勝鬘寶窟 3.8

3.8

「若有眾生」下，上來第一當相顯二歸依非究竟，今第二約能歸顯所歸非究竟。就文亦三：一明能歸；二明歸依法僧者，辨所歸；三「是二歸依」下，牒所歸彰未即佛果，故顯非究竟二歸也。「若有眾生」者，汎舉能歸之人也。「如來調伏歸依如來」者，釋歸法僧所以也。由如來調伏，歸依如來，是故歸依法僧也。所言調伏者，佛未出世，眾生歸依外道及以天神；佛降伏故，得翻邪入正，故名調伏。「得法津澤生信樂心」者，由如來調伏，歸依如來，故得法津生樂心也。此即是能歸之心。「歸依法僧」者，以生信樂心故歸依，法僧即是所歸依。「是二歸依」者，重牒歸依僧也。「非此二歸依是歸依如來」者，明此二歸依非即佛果，顯非究竟也。問：何故舉能歸顯所歸？答：欲顯二乘人隨分得是歸依也。「歸依第一義者是歸依如來」者，上來第一明不究竟歸依，今第二明究竟歸依。就文亦二：一舉二歸即佛果；二「何以故」下，問答解釋。就前又二：一略辨；二「此二歸依第一義」下，重辨。言「歸依第一義」者，此言不足，若具應言法僧二歸依是第一義也。言第一義者，非是空理名第一義，乃詺果德為第一義。此文意正欲顯法僧二歸是果德第一義，歸依此第一義即是歸依如來也。「此二歸依第一義是究竟歸依如來」者，重論前也。顯此法僧二歸是果德第一義，即是究竟歸依如來。「何以故」下，何以二歸即佛歸？故對問辨釋中，初相望顯無異；後正出即一，簡除相似。「無異如來」者，法僧不異如來。「無異二歸依如來即三歸依」者，正明即一也。問：但應言如來即二歸依，云何乃言即三歸依？答：據如來德體以辨，故言即三。如來舉體覺義為佛、舉體軌義為法、舉體和義為僧。又解：二歸乃是三中之二，故通舉言三。如《涅槃經》言「世第一法緣於四諦」，然實但緣一諦，就通以舉，故言緣四。此亦如是，此中舉佛歸者，正欲辨即佛法僧是究竟。「何以故說一乘道」，此文來意，有遠有近。遠生者，從上羅漢有歸怖大段第二會彼小果以入一乘，訖何以故下第三釋會所以。何故，問也。三乘皆是如來所說，何故上來會二入一？下釋會意。明一乘道是佛實說，餘二方便非實說，故會入一。於中初明一乘是實；「若如來」下，第二明二是權；「即是大」下，第三會權入實。明一實中，「說一乘道如來無畏師子吼」者，依實而說，內心不怯，故名無畏。所言決定，名師子吼。明二權中，「若隨彼欲而方便」者，佛隨小欲，方便為說二乘法也。下會入中，即大無二，攝權入實、二乘入一，釋無所以，以入一，是故言無也。「一乘即是第一義乘」，辨定所以。前入是其第一義乘也。又此即是《法華》中三輪之義。從初至師子吼，是根本法輪；「若如來隨彼」下，是支末法輪；「即是大乘」下，是攝末歸本法輪也。又此文近生者，上明三歸究竟非究竟。「何以故」下，問解釋。問意：云何如來昔說三歸非究竟，今說一體歸是究竟也。解釋亦明三輪：初辨一體歸，是根本歸；隨彼所欲，支末歸依；即是大乘，攝末歸本歸依。夫如來出世，但為明根本歸依，為物不堪，故方便說支末歸依。調柔心竟，然後方說攝末歸本歸依。又初為直往菩薩說、次為二乘、後為迴小入大菩薩說也。

