings to awaken to the ultimate truth. It clarifies that ordinary worldly people, being deluded, think there is existence, while sages truly know that the nature of delusion is emptiness, enabling people to abandon existence and enter emptiness, change the state of ordinary people and awaken to the state of sages, abandon what is lost and pursue what is gained. Sentient beings change the state of ordinary people and achieve the state of sages because they have awakened to the ultimate truth. If one cannot awaken to the ultimate truth, one cannot change the state of ordinary people and achieve the state of sages, abandon what is lost and pursue what is gained. Precisely because one awakens to the ultimate truth, one can change the state of ordinary people and achieve the state of sages, abandon what is lost and pursue what is gained. For this reason, the two truths of true and false, ordinary and sage, gain and loss are revealed, enabling people to awaken to the ultimate truth. Expounding the two truths enables people to be free from the two views of existence and non-existence. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths and expound the Dharma for sentient beings.' The commentary says: 'For sentient beings attached to the view of existence, the ultimate truth is expounded; for sentient beings attached to the view of non-existence, the conventional truth is expounded. For sentient beings attached to the two views of existence and non-existence, Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths and expound the Dharma.' Kumarajiva's theory is also like this, using existence to overcome non-existence, and using non-existence to overcome existence. Using existence to overcome non-existence is to abide in the conventional truth to overcome the view of non-existence; using non-existence to overcome existence is to abide in the ultimate truth to overcome the view of existence. Therefore, expounding the two truths is to overcome the two views. Expounding the two truths enables people to awaken to the non-dual state, just as the Avatamsaka Sutra clarifies all existing and non-existing dharmas, understanding the principle of neither existence nor non-existence. This is to expound existence and non-existence, and to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence. Expounding the two is to awaken to the non-dual state. This is the embodiment of principle, teaching, and meaning. All sutras and treatises, whatever is said, cannot be separated from these three meanings. However, in the aforementioned expounding of the two truths to enable people to awaken to the ultimate truth, these two truths contain gain and loss. The nature of all dharmas is emptiness, and the deluded belief in existence is called truth, which is the truth of loss. All virtuous sages truly know that the nature is emptiness, which is the truth of gain. Therefore, these two truths...
有得有失也。次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦並是失。何者。為著有眾生說第一義。爲著空眾生說世諦。此有無並是眾生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦並得。何者。因二悟不二。二即是理教。不二即是教理。二即中假。不二即假中。二即體用。不二即用體。故此二諦是得也。次詺前二諦凡諦聖諦。世諦是凡諦。性空即聖諦。第二二諦。並是凡諦。為著有眾生說空。爲著空說有。借有破無。借無破有。此之有無並是凡夫諦也。然復有聖諦義。何者。所借有無是病皆凡。能借有無並藥皆聖也。第三二諦。二悟不二假中義。此二諦並聖。何者如中論云。因緣所生法。我說即是空。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。從來明。此是三是義。一因緣即是空。二是假。三是中。此之二諦。豈凡夫所知。唯聖能了。又非二乘所及。但菩薩境界也。問何故就二諦說法。說二諦有何利益耶。解云。略出兩論文。一者中論四諦品云。若人不能知分別於二諦。即于深佛法不知真實義明。若不解二諦。于深佛法不知真實。若了二諦。于深佛法即知真實義。故知。說二諦有大利益。二者十二門論觀性門云。若人不知二諦。則不得自利他利共利。若知二諦則得三利。此之二論互出耳。然此二益攝一切益盡。中論明知深佛法益。十二門明利眾生益。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有得也有失。其次說二諦（二種真理）爲了使人遠離二見，這二諦都是失。為什麼呢？因為執著于『有』的眾生說第一義諦（ ultimate truth），為執著于『空』的眾生說世俗諦（conventional truth）。這『有』和『無』都是眾生所執著的，所以都是失。其次說二悟不二，這二諦都是得。為什麼呢？因為因二悟不二，『二』就是理教，『不二』就是教理，『二』就是中假，『不二』就是假中，『二』就是體用，『不二』就是用體，所以這二諦是得。其次稱前二諦為凡諦和聖諦，世俗諦是凡諦，性空即是聖諦。第二種二諦，都是凡諦，爲了執著于『有』的眾生說『空』，爲了執著于『空』的眾生說『有』，借『有』破『無』，借『無』破『有』，這『有』和『無』都是凡夫的真理。然而又有聖諦的意義，為什麼呢？所借的『有』和『無』是病，都是凡夫，能借『有』和『無』是藥，都是聖。第三種二諦，二悟不二的假中義，這二諦都是聖。為什麼呢？如《中論》所說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。』從來就明白，這是三是義，一是因緣即是空，二是假，三是中。這二諦，豈是凡夫所能知道的？只有聖人才能瞭解，又不是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）所能達到的，只是菩薩的境界。問：為什麼就二諦說法？說二諦有什麼利益呢？解答說：簡略地引出兩篇論文，一是《中論·四諦品》說：『若人不能知分別於二諦，即于深佛法不知真實義明。』若不瞭解二諦，對於深奧的佛法就不知道真實的意義，若瞭解二諦，對於深奧的佛法就知道真實的意義。所以知道，說二諦有很大的利益。二是《十二門論·觀性門》說：『若人不知二諦，則不得自利他利共利，若知二諦則得三利。』這兩篇論文互相闡述而已。然而這兩種利益涵蓋了一切利益。中論闡明了知深奧佛法的利益，十二門論闡明了利益眾生的利益。 English version: There are gains and losses. Next, explaining the two truths (two kinds of truth) to make people stay away from the two views, these two truths are both losses. Why? Because for sentient beings attached to 'existence', the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is spoken; for sentient beings attached to 'emptiness', the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is spoken. This 'existence' and 'non-existence' are both what sentient beings are attached to, so they are both losses. Next, explaining the two understandings as non-dual, these two truths are both gains. Why? Because based on the two understandings being non-dual, 'two' is principle and teaching, 'non-dual' is teaching and principle; 'two' is the middle and provisional, 'non-dual' is the provisional and middle; 'two' is substance and function, 'non-dual' is function and substance, so these two truths are gains. Next, calling the previous two truths mundane truth and noble truth, conventional truth is mundane truth, emptiness of inherent existence is noble truth. The second kind of two truths are both mundane truths, speaking of 'emptiness' for sentient beings attached to 'existence', speaking of 'existence' for sentient beings attached to 'emptiness', using 'existence' to break 'non-existence', using 'non-existence' to break 'existence', this 'existence' and 'non-existence' are both the truths of ordinary people. However, there is also the meaning of noble truth. Why? The 'existence' and 'non-existence' that are borrowed are the disease, all are mundane; the ability to borrow 'existence' and 'non-existence' are the medicine, all are noble. The third kind of two truths, the meaning of the middle and provisional of the two understandings being non-dual, these two truths are both noble. Why? As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Whatever arises from conditions, I say is emptiness, it is also a provisional name, and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.' It has always been clear that this is the meaning of three aspects: one, arising from conditions is emptiness; two, is provisional; three, is the middle. These two truths, how can ordinary people know them? Only sages can understand them, and they are not attainable by the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), but only the realm of Bodhisattvas. Question: Why speak about the two truths? What are the benefits of speaking about the two truths? Answer: Briefly citing two treatises, one is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, chapter on the Four Noble Truths, which says: 'If a person cannot know and distinguish the two truths, then they do not understand the true meaning of the profound Buddha-dharma.' If one does not understand the two truths, one does not know the true meaning of the profound Buddha-dharma; if one understands the two truths, one knows the true meaning of the profound Buddha-dharma. Therefore, it is known that speaking about the two truths has great benefits. The second is the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra, chapter on contemplating nature, which says: 'If a person does not know the two truths, then they cannot obtain benefit for themselves, benefit for others, and common benefit; if they know the two truths, then they obtain three benefits.' These two treatises explain each other. However, these two benefits encompass all benefits. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā clarifies the benefit of knowing the profound Buddha-dharma, and the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra clarifies the benefit of benefiting sentient beings.
【English Translation】 There are gains and losses. Next, explaining the two truths (dve satye) to make people stay away from the two views, these two truths are both losses. Why? Because for sentient beings attached to 'existence', the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is spoken; for sentient beings attached to 'emptiness', the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is spoken. This 'existence' and 'non-existence' are both what sentient beings are attached to, so they are both losses. Next, explaining the two understandings as non-dual, these two truths are both gains. Why? Because based on the two understandings being non-dual, 'two' is principle and teaching, 'non-dual' is teaching and principle; 'two' is the middle and provisional, 'non-dual' is the provisional and middle; 'two' is substance and function, 'non-dual' is function and substance, so these two truths are gains. Next, calling the previous two truths mundane truth and noble truth, conventional truth is mundane truth, emptiness of inherent existence is noble truth. The second kind of two truths are both mundane truths, speaking of 'emptiness' for sentient beings attached to 'existence', speaking of 'existence' for sentient beings attached to 'emptiness', using 'existence' to break 'non-existence', using 'non-existence' to break 'existence', this 'existence' and 'non-existence' are both the truths of ordinary people. However, there is also the meaning of noble truth. Why? The 'existence' and 'non-existence' that are borrowed are the disease, all are mundane; the ability to borrow 'existence' and 'non-existence' are the medicine, all are noble. The third kind of two truths, the meaning of the middle and provisional of the two understandings being non-dual, these two truths are both noble. Why? As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Whatever arises from conditions, I say is emptiness, it is also a provisional name, and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.' It has always been clear that this is the meaning of three aspects: one, arising from conditions is emptiness; two, is provisional; three, is the middle. These two truths, how can ordinary people know them? Only sages can understand them, and they are not attainable by the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), but only the realm of Bodhisattvas. Question: Why speak about the two truths? What are the benefits of speaking about the two truths? Answer: Briefly citing two treatises, one is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, chapter on the Four Noble Truths, which says: 'If a person cannot know and distinguish the two truths, then they do not understand the true meaning of the profound Buddha-dharma.' If one does not understand the two truths, one does not know the true meaning of the profound Buddha-dharma; if one understands the two truths, one knows the true meaning of the profound Buddha-dharma. Therefore, it is known that speaking about the two truths has great benefits. The second is the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra, chapter on contemplating nature, which says: 'If a person does not know the two truths, then they cannot obtain benefit for themselves, benefit for others, and common benefit; if they know the two truths, then they obtain three benefits.' These two treatises explain each other. However, these two benefits encompass all benefits. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā clarifies the benefit of knowing the profound Buddha-dharma, and the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra clarifies the benefit of benefiting sentient beings.
上求下化。不出二益也。問若為人不知二諦無利益耶。解云。佛法中即薩衛方廣不知二諦。大損佛法。何者。薩衛等計一切法皆有。則不識如來第一義諦。由識第一義諦所以成聖。既不識第一義諦。則破諸賢聖。論文云諸賢聖真知性空名第一義諦。汝既不識第一義諦故破聖人。斯有大損也。次方廣道人。計一切法空如龜毛菟角無因果君臣父子忠孝之道。此人不識如來世諦。若不識世諦。此有何過。失世諦則失第一義諦。失第一義諦則不得涅槃。中論云。若不因世諦不得第一義。不得第一義則不得涅槃。故此人過失極大也。此二人攝一切盡。若內外大小一切計有者。同薩衛有失。一切大小內外計無者。同方廣無失也。又如中論初云。佛滅度后五百歲。人根轉鈍。求十二因緣五陰等決定相。此即不識第一義諦。聞大乘法說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。若都畢竟空。則無罪福報應等。此即不知世諦。此有無二見眾生。龍樹菩薩。為此等故造此中論。即是住二諦破眾生二見。大品云。菩薩住二諦。為眾生說法。是何物菩薩。今龍樹即其人也。以眾生求十二因緣五陰決定相。次聞大乘畢竟空便言無罪福。如此等失於二諦故。龍樹菩薩。為破此二人造中論也。從初至后。求一切法畢竟不可得。即住第一義諦破有見。次復云。雖空不斷
。雖有不常。有二諦教門。何時無三寶四諦因果罪福耶。此即住世諦破無見也。又前來借空以破有。后四諦品借有以破空。如百論借一以破異。借異以破一。中論亦爾也。此之二種。各示一勢。前申破后迥破。前申破。住如來因緣世諦破空見。住如來因緣第一義破有見。帶申破。后迥破者。借有破無。借無破有。此有無並是眾生有無。皆須破洗。一無所留。借無破有。有去無亦除。故是迥破。此即說於二諦破眾生二見。故有大利益也。次更明前兩人失二諦義。前明。薩衛謂諸法有。不識第一義諦。方廣計。有分無故諸分無。柱無故四微無。人無故五陰無。計一切諸法無。不識世諦。一往如此耳。再往二人俱失二諦。薩衛既不知諸法性空者。亦不識諸法于顛倒因緣有。既失第一義即失世諦。故中論云。汝破一切諸法因緣空義。則破於世俗諸餘所有法。此即破空義。即破一切有法也。又云。以有空義故。一切法得成。若無空義者。一切即不成故。薩衛不識空義。二諦皆失也。次方廣明諸法空失於世諦。既失世諦。即失第一義諦。故中論初云。聞大乘說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。若都空則無罪福報應等。如是則失世諦第一義諦。故方廣不知有具失二諦也。何故爾。空是有空。既其失有。是即失空。又且有即是空。中論云因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 雖然諸法不是永恒不變的，但有二諦（二種真理）的教法。什麼時候會沒有三寶（佛、法、僧）、四諦（苦、集、滅、道）以及因果罪福呢？這便是安住於世俗諦，破除斷滅見。 又，前面是借用空性來破除實有，後面的四諦品則是借用實有來破除空性。如同《百論》借用『一』來破除『異』，借用『異』來破除『一』，《中論》也是如此。這兩種方法，各自展示一種態勢。前者是順著破，後者是徹底破。前者順著破，是安住于如來因緣的世俗諦，破除空見；安住于如來因緣的第一義諦，破除有見。這是帶著順勢的破除。後者徹底破除，是借用實有來破除虛無，借用虛無來破除實有。這實有和虛無都是眾生的實有和虛無，都必須破除洗凈，一點也不留下。借用虛無來破除實有，實有去除后，虛無也要去除，所以是徹底的破除。這便是說運用二諦來破除眾生的兩種見解，所以有很大的利益。 接下來進一步說明前面兩個人喪失了二諦的意義。前面已經說明，薩衛認為諸法實有，不認識第一義諦；方廣認為，因為有『分』，所以『無分』；柱子不存在，所以組成柱子的微塵也不存在；人不存在，所以組成人的五陰也不存在。他認為一切諸法都不存在，不認識世俗諦。這只是一種粗略的說法。進一步說，這兩人都喪失了二諦。薩衛既然不知道諸法的自性是空性的，也不認識諸法在顛倒的因緣下是存在的。既然喪失了第一義諦，也就喪失了世俗諦。所以《中論》說：『你破除了一切諸法因緣的空性之義，就破除了世俗中所有其餘的法。』這便是破除了空性之義，也就是破除了一切實有的法。 《中論》又說：『因為有空性的緣故，一切法才得以成立。如果沒有空性，一切法就不能成立。』薩衛不認識空性的意義，所以二諦都喪失了。接下來，方廣認為諸法是空性的，從而喪失了世俗諦。既然喪失了世俗諦，也就喪失了第一義諦。所以《中論》一開始就說：『聽到大乘說畢竟空，卻不知道因為什麼因緣的緣故才是空。如果一切都是空，那就沒有罪福報應等等。』這樣就喪失了世俗諦和第一義諦。所以方廣不知道『有』，從而完全喪失了二諦。為什麼呢？空是有空，既然他喪失了『有』，也就是喪失了『空』。而且『有』就是『空』。《中論》說，因緣... 專有名詞解釋： 二諦(Two Truths): 佛教中的兩種真理，即世俗諦和第一義諦。 三寶(Three Jewels): 佛教徒皈依的對象，即佛、法、僧。 四諦(Four Noble Truths): 佛教的基本教義，即苦、集、滅、道。 薩衛(Sarvastivadins): 說一切有部，佛教的一個派別，主張一切法皆實有。 方廣(Vaipulyavadins): 大乘空宗的早期代表人物，主張一切法皆空。 百論(Sata Sastra): 提婆菩薩所著的論書，主要闡述中觀思想。 中論(Mulamadhyamakakarika): 龍樹菩薩所著的論書，是中觀學派的根本論典。 五陰(Five Skandhas): 構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識。 第一義諦(Paramartha Satya): 勝義諦，指超越世俗認識的真理。 世俗諦(Samvriti Satya): 俗諦，指符合世俗認識的真理。
【English Translation】 English version: Although phenomena are impermanent, there are the teachings of the Two Truths (Dve Satyas). When will there be no Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), Four Noble Truths (Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha, Magga), and the cause and effect of merit, demerit, and fortune? This is dwelling in the Conventional Truth (Samvriti Satya) to refute the view of annihilation. Furthermore, previously emptiness was borrowed to refute existence, while the chapter on the Four Noble Truths later borrows existence to refute emptiness. Just as the Sata Sastra borrows 'one' to refute 'difference,' and borrows 'difference' to refute 'one,' the Mulamadhyamakakarika is also like this. These two methods each demonstrate a certain tendency. The former is a progressive refutation, while the latter is a complete refutation. The former progressive refutation is dwelling in the Conventional Truth of the causes and conditions of the Tathagata to refute the view of emptiness; dwelling in the Ultimate Truth (Paramartha Satya) of the causes and conditions of the Tathagata to refute the view of existence. This is a refutation with a progressive tendency. The latter complete refutation is borrowing existence to refute non-existence, and borrowing non-existence to refute existence. This existence and non-existence are both the existence and non-existence of sentient beings, and both must be refuted and cleansed, leaving nothing behind. Borrowing non-existence to refute existence, once existence is removed, non-existence is also eliminated, so it is a complete refutation. This is explaining the use of the Two Truths to refute the two views of sentient beings, so it is of great benefit. Next, it further clarifies that the previous two individuals lost the meaning of the Two Truths. It was previously explained that the Sarvastivadins believed that phenomena truly exist, and did not recognize the Ultimate Truth; the Vaipulyavadins believed that because there are 'parts,' there are 'no parts'; because there is no pillar, there are no atoms that make up the pillar; because there is no person, there are no Five Skandhas that make up the person. They believed that all phenomena do not exist, and did not recognize the Conventional Truth. This is only a rough statement. Further, both of these individuals lost the Two Truths. Since the Sarvastivadins did not know that the nature of phenomena is emptiness, they also did not recognize that phenomena exist under inverted causes and conditions. Since they lost the Ultimate Truth, they also lost the Conventional Truth. Therefore, the Mulamadhyamakakarika says: 'If you refute the meaning of emptiness of all phenomena due to causes and conditions, then you refute all other phenomena that exist in the conventional world.' This is refuting the meaning of emptiness, which is also refuting all existing phenomena. The Mulamadhyamakakarika also says: 'Because there is emptiness, all phenomena can be established. If there is no emptiness, all phenomena cannot be established.' The Sarvastivadins did not recognize the meaning of emptiness, so they lost both Truths. Next, the Vaipulyavadins believed that phenomena are empty, thus losing the Conventional Truth. Since they lost the Conventional Truth, they also lost the Ultimate Truth. Therefore, the Mulamadhyamakakarika initially says: 'Hearing the Mahayana speak of ultimate emptiness, but not knowing why it is empty due to what causes and conditions. If everything is empty, then there is no retribution for merit and demerit, etc.' In this way, they lost the Conventional Truth and the Ultimate Truth. Therefore, the Vaipulyavadins did not know 'existence,' thus completely losing the Two Truths. Why is that? Emptiness is the emptiness of existence. Since they lost 'existence,' they also lost 'emptiness.' Moreover, 'existence' is 'emptiness.' The Mulamadhyamakakarika says, causes and conditions... Explanation of Proper Nouns: Two Truths (Dve Satyas): The two truths in Buddhism, namely Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth. Three Jewels (Triratna): The objects of refuge for Buddhists, namely Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Four Noble Truths (Aryasatya): The basic teachings of Buddhism, namely Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha, and Magga. Sarvastivadins: A school of Buddhism that asserts that all dharmas truly exist. Vaipulyavadins: Early representatives of the Mahayana emptiness school, who advocated that all dharmas are empty. Sata Sastra: A treatise written by Deva Bodhisattva, mainly expounding Madhyamaka thought. Mulamadhyamakakarika: A treatise written by Nagarjuna Bodhisattva, which is the fundamental text of the Madhyamaka school. Five Skandhas: The five elements that constitute individual existence, namely Rupa, Vedana, Samjna, Samskara, and Vijnana. Ultimate Truth (Paramartha Satya): The ultimate truth, referring to the truth that transcends conventional knowledge. Conventional Truth (Samvriti Satya): The relative truth, referring to the truth that conforms to conventional knowledge.
所生法我說即是空。既即是空。失有即失空。空既然。有亦爾。為是義故。此二人皆失二諦。以皆失二諦故。破失令識如來二諦也。問何人失二諦耶。解云。大而為言。有兩種人失二諦。一者不學二諦失二諦。二者學二諦失二諦。凡失二諦不出此二種也。若是百論。即對不學二諦失二諦緣。何者。百論正對破外道。外道不知諸法性空。不識第一義諦。既不知諸法性空。亦不知諸法于顛倒因緣有。不識世諦。所以提婆菩薩。從初破諸法性有。畢竟無所有。次破空品破性空。破外道性有性空竟。然後示如來因緣二諦。明諸法性空為真諦。隨俗說故無過。即世諦。破彼空有示其二諦。百論作此用也。次明中論者。具破兩種失。百論但破不學二諦失二諦緣。中論具破不學二諦失二諦及學二諦失二諦緣。何者。中論正破內傍破外。正破內。則正破學二諦失二諦緣。傍破外。即破不學二諦失二諦緣。破不學二諦失二諦。如百論也。破學二諦失二諦者。復有兩種。一者正破大乘。二者傍破小乘。大乘學二諦失二諦。小乘不識二諦失二諦。小乘不識二諦失二諦者。即是前方廣薩衛兩人。並不識二諦。薩衛明諸法性有。不知諸法性空。既不知性空。即不識諸法顛倒有。不知性空。不識第一義諦。不知顛倒有。即不識世諦也。次方廣不識二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 我說，眾生所產生的法，其本性即是空（Śūnyatā）。既然其本性是空，執著于『有』就會失去『空』的真諦，執著于『空』也會失去『有』的真諦。因為這個原因，這兩種人都喪失了對二諦（Dve Satye）的正確理解。因此，需要破除他們的錯誤觀念，使他們認識如來的二諦教法。問題：什麼樣的人會失去對二諦的正確理解呢？回答：總的來說，有兩種人會失去對二諦的正確理解：第一種是不學習二諦而失去對二諦的理解；第二種是學習二諦卻反而失去了對二諦的理解。所有失去對二諦理解的情況，都離不開這兩種。如果是《百論》，它主要針對的是不學習二諦而失去對二諦理解的情況。為什麼呢？因為《百論》主要是爲了破斥外道（Tīrthika）。外道不了解諸法的本性是空，不認識第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya）。既然他們不瞭解諸法的本性是空，他們也不瞭解諸法是由於顛倒的因緣而產生的，因此他們也不認識世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya）。所以，提婆菩薩（Āryadeva）首先破斥諸法實有的觀點，指出一切法畢竟是空無所有的。然後，在《空品》中，他破斥了執著于『性空』的觀點。在破斥了外道的『性有』和『性空』之後，他才闡明如來的因緣二諦，說明諸法的本性是空，這是真諦；隨順世俗的說法，所以沒有過失，這是世俗諦。破斥他們的『空』和『有』，是爲了向他們揭示二諦。《百論》的作用就在於此。接下來闡明《中論》的情況。《中論》同時破斥了兩種失去二諦的情況。《百論》只破斥了不學習二諦而失去對二諦理解的情況，而《中論》則同時破斥了不學習二諦而失去對二諦的理解，以及學習二諦卻反而失去對二諦的理解的情況。為什麼呢？因為《中論》既正面破斥內道，又側面破斥外道。正面破斥內道，就是正面破斥那些學習二諦卻反而失去對二諦理解的人；側面破斥外道，就是破斥那些不學習二諦而失去對二諦理解的人。破斥不學習二諦而失去對二諦理解的情況，就像《百論》所做的那樣。破斥學習二諦卻反而失去對二諦理解的人，又分為兩種情況：一種是正面破斥大乘（Mahāyāna），另一種是側面破斥小乘（Hīnayāna）。大乘中有人學習二諦卻反而失去了對二諦的理解，而小乘則是不認識二諦而失去對二諦的理解。小乘不認識二諦而失去對二諦理解的情況，就像前面提到的廣薩（Vistaraka）和衛（Rakṣita）兩人，他們都不認識二諦。薩衛認為諸法是實有的，不瞭解諸法的本性是空。既然他不瞭解諸法的本性是空，他就不認識諸法是顛倒而有的。不瞭解本性是空，就是不認識第一義諦；不瞭解顛倒而有，就是不認識世俗諦。其次，廣不認識二
【English Translation】 English version: I say that the dharmas (phenomena) produced by beings are inherently empty (Śūnyatā). Since they are inherently empty, clinging to 'existence' means losing the truth of 'emptiness,' and clinging to 'emptiness' also means losing the truth of 'existence.' For this reason, both types of people lose the correct understanding of the Two Truths (Dve Satye). Therefore, it is necessary to dispel their erroneous views and enable them to recognize the Tathāgata's (如來) teaching of the Two Truths. Question: What kind of people lose the correct understanding of the Two Truths? Answer: Generally speaking, there are two types of people who lose the correct understanding of the Two Truths: the first type is those who lose the understanding of the Two Truths by not studying them; the second type is those who lose the understanding of the Two Truths by studying them incorrectly. All cases of losing the understanding of the Two Truths fall into these two categories. In the case of the Śataśāstra (百論), it mainly addresses the situation of losing the understanding of the Two Truths by not studying them. Why? Because the Śataśāstra is primarily aimed at refuting the Tīrthikas (外道, non-Buddhist schools). The Tīrthikas do not understand that the nature of all dharmas is empty, and they do not recognize the Ultimate Truth (Paramārtha-satya, 第一義諦). Since they do not understand that the nature of all dharmas is empty, they also do not understand that dharmas arise from inverted conditions, and therefore they do not recognize the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya, 世俗諦). Therefore, Āryadeva (提婆菩薩) first refutes the view that dharmas are inherently existent, pointing out that all dharmas are ultimately empty and non-existent. Then, in the chapter on emptiness, he refutes the view of clinging to 'inherent emptiness.' After refuting the 'inherent existence' and 'inherent emptiness' of the Tīrthikas, he then elucidates the Tathāgata's Two Truths of dependent origination, explaining that the nature of dharmas being empty is the Ultimate Truth; following conventional speech, there is no fault, this is the Conventional Truth. Refuting their 'emptiness' and 'existence' is to reveal the Two Truths to them. This is the function of the Śataśāstra. Next, I will explain the situation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論). The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā simultaneously refutes both situations of losing the Two Truths. The Śataśāstra only refutes the situation of losing the understanding of the Two Truths by not studying them, while the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā simultaneously refutes both the situation of losing the understanding of the Two Truths by not studying them and the situation of losing the understanding of the Two Truths by studying them incorrectly. Why? Because the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā refutes both internal and external views. Directly refuting internal views means directly refuting those who study the Two Truths but lose the understanding of the Two Truths; indirectly refuting external views means refuting those who do not study the Two Truths and lose the understanding of the Two Truths. Refuting the situation of losing the understanding of the Two Truths by not studying them is like what the Śataśāstra does. Refuting those who study the Two Truths but lose the understanding of the Two Truths is further divided into two situations: one is directly refuting the Mahāyāna (大乘), and the other is indirectly refuting the Hīnayāna (小乘). Some in the Mahāyāna study the Two Truths but lose the understanding of the Two Truths, while the Hīnayāna does not recognize the Two Truths and loses the understanding of the Two Truths. The situation of the Hīnayāna not recognizing the Two Truths and losing the understanding of the Two Truths is like the previously mentioned Vistaraka (廣薩) and Rakṣita (衛), who do not recognize the Two Truths. Rakṣita believes that dharmas are inherently existent and does not understand that the nature of dharmas is empty. Since he does not understand that the nature of dharmas is empty, he does not recognize that dharmas exist due to inversion. Not understanding that the nature is empty means not recognizing the Ultimate Truth; not understanding that they exist due to inversion means not recognizing the Conventional Truth. Next, Vistaraka does not recognize the Two
諦者。未知此人何學。彼若小乘學。則推畫起邪見。明有分既無諸分亦無。于有起邪見。彼若大乘學。則聞大乘說起邪見。聞大乘說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。若都畢竟空。云何分別有罪福報應等。若有罪福則不應空。推畫空便起邪見也。既起空見即不識世諦。既不識世諦。即不識第一義諦。又此空是邪見空故。二諦皆失也。問三藏明諸法有。云何於三藏起邪見耶。解云。于外道中。尚得起邪見。如六師中雲。無黑業無黑業報等。于外道中。尚得起邪見。況於三藏中不得起邪見耶。此即小乘不識二諦失二諦也。次大乘失二諦者。大乘學二諦失二諦。龍樹正為此人出世。造此中論及十二門大智論。併爲學二諦失二諦也。然大乘失二諦。復有二種。一者學二諦成性二諦。二者學二諦成一諦。前小乘有兩失。一性有失二諦。二邪空失二諦。今大乘亦兩失。如前佛法中都有四種失二諦。學二諦失二諦。成性二諦者。聞有住有。聞空住無。如從來初章。他有有可有。有無可無。有有可有。不由無故有。有無可無。不由有故無。不由無故有。此有是自有。不由有故無。此無是自無。自有即有故有。自無即無故無。斯即失因緣二成性二。失不二二成二故二也。言學二諦失二諦成一諦者有二種。一者學二諦成空諦。二者學二諦成有諦。
學二諦成一空諦者。諸法于顛倒有名世諦。諸賢聖真知性空名第一義諦。明顛倒有為非諸法性空為是。何以故。諸賢聖真知諸法性空。故知。諸法性空定是也。此人聞空故空。聞有亦是空。學二諦唯成一空諦也。學二諦成一有諦者。有二義。一者即鼠嘍栗二諦。二者心無義。鼠嘍栗二諦者。經中明色色性空。彼云。色性空者。明色無定性。非色都無。如鼠嘍栗中肉盡栗猶有皮㲉形容宛然。栗中無肉故言栗空。非都無栗故言栗空也。即空有併成有也。言心無義者。然此義從來太久。什師之前。道安竺法護之時。已有此義。言心無義者。亦引經云。色色性空者。明色不可空。但空於心。以得空觀故言色空。色終不可空也。肇師破此義明。得在於神靜。失在於物虛。得在神靜者明心空。此言為得。色不可空。此義為失也。然此之兩釋。並是學二諦失二諦。失世諦不識第一義。不識第一義即不識世諦。何者。此是空有。失有即失空。又設得一有。此有是有見有。故二諦皆失。空邊亦爾。故皆失二諦。失二諦即失假。失假即失中。中假理教皆失也。學二諦成性二諦。亦一切失。聞二住二不識不二。不識不二即失中。失中即失假。此非相待失。失中即失假。何以故。假即中故也。學二諦失二諦。既並失不識二諦。失二諦理然。皆失
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 學二諦成一空諦者。諸法于顛倒中顯現有，這是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya）。諸賢聖以真實的智慧了知諸法自性本空，這是第一義諦（Paramartha-satya）。認為顛倒顯現有為實有，而非諸法自性空才是真理。為什麼呢？因為諸賢聖以真實的智慧了知諸法自性本空，所以知道諸法性空是確定的。這種人聽聞『空』就執著于『空』，聽聞『有』也認為是『空』，學習二諦最終只成就了一個『空』諦。 學二諦成一有諦者。有兩種解釋。第一種是借用『鼠嘍栗』（Shulu-li，一種果實）來解釋二諦。第二種是『心無義』。借用『鼠嘍栗』解釋二諦是說，經典中闡明色（Rupa，物質現象）的自性本空，是說明色沒有恒定的自性，並非色完全不存在。就像『鼠嘍栗』中肉已經沒有了，但栗子仍然有皮殼，外形依然存在。栗子中沒有肉，所以說栗子是空的，但並非完全沒有栗子，所以說栗子是空的。這就是空和有並存，最終成就『有』。 所謂『心無義』，這個說法由來已久，在鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）大師之前，道安（Dao An）、竺法護（Zhu Fahu）的時代就已經有這種說法了。所謂『心無義』，也是引用經典說色（Rupa，物質現象）的自性本空，是說明色不是可以被空掉的，只是在心中空掉了。因為得到了空觀，所以說色是空的，但色終究是不可被空掉的。鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）大師破斥這種說法，闡明『得』在於精神的寧靜，『失』在於對外物的虛妄執著。『得在神靜』是說心是空的，這可以算是『得』。『色不可空』，這種說法是『失』。 然而這兩種解釋，都是學習二諦卻失去了二諦。失去了世俗諦，就不認識第一義諦；不認識第一義諦，也就不認識世俗諦。為什麼呢？因為這是空和有，失去了『有』也就失去了『空』。又假設得到了一個『有』，這個『有』是有見之『有』，所以二諦都失去了。執著于『空』也是一樣，所以都失去了二諦。失去了二諦，也就失去了假名（Prajnapti）；失去了假名，也就失去了中道（Madhyama）。中道、假名、理、教都失去了。 學習二諦卻成就了『性二諦』，也是一切都失去了。聽聞二諦卻執著於二諦，不認識不二之理，不認識不二之理，也就失去了中道；失去了中道，也就失去了假名。這不是相對的失去，而是失去了中道就失去了假名。為什麼呢？因為假名就是中道啊。學習二諦卻失去了二諦，既然一起失去，就不認識二諦。失去了二諦，道理自然如此，一切都失去了。
【English Translation】 English version Those who study the two truths and achieve one empty truth (Eka-sunyata-satya): All dharmas (phenomena) appear in delusion, which is the conventional truth (Samvriti-satya). The noble sages truly know the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas, which is the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya). They consider the appearance of existence in delusion as real, rather than the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas as the truth. Why? Because the noble sages truly know the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas, they know that the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas is certain. Such people, upon hearing 'emptiness,' cling to 'emptiness'; upon hearing 'existence,' they also consider it 'empty.' Studying the two truths, they ultimately achieve only one 'empty' truth. Those who study the two truths and achieve one existent truth (Eka-asti-satya) have two interpretations. The first is to use 'Shulu-li' (a kind of fruit) to explain the two truths. The second is 'no-mind meaning.' Using 'Shulu-li' to explain the two truths means that the sutras clarify that the nature of form (Rupa, material phenomena) is empty, which means that form does not have a constant nature, not that form does not exist at all. Just like in 'Shulu-li,' the flesh is gone, but the chestnut still has its shell, and its shape remains. There is no flesh in the chestnut, so it is said that the chestnut is empty, but it is not that there is no chestnut at all, so it is said that the chestnut is empty. This is the coexistence of emptiness and existence, ultimately achieving 'existence.' The so-called 'no-mind meaning' has a long history. Before Master Kumarajiva, in the era of Dao An and Zhu Fahu, there was already this saying. The so-called 'no-mind meaning' also quotes the sutras saying that the nature of form (Rupa, material phenomena) is empty, which means that form cannot be emptied, but only emptied in the mind. Because one has attained the view of emptiness, it is said that form is empty, but form can never be emptied. Master Kumarajiva refuted this view, clarifying that 'gain' lies in the tranquility of the spirit, and 'loss' lies in the false attachment to external things. 'Gain lies in the tranquility of the spirit' means that the mind is empty, which can be considered 'gain.' 'Form cannot be emptied' is a 'loss.' However, both of these interpretations are studying the two truths but losing the two truths. Losing the conventional truth means not recognizing the ultimate truth; not recognizing the ultimate truth means not recognizing the conventional truth. Why? Because this is emptiness and existence, losing 'existence' also means losing 'emptiness.' And if one gains an 'existence,' this 'existence' is an existence with views, so both truths are lost. Clinging to 'emptiness' is the same, so both truths are lost. Losing the two truths also means losing the provisional (Prajnapti); losing the provisional also means losing the Middle Way (Madhyama). The Middle Way, the provisional, the principle, and the teachings are all lost. Studying the two truths but achieving 'nature two truths' also means losing everything. Hearing the two truths but clinging to the two truths, not recognizing the non-dual principle, not recognizing the non-dual principle also means losing the Middle Way; losing the Middle Way also means losing the provisional. This is not a relative loss, but losing the Middle Way means losing the provisional. Why? Because the provisional is the Middle Way. Studying the two truths but losing the two truths, since they are lost together, one does not recognize the two truths. Losing the two truths, the principle is naturally so, and everything is lost.
大有三節。一者學二諦成一諦。失二諦一切失。二者學二諦成性二諦。失二諦一切失。三者不識二諦失二諦一切失。如此等人既一切失。詺作何物人耶。此乃是狂愚人耳。為是人故。四依出世破之。有兩菩薩出世。提婆菩薩出世。破不識二諦失二諦。龍樹菩薩出世。破學二諦失二諦。此二菩薩。破病具足也。非但釋迦佛須此二菩薩。十方三世諸佛。並須此二菩薩。何以故。此二菩薩攝一切菩薩。兩失攝一切失。破此兩失。則申一切教。何者。此二失障二諦。破此二失。則二諦通。二諦通則一切經申。若爾故知。三論不可思議。所以關中嘆云。中百兩論文未及此。人又無通鑑。誰與正之。及至之後嘆云。后談道之人。始可與論實矣。實理如此。何者。失不出此二。中百兩論既破此二失。二諦即通。二諦通一切教申故。三論有大利益也。通意如此。次對當路數論者。數人則不識二諦。彼不知諸法性空。但明諸法性有。一切皆有。不識第一義。既不識諸法性空。則不知諸法因緣有。二諦皆不識故。失二諦也。成論者。依彼論宗則同三藏。何者彼序云。故我欲正論三藏中實義。則同薩衛不識二諦。若就彼義中有二諦義。彼明人法二空。但是聲聞空。終不識性空。何者。大智論云。佛于聲聞法中。不說自性空自相空。以不說自性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 大體上有三種情況。 第一種是學習二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦），卻只成就了一種諦。如果失去二諦，就會失去一切。第二種是學習二諦，卻把二諦變成了一種『性』二諦（本質上的二諦）。如果失去二諦，就會失去一切。第三種是不認識二諦，因此失去二諦，從而失去一切。像這樣的人既然失去了一切，可以稱作什麼樣的人呢？這些人乃是狂妄愚癡之人。 爲了這些人，四依菩薩（指依法不依人，依義不依語，依了義不依不了義，依智不依識的四種依靠）出世來破斥他們。有兩位菩薩出世：提婆菩薩（Āryadeva）出世，破斥不認識二諦而失去二諦的錯誤；龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna）出世，破斥學習二諦卻失去二諦的錯誤。這兩位菩薩，破斥了所有病癥。不僅釋迦牟尼佛需要這兩位菩薩，十方三世諸佛，都需要這兩位菩薩。為什麼呢？因為這兩位菩薩總攝了一切菩薩，兩種失去總攝了一切失去。破斥這兩種失去，就能闡明一切教義。為什麼呢？因為這兩種失去障礙了二諦，破斥這兩種失去，二諦就能通達。二諦通達，就能闡明一切經書。如果這樣，就知道三論（《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》）不可思議。所以關中（地名）的僧人感嘆說：『《中論》和《百論》這兩部論著還沒有達到這種程度。』人們又沒有通鑑的能力，誰來糾正它呢？等到之後又感嘆說：『以後談論佛道的人，才可以和他討論真理了。』真理就是這樣。為什麼呢？失去不會超出這兩種情況。中論和百論既然破斥了這兩種失去，二諦就能通達。二諦通達，就能闡明一切教義，所以三論有很大的利益。總體的意思是這樣。 接下來針對當時研究數論（Sāṃkhya）的人。這些人不認識二諦。他們不知道諸法性空，只明白諸法性有，認為一切都是有的，不認識第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）。既然不認識諸法性空，就不知道諸法是因緣而有。二諦都不認識，所以失去了二諦。 成實論者（Satya-siddhi-śāstra），依據他們的論宗，就等同於只研究三藏（Tripiṭaka）的人。為什麼呢？因為他們的序言說：『所以我想要端正三藏中的真實意義。』那就等同於薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda），不認識二諦。如果就他們的意義來說，其中有二諦的意義，他們闡明人空和法空，但是這是聲聞乘的空，始終不認識性空。為什麼呢？《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra）說：『佛在聲聞法中，不說自性空和自相空，因為不說自性。』
【English Translation】 English version: There are mainly three situations. The first is learning the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), but only achieving one truth. If you lose the two truths, you lose everything. The second is learning the two truths, but turning the two truths into a 'nature' two truths (essential two truths). If you lose the two truths, you lose everything. The third is not recognizing the two truths, thus losing the two truths, and thereby losing everything. Since such people have lost everything, what can they be called? These people are arrogant and foolish. For these people, the four reliances (relying on the law, not on the person; relying on the meaning, not on the words; relying on the complete meaning, not on the incomplete meaning; relying on wisdom, not on consciousness) appear in the world to refute them. Two Bodhisattvas appeared in the world: Āryadeva appeared in the world to refute the error of not recognizing the two truths and losing the two truths; Nāgārjuna appeared in the world to refute the error of learning the two truths but losing the two truths. These two Bodhisattvas refuted all diseases. Not only does Śākyamuni Buddha need these two Bodhisattvas, but all Buddhas in the ten directions and three times need these two Bodhisattvas. Why? Because these two Bodhisattvas encompass all Bodhisattvas, and the two losses encompass all losses. Refuting these two losses can clarify all teachings. Why? Because these two losses obstruct the two truths. Refuting these two losses allows the two truths to be understood. When the two truths are understood, all scriptures can be clarified. If so, we know that the Three Treatises (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Śataśāstra, Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra) are inconceivable. Therefore, the monks in Guanzhong (place name) sighed: 'The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Śataśāstra have not reached this level.' People also do not have the ability to understand comprehensively, so who will correct it? After that, they sighed again: 'People who talk about the Dharma in the future can discuss the truth with him.' The truth is like this. Why? Loss does not exceed these two situations. Since the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Śataśāstra refute these two losses, the two truths can be understood. When the two truths are understood, all teachings can be clarified, so the Three Treatises have great benefits. The overall meaning is like this. Next, targeting those who studied Sāṃkhya at that time. These people do not recognize the two truths. They do not know that all dharmas are empty in nature, but only understand that all dharmas have nature, thinking that everything exists, and do not recognize the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Since they do not recognize that all dharmas are empty in nature, they do not know that all dharmas exist due to conditions. They do not recognize either of the two truths, so they lose the two truths. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra followers, according to their doctrine, are equivalent to those who only study the Tripiṭaka. Why? Because their preface says: 'Therefore, I want to correct the true meaning in the Tripiṭaka.' That is equivalent to the Sarvāstivāda, not recognizing the two truths. If according to their meaning, there is the meaning of the two truths in it, they clarify the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of dharmas, but this is the emptiness of the Śrāvakayāna, and they never recognize the emptiness of nature. Why? The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra says: 'The Buddha does not speak of self-nature emptiness and self-characteristic emptiness in the Śrāvakayāna, because he does not speak of self-nature.'
空故。不識第一義。不識第一義。即不識世諦。若爾數論皆失二諦。以如此等人並失二諦。所以諸佛說二諦。菩薩申二諦教。令眾生識二諦。識二諦即識一切中假等。所以說二諦有大利益。前明失二諦有二種。一者不識二諦失二諦者。當世即數論二人。數人不知諸法性空。但明諸法性有。此人不識性空。無第一義諦也。論人雖明諸法空。是聲聞法空。非今第一義空。今以諸法本性空為第一義諦故。論云。諸賢聖真知性空名第一義。成論無此空。何以知爾。成論正明三藏法。龍樹判云。佛于聲聞法中。不說諸法自相空自性空。既無自性空故。彼無第一義諦。于彼不無人法二空故。彼引羅陀祇喻經。明人法二空。但此空折法明空。不明本性空也。此則據毗曇一節。毗曇不明空。成論則明空。若爾望毗曇則有二諦。望摩訶衍則無二諦。但是世諦。何者。今摩訶衍。正以諸法本性空為第一義諦。彼但折法明空。所以無第一義諦也。問用此語為何耶。解云。欲釋十二門論中一句語。彼論云。汝今聞世諦謂是第一義諦。今將數論等釋此語。問若為聞世諦謂是第一義諦也。解云。毗曇亦明二諦義。謂十六諦理苦無常等為第一義諦。刀杖逼迫等事苦為世諦。彼就事理判二諦也。今明。此判二諦倒。何者。理之與事並是世諦。諸法性空。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為空性的緣故，所以不能認識第一義諦（勝義諦， ultimate truth）。不能認識第一義諦，就是不能認識世俗諦（相對真理，conventional truth）。如果這樣，數論派（Sāṃkhya）就都喪失了二諦。因為像這樣的人都喪失了二諦。所以諸佛宣說二諦，菩薩闡述二諦的教義，使眾生認識二諦。認識二諦就能認識一切中道、假名等等。所以說二諦有很大的利益。前面說明喪失二諦有兩種情況。一種是不認識二諦而喪失二諦的人，當世就是數論派這兩種人。數論派的人不知道諸法自性是空性的，只說明諸法自性是實有的。這種人不認識自性空，就沒有第一義諦。論師雖然說明諸法是空性的，但那是聲聞乘的法空，不是現在所說的第一義空。現在以諸法本性空作為第一義諦的緣故。論中說：『諸賢聖真正了知自性空，名為第一義。』成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra）沒有這種空性。憑什麼知道呢？成實論只是闡明三藏的教法，龍樹菩薩判說：『佛在聲聞乘的教法中，不說諸法自相空、自性空。』既然沒有自性空，他們就沒有第一義諦。在他們那裡並非沒有人法二空，他們引用《羅陀祇喻經》說明人法二空。但這空是破除法而顯現的空，不是說明本性空。 這是根據毗曇宗（Abhidharma）的觀點。毗曇宗不闡明空性，成實論則闡明空性。如果這樣，相對於毗曇宗來說，成實論有二諦；相對於大乘來說，成實論就沒有二諦，只是世俗諦。為什麼呢？現在大乘正是以諸法本性空作為第一義諦。成實論只是破除法而顯現空性，所以沒有第一義諦。問：用這些話做什麼呢？答：想要解釋《十二門論》中的一句話。那部論中說：『你現在聽到的世俗諦，卻認為是第一義諦。』現在用數論派等來解釋這句話。問：怎樣算是聽到世俗諦卻認為是第一義諦呢？答：毗曇宗也闡明二諦的意義，認為十六諦理（苦、無常等）是第一義諦，刀杖逼迫等事是世俗諦。他們就事和理來判別二諦。現在說明，這種判別二諦是顛倒的。為什麼呢？因為理和事都是世俗諦，諸法自性空才是第一義諦。
【English Translation】 English version Because of emptiness (空故, śūnyatā), one does not recognize the ultimate truth (第一義, paramārtha-satya). Not recognizing the ultimate truth means not recognizing the conventional truth (世諦, saṃvṛti-satya). If that's the case, the Sāṃkhya (數論) school would lose both truths, as such individuals lose both truths. Therefore, all Buddhas teach the two truths, and Bodhisattvas expound the teachings of the two truths, enabling sentient beings to recognize them. Recognizing the two truths allows one to recognize all aspects of the Middle Way (中), provisional designations (假) and so on. Hence, it is said that the two truths have great benefits. Earlier, it was explained that there are two ways of losing the two truths. One is not recognizing the two truths and thus losing them, exemplified in this era by the Sāṃkhya school. These individuals do not understand that the nature of all phenomena is emptiness, but instead assert that the nature of all phenomena is existent. Such individuals do not recognize emptiness and therefore lack the ultimate truth. Although the debaters explain that all phenomena are empty, it is the emptiness of the Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘), not the ultimate emptiness of the present teaching. Now, the ultimate truth is considered to be the inherent emptiness of all phenomena. The treatise states: 'The wise and noble ones truly know the emptiness of nature, which is called the ultimate truth.' The Satyasiddhi-śāstra (成實論) does not have this emptiness. How is this known? The Satyasiddhi-śāstra primarily elucidates the teachings of the Tripiṭaka (三藏), and Nāgārjuna (龍樹) judges: 'In the Śrāvakayāna teachings, the Buddha does not speak of the self-nature emptiness or the intrinsic emptiness of all phenomena.' Since there is no intrinsic emptiness, they lack the ultimate truth. It is not that they lack the emptiness of persons and phenomena, as they cite the Rādhā-saṃyutta (羅陀祇喻經) to explain the emptiness of persons and phenomena. However, this emptiness is the emptiness revealed by negating phenomena, not the emptiness of inherent nature. This is based on the perspective of the Abhidharma (毗曇宗). The Abhidharma does not elucidate emptiness, while the Satyasiddhi-śāstra does. If that's the case, relative to the Abhidharma, the Satyasiddhi-śāstra has the two truths; relative to the Mahāyāna (摩訶衍), the Satyasiddhi-śāstra does not have the two truths, but only the conventional truth. Why? Now, the Mahāyāna precisely takes the inherent emptiness of all phenomena as the ultimate truth. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra only reveals emptiness by negating phenomena, so it lacks the ultimate truth. Question: What is the purpose of using these words? Answer: To explain a sentence in the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra (十二門論). That treatise says: 'You now hear the conventional truth but consider it the ultimate truth.' Now, we use the Sāṃkhya school, etc., to explain this sentence. Question: How does one hear the conventional truth but consider it the ultimate truth? Answer: The Abhidharma also elucidates the meaning of the two truths, considering the sixteen aspects of truth (suffering, impermanence, etc.) as the ultimate truth, and matters such as being forced by swords and staves as the conventional truth. They distinguish the two truths based on events and principles. Now, it is explained that this distinction of the two truths is inverted. Why? Because both principles and events are conventional truths, and the inherent emptiness of all phenomena is the ultimate truth.
乃是第一義諦。無常等是世諦。謂是第一義諦。故云。聞世諦謂是第一義諦。是故墮在失處也。二諦既倒。則一切皆倒。何者。諸佛依二諦說法。二諦既倒。故一切皆倒。所以墮在失處也。次成論聞世諦謂是第一義諦者。明諸法有為世諦拆法空為第一義諦。今明。諸法有拆法空。並是世諦。何者。今就性空非性空以判二諦。性空為第一義諦。非性空為世諦。汝拆法空非性空故。是世諦。汝謂是第一義故墮在失處。何者。汝論宗云正明三藏。龍樹云。佛以三藏中不說性空故。無第一義。若有第一義。則乖汝論宗。且應云故我欲正論摩訶衍實義。而傳格道正論三藏義。故無性空。無性空故。無第一義諦。進退皆屈。此非橫破。道理如此也。
次明學二諦失二諦者。大師云。此如失琉璃珠。譬在大池浴失琉璃珠。諸人求珠不得珠。各提瓦石歡喜持出。乃知非真。實是喚魚目謂為夜光。此即學二諦不識二諦也。問此人得是聞世諦謂是第一義諦不。解云。亦得。此有二義。一者就破明。二者就立辨。就破明者。論中橫破萬法。豎洗五句。一切畢竟無所有。彼便謂是第一義。此是真諦遣故一切空也。拙講三論者。亦作此謂。言此等破洗是第一義諦。今明。此是世諦謂是第一義諦。何以知之。且舉譬如十六知見我空。無十六知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這才是第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。無常等是世諦（saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦）。如果認為世諦是第一義諦，所以說，『聽聞世諦卻認為是第一義諦』，因此會陷入錯誤的境地。二諦（dvaya-satya，兩種真理）一旦顛倒，那麼一切都會顛倒。為什麼呢？諸佛（buddha）都是依據二諦說法，二諦既然顛倒，所以一切都會顛倒，因此會陷入錯誤的境地。其次，《成實論》中說聽聞世諦卻認為是第一義諦，是說明諸法（dharma）是有為（saṃskṛta）的世諦，拆解諸法為空性（śūnyatā）是第一義諦。現在說明，諸法有和拆解法空，都是世諦。為什麼呢？現在就自性空（svabhāva-śūnyatā）和非自性空來判斷二諦，自性空是第一義諦，非自性空是世諦。你拆解法空，但它並非自性空，所以是世諦。你卻認為是第一義諦，因此陷入錯誤的境地。為什麼呢？你的論宗說要正確闡明三藏（tripiṭaka），龍樹（Nāgārjuna）說，佛（buddha）在三藏中沒有說自性空，所以沒有第一義。如果有第一義，就違背了你的論宗。你應該說『所以我想要正確論述摩訶衍（mahāyāna）的真實意義』，卻傳達格道（一種學說）正確論述三藏的意義，所以沒有自性空，沒有自性空，就沒有第一義諦。進退兩難，這並非無理取鬧，道理就是這樣。
其次說明學習二諦卻失去二諦的人。大師說，『這就像丟失了琉璃珠（vaiḍūrya-maṇi）一樣。』譬如在大池塘里洗澡時丟失了琉璃珠，人們尋找珠子卻找不到，各自拿起瓦片石頭歡喜地拿出來，才知道不是真的。實際上是把魚眼（matsya-akṣi）當成了夜光（jyoti）。這就是學習二諦卻不認識二諦。問：『這個人算是聽聞世諦卻認為是第一義諦嗎？』解答說：『也算。』這裡有兩種含義，一是就破除來說明，二是就建立來辨別。就破除來說明，論中橫向破除萬法，縱向洗滌五句（五種判斷），一切畢竟空無所有，他們就認為是第一義。這是真諦（satya）遣除一切的空性。拙劣講解三論（Madhyamaka-śāstra，中觀論）的人，也這樣認為，說這些破除洗滌就是第一義諦。現在說明，這是世諦卻認為是第一義諦。為什麼知道呢？且舉例說，比如十六知見（ṣoḍaśa-jñāna-darśana）的我空（ātma-śūnyatā），沒有十六知。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Impermanence and the like are conventional truths (saṃvṛti-satya). If one considers the conventional truth to be the ultimate truth, hence it is said, 'Hearing the conventional truth and considering it to be the ultimate truth,' one will fall into error. Once the two truths (dvaya-satya) are inverted, everything is inverted. Why? All Buddhas (buddha) teach according to the two truths. Since the two truths are inverted, everything is inverted, and therefore one falls into error. Secondly, the Satyasiddhi-śāstra states that hearing the conventional truth and considering it to be the ultimate truth means that all dharmas (dharma) are conditioned (saṃskṛta) conventional truths, and dismantling the dharmas into emptiness (śūnyatā) is the ultimate truth. Now, it is explained that both the existence of dharmas and the dismantling of dharmas into emptiness are conventional truths. Why? Now, the two truths are judged based on inherent emptiness (svabhāva-śūnyatā) and non-inherent emptiness. Inherent emptiness is the ultimate truth, and non-inherent emptiness is the conventional truth. You dismantle dharmas into emptiness, but it is not inherent emptiness, so it is a conventional truth. You consider it to be the ultimate truth, and therefore you fall into error. Why? Your treatise states that it aims to correctly explain the Tripiṭaka (tripiṭaka). Nāgārjuna (Nāgārjuna) says that the Buddha (buddha) did not speak of inherent emptiness in the Tripiṭaka, so there is no ultimate truth. If there were an ultimate truth, it would contradict your treatise. You should say, 'Therefore, I want to correctly discuss the true meaning of Mahāyāna (mahāyāna),' but instead, you convey the meaning of Ge Dao (a school of thought) correctly discussing the meaning of the Tripiṭaka, so there is no inherent emptiness. Without inherent emptiness, there is no ultimate truth. You are in a dilemma no matter how you argue. This is not an unreasonable attack; the reasoning is like this.
Next, it explains those who study the two truths but lose them. The master says, 'This is like losing a vaiḍūrya-maṇi (lapis lazuli bead).' For example, losing a lapis lazuli bead while bathing in a large pond, people search for the bead but cannot find it, and each picks up tiles and stones and happily brings them out, only to realize they are not real. In reality, they are mistaking fish eyes (matsya-akṣi) for jyoti (night-shining gems). This is studying the two truths but not recognizing them. Question: 'Does this person count as hearing the conventional truth and considering it to be the ultimate truth?' The answer is, 'Yes, they do.' There are two meanings here: one is to explain in terms of refutation, and the other is to distinguish in terms of establishment. To explain in terms of refutation, the treatise horizontally refutes all dharmas and vertically washes away the five statements (five types of judgments), ultimately everything is empty and without substance, and they consider it to be the ultimate truth. This is the emptiness of the true truth (satya) eliminating everything. Those who poorly explain the Madhyamaka-śāstra (Madhyamaka-śāstra) also think this way, saying that these refutations and washings are the ultimate truth. Now, it is explained that this is the conventional truth but is considered to be the ultimate truth. How do we know? For example, the emptiness of self (ātma-śūnyatā) in the sixteen knowledges (ṣoḍaśa-jñāna-darśana), there are no sixteen knowledges.
見我。為是世諦為是第一義諦耶。彼云。十六知見我空。此是世諦空。何者。實無十六知見我。外道顛倒謂有。破十六知見我。十六知見我空者。此是世諦空。今亦爾。實無此等諸法。特是顛倒謂有。今破橫謂明諸法空故。是世諦空。亦非是世諦。此乃是世諦所離。離如此等諸法。始是世諦。為是故。破一切諸法。無所有。是世諦。以彼不了。謂是第一義。是故墮在失處。故是聞世諦謂是第一義諦也。言立義者。因緣無礙二諦。如中論所說。因緣所生法。我說即是空。即是假名。即是中道。橫豎皆無礙。假即中即豎無礙。二不礙不二。不二不礙二。二為不二用。不二為二用。因緣生法我說即是空。即橫無礙。有不礙空。空不礙有。有為空用。空為有用。何但空有無礙。唯就有中一切法無礙。如華嚴所辨。三世無礙凈穢長短佛剎無礙。如此無礙名曰聖諦。菩薩得無礙者。非是諸法是有礙。菩薩得無礙觀。令諸法無礙。得無礙通使諸法無礙。良由諸法無礙故。菩薩體法無礙故。菩薩得無礙觀。得無礙觀故。得無礙辨。得無礙通。若諸法有礙。菩薩得無礙通。使令無礙者。菩薩則有過罪。以諸法自無礙故。菩薩得無礙觀。得無礙通。得無礙辨也。如此無礙故。名第一義也。若是由來人二諦即有礙。三假為世諦。四忘為第一義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『見我』，這是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，俗諦，指方便施設的世俗認知）還是第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，真諦，指勝義的真實認知）呢？對方回答說：『十六知見我空』，這是世俗諦的空。什麼是『實無十六知見我』呢？外道顛倒地認為有『十六知見我』，破除這『十六知見我』，說『十六知見我空』，這便是世俗諦的空。現在也是這樣，實際上沒有這些諸法，只是因為顛倒才認為有。現在破除這種橫生的執著，闡明諸法本空，所以是世俗諦的空。但也不能說是世俗諦，這實際上是遠離世俗諦的。遠離了這些諸法，才開始是世俗諦。因為這個緣故，破除一切諸法，認為一切法都『無所有』，這是世俗諦。因為他們不瞭解，認為這是第一義諦，所以陷入了錯誤的境地。因此，聽聞世俗諦卻認為是第一義諦。 說到『立義』，因緣無礙就是二諦，如《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）所說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，即是假名，即是中道。』橫向和縱向都沒有障礙。假名即是空，即是中道，縱向沒有障礙。二諦不妨礙不二諦，不二諦不妨礙二諦。二諦是不二諦的作用，不二諦是二諦的作用。因緣所生的法，我說就是空，這就是橫向沒有障礙。有不妨礙空，空不妨礙有，有是空的作用，空是有用。不僅僅是空有無礙，唯有就著中道，一切法都沒有障礙，如《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）所闡述的，三世無礙，凈與穢、長與短、佛剎之間都沒有障礙。這種無礙就叫做聖諦。 菩薩得到無礙，不是因為諸法是有障礙的，而是菩薩得到無礙的觀照，使諸法沒有障礙；得到無礙的通達，使諸法沒有障礙。正是因為諸法本來就沒有障礙，所以菩薩體悟到法性無礙，因此菩薩得到無礙的觀照，得到無礙的觀照，所以得到無礙的辯才，得到無礙的通達。如果諸法是有障礙的，菩薩得到無礙的通達，使令它們沒有障礙，那麼菩薩就有了過失。因為諸法本身就是沒有障礙的，所以菩薩得到無礙的觀照，得到無礙的通達，得到無礙的辯才。這種無礙，就叫做第一義諦。如果從一開始就認為二諦是有障礙的，三假為世俗諦，四忘為第一義諦，那就錯了。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Seeing the self,』 is this the conventional truth (Samvriti-satya, the truth of convention, referring to the conventional cognition of expedient establishment) or the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya, the true meaning, referring to the real cognition of the ultimate meaning)? The other party replied: 『The emptiness of the self of the sixteen views,』 this is the emptiness of the conventional truth. What is 『actually no self of the sixteen views』? The heretics perversely believe that there is a 『self of the sixteen views.』 To break this 『self of the sixteen views』 and say 『the emptiness of the self of the sixteen views,』 this is the emptiness of the conventional truth. It is the same now. In reality, there are no such dharmas; it is only because of perversion that they are believed to exist. Now, breaking this horizontal attachment and clarifying that all dharmas are empty, it is the emptiness of the conventional truth. But it cannot be said to be the conventional truth either; this is actually far from the conventional truth. Only by being far from these dharmas does it begin to be the conventional truth. For this reason, breaking all dharmas and considering all dharmas to be 『nothing at all』 is the conventional truth. Because they do not understand and think this is the ultimate truth, they fall into a state of error. Therefore, hearing the conventional truth but thinking it is the ultimate truth is wrong. Speaking of 『establishing meaning,』 the unobstructedness of cause and condition is the two truths, as stated in the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way): 『Things that arise from causes and conditions, I say are emptiness, are provisional names, are the Middle Way.』 There is no obstruction horizontally or vertically. Provisional name is emptiness, is the Middle Way, and there is no vertical obstruction. The two truths do not obstruct the non-dual truth, and the non-dual truth does not obstruct the two truths. The two truths are the function of the non-dual truth, and the non-dual truth is the function of the two truths. The dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, I say are emptiness, which means there is no horizontal obstruction. Existence does not obstruct emptiness, and emptiness does not obstruct existence. Existence is the function of emptiness, and emptiness is useful. It is not only that emptiness and existence are unobstructed; only by relying on the Middle Way are all dharmas unobstructed, as explained in the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra): the three times are unobstructed, purity and impurity, long and short, and Buddha-lands are unobstructed. This kind of unobstructedness is called the noble truth. The Bodhisattva attains unobstructedness not because dharmas are obstructed, but because the Bodhisattva attains unobstructed contemplation, making dharmas unobstructed; attaining unobstructed understanding, making dharmas unobstructed. It is precisely because dharmas are originally unobstructed that the Bodhisattva realizes the unobstructedness of the Dharma-nature. Therefore, the Bodhisattva attains unobstructed contemplation. Attaining unobstructed contemplation, he attains unobstructed eloquence and unobstructed understanding. If dharmas were obstructed, and the Bodhisattva attained unobstructed understanding to make them unobstructed, then the Bodhisattva would have faults. Because dharmas themselves are unobstructed, the Bodhisattva attains unobstructed contemplation, unobstructed understanding, and unobstructed eloquence. This kind of unobstructedness is called the ultimate truth. If from the beginning one thinks that the two truths are obstructed, that the three provisionalities are the conventional truth, and that the four forgetfulnesses are the ultimate truth, then it is wrong.
諦。三假不得為第一義。四忘不得為世諦。第一義不得有名相。世諦不得無名相。所以大師云。彼作兩橙解義。聞說諸法空。即內建真諦橙中。聞說諸法有。即內建世諦橙中。世諦不得空。真諦不得有。如此有無皆礙。礙故悉是世諦。彼即云。我有真俗二諦。云何並是世諦耶。解云。有無礙皆是世諦。汝自為是第一義故。是聞世諦為是第一義諦也。如此等。並失如來二諦。不能知佛法深義。若能知二諦。則知佛法深義。何者。識知毗曇二諦是毗曇二諦。知此二諦並是世諦。終不學如此二諦。識成論二諦是成實論折法二諦。非是諸法性空二諦。識從來有得大乘是有礙二諦。識諸佛菩薩無礙二諦。識如此等二諦故。知深佛法義。偈云。若人不能知分別於二諦。則于深佛法不知真實義。若反此。應云若人能了知分別於二諦。則于深佛法得知真實義。為是故。說二諦有大利益也。前就中論明得失二諦如此。次就十二門論以辨得失二諦。論文云。若人知二諦。則得自利他利共利。若不知二諦。則不得三利。此之二論互明得失也。言自利他利共利者。了世諦第一義諦。發生方便實智名自利。了第一義諦世諦。發生實方便智名他利。具了真俗二諦。具生二智名共利也。二者菩薩自了真俗二諦。發生權實二智名自利。菩薩如實而悟。今
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦（真理）。三假（三種假設）不能成為第一義諦（ परमार्थसत्य, ultimate truth）。四忘（四種顛倒）不能成為世俗諦（ संवृतिसत्य, conventional truth）。第一義諦不能有名相（名稱和形式）。世俗諦不能沒有名相。所以大師說：『他將兩種橙子來解釋意義。聽到說諸法是空（śūnyatā），就放在真諦的橙子里。聽到說諸法是有，就放在世諦的橙子里。』世諦不能是空，真諦不能是有。這樣有和無都是障礙。因為有障礙，所以都是世諦。他卻說：『我有真諦和俗諦兩種。怎麼能都是世諦呢？』解釋說：『有和無的障礙都是世諦。』你自認為是第一義諦，所以是聽到世諦就認為是第一義諦了。像這些，都是失去了如來的二諦（真諦和俗諦），不能瞭解佛法深奧的意義。如果能瞭解二諦，就能瞭解佛法深奧的意義。為什麼呢？認識到毗曇（Abhidharma）的二諦是毗曇的二諦，知道這二諦都是世諦，最終不會學習這樣的二諦。認識到成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra）的二諦是成實論破法的二諦，不是諸法性空的二諦。認識到從來有的大乘是有障礙的二諦。認識到諸佛菩薩無障礙的二諦。認識到這些二諦，就能瞭解深奧的佛法意義。偈頌說：『如果人不能分辨二諦，就不能瞭解深奧佛法的真實意義。』反過來說，『如果人能瞭解分辨二諦，就能瞭解深奧佛法的真實意義。』因此，說二諦有大利益。前面就《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）說明得失二諦是這樣。接下來就《十二門論》（Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra）來辨別得失二諦。《十二門論》說：『如果人知道二諦，就能得到自利、他利、共利。如果不知道二諦，就不能得到三利。』這兩部論互相說明得失。所說的自利、他利、共利，就是了解世諦和第一義諦，發生方便實智叫做自利。瞭解第一義諦和世諦，發生實方便智叫做他利。完全瞭解真諦和俗諦，完全產生兩種智慧叫做共利。菩薩自己瞭解真俗二諦，發生權巧和真實兩種智慧叫做自利。菩薩如實地覺悟，現在
【English Translation】 English version Truth. The three false assumptions cannot be the ultimate truth (Paramārthasatya). The four inversions cannot be the conventional truth (Saṃvṛtisatya). The ultimate truth cannot have names and forms. The conventional truth cannot be without names and forms. Therefore, the great master said: 'He used two oranges to explain the meaning. When he heard that all dharmas are empty (śūnyatā), he placed them in the orange of the ultimate truth. When he heard that all dharmas exist, he placed them in the orange of the conventional truth.' The conventional truth cannot be empty, and the ultimate truth cannot exist. Thus, both existence and non-existence are obstacles. Because of these obstacles, they are all conventional truths. But he said: 'I have two truths, the ultimate and the conventional. How can they all be conventional truths?' The explanation is: 'The obstacles of existence and non-existence are all conventional truths.' You consider yourself to be the ultimate truth, so you hear the conventional truth and think it is the ultimate truth. Like these, they have all lost the two truths (ultimate and conventional) of the Tathagata and cannot understand the profound meaning of the Buddha's teachings. If you can understand the two truths, you can understand the profound meaning of the Buddha's teachings. Why? Recognizing that the two truths of Abhidharma are the two truths of Abhidharma, knowing that these two truths are all conventional truths, you will never learn such two truths. Recognizing that the two truths of the Satyasiddhi-śāstra are the two truths of breaking the law in the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, not the two truths of the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas. Recognizing that the Mahayana, which has always existed, is the two truths with obstacles. Recognizing the unobstructed two truths of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Recognizing these two truths, you can understand the profound meaning of the Buddha's teachings. The verse says: 'If a person cannot distinguish between the two truths, then he cannot understand the true meaning of the profound Buddha's teachings.' Conversely, 'If a person can understand and distinguish between the two truths, then he can understand the true meaning of the profound Buddha's teachings.' Therefore, it is said that the two truths have great benefits. The above explains the gains and losses of the two truths based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Next, the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra is used to distinguish between the gains and losses of the two truths. The Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra says: 'If a person knows the two truths, he can obtain self-benefit, other-benefit, and common-benefit. If he does not know the two truths, he cannot obtain the three benefits.' These two treatises explain the gains and losses to each other. The so-called self-benefit, other-benefit, and common-benefit mean understanding the conventional truth and the ultimate truth, and generating expedient and real wisdom is called self-benefit. Understanding the ultimate truth and the conventional truth, and generating real expedient wisdom is called other-benefit. Fully understanding the true truth and the conventional truth, and fully generating two kinds of wisdom is called common-benefit. The Bodhisattva himself understands the two truths, the true and the conventional, and generates two kinds of wisdom, expedient and real, which is called self-benefit. The Bodhisattva awakens in accordance with reality, now.
還如實而說。令眾生亦了真俗二諦發生權實二智名為他利。自他皆了二諦。皆生二智名為共利也。問此兩種二智何異耶。解云。初則就真俗判二智。后就自他內外判二智。前真俗判二智者。了世諦第一義諦。名方便實智。了第一義諦世諦。名實方便智。了二諦判二智也。后就自他內外判者。內自悟二諦名實智。外為他說二諦名方便智。此即就實智中開二諦。就方便智中開二諦。此即就內外自悟化他以判二智也。得此二智利益者。明此二智是十方三世諸佛父母故。凈名經云。智度菩薩母方便以為父。一切眾導師。無不由此生故。此二智是諸佛父母。若了二諦。則有二智。有二智故。有十方三世諸佛。若不了二諦。則無二智。無二智則無十方三世諸佛。故知。說二諦有大利益也。又利益者。了世諦第一義諦。離凡夫地。了第一義諦世諦。離二乘地。離凡夫地。離二乘地。是菩薩地。若不了第一義諦世諦。不離二乘地。不了世諦第一義諦。不離凡夫地。不離此二地。即在五百由旬險道之內。若了二諦。即出五百由旬外。入菩薩位。生在佛家。種姓尊貴。為是故了知二諦有大利益也。又利益者。離斷常二見。了世諦第一義諦。離常見。了第一義諦世諦離斷見。離斷常二見。行於聖中道。見於佛性。若不了二諦。即不行中道。不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 還要如實地宣說（二諦），使眾生也能明瞭真諦和俗諦這二諦，從而生起權智和實智這二智，這叫做利他。自己和他人都能明瞭二諦，都能生起二智，這叫做共利。問：這兩種二智有什麼不同呢？答：最初是從真諦和俗諦來區分二智，後來是從自他內外來區分二智。前面從真俗來區分二智，是說，明瞭世俗諦和第一義諦，叫做方便實智；明瞭第一義諦和世俗諦，叫做實方便智。這是從明瞭二諦來區分二智。後面從自他內外來區分，是說，內在自己領悟二諦，叫做實智；外在為他人宣說二諦，叫做方便智。這是在實智中開出二諦，在方便智中開出二諦。這是從內外自己領悟和教化他人來區分二智。獲得這二智的利益是什麼呢？說明這二智是十方三世諸佛的父母。《維摩詰經》說：『智慧度是菩薩的母親，方便是菩薩的父親，一切眾生的導師，沒有不是從這裡出生的。』這二智是諸佛的父母，如果明瞭二諦，就有二智；有了二智，就有十方三世諸佛。如果不明白二諦，就沒有二智；沒有二智，就沒有十方三世諸佛。所以要知道，宣說二諦有很大的利益。又，（二諦的）利益是：明瞭世俗諦和第一義諦，就能脫離凡夫地；明瞭第一義諦和世俗諦，就能脫離二乘地。脫離凡夫地，脫離二乘地，就是菩薩地。如果不明白第一義諦和世俗諦，就不能脫離二乘地；如果不明白世俗諦和第一義諦，就不能脫離凡夫地。不脫離這二地，就還在五百由旬（yóuxún, ancient Indian unit of distance）的險道之內。如果明瞭二諦，就能超出五百由旬之外，進入菩薩的位次，生在佛家，種姓尊貴。因此要知道，明瞭二諦有很大的利益。又，（二諦的）利益是：脫離斷見和常見這兩種邊見。明瞭世俗諦和第一義諦，就能脫離常見；明瞭第一義諦和世俗諦，就能脫離斷見。脫離斷見和常見這兩種邊見，就能行於聖人的中道，見到佛性。如果不明白二諦，就不能行於中道，不
【English Translation】 English version And also truthfully explain (the two truths). Enable sentient beings to also understand the two truths of ultimate truth (zhen di) and conventional truth (su di), thereby generating the two wisdoms of expedient wisdom (quan zhi) and real wisdom (shi zhi), which is called benefiting others (ta li). When both oneself and others understand the two truths and generate the two wisdoms, it is called mutual benefit (gong li). Question: What is the difference between these two kinds of two wisdoms? Answer: Initially, the two wisdoms are distinguished based on ultimate truth and conventional truth. Later, the two wisdoms are distinguished based on oneself and others, internal and external. The former distinction based on truth and convention means that understanding conventional truth and the first principle truth (diyiyi di) is called expedient real wisdom. Understanding the first principle truth and conventional truth is called real expedient wisdom. This is distinguishing the two wisdoms by understanding the two truths. The latter distinction based on oneself and others, internal and external, means that internally realizing the two truths is called real wisdom. Externally explaining the two truths to others is called expedient wisdom. This is opening up the two truths within real wisdom and opening up the two truths within expedient wisdom. This is distinguishing the two wisdoms based on internal self-realization and external teaching of others. What are the benefits of obtaining these two wisdoms? It is explained that these two wisdoms are the parents of all Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and skillful means is the father. All leaders of beings are born from this.' These two wisdoms are the parents of all Buddhas. If one understands the two truths, one has the two wisdoms. Because one has the two wisdoms, there are all Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. If one does not understand the two truths, one does not have the two wisdoms. Without the two wisdoms, there are no Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. Therefore, know that explaining the two truths has great benefits. Furthermore, the benefit (of the two truths) is that understanding conventional truth and the first principle truth allows one to leave the realm of ordinary beings. Understanding the first principle truth and conventional truth allows one to leave the realm of the two vehicles (er cheng, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas). Leaving the realm of ordinary beings and leaving the realm of the two vehicles is the Bodhisattva realm. If one does not understand the first principle truth and conventional truth, one cannot leave the realm of the two vehicles. If one does not understand conventional truth and the first principle truth, one cannot leave the realm of ordinary beings. Not leaving these two realms means being within the dangerous path of five hundred yojanas (yóuxún, ancient Indian unit of distance). If one understands the two truths, one can go beyond the five hundred yojanas and enter the position of a Bodhisattva, being born into the family of the Buddha, with a noble lineage. Therefore, know that understanding the two truths has great benefits. Furthermore, the benefit (of the two truths) is that one can leave the two extreme views of nihilism and eternalism. Understanding conventional truth and the first principle truth allows one to leave the view of eternalism. Understanding the first principle truth and conventional truth allows one to leave the view of nihilism. Leaving the two extreme views of nihilism and eternalism allows one to walk the Middle Way of the sages and see the Buddha-nature. If one does not understand the two truths, one cannot walk the Middle Way, and one cannot
見佛性。不見佛性。即無性佛等。若了二諦。即離斷常。行於中道。見佛性。即有性佛等。為是故當知。識二諦有大利益也。略明得失利益如此。次明悟教生智義。此義難解。若為生智耶。大師舊語云。稟教得悟。發生二智。教轉名境。若不悟即不生智。言不悟者。聞有作有解。有即住有。有不表不有。聞無作無解。無即住無。無不表不無。名為不悟。言悟者。聞有不住有。有表不有。聞無不住無。無表不無。名之為悟。作若為悟耶。為當悟非有非無不二。為悟有無二耶。若因有無二。悟非有非無不二。應生不二智。云何生二智耶。若言悟有無二者。此乃是悟教不應悟理。既不悟理。那得名悟耶。進退難明。未釋云云。次明二諦是教義。攝嶺興皇已來。並明二諦是教。所以山中師手本二諦疏云。二諦者乃是表中道之妙教。窮文言之極說。道非有無。寄有無以顯道。理非一二。因一二以明理。故知。二諦是教也。所以明二諦是教者有二義。一者為對他。二者為釋經論。為對他明二諦是境。彼有四種法寶。言教法寶。境界法寶。無為果法寶。善業法寶。二諦即境界法寶。有佛無佛常有此境。迷之即有六道紛然。悟之即有三乘十地故。二諦是迷悟之境。今對彼明二諦是教也。言釋經論者。中論云。諸佛依二諦為眾生說法。百
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 見佛性（Buddha-nature）。不見佛性。即是無自性佛等。若能瞭解二諦（two truths），就能遠離斷見和常見，行於中道。見佛性，即是有自性佛等。因此應當知道，瞭解二諦有極大的利益。以上簡略說明了得失利益。接下來闡明悟教生智的意義。這個意義難以理解。如果說是通過什麼產生智慧呢？大師以前說過，通過學習教義而獲得領悟，從而產生兩種智慧。教義轉變成為境界。如果不領悟，就不會產生智慧。所謂不領悟，就是聽到『有』就執著于『有』，停留在『有』的層面，『有』不能表達『非有』。聽到『無』就執著于『無』，停留在『無』的層面，『無』不能表達『非無』。這叫做不領悟。所謂領悟，就是聽到『有』不執著于『有』，『有』能表達『非有』。聽到『無』不執著于『無』，『無』能表達『非無』，這叫做領悟。那麼，如何才是領悟呢？是領悟非有非無的不二之理，還是領悟有和無的二元對立呢？如果因為有和無的二元對立，而領悟到非有非無的不二之理，應該產生不二的智慧，怎麼會產生兩種智慧呢？如果說是領悟有和無的二元對立，這只是領悟了教義，而不是領悟了真理。既然沒有領悟真理，又怎麼能稱之為領悟呢？進退兩難，難以明白。以上尚未解釋清楚。接下來闡明二諦是教義。攝嶺（Sheling）和興皇（Xinghuang）以來，都認為二諦是教義。所以山中的老師的手稿《二諦疏》中說：『二諦是闡明中道（Middle Way）的微妙教義，是窮盡文辭的極致表達。道既非有也非無，借用有和無來顯明道。理既非一也非二，通過一和二來闡明理。』所以要知道，二諦是教義。之所以要闡明二諦是教義，有兩個原因：一是針對他人，二是解釋經論。針對他人，闡明二諦是境界。他們有四種法寶：言教法寶、境界法寶、無為果法寶、善業法寶。二諦就是境界法寶。無論有佛無佛，這個境界始終存在。迷惑於它，就會有六道輪迴的紛擾；領悟它，就會有三乘十地的境界。所以，二諦是迷惑和覺悟的境界。現在針對他們，闡明二諦是教義。說到解釋經論，《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）中說：『諸佛依據二諦為眾生說法。』
【English Translation】 English version Seeing Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature). Not seeing Buddha-nature. That is, the Buddha without self-nature, etc. If one understands the two truths (two truths), then one is separated from nihilism and eternalism, and walks the Middle Way. Seeing Buddha-nature is the Buddha with self-nature, etc. Therefore, one should know that understanding the two truths has great benefits. The above briefly explains the gains, losses, and benefits. Next, the meaning of enlightenment through teaching and generating wisdom is explained. This meaning is difficult to understand. If one asks how wisdom is generated, the master used to say, 'By receiving teachings, one attains enlightenment and generates two kinds of wisdom. The teaching transforms into a realm.' If one does not attain enlightenment, wisdom will not be generated. What is meant by not attaining enlightenment is that upon hearing 'existence,' one clings to existence and remains in existence; existence cannot express 'non-existence.' Upon hearing 'non-existence,' one clings to non-existence and remains in non-existence; non-existence cannot express 'non-non-existence.' This is called not attaining enlightenment. What is meant by attaining enlightenment is that upon hearing 'existence,' one does not cling to existence; existence can express 'non-existence.' Upon hearing 'non-existence,' one does not cling to non-existence; non-existence can express 'non-non-existence.' This is called attaining enlightenment. So, how does one attain enlightenment? Is it to attain the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence, or to attain the duality of existence and non-existence? If, because of the duality of existence and non-existence, one attains the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence, one should generate non-dual wisdom. How can one generate two kinds of wisdom? If one says that one attains the duality of existence and non-existence, this is only attaining the teaching and not the principle. Since one has not attained the principle, how can it be called enlightenment? It is difficult to clarify whether to advance or retreat. The above has not yet been explained clearly. Next, it is explained that the two truths are the teaching. Since Shelìng (Sheling) and Xīnghuáng (Xinghuang), it has been clarified that the two truths are the teaching. Therefore, in the mountain teacher's manuscript 'Commentary on the Two Truths,' it is said: 'The two truths are the subtle teaching that elucidates the Middle Way (Middle Way), the ultimate expression that exhausts words. The Way is neither existence nor non-existence; it borrows existence and non-existence to reveal the Way. The principle is neither one nor two; it uses one and two to clarify the principle.' Therefore, one should know that the two truths are the teaching. There are two reasons for clarifying that the two truths are the teaching: one is for others, and the other is for explaining the sutras and treatises. For others, it is clarified that the two truths are the realm. They have four kinds of Dharma treasures: the treasure of verbal teachings, the treasure of the realm, the treasure of unconditioned fruit, and the treasure of virtuous karma. The two truths are the treasure of the realm. Whether there is a Buddha or not, this realm always exists. If one is deluded by it, there will be the turmoil of the six realms of reincarnation; if one is enlightened to it, there will be the realm of the three vehicles and the ten grounds. Therefore, the two truths are the realm of delusion and enlightenment. Now, for them, it is clarified that the two truths are the teaching. Speaking of explaining the sutras and treatises, in the Madhyamaka-karika (Madhyamaka-karika) it is said: 'The Buddhas rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma to sentient beings.'
