勝鬘寶窟 3.38

3.38

就文為二：第一明昔四依、第二明今一依。就昔四依為三：一者舉勝說劣、二明昔說劣意、第三對劣顯勝。言「淨智」者，有人言：牒上地前正見眾生，彼於佛身離四顛倒，名為淨智。「羅漢辟支智波羅蜜」者，對劣顯勝。地前淨智，望彼小乘羅漢辟支智得為究竟智波羅蜜，不名羅漢辟支智為波羅蜜。第二句中，此淨智者，牒上地前淨智之者。「雖曰淨」下，將勝況劣。地前菩薩望彼二乘雖名淨智，於一苦滅尚非境界，況彼二乘四依之智。今明不爾，依文釋之。「世尊淨智」者，牒淨智也。「一切阿羅漢辟支」者，此約人明淨智義也。「智波羅蜜」，即二乘滿足無漏智，即四智究竟為智波羅蜜。又利根聲聞辟支，名波羅蜜聲聞辟支也。又二乘地，度分段彼岸，知苦斷集證滅修道事訖，故名波羅蜜。惑障已盡，故云淨智。又望凡夫亦名淨智。「此淨智者」，牒上二乘無學果智。所以牒者，欲明校量，是故牒也。雖曰淨智，「於彼滅諦尚非境界況四依智」者，正校量也。明二乘無學果智，於一無作苦滅諦尚非境界，何況因中四依智耶？言「四依智」者，有人言：因中依四諦生智，故云四依智。所以因中稱四依智者，至羅漢果唯正觀一滅諦，故對果觀一滅，故以因中為四依智。有人言：即是依法不依人。四依智，求法之始，憑理生智。法即四諦之法，了義是四諦之教，義是四諦之義，智四真之解。返於識著，起自外凡、來入內凡，為四依智。今以果況之，極果不知無邊之滅，況四依智能知滅耶？問：二種釋四依，以何為正？答：依四諦而生智，名為四依。此文無所出，故不用之。又依四諦而生智，名為四依。有濫上果，是故不用。又若用依四諦而生智為四依智者，此非釋初業義。依《毘曇》，前三方便未作諦觀，後四方便方作諦觀。依《成實》，念處亦未作諦觀。今文明三乘初業義，云何偏取諦觀已上方為初業？又舉羅漢之終果，況羅漢之始因，故不應偏取諦觀已上。宜以依法不依人四依為正意也。「何以故」，二釋。昔說劣意，若極果尚不知滅，況四依而能知耶？如來何故說四依？下釋云：四依稚劣，因此得值諸佛菩薩說一乘經，為悟入一乘由漸，故須說之。「三乘初業不愚法」者，江南旻師云：三乘初業，即是乾慧地。爾時即自知作佛，但厭苦情深，且取羅漢。故實有聲聞，後方迴小入大。復有人言：二乘初業不愚於法，即成菩薩，故無復聲聞，但取菩薩為聲聞耳。故用無聲聞義，即開善智藏法師。其人初執有聲聞，於楊都興皇寺正導有聲聞義，而志公云：「汝𮘒[手*賣][託-七+史]於都亭頭。」法師解此語，昔在會稽靈嘉寺噵有聲聞義，靈嘉正在都亭頭也，因此遂改無聲聞。問：今為用有、為用無耶？答：亦有亦無，不同兩說。言亦有者，於緣有隨緣有；言無者，就理明無。故《法華論》破無聲聞義，明有聲聞。不同開善，亦不同莊嚴。初業已知無聲聞，且取羅漢為證；若初業已知無聲聞，不應取證。若以取證，則不知無也。今總問：《法華經》三周明乘權乘實，辨聲聞人未聞《法華》，自保究竟；若聞說《法華》，迴心入大，方自知作佛。今此經云「三乘初業不愚於法」者，當覺當得，云何會通？答：有人言聲聞有二種，一者愚法、二不愚法。不愚法人，謂退菩提心聲聞；愚法之人，謂本乘聲聞。乘聲聞，自保究竟，聞說一乘，方知作佛；不愚法人，自知作佛。今須難之。《法華經》云舍利弗等一切聲聞，皆自保究竟，聞說《法華》方知作佛。云何乃取舍利弗等一切聲聞為愚法人耶？此一不可。又舍利弗等，即是退菩提心聲聞，何處離此已外更有不愚法人？此二不可也。江南諸成實論師釋：有理教。若就道理，三乘人初業，即自知作佛。初業者，從四念處已上即是三乘初業。此時已自知作佛，羅漢故自能知也。若就教中明義，三乘初業乃至羅漢，不自知作佛，要待聞《法華》自方知作佛。故此經據其不愚，《法華》據其教故明其愚也。理是實說，教是方便說。問：若《勝鬘》是實說，《法華》據教為方便者，則《勝鬘》是了義經、《法華》名不了，詎可然耶？《法華論》云「此經正明因辨果。因則七處佛性，果則三佛菩提。」豈可言其不了？又若《法華》據教說，則三根之人無有稟教之益，三周之說則有徒勞之弊。汝言《勝鬘》據理說三乘初業乃至羅漢自知作佛者，今撿《勝鬘》始終及《法華經論》以定其得失也。《勝鬘》一文云「羅漢辟支佛觀察時，得不受後有。」此是羅漢自謂究竟，自知作佛。若自知作佛，則知更受，不名不受後有。汝言初業不愚法自知作佛者，云何復言得不受後有智而是究竟？次文云「羅漢辟支佛於四不顛倒境轉」，若三乘初業及阿羅漢自知作佛，即知佛常樂我淨，云何於法身而起四倒也。問：若引前二文，云羅漢自保究竟不知作佛者；今亦二文，初文云「彼前所得地，不愚於法，自知有餘地，當得菩提。」後文云「三乘初業不愚於法，當覺當得。」答：前文後文，若未聞《法華》一乘等經則自保究竟。若聞《法華》等一乘經，則知作佛。是以兩文無相違背。故此《勝鬘》與《法華》同也。問：文云「不由於他，自知作佛。」云何乃言聞《法華》等經方知作佛；答：此言自知者，要聞他說，而自心證見，故言自知。如《華嚴》云「有所聞法，即自開解，不由他悟。」又如舍利弗云「而今乃自覺，非是實滅度。」身子聞經而稱自覺，今亦然也。《佛性論》云「如來化身為五因緣：一為說無常苦、涅槃寂靜，令眾生於三有中而生怖畏。二生怖畏已，令入二乘聖道。三入聖道已，生究竟涅槃心。為破如是增上慢心，故說大乘法華真實教，令諸眾生捨本所執，攝取慈悲波若方便。四攝已於無上乘而成就之。五成就已，授其無上道記。是名化身事。」此五中第三正明二乘未聞《法華》，自謂究竟之大證也。若二乘自知作佛者，則化身無五事。此又證《法華經》是化佛說。以化佛有此五事，餘二佛無五事。又《法華論》解開示悟入中云「所言悟者，謂不知義，明一切二乘不知究竟唯一佛乘。」又釋：破十種人病中，阿羅漢有三種顛倒信。一者信有三乘，名顛倒信。道理無三種，有於三，名顛倒信。為破此病，明乘平等門，明三乘人同受大菩提記故。以此推之，當知二乘未聞《法華》並是愚法。又龍樹云：「阿羅漢生三界外淨土中，聞《法華經》方乃作佛。」亦是其證。以經論驗之，故知未聞一乘，則自保究竟；若聞一乘，則自知作佛。問：約何位論初業？答：江南諸師云，雖有二文，並是初業已自知作佛。今不爾，有二種不愚：一者後業不愚、二者初業不愚。後業不愚，得羅漢果竟，值善友聞一乘經，迴心信大，故不愚大法。故前文云「得不受後有智，彼前所得地不愚於法。」二者初業不愚，即四依之人名為初業，聞一乘經迴小信大。《法華》亦有二人：一果人不愚，謂身子等聞一乘經自知作佛。二因人不愚，謂發二乘心人聞《法華經》，迴心信大。略舉始終二種不愚，中間無定。問：小乘初業正據何位？答：謂小乘七方便等，故《雜心》云「初則名始業」，《成實論》以念處為初業；此以小乘為初業。於小乘初業中，於小乘初中值善友，聞大乘經，方知作佛。「此四依者是世間法」者，第三對劣顯勝。有人言：彼二乘所依四諦是世間法者也，苦集是分段世間、滅道是變易世間。「一依」已下，簡真異偽。言「一依一切依上」者，總以簡之。一滅諦真依，過彼小乘有作四依，亦過大乘無作三依，名一切依上。下別簡之。「出世間」者，過前世間有作四依，故名為上。復過大乘無作三依，故名上上。無作三依望有作四依已名為上，一苦滅諦復上於三依之上，故云上上。今評定之，此釋有二失：一文煩誤。所以然者，前已云一依者一切依上，謂出二乘有作四依上，復出大乘無作三依之上，故云一切。而後復云出世間上上，出有作之四、無作之三，故云上上。是為煩也。二相違失，前云一切依上、後復云上上，同是一滅諦依，不應有此二句。若云上上，前後皆爾；若直云上，初後亦然。今明上辨佛說四依意。今是簡彼四依勝劣不同，故有此章來也。「此四依是世間法」者，依法不依人等四依，此是依教尋理，本是凡夫，為世間法。「世尊一依者」，此明二乘果也。《婆沙》中正明小乘一諦，一諦即是一依，故小乘人亦明一諦一依義。小乘以滅諦一依為究竟，普勝一切法，故云一切依上。又因中依法不依人等四依，果中無復此四，唯作一滅，故云一依。問：因中四依既稱世間，果中一依應是出世。何故直云一切依上，而不云是出世間？答：既云一切依上，即知是出世間。但為後大乘出世，是故不說。

Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, explaining the four refuges of the past; second, explaining the single refuge of the present. Regarding the past four refuges, there are three points: 1. raising the superior to express the inferior; 2. explaining the intention behind the past exposition of the inferior; 3. contrasting the inferior to reveal the superior. Regarding the words "pure wisdom," someone says: This refers back to the sentient beings mentioned above who are prior to the stages and possess right view, who are free from the four inversions with respect