勝鬘寶窟 2.42.2

2.42.2

"Why?" is a question. The intention of the question is: Why did [the Buddha] speak of the six for the sake of the Great [Vehicle]? "The abiding of the true Dharma" answers the question above. Explaining the three pairs in the text constitutes three integrations. In the first pair of two, he first integrates abiding and next integrates extinction. Within abiding, he first adduces the abiding in the Hīnayāna; hence it says "the abiding of the true Dharma." "Is spoken of for the sake of the Mahāyāna" clarifies the intention of speaking of the Great. In the past, when the Buddha spoke of the abiding of the true Dharma in the Hīnayāna, he spoke of the Mahāyāna as the Hīnayāna's abiding; one should know that the Hīnayāna's abiding is itself the Mahāyāna's abiding, and outside of the Mahāyāna's abiding there is no separate Hīnayāna abiding. It is like speaking of the great cause as the small fruit; outside of the great cause there is no separate small fruit. Question: If so, it should say that the small abiding is itself the great abiding; why then does it say that the abiding of the Mahāyāna is itself the abiding of the true Dharma? Answer: Now, because the root subsumes the branches, the abiding of the Mahāyāna is itself the abiding of the true Dharma; the meaning of extinction is also like this. Because it reveals that outside of the Great there is no separate Small, apart from the rise and fall of the Hīnayāna there is no separate rise and fall of the Mahāyāna. "Prātimokṣa and vinaya": this is the second pair. In the text there are four [parts]: first, adducing; second, integrating; third, explaining; fourth, concluding. First, he adduces the two dharmas together; hence he says "prātimokṣa and vinaya." "These two dharmas are identical in meaning and different in name": as for "identical in meaning," their essential meaning is identical. Since they are the same single precept, he says "identical in meaning." The reason why two names are established for the single precept is that within the single essence of the precept there are two functions: because it can attain the future fruit of liberation (mokṣa), the precept receives the name of mokṣa; because it can extinguish the seven transgressions of body and speech in the present, the precept receives the appellation of vinaya. The Buddha wished to encourage people to keep the precepts, and therefore established these two names for the single precept. Although there are two names—liberation and extinction—they are the same single preceptual dharma; hence he says "identical in meaning." Question: Why distinguish that the two dharmas are identical in essence and different in name? Answer: It is for the sake of facilitating the meaning in integrating the Small into the Great. Wishing to show that integrating the one is integrating the two, he therefore first shows that the two dharmas integrate with each other. "Vinaya is itself the study of the Mahāyāna": second, it directly integrates it as the dharma studied within the Mahāyāna. The former was an integration among themselves within the Hīnayāna; now it is an integration of the Small into the Great. From "Why?" onward: third, he explains the aforementioned "is itself the study of the Mahāyāna." "Why?" is a question: Vinaya was originally a dharma studied in the Hīnayāna; why is it spoken of as the study of the Mahāyāna? "Because by relying on the Buddha one goes forth and receives full ordination" directly answers the question. Since a person of the Hīnayāna does not separately go forth and receive full ordination, but relies on the Mahāyāna Buddha to go forth and receive the fully ordained precepts, how could the vinaya that is studied not be Mahāyāna? This adduces the subsequent going forth and receiving full ordination to explain that mokṣa and vinaya are themselves the study of the Mahāyāna, and concurrently integrates going forth and receiving full ordination. From "Therefore, speaking of the deportment of the Mahāyāna" onward: fourth, he draws a general conclusion. Because speaking of the deportment of the Mahāyāna serves as that vinaya, going forth, and receiving the fully ordained precepts, therefore vinaya, going forth, and receiving full ordination are themselves the Mahāyāna. Formerly, it clarified relying on the Mahāyāna to go forth, which was integrating the Small in terms of the person of the Mahāyāna. Now it clarifies integrating the Small in terms of the dharma of the Mahāyāna: apart from the dharma of the Mahāyāna there is no separate Hīnayāna dharma, showing that