論亦爾。諸佛常依二諦。是二皆實不妄語也。大品經云。菩薩住二諦中。為眾生說法。又涅槃經云。世諦即第一義諦。隨順眾生故說有二諦。以經明二諦是教故。今一家明二諦是教也。誦得師語。復知其意竟。何者。知為對他。知為釋經論。但此義未可解。何者。汝言二諦是教。說二諦有二諦。未說二諦應無二諦。若已有二諦。即同他家。若不同他家。說二諦始有二諦。未說二諦即應無二諦也。又難。說二諦始有二諦。未說二諦未有二諦者。說色空始有色空。未說色空應無色空。未說之前。自有色有空。若爾未說二諦。已有二諦。已有即同他云云。然二諦是教義。若可了二諦義即可解。三論文亦可解。若不了此義。二諦義即不可解。三論文則不可解。何者。他明二諦是境。汝今明二諦是教。說法是教。二諦亦是教不。若二諦是教。即違論文。論文云。諸佛依二諦說法。那忽言二諦是教耶。解云。有兩種二諦。一于諦二教諦。于諦者如論文。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有。於世人為實。名之為諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒。性空于聖人是實。名之為諦。此即二于諦。諸佛依此而說。名為教諦也。問教若為名諦耶。解有數意。一者依實而說故。所說亦實。是故名諦。二者如來誠諦之言。是故名諦。三者說有無教。實能表道。是故名諦。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論中也是這樣說的。諸佛總是依據二諦（satya-dvaya，兩種真理：世俗諦和勝義諦）。這二諦都是真實的，不是虛妄的。 《大品經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）中說：『菩薩安住於二諦之中，為眾生說法。』 又《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）中說：『世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）即是第一義諦（paramārtha-satya），爲了隨順眾生，所以說有二諦。』 因為經典闡明二諦是教法，所以現在我們一家認為二諦是教法。 背誦了老師的話，又理解了其中的意思之後，會怎麼樣呢？ 知道是爲了應對他人，知道是爲了解釋經論。但是這個道理還不能理解。為什麼呢？ 你說二諦是教法，說了二諦才有二諦，沒說二諦就應該沒有二諦。如果已經有了二諦，就和別人家一樣了。如果和別人家不一樣，說了二諦才會有二諦，沒說二諦就應該沒有二諦。 又有人詰難：說了二諦才會有二諦，沒說二諦就沒有二諦，那麼說了色空（rūpa-śūnyatā）才會有色空，沒說色空就應該沒有色空嗎？沒說之前，本來就有色有空。如果這樣，沒說二諦之前，就已經有二諦了。已經有了就和別人家一樣了，等等。 然而二諦是教法的道理，如果能夠理解二諦的含義，那麼就可以理解。三篇論文也可以理解。如果不理解這個道理，二諦的含義就不可理解，三篇論文也就不可理解。為什麼呢？ 別人認為二諦是境（viṣaya，所觀境界），你現在認為二諦是教（śāsana，教法）。說法是教法，二諦也是教法嗎？如果二諦是教法，就違背了論文。論文中說：『諸佛依據二諦說法。』 怎麼能說二諦是教法呢？ 解釋說：有兩種二諦，一是于諦（truth in itself），二是教諦（truth as teaching）。于諦就像論文中所說：諸法的自性是空（śūnyatā），世間顛倒地認為有。對於世人來說是真實的，名為諦。諸位賢聖真正知道這種顛倒，自性空對於聖人來說是真實的，名為諦。這就是二于諦。諸佛依據這個而說，名為教諦。 問：教法為什麼稱為諦呢？ 解釋有幾種意思：一是依據真實而說，所以所說的也是真實的，因此名為諦。二是如來誠實的話語，因此名為諦。三是說有說無的教法，實際上能夠表達道，因此名為諦。
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise also says the same. All Buddhas constantly rely on the two truths (satya-dvaya: conventional truth and ultimate truth). These two truths are both real and not false. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths and preach the Dharma to sentient beings.' Also, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is the same as the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Because of according with sentient beings, it is said that there are two truths.' Because the sutras clarify that the two truths are teachings, our school now believes that the two truths are teachings. After reciting the teacher's words and understanding their meaning, what happens? Knowing is for responding to others, and knowing is for explaining the sutras and treatises. But this principle is still not understandable. Why? You say that the two truths are teachings, and only after speaking of the two truths are there two truths. If the two truths are not spoken of, then there should be no two truths. If there are already two truths, then it is the same as other schools. If it is not the same as other schools, then only after speaking of the two truths are there two truths. If the two truths are not spoken of, then there should be no two truths. Someone further questions: If only after speaking of the two truths are there two truths, and if the two truths are not spoken of, then there are no two truths, then only after speaking of form and emptiness (rūpa-śūnyatā) are there form and emptiness? Before speaking of form and emptiness, there is inherently form and emptiness. If this is the case, before speaking of the two truths, there are already two truths. If there are already two truths, then it is the same as other schools, and so on. However, the principle that the two truths are teachings can be understood if the meaning of the two truths can be understood. The three treatises can also be understood. If this principle is not understood, then the meaning of the two truths cannot be understood, and the three treatises cannot be understood. Why? Others believe that the two truths are objects (viṣaya: objects of observation), but you now believe that the two truths are teachings (śāsana: doctrines). Is preaching the Dharma a teaching? Are the two truths also teachings? If the two truths are teachings, then it contradicts the treatise. The treatise says: 'The Buddhas preach the Dharma based on the two truths.' How can it be said that the two truths are teachings? The explanation is: There are two kinds of two truths, one is truth in itself (truth in itself), and the other is teaching truth (truth as teaching). Truth in itself is like what the treatise says: The nature of all dharmas is emptiness (śūnyatā), but the world perversely believes that they exist. For worldly people, this is real and is called truth. The noble sages truly know this perversion, and emptiness of nature is real for the sages and is called truth. These are the two truths in themselves. The Buddhas speak based on this, and it is called teaching truth. Question: Why is teaching called truth? The explanation has several meanings: First, it is spoken based on reality, so what is spoken is also real, therefore it is called truth. Second, it is the truthful words of the Tathagata, therefore it is called truth. Third, the teachings that speak of existence and non-existence can actually express the path, therefore it is called truth.
外道所說。何故不名諦。外道所說。不能表道。所以不得名諦。諸佛所說。實能表道。是故名諦也。四者說法實能利緣。是故名諦。外道說法。不能實利於緣。不得名諦。諸佛菩薩。實能利緣。所以名諦。五者說不顛倒。是故名諦。如涅槃經釋一實諦義。如來所說。無有顛倒。名一實諦。今亦爾。所說不顛倒故。所以名諦。外道所說。皆悉顛倒。不得名諦。諸佛菩薩說。無有顛倒。是故名諦。六者得如實悟。如實而說。是故名諦。故經云如語者實語者不異語者不誑語者。此即如來誠諦不虛故。教名諦也。次明於諦。何因緣名諦耶。為從謂情為名。為從境為稱。為從解為目耶。解云。于諦從兩情解為名。但此義有兩種。一者得失判二于諦。有于凡實。名為世諦。空于聖實。名第一義諦。此有謂情有。此空真解空。謂情有為失。真解空為得。此就謂情真解判二諦也。何以知爾。故論云。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有名世諦。諸賢聖。真知性空名第一義諦。既云真知性空故是真解。前云顛倒謂有故是謂情。若爾故知。此即謂情真解得失。以判二于諦也。二者就兩謂判二于諦者。如色未曾空有。凡謂色有。于凡是實名諦。聖謂色空。于聖是實名諦。此之有無。皆是謂情故。並皆是失。既凡謂有。聖謂空。此之空有。悉須洗破。無如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 外道所說，為何不稱為『諦』（satya，真理）？因為外道所說，不能表達正道，所以不能稱為『諦』。諸佛所說，真實能夠表達正道，所以稱為『諦』。四者，佛所說法真實能夠利益有緣眾生，所以稱為『諦』。外道的說法，不能真實利益有緣眾生，所以不能稱為『諦』。諸佛菩薩，真實能夠利益有緣眾生，所以稱為『諦』。 五者，所說不顛倒，所以稱為『諦』。如《涅槃經》解釋『一實諦』的意義，如來說法，沒有顛倒，名為『一實諦』。現在也是這樣，所說不顛倒，所以稱為『諦』。外道所說，全部都是顛倒的，不能稱為『諦』。諸佛菩薩所說，沒有顛倒，所以稱為『諦』。 六者，能夠如實證悟，如實而說，所以稱為『諦』。所以經中說，『如語者、實語者、不異語者、不誑語者』，這就是如來誠實不虛妄，所以他的教法稱為『諦』。 接下來闡明『諦』，因為什麼因緣稱為『諦』呢？是從凡夫的妄想分別而得名，還是從客觀存在的境界而稱呼，還是從聖人的理解而命名呢？ 解釋說，『諦』是從凡夫的妄想分別和聖人的理解兩方面而得名。但這個意義有兩種。一是通過得失來判斷『諦』，對於凡夫來說是實有的，稱為『世俗諦』（saṃvṛti-satya），對於聖人來說是空性的，稱為『第一義諦』（paramārtha-satya）。世俗諦是凡夫的妄想分別所認為的，第一義諦是聖人的真實理解所證悟的。凡夫的妄想分別是有為法，是失；聖人的真實理解是空性，是得。這是就凡夫的妄想分別和聖人的真實理解來判斷二諦。 為什麼知道是這樣呢？所以《中論》說：『諸法性空，世間顛倒認為是有，是世俗諦；諸賢聖，真實知曉諸法性空，是第一義諦。』既然說是『真知性空』，所以是真實理解。前面說『顛倒認為是有』，所以是妄想分別。如果這樣，就知道這是用凡夫的妄想分別和聖人的真實理解的得失，來判斷二諦。二是就兩種妄想分別來判斷二諦：比如色法未曾是空或有，凡夫認為色法是有，對於凡夫來說是真實的，稱為『諦』；聖人認為色法是空，對於聖人來說是真實的，稱為『諦』。這有和無，都是妄想分別，所以都屬於失。既然凡夫認為有，聖人認為空，這空和有，都需要洗滌破除，沒有如...
【English Translation】 English version Why are the teachings of non-Buddhists not called 'satya' (truth)? Because what non-Buddhists say cannot express the path, so it is not called 'satya'. What the Buddhas say truly expresses the path, so it is called 'satya'. Fourth, the Dharma taught by the Buddhas truly benefits sentient beings with affinity, so it is called 'satya'. The teachings of non-Buddhists cannot truly benefit sentient beings with affinity, so they are not called 'satya'. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas truly benefit sentient beings with affinity, so it is called 'satya'. Fifth, what is said is not inverted, so it is called 'satya'. As the Nirvana Sutra explains the meaning of 'one true satya', the Dharma taught by the Tathagata is without inversion, and is called 'one true satya'. It is the same now; what is said is not inverted, so it is called 'satya'. What non-Buddhists say is all inverted, so it is not called 'satya'. What the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas say is without inversion, so it is called 'satya'. Sixth, one attains true enlightenment and speaks truthfully, so it is called 'satya'. Therefore, the sutra says, 'The one who speaks truthfully, the one who speaks the truth, the one who does not speak differently, the one who does not deceive.' This is because the Tathagata is honest and not false, so his teachings are called 'satya'. Next, explaining 'satya', what is the cause and condition for it to be called 'satya'? Is it named from the conceptualizations of ordinary beings, is it called from the objective realm, or is it named from the understanding of sages? The explanation is that 'satya' is named from both the conceptualizations of ordinary beings and the understanding of sages. But there are two meanings to this. First, 'satya' is judged by gain and loss. For ordinary beings, it is real and is called 'saṃvṛti-satya' (conventional truth); for sages, it is emptiness and is called 'paramārtha-satya' (ultimate truth). Conventional truth is what ordinary beings conceptualize, and ultimate truth is what sages truly understand. The conceptualizations of ordinary beings are conditioned dharmas, which are loss; the true understanding of sages is emptiness, which is gain. This is judging the two truths based on the conceptualizations of ordinary beings and the true understanding of sages. How do we know this is so? Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika says, 'The nature of all dharmas is empty, but the world mistakenly believes they exist, which is conventional truth; the sages truly know that the nature of all dharmas is empty, which is ultimate truth.' Since it says 'truly know that the nature is empty', it is true understanding. Earlier it said 'mistakenly believes they exist', so it is conceptualization. If so, we know that this is using the gain and loss of the conceptualizations of ordinary beings and the true understanding of sages to judge the two truths. Second, judging the two truths based on two kinds of conceptualizations: for example, form has never been empty or existent. Ordinary beings believe that form exists, which is real for ordinary beings and is called 'satya'; sages believe that form is empty, which is real for sages and is called 'satya'. This existence and non-existence are both conceptualizations, so they both belong to loss. Since ordinary beings believe in existence and sages believe in emptiness, this emptiness and existence both need to be washed away and destroyed, without...
此有。無如此空。畢竟洗凈。始得明因緣空有。因緣空有。即非空有空有。既識非空有空有。即悟空有非空有也。前之空有。並是所治之病。故皆失也。以如此義名教諦。以如此義名于諦。此是師語不。然此實是師語也。次作一疑難安中。何者。依于諦說法。于諦是境不。若非境即乖論文。論文云。諸賢聖真知諸法性空。真知即是智。智必有境。性空即是境。真知即是智。若爾二諦是境。依二諦境。為眾生說法。生得附論文即成他義。他亦云。二諦是境。說二諦名教。故有言教法寶境界法寶。四諦二諦。是境界法寶。說四諦二諦。即是言教法寶。今亦爾。與他何異。若言我不如此。即乖論文。論文云。諸佛依二諦。為眾生說法。那得言二諦是教耶。進退不可。扶論文即同他。不同他即乖論文也。又作一掩答難。有于諦有教諦。于諦有真俗。教諦有真俗不。若言教諦亦有真俗者。成論死三論未知若為成論死者。今且問汝。說俗說是俗。說真說是真不。汝若言說是真。即乖汝義。何者。汝義教諦是言語唯是俗故。不得言教諦具真俗。若畏改語言。若說非真者。那得言教諦有真俗耶。若是成論家解義者。即云。真俗二諦是境。境有真俗。說真說俗。此兩說並俗諦。真不可說。寄俗諦說也。今問三論師。他家真俗是境。境中有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此有，並非空無。徹底洗凈（煩惱），才能明白因緣空有的道理。因緣空有，即不是空也不是有，既認識到非空非有，即是悟空有非空有。之前的空有，都是所要治療的病，所以都要捨棄。以這樣的道理稱為教諦。以這樣的道理名為于諦。這是老師說的話嗎？是的，這確實是老師說的話。 接下來提出一個疑難，安立其中。是什麼呢？依據于諦說法，那麼于諦是境（所觀對像）嗎？如果不是境，就違背了論文。論文說：『諸賢聖真知諸法性空。』真知即是智（智慧），智必定有境。性空即是境。真知即是智。如果這樣，二諦（真諦和俗諦）是境。依據二諦境，為眾生說法，這樣就附和了論文，但也成了他人的觀點。他人也說：二諦是境，說二諦名為教。所以有言教法寶、境界法寶。四諦、二諦是境界法寶，說四諦、二諦，即是言教法寶。現在也是這樣，與他人有什麼不同？如果說我不是這樣認為的，就違背了論文。論文說：『諸佛依二諦，為眾生說法。』怎麼能說二諦是教呢？進退兩難。扶持論文就與他人相同，不同於他人就違背論文。 再提出一個掩蓋性的回答來反駁這個難題。于諦有于諦，教諦有教諦。于諦有真俗（真諦和俗諦），教諦有真俗嗎？如果說教諦也有真俗，那就成了成論宗的觀點，三論宗不知道該如何應對。如果成論宗這樣解釋：真俗二諦是境，境中有真俗，說真說俗，這兩種說法都是俗諦，真諦是不可說的，只能寄託于俗諦來說。現在問三論宗，他家的真俗是境，境中有（真俗嗎）？
【English Translation】 English version This exists, it is not like empty nothingness. Only after thoroughly cleansing (afflictions) can one understand the principle of dependent origination of emptiness and existence. Dependent origination of emptiness and existence is neither emptiness nor existence. Once one recognizes the non-emptiness and non-existence, one realizes the emptiness of existence and non-existence. The previous emptiness and existence are all illnesses to be cured, so they must all be abandoned. This principle is called the Teaching Truth (教諦, jiào dì). This principle is called the Truth (于諦, yú dì). Are these the words of the teacher? Yes, these are indeed the words of the teacher. Next, let's raise a difficulty and establish it within. What is it? If one teaches according to the Truth (于諦, yú dì), is the Truth an object (境, jìng) [of observation]? If it is not an object, it contradicts the treatise. The treatise says: 'The wise and holy truly know the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas.' True knowledge is wisdom (智, zhì), and wisdom must have an object. The emptiness of nature is the object. True knowledge is wisdom. If so, the Two Truths (二諦, èr dì) [Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth] are objects. Teaching sentient beings based on the Two Truths as objects, this aligns with the treatise, but it also becomes the view of others. Others also say: the Two Truths are objects, and teaching the Two Truths is called teaching. Therefore, there are the Dharma Jewel of Teaching (言教法寶, yán jiào fǎ bǎo) and the Dharma Jewel of Object (境界法寶, jìng jiè fǎ bǎo). The Four Noble Truths (四諦, sì dì) and the Two Truths are the Dharma Jewel of Object, and teaching the Four Noble Truths and the Two Truths is the Dharma Jewel of Teaching. It is the same now, so how is it different from others? If you say that I do not think so, it contradicts the treatise. The treatise says: 'All Buddhas teach sentient beings according to the Two Truths.' How can you say that the Two Truths are the teaching? It's a dilemma. Supporting the treatise is the same as others, and disagreeing with others contradicts the treatise. Let's propose a covering answer to refute this difficulty. There is the Truth (于諦, yú dì) and there is the Teaching Truth (教諦, jiào dì). Does the Truth have Ultimate and Conventional (真俗, zhēn sú) [Truths]? Does the Teaching Truth have Ultimate and Conventional Truths? If you say that the Teaching Truth also has Ultimate and Conventional Truths, then it becomes the view of the Sarvastivadins (成論宗, chéng lùn zōng), and the Three Treatise School (三論宗, sān lùn zōng) does not know how to respond. If the Sarvastivadins explain it this way: the Two Truths, Ultimate and Conventional, are objects, and within the object there are Ultimate and Conventional Truths. Speaking of the Ultimate and speaking of the Conventional, both of these are Conventional Truths. The Ultimate Truth is unspeakable and can only be expressed through the Conventional Truth. Now, asking the Three Treatise School, are the Ultimate and Conventional Truths of their school objects, and within the object are (Ultimate and Conventional Truths)?
真有俗。汝今明二諦是教門。教諦亦有真俗不。不解義者。必云教諦亦有真俗。何者有兩諦。有于諦有教諦。于諦有真俗。教諦亦有真俗也。問若為教諦有真俗耶。解云。說俗名俗教諦。說真名真教諦。問說俗名俗教。教是俗。說真教教是真不。說真之說。此是言教。那忽是真。若說俗之說說是俗諦。說真之說說亦是俗諦者。即成他義。他亦明。真不可說。寄俗說真。說真之說。還屬俗諦。今亦爾。故同舊義。三論之義。還是我義也。所以成論暄正讀中論。中論云。言說是俗諦。第一義諦不可言說。若爾言說皆是俗諦。何得言二諦並是教耶。若又二諦是教。教唯是俗諦者。即學二諦成一俗諦。前來諸人。學二諦成一諦既失。汝今學二諦成一諦。失之甚也。又難。他家明二諦是境境中有真俗。汝明二諦是教。教為但俗。為具真俗。若但俗即失真諦。便同他家。若具二諦乖論文。義復不可。論云。言說是俗諦。真不可言說。又難。言說若為是真諦。今為取言說空名真諦。為取空言說為真諦耶。若取言說為真者。言說是有。那是真諦。若云言說空為真諦者。空言說為是何物。汝只應云空說為世諦說空為真諦。若云只說空為真諦者。說空之說是真不。若說空之說是真即並難。若說空與空說皆為真諦者。色空與空色皆真諦。反詰
云云。前來至此。都有四難未解。后當釋之。今更簡得失義。前得失凡有四種。今簡最後學二諦失二諦者。若是小乘。不足可簡。但正為學二諦失二諦人也。明他家辨二諦義。今時亦辨二諦義。何異。解此凡有十句異。一者明理教義。他二諦即無理教。今明。二諦有理教他無理教者。彼明二諦是理。三假是世諦理。四絕是真諦理。今明二諦是教不二是理故。經云。文殊法常爾。法王唯一法。一切無畏人。一道出生死。又云。一切有無法。了達非有無。故知。有無二是教。非有無不二是理。具有理教也。唯他有二無不二。則唯有教無理。可謂世間法者有字無義。一往如此。再往奪並無。何者字本詮義。既無有義。字何所詮。故理教皆失。今明。有無是教。表不有無理。此則有理有教。理教具足也。作如此說者。為對他為釋經云云。次明稟二諦教發生二智教轉名境。何故作此語耶。亦為對由來。由來云。真俗是天然之境。三假是俗境。四忘是真諦境。迷之即六道紛然。悟之即有三乘賢聖。常有此境。若是智從修習生。境即常有。智即始生。未有智時前已有境。境智非因緣義。今對此明真俗是教。悟教生智。教轉名境。由智故境。由境故智。境能為智所。智慧為境所。境所為智慧。智所為境能。境智因緣不二而二也。問諸有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 云云。我來到這裡，有四個疑問尚未解決，之後應當解釋。現在先簡單辨析得失之義。之前的得失有四種，現在辨析最後一種，即學習二諦卻失去二諦的人。如果是小乘，不值得辨析，只針對學習二諦卻失去二諦的人。有人會問，他家也辨析二諦之義，現在也辨析二諦之義，有什麼不同？解釋這個，總共有十個不同之處。第一，闡明理教之義。他們的二諦沒有理教，現在闡明二諦有理教。他們沒有理教的原因是，他們認為二諦是理，三假是世俗諦之理，四絕是真諦之理。現在闡明二諦是教，不二是理。所以經中說：『文殊的法向來如此，法王只有一種法，一切無畏的人，都從同一條道路出生死。』又說：『一切有法、無法，了達並非有無。』所以知道，有無是教，非有無是不二之理。具有理教。而他們只有二，沒有不二，就只有教而沒有理。可以說是世間法，有字而無義。這樣說來，再進一步推論，就什麼都沒有了。因為文字的根本在於詮釋意義，既然沒有意義，文字又詮釋什麼呢？所以理教都失去了。現在闡明，有無是教，表達不有無之理。這樣就有理有教，理教都具備。這樣說，是爲了針對他家，爲了解釋經文。其次，闡明稟受二諦之教，發生二智，教轉化為名境。為什麼這樣說呢？也是爲了針對由來之說。由來之說認為，真俗是天然之境，三假是俗境，四忘是真諦境。迷惑就會有六道輪迴，覺悟就會有三乘賢聖。常有此境。如果是智慧從修習而生，境就是常有的，智就是開始產生的。沒有智之前就已經有境。境智不是因緣之義。現在針對此說，闡明真俗是教，領悟教義產生智慧，教轉化為名境。因為有智所以有境，因為有境所以有智。境能為智所用，智慧為境所用。境所為智慧，智所為境能。境智因緣，不二而二。有人問，諸有
【English Translation】 English version Yunyun. I have come here with four unresolved questions, which should be explained later. Now, let's briefly analyze the meaning of gain and loss. There were four types of gain and loss before, and now we will analyze the last one, which is those who study the two truths (two levels of truth) but lose the two truths. If it is Theravada (Small Vehicle), it is not worth analyzing, but only for those who study the two truths but lose the two truths. Someone may ask, 'They also analyze the meaning of the two truths, and you also analyze the meaning of the two truths now, what is the difference?' To explain this, there are ten differences in total. First, to clarify the meaning of principle and teaching. Their two truths have no principle and teaching, now clarify that the two truths have principle and teaching. The reason why they have no principle and teaching is that they think the two truths are principle, the 'three falsities' (三假) are the principle of mundane truth (世俗諦), and the 'four absolutes' (四絕) are the principle of ultimate truth (真諦). Now clarify that the two truths are teaching, and non-duality is principle. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Manjusri's (文殊) Dharma has always been like this, the Dharma King (法王) has only one Dharma, and all fearless people are born from the same path to escape birth and death.' It also says: 'All existing and non-existing dharmas, understand that they are neither existing nor non-existing.' Therefore, know that existence and non-existence are teaching, and neither existence nor non-existence is the principle of non-duality. It has both principle and teaching. But they only have two, without non-duality, so they only have teaching without principle. It can be said that worldly dharma has words but no meaning. In this way, if we further deduce, there will be nothing left. Because the root of words lies in explaining meaning, since there is no meaning, what do the words explain? Therefore, both principle and teaching are lost. Now clarify that existence and non-existence are teaching, expressing the principle of neither existence nor non-existence. In this way, there is both principle and teaching, and both principle and teaching are complete. Saying this is to target their views and to explain the sutras. Secondly, to clarify that receiving the teaching of the two truths, gives rise to two wisdoms, and the teaching transforms into named realms. Why say this? It is also to target the theory of origin. The theory of origin believes that truth and falsehood are natural realms, the 'three falsities' are mundane realms, and the 'four forgettings' are ultimate truth realms. Confusion will lead to the cycle of the six realms (六道), and enlightenment will lead to the sages of the three vehicles (三乘). This realm always exists. If wisdom arises from practice, the realm is constant, and wisdom is just beginning to arise. There is a realm before there is wisdom. Realm and wisdom are not the meaning of cause and condition. Now, in response to this, clarify that truth and falsehood are teaching, understanding the teaching gives rise to wisdom, and the teaching transforms into named realms. Because there is wisdom, there is realm, and because there is realm, there is wisdom. The realm can be used by wisdom, and wisdom can be used by the realm. The realm is what wisdom does, and wisdom is what the realm does. The cause and condition of realm and wisdom are non-dual and yet dual. Someone asks, 'All beings'
二者無道無果。何故明二耶。解云。為對他無智有境。今明。由智故境。由境故智。境智因緣不二二也。然今明。二諦是教門者。正為拔二理之見。彼埋二理見深。有此二理終不可改。為是故今明。唯有一理無有二理。何者。如來說有說無。為表一道。此之有無乃是道門。非是理。為是故明。二諦是教非是理也。二者有相無相義。從來云。山門得無相義。他家明有相。何故他是有相。山門明無相耶。解云。他有有有相。無有無相。有若無相。即無有有。無若無相。即無有無。便無二諦。既道理有二諦。即有有有相。無有無相。名為有相義。今明。有無有相有表不有。無無無相無表不無。有無表不有不無故。名無相義。以無相故。故名教門也。三者得無得義。他有得義。今明無得義。他有有可得。有無可得。若無有可得無無可得。即無二諦。既有二諦。故有有無可得名為有得。今明。有不住有。有表不有。無有可得。無不住無。無表不無。無無可得故。名無得義。以無得有無。有無名為教也。四者明理內外義亦爾。他真俗理外。今真俗理內。以理內故。名之為教也。五者明開覆。他二諦是理即覆。今明二諦是教即開。何者。他有住有無住無。此有無覆如來因緣有無也。今明二諦是教。有表不有無表不無。有無表不有無。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 二者（智與境）既沒有『道』，也沒有『果』。為什麼還要闡明『二』呢？解釋說：因為對方執著于沒有智慧卻有境界。現在闡明，因為有智慧所以有境界，因為有境界所以有智慧。境界與智慧相互依存，並非既一又二。然而現在闡明，二諦（俗諦和真諦）是教門，正是爲了破除執著於二理的見解。他們深陷於二理的見解，始終無法改變。因此現在闡明，只有一理，沒有二理。什麼是『一理』呢？如來說『有』說『無』，是爲了表達『一道』。這裡的『有』和『無』是通往『道』的門徑，而不是理。因此闡明，二諦是教門，不是理。 第二種是有相和無相的含義。過去說，山門（指禪宗）得到的是無相義，而其他宗派闡明的是有相。為什麼其他宗派是有相，而山門闡明的是無相呢？解釋說：他們認為『有』具有『有相』，『無』具有『無相』。如果『有』沒有『有相』，那就沒有『有』；如果『無』沒有『無相』，那就沒有『無』。這樣就沒有二諦了。既然道理上有二諦，那麼『有』就具有『有相』，『無』就具有『無相』，這叫做『有相義』。現在闡明，『有』不執著于『有』，『有』表明不執著于『有』；『無』不執著于『無』，『無』表明不執著于『無』。『有』和『無』表明不執著于『有』也不執著于『無』，所以叫做『無相義』。因為是『無相』，所以叫做教門。 第三種是得與無得的含義。其他宗派認為有『得』義，現在闡明『無得』義。他們認為『有』可以被得到，『無』也可以被得到。如果沒有『有』可以被得到，也沒有『無』可以被得到，那就沒有二諦了。既然有二諦，所以認為『有』和『無』都可以被得到，這叫做『有得』。現在闡明，『有』不住于『有』，『有』表明不執著于『有』，所以沒有『有』可以被得到；『無』不住于『無』，『無』表明不執著于『無』，所以沒有『無』可以被得到，因此叫做『無得義』。因為沒有『得』，所以『有』和『無』，『有』和『無』被稱為教。 第四種是闡明理的內外含義也是如此。其他宗派認為真諦和俗諦在理之外，現在認為真諦和俗諦在理之內。因為在理之內，所以稱之為教。 第五種是闡明開顯和覆蓋。其他宗派認為二諦是理，所以是覆蓋；現在闡明二諦是教，所以是開顯。為什麼呢？他們執著于『有』，執著于『無』，這種『有』和『無』覆蓋瞭如來因緣的『有』和『無』。現在闡明二諦是教，『有』表明不執著于『有』，『無』表明不執著于『無』，『有』和『無』表明不執著于『有』和『無』。
【English Translation】 English version: These two (wisdom and realm) have neither 'path' nor 'fruit'. Why then clarify the 'two'? The explanation is: because the other side clings to having a realm without wisdom. Now we clarify that because there is wisdom, there is a realm; because there is a realm, there is wisdom. Realm and wisdom are interdependent, neither one nor two. However, now we clarify that the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) are the teaching, precisely to dispel the view of clinging to two principles. They are deeply entrenched in the view of two principles, and can never be changed. Therefore, now we clarify that there is only one principle, not two. What is the 'one principle'? The Tathagata speaks of 'existence' and speaks of 'non-existence' in order to express the 'one path'. The 'existence' and 'non-existence' here are the gateways to the 'path', not principles. Therefore, it is clarified that the two truths are the teaching, not principles. The second is the meaning of having characteristics and not having characteristics. In the past, it was said that the mountain gate (referring to Zen Buddhism) attains the meaning of not having characteristics, while other schools clarify having characteristics. Why do other schools have characteristics, while the mountain gate clarifies not having characteristics? The explanation is: they believe that 'existence' has 'having characteristics', and 'non-existence' has 'not having characteristics'. If 'existence' does not have 'having characteristics', then there is no 'existence'; if 'non-existence' does not have 'not having characteristics', then there is no 'non-existence'. Then there are no two truths. Since there are two truths in principle, then 'existence' has 'having characteristics', and 'non-existence' has 'not having characteristics', which is called 'the meaning of having characteristics'. Now we clarify that 'existence' does not cling to 'existence', 'existence' indicates not clinging to 'existence'; 'non-existence' does not cling to 'non-existence', 'non-existence' indicates not clinging to 'non-existence'. 'Existence' and 'non-existence' indicate not clinging to 'existence' or 'non-existence', so it is called 'the meaning of not having characteristics'. Because it is 'not having characteristics', it is called the teaching. The third is the meaning of attainment and non-attainment. Other schools believe in the meaning of 'attainment', now we clarify the meaning of 'non-attainment'. They believe that 'existence' can be attained, and 'non-existence' can be attained. If there is no 'existence' that can be attained, and no 'non-existence' that can be attained, then there are no two truths. Since there are two truths, it is believed that 'existence' and 'non-existence' can be attained, which is called 'having attainment'. Now we clarify that 'existence' does not abide in 'existence', 'existence' indicates not clinging to 'existence', so there is no 'existence' that can be attained; 'non-existence' does not abide in 'non-existence', 'non-existence' indicates not clinging to 'non-existence', so there is no 'non-existence' that can be attained, therefore it is called 'the meaning of non-attainment'. Because there is no 'attainment', 'existence' and 'non-existence', 'existence' and 'non-existence' are called the teaching. The fourth is that clarifying the inner and outer meanings of principle is also the same. Other schools believe that ultimate truth and conventional truth are outside of principle, now we believe that ultimate truth and conventional truth are within principle. Because it is within principle, it is called the teaching. The fifth is clarifying revealing and covering. Other schools believe that the two truths are principle, so it is covering; now we clarify that the two truths are the teaching, so it is revealing. Why? They cling to 'existence', cling to 'non-existence', this 'existence' and 'non-existence' cover the 'existence' and 'non-existence' of the Tathagata's (如來) conditioned arising. Now we clarify that the two truths are the teaching, 'existence' indicates not clinging to 'existence', 'non-existence' indicates not clinging to 'non-existence', 'existence' and 'non-existence' indicate not clinging to 'existence' and 'non-existence'.
如來教即開。無有壅滯。故經云。譬如秋月處空顯露。今亦爾。故有無名教也。六者明滿半義。他家二諦是半。今明。二諦是滿。何者。他唯有二無不二故。唯教無理。名為半字。今明。具足理教。名為滿字。一往如此。他既無滿。是即無半。何者半是滿半。既無滿。何得有半。安師云。減滿為半。足半為滿。既無滿何所減為半。故無滿即無半也。七者明他二諦愚者今是智者。何者。涅槃經云。明無明愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。明無明既然。真俗亦爾。真俗二即愚者。不二即智者。不二之性即是實性。故知。不二是理二是教也。八者今明體用。彼但有用無體。無體即無用。今則具有體有用也。九者明本末。不二是本。二是末。他既無本。何有末。今具有二不二。具有本末。故云二諦是教不二是理也。十者明瞭義不了義。由來釋了義不了義者。明小乘教為不了義。摩訶衍教爲了義。就大乘教中復有二。般若法華等為不了義。第五涅槃常住教爲了義。此就五時教中。有了義不了義。如此二諦義。為有了義不了義別耶。解云。彼明。若以三假為世諦理。四忘為真諦理。此之二諦唯是了義。無不了義也。今明。如此二諦皆是不了。何者。我二諦說有。欲顯不有。說無慾顯不無。說有無顯不有不無名爲了義。汝有住有不表不
有。無住無不表不無。有無不表非有非無。二不表不二。即不能顯道故非了義。今明。因緣有無。有表不有。無表不無。有無二為顯清凈不二之道。故名了義。所以大經云。如是二語。爲了一語也。今亦爾。因緣二為顯不二。此因緣二。悟不二故。二為教門也。不取兩語為教門也。然今家非但有了義。亦有不了義。具有了不了義。何者。只是一二諦教門。有方便。即聞二不住二。因二悟不二名了義。無方便。即聞二住二。不悟不二名不了義。故今時具有了不了義也。略明十種。判學二諦有得有失義如此。更撮十種者。一者理教義。二者相無相。三者得無得。四者理內外。五者開覆。六者半滿。七者愚智。八者體用。九者本末。十者了不了云云。次都總料簡。前云他但有教無理。今具足理教。此事不然。何者開善云。二諦者。法性之旨歸一真不二之極理。又云。不二而二中道即二諦。二而不二二諦即中道。若爾彼有理教有二不二。何以言無耶。責云。汝二諦。為是道理。為是方便。彼明。二諦是道理也。難若二是理。即無不二理。若有不二理。即成三理。汝唯有二理無有三理。故無中道不二理也。今明。二諦非理。乃是方便教門。如三車門外。門外實無三車。方便說三。令悟不三。今亦爾。實無二諦。方便說二令悟不二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：有和無，都不能完全表達，既不能表達『不有』，也不能表達『不無』。有和無，也不能表達非有非無。二者都不能表達不二的真理。因此，這樣的說法不能完全顯明佛道，所以是不了義的說法。 答：現在說明，因緣所生的有和無，『有』表達了『不有』，『無』表達了『不無』。有和無這二者是爲了顯明清凈不二的佛道，所以稱爲了義。因此，《大般涅槃經》說：『這樣的兩種言語，是爲了表達唯一的真理。』現在也是這樣，因緣和合的二法是爲了顯明不二的真理。這因緣和合的二法，是爲了領悟不二的真理，所以說是教門。不執取兩種言語作為教門。 然而，我們這裡不僅僅有了義，也有不了義，同時具備了了義和不了義。為什麼呢？只是一二諦（satya-dvaya，二諦：俗諦和真諦）的教門，如果有方便，就能聽聞二諦而不執著於二諦，通過二諦領悟不二的真理，這稱爲了義。如果沒有方便，就聽聞二諦而執著於二諦，不能領悟不二的真理，這稱為不了義。所以現在同時具備了了義和不了義。簡略地說明十種判別學習二諦的得失的意義，就像這樣。再簡要地列舉十種：一是理和教義，二是相和無相，三是得和無得，四是理內和理外，五是開和覆，六是半和滿，七是愚和智，八是體和用，九是本和末，十是了和不了，等等。 其次，進行總體的辨析。前面說他們只有教而沒有理，現在我們具備理和教。這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？開善法師說：『二諦，是法性最終歸宿，是唯一真實不二的極妙之理。』又說：『不二而二，中道就是二諦；二而不二，二諦就是中道。』如果這樣，他們既有理，也有二和不二，為什麼說沒有呢？ 反駁說：你們的二諦，是道理，還是方便？他們說：二諦是道理。反駁：如果二是道理，就沒有不二的道理；如果有不二的道理，就成了三種道理。你們只有兩種道理，沒有第三種道理，所以沒有中道不二的道理。 現在說明，二諦不是道理，而是方便的教門。就像三車（trīṇi yānāni，三車：羊車、鹿車、牛車，比喻佛陀為引導眾生而設的方便之說）在門外，門外實際上沒有三車，只是方便地說有三車，爲了讓眾生領悟沒有三車。現在也是這樣，實際上沒有二諦，只是方便地說有二諦，爲了讓眾生領悟不二的真理。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Existence and non-existence both fail to fully express; they cannot express 'not existence' nor 'not non-existence'. Existence and non-existence also cannot express neither existence nor non-existence. Neither can express non-duality. Therefore, such statements cannot fully reveal the Buddha's path, and are thus considered provisional (not definitive). Answer: Now, let me explain. With regard to existence and non-existence arising from conditions, 'existence' expresses 'not existence', and 'non-existence' expresses 'not non-existence'. The duality of existence and non-existence serves to reveal the pure, non-dual Buddha's path, and is therefore called definitive. Thus, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Such dual expressions are for the sake of expressing the one truth.' It is the same now; the duality of conditioned arising is to reveal non-duality. This duality of conditioned arising is for realizing non-duality, and is therefore called a teaching method. Do not grasp the dual expressions as the teaching method. However, we here not only have the definitive, but also the provisional; we possess both the definitive and the provisional. Why is that? It is simply the teaching of the two truths (satya-dvaya, two truths: conventional truth and ultimate truth). If there is skillful means, one can hear the two truths without clinging to them, and realize non-duality through the two truths; this is called definitive. If there is no skillful means, one hears the two truths and clings to them, failing to realize non-duality; this is called provisional. Therefore, we now possess both the definitive and the provisional. Briefly explaining the ten ways to discern the merits and demerits of studying the two truths is like this. To briefly list ten more: first, principle and teaching; second, form and formlessness; third, attainment and non-attainment; fourth, principle within and principle without; fifth, revealing and concealing; sixth, partial and complete; seventh, foolishness and wisdom; eighth, essence and function; ninth, root and branch; tenth, definitive and provisional, and so on. Next, a comprehensive analysis. Earlier, it was said that they only have teaching but no principle, while we possess both principle and teaching. This statement is incorrect. Why is that? Master Kaishan said: 'The two truths are the ultimate destination of the Dharma-nature, the ultimate principle of the one true non-duality.' He also said: 'Non-duality in duality, the Middle Way is the two truths; duality in non-duality, the two truths are the Middle Way.' If so, they have both principle and duality and non-duality, so why say they do not? Rebuttal: Your two truths, are they principle or skillful means? They say: The two truths are principle. Rebuttal: If duality is principle, then there is no non-dual principle; if there is a non-dual principle, then there are three principles. You only have two principles, and no third principle, so there is no non-dual principle of the Middle Way. Now, let me explain. The two truths are not principle, but a teaching method of skillful means. Like the three carts (trīṇi yānāni, three carts: goat cart, deer cart, ox cart, a metaphor for the Buddha's expedient teachings to guide beings) outside the gate, there are actually no three carts outside the gate, but it is said that there are three carts as a skillful means to make beings realize that there are no three carts. It is the same now; there are actually no two truths, but it is said that there are two truths as a skillful means to make beings realize non-duality.
。故二諦是教門也。又責。汝明不二是中道。中道為在二諦外。為二諦攝耶。汝明。二諦攝一切法盡。真諦上超涅槃下絕生死。四句斯忘。百非洞遣。一切無即是真諦。諸法有是世諦。外無處有法。若爾唯有二諦理。何處有中耶。又且汝非有非無是何物耶。非有還是無。非無還是有。還是有無斷常。何說中道耶。為是故今明。二諦是教門。不二是中道也。又他無不有無有有無。今有不有無無有無。反之也。他唯有有無二理。無不二之道。今即唯有不二之道無有無也。問既無有無應無二諦。解云。實無有無。但方便故假言有無。假言有無。為悟不有無。以是義故。明二諦是教門也。然二諦更無有二。只同學一二諦。有得有失。成性成假云云。大師從來舉譬如甘露。有方便者服即長存。無方便者服即夭壽。甘露未曾修夭。修夭出自兩緣。今亦爾。只是一二諦。有方便學即成假。無方便學即成性。有方便故為得。無方便故為失。二諦未曾性假得失。性假得失。出自兩緣也。然只自性因緣。亦復無有二。有方便者。學自性成因緣。無方便者。學因緣成自性。如無方便者服甘露成毒藥。有方便者服向毒藥成甘露。學二諦人亦爾。無方便學因緣成自性。有方便學自性成因緣。為是故。學二諦有得有失。有自性有因緣也。問彼學因緣
成自性天然之理。為當取此理不取此理耶。解云。具有取不取。言取者。今時亦有此二理。何者。于凡有凡理。于聖有聖理。有于凡有理。空于聖有理。然理實未曾有二。於二緣故有二理。故論云。淺智見諸法若有若無相。是即不能見滅見安穩法。非有非無名安穩法。見有無相。即不見安穩之法。好言為淺智。惡詺則是愚人。見有無相。理實非有無。理實非有無。于彼有有無二理也。若翻此謂即云。深智見諸法非有非無相。是則皆得見滅見安穩法也。言不取者。都無此有無之理。何者。謂有有理謂有無理。有無是謂情。既有是謂情有。豈有此有理。無是謂情無。豈有此無理。都無此有無也。既畢竟知無如此有無。有何物法。唯有四倒八倒。實無有常。倒謂有常。實無無常。倒謂無常。實無有倒謂有。實無無倒謂無也。彼即云。我有有無二諦道理。云何言無耶。今現見有有無法非是妄。那忽言不見。又有三世法。過未無現在有。諸法從未來為生。謝過去為滅。有生有滅。有有有無。何得言無耶。為是故。龍樹出世求撿此執。汝言有有理。若個是有理。汝言有無理。若個是無理。求有不可得。云何言有有理。求無不可得。云何言有無理。如此有無生滅。特是汝顛倒。橫謂為是耳。故中論云。若謂以現見而有生滅者。是即為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
關於事物本性自然形成的道理，我們應該接受還是不接受這個道理呢？解釋說：既有接受也有不接受。說接受，是因為現在也有這兩種道理。什麼道理呢？對於凡人有凡人的道理，對於聖人有聖人的道理。對於凡人來說，認為『有』是有道理的，而對於聖人來說，認為『空』是有道理的。然而，道理實際上從未有二，因為因緣的差別才有了兩種道理。所以《中論》說：『淺薄的智慧看到諸法，要麼認為有，要麼認為無，這樣就不能見到寂滅和安穩的法。』非有非無才叫做安穩的法。見到有和無的對立，就不能見到安穩的法。說好聽點是淺薄的智慧，說難聽點就是愚人。他們所見到的『有』和『無』的對立，實際上並非事物本性的真實狀態。因為在他們那裡，才存在『有』和『無』兩種道理。如果反過來說，那就是：深刻的智慧看到諸法非有非無，這樣就能見到寂滅和安穩的法。
說不接受，是因為根本不存在這種『有』和『無』的道理。為什麼呢？所謂認為『有』的道理，認為『無』的道理，『有』和『無』都是情識的產物。既然認為『有』，那就是情識上的『有』，哪裡有什麼真實的『有』的道理？認為『無』，那就是情識上的『無』，哪裡有什麼真實的『無』的道理？根本不存在這種『有』和『無』。既然最終認識到沒有這種『有』和『無』，那麼還有什麼事物存在呢？只有四顛倒和八顛倒。實際上沒有常，卻顛倒地認為有常；實際上沒有無常，卻顛倒地認為無常；實際上沒有『有』，卻顛倒地認為『有』；實際上沒有『無』，卻顛倒地認為『無』。
他們會說：我這裡有『有』和『無』二諦的道理，怎麼能說沒有呢？現在明明看到『有』，這並非虛妄，怎麼能說看不見呢？還有三世法，過去和未來沒有，現在有。諸法從未來產生，謝於過去而滅亡，有生有滅，有『有』有『無』，怎麼能說沒有呢？正因為如此，龍樹（Nagarjuna）出世，就是要考察這種執著。你說有『有』的道理，哪個是『有』的道理？你說有『無』的道理，哪個是『無』的道理？尋求『有』不可得，怎麼能說有『有』的道理？尋求『無』不可得，怎麼能說有『無』的道理？這種『有』『無』『生』『滅』，只不過是你的顛倒妄想，錯誤地認為是真實的罷了。所以《中論》說：『如果認為通過現量就能證明生滅的存在，那就是……』
【English Translation】 English version
Regarding the principle of inherent nature and naturalness, should we accept this principle or not? The explanation is: there is both acceptance and non-acceptance. Saying 'acceptance' means that there are these two principles even now. What are they? For ordinary beings, there is the principle of the ordinary; for sages, there is the principle of the sage. For ordinary beings, it is reasonable to believe in 'existence'; for sages, it is reasonable to believe in 'emptiness'. However, in reality, the principle has never been twofold; it is due to the differences in conditions that there are two principles. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'Those with shallow wisdom see all dharmas as either existent or non-existent; thus, they cannot see the cessation and the peaceful dharma.' Non-existence and non-non-existence are called the peaceful dharma. Seeing existence and non-existence as opposites means not seeing the peaceful dharma. To put it nicely, it is shallow wisdom; to put it harshly, it is foolishness. The opposition between 'existence' and 'non-existence' that they see is not the true state of things. Because in their minds, there are two principles of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. If we say the opposite, it would be: profound wisdom sees all dharmas as neither existent nor non-existent; thus, they can all see the cessation and the peaceful dharma.
Saying 'non-acceptance' means that there is no such principle of 'existence' and 'non-existence' at all. Why? Because the so-called principle of 'existence' and the so-called principle of 'non-existence', both 'existence' and 'non-existence' are products of emotional consciousness. Since one believes in 'existence', that is 'existence' in emotional consciousness; how can there be a real principle of 'existence'? Believing in 'non-existence' is 'non-existence' in emotional consciousness; how can there be a real principle of 'non-existence'? There is no such thing as 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Since one ultimately realizes that there is no such 'existence' and 'non-existence', then what things exist? There are only the four inversions (catu-viparyasa) and the eight inversions. In reality, there is no permanence, but one mistakenly believes there is permanence; in reality, there is no impermanence, but one mistakenly believes there is impermanence; in reality, there is no 'existence', but one mistakenly believes there is 'existence'; in reality, there is no 'non-existence', but one mistakenly believes there is 'non-existence'.
They might say: I have the principle of the two truths (dve satye) of 'existence' and 'non-existence', how can you say there is none? Now we clearly see 'existence', which is not false; how can you say we don't see it? Also, there are the three times (trikala): the past and future do not exist, but the present exists. All dharmas arise from the future and cease in the past; there is arising and ceasing, there is 'existence' and 'non-existence', how can you say there is none? It is precisely for this reason that Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) appeared in the world to examine this attachment. You say there is a principle of 'existence', which is the principle of 'existence'? You say there is a principle of 'non-existence', which is the principle of 'non-existence'? Seeking 'existence' is unattainable; how can you say there is a principle of 'existence'? Seeking 'non-existence' is unattainable; how can you say there is a principle of 'non-existence'? This 'existence', 'non-existence', 'arising', and 'ceasing' are merely your inverted thoughts, mistakenly taken to be real. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika says: 'If it is claimed that arising and ceasing exist because of direct perception, then...'
癡。妄而見有生滅。若爾癡妄故見有無生滅。實無汝所見有無生滅也。前取即於二緣有二理。今破謂有實無有也。問前明二諦是教門時。為當如來說因緣有無為教。為當即眼見耳聞有無為教耶。然師答此語開合不同。今還作開合兩意釋之。言開者。即是理內外義。明理外亦有二諦。理內亦有二諦。理外二諦。即聞有住有不表不有。聞無住無不表不無。有無不能表理。不名為教。此即理外無理無教。理內二諦因緣有無。因緣有不有。因緣無不無。有無表非有無故。有無名教門。此即理內有教有理也。此如初章兩節語也。初章前節。即理外義。後節即理內義。前節者。他有有可有。有無可無。有有可有。不由無故有。有無可無。不由有故無。不由無故有。有是自有。不由有故無。無是自無。自有即有故有。自無即無故無。此之有無。不能表不有無。此有無非是教門。故理外無理教也。今對他明二諦是教門。無有可有。無無可無。無有可有。由無故有。無無可無。由有故無。由無故有。有不自有。由有故無無不自無。不自有有。是無有。不自無無。是有無。無有不有。有無不無。此有無表不有無。故名為教門。所以理內有理教也。一家初章言方如此。學三論者。必須前得此語。何意名初章。初章者。學者章門之初故云初章。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 癡（chi）：愚昧。妄想而見到有生有滅。如果這樣，因為愚昧妄想的緣故，才見到有生有滅，實際上並沒有你所見到的有生有滅。前面所說的『取』，是指在二緣（er yuan）中存在兩種道理。現在破斥它，說它實際上沒有。問：前面說明二諦（er di）是教門（jiao men）時，是如來說因緣（yin yuan）的有無作為教，還是直接用眼見耳聞的有無作為教呢？ 老師的回答，開合不同。現在還按照開合兩種意思來解釋。所謂『開』，就是理（li）的內外之義。說明理外也有二諦，理內也有二諦。理外的二諦，是聽到有，就執著于有，不能表達非有非無；聽到無，就執著于無，不能表達非有非無。有和無都不能表達真理，所以不稱為教。這就是理外無理無教。理內的二諦，是因緣有，但不執著于有；因緣無，但不執著于無。有和無表達了非有非無，所以有和無稱為教門。這就是理內有教有理。這就像初章（chu zhang）的兩節話。初章的前節，就是理外之義；後節就是理內之義。前節說，他有有，可以有；有無，可以無；有有，可以有，不是因為無才有有；有無，可以無，不是因為有才有無。不是因為無才有有，有是自有；不是因為有才有無，無是自無。自有就是有，所以有；自無就是無，所以無。這種有無，不能表達非有非無，這種有無不是教門，所以理外無理教。現在針對他說明二諦是教門，無有，可以有；無無，可以無；無有，可以有，因為無才有有；無無，可以無，因為有才有無。因為無才有有，有不是自有；因為有才有無，無不是自無。不是自有，所以有是無有；不是自無，所以無是有無。無有不有，有無不無。這種有無表達了非有非無，所以稱為教門。所以理內有理教。一家（yi jia）在初章中這樣說。學習三論（san lun）的人，必須先懂得這些話。為什麼叫初章？初章，是學習者進入章門（zhang men）的開始，所以叫初章。
【English Translation】 English version: Ignorance (chi): delusionally perceiving birth and death. If so, it is because of ignorance and delusion that one sees birth and death. In reality, there is no birth and death as you perceive it. The previously mentioned 'grasping' refers to the existence of two principles within the two conditions (er yuan). Now, we refute it, saying that it does not actually exist. Question: When explaining the two truths (er di) as the teaching gate (jiao men) earlier, did the Tathagata teach based on the existence and non-existence of conditions (yin yuan), or based on the existence and non-existence directly seen and heard? The teacher's answer varies depending on the interpretation. Now, let's explain it in terms of both opening and closing meanings. The 'opening' refers to the inner and outer meanings of principle (li). It explains that there are two truths outside of principle and two truths within principle. The two truths outside of principle are that when hearing of existence, one clings to existence, unable to express neither existence nor non-existence; when hearing of non-existence, one clings to non-existence, unable to express neither existence nor non-existence. Existence and non-existence cannot express the truth, so they are not called teaching. This means that outside of principle, there is no principle and no teaching. The two truths within principle are that with conditioned existence, one does not cling to existence; with conditioned non-existence, one does not cling to non-existence. Existence and non-existence express neither existence nor non-existence, so existence and non-existence are called the teaching gate. This means that within principle, there is teaching and principle. This is like the two sections of the first chapter (chu zhang). The first section of the first chapter is the meaning outside of principle; the second section is the meaning within principle. The first section says that other existence can exist; existence and non-existence can not exist; existence can exist, not because of non-existence; existence and non-existence can not exist, not because of existence. Not because of non-existence, existence is self-existent; not because of existence, non-existence is self-non-existent. Self-existent is existence, so it exists; self-non-existent is non-existence, so it does not exist. This existence and non-existence cannot express neither existence nor non-existence. This existence and non-existence is not the teaching gate, so outside of principle, there is no principle and teaching. Now, addressing him, we explain that the two truths are the teaching gate: non-existence can exist; non-non-existence can not exist; non-existence can exist because of non-existence; non-non-existence can not exist because of existence. Because of non-existence, existence is not self-existent; because of existence, non-existence is not self-non-existent. Not self-existent, so existence is non-existence; not self-non-existent, so non-existence is existence. Non-existence is not non-existence, existence and non-existence are not non-existence. This existence and non-existence express neither existence nor non-existence, so it is called the teaching gate. Therefore, within principle, there is principle and teaching. The One School (yi jia) says this in the first chapter. Those who study the Three Treatises (san lun) must first understand these words. Why is it called the first chapter? The first chapter is the beginning of the chapter gate (zhang men) for learners, so it is called the first chapter.
此語出十地經第一卷。明一切文字皆初章所攝。今亦爾。初章通一切法。何者。有無作既然。一切法亦例此作。故知。初章通一切法也。此即開理內外二諦是教非教也。次合釋者。明有無何曾有二。只是此有無。有方便者學即成教門。無方便者學即成自性。有方便學自性成因緣。無方便學因緣成自性。有方便學初章前節成後節。無方便學後節成前節。如前甘露譬。甘露未曾有兩。拙服甘露成毒藥。巧服毒藥成甘露。今亦爾。無方便學因緣成自性。有方便學自性成因緣。猶如一色。不了者。言定有不知不有。了者知色有不有故。只是此有無。兩人學教非教異也。問何故前開理內外異。后複合明之耶。解云。開合併爲對緣。前開理內外。正為對由來人。由來人。唯知有一種有無二諦。不知有兩有無二諦。唯知有一三假四忘。不知有兩三假四忘。今明。有兩有無。有兩三假。有兩四忘。他有有故有。有無故無。有三假故三假。有四忘故四忘。此並是理外二諦。今明。因緣有無。因緣三假四忘。是理內二諦。開理內外得失。令彼識理內外得失舍失學得從外入內也。所以合明者。此為三論學者。三論學者。聞說理內外。便謂。有理內外異。更成理內外二見。為此人故明。二諦何曾有二。特是無方便不了者。詺為理外。有方便了者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這段話出自《十地經》第一卷，闡明一切文字都包含在最初的章節中。現在也是如此，最初的章節貫通一切法。什麼是最初的章節呢？就是有、無、作、既然。一切法也可以依此類推。因此可知，最初的章節貫通一切法。這便是開顯理內和理外二諦，說明什麼是教，什麼不是教。 接下來是合釋，說明有和無從來不是兩個東西，只是這個有和無。有方便的人學習就能成為教門，沒有方便的人學習就成為自性。有方便的人學習自性就能成就因緣，沒有方便的人學習因緣就成為自性。有方便的人學習最初章節的前半部分就能成就後半部分，沒有方便的人學習後半部分就成為前半部分。就像之前的甘露的比喻，甘露從來不是兩種東西，笨拙的人服用甘露會變成毒藥，巧妙的人服用毒藥會變成甘露。現在也是這樣，沒有方便的人學習因緣會成為自性，有方便的人學習自性會成為因緣。猶如一種顏色，不瞭解的人會說一定是有的，不知道沒有；瞭解的人知道顏色有，也知道沒有。只是這個有和無，兩個人學習，教和非教就不同了。 有人問：為什麼前面要分開說明理內和理外的不同，後面又要合起來說明呢？解釋說：分開和合並是爲了應對不同的根機。前面分開說明理內和理外，主要是爲了應對那些從外面來的人。從外面來的人，只知道有一種有無二諦，不知道有兩種有無二諦；只知道有一種三假（sānjiǎ，三種假設，指名假、法假、事假）四忘（sìwàng，四種忘卻，指于有為法中，妄計為常、為樂、為凈、為我），不知道有兩種三假四忘。現在說明，有兩種有無，有兩種三假，有兩種四忘。他們認為有，所以有；認為無，所以無；認為有三假，所以有三假；認為有四忘，所以有四忘。這些都是理外的二諦。現在說明，因緣有無，因緣三假四忘，是理內的二諦。分開說明理內和理外的得失，讓他們認識到理內和理外的得失，捨棄失去的，學習得到的，從外進入內。 之所以要合起來說明，是爲了三論（Sānlùn，Madhyamaka）學者。三論學者，聽到說理內和理外，就認為有理內和理外的不同，反而形成了理內和理外兩種見解。爲了這些人，所以說明二諦從來不是兩個，只是沒有方便不瞭解的人，才稱之為理外；有方便了解的人，才稱之為理內。
【English Translation】 English version: This passage is from the first chapter of the Ten Bhūmi Sūtra (Dashadibhumika Sutra), clarifying that all texts are encompassed within the initial chapter. It is the same now; the initial chapter pervades all dharmas. What is the initial chapter? It is 'is,' 'is not,' 'action,' and 'thusness.' All dharmas can be analogized in this way. Therefore, it is known that the initial chapter pervades all dharmas. This is the exposition of the two truths, inner and outer, of principle, explaining what is teaching and what is not teaching. Next is the combined explanation, clarifying that 'is' and 'is not' have never been two separate things; it is simply this 'is' and 'is not.' For those with skillful means, learning becomes the gate of teaching; for those without skillful means, learning becomes self-nature. For those with skillful means, learning self-nature accomplishes causation; for those without skillful means, learning causation becomes self-nature. For those with skillful means, learning the first part of the initial chapter accomplishes the latter part; for those without skillful means, learning the latter part becomes the first part. It is like the previous analogy of nectar; nectar has never been two things. A clumsy person taking nectar turns it into poison; a skillful person taking poison turns it into nectar. It is the same now; without skillful means, learning causation becomes self-nature; with skillful means, learning self-nature becomes causation. It is like one color; those who do not understand say it must be 'is,' not knowing 'is not'; those who understand know that color 'is' and also 'is not.' It is simply this 'is' and 'is not'; two people learning, teaching and non-teaching become different. Someone asks: Why did you first separately explain the difference between inner and outer principle, and then combine them in the later explanation? The explanation is: separating and combining are to address different capacities. The previous separate explanation of inner and outer principle was mainly to address those who come from the outside. Those who come from the outside only know of one kind of two truths of 'is' and 'is not,' not knowing that there are two kinds of two truths of 'is' and 'is not'; they only know of one kind of three provisionalities (sanjia, three kinds of provisionality, referring to name, dharma, and event) and four forgetfulnesses (siwang, four kinds of forgetfulness, referring to the mistaken belief in permanence, pleasure, purity, and self in conditioned dharmas), not knowing that there are two kinds of three provisionalities and four forgetfulnesses. Now it is explained that there are two kinds of 'is' and 'is not,' two kinds of three provisionalities, and two kinds of four forgetfulnesses. They think there 'is,' therefore there 'is'; they think there 'is not,' therefore there 'is not'; they think there are three provisionalities, therefore there are three provisionalities; they think there are four forgetfulnesses, therefore there are four forgetfulnesses. These are all the two truths of outer principle. Now it is explained that causation 'is' and 'is not,' causation's three provisionalities and four forgetfulnesses are the two truths of inner principle. Separately explaining the gains and losses of inner and outer principle allows them to recognize the gains and losses of inner and outer principle, to abandon what is lost, to learn what is gained, and to enter from the outside to the inside. The reason for combining the explanation is for the Madhyamaka (Sanlun) scholars. Madhyamaka scholars, upon hearing about inner and outer principle, immediately think that there is a difference between inner and outer principle, and instead form two views of inner and outer principle. For these people, it is explained that the two truths have never been two; it is simply that those without skillful means who do not understand call it outer principle; those with skillful means who understand call it inner principle.
。即名理內。然二諦實無異。為是故。明開合兩種也。問何故明此開合兩種耶。解云。此之兩種。併爲開道令眾生悟入也。前開理內外令悟者。明有所得理外有無。不能表道。明無所得有無。有是無有。無是有無。有無表不有不無。因教悟理。從假入中。故師云。聖人開真俗以表道。說有無以化物也。次合明令悟者。明有無未曾二。不了者成自性。了者成因緣。只了自性有無成因緣。因緣有無有無即不有無。悟于正道故。此二種並令悟於一道。經文皆爾。故法華云。唯有一大事因緣故。出現於世。又云。說種種乘皆為一乘也。次問。既皆為顯道者。何不發初即為說非有非無令悟正道。而忽諸法。非有非無說有無表不有無。然後令悟非有非無。何乃迂迴者耶。解云。此可有兩意。今且作一種釋之。明若直說瓶衣等有是世諦。此賢聖真知諸法畢竟空名真諦。此已恦潛不受。明諸法實錄是有。那得言究竟無耶。此尚不受。何況說諸法非是有非是無。豈當信之。為此人故。以方便。于無名相中。假名相說。說有是凡諦。說空是聖諦。令其改凡學聖。如法華所明。眾生諸根鈍。著樂癡所盲。如斯之等類。云何而可度諸法寂滅相。不可以言宣。我寧不說法。疾入于涅槃。若直說世諦有真諦無。何事言不可說耶。只為諸法非有非無。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即是名理之內涵。然而二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）實際上沒有差異。因此，闡明開與合這兩種方式。問：為何要闡明這開與合兩種方式呢？答：這兩種方式，都是爲了開示道路，令眾生覺悟而入。前面闡明理之內外，令覺悟者明白有所得的理外之有無，不能夠表達道。闡明無所得之有無，有即是無有，無即是有無，有無表達的是非有非無。通過教導而覺悟真理，從假入中。所以智者大師說：『聖人開顯真俗二諦以表達道，說有無以教化眾生。』接下來，合起來闡明，令覺悟者明白有無從來不是二，不明白的人執著于自性，明白的人則成就因緣。只要明白了自性的有無就是因緣，因緣的有無，有無即是非有非無。覺悟了正道。因此這兩種方式都是爲了令人覺悟於一道。經典都是如此。所以《法華經》說：『唯有一大事因緣的緣故，（諸佛）才出現於世。』又說：『說種種乘，都是爲了一個佛乘。』 其次問：既然都是爲了顯明道，為何不一開始就說非有非無，令其覺悟正道，而忽略諸法，先說有無以表達不有不無，然後才令人覺悟非有非無，為何如此迂迴呢？答：這可能有兩種解釋。現在先作一種解釋。如果直接說瓶子、衣服等有是世俗諦（samvrti-satya），這些賢聖真知諸法畢竟空，名為真諦（paramartha-satya），這些人已經心懷成見，難以接受。如果說諸法實際上是有，怎麼能說究竟是無呢？這種說法尚且不能接受，何況說諸法非是有非是無，豈能相信？爲了這些人，用方便法門，在沒有名相之中，假借名相來說。說有是凡夫的諦理，說空是聖人的諦理，令其改變凡夫的知見，學習聖人的知見。如《法華經》所說：眾生諸根遲鈍，被安樂迷惑，被愚癡所矇蔽。像這樣的人，怎麼可以度化呢？諸法的寂滅相，是無法用言語表達的。我寧可不說法，迅速進入涅槃。如果直接說世俗諦是有，真諦是無，為何說不可說呢？只因爲諸法非有非無。
【English Translation】 English version This is the meaning within the principle. However, the two truths (satya-dvaya, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth) are actually not different. Therefore, it explains the two types of opening and closing. Question: Why explain these two types of opening and closing? Answer: These two types are both for opening the path to lead sentient beings to awaken and enter. The previous explanation of the inside and outside of the principle, for those who awaken, clarifies that the existence and non-existence outside the principle of what is attained cannot express the path. Clarifying the existence and non-existence of what is not attained, existence is non-existence, and non-existence is existence and non-existence. Existence and non-existence express neither existence nor non-existence. Through teaching, one awakens to the truth, entering the middle way from the provisional. Therefore, Master Zhiyi said: 'Sages reveal the conventional and ultimate truths to express the path, and speak of existence and non-existence to transform sentient beings.' Next, the combined explanation is to make those who awaken understand that existence and non-existence have never been two. Those who do not understand cling to self-nature, while those who understand accomplish causes and conditions. As long as one understands that the existence and non-existence of self-nature are causes and conditions, the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions, existence and non-existence are neither existence nor non-existence. One awakens to the right path. Therefore, these two types are both to make people awaken to one path. The scriptures are all like this. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'Only for the sake of one great cause and condition do (the Buddhas) appear in the world.' It also says: 'Speaking of various vehicles is all for one Buddha vehicle.' Next question: Since it is all to reveal the path, why not directly say neither existence nor non-existence from the beginning, to make them awaken to the right path, and ignore all dharmas, first speaking of existence and non-existence to express neither existence nor non-existence, and then make them awaken to neither existence nor non-existence, why is it so circuitous? Answer: There may be two explanations for this. Now, let's give one explanation first. If it is directly said that the existence of bottles, clothes, etc., is the conventional truth (samvrti-satya), and these wise and holy ones truly know that all dharmas are ultimately empty, which is called the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya), these people already have preconceived notions and are difficult to accept. If it is said that all dharmas are actually existent, how can it be said that they are ultimately non-existent? This statement is still unacceptable, let alone saying that all dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent, how can they believe it? For these people, using expedient means, in the absence of names and forms, provisionally using names and forms to speak. Saying that existence is the truth of ordinary people, and saying that emptiness is the truth of sages, to make them change the views of ordinary people and learn the views of sages. As the Lotus Sutra says: The faculties of sentient beings are dull, deluded by pleasure, and blinded by ignorance. How can such people be delivered? The aspect of the quiescence of all dharmas cannot be expressed in words. I would rather not speak the Dharma and quickly enter Nirvana. If it is directly said that the conventional truth is existent and the ultimate truth is non-existent, why say it is unspeakable? Only because all dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent.
所以不可作有無說。為此故。方便說三。脫珍御服。得近其子。不得正門見。于窗牖中窺之耳。若不脫珍御服。不得化子。今亦爾。若即說非有非無即不受。所以方便前說有無。令悟不有無也。若爾斯乃物自迂迴。非關佛故曲巧也。廣洲大高釋二諦義。亦辨二諦是教門也。彼舉指為喻。為人不識月。舉指令得月。彼云。不識月故。尋指得月。雖尋指知所指。所指竟非指。所指竟非指。指月未嘗同。尋指知所指。所指因指通。所指所指通。通之由神會。指月未嘗同。所指恒指外。又云。真諦以本無受秤。俗諦以假有得名。假有表有不有。為息斷見。非謂有也。本無表無不無。為除常見。非謂無也。言有不畢有。言無不畢無。名相未始一。所表未始殊。此意明。因二諦教悟不二。不二是所表。如因指得月月是所表也。古人釋與今意同也。今明。二諦如指。為小兒不識月。此為小兒。不為大老子。大老子知月。何須為。為小兒不識月故。舉指令識月。凡夫眾生亦爾。不識理故。須二諦教。故經云。眾生癡如小兒。亦名著者。故不得前說不二之法也。前已作一種釋明。如須依二諦說法。不得發始即說諸法非有非無。何者。說有是世諦。說空是真諦。已驚潛不受。況為說非有非無耶。如脫珍御服也。今更作一種釋。明依二諦說不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所以不可以執著于『有』或『無』的說法。因為這個緣故，才方便地宣說『三』（指空、有、非空非有）。就像脫下珍貴的御服，才能接近自己的兒子一樣。不能從正門相見，只能從窗戶中窺視。如果不脫下珍貴的御服，就無法化度兒子。現在也是這樣，如果直接說『非有非無』，眾生就無法接受。所以才方便地先說『有』或『無』， чтобы 使他們領悟到『非有非無』的道理。 如果這樣說，豈不是事物本身在迂迴，而不是佛陀故意用巧妙的方法？廣州大高釋二諦義，也辨明二諦是教化的方便之門。他用手指來比喻，就像爲了讓人們認識月亮，才舉起手指指向月亮。他說，因為人們不認識月亮，所以通過尋找手指來認識月亮。雖然通過尋找手指知道了所指的月亮，但所指的月亮終究不是手指。所指的月亮終究不是手指，手指和月亮從來不同。通過尋找手指知道了所指的月亮，所指的月亮通過手指來溝通。所指的月亮通過手指來溝通，溝通的途徑在於精神領會。手指和月亮從來不同，所指的月亮始終在手指之外。他還說，真諦用『本無』來衡量，俗諦用『假有』來命名。假有是爲了表明『有』不是真正的『有』， чтобы 止息斷見，而不是說它就是『有』。本無是爲了表明『無』不是真正的『無』， чтобы 消除常見，而不是說它就是『無』。說『有』不能完全是『有』，說『無』不能完全是『無』。名相從來不是唯一的，所要表達的道理從來沒有不同。這個意思很明確，就是通過二諦的教導來領悟不二的道理。不二才是所要表達的，就像通過手指來認識月亮，月亮才是所要表達的。 古人解釋的道理和現在的意思相同。現在說明，二諦就像手指，是爲了小孩子不認識月亮。這是爲了小孩子，而不是爲了大老子（指有智慧的人）。大老子認識月亮，何須如此？爲了小孩子不認識月亮，才舉起手指讓他們認識月亮。凡夫眾生也是這樣，因為不認識真理，才需要二諦的教導。所以經中說，眾生愚癡就像小孩子，也叫做執著者。所以不能一開始就說不二之法。前面已經做了一種解釋，說明必須依據二諦說法，不能一開始就說諸法非有非無。為什麼呢？說『有』是世俗諦，說『空』是真諦，已經使他們驚恐而不接受了，更何況為他們說『非有非無』呢？就像脫下珍貴的御服一樣。現在再做一種解釋，說明依據二諦說不二之法。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, one should not adhere to the assertions of 'existence' or 'non-existence.' For this reason, the 'three' (referring to emptiness, existence, and neither emptiness nor existence) are expediently taught. It's like taking off precious royal garments to get close to one's son. One cannot meet him through the main gate but can only peek through the window. If one does not take off the precious royal garments, one cannot transform the son. It is the same now; if one directly speaks of 'neither existence nor non-existence,' people will not accept it. Therefore, one expediently speaks of 'existence' or 'non-existence' first, in order to make them realize the principle of 'neither existence nor non-existence.' If it is said this way, isn't it that things themselves are roundabout, rather than the Buddha intentionally using skillful means? The Guangzhou Great Master's explanation of the Two Truths also clarifies that the Two Truths are a means of teaching. He uses the finger as a metaphor, just like raising a finger to point to the moon so that people can recognize the moon. He says that because people do not recognize the moon, they recognize the moon by looking for the finger. Although one knows the moon that is pointed to by looking for the finger, the moon that is pointed to is ultimately not the finger. The moon that is pointed to is ultimately not the finger; the finger and the moon are never the same. By looking for the finger, one knows the moon that is pointed to; the moon that is pointed to is communicated through the finger. The moon that is pointed to is communicated through the finger; the way of communication lies in spiritual understanding. The finger and the moon are never the same; the moon that is pointed to is always outside the finger. He also says that the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) is measured by 'original non-existence,' and the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) is named by 'provisional existence.' Provisional existence is to show that 'existence' is not true 'existence,' in order to stop the view of annihilation, not to say that it is 'existence.' Original non-existence is to show that 'non-existence' is not true 'non-existence,' in order to eliminate the view of permanence, not to say that it is 'non-existence.' Saying 'existence' cannot be completely 'existence,' saying 'non-existence' cannot be completely 'non-existence.' Names and forms have never been one, and the principles to be expressed have never been different. This meaning is clear: it is to realize the non-duality through the teachings of the Two Truths. Non-duality is what is to be expressed, just like recognizing the moon through the finger; the moon is what is to be expressed. The explanation of the ancients is the same as the present meaning. Now it is explained that the Two Truths are like the finger, for the sake of children who do not recognize the moon. This is for children, not for great old men (referring to wise people). Great old men recognize the moon; what need is there for this? For the sake of children who do not recognize the moon, the finger is raised to let them recognize the moon. Ordinary beings are also like this; because they do not recognize the truth, they need the teachings of the Two Truths. Therefore, the sutra says that sentient beings are foolish like children and are also called adherents. Therefore, one cannot speak of the non-dual dharma from the beginning. An explanation has already been made earlier, explaining that one must rely on the Two Truths to speak the Dharma and cannot say from the beginning that all dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent. Why? Saying 'existence' is the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), and saying 'emptiness' is the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya), which already frightens them and makes them unreceptive, let alone speaking of 'neither existence nor non-existence' to them? It's like taking off precious royal garments. Now, another explanation is made, explaining that one speaks of non-duality based on the Two Truths.
得說非有非無也。然前須作一問然後乃得釋之。問云。經中具有說有說無。及說非有非無非真非俗非色非空。如涅槃經云。即于波羅奈轉正法輪。宣說中道。一切眾生。不破諸結。非不能破。非破非不破。是名中道。說法非師非弟子。非得利非不得利。名為中道。若爾此即。具有說二說不二。何得言唯依二諦說不得說不二耶。又且長者初脫珍御服。后還著珍御服。有脫有著不常脫。那言常依二諦說不說非有無不二耶。解云。說有說無。說非有非無。並是教非是理。一往開理教者。教有言說。理不可說。理既不可說。云何得悟。所以得悟理者。必假言說。為是故。說有無說非有無。並是教皆令悟理也。問說有無可是二諦教。說非有無不二。云何亦是二諦教耶。答為是義故。所以山門相承興皇。祖述明三種二諦。第一明。說有為世諦。于無為真諦。第二明。說有說無。二並世諦。說非有非無不二為真諦。汝所問者。只著我家第二節二是世諦不二是真諦。我今更。為汝說第三節二諦義。此二諦者。有無二。非有無不二。說二說不二為世諦。說非二非不二為真諦。以二諦有此三種。是故說法必依二諦。凡所發言。不出此三種也。又此二節二諦。並出經論。有為世諦。空為真諦。如論所明。故論云。有為世諦。此賢聖真知空為真
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應該說非有非無。然而之前需要先提一個問題，然後才能解釋它。問題是：經書中既有說有，也有說無，以及說非有非無、非真非俗、非色非空。例如《涅槃經》中說：『就在波羅奈城轉動正法輪，宣說中道。一切眾生，不是破了諸結，也不是不能破，也不是非破非不破，這叫做中道。說法既非師也非弟子，既非得利也非不得利，這叫做中道。』如果這樣，那麼這裡就既有說二，也有說不二，怎麼能說唯獨依靠二諦來說，而不能說不二呢？而且長者最初脫下珍貴的御服，後來又穿上珍貴的御服，有脫有穿，不是一直脫著。怎麼能說總是依靠二諦來說，而不能說非有非無的不二呢？ 解釋說：說有說無，說非有非無，都是教法，不是真理。一開始開啟真理之門時，教法是有言說的，真理是不可說的。真理既然不可說，怎麼能夠領悟呢？所以能夠領悟真理，必定要藉助言說。因此，說有無，說非有無，都是教法，都是爲了讓人領悟真理。 問：說有無，可以說是二諦的教法，說非有無的不二，怎麼也是二諦的教法呢？答：爲了這個緣故，所以山門相承的興皇大師，祖述並闡明了三種二諦。第一種是：說有為世俗諦，說無為真諦。第二種是：說有說無，二者都是世俗諦，說非有非無的不二為真諦。你所問的，只是著眼於我家第二種二諦，即二是世俗諦，不二是真諦。我現在再為你解說第三種二諦的意義。這第三種二諦是：有無二者，非有無不二。說二說不二為世俗諦，說非二非不二為真諦。因為二諦有這三種，所以說法必定依靠二諦。凡是所說的話，都離不開這三種。 而且這兩種二諦，都出自經論。有為世俗諦，空為真諦，如論中所說。所以論中說：『有為世俗諦，這是賢聖真實知曉的空為真諦。』
【English Translation】 English version: It should be said that it is neither existent nor non-existent. However, a question must be posed first, and then it can be explained. The question is: The scriptures contain both statements of existence and statements of non-existence, as well as statements of neither existence nor non-existence, neither true nor mundane, neither form nor emptiness. For example, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Right there in Varanasi (city in India where Buddha gave his first sermon), the wheel of the Dharma (Buddha's teaching) was turned, proclaiming the Middle Way (doctrine of avoiding extremes). All sentient beings, it is not that they have broken their bonds (kleshas), nor is it that they cannot break them, nor is it that they have neither broken nor not broken them. This is called the Middle Way. The Dharma is taught neither by a teacher nor by a disciple, neither with benefit nor without benefit. This is called the Middle Way.' If so, then there are both statements of duality and statements of non-duality. How can it be said that it relies solely on the Two Truths (conventional and ultimate truth) to speak, and cannot speak of non-duality? Moreover, the elder (a wealthy man) initially takes off his precious imperial garments, and later puts them back on. There is taking off and putting on, not always taking off. How can it be said that it always relies on the Two Truths to speak, and cannot speak of the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence? The explanation is: Speaking of existence, speaking of non-existence, and speaking of neither existence nor non-existence are all teachings (doctrines), not the ultimate truth (reality). When initially opening the door to the ultimate truth, the teachings have verbal expressions, but the ultimate truth is inexpressible. Since the ultimate truth is inexpressible, how can it be realized? Therefore, to be able to realize the ultimate truth, one must rely on verbal expressions. For this reason, speaking of existence and non-existence, and speaking of neither existence nor non-existence, are all teachings, all intended to lead to the realization of the ultimate truth. Question: Speaking of existence and non-existence can be said to be the teaching of the Two Truths, but how is speaking of the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence also the teaching of the Two Truths? Answer: For this reason, the Xinghuang (a Buddhist temple) lineage, inheriting from its predecessors, elucidated three types of Two Truths. The first is: speaking of existence as the conventional truth (samvriti-satya), and speaking of non-existence as the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya). The second is: speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence are both conventional truths, and speaking of the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence is the ultimate truth. What you are asking about only focuses on the second type of Two Truths in our lineage, that is, duality is the conventional truth, and non-duality is the ultimate truth. I will now further explain the meaning of the third type of Two Truths to you. This third type of Two Truths is: existence and non-existence are dual, and neither existence nor non-existence is non-dual. Speaking of duality and speaking of non-duality are conventional truths, and speaking of neither duality nor non-duality is the ultimate truth. Because the Two Truths have these three types, the Dharma (Buddha's teaching) must be taught based on the Two Truths. All that is spoken does not go beyond these three types. Moreover, these two types of Two Truths both come from the scriptures and treatises. Existence is the conventional truth, and emptiness is the ultimate truth, as explained in the treatises. Therefore, the treatises say: 'Existence is the conventional truth, this is the emptiness truly known by the wise and holy as the ultimate truth.'
諦也。二為世諦。不二為真諦。亦出論。論云。有無並世諦。故說第一義諦即無也。又凈名云。我無我不二。是無我義。反即我無我二為我義。真俗亦爾也。二不二為世諦。非二非不二為真諦者。華嚴云。不著不二法。以無一二故。又大論云。破二不著一。若爾故知。非二非不二。名為第一義諦也。次明。所以大師明此三種二諦者。有數意。兩意已如前說。一者為釋諸佛所說常依二諦。亦是明諸佛所發言不出三種二諦也。二者為釋經論。經論復有此三種二諦。文如前所引云云。然經中所以有此三種說者。並是赴緣不同。即是各各為人悉檀。或有聞說有無二諦悟。即為說之。乃至聞說二不二為世諦。非二非不二為第一義諦故說之也。又所以明三重二諦者。此三種二諦。並是漸舍義。如從地架而起。何者。凡夫之人。謂諸法實錄是有。不知無所有。是故諸佛。為說諸法畢竟空無所有。言諸法有者。凡夫謂有。此是俗諦。此是凡諦。賢聖真知諸法性空。此是真諦。此是聖諦。令其從俗入真舍凡取聖。為是義故。明初節二諦義也。次第二重。明有無為世諦不二為真諦者。明有無是二邊。有是一邊無是一邊。乃至常無常生死涅槃。並是二邊。以真俗生死涅槃是二邊故。所以為世諦。非真非俗非生死非涅槃不二中道。為第一義諦也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦也（真理）。二（對立）為世諦（世俗諦），不二（非對立）為真諦（勝義諦）。也出自《大智度論》。論中說：『有和無都是世俗諦。』所以說第一義諦就是無。又《維摩詰經》說：『我（有）和無我（空）不二，這就是無我的意義。』反過來說，我（有）和無我（空）對立，就是我的意義。真諦和俗諦也是這樣。二（對立）和不二（非對立）為世諦，非二（非對立）和非不二（既對立又非對立）為真諦。《華嚴經》說：『不執著於二法（對立的法），因為沒有單一和對立。』又《大智度論》說：『破除對立，不執著于單一。』如果這樣，就知道，非二（非對立）和非不二（既對立又非對立），名為第一義諦。 其次說明，為什麼大師要闡明這三種二諦呢？有若干用意。兩種用意已如前面所說。一是解釋諸佛所說的常依二諦，也是說明諸佛所說的話不出這三種二諦。二是解釋經論，經論中也有這三種二諦。文句如前面所引用。然而經中之所以有這三種說法，都是爲了適應不同的因緣，也就是各自爲了不同的人而施設的教法（悉檀）。或者有人聽聞有和無的二諦而開悟，就為他說這種二諦。乃至有人聽聞二（對立）和不二（非對立）為世諦，非二（非對立）和非不二（既對立又非對立）為第一義諦而開悟，所以這樣說。 又為什麼闡明三重二諦呢？這三種二諦，都是漸次捨棄的意義。如同從地上的支架而起。為什麼這樣說呢？凡夫之人，認為諸法真實存在，不知道無所有。所以諸佛，為他們說諸法畢竟空無所有。說諸法有，是凡夫認為有，這是俗諦，這是凡夫的真理。賢聖真正知道諸法性空，這是真諦，這是聖人的真理。讓他們從俗入真，捨棄凡夫的知見，取聖人的知見。爲了這個意義，闡明最初一重的二諦義。其次第二重，闡明有和無為世諦，不二（非對立）為真諦，說明有和無是二邊，有是一邊，無是一邊。乃至常和無常，生死和涅槃，都是二邊。因為真俗、生死涅槃是二邊，所以是世諦。非真非俗，非生死非涅槃，不二（非對立）的中道，為第一義諦。
【English Translation】 English version 'Tathata' (Truth). 'Duality' is 'Samvriti-satya' (Conventional Truth), 'Non-duality' is 'Paramartha-satya' (Ultimate Truth). This also comes from the 'Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra' (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom). The treatise says: 'Existence and non-existence are both Conventional Truth.' Therefore, it is said that the Ultimate Truth is non-existence. Also, the 'Vimalakirti Sutra' says: 'The non-duality of 'I' (existence) and 'non-I' (emptiness) is the meaning of non-self.' Conversely, the duality of 'I' (existence) and 'non-I' (emptiness) is the meaning of self. The same applies to Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth. 'Duality' and 'non-duality' are Conventional Truth, 'non-duality' and 'non-non-duality' are Ultimate Truth. The 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Flower Garland Sutra) says: 'Not clinging to dualistic dharmas (laws), because there is no oneness or duality.' Also, the 'Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra' says: 'Break duality, do not cling to oneness.' If so, then know that 'non-duality' and 'non-non-duality' are called the Ultimate Truth. Next, explaining why the master elucidates these three types of Two Truths. There are several intentions. Two intentions have already been explained as mentioned earlier. One is to explain that what the Buddhas say always relies on the Two Truths, and also to explain that the words spoken by the Buddhas do not go beyond these three types of Two Truths. The second is to explain the sutras and treatises, which also contain these three types of Two Truths. The sentences are as quoted earlier. However, the reason why there are these three types of statements in the sutras is all to adapt to different conditions, that is, each is a teaching (Siddhanta) established for different people. Or someone hears the Two Truths of existence and non-existence and becomes enlightened, so these Two Truths are explained to them. Even someone hears that 'duality' and 'non-duality' are Conventional Truth, and 'non-duality' and 'non-non-duality' are Ultimate Truth and becomes enlightened, so it is said. Also, why elucidate the three levels of Two Truths? These three types of Two Truths all have the meaning of gradual abandonment. It is like rising from a ground frame. Why is this said? Ordinary people think that all dharmas (laws) truly exist and do not know that they are without substance. Therefore, the Buddhas tell them that all dharmas are ultimately empty and without substance. Saying that dharmas exist is what ordinary people think exists, this is Conventional Truth, this is the truth of ordinary people. Sages truly know that the nature of all dharmas is empty, this is Ultimate Truth, this is the truth of sages. Let them go from Conventional to Ultimate, abandon the views of ordinary people, and take the views of sages. For this meaning, the meaning of the initial level of Two Truths is elucidated. Next, the second level, elucidating that existence and non-existence are Conventional Truth, and 'non-duality' is Ultimate Truth, explaining that existence and non-existence are two extremes, existence is one extreme, and non-existence is one extreme. Even permanence and impermanence, birth and death, and Nirvana are all two extremes. Because Conventional and Ultimate, birth and death, and Nirvana are two extremes, therefore they are Conventional Truth. Neither Conventional nor Ultimate, neither birth nor death nor Nirvana, the Middle Way of 'non-duality' is the Ultimate Truth.