to the Buddha's body, hence termed "pure wisdom." Regarding "the wisdom pāramitā of the arhats and pratyekabuddhas," this is contrasting the inferior to reveal the superior. The pure wisdom prior to the stages, when compared to the wisdom of the Hīnayāna arhats and pratyekabuddhas, can be considered the ultimate wisdom pāramitā; it does not mean that the wisdom of the arhats and pratyekabuddhas is itself a pāramitā. In the second clause, "these possessors of pure wisdom" refers back to those above prior to the stages who possess pure wisdom. From "although termed pure" onward, the superior is used to illustrate the inferior: although bodhisattvas prior to the stages are termed "pure wisdom" relative to the two vehicles, they still do not have the single cessation of suffering as their cognitive sphere, how much less so the wisdom of the four refuges of the two vehicles! We now explain that this is not so, and interpret it according to the text. "World-Honoured One, pure wisdom": this takes up "pure wisdom." "All arhats and pratyekabuddhas": this explains the meaning of pure wisdom in terms of persons. "Wisdom pāramitā" is the two vehicles' fulfillment of uncontaminated wisdom; that is, the four wisdoms in their culmination are the wisdom pāramitā. Furthermore, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas of sharp faculties are called pāramitā-śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Furthermore, at the stage of the two vehicles, having crossed to the other shore of fragmented [samsāric] life, the tasks of knowing suffering, abandoning its arising, realizing cessation, and cultivating the path are finished, hence it is called pāramitā. Delusive hindrances are already exhausted, hence it is called pure wisdom. Furthermore, viewed in comparison to ordinary worldlings, it is also called pure wisdom. "These possessors of pure wisdom" refers back to the wisdom of the fruitional stage of the non-learners of the two vehicles. The reason it refers back to them is to make a comparative evaluation, which is why it takes them up. Although termed pure wisdom, "they still do not take that truth of cessation as their cognitive sphere, how much less the wisdom of the four refuges": this is the precise comparative evaluation. It clarifies that the wisdom of the fruitional stage of the non-learners of the two vehicles still does not take the single truth of unconditioned cessation of suffering as its cognitive sphere, so how much less the wisdom of the four refuges in the causal stage? Regarding the "wisdom of the four refuges," someone says: Because in the causal stage one relies on the four truths to generate wisdom, it is therefore called the wisdom of the four refuges. The reason it is called the wisdom of the four refuges in the causal stage is that upon reaching the fruit of arhatship, one solely and correctly contemplates the single truth of cessation; thus, in contrast to the fruitional contemplation of the single cessation, the causal stage is taken as the wisdom of the four refuges. Someone [else] says: This is precisely "relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person." The wisdom of the four refuges is the beginning of seeking the Dharma, relying on principle to give rise to wisdom. The Dharma is the dharma of the four truths; the definitive meaning is the teaching of the four truths; the meaning is the meaning of the four truths; and wisdom is the understanding of the four realities. Turning back from attachment to consciousness, arising from external worldlings and coming into internal worldlings, constitutes the wisdom of the four refuges. Now, illustrating by the fruit: the ultimate fruit does not know boundless cessation, how much less could the wisdom of the four refuges know cessation? Question: Of the two explanations of the four refuges, which is correct? Answer: Taking the generation