法華玄論 3.44

3.44

答：已如前判，《波若》專明此二。又《波若》初說此二，餘經無此兩義，故不得稱波若也。古有大品師謂《波若》為得道經。此言符論最大之旨，以一切得道皆由《波若》，故《波若》最大。此通上第一文也。第二文明《法華》是祕密法明二乘作佛，《波若》非祕密法不明二乘作佛，故波若淺而法華深者，諸講論師雖誦此言，多不體其意旨，故異釋紛然，或讚楊波若、抑破法華，或懸信師說不詳文意。今斷如是種種異說，以龍樹論文為正。論云「《波若》非祕密法，不明二乘受記作佛故也。而《法華》是祕密法，明阿羅漢受記作佛故也。」正據二乘作佛不作佛故辨祕密非祕密也。

Answer: It has already been judged as before: the Prajñā [sūtras] exclusively clarify these two. Furthermore, the Prajñā [sūtras] were the first to explain these two, and other sūtras lack these two meanings; hence they cannot be called Prajñā. In ancient times there were masters of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā who held the Prajñā [sūtra] to be the sūtra for attaining the Way. These words tally with the treatise's purport that it is the greatest, because all attainment of the Way is due to Prajñā, and therefore Prajñā is the greatest. This connects with the first passage above. As for the second passage clarifying that the Lotus [Sūtra] is an esoteric teaching clarifying that [followers of] the two vehicles attain buddhahood, while Prajñā is an exoteric teaching not clarifying that [followers of] the two vehicles attain buddhahood, and therefore Prajñā is shallow and the Lotus is deep: although various lecturing masters recite these words, most do not grasp their meaning, so divergent interpretations abound—some praising Prajñā and demoting or refuting the Lotus, others blindly believing their teachers' assertions without examining the meaning of the text. Now, cutting through such various disparate assertions, we take Nāgārjuna's treatise text as normative. The treatise says: 'Prajñā is not an esoteric teaching because it does not clarify the prediction of buddhahood for the two vehicles. But the Lotus [Sūtra] is an esoteric teaching because it clarifies the prediction of buddhahood for arhats.' It precisely distinguishes esoteric and non-esoteric on the basis of whether or not the two vehicles attain buddhahood.