一　一乗義私記三巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
一五〇 【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
一乘義私記卷第二
【枠外右横下】
五八
【本文二段構成】
【上段】
前有漏行＿一。與＿二 地上無漏行＿一。故能爲＿レ破＿レ 三。《割書：爲言》今難意云。旣
爾於＿二宅内＿一所＿レ習。是頓悟行。出＿レ宅捨＿レ之。後所＿レ與法。應＿二是
漸悟行＿一。不＿レ爾何法耶。又喩＿二黄牛＿一法。喩＿二白牛＿一法。倶是菩薩
因行。有＿二何殊異＿一。捨＿レ前取＿レ後菩薩因行。六度萬行。前後無＿レ
殊。故若牛無＿二黄白殊＿一。與＿二本白牛＿一者。初後無＿レ殊。故明知。
不＿レ破＿レ執＿レ大。《割書：爲言》攝釋云。先所＿レ習者。而是頓法出＿レ宅捨＿レ之。
而更授＿レ法。所＿レ與非＿レ漸。是何法耶。若還是頓￣ナラハ。捨與無＿レ
差。何須＿二與捨＿一。若是別法非＿レ漸。更何由＿レ此爲＿レ難《割書：云云》。水抄
云。若噵捨＿二-却地前＿一取＿二 地上＿一。地上地前旣摠是頓悟菩薩
行。又摠是成＿レ佛因法中。卽無＿二兩般＿一。喩上還須＿二是一＿一《割書：云云》。
《割書：抄文甚廣。取＿レ｜要記＿レ之。》　問。地前菩薩。若無＿レ執故不＿レ破歟。若雖＿レ有＿レ
執不＿レ破歟。　答。有＿レ執者。何不＿レ破＿レ之。無＿レ執故更不＿レ須＿レ
破。故水抄云。豈有＿下 地前菩薩執＿二有漏行＿一爲＿上レ 實耶。若無＿レ
執歟。何須＿レ破也《割書：云云》。　問。章云。若執＿二 一￣ヲ極￣ト＿一不＿レ違＿レ趣＿レ
大。何須＿レ破＿レ之。執＿レ 二爲＿レ極。不＿レ趣＿レ大故。可＿レ須＿レ破也《割書：云云》意
何。　答。是破＿二第一轉救＿一了。結＿二-成自義＿一也。意云。若執＿二 一
乘＿一爲＿レ極。不＿レ違＿レ趣＿二大菩提＿一。何得＿レ破＿レ之。執＿二 二乘＿一爲＿レ極。不＿レ
【下段】
趣＿二大菩提＿一。故得＿レ破＿レ之。故唯破＿レ 二說＿レ 一。非＿二破＿レ 三說＿一レ 一。
《割書：爲言》水抄云。言＿二若執＿レ 一極＿一者。立義符＿レ宗矣《割書：云云》。《割書：義意不＿レ｜順＿二章文＿一。》
《割書：故略不＿レ｜記＿レ之。》　問。章云。若隨＿二位得＿一。卽執爲＿レ極。未＿レ見＿下趣＿二大乘＿一
因中有＿中此執＿上。設爾《割書：云テ》許＿二亦破＿一。卽應＿二破無＿一レ窮。由＿レ此但破＿二
執＿レ 二爲＿一レ極《割書：云云》意何。　答。是破＿二第二轉救＿一也。轉救意云。
雖＿下執＿二 一乘＿一卽不＿上レ違＿レ大。以＿二前々位所＿レ得功徳＿一爲＿レ極。爲＿レ
破＿レ之說授＿二後々位功徳＿一。故爲＿レ破＿レ大也。《割書：爲言》水抄云。彼
救云。雖＿下伏＿二-執一＿一卽不＿レ違＿中於大＿上。然彼菩薩有＿二法執心＿一。故
說＿三 十地斷＿二 十重障＿一。何非＿レ破＿二大乘人執＿一也。此古師義。修
行至＿二 十信＿一。捨＿二 十信＿一。取＿二 十住＿一。乃至得＿二 十廻向＿一。不＿二肯進修＿一。
故須＿レ破也《割書：云云》。今破意云。未＿レ見＿下趣＿二大菩提＿一因位中。有＿中
如＿レ此多執＿上。設許＿下有＿二此多執＿一故隨＿レ位破＿上レ之。卽應＿レ有＿下破無＿レ
窮失＿上。由＿レ此可＿レ言。但破＿下執＿二 二乘＿一爲＿上レ 極。不＿レ破＿二於大＿一也。《割書：爲言》
水抄云。破無窮￣ナルベシトイハシメ卽是三十心。何名＿二破＿レ 三歸＿一レ 一
《割書：云云》。抄意云。地前有＿二 三十心＿一。毎＿レ位破＿レ之。卽有＿二無窮
失＿一。故知。不＿レ破＿レ大。而何名＿二破＿レ 三歸＿一レ 一。可＿レ言＿レ破＿レ 二。《割書：爲言》
《割書：文頗隱。如＿レ｜此可＿レ察＿レ之。》　問。章云。又非＿レ破＿下執＿二 四乘＿一爲＿上レ極。爲＿二無種性＿一
