[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) › [勝鬘寶窟](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744) › 2.43.1 # 勝鬘寶窟 2.43.1 勝鬘寶窟 2.43.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.43.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.43.1) 「世尊」下，上來第一略釋歸怖，今第二廣釋歸怖。 就文為二：從初至「無邊不斷」，廣釋怖畏； 「如來無有齊限時住」下，廣解歸依。 初文又二：第一正明羅漢辟支有畏所以； 第二「不受後有智」下，會小入大。 以有畏故，終須入大。 此與前會世間善法小異者，前世間善法但舉以會入； 今此會出世中，廣奪非究竟，後方會入。 所以然者，欲明二乘不執世間善法以為究竟，故不須奪顯非究竟，故直舉會入而已； 二乘執出世間法以為究竟，故須奪顯非究竟，然後會入也。 又是互文現意，且顯會義多。 初言「阿羅漢及辟支佛有怖畏」者，牒前怖畏。 「是故阿羅漢」下，廣釋。 何故須廣？ 前言羅漢於一切無行怖畏想住，未知此等無何等行，故須廣釋，謂無智及涅槃行。 無四智故，智行不成； 無涅槃故，斷行不足。 又無四智，道行不圓； 無涅槃故，滅行不足。 又無四智，菩提不圓； 無涅槃故，涅槃不極。 又無四智故，有為功德不滿； 無涅槃故，無為功德不圓。 又就文有二：第一正明二乘四智未圓、涅槃不滿； 第二「何以故唯如來」下，釋彼二乘不得所以，以其不成一切德故。 就初，前明四智不圓、後彰涅槃不滿。 今言是故羅漢辟支者，牒彼不具四智人也。 問：上來何故不顯辟支、唯顯羅漢，今此二人並舉耶？ 答：良以辟支出無佛世，現在不彰依佛，乃可過未有依； 不同羅漢，一切時依佛。 故上顯依佛中，不彰辟支、但彰羅漢； 今此四智涅槃，二人齊有，故並舉此二人，奪非究竟，有餘生法不盡故，我生已盡智不究竟也。 於中先略釋四智義相，然後釋四智義。 三門辨釋：一釋四智義緣不同、二約四諦智分別、三約盡智無生智分別。 義緣不同者，若阿羅漢無學理觀智慧，於念念中皆具此四種義能，我生已盡乃至不受後有。 如似一念精進，則能懃斷二惡、懃修二善。 然理觀智慧具此四義能現時，而無四種緣心； 後出觀在事中，有其四種緣心，緣已智能我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有，而無四種義能也。 若論大乘中，佛及大菩薩二諦並觀，無入出觀異。 而義差別者，但真諦觀皆具此四種義能，而無四種緣心； 俗諦觀有四種緣心，無四種義能。 約四諦分別，若依《婆沙論》我生已盡是集智、梵行已立是道智、所作已辦是滅智、不受後有是苦智。 彼論但隨相別屬四諦智異，據實一一諦皆具此我生已盡乃至不受後有等四種義用也。 約盡智、無生智分別者，婆沙中諸師差別不同，說有四種：一說我生已盡是盡智，次餘三智是無生智。 二說我生已盡智、梵行已立智是盡智，餘二是無生智。 三說前三智是盡智，第四是無生智。 彼論中問言：無有阿羅漢二剎那盡智後起無生智，何故我生已盡等三智是盡智？ 此問意云：羅漢唯一剎那照煩惱盡名盡智，第二剎那即是無生智，云何言盡智中具有我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦等三智耶？ 彼論答言：雖一剎那，而有三種義，故作是說也。 四說我生已盡等四智，非盡無生智，亦非無與十正見智。 此是讚歎羅漢辭，言阿羅漢我生已盡乃至不受後有。 此言非盡智無生智等者，非是前三家別相屬對故言非，不一向非也。 然盡智無生智中具此四種，若直言我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有。 如是說者，是盡智中四智。 若言我生已盡不復更生、梵行已立不復更立、所作已辦不復更辦、不受後有不復更受。 如此說者，是無生智中四智也。 依《毘婆沙》，我生已盡是斷集智； 依此文者，是斷苦智。 所以然者，《婆沙》據集能招生，故我生已盡是斷集智。 此經言苦有二種：一分段生死苦、二變易生死苦。 二乘雖斷分段之苦變易猶在，故言有餘。 以不盡故，當更有生也。 所以我生已盡智是苦智，故當更有生也。 「有餘梵行成故不純」者，梵行已立不究竟也。 > From "World-Honoured One" onward: the preceding section was the first, briefly explaining refuge and fear; now the second extensively explains refuge and fear. Within the text there are two parts: from the beginning to "boundless and uninterrupted" it extensively explains fear; from "the Tathāgata abiding for an unlimited time" onward it extensively explains taking refuge. The first part also has two sections: first, it directly clarifies the reason why arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear; second, from "the knowledge that there is no subsequent rebirth" onward, it integrates the Small into the Great. Because they have fear, in the end they must enter the Great. The slight difference between this and the earlier integration of worldly wholesome dharmas is that the earlier worldly wholesome dharmas were simply adduced to be integrated; here, in integrating the supramundane, it extensively strips away \[their claim to\] ultimacy before integrating them. Why is this? It intends to show that the two vehicles do not cling to worldly wholesome dharmas as ultimate, so there was no need to strip them away to reveal that they are not ultimate, and they were simply adduced and integrated; but the two vehicles cling to supramundane dharmas as ultimate, so it must strip them away to reveal that they are not ultimate, and only then integrate them. Furthermore, it is a complementary expression showing the intention, also illustrating that the meanings of integration are manifold. First, stating that "arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear" restates the earlier \[mention of\] fear. From "therefore, arhats…" onward, it extensively explains. Why is an extensive explanation needed? Previously it was said that arhats abide in the idea of fear regarding all non-practice, but it was not yet known what kinds of practice they lack; therefore an extensive explanation is needed, meaning they lack the practice of wisdom and nirvāṇa. Because they lack the four wisdoms, the practice of wisdom is not accomplished; because they lack nirvāṇa, the practice of cessation is insufficient. Furthermore, lacking the four wisdoms, the practice of the path is not complete; lacking nirvāṇa, the practice of eradication is insufficient. Again, lacking