妙法蓮華經文句 5.64

5.64

「各白父言」下，第二，是索車譬。文云：「願賜我等三種寶車」，文無索字義者，依此請辭明索車耳。有人云：「二乘索車，菩薩不索。作十難難之，一云：二乘出三界外，至許車處索果車；菩薩未至許處，那忽索車？二云：大乘經無菩薩索小乘果，故知不索。三云：所化菩薩從初發心終至補處，皆是凡夫不出三界，義則無索；能化菩薩三十三心，見傾思未盡，三十四心便是佛，佛從誰索？四、二乘果在正使門外，佛果在習氣無知門外，二乘斷正使盡不見車，是故索；菩薩未斷習與無知，那忽索？五、明二是方便可言索，文云唯此一事實，餘二則非真，以此推之但二索、一不索。六、從《大品》已來，至《法華》已前，佛因佛果皆是方便者，付窮子財此之珍寶，皆應是方便，若付財是真實，則《大品》等明佛乘，已是真實，那忽更索？七、〈方便品〉偈，敘昔說小是方便，不敘大是方便，當知佛子大乘非方便，那忽有索？八、若三人索者何？無領解，領解無故，故知不索也。九、合賜車，文云『見諸眾生出三界苦、得涅槃樂，故賜以大乘』，菩薩不證涅槃，那忽索？十、諸子安坐故就父索，二乘果滿不修行，故安坐可得有索；菩薩行未息，無安坐義，那忽索？」私以總別駁之。索是求請之別名，在意名求索，在口名請索，在身名乞索，如矇者求知，如飢者請食，如迷者問道，凡居不達之地，何有不索之理？由索故許與，許與故歡喜，今文具有請與歡喜，法說中千二百人，身子為首，慇懃三請；菩薩眾中彌勒為首，佛口所生子，大數有八萬，合掌以敬心，欲聞具足道，譬說之初，身子為中根人請，又總為四眾請，傍為下根請，文云：「善哉世尊，願為四眾說其因緣。」法說許云：「汝已殷勤三請，豈得不說？」譬說許云：「當以譬喻更明此義。」因緣許云：「我及汝等宿世因緣，吾今當說。」法說竟，身子歡喜；譬說竟，迦葉等歡喜；宿世說竟，樓那歡喜。又合譬文云：「令諸子等日夜劫數常得遊戲，與諸菩薩乘是寶乘直至道場。」以喜故知與，與故知請，三周三義明文炳然，何故偏言二索、一不索？別駁，其一，齊三藏明菩薩不斷惑，依《法華》有四句，謂障除大機動，障未除大機動，機動則知索。其二云：大乘經無菩薩索小乘果，《大品》云：「三乘之人，同以無言說道，斷煩惱入涅槃」，斷煩惱入涅槃同，何故不索？其三云：三十三心名菩薩，三十四斷思盡即成佛，佛從誰索？此猶三藏義，見障未除大機尚動，況三十三心而當不動，動即知索。其四，菩薩未斷習氣無知不應索，斷盡成佛，佛從誰索？此三乘通教義，具縛障存尚大機動，況殘習無知耶？其五，唯此一事實，實即是真，那忽復索？被會絕待之唯一，一外更無法，昔待二之唯一，一外更有法，一名同而體異，闇執瓦礫魚目，謂夜光月形，愚豈而智愍（云云）。其六，《般若》已來《法華》已上，與付財法同，不應有索。汝不聞共不共般若，不共不須索，共者不應不索（云云）。其七，〈方便品〉初，昔說小是方便，不敘昔說大是方便，大非方便，是故不索者。汝不聞〈壽量品〉中，我少出家得三菩提，乃至中間若小若大若己若他皆我方便，諸佛亦然，寧得不索？其八，若菩薩索，菩薩應領解，領解既無，故知不索。汝不聞法說竟，天龍四眾皆領解，其非菩薩謂是何耶？又〈法師品〉中，三乘皆與記，若不領解，那忽與記？其九，出三界苦得安隱樂，乃賜乃索，菩薩未出未證，是故不索，猶是三藏義耳。其十，諸子安坐爾乃賜車，二乘行息名安坐，菩薩行不息非安坐，那忽索車？猶是前義耳。自有行息索、行未息索，又菩薩行行，即是乘乘，乘由索得，何謂不索？觀其詭累三藏，故設此十難，管見一斑都非大體，今當為爾分別說之。自有不斷惑不索車，三藏菩薩是；自有斷惑索車，通教菩薩是；自有亦斷惑亦不斷惑亦索亦不索，別教菩薩是；自有非斷惑非不斷惑非索非不索，圓教菩薩是。又歷五味：乳味兩意：一、亦斷亦不斷，亦索亦不索，二、非斷非不斷，非索非不索；酪味一意不斷不索；生酥備四意；熟酥但三意；醍醐一意。宏綱大統其義如此。於一一句一一意，復各四句：謂障除機動，障未除機動，障亦除亦未除機動，障非除非不除機動。斯宗不見執一非三，深可悲愍。世人執車數不同，說車體不同，或言初說三車，後會二歸一；或言初說有三，後會三歸一；或言初說有四，後會三歸一。所以出經勿信人語，此文引昔佛為聲聞說應四諦法，為緣覺人說應十二因緣法，為菩薩人說應六波羅蜜法，今佛說三，數亦如此。《華嚴》第八云：「下劣厭沒者，為示聲聞道；根鈍樂因緣，為說緣覺道；根利有慈悲，為說菩薩道；無上樂大事，說無量佛法。」三十六又云：「三解脫法出聲聞乘，無諍法出緣覺乘，六度四攝出大乘，知一切法出佛乘。」又第九地說聲聞乘相、支佛乘相、菩薩乘相、如來乘相。《地論》釋第二地，觀十不善集墜三途，十善集生天。上十善與四諦觀智合成聲聞，又上十善與不從他聞觀智合成緣覺，又上十善與具足清淨觀智合，成菩薩地，又上上十善與一切種一切佛法合成佛。《瓔珞》第十三云：「十方佛說三乘，一乘中又開三合九乘，九乘悉會入平等大慧。」聖說如此，不能融通，互相是非，非法毀人，過莫大焉。今約教分別之。若說三乘法門異而真諦同者，三藏教也；若說三乘法門同、真諦皆同者通教也；若說三乘三三九乘，若說四乘淺深階級各各不同而同入平等大慧者，別教也；若說三乘九乘四乘一一皆與平等大慧相應無二無異者，圓教也。又歷五味分別；乳味但明菩薩乘、佛乘；酪味但明異三乘；生酥味備明三乘四乘九乘各各分齊不相濫；熟酥味唯除異三乘，餘如生酥也；醍醐中純說佛乘，無復餘乘也。若識此意異說無妨，若不知者秖增諍論耳。世人明佛乘乘體有異，光宅取佛果究竟盡無生二智為車體，遠出五百由旬之外對昔為高，具含萬德對昔為廣。莊嚴取因總萬行為體，上求為高下化為廣。舊不取功德，功德與凡夫共，唯取智慧為體。舊又取福慧共為體。文云「乘是三車」，以無漏根力覺道禪定解脫三昧而自娛樂，豈但智慧耶？又一師但取有解為體，空解無動故不取，盡無生智即有解也。又一小乘取空慧為車體，文云「我等長夜修習空法」（云云）。大乘亦以實慧方便為車體，車體譬有，有有運動故也。私謂諸師釋佛乘之體，而競指具度，何異眾盲觸象諍其尾牙。依天台智者，明諸法實相正是車體，一切眾寶莊校皆莊嚴具耳，至賜車文中當點出。舊解：小車者小果也，果有有為、無為功德，正取有為以譬車運，運入無餘也。有為果中具有福慧，以慧為正、福屬具度，其慧有十，而八智通因果，盡無生智唯是果位，乃取二智以譬車果，以是義故車在門外。若依《大品》云：「是乘從三界出，到薩婆若中住。」若未出時，已乘是乘爭出火宅，何故復言車在門外？若先在外，乘何而出？然但乘通因果，三十七品斷見思惑，皆是因乘，盡無生智皆名果乘，要因因乘斷除惑盡，方得果乘盡無生智，故言車在門外。但果正因傍，就果為言車在門外；若內因斷結運義名乘，外果不運何得名乘？然果無斷惑之運，要以盡無生智入無餘涅槃，方是好運也；若乘因到果，何意方更索車？舊云：機索、情索。機索者可解；情索者，佛說盡無生教，羅漢證此果，已用神通天眼試觀未來，猶見變易生死浩然，自疑所得盡無生證，若實無生云何見有？如其浩然昔非究竟情中從佛索先所許是為情索，若尋經文文無此語，若推索義義不應然，文無可解。推者，下文云：「自於所得生滅度想」，既以天眼見有生死，何故復起滅度之想？此則自相矛盾。又佛滅後羅漢，不值餘佛不能決了，既自以天眼照見生死，何須見佛而決了耶？又初禪天眼，尚不見二禪，況見變易？亦與《攝大乘》乖也。又羅漢得無漏業，用天眼見變易未來生死果報者，即時人修五戒十善，應自見其未來果報；當知界外果報，豈是天眼所見耶？不用此判情索也。今言情索者，昔日依教謂盡無生能入無餘，而於方等中，見菩薩不思議，聞淨名彈斥，若我所得是實，大士不應折挫；若我非實，佛不應說真。故云茫然不知所云。至《大品》中領知大法，聞此樂大心起，方欲進修大乘，而不能知得與不得，此等皆是情中已索大乘之義。故身子領解，提昔疑情：「見諸菩薩授記作佛，不豫斯事，嗚呼自責，欲以問世尊，為失為不失？」即是指昔方等已有情索也。今加口索者，因聞〈方便品〉初偈略聞佛說並是方便，即復執今方便疑昔未極，故云：「我今不知是義所趣」，動宿疑情故發言三請，索求昔日所說之實，機在大乘、情求昔實。又情求大乘、口問昔實，六度通教例爾。