。次第三重。二與不二為世諦。非二非不二為第一義諦者。前明真俗生死涅槃二邊。是偏故為世諦。非真非俗非生死非涅槃不二中道。為第一義。此亦是二邊。何者。二是偏不二是中。偏是一邊中是一邊。偏之與中。還是二邊。二邊故名世諦。非偏非中乃是中道第一義諦也。然諸佛說法。治眾生病。不出此意。為是故明此三種二諦也。此之三種。只得為一緣。亦得為三緣者。初節為凡夫。凡夫謂諸法是有。所以說諸法有為俗諦。空為真諦。正為破凡夫有見故。說有為俗空為真諦也。第二重。為破二乘人。二乘謂諸法空。沈空見坑故。法華云。我爾時但念空無相無愿之法。于菩薩遊戲神通凈佛國土。永無愿樂。若爾。凡夫著有二乘滯空。此之空有。並是世諦。若非空非有非凡非聖。乃是第一義。故經云。非凡夫行。非聖人行。是菩薩行。亦非有行非空行。是菩薩行。為是故明第二重二諦也。第三重為破有得菩薩。有得菩薩云。凡夫見有。二乘著空。凡夫沉生死。二乘著涅槃。我解諸法非有非無非生死非涅槃。為是故。明有無二非有無不二。生死涅槃二非生死非涅槃不二。並是世諦。若非真俗非生死涅槃。非非真俗非非生死涅槃。乃是第一義諦也。此即攝五乘為三緣。開三種二諦。赴此三緣。皆令悟一乘一道。若悟此三即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其次是三重二諦的解釋。將『二』與『不二』視為世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，俗諦），將『非二非不二』視為第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，真諦）。前面解釋了真諦與俗諦、生死與涅槃的二邊，因為偏頗所以是世俗諦。而非真非俗、非生死非涅槃的不二中道，是第一義諦。但這仍然是二邊，為什麼呢？因為『二』是偏頗，『不二』是中道，偏頗是一邊，中道是一邊，偏頗與中道，仍然是二邊。因為是二邊，所以名為世俗諦。而非偏頗非中道，才是中道第一義諦。然而諸佛說法，是爲了醫治眾生的病，不會超出這個意思。因此才闡明這三種二諦。這三種二諦，可以只作為一種因緣，也可以作為三種因緣。第一重二諦是為凡夫設立的。凡夫認為諸法是『有』，所以說諸法『有』是俗諦，『空』是真諦。正是爲了破除凡夫的『有』見，所以說『有』為俗諦，『空』為真諦。第二重二諦是為破除二乘人設立的。二乘人認為諸法是『空』，沉溺於『空』的見解中。《法華經》說：『我當時只念空、無相、無愿之法，對於菩薩的遊戲神通、清凈佛國土，永遠沒有愿樂。』如果這樣，凡夫執著于『有』，二乘滯留于『空』，這『空』和『有』，都是世俗諦。如果非空非有、非凡非聖，才是第一義諦。所以經中說：『不是凡夫的行，不是聖人的行，是菩薩的行。』也不是『有』的行，也不是『空』的行，是菩薩的行。因此才闡明第二重二諦。第三重二諦是為破除有所得的菩薩設立的。有所得的菩薩說：『凡夫見『有』，二乘執著于『空』，凡夫沉溺於生死，二乘執著于涅槃，我理解諸法非有非無、非生死非涅槃。』因此，闡明『有』與『無』的『二』，『非有』與『非無』的『不二』，『生死』與『涅槃』的『二』，『非生死』與『非涅槃』的『不二』，都是世俗諦。如果非真俗、非生死涅槃、非非真俗、非非生死涅槃，才是第一義諦。』這就能將五乘歸攝為三種因緣，開顯三種二諦，應合這三種因緣，都使他們領悟一乘一道。如果領悟這三種二諦，就
【English Translation】 English version: Next is the explanation of the threefold Two Truths. Considering 'duality' and 'non-duality' as Samvriti-satya (conventional truth), and 'neither duality nor non-duality' as Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth). The previous explanation of the two extremes of truth and conventionality, samsara and nirvana, are considered conventional truth because of their partiality. The non-dual Middle Way, which is neither true nor conventional, neither samsara nor nirvana, is the ultimate truth. But this is still duality, why? Because 'duality' is partial, 'non-duality' is the middle way, partiality is one extreme, and the middle way is one extreme. Partiality and the middle way are still two extremes. Because they are two extremes, they are called conventional truth. Only that which is neither partial nor the middle way is the Middle Way ultimate truth. However, the Buddhas preach the Dharma to cure the illnesses of sentient beings, and do not go beyond this meaning. Therefore, these three types of Two Truths are explained. These three types can be considered as one condition, or as three conditions. The first level of Two Truths is established for ordinary people (prthagjana). Ordinary people think that all dharmas are 'existent', so they say that the 'existence' of all dharmas is conventional truth, and 'emptiness' is ultimate truth. Precisely to break the 'existence' view of ordinary people, 'existence' is said to be conventional truth, and 'emptiness' is ultimate truth. The second level of Two Truths is established to break the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas (two vehicles). The two vehicles think that all dharmas are 'empty', and are immersed in the pit of emptiness. The Lotus Sutra says: 'At that time, I only thought of the Dharma of emptiness, no form, and no wish, and for the Bodhisattvas' play of supernatural powers and pure Buddha lands, I never had any wish or joy.' If so, ordinary people are attached to 'existence', and the two vehicles are stuck in 'emptiness'. This 'emptiness' and 'existence' are both conventional truth. If it is neither empty nor existent, neither ordinary nor saintly, then it is the ultimate truth. Therefore, the sutra says: 'It is not the practice of ordinary people, nor the practice of saints, it is the practice of Bodhisattvas.' It is also not the practice of 'existence', nor the practice of 'emptiness', it is the practice of Bodhisattvas. Therefore, the second level of Two Truths is explained. The third level of Two Truths is established to break the Bodhisattvas who have attainment. The Bodhisattvas who have attainment say: 'Ordinary people see 'existence', the two vehicles are attached to 'emptiness', ordinary people are immersed in samsara, and the two vehicles are attached to nirvana. I understand that all dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent, neither samsara nor nirvana.' Therefore, it is explained that the 'duality' of 'existence' and 'non-existence', the 'non-duality' of 'neither existence nor non-existence', the 'duality' of 'samsara' and 'nirvana', and the 'non-duality' of 'neither samsara nor nirvana' are all conventional truth. If it is neither true nor conventional, neither samsara nor nirvana, neither not true nor conventional, nor not samsara nor nirvana, then it is the ultimate truth.' This can gather the five vehicles into three conditions, reveal the three types of Two Truths, and in accordance with these three conditions, enable them all to realize the One Vehicle and One Path. If you realize these three types,
究竟。悟此三即非凡非聖非大非小。若爾始是悟也。是故經云。我今得道得果。于無漏法得清凈眼。以得如此悟故。所以如來便入涅槃也。又所以明三種二諦者。為對由來人。由來人明三假是世諦四忘是真諦。今明。此之二諦。是我家初節二諦。我家有三重二諦義。汝二諦是初重二諦。今過汝有兩重二諦也。第二節二諦。若真若俗為世諦。若非真若非俗為第一義諦。若爾。汝二諦是我家世諦也。又第三節。攝彼若二諦若中道。並是今世諦。何者。前第二節。明二為世諦不二為真諦。汝二諦但是我家世諦也。彼即云。我亦有非真非俗中道義。為是故。第三節明二不二為世諦。汝若二諦若中道。悉是我家世諦。為是故明此三種二諦義也。問從來明有三諦義。一世諦二真諦三非真非俗諦。故經云有諦無諦中道第一義諦。若爾。云何言諸佛常依二諦說法耶。諸佛常依二諦說法。此即時長佛廣。常依故時長。諸佛故佛廣。此即十方三世諸佛。常依二諦說法。那得有三諦。既有三諦。何得復言常依二諦耶。解云。常依二諦說法。不妨三諦。雖有三諦。不乖常依二諦說法。何者。今真俗是二諦。攝真俗二為世諦。不真俗為第一義。若爾。唯是二諦故。云諸佛常依二諦說法也。次時明二諦廢立義。問有無表不有無。悟不有無時。為廢有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 究竟。領悟這三即（三即一切法皆空、無相、無愿）既非凡夫也非聖人，既非大也非小。如果這樣，才算是領悟了。所以經中說：『我現在得道得果，于無漏法（無煩惱的清凈之法）中得到清凈的智慧之眼。』因為得到這樣的領悟，所以如來便進入涅槃（寂滅）。 又，之所以闡明三種二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）的含義，是爲了針對那些一直以來執著于某種觀點的人。這些人認為三假（色受想行識）是世俗諦，四忘（斷除四種顛倒妄見）是真諦。現在說明，這兩種二諦，只是我這裡最初級的二諦。我家有三重二諦的含義，你們的二諦只是初重二諦。現在超過你們，還有兩重二諦。 第二重二諦，無論是真還是俗，都屬於世俗諦；若非真非俗，則屬於第一義諦。如果這樣，你們的二諦只是我家的世俗諦。 又，第三重二諦，包含你們的二諦和中道（不落兩邊的中正之道），都屬於現在的世俗諦。為什麼呢？因為前面第二重，說明二（對立的雙方）為世俗諦，不二（無對立的統一）為真諦。你們的二諦只是我家的世俗諦。 他們就說：『我也有非真非俗的中道之義。』正因為如此，第三重說明二與不二都屬於世俗諦。你們的二諦和中道，都是我家的世俗諦。正因為如此，才闡明這三種二諦的含義。 問：一直以來都闡明有三諦的含義，一是世諦，二是真諦，三是非真非俗諦。所以經中說有諦、無諦、中道第一義諦。如果這樣，為什麼說諸佛總是依據二諦說法呢？ 諸佛總是依據二諦說法，這說明時間長、佛的範圍廣。總是依據，所以時間長；諸佛，所以佛的範圍廣。這指的是十方三世諸佛，總是依據二諦說法。那怎麼會有三諦呢？既然有三諦，為什麼又說總是依據二諦呢？ 解釋說：總是依據二諦說法，不妨礙有三諦。雖然有三諦，但不違背總是依據二諦說法。為什麼呢？現在的真諦和俗諦是二諦，包含真諦和俗諦為世諦，不真不俗為第一義諦。如果這樣，只有二諦，所以說諸佛總是依據二諦說法。 接下來闡明二諦的廢立義。問：有和無，表達不有不無。領悟不有不無時，是廢除有
【English Translation】 English version Ultimately. To realize that these three '即' (all dharmas are empty, without characteristics, and without wishes) are neither ordinary nor saintly, neither large nor small. Only then is it considered enlightenment. Therefore, the sutra says: 'I have now attained the Dao and attained the fruit, and have obtained a pure eye of wisdom in the unconditioned Dharma (Dharma free from afflictions).' Because of attaining such enlightenment, the Tathagata enters Nirvana (extinction). Furthermore, the reason for clarifying the meaning of the three types of Two Truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) is to address those who have always been attached to certain views. These people believe that the three '假' (skandhas of form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) are conventional truth, and the four '忘' (abandoning the four inverted views) are ultimate truth. Now it is explained that these two truths are only the most basic Two Truths here. My school has three levels of meaning for the Two Truths, and your Two Truths are only the first level. Now surpassing you, there are two more levels of Two Truths. The second level of Two Truths, whether true or conventional, belongs to conventional truth; if it is neither true nor conventional, it belongs to the ultimate truth. If so, your Two Truths are only the conventional truth of my school. Moreover, the third level of Two Truths, including your Two Truths and the Middle Way (the path of impartiality that does not fall into extremes), all belong to the current conventional truth. Why? Because the previous second level explains that 'two' (opposing sides) are conventional truth, and 'non-two' (unity without opposition) is ultimate truth. Your Two Truths are only the conventional truth of my school. They say: 'I also have the meaning of the Middle Way that is neither true nor conventional.' Precisely because of this, the third level explains that both 'two' and 'non-two' belong to conventional truth. Your Two Truths and the Middle Way are all the conventional truth of my school. Precisely because of this, the meaning of these three types of Two Truths is clarified. Question: It has always been explained that there are three truths, the first being conventional truth, the second being ultimate truth, and the third being neither true nor conventional truth. Therefore, the sutra says there are truths, non-truths, and the Middle Way ultimate truth. If so, why is it said that the Buddhas always teach according to the Two Truths? The Buddhas always teach according to the Two Truths, which indicates a long time and a wide scope of Buddhas. Always according to, so it is a long time; Buddhas, so it is a wide scope of Buddhas. This refers to the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times, who always teach according to the Two Truths. Then how can there be three truths? Since there are three truths, why is it said that they always teach according to the Two Truths? The explanation is: Always teaching according to the Two Truths does not hinder the existence of three truths. Although there are three truths, it does not contradict always teaching according to the Two Truths. Why? The current ultimate truth and conventional truth are the Two Truths, including ultimate truth and conventional truth as conventional truth, and neither ultimate nor conventional as the ultimate truth. If so, there are only Two Truths, so it is said that the Buddhas always teach according to the Two Truths. Next, the meaning of the establishment and abolition of the Two Truths is explained. Question: Existence and non-existence express neither existence nor non-existence. When realizing neither existence nor non-existence, is existence abolished?
無為不廢耶。次結二難。若悟不有無廢有無。如得月忘指者。不然。何者。本了有無得不有無。若廢有無即無有無。無有無寧有不有無。涅槃經云。菩薩具二莊嚴。即能解知一種二種。若言無一二者。是義不然。何以故。若無一二。云何得說無一無二。要由一二得有無一二。若爾。要由有無得悟不有無。何得廢耶。若便不廢有無者亦不然。若不廢有無者。何得從來云得月忘指會理忘筌耶。師解云。具有廢不廢義。所言廢者。約謂情邊。即須廢之。何者。明汝所見有者。並顛倒所感。如瓶衣等。皆是眾生顛倒所感。妄想見有。故中論云。若謂以現見而有生滅者。即為是癡妄而見有生滅。顛倒感得此眼。求此眼不可得。諸法亦不可得。特癡妄見有。是故須廢也。此則用空廢有。若更著空。亦復須廢。何者。本由有故有空。既無有。何得有空。故中論云。若使無有有云何當有無。又云。若有不空法。可有于空法。不空法尚無。何得有空法。此之空有。皆是情謂。故皆須廢。乃至第三節。謂情言有。亦皆須廢。何者並是謂情。皆須廢之也。問若此三種二諦皆廢。用何物為二諦教耶。解云。約緣邊即是謂情。佛為說邊即是教門。今明。此等皆謂情。皆須廢之也。何以故。謂情所見皆是虛妄。故廢之也。又非但廢妄。亦無有實。本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無為（Nirvana，不作為）難道可以廢棄嗎？這是第二次提出的兩難問題。如果領悟到『不有』和『不無』，就像得到了月亮就忘記了指向月亮的手指一樣。如果不是這樣，為什麼呢？本來了解了『有』和『無』，才能得到『不有』和『不無』。如果廢棄了『有』和『無』，那就沒有『有無』了。沒有『有無』，哪裡會有『不有無』呢？《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『菩薩具備兩種莊嚴，就能理解一種和兩種。』如果說沒有『一』和『二』，這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？如果沒有『一』和『二』，怎麼能說『無一』和『無二』呢？必須通過『一』和『二』才能有『無一』和『無二』。如果這樣，必須通過『有』和『無』才能領悟『不有無』，怎麼能廢棄呢？如果因此就不廢棄『有』和『無』，也是不對的。如果不廢棄『有』和『無』，怎麼能說像得到月亮就忘記手指，領會道理就忘記捕魚的工具呢？ 老師解釋說：既有廢棄的意義，也有不廢棄的意義。所說的廢棄，是從情識的角度來說的，必須廢棄它。為什麼呢？因為你所見到的『有』，都是顛倒所產生的，比如瓶子、衣服等等，都是眾生顛倒所產生的，妄想地認為它們是存在的。所以《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）說：『如果認為通過眼前的所見而有生滅，那就是愚癡妄想地認為有生滅。』顛倒產生了這雙眼睛，去尋找這雙眼睛是找不到的，諸法也是找不到的，只是愚癡妄想地認為它們是存在的。所以必須廢棄它。這是用空來廢棄有。如果更執著于空，也必須廢棄。為什麼呢？本來是因為有，所以才有空。既然沒有有，哪裡會有空呢？所以《中論》說：『如果不存在不空的法，才能存在空的法。不空的法尚且不存在，哪裡會有空的法呢？』這空和有，都是情識的認為，所以都必須廢棄。乃至第三節，認為情識所說的有，也都要廢棄。為什麼呢？因為這些都是情識的認為，都必須廢棄。 問：如果這三種二諦（two truths）都要廢棄，用什麼作為二諦的教義呢？ 答：從因緣的角度來說，就是情識的認為；佛陀爲了說法，就設立了教門。現在說明，這些都是情識的認為，都必須廢棄。為什麼呢？因為情識所見到的都是虛妄的，所以要廢棄它。而且不僅要廢棄虛妄，也沒有真實的存在，本來。
【English Translation】 English version Can non-action (Nirvana) be abandoned? This is the second dilemma presented. If one realizes 'neither existence nor non-existence,' it's like forgetting the finger after obtaining the moon. If not, why? Originally, understanding 'existence' and 'non-existence' leads to 'neither existence nor non-existence.' If 'existence' and 'non-existence' are abandoned, then there is no 'existence and non-existence.' If there is no 'existence and non-existence,' where would 'neither existence nor non-existence' be? The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says: 'A Bodhisattva possessing two kinds of adornments can understand one kind and two kinds.' If it is said that there is no 'one' and 'two,' this statement is incorrect. Why? If there is no 'one' and 'two,' how can one speak of 'neither one' nor 'neither two'? It is necessary to have 'one' and 'two' to have 'neither one' nor 'neither two.' If so, it is necessary to realize 'neither existence nor non-existence' through 'existence' and 'non-existence,' how can it be abandoned? If, therefore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are not abandoned, that is also incorrect. If 'existence' and 'non-existence' are not abandoned, how can it be said that it is like forgetting the finger after obtaining the moon, and forgetting the fishing trap after understanding the principle? The teacher explains: There is both the meaning of abandoning and not abandoning. What is meant by abandoning is from the perspective of emotional consciousness, which must be abandoned. Why? Because what you see as 'existence' is all produced by inversion, such as bottles, clothes, etc., which are all produced by the inversion of sentient beings, falsely thinking that they exist. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) says: 'If one thinks that birth and death exist through what is seen before one's eyes, then it is foolishly and falsely thinking that birth and death exist.' Inversion produces these eyes, but seeking these eyes cannot be found, and all dharmas cannot be found either, but foolishly and falsely thinking that they exist. Therefore, it must be abandoned. This is using emptiness to abandon existence. If one becomes more attached to emptiness, it must also be abandoned. Why? Originally, it is because of existence that there is emptiness. Since there is no existence, where would there be emptiness? Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'If there is no non-empty dharma, then there can be empty dharma. Non-empty dharma does not even exist, where would there be empty dharma?' This emptiness and existence are all the thinking of emotional consciousness, so they must all be abandoned. Even the third section, thinking that existence is spoken of by emotional consciousness, must also be abandoned. Why? Because these are all the thinking of emotional consciousness, which must all be abandoned. Question: If these three kinds of two truths (two truths) are all to be abandoned, what should be used as the doctrine of the two truths? Answer: From the perspective of conditions, it is the thinking of emotional consciousness; the Buddha established the teaching gate in order to preach the Dharma. Now it is explained that these are all the thinking of emotional consciousness, which must all be abandoned. Why? Because what is seen by emotional consciousness is all false, so it must be abandoned. Moreover, not only must falsehood be abandoned, but there is also no real existence, originally.
有虛故有實。既無虛即無實。顯清凈正道。此亦名法身。亦名正道。亦名實相也。然此已拔從來也。何者從來云。取相煩惱感六道果報。此須廢。廢六道生死。得如來涅槃。今明。有生死可有涅槃。既無生死即無涅槃。無生死無涅槃。生死涅槃皆是虛妄。非生死非涅槃乃名實相。一往對虛辨實。若無彼虛即無有實也。若就三重二諦義辨者。即由來人廢立在初節二諦義中。何者彼廢世諦立真諦。何者取相煩惱感得六道果報名為世諦。斷取相煩惱。六道果報謝。此即廢世諦而有真諦之境。由真諦境生佛妙智。此即廢世諦立真諦。今明。此之二諦。並是謂情。皆悉須廢。何但初節二諦須廢。乃至第三重皆須廢。何以故。此皆謂情故須廢之也。此即一往廢三。不廢不三也。次就三種二諦中論廢不廢。明無方便三即廢。有方便三即不廢。無方便三廢者。明此三倒謂有三。實無此三。是故須廢。如陽炎謂是水實無水也。然亦無有廢。何者有水可廢。既無水。何所廢。而言廢者。約彼謂有故言廢也。有方便三不廢者。即不壞假名。說諸法實相。不動等覺建立諸法。既云不壞假名說諸法實相。豈當得不二廢二。若得不二廢二。即壞假名說諸法實相。動等覺建立諸法。唯假名即實相。豈須廢之。如中論云。是假即中。廢假名即廢中。既不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為有虛幻，所以才有真實。如果沒有虛幻，也就沒有真實。彰顯清凈的正道，這也被稱為法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身），也稱為正道，也稱為實相（Tathata，事物的真實面貌）。然而，這已經超越了以往的認知。什麼是以往的認知呢？就是執著于表象，產生煩惱，從而感召六道輪迴的果報。這些都必須捨棄。捨棄六道生死，才能證得如來的涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。現在闡明，有生死，才有所謂的涅槃。既然沒有生死，也就沒有涅槃。無生死，無涅槃，生死涅槃都是虛妄的。非生死，非涅槃，才稱為實相。從一方面來說，是相對虛幻來辨別真實。如果沒有虛幻，也就沒有真實。 如果從三重二諦（Three Levels of Two Truths，佛教的一種認識論）的意義來辨析，那麼以往人們的捨棄和建立，都體現在最初階段的二諦義中。什麼是捨棄世俗諦（Relative Truth，相對真理）而建立真諦（Ultimate Truth，絕對真理）呢？就是執著于表象，產生煩惱，從而感召六道輪迴的果報，這被稱為世俗諦。斷除執著于表象的煩惱，六道輪迴的果報消謝，這就是捨棄世俗諦而證得真諦的境界。由真諦的境界產生佛的妙智。這就是捨棄世俗諦而建立真諦。現在闡明，這兩種諦，都是基於情識的分別，都必須捨棄。不僅僅是最初階段的二諦需要捨棄，乃至第三重也都需要捨棄。為什麼呢？因為這些都是基於情識的分別，所以必須捨棄。這可以說是一次性地捨棄了三重，而不是不捨棄也不捨棄三重。 接下來就三種二諦中討論捨棄與不捨棄。闡明沒有方便（Skillful Means，善巧方便）的三重就需要捨棄，有方便的三重就不需要捨棄。沒有方便的三重需要捨棄，是因為闡明這三重顛倒（Three Inversions，三種顛倒的認知）是認為有三重，實際上沒有這三重，所以需要捨棄。比如陽炎（Mirage，海市蜃樓）被認為是水，實際上沒有水。然而，也沒有什麼可以捨棄的。因為有什麼水可以捨棄呢？既然沒有水，又捨棄什麼呢？之所以說捨棄，是就他們認為有水而言的。有方便的三重不需要捨棄，就是不破壞假名（Provisional Name，暫時的名稱），宣說諸法的實相，不改變等覺（Enlightenment，覺悟）而建立諸法。既然說不破壞假名而宣說諸法的實相，怎麼能不捨棄二諦呢？如果能不捨棄二諦，就是破壞假名而宣說諸法的實相，改變等覺而建立諸法。只有假名就是實相，哪裡需要捨棄呢？如同《中論》（Mulamadhyamakakarika，中觀論頌）所說：『是假即中』，捨棄假名就是捨棄中道（Middle Way，不落兩邊的中正之道）。既然不……
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is illusion, there is reality. If there is no illusion, there is no reality. It reveals the pure and right path, which is also called Dharmakaya (the body of the Buddha's Dharma nature), also called the right path, and also called Tathata (the true aspect of things). However, this has already surpassed the previous understanding. What is the previous understanding? It is clinging to appearances, generating afflictions, and thus reaping the karmic rewards of the six realms of reincarnation. These must be abandoned. Abandoning the cycle of birth and death in the six realms is necessary to attain the Nirvana (liberation) of the Tathagata. Now it is clarified that with birth and death, there is so-called Nirvana. Since there is no birth and death, there is no Nirvana. No birth and death, no Nirvana; birth, death, and Nirvana are all illusory. Neither birth nor death, neither Nirvana, is called Tathata. From one perspective, it is to distinguish reality relative to illusion. If there is no illusion, there is no reality. If analyzed from the meaning of the Three Levels of Two Truths (a Buddhist epistemology), then the abandonment and establishment of people in the past are all reflected in the two truths in the initial stage. What is abandoning the Relative Truth (conventional truth) and establishing the Ultimate Truth (absolute truth)? It is clinging to appearances, generating afflictions, and thus reaping the karmic rewards of the six realms of reincarnation, which is called the Relative Truth. Cutting off the afflictions of clinging to appearances, the karmic rewards of the six realms of reincarnation disappear, which is abandoning the Relative Truth and attaining the realm of the Ultimate Truth. From the realm of the Ultimate Truth arises the Buddha's wonderful wisdom. This is abandoning the Relative Truth and establishing the Ultimate Truth. Now it is clarified that these two truths are both based on emotional discrimination and must be abandoned. Not only the two truths in the initial stage need to be abandoned, but even the third level needs to be abandoned. Why? Because these are all based on emotional discrimination, so they must be abandoned. It can be said that this is abandoning the three levels at once, rather than not abandoning or not abandoning the three levels. Next, let's discuss abandoning or not abandoning in the three types of two truths. It is clarified that the three levels without Skillful Means (expedient means) need to be abandoned, and the three levels with Skillful Means do not need to be abandoned. The three levels without Skillful Means need to be abandoned because it is clarified that these three inversions (three inverted perceptions) are considered to have three levels, but in reality, there are no three levels, so they need to be abandoned. For example, a mirage is considered to be water, but in reality, there is no water. However, there is also nothing to abandon. Because what water can be abandoned? Since there is no water, what is abandoned? The reason for saying abandonment is in terms of their belief that there is water. The three levels with Skillful Means do not need to be abandoned, which is not destroying the Provisional Name (temporary designation), expounding the true aspect of all dharmas, and establishing all dharmas without changing Enlightenment. Since it is said that the true aspect of all dharmas is expounded without destroying the Provisional Name, how can the two truths not be abandoned? If the two truths cannot be abandoned, it is destroying the Provisional Name and expounding the true aspect of all dharmas, changing Enlightenment and establishing all dharmas. Only the Provisional Name is the true aspect, where is the need to abandon it? As the Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) says: 'What is provisional is the Middle Way', abandoning the Provisional Name is abandoning the Middle Way (the path of balance that does not fall into extremes). Since not...
廢中。豈當廢假。斯即空有有空。二不二不二二。橫豎無礙。故肇師云。欲言其有。有非真生。欲言其無。事像既形。又云。譬如幻化人非無幻化人。幻化人非真人也。此唯幻化人非人。非人不無幻化人。幻化人非人。非人人。諸法亦爾。故不廢也。此就有方便無方便因緣不因緣。論廢不廢如此。次更就謂情生滅無生滅二觀。明廢不廢。何者由來云。小乘即斷二輪煩惱。得見思兩解。大乘斷五住地惑。得十地解。此即見思伐二惑。十地解斷五住地惑。此廢惑立解。廢凡立聖。若不斷二惑。見思無由成。不伐五住。佛果即不立。故大小乘皆斷惑成聖也。今依法華經望。併除糞人。何故謂為除糞人。欲鄙之耳。故經云。念子愚劣樂為鄙事。二乘斷惑既是除糞。菩薩斷惑亦是除糞。齊而過甚。何者同斷故是齊。斷少多故過甚。二乘除糞。蓋是不足言。菩薩時長除糞廣故。過之甚也。今明。菩薩知惑本不生今不滅。何所斷。斯即生在佛家。種姓尊貴。如轉輪聖王皇太子也。唯見客作賤人除糞。何曾聞長者之兒擔屎。故今明。菩薩不斷惑。何者菩薩知惑本不生今不滅故。無所斷也。所以凈名經云。法本不生。今則無滅。法華云。諸法從本來常自寂滅相。從來云。菩薩無生滅觀。何故明無生滅耶。如向所辨。知本不生今無所滅故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，不應該廢除假象。這就是空與有，有與空，二與非二，非二與二的關係。橫向和縱向都沒有阻礙。所以僧肇大師說：『要說它有，有並非真實產生；要說它無，事物的形象已經形成。』又說：『譬如幻化的人並非沒有幻化的人，但幻化的人並非真人。』這只是幻化的人並非真人，但並非真人不具有幻化的人。幻化的人並非真人，並非真人是人。一切諸法也是如此，所以不應廢除。這就在於有方便與無方便，因緣與非因緣，討論廢除與不廢除就是這樣。接下來，再就凡夫的情感生滅和聖人的無生滅兩種觀點，來說明廢除與不廢除。為什麼這樣說呢？小乘斷除見惑和思惑這兩種煩惱，從而獲得見解和思解。大乘斷除五住地惑，從而獲得十地之解。這就是說，小乘斷除見思二惑，大乘斷除五住地惑。這是廢除迷惑而建立見解，廢除凡夫而建立聖人。如果不斷除見思二惑，見解和思解就無法成就；如果不斷除五住地惑，佛果就無法建立。所以大小乘都是斷除迷惑而成就聖人。 現在依照《法華經》來看，（大小乘的斷惑）都像是清除糞便的人。為什麼說像是清除糞便的人呢？這是爲了鄙視他們。所以經中說：『（佛）想到兒子愚笨低下，喜歡做卑賤的事情。』二乘斷除迷惑既然是清除糞便，菩薩斷除迷惑也是清除糞便，（兩者）相同而又過分。為什麼說相同呢？因為都是斷除（煩惱）。為什麼說過分呢？因為斷除的（煩惱）有少有多的緣故。二乘清除糞便，可以說是不足道的。菩薩是長時間地清除大量的糞便，所以超過了二乘。現在說明，菩薩知道迷惑本來不生，現在不滅，（所以）沒有什麼可斷除的。這就是生在佛家，種姓尊貴，如同轉輪聖王的皇太子一樣。只見到客作（僱工）清除糞便，哪裡聽說過長者（富人）的兒子挑大糞呢？所以現在說明，菩薩不斷除迷惑。為什麼呢？因為菩薩知道迷惑本來不生，現在不滅，所以沒有什麼可斷除的。所以《維摩詰經》說：『法本不生，現在無滅。』《法華經》說：『諸法從本來，常自寂滅相。』（所以）從來（就）說，菩薩具有無生滅的觀照。為什麼要說明無生滅呢？就像前面所辨析的，（菩薩）知道（諸法）本來不生，現在沒有什麼可滅的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, one should not abolish the false appearances. This is the relationship between emptiness and existence, existence and emptiness, two and non-two, non-two and two. There are no obstructions horizontally or vertically. So Master Zhao said: 'If you want to say it exists, existence is not truly born; if you want to say it is non-existent, the images of things have already formed.' He also said: 'For example, a phantom person is not without a phantom person, but a phantom person is not a real person.' This is just that a phantom person is not a real person, but a non-real person does not lack a phantom person. A phantom person is not a person, and a non-person is a person. All dharmas are also like this, so they should not be abolished. This lies in having expedient means and not having expedient means, causes and non-causes. Discussing abolishing and not abolishing is like this. Next, regarding the two views of the emotions of ordinary people arising and ceasing and the non-arising and non-ceasing of sages, explain abolishing and not abolishing. Why is this said? The Small Vehicle (Hinayana) cuts off the two afflictions of views and thoughts (見思惑, Jian Si Huo), thereby obtaining understanding and liberation of views and thoughts. The Great Vehicle (Mahayana) cuts off the five dwelling-places of delusion (五住地惑, Wu Zhu Di Huo), thereby obtaining the understanding of the ten grounds (十地, Shi Di). That is to say, the Small Vehicle cuts off the two delusions of views and thoughts, and the Great Vehicle cuts off the five dwelling-places of delusion. This is abolishing delusion and establishing understanding, abolishing the ordinary and establishing the sage. If the two delusions of views and thoughts are not cut off, understanding and liberation of views and thoughts cannot be achieved; if the five dwelling-places are not cut off, the fruit of Buddhahood cannot be established. Therefore, both the Small and Great Vehicles cut off delusions to achieve sagehood. Now, according to the Lotus Sutra, (the cutting off of delusions by both Small and Great Vehicles) is like people removing excrement. Why is it said to be like people removing excrement? This is to despise them. So the sutra says: '(The Buddha) thought that his son was foolish and lowly, and liked to do lowly things.' Since the Small Vehicle's cutting off of delusions is like removing excrement, the Bodhisattva's cutting off of delusions is also like removing excrement, (they are) the same and excessive. Why is it said to be the same? Because both are cutting off (afflictions). Why is it said to be excessive? Because the (afflictions) cut off are few and many. The Small Vehicle's removing of excrement can be said to be insignificant. The Bodhisattva removes a large amount of excrement for a long time, so it exceeds the Small Vehicle. Now it is explained that the Bodhisattva knows that delusions are originally not born and do not cease now, (so) there is nothing to cut off. This is like being born into a Buddha's family, with a noble lineage, like the crown prince of a Chakravartin King (轉輪聖王, Zhuan Lun Sheng Wang). Only hired laborers are seen removing excrement, where has it been heard that the son of a wealthy man (長者, Zhang Zhe) carries manure? So now it is explained that the Bodhisattva does not cut off delusions. Why? Because the Bodhisattva knows that delusions are originally not born and do not cease now, so there is nothing to cut off. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Dharmas are originally unborn, and now there is no cessation.' The Lotus Sutra says: 'All dharmas from the beginning are always in a state of tranquil extinction.' (Therefore) it has always been said that the Bodhisattva has the contemplation of non-arising and non-ceasing. Why is it explained that there is no arising and no ceasing? As analyzed earlier, (the Bodhisattva) knows that (dharmas) are originally unborn, and now there is nothing to cease.
言菩薩不生不滅觀也。問他斷二惑得小聖。斷五住惑得大果。汝今不斷。云何得言小聖大果耶。解云。汝斷惑得有聖。我本無惑。豈無聖耶。又反之。汝見惑生今斷不得聖。若知惑本不生不滅乃得聖。何者不生不滅是本。知本可得成聖。汝不知本。豈得成聖。故法華云。世尊我今得道得果。于無漏法。得清凈眼。今日得道當知。前來未得道。又涅槃經云。汝諸比丘。未為大乘除諸結使。為是故。從來斷不斷。今始是斷也。從前來。略明二諦大意如此也。
二諦義捲上 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1854 二諦義
二諦義中卷
胡吉藏撰
釋二諦名者。此義極難。解二諦名者。俗是浮虛義。真是真實義。從來久解。今未知那得二諦名而欲釋耶。解此問者。我家明二諦有兩種。一教二諦。二於二諦。如來誠諦之言。名教二諦。兩種謂情。名於二諦。此則就情智判于教二諦也。問教諦是佛教。教諦名從佛起。于諦是緣于。于諦名從緣起不。解云。教諦是佛教。教諦名從佛起。于諦是緣于。于諦名亦從佛起。難云。教諦是佛教。教諦從佛起。于諦是緣于。于諦那得從佛起耶。解云。領僻。我云。教諦是佛教。教諦名從佛起。于諦是緣于。于諦名從佛起。于諦與于諦名。此語大挍。今明。教諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是關於菩薩不生不滅的觀點的討論。有人問：『你們通過斷除二惑（指見惑和思惑）才能證得小乘聖果，斷除五住地惑（指五種根本煩惱）才能證得大乘聖果。你們現在不斷除這些惑，怎麼能說證得小乘聖果和大乘聖果呢？』
解釋說：『你們斷除煩惱惑才能證得聖果，而我本來就沒有煩惱惑，難道就不能證得聖果嗎？』
又反問道：『你們看到煩惱惑生起，現在想要斷除卻斷不掉，就不能證得聖果。如果知道煩惱惑的本性是不生不滅的，才能證得聖果。什麼是不生不滅的本性呢？認識到這個本性才能證得聖果。你們不知道這個本性，怎麼能證得聖果呢？』
所以《法華經》中說：『世尊，我現在證得了道，證得了果，在無漏法中，得到了清凈的智慧之眼。』今天才證得道，應當知道，此前還沒有證得道。
又《涅槃經》中說：『你們這些比丘，還沒有用大乘佛法去除各種煩惱結使。因此，從前斷也好像沒斷，現在才是真正的斷除。』
以上是從前來，簡略地說明了二諦（指真諦和俗諦）的大概意思。
二諦義捲上 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1854 二諦義
二諦義中卷 胡吉藏 撰
解釋二諦的名稱。這個意義非常深奧。解釋二諦的名稱，俗諦是虛浮不實的意義，真諦是真實不虛的意義。從前很久以來就這樣解釋，現在不知道怎麼才能得到二諦的名稱而想要解釋它呢？
解釋這個問題，我們家（指作者所屬的宗派）闡明二諦有兩種：一是教二諦，二是於二諦。如來真實可信的言語，稱為教二諦。兩種情執，稱為於二諦。這是就情智來判斷教二諦。
有人問：教諦是佛教的教義，教諦的名稱是從佛那裡產生的。于諦是緣于，于諦的名稱是從因緣產生的嗎？
解釋說：教諦是佛教的教義，教諦的名稱是從佛那裡產生的。于諦是緣于，于諦的名稱也是從佛那裡產生的。
提問的人反駁說：教諦是佛教的教義，教諦的名稱是從佛那裡產生的。于諦是緣于，于諦的名稱怎麼能從佛那裡產生呢？
解釋說：你理解錯了。我說，教諦是佛教的教義，教諦的名稱是從佛那裡產生的。于諦是緣于，于諦的名稱是從佛那裡產生的。于諦和于諦的名稱，這個說法大概如此。現在闡明，教諦
【English Translation】 English version: This is a discussion on the view of Bodhisattvas regarding non-birth and non-extinction. Someone asks: 'You attain the small vehicle's (Hinayana) holy fruit by severing the two delusions (見惑見huò and 思惑sī huò - delusions of views and delusions of thought), and attain the great vehicle's (Mahayana) great fruit by severing the five dwelling-ground delusions (五住地惑wǔ zhù dì huò - five fundamental afflictions). Now you do not sever these delusions, how can you say you attain the small vehicle's holy fruit and the great vehicle's great fruit?'
The explanation is: 'You attain the holy fruit by severing afflictions and delusions, but I originally have no afflictions and delusions, so why can't I attain the holy fruit?'
Then it is asked in return: 'You see afflictions and delusions arising, and now you want to sever them but cannot, so you cannot attain the holy fruit. If you know that the nature of afflictions and delusions is non-birth and non-extinction, then you can attain the holy fruit. What is the nature of non-birth and non-extinction? Recognizing this nature allows you to attain the holy fruit. You do not know this nature, how can you attain the holy fruit?'
Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'World Honored One, I have now attained the Way, attained the fruit, and in the unconditioned dharma, I have obtained a pure eye of wisdom.' Today I have attained the Way, so it should be known that I had not attained the Way before.
Also, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'You monks, you have not yet used the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) to remove the various bonds of affliction. Therefore, severing from the past is like not severing, and only now is it truly severing.'
The above is a brief explanation of the general meaning of the Two Truths (二諦 èr dì - conventional truth and ultimate truth) from the past.
The Meaning of the Two Truths, Volume 1 T45, No. 1854, The Meaning of the Two Truths
The Meaning of the Two Truths, Middle Volume Composed by Huijizang
Explaining the names of the Two Truths. This meaning is extremely profound. Explaining the names of the Two Truths, the conventional truth (俗諦 sú dì) is the meaning of being floating and unreal, and the ultimate truth (真諦 zhēn dì) is the meaning of being real and not false. It has been explained this way for a long time, but now I don't know how to obtain the names of the Two Truths and want to explain them?
Explaining this question, our school (referring to the author's school) clarifies that there are two kinds of Two Truths: one is the teaching of the Two Truths (教二諦 jiào èr dì), and the other is based on the Two Truths (於二諦 yú èr dì). The truthful and reliable words of the Tathagata are called the teaching of the Two Truths. The two kinds of emotional attachments are called being based on the Two Truths. This is judging the teaching of the Two Truths based on emotions and wisdom.
Someone asks: The teaching of the Two Truths is the teachings of Buddhism, and the name of the teaching of the Two Truths arises from the Buddha. Is being based on the Two Truths based on conditions, and does the name of being based on the Two Truths arise from conditions?
The explanation is: The teaching of the Two Truths is the teachings of Buddhism, and the name of the teaching of the Two Truths arises from the Buddha. Being based on the Two Truths is based on conditions, and the name of being based on the Two Truths also arises from the Buddha.
The questioner rebuts: The teaching of the Two Truths is the teachings of Buddhism, and the name of the teaching of the Two Truths arises from the Buddha. Being based on the Two Truths is based on conditions, how can the name of being based on the Two Truths arise from the Buddha?
The explanation is: You misunderstand. I said that the teaching of the Two Truths is the teachings of Buddhism, and the name of the teaching of the Two Truths arises from the Buddha. Being based on the Two Truths is based on conditions, and the name of being based on the Two Truths arises from the Buddha. Being based on the Two Truths and the name of being based on the Two Truths, this statement is roughly like this. Now clarifying, the teaching of the Two Truths
名從佛起。于諦名亦從佛起也。問教諦從佛起。于諦亦從佛起。教諦既是教。于諦亦是教。反詰云云。解云。兩種二諦皆是佛教。問教諦可是教。于諦若為亦是教。既有于教之殊。云何並是教耶。解云。二于諦名。亦是為眾生故說。為眾生說有。于凡是世諦。為眾生說空。于聖人是真諦。為眾生說空有。是二于諦故。二于諦亦是教也。問二于諦名是佛說。名從佛起。空有二諦從何起耶。解云。只空有二諦。諸佛出世故有。佛未出世則無。縮長為短釋。佛未出世時。雖言空有。不知空有是二諦。如佛未出之時。亦有苦集滅道等名。而不知苦集滅道是諦。由佛出世故。說苦集滅道四諦。故經云。甘露門初開也。空有亦爾。由佛出世。詺空有為二諦。故云空有佛出世始名二諦也。次更長釋者。佛出世佛未出世。空有並由佛得知。所以成論云。劫初物未有名。聖人為受用故。為物立名。如瓶衣等。空有亦爾。佛未出世時。聖人為空有立名。若爾。佛出世佛未出世。空有名並由佛有也。次問。于諦名如此。于諦從何而起耶。解云。于諦有兩種。一兩情二于諦。二情智二于諦。兩情二于諦可解。何者。兩情二于諦。從佛教起。明佛為眾生說二諦教。眾生不了。作空有兩解。成兩于諦。此于從教起也。問情智二于諦何因得有耶。解云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：名相（名）從佛陀而起。真諦（諦）之名也從佛陀而起。問：教義之諦（教諦）從佛陀而起，真諦（于諦）也從佛陀而起。教義之諦（教諦）既然是教法，真諦（于諦）也是教法嗎？反問如此等等。解釋說：兩種二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）都是佛教的教義。問：教義之諦（教諦）可以說是教法，真諦（于諦）如果也是教法，既然有教義和真諦的差別，為什麼都說是教法呢？解釋說：這兩種真諦（二于諦）之名，也是爲了眾生的緣故而說。為眾生說『有』，對於凡夫來說是世俗諦（世諦）；為眾生說『空』，對於聖人來說是真諦（真諦）；為眾生說『空』和『有』，是兩種真諦（二于諦）的緣故。所以兩種真諦（二于諦）也是教法。問：兩種真諦（二于諦）之名是佛陀所說，名相（名）從佛陀而起，那麼『空』和『有』這兩種諦從何而起呢？解釋說：只是『空』和『有』這兩種諦，諸佛出世才會有，佛陀未出世時則沒有。縮短來說，佛陀未出世時，雖然也說『空』和『有』，但不知道『空』和『有』是兩種諦。如同佛陀未出世之時，也有苦、集、滅、道等名相，但不知道苦、集、滅、道是諦。由於佛陀出世的緣故，才說苦、集、滅、道四諦。所以經中說，甘露之門初次開啟。『空』和『有』也是這樣，由於佛陀出世，才稱『空』和『有』為兩種諦，所以說『空』和『有』是佛陀出世后才開始稱為兩種諦的。進一步詳細解釋，佛陀出世或佛陀未出世，『空』和『有』都因為佛陀才被得知。所以《成實論》說，劫初萬物還沒有名稱，聖人為受用它們的緣故，為萬物建立名稱，如瓶子、衣服等。『空』和『有』也是這樣，佛陀未出世時，聖人為『空』和『有』立名。如果這樣，佛陀出世或佛陀未出世，『空』和『有』的名相都因為佛陀而有。接著問：真諦（于諦）的名相是這樣，那麼真諦（于諦）從何而起呢？解釋說：真諦（于諦）有兩種，一是兩情二諦（兩情二于諦），二是情智二諦（情智二于諦）。兩情二諦（兩情二于諦）可以理解，為什麼呢？兩情二諦（兩情二于諦）從佛教的教義而起，說明佛陀為眾生說二諦的教法，眾生不瞭解，作『空』和『有』兩種理解，成為兩種真諦（兩于諦）。這種真諦（于諦）從教義而起。問：情智二諦（情智二于諦）因何而有呢？解釋說：
【English Translation】 English version: Names (名) arise from the Buddha. The name of Truth (諦) also arises from the Buddha. Question: The Truth of Doctrine (教諦) arises from the Buddha, and the Truth (于諦) also arises from the Buddha. Since the Truth of Doctrine (教諦) is the teaching, is the Truth (于諦) also the teaching? The question is repeated in various ways. The explanation is: both types of Two Truths (世俗諦 and 勝義諦, conventional truth and ultimate truth) are Buddhist teachings. Question: The Truth of Doctrine (教諦) can be said to be the teaching, but if the Truth (于諦) is also the teaching, since there is a difference between the doctrine and the truth, why are they both called teachings? The explanation is: the names of these two Truths (二于諦) are also spoken for the sake of sentient beings. Speaking of 'existence' (有) for sentient beings is the Conventional Truth (世諦) for ordinary people; speaking of 'emptiness' (空) for sentient beings is the Ultimate Truth (真諦) for sages; speaking of 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) for sentient beings is the reason for the two Truths (二于諦). Therefore, the two Truths (二于諦) are also teachings. Question: The names of the two Truths (二于諦) are spoken by the Buddha, and names (名) arise from the Buddha, so from where do the two Truths of 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) arise? The explanation is: only these two Truths of 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) exist because the Buddhas appear in the world; they do not exist when the Buddhas have not appeared. To put it briefly, when the Buddhas have not appeared, although 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) are spoken of, it is not known that 'emptiness' and 'existence' are two Truths. Just as when the Buddhas have not appeared, there are also names such as suffering (苦), accumulation (集), cessation (滅), and the path (道), but it is not known that suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path are the Truths. It is because the Buddhas appear in the world that the Four Noble Truths of suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path are spoken of. Therefore, the sutra says that the gate of nectar is opened for the first time. 'Emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) are also like this; it is because the Buddhas appear in the world that 'emptiness' and 'existence' are called the two Truths. Therefore, it is said that 'emptiness' and 'existence' are first called the two Truths after the Buddhas appear in the world. To explain it further in detail, whether the Buddhas appear in the world or the Buddhas have not appeared, 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) are both known because of the Buddha. Therefore, the Tattvasiddhi Shastra says that at the beginning of the kalpa, things did not have names; the sages established names for things for the sake of using them, such as bottles, clothes, etc. 'Emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) are also like this; when the Buddhas have not appeared, the sages established names for 'emptiness' and 'existence'. If so, whether the Buddhas appear in the world or the Buddhas have not appeared, the names of 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有) both exist because of the Buddha. Next, the question is: the names of the Truth (于諦) are like this, so from where does the Truth (于諦) arise? The explanation is: there are two types of Truth (于諦), one is the Two Truths of Two Sentiments (兩情二于諦), and the other is the Two Truths of Sentiment and Wisdom (情智二于諦). The Two Truths of Two Sentiments (兩情二于諦) can be understood. Why? The Two Truths of Two Sentiments (兩情二于諦) arise from the Buddhist teachings, explaining that the Buddha speaks of the teachings of the Two Truths for sentient beings. Sentient beings do not understand and make two interpretations of 'emptiness' and 'existence' (空有), becoming two Truths (兩于諦). This Truth (于諦) arises from the teachings. Question: How do the Two Truths of Sentiment and Wisdom (情智二于諦) come into being? The explanation is:
。一于但一。一于有二。一于但一者。凡夫顛倒。謂瓶衣等諸法為有。此瓶衣等物。有佛無佛。常于凡夫是有。如涅槃經云。十二因緣。有佛無佛性相常住。但小乘釋有二人。毗婆阇婆提云。是無為常住法。薩婆多彈云。恒有為常。如火有佛無佛常熱。不可言火有佛熱無佛不熱。有佛無佛恒熱為常。十二因緣亦爾。今明。世諦亦如此。諸法于凡常有。常有世諦也。一於二義者。即是諸賢聖。真知諸法空為第一義。言二義者。就本跡兩意以釋之。本跡義。則諸佛出世故有。諸佛出世。知向顛倒諸法性空也。跡本義。則諸佛法身。本知顛倒性空。故法華云。我以佛眼觀見六道眾生。此即在法身地。本知顛倒性空也。略尋二諦名根本大意如此。然義必須得其根本識其大意。若不得意。義不中用。如中論序大小乘人不識佛說空有意所以成失。前序小乘雲。像法鈍根。求十二因緣陰入界等決定相。不知佛意。但著文字。次序大乘雲。聞說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。為此義故。龍樹出世造論。申佛教意也。既有明則。今昉而學之也。次問。既有于諦教諦。佛何意說于諦與教諦耶。解云。如來所以說二于諦者。欲令眾生一節轉兩節轉。說于令悟非於非不于。何者。于無名相中。強名相說。無名而說名。令悟名無名。亦非於非不于。為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一于但一（只有一個「于」，但只有一個意思）。一于有二（只有一個「于」，但有兩個意思）。一于但一的意思是：凡夫俗子顛倒妄想，認為瓶子、衣服等諸法是實有的。這些瓶子、衣服等事物，無論有沒有佛，對於凡夫來說都是實有的。如同《涅槃經》所說，十二因緣，無論有沒有佛，其自性與現象都是常住不變的。但小乘對「有」的解釋有兩種：毗婆沙部認為，十二因緣是無為常住之法；薩婆多部認為，十二因緣是恒常的有為法。如同火，無論有沒有佛，其熱性都是恒常的，不能說有佛時火是熱的，沒有佛時火就不熱。無論有沒有佛，火的恒常熱性都是常住不變的。十二因緣也是如此。現在說明，世俗諦也是如此，諸法對於凡夫來說是常有的，這就是常有的世俗諦。 一於二義的意思是：諸位賢聖，以真智了知諸法皆空，這是第一義諦。說二義，是就本跡兩種意義來解釋。本跡義，是指諸佛出世才有的。諸佛出世，是爲了讓眾生知道顛倒妄想的諸法本性是空性的。跡本義，是指諸佛的法身，本來就知道顛倒妄想的本性是空性的。所以《法華經》說：『我以佛眼，觀見六道眾生。』這就在法身地的境界，本來就知道顛倒妄想的本性是空性的。簡略地尋繹二諦的名稱，其根本大意就是如此。然而理解義理，必須把握其根本，認識其大意。如果不得其意，義理就不能發揮作用。如同《中論序》所說，大小乘人不認識佛說空的用意，所以造成了過失。前面對小乘的批評是：像法時代的鈍根之人，追求十二因緣、陰、入、界等事物的決定相，不瞭解佛的真實意圖，只是執著于文字。接著對大乘的批評是：聽說一切畢竟空，卻不知道因為什麼緣故是空。爲了這個緣故，龍樹菩薩出世造論，闡明佛教的真實意圖。既然有了明確的指引，現在就應當傚法學習。 接著提問：既然有于諦和教諦，佛陀為什麼還要說于諦和教諦呢？解釋說：如來說二于諦的原因，是想讓眾生一節轉、兩節轉，說「于」是爲了讓眾生領悟「非於非不于」。為什麼呢？因為在沒有名稱和相狀的事物中，勉強安立名稱和相狀來說明，在沒有名稱的事物上強行安立名稱，是爲了讓眾生領悟名稱的本性是無名，也是非「于」非「不于」。爲了...
【English Translation】 English version: 'One 'yu' but one meaning. One 'yu' but two meanings.' 'One 'yu' but one meaning' refers to the deluded ordinary beings who consider phenomena like bottles and clothes to be real. These objects, whether there is a Buddha or not, are always considered real by ordinary beings. As the Nirvana Sutra says, the twelve links of dependent origination, whether there is a Buddha or not, have a constant nature and characteristics. However, the Hinayana school has two interpretations of 'existence': the Vibhajyavada school believes it is an unconditioned, permanent dharma; the Sarvastivada school believes it is a constantly conditioned dharma. Just as fire is always hot whether there is a Buddha or not, one cannot say that fire is hot when there is a Buddha but not hot when there is no Buddha. The constant heat of fire is permanent whether there is a Buddha or not. The twelve links of dependent origination are also like this. Now, it is explained that the conventional truth is also like this: phenomena are always considered real by ordinary beings, and this is the constant conventional truth. 'One 'yu' but two meanings' refers to the noble sages who, with true wisdom, understand that all phenomena are empty, which is the ultimate truth. The two meanings are explained in terms of the original and manifested aspects. The original and manifested aspects refer to what exists because the Buddhas appear in the world. The Buddhas appear in the world to make beings aware that the nature of deluded phenomena is empty. The manifested and original aspects refer to the fact that the Dharmakaya of the Buddhas inherently knows that the nature of delusion is empty. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says, 'I see all beings in the six realms with my Buddha-eye.' This is the state of the Dharmakaya, inherently knowing that the nature of delusion is empty. Briefly examining the names of the two truths, the fundamental meaning is like this. However, to understand the meaning, one must grasp its root and recognize its general idea. If one does not grasp the meaning, the meaning cannot be used. As the preface to the Madhyamaka-karika says, the people of the Hinayana and Mahayana schools do not understand the Buddha's intention in speaking of emptiness, which leads to errors. The preface criticizes the Hinayana by saying that those with dull faculties in the Semblance Dharma age seek the definite characteristics of the twelve links of dependent origination, skandhas, sense bases, and realms, not understanding the Buddha's intention and only clinging to the words. Then, it criticizes the Mahayana by saying that they hear of ultimate emptiness but do not know why it is empty. For this reason, Nagarjuna appeared in the world to write treatises and clarify the Buddha's intention. Now that there is clear guidance, we should emulate and learn from it. Next question: Since there are 'yu' truth and teaching truth, why did the Buddha speak of 'yu' truth and teaching truth? The explanation is: The reason why the Tathagata spoke of two 'yu' truths is to enable beings to turn one knot and turn two knots, speaking of 'yu' to make beings realize 'neither 'yu' nor not 'yu'.' Why? Because in things that have no names or forms, names and forms are forcibly established to explain, and names are forcibly established on things that have no names, in order to make beings realize that the nature of names is nameless, which is also neither 'yu' nor not 'yu'. For...
眾生說于。令悟于非於非不于。故經云。知有非有本性清凈。又云。欲令眾生深識第一義諦故說世諦。又云。一切有無法。了達非有無。為是故。說于令悟非於非不于也。所言一節轉二節轉。何者是耶。一節轉者。說有于凡是諦。說空于聖是諦。作如此說者。令眾生轉有入空。何者。有于凡是有。此有實無所有。宣說有。于凡是有。則知此有不有。此正為凡夫。凡夫謂諸法實有。今說此有于凡是有。若知有于凡是有。即知此有非有。斯則因有悟不有。經云。知有不有。又經云。欲令眾生深識第一義諦故說世諦。又論云。若不因世俗。不得第一義也。兩節轉者。說有于凡是實。對有于凡是實。說空于聖是實名二于諦。既說空有于緣二。即知於二不二。說於二顯不二。故經云。一切有無法。了達非有無也。若好釋者。於二者明非二。非謂是非二。若言於二為顯不二。此言平鈍。若駿悟解者。於二者。明非是二非謂是非二。亦應須上揚。不得下抑。上揚則兩離。何者。於二非是二則離二。非謂是非二。不著不二。此則悟非二非不二非偏非不偏清凈正道也。然作如此說。于諦者即是教諦。何處別有教諦。只作如此目詺于諦。即是教諦。即是依二諦說法。從來人。聞師說于諦教諦。作二諦解。誦語鸚鵡喙鴟腳耳。今明。如向所明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為使眾生覺悟『于』（存在）的含義，從而理解『非於』（非存在）和『非不于』（非非存在）的道理。所以經中說：『了知有和非有的本性都是清凈的。』又說：『爲了讓眾生深刻認識第一義諦，所以才說世俗諦。』又說：『一切有法和無法，都要了達它並非是有也並非是無。』正是因為這個緣故，才說『于』，是爲了讓眾生覺悟『非於』和『非不于』的道理。 所說的一節轉和二節轉，指的是什麼呢？一節轉是指：對凡夫說『有』是真諦，對聖人說『空』是真諦。這樣說的目的是爲了讓眾生從『有』轉入『空』。為什麼呢？因為『有』對於凡夫來說是存在的，但這種『有』實際上什麼也沒有。宣說『有』對於凡夫是存在的，就能知道這種『有』並非真正的『有』。這正是爲了凡夫而說的。凡夫認為諸法是實實在在存在的，現在說這種『有』對於凡夫來說是存在的，如果知道這種『有』對於凡夫來說是存在的，就能知道這種『有』並非真正的『有』。這樣就因為『有』而領悟到『不有』。經中說：『了知有和不有。』又經中說：『爲了讓眾生深刻認識第一義諦，所以才說世俗諦。』又論中說：『如果不依靠世俗諦，就無法證得第一義諦。』 兩節轉是指：對凡夫說『有』是真實的，相對『有』對於凡夫是真實的，說『空』對於聖人是真實的，這叫做二于諦。既然說了『空』和『有』是緣於二，就能知道『於二』並非『二』。說『於二』是爲了彰顯『不二』。所以經中說：『一切有法和無法，都要了達它並非是有也並非是無。』如果善於解釋的人，在『於二』中闡明『非二』，『非』是指並非是『二』。如果說『於二』是爲了彰顯『不二』，這種說法就顯得平淡遲鈍。如果領悟力強的人，在『於二』中闡明並非是『二』，『非』是指並非是『二』，也應該向上提升，不能向下壓抑。向上提升就能使兩者分離。為什麼呢？因為『於二』並非是『二』，就能脫離『二』，『非』是指並非是『二』，就不會執著于『不二』。這樣就能領悟到『非二非不二』、『非偏非不偏』的清凈正道。 然而，像這樣說，『于諦』就是教諦。哪裡還有另外的教諦呢？只是這樣稱呼『于諦』，就是教諦。這就是依據二諦說法。從前有人，聽老師說『于諦』和『教諦』，就理解為二諦，像鸚鵡學舌一樣。現在我來闡明，就像前面所說的那樣。
【English Translation】 English version: To enable sentient beings to awaken to the meaning of 'yu' (existence), thereby understanding the principles of 'fei yu' (non-existence) and 'fei bu yu' (non-non-existence). Therefore, the sutra says: 'Knowing that the inherent nature of both existence and non-existence is pure.' It also says: 'In order to enable sentient beings to deeply understand the First Noble Truth, the mundane truth is explained.' It also says: 'All existing and non-existing dharmas must be understood as neither existing nor non-existing.' It is for this reason that 'yu' is spoken, in order to enable sentient beings to awaken to the principles of 'fei yu' and 'fei bu yu'. What are referred to as the one-section turning and the two-section turning? The one-section turning refers to: saying that 'existence' is the true reality for ordinary beings, and saying that 'emptiness' is the true reality for sages. The purpose of saying this is to enable sentient beings to turn from 'existence' to 'emptiness'. Why? Because 'existence' exists for ordinary beings, but this 'existence' is actually devoid of anything. Declaring that 'existence' exists for ordinary beings allows one to know that this 'existence' is not true 'existence'. This is precisely for ordinary beings. Ordinary beings believe that all dharmas are truly existent. Now, saying that this 'existence' exists for ordinary beings, if one knows that this 'existence' exists for ordinary beings, one can know that this 'existence' is not true 'existence'. Thus, one realizes 'non-existence' because of 'existence'. The sutra says: 'Knowing existence and non-existence.' The sutra also says: 'In order to enable sentient beings to deeply understand the First Noble Truth, the mundane truth is explained.' Furthermore, the treatise says: 'If one does not rely on the mundane truth, one cannot attain the First Noble Truth.' The two-section turning refers to: saying that 'existence' is real for ordinary beings, and relative to 'existence' being real for ordinary beings, saying that 'emptiness' is real for sages, which is called the two 'yu' truths. Since it is said that 'emptiness' and 'existence' arise from duality, one can know that 'in duality' is not 'duality'. Saying 'in duality' is to reveal 'non-duality'. Therefore, the sutra says: 'All existing and non-existing dharmas must be understood as neither existing nor non-existing.' If one is good at explaining, one clarifies 'non-duality' in 'in duality', where 'non' means not being 'duality'. If one says that 'in duality' is to reveal 'non-duality', this statement appears bland and dull. If one has strong comprehension, one clarifies that it is not 'duality' in 'in duality', where 'non' means not being 'duality', and one should also elevate upwards, not suppress downwards. Elevating upwards allows the two to separate. Why? Because 'in duality' is not 'duality', one can detach from 'duality', and 'non' means not being 'duality', one will not be attached to 'non-duality'. Thus, one can realize the pure and correct path of 'neither duality nor non-duality', 'neither partiality nor non-partiality'. However, saying it this way, 'yu truth' is the teaching truth (jiao di). Where else is there a teaching truth? Simply calling 'yu truth' in this way is the teaching truth. This is explaining the Dharma based on the two truths. In the past, some people, hearing the teacher speak of 'yu truth' and 'teaching truth', understood them as two truths, like parrots repeating words. Now I will clarify, just as I explained earlier.
。無別教諦。說于即教也。問若爾從來解那得云有于諦教諦耶。解云。于兩情名二于諦。佛為眾生說此二于。即是教諦。更無有二。但約義判。何者。于諦即是所。教諦即是能。能所判于教二諦也。
又問。何意說于諦教諦耶。解云。二意。一者為釋經讀論。經論中並有此言也。二者為對他。他明二諦是天然之境。有此二理。而二諦名境。複名理者。會二諦生二智。名之為境。而道理有二諦故。名之為理。道理有此二理。道理有此二境。今對彼。明此是於二理。此是於二境。非道理有此理有此境也。若爾。今時有兩境兩理。兩境者。一于境二教境。兩理者。一于理二教理。為是義故。明於諦教諦也。然如來直說二于諦。凡有三句。謂得失亦得亦失。直作此說。若為得解耶。今佛直說二于諦。云何得解。答今明。佛說于諦有三句。一皆得二皆失三亦得亦失。言亦得亦失者。即是前二于諦。諸法于凡是有。此有為失。諸賢聖真知諸法空。此空為得。示其空有。令識得失。令其舍有學空改凡成聖也。二皆失者。二皆是于。故二皆失。于凡有。有既失。于聖空。空亦失。何者。諸法未曾空有。于凡謂有。于聖謂空。如一色未曾空有。有見之人謂色有。空觀之人謂色空。一色于空有兩緣成空有故。此空有並是失也。兩皆得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沒有獨立的真諦（于諦）和教諦（教諦）之分，（二諦）是就施教（即教）而言的。問：如果這樣，從以往的理解來看，怎麼會有真諦和教諦的說法呢？答：這是就兩種情況而言，稱之為二諦。佛為眾生宣說這兩種情況，就是教諦，此外沒有其他的二諦。只是從意義上進行區分，什麼是真諦？真諦就是所詮釋的對象（所）。什麼是教諦？教諦就是能詮釋的主體（能）。能和所的區分，就是教和真二諦的區分。 又問：為什麼要說真諦和教諦呢？答：有兩個原因。一是爲了解釋經文和論著，因為經文和論著中都有這樣的說法。二是針對其他宗派的觀點。其他宗派認為二諦是天然存在的境界，具有兩種理。二諦既被稱為境，又被稱為理，是因為通過二諦可以產生兩種智慧，所以稱為境。而道理本身具有二諦，所以稱為理。道理具有這兩種理，道理具有這兩種境。現在針對他們的觀點，說明這兩種理是關於二理的，這兩種境是關於二境的，並非道理本身具有這些理和境。如果這樣，現在就有兩種境和兩種理，兩種境分別是真境和教境，兩種理分別是真理和教理。爲了說明這個道理，所以要闡明真諦和教諦。然而，如來只是直接宣說二于諦（Dve Satya，二諦），總共有三種說法，即『得』、『失』、『亦得亦失』。直接這樣說，要如何理解呢？現在佛直接宣說二于諦，要如何理解呢？答：現在說明，佛說真諦有三種情況：一是都『得』，二是都『失』，三是『亦得亦失』。說『亦得亦失』，就是指前面的兩種真諦。諸法對於凡夫來說是存在的，這種存在就是『失』。諸位賢聖真正了知諸法是空性的，這種空性就是『得』。顯示空和有，是爲了讓人認識到『得』和『失』，從而捨棄有，學習空，改變凡夫的身份，成就聖人的境界。二是都『失』，兩種情況都是真，所以兩種情況都『失』。對於凡夫來說是『有』，『有』既然已經失去，對於聖人來說是『空』，『空』也同樣失去。為什麼呢？因為諸法從來沒有空和有。凡夫認為是『有』，聖人認為是『空』。比如一種色法，從來沒有空和有，有見的人認為色法是『有』，空觀的人認為色法是『空』。一種色法因為空和有這兩種緣而成就空和有，所以這種空和有都是『失』。兩種都『得』
【English Translation】 English version: There is no separate Ultimate Truth (于諦, Yu諦) and Conventional Truth (教諦, Jiao諦); (the two truths) are spoken in relation to teaching (即教, Ji Jiao). Question: If that's the case, how can there be the saying of Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth from the previous understanding? Answer: This is in relation to two situations, called the Two Truths (二諦, Er諦). The Buddha speaks of these two situations for sentient beings, which is the Conventional Truth; there are no other Two Truths. It's just distinguished from the meaning. What is the Ultimate Truth? The Ultimate Truth is the object to be explained (所, Suo). What is the Conventional Truth? The Conventional Truth is the subject that can explain (能, Neng). The distinction between the able and the object is the distinction between the Conventional and Ultimate Two Truths. Question: Why speak of Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth? Answer: There are two reasons. One is to explain the scriptures and treatises, because there are such statements in the scriptures and treatises. The second is to counter the views of other schools. Other schools believe that the Two Truths are naturally existing realms, with two principles. The Two Truths are called both realms and principles because two wisdoms can be generated through the Two Truths, so they are called realms. And the principle itself has the Two Truths, so it is called a principle. The principle has these two principles, and the principle has these two realms. Now, in response to their views, it is explained that these two principles are about the two principles, and these two realms are about the two realms, not that the principle itself has these principles and realms. If so, now there are two realms and two principles, the two realms are the Ultimate Realm and the Conventional Realm, and the two principles are the Ultimate Principle and the Conventional Principle. To explain this principle, it is necessary to clarify the Ultimate Truth and the Conventional Truth. However, the Tathagata (如來, Rulai) only directly speaks of the Two Truths (Dve Satya), with a total of three statements, namely 'gain', 'loss', and 'both gain and loss'. Directly saying this, how to understand it? Now the Buddha directly speaks of the Two Truths, how to understand it? Answer: Now it is explained that the Buddha said that there are three situations for the Ultimate Truth: one is all 'gain', two is all 'loss', and three is 'both gain and loss'. Saying 'both gain and loss' refers to the previous two Ultimate Truths. Dharmas (諸法, Zhufa) exist for ordinary beings, and this existence is 'loss'. All the wise and holy ones truly know that all dharmas are empty, and this emptiness is 'gain'. Showing emptiness and existence is to make people realize 'gain' and 'loss', so as to abandon existence, learn emptiness, change the identity of ordinary beings, and achieve the realm of saints. The second is all 'loss', both situations are true, so both situations are 'loss'. For ordinary beings, it is 'existence', and since 'existence' has been lost, for saints, it is 'emptiness', and 'emptiness' is also lost. Why? Because dharmas have never been empty or existent. Ordinary beings think it is 'existence', and saints think it is 'emptiness'. For example, a form (色法, sefa) has never been empty or existent, people with the view of existence think that form is 'existence', and people with the view of emptiness think that form is 'emptiness'. A form is accomplished by the two conditions of emptiness and existence, so this emptiness and existence are both 'loss'. Both 'gain'
者。只知於二。即知不二。此下五句皆凈。于緣二。豈是二。問於二非是二可是非二不二耶。解云。於二非是二。明非是二。非謂是非二。既非二非不二。五句皆凈。斯則上拂霄漢。下漏淵泉也。從來只云二于諦皆失。不知有此三句。然此三句。有兩種諦。前二句即于諦。后一句即教諦。前二句即于境。后一句即教境。于境即不轉境。教境即轉境。言前兩句是于諦不轉境者。諸法于凡是實有。有佛無佛常有此境。有境既常有。空境亦常有。諸賢聖常知諸法空。亦常有此空境。今時亦有天然之境。亦有天然之智。常有此境。常有此智。此之境智。並是于緣境智。非是轉悟境智也。言轉悟境者。只說于緣有。即知于有不有。說于緣空。即知于空不空。識于有無不有無。識教悟理。悟理即生權實二智。生二智時。空有之教即轉名境。故是轉悟境也。問猶有一疑妨。何者前明二于諦一得一失。失是所化得是能化。今那得云說于空令悟不空。若說于空令悟不空者。此乃所化。何謂能化耶。解云。前明二于諦。空是能化者。引凡令學聖。凡夫顛倒謂有。諸賢聖真知諸法空。明能化空。令其舍有。若玄變之徒。既知有不有。即知空不空。不須為說空令悟不空。但鈍根之人。舍其所見有。學能化空。既學得能化空。作于空解。為此人故
。說道于汝是空諸法實非空也。此約漸悟為論。前令悟有不有。次令悟空不空也。問他亦明有境諦有教諦。彼有境界法寶。有言教法寶。境界法寶即境諦。言教法寶即教諦。汝既有教諦。他亦有教諦。汝有如來誠諦之言。他可無如來誠諦之言耶。若爾皆有境教。斯有何異。解云異。今明。汝二諦天然之境。是我家于境失。于境失中。有無量失。此是我家粗失。細失非汝所及。故經云。菩薩微細礙相。非二乘境界。今亦爾。汝天然之境。是今家粗失。故與彼大異也。所以大論云。外道與佛法相去玄殊。猶若天地。又云。天食須陀比人中臭糞。又如驢牛二乳。驢乳抨成糞。牛乳抨則成蘇。今亦爾。他得為今失也。此即是依二諦說法。二諦是境義也。又問。教諦為若異耶。解云。一往拔者。我有三種二諦。汝所明二諦。是我初節二諦。三假有為世諦。四絕為真諦。此之二諦。是我家初節二諦也。又問。汝二諦教表何物。彼云。二諦還表二理。若爾二還表二。指還指指也。又彼唯有二無不二。則唯有教無理。無理則無教。今有理即有教。具足理教也。前來明立名意。今次釋名。然雖無名而名。是故今釋名也。故肇師云。無名之道。於何不名。師云。于無名相中。強名相說。既無名強說名者。為令因名悟無名。說名不令眾生住名
中。若說名令眾生住名中。此還是眾生。非謂是佛。今明。無名強說名。令眾生因名悟無名。然須知此名即無名。只名無名。無名而名。既知無名名。即知名無名。此即除故不造新也。若是從來人。則造新不畢故。何者。本有身心之病。今聞佛說真俗。後作真俗解。有真可真。有俗可俗。有名異無名無名異名。即有所得義。有所得者。名曰聲聞。是魔眷屬。像法決疑經云。是十方三世佛怨。佛藏經云。刀輪殺一切。有得之人罪過於此。華嚴云。譬如餓鬼等云云。所以大論云。有生死來。無能治此病也。今攝山興皇出世。拆破此病。說名令眾生悟名無名。不住名亦不住無名。舉譬如雙六打隱。打不隱即為他打。說二諦名。本為除病。若住名中。名覆成病。今明二諦如雙六打隱也。問何故恒作此釋。解云。只為恒有此病故。恒作此說。如諸聲聞恒障菩薩道故也。師何因得如此解。學龍樹提婆兩論主。兩論主。何因得此解。學諸佛也。問曰。經中有立有破。何得言皆破耶。解云。經中若立若破。皆為破病。何者。經中若說一色一香皆為顯道。若不顯道。可不破病。既若立若破。皆為顯道故。破立皆為破病也。經既然。故論主學經。師學論主。大小乘人。有新故兩病故。有兩論主出世破之。提婆破故病。龍樹破新病。論主既然
【現代漢語翻譯】 中。如果說用名稱讓眾生執著于名稱，這仍然是眾生，不能說是佛。現在說明，本來沒有名稱，勉強安立名稱，是爲了讓眾生通過名稱領悟無名。然而要知道這個名稱就是無名，只是名為無名，無名而又有名。既然知道了無名的名稱，也就知道了名稱的無名，這就是去除舊的而不創造新的。如果是從來沒有覺悟的人，那麼創造新的就不能完成。為什麼呢？本來就有身心上的毛病，現在聽聞佛說的真諦和俗諦，後來就按照真諦和俗諦去理解，認為有真可以真，有俗可以俗，有名不同於無名，無名不同於名，這就是有所得的意義。有所得的人，叫做聲聞，是魔的眷屬。《像法決疑經》說，這是十方三世諸佛的怨家。《佛藏經》說，像刀輪一樣殺害一切，有所得的人罪過超過這個。《華嚴經》說，譬如餓鬼等等。所以《大智度論》說，從生死以來，沒有能夠治療這個毛病。現在攝山的興皇法師出世，拆穿了這個毛病，說名稱是爲了讓眾生領悟名稱的無名，不住著于名稱，也不住著于無名。舉例來說，就像雙陸棋打隱，打不中隱就被別人打。說二諦的名稱，本來是爲了去除毛病，如果住著于名稱，名稱又成了毛病。現在說明二諦就像雙陸棋打隱一樣。問：為什麼總是這樣解釋？答：只因爲總是存在這種毛病，所以總是這樣說，就像諸聲聞總是障礙菩薩道一樣。問：法師您因為什麼而得到這樣的理解？答：學習龍樹（Nagarjuna）和提婆（Aryadeva）兩位論主。問：兩位論主因為什麼而得到這樣的理解？答：學習諸佛。問：經中有建立也有破除，為什麼說都是破除呢？答：經中無論是建立還是破除，都是爲了破除毛病。為什麼呢？經中如果說一色一香都是爲了顯明道，如果不顯明道，就不能破除毛病。既然無論是建立還是破除，都是爲了顯明道，所以破除和建立都是爲了破除毛病。經書既然如此，所以論主學習經書，法師學習論主。大小乘人，有新的和舊的兩種毛病，所以有兩位論主出世來破除這些毛病。提婆破除舊的毛病，龍樹破除新的毛病。論主既然如此
【English Translation】 If it is said that names are used to make sentient beings dwell in names, then these are still sentient beings, and cannot be called Buddhas. Now, it is explained that originally there are no names, but names are forcibly established to allow sentient beings to realize the nameless through names. However, it must be known that this name is the nameless, it is only called nameless, nameless yet named. Since the name of the nameless is known, the nameless of the name is also known. This is to remove the old without creating the new. If it is a person who has never been enlightened, then creating the new cannot be completed. Why? Because there are inherent physical and mental illnesses. Now, hearing the Buddha speak of the true and conventional truths (satya-dvaya), they later understand according to the true and conventional truths, thinking that there is true that can be true, and there is conventional that can be conventional, that name is different from nameless, and nameless is different from name. This is the meaning of having something to gain. Those who have something to gain are called Shravakas (Śrāvaka), and are the retinue of Mara (Māra). The Sutra of Resolving Doubts in the Semblance Dharma (Xiàngfǎ Juéyí Jīng) says that they are the enemies of the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times. The Buddha Treasury Sutra (Fó Zàng Jīng) says that they are like a wheel of knives killing everything, and the sins of those who have something to gain exceed this. The Avatamsaka Sutra (Huāyán Jīng) says, 'Like hungry ghosts, etc.' Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (Dàzhìdù Lùn) says that since the beginning of samsara (saṃsāra), no one has been able to cure this disease. Now, the Dharma Master Xinghuang of Mount She (Shè Shān) has appeared in the world to expose this disease, saying that names are for sentient beings to realize the namelessness of names, not dwelling on names, nor dwelling on the nameless. For example, playing backgammon (shuānglù), if you don't hit the hidden spot, you will be hit by others. Speaking of the names of the two truths (satya-dvaya), it is originally to remove the disease. If you dwell on names, names become a disease again. Now it is explained that the two truths are like playing backgammon to hit the hidden spot. Question: Why is this interpretation always made? Answer: Only because this disease always exists, so this is always said, just as the Shravakas always obstruct the Bodhisattva path. Question: How did the Dharma Master obtain this understanding? Answer: By studying the two masters of treatises, Nagarjuna (Nāgārjuna) and Aryadeva (Āryadeva). Question: How did the two masters of treatises obtain this understanding? Answer: By studying the Buddhas. Question: In the sutras, there is establishment and also refutation, why do you say that everything is refutation? Answer: Whether it is establishment or refutation in the sutras, it is all to refute the disease. Why? If the sutras say that one color and one fragrance are all to reveal the path, if they do not reveal the path, they cannot refute the disease. Since whether it is establishment or refutation, it is all to reveal the path, therefore refutation and establishment are all to refute the disease. Since the sutras are like this, therefore the masters of treatises study the sutras, and the Dharma Master studies the masters of treatises. People of the Mahayana (Mahāyāna) and Hinayana (Hināyāna) have two kinds of diseases, new and old, so there are two masters of treatises who appear in the world to refute these diseases. Aryadeva refutes the old disease, and Nagarjuna refutes the new disease. Since the masters of treatises are like this
。大師亦爾。破此新舊等病故。作如此說也。然道義大意如此。必須得如此意。非為立名道義。乃道義為息名也。將欲息名故。前須釋名。釋名凡有四句。一者一名一義。二者一名無量義。三者一義一名。四者一義無量名。名不出此二種。義莫過斯之二條。言一名一義者。一名即一俗名一真名。一義者。俗以浮虛義。真真實義。從來得此一句。今明。是四句中一句也。次一名無量義者。若為一名無量義耶。解言。一是無量一。一豈不是無量。此則無量一。一無量。故經云。一中解無量。無量中解一。展轉生非實智者。無所畏也。問曰。若為一名有無量義耶。解云。就四義解之。一隨名釋。二就因緣釋。三顯道釋。四無方釋。隨名釋者。如俗以浮虛為義。又俗以風俗為義。然此具出內外故。律有國土毗尼。隨國土處所。風俗不同也。禮記云。君子行禮不求變俗。故風俗為義也。從來唯得前釋。無有後解也。問此兩釋何異。解云。俗以浮虛為義。此即望真釋。明聖人所知真實。凡夫所知浮虛。對真釋俗也。若是風俗釋俗。則當俗釋俗。只處所風俗不同故名為俗。此無所望也。前則望他。后則當自。自他異也。又前約經釋。后就律釋。河西云。佛法不出經律二藏。阿毗曇只分別經律耳。故經律攝佛法盡也。前釋約經者。經明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：大師也是這樣，爲了破除這種新舊等執著之病，才這樣說的。然而，道義的大意是這樣的，必須理解這個意思。不是爲了建立名相而說『道義』，而是道義爲了止息名相。爲了止息名相，所以前面必須解釋名相。解釋名相總共有四句：一是『一名一義』，二是『一名無量義』，三是『一義一名』，四是『一義無量名』。名相不出這兩種，意義不超過這兩條。所謂『一名一義』，一個名即一個俗名、一個真名；一個義，俗名對應浮虛的意義，真名對應真實的意義。過去只理解了這一句，現在說明，這是四句中的一句。其次，『一名無量義』，如果說一個名有無量義，怎麼解釋呢？解釋說，『一是無量一』，一個『一』豈不是包含無量？這就是無量個『一』，『一』即是無量。所以經中說：『於一中解無量，于無量中解一』，輾轉相生，對於沒有真實智慧的人來說，會感到無所適從。問：如果說一個名有無量義，怎麼解釋呢？答：可以從四個方面來解釋：一是隨名解釋，二是就因緣解釋，三是顯道解釋，四是無方解釋。隨名解釋，比如俗名以浮虛為義，又比如俗名以風俗為義。這兩種解釋都出自內外典籍，所以律藏中有『國土毗尼』，隨著國土處所的不同，風俗也不同。《禮記》說：『君子行禮不求變俗』，所以風俗也是一種意義。過去只有前面的解釋，沒有後面的解釋。問：這兩種解釋有什麼不同？答：俗名以浮虛為義，這是相對於真諦來解釋的，說明聖人所知是真實的，凡夫所知是浮虛的，這是對照真諦來解釋俗諦。如果是用風俗來解釋俗名，那就是用俗諦來解釋俗諦，只是因為處所風俗不同才稱為俗。這沒有參照其他。前者是參照他者，後者是參照自身，自身和他者是不同的。而且前者是根據經藏來解釋，後者是根據律藏來解釋。河西說：『佛法不出經律二藏，阿毗曇只是分別經律而已。』所以經律包含了全部佛法。前面的解釋是根據經藏，經藏說明了……
【English Translation】 English version: The master is also like this, speaking in this way to break through the sickness of clinging to new and old, etc. However, the general meaning of the doctrine is like this, and this meaning must be understood. It is not to establish 'doctrine' for the sake of establishing names, but rather the doctrine is for the sake of ceasing names. In order to cease names, it is necessary to explain names beforehand. There are four sentences in explaining names: first, 'one name, one meaning'; second, 'one name, limitless meanings'; third, 'one meaning, one name'; fourth, 'one meaning, limitless names'. Names do not go beyond these two types, and meanings do not exceed these two categories. The so-called 'one name, one meaning' refers to one name being one mundane name and one true name; one meaning refers to the mundane name corresponding to the meaning of illusion and the true name corresponding to the meaning of truth. In the past, only this sentence was understood; now, it is explained that this is one of the four sentences. Secondly, 'one name, limitless meanings'. If it is said that one name has limitless meanings, how is it explained? The explanation is that 'one is limitless one'. Does one 'one' not contain limitlessness? This is limitless 'one', 'one' is limitlessness. Therefore, the sutra says: 'In one, understand limitlessness; in limitlessness, understand one', arising in cycles, for those without true wisdom, they will feel at a loss. Question: If it is said that one name has limitless meanings, how is it explained? Answer: It can be explained from four aspects: first, explaining according to the name; second, explaining based on conditions; third, revealing the path; fourth, explaining without direction. Explaining according to the name, for example, the mundane name takes illusion as its meaning, and another example is the mundane name taking customs as its meaning. These two explanations both come from internal and external scriptures, so the Vinaya Pitaka has 'country Vinaya' (國土毗尼), with customs differing according to the country and place. The Book of Rites says: 'When a gentleman practices rites, he does not seek to change customs', so customs are also a meaning. In the past, there was only the former explanation, and not the latter. Question: What is the difference between these two explanations? Answer: The mundane name taking illusion as its meaning is explained relative to the truth, illustrating that what the sage knows is true, and what ordinary people know is illusory; this is explaining the mundane relative to the truth. If customs are used to explain the mundane name, then it is using the mundane to explain the mundane; it is only because the customs of different places are different that they are called mundane. This does not refer to anything else. The former refers to others, the latter refers to oneself; oneself and others are different. Moreover, the former is explained according to the Sutra Pitaka, and the latter is explained according to the Vinaya Pitaka. Hexi said: 'The Buddha's teachings do not go beyond the Sutra and Vinaya Pitakas; the Abhidhamma only distinguishes between the Sutra and Vinaya.' Therefore, the Sutra and Vinaya encompass all of the Buddha's teachings. The former explanation is based on the Sutra Pitaka, and the Sutra Pitaka explains...
