法華玄論 6.158

6.158

次明所索車。四重：一因果、二福惠、三空有、四為無為。舊解三車但是果非因。大車二釋。光宅云：果地究竟盡無生二智為體，遠出由旬之外，對昔近故為高；具含萬德，對昔狹義為廣。莊嚴云：大車是因，總萬行為體。雖總萬行，略明二法為主：一者菩提大願，上求佛道為高，下度眾生為廣。二者空慧不離，初後得菩提為高，照窮法性為廣。評曰：三車為果，不遠文義。文云「今此三車皆在門外」。義者，三界內未免生老病死之火，三界外則永免之。以斯弘文，義可然也。大車互執因果，文義俱傷。今當具說。若言大車但是果者，下何得云「乘是寶車直至道場」耶？故一不可也。又諸子索車父則賜車，諸子得車各乘之。今但是果者，乃是懸許，竟未父賜，子遂不得，何所乘耶？昔許其三實不得三，今許其一又未得一。若爾，三一兩車並許而未賜。二不可也。救曰：正說同歸三教，記三乘作佛，使其標心在果而修行取之，故云乘是大車而前進耳。難曰：昔於一說三，三非究竟，故門外無車。今會三歸一，一乘是實，故子得大車。更非別法，即捐昔三乘，同運向佛為大車體。此豈標壽量果？而子竟不得耶？三不可也。又賜大車是當果記者，前許三車亦應是三乘記耳。四不可也。又出二死之外故高者，出二死之外應常。若此教明佛猶是無常，此教明佛未出二死，未出二死則不名高。若云在二死之頂故未常者，則在二死之頂猶應未出，如三有頂猶未出有，山頂猶未離山，二死頂猶未離二死也。又問：二死攝無常為盡不盡？若盡，既出二死則出無常，豈非常耶？若不盡，應有六百，非五百也。又反難曰：若出而未常，不常而未出，不可常而未出，豈得出而未常？又出二死而非常，未出二死應是常。未出既非常，出則應常。五不可也。又若言未出二死者，亦應未應五百由旬，故出則害義、不出遠文，進退無取，不可救。六不可也。又問：昔二車但出正使外，故下昔佛出習氣無知外。何故下耶？故通一未充、釋三不足。七不可也。次評曰：莊嚴義是亦不然。若言大車但是因者，下合中何因緣故舉果德合耶？文云「皆以如來滅度而滅度之」，又云「悉與諸佛禪定解脫名賜大車」耶？又難曰：若乘唯因非果，行亦唯因非果。《大經》云「復有一行是如來行，謂大乘大般涅槃。」不應言車但是因。又昔三車是三果，今大車何非大果？理數然，無勞惑也。又此經云妙法，然唯是果德乃是妙極。若爾，則果車為妙極，因車未極。例因乘未極、果乘乃極，何故不取極乘為乘，而取不極乘為乘耶？又因有乘、果無乘，則因車、果無車，則長者自無車，以何賜之？若云此經但取進趣乘、不取果德乘者，亦不然。要先應明果德妙乘，用此應物，然後令乘因行以求果乘耳。則知果乘為上宗，云何不取耶？

