妙法蓮華經文句 5.64

5.64

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.