Refuge, and Everything It Rules Out
Before any precept can be received, the sutra insists a lay disciple settle something more basic first: what exactly the threefold refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha actually means, why it cannot be collapsed into a single act of faith, in what order it is taken and why, and what quietly cancels it again. The second half of the chapter turns unexpectedly polemical — a sustained, point-by-point rebuttal of astrology, fatalism, and the cult of Maheśvara as world-creator, aimed at exactly the household audience this sutra is written for.
1. Milestone: Shansheng's Question — Why Refuge Comes Before Giving
The chapter opens with Shansheng pointing back to something the Buddha had already said in an earlier chapter on giving: before ever handing anything to a beggar, first teach that person the threefold refuge. Shansheng now asks the obvious follow-up — why, and what does "threefold refuge" actually mean?
善生言：「世尊！如佛先說『有來乞者，當先教令受三歸依，然後施』者，何因緣故受三歸依？云何名為三歸依也？」
Shansheng said: "World-Honored One! As the Buddha has already taught, 'When someone comes begging, first teach him to take the threefold refuge, and only then give to him' — for what reason must one take the threefold refuge? And what exactly is meant by 'the threefold refuge'?"
Taixu points out something easy to miss about where this chapter sits: the sutra has already spent an entire chapter on generosity before it ever gets here, because even before a person formally takes refuge, that person should already be someone inclined to give freely and delight in goodness. Only on that foundation does the text move on, step by step, to the threefold refuge and then to the five precepts. Refuge, in other words, is not the first rung of the ladder — a generous disposition is.
2. Milestone: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha — Three Refuges, Not One
The Buddha's answer opens by naming the purpose of refuge — release from suffering and the afflictions that cause it — and then defines each of the Three Jewels in turn, before turning to refute an objection: that since Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha are ultimately connected, taking refuge in one should be enough.
善男子！為破諸苦、斷除煩惱，受於無上寂滅之樂，以是因緣受三歸依。如汝所問云何三歸依者？善男子！謂佛、法、僧：佛者，能說壞煩惱因，得正解脫；法者，即是壞煩惱因，真實解脫；僧者，稟受破煩惱因，得正解脫。
"Good son! It is in order to break through every kind of suffering, cut off the afflictions, and receive the unsurpassed bliss of quiescent cessation that one takes the threefold refuge — that is the reason. As for your question of what the threefold refuge actually is: good son, it means the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. The Buddha is one who can teach the cause that destroys the afflictions, and who has attained true liberation. The Dharma is precisely that cause which destroys the afflictions — true and actual liberation itself. The Sangha is those who have received and taken up the cause that destroys the afflictions, and attained true liberation."
或有說言『若如是者，即是一歸』，是義不然！何以故？如來出世及不出世，正法常有，無分別者；如來出已，則有分別，是故應當別歸依佛。如來出世及不出世，正法常有，無有受者，佛弟子眾能稟受故，是故應當別歸依僧。正道解脫，是名為法；無師獨覺，是名為佛；能如法受，是名為僧。
"Someone might object: 'If that is so, then this is really just a single refuge.' That is not correct! Why not? Whether or not a Tathāgata appears in the world, the true Dharma always exists, undifferentiated — but once a Tathāgata has appeared, a distinction arises, and for this reason one must take refuge in the Buddha as something distinct. Whether or not a Tathāgata appears in the world, the true Dharma always exists, yet without anyone to receive it — it is only the Buddha's disciples, the assembly, who are able to receive and take it up, and for this reason one must take refuge in the Sangha as something distinct. Liberation through the true path is called the Dharma; awakening without a teacher, on one's own, is called a Buddha; being able to receive it in accordance with the Dharma is called the Sangha."
若無三歸，云何說有四不壞信？得三歸者，或有具足，或不具足。云何具足？所謂歸佛、法、僧。不具足者，所謂如來、歸依於法。善男子！得三歸者，無不具足，如比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷戒。
"If there were no threefold refuge, how could one speak of the four kinds of unbreakable faith? Among those who receive the threefold refuge, some receive it in full, others not in full. What is receiving it in full? It means taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha together. What is not in full? It means — as in the case of the Tathāgata himself — taking refuge in the Dharma alone. Good son, once received, the threefold refuge is never anything less than complete in itself, just as the precepts of a monk, a nun, an upāsaka, or an upāsikā are."
