DonateZen HallLibrary
Skip to main content
  3. Two Truths Doctrine (二諦義)
  5. Upper (上)
  7. Upper (上)
←&→
Use ← → arrow keys to turn pages

Two Truths Doctrine (二諦義)

二諦義卷上

The Meaning of the Two Truths, Volume 1

胡吉藏撰

Compiled by Hu Jizang

叡師中論序云。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。此四論雖復名部不同。統其大歸。竝為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。師唯噵此義有重數。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。然師噵二諦義。多依二處。一依大品經。二依中論。今且依中論明二諦義。所以依中論噵二諦者。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。於世間是實。名為世諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空。於聖人是實。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。如上有於凡為實名俗諦。空於聖是實名第一義諦。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。有於凡實。空於聖實。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。世人於瓶衣等是實。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。所依於諦。為是得為是失。為亦得亦失。教諦亦作此問。然大師云。於諦是失。教諦是得。何者言於諦失者。有於凡是實有。空於聖是實空。此空有於凡聖各實。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。那忽併是教諦耶。今正此一句。明依二諦說法。所依是於諦說法是教諦也。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。於凡是諦。諸賢聖真知顛倒性空無生。於聖是諦。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。若言二於諦皆不顛倒。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。師云二於諦是失。今何得判二於諦有得有失耶。解云。汝言於諦竝是失。是何處語耶。今明。於諦皆失者。非是所依於諦皆失。乃是稟教成於。此於諦皆失。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。於凡實名俗諦。聞無作無解無。於聖實名第一義諦。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。若爾此則有二種於諦。一者所依於諦。二者迷教於諦。所依於諦。有得有失。迷教於諦。二皆是失。所依於諦是本。迷教於諦是末。所依於諦是本者。且約釋迦一化為論。釋迦未出之前已有此二於諦。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。所依於諦是本也。迷教於諦是末者。眾生稟如來有無二諦教。作有無解成於故。此於諦在後也。又有三異。謂前後能所通別。從後釋之。言通別者。所依於諦則通。迷教於諦則別。所依於諦通者。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。故此二於諦通也。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。不識理迷教名於諦。於諦但是無方便者。所以是別也。言能所者。所依於諦則是能化。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。只世諦於如來是第一義故。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。於聖人是第一義諦。若爾當知。此第一義諦是能化諦也。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。所依於諦是本是前。迷教於諦是末是後。發趾依於諦說。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。於聖人名第一義諦。如涅槃經。一切世諦。若於如來是第一義諦。問既云一切世諦於如來是第一義諦者。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。於凡是世諦也。如大品云。諸法無所有如是有。如是有無所有。如是有於聖人無所有。即世諦為第一義諦。無所有於凡如是有。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。令捨凡學聖棄倒從不倒。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。我一時與彌勒在耆闍崛山。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。竝解二諦。聖則真解二諦。賢則似解二諦。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。三乘竝解二諦。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。橫竪皆礙。若是菩薩。有為空用。空為有用。二為不二用。不二為二用。橫竪無礙故也。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。又有於凡實為諦。亦空於凡實為諦。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。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。親噵依二諦為眾生說法。何時噵為聖說法耶。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。令眾生從有入無捨凡取聖。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。既於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。或說於無我。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餘不解。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。有於凡實。為凡說有令悟不有。空於聖實。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。於凡有於聖無。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。云為凡聖說有無也。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。此三種竝出經論。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。那怱併合開。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。

The Preface to Master Rui's Commentary on the Middle Treatise says: "The Hundred Treatise refutes external views to correct errors. This text removes internal obstacles to free stagnation. The Great Wisdom Treatise is vast and profound. The Twelve Gates Treatise is precise and insightful. For those who seek these four treatises, it is truly as if the sun and moon are held to the chest—everything shines clear and is fully illumined. If one understands these four treatises, then the Buddhadharma can be clarified."

The Master said: "Although these four treatises differ in name and structure, when we unify their great intent, they all serve to expound the Two Truths and reveal the path of non-duality. If one understands the Two Truths, the four treatises become brilliantly clear. If one does not understand the Two Truths, then the four treatises remain obscure. For this reason, one must understand the Two Truths. If one comprehends the Two Truths, not only are the four treatises understandable, but all the scriptures become clear as well."

How do we know this is so? The Treatise says: "The Buddhas always rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings." Since the Buddhas of the ten directions always teach based on the Two Truths, no scripture goes beyond the Two Truths. Since no scripture goes beyond the Two Truths, if the Two Truths are understood, then all scriptures become clear.

All four treatises contain discussions of the Two Truths. For now, let us rely on the Middle Treatise to distinguish them. The Treatise states: "The Buddhas teach living beings based on the Two Truths: first, the worldly truth; second, the ultimate truth."

When the Master was about to pass away, he ascended a high seat and entrusted his disciples, saying: "Since I left the mountains, I have taken the Two Truths as the correct path and have explained them in over twenty different styles—sometimes scattered, sometimes gathered; sometimes divided into chapters and sections, sometimes not; sometimes opened into three parts, sometimes arranged as ten levels."

The reason for the ten levels is precisely to counter Dharma Master Kaishan's doctrine of the Two Truths. He explained the Two Truths in ten levels, so to counter those ten levels, ten levels are presented. Each level is examined and corrected. The Master only taught this doctrine with levels. All his other teachings were generally not divided into levels. If any doctrine has levels, it was not spoken by Master Xinghuang.

The ten levels are: first, the general meaning of the Two Truths; last, the similarities and differences within the Two Truths. Now we first clarify the general meaning of the Two Truths.

The Master's explanation of the Two Truths largely relied on two sources: first, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, and second, the Middle Treatise. For now, let us rely on the Middle Treatise to explain the meaning of the Two Truths. The reason for relying on the Middle Treatise is that the Middle Treatise takes the Two Truths as its core doctrine. If one understands the Two Truths, the Middle Treatise becomes immediately clear. For this reason, we rely on the Middle Treatise to explain the Two Truths.

The Middle Treatise's "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths" says: "The Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings." This statement is difficult to understand. How do the Buddhas teach based on the Two Truths?

The explanation: The Two Truths are the foundation; the teachings are the branches. The Two Truths are what is relied upon; the teachings are what relies upon them. Yet these words are astonishing—this is not what we have understood before.

Question: How do we know that the Buddhas teach based on the Two Truths, and that the Two Truths are what is relied upon?

Explanation: This comes directly from the Treatise; it does not require human interpretation. Therefore it is said: "When a sutra has a treatise to explain it, its meaning is easily understood." Now let us interpret it according to the Treatise.

In the "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths" of the Treatise, first the Two Truths are explained, then teaching based on the Two Truths is explained. The explanation of the Two Truths states:

"The worldly truth: all phenomena are empty in nature, yet the world, in its delusion, regards them as real. What is real for the world is called the worldly truth.

The ultimate truth: the noble sages truly know that what is deluded is empty in nature. What is real for the sages is called the ultimate truth."

Then it says: "The Buddhas rely on these Two Truths to teach living beings." This shows that after explaining the Two Truths, the text then clarifies that the Buddhas rely on these Two Truths to teach living beings. Therefore, we know: the Two Truths are the foundation; the teachings are the branches. The Two Truths are what is relied upon; the teachings are what relies on them. Relying on these Two Truths, the Buddhas teach living beings.

Question: Previously it was said that "the Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings" means: for ordinary beings, they teach existence; for sages, they teach emptiness. For ordinary beings, they teach existence; for sages, they teach emptiness. This is called "teaching based on the Two Truths." Since it says "rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings," how can one say that teaching existence for ordinary beings and teaching emptiness for sages constitutes teaching based on the Two Truths?

Now we clarify: As above, what is real for ordinary beings is called the worldly truth; what is empty and real for sages is called the ultimate truth. Relying on these Two Truths, the Buddhas teach living beings.

Furthermore, we ask: Why do the Buddhas teach based on the Two Truths?

Explanation: To show that everything the Buddhas of the ten directions speak is true, they teach based on the Two Truths. Why? "Truth" means reality. Existence is real for ordinary beings. Emptiness is real for sages. Both are real. The Buddhas rely on these two realities to teach, therefore everything the Buddhas say is true.

Why are the teachings of the ninety-six heretical paths false and untrue? Because they do not rely on the Two Truths, their teachings are false. Because the Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach, whatever they teach is true. Since everything the Buddhas teach is true, therefore the Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach.

Question: How does teaching based on the Two Truths make all teachings true?

Explanation: The noble sages truly realize that all phenomena are empty in nature. The Tathagata teaches based on their true realization, therefore what the Buddhas teach is also true. This is teaching based on the ultimate truth, which is true.

Worldly people regard things like bottles and robes as real. The Buddhas, following worldly conventions, speak of bottles and robes, and what they say is also real. As the Hundred Treatise says: "When the Buddha entered the city of Shravasti, he spoke according to worldly convention, and therefore was without fault." This is teaching based on the worldly truth, which is true. Relying on both of these realities to teach, everything the Buddhas say is true.

Earlier it was said: "Relying on the truth of ordinary beings is called teaching based on the worldly truth. Relying on the truth of sages is called teaching based on the ultimate truth. Relying on the Two Truths to teach living beings." These words must not be lost.

Now we ask: When teaching based on the Two Truths, is what is relied upon—these truths—a matter of loss or gain? Is it both gain and loss?

The teaching also raises this question. However, the Great Master said: "The truths as objects of attachment are a loss. The truths as teachings are a gain."

What does "the truths as objects of attachment are a loss" mean? Existence is real for ordinary beings—this is real existence. Emptiness is real for sages—this is real emptiness. This emptiness and existence, each real for ordinary beings and sages respectively, constitutes loss.

What does "the truths as teachings are a gain" mean? The Tathagata's words of truth: Following ordinary existence, he speaks of existence, but existence does not dwell in existence—existence points beyond existence. Following sage-like non-existence, he speaks of non-existence, but non-existence does not dwell in non-existence—non-existence points beyond non-existence. This means existence and non-existence are the two, while pointing to neither existence nor non-existence, which is non-duality. Two and non-dual; non-dual and two. Non-dual and two is principle becoming teaching. Two and non-dual is teaching becoming principle. Teaching and principle respond to teaching. Principle and teaching reveal principle. Principle and teaching, two and non-dual—this is the causal interaction. This is gain.

Although the truths as teachings are like this, they are still not yet fully understood. Why? You say "teaching based on the Two Truths." Are both the Two Truths and the teaching itself both "truths as teachings"? If both are truths as teachings, then this contradicts the Treatise. The Treatise says: "All phenomena are empty in nature. The world, in delusion, regards them as real—this is the worldly truth. The noble sages truly know that this delusion is empty in nature—this is the ultimate truth. The Buddhas rely on these Two Truths to teach living beings." How could it suddenly all be "truths as teachings"?

This single phrase clarifies: "rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings"—what is relied upon are the truths as objects of attachment, and the teaching itself is the truth as teaching.

Question: Are the Two Truths that are relied upon a matter of gain or loss?

The Treatise itself makes this judgment: "All phenomena are empty in nature. The world, in delusion, regards them as real—this is true for ordinary beings. The noble sages truly know that this delusion is empty, unborn—this is true for sages." This opens up the distinction between the two truths of ordinary beings and sages. Although ordinary beings and sages are ultimately non-dual, the non-dual becomes two: there is the truth of ordinary beings and the truth of sages. The truth of ordinary beings is loss. The truth of sages is gain.

Why? Since it says "all phenomena are empty in nature, yet the world deludedly regards them as real," and "the noble sages truly know this delusion is empty in nature," we know: the truth of ordinary beings is loss, and the truth of sages is gain. Why? The truth of ordinary beings is deluded, therefore it is loss. The truth of sages is undeluded, therefore it is gain. This opens up the truth of ordinary beings versus the truth of sages—the deluded truth versus the undeluded truth.

Question: If the Two Truths that are relied upon include both deluded and undeluded aspects, this is incomprehensible. Why? The Buddha can rely on the undeluded to teach, but how can he rely on the deluded to teach living beings? If one says that both truths-as-objects are undeluded, then this contradicts the Treatise. The Treatise says: "The world, in delusion, regards existence as real—this is the worldly truth. The noble sages truly know this delusion is empty in nature—this is the ultimate truth. Relying on these Two Truths, the Buddhas teach living beings." Therefore, we know: the Buddhas teach relying on both the deluded and the undeluded. If we follow the text of the Treatise, how could the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas possibly teach based on delusion? Whether we advance or retreat, it is difficult to understand without further explanation.

Question: Earlier it was said that the Two Truths as objects of reliance entail both gain and loss. Does this not contradict what the Master taught? The Master said: "The truths as objects of attachment are both loss." Now how can we judge that the Two Truths as objects have both gain and loss?

Explanation: You say "the truths as objects are all loss"—where does this come from? Now we clarify: "The truths as objects are all loss" does not refer to the truths as objects that are relied upon. Rather, it refers to when beings, having received the teaching, form attachments—these truths as objects are all loss.

Why? The Tathagata speaks of existence to point beyond existence. He speaks of non-existence to point beyond non-existence. He speaks of duality to point to non-duality. Those who hear "existence" make a literal interpretation of existence. Those who hear "non-existence" make a literal interpretation of non-existence. Hearing "existence" and interpreting it existentially—this is real for ordinary beings and is called the worldly truth. Hearing "non-existence" and interpreting it nihilistically—this is real for sages and is called the ultimate truth. These two truths are both loss.

Question: How is this loss?

Explanation: The Tathagata speaks of existence to point beyond existence. He speaks of non-existence to point beyond non-existence. He speaks of duality to make one recognize non-duality. He raises the finger to point to the moon. But living beings, hearing "existence," cling to existence. Hearing "non-existence," they cling to non-existence. They stare at the finger and forget the moon. They cling to the teaching and lose the principle. Is this not loss?

If so, then there are two kinds of "truths as objects of attachment": First, the truths as objects that are relied upon. Second, the truths as objects arising from delusion regarding the teaching. The truths as objects that are relied upon have both gain and loss. The truths as objects arising from delusion are both loss.

The truths as objects that are relied upon are the foundation. The truths as objects from delusion are the branches.

Why are the truths as objects that are relied upon the foundation? Taking Shakyamuni's entire teaching career as the context: before Shakyamuni appeared, these two truths as objects already existed. Shakyamuni relied on these two truths to teach living beings. Why? The Buddhas' teachings never depart from the Two Truths. Therefore, from the very beginning, they teach based on the Two Truths. Thus we know: the truths as objects that are relied upon are foundational.

Why are the truths as objects from delusion the branches? Living beings receive the Tathagata's teaching of existence and non-existence, and form literal interpretations, creating truths as objects. Therefore, these truths as objects come afterward.

There are also three distinctions: earlier and later, subject and object, and universal and specific. Let us explain them from the last.

Regarding "universal and specific": The truths as objects that are relied upon are universal. The truths as objects from delusion are specific.