the four wisdoms, bodhi is not complete; lacking nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa is not ultimate. Furthermore, lacking the four wisdoms, conditioned merits are not fulfilled; lacking nirvāṇa, unconditioned merits are not complete. Again, within the text there are two parts: first, it directly clarifies that the four wisdoms of the two vehicles are not complete and their nirvāṇa is not fulfilled; second, from "Why is this? Only the Tathāgata…" onward, it explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain them, because they do not accomplish all virtues. Within the first, it first clarifies that the four wisdoms are incomplete, and next reveals that nirvāṇa is unfulfilled. Now stating "therefore arhats and pratyekabuddhas" restates those persons who do not possess the four wisdoms. Question: Why did the preceding text not reveal the pratyekabuddha and only reveal the arhat, whereas here both persons are adduced together? Answer: Truly, because pratyekabuddhas appear in an age without a Buddha, in the present they do not show reliance on the Buddha, though they may have reliance in the past and future; unlike arhats, who rely on the Buddha at all times. Therefore, in the earlier revelation of relying on the Buddha, it did not reveal the pratyekabuddha but only revealed the arhat; now, both persons equally possess these four wisdoms and nirvāṇa, so it adduces both persons together, stripping away their ultimacy: because remaining dharmas of rebirth are not exhausted, the knowledge that "my births are exhausted" is not ultimate. Within this, it first briefly explains the meaning and characteristics of the four wisdoms, and then explains the meaning of the four wisdoms. It is analysed and explained through three gateways: first, explaining the difference between the meaning and object-conditions of the four wisdoms; second, distinguishing them according to the knowledge of the four truths; third, distinguishing them according to the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising. As for the difference between meaning and object-conditions: in the arhat's wisdom of contemplation on the principle in the stage of non-learning, in thought-moment after thought-moment it completely possesses these four kinds of semantic functions, from "my births are exhausted" up to "there is no subsequent rebirth." Just as a single thought-moment of vigor can diligently sever two unwholesome things and diligently cultivate two wholesome things. However, when the wisdom of contemplation on the principle possessing these four semantic functions is present, there are not the four kinds of object-directed minds; later, when emerging from contemplation into phenomenal matters, there are the four kinds of object-directed minds—taking their own wisdom's capacity as object: "my births are exhausted, the holy life is established, what was to be done has been accomplished, and there is no subsequent rebirth"—yet they lack the four kinds of semantic functions. If discussed within the Mahāyāna, the Buddha and great bodhisattvas contemplate both truths simultaneously without the difference of entering and emerging from contemplation. As for the distinction in meaning: the contemplation of the ultimate truth completely possesses these four semantic functions without the four kinds of object-directed minds; the contemplation of conventional truth has the four kinds of object-directed minds without the four semantic functions. Distinguishing according to the four truths: according to the \*Vibhāṣā-śāstra\*, "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of origin; "the holy life is established" is the knowledge of the path; "what was to be done has been accomplished" is the knowledge of cessation; and "there is no subsequent rebirth" is the knowledge of suffering. That treatise merely assigns them distinctively to the four truths according to their characteristics; in reality, each and every truth completely possesses these four kinds of semantic functions: "my births are exhausted" up to "there is no subsequent rebirth." As for distinguishing them according