From "each spoke to the father, saying" onward, second, is the parable of asking for the carts. The text states: "We pray that you will give us the three kinds of precious carts." Although the character for "demanding" [索] does not appear in the text, its meaning is elucidated as demanding the carts on the basis of these words of entreaty. Someone says: "The two vehicles demanded the carts, but bodhisattvas did not demand them. They frame ten objections to challenge this: First, they say: The [followers of the] two vehicles, having exited outside the three realms, arrived at the place where the carts were promised and demanded the carts of fruition; bodhisattvas have not yet reached the promised place, so how could they suddenly demand the carts? Second, they say: In Mahāyāna sūtras there is no instance of a bodhisattva demanding a Hīnayāna fruition; therefore we know they do not demand it. Third, they say: Bodhisattvas who are converted, from their initial resolve up to the stage of subsequent succession, are all ordinary beings who do not exit the three realms, meaning they do not make a demand; while the bodhisattva who can convert possesses thirty-three minds, where views are overthrown but thoughts are not yet exhausted, and at the thirty-fourth mind becomes a buddha—from whom would a buddha demand? Fourth: The fruition of the two vehicles lies outside the gate of active defilements, whereas the buddha-fruition lies outside the gate of residual propensities and nescience; the two vehicles, having severed active defilements completely, do not see the carts and therefore demand them; bodhisattvas have not yet severed residual propensities and nescience, so how could they suddenly demand? Fifth: Explaining that two are expedient allows one to speak of a demand, for the text says, 'Only this one thing is real; the other two are not true'; deducing from this, only two demand and one does not. Sixth: From the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā onward up to before the Lotus Sūtra, if both the buddha-cause and buddha-fruition are expedients, then when the poor son is entrusted with wealth, these treasures should all be expedients; if entrusting the wealth is real, then the Buddha Vehicle explained in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and elsewhere is already real—why would they demand it again? Seventh: The verses of the 'Expedient Means Chapter' recount that teaching the small in the past was an expedient, but do not recount that teaching the great was an expedient; one must know that the Mahāyāna of the buddha-sons is not an expedient, so how could there be a demand? Eighth: If three types of people demanded, why is there no receptive understanding? Because receptive understanding is absent, therefore we know they did not demand. Ninth: In matching the giving of the carts, the text says: 'Seeing that all sentient beings had escaped the suffering of the three realms and attained the joy of nirvāṇa, he therefore gave them the Mahāyāna'; bodhisattvas have not realized nirvāṇa, so how could they demand? Tenth: The sons sat at ease and therefore went to the father to demand; the fruition of the two vehicles is full and they no longer cultivate practices, so sitting at ease allows them to have a demand; the bodhisattva's practice has not ceased, so there is no sense of sitting at ease—how could they demand?" I personally refute this generally and specifically. "Demanding" is another name for seeking and entreating: when in the mind, it is called seeking and demanding; when in the mouth, it is called requesting and demanding; when in the body, it is called begging and demanding. Like the blind seeking sight, the hungry requesting food, or the lost asking the way—whenever one dwells in a place of non-attainment, how could there be any principle of not demanding? Because of demanding, it was promised to be given; because it was promised to be given, there was rejoicing. The present text fully possesses entreaty, giving, and rejoicing: In the exposition of Dharma, with Śāriputra at their head, the twelve hundred people earnestly made three entreaties; among the bodhisattva assembly, with Maitreya at their head, the sons born from the Buddha's mouth, numbering fully eighty thousand, with palms joined and respectful minds, wished to hear the complete path. At the beginning of the parable exposition, Śāriputra entreats on behalf of people of intermediate