妙法蓮華經玄義 10.22

10.22

○三明難者，先難南地五時，其義不成，餘四時、三時，例壞也。若言十二年前名有相教者，成實論師，自誣己論。論云：「我今正欲明三藏中實義。」實義者，所謂空，是空非無相耶？三藏非十二年前耶？又《阿含》中說：「是老死，誰老死，二皆邪見；無是老死即法空，無誰老死即生空。」三藏經中自說二空，二空豈非無相？又《釋論》云：「三藏中明法空為大空。」摩訶衍中明十方空為大空。即以法空為大空，即大無相。又成道六年，即說《殃掘摩羅經》，明空最切，此非無相，誰是無相耶（云云）？又《大論》云：「從得道夜至泥洹夜，常說般若。」般若即空慧也。

Part three, clarifying the refutations: first, to refute the five periods of the southern region—its doctrine is untenable, and by the same token the remaining systems of four periods and three periods are also undermined. If one asserts that what was before the twelfth year is called the 'teaching of characteristics', the master of the *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* would be contradicting his own treatise. The treatise says: 'I now intend precisely to clarify the real meaning in the Tripiṭaka.' As for the 'real meaning', this refers to emptiness; is this emptiness not marklessness? And is the Tripiṭaka not before the twelfth year? Furthermore, the *Āgama*s state: '"This is old age and death" and "Whose old age and death is it?"—both are wrong views. That there is no "this old age and death" is dharma-emptiness; that there is no "whose old age and death" is sentient-being-emptiness.' The Tripiṭaka scriptures themselves speak of the two emptinesses; how could the two emptinesses not be markless? Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* states: 'In the Tripiṭaka, dharma-emptiness is explained as great emptiness.' In the Mahāyāna, the emptiness of the ten directions is explained as great emptiness. Since dharma-emptiness is taken as great emptiness, this is great marklessness. Furthermore, six years after attaining the Way, the *Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra* was preached, which clarifies emptiness most incisively; if this is not markless, what is markless (and so forth)? Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: 'From the night of attaining the Way to the night of nirvāṇa, [the Buddha] constantly preached prajñā.' Prajñā is precisely the wisdom of emptiness.