二諦義 2.19

2.19

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.