法華文句記 6.63

6.63

「四諦同會見諦」者，《阿含經》中亦有四衢譬四諦下惑盡。次明索車義，云「作十難」者，古人立難，不許菩薩有索車義、會二歸一。近代拾用，何足為怪？故今敘破令有索會。先述，次破。初二可見，第三云所化是凡夫，未出三界，不應有索；能化位在三十三心，不可於茲更云有索。若入佛果，佛果無二，佛從誰索？第四明先斷正使，習無知在理不合索，斷盡成佛，佛復無索。第五引今經文，以證菩薩。第六云「從大品」等者，古以般若在方等前，故云「大品已來」。先引妨云「法華已前皆方便」者，先定；「付窮子」下設難也。二乘領業皆菩薩法，若是方便所付之財，何以乃云皆是我有？「若付財」下重徵也。若所付財是真實者，菩薩於彼先得此財已成真實，豈至法華更索真實？第七意者，〈方便品〉云「一切聲聞辟支佛所不能知」，故小名方便是故須索。「佛子大乘」者，偈云「佛子行道已來世得作佛」，作佛是實，實不須索。下三可見。古今所計不出此十。

Regarding "the four noble truths together convene upon seeing the truths," the Āgamas also have the crossroad as a metaphor for the exhaustion of defilements under the four noble truths. Next, in clarifying the meaning of demanding the carriages, where it says "raising ten objections," earlier scholars established objections, not admitting that bodhisattvas have the meaning of demanding the carriages and converging the two into the one. That recent people pick these up and use them is hardly surprising! Therefore, [the text] now recounts and refutes them so that [bodhisattvas] have demanding and converging. First it recounts, then it refutes. The first two are obvious. The third states that those who are transformed are ordinary beings who have not yet escaped the triple realm and ought not to have demanding; while the transformer's stage is at the thirty-three minds, so one cannot say there is further demanding at this point. If one enters the buddha-fruit, the buddha-fruit has no duality—from whom would a buddha demand? The fourth clarifies that when one has previously severed the direct afflictions, with the residual habit-energy of nescience still remaining, by principle it is not fitting to demand; once it is severed completely and one becomes a buddha, a buddha again has no demanding. The fifth cites the text of the present sūtra to prove [the case for] the bodhisattva. The sixth says "From the Great Perfection of Wisdom…" and so on, because the ancients considered prajñā to precede the vaipulya [period], and hence said "ever since the Great Perfection of Wisdom." First it cites the difficulty, saying: "Everything prior to the Lotus is provisional"; this first defines [the position]. From "entrusting the impoverished son" onward, it sets up the objection: the two vehicles' managing of the estate is entirely the bodhisattva-dharma; if it is the wealth entrusted as a provisional means, why does [the father] then say, "It is all mine"? From "If the wealth entrusted…" onward, it cross-examines again: if the wealth entrusted is real, the bodhisattva previously attained this wealth there and was already real, so how could he arrive at the Lotus and further demand the real? The intent of the seventh is: the "Skillful Means Chapter" says, "Which cannot be known by any śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas"; therefore the lesser is called provisional, and hence they must demand. As for "the Buddha's sons of the Great Vehicle," the verse says, "Buddha's sons, having practiced the path, will in future ages be able to become buddhas"; becoming a buddha is real, and what is real does not require demanding. The following three are obvious. The assertions of ancient and modern [scholars] do not go beyond these ten.