大般涅槃經集解 19

English (machine translation) 19

Language: English

19.1

The Metaphor of the Single-Flavored Medicine of the Snow Mountains; Explaining that the Buddhadhātu is Within the Five Aggregates Without Being Lost or Destroyed; Explaining that the Vaipulya Sūtras Are Like Nectar and Poison; Broadly Discussing the Three Kinds of Threefold Refuge: First, the Gradual Stages; Second, the Single Substance; Third, the Future Buddhadhātu of One's Own Body.

19.2

Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata, Part Two

19.3

"Furthermore, good son! It is, for example, like the Snow Mountains.

19.4

Daosheng comments: If one does not follow what the Buddha preached but speculates, it turns around to reinforce one's delusion instead. Sengliang comments: Above, the eleven objections were answered in general, but the meaning that the buddhadhātu is indestructible has not yet been clarified. Furthermore, the previous metaphor said that the jewel sank into the body, as if the buddhadhātu could be destroyed; now, using this metaphor, it clarifies the reason for the loss of understanding, showing that the buddhadhātu cannot be destroyed. The Snow Mountains compare to the body of the five aggregates. Fayao comments: It compares to sentient beings. Sengzong comments: The previous metaphor clarified that generating delusion goes against the principle, so that its function cannot be manifested. This metaphor clarifies that if one wishes to obtain it, having the right method one will attain it, but departing from the method one will lose it. From 'the Snow Mountains compare to the vajra' below, it refers to the spiritual consciousness of the causal stage.

19.5

"There is a single-flavored medicine called the Medicinal Flavor, whose flavor is extremely sweet.

19.6

Sengliang comments: The medicine compares to the buddhadhātu; sweet compares to permanence and bliss. Sengzong comments: Seeing the buddhadhātu cures the sickness of birth and death, which is compared to the medicine. As for 'flavor of bliss,' the substance of flavor is not bliss, but it can generate bliss in people; the buddhadhātu is not bliss, but one who accords with it transcends suffering, hence it is compared to the flavor of bliss. As for 'extremely sweet,' sweet flavor is craved by people; the principle of the buddhadhātu is relished by conscious beings, so it is compared to sweet flavor. Zhixiu comments: 'Single flavor' means that the principle of the buddhadhātu has no difference between arising and ceasing.

19.7

"Beneath dense thickets, no one can see it.

19.8

Sengliang comments: Those of the ninth stage and below cannot see it. Fayao comments: Because it is covered by defilements, although there is the buddhadhātu, sentient beings do not see it. Sengzong comments: Lacking the wisdom eye of the tenth bhūmi, they are therefore unable to see it.

19.9

"There was a person who, smelling its fragrance, immediately knew that there must be this medicine in that place.

19.10

Daosheng comments: When bodhisattvas teach the doctrine of non-self to signify the Tathāgata's true self, this is compared to smelling the fragrance. Sengliang comments: This compares to bodhisattvas of the tenth bhūmi who, having heard what the Buddha taught, can see a slight portion, clarifying that the nature and principle are profound and distant. Fayao comments: When practitioners hear it taught, they know that beneath defilements there is the buddhadhātu. Sengzong comments: 'Someone' refers to obtaining understanding from the wisdom born of hearing. Although they lack the wisdom eye of the tenth bhūmi to see it, nevertheless by having faith in the teaching and generating understanding, they certainly know it exists. Zhixiu comments: This compares to past Buddhas who initially had subtle knowledge, like smelling the fragrance and knowing there must be the medicine, and were ultimately able to practice and achieve the Buddha-fruit.

19.11

"In a past age there was a wheel-turning king [...] who fashioned wooden conduits to receive this medicine.

19.12

Daosheng comments: When the Buddhas of antiquity spoke of the dharma of non-self, the principle of non-self was like those wooden conduits, having an outside but no inside. Sengliang comments: The king compares to the Buddha; only the Buddha can see it and speak of it. The conduits compare to the complete teaching. Fayao comments: It clarifies that the past Buddhas' teachings were multiple, all signifying the nature, like fashioning wooden conduits to receive the medicine. Sengzong comments: 'King' generally compares to previous Buddhas; if taken specifically, it refers to Kāśyapa Buddha. The king wished to seek the medicine in the mountains, so he fashioned conduits in every place to receive it. This compares to the World-Honoured Kāśyapa, in his days as an ordinary person, fully cultivating the myriad practices to seek the Buddha-fruit. Baoliang comments: The mountain compares to the five aggregates; the conduits compare to the scriptural teachings. 'Every place' compares to the twelve divisions of the canon. It clarifies that previous Buddhas wished to attain the nature of permanent self within sentient beings' five aggregates, so they taught the twelve divisions of scriptures. Although they taught impermanence, it was all to attain the principle of the Middle Way of permanence, hence it says 'to receive this medicine.' Zhixiu comments: The myriad practices are like conduits. Since practices arise from the body, this is compared to fashioning them in every place.

19.13

"When this medicine ripened,

19.14

Sengliang comments: Hearing the teaching and grasping the understanding without error illustrates the jewel between the eyebrows. Fayao comments: When the buddhadhātu is due to circulate, its manifestation is called 'ripening.' Sengzong comments: The power of causes is fulfilled, like the medicine ripening. Baoliang comments: This refers to the time of attaining Buddhahood.

