法華玄論 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

6.2

Discussion of the meaning of whether arhats know or do not know the one vehicle.

Question: When one attains arhatship, does one immediately know the one vehicle of oneself, or is it only when the Lotus Sūtra is preached that one knows it? Furthermore, in the 'Skillful Means' chapter, two passages in the section distinguishing the genuine and the false contradict each other. The first says: 'If one has truly attained arhatship, yet does not believe this Dharma, there is no such possibility. If one does not believe, this is a person of overweening pride, not an arhat.' This explains that an arhat must believe in the one vehicle. The next passage says: 'Except after the Buddha's extinction, when there is currently no Buddha present.' This explains that after the Buddha's extinction, there are also arhats who do not believe in the one vehicle. Thus the two passages conflict like spear and shield; how are they reconciled?

6.4

Answer: This meaning was already discussed above and will be expounded in detail below. Since it constitutes a difficulty of the entire sūtra, its aspects will now be briefly stated. Some say: All who attain the way equally know of the convergence into the eternal. If they know that all converge into the eternal, they are all bodhisattvas, and none of the two vehicles become sages. Therefore the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says, 'One who does not know the eternal does not even attain the bodhi of the two vehicles, not to mention the unexcelled path.' If so, the earlier passage clarifying arhats applies this designation to people of provisional practice; while the later passage clarifying those who do not believe refers to śrāvakas of real practice prior to the six stages of mind, who therefore do not believe or understand. Some say: The essential point of all ways is the realization of emptiness, and it is not necessary to know that all converge into the eternal; thus there are both those who know and those who do not know—those of sharp faculties know, while those of dull faculties do not know. The earlier text refers to those who know, and the later text refers to those who do not know. Some say: The earlier explanation is argued in terms of principle: because the initial endeavors of the three vehicles are not deluded about dharmas, all who are arhats know the common convergence and believe upon hearing the sūtra. The later explanation is argued in terms of the teaching: arhats receive the Hīnayāna teaching to achieve sainthood and do not know the common convergence. For example, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says, 'Bodhisattvas of the ten abodes, unless the Tathāgata explains it, do not know the Buddha-nature.' It is the same here. Some say: It is true arhats who know, whereas the later passage refers to ordinary persons in the final age, and thus they do not know. Why is this? If ordinary persons fully endowed with the three poisons still believe upon hearing the sūtra, how much more so should arhats in the final age not disbelieve? Some say: This was addressed to the assembly of that time, to make them listen attentively and promptly resolve their doubts; if they did not faithfully accept it, they would harbor doubt for eternal ages, so [the text mentions] handing it on until a later Buddha comes, in order to spur their vehicle and resolve it. I evaluate this as follows: Being the grand purport of the entire sūtra, contradictory interpretations should not be retained. However, the various masters directed their minds differently, and all claimed that the two passages contradict each other, hence divergent explanations flourished. We now explain that the two passages do not contradict each other. The earlier passage explains that one who is a true arhat will surely believe upon hearing the sūtra. If one hears the sūtra and does not believe, one is not an arhat. In the later passage, the Buddha distinguishes this further: if a true arhat will surely believe upon hearing the sūtra, could there possibly be an arhat who does not believe in the one vehicle or not? For this reason it is explained that such a case does exist: namely, after the Buddha's extinction, there is no Buddha present, nor is there anyone to transmit the sūtra, nor is there the Dharma transmitted. If these three factors are lacking, then there is indeed the case where an arhat does not believe. If, although the Buddha has entered extinction, there is a person transmitting the sūtra and the Dharma that is transmitted, an arhat upon hearing it will then faithfully accept it.

6.5

Question: After the Buddha's extinction, because there is neither the person nor the Dharma, the arhat has nothing to believe in; why [then would he later] believe?

6.6

Answer: The Buddha himself explained this further: If he encounters another Buddha, he will be able to resolve [his doubts]. If so, the earlier and later passages do not contradict each other, and divergent explanations should not flourish. Later I saw that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa also does not explain the two passages as contradictory. Regarding 'except after the Buddha's extinction when no Buddha is present,' the treatise clarifies: How could the Tathāgata not become one incapable of preaching the Dharma? In order to cut off this doubt, the sūtra says: 'except after the Buddha's extinction when no Buddha is present.' The meaning of the treatise makes clear that when the Tathāgata is in the world and expounds the one vehicle, he will certainly cause the arhats to faithfully accept it; hence he does not become one incapable of preaching the Dharma. Clarifying that 'except after the Buddha's extinction when there is no longer a Buddha' means that then there are arhats who do not believe.

6.7

Question: If one relies on this explanation, then does an arhat only know he will become a Buddha upon hearing the Lotus Sūtra, and if he does not hear it, he does not know he will become a Buddha, or not?

6.8

Answer: It is so.

