大乘義章 2.86

2.86

第四門中辨其相攝。就彼四中攝末從本，要唯二諦，所謂世界、第一義也。對治、為人判屬何中？若總分之，對治、為人判屬世諦，非第一義。故彼論云「前三悉檀所不通者，至第一義一切皆通。」明知第一非前三種。所言通者，論自釋言「離一切過，無變無勝，義無隱滯，故名為通。」又彼論言「除第一義，諸餘悉檀皆可破壞。」明知餘三非第一義。以實通論，二諦之中皆具有彼對治、為人，具有之相備以上辨。理實既通，何故論中說第一義不同前三？以世界中彰彼對治、為人義顯，故第一中隱而不說。又復彼論說第一義異前三者，異彼世界及世界中對治、為人，非謂異於第一義中對治、為人。亦可就彼第一義中所有對治、為人之義，約化辨異，攝入世界。據實論之，就第一義所明對治、各各為人，即是第一，非世界也。悉檀之義，略舉綱網。

In the fourth section, their mutual subsumption is distinguished. Gathering the branches back to the root among those four, there are fundamentally only the two truths, namely the worldly and the ultimate. Under which are the therapeutic and for-persons classified and subsumed? If divided generally, the therapeutic and for-persons are classified under the conventional truth, and are not the ultimate. Therefore, that treatise says: "What the preceding three siddhāntas do not penetrate, when reaching the ultimate, all penetrates." It is clearly known that the ultimate is not the preceding three kinds. As for what is called "penetrates," the treatise itself explains: "Free from all faults, without alteration and without superiority, its meaning unobstructed—therefore it is called 'penetrates'." Furthermore, that treatise says: "Except for the ultimate, all other siddhāntas can be refuted." It is clearly known that the remaining three are not the ultimate.

Discussing it comprehensively according to reality, both truths possess the therapeutic and the for-persons; the characteristics of their possession have been fully distinguished above. Since in reality and principle they are mutually applicable, why does the treatise say that the ultimate is not the same as the preceding three? Because the meaning of the therapeutic and for-persons is manifested prominently within the worldly, it is hidden and not spoken of within the ultimate. Furthermore, when that treatise states that the ultimate differs from the preceding three, it differs from the worldly and the therapeutic and for-persons within the worldly; it does not mean that it differs from the therapeutic and for-persons within the ultimate. Alternatively, all meanings of therapeutic and for-persons within the ultimate can be subsumed into the worldly by differentiating them with reference to converting beings. Discussing it according to reality, the therapeutic and individual person set forth in relation to the ultimate are precisely the ultimate, not the worldly. The meaning of the siddhāntas has been briefly outlined.