法華玄論 3.56

3.56

答：理數自然，何繁今問。作此釋竟，復見關中僧叡《小品經．序》，盛判二經優劣，將余意同。叡公言：「《波若》照也，《法華》實也。論其窮理盡性夷明萬行則實不如照，取其大明真化解本無三則照不如實。是故嘆照則《波若》之功重，美實即《法華》之用高。」考關中此文深見論意，妙得經旨也。

Answer: The principles are naturally so; why trouble to ask now? After completing this explanation, I further saw Sengrui of Guanzhong's preface to the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, which thoroughly evaluated the superiority and inferiority of the two sūtras, agreeing with my view. Master Sengrui said: 'Prajñā is illumination; the Lotus is reality. Discussing the exhaustive penetration of principle and nature, and the level illumination of the myriad practices, reality is not equal to illumination; taking the great illumination of true transformation and the understanding that originally there are no three, illumination is not equal to reality. Therefore, in praising illumination, the merit of Prajñā is weighty; in extolling reality, the function of the Lotus is exalted.' Examining this text from Guanzhong, it deeply perceives the treatise's intent and wondrously grasps the purport of the sūtras.