妙法蓮華經玄義 8.58

8.58

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.