勝鬘寶窟 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

3.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Shi Jizang of the Huiri Bodhimanda

Regarding "the World-Honoured One's wisdom of not receiving further existence": the preceding has extensively explained that [followers of] the two vehicles have fear; from here below is the second [section], integrating them to enter the Great [Vehicle], because those who have fear will ultimately proceed to fearlessness. In the text there are two [parts]: first, it cites the previous two kinds of four wisdoms; second, from "In the stages they previously attained, they are not deluded about the Dharma" downward, it integrates the Small into the Great. As for citing the four wisdoms: because the Buddha's four wisdoms are ultimate and the two vehicles' four wisdoms are not ultimate, it therefore integrates the two vehicles to enter the buddhayāna. As for "the wisdom of not receiving further existence has two [kinds]": it cites both the great and small kinds of four wisdoms in summary. Citing by mentioning the latter, it therefore specifically says that the wisdom of not receiving further existence has two kinds. Below, it cites them separately. First, it cites the Buddha's wisdom; from "Arhats and pratyekabuddhas cross beyond saṃsāra" downward, it cites the two vehicles' wisdom. In citing the Buddha's wisdom, it first cites the three items that are the reasons for attaining wisdom. From "unobstructed insight into all knowables (jñeya)" downward, it directly cites the essence of the wisdom. Among the reasons for attainment, above there were four without remainder; now it fully cites the three items: first citing the dharmakāya, next citing prajñā, and afterwards citing liberation. Within the dharmakāya, from the beginning up to "transcending the world," it explains the culmination of the position, and the rest reveals the fullness of virtues. Among the three items, both of these are equally present. In the culmination of the position, "the unexcelled tamer" means that the antidotes are supreme. The Buddha is supreme in skillfully taming, hence called "unexcelled." "Subduing the four māras" means that faults are eliminated to the utmost. The Tathāgata skillfully cuts off the cause of saṃsāra, and thus subdues the kleśamāra; he can also extinguish the result of saṃsāra, and thus subdues the skandhamāra as well as the mṛtyumāra; inner afflictions having already been removed, there is nothing outside that is not subdued, and thus he subdues the devaputramāra. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Attaining the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas subdues the kleśamāra. Attaining the dharmakāya subdues the skandhamāra. Attaining the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas and the dharmakāya subdues the mṛtyumāra. Attaining the immovable samādhi subdues the devaputramāra." For example, in the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*, the destruction of the four māras is matched with four kinds of merits: First, spoken in relation to the wisdom of the four noble truths: if one knows suffering, one can destroy the skandhamāra; if one cuts off arising, one destroys the kleśamāra; if one realizes cessation, one destroys the mṛtyumāra; if one can cultivate the path, one destroys the devaputramāra. Second, spoken in relation to the wisdom of the four Dharma seals: if one can see suffering, one destroys the skandhamāra; if one sees impermanence, one destroys the kleśamāra; if one sees non-self, one destroys the mṛtyumāra; if one sees nirvāṇa as quiescent, [one destroys] the devaputramāra. Third, spoken in relation to the wisdom of the four smṛtyupasthānas: if one can contemplate the body, one destroys the skandhamāra; if one can contemplate feelings, one destroys the kleśamāra; if one can contemplate the mind, one destroys the mṛtyumāra; if one can contemplate dharmas, one destroys the devaputramāra. Fourth, spoken in relation to the wisdom of the three gateways to liberation (śūnyatā-mukha) and dedication wisdom: if one contemplates emptiness, one destroys the skandhamāra; if one contemplates signlessness, one destroys the kleśamāra; if one contemplates wishlessness, one destroys the mṛtyumāra; fully possessing the three dharmas and dedicating them to bodhi destroys the devaputramāra. All of these are distinctive merits corresponding to specific marks. Speaking of it in reality, each and every practice universally destroys the four māras. Now it shows that the Tathāgata has realized the ultimate limit, completely subduing the four māras and emerging beyond all worlds, which is the culmination of the position. Transcending both fragmented and transformative [birth and death] is called emerging beyond all. In the fullness of virtues below, "revered by all sentient beings" is the nirmāṇakāya. "Realizing the inconceivable dharmakāya" is the tathatā-kāya. Within prajñā, "unobstructed and sovereign in the ground of knowables (jñeya)" reveals the fullness of virtue. The sphere that gives rise to wisdom is called the ground of knowables. The Tathāgata completely knows this, which is called being unobstructed and sovereign in all things. "In the higher ground of non-action and non-attainment" explains the culmination of the position. Looking upward, there is nothing further for the Buddha to do, which clarifies that his causes are complete; the ground of non-attainment reveals that his fruit is consummate. Alternatively, the sarvākārajñatā of all buddhas is complete, which is called non-action; the fullness of sarvajñā is called non-attainment. Within liberation, "ten powers and heroic boldness" reveals the fullness of virtue. The ten powers are firm and cannot be shaken by māras, hence he has heroic boldness. "Ascending to the foremost ground of fearlessness" explains the culmination of the position. Alternatively, the preceding phrase explains attaining the ten powers, and this explains fearlessness. The above has cited the three