。諸法浮虛無所有故。浮虛釋俗約經也。風俗釋就律者。明律中不得道諸法浮虛無所有。不得道人是浮虛草木浮虛。何以故。為制戒令佛法久住故。所以不得明物浮虛無所有。但明國土風俗不同也。此則就經律釋異。由來亦不知也。次第二就因緣釋義者。明俗真義。真俗義。何者。俗非真則不俗。真非俗則不真。非真則不俗。俗不礙真。非俗則不真。真不礙俗。俗不礙真。俗以真為義。真不礙俗。真以俗為義也。問前隨名釋有二義。一望他當自釋。二約經就律釋。今就何物義釋耶。解云。對有礙有得。就無得無礙釋。若言俗浮虛義真真實義。此是凡夫二乘有得解義。今明。菩薩無得無礙義故。明俗是真義真是俗義也。他家無此義。他俗定俗。真定真。三假定俗不得真。四忘定真不得俗。真俗有礙聲聞解義。今明。真是俗義俗是真義。真俗無礙。菩薩解義也。問何故作如此說耶。解云。對彼自性。明今因緣。因緣動彼自性之執故。經云。前以定動。后以智拔。今前明因緣。動彼性執。后當拔之也。但今一往且明因緣。動彼自性。彼明浮虛定俗義真實定真義。為是故。今動搖已。明俗是真義真是俗義也。問若為俗是真義真是俗義。空是色義色是空義耶。解云。大品經中自釋。彼經云。色即空空即色。真即俗俗即真。既云真
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "諸法是漂浮虛幻、一無所有的緣故。『浮虛』是依據世俗約定來解釋經典。『風俗』是依據戒律來解釋經典。說明在戒律中，不能說諸法是漂浮虛幻、一無所有的。不能得道的人是漂浮虛幻的，草木也是漂浮虛幻的。為什麼呢？因為制定戒律是爲了佛法長久住世。所以不能說明萬物是漂浮虛幻、一無所有的，只是說明各國土的風俗不同罷了。這是依據經典和戒律來解釋差異。由來已久，人們也不明白這個道理。其次，依據因緣來解釋意義，說明世俗的真諦和真諦的世俗意義。什麼是世俗的真諦和真諦的世俗意義呢？世俗如果不是真諦，就不是世俗；真諦如果不是世俗，就不是真諦。不是真諦，就不是世俗，世俗不妨礙真諦。不是世俗，就不是真諦，真諦不妨礙世俗。世俗不妨礙真諦，世俗以真諦為意義。真諦不妨礙世俗，真諦以世俗為意義。問：前面隨名解釋有二種意義，一是望他當自解釋，二是依據經典就戒律解釋。現在依據什麼意義來解釋呢？答：針對有障礙、有得，就無得、無障礙來解釋。如果說世俗是漂浮虛幻的意義，真諦是真實的意義，這是凡夫二乘有得的解釋。現在說明菩薩無得無礙的意義，所以說明世俗是真諦的意義，真諦是世俗的意義。其他宗派沒有這種意義，他們認為世俗一定是世俗，真諦一定是真諦。三假定世俗，就不能得到真諦。四忘卻真諦，就不能得到世俗。真諦和世俗有障礙，是聲聞的解釋。現在說明真諦是世俗的意義，世俗是真諦的意義，真諦和世俗沒有障礙，是菩薩的解釋。問：為什麼要做這樣的說法呢？答：針對他們的自性，說明現在的因緣。因緣動搖他們的自性執著。經典說：『先前用定力動搖，後來用智慧拔除。』現在先說明因緣，動搖他們的自性執著，之後應當拔除它。但現在暫且說明因緣，動搖他們的自性。他們認為漂浮虛幻是世俗的意義，真實是真諦的意義。因為這個緣故，現在動搖他們的執著，說明世俗是真諦的意義，真諦是世俗的意義。問：如果說世俗是真諦的意義，真諦是世俗的意義，那麼空就是色的意義，色就是空的意義嗎？答：《大品經》中自己解釋。那部經說：『色即是空，空即是色，真即是俗，俗即是真。』既然說真", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "Because all dharmas (phenomena) are floating, illusory, and without substance. 'Floating and illusory' explains the scriptures according to worldly conventions. 'Customs' explains the scriptures according to the precepts (vinaya). It clarifies that within the precepts, one cannot say that all dharmas are floating, illusory, and without substance. Those who cannot attain enlightenment are floating and illusory, and plants and trees are also floating and illusory. Why? Because the precepts are established so that the Buddha's teachings may endure. Therefore, one cannot say that all things are floating, illusory, and without substance, but only that the customs of different countries are different. This explains the differences according to the scriptures and the precepts. For a long time, people have not understood this principle. Secondly, explaining the meaning according to cause and condition (hetu-pratyaya) clarifies the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) of the mundane and the mundane meaning of the ultimate truth. What is the ultimate truth of the mundane and the mundane meaning of the ultimate truth? If the mundane is not the ultimate truth, it is not the mundane; if the ultimate truth is not the mundane, it is not the ultimate truth. If it is not the ultimate truth, it is not the mundane, and the mundane does not obstruct the ultimate truth. If it is not the mundane, it is not the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth does not obstruct the mundane. The mundane does not obstruct the ultimate truth, and the mundane takes the ultimate truth as its meaning. The ultimate truth does not obstruct the mundane, and the ultimate truth takes the mundane as its meaning. Question: The previous explanation according to names had two meanings: one is to expect others to explain it themselves, and the other is to explain it according to the scriptures and the precepts. According to what meaning is it explained now? Answer: In response to having obstacles and having attainment, it is explained according to having no attainment and having no obstacles. If one says that the mundane is the meaning of floating and illusory, and the ultimate truth is the meaning of reality, this is the explanation of ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) who have attainment. Now, it clarifies the meaning of Bodhisattvas having no attainment and no obstacles, so it clarifies that the mundane is the meaning of the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is the meaning of the mundane. Other schools do not have this meaning; they believe that the mundane is definitely the mundane, and the ultimate truth is definitely the ultimate truth. If one falsely assumes the mundane, one cannot attain the ultimate truth. If one forgets the ultimate truth, one cannot attain the mundane. The ultimate truth and the mundane having obstacles is the explanation of the Śrāvakas. Now, it clarifies that the ultimate truth is the meaning of the mundane, and the mundane is the meaning of the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth and the mundane have no obstacles, which is the explanation of the Bodhisattvas. Question: Why is such a statement made? Answer: In response to their self-nature (svabhāva), it clarifies the present causes and conditions. Causes and conditions shake their attachment to self-nature. The scriptures say: 'First, use samādhi (concentration) to shake it, and then use prajñā (wisdom) to uproot it.' Now, first clarify the causes and conditions to shake their attachment to self-nature, and then one should uproot it. But now, for the time being, clarify the causes and conditions to shake their self-nature. They believe that floating and illusory is the meaning of the mundane, and reality is the meaning of the ultimate truth. For this reason, now shake their attachments and clarify that the mundane is the meaning of the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is the meaning of the mundane. Question: If the mundane is the meaning of the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is the meaning of the mundane, then is emptiness (śūnyatā) the meaning of form (rūpa), and form the meaning of emptiness? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra explains it itself. That scripture says: 'Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, the ultimate truth is the mundane, and the mundane is the ultimate truth.' Since it says the ultimate truth" ] }
即俗。真豈非俗義。又中論云。因緣所生法。我說即是空。因緣生法即是有。既即是空。真豈非俗義。釋此偈具釋經。論引經釋。論即釋經也。又義是名之所以。真是俗之所以。故真為俗義。經云。欲令眾生深識第一義諦。是故如來宣說世諦。既說世諦令識第一義諦者。則俗為真。名真為俗義也。俗諦既然。真亦爾也。次第三就顯道釋義者。明俗是不俗義。真是不真義。真俗不真俗義。真俗不真俗即名義。不真俗真俗即義名。真俗不真俗教理。不真俗真俗理教。斯則名義理教中假橫豎也。何處作如此說也。解云。即如華嚴所明。一切有無法。了達非有無。以達有不有故。不有為有義。達無不無故。不無為無義。亦如了達明無明二不二。既達二即不二故。不二為二義。了達真俗不真俗故。不真俗為真俗義也。問何故明不真俗為真俗義耶。解云。前明因緣橫義動。今真俗不真俗豎義拔。橫義動豎義拔。故一家從來明假伏中斷義。言假伏者。真是俗義。俗是真義。伏彼自性也。既知因緣真。即知真不真。知因緣俗。即知俗不俗。悟真俗不真俗自性永斷。為是義故。前橫伏今豎斷也。次第四節無方釋義者。明俗以一切法為義。人是俗義。柱是俗義。生死是俗義。涅槃是俗義。無方無礙故。一切法皆是俗義也。問何故明一切諸法
【現代漢語翻譯】 即是俗諦。那麼真諦難道不是俗諦的意義嗎？又《中論》說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空。』因緣所生的法即是有，既然即是空，那麼真諦難道不是俗諦的意義嗎？解釋這首偈頌，就完全解釋了經文。《中論》引用經文來解釋，論就是解釋經文。而且，『義』是名稱之所以存在的原因，『真』是『俗』之所以存在的原因，所以『真』是『俗』的意義。經中說：『爲了讓眾生深刻認識第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，最高真理），所以如來說世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）。』既然說世俗諦是爲了讓人認識第一義諦，那麼俗諦就是真諦，稱真諦為俗諦的意義。俗諦既然如此，真諦也是如此。 其次，第三，從顯道來解釋意義：說明俗諦是不俗諦的意義，真諦是不真諦的意義，真俗不真俗的意義。真俗不真俗即是名義，不真俗真俗即是義名。真俗不真俗是教理，不真俗真俗是理教。這就是名、義、理、教中的假，有橫向和豎向的區別。在哪裡這樣說呢？解釋說：就像《華嚴經》所闡明的，一切有法和無法，要了達它們並非是有或無。因為通達了有和非有，所以非有就是有的意義；通達了無和非無，所以非無就是無的意義。也像通達了明和無明二者不二，既然通達了二者即是不二，所以不二就是二的意義；通達了真俗不真俗，所以不真俗就是真俗的意義。問：為什麼說明不真俗是真俗的意義呢？解釋說：前面說明因緣的橫向意義在動搖，現在真俗不真俗的豎向意義在拔除。橫向意義動搖，豎向意義拔除，所以一家向來闡明假伏中斷的意義。所說的『假伏』，就是真諦是俗諦的意義，俗諦是真諦的意義，是降伏彼自性。既然知道因緣真，就知道真不真；知道因緣俗，就知道俗不俗；領悟真俗不真俗的自性就永遠斷除了。爲了這個意義，前面是橫向的降伏，現在是豎向的斷除。 其次，第四節，從無方來解釋意義：說明俗諦以一切法為意義。人是俗諦的意義，柱子是俗諦的意義，生死是俗諦的意義，涅槃是俗諦的意義。因為無方無礙，所以一切法都是俗諦的意義。問：為什麼說明一切諸法
【English Translation】 That is the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). Then, isn't the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) the meaning of the conventional truth? Moreover, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) says: 'Whatever arises from conditions, I say that is emptiness.' That which arises from conditions is existence. Since it is emptiness, isn't the ultimate truth the meaning of the conventional truth? Explaining this verse completely explains the sutra. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā quotes the sutra to explain it; the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is explaining the sutra. Furthermore, 'meaning' is the reason for the existence of a name, and 'truth' is the reason for the existence of 'convention'. Therefore, 'truth' is the meaning of 'convention'. The sutra says: 'In order to enable sentient beings to deeply understand the ultimate truth, the Tathagata (如來，one who has thus gone) proclaims the conventional truth.' Since the conventional truth is spoken to enable people to understand the ultimate truth, then the conventional truth is the ultimate truth, and calling the ultimate truth the meaning of the conventional truth. Since the conventional truth is like this, so is the ultimate truth. Secondly, thirdly, explaining the meaning from the perspective of revealing the path: Explaining that the conventional truth is the meaning of non-conventional truth, the ultimate truth is the meaning of non-ultimate truth, and the meaning of truth and convention that are neither true nor conventional. Truth and convention that are neither true nor conventional are name and meaning; non-true and non-conventional truth and convention are meaning and name. Truth and convention that are neither true nor conventional are doctrine and principle; non-true and non-conventional truth and convention are principle and doctrine. This is the provisional (假，temporary) in name, meaning, principle, and doctrine, with horizontal and vertical distinctions. Where is this said? The explanation is: Just as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經，Flower Garland Sutra) clarifies, all existent and non-existent dharmas (法，phenomena) must be understood as neither existent nor non-existent. Because one understands existence and non-existence, non-existence is the meaning of existence; because one understands non-existence and non-non-existence, non-non-existence is the meaning of non-existence. It is also like understanding that clarity and non-clarity are not two; since one understands that the two are not two, non-duality is the meaning of duality; understanding truth and convention that are neither true nor conventional, therefore non-true and non-conventional is the meaning of truth and convention. Question: Why explain that non-true and non-conventional is the meaning of truth and convention? Explanation: The previous explanation of the horizontal meaning of conditions is moving, now the vertical meaning of truth and convention that are neither true nor conventional is being removed. The horizontal meaning is moving, the vertical meaning is being removed, so the family has always clarified the meaning of provisional subjugation and interruption. The so-called 'provisional subjugation' is that the ultimate truth is the meaning of the conventional truth, and the conventional truth is the meaning of the ultimate truth, which is subduing their self-nature. Since one knows the truth of conditions, one knows truth and non-truth; knowing the convention of conditions, one knows convention and non-convention; realizing that the self-nature of truth and convention that are neither true nor conventional is permanently cut off. For this meaning, the previous was horizontal subjugation, now is vertical cutting off. Secondly, fourth section, explaining the meaning from the perspective of non-direction: Explaining that the conventional truth takes all dharmas as its meaning. A person is the meaning of the conventional truth, a pillar is the meaning of the conventional truth, birth and death are the meaning of the conventional truth, Nirvana (涅槃，liberation) is the meaning of the conventional truth. Because there is no direction and no obstruction, all dharmas are the meaning of the conventional truth. Question: Why explain that all dharmas
皆是俗義耶。解云。從前第三義生。前第三義云。俗不俗義。真不真義。真俗悟不真俗。此則悟無礙道。既悟無礙道故。有無礙用。以得無礙用故。所以一切法為俗義也。前則是從用入道。今則從道出用也。問若為得一切法並是俗義耶。且引例通。汝家有別待通待義。長短真俗因果待即別待。長待不長。俗待不俗。此即通待義。所以俗待不俗為通待者。明除俗之外一切皆不俗故。云通待也。一切法是不俗。不俗待俗。不俗既是俗義。故一切即俗義也。又泛簡待義。從來云長短待因果待瓶衣二果不得待。今明瓶衣二果相待也。問高下相傾有無相生可得待。瓶衣二果云何待耶。反問汝。是非得待。不是瓶待非瓶不。彼云。是非得待。瓶待非瓶也。若爾衣是非瓶。非瓶既待瓶。衣即待瓶也。衣既待瓶。則瓶衣因緣。衣是瓶義。瓶是衣義。衣既是瓶義。一切物皆是瓶義也。又明。一切法是俗義者。就如義顯之。色如一切法如。色如即一切法如。一切法即色。舉譬如破僧佉大有與瓶一義。為有瓶不異有即瓶。有與萬法不異萬法亦即瓶。今亦爾。如與俗不異。俗即如。如與一切法不異。一切法即俗。何以故。體如故也。華嚴何意云一念無量劫無量劫一念耶。體道故如此。何者。一念即是道。無量劫亦是道。故無量劫即一念。何以故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這些都是世俗的理解嗎？解釋說：『這是從前第三義所產生的。』前第三義說：『世俗不是真正的世俗，真理不是真正的真理。真正領悟真俗，就能領悟無礙之道。』既然領悟了無礙之道，自然就有無礙的運用。因為得到了無礙的運用，所以一切法都可以說是世俗的意義。前面是從運用進入道，現在是從道出發進行運用。問：『如何才能使一切法都成為世俗的意義呢？』先引用例子來說明。你家有別待和通待的說法。長短、真俗、因果，相互依存就是別待。長依存不長，俗依存不俗，這就是通待的意義。所以說俗依存不俗是通待，是因為除了世俗之外，一切都不是世俗，所以說是通待。一切法都不是世俗，不世俗依存世俗。不世俗既然是世俗的意義，所以一切法就是世俗的意義。又泛指簡待的意義。過去說長短相互依存，因果相互依存，瓶和衣服這兩個果不能相互依存。現在說明瓶和衣服這兩個果也是相互依存的。問：『高下相傾，有無相生，可以相互依存。瓶和衣服這兩個果，如何相互依存呢？』反問你：『是和非可以相互依存嗎？不是瓶依存非瓶嗎？』回答說：『是和非可以相互依存，瓶依存非瓶。』如果這樣，衣服是非瓶，非瓶既然依存瓶，衣服就依存瓶。衣服既然依存瓶，那麼瓶和衣服就是因緣關係。衣服是瓶的意義，瓶是衣服的意義。衣服既然是瓶的意義，一切事物都是瓶的意義。又說明，一切法是世俗的意義，就像如（Tathata）一樣顯現。色如（Rupa-tathata）就是一切法如（Sarva-dharma-tathata），色如就是一切法，一切法就是色。舉例來說，就像破斥僧佉（Samkhya）派的大有（Mahat）和瓶子是一樣的意義。有和瓶子沒有區別，有就是瓶子。有和萬法沒有區別，萬法也就是瓶子。現在也是這樣，如和俗沒有區別，俗就是如。如和一切法沒有區別，一切法就是俗。為什麼呢？因為體性是如的緣故。《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）為什麼說『一念是無量劫，無量劫是一念』呢？因為體悟了道的緣故。什麼是一念？一念就是道。什麼是無量劫？無量劫也是道。所以無量劫就是一念。為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Are these all worldly interpretations? The explanation is: 'These arise from the former third meaning.' The former third meaning says: 'The mundane is not truly mundane, and truth is not truly truth. Truly understanding the mundane and the truth leads to the realization of the unobstructed path.' Since one has realized the unobstructed path, one naturally has unobstructed application. Because one has attained unobstructed application, all dharmas can be said to be mundane meanings. The former is entering the path from application, while the present is going forth from the path into application. Question: 'How can one attain that all dharmas are mundane meanings?' Let's first use an example to illustrate. Your school has the concepts of specific dependence (別待, bie dai) and general dependence (通待, tong dai). Long and short, truth and falsehood, cause and effect, mutual dependence is specific dependence. Long depends on not-long, mundane depends on not-mundane, this is the meaning of general dependence. The reason why mundane depends on not-mundane is called general dependence is because everything other than the mundane is not mundane, hence it is called general dependence. All dharmas are not mundane, and not-mundane depends on mundane. Since not-mundane is the meaning of mundane, therefore all dharmas are mundane meanings. Furthermore, broadly speaking about the meaning of simple dependence (簡待, jian dai). In the past, it was said that long and short depend on each other, cause and effect depend on each other, but the two effects of a pot and clothing cannot depend on each other. Now it is explained that the two effects of a pot and clothing also depend on each other. Question: 'High and low incline towards each other, existence and non-existence arise from each other, these can depend on each other. How can the two effects of a pot and clothing depend on each other?' I ask you in return: 'Can right and wrong depend on each other? Does not a pot depend on non-pot?' The answer is: 'Right and wrong can depend on each other, and a pot depends on non-pot.' If that is the case, clothing is non-pot, and since non-pot depends on pot, clothing depends on pot. Since clothing depends on pot, then pot and clothing are related by cause and condition. Clothing is the meaning of pot, and pot is the meaning of clothing. Since clothing is the meaning of pot, all things are the meaning of pot. Furthermore, it is explained that all dharmas are mundane meanings, just as suchness (Tathata) manifests. Form-suchness (Rupa-tathata) is all-dharma-suchness (Sarva-dharma-tathata), form-suchness is all dharmas, and all dharmas are form. To give an example, it is like refuting the Samkhya school's Great Being (Mahat) and a pot having the same meaning. There is no difference between existence and a pot, existence is the pot. There is no difference between existence and all dharmas, all dharmas are also the pot. It is the same now, there is no difference between suchness and the mundane, the mundane is suchness. There is no difference between suchness and all dharmas, all dharmas are the mundane. Why is that? Because the essence is suchness. Why does the Avatamsaka Sutra say 'One thought is countless eons, and countless eons are one thought'? It is because of realizing the path. What is one thought? One thought is the path. What are countless eons? Countless eons are also the path. Therefore, countless eons are one thought. Why is that?
。無礙道故。體無礙道故。得無礙用。一念無量劫。無量劫一念。無量劫一念非一念。一念無量劫。非無量劫。非一念非無量劫。而一念無量劫。此中橫豎無礙具足故。經云。一中解無量。無量中解一也。然此四義次第不得前後。何者。第一就世俗以釋義。俗浮虛義風俗義。且隨情釋也。第二漸深。明俗真義真俗義也。第三從真俗入不真俗。從用入道。第四悟道竟從道起用。次第相生也。就真俗釋此四義。例一切因果人法等皆爾也。前釋一名一義一名無量義竟。今次釋一義一名一義無量名。言一義一名者。以正道為一義。真俗為一名。然正道未曾名。為一道故立乎一名。亦立一名為顯乎一道。何者。既為一道立一名。一名豈不顯一道。故言一義一名也。一義無量名者。還以一道為一義。無量名者。為顯一道立無量名。立無量名為顯一道。既為一道立無量名。無量名豈不顯乎一道。故言一義無量名也。問若為無量名耶。解云。名無量略出四種。謂世諦俗諦真諦第一義諦問唯有此四名不。解云。名無量。世諦俗諦有諦凡諦真諦第一義諦空諦聖諦。故華嚴四諦品云。此娑婆世界。有四十億百千那由他四諦名。況十方世界名號。斯則有眾數名。不可具舉。若具舉。竹帛所不能載。今且略釋世與俗真與第一義四名也。然此四名有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為沒有障礙的道，本體就沒有障礙，所以得到沒有障礙的作用。一念是無量劫，無量劫是一念。無量劫的一念不是一念，一念的無量劫不是無量劫。不是一念也不是無量劫，而一念就是無量劫。這裡橫向豎向都沒有障礙，完全具備。所以經書上說：『一中理解無量，無量中理解一』。然而這四種意義的順序不能顛倒。為什麼呢？第一，就世俗來解釋意義，世俗是浮華虛妄的意義，是風俗的意義，姑且隨著情理來解釋。第二，逐漸深入，闡明世俗的真義，真義的世俗。第三，從真俗進入不真不俗，從作用進入道。第四，領悟道之後，從道產生作用。次第相生。就真俗來解釋這四種意義，一切因果、人法等等都是這樣。前面解釋了一個名字一個意義，一個名字無量意義完畢。現在接著解釋一個意義一個名字，一個意義無量名字。說一個意義一個名字，是用正道作為一個意義，真俗作為一個名字。然而正道未曾有名，爲了一個道而建立一個名字，也建立一個名字來彰顯一個道。為什麼呢？既然為一個道建立一個名字，一個名字難道不能彰顯一個道嗎？所以說一個意義一個名字。一個意義無量名字，還是用一個道作為一個意義，無量名字，是爲了彰顯一個道而建立無量名字，建立無量名字是爲了彰顯一個道。既然為一個道建立無量名字，無量名字難道不能彰顯一個道嗎？所以說一個意義無量名字。問：如果說是無量名字，是什麼樣的呢？解答說：名字無量，簡略地列出四種，就是世諦（關於世俗的真理），俗諦（世俗諦），真諦（關於真實的真理），第一義諦（最高真理）。問：只有這四種名字嗎？解答說：名字無量。世諦、俗諦、有諦（存在的真理）、凡諦（凡夫的真理）、真諦、第一義諦、空諦（空性的真理）、聖諦（聖者的真理）。所以《華嚴經·四諦品》說：『這個娑婆世界，有四十億百千那由他四諦名。』何況十方世界的名號，這就有眾多數量的名字，不能全部列舉。如果全部列舉，竹簡書帛都不能記載。現在姑且簡略地解釋世與俗，真與第一義這四個名字。
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no unimpeded path (Wu Ai Dao), the substance has no impediment, therefore obtaining unimpeded function. One thought is immeasurable kalpas (Wu Liang Jie), immeasurable kalpas is one thought. Immeasurable kalpas of one thought is not one thought, one thought of immeasurable kalpas is not immeasurable kalpas. It is neither one thought nor immeasurable kalpas, yet one thought is immeasurable kalpas. Here, horizontally and vertically, there is no obstruction, fully equipped. Therefore, the scripture says: 'In one, understand immeasurable; in immeasurable, understand one.' However, the order of these four meanings cannot be reversed. Why? First, explain the meaning based on the mundane (Shi Su), the mundane is the meaning of floating and illusory, the meaning of customs, and temporarily explain it according to reason. Second, gradually deepen, clarifying the mundane's true meaning, the true meaning's mundane. Third, from true and mundane enter not true and not mundane, from function enter the path (Dao). Fourth, after realizing the path, generate function from the path. They arise in sequence. Explain these four meanings based on true and mundane, all causes and effects, people and Dharma, etc., are all like this. The previous explanation of one name one meaning, one name immeasurable meanings is complete. Now, continue to explain one meaning one name, one meaning immeasurable names. Saying one meaning one name, is using the right path (Zheng Dao) as one meaning, truth and convention (Zhen Su) as one name. However, the right path has never had a name, establishing one name for one path, also establishing one name to manifest one path. Why? Since establishing one name for one path, doesn't one name manifest one path? Therefore, it is said one meaning one name. One meaning immeasurable names, still using one path as one meaning, immeasurable names, is to establish immeasurable names to manifest one path, establishing immeasurable names is to manifest one path. Since establishing immeasurable names for one path, don't immeasurable names manifest one path? Therefore, it is said one meaning immeasurable names. Question: If it is said to be immeasurable names, what are they like? Answer: Names are immeasurable, briefly listing four kinds, namely mundane truth (Shi Di) [truth about the conventional world], conventional truth (Su Di) [conventional truth], ultimate truth (Zhen Di) [truth about reality], and the first principle truth (Di Yi Yi Di) [the highest truth]. Question: Are there only these four names? Answer: Names are immeasurable. Mundane truth, conventional truth, existent truth (You Di) [truth of existence], ordinary truth (Fan Di) [truth for ordinary beings], ultimate truth, the first principle truth, emptiness truth (Kong Di) [truth of emptiness], and noble truth (Sheng Di) [truth for noble ones]. Therefore, the 'Four Truths Chapter' of the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'This Saha world has forty billion hundred thousand nayutas of four truths names.' Moreover, the names of the ten directions worlds, this has a large number of names, cannot be fully listed. If fully listed, bamboo slips and silk cannot record them. Now, let's briefly explain the four names of mundane and conventional, truth and the first principle.
離有合。合者合世俗為一諦。合真第一為一諦。故經云。世俗諦故說。第一實義故即無也。離者則有世諦俗諦真諦第一義諦。問何故或離或合耶。解云。為存略故。離釋。為義同故合明。世俗名雖異。其義是同。故合名世俗諦。真第一義亦爾也。問此之四諦名何異。他解云。真俗當體得名。世與第一。褒貶為稱。言真俗當體得名者。明俗是浮虛為義。當體浮虛。真是真實為義。當體真實。故真俗當體得名也。世與第一為褒貶者。明世是代謝隔別為義。第一則莫過為義。既隔別為世。莫過為第一。故世與第一。是褒貶之名也。然此釋不可解。且難之。俗當體浮虛。世亦當體隔別。俗體是浮虛。既是當體得名。世體是隔別。亦當體得名。若便貶世是隔別非第一。我亦貶俗是浮虛非真實。俗實是浮虛既非貶。世實是隔別。那忽是貶耶。然俗之與世。世乍可是當體。俗應是貶毀。何者。知世隔別。今言世隔別。豈非當體。俗不知浮虛。今名其是浮虛。豈非是貶。若爾那得言俗浮虛是當體得名。世隔別是貶毀為稱耶。次難。真與第一。真當體真實。第一亦當體第一。若對凡非第一。褒聖為第一。亦對凡非真實。褒聖是真實。若言褒真為第一亦褒第一為真。何得言真是當體第一為褒耶。問難他如此。今作若為解釋耶。今明。世與俗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 離則有合。合的意思是把世俗諦合為一諦，把真諦和第一義諦合為一諦。所以經中說：『因為有世俗諦的緣故才這樣說，就第一實義來說，實際上是沒有的。』離的意思就是有世諦、俗諦、真諦、第一義諦。問：為什麼有時分離有時合呢？解釋說：爲了儲存簡略的緣故而分離解釋，爲了意義相同而合併說明。世俗的名稱雖然不同，但它們的意義是相同的，所以合併稱為世俗諦。真諦和第一義諦也是這樣。問：這四諦的名稱有什麼不同呢？其他的解釋說：真諦和俗諦是就本體得名，世諦和第一義諦是褒貶的稱呼。說真諦和俗諦是就本體得名，是說明俗諦是以虛浮為意義，本體就是虛浮的；真諦是以真實為意義，本體就是真實的。所以說真諦和俗諦是就本體得名。世諦和第一義諦是褒貶的稱呼，是說明世諦是以代謝隔絕為意義，第一義諦是以沒有超過的為意義。既然隔絕就是世諦，沒有超過就是第一義諦。所以世諦和第一義諦是褒貶的名稱。然而這種解釋不可理解，且讓我來反駁它。俗諦的本體是虛浮的，世諦的本體也是隔絕的。俗諦的本體是虛浮的，既然是就本體得名，世諦的本體是隔絕的，也應該就本體得名。如果就貶低世諦是隔絕的而不是第一義諦，我也要貶低俗諦是虛浮的而不是真實的。俗諦確實是虛浮的，既然不是貶低，世諦確實是隔絕的，為什麼忽然是貶低呢？然而俗諦和世諦，世諦或許可以算是就本體得名，俗諦應該是貶低譭謗。為什麼呢？知道世諦是隔絕的，現在說世諦是隔絕的，難道不是就本體得名嗎？俗諦不知道虛浮，現在說它是虛浮的，難道不是貶低嗎？如果這樣，那怎麼能說俗諦的虛浮是就本體得名，世諦的隔絕是貶低譭謗的稱呼呢？其次反駁，真諦和第一義諦，真諦的本體是真實的，第一義諦的本體也是第一的。如果針對凡夫說不是第一，讚美聖人為第一，也針對凡夫說不是真實的，讚美聖人是真實的。如果說讚美真諦為第一，也讚美第一義諦為真諦。怎麼能說真諦是就本體得名，第一義諦是褒揚呢？問難他人是這樣，現在我來解釋應該怎樣解釋呢？現在說明，世諦和俗諦
【English Translation】 English version Separation implies combination. Combination means combining the mundane (世俗 - shì sú) into one truth (諦 - dì), and combining the ultimate truth (真 - zhēn) and the first principle (第一義 - dì yī yì) into one truth. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Because of the mundane truth, it is said this way; in terms of the first and ultimate meaning, it is actually non-existent.' Separation means there are mundane truth (世諦 - shì dì), conventional truth (俗諦 - sú dì), ultimate truth (真諦 - zhēn dì), and the first principle truth (第一義諦 - dì yī yì dì). Question: Why are they sometimes separated and sometimes combined? Explanation: They are separated for the sake of preserving brevity in explanation, and combined for the sake of clarifying the same meaning. Although the names of the mundane are different, their meanings are the same, so they are combined and called mundane truth. The ultimate truth and the first principle are also like this. Question: What are the differences in the names of these four truths? Other explanations say: The ultimate and conventional truths are named based on their essence, while the mundane and the first principle are terms of praise and criticism. Saying that the ultimate and conventional truths are named based on their essence means that the conventional is defined by its floating and unreal nature; its essence is floating and unreal. The ultimate is defined by its real nature; its essence is real. Therefore, the ultimate and conventional truths are named based on their essence. The mundane and the first principle are terms of praise and criticism, meaning that the mundane is defined by its changing and separated nature, while the first principle is defined by its unsurpassable nature. Since separation is the mundane, and unsurpassable is the first principle, the mundane and the first principle are names of praise and criticism. However, this explanation is incomprehensible, and I will refute it. The essence of the conventional is floating and unreal, and the essence of the mundane is also separated. Since the essence of the conventional is floating and unreal, and it is named based on its essence, the essence of the mundane is separated, and it should also be named based on its essence. If you criticize the mundane as being separated and not the first principle, I will also criticize the conventional as being floating and unreal and not real. The conventional is indeed floating and unreal, so it is not criticism. The mundane is indeed separated, so why is it suddenly criticism? However, regarding the conventional and the mundane, the mundane can perhaps be considered named based on its essence, while the conventional should be considered derogatory and slanderous. Why? Knowing that the mundane is separated, and now saying that the mundane is separated, is this not named based on its essence? The conventional does not know floating and unreal, and now calling it floating and unreal, is this not derogatory? If so, then how can it be said that the floating and unreal nature of the conventional is named based on its essence, while the separated nature of the mundane is a term of derogatory slander? Next, refute: The ultimate and the first principle, the essence of the ultimate is real, and the essence of the first principle is also the first. If, in contrast to ordinary people, it is said that it is not the first, and praise the sages as the first, it is also said, in contrast to ordinary people, that it is not real, and praise the sages as real. If you say that praising the ultimate as the first, you also praise the first principle as the ultimate. How can it be said that the ultimate is named based on its essence, and the first principle is praise? Questioning others is like this, now I will explain how it should be explained. Now I clarify, the mundane and the conventional
是橫豎之名。何者。俗名則橫。世名則豎。俗橫者。俗是風俗義。處處皆有風俗之法。故云。君子行禮不求變俗。一切國土各有風俗故。俗名即橫也。世名豎者。世是代謝隔別三世遷異。豈非是豎。內外具明。經云生生世世。書云。三十年為一世。雖然終以代謝隔別為世故。世是豎名也。然此二名。並是當體。俗當體是浮虛。世當體代謝。不有世而已有世。即是代別。不有俗而已有俗。即是浮虛。當體是浮虛代謝。豈有褒貶于其間哉。故不可也。次望真釋之。論云世俗諦者。一切法性空。世間顛倒虛妄謂有。諸賢聖真知性空。俗諦既顛倒虛妄謂有。當知俗諦虛妄顛倒。俗既然世亦爾。此則望聖。世與俗皆虛妄顛倒。就顛倒中。自有俗有世有橫有豎也。此有差別無差別義。以聖望之。同是顛倒故。無差別。而不無世俗橫豎故有差別也。問望聖唯無差別亦有差別耶。解云。就聖亦知彼差別故。大品云。若諸法無所有者。何故有六道差別耶。佛答云。于彼顛倒故。有六道差別不同。若爾。佛具知顛倒差別無差別。若是眾生。唯知差別不知無差別也。次釋真與第一。所以說真對凡。凡謂所解真實。佛詺云。汝所解者。顛倒非實。聖人所解真實。此則對顛倒明不顛倒。對虛明實。對俗明真也。第一義對凡非第一。明聖所解是第一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是橫豎之名。何者？俗名則為橫，世名則為豎。所謂『俗橫』，『俗』是風俗之義，處處皆有風俗之法，故云：『君子行禮不求變俗』，一切國土各有風俗之故。所以說俗名即為橫。所謂『世名豎』，『世』是代謝隔別，三世遷異，豈非是豎？內外具明，經云『生生世世』，書云『三十年為一世』，雖然終以代謝隔別為世，故『世』是豎名也。然而此二名，並是當體。俗之當體是浮虛，世之當體是代謝。不有世而已有世，即是代別；不有俗而已有俗，即是浮虛。當體是浮虛代謝，豈有褒貶于其間哉？故不可也。 其次，從真諦的角度來解釋。論中說：『世俗諦者，一切法性空，世間顛倒虛妄謂有，諸賢聖真知性空。』俗諦既然顛倒虛妄謂有，當知俗諦虛妄顛倒。俗諦既然如此，世諦也一樣。此則是從聖人的角度來看，世與俗皆虛妄顛倒。就在這顛倒之中，自有俗、有世、有橫、有豎。這裡有差別和無差別的含義。以聖人的視角來看，同是顛倒故，無差別；而不無世俗橫豎故，有差別也。 問：從聖人的角度來看，唯有無差別，亦有差別嗎？答：就聖人而言，亦知彼差別故。《大品般若經》云：『若諸法無所有者，何故有六道差別耶？』佛答云：『于彼顛倒故，有六道差別不同。』若如此，佛具知顛倒的差別和無差別。若是眾生，唯知差別，不知無差別也。 再次解釋真諦與第一義諦。之所以說真諦是相對於凡夫而言的，凡夫認為自己所理解的是真實的，佛則說：『汝所解者，顛倒非實。』聖人所理解的才是真實的。此則是對顛倒說明不顛倒，對虛妄說明真實，對俗諦說明真諦也。第一義諦是相對於凡夫而言並非第一，說明聖人所理解的才是第一義諦。
【English Translation】 English version These are the names of horizontal and vertical. What are they? The common name is 'horizontal' (橫 héng), and the worldly name is 'vertical' (豎 shù). 'Common horizontal' means that 'common' (俗 sú) refers to customs; everywhere there are customary laws. Therefore, it is said, 'A gentleman practices rituals without seeking to change customs,' because every country has its own customs. Thus, the common name is horizontal. 'Worldly vertical' means that 'worldly' (世 shì) refers to metabolism, separation, and the three periods of time changing differently. Is this not vertical? It is clearly explained both internally and externally. The sutra says, 'Life after life, generation after generation.' The book says, 'Thirty years is one generation.' Although it ultimately uses metabolism and separation as 'worldly,' therefore 'worldly' is a vertical name. However, these two names are both inherent in the entity. The inherent entity of 'common' is floating and empty, and the inherent entity of 'worldly' is metabolism. Not having 'worldly' and yet having 'worldly' is separation by generation; not having 'common' and yet having 'common' is floating and empty. The inherent entity is floating, empty, and metabolic. How can there be praise or blame in between? Therefore, it is not possible. Next, explain it from the perspective of the true reality (真諦 zhēndì). The treatise says, 'The conventional truth (世俗諦 shìsúdì) is that all dharmas are empty in nature. The world is inverted and falsely believes in existence, while the wise and holy truly know the emptiness of nature.' Since the conventional truth is inverted and falsely believes in existence, it should be known that the conventional truth is false and inverted. Since the conventional is like this, so is the worldly. This is from the perspective of the saints, where both the worldly and the common are false and inverted. Within this inversion, there are common, worldly, horizontal, and vertical. Here, there is the meaning of difference and non-difference. From the perspective of the saints, they are the same inversion, so there is no difference; but there is no lack of common, worldly, horizontal, and vertical, so there is a difference. Question: From the perspective of the saints, is there only non-difference, or is there also difference? Answer: From the perspective of the saints, they also know the difference. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經 Dà pǐn bōrě jīng) says, 'If all dharmas are non-existent, why are there differences in the six realms (六道 liùdào)?' The Buddha answers, 'Because of their inversion, there are different differences in the six realms.' If so, the Buddha fully knows the difference and non-difference of inversion. If it is sentient beings, they only know the difference and do not know the non-difference. Next, explain the true reality and the ultimate reality (第一義 dìyīyì). The reason for saying that the true reality is relative to ordinary people (凡夫 fánfū) is that ordinary people think that what they understand is true, but the Buddha says, 'What you understand is inverted and not real.' What the saints understand is true. This is to explain non-inversion in contrast to inversion, to explain reality in contrast to falsehood, and to explain the true reality in contrast to the conventional truth. The ultimate reality is not the ultimate for ordinary people, indicating that what the saints understand is the ultimate reality.
。何時褒為第一。對非第一。明第一若是褒者。對非真實明真實。亦應是褒反詰云云。問若爾從來何意言真俗當體世第一是褒貶耶。解云。師作此釋別有意。若守語不得意。還成鸚鵡喙鴟足類耳。且自思之。問前明俗橫世豎。俗有二釋。浮虛義望真釋俗。風俗義當體釋俗。世有代謝義隔別義。此望何義釋耶。解云。代謝隔別並當體釋。世中自有代謝隔別也。問唯得是當體釋亦是諸佛說耶。解云。亦得是佛說。但此說隨世說世。與前說俗異。前說俗是浮虛義。反俗說俗。今說世是代謝隔別。隨世說世也。問何故說此二耶。解云。眾生自謂所解為實。聖人詺云非實。乃是虛妄。復有眾生謂其所解是第一無過者。聖人詺云汝所解非第一。乃是世人所解耳。為是故。佛說世說俗也。俗有浮虛風俗。世有代謝隔別。此之四名。有廣有狹有通有別。何者。風俗與代謝則別。浮虛與隔別則通。別則狹通則廣也。問何故但解此名耶。解云。此四名具通別廣狹。通別廣狹攝一切盡。故但解此四名也。眾生國土等世間風俗。但是風俗之法。唯是無常。所以為狹。若是浮虛則廣。浮虛只是虛假。明一切諸法皆是虛假。一切世間。乃至諸佛菩薩所說所現皆是虛假。是故廣也。代謝隔別亦爾。代謝但是無常流動法故狹。隔別則通常無常空有。常無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 何時稱讚為第一？針對非第一。如果明白第一是稱讚，那麼針對非真實，明白真實，也應該是稱讚，反過來詰問等等。問：如果這樣，你一直以來是什麼意思說真俗當體，世第一是稱讚還是貶低呢？答：老師這樣解釋另有用意。如果拘泥於字面意思而不能領會精神，就會變成鸚鵡學舌，鴟鳥的腳一樣不協調。且自己思考。問：前面說明俗是橫向的，世是縱向的。俗有兩種解釋：浮虛義，相對於真而解釋俗；風俗義，就事物本身解釋俗。世有代謝義，隔別義。這裡用什麼意義來解釋呢？答：代謝和隔別都用就事物本身來解釋。世間本身就有代謝和隔別。問：僅僅用就事物本身來解釋，也是諸佛所說的嗎？答：也可以說是佛說的。但這種說法是隨順世間的說法。與前面說的俗不同。前面說的俗是浮虛義，反過來用俗來解釋俗。現在說的世是代謝隔別，隨順世間來說世間。問：為什麼說這兩種呢？答：眾生自認為所理解的是真實的，聖人說那不是真實的，而是虛妄的。又有眾生認為自己所理解的是第一，沒有超過它的，聖人說你所理解的不是第一，只是世人所理解的而已。因為這個緣故，佛說世說俗。俗有浮虛和風俗，世有代謝和隔別。這四個名稱，有廣有狹，有通有別。哪個是呢？風俗和代謝是別，浮虛和隔別是通。別就是狹，通就是廣。問：為什麼只解釋這幾個名稱呢？答：這四個名稱具備通別廣狹，通別廣狹涵蓋一切，所以只解釋這四個名稱。眾生國土等世間風俗，只是風俗之法，只是無常，所以是狹。如果是浮虛，則是廣。浮虛只是虛假，說明一切諸法都是虛假的，一切世間，乃至諸佛菩薩所說所現都是虛假的，所以是廣。代謝隔別也是這樣。代謝只是無常流動之法，所以狹。隔別則是通常無常空有，常無
【English Translation】 English version When is praise considered the first? It is directed towards what is not the first. If understanding the first is praise, then addressing what is not real, understanding what is real, should also be praise, with counter-questions and so on. Question: If that's the case, what have you always meant by saying that 'truth and convention as they are', and 'the world's first' are praise or criticism? Answer: The teacher's explanation has a different intention. If one clings to the words without grasping the meaning, one becomes like a parrot repeating words or a crow with mismatched feet. Please think for yourself. Question: Earlier, it was explained that 'convention' is horizontal and 'world' is vertical. There are two explanations for 'convention': the meaning of 'illusory emptiness', explaining convention relative to truth; and the meaning of 'customs', explaining convention in terms of the things themselves. 'World' has the meaning of 'change' and the meaning of 'separation'. Which meaning is used here for explanation? Answer: Both 'change' and 'separation' are explained in terms of the things themselves. Within the world itself, there are change and separation. Question: Is explaining it solely in terms of the things themselves also what the Buddhas said? Answer: It can also be said to be what the Buddha said. However, this explanation follows the world's way of speaking about the world. It is different from the previous explanation of 'convention'. The previous explanation of 'convention' is the meaning of 'illusory emptiness', using convention to explain convention in reverse. The current explanation of 'world' is 'change and separation', following the world's way of speaking about the world. Question: Why are these two explained? Answer: Sentient beings consider what they understand to be real, but the sages say it is not real, but illusory. Furthermore, some sentient beings think that what they understand is the first, and nothing surpasses it, but the sages say that what you understand is not the first, but only what worldly people understand. For this reason, the Buddha speaks of 'world' and 'convention'. 'Convention' has 'illusory emptiness' and 'customs', and 'world' has 'change' and 'separation'. These four terms have breadth and narrowness, generality and specificity. Which is which? 'Customs' and 'change' are specific, while 'illusory emptiness' and 'separation' are general. Specificity is narrow, and generality is broad. Question: Why are only these terms explained? Answer: These four terms possess generality, specificity, breadth, and narrowness. Generality, specificity, breadth, and narrowness encompass everything, so only these four terms are explained. The world's customs, such as sentient beings and lands, are only the laws of customs, and are only impermanent, so they are narrow. If it is 'illusory emptiness', then it is broad. 'Illusory emptiness' is simply falsity, explaining that all dharmas are false, all worlds, even what the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas speak and manifest, are false, so it is broad. 'Change and separation' are also like this. 'Change' is only the law of impermanence and fluidity, so it is narrow. 'Separation' is usually impermanent, empty, existent, permanent, and non-existent.
常空有隔別也。故佛母品云。示五陰世間十八界世間十力世間一切種智世間。世間即隔別故。隔別廣也。次釋諦義。例前亦應有四。一依名二因緣三顯道四無方。今就依名釋。諦以審實為義。于諦于兩情審實故。名為諦也。問于諦為當屬境為當在智耶。解云。于諦于兩情智為名。何者。于凡所解為俗諦。于聖所解為真諦。于兩情智為諦。不取空有兩境為諦也。問于諦是智教諦屬何耶。一切法不出境智。境智往收。為屬境為屬智耶。解云。教諦屬境。問教諦若為是境耶。從來多不解此義。聞此亦不知是何言。今明。是境者。如來如行而說。如說而行。如說而行。即二智照空有境。如行而說。即說二諦故。一家云。潛謀密照名智。外彰神口名諦。今亦爾。以二智照空有。空有則名境。說空有義表一道即名教。境即能所。教即所能。教能表道故。教是所能。境是所照故。境是能所。所照名境。能表為教。故教諦屬境攝也。問若爾從來那。得云緣稟二諦教生智之時教轉名境耶。解云。此不相關。前是能化。后是所化。此凡經兩過轉。前境轉為教。后教轉為境。何者。如來二智照名為境。次說表一道。則轉名教。所化緣稟此教。識教悟理生智。教轉名境。此則教諦。或名境或名教也。問教諦既得是教是境。于諦亦得是教境已不。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 常與空之間存在著隔閡與區別。因此，《佛母品》中說：『展示五陰世間（wǔyīn shìjiān，構成個體的五種要素所形成的世界）、十八界世間（shíbā jiè shìjiān，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根，色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識六識，共十八界）、十力世間（shí lì shìjiān，如來的十種力量）、一切種智世間（yīqiè zhǒng zhì shìjiān，佛陀所具有的對一切事物和道理的智慧）』。『世間』即意味著隔閡與區別，而隔閡與區別是廣大的。 接下來解釋『諦』（dì，真理）的含義。按照之前的例子，也應該有四種解釋：一是依名解釋，二是因緣解釋，三是顯道解釋，四是無方解釋。現在就依名解釋。『諦』以審察真實為意義。對於『諦』，在兩種情況下都審察真實，因此稱為『諦』。 問：『諦』是屬於境（jìng，認識的對象）還是屬於智（zhì，能認識的心）呢？ 答：『諦』這個名稱，是對於兩種情況下的智慧而說的。為什麼呢？凡夫所理解的稱為俗諦（súdì，世俗諦），聖人所理解的稱為真諦（zhēndì，真理諦）。對於兩種情況下的智慧稱為『諦』，而不是把空（kōng，空性）和有（yǒu，存在）這兩種境作為『諦』。 問：『諦』是智諦（zhìdì，智慧之諦）還是教諦（jiàodì，教法之諦）？一切法都離不開境和智，如果將境和智歸納起來，是屬於境還是屬於智呢？ 答：教諦屬於境。 問：教諦為什麼是境呢？歷來很多人都不理解這個意義。即使聽了這些話，也不知道說的是什麼。現在說明，是境的原因是，如來（rúlái，佛陀）如實地修行而說，如實地說而修行。如實地說而修行，就是兩種智慧照見空和有的境。如實地修行而說，就是說二諦的緣故。一家之言說，『潛藏的謀劃和秘密的照見稱為智，外在彰顯的神妙口才稱為諦』。現在也是這樣，用兩種智慧照見空和有，空和有就稱為境。說空和有的意義，表達唯一的道路，就稱為教。境就是能照和所照，教就是所能表達的。教能夠表達道路，所以教是所能。境是被照見的，所以境是能照和所照。被照見的稱為境，能夠表達的稱為教。所以教諦屬於境所攝。 問：如果這樣，那麼歷來怎麼會說，憑藉二諦的教法產生智慧的時候，教法就轉變為境呢？ 答：這不相關。前面是能教化，後面是所教化。這裡凡經兩次轉變。前面的境轉變為教，後面的教轉變為境。為什麼呢？如來的兩種智慧照見稱為境，接下來宣說表達唯一的道路，就轉變為教。所教化的人憑藉這個教法，認識教法，領悟道理，產生智慧，教法就轉變為境。這就是教諦，或者稱為境，或者稱為教。 問：教諦既然既是教又是境，那麼對於『諦』，也可以既是教又是境嗎？
【English Translation】 English version There is separation and distinction between permanence and emptiness. Therefore, the 『Chapter on the Buddha-Mother』 says: 『Showing the world of the five skandhas (wǔyīn shìjiān, the world formed by the five aggregates that constitute an individual), the world of the eighteen realms (shíbā jiè shìjiān, the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; the six sense objects of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma; and the six consciousnesses of eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness, totaling eighteen realms), the world of the ten powers (shí lì shìjiān, the ten powers of the Tathagata), and the world of all-knowing wisdom (yīqiè zhǒng zhì shìjiān, the wisdom of the Buddha regarding all things and principles).』 『World』 implies separation and distinction, and separation and distinction are vast. Next, explain the meaning of 『Truth』 (dì, truth). Following the previous examples, there should also be four explanations: first, explanation based on the name; second, explanation based on causes and conditions; third, explanation revealing the path; and fourth, explanation without direction. Now, explain based on the name. 『Truth』 takes careful examination of reality as its meaning. Regarding 『Truth,』 it carefully examines reality in both situations, therefore it is called 『Truth.』 Question: Does 『Truth』 belong to the object (jìng, the object of cognition) or to wisdom (zhì, the mind that can cognize)? Answer: The name 『Truth』 is spoken in relation to wisdom in both situations. Why? What ordinary people understand is called conventional truth (súdì, mundane truth), and what sages understand is called ultimate truth (zhēndì, the truth of reality). 『Truth』 is spoken in relation to wisdom in both situations, rather than taking the two objects of emptiness (kōng, emptiness) and existence (yǒu, existence) as 『Truth.』 Question: Is 『Truth』 wisdom-truth (zhìdì, truth of wisdom) or teaching-truth (jiàodì, truth of teaching)? All dharmas cannot be separated from object and wisdom. If object and wisdom are summarized, does it belong to object or to wisdom? Answer: Teaching-truth belongs to object. Question: Why is teaching-truth an object? Many people have never understood this meaning. Even if they hear these words, they do not know what is being said. Now, it is explained that the reason it is an object is that the Tathagata (rúlái, the Buddha) speaks as he practices, and practices as he speaks. Speaking as he practices means that the two wisdoms illuminate the objects of emptiness and existence. Practicing as he speaks means speaking of the two truths. One school says, 『Hidden planning and secret illumination are called wisdom, and outwardly manifested divine eloquence is called truth.』 It is the same now. Using two wisdoms to illuminate emptiness and existence, emptiness and existence are called objects. Speaking of the meaning of emptiness and existence, expressing the one path, is called teaching. Object is both the illuminator and the illuminated, and teaching is what can be expressed. Teaching can express the path, so teaching is what can be expressed. Object is what is illuminated, so object is both the illuminator and the illuminated. What is illuminated is called object, and what can be expressed is called teaching. Therefore, teaching-truth is included in object. Question: If that is the case, then how has it been said that when wisdom arises by relying on the teaching of the two truths, the teaching transforms into an object? Answer: This is not related. The former is what can teach, and the latter is what is taught. Here, it goes through two transformations. The former object transforms into teaching, and the latter teaching transforms into object. Why? The Tathagata's two wisdoms illuminating are called object, and then proclaiming and expressing the one path transforms into teaching. Those who are taught rely on this teaching, recognize the teaching, understand the principle, and generate wisdom, and the teaching transforms into object. This is teaching-truth, which is either called object or called teaching. Question: Since teaching-truth is both teaching and object, can 『Truth』 also be both teaching and object?
解云。于彼何容不得。但無表道教。無生智境。于諦不轉故也。於二諦不能表十方三世諸佛正道故。不得名教。復不能生法身父母故。不得名境。若於彼是諦。于彼是境。于彼是教。于彼是理。何者。彼亦有言說故有教。彼亦言有理故於彼有理。此之理教。並是謂情故也。次更正於諦教諦義。問于諦是兩謂情。教諦得是諸佛二智不。解云。然教諦亦名二諦。亦名二境。亦名二智。亦名二身。諸佛二智為教諦。眾生謂情為于諦。此則迷悟判于教。何者。于諦即是迷情。教諦則是悟智也。問若為教諦是二智耶。解云。諸佛如行而說。如說而行。如行而說。說我所行。如說而行。行我所說。說我所行。說名行說。行我所說。行名說行。斯行說相應。皆是波若。大論釋聖說法聖默然云。從波若心還說波若。名聖說法。說般若法已還入般若心。名聖默然。聖默然聖說法。皆是波若。今亦爾。如說而行名二智。如行而說名二諦。二諦亦得名二智。何者。說何所說。說只說二智故云。欲知智在說。故二諦即是二智。但隨義不同。表理義為教。宣智義名智。所照義名境。若爾教諦之名。亦得名境。亦得名智也。問于諦得如此不。解云。于諦于智于教於境定性義也。問他亦明二諦是二境二境是二見。今亦明二諦是二教二教亦是二見。與彼
更何異耶。解云。他二諦定是二境。今明二諦是教。不定是教。表理則名教。所照則為境。宣智為智。無有定相。既知教不定教。即知境不定境。若如此解。即是悟理。悟時悟教非教。即知理非理教理非教理。如幻如化空谷之嚮明鏡之像。雖如幻化而理教宛然也。次更正前二于諦。問前二于諦一往判有得失。有凡聖故。論云。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有。于凡為實。名之為諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。于聖是實。名之為諦。有于凡實。凡但有有諦。空于聖實。聖但有空諦。如此已不。解云。然一往于凡聖兩實名諦。有于凡實為諦。空于聖實為諦。若兩互望。二並非諦。何者。有于凡是諦。空于凡非諦。凡夫謂瓶衣等法現見定有故。有為實空非實。聖人瓶衣等空是實。瓶衣等有非實。故一家云。凡實為聖虛。聖實為凡虛。凡虛為聖實。聖虛為凡實。若爾凡聖各有一諦。凡但有有諦。聖但有空諦也。難。凡但有有諦。聖但有空諦。亦應凡但有權智聖但有實智。解云。有例不例。言例者。于兩情有二諦。于兩情有二智。凡作有解。凡有有智。聖作空解。聖有空智也。言不例者。不可言聖人但有一智。聖人具權實二智也。若言但有一智則謗聖人。信一半不信一半故。經云。信六部。不信六部信不具足。今若言聖有空智無有智。則信
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『這與其他的有什麼不同呢？』解釋說：『其他的二諦（satya-dvaya，佛教用語，指真諦和俗諦）確定是兩種境界。現在所說的二諦是教法，不一定是境界。表達真理的稱為教法，所照見的稱為境界。宣揚智慧的稱為智慧，沒有固定的相狀。』既然知道教法不固定，也就知道境界不固定。如果這樣理解，就是領悟了真理。領悟時，領悟到教法不是教法，就知道真理不是真理，教理不是教理。就像幻象、化現、空谷的回聲、明鏡中的影像。雖然如幻如化，但真理和教法依然清晰存在。 接著進一步糾正前面關於二諦的說法。問：『前面關於二諦的判斷，從一方面來看有得有失，因為有凡夫和聖人的區別。』《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）說：『諸法的自性是空性的，世間顛倒地認為它們是存在的。對於凡夫來說，這種存在是真實的，所以稱為諦。諸位賢聖真正知道這種顛倒的自性是空性的，對於聖人來說，這種空性是真實的，所以稱為諦。』對於凡夫來說，存在是真實的，凡夫只有有諦；空性對於聖人來說是真實的，聖人只有空諦。這樣可以嗎？ 解釋說：『如果從一方面來說，對於凡夫和聖人來說，各自的真實稱為諦。存在對於凡夫來說是諦，空性對於聖人來說是諦。如果兩者互相比較，兩者都不是諦。為什麼呢？存在對於凡夫來說是諦，空性對於凡夫來說不是諦，因為凡夫認為瓶子、衣服等法是現見存在的，所以存在是真實的，空性不是真實的。聖人認為瓶子、衣服等的空性是真實的，瓶子、衣服等的存在不是真實的。』所以一家之言說：『凡夫認為真實的是聖人認為虛假的，聖人認為真實的是凡夫認為虛假的，凡夫認為虛假的是聖人認為真實的，聖人認為虛假的是凡夫認為真實的。』如果這樣，凡夫和聖人各自有一諦，凡夫只有有諦，聖人只有空諦。 難：『凡夫只有有諦，聖人只有空諦，也應該凡夫只有權智（upāya-jñāna，方便的智慧），聖人只有實智（tattva-jñāna，真實的智慧）。』解釋說：『有的可以類比，有的不可以類比。說可以類比，是指在兩種情況下都有二諦，在兩種情況下都有二智。凡夫執著于存在，凡夫有有智；聖人執著于空性，聖人有空智。』說不可以類比，是指不能說聖人只有一種智慧，聖人具有權智和實智兩種智慧。如果說只有一種智慧，那就是誹謗聖人，相信一半不相信一半。』《大般涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）說：『相信六部經典，不相信六部經典，就是相信不具足。』現在如果說聖人有空智而沒有有智，那就是相信
【English Translation】 English version: 'How is this different from others?' The explanation is: 'The other two truths (satya-dvaya, a Buddhist term referring to the conventional truth and the ultimate truth) are definitely two realms. The two truths now spoken of are teachings, not necessarily realms. That which expresses the principle is called teaching, and that which is illuminated is called realm. That which proclaims wisdom is wisdom, without a fixed form.' Since it is known that the teaching is not fixed, it is also known that the realm is not fixed. If understood in this way, it is enlightenment. At the time of enlightenment, realizing that the teaching is not the teaching, one knows that the principle is not the principle, and the teaching principle is not the teaching principle. Like an illusion, a transformation, an echo in an empty valley, or an image in a clear mirror. Although like illusions and transformations, the principle and the teaching are still clearly present. Next, further correct the previous statement about the two truths. Question: 'The previous judgment about the two truths, from one perspective, has gains and losses, because there is a distinction between ordinary beings and sages.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'The nature of all dharmas is emptiness, but the world mistakenly believes they exist. For ordinary beings, this existence is real, so it is called truth. The wise sages truly know that the nature of this delusion is emptiness, and for the sages, this emptiness is real, so it is called truth.' For ordinary beings, existence is real, and ordinary beings only have the truth of existence; emptiness is real for the sages, and the sages only have the truth of emptiness. Is this correct? The explanation is: 'If speaking from one perspective, the reality for ordinary beings and sages is each called truth. Existence is truth for ordinary beings, and emptiness is truth for sages. If the two are compared with each other, neither is truth. Why? Existence is truth for ordinary beings, but emptiness is not truth for ordinary beings, because ordinary beings believe that things like bottles and clothes are visibly existent, so existence is real, and emptiness is not real. Sages believe that the emptiness of things like bottles and clothes is real, and the existence of things like bottles and clothes is not real.' Therefore, one school says: 'What ordinary beings consider real, sages consider false; what sages consider real, ordinary beings consider false; what ordinary beings consider false, sages consider real; what sages consider false, ordinary beings consider real.' If so, ordinary beings and sages each have one truth, ordinary beings only have the truth of existence, and sages only have the truth of emptiness. Objection: 'Ordinary beings only have the truth of existence, and sages only have the truth of emptiness, so ordinary beings should only have expedient wisdom (upāya-jñāna, wisdom of means), and sages should only have ultimate wisdom (tattva-jñāna, wisdom of reality).' The explanation is: 'Some can be analogized, and some cannot be analogized. Saying that it can be analogized means that in both cases there are two truths, and in both cases there are two wisdoms. Ordinary beings cling to existence, and ordinary beings have the wisdom of existence; sages cling to emptiness, and sages have the wisdom of emptiness.' Saying that it cannot be analogized means that it cannot be said that sages only have one kind of wisdom, sages have both expedient wisdom and ultimate wisdom. If it is said that there is only one kind of wisdom, that is slandering the sages, believing half and not believing half.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Great Nirvana Sutra) says: 'Believing six parts of the scriptures and not believing six parts of the scriptures is incomplete belief.' Now, if it is said that sages have the wisdom of emptiness but not the wisdom of existence, that is believing
不具足也。問今明。聖有一諦而具有二智。然此解偏揭聖人。既具有二智。即應有二諦。何得但有一諦有於二智耶。解云。聖有二智者。聖人知諸法性空故有實智。復知凡夫顛倒有故有權智。照不顛倒性空名實智。照顛倒浮虛名權智。諦則不爾。二諦皆不倒智則知倒知不倒也。二者知實為實智。知虛為權智。知虛實故有二智。諦則不爾。二皆是實。為是義故。聖人一諦而有二智也。次更釋二諦名。前出他釋。他云。俗諦審實浮虛。真諦審實真實。以審實浮虛故。名真俗二諦。今難。汝真諦審實。俗諦審虛。若爾則審虛為諦。何謂審實為諦耶。彼云。俗審實是浮虛。是故審實為俗諦。何者。俗三假真四忘。俗實是虛假也。今家者。諦以審實為義。俗于凡實。真于聖實故。諦以實為義也。然此釋具出經論。凡有兩論釋。一者百論。二者中論。百論云。俗於世人為實也。中論云。俗諦者。一切法性空。世間顛倒謂有。於世人為實。名之為諦。諸賢聖真知諸法空。于聖人為實。名之為諦。此則兩論。皆以審實釋諦也。我明諦是審實。出於論文。汝明俗諦審虛。出何處耶。責之無通也。問汝難他如此。汝明二諦皆審實。若為相待耶。解云。俗諦于凡是諦。于聖非諦。空于聖是諦。于凡非諦。如中論明。諸法性空。世間顛倒謂有為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不具足啊。現在問你說明。聖人有一個真諦，但具有兩種智慧。然而這種解釋偏重於聖人。既然具有兩種智慧，就應該有兩種真諦。怎麼能只有一個真諦而具有兩種智慧呢？解釋說，聖人有二智，是因為聖人知道諸法自性本空，所以有實智（真實不虛的智慧）；又因為知道凡夫顛倒執著于有，所以有權智（方便引導的智慧）。照見不顛倒的自性空，名為實智；照見顛倒的虛浮不實，名為權智。真諦則不是這樣。二諦（真諦和俗諦）都是不顛倒的智慧，智則既能知顛倒，也能知不顛倒。二智是知實為實智，知虛為權智。因為知虛實，所以有二智。真諦則不是這樣，二諦都是真實的。爲了這個意義，聖人雖然只有一個真諦，卻具有兩種智慧。接下來進一步解釋二諦的名稱。前面引述了其他人的解釋。他們說，俗諦審實的是浮虛，真諦審實的是真實。因為審實的是浮虛，所以名為真俗二諦。現在反駁，你認為真諦審實，俗諦審虛。如果這樣，那麼審虛就成了真諦，怎麼能說審實才是真諦呢？他們說，俗諦審實的是浮虛，所以審實的是俗諦。為什麼呢？因為俗諦是三假（眾生假、法假、世假）真四忘（於四聖諦理，真諦理忘失），俗諦的真實是虛假的。我們現在的理解是，真諦以審實為意義。俗諦對於凡夫是真實的，真諦對於聖人是真實的，所以真諦以真實為意義。然而這種解釋都出自經論。凡是有兩種論述解釋，一種是《百論》，一種是《中論》。《百論》說，俗諦對於世人來說是真實的。《中論》說，俗諦是指一切法自性本空，世間顛倒認為實有，對於世人來說是真實的，所以名為真諦。諸位賢聖真正知道諸法是空性的，對於聖人來說是真實的，所以名為真諦。這兩種論述，都是以審實來解釋真諦的意義。我說明真諦是審實，是出自論文。你說明俗諦審虛，出自哪裡呢？責問他們，他們無法回答。問你反駁他人是這樣，你說明二諦都是審實，要如何相互對待呢？解釋說，俗諦對於凡夫是真諦，對於聖人不是真諦。空性對於聖人是真諦，對於凡夫不是真諦。如《中論》所說，諸法自性本空，世間顛倒認為有，
【English Translation】 English version: It is not complete. Now I ask you to explain. The sage has one Truth (Satya), but possesses two Wisdoms (Jnana). However, this explanation emphasizes the sage. Since he possesses two Wisdoms, there should be two Truths. How can there be only one Truth but possess two Wisdoms? The explanation says that the sage has two Wisdoms because the sage knows that all dharmas are empty in nature, so he has Real Wisdom (knowing things as they truly are); and because he knows that ordinary people are deluded and cling to existence, he has Expedient Wisdom (wisdom of skillful means). Seeing the non-deluded emptiness of nature is called Real Wisdom; seeing the deluded floating and unreal is called Expedient Wisdom. Truth is not like this. The Two Truths (Relative Truth and Ultimate Truth) are both non-deluded wisdom, while Wisdom can know both delusion and non-delusion. The Two Wisdoms are knowing reality as Real Wisdom and knowing illusion as Expedient Wisdom. Because of knowing both illusion and reality, there are Two Wisdoms. Truth is not like this; both Truths are real. For this reason, the sage has one Truth but possesses two Wisdoms. Next, further explain the names of the Two Truths. Previously, others' explanations were quoted. They said that Relative Truth examines the reality of the floating and unreal, and Ultimate Truth examines the reality of the real. Because what is examined as real is floating and unreal, they are called the Two Truths. Now I refute, you believe that Ultimate Truth examines reality, and Relative Truth examines illusion. If so, then examining illusion becomes Truth, how can you say that examining reality is Truth? They say that Relative Truth examines the reality of the floating and unreal, so what is examined as real is Relative Truth. Why? Because Relative Truth is three falsities (falsity of sentient beings, falsity of dharmas, falsity of the world) and four forgetfulness (forgetting the truth of the Four Noble Truths), the reality of Relative Truth is false. Our current understanding is that Truth takes examining reality as its meaning. Relative Truth is real for ordinary people, and Ultimate Truth is real for sages, so Truth takes reality as its meaning. However, these explanations all come from sutras and treatises. There are two kinds of treatises that explain, one is the Sata-sastra (Hundred Treatise), and the other is the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way). The Sata-sastra says that Relative Truth is real for ordinary people. The Madhyamaka-karika says that Relative Truth refers to the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas, the world is deluded and thinks it exists, it is real for ordinary people, so it is called Truth. All the wise and holy ones truly know that all dharmas are empty in nature, and it is real for the sages, so it is called Truth. These two treatises both explain the meaning of Truth with examining reality. I explain that Truth is examining reality, which comes from the thesis. You explain that Relative Truth examines illusion, where does it come from? Questioning them, they cannot answer. I ask you, you refute others like this, you explain that the Two Truths are both examining reality, how should they treat each other? The explanation says that Relative Truth is Truth for ordinary people, but not Truth for sages. Emptiness is Truth for sages, but not Truth for ordinary people. As the Madhyamaka-karika says, the nature of all dharmas is empty, the world is deluded and thinks it exists,
諦。諸賢聖真知諸法空為諦。此則有于凡是諦。空于凡非諦。何者。凡聞空不信。謂是虛妄非是真實。若瓶衣等法。道理是有。何以故。今現見瓶衣等法是有故。謂諸法道理實有也。問既道理實有。云何是于諦耶。解云。于凡道理是有故。名于諦也。次空于聖是諦。有于聖非諦。何者。聖人知諸法虛妄非實。若諸法性空此為真實。故論云。諸賢聖真知諸法性空故。諸法道理是空也。問既道理是空。云何是于耶。解云。于聖道理是空。故云于諦也。問若爾云何得相待耶。解云。百論明相待義。論文云。相待故如大小。言相待如大小者。如一㮈望菰為小。望棗則為大。㮈亦大亦小。俗亦爾。望凡為諦。望聖則非諦。俗亦諦亦非諦也。問何意舉大小釋耶。解云。此引例通。前明俗亦諦亦非諦。彼即云。若是則應言是。非則應言非。云何猶豫云亦是亦非耶。即為是故舉㮈釋。如一㮈亦大亦小。望菰小望棗大。何妨俗亦諦亦非諦。望凡是諦望聖非諦耶。將㮈釋俗既然。將㮈釋真亦爾。望聖為諦。望凡非諦。故真亦諦亦非諦也。他問。此明俗亦諦亦非諦。此是是非相待。二諦若為言待耶。他二諦是空有虛實。可得言待。汝二諦並實。云何待耶。今且反難彼二諦待義。師云。徑有人豎三假義。問相待假義。汝世諦待何物耶。彼云。俗
【現代漢語翻譯】 諦（Satya，真諦）。諸賢聖真正了知諸法皆空是真諦。對於凡夫來說，『有』是真諦，『空』不是真諦。為什麼呢？因為凡夫聽聞『空』，不會相信，認為那是虛妄不實的。比如瓶子、衣服等事物，從道理上來說是存在的。為什麼這麼說呢？因為現在我們親眼看到瓶子、衣服等事物是存在的，所以說諸法的道理確實存在。問：既然道理確實存在，那怎麼能說是真諦呢？答：因為對於凡夫來說，道理是存在的，所以稱之為真諦。其次，對於聖人來說，『空』是真諦，『有』不是真諦。為什麼呢？因為聖人知道諸法是虛妄不實的，諸法的本性是空性的，這才是真實的。所以《中論》說，諸位賢聖真正了知諸法的本性是空性的，所以諸法的道理是空性的。問：既然道理是空性的，那怎麼能說是真諦呢？答：因為對於聖人來說，道理是空性的，所以說是真諦。問：如果這樣，那怎麼能說是相互依存（相待）呢？答：《百論》闡明了相互依存的意義。論文中說：『相互依存就像大小一樣。』說相互依存就像大小一樣，比如一個㮈（一種小果實），相對於菰（茭白）來說是小的，相對於棗來說是大的。㮈既是大的，也是小的。世俗諦也是這樣，相對於凡夫來說是真諦，相對於聖人來說就不是真諦。世俗諦既是真諦，也不是真諦。問：為什麼要用大小來解釋呢？答：這是爲了舉例說明。前面說明了世俗諦既是真諦，也不是真諦。對方就說：『如果是真諦，就應該說是真諦；如果不是真諦，就應該說不是真諦。為什麼猶豫不決地說既是真諦，也不是真諦呢？』就是爲了這個原因，所以舉㮈來解釋。就像一個㮈，既是大的，也是小的，相對於菰來說是小的，相對於棗來說是大的。這不妨礙世俗諦既是真諦，也不是真諦，相對於凡夫來說是真諦，相對於聖人來說不是真諦。用㮈來解釋世俗諦是這樣，用㮈來解釋真諦也是一樣，相對於聖人來說是真諦，相對於凡夫來說不是真諦，所以真諦既是真諦，也不是真諦。對方問：這裡說明世俗諦既是真諦，也不是真諦，這是是非相互依存。二諦（真諦和俗諦）要怎麼說是相互依存呢？對方認為二諦是空有虛實，可以認為是相互依存。你們的二諦都是真實的，怎麼能說是相互依存呢？現在先反駁對方的二諦相互依存的意義。師父說：『徑（直接）有人豎（提出）三假義。』問：相互依存的假義，你們的世俗諦依賴於什麼呢？對方說：『俗（世俗）。』
【English Translation】 Satya (Truth, ultimate truth). The wise and holy ones truly know that all dharmas are empty, which is the ultimate truth. For ordinary people, 'existence' is the truth, and 'emptiness' is not the truth. Why? Because ordinary people, upon hearing 'emptiness', will not believe it, thinking it is false and unreal. For example, things like bottles and clothes, in terms of reason, exist. Why do I say this? Because we now see with our own eyes that bottles, clothes, and other things exist, so the principle of all dharmas truly exists. Question: Since the principle truly exists, how can it be said to be the ultimate truth? Answer: Because for ordinary people, the principle exists, it is called the ultimate truth. Secondly, for the saints, 'emptiness' is the truth, and 'existence' is not the truth. Why? Because the saints know that all dharmas are false and unreal, and the nature of all dharmas is emptiness, which is the truth. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) says that the wise and holy ones truly know that the nature of all dharmas is emptiness, so the principle of all dharmas is emptiness. Question: Since the principle is emptiness, how can it be said to be the truth? Answer: Because for the saints, the principle is emptiness, so it is said to be the truth. Question: If so, how can it be said to be interdependent (relative)? Answer: The Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise) clarifies the meaning of interdependence. The treatise says: 'Interdependence is like size.' Saying that interdependence is like size, for example, a jujube (a small fruit) is small compared to a Gūmo (茭白, a type of vegetable), and large compared to a date. The jujube is both large and small. The conventional truth is also like this, it is the truth relative to ordinary people, and not the truth relative to saints. The conventional truth is both the truth and not the truth. Question: Why use size to explain? Answer: This is to illustrate with an example. It was previously explained that the conventional truth is both the truth and not the truth. The other party then said: 'If it is the truth, it should be said to be the truth; if it is not the truth, it should be said not to be the truth. Why hesitate and say it is both the truth and not the truth?' It is for this reason that the jujube is used to explain. Just like a jujube, it is both large and small, small compared to a Gūmo, and large compared to a date. This does not prevent the conventional truth from being both the truth and not the truth, the truth relative to ordinary people, and not the truth relative to saints. Using the jujube to explain the conventional truth is like this, and using the jujube to explain the ultimate truth is also the same, the truth relative to saints, and not the truth relative to ordinary people, so the ultimate truth is both the truth and not the truth. The other party asked: Here it is explained that the conventional truth is both the truth and not the truth, this is the interdependence of right and wrong. How can the two truths (ultimate truth and conventional truth) be said to be interdependent? The other party believes that the two truths are emptiness and existence, false and real, and can be considered interdependent. Your two truths are both real, how can they be said to be interdependent? Now, let's first refute the meaning of the other party's two truths being interdependent. The master said: 'Someone directly puts forward three provisional meanings.' Question: The provisional meaning of interdependence, what does your conventional truth depend on? The other party said: 'Samsara (the mundane world).'
待不俗。責不俗是何物耶。彼云。不俗是俗。難。俗待不俗。不俗還是俗。乃俗待俗。長待不長。不長還是長。則長待長也。彼又云。俗待真。難。汝真諦四念都絕。何得俗待真耶。汝義俗有三假。真非三假。汝今既俗待真。真則是相待假。何者。長待短。長是能待。短是所待。能待所待皆是待。俗待真。俗是能待。真是所待。能待所待皆是待。若爾二諦皆是相待假也。彼脫又解。云俗諦待真諦名。真諦體絕不可待。但真諦名待也。責。汝真諦名是何物耶。若言名是俗諦。則俗還待俗。若名是真諦。那得言真絕名。進退無通也。前明諦非諦義未訖。若為未訖耶。前云俗亦諦亦非諦。俗于凡是諦于聖非諦。真亦爾。亦諦亦非諦。真于聖是諦。于凡非諦。問汝解如此耳。論何時作如此說耶。解云。論所以但明俗是諦非諦。此有義。何者。欲明二諦根本義。發初開真俗二諦者。但俗得是亦諦亦非諦。真唯得是諦。不得是非諦。問何意爾。解云。既名真。真即是真實為義。故真唯得是諦。不得是非諦。若言俗諦即可疑。何者。俗是浮虛非實。既言俗。那得為諦耶。是故釋云。俗亦諦亦非諦。俗于凡是諦。于聖即非諦。故亦諦亦非諦也。又真唯是諦。不得是非諦。俗亦諦亦非諦者。聖得望聖。聖得望凡。凡但望凡。凡不得望聖。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『待不俗』（需要超越世俗）。問：『責不俗』（什麼是超越世俗的）是什麼意思？ 回答說：『不俗』本身就是一種『俗』（世俗的觀念）。 反駁：『俗』需要『不俗』來定義，那麼『不俗』仍然是『俗』。 結論：實際上是『俗』依賴於『俗』。就像『長』依賴於『不長』，而『不長』仍然是『長』，那麼實際上是『長』依賴於『長』。 對方又說：『俗』依賴於『真』（真諦，ultimate truth）。 反駁：你的『真諦』連四念處（satipaṭṭhāna，four foundations of mindfulness）都超越了，怎麼能說『俗』依賴於『真』呢？按照你的理解，『俗』有三假（三種虛假），而『真』不是三假。你現在既然說『俗』依賴於『真』，那麼『真』就成了相對的假象。例如，『長』依賴於『短』，『長』是能依賴者，『短』是所依賴者，能依賴和所依賴都是依賴關係。『俗』依賴於『真』，『俗』是能依賴者，『真』是所依賴者，能依賴和所依賴都是依賴關係。如果這樣，那麼二諦（two truths，conventional truth and ultimate truth）就都是相對的假象了。 對方或許會辯解說：『俗諦』依賴於『真諦』之『名』，『真諦』的本體是絕對的，不可依賴，只是『真諦』的『名』可以依賴。 反駁：你說的『真諦』之『名』是什麼？如果說是『俗諦』，那麼『俗』還是依賴於『俗』。如果說是『真諦』，那怎麼能說『真』超越了名相？無論如何都說不通。 前面關於『諦』（truth）和『非諦』（non-truth）的討論還沒有結束。為什麼說沒有結束呢？ 前面說『俗』既是『諦』也是『非諦』，『俗』對於凡夫是『諦』，對於聖人是『非諦』。『真』也是如此，既是『諦』也是『非諦』，『真』對於聖人是『諦』，對於凡夫是『非諦』。 問：你這樣理解，經典什麼時候這樣說過呢？ 解釋說：經典只是說明『俗』是『諦』也是『非諦』，這其中有道理。為什麼呢？爲了闡明二諦的根本意義，最初開示真俗二諦時，只有『俗』可以既是『諦』也是『非諦』，而『真』只能是『諦』，不能是『非諦』。 問：這是什麼意思？ 解釋說：既然名為『真』，『真』就是真實的意思，所以『真』只能是『諦』，不能是『非諦』。如果說『俗諦』，就可能產生疑問。為什麼呢？因為『俗』是虛浮不實的。既然說是『俗』，怎麼能是『諦』呢？所以解釋說，『俗』既是『諦』也是『非諦』，『俗』對於凡夫是『諦』，對於聖人就是『非諦』，所以既是『諦』也是『非諦』。 而且『真』只能是『諦』，不能是『非諦』。『俗』既是『諦』也是『非諦』，是因為聖人可以從聖人的角度看，聖人可以從凡夫的角度看，凡夫只能從凡夫的角度看，凡夫不能從聖人的角度看。
English version: 'To await the non-mundane' (needing to transcend the mundane). Question: 'What is 'to criticize the non-mundane'?' (What does it mean to transcend the mundane?) The answer is: 'The non-mundane' itself is a kind of 'mundane' (a mundane concept). Objection: 'The mundane' needs 'the non-mundane' to be defined, so 'the non-mundane' is still 'the mundane'. Conclusion: In reality, 'the mundane' relies on 'the mundane'. Just like 'long' relies on 'not-long', and 'not-long' is still 'long', then in reality 'long' relies on 'long'. The other party then says: 'The mundane' relies on 'truth' (真諦, ultimate truth). Objection: Your 'ultimate truth' has even transcended the four foundations of mindfulness (四念處, satipaṭṭhāna), how can you say that 'the mundane' relies on 'truth'? According to your understanding, 'the mundane' has three falsities (三假, three kinds of falsities), while 'truth' is not the three falsities. Since you now say that 'the mundane' relies on 'truth', then 'truth' becomes a relative illusion. For example, 'long' relies on 'short', 'long' is the one who relies, 'short' is the one who is relied upon, and both the one who relies and the one who is relied upon are relationships of reliance. 'The mundane' relies on 'truth', 'the mundane' is the one who relies, 'truth' is the one who is relied upon, and both the one who relies and the one who is relied upon are relationships of reliance. If this is the case, then both the two truths (二諦, two truths, conventional truth and ultimate truth) are relative illusions. The other party might argue: 'Conventional truth' relies on the 'name' of 'ultimate truth', the essence of 'ultimate truth' is absolute and cannot be relied upon, only the 'name' of 'ultimate truth' can be relied upon. Objection: What is this 'name' of 'ultimate truth' that you are talking about? If it is said to be 'conventional truth', then 'the mundane' still relies on 'the mundane'. If it is said to be 'ultimate truth', then how can you say that 'truth' transcends names and forms? There is no way to make sense of it. The previous discussion about 'truth' (諦, truth) and 'non-truth' (非諦, non-truth) has not yet ended. Why do you say it has not ended? Previously it was said that 'the mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', 'the mundane' is 'truth' for ordinary people, and 'non-truth' for sages. 'Truth' is also the same, it is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', 'truth' is 'truth' for sages, and 'non-truth' for ordinary people. Question: When did the scriptures say this according to your understanding? The explanation is: The scriptures only explain that 'the mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', and there is a reason for this. Why? In order to clarify the fundamental meaning of the two truths, when the two truths of conventional and ultimate were first taught, only 'the mundane' can be both 'truth' and 'non-truth', while 'truth' can only be 'truth' and cannot be 'non-truth'. Question: What does this mean? The explanation is: Since it is called 'truth', 'truth' means reality, so 'truth' can only be 'truth' and cannot be 'non-truth'. If you say 'conventional truth', doubts may arise. Why? Because 'the mundane' is floating and unreal. Since it is said to be 'the mundane', how can it be 'truth'? Therefore, it is explained that 'the mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', 'the mundane' is 'truth' for ordinary people, and 'non-truth' for sages, so it is both 'truth' and 'non-truth'. Moreover, 'truth' can only be 'truth' and cannot be 'non-truth'. 'The mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth' because sages can see from the perspective of sages, sages can see from the perspective of ordinary people, ordinary people can only see from the perspective of ordinary people, and ordinary people cannot see from the perspective of sages.
【English Translation】 English version: 'To await the non-mundane' (needing to transcend the mundane). Question: 'What is 'to criticize the non-mundane'?' (What does it mean to transcend the mundane?) The answer is: 'The non-mundane' itself is a kind of 'mundane' (a mundane concept). Objection: 'The mundane' needs 'the non-mundane' to be defined, so 'the non-mundane' is still 'the mundane'. Conclusion: In reality, 'the mundane' relies on 'the mundane'. Just like 'long' relies on 'not-long', and 'not-long' is still 'long', then in reality 'long' relies on 'long'. The other party then says: 'The mundane' relies on 'truth' (真諦, ultimate truth). Objection: Your 'ultimate truth' has even transcended the four foundations of mindfulness (四念處, satipaṭṭhāna), how can you say that 'the mundane' relies on 'truth'? According to your understanding, 'the mundane' has three falsities (三假, three kinds of falsities), while 'truth' is not the three falsities. Since you now say that 'the mundane' relies on 'truth', then 'truth' becomes a relative illusion. For example, 'long' relies on 'short', 'long' is the one who relies, 'short' is the one who is relied upon, and both the one who relies and the one who is relied upon are relationships of reliance. 'The mundane' relies on 'truth', 'the mundane' is the one who relies, 'truth' is the one who is relied upon, and both the one who relies and the one who is relied upon are relationships of reliance. If this is the case, then both the two truths (二諦, two truths, conventional truth and ultimate truth) are relative illusions. The other party might argue: 'Conventional truth' relies on the 'name' of 'ultimate truth', the essence of 'ultimate truth' is absolute and cannot be relied upon, only the 'name' of 'ultimate truth' can be relied upon. Objection: What is this 'name' of 'ultimate truth' that you are talking about? If it is said to be 'conventional truth', then 'the mundane' still relies on 'the mundane'. If it is said to be 'ultimate truth', then how can you say that 'truth' transcends names and forms? There is no way to make sense of it. The previous discussion about 'truth' (諦, truth) and 'non-truth' (非諦, non-truth) has not yet ended. Why do you say it has not ended? Previously it was said that 'the mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', 'the mundane' is 'truth' for ordinary people, and 'non-truth' for sages. 'Truth' is also the same, it is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', 'truth' is 'truth' for sages, and 'non-truth' for ordinary people. Question: When did the scriptures say this according to your understanding? The explanation is: The scriptures only explain that 'the mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', and there is a reason for this. Why? In order to clarify the fundamental meaning of the two truths, when the two truths of conventional and ultimate were first taught, only 'the mundane' can be both 'truth' and 'non-truth', while 'truth' can only be 'truth' and cannot be 'non-truth'. Question: What does this mean? The explanation is: Since it is called 'truth', 'truth' means reality, so 'truth' can only be 'truth' and cannot be 'non-truth'. If you say 'conventional truth', doubts may arise. Why? Because 'the mundane' is floating and unreal. Since it is said to be 'the mundane', how can it be 'truth'? Therefore, it is explained that 'the mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth', 'the mundane' is 'truth' for ordinary people, and 'non-truth' for sages, so it is both 'truth' and 'non-truth'. Moreover, 'truth' can only be 'truth' and cannot be 'non-truth'. 'The mundane' is both 'truth' and 'non-truth' because sages can see from the perspective of sages, sages can see from the perspective of ordinary people, ordinary people can only see from the perspective of ordinary people, and ordinary people cannot see from the perspective of sages.
