妙法蓮華經玄義 5.135

5.135

十、類通三德者，《大經》三德，共成大涅槃。此經三軌，共成大乘。彼明法身德，此云實相。彼云：「佛性者亦一」一切眾生悉一乘故，亦是指實相為一乘。彼處明般若德；此經明其智慧門難解難入。「我所得智慧，微妙最第一」乃至「決了聲聞法，是諸經之王」皆是般若。彼經明解脫德；此經明數數示現，現生現滅，隨所調伏眾生之處，自既無累，令他解脫，乃至收取萬善事中功德悉得證果，豈非解脫？二經義合，碌碌之徒，隨名異解，譬聞天帝，不識憍尸。唯知《涅槃》佛性之文，不見雙樹有一乘之旨。彼文親說佛性亦一，一即一乘。而人云：「此乃《涅槃》一乘是佛性，《法華》一乘非佛性。」若言《法華》不明佛性者，《涅槃》不應遙指云：「八千聲聞於法華中，得受記莂，如秋收冬藏，見如來性，更無所作。」而人云：「《涅槃》有遙指之文，此中無佛性之語。」今據此文：「種種性相義，而我皆已見。」既言種種，何獨簡於佛性耶？又，「世間相常住。於道場知已，導師方便說。」豈非佛性之文耶？《論》云：「佛性水常不輕。」知眾生有佛性。又《涅槃》三德為祕密藏。安置諸子祕密藏中，我亦不久當入其中，此即自他俱入祕密。此經云：「佛自住大乘，以此度眾生。終不以小乘濟度諸眾生，悉以如來滅度而滅度之。」如是自他俱入如來滅度。滅度秖是涅槃，涅槃秖是祕藏。《釋論》云：「《法華》為祕藏，兩經文義宛宛恒同。」何故諸人，苟欲抗異？若文義舛隔，作同想無罪，今文義本合，離之何福？但《涅槃》以佛性為宗，非不明一乘義；今經以一乘為宗，非不明佛性義。赴機異說，其義常通也。若三德縱橫即是麁；不縱橫即是妙。歷七位（云云）。

Tenth, in correlating and showing equivalence with the three virtues: in the Great Sūtra [the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra], the three virtues together constitute Great Nirvāṇa; in this sūtra, the three tracks together constitute the Great Vehicle. There, the virtue of the dharma-kāya is explained; here, it is called the real mark. There, it says, "Buddha-nature is also one"; because all sentient beings belong to the one vehicle alone, this also points to the real mark as the one vehicle. There, the virtue of prajñā is explained; this sūtra explains that its gate of wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. "The wisdom I have attained is subtle, wonderful, and foremost," and up to "it definitively explains the śrāvaka dharmas and is the king among all sūtras"—all these are prajñā. That sūtra explains the virtue of liberation; this sūtra explains the repeatedly manifesting, showing birth and showing extinction in whatever places sentient beings are to be tamed—being free from encumbrance oneself and causing others to attain liberation, up to gathering the merit within all ten thousand good deeds so that all attain the realization of the fruit—how could this not be liberation? The meaning of the two sūtras harmonizes, yet mediocre fellows form diverging understandings based on names; it is like hearing of the Sovereign of Devas without recognizing Kauśika. They only know the text on buddha-nature in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], but fail to see the purport of the one vehicle under the twin trees. That text explicitly states that buddha-nature is also one, and the one is precisely the one vehicle. Yet people say, "Here, the one vehicle of the Nirvāṇa is buddha-nature, whereas the one vehicle of the Lotus is not buddha-nature." If one claims that the Lotus does not clarify buddha-nature, the Nirvāṇa would not point back from afar, saying: "The eight thousand śrāvakas in the Lotus received vyākaraṇa, like autumn harvest and winter storage; seeing the Tathāgata-nature, they have nothing further to do." Yet people say, "The Nirvāṇa has the text pointing back from afar, but here [in the Lotus] there is no talk of buddha-nature." Now, relying on this text [in the Lotus]: "The various aspects of nature and marks, I have fully seen them all." Since it speaks of "various," why would it exclude buddha-nature alone? Furthermore: "The worldly marks are permanent. Having known this at the seat of awakening, the Guide expounds it through provisional means." How is this not a passage on buddha-nature? The Treatise states: "The water of buddha-nature is Sadāparibhūta." One knows that sentient beings have buddha-nature. Furthermore, the three virtues of the Nirvāṇa constitute the secret storehouse: "Placing the sons within the secret storehouse, I too will before long enter into it"; this means that both oneself and others enter the secret. This sūtra says: "The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle; using this, he delivers sentient beings. He never saves sentient beings through the lesser vehicle, but delivers all through the extinction of the Tathāgata." Thus, both oneself and others enter the extinction of the Tathāgata. Extinction is simply nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa is simply the secret storehouse. The Commentary states: "The Lotus is the secret storehouse; the texts and meanings of the two sūtras are perfectly and constantly identical." Why then do various people insist on creating divergence? If the texts and meanings were discordant and separated, to imagine them as identical would still carry no fault; now their texts and meanings are inherently harmonious, so what merit is there in separating them? The Nirvāṇa merely takes buddha-nature as its central purport, yet does not fail to clarify the meaning of the one vehicle; the present sūtra takes the one vehicle as its central purport, yet does not fail to clarify the meaning of buddha-nature. They are distinct teachings matching spiritual capacities, yet their meaning is ever-pervading. If the three virtues are vertical or horizontal, they are coarse; if they are neither vertical nor horizontal, they are subtle. Traced through the seven stages (and so forth).