[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) › [法華義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721) › 3.341 # 法華義疏 3.341 法華義疏 3.341 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.341](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.341) 「若我弟子自謂」者，第三、示得失門。上來明道理唯一，次明五濁方便有三，權實有無皎然可信，如其不信即是惡人，故次明得失。然能被之教不出實之與權，稟教之人亦唯有得之與失，斯事攝一化事竟矣。就文為二：前明失，次明得。得失各有二人，合成四人也。失中二人者，第一是未得小乘謂已得小乘，不信《法華》，第二已得小乘果而小乘果非究竟自謂究竟，不追求大，亦名為失。初是凡失，後是聖失，此二總攝一切失事盡也。「若我弟子自謂阿羅漢等」者，上明一乘是真實、三乘是方便，今失此二意，蓋明執小是實、迷三是權也。此明未得小乘究竟果謂得小乘究竟果，此敘小乘中之失，即五千之徒是也。「不聞不知諸佛如來但教化菩薩」者，此文辨不知同歸一乘，即迷於一乘真實也。是敘大乘中之失也。不聞者，不聞教也。不知者，不知理也。上五千人不聞廣說一乘真實，故云不聞不知也。「此非佛弟子」下，前兩句牒謂情，今此文判得失也。五千之徒未得小乘究竟謂得究竟，保執小乘則小乘不攝，而不聞不知但教化菩薩，此人迷大則大乘不攝，故非佛弟子，以非佛弟子明非內凡夫，下明非七聖人也。「又舍利弗」下，第二、明聖失也。亦有三句：初句、明已得羅漢，自保究竟執三乘教，不識權也。「不進求」下，第二、明不識一乘真實也。「當知此輩」下，第三句、判得失也。羅漢望大乘，實非究竟自謂究竟，自謂究竟故不進求佛道，當知亦是增上慢人也。 > Regarding 'If my disciples claim of themselves': this is the third \[part\], showing the gate of gain and loss. The preceding explained that the principle is uniquely one, and next explained that through the expedient means of the five turbidities there are three, with the provisional and real, existence and non-existence, being clearly credible; if one does not believe it, one is an evil person. Thus next it explains gain and loss. Now, the teaching capable of covering \[beings\] does not go beyond the real and the provisional, and the persons who receive the teaching also have only gain and loss; these matters completely encompass the entire work of a single conversion. Divided according to the text, there are two parts: first it explains loss, next it explains gain. Gain and loss each have two persons, making four persons in all. Regarding the two persons within loss: the first is one who has not attained the Hīnayāna but claims to have attained the Hīnayāna, and does not believe in the Lotus \[Sūtra\]; the second is one who has already attained the fruit of the Hīnayāna, but since the Hīnayāna fruit is non-ultimate, claims of oneself that it is ultimate and does not pursue the Great \[Vehicle\], which is also called a loss. The first is an ordinary loss, and the second is a noble loss; these two fully encompass all matters of loss without exception. Regarding 'If my disciples claim of themselves to be arhats, etc.': the above explained that the ekayāna is real and the triyāna is upāya; now one loses these two meanings, generally showing that one clings to the small as real and is confused about the three being provisional. This explains that one who has not attained the ultimate fruit of the Hīnayāna claims to have attained the ultimate fruit of the Hīnayāna; this recounts the loss within the Hīnayāna, namely the band of five thousand. Regarding 'neither hearing nor knowing that the Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, only teach and transform bodhisattvas': this passage clarifies that they do not know of the common convergence into the ekayāna, meaning they are confused about the reality of the ekayāna. This recounts the loss within the Mahāyāna. 'Not hearing' means not hearing the teaching. 'Not knowing' means not knowing the principle. The five thousand people above did not hear the broad exposition of the reality of the ekayāna; hence it says 'neither hearing nor knowing'. From 'such as these are not disciples of the Buddha' downward: the preceding two lines took up their subjective claims, and now this passage judges their gain and loss. The band of five thousand, having not attained the ultimate of the Hīnayāna, claimed to have attained the ultimate; obstinately clinging to the Hīnayāna, they are not embraced by the Hīnayāna; and neither hearing nor knowing that \[the Buddhas\] only teach and transform bodhisattvas, being confused about the Great \[Vehicle\], they are not embraced by the Mahāyāna. Therefore they are not disciples of the Buddha; by being not disciples of the Buddha, it clarifies that they are not inner ordinary persons, and below it clarifies that they are not the seven noble persons. From 'Moreover, Śāriputra' downward: the second \[part\] explains the noble loss. There are also three lines: the initial line explains that having already attained arhatship, clinging to it as ultimate and adhering to the teaching of the triyāna, they do not recognize the provisional. From 'not progressing to seek' downward: the second \[line\] explains that they do not recognize the reality of the ekayāna. From 'you should know that these people' downward: the third line judges gain and loss. For an arhat viewed from the perspective of the Mahāyāna, it is truly non-ultimate, yet they claim of themselves that it is ultimate; claiming of themselves that it is ultimate, they do not progress to seek the Buddha path; you should know that they are also people of overweening pride. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.340](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.340) - [Next: 3.342](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.342) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721~en-mt.3.341) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.341](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.341) · Pramāṇa