故真但諦不得非諦。俗亦諦亦非諦。言聖得望聖聖得望凡者。聖人了達聖境故得望聖。問何物是聖境。解云。諸法性空。聖人還了達。聖空為實故。空于聖名諦。聖人復了達凡夫顛倒虛妄有非實故。有于聖非諦也。凡但得望凡。不得望聖者。凡但知凡顛倒境。此境于凡是實故。俗于凡是諦。凡不能知聖諸法性空故。真不得是非諦。凡若能了性空。則成聖。真復不得非諦。真有兩義。不得非諦。一者凡都不知聖空故。真不得是非諦。二者若知聖空。則便成聖。空成真諦。復不得是非諦。大而為言。俗為凡知。復為聖知。故俗亦諦亦非諦。真唯是聖知。凡不能知。故真唯諦。不得為非諦也。問若爾乖前言。前言俗亦諦亦非諦。于凡是諦。于聖非諦。真亦諦亦非諦。于聖是諦。于凡非諦。有四句義。有于凡實。空于聖實。空于凡虛。有于聖虛。凡實為聖虛。聖實為凡虛。凡虛為聖實。聖虛為凡實。今那得言俗有諦非諦真但諦無非諦。前後之言自相違返耶。解云不相違。今明俗亦諦非諦真但諦無非諦者。此約初發心開真俗二諦義。聖人有權實二智。了性空即實智。知顛倒即權智。凡但知俗不知真。是故俗亦諦亦非諦。真但諦非是非諦也。而前明四句互虛實者。還是聖人詺之耳。明凡謂諸法道理實有。若於諸法本性空。便不生信
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所以，真諦不能說它不是諦。世俗諦也可以說是諦，也可以說不是諦。說聖人可以從聖人的角度看待聖人，聖人也可以從聖人的角度看待凡人，是因為聖人通達聖境，所以可以從聖人的角度看待聖人。問：什麼是聖境？答：諸法性空。聖人通達諸法性空，視聖境的空性為真實，所以空性對於聖人來說是諦。聖人又通達凡夫的顛倒虛妄，認為凡夫所執著的『有』並非真實，所以『有』對於聖人來說不是諦。凡人只能從凡人的角度看待凡人，不能從凡人的角度看待聖人，是因為凡人只知道凡夫的顛倒之境，這個境界對於凡人來說是真實的，所以世俗諦對於凡人來說是諦。凡人不能知道聖人的諸法性空，所以真諦不能說它不是諦。如果凡人能夠了達性空，那麼就成了聖人，真諦也就不能說它不是諦了。真諦有兩種含義，不能說它不是諦：一是凡人根本不知道聖人的空性，所以真諦不能說它不是諦；二是如果凡人知道了聖人的空性，那麼就成了聖人，空性就成了真諦，也就不能說它不是諦了。總而言之，世俗諦為凡人所知，也為聖人所知，所以世俗諦既是諦，也不是諦。真諦唯有聖人才能知曉，凡人不能知曉，所以真諦只是諦，不能說它不是諦。問：如果這樣說，就和前面的說法相矛盾了。前面說世俗諦既是諦，也不是諦，對於凡人來說是諦，對於聖人來說不是諦；真諦既是諦，也不是諦，對於聖人來說是諦，對於凡人來說不是諦。有四句義：有對於凡人來說是真實的，空對於聖人來說是真實的，空對於凡人來說是虛妄的，有對於聖人來說是虛妄的。凡人認為真實的東西，聖人認為是虛妄的；聖人認為是真實的東西，凡人認為是虛妄的；凡人認為是虛妄的東西，聖人認為是真實的；聖人認為是虛妄的東西，凡人認為是真實的。現在怎麼能說世俗諦既是諦，也不是諦，而真諦只是諦，沒有不是諦呢？前後之言不是自相矛盾嗎？答：不矛盾。現在說明世俗諦既是諦，也不是諦，真諦只是諦，沒有不是諦，這是從初發心時開顯真俗二諦的意義來說的。聖人有權智和實智兩種智慧，了達性空是實智，知曉顛倒是權智。凡人只知道世俗諦，不知道真諦，所以世俗諦既是諦，也不是諦，真諦只是諦，沒有不是諦。而前面說明四句互相虛實，還是聖人所說的。說明凡人認為諸法道理是真實存在的，如果說諸法的本性是空性的，他們便不會相信。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the ultimate truth (zhen di) cannot be said to be not true. The conventional truth (su di) can also be said to be true and can also be said to be not true. To say that a sage can view a sage from the perspective of a sage, and a sage can view a mortal from the perspective of a sage, is because the sage understands the realm of the sacred, so they can view a sage from the perspective of a sage. Question: What is the realm of the sacred? Answer: All dharmas are empty in nature. The sage understands that all dharmas are empty in nature, and regards the emptiness of the sacred realm as real, so emptiness is true for the sage. The sage also understands the delusion and falsity of ordinary people, and believes that the 'existence' (you) that ordinary people cling to is not real, so 'existence' is not true for the sage. Ordinary people can only view ordinary people from the perspective of ordinary people, and cannot view sages from the perspective of ordinary people, because ordinary people only know the realm of delusion of ordinary people, and this realm is real for ordinary people, so conventional truth is true for ordinary people. Ordinary people cannot know the emptiness of all dharmas of the sage, so the ultimate truth cannot be said to be not true. If ordinary people can understand emptiness, then they become sages, and the ultimate truth cannot be said to be not true. The ultimate truth has two meanings, and cannot be said to be not true: one is that ordinary people do not know the emptiness of the sage at all, so the ultimate truth cannot be said to be not true; the other is that if ordinary people know the emptiness of the sage, then they become sages, and emptiness becomes the ultimate truth, and it cannot be said to be not true. In short, conventional truth is known by ordinary people and also by sages, so conventional truth is both true and not true. The ultimate truth is only known by sages, and ordinary people cannot know it, so the ultimate truth is only true, and cannot be said to be not true. Question: If this is the case, it contradicts the previous statement. The previous statement said that conventional truth is both true and not true, true for ordinary people and not true for sages; the ultimate truth is both true and not true, true for sages and not true for ordinary people. There are four sentences: existence is real for ordinary people, emptiness is real for sages, emptiness is false for ordinary people, and existence is false for sages. What ordinary people consider real, sages consider false; what sages consider real, ordinary people consider false; what ordinary people consider false, sages consider real; what sages consider false, ordinary people consider real. How can it now be said that conventional truth is both true and not true, while the ultimate truth is only true and not not true? Aren't the previous and subsequent statements contradictory? Answer: There is no contradiction. Now, explaining that conventional truth is both true and not true, and the ultimate truth is only true and not not true, this is from the meaning of revealing the two truths, conventional and ultimate, at the initial aspiration. Sages have two kinds of wisdom, expedient wisdom (quan zhi) and real wisdom (shi zhi). Understanding emptiness is real wisdom, and knowing delusion is expedient wisdom. Ordinary people only know conventional truth and do not know the ultimate truth, so conventional truth is both true and not true, and the ultimate truth is only true and not not true. And the previous explanation of the mutual falsity and reality of the four sentences is still what the sages said. It explains that ordinary people believe that the principles of all dharmas are real, and if it is said that the nature of all dharmas is empty, they will not believe it.
故。性空于凡非諦。非是凡知性空謂性空是虛。非諦乃是聖詺。道凡於性空不生信故。言非諦耳。若爾前後無相違也。次更釋于名。問因緣假有為教諦。謂情性有為于諦不。解云。從來解如此。因緣假有是不有有。不有有悟有不有名為教諦。若是性有則有故。有名于諦。好乎唯得此解。今明不如此。今明於有為于諦。然諸法本無所有。于眾生有。何以知然。論云。一切法性空。世間顛倒謂有。故諸法本無。于眾生有為于也。若言諸法無所有因緣有。因緣有不有有名教諦。眾生有故有名于諦。此是后時語耳。次更釋于諦義。明眾生本無所有。于眾生有。故大品云。眾生顛倒因緣故。有六道差別。又涅槃云。隨其流處有六味不同。然此語並是釋于義。何者。六道本性清凈無所有。于眾生故無所有如是有也。論釋亦爾。諸法本性空。世間顛倒謂有。名之為諦。亦六道本無所有。于眾生有六道也。既云于眾生有六道。即知不六道。佛說此于名不無所以。說此令眾生悟道。何者。既云於六。即知不六也。如人可憐。實不可憐而言可憐者。於此可憐。既知于可憐。即悟不可憐。諸法亦爾。于有即悟不有也。次釋真于諦也。問俗于諦既然。可得真于諦亦爾不。實無有于凡有。實無空于聖空不耶。解云。一往發趾開真俗二于諦。不得如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，自性本空對於凡夫來說並非真諦。並非說凡夫所知的自性本空，就認為自性本空是虛假的。非真諦，只是聖者的說法。因為凡夫對於自性本空不生信心的緣故，才說是非真諦。如果這樣，前後就沒有矛盾了。接下來進一步解釋『名』。問：因緣假有作為教諦，是指情性和有為法對於真諦來說是這樣嗎？回答說：一直以來的理解是這樣的。因緣假有是『不有而有』，從『不有而有』中領悟到『有』，『不有』才被稱為教諦。如果是自性本有，那麼因為『有』的緣故，才能被稱為真諦。這種解釋很好，但只得到這種理解。現在說明不是這樣。現在說明有為法對於真諦來說是這樣。然而諸法本來什麼都沒有，對於眾生來說才顯得『有』。憑什麼知道是這樣呢？《大智度論》中說：『一切法性空，世間顛倒認為有。』所以諸法本來沒有，對於眾生來說才顯得『有』。如果說諸法無所有，因緣和合才顯得『有』，因緣和合的『有』，『不有』才被稱為教諦，因為眾生認為『有』，所以才被稱為真諦。這只是後來的說法罷了。接下來進一步解釋真諦的意義。說明眾生本來什麼都沒有，對於眾生來說才顯得『有』。所以《大品般若經》中說：『眾生顛倒因緣的緣故，才有六道差別。』又《涅槃經》中說：『隨著其流向之處，有六種味道不同。』然而這些話都是解釋真諦的意義。為什麼呢？六道本性清凈，什麼都沒有，因為對於眾生來說，『無所有』才顯得『有』。《大智度論》的解釋也是這樣。諸法本性空，世間顛倒認為『有』，稱之為真諦。也像六道本來什麼都沒有，對於眾生來說才有六道。既然說對於眾生來說有六道，就知道不是真正的六道。佛說這些『有』，並非沒有原因。說這些是爲了讓眾生悟道。為什麼呢？既然說『有』六道，就知道不是真正的六道。比如有人可憐，實際上不可憐，卻說他可憐，因為對於『可憐』來說，既然知道是『可憐』，就領悟到不可憐。諸法也是這樣，對於『有』，就領悟到『不有』。接下來解釋真諦。問：俗諦既然是這樣，那麼真諦也是這樣嗎？實際上沒有凡夫所認為的『有』，實際上沒有聖者所認為的『空』嗎？回答說：一旦開始談論，就開啟了真俗二諦，不能像這樣理解。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, inherent emptiness is not the ultimate truth for ordinary beings. It's not that ordinary beings' understanding of inherent emptiness means that inherent emptiness is false. 'Not the ultimate truth' is merely a term used by the sages. It's because ordinary beings do not generate faith in inherent emptiness that it is called 'not the ultimate truth.' If this is the case, there is no contradiction between what was said before and after. Next, further explain 'name'. Question: Is the teaching of conditioned existence as the conventional truth referring to the nature of emotions and conditioned phenomena in relation to the truth? Answer: The understanding has always been like this. Conditioned existence is 'existing without existing.' From 'existing without existing,' one realizes 'existence,' and 'non-existence' is then called the conventional truth. If it were inherently existent, then because of 'existence,' it could be called the truth. This explanation is good, but only this understanding is obtained. Now, I will explain that it is not like this. Now, I will explain that conditioned phenomena are like this in relation to the truth. However, all dharmas are originally without anything, and only appear to 'exist' for sentient beings. How do we know this is so? The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says: 'All dharmas are empty in nature, but the world is deluded and thinks they exist.' Therefore, dharmas originally do not exist, but appear to 'exist' for sentient beings. If it is said that dharmas are without anything, and only exist due to conditions, then the 'existence' due to conditions, 'non-existence,' is called the conventional truth, because sentient beings think they 'exist,' so it is called the truth. This is just a later explanation. Next, further explain the meaning of truth. Explain that sentient beings originally have nothing, but appear to 'exist' for sentient beings. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Due to the deluded conditions of sentient beings, there are differences in the six realms.' Also, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Depending on where they flow, there are six different tastes.' However, these words are all explaining the meaning of truth. Why? The nature of the six realms is originally pure and without anything, but because of sentient beings, 'nothing' appears as 'existence.' The explanation in the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra is also like this. The nature of dharmas is inherently empty, but the world is deluded and thinks they 'exist,' and this is called the truth. It is also like the six realms, which originally have nothing, but for sentient beings, there are the six realms. Since it is said that for sentient beings there are the six realms, it is known that they are not the real six realms. The Buddha's saying these 'existences' is not without reason. Saying these things is to allow sentient beings to awaken to the path. Why? Since it is said that there 'exist' six realms, it is known that they are not the real six realms. For example, someone is pitiable, but in reality, they are not pitiable, yet it is said that they are pitiable, because in relation to 'pitiable,' since it is known that it is 'pitiable,' one realizes that they are not pitiable. Dharmas are also like this, in relation to 'existence,' one realizes 'non-existence.' Next, explain the ultimate truth. Question: Since the conventional truth is like this, is the ultimate truth also like this? Is there actually no 'existence' as perceived by ordinary beings, and is there actually no 'emptiness' as perceived by the sages? Answer: Once you start talking about it, you open up the two truths, conventional and ultimate, and you cannot understand it like this.
此。何者。說于凡有。亦為化凡。說于聖空亦為凡。說此二諦。併爲化凡。何者。說俗于為顯迷。說真于為顯悟。如中論所明。諸法性空。凡夫顛倒謂有。諸賢聖真知諸法性空。正開凡聖真俗。明此是凡於聖于。此是真于俗于。正示其是迷是悟是真是俗。示俗於是迷。示真於是悟。大品云。波若為大事故起。所謂示是道是非道。今亦爾。說俗于示非道。說真于示是道。為是故。于凡有不有。聖空是真空。此即第一節也。第二節並轉。于凡有既不有。于聖空亦不空。諸法非是有于凡有。諸法非是空于聖空。既知于空有。即知不空有。於二即知不二。關中曇鸞法師。舉漁人與餓鬼譬。漁人入則鼓棹揚波。餓鬼入則炎火燋體。然水未曾水未曾火。於人見水。于鬼見火。火有兩微。觸具能燒。色具能照。水有三微。成論云。天雨無香。人中水具四微。餓鬼見則成兩微。漁人見則成四微。于鬼兩微。於人四微。水未曾二之與四也。諸法亦爾。于凡有于聖空。于凡聖空有。實非空有。于凡聖二。實非二。此則於二為世諦。不二為真諦故經云。明與無明。愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。無二之性。即是實性。故知不二。始是真實諦也。次第三節。二不二並是俗。何者。於二于不二。正道非二非不二。正道既非二。豈是不二。但于凡夫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此。何者？（這是什麼？）說于凡有（對於凡夫所執著的『有』），亦為化凡（也是爲了教化凡夫）。說于聖空（對於聖者所證悟的『空』），亦為凡（也是爲了凡夫）。說此二諦（說這兩種真理），併爲化凡（都是爲了教化凡夫）。何者？（為什麼？）說俗（說世俗諦）于為顯迷（是爲了顯示迷惑），說真（說真諦）于為顯悟（是爲了顯示覺悟）。如《中論》（《中觀論頌》）所明，諸法性空（一切法的自性本空），凡夫顛倒謂有（凡夫顛倒地認為實有）。諸賢聖真知諸法性空（諸位賢聖真正了知一切法的自性本空），正開凡聖真俗（正是爲了開顯凡夫與聖人，真諦與俗諦）。明此是凡於聖于（明白這是凡夫相對於聖人），此是真于俗于（這是真諦相對於俗諦）。正示其是迷是悟是真是俗（正是爲了指示什麼是迷惑，什麼是覺悟，什麼是真，什麼是俗）。示俗於是迷（顯示俗諦就是迷惑），示真於是悟（顯示真諦就是覺悟）。《大品》（《大般若經》）云：『般若為大事故起（般若智慧是爲了重大事故而生起），所謂示是道是非道（所謂顯示什麼是正道，什麼是非道）。』今亦爾（現在也是這樣），說俗于示非道（說俗諦是爲了顯示非道），說真于示是道（說真諦是爲了顯示是道）。為是故（因為這個緣故），于凡有不有（對於凡夫所執著的『有』，實際上並非真實存在），聖空是真空（聖者所證悟的『空』才是真正的空性）。此即第一節也（這是第一節的內容）。 第二節並轉（第二節進一步闡述）。于凡有既不有（對於凡夫所執著的『有』，既然不是真實存在），于聖空亦不空（對於聖者所證悟的『空』，也不是絕對的空無）。諸法非是有于凡有（一切法並非是凡夫所認為的『有』），諸法非是空于聖空（一切法也並非是聖者所證悟的『空』）。既知于空有（既然知道了空與有），即知不空有（也就知道了非空非有）。於二即知不二（對於二元對立，也就知道了不二）。關中曇鸞法師（關中地區的曇鸞法師）舉漁人與餓鬼譬（舉了漁人和餓鬼的譬喻）。漁人入則鼓棹揚波（漁人進入水中，則劃船激起波浪），餓鬼入則炎火燋體（餓鬼進入水中，則感到火焰焚燒身體）。然水未曾水未曾火（然而水本身並沒有變成水，也沒有變成火）。於人見水（在漁人看來是水），于鬼見火（在餓鬼看來是火）。火有兩微（火有兩種微細的元素），觸具能燒（接觸時能燃燒），色具能照（在視覺上能發光）。水有三微（水有三種微細的元素），《成論》（《成實論》）云：天雨無香（天上降下的雨沒有香味），人中水具四微（人間的水具有四種微細的元素），餓鬼見則成兩微（餓鬼看到水則變成兩種微細的元素），漁人見則成四微（漁人看到水則變成四種微細的元素）。于鬼兩微（對於餓鬼來說是兩種微細的元素），於人四微（對於漁人來說是四種微細的元素），水未曾二之與四也（水本身並沒有變成二或者四）。諸法亦爾（一切法也是這樣），于凡有于聖空（對於凡夫來說是『有』，對於聖者來說是『空』），于凡聖空有（對於凡夫和聖者來說，既可以是空也可以是有），實非空有（實際上既不是空也不是有）。于凡聖二（對於凡夫和聖者這二元對立），實非二（實際上並非是二）。此則於二為世諦（因此，將二元對立視為世俗諦），不二為真諦（將不二視為真諦）。故經云（所以經中說），明與無明（光明與無明），愚者謂二（愚者認為是二），智者了達其性無二（智者了達它們的自性並非二）。無二之性（沒有二元對立的自性），即是實性（就是真實的自性）。故知不二（所以知道不二），始是真實諦也（才是真正的真諦）。 次第三節（接下來是第三節）。二不二並是俗（二元對立和不二，都是世俗諦）。何者？（為什麼？）於二于不二（對於二元對立和不二），正道非二非不二（真正的道路既不是二，也不是不二）。正道既非二（真正的道路既然不是二），豈是不二（難道是不二嗎？）。但于凡夫（只是對於凡夫來說）
【English Translation】 English version: This. What is it? Speaking of 'existence' for ordinary beings (凡有, fan you, the 'existence' clung to by ordinary beings), it is also to transform ordinary beings (化凡, hua fan, to educate ordinary beings). Speaking of 'emptiness' for sages (聖空, sheng kong, the 'emptiness' realized by sages), it is also for ordinary beings. Speaking of these two truths (二諦, er di, two truths), it is all to transform ordinary beings. Why? Speaking of the conventional truth (俗, su, conventional truth) to reveal delusion (迷, mi, delusion), speaking of the ultimate truth (真, zhen, ultimate truth) to reveal enlightenment (悟, wu, enlightenment). As explained in the Madhyamaka-karika (中論, Zhong Lun, Treatise on the Middle Way), all dharmas are empty in nature (諸法性空, zhu fa xing kong, all dharmas are empty in nature), ordinary beings are deluded and consider them to exist (凡夫顛倒謂有, fan fu dian dao wei you, ordinary beings are deluded and consider them to exist). The wise and noble ones truly know that all dharmas are empty in nature (諸賢聖真知諸法性空, zhu xian sheng zhen zhi zhu fa xing kong, the wise and noble ones truly know that all dharmas are empty in nature), precisely revealing the ordinary and the sage, the ultimate and the conventional (正開凡聖真俗, zheng kai fan sheng zhen su, precisely revealing the ordinary and the sage, the ultimate and the conventional). Clarifying that this is the ordinary relative to the sage (明此是凡於聖于, ming ci shi fan yu sheng yu, clarifying that this is the ordinary relative to the sage), this is the ultimate relative to the conventional (此是真于俗于, ci shi zhen yu su yu, this is the ultimate relative to the conventional). Precisely indicating what is delusion, what is enlightenment, what is truth, what is convention (正示其是迷是悟是真是俗, zheng shi qi shi mi shi wu shi zhen shi su, precisely indicating what is delusion, what is enlightenment, what is truth, what is convention). Showing that the conventional is delusion (示俗於是迷, shi su yu shi mi, showing that the conventional is delusion), showing that the ultimate is enlightenment (示真於是悟, shi zhen yu shi wu, showing that the ultimate is enlightenment). The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品, Da Pin, The Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: 'Prajna arises for a great purpose (般若為大事故起, bo re wei da shi gu qi, Prajna arises for a great purpose), namely, to show what is the path and what is not the path (所謂示是道是非道, suo wei shi shi dao shi fei dao, namely, to show what is the path and what is not the path).' It is the same now (今亦爾, jin yi er, it is the same now), speaking of the conventional to show what is not the path (說俗于示非道, shuo su yu shi fei dao, speaking of the conventional to show what is not the path), speaking of the ultimate to show what is the path (說真于示是道, shuo zhen yu shi shi dao, speaking of the ultimate to show what is the path). For this reason (為是故, wei shi gu, for this reason), 'existence' for ordinary beings is not truly existent (于凡有不有, yu fan you bu you, 'existence' for ordinary beings is not truly existent), the 'emptiness' of the sages is true emptiness (聖空是真空, sheng kong shi zhen kong, the 'emptiness' of the sages is true emptiness). This is the first section (此即第一節也, ci ji di yi jie ye, this is the first section). The second section further elaborates (第二節並轉, di er jie bing zhuan, the second section further elaborates). Since 'existence' for ordinary beings is not truly existent (于凡有既不有, yu fan you ji bu you, since 'existence' for ordinary beings is not truly existent), 'emptiness' for sages is also not absolutely empty (于聖空亦不空, yu sheng kong yi bu kong, 'emptiness' for sages is also not absolutely empty). Dharmas are not 'existent' in the way ordinary beings perceive them (諸法非是有于凡有, zhu fa fei shi you yu fan you, dharmas are not 'existent' in the way ordinary beings perceive them), dharmas are not 'empty' in the way sages perceive them (諸法非是空于聖空, zhu fa fei shi kong yu sheng kong, dharmas are not 'empty' in the way sages perceive them). Having understood 'emptiness' and 'existence' (既知于空有, ji zhi yu kong you, having understood 'emptiness' and 'existence'), one also understands neither 'empty' nor 'existent' (即知不空有, ji zhi bu kong you, one also understands neither 'empty' nor 'existent'). Knowing duality, one knows non-duality (於二即知不二, yu er ji zhi bu er, knowing duality, one knows non-duality). Dharma Master Tanluan of Guanzhong (關中曇鸞法師, Guan Zhong Tanluan Fashi, Dharma Master Tanluan of Guanzhong) gives the analogy of the fisherman and the hungry ghost (舉漁人與餓鬼譬, ju yu ren yu e gui pi, gives the analogy of the fisherman and the hungry ghost). When the fisherman enters the water, he rows and stirs up waves (漁人入則鼓棹揚波, yu ren ru ze gu zhao yang bo, when the fisherman enters the water, he rows and stirs up waves), when the hungry ghost enters the water, he feels his body burning with flames (餓鬼入則炎火燋體, e gui ru ze yan huo jiao ti, when the hungry ghost enters the water, he feels his body burning with flames). However, the water has never become water or fire (然水未曾水未曾火, ran shui wei ceng shui wei ceng huo, however, the water has never become water or fire). For the person, it is seen as water (於人見水, yu ren jian shui, for the person, it is seen as water), for the ghost, it is seen as fire (于鬼見火, yu gui jian huo, for the ghost, it is seen as fire). Fire has two subtle elements (火有兩微, huo you liang wei, fire has two subtle elements), contact can burn (觸具能燒, chu ju neng shao, contact can burn), color can illuminate (色具能照, se ju neng zhao, color can illuminate). Water has three subtle elements (水有三微, shui you san wei, water has three subtle elements). The Chengshi Lun (成論, Cheng Lun, Tattvasiddhi Shastra) says: Heavenly rain has no fragrance (天雨無香, tian yu wu xiang, heavenly rain has no fragrance), water in the human realm has four subtle elements (人中水具四微, ren zhong shui ju si wei, water in the human realm has four subtle elements), when a hungry ghost sees it, it becomes two subtle elements (餓鬼見則成兩微, e gui jian ze cheng liang wei, when a hungry ghost sees it, it becomes two subtle elements), when a fisherman sees it, it becomes four subtle elements (漁人見則成四微, yu ren jian ze cheng si wei, when a fisherman sees it, it becomes four subtle elements). For the ghost, it is two subtle elements (于鬼兩微, yu gui liang wei, for the ghost, it is two subtle elements), for the person, it is four subtle elements (於人四微, yu ren si wei, for the person, it is four subtle elements), the water has never become two or four (水未曾二之與四也, shui wei ceng er zhi yu si ye, the water has never become two or four). All dharmas are also like this (諸法亦爾, zhu fa yi er, all dharmas are also like this), 'existence' for ordinary beings and 'emptiness' for sages (于凡有于聖空, yu fan you yu sheng kong, 'existence' for ordinary beings and 'emptiness' for sages), 'emptiness' and 'existence' for ordinary beings and sages (于凡聖空有, yu fan sheng kong you, 'emptiness' and 'existence' for ordinary beings and sages), are in reality neither 'empty' nor 'existent' (實非空有, shi fei kong you, are in reality neither 'empty' nor 'existent'). For the duality of ordinary beings and sages (于凡聖二, yu fan sheng er, for the duality of ordinary beings and sages), it is in reality not two (實非二, shi fei er, it is in reality not two). Therefore, considering duality as the conventional truth (此則於二為世諦, ci ze yu er wei shi di, therefore, considering duality as the conventional truth), and non-duality as the ultimate truth (不二為真諦, bu er wei zhen di, and non-duality as the ultimate truth). Therefore, the sutra says (故經云, gu jing yun, therefore, the sutra says), 'Brightness and ignorance (明與無明, ming yu wu ming, brightness and ignorance), fools consider them to be two (愚者謂二, yu zhe wei er, fools consider them to be two), the wise realize that their nature is not two (智者了達其性無二, zhi zhe liao da qi xing wu er, the wise realize that their nature is not two). The nature of non-duality (無二之性, wu er zhi xing, the nature of non-duality) is the real nature (即是實性, ji shi shi xing, is the real nature).' Therefore, knowing non-duality (故知不二, gu zhi bu er, therefore, knowing non-duality) is the beginning of the real truth (始是真實諦也, shi shi zhen shi di ye, is the beginning of the real truth). Next is the third section (次第三節, ci di san jie, next is the third section). Duality and non-duality are both conventional (二不二並是俗, er bu er bing shi su, duality and non-duality are both conventional). Why? (何者, he zhe, why?) For duality and non-duality (於二于不二, yu er yu bu er, for duality and non-duality), the right path is neither two nor not two (正道非二非不二, zheng dao fei er fei bu er, the right path is neither two nor not two). Since the right path is not two (正道既非二, zheng dao ji fei er, since the right path is not two), how could it be not two? (豈是不二, qi shi bu er, how could it be not two?). But for ordinary beings (但于凡夫, dan yu fan fu, but for ordinary beings)
聲聞二。于菩薩不二耳。道何曾二不二耶。如凈名云。身子見穢。梵王見凈。華嚴五百聲聞。不見法界。諸菩薩見法界。于身子見穢。于梵王見凈。正士非凈非不凈。亦於五百聲聞不見。于諸菩薩見。正道非見不見。兩人並非見。一往聲聞。修別異善根。菩薩修無得善。故聲聞不見。菩薩見。望道並不見也。問諸菩薩在法界中。既于諸菩薩見者。如來亦在中。亦于如來見不。釋云不例。如來隨汝見。如來何曾有見不見。故經云。隨順眾生故。普入諸世間。智慧常寂然。不同世所見。故不得引如來為例。如來非見不見。于汝見。于汝不見。見不見既是于。即知道非見非不見。今亦爾。於二乘二。于菩薩不二。二不二既是于。即知道非二非不二也。如此三節。並是于非是正道也。問若為是正道耶。解云。諸佛不能行。諸佛不能到。諸佛不能說。今作若為說耶。故經云。諸法寂滅相。不可以言宣。又云。甚深微妙法。唯我知是相。十方佛亦然。諸大聲聞不退菩薩。皆不能了也。然此始是好。情智二諦。前來三節。並是情謂二諦離前三節。乃是智諦。所以法華明。如來從三昧。安詳而起。嘆甚深二智也。次更從前釋。問前云六道無所有于眾生有六道。諸佛隨眾生現五道身。為是俗諦。為是真諦。真諦則無六道。眾生無所有。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 聲聞乘（Śrāvaka-yāna，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的修行者）與菩薩乘（Bodhisattva-yāna，發願救度一切眾生的修行者）在於（『于』表示『對於』）菩薩而言並非二元對立。道又何曾是二元對立或非二元對立呢？正如《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）所說，舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）見到的是污穢，梵天王（Brahmā，印度教的創造神）見到的是清凈。《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）中的五百聲聞乘修行者，無法見到法界（Dharmadhātu，一切諸法的總相），而諸位菩薩卻能見到法界。對於舍利弗所見的污穢，對於梵天王所見的清凈，正士（指菩薩）認為既非清凈也非不清凈。同樣，對於五百聲聞乘修行者所不能見到的，對於諸位菩薩所能見到的，正道既非能見也非不能見。這兩種人並非真正地『見』。一般來說，聲聞乘修行者修習的是與衆不同的善根，而菩薩修習的是無所得的智慧。因此，聲聞乘修行者不能見到，而菩薩能夠見到。但從道的角度來看，兩者都未能真正見到。 問：諸位菩薩身處法界之中，既然能見到諸位菩薩，那麼如來（Tathāgata，佛陀的稱號之一）也在法界之中，是否也能見到如來呢？ 答：不能以此為例。如來是隨順你的見解而顯現的，如來又何曾有能見或不能見呢？所以經中說：『隨順眾生的緣故，普遍進入各個世間，智慧卻常處於寂然之中，不同於世俗所見。』因此，不能引用如來作為例子。如來既非能見也非不能見，而是在於你的見或不見。能見與不能見都是『在於』，由此可知，道既非能見也非不能見。現在也是這樣，『在於』二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）是二元對立的，『在於』菩薩則不是二元對立的。二元對立與非二元對立都是『在於』，由此可知，道既非二元對立也非非二元對立。以上這三節，都是『在於』，並非真正的正道。 問：那麼，什麼是真正的正道呢？ 答：諸佛無法行，諸佛無法到達，諸佛無法說。現在又如何能說呢？所以經中說：『一切諸法的真實相狀是寂滅的，無法用言語來宣說。』又說：『甚深微妙的法，只有我知道它的真實相狀，十方諸佛也是如此。』諸大聲聞乘修行者和不退轉的菩薩，都無法完全瞭解。然而，這才是好的開始，是情智二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）。前面三節，都是情謂二諦。離開前面三節，才是智諦。所以《法華經》（Lotus Sūtra）中闡明，如來從三昧（Samādhi，禪定）中安詳地起身，讚歎甚深二智。 接下來，再從前面解釋。問：前面說六道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、阿修羅、人、天）本無所有，『在於』眾生才有六道。諸佛隨順眾生而顯現五道之身，這是俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）還是真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）？如果是真諦，那麼就沒有六道，眾生也本無所有。
【English Translation】 English version The Śrāvakayāna (vehicle of hearers, those who attain enlightenment by listening to the Buddha's teachings) and the Bodhisattvayāna (vehicle of bodhisattvas, those who vow to save all sentient beings) are not dualistic 'in relation to' (the term 'in relation to' indicates 'regarding') the Bodhisattva. How could the Dao ever be dualistic or non-dualistic? As the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra says, Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) sees impurity, while Brahmā (the Hindu god of creation) sees purity. The five hundred Śrāvakas in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra do not see the Dharmadhātu (the totality of all phenomena), while the Bodhisattvas see the Dharmadhātu. Regarding Śāriputra's seeing of impurity and Brahmā's seeing of purity, the righteous one (referring to a Bodhisattva) considers it neither pure nor impure. Similarly, regarding what the five hundred Śrāvakayāna practitioners cannot see and what the Bodhisattvas can see, the righteous path is neither seeing nor not seeing. These two types of people do not truly 'see'. Generally speaking, Śrāvakayāna practitioners cultivate different kinds of wholesome roots, while Bodhisattvas cultivate the wisdom of non-attainment. Therefore, Śrāvakayāna practitioners cannot see, while Bodhisattvas can see. But from the perspective of the Dao, neither of them truly sees. Question: Since the Bodhisattvas are in the Dharmadhātu and can see the Bodhisattvas, and the Tathāgata (one of the titles of the Buddha) is also in the Dharmadhātu, can they also see the Tathāgata? Answer: This cannot be taken as an example. The Tathāgata appears according to your understanding; how could the Tathāgata ever have seeing or not seeing? Therefore, the sutra says: 'Because of conforming to sentient beings, he universally enters all worlds, but his wisdom is always in stillness, different from what the world sees.' Therefore, the Tathāgata cannot be cited as an example. The Tathāgata is neither seeing nor not seeing, but is 'in relation to' your seeing or not seeing. Seeing and not seeing are both 'in relation to', from which it can be known that the Dao is neither seeing nor not seeing. It is the same now; 'in relation to' the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) it is dualistic, but 'in relation to' the Bodhisattva it is not dualistic. Dualistic and non-dualistic are both 'in relation to', from which it can be known that the Dao is neither dualistic nor non-dualistic. These three sections are all 'in relation to', not the true righteous path. Question: Then, what is the true righteous path? Answer: The Buddhas cannot walk it, the Buddhas cannot reach it, the Buddhas cannot speak of it. How can it be spoken of now? Therefore, the sutra says: 'The true nature of all dharmas is quiescence, which cannot be expressed in words.' It also says: 'The profoundly subtle Dharma, only I know its true nature, and the Buddhas of the ten directions are also like this.' The great Śrāvakayāna practitioners and the non-retrogressing Bodhisattvas cannot fully understand it. However, this is a good beginning, the two truths of emotion and wisdom (conventional truth and ultimate truth). The previous three sections are all the two truths of emotional understanding. Separating from the previous three sections is the truth of wisdom. Therefore, the Lotus Sūtra clarifies that the Tathāgata arises peacefully from Samādhi (meditative absorption), praising the profound two wisdoms. Next, let's explain from the beginning again. Question: Earlier it was said that the six realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, asuras, humans, and gods) are originally without substance, and 'in relation to' sentient beings there are the six realms. The Buddhas manifest bodies in the five realms in accordance with sentient beings. Is this the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) or the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya)? If it is the ultimate truth, then there are no six realms, and sentient beings are originally without substance.
既是于諦。佛隨眾生有六道。亦是無所有。有亦是于諦不。解云不例。六道無所有。于眾生實有。故是于諦。佛現六道身。非是實謂有。故非於諦。難。既非於應非是俗。解云。是俗非是于。何者。以虛假故是俗。非實有故非於諦。自有是俗非於諦。自有是俗是于諦。顛倒六道。則是俗是于諦。諸佛隨眾生。是俗非於諦也。次時更簡此語。六道無所有。于眾生有六道。是俗諦。諸佛隨眾生有六道故。經云。隨順眾生故。普入諸世間。既隨眾生有六道身。為是真諦。為是俗諦耶。若是真諦。真諦無有六道。若是俗諦。復非實有。那是俗諦。為是義故。就俗諦中有三句。一是俗非諦。二是諦非俗。三亦諦亦俗。若圓成四句者。望真則有非俗非諦也。一是俗非諦者。諸佛隨眾生有六道。非情謂實有。以有六道故是俗。非情謂實有故非諦。是為是俗非諦也。然從來無此義。一往聞亦不信受。今明者。諸佛隨眾生有。非情謂有。所以是俗非諦也。二是諦非俗者。望聖是俗。于其非俗。此兩名相妨。俗即非諦。諦則非俗。望聖為俗。于其非俗。但是實有故。是諦非俗也。三亦諦亦俗者。凡聖合論。望聖是俗。于凡是諦。故云亦俗亦諦。又就世俗諦中。復有亦俗亦諦義。何者。其自有風俗世俗之俗。此之風俗及與世俗。于其並實故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 既是于諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。佛隨眾生有六道（Gati，輪迴的六個道途）。亦是無所有。有亦是于諦不？解云不例。六道無所有，于眾生實有，故是于諦。佛現六道身，非是實謂有，故非於諦。難：既非於應非是俗（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）。解云：是俗非是于。何者？以虛假故是俗，非實有故非於諦。自有是俗非於諦，自有是俗是于諦。顛倒六道，則是俗是于諦。諸佛隨眾生，是俗非於諦也。次時更簡此語。六道無所有，于眾生有六道，是俗諦。諸佛隨順眾生有六道故。經云：『隨順眾生故，普入諸世間。』既隨眾生有六道身，為是真諦（Satya，真理），為是俗諦耶？若是真諦，真諦無有六道。若是俗諦，復非實有。那是俗諦？為是義故，就俗諦中有三句。一是俗非諦，二是諦非俗，三亦諦亦俗。若圓成四句者，望真則有非俗非諦也。一是俗非諦者，諸佛隨眾生有六道，非情謂實有。以有六道故是俗，非情謂實有故非諦。是為是俗非諦也。然從來無此義，一往聞亦不信受。今明者，諸佛隨眾生有，非情謂有，所以是俗非諦也。二是諦非俗者，望聖是俗，于其非俗。此兩名相妨，俗即非諦，諦則非俗。望聖為俗，于其非俗。但是實有故，是諦非俗也。三亦諦亦俗者，凡聖合論。望聖是俗，于凡是諦。故云亦俗亦諦。又就世俗諦中，復有亦俗亦諦義。何者？其自有風俗世俗之俗。此之風俗及與世俗，于其並實故。
【English Translation】 English version Is it then Paramārtha-satya (Ultimate Truth)? Buddha, according to sentient beings, exists in the six Gati (Realms of Rebirth). It is also without inherent existence. Is existence also Paramārtha-satya? The explanation is that it is not analogous. The six Gati are without inherent existence, but they truly exist for sentient beings, therefore it is Paramārtha-satya. When Buddha manifests in the forms of the six Gati, it is not truly said to exist, therefore it is not Paramārtha-satya. Objection: If it is not Paramārtha-satya, then it is not Saṃvṛti-satya (Conventional Truth). The explanation is: it is Saṃvṛti-satya, not Paramārtha-satya. Why? Because it is false, therefore it is Saṃvṛti-satya; because it is not truly existent, therefore it is not Paramārtha-satya. There is Saṃvṛti-satya that is not Paramārtha-satya, and there is Saṃvṛti-satya that is Paramārtha-satya. The inverted six Gati are both Saṃvṛti-satya and Paramārtha-satya. Buddhas following sentient beings are Saṃvṛti-satya, not Paramārtha-satya. Next, further clarify this statement. The six Gati are without inherent existence, but sentient beings exist in the six Gati, which is Saṃvṛti-satya. Because Buddhas follow sentient beings and exist in the six Gati. The Sutra says: 'Because they accord with sentient beings, they universally enter all worlds.' Since they follow sentient beings and exist in the forms of the six Gati, is it Satya (Truth) or Saṃvṛti-satya? If it is Satya, Satya does not have the six Gati. If it is Saṃvṛti-satya, then it is not truly existent. What is Saṃvṛti-satya then? For this reason, within Saṃvṛti-satya, there are three statements. One is Saṃvṛti-satya but not Satya, the second is Satya but not Saṃvṛti-satya, and the third is both Satya and Saṃvṛti-satya. If the four statements are complete, then looking towards the Truth, there is neither Saṃvṛti-satya nor Satya. One is Saṃvṛti-satya but not Satya, which means that Buddhas follow sentient beings and exist in the six Gati, but non-sentient beings consider it truly existent. Because there are six Gati, it is Saṃvṛti-satya; because non-sentient beings consider it truly existent, it is not Satya. This is what is meant by Saṃvṛti-satya but not Satya. However, there has never been such a meaning, and one would not believe it upon first hearing. Now, clarifying, Buddhas follow sentient beings and exist, but non-sentient beings consider it existent, therefore it is Saṃvṛti-satya but not Satya. The second is Satya but not Saṃvṛti-satya, which means that looking towards the sages, it is Saṃvṛti-satya, but for them, it is not Saṃvṛti-satya. These two terms contradict each other; Saṃvṛti-satya is not Satya, and Satya is not Saṃvṛti-satya. Looking towards the sages, it is Saṃvṛti-satya, but for them, it is not Saṃvṛti-satya. However, because it is truly existent, it is Satya but not Saṃvṛti-satya. The third is both Satya and Saṃvṛti-satya, which means discussing both ordinary beings and sages together. Looking towards the sages, it is Saṃvṛti-satya, but for ordinary beings, it is Satya. Therefore, it is said to be both Saṃvṛti-satya and Satya. Furthermore, within Saṃvṛti-satya, there is also the meaning of both Saṃvṛti-satya and Satya. What is it? It is the Saṃvṛti-satya of customs and worldly conventions. These customs and worldly conventions are all real.
亦俗亦諦也。風俗之俗則橫。世俗隔別則豎。此之橫豎皆實故。名俗諦也。問若爾從來。何意云俗非諦緣諦俗故名俗諦耶。解云。此語有兩望。何者。俗非諦則望聖。緣諦俗。名諦則就緣。望聖俗是浮虛。故非諦。于緣為實。故秤諦。所以云俗非諦緣諦俗名俗諦耳。非俗非諦者。望真諦並非故。論云。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。顛倒既空。何處有俗。既非俗。何所論諦。故望聖非俗非諦也。次更簡前諸佛隨眾生有六道是俗非諦。為當唯得是俗非諦。亦得是諦耶。解云。此言非諦者。明隨順眾生示有六道。非是情謂實有之於諦耳。問既非於諦得是何物耶。解云。得是教諦。然諸佛菩薩。從實方便起跡現身說教。所現不出形聲。故形聲等並是教諦。何者。此兩種並諦。當根緣不差。是故名諦。此之兩種。實能表道。是故名諦也。問俗諦中有四句。真諦中亦有四句不。解云。真諦但有兩句。一者是真是諦。二者是真非諦。是真是諦。此可知。真必是諦也。言是真非諦者。隨真說故是真。非情謂之實故非諦。如前隨俗諦說非俗諦。今亦爾也。次更明於諦教諦合論諦義有三句。一者能諦所非諦。二者所諦能非諦。三者亦能亦所諦。能諦所非諦。即是于諦。所諦能非諦。即教諦。亦能亦所諦。于教合論。言于諦是能非所者。有于凡實為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 亦俗亦諦也。（俗諦：相對於真諦，指世俗諦，即世俗所認知的真理）風俗之『俗』則橫。世俗隔別則豎。此之橫豎皆實故，名俗諦也。 問：若爾，從來，何意云俗非諦，緣諦俗故名俗諦耶？ 解云：此語有兩望。何者？俗非諦則望聖。緣諦俗，名諦則就緣。望聖俗是浮虛，故非諦。于緣為實，故秤諦。所以云俗非諦，緣諦俗名俗諦耳。 非俗非諦者，望真諦並非故。論云：『諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。顛倒既空，何處有俗？』既非俗，何所論諦？故望聖非俗非諦也。 次更簡前，諸佛隨眾生有六道（六道：佛教輪迴的六個去處）是俗非諦。為當唯得是俗非諦，亦得是諦耶？ 解云：此言非諦者，明隨順眾生示有六道，非是情謂實有之於諦耳。 問：既非於諦，得是何物耶？ 解云：得是教諦（教諦：佛陀的教導所揭示的真理）。然諸佛菩薩，從實方便起跡現身說教。所現不出形聲，故形聲等並是教諦。何者？此兩種並諦，當根緣不差，是故名諦。此之兩種，實能表道，是故名諦也。 問：俗諦中有四句，真諦（真諦：佛教中最高的真理）中亦有四句不？ 解云：真諦但有兩句。一者是真是諦，二者是真非諦。是真是諦，此可知。真必是諦也。 言是真非諦者，隨真說故是真，非情謂之實故非諦。如前隨俗諦說非俗諦，今亦爾也。 次更明於諦教諦合論諦義有三句。一者能諦所非諦，二者所諦能非諦，三者亦能亦所諦。能諦所非諦，即是于諦。所諦能非諦，即教諦。亦能亦所諦，于教合論。言于諦是能非所者，有于凡實為
【English Translation】 English version It is both conventional truth and ultimate truth. The 'conventional' of convention is horizontal. The separation of worldly conventions is vertical. Because both the horizontal and vertical are real, it is called conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya). Question: If so, from the beginning, what is the meaning of saying that convention is not truth, but is called conventional truth because it arises from truth? Answer: This statement has two perspectives. What are they? Convention is not truth from the perspective of the sages. Arising from truth, it is called truth based on conditions. From the perspective of the sages, convention is floating and unreal, therefore it is not truth. In terms of conditions, it is real, therefore it is called truth. Therefore, it is said that convention is not truth, but is called conventional truth because it arises from truth. That which is neither convention nor truth is not so from the perspective of ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya). The treatise says: 'All sages truly know that the nature of delusion is empty. Since delusion is empty, where is there convention?' Since it is not convention, what truth is there to discuss? Therefore, from the perspective of the sages, it is neither convention nor truth. Next, to further clarify, the Buddhas follow sentient beings and there are six realms (Ṣaṭ-gati) which are conventional and not truth. Should it only be understood as conventional and not truth, or can it also be truth? Answer: This statement 'not truth' clarifies that following sentient beings and showing the six realms is not to be understood as truly existing in reality. Question: Since it is not ultimate truth, what is it? Answer: It is doctrinal truth (deśanā-satya). However, all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, from the reality of skillful means, manifest traces, appear in bodies, and teach. What is manifested does not go beyond form and sound, therefore form, sound, and so on are all doctrinal truth. Why? These two are both truth when the root and conditions are not different, therefore they are called truth. These two truly express the path, therefore they are called truth. Question: There are four possibilities in conventional truth, are there also four possibilities in ultimate truth? Answer: There are only two possibilities in ultimate truth. The first is that it is truly truth, and the second is that it is truly not truth. That which is truly truth is understandable. Truth must be truth. That which is truly not truth is true because it is spoken according to truth, but it is not truth because it is not considered real by sentiment. It is like saying that conventional truth is not truth according to conventional truth, and it is the same now. Next, to further clarify, combining ultimate truth and doctrinal truth to discuss the meaning of truth, there are three possibilities. The first is that it is the truth that is able to be true, but not the truth that is the object. The second is that it is the truth that is the object, but not the truth that is able to be true. The third is that it is both the truth that is able to be true and the truth that is the object. The truth that is able to be true, but not the truth that is the object, is ultimate truth. The truth that is the object, but not the truth that is able to be true, is doctrinal truth. That which is both the truth that is able to be true and the truth that is the object is a combination of ultimate truth and doctrinal truth. Saying that ultimate truth is able to be true but not the object is because it is truly
諦。空于聖實為諦。取兩情智為諦。不取空有二境為諦。二境那忽是諦。但有于凡是諦。空于聖是諦。取二于為諦也。此于亦不孤。然于不于。不于本于。空有能所並是于諦。但能邊強。境智並於諦。智邊強。此則帶所明能。取能不取所。帶智論境。取智不取境也。言教諦是所非能者。二智是能說。二境是所說。能說非諦。所說是諦。此就境智判能所。前于諦。亦境所智慧。取能為諦。不取所為諦。今教諦。取所為諦。不取能為諦。故一家云。潛謀密照為二智。外彰神口名二諦。二智慧說。二諦所說。正取所說真俗化緣。名教諦也。亦能亦所諦者。合取于教二諦。為亦能亦所諦也。更就教諦中復有三句。一能名諦。二所名諦。三亦能亦所名諦言能名諦者。則是真俗二教。以真俗二教實能表道故名諦。二諦當根緣不差故名諦也。言所名諦者。從所表理為名。以所表理實故。能表之教亦實也。此則從表實為名。如法華云。開方便門示真實道。此門即是實門。以通至實故。名方便門。又如佛門通至佛故云佛門。今亦爾。教能通實故云實也。亦能亦所者。即理教合說。非理則不教。不教則不理。非理不教教名理教。非教不理理名教理。理教因緣斯二皆實。故能所皆諦也。問教諦有三句。于諦亦有三句不耶。解云。于諦但有一句
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦（satya，真諦）。空性對於聖者來說是真諦。執取二種情智是真諦。不執取空和有這兩種境界為真諦。這兩種境界怎麼會是真諦呢？只有對於凡夫來說才是真諦。空性對於聖者來說是真諦。執取二者才是真諦。這個『于』也不是孤立的。然而『于』不『于』，『不于』本就是『于』。空和有、能和所，都可以說是真諦。但如果能的一面更強，境界和智慧都屬於真諦；如果智慧的一面更強，這就是帶著所來彰顯能，取能而不取所，帶著智慧來討論境界，取智慧而不取境界。言語教法上的真諦是所而非能，兩種智慧是能說，兩種境界是所說。能說不是真諦，所說是真諦。這是就境界和智慧來判斷能和所。前面的『于』諦，也是境界、所、智慧、能，取能為真諦，不取所為真諦。現在說教法上的真諦，取所為真諦，不取能為真諦。所以一家之言說，『潛藏的謀劃和秘密的觀照是兩種智慧，外在彰顯的神妙口說是兩種真諦』。兩種智慧是能說，兩種真諦是所說，正是取所說的真實和世俗的教化因緣，稱為教諦。既是能又是所的真諦，是合取教法上的兩種真諦，作為既是能又是所的真諦。再就教諦中又有三種說法：一是能名為諦，二是所名為諦，三是亦能亦所名為諦。所謂能名為諦，就是真諦和俗諦這兩種教法，因為真諦和俗諦這兩種教法確實能夠表達道，所以稱為諦。兩種真諦對應根器和因緣沒有差錯，所以稱為諦。所謂所名為諦，是從所表達的理來命名的，因為所表達的理是真實的，所以能表達它的教法也是真實的。這是從表達真實來命名的，如《法華經》所說：『開啟方便之門，顯示真實之道。』這個門就是實門，因為它能通向真實。又如佛門能通向佛，所以稱為佛門。現在也是這樣，教法能通向真實，所以稱為實。所謂亦能亦所，就是理和教合起來說。沒有理就沒有教，沒有教就沒有理。沒有理的教法，教法就名為理教；沒有教的理，理就名為教理。理和教的因緣，這兩者都是真實的，所以能和所都是真諦。問：教諦有三種說法，『于』諦也有三種說法嗎？答：『于』諦只有一種說法。
【English Translation】 English version Satya (諦, truth). Emptiness is truth for the saints. Grasping the two aspects of emotion and wisdom is truth. Not grasping the two realms of emptiness and existence as truth. How can these two realms be truth? Only for ordinary people is it truth. Emptiness is truth for the saints. Grasping the two is truth. This '于' (yu, in) is not isolated either. However, '于' is not '于', 'not 于' is originally '于'. Emptiness and existence, the capable and the object, can all be said to be truth. But if the capable side is stronger, both the realm and wisdom belong to truth; if the wisdom side is stronger, then this is manifesting the capable with the object, taking the capable and not taking the object, discussing the realm with wisdom, taking wisdom and not taking the realm. The truth in verbal teachings is the object and not the capable. The two wisdoms are the capable that speaks, and the two realms are what is spoken. The capable that speaks is not truth, and what is spoken is truth. This is judging the capable and the object based on the realm and wisdom. The previous '于' truth is also realm, object, wisdom, capable, taking the capable as truth and not taking the object as truth. Now, the truth in teachings takes the object as truth and not the capable as truth. Therefore, one school says, 'Hidden plans and secret illuminations are the two wisdoms, and the externally manifested divine speech is the two truths.' The two wisdoms are the capable that speaks, and the two truths are what is spoken. It is precisely taking the spoken truth and the mundane conditions of teaching, which is called the teaching truth. The truth that is both capable and object is the combination of the two truths in teachings, as the truth that is both capable and object. Furthermore, within the teaching truth, there are three statements: first, the capable is named truth; second, the object is named truth; third, both capable and object are named truth. What is called the capable being named truth is the two teachings of true truth and conventional truth, because these two teachings can truly express the path, so they are called truth. The two truths correspond to the roots and conditions without error, so they are called truth. What is called the object being named truth is named from the principle expressed, because the principle expressed is real, so the teaching that expresses it is also real. This is named from expressing reality, as the Lotus Sutra says: 'Open the gate of expedient means and reveal the path of true reality.' This gate is the real gate, because it leads to reality. Just as the Buddha gate leads to the Buddha, so it is called the Buddha gate. Now it is also like this, the teaching can lead to reality, so it is called reality. What is called both capable and object is the combination of principle and teaching. Without principle, there is no teaching; without teaching, there is no principle. Teaching without principle is called principle-teaching; principle without teaching is called teaching-principle. The conditions of principle and teaching, both of these are real, so both the capable and the object are truth. Question: The teaching truth has three statements, does the '于' truth also have three statements? Answer: The '于' truth only has one statement.
。唯是能諦。能謂之情為諦也。次更舉事顯此三名。自有從能不從所。從所不從能。具從能所。從所不從能者。如飲食名為食。何者。口能食飲食是所食。而飲食名食者。此即從所名食也。從能不從所者。如雲行路。路是所行。人是能行。但從人能行為名也。具從能所者。如雲洗水。是能洗物是所洗。直云洗通能所也。世間得名。既有此三句不同故。諦得名亦有三句不同。次簡經中一句義。涅槃經。文殊問二諦義云。世諦中有第一義不。第一義中有世諦不。如其有者。即是一義諦。如其無者。將非如來虛妄說耶。佛答云。世諦即是第一義諦。有善方便隨順眾生。說有二諦。此明道理唯有一諦無有二諦。但隨順眾生故說二諦也。問若為唯有一諦耶。大師舊云有四諦二諦一諦。言四諦者。真諦俗諦空諦有諦也。二諦者。空有二諦。還是真俗二諦。有還是俗。空還是真。故言二諦也。問一諦者若為是一諦。為當非真非俗。為一諦耶。解云。不相關。今言一諦者。團圞始終只是一諦。何者。望凡夫唯有俗諦。凡夫但知諸法是有。不知諸法性空。故凡夫唯有俗諦。無真諦也。若望聖亦唯一諦。何者。聖知諸法性空為實名諦。知諸法虛妄不實非諦。然聖人。知諸法顛倒虛妄非諦。非都無虛妄之法。若無虛妄之法。則成斷見也。何者
。有大乘人。聞畢竟空成空見。便謂無罪福報應等。今明。不無罪福報應。只罪福報應畢竟空。畢竟空而罪福報應不失也。又中論云。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。非是離顛倒別有性空。只了顛倒性為空故。性空于聖人是實為諦。又知顛倒虛妄不實故非諦。望聖唯一真諦無俗諦也。次轉者。俗于凡是諦。真于聖是諦。二皆是于。二皆非諦。非真非俗。始是真實。始名為諦。故經云。世人知者。名為世諦。出世之人。如其性相。而能知之。名第一義諦。於世出世人是諦實。非是諦。唯非真非俗。是實是諦。若爾亦唯有一諦也。然從來人無有此義。亦不得釋涅槃經文。何者彼明。二諦是二境。亦是二理。道理有此二理。何得言世諦即第一義諦。隨順眾生故說有二諦耶。佛親明無二諦。隨眾生故說二耳。不應云道理定有二諦也。彼脫云此是二諦相即義故云即是者。亦不然。彼雖相即恒二。二而恒即。終是二理。二理不可無故。彼不得言實無二隨順眾生故說有二也。問經云世諦即第一義。隨順眾生說有二諦。可得前兩節並得作此說不。解云。並得。一往正對凡夫。明唯真是諦俗非諦。問若爾應無二諦。解云。實唯一諦。但隨順眾生故。說二諦也百論亦爾。俗非諦。隨俗故說有俗諦。故論文云。隨俗說故無過也。第二節。明俗于凡是諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有修習大乘佛法的人，聽聞一切事物最終歸於空性（畢竟空）后，產生了錯誤的空見，就認為沒有罪過、福報和因果報應等。現在要說明的是，並非沒有罪過、福報和因果報應，而是罪過、福報和因果報應的自性最終是空性的（畢竟空）。雖然是畢竟空，但罪過、福報和因果報應並不會因此而消失。此外，《中論》中說，諸位賢聖真正了知顛倒妄見的自性是空性的，並不是離開顛倒妄見之外，另外存在一個空性。只是因爲了知顛倒妄見的自性是空性的緣故，所以空性對於聖人來說是真實不虛的真諦。又因為知道顛倒妄見是虛妄不實的，所以它不是真諦。對於聖人來說，只有唯一的真諦，而沒有世俗諦。
其次，關於『轉』的含義：世俗諦對於凡夫來說是真諦，真諦對於聖人來說是真諦。這兩種說法都是『是』，但又都『非諦』。既非真諦，也非俗諦，這才是真實，才可稱為諦。所以經中說：『世人所知者，名為世俗諦；出世之人，如實了知諸法自性與現象，名為第一義諦。』對於世間和出世間的人來說，認為是真諦，但又不是真諦，只有非真非俗才是真實不虛的真諦。如果這樣說，那麼就只有一種真諦了。然而，以前的人沒有這種說法，也不能解釋《涅槃經》的經文。為什麼呢？因為《涅槃經》中明確說明，二諦是兩種境界，也是兩種道理。道理上有這兩種道理，怎麼能說世俗諦就是第一義諦呢？難道是隨順眾生的緣故才說有二諦嗎？佛陀親自說明沒有二諦，只是隨順眾生才說有二諦罷了。不應該說道理上一定有二諦。如果他們辯解說，這是二諦相即的含義，所以說『即是』，也是不對的。即使二諦相互融合，也始終是二，即使二諦相互融合，也終究是兩種道理。兩種道理是不可能消失的。所以他們不能說實際上沒有二諦，只是隨順眾生才說有二諦。
問：經中說，世俗諦即是第一義諦，隨順眾生才說有二諦，可以把前面兩節的內容都這樣解釋嗎？
答：可以。從一方面來說，這是直接針對凡夫，說明只有真諦是真諦，世俗諦不是真諦。
問：如果這樣，那麼應該沒有二諦了。
答：實際上只有一種真諦，但隨順眾生的緣故，才說有二諦。《百論》也是這樣，世俗諦不是真諦，但隨順世俗的緣故才說有世俗諦。所以論文中說：『隨順世俗的說法，所以沒有過失。』第二節，說明世俗諦對於凡夫來說是真諦。
【English Translation】 English version: If a Mahayana practitioner, upon hearing of ultimate emptiness (Śūnyatā, 畢竟空), develops a nihilistic view, thinking there are no sins, merits, or karmic retributions, it should be clarified that it's not that there are no sins, merits, or karmic retributions, but rather that the nature of sins, merits, and karmic retributions is ultimately empty. Although ultimately empty, sins, merits, and karmic retributions are not lost.
Furthermore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論) states that noble sages truly understand that the nature of delusion (viparyāsa, 顛倒) is empty. It's not that there is emptiness separate from delusion, but rather that by understanding the nature of delusion as empty, emptiness is real and true for the sages. Also, because they know that delusion is false and unreal, it is not truth. For the sages, there is only one ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, 第一義諦), and no conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, 世俗諦).
Next, regarding the meaning of 'transformation': Conventional truth is truth for ordinary beings, and ultimate truth is truth for sages. Both of these statements are 'is,' but they are also both 'not truth.' Neither ultimate nor conventional is the real truth. Only that which is neither is real and can be called truth. Therefore, the sutra says, 'What worldly people know is called conventional truth; those who transcend the world, knowing the nature and appearance of things as they are, know the ultimate truth.' For worldly and transworldly people, it is considered truth, but it is not truth. Only that which is neither conventional nor ultimate is real and true. If that's the case, then there is only one truth. However, previous people did not have this understanding, nor could they explain the sutra texts of the Nirvana Sutra. Why? Because the Nirvana Sutra clearly states that the two truths are two realms and two principles. Since there are these two principles in doctrine, how can one say that conventional truth is the same as ultimate truth? Is it because of accommodating sentient beings that two truths are spoken of? The Buddha personally clarified that there are not two truths, but only two are spoken of to accommodate sentient beings. It should not be said that there are definitely two truths in doctrine. If they argue that this is the meaning of the mutual identity of the two truths, so they say 'is,' that is also incorrect. Even if the two truths are mutually integrated, they are always two. Even if the two truths are mutually integrated, they are ultimately two principles. The two principles cannot disappear. Therefore, they cannot say that there are actually no two truths, but only two are spoken of to accommodate sentient beings.
Question: The sutra says that conventional truth is the same as ultimate truth, and two truths are spoken of to accommodate sentient beings. Can the previous two sections be interpreted in this way?
Answer: Yes. From one perspective, this is directly addressing ordinary beings, clarifying that only ultimate truth is truth, and conventional truth is not truth.
Question: If that's the case, then there should be no two truths.
Answer: In reality, there is only one truth, but two truths are spoken of to accommodate sentient beings. The Śataśāstra (百論) is also like this: conventional truth is not truth, but conventional truth is spoken of to accommodate conventionality. Therefore, the text says, 'There is no fault in speaking according to convention.' The second section clarifies that conventional truth is truth for ordinary beings.
。真于聖是諦。真俗並非諦。非真非俗乃是諦者。仁王經。何故云三諦有諦無諦中道第一義諦耶。解云。實唯一諦。無有三諦。但隨順眾生說有三諦。隨真俗緣故。說真俗諦。所以涅槃經明世諦即第一義。次即云世人知者名世諦。出世人知者名第一義諦也。脫真諦三藏。明有三諦義。今明。此三諦並隨眾生故說耳。二諦既是隨眾生說。中道第一義諦。亦是隨眾生說。何者。既非二。豈是不二。故中論云。若有無成者。非有非無成有無既不成。非有非無何成。一切皆凈。師云。四諦二諦一諦無異。只是一諦耳。然復有一種四諦二諦一諦義。若爾有兩義四諦二諦義。前四諦二諦一諦。此無深淺。后四諦二諦一諦。則淺深大異。言四諦者。即無量四聖諦。次卷四諦為二諦。次卷二諦為一諦。真俗不俗。俗真不真。不真不俗。名一實諦。次卷一諦成無諦。真俗二不真俗。不二二不二。非不二不二。二非二。非二非不二。名無諦。次舒即無諦一諦二諦四諦無句一句二句四句無量句。卷舒明義故。此兩種異也。前鹿盧唯有一諦。凡夫以有為實。不知性空。于凡唯俗是諦。真非諦。聖人以性空為實。知俗虛妄不實。于聖唯真是諦。俗非諦。菩薩即唯非真非俗。是實是諦。余則非諦。於三緣有三諦。三緣中趣舉一緣。唯一是諦。余悉非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『真于聖是諦』，意思是說，對於聖人來說，真諦才是真理。『真俗並非諦』，意思是說，真諦和俗諦都不是究竟的真理。『非真非俗乃是諦者』，意思是說，既不是真諦也不是俗諦，才是真正的真理。《仁王經》中說，為什麼說三諦（sātya-traya，三種真理）有諦、無諦、中道第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）呢？解釋說，實際上只有一諦（eka-satya，一真諦），並沒有三種真諦，只是爲了隨順眾生的理解才說有三種真諦。隨順真諦和俗諦的因緣，所以說真諦和俗諦。因此，《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）中闡明，世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）就是第一義諦。接著說，世人所知的就是世俗諦，出世之人所知的就是第一義諦。脫真諦三藏（Paramārtha，六世紀印度僧人）闡明有三諦的含義。現在說明，這三諦都是隨順眾生的理解而說的。既然二諦（真諦和俗諦）是隨順眾生而說的，那麼中道第一義諦也是隨順眾生而說的。為什麼呢？既然不是二，怎麼會是不二呢？所以《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakārikā）中說，如果存在有和無的成立，那麼非有非無才能成立。但是有和無都不能成立，那麼非有非無又怎麼能成立呢？一切都是清凈的。老師說，四諦（catvāri-āryasatyāni，四聖諦）、二諦、一諦沒有區別，只是一諦而已。然而，還有一種四諦、二諦、一諦的含義。如果是這樣，就有兩種四諦、二諦的含義。前一種四諦、二諦、一諦沒有深淺之分。后一種四諦、二諦、一諦則有很大的深淺差別。說四諦，就是無量的四聖諦。其次，將四諦收卷為二諦。再次，將二諦收卷為一諦。真諦和俗諦不俗，俗諦和真諦不真，不真不俗，名為一實諦（eka-tattva-satya，一真實諦）。再次，舒捲一諦成為無諦。真諦和俗諦二者不真不俗，不二和二不二，非不二和不二，二非二，非二非不二，名為無諦。再次，舒展就是無諦、一諦、二諦、四諦，無句、一句、二句、四句、無量句。捲起舒展是爲了闡明意義，所以這兩種含義是不同的。前一種（鹿盧）只有一諦。凡夫以有為真實，不知道性空，對於凡夫來說，只有俗諦是真理，真諦不是真理。聖人以性空為真實，知道世俗虛妄不實，對於聖人來說，只有真諦是真理，俗諦不是真理。菩薩（bodhisattva）則認為只有非真非俗才是真實和真理，其餘都不是真理。對於三種因緣有三種真諦。三種因緣中只取一種因緣，只有一種是真理，其餘都不是真理。
【English Translation】 English version: 'True for the Sage is Truth' means that for the sage, the true truth is the truth. 'True mundane is not Truth' means that neither the true truth nor the mundane truth is the ultimate truth. 'Neither true nor mundane is the Truth' means that neither the true truth nor the mundane truth is the real truth. The Renwang Sutra asks, why is it said that the three truths (sātya-traya) are the truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the supreme truth of the Middle Way (paramārtha-satya)? The explanation is that in reality there is only one truth (eka-satya), there are no three truths, but it is said that there are three truths to accord with the understanding of sentient beings. According to the conditions of the true and mundane, the true and mundane truths are spoken of. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra clarifies that the mundane truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is the same as the supreme truth. Then it says that what worldly people know is called the mundane truth, and what those who have transcended the world know is called the supreme truth. Paramārtha (6th-century Indian monk) explains that there are three meanings of truth. Now it is explained that these three truths are all spoken according to the understanding of sentient beings. Since the two truths (true and mundane) are spoken according to the understanding of sentient beings, the supreme truth of the Middle Way is also spoken according to the understanding of sentient beings. Why? Since it is not two, how can it be non-dual? Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says, if there is the establishment of existence and non-existence, then non-existence and non-non-existence can be established. But since existence and non-existence cannot be established, how can non-existence and non-non-existence be established? Everything is pure. The teacher says that the four noble truths (catvāri-āryasatyāni), the two truths, and the one truth are no different, they are just one truth. However, there is also a meaning of the four truths, the two truths, and the one truth. If so, there are two meanings of the four truths and the two truths. The former four truths, two truths, and one truth have no depth. The latter four truths, two truths, and one truth have great differences in depth. Speaking of the four truths, they are the immeasurable four noble truths. Next, the four truths are rolled up into two truths. Next, the two truths are rolled up into one truth. The true truth and the mundane truth are not mundane, the mundane truth and the true truth are not true, neither true nor mundane is called the one real truth (eka-tattva-satya). Next, unfolding the one truth becomes the non-truth. The true truth and the mundane truth are neither true nor mundane, non-dual and two are not non-dual, non-non-dual and non-dual, two are not two, neither two nor non-dual is called the non-truth. Next, unfolding is the non-truth, one truth, two truths, four truths, no sentence, one sentence, two sentences, four sentences, immeasurable sentences. Rolling up and unfolding is to clarify the meaning, so these two meanings are different. The former (Lú Lú) has only one truth. Ordinary people take existence as real and do not know emptiness, so for ordinary people, only the mundane truth is the truth, and the true truth is not the truth. Sages take emptiness as real and know that the mundane is false and unreal, so for sages, only the true truth is the truth, and the mundane truth is not the truth. Bodhisattvas (bodhisattva) believe that only what is neither true nor mundane is real and true, and the rest is not true. For the three conditions, there are three truths. Among the three conditions, only one condition is taken, and only one is the truth, and the rest are not.
諦。然經論正意。明唯真是諦俗非諦。何故爾。真是實義。俗非實義。故唯真是諦俗非諦也。次釋相待義。問若爾云何相待。解云。約此義是虛實待。是非待。諦非諦待。不得二諦相待。何者。庶盧唯有一諦故。唯得諦非諦待也。問經復有二諦故。云隨順眾生說有二諦。又世人知者名世諦。出世人知者名第一義諦。既有二義。云何相待耶。然唯有一諦。隨眾生故說有二諦。此一句語所凈事大。何者。此語若成他義則壞。非但義壞。亦不得讀涅槃經。今時得作此釋。非但經如此。論亦復然。由有論故解經。所以云經有論故義則易解也。前問云既有二諦云何相待者。從來解云。真俗待。二諦不待。若諦相待。則長長相待。故真俗待。二諦不待也。且難。真俗不自。諦是不自不。若真俗與諦皆不自。真俗與諦皆相待。若真俗待諦不待。真俗不自。諦應是自也。今明。無非因緣。無非相待。故師云。我佛法中。無非因緣。若非因緣。乃是外道義也。問若皆相待。師何意云真俗待諦諦不待耶。解云。此語有意。人不解師語耳。原相待義。必須相顯相成。如長短相待。非短不長。非長不短。由長顯是短。由短顯是長。名曰相待。故中論云。非如長短彼此待他而有無自性也。若直云諦諦。若為得相顯。若為相成。故諦諦不得相待也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 諦（Dì，真理）。然而經論的真正含義，是闡明只有真才是真諦，俗不是真諦。為什麼這樣說呢？因為真才是真實的意義，俗不是真實的意義，所以只有真才是真諦，俗不是真諦。接下來解釋相待的意義。問：如果這樣，什麼是相待呢？答：從這個意義上說，是虛實相待，是非相待，諦非諦相待。不能說是二諦相待。為什麼呢？因為庶盧（Shù lú，不清楚具體含義，此處音譯）只有一諦的緣故，所以只能說是諦非諦相待。問：經中又有二諦的說法，說隨順眾生而說有二諦，又世人所知的是世諦，出世人所知的是第一義諦。既然有二義，怎麼說是相待呢？答：實際上只有一諦，隨順眾生的緣故才說有二諦。這句話所澄清的事情很大。為什麼呢？因為這句話如果成立了其他宗派的觀點，那麼佛法的意義就壞了。不僅僅是意義壞了，也將無法讀懂《涅槃經》。現在可以這樣解釋。不僅僅是經這樣，論也是這樣。因為有論的緣故才能解釋經，所以說經有論的緣故，意義就容易理解了。前面問到既然有二諦，怎麼說是相待呢？以前的解釋是，真俗相待，二諦不相待。如果諦相待，那麼就成了長長相待。所以說是真俗相待，二諦不相待。且提出疑問，真俗不是自在的，諦是不自不他的。如果真俗與諦都不是自在的，那麼真俗與諦都是相待的。如果真俗待諦不待，真俗不是自在的，那麼諦應該是自在的。現在闡明，沒有不是因緣的，沒有不是相待的。所以老師說，我的佛法中，沒有不是因緣的。如果不是因緣，那就是外道的觀點了。問：如果都是相待的，老師為什麼說真俗相待，諦諦不相待呢？答：這句話是有深意的，是人們不理解老師的話罷了。原本相待的意義，必須是互相顯現，互相成就。比如長短相待，沒有短就沒有長，沒有長就沒有短。因為長才顯出是短，因為短才顯出是長，這叫做相待。所以《中論》說，不是像長短那樣彼此依賴他而有，沒有自性的。如果直接說是諦諦，怎麼能夠互相顯現，怎麼能夠互相成就呢？所以說諦諦不能相待。
【English Translation】 Dì (諦, Truth). However, the true meaning of the sutras and treatises is to clarify that only Truth is the real truth, and the mundane is not the real truth. Why is this so? Because only Truth is the real meaning, and the mundane is not the real meaning, so only Truth is the real truth, and the mundane is not the real truth. Next, explain the meaning of interdependence. Question: If so, what is interdependence? Answer: From this perspective, it is the interdependence of the unreal and the real, the right and the wrong, the truth and the non-truth. It cannot be said that the two truths are interdependent. Why? Because Shù lú (庶盧, unclear specific meaning, transliterated here) has only one truth, so it can only be said that the truth and the non-truth are interdependent. Question: The sutras also mention two truths, saying that two truths are spoken of in accordance with sentient beings, and what worldly people know is the worldly truth, and what transcendent people know is the first principle truth. Since there are two meanings, how can it be said to be interdependent? Answer: In reality, there is only one truth, and two truths are spoken of in accordance with sentient beings. This sentence clarifies a great deal. Why? Because if this sentence establishes the views of other schools, then the meaning of Buddhism will be ruined. Not only is the meaning ruined, but it will also be impossible to understand the Nirvana Sutra. Now it can be explained in this way. It is not only the sutras that are like this, but also the treatises. Because there are treatises, the sutras can be explained, so it is said that because the sutras have treatises, the meaning is easier to understand. Earlier, it was asked that since there are two truths, how can it be said to be interdependent? The previous explanation was that the real and the mundane are interdependent, and the two truths are not interdependent. If the truths are interdependent, then it becomes the long being interdependent with the long. Therefore, it is said that the real and the mundane are interdependent, and the two truths are not interdependent. And raise the question, the real and the mundane are not self-existent, and the truth is neither self-existent nor other-existent. If the real and the mundane and the truth are not self-existent, then the real and the mundane and the truth are all interdependent. If the real and the mundane depend on the truth, and the truth does not depend, and the real and the mundane are not self-existent, then the truth should be self-existent. Now it is clarified that there is nothing that is not caused by conditions, and there is nothing that is not interdependent. Therefore, the teacher said, in my Buddhist teachings, there is nothing that is not caused by conditions. If it is not caused by conditions, then it is the view of the heretics. Question: If everything is interdependent, why did the teacher say that the real and the mundane are interdependent, and the truth is not interdependent with the truth? Answer: This sentence has a profound meaning, it is just that people do not understand the teacher's words. Originally, the meaning of interdependence must be mutual manifestation and mutual accomplishment. For example, long and short are interdependent, without short there is no long, without long there is no short. Because long reveals that it is short, because short reveals that it is long, this is called interdependence. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika says that it is not like long and short that depend on each other and have no self-nature. If it is directly said that the truth is interdependent with the truth, how can they manifest each other, how can they accomplish each other? Therefore, it is said that the truth cannot be interdependent with the truth.
今言。相待者。諦帶真俗。名真諦俗諦。論相待。由性空是真俗。則顯有是俗諦。亦由瓶衣等法是俗諦。顯性空是真諦。此則由真諦顯俗諦。由空諦顯有諦。由聖諦顯凡諦。就此義故。明二諦相待也。舉事如善人惡人。直言人不得相待。由此是善人。顯彼是惡人。善惡二人待。二諦亦爾也。次斷鄭二諦相待義。彈他釋非。顯山門正意。彈他者。凡彈兩人。一者彈成論。二斥學三論不得意者。彈成論者。彼釋俗諦審是浮虛。此解定非。今不將三論難彼不學三論聞三論不信。今將涅槃經文以彈之。經云。世人知者名為世諦。出世人知者名第一義諦。汝若謂審浮虛是俗諦者。世人應知諸法審是虛假。既有此理。世人豈能知諸法虛假耶。世人既不知諸法虛假。故不得以審虛為俗諦也。今釋是諦實義。正會經文。世人所知。於世人是實名為世諦。出世人所知。于出世人是實。名第一義諦。今得作此解。論釋如此。故云。世若無論。即為邪智所障也。次斥學三論不得意者。明二諦真俗。待非真俗。二諦待。此義不然。如前所彈。今反此釋明真俗。故宜相待。只二諦正論相待。何者。由二諦相待故有二諦。若不相待。則無二諦。唯有一諦。何以故。若不相待。則無可簡別。混成一諦。要由相待顯別。所以得有二諦。雖二諦相待。要須
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在來說『相待』（相互依存）的含義。『諦』（真理）與『帶』（攜帶、包含）真俗二者，名為『真諦』（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）和『俗諦』（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）。討論『相待』，由於自性空是真俗的本質，所以顯現出來的『有』（存在）就是俗諦。同樣，由於瓶子、衣服等法是俗諦，所以顯現出自性空就是真諦。這就是通過真諦來顯現俗諦，通過空諦來顯現有諦，通過聖諦來顯現凡諦。就這個意義來說，闡明了二諦的相互依存關係。舉例來說，就像善人和惡人，直接說『人』是不能相互依存的，因為由此是善人，才能顯現出彼是惡人，善惡二者相互依存。二諦也是如此。接下來，破斥鄭氏關於二諦相互依存的解釋，駁斥他的錯誤理解，闡明山門（佛教宗派）的正確含義。駁斥他人，主要駁斥兩種人：一種是駁斥《成實論》的觀點，另一種是斥責學習三論宗卻不得要領的人。駁斥《成實論》的人，他們解釋俗諦完全是虛假的，這種解釋肯定是不對的。現在我不打算用三論宗的觀點來為難他們，因為他們不學習三論宗，聽了三論宗的觀點也不相信。我現在要用《涅槃經》的經文來駁斥他們。《涅槃經》說：『世人所知，名為世諦；出世人所知，名第一義諦。』如果你們認為完全虛假就是俗諦，那麼世人應該知道諸法完全是虛假的。既然有這個道理，世人怎麼可能知道諸法是虛假的呢？世人既然不知道諸法是虛假的，所以就不能把完全虛假作為俗諦。現在我解釋『諦』是真實義，正確地理解經文。世人所知，對於世人來說是真實的，名為世諦；出世人所知，對於出世人來說是真實的，名第一義諦。現在我可以這樣解釋，論述也是如此。所以說，世人如果不論述，就會被邪智所障礙。接下來，斥責學習三論宗卻不得要領的人，他們認為二諦的真俗不是相互依存的。二諦不是相互依存，這種說法是不對的。就像前面所駁斥的那樣，現在我反過來解釋，闡明真俗本來就應該相互依存。只有二諦的正確理論才是相互依存的。為什麼呢？因為由於二諦相互依存，所以才有二諦。如果不相互依存，就沒有二諦，只有一諦。為什麼呢？如果不相互依存，就沒有辦法區分，就會混成一諦。一定要通過相互依存才能顯現出差別，所以才會有二諦。雖然二諦相互依存，但一定要……
【English Translation】 English version: Now, let's discuss the meaning of 'saṃapekṣa' (dependent arising). 'Satya' (truth) that 'carries' or 'includes' both the real and the conventional is named 'paramārtha-satya' (ultimate truth) and 'saṃvṛti-satya' (conventional truth). When discussing 'saṃapekṣa', because emptiness of inherent existence is the essence of both real and conventional, the 'existence' that appears is the conventional truth. Similarly, because things like pots and clothes are conventional truth, the manifestation of emptiness of inherent existence is the ultimate truth. This is how the ultimate truth reveals the conventional truth, emptiness reveals existence, and the noble truth reveals the mundane truth. In this sense, the mutual dependence of the two truths is clarified. For example, like good people and bad people, we cannot directly say that 'people' are mutually dependent, because it is by this being a good person that the other is revealed as a bad person; good and bad are mutually dependent. The two truths are also like this. Next, I refute Zheng's interpretation of the mutual dependence of the two truths, refute his incorrect understanding, and clarify the correct meaning of the 'Shānmén' (Buddhist sect). Refuting others mainly involves refuting two types of people: one is refuting the views of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (Chengshi Lun), and the other is rebuking those who study the Three Treatise School but fail to grasp the essentials. Those who refute the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra believe that their explanation of conventional truth is completely false, and this explanation is definitely wrong. Now I do not intend to make things difficult for them with the views of the Three Treatise School, because they do not study the Three Treatise School and do not believe the views of the Three Treatise School when they hear them. I will now refute them with the text of the Nirvana Sutra. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'What worldly people know is called worldly truth; what supramundane people know is called the ultimate truth.' If you think that complete falsity is conventional truth, then worldly people should know that all dharmas are completely false. Since there is this principle, how can worldly people know that all dharmas are false? Since worldly people do not know that all dharmas are false, they cannot regard complete falsity as conventional truth. Now I explain that 'satya' is the meaning of reality, and correctly understand the sutra text. What worldly people know is real for worldly people, and is called worldly truth; what supramundane people know is real for supramundane people, and is called ultimate truth. Now I can explain it this way, and the discussion is also like this. Therefore, it is said that if worldly people do not discuss, they will be obstructed by wrong wisdom. Next, rebuking those who study the Three Treatise School but fail to grasp the essentials, they believe that the real and conventional of the two truths are not mutually dependent. The two truths are not mutually dependent, this statement is incorrect. Just like the previous refutation, now I explain it in reverse, clarifying that the real and conventional should be mutually dependent. Only the correct theory of the two truths is mutually dependent. Why? Because the two truths are mutually dependent, there are two truths. If they are not mutually dependent, there are no two truths, only one truth. Why? If they are not mutually dependent, there is no way to distinguish them, and they will be mixed into one truth. It is necessary to show the difference through mutual dependence, so there are two truths. Although the two truths are mutually dependent, it is necessary to...
真俗標別。由真諦顯是俗諦。由俗諦顯是真諦。故真俗二諦待。雖真俗二諦待。正是二諦待。正是二諦待故。經論皆云諸佛常依二諦說法。二諦若不待。則無二諦。無二諦佛無所依。故是二諦相待也。問若爾用真俗何為耶。解云。真俗標別。二諦明此是真諦此是俗諦。由真諦顯彼是俗諦。猶如一赤色雖同是赤色。而色有勝劣。此是劣赤此是勝赤。由劣赤顯此是勝赤。勝劣兩赤待。二諦亦爾。俗是劣諦真是勝諦。勝劣兩諦待。凡聖空有真俗皆例爾。問此為教諦待。為于諦待耶。解云。教諦待義易。于諦相待難解。為此義故。今開三句釋之。一者俗于諦。唯有不待無有待義。二者真于諦。亦待亦不待。三者教諦。唯待無不待。言俗于諦唯不待者。凡夫知實有。不知性空。但有俗諦無有真諦。既無真諦。故無相待。若知真諦。即知俗虛俗即非諦。此亦無待。以其不知真故。無真諦可待。若知真則無俗諦可待。故俗于無有二諦待義也。真于諦亦待亦不待者。言無待者。例如俗真于聖實故真是諦。聖知俗虛妄不實。俗于聖非諦。若爾唯真是諦。俗非諦。俗非諦故。不得有二諦待也。言亦有待者。聖有權實二智。就權智中有兩知。一知俗虛于聖非諦。二知俗虛于凡是諦。就此而論。亦有二諦待義也。言教諦唯待無不待者。此義易知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 真俗的區分在於，通過真諦來彰顯俗諦，通過俗諦來彰顯真諦。所以，真諦和俗諦是相互依存的。正因為二諦相互依存，所以經論中都說諸佛總是依據二諦來說法。如果二諦不相互依存，那就沒有二諦可言。沒有二諦，佛就沒有所依據。所以說二諦是相互依存的。 問：如果這樣，那麼設立真俗二諦有什麼用呢？ 答：設立真俗二諦是爲了標明區分，說明這個是真諦，那個是俗諦。通過真諦來彰顯那個是俗諦，就像同爲紅色，但顏色有優劣之分，這個是劣等的紅色，那個是優等的紅色。通過劣等的紅色來彰顯這個是優等的紅色，優劣兩種紅色相互依存。二諦也是這樣，俗諦是劣等的諦，真諦是優等的諦，優劣兩種諦相互依存。凡夫和聖人、空和有、真和俗，都可以依此類推。 問：這是教義上的諦相互依存，還是本體上的諦相互依存呢？ 答：教義上的諦相互依存容易理解，本體上的諦相互依存難以理解。爲了說明這個道理，現在分為三句話來解釋：一是俗諦對於本體諦，只有不依存，沒有依存的意義；二是真諦對於本體諦，既依存又不依存；三是教義上的諦，只有依存，沒有不依存。 說俗諦對於本體諦只有不依存，是因為凡夫認為實有，不知道性空，只有俗諦而沒有真諦。既然沒有真諦，就沒有相互依存。如果知道真諦，就知道俗諦是虛妄的，俗諦就不是諦。這樣也沒有依存。因為凡夫不知道真諦，所以沒有真諦可以依存。如果知道真諦，就沒有俗諦可以依存。所以說俗諦對於本體諦沒有二諦相互依存的意義。真諦對於本體諦既依存又不依存，說不依存，例如俗諦對於聖人來說是真實的，所以真諦是諦。聖人知道俗諦是虛妄不實的，俗諦對於聖人來說不是諦。如果這樣，只有真諦是諦，俗諦不是諦。俗諦不是諦，就不能有二諦相互依存。 說也有依存，是因為聖人有權智和實智兩種智慧。就權智中又有兩種認知：一是知道俗諦是虛妄的，對於聖人來說不是諦；二是知道俗諦是虛妄的，對於凡夫來說是諦。就此而言，也有二諦相互依存的意義。說教義上的諦只有依存沒有不依存，這個道理容易理解。
【English Translation】 English version The distinction between truth and convention lies in that the conventional truth (俗諦, Sūdhi-satya) is revealed through the ultimate truth (真諦, Paramārtha-satya), and the ultimate truth is revealed through the conventional truth. Therefore, the two truths are interdependent. Precisely because the two truths are interdependent, scriptures and treatises all say that all Buddhas always teach according to the two truths. If the two truths were not interdependent, there would be no two truths. Without the two truths, the Buddha would have nothing to rely on. Therefore, it is said that the two truths are interdependent. Question: If that is the case, then what is the use of establishing the two truths of truth and convention? Answer: Establishing the two truths of truth and convention is to mark the distinction, to explain that this is the ultimate truth and that is the conventional truth. The conventional truth is revealed through the ultimate truth, just as, although both are red, colors have superior and inferior distinctions; this is an inferior red, and that is a superior red. The superior red is revealed through the inferior red, and the two reds, superior and inferior, are interdependent. The two truths are also like this: the conventional truth is the inferior truth, and the ultimate truth is the superior truth. The two truths, superior and inferior, are interdependent. The same principle applies to ordinary people and sages, emptiness and existence, truth and convention. Question: Is this the interdependence of truths in terms of doctrine, or the interdependence of truths in terms of essence? Answer: The interdependence of truths in terms of doctrine is easy to understand, but the interdependence of truths in terms of essence is difficult to understand. To explain this principle, I will now explain it in three sentences: First, the conventional truth in relation to the essential truth has only non-dependence and no meaning of dependence; second, the ultimate truth in relation to the essential truth is both dependent and non-dependent; third, the doctrinal truth has only dependence and no non-dependence. The reason for saying that the conventional truth has only non-dependence in relation to the essential truth is that ordinary people believe in real existence and do not know the emptiness of nature; they have only the conventional truth and no ultimate truth. Since there is no ultimate truth, there is no interdependence. If they know the ultimate truth, they know that the conventional truth is false, and the conventional truth is not truth. There is also no dependence in this case. Because ordinary people do not know the ultimate truth, there is no ultimate truth to depend on. If they know the ultimate truth, there is no conventional truth to depend on. Therefore, it is said that the conventional truth has no meaning of interdependence of the two truths in relation to the essential truth. The ultimate truth is both dependent and non-dependent in relation to the essential truth. The reason for saying non-dependence is, for example, that the conventional truth is real for sages, so the ultimate truth is truth. Sages know that the conventional truth is false and unreal, and the conventional truth is not truth for sages. If that is the case, only the ultimate truth is truth, and the conventional truth is not truth. Since the conventional truth is not truth, there can be no interdependence of the two truths. The reason for saying that there is also dependence is that sages have two kinds of wisdom: expedient wisdom (權智) and real wisdom (實智). In expedient wisdom, there are two kinds of cognition: first, knowing that the conventional truth is false and not truth for sages; second, knowing that the conventional truth is false and truth for ordinary people. In this regard, there is also the meaning of interdependence of the two truths. The reason for saying that the doctrinal truth has only dependence and no non-dependence is easy to understand.