Next, to clarify the carriage that was demanded. There are four folds: first, cause and fruit; second, merit and wisdom; third, emptiness and existence; fourth, conditioned and unconditioned. Older interpretations hold that the three carriages are merely the fruit and not the cause. Regarding the great carriage, there are two explanations. Guangzhai says: Its essence is the two wisdoms of the extinction of defilements and non-arising at the ultimate stage of fruition; it extends far beyond the yojanas, being called 'lofty' in contrast to the past's proximity; it fully contains myriad virtues, being called 'broad' in contrast to the past's narrow sense. Zhuangyan says: The great carriage is the cause, having the totality of the myriad practices as its essence. Although it totals the myriad practices, it briefly explains two dharmas as primary: first, the great vow of bodhi, which is 'lofty' in seeking the Buddha Way above and 'broad' in saving sentient beings below; second, inseparable wisdom of emptiness, which is 'lofty' in attaining bodhi from beginning to end and 'broad' in fully illuminating the Dharma-nature.
Evaluation: Regarding the three carriages as the fruit is not far from the textual meaning. The text states: 'Now these three carriages are all outside the gate.' In principle, within the three realms one has not escaped the fire of birth, old age, sickness, and death; outside the three realms one is eternally free from it. In terms of this broad textual basis, the principle is plausible. However, each clinging exclusively to cause or to fruit for the great carriage damages both text and principle. We shall now explain this fully. If one claims that the great carriage is merely the fruit, how could the text below state: 'Riding this jeweled carriage straight to the bodhimaṇḍa'? Thus, the first is untenable. Furthermore, when the sons demanded carriages, the father bestowed carriages, and the sons obtained the carriages and each rode them. If it is now merely the fruit, it would be an offer suspended in the future: the father never actually bestowed them, the sons never obtained them, so what would they ride? In the past he promised three and they did not actually obtain three; now he promises one and they still do not obtain one. If so, both the three carriages and the one carriage were promised but not yet bestowed. The second is untenable.
A defense states: The explicit teaching unifies the three teachings and predicts that the three vehicles will become buddhas, causing them to set their sights on the fruit and attain it through practice; thus it says 'riding this great carriage and advancing forward.'
Objection: In the past, within the one he expounded three, but the three were not ultimate, and therefore there were no carriages outside the gate. Now, unifying the three into the one, the One Vehicle is real, and therefore the sons obtain the great carriage. It is not some other separate dharma; rather, discarding the former three vehicles, conveying together toward buddhahood is the essence of the great carriage. How could this merely denote the fruit of the Life Span [chapter] while the sons never obtain it? The third is untenable.
Furthermore, if bestowing the great carriage is a prediction of future fruition, then the previous promise of the three carriages should also merely be predictions of the three vehicles. The fourth is untenable.
Furthermore, if it is 'lofty' because it transcends the two kinds of death, then transcending the two kinds of death it should be permanent. If this teaching explains that the Buddha is still impermanent, then this teaching explains that the Buddha has not yet transcended the two kinds of death; and if he has not transcended the two kinds of death, it cannot be called 'lofty.' If one says that it is at the summit of the two kinds of death and thus not yet permanent, then being at the summit of the two kinds of death he should still not have transcended them—just as the summit of the three realms of existence has not yet transcended existence, and the mountain summit has not yet departed from the mountain, the summit of the two kinds of death has not yet departed from the two kinds of death.
We also ask: Do the two kinds of death subsume impermanence exhaustively or not? If exhaustively, then having transcended the two kinds of death he has transcended impermanence; how could he not be permanent? If not exhaustively, there should be six hundred, not five hundred [yojanas].
Furthermore, to counter-object: If he has transcended but is not yet permanent, and not being permanent he has not transcended, it is impossible that he is permanent but has not transcended; how could it be that he has transcended but is not yet permanent? Furthermore, if transcending the two kinds of death were not permanent, then not having transcended the two kinds of death should be permanent. Since not having transcended is impermanent, then having transcended should be permanent. The fifth is untenable.
Furthermore, if one says he has not yet transcended the two kinds of death, he should also not yet correspond to the five hundred yojanas; thus, to say he has transcended harms the principle, while to say he has not transcended departs from the text. Neither advancing nor retreating holds up; it is indefensible. The sixth is untenable.
We also ask: In the past, the two carriages only transcended the explicit defilements, so they were inferior; the past Buddha transcended the latency of habit and ignorance, so why was he inferior? Therefore, explaining the one is unsatisfactory, and expounding the three is insufficient. The seventh is untenable.
Next evaluation: The interpretation of Zhuangyan is likewise incorrect. If one claims that the great carriage is merely the cause, for what reason in the correlation below does he correlate it by citing the virtues of the fruit? The text states: 'All are brought to extinction through the Tathāgata's extinction,' and also states: 'Fully giving them the dhyāna, samādhis, and liberations of all buddhas is called bestowing the great carriage.'
Furthermore, to object: If the vehicle is solely the cause and not the fruit, then the practice would also be solely the cause and not the fruit. The Great Sūtra states: 'There is yet another practice which is the Tathāgata practice, namely the Great Vehicle, the Mahāparinirvāṇa.' One should not say that the carriage is merely the cause. Furthermore, if the former three carriages were the three fruits, why should the present great carriage not be the great fruit? The principle and logic are so; there is no need to be confused.
Furthermore, this sūtra speaks of the Wondrous Dharma, but only the fruit's virtues are wondrous to the utmost. If so, then the fruit carriage is wondrous to the utmost, while the causal carriage is not yet ultimate. By analogy, the causal vehicle is not yet ultimate, while the fruit vehicle is ultimate; why then not take the ultimate vehicle as the vehicle, but instead take the non-ultimate vehicle as the vehicle?
Furthermore, if the cause has a vehicle while the fruit has no vehicle, then the cause has a carriage while the fruit has no carriage; in that case, the elder himself would have no carriage, so with what would he bestow it?
If one says that this sūtra only takes the vehicle of advancement and does not take the vehicle of the fruit's virtues, this too is incorrect. One must first clarify the wondrous vehicle of the fruit's virtues and use this to respond to beings, and only then cause them to ride the causal practice to seek the fruit vehicle. Thus we know that the fruit vehicle is the supreme tenet; why would one not adopt it?