faculties, also makes a general entreaty for the fourfold assembly, and incidentally entreats for those of lower faculties; the text says: "Excellent, World-Honoured One! We pray you will explain the causes and conditions for the fourfold assembly." In the exposition of Dharma, he promised, saying: "You have already earnestly made three entreaties; how could I not explain?" In the parable exposition, he promised, saying: "I shall use a parable to further clarify this meaning." In the causes and conditions, he promised, saying: "The causes and conditions of past lives between myself and you, I shall now explain." When the exposition of Dharma ended, Śāriputra rejoiced; when the parable exposition ended, Kāśyapa and the others rejoiced; when the past lives were explained, Pūrṇa rejoiced. Furthermore, the text matching the parable says: "Causing all the sons throughout days, nights, and kalpas to always sport and play, riding together with all the bodhisattvas in this precious vehicle directly to the place of enlightenment." From rejoicing we know there was giving; from giving we know there was entreating; across the three cycles, the three meanings are brilliantly clear in the text—why one-sidedly say two demanded and one did not? Refuting them specifically: As for the first, restricting the view to the Tripiṭaka where the bodhisattva does not sever defilements, according to the Lotus Sūtra there are four propositions: namely, obstacles removed and the great capacity is stirred; obstacles not removed and the great capacity is stirred—when capacity is stirred, one knows there is a demand. As for the second, saying that in Mahāyāna sūtras there is no bodhisattva demanding a Hīnayāna fruition: the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says, "Persons of the three vehicles equally use the path of inexpressibility to sever afflictions and enter nirvāṇa"—if severing afflictions and entering nirvāṇa are identical, why would they not demand? As for the third, saying that thirty-three minds are named a bodhisattva, and the thirty-fourth mind severs thought completely to immediately become a buddha, so from whom would a buddha demand? This is still the Tripiṭaka meaning; if the great capacity is still stirred when the obstacle of views is not yet removed, how much more so with the thirty-three minds could it fail to stir? When it stirs, one knows there is a demand. As for the fourth, that bodhisattvas have not severed residual propensities and nescience so should not demand, and when severed completely they become buddhas, so from whom would a buddha demand? This is the meaning of the shared teaching of the three vehicles; if even with all bonds and obstacles remaining the great capacity is stirred, how much more so with residual propensities and nescience? As for the fifth, that only this one matter is real, and "real" means true, so how could they demand again? The unique one of integration and absolute transcendence has no further dharma outside that one; the past unique one relative to the two had further dharmas outside that one. The name "one" is the same, but the substance is different; obstinately clinging to rubble and fish eyes, deeming them luminous pearls and the form of the moon—how could the foolish not be pitied by the wise? As for the sixth, that from the Prajñāpāramitā onward up to the Lotus Sūtra, it is identical to the method of entrusting wealth, so there should be no demand: Have you not heard of the shared and unshared Prajñā? The unshared does not need a demand, but the shared should not fail to demand. As for the seventh, that at the beginning of the "Expedient Means Chapter", preaching the small in the past was an expedient, but it does not recount that preaching the great in the past was an expedient, so the great is not an expedient, and therefore they do not demand: Have you not heard in the "Life Span