items to explain the reasons for attaining wisdom; below, it cites the essence of the wisdom. "Contemplation with unobstructed wisdom regarding all knowables" cites the prajñā above. Prajñā is the essence of wisdom, hence it is cited again. From "not relying on others" downward, based on what was cited before, it clarifies that not receiving further existence does not rely on others, distinguishing the Great from the Small. The four wisdoms of the Hīnayāna are attained through the teachings of others, whereas the Tathāgata realizes them on his own. "The siṃhanāda of the wisdom of not receiving further existence" directly states the essence of the wisdom. When the Tathāgata attains this unobstructed wisdom, it is called not receiving further existence. Expounding the unobstructed wisdom is called the wisdom of not receiving further existence. The principle being definitive is called the siṃhanāda. From "the World-Honoured One, arhats…" downward, next it cites the four wisdoms of the two vehicles. Within this there are also two [parts]: first, it explains that the two vehicles themselves claim their four wisdoms are ultimate; from "the World-Honoured One, arhats and pratyekabuddhas contemplate the foremost…" downward, second, they themselves claim their nirvāṇa is ultimate. The reason for explaining these two is that the former is the culmination of wisdom, while the latter is the culmination of cessation; the former is the culmination of bodhi, while the latter is the culmination of nirvāṇa; furthermore, the former is the culmination of conditioned merits, while the latter is the culmination of unconditioned merits. The first text has three parts: first, explaining the marks of what they attain; second, from "they think this thought" downward, explaining that they contemplate what they have attained as ultimate; third, from "when arhats and pratyekabuddhas contemplate" downward, concluding their own claim of being ultimate. "Arhats and pratyekabuddhas" mentions the persons who attain wisdom. "Crossing beyond the fear of saṃsāra and successively attaining the bliss of liberation" is the essence of the four wisdoms. Crossing beyond the fear of saṃsāra means crossing beyond the fear of fragmented saṃsāra. Successively attaining the bliss of liberation means attaining the bliss of conditioned and unconditioned liberation. Contemplating the four truths and the nine stages, they all cut off successively and attain successively: the first fruit exhausts [the defilements abandoned by] seeing the truths; the second fruit exhausts six grades [of the desire realm]; the third fruit exhausts the desire realm; arhats and pratyekabuddhas exhaust the three realms. When causes are exhausted and results perish, this is successively attaining liberation. Being freed from the suffering of saṃsāra, they therefore attain the bliss of the unconditioned. From "they think this thought" downward: these are the marks of the four wisdoms emerging from contemplation into existence; focusing on what they have attained, they generate the notion of it being ultimate, and hence it says they think this thought. "I am separated from saṃsāra, I will not receive saṃsāra": being separated from saṃsāra presently removes the cause of suffering; not receiving saṃsāra means that in the future there will be no result of suffering. Furthermore, being separated from saṃsāra presently extinguishes all sufferings; not receiving saṃsāra means that future suffering is permanently pacified. Moreover, I am separated from the fear of saṃsāra and do not receive the suffering of saṃsāra, which is still attaining the bliss of liberation. However, the former was spoken in terms of attainment, clarifying the attainment of the bliss of liberation; now it is spoken in terms of departing from faults, hence it says not receiving suffering. "The World-Honoured One, when arhats contemplate" is the third text. Calling the aforementioned thought a contemplation: when engaged in this contemplation, they generate the idea that they have attained wisdom, and for this reason it is called attaining the wisdom of not receiving further existence and contemplating the foremost place of resting. Someone says: this cites the two nirvāṇas of the Great and Small [Vehicles]. "Contemplating the nirvāṇa of the foremost place" cites the nirvāṇa attained by the Tathāgata above. Śrīmālā contemplates the nirvāṇa attained by the Buddha, and hence it is called contemplating. The resting attained by the Tathāgata is consummate, hence called foremost. "The ground of nirvāṇa" brings out that place of resting. Someone says: it is still the two vehicles, knowing for themselves that outside transformative [saṃsāra] there is the consummate, foremost nirvāṇa. Now I say this is not so: the above explained that the two vehicles themselves claimed their four wisdoms were ultimate; now it explains that the two vehicles themselves claimed their nirvāṇa was ultimate, hence it says "the foremost place of resting, the ground of nirvāṇa." Regarding "in the stage they previously attained": someone says that the nirvāṇa of the foremost resting above is the Mahāyāna nirvāṇa, and now it cites the Hīnayāna nirvāṇa. Now I say this is not so: above it explained that the Hīnayāna itself claimed its nirvāṇa was ultimate, and now it cites that Hīnayāna nirvāṇa as not ultimate, intending to explain the integration into the ultimate. In the text there are four [parts]: first, citing the non-ultimate and integrating it into the ultimate; second, from "why is that" downward, discerning and explaining by question and answer; third, "therefore the three vehicles are the one vehicle" is the conclusion; fourth, from "attaining anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi" downward, in terms of the one vehicle into which they are integrated universally encompassing all virtues, it shows that the one vehicle entered is ultimate. Regarding "the stage they previously attained": someone says that the nirvāṇa attained by the two