法華遊意 1.317

1.317

若爾，何得《論》釋〈畢竟定品〉云「須菩提聞《法花經》明一切成佛，復聞《波若》辨菩薩有退，是故今問佛為畢定為不畢定。此問意審二經之同異。佛答云『菩薩畢定，畢定者畢定成佛也』」。既明畢定成佛，則唯有一佛乘，不退為聲聞則顯無二乘。此意明波若同法華教，何得云《波若》未明二乘作佛？

If so, how is it that the treatise, commenting on the 'Chapter on Absolute Certainty', states: 'Subhūti heard the Lotus Sūtra clarify that all achieve buddhahood, and also heard the Prajñā delineate that bodhisattvas may regress; therefore he now asked the Buddha whether they are absolutely determined or not absolutely determined. The intent of this question was to examine the identity and difference of the two sūtras. The Buddha answered, "Bodhisattvas are absolutely determined; 'absolutely determined' means absolutely determined to achieve buddhahood."' Since it clarifies that they are absolutely determined to achieve buddhahood, there is only the one buddha vehicle; and by not regressing to become śrāvakas, it reveals that there are no two vehicles. This meaning clarifies that the Prajñā is identical to the teaching of the Lotus Sūtra. How can you say that the Prajñā did not clarify that persons of the two vehicles become buddhas?