勝鬘寶窟 2.27

2.27

From the line "World-Honored One, I now, relying on the Buddha's spiritual power..." onwards is the third part, which explains the thematic heading of "attaining all Buddha-dharmas" stated above. How is it known to explain the heading of attaining all Buddha-dharmas? Because below it explains renouncing the three unenduring things and attaining the three enduring things. The three enduring things are precisely the Buddha-dharmas of the stage of fruition; thus one knows it explains the heading of the fruitional virtues above. Furthermore, it follows upon the text on the six pāramitās. Above it was explained that practicing the six pāramitās consists in benefiting sentient beings below; here, practicing the six pāramitās consists in seeking the Buddha path above. Therefore, through the cause of the six pāramitās one attains the fruit of the three enduring things. The text, for the moment, relies on the cause of giving to obtain the fruit of giving, and the other practices can be inferred from this; hence this passage appears. Furthermore, above it was explained that the six pāramitās are the benefit of others; here it is explained that renouncing the three to attain the three is the benefit of oneself. Moreover, above the six pāramitās were the vastness of practice, whereas here renouncing the three "equal to the final limits of samsāra" is the length of time; all these meanings are fully present. With respect to the text, there are also three parts: first, requesting permission to speak; second, the granting of permission to speak; third, the actual exposition. Why does she again speak of relying on [the Buddha's] power at this point? Because above it was explained that causal practices are easy to state, but now the fruitional virtues are difficult to speak of; hence she relies again on the Buddha's power. "To further expound the great meaning": above explained the greatness of principle and the greatness of practice; now she further expounds the greatness of the fruit. Furthermore, above she already spoke of the causes of the six pāramitās benefiting those below; now she speaks of renouncing the three to attain the three sought above; hence it is called the "great meaning." The granting of permission to speak can be known. From "Śrīmālā addressed the Buddha" onwards is the third part, the actual exposition. In the text there are two sections: first, explaining renouncing the three and attaining the three; second, praise. In the first section there are again two parts: first, explaining embracing; second, distinguishing the Saddharma. Question: How does this "embracing" differ from that above? Answer: Above, embracing in terms of principle meant that wisdom is not different from principle. Next, embracing practice meant that wisdom is not different from practice. Now, embracing the fruit refers to the eternal body, life, and wealth of the Buddha stage. This explains that the person embraces these fruitional dharmas, so the person and the fruitional dharmas are non-dual. Why is this? The person who realizes the eternal body, life, and wealth is of one substance with the eternal body and life; therefore, person and dharma are non-dual. Furthermore, in this context it explains the mind of non-attainment: renouncing the three is precisely the person of the Saddharma of the practice of giving, who is non-dual with this Saddharma of the practice of giving. Question: Above it was already explained that the six pāramitās are not different; why is it explained again that the practice of giving is not different? Answer: Although the vastness of practice was explained above, now the length of time is distinguished. By transfer, the above four meanings should apply. If one has not attained the contemplation of the non-duality of person and dharma, then person and dharma are dual; when one attains the non-dual contemplation, it clarifies that person and dharma are non-dual. Moreover, to refute the duality of person and dharma, non-duality of person and dharma is explained. Deluded persons think that the person can embrace the Saddharma and that the Saddharma is embraced by the person, thus giving rise to dualistic views; to refute the two, non-duality is explained, fully as expounded above. Furthermore, it possesses the meanings of both dual and non-dual: non-dual yet dual. Dharma constitutes the person, and the person can govern the dharma; they are dual yet non-dual, so that the dharma's presiding governance is called "person," and the person's conformity to rule is called "dharma." Moreover, the dharma that is identical to the person can generate the cause and fruit of the four vehicles, and the person who is identical to the dharma can also bring forth the cause and fruit of the four vehicles. Since their functions are equal, person and dharma are non-dual. Thus, among the earlier four similes, the first two explained generation by dharma, and the latter two explained generation by persons; that is precisely this matter. In the opening text there are three clauses. The first mentions both person and dharma together: "There is no other who embraces the Saddharma" explains that the person is not different from the dharma. "There is no other Saddharma that is embraced" distinguishes that the dharma is not different from the person. From "the good men and good women who embrace the Saddharma" onwards concludes