維摩經玄疏 6.76

6.76

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?