Chapter", "I left home when young and attained samyak-saṃbodhi," down to that in the interim, whether small or great, whether oneself or another, all are my expedients, and all buddhas are also thus—how could they not demand? As for the eighth, that if bodhisattvas demanded, bodhisattvas should have receptive understanding, and since receptive understanding is absent, therefore we know they did not demand: Have you not heard that when the exposition of Dharma ended, the gods, nāgas, and fourfold assembly all received and understood—who were they, if not bodhisattvas? Furthermore, in the "Dharma Teacher Chapter", all three vehicles are given predictions; if they did not receive and understand, how could they suddenly be given predictions? As for the ninth, that exiting the suffering of the three realms and attaining peaceful joy is the condition for giving and demanding, and because bodhisattvas have not exited and not realized, they do not demand: this is still merely the Tripiṭaka meaning. As for the tenth, that only when the sons sat at ease were the carts then given, and the cessation of practice in the two vehicles is called sitting at ease, whereas the bodhisattva's practice does not cease and is not sitting at ease, so how could they demand the carts? This is still the former meaning. There is naturally demanding when practice ceases, and demanding when practice has not ceased; furthermore, the bodhisattva's practicing of practice is itself the riding of the vehicle, and the vehicle is attained through demanding—why say they do not demand? Observing that they deceitfully implicate the Tripiṭaka and therefore raised these ten objections, their limited perspective of a single spot is completely lacking the overarching principle; I shall now explain it analytically for you. There is naturally not severing defilement and not demanding the cart: this is the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva. There is severing defilement and demanding the cart: this is the shared teaching bodhisattva. There is both severing defilement and not severing defilement, both demanding and not demanding: this is the distinctive teaching bodhisattva. There is neither severing defilement nor not severing defilement, neither demanding nor not demanding: this is the perfect teaching bodhisattva. Furthermore, passing through the five flavors: the milk flavor has two meanings: first, both severing and not severing, both demanding and not demanding; second, neither severing nor not severing, neither demanding nor not demanding. The curd flavor has one meaning: not severing and not demanding. The raw butter flavor is equipped with four meanings. The cooked butter flavor has only three meanings. Ghee has one meaning. The grand framework and main guidelines of the meaning are like this. Within each phrase and each meaning, there are again four propositions: namely, obstacles removed and capacity stirred; obstacles not removed and capacity stirred; obstacles both removed and not removed and capacity stirred; obstacles neither removed nor not removed and capacity stirred. Not seeing this principle and clinging to the one while rejecting the three is deeply pitiable. People of the world cling to differences in the number of carts and speak of the cart's substance differently: some say that initially three carts were spoken of, and later the two were converged into the one; some say that initially there were three, and later the three were converged into the one; some say that initially there were four, and later the three were converged into the one. Therefore, take what comes from the sūtras and do not believe human words! This text cites that the past buddha explained the Dharma corresponding to the Four Truths for the śrāvakas, explained the Dharma corresponding to the twelve links of dependent origination for the pratyekabuddhas, and explained