that the person is identical to the dharma. From "Why is this?" onwards: above explained embracing; now the second part explains the Saddharma, which is precisely the eternal body, life, and wealth. "Why is this?" is a question. This question has two meanings: first, asking about the embraced Saddharma; second, asking why person and dharma are non-dual. From "If they embrace the Saddharma..." onwards directly answers these two questions. The general meaning explains that after that person renounces the three portions, they attain the eternal body, life, and wealth within embracing [the Saddharma]. Body and life are precisely the Saddharma, which answers the first question. The eternal body, life, and wealth constitute the person, so the person is not different from the dharma, which answers the second question. In the text there are three parts: first, a general explanation that this person renounces the three portions in order to embrace the Saddharma; second, listing the three names; third, an extensive explanation. In the first part, "If the men and women who embrace the Saddharma renounce the three portions for the sake of embracing the Saddharma": this explains that the bodhisattva who embraces [the Saddharma], in order to attain the eternal body, life, and wealth of the Buddha fruit, renounces the impermanent three portions. This explains the intention of renouncing. Question: It should only say that they renounce the three portions to attain the eternal body, life, and wealth; how can it say that they renounce the three portions to embrace the Saddharma? Answer: It aims to show that the meaning of embracing the Saddharma is vast. Since it explains it as being for the sake of embracing the Saddharma, one should know that embracing the Saddharma is precisely the eternal body, life, and wealth. If it said they renounce the three portions for the sake of the eternal body, life, and wealth, one might think that embracing the Saddharma does not embrace the eternal body, life, and wealth. For this reason, it says it is for the sake of embracing the Saddharma. From "What are the three?" onwards is the second part, listing the three names. Question: How do renouncing body, life, and wealth differ? Answer: If one renounces the body to become a slave, this does not allow for renouncing life. Also, renouncing head, eyes, and limbs to give to others is renouncing the body; undergoing death for others is renouncing life. Another explanation: renouncing the body is precisely renouncing life, but because the original intent differs, they become two distinct things. For example, throwing oneself down to save a tigress: although life does not remain, because one gives flesh to it, the intention lies in giving the body. If someone cannot bear my remaining alive and must have me die for their affair to be accomplished, the bodhisattva perishes for this: although the body does not remain, this is solely renouncing life. Outside of one's own body and life, giving away countries, cities, wives, and children to others is renouncing wealth. Emperor Wu of Liang explained this separately as a minor sub-division. From "good men" onwards is the third part, an extensive explanation, which forms three distinct sections. "Men and women" indicates the persons capable of renouncing. "Renounce the body" directly explains the renunciation. Regarding "equal to the final limits of samsāra," scholars of the north have two explanations. One says: samsāra is the prior limit, and nirvāṇa is the posterior limit. When it says "equal," samsāra and nirvāṇa are unequal in phenomenal affairs, but equal in principle. Only when one attains this equality can there be renouncing and attaining. "Equal" refers to the contemplation of empty equality, which cuts off nirvāṇa above and obliterates samsāra below. Having attained this contemplation of equality, one is able to transcend old age, sickness, and death, and attain the eternal body, life, and wealth. This contemplation of empty equality is the locus of renouncing and attaining; this is realizing reality and departing from characteristics, hence called "renouncing," not that giving the body to others is called renouncing. Another says: "the final limits of samsāra" does not mean samsāra is the prior limit and nirvāṇa is the posterior limit; it solely distinguishes the earlier and later within samsāra itself. An ordinary person bound by all fetters is the prior limit of samsāra; when one category of delusion remains before the vajrasamādhi, that is the posterior limit of samsāra; hence vajrasamādhi is designated as the posterior limit of samsāra. Calling them "equal" refers to obtaining the sarvākārajñatā of the Buddha fruit. Truly, because the vajra[-like concentration] severs [defilements], sarvākārajñatā is realized; this is spoken with reference to the point of complete culmination, hence mentioning equality with the final limit. Scholars of the south also have two explanations, which have both differences and similarities. One says: taking the culmination of learning in the vajra[-like concentration] as the posterior limit of rebirth, it means samsāra ends at this time. The meaning clarifies that the act of renouncing the body reaches its climax from the initial aspiration up to this point; beyond this, there is no longer any impermanent body to renounce. Another explanation: taking nirvāṇa as the