。如來因緣有無教諦。有名無有。無名有無。有無皆是因緣假名義。所以華嚴云。諦了分別諸法時。無有自性。假名說故。有無教諦。皆是因緣假名義也。次更正前二于諦待義。明凡於諦無待義。但聖于諦有待義。有兩種待。一者知俗于聖虛。即虛實待。二者知俗于凡實。即兩實待。兩諦待也。凡於諦無兩種待。一者凡不知真故。無虛實待。二者凡不知真。于聖實故。無兩實待。此則聖于有待。凡於無待。以聖于有待。是得是悟是因緣。以凡於無待故。是失是迷是自性。此正開能所得失凡聖故也。然二諦雖有十重。余重不可要急。今遂要急者以辨之。涅槃聖行品。明十種二諦義。今次第依經釋之。經中。前文殊問。次如來釋。文殊問中有三。一牒二定開三詰難。文殊白佛言。世尊所說世諦第一義諦。其義云何。即牒二諦。世尊第一義中。有世諦不。世諦之中。有第一義不。即定開。如其有者。即是一諦。第三詰難。亦前是領佛語。次問佛語。第三難佛語。難中有二。初難第一義中有世諦義。然此中言有者。非如穴中有蛇屋中有人。人屋二諦。論有今言有者。乃明。世諦即第一義諦。二諦一義。名之為有也。舉譬如僧佉因中有果。因果一體。名之為有也。為是故難云。如其有者。即是一諦也。如其無者。將非如來虛妄說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如來因緣有無教諦嗎？有名字但沒有實際存在，沒有名字但有實際存在，有和沒有都是因緣和合的假名而已。《華嚴經》中說：『仔細分辨諸法時，沒有自性，只是假名安立。』所以，有和沒有的教諦，都是因緣和合的假名之義。 其次，進一步糾正前面關於二諦的對待之義，闡明凡夫對於諦理沒有對待之義，只有聖人對於諦理有對待之義。有兩種對待：一是知道世俗相對於聖諦是虛假的，即虛實對待；二是知道世俗相對於凡夫是真實的，即兩實對待，也就是二諦的對待。 凡夫對於諦理沒有這兩種對待：一是凡夫不知道真諦，所以沒有虛實對待；二是凡夫不知道真諦，認為相對於聖諦是真實的，所以沒有兩實對待。這就是聖人對於有（存在）有對待，凡夫對於無（空無）有對待。聖人對於有對待，所以能夠獲得和領悟，是因緣所生；凡夫對於無對待，所以會迷失和迷惑，執著于自性。這正是爲了開顯能得、所得、迷失的凡夫和聖人。 雖然二諦有十重含義，但其餘的含義並非緊要。現在就緊要的含義來辨析。《涅槃經·聖行品》闡明了十種二諦之義，現在依次根據經文來解釋。經文中，先是文殊菩薩提問，然後是如來佛解釋。文殊菩薩的提問中有三點：一是總述，二是確定，三是詰難。文殊菩薩對佛說：『世尊所說的世諦（saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦）和第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，真諦），其含義是什麼？』這就是總述二諦。『世尊，在第一義諦中，有世諦嗎？在世諦之中，有第一義諦嗎？』這就是確定。如果存在，那就是一諦。第三是詰難。這也是先領會佛語，再提問佛語，第三是詰難佛語。詰難中有兩點，首先是詰難第一義諦中有世諦的含義。這裡所說的『有』，不是像洞穴中有蛇，房屋中有人那樣，人與房屋是二諦。現在所說的『有』，是闡明世諦即是第一義諦，二諦是一體的含義，稱之為『有』。比如數論（Sāṃkhya）中，因中有果，因果一體，稱之為『有』。因此詰難說：『如果存在，那就是一諦。』如果不存在，難道不是如來在虛妄說法嗎？
【English Translation】 English version Does the Tathāgata's (如來，one who has thus gone) teaching on causality involve existence or non-existence? There is a name but no actual existence; there is no name but there is actual existence. Both existence and non-existence are merely provisional names arising from conditions. As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經，Flower Garland Sutra) says: 'When carefully distinguishing all dharmas (法，phenomena), there is no self-nature (自性，svabhāva); they are spoken of as provisional names.' Therefore, the teaching on existence and non-existence is merely the meaning of provisional names arising from conditions. Next, further correcting the previous understanding of the relative meaning of the two truths (二諦，two truths), it clarifies that ordinary beings have no relative meaning towards the truths, only sages have relative meaning towards the truths. There are two kinds of relativity: one is knowing that the mundane is false relative to the sacred, which is the relativity of falsity and truth; the other is knowing that the mundane is real relative to ordinary beings, which is the relativity of two realities, that is, the relativity of the two truths. Ordinary beings have neither of these two kinds of relativity towards the truths: one is that ordinary beings do not know the ultimate truth, so there is no relativity of falsity and truth; the other is that ordinary beings do not know the ultimate truth, and consider themselves real relative to the sacred, so there is no relativity of two realities. This means that sages have relativity towards existence, while ordinary beings have relativity towards non-existence. Because sages have relativity towards existence, they can attain and realize, which arises from conditions; because ordinary beings have relativity towards non-existence, they will be lost and confused, clinging to self-nature. This is precisely to reveal the attainable, the attained, and the lost ordinary beings and sages. Although the two truths have ten layers of meaning, the remaining meanings are not essential. Now, let's analyze the essential meanings. The 'Sacred Conduct Chapter' of the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經，Nirvana Sutra) clarifies the ten kinds of meanings of the two truths, which will now be explained according to the sutra. In the sutra, first Mañjuśrī (文殊，Manjushri) asks, then the Tathāgata explains. Mañjuśrī's question has three points: one is a summary, two is a confirmation, and three is a challenge. Mañjuśrī said to the Buddha: 'World-Honored One, what is the meaning of the mundane truth (saṃvṛti-satya, 世諦) and the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, 第一義諦) that you have spoken of?' This is the summary of the two truths. 'World-Honored One, is there mundane truth in the ultimate truth? Is there ultimate truth in the mundane truth?' This is the confirmation. If it exists, then it is one truth. The third is the challenge. This is also first understanding the Buddha's words, then questioning the Buddha's words, and thirdly challenging the Buddha's words. There are two points in the challenge, the first is challenging the meaning that there is mundane truth in the ultimate truth. The 'existence' mentioned here is not like there is a snake in a cave or a person in a house, where the person and the house are two truths. The 'existence' mentioned now is to clarify that the mundane truth is the ultimate truth, and the two truths are one meaning, which is called 'existence'. For example, in Sāṃkhya (僧佉，Samkhya), there is a result in the cause, and the cause and result are one, which is called 'existence'. Therefore, the challenge says: 'If it exists, then it is one truth.' If it does not exist, isn't the Tathāgata speaking falsely?'
耶。第二難第一義中無世諦。前難若有即是一。今難無則是二。如外道僧佉因中有果是一。衛世因中無果即是二。今亦爾。如其有即是一諦。如其無當知是二諦也。問既有二諦。若為言虛妄耶。解云。有兩義故虛妄。一者即事虛妄。二者遠望虛妄。言即事虛妄者。那得有二諦。諦是實義。唯有一實。唯有一諦。若有二諦。則應有二道。諸有二者。無道無果。道既無二。諦那應有二。故云將非如來虛妄說耶。言遠望者。明若第一義中無有世諦。乖大乘經。佛從來於諸摩訶衍經中。說真即俗俗即真。如大品。須菩提問云。世諦第一義諦異耶。佛答云。世諦如即第一義諦。如是二。無二無別。今若有二諦者。將非如來虛妄說耶。進退兩關難也。善男子。世諦即第一義諦。此佛答彼二難。答二難者。即前一關通。后一難印。前者明世諦即第一義諦。如汝所言也。答後者明此難虛設。何者我明。唯有一諦無有二諦。但明有義不明無義。故無虛妄之過也。斯則一即之言。二難雙拆也。世尊若爾即無二諦。此更別難。若世諦即第一義諦。即無二諦。佛何意從來說有二諦。又云諸佛常依二諦說法耶。佛答云。有善方便。隨順眾生。說有二諦。即答前一難。明道理唯有一真諦無有二諦。而言二諦者。善巧方便。隨順眾生。說有二諦。隨凡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 耶。第二難，第一義中沒有世俗諦（samvriti-satya，相對真理）。之前的難點如果存在，那就是一。現在的難點如果不存在，那就是二。例如外道僧佉派認為因中存在果，這是一。衛世派認為因中沒有果，這是二。現在也是這樣。如果存在，那就是一諦。如果不存在，應當知道是二諦。問：既然有二諦，為什麼說是虛妄呢？解答說：因為有兩個方面的意義所以是虛妄。一是即事虛妄，二是遠望虛妄。說即事虛妄，怎麼會有二諦呢？諦是真實的意思，只有一實，只有一諦。如果有二諦，那就應該有二道。凡是有二的，就沒有道，沒有果。道既然沒有二，諦怎麼應該有二呢？所以說，難道不是如來虛妄說嗎？說遠望虛妄，是說明如果第一義中沒有世俗諦，就違背了大乘經典。佛從來在諸摩訶衍經中，說真即是俗，俗即是真。如《大品般若經》，須菩提問：世俗諦和第一義諦是不同的嗎？佛回答說：世俗諦如就是第一義諦，這樣二者無二無別。現在如果有二諦，難道不是如來虛妄說嗎？這是進退兩方面的難點。善男子，世俗諦就是第一義諦。這是佛回答那兩個難點。回答兩個難點，就是前一個關卡通過，后一個難點被印證。前者說明世俗諦就是第一義諦，如你所說。回答後者說明這個難點是虛設的。為什麼呢？我說明只有一諦，沒有二諦。只是說明有義，不明無義，所以沒有虛妄的過失。這就是『一即』之言，兩個難點都被拆解了。世尊，如果這樣就沒有二諦了。這是另外一個難點。如果世俗諦就是第一義諦，就沒有二諦。佛為什麼一直說有二諦？又說諸佛常依二諦說法呢？佛回答說：有善巧方便，隨順眾生，說有二諦。這是回答前一個難點。說明道理上只有一真諦，沒有二諦。而說二諦，是善巧方便，隨順眾生，說有二諦，隨順凡夫。
【English Translation】 English version Yea. In the second difficulty, there is no samvriti-satya (conventional truth) in the first principle. If the previous difficulty exists, then it is one. If the current difficulty does not exist, then it is two. For example, the Samkhya (Sāṃkhya) school of externalists believes that the effect exists in the cause, which is one. The Vaisheshika (Vaiśeṣika) school believes that there is no effect in the cause, which is two. It is the same now. If it exists, then it is one truth. If it does not exist, then it should be known as two truths. Question: Since there are two truths, why is it said to be false? The answer is: Because there are two aspects of meaning, it is false. First, it is false in terms of the matter itself; second, it is false from a distant perspective. Saying it is false in terms of the matter itself, how can there be two truths? Truth is the meaning of reality. There is only one reality, only one truth. If there are two truths, then there should be two paths. Whoever has two has no path and no fruit. Since the path is not two, how should the truth be two? Therefore, it is said, 'Isn't it that the Tathagata (Tathāgata) speaks falsely?' Saying it is false from a distant perspective means that if there is no samvriti-satya in the first principle, it violates the Mahayana (Mahāyāna) sutras. The Buddha (Buddha) has always said in the Mahayana sutras that truth is the same as convention, and convention is the same as truth. As in the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra), Subhuti (Subhūti) asks: Are samvriti-satya and paramartha-satya (ultimate truth) different? The Buddha answers: Samvriti-satya is the same as paramartha-satya. Thus, the two are neither two nor different. Now, if there are two truths, isn't it that the Tathagata speaks falsely? This is a difficulty from both advancing and retreating. Good man, samvriti-satya is paramartha-satya. This is the Buddha's answer to those two difficulties. Answering the two difficulties means that the previous barrier is passed, and the latter difficulty is confirmed. The former explains that samvriti-satya is paramartha-satya, as you said. The latter answers that this difficulty is hypothetical. Why? I explain that there is only one truth, not two truths. It only explains the meaning of existence, not the meaning of non-existence, so there is no fault of falsehood. This is the word of 'one is,' and both difficulties are dismantled. World Honored One (Lokasenna), if so, then there are no two truths. This is another difficulty. If samvriti-satya is paramartha-satya, then there are no two truths. Why has the Buddha always said that there are two truths? And also said that all Buddhas always teach according to the two truths? The Buddha answers: There are skillful means, according to sentient beings, saying that there are two truths. This is the answer to the previous difficulty. It explains that in principle, there is only one true truth, not two truths. And saying two truths is a skillful means, according to sentient beings, saying that there are two truths, according to ordinary beings.
有說有。隨聖空說空。隨兩緣故說二諦也。然此兩隨但為一緣。兩隨不同也。兩隨但為一緣者。隨凡說有為凡。隨聖說空亦為凡也。隨聖說空亦為凡者。聖如實悟空。今還說聖所悟。引化凡夫也。兩隨異者。隨凡說有為凡。隨聖說空不為聖。一往開得失二諦。此是能化之聖。何須為說耶。問若為凡說空不為聖者。何故有佛話經卻除諸菩薩兩佛共話。此則佛佛相為也。今明。佛話不為佛。佛話為眾生。若不為眾生。佛則非話。故隨凡說有。亦為凡。隨聖說空。亦為凡。不為佛也。善男子。如出世人所知者。名第一義諦。世人之所知者名為世諦者。前明依二諦說。今明所依二諦。即前是教二諦。今是於二諦。然此文與中論一種。故三論義可信也。中論云。世間顛倒謂有。於世人名俗諦。諸賢聖真知諸法空。于聖人名第一義諦。如此文。世人知名世諦。出世人知名第一義諦也。論次云依是二諦為眾生說法。即是此云隨順眾生說有二諦。隨世人說世諦。隨出世人說第一義諦也。成實論義壞。今明。隨眾生故說二諦。何時道理有二諦耶。二諦義若壞。一切義壞也。次更簡前一句。前既云世諦即第一義。可得第一義諦即世諦不。解云。通皆得。于聖唯有真諦。世諦即第一義諦。亦于凡唯有世諦。第一義諦即世諦。通論皆得。但今正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有說有（存在即存在）。隨著聖空（證悟空性的聖者）說空（空性）。隨著兩種因緣的緣故說二諦（兩種真理：世俗諦和勝義諦）。然而，這兩種隨順只是爲了一個因緣。兩種隨順並不相同。兩種隨順只是爲了一個因緣，是指隨著凡夫說有，是爲了凡夫；隨著聖者說空，也是爲了凡夫。隨著聖者說空也是爲了凡夫，是因為聖者如實地證悟了空性，現在還說聖者所證悟的，是爲了引導教化凡夫。兩種隨順不同，是指隨著凡夫說有，是爲了凡夫；隨著聖者說空，不是爲了聖者。一般而言，開示了得失二諦。這是能教化的聖者，何須為他說法呢？問：如果為凡夫說空不是爲了聖者，那麼為什麼有佛陀說法經典，卻排除了諸菩薩，只有兩尊佛共同對話？這豈不是佛佛相互說法嗎？現在說明，佛陀說法不是爲了佛陀，佛陀說法是爲了眾生。如果不爲了眾生，佛陀就不需要說法。所以，隨著凡夫說有，也是爲了凡夫；隨著聖者說空，也是爲了凡夫，不是爲了佛陀。善男子，如出世之人所知曉的，名為第一義諦（勝義諦， ultimate truth）；世間之人所知曉的，名為世諦（世俗諦， conventional truth）。前面說明了依二諦說法，現在說明所依的二諦。前面是教二諦（作為教法的二諦），現在是於二諦（關於二諦的理解）。然而，這段文字與《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）的觀點一致，所以三論宗（Sanlun school）的義理是可信的。《中論》說：『世間顛倒地認為有，對於世人來說，名為俗諦。諸賢聖真實地知曉諸法空，對於聖人來說，名為第一義諦。』如此文所說，世人知曉的名為世諦，出世之人知曉的名為第一義諦。《中論》接著說：『依靠這二諦為眾生說法。』就是這裡所說的隨順眾生說有二諦，隨順世人說世諦，隨順出世之人說第一義諦。成實論（Satyasiddhi Shastra）的義理是錯誤的。現在說明，隨著眾生的根器而說二諦，什麼時候道理上會有二諦呢？二諦的義理如果被破壞，一切義理都會被破壞。接下來更進一步地簡擇前一句。前面既然說世諦即是第一義諦，那麼可以得到第一義諦即是世諦嗎？解釋說：普遍來說都可以。對於聖者來說，唯有真諦（勝義諦），世諦即是第一義諦；對於凡夫來說，唯有世諦，第一義諦即是世諦。通盤來說都可以，但現在正是要...
【English Translation】 English version There is 'having' because there is 'having'. Following the 'emptiness' (Śūnyatā) spoken by the Holy Empty (Śūnyatā), following the two conditions, the two truths (Dve Satye) are spoken. However, these two followings are only for one condition. The two followings are not the same. The two followings are only for one condition, meaning that following the ordinary person to speak of 'having' is for the ordinary person; following the holy person to speak of 'emptiness' is also for the ordinary person. Following the holy person to speak of 'emptiness' is also for the ordinary person because the holy person truly realizes emptiness, and now still speaks of what the holy person has realized, in order to guide and transform ordinary people. The two followings are different, meaning that following the ordinary person to speak of 'having' is for the ordinary person; following the holy person to speak of 'emptiness' is not for the holy person. Generally speaking, the two truths of gain and loss are revealed. This is the holy person who can transform, why is there a need to speak to them? Question: If speaking of emptiness for ordinary people is not for holy people, then why are there Buddhist scriptures where the Buddhas speak, but exclude the Bodhisattvas, with only two Buddhas speaking together? Isn't this the Buddhas speaking to each other? Now it is explained that the Buddha's speaking is not for the Buddha, the Buddha's speaking is for sentient beings. If it is not for sentient beings, then the Buddha does not need to speak. Therefore, following the ordinary person to speak of 'having' is also for the ordinary person; following the holy person to speak of 'emptiness' is also for the ordinary person, not for the Buddha. Good man, what is known by those who have transcended the world is called the First Truth (Paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth); what is known by the people of the world is called the Worldly Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya, conventional truth). The previous explanation was based on speaking according to the two truths, now explaining the two truths that are relied upon. The previous was the two truths as teachings, now it is the understanding of the two truths. However, this passage is consistent with the views of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way), so the meaning of the Sanlun school (Three Treatise School) is credible. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'The world mistakenly believes in existence, for the people of the world, it is called the conventional truth. The wise and holy truly know that all dharmas are empty, for the holy people, it is called the ultimate truth.' As this passage says, what the people of the world know is called the conventional truth, what those who have transcended the world know is called the ultimate truth. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā continues: 'Relying on these two truths to speak to sentient beings.' This is what is said here, following sentient beings to speak of the two truths, following the people of the world to speak of the conventional truth, following those who have transcended the world to speak of the ultimate truth. The meaning of the Satyasiddhi Shastra (Treatise on the Accomplishment of Truth) is wrong. Now it is explained that the two truths are spoken according to the capacity of sentient beings, when will there be two truths in principle? If the meaning of the two truths is destroyed, all meanings will be destroyed. Next, further refine the previous sentence. Since it was previously said that the conventional truth is the ultimate truth, can it be obtained that the ultimate truth is the conventional truth? The explanation is: generally speaking, it is possible. For the holy person, there is only the true truth (ultimate truth), the conventional truth is the ultimate truth; for the ordinary person, there is only the conventional truth, the ultimate truth is the conventional truth. Generally speaking, it is possible, but now it is precisely...
是世諦即第一義諦。唯有真諦無有俗諦。何者。唯真是實俗非實。唯有一如無二如。唯有一真無二真。故無世諦也。而今有二諦者。有二義。一者隨順眾生故說有二諦。即教諦。二者于眾生有二諦。即于諦也。然于教二諦。他家所無。唯山門相承有此義也。問此經何意明於教二諦耶。解云。為答文殊與大眾疑。謂唯有一諦。正作無二諦難。為是義故。佛開于教二諦答之。明善方便隨順眾生說有二諦。何意無二諦耶。次云。世人知者名世諦。出世人知者名第一義諦。何意無二諦。前隨眾生說。即二教諦。世出世人知。即二于諦。為釋無二諦疑故。明於教二種二諦也。問經明於教二諦可如此。論何意明於教二諦耶。解云。百論正為諸外道不識不聞如來二諦。所謂迦毗羅論等。昔所不聞。昔所不識。為其不識二諦。所以論主。示其二諦也。中論明。二諦者通為一切。但正為內學不識大乘二諦。如薩衛等五百論師。不識諸法性空二諦。此則與百論挍一節。有小乘二諦大乘二諦。百論緣皆不識二諦。為彼不識故。提婆示大乘二諦。此即簡異數論。數論亦破外道。百論亦破外道。何異。解云。大異。數論破外道示小乘法。故是小乘論。百論破外道示大乘二諦法。故是大乘論也。若是中論。緣已學佛小乘二諦。不識大乘本性空二諦。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『是世諦（Samvriti-satya，俗諦）即第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，真諦）。唯有真諦，沒有俗諦。』為什麼呢？因為只有真才是真實的，俗不是真實的。只有一如，沒有二如。只有一真，沒有二真。所以沒有世諦。而現在說有二諦，是因為有兩種意義：第一，隨順眾生的根器，所以說有二諦，這是教諦；第二，對於眾生來說，確實存在二諦，這是于諦。然而，教二諦是其他學派所沒有的，只有山門（指作者所在的宗派）相承有這種說法。問：這部經的用意是什麼，要闡明教二諦呢？答：是爲了回答文殊菩薩和大眾的疑問，他們認為只有一諦，正是要提出沒有二諦的疑問。爲了這個緣故，佛陀開示教二諦來回答他們，說明善巧方便地隨順眾生而說有二諦。為什麼說沒有二諦呢？接下來又說：『世人所知的是世諦，出世人所知的是第一義諦。』為什麼說沒有二諦呢？前面所說的隨順眾生而說，就是二教諦；世人和出世人所知，就是二于諦。爲了解釋沒有二諦的疑問，所以闡明教二種二諦。問：經文中闡明教二諦可以這樣理解，那麼論的用意是什麼，要闡明教二諦呢？答：《百論》正是爲了那些外道不認識、不聽聞如來的二諦，比如迦毗羅（Kapila）的理論等，過去沒有聽聞過，過去沒有認識過。因為他們不認識二諦，所以論主才開示二諦。《中論》闡明二諦，是普遍針對一切的，但主要是針對內部學派不認識大乘二諦，比如薩衛（Sarvastivadins）等五百論師，不認識諸法性空的二諦。這與《百論》相比，有一個區別，即有小乘二諦和大乘二諦。《百論》的緣起是他們都不認識二諦，爲了他們不認識的緣故，提婆（Aryadeva）才開示大乘二諦。這就可以區分于數論（Samkhya）。數論也破斥外道，《百論》也破斥外道，有什麼不同呢？答：有很大的不同。數論破斥外道，是開示小乘法，所以是小乘論。《百論》破斥外道，是開示大乘二諦法，所以是大乘論。如果是《中論》，緣起是已經學習了佛法小乘二諦，但不認識大乘本性空的二諦。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The Samvriti-satya (conventional truth) is the same as the Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth). There is only ultimate truth, and no conventional truth.' Why? Because only truth is real, and the conventional is not real. There is only one suchness, not two suchnesses. There is only one truth, not two truths. Therefore, there is no conventional truth. But now, the reason for saying there are two truths is because there are two meanings: first, to accord with sentient beings, it is said there are two truths, which is the teaching truth (doctrinal truth); second, for sentient beings, there are indeed two truths, which is the truth in reality. However, the teaching two truths are not found in other schools; only our school (referring to the author's sect) has inherited this meaning. Question: What is the intention of this sutra in clarifying the teaching two truths? Answer: It is to answer the doubts of Manjushri (Bodhisattva of wisdom) and the assembly, who believe there is only one truth, and are precisely questioning the absence of two truths. For this reason, the Buddha reveals the teaching two truths to answer them, explaining that skillfully adapting to sentient beings, it is said there are two truths. Why is it said there are no two truths? Next, it says: 'What worldly people know is the conventional truth, and what transcendent people know is the ultimate truth.' Why is it said there are no two truths? The aforementioned saying that accords with sentient beings is the two teaching truths; what worldly and transcendent people know is the two truths in reality. To resolve the doubt of no two truths, the two kinds of teaching two truths are clarified. Question: It is understandable that the sutra clarifies the teaching two truths in this way, but what is the intention of the treatise in clarifying the teaching two truths? Answer: The Shastra on the Hundred Verses (Śataśāstra) is precisely for those non-Buddhist who do not recognize or hear the two truths of the Tathagata (Buddha), such as the theories of Kapila (founder of Samkhya school), which they have not heard or recognized in the past. Because they do not recognize the two truths, the author of the treatise reveals the two truths. The Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) clarifies the two truths universally for everything, but mainly for internal schools that do not recognize the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) two truths, such as the five hundred teachers of the Sarvastivadins (a major early Buddhist school), who do not recognize the two truths of the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas (phenomena). This differs from the Shastra on the Hundred Verses in that there are Hinayana (Small Vehicle) two truths and Mahayana two truths. The cause of the Shastra on the Hundred Verses is that they all do not recognize the two truths; because they do not recognize them, Aryadeva (a disciple of Nagarjuna) reveals the Mahayana two truths. This distinguishes it from Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy). Samkhya also refutes non-Buddhists, and the Shastra on the Hundred Verses also refutes non-Buddhists. What is the difference? Answer: There is a great difference. Samkhya refutes non-Buddhists and reveals the Hinayana dharma, so it is a Hinayana treatise. The Shastra on the Hundred Verses refutes non-Buddhists and reveals the Mahayana two truths dharma, so it is a Mahayana treatise. As for the Treatise on the Middle Way, the cause is that they have already learned the Hinayana two truths of Buddhism, but do not recognize the Mahayana two truths of the emptiness of inherent nature.
為是故。龍樹菩薩。明大乘本性空二諦也。今此經並異兩論。何者。文殊與大眾。已解二諦。但疑無二諦故。佛明有二諦也。善男子。五陰和合有眾生名世諦。即陰離陰。無眾生名第一義諦。此下更就異義。約法廣明二諦義。不同前明教二諦次明於二諦。世人知者名世諦。世出人知者名第一義諦。今第三就我無我明二諦。與前異。前明二諦。通直明世人知名世諦。世出人知名第一義諦。不判有人無人有法無法。今的就有人無人明二諦也。善男子。或有法有名有實。第四二諦。前就人明二諦。今就法明二諦。前就真俗明二諦。今就世諦中更開二諦。前就真俗明二諦者。我是世諦。無我第一義諦。大論云。人等世界故有。第一義諦則無也。今就世諦中自明二諦者。世諦者。世諦法中。自有有名有實。自有有名無實。有名有實為第一義諦。有名無實為世諦。如火水等物。有名有實。有實者有實義。為實有義。應名有名。表義故為第一義諦。有名無實者。如蛇床虎杖。大論云。草名朱利。此云賊。何其曾作賊。但有假名。無有實義應。名以無實義故為世諦。此則就於虛實判二諦也。善男子。如我眾生第五二諦義。此就事理明二諦義。束前有名有實有名無實。併爲世諦。苦集滅道為第一義諦。何者。陰界入等有名有實。龜毛等即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，龍樹菩薩闡明了大乘的本性空和二諦。現在這部經與之前的兩種論述有所不同。哪裡不同呢？文殊菩薩與大眾已經理解了二諦，但疑惑是否真的存在二諦，所以佛陀闡明了二諦的存在。善男子，五陰和合而有眾生之名，這是世俗諦；離開五陰，則無眾生之名，這是第一義諦。 下面進一步就不同的意義，從法的角度廣泛闡明二諦的含義，與之前先闡明教二諦，再闡明二諦不同。世間人所知的是世俗諦，超出世間的人所知的是第一義諦。現在第三種是從有我、無我的角度闡明二諦，與之前不同。之前闡明二諦，是直接闡明世間人所知的是世俗諦，超出世間的人所知的是第一義諦，不區分有人無人、有法無法。現在明確地就有人無人來闡明二諦。 善男子，或者有法有名有實，這是第四種二諦。之前是從人的角度闡明二諦，現在是從法的角度闡明二諦。之前是從真諦俗諦的角度闡明二諦，現在是從世俗諦中進一步區分二諦。之前從真諦俗諦的角度闡明二諦，我是世俗諦，無我是第一義諦。《大智度論》說，人等是依世界而存在，第一義諦中則沒有。現在從世俗諦中自身闡明二諦，世俗諦中，有的是有名有實，有的是有名無實。有名有實的是第一義諦，有名無實的是世俗諦。例如火、水等事物，有名有實，有實義，因為有真實的意義，所以應該稱為有名，表述意義，所以是第一義諦。有名無實的事物，例如蛇床、虎杖。《大智度論》說，草的名字叫朱利（Zhuli），翻譯成漢語是賊，它何曾做過賊？只是有假名，沒有實際意義，所以因為沒有實際意義而稱為世俗諦。這是就虛實來判斷二諦。 善男子，如我、眾生，這是第五種二諦義。這是就事和理來闡明二諦的含義。將之前的有名有實、有名無實，都歸為世俗諦。苦、集、滅、道是第一義諦。為什麼呢？陰、界、入等有名有實，龜毛等即
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, Bodhisattva Nagarjuna (Longshu Pusa, a famous Buddhist philosopher) clarifies the emptiness of inherent nature and the two truths (er di) of Mahayana (Da cheng, the Great Vehicle). Now, this sutra differs from the previous two treatises. How so? Manjushri (Wenshu, a Bodhisattva representing wisdom) and the assembly have already understood the two truths, but doubt whether the two truths truly exist, so the Buddha clarifies the existence of the two truths. Good son, the combination of the five skandhas (wu yin, aggregates of existence) is called 'sentient being,' which is the conventional truth (shi di); apart from the five skandhas, there is no 'sentient being,' which is the ultimate truth (di yi yi di). Below, further elaborating on the meaning of the two truths from the perspective of dharma (fa, teachings), differing from previously clarifying the teaching of the two truths first, then clarifying the two truths. What worldly people know is the conventional truth; what those who transcend the world know is the ultimate truth. Now, the third is to clarify the two truths from the perspective of 'self' and 'no-self,' which is different from before. Previously, clarifying the two truths was directly clarifying that what worldly people know is the conventional truth, and what those who transcend the world know is the ultimate truth, without distinguishing between 'having self' and 'no self,' 'having dharma' and 'no dharma.' Now, it is explicitly clarifying the two truths from the perspective of 'having self' and 'no self.' Good son, or there are dharmas that have name and reality, this is the fourth kind of two truths. Previously, the two truths were clarified from the perspective of people; now, they are clarified from the perspective of dharmas. Previously, the two truths were clarified from the perspective of the truth and the conventional; now, the two truths are further distinguished within the conventional truth. Previously, clarifying the two truths from the perspective of the truth and the conventional, 'I' is the conventional truth, 'no-self' is the ultimate truth. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Da Zhi Du Lun, Great Wisdom Sutra) says that people, etc., exist depending on the world; in the ultimate truth, there is none. Now, clarifying the two truths from within the conventional truth itself, in the conventional truth, some have name and reality, and some have name but no reality. Those with name and reality are the ultimate truth; those with name but no reality are the conventional truth. For example, things like fire and water have name and reality, having real meaning; because they have real meaning, they should be called 'having name,' expressing meaning, so they are the ultimate truth. Things with name but no reality, such as snake bed (she chuang) and tiger staff (hu zhang). The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says that the name of the grass is Zhuli, which translates to 'thief'; when has it ever been a thief? It only has a false name, without actual meaning, so because it has no actual meaning, it is called the conventional truth. This is judging the two truths based on reality and unreality. Good son, such as 'I' and 'sentient beings,' this is the fifth meaning of the two truths. This is clarifying the meaning of the two truths from the perspective of phenomena and principle. The previous 'having name and reality' and 'having name but no reality' are all categorized as the conventional truth. Suffering (ku), accumulation (ji), cessation (mie), and path (dao) are the ultimate truth. Why? The skandhas (yin), realms (jie), entrances (ru), etc., have name and reality, while turtle hair (gui mao), etc., are
有名無實。此之二種。併爲事法故為世諦。苦集滅道是理法故。為第一義諦。善男子。世法有五種者。第六就如實知不如實知判二諦。不如實知五種世法。則名世諦。如實知五種世法。無有顛倒為第一義諦。五種世法者。一名世二句世三縛世四法世五執著。如經文釋云云。善男子。若燒壞者。第七就續不續明二諦。若謂燒壞等法相續不斷名世諦。若知燒壞等法念念生滅實無相續。為第一義諦。此異成論假實義。假名不滅。實法則滅。今明。若言諸法相續不斷為世諦。若諸法實不續為第一義諦。如肇師物不遷論云。旋嵐偃岳而常靜。江河競注而不流。野馬飄鼓而不動。日月曆天而不周。即其義也。善男子。有八苦者。即第八就生死涅槃明二諦。有八苦生死為世諦。無八苦生死為第一義諦。然大判。生死為世諦。涅槃為第一義諦。今言。無八苦不全是涅槃。何者。涅槃有有所無無所有義。無八苦生死等。是涅槃有所無義。故經云。空者二十五有。不空者大般涅槃。今無八苦生死。即涅槃有所無義也。涅槃有所無。既無生死。涅槃無所有。亦無生死。今無生死。具含涅槃。故言生死為世諦。涅槃為第一義諦也。次文云。依因父母而生名世諦。十二因緣生名第一義諦。此則第九就因緣判二諦。亦是親疏判二諦。亦是粗妙判二諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有名無實，這兩種情況都屬於事法，因此是世俗諦（Satyasamvriti-satya，相對於真理的世俗層面）。苦、集、滅、道是理法，因此是第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，終極真理）。 善男子，世法有五種情況。第六種是根據如實知（yathābhūta-jñāna，如實知見）和不如實知來區分二諦。不如實知這五種世法，就稱為世俗諦；如實知這五種世法，沒有顛倒，就是第一義諦。這五種世法是：一名世，二句世，三縛世，四法世，五執著。具體解釋如經文所述。 善男子，如果說燒壞等法相續不斷，這是世俗諦。如果知道燒壞等法念念生滅，實際上沒有相續，這是第一義諦。這與成實論（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）的假實義不同，假名不滅，實法則滅。現在說明，如果說諸法相續不斷，就是世俗諦；如果諸法實際上不相續，就是第一義諦。如同僧肇大師的《物不遷論》所說：『旋風偃岳而常靜，江河競注而不流，野馬飄鼓而不動，日月曆天而不周』，就是這個意思。 善男子，有八苦，這是第八種，根據生死涅槃來區分二諦。有八苦的生死是世俗諦，沒有八苦的生死是第一義諦。一般來說，生死是世俗諦，涅槃是第一義諦。現在說，沒有八苦並不完全是涅槃。為什麼呢？因為涅槃有『有所無』和『無所有』的含義。沒有八苦的生死等，是涅槃的『有所無』義。所以經中說：『空的是二十五有（bhavas，存在），不空的是大般涅槃（Mahāparinirvāṇa，完全的涅槃）』。現在沒有八苦的生死，就是涅槃的『有所無』義。涅槃『有所無』，既然沒有生死，涅槃『無所有』，也沒有生死。現在沒有生死，就包含了涅槃，所以說生死是世俗諦，涅槃是第一義諦。 接下來的經文說：『依靠父母而生，稱為世俗諦；十二因緣生，稱為第一義諦。』這是第九種，根據因緣來區分二諦，也是根據親疏來區分二諦，也是根據粗妙來區分二諦。
【English Translation】 English version Having a name but lacking substance; these two types both belong to phenomenal dharmas, therefore they are the Conventional Truth (Satyasamvriti-satya, the conventional aspect of truth). Suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path are doctrinal dharmas, therefore they are the Ultimate Truth (Paramartha-satya, the ultimate truth). Good man, worldly dharmas have five aspects. The sixth is distinguishing the two truths based on knowing as it is (yathābhūta-jñāna, knowing things as they truly are) and not knowing as it is. Not knowing these five worldly dharmas as they are is called the Conventional Truth. Knowing these five worldly dharmas as they are, without any inversions, is the Ultimate Truth. These five worldly dharmas are: first, the world of names; second, the world of phrases; third, the world of bondage; fourth, the world of dharmas; and fifth, attachment. The specific explanations are as described in the sutras. Good man, if it is said that the burning and destruction of dharmas continue without interruption, this is the Conventional Truth. If it is known that the burning and destruction of dharmas arise and cease moment by moment, and in reality there is no continuity, this is the Ultimate Truth. This differs from the theory of the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Satya-siddhi-śāstra) regarding the meaning of the provisional and the real, where provisional names do not cease, but real dharmas do cease. Now, it is explained that if it is said that all dharmas continue without interruption, this is the Conventional Truth. If all dharmas in reality do not continue, this is the Ultimate Truth. As Master Zhao's Treatise on the Immutability of Things says: 'The whirling wind flattens mountains, yet is always still; rivers rush and pour, yet do not flow; the mirage flutters and drums, yet does not move; the sun and moon traverse the sky, yet do not revolve.' This is the meaning. Good man, having the eight sufferings, this is the eighth, distinguishing the two truths based on birth-and-death and Nirvana. Birth-and-death with the eight sufferings is the Conventional Truth; birth-and-death without the eight sufferings is the Ultimate Truth. Generally speaking, birth-and-death is the Conventional Truth, and Nirvana is the Ultimate Truth. Now, it is said that the absence of the eight sufferings is not entirely Nirvana. Why? Because Nirvana has the meaning of 'something is not' and 'nothing is'. The absence of birth-and-death with the eight sufferings is the meaning of 'something is not' in Nirvana. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Empty are the twenty-five existences (bhavas, states of being), not empty is the Great Nirvana (Mahāparinirvāṇa, complete Nirvana)'. Now, the absence of birth-and-death with the eight sufferings is the meaning of 'something is not' in Nirvana. Nirvana 'something is not', since there is no birth-and-death; Nirvana 'nothing is', also has no birth-and-death. Now, the absence of birth-and-death includes Nirvana, therefore it is said that birth-and-death is the Conventional Truth, and Nirvana is the Ultimate Truth. The following text says: 'Being born relying on parents is called the Conventional Truth; being born from the twelve links of dependent origination is called the Ultimate Truth.' This is the ninth, distinguishing the two truths based on dependent origination, also distinguishing the two truths based on closeness and distance, and also distinguishing the two truths based on coarseness and subtlety.
。因緣者。父母和合則緣。十二因緣即是因。因親緣疏也。又父母生粗。十二因緣生妙。眾生但知粗不知妙。故父母生為世諦。十二因緣生為第一義諦。此即九種二諦義。足前菩薩對聲聞判二諦義。為十種二諦也。中間簡二諦義。舉譬如一人多有所能。或名走者。或名刈者。或名鍛者。只是一人。隨義立多名。二諦亦爾。只是一二諦。隨義有多名也。問此經何故明此十種二諦耶。解云。為答難。故明此十種二諦。文殊與大眾。疑無二諦。正作無二諦難。所以如來開十種二諦答也。此則為釋無二諦難。故明二諦說。二為破不二。二既去不二亦不留。故大論云。破一不著二。又說二表不二。今因二悟不二。二無不二無也。然此十種。置前一種。就答難中。有九種二諦。前明二教諦。次明二于諦。此正明二諦義。從我無我去。就世諦中自有深淺不同。曆法廣論二諦義。然此七種二諦。應須一一判其廣狹辨其深淺。如我無我二諦。但就人明不就法辨。此義則狹。有名有實有名無實。虛實判二諦。此義則廣義。可知也。須一一釋之。
二諦義中卷 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1854 二諦義
二諦義卷下
胡吉藏撰
次明二諦相即義第三。然此義橫無不多條緒。豎入極自深玄。今且略出三處經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因緣是指什麼呢？父母和合就是因緣。十二因緣就是『因』，因是親近的緣是疏遠的。而且，父母所生是粗糙的，十二因緣所生是精妙的。眾生只知道粗糙的，不知道精妙的。所以父母所生稱為世俗諦（Satyadvaya，two truths），十二因緣所生稱為第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，ultimate truth）。這就是九種二諦義。加上前面的菩薩對聲聞（Śrāvaka，hearer）判定的二諦義，就是十種二諦了。中間簡略二諦義，舉例說，比如一個人有很多才能，有時被稱為跑者，有時被稱為割者，有時被稱為鍛造者，其實只是一個人，隨著不同的作用而有不同的名稱。二諦也是這樣，只是一二諦，隨著不同的意義而有不同的名稱。問：這部經為什麼闡明這十種二諦呢？答：爲了回答疑問，所以闡明這十種二諦。文殊菩薩（Mañjuśrī，gentle glory）與大眾，懷疑沒有二諦，正是要提出沒有二諦的疑問，所以如來（Tathāgata，'the one who has thus come' or 'the one who has thus gone'）開示十種二諦來回答。這是爲了解釋沒有二諦的疑問，所以闡明二諦的說法。設立二是爲了破除不二，二既然去除，不二也不保留。所以《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa，Great Discourse on the Perfection of Wisdom）說：『破一不執著二』，又說設立二是爲了表達不二，現在因為二而領悟不二，二和不二都沒有了。然而這十種二諦，除去第一種，在回答疑問中，有九種二諦。前面闡明二教諦，其次闡明二于諦，這正是闡明二諦的意義。從我無我出發，在世俗諦中自有深淺不同。曆法廣泛論述二諦的意義。然而這七種二諦，應該一一判斷它們的廣狹，辨別它們的深淺。比如我無我二諦，只是就人來闡明，不就法來辨別，這個意義就狹窄。有名有實，有名無實，用虛實來判斷二諦，這個意義就廣泛。意義是可以理解的。需要一一解釋它們。 二諦義中卷 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1854 二諦義 二諦義卷下 胡吉藏撰 其次闡明二諦相即義第三。然而這個意義橫向有很多條理，縱向深入極其玄妙。現在且簡略地列出三處經文。
【English Translation】 English version What is meant by 'causation'? The union of parents is a cause. The Twelve Nidānas (Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda, twelve links of dependent origination) are the 'cause'; the cause is close, the condition is distant. Moreover, what is born of parents is coarse, what is born of the Twelve Nidānas is subtle. Sentient beings only know the coarse, not the subtle. Therefore, what is born of parents is called the conventional truth (Satyadvaya, two truths), and what is born of the Twelve Nidānas is called the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth). These are the nine kinds of two truths. Adding the two truths judged by the Bodhisattva (Enlightenment Being) to the Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka, hearer), there are ten kinds of two truths. In the middle, simplifying the meaning of the two truths, for example, one person has many talents, sometimes called a runner, sometimes called a cutter, sometimes called a forger, but it is only one person, with different names according to different functions. The two truths are also like this, only one or two truths, with many names according to different meanings. Question: Why does this sutra clarify these ten kinds of two truths? Answer: To answer the questions, so clarify these ten kinds of two truths. Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī, gentle glory) and the assembly doubted that there were no two truths, and precisely wanted to raise the question of no two truths, so the Tathāgata (Tathāgata, 'the one who has thus come' or 'the one who has thus gone') revealed ten kinds of two truths to answer. This is to explain the question of no two truths, so clarify the saying of the two truths. Establishing two is to break the non-duality, and since two is removed, non-duality is not retained either. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Great Discourse on the Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'Breaking one does not cling to two,' and also says that establishing two is to express non-duality, and now because of two, one realizes non-duality, and both two and non-duality are gone. However, these ten kinds of two truths, removing the first kind, in answering the questions, there are nine kinds of two truths. The former clarifies the two teaching truths, and the latter clarifies the two regarding truths, which is precisely clarifying the meaning of the two truths. Starting from the self and no-self, there are different depths in the conventional truth itself. The calendar extensively discusses the meaning of the two truths. However, these seven kinds of two truths should be judged one by one for their breadth and depth. For example, the two truths of self and no-self are only clarified in terms of people, not distinguished in terms of Dharma, and this meaning is narrow. There is name and reality, there is name and no reality, and using reality and emptiness to judge the two truths, this meaning is broad. The meaning is understandable. They need to be explained one by one. Middle Scroll of the Two Truths Taisho Tripitaka Volume 45 No. 1854 Two Truths Lower Scroll of the Two Truths Written by Hu Jizang Next, clarify the third meaning of the non-duality of the two truths. However, this meaning has many lines horizontally, and it is extremely profound vertically. Now, let's briefly list three scriptures.
文。明二諦相即義。一者即向所引涅槃經。世諦即第一義。二者大品經。空即色色即空離空無色離色無空。三者凈名經。色性自空非色滅空。然此三經文。雖異意同也。問此三經來意若為異耶。解云。此三經來意是同。言不無奢切。何者涅槃經言奢。大品凈名經言切。涅槃經奢者。涅槃云世諦即第一義諦。不云第一義諦即世諦。故涅槃言奢。大品凈名切者。大品色即是空空即是色。凈名亦爾。所以為切也又涅槃經。但明世諦即第一義諦。不明第一義諦即世諦。通皆得。世諦既即第一義諦。第一義諦豈不即世諦。但涅槃只用故。世諦即第一義諦也。若大品經則平道雙用。空即是色色即空也。問何意涅槃只說大品雙明耶。解云。通皆例也問經既不例。汝何得輒例耶。今明所以不例者。涅槃正釋諦義。明唯真是實故。唯真是諦。俗即虛妄非實。故俗即非諦。為此義故。但明世諦即第一義。不得言第一義即世諦也。若是大品不為釋諦義。直明空即色色即空平道用也。凈名亦是隻用。唯得言色性自空非色滅空。不得言空性自色非空滅色。通即皆得。而今但言色性自空非色滅空者。正對二乘有所得人義。小乘人折色求空。對此故。明色性自空非滅除此色然後方空。此即開兩觀分二空。明小乘人折色空觀。大乘人即色空觀。小乘人折
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 文。明二諦（Two Truths）相即的意義。一者如之前所引用的《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra），世諦（Conventional Truth）即是第一義諦（Ultimate Truth）。二者如《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra），空即是**（此處原文有誤，應為「色」），即空離色，離空無色。三者如《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra），色性自空，非色滅空。然而這三部經文，雖然文字不同，意義卻是相同的。 問：這三部經的來意有什麼不同嗎？ 答：這三部經的來意是相同的，只是說法上有所不同。《涅槃經》的說法較為寬泛，《大品般若經》和《維摩詰經》的說法較為精要。《涅槃經》的說法寬泛，是因為《涅槃經》說世諦即是第一義諦，卻沒有說第一義諦即是世諦，所以《涅槃經》的說法較為寬泛。《大品般若經》說色即是空，空即是色，《維摩詰經》也是如此，所以說法較為精要。而且《涅槃經》只說明世諦即是第一義諦，沒有說明第一義諦即是世諦，從普遍意義上來說，世諦既然即是第一義諦，第一義諦難道不就是世諦嗎？但《涅槃經》只用了世諦即是第一義諦的說法。《大品般若經》則平等地雙向使用，空即是色，色即是空。 問：為什麼《涅槃經》只說單向，而《大品般若經》卻雙向說明呢？ 答：從普遍意義上來說，都可以類推。問：經文既然沒有類推，你為什麼可以擅自類推呢？現在說明不類推的原因。《涅槃經》主要解釋諦的意義，說明唯有真才是實在的，所以唯有真才是諦，世俗是虛妄不實的，所以世俗不是諦。因為這個緣故，只說明世諦即是第一義，不能說第一義即是世諦。《大品般若經》不是爲了解釋諦的意義，而是直接說明空即是色，色即是空，平等地雙向使用。《維摩詰經》也是隻用單向，只能說色性自空，非色滅空，不能說空性自色，非空滅色。從普遍意義上來說，都是可以的。而現在只說色性自空，非色滅空，正是針對二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）有所得的人。小乘人通過破除色來求得空，針對這種情況，說明色性本來就是空的，不是滅除這個色之後才空。這實際上是開示兩種觀法，區分兩種空，說明小乘人破除色來修空觀，大乘人直接觀色即是空。小乘人破除色
【English Translation】 English version: Text. Explaining the meaning of the non-duality of the Two Truths (二諦, Two Truths: Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth). First, as quoted from the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經, Nirvana Sutra), Conventional Truth (世諦, Conventional Truth) is identical to Ultimate Truth (第一義諦, Ultimate Truth). Second, as in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經, Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra), emptiness is form (原文有誤，應為「色」), that is, emptiness is not separate from form, and form is not separate from emptiness. Third, as in the Vimalakirti Sutra (凈名經, Vimalakirti Sutra), the nature of form is inherently empty, not empty by the annihilation of form. However, although the wording of these three sutras differs, their meaning is the same. Question: What is the difference in the intention of these three sutras? Answer: The intention of these three sutras is the same, but their expressions differ in emphasis. The Nirvana Sutra's expression is broader, while the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra's expressions are more concise. The Nirvana Sutra's expression is broader because the Nirvana Sutra says that Conventional Truth is identical to Ultimate Truth, but it does not say that Ultimate Truth is identical to Conventional Truth. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra's expression is broader. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, and the Vimalakirti Sutra is the same, so their expressions are more concise. Moreover, the Nirvana Sutra only explains that Conventional Truth is identical to Ultimate Truth, without explaining that Ultimate Truth is identical to Conventional Truth. Generally speaking, since Conventional Truth is identical to Ultimate Truth, isn't Ultimate Truth identical to Conventional Truth? But the Nirvana Sutra only uses the statement that Conventional Truth is identical to Ultimate Truth. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra uses both directions equally, emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. Question: Why does the Nirvana Sutra only state it one way, while the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra explains it in both directions? Answer: Generally speaking, they can all be inferred. Question: Since the sutras do not infer, why can you infer on your own? Now I will explain the reason for not inferring. The Nirvana Sutra mainly explains the meaning of Truth, clarifying that only truth is real, so only truth is Truth, and the mundane is false and unreal, so the mundane is not Truth. For this reason, it only explains that Conventional Truth is identical to Ultimate Truth, and it cannot be said that Ultimate Truth is identical to Conventional Truth. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra is not for explaining the meaning of Truth, but directly explains that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness, using both directions equally. The Vimalakirti Sutra also only uses one direction, only saying that the nature of form is inherently empty, not empty by the annihilation of form, and it cannot be said that the nature of emptiness is form, not form by the annihilation of emptiness. Generally speaking, they are all possible. But now it only says that the nature of form is inherently empty, not empty by the annihilation of form, which is precisely aimed at those who have attainment in the Two Vehicles (二乘, Two Vehicles: Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle). The Hinayana (小乘, Hinayana) practitioners seek emptiness by breaking down form. In response to this situation, it explains that the nature of form is inherently empty, not empty after annihilating this form. This is actually revealing two kinds of contemplation, distinguishing two kinds of emptiness, explaining that Hinayana practitioners break down form to cultivate the contemplation of emptiness, while Mahayana (大乘, Mahayana) practitioners directly contemplate form as emptiness. Hinayana practitioners break down form
色空。大乘色本性空。為是故。但明色性自空非色滅空也。雖有三經文。諸師多就大品經。明色即空空即色也。然此義難解。大忍法師云。我三十年。思此義不解。值山中法師得悟。此師既悟始信三論云云。由來釋相即義者。有三大法師。光宅無別釋。此師法華盛行成論永絕也。今出莊嚴開善龍光三人釋二諦相即義。莊嚴云。緣假無可以異空故俗即真。四忘無可以異有故真即俗。雖俗即真。終不可以名相為無名相。雖真即俗。終不可以無名相為名相故。二諦不異為相即也。次開善解云。假無自體。生而非有。故俗即真。真無體可假故真即俗。俗即真。離無無有。真即俗。離有無無故不二而二中道即二諦。二而不二。二諦即中道。問開善明中道莊嚴不明中道。何意爾耶。解云。莊嚴不以中道為二諦體故。不明中道。開善明中道為二諦體故。彼云。二諦是不二一真之極理。是故明中道也。次龍光解二諦相即義。此師是開善大學士。彼云。空色不相離。為空即色色即空。如凈名經云我此土常凈。此明凈土即在穢土處故。言此土凈。非是凈穢混成一土。何者。凈土是凈報。穢土是穢報。凈土凈業感。穢土穢業感。既有凈報穢報凈業穢業故不得一。但不相離為即也。然此三師釋。攝一切人。何者。開善與莊嚴明一體。龍光明異體
。釋雖眾多。不出一異。故此三人攝一切人也。龍光明異體。此義自反經。不須更難。今且難莊嚴開善二家。莊嚴云。緣假不異真。四忘不異俗。名相終不為無名相。無名相不為名相。此言自相反。汝既真即俗俗即真。名相為無名相。無名相為名相。那得俗即真。名相不得為無名相耶。彼師云。我名相復有即無名相義也。又責。汝若名相即無名相。可得世諦無名相真諦有名相不。彼云。真諦終無名相。俗諦終有名相。若爾。終是二見。不得相即也。彼云。我體常即。但名義異耳。又責。汝俗體即真。俗名即真不。若名義即真者。真諦既常。名義即常。名義無常。真亦即無常。若名義不即真。名義出真外。出法性外。故不可也。此難如百論難。有一瓶體一名義異。論主難云。汝瓶是有。瓶家之形對及五塵等。亦是有不。若使瓶家之形對五塵等是有者。有既常五塵等即常。五塵既無常有亦無常。總別亦爾也。若言五塵等非大有者。五塵即是空出大有外。大有攝法則不盡。今難彼俗即真義亦爾。此是提婆菩薩難。豈是人之能通。若能通者。提婆難即壞。經義亦壞。提婆難既不可壞。故此難不可通也。次難開善有兩關。非但難開善。遍難眾師。經有二諦相即。總而難之。第一難云。色即空時。為色起之時空與色同起故。云色即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：雖然解釋眾多，但不超出『一』和『異』的範疇。因此，這三種說法涵蓋了所有人的觀點。龍光明的『異體』之說，出自《自反經》，無需再多加辯駁。現在且辯駁莊嚴和開善兩家的觀點。 莊嚴認為：因緣和合的假象不異於真如，斷絕四種執著（四忘）不異於世俗，名相終究不會變成無名相，無名相也不會變成名相。這種說法自相矛盾。既然你認為真即是俗，俗即是真，名相即是無名相，無名相即是名相，那怎麼能說俗即是真，名相不能變成無名相呢？ 對方辯解說：我的名相中也包含著即是無名相的含義。反駁：如果你的名相即是無名相，那麼世俗諦是無名相，真諦是有名相嗎？對方回答：真諦終究沒有名相，世俗諦終究有名相。如果這樣，那終究是二元對立的見解，不能相互融合。 對方又說：我的本體是常即的，只是名稱和意義不同罷了。反駁：你的世俗本體即是真如，那麼世俗的名稱和意義也即是真如嗎？如果名稱和意義即是真如，那麼真諦既然是常，名稱和意義也應該是常。如果名稱和意義是無常的，那麼真如也應該是無常的。如果名稱和意義不即是真如，那麼名稱和意義就脫離了真如，脫離了法性，這是不行的。 這個辯難就像《百論》中的辯難：有一個瓶子，本體是一個，名稱和意義不同。《百論》的論主反駁說：你說的瓶子是『有』，那麼瓶子的形狀、相對關係以及五塵等，也是『有』嗎？如果瓶子的形狀、相對關係、五塵等也是『有』，那麼『有』既然是常，五塵等也應該是常。五塵既然是無常的，那麼『有』也應該是無常的，總體和個別也是如此。如果說五塵等不是『大有』，那麼五塵就是空，脫離了『大有』的範疇，『大有』所包含的法則就不完整了。現在反駁對方的俗即是真也是同樣的道理。這是提婆菩薩的辯難，豈是普通人能夠理解的？如果能夠理解，提婆的辯難就會被推翻，經義也會被破壞。提婆的辯難既然不可推翻，那麼這個辯難也是不可理解的。 接下來辯駁開善的觀點，開善的觀點有兩重障礙，這不僅僅是辯駁開善，而是普遍地辯駁所有法師。經文中有二諦相即的說法，總的來辯駁。第一重辯難是：色即是空的時候，是色生起的時候，空和色同時生起，所以說色即是空嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Although there are many interpretations, they do not go beyond the scope of 'one' and 'different'. Therefore, these three statements cover the views of all people. The 'different body' theory of Long Guangming comes from the Zi Fan Jing (Self-Reflection Sutra), and there is no need for further debate. Now, let's debate the views of the Zhuangyan and Kaishan schools. Zhuangyan believes: The illusion of conditioned arising is not different from true reality (真如, zhenru), severing the four attachments (四忘, siwang) is not different from the mundane, names and forms (名相, mingxiang) will never become non-names and non-forms, and non-names and non-forms will not become names and forms. This statement is self-contradictory. Since you believe that true is the same as mundane, mundane is the same as true, names and forms are the same as non-names and non-forms, and non-names and non-forms are the same as names and forms, then how can you say that mundane is the same as true, and names and forms cannot become non-names and non-forms? The other party argues: My names and forms also contain the meaning of being the same as non-names and non-forms. Refutation: If your names and forms are the same as non-names and non-forms, then is the conventional truth (世俗諦, shisudi) non-names and non-forms, and the ultimate truth (真諦, zhendi) names and forms? The other party replies: The ultimate truth ultimately has no names and forms, and the conventional truth ultimately has names and forms. If so, then it is ultimately a dualistic view and cannot be integrated. The other party also says: My essence is always the same, only the names and meanings are different. Refutation: Your mundane essence is the same as true reality, then are the mundane names and meanings also the same as true reality? If names and meanings are the same as true reality, then since true reality is constant, names and meanings should also be constant. If names and meanings are impermanent, then true reality should also be impermanent. If names and meanings are not the same as true reality, then names and meanings are separated from true reality, separated from dharmata (法性, faxing), which is not acceptable. This debate is like the debate in the Śataśāstra (百論, Bailun): There is a bottle, the essence is one, and the names and meanings are different. The author of the Śataśāstra refutes: You say the bottle is 'existent', then are the shape, relative relationships, and the five dusts (五塵, wuchen) of the bottle also 'existent'? If the shape, relative relationships, and the five dusts of the bottle are also 'existent', then since 'existent' is constant, the five dusts should also be constant. Since the five dusts are impermanent, then 'existent' should also be impermanent, the general and the specific are also the same. If you say that the five dusts are not 'great existence', then the five dusts are empty and separated from the category of 'great existence', and the laws contained in 'great existence' are incomplete. Now, refuting the other party's view that mundane is the same as true is the same principle. This is Nāgārjuna's debate, how can ordinary people understand it? If it can be understood, Nāgārjuna's debate will be overturned, and the meaning of the sutras will also be destroyed. Since Nāgārjuna's debate cannot be overturned, then this debate is also incomprehensible. Next, refute Kaishan's view, Kaishan's view has two obstacles, this is not only refuting Kaishan, but universally refuting all Dharma masters. There is a saying in the scriptures that the two truths are identical, and refute it in general. The first refutation is: When form is emptiness, is it when form arises, emptiness and form arise at the same time, so it is said that form is emptiness?
空。為當色未起前已有此空故云色即空耶。若使色未起時。已有即色之空者。此則空本有。色即始生。本始為異。云何相即。本有空即常。始有色則無常。常無常異故。不得即也。若言空與色俱起者。則空與色俱是始有。皆是本無今始有。皆無常也。第二難云。汝色即空時。為空色分際。為不分際。若不分際。則混成一。若空色一。皆常皆無常。真俗一言俗無常真常者。即例難真俗一真無常俗常也。若分際。則空色異。雖即終分際終異。如沉檀雖合為案沉檀終分際終異。若異方等之經便壞。覆面之舌不成也。此即彈他竟。次明今釋。要須彈他盡凈乃得出今時解也。大師舊云。假名說有。假名說空。假名說有為世諦。假名說空為真諦。既名假有。即非有為有。既名假空。即非空為空。非有為有。非異空之有。非空為空。非異有之空。非異空之有。有名空有。非異有之空。空名有空。有名空有故。空有即有空。空名有空故。有空即空有也。師釋相即義。方言如此。今作若為解耶。亦得用前難難之。汝因緣空色即不因緣色即空。色壞空壞不。又如長短因緣。有長即有短。無長即無短。若爾。空色因緣。有色即有空。色壞空即壞云云。然此義。應須得其根本識其大意。只為不得意故。所以成失。故中論云。像法中人根轉鈍。雖
尋經文。但著文字。此即失因緣有。又云。聞大乘法說畢竟空。不知何因緣故空。此即失空意也。又涅槃經明諸諍論。一一諍論云。是諸弟子不解我意。為不解教意故。所以成失。是故須知其大意識其根本。故法華云。知佛所說經因緣及次第。隨義而解說。然原由來人不解二諦相即者。凡有兩失故不解。一者不識四悉壇故。不解二諦相即。言二諦相即。是何物悉壇耶。四悉壇是通經之要術。解四悉壇。則一切經可通。若不解四悉壇。一切經即不可通。大師約四悉壇明四假義。四假者。因緣假．對緣假．就緣假．隨緣假。彼尚不識四悉壇。豈解四假。以彼不識四悉壇故。不解二諦相即義也。二者謂有真俗色空道理。道理有色。道理有空。若無空色。則無六道眾生三乘賢聖。由有色空二諦。迷之則有六道。悟之則有三乘。為是故。道理有空。道理有空。道理有色。既道理有空色。則是有所得。有所得。豈能通他難。豈能難他通。故中論五陰品末云。不依空問答。問不成問。答不成答。空者只是無得異名。以不依無得故。不能難。不能通也。又只為有空色道理故。得作前諸難。汝既有色即空。為當有色之時空色俱時起言色即空。為當色未起之時已有空言色即空耶。若色起時。空與色俱起為色即空者。此則皆無常失真諦。若色
未起時。已有空為色即空者。即空本有色始生。空色兩異不得相即。俱起真墮無常。不俱起則成異體。次難。汝色即空。為分際為不分際。不分際。則混成一體。即皆常皆無常。例難云云。若分際。則異體不得相即。不分際得即失二諦。分際得二諦失相即。進退不可。作若為解耶。此難若可通。提婆龍樹則成漫語。此二人若是漫語。佛則漫語。佛親記二論主。二論主豈當漫語。既非漫語。作若為解耶。龍光難開善。開善云。待我面黃只得解耳。實理如此。若非三論意。終不得解。故睿師云。中百二論文。未及此土。又無通鑑。誰與正之。前匠所以輟章遐慨思。請決于彌勒者。良在此也。中百二論。既至赤縣嘆云。此區之赤縣匆得移靈鷲以作鎮。險陂之邊情。乃蒙流光之餘惠。而今後談道之賢。始可與論實矣。故除三論之外有所得心。終不解此義也。問他解既非。今若為釋耶。師云。只洗凈如此二諦一體異體。畢竟無遺。即是二諦相即義。所以山中師云。今時若更有解。乃是足載耳云云。有開善解莊嚴解龍光解已竟。今攝山復解。即成足載濃。今何處有別解。但須盡凈從來一異等見即是二諦相即也。師云。二諦一體異體。只是百論中兩品。二諦一體。即是僧佉義。二諦異體。即是衛世義也。彼云。汝安處如此耳。我義何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 未起時，如果已經有空為色即空，那麼空本就具有色，色才會產生。空和色是兩種不同的東西，不能相互等同。如果同時產生，就真正墮入了無常；如果不一起產生，就變成了不同的個體。進一步追問，你說的『色即空』，是指有分界還是沒有分界？如果沒有分界，那就混成一體，要麼都是常，要麼都是無常。如果存在分界，那麼不同的個體就不能相互等同。沒有分界就得到了二諦，卻失去了相互等同；有分界就得到了二諦，卻失去了相互等同。進退兩難，該如何解釋呢？如果這個難題可以被解決，那麼提婆（Deva，論師名）和龍樹（Nagarjuna，中觀學派創始人）就成了胡說八道。如果這兩人是胡說八道，那麼佛（Buddha）也就成了胡說八道。佛親自記述了這兩位論主，他們怎麼會胡說八道呢？既然不是胡說八道，又該如何解釋呢？龍光（僧人名）曾經為難開善（僧人名），開善說：『等我面黃了才能解釋。』真實的道理就是這樣。如果不是三論（《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》）的意旨，終究無法理解。所以慧遠大師說，中觀和百論的論文，還沒有傳到中國，又沒有通達的鑑賞家，誰來匡正呢？前代的學者因此停筆，遙想彌勒菩薩，正是因為這個原因。中觀和百論傳到中國后，感嘆說：『這片中國的土地，不要把靈鷲山（Grdhrakuta，佛陀說法地）移來作為鎮山之寶。險峻偏頗的邊地之情，才蒙受了流傳的光輝。從今以後，談論真理的賢者，才可以與他們討論真諦了。』所以，除了三論之外，如果還有所得之心，終究無法理解這個道理。有人問：『其他的解釋既然不對，那麼現在該如何解釋呢？』老師說：『只要洗凈如此二諦一體異體的觀念，畢竟沒有遺漏，就是二諦相即的含義。』所以山中的老師說：『現在如果還有其他的解釋，那就是畫蛇添足了。』已經有了開善的解釋、莊嚴的解釋、龍光的解釋，現在攝山（地名）又來解釋，那就成了畫蛇添足了。現在哪裡還有別的解釋呢？只要徹底清除從來的一異等見，就是二諦相即了。老師說：『二諦一體異體，只是百論中的兩品。二諦一體，就是僧佉（Samkhya，古印度數論派哲學）的觀點；二諦異體，就是衛世（Vaisheshika，古印度勝論派哲學）的觀點。』他們說：『你安心地待在這裡吧，我的觀點是什麼呢？』
【English Translation】 English version Before arising, if emptiness already exists as 'form is emptiness', then emptiness inherently possesses form, and form arises from it. Emptiness and form are two distinct entities, not identical. If they arise simultaneously, it truly falls into impermanence; if they do not arise together, they become different entities. Further questioning: When you say 'form is emptiness', does it refer to a boundary or no boundary? If there is no boundary, then they are mixed into one, either all are permanent or all are impermanent. If there is a boundary, then different entities cannot be identical. Without a boundary, one obtains the two truths but loses identity; with a boundary, one obtains the two truths but loses identity. It's a dilemma, how should it be explained? If this difficulty can be resolved, then Deva (a commentator) and Nagarjuna (founder of the Madhyamaka school) would be talking nonsense. If these two are talking nonsense, then the Buddha (Buddha) would also be talking nonsense. The Buddha personally recorded these two commentators, how could they be talking nonsense? Since it's not nonsense, how should it be explained? Longguang (a monk's name) once challenged Kaisan (a monk's name), Kaisan said: 'Wait until my face turns yellow before I can explain.' The true principle is like this. If it's not the intention of the Three Treatises (Madhyamaka-karika, Sata-sastra, Dvadasanikaya-sastra), one will never understand. Therefore, Master Huiyuan said that the essays of the Madhyamaka and Sata-sastra have not yet been transmitted to China, and there is no discerning appraiser, who will correct them? The scholars of the previous generation therefore stopped writing and longed for Maitreya Bodhisattva, precisely for this reason. After the Madhyamaka and Sata-sastra were transmitted to China, they exclaimed: 'This land of China, do not move Mount Grdhrakuta (Buddha's teaching place) here as a treasure to guard the mountain. The dangerous and biased feelings of the borderlands have received the remaining grace of the flowing light. From now on, the wise men who discuss the truth can discuss the true meaning with them.' Therefore, apart from the Three Treatises, if there is still a mind of attainment, one will never understand this principle. Someone asked: 'Since other explanations are incorrect, how should it be explained now?' The teacher said: 'Just wash away the concepts of oneness and difference of the two truths, and there will be no omissions, which is the meaning of the identity of the two truths.' Therefore, the teacher in the mountain said: 'If there are other explanations now, it would be superfluous.' There have already been Kaisan's explanation, Zhuangyan's explanation, and Longguang's explanation. Now Sheshan (place name) is explaining again, which would be superfluous. Where else is there a different explanation now? Just completely eliminate the views of oneness and difference from the beginning, and that is the identity of the two truths. The teacher said: 'The oneness and difference of the two truths are just two chapters in the Sata-sastra. The oneness of the two truths is the view of Samkhya (an ancient Indian school of philosophy); the difference of the two truths is the view of Vaisheshika (an ancient Indian school of philosophy).' They said: 'You stay here peacefully, what is my view?'
時如此耶。今明。此義與外道一種。汝真諦。是常是遍是總。瓶衣世諦法等。是無常是不遍是別。彼亦爾。大有是常是遍是總。瓶衣等無常不遍是別。一類如此。又類。彼常無常總別一體。而義常異。義常異。而總別常無常一體。汝義亦爾。真俗一體。而義常異。俗浮虛義。真貞實義。義常異而體常一。此義一種。但大有與真諦為異耳。雖大有與真諦名異。而常無常義無異。論直破常無常一體。然有預常無常一體者。皆墮此破。言雖屬在外道。意實遍洗眾師。為是故。百論有傍正。言屬外道故為正。意遍破眾師故為傍也。次龍光如衛世。衛世本是僧佉學士。晚椎僧佉一義。明大有常瓶等無常。大有遍瓶等不遍。大有總瓶等別。大有了因瓶等生因。大有不可壞瓶等可壞。若言一者。瓶破大有即破。而有常無常異乃至壞不壞異。那得一體。是故明有與瓶異體。龍光亦爾。本開善學士。廣難開善二諦一體義。二諦若一體。燒俗即燒真。俗生滅真即生滅。既有可燒不可燒異。生滅無生滅常無常異故。二諦不可一體。故彼明異義也。二諦雖異而不相離。衛世亦爾。大有雖與瓶異。而不相離故。彼云。瓶有合故。瓶不離有。而瓶與有常異。龍光亦爾。雖異終不離。不離而異。與衛世義一種也。義既是同。破僧佉衛世。即是破開善龍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是這樣的嗎？現在明白了。這種觀點與外道的其中一種相似。你認為真諦（paramārtha-satya，終極真理）是常、是遍、是總（普遍），而瓶子、衣服等世俗諦法（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）是無常、是不遍、是別（個別）。他們也是這樣認為的。大有（mahā-sattā，一種本體論概念）是常、是遍、是總，而瓶子、衣服等是無常、是不遍、是別。這是一類。 還有一類，他們認為常、無常、總、別是一體的，但意義上常常不同。意義上常常不同，但總、別、常、無常在本體上是一體的。你的觀點也是這樣，真諦和俗諦是一體的，但意義上常常不同。俗諦是虛浮不實的意義，真諦是真實不虛的意義。意義上常常不同，但本體上常常是一。這是一種觀點，只是大有和真諦的名稱不同而已。雖然大有和真諦名稱不同，但常與無常的意義沒有不同。論典直接破斥常無常一體的觀點，然而凡是主張常無常一體的人，都落入這種破斥之中。言論雖然屬於外道，但實際上普遍地批判了各家師說。因此，《百論》有傍破和正破。言論屬於外道，所以是正破；意在普遍破斥各家師說，所以是傍破。 其次是龍光法師，就像衛世一樣。衛世本來是僧佉派（Sāṃkhya）的學者，晚年批判僧佉派的一個觀點，即大有是常，瓶子等是無常；大有是遍，瓶子等是不遍；大有是總，瓶子等是別；大有是了因（upādāna-hetu，直接原因），瓶子等是生因（janaka-hetu，產生原因）；大有是不可壞，瓶子等是可壞。如果說是一體的，那麼瓶子破了，大有也就破了。而有常與無常的差異，乃至壞與不壞的差異，怎麼能說是一體呢？所以他認為有與瓶子是不同的本體。龍光法師也是這樣，他本來是開善寺的學士，廣泛地駁斥開善寺二諦一體的觀點。如果二諦是一體的，那麼燒燬俗諦就等於燒燬真諦，俗諦生滅，真諦也就生滅。既然有可燒與不可燒的差異，生滅與無生滅、常與無常的差異，所以二諦不可能是一體的。因此他闡明了二諦是異體的觀點。二諦雖然是異體的，但卻不相分離。衛世也是這樣，大有雖然與瓶子不同，但不相分離。所以他說，瓶子與有結合在一起，所以瓶子不離開有。而瓶子與有常常是不同的。龍光法師也是這樣，雖然不同，但最終不相離。不相離而不同，與衛世的觀點是一種。既然觀點相同，那麼破斥僧佉派的衛世，也就是破斥開善寺的龍光法師。
【English Translation】 English version: Is it so? Now I understand. This view is similar to one of the heterodox (外道, wàidào) schools. You believe that paramārtha-satya (真諦, zhēndì, ultimate truth) is permanent, pervasive, and universal, while saṃvṛti-satya (俗諦, súdì, conventional truth) such as jars and clothes are impermanent, non-pervasive, and distinct. They also think this way. Mahā-sattā (大有, dà yǒu, a concept of ontology) is permanent, pervasive, and universal, while jars, clothes, etc., are impermanent, non-pervasive, and distinct. This is one category. There is another category, they believe that permanence, impermanence, universality, and distinctness are one entity, but their meanings are often different. The meanings are often different, but universality, distinctness, permanence, and impermanence are one entity in essence. Your view is also like this, paramārtha-satya and saṃvṛti-satya are one entity, but their meanings are often different. Saṃvṛti-satya is the meaning of floating and unreal, paramārtha-satya is the meaning of true and real. The meanings are often different, but the essence is often one. This is one view, only the names of mahā-sattā and paramārtha-satya are different. Although the names of mahā-sattā and paramārtha-satya are different, there is no difference in the meaning of permanence and impermanence. The treatise directly refutes the view that permanence and impermanence are one entity, however, all those who advocate that permanence and impermanence are one entity fall into this refutation. Although the words belong to the heterodox schools, they actually universally criticize the teachings of various masters. Therefore, the Śataśāstra (百論, Bǎilùn) has indirect and direct refutations. The words belong to the heterodox schools, so it is a direct refutation; the intention is to universally refute the teachings of various masters, so it is an indirect refutation. Next is Dharma Master Longguang, just like Weishi. Weishi was originally a scholar of the Sāṃkhya (僧佉, Sēngqié) school, and in his later years he criticized a view of the Sāṃkhya school, that is, mahā-sattā is permanent, jars, etc., are impermanent; mahā-sattā is pervasive, jars, etc., are non-pervasive; mahā-sattā is universal, jars, etc., are distinct; mahā-sattā is upādāna-hetu (了因, liǎoyīn, direct cause), jars, etc., are janaka-hetu (生因, shēngyīn, producing cause); mahā-sattā is indestructible, jars, etc., are destructible. If it is said to be one entity, then if the jar is broken, mahā-sattā will also be broken. And there is a difference between permanence and impermanence, and even a difference between destructible and indestructible, how can it be said to be one entity? Therefore, he believes that existence and jar are different entities. Dharma Master Longguang is also like this, he was originally a scholar of Kaisan Temple, and widely refuted the view of Kaisan Temple that the two truths are one entity. If the two truths are one entity, then burning saṃvṛti-satya is equal to burning paramārtha-satya, saṃvṛti-satya arises and ceases, and paramārtha-satya also arises and ceases. Since there is a difference between what can be burned and what cannot be burned, and a difference between arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, permanence and impermanence, the two truths cannot be one entity. Therefore, he clarified the view that the two truths are different entities. Although the two truths are different entities, they are not separated from each other. Weishi is also like this, although mahā-sattā is different from the jar, they are not separated from each other. Therefore, he said that the jar is combined with existence, so the jar does not leave existence. And the jar and existence are often different. Dharma Master Longguang is also like this, although they are different, they are ultimately not separated. Not separated but different, the view is the same as Weishi's. Since the views are the same, then refuting Weishi of the Sāṃkhya school is also refuting Longguang of Kaisan Temple.
光。又論主直破一異。即一切一異皆破。一異既破。則橫洗萬法。豎窮五句。以洗凈如此等見。所以最後。始得示如來因緣假名二諦。此二諦無得無礙也。百論既然。中論亦爾。前發趾即洗生滅一異故。云不生不滅不常不斷不一不異。既不一不異。則不一切一異。發初彈於八謬。然中論有兩種八謬。如韋紐天生微塵世性等。此是一種八謬。生滅等復是一種八謬。微塵世性等八謬。佛未出世時起。生滅等八謬。佛滅後起。以龍樹知有如此八謬故。所以出世破之。發初即破一異。破一異者。不但破一種一異。乃遍破一切一異。一異既無。乃至五句畢竟無遺也。故云從因緣品來。有亦無無亦無亦有亦無亦無。如此洗凈。然後明如來無得無礙二諦。故三相品末云。如夢亦如幻。如乾闥婆城。所說生住滅。其相亦如是。三相既然。二諦亦爾。如夢亦如幻。如乾闥婆城。所說真俗諦。其相亦如是也。此略明二諦相即之大意如此。玄悟之賓已足解了。次時更簡二諦相即義。然他家明二諦是兩理兩境。今明約何物義明二諦耶。解云。今明。二諦有二種。一於二諦。二教二諦。道理未曾二不二。於二緣故有二諦。又隨順眾生故說有二諦。既于眾生有二諦。隨順眾生有二諦。道理實無二諦。既無二諦。論何物即與不即。教化眾生故有二諦。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 光。又論主直接破斥『一』（Eka, 單一）和『異』（Nānā, 相異）的觀點。即破斥一切『一』和『異』的觀點。『一』和『異』既然被破斥，那麼橫向洗滌萬法，縱向窮盡五句（可能是指五蘊、五智等，具體含義需要根據上下文判斷），用以洗凈如此等等的見解。所以最後，才能夠開示如來因緣假名二諦（Dve Satya, 兩種真理：世俗諦和勝義諦）。這二諦是無所得、無障礙的。 《百論》（Śataśāstra）既然如此，《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）也是這樣。一開始就洗滌生滅、一異的觀點，所以說『不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異』。既然不一不異，那麼就不一切『一』『異』。一開始就彈破八謬（Asta Mithya, 八種謬誤）。然而《中論》有兩種八謬。如韋紐天（Visnu, 印度教主神之一）生微塵、世性等，這是一種八謬；生滅等等又是一種八謬。微塵世性等等的八謬，在佛（Buddha, 覺悟者）未出世時產生；生滅等等的八謬，在佛滅度后產生。因為龍樹（Nāgārjuna, 大乘佛教的重要思想家）知道有如此八謬，所以出世破斥它們。一開始就破斥『一異』。破斥『一異』，不單單是破斥一種『一異』，而是普遍地破斥一切『一異』。『一異』既然沒有，乃至五句畢竟沒有遺留。所以說從《因緣品》來，『有』也無，『無』也無，『亦有亦無』也無，『非有非無』也無。如此洗凈，然後闡明如來無所得、無障礙的二諦。所以《三相品》末尾說：『如夢亦如幻，如乾闥婆城（Gandharva-nagara, 海市蜃樓）。所說生住滅，其相亦如是。』三相既然如此，二諦也是這樣。『如夢亦如幻，如乾闥婆城。所說真俗諦，其相亦如是也。』 這簡略地闡明二諦相即的大意是這樣的。玄悟之賓已經足夠了解了。下次再簡要地闡明二諦相即的意義。然而其他宗派闡明二諦是兩種道理、兩種境界。現在闡明依據什麼意義來闡明二諦呢？解釋說：現在闡明，二諦有兩種，一在於二諦，二教二諦。道理未曾有二不二。在於二緣故有二諦。又隨順眾生故說有二諦。既然在於眾生有二諦，隨順眾生有二諦，道理實際上沒有二諦。既然沒有二諦，論什麼即與不即呢？教化眾生故有二諦。
【English Translation】 English version Light. Furthermore, the author directly refutes the views of 'Eka' (one, singularity) and 'Nānā' (differentiation, otherness). That is, refuting all views of 'one' and 'different'. Since 'one' and 'different' are refuted, then horizontally cleanse all dharmas, and vertically exhaust the five sentences (possibly referring to the five skandhas, five wisdoms, etc., the specific meaning needs to be judged according to the context), in order to cleanse such views. Therefore, in the end, it is possible to reveal the Two Truths (Dve Satya, two kinds of truths: conventional truth and ultimate truth) of the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) based on dependent origination and provisional names. These Two Truths are without attainment and without obstruction. Since the Śataśāstra (百論, One Hundred Treatises) is like this, so is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論, The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way). From the beginning, it washes away the views of arising and ceasing, oneness and otherness, so it says 'neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different'. Since it is neither one nor different, then it is not all 'one' and 'different'. From the beginning, it refutes the eight fallacies (Asta Mithya, eight kinds of fallacies). However, there are two kinds of eight fallacies in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. For example, Visnu (韋紐天, one of the main gods of Hinduism) producing subtle dust and primordial nature, etc., this is one kind of eight fallacies; arising and ceasing, etc., is another kind of eight fallacies. The eight fallacies of subtle dust and primordial nature, etc., arose before the Buddha (Buddha, Awakened One) appeared in the world; the eight fallacies of arising and ceasing, etc., arose after the Buddha's parinirvana. Because Nāgārjuna (龍樹, an important thinker of Mahayana Buddhism) knew that there were such eight fallacies, he appeared in the world to refute them. From the beginning, he refutes 'oneness and otherness'. Refuting 'oneness and otherness' is not just refuting one kind of 'oneness and otherness', but universally refuting all 'oneness and otherness'. Since 'oneness and otherness' do not exist, then even the five sentences are completely without remainder. Therefore, it is said that from the chapter on 'Conditions', 'existence' is also non-existent, 'non-existence' is also non-existent, 'both existence and non-existence' is also non-existent, 'neither existence nor non-existence' is also non-existent. After such cleansing, then clarify the Two Truths of the Tathagata without attainment and without obstruction. Therefore, at the end of the chapter on 'Three Characteristics', it says: 'Like a dream, like an illusion, like a Gandharva-nagara (乾闥婆城, mirage). The arising, abiding, and ceasing that are spoken of, their characteristics are also like this.' Since the three characteristics are like this, so are the Two Truths. 'Like a dream, like an illusion, like a Gandharva-nagara. The conventional truth and ultimate truth that are spoken of, their characteristics are also like this.' This briefly clarifies the general meaning of the non-duality of the Two Truths in this way. The guests of profound understanding have already understood enough. Next time, we will briefly clarify the meaning of the non-duality of the Two Truths. However, other schools clarify that the Two Truths are two kinds of principles and two kinds of realms. Now, based on what meaning do we clarify the Two Truths? The explanation is: Now we clarify that there are two kinds of Two Truths, one is in the Two Truths, and the other is the Two Truths of teaching. The principle has never been two or not two. Because of the two conditions, there are Two Truths. Also, because of conforming to sentient beings, it is said that there are Two Truths. Since there are Two Truths in sentient beings, and there are Two Truths conforming to sentient beings, in reality there are no Two Truths. Since there are no Two Truths, what is there to discuss about being identical or not identical? Because of teaching sentient beings, there are Two Truths.