Why are the truths as objects that are relied upon universal? "The world, in delusion, regards existence as real—this is the worldly truth. The noble sages truly know that this delusion is empty in nature—this is the ultimate truth." These two truths apply to all ordinary beings and sages. This is like the Nirvana Sutra: "Manjushri asked: 'Is there the ultimate truth within the worldly truth? Is there the worldly truth within the ultimate truth? If there is, then it is a single truth. If not, would the Tathagata be speaking falsely?' The Buddha replied: 'The worldly truth is itself the ultimate truth. It is only because of living beings that we speak of two separately. What worldly people know is called the worldly truth. What transcendent sages know is called the ultimate truth.'"

This distinguishes the Two Truths between worldly and transcendent people. The Middle Treatise states precisely this: "The world, in delusion, regards existence as real—this is the worldly truth. The noble sages truly know that this delusion is empty in nature—this is the ultimate truth." Therefore, these two truths as objects are universal.

Why are the truths as objects from delusion specific? The Tathagata speaks of the two truths of existence and non-existence to point to the non-dual path. Those with skillful means, hearing the two, awaken to non-duality. Recognizing the principle and awakening to the teaching, they are called "truths as teachings." Those without skillful means, hearing the two, cling to the two. Not recognizing the principle and deluded about the teaching, they are called "truths as objects." Truths as objects apply only to those without skillful means, therefore they are specific.

Regarding "subject and object": The truths as objects that are relied upon are the agents of transformation. The truths as objects from delusion are the beings to be transformed. This is at first said partially from the side of the ultimate truth. Why? The Treatise says: "The noble sages truly know that this delusion is empty in nature"—therefore they are the agents of transformation. This is like the Nirvana Sutra: "All worldly truths, for the Tathagata, are the ultimate truth." Simply because the worldly truth, for the Tathagata, is the ultimate truth, this ultimate truth is the agent of transformation.

The Treatise states exactly this: Ordinary beings, in delusion, regard existence as real. The noble sages alone know that this delusion is empty, unborn, and unceasing—for sages, this is the ultimate truth. If so, we should know: this ultimate truth is the transformative truth.

Why are the truths as objects from delusion the beings to be transformed? Receiving the teaching and forming attachments—although they may be sages, ultimately they receive the teaching. Because they receive the teaching, they are beings to be transformed.

Regarding "earlier and later": This is no different from the distinction between foundation and branches. The truths as objects that are relied upon are the foundation and therefore earlier. The truths as objects from delusion are the branches and therefore later. From the very beginning, the Buddhas teach based on the truths as objects. Then living beings receive the teaching. Those with skillful means awaken to the principle and become "truths as teachings." Those without skillful means fail to recognize the principle and become "truths as objects." Therefore, the difference between earlier and later.

Next, let us clarify one more phrase. Earlier it was said: "The noble sages truly know that this delusion is empty in nature—for sages, this is called the ultimate truth." This is like the Nirvana Sutra: "All worldly truths, for the Tathagata, are the ultimate truth."

Question: Since it is said that "all worldly truths, for the Tathagata, are the ultimate truth," can we also say that "all ultimate truths, for ordinary beings, are the worldly truth"?

Explanation: This exactly comes from the Treatise. The Treatise says: "The worldly truth: all phenomena are empty in nature, yet the world, in delusion, regards them as real. For worldly people, this is real and is called a truth." In explaining the worldly truth, it first cites "all phenomena are empty in nature" to interpret it. This clarifies: although all phenomena are empty in nature, the world, in delusion, regards them as real. For worldly people, this is real and is called a truth.

Therefore, we know: all ultimate truths, for ordinary beings, are the worldly truth. As the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says: "All dharmas are without existence, yet appear to exist. Appearing to exist, they are without existence." What appears to exist, for sages, is without existence—this means the worldly truth is the ultimate truth. What is without existence, for ordinary beings, appears to exist—this means the ultimate truth is the worldly truth.

Question: Why distinguish the two truths of ordinary beings and sages?

Explanation: Opening up the two truths of gain and loss for ordinary beings and sages shows that sages gain and ordinary beings lose, causing them to transform and awaken. It reveals: "This is the truth of ordinary beings. This is the truth of sages. This is the deluded truth. This is the undeluded truth." It shows the distinction between ordinary and sage, leading beings to abandon the ordinary and learn from the sage, to reject the deluded and follow the undeluded. For this reason, the two truths of gain and loss are opened for ordinary beings and sages.

How do we know this? It is fully stated in the sutras and treatises. The Great Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says: "To make living beings deeply understand the ultimate truth, the Tathagata proclaims the worldly truth. If living beings could not awaken to the ultimate truth through the worldly truth, the Tathagata would never speak the worldly truth." He speaks the worldly truth so that beings may recognize the ultimate truth.

The Middle Treatise also says: "Without relying on conventional truth, one cannot attain the ultimate truth. Without the ultimate truth, one cannot attain nirvana." Speaking the worldly truth allows attainment of the ultimate truth. Speaking the ultimate truth allows attainment of nirvana. Therefore, the Two Truths are opened.

The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra also says: "The perfection of wisdom arises for a great purpose: to show what is the path and what is not the path." The not-path is delusion. The path is non-delusion. Showing the path and the not-path causes beings to abandon the not-path and follow the path. It also shows delusion and non-delusion, causing beings to abandon delusion and follow non-delusion. For this reason, the Two Truths are opened to show gain and loss, so that beings may change and awaken.

The Two Truths, broadly speaking, have three levels: 1. Ordinary beings and sages are distinguished by delusion versus non-delusion. 2. Among sages themselves, the Two Truths are distinguished. 3. Among ordinary beings themselves, the Two Truths are distinguished.

Regarding the first level—distinguishing the Two Truths between ordinary beings and sages: What ordinary beings understand is the worldly truth. What sages understand is the ultimate truth. This distinction between ordinary and sage is made based on knowing or not knowing the emptiness of nature. Not knowing emptiness is ordinary. Knowing emptiness is sage. Based on this, the Two Truths are distinguished.

Regarding the second level—distinguishing the Two Truths among sages themselves: Sages understand that existence is empty and that emptiness is existence. These two truths are both the sages' Two Truths. Why? Like the Four Noble Truths—suffering, accumulation, cessation, and path are all called noble truths. The Two Truths are the same: both the conventional and the ultimate are noble truths.

Question: Where is this taught?

Explanation: As explained at the end of the "Four Embracements" chapter of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. Sometimes one must rely on textual authority. Let us cite clear textual evidence. That text says: "If ordinary beings knew the worldly truth, they should be stream-enterers, and even Buddhas." If so, since ordinary beings do not know the worldly truth or the ultimate truth, only sages know these Two Truths. Therefore, these Two Truths are both noble truths.

Within the sages, there are also countless levels. As the Great Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says: "Once, together with Maitreya on Vulture Peak, I discussed the worldly truth, and five hundred shravakas neither perceived nor knew it—how much less the profound ultimate truth!" Based on this, the two vehicles do not understand the Two Truths. Only Bodhisattvas understand the Two Truths.

This overturns the traditional view. Why? Traditionally, it was said: "All three vehicles converge on the ultimate truth, and all understand the Two Truths. Sages truly understand the Two Truths. Worthies have an approximate understanding of the Two Truths. The small vehicle's seven stages of preparation and the great vehicle's thirty minds have an approximate understanding. From the small vehicle's patience with suffering (duhkhe dharmajñāna-kṣānti) onward, and the great vehicle's first ground onward, there is true understanding of the Two Truths. Understanding the worldly truth involves conventional approximations of principle. Understanding the ultimate truth transcends all conceptualization and negation. All three vehicles understand the Two Truths."

But according to the Nirvana Sutra, five hundred shravakas did not understand the Two Truths—they did not even understand the worldly truth, let alone the profound ultimate truth. Therefore, the traditional view does not hold.

Does this doctrine hold today? Why? The two vehicles, with their minds of arising-and-ceasing, permanence and annihilation, do not walk the middle path and do not see the Buddha-nature. The middle path is the foundation. Not recognizing the foundation, how could they know the branches? Not seeing the principle, how could they understand the teaching? Why? For them, existence cannot reach non-existence, and non-existence cannot reach existence. Existence cannot function as emptiness, and emptiness cannot function as existence. Duality cannot function as non-duality, and non-duality cannot function as duality. They are obstructed in both horizontal and vertical directions.

But for the Bodhisattva, existence functions as emptiness, emptiness functions as existence. Duality functions as non-duality, non-duality functions as duality. They are unobstructed in both horizontal and vertical directions.

Regarding the third level—distinguishing the Two Truths among ordinary beings themselves: This includes everything that has traditionally been explained as the Two Truths. The traditional view says: "The three provisional constructs and seven realities are the worldly truth. Transcending all conceptualization and negation is the ultimate truth. The three provisional constructs cannot reach the transcendence of all concepts. The transcendence of all concepts cannot reach the three provisional constructs. Extinction cannot reach existence. Existence cannot reach extinction. What is negated cannot reach what is not negated. What is not negated cannot reach what is negated." Such Two Truths are both the Two Truths of ordinary beings.

How do we know this? The Great Sutra says: "Living beings' views are of two kinds: first, the view of permanence; second, the view of annihilation." This includes both existence and non-existence, both permanence and annihilation views. Also, existence is real for ordinary beings and is a truth. Emptiness is also real for ordinary beings and is a truth. Since this emptiness is really existent, emptiness is a truth. Therefore, ordinary beings also have Two Truths.

This opens up three kinds of Two Truths. The traditional understanding of the Two Truths naturally falls into the Two Truths of ordinary beings. Why? I have three kinds of Two Truths: (1) the Two Truths distinguished between ordinary beings and sages; (2) the Two Truths distinguished among sages; (3) the Two Truths distinguished among ordinary beings. The ordinary beings' Two Truths: the three provisional constructs are the ordinary conventional truth; the transcendence of concepts is the ordinary ultimate truth.

What is your doctrine? Your doctrine says: "The three provisional constructs are the conventional truth; the transcendence of concepts is the ultimate truth." This automatically falls into my "ordinary beings' Two Truths." It is not deliberately placed there. Like the doctrine of inner and outer in our school—your doctrine naturally falls into my category of the external.

The Treatise says: "The Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings." We have briefly explained "relying on the Two Truths." Next, we explain "to teach living beings."

Question: Since it says "teach based on the Two Truths," for whom do the Buddhas teach, and what teachings do they give?

Many people interpret the Master's words as follows: "For ordinary beings, teach doctrines of existence. For sages, teach doctrines of emptiness. For both ordinary beings and sages, teach doctrines of emptiness and existence. This is called teaching based on the Two Truths."

Question: Did the Master actually say this?

Answer: Yes, the Master did say this. But this statement has its proper context. People only grasp these words without understanding their meaning.

Why? "For ordinary beings, teach existence. For sages, teach emptiness. This is called teaching based on the Two Truths for living beings." What kind of statement is this? The Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings. How can one say "for ordinary beings, teaching existence, for sages, teaching emptiness" and call this "the Buddhas relying on the Two Truths to teach living beings"?

Furthermore, would the Buddhas, relying on what is true for ordinary beings, turn around and teach exactly that to ordinary beings? Would they, relying on what is empty for sages, turn around and teach exactly that emptiness to sages? The Treatise says: "The noble sages truly know that delusion is empty in nature." Since they already know that all phenomena are fundamentally empty, how could they teach emptiness again?

What we now clarify is as the Treatise explains. The Treatise says: "The Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings." It explicitly says "rely on the Two Truths to teach living beings." When did it ever say "teach sages"? It is to ordinary living beings that the teaching is given—not to sages.

Question: Based on what principle do we determine that the Two Truths are taught to living beings?

Explanation: This is determined by the distinction between delusion and awakening, and between the agent and object of transformation. It clarifies: Living beings are deluded about existence and non-existence, not yet awakened to existence and non-existence. Therefore, for living beings, existence and non-existence are taught, showing: "This is existence. This is non-existence. This is ordinary. This is sage. This is deluded. This is undeluded." This causes living beings to enter non-existence from existence, to abandon the ordinary and take up the sage. For this reason, the Two Truths are taught.

If sages are already awakened, why teach them? Because ordinary beings are not yet awakened, the Two Truths must be taught to them. Because ordinary beings are unawakened, they receive the teaching. Because sages are awakened, they do not need to receive the teaching.

Regarding the agent and object: "All worldly truths, for the Tathagata, are the ultimate truth." Since for the Tathagata they are the ultimate truth, he is the agent of transformation. How could the agent of transformation teach the agent of transformation? "All ultimate truths, for living beings, are the worldly truth." Because living beings are the objects of transformation, the teaching must be given to them.

Next, let us use two passages—the "Contemplation of Dharmas" chapter of the Middle Treatise and the commentary on the "Rebirth" chapter of the Great Treatise—to confirm this meaning.

The Middle Treatise's "Contemplation of Dharmas" chapter says: "The Buddhas sometimes speak of a self. Sometimes they speak of no-self. In the ultimate reality of dharmas, there is neither self nor no-self." The prose commentary explains: "For ordinary beings, they teach self and no-self. For those who have attained the path—sages—they also teach self and no-self." Self and no-self are precisely the Two Truths.

Therefore, the Great Treatise's first chapter says: "Human beings exist in the worldly truth. In the ultimate truth, they do not exist." Thus we know: self is the worldly truth. No-self is the ultimate truth. Since both ordinary beings and sages are taught self and no-self, the Two Truths are taught to both ordinary beings and sages.

The Great Treatise's commentary on the "Rebirth" chapter asks: "Earlier, in the 'Chapter on Practicing in Accordance,' it is explained that there is no Bodhisattva and therefore no coming or going. Why does it now say that there is a Bodhisattva and that there is coming and going?" The explanation: "There is no contradiction. For ordinary beings, no coming and going is taught. For sages, coming and going is taught. For sages, no coming and going is taught. For ordinary beings, coming and going is taught." Coming and going, and no coming and going, are still the Two Truths. Thus, the Two Truths are taught to ordinary beings, and the Two Truths are taught to sages. The general meaning is the same as the Middle Treatise.

The Master further clarified: "For ordinary beings, teach existence. For sages, teach emptiness. For both ordinary beings and sages, teach emptiness and existence." There are these three levels of teaching the Two Truths.

The first level—teaching the Two Truths to ordinary beings, not to sages—is determined by the distinction between delusion and awakening, and between agent and object of transformation, as explained above.

Next, let us examine the "Contemplation of Dharmas" chapter.

Question: Why does this chapter teach the Two Truths to ordinary beings and also teach the Two Truths to sages?

Explanation: For ordinary beings, self and no-self are taught. As previously explained, existence and non-existence are taught to ordinary beings to cause them to transcend existence and non-existence. Self and no-self are the same. Living beings are deluded about self and no-self. For them, self and no-self are taught, causing them to transcend self and no-self. Transcending self means transcending permanence. Transcending no-self means transcending annihilation. This causes them to transcend annihilation and permanence and awaken to the middle path. Therefore, for ordinary beings, self and no-self are taught.

