[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) › 3.7 # 勝鬘寶窟 3.7 勝鬘寶窟 3.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.7) 「法者即是說一乘道」，此下第二次明法僧二歸有權有實。初明權歸，謂不究竟；從「歸依第一義是歸依如來」下，第二明實歸究竟也。就不究竟中有二：一當相以顯二歸非究竟；從「若有眾生如來調伏」下，約能歸顯所歸非究竟。前當相中有三：一舉宗辨非究竟；二「何以故」下，問答解釋；「是故二歸」下，第三結。辨宗中有二：一出法僧別；二「此歸依」下，通辨二歸非究竟。問：此中為明二乘所歸趣處，但應論實，何須辨權？答：有三義，一舉權顯實、二欲令人捨權歸實、三欲彰彼權歸不真終須通實。問：何故法僧歸中舉權顯實，佛不如是唯彰實乎？答：理應義齊。但今為明佛中權者，即是實佛大悲之用，不須破之，故不別論佛權義也。法僧二歸，通真及偽，偽妄須捨，所以論之。初言法者，有人言：標舉權法，即是說一乘道，略示其相。此言不足。若具足應言說一乘為三乘法，如上文言「說大乘戒為毘尼」等，其義相似。亦可此言舉實顯權，真實之法說一乘道，則知三乘是權也。今謂此二解悉非。今言法者，牒昔教法也。近取則三乘法，遠取五乘法。「即是說一乘道」者，一乘謂佛果也。五乘三乘之法，是佛果之因，故名為道。即是《法華》中種種譬喻、種種說法。是法智為一佛乘故，是以一切諸法為一乘家道也。「僧者是三乘眾」者，僧者標總權僧，是三乘眾略示其相。問：聲聞緣覺可是權僧，何者是大乘中權僧？答：如三藏中所辨，菩薩三僧祇但修有漏六度成佛者是也。又若望一體歸，大乘菩薩未與佛一體，故亦非究竟。問：僧既言三乘眾，法何故不言三乘法？法既言一乘道，僧亦應言一乘僧。答：亦得如此，但互文顯意也。但法據修會，故說一乘道；僧約未會，故說三乘眾。此會未會，亦是互說也。「此二歸依非究竟」者，略明不真，非是真歸，故非究竟；但是權歸，故名少分。此就權實義門釋也。又此二未成果德，故非究竟；但是因位，目為少分。「何以故」下，此是解釋。「何以故」者，問也。今言乖昔，是故致問。說一乘道法，此答釋也。明法權中，一乘道得究竟身，於上更無一乘法事。一乘因道，得果德究竟法身。舉所得身是究竟果，故知能得之因非究竟也。「於上更無說一乘法」者，於究竟法身上也。故顯法身可得是究竟，即顯於說一乘道上更說得究竟法身，故知一乘道非究竟。「三乘眾」者，牒前權僧，下辨其相。言「有恐怖」，明惡未盡。「歸如來」等，明善未滿。「亦可怖」者，對治未成。「歸如來」等，彰果未盡。「求出修學向三菩提」者，釋上有恐，歸依如來，以求出恐怖，故修學大乘善法。謂發菩提心、行菩薩行，故趣向無上菩提。「是故」下，第三結。是前二歸非真實，故非究竟歸、是有限依。有限，由是前之少分歸耳。又二乘人，不能常住、不能無限為物作歸，故名有限。 > Regarding "the Dharma is the teaching of the path of the ekayāna": below this is the second \[section\], explaining that the two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha have both provisional and ultimate \[aspects\]. First, it explains the provisional refuge, meaning that it is not ultimate; from "refuge in the primary meaning is refuge in the Tathāgata" onward, it secondly explains the ultimate refuge that is final. Within the non-ultimate, there are two parts: first, revealing that the two refuges are not ultimate in terms of their own marks; from "if there are sentient beings whom the Tathāgata has tamed" onward, revealing that what is taken as refuge is not ultimate with reference to those who take refuge. Within the preceding \[part on\] their own marks, there are three: first, putting forward the thesis to distinguish that it is not ultimate; second, from "why is this?" onward, explaining by question and answer; third, from "therefore the two refuges" onward, the conclusion. Within distinguishing the thesis, there are two: first, showing the distinction between Dharma and Saṅgha; second, from "these refuges" onward, generally distinguishing that the two refuges are not ultimate. Question: Here, in order to clarify the destination to which the two vehicles turn for refuge, one should only discuss the ultimate; why is it necessary to distinguish the provisional? Answer: There are three reasons: first, to present the provisional in order to reveal the ultimate; second, desiring to cause people to renounce the provisional and take refuge in the ultimate; third, desiring to make manifest that that provisional refuge is not true, and ultimately must lead into the ultimate. Question: Why is it that in taking refuge in the Dharma and Saṅgha one presents the provisional to reveal the ultimate, while with the Buddha it is not so, manifesting only the ultimate? Answer: In principle their meanings should be equal. But here, in order to clarify that what is provisional in the Buddha is the very function of the great compassion of the real Buddha, there is no need to refute it; hence the provisional meaning of the Buddha is not separately discussed. The two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha encompass both the true and the false, and the false and erroneous must be abandoned; therefore they are discussed. First, as for "the Dharma": someone says that it designates the provisional Dharma, which "is the teaching of the path of the ekayāna," briefly indicating its mark. This statement is inadequate. If fully stated, it should say that teaching the ekayāna serves as the dharma of the triyāna, just as the earlier text states, "teaching the Mahāyāna precepts serves as the vinaya," and so forth, the meaning being similar. It may also be that this statement presents the ultimate to reveal the provisional: that the true and real Dharma is the teaching of the path of the ekayāna, from which one knows that the triyāna is provisional. Now, I say that both of these interpretations are incorrect. Here, when "the Dharma" is spoken of, it reiterates the past Dharma of the teachings. Taken proximately, it is the teaching of the triyāna; taken distantly, it is the teaching of the five vehicles. As for "is the teaching of the path of the ekayāna": the ekayāna refers to the fruit of Buddhahood. The dharmas of the five vehicles and the triyāna