6.9

Question: What serves as proof?

6.10

Answer: The explanatory passage cited just now serves as proof. Furthermore, Śāriputra previously said, 'Only now have I myself awakened to the fact that it is not true extinction.' From this one knows that prior to that, none had awakened. Also, during the three requests, all [practitioners of] the two vehicles gave rise to doubt; if they already knew they would become Buddhas, what would they doubt? And for what purpose would the teaching of the Lotus Sūtra have arisen? Furthermore, the subsequent 'Parable of the Conjured City' chapter clearly states: 'After my extinction, there will again be disciples who do not hear this sūtra, neither knowing nor perceiving the practice of bodhisattvas, but generating the notion of extinction regarding their own merit and entering nirvāṇa. When I become a Buddha in another land, I will preach this sūtra for them, and only then will they attain spiritual convergence and gradually know they will become Buddhas.' Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in explaining the chapter on 'Certainty,' also makes this statement, explaining that arhats are born in pure lands outside the three realms, where they get to hear the Lotus Sūtra, practice, and seek buddhahood. Thus we know that if [practitioners of] the two vehicles do not hear the Lotus Sūtra, they do not know of the common convergence. Furthermore, if [practitioners of] the two vehicles already knew they would become Buddhas, how could it be said that [the Buddha] expounded the Wonderful Lotus Sūtra for the sake of the śrāvakas?

6.11

Question: The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says, 'One who does not know the eternal does not attain the bodhi of the two vehicles.' Why do you now say that one who attains the bodhi of the two vehicles does not know the eternal?

6.12

Answer: The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra also says, 'To open up the eye of wisdom for the śrāvakas, I explain the secret treasury.' If they already knew it, their wisdom-illumination would have already opened; why would he open it again? Furthermore, if the two vehicles already knew it, they would no longer have the eight inversions; what would there be to reprimand?

6.13

Question: If 'not knowing the eternal, one does not attain the bodhi of the two vehicles,' how is that one-sided?

6.14

Answer: This is a rebuke of the two vehicles for obstinately clinging to the former teaching: 'If you do not change from impermanence and do not believe in the eternal, you will not attain the bodhi of the two vehicles either.' It is merely to make this rebuke. Moreover, this was because he wished at that time's assembly to make them believe in the eternal. Furthermore, if not knowing the eternal means not attaining the bodhi of the two vehicles, then if one does not know the eternal, one would also not attain the three refuges and the five precepts; if so, before the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra], there would have been no disciples of the Buddha, and all would have been laypeople. Yet the sūtra merely says, 'Not recognizing the eternal, the refuges and precepts are not complete'—it does not mean that they do not attain them according to their capacity. The two vehicles are also like this: they merely sever the afflictions of the three realms according to their capacity and become arhats.

6.15

Question: Since they have completely severed the afflictions of the three realms, why do they not converge together?

6.16

Answer: Non-Buddhists also completely sever the afflictions of the three realms; can one say that once afflictions are exhausted, one immediately knows the one vehicle? Persons of the two vehicles are only one step superior to ordinary persons; they should not be placed on par with bodhisattvas. Furthermore, it is objected: If severing afflictions necessarily means knowing the common convergence into the eternal, then non-Buddhists who sever them should also be like this.

6.17

Question: Non-Buddhists only subdue afflictions; they do not truly sever them.

6.18

Answer: Subduing afflictions or severing afflictions—the various schools differ on this. The Sautrāntikas say they subdue afflictions, while the Sarvāstivādins say they sever afflictions; one should not exclusively adopt one. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra itself expressly states that non-Buddhists sever afflictions, not that they subdue them. In addition, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha both state that non-Buddhists sever afflictions and should not be said to subdue them. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says, 'Kātyāyanīputra was a great arhat of the three clarities and six supernatural knowledges, and the five hundred commentators were also arhats.' Nāgārjuna rebuked them, saying, 'In the eight skandhakas you have errors everywhere; how much less can you be said to understand the meaning of the Mahāyāna?' The arhats answered, 'Upon hearing the Mahāyāna, our minds have no faith at all.' If an arhat incurs faults upon hearing the Mahāyāna, how could he know it spontaneously without having heard it? Furthermore, after the Buddha's extinction, the five hundred sects hearing that the Mahāyāna Dharma is ultimate emptiness felt as if a knife had wounded their hearts; how much less could they immediately believe upon hearing of the eternal? How could they be able to know the eternal? Furthermore, the 'Parable of the Conjured City' chapter states: 'When the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū preached the Lotus Sūtra, the sixteen bodhisattvas immediately faithfully accepted it, while among the assembly of śrāvakas there were some who faithfully accepted it and some who did not.' When arhats encounter a Buddha and hear the Lotus Sūtra, there are still those who believe and those who do not yet believe; how could they know it spontaneously without hearing it?