Why are self and no-self taught to sages? Because sages understand self and no-self, self and no-self are taught to them. Earlier, for ordinary beings, self and no-self are taught because ordinary beings are deluded about them. For sages, self and no-self are taught not because sages are deluded about them, but because sages, upon hearing self and no-self, immediately understand them. Therefore, self and no-self are taught to sages.

The Great Treatise quotes the Sutra of Questions to Devas: "Can an arhat in his final body teach self and no-self?" The explanation: "Yes, because sages understand self and no-self." It also says: "Like a military password—only those who are in on the secret understand it; others do not. Speaking of self and no-self, only sages understand it; others do not. Because sages can understand self and no-self, self and no-self are taught to sages."

The Middle Treatise is thus. The "Rebirth" chapter is similar and can be understood likewise.

Question: Ordinary beings are deluded about self and no-self. Teaching them self and no-self to awaken them—that is beneficial. But sages already understand self and no-self. What benefit is there in teaching them?

Explanation: This is not about benefiting the sages. It simply clarifies that ordinary beings do not understand self and no-self, while sages do. Because sages understand self and no-self, self and no-self are taught to them. This benefits ordinary beings. It is benefiting others, not benefiting oneself. Like Ananda saying "Thus have I heard" for the benefit of living beings.

Next, the Great Master said: "For ordinary beings, teach existence. For sages, teach emptiness." These ordinary beings and sages are the conditioned beings to be transformed—ordinary beings and sages who receive the teaching. Existence is real for ordinary beings. For ordinary beings, existence is taught to awaken them to non-existence. Emptiness is real for sages. For sages, emptiness is taught to awaken them to non-emptiness. This causes both ordinary beings and sages, through existence and non-existence, to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence. It also causes ordinary beings to awaken to non-ordinary, and sages to awaken to non-sage. Neither ordinary nor sage—this is the correct Dharma of the middle path. Therefore it is said: "Not the practice of ordinary beings, not the practice of sages—this is the practice of Bodhisattvas."

Also, "for ordinary beings, teach existence; for sages, teach emptiness" means: following ordinary beings, existence is taught; following sages, emptiness is taught. Like one form: for ordinary beings, it exists; for sages, it is empty. Following ordinary beings, form is spoken of as existing. Following sages, form is spoken of as empty. Form itself has never been existent or non-existent.

This is precisely to counter the traditional view. Traditionally, it was said: "The three provisional constructs are the principle of conventional truth. The fourfold transcendence is the principle of ultimate truth. There are two such principles." Now we clarify: "Following ordinary beings, existence is taught; following sages, emptiness is taught" means merely speaking of existence and emptiness following the conditions of ordinary beings and sages. Where is there any fixed principle of Two Truths? For this reason, it is said that existence and emptiness are taught for ordinary beings and sages.

This completes the explanation of "for living beings."

Next, let us explain "teaching."

Generally, teaching has three forms: 1. Teaching both the Two Truths together. 2. Teaching only the ultimate truth, not the worldly truth. 3. Teaching only the worldly truth, not the ultimate truth.

All three forms appear in the sutras and treatises.

The Great Treatise's commentary on the "Rebirth" chapter asks: "Earlier, in the 'Practicing in Accordance' chapter, it is explained that when the Bodhisattva practices in accordance with prajna, there is no Bodhisattva and no prajna. Now why does it again say that there is a Bodhisattva who goes to rebirth and comes to rebirth?" The answer: "Earlier, the statement that there is no Bodhisattva and no prajna was made from the gate of the ultimate truth. Now, the statement that the Bodhisattva goes to rebirth is made from the gate of the worldly truth." This is expounding prajna based on the Two Truths.

The Nirvana Sutra also says: "Good man, do not enter the profound emptiness concentration. Why? Because the assembly is dull. You should explain using the worldly truth." This also expounds nirvana based on the Two Truths—the meaning of "hearing the unheard." The statement "do not enter the profound emptiness concentration, because the assembly is dull" is from the gate of the ultimate truth. "You should explain using the worldly truth" is from the gate of the worldly truth.

The Great Treatise says: "Because he wished to speak the first-meaning悉檀 (ultimate embodiment of truth), the Buddha spoke the Prajnaparamita Sutra." This is teaching only the ultimate truth.

The Great Sutra says: "With Maitreya, [the Buddha] discussed the worldly truth, and five hundred shravakas neither perceived nor knew it." This is teaching only the worldly truth.

Although there are these three different forms, the Tathagata's teachings never go beyond the Two Truths.

Question: Why do the Tathagata's teachings never go beyond the Two Truths?

Explanation: The Two Truths are precisely the Four Siddhantas (four modes of teaching). The first three Siddhantas are the worldly truth. The first-meaning Siddhanta is the ultimate truth. The Four Siddhantas encompass the twelve divisions of the scriptures and encompass the 84,000 Dharma treasuries. Since all dharmas are encompassed, the Two Truths also encompass all dharmas. This is the meaning of "all-inclusive through non-inclusiveness." Since the Two Truths encompass all dharmas, the Tathagata teaches based on the Two Truths.

Question: Since both the Two Truths and the Four Siddhantas encompass all dharmas, why do the Buddhas rely on the Two Truths to teach and not on the Four Siddhantas?

Explanation: From a general perspective, either is acceptable. Since they teach based on the Two Truths, they also teach based on the Four Siddhantas. From a specific perspective, there is a difference. Why? There is a purpose: to clarify that everything the Buddhas teach is true. The Diamond Prajna says: "The Tathagata is one who speaks truth, one who speaks reality." Therefore, the Buddhas rely on the Two Truths. The name "Four Siddhantas" does not emphasize truth. Therefore, they do not rely on the Four Siddhantas.

Question: If they do not rely on the Four Siddhantas to teach, what is the use of the Four Siddhantas?

Explanation: The Two Truths are what is relied upon. Relying on the Two Truths, the Four Siddhantas teachings are given. These are two perspectives on one matter: From the perspective of truth-in-speaking, it is called the Four Siddhantas. From the perspective of speech-that-is-true, it is called the Two Truths. That is, relying on the Two Truths, the Buddhas' skillful means differ according to conditions, and therefore there are four Siddhantas.

Question: How does one rely on the Two Truths to teach the Four Siddhantas?

Explanation: Relying on the ultimate truth, the first-meaning Siddhanta is taught. Relying on the worldly truth, the other three Siddhantas are taught. Relying on the ultimate truth, the teaching is unified without division. Relying on the worldly truth, the teaching is divided without unity. Because the ultimate truth is taught precisely as the first-meaning Siddhanta, it is unified. Because the worldly truth is taught as the three Siddhantas, it is divided.

Question: Why is the ultimate truth unified and the worldly truth divided?

Explanation: Since there are the Two Truths, how could they be completely unified or completely divided? The conventional and ultimate are interdependent; unity and division arise from conditions.

Question: Since both are the Two Truths as conditions, why is the ultimate truth unified and the worldly truth divided?

Explanation: The worldly truth is emptiness-within-existence. The ultimate truth is existence-within-emptiness. The ultimate truth is non-differentiation within differentiation. The worldly truth is differentiation within non-differentiation. The ultimate truth is non-duality within duality. The worldly truth is duality within non-duality. Therefore, the worldly truth is divided and not unified, and the ultimate truth is unified and not divided.

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。三悉檀竝依世諦故說。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。於各各為人中。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。或說淨或說不淨。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。明諸佛緣覺尚捨無常身。今為三修封執故說常。昔為鈍根故說三。今為著三故說一。為大根緣故說是舍那。為小乘人故說是釋迦。如此等竝是為緣不同。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。如是畢竟清淨名第一義悉檀。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。於聖人是實。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。令捨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。則不能改凡成聖捨失從得。良由悟第一義諦。乃能改凡成聖捨失從得。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。為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。故此二諦有得有失也。次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。為著有眾生說第一義。為著空眾生說世諦。此有無竝是眾生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。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。竝是凡諦。為著有眾生說空。為著空說有。借有破無。借無破有。此之有無竝是凡夫諦也。然復有聖諦義。何者。所借有無是病皆凡。能借有無竝藥皆聖也。第三二諦。二悟不二假中義。此二諦竝聖。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。即於深佛法不知真實義明。若不解二諦。於深佛法不知真實。若了二諦。於深佛法即知真實義。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。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。佛滅度後五百歲。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。從初至後。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。後四諦品借有以破空。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。前申破後逈破。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。後逈破者。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。故是逈破。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。亦不識諸法於顛倒因緣有。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。亦不知諸法於顛倒因緣有。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。竝不識二諦。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。於有起邪見。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。於外道中。尚得起邪見。如六師中云。無黑業無黑業報等。於外道中。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。竝為學二諦失二諦也。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。諸法於顛倒有名世諦。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。竝是學二諦失二諦。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。既併失不識二諦。失二諦理然。皆失大有三節。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。竝須此二菩薩。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。所以關中歎云。中百兩論文未及此。人又無通鑒。誰與正之。及至之後歎云。後談道之人。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。佛於聲聞法中。不說自性空自相空。以不說自性空故。不識第一義。不識第一義。即不識世諦。若爾數論皆失二諦。以如此等人竝失二諦。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。佛於聲聞法中。不說諸法自相空自性空。既無自性空故。彼無第一義諦。於彼不無人法二空故。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。此則據毘曇一節。毘曇不明空。成論則明空。若爾望毘曇則有二諦。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。毘曇亦明二諦義。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。理之與事竝是世諦。諸法性空。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。竝是世諦。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。而傳格噵正論三藏義。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。

**Question: It is said that speaking the First Meaning Truth (First Antonomasia) according to the first principle is understandable. The sages truly know that all dharmas are empty in nature, and based on their enlightened emptiness, they teach that all dharmas are originally unborn and quiescent. But how is it that the three kinds of Antonomasia are taught according to the worldly truth?**

**Explanation:** The three kinds of Antonomasia are all taught based on worldly truth. Things like bowls, robes, carts, and carriages are real in the worldly sense, which is why they are called worldly truth. Based on worldly truth, the World Antonomasia is taught—for example, saying that a cart is a combination of wheel, axle, spokes, and rim, or that a person is a combination of the five aggregates. This is the World Antonomasia. As the Great Treatise says, "A person exists conventionally, but in the ultimate sense, there is no person." This is how the World Antonomasia is taught based on worldly truth.

**Based on worldly truth, the Therapeutic Antonomasia is taught:** Sentient beings have the three poisons as a general illness, or more broadly, the eighty-four thousand afflictions. There are three kinds of Dharma medicine, or eighty-four thousand perfections, to counter these illnesses. This is called the Therapeutic Antonomasia. Why is it called "therapeutic"? Because medicine is used to remove and cure illness. This mutual application of medicine and illness is based on worldly truth, so it is the Therapeutic Antonomasia. As the Treatise says, "It exists because of therapeutic need; in ultimate reality, it does not exist."

**Based on worldly truth, the Individual Antonomasia is taught:** Earlier, we mentioned the three medicines and the eighty-four thousand perfections for the three poisons and eighty-four thousand afflictions. Does that cover everything? No. In the Individual Antonomasia, we look further. Why do the Buddha's teachings sometimes speak of a self, sometimes of no-self? Sometimes of permanence, then of impermanence? Sometimes of Vairocana, sometimes of Shakyamuni? Sometimes of purity, sometimes of impurity? Why these apparent contradictions? This is the Individual Antonomasia. In the past, because of attachment to a false permanence, impermanence was taught—even Buddhas and pratyekabuddhas abandon their impermanent bodies. Now, because of attachment to the three marks, permanence is taught. In the past, for dull faculties, the three vehicles were taught; now, for those attached to the three, the one vehicle is taught. For those of great faculties, Vairocana is taught; for small-vehicle practitioners, Shakyamuni is taught. These are all tailored to different capacities and are not contradictory. This is how the three Antonomasias are taught based on worldly truth.

**Based on the First Meaning Truth, the First Meaning Antonomasia is taught:** As discussed earlier, the three kinds of Antonomasia are all about what is unborn, unceasing, unmoving, and non-dependent. Where is there a person, a cart, a medicine, an illness, a self, a dharma, permanence, impermanence, three, or one? All of this is ultimately pure—this is the First Meaning Antonomasia. Therefore, it is said that the four Antonomasias are taught based on the two truths.

---

**Now, regarding teaching according to the two truths within the framework of the two truths:** The four Antonomasias are essentially the two truths, differing only in combination. Separating the two truths gives the four Antonomasias; combining them returns to the two truths. The true meaning of the four Antonomasias is the two truths, and the ultimate meaning of the two truths is the four Antonomasias.

**Teaching within the two truths has three main purposes:**

1. **Teaching worldly truth and ultimate truth to help beings realize the ultimate truth.** 2. **Teaching the two truths to help beings abandon the two views of existence and non-existence.** 3. **Teaching existence and non-existence to help beings realize neither existence nor non-existence—teaching duality to realize non-duality.**

**Teaching the two truths to realize the ultimate truth:** As initially explained, the world, in its delusion, believes dharmas exist. This is real in the worldly sense, hence called a truth. The sages truly know that this delusion is empty in nature. This is real for the noble ones, hence called a truth. This opens up the two truths of ordinary and noble, of gain and loss, to help beings realize the ultimate truth. Ordinary beings are deluded into thinking things exist; sages truly know the emptiness of delusion. Practitioners are led to abandon existence and enter emptiness, to transform from ordinary to noble, from loss to gain. Why? Because realizing the ultimate truth is what enables this transformation. Without it, one cannot change from ordinary to noble or abandon loss for gain.

**Teaching the two truths to abandon the two views:** The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says, "Bodhisattvas dwell in the two truths and teach beings." The commentary explains: for those attached to existence, the ultimate truth is taught; for those attached to emptiness, the worldly truth is taught. For those attached to both, the Bodhisattva dwells in the two truths and teaches. Master Zhao's treatise says the same: use existence to refute emptiness, use emptiness to refute existence. Dwelling in worldly truth breaks the view of non-existence; dwelling in ultimate truth breaks the view of existence.

**Teaching the two truths to realize the non-dual:** As the Avatamsaka Sutra says, one who understands all existence and non-existence realizes neither existence nor non-existence. This is teaching duality to realize non-duality—this is the principle of teaching and its realization.

---

**Every teaching in all sutras and treatises falls within these three categories.**

- The first teaching (two truths leading to ultimate truth) involves gain and loss: the delusion of existence is the "lost truth," while the sages' realization of emptiness is the "gained truth." - The second teaching (two truths to abandon two views) is entirely about loss: both existence and non-existence are attachments. - The third teaching (duality leading to non-duality) is entirely about gain: because duality leads to non-duality, both are the path. Duality is the provisional teaching; non-duality is the ultimate meaning.

