Candrakirti and Nāgārjuna have a gap of 400 years, so Candrakirti was more affected by a plentiful Buddhist philosophies than Nāgārjuna. He accepts and acculturates ‘The two truth(二諦觀)' of the Nāgārjuna as a step of Budda's teaching. He criticizes substantialist instead of defining the ‘Ultimate truth(勝義諦)' so that make clear meaning of the ‘Dependent arising(緣起)'. He makes a distinction between ‘True relative truth(正俗諦)' and ‘False relative truth(顚倒俗諦)' in 'Relative truth(世俗諦)'. It is more delicate than Nāgārjuna's work. The distinguishing mark of Candrakirti's work is to classify all entities as ‘Suchness(實相)' that is perceived by the wisdom of sublime beings and as ‘Relative truth' that is perceived by ordinary beings who are contaminated by ignorance. When he talks about Ultimate truth, he does not value it as something very holy or absolute. And he does not describe Relative truth as somthing to be thrown away. He thinks that Ultimate truth is not a subject to be defined by expressive function of language and categorical syllogism(定言的 推論式). He insists that if there is no the view of substantialism, classification between Ultimate truth and Relative truth will be meaningless.