妙法蓮華經玄義 2.152

2.152

However, those who cling [to views] differ. Min of Zhuangyan based himself on the fruit of buddhahood transcending the two truths, which was examined by masters of the Madhyamakaśāstra: What principle does such buddha-wisdom illuminate? What affliction does it destroy? If there is no distinct principle to illuminate, it should not transcend them; if it transcends them without a distinct illumination, by relying on what could it emerge? Going forward it does not form three, stepping back it does not form two (and so on). During the Liang dynasty, masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra held differing views on conventional truth: some said that for conventional truth, name, function, and substance all exist; some said there are only name and function but no substance; some said there is only name without substance or function (and so on). During the Chen dynasty, masters of the Madhyamakaśāstra differed in their refutations and establishments: some refuted the ancient twenty-three schools that clarified the meaning of the two truths and established their own meaning of the two truths; some, having refuted others, clarified the two truths on the basis of the fourfold provisionality. Ancient and modern disparate attachments each cite textual evidence, each safeguarding their own single text and not believing other teachings.