維摩經玄疏 6.37

6.37

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!