亦為教化眾生故。有即不即也。總判如此。別明即。于諦亦有即義。教諦亦有即義。于諦即者。論云。世俗諦者。一切法性空。世間顛倒謂有。於世人為實。諸賢聖。真知諸法性空。于聖人為實。發初開二諦。明唯真是實是諦。俗虛妄顛倒不實非諦。正欲令眾生改凡成聖。舍有入空得一重悟也。次舍有入空。知有是顛倒空是真實。便謂舍有入空拆色入空。是故為說色本性即空。非是破拆方空。此即于諦中第二重明色即空。前發趾開色空二。令舍色入空。便言。色與空異拆色入空。是故為說色即空。色性自空非拆色空。故論云。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。只顛倒性本空也。問色即空如此。空即色云何耶。解云。聖人知顛倒性空。則于凡夫宛然常有。聖人知顛倒性空色即空。于凡夫宛然有空即色。此即約迷悟凡聖。判色即空空即色。聖悟故色即空。凡迷故空即色。問經中何意多前明色即空。后明空即色耶。解云。如向聖人了色即空。但于凡空即色耳。何以知然。如中論。一切法性空。世間顛倒謂有。此即于凡空即色也。次舉譬顯之。如空華為眼病故見空華。說華空。無華可即空。但眼病故空。空即華。空即華。華不動空。差故華即空。空不動華。色空亦爾。悟故色即空。迷故空即色。悟故如是有無所有。迷故無所有如是有。迷
故如是有。不動無所有。悟故無所有。不動如是有。迷故空即色。色不動空。悟故色即空。空不動色。迷故謂空為色。何曾有色可動空。悟故色即空。何曾有色可異空。色空既如此。論何物即與不即。四句皆凈也。如此排。前難迥去。難不能著。他所以著難者。彼有色有空。以色即空故著前難。今明色畢竟空。將何物即空耶。為眾生見色故。言色即空也。問前云。迷見有色悟即色空。如空華病故見華。差故華空。此乃是夢虛空華義。何得用耶。解云。為彼有故。以空華破彼有。若無彼有。豈復有空。故論云。若使無有有云何當有無。故無有即無空。五句皆凈。故什師云。十喻以悟空。空必待此喻。借言以會意。意盡無會處。既得出長羅。住此無所住也。又有于凡有。空于聖空。非有于凡有。有為有華。非空于聖空。空為空華。有為華無有有。空為華無有空。如是三節二諦。皆是空華。皆無所有也。次依經釋。大品云。色即是空。空不名色。從來不解此言。今明者。此則雙搏一異兩見。何者。色即空。此破凡夫二乘等見。彼謂。色異空拆色方得空。是故破云色即是空也。空不名色者。破即見。嚮明色即空。便作即解。是故破云空不名色。若有色可言色即空。既無有色。何得言色即空耶。此即借一以出異。借異以出一。借
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，實相就是這樣。『不動』（Acalā，不可動搖的）並非一無所有，因為覺悟的緣故，才是『無所有』（nothingness）。『不動』就是這樣。因為迷惑的緣故，認為空就是色。『不動』並非是空。因為覺悟的緣故，色就是空，空並非是色。因為迷惑的緣故，認為空就是色。哪裡有什麼色可以動搖空呢？因為覺悟的緣故，色就是空，哪裡有什麼色可以與空相異呢？色與空既然如此，還討論什麼『即』與『不即』呢？這四句都清凈了。這樣排除，之前的詰難自然消失，詰難無法成立。他們之所以提出詰難，是因為他們認為有色有空，因為色就是空，所以才會有之前的詰難。現在說明色畢竟是空，拿什麼來『即空』呢？爲了眾生執著於色，所以才說色就是空。 問：之前說，迷惑時見到有色，覺悟時色就是空，就像因為眼病而見到空中的花，病好了花就消失了。這只是夢中虛空花的意義，怎麼能用在這裡呢？ 答：這是爲了破除他們認為『有』的觀念，用空花來破除他們的『有』。如果沒有他們所執著的『有』，哪裡會有『空』呢？所以《中論》說：『如果根本沒有有，怎麼會有無呢？』所以，沒有『有』也就沒有『空』，這五句都清凈了。所以鳩摩羅什大師說，十個比喻都是爲了悟入空性，空性一定需要這些比喻，借用言語來領會意旨，意旨領會了，就沒有可以執著的地方了。既然已經得到了長羅，就安住于無所住之處。 還有人認為，凡夫執著于『有』，聖人執著于『空』。凡夫執著的『有』，是有為法所顯現的『有』，就像眼病所見的幻花。聖人執著的『空』，是空性所顯現的『空』，就像空中的幻花。凡夫所執著的『有』，是幻花本無實有。聖人所執著的『空』，是幻花本無自性空。像這樣，三節二諦，都是空花，都是一無所有。 接下來依據經文解釋。《大品般若經》說：『色即是空，空不名色。』（Śūnyatā，空性）過去不理解這句話，現在解釋如下：這句話同時駁斥了『一』和『異』兩種見解。為什麼呢？『色即是空』，這是爲了破除凡夫和二乘等人的見解，他們認為色與空是不同的，必須拆解色才能得到空。所以才說『色即是空』。 『空不名色』，是爲了破除『即』的見解。之前說『色即是空』，就理解為『即』。所以才說『空不名色』。如果有色，還可以說『色即是空』，既然沒有色，怎麼能說『色即是空』呢？這實際上是借用『一』來破除『異』，借用『異』來破除『一』。
【English Translation】 Therefore, such is the reality. 'Immovable' (Acalā) is not without anything, because of enlightenment, it is 'nothingness'. 'Immovable' is like this. Because of delusion, one thinks emptiness is form. 'Immovable' is not emptiness. Because of enlightenment, form is emptiness, emptiness is not form. Because of delusion, one thinks emptiness is form. Where is there any form that can move emptiness? Because of enlightenment, form is emptiness, where is there any form that can be different from emptiness? Since form and emptiness are like this, what is there to discuss about 'identity' and 'non-identity'? These four sentences are all pure. By eliminating in this way, the previous difficulties naturally disappear, and the difficulties cannot be established. The reason why they raise difficulties is because they think there is form and emptiness, and because form is emptiness, they have the previous difficulties. Now it is explained that form is ultimately empty, what is there to 'be identical to emptiness'? It is because sentient beings are attached to form that it is said that form is emptiness. Question: Previously it was said that when deluded, one sees form, and when enlightened, form is emptiness, just like seeing flowers in the sky due to eye disease, and the flowers disappear when the disease is cured. This is just the meaning of illusory flowers in the sky in a dream, how can it be used here? Answer: This is to break their concept of 'existence', using empty flowers to break their 'existence'. If there is no 'existence' that they are attached to, where would there be 'emptiness'? Therefore, the Madhyamakaśāstra (中論, Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'If there is no existence at all, how can there be non-existence?' Therefore, there is no 'existence' and therefore no 'emptiness', these five sentences are all pure. Therefore, Master Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什) said that the ten metaphors are all for realizing emptiness, and emptiness must require these metaphors, using language to understand the meaning, and when the meaning is understood, there is nothing to be attached to. Since one has already obtained the dīrgharaśmi (長羅, long rope), one abides in the place of non-abiding. Some people think that ordinary people are attached to 'existence', and sages are attached to 'emptiness'. The 'existence' that ordinary people are attached to is the 'existence' manifested by conditioned phenomena, like the illusory flowers seen due to eye disease. The 'emptiness' that sages are attached to is the 'emptiness' manifested by emptiness, like the illusory flowers in the sky. The 'existence' that ordinary people are attached to is that illusory flowers have no real existence. The 'emptiness' that sages are attached to is that illusory flowers have no intrinsic emptiness. Like this, the three sections and two truths are all empty flowers, and all are without anything. Next, explain according to the scriptures. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大品般若經, Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: 'Form is emptiness, emptiness is not form.' In the past, I did not understand this sentence, but now I explain it as follows: This sentence simultaneously refutes the two views of 'one' and 'different'. Why? 'Form is emptiness' is to break the views of ordinary people and Śrāvakas (聲聞乘, Hearers), etc., who think that form and emptiness are different, and that emptiness can only be obtained by dismantling form. That is why it is said that 'form is emptiness'. 'Emptiness is not form' is to break the view of 'identity'. Previously it was said that 'form is emptiness', and it was understood as 'identity'. That is why it is said that 'emptiness is not form'. If there is form, it can be said that 'form is emptiness', but since there is no form, how can it be said that 'form is emptiness'? This is actually using 'one' to break 'different', and using 'different' to break 'one'.
有以破無。借無以破有。此言即不即。併爲眾生。四悉壇中。對治悉壇用也。如此等意。並是隨順眾生。作如此說耳。若是般若。色即無礙。色即空空即色。常即無常無常即常。空為有用有為空用。常為無常用無常為常用。一念無量劫無量劫一念。三世為一世一世為三世等用。無來無積聚。而現諸劫事。為是故即色即空也。
次明二諦體第四。然二諦體亦為難解。爰古至今凡有十四家解釋。若一一詳其得失。約經論簡其邪正者。則大經時序。今略出當路三家解。試而論之。大師常出三家明二諦體義。第一家明二諦一體。第二家明二諦異體。第三家明二諦以中道為體。就明二諦一體家復有三說。一云真諦為體。二云俗諦為體。三云二諦互指為體。第一真諦為體者。有二義。一者明空為理本。明一切法皆以空為本。有非是本。為是故。以真諦為體也。二者有為俗諦。折俗本為悟真故。真為體也。言俗為體者。要由折俗故得真。若不拆俗則不得真。良由前拆俗故得真。所以俗為體也。第三家說互指為體云。前兩家並僻今明具二義。明空為有本故。真為俗體。俗為真用。拆俗得真故。俗為真體。真為俗用。二諦互為體。真俗互為用也。此即是開善門宗有此三釋。開善本以真為體。余兩釋支流也。第二家明二諦異體。三假
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 用『有』來破除『無』，借用『無』來破除『有』。這種說法既是『即』又不是『即』，都是爲了眾生，在四悉檀（Siddhartha，四種成就）中，屬於對治悉檀（消除煩惱的成就）的應用。像這樣的意思，都是爲了隨順眾生，才這樣說的。 如果是般若（Prajna，智慧），那麼色（Rupa，物質）就是無礙的，色即是空，空即是色。常（Nitya，永恒）即是無常（Anitya，無常），無常即是常。空可以作為『有』的功用，『有』可以作為『空』的功用。常可以作為無常的功用，無常可以作為常的功用。一念（Ksana，瞬間）即是無量劫（Kalpa，極長的時間），無量劫即是一念。三世（過去、現在、未來）即是一世（一個時代），一世即是三世等等的應用。沒有來處，沒有積聚，卻能顯現諸劫的事情。因此，才是『即色即空』。
接下來闡明二諦（Satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）的本體第四。然而，二諦的本體也很難理解。從古至今，共有十四家解釋。如果一一詳細分析它們的得失，根據經論來簡別它們的邪正，那麼就如同《大經》的時序一樣。現在略微提出其中比較重要的三家解釋，嘗試著討論它們。大師經常提出三家來闡明二諦的本體意義。第一家認為二諦是一體的，第二家認為二諦是異體的，第三家認為二諦以中道（Madhyamaka，不落兩邊的中正之道）為本體。在闡明二諦一體的學派中，又有三種說法。一種認為真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）為本體，一種認為俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）為本體，一種認為二諦互相指認為本體。第一種，認為真諦為本體的，有兩種含義。一是認為空是理之根本，認為一切法都以空為根本，『有』不是根本。因此，以真諦為本體。二是認為『有』是俗諦，破除俗諦的根本是爲了領悟真諦，所以真諦為本體。認為俗諦為本體的，認為必須要通過破除俗諦才能得到真諦，如果不破除俗諦就無法得到真諦。正是因為先前破除了俗諦才得到真諦，所以俗諦為本體。第三家認為互相指認為本體，認為前兩家都有偏差，現在闡明二者兼具的意義。認為空是『有』的根本，所以真諦是俗諦的本體，俗諦是真諦的功用。破除俗諦可以得到真諦，所以俗諦是真諦的本體，真諦是俗諦的功用。二諦互相為本體，真俗互相為功用。這就是開善寺一派的觀點，有這三種解釋。開善寺原本以真諦為本體，其餘兩種解釋是分支。
【English Translation】 English version: Using 'existence' to break 'non-existence', borrowing 'non-existence' to break 'existence'. This statement is both 'is' and 'is not', all for the sake of sentient beings, within the four Siddhanthas (Siddhartha, four kinds of accomplishments), it belongs to the application of the antidote Siddhantha (the accomplishment of eliminating afflictions). Such meanings are all in accordance with sentient beings, and thus spoken. If it is Prajna (Prajna, wisdom), then Rupa (Rupa, matter) is unobstructed, Rupa is emptiness, and emptiness is Rupa. Nitya (Nitya, eternity) is Anitya (Anitya, impermanence), and Anitya is Nitya. Emptiness can be used as the function of 'existence', and 'existence' can be used as the function of emptiness. Eternity can be used as the function of impermanence, and impermanence can be used as the function of eternity. One Ksana (Ksana, instant) is immeasurable Kalpas (Kalpa, extremely long time), and immeasurable Kalpas is one Ksana. The three times (past, present, future) are one time (an era), and one time is the three times, and so on. There is no coming, no accumulation, yet it manifests the events of all Kalpas. Therefore, it is 'Rupa is emptiness'.
Next, the fourth explanation clarifies the substance of the two truths (Satya-dvaya, the absolute truth and the relative truth). However, the substance of the two truths is also difficult to understand. From ancient times to the present, there have been fourteen interpretations. If we analyze their merits and demerits in detail, and distinguish their right and wrong according to the scriptures and treatises, then it is like the order of the Great Sutra. Now, let's briefly present three of the more important interpretations and try to discuss them. The master often puts forward three schools to clarify the meaning of the substance of the two truths. The first school believes that the two truths are one substance, the second school believes that the two truths are different substances, and the third school believes that the two truths take the Middle Way (Madhyamaka, the middle path that does not fall into two extremes) as the substance. Among the schools that clarify the oneness of the two truths, there are three views. One believes that the absolute truth (Paramārtha-satya, the ultimate truth) is the substance, one believes that the relative truth (Saṃvṛti-satya, the conventional truth) is the substance, and one believes that the two truths refer to each other as the substance. The first, which believes that the absolute truth is the substance, has two meanings. One is that emptiness is the root of reason, and that all dharmas take emptiness as the root, and 'existence' is not the root. Therefore, the absolute truth is taken as the substance. The second is that 'existence' is the relative truth, and breaking the root of the relative truth is to realize the absolute truth, so the absolute truth is the substance. Those who believe that the relative truth is the substance believe that the absolute truth must be obtained by breaking the relative truth, and if the relative truth is not broken, the absolute truth cannot be obtained. It is precisely because the relative truth was broken earlier that the absolute truth was obtained, so the relative truth is the substance. The third school believes that they refer to each other as the substance, believing that the previous two schools have deviations, and now clarifies the meaning of both. It is believed that emptiness is the root of 'existence', so the absolute truth is the substance of the relative truth, and the relative truth is the function of the absolute truth. Breaking the relative truth can obtain the absolute truth, so the relative truth is the substance of the absolute truth, and the absolute truth is the function of the relative truth. The two truths are the substance of each other, and the absolute and relative are the function of each other. This is the view of the Kaisan Temple school, with these three interpretations. Kaisan Temple originally took the absolute truth as the substance, and the other two interpretations are branches.
為俗諦體。四忘為真諦體。名相為俗諦體。無名相為真諦體故。二諦體異也。第三明中道為二諦體者。還是開善法師。用中道為二諦體。彼明二即于不二故。彼序云。二而不二。二諦即中道。不二而二。中道即二諦。故以中道為二諦體。此即總論有三家。別開則有五釋也。然雖有三家解釋。二諦一體二諦異體。此不足可簡。今略論中道為二諦體義。何者。攝嶺興皇。皆以中道為二諦體。彼亦明中道為二諦體。故須簡之。然彼有三種中道。今用何物中道為體耶。三種中道者。一世諦中。二真諦中。三二諦合明中。世諦中道者有三種。一因中有果理故非無。即無果事故非有。非有非無因果中道也。二者實法滅故不常。相續故不斷。不常不斷相續中道也。三者相待中道。后當辨之云云。真諦中道者。非有非無為真諦中道也。二諦合明中道者。非真非俗為二諦合明中道。此異真諦中道。真諦中非有非無。不非真非俗。二諦合明中道。即非真非俗也。次彼明三種中。用何中道為二諦體耶。解云。彼不用俗諦中道為二諦體。亦不用非真非俗中道為二諦體。何者。彼無別非真非俗法。莊嚴明佛果涅槃出二諦外。開善明二諦攝法盡。今言非真非俗者。互望為非。核論唯是真俗。俗非真真非俗。為非真非俗。非俗只是真。非真只是俗。無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為俗諦（世俗諦，指世俗認識的真理）的本體。四忘（斷除四種顛倒妄見）為真諦（勝義諦，指通過修行獲得的真理）的本體。名相（概念和名稱）為俗諦的本體。沒有名相為真諦的本體。所以，俗諦和真諦的本體是不同的。第三種觀點認為中道（不落兩邊的中正之道）是二諦的本體，這是開善法師的觀點。他認為二諦即是不二，二諦就是中道；不二即是二，中道就是二諦。所以用中道作為二諦的本體。以上是總體的三種觀點，如果細分則有五種解釋。雖然有三種解釋，即二諦一體和二諦異體，但這兩種觀點不需要過多討論。現在簡要討論一下中道作為二諦本體的意義。攝嶺（攝山，位於今江蘇南京）和興皇（興皇寺）都認為中道是二諦的本體。他們也認為中道是二諦的本體，所以需要加以區分。然而，他們有三種中道，現在用哪一種中道作為本體呢？這三種中道是：一、世諦中的中道；二、真諦中的中道；三、二諦合明的中道。世諦中的中道有三種：一、因中含有果的道理，所以不是沒有；但因為沒有果的實現，所以不是有。這種非有非無就是因果中道。二、實法（真實存在的法）滅去，所以不是常；相續不斷，所以不是斷。這種不常不斷的相續就是中道。三、相待中道（相互依存的中道），後面會詳細解釋。真諦中的中道，是非有非無，這就是真諦中道。二諦合明的中道，是非真非俗，這就是二諦合明的中道。這與真諦中道不同。真諦中道是非有非無，而不是非真非俗。二諦合明的中道，就是非真非俗。接下來討論他們所說的三種中道中，用哪一種中道作為二諦的本體呢？解釋說，他們不用俗諦中道作為二諦的本體，也不用非真非俗的中道作為二諦的本體。為什麼呢？因為沒有單獨的非真非俗的法。莊嚴法師認為佛果涅槃超出二諦之外，而開善法師認為二諦涵蓋一切法。現在說非真非俗，是相互比較而言的。如果仔細分析，就只有真和俗。俗不是真，真不是俗，所以說是非真非俗。非俗只是真，非真只是俗，沒有 無
【English Translation】 English version It takes the 'conventional truth' (samvriti-satya, the truth understood by ordinary people) as its substance. 'Fourfold forgetting' (the abandonment of the four inverted views) takes the 'ultimate truth' (paramartha-satya, the truth realized through practice) as its substance. 'Names and forms' (nama-rupa, the concepts and labels) take the conventional truth as its substance. 'No names and forms' takes the ultimate truth as its substance. Therefore, the substances of the two truths are different. The third view, which considers the 'Middle Way' (madhyama-pratipada, the path of non-extremes) as the substance of the two truths, is that of Master Kaishan. He clarifies that the two are identical to the non-dual, hence the two truths are the Middle Way. The non-dual is identical to the two, hence the Middle Way is the two truths. Thus, he uses the Middle Way as the substance of the two truths. The above is a general discussion of three views, which can be further divided into five interpretations. Although there are three interpretations, namely the two truths being one and the two truths being different, these two views do not require much discussion. Now, let's briefly discuss the meaning of the Middle Way as the substance of the two truths. What is it? Both Sheling (Mount She, located in present-day Nanjing, Jiangsu) and Xinghuang (Xinghuang Temple) consider the Middle Way as the substance of the two truths. They also clarify that the Middle Way is the substance of the two truths, so it needs to be distinguished. However, they have three kinds of Middle Way, so which Middle Way is used as the substance? The three kinds of Middle Way are: first, the Middle Way in conventional truth; second, the Middle Way in ultimate truth; third, the Middle Way that combines the two truths. The Middle Way in conventional truth has three aspects: first, the principle that the result is contained within the cause, so it is not non-existent; but because the result has not yet manifested, it is not existent. This non-existent and non-non-existent is the Middle Way of cause and effect. Second, real dharmas (actual existing phenomena) cease, so it is not permanent; the continuity continues, so it is not discontinuous. This non-permanent and non-discontinuous continuity is the Middle Way. Third, the 'relative Middle Way' (dependent Middle Way), which will be explained in detail later. The Middle Way in ultimate truth is neither existent nor non-existent, which is the Middle Way of ultimate truth. The Middle Way that combines the two truths is neither true nor conventional, which is the Middle Way that combines the two truths. This is different from the Middle Way of ultimate truth. The Middle Way of ultimate truth is neither existent nor non-existent, but not neither true nor conventional. The Middle Way that combines the two truths is neither true nor conventional. Next, let's discuss which of the three kinds of Middle Way they use as the substance of the two truths. The explanation is that they do not use the Middle Way of conventional truth as the substance of the two truths, nor do they use the Middle Way that is neither true nor conventional as the substance of the two truths. Why? Because there is no separate dharma that is neither true nor conventional. Dharma Master Zhuangyan believes that the Buddha-fruit and Nirvana are beyond the two truths, while Dharma Master Kaishan believes that the two truths encompass all dharmas. Now, saying neither true nor conventional is in comparison. If analyzed carefully, there are only true and conventional. The conventional is not true, and the true is not conventional, so it is said to be neither true nor conventional. The non-conventional is only true, and the non-true is only conventional, there is no no
別非真非俗。故不用為二諦體也。言中道為體者。真諦中道為體。真諦中道還是真諦。故彼序云。二諦者一真不二之極理從來言彼相違。彼定不相違。中道還是真諦。真諦還是中道故也。問開善何因緣以中道為二諦體耶。解云。此有原由。何者。山中法師之師。本遼東人。從北地學三論。遠習什師之義。來入南吳。住鐘山草堂寺。值隱士周顒。周顒因就受學。周顒晚作三宗論。明二諦以中道為體。晚有智琳法師。請周顒出三宗論。周顒云。弟子若出此論。恐于眾人。琳曰。貧道昔年少時。曾聞此義。玄音中絕四十餘載。檀越若出此論。勝國城妻子頭目佈施。於是始出此論也。次梁武大敬信佛法。本學成論。聞法師在山。仍遺僧正智寂等十人往山學。雖得語言。不精究其意。所以梁武晚義。異諸法師。稱為制旨義也。開善爾時雖不入山。亦聞此義故。用中道為二諦體。既不親承音旨故。作義乖僻還以真諦為體也。今明。即以非真非俗為二諦體。真俗為用。亦名理教。亦名中假。中假重名中假。理教重為理教。亦體用重為體用故。不二為體二為用。略標章門如此。若了前二諦大意。則二諦體義。已應可見也。問今明中道為二諦體。有何所以。釋何物經。解何物論。對何物病耶。解云。所以明中道為二諦體者。二諦為表不二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『非真非俗』不是二諦的本體。說以『中道』為本體，『真諦中道』就是本體。『真諦中道』還是『真諦』。所以那篇序文說：『二諦』是一真不二的極理，向來說它們相互違背，它們一定不相互違背。『中道』還是『真諦』，『真諦』還是『中道』。問：開善法師為什麼以『中道』為二諦的本體呢？答：這有原因。什麼原因呢？山中法師的老師，原本是遼東人，從北方學習三論宗，學習鳩摩羅什大師的義理，來到南吳，住在鐘山草堂寺。遇到隱士周顒（yóng）。周顒就向他學習。周顒晚年寫了《三宗論》，闡明二諦以『中道』為本體。後來有智琳法師，請周顒拿出《三宗論》。周顒說：『弟子如果拿出這部論，恐怕對眾人不利。』智琳說：『貧道我年輕時，曾經聽過這個義理，玄妙的聲音中斷四十多年了。檀越如果拿出這部論，勝過用國城妻子頭目來佈施。』於是才拿出這部論。後來梁武帝非常敬信佛法，原本學習成實論，聽說山中法師在山中，就派僧正智寂等十人去山中學習。雖然學到了語言，但不精通其中的意思。所以梁武帝晚年的義理，與各位法師不同，被稱為『制旨義』。開善法師當時雖然沒有入山，也聽說了這個義理，所以用『中道』為二諦的本體。因為沒有親自聽到音旨，所以作出的義理有偏差，還是以『真諦』為本體。現在說明，就是以『非真非俗』為二諦的本體，以『真俗』為作用，也叫『理教』，也叫『中假』。『中假』重名為『中假』，『理教』重為『理教』，『體用』重為『體用』。不二為體，二為用。簡單地標明章門就是這樣。如果瞭解了前面二諦的大意，那麼二諦的體義，應該就可以明白了。問：現在說明以『中道』為二諦的本體，有什麼原因？解釋什麼經？解釋什麼論？針對什麼病呢？答：說明以『中道』為二諦的本體的原因是，二諦是爲了表明不二。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Neither real nor conventional' is not the substance of the Two Truths. To say that 'the Middle Way' is the substance means that 'the Middle Way of the Truth of Cessation' is the substance. 'The Middle Way of the Truth of Cessation' is still 'the Truth of Cessation'. Therefore, that preface says: 'The Two Truths' are the ultimate principle of one reality and non-duality. It has always been said that they contradict each other, but they certainly do not contradict each other. 'The Middle Way' is still 'the Truth of Cessation', and 'the Truth of Cessation' is still 'the Middle Way'. Question: Why did Master Kaishan (name of a monk) take 'the Middle Way' as the substance of the Two Truths? Answer: There is a reason for this. What is the reason? The teacher of the mountain monk was originally from Liaodong. He studied the Three Treatise School from the north and learned the meaning of Master Kumarajiva (Buddhist scholar and translator), came to Nanwu, and lived in the Caotang Temple on Zhongshan Mountain. He met the hermit Zhou Yong (name of a person). Zhou Yong then studied with him. In his later years, Zhou Yong wrote the 'Treatise on the Three Schools', clarifying that the Two Truths take 'the Middle Way' as the substance. Later, there was Dharma Master Zhilin (name of a monk), who asked Zhou Yong to produce the 'Treatise on the Three Schools'. Zhou Yong said, 'If this disciple produces this treatise, I am afraid it will be detrimental to the public.' Zhilin said, 'When I was young, I heard this meaning, and the profound sound has been interrupted for more than forty years. If you produce this treatise, it will be better than giving away the country, city, wife, children, head, and eyes.' So he produced this treatise. Later, Emperor Wu of Liang (Emperor of the Liang Dynasty) greatly revered Buddhism. He originally studied the Chengshi Lun (Tattvasiddhi Shastra), heard that the Dharma Master was in the mountains, and sent ten people, including the Sangha Chief Zhiji, to study in the mountains. Although they learned the language, they did not thoroughly understand its meaning. Therefore, Emperor Wu of Liang's later meaning was different from that of the Dharma Masters and was called 'the Imperial Edict Meaning'. Although Kaishan was not in the mountains at that time, he also heard this meaning, so he used 'the Middle Way' as the substance of the Two Truths. Because he did not personally hear the sound and meaning, the meaning he made was biased, and he still took 'the Truth of Cessation' as the substance. Now it is clarified that 'neither real nor conventional' is the substance of the Two Truths, and 'real and conventional' is the function. It is also called 'principle and teaching', and it is also called 'the Middle and Provisional'. 'The Middle and Provisional' is renamed 'the Middle and Provisional', 'principle and teaching' is renamed 'principle and teaching', and 'substance and function' is renamed 'substance and function'. Non-duality is the substance, and duality is the function. The chapter door is simply marked in this way. If you understand the general meaning of the previous Two Truths, then the meaning of the substance of the Two Truths should be visible. Question: Now, what is the reason for clarifying that 'the Middle Way' is the substance of the Two Truths? What sutra is explained? What treatise is explained? What disease is addressed? Answer: The reason for clarifying that 'the Middle Way' is the substance of the Two Truths is that the Two Truths are to show non-duality.
之理。如指指月。意不在指。意令得月。二諦教亦爾。二諦為表不二。意不在二。為令得於不二。是故以不二為二諦體。又今明二諦是教門。為通於不二。故山中師云。開真俗門說二諦教故。二諦是教門。教門為通不二之理。故以中道不二為體也。此則明教諦不二為體如此。次辨于諦不二為體者。道無有二。於二緣故二。既知於二。即顯乎不二。故不二為體也。此即于教二諦。皆有所為故。以不二中道為體也。又所以中道為二諦體者。正為對由來埋二見根深。何者。如上所辨。別開即有五家。總論但有三釋。一云真為體。二云俗為體。三云真俗各體。雖有三釋。終不出二諦。真諦為體。則道理有此無為體。俗諦為體。則道理有此有為體。二諦異體者。有為俗體。空為真體。道理有二。則是二見眾生。今對此故。明不二中道為體。對此病即是釋經論。故中論云。淺智見諸法若有若無相。是即不能見滅見安穩法。汝今各見有見無。即是淺智。不能見安穩之法。安穩法者。即是不二之道。安穩法非是有無。汝見有無故不見也。又諸佛唯有一道。故華嚴云。文殊法常爾。法王唯一法。一切無畏人。一道出生死。既唯有一道。無有二道。唯有一理。無有二理也。又若二諦。有二理即成有所得。大品云。有所得見名曰二見。云何二
見。謂眼色二。乃至一切皆爾。又云。諸有二者。無道無果。眾生既本有二見之病。諸佛若更說道理有二。便是故病不除。更增新惑。為是故。諸佛隨順眾生。說有二諦。道理無二也。故涅槃經云。無有二諦。善巧方便。隨順眾生。說有二諦也。又說有三諦。作若為解耶。仁王經明三諦義。彼便曲解。如此等經。皆是他妨礙之處。今明無礙。或時為三諦。有諦無諦中道第一義諦。或時非真非俗為理。真俗為教。理教合論故有三諦也。問何處有經文。的明中道為二諦體耶。解云。中論偈即是。彼云。因緣所生法我說即是空。亦是為假名。亦是中道義。此偈是經是論。何者。此是華首經中偈。龍樹引來即是論。既云假名即中道。故中道二諦體也。又華嚴云。一切有無法。了達非有無。達有不有。達無不無。達有無不有無。故不有無為有無體也。又仁王經云。三諦。亦是不二為體。有諦無諦即是教。非有非無中道第一義諦。即是理也。彼云。我亦明非真非俗中道者不然。且問。汝非真非俗是何物耶。非真還是俗。非俗還是真。非有還是無。非無還是有。還是有無二見故。無中道第一義諦也。又中論云。是故知。虛空非有亦非無。非相非可相。餘五同虛空。只六種非有非無非真非俗。何者六種是俗。無六種是真。既非有非無。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 見，指的是眼和色的二元對立。乃至一切事物都是如此。又說，凡是執著於二元對立的，就無法證得真道和真果。眾生本來就有二元對立的毛病，諸佛如果再說事理有二，這便是舊病未除，又增添新的迷惑。因此，諸佛隨順眾生，說有二諦（Satyadvaya，真諦和俗諦）。但道理本身並沒有二元對立。所以《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說，實際上沒有二諦，只是善巧方便，爲了隨順眾生，才說有二諦。又說有三諦（Tri-satya），應該如何理解呢？《仁王經》（Ren Wang Jing）闡明了三諦的含義，但他們卻曲解了。像這些經文，都是他們產生障礙的地方。現在說明沒有障礙。有時說是三諦：有諦（astitva-satya）、無諦（nastitva-satya）、中道第一義諦（madhyama-paramartha-satya）。有時說非真非俗是理，真俗是教。理和教合在一起討論，所以有三諦。問：哪裡有經文明確說明中道是二諦的本體呢？答：中論的偈頌就是。其中說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦是為假名，亦是中道義。』這個偈頌是經還是論呢？這是《華首經》（Huayan Sutra）中的偈頌，龍樹（Nagarjuna）引用過來就是論。既然說是假名，那就是中道，所以中道是二諦的本體。又《華嚴經》（Huayan Sutra）說：『一切有無法，了達非有無，達有不有，達無不無，達有無不有無。』所以不有無是有無的本體。又《仁王經》說，三諦也是以不二為本體。有諦和無諦是教，非有非無的中道第一義諦是理。他們說：『我也闡明非真非俗的中道』，這是不對的。且問：你說的非真非俗是什麼東西呢？非真還是俗，非俗還是真。非有還是無，非無還是有。還是落入了有無二見的窠臼，所以沒有中道第一義諦。又《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）說：『是故知，虛空非有亦非無，非相非可相，餘五同虛空。』只是六種（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）非有非無，非真非俗。哪六種是俗？沒有六種是真。既然非有非無，
【English Translation】 English version Seeing refers to the duality of eye and form. This applies to everything. Furthermore, it is said that those who cling to duality cannot attain the true path and its fruits. Since sentient beings inherently suffer from the illness of dualistic views, if the Buddhas were to further assert the existence of duality in principle, it would not only fail to eliminate the old ailment but also introduce new confusion. Therefore, the Buddhas, in accordance with sentient beings, speak of the Two Truths (Satyadvaya, the relative and ultimate truths). However, in reality, there is no duality in the principle itself. Hence, the Nirvana Sutra states that there are actually no Two Truths, but they are taught as a skillful means to accord with sentient beings. Furthermore, how should one understand the Three Truths (Tri-satya)? The Ren Wang Jing clarifies the meaning of the Three Truths, but they misinterpret it. Such scriptures become obstacles for them. Now, I will explain that there are no obstacles. Sometimes, it is said that there are Three Truths: the truth of existence (astitva-satya), the truth of non-existence (nastitva-satya), and the ultimate truth of the Middle Way (madhyama-paramartha-satya). Sometimes, it is said that neither true nor conventional is the principle, while true and conventional are the teachings. When principle and teachings are discussed together, there are Three Truths. Question: Where in the scriptures is it clearly stated that the Middle Way is the substance of the Two Truths? Answer: The verses in the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) state: 'Whatever arises from conditions, I say is emptiness; it is also a provisional designation; it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.' Is this verse from a sutra or a treatise? It is a verse from the Huayan Sutra, and when Nagarjuna quotes it, it becomes a treatise. Since it is said to be a provisional designation, it is the Middle Way. Therefore, the Middle Way is the substance of the Two Truths. Furthermore, the Huayan Sutra states: 'All existence and non-existence are understood as neither existence nor non-existence; understanding existence as not existing, understanding non-existence as not non-existing, understanding existence and non-existence as neither existence nor non-existence.' Therefore, neither existence nor non-existence is the substance of existence and non-existence. Furthermore, the Ren Wang Jing states that the Three Truths also take non-duality as their substance. The truth of existence and the truth of non-existence are the teachings, while the ultimate truth of the Middle Way, which is neither existence nor non-existence, is the principle. They say: 'I also explain the Middle Way as neither true nor conventional,' but this is incorrect. I ask: What is this neither true nor conventional that you speak of? If it is not true, then it is conventional; if it is not conventional, then it is true. If it is not existence, then it is non-existence; if it is not non-existence, then it is existence. It still falls into the trap of the dualistic views of existence and non-existence, and therefore, there is no ultimate truth of the Middle Way. Furthermore, the Madhyamaka-karika states: 'Therefore, it is known that space is neither existence nor non-existence, neither characterized nor characterizable; the other five are the same as space.' Only the six (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma) are neither existence nor non-existence, neither true nor conventional. Which six are conventional? Without the six, it is true. Since it is neither existence nor non-existence,
即非真非俗也。又涅槃云。明與無明。愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。無二之性。即是實性。黑法白法漏無漏真俗二。皆例爾。又云。前于摩訶般若中。說我無我不二。我即俗。無我即真。我無我不二。即真俗不二也。又法華云。若有若無等。依止此諸見。具足六十二。若見有見無。即具六十二見。若能捨有無二見。即悟中道也。如此處經文無量。故知。無有二理。唯有一理也。問汝既有三諦。應有三體。我有二諦有二體。解云。若得一家意致。不應作此難。前云。假有為世諦。假無為真諦。假有不有有。假無不無無。不有有。有無所有。不無無。無無所無。那忽有三體耶。又問。有無終是二諦。非有非無是中道諦。終是三諦終有三體。既有假三諦有假三體。解云不得。假有假無是教。非有非無是理。中道第一義諦是理諦。真俗是教諦。開理教為三諦則得也。次泯之。一往開理教二不二。再往皆泯。何者。二不二不二二。二不二非不二。不二二非二。斯即非二非不二。乃至五句皆流。一無依倚畢竟清凈。理教亦然。故華嚴云。一切有無法。了達非有無。不著不二法。以無一二故。達有無二不二。既無二即無不二。故云不著不二法以無一二故也。然此語是兩處說。師合為一偈說之耳。前說二為表不二。悟二不二。無二更
【現代漢語翻譯】 即非真非俗也。又《涅槃經》云：『明與無明（指智慧與愚昧）。愚者謂二（愚昧的人認為這是兩種不同的東西），智者了達其性無二（有智慧的人明白它們的本質沒有分別）。無二之性（沒有分別的性質），即是實性（就是真實的本性）。』黑法白法（指不善之法與善良之法），漏無漏（指有煩惱與無煩惱），真俗二（指真諦與俗諦），皆例爾（都可以此類推）。 又云：『前于《摩訶般若經》中，說我無我不二（之前在《摩訶般若經》中說過，我與無我是沒有分別的）。我即俗（我就是俗諦），無我即真（無我就是真諦）。我無我不二（我與無我沒有分別），即真俗不二也（就是真諦與俗諦沒有分別）。』 又《法華經》云：『若有若無等（如果執著于有或者無等等），依止此諸見（就會依賴於這些見解），具足六十二（就會具備六十二種邪見）。若見有見無（如果執著于有見或者無見），即具六十二見（就具備了六十二種邪見）。若能捨有無二見（如果能夠捨棄有和無這兩種對立的見解），即悟中道也（就能領悟中道）。』如此處經文無量（像這樣的經文數不勝數），故知（所以可知），無有二理（沒有兩種道理），唯有一理也（只有一種道理）。 問：汝既有三諦（既然你們有三諦），應有三體（就應該有三種本體）。我有二諦有二體（我們有二諦，所以有二體）。 解云：若得一家意致（如果領會了一家的意旨），不應作此難（就不應該提出這樣的疑問）。前云（前面說過）：『假有為世諦（假有是世俗諦），假無為真諦（假無是真諦），假有不有有（假有不是真的有），假無不無無（假無不是真的無）。不有有（不是真的有），有無所有（有就沒有了實在的意義）。不無無（不是真的無），無無所無（無就沒有了可以依附的地方）。』那忽有三體耶（怎麼會有三種本體呢）？ 又問：有無終是二諦（有和無終究是二諦），非有非無是中道諦（非有非無是中道諦），終是三諦終有三體（終究是三諦，終究有三體）。既有假三諦有假三體（既然有假的三諦，就有假的三體）。 解云：不得（不能這樣說）。假有假無是教（假有假無是教法），非有非無是理（非有非無是理體）。中道第一義諦是理諦（中道第一義諦是理諦），真俗是教諦（真諦和俗諦是教諦）。開理教為三諦則得也（把理和教分開成為三諦就可以）。 次泯之（接下來泯除這些差別）。一往開理教二不二（首先分開理和教，分為二和不二），再往皆泯（再進一步就全部泯除）。何者（為什麼呢）？二不二不二二（二和不二，不二和二），二不二非不二（二和不二不是不二），不二二非二（不二和二不是二），斯即非二非不二（這就是非二非不二）。乃至五句皆流（乃至五句都流轉變化），一無依倚畢竟清凈（達到一種沒有依賴，畢竟清凈的狀態）。理教亦然（理和教也是這樣）。 故《華嚴經》云：『一切有無法（一切有法和無法），了達非有無（如果能明瞭它們非有非無），不著不二法（就不執著于不二之法），以無一二故（因為沒有一和二的分別）。』達有無二不二（通達有和無，二和不二），既無二即無不二（既然沒有二，就沒有不二），故云不著不二法以無一二故也（所以說不執著于不二之法，因為沒有一和二的分別）。然此語是兩處說（然而這句話是兩處說的），師合為一偈說之耳（大師把它們合為一偈來說）。前說二為表不二（前面說二是爲了表明不二），悟二不二（領悟二和不二），無二更（沒有二就更……）
【English Translation】 It is neither true nor conventional. Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Brightness and ignorance (referring to wisdom and delusion). The foolish consider them two (foolish people think these are two different things), while the wise understand their nature as non-dual (wise people understand that their essence is without distinction). The nature of non-duality (the nature without distinction) is the true nature (is the real nature).' Black Dharma and white Dharma (referring to unwholesome and wholesome dharmas), defiled and undefiled (referring to with afflictions and without afflictions), the two of truth and convention (referring to the ultimate truth and conventional truth), all are analogous to this (can all be inferred in this way). It also says: 'Previously, in the Mahaprajna Sutra, it was said that self and non-self are non-dual (previously in the Mahaprajna Sutra it was said that self and non-self are without distinction). Self is the conventional (self is the conventional truth), non-self is the truth (non-self is the ultimate truth). Self and non-self are non-dual (self and non-self are without distinction), which means that truth and convention are non-dual (which means that the ultimate truth and conventional truth are without distinction).' Also, the Lotus Sutra says: 'If there is existence or non-existence, etc. (if one clings to existence or non-existence, etc.), relying on these views (one will rely on these views), one will possess sixty-two (one will possess sixty-two kinds of wrong views). If one sees existence or sees non-existence (if one clings to the view of existence or the view of non-existence), one possesses sixty-two views (one possesses sixty-two kinds of wrong views). If one can abandon the dualistic views of existence and non-existence (if one can abandon the opposing views of existence and non-existence), one will realize the Middle Way (one will realize the Middle Way).' There are countless sutra passages like this (there are countless sutra passages like this), so it is known (so it can be known) that there are no two principles (there are no two principles), only one principle (only one principle). Question: Since you have the Three Truths (since you have the Three Truths), there should be three entities (there should be three entities). We have two truths and two entities (we have two truths, so we have two entities). Answer: If you understand the intention of one school (if you understand the intention of one school), you should not raise this question (you should not raise this question). It was said earlier: 'Provisional existence is the mundane truth (provisional existence is the mundane truth), provisional non-existence is the ultimate truth (provisional non-existence is the ultimate truth), provisional existence is not truly existent (provisional existence is not truly existent), provisional non-existence is not truly non-existent (provisional non-existence is not truly non-existent). Not truly existent (not truly existent), existence has no real meaning (existence has no real meaning). Not truly non-existent (not truly non-existent), non-existence has nothing to rely on (non-existence has nothing to rely on).' How then can there be three entities (how then can there be three entities)? Question: Existence and non-existence are ultimately two truths (existence and non-existence are ultimately two truths), non-existence and non-non-existence is the Middle Way Truth (non-existence and non-non-existence is the Middle Way Truth), ultimately there are three truths and three entities (ultimately there are three truths and three entities). Since there are provisional three truths, there are provisional three entities (since there are provisional three truths, there are provisional three entities). Answer: That is not correct (that is not correct). Provisional existence and provisional non-existence are teachings (provisional existence and provisional non-existence are teachings), non-existence and non-non-existence is principle (non-existence and non-non-existence is principle). The Middle Way First Principle Truth is the Truth of Principle (the Middle Way First Principle Truth is the Truth of Principle), truth and convention are the Truths of Teaching (truth and convention are the Truths of Teaching). Separating principle and teaching into three truths is acceptable (separating principle and teaching into three truths is acceptable). Next, eliminate these distinctions (next, eliminate these distinctions). First, separate principle and teaching into two and non-two (first, separate principle and teaching into two and non-two), then eliminate all (then eliminate all further). Why (why)? Two and non-two, non-two and two (two and non-two, non-two and two), two and non-two are not non-two (two and non-two are not non-two), non-two and two are not two (non-two and two are not two), this is neither two nor non-two (this is neither two nor non-two). Even the five phrases all flow (even the five phrases all flow and change), reaching a state of no reliance and ultimate purity (reaching a state of no reliance and ultimate purity). Principle and teaching are also like this (principle and teaching are also like this). Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'All existent and non-existent dharmas (all existent and non-existent dharmas), understanding that they are neither existent nor non-existent (if one understands that they are neither existent nor non-existent), one does not cling to the non-dual dharma (one does not cling to the non-dual dharma), because there is no one or two (because there is no distinction between one and two).' Understanding existence and non-existence, two and non-two (understanding existence and non-existence, two and non-two), since there is no two, there is no non-two (since there is no two, there is no non-two), therefore it is said not to cling to the non-dual dharma because there is no one or two (therefore it is said not to cling to the non-dual dharma because there is no distinction between one and two). However, this saying is said in two places (however, this saying is said in two places), the master combines them into one verse (the master combines them into one verse). Previously, saying two was to express non-duality (previously, saying two was to express non-duality), realizing two and non-two (realizing two and non-two), without two, even more (without two, even more...)
住不二。則還為縛。故大經云。如擒捕獼猴隨觸隨著。為是故今明。既識二不二。無二即無不二。如是清玄轉悟。一切皆離也。然二諦體義。大格如此。猶有並觀義。兩句難解。今且論一句義。一句付后釋也。言一句者。他明二諦是有二理。三假為世諦理。四忘為真諦理。以有二理故。有出入觀。有二諦並觀。汝今明。唯有中道不二一理。云何得有出入觀。有兩物可有出有入。既無有二。若為明出入耶。又無有二理。若為明並觀耶。有二可論並。既無二。何得有並耶。今且論出入觀並觀位處。何位出入觀。何位並觀耶。古有三釋。一者靈味法師明。初地菩薩。二諦並觀。初地得真無生故。得並觀也。二者什肇等諸師明。七地菩薩得並觀故。肇師云。施極于施。而未嘗施。戒極于戒。而未嘗戒。此即施無施並故也。三者即是三大法師於世盛行者。八地並觀。初地至七地出入觀。八地始得並觀。八地菩薩道觀雙行。真俗並照也。然此之三釋。皆出經論。若偏執是則為非。第一家。以初地為是。餘二為非第三家。八地為是。餘二為非。所以成失。今山門釋者。即四節明並觀義。然此之四節。非但是菩薩之要行。亦是二諦之大綱也。四節者。一者山中師云。從初發心已來即並觀。問若為初發心即並觀耶。解云。初發心即學二諦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 執著於二元對立，仍然會被束縛。所以《大般涅槃經》說：『就像捕捉獼猴，隨著觸碰而追逐。』因此現在要闡明，既然認識到二與非二的統一，沒有二元對立，也就沒有非二元對立。這樣清凈玄妙地轉識成智，一切都得以解脫。然而二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）的體性和意義，大致是這樣的。但還有並觀的意義，有兩句話難以理解。現在先討論一句的意義，另一句留待後面解釋。所謂『一句』，他人認為二諦是有兩種道理，三假（trayo'pi mithya，三種虛假）是世俗諦的道理，四忘（caturtha-smrti，第四種遺忘）是真諦的道理。因為有兩種道理，所以有出入觀，有二諦並觀。你現在認為，只有中道不二這一種道理，怎麼會有出入觀呢？有兩樣東西才可能有出有入，既然沒有二元對立，又怎麼能闡明出入呢？又沒有兩種道理，又怎麼能闡明並觀呢？有二元對立才能討論並，既然沒有二元對立，怎麼能有並呢？現在先討論出入觀和並觀的位次，什麼位次是出入觀，什麼位次是並觀呢？古人有三種解釋。第一種是靈味法師認為，初地菩薩（prathama-bhumi，菩薩修行的第一個階段）有二諦並觀，因為初地證得真無生，所以能得到並觀。第二種是什肇等諸位法師認為，七地菩薩（saptama-bhumi，菩薩修行的第七個階段）得到並觀，所以肇法師說：『佈施到了極致，卻未曾佈施；持戒到了極致，卻未曾持戒。』這就是佈施與無佈施並存的緣故。第三種是三大法師所說，在世間盛行，認為八地菩薩（astama-bhumi，菩薩修行的第八個階段）才能並觀，初地到七地是出入觀，八地才開始得到並觀。八地菩薩的道觀雙行，真諦和俗諦同時照見。然而這三種解釋，都出自經論。如果偏執其中一種，那就是錯誤的。第一家認為初地是對的，其餘兩種是錯的；第三家認為八地是對的，其餘兩種是錯的。所以會產生偏差。現在山門的解釋是，用四個階段來闡明並觀的意義。然而這四個階段，不僅是菩薩修行的重要方法，也是二諦的大綱。這四個階段是：第一，山中的法師認為，從最初發心以來就是並觀。問：為什麼最初發心就是並觀呢？解釋說：最初發心就是學習二諦。
【English Translation】 English version: To dwell in duality is still to be bound. Therefore, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says: 'Like capturing a monkey, it follows whatever it touches.' Therefore, now it is clarified that since one recognizes the unity of two and non-two, there is no duality, and therefore no non-duality. In this way, through pure and profound transformation of consciousness into wisdom, everything is liberated. However, the essence and meaning of the two truths (satya-dvaya, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth) are roughly like this. But there is also the meaning of simultaneous contemplation, and two sentences are difficult to understand. Now, let's discuss the meaning of one sentence first, and the other sentence will be explained later. The so-called 'one sentence' is that others believe that the two truths have two kinds of reasoning: the three falsities (trayo'pi mithya) are the reasoning of the conventional truth, and the four forgettings (caturtha-smrti) are the reasoning of the ultimate truth. Because there are two kinds of reasoning, there is the contemplation of entering and exiting, and there is the simultaneous contemplation of the two truths. You now believe that there is only one reasoning of the Middle Way non-duality, how can there be contemplation of entering and exiting? Only when there are two things can there be entering and exiting. Since there is no duality, how can one explain entering and exiting? Also, there are no two kinds of reasoning, so how can one explain simultaneous contemplation? Only when there is duality can one discuss simultaneity. Since there is no duality, how can there be simultaneity? Now, let's first discuss the positions of entering and exiting contemplation and simultaneous contemplation. What position is entering and exiting contemplation, and what position is simultaneous contemplation? The ancients had three explanations. The first is that Dharma Master Lingwei believed that the bodhisattva of the first bhumi (prathama-bhumi, the first stage of a bodhisattva's practice) has simultaneous contemplation of the two truths, because the first bhumi attains true non-birth, so one can attain simultaneous contemplation. The second is that Dharma Master Shi Zhao and others believed that the bodhisattva of the seventh bhumi (saptama-bhumi, the seventh stage of a bodhisattva's practice) attains simultaneous contemplation, so Dharma Master Zhao said: 'Giving reaches its limit, yet one has never given; keeping precepts reaches its limit, yet one has never kept precepts.' This is because giving and non-giving coexist. The third is what the Three Great Dharma Masters said, which is prevalent in the world, believing that the bodhisattva of the eighth bhumi (astama-bhumi, the eighth stage of a bodhisattva's practice) can have simultaneous contemplation. The first bhumi to the seventh bhumi is entering and exiting contemplation, and the eighth bhumi begins to attain simultaneous contemplation. The bodhisattva of the eighth bhumi has dual practice of the path of contemplation, simultaneously illuminating the ultimate truth and the conventional truth. However, these three explanations all come from sutras and treatises. If one clings to one of them, then it is wrong. The first school believes that the first bhumi is correct, and the other two are wrong; the third school believes that the eighth bhumi is correct, and the other two are wrong. Therefore, deviations will occur. Now, the explanation of the mountain gate is to clarify the meaning of simultaneous contemplation with four stages. However, these four stages are not only important methods for bodhisattva practice, but also the outline of the two truths. These four stages are: First, the Dharma Master in the mountain believes that it is simultaneous contemplation from the initial aspiration. Question: Why is it simultaneous contemplation from the initial aspiration? The explanation is: The initial aspiration is to learn the two truths.
。無有菩薩不學二諦者。凡是菩薩。即學二諦觀。為是故。初發心即學二諦並觀。乃至後心亦學二諦並觀。而不無明晦為異。晦故為初心。明故為後心。此明晦判前後。非是併不併而判前後也。問何處作此說耶。解云。大經云。發心畢竟二不別。問若為不別耶。解云。今明。初心亦二諦並觀。後心亦是並觀。以皆並故。所以云二心不別也。問若為初心即學並觀耶。解云。有所得無所得。聲聞行菩薩行異。若是聲聞行。即拆有入空。從空出有。是生滅觀。若菩薩即異聲聞。發初即作不生不滅不二之觀。對聲聞故。明是菩薩者從初發心即作不生不滅無所得觀。故大品須菩提問云。菩薩何時學無所得。佛答云。從初發心即學無所得。故初發心即學並觀也。此即有二意。一者釋經初後心不二。二者為對聲聞。明發心即作不二之觀。為此二義故。明初發心即作並觀也。第二節明並觀者。明地前三十心。未得並觀。初地菩薩。始得並觀。地前非不併。將初地格之。明地前淺故云未並。初地深故並。地前是凡夫位。初地是聖位。地前伏道。初地斷道。就此等義判併不併也。然前節。對聲聞明菩薩並觀。今就菩薩中。自論併不併也。然此義。具出經論。大論云。初地得真無生。七地得無生。七地定慧等。初地得無生。初地定慧等也。仁
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沒有不學習二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）的菩薩。凡是菩薩，都要學習二諦觀。因此，初發心的菩薩就要學習二諦並進行觀察，乃至后發心的菩薩也是如此，只是因為無明（ignorance）的明暗程度不同而有所區別。無明暗淡的緣故是初心，明亮的緣故是後心。這種明暗是判斷前後心的標準，而不是根據是否同時學習二諦和進行觀察來判斷前後心。有人問：『在哪裡有這樣的說法呢？』回答說：《大般涅槃經》中說：『發心和究竟，二者沒有差別。』有人問：『為什麼沒有差別呢？』回答說：現在說明，初心也是二諦並觀，後心也是並觀。因為都是並觀，所以說兩個心沒有差別。有人問：『為什麼初心就要學習並觀呢？』回答說：有所得和無所得，聲聞（Śrāvaka，小乘修行者）的修行和菩薩的修行不同。如果是聲聞的修行，就是拆解有進入空，從空出有，這是生滅觀。如果是菩薩，就不同於聲聞，初發心就作不生不滅不二之觀。爲了對比聲聞，說明菩薩從初發心就作不生不滅無所得觀。所以《大品般若經》中須菩提（Subhūti，佛陀的弟子）問：『菩薩何時學習無所得？』佛陀回答說：『從初發心就開始學習無所得。』所以初發心就要學習並觀。這裡有兩層意思：一是解釋經中初後心沒有差別；二是為對比聲聞，說明發心就作不二之觀。爲了這兩個意義，說明初發心就作並觀。第二節說明並觀，說明十地（Bhūmi）前的三十心，沒有得到並觀。初地菩薩，才開始得到並觀。十地前不是沒有並觀，而是用初地來衡量，說明十地前淺顯所以說沒有並觀，初地深邃所以並觀。十地前是凡夫位，初地是聖位。十地前是伏道，初地是斷道。就用這些意義來判斷是否並觀。然而前一節，是對聲聞說明菩薩並觀，現在就在菩薩中，自己討論是否並觀。然而這個意義，都出自經論。《大智度論》中說：初地得到真無生，七地得到無生，七地定慧相等，初地得到無生，初地定慧相等。《仁王經》
【English Translation】 English version: There is no Bodhisattva who does not study the Two Truths (Saṃvṛti-satya and Paramārtha-satya). All Bodhisattvas must study the contemplation of the Two Truths. Therefore, a Bodhisattva who has just generated the aspiration for enlightenment (bodhicitta) should study the Two Truths and contemplate them, and even a Bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for enlightenment later should also do so, the only difference being the degree of clarity or obscurity of ignorance (avidyā). The obscurity is the reason for the initial mind, and the clarity is the reason for the later mind. This clarity or obscurity is the standard for judging the initial and later minds, not whether or not they study and contemplate the Two Truths simultaneously. Someone asks: 'Where is this stated?' The answer is: The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The initial aspiration and the ultimate state are not different.' Someone asks: 'Why are they not different?' The answer is: Now it is explained that the initial mind also involves the simultaneous contemplation of the Two Truths, and the later mind also involves simultaneous contemplation. Because both involve simultaneous contemplation, it is said that the two minds are not different. Someone asks: 'Why does the initial mind study simultaneous contemplation?' The answer is: There is a difference between the paths of those who have attainment and those who have no attainment, between the practice of the Śrāvakas (Hearers, practitioners of the Lesser Vehicle) and the practice of the Bodhisattvas. If it is the practice of the Śrāvakas, they dismantle existence to enter emptiness, and emerge from emptiness into existence; this is the contemplation of arising and ceasing. If it is a Bodhisattva, they are different from the Śrāvakas; from the initial generation of aspiration, they contemplate non-arising, non-ceasing, and non-duality. In contrast to the Śrāvakas, it is explained that Bodhisattvas, from the initial generation of aspiration, contemplate non-arising, non-ceasing, and non-attainment. Therefore, in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Subhūti (one of the Buddha's disciples) asks: 'When does a Bodhisattva learn non-attainment?' The Buddha answers: 'From the initial generation of aspiration, they learn non-attainment.' Therefore, from the initial generation of aspiration, they study simultaneous contemplation. There are two meanings here: first, to explain that the initial and later minds are not different in the sutra; second, to contrast with the Śrāvakas, explaining that from the generation of aspiration, they contemplate non-duality. For these two reasons, it is explained that from the initial generation of aspiration, they engage in simultaneous contemplation. The second section explains simultaneous contemplation, stating that the thirty minds before the Ten Grounds (Bhūmi) have not attained simultaneous contemplation. Only Bodhisattvas on the First Ground begin to attain simultaneous contemplation. It is not that there is no simultaneous contemplation before the Ten Grounds, but the First Ground is used as a measure, explaining that what is before the Ten Grounds is shallow, so it is said that there is no simultaneous contemplation, while the First Ground is profound, so there is simultaneous contemplation. What is before the Ten Grounds is the position of ordinary beings, and the First Ground is the position of sages. What is before the Ten Grounds is the path of subduing, and the First Ground is the path of cutting off. These meanings are used to judge whether or not there is simultaneous contemplation. However, the previous section explained the simultaneous contemplation of Bodhisattvas in contrast to the Śrāvakas; now, among Bodhisattvas themselves, there is a discussion of whether or not there is simultaneous contemplation. However, this meaning is fully explained in the sutras and treatises. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: The First Ground attains true non-arising, the Seventh Ground attains non-arising, the samādhi (concentration) and prajñā (wisdom) of the Seventh Ground are equal, the First Ground attains non-arising, and the samādhi and prajñā of the First Ground are equal. The Benevolent Kings Sutra
王經瓔珞經。皆明初地二諦並觀。故仁王經云。善覺菩薩四天王。雙照二諦平等道也。第三節明。七地菩薩並觀。大論云。七地菩薩。得無生忍。大品云等定慧地也。所以七地並觀者。攝前六地。併爲順忍故未並。七地得無生忍故並也。十地皆無生。前無生淺故為順忍。七地無生深故。為無生忍也。又約行論。初地檀波羅蜜。六地般若波羅蜜。未得方便。七地得方便。慧無方便縛。方便無慧縛。七地得方便。慧有方便解。方便有慧解。具二慧故並觀。前六地非不併觀。但二慧一慧[茍茍]。如兩輪一輪[茍茍]故。未得好並。若七地二慧皆勝。二輪並強故並也。第四節者。從初心訖至七地。未得並觀。至八地始並觀。此就功用無功用判之。初心至七地。未得無功用道。八地得無功用道故。七地已前。未得無功用道。未並觀。八地得無功用道故。得並觀。此約功用無功用道。判並觀不併觀也。今明並觀。有此四節。並出經論。若偏執者。則成失也。前問未釋。何者。汝雖明並觀有此四節。若為得並觀耶。汝無有二理。唯有一理。云何得出入觀。復若為得並觀耶。今反難。汝二諦二體二諦一體。亦無並觀。何遑問我耶。汝明有二諦理。理何時有二。一切經論。何處道有二理。諸大乘經。明無有二理。皆云空即色色即空
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《王經瓔珞經》都闡明了初地菩薩同時觀照二諦（真諦和俗諦）的道理。所以《仁王經》說：『善覺菩薩和四大天王，同時照見二諦的平等之道。』第三節闡明，七地菩薩同時觀照二諦。《大智度論》說：『七地菩薩，證得無生法忍。』《大品般若經》說：『等定慧地。』之所以七地菩薩能同時觀照二諦，是因為它統攝了前面的六地。因為前六地是順忍，所以不能同時觀照；七地證得無生法忍，所以能同時觀照。十地菩薩都證得無生法忍，但前位的無生法忍淺顯，所以是順忍；七地的無生法忍深刻，所以是無生法忍。又從修行方面來說，初地菩薩修習佈施波羅蜜（Dānapāramitā，圓滿佈施），六地菩薩修習般若波羅蜜（Prajñāpāramitā，圓滿智慧），但還沒有得到方便（Upāya，善巧）的幫助。七地菩薩得到方便的幫助，智慧沒有方便的束縛，方便也沒有智慧的束縛，七地菩薩得到方便的幫助，智慧有方便的解脫，方便也有智慧的解脫，具備兩種智慧，所以能同時觀照。前六地不是不能同時觀照，只是兩種智慧有一種欠缺，就像兩個輪子有一個欠缺一樣，所以不能很好地同時觀照。如果七地菩薩兩種智慧都很殊勝，就像兩個輪子都很強勁，所以能同時觀照。第四節說，從最初發心到七地菩薩，沒有證得同時觀照，到八地菩薩才開始同時觀照。這是從有功用和無功用方面來判定的。從最初發心到七地菩薩，沒有證得無功用道（Anabhisaṅkhāra-mārga，不需努力的道）。八地菩薩證得無功用道，所以七地菩薩之前，沒有證得無功用道，不能同時觀照；八地菩薩證得無功用道，所以能同時觀照。這是從功用和無功用道來判定能否同時觀照。現在闡明同時觀照，有這四個方面，都出自經論。如果偏執於一方面，就會造成錯誤。前面的問題還沒有解釋，是什麼呢？你雖然闡明同時觀照有這四個方面，但如何才能證得同時觀照呢？你沒有二諦的兩種道理，只有一種道理，怎麼能得出入觀呢？又如何才能證得同時觀照呢？現在反過來問你，你的二諦是二個本體還是二諦是一個本體，也沒有同時觀照，又怎麼來問我呢？你說明有二諦的道理，道理什麼時候有二個？一切經論，哪裡說有二個道理？諸大乘經典，都闡明沒有二個道理，都說空即是色，色即是空。
【English Translation】 English version The Wang Jing Ying Luo Sutra both clarify the principle of the Bodhisattva of the first ground simultaneously contemplating the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth). Therefore, the Benevolent King Sutra says: 'The Good Awareness Bodhisattva and the Four Heavenly Kings simultaneously illuminate the equal path of the two truths.' The third section clarifies that the Bodhisattvas of the seventh ground simultaneously contemplate the two truths. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: 'The Bodhisattva of the seventh ground attains the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas (Anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti).' The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sutra says: 'The ground of equal Samādhi and Prajñā.' The reason why the Bodhisattva of the seventh ground can simultaneously contemplate the two truths is that it encompasses the previous six grounds. Because the previous six grounds are compliant endurance (Anuloma-kṣānti), they cannot simultaneously contemplate; the seventh ground attains the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas, so it can simultaneously contemplate. The Bodhisattvas of the ten grounds all attain the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas, but the Non-arising of Dharmas of the previous positions is shallow, so it is compliant endurance; the Non-arising of Dharmas of the seventh ground is profound, so it is the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas. Also, from the perspective of practice, the Bodhisattva of the first ground practices Dānapāramitā (perfection of giving), and the Bodhisattva of the sixth ground practices Prajñāpāramitā (perfection of wisdom), but they have not yet obtained the help of Upāya (skillful means). The Bodhisattva of the seventh ground obtains the help of skillful means, wisdom is not bound by skillful means, and skillful means is not bound by wisdom. The Bodhisattva of the seventh ground obtains the help of skillful means, wisdom has the liberation of skillful means, and skillful means also has the liberation of wisdom, possessing both wisdoms, so it can simultaneously contemplate. The previous six grounds are not that they cannot simultaneously contemplate, but that one of the two wisdoms is lacking, just like one of the two wheels is lacking, so they cannot simultaneously contemplate well. If the two wisdoms of the Bodhisattva of the seventh ground are both excellent, just like the two wheels are both strong, so it can simultaneously contemplate. The fourth section says that from the initial aspiration to the Bodhisattva of the seventh ground, simultaneous contemplation has not been attained, and simultaneous contemplation begins with the Bodhisattva of the eighth ground. This is determined from the perspective of effort and non-effort. From the initial aspiration to the Bodhisattva of the seventh ground, the path of non-effort (Anabhisaṅkhāra-mārga) has not been attained. The Bodhisattva of the eighth ground attains the path of non-effort, so before the Bodhisattva of the seventh ground, the path of non-effort has not been attained, and simultaneous contemplation is not possible; the Bodhisattva of the eighth ground attains the path of non-effort, so simultaneous contemplation is possible. This is determined from the perspective of effort and the path of non-effort whether simultaneous contemplation is possible or not. Now, clarifying simultaneous contemplation, there are these four aspects, all of which come from the sutras and treatises. If one is attached to one aspect, it will lead to error. The previous question has not been explained, what is it? Although you clarify that simultaneous contemplation has these four aspects, how can one attain simultaneous contemplation? You do not have two principles of the two truths, you only have one principle, how can you derive entering and exiting contemplation? Also, how can you attain simultaneous contemplation? Now, I ask you in return, whether your two truths are two entities or the two truths are one entity, there is also no simultaneous contemplation, so how can you ask me? You clarify that there is the principle of the two truths, when are there two principles? In all the sutras and treatises, where does it say that there are two principles? All the Mahayana sutras clarify that there are not two principles, they all say that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness.
世諦即第一義諦。若言有二理。即乖經。故龍樹呵迦旃延子不讀不誦摩訶衍經。迦旃延子自說耳。今亦爾也。設使得明並觀者。師詺為簫管並伏鱉出鼻並有兩境。在中而雙照為並觀。是事不然。經明。照有即是空。照空即是有。何時有兩境。凝然在中雙照為並觀耶。又二諦一體。亦不得並觀。汝難我云。一體不得並觀。汝家一體。云何得並觀及出入觀耶。出入觀從此入。彼既無二。云何得並耶。彼云。我有即不即義。常即常不即。不即故有並及出入觀也。難。俗不即真者。為當在真外在真內耶。若在真內。則與真一。還著前難。若不在真內則出真。出真則出法性外。佛說法性外無復有法。故不得出真外也。彼又解云。體即義異。還責。義為即真不即真。即真即一。不即真則出真外。難二諦一體異體。既不成則無二諦。既無二諦。論何物即不即。故彼二諦一體無並觀。汝今明不二中道一體。云何得並及出入耶。今明。有三種並。如涅槃經文殊問無二諦。佛答有十種二諦。今亦爾。汝言無並。我有三種並。且明出入觀。出入觀者。大師云。心常在正觀中行名為入。才生心動念即名為出。起斷常心為出。在正觀為入也。次明三種並。然此三並。即三出入。言三並者。一者即橫論二諦教並。如前所說。假說有非有為有。假說無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 世俗諦（Satyasamvriti，指世俗認知的真理）即是第一義諦（Paramarthasatya，指究竟的真理）。如果說存在兩種道理，那就違背了佛經。所以龍樹（Nagarjuna）呵斥迦旃延子（Katyayaniputra），說他不讀誦《摩訶衍經》（Mahayana Sutra）。迦旃延子只是自說自話罷了。現在的情況也是這樣。假設有人自以為能夠同時明白並觀察二諦，老師就會稱其為像簫管齊鳴，或者像烏龜伸出鼻子一樣荒謬，認為這是在中間存在兩個境界而同時照見，這是不對的。經書中明明說，照見有即是空，照見空即是有，哪裡會有兩個境界呢？又怎麼會有凝然不動地在中間同時照見二諦的『並觀』呢？而且，二諦是一體的，也不應該有『並觀』。你反駁我說，一體不能同時觀察，那麼你所說的一體，又怎麼能有『並觀』以及『出入觀』呢？『出入觀』是從這裡進入，既然沒有二，又怎麼能有出入呢？他們說，我有所謂『即不即』的含義，常即常不即，因為不即，所以有『並觀』和『出入觀』。反駁：世俗諦不即是真諦（Tathata）的情況，是在真諦之外還是在真諦之內呢？如果在真諦之內，那就與真諦合一，還是會遇到之前的難題。如果不在真諦之內，那就是超出真諦之外。超出真諦之外，那就是超出了法性（Dharmata）之外。佛說在法性之外沒有其他的法，所以不能超出真諦之外。他們又解釋說，體是相同的，但含義不同。反駁：含義是即真諦還是不即真諦？即真諦就是一體，不即真諦就是超出真諦之外。既然二諦一體異體的說法都不能成立，那就沒有二諦。既然沒有二諦，又談論什麼即不即呢？所以他們所說的二諦一體，沒有『並觀』。你現在說的不二中道是一體的，又怎麼能有『並觀』和『出入』呢？現在說明，有三種『並』，就像《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中文殊（Manjusri）菩薩問關於無二諦的問題，佛回答說有十種二諦一樣。現在也是這樣，你說沒有『並』，我說有三種『並』。先說明『出入觀』，大師說，心常在正觀中執行叫做『入』，才生起心動念就叫做『出』，生起斷常之心就是『出』，在正觀中就是『入』。其次說明三種『並』。這三種『並』，也就是三種『出入』。所說的三種『並』，一是橫向論述二諦的教義之『並』，就像前面所說的，假說有非有為有，假說無 假說無
【English Translation】 English version The conventional truth (Satyasamvriti, truth in mundane understanding) is the same as the ultimate truth (Paramarthasatya, the ultimate truth). If it is said that there are two truths, then it contradicts the scriptures. Therefore, Nagarjuna rebuked Katyayaniputra for not reading or reciting the Mahayana Sutra. Katyayaniputra was merely speaking for himself. The situation is the same now. Suppose someone thinks they can simultaneously understand and observe the two truths, the teacher would call it as absurd as a flute playing in unison or a turtle sticking out its nose, considering it as seeing two realms simultaneously in the middle, which is incorrect. The scriptures clearly state that seeing existence is emptiness, and seeing emptiness is existence. Where would there be two realms? And how could there be a 'simultaneous observation' (parallel observation) that is still and simultaneously illuminates the two truths in the middle? Moreover, the two truths are one, and there should be no 'simultaneous observation.' You refute me by saying that one cannot observe simultaneously, then how can your so-called one have 'simultaneous observation' and 'entering and exiting observation'? 'Entering and exiting observation' is entering from here, and since there is no duality, how can there be entering and exiting? They say, I have the meaning of 'identity and non-identity,' constantly identical and constantly non-identical. Because of non-identity, there is 'simultaneous observation' and 'entering and exiting observation.' Refutation: The situation where conventional truth is not identical to the ultimate truth (Tathata), is it outside or inside the ultimate truth? If it is inside the ultimate truth, then it is one with the ultimate truth, and you will still encounter the previous difficulty. If it is not inside the ultimate truth, then it is outside the ultimate truth. Being outside the ultimate truth means being outside of Dharmata (the nature of reality). The Buddha said that there is no other dharma outside of Dharmata, so it cannot be outside the ultimate truth. They further explain that the essence is the same, but the meaning is different. Refutation: Is the meaning identical to the ultimate truth or not identical to the ultimate truth? Identical to the ultimate truth means it is one, not identical to the ultimate truth means it is outside the ultimate truth. Since the argument of the two truths being one or different cannot be established, then there are no two truths. Since there are no two truths, what is there to discuss about identity and non-identity? Therefore, their so-called two truths being one has no 'simultaneous observation.' You now say that the non-dual Middle Way is one, how can there be 'simultaneous observation' and 'entering and exiting'? Now I explain that there are three kinds of 'simultaneous observation,' just like in the Nirvana Sutra when Manjusri Bodhisattva asked about the non-dual truth, the Buddha answered that there are ten kinds of two truths. It is the same now, you say there is no 'simultaneous observation,' I say there are three kinds of 'simultaneous observation.' First, I will explain 'entering and exiting observation.' The great master said that the mind constantly operating in correct contemplation is called 'entering,' and the moment a thought arises is called 'exiting.' Generating thoughts of permanence and impermanence is 'exiting,' and being in correct contemplation is 'entering.' Secondly, I will explain the three kinds of 'simultaneous observation.' These three kinds of 'simultaneous observation' are also the three kinds of 'entering and exiting.' The so-called three kinds of 'simultaneous observation' are: first, the 'simultaneous observation' of horizontally discussing the teachings of the two truths, just as mentioned before, falsely saying existence is non-existence, falsely saying non-existence.
非無為無。非有為有。指無為有。非無為無。指有為無。指無為有。照有即照無。指有為無。照無即照有。詺此為並觀也。問他二諦一體不得並。汝今照有即照無。亦是一體。云何得並耶。解云。他義有礙。有即空即失有。空即有即失空。故不得並。今只有即是空。空即是有。有即空。空不壞有。空即有。有不動空。故得並也。二者二不二橫豎並。二不二不二二。只二即不二。只不二即二。無二異不二。無不二異二。故不壞假名。說諸法實相。不動等覺。建立諸法。若二異不二。則壞假名說實相。不壞假名說實相故。二即不二。所以二不二橫豎並也。問此出何處。解云。中論偈即是。因緣所生法。我說即是空。此是空有橫並也。亦為是假名亦是中道義。即二不二豎並也。此之二種並。是諸佛菩薩假名方便並也。第三明得失並。何者。有所得斷常眾生。行有所得法。無所得諸佛菩薩。常行無所得法。此即得無得各路。凡聖兩隔。感應不交。理外云何得成理內。理內云何得化理外耶。今明不然。菩薩常照無得照有得。道未曾得無得。于眾生有得。于諸佛菩薩無得。今還照眾生有所得。照菩薩無得。此二觀常照。無有一念不照時。若使一念不照有得眾生。諸佛即有漏機之失。眾生機發。即便不覺。為是故。所以常照有得眾生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 非無為（Nirvana，涅槃）而無，非有為（Samsara，輪迴）而有。指示無為即是有為，並非無為就等於沒有。指示有為即是無為，指示無為即是有為。照見有為即照見無為，指示有為即是無為，照見無為即照見有為。這稱之為並觀（同時觀察二諦）。 問：其他的二諦（Two Truths，勝義諦和世俗諦）一體，不能同時並存。你現在說照見有為即照見無為，也是一體，怎麼能並存呢？ 答：其他的觀點是有障礙的，認為有即是空，這樣就失去了有；認為空即是有，這樣就失去了空，所以不能並存。現在我們認為，有即是空，空即是有，有即是空，空並不破壞有；空即是有，有並不動搖空，所以能夠並存。二者，二和不二橫向和縱向並存，二不二和不二二並存。只是二就是不二，只是不二就是二，沒有二之外的不二，沒有不二之外的二。所以不破壞假名（conventional truth），宣說諸法實相（ultimate truth），不動搖等覺（perfect enlightenment），建立諸法。如果二異於不二，就會破壞假名而說實相。正因為不破壞假名而說實相，所以二即是不二。因此二和不二可以橫向和縱向並存。 問：這出自哪裡？ 答：出自《中論》的偈頌：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦名為假名，亦是中道義。』這就是空有橫向並存，二不二縱向並存。這兩種並存，是諸佛菩薩假名方便的並存。 第三，闡明得失並存。什麼是得失並存呢？有所得（attachment）的斷常（eternalism and annihilationism）眾生，奉行有所得的法。無所得（non-attachment）的諸佛菩薩，常常奉行無所得的法。這就是所得和無所得各行其道，凡夫和聖人兩相隔絕，感應無法交流。理外（超出真理之外）怎麼能成就理內（真理之內）？理內又怎麼能教化理外呢？ 現在闡明並非如此。菩薩常常照見無所得，也照見有所得。道（the path）未曾捨棄無所得，對於眾生來說是有所得，對於諸佛菩薩來說是無所得。現在反過來照見眾生有所得，照見菩薩無所得。這兩種觀照常常存在，沒有一念不照見的時候。如果有一念不照見有所得的眾生，諸佛就會有漏失眾生根機的過失。眾生的根機發動，諸佛卻不能覺察。正因為如此，所以要常常照見有所得的眾生。
【English Translation】 English version: It is not non-existence because of non-action (Nirvana). It is not existence because of action (Samsara). Indicating non-action is indicating action. It is not non-existence because of non-action. Indicating action is indicating non-action. Indicating non-action is indicating action. Illuminating action is illuminating non-action. Indicating action is indicating non-action. Illuminating non-action is illuminating action. This is called simultaneous observation (of the Two Truths). Question: The other Two Truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) are one entity and cannot coexist. Now you say that illuminating action is illuminating non-action, which is also one entity. How can they coexist? Answer: The other views have obstacles, believing that existence is emptiness, thus losing existence; believing that emptiness is existence, thus losing emptiness. Therefore, they cannot coexist. Now we believe that existence is emptiness, and emptiness is existence. Existence is emptiness, but emptiness does not destroy existence; emptiness is existence, but existence does not disturb emptiness. Therefore, they can coexist. The two, two and non-two coexist horizontally and vertically, and two non-two and non-two two coexist. Only two is non-two, and only non-two is two. There is no non-two outside of two, and no two outside of non-two. Therefore, it does not destroy conventional truth, proclaims the ultimate truth of all dharmas, does not disturb perfect enlightenment, and establishes all dharmas. If two is different from non-two, it will destroy conventional truth and speak of ultimate truth. Precisely because it does not destroy conventional truth and speaks of ultimate truth, two is non-two. Therefore, two and non-two can coexist horizontally and vertically. Question: Where does this come from? Answer: It comes from the verses in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way): 'Whatever arises dependently, I say is emptiness. It is also provisional designation, and it is also the Middle Way.' This is the horizontal coexistence of emptiness and existence, and the vertical coexistence of two and non-two. These two kinds of coexistence are the coexistence of the provisional means of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Third, clarify the coexistence of gain and loss. What is the coexistence of gain and loss? Sentient beings attached to eternalism and annihilationism, who have something to gain (attachment), practice the dharma of having something to gain. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who have nothing to gain (non-attachment) always practice the dharma of having nothing to gain. This means that those who have something to gain and those who have nothing to gain go their separate ways, and ordinary people and sages are separated, and there is no communication of response. How can what is outside of reason (beyond the truth) achieve what is inside of reason (within the truth)? How can what is inside of reason transform what is outside of reason? Now it is clarified that this is not the case. Bodhisattvas always illuminate non-gain and also illuminate gain. The path has never abandoned non-gain. For sentient beings, there is gain; for Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, there is no gain. Now, in turn, illuminate the gain of sentient beings and illuminate the non-gain of Bodhisattvas. These two kinds of contemplation always exist, and there is not a single moment when they are not illuminated. If there is a single moment when the gain of sentient beings is not illuminated, the Buddhas will have the fault of leaking the opportunities of sentient beings. When the opportunities of sentient beings arise, the Buddhas will not be able to perceive them. For this reason, it is necessary to always illuminate the gain of sentient beings.
。故法華云。我以佛眼觀見六道眾生也。此即常照得無得名並觀也。此義最要。應須知之。略明三種並觀也。次一句難解。何者。前云。有于凡實為諦。空于聖實為諦。發始開凡聖得失二諦。明有于凡實為失。空于聖實為得。從來云。兩于諦皆失。今明。若皆失無有能化。所化眾生。無由得悟改凡成聖舍失從得。今明。發初二于諦。有得有失。有迷有悟。明此是凡諦此是聖諦。此是俗諦此是真諦。俗諦所化。真諦能化。故云一切世諦。若於如來是第一義諦。此是能化于。今隨此于而說。亦是能化。此即能化。隨所化有而說有。能化隨能化所悟空而說空。故此二于諦。是得失迷悟也。問用此語何為。解云。欲判凡聖得失迷悟。何者。眾生迷故見有。聖人悟故不見有。若爾同夢虎空華義。迷故見有。悟故不見有也。又今悟不見眾生。則唯真無俗。感應不交。凡聖兩隔。斯即孤真獨存。迥聖單立也。解云。聖人知于聖空。知于凡有。以知于凡有故得化也。難。今不問汝知。但問汝為見為不見耶。若不見化道即隔。若見即還是迷。汝親判迷故見有悟不見有。今既見有。即還是迷也。何者。中論偈云。若謂以現見而有生滅者。是則為癡妄而見有生滅。長行釋云。從顛倒無明故有眼。眼故見。今若見還是癡妄也。次解云。迷故見有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 故《法華經》說：『我以佛眼觀見六道眾生。』（指佛陀用佛眼觀察到六道輪迴中的眾生）這就是常照（永遠照耀）而得無得之名，並且同時進行觀照。這個意義非常重要，應該要知道。以上簡要說明了三種並觀。（同時進行三種觀照） 下一句很難理解。為什麼呢？前面說：『有』對於凡夫來說是真實的諦理，『空』對於聖人來說是真實的諦理。開始時揭示了凡夫和聖人的得失二諦（兩種真理）。說明『有』對於凡夫來說是失去，『空』對於聖人來說是得到。一直以來都說，兩種諦理都失去了。現在說明，如果都失去，就沒有能教化和被教化的眾生，也就無法通過覺悟來改變凡夫成為聖人，捨棄失去而獲得得到。現在說明，最初揭示的兩種諦理，有得到也有失去，有迷惑也有覺悟。說明這是凡夫的諦理，這是聖人的諦理；這是俗諦（世俗諦），這是真諦（勝義諦）。俗諦所教化，真諦能教化。所以說一切世俗諦，對於如來來說就是第一義諦（最高的真理）。這是能教化的。現在隨著這個『于』（對於）來說，也是能教化的。這就是能教化。隨著所教化的眾生有而說有，能教化隨著能教化所空而說空。所以這兩種諦理，是得失迷悟。 問：用這些話做什麼呢？ 答：想要判斷凡夫和聖人的得失迷悟。為什麼呢？眾生因為迷惑所以見『有』，聖人因為覺悟所以不見『有』。如果這樣，就如同夢中老虎和空中花朵的意義一樣，因為迷惑所以見『有』，因為覺悟所以不見『有』。 又，現在覺悟不見眾生，那麼就只有真諦而沒有俗諦，感應無法交流，凡夫和聖人兩相隔絕。這就是孤立的真諦獨自存在，迥然不同的聖人獨自站立。 答：聖人知道對於聖人來說是空，知道對於凡夫來說是有。因為知道對於凡夫來說是有，所以才能教化。 問：現在不問你知道不知道，只是問你看見還是沒看見？如果沒看見，教化的道路就隔絕了；如果看見，那就還是迷惑。你親自判斷迷惑所以見『有』，覺悟所以不見『有』。現在既然看見『有』，那就是還是迷惑。 為什麼呢？《中論》的偈頌說：『如果認為以現見而有生滅，那就是因為愚癡妄想而見有生滅。』（《中論》是一部重要的佛教論著）長行解釋說：『從顛倒無明（對事物真相的迷惑）所以有眼，因為有眼所以看見。』現在如果看見，那就是還是愚癡妄想。 接著解釋說：因為迷惑所以見『有』。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'I see all beings in the six realms with my Buddha-eye.' (Referring to the Buddha observing beings in the six realms of reincarnation with his Buddha-eye) This is constant illumination (chang zhao) obtaining the name of 'no attainment' (wu de) and simultaneous contemplation. This meaning is most important and should be known. The above briefly explains the three simultaneous contemplations. The next sentence is difficult to understand. Why? The previous statement said: 'Existence (you) is the true truth for ordinary beings, emptiness (kong) is the true truth for sages.' At the beginning, it revealed the two truths of gain and loss for ordinary beings and sages. It explains that 'existence' is loss for ordinary beings, and 'emptiness' is gain for sages. It has always been said that both truths are lost. Now it explains that if both are lost, there will be no beings to be taught or to be transformed, and there will be no way to change ordinary beings into sages through enlightenment, abandoning loss and obtaining gain. Now it explains that the two truths initially revealed have gain and loss, delusion and enlightenment. It explains that this is the truth for ordinary beings, this is the truth for sages; this is the conventional truth (su di), this is the ultimate truth (zhen di). The conventional truth is what is taught, and the ultimate truth is what can teach. Therefore, it is said that all conventional truths are the first principle truth for the Tathagata (如來，the thus-come one, an epithet of the Buddha). This is what can teach. Now, following this 'for' (yu) to speak, it is also what can teach. This is what can teach. According to what the beings being taught have, speak of existence; according to what the one who can teach empties, speak of emptiness. Therefore, these two truths are gain and loss, delusion and enlightenment. Question: What is the purpose of using these words? Answer: To judge the gain, loss, delusion, and enlightenment of ordinary beings and sages. Why? Because ordinary beings are deluded, they see 'existence'; because sages are enlightened, they do not see 'existence'. If so, it is like the meaning of a tiger in a dream and flowers in the sky, because of delusion, they see 'existence'; because of enlightenment, they do not see 'existence'. Furthermore, now that enlightenment does not see beings, then there is only ultimate truth and no conventional truth, and there is no exchange of interaction, and ordinary beings and sages are separated. This is the isolated ultimate truth existing alone, and the distinct sage standing alone. Answer: Sages know that emptiness is for sages, and know that existence is for ordinary beings. Because they know that existence is for ordinary beings, they can teach. Question: Now I am not asking if you know, but only asking whether you see or do not see? If you do not see, the path of teaching is cut off; if you see, then it is still delusion. You personally judge that delusion sees 'existence' and enlightenment does not see 'existence'. Now that you see 'existence', it is still delusion. Why? The verse in the Madhyamaka-karika (《中論》, Treatise on the Middle Way, a fundamental text of Madhyamaka Buddhism) says: 'If one thinks that there is arising and ceasing through direct perception, then it is because of foolish delusion that one sees arising and ceasing.' The commentary explains: 'From inverted ignorance (wu ming, ignorance), there are eyes, and because there are eyes, one sees.' Now if one sees, it is still foolish delusion. Next, it explains: Because of delusion, one sees 'existence'.
