法華玄論 3.22

3.22

答：若學《波若》證二乘者，即在二乘心，應名真波若。何故論云「在二乘心不名波若」，又何得初勸二乘學於《波若》，後證二乘果而不名波若耶？希求味之賢留心此意也。又學《波若》成二乘者，此是《波若》少許氣分耳。何以知之？《釋論》云「二乘證空比菩薩空，譬如毛孔空比十方空。」又《攝大乘論》云「二乘但得人空，不得法空。」故知二乘但得《波若》少許氣分。

Answer: If studying prajñā and realizing the two vehicles meant that within the minds of the two vehicles it should be called true prajñā, why does the treatise state, 'In the minds of the two vehicles it is not called prajñā'? And how could it initially exhort the two vehicles to study prajñā, yet upon their later realizing the fruits of the two vehicles, it is not called prajñā? Worthies who seek its flavor should direct their minds to this meaning. Furthermore, studying prajñā and accomplishing the two vehicles is merely a tiny portion of prajñā. How is this known? The Dazhidulun states: 'The two vehicles' realization of emptiness, compared to the bodhisattva's emptiness, is like the emptiness of a pore compared to the emptiness of the ten directions.' The Mahāyānasaṃgraha also states: 'The two vehicles only attain emptiness of the person, not emptiness of dharmas.' Hence we know that the two vehicles only attain a tiny portion of prajñā.