妙法蓮華經玄義 10.187

10.187

復應當知諸大乘經指歸不殊，但隨宜為異耳。如《華嚴》、《無量義》、《法華》皆三昧名，《般若》是大智慧，《維摩》說「不思議解脫」是解脫、大涅槃是究竟滅，文殊問菩提是滿足道，悉是佛法。法無優劣，於中明果皆是佛果，明因皆是地行，明理皆是法性，所為皆是菩薩，指歸不當有異，人何為強作優劣？若爾，誕公云：雙樹已前，指《法華經》悉不了，豈非誣誷也？人情既爾，經論云何？

Furthermore, one should know that the ultimate destination of the various Mahāyāna sūtras is not different; it is merely varied according to appropriateness. For example, the Avataṃsaka, Amitārtha, and Saddharmapuṇḍarīka are all names of samādhi; the Prajñā is great wisdom; the Vimalakīrti speaks of 'inconceivable liberation,' which is liberation; the Mahāparinirvāṇa is ultimate cessation; and Mañjuśrī's inquiry into bodhi is the complete path—all of these are the Buddha-dharma. The Dharma has no superior or inferior: that the fruit explained therein is in every case the Buddha fruit; that the cause explained is in every case practice on the stages; that the principle explained is in every case dharma-nature; and that those for whom it is spoken are in every case bodhisattvas. The ultimate destination should not be different, so why do people insist on fabricating superior and inferior? If so, Master Dan said that prior to the twin trees, referring to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, all were incomplete—is this not a slandering fabrication? Human opinions being like this, what do the sūtras and treatises say?