vehicles is called "previous" in contrast to the great nirvāṇa of the ultimate limit. Someone says that "the stage they previously attained" refers to the stage of dry wisdom and the stage of nature, the beginning of internal ordinary beings; when the five faculties are established, they know for themselves the return to the origin and that they will certainly become buddhas, which is called not being deluded about the Dharma. Thus, at the time of the cause they originally know it for themselves, and it is not that they only come to know it upon reaching the fruit; however, their disgust with suffering being deep, they temporarily grasp the small fruit. Someone says: it simply cites the previous phrase, and is therefore called "previous." Now I say this is not so: when the two vehicles themselves claim that the four wisdoms are ultimate and nirvāṇa is complete, this is the time when they are deluded about the Dharma; later, meeting a good friend and hearing the one vehicle expounded, they come to be not deluded about the Dharma. Delusion precedes non-delusion, hence it is called "the stage they previously attained." As for "not deluded about the Dharma": it brings out the persons who are integrated. There are two kinds of śrāvakas: first, persons deluded about the Dharma; second, persons not deluded about the Dharma. In the present time, lineage-śrāvakas cling to the Small and are confused about the Great, which is called deluded about the Dharma; śrāvakas who retrogressed from the bodhicitta know the Small and understand the Great, which is called not deluded about the Dharma. Question: When do persons deluded about the Dharma become not deluded? Answer: After entering the future nirvāṇa without remainder, when conceptual thoughts arise, persons deluded about the Dharma meet a buddha and hear the *Lotus Sūtra* expounded; only then do they become not deluded about the Dharma. Thus the "Parable of the Conjured City" chapter of the *Lotus Sūtra* says: "After my nirvāṇa, there will further be disciples who do not hear this sūtra, and generate the notion of nirvāṇa regarding what they have attained. In other lands I will become a buddha and expound this sūtra for them, so that they can enter the Buddha's wisdom." Being not deluded about the Dharma means not being deluded and confused about the ultimate Dharma of the Mahāyāna. Question: Earlier it said they claim the four wisdoms are ultimate, and later it says not deluded about the Dharma, knowing for themselves that they are not ultimate. Is this one person, or two persons? Answer: It is still one person. At first claiming to be ultimate is called deluded about the Dharma; later hearing the one vehicle sūtra, turning from the Small to enter the Great, and knowing for themselves that they are not ultimate is called not deluded about the Dharma. Now it is explained that original-vehicle śrāvakas and śrāvakas who retrogressed from bodhicitta are both deluded about the Dharma. Why is this? If one knows for oneself that one will become a buddha, one will certainly not realize arhatship; if one realizes arhatship, one then claims to be ultimate and does not know one will become a buddha. Both kinds of śrāvakas realize arhatship and claim to be ultimate, so all are deluded about the Dharma. If these two persons hear the one vehicle sūtra, turn from the Small to enter the Great, and know for themselves that they will become buddhas, both are not deluded about the Dharma. Between these two persons, their faculties and natures are immeasurable, either sharp or dull, entering the Great early or late; if they turn from the Small to enter the Great, all are persons not deluded about the Dharma. Question: What is the difference between the two persons? Answer: Original-vehicle śrāvakas did not hear the Mahāyāna in the past, did not generate the bodhicitta, and had no seed of the one vehicle. Only after entering the remainderless [nirvāṇa], meeting a buddha and hearing the sūtra do they then generate the bodhicitta. Śrāvakas who retrogressed from bodhicitta previously heard the one vehicle and generated the bodhicitta, possessing the seed of the one vehicle. But midway they retrogressed from the Mahāyāna and grasped the Small; hearing the one vehicle sūtra in the present, they continue to generate the bodhicitta and know for themselves that they will become buddhas. Therefore the two persons are different. Question: These two persons rely on two kinds of others: first, the other as a person, namely the Buddha's bodhi; second, the other as Dharma, namely the one vehicle. Why does it say that without relying on others, they know for themselves that they will become buddhas? Answer: In truth they rely on the two kinds of others. But now saying that they know for themselves: if it were explained that they know they will become buddhas only by relying on others, the meaning of becoming a buddha would not be distinct. Now intending to clarify that they clearly know for themselves that they will become buddhas, it is therefore said not relying on others. This will be explained extensively below. Question: Why explain that persons of the two vehicles clearly know for themselves that they will become buddhas? Answer: Because it intends to clarify that there are not two, but only one. Why is this? Not only does the Buddha teach that in principle there is one and not two, but persons of the two vehicles also know for themselves that there is one and not two. Possessing these two meanings, the meaning that there is one and not two is established, and thus the meaning of integration is made manifest. "Also knowing for themselves that they have remainder": not only are they not deluded that the Mahāyāna is the ultimate Dharma, but they also know that their own portion has remainder and is not ultimate. "They will certainly proceed toward bodhi": having known that their own portion is not ultimate and that the Mahāyāna is ultimate, they will certainly abandon the non-ultimate and enter the ultimate.