of wisdom relying on the four truths to be the four refuges has no textual source, hence it is not adopted. Furthermore, if the generation of wisdom relying on the four truths is called the four refuges, this conflates it with the superior fruit, so it is not adopted. Moreover, if one adopts relying on the four truths to generate wisdom as the wisdom of the four refuges, this does not explain the meaning of "initial practice." According to the Abhidharma, during the first three expedients one has not yet performed the contemplation of the truths, and only during the latter four expedients does one perform contemplation of the truths. According to the Tattvasiddhi, at the foundations of mindfulness one also has not yet performed contemplation of the truths. Now the text explains the meaning of initial practice for the three vehicles; how could one exclusively take the level from contemplation of the truths upward as initial practice? Furthermore, the ultimate fruit of the arhat is raised to illustrate the initial cause of the arhat, so one should not exclusively take contemplation of the truths upward. It is appropriate to take the four refuges of relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person as the correct meaning. "Why is this?": second, explaining the intention behind the past exposition of the inferior. If even the ultimate fruit does not yet know cessation, how could the four refuges know it? Why did the Tathāgata teach the four refuges? The explanation below says: The four refuges are immature and inferior; through them, they are able to encounter Buddhas and bodhisattvas teaching the ekayāna sūtras, serving as a gradual path to awakening and entering the ekayāna, which is why they had to be taught. Regarding "the initial practice of the three vehicles is not foolish regarding the Dharma": Master Min of Jiangnan says: The initial practice of the three vehicles is precisely the stage of dry wisdom. At that time they already know on their own that they will become Buddhas, but because their feelings of revulsion toward suffering are deep, they provisionally attain arhatship. Thus there are truly śrāvakas, who only later turn from the Small to enter the Great. Again, someone says: Since the initial practice of the two vehicles is not foolish regarding the Dharma, they immediately become bodhisattvas; therefore there are no longer any śrāvakas, but bodhisattvas are merely called śrāvakas. The one who employed this doctrine that there are no śrāvakas was Dharma Master Zhizang of Kaishan. That master initially held that there are śrāvakas, and at Xinghuang Monastery in the capital of Yangdu he formally expounded the doctrine that there are śrāvakas. But Master Baozhi said: "You are peddling goods at the head of the capital pavilion." The Dharma master understood these words to refer to when he previously expounded the doctrine that there are śrāvakas at Lingjia Monastery in Kuaiji, for Lingjia was located right at the head of the pavilion; because of this, he consequently changed [his view] to there being no śrāvakas. Question: Do we now use "there are" or "there are none"? Answer: Both "there are" and "there are none," differing from both theories. "There are" means existing according to conditions, existing in accord with conditions; "there are none" explains nonexistence in terms of principle. Therefore the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa refutes the doctrine that there are no śrāvakas and clarifies that there are śrāvakas. It differs from Kaishan, and also differs from Zhuangyan. If during initial practice they already know there are no śrāvakas, they provisionally attain arhatship as realization; but if during initial practice they already know there are no śrāvakas, they should not attain realization. If they have already attained realization, then they do not know nonexistence. Now