維摩經玄疏 6.76

6.76

第四、一法異名者，諸經異名說真性實相，或言一實諦，或言自性清淨心，或言如來藏，或言如如，或言實際，或言實相般若；或言一乘，或言即是首楞嚴，或言法性，或言法身，或言中道，或言畢竟空，或言正因佛性、性淨涅槃……如是等種種異名，此皆是實相之異稱。故《大智論》云「般若是一法，佛說種種名，隨諸眾生類，為之立異字」，《大涅槃經》云「如天帝釋，有千種名。解脫亦爾，多諸名字」，又云「言佛性者，有五種名」，故皆是赴機利物，為立異名也。而法體是一，未曾有異，如帝釋千名，名雖不同，終是目於天主。豈有聞異名故，而言非實相理？如人供養帝釋，毀憍尸迦；供養憍尸迦，毀於帝釋，如此供養，未必得福。末代弘法者亦爾，或信黎耶自性清淨心，而毀畢竟空；或言「畢竟空無所有」，毀黎耶識自性清淨心；或言「《般若》明實相，《法花》明一乘，皆非佛性」，此之求福，豈若慮禍！若知名異體一，則隨喜之善，遍於法界，何所諍乎！

Fourth, 'different names for the one dharma': various sūtras speak of the true nature of the true mark under different names, sometimes calling it the one real truth, sometimes the intrinsically pure mind, sometimes the tathāgatagarbha, sometimes suchness, sometimes the limit of reality, sometimes the prajñā of the true mark, sometimes the one vehicle, sometimes Śūraṅgama, sometimes dharma-nature, sometimes the Dharma-body, sometimes the middle way, sometimes ultimate emptiness, sometimes the direct-cause buddha-nature or the intrinsically pure nirvāṇa... Various different names such as these are all alternative designations for the true mark. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Prajñā is a single dharma; the Buddha speaks of it with various names, establishing different designations for it in accordance with the classes of sentient beings.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Just as Śakra, lord of the gods, has a thousand names, liberation is likewise, possessing many names.' It also says: 'Speaking of buddha-nature, it has five kinds of names.' Hence, these are all different names established to respond to capacities and benefit beings. Yet the substance of the Dharma is one, never having had any difference, just as Śakra's thousand names, although not the same, ultimately designate the lord of the gods. How could anyone, upon hearing different names, say that it is not the principle of the true mark? It is like a person who makes offerings to Śakra while reviling Kauśika, or makes offerings to Kauśika while reviling Śakra; such an offering will not necessarily yield merit. The propagators of the Dharma in the final era are also like this: some believe in the ālayavijñāna's intrinsically pure mind while reviling ultimate emptiness; some say that 'ultimate emptiness has nothing at all' and revile the ālayavijñāna's intrinsically pure mind; some say that 'the Prajñā sūtras explain the true mark, and the Lotus Sūtra explains the one vehicle, yet neither is buddha-nature.' How does this pursuit of merit compare to considering the calamity? If one knows that the names differ while the substance is one, then the goodness of rejoicing in accord will pervade the dharma-realm; what would there be to dispute?