法華玄論 3.44

3.44

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.