二諦義 3.3

3.3

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.