3.3

From "Why is this?" onward is the second [section], which analyses and explains by question and answer. "Why is this?" is the question: since the two vehicles differ from the buddhayāna, how could they attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi? Below, it responds and explains it: by demonstrating that those two vehicles together enter the Mahāyāna, they therefore attain bodhi. According to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, the dharmakāya of persons of the three vehicles does not differ; therefore the three vehicles together enter the ekayāna. Furthermore, the one is taught as three, and therefore the three are the one. Question: What is the sameness and difference between the Mahāyāna and the ekayāna? Answer: Some say that the Mahāyāna runs through both cause and fruition, whereas the ekayāna is solely fruition. Now it is explained that here they are different names [for the same thing], termed either Mahāyāna or ekayāna. It merely reveals that the ekayāna which is entered is the buddhayāna, and is therefore ultimate.

3.4

"Therefore the three vehicles are the one vehicle" is the third [section], the conclusion. Because it is the two vehicles entering the ekayāna, the three vehicles are just the one vehicle. Question: Why is it sometimes said that the two vehicles enter the ekayāna, and sometimes said that the three vehicles enter the ekayāna? Answer: If one says that the two vehicles enter the ekayāna, it is only to integrate the distinct two vehicles and bring them back to the one, and thus one only speaks of the two vehicles entering the one. If one says that the three vehicles enter the ekayāna, there are several meanings: First, it does not merely integrate the distinct two to return to the one, but also integrates the provisional Great to enter the real; thus it speaks fully of the three entering the one. Second, however, when only integrating the two yet speaking of three, it is simply that the two are among the count of the three; thus they are mentioned together generally, speaking of three while in reality there are two. This is as explained in the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra. Furthermore, as the four-fascicle Laṅkāvatāra states: "The three vehicles are also not the vehicle; the one vehicle is also not the vehicle. The supreme Mahāyāna—this is named the Great Vehicle." That [sūtra] speaks of integrating the two to return to the one, and integrating the provisional Great to enter the real, and therefore states that "the three vehicles are also not the vehicle." And it further integrates the real cause to enter fruition, and therefore states that "the one vehicle is also not the vehicle." To say "not the vehicle" means that it is not the ultimate fruition vehicle. Mahāyāna is named the Great Vehicle, meaning the ultimate fruition Great Vehicle. Furthermore, to explain it in terms of principle: the three vehicles and the one vehicle are both not the true vehicle; only the Dharma of the Middle Way that is neither three nor one is truly the Great Vehicle. This is as explained in the section on sameness and difference in the "Upāya Chapter" of the Lotus Sūtra.

3.5

"Attaining the one vehicle" is the fourth [section], which explains that the ekayāna subsumes all virtues, revealing that that which is entered is ultimate. In the text there are three parts: first, the ekayāna is identical with all virtues; second, from "attaining the ultimate dharmakāya is just the one vehicle" onward, all virtues are identical with the ekayāna; third, from "ultimate, boundless, and uninterrupted" onward, it reveals that the ultimate ekayāna leaves no virtue unencompassed, and its essence is permanently abiding. In the ekayāna being identical with all virtues: first, the ekayāna is identical with bodhi; next, bodhi is identical with nirvāṇa; and finally, nirvāṇa is identical with the dharmakāya. Why are only these three dharmas explained? Because the three dharmas are just the three virtues: bodhi is prajñā, and nirvāṇa is liberation. Finally the dharmakāya is explained. That the three dharmas are identical is in contrast to the two vehicles, for whom the three dharmas have distinct essences: for the two vehicles, prajñā and the dharmakāya are conditioned, while nirvāṇa is unconditioned. Therefore, it is now explained that the three dharmas share the same essence and are all unconditioned. Furthermore, as for the difference between bodhi and nirvāṇa: bodhi is wisdom, and nirvāṇa is cessation; bodhi is fruition, and nirvāṇa is the fruition of fruition. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "That which is produced by a generative cause is named bodhi. That which is revealed by an illuminative cause is named nirvāṇa." This explains that bodhi is produced by a generative cause and is named "newly acquired", being expedient purity. Nirvāṇa is revealed by an illuminative cause and is named "originally existing", being natural purity. Moreover, differentiated by meaning within the same essence: all virtues, completely penetrating and unhindered, are all named bodhi; quiescence and the unconditioned are generally called nirvāṇa; and [this is] attaining the ultimate dharmakāya. Second, all virtues being identical with the ekayāna also unfolds into three distinctions: first, the dharmakāya is identical with the ekayāna; second, the Tathāgata is identical with the dharmakāya; third, returning to the theme, it again explains that the dharmakāya is identical with the ekayāna. The first sentence is as in the text. "Not different from the Tathāgata" is the second sentence. "Not different from the Tathāgata" explains that the dharmakāya is not different from the Tathāgata. "Not different from the dharmakāya" explains that the Tathāgata is not different from the dharmakāya. "The Tathāgata is just the dharmakāya" concludes and establishes their non-difference. Question: Why explain that person and dharma are not different? Answer: People hear that the vehicle is the dharma that is ridden, while the Tathāgata is the person who rides; they think that person and dharma are distinct. Therefore, it is now explained that person and dharma are non-dual. Furthermore, it praises the ekayāna as leaving no meaning un-subsumed: it does not merely subsume dharmas, but also subsumes persons. Moreover, previously it was explained that the three dharmas are mutually identical, but it had not yet been explained that person and dharma are mutually identical; therefore it is now explained that person and dharma are identical. "Attaining the ultimate dharmakāya" is the third part, which returns to the theme and concludes that the dharmakāya is identical with the ekayāna. Master Min of Zhuangyan in the Jiangnan region took the cause to be the ekayāna; now he cannot explain this text. Zhu Daosheng took the fruition to be the ekayāna, and although he had not seen this sūtra, he was profoundly in accord with it. "The ultimate one vehicle is boundless and uninterrupted" is the third part. Although the mutual identity of person and dharma was explained above, all virtues cannot be exhaustively enumerated, so it summarizes them. Because the virtues of the ekayāna leave nothing un-subsumed, it is called "boundless". Because its essence is permanently abiding, it is designated "uninterrupted". Master Fu took fruition to be the ekayāna, saying that the dharmakāya is permanently abiding, hence it is said to be "boundless and uninterrupted". Some say: taking the cause to be the vehicle, it synthesizes the myriad practices, hence it is called "boundless"; continuing unbroken until the attainment of buddhahood, it is therefore called "uninterrupted". Furthermore, it broadly encompasses the five vehicles, hence it is called "boundless"; transmitting and transforming without end is the meaning of "uninterrupted". Now [our interpretation] is as explained before. From the above up to here, the broad explanation of the arhat having distinct meanings is finished.

