[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) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt) › 4.56 # 妙法蓮華經文句 4.56 English (machine translation) 4.56 - **Language:** English ### [4.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4.56) 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). - [Previous: 4.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4.55) - [Next: 4.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4.57) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4) ## Linked texts (1) - [妙法蓮華經文句](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.4.56) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.4.56) · Pramāṇa