to ask comprehensively: The three cycles of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra clarify the provisional vehicle and the real vehicle, explaining that before śrāvakas hear the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, they preserve themselves as having reached the ultimate; only when they hear the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka expounded and turn their minds to enter the Great do they know on their own that they will become Buddhas. Now this sūtra says, "The initial practice of the three vehicles is not foolish regarding the Dharma; they will awaken and will attain it." How are these to be reconciled? Answer: Someone says that there are two kinds of śrāvakas: first, those foolish regarding the Dharma; second, those not foolish regarding the Dharma. Those not foolish regarding the Dharma are śrāvakas who retrogressed from the bodhicitta; those foolish regarding the Dharma are śrāvakas of the original vehicle. Śrāvakas of the [original] vehicle preserve themselves as ultimate, and only upon hearing the ekayāna expounded do they know they will become Buddhas; those not foolish regarding the Dharma know on their own that they will become Buddhas. This must now be challenged: The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra says that all śrāvakas, such as Śāriputra and the others, preserve themselves as ultimate, and only upon hearing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka do they know they will become Buddhas. How can one take all śrāvakas such as Śāriputra and the others to be people who are foolish regarding the Dharma? This is the first unacceptable point. Furthermore, Śāriputra and the others are precisely śrāvakas who retrogressed from the bodhicitta; apart from these, where could there be any other people not foolish regarding the Dharma? This is the second unacceptable point. The various Tattvasiddhi masters of Jiangnan explain: There are principle and teaching. In terms of principle, during the initial practice of the persons of the three vehicles, they already know on their own that they will become Buddhas. "Initial practice" means from the four foundations of mindfulness upward is the initial practice of the three vehicles. At this time they already know on their own that they will become Buddhas, and arhats naturally are able to know it. In terms of explaining the meaning within the teaching, from the initial practice of the three vehicles up to the arhats, they do not know on their own that they will become Buddhas, but must wait until they hear the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka before they know on their own that they will become Buddhas. Therefore this sūtra is based on their not being foolish, while the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is based on the teaching to clarify their foolishness. Principle is the real exposition; teaching is the upāya exposition. Question: If the Śrīmālā is the real exposition and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is an upāya based on the teaching, then the Śrīmālā would be a nītārtha sūtra and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka would be termed non-definitive; how could that be so? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa says: "This sūtra directly clarifies cause and discerns fruit. The cause is the buddhadhātu in seven places; the fruit is the bodhi of the three Buddhas." How could one say it is non-definitive? Moreover, if the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka were spoken based on [provisional] teaching, then people of the three faculties would have no benefit of receiving the teaching, and the exposition of the three cycles would suffer the flaw of being in vain. As for your assertion that the Śrīmālā speaks in terms of principle that from the initial practice of the three vehicles up