19.15

"it flowed forth from the ground

19.16

Fayao comments: Because the nature becomes manifest, it emerges beyond defilements. Sengzong comments: The cause fulfilled and the fruit manifested, it is illuminated by the Buddha eye. Baoliang comments: The principle of cause and fruit does not lie outside the body, making clear that it is present within the five aggregates.

19.17

"and gathered into the wooden conduits,

19.18

Daosheng comments: When the principle of permanent self responds to the myriad practices, its essential flavor is entirely within the scriptural texts. Fayao comments: When the essential flavor of the buddhadhātu principle is fully present in the scriptural teachings, it is 'gathering.' Sengzong comments: The fruit coming to respond to the cause is 'gathering.' Baoliang comments: It is manifested within the scriptural teachings.

19.19

"and its flavor was pure and true.

19.20

Sengzong comments: The principle of the buddhadhātu does not share the same substance with false things. Baoliang comments: The eternal principle being expressed by the complete teaching is 'pure and true.'

19.21

"After the king died, this medicine subsequently [...] in accordance with the places to which it flowed, had various differences.

19.22

Daosheng comments: After the Buddha's nirvāṇa, people investigated the scriptural teachings and clung biasedly to their meanings; regarding the principle of single flavor, it produced differences according to their discourses. When their grasping of meaning was biased, the bodies they received were distinct. Sengliang comments: Their grasp of understanding was not pure; when the Buddha passed away and the Dharma receded, people generated divergent understandings, gave rise to various views, and received differing fruits, which illustrates the suffering of losing understanding. Fayao comments: After the Buddha's nirvāṇa, each teacher held biased views, and therefore they explained the buddhadhātu in various different ways. In accordance with their biased clinging, the bodies they received were distinct, just as the places to which the medicine flowed had various differences. Sengzong comments: The principle of the buddhadhātu is one, but because people's attachments differed, there came to be ninety-five kinds [of wrong views]. Having created heterodox causes, they received the four evil fruits, like the various flavors.

19.23

"The true flavor of this medicine remained in the mountains, just like the full moon.

19.24

Daosheng comments: It is not that because their taking it was biased, the correct principle was destroyed; nor is it that because the bodies they received were distinct, the true self was severed.

19.25

"Ordinary people of scant merit, though they applied labor and endured extreme hardship in digging and cutting, were unable to obtain it.

19.26

Sengliang states: Though disparate views arise, they cannot destroy the truth. The noble is severed from the ordinary, and only when the eternal is revealed is the meaning of non-destruction realised. Fayao states: Although views follow different paths, they do not alter the buddhadhātu; though embodied forms differ, the buddhadhātu does not change. Ordinary people cling to biased views: even if they exhaust their thoughts, in the end they can never see the true principle. Sengzong states: It is because it is not mixed with falsehood that it is the true nature. It is necessarily in man and cannot shift, just as [a river] halts. Round and bright without bias, in function it is like the moon. The reason ordinary people of meagre merit cannot obtain it is that they lack the wisdom to cultivate themselves: though they apply rigorous austerities—such as observing the bovine vow, starving themselves, and the like—they depart ever farther from the principle. If they subdue desire and attain the samādhi of non-ideation or that of neither ideation nor non-ideation, holding these to be nirvāṇa, they likewise deviate from the proper method. Hence it is said: though they apply further austerities, they cannot see it. The Six-Fascicle version says 'the tube of reason is not deep', which means they do not give rise to the uncontaminated.

19.27

"Then a sage king appears in the world, and by the causes and conditions of merit he straightway obtains the true and genuine taste of this medicine.

19.28

Sengliang states: This corroborates anew the purport of non-destruction. Sengzong states: This refers to Śākyamuni. It means that after the previous Buddha passed into extinction, he who acquired it by the proper method obtained it. But sentient beings of meagre merit seek it by contrary arts: it is simply a matter of adhering or not adhering [to the way]; this principle is ever so. Baoliang states: When a subsequent Buddha appears in the world, he straightway obtains such understanding of the Middle Way.

19.29

"Good son! The flavor of the Tathāgata's secret treasury is also like this [...] sentient beings in ignorance cannot see it.

19.30

Sengliang states: This matches the first simile. Sengzong states: This matches 'beneath the dense thicket, none can see it'.

19.31

"The medicine of a single taste is an analogy for the buddhadhātu [...] kṣatriyas, brāhmaṇas, vaiśyas, and śūdras.

19.32

Sengliang states: This matches the second simile. Sengzong states: This matches the diverse tastes.

19.33

"The buddhadhātu is valiant and fierce, difficult to destroy [...] all are incapable of destroying or incinerating it.

19.34

Sengliang states: This matches the third simile. Sengzong states: These words are directed specifically to the eleventh objection. The objection argued that when the body is severed, the self is likewise severed. The matched answer states: it is said to exist only because it is not apart from the consciousness at the causal stage; how could one demand that it be identical with the aggregates? If the branch-aggregates perish, the self would be severed. Baoliang states: This clarifies the nature of the primary cause. Its substance and nature cannot be altered, so none can kill or harm it. The flesh and blood of saṃsāra are evoked by partial causes and can be injured; the nature of the primary cause is natural and spontaneous, not produced by causes, and is therefore indestructible.

19.35

"Although it cannot be destroyed, yet it cannot be seen [...] by these causes and conditions, none can kill it.

19.36

Zhixiu states: This summarizes the above.

19.37

Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha once more: [...] there should be no unwholesome karma.