故有。見柱故柱。今悟則知有是不有有。柱是不柱柱。然此雖能解。而大有失。一者同成論。二同地論。三複著難。言同成論者。成論明有假實兩惑有假實二境。迷假實境故。名假實二惑。如柱是假。四微是實。迷即見有故有柱故柱。悟假實二境即知是假柱。不柱柱不有有。他亦明。迷見有悟知不有有。今亦爾。則與他無異也。同地論者。彼云。只一樹。若作相心取。則有漏樹。若作無相心取。則無漏法林樹。是還是迷悟。迷故有相。悟故無相。迷故樹故樹。悟則不樹樹也。若悟時見不有有。則同成論及地論。若悟不見者。同夢虎空華義。夢故有虎。覺則不見有虎。諸法亦爾。迷故見有。悟故不見也。梁武何故作夢虎空華義。為此故作此義。若悟猶見猶迷。迷故見悟故不見也。又同大頓悟義。此是竺道生所辨。彼云。果報是變謝之場。生死是大夢之境。從生死至至金剛心。皆是夢。金剛後心豁然大悟。無復所見也。又有小頓悟義。明七地悟生死無所有。此出大論。大論云。譬如人夢中度河。作諸[(篠-〡)-木+用]筏。運手動足。而去此覺都無所有。七地菩薩亦爾。生死已來。至六地已還。如夢所見。七地菩薩。豁然而悟也。師為此義故。云迷故有悟則不有有。作此語。正為對夢虎空華義。彼悟時都無所見。今對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此說『有』。因為看見柱子所以說『柱子』。現在如果覺悟，就知道『有』不是真正的『有』，『柱子』不是真正的『柱子』。然而，即使這樣理解，也會犯下很大的錯誤。第一是與成實論相同，第二是與地論相同，第三是重複執著于困難。 所謂與成實論相同，是因為《成實論》闡明了有假惑和實惑，以及有假境和實境。因為迷惑于假境和實境，所以稱為假惑和實惑。例如，柱子是假的，組成柱子的四微（地、水、火、風）是真實的。迷惑於此，就認為『有』，因為『有』所以說『柱子』。覺悟了假境和實境，就知道那是假『柱子』，不是真正的『柱子』，『有』不是真正的『有』。《成實論》也闡明，迷惑時看見『有』，覺悟時知道不是真正的『有』。現在你也是這樣，那麼就與《成實論》沒有區別了。 所謂與地論相同，是因為《地論》說：『只是一棵樹，如果以有相的心去取，就是有漏的樹；如果以無相的心去取，就是無漏的法林樹。』這還是迷惑和覺悟的問題。迷惑所以有相，覺悟所以無相。迷惑所以說『樹』，覺悟就不說『樹』了。』如果覺悟時看見不是真正的『有』，那就與成實論和地論相同。如果覺悟時看不見『有』，那就與夢虎空花的意義相同。因為做夢所以有老虎，醒來就不見有老虎。一切諸法也是這樣，迷惑所以看見『有』，覺悟所以看不見『有』。梁武帝為什麼要做夢虎空花的比喻？就是爲了說明這個道理。如果覺悟時仍然看見『有』，那就是仍然迷惑，因為迷惑所以看見，覺悟所以看不見。 又與大頓悟的意義相同。這是竺道生所辨明的。他說：『果報是變化衰謝的場所，生死是大夢的境界。從生死到金剛心，都是夢。金剛後心豁然大悟，不再有所見。』又有小頓悟的意義，說明七地菩薩覺悟到生死空無所有。這出自《大智度論》。《大智度論》說：『譬如人在夢中渡河，製造各種筏子，運用手腳，到達彼岸，醒來后什麼都沒有。七地菩薩也是這樣，從生死以來，到六地為止，都像夢中所見。七地菩薩，豁然覺悟。』 師父爲了說明這個道理，所以說迷惑時『有』，覺悟時不是真正的『有』。說這句話，正是爲了對應夢虎空花的意義。他們覺悟時什麼都看不見，現在你卻仍然看見『有』。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said 'there is'. Because one sees a pillar, one says 'pillar'. Now, if one awakens, one knows that 'being' is not truly 'being', and 'pillar' is not truly 'pillar'. However, even if understood in this way, one would commit a great error. First, it is the same as the Satyasiddhi School's argument. Second, it is the same as the Treatise on the Land's argument. Third, it is a repeated attachment to difficulties. The reason it is the same as the Satyasiddhi School's argument is that the Satyasiddhi School clarifies that there are false and real delusions, as well as false and real realms. Because one is deluded by the false and real realms, they are called false and real delusions. For example, the pillar is false, and the four elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) that make up the pillar are real. Being deluded by this, one thinks 'there is', and because 'there is', one says 'pillar'. Awakening to the false and real realms, one knows that it is a false 'pillar', not a true 'pillar', and 'being' is not true 'being'. The Satyasiddhi School also clarifies that when deluded, one sees 'being', and when awakened, one knows that it is not true 'being'. If you are also like this now, then there is no difference between you and the Satyasiddhi School. The reason it is the same as the Treatise on the Land's argument is that the Treatise on the Land says: 'It is just one tree. If one takes it with a mind of characteristics (lakshana), it is a tree of outflows (asrava); if one takes it with a mind of no-characteristics, it is a forest of Dharma without outflows.' This is still a matter of delusion and awakening. Because of delusion, there are characteristics; because of awakening, there are no characteristics. Because of delusion, one says 'tree'; because of awakening, one does not say 'tree'. If, when awakened, one sees that it is not true 'being', then it is the same as the Satyasiddhi School and the Treatise on the Land. If, when awakened, one does not see 'being', then it is the same as the meaning of a tiger in a dream and flowers in the sky. Because of the dream, there is a tiger; when one wakes up, one does not see a tiger. All dharmas are also like this: because of delusion, one sees 'being'; because of awakening, one does not see 'being'. Why did Emperor Wu of Liang make the analogy of a tiger in a dream and flowers in the sky? It was to illustrate this principle. If, when awakened, one still sees 'being', then one is still deluded; because of delusion, one sees; because of awakening, one does not see. It is also the same as the meaning of great sudden enlightenment. This is what Zhu Daosheng clarified. He said: 'The retribution of karma is a place of change and decay, and birth and death are a realm of great dreams. From birth and death to the diamond mind (vajra citta), all are dreams. After the diamond mind, one suddenly awakens and no longer sees anything.' There is also the meaning of small sudden enlightenment, which explains that the seventh-ground Bodhisattva awakens to the emptiness of birth and death. This comes from the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom). The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says: 'It is like a person crossing a river in a dream, making various rafts, using their hands and feet, and reaching the other shore; when they wake up, there is nothing. The seventh-ground Bodhisattva is also like this; from birth and death until the sixth ground, it is like what is seen in a dream. The seventh-ground Bodhisattva suddenly awakens.' The master, in order to explain this principle, said that when deluded, there is 'being', and when awakened, it is not true 'being'. Saying this is precisely to correspond to the meaning of a tiger in a dream and flowers in the sky. They see nothing at all when they awaken, but now you still see 'being'.
彼故。云見不有有也。第三難且並。汝前云迷故有悟故空。則迷故見。悟故不見。今遂不有有。則不見見。不迷迷也。然見有不見有。此未悟耳。且問。那得此有。只瓶柱三界果報。那得此果耶。為倒業所起。不倒業所起耶。倒業起。唯迷見悟不見。若言不倒業起則不然。諸佛菩薩。三界之業已盡。豈更得三界之果。故不可也。若言三界眾生倒業所起。諸佛菩薩入三界化眾生者。是亦不然。諸佛入三界化眾生。為見三界故化。為不見故化耶。見則同迷。不見何所化。此義進退不可云云。難今家如此。亦得難他人。汝言三界。何業所起。十二因緣。過去無明與行。感得五果。無明即煩惱。行即業。業煩惱所感。諸佛斷五住惑盡。無復煩惱業。則不應見三界。見則同迷。不迷則不見。彼云。諸佛斷假實上惑。不無假實二境。故雖無煩惱故見也。責只問。所見境何業所起。悟業起迷業起。若迷業起者。悟則不見。悟業起則無此理也。次難。地論相心見樹有漏。無相心取則無漏法林樹。只問。此樹何業所起。為妄業起為真業起。若妄業起者。悟真則不見。若真業起者。何有真業起于妄樹耶。故此義難解也。
次明二諦絕名第五。然此義三大法師無別釋。並云。世諦有名真諦絕名。世諦有名者。世諦諸法。有名有物名。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對方說：『是這樣。』（你）說見到『不有有』。這是第三個難題，而且是合併在一起的。你前面說，因為迷惑所以有（世間），因為覺悟所以空（涅槃）。那麼，因為迷惑所以能見到（世間），因為覺悟所以不能見到（世間）。現在竟然說『不有有』，那麼就是『不見見』，而不是『不迷迷』了。然而，見到有（世間），見不到有（涅槃），這是還沒有覺悟啊。而且我問你，這『有』從哪裡來的？僅僅是瓶子、柱子、三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的果報嗎？這果報又是怎麼來的呢？是顛倒的業所引起的，還是不顛倒的業所引起的呢？如果是顛倒的業引起的，那麼就只有迷惑時才能見到，覺悟時就見不到了。如果說是不顛倒的業引起的，那就不對了。諸佛菩薩，三界的業已經斷盡了，怎麼還能得到三界的果報呢？所以這是不可能的。如果說是三界眾生的顛倒業所引起的，那麼諸佛菩薩進入三界教化眾生，也是不對的。諸佛進入三界教化眾生，是爲了見到三界才教化的嗎？還是因為見不到三界才教化的呢？如果見到三界，那就和迷惑的人一樣了。如果見不到三界，那又教化什麼呢？這個道理進退兩難，說不通啊。』 難：現在你這樣說，也可以用來詰難別人。你說三界，是什麼業所引起的？十二因緣（無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死）中，過去的無明和行，感得了五種果報。無明就是煩惱，行就是業。業由煩惱所感。諸佛斷盡了五住地煩惱（見惑、思惑、塵沙惑、根本無明惑），沒有了煩惱和業，那麼就不應該見到三界。見到三界就和迷惑的人一樣了。不迷惑就見不到三界。 對方說：『諸佛斷除了假和實上面的惑，但並非沒有假和實這兩種境界。所以即使沒有煩惱也能見到（三界）。』 責問：我只問你，所見到的境界是什麼業所引起的？是覺悟的業引起的，還是迷惑的業引起的？如果是迷惑的業引起的，那麼覺悟時就見不到了。如果是覺悟的業引起的，那麼就沒有這個道理了。 其次，詰難《地論》的說法：有相的心見到樹是有漏的，無相的心取法則見到的是無漏的法林樹。我只問你，這樹是什麼業所引起的？是虛妄的業引起的，還是真實的業引起的？如果是虛妄的業引起的，那麼覺悟真實時就見不到了。如果是真實的業引起的，怎麼會有真實的業引起虛妄的樹呢？所以這個道理難以理解啊。 其次，闡明二諦（世俗諦、勝義諦）絕名的第五個問題。然而這個道理，三大法師（鳩摩羅什、真諦、玄奘）沒有特別的解釋，都說世俗諦有名，真諦絕名。世俗諦有名，指的是世俗諦的諸法，有名有實物。
【English Translation】 English version: The opponent says: 'That's right.' (You) say you see 'non-being as being'. This is the third difficulty, and it's combined. You said earlier that because of delusion, there is (Samsara), and because of enlightenment, there is emptiness (Nirvana). Then, because of delusion, one can see (Samsara), and because of enlightenment, one cannot see (Samsara). Now you say 'non-being as being', then it's 'not seeing seeing', and not 'not deluded delusion'. However, seeing being (Samsara) and not seeing being (Nirvana) means one is not yet enlightened. Moreover, I ask you, where does this 'being' come from? Is it just the pot, the pillar, the retribution of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm)? And how does this retribution come about? Is it caused by inverted karma or non-inverted karma? If it's caused by inverted karma, then one can only see it when deluded, and one cannot see it when enlightened. If you say it's caused by non-inverted karma, then that's not right. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have exhausted the karma of the three realms, so how can they still receive the retribution of the three realms? So that's impossible. If you say it's caused by the inverted karma of sentient beings in the three realms, then it's also wrong for the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to enter the three realms to teach sentient beings. Do the Buddhas enter the three realms to teach sentient beings because they see the three realms? Or because they don't see the three realms? If they see the three realms, then they are the same as deluded people. If they don't see the three realms, then what do they teach? This reasoning is difficult to advance or retreat, it doesn't make sense.' Objection: Now that you say this, it can also be used to challenge others. You say the three realms, what karma caused them? In the twelve links of dependent origination (ignorance, action, consciousness, name and form, six entrances, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, old age and death), past ignorance and action cause five kinds of retribution. Ignorance is affliction, and action is karma. Karma is caused by affliction. The Buddhas have exhausted the five categories of delusion (delusions of views, delusions of thought, delusions like dust and sand, fundamental delusions of ignorance), and there is no more affliction or karma, so they should not see the three realms. Seeing the three realms is the same as being deluded. Not being deluded means not seeing the three realms. The opponent says: 'The Buddhas have cut off the delusions on the false and the real, but it's not that there are no two realms of the false and the real. So even without affliction, they can see (the three realms).' Question: I only ask you, what karma caused the realm that is seen? Was it caused by the karma of enlightenment or the karma of delusion? If it was caused by the karma of delusion, then one cannot see it when enlightened. If it was caused by the karma of enlightenment, then there is no such reason. Next, challenging the statement in the Treatise on the Stages of the Earth (Dìlùn): A mind with characteristics sees a tree as having outflows, while a mind without characteristics that takes the Dharma sees a forest of Dharma trees without outflows. I only ask you, what karma caused this tree? Was it caused by illusory karma or real karma? If it was caused by illusory karma, then one cannot see it when enlightened to reality. If it was caused by real karma, how can real karma cause an illusory tree? So this reasoning is difficult to understand. Next, clarifying the fifth question of the two truths (conventional truth, ultimate truth) being beyond names. However, the three great masters (Kumārajīva, Paramārtha, Xuanzang) did not give a special explanation of this principle, and all said that the conventional truth has names, and the ultimate truth is beyond names. The conventional truth has names, referring to the dharmas of the conventional truth, which have names and real objects.
召物之功。物有應名之實。如喚火名。即得火來。不得水來。故名召得物。物應名也。真諦絕名者。真諦無名。真諦四忘之絕。絕名故彼云。以名詺真。去真逾遠。所以真諦絕名也。問若真諦絕名者。經中何故說有二諦耶。彼解云。經中說有二諦名者。借世諦名詺真。故有二諦也。次難彼義。汝真諦無名。借世諦名詺真諦者。世諦中何處有此名。真只是真如法性。世諦中何處有此名耶。世諦中若有真如法性之名。則可藉此名來詺真諦。如詺茍為烏龍白虎。世諦中有烏龍白虎。可藉此名詺茍為烏龍白虎。世諦中何處有真如法性名。而云藉此名詺真諦耶。此難意。出大論第一卷。人等世界故有。第一義則無。如法性第一義故有。世界故則無。世界既無。何所借耶。而彼通云。聖人為作真諦名故名真諦。脫爾者。借名義壞。聖人為作真諦名。則非借世諦名詺真諦也。又難云。真諦無名。借世諦名詺真。此名為得真為不得真名。若得真則真有名。若名不得真借名何益。然此難可通。何者。彼云。真諦無名。為人不知真無名。借名詺真。令人知真諦無名。故借名詺真也。此難他不著。今更難之。汝云俗諦有名真諦無名。名無名待。不若名待無名。則名無名待。若名無名待。則真俗待。那得從來云三假是世諦。故不可也。若名不待
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『召物之功』：事物具有與名稱相對應的實質。例如，呼喚『火』的名字，就能得到火，而不會得到水。所以說名稱能夠召喚事物，事物與名稱相對應。『真諦絕名者』：真諦沒有名稱。真諦是超越四種執著的絕對境界。因為超越了名稱，所以他們說：『用名稱來稱呼真諦，離真諦就越遠。』因此，真諦是超越名稱的。問：如果真諦超越名稱，為什麼經典中說有二諦呢？他們的解釋是：經典中說有二諦的名稱，是借用世俗諦的名稱來稱呼真諦，所以才有二諦。接下來反駁他們的觀點：你說真諦沒有名稱，借用世俗諦的名稱來稱呼真諦，那麼世俗諦中哪裡有這個名稱呢？真諦只是真如法性，世俗諦中哪裡有這個名稱呢？如果世俗諦中有真如法性的名稱，就可以借用這個名稱來稱呼真諦，就像稱呼小狗為烏龍或白虎一樣。世俗諦中有烏龍和白虎，可以借用這些名稱來稱呼小狗為烏龍或白虎。世俗諦中哪裡有真如法性的名稱，而說借用這個名稱來稱呼真諦呢？這個反駁的意圖，出自《大智度論》第一卷：『人等世界是因緣和合而有，第一義諦則沒有。』就像法性是第一義諦而有，世界則沒有。世界既然沒有，又從哪裡借用呢？而他們的解釋是：聖人為真諦創造了名稱，所以才有名為真諦。如果這樣，借用名稱的意義就破壞了。聖人為真諦創造名稱，那就不是借用世俗諦的名稱來稱呼真諦了。又反駁說：真諦沒有名稱，借用世俗諦的名稱來稱呼真諦，這個名稱是得到了真諦，還是沒有得到真諦的名稱？如果得到了真諦，那麼真諦就有名稱。如果名稱沒有得到真諦，借用名稱有什麼用呢？然而，這個反駁是可以解釋的。為什麼呢？他們說：真諦沒有名稱，因為人們不知道真諦沒有名稱，所以借用名稱來稱呼真諦，讓人知道真諦沒有名稱，所以才借用名稱來稱呼真諦。這個反駁沒有擊中要害。現在我再反駁：你說俗諦有名，真諦沒有名稱，名稱和無名是相互依存的。如果不是名稱依賴於無名，那麼名稱和無名就是相互依存的。如果名稱和無名相互依存，那麼真諦和俗諦就是相互依存的。那怎麼能說三假是世俗諦呢？所以這是不對的。如果名稱不依賴於任何事物
【English Translation】 English version 『The function of summoning things』: Things have a reality that corresponds to their names. For example, if you call the name 『fire』, you will get fire, but you will not get water. Therefore, it is said that the name can summon the thing, and the thing corresponds to the name. 『The ultimate truth transcends names』: The ultimate truth has no name. The ultimate truth is the transcendence of the four attachments. Because it transcends names, they say: 『Using a name to designate the ultimate truth takes you further away from the ultimate truth.』 Therefore, the ultimate truth transcends names. Question: If the ultimate truth transcends names, why do the scriptures say there are two truths? Their explanation is: The scriptures say there are two truths, which is to borrow the name of the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) to designate the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), so there are two truths. Next, I refute their view: You say that the ultimate truth has no name, and you borrow the name of the conventional truth to designate the ultimate truth, then where in the conventional truth is this name? The ultimate truth is just suchness (tathātā) and dharma-nature (dharmatā), where in the conventional truth is this name? If there is a name for suchness and dharma-nature in the conventional truth, then you can borrow this name to designate the ultimate truth, just like calling a puppy 『Black Dragon』 or 『White Tiger』. There are Black Dragons and White Tigers in the conventional truth, and you can borrow these names to designate a puppy as 『Black Dragon』 or 『White Tiger』. Where in the conventional truth is there a name for suchness and dharma-nature, that you say you borrow this name to designate the ultimate truth? The intention of this refutation comes from the first volume of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Great Discourse on the Perfection of Wisdom): 『The world of beings, etc., exists due to causes and conditions, but the first principle (paramārtha) does not.』 Just as dharma-nature exists as the first principle, but the world does not. Since the world does not exist, from where do you borrow? And their explanation is: The sages created the name 『ultimate truth』 for the ultimate truth, so it is called the ultimate truth. If that is the case, the meaning of borrowing a name is destroyed. The sages created the name for the ultimate truth, then it is not borrowing the name of the conventional truth to designate the ultimate truth. Furthermore, it is refuted: The ultimate truth has no name, and you borrow the name of the conventional truth to designate the ultimate truth. Does this name obtain the ultimate truth, or does it not obtain the name of the ultimate truth? If it obtains the ultimate truth, then the ultimate truth has a name. If the name does not obtain the ultimate truth, what is the use of borrowing a name? However, this refutation can be explained. Why? They say: The ultimate truth has no name, because people do not know that the ultimate truth has no name, so they borrow a name to designate the ultimate truth, so that people know that the ultimate truth has no name, so they borrow a name to designate the ultimate truth. This refutation does not hit the mark. Now I refute it again: You say that the conventional truth has a name, and the ultimate truth has no name, and name and no-name are interdependent. If it is not that name depends on no-name, then name and no-name are interdependent. If name and no-name are interdependent, then the ultimate truth and the conventional truth are interdependent. Then how can you say that the three provisionalities (tri-prajñapti) are the conventional truth? Therefore, this is not correct. If the name does not depend on anything
無名。名則無所因。名無所因。自然名也。彼云。名體待。何意無因耶。難。汝世諦名體待。世諦待何物。此已如前難云云。更難云。三有為三無為待不。開善云。三有為三無為。皆世諦故。有為無為相待也。問有為待無為。無為有體。無為有名。無為之名。為是有為為是無為耶。解云。無為之名。是無常是有為。無為常法無名也。難。無為之名。是無常是有為。無為常法無名也。難。無為無名。無為既待。真諦無名。真諦亦待。真諦無名。真諦不待。無為無名。無為不待。此正就俱無名為難也。次明今釋二諦絕名。師從來有四句。俱絕俱不絕。真絕世不絕。世絕真不絕。絕不絕既有四句。說不說亦有四句。世諦不絕真諦絕。此義可知。言二諦俱絕者。真諦絕四句。離百非。世諦亦絕四句離百非。然此義從來所無。唯今家有也。言二諦皆絕四句離百非者。俗不定俗。俗名真俗。真不定真。真名俗真。真俗假俗。俗真假真。假俗則百是不能是。百非不能非。假真亦爾。何者。假俗則是是不能是。百是亦不是。非非不能非。百非亦不非。假真即非是不能是。百是亦不是。是非不能非。百非亦不非。是故皆離四句。絕百非也。雖二諦皆離四句絕百非。然二諦俱絕而大異。何者。俗諦絕則絕實。真諦絕則絕假。俗諦絕實者。是
是則是實是。非非則是性非。以俗諦絕實故。是是不能是。百是所不是。非非不能非。百非所不非也。真諦絕假者。非是是假是。是。非是假非。真諦絕假故。非但是是不能是。非是亦不是。非但非非不能非。是非亦不非。是是與非是。一切不能是。非非與是非。一切不能非。真諦雙絕世諦假實。此即漸舍。明二諦皆絕義。俗諦絕實。真諦絕假實。此開八不義。至八不中。當廣解釋也。第二次就平道明二諦俱絕義。俗不定俗。由真故俗。真不定真。由俗故真。由真故俗。俗是假俗。由俗故真。真是假真。既云假俗。即四句皆絕。假俗非俗。假俗非不俗。假俗非亦俗亦不俗。假俗非非俗非不俗。假真亦爾。興皇長干。皆嘆此語。直唱假俗。則四彈。假俗那是俗。若是俗則非假俗。既云假俗。故非俗也。假俗既非俗。可是非俗不。親言假俗。那是非俗。若道假非俗。可是非俗。既云假俗。那是非俗耶。問若爾應是亦俗亦非俗。既云假俗。那是亦俗亦非俗。既非亦俗亦非俗。應是非俗非非俗。既云假俗。那是非俗非非俗。假俗既然。假真亦爾。故二諦皆離四句。既豎離四句。則橫絕百非也。此則平道用。二諦無異。俗諦絕俗諦四句。真諦絕真諦四句。俗諦絕俗。諦性實四句。真諦絕真諦性實四句故。二諦是齊。平道用也。第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『是』就是真實的『是』（實是）。『非』的否定就是本性上的『非』（性非）。因為世俗諦（俗諦）超越了真實（實）的層面，所以『是』的肯定不能肯定任何事物，一切的『是』都不能說是『是』。『非』的否定也不能否定任何事物，一切的『非』都不能說是否定。真諦（真諦）超越了虛假（假）的層面，所以否定『是』的『是』是虛假的『是』，肯定『非』的『非』是虛假的『非』。因為真諦超越了虛假，所以不僅肯定『是』的『是』不能肯定任何事物，否定『是』的『是』也不能肯定任何事物；不僅否定『非』的『非』不能否定任何事物，肯定『非』的『非』也不能否定任何事物。『是』的肯定和否定『是』的『是』，都不能肯定任何事物。『非』的否定和肯定『非』的『非』，都不能否定任何事物。真諦同時超越了世俗諦的虛假和真實。這是一種逐漸捨棄（漸舍）的過程，闡明了二諦都超越了相對意義。世俗諦超越了真實，真諦超越了虛假和真實。這開啟了『八不』（八不）的意義，在『八不』中，將會詳細解釋。 第二次，就平等的道路（平道）闡明二諦都是超越相對意義的。世俗不是固定的世俗，因為有真諦的緣故才是世俗。真諦不是固定的真諦，因為有世俗諦的緣故才是真諦。因為有真諦的緣故才是世俗，所以世俗是虛假的世俗。因為有世俗諦的緣故才是真諦，所以真諦是虛假的真諦。既然說是虛假的世俗，那麼四句（四句）都是超越的。虛假的世俗既不是世俗，也不是非世俗，也不是既是世俗又不是世俗，也不是既非世俗也非非世俗。虛假的真諦也是如此。興皇（興皇）和長干（長干）都讚歎這種說法。直接說『虛假的世俗』，就包含了四種反駁（四彈）。虛假的世俗怎麼能是世俗呢？如果是世俗，那就不是虛假的世俗了。既然說是虛假的世俗，所以就不是世俗。虛假的世俗既然不是世俗，那麼可以說它不是非世俗嗎？直接說『虛假的世俗』，怎麼能是非世俗呢？如果說它不是非世俗，那麼可以說它不是世俗嗎？既然說是虛假的世俗，怎麼能是非世俗呢？問：如果這樣，那麼它應該是既是世俗又不是世俗嗎？既然說是虛假的世俗，那麼它怎麼能是既是世俗又不是世俗呢？既然不是既是世俗又不是世俗，那麼它應該不是既非世俗也非非世俗嗎？既然說是虛假的世俗，那麼它怎麼能是既非世俗也非非世俗呢？虛假的世俗是這樣，虛假的真諦也是這樣。所以二諦都脫離了四句。既然縱向脫離了四句，那麼橫向就超越了一切的否定（百非）。這就是平等道路的運用，二諦沒有差別。世俗諦超越了世俗諦的四句，真諦超越了真諦的四句。世俗諦超越了世俗諦的本性和真實的四句，真諦超越了真諦的本性和真實的四句，所以二諦是平等的，這是平等道路的運用。 第三
【English Translation】 English version 'Is' is the real 'is' (Shi Shi). The negation of 'non' is the 'non' in nature (Xing Fei). Because the conventional truth (Sudi) transcends the level of reality (Shi), the affirmation of 'is' cannot affirm anything; all 'is' cannot be said to be 'is'. The negation of 'non' cannot negate anything either; all 'non' cannot be said to be negation. The ultimate truth (Zhendi) transcends the level of falsity (Jia), so the 'is' that negates 'is' is the false 'is', and the 'non' that affirms 'non' is the false 'non'. Because the ultimate truth transcends falsity, not only can the 'is' that affirms 'is' not affirm anything, but the 'is' that negates 'is' cannot affirm anything either; not only can the 'non' that negates 'non' not negate anything, but the 'non' that affirms 'non' cannot negate anything either. The affirmation of 'is' and the 'is' that negates 'is' cannot affirm anything. The negation of 'non' and the 'non' that affirms 'non' cannot negate anything. The ultimate truth simultaneously transcends the falsity and reality of the conventional truth. This is a process of gradual abandonment (Jianshe), which clarifies that both truths transcend relative meaning. The conventional truth transcends reality, and the ultimate truth transcends falsity and reality. This opens up the meaning of the 'Eight No's' (Ba Bu), which will be explained in detail in the 'Eight No's'. Secondly, on the equal path (Pingdao), it is clarified that both truths transcend relative meaning. The conventional is not a fixed conventional, because it is the conventional due to the ultimate truth. The ultimate is not a fixed ultimate, because it is the ultimate due to the conventional truth. Because it is the conventional due to the ultimate truth, the conventional is the false conventional. Because it is the ultimate due to the conventional truth, the ultimate is the false ultimate. Since it is said to be the false conventional, then the four phrases (Siju) are all transcendent. The false conventional is neither conventional, nor non-conventional, nor both conventional and non-conventional, nor neither conventional nor non-non-conventional. The false ultimate is also like this. Xinghuang and Changgan both praised this statement. Directly saying 'false conventional' includes the four refutations (Si Tan). How can the false conventional be conventional? If it is conventional, then it is not the false conventional. Since it is said to be the false conventional, it is not conventional. Since the false conventional is not conventional, can it be said that it is non-conventional? Directly saying 'false conventional', how can it be non-conventional? If it is said that it is not non-conventional, can it be said that it is not conventional? Since it is said to be the false conventional, how can it be non-conventional? Question: If so, then should it be both conventional and non-conventional? Since it is said to be the false conventional, how can it be both conventional and non-conventional? Since it is not both conventional and non-conventional, then should it not be neither conventional nor non-non-conventional? Since it is said to be the false conventional, how can it be neither conventional nor non-non-conventional? The false conventional is like this, and the false ultimate is also like this. Therefore, both truths are detached from the four phrases. Since it is vertically detached from the four phrases, then it horizontally transcends all negations (Bai Fei). This is the application of the equal path, and there is no difference between the two truths. The conventional truth transcends the four phrases of the conventional truth, and the ultimate truth transcends the four phrases of the ultimate truth. The conventional truth transcends the four phrases of the nature and reality of the conventional truth, and the ultimate truth transcends the four phrases of the nature and reality of the ultimate truth, so the two truths are equal, which is the application of the equal path. Third
三明二諦絕者。二諦絕即絕二諦。明二諦是教門。為表不二之道。諸法非是有非是無。非是有為眾生故強說有。為表不有。非是無為眾生故強說無。為表不無。此即有無表不有不無。故有無絕也。正意者不絕為表絕故。不絕即絕也。第四明二諦絕者。只二諦即絕與前異。前二諦望表道故二諦絕。今明。只二諦即絕。只言說即絕。如凈名經天女與身子論解脫相。關中雲。身子雖知解脫無言。不知言即解脫。只言說文字即解脫。解脫不內不外不兩中間。文字亦爾。不內不外不兩中間。故文字即解脫。只文字即絕。略明四種絕義如此。此四種絕。攝一切絕也。涅槃經明絕待樂。對苦明樂。非是好樂。無苦無樂。乃是大樂。大亦有二種。相待大絕待大。此是何物絕耶。解云。此是漸舍絕。前明。相待樂非好樂。非苦非樂樂。乃是好樂。故是漸舍絕也。二諦俱不絕者。然絕有此四種。不絕亦有四種。翻此四種。即是四不絕。第一不絕者。俗諦絕實是非。不絕俗諦。真諦絕假不絕真諦。真諦絕假生滅。不絕真不生滅。故二諦皆不絕也。第二不絕者。既云假俗。何時絕俗假真。何時絕真。假俗名真俗。假真名俗真。真俗俗真。故二諦不絕也。第三不絕。二諦為表絕。何時絕二諦。二諦有二義。為表絕故言絕。而有二諦故不絕也。第四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『三明二諦絕』是指對二諦的斷絕。斷絕二諦，即是斷絕了對二諦的執著。闡明二諦是教法之門，是爲了表明不二之道。諸法既非是有，也非是無。爲了引導眾生，所以勉強說『有』，是爲了表明並非實有；爲了引導眾生，所以勉強說『無』，是爲了表明並非實無。這即是用有和無來表明非有非無，所以有和無都應斷絕。真正的含義是不以斷絕為目的，而是爲了通過不斷絕來表明斷絕的真意，所以不斷絕即是斷絕。 第四種『明二諦絕』，是指僅僅是二諦本身就是斷絕，這與前面所說的不同。前面所說的二諦是希望通過二諦來表達道，所以要斷絕二諦。現在所說的是，僅僅是二諦本身就是斷絕，僅僅是言說本身就是斷絕。如同《維摩詰經》中天女與舍利弗討論解脫的境界。關中說，舍利弗雖然知道解脫是不可言說的，但他不知道言說本身就是解脫。僅僅是言說文字本身就是解脫。解脫不在內，不在外，也不在兩者之間，文字也是如此，不在內，不在外，也不在兩者之間，所以文字本身就是解脫，僅僅是文字本身就是斷絕。簡略地闡明四種斷絕的含義就是這樣，這四種斷絕涵蓋了一切斷絕。 《涅槃經》闡明了絕待樂（nirapekṣa-sukha，超越相對的快樂）。通過與苦相對比來闡明樂，這不是真正的快樂。沒有苦也沒有樂，才是真正的快樂。大也有兩種，相對的大和絕待的大。這是斷絕了什麼呢？解釋說，這是漸舍絕（逐漸捨棄的斷絕）。前面闡明，相對的樂不是真正的樂，非苦非樂才是樂，才是真正的快樂，所以這是漸舍絕。 二諦都不斷絕：雖然有這四種斷絕，但也有四種不斷絕。將這四種斷絕反過來，就是四種不斷絕。第一種不斷絕是，俗諦斷絕了對實在的錯誤認知，但不應斷絕俗諦本身；真諦斷絕了虛假的認知，但不應斷絕真諦本身；真諦斷絕了虛假的生滅，但不應斷絕真諦的不生不滅。所以二諦都不應斷絕。 第二種不斷絕是，既然說了是假俗，那麼何時斷絕俗假，何時斷絕真？假俗可以稱為真俗，假真可以稱為俗真。真俗和俗真，所以二諦不應斷絕。 第三種不斷絕是，二諦是爲了表明斷絕，那麼何時斷絕二諦？二諦有兩種含義，爲了表明斷絕所以說斷絕，但因為有二諦的存在，所以又不應斷絕。 第四種（原文缺失，無法翻譯）
【English Translation】 English version 『The Exhaustion of the Three Understandings and Two Truths』 refers to the cutting off of the Two Truths. Cutting off the Two Truths means cutting off attachment to them. Clarifying the Two Truths is the gateway to the teachings, intended to reveal the non-dual path. All dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent. To guide sentient beings, we tentatively say 『existent』 to indicate that they are not truly existent; to guide sentient beings, we tentatively say 『non-existent』 to indicate that they are not truly non-existent. This uses existence and non-existence to indicate neither existence nor non-existence, so both existence and non-existence should be cut off. The true meaning is not to aim for cutting off, but to use non-cutting off to reveal the true intention of cutting off, so non-cutting off is cutting off. The fourth type, 『Clarifying the Exhaustion of the Two Truths,』 means that the Two Truths themselves are exhaustion, which differs from what was said earlier. The Two Truths mentioned earlier were intended to express the path, so the Two Truths should be cut off. What is being said now is that the Two Truths themselves are exhaustion, and speech itself is exhaustion. It is like in the Vimalakirti Sutra, where the goddess discusses the state of liberation with Sariputra (Śāriputra, one of the principal disciples of the Buddha). Guanzhong (a place name) said that although Sariputra knew that liberation is beyond words, he did not know that speech itself is liberation. Speech and words themselves are liberation. Liberation is not internal, not external, and not in between; words are also like this, not internal, not external, and not in between, so words themselves are liberation, and words themselves are exhaustion. Briefly explaining the meaning of the four types of exhaustion is like this; these four types of exhaustion encompass all exhaustion. The Nirvana Sutra clarifies nirapekṣa-sukha (absolute bliss, independent of conditions). Bliss is clarified by contrasting it with suffering, but this is not true bliss. The absence of both suffering and bliss is true bliss. 『Great』 also has two types: relative great and absolute great. What is being exhausted here? The explanation is that this is gradual abandonment exhaustion (gradual relinquishment of exhaustion). It was clarified earlier that relative bliss is not true bliss; neither suffering nor bliss is bliss, which is true bliss, so this is gradual abandonment exhaustion. The Two Truths are not exhausted: Although there are these four types of exhaustion, there are also four types of non-exhaustion. Reversing these four types of exhaustion gives the four types of non-exhaustion. The first type of non-exhaustion is that the conventional truth exhausts the false understanding of reality, but the conventional truth itself should not be exhausted; the ultimate truth exhausts false understanding, but the ultimate truth itself should not be exhausted; the ultimate truth exhausts false arising and ceasing, but the non-arising and non-ceasing of the ultimate truth should not be exhausted. Therefore, the Two Truths should not be exhausted. The second type of non-exhaustion is that since it is said to be false conventional, when should the conventional false be exhausted, and when should the true be exhausted? The false conventional can be called true conventional, and the false true can be called conventional true. True conventional and conventional true, so the Two Truths should not be exhausted. The third type of non-exhaustion is that the Two Truths are intended to reveal exhaustion, so when should the Two Truths be exhausted? The Two Truths have two meanings; they are said to be exhausted to reveal exhaustion, but because the Two Truths exist, they should not be exhausted. The fourth (missing in the original text, cannot be translated)
不絕。二諦言說即絕。只絕即不絕。師從來舉。佛影譬。遙望相好宛然。至邊都無所有。二諦亦爾。言說宛然而絕。絕而言說宛然。此亦是世諦絕。世諦不絕。從來所無。從來云。絕即真諦。不絕即世諦。難。若爾遙望。佛相好是世諦。近之無相好。應是真諦。今明。只相好宛然。而無所有。無所有而相好宛然。諸法亦爾。只不絕而絕。絕而不絕也。
次明二諦攝法義第六。然此義。開善莊嚴兩家釋不同。開善云。二諦攝法盡。下至生死上極涅槃。預名相所及者。故皆世諦。只此名相即體不可得為真諦。為是義故。二諦攝法盡也。又彼明。生死涅槃。皆是虛假故是世諦。既是虛假故。可即空為真諦。所以一切法無出二諦也。彼引大品云。佛與弟子。知法性外無更有法。法性還是真諦。法性既攝法盡故。真諦攝法盡也。又引大品幻聽品。須菩提問。生死如幻如夢。涅槃亦如幻如夢耶。佛答云。生死如幻如夢。涅槃亦如幻如夢。設有一法出涅槃者。亦說如幻如夢。涅槃既是幻夢。故涅槃虛假。以虛假故。是世諦。虛假即空故為真諦也。問彼何故明涅槃是世諦耶。解云。彼明。涅槃三假中。是相待相續二假所攝。若是生死則具三假。何者。為異具所成故。是因成假。異具所成者。四微成柱。五陰成人也。前念滅后念續
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不絕。二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）言說即絕。只絕即不絕。師（指某位大師）從來舉佛影譬。遙望佛的相好（lakṣaṇa，佛的三十二相和八十隨形好）宛然，至近處都無所有。二諦亦是如此，言說宛然而絕，絕而言說宛然。這也是世諦（saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦）絕，世諦不絕，從來所無。從來云：『絕即真諦（paramārtha-satya，真諦），不絕即世諦。』難：『若如此，遙望佛的相好是世諦，近處沒有相好，應是真諦。』今明：『只是相好宛然而無所有，無所有而相好宛然。』諸法也是如此，只是不絕而絕，絕而不絕啊。
其次說明二諦攝法義第六。然而此義，開善和莊嚴兩家解釋不同。開善說：『二諦攝法盡，下至生死上極涅槃，凡是名相所能及者，都屬於世諦。只是這名相的自體不可得，是為真諦。』因為這個緣故，二諦攝法盡。他又說明：『生死涅槃，都是虛假的，所以是世諦。既然是虛假的，就可以即空為真諦。』所以一切法都不能超出二諦。他引用《大品般若經》說：『佛與弟子，知道法性之外沒有其他法，法性就是真諦。』法性既然攝法盡，所以真諦攝法盡。又引用《大品般若經·幻聽品》，須菩提（Subhūti，佛陀的十大弟子之一）問：『生死如幻如夢，涅槃也如幻如夢嗎？』佛回答說：『生死如幻如夢，涅槃也如幻如夢。假設有一法超出涅槃，也說是如幻如夢。』涅槃既然是幻夢，所以涅槃是虛假的，因為虛假，所以是世諦，虛假即空，所以是真諦。』問：『他為什麼說明涅槃是世諦呢？』解釋說：『他說明涅槃在三假中，是被相待假和相續假所攝。如果是生死，則具足三假。』哪三種假呢？因為異具所成，是因成假。異具所成，例如四微塵構成柱子，五陰構成人。前念滅后念相續
【English Translation】 English version Unceasing. The expression of the two truths (satya-dvaya) ceases. Only ceasing is unceasing. The master (referring to a certain master) always cites the analogy of the Buddha's shadow. From afar, the auspicious marks (lakṣaṇa, the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks of a Buddha) appear clearly, but upon reaching the side, there is nothing at all. The two truths are also like this: expression appears clearly yet ceases, ceasing yet expression appears clearly. This is also the cessation of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), the unceasing of conventional truth, which has never existed before. It has always been said: 'Cessation is ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), unceasing is conventional truth.' Question: 'If that is the case, viewing the Buddha's auspicious marks from afar is conventional truth, but the absence of auspicious marks up close should be ultimate truth.' Now it is clarified: 'It is just that the auspicious marks appear clearly yet are without substance, without substance yet the auspicious marks appear clearly.' All dharmas are also like this, just unceasing yet ceasing, ceasing yet unceasing.
Next, the sixth point clarifies the meaning of the two truths encompassing all dharmas. However, the interpretations of this meaning differ between the Kaisan and Zhuangyan schools. Kaisan says: 'The two truths encompass all dharmas completely, from the lowest level of birth and death to the highest level of nirvana. Whatever is within the reach of names and forms belongs to conventional truth. It is just that the self-nature of these names and forms is unattainable, which is ultimate truth.' Because of this reason, the two truths encompass all dharmas completely. He also explains: 'Birth and death, and nirvana, are all illusory, so they are conventional truth. Since they are illusory, they can be immediately empty, which is ultimate truth.' Therefore, all dharmas cannot go beyond the two truths. He quotes the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra: 'The Buddha and his disciples know that there is no other dharma outside of the nature of dharma, and the nature of dharma is ultimate truth.' Since the nature of dharma encompasses all dharmas completely, ultimate truth encompasses all dharmas completely. He also quotes the Phantom Hearing Chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. Subhūti (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) asks: 'Birth and death are like illusions and dreams, is nirvana also like illusions and dreams?' The Buddha replies: 'Birth and death are like illusions and dreams, nirvana is also like illusions and dreams. If there is a dharma that goes beyond nirvana, it is also said to be like illusions and dreams.' Since nirvana is an illusion and a dream, nirvana is illusory, and because it is illusory, it is conventional truth. Illusory is emptiness, so it is ultimate truth.' Question: 'Why does he explain that nirvana is conventional truth?' The explanation is: 'He explains that nirvana, among the three falsities, is encompassed by the false of mutual dependence and the false of continuity. If it is birth and death, then it possesses all three falsities.' What are the three falsities? Because it is formed by different components, it is the false of cause. Formed by different components, for example, four subtle particles form a pillar, and the five skandhas form a person. The previous thought ceases and the next thought continues.
前念。名相續假。長短方圓。名相待假。具三假故為世諦。三假舉體不可得為真諦。生死為二諦攝也。涅槃為續待二假攝者。佛果續金剛心。金剛心滅佛果起。續故是相續假。涅槃復待生死。故涅槃是相待假。佛果不為異具所成故。非因成假也。問萬德成涅槃。何故非因成假耶。解云。萬德無別體。非別法成此人。人即是法。但義論人法。可軌義為法。統御義為人。無別異法成人故。云佛果不為異具所成非因成假也。以涅槃具二假故是世諦。即以此二假空為真諦。故涅槃具二諦攝。彼云。大品權教。雙林實說。二諦往收悉無不盡。故明二諦攝法盡也。莊嚴明二諦攝法不盡。二諦故自不攝涅槃。攝生死中法。亦復不盡。何者。生死中有有法有空法。虛空不為二諦所攝。虛空不為異具所成故。非因成假。無前滅後生。非相續假。亦非相待假。開善明虛空非因成假非相續假是相待假。何者。虛空有名相故。是相待假。莊嚴明。虛空故非因成相續。亦非相待假。何者。虛空是常。無有名相。名相是無常。以虛空常故無名相。無名相故非相待假。故虛空非三假。非三假非世諦。非三假故不可即空。故非真諦。問虛空既然。數滅非數滅云何。解云。小乘數滅非數滅。還是無常。還是世諦。但昔方便說為常。望今大涅槃。皆無常也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 前念，名為相續假（連續不斷的假象）。長短、方圓，名為相待假（相互依存的假象）。具備這三種假象，所以是世俗諦（相對於真理的世俗認知）。這三種假象的本體都不可得，所以是真諦（終極真理）。生死被二諦（世俗諦和真諦）所包含。 涅槃被相續假和相待假兩種假象所包含。佛果（佛的果位）延續金剛心（堅不可摧的智慧之心），金剛心滅后佛果生起，因為是延續，所以是相續假。涅槃又依賴於生死，所以涅槃是相待假。佛果不是由不同的事物構成，所以不是因成假（由因緣和合而成的假象）。 問：萬德（無數功德）成就涅槃，為什麼不是因成假呢？ 答：萬德沒有獨立的本體，不是由其他法成就這個人，人即是法。只是從義理上說人法，可以作為準則的義理是法，統御一切的義理是人。沒有其他不同的法成就人，所以說佛果不是由不同的事物構成，不是因成假。 因為涅槃具備相續假和相待假兩種假象，所以是世俗諦。立即以這兩種假象的空性為真諦。所以涅槃具備二諦的包含。 他們說，《大品般若經》是權教（方便教法），《雙林經》是實說（真實教法），用二諦來涵蓋一切，沒有不窮盡的。所以說明二諦包含一切法是窮盡的。而《莊嚴論》認為二諦包含一切法是不窮盡的。二諦本身並不包含涅槃，包含生死中的法，也並不窮盡。為什麼呢？生死中有有法（存在的法）和空法（空性的法），虛空不被二諦所包含。虛空不是由不同的事物構成，所以不是因成假；沒有前滅後生，不是相續假；也不是相待假。 開善法師認為虛空不是因成假，不是相續假，而是相待假。為什麼呢？因為虛空有名相，所以是相待假。《莊嚴論》認為，虛空不是因成假，不是相續假，也不是相待假。為什麼呢？因為虛空是常，沒有名相，名相是無常。因為虛空是常，所以沒有名相，沒有名相，所以不是相待假。所以虛空不是三假，不是三假就不是世俗諦，不是三假就不可立即空性，所以不是真諦。 問：虛空既然如此，數滅（通過修行斷滅煩惱）和非數滅（非通過修行而自然斷滅煩惱）又如何呢？ 答：小乘的數滅和非數滅，還是無常，還是世俗諦。只是過去方便說為常，相對於現在的大涅槃，都是無常的。
【English Translation】 English version The preceding thought is called 'samskara-prajñapti' (continuity-provisionality). Long and short, square and round, are called 'pratitya-prajñapti' (relational-provisionality). Possessing these three provisionalities is why it is called 'samvriti-satya' (conventional truth). The substance of these three provisionalities is unattainable, hence it is 'paramartha-satya' (ultimate truth). Samsara (birth and death) is encompassed by the two truths. Nirvana is encompassed by the two provisionalities of continuity and relation. The Buddha-fruit (the fruit of Buddhahood) continues from the Vajra-heart (diamond heart), and when the Vajra-heart ceases, the Buddha-fruit arises. Because it is a continuation, it is 'samskara-prajñapti'. Nirvana also depends on samsara, so Nirvana is 'pratitya-prajñapti'. The Buddha-fruit is not formed by different constituents, so it is not 'hetu-prajñapti' (causal-provisionality). Question: Since Nirvana is accomplished by myriad virtues, why is it not 'hetu-prajñapti'? Answer: The myriad virtues have no separate substance; it is not that other dharmas accomplish this person. The person is the dharma. It is only in terms of meaning that we speak of person and dharma. That which can be a standard is dharma, and that which governs is person. There are no other different dharmas that accomplish the person, so it is said that the Buddha-fruit is not formed by different constituents and is not 'hetu-prajñapti'. Because Nirvana possesses the two provisionalities of continuity and relation, it is 'samvriti-satya'. Immediately taking the emptiness of these two provisionalities as 'paramartha-satya'. Therefore, Nirvana possesses the inclusion of the two truths. They say that the 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra' is 'upaya-shastra' (expedient teaching), and the 'Shuanglin Sutra' is 'real shastra' (true teaching). Using the two truths to encompass everything, there is nothing that is not exhausted. Therefore, it is explained that the two truths encompass all dharmas exhaustively. The 'Shastra of Ornamentation' states that the two truths do not encompass all dharmas exhaustively. The two truths themselves do not encompass Nirvana, and the dharmas within samsara are also not exhaustively encompassed. Why? Within samsara, there are existent dharmas and empty dharmas. Space is not encompassed by the two truths. Space is not formed by different constituents, so it is not 'hetu-prajñapti'; there is no prior cessation and subsequent arising, so it is not 'samskara-prajñapti'; nor is it 'pratitya-prajñapti'. Kaishan states that space is not 'hetu-prajñapti', not 'samskara-prajñapti', but is 'pratitya-prajñapti'. Why? Because space has name and form, so it is 'pratitya-prajñapti'. The 'Shastra of Ornamentation' states that space is not 'hetu-prajñapti', nor 'samskara-prajñapti', nor 'pratitya-prajñapti'. Why? Because space is constant and has no name and form. Name and form are impermanent. Because space is constant, it has no name and form; having no name and form, it is not 'pratitya-prajñapti'. Therefore, space is not the three provisionalities; not being the three provisionalities, it is not 'samvriti-satya'; not being the three provisionalities, it cannot be immediately emptiness, so it is not 'paramartha-satya'. Question: Since space is like this, what about 'nirodha-samapatti' (cessation attainment) and 'anirodha-samapatti' (non-cessation attainment)? Answer: The 'nirodha-samapatti' and 'anirodha-samapatti' of the Hinayana are still impermanent and still 'samvriti-satya'. It is just that in the past, it was expediently said to be constant, but compared to the present Great Nirvana, they are all impermanent.
若今日數滅。還是大涅槃。復不得為二諦攝。非數滅同虛空。然三無為法。虛空無為常通今昔。餘二無為。昔無常今常。以今常故。皆不為二諦攝。成論明三無為一體。開善莊嚴。皆明三無為一體。此則開善。明三無為皆為二諦攝。莊嚴明三無為不為二諦攝也。然彼明涅槃非續待二假。難解。佛果續金剛心。何故非相續假。涅槃待生死。何故非相待假耶。彼解云。涅槃是續而非假。涅槃是待而非假。三假中因成假。涅槃非因成亦非假。若是相續。則是續非假。若是相待。是待非假。假是虛妄涅槃是實。故涅槃非假。而有相待。虛實待假非假待。佛果實續金剛心。佛果是實。故續而非假。非假故非世諦。既非假不可即空。故非真諦。引涅槃經云。若言解脫譬如幻化。凡夫禍得解脫者即是磨滅。有智之人。應當分別。人中師子。雖有去來。常住無變。故知。涅槃非虛假也。開善將前文難。大品云。涅槃如幻如夢。設有一法出涅槃者。亦如幻夢。云何言非假耶。莊嚴解此懸去。彼云。大品明空蕩相。第二時教。猶帶昔教意故。云如幻化。涅槃極說。明涅槃是妙有。亦名善有。不可空故。經云。空者二十五有。不空者大般涅槃。若爾。莊嚴涅槃亦為二諦攝。亦不為二諦攝。大品至法華。明涅槃為二諦攝。常住教。明涅槃不為二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果今日的數滅（saṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力斷滅煩惱），就是大涅槃（mahāparinirvāṇa，究竟的寂滅）。那麼，它就不應被二諦（dve satye，真諦和俗諦）所包含。數滅不同於虛空（ākāśa，沒有障礙的空間），然而三種無為法（trayo 'saṃskṛtā dharmāḥ，不生不滅的法）：虛空無為，在過去和現在都是常通的；其餘兩種無為法，過去無常而現在常。因為現在是常，所以都不被二諦所包含。《成實論》闡明三種無為是一體的。《開善寺》和《莊嚴論》都闡明三種無為是一體的。這說明《開善寺》認為三種無為都被二諦所包含，而《莊嚴論》認為三種無為不被二諦所包含。 然而，《莊嚴論》認為涅槃不是續待二假（相續假和相待假），這難以理解。佛果（buddha-phala，佛的果位）延續金剛心（vajra-citta，堅固不壞的菩提心），為什麼不是相續假呢？涅槃依賴生死（saṃsāra，輪迴），為什麼不是相待假呢？《莊嚴論》解釋說：涅槃是延續，但不是假；涅槃是依賴，但不是假。在三種假中，因成假（hetu-phala-kalpana，因緣和合而成的假象），涅槃不是因緣和合而成，所以不是假。如果是相續，那就是延續而非假；如果是相待，那就是依賴而非假。假是虛妄的，涅槃是真實的，所以涅槃不是假，而是有相待的關係。虛實是依賴假，而不是假依賴虛實。佛果是真實地延續金剛心，佛果是真實的，所以是延續而非假。因為不是假，所以不是世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對的真理）。既然不是假，就不可即空，所以不是真諦（paramārtha-satya，絕對的真理）。 《涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra）中說：『如果說解脫（mokṣa，從輪迴中解脫）譬如幻化，那麼凡夫（pṛthagjana，未開悟的人）所得到的解脫就是磨滅。有智慧的人，應當分別。人中師子（narasiṃha，佛的尊稱），雖有去來，常住無變。』由此可知，涅槃不是虛假的。《開善寺》用前面的文句來質疑，《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra）中說：『涅槃如幻如夢，假設有一法超出涅槃，也如幻夢。』怎麼能說涅槃不是假呢？《莊嚴論》解釋說，這是懸置的說法。他們認為，《大品般若經》闡明空蕩之相，是第二時教（佛陀說法次第的第二階段），還帶有昔日教義的意味，所以說『如幻化』。涅槃是極說，闡明涅槃是妙有，也叫善有，不可空。經中說：『空的是二十五有（pañcaviṃśati bhava，三界中的二十五種存在狀態），不空的是大般涅槃。』如果這樣，那麼《莊嚴論》認為涅槃既被二諦所包含，又不被二諦所包含。《大品般若經》到《法華經》（Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra）闡明涅槃被二諦所包含，常住教（nitya-sthita-śāsana，佛陀常住不變的教法）闡明涅槃不被二諦所包含。
【English Translation】 English version: If the cessation of number (saṃkhyā-nirodha, cessation through the power of wisdom) today is the Great Nirvana (mahāparinirvāṇa, ultimate extinction), then it should not be included within the Two Truths (dve satye, conventional and ultimate truths). The cessation of number is not the same as space (ākāśa, unobstructed space). However, the three unconditioned dharmas (trayo 'saṃskṛtā dharmāḥ, uncreated dharmas): unconditioned space is always common to both past and present; the other two unconditioned dharmas were impermanent in the past but are permanent now. Because they are permanent now, they are not included within the Two Truths. The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra clarifies that the three unconditioned dharmas are one entity. Both Kaisan Temple and the Adornment Treatise clarify that the three unconditioned dharmas are one entity. This indicates that Kaisan Temple believes that all three unconditioned dharmas are included within the Two Truths, while the Adornment Treatise believes that the three unconditioned dharmas are not included within the Two Truths. However, the Adornment Treatise believes that Nirvana is not a continuation or dependence on the two kinds of falsity (the falsity of continuity and the falsity of dependence), which is difficult to understand. The Buddha-fruit (buddha-phala, the fruit of Buddhahood) continues the Vajra-mind (vajra-citta, the indestructible Bodhi-mind), so why is it not the falsity of continuity? Nirvana depends on samsara (saṃsāra, the cycle of rebirth), so why is it not the falsity of dependence? The Adornment Treatise explains: Nirvana is a continuation, but it is not false; Nirvana is dependent, but it is not false. Among the three kinds of falsity, the falsity of cause and effect (hetu-phala-kalpana, the illusion created by the aggregation of causes and conditions), Nirvana is not created by the aggregation of causes and conditions, so it is not false. If it is a continuation, then it is a continuation and not false; if it is dependent, then it is dependent and not false. Falsity is illusory, Nirvana is real, so Nirvana is not false, but it has a relationship of dependence. Reality depends on falsity, but falsity does not depend on reality. The Buddha-fruit truly continues the Vajra-mind, the Buddha-fruit is real, so it is a continuation and not false. Because it is not false, it is not conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, relative truth). Since it is not false, it cannot be immediately empty, so it is not ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, absolute truth). The Nirvana Sutra (Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra) says: 'If it is said that liberation (mokṣa, freedom from samsara) is like an illusion, then the liberation obtained by ordinary people (pṛthagjana, unenlightened beings) is annihilation. Wise people should distinguish. The Lion among men (narasiṃha, an epithet for the Buddha), although there is coming and going, is always abiding and unchanging.' From this, it can be known that Nirvana is not false. Kaisan Temple uses the preceding passage to question, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra) says: 'Nirvana is like an illusion, like a dream. If there were a dharma that transcends Nirvana, it would also be like an illusion, like a dream.' How can it be said that Nirvana is not false? The Adornment Treatise explains that this is a suspended statement. They believe that the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra clarifies the aspect of emptiness, which is the teaching of the second period (the second stage of the Buddha's teachings), and still carries the meaning of the former teachings, so it says 'like an illusion'. Nirvana is the ultimate teaching, clarifying that Nirvana is wonderful existence, also called good existence, which cannot be empty. The sutra says: 'What is empty is the twenty-five existences (pañcaviṃśati bhava, the twenty-five states of existence in the three realms), what is not empty is the Great Nirvana.' If this is the case, then the Adornment Treatise believes that Nirvana is both included within the Two Truths and not included within the Two Truths. The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra to the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra) clarify that Nirvana is included within the Two Truths, the teaching of permanence (nitya-sthita-śāsana, the Buddha's permanent and unchanging teachings) clarifies that Nirvana is not included within the Two Truths.
諦攝也。開善更將一經文難懸屈。經云迦毗羅城空大涅槃空。既云大涅槃空。云何非二諦攝耶。彼即曲解言。涅槃空者。涅槃空無諸相故。云涅槃空。難役置不令得去。經親云大涅槃空。何時道。空無諸相。空無諸相。別復是一種語。涅槃空無十相。十相者。三界男女相及五塵相。涅槃無此十相故。云涅槃空無諸相。何時明涅槃空耶。莊嚴終明涅槃不可空。明涅槃非磨滅法常住妙有故非假也。然仁王經。的有此文。仁王云。常住薩云若覺。超出世諦第一義諦外。此的是一文。而諸法師。不引為證。不引亦有意。言此經預疑故。不足為證也。兩家互相破如此。今時若為耶。解云。此兩家明涅槃未足。今更將大論及中論足之。中論偈云。一切實非實。亦實亦非實非實非非實。是名諸佛法。是四句束為三句。一切實非實為第一句。亦實亦非實為第二句。非實非非實為第三句。一切者。即是有為無為生死涅槃。故云一切。非實者。明有為無為生死涅槃皆是虛假。故云不實。一切實者。亦為無為一切法。皆入真如法性故。云一切實。如眾川入于大海同一鹹味。此即開善義也。亦實亦非實者。即是莊嚴義。莊嚴明生死非實涅槃是實。故云亦實亦非實也。非實非非實者。非一切實。非一切不實。雙彈兩家故。明非實非非實也。是名諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦攝也（諦攝：不清楚具體含義，此處保留原文）。開善（開善：人名，此處指開善寺的僧人）更將一經文難懸屈。經云：『迦毗羅城（Kapilavastu）空，大涅槃（Mahāparinirvāṇa）空。』既云大涅槃空，云何非二諦（two truths）攝耶？彼即曲解言：『涅槃空者，涅槃空無諸相故，云涅槃空。』難役置不令得去。經親云大涅槃空，何時道空無諸相？空無諸相，別復是一種語。涅槃空無十相。十相者：三界（Three Realms）男女相及五塵（five objects of senses）相。涅槃無此十相故，云涅槃空無諸相。何時明涅槃空耶？莊嚴（莊嚴：人名，此處指莊嚴寺的僧人）終明涅槃不可空，明涅槃非磨滅法，常住妙有故非假也。然仁王經（Renwang Sutra）的有此文。仁王云：『常住薩云若覺（Sarvajna-buddha，一切智覺），超出世諦（conventional truth）第一義諦（ultimate truth）外。』此的是一文，而諸法師不引為證。不引亦有意，言此經預疑故，不足為證也。兩家互相破如此。今時若為耶？解云：此兩家明涅槃未足，今更將大論（Mahayana-samgraha）及中論（Madhyamaka-karika）足之。中論偈云：『一切實非實，亦實亦非實，非實非非實，是名諸佛法。』是四句束為三句。一切實非實為第一句，亦實亦非實為第二句，非實非非實為第三句。一切者，即是有為（conditioned）無為（unconditioned）生死（samsara）涅槃（nirvana）。故云一切。非實者，明有為無為生死涅槃皆是虛假。故云不實。一切實者，亦為無為一切法，皆入真如（Tathata）法性（Dharmata）故，云一切實。如眾川入于大海同一鹹味。此即開善義也。亦實亦非實者，即是莊嚴義。莊嚴明生死非實涅槃是實，故云亦實亦非實也。非實非非實者，非一切實，非一切不實。雙彈兩家故，明非實非非實也。是名諸
【English Translation】 English version 『Di She』 (Di She: unclear specific meaning, original text retained here). 『Kai Shan』 (Kai Shan: a person's name, referring to a monk from Kai Shan Temple here) further used a sutra passage to make things difficult. The sutra says: 『Kapilavastu (Kapilavastu) is empty, and the Great Nirvana (Mahāparinirvāṇa) is empty.』 Since it says the Great Nirvana is empty, how can it not be included in the Two Truths (two truths)? He then misinterpreted it, saying: 『The emptiness of Nirvana means that Nirvana is empty because it has no characteristics, hence the emptiness of Nirvana.』 It was difficult to refute and prevent him from leaving. The sutra clearly says the Great Nirvana is empty, when did it say it is empty of all characteristics? 『Empty of all characteristics』 is another way of saying it. Nirvana is empty of the Ten Characteristics. The Ten Characteristics are: the male and female characteristics of the Three Realms (Three Realms) and the characteristics of the Five Objects of Senses (five objects of senses). Because Nirvana does not have these Ten Characteristics, it is said that Nirvana is empty of all characteristics. When did it clarify that Nirvana is empty? 『Zhuang Yan』 (Zhuang Yan: a person's name, referring to a monk from Zhuang Yan Temple here) ultimately clarified that Nirvana cannot be empty, clarifying that Nirvana is not a perishable dharma, but a permanent and wonderful existence, therefore it is not false. However, the Renwang Sutra (Renwang Sutra) contains this passage. The Renwang says: 『The permanent Sarvajna-buddha (Sarvajna-buddha, all-knowing Buddha) transcends the conventional truth (conventional truth) and the ultimate truth (ultimate truth).』 This is indeed a passage, but the Dharma masters do not cite it as evidence. There is also a reason for not citing it, saying that this sutra is suspected in advance, so it is not sufficient as evidence. The two schools refute each other in this way. What should be done now? It is explained that these two schools have not fully clarified Nirvana, so now the Mahayana-samgraha (Mahayana-samgraha) and the Madhyamaka-karika (Madhyamaka-karika) will be used to supplement it. The verse in the Madhyamaka-karika says: 『Everything is real and unreal, also real and unreal, neither real nor unreal, this is called the Dharma of all Buddhas.』 These four sentences are combined into three sentences. 『Everything is real and unreal』 is the first sentence, 『also real and unreal』 is the second sentence, and 『neither real nor unreal』 is the third sentence. 『Everything』 refers to conditioned (conditioned), unconditioned (unconditioned), samsara (samsara), and nirvana (nirvana). Therefore, it is called 『everything.』 『Unreal』 clarifies that conditioned, unconditioned, samsara, and nirvana are all false. Therefore, it is called 『unreal.』 『Everything is real』 means that all dharmas, whether conditioned or unconditioned, enter the Suchness (Tathata) and Dharmata (Dharmata), therefore it is called 『everything is real.』 Like all rivers flowing into the sea, they have the same salty taste. This is the meaning of Kai Shan. 『Also real and unreal』 is the meaning of Zhuang Yan. Zhuang Yan clarifies that samsara is unreal and nirvana is real, therefore it is called 『also real and unreal.』 『Neither real nor unreal』 means neither everything is real nor everything is unreal. It refutes both schools, clarifying 『neither real nor unreal.』 This is called the
佛法者。論釋云。若於此三種。並皆得悟。則名佛法。若於此三種各執。則成戲論。不名佛法也。所以明此三種者。欲彈從來定執。論明此三種皆是如來方便。為眾生作如此說。若是實相非三非不三。此三句並是方便。開善莊嚴。不知是方便。于方便中復不盡。何者。兩家所計。方便中一枝義耳。得方便一枝亦好。而復於一枝中各相破射。各執是非。謂是道理實說。開善云二諦道理攝法盡。莊嚴云道理不盡。為是義所以成失也。問今時所明二諦。攝法盡不盡耶。解云。大乘經具有二文。此並是如來方便為緣之說。有時為緣說二諦攝法盡。有時為緣說攝法不盡。具有盡不盡二種法門也。又欲令攝盡則盡。欲令攝不盡則不盡。無所妨礙。何者。一家有單復六種二諦。前後明三種二諦。有時開則有三諦。有諦無諦非有非無中道第一義諦。有時攝三諦為二諦。有無並世諦。非有非無為第一義諦。乃至二不二為世諦。非二非不二為第一義諦。就此而論。則無出二諦。就前節復出義。有如此經文。則作前釋。有如此經文。則作后釋。無相違也。
次明二諦同異義第七。然此義。前諸章中已明。今更略辨。何者。第一約涅槃大品二經。明二諦同異。第二明眾家釋二諦同異。言二經明二諦同異者。大師舊云。大品以空有為世諦。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛法是什麼？論釋中說，如果對這三種（指空、有、非空非有）都能領悟，就叫做佛法。如果對這三種各執一端，就成了戲論，不能稱為佛法。之所以要闡明這三種，是爲了破除歷來的固定執著。論中說明這三種都是如來的方便之說，爲了眾生才這樣說。如果是實相，就既不是三，也不是非三。這三句都是方便之說。開善和莊嚴（均為佛教學者）不明白這是方便，在方便中又不能窮盡其義。為什麼呢？因為兩家所計較的，只是方便中的一個分支而已。得到方便的一個分支也好，但又在這個分支中互相攻擊，各自堅持自己的對錯，認為自己說的是真正的道理。開善說二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）的道理涵蓋了一切法，莊嚴說道理沒有涵蓋一切法。因為這個原因才造成了缺失。問：現在所說的二諦，是涵蓋一切法還是沒有涵蓋一切法呢？解答說：大乘經典中有兩種說法，這都是如來爲了某種因緣而說的方便之說。有時爲了某種因緣說二諦涵蓋一切法，有時爲了某種因緣說二諦沒有涵蓋一切法。具有涵蓋和不涵蓋兩種法門。又想讓它涵蓋一切法就可以涵蓋一切法，想讓它不涵蓋一切法就可以不涵蓋一切法，沒有什麼妨礙。為什麼呢？一家有單復六種二諦，前後闡明三種二諦。有時展開來說，就有三諦：有諦、無諦、非有非無中道第一義諦。有時將三諦歸納為二諦：有和無併爲世俗諦，非有非無為第一義諦。乃至二和非二為世俗諦，非二非不二為第一義諦。就此而論，就沒有超出二諦。就前一節來說，又超出了二諦的含義。有這樣的經文，就作前一種解釋；有那樣的經文，就作后一種解釋，沒有互相違背的地方。
接下來闡明二諦的同異義第七。其實這個意義，在前面的章節中已經闡明過了，現在再稍微辨析一下。第一，根據《涅槃經》和《大品般若經》這兩部經，闡明二諦的同異。第二，闡明各家解釋二諦同異的觀點。說到這兩部經闡明二諦同異，大師（指天臺智者大師）以前說，《大品般若經》以空和有為世俗諦。
【English Translation】 English version: What is the Buddha-dharma? The commentary states that if one can awaken to these three (referring to emptiness, existence, and neither emptiness nor existence), it is called Buddha-dharma. If one clings to any one of these three, it becomes mere intellectual game and cannot be called Buddha-dharma. The reason for clarifying these three is to dispel the fixed attachments of the past. The commentary explains that these three are all expedient means (upaya) of the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One), spoken for the sake of sentient beings. If it is the true reality (實相, true aspect), it is neither three nor non-three. These three statements are all expedient means. Kaishan (開善, a Buddhist scholar) and Zhuangyan (莊嚴, a Buddhist scholar) do not understand that this is an expedient means, and they cannot fully exhaust its meaning within the expedient means. Why? Because what the two schools argue about is only one branch of the expedient means. It is good to obtain one branch of the expedient means, but they attack each other within this one branch, each insisting on their own right and wrong, believing that what they say is the true principle. Kaishan says that the principle of the two truths (二諦, two truths: conventional truth and ultimate truth) encompasses all dharmas, while Zhuangyan says that the principle does not encompass all dharmas. It is because of this reason that a deficiency arises. Question: Do the two truths that are currently being discussed encompass all dharmas or not? Answer: The Mahayana sutras have two kinds of statements. These are all expedient means spoken by the Tathagata for a certain condition. Sometimes, for a certain condition, it is said that the two truths encompass all dharmas; sometimes, for a certain condition, it is said that the two truths do not encompass all dharmas. There are both the dharma gate of encompassing and the dharma gate of not encompassing. Furthermore, if you want it to encompass all dharmas, it can encompass all dharmas; if you want it not to encompass all dharmas, it can not encompass all dharmas. There is no obstacle. Why? One school has six kinds of two truths, both simple and complex, and clarifies three kinds of two truths in sequence. Sometimes, when expanded, there are three truths: the truth of existence (有諦), the truth of non-existence (無諦), and the truth of the Middle Way (中道, Middle Way) which is neither existence nor non-existence, the ultimate truth (第一義諦, the supreme truth). Sometimes, the three truths are summarized into two truths: existence and non-existence are combined into the conventional truth (世俗諦, mundane truth), and neither existence nor non-existence is the ultimate truth. Even to the point where two and non-two are the conventional truth, and neither two nor non-two is the ultimate truth. In this regard, there is nothing that goes beyond the two truths. In the previous section, it goes beyond the meaning of the two truths. If there is such a sutra passage, then make the former explanation; if there is such a sutra passage, then make the latter explanation. There is no contradiction.
Next, the seventh section clarifies the meaning of the sameness and difference of the two truths. In fact, this meaning has already been clarified in the previous chapters, and now it will be analyzed slightly. First, based on the two sutras, the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) and the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經), clarify the sameness and difference of the two truths. Second, clarify the views of various schools on the sameness and difference of the two truths. Speaking of these two sutras clarifying the sameness and difference of the two truths, the Great Master (大師, refers to Zhiyi 智顗, founder of the Tiantai school) previously said that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra takes emptiness and existence as the conventional truth.
有空為真諦。涅槃明有空為世諦。空有為真諦。何故爾。大品是摩訶衍之初。涅槃是摩訶衍之後。說此二經。各治病不同。大品摩訶衍之初。正對三藏。明諸法是有。多明有所得義故。經云有所得者。聲聞緣覺。以小乘是有所得故。欲凈此有病。明說諸法有者。乃是世諦。諸法畢竟空。為第一義諦。所以爾者。睿師大論序云。見邪思之自起故。阿含為之作。知滯有之為惑故。般若為之照。若涅槃空為世諦有為真諦者。正對破三修斷無涅槃。小乘明灰身滅智得無餘涅槃。以為妙極。故肇師云。智為雜毒。形為桎梏。智以形惓。形以智勞。故滅身以歸無。絕智以淪虛。涅槃對此斷無之病。故明斷無乃是世諦耳。若常住涅槃三點具足。四德圓滿妙有涅槃。是為第一義諦。師云。若約此義而論。得作斯判。若約余義。則不得也。此是二諦一枝之別義耳。今次通明之。大品涅槃一切摩訶衍經。皆以空有為世諦。有空為第一義諦。此義大品。故自有文。涅槃亦有此釋。故涅槃答文殊問中。開十種二諦。皆以有為世諦。空為第一義諦。又經論中。並明諸佛常依二諦說法。明所依二諦有為世諦。空為第一義諦。今依大品。有為世諦。空為第一義諦。涅槃反此者。唯大品依二諦。涅槃應不依二諦。既云諸佛常依二諦說法。豈釋迦一佛說兩
經。便爾相背耶。以此而椎故。知有為世諦。空為第一義諦。此義則通也。又大品云。諸法如幻如化。涅槃如幻如化。涅槃經亦如此。故文云迦毗羅城空大般涅槃亦空。是故空有二諦。通二經也。又大論明四悉壇通十二部經八萬法藏。四悉壇中。前三是有。后一是無。故四悉壇即是二諦。四悉壇既通。二諦即通也。又二諦空有二境。生權實二智。照有是權智照空是實智。然從來人空有二智。是般若二智。動靜二智。是維摩二智。今明不爾。空有權實二智。十方三世諸佛法身父母。故維摩云。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。一切眾導師。無不由是生。既是一切導師。皆由二智而生。豈止在大品。而不通涅槃耶。以二智通故。二諦亦通也。又大論云。若如法觀佛般若及涅槃。是三無異相也。又動靜二智。亦不的在維摩第三時教。何者。內靜照為實。外變動為權。此則自行為實。化他為權。始自發心終於窮覺。皆有此之二智。豈止局在維摩耶。為是義故。空有二諦。通一切經。空有二諦既然。三節二諦亦爾。又約睿師喻疑論意釋之。何故大品明空。涅槃辨有。彼云。大品為除虛妄。涅槃為顯妙有故也。然此兩語相成。要除虛妄妙有得顯。亦妙有得顯虛妄即除。雖復兩經相成。要前洗于虛妄。妙有方顯也。然此即是。今家涅槃有所
【現代漢語翻譯】 經中說，難道就因此互相違背了嗎？用這個道理來推斷，就知道『有』是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理），『空』是第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，絕對真理），這個意義是相通的。而且《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中說，諸法如幻如化，涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）也如幻如化。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）也是這樣說的。所以經文中說，迦毗羅城（Kapilavastu）是空的，大般涅槃（Maha-parinirvana，大寂滅）也是空的。因此，空和有這二諦，是貫通兩部經的。另外，《大智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamitasastra）闡明四悉檀（Catus-pratisarana，四種根據）貫通十二部經和八萬四千法藏。四悉檀中，前三是有，后一是無。所以四悉檀就是二諦。四悉檀既然貫通，二諦也就貫通了。 而且，二諦有空和有這兩種境界，產生權智（Upaya-jnana，方便智慧）和實智（Tattva-jnana，真實智慧）。照見『有』是權智，照見『空』是實智。然而，過去的人認為空和有這兩種智慧，是《般若經》的兩種智慧，動和靜這兩種智慧，是《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）的兩種智慧。現在說明不是這樣。空和有是權智和實智，是十方三世諸佛法身（Dharmakaya，法身）的父母。所以《維摩詰經》說，『智慧度是菩薩之母，方便是菩薩之父，一切眾生的導師，沒有不是從這裡出生的。』既然是一切導師，都是由二智而生，難道只在《大品般若經》中適用，而不貫通《涅槃經》嗎？因為二智貫通，所以二諦也貫通。另外，《大智度論》說，如果如法觀察佛、般若（Prajna，智慧）和涅槃，這三者是沒有差異的。 而且，動和靜這兩種智慧，也不一定只在《維摩詰經》的第三時教（佛教的第三個時期）中才有。為什麼呢？內在的靜照是實，外在的變動是權。這就是自利是實，化他是權。從最初發心到最終覺悟，都有這兩種智慧，難道只侷限在《維摩詰經》中嗎？因為這個緣故，空和有這二諦，貫通一切經。空和有這二諦既然如此，三節二諦（將二諦分為三個階段）也是這樣。再用睿師（古代一位法師）的《喻疑論》的觀點來解釋，為什麼《大品般若經》闡明空，《涅槃經》辨析有？《喻疑論》中說，《大品般若經》是爲了去除虛妄，《涅槃經》是爲了顯現妙有。然而這兩句話是互相成就的，要去除虛妄，妙有才能顯現，也是妙有顯現，虛妄就會去除。雖然兩部經互相成就，但要先洗去虛妄，妙有才能顯現。然而這就是現在天臺宗所說的《涅槃經》有所
【English Translation】 The sutra says, could it be that you contradict each other because of this? Using this reasoning to infer, we know that 'existence' is the Samvriti-satya (conventional truth), and 'emptiness' is the Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth), and this meaning is interconnected. Moreover, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that all dharmas are like illusions and transformations, and Nirvana is also like illusions and transformations. The Nirvana Sutra also says the same. Therefore, the text says that Kapilavastu is empty, and Maha-parinirvana is also empty. Therefore, the two truths of emptiness and existence are interconnected in both sutras. In addition, the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra clarifies that the four Catus-pratisaranas (four reliances) connect the twelve divisions of scriptures and the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures. Among the four Catus-pratisaranas, the first three are existence, and the last one is non-existence. Therefore, the four Catus-pratisaranas are the two truths. Since the four Catus-pratisaranas are interconnected, the two truths are also interconnected. Moreover, the two truths have the two realms of emptiness and existence, giving rise to Upaya-jnana (skillful means wisdom) and Tattva-jnana (ultimate wisdom). Seeing 'existence' is Upaya-jnana, and seeing 'emptiness' is Tattva-jnana. However, people in the past thought that the two wisdoms of emptiness and existence were the two wisdoms of the Prajna Sutra, and the two wisdoms of movement and stillness were the two wisdoms of the Vimalakirti Sutra. Now it is explained that this is not the case. Emptiness and existence are Upaya-jnana and Tattva-jnana, the parents of the Dharmakaya (Dharma body) of all Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says, 'Wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and skillful means is the father of Bodhisattvas. All the guides of beings are born from this.' Since they are all guides, they are all born from the two wisdoms. Is it only applicable in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and not interconnected with the Nirvana Sutra? Because the two wisdoms are interconnected, the two truths are also interconnected. In addition, the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says that if one observes the Buddha, Prajna (wisdom), and Nirvana according to the Dharma, these three are not different. Moreover, the two wisdoms of movement and stillness are not necessarily only in the third period teaching (the third period of Buddhism) of the Vimalakirti Sutra. Why? Inner stillness is reality, and outer movement is skillful means. This means that benefiting oneself is reality, and transforming others is skillful means. From the initial aspiration to the final enlightenment, there are these two wisdoms. Is it only limited to the Vimalakirti Sutra? For this reason, the two truths of emptiness and existence are interconnected in all sutras. Since the two truths of emptiness and existence are like this, the three-section two truths (dividing the two truths into three stages) are also like this. Furthermore, using Master Rui's (an ancient Dharma master) perspective from the 'Parable of Doubt' to explain why the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra clarifies emptiness and the Nirvana Sutra analyzes existence? The 'Parable of Doubt' says that the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra is to remove falsehood, and the Nirvana Sutra is to reveal wonderful existence. However, these two statements complement each other. To remove falsehood, wonderful existence can be revealed, and when wonderful existence is revealed, falsehood will be removed. Although the two sutras complement each other, one must first wash away falsehood before wonderful existence can be revealed. However, this is what the Tiantai school now says about the Nirvana Sutra having
無無所有義。洗妄即涅槃有所無義。顯有即是涅槃無所有義。故經云。空者二十五有。不空者大般涅槃也。一往如此。再往皆無。故經云。智者見空及與不空。智者既了生死空不空。即知涅槃有不有。斯則顯諸法非空非有非生死非涅槃也。此即有三節義。如前可知。次明二諦同異者。古來有鼠婁栗二諦案菰二諦。婁栗二諦。即空性不空。假假為世諦。性空為真諦也。案菰二諦。假為世諦。假體即空為真諦。廣如常解云云。次周顒明三宗二諦。三宗者。一不空假。二空假。三假空。野城寺光大法師。用假空義。開善亦用。用中最不得意者。如醜人學西施顰轉益丑拙。彼知美顰。不知顰之所以美。開善用三宗不得意。猶是學顰之類也。然三宗義。不空假還是鼠婁栗。空假是案菰。今家所辨初節二諦。是假空義。假故空。雖空而假宛然空故假。雖假而空宛然。空有無礙。略明二諦義竟。有常別當廣述云云。
二諦義下卷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無無所有義』是指通過洗滌虛妄而達到涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）的境界，這其中包含了『有所』和『無所』的意義。顯現『有』的狀態，實際上就是涅槃『無所有』的意義。所以經書中說：『空』指的是二十五有（指欲界、色界、無色界眾生所存在的二十五種境界），『不空』指的是大般涅槃（Maha-parinirvana，大寂滅）。從一個角度來看是這樣，但從更深的角度來看，一切皆是『無』。所以經書中說：『智者能看到空以及不空』。智者既然瞭解了生死（Samsara）的空與不空，就能明白涅槃的有與沒有。這樣就能明白一切諸法（Dharma）既非空也非有，既非生死也非涅槃。這裡面包含了三個層次的意義，如同前面所說的那樣可以理解。 接下來闡明二諦（Two Truths，真諦和俗諦）的同與異。古來有鼠婁栗二諦和案菰二諦。婁栗二諦，指的是空性（Emptiness）和不空。將假象視為世俗諦（Relative Truth），將性空視為真諦（Ultimate Truth）。案菰二諦，將假象視為世俗諦，假象的本體即是空，這被視為真諦。更詳細的解釋如同通常的解釋一樣。 接下來周顒闡明三宗二諦。三宗指的是：一，不空假；二，空假；三，假空。野城寺的光大法師，採用的是假空義，開善法師也採用這種觀點。但在運用中，最不得要領。就像醜陋的人模仿西施皺眉，反而更加顯得醜陋笨拙。他們只知道皺眉的樣子，卻不知道皺眉之所以美的根本原因。開善法師運用三宗，卻不得要領，就像是模仿皺眉的樣子。然而，三宗的意義是：『不空假』實際上就是鼠婁栗，『空假』就是案菰。我們現在所辨析的第一層二諦，就是假空義。因為是假象所以是空，雖然是空，但假象依然清晰可見；因為是空，所以假象依然清晰可見。空與有之間沒有障礙。以上簡要地闡明了二諦的意義，關於常、別等更詳細的解釋，將在以後詳細闡述。 《二諦義》下卷
【English Translation】 English version: 'The meaning of 'no-no-ownership' refers to reaching the state of Nirvana (extinction) by washing away delusions, which includes the meaning of 'having something' and 'having nothing'. Manifesting the state of 'having' is actually the meaning of Nirvana 'having nothing'. Therefore, the scriptures say: 'Emptiness' refers to the twenty-five existences (referring to the twenty-five realms in which beings in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm exist), and 'non-emptiness' refers to Maha-parinirvana (great extinction). From one perspective, it is like this, but from a deeper perspective, everything is 'nothing'. Therefore, the scriptures say: 'The wise can see emptiness and non-emptiness'. Since the wise understand the emptiness and non-emptiness of Samsara (birth and death), they can understand the existence and non-existence of Nirvana. In this way, it can be understood that all Dharmas (teachings) are neither empty nor existent, neither birth and death nor Nirvana. This contains three levels of meaning, which can be understood as mentioned earlier. Next, clarify the similarities and differences between the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya, the relative truth and the ultimate truth). In ancient times, there were the Shulu-Li Two Truths and the An-Gu Two Truths. The Shulu-Li Two Truths refer to emptiness and non-emptiness. Considering phenomena as the Relative Truth (Samvriti-satya), and considering emptiness as the Ultimate Truth (Paramartha-satya). The An-Gu Two Truths consider phenomena as the Relative Truth, and the essence of phenomena, which is emptiness, is considered the Ultimate Truth. More detailed explanations are as usual. Next, Zhou Yong clarifies the Three Schools and Two Truths. The Three Schools refer to: one, non-empty phenomena; two, empty phenomena; three, phenomena as emptiness. Dharma Master Guangda of Yecheng Temple adopted the meaning of phenomena as emptiness, and Dharma Master Kaishan also adopted this view. However, in application, they were the least successful. It's like an ugly person imitating Xi Shi's frown, which only makes them look uglier and clumsier. They only know the appearance of frowning, but they don't know the fundamental reason why frowning is beautiful. Dharma Master Kaishan used the Three Schools but did not grasp the essentials, like imitating the appearance of frowning. However, the meaning of the Three Schools is: 'Non-empty phenomena' is actually Shulu-Li, and 'empty phenomena' is An-Gu. The first level of the Two Truths that we are now analyzing is the meaning of phenomena as emptiness. Because it is a phenomenon, it is empty; although it is empty, the phenomenon is still clearly visible; because it is empty, the phenomenon is still clearly visible. There is no obstacle between emptiness and existence. The above briefly clarifies the meaning of the Two Truths. More detailed explanations on permanence, difference, etc., will be elaborated in detail later. 《The Lower Volume of the Meaning of the Two Truths》