the Dharma corresponding to the six pāramitās for bodhisattvas; now the Buddha speaks of three, and the number is also like this. Chapter 8 of the Avataṃsaka says: "For those who are inferior and depressed, he demonstrates the śrāvaka path; for those of dull faculties who delight in causes and conditions, he explains the pratyekabuddha path; for those of sharp faculties who possess compassion, he explains the bodhisattva path; for those supreme ones who delight in the great matter, he explains the immeasurable buddha-dharma." Chapter 36 also says: "The Dharma of the three liberations produces the śrāvaka vehicle; the Dharma of non-contention produces the pratyekabuddha vehicle; the six pāramitās and four means of embracing produce the Mahāyāna; knowing all phenomena produces the Buddha Vehicle." Furthermore, the ninth bhūmi explains the characteristics of the śrāvaka vehicle, the characteristics of the pratyekabuddha vehicle, the characteristics of the bodhisattva vehicle, and the characteristics of the Tathāgata vehicle. The Daśabhūmika-śāstra, explaining the second bhūmi, states that contemplating the accumulation of the ten unwholesome deeds causes falling into the three paths, while the accumulation of the ten wholesome deeds causes rebirth in heaven. Superior ten wholesome deeds combined with the contemplative wisdom of the Four Truths form the śrāvaka; furthermore, superior ten wholesome deeds combined with contemplative wisdom that does not hear from others form the pratyekabuddha; furthermore, superior ten wholesome deeds combined with fully purified contemplative wisdom form the bodhisattva bhūmi; furthermore, supreme superior ten wholesome deeds combined with all aspects and all buddha-dharmas form the buddha. Chapter 13 of the Yingluo [jing] says: "The buddhas of the ten directions speak of the three vehicles; within the One Vehicle they again open three to combine into nine vehicles, and the nine vehicles all converge and enter the equal great wisdom." Since the holy teachings are like this, being unable to harmonize them, mutually affirming and negating, distorting the Dharma and defaming others—no fault could be greater than this. Now I differentiate them according to the teachings: If one says that the Dharma gates of the three vehicles are different while the true truth is identical, this is the Tripiṭaka teaching; if one says that the Dharma gates of the three vehicles are identical and the true truths are all identical, this is the shared teaching; if one says that the three vehicles are three times three, making nine vehicles, or says that the shallow and deep stages of the four vehicles are each different yet together enter the equal great wisdom, this is the distinctive teaching; if one says that the three vehicles, the nine vehicles, and the four vehicles each and every one correspond with the equal great wisdom without duality and without distinction, this is the perfect teaching. Furthermore, differentiating them across the five flavors: the milk flavor clarifies only the bodhisattva vehicle and the Buddha Vehicle; the curd flavor clarifies only the differentiated three vehicles; the raw butter flavor fully clarifies the three vehicles, the four vehicles, and the nine vehicles, their respective boundaries not being confused; the cooked butter flavor merely excludes the differentiated three vehicles, the rest being like the raw butter; within ghee, it purely expounds the Buddha Vehicle, with no remaining vehicles. If one understands this meaning, different explanations pose no obstacle; if one does not understand, it only increases disputation. People of the world clarify the vehicle's substance of the Buddha Vehicle with differences: Guangzhai takes the two wisdoms of the buddha-fruition—the ultimate knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising—as the cart's substance: extending far beyond