Taixu breaks "suffering" down along conventional lines — the three kinds and the eight kinds — and traces it back through its causes: suffering comes from karma, and karma comes from the afflictions, which is exactly why refuge that merely wishes suffering away accomplishes nothing without addressing what produces it. He glosses the Dharma here specifically as the truth of the path and the truth of cessation, and the Sangha as those who actually practice that Dharma and attain liberation by it — not simply anyone wearing robes.
The objection Shansheng raises and the Buddha refutes — that one refuge alone should suffice — is, Taixu notes, exactly the move this passage exists to block: the "four kinds of unbreakable faith" the text invokes are faith in the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, and the precepts, four distinct commitments that a single undifferentiated refuge could never account for.
3. Milestone: Why the Three Jewels Are Genuinely Three
Having defined each of the Three Jewels, the text now explains why they are not just conventionally distinguished but actually different in kind — tracing the difference back to how a Buddha, a pratyekabuddha, and a śrāvaka each come to realization, and then extending the same logic to the two kinds of bodhisattva.
善男子！如佛、緣覺、聲聞各異，是故三寶不得不異。云何為異？發心時異，莊嚴時異，得道時異，性分各異，是故為異。何因緣故說佛即法？能解是法，故名為佛；受分別說，故名為僧。若有說言『佛入僧數』，是義不然！何以故？佛若入僧，則無三寶及三歸依、四不壞信。
"Good son, because the Buddha, the pratyekabuddha, and the śrāvaka are each different from one another, the Three Jewels likewise cannot fail to be different. In what way are they different? They differ in the moment the resolve for enlightenment is first raised, they differ in the adornments accumulated along the way, they differ in the moment the path is finally attained, and their very natures differ — for these reasons they are different. For what reason, then, do we say that the Buddha and the Dharma are one and the same? It is because he who is able to understand this Dharma is called a Buddha, and because those who receive it and expound its distinctions are called the Sangha. Someone might say: 'The Buddha is simply included within the category of Sangha.' That is not correct! Why not? If the Buddha were included within the Sangha, then there would be no Three Jewels, no threefold refuge, and no four kinds of unbreakable faith."
善男子！菩薩、法異，佛、法亦異。菩薩二種：一者、後身，二者、修道。歸依後身，名歸依法，歸依修道，名歸依僧。觀有為法多諸罪過，獨處修行，得甘露味，故名為佛；一切無漏無為法界，故名為法；受持禁戒，讀誦解說十二部經，故名為僧。
"Good son, the bodhisattva's Dharma is distinct, and the Buddha's Dharma is also distinct. There are two kinds of bodhisattva: the one in his final body, and the one still cultivating the path. Taking refuge in the bodhisattva of the final body is called taking refuge in the Dharma; taking refuge in the bodhisattva still cultivating the path is called taking refuge in the Sangha. Seeing that conditioned phenomena are laden with faults, dwelling alone to practice, and attaining the taste of ambrosia — this is called a Buddha; the entire realm of the unconditioned, free of outflow — this is called the Dharma; upholding the restraining precepts, and reciting, reading, and expounding the twelve divisions of the scriptures — this is called the Sangha."
Taixu identifies the "bodhisattva still cultivating the path" here with bodhisattvas from the first ground up through the tenth — not beginners, but practitioners genuinely on the path, still short of its completion — while the "final-body bodhisattva" is the one already treated earlier in the sutra: a bodhisattva in his very last lifetime before Buddhahood, poised on the threshold. The distinction the text draws matters because it keeps "refuge in the Dharma" and "refuge in the Sangha" from collapsing into each other even at the bodhisattva level, mirroring the same insistence on real difference running through the whole passage.
4. Milestone: Taking Refuge in a Buddha Who Has Already Entered Nirvana
The text now addresses a natural worry: Śākyamuni himself passed into final nirvana centuries ago, so what does it actually mean to take refuge in him now? The answer works through a series of everyday analogies — a departed teacher's rules, an advance gift, distant parents — to show that such a refuge is neither empty nor merely nostalgic.
若有問言：『如來滅已，歸依佛者是何歸依？』善男子！如是歸依，名為歸依過去諸佛無學之法。如我先教提謂長者：『汝當歸依未來世僧。』依過去佛，亦復如是。福田果報有多少故，差別為三。若佛在世及涅槃後，供養果報，無有差別；受歸依者，亦復如是。
"Someone might ask: 'Once the Tathāgata has entered final nirvana, what exactly is being taken refuge in when a person takes refuge in the Buddha?' Good son, such a refuge is called taking refuge in the state beyond further learning already attained by the Buddhas of the past. It is just as I once taught the elder Trapuṣa: 'You should take refuge in the Sangha of the future.' Taking refuge in a Buddha of the past is exactly the same. Because the fruits and rewards of a field of merit vary in degree, they fall into three distinct kinds. Whether the Buddha is still in the world or has already entered nirvana, the fruit of an offering made to him is no different; and it is exactly the same for one who takes refuge in him."
