成唯識論了義燈 1.20

1.20

Not so; his explanation does not resolve it well. One should say: Bhāviveka and the others mean that speaking in terms of conventional truth, this is the supreme, and is therefore called 'definitive meaning', but not in view of ultimate truth. If, on the grounds that there is a contradiction, one says it is not the Buddha's word, that would make the noble teaching altogether untrustworthy. As for definitive and provisional meaning, the Fayuan distinguishes four [categories]. Now the Yaoji says that one more category should be added: clinging to names and words is called provisional, while not clinging to names is definitive. Thus the Susthitamatidevaputraparipṛcchā-sūtra says in its first part: 'As for definitive sūtras, all sūtras are definitive. Because they rely on the meaning, and because all dharmas are inexpressible, when a bodhisattva understands in this way, it is called definitive meaning. If someone, regarding all sūtras, cannot rely on the meaning in this way, this is called provisional meaning. Why is it called provisional? Because that person does not understand the definitive meaning.' According to this sūtra passage, it says: 'Because that person does not understand the definitive meaning, it is called provisional meaning.' It does not judge the sūtra itself to be of provisional meaning.