---

**Regarding these two truths:** In the first pair, worldly truth is the ordinary truth, and emptiness is the noble truth. In the second pair, both are ordinary truths—using existence or emptiness as medicine for attachment. In the third pair, both are noble truths—this is the middle way, as Nagarjuna says: "Whatever arises dependently is explained as emptiness. It is also a conventional designation. This is the middle way." This is not known by ordinary beings or even by sravakas and pratyekabuddhas—it is exclusively the Bodhisattva's domain.

---

**Question: Why teach according to the two truths? What benefit does it bring?**

**Explanation:** Two treatises support this: The Middle Treatise (Chapter on the Four Truths) says, "If one cannot distinguish the two truths, one does not know the true meaning of the deep Dharma." The Twelve Gates Treatise (Chapter on Contemplating Nature) says, "If one does not know the two truths, one cannot achieve self-benefit, other-benefit, or mutual benefit." The first emphasizes wisdom in deep Dharma; the second emphasizes benefiting beings. These two benefits encompass all benefits—upward seeking enlightenment and downward delivering beings.

---

**Question: For those who do not know the two truths, is there no benefit?**

**Explanation:** In Buddhism, those like the Sarvastivadins and the Vaipulya (Buddhist "Emptiness") School who do not understand the two truths cause great harm. The Sarvastivadins assert that all dharmas exist, not recognizing the ultimate truth. Since realizing the ultimate truth is what makes one noble, they break the noble ones. The Vaipulya School holds that everything is empty like a rabbit's horns—no cause and effect, no君臣父子, no loyalty or filial piety. They fail to recognize the worldly truth. Losing the worldly truth means losing the ultimate truth, and losing the ultimate truth means no nirvana. As the Middle Treatise says, "Without depending on worldly truth, one cannot attain ultimate truth; without ultimate truth, one cannot attain nirvana." These two extremes cover all errors: any view of existence shares the Sarvastivadin flaw, any view of non-existence shares the Vaipulya flaw.

---

**Question: Who loses the two truths?**

**Explanation:** Broadly, there are two kinds: (1) those who never study the two truths and thus lose them, and (2) those who study them but still lose them.

**Regarding those who never study:** The Hundred Treatise addresses outsiders (non-Buddhists) who don't know that dharmas are empty by nature. They neither recognize ultimate truth nor worldly truth. Aryadeva breaks their views of existence and emptiness, then reveals the two truths—emptiness as ultimate truth and conventional existence as worldly truth.

**Regarding the second group (those who study but lose):** The Middle Treatise specifically addresses two subgroups:

1. **Lesser vehicle practitioners** (like Sarvastivadins and Vaipulyas): They either see inherent existence or nihilistic emptiness, losing both truths. 2. **Greater vehicle practitioners** who misunderstand the two truths in two ways: - **They turn the two truths into fixed, self-existent truths:** Hearing existence, they cling to existence; hearing emptiness, they cling to emptiness. Existence becomes independent of emptiness, and vice versa—losing the dependent, conventional nature of the two truths. - **They collapse the two truths into one truth:** - Some reduce everything to emptiness: thinking only emptiness is true, they turn both truths into a single emptiness view. - Others reduce everything to existence: like the "rat-skin chestnut" analogy—the chestnut's flesh is gone, but its shell remains, so it is "empty of flesh" but not "non-existent". Similarly, they say form is empty of inherent nature, but the form itself remains. They also hold the "mind-only emptiness" view: form is ultimately unempty, only the mind is emptied by contemplation. Master Zhao criticized this: it errs in not recognizing the emptiness of objects.

These errors all lose both truths. Losing them loses the provisional and the middle—everything collapses. This is the error of "studying the two truths but losing them."

**Thus, there are three kinds of loss:** (1) never studying, (2) studying but collapsing into one truth, (3) studying but solidifying into fixed truths. Such people are deluded and foolish. To save them, two Bodhisattvas appeared: Aryadeva to refute those who never studied, and Nagarjuna to refute those who studied wrongly. They are needed not only by Shakyamuni but by all Buddhas of the ten directions and three times, because these two Bodhisattvas encompass all Bodhisattvas, and these two errors encompass all errors. Breaking these two errors opens up the two truths, and opening the two truths unfolds all teachings. This is why the Three Treatises are inconceivable, and the great masters praised them: "The Middle and Hundred Treatises have not yet reached this depth."

---

**Applying this to the contemporary schools:**

- **The Abhidharma (Sarvastivada) school** does not recognize the emptiness of dharmas. It asserts inherent existence, missing both the ultimate and worldly truths. - **The Satyasiddhi (Chengshi) school** follows the Tripitaka, proclaiming "the true meaning within the Tripitaka." Though it speaks of emptiness, it is only a conventional, analytical emptiness—the emptiness of persons and dharmas at the conventional level, not the inherent emptiness of all dharmas. As the Great Treatise says, "The Buddha did not teach inherent emptiness in the sravaka teachings." Therefore, they lack the ultimate truth, and hence lack the worldly truth as well.

---

**Question: What is the purpose of this discussion?**

**Explanation:** It explains a line in the Twelve Gates Treatise: "You hear worldly truth and mistake it for ultimate truth." The Abhidharma regards suffering, impermanence, etc., as ultimate truths and physical pain as worldly truth. But both are actually worldly truths. Emptiness alone is the ultimate truth. In the Satyasiddhi, both conventional existence and analytical emptiness are worldly truths; inherent emptiness is ultimate. Since they mistake worldly truths for the ultimate, they fall into error. As the Middle Treatise says, "If the two truths are mis-identified, everything taught by the Buddhas is mis-identified, and all is lost."

---

**Conclusion:**

This is why the Buddhas teach the two truths and the Bodhisattvas elaborate on them: to help beings correctly understand the two truths, and in so doing, understand all provisional and ultimate teachings. Teaching the two truths brings great benefit.

次明學二諦失二諦者。大師云。此如失瑠璃珠。譬在大池浴失瑠璃珠。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。竪洗五句。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。橫竪皆無礙。假即中即竪無礙。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。三世無礙淨穢長短佛剎無礙。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。即內置真諦橙中。聞說諸法有。即內置世諦橙中。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。云何併是世諦耶。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。竝失如來二諦。不能知佛法深義。若能知二諦。則知佛法深義。何者。識知毘曇二諦是毘曇二諦。知此二諦竝是世諦。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。則於深佛法不知真實義。若反此。應云若人能了知分別於二諦。則於深佛法得知真實義。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。後就自他內外判二智。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。後就自他內外判者。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。淨名經云。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。即在五百由旬嶮道之內。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。竝明二諦是教。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。一於諦二教諦。於諦者如論文。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。性空於聖人是實。名之為諦。此即二於諦。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。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。於諦從兩情解為名。但此義有兩種。一者得失判二於諦。有於凡實。名為世諦。空於聖實。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。以判二於諦也。二者就兩謂判二於諦者。如色未曾空有。凡謂色有。於凡是實名諦。聖謂色空。於聖是實名諦。此之有無。皆是謂情故。竝皆是失。既凡謂有。聖謂空。此之空有。悉須洗破。無如此有。無如此空。畢竟洗淨。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。竝是所治之病。故皆失也。以如此義名教諦。以如此義名於諦。此是師語不。然此實是師語也。次作一疑難安中。何者。依於諦說法。於諦是境不。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。有於諦有教諦。於諦有真俗。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。此兩說竝俗諦。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。有於諦有教諦。於諦有真俗。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。何得言二諦竝是教耶。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。若說空之說是真即竝難。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。後當釋之。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。可謂世閒法者有字無義。一往如此。再往奪併無。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。智能為境所。境所為智能。智所為境能。境智因緣不二而二也。問諸有二者無道無果。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。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。十者明了義不了義。由來釋了義不了義者。明小乘教為不了義。摩訶衍教為了義。就大乘教中復有二。般若法華等為不了義。第五涅槃常住教為了義。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。說無欲顯不無。說有無顯不有不無名為了義。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。有無二為顯清淨不二之道。故名了義。所以大經云。如是二語。為了一語也。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。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。甘露未曾脩夭。脩夭出自兩緣。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。於凡有凡理。於聖有聖理。有於凡有理。空於聖有理。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。於彼有有無二理也。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。若箇是有理。汝言有無理。若箇是無理。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。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。後復合明之耶。解云。開合竝為對緣。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。此竝是理外二諦。今明。因緣有無。因緣三假四忘。是理內二諦。開理內外得失。令彼識理內外得失捨失學得從外入內也。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。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。竝為開道令眾生悟入也。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。悟於正道故。此二種竝令悟於一道。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。於無名相中。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。疾入於涅槃。若直說世諦有真諦無。何事言不可說耶。只為諸法非有非無。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。於窓牖中窺之耳。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。即於波羅奈轉正法輪。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。後還著珍御服。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。竝是教非是理。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。竝是教皆令悟理也。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。於無為真諦。第二明。說有說無。二竝世諦。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。竝出經論。有為世諦。空為真諦。如論所明。故論云。有為世諦。此賢聖真知空為真諦也。二為世諦。不二為真諦。亦出論。論云。有無竝世諦。故說第一義諦即無也。又淨名云。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。竝是赴緣不同。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。竝是漸捨義。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。令其從俗入真捨凡取聖。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。竝是二邊。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。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願之法。於菩薩遊戲神通淨佛國土。永無願樂。若爾。凡夫著有二乘滯空。此之空有。竝是世諦。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。凡夫沈生死。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。竝是世諦。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。於無漏法得清淨眼。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。竝是今世諦。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。竝顛倒所感。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。可有於空法。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。何者竝是謂情。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。本有虛故有實。既無虛即無實。顯清淨正道。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。竝是謂情。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。既不廢中。豈當廢假。斯即空有有空。二不二不二二。橫竪無礙。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。所以淨名經云。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。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。於無漏法。得清淨眼。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。

Next, we examine the loss of the two truths for those who study them. The Master said: This is like losing a glass bead. Suppose someone loses a glass bead while bathing in a large pond. Everyone searches for the bead but cannot find it. Instead, each person picks up pebbles and stones, happily carrying them out, only to realize they are not genuine. This is truly calling a fish's eye a night-shining pearl. This is what it means to study the two truths without recognizing them.

**Question:** Does such a person, upon hearing the worldly truth, mistake it for the ultimate truth?

**Explanation:** Yes, this can happen. There are two aspects to this: one based on negation, and one based on affirmation.

**Regarding negation:** In the treatise, all phenomena are refuted horizontally, and the five categories are washed away vertically. Everything is ultimately non-existent. The person then thinks this is the ultimate truth. This is because the ultimate truth eliminates all, hence everything is empty. Those who clumsily lecture on the Three Treatises also make this claim, saying that such refutation and washing away constitutes the ultimate truth.

Now we clarify: This is mistaking the worldly truth for the ultimate truth. How do we know this? Consider this example: The sixteen types of views of a self are empty; there is no self among the sixteen views. Is this the worldly truth or the ultimate truth? They say: The emptiness of the sixteen views of a self is the emptiness of the worldly truth. Why? Because there is truly no self among the sixteen views. The non-Buddhists, due to their delusion, claim there is one. Refuting the sixteen views of a self — that the sixteen views of a self are empty — this is the worldly truth's emptiness.

The same applies here. These dharmas truly do not exist. It is merely due to delusion that we claim they exist. Now, refuting the mistaken notion and illuminating the emptiness of all dharmas — this is the worldly truth's emptiness. It is not even the worldly truth itself; rather, it is what the worldly truth separates from. Only after separating from such dharmas does one arrive at the worldly truth. For this reason, refuting all dharmas as non-existent is the worldly truth. Because they do not understand this, they mistake it for the ultimate truth, and thus fall into error. This is hearing the worldly truth and mistaking it for the ultimate truth.

**Regarding affirmation:** The two truths are dependent origination without obstruction, as stated in the Middle Treatise: "Whatever arises in dependence on conditions, I declare it to be emptiness. That is also the conventional designation. That is the Middle Way." Horizontally and vertically, all is without obstruction. The conventional is the middle, which is vertical non-obstruction. Two does not obstruct non-two; non-two does not obstruct two. Two is the function of non-two; non-two is the function of two. "Dependent origination of dharmas, I declare is emptiness" — this is horizontal non-obstruction. Existence does not obstruct emptiness; emptiness does not obstruct existence. Existence is the function of emptiness; emptiness is the function of existence.

Not only are emptiness and existence unobstructed, but within existence itself, all dharmas are unobstructed. As the Flower Garland Sutra explains: The three times are unobstructed; pure and impure, long and short, Buddha lands are all unobstructed. Such non-obstruction is called the noble truth. Bodhisattvas attain non-obstruction — it is not that dharmas themselves are obstructed, but that the Bodhisattva attains the non-obstructed contemplation, enabling all dharmas to be unobstructed. Attaining the non-obstructed superknowledge makes all dharmas unobstructed. Precisely because dharmas are naturally unobstructed, the Bodhisattva embodies their non-obstruction and thus attains the non-obstructed contemplation. With the non-obstructed contemplation, they attain non-obstructed eloquence and non-obstructed superknowledge. If dharmas were obstructed and the Bodhisattva's non-obstructed superknowledge made them unobstructed, the Bodhisattva would be at fault. Because dharmas are naturally unobstructed, the Bodhisattva attains non-obstructed contemplation, superknowledge, and eloquence.

Such non-obstruction is called the ultimate truth. If, however, a traditional person's two truths are obstructed — with the three conventional designations as the worldly truth and the fourfold forgetting as the ultimate truth — then the three conventional designations cannot be the ultimate truth, and the fourfold forgetting cannot be the worldly truth. The ultimate truth cannot have names and characteristics; the worldly truth cannot lack names and characteristics.

Therefore, the Master said: They interpret the meaning using two shelves. Hearing that all dharmas are empty, they place it on the shelf of the ultimate truth. Hearing that all dharmas exist, they place it on the shelf of the worldly truth. The worldly truth cannot be empty; the ultimate truth cannot have existence. Such existence and emptiness are both obstructed. Because they are obstructed, they are all worldly truth. They then say: "I have true and conventional truths. How can both be worldly truths?"

**Explanation:** When existence and emptiness are both obstructed, they are worldly truths. Because you yourself take them as the ultimate truth, this is hearing the worldly truth and mistaking it for the ultimate truth.

Such people all lose the Tathāgata's two truths and cannot understand the profound meaning of the Buddhadharma. If one can understand the two truths, then one understands the profound meaning of the Buddhadharma. Why? Recognizing that the two truths of the Abhidharma are the Abhidharma's two truths — knowing that both of these are worldly truths — one never studies such two truths. Recognizing that the two truths of the Satyasiddhi are the analytical two truths, not the two truths of the intrinsic emptiness of all dharmas. Recognizing that the traditional Mahāyāna's two truths are obstructed two truths. Recognizing that the Buddhas' and Bodhisattvas' two truths are unobstructed two truths. By recognizing such two truths, one understands the profound meaning of the Buddhadharma.

