法華玄論 1.49

1.49

答：訶梨自秤正論三藏，寧非小乘，必言斯實亦通方等者，過在門人，非跋摩之咎也。又羅什翻《成論》竟，命僧叡講之。叡序云「地水火風假也，色香味觸實也。而精巧有餘，明實不足。」此三藏中之實耳，非方等之謂。序末又述什公語「秦人謂《成實論》所明滅諦與方等均致。什歎曰：『秦人之無深識，何以乃至於此乎。吾每疑其普信大乘，當知悟不由中迷可識矣。』」《成論》所明滅諦比於方等，其猶龍燭之於螢耀、夜光之於魚目，未足喻其愚也。

Answer: Harivarman himself claimed to explain the Tripiṭaka properly; how could it not be Hīnayāna? If one insists that its reality also penetrates the vaipulya, the fault lies with his disciples, not with Harivarman. Furthermore, when Kumārajīva finished translating the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, he ordered Sengrui to lecture on it. Sengrui's preface states: 'Earth, water, fire, and wind are provisional; form, odor, taste, and touch are real. Yet while it has an excess of refinement, it is deficient in illuminating reality.' This is merely the reality within the Tripiṭaka, not what is meant by vaipulya. The end of the preface also recounts Master Kumārajīva's words: 'People of the Qin say that the truth of cessation illuminated by the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra is of identical import to the vaipulya. Kumārajīva sighed, saying: "How could the lack of profound discernment among the people of the Qin go so far as this? I have always doubted their universal faith in the Mahāyāna; one should know that where awakening does not stem from within, their delusion is readily discernable."' The truth of cessation illuminated by the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, compared to the vaipulya, is like a dragon's torch compared to the glow of a firefly, or a night-shining pearl compared to a fish eye; this still falls short of illustrating their foolishness.