中觀派一向著重在勝義空的說明，對於世俗的著墨較少，使得中觀的空義常被誤解為斷滅論者。而清辨（Bhāviveka）則對二諦開展其特殊的立場，他以「隨順勝義」（或稱第二勝義）作為溝通二諦的路徑，並且為了使此隨順勝義——例如說明其見解及遮遣他人主張的論式——發揮其功能而承許世俗諦自性有，使得論式本身及其元素具備形上基礎而可以著力以作為論辯的合法基礎。然而，他雖承許世俗有，但在《般若燈論》第二十七品之附錄特別提出「推論於勝義中亦是空」的立場以便釐清可能的疑慮。那麼，他的主張是否成功地解決了問題？這樣的鋪排是否合理呢？此隨順勝義在聞思修系統中如何扮演其適當的角色？此文將從清辨本身的著作《般若燈論》、《掌珍論》、《中觀心論》第五品甚至是護法的著作《廣百論釋》中梳理清辨確切的二諦立場。

Madhyamakas always focus on the explanation of emptiness from the ultimate aspect and do not attend too much to the conventional truth. This situation results in the misunderstanding that Madhyamakas are nihilists. Thus, Bhāviveka develops his unique two truths theory. He utilizes the Second Ultimate Truth (Skt: paryāya-paramārtha; Tib: mthun pa'i don dam)--for example those inferences for explaining the view of emptiness and refuting the assertions proposed by the opponents--to bridge the gap between the two truths and acknowledges that things are inherently existent in the conventional truth such that the use of inference has a proper foundation. However, in the appendix of Prajñāpradīpa, Bhāviveka specifi cally mentions that even hetuvidyā itself is empty in the ultimate truth in order to clarify the metaphysical doubt. Then, does his effort successfully resolve the difficulties? Is his theory of two truths reasonable? How does the Second Ultimat e Truth play an apposite role in the stages of hearing (śrutamayī), thinking (cintāmayī) and practicing (bhāvanāmayī). This paper will elucidate Bhāviveka’s theory of two truths in a precise manner from the study of his own works such as Prajñāpradīpa, Jewels in the Hand (*Karatalaratna) and Madhyamakahṛdaya-kārika and Dharmapāla’s work such as Ta-Ch’eng Kuang Pai-Lun Shih (*Catuḥ-śataka-vṛtti) to comprehensively explain how it works as a whole.