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
一五一【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
一乘義私記卷第二
【枠外左横下】
五九
【本文二段構成】
【上段】
說＿二 人天乘＿一。解＿レ有＿二 四乘＿一。不＿レ執＿レ極故。執＿レ 二爲＿レ極。不＿レ異＿下破＿レ
二無＿中執＿二 人天乘＿一爲＿レ極者＿上。執者不＿レ解＿レ乘。解＿レ乘不＿レ執故《割書：云云》
意何。　答。是展轉破也。有＿二 二種＿一。是第一破也。古師有義
中。可＿レ有＿乙爲＿レ破＿下執【二点脱ヵ】四乘＿一爲＿上レ 極。說＿レ 一之義＿甲。故今展轉破＿レ之。
《割書：未＿レ詳＿二誰有義＿一。｜後可＿レ■＿レ之。》　問。爾此破意何。　答。意云。今說＿レ 一。意又
非＿レ破＿下執＿二 四乘＿一爲＿上レ極說＿二 一乘＿一所以者何。勝鬘經等中。雖＿レ
爲＿二無種性人＿一。說＿二 人天乘＿一。然解＿レ有＿二 四乘＿一 人。不＿二執爲＿一レ 極故。
若四乘中。執＿二聲聞緣覺二乘＿一爲＿レ極。破＿レ之不＿レ異＿二前與＿一レ 破＿レ
二。但無＿下執＿二 人天乘＿一爲＿レ極者＿上。其無性人執爲＿レ極。不＿レ解＿二諸
乘道理＿一。何得＿レ破＿レ之。故此法華經。不＿レ被＿二彼無性人＿一。不＿レ可＿レ
云＿レ破＿二彼執＿一。若解＿二諸乘道理＿一。三乘聖者。知＿二 人天乘有漏果
無常苦身＿一。不＿二執爲＿レ極故。是故不＿レ可＿レ云＿下爲＿レ破＿二執＿レ 四爲＿一レ極
說＿レ 一也。《割書：爲言》水抄云。若人天乘無種性人不＿レ《割書：ヲ以テ》解＿レ
乘。雖＿下執＿二 人天＿一爲＿上レ極。非＿二此經所要＿一。不＿レ破也《割書：云云》。　問。彼
經中說＿二 四乘眞實。一乘方便＿一。何無＿下執＿二 四乘＿一爲＿レ極之人＿上。
返＿二-問先其四乘＿一。一乘者何返答。彼經云。攝＿二-受正法＿一善男
子善女人。荷＿二 四重任＿一。謂離＿二善知識＿一無■【門ヵ】非法衆生。以＿二 人
【下段】
天善根＿一。而成＿二-就《割書：考【四角で囲む】就一本｜作＿レ熟》之＿一求＿二聲聞＿一者。授＿二聲聞乘＿一。求＿二
緣覺＿一者。授＿二緣覺乘＿一。求＿二大乘＿一者。授＿レ以＿二大乘＿一《割書：云云》。
是說＿二 四乘眞實＿一文也。又云。若如來隨＿二彼所欲＿一。而方便
說。卽是大乘。無＿レ有＿二 二乘＿一。二乘者入＿二於一乘＿一。一乘者
卽第一義乘《割書：云云》。是說一乘方便文也。意云。四乘種性各
別故。任＿二其種性＿一。說授＿二 四乘法＿一。故名＿二眞實＿一。爲＿レ令＿下不定性
二乘入＿中大乘＿上。以＿二方便＿一說＿下唯一乘無＿中 二乘＿上。故名＿二 一乘方
便＿一也。　正答雖＿レ然非＿レ謂＿丙爲＿レ破＿下執＿二 四乘＿一爲＿上レ極說＿乙 一乘＿甲。其
無性人。性最下劣故。不＿レ《割書：ヲ以》解＿二乘道理＿一。非＿二此經所被＿一。故
更不＿レ破＿レ之。執＿二 二乘＿一爲＿レ極。破＿レ之如＿レ前。符＿二我所立＿一。執＿二大
乘＿一爲＿レ極。若破＿レ之者。卽有＿下如＿レ前捨＿レ頓學＿レ漸等之失＿上。故更
不＿レ可＿レ破＿レ之。故云又非＿レ破＿下執＿二 四乘＿一爲＿上レ極也。　問。章云。
若一《割書：ヲ以》對＿レ 四。一是方便《割書：ナルヲ以》乃應＿下破＿二 一執＿一而歸＿中 四乘＿上 故
《割書：云云》意何。　答。是翻難之詞也。若云＿下爲＿レ破＿二執＿レ 四爲＿一レ極說＿上レ
一者。翻難可＿レ云＿三彼經中說＿二 一乘方便。四乘眞實＿一。若以＿二其
一乘＿一對＿二 四乘＿一時。一乘是方便故。應＿丙破＿下執＿二 一乘＿一爲＿上レ 極歸＿乙
眞實四乘＿甲。若爾此經所說。一乘還爲＿二所破＿一如何爲乎。《割書：爲言》

