[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) › 3.6 # 勝鬘寶窟 3.6 勝鬘寶窟 3.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.6) 從「世尊如來無限齊時住」下，第二廣釋有歸。所以須廣釋，凡有四義：一者前明能歸，未顯所歸，故須辨之。二者前說歸佛，未說法僧，故須辨之。三者說權歸，未曾顯實，故須辨之。四者昔說別歸，未說一體，故須辨之。問：上明二乘有怖無四智，今明二乘無究竟歸，須歸依佛。此二何異？答：略有三種義異。一自他異。二乘無四智、佛有四智，此論自德；三歸論化他德，二乘猶須歸他、不能為他作歸，佛則為他作歸、不須歸他。二人法異。四智中但就人明，二乘人四智非究竟，佛究竟；三歸中，明二乘法僧非究竟，一乘法僧是究竟。三者有無異。會二乘歸一乘，無復二乘；會別體歸入一體歸，猶有三歸。問：何故非類？答：三歸是佛始終教門。昔為翻邪三，明別體正三；今對別體三，故明一體三。故始終皆明有三歸也。三乘義則不爾。昔為眾生未堪受一，故於一說三，以三乘調柔其心；竟堪受於一，是故會三同歸於一，則無復三乘。故與此非類。問：何故始終並說三歸？答：昔說三歸，凡有三義：一為翻邪三明正三。但邪三有二種：一者事天有邪三，如以自在天等為佛、所說教為法、行法人為僧。二者事人邪三，如迦毘羅等為佛、僧佉經等為法、行此法者為僧。為翻此三邪，故以如來為佛、所說經為法、行法者為僧。二者治病說三。眾生有煩惱病，以佛為良醫、法為妙藥、僧為看病人。具此三種，煩惱病差。為此義故，所以說三。三者為免三怖。如鹿為獵師所逐，得三跳故，則便免怖。眾生為生死魔所逐，歸依三寶，得免生死怖。今說一體三者，明昔三歸異體是無常，法無常法故非究竟。如《涅槃》云「如汝父母，各各異故，故是無常。」今明一體三，即是常住。以常住故，即是究竟，故明一體也。二者此經意昔日以羅漢為僧寶，為他作歸依處；今明羅漢猶自有怖，須歸依他，不能為他作究竟歸。唯佛究竟，不依於他，為他作依。小乘法義亦爾，非究竟；若究竟之法，則堪為物歸也。是故今教亦明三歸。問：對昔別體歸，明今一體。亦得道對昔邪三別體，明今正三一體不？答：亦遠有此義。但昔別體之三，已破邪三；今一體三，復破昔別體三，故義不同也。問：外道執別體邪三，以正三治之。亦得言外道自有一體三，今以一體正三治之以不？答：未見外道執。設有，治亦無妨。問：今明常住一體三歸，為永廢別體三歸、為二種合用？答：實中具權實。一體則是實歸，別體此是權歸。須具識之，當時而用。權歸之中，但有權歸，無有實歸。一乘三乘，義亦類之。昔三乘則無一乘之體，今一乘之體具有三乘之用。用識三體，方識一乘。此義不盡者，《法華疏》已說。前會四智中有二：一明會入、二明會入所以。今亦二：一正明會入；二「何以故」下，明會入所以。就初文又二：第一佛依是究竟；二從「法者是說一乘道」下，顯法僧二歸有究竟、非究竟。若即佛果辨二歸，便是究竟；不即佛果辨二歸，不究竟。今汎舉三歸有究竟不究竟者，只欲顯二乘人是不究竟僧歸。以不究竟故，歸依如來，趣入究竟，遠釋成前阿羅漢歸依佛也。前明佛歸，文別有三：一明歸德；二「無限悲無限安」下，寄說顯德；是故下，第三結德屬人。初中四句，初兩自德、後二化他。就自德中，「如來無有限齊時住」，明時有二種：一有限時，日月歲等；二無限時，猶如虛空。佛果常住，出過時分也，故說如來無限時住。「如來等覺後際等住」者，明證涅槃常住義也。涅槃後際是所得，彼是法常，如來等之，故曰常住。又言等者，諸佛道同，故名為等住。今謂生死有三際，謂前際、中際、後際。生死後際既無邊，如來與後際等住亦無邊，故言後際等住。問：何故明此二住？答：前明法身常住，後明應身常住。應身常住者，常化眾生，無休息時，故名常住。後釋為《佛性論》云「世間有得四神足者，尚能住四十小劫，何況如來為大神足師，而當不能久住化物？」又云「眾生無盡，故化身常化物無盡。」問：若以二住明二身住，則法身是自德、應身是化他，復何得言初二句是自德、後二是化他？答：前雖明二身住，未明利益，故說為自德；後兩明利益，故說為化他。「如來無限齊大悲」下，第二化他德。「無限大悲」，是化他心；「無限安慰」，是化他行。亦可得前句是大悲無量，無限安慰是慈無量。心之與行、慈之與悲，不簡彼此，有緣普益。又無緣慈悲等、眾生界等，故稱無限。「無限大悲」下，第二寄說顯德。就文為二：前就化他德，寄說以顯；承言便故，後就自德，寄說以顯。就化他德中，「無限大悲」，牒上初句。「無限安慰」，牒上後句。「作是說者是名善說」，言稱佛德名善說也。又舉說者是善，顯所說得是實非虛也。「若復說言」下，第二明自德。「若無盡法」，牒上文中無限時住。「常住法」者，牒前文中後際等住。此當相顯德。「一切世間之所歸」者，佛具前德，為世歸趣。「亦名善說」，顯於自德義善同前，故言是名善說。「是故」下，第三結德屬人。但就自德結以屬人，不結化他德屬人也。是故者，是佛具前無盡、常住二種功德，為一切世間之所歸故也。「於未度世間、無依世間」，為作歸依。分段世間，名為未度。變易世間，名為無依。「與後際」下，正明如來與作歸依。「與後際等」者，盡未來際為物作歸依也。「無盡歸」者，猶是前無盡法。「常住歸依」者，猶是常住法也。問：無盡歸依、常住歸依，此二何異？答：無盡者據應身，以眾生無盡，故佛出世無盡，為物作歸依也。常住歸依者據法身也，法身常住，是為真歸。以具應二歸者，謂是如來等正覺也。 > From "The World-Honoured One, the Tathāgata, abides without limit of time" downwards is the second \[section\], which extensively explains having a refuge. As for why an extensive explanation is needed, there are in general four meanings: First, previously what took refuge was clarified, but the object of refuge was not yet revealed; thus it must be differentiated. Second, previously taking refuge in the Buddha was explained, but the Dharma and Saṅgha were not yet explained; thus they must be differentiated. Third, the provisional refuges were explained, but the real had never been revealed; thus it must be differentiated. Fourth, formerly the distinct refuges were explained, but the single essence had not yet been explained; thus it must be differentiated. Question: Above it was clarified that the two vehicles have fear and lack the four wisdoms, and now it is clarified that the two vehicles lack an ultimate refuge and must take refuge in the Buddha. How do these two differ? Answer: In brief, there are three kinds of differences in meaning: First is the difference between self and other. The two vehicles lack the four wisdoms and the Buddha possesses the four wisdoms—this discusses virtue for oneself. The three refuges discuss the virtue of converting others: those of the two vehicles still need to take refuge in another and cannot serve as a refuge for others, whereas the Buddha serves as a refuge for others and does not need to take refuge in another. Second is the difference between person and Dharma. Among the four wisdoms, it is clarified solely with respect to persons: for persons of the two vehicles the four wisdoms are not ultimate, whereas for the Buddha they are ultimate. In the three refuges, it is clarified that the Dharma and Saṅgha of the two vehicles are not ultimate, whereas the Dharma and Saṅgha of the ekayāna are ultimate. Third is the difference between presence and absence. When the two vehicles are integrated back into the ekayāna, the two vehicles