6.19

Question: If [practitioners of] the two vehicles do not spontaneously know that they will become Buddhas, why does the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra say, 'In the initial endeavors of the three vehicles, being undeluded about dharmas, they spontaneously know that they will awaken and will attain'? Furthermore, the Upāsaka-sūtra, in its fourteenth chapter, states: 'They spontaneously know that they should attain bodhi, yet temporarily take the fruition of the small vehicle.' In the thirteenth chapter, it directly explains that by receiving the precepts one attains the fruits of the three paths; because knowing it is very easy but practicing it is very difficult, although they know the one vehicle, they realize the fruit of an arhat.

6.20

Answer: This meaning has already been explained above: those of sharp faculties are able to know, while those of dull faculties do not know. Furthermore, those who practiced the Mahāyāna long ago in the past, upon hearing the Hīnayāna teaching and attaining the way, immediately awakened to the Mahāyāna; such persons know, while otherwise they do not know. Furthermore, real practitioners do not know, while provisional practitioners know; this meaning is expounded at length under [the section on] 'Seeking the Carriages.' Later I saw that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa interprets opening, demonstrating, awakening, and entering in terms of four meanings; the third meaning is called 'not knowing.' As for 'not knowing,' it is because all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not know that real place. Not knowing the real place means not knowing that ultimately there is only the one Buddha vehicle. This passage clearly explains that persons of the two vehicles do not know the one vehicle. The second meaning clarifies that the three vehicles equally possess the Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya, which is the eternal. Since persons of the two vehicles do not know the one vehicle, they do not know the eternal Buddha-nature; one should not say that those who attain the way must necessarily have an explicit understanding of the eternal. This proves the above meaning of not knowing the eternal.

6.21

Question: Ordinary persons always know that they will become Buddhas; arhats are sages, so why do they not know that they will become Buddhas?

6.22

Answer: The Lotus Commentary states: 'Three kinds of persons free of afflictions still possess defiled conceit and inverted faith. First, believing in various vehicles; second, believing that the mundane and nirvāṇa are different; third, believing that one's own body and another's body are different. In order to remedy these three illnesses, the three standards of equality were expounded. First is equality of vehicles: by bestowing prophecy upon the śrāvakas, [it is shown that] there is only the Mahāyāna and no two vehicles. Second is equality of the mundane and nirvāṇa: because Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata entered nirvāṇa, this is the equality of the mundane and nirvāṇa. Third is equality of bodies: Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata had already entered nirvāṇa, yet manifested his body again, because one's own body, another's body, and the dharmakāya are equal and without differentiation. It is because these persons free of afflictions but possessing defiled conceit see differences between what is done by their own bodies and another's body, and do not know that the Buddha-nature and dharmakāya of self and other are equal.' In explaining the three meanings in the treatise, it first clarifies that arhats do not know the one vehicle, and later clarifies that arhats cannot know the eternal Buddha-nature. The reason they do not know is that although they are free of the afflictions within the realms, they still have defiled conceit; defiled conceit is ignorance, which is the cognitive obscuration, and therefore they do not know.

6.23

Question: If so, should an ordinary person who can know the one vehicle and the eternal be without ignorance?

6.24

Answer: An ordinary person merely believes the Buddha's words, which is called 'knowing'; this is not yet realization. When an arhat destroys this ignorance, he can know decisively, which differs from an ordinary person. Furthermore, the Buddha uses various skillful means to deliver sentient beings: if by hearing 'knowing' they awaken, he explains that they know; if by hearing 'not knowing' they awaken, he explains that they do not know.

6.25

Question: What is the meaning of explaining knowing and not knowing?

6.26

Answer: The Buddha said to those who study the Mahāyāna from age seven and above: 'Even persons of the two vehicles spontaneously know they will become Buddhas; why do you not believe in the Mahāyāna?' Again, to those seeking the two vehicles at the conjured city, he spoke like this: 'Those who have already realized arhatship spontaneously know they will become Buddhas; why do you wish to realize arhatship and not seek buddhahood?'

6.27

Question: What is the meaning of explaining that arhats do not know?

6.28

Answer: This is based on the Hīnayāna teaching, to cause them to realize the Hīnayāna fruit. If it were explained that they spontaneously know they will become Buddhas, how would they seek the Hīnayāna? In the eightfold [analysis of] the fundamental meaning of the parable, the first introduces the purpose of its occurrence. That this text occurs has altogether two meanings: first, to versify the preceding prose; second, to serve as the basis for the subsequent parable. The reason it serves as the basis for the parable is that those of sharp faculties have already understood, while those of middling faculties have not yet understood; therefore parables are again used to clarify the preceding doctrine. Hence the preceding doctrine serves as the basis for the subsequent parable.

6.29

Question: The subsequent text of the parable is lengthy; why does it only illustrate the doctrine here?

6.30

Answer: Although this text is brief, it generally outlines the beginning and end of Śākyamuni's single teaching career; therefore, it can serve as the basis for the subsequent parables. Second, determining the number of parables. The ancients of old divided them into five parables: first, the parable of the elder; second, the parable of considering rescue; third, the parable of provisional enticement; fourth, the parable of impartiality; and fifth, the parable of not being false. A critique states: The first is actually a general parable, not solely about the elder. 'Considering rescue' means deliberating upon saving them; this signifies that conversion through the one vehicle could not be accomplished, and since it is still brief, lacking the parable of seeing the fire, this explanation should not be used. Guangzhai speaks of ten parables: 1. general; 2. seeing the fire; 3. failing to save the sons; 4. succeeding in saving the sons; 5. seeing the sons escape danger; 6. the sons asking for carriages; 7. rejoicing at seeing the sons escape danger; 8. impartially bestowing the great carriages; 9. rejoicing at receiving the carriages; and 10. the parable of not being false. The ten dharmas here serve as the basis for the ten subsequent parables. A critique states: The emergence of the ten parables began with Guangzhai and did not exist among the other masters. We now evaluate it with four arguments. First, if divided by lines, there are nine lines, so there should not be ten. If divided by meaning, there are only six meanings: 1. general; 2. seeing the fire; 3. conversion through the two vehicles failing; 4. conversion through the three vehicles succeeding; 5. returning to preaching the one vehicle; and 6. not being false. All the other minute lines are subsidiary branches, encompassed within these six meanings. Since he neither takes the lines upon advancing nor relies on the meaning upon retreating, the ten parables are incorrect. Second, if there are ten parables, doctrine and parable are inverted. In the doctrinal explanation, asking for the carriages comes before and the father's rejoicing is placed after; in the parabolic explanation, the father's rejoicing comes before and asking for the carriages is placed after. Even if one attempts to harmonize them, it ends up being circuitous, as will become evident below. Third, the conflict between the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Previously, in the doctrinal explanation, he rejoiced because he saw the Mahāyāna capacity stirred; in the parabolic explanation, he rejoiced because he saw the Hīnayāna capacity escape danger. The doctrinal explanation clarifies the great cause; the parabolic explanation narrates the lesser fruit. The doctrinal explanation indicates that the great obstacle is about to collapse; the parabolic explanation indicates that the lesser danger has already been escaped. The momentum of meaning is that the lesser vehicle is taken as the primary counterpart. Fourth, the difference between presence and absence. In the doctrinal explanation, because it recounts those of superior faculties easily awakening, there is no asking for carriages; in the parabolic explanation, because it clarifies that those of middling faculties are still deluded, there is asking for carriages. If so, taking the words of reverence as the basis for asking for carriages completely fails to grasp the meaning of the text. These four arguments will become evident in the text of the chapter below. Now, relying on the six parables, none of these four faults exist. Third, clarifying presence and absence. The prose has five sections: 1. opening the three; 2. revealing the one; 3. the five verses; 4. true and false; and 5. not being false. Now, the verses have six. The fifth is only present in the prose; as for 'true and false', it is absent in the verses. The verses have the desire for the Dharma, which the prose lacks, belonging to the revealing of the intention. The rest are all identical. Fourth, clarifying the sequence. The prose first opens the three and then reveals the one; the verses first reveal the one and then open the three. The rest are identical. Fifth, clarifying opening and combining. Opening the three and revealing the one serves as the basis for the general parable, combined and not opened. Next, the passage on leaving the five turbidities serves as the basis for the four parables, opened and not combined. The single section on 'not being false' serves in turn as the parable of not being false, neither opened nor combined. Sixth, clarifying adoption and rejection. The four passages of sūtra text serve as the basis for the six parables, adopted and not rejected. The single section praising the Dharma is not the basis for the six parables, rejected and not adopted. Seventh, discussing the general and the particular. The initial opening of the three and revealing of the one generally outlines the doctrinal teaching of Śākyamuni's single teaching career. From the five turbidities onward, all belong to the particular parables. Eighth, clarifying the root and the traces. The general narration of the Buddhist teachings encompasses both root and traces. From the five turbidities onward, it separately clarifies the root and traces: the single section on the five turbidities specifically clarifies abiding in the root of the dharmakāya, seeing that sentient beings have suffering and no joy, and giving rise to great compassion. From failing to convert through the one vehicle onward, all belongs to manifesting the traces from the root through the eight phases of attaining the Way, starting from sitting at the site of awakening up to preaching the Lotus teaching today.