現代語訳

【右頁】

前の有漏行を捨てて、地上の無漏行を与える。故に能く三を破すると為す」と。今の難の意に云う「既にそうなら、宅内で習う所は、是れ頓悟行である。宅を出てこれを捨てる。後に与える所の法は、応に是れ漸悟行であるべきである。そうでなければ何の法か。また黄牛に譬える法、白牛に譬える法は、倶に是れ菩薩の因行である。何の殊異が有るか。前を捨て後を取るのは菩薩の因行で、六度万行は前後に殊無し。故に若し牛に黄白の殊無く、本の白牛を与えるなら、初後に殊無し。故に明らかに知る、執大を破さないことを」と。

摂釈に云う「先に習う所は、而も是れ頓法である。宅を出てこれを捨て、而も更に法を授ける。与える所は漸に非ず。是れ何の法か。若し還って是れ頓ならば、捨与に差無し。何ぞ須らく与捨すべけんや。若し是れ別法にして漸に非ずば、更に何に由ってか此れを難と為さん」と。水抄に云う「若し地前を捨却して地上を取ると道うとも、地上地前既に総て是れ頓悟菩薩行で、また総て是れ仏と成る因法中である。即ち両般無し。譬の上で還って須らく是れ一であるべし」と。

問：地前菩薩は、若し執無き故に破さざるか。若し執有りと雖も破さざるか。

答：執有る者を、何ぞこれを破さざらんや。執無き故に更に破すことを須いず。故に水抄に云う「豈に地前菩薩が有漏行を執して実と為すこと有らんや。若し執無くば、何ぞ須らく破すべけんや」と。

問：章に云う「若し一を執して極と為すも、大に趣くに違わず。何ぞ須らくこれを破すべけんや。二を執して極と為すは、大に趣かざる故に、須らく破すべし」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ第一転救を破し了わって、自義を結成するものである。意に云う「若し一乗を執して極と為すも、大菩提に趣くに違わず。何ぞこれを破することを得んや。二乗を執して極と為すは、大菩提に

【下段】

趣かず。故にこれを破することを得る。故に唯だ二を破して一を説く。三を破して一を説くに非ず」と。水抄に云う「一極を執すと言うは、立義が宗に符う」と。

問：章に云う「若し位に随って得て、即ち執して極と為さば、未だ大乗に趣く因中に此の執有ることを見ず。設い爾りと許して亦た破すとも、即ち応に破無窮なるべし。此に由って但だ二を執して極と為すことを破す」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ第二転救を破するものである。転救の意に云う「一乗を執すと雖も即ち大に違わずと。前々位の所得の功徳を以って極と為す。これを破するために後々位の功徳を説授する。故に大を破すると為すなり」と。水抄に云う「彼が救って云う『一を執すと雖も即ち大に於いて違わずと。然れども彼の菩薩に法執心有り。故に十地が十重障を断ずと説く。何ぞ大乗人の執を破するに非ざらんや。此の古師の義では、修行して十信に至り、十信を捨てて十住を取る。乃至十回向を得るも、肯えて進修せず。故に須らく破すべし』と」