如佛在世，為諸弟子立諸要制，佛雖過去，有犯之者亦獲罪報；歸過去佛，亦復如是。猶如如來臨涅槃時，一切人、天為涅槃故，多設供養，爾時如來未入涅槃，猶故在世，懸受未來世供養事；歸過去佛，亦復如是。譬如有人父母在遠，是人或時瞋罵得罪，或時恭敬讚歎得福；歸過去佛，亦復如是。是故我說：『我若在世及涅槃後所設供養，施者受福等無差別。』
"Just as, while the Buddha was still in the world, he established essential rules for his disciples, and even now that the Buddha is gone, whoever breaks one of those rules still incurs the corresponding offense — taking refuge in a Buddha of the past works in just the same way. It is like the moment the Tathāgata was approaching final nirvana: all beings, human and divine, made lavish offerings on account of that impending nirvana, while the Tathāgata, not yet having entered nirvana, was still present in the world and thereby came to receive, in advance, an offering meant for the age still to come — taking refuge in a Buddha of the past works in just the same way. It is like a person whose father and mother live far away: at times this person incurs an offense by cursing them in anger, and at other times gains merit by honoring and praising them — taking refuge in a Buddha of the past works in just the same way. This is why I say: whether the offerings are made while I am still in the world or after I have entered nirvana, the one who gives receives an equal blessing, with no difference between the two."
Taixu notes the delicate balance the text is holding here: Śākyamuni's own teaching still circulates actively in the world even though the man himself passed away well over two thousand years earlier, so in the strictest sense he already counts as "a Buddha of the past" by this very definition. But Taixu is careful to add that, according to Mahāyāna teaching, this does not mean living Buddhas are simply absent from the present — there remain, right now, Buddhas of the ten directions actually teaching in their own worlds. Refuge in a departed Buddha and refuge in a living one are not, on this reading, two different kinds of act at all.
5. Milestone: Becoming an Upāsaka — The Order of the Three Refuges
The text now turns practical: reciting the threefold refuge three times is what actually makes a person a lay follower. But the refuge is not taken all at once — it has a fixed order, Buddha first and Dharma second, and the text gives reasons for each.
善男子！若男、若女，若能三說三歸依者，名優婆塞、名優婆夷。一切諸佛雖歸依法，法由佛說故得顯現，是故先應歸依於佛。淨身、口、意，至心念佛，念已即離怖畏、苦惱，是故應當先歸依佛。智者深觀如來智慧解脫最勝，能說解脫及解脫因，能說無上寂靜之處，能竭生死苦惱大海，威儀庠序，三業寂靜，是故應當先歸依佛。
"Good son, if a man or a woman is able to recite the threefold refuge three times, that person is called an upāsaka or an upāsikā. Although every Buddha, without exception, takes refuge in the Dharma, it is only through a Buddha's own preaching that the Dharma becomes manifest at all — and for this reason one should take refuge in the Buddha first. By purifying body, speech, and mind, and single-mindedly holding the Buddha in mind, one is thereby freed at once from fear and anguish — and for this reason too one should take refuge in the Buddha first. The wise person, looking deeply, sees that the Tathāgata's wisdom and liberation are supreme beyond compare — he can teach liberation itself and its causes, he can teach the unsurpassed place of stillness, he can exhaust the vast ocean of suffering that is birth and death, his bearing is composed and dignified, and his deeds of body, speech, and mind are utterly still — and for this reason too one should take refuge in the Buddha first."
智者深觀，生死之法是大苦聚，無上正道能永斷之；生死之法渴愛飢饉，無上甘露味能充足；生死之法怖畏嶮難，無上正法能除斷之；生死錯謬，邪僻不正，無常見常，無我見我，無樂見樂，不淨見淨，無上正法悉能斷除。以是因緣，應歸依法。
"The wise person, looking deeply, sees that the process of birth and death is a great mass of suffering, which the unsurpassed true path alone can cut off forever; that the process of birth and death is thirst and famine, which the unsurpassed taste of ambrosia alone can satisfy; that the process of birth and death is a fearful and treacherous danger, which the unsurpassed true Dharma alone can remove and sever; and that birth and death are riddled with error and false views — taking the impermanent for the permanent, the selfless for a self, the joyless for joy, the impure for the pure — and that the unsurpassed true Dharma alone is able to cut through and dispel every one of these. For this reason, one should take refuge in the Dharma."
