法華玄論 3.108

3.108

答：《法華》無佛性文，而天親釋《法華》，論有七處明佛性，故知一乘是佛性異名。謂論主知名雖異而體是同，故就《法華》中明有佛性義；淺識之流迷名喪實，聞名異故謂實亦異，便言一乘非是佛性。又《釋論》云「若如法觀佛、波若及涅槃，是三即一相，其實無有異。」故知波若是涅槃異名、佛性別稱，但隨諸眾生力為之立異字。如將息病人，以一種食作諸異味。又隨義說譬喻之，一金作諸異器。以此推之，不得局以五時、限之四教也。譬喻義，後當廣說之也。

Answer: The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra has no explicit text mentioning Buddha-nature, yet Vasubandhu's commentary on the Lotus Sūtra explains Buddha-nature in seven places; hence we know that the one vehicle is a different name for Buddha-nature. This means the treatise master knew that although the names differ, their essence is identical; therefore, in reliance on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, he clarified that it contains the meaning of Buddha-nature. Those of shallow understanding are confused by the names and lose sight of reality; hearing that the names differ, they assume reality also differs, and thus claim that the one vehicle is not Buddha-nature. Moreover, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "If one contemplates the Buddha, prajñā, and nirvāṇa in accordance with the Dharma, these three are of a single mark, and in reality there is no difference." Hence we know that prajñā is another name for nirvāṇa and a different designation for Buddha-nature; different words are merely established for them according to the capacities of sentient beings. Just as in caring for a sick person, a single kind of food is made into various different flavors; or, as an analogy spoken according to meaning, a single piece of gold is made into various different vessels. Deducing from this, one must not restrict them to the five periods nor confine them to the four teachings. The meaning of the analogies will be explained extensively below.