posterior limit, samsāra ends at this point, hence it says "equal to the final limits of samsāra." The *Vibhāṣā* fully contains these two explanations, but it cited the lesser nirvāṇa, whereas here the difference is that it speaks of the great nirvāṇa. Master Fu's view is: embracing the Saddharma takes bodhi as its ultimate span, and renouncing body, life, and wealth takes the final limit as its boundary. Now we must weigh them evenly. That northern scholars take empty equality as renouncing is not correct. Generally speaking, regarding renunciation in empty equality, from the first bhūmi when one attains the contemplation of equality one can practice giving with equality; how could one say that only at the final limit is giving in empty equality realized? If one takes nirvāṇa as the final limit, this is the ultimate culmination of renouncing the impermanent body, beyond which there is no longer an impermanent body to renounce; this statement is reasonable. If one takes the vajra[-like concentration] as the final limit, the vajra stage is still the later portion of samsāra, and here there is still an impermanent body to renounce. If one takes nirvāṇa as the final limit, one immediately attains the eternal body, and there is no longer an impermanent body to give away. However, attaining the permanent while renouncing the impermanent—in terms of this, one can also say there is an impermanent body to renounce. Now examining the sūtra's meaning: proceeding from cause to fruit is as just explained. But now, when it says "equal to the final limits," samsāra naturally has three limits: first, the prior limit, meaning the past; second, the middle limit, meaning the present; third, the posterior limit, meaning the future. Since the limit is inexhaustible, renouncing the body equal to the posterior limit is also inexhaustible. Like the ten inexhaustibilities in the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra*, it does not take reaching the ultimate end as "equal." Question: If the posterior limit is inexhaustible and renouncing the body is also inexhaustible, how does one attain the eternal fruit? Answer: The bodhisattva establishes an inexhaustible resolve; when their practice is fulfilled, they naturally attain the permanent. "Free from old age, sickness, and death": above explained the causal practice; now it distinguishes attaining the fruit. In renouncing the impermanent body through giving, one attains two fruits in all: first, the fruit of what is left behind; second, the fruit of what is attained. Free from old age, sickness, and death refers to the fruit of what is left behind. Old age and sickness reside solely in portioned [samsāra], while the meaning of death extends to transformational [samsāra]. Moreover, transformational [samsāra] also has thought-to-thought old age and impermanent sickness. From "attaining the indestructible, permanently abiding..." onwards is the second part, explaining the fruit of what is attained. In the text there are three aspects: first, the permanence of what is attained; second, the profundity of what is attained; third, the substance of what is attained. Because its substance is permanent, it is called the dharmakāya. It also lacks all non-dharmas and is fully replete with wondrous dharmas; this is the meaning of dharmakāya. Since one renounced the body for the sake of the body, one attains the retribution of the dharmakāya. This is discussed in terms of a similar cause. Being indestructible, it is called "permanently abiding," meaning free from portioned [samsāra]. Being without transformation means free from transformational [samsāra]. Furthermore, being without transformation explains the "permanently abiding" above. "Inconceivable merit": the second aspect explains the profundity of what is attained. The path surpasses the three vehicles and ten bhūmis, so no one can conceive of it. "Tathāgata's dharmakāya": the third aspect explains the substance of what is attained. Since the body is constituted by dharmas of merit, it is called the body of merit. "Renouncing life" indicates the giving of renouncing life. "Equal to the final limits of samsāra" explains the length of time of giving. From "ultimately free from death" onwards: above distinguished the causal practice; now it explains attaining the fruit. There are two aspects: first, what is left behind; second, what is attained. "Free from death" refers to what is left behind. Renouncing life is undergoing death for others; hence being free from death is the fruit. An impermanent lifespan must inevitably have death; now it clarifies that there is no death, hence saying "free from death." From "attains the boundless, permanently abiding..." onwards explains what is attained. There are also three aspects: first, the permanence of what is attained; second, the profundity of what is attained; third, the substance of what is attained. "Boundless": the life of samsāra has its limits, which are called boundaries. Eternal life differs from this, so it is called boundless. Because it is boundless, it is permanently abiding. "Inconceivable merit" explains the profundity of what is attained: among all sentient beings, none can conceive of the Tathāgata's lifespan or know its measure, hence called inconceivable. This eternal life is obtained through cultivating merit, hence called merit. From "penetrating" onwards is the third