妙法蓮華經玄贊 5.246

5.246

得果自然證滅，入城不說悕須，妙智必假更脩，出宅故車須索。又居小得城故不須索，種智未得所以索車。若作此解，二乘入化城，未得車須索，菩薩不入城，亦須索寶所，此義可然。大乘之往寶所理亦須索，對化城而不索，所以不論，以每專求即是索也。經文但說父勸令知為諸眾生不請友故。古相傳云，城為實化息苦所以不索，車是虛指所以索之。若作此解，車離城而別有，索與不索義殊車體。古解即城化，城類車須索。又有解云，車發初機故虛指，城防中退故實化。此亦不然。何者？初機索車之時已出宅故。又體不別，虛、實何殊？應說車、城體是何法。又有解云，城亦應索，化不一途所以不說，謂下經云「爾時導師知此眾人已得止息，無復疲倦堪能前進」，即是索城。此乃索寶所非索城也。雖引此文，義終難解，應細尋之。應云下文「知其疲懈為化作城」，即是索也。或解，車喻無餘涅槃，住果未得故須索，城喻有餘涅槃，住果已得故不索。若爾，菩薩今既索車，亦應已得有餘、未得無餘，求無餘故稱索；二乘無餘任運定得，何須脩索？故但應如前義，所說涅槃二乘無差別，故羊、鹿應無。

Attaining the fruit, one naturally realises cessation; on entering the city, desiring it is not spoken of; wondrous wisdom definitely requires further cultivation, so having emerged from the house, the cart must be demanded. Furthermore, abiding in the small [vehicle], one attains the city, hence there is no need to demand it; omniscience has not yet been attained, which is why the cart is demanded. If one takes this explanation, then when the two vehicles enter the conjured city, not having attained the cart, they must demand it; the bodhisattva does not enter the city, and must also demand the place of jewels—this meaning is acceptable. The Great Vehicle's proceeding to the place of jewels in principle also requires demanding; but corresponding to the conjured city it is not demanded, which is why it is not discussed, because constant single-minded seeking is itself demanding. The text of the sūtra merely says the father encouraged them so that they might know he is an uninvited friend to all sentient beings. Traditional transmission from of old states that the city was a real conjuration to rest suffering, so it was not demanded; the carts were an empty promise, so they were demanded. If one takes this interpretation, the carts are distinct from the city, and demanding or not demanding differs in meaning from the substance of the cart. The ancient interpretation holds that the city was a conjuration; as the city is analogous to the carts, it should have been demanded. Again, another interpretation says that because the carts aroused the initial capacity, they were an empty promise; because the city guarded against falling back midway, it was a real conjuration. This is also not correct. Why? When the initial capacities demanded the carts, they had already emerged from the house. Moreover, their substances do not differ; how could 'empty' and 'real' be different? One should state what dharma the substance of the carts and city is. Another interpretation says that the city should also have been demanded, but because conjurations are not of a single mode, it was not mentioned, referring to the later sūtra passage: 'At that time the leader knew that these people had already rested, were no longer weary, and were capable of advancing'—this is demanding the city. This, however, is demanding the place of jewels, not demanding the city. Although this text is cited, its meaning remains difficult to understand; one should examine it closely. One should say that the later text, 'knowing they were weary and indolent, he conjured a city for them,' is itself the demand. Alternatively, it is explained that the carts allegorise nirvāṇa without remainder, and as the fruit of abiding has not yet been attained, they must be demanded; the city allegorises nirvāṇa with remainder, and as the fruit of abiding has already been attained, it is not demanded. If so, since the bodhisattva now demands the cart, he should also have already attained the remainder and not yet attained the without-remainder, demanding it because of seeking the without-remainder; but the two vehicles definitely attain the without-remainder spontaneously, so why would they need to cultivate and demand it? Therefore, one should only follow the previous interpretation: the nirvāṇa spoken of has no distinction in the two vehicles, so the goat and deer [carts] should not exist.