apart from the bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna there are no separate arhats of the Hīnayāna. Integrating the Hīnayāna teaching into the Mahāyāna teaching is the oneness of teaching; integrating Hīnayāna practice into Mahāyāna practice is the oneness of cause; integrating Hīnayāna persons into Mahāyāna persons is the oneness of person; integrating the Hīnayāna fruit into the Mahāyāna fruit is the oneness of fruit. From "Therefore, arhats" onward: he integrates the third pair, going forth and receiving full ordination. Again, the text has three [parts]: first, clarifying that there is no separate Hīnayāna going forth or full ordination; next, questioning; third, explaining. "Therefore" takes up the preceding to reveal the subsequent: formerly it clarified that speaking of the deportment of the Mahāyāna is the vinaya, is going forth, and is full ordination; therefore arhats have no separate going forth or receiving full ordination. From "Why?" onward: it questions: Arhats truly have going forth and full ordination; why say they do not? From "Arhats" onward: third, he explains. Because arhats rely on the Buddha to go forth and receive full ordination, they have no separate going forth or receiving full ordination, let alone prior to that! Furthermore, wishing to infer the latter from the former: since arhats lack [their own] going forth and full ordination, they also lack [ultimate] four wisdoms and nirvāṇa. Question: When do arhats go forth? When do they receive full ordination? Answer: This discusses going forth during the causal stage; it is not that arhats [as fruit] go forth. From "Arhats take refuge in the Buddha" onward: up to this point, it clarified integrating the cause; now, second, it clarifies integrating the fruit. Integrating the cause means integrating the Hīnayāna cause so that it becomes the Mahāyāna cause, there being no separate Hīnayāna cause; it also means gathering its causal aspect. Integrating the fruit means that there is no Hīnayāna ultimate fruit, and that the Hīnayāna ultimate fruit is still a Mahāyāna cause; thus both the Hīnayāna cause and fruit belong to the Mahāyāna cause. Moreover, above he took away the cause, and now he takes away the fruit. Furthermore, he adduces the fruit to explain and establish the taking away of the cause: if one attains fulfillment of the fruit, the cause is fulfilled; since the fruit is not ultimate, how could the practiced cause be fulfilled? Moreover, previously he integrated worldly good into the ekayāna; now he integrates transworldly good to enter the ekayāna. Furthermore, the above integration of the six bases and so forth was integrating the beginning of the Hīnayāna; now he integrates the end of the Hīnayāna. The middle may be understood [from this]. In the text there are two [parts]: first, indicating the two headings together; from "Why?" onward: second, explaining the two headings together. Regarding indicating the two headings together: "Arhats take refuge in the Buddha" is one heading, clarifying that their virtues are not complete; "Arhats have fear" is the second heading, clarifying that their hindrances are not exhausted. Moreover, that arhats have a refuge indicates the heading; that they have fear explains the refuge: because they have fear, they must take refuge. Question: This section integrates the fruit; why take away their refuge? Answer: Previously he took away going forth and receiving the precepts; now he takes away taking refuge. Taking refuge and precepts are the root; therefore, following the precepts, he explains taking refuge. Question: How many meanings are there to taking refuge? Answer: First, contrasted with the past, relying on an impermanent Buddha was not an ultimate refuge; now, taking refuge in the eternally abiding Buddha is for the first time the ultimate refuge. Therefore, the text below says: "An inexhaustible refuge and an eternally abiding refuge are the true refuge." Second, contrasted with the past, taking refuge in separate entities was not ultimate; it clarifies that now taking refuge in a single entity is for the first time ultimate. Therefore, the text below says: "The Tathāgata is himself the three refuges." These two meanings generally reveal that persons of the two vehicles, whether in the causal or fruitional stage, although they subsequently take refuge in the Buddha, do not yet know the refuge. Third, above he refuted their possessing six, and therefore clarified that there are no six; now he refutes the two non-existences, clarifying the two existences.