大般涅槃經疏 9.32

9.32

Third, from 'three leaps and three refuges' onwards, it summarizes liberation. This also has two parts: first, a general summary; second, doctrinal debate. In the general summary, the three leaps escaping terror summarize the earlier 'absence of sores and warts'. The three refuges summarize the earlier 'place of liberation'. 'Three while being one' is horizontal breadth; 'one while being three' is vertical depth: this summarizes the earlier 'its nature is vast and broad'. According to another explanation: out of fear of the hunter, there are three leaps; out of terror of demons and non-Buddhists, there are three refuges. The first leap exemplifies taking refuge in the Saṅgha, still being relatively close to the wax-bearer; the second leap exemplifies taking refuge in the Dharma; the third leap exemplifies taking refuge in the Buddha, only then gaining security and peace. Hence, later in the text, when the frightened pigeon entered Śāriputra's shadow, it still trembled with fear and was not at peace. Alternatively, following the sequence of the Three Jewels: the first leap exemplifies taking refuge in the Buddha, the next leap exemplifies taking refuge in the Dharma, and the third leap exemplifies taking refuge in the Saṅgha; only by fully taking refuge in the Three Jewels does one attain fearlessness. Someone said: 'The former is the differentiated three refuges, and only the latter is the single-essence three refuges.' Now we say this is not so: right within this, it is already the single-essence three refuges. As the assembly at that time did not yet understand, Kāśyapa questioned again to make it manifest once more. From 'Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "If nirvāṇa, the buddhadhātu..."' onwards, three matters are raised for doctrinal debate: first, questioning the three refuges; second, questioning unconditioned bliss; third, questioning non-arising and non-perishing. Since the hundred phrases are vast, three questions are raised in brief. Privately, I note: these three questions are posed after liberation, and I believe these three questions encompass ten thousand Dharma-gates. In the first question regarding the three refuges: since it is said that liberation, the Tathāgata, and nirvāṇa are only a single phenomenon, there should only be a single essence and a single refuge; why speak of three? This is raising the three to challenge the one. The Buddha's answer has four points: 1. Because the essence is subtle, there should be three; 2. Because name and meaning are distinguished, there should be three; 3. Because testimonies are cited, there should be three; 4. Because of sovereign unfixity, there should be three. First, 'because the essence is subtle, there should be three': if liberation and nirvāṇa were fixed as one single essence and could not be three, then they would not be subtle and not be a jewel, and could not be taken as a refuge; being three while one and one while three, they are precisely a subtle jewel and can be taken as a refuge. As the text states: 'Because one fears birth-and-death, one seeks the three refuges; because of the three refuges, one knows that nirvāṇa is one.' That is its meaning. Next, 'distinguishing name and meaning': liberation, the Tathāgata, and nirvāṇa are all equally permanent, which is why their names are shared, yet their meanings are different. Following their sameness, they are one; following their difference, they are three. If being one in name and different in meaning still permits them to be three, how could they not be three when both name and meaning differ? Third, 'citing testimonies, they should be three': in the past, even upon the differentiated Saṅgha, the Three Jewels were fully possessed; how much more should they not be fully possessed upon the single-essence Buddha? Fourth, 'because of sovereign unfixity, they should be three': in the past, to refute heterodoxy, one was taught as three, yet the three did not contradict the one; now, to refute differentiation, three are taught as one, yet the one does not contradict the three. Such threeness and oneness is the realm of the buddhas, not what inferiors can know. From 'Kāśyapa further said' onwards, he questions unconditioned bliss. The question has two parts: first, understanding the intent; next, from 'Why' onwards, posing the challenge. The meaning is: if ultimate bliss is called nirvāṇa, then it is non-existent; who experiences security and bliss? The Buddha's answer has three parts: namely, simile, application, and conclusion. Because of illness, one vomits; because of vomiting, there is no longer anything present, and only this is called bliss. The Buddha's non-experiencing of bliss is also like this. From 'Kāśyapa further said' onwards, he questions non-arising and non-perishing, having seven exchanges. The first four are as in the text. As for the fifth question, 'Why does the Tathāgata make two kinds of statements?': whence did this question arise above? Sometimes empty space is used as a simile for the Buddha's body and sometimes not; sometimes clouds and thunder are used as a simile for the Buddha's body and sometimes not; sometimes one is spoken of as three and sometimes three as one. Clinging to this, he poses the challenge that two kinds of statements are made. The Buddha answers with two similes. In harming a buddha or harming one's mother, although the physical body is not destroyed, the heinous transgression is already accomplished; neither can be stated definitively. If one says the body is destroyed, the body is in truth not destroyed. If one says there is no transgression, one in truth incurs the transgression. The Tathāgata knows the right time: sometimes he speaks definitively, sometimes non-definitively; through the four siddhāntas, none are in vain. Third, from 'Kāśyapa said to the Buddha' onwards, is understanding. Fourth, from 'The Buddha praised' onwards, is endorsing and confirming.