法華玄贊義決 1.110

1.110

彼說非理。非理者何？論云大法鼓二句示現。若取法螺，即大法鼓一句示現，何得云二？若云取大法鼓并彼法螺云二句示現者，不斷大法鼓，復明何義？若云彼論所牒經與此別，若爾論文自釋別經，何須引釋此《法華經》？況復大乘無別部，釋一佛說無有二經，只應從論八，云何得自意量度？有釋：阿含八種甚深亦通釋智慧。義雖可爾，然釋論文八種甚深通釋二者，違於論說，如文可知。

That explanation is unreasonable. Why is it unreasonable? The treatise says that the great dharma drum is manifested by two lines. If one includes the dharma conch, that would be manifested by one line of the great dharma drum; how could one say there are two? If one says that taking the great dharma drum together with that dharma conch manifests the two lines, without separating the great dharma drum, what meaning would be clarified? If one says that the sūtra quoted by that treatise is different from this one, then if the treatise text itself explains a different sūtra, why would one need to cite it to explain this Lotus Sūtra? Furthermore, the Mahāyāna has no separate divisions; in explaining the teaching of the single Buddha, there are not two sūtras. One should only follow the eight [points] of the treatise; how could one measure it by one's own opinion? Some explain that the eight kinds of profundities in the Āgama also generally explain wisdom. While the meaning may be admissible, to explain the treatise text's eight kinds of profundities as generally explaining both contradicts what the treatise says, as is knowable from the text.