3.6

From "The World-Honoured One, the Tathāgata, abides without limit of time" downwards is the second [section], which extensively explains having a refuge. As for why an extensive explanation is needed, there are in general four meanings: First, previously what took refuge was clarified, but the object of refuge was not yet revealed; thus it must be differentiated. Second, previously taking refuge in the Buddha was explained, but the Dharma and Saṅgha were not yet explained; thus they must be differentiated. Third, the provisional refuges were explained, but the real had never been revealed; thus it must be differentiated. Fourth, formerly the distinct refuges were explained, but the single essence had not yet been explained; thus it must be differentiated. Question: Above it was clarified that the two vehicles have fear and lack the four wisdoms, and now it is clarified that the two vehicles lack an ultimate refuge and must take refuge in the Buddha. How do these two differ? Answer: In brief, there are three kinds of differences in meaning: First is the difference between self and other. The two vehicles lack the four wisdoms and the Buddha possesses the four wisdoms—this discusses virtue for oneself. The three refuges discuss the virtue of converting others: those of the two vehicles still need to take refuge in another and cannot serve as a refuge for others, whereas the Buddha serves as a refuge for others and does not need to take refuge in another. Second is the difference between person and Dharma. Among the four wisdoms, it is clarified solely with respect to persons: for persons of the two vehicles the four wisdoms are not ultimate, whereas for the Buddha they are ultimate. In the three refuges, it is clarified that the Dharma and Saṅgha of the two vehicles are not ultimate, whereas the Dharma and Saṅgha of the ekayāna are ultimate. Third is the difference between presence and absence. When the two vehicles are integrated back into the ekayāna, the two vehicles no longer exist. When the distinct-essence refuges are integrated back into the single-essence refuge, the three refuges still exist. Question: Why are they not analogous? Answer: The three refuges are the teaching from beginning to end of the Buddha. Formerly, in order to overturn the heterodox three, he clarified the correct distinct-essence three; now, in contrast to the distinct-essence three, he clarifies the single-essence three. Hence from beginning to end it is always clarified that there are three refuges. The doctrine of the three vehicles is not like this. Formerly, because sentient beings were not yet able to receive the one, he spoke of three within the one, using the three vehicles to tame their minds. When they were finally able to receive the one, he therefore integrated the three to return together to the one, and then the three vehicles no longer existed. Hence they are not analogous to this. Question: Why did he speak of the three refuges from beginning to end? Answer: Formerly when he spoke of the three refuges, there were in general three meanings: First, to overturn the heterodox three and clarify the correct three. But there are two kinds of heterodox three: The first is the heterodox three of serving deities, such as taking Īśvara and the like as the Buddha, the teachings spoken by him as the Dharma, and those who practice his Dharma as the Saṅgha. The second is the heterodox three of serving human masters, such as taking Kapila and the like as the Buddha, the Sāṃkhya treatises and the like as the Dharma, and those who practice this doctrine as the Saṅgha. To overturn these three heterodoxies, he took the Tathāgata as the Buddha, the sūtras spoken by him as the Dharma, and those who practice the Dharma as the Saṅgha. Second, he spoke of three to cure sickness. Sentient beings have the sickness of afflictions; taking the Buddha as the good physician, the Dharma as the wondrous medicine, and the Saṅgha as the nurse. When these three are complete, the sickness of afflictions is cured. For this reason, he spoke of three. Third, it was to escape the three fears. Just as a deer pursued by a hunter escapes fear once it makes three leaps, sentient beings, pursued by the Māra of birth-and-death, take refuge in the Three Jewels and manage to escape the fear of birth-and-death. Now, speaking of the single-essence three clarifies that the former three refuges of distinct essences are impermanent, and because dharmas of impermanence are not ultimate. As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Just like your parents, because they are distinct from one another, they are therefore impermanent." Now, clarifying the single-essence three means that it is permanently abiding. Because it is permanently abiding, it is ultimate; hence the single essence is clarified. Second, the intention of this sūtra is that formerly the arhat was taken as the jewel of