6.31

The meaning of asking for carriages is explained in two layers: first, clarifying the asking; second, explaining the carriages. The first section discusses the terminology through ten lines. First, the treatise says that in the text there is no character for 'asking' (suo), but only the word 'bestow' (ci). The prose clarifies 'wishing that they be bestowed in due time', and the verse says, 'We wish you would bestow upon us the three kinds of precious carriages.' Although there is no word 'asking', merely 'wishing that they be bestowed in due time' is precisely asking. However, there are two kinds of asking: first, asking because of a promise, as the verse says, 'We wish you would bestow upon us the three kinds of precious carriages, as previously promised.' The sons having come out, this is asking for what was previously promised. Second, asking without a promise, as when worldly people beg and demand, which is called asking. However, asking for what was previously promised can properly be called 'asking', whereas demanding what was not promised should rather be called 'seeking'.

6.32

Question: In this text, is there only asking for what was promised, or is there also asking for what was not promised?

6.33

Answer: It possesses both meanings. First, asking for what was promised is called asking, referring to the meaning of the people of the three vehicles asking for the fruit. If seeking and requesting is called asking, then since the Mahāyāna capacity was stirred, knocking upon the Buddha to preach the one Buddha-vehicle, there is asking for what was not promised. This distinction is made based on whether there was an explicit promise or not. If one discusses the words and the intention in combination, both are promises: the words promised the three, and therefore they asked for the three; the intention promised the one, and for that reason they asked for the one. This is also the twofold promise—explicit and implicit—and the twofold asking—explicit and implicit. Explicitly he promised the three; implicitly he wished to grant the one. In words, they explicitly asked for the three capacities; implicitly, they asked for the one.

6.34

Question: How do these two askings relate to understanding and delusion?

6.35

Answer: Seeking the one is understanding; asking for the three is delusion. Not knowing that there are no three and that the three were provisionally preached, approaching the father to ask for the three is therefore delusion. The Mahāyāna capacity knocking upon the Buddha to seek the one is therefore understanding.

6.36

Second, determining the overarching meaning. First, generally outlining the three parables; next, clarifying the asking for carriages. Generally outlining the three parables: 1. asking for carriages; 2. bestowing carriages; 3. rejoicing at receiving the carriages. These three belong to successful conversion through the Great Vehicle, and are thus combined into one section. They may correspond to three matters above: First, corresponding to the three matters at the end of the 'Skillful Means' chapter: asking for carriages corresponds to the earlier 'I see the Buddha's sons and others give rise to the Mahāyāna capacity'; bestowing carriages corresponds to the earlier 'Among the bodhisattvas, directly setting aside skillful means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way'; rejoicing at receiving carriages corresponds to the earlier 'When the bodhisattvas hear this Dharma, their web of doubts is completely eliminated, and the twelve hundred arhats will also all become buddhas.' Second, corresponding to the three matters in the 'Parable' chapter: asking for carriages corresponds to Śāriputra conveying the doubts and regrets of trainees and adepts; bestowing carriages corresponds to the Buddha responding to the request and preaching the Dharma; rejoicing at receiving carriages corresponds to those of middling faculties grasping and understanding in the 'Belief and Understanding' chapter. Third, corresponding back to the three matters in the 'Skillful Means' chapter: asking for carriages corresponds to the assembly's attachments being shaken and doubts arising during the three requests; bestowing carriages corresponds to the Buddha responding to the request and preaching extensively; rejoicing at receiving carriages corresponds to Śāriputra grasping and understanding.

6.37

Question: They should only correspond to people of middling and lower faculties; why do they further correspond to people of all three faculties?

6.38

Answer: During the three requests, it was generally clarified that the entire great assembly had doubts and regrets, not Śāriputra alone; hence they can correspond to them. Furthermore, although the parables are now spoken specifically for people of middling and lower faculties, yet in each cycle the Buddha generally outlines the overarching meaning of his single teaching career, universally for all, and even for sentient beings of the latter age, to make them recognize the provisional and real meanings of the one and the three.

6.39

Next, separately outlining the overarching meaning of asking for carriages: Since conversion through the one vehicle above could not be accomplished, he pointed falsely outside the gate, indicating that there were three carriages, so as to entice the sons to come out. The sons all relied on the provisional to emerge from the burning house. Those with wisdom did not cling to the father's words, implicitly grasping the father's intention and knowing that the provisional exists while the real does not, and thus asked for nothing; the sons without wisdom clung to the father's words without grasping the father's intention, failing to perceive that the provisional exists while the real does not, and for this reason they asked. The Buddha used this parable to cause those who cling to the three to change accordingly, and to cause those who do not yet believe in the one vehicle to believe by relying on this. Therefore Śāriputra previously requested, 'Excellent, World-Honoured One! We pray that for the fourfold assembly you will explain its causes and conditions'; now, preaching the parable of asking is precisely preaching the causes and conditions to respond to his request.

6.40

Third, clarifying the persons who ask.

6.41

Question: Do three persons ask for three, or do two persons ask for three?