to the arhats they know on their own that they will become Buddhas: we now examine the Śrīmālā from beginning to end and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka sūtra and śāstra to determine its validity. One passage in the Śrīmālā states: "When arhats and pratyekabuddhas contemplate, they attain the knowledge that they will not experience future existence." This means arhats consider themselves to have reached the ultimate, knowing on their own that they will become Buddhas. If they knew on their own that they will become Buddhas, they would know they will experience further existence, and it would not be called not experiencing future existence. You claim that those of initial practice are not foolish regarding the Dharma and know on their own that they will become Buddhas; why then does it also say that they attain the knowledge of not experiencing future existence and that this is ultimate? The next passage states: "Arhats and pratyekabuddhas turn toward the four non-inverted spheres." If those in the initial practice of the three vehicles and arhats knew on their own that they will become Buddhas, they would know the Buddha is permanence, bliss, self, and purity; why would they give rise to the four inversions regarding the dharmakāya? Question: If you cite the preceding two passages to say that arhats preserve themselves as ultimate and do not know they will become Buddhas, here there are also two passages: the first passage states, "Regarding that previously attained stage, they are not foolish regarding the Dharma; they know on their own that there are remaining stages and that they will attain bodhi"; the latter passage states, "The initial practice of the three vehicles is not foolish regarding the Dharma; they will awaken and will attain it." Answer: In both the earlier and later passages, if they have not heard ekayāna sūtras such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, they preserve themselves as ultimate. If they hear ekayāna sūtras such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, then they know they will become Buddhas. Thus the two texts do not contradict each other. Therefore this Śrīmālā is identical with the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Question: The text says, "Without depending on others, they know on their own that they will become Buddhas." Why then do you say that only after hearing sūtras such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka do they know they will become Buddhas? Answer: When it says "know on their own," it requires hearing another speak it, whereupon one's own mind realizes and sees it; therefore it says "know on their own." As the Avataṃsaka says: "Upon hearing the Dharma, one immediately opens up and understands on one's own, not awakened through another." Again, as Śāriputra says: "Only now do I myself awaken that it is not the real extinction." Śāriputra heard the sūtra and called it "self-awakening"; here it is also like that. The Buddhagotra-śāstra states: "The Nirmāṇakāya of the Tathāgata acts on account of five causes and conditions: 1. To teach impermanence, suffering, and nirvāṇa's tranquility, causing sentient beings to generate fear toward the three realms of existence. 2. Having generated fear, to cause them to enter the noble path of the two vehicles. 3. Having entered the noble path, they give rise to the thought of ultimate nirvāṇa. To destroy such haughty arrogance, he expounds the real teaching of the Mahāyāna Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, causing sentient beings to relinquish what they originally clung to and take up compassion, prajñā, and upāya. 4. Having taken them up, to bring them to fulfillment in the supreme vehicle. 