the Saṅgha, serving as a place of refuge for others; now it clarifies that the arhat still has fear of his own and must take refuge in another, unable to serve as an ultimate refuge for others. Only the Buddha is ultimate, does not rely on another, and serves as a reliance for others. The doctrinal meaning of the Hīnayāna Dharma is also like this—it is not ultimate; if it is the ultimate Dharma, it can serve as a refuge for creatures. For this reason, the present teaching also clarifies the three refuges. Question: In contrast to the former distinct-essence refuges, the present single essence is clarified. Can we also say that in contrast to the former heterodox distinct-essence three, the present correct single-essence three is clarified? Answer: In a broader sense, this meaning also exists. But the former three of distinct essences had already destroyed the heterodox three; the present single-essence three further destroys the former distinct-essence three; hence their meanings are not the same. Question: Non-Buddhists clung to a heterodox three of distinct essences, which was cured by the correct three. Can it also be said that non-Buddhists themselves had a single-essence three, which is now cured by the correct single-essence three? Answer: We have not seen non-Buddhists cling to such a view. Even if they did, curing it would also pose no problem. Question: Does clarifying the permanently abiding single-essence three refuges now permanently abolish the distinct-essence three refuges, or are both kinds used together? Answer: Within the real, both provisional and real are contained. The single essence is the real refuge, while the distinct essences are provisional refuges. One must fully recognize them and use them according to the occasion. Within the provisional refuges, there are only provisional refuges and no real refuge. The doctrines of the ekayāna and triyāna are also analogous to this. In the former three vehicles, the essence of the ekayāna did not exist; now, the essence of the ekayāna possesses the functions of the three vehicles. Only by recognizing the three essences through function does one recognize the ekayāna. For this meaning that is not exhausted here, the Commentary on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra has already explained it. In the preceding integration of the four wisdoms there were two parts: first, clarifying the integration; second, clarifying the reason for the integration. Here there are also two parts: first, directly clarifying the integration; second, from "why is this so" downwards, clarifying the reason for the integration. Within the first text, there are again two parts: first, the Buddha as refuge is ultimate; second, from "the Dharma is the teaching of the path of the ekayāna" downwards, revealing that the two refuges of Dharma and Saṅgha have the ultimate and the non-ultimate. If the two refuges are identified with the fruit of buddhahood, they are ultimate; if not identified with the fruit of buddhahood, they are not ultimate. Now, generally raising that the three refuges have the ultimate and the non-ultimate is simply to reveal that persons of the two vehicles are a non-ultimate Saṅgha refuge. Because they are not ultimate, they take refuge in the Tathāgata and advance into the ultimate, which distantly explains and substantiates the preceding [statement that] arhats take refuge in the Buddha. In the preceding clarification of the Buddha as refuge, the text specifically has three parts: first, clarifying the virtues of the refuge; second, from "unlimited compassion, unlimited consolation" downwards, using speech to reveal the virtues; third, from "therefore" downwards, concluding by attributing the virtues to the person. In the first part, there are four phrases: the first two are virtues for oneself, and the latter two are for converting others. Within the virtues for oneself, "the Tathāgata abides without limit of time" clarifies that time has two kinds: first, limited time, such as days, months, and years; second, unlimited time, like empty space. The fruit of buddhahood is permanently abiding and transcends temporal divisions; hence it is said that the Tathāgata abides without limit of time. "The Tathāgata equal to enlightenment abides equally with the final limit" clarifies the meaning of realizing the permanent abidance of nirvāṇa. The final limit of nirvāṇa is what is attained, which is the permanence of Dharma; the Tathāgata equals it, hence it is called permanently abiding. Furthermore, "equal" means that the path of all buddhas is identical, hence it is called "abiding equally." Now I consider that birth-and-death has three limits, namely the prior limit, the middle limit, and the final limit. Since the final limit of birth-and-death is boundless, the Tathāgata abiding equally with the final limit is also boundless; hence it is said "abides equally with the final limit." Question: Why clarify these two abidings? Answer: The former clarifies the permanent abidance of the dharmakāya; the latter clarifies the permanent abidance of the response body. That the response body permanently abides means that it constantly converts sentient beings without rest; hence it is called permanently abiding. The latter explanation follows the Buddhadhātu-śāstra, which says: "If those in the world who attain the four bases of psychic power can still abide for forty minor kalpas, how much more so the Tathāgata, as the great master of psychic power—how could he be unable to abide long to convert beings?" It also says: "Because sentient beings are endless, the transformation body constantly converting beings is endless." Question: If the two abidings clarify the abidings of the two bodies, then the dharmakāya is virtue for oneself and the response body is converting others; how then can it be said that the first two phrases are virtue for oneself and the latter two are converting others? Answer: Although the former clarifies the abiding of the two bodies, it does not yet clarify the benefit; hence they are spoken of as virtue for oneself. The latter two clarify the benefit; hence they are spoken of as converting others. From "the Tathāgata's unlimited great compassion" downwards is the second [group], the virtues of converting others. "Unlimited great compassion" is the mind of converting others; "unlimited consolation" is the practice of converting others. It can also be that the former phrase is immeasurable great compassion, and unlimited consolation is immeasurable loving-kindness. The mind and the practice, the loving-kindness and the compassion, make no distinction between self and other, universally benefiting those with conditions. Moreover, objectless loving-kindness and compassion are equal, and the realm of sentient beings is equal; hence it is called unlimited. From "unlimited great compassion" downwards is the second [part], using speech to reveal the virtues. In the text there are two parts: first, with respect to the virtues of converting others, speech is used to reveal them; then, following the flow of the discourse, with respect to the virtues for oneself, speech is used to reveal them. Within the virtues of converting others, "unlimited great compassion" repeats the first phrase above. "Unlimited consolation" repeats the latter phrase above. "Those who speak thus speak well" means that words tallying with the Buddha's virtues are called speaking well. Furthermore, citing that the speaker is good reveals that what is spoken is real and not false. From "if they further speak of" downwards is the second, clarifying virtues for oneself. "The inexhaustible dharma" repeats the abiding without limit of time in the text above. "The permanently abiding dharma" repeats the abiding equally with the final limit in the text above. This reveals the virtues in terms of their marks. "That which all worlds take refuge in" means that the Buddha is endowed with the preceding virtues and serves as the destination of refuge for the world. "Is also called speaking well" reveals that the meaning regarding virtues for oneself is good just as before; hence it says "is called speaking well." From "therefore" downwards is the third, concluding by attributing the virtues to the person. It concludes by attributing them to the person solely with respect to virtues for oneself, not with respect to the virtues of converting others. "Therefore" means because the Buddha is endowed with the two kinds of virtues—inexhaustible and permanently abiding—and serves as that which all worlds take refuge in. "To the uncrossed worlds and the refugeless worlds" he serves as a refuge. The world of mortal birth-and-death is called "uncrossed." The world of inconceivable transformation is called "refugeless." From "equal to the final limit" downwards directly clarifies that the Tathāgata provides a refuge. "Equal to the final limit" means serving as a refuge for creatures to the exhaustion of the future limit. "The inexhaustible refuge" is still the preceding inexhaustible dharma. "The permanently abiding refuge" is still the permanently abiding dharma. Question: The inexhaustible refuge and the permanently abiding refuge—how do these two differ? Answer: Inexhaustible is based on the response body: because sentient beings are inexhaustible, the Buddha's appearance in the world is inexhaustible, serving as a refuge for creatures. Permanently abiding refuge is based on the dharmakāya: the dharmakāya permanently abides, and this is the true refuge. The one who possesses both refuges accordingly is the Tathāgata, the Fully Awakened One.

3.7

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.

3.8

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.

First 8 of 69 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

勝鬘寶窟 — Classical Chinese