妙法蓮華經玄義 10.30

10.30

次難其依《涅槃》五味判五時教。用從牛出乳，譬三藏十二年前有相教；從乳出酪，譬十二年後般若無相教；從酪出生蘇，譬方等褒貶教；從生蘇出熟蘇，譬萬善同歸法華教；從熟蘇出醍醐，譬涅槃常住教。此現見乖文義理、顛倒相生，殊不次第。何者？經云：「從牛出乳」，譬初從佛出十二部經，云何以十二部對於九部有相教耶？一者、有相教無十二部。二者、有相教非佛初說，故不應以此為對（云云）。彼即救云：小乘亦有十二部。引文證云：雪山忍草，牛若食者，即出醍醐。更有異草，牛若食者，不出醍醐，故知大小通有十二部，但有佛性無佛性之異耳！今問：縱令通有十二部者，何故不取明佛性之十二部為乳教耶？大經第七云：「九部不明佛性，是人無罪。如言大海，唯有七寶，無有八寶，是人無罪。」例此而言，若十二部無佛性者，是人得罪。既言具十二部，何意不明佛性即墮得罪之句，豈會無罪十二部耶？

Next, I challenge their classification of the five periods of teachings based on the five flavors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. They use milk coming from a cow to illustrate the teaching of marks before the twelve years of the Tripiṭaka; curds coming from milk to illustrate the signless prajñā teaching after the twelve years; raw butter coming from curds to illustrate the vaipulya teaching of scolding and praising; clarified butter coming from raw butter to illustrate the Lotus teaching of myriad goods converging into one; and ghee coming from clarified butter to illustrate the Nirvāṇa teaching of eternal permanence. This visibly contradicts the text and the meaning, engenders an inversion, and is not sequential at all. Why is that? The sūtra says: 'Milk coming from a cow' illustrates the twelvefold canon first coming forth from the Buddha; how can the twelvefold canon be correlated with the ninefold teaching of marks? First, the teaching of marks does not possess the twelvefold canon. Second, the teaching of marks was not what the Buddha expounded first; therefore, it should not be taken as its correlate (and so forth). They then rescue their view by saying: the Hīnayāna also possesses the twelvefold canon. They cite the text as proof: if cows eat the enduring grass of the Snow Mountains, they produce ghee; if cows eat other grasses, they do not produce ghee; thus we know that both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna universally possess the twelvefold canon, differing only in possessing or lacking the buddha-nature. Now I ask: even granting that they universally possess the twelvefold canon, why not take the twelvefold canon that clarifies the buddha-nature as the milk teaching? Fascicle seven of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'If [one says that] the nine divisions do not clarify the buddha-nature, this person commits no fault. Just as when saying the great ocean only has seven treasures and lacks the eighth treasure, this person commits no fault.' By this analogy, if the twelve divisions lacked the buddha-nature, this person would incur a fault. Since you say it is fully equipped with the twelve divisions, why would its failure to clarify the buddha-nature fall into the phrase of incurring a fault? How could it accord with the faultless twelve divisions?