法華玄論 2.102

2.102

又問：若以近成為方便、以久成為實說者，《法華》明久成此實說，《華嚴》辨始成正覺便是方便，未可然矣。又《大經》云「我聞半偈，超彌勒九劫先得成佛。」今請問之，超九劫者為是實說、為是權教？若是實說者，則《法華》為方便。又若超九劫為實說者，諸小乘經論明超九劫，若爾三藏為實教、《法華》是權經。若言《法華》明久為實、《大經》明超九劫為權者，則《法華》為實、《涅槃》為權。又《法華》已開近，云何《涅槃》更覆遠耶？若近遠兩經迴互者，三一之教義亦應然。

Question again: If one takes recent attainment as skillful means and long-past attainment as the real teaching, then the *Lotus Sūtra* explaining long-past attainment would be the real teaching, and the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra* determining the initial attainment of correct awakening would be skillful means, which cannot be so. Furthermore, the *Great Scripture* says: "Upon hearing half a verse, I surpassed Maitreya by nine kalpas and attained buddhahood first." Now let me ask: is this surpassing of nine kalpas the real teaching or the provisional teaching? If it is the real teaching, then the *Lotus Sūtra* is skillful means. Furthermore, if surpassing nine kalpas is the real teaching, various Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises explain surpassing nine kalpas; if so, the Tripiṭaka would be the real teaching and the *Lotus Sūtra* would be a provisional scripture. If one says that the *Lotus Sūtra* explaining long ago is real and the *Great Scripture* explaining surpassing nine kalpas is provisional, then the *Lotus Sūtra* is real and the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* is provisional. Furthermore, since the *Lotus Sūtra* has already opened up the recent [to reveal the distant], why would the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* conceal the distant again? If the two scriptures alternate between near and far, the doctrine of the teachings of the three and the one should also be like this.