法華玄論 2.161

2.161

答：斯乃眾聖之本懷、經論之宗領，非但會理亦有誠文。故《大經》云「一切諸法無有定相。若有定相，是生死相、是魔王相，非佛法相。」以無定相，是故如來非道說道、道說非道，常說非常、非常說常。法若有定，是應說是、非應說非。而是非反論、真偽互說者，故知法無定相，唯悟是從。又諍論中云「我諸弟子聞是說已，不解我意。」雖領正言，乃成邪說。又《中論》云「一切實、一切非實、亦實亦不實、非實非非實，了者於四句皆是佛法，不了者四句皆是魔法。」又《釋論》云「不得般若方便力故，學阿毘曇門墮有見中，學空門墮無見中，學昆勒門墮空有見中，學非有非無墮愚癡論。得般若方便，學此四句不墮四見。」又《文殊問經》云「十八及本二，皆從大乘出。無是亦無非，我說未來起。」斯二十部皆是如來赴緣方便，聞皆得道，故無非大乘。又《大集經》云「雖有五部，皆不妨如來法界及大般涅槃。」又求那三藏師偈云「諸論各異端，修行理無二。偏執有是非，達者無違諍」也。以此而推，用悟為宗，斯判宜允。此非但欲通一教，乃總貫眾經也。

Answer: This is indeed the fundamental intention of the many sages, the overarching guideline of the scriptures and treatises; not only does it accord with principle, it also has explicit textual support. Thus the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'All dharmas have no fixed characteristics. If they had fixed characteristics, these would be the characteristics of saṃsāra, the characteristics of the Māra king, and not the characteristics of the Buddhadharma.' Because they have no fixed characteristics, the tathāgatas speak of the non-Way as the Way, speak of the Way as the non-Way, speak of the permanent as impermanent, and speak of the impermanent as permanent. If dharmas were fixed, what is right should be spoken of as right, and what is wrong should be spoken of as wrong. Yet right and wrong are conversely argued, and true and false are interchangeably stated; hence we know that dharmas have no fixed characteristics, and one simply follows awakening. Furthermore, it is said in a disputation: 'My disciples, having heard this teaching, do not understand my meaning.' Although they grasp correct words, they turn them into heterodox teachings. Furthermore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'All is real, all is unreal, both real and unreal, neither real nor unreal. For the one who understands, all four propositions are the Buddhadharma; for the one who does not understand, all four propositions are Māra's dharma.' Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Because they lack the power of the skillful means of prajñā, those who study the Abhidharma gate fall into the view of existence; those who study the gate of emptiness fall into the view of non-existence; those who study the Peṭaka gate fall into the view of both emptiness and existence; those who study neither existence nor non-existence fall into the treatise of foolishness. Having obtained the skillful means of prajñā, studying these four propositions, they do not fall into the four views.' Furthermore, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra says: 'The eighteen and the root two all emerge from the Mahāyāna. There is neither right nor wrong; I say they will arise in the future.' These twenty schools are all the tathāgata's skillful means responding to conditions; when heard, all attain the Way, so none is not Mahāyāna. Furthermore, the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra says: 'Although there are five schools, none hinders the tathāgata's dharmadhātu and great parinirvāṇa.' Furthermore, the verse of Tripiṭaka Master Guṇabhadra says: 'The treatises each have different points, / yet the principle of cultivation is not two. / Partial clinging holds to right and wrong; / the attained have no contention.' Deducing from this, to take awakening as the essential—this judgment is indeed appropriate. This is not only intended to penetrate a single teaching, but comprehensively threads through the multitude of scriptures.