大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.15

8.15

疏「若以般若為第二時」下，復重遮救。恐其救云：我對《般若》為第二時，故立《法華》為第三時，以《般若》但明於空，《法華》顯中道故。若作此救，且縱可爾，以從多分一義說故。即自違於《深密》三時。《深密》三時，三乘為了，破第二時說皆成不了，故今說《法華》以一破三，豈得同於第三時教？

The Commentary states: "If one considers Prajñā to be the second period..." and below, which again refutes the defense. Fearing they might defend themselves by arguing: "We take it in contrast to Prajñā as the second period, and therefore establish the Lotus [Sūtra] as the third period, because Prajñā only clarifies emptiness, whereas the Lotus [Sūtra] reveals the Middle Way." If they mount such a defense, even if we provisionally grant it might be so because it is stated according to a predominant single perspective, it still contradicts the three periods of the Saṃdhinirmocana[-sūtra]. According to the three periods of the Saṃdhinirmocana, the three vehicles are definitive, and it refutes the second period, claiming all [its teachings] are non-definitive. Hence, as the Lotus [Sūtra] now speaks of overturning the three by means of the one, how could it be equated with the teaching of the third period?