今の破の意に云う「未だ大菩提に趣く因位中に、此の如き多執有ることを見ず。設い此の多執有る故に位に随ってこれを破すことを許すとも、即ち応に破無窮の失有るべし。此に由って言うべし、但だ二乗を執して極と為すことを破す。大を破するに非ず」と。水抄に云う「破無窮なるべしと言わしめば、即ち是れ三十心なり。何を破三帰一と名づけん」と。抄の意に云う「地前に三十心有り。位毎にこれを破せば、即ち無窮の失有り。故に知る、大を破せず。而して何を破三帰一と名づけん。破二と言うべし」と。

問：章に云う「また四乗を執して極と為すことを破するに非ず。無種性の為に

【左頁】

人天乗を説く。四乗有ることを解するも、極を執せざる故なり。二を執して極と為すは、二を破して人天乗を執して極と為す者無きに異ならず。執する者は乗を解せず、乗を解する者は執せざる故なり」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ展転破である。二種有り、是れ第一破である。古師の義の中に、四乗を執して極と為すことを破するために一を説くの義有るべし。故に今展転してこれを破する。

問：そうするとこの破の意は何か。

答：意に云う「今一を説く意は、また四乗を執して極と為すことを破して一乗を説くに非ず。所以は何ぞ。勝鬘経等の中で、無種性人の為めに人天乗を説くと雖も、然れども四乗有ることを解する人は、執して極と為さざる故なり。若し四乗中で、声聞縁覚二乗を執して極と為さば、これを破すること前の二を破すると異ならず。但だ人天乗を執して極と為す者無し。その無性人は執して極と為すも、諸乗の道理を解せず。何ぞこれを破することを得んや。故にこの法華経は、彼の無性人を被らず。彼の執を破すと云うべからず。若し諸乗の道理を解すれば、三乗の聖者は人天乗の有漏果の無常苦身なることを知って、執して極と為さざる故なり。是の故に四を執して極と為すことを破するために一を説くと云うべからず」と。水抄に云う「若し人天乗の無種性人は乗を解せざるを以って、人天を執して極と為すと雖も、此の経の所要に非ず。破せざるなり」と。

問：彼の経中で四乗真実、一乗方便と説く。何ぞ四乗を執して極と為す人無からんや。

返問：先ずその四乗、一乗とは何ぞや。

返答：彼の経に云う「正法を摂受する善男子善女人は、四重任を荷う。謂く善知識を離れた無門の非法衆生を、人

【下段】

天の善根を以って、而もこれを成就し、声聞を求める者には声聞乗を授け、縁覚を求める者には縁覚乗を授け、大乗を求める者には大乗を以って授く」と。是れ四乗真実を説く文である。また云う「若し如来が彼の所欲に随って、而も方便に説くは、即ち是れ大乗なり。二乗有ること無し。二乗とは一乗に入る。一乗とは即ち第一義乗なり」と。是れ一乗方便を説く文である。意に云う「四乗の種性各別なる故に、その種性に任せて、四乗法を説授する。故に真実と名づける。不定性の二乗をして大乗に入らしめんが為めに、方便を以って唯だ一乗のみ有って二乗無しと説く。故に一乗方便と名づける」と。

正答：然りと雖も四乗を執して極と為すことを破するために一乗を説くと謂うに非ず。その無性人は、性最も下劣なる故に、乗の道理を解せざるを以って、此の経の所被に非ず。故に更にこれを破せず。二乗を執して極と為すは、これを破すること前の如し。我が立つる所に符う。大乗を執して極と為すを、若しこれを破せば、即ち前の如く頓を捨てて漸を学ぶ等の失有り。故に更にこれを破すべからず。故に「また四乗を執して極と為すことを破するに非ず」と云う。