6.42

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.

6.43

Question: If the Buddha-vehicle exists both now and in the past, then it should also be clarified that both now and in the past the Buddha-vehicle is ultimate.

6.44

Answer: That the Buddha vehicle exists is an ultimate meaning. However, [teachings] differ as to whether what is taught of that existence is exhaustive or inexhaustive; hence there are the ultimate and the non-ultimate. Former teachings explained the Buddha vehicle incompletely, while the present teaching clarifies the Buddha vehicle completely. The Commentary [to the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra] says: "The Buddha did not fully explain the Buddha's merits within the Tripiṭaka, for roughly three reasons: First, it is incomplete in terms of existence and non-existence, as the Tripiṭaka does not speak of the eighteen unique qualities and so forth, which are spoken of only in the Mahāyāna. Second, it is incomplete because the explanation is not exhaustive, as the Tripiṭaka speaks of the ten powers but does not mention exhaustive knowledge and universal knowledge; that exhaustive knowledge and universal knowledge are mentioned is merely the explanation of treatise masters. Third, it is incomplete because within a single category it explains half and omits half, as the Tripiṭaka clarifies only three eyes, while the Mahāyāna sūtras fully explain the five eyes."

6.45

Question: How is it known that the Tripiṭaka does not speak of the five eyes?

6.46

Answer: The Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra and the Śāriputrābhidharma both say there are only three eyes: the physical eye, the divine eye, and the wisdom eye.

6.47

Question: Since the former explanation of the Buddha was incomplete, it was a skillful means. In principle, there is only completeness and no incompleteness. Formerly there was this incomplete Buddha, but now this incomplete Buddha does not exist; this means it existed formerly and is absent now, so the bodhisattva ought to demand the incomplete carriage.

6.48

Answer: There are two kinds of provisional and real: first, discussing provisional and real in terms of existence and non-existence; second, discussing provisional and real in terms of completeness and incompleteness. As for discussing provisional and real in terms of existence and non-existence: where there were not two, two were taught, hence the two vehicles are provisional; where there was one, one was taught, hence the Buddha vehicle is real. Second, as for discussing provisional and real in terms of completeness and incompleteness: the former explanation of the Buddha vehicle being inexhaustive is provisional, while the present explanation of the Buddha vehicle being exhaustive is real. The meaning of demanding the carriages pertains precisely to demanding on the basis of the existence or non-existence of the three vehicles; it does not elucidate demanding on the basis of the completeness or incompleteness of the Buddha vehicle. Furthermore, one may counter with a challenge: if you say that because it was formerly incomplete it is now demanded, then according to your view, the meaning of the Buddha-fruit clarified in the Lotus Sūtra is still impermanent, which would mean the fruit carriage is incomplete. If so, when reaching [the Mahāparinirvāṇa-]sūtra, one should demand the impermanent fruit carriage! The Lotus Sūtra provides only the conditioning causes and has not yet clarified the direct cause, which means the causal carriage is incomplete; when reaching the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], one should likewise demand the previously incomplete causal carriage! Yet at the time of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] no one demands the incomplete carriage of the Lotus Sūtra; you should know that when reaching the Lotus Sūtra, one likewise does not demand the Buddha-fruit that was incomplete prior to it.

6.49

Fourth: The parable says that the three carriages are outside the gate, which is merely a general statement. Relying on the former meaning, the two carriages are outside the gate of the primary afflictions of the three realms, while the Buddha-fruit is outside the gate of residual traces and ignorance. For people of the two vehicles, the boundary of primary afflictions serves as the gate; for the Buddha, the boundary of ignorance and residual traces serves as the gate. Formerly it was said that for people of the two vehicles, the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising lies outside the gate of primary afflictions of the three realms; now people of the two vehicles have completely severed primary afflictions yet do not see the carriages, which is why they demand them. Formerly it was said that the Buddha-fruit lies outside the gate of residual traces and ignorance; now when a bodhisattva completely severs primary afflictions, residual traces and ignorance are also severed, whereupon they immediately become a buddha, so there is no demand either. A Mahāyāna bodhisattva has two gates: primary afflictions, and ignorance and residual traces. If, having now exited the gate of primary afflictions but not yet exited the gate of residual traces and ignorance, they were thereupon to demand the fruit, then since the two vehicles have the gate of seeing the truth and also the gate of cultivation, upon exiting the gate of the delusions of seeing the truth they ought likewise to make a demand. Since this is not so for the śrāvakas, why should it be so for bodhisattvas? Examining back and forth and exhaustively investigating the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, for a bodhisattva there is no demanding.

6.50

Fifth: The sūtra clarifies that the three vehicles are skillful means, so one may speak of demanding the three. It also says, "Only this one matter is real; the remaining two are not true," and says, "In the world there are no two vehicles, only the one Buddha vehicle." Deducing from this, they demand only the two vehicles, not the Buddha vehicle.

