妙法蓮華經玄義 10.34

10.34

次難流支半滿義。從初鹿苑三藏皆明半義，從般若已去訖至涅槃，皆明滿者，此不應然。從得道夜，常說般若，鹿苑已來，何曾不滿？如提謂時，無量天人得無生忍。成道六年已，說《殃掘摩羅》。《涅槃》云：「我初成道，恒沙菩薩來問是義。如汝無異。」當知鹿苑，不應純半。從般若已去諸經皆滿者，《釋論》云：「般若非祕密教，以付阿難；法華是祕密教，付諸菩薩。」若同是滿教，何得一祕一不祕？又，若皆是滿，應同會三。又，若同是滿，生、熟二蘇應同是醍醐，醍醐應同是生、熟蘇。能譬之味既差別不同，所譬之法豈併是滿（云云）？

Next, I critique Bodhiruci's theory of the half and the full. If from the initial deer park the tripiṭaka exclusively clarifies the half meaning, and from the Prajñā onward up to nirvāṇa they exclusively clarify the full meaning, this cannot be so. From the night of attaining the way, the Buddha constantly expounded Prajñā; since the deer park, when was it ever not full? As in the time of Trapuṣa, immeasurable devas and humans attained the acquiescence in the non-arising [of dharmas]. Six years after attaining the way, he expounded the Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'When I first attained the way, bodhisattvas numerous as the sands of the Ganges came to ask about this meaning, no differently from you.' One should know that the deer park should not be purely half. If it is claimed that the various sūtras from the Prajñā onward are all full, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'The Prajñā is not an esoteric teaching and was entrusted to Ānanda; the Lotus Sūtra is an esoteric teaching and was entrusted to the bodhisattvas.' If both are equally the full teaching, why would one be esoteric and one not esoteric? Furthermore, if both are equally full, both should equally converge the three. Furthermore, if both are equally full, the two kinds of curd, fresh and clarified, should equally be ghee, and ghee should equally be fresh and clarified curd. Since the tastes that serve as similes differ, how could the dharmas being illustrated all alike be full (and so forth)?