法華玄論 3.34

3.34

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.