From "if there are sentient beings" onward: above was the first [part], revealing that the two refuges are not ultimate in terms of their own marks; now, secondly, it reveals that what is taken as refuge is not ultimate with reference to those who take refuge. Within this text there are also three parts: first, clarifying those who take refuge; second, "taking refuge in the Dharma and Saṅgha" distinguishes what is taken as refuge; third, from "these two refuges" onward, reiterating what is taken as refuge to show that it is not yet the fruit of Buddhahood, thus revealing that they are non-ultimate two refuges. As for "if there are sentient beings": this broadly cites the persons capable of taking refuge. As for "whom the Tathāgata has tamed, taking refuge in the Tathāgata": this explains the reason for taking refuge in the Dharma and Saṅgha. Because they are tamed by the Tathāgata and take refuge in the Tathāgata, they therefore take refuge in the Dharma and Saṅgha. As for what is called "tamed": before the Buddha appeared in the world, sentient beings took refuge in non-Buddhists and in heavenly deities; because the Buddha subdued them, they were able to overturn the heterodox and enter the orthodox, hence it is called "tamed." As for "receiving the moisture of the Dharma and giving rise to a mind of faith and delight": because they are tamed by the Tathāgata and take refuge in the Tathāgata, they receive the moisture of the Dharma and give rise to a mind of delight. This is precisely the mind capable of taking refuge. As for "taking refuge in the Dharma and Saṅgha": because of giving rise to a mind of faith and delight they take refuge, and the Dharma and Saṅgha are what is taken as refuge. As for "these two refuges": this reiterates taking refuge in the [Dharma and] Saṅgha. As for "these two refuges are not taking refuge in the Tathāgata": this clarifies that these two refuges are not directly the fruit of Buddhahood, revealing that they are not ultimate. Question: Why cite those who take refuge to reveal what is taken as refuge? Answer: It is intended to reveal that persons of the two vehicles attain this refuge according to their capacity. As for "refuge in the primary meaning is refuge in the Tathāgata": above was the first [part], explaining the non-ultimate refuge; now, secondly, it explains the ultimate refuge. Within this text there are also two parts: first, presenting the two refuges as directly the fruit of Buddhahood; second, from "why is this?" onward, explaining by question and answer. Within the former there are again two: first, a brief distinction; second, from "the primary meaning of these two refuges" onward, a reiterated distinction. The statement "refuge in the primary meaning" is inadequate; if stated fully, it should say that the two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha are the primary meaning. As for the term "primary meaning": it is not that the principle of emptiness is called the primary meaning; rather, the virtues of the fruit are designated the primary meaning. The direct intention of this text is to reveal that the two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha are the primary meaning of the virtues of the fruit, and taking refuge in this primary meaning is taking refuge in the Tathāgata. As for "the primary meaning of these two refuges is the ultimate refuge in the Tathāgata": this discusses the preceding again, revealing that these two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha are the primary meaning of the virtues of the fruit, which is precisely the ultimate refuge in the Tathāgata. Below, "why is this?": why are the two refuges directly the refuge in the Buddha? Therefore, in the explanation addressing the question: first, they are viewed mutually to reveal that they are not different; later, it directly presents their identity as one, precluding resemblance. As for "not different from the Tathāgata": the Dharma and Saṅgha are not different from the Tathāgata. As for "not different from the two refuges; the Tathāgata is the three refuges": this directly clarifies their identity as one. Question: It should only say that the Tathāgata is the two refuges; why does it say that he is the three refuges? Answer: It is distinguished based on the essence of the Tathāgata's virtues; hence it says he is the three. The Tathāgata in his entire essence has the meaning of awakening, which is the Buddha; in his entire essence has the meaning of standard/rule, which is the Dharma; and in his entire essence has the meaning of harmony, which is the Saṅgha. Another explanation: the two refuges are simply two out of the three, so he speaks broadly of the three. Just as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that "the worldly supreme dharma takes the four truths as its object," yet in reality it only takes one truth as its object, but speaking in a general sense, it says it takes the four as its object. This is also like that; here, citing the refuge in the Buddha is precisely intended to distinguish that directly [being] the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha is ultimate. "Why is the path of the ekayāna taught?": as for the origin of this text, there is a distant and a proximate [connection]. The distant arises from the above major section where arhats have refuge and fear: second, integrating those lesser fruits into the ekayāna, ending with "why is this?" below; third, explaining the reason for the integration. "Why?" is a question: the triyāna was all taught by the Tathāgata; why above did he integrate the two into the one? Below explains the intention of the integration. It clarifies that the path of the ekayāna is the Buddha's real teaching, whereas the remaining two are upāya and not real teachings; hence they are integrated into the one. Therein, first it clarifies that the ekayāna is the real; from "if the Tathāgata" onward, second, it clarifies that the two are provisional; from "is the Great" onward, third, it integrates the provisional into the real. In clarifying the one real: as for "teaching the path of the ekayāna is the Tathāgata's fearless siṃhanāda," speaking in accordance with the real, his inner mind has no timidity, hence it is called fearless; what he says is definitive, which is called a siṃhanāda. In clarifying the two provisionals: as for "if according to their desires he uses upāya," the Buddha accords with their lesser desires and uses upāya to teach the dharma of the two vehicles for them. In the integration below: directly being the Great, there are no two, integrating the provisional into the real and the two vehicles into the one, explaining the reason why there are none: because they enter the one, therefore it says there are none. "The ekayāna is the primary vehicle" settles and defines the reason: what was entered previously is that primary vehicle. Furthermore, this is precisely the meaning of the three turnings of the wheel in the Lotus Sūtra. From the beginning to "siṃhanāda" is the fundamental Dharma wheel; from "if the Tathāgata accords with them" onward is the branch Dharma wheel; from "is the Mahāyāna" onward is the Dharma wheel that integrates the branches back to the root. Furthermore, as for this text's proximate arising: above it clarified that the three refuges are ultimate and not ultimate; below "why is this?" it questions and explains. The sense of the question: why did the Tathāgata in the past say that the three refuges were not ultimate, yet now says that the refuge of one substance is ultimate? The explanation also clarifies the three turnings of the wheel: first, distinguishing the refuge of one substance, which is the fundamental refuge; "according to their desires" is the branch refuge; "is the Mahāyāna" is the refuge that integrates the branches back to the root. Whenever a Tathāgata appears in the world, it is solely to clarify the fundamental refuge; because beings could not bear it, he expediently taught the branch refuges. Having finished taming and softening their minds, only then did he teach the refuge that integrates the branches back to the root. Moreover, first it was taught for direct-progress bodhisattvas, next for the two vehicles, and lastly for bodhisattvas turning from the Small to enter the Great.