法華玄論 3.34

3.34

答：無方之言，經論無據，不應立之。又不應立無方教。所以然者，如以《大品》為第二時，諸餘《波若》皆屬第二時者；以《涅槃》為第五時，諸餘常經皆屬第五時。但應以類攝經，不應以無方收教。若言相生者為次第、不相生者為無方者，安知八部《波若》並皆相生耶？又五時是相生之言撿既不成，況有不相成為無方教。又龍樹、天親俱以類而分大小，呵梨、法勝以例而開三藏，不應立無方教也。

Answer: The term "non-localized" has no basis in the sūtras and treatises; it should not be established. Furthermore, one should not establish a non-localized teaching. Why is this? If one takes the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā as the second period, all other Prajñāpāramitā texts belong to the second period; if one takes the Nirvāṇa as the fifth period, all other scriptures on permanence belong to the fifth period. One should only categorize scriptures by their types, and should not subsume teachings under "non-localized." If one claims that those that generate one another are sequential, and those that do not generate one another are non-localized, how does one know that the eight divisions of Prajñāpāramitā all generate one another? Moreover, upon examination, the assertion that the five periods generate one another already fails, let alone having those that do not mutually form into a non-localized teaching. Furthermore, Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu both divided great and small by type, and Harivarman and Dharmaśreṣṭhin opened the three piṭakas by category; one should not establish a non-localized teaching.