問：章に云う「若し一を以って四に対するに、一は方便なるを以って乃ち応に一執を破して四乗に帰すべし」とあるが、意は何か。

答：是れ翻難の詞である。若し四を執して極と為すことを破するために一を説くと云うなら、翻って難じて言うべし「彼の経中で一乗方便、四乗真実と説く。若しその一乗を以って四乗に対する時、一乗は是れ方便なる故に、応に一乗を執して極と為すことを破して真実の四乗に帰すべし。若し爾らば此の経の所説の一乗は還って所破と為る。如何にせん」と。

英語訳

【Right Page】

abandoning the previous conditioned practices and giving post-ground unconditioned practices. Therefore it can break the three." The meaning of the current objection states: "If so, what is practiced within the house is sudden enlightenment practice. After leaving the house and abandoning this, the dharma given afterward should be gradual enlightenment practice. If not, what dharma is it? Also, the dharma compared to the yellow ox and the dharma compared to the white ox are both bodhisattva causal practices. What difference is there? Abandoning the former to take the latter is bodhisattva causal practice—the six perfections and myriad practices have no difference before and after. Therefore, if the oxen have no distinction between yellow and white, and the original white ox is given, there is no difference between beginning and end. Therefore it is clearly known that attachment to the great is not broken."

The Compendium Commentary states: "What was previously practiced was sudden dharma. After leaving the house and abandoning this, yet further授ing dharma—what is given is not gradual. What dharma is this? If it is still sudden, there is no difference between abandoning and giving. Why would abandoning and giving be necessary? If it is a different dharma but not gradual, by what means would this constitute an objection?" The Water Commentary states: "Even if one says abandoning the pre-ground to take the post-ground, since post-ground and pre-ground are both sudden enlightenment bodhisattva practices and both causal dharmas for becoming Buddha, there are no two types. In the analogy above, it should still be one."

Question: Are pre-ground bodhisattvas not broken because they have no attachments? Or are they not broken even though they have attachments?

Answer: Those who have attachments—why would they not be broken? Because they have no attachments, there is no need to break them further. Therefore the Water Commentary states: "How could pre-ground bodhisattvas have attachment to conditioned practices as real? If they have no attachments, why would they need to be broken?"

Question: The treatise states: "If clinging to one as ultimate does not contradict advancing toward the great, why would it need to be broken? Clinging to two as ultimate does not advance toward the great, therefore it should be broken." What does this mean?

Answer: This completes the refutation of the first counter-rescue and establishes one's own doctrine. The meaning states: "If clinging to the One Vehicle as ultimate does not contradict advancing toward great enlightenment, how could it be broken? Clinging to the Two Vehicles as ultimate does not advance toward great enlightenment, therefore it can be broken. Therefore only breaking two to teach one, not breaking three to teach one." The Water Commentary states: "Speaking of clinging to one ultimate means the established doctrine accords with the thesis."

Question: The treatise states: "If following positions and attaining them, immediately clinging to them as ultimate, I have not seen such attachment existing in the causal [stages] advancing toward the Mahayana. Even if one permits this and also breaks [it], there should be endless breaking. Therefore only breaking attachment to two as ultimate." What does this mean?

Answer: This breaks the second counter-rescue. The counter-rescue means: "Though clinging to the One Vehicle does not immediately contradict the great, taking the merits attained in earlier stages as ultimate, to break this one teaches and gives the merits of later stages. Therefore it breaks the great." The Water Commentary states: "They rescue by saying: 'Though clinging to one does not immediately contradict the great, yet those bodhisattvas have dharma-attachment minds. Therefore it teaches that the ten grounds sever the ten heavy obstacles. How is this not breaking the attachments of Mahayana people? In this ancient masters' doctrine, when cultivation reaches the ten faiths, one abandons the ten faiths to take the ten stages, and even attaining the ten dedications, one is unwilling to advance in cultivation. Therefore it must be broken.'"

The meaning of the current refutation states: "I have not seen such multiple attachments existing in causal positions advancing toward great enlightenment. Even if one permits having such multiple attachments and therefore breaking them according to position, there should be the fault of endless breaking. Therefore one should say: only breaking attachment to the Two Vehicles as ultimate, not breaking the great." The Water Commentary states: "If one makes it so there is endless breaking, then it is the thirty minds. What would be called 'breaking three, returning to one'?" The commentary's meaning states: "There are thirty minds in the pre-ground. Breaking them at each position would have the fault of endlessness. Therefore it is known that the great is not broken. Then what would be called 'breaking three, returning to one'? One should say 'breaking two.'"