The verse says: "If a person cannot distinguish the two truths, then regarding the profound Buddhadharma, they do not know its true meaning." Conversely, it should say: "If a person can understand and distinguish the two truths, then regarding the profound Buddhadharma, they know its true meaning." For this reason, the two truths are said to have great benefit.

Above we clarified the gain and loss of the two truths according to the Middle Treatise. Next, we examine the gain and loss of the two truths according to the Twelve Gates Treatise. The treatise says: "If a person knows the two truths, they attain self-benefit, other-benefit, and mutual benefit. If they do not know the two truths, they do not attain these three benefits." These two treatises mutually clarify gain and loss.

**Regarding self-benefit, other-benefit, and mutual benefit:** Understanding the worldly truth and the ultimate truth gives rise to the wisdom of skillful means and true wisdom — this is self-benefit. Understanding the ultimate truth and the worldly truth gives rise to the wisdom of true skillful means — this is other-benefit. Fully understanding both true and conventional truths gives rise to both wisdoms — this is mutual benefit.

Alternatively: The Bodhisattva personally understands both true and conventional truths, giving rise to the two wisdoms of skillful means and true wisdom — this is self-benefit. The Bodhisattva, having truly awakened, now teaches accordingly, enabling sentient beings to also understand the two truths and give rise to the two wisdoms — this is other-benefit. When both self and other understand the two truths and both give rise to the two wisdoms — this is mutual benefit.

**Question:** What is the difference between these two sets of two wisdoms?

**Explanation:** The first distinguishes the two wisdoms based on true and conventional. The second distinguishes them based on self-other, inner-outer. In the former, understanding the worldly truth and the ultimate truth is called "skillful means as true wisdom," and understanding the ultimate truth and the worldly truth is called "true wisdom as skillful means." In the latter, inner self-realization of the two truths is called true wisdom, and outwardly teaching others the two truths is called skillful means.

The benefit of attaining these two wisdoms: These two wisdoms are the father and mother of all Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. As the Vimalakīrti Sutra says: "Wisdom is the Bodhisattva's mother, skillful means is the father. All guides of sentient beings are born from this." Thus, these two wisdoms are the parents of all Buddhas. If one understands the two truths, one has the two wisdoms. With the two wisdoms, there are Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. If one does not understand the two truths, one lacks the two wisdoms. Without the two wisdoms, there are no Buddhas in the ten directions and three times. Therefore, we know that explaining the two truths has great benefit.

Further benefit: Understanding the worldly truth and the ultimate truth separates one from the ground of ordinary beings. Understanding the ultimate truth and the worldly truth separates one from the ground of the two vehicles. Separating from both the ordinary ground and the two-vehicle ground is the Bodhisattva ground. If one does not understand the ultimate truth and the worldly truth, one does not separate from the two-vehicle ground. If one does not understand the worldly truth and the ultimate truth, one does not separate from the ordinary ground. Not separating from these two grounds means remaining within the dangerous path of five hundred yojanas. If one understands the two truths, one exits beyond five hundred yojanas, enters the Bodhisattva stage, is born into the family of the Buddha, and has noble lineage. For this reason, understanding the two truths has great benefit.

Further benefit: It separates from the two views of permanence and annihilation. Understanding the worldly truth and the ultimate truth separates one from the view of permanence. Understanding the ultimate truth and the worldly truth separates one from the view of annihilation. Separating from both views, one walks the noble Middle Way and sees the Buddha-nature. If one does not understand the two truths, one does not walk the Middle Way and does not see the Buddha-nature. Not seeing the Buddha-nature means none of the Buddha-nature exists. If one understands the two truths, one separates from permanence and annihilation, walks the Middle Way, and sees the Buddha-nature. Thus, one has the Buddha-nature. For this reason, we know that understanding the two truths has great benefit.

This is a brief explanation of gain, loss, and benefit.

**Next: The meaning of awakening to wisdom through the teachings.**

This principle is difficult to understand. How does wisdom arise? The Master's old saying: "Receiving the teachings and attaining awakening gives rise to the two wisdoms. The teachings then become known as the object. Without awakening, wisdom does not arise."

What is meant by "not awakening"? Hearing "existence," one makes a conceptual understanding of existence. Existence then settles in existence; existence does not point beyond existence. Hearing "emptiness," one makes a conceptual understanding of emptiness. Emptiness then settles in emptiness; emptiness does not point beyond emptiness. This is called not awakening.

What is meant by "awakening"? Hearing "existence," one does not settle in existence; existence points to non-existence. Hearing "emptiness," one does not settle in emptiness; emptiness points to non-emptiness. This is called awakening.

How does awakening occur? Does one awaken to "neither existence nor emptiness, non-duality"? Or does one awaken to the duality of existence and emptiness? If through the duality of existence and emptiness one awakens to the non-duality of neither existence nor emptiness, then one should give rise to non-dual wisdom. How then do the two wisdoms arise? If one says one awakens to the duality of existence and emptiness, this would be awakening to the teaching, not to the principle. If one does not awaken to the principle, how can it be called awakening? This is difficult to clarify through advance and retreat, and has not yet been explained in detail.

**Next: The meaning that the two truths are teachings.**

From Mount She and Master Xinghuang onward, it has been clarified that the two truths are teachings. Therefore, the mountain master's personal commentary on the two truths states: "The two truths are the wonderful teaching that points to the Middle Way, the ultimate expression of words and concepts. The Way is neither existence nor non-existence; existence and non-existence are used to reveal the Way. The principle is neither one nor two; one and two are used to illuminate the principle. Therefore, we know the two truths are teachings."

Why is it clarified that the two truths are teachings? There are two reasons: first, to counter others; second, to explain the sutras and treatises.

To counter others who claim the two truths are objects: They have four types of dharma treasures — the treasure of verbal teachings, the treasure of object realms, the treasure of unconditioned fruits, and the treasure of wholesome karma. The two truths belong to the treasure of object realms. With or without a Buddha, this object always exists. Confused about it, one wanders through the six realms. Awakened to it, one attains the three vehicles and ten grounds. Thus, for them, the two truths are the object of confusion and awakening. We counter this by saying the two truths are teachings.

To explain the sutras and treatises: The Middle Treatise says, "The Buddhas, relying on the two truths, teach sentient beings." The Hundred Treatise likewise says, "The Buddhas always rely on the two truths. Both are true, not false words." The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says, "Bodhisattvas, abiding in the two truths, teach sentient beings." The Nirvāṇa Sutra also says, "The worldly truth is the ultimate truth. Following sentient beings, two truths are spoken." Because the sutras clarify that the two truths are teachings, our school clarifies that the two truths are teachings.

One may recite the Master's words and know his intention. What is it? Knowing it is to counter others, knowing it is to explain the sutras and treatises. But this principle is not yet fully understood. Why? You say the two truths are teachings. When the two truths are spoken, there are two truths. Before they are spoken, should there be no two truths? If they already exist, you are the same as other schools. If you are different from other schools, then only when spoken do the two truths arise; before speaking, there should be no two truths.

Further objection: If speaking the two truths creates the two truths, and before speaking there were no two truths, then speaking "form is empty" creates form and emptiness. Before speaking, there should be no form and emptiness. But before speaking, form and emptiness already exist. If so, before speaking the two truths, they already existed. Existing already makes you the same as others.

However, if one can understand the principle that the two truths are teachings, then the principle of the two truths can be understood, and the Three Treatises can be understood. If one does not understand this principle, the meaning of the two truths cannot be understood, and the Three Treatises cannot be understood either. Why? Others say the two truths are objects. You now say the two truths are teachings. Speaking the Dharma is teaching. Is the two truths also teaching? If the two truths are teachings, this contradicts the treatise. The treatise says, "The Buddhas, relying on the two truths, speak the Dharma." How can you suddenly say the two truths are teachings?

**Explanation:** There are two kinds of two truths: the two truths as objects of understanding, and the two truths as teachings.

The two truths as objects of understanding, as stated in the treatise: All dharmas are intrinsically empty. The ordinary world, deluded, claims they exist. For ordinary beings, this is real, hence called a truth. The noble sages truly know the delusion and see intrinsic emptiness. For sages, this is real, hence called a truth. These are the two truths as objects of understanding. The Buddhas, relying on these, speak — this is called the two truths as teachings.

**Question:** Why are the teachings called truths?

**Explanation:** There are several meanings. First, because they are spoken based on reality, what is spoken is also real, hence called truths. Second, because the Tathāgata's words are truthful and sincere, hence called truths. Third, because the teachings of existence and non-existence truly can point to the Way, hence called truths. Why are the words of non-Buddhists not called truths? Because their words cannot point to the Way. The Buddha's words truly can point to the Way, hence called truths. Fourth, because the spoken Dharma truly can benefit sentient beings, hence called truths. Non-Buddhist teachings cannot truly benefit sentient beings, so they are not called truths. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas truly can benefit sentient beings, hence called truths. Fifth, because what is spoken is not deluded, hence called truths. As the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains the meaning of the one true truth: What the Tathāgata speaks has no delusion; this is called the one true truth. Likewise here, because what is spoken is not deluded, it is called truth. Non-Buddhist teachings are all deluded and cannot be called truths. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas speak without delusion, hence called truths. Sixth, because they have truly awakened and speak accordingly, it is called truth. Thus the sutra says: "The speaker of suchness, the speaker of truth, the speaker of non-difference, the speaker of non-deception." This means the Tathāgata's words are truthful and not false, hence the teachings are called truths.

**Next: The two truths as objects of understanding.**

Why are they called truths? Is it named from the perspective of deluded cognition, from the object realm, or from understanding?

**Explanation:** The two truths as objects of understanding are named from two types of cognition. But this has two aspects.

First, distinguishing the two truths as objects of understanding based on gain and loss: Existence is real for ordinary beings, called the worldly truth. Emptiness is real for sages, called the ultimate truth. This existence is deluded cognition of existence; this emptiness is true understanding of emptiness. Deluded cognition of existence is loss; true understanding of emptiness is gain. This distinguishes the two truths based on deluded cognition and true understanding.

How do we know this? The treatise says: "All dharmas are intrinsically empty. The ordinary world, deluded, claims they exist — this is called the worldly truth. The noble sages truly know intrinsic emptiness — this is called the ultimate truth." Since it says "truly know intrinsic emptiness," it is true understanding. Earlier it says "deluded, claims they exist," so it is deluded cognition. If so, we know this distinguishes the two truths based on gain and loss between deluded cognition and true understanding.

Second, distinguishing the two truths based on two deluded cognitions: Form has never been empty or existent. Ordinary beings claim form exists; for ordinary beings, this is real, hence called truth. Sages claim form is empty; for sages, this is real, hence called truth. Both this existence and emptiness are deluded cognitions, so both are loss. Since ordinary beings claim existence and sages claim emptiness, both emptiness and existence must be refuted and washed away. There is no such existence, no such emptiness. Only after thoroughly washing clean does one arrive at the dependent-origination emptiness and existence. Dependent-origination emptiness and existence are not the emptiness and existence of emptiness-and-existence. Having recognized that emptiness and existence are not emptiness-and-existence, one awakens to the emptiness-existence that is non-emptiness and non-existence. The earlier emptiness and existence are both illnesses to be treated, hence both are loss.

Is this the Master's teaching? Yes, this is indeed the Master's teaching.

**Next, we raise a difficulty.**

According to the two truths as objects of understanding, the Buddhas rely on them to speak the Dharma. Are these two truths objects or not? If they are not objects, this contradicts the treatise. The treatise says: "The noble sages truly know the intrinsic emptiness of all dharmas." True knowing is wisdom. Wisdom must have an object. Intrinsic emptiness is the object; true knowing is wisdom. If so, the two truths are objects. Relying on the two truths as objects, one teaches sentient beings. This aligns with the treatise, but then it becomes the other school's position. They also say: "The two truths are objects. Speaking the two truths is called teaching. Thus there are the dharma treasure of verbal teachings and the dharma treasure of object realms. The four truths and two truths are the treasure of object realms. Speaking the four truths and two truths is the treasure of verbal teachings." Now we are the same — how are we different from them? If you say "I am not like that," then you contradict the treatise. The treatise says, "The Buddhas, relying on the two truths, teach sentient beings." How can you say the two truths are teachings? Advance or retreat is impossible: Supporting the treatise makes you the same as others; differing from others contradicts the treatise.

**Another response to the difficulty:** There are the two truths as objects of understanding and the two truths as teachings. Do the two truths as teachings also have true and conventional?

**Question:** If you say the two truths as teachings also have true and conventional — considering the Satyasiddhi school, which is "dead" to the Three Treatises, we do not know how it would answer. But let me ask you now: Is speaking the conventional called conventional, and speaking the true called true? If you say "speaking is true," this contradicts your own position. Why? Your position is that the teaching of the two truths is verbal and thus only conventional. You cannot say the teaching of the two truths includes both true and conventional.

If, fearing to change your words, you say "speaking is not true," then how can you say the teaching of the two truths has true and conventional? The Satyasiddhi school's interpretation would say: "The true and conventional truths are objects. The objects have true and conventional. Speaking of true and speaking of conventional — both of these speakings are conventional truths. The true cannot be spoken; it is expressed through the conventional."

Now I ask the Three Treatises masters: Other schools' true and conventional are objects; within the objects there are true and conventional. You now clarify that the two truths are a teaching gateway. Does the teaching of the two truths also have true and conventional? One who does not understand the meaning will surely say the teaching of the two truths also has true and conventional. Why? There are two sets of truths: the two truths as objects of understanding and the two truths as teachings. The former has true and conventional; the latter also has true and conventional.

**Question:** How can the teaching of the two truths have true and conventional?

**Explanation:** Speaking the conventional is called the conventional teaching of the truths. Speaking the true is called the true teaching of the truths.

**Question:** Speaking the conventional is called the conventional teaching — the teaching is conventional. Is speaking the true called the true teaching? The speaking of the true is verbal teaching. How can it suddenly be true? If speaking of the conventional is a conventional utterance, and speaking of the true is also a conventional utterance, then you become the same as other schools. They too clarify: "The true cannot be spoken; through the conventional, the true is spoken. The speaking of the true still belongs to the conventional truth." Now you are the same as the old position. The Three Treatises' meaning has become their meaning.

Thus, the Satyasiddhi scholars read the Middle Treatise, which says: "Verbal expression is the conventional truth. The ultimate truth cannot be expressed in words." If so, all verbal expression is conventional truth. How can you say both truths are teachings? If the two truths are teachings and teachings are only conventional, then studying the two truths results in a single conventional truth. Those before studied the two truths and ended with one truth — that was already a loss. Now you study the two truths and end with one truth — this is an even greater loss.

