法華文句記 10.125

10.125

五、二命不齊者，何故？分身、多寶二俱唱散，去留不等，若云「但令塔閉云如故者」，何故《正本》云「還本土」？救曰：二命縱同，所緣各別。寶塔為聽經故來，分身為開塔故集，塔既已閉分身須散，經尚未畢故塔未還，分身既散土合復常，故前文云「為諸佛當來坐故，各淨八方」，況《正法華》云「可還本土」，自是法護所譯不正，豈判什本令從《正經》？若《正經》為正不應重譯，但云「如故」。若欲依《正經》，何不講《正》本？遍觀正本處處相違，及以妄誤前後非一，故不須以《正經》為準。

Fifth, they argue that the two commands are not uniform: Why is it that both the emanations and Prabhūtaratna were told to depart, yet their leaving and staying were unequal? If you say "it merely ordered the stūpa closed, calling it 'as before'," why does the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* say "return to your own lands"? I rebut this: Even if the two commands were identical, their conditions were each distinct. The precious stūpa came in order to hear the sūtra; the emanation [buddhas] gathered in order to open the stūpa. Since the stūpa was already closed, the emanation [buddhas] had to be dismissed; but since the sūtra was not yet finished, the stūpa did not yet return. Once the emanation [buddhas] were dismissed, the land naturally reverted to its normal state; thus the preceding text says, "In order that the buddhas may come and sit, each purified the eight directions." Furthermore, when the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* says "may return to your own lands," this is simply Dharmarakṣa's translation being inaccurate; how can one judge Kumārajīva's text to make it follow the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*? If the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* were correct, it should not have been retranslated merely saying "as before." If you wish to rely on the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*, why do you not lecture on the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* version? Examining the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* version throughout, contradictions are everywhere, and errors and confusions from beginning to end are not few; therefore one must not take the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* as the standard.