no longer exist. When the distinct-essence refuges are integrated back into the single-essence refuge, the three refuges still exist. Question: Why are they not analogous? Answer: The three refuges are the teaching from beginning to end of the Buddha. Formerly, in order to overturn the heterodox three, he clarified the correct distinct-essence three; now, in contrast to the distinct-essence three, he clarifies the single-essence three. Hence from beginning to end it is always clarified that there are three refuges. The doctrine of the three vehicles is not like this. Formerly, because sentient beings were not yet able to receive the one, he spoke of three within the one, using the three vehicles to tame their minds. When they were finally able to receive the one, he therefore integrated the three to return together to the one, and then the three vehicles no longer existed. Hence they are not analogous to this. Question: Why did he speak of the three refuges from beginning to end? Answer: Formerly when he spoke of the three refuges, there were in general three meanings: First, to overturn the heterodox three and clarify the correct three. But there are two kinds of heterodox three: The first is the heterodox three of serving deities, such as taking Īśvara and the like as the Buddha, the teachings spoken by him as the Dharma, and those who practice his Dharma as the Saṅgha. The second is the heterodox three of serving human masters, such as taking Kapila and the like as the Buddha, the Sāṃkhya treatises and the like as the Dharma, and those who practice this doctrine as the Saṅgha. To overturn these three heterodoxies, he took the Tathāgata as the Buddha, the sūtras spoken by him as the Dharma, and those who practice the Dharma as the Saṅgha. Second, he spoke of three to cure sickness. Sentient beings have the sickness of afflictions; taking the Buddha as the good physician, the Dharma as the wondrous medicine, and the Saṅgha as the nurse. When these three are complete, the sickness of afflictions is cured. For this reason, he spoke of three. Third, it was to escape the three fears. Just as a deer pursued by a hunter escapes fear once it makes three leaps, sentient beings, pursued by the Māra of birth-and-death, take refuge in the Three Jewels and manage to escape the fear of birth-and-death. Now, speaking of the single-essence three clarifies that the former three refuges of distinct essences are impermanent, and because dharmas of impermanence are not ultimate. As the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: "Just like your parents, because they are distinct from one another, they are therefore impermanent." Now, clarifying the single-essence three means that it is permanently abiding. Because it is permanently abiding, it is ultimate; hence the single essence is clarified. Second, the intention of this sūtra is that formerly the arhat was taken as the jewel of the Saṅgha, serving as a place of refuge for others; now it clarifies that the arhat still has fear of his own and must take refuge in another, unable to serve as an ultimate refuge for others. Only the Buddha is ultimate, does not rely on another, and serves as a reliance for others. The doctrinal meaning of the Hīnayāna Dharma is also like this—it is not ultimate; if it is the ultimate Dharma, it can serve as a refuge for creatures. For this reason, the present teaching also clarifies the three refuges. Question: In contrast to the former distinct-essence refuges, the present single essence is clarified. Can we also say that in contrast to the former heterodox distinct-essence three, the present correct single-essence three is clarified? Answer: In a broader sense, this meaning also exists. But the former three of distinct essences had already destroyed the heterodox three; the present single-essence three further destroys the former distinct-essence three; hence their meanings are not the same. Question: Non-Buddhists clung to a heterodox three of distinct essences, which was cured by the correct three. Can it also be said that non-Buddhists themselves had a single-essence three, which is now cured by the correct single-essence three? Answer: We have not seen non-Buddhists cling to such a view. Even if they did, curing it would also