**Further difficulty:** Other schools say the two truths are objects; within the objects there are true and conventional. You say the two truths are teachings. Is the teaching only conventional, or does it include both true and conventional? If only conventional, you lose the true truth and become the same as other schools. If it includes both, you contradict the treatise, and the position is impossible. The treatise says verbal expression is the conventional truth; the true cannot be spoken.

**Further difficulty:** How can verbal expression be the ultimate truth? Do you take the emptiness of verbal expression as the ultimate truth, or do you take "emptiness expressed verbally" as the ultimate truth? If you take verbal expression as the true, then verbal expression is existence — how can it be the ultimate truth? If you say "the emptiness of verbal expression is the ultimate truth," then what is "emptiness expressed verbally"? You should only say "expressing emptiness is the conventional truth; expressing emptiness is the true truth." If you say "only expressing emptiness is the ultimate truth," is the expression of emptiness itself true? If the expression of emptiness is true, this creates the same difficulty. If both "expressing emptiness" and "being empty of expression" are the ultimate truth, then "form is empty" and "empty is form" would both be ultimate truths. This is a counter-argument.

From the beginning to here, there are four difficulties not yet resolved. We will explain them later.

**Now let us further examine the meaning of gain and loss.**

Earlier we discussed four kinds of gain and loss. Now let us examine the last one: studying the two truths but losing them. If it is the Lesser Vehicle, there is no need to examine. But we are specifically addressing those who study the two truths and lose them.

Others explain the meaning of the two truths. We now also explain the meaning of the two truths. How do we differ? There are ten points of difference:

**First, the distinction of principle and teaching.** Others' two truths have no distinction of principle and teaching. We clarify that the two truths have principle and teaching. Why? They say the two truths are principle: the three conventional designations are the principle of the worldly truth, and the fourfold forgetfulness is the principle of the ultimate truth. We say the two truths are teachings, and non-duality is the principle. Thus the sutra says: "Mañjuśrī's Dharma is ever thus. The Dharma King has only one Dharma. All fearless ones, through one path, escape birth and death." It also says: "All dharmas of existence and non-existence are understood as neither existence nor non-existence." Therefore, we know that the duality of existence and non-existence is teaching; the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence is principle. We possess both principle and teaching.

They have only duality, no non-duality. Thus they have only teaching, no principle. One might say worldly dharmas have words without meaning. At first glance, this is so. On second thought, they lose both. Why? Words are meant to express meaning. Since there is no meaning, what do the words express? Thus both principle and teaching are lost. We clarify: existence and non-existence are teachings that point to the principle of neither existence nor non-existence. This is having both principle and teaching — complete in both.

Such statements are made to counter others and to explain the sutras and treatises.

**Next: Receiving the teaching of the two truths gives rise to the two wisdoms; the teaching then becomes known as the object.**

Why make this statement? Also to counter the traditional view. The traditional view says: "True and conventional are natural objects. The three conventional designations are the object of the conventional truth. The fourfold forgetfulness is the object of the ultimate truth. Confused, one wanders through the six realms. Awakened, one attains the three vehicles and noble sages. This object always exists."

According to this view, wisdom arises from cultivation, while the object always exists and wisdom is newly born. Before wisdom existed, the object already existed. Thus object and wisdom are not causes and conditions for each other. We counter this by saying: true and conventional are teachings. Awakening to the teaching gives rise to wisdom. The teaching then becomes known as the object. Through wisdom, there is the object; through the object, there is wisdom. The object can serve as the condition for wisdom; wisdom can serve as the condition for the object. The object's conditioning becomes wisdom's fruition; wisdom's conditioning becomes the object's fruition. Object and wisdom are causes and conditions, non-dual yet dual.

**Question:** Things that are dual have no Way and no fruit. Why do you clarify duality?

**Explanation:** To counter their position of having an object without wisdom. We clarify: through wisdom, there is the object; through the object, there is wisdom. Object and wisdom are interdependent, non-dual yet dual.

Now, we clarify that the two truths are a teaching gateway precisely to uproot the view of two principles. They have deeply planted the view of two principles; this two-principle view can never be changed. Therefore, we clarify: there is only one principle, not two. Why? The Tathāgata speaks of existence and non-existence to point to the one Way. This existence and non-existence are gates to the Way, not the Way itself. For this reason, we clarify: the two truths are teachings, not principles.

**Second, the meaning of having characteristics and lacking characteristics.** It has been said that our mountain tradition has attained the meaning of lacking characteristics, while other schools have characteristics. Why are they "having characteristics" and we "lacking characteristics"?

**Explanation:** They have existence that has the characteristic of existence, and non-existence that has the characteristic of non-existence. If existence lacked the characteristic of existence, there would be no existence. If non-existence lacked the characteristic of non-existence, there would be no non-existence. Then there would be no two truths. Since their principle has two truths, they must have existence with the characteristic of existence, and non-existence with the characteristic of non-existence. This is called "having characteristics."

We clarify: existence does not have the characteristic of existence; existence points beyond existence. Non-existence does not have the characteristic of non-existence; non-existence points beyond non-existence. Existence and non-existence point to "neither existence nor non-existence." This is called "lacking characteristics." Because of lacking characteristics, it is called a teaching gateway.

**Third, the meaning of having attainment and lacking attainment.** They have attainment; we lack attainment. They have existence that can be attained and non-existence that can be attained. If there were no existence to attain and no non-existence to attain, there would be no two truths. Since they have two truths, existence and non-existence are attainable — this is called "having attainment."

We clarify: existence does not settle in existence; existence points beyond existence. There is no existence to attain. Non-existence does not settle in non-existence; non-existence points beyond non-existence. There is no non-existence to attain. This is called "lacking attainment." Because existence and non-existence lack attainment, they are called teachings.

**Fourth, the meaning of inside and outside the principle.** Likewise. Their true and conventional are outside the principle. Our true and conventional are inside the principle. Because they are inside the principle, they are called teachings.

**Fifth, the meaning of opening and covering.** Their two truths are principle, which is covering. Our two truths are teachings, which is opening. Why? They settle in existence, never leaving existence; they settle in non-existence, never leaving non-existence. This existence and non-existence cover the Tathāgata's dependent-origination existence and non-existence. We clarify that the two truths are teachings: existence points beyond existence; non-existence points beyond non-existence. Existence and non-existence point to neither existence nor non-existence. Thus the Tathāgata's teaching is open, with no obstruction. As the sutra says: "Like the autumn moon dwelling in the sky, revealed." Likewise here, existence and non-existence are called teachings.

**Sixth, the meaning of incomplete and complete.** Their two truths are incomplete; our two truths are complete. Why? They have only duality, no non-duality. Thus they have only teaching, no principle. This is called the incomplete word. We have both principle and teaching, called the complete word. At first glance, since they lack completeness, they also lack incompleteness. Why? Incompleteness is incompleteness within completeness. Since they lack completeness, how can there be incompleteness? Master An said: "Subtract from completeness to get incompleteness; add to incompleteness to get completeness." Since they lack completeness, what is subtracted to make incompleteness? Thus, without completeness, there is no incompleteness.

**Seventh, they are the foolish ones; we are the wise ones.** As the Nirvāṇa Sutra says: "Ignorance and wisdom — the foolish see them as two; the wise understand their nature as non-dual." If ignorance and wisdom are thus, so too are true and conventional. True and conventional being two makes one foolish; their non-duality makes one wise. The nature of non-duality is the true nature. Therefore, we know non-duality is principle and duality is teaching.

**Eighth, essence and function.** They have only function, no essence. Without essence, there is no function. We have both essence and function.

**Ninth, root and branches.** Non-duality is the root; duality is the branches. They have no root, so how can they have branches? We have both duality and non-duality, both root and branches. Therefore it is said: the two truths are teachings; non-duality is principle.

**Tenth, the meaning of definitive and non-definitive.** Traditionally, the Lesser Vehicle teachings are called non-definitive, and Mahāyāna teachings are called definitive. Within Mahāyāna, there are two: the Prajñā and Lotus are non-definitive, while the fifth-period Nirvāṇa, the eternal abiding teaching, is definitive. This is distinguishing definitive and non-definitive within the five-period classification. Does the meaning of the two truths also have definitive and non-definitive?

**Explanation:** They say: If the three conventional designations are the principle of the worldly truth, and the fourfold forgetfulness is the principle of the ultimate truth, then these two truths are only definitive, with no non-definitive.

We say: Such two truths are all non-definitive. Why? Our two truths speak of existence to reveal non-existence, speak of non-existence to reveal non-non-existence. Speaking existence and non-existence to reveal neither existence nor non-existence is called definitive. Their existence settles in existence and does not point beyond existence; non-existence settles in non-existence and does not point beyond non-existence. Existence and non-existence do not point to neither existence nor non-existence. Duality does not point to non-duality. They cannot reveal the Way, so they are non-definitive.

We clarify: dependent-origination existence and non-existence — existence points beyond existence; non-existence points beyond non-existence. The duality of existence and non-existence reveals the pure, non-dual Way. This is called definitive. Thus the Great Sutra says: "These two words are for the sake of one word." Likewise here, the dependent-origination duality reveals non-duality. Because this dependent-origination duality leads to awakening to non-duality, the duality is a teaching gateway. We do not take the two words themselves as the teaching gateway.

However, our school not only has definitive meaning but also non-definitive meaning — we have both. Why? It is only one teaching gateway of the two truths. With skillful means, hearing the two without settling in the two, one awakens through the two to non-duality — this is definitive. Without skillful means, hearing the two and settling in the two, not awakening to non-duality — this is non-definitive. Thus our school has both definitive and non-definitive meanings.

This is a brief clarification of ten points, distinguishing gain and loss in studying the two truths. To summarize the ten: 1) principle and teaching; 2) characteristics and no-characteristics; 3) attainment and no-attainment; 4) inside and outside the principle; 5) opening and covering; 6) incomplete and complete; 7) foolish and wise; 8) essence and function; 9) root and branches; 10) definitive and non-definitive.

**Now let us make a general assessment.**

Earlier we said others have only teaching, no principle, while we have both principle and teaching. Is this really so? Master Kai Shan said: "The two truths are the ultimate meaning of the Dharma-nature, the supreme principle of one truth being non-dual." He also said: "Non-dual yet dual — the Middle Way is the two truths. Dual yet non-dual — the two truths are the Middle Way." If so, they have both principle and teaching, both duality and non-duality. Why do we say they lack it?

**Objection:** Your two truths — are they principle or expedient? They say the two truths are principle.

**Difficulty:** If duality is principle, then there is no principle of non-duality. If there is a principle of non-duality, then there are three principles. You have only the two principles, not the third, so you lack the Middle Way's non-dual principle.

We clarify: the two truths are not principle; they are expedient teaching gates. Like the three carts outside the gate — there are truly no three carts outside the gate. Expediently speaking of three carts leads one to awaken to "not three." Likewise here: truly there are no two truths. Expediently speaking of two leads one to awaken to non-duality. Therefore, the two truths are a teaching gateway.

**Further objection:** You say non-duality is the Middle Way. Is the Middle Way within the two truths or outside them? You say the two truths include all dharmas completely: the ultimate truth transcends Nirvāṇa above and cuts off birth and death below. The four statements are forgotten; the hundred negations are thoroughly eliminated. All non-existence is the ultimate truth; all dharmas' existence is the worldly truth. There is no dharma outside. If so, there are only the two truths as principles. Where is the Middle? Furthermore, what is your "neither existence nor non-existence"? "Neither existence" is still non-existence; "neither non-existence" is still existence. This is still existence and non-existence, still annihilation and permanence. How can you speak of the Middle Way?

For this reason, we clarify: the two truths are a teaching gateway; non-duality is the Middle Way.

Furthermore, they lack "not existence and not non-existence" within existence and non-existence. We have "not existence and not non-existence" within existence and non-existence — the reverse. They have only the two principles of existence and non-existence, lacking the non-dual Way. We have only the non-dual Way, lacking existence and non-existence.

**Question:** If there is no existence and non-existence, there should be no two truths.

**Explanation:** Truly there is no existence and non-existence. But expediently, we speak of existence and non-existence. Speaking of existence and non-existence is for the sake of awakening to neither existence nor non-existence. For this reason, we clarify that the two truths are a teaching gateway.

However, the two truths have never been two. It is only the study of the same two truths that yields gain or loss, inherent nature or conventional designation.

The Master always used the analogy of nectar: With skillful means, one who takes it lives long. Without skillful means, one who takes it dies young. The nectar itself is neither long-lived nor short-lived; longevity and premature death come from the two kinds of circumstances. Likewise here: It is only the same two truths. Studied with skillful means, they become conventional designations. Studied without skillful means, they become inherent nature. With skillful means, there is gain. Without skillful means, there is loss. The two truths themselves have never been inherent nature or conventional designation, gain or loss. Gain, loss, inherent nature, and conventional designation come from the two kinds of circumstances.

Yet inherent nature and dependent origination themselves are also not two. With skillful means, one studies inherent nature and it becomes dependent origination. Without skillful means, one studies dependent origination and it becomes inherent nature. Like one without skillful means taking nectar and it becoming poison; one with skillful means taking poison and it becoming nectar. Those who study the two truths are the same: without skillful means, they study dependent origination and it becomes inherent nature; with skillful means, they study inherent nature and it becomes dependent origination. For this reason, studying the two truths has gain and loss — there is inherent nature and there is dependent origination.

**Question:** When they study dependent origination and turn it into the natural principle of inherent nature, do we adopt that principle or not?

**Explanation:** We both adopt and do not adopt.

**Adopting:** We also have these two principles. Why? For ordinary beings, there is the principle of the ordinary. For sages, there is the principle of the sage. Existence is real for ordinary beings; emptiness is real for sages. The principle has never been dual; due to two kinds of conditions, there are two principles. Thus the treatise says: "Those with shallow wisdom see dharmas as having existence and non-existence characteristics. They cannot see the cessation, cannot see the peaceful Dharma." Neither existence nor non-existence is called the peaceful Dharma. Seeing characteristics of existence and non-existence means not seeing the peaceful Dharma. Kindly put, they are "shallow wisdom"; harshly put, they are fools. Seeing existence and non-existence characteristics — the principle is truly neither existence nor non-existence. Though the principle is truly neither existence nor non-existence, for them there are the two principles of existence and non-existence. If we invert this statement, it says: "Those with deep wisdom see dharmas as neither existence nor non-existence characteristics. Then they all see cessation and see the peaceful Dharma."

**Not adopting:** There are no such principles of existence and non-existence at all. Why? Claiming "existence is a principle" is a deluded claim of existence. Claiming "non-existence is a principle" is a deluded claim of non-existence. Existence and non-existence are deluded cognitions. Since existence is a deluded claim, how can there be a principle of existence? Since non-existence is a deluded claim, how can there be a principle of non-existence? There are no such existences or non-existences at all.

