妙法蓮華經玄義 10.42

10.42

次難圓宗，若言《大集》染淨圓融，異於《涅槃》、《華嚴》者，此亦不然。《大品》云：「即色是空，非色滅空。」《釋論》解云：「色是生死，空是涅槃，生死際，涅槃際，一而無二。」此豈非染淨俱融？又云：「一切趣色欲，趣瞋、趣癡、諸見等。」豈非俱融之相。《淨名》云：「一切塵勞是如來種。不斷癡愛，起諸明脫，行於非道，通達佛道」，此圓融何異《大集》（云云）。

Next, I critique the perfect tenet: if it is said that the Mahāsaṃnipāta has the perfect integration of defilement and purity, distinct from the Nirvāṇa and the Avataṃsaka, this too is not so. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: 'Form itself is emptiness; it is not that form is destroyed to become empty.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains: 'Form is saṃsāra, emptiness is nirvāṇa; the limit of saṃsāra and the limit of nirvāṇa are one and not two.' How is this not the integration of both defilement and purity? It also says: 'All dharmas converge into lust, anger, delusion, various views, and so forth.' How is this not the mark of mutual integration? The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'All afflictions are the seeds of the Tathāgata. Without severing delusion and craving, one gives rise to clarities and liberations; walking in non-ways, one penetrates the buddha-way.' How does this perfect integration differ from the Mahāsaṃnipāta (and so forth)?