aspect, the substance of what is attained. Merit generally explains its substance. "Penetrating all extremely profound Buddha-dharmas": this specifically brings out the substance of life, precisely using wisdom as life. The reason wisdom is specifically spoken of is that wisdom is the master of practices and can sustain all virtues, just as life can sustain the retribution of form and mind; therefore, wisdom is said to be life. Penetrating all refers to vast wisdom. Extremely profound Buddha-dharmas refers to extremely profound wisdom. Taking this vast and extremely profound wisdom as life, it is called wisdom-life (āyuṣmat). As the sūtras say: "Wisdom-life Subhūti," "Wisdom-life Śāriputra." Now, saying "penetrating all extremely profound Buddha-dharmas" brings out the sphere illuminated by wisdom-life. "Renouncing wealth" repeats what is renounced. "The final limits of samsāra" is not different from the explanation above. From "attaining the unshared..." onwards explains attaining the fruit. By solely explaining what is attained, what is left behind is also subsumed. In this there are two: first, attaining the wealth of one's own retribution; second, attaining the wealth of offerings from others. Within the wealth of one's own retribution there are also three: first, the permanence of what is attained; second, the profundity of what is attained; third, the substance of what is attained. "Attaining the unshared": worldly wealth is shared among five families. Now, renouncing worldly wealth, one attains unshared wealth. Worldly wealth may be exhausted or diminished; eternal wealth is inexhaustible and undiminishing. "Ultimately permanently abiding": the former distinguished it from impermanent wealth; this now reveals permanently abiding wealth. Question: What is permanently abiding wealth? Answer: The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa* explains "My pure land is indestructible, yet the multitude sees it burned up"; Vasubandhu says: "The pure land of the reward Buddha Tathāgata is subsumed under the supreme truth and cannot be burned." That treatise explains that the reward Buddha is permanent, and the reward Buddha-land is also permanent; hence it is permanent wealth. Some say: permanent wealth refers to the ten powers, fearlessnesses, and immeasurable Buddha-dharmas, hence called wealth. As *Vimalakīrti* says, "Abundantly possessing the seven treasures of wealth"; thus all virtues are taken as wealth. From "inconceivable" onwards is the second aspect, revealing the profundity of what is attained. From "complete with merit" onwards is the third aspect, revealing the substance of what is attained, which is precisely taking merit as wealth. Furthermore, "ultimately permanently abiding" above completes the previous "inexhaustible"; "complete with merit" completes the above "undiminishing." In general, worldly wealth has five flaws: first, shared by five families; second, diminished; third, exhausted; fourth, impermanent; fifth, not sublime. Dharma wealth reverses these. "Attaining the supreme offerings of all sentient beings": wealth is of two kinds: first, the wealth of one's own retribution; second, the wealth of offerings from others. The realm of the pure land brought about by oneself is retribution wealth; the offerings and support of devas and humans are the wealth of offerings from others. The preceding distinguished one's own retribution wealth; now it explains the wealth of offerings from others. Discussed in terms of response traces: once response and resonance are manifested, one can induce the four requisites of supreme offerings from sentient beings, and can also induce the four requisites of supreme offerings from the āryas of the three vehicles. From "World-Honored One, thus renouncing the three portions..." onwards: the first part above explained the non-duality of person and dharma and practicing causes to attain fruits; now the second part is praise. In all there are two clauses: first, restating the person praised; from "always being..." onwards directly provides the praise. In the praise there are two aspects: first, above, being prophesied by the Buddhas; second, below, being revered by sentient beings. Furthermore, above, because they enter the Buddha realm, they are prophesied by the Buddhas; below, because they surpass all classes of beings, they are revered by the multitude. Question: Why is it said that they are prophesied by the Buddhas? Answer: Renouncing body and wealth is a momentous matter. People might fear that they will not necessarily attain the fruit; therefore, it clarifies that practicing the cause must result in attaining the fruit, hence the Buddhas prophesy it. Furthermore, "prophesy" (vyākaraṇa) means certainty: that person will definitely attain the three fruits. Furthermore, "prophesy" means distinction: that person will not practice the eight wrong paths and will definitely achieve buddhahood. Being revered by sentient beings: sentient beings cannot renounce the three, but that person can renounce them; sentient beings loathe the impermanent and delight in the three permanent things, and that person attains the three permanent things; therefore, they are revered by beings. Furthermore, above, because they propagate the Buddha-dharma, they are prophesied by the Buddhas; now, because they bring sentient beings to maturity, they are revered by sentient beings.