妙法蓮華經玄義 10.44

10.44

次難有相無相大乘教者，相無相不應單說。何者？本約真論俗，還約俗論真，一切智人以無為法而有差別。《華嚴》雖論十地，何曾不約法身？《楞伽》、《思益》雖復論空，何曾不說無生忍？若純用有相，相則無體，教何所詮？亦不得道。若純用無相，無相真寂，絕言離相，言語道斷，心行處滅，則非復是教，云何可說？若言是教，教即是相，何謂無相？《大品》須菩提問云：若諸法畢竟無所有，云何說有一地乃至十地？佛答云：以諸法畢竟無所有故，則有菩薩初地至十地，若諸法有決定性者，則無一地乃至十地。故知二種大乘，別說乖經（云云）。

Next, I critique the Mahāyāna teachings of with-marks and without-marks: with-marks and without-marks should not be expounded singly. Why? Originally, based on the ultimate, one discusses the conventional; in turn, based on the conventional, one discusses the ultimate. The omniscient person distinguishes them by means of unconditioned dharmas. Although the Avataṃsaka discusses the ten stages, when did it ever fail to rely on the dharma-kāya? Although the Laṅkāvatāra and the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā discuss emptiness, when did they ever fail to expound the acquiescence in non-arising? If one purely uses with-marks, marks have no substance—what would the teaching express? Nor would one attain the way. If one purely uses without-marks, without-marks is truly quiescent, beyond words and free of marks; the path of words is cut off, and the sphere of mental activity extinguished; then it is no longer a teaching, so how could it be expounded? If one says it is a teaching, teaching is precisely marks, so how could it be called without-marks? In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, Subhūti asks: 'If all dharmas ultimately have nothing existent, why say there is the first stage up to the tenth stage?' The Buddha answered: 'Because all dharmas ultimately have nothing existent, therefore there are the bodhisattva's first stage up to the tenth stage; if dharmas had a determinate nature, there would be no first stage up to the tenth stage.' Therefore, we know that speaking separately of the two kinds of Mahāyāna contradicts the sūtras (and so forth).