勝鬘寶窟 2.42

From "As the World-Honored One taught the six loci" onward: all that came before was termed the brief exposition; from here onward is the second [part], the extensive exposition. It also means that what came before explained producing the many from the one, whereas now it distinguishes integrating the many back to the one. The text has two parts: first, integrating the small causes to enter the One Vehicle; from "The arhats take refuge in the Buddha" onward, integrating those small fruits to enter the One Vehicle. The small causes and small fruits all enter the Dharma of the One Vehicle; the persons of cause and persons of fruit all become persons of the bodhisattva.

"As the World-Honored One taught the six loci" generally brings up the six previously taught by the Tathāgata. The reason for bringing up the previous six is that these were taught as six loci in the Hīnayāna sūtras; wishing to integrate the Small into the Great, he first stated the Small. These six dharmas are the bases from which practice arises, and are therefore called "loci."

From "What are they?" onward, the six are listed next.

Explanations of the six differ, but for now they are made into three pairs: first, the pair of the abiding of the True Dharma and the extinction of the True Dharma; second, the pair of attainment and separation according to the precepts; third, the pair of the beginning and end according to persons.

Regarding "the abiding of the True Dharma and the extinction of the True Dharma":
Question: What is the True Dharma? What are abiding and extinction?

Answer: According to the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*, the sūtras, vinaya, and abhidharma are called conventional True Dharma, while the thirty-seven factors of awakening are called the ultimate [True Dharma]. Between these two kinds of True Dharma, the undefiled True Dharma, once attained, is never lost, so abiding and extinction are not discussed [in its regard]. Now we are primarily discussing the abiding and extinction of the Dharma of teaching. Within the Dharma of teaching, we generally discuss the abiding and extinction of the Tripiṭaka; if discussed specifically, it primarily distinguishes the abiding and extinction of the vinaya precepts, because the vinaya precepts are precisely what those who have gone forth practice. As it is said, the vinaya precepts are the lifespan of the Buddha-Dharma: because the vinaya precepts abide, the Buddha-Dharma abides; because the vinaya precepts become extinct, the Buddha-Dharma becomes extinct.

Within the vinaya precepts, there are generally three kinds: first, the prātimokṣa precepts; second, the dhyāna-concomitant precepts; third, the path-concomitant precepts. The two precepts of the path and dhyāna pertain to both the monastic and the lay; furthermore, once attained, they are never lost, so abiding and extinction are not discussed [in their regard]. Now we are primarily discussing the abiding and extinction of the prātimokṣa precepts.

Regarding what is called abiding and extinction, there are two kinds of abiding and extinction:
First, the seasons and the principles of numbers have fixed time limits, and therefore there are abiding and extinction. For example, explaining the True Dharma as lasting a thousand years, the Semblance Dharma as lasting a thousand years, and the Final Dharma as lasting ten thousand years. The reason there are fixed numbers is that this is simply due to the original vows of the Buddhas. As the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra* says: "In the past, Śākyamuni was a potter; seeing the past Śākyamuni Buddha's retinue and his Dharma abiding for a thousand years, he therefore made a vow: 'May it be that when I become a Buddha, my land, disciples, and the abiding of my Dharma in the world likewise equal a thousand years.' Therefore, now that he has attained Buddhahood, the abiding of his Dharma lasts for a thousand years." The *Śūraṅgama-sūtra* says: "By the power of samādhi, he manifests the division of relics; by his original vow, he demonstrates the complete extinction of the Dharma." This is the fixed number of the time limit.

Second, because people practice the Dharma, the Dharma abides for a long time; if people do not practice the Dharma, the Dharma then becomes extinct. Although there are two meanings, it is primarily because of practicing the Buddha-Dharma that the Dharma abides for a long time, and by not practicing the Buddha-Dharma that the Dharma then becomes extinct—this is in order to encourage people to practice the Buddha-Dharma.

Question: Earlier it was said that its complete extinction is due to the original vow, and later it was said that its complete extinction is due to sentient beings not practicing it; these two meanings conflict, so how are they reconciled?

Answer: Because the Buddha knew that sentient beings would not practice the Dharma and it would thus become extinct, it does not conflict with the original vow.