are the causes of the fruit of Buddhahood, and are therefore called the "path." This is precisely the various parables and various preachings of the Dharma in the Lotus Sūtra. These dharmas and wisdom are for the sake of the one buddhayāna; therefore, all dharmas are the domestic path of the ekayāna. As for "the Saṅgha is the assembly of the triyāna": "the Saṅgha" designates the provisional Saṅgha as a whole; "is the assembly of the triyāna" briefly indicates its mark. Question: Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas may well be the provisional Saṅgha, but what constitutes the provisional Saṅgha in the Mahāyāna? Answer: As distinguished in the Tripiṭaka, it refers to bodhisattvas who across three asaṃkhyeya \[kalpas\] merely cultivate the six pāramitās with outflows to achieve Buddhahood. Moreover, if viewed from the perspective of the refuge of one single substance, Mahāyāna bodhisattvas are not yet of one substance with the Buddha, and therefore are also not ultimate. Question: Since the Saṅgha is spoken of as the assembly of the triyāna, why does the Dharma not speak of the dharma of the triyāna? And since the Dharma is spoken of as the path of the ekayāna, the Saṅgha should likewise be spoken of as the Saṅgha of the ekayāna. Answer: That could also be so, but the wording alternates to reveal the meaning. The Dharma is based on practice and integration, so it speaks of the path of the ekayāna; the Saṅgha is based on what has not yet been integrated, so it speaks of the assembly of the triyāna. This "integrated" and "not yet integrated" are also mutually expressive. As for "these two refuges are not ultimate": this briefly clarifies that they are not true, and not being true refuges, they are therefore not ultimate; being merely provisional refuges, they are called partial. This explains them in terms of the approach of the provisional and the ultimate. Furthermore, these two have not yet achieved the virtues of the fruit, and are therefore not ultimate; being merely stages of cause, they are termed partial. From "why is this?" onward: this is the explanation. "Why is this?": this is a question. What is stated now contradicts the past, and therefore prompts the question. "The Dharma of teaching the path of the ekayāna": this is the answer and explanation. In explaining the provisionality of the Dharma: the path of the ekayāna attains the ultimate body, above which there are no further affairs of the Dharma of the ekayāna. The causal path of the ekayāna attains the ultimate dharmakāya of the virtues of the fruit. By presenting the attained body as the ultimate fruit, one therefore knows that the cause capable of attaining it is not ultimate. As for "above which there is no further teaching of the Dharma of the ekayāna": this means above the ultimate dharmakāya. Therefore, revealing that the dharmakāya that can be attained is ultimate directly reveals that above the teaching of the path of the ekayāna it further speaks of attaining the ultimate dharmakāya; hence one knows that the path of the ekayāna is not ultimate. As for "the assembly of the triyāna": this reiterates the aforementioned provisional Saṅgha, and below distinguishes its marks. The words "they have fear" clarify that their evil is not yet exhausted. "Taking refuge in the Tathāgata" and so forth clarify that their good is not yet complete. "May also fear" means that their antidotes are not yet accomplished. "Taking refuge in the Tathāgata" and so forth make manifest that their fruit is not yet exhausted. As for "seeking emancipation, training, and learning, heading toward saṃbodhi": this explains the preceding \[statement that\] having fear, they take refuge in the Tathāgata in order to seek emancipation from fear, and therefore train and learn the wholesome dharmas of the Mahāyāna. That is, generating the bodhicitta and practicing the bodhisattva deeds, they therefore proceed toward anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi. From "therefore" onward is the third \[part\], the conclusion. These two preceding refuges are not true and real, and are therefore not ultimate refuges, but are limited reliances. "Limited" is because they are the aforementioned partial refuges. Furthermore, people of the two vehicles cannot abide eternally and cannot serve without limit as a refuge for beings; hence they are called limited. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.6) - [Next: 3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.8) - [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.3.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.7) · Pramāṇa