法華玄論 1.49

1.49

Answer: Harivarman himself claimed to explain the Tripiṭaka properly; how could it not be Hīnayāna? If one insists that its reality also penetrates the vaipulya, the fault lies with his disciples, not with Harivarman. Furthermore, when Kumārajīva finished translating the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, he ordered Sengrui to lecture on it. Sengrui's preface states: 'Earth, water, fire, and wind are provisional; form, odor, taste, and touch are real. Yet while it has an excess of refinement, it is deficient in illuminating reality.' This is merely the reality within the Tripiṭaka, not what is meant by vaipulya. The end of the preface also recounts Master Kumārajīva's words: 'People of the Qin say that the truth of cessation illuminated by the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra is of identical import to the vaipulya. Kumārajīva sighed, saying: "How could the lack of profound discernment among the people of the Qin go so far as this? I have always doubted their universal faith in the Mahāyāna; one should know that where awakening does not stem from within, their delusion is readily discernable."' The truth of cessation illuminated by the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, compared to the vaipulya, is like a dragon's torch compared to the glow of a firefly, or a night-shining pearl compared to a fish eye; this still falls short of illustrating their foolishness.