二諦義 3.3

3.3

問：此三經來意若為異耶？解云：此三經來意是同，言不無奢切。何者？《涅槃經》言奢，《大品》、《淨名經》言切。《涅槃經》奢者，《涅槃》云「世諦即第一義諦」，不云第一義諦即世諦，故涅槃言奢。《大品》、《淨名》切者，《大品》「色即是空、空即是色」，《淨名》亦爾，所以為切也又《涅槃經》但明世諦即第一義諦，不明第一義諦即世諦，通皆得。世諦既即第一義諦，第一義諦豈不即世諦？但《涅槃》隻用，故世諦即第一義諦也。若《大品經》則平道雙用，空即是色、色即空也。

Question: How do the intended aims of these three sūtras differ? Explanation: The intended aims of these three sūtras are the same, but the expressions are not without being broad or concise. How so? The expression of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is broad, while the expressions of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa are concise. Why is the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra broad? The Mahāparinirvāṇa says 'conventional truth is identical to ultimate truth', but does not say 'ultimate truth is identical to conventional truth'; hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa's words are broad. Why are the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa concise? The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states 'form is identical to emptiness, emptiness is identical to form', and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is likewise; therefore they are concise. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra only clarifies that conventional truth is identical to ultimate truth, without clarifying that ultimate truth is identical to conventional truth, yet across the board both are admissible. Since conventional truth is already identical to ultimate truth, how could ultimate truth not be identical to conventional truth? But the Mahāparinirvāṇa employs it unilaterally, and so conventional truth is identical to ultimate truth. In the case of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, it employs both symmetrically: emptiness is identical to form, and form is identical to emptiness.