法華玄論 6.42

6.42

答：舊經師云三人索三車也。何以知然？下文云「爾時諸子各白父言：願賜我等三種寶車。」故知三人索三。又所以索三者，實無三乘，但昔於一佛乘方便說三，以是方便所以索也。評曰：今以十義推之，不應有三人索三也。一者本以三車譬於三果，故云今此三車皆在門外。二乘人出門外至許車處，覓果不得，可言索果；菩薩之人未至許車處，覓佛果不得，何有索佛果耶？二者設云六地菩薩出三界外乃不索佛果，亦同二乘索盡無生智，故菩薩三人亦有索者。是義不然，尋大小乘經無菩薩索。小乘中明二種菩薩：一者所化菩薩，始自發心終至補處皆是凡夫，無出三界之義，則無有索。故《彌勒觀經》優婆離白佛：「是阿逸多未斷三毒，命終當生何處？」故知始行終心皆是凡夫，不得出門外索也。二者能化釋迦菩薩，三十四心成道，三十三心猶是菩薩。三十四心是佛，三十三心是菩薩，而見諦已傾思惟未盡、此時未出三界，故無索；三十四心見思俱斷結習皆亡，爾時出於三界便是佛果，亦無索也。又小乘法中尚無出三界菩薩，何得言菩薩出三界而索耶？又三十四心成道，無出觀義，豈有索耶？又本就佛索果，釋迦菩薩就誰索耶？又大乘經中明有十地，至第六地時斷三界正使盡，豈不知有七地，而就佛覓究竟果耶？三者若救云：都無三藏中佛，道理而權言有，即是昔有今無。菩薩何故不索耶？若無菩薩索者，三藏中明佛菩薩皆應是究竟實有也。答曰：原索意者本為昔有今無，是故索耳。若今昔俱有者，必不索也。尋大小乘經，始終皆明佛乘是有，如初教明佛乘是有，至《法華》亦明佛乘是有。以始終明佛乘是有，故不索也。後見《法華論》亦明唯有佛乘無有二乘，凡有二義：一者云無有二乘涅槃，唯有大乘涅槃，名為佛乘，前已答竟。二者總序〈方便品〉有五分，明義但為破二明一。若爾，不言無有佛乘，菩薩何所索耶？《法華》前後文無有言佛乘是方便，但言二乘是方便，故二乘人索、菩薩不索。

Answer: Former exegetes said that three persons ask for three carriages. How is this known? The text below says, 'At that time the sons each addressed their father, saying: "We wish you would bestow upon us the three kinds of precious carriages."' Therefore we know that three persons ask for three. Furthermore, the reason they ask for three is that in reality there are no three vehicles, but formerly within the one Buddha-vehicle the three were provisionally preached, and on account of this skillful means they ask. A critique states: Examining this now through ten arguments, there should not be three persons asking for three. First, originally the three carriages were used to illustrate the three fruits; hence it says, 'Now these three carriages are all outside the gate.' When the people of the two vehicles exited outside the gate to the place where the carriages were promised, failing to find the fruit, they could be said to ask for the fruit; but bodhisattvas have not yet reached the place where the carriages were promised, so when they fail to find the buddhahood fruit, how could there be asking for the buddhahood fruit? Second, suppose it is said: A bodhisattva of the sixth stage, having exited outside the three realms, does not ask for the buddhahood fruit, but like the two vehicles asks for the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising; hence among the three kinds of persons, bodhisattvas also ask. This meaning is incorrect. Searching the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras, there is no asking by a bodhisattva. In the Hīnayāna, two kinds of bodhisattvas are explained: First, bodhisattvas who are converted: from their initial aspiration up to their final birth, they are all ordinary beings, having no meaning of exiting the three realms, and thus there is no asking. Therefore, in the Maitreyavyākaraṇa-sūtra, Upāli addressed the Buddha: 'This Ajita has not yet severed the three poisons; when his life ends, where will he be born?' Hence we know that from initial practice to the final mind, they are all ordinary beings, unable to go outside the gate to ask. Second, the Śākyamuni bodhisattva who converts: attaining the Way with thirty-four mental moments, during thirty-three mental moments he is still a bodhisattva. At the thirty-fourth mental moment he is a buddha; at the thirty-third mental moment he is a bodhisattva, and while [delusions of] seeing have collapsed, [delusions of] thinking are not yet exhausted; at this time he has not exited the three realms, so there is no asking. At the thirty-fourth mental moment, seeing and thinking are both severed and latent defilements are all eliminated; at that time he exits the three realms, which is precisely the buddhahood fruit, so there is also no asking. Moreover, in the Hīnayāna teachings there are not even bodhisattvas who have exited the three realms; how could it be said that a bodhisattva exits the three realms and asks? Furthermore, attaining the Way with thirty-four mental moments has no sense of emerging from contemplation; how could there be asking? Moreover, one originally asks the Buddha for the fruit; of whom would Śākyamuni bodhisattva ask? Furthermore, in Mahāyāna sūtras it is explained that there are ten stages; when reaching the sixth stage, primary defilements of the three realms are completely severed, so how could one not know that there is a seventh stage, and instead seek the ultimate fruit from the Buddha? Third, if it is argued in rescue: In the Tripiṭaka there is no real Buddha at all, but according to principle it is provisionally said that there is, which means it existed in the past but does not exist now; why then does a bodhisattva not ask? If there is no asking by a bodhisattva, then the buddhas and bodhisattvas explained in the Tripiṭaka should all be ultimate and real. We reply: Examining the intention behind asking, it is originally because it existed in the past but does not exist now, and for this reason they ask. If it exists both now and in the past, they certainly would not ask. Searching the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras, from beginning to end they all clarify that the Buddha-vehicle exists. Just as the initial teaching clarifies that the Buddha-vehicle exists, arriving at the Lotus Sūtra it also clarifies that the Buddha-vehicle exists. Because from beginning to end it clarifies that the Buddha-vehicle exists, there is no asking. Later we see that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa also clarifies that there is only the Buddha-vehicle and no two vehicles, which has two meanings: first, it says that there is no nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, but only the nirvāṇa of the Great Vehicle, termed the Buddha-vehicle, which was already answered previously. Second, the general overview of the 'Skillful Means' chapter has five divisions, clarifying that the meaning is solely to refute the two and clarify the one. If so, without saying that the Buddha-vehicle does not exist, what would a bodhisattva ask for? Nowhere in the earlier or later text of the Lotus Sūtra is it said that the Buddha-vehicle is a skillful means; it only says that the two vehicles are skillful means. Therefore, the people of the two vehicles ask, while bodhisattvas do not ask.