妙法蓮華經玄義 8.58

8.58

正顯體，更明四意：一、出舊解。二、論體意。三、正明體。四、引文證。北地師用一乘為體，此語奢漫，未為簡要。一乘語通，濫於權實，若權一乘，都非經意；若實一乘，義該三軌，顯體不明，故不用。又有解言：真諦為體。此亦通濫，小、大皆明真諦，小乘真諦，故不俟言；大乘真諦，亦復多種，今以何等真諦為體？故不用。又有解言：一乘因果為體。今亦不用。何者？一乘語通，已如前說。又因果二法，猶未免事，云何是體？事無理印，則同魔經。云何可用？有人解乘體通因果，果以萬德為體，因以萬善為體，引《十二門論》云：「諸佛大人所乘，文殊觀音等所乘。」又引此經：「佛自住大乘」，即果也；「諸子乘是寶乘」，是因乘也。又引《普賢觀》：「大乘因果皆是實相。」私問因果之乘為變？為不變？若變，誰是能通？誰是所通？若不變，因果則並，皆無此理。若別有法通因果，當知因果非果者，經體也。《十二門論》云：「大人佛不行故名乘。」豈應以不行證因果乘也？《法華》「佛自住大乘」者，此乃乘理以御人，非住果德也。《普賢觀》明因果皆指實相，云可將實相證於因果耶？今皆不用。有人明因乘，以般若為本，五度為末；果乘以薩婆若為本，餘為末。又因乘狹，果乘廣。又般若相應心是一體乘，不相應心是異體乘。又無所得相應行是近乘，低頭舉手有所得是遠乘。又六度有世、出世雜是遠乘，三十七品但出世名近乘。又四句、度與品悉無得，又度與品俱有得。又度雜品不雜，又品雜度不雜（云云）。

In directly revealing the substance, four points are further clarified: first, presenting the old interpretations; second, discussing the intention behind the substance; third, directly clarifying the substance; and fourth, citing textual evidence. The masters of the northern regions take the eka-yāna as the substance. This statement is overly diffuse and not concise. The term 'eka-yāna' is general and conflates the provisional with the real: if it is the provisional eka-yāna, it is not at all the meaning of the sūtra; if it is the real eka-yāna, its meaning encompasses the three tracks, leaving the revelation of the substance unclear; hence it is not accepted. There is also an interpretation stating that the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is the substance. This also conflates the general: both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna clarify the ultimate truth; the ultimate truth of the Hīnayāna goes without saying, while the ultimate truth of the Mahāyāna also has many types—which ultimate truth should now be taken as the substance? Hence it is not accepted. There is also an interpretation stating that the cause and fruit of the eka-yāna are the substance. Now this is also not accepted. Why? The term 'eka-yāna' is general, as explained above. Furthermore, the two dharmas of cause and fruit still do not escape the phenomenal (vastu)—how could they be the substance? If phenomena lack the seal of principle, they are identical to Māra's sūtras. How could this be acceptable? Someone explains that the vehicle's substance permeates cause and fruit: the fruit takes the myriad virtues as substance, and the cause takes the myriad goods as substance, citing the *Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra*, which says: 'Ridden by the Buddhas, the Great Men; ridden by Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, and others.' They also cite this sūtra: 'The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle,' which is the fruit; and 'The sons ride upon this jeweled vehicle,' which is the causal vehicle. They also cite the *Samantabhadra-dhyāna-sūtra*: 'The cause and fruit of the Great Vehicle are both the true aspect.' I privately ask: does the vehicle of cause and fruit transform, or does it not transform? If it transforms, what is that which can permeate, and what is that which is permeated? If it does not transform, then cause and fruit are juxtaposed; neither conforms to principle. If there is a separate dharma that permeates cause and fruit, one should know that what is not cause or fruit is the substance of the sūtra. The *Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra* says: 'Because the Great Men, the Buddhas, do not move, it is called a vehicle.' How could one use non-movement to prove the vehicle of cause and fruit? When the *Lotus Sūtra* says, 'The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle,' this means mounting the principle to guide people, not abiding in the fruit's virtues. The *Samantabhadra-dhyāna-sūtra* clarifies that cause and fruit both point to the true aspect—how could one use the true aspect to prove cause and fruit? Now none of these are accepted. Someone explains the causal vehicle taking prajñā as the root and the five perfections as the branches; and the fruit vehicle taking sarvajñā as the root and the rest as the branches. Further, the causal vehicle is narrow, while the fruit vehicle is broad. Further, the mind corresponding with prajñā is a vehicle of identical substance, while the non-corresponding mind is a vehicle of different substance. Further, practice corresponding to non-attainment is the proximate vehicle, while bowing the head and raising the hand with attainment is the distant vehicle. Further, the six perfections having a mixture of worldly and supramundane is the distant vehicle, while the thirty-seven factors [of awakening] being purely supramundane is called the proximate vehicle. Further, the four propositions, perfections and factors all have non-attainment, or perfections and factors both have attainment; or perfections are mixed and factors are unmixed, or factors are mixed and perfections are unmixed, and so forth.