19.38

Sengliang states: Following the momentum of the preceding words, there arises this question. If the nature cannot be killed, it seems that killing living beings would incur no sin. Sengzong states: The intention of this objection is to prompt an explanation that it is spoken of as existing merely because it is not separate [from the aggregates], not that an already existent entity is identical with the aggregates.

19.39

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: 'There is indeed the killing of living beings [...] distinctive characteristics transmute through saṃsāra.

19.40

Daosheng states: Though the five aggregates are destroyed, there is no harm to the buddhadhātu. Because the five aggregates are injured, it is called killing living beings; one cannot, because the buddhadhātu is unharmed, say there is no unwholesome karma. Sengliang states: Because the cause is not apart from the fruit, it is said to 'dwell'. The continuity of the five aggregates may be deva or human; the aggregates of humans and devas differ, dying here and being born there, and so they can be destroyed. Both seek bliss and purity, and these two do not differ, so they cannot be destroyed; the Buddha used milk and poison as an analogy. Sengzong states: This explains why, though there is killing of living beings, the buddhadhātu is unharmed. Why so? The way of cause and fruit is indeed interconnected in principle: where there is a cause, there is a fruit; where there is no cause, there is no fruit. Precisely because the buddhadhātu is not apart from the consciousness at the causal stage, it is said to dwell within the aggregates. How could one demand that an already existing entity be identical with the aggregates and thus immune to injury? The reason the sin of killing exists is that the five aggregates are conditioned, continuous dharmas: through force serving as the condition for severing them, all four causes and conditions are present, and so the sin of killing exists; the sin arises from the side of severing the aggregates. One cannot say that because the aggregates are severed, the nature is also injured along with them; nor, because the nature is eternal, that the aggregates cannot be destroyed. The Record of Jingyi states: 'Dwelling in the five aggregates' means that based on this body, one cultivates the wholesome roots of contributory causes. The consciousness serves as the primary cause, possessing the sense of generating [results]. If one now severs this continuity, the function of sustaining life is terminated; if terminated, the realization of the fruit is deferred. Now, speaking of the fruit from within the cause, it is said to 'dwell'. Because severing the continuity of the five aggregates blocks the arising of good, one incurs the sin of killing; it is not simply because one severs the physical form that the sin of killing is constituted. Therefore, making offerings to an icchantika yields no merit, and killing one incurs no sin. That one is said to incur sin is simply because of an evil mind, not because of blocking the aggregates. Baoliang states: If one speaks of the impermanent, illusory retributions, how could dying here and being born there incur sin? Now, the conditions for incurring sin have a distinct reason. If there is no evil mind and no injury to the field [of merit], there is no sin at all. Below it says: 'If killing an ant still incurs sinful retribution, killing an icchantika incurs no sin'; this makes clear that incurring the sin of killing stems, first, from an evil mind, and second, from injuring the field. The wholesome roots of that person should arise in succession; because one severs their life, they cannot arise consecutively, which is why one incurs sin, not merely because severing life invites calamity. 'The buddhadhātu dwells in the five aggregates' refers to the contributory-cause buddhadhātu. Practicing the Way and attaining sagehood depends on this body of aggregates; once one has severed that life, wholesome roots cannot arise. When one wishes to discuss the correspondence between sin and merit, one discusses it in terms of this principle.

19.41

"Non-noble persons falsely grasp at a self [...] the characteristic of false conceptualization has no reality.

19.42

Sengliang states: The false view of ordinary people is the cause of the five aggregates; because the cause is empty and the fruit is illusory, they can be destroyed.

19.43

"The supramundane characteristic of the self is named the buddhadhātu. To grasp at the self in this way is termed the most wholesome.

19.44

Daosheng states: Though one receives bodies of myriad varieties, the buddhadhātu remains eternal. If one can grasp it and attain it in this way, it is truly wholesome. Sengliang states: The Buddha arises from the nature; the principle of the nature is unchanging; because the cause is real, the fruit is genuine, and so it cannot be destroyed.

19.45

"Furthermore, good son! Suppose a person knows well where a hidden treasure lies.

19.46

Daosheng states: This is an analogy for falsely grasping at a self: thinking oneself to know it well. Baoliang states: The bodhisattva knows that this consummate principle is concealed beneath all defilements, like a hidden treasure.

19.47

"He immediately takes a sharp hoe,

19.48

Daosheng states: Breaking apart the aggregates with deviant wisdom. Sengzong states: This refers to the power of wisdom. Baoliang states: Cultivating the myriad practices.

19.49

"and digs straight down into the earth.

19.50

Sengliang states: The bodhisattva severs afflictions through the power of wisdom. Baoliang states: Contemplating the five aggregates.

19.51

"Passing through boulders, sand, and gravel straight through without difficulty,

19.52

Sengzong states: The aggregate fruits received are all eliminated by wisdom. Baoliang states: This refers to severing afflictions.

19.53

"only when he reaches diamond can he not pierce through it; as for diamond, no knives or axes can break it.

19.54

Daosheng states: The buddhadhātu cannot be pierced or excavated by deviant views. Sengzong states: An analogy for the buddhadhātu.

19.55

"Good son! Sentient beings' buddhadhātu is likewise like this [...] this is inconceivable.

19.56

Sengzong states: This analogy clarifies that the buddhadhātu cannot be destroyed.