five hundred yojanas is high relative to the past, and fully containing the ten thousand virtues is broad relative to the past. Zhuangyan takes the cause comprehensive of the ten thousand practices as the substance: seeking above is high, and converting below is broad. Ancient [masters] did not take merit, for merit is shared with ordinary beings, but took only wisdom as the substance. Ancient masters also took both blessings and wisdom together as the substance. The text says "riding these three carts," entertaining oneself with undefiled faculties, powers, limbs of enlightenment, path, dhyāna, liberations, and samādhis—how could it be wisdom alone? Again, one master took only understanding of existence as the substance, rejecting understanding of emptiness because it lacks movement; the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising is precisely the understanding of existence. Again, a Hīnayāna master took wisdom of emptiness as the cart's substance, citing the text: "Through the long night we cultivated the dharma of emptiness." Mahāyāna also takes real wisdom and expedients as the cart's substance, for the cart's substance is likened to existence, and existence has movement. I personally say: When various masters explain the substance of the Buddha Vehicle, they vie to point to its accessories, which is no different from the blind men touching the elephant and quarreling over its tail and tusks! Relying on Tiantai Zhiyi: clarifying that the true aspect of all phenomena is precisely the cart's substance, while all the adornments of precious jewels are merely decorative accessories, which shall be pointed out when we come to the text on bestowing the carts. The ancient interpretation says: The small cart is the small fruition; the fruition has conditioned and unconditioned merits, and properly takes the conditioned to liken the cart's transport, transporting into [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Within the conditioned fruition, blessings and wisdom are fully possessed; wisdom is primary, while blessings belong to accessories. Its wisdoms are ten, among which eight wisdoms pervade cause and fruition, while the knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising belong solely to the fruition stage; thus they take the two wisdoms to liken the cart's fruition, and for this reason the carts are outside the gate. If one relies on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, which says, "This vehicle exits from the three realms and abides in sarvajñā": if when they had not yet exited they had already ridden this vehicle to vie in exiting the burning house, why does it say again that the carts are outside the gate? If they were already outside, what did they ride to exit? However, the vehicle simply pervades cause and fruition: the thirty-seven factors that sever the defilements of views and thoughts are all the causal vehicle, and the knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising are all named the fruition vehicle; one must rely on the causal vehicle to sever and eliminate defilements completely before attaining the fruition vehicle of the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising, and therefore it says the carts are outside the gate. But the fruition is primary and the cause secondary; speaking with respect to the fruition, the carts are outside the gate. If the internal cause of severing fetters is called a vehicle by virtue of transport, then if the external fruition does not transport, how could it be called a vehicle? Yet the fruition lacks the transport of severing defilements; one must use the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, and only then is it a good transport. If they rode the cause to arrive at the fruition, why would they only then demand the carts? The ancients said: capacity demand and emotional demand. Capacity demand can