維摩經玄疏 6.37

6.37

一、明隨情二諦者，如諸論師撰二諦義，集古今乃有數十家明二諦義不同；又尋諸經論明二諦之相，亦有種種不同也。但二諦既是審實之理，何得異說不同？若一家為是，眾家併非，孰能判其是也。今作三種二諦，通釋眾家所明二諦，若有文證，則皆可用；諸經論異說，皆無滯也，故云「諸佛常依二諦說法」。但二諦之理不應有異，而諸師及眾經論異說不同者，皆是隨情之二諦也，隨世界、為人、對治、第一義四悉檀所辨之根情也。眾生根情，種種不同，佛教所明二諦，何止數十家之異，乃有無量不同，故《涅槃經》云「分別二諦，有無量相。我於彼經，竟不說之」，此何謂也？而末代各明一種二諦，不受眾家異說，將非大失乎！

First, clarifying the two truths conforming to sentiment: as when treatise masters compose expositions on the meaning of the two truths, collecting ancient and modern views there are dozens of masters whose explanations of the meaning of the two truths differ; furthermore, examining how the sūtras and treatises clarify the characteristics of the two truths, there are also various differences. But since the two truths are verified, real principles, how could there be differing and disparate explanations? If one school is right and all the others are wrong, who can judge which is right? Now, by establishing three kinds of two truths to comprehensively explain the two truths clarified by the various schools, if there is textual evidence, then all can be applied, and the differing explanations in the sūtras and treatises will all be free of obstruction. Therefore it is said: 'The buddhas constantly preach the Dharma relying on the two truths.' The principle of the two truths should not differ, yet the differing and disparate explanations of the masters and various sūtras and treatises all constitute two truths conforming to sentiment, discerning capacities and sentiments according to the four siddhāntas of worldly, individual, therapeutic, and paramārtha. Sentient beings' capacities and sentiments are varied and different; how could the two truths clarified in the Buddha's teaching be limited to the differences of dozens of masters? Rather, there are limitless variations. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Distinguishing the two truths has limitless aspects. In that sūtra I did not expound them after all.' What does this mean? Yet people of latter ages each explain one kind of two truths and do not accept the differing explanations of other masters—is this not a great error!