二諦義 2.19

2.19

問：此兩釋何異？解云：俗以浮虛為義，此即望真釋。明聖人所知真實，凡夫所知浮虛，對真釋俗也。若是風俗釋俗，則當俗釋俗，只處所風俗不同，故名為俗，此無所望也。前則望他、後則當自，自他異也。又前約經釋、後就律釋。河西云：「佛法不出經律二藏，阿毘曇只分別經律耳。」故經律攝佛法盡也。前釋約經者，經明諸法浮虛，無所有故。浮虛釋俗，約經也。風俗釋就律者，明律中不得道諸法浮虛無所有，不得道人是浮虛草木浮虛。何以故？為制戒令佛法久住故。所以不得明物浮虛無所有，但明國土風俗不同也。此則就經律釋異，由來亦不知也。

Question: What is the difference between these two explanations? Explanation: Conventional taking insubstantiality as its meaning is an explanation viewing [it in relation to] the ultimate. It clarifies that what the noble one knows is real, and what the ordinary person knows is insubstantial; it explains the conventional in contrast to the ultimate. If one explains conventional as custom, it explains the conventional in terms of the conventional itself: merely because the customs of places differ, it is called conventional; this has no reference [to the ultimate]. The former views the other; the latter pertains to oneself; self and other differ. Furthermore, the former is explained in terms of the sūtras, and the latter is explained in terms of the Vinaya. Hexi said: "The Buddha-Dharma does not go beyond the two piṭakas of Sūtra and Vinaya; the Abhidharma merely discriminates the Sūtras and Vinaya." Therefore, Sūtras and Vinaya encompass the Buddha-Dharma entirely. That the former explanation is in terms of the sūtras means: the sūtras clarify that all dharmas are insubstantial, because they have nothing existent. Explaining conventional as insubstantial is in terms of the sūtras. Explaining it as custom in terms of the Vinaya clarifies that within the Vinaya one cannot say that all dharmas are insubstantial and non-existent; one cannot say people are insubstantial or grass and trees are insubstantial. Why? In order to formulate precepts so that the Buddha-Dharma abides long. Therefore, one cannot clarify things as insubstantial and non-existent; one merely clarifies that the customs of countries differ. This is the difference explained in terms of Sūtra and Vinaya, which has also been unknown up to now.