[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [妙法蓮華經文句](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718) › 4.56 # 妙法蓮華經文句 4.56 妙法蓮華經文句 4.56 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4.56) 此經亦云知。文云「若實得羅漢，不信此法無有是處，除佛滅後現前無佛，此人雖生滅度之想，若遇餘佛便得決了。」凡有三意，前明知，次明不知，後會歸知，非永不知。又身子云：「今於佛前皆墮疑惑，我今不知是義所趣。」又大通佛時，聲聞多生疑惑，彼見佛、聞法尚疑不知，況不見聞那忽得知？若執二文更相矛盾，秖增諍競於道何益？論者止可論餘事，聲聞成聖能知、不能知，唯佛境界非爾所諳，今試融之。三乘初業，初業為二，若久遠為初業，曾聞於大則不愚於法；若取中忘，今日學小始修念處，為初業者，是則不知。其義如此。若得此意，權為初業是則能知，實是初業則不能知。有人言「利者能知，鈍者不能知。」此應四句：權為利鈍，示俱不能知；權為利鈍，示俱能知；權為利鈍，聞則能知，不聞不知；權為利鈍，俱示非知、非不知。今不取此判，但取權者內心了了久知，實行者未得入大是故不知，於義自顯（云云）。 > This sūtra also says that they know. The text states: 'If one has truly attained arhatship, it is impossible that he would not believe this dharma, unless it is after the Buddha's extinction when no buddha is present. Although such a person gives rise to the thought of extinction, if he encounters another buddha, he will attain decisive resolution.' There are three meanings in total: first it clarifies that they know; next it clarifies that they do not know; and finally it converges in their knowing—it is not that they never know. Furthermore, Śāriputra said: 'Now before the Buddha, all have fallen into doubt and confusion; I now do not know where the purport of this teaching leads.' Moreover, in the time of the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū, many śrāvakas gave rise to doubt and confusion; when seeing the Buddha and hearing the dharma they still doubted and did not know, so how much less could they suddenly know when not seeing or hearing him? If one clings to these two texts as contradicting each other, it only increases contention; what benefit is there to the Path? Commentators should only discuss other matters; whether śrāvakas who achieved sagehood can or cannot know is solely the realm of the Buddha, not something you can fathom. Now I shall attempt to harmonize them: 'Initial practice of the three vehicles'—'initial practice' is twofold. If we take the distant past as the initial practice, having once heard the Great \[Vehicle\], they are not deluded about the dharma. If we take intermediate forgetting, where today they study the small \[vehicle\] and first cultivate the stations of mindfulness as the initial practice, then they do not know. The meaning is like this. If one grasps this meaning, then being expediently in initial practice, they are able to know; being genuinely in initial practice, they are unable to know. Some say: 'Those of sharp faculties are able to know, while those of dull faculties are unable to know.' This should be formulated in four propositions: expediently appearing as sharp or dull, manifesting as both unable to know; expediently appearing as sharp or dull, manifesting as both able to know; expediently appearing as sharp or dull, able to know upon hearing and not knowing without hearing; expediently appearing as sharp or dull, both manifesting as neither knowing nor not knowing. Now I do not adopt this distinction, but merely hold that those of expedient manifestation clearly and long knew in their inner minds, while those of real practice had not yet entered the Great and therefore did not know. The meaning is self-evident (and so on). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4.55) - [Next: 4.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4.57) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4.56) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [法華義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.7.6) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4.56) · Pramāṇa