法華宗要 1.27

1.27

答：皆是經論，有何不實？所以然者，為護一向趣寂者意，則如初師所通為實；為護不定種姓人意，則如後師所說為實，皆當物機各得和通故。若就道理判其勝負者，彼師義狹而且短，彼說佛□不遍一切故，又說二□竟斷滅故。第二師義寬而復長，返前短狹其義可知，斯則以短狹義會寬長文，文傷□□會；用寬長義容短狹文，文狹則無傷、義則易會。由是道理，後說為勝。是故當知此《法花經》乃是究竟了義之教也。今依是義以通諸文，諸文相違皆得善通。所以然者，以諸了義究竟教內，不無方便不了之言，如《解深密經》中說言：「一切聲聞、緣覺、菩薩，同皆共一此妙清淨道，皆同是一究竟清淨如。□是道理為彼經宗。」所以彼經是真了義。而彼經說「寂趣聲聞終不能得坐於道場」，如是等文是方便說，為護決定二乘意故，作是方便不了義說。由是道理，夫人性等說彼以為不了義說。如是二文不相違也。又此《法花經》中說言「為□□故，化作寶城，更止息已，終引佛果」。依是道理以說一乘，是為經究竟了義。此經亦有不了義語，□直說言「唯有□□，無二無三」，是文為□□定□□說無趣寂二乘之行，而實不無趣寂二乘之行，是故說無是方便語。由是道理對法論說為方便者，亦有道理也。

Answer: Both are sūtras and treatises; what could be untrue? Why is that? If it is to protect the intention of those exclusively oriented toward tranquility, then the resolution of the first master is real; if it is to protect the intention of those of indeterminate gotra, then the exposition of the later master is real. Because each accords with the capacities of beings, both can be harmoniously resolved. If we evaluate their superiority and inferiority in terms of principle: that [first] master's position is narrow and short, because he says that the buddha-[nature] does not pervade everything, and because he says that the two [vehicles] are ultimately annihilated. The second master's position is broad and long, the reverse of the former narrowness and shortness, so its meaning can be known. Thus, if one uses a short and narrow meaning to harmonize a broad and long text, the text is harmed […] to harmonize; if one uses a broad and long meaning to contain a short and narrow text, the text being narrow causes no harm and the meaning is easily harmonized. By this principle, the later exposition is superior. Therefore, one should know that this Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra is an ultimate nītārtha teaching. Now, relying on this meaning to harmonize the various texts, the contradictions among the various texts can all be skillfully resolved. Why is that? Because within the ultimate nītārtha teachings, there are not without neyārtha words of upāya, just as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra states: 'All śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas together share this single, wondrous, pure path; all equally share this single, ultimate, pure suchness. […] this principle is the central thesis of that sūtra.' Therefore, that sūtra is truly nītārtha. Yet that sūtra says that 'śrāvakas oriented toward tranquility can never sit at the bodhimaṇḍa'—such passages as these are upāya expositions, made as upāya neyārtha expositions for the sake of protecting the intention of the determined two vehicles. By this principle, the Śrīmālā-sūtra and others state that it is a neyārtha exposition. Thus these two passages do not conflict. Furthermore, this Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra says: 'For the sake of […], an apparitional city was magically created, and having rested, they are ultimately guided to the fruit of buddhahood.' Relying on this principle to expound the Ekayāna, this sūtra is ultimate nītārtha. This sūtra also contains neyārtha words: […] directly saying 'there is only [the one vehicle], and no two or three'—this passage, for the sake of […], states that there is no practice of the two vehicles oriented toward tranquility, but in reality there is not an absence of the practice of the two vehicles oriented toward tranquility; therefore, stating that there is none is an upāya expression. By this principle, that the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā speaks of it as an upāya is also reasonable.