勝鬘寶窟 3.8

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.