"Prātimokṣa and vinaya" is the second pair, of attainment and separation. There are many meanings for the appearance of this passage: first, the abiding and extinction of the Dharma pertains generally to the Tripiṭaka, whereas here it specifically clarifies [the precepts], because the vinaya precepts are precisely what those who have gone forth practice, which is why it is specific. Furthermore, Master Daoji of Hexi said: "The Buddha-Dharma has two kinds: first, the basket of sūtras; second, the basket of vinaya. The basket of sūtras transforms those outside; the basket of vinaya transforms those inside. Furthermore, sūtras generally transform both monastic and lay; the vinaya specifically transforms the monastic. The abiding and extinction of the Dharma above was the Dharma of sūtras; here it is the Dharma of vinaya." Furthermore, above was general Dharma, whereas here it is specific Dharma.

As for the reason for establishing the two names of prātimokṣa [and vinaya], there are many meanings:
First, the names of attainment and separation. *Prātimokṣa*: here translated as "retributive liberation" (baojietuo). Through the cause of upholding precepts, one attains the retribution of liberation; hence it is called "retributive liberation." Thus the sūtra says: "Precepts are the foundation for directly according with liberation." Hence, mokṣa establishes its name based on virtue.
*Vinaya*: here translated as "extinction" (mie), meaning the extinction of the present seven wrongdoings of body and mouth; it is named after separating from faults. Mokṣa takes its name from the future; vinaya takes its designation from the present. Furthermore, liberation transcends the three realms; vinaya extinguishes [suffering in] the three evil destinies. This single dharma of precepts possesses these respective functions; therefore, the Tathāgata established two designations. The name "vinaya" (*lü*) encompasses both above meanings; one may also say that *lü* is the name here [in China], while *mokṣa* and *vinaya* are the designations of foreign lands, as already explained in the profound introductory chapter above.

"Going forth and receiving full ordination" is the third pair, having a beginning and end according to persons. The beginning is going forth; the end is receiving full ordination. In terms of persons, among the five assemblies of the Buddha-Dharma, going forth encompasses three assemblies, namely, śrāmaṇera, śrāmaṇerikā, and śikṣamāṇā; full ordination encompasses the two assemblies of bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī. Furthermore, the three assemblies of going forth do not fully prevent evil, but only guard against the three of the body and the four of the mouth; hence they are given the name of "going forth." The two assemblies completely fulfill the prevention of evil—namely, the three of the body and the four of the mouth [along with subtle offenses]—hence they are given the designation of "full ordination." In the Hīnayāna Dharma, receiving the ten precepts is going forth, and receiving the great precepts is full ordination; in the Mahāyāna, generating the bodhicitta is going forth, and receiving the bodhisattva precepts is full ordination. Moreover, the *Vimalakīrti* says: "Generating the bodhicitta is itself going forth, is itself full ordination." Yet the text relies upon the arhat as full ordination, which is spoken merely in terms of the ultimate state; in truth, it applies to both ordinary beings and nobles. Furthermore, examining the general purport of the text, these six from beginning to end merely explain the single dharma of precepts: first explaining the abiding and extinction of precepts, next explaining the attainment and separation of the precept dharma, and finally explaining the beginning and end of the precept dharma, because precepts are the root of the three trainings. Since the precept dharma is like this, the other practices are of the same kind.

"It is for the sake of the Mahāyāna that these six loci were taught": this is the second, integrating the Small into the Great. In the Hīnayāna above, first the six were generally explained, and next the six were specifically explained; now the integration is likewise twofold: first, a general integration; second, a specific integration. Now, the general integration is explained first. The Buddha taught these six in order to lead to entry into the Mahāyāna, as upāya belonging to the Mahāyāna. Thus the *Lotus Sūtra* says: "I set up such upāya / to cause them to enter the Buddha's wisdom." It also says: "Taking entry into the Mahāyāna as the foundation, / for this reason I preached this sūtra." The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "Because of the upāya of great purity." Furthermore, previously the six were stated, and now the intent of the six is explained: the reason the Buddha taught the six is that although the words belonged to the Small, the intent lay in the Great; hence it says, "It is for the sake of the Mahāyāna that these six loci were taught."

From "Why is this?" onward is the second [part], the explanation, which is the specific integration.