to the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising: the various masters in the \*Vibhāṣā\* differ, stating four views. The first says that "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of exhaustion, and the remaining three wisdoms are the knowledge of non-arising. The second says that the knowledge that "my births are exhausted" and the knowledge that "the holy life is established" are the knowledge of exhaustion, and the remaining two are the knowledge of non-arising. The third says that the first three wisdoms are the knowledge of exhaustion, and the fourth is the knowledge of non-arising. In that treatise it asks: there is no arhat who, after two kṣaṇas of the knowledge of exhaustion, generates the knowledge of non-arising; why then are the three wisdoms such as "my births are exhausted" the knowledge of exhaustion? The meaning of this question is: the arhat illuminates the exhaustion of defilements in only a single kṣaṇa, called the knowledge of exhaustion, and the second kṣaṇa is precisely the knowledge of non-arising; how can it be said that the knowledge of exhaustion completely possesses the three wisdoms: "my births are exhausted," "the holy life is established," and "what was to be done has been accomplished"? That treatise answers: although it is a single kṣaṇa, it possesses three meanings, hence it is stated in this way. The fourth says that the four wisdoms such as "my births are exhausted" are neither the knowledge of exhaustion nor the knowledge of non-arising, nor are they \[counted among\] the knowledge of the ten right views. These are words praising the arhat, saying that for an arhat "my births are exhausted" up to "there is no subsequent rebirth." Saying here that they are not the knowledge of exhaustion, knowledge of non-arising, etc., means they are not distinctively assigned as in the previous three traditions, hence it says "not"; it does not mean they are entirely not so. However, the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising completely possess these four kinds: if one simply says "my births are exhausted," "the holy life is established," "what was to be done has been accomplished," and "there is no subsequent rebirth"—speaking in this way refers to the four wisdoms within the knowledge of exhaustion. If one says "my births are exhausted and will not arise again," "the holy life is established and will not be established again," "what was to be done has been accomplished and will not be accomplished again," and "there is no subsequent rebirth and it will not be undergone again"—speaking in this way refers to the four wisdoms within the knowledge of non-arising. According to the \*Vibhāṣā\*, "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of abandoning origin; according to this text, it is the knowledge of abandoning suffering. Why is this? The \*Vibhāṣā\* is based on origin being able to bring about rebirth, so "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of abandoning origin. This sūtra states that suffering is of two kinds: first, the suffering of birth-and-death of individual lifetimes; second, the suffering of birth-and-death of inconceivable transformation. Although the two vehicles have severed the suffering of individual lifetimes, transformation still remains; therefore it says "there is a remainder." Because it is not exhausted, in the future there will still be rebirth. Therefore the knowledge that "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of suffering, because there will still be rebirth in the future. "Because a remainder of the holy life is accomplished, it is not pure" means that "the holy life is established" is not ultimate. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.42.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.42.3) - [Next: 2.43.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.43.2) - [Up: 2.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.43) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744~en-mt.2.43.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.43.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.43.1) · Pramāṇa