5. Having brought them to fulfillment, to confer on them the prophecy of the supreme path. These are termed the deeds of the Nirmāṇakāya." The third among these five precisely constitutes great evidence that the two vehicles, before hearing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, consider themselves to be ultimate. If the two vehicles knew on their own that they will become Buddhas, then the Nirmāṇakāya would lack these five matters. This also proves that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra was spoken by the Transformation Buddha, because only the Transformation Buddha has these five matters, while the other two Buddhas do not have these five matters. Furthermore, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, in explaining "opening, displaying, awakening, and entering," states: "What is called awakening refers to the meaning of not knowing, clarifying that all of the two vehicles do not know the ultimate single buddhayāna." It also explains: in destroying the illnesses of ten kinds of persons, arhats have three kinds of inverted faith. The first is believing that there are three vehicles, which is called inverted faith. In principle there are not three kinds; to hold that there are three is called inverted faith. To destroy this illness, it clarifies the gate of the equality of vehicles, clarifying that persons of the three vehicles equally receive the prophecy of great bodhi. Deducing from this, one should know that the two vehicles, prior to hearing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, are all foolish regarding the Dharma. Furthermore, Nāgārjuna says: "Arhats born in pure lands outside the three realms only become Buddhas upon hearing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra." This is also evidence for it. Examining this with sūtras and śāstras, we know that before hearing the ekayāna, they preserve themselves as ultimate; if they hear the ekayāna, then they know on their own that they will become Buddhas. Question: Regarding what position is initial practice discussed? Answer: The various masters of Jiangnan say that although there are two passages, both mean that in initial practice they already know on their own that they will become Buddhas. We now say this is not so; there are two kinds of not being foolish: 1. not foolish in subsequent practice; 2. not foolish in initial practice. Not foolish in subsequent practice: having already attained the fruit of arhatship, they encounter a good friend and hear the ekayāna sūtras, turning their minds to have faith in the Great, hence they are not foolish regarding the great Dharma. Therefore the earlier text states: "Attaining the knowledge of not experiencing future existence, regarding that previously attained stage they are not foolish regarding the Dharma." 2. Not foolish in initial practice: those persons of the four refuges are called initial practice; hearing the ekayāna sūtras, they turn from the Small to have faith in the Great. In the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka there are also two persons: first, the person of the fruit who is not foolish, meaning Śāriputra and others who hear the ekayāna sūtras and know on their own that they will become Buddhas; second, the person of the cause who is not foolish, meaning persons who generated the two-vehicle aspiration, who hear the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra and turn their minds to have faith in the Great. This briefly raises the two kinds of not being foolish at the beginning and the end; the middle is not fixed. Question: What position does the initial practice of the Hīnayāna precisely designate? Answer: It refers to the seven preliminary expedients of the Hīnayāna, etc. Therefore the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya says: "The initial is called the beginning practice"; the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra takes the foundations of mindfulness as initial practice; these take the Hīnayāna as initial practice. In