"Why?" is a question. The intention of the question is: Why did [the Buddha] speak of the six for the sake of the Great [Vehicle]? "The abiding of the true Dharma" answers the question above. Explaining the three pairs in the text constitutes three integrations. In the first pair of two, he first integrates abiding and next integrates extinction. Within abiding, he first adduces the abiding in the Hīnayāna; hence it says "the abiding of the true Dharma." "Is spoken of for the sake of the Mahāyāna" clarifies the intention of speaking of the Great. In the past, when the Buddha spoke of the abiding of the true Dharma in the Hīnayāna, he spoke of the Mahāyāna as the Hīnayāna's abiding; one should know that the Hīnayāna's abiding is itself the Mahāyāna's abiding, and outside of the Mahāyāna's abiding there is no separate Hīnayāna abiding. It is like speaking of the great cause as the small fruit; outside of the great cause there is no separate small fruit. Question: If so, it should say that the small abiding is itself the great abiding; why then does it say that the abiding of the Mahāyāna is itself the abiding of the true Dharma? Answer: Now, because the root subsumes the branches, the abiding of the Mahāyāna is itself the abiding of the true Dharma; the meaning of extinction is also like this. Because it reveals that outside of the Great there is no separate Small, apart from the rise and fall of the Hīnayāna there is no separate rise and fall of the Mahāyāna. "Prātimokṣa and vinaya": this is the second pair. In the text there are four [parts]: first, adducing; second, integrating; third, explaining; fourth, concluding. First, he adduces the two dharmas together; hence he says "prātimokṣa and vinaya." "These two dharmas are identical in meaning and different in name": as for "identical in meaning," their essential meaning is identical. Since they are the same single precept, he says "identical in meaning." The reason why two names are established for the single precept is that within the single essence of the precept there are two functions: because it can attain the future fruit of liberation (mokṣa), the precept receives the name of mokṣa; because it can extinguish the seven transgressions of body and speech in the present, the precept receives the appellation of vinaya. The Buddha wished to encourage people to keep the precepts, and therefore established these two names for the single precept. Although there are two names—liberation and extinction—they are the same single preceptual dharma; hence he says "identical in meaning." Question: Why distinguish that the two dharmas are identical in essence and different in name? Answer: It is for the sake of facilitating the meaning in integrating the Small into the Great. Wishing to show that integrating the one is integrating the two, he therefore first shows that the two dharmas integrate with each other. "Vinaya is itself the study of the Mahāyāna": second, it directly integrates it as the dharma studied within the Mahāyāna. The former was an integration among themselves within the Hīnayāna; now it is an integration of the Small into the Great. From "Why?" onward: third, he explains the aforementioned "is itself the study of the Mahāyāna." "Why?" is a question: Vinaya was originally a dharma studied in the Hīnayāna; why is it spoken of as the study of the Mahāyāna? "Because by relying on the Buddha one goes forth and receives full ordination" directly answers the question. Since a person of the Hīnayāna does not separately go forth and receive full ordination, but relies on the Mahāyāna Buddha to go forth and receive the fully ordained precepts, how could the vinaya that is studied not be Mahāyāna? This adduces the subsequent going forth and receiving full ordination to explain that mokṣa and vinaya are themselves the study of the Mahāyāna, and concurrently integrates going forth and receiving full ordination. From "Therefore, speaking of the deportment of the Mahāyāna" onward: fourth, he draws a general conclusion. Because speaking of the deportment of the Mahāyāna serves as that vinaya, going forth, and receiving the fully ordained precepts, therefore vinaya, going forth, and receiving full ordination are themselves the Mahāyāna. Formerly, it clarified relying on the Mahāyāna to go forth, which was integrating the Small in terms of the person of the Mahāyāna. Now it clarifies integrating the Small in terms of the dharma of the Mahāyāna: apart from the dharma of the Mahāyāna there is no separate Hīnayāna dharma, showing that apart from the bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna there are no separate arhats of the Hīnayāna. Integrating the Hīnayāna teaching into the Mahāyāna teaching is the oneness of teaching; integrating Hīnayāna practice into Mahāyāna practice is the oneness of cause; integrating Hīnayāna persons into Mahāyāna persons is the oneness of person; integrating the Hīnayāna fruit into the Mahāyāna fruit is the oneness of fruit. From "Therefore, arhats" onward: he integrates the third pair, going forth and receiving full ordination. Again, the text has three [parts]: first, clarifying that there is no separate Hīnayāna going forth or full ordination; next, questioning; third, explaining. "Therefore" takes up the preceding to reveal the subsequent: formerly it clarified that speaking of the deportment of the Mahāyāna is the vinaya, is going forth, and is full ordination; therefore arhats have no separate going forth or receiving full ordination. From "Why?" onward: it questions: Arhats truly have going forth and full ordination; why say they do not? From "Arhats" onward: third, he explains. Because arhats rely on the Buddha to go forth and receive full ordination, they have no separate going forth or receiving full ordination, let alone prior to that! Furthermore, wishing to infer the latter from the former: since arhats lack [their own] going forth and full ordination, they also lack [ultimate] four wisdoms and nirvāṇa. Question: When do arhats go forth? When do they receive full ordination? Answer: This discusses going forth during the causal stage; it is not that arhats [as fruit] go forth. From "Arhats take refuge in the Buddha" onward: up to this point, it clarified integrating the cause; now, second, it clarifies integrating the fruit. Integrating the cause means integrating the Hīnayāna cause so that it becomes the Mahāyāna cause, there being no separate Hīnayāna cause; it also means gathering its causal aspect. Integrating the fruit means that there is no Hīnayāna ultimate fruit, and that the Hīnayāna ultimate fruit is still a Mahāyāna cause; thus both the Hīnayāna cause and fruit belong to the Mahāyāna cause. Moreover, above he took away the cause, and now he takes away the fruit. Furthermore, he adduces the fruit to explain and establish the taking away of the cause: if one attains fulfillment of the fruit, the cause is fulfilled; since the fruit is not ultimate, how could the practiced cause be fulfilled? Moreover, previously he integrated worldly good into the ekayāna; now he integrates transworldly good to enter the ekayāna. Furthermore, the above integration of the six bases and so forth was integrating the beginning of the Hīnayāna; now he integrates the end of the Hīnayāna. The middle may be understood [from this]. In the text there are two [parts]: first, indicating the two headings together; from "Why?" onward: second, explaining the two headings together. Regarding indicating the two headings together: "Arhats take refuge in the Buddha" is one heading, clarifying that their virtues are not complete; "Arhats have fear" is the second heading, clarifying that their hindrances are not exhausted. Moreover, that arhats have a refuge indicates the heading; that they have fear explains the refuge: because they have fear, they must take refuge. Question: This section integrates the fruit; why take away their refuge? Answer: Previously he took away going forth and receiving the precepts; now he takes away taking refuge. Taking refuge and precepts are the root; therefore, following the precepts, he explains taking refuge. Question: How many meanings are there to taking refuge? Answer: First, contrasted with the past, relying on an impermanent Buddha was not an ultimate refuge; now, taking refuge in the eternally abiding Buddha is for the first time the ultimate refuge. Therefore, the text below says: "An inexhaustible refuge and an eternally abiding refuge are the true refuge." Second, contrasted with the past, taking refuge in separate entities was not ultimate; it clarifies that now taking refuge in a single entity is for the first time ultimate. Therefore, the text below says: "The Tathāgata is himself the three refuges." These two meanings generally reveal that persons of the two vehicles, whether in the causal or fruitional stage, although they subsequently take refuge in the Buddha, do not yet know the refuge. Third, above he refuted their possessing six, and therefore clarified that there are no six; now he refutes the two non-existences, clarifying the two existences.

