法華經義記 4.41

4.41

第二（有九問答）大判三家果地功德凡有二種，一者是有為果，二者無為果。無為果中自有二種：一因盡無為，即是三界因斷也；二者果盡無為，即是三界果亡也。此二種無為本非車體。何以知之？此經雖不類，然明常欲遣昔日結斷無處，以之為果故。二乘車以運載為用，今二種無為本無運義，故知非是車體，是則二種無為置而不論。今就有為果中有二種：一者功德，二者智慧，但功德、智慧此二難明，分別之相現顯《涅槃義記》。今略述其相以立義宗，正取寄境修行即是功德，故如藉緣布施寄境修定，禪定判時卒不辨前境有好有惡，是寄一青境得修四禪；智慧之用則不如是。今者用心照境，識苦集之智非滅道智。是則功德之用寄境修心，智慧之用用心照境。且又智慧背我而照境，功德向我而修心，今明車體又不取功德。何以故？功德之用無運載故，唯取智慧以為車體，智慧眾多復非一條。今據境撿求，不出十智。十智者：一苦智、二集智、三滅智、四道智、五名字智、六法智、七比智、八他心智、九盡智、十無生智。雖有十智，今覈論車體，唯取盡智、無生智以當車體，其餘八智非正車體。雖非正體得為校具。所以言四諦智非正車體者，本言車在門外，若言四諦智是車體者，七種學人已具四諦智，故不當車體也。復言名字智非正車體者，知法名字是名字智，非唯七學人已有名字智，凡夫有名字智，故知名字智非車體也。法智者知現在法名為法智，凡夫及七種學人皆知現在法，故知法智復非車體也。本言比知過去未來法名為比智，凡夫及七種學人皆能比知過去未來法，故知比智復非車體也。所以言他心智非車體者，外道五通亦得他心智，故知他心智復非車體也。唯有盡智、無生智正是車體。

Second (there are nine questions and answers): Broadly determining the merits of the fruitional stage of the three schools, there are in general two kinds: the first is conditioned fruition, and the second is unconditioned fruition. Within unconditioned fruition there are itself two kinds: first, unconditioned [cessation through] exhaustion of causes, which is the severance of causes in the three realms; second, unconditioned [cessation through] exhaustion of effects, which is the perishing of effects in the three realms. These two kinds of unconditioned are fundamentally not the substance of the cart. How is this known? Although this sūtra is not analogous [to others], it nevertheless clarifies that it constantly desires to dispel the former idea that the severance of fetters has no locus and to take that as the fruition. The function of the cart of the two vehicles is conveying; now, the two kinds of unconditioned fundamentally lack the meaning of conveying, so we know they are not the substance of the cart; thus the two kinds of unconditioned are set aside and not discussed. Now, within conditioned fruition there are two kinds: first, merit; second, wisdom. But merit and wisdom—these two are difficult to clarify; their distinguishing characteristics are clearly shown in the *Commentary on the Meaning of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]*. Now I briefly explain their characteristics to establish our doctrinal tenet: directly taking reliance on an objective sphere to cultivate practice is merit. Thus, for instance, relying on conditions to practice giving, or relying on an objective sphere to cultivate concentration: when dhyāna concentration is determined, it does not abruptly discriminate whether the objective sphere before it is good or bad; it relies on a single blue sphere to cultivate the four dhyānas. The function of wisdom, however, is not like this. In the present case, employing the mind to illuminate an objective sphere, the wisdom that recognizes suffering and its accumulation is not the wisdom of cessation and the path. Thus the function of merit is relying on an objective sphere to cultivate the mind, while the function of wisdom is employing the mind to illuminate an objective sphere. Moreover, wisdom turns its back on the self to illuminate the objective sphere, whereas merit faces toward the self to cultivate the mind. Now, in clarifying the substance of the cart, we also do not take merit. Why? Because the function of merit lacks conveying; we solely take wisdom to be the substance of the cart. Wisdom is manifold and not just of one kind. Now, investigating on the basis of objective spheres, it does not go beyond the ten knowledges. The ten knowledges are: first, knowledge of suffering; second, knowledge of accumulation; third, knowledge of cessation; fourth, knowledge of the path; fifth, nominal knowledge; sixth, knowledge of phenomena; seventh, inductive knowledge; eighth, knowledge of others' minds; ninth, knowledge of exhaustion; tenth, knowledge of non-arising. Although there are ten knowledges, now examining and discussing the substance of the cart, we only take the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising to correspond to the substance of the cart; the remaining eight knowledges are not the primary substance of the cart. Although they are not the primary substance, they may serve as furnishings and accessories. The reason we say the knowledges of the four truths are not the primary substance of the cart is: originally it was said that the cart is outside the gate; if you say that the knowledges of the four truths are the substance of the cart, the seven kinds of learners already possess the knowledges of the four truths, so they do not correspond to the substance of the cart. Again, saying that nominal knowledge is not the primary substance of the cart: knowing the names of dharmas is nominal knowledge; not only do the seven learners already have nominal knowledge, but even ordinary worldlings have nominal knowledge, so we know nominal knowledge is not the substance of the cart. Knowledge of phenomena is knowing present dharmas; both ordinary worldlings and the seven kinds of learners know present dharmas, so we know knowledge of phenomena is also not the substance of the cart. Originally it was said that inferentially knowing past and future dharmas is called inductive knowledge; both ordinary worldlings and the seven kinds of learners are able to inferentially know past and future dharmas, so we know inductive knowledge is also not the substance of the cart. The reason we say knowledge of others' minds is not the substance of the cart is: the five supernormal powers of non-Buddhists also attain knowledge of others' minds, so we know knowledge of others' minds is also not the substance of the cart. Only the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are truly the substance of the cart.