法華玄論 6.42

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.