妙法蓮華經玄義 10.39

10.39

彼云誑相不真宗即是通教，常宗秖是真宗，即是通宗者，宗則通真、不真，不真何意沒宗而用教？真宗何意無教而立宗？宗若無教，何得知真？真宗若沒宗有教，則同名通教。若俱沒教留宗，則同名通宗。若俱安教，則同名通宗教。若留不真真，則名通不真宗。教通真宗，教通不真宗，可為三乘通脩，通真宗亦應三乘通脩也。若言此通是融通之通者，通教亦是通真之真也。此則兩名混同，義無別也。彼引《楞伽經》云：「說通教童蒙，宗通教菩薩」，故以真宗為通宗也。若爾，是則因緣、假名不真，皆是童蒙，不應悉立宗也。覆却並決，四宗名義，甚不便也。

They say that the tenet of non-reality as deceitful marks is the shared teaching, while the eternal tenet is simply the true tenet, which is the shared tenet. A tenet, then, would apply generally to both the true and the non-real; why would non-reality submerge the tenet and use 'teaching,' while the true tenet lacks 'teaching' and establishes 'tenet'? If a tenet lacks a teaching, how can one know what is true? If the true tenet submerges the tenet and has the teaching, both would be called 'shared teaching.' If both submerge the teaching and retain the tenet, both would be called 'shared tenet.' If both set up 'teaching,' both would be called 'teaching of the shared tenet.' If one retains the non-real and the true, they would be named 'shared non-real tenet.' If the teaching penetrates to the true tenet and the teaching penetrates to the non-real tenet, and can be shared practice for the three vehicles, then the shared true tenet should also be shared practice for the three vehicles. If it is said that this 'shared' (tong) means harmonious interpenetration, then the 'shared teaching' is also the truth that penetrates the true. These two names are conflated, without difference in meaning. They quote the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra: 'The expounded teaching is shared with the immature; the tenet is shared with the bodhisattvas,' hence they take the true tenet as the shared tenet. If so, then causes and conditions, nominal designations, and non-reality are all for the immature, and should not all be established as tenets. Examined upside down and right side up, the names and meanings of the four tenets are exceedingly awkward.