the initial practice of the Hīnayāna, during the beginning stage of the Hīnayāna they encounter a good friend, hear the Mahāyāna sūtras, and only then know they will become Buddhas. Regarding "these four refuges are worldly dharmas": this is the third, contrasting the inferior to reveal the superior. Someone says: The four truths relied upon by the two vehicles are worldly dharmas: suffering and arising belong to the fragmented world, while cessation and the path belong to the world of transformative change. From "single refuge" downward, it distinguishes the real from the false. Regarding "the single refuge is superior to all refuges," this makes a general distinction: the true refuge of the single truth of cessation surpasses the conditioned four refuges of the Hīnayāna, and also surpasses the unconditioned three refuges of the Mahāyāna; hence it is called "superior to all refuges." Below it distinguishes them individually: "Supramundane" means surpassing the aforementioned worldly conditioned four refuges, hence called "superior." It further surpasses the unconditioned three refuges of the Mahāyāna, hence called "supreme above the superior." The unconditioned three refuges, when viewed against the conditioned four refuges, are already called superior; and the single truth of cessation of suffering is further superior above the three refuges, hence called supreme above the superior. We now critically evaluate this: this explanation has two flaws. 1. Verbosity and error. Why is this? Previously it already said that the single refuge is superior to all refuges, meaning it surpasses the two vehicles' conditioned four refuges and also surpasses the Mahāyāna's unconditioned three refuges, hence saying "all." Yet afterwards it again says supramundane supreme above the superior, surpassing the conditioned four and the unconditioned three, hence saying supreme above the superior. This is redundant. 2. Flaw of contradiction. Earlier it says superior to all refuges, and afterwards it says supreme above the superior; both refer to the same refuge of the single truth of cessation, so these two clauses should not exist. If one says supreme above the superior, both before and after should be so; if one simply says superior, beginning and end should also be the same. We now clarify that above explained the Buddha's intention in teaching the four refuges. Here it distinguishes the differences in superiority and inferiority of those four refuges, which is why this section comes. "These four refuges are worldly dharmas": the four refuges such as relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person are relying on teaching to search for principle; fundamentally being ordinary worldlings, they are worldly dharmas. "World-Honoured One, the single refuge": this clarifies the fruit of the two vehicles. In the Vibhāṣā, it directly clarifies the single truth of the Hīnayāna; the single truth is precisely the single refuge; thus Hīnayāna persons also clarify the doctrine of the single truth and single refuge. The Hīnayāna takes the single refuge of the truth of cessation as ultimate, universally surpassing all dharmas, hence it says "superior to all refuges." Furthermore, in the causal stage there are the four refuges such as relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person; in the fruitional stage these four no longer exist, and there is only the realization of the single cessation, hence it is called the single refuge. Question: Since the four refuges in the causal stage are called worldly, the single refuge in the fruitional stage ought to be supramundane. Why does it simply say "superior to all refuges" without saying it is supramundane? Answer: Since it says "superior to all refuges," one already knows it is supramundane. It is only because of the subsequent supramundane of the Mahāyāna that it is not stated here.