勝鬘寶窟 2.42.3

2.42.3

Regarding the "two non-existences": first, it means having no refuge; second, it means having no fear. Regarding the "two existences": first, having a refuge; second, having fear. As for having a refuge, that person thinks that because there is the fear of saṃsāra, there is a refuge; but now, having escaped the fear of saṃsāra, they do not need a refuge. Now it is explained that although they have escaped the fear of [saṃsāra of] fragmented lifespans, they still have [that of] transformational [saṃsāra], and therefore they still require a refuge. Question: When do arhats have a refuge? When do they have fear? Answer: Those who are not foolish regarding the Dharma presently know that their transformational saṃsāra is not yet exhausted, and they rely on the Buddha to seek release; presently knowing that the counteragent to transformational [saṃsāra] is not yet established, they therefore have fear. Those who are foolish regarding the Dharma, in the future after their nirvāṇa without remainder, when conceptual thoughts arise, only then take refuge and only then feel fear. This meaning will be explained later. Question: Why is it not said that pratyekabuddhas have refuge and fear? Answer: Arhats presently hear the Mahāyāna sūtras and become self-aware that they abide in the stage with remainder, so they have refuge and fear; pratyekabuddhas appear in times when there is no Buddha, do not hear the Mahāyāna, and do not know that they themselves abide in the stage with remainder, and therefore do not know to take refuge. Question: If so, why does the text below say that arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear? Answer: This is said with regard to future pratyekabuddhas, hence it is so. From "Why is this?" below, the second [part] explains the headings, which has two parts: first, a brief explanation; next, an extensive explanation. In the brief one, it explains the two, which are twofold: first, it explains the latter heading on fear, following the flow of the phrasing; next, it turns back to explain the heading on having a refuge. In the former explanation of fear, "Why is this?" is a question: the Tathāgata in the past, in other discourses, always taught that arhats are free from fear; why does he now say here that they have fear? From "arhat" below, it next explains. There are three parts: first, the doctrine; next, the simile; finally, the conclusion. "Arhats abide in the notion of fear toward all unconditioned formations": arhats possess the wisdom of the path of counteragents within the three realms, which is called "formations"; having eradicated the afflictions within the three realms completely, they are without the saṃsāra of fragmented lifespans within the three realms, and within the three realms they have no fear—for this reason, it was formerly said that arhats have no fear. But not yet possessing the wisdom of the path of counteragents outside the three realms is called "unconditioned formations," and hence there is the suffering of transformational saṃsāra. This clarifies that arhats know of themselves that their transformational saṃsāra outside the three realms is not yet exhausted; fearing the suffering of that saṃsāra, they give rise to a fearful mind in relation to their own lack of [counteracting] practice—this is called the "notion of fear." Because they abide in fear, it is called "abide." Furthermore, because they have not advanced to eradicate it, it is provisionally called "abide." Someone says: "All unconditioned formations" is the object of fear. The five aggregates are not one, hence they are called "all." Having no fixed, real flux is called "unconditioned formations." Practitioners of the two vehicles do not know that the arising and ceasing of the aggregates and so forth lack intrinsic nature; thinking that there are real characteristics that oppress them, they give rise to fear. Their minds conceptualise this matter, so it is said that they "abide in the notion." Therefore the Ratnagotravibhāga says: "Not having severed all residual impressions of afflictions, they constantly generate an extreme fear in their presence toward all characteristics of conditioned formations." Question: How is the lack of fixed, real flux in the five aggregates called "unconditioned formations"? Answer: Just as a person imagines and claims that a mirage is flowing water, or that wild horses are running, when in fact there is no flow and no horses running; thus it is called having no fixed, real flux. Master Lin says: "In foreign countries it is called saṃskāra; here it is translated as 'formations' (xing). The Mahāyāna says that formations have no substance, hence 'non-formations' (wu xing). Yet the Hīnayāna considers formations to truly exist, and therefore gives rise to terror." As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: "All sentient beings are submerged in non-existence"—this agrees with the intention of the latter explanation. The former master explains fear with respect to matters outside the three realms; the latter master explains fear with respect to matters within the three realms. The former master explains "formations" as the practice of the path of counteragents; the latter master explains "formations" as the flux [of conditioned phenomena]. From "just as a person holding a sword about to come and harm oneself" below, the second is the explanation by simile. The first master says: The causes of transformational [saṃsāra] are compared to a person. Being able to bring about the future fruits of transformational [saṃsāra] is called "holding a sword." The impending arrival of the future fruit is therefore called "about to come." Since it will inevitably affect oneself closely, it is called "harming oneself." The second master says: "Just as a person" illustrates the five aggregates. "Holding a sword" illustrates the arising and ceasing of the substance of the aggregates. "About to come and harm oneself" illustrates the pressing oppression of the characteristics of arising and ceasing. "Therefore arhats have no ultimate bliss": the third concludes. According to the first master, because arhats have notions of fear regarding transformational saṃsāra, they have no ultimate bliss. According to the latter master, although they attain nirvāṇa with remainder, because a fearful mind accompanies them, they have no ultimate bliss. From "Why is this?" below, the second explains the heading on refuge. "Why is this?" is a question: arhats have already realised the fruit of the stage beyond learning; why do they still need a refuge? From "World-Honoured One" below, it explains. Therein, first is the doctrine; next, the simile; finally, the synthesis. "Relying on one who does not seek refuge" is the doctrinal statement. The Tathāgata is a person who does not seek refuge; an arhat relying on that person who does not seek refuge is called "relying on one who does not seek refuge." From "Just as sentient beings who have no refuge" below, the second is the simile. Just as sentient beings in the world have nothing to rely on and therefore have many fears. Because the objects giving rise to fear are not one, they are called "various." "Because of fear, they then seek refuge" directly clarifies the need for a refuge. Seeking refuge in great power protects against what is feared. From "In this way" below, the third synthesises the simile. "In this way, arhats" synthesises the preceding "sentient beings." "Have terror" synthesises "various fears." "Because of terror, they rely on the Tathāgata" synthesises seeking refuge out of fear.