6.51

Sixth: If one says that formerly all three vehicles were clarified as skillful means, then from the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā onwards down to before the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha vehicle clarified would all be skillful means. If the Buddha vehicle were a skillful means, then causes such as the six perfections would also be skillful means. If that were so, the storehouses of jewels and precious treasures bestowed upon the impoverished son would all be provisional teachings and ought not to be real. If the treasures bestowed are indeed night-illuminating pearls and not fish eyes, then the Buddha vehicle clarified in the Pañcaviṃśati is already real and cannot be called a skillful means.

6.52

Question: If the treasures bestowed are indeed the precious treasures of the family estate entrusted to him, then when the Prajñā[-pāramitā] was spoken, that should already have been the speaking of the Lotus Sūtra.

6.53

Answer: This is a difficulty for others, but for our present view it is resolved. Thus the "Expedient Means" chapter says: "For the sake of these disciples of the Buddha, I preached this Mahāyāna sūtra." Since it states that it preached "this sūtra," one should know that at the time of the Prajñā[-pāramitā] it was already preaching the Lotus Sūtra. It was merely that because it was teaching bodhisattvas, it was given the name Prajñā; since it was not yet teaching the two vehicles, it was not given the title Lotus. This meaning has already been explained above.

6.54

Seventh: The initial verses of the "Expedient Means" chapter recount the former preaching of the two vehicles and further clarify that the two vehicles are skillful means. Recounting the former preaching of the Mahāyāna, it does not clarify that the Mahāyāna is a skillful means, but only clarifies: "For the sake of these disciples of the Buddha, I preached this Mahāyāna sūtra." Thus one knows that the Buddha vehicle is not a skillful means, and the bodhisattva ought not to demand the Buddha's Mahāyāna.

6.55

Eighth: If three kinds of people demanded [the carriages], why is there no receptive understanding expressed by a bodhisattva? It clarifies only the receptive understanding of the two vehicles and does not clarify receptive understanding by a bodhisattva; hence we know that there is no demand by a bodhisattva.

6.56

Question: If, because there is no receptive understanding by a bodhisattva, you say there is no demand by a bodhisattva, there is also no receptive understanding by one who has realized the fruit of a pratyekabuddha, so there should be no demand by a pratyekabuddha.

6.57

Answer: There is a reason for the absence of receptive understanding by pratyekabuddhas, because those who realize the fruit of a pratyekabuddha appear in an era without a buddha. Furthermore, none were present in the Lotus assembly, so their receptive understanding is not recounted. Bodhisattvas were present in the assembly; for what reason would their receptive understanding not be clarified?

6.58

Ninth: Below, in matching the bestowing of the carriages, it says: "Seeing all sentient beings escape the suffering of the three realms and attain the bliss of nirvāṇa, he therefore bestows upon them the Mahāyāna." If so, it is because people of the two vehicles have attained nirvāṇa that they are given the Mahāyāna. How could a bodhisattva have already realized [such a] nirvāṇa? Since it is bestowed only upon the two vehicles, one should know that only people of the two vehicles demand it. By using this single passage, the matter of correctness can be settled.

6.59

Tenth: The sons were sitting peacefully and therefore demanded [the carriages] from their father. People of the two vehicles have completed their fruit, ceased seeking, and no longer practice; hence this is called "sitting peacefully," and they may make a demand. Bodhisattvas who have not exited the gate originally knew that the carriage is not outside the gate of primary afflictions; bodhisattvas who have exited the gate naturally know it themselves; thus both the initial and final practitioners have the meaning of advancing forward, without the principle of "sitting peacefully." For this reason, for bodhisattvas there is no meaning of demanding the carriages. Furthermore, in matching the bestowing of the carriages, it says: "Not allowing any person to attain extinction alone, but leading them all to extinction through the extinction of the Tathāgata." Attaining extinction alone can have two meanings: First, formerly bodhisattvas received prophecies of becoming buddhas, so bodhisattvas alone attained the extinction of the Tathāgata. People of the two vehicles formerly could not become buddhas and thus did not attain extinction; now people of the two vehicles are also led to attain the extinction of the Tathāgata, which is why it is called bestowing equally. Second, formerly people of the two vehicles attained only the extinction of the Hīnayāna alone; now they are led to attain Mahāyāna nirvāṇa together. Deducing from these two passages, there is no demand by a bodhisattva. Since it says that bodhisattvas alone attained the extinction of the Tathāgata, on what grounds would a bodhisattva demand further? Moreover, formerly people of the two vehicles attained only the Hīnayāna extinction alone, so now they are bestowed the great carriage. Bodhisattvas are not like this, so how could it be bestowed upon bodhisattvas? This very text refutes the doctrine of four carriages. If all three vehicles demanded, then the statement about attaining extinction alone would be lost. When speaking of "alone," this specifically means that this person attains it and that person does not, which is why it is called "alone." If all three vehicles demanded, how could there be "alone"? What is clarified now is that only people of the two vehicles demand and bodhisattvas do not demand, as established by the ten deductions above.