Since we ultimately know there is no such existence or non-existence, what dharma exists? There are only the four inverted views and the eight inverted views. There is truly no permanence, but the deluded claim there is permanence. There is truly no impermanence, but the deluded claim there is impermanence. There is truly no existence, but the deluded claim there is existence. There is truly no non-existence, but the deluded claim there is non-existence.

They then say: "But I have the principles of the two truths, existence and non-existence. How can you say they do not exist? I now clearly see dharmas of existence and non-existence that are not false. Why do you suddenly say you do not see them? Furthermore, there are dharmas of the three times: past and future do not exist, the present exists. All dharmas arise from the future and cease into the past. There is arising and ceasing. There is existence and non-existence. How can you say they do not exist?"

For this reason, Nāgārjuna appeared to investigate this attachment. You say there is a principle of existence. Which one is the principle of existence? You say there is a principle of non-existence. Which one is the principle of non-existence? Seeking existence, it cannot be found. How can you say there is a principle of existence? Seeking non-existence, it cannot be found. How can you say there is a principle of non-existence? Such existence, non-existence, arising, and ceasing are merely your own delusions, mistakenly asserted as real. Thus the Middle Treatise says: "If one says that through direct perception there is arising and ceasing, this is foolishness — delusion sees arising and ceasing." If so, through foolishness and delusion one sees existence, non-existence, arising, and ceasing. Truly, there is no such existence, non-existence, arising, and ceasing as you see.

Earlier, adopting means for two conditions there are two principles. Now, refuting deluded claims means they truly do not exist.

**Question:** Earlier, when clarifying the two truths as a teaching gateway, does this mean the Tathāgata's spoken dependent-origination existence and non-existence are teachings, or does it mean the seen and heard existence and non-existence are teachings?

The Master's answer to this varies between open and unified interpretations. We will now explain using both open and unified approaches.

**The open interpretation:** This is the meaning of inside and outside the principle. It clarifies that outside the principle there are also two truths, and inside the principle there are also two truths. The two truths outside the principle: hearing existence and settling in existence without pointing beyond existence; hearing non-existence and settling in non-existence without pointing beyond non-existence. Existence and non-existence cannot point to the principle; they are not called teachings. This is outside the principle — no principle and no teaching. Inside the principle, the two truths are dependent-origination existence and non-existence. Dependent-origination existence is not existence; dependent-origination non-existence is not non-existence. Existence and non-existence point to neither existence nor non-existence, so existence and non-existence are called a teaching gateway. This is inside the principle — having both teaching and principle.

This is like the two sections of the first chapter. The first section is the meaning of outside the principle. The second section is the meaning of inside the principle.

The first section: They have existence that can be existed, and non-existence that can be non-existed. Existence that can be existed does not arise from non-existence, so existence exists by itself. Non-existence that can be non-existed does not arise from existence, so non-existence is non-existence by itself. Existence by itself means existence is inherently existent. Non-existence by itself means non-existence is inherently non-existent. This existence and non-existence cannot point to neither existence nor non-existence. This existence and non-existence are not a teaching gateway. Thus outside the principle there is no principle and no teaching.

Now, countering others, we clarify that the two truths are a teaching gateway: There is no existence that can be existed; there is no non-existence that can be non-existed. No existence that can be existed — existence arises from non-existence. No non-existence that can be non-existed — non-existence arises from existence. Existence arising from non-existence means existence is not self-existing. Non-existence arising from existence means non-existence is not self-non-existing. Not self-existing means existence is non-existence. Not self-non-existing means non-existence is existence. There is no existence that is not non-existence; there is no non-existence that is not existence. This existence and non-existence point to neither existence nor non-existence, hence called a teaching gateway. Thus inside the principle there are both principle and teaching.

The first chapter of our school speaks this way. Those who study the Three Treatises must first grasp these words. Why is it called the first chapter? Because it is the first among the chapters for learners. This phrase comes from the first volume of the Ten Grounds Sutra, which says: "All words and letters are included in the first chapter." Likewise here, the first chapter pervades all dharmas. Why? Since existence and non-existence are treated this way, all dharmas can be treated analogously. Therefore, we know the first chapter pervades all dharmas.

This is the open interpretation of inside and outside the principle — whether the two truths are teachings or not.

**The unified interpretation:** It clarifies that existence and non-existence have never been two. It is only this same existence and non-existence: with skillful means, study becomes a teaching gateway; without skillful means, study becomes inherent nature. With skillful means, studying inherent nature becomes dependent origination. Without skillful means, studying dependent origination becomes inherent nature. With skillful means, studying the first section of the first chapter becomes the second section. Without skillful means, studying the second section becomes the first section. Like the earlier nectar analogy: Nectar has never been two. Clumsily taking nectar becomes poison; skillfully taking poison becomes nectar. Likewise here: Without skillful means, studying dependent origination becomes inherent nature. With skillful means, studying inherent nature becomes dependent origination. Like a single form: One who does not understand says it is definitely existent, not knowing it is not-existence. One who understands knows form exists and is not-existence. It is only this same existence and non-existence — different people studying it yields different results of teaching versus non-teaching.

**Question:** Why first use the open distinction of inside and outside the principle, and then the unified explanation?

**Explanation:** Both open and unified are for the sake of responding to conditions. The open distinction of inside and outside the principle is specifically to counter the traditional school. They only know one kind of existence-non-existence as the two truths. They do not know there are two kinds of existence-non-existence as the two truths. They only know one three-conventional-designations and fourfold-forgetfulness. They do not know there are two three-conventional-designations and two fourfold-forgetfulnesses. We clarify there are two existences-non-existences, two three-conventional-designations, and two fourfold-forgetfulnesses. Their existence exists because of existence; their non-existence is non-existent because of non-existence. Their three-conventional-designations are three-conventional-designations because of the three-conventional-designations; their fourfold-forgetfulness is fourfold-forgetfulness because of the fourfold-forgetfulness. These are all the two truths outside the principle. We clarify dependent-origination existence-non-existence, dependent-origination three-conventional-designations, and dependent-origination fourfold-forgetfulness — these are the two truths inside the principle. We open up the gain and loss of inside and outside the principle, enabling them to recognize gain and loss inside and outside, to abandon loss and learn gain, and to enter from outside to inside.

Why the unified explanation? This is for students of the Three Treatises. Hearing of inside and outside the principle, they then think there is a real difference between inside and outside, creating a further view of two. For such people, we clarify: How have the two truths ever been two? It is only because without skillful means and without understanding, it is named "outside the principle"; with skillful means and understanding, it is named "inside the principle." The two truths have never truly been different. For this reason, both open and unified interpretations are explained.

**Question:** Why explain both open and unified?

**Explanation:** Both are for the sake of opening the Way, causing sentient beings to awaken and enter. The open distinction of inside and outside the principle leads to awakening: It clarifies that the existence-non-existence outside the principle, which holds onto attainment, cannot point to the Way. It clarifies that the existence-non-existence without attainment — existence is non-existence, non-existence is existence — existence and non-existence point to neither existence nor non-existence. Through the teaching, one awakens to the principle; from the conventional, one enters the middle. Thus the Master said: "The sages open up true and conventional to point to the Way. They speak of existence and non-existence to transform beings."

The unified explanation leads to awakening: It clarifies that existence and non-existence have never been two. One who does not understand makes it inherent nature. One who understands makes it dependent origination. Only by understanding that inherent-nature existence-non-existence becomes dependent-origination existence-non-existence, and that dependent-origination existence-non-existence is existence-non-existence that is neither existence nor non-existence, does one awaken to the right Way. Thus both interpretations lead to awakening to the one Way. The sutra passages are all like this. Thus the Lotus Sutra says: "For this one great matter alone do I appear in the world." And again: "Speaking of various vehicles is all for the sake of the one vehicle."

**Next question:** Since both are for revealing the Way, why not at the very beginning speak of "neither existence nor non-existence" to lead sentient beings to awaken to the right Way? Why speak of all dharmas as neither existence nor non-existence, then speak of existence and non-existence to point to neither existence nor non-existence, and only then lead them to awaken? Why this roundabout path?

**Explanation:** There are two possible meanings. Let me offer one explanation for now.

If one directly says "form and vase exist" is the worldly truth, and "the noble sages truly know all dharmas as ultimately empty" is the true truth, this already startles and is not accepted. They say: "Dharmas truly exist. How can you say they are ultimately non-existent?" If they do not accept this, how much less will they believe when you say dharmas are neither existence nor non-existence?

For such people, using skillful means, within that which has no names or characteristics, we provisionally use names and characteristics to speak. We say "existence" is the ordinary truth; "emptiness" is the noble truth. We lead them to reform from being ordinary and to study the noble. As the Lotus Sutra explains: "Sentient beings have dull faculties. Attached to pleasure, blinded by foolishness. For such beings, how can they be saved? The still, extinct nature of dharmas cannot be expressed in words. I would rather not teach and quickly enter Nirvāṇa."

If one could simply say the worldly truth is existence and the true truth is non-existence, why would it be said "cannot be spoken"? It is precisely because dharmas are neither existence nor non-existence that they cannot be spoken of in terms of existence or non-existence. For this reason, expediently, the three vehicles are taught. The rich father removes his precious garments to approach his son. He cannot see through the main gate; he glimpses through the window. If he did not remove his precious garments, he could not transform his son. Likewise here: If one directly speaks of neither existence nor non-existence, it is not accepted. So expediently, existence and non-existence are taught first, leading one to awaken to neither existence nor non-existence.

If so, it is the beings themselves who are roundabout, not the Buddha being overly clever.

Guangzhou's Great Master Gao, in explaining the two truths, also clarified that the two truths are a teaching gateway. He used the finger pointing at the moon as an analogy: For someone who does not recognize the moon, point with a finger to help them see it. He said: "Not recognizing the moon, one follows the finger to see the moon. Though one follows the finger and knows what it points to, what is pointed to is ultimately not the finger. What is pointed to is ultimately not the finger. The finger and the moon have never been the same. Following the finger, one knows what is pointed to. What is pointed to is understood through the finger. What the finger points to is understood through spiritual insight. The finger and the moon have never been the same; what is pointed to always transcends the finger."

He also said: "The true truth is named from original non-existence. The conventional truth is named from provisional existence. Provisional existence points beyond existence, to stop the view of annihilation — it is not that existence truly exists. Original non-existence points beyond non-existence, to remove the view of permanence — it is not that non-existence truly exists. Saying existence does not exhaust existence; saying non-existence does not exhaust non-existence. Names and characteristics have never been one; what is pointed to has never been different."

This means: Through the teaching of the two truths, one awakens to non-duality. Non-duality is what is pointed to. Like following the finger to see the moon — the moon is what is pointed to. The ancients' explanation is the same as our current meaning.

We clarify that the two truths are like the finger. For a child who does not recognize the moon, this is for the child, not for a great adult. An adult knows the moon; why would they need to be shown? Because the child does not recognize the moon, the finger is raised to help them recognize it. Ordinary beings are the same: not recognizing the principle, they need the teaching of the two truths. Thus the sutra says: "Sentient beings are foolish like children."

Also, the sutra says: "They are attached." Therefore, one cannot directly teach the non-dual dharma.

Earlier, one explanation was given: One must rely on the two truths to teach; one cannot at the very beginning teach dharmas as neither existence nor non-existence. Why? Saying "existence" is the worldly truth; saying "emptiness" is the true truth. This already startles and is not accepted. How much less speaking of neither existence nor non-existence? This is like removing the precious garments.

Now, let me give another explanation, clarifying that relying on the two truths, one cannot speak of neither existence nor non-existence.

But first, a question must be raised, and then it can be explained.

**Question:** The scriptures contain teachings of existence, non-existence, and also neither existence nor non-existence, neither true nor conventional, neither form nor emptiness. For example, the Nirvāṇa Sutra says: "Then in Vārāṇasī, the wheel of the true Dharma was turned, proclaiming the Middle Way. All sentient beings' fetters are not broken — not that they cannot be broken. Neither breaking nor not breaking — this is called the Middle Way. The teaching is neither teacher nor student; neither gaining benefit nor not gaining benefit — this is called the Middle Way." If so, this includes both teaching duality and non-duality. How can you say one only relies on the two truths and cannot teach non-duality?

Furthermore, the rich man first removed his precious garments and later put them back on. There is removing and wearing — not always removed. How can you say he always relies on the two truths and never teaches neither existence nor non-existence, non-duality?

**Explanation:** Speaking of existence and non-existence, speaking of neither existence nor non-existence — all are teachings, not the principle. At first glance, when separating principle and teaching: teaching has words; principle cannot be spoken. Since the principle cannot be spoken, how can one awaken? Awakening to the principle must rely on words. For this reason, speaking of existence and non-existence and speaking of neither existence nor non-existence are all teachings that lead to awakening to the principle.

**Question:** Speaking of existence and non-existence may be the teaching of the two truths. But speaking of neither existence nor non-existence, non-duality — how is that also the teaching of the two truths?

**Answer:** For this reason, the mountain tradition, inherited from Master Xinghuang, clarifies three kinds of two truths:

First: Speaking of existence is the worldly truth; non-existence is the true truth.

Second: Speaking of existence and non-existence — both are worldly truths. Speaking of neither existence nor non-existence, non-duality, is the true truth. Your question is caught in our second level: duality is worldly truth, non-duality is true truth. I will now explain for you the third level of the two truths:

Third: Existence and non-existence are duality. Neither existence nor non-existence is non-duality. Speaking of duality and non-duality is the worldly truth. Speaking of neither duality nor non-duality is the true truth.

Because the two truths have these three kinds, all teaching must rely on the two truths. Whatever is spoken does not go beyond these three kinds.

Furthermore, these three kinds of two truths all come from the sutras and treatises. "Existence is the worldly truth; emptiness is the true truth" — as the treatise explains. The treatise says: "Existence is the worldly truth. This the noble sages truly know as emptiness — this is the true truth."

"Duality is the worldly truth; non-duality is the true truth" — also from the treatise. The treatise says: "Existence and non-existence are both worldly truths. Therefore, the ultimate truth is their non-existence." Also, the Vimalakīrti Sutra says: "Self and no-self being non-dual is the meaning of no-self." Conversely, "self and no-self being two is the meaning of self." True and conventional are likewise.

"Duality and non-duality are the worldly truth; neither duality nor non-duality is the true truth" — the Flower Garland Sutra says: "Not attached to the non-dual dharma, because there is no one or two." The Great Treatise says: "Breaking duality, not attached to one." Therefore, we know that neither duality nor non-duality is called the ultimate truth.

**Next: Why does the Master explain these three kinds of two truths?**

There are several meanings. Two have already been explained earlier. First, to explain that all Buddhas' teachings always rely on the two truths — that is, to clarify that all Buddhas' utterances do not go beyond the three kinds of two truths. Second, to explain the sutras and treatises, which also contain these three kinds of two truths, as cited above.