Taixu points out that "single-mindedly holding the Buddha in mind" covers more ground than simply reciting his name — it equally includes contemplating his virtues and his physical marks of perfection, both counting as genuine mindfulness of the Buddha. He also offers a pointed comparison for what it means to seek liberation "without grasping its actual essentials": it is like someone chasing immortality through longevity practices, who at best buys a somewhat longer life, but once that karmic reward is finally spent, still dies all the same. The "unsurpassed true path" named here, he adds simply, is the Noble Eightfold Path.
6. Milestone: Why the Sangha Comes Third — Against Wayward Ascetics
Having explained why the Buddha and then the Dharma come first, the text finally arrives at the Sangha — explained not on its own terms alone, but by contrast with the followers of rival ascetic paths.
智者應觀外道徒眾，無慚無愧，非如法住，雖為道行，不知正路，雖求解脫，不得正要；雖得世俗微善之法，慳悋護惜，不能轉說，非善行性作善行想。佛、僧寂靜，心多憐愍，少欲知足，如法而住，修於正道，得正解脫，得已復能轉為人說。是故應當次歸依僧。
"The wise person should observe that the followers of heterodox paths are without shame and without conscience, and do not dwell in accordance with the Dharma; although they walk what they call a spiritual path, they do not know the true road, and although they seek liberation, they never grasp its actual essentials; even when they attain some small worldly good, they hoard and guard it jealously, unable to pass it on to others — mistaking what is not truly wholesome conduct for wholesome conduct. The Buddha and the Sangha, by contrast, are still and quiet, full of compassion, content with little, dwelling in accordance with the Dharma, cultivating the true path, and having attained true liberation, are then able, in turn, to teach it to others. For this reason, one should take refuge in the Sangha next."
Taixu reads this contrast as the whole point of placing the Sangha third rather than diminishing it: the order Buddha, Dharma, Sangha is not a ranking of importance so much as a sequence of how refuge is actually reached — first the teacher, then the teaching he reveals, and only then the community that lives it out visibly enough to be recognized and joined. What distinguishes that community from a hoarding, self-satisfied ascetic circle, in his reading, is precisely its willingness to teach what it has attained rather than guard it as private property.
7. Milestone: Honoring the Three Jewels, and the Upāsaka Without Full Precepts
The text now turns to what actually counts as honoring the Three Jewels, then addresses a harder question: can someone be a genuine upāsaka without receiving the full precepts? The Buddha answers yes, defending the claim against two objections in turn, before closing with a compact definition of the "five aggregates" a precept-holder should cultivate.
若能禮拜如是三寶，來迎去送，尊重讚歎，如法而住，信之不疑，是則名為供養三寶。若有人能歸三寶已，雖不受戒，斷一切惡，修一切善，雖復在家，如法而住，是亦得名為優婆塞。
"Whoever can bow to the Three Jewels in this way — welcoming them on their arrival and seeing them off on their departure, honoring and praising them, dwelling in accordance with the Dharma, believing in them without doubt — is said to be making offerings to the Three Jewels. If a person has taken refuge in the Three Jewels, and even without formally receiving the precepts cuts off every evil and cultivates every good, then even while still living the householder's life and simply dwelling in accordance with the Dharma, that person may rightly be called an upāsaka."
若有說言『先不歸依佛、法、僧寶，當知是人不得戒』者，是義不然！何以故？如我先說：『善來比丘是竟未得歸依三寶，而其戒律悉得具足。』或有說言『若不具受，則不得戒，八戒齋法，亦復如是』，是義不然！何以故？若不具受不得戒者，求有優婆塞云何得戒？實是得戒，但不具足；八戒齋法若不具受，雖不名齋，可得名善。
"Someone might say: 'Anyone who has not first taken refuge in the Three Jewels — the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha — should be understood to have not received the precepts at all.' That is not correct! Why not? As I have already said: those bhikṣus welcomed with the words 'Come, monk' never formally received the threefold refuge at all, and yet their precepts and discipline were entirely complete. Someone might also say: 'If the reception is not made in full, then the precepts are not received at all — and the same holds for the eight precepts of the one-day fast.' That, too, is not correct! Why not? If failing to receive in full meant receiving nothing at all, then how could someone merely seeking the status of an upāsaka ever receive any precept at all? In fact such a person does receive the precepts, only not in full; and if the eight precepts of the one-day fast are not received in full, then although it cannot be called a true fast, it can still rightly be called something wholesome."