6.60

Question: If so, they should demand only two; how can the text say, "May you bestow upon us the three kinds of precious carriages"?

6.61

Answer: Formerly it was said that the three vehicles are real, but now it is claimed that there is one and not two. Where, after all, are the words that formerly posited three? Questioning what was formerly posited on the basis of present non-existence, and also challenging present non-existence on the basis of what was formerly posited—this is called "demanding." Treatise masters fail to grasp this statement and therefore think that three kinds of people demand, giving rise to divergent theories. Now, examining the words, it is quite easy to see.

6.62

Question: The sūtra text names the three carriages, and demands them according to the text, saying: "May you bestow the goat carriages, deer carriages, and ox carriages in due time." How can you go against the text and claim only that people of the two vehicles demand, while bodhisattvas do not demand? Moreover, one can challenge: if people of the two vehicles demand three, then people of the two vehicles ought to ride three carriages. But people of the two vehicles do not actually ride three, so people of the two vehicles do not demand three either. Moreover, one can challenge: if people of the two vehicles demand the bodhisattva's carriage, then a bodhisattva ought to demand the carriages of the two vehicles. Examining back and forth and exhaustively investigating the text and its meaning, it is best to rely on the traditional view without needing this explanation.

6.63

Answer: If you comprehend the previous explanation, there is no need for your subsequent question; it is merely raising the former three to question the present one. Formerly three were originally taught, but now it is claimed that only this one matter is real and the remaining two are not true. If so, where are the goat, deer, and ox carriages that were formerly explained to exist? Raising the three to question the one makes the meaning of the text radiant and clear. The challenges below will all resolve themselves without further explanation; one should abandon the old delusion to follow the new awakening.

6.64

Question: By what textual evidence do you know that the two vehicles demand the three carriages?

6.65

Answer: The three vehicles were originally opened for the sake of people of the two vehicles. Initially, converting them through the one vehicle was unsuccessful; therefore, within the one Buddha vehicle, three were distinguished and taught, expecting that through the three vehicles they could be converted. Now it is clarified that there are no three, only one; therefore, people of the two vehicles search for and demand the three. Moreover, this sūtra is from beginning to end taught precisely for people of the two vehicles; hence people of the two vehicles demand the three. Now I shall list in detail textual proofs from the three cycles [of preaching]. The "Expedient Means" chapter says: "I announce to the assembly of śrāvakas and those seeking the pratyekabuddha vehicle: the Buddha, by the power of skillful means, demonstrates the teaching of the three vehicles." Since he announces this only to people of the two vehicles, clarifying that the three are taught as a skillful means, and does not announce it to bodhisattvas, we know that the teaching of the three vehicles was for people of the two vehicles. Next, at the beginning of the three requests, it clarifies only that people of the two vehicles were agitated in their clinging and gave rise to doubt, not mentioning bodhisattvas; hence we know that the two vehicles doubted that there were no three and only one. Third, the buddhas of the ten directions exhorted Śākyamuni, saying: "Those of little wisdom who take delight in lesser dharmas do not believe in themselves that they can become buddhas. Therefore, using skillful means, you distinguish and explain the various fruits." It does not clarify distinguishing and explaining three for the sake of bodhisattvas; hence we know that the three were distinguished and explained for people of the two vehicles. "Various fruits" refers to the fruits of the three vehicles. Next, in the text of the second cycle, Śāriputra reported that both learners and non-learners had fallen into doubt and regret, and requested the Buddha to preach again. It does not clarify that bodhisattvas doubted, regretted, and requested the Buddha to preach again; hence we know that the preaching in the second cycle was solely for people of the two vehicles. It says: "I now wish again to cause you to recall the path of your original vows that you practiced; therefore, for the sake of the śrāvakas, I preach the Mahāyāna sūtra called the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra." It does not clarify preaching it for the sake of bodhisattvas. The text of the third cycle says: "If the Tathāgata knows himself that the time of nirvāṇa has arrived and the assembly is pure, he preaches this sūtra for them: In the world there are no two vehicles that attain extinction; only by the one Buddha vehicle is extinction attained." It also says: "There is only the one Buddha vehicle; for the sake of a resting place, two are taught." Proved by the texts of these three cycles, we know that opening the one into three was solely for people of the two vehicles, and now gathering the three into the one is likewise for the two vehicles. If so, the meaning of demanding the three is also that people of the two vehicles demand them.

First 65 of 201 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華玄論 — Classical Chinese