法華玄義釋籤 19.20

19.20

次難十二年後亦二，先牒所立以略非，次「若言」下廣破。彼師以般若教為第二時，故般若無褒貶等。所以約此而為難辭。於中為六：初難無相不成，次「若言」下難不明佛性，三「若言」下以般若無會三難，四「若言」下以般若無彈訶難，五「若言」下以般若是第二時教難，六以般若通十二年前難。初如文。次文又三：初單以正因佛性難，次「故知」下以三佛性難，三「若言無常」下以八十年不說佛性難。初文又二：初以共不共般若難，次「大經」下以名義同難。又為四：初引五名中有佛性般若難，次彼師救，三「若爾」下重破，四「又涅槃」下重引文結同。初文云「佛性有五種名」，如《止觀》第三記，意仍少別。次救云「涅槃自是三德中之般若，非無相」者，此過更甚：一者三德般若，猶有相過；二者無相般若，非三德過，若非三德，即是無常，若是無常云何無相？縱屬小乘，亦非十二年後般若，無相不成，況重破中還為《涅槃》所指，涅槃何殊般若耶？況重立結同中涅槃佛性，與實際般若不殊。

Next, in refuting after the twelve years, there are also two [parts]: first, he cites what was established to briefly reject it; next, from "If it is said..." downward, he broadly refutes it. That master took the Prajñā teaching as the second period, so that Prajñā had no praise, censure, and so forth. Therefore, relying on this, he framed the words of refutation. Within this, there are six [parts]: first, refuting that signlessness is not established; second, from "If it is said..." downward, refuting that it does not clarify the Buddha-nature; third, from "If it is said..." downward, refuting that Prajñā lacks the convergence of the three [vehicles]; fourth, from "If it is said..." downward, refuting that Prajñā lacks scolding and reprimand; fifth, from "If it is said..." downward, refuting that Prajñā is the teaching of the second period; sixth, refuting with Prajñā extending throughout the first twelve years. The first is as in the text. The second text again has three [parts]: first, refuting solely with the direct cause Buddha-nature; next, from "Therefore we know..." downward, refuting with the three Buddha-natures; third, from "If it is said to be impermanent..." downward, refuting with the eighty-year-old Buddha not expounding the Buddha-nature. The first text again has two [parts]: first, refuting with the shared and unshared Prajñā; next, from "The Great Sūtra..." downward, refuting with the identity of name and meaning. This again has four [parts]: first, citing that Buddha-nature is among the five names of Prajñā to refute; second, that master's rescue; third, from "If so..." downward, a re-refutation; fourth, from "Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa..." downward, re-citing the text to conclude their identity. The first text states: "Buddha-nature has five kinds of names," as in the record of the third fascicle of the Zhiguan; the meaning is still slightly different. In the next rescue, saying: "Nirvāṇa is naturally the Prajñā among the three virtues, not signless," this fault is even worse: first, the Prajñā of the three virtues still has the fault of having characteristics; second, the signless Prajñā has the fault of not being the three virtues—if it is not the three virtues, then it is impermanent, and if it is impermanent, how can it be signless? Even if it belonged to the Hīnayāna, it would still not be the Prajñā after the twelve years, and signlessness would not be established; how much less so since in the re-refutation it is again pointed out by the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]! How could Nirvāṇa differ from Prajñā? How much less so since in the re-establishment and conclusion of identity, the Nirvāṇa Buddha-nature does not differ from the Prajñā of the true limit!