涅槃經遊意 1.64

1.64

彼云：後藥治後病，後藥為後經宗；前藥治前病，前藥為前經宗。今明前藥為前經宗，前經有無量種，豈得併以無常為經前宗？既不可無常為宗，後經寧得以常為宗？今對彼故以無得為宗，汝以常為宗，文何所出？

They say: Later medicine treats later illness, so later medicine is the central tenet of the later sūtra; former medicine treats former illness, so former medicine is the central tenet of the former sūtra. Now we clarify: If former medicine is the central tenet of the former sūtra, there are immeasurable kinds of former sūtras—how could they all uniformly take impermanence as the central tenet of the former sūtras? Since impermanence cannot be taken as the central tenet, how could the later sūtra take permanence as its central tenet? Now, in opposition to them, we take non-acquisition as the central tenet. When you take permanence as the central tenet, from what text does that derive?