19.57

"Good son! The vaipulya sūtras are like ambrosia, and also like poison.

19.58

Daosheng states: Although the sūtra teachings awaken beings, it requires those who follow them to be awakened; therefore, to the awakened they are ambrosia, and to those who deviate from them they are poison.

19.59

Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha once more: [...] like ambrosia and also like poison.

19.60

Sengliang states: He requests that its meaning be broadened.

19.61

The Buddha said: 'Good son! Do you now wish to know the true meaning of the Tathāgata's secret treasury or not?'

19.62

Sengliang states: Addressing Kāśyapa serves to admonish the assembly.

19.63

Kāśyapa said: 'I truly wish now to know the meaning of the Tathāgata's secret treasury.'

19.64

Sengliang states: Having explained that the self is the buddhadhātu and that one's own body possesses it, one ought to take refuge in the Three Jewels within one's own body, whereby one is certain to attain the eternal bliss that constitutes wholesome karma. Sengzong states: This is the second section. Mutually generating, it clarifies that the nature exists and is eternal; if one deviates, it remains concealed. Lingering long in saṃsāra without deviating, it is revealed, ascending forever to eternal bliss. This, then, is that from which faith arises, and the matter lies in this sūtra. If one wishes to seek the expression in order to enter the principle, how could one not produce deep faith in the permanently abiding vaipulya? The preceding proclamation of wholesome karma had already planted the sprout; now, encouraging deep faith enhances the previous understanding. Baoliang states: This is the second section, encouraging faith in the Three Refuges of a single substance. It is further divided into ten chapters: First, being about to explain the Three Refuges, he first encourages empty dissolution: if one clings, one deviates from the characteristics of dharmas. Second, clarifying that if one studies following the teachings of the four periods and comes to hear what is now explained, one becomes a person free of attachment. Third, being about to explain this principle, he encourages and exhorts the assembly of the time that they should emulate this person in applying their minds. Fourth, directly explaining the Three Refuges. Fifth, clarifying that the assembly of the time could not immediately believe in this ultimate teaching of the principle, so Kāśyapa asks again. Sixth, the Buddha again explains such distinctive characteristics of the Three Refuges. Seventh, Kāśyapa understands the future Three Refuges of a single substance. Eighth, again exhorting practitioners to inspire great aspiration in the assembly of the time. Ninth, Kāśyapa himself exhorts practitioners to set out on the path. Tenth, the Buddha praises and confirms the principle that was explained. Ambrosia is an analogy for the principle of permanent abiding: if one relates to it with an empty mind of neither existence nor non-existence, it becomes ambrosia; if one holds firmly to existence, this is annihilation or permanence, which fails to match the Middle Way, and thus becomes poison to this person. There are four turns here: First, the Buddha proclaims this purport. Second, Kāśyapa seeks an explanation. Third, the Buddha asks again whether he truly wishes to hear. Fourth, Kāśyapa repeats his request. Zhixiu states: This is the second section. Above, it was clarified that the buddhadhātu is the self; since this is not non-existent, wholesome karma can be granted, and the beginning of granting good is none other than taking refuge in faith, so this chapter first encourages taking refuge in the permanently abiding Three Jewels of one's own body. It is divided into seven chapters: First, evaluating the sūtra in terms of persons. Second, directly encouraging reliance on the Tathāgatagarbha of one's own body. Third, explaining their lack of understanding and requesting a re-explanation. Fourth, the Buddha explains it extensively to satisfy the intention of his request. Fifth, Kāśyapa understands, thereby establishing the dual refuges. Sixth, the Buddha sets forth his present understanding and admonishes his previous errors. Seventh, Kāśyapa sets out on the path to dispel doubt, concluding with neither arising nor dying.

19.65

Then the World-Honoured One spoke in verse: [...] or there are those who take ambrosia and their life lasts long.

19.66

Sengliang comments: This explains that practice is unfruitful when it is not the right time. For example, formerly in the Deer Park, when Koṇḍiñña heard it, he instead intensified eternalist views and cut short his wisdom-life; practicing it today, one attains the dharmakāya. Fayao says: This verse explains that when equally investigating the scriptures of permanence, if one grasps their purport, one's life is long; if one loses their purport, one meets an early death. Sengzong says: If one practices with faith relying on the teaching, one attains deathlessness, like that amṛta; if one goes against it and loses the purport, it becomes a poison. The teachers' expositions differ, and their interpretations are also distinct. There is an interpretation that says: the nature of the perfect teaching itself is poison. This, however, is not correct. Not only is the meaning of exhorting faith lost, but there is also the fault of disparaging the sūtra. Here, an external metaphor is first cited to make clear that the nature of the sūtra is not poison. Like amṛta in the world, it is originally not a poisonous medicine; it is merely because a person cannot digest it that it is figuratively called a poison. It intends to make clear that regarding the perfect teaching, for one who holds inverted understandings it causes injury, premature death, and loss, but this is not [the fault of] the sūtra. Zhixiu says: Intending to reveal the principle, he first evaluates the text of the sūtra with respect to the foolish and the wise. The first one and a half stanzas first point out the persons who take and practice it, whether they are capable or incapable. The next stanza reveals the substance of the medicine. The next four stanzas bring up the metaphor again, explaining that although the medicine is one, there are two different [outcomes]; it is precisely because of being received by the two persons—the foolish and the wise—that it has the sense of becoming either a poison or a medicine. When only 'amṛta' is spoken of, its purport is not yet known; the next stanza directly explains its meaning, clarifying the purport that it causes one to become a Buddha and attain ultimate, everlasting deathlessness. Huidan says: Intending to exhort people to see the nature so as to accomplish good karma, he therefore first clarifies the purport of the sūtra. Why? The meaning of permanence puts an everlasting end to birth and death, just like amṛta. Because it harms those four grades of confused people who slander the Dharma, it is figuratively like a poison. If one can deeply understand both meanings, then the practice of the three refuges is accomplished, like taking amṛta and living long, or drinking poison and not dying; if one does not understand, the three refuges are not accomplished, like taking both medicines and meeting one's end.

