法華義疏 6.3

6.3

「時諸子等各白父言」下，此第五、等賜大車譬。就文為三：一、索車；二、賜車；三、得車歡喜。索車者，大乘機發也。賜車者，為說一乘也。得車歡喜者，聞一乘悟解也。義唯有此三，不得多少，譬上〈方便品〉說一乘也。索車是一經大宗，今略釋之。有人言：昔得羅漢後出遊觀心，以天眼照見未來猶有生死，則煩惱未盡未有盡智，猶有生死無無生智。佛何故說羅漢有盡、無生智耶？以就佛索覓盡、無生智故言索車，車者即是盡、無生智也。今謂不然，昔既見有生死未盡，即知三乘非是究竟，亦應即知一乘是究竟，云何復有索也。又三藏教內明羅漢，云何已得知三界外事也？若小乘已明三界外事，與大乘復有何異耶？今所明者索車之譬但就今辨，非昔教存也。但索車譬凡有二門：一者、無索假設索譬，二、約疑情明有索也。言無索而假設索譬者，凡有二義：一者、欲顯三乘是方便，二、欲顯一乘是真實。顯三乘是方便明道理無三，顯一乘是真實亦道理有一，蓋是一經大宗，故假設索車譬也。欲顯三乘是方便者，前明長者辨無有三乘，虛指門外無三說三；此就父明三乘是方便也。門外若實有三車，子出門外便見有三則不索三也。以其索三故知門外無有三車，驗父前言理實無三方便說三，此寄子索三以顯三是方便也。

From 'At that time, the children each said to their father' downward is the fifth [part]: the parable of bestowing the great carriages equally. In terms of the text, there are three divisions: first, requesting the carriages; second, bestowing the carriages; third, joy upon receiving the carriages. Requesting the carriages refers to the activation of the Mahāyāna capacity. Bestowing the carriages refers to preaching the ekayāna for them. Joy upon receiving the carriages refers to awakening and understanding upon hearing the ekayāna. In principle there are only these three, neither more nor less, paralleling the preaching of the ekayāna in the 'Expedient Means Chapter' above. Requesting the carriages is a major theme of the entire sūtra; we now briefly explain it. Some say: In the past, after attaining arhatship, they came out, wandered, and contemplated their minds; illuminating with the divine eye, they saw that there was still future birth and death, meaning that afflictions were not yet exhausted and they did not yet possess kṣayajñāna; and since there was still birth and death, they lacked anutpādajñāna. Why then did the Buddha say that an arhat has kṣayajñāna and anutpādajñāna? Because they sought kṣayajñāna and anutpādajñāna from the Buddha, it is called 'requesting the carriages'—the carriages being precisely kṣayajñāna and anutpādajñāna. We now say this is not so: if in the past they had already seen that birth and death were not yet exhausted, they would have immediately known that the triyāna is not ultimate, and should also have immediately known that the ekayāna is ultimate; why then would there still be a request? Furthermore, as for the arhats explained within the Tripiṭaka teaching, how could they already know matters outside the three realms? If the Hīnayāna had already explained matters outside the three realms, what difference would there still be between it and the Mahāyāna? What is explained now is that the parable of requesting the carriages is discerned only in terms of the present, not preserved in the previous teaching. But the parable of requesting the carriages has two approaches: first, there being no request, a parable of request is hypothetically posited; second, based on a doubting mind, a request is explained as existing. As for hypothetically positing a parable of request when there was no request, there are two meanings: first, wishing to reveal that the triyāna is an upāya; second, wishing to reveal that the ekayāna is real. Revealing that the triyāna is an upāya clarifies that in principle there are not three; revealing that the ekayāna is real also clarifies that in principle there is one. Because this is the major theme of the entire sūtra, the parable of requesting the carriages is hypothetically posited. As for wishing to reveal that the triyāna is an upāya: the preceding clarified that the elder understood there are no three yānas, and falsely pointed outside the gate, speaking of three when there are no three; this clarifies that the triyāna is an upāya from the perspective of the father. If there really were three carriages outside the gate, the children coming outside the gate would immediately see three and would not request three. Because they requested three, we know there are no three carriages outside the gate; this confirms that the father's previous words meant that in principle there are truly not three, and he expediently spoke of three. This relies on the children's request for three to reveal that the three are an upāya.