Regarding the "two non-existences": first, it means having no refuge; second, it means having no fear. Regarding the "two existences": first, having a refuge; second, having fear. As for having a refuge, that person thinks that because there is the fear of saṃsāra, there is a refuge; but now, having escaped the fear of saṃsāra, they do not need a refuge. Now it is explained that although they have escaped the fear of [saṃsāra of] fragmented lifespans, they still have [that of] transformational [saṃsāra], and therefore they still require a refuge. Question: When do arhats have a refuge? When do they have fear? Answer: Those who are not foolish regarding the Dharma presently know that their transformational saṃsāra is not yet exhausted, and they rely on the Buddha to seek release; presently knowing that the counteragent to transformational [saṃsāra] is not yet established, they therefore have fear. Those who are foolish regarding the Dharma, in the future after their nirvāṇa without remainder, when conceptual thoughts arise, only then take refuge and only then feel fear. This meaning will be explained later. Question: Why is it not said that pratyekabuddhas have refuge and fear? Answer: Arhats presently hear the Mahāyāna sūtras and become self-aware that they abide in the stage with remainder, so they have refuge and fear; pratyekabuddhas appear in times when there is no Buddha, do not hear the Mahāyāna, and do not know that they themselves abide in the stage with remainder, and therefore do not know to take refuge. Question: If so, why does the text below say that arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear? Answer: This is said with regard to future pratyekabuddhas, hence it is so. From "Why is this?" below, the second [part] explains the headings, which has two parts: first, a brief explanation; next, an extensive explanation. In the brief one, it explains the two, which are twofold: first, it explains the latter heading on fear, following the flow of the phrasing; next, it turns back to explain the heading on having a refuge. In the former explanation of fear, "Why is this?" is a question: the Tathāgata in the past, in other discourses, always taught that arhats are free from fear; why does he now say here that they have fear? From "arhat" below, it next explains. There are three parts: first, the doctrine; next, the simile; finally, the conclusion. "Arhats abide in the notion of fear toward all unconditioned formations": arhats possess the wisdom of the path of counteragents within the three realms, which is called "formations"; having eradicated the afflictions within the three realms completely, they are without the saṃsāra of fragmented lifespans within the three realms, and within the three realms they have no fear—for this reason, it was formerly said that arhats have no fear. But not yet possessing the wisdom of the path of counteragents outside the three realms is called "unconditioned formations," and hence there is the suffering of transformational saṃsāra. This clarifies that arhats know of themselves that their transformational saṃsāra outside the three realms is not yet exhausted; fearing the suffering of that saṃsāra, they give rise to a fearful mind in relation to their own lack of [counteracting] practice—this is called the "notion of fear." Because they abide in fear, it is called "abide." Furthermore, because they have not advanced to eradicate it, it is provisionally called "abide." Someone says: "All unconditioned formations" is the object of fear. The five aggregates are not one, hence they are called "all." Having no fixed, real flux is called "unconditioned formations." Practitioners of the two vehicles do not know that the arising and ceasing of the aggregates and so forth lack intrinsic nature; thinking that there are real characteristics that oppress them, they give rise to fear. Their minds conceptualise this matter, so it is said that they "abide in the notion." Therefore the Ratnagotravibhāga says: "Not having severed all residual impressions of afflictions, they constantly generate an extreme fear in their presence toward all characteristics of conditioned formations." Question: How is the lack of fixed, real flux in the five aggregates called "unconditioned formations"? Answer: Just as a person imagines and claims that a mirage is flowing water, or that wild horses are running, when in fact there is no flow and no horses running; thus it is called having no fixed, real flux. Master Lin says: "In foreign countries it is called saṃskāra; here it is translated as 'formations' (xing). The Mahāyāna says that formations have no substance, hence 'non-formations' (wu xing). Yet the Hīnayāna considers formations to truly exist, and therefore gives rise to terror." As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: "All sentient beings are submerged in non-existence"—this agrees with the intention of the latter explanation. The former master explains fear with respect to matters outside the three realms; the latter master explains fear with respect to matters within the three realms. The former master explains "formations" as the practice of the path of counteragents; the latter master explains "formations" as the flux [of conditioned phenomena]. From "just as a person holding a sword about to come and harm oneself" below, the second is the explanation by simile. The first master says: The causes of transformational [saṃsāra] are compared to a person. Being able to bring about the future fruits of transformational [saṃsāra] is called "holding a sword." The impending arrival of the future fruit is therefore called "about to come." Since it will inevitably affect oneself closely, it is called "harming oneself." The second master says: "Just as a person" illustrates the five aggregates. "Holding a sword" illustrates the arising and ceasing of the substance of the aggregates. "About to come and harm oneself" illustrates the pressing oppression of the characteristics of arising and ceasing. "Therefore arhats have no ultimate bliss": the third concludes. According to the first master, because arhats have notions of fear regarding transformational saṃsāra, they have no ultimate bliss. According to the latter master, although they attain nirvāṇa with remainder, because a fearful mind accompanies them, they have no ultimate bliss. From "Why is this?" below, the second explains the heading on refuge. "Why is this?" is a question: arhats have already realised the fruit of the stage beyond learning; why do they still need a refuge? From "World-Honoured One" below, it explains. Therein, first is the doctrine; next, the simile; finally, the synthesis. "Relying on one who does not seek refuge" is the doctrinal statement. The Tathāgata is a person who does not seek refuge; an arhat relying on that person who does not seek refuge is called "relying on one who does not seek refuge." From "Just as sentient beings who have no refuge" below, the second is the simile. Just as sentient beings in the world have nothing to rely on and therefore have many fears. Because the objects giving rise to fear are not one, they are called "various." "Because of fear, they then seek refuge" directly clarifies the need for a refuge. Seeking refuge in great power protects against what is feared. From "In this way" below, the third synthesises the simile. "In this way, arhats" synthesises the preceding "sentient beings." "Have terror" synthesises "various fears." "Because of terror, they rely on the Tathāgata" synthesises seeking refuge out of fear.