The scriptures contain these three kinds of teachings because they respond to different conditions. This is the "individual salvation" pentaloka. Some awaken upon hearing the two truths of existence and non-existence — for them, this is taught. Up to hearing "duality and non-duality are the worldly truth; neither duality nor non-duality is the ultimate truth" — for them, this is taught.

**Why explain the three levels of two truths?**

These three levels of two truths are all a matter of gradual relinquishment, like building up from the ground.

Ordinary beings claim that dharmas truly exist, not knowing they are non-existent. Therefore, the Buddhas teach that all dharmas are ultimately empty, non-existent. "Dharmas exist" — this is what ordinary beings claim. This is the conventional truth, the ordinary truth. "The noble sages truly know the intrinsic emptiness of dharmas" — this is the true truth, the noble truth. This leads them from the conventional into the true, abandoning the ordinary and taking up the noble. For this meaning, the first level of the two truths is explained.

The second level: Existence and non-existence are the worldly truth; non-duality is the true truth. Existence and non-existence are two extremes — existence is one extreme, non-existence is another extreme. Up to permanence and impermanence, birth and death and Nirvāṇa — all are two extremes. Because true and conventional, birth and death and Nirvāṇa are two extremes, they are the worldly truth. Neither true nor conventional, neither birth and death nor Nirvāṇa, non-dual, the Middle Way — this is the ultimate truth.

The third level: Duality and non-duality are the worldly truth; neither duality nor non-duality is the ultimate truth. Earlier, true and conventional, birth and death and Nirvāṇa being two extremes — because they are one-sided, they are the worldly truth. Neither true nor conventional, neither birth and death nor Nirvāṇa, non-dual, the Middle Way — this is the ultimate truth. But this too is two extremes. Why? Duality is one-sided; non-duality is the middle. One-sidedness is one extreme; the middle is another extreme. One-sidedness and the middle are still two extremes. Because they are two extremes, they are called the worldly truth. Neither one-sided nor middle — this is the Middle Way, the ultimate truth.

The Buddhas teach to cure sentient beings' illnesses; none of this goes beyond this intent. For this reason, these three kinds of two truths are explained.

These three kinds can serve one condition or three conditions:

The first level is for ordinary beings. Ordinary beings claim dharmas exist. Thus, saying "dharmas exist" is the conventional truth; "emptiness" is the true truth. Precisely to break ordinary beings' view of existence, existence is taught as conventional and emptiness as true.

The second level is to break the two vehicles' attachment. The two vehicles claim dharmas are empty and sink into the pit of emptiness. As the Lotus Sutra says: "At that time, I only thought of the dharmas of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. For the Bodhisattva's play of supernatural powers and purifying Buddha lands, I had no desire at all." If ordinary beings are attached to existence and the two vehicles are stagnant in emptiness, both emptiness and existence are worldly truths. Neither emptiness nor existence, neither ordinary nor noble — this is the ultimate truth. Thus the sutra says: "Neither the ordinary person's practice nor the noble person's practice is the Bodhisattva's practice. Neither the practice of existence nor the practice of emptiness is the Bodhisattva's practice." For this reason, the second level of the two truths is explained.

The third level is to break the attached Bodhisattvas. The attached Bodhisattva says: "Ordinary beings see existence. The two vehicles are attached to emptiness. Ordinary beings sink in birth and death. The two vehicles are attached to Nirvāṇa. I understand dharmas as neither existence nor non-existence, neither birth and death nor Nirvāṇa." For this reason, we clarify that existence-non-existence as duality and neither existence-non-existence as non-duality — birth-death-Nirvāṇa as duality and neither birth-death-Nirvāṇa as non-duality — are both worldly truths. Only neither true nor conventional, neither birth and death nor Nirvāṇa, neither "neither true nor conventional" nor "neither birth and death nor Nirvāṇa" — this is the ultimate truth.

This gathers the five vehicles into three conditions and opens up the three kinds of two truths. Responding to these three conditions, all lead to awakening to the one vehicle, the one Way. If one awakens to these three, one is fully awakened — neither ordinary nor noble, neither great nor small. Only then is it awakening. Thus the sutra says: "Now I have attained the Way and the fruit. In the unconditioned dharmas, I have obtained the pure eye." Because of such awakening, the Tathāgata entered Nirvāṇa.

**Another reason for explaining the three kinds of two truths:** To counter the traditional school.

The traditional school says the three conventional designations are the worldly truth and the fourfold forgetfulness is the true truth. We say: These two truths are our first-level two truths. Our school has three levels of the two truths. Your two truths are the first level. We surpass you by two levels.

In the second level, both true and conventional are the worldly truth; neither true nor conventional is the ultimate truth. If so, your two truths are our worldly truth.

In the third level, both your two truths and your Middle Way are our worldly truth. Why? In the second level, duality is the worldly truth and non-duality is the true truth. Your two truths are only our worldly truth. They then say: "But I also have the meaning of the Middle Way as neither true nor conventional." For this reason, the third level clarifies that duality and non-duality are the worldly truth. Whether your two truths or your Middle Way, all are our worldly truth. For this reason, these three kinds of two truths are explained.

**Question:** Traditionally, three truths are taught: the conventional truth, the true truth, and the truth of neither true nor conventional. Thus the sutra says: "The truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the Middle Way as the ultimate truth." If so, how can you say the Buddhas always rely on the two truths to teach? "The Buddhas always rely on the two truths to teach" — this has the meaning of time (always) and breadth (Buddhas). "Always" means time; "Buddhas" means breadth. This means the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times always rely on the two truths to teach. How can there be three truths? Since there are three truths, how can it still be said they always rely on the two truths?

**Explanation:** Always relying on the two truths to teach does not preclude three truths. Having three truths does not contradict always relying on the two truths. Why? Here, true and conventional are the two truths. Gathering true and conventional together is the worldly truth. Neither true nor conventional is the ultimate truth. If so, there are only two truths. Therefore it is said the Buddhas always rely on the two truths to teach.

**Next: The meaning of establishing and discarding the two truths.**

**Question:** Existence and non-existence point to neither existence nor non-existence. When one awakens to neither existence nor non-existence, is existence and non-existence discarded or not? This creates two difficulties:

First, if awakening to neither existence nor non-existence discards existence and non-existence, like obtaining the moon and forgetting the finger — this is not right. Why? It was precisely through understanding existence and non-existence that one attained neither existence nor non-existence. If existence and non-existence are discarded, then there is no existence and non-existence. Without existence and non-existence, how can there be neither existence nor non-existence? The Nirvāṇa Sutra says: "The Bodhisattva, possessing the two ornaments, can understand one and two." If one says there is no one and no two, this is not correct. Why? If there were no one and two, how could one speak of "no one, no two"? It is precisely through one and two that one attains "no one, no two." If so, it is precisely through existence and non-existence that one awakens to neither existence nor non-existence. How can it be discarded?

Second, if existence and non-existence are not discarded — this is also not right. If they are not discarded, how can it always be said "obtaining the moon, forgetting the finger; understanding the principle, forgetting the trap"?

**The Master's explanation:** There is both discarding and not discarding.

**Regarding discarding:** From the side of deluded cognition, it must be discarded. Why? What you see as existence is all produced by delusion. Things like vases and clothes are all produced by sentient beings' delusion; erroneous thinking sees them as existent. Thus the Middle Treatise says: "If one says that through direct perception there is arising and ceasing, this is foolishness — delusion sees arising and ceasing." Delusion produces this eye. Seeking this eye, it cannot be found. Dharmas also cannot be found. It is merely foolish delusion seeing existence. Therefore, it must be discarded. This uses emptiness to discard existence.

If one then becomes attached to emptiness, that too must be discarded. Why? It was originally because of existence that there is emptiness. Since there is no existence, how can there be emptiness? Thus the Middle Treatise says: "If there is no existence, how can there be non-existence?" And again: "If there were an un-emptied dharma, there could be an emptied dharma. Since the un-emptied dharma does not exist, how can there be an emptied dharma?"

Both emptiness and existence are deluded cognitions, so both must be discarded. Even up to the third level — whatever is deludedly claimed as existent — all must also be discarded. Why? They are all deluded cognitions; all must be discarded.

**Question:** If all three kinds of two truths are discarded, what is used as the teaching of the two truths?

**Explanation:** From the condition side, they are deluded cognitions. From the Buddha's teaching side, they are teaching gates. We say: All of these are deluded cognitions; all must be discarded. Why? What deluded cognition sees is all false, so it is discarded.

Furthermore, not only is the false discarded, but there is also no true. Originally, because of the false, there is the true. Since there is no false, there is no true. This reveals the pure right Way. This is also called the Dharma Body, also called the Right Way, also called Suchness.

This has already uprooted the traditional view. Why? The traditional view says: "Deluded attachments and afflictions produce the retributions of the six realms. These must be discarded. Discarding the birth and death of the six realms, one attains the Tathāgata's Nirvāṇa."

We say: If there is birth and death, there can be Nirvāṇa. Since there is no birth and death, there is no Nirvāṇa. Without birth and death and without Nirvāṇa — both birth and death and Nirvāṇa are false. Neither birth and death nor Nirvāṇa is called Suchness. At first glance, comparing false and true: if there is no false, there is no true.

If we examine this through the three levels of the two truths: The traditional school's discarding and establishing occurs within the first level. They discard the worldly truth and establish the true truth. Deluded attachments and afflictions produce the six realms' retributions, called the worldly truth. Cutting off deluded attachments and afflictions, the six realms' retributions cease — this discards the worldly truth and establishes the realm of the true truth. From the realm of the true truth arises the Buddha's wondrous wisdom. This is discarding the worldly truth and establishing the true truth.

We say: Both of these truths are deluded cognitions; both must be discarded. Not only the first level, but even the third level must be discarded. Why? All are deluded cognitions, so they must be discarded. This is at first glance discarding the three, not discarding the non-three.

**Next, we discuss discarding and not discarding within the three kinds of two truths.**

Without skillful means, the three are discarded. With skillful means, the three are not discarded.

Without skillful means, the three are discarded: These three are deluded claims that there are three. Truly, there are no three, so they must be discarded. Like a mirage being mistaken for water — there is truly no water. Yet there is also no discarding. Why? If there were water, it could be discarded. Since there is no water, what is discarded? Saying "discarded" is from the perspective of their deluded claim that there is water.

With skillful means, the three are not discarded: This is "without destroying conventional names, speaking of the suchness of dharmas." "Without moving from equal enlightenment, establishing all dharmas." Since it says "without destroying conventional names, speaking of the suchness of dharmas," how could one attain non-duality and discard duality? If one attained non-duality by discarding duality, that would destroy conventional names in speaking of the suchness of dharmas, and would move from equal enlightenment in establishing all dharmas. Only when conventional names themselves are suchness is there no need to discard. As the Middle Treatise says: "The conventional is itself the middle." Discarding conventional names would be discarding the middle. Since the middle is not discarded, how could the conventional be discarded? This is: emptiness and existence, existence and emptiness; duality and non-duality, non-duality and duality; unobstructed horizontally and vertically.

Thus Master Zhao said: "Wanting to say it exists — existence is not truly born. Wanting to say it does not exist — appearances of things have already formed." Again: "Like a magical illusion person — it is not that there is no illusion person, but the illusion person is not a real person." It is only that the illusion person is not a real person; not that "not a person" means there is no illusion person. The illusion person is not a real person; the not-person is a person. All dharmas are likewise. Therefore, they are not discarded.

This is the discussion of discarding and not discarding based on skillful means and lack of skillful means, dependent origination and non-dependent origination.

**Next, we further discuss discarding and not discarding through the two contemplations of arising-ceasing and no-arising-no-ceasing.**

The traditional view says: "The Lesser Vehicle cuts off the two kinds of afflictions and attains the two liberations of views and thoughts. The Greater Vehicle cuts off the five abodes of delusion and attains the ten grounds' liberation." This means views and thoughts attack the two delusions; the ten grounds' liberation cuts off the five abodes of delusion. This discards delusion and establishes liberation, discards the ordinary and establishes the noble. Without cutting off the two delusions, views and thoughts could not be accomplished. Without attacking the five abodes, the Buddha fruit could not be established. Thus both Greater and Lesser Vehicles cut off delusion to become noble.

Now, according to the Lotus Sutra, they are all "dung-removers." Why are they called dung-removers? To disparage them. The sutra says: "Thinking my son is inferior and delights in mean work." The two vehicles cutting off delusion is dung-removal. The Bodhisattva cutting off delusion is also dung-removal. They are equal, and the Bodhisattva is even more so. Why? Both cut off, so they are equal. Cutting off more or less makes the Bodhisattva even more extreme. The two vehicles' dung-removal is hardly worth mentioning. The Bodhisattva, over a long time, removes dung extensively, so it is even more extreme.

We say: The Bodhisattva knows delusion is originally unborn and now unceasing. What is there to cut off? This is being born into the Buddha's family, with noble lineage — like the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king. One only sees the hired servant removing dung; who has ever heard the rich man's son carrying excrement? Therefore, we say the Bodhisattva does not cut off delusion. Why? The Bodhisattva knows delusion is originally unborn and now unceasing, so there is nothing to cut off.

Thus the Vimalakīrti Sutra says: "Dharmas are originally unborn; now they do not cease." The Lotus Sutra says: "All dharmas from the very beginning are always in the state of still extinction."

The traditional view says: "The Bodhisattva has the contemplation of no-arising and no-ceasing." Why is no-arising and no-ceasing explained? As discussed above, knowing originally unborn and now nothing ceases — this is called the Bodhisattva's contemplation of no-arising and no-ceasing.

**Question:** They cut off the two delusions and attain the lesser sage; cut off the five abodes and attain the great fruit. You do not cut off. How can you attain the lesser sage and great fruit?

**Explanation:** You cut off delusion to attain sagehood. I originally have no delusion — how can I lack sagehood? Conversely, you see delusion as arising and now cut it off, yet still do not attain sagehood. If one knows delusion is originally unborn and unceasing, one attains sagehood. Why? No-arising and no-ceasing is the fundamental. Knowing the fundamental, one becomes a sage. You do not know the fundamental — how can you become a sage?

Thus the Lotus Sutra says: "World-Honored One, now I have attained the Way and the fruit. In the unconditioned dharmas, I have obtained the pure eye." If today one attains the Way, one should know that previously one had not attained the Way.

The Nirvāṇa Sutra also says: "You monks have not yet removed the fetters for the Great Vehicle." For this reason, the traditional "cutting off and not cutting off" — only now is it truly cutting off.

**Summary:**

From the beginning to here, this is a brief explanation of the main meaning of the two truths.

二諦義卷上

The Meaning of the Two Truths, Volume 1

鐫二諦章敘
中

CBETA Code: T1854

© AI 帮你读佛经 - 如是我闻

This document is for personal learning only. Do not use for commercial purposes.

Visit rushiwowen.co

Copyright: Original texts from CBETA
AI translation for reference only — not authoritative, not a statement of final truth. Awakening of the Dharma requires personal practice.