19.67

"Some take poison and live; / some, due to conditions, take poison and die."

19.68

Sengliang comments: This is a metaphor for the impermanent Three Jewels. In former days, taking refuge in these yielded wisdom-life. If one takes refuge in them today, one slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, and wisdom-life is severed. This verse explains that when equally investigating the teachings of impermanence, if one grasps the purport, wisdom-life is born; if one loses the purport, wisdom-life is severed. Another interpretation says: The Great Vehicle's scriptures of permanence are amṛta to the wise and poison to the foolish. The foolish take the wise person's amṛta and die prematurely; the wise take the foolish person's poison and live long. Sengzong says: Previously, a metaphor was cited to explain the perfect teaching; now, the metaphor of poison is cited to reveal the partial teaching. It intends to clarify that the nature of the teaching is non-definitive: it gives rise to people's inverted views, so its sense as poison is clear. To be sure, one may rely on the sūtras to sever fetters, which is a separate function; what is spoken of as poison does not lie in that. Baoliang says: This further reveals the meaning of whether the Vaipulya becomes a poison or not. There are four grades of persons, meaning two teachers each instructing two disciples. How so? 'Some take amṛta and harm their lives': this is the first person who, although inquiring into and receiving the Dharma of a good teacher, cannot forget attachments to grasp the purport; for this person, it becomes a poison. 'Some take amṛta and obtain long life': this is the second person who accords with what the teacher taught and grasps the purport, so it becomes amṛta. 'Some take poison and live': this is the third person who, although studying under an unwholesome teacher who clings to characteristics, is able to attain an open understanding that accords with the principle; thus, though it is poison, they do not die. 'Some, due to conditions, take poison and die': this is the fourth person who has already studied under an unwholesome teacher and furthermore does not forget attachments, taking things strictly according to the words; therefore it is said that they take poison and die.

19.69

"The amṛta of unhindered wisdom / is the so-called Great Vehicle scriptures; / such Great Vehicle scriptures / are also called blended poison."

19.70

Sengzong comments: Previously, the metaphor was cited; here, the metaphor is applied. 'Also called poisonous medicine' means that when a person cannot digest it, it also has the sense of a poison. For those capable of taking and practicing it, their mindfulness arises from faith; thus the exhortation to faith is clear. Zhixiu says: This reveals the substance of the medicine.

19.71

"Just as butter, ghee, and the like, / as well as rock honey, […] / if taken, it becomes a poison."

19.72

Sengzong comments: Previously, amṛta was cited, and its purport was briefly revealed. Here, fine metaphors are cited again to show that it is not poison. Below, the two persons—the foolish and the wise—are explained, and the meaning becomes immediately clear. Baoliang says: For those who recognize amṛta, before long the metaphor of the five flavors is cited again. Zhixiu says: The four stanzas below represent the third intent: citing the metaphor again reveals that the substance of the medicine is one, but becomes two according to whether one is foolish or wise.

19.73

"For śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, / the Great Vehicle is amṛta, […] / becoming an elephant king among men."

19.74

Sengliang comments: Now that the false self has been severed, one should know that the true self is amṛta. Sengzong says: Previously, the foolish and the wise were cited without specific distinction, so a differentiation must be made. Now it is said that if the noble ones of the two vehicles hear the perfect teaching, they will certainly be able to take and practice it; for such persons, it is amṛta. Therefore, we know that if ordinary persons cannot have faith and practice it, it is all poison to them. Baoliang says: The second section identifies the persons for whom it becomes amṛta. It explains that when those of the former three vehicles now hear the teaching of the single-essence three refuges, it entirely functions as amṛta for them. 'Thus exhorted to advance' clarifies that one who cultivates practice relying on the Great Vehicle becomes an elephant king among men.

19.75

"Sentient beings who know the buddhadhātu, / just like Kāśyapa and others, / [taste] the unexcelled flavor of amṛta, / neither born nor dying."

19.76

Sengliang comments: This explains the fulfillment of amṛta. Using what Kāśyapa knows as a model for sentient beings, he adduces what is known, which is precisely neither being born nor dying. Baoliang says: The third section provides warning and exhortation. It explains that Kāśyapa already knows, and if sentient beings can be like Kāśyapa, they will certainly attain the fruit of neither being born nor dying. Zhixiu says: The fourth section explains the meaning. It clarifies that the reason it causes people to become Buddhas is that it brings an ultimate end through neither being born nor dying.

19.77

"Kāśyapa! You should now skillfully distinguish the three refuges; / such a nature of the three refuges / is precisely the nature of myself."

