妙法蓮華經玄義 10.40

10.40

次難五宗者，難四宗如前。若言《華嚴》為法界宗，異《大涅槃》，《涅槃》非法界，但名常宗。《大經》云：「大般涅槃是諸佛法界」，若為劣謝《華嚴》耶？若常非法界，法界非常，法界非常應有生滅，常非法界攝法不盡，此皆不可然也。《大品》云：「不見一法出法性外」者，法性即是法界。又云：「一切法趣色，是趣不過」，豈非法界之說？而獨言華嚴是法界，異於《涅槃》、《大品》耶？

Next, I critique the five tenets: the critique of the four tenets is as above. If it is said that the Avataṃsaka is the dharma-dhātu tenet, distinct from the Mahāparinirvāṇa, and that the Nirvāṇa is not the dharma-dhātu but merely named the eternal tenet: the Mahāsūtra says, 'Mahāparinirvāṇa is the dharma-dhātu of all buddhas'—how could it be inferior to the Avataṃsaka? If the eternal were not the dharma-dhātu, and the dharma-dhātu were not eternal, then a non-eternal dharma-dhātu would have arising and perishing, and an eternal that is not the dharma-dhātu would fail to encompass all dharmas; neither of these is admissible. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says, 'One does not see a single dharma outside the dharma-nature'—dharma-nature is precisely the dharma-dhātu. It also says, 'All dharmas converge into form, and this convergence cannot be surpassed'—how is this not an exposition of the dharma-dhātu? Why state exclusively that the Avataṃsaka is the dharma-dhātu, distinct from the Nirvāṇa and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā?