English
English version When lustful thoughts arise, one should practice methods to sever them. As the scriptures say, 'All forms are illusory.' This refers to the forms in conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), which are not real forms; seeing the Tathagata refers to ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). All sentient beings in the four forms of birth (caturyoni) (womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born) and the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ) (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) are conventional truth; in reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation, this is ultimate truth. The school of reasoning (应理宗) believes that the meanings of the two truths, conventional and ultimate, are different, and can be distinguished in two ways: first, by distinguishing truth and falsehood based on the person; second, by distinguishing truth and falsehood based on the dharma. Both of these two truths encompass emptiness (śūnyatā) and existence (astitva). First, regarding distinguishing based on the person, as the *Nirvana Sutra* says, 'What is known by those with superior wisdom is ultimate truth, what is known by those with middling wisdom is conventional truth.' What is known by both types of wisdom encompasses existence, therefore it is known that the two truths encompass both emptiness and existence. Second, regarding distinguishing based on the dharma, dharmas have superior and inferior aspects, which are compared to become conventional and ultimate truths. This has four levels of meaning: first, the two truths of illusion and reality, where illusory things like bottles, armies, and forests are conventional truth, and real things like the aggregates (skandha), sense bases (āyatana), and realms (dhātu) are ultimate truth; second, the two truths of phenomena and principle, where coarse phenomena like the aggregates are conventional truth, and the subtle principles of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni) are ultimate truth; third, the two truths of shallow and deep, where establishing the Four Noble Truths is the shallow conventional truth, and the two emptinesses (dvisūnyatā) and Suchness (tathatā) are the deep ultimate truth; fourth, the two truths of expression and meaning, where the two emptinesses and Suchness with expression are conventional truth, and the expression of the One True Dharma Realm (ekalakṣaṇa-dharmadhātu) is ultimate truth. In total, there are five dharmas. The initial armies, forests, etc., are conventional but not true, the final One True Dharma Realm is true but not conventional, and the three dharmas in between are both true and conventional because they are compared to each other. Detailed content can be found in the ninth chapter of *Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi*, the sixth chapter of *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, and the *Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra*. However, the initial type is universally clung to by the world as having a real self-nature of dharmas, so it is empty and not existent. The remaining four dharmas are all-encompassing, because they are of dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) and perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva), so they are existent and not empty. Therefore, it is said that the essence of the two truths encompasses emptiness and existence, and it is not as previously said that ultimate truth is all empty. Now that the two truths spoken of by the two schools are known, the next question should be asked: where do emptiness and existence come from? The side that believes ultimate truth is empty says that the *Great Sutra* says, 'Even if there is a dharma that surpasses Nirvana, I would also say that it is like a phantom or illusion.' The *Heart Sutra* says, 'Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, and so are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.' This sutra also says, 'Prajnaparamita is not Prajnaparamita, and there is nothing that can be said, etc.' According to these teachings, all dharmas are empty. Also, the five aggregates say, 'If a dharma had its own nature, it could naturally arise.' Since it relies on conditions, it is clearly known that it is not real. Like tying a knot in a handkerchief. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
为兔等像。无兔等性。应理者曰。即准此经福聚无量。如何非有。又说。如来有五眼等。又发阿耨菩提者。于法不说断灭相等。又复经云。有为无为名为有。我及我所名为无。又云。无我无造无受者。善恶之法亦不亡等。虽说藉缘是幻化体都无所有。由应理者。亦以幻化喻依他故。星翳灯幻喻有为故。又说众生我皆令入无余灭度。若皆空者何。假令空花而□于涅槃胜空者。云此等诸法文。皆据俗谛非真空中有造修等应理。难曰。如之俗谛与胜义谛为一为异。若言一者有空相违。不见苦乐及冷热等间为一故。若言异者二谛本俱。如何一有而一非有。彼答。二谛其体无别。俗谛体有可苦乐等非体通。二谛相对妄情是有真理皆空。今随妄情说俗谛有。就实而谈俗谛亦空。难曰。世俗妄故。令舍俗谛入真空者。是无诸法断灭相过。答。体既是无。无可断灭故。言不说法断灭相。此与应理解释全别。问曰。依胜空说妄有真无二谛体一。未审应理所说二谛为一为异。答。应理所说非一非异。何以故。义用别故非一。无别体故非异。即如瓶军林等。五法相望展转皆尔。既非一异。翻此即说或异或一。皆无有妨。仁王经云。有无本自二。譬如牛二角。照见解无二。二谛常不即。解心见无二。求二不可得。非谓二谛一。非二何可得。于解 现代汉语译本 譬如兔子之类的形象，实际上并没有兔子的自性。如果按照应理者的说法，仅仅依据此经，所获得的福德就无量无边，怎么能说它不存在呢？ 经中又说，如来具有五眼等等。 并且发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心的人，对于一切法，不说是断灭的相。 经中又说，有为法和无为法，可以称之为‘有’。 ‘我’以及‘我所’，可以称之为‘无’。 经中又说，没有‘我’，没有造作者，也没有承受者，善恶之法也不会因此而消亡等等。 虽然说凭借因缘而生的是幻化的，其体性都是空无所有的，但应理者也用幻化的比喻来形容依他起性。 星星、眼翳、灯焰的幻象，比喻有为法。 经中又说，我将使一切众生都进入无余涅槃。 如果一切都是空，又有什么可以进入涅槃呢？ 即使是虚空的鲜花，也比涅槃的殊胜空性更为实在。 如果说这些经文，都是依据世俗谛而说，并非在真空之中有造作、修行等等，应理者反驳说：如果世俗谛与胜义谛是一还是异？ 如果说是一，那么有和空就相互矛盾，因为我们看不到苦乐、冷热等等之间是一体的。 如果说是异，那么二谛本来就同时存在，为什么一个存在而另一个不存在呢？ 对方回答说：二谛的体性并没有差别，世俗谛的体性有苦乐等等，但并非体性相通。 二谛相对而言，对于虚妄的情感来说是‘有’，对于真实的道理来说都是‘空’。 现在我们顺应虚妄的情感，所以说世俗谛是‘有’。 就真实而言，世俗谛也是‘空’。 反驳说：如果世俗是虚妄的，因此要舍弃世俗谛而进入真空，那么就犯了诸法断灭相的过失。 回答说：体性本来就是空无，没有什么可以断灭的，所以说不说法断灭相。 这与应理者的解释完全不同。 问：依据胜义空来说，虚妄的有和真实的无，二谛体性是一。 不知道应理者所说的二谛是一还是异？ 答：应理者所说非一非异。 为什么呢？ 因为义用不同，所以非一；没有不同的体性，所以非异。 就像瓶子、军队、树林等等，五法相互观望，辗转都是如此。 既然非一异，那么反过来说或异或一，都没有妨碍。《仁王经》说：有和无本来就是二，譬如牛的两只角。 照见理解没有二，二谛常常不即。 理解的心见没有二，寻求二不可得。 不是说二谛是一，如果不是二，又怎么可以得到呢？ 在理解上
English
English version For example, images like rabbits do not possess the inherent nature of rabbits. According to those who adhere to reason (应理者, Yīnglǐ zhě), based solely on this scripture, the accumulation of merit is immeasurable; how can it be said that it does not exist? Furthermore, it is said that the Tathagata (如来, Rúlái) possesses the five eyes, and those who aspire to Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (阿耨多罗三藐三菩提, Ānòuduōluósānmiǎosānpútí, unsurpassed, complete enlightenment) do not speak of cessation or annihilation regarding all dharmas. Moreover, the scripture states that conditioned (有为, yǒu wéi) and unconditioned (无为, wú wéi) phenomena can be termed 'existent' (有, yǒu). 'I' (我, wǒ) and 'mine' (我所, wǒ suǒ) can be termed 'non-existent' (无, wú). Furthermore, it is said that there is no 'self' (无我, wú wǒ), no creator (无造, wú zào), and no receiver (无受者, wú shòu zhě); the laws of good and evil do not perish, and so on. Although it is said that what arises from conditions is illusory and its nature is entirely empty, those who adhere to reason also use the metaphor of illusion to describe dependent origination (依他, yī tā). The illusions of stars, cataracts, and lamp flames are metaphors for conditioned phenomena. Moreover, it is said that I will lead all beings into Nirvana without remainder (无余涅槃, wú yú niè pán). If everything is empty, what is there to enter Nirvana? Even flowers in the sky are more real than the supreme emptiness of Nirvana. If it is said that these scriptures are based on conventional truth (俗谛, sú dì) and that there is no creation or practice in ultimate emptiness, those who adhere to reason retort: Are conventional truth and ultimate truth (胜义谛, shèng yì dì) one or different? If they are said to be one, then existence and emptiness contradict each other, because we do not see suffering and happiness, cold and heat, etc., as being one. If they are said to be different, then the two truths exist simultaneously; why is one existent and the other non-existent? The other party replies: The nature of the two truths is not different. The nature of conventional truth has suffering and happiness, etc., but it is not a universally connected nature. Relative to the two truths, for deluded emotions, there is 'existence'; for true reason, everything is 'empty'. Now, we follow deluded emotions, so we say that conventional truth is 'existent'. In reality, conventional truth is also 'empty'. The rebuttal is: If conventional truth is deluded, and therefore we should abandon conventional truth and enter emptiness, then we commit the fault of the annihilation of all dharmas. The reply is: The nature is originally empty, so there is nothing to annihilate; therefore, we do not speak of the annihilation of dharmas. This is completely different from the explanation of those who adhere to reason. The question is: Based on ultimate emptiness, deluded existence and true non-existence, the nature of the two truths is one. I do not know whether the two truths spoken of by those who adhere to reason are one or different. The answer is: The two truths spoken of by those who adhere to reason are neither one nor different. Why? Because the meaning and function are different, so they are not one; there is no different nature, so they are not different. Just like a pot, an army, a forest, etc., the five dharmas look at each other, and they are all like this in turn. Since they are neither one nor different, then saying they are either different or one is not an obstacle. The *Renwang Sutra* (仁王经, Rénwáng jīng, the *Humane Kings Sutra*) says: Existence and non-existence are originally two, like the two horns of a cow. Seeing and understanding are not two, the two truths are often not identical. The mind of understanding and seeing are not two, seeking two is unattainable. It is not said that the two truths are one; if they are not two, how can they be attained? In understanding --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
当自一。于谛当自二。通达此无二。入真第一义。颂意真如为胜义谛。依他遍计为世俗谛。二智境故名为谛。异唯约真智即称解或一异或皆无有违。唯识亦云。故此与依他非异非不异。如无常等性非不见此彼。瑜伽七十五云。于大乘中。或有一类恶取空故。作如是言。由世俗故。一切皆有。由胜义故。一切皆无 应告彼言。何者世俗何者胜义。彼若本言义。一切法皆无自性。是名胜义。若于诸法无自性中自性可得。是名世俗。何以无所有中建立世俗经假设名言而起说故。应告彼曰。汝何所欲名言世俗为从因有自性可得。为唯名言世俗说有。若名言世俗从因有者。名言世俗从因而生而非是有。不应道理。又应告言。长老何缘诸可得者此无自性(此难俗有胜义即无)彼答言。颠倒事故(谓心颠倒于无谓有如见空花)复应告言。汝何所欲此颠倒事为有为无。若言有者。说一切法由胜义故皆无自性。不应道理。若言无者。颠倒事故。诸可得者此无自性。不应道理。空者者曰。大菩萨藏经第二卷云。空与菩萨性无有二。由无二故不可言说。又云。远离取执。胜义谛中。无法可得。由性无故。说名为空。由此说空为□了义应理者此亦非证。谓依瞬若遍计无故。与觉无二。又瞬若多空性真如与觉无二。不言菩提体即空无。若实皆空何 现代汉语译本： 应当自己明白第一义谛。对于真谛，应当自己明白第二义谛。通达这无二的道理，就能进入真正的第一义。颂文的意思是真如是胜义谛（paramārtha-satya，最终真理），依他起性和遍计所执性是世俗谛（saṃvṛti-satya，相对真理）。因为是两种智慧的境界，所以称为谛。不同之处只在于用真智来观察，就称为解脱，或者说一异或者皆无，都没有违背。唯识宗也这样说。所以这（真如）与依他起性并非异，也并非不异。就像无常等性质，并非不能见到此彼（的差别）。《瑜伽师地论》第七十五卷说：‘在大乘中，或者有一类人错误地执着于空性，所以这样说：由于世俗谛的缘故，一切都存在；由于胜义谛的缘故，一切都不存在。’ 应当告诉他们：‘什么是世俗谛？什么是胜义谛？’他们如果本来就说，一切法都没有自性，这叫做胜义谛；如果在诸法没有自性之中，自性可以得到，这叫做世俗谛。为什么呢？因为在什么都没有之中，建立世俗的假设名言，然后才开始述说。应当告诉他们：‘你们想要怎样的名言世俗谛？是从因缘而有，自性可以得到呢？还是仅仅是名言世俗谛，说说而已？’如果名言世俗谛是从因缘而有，那么名言世俗谛是从因缘而生，而不是真实存在的，这不合道理。又应当告诉他们：‘长老，因为什么缘故，那些可以得到的事物，在这里（胜义谛中）没有自性呢？’（这是责难世俗谛存在，胜义谛就应该不存在）他们回答说：‘因为颠倒的缘故。’（意思是心颠倒，把没有的当作有，就像看见空中的花朵）又应当告诉他们：‘你们想要怎样的颠倒事？是有还是没有？’如果说是有的，那么说一切法由于胜义谛的缘故都没有自性，就不合道理。如果说是没有的，那么因为颠倒的缘故，那些可以得到的事物在这里没有自性，就不合道理。 空性论者说：《大菩萨藏经》第二卷说：‘空性与菩萨的自性没有二致。由于没有二致的缘故，不可言说。’又说：‘远离取着执着，在胜义谛中，没有法可以得到。由于自性本空的缘故，所以叫做空。’由此说空性是究竟了义。认为这样说合乎道理的人，这也是不能作为证据的。因为依靠刹那生灭的遍计所执性没有的缘故，与觉悟没有二致。又刹那生灭的众多空性真如与觉悟没有二致，并不是说菩提的本体就是空无。如果一切都是空，那么为什么呢？