19.78

Sengliang comments: Being autonomous is the meaning of 'self'. Awakening by oneself without a teacher is the meaning of 'enlightenment' (Buddha). Being without non-dharma is the meaning of 'Dharma'. The harmonious union of all phenomena is the meaning of 'Saṅgha'. These four are identical in substance but different in name. Sengzong says: This is the third section. Although he previously exhorted faith, it is essential to give the mind a resting place; therefore, he exhorts them to make distinctions, skillfully recognizing the true and the false, abandoning the former false three and relying on the present true one. This is the essential path for anchoring the mind without error and setting out directly toward the goal. Within this discussion of the three refuges, there are five distinct sections. First, in three and a half stanzas, he directly exhorts them at the outset to take refuge in the true Three Jewels. Second, in ten stanzas, Kāśyapa harbors doubts and does not yet accept the present teaching. Third, in four and a half stanzas, he further explains and resolves them, washing away those two doubts. Fourth, in four stanzas, Kāśyapa clings again. Previously, he had three doubts stuck in existence and non-existence, but upon hearing the explanation they were washed away; now, having not yet resolved the true and the false, he wishes to take refuge in both. Fifth, in the prose section, he further explains the intent of the ladder and steps, and the purport of the provisional and real. 'Skillfully distinguish' means distinguishing the former refuge as provisional and the present refuge as real. 'Precisely the nature of myself' means that one does not need to abandon one's own body to take refuge in that external Buddha. Baoliang says: The three and a half stanzas below directly clarify the characteristics of the three refuges. At the outset, he has them temporarily abandon the former three refuges as well as Śākyamuni's single-essence three refuges, and solely exhorts them to take refuge in the single-essence Three Jewels within their own future bodies. If this intention is once established, all three kinds of three refuges are completely fulfilled. 'Skillfully distinguish': both the Three Jewels of distinct characteristics and the present Śākyamuni's single-essence three refuges do not avoid fault. How so? Taking the sixteen-foot [manifestation] as the Buddha, the twelve divisions of the canon as the Dharma, and the noble assembly of the three vehicles as the Saṅgha, then forms manifested by Māra, false teachings spoken [by Māra], and those who practice Māra's teachings could also be taken as refuges; since all these are grasped within physical form, how could they avoid confusion? If one takes Śākyamuni's single-essence three refuges, they also do not avoid fault. How so? Taking the sixteen-foot body as the trace and the dharmakāya as the root, grasping the trace with reference to the root seems slightly superior. Yet, as both are physical forms, Māra can also [manifest] thus; how could it be avoided? The two jewels of Dharma and Saṅgha are also like this. Only taking refuge in the single-essence Three Jewels of one's own future body is without error; not only does it avoid fault, but it also accomplishes three kinds of virtues. First, recognizing the defects of the three refuges taught in the previous two periods, one verifies that taking refuge in the future is correct. Since the mind has a secure place, how could one fear Māra coming to disrupt one's correct understanding? Second, having correct wisdom, the mind's application is vast, clearly understanding that the true single-essence three refuges after the vajra-mind must be one's own treasure, and that all sentient beings possessing consciousness share the same principle with oneself; regardless of whether their attainment of Buddhahood is near or far, all can be relied upon. Third, having determined that this treasure definitely belongs to oneself, one clearly perceives cause and effect without the delusion of the eight inversions. Why? This person naturally recognizes that the Buddha-stage is permanent and birth-and-death is impermanent; what practice would they not establish? When the three minds are established and the three faults are removed, the intent in exhorting people to distinguish the three refuges lies precisely here.

19.79

"If one can closely observe that / my nature possesses the buddhadhātu, / you should know that such a person / is able to enter the secret treasury."

19.80

Sengzong comments: The principle of the nature is not different; it is distinguished only by being hidden or revealed. If one abandons the self to take refuge in that external [Buddha], this is discarding the root to follow the branches, and is not called true refuge; therefore, he exhorts them to deeply recognize the arising of the future fruit in their own bodies. Once this recognition is exact, there is neither stagnation regarding the initial undertaking nor delusion regarding the final accomplishment. Baoliang says: 'My nature' is the causal nature. 'Possesses the buddhadhātu' refers to the fruition nature. One who certainly has such an understanding definitively enters the secret treasury.

19.81

"One who knows the self and what belongs to the self / is a person who has already transcended the world; […] / the meaning of their nature is like this."

19.82

Sengliang comments: Having taken refuge in the Three Jewels within one's future body, advancing practice toward the ultimate is called 'knowing the self'. 'What belongs to the self' means the Dharma and Saṅgha. These four are one in substance but different in meaning. The Buddha and the self are one in meaning but distinct in name. Baoliang says: 'Knowing the self' is my future nature. 'What belongs to the self' refers to the practices of the ten stages, which are what I ought to practice. If one can know in this way, one is already a person who has transcended the world.

19.83

At that time, Kāśyapa spoke another verse: / "I now do not know at all / the place to take refuge in the Three Jewels."

19.84

Sengliang comments: Having abandoned the sequential three refuges, he wishes to take refuge in the future Three Jewels. But the future has no omen, so he does not know what to take refuge in. Fayao says: Since the Three Jewels have both the true and the false, he now wishes to take refuge in them to perform good karma, but simply does not know the location of the true ones. Sengzong says: Formerly he exhorted taking refuge in the distinct, whereas now he exhorts taking refuge in the identical; since the two teachings contradict each other, how can faith be placed? Therefore he says he does not know the place to take refuge. Baoliang says: Below is the fifth section. When the assembly heard the above explanation, their minds were not yet enlightened; therefore, Kāśyapa at the outset refuses to accept any of it. Why? Regarding the Three Jewels of distinct substance in which we formerly took refuge, the Buddha has already forbidden them; next, regarding taking refuge in Śākyamuni's single-essence Three Jewels, it was also said that they do not avoid faults. Moreover, Śākyamuni's single-essence three refuges exist without characteristics; when sentient beings hear of non-existence, they cling to annihilation, and when they hear of existence, they cling to permanence; therefore, it is difficult to establish. Now he again has them abandon [these] to take refuge in the single-essence Three Jewels of my future, yet the future has no characteristics at all; how can one establish the mind and take refuge?

19.85

"How should I take refuge / in the unexcelled and fearless [state]?"

19.86

Sengliang comments: This immediately identifies the Three Jewels. Baoliang says: The question means: How does one take refuge in the Three Jewels to reach the unexcelled, fearless ground?

19.87

"Not knowing the place of the Three Jewels, / how can I realize selflessness?"

19.88

Sengliang states: If there is a true self in the future, then one who contemplates the three realms as non-self can indeed take refuge. But if one cannot know the future self and yet contemplates non-self, what is there to take refuge in? Fayao states: The Three Jewels are the aforementioned self. Non-self is the aforementioned 'what belongs to the self' (mama/ātmiya). 'What belongs to the self' is wholesome karma. When cultivating goodness to seek permanence, one must recognize the true self and the Three Jewels in order to cultivate its karma; then permanence can be attained and accomplished. If one does not know this, naturally one will not attain the goodness practiced. Thus it says: 'How can one practice non-self?' Sengzong states: If one already does not know where the real Three Jewels reside, how can one cultivate non-self, urging the practice of revulsion toward saṃsāra and arousing it? Jingyi ji states: Since one does not know the true Three Jewels, how could the previous teachings have urged one to cultivate the contemplation of non-self? Baoliang states: Since one does not know how to take refuge in the Three Jewels, how could one practice the contemplation of non-self and cultivate?

19.89

"How does one who takes refuge in the Buddha obtain consolation [...] in turn obtaining the unsurpassed benefit?"

19.90

Sengliang states: The Buddha can eliminate fear; thus it speaks of 'consolation'. The Dharma can cut off doubts; thus it speaks of 'sovereignty'. The Saṅgha is the field of merit; thus it speaks of 'unsurpassed benefit'. Assigning them according to their meanings, the preceding was general and this is specific. Fayao states: The previous [lines] inquired into the place of the Three Jewels; now he asks about the meaning of taking refuge. Taking refuge in the Buddha yields consolation, taking refuge in the Dharma yields sovereignty, and taking refuge in the Saṅgha yields unsurpassed benefit—each mentions one aspect. Yet taking refuge in the Three Jewels possesses all of these meanings. Sengzong states: These two verses represent doubt regarding the real and the provisional. 'How does one who takes refuge in the Buddha [obtain consolation]' asks: is taking refuge as taught in the past superior, or is taking refuge as taught today superior? 'How does one obtain sovereignty' means: in the past, one was told to take refuge in the Dharma, which had the four impermanences—that is not sovereignty; today, it is said that taking refuge in the Dharma possesses the eight sovereignties. Which teaching is true? As for 'taking refuge in the Saṅgha yielding unsurpassed benefit': in the past, taking refuge in the Saṅgha meant relying on persons who practice the Dharma; today's Saṅgha takes the meaning of the myriad virtues being non-contrary. Decisively, which Saṅgha is to be relied upon to transform my wholesome karma and attain the unsurpassed benefit? Baoliang states: 'How does one who takes refuge in the Buddha' refers to the method of taking refuge. Taking refuge in the Dharma and taking refuge in the Saṅgha are also like this.

19.91

"How is it truthfully spoken / that in the future one will accomplish the Buddha path? / If in the future it is not accomplished, / how can one take refuge in the Three Jewels?"

19.92

Sengliang states: If the Buddha's words are truthful, now we may faithfully trust that in the future we will accomplish Buddhahood. However, a cause produces its fruit: fully bound ordinary persons do not yet possess that cause, and in the future they will certainly not immediately accomplish it; how then can they take refuge in the future Three Jewels? Fayao states: The three and a half verses below explain that the cause-stage also has the meaning of the three refuges. If one knows that within one's body there is the meaning of the three refuges, and takes refuge to cultivate goodness, that is identical to the three refuges of the fruit-stage. Guiding sentient beings by this, encouraging them to cultivate goodness, and the meaning of performing wholesome karma—the meaning lies in this. Sengzong states: The six and a half verses below express doubt about existence and non-existence. The Buddha previously urged me to take refuge in the future buddhadhātu of my own person because the nature exists. But the event is not yet within me, and the prior omens are difficult to know. Considering what the Buddha just said: is it true, or is it not true? 'If in the future it is not accomplished' means: although it is said one will become a Buddha, in principle it may not necessarily be so; if it should happen that it is not accomplished, then the intention to take refuge would be aroused in vain. Baoliang states: 'How is it truthfully spoken' means desiring that the Buddha truthfully explain the characteristics of my future accomplishment of the Three Jewels. 'If in the future it is not accomplished' means: if the mind taking refuge in the future accomplishment of Buddhahood is not established, how can it be called taking refuge in the Three Jewels?