be understood. As for emotional demand: the Buddha preached the teaching of exhaustion and non-arising; when the arhat realized this fruition, he had already used supernatural powers and the divine eye to test-view the future, yet still saw the vastness of the saṃsāra of inconceivable transformation, and suspected his attained realization of exhaustion and non-arising: if it is truly non-arising, why does he see existence? Seeing that it is vast, what was past was not ultimate; in his feelings he demanded from the Buddha what was previously promised—this is emotional demand. If one examines the sūtra text, there are no such words in the text; if one deduces the meaning of demanding, the principle should not be so; the text offers no ground for such an interpretation. To deduce it: the text below says, "They conceived the thought of extinction within what they had attained"; since they saw existence and saṃsāra with the divine eye, why did they again give rise to the thought of extinction? This is self-contradictory. Furthermore, arhats after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa who did not meet other buddhas were unable to resolve their doubts; since they themselves used the divine eye to illuminate and see saṃsāra, why would they need to see a buddha to resolve them? Furthermore, the divine eye of the first dhyāna does not even see the second dhyāna, how much less could it see transformation? This also contradicts the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Furthermore, if an arhat attained undefiled karma and used the divine eye to see future karmic retribution of transformation and saṃsāra, then people of today cultivating the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds should themselves see their future karmic retribution; one should know: how could karmic retributions outside the realms be seen by the divine eye? We do not use this to judge emotional demand. What is now called emotional demand is this: In the past, relying on the teaching, they thought that exhaustion and non-arising could enter [nirvāṇa] without remainder; yet in the Vaipulya [sūtras], they saw the inconceivable of bodhisattvas and heard the rebuke of Vimalakīrti: 'If what I attained is real, the Great Being should not suppress me; if what I have is not real, the Buddha should not have spoken of the true.' Hence they said they were bewildered and did not know what to say. Arriving at the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, they received and understood the great Dharma; hearing this, the mind delighting in the great arose, and only then did they wish to advance in cultivating the Mahāyāna, yet could not know whether they would attain it or not. These are all the meaning of having already demanded the Mahāyāna within their feelings. Therefore, Śāriputra received and understood, bringing up his past doubtful feelings: 'Seeing all the bodhisattvas being conferred predictions of becoming buddhas, but not participating in this matter, I lamented and reproached myself, wishing to ask the World-Honoured One whether I had lost it or not lost it'—this precisely points to having already had an emotional demand in the past Vaipulya. Now, adding verbal demand: because they heard the initial verses of the 'Expedient Means Chapter' and briefly heard that all the Buddha's preachings are expedients, they immediately grasped at the present expedients and suspected that the past was not ultimate; therefore they said, 'We do not now know what this meaning tends toward.' Stirring past doubtful feelings, they therefore voiced three entreaties, demanding the reality of what was spoken in the past. Their capacity lay in the Mahāyāna, and their feelings sought the past reality. Furthermore, their feelings sought the Mahāyāna, and their mouths asked about the past reality; the six pāramitās and the shared teaching are likewise.