維摩經玄疏 3.51

3.51

二、細尋研覈名義，似如不便者，彼之四宗，《毘曇》明見有得通，可許因緣為宗，三假是世諦，見世諦未得道，何得以假名為宗？《成論》明見空得道，何不以空宗也？且《大智論》明三藏教有，三門得道，空是第二門——無假名門也。又，《大智論》彈方廣人取十諭，說一切法不生不滅，失般若意，豈得幻化為不真宗也。

Second, as for detailed inquiry and close examination of their terms and meanings seeming unsuitable: among their four tenets, the *Abhidharma* clarifies that perceiving existence leads to realization, so one may grant causes and conditions as a tenet; but the three provisionalities are conventional truth, and perceiving conventional truth does not yet attain the Path, so how could one take provisional designation as a tenet? The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* clarifies that perceiving emptiness attains the Path, so why not make emptiness the tenet? Furthermore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* clarifies that in the Tripiṭaka teaching there are three gates to attain the Path, and emptiness is the second gate—the gate of non-provisional designation. Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* rebukes the Vaipulya adherents for seizing upon the ten similes to say that all dharmas neither arise nor cease, thereby missing the intent of prajñā; how could illusory transformation be taken as the tenet of the untrue?