妙法蓮華經玄義 10.37

10.37

次難不真宗，此指《大品》十喻，為不真誑相者。龍樹彈方廣云：「取佛十喻，說一切如幻如化，無生無滅，失般若意，與外道同。」云何拾他被彈之義，立不真宗？若謂文明幻化，不辨佛性常住為不真者，此則不然。經明佛性常住，已如前說，何但此經明幻化耶？《華嚴》亦云：「如化忍、如夢忍。」「心如工幻師」等，種種譬喻。《涅槃》亦云：「諸法如幻化，佛於中不著」，絓是諸經皆明幻化，亦應是不真宗。若諸經幻化，非不真宗，何獨《大品》苦為誑相？

Next, I critique the tenet of non-reality: this refers to the ten similes of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā as illusory, deceitful marks. Nāgārjuna censured the Vaipulya, saying: 'Adopting the Buddha's ten similes to say that everything is like an illusion or an apparition, without arising and without perishing, is to lose the intent of prajñā and is identical to the non-Buddhists.' How can one pick up a meaning censured by others and establish the tenet of non-reality? If it is said that the text clarifying illusion and apparition without discerning the eternal abiding of buddha-nature constitutes non-reality, this is not so. That sūtras clarify the eternal abiding of buddha-nature has already been stated above; why would only this sūtra clarify illusion and apparition? The Avataṃsaka also speaks of 'acquiescence in [all things as] like an apparition, acquiescence in [all things as] like a dream,' 'the mind is like a clever conjurer,' and various other similes. The Nirvāṇa also says: 'All dharmas are like illusions and apparitions, and the Buddha does not attach to them.' Any sūtra that clarifies illusion and apparition should also be the tenet of non-reality. If illusion and apparition in the various sūtras are not the tenet of non-reality, why is the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā alone persistently made into deceitful marks?