法華玄義釋籤 20.19

20.19

次明般若之後說法華者，亦二：初引教略立，次釋。釋中三：初明說頓之意，次「故」下引證結意，三「復言」下結益。益中二：初明與涅槃同味，次「又燈明」下明化緣不同，故有無不等。於中又四：先釋，次譬，三「法華」下引證，四「門」下料簡釋疑。初二如文。次引證中二：先引證，次「為此」下結。四料簡中，問如文。次答中言「大論須菩提更問畢定不畢定」者，《大論》九十三先舉經云「須菩提白佛言：世尊！菩薩摩訶薩為畢定，為不畢定？佛告須菩提：畢定，非不畢定。須菩提言：為何處畢定？聲聞耶？支佛道耶？佛言：非二乘道中，是佛道中。須菩提復問：為初心菩薩，為後心菩薩？佛言：初心及跋致，皆悉畢定。」須菩提於《法華》中，已聞諸菩薩得記，故已畢定。今復更問，故知須菩提更為未入者問，故知《法華》之後更說般若明矣。般若不殊，故結集者同為一部。

Next, the explanation that the Lotus Sūtra was spoken after the Prajñā also has two [parts]: first, briefly establishing it by citing the teaching; second, explaining it. Within the explanation there are three [parts]: first, explaining the intention behind preaching the sudden; second, from "Therefore" onwards, citing testimony to conclude the intention; third, from "Furthermore it is said" onwards, concluding with the benefit. Within the benefit there are two [parts]: first, explaining that its flavor is identical with that of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; second, from "Furthermore, [Candrasūryapradīpa] Lamp Light" onwards, explaining that because the conditions for conversion differ, what is present and absent is not uniform. Within this there are again four [parts]: first, the explanation; second, the parable; third, from "The Lotus" onwards, citing testimony; fourth, from "Section" onwards, the critical analysis resolving doubts. The first two are as in the text. In the second, citing testimony, there are two: first, citing testimony; second, from "For this reason" onwards, the conclusion. In the fourth, the critical analysis, the question is as in the text. In the answer that follows, regarding the statement that "The Great Treatise [records that] Subhūti asked again about being definitely determined or not definitely determined": Chapter Ninety-Three of the Great Treatise first cites the sūtra, which says: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! Are bodhisattva mahāsattvas definitely determined, or are they not definitely determined?' The Buddha told Subhūti: 'They are definitely determined, not undetermined.' Subhūti said: 'In what stage are they definitely determined? In that of the śrāvakas? Or the pratyekabuddha path?' The Buddha said: 'Not in the path of the two vehicles, but in the Buddha path.' Subhūti asked again: 'Is it bodhisattvas of the initial mind, or bodhisattvas of the final mind?' The Buddha said: 'Bodhisattvas of the initial mind and [avini]vartanīyas alike are all definitely determined.'" In the Lotus Sūtra, Subhūti had already heard the bodhisattvas receive predictions, and so was already definitely determined. Now he asks again; thus we know that Subhūti asked again on behalf of those who had not yet entered. Hence it is clear that Prajñā was spoken again after the Lotus Sūtra. Because Prajñā is not different, the compilers gathered it together into a single text.