法華玄論 2.42

2.42

次別論壽量。舊云：從《大品》至《法華》皆無常。汝以何義證《法華》常耶？評曰：今以三證。一《法華》前經證。婆數作《金剛般若論》云「三相異體故，離彼三相是如來。」此明生住滅三相與法身異體，離彼三相是如來一法身。則知《金剛般若》已明常義，況《法華》在後而是無常？若《法華》在後而是無常者，則《般若》為勝《法華》劣也。《大品．常啼品》云「諸佛色身有來去，法身無來去。」則明法身是常，況《法華》耶？《小品經》分明辨法身不可遷滅，與《大品》同意。第三《淨名經》云「佛身無漏，諸滿已盡。佛身無為，不隨諸數。」此二句具足解如來常身。

Next, the life span is discussed separately. The old [interpreters] said: “From the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā to the Lotus Sūtra, all teach impermanence. By what principle do you prove that the Lotus Sūtra teaches permanence?” Critique: We now demonstrate it with three proofs. First, proof from sūtras prior to the Lotus Sūtra. Vasu composed the Commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā, which says: “Because the three characteristics have different substances, being free from those three characteristics is the Tathāgata.” This explains that the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and cessation are of different substance from the dharmakāya, and being free from those three characteristics is the Tathāgata’s one dharmakāya. Thus we know that the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā has already explained the meaning of permanence; how much more so with the Lotus Sūtra, which comes later—could it be impermanent? If the Lotus Sūtra comes later and yet were impermanent, the Prajñāpāramitā would be superior and the Lotus Sūtra inferior. The “Sadāprarudita Chapter” of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā says: “The physical bodies of the Buddhas have coming and going; the dharmakāya has no coming and going.” This explains that the dharmakāya is permanent; how much more so for the Lotus Sūtra? The Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā clearly discerns that the dharmakāya cannot shift or be annihilated, which has the same meaning as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā. Third, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: “The Buddha’s body is free of outflows; all defilements have been exhausted. The Buddha’s body is unconditioned; it does not fall into any reckoning.” These two sentences completely explain the Tathāgata’s permanent body.