pose no problem. Question: Does clarifying the permanently abiding single-essence three refuges now permanently abolish the distinct-essence three refuges, or are both kinds used together? Answer: Within the real, both provisional and real are contained. The single essence is the real refuge, while the distinct essences are provisional refuges. One must fully recognize them and use them according to the occasion. Within the provisional refuges, there are only provisional refuges and no real refuge. The doctrines of the ekayāna and triyāna are also analogous to this. In the former three vehicles, the essence of the ekayāna did not exist; now, the essence of the ekayāna possesses the functions of the three vehicles. Only by recognizing the three essences through function does one recognize the ekayāna. For this meaning that is not exhausted here, the Commentary on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra has already explained it. In the preceding integration of the four wisdoms there were two parts: first, clarifying the integration; second, clarifying the reason for the integration. Here there are also two parts: first, directly clarifying the integration; second, from "why is this so" downwards, clarifying the reason for the integration. Within the first text, there are again two parts: first, the Buddha as refuge is ultimate; second, from "the Dharma is the teaching of the path of the ekayāna" downwards, revealing that the two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha have the ultimate and the non-ultimate. If the two refuges are identified with the fruit of buddhahood, they are ultimate; if not identified with the fruit of buddhahood, they are not ultimate. Now, generally raising that the three refuges have the ultimate and the non-ultimate is simply to reveal that persons of the two vehicles are a non-ultimate Saṅgha refuge. Because they are not ultimate, they take refuge in the Tathāgata and advance into the ultimate, which distantly explains and substantiates the preceding \[statement that\] arhats take refuge in the Buddha. In the preceding clarification of the Buddha as refuge, the text specifically has three parts: first, clarifying the virtues of the refuge; second, from "unlimited compassion, unlimited consolation" downwards, using speech to reveal the virtues; third, from "therefore" downwards, concluding by attributing the virtues to the person. In the first part, there are four phrases: the first two are virtues for oneself, and the latter two are for converting others. Within the virtues for oneself, "the Tathāgata abides without limit of time" clarifies that time has two kinds: first, limited time, such as days, months, and years; second, unlimited time, like empty space. The fruit of buddhahood is permanently abiding and transcends temporal divisions; hence it is said that the Tathāgata abides without limit of time. "The Tathāgata equal to enlightenment abides equally with the final limit" clarifies the meaning of realizing the permanent abidance of nirvāṇa. The final limit of nirvāṇa is what is attained, which is the permanence of Dharma; the Tathāgata equals it, hence it is called permanently abiding. Furthermore, "equal" means that the path of all buddhas is identical, hence it is called "abiding equally." Now I consider that birth-and-death has three limits, namely the prior limit, the middle limit, and the final limit. Since the final limit of birth-and-death is boundless, the Tathāgata abiding equally with the final limit is also boundless; hence it is said "abides equally with the final limit." Question: Why clarify these two abidings? Answer: The former clarifies the permanent abidance of the dharmakāya; the latter clarifies the permanent abidance of the response body. That the response body permanently abides means that it constantly converts sentient beings without rest; hence it is called permanently abiding. The latter explanation follows the Buddhadhātu-śāstra, which says: "If those in the world who attain the four bases of psychic power can still abide for forty minor kalpas, how much more so the Tathāgata, as the great master of psychic power—how could he be unable to abide long to convert beings?" It also says: "Because sentient beings are endless, the