妙法蓮華經玄義 10.29

10.29

次難偏方不定教，謂非次第，別為一緣，如《金光》、《勝鬘》、《楞伽》、《殃掘》之流也。問：《殃掘》之經，六年所說，列次第眾，委悉餘經，彈斥明常，分明餘教，釋梵四王及十弟子，乃至文殊，皆被訶斥，同聞宛然，應入次第，而今判作偏方。《淨名》亦是彈訶，那得引為次第？又《淨名》所訶，事在往昔，追述前語，以辭不堪。當知十二年前已應被訶，與《殃掘》同。若殃掘偏方，則《淨名》非次。若謂《殃掘》明常，別為一緣者，《淨名》云：「塵勞之儔是如來種」，何得是次第之說（云云）？

Next, I challenge the 'partial and indeterminate teaching', said to not belong to the sequence but to be an independent occasion, such as the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, Śrīmālādevī, Laṅkāvatāra, and Aṅgulimāla. I ask: The Aṅgulimāla-sūtra was expounded during the six years [of the early period], yet it lists the assembled congregation in sequential order, details other sūtras, scolds and clarifies permanence, distinguishing other teachings clearly; Indra, Brahmā, the Four Heavenly Kings, the ten disciples, and even Mañjuśrī are all scolded and reproved. Those who heard it together are clearly present, so it ought to enter the sequence; yet now it is judged as 'partial'. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is also a text of scolding; how could it be cited as belonging to the sequence? Furthermore, what Vimalakīrti scolded occurred in the past, recounting prior words to decline being up to the task. One should know that already before the twelve years they ought to have been scolded, identical to the Aṅgulimāla. If the Aṅgulimāla is partial, then the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is not sequential. If you say the Aṅgulimāla clarifies permanence and is an independent occasion, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'The company of afflictions is the seed of the Tathāgata'—how could that be a sequential teaching? (and so forth).