法華玄義釋籤 19.32

19.32

三難用涅槃五味中二：先敘其非，次別明難。難中又二：初總斥非，次「何者」下釋。釋中自五。初難從牛出乳為十二部，中三：初以非初說及無十二部為難，次「救云」下彼救，三「今問」下縱難。初如文。次文言「彼救云小乘亦有十二部」至「異耳」者，《大經》二十五云：「雪山有草名曰忍辱，牛若食者即出醍醐。更有異草，牛若食者則無醍醐，雖無醍醐，不可說言雪山之中無忍辱草。佛性亦爾。山喻如來，忍辱草者喻大涅槃，異草者喻十二部經。若有能聽大般涅槃則見佛性，十二部中雖不聞有，不可說言無佛性也。」既云十二部中無有佛性，即是無佛性之十二部也。忍辱草者，既喻佛性，佛性亦不出於十二部。彼師依經救云，大小乘俱有十二部也。今意從別，且存大乘佛性十二部也；無佛性者且對九部。三縱難中二：先直縱難何為不用有佛性之十二部，次引第七中判其墮罪。

Third, refuting the use of the five flavors of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] has two parts: first, recounting its errors; second, specifically setting forth the challenges. Within the challenges there are also two parts: first, a general denunciation of errors; second, from 'Why is this' downward, the explanation. The explanation itself has five parts. First, refuting 'from a cow, milk is extracted' being the twelve divisions [of scriptures] has three parts: first, challenging that it is not the first preaching and that there are no twelve divisions; second, from 'The defense says' downward, their defense; third, from 'Now we ask' downward, conceding to challenge. The first is as in the text. Regarding the next passage's statement, 'Their defense says the Hīnayāna also has twelve divisions' up to 'only different', fascicle twenty-five of the Great Sūtra states: 'In the Snow Mountains there is a grass named forbearance. If a cow eats it, it then yields ghee. There is another grass; if a cow eats it, it yields no ghee. Although there is no ghee, one cannot say that there is no grass of forbearance in the Snow Mountains. The Buddha-nature is also like this. The mountain is an analogy for the Tathāgata; the grass of forbearance is an analogy for the Mahānirvāṇa; the different grass is an analogy for the twelve divisions of scriptures. If there are those who can hear the Mahāparinirvāṇa, they see the Buddha-nature. Although one does not hear of it within the twelve divisions, one cannot say that there is no Buddha-nature.' Since it says that there is no Buddha-nature within the twelve divisions, these are the twelve divisions that lack Buddha-nature. As for the grass of forbearance, since it is an analogy for the Buddha-nature, the Buddha-nature also does not go outside the twelve divisions. That master, relying on the sūtra, defended by saying that both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna have twelve divisions. The present intention follows the specific, provisionally retaining the twelve divisions of Mahāyāna Buddha-nature; those without Buddha-nature are provisionally matched with the nine divisions. In the third [part], conceding to challenge has two: first, directly conceding to challenge why they do not use the twelve divisions that possess Buddha-nature; second, citing the seventh [fascicle] to judge their fallen offense.