妙法蓮華經玄義 10.31

10.31

若言從十二部出修多羅，修多羅對無相般若教者，脩多羅則通一切有相無相，五時皆名脩多羅，何以獨對無相般若？解云：般若中有直說義，復是第二時，故以對之。若言直說應是脩多羅者，般若中有譬說、因緣說、授記說、論義說，那得獨是直說耶？般若兼具眾說、以脩多羅為名者、餘經亦直說、何不對脩多羅？若言第二時者，何經非第二時，已如前難。從修多羅出方等經，用對褒貶淨名等教者，《淨名》不應在《大品》之後，已如前破（云云）。從方等出般若，用對法華者，經文自云般若，而曲辨為法華，迴經文就義，最為無意。《涅槃》云：「八千聲聞於法華受記」，不道般若受記，那得喚法華為般若？乖文失旨，不成次第也。從般若出大涅槃，彼即解云：從法華出大涅槃。此亦不會經文，譬如很子，又似㑦羊（云云）。

If you say that from the twelvefold canon come the sūtras, and correlate 'sūtras' with the signless prajñā teaching, then 'sūtras' universally applies to all with marks and without marks, and all five periods are called sūtras; why correlate it solely with signless prajñā? They explain: Prajñā contains direct exposition, and is also the second period, so it is correlated with it. If you say that direct exposition must be sūtras, prajñā contains exposition by parables, nidānas, vyākaraṇa, and upadeśa; how could it solely be direct exposition? If prajñā combines all expositions and takes sūtra as its name, other sūtras are also direct expositions; why are they not correlated with sūtra? If you say it is the second period, which sūtra is not the second period, as already refuted earlier? As for deriving the vaipulya sūtras from sūtras, using them to correlate with teachings of scolding and praising such as the Vimalakīrti, the Vimalakīrti should not come after the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, as already broken down earlier (and so forth). As for deriving prajñā from vaipulya and using it to correlate with the Lotus, the sūtra text itself says 'prajñā', yet they tortuously explain it as the Lotus, bending the sūtra's words to fit their interpretation, which is utterly senseless. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says, 'The eight thousand śrāvakas received vyākaraṇa in the Lotus'; it does not say they received vyākaraṇa in the Prajñā; how can one call the Lotus 'prajñā'? Contradicting the text and losing the purport, it fails to form a proper sequence. As for deriving the Mahāparinirvāṇa from prajñā, they then explain: deriving the Mahāparinirvāṇa from the Lotus. This likewise does not accord with the sūtra text, like an intractable child or a stubborn sheep (and so forth).