勝鬘寶窟 2.42.2

2.42.2

「何以故」者，謂問也。 問意云：何故為大而說六耶？ 「正法住者」，答上問也。 就文釋三雙即三會。 初二中，前會住、次會滅。 住中，前牒小乘中住，故云正法住者也。 「為大乘故說」者，此明說大意。 佛昔於小乘中說正法住者，說大乘為小住，當知小住即是大住，大住之外無別小住。 如說大因為小果，大因之外無別小果。 問：若爾，應云小住即是大住，何故乃說大乘住即正法住？ 答：今以本攝末故，大乘住故即正法住，滅義亦爾。 以顯大外無別小故，離小乘興廢無別大乘興廢也。 「波羅提木叉毘尼」者，此第二雙也。 就文有四：一牒、二會、三釋、四結。 前雙牒二法，故言波羅提木叉、毘尼也。 「此二法者義一名異」，言義一者，體義一也。 同是一戒，故言義一。 所以於一戒上立二名者，即一戒體而有二能：能得未來解脫之果，故戒受木叉之名； 能滅現在身口七非，故戒受毘尼之稱。 佛欲勸人持戒，故於一戒上立此二名。 雖有解脫、滅二名，而同是一戒法，故言義一。 問：何故辨二法體一名異？ 答：為欲會小入大中義便。 欲明會一即會二，故前明兩法自相會也。 「毘尼者即大乘學」者，第二正會是大乘中所學法也。 前是小乘中自相會，今是會小入大也。 「何以故」下，第三釋上即大乘學也。 「何以故」者，問也。 毘尼本是小乘學法，何故說為大乘學？ 「以依佛出家受具足」，是正答問也。 以小乘人無別出家受具足，依大乘佛出家受具足戒，所學毘尼寧非大乘？ 此舉後出家受具足，以釋木叉毘尼即大乘學，兼會出家受具足也。 「是故說大乘威儀」下，第四總結也。 以說大乘威儀，為彼毘尼出家受具足戒，是故毘尼出家受具足即以大乘也。 前明依大乘出家，此是就大乘人會小。 今明就大乘法以會小，離大乘之法無別小乘法，示離大乘菩薩無別小乘羅漢。 會小乘教入大乘教，即是教一； 會小乘行入大乘行，即是因一。 會小乘人入大乘人，即是人一； 會小乘果入大乘果，即果一。 「是故阿羅漢」下，會第三雙出家受具足。 又就文為三：初明無別小乘出家具足、次問、三釋是故乘前顯後。 前明以說大乘威儀是毘尼是出家是具足，是故羅漢無別出家受具足。 「何以故」下，問羅漢實有出家具足，何故言無？ 「阿羅漢」下，第三釋也。 以羅漢依佛出家受具足故，無別出家受具足，況爾前有耶。 又欲以前類後，羅漢既無出家受具足，且無四智涅槃。 問：羅漢何時出家？ 何時受具足？ 答：此就因中論出家耳，非羅漢出家也。 「阿羅漢歸依於佛」下，自上已來明會因，今第二次明會果。 會因者，會小乘因成大乘因，無別小乘因，又是集其因義。 會果者，無有小乘究竟果，小乘究竟果還是大乘因，故小乘因果並屬大乘因。 又上奪因，今奪果也。 又舉果釋成奪因。 若得果滿足，因便滿足； 果既非究竟，所行因寧得滿耶？ 又上來會其世間善入一乘，今會出世善以入一乘也。 又上會六處等，是會小乘之始； 今會小乘之終。 中間可知。 就文為二：第一雙標二種章門； 「何以故」下，第二雙釋二章門。 雙標二章門者，「阿羅漢歸依佛」，是一章門，明德不圓。 「阿羅漢有恐怖」，第二章門，明障不盡。 又羅漢有歸依，標章門也。 有恐怖者，釋歸依也。 以有恐怖，故須歸依。 問：此章會果，何故奪其歸依？ 答：前奪出家受戒，今奪歸依。 歸戒是本，是故次戒明歸。 問：有歸有幾種義？ 答：一對昔明依無常佛，非究竟歸依； 今歸依常住佛，始是究竟歸。 故下文云「無盡歸、常住歸，為真歸依。 」二者對昔別體歸非究竟，明今一體歸方是究竟。 故下文云「如來即三歸」。 此二義通顯二乘若因若果人，雖後歸依於佛，而未識歸依。 三者上破其有六，故明無六； 今破二無，明於二有。

"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.