妙法蓮華經玄義 8.99

8.99

前三句名義皆不融，初句尋一名，得一義，得一體，當門圓融，不關餘事。第二句尋異名，識異義、異體，體義名最不融，此易可知。第三句體既不融，名義雖同，終成不合，皆是別門明義。不得意者，諍從此起，或小陵大，或大奪小。何者？小乘欲斷生死，聞畢竟不但空，順其情欲，謂是但空，執此起諍。又小乘欲斷生死，故非有；破執涅槃病，故非無；聞中道非有非無，扶其小情，謂是已典非有非無，故於二門多起諍競。若聞中實理心與小相乖，則不起諍。何者？二乘翫空，而今聞有，二乘灰身滅智，今聞心智，與彼情乖，故不執作諍也。是以小陵盜大故諍。大奪小者，大乘學者見共三乘人空門，非空非有門，名同二乘不見深意，即推屬誑相不真宗。但取妙有、亦空亦有兩門，引是圓常之法，輸二不輸二，此諍少可。若知空是不但非有非無是遮二邊者，則四門俱奪，而小苦諍於二門。

In the preceding three propositions, name and meaning are all not integrated. In the first proposition, seeking one name, one gets one meaning and gets one substance; it is integrated within its own gate and does not pertain to other matters. In the second proposition, seeking different names, one recognizes different meanings and different substances; the substance, meaning, and name are least integrated—this is easily known. In the third proposition, since the substance is not integrated, even though name and meaning are the same, in the end they do not unite; these all explain meaning according to distinctive gates. For those who do not grasp the intent, disputes arise from this: either the small infringes upon the great, or the great usurps the small. How so? The small vehicle wishes to sever birth and death: hearing that 'ultimate' is not merely empty, it accords with its own desires, thinking it to be merely empty, and clinging to this gives rise to disputes. Furthermore, the small vehicle wishes to sever birth and death, hence 'non-existence'; to break the sickness of clinging to nirvāṇa, hence 'non-inexistence'. Hearing that the middle way is 'neither existing nor non-existing', it supports its small disposition, thinking it to be the 'neither existing nor non-existing' of its own scriptures; therefore, over these two gates disputes frequently arise. If they hear of 'the mind of the middle and real principle', because it contradicts the small, they do not give rise to dispute. Why? The two vehicles indulge in emptiness, but now hear of existence; the two vehicles turn the body to ashes and extinguish wisdom, but now hear of the mind of wisdom—contradicting their feelings, they do not cling to it or make disputes. Thus the small infringes upon and steals from the great, and therefore contends. As for the great usurping the small: Mahāyāna scholars see that the emptiness gate and the neither-empty-nor-existent gate shared with the three vehicles have names identical to those of the two vehicles; not seeing the deep meaning, they immediately assign them to deceptive marks and unreal tenets. Taking only the two gates of 'wondrous existence' and 'both empty and existent', they adduce them as the teaching of the perfect and eternal: losing two while not losing two, this dispute is somewhat tolerable. If one understands that emptiness is not mere emptiness and that neither existing nor non-existing negates both extremes, then all four gates are usurped [from the small], yet the small vehicle bitterly contends over two gates.