Question: The treatise states: "Also it is not breaking attachment to four vehicles as ultimate. For those without spiritual capacity

【Left Page】

the human and heavenly vehicles are taught. Understanding that there are four vehicles, they do not cling to them as ultimate. Clinging to two as ultimate is no different from breaking two—there are none who cling to human and heavenly vehicles as ultimate. Those who cling do not understand vehicles; those who understand vehicles do not cling." What does this mean?

Answer: This is successive refutation. There are two types; this is the first refutation. Among the ancient masters' doctrines, there may be the doctrine of teaching one to break attachment to the four vehicles as ultimate. Therefore now successively refuting this.

Question: Then what is the meaning of this refutation?

Answer: The meaning states: "The intention of now teaching one is also not breaking attachment to the four vehicles as ultimate to teach the One Vehicle. Why is this? Though in the Śrīmālā Sūtra and others, human and heavenly vehicles are taught for people without spiritual capacity, yet those who understand that there are four vehicles do not cling to them as ultimate. If among the four vehicles one clings to the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha two vehicles as ultimate, breaking this is no different from the previous breaking of two. But there are none who cling to human and heavenly vehicles as ultimate. Those without spiritual capacity cling to them as ultimate but do not understand the principles of the various vehicles. How could they be broken? Therefore this Lotus Sūtra is not directed at those people without spiritual capacity. One cannot say it breaks their attachments. If they understand the principles of the various vehicles, the sages of the three vehicles know that human and heavenly vehicles are conditioned fruits of impermanent suffering bodies and do not cling to them as ultimate. Therefore one cannot say that one is taught to break attachment to the four as ultimate." The Water Commentary states: "If people of human and heavenly vehicles without spiritual capacity do not understand vehicles, though they cling to human and heavenly as ultimate, this is not what this sūtra requires and is not broken."

Question: In that sūtra it teaches four vehicles as real and one vehicle as expedient. How could there be no people who cling to the four vehicles as ultimate?

Counter-question: First, what are those four vehicles and one vehicle?

Counter-answer: That sūtra states: "Good sons and daughters who uphold the true dharma shoulder four heavy responsibilities: namely, for beings of non-dharma who are separated from good spiritual friends, through human

【Lower Section】

and heavenly good roots they accomplish this; for those seeking śrāvaka they give the śrāvaka vehicle; for those seeking pratyekabuddha they give the pratyekabuddha vehicle; for those seeking Mahāyāna they give Mahāyāna." This is the passage teaching four vehicles as real. It also states: "If the Tathāgata follows what they desire and teaches expeditently, this is Mahāyāna. There are no two vehicles. The two vehicles enter the one vehicle. The one vehicle is the ultimate meaning vehicle." This is the passage teaching one vehicle as expedient. The meaning states: "Because the spiritual capacities of the four vehicles are each different, following their spiritual capacities, the four vehicle dharmas are taught and given. Therefore they are called real. To make indeterminate-nature two vehicle [practitioners] enter the Mahāyāna, through expedient means it teaches that there is only one vehicle without two vehicles. Therefore it is called one vehicle expedient."

Correct answer: Even so, this does not mean teaching the one vehicle to break attachment to the four vehicles as ultimate. Those without spiritual capacity, because their nature is most inferior, do not understand the principles of vehicles and are not those this sūtra addresses. Therefore they are not broken further. Clinging to the two vehicles as ultimate is broken as before, according with what I establish. If clinging to the Mahāyāna as ultimate were broken, there would be faults like the previous abandoning sudden to study gradual. Therefore it cannot be broken further. Therefore it says "also not breaking attachment to the four vehicles as ultimate."

Question: The treatise states: "If using one to oppose four, since one is expedient, one should break attachment to one and return to the four vehicles." What does this mean?

Answer: This is the language of counter-objection. If one says teaching one to break attachment to the four as ultimate, then counter-objecting one could say: "In that sūtra it teaches one vehicle as expedient and four vehicles as real. If using that one vehicle to oppose the four vehicles, since the one vehicle is expedient, one should break attachment to the one vehicle as ultimate and return to the real four vehicles. If so, the one vehicle taught in this sūtra would in turn become what is to be broken. How would this work?"