19.93

"I now have no foreknowledge, / and must practice relying on them in sequence."

19.94

Sengzong states: Because it is not yet realized in me, it is difficult to know beforehand; it does not match returning to the former teaching and relying on them in sequence. Baoliang states: This explains that the future Three Jewels are difficult to know in advance; now one should strictly rely on the holy teachings, and taking all that the Buddha has spoken, take refuge in sequence.

19.95

"How can one who is not yet pregnant / think of giving birth to a son? [...] / Sentient beings' karma is also like this."

19.96

Sengliang states: To calculate a fruit without a cause—the matter is just like this. Sengzong states: Only when a child is in the womb is it called pregnancy, and the final term is inevitably in ten months. If one attains the undefiled state of the ten stages, that may be compared to pregnancy. Now, drifting ordinary persons are distant from the fruit; without faithful goodness, to speak of having the fruit is identical to thinking of giving birth to a son when not pregnant at all. Baoliang states: The three verses below use metaphors to conclude the difficulty of taking the future three refuges. The remaining two verses further request the exposition of the true refuge.

19.97

"As the Buddha has spoken, / foolish people cannot know [...] / the secret treasure-store."

19.98

Sengliang states: If one takes refuge without knowing, taking refuge is not accomplished; therefore, one remains long in saṃsāra. A nominal upāsaka: since the three refuges are not accomplished, how could he be genuine? Zhixiu states: The ten verses above form the third section, clarifying that the purport of the Three Jewels of today and past is profound and difficult to understand. Kāśyapa presents his confusion, therefore expressing his lack of comprehension and requesting the Buddha to explain it again. First, there are three and a half verses expressing that he is presently confused about both teachings, meaning that the practice of non-self contemplation cannot be completed. There are two points: first, one and a half verses directly state the lack of knowledge of the characteristics of taking refuge and the failure of the non-self contemplation; next, two verses cite the previous partial teaching to cross-examine, saying: if what is spoken now is correct, why did you speak in that way in the past? Second, there are five verses examining the Buddha's truthful exposition, using it to assist the future Buddha. There are two points: first, half a verse directly inquires into the characteristics of the truthful exposition, fearing the Buddha might not immediately reveal it, using this to move the Buddha's intention; next, four and a half verses present four faults to compel the Buddha to show its characteristics. Regarding the four faults: first, one verse clarifies that if one does not verify the Buddha's words, there is the fault of having no future refuge to rely on; the first half clarifies that if one does not verify the Buddha's words, the future Buddha is not accomplished, and how could there be Three Jewels to take refuge in? Since there is no future Buddha to take refuge in, the lower half concludes: having no future Buddha as the object of taking refuge, one must rely on them in sequence; if there is no refuge and one claims there is, in principle it cannot be so; the next three and a half verses extensively show its faults. Third, there are one and a half verses requesting the Buddha to speak: the initial half directly requests, and the following verse praises virtues and requests.

19.99

"Kāśyapa, you should know / that I shall now, for your sake, / skillfully open the subtle secret store, / so that your doubts may be severed.

19.100

Sengzong states: This is the third section. First it resolves the doubt about existence and non-existence, and then it resolves the doubt about truth and falsehood. The buddhadhātu being hidden by defilements is called a 'store'; when delusions are removed and it is seen, this is called 'opening'. Baoliang states: Below there are four and a half verses forming the sixth section, where the Buddha reiterates the superior characteristics of taking refuge in the future. The first two verses promise to speak and offer praise; next there are two verses directly distinguishing the true refuge; the latter half verse concludes the true superiority of taking refuge today.

19.101

Now listen with utmost mind: / among all the bodhisattvas, / you shall share the same title and name / with the seventh Buddha."

19.102

Sengliang states: Śākyamuni is the seventh Buddha. It means that your future dharmakāya will share the same name as me, only with a difference in time, bearing such a name. Sengzong states: He is the seventh Buddha in the Bhadrakalpa. Not only is the name the same, but the ten epithets are also identical. If so, then the future fruit is clear and distinct, and doubts are severed. Huilang states: The commentary on the Benqi jing says, 'Śākya means capable; muni means scholar.' Meaning 'capable scholar', this praises Kāśyapa for his merit in propagating the Dharma.

19.103

"One who takes refuge in the Buddha / is truly called an upāsaka; / he will never again take refuge / in any other devas or spirits.

19.104

Sengliang states: This explains the meaning of taking refuge in the Buddha. Sengzong states: From here down, it resolves the doubt about truth and falsehood. This means: when you were told in the past to take refuge in the differentiated Three Jewels to replace wrong refuges, how could that have been the ultimate truth? 'Never again taking refuge in devas or spirits': non-Buddhists kill living beings to sacrifice to spirits to seek their desires; directing them to take refuge in the sixteen-foot form was to replace their delusion of sacrificing to spirits, borrowing what is near to receive the foolish—it was not the ultimate. Taking refuge in the unitary Three Jewels of my future body, the matter has no discrepancies; how could one fear taking refuge in devas or spirits?

19.105

One who takes refuge in the Dharma / remains free from killing and harming.

19.106

Sengzong states: Among the ninety-five kinds of non-Buddhists, most take killing as their practice. Now they are made to rely on the twelve divisions of the canon to transform their mental conduct. Baoliang states: If after the vajra-like mind the essence contains nothing that is not Dharma, there is no longer need for this reliance.

First 106 of 132 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese