勝鬘寶窟 3.7

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.