transformation body constantly converting beings is endless." Question: If the two abidings clarify the abidings of the two bodies, then the dharmakāya is virtue for oneself and the response body is converting others; how then can it be said that the first two phrases are virtue for oneself and the latter two are converting others? Answer: Although the former clarifies the abiding of the two bodies, it does not yet clarify the benefit; hence they are spoken of as virtue for oneself. The latter two clarify the benefit; hence they are spoken of as converting others. From "the Tathāgata's unlimited great compassion" downwards is the second \[group\], the virtues of converting others. "Unlimited great compassion" is the mind of converting others; "unlimited consolation" is the practice of converting others. It can also be that the former phrase is immeasurable great compassion, and unlimited consolation is immeasurable loving-kindness. The mind and the practice, the loving-kindness and the compassion, make no distinction between self and other, universally benefiting those with conditions. Moreover, objectless loving-kindness and compassion are equal, and the realm of sentient beings is equal; hence it is called unlimited. From "unlimited great compassion" downwards is the second \[part\], using speech to reveal the virtues. In the text there are two parts: first, with respect to the virtues of converting others, speech is used to reveal them; then, following the flow of the discourse, with respect to the virtues for oneself, speech is used to reveal them. Within the virtues of converting others, "unlimited great compassion" repeats the first phrase above. "Unlimited consolation" repeats the latter phrase above. "Those who speak thus speak well" means that words tallying with the Buddha's virtues are called speaking well. Furthermore, citing that the speaker is good reveals that what is spoken is real and not false. From "if they further speak of" downwards is the second, clarifying virtues for oneself. "The inexhaustible dharma" repeats the abiding without limit of time in the text above. "The permanently abiding dharma" repeats the abiding equally with the final limit in the text above. This reveals the virtues in terms of their marks. "That which all worlds take refuge in" means that the Buddha is endowed with the preceding virtues and serves as the destination of refuge for the world. "Is also called speaking well" reveals that the meaning regarding virtues for oneself is good just as before; hence it says "is called speaking well." From "therefore" downwards is the third, concluding by attributing the virtues to the person. It concludes by attributing them to the person solely with respect to virtues for oneself, not with respect to the virtues of converting others. "Therefore" means because the Buddha is endowed with the two kinds of virtues—inexhaustible and permanently abiding—and serves as that which all worlds take refuge in. "To the uncrossed worlds and the refugeless worlds" he serves as a refuge. The world of mortal birth-and-death is called "uncrossed." The world of inconceivable transformation is called "refugeless." From "equal to the final limit" downwards directly clarifies that the Tathāgata provides a refuge. "Equal to the final limit" means serving as a refuge for creatures to the exhaustion of the future limit. "The inexhaustible refuge" is still the preceding inexhaustible dharma. "The permanently abiding refuge" is still the permanently abiding dharma. Question: The inexhaustible refuge and the permanently abiding refuge—how do these two differ? Answer: Inexhaustible is based on the response body: because sentient beings are inexhaustible, the Buddha's appearance in the world is inexhaustible, serving as a refuge for creatures. Permanently abiding refuge is based on the dharmakāya: the dharmakāya permanently abides, and this is the true refuge. The one who possesses both refuges accordingly is the Tathāgata, the Fully Awakened One. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.5) - [Next: 3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.7) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744~en-mt.3.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.6) · Pramāṇa