法華義疏 6.3

6.3

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.