善男子！若能淨潔身、口、意業受優婆塞戒，是名五陰。云何五陰？不受邪見，不說邪見，信受正見，說於正見，修行正法，是名五陰。
"Good son, one who is able to purify the actions of body, speech, and mind and receive the upāsaka precepts is said to have the five aggregates rightly ordered. What are these five aggregates? Not holding false views, not voicing false views, trusting and holding right views, voicing right views, and practicing the true Dharma — these together are called the five aggregates."
Taixu explains the "Come, monk" case as an instance of exceptionally ripened faculties: ordinarily the precepts require first taking the threefold refuge through a formal three-part proclamation, but a practitioner whose good roots are already fully ripe could receive full monastic precepts the instant the Buddha simply said "Come" — what the tradition calls "the precept that accompanies the path," arising spontaneously rather than through ritual. "Receiving in full," he adds, means something like receiving all five lay precepts together in one act, while someone "merely seeking the status of an upāsaka" is a person after the ordinary blessings of a good rebirth rather than the complete range of Buddhist precepts; the eight precepts of the one-day fast work the same way; a partial version is not technically "the fast," but it is still wholesome — just as a person may take up only one or two of the five precepts rather than all five at once.
On the closing line about the five aggregates, Taixu notes that body, speech, and mind are themselves nothing but the five aggregates in action, so the passage is really warning against two opposite errors at once: imagining a permanent self residing within the aggregates (eternalism), or assuming the aggregates simply vanish without remainder at death (nihilism). Whether the aggregates one accumulates through body, speech, and mind are wholesome or unwholesome determines whether the aggregates received in the next life are those of a fortunate rebirth or an unfortunate one.
8. Milestone: What Causes the Loss of Refuge
Having established what refuge is and how it is honored, the text now addresses the opposite question directly: what actually undoes it? The line drawn is sharper than it might seem — not all worship of other gods costs a person their refuge, but treating any of them as the ultimate authority does.
受三歸已，造作癡業，受外道法、自在天語，以是因緣失於三歸。若人質直，心無慳貪，常修慚愧，少欲知足，是人不久得寂靜身。若有造作種種雜業，為受樂故修於善事，如市易法，其心不能憐愍眾生，如是之人，不得三歸。
"Having received the threefold refuge, if one then commits deluded acts, accepting heterodox teachings and the words of Maheśvara, one loses the threefold refuge through this very cause. A person who is honest and upright, whose mind is free of stinginess and greed, who constantly cultivates a sense of shame, and who is content with little, will before long attain a still and quiet body. But if a person performs all manner of mixed deeds, cultivating what looks like good only for the sake of enjoying pleasure — as though conducting a market transaction — and whose mind is incapable of any real compassion for other beings, that person has not truly received the threefold refuge at all."
若人為護舍宅、身命祠祀諸神，是人不名失歸依法；若人至心信其能救一切怖畏，禮拜外道，是人則失三歸依法。若聞諸天有曾見佛功德勝己，禮拜供養，是人不失歸依之法；或時禮拜自在天王，應如禮拜世間諸王、長者、貴人、耆舊有德，如是之人亦復不失歸依之法。
"If a person makes offerings to various spirits simply in order to protect his house or his own life, he is not thereby said to have lost his refuge in the Dharma. But if a person, believing with his whole heart that some heterodox teacher can save him from every fear, bows down and worships that teacher, then that person has indeed lost his refuge in the Dharma. If a person, hearing that certain devas once beheld the Buddha and whose virtue therefore surpasses his own, bows to them and makes offerings, that person has not lost his refuge at all; and if at times he bows to Maheśvara, doing so in just the same way he would bow to a worldly king, an elder, a person of rank, or a venerable and virtuous elder, such a person likewise has not lost his refuge."
Taixu reads the whole passage as turning on a single test: does this person treat some power outside the Three Jewels as the supreme, unsurpassed authority in life? If so, refuge is lost; if the deity or ruler is simply honored the way one might honor any respected worldly figure, refuge is untouched. He is precise about what "delusion" means here — not general ignorance, but specifically failing to understand dependent origination, the absence of a fixed self, and the working of karmic cause and effect. A mind of genuine compassion, he adds, is what actually resonates with the Buddha's own mind, and it is that resonance, more than any formula recited, which constitutes real refuge.
He also flags an asymmetry worth noticing: this allowance to bow respectfully to local deities and worldly authorities applies specifically to the lay bodhisattva described in this sutra. A renunciant, by the stricter monastic standard, should not bow to any deity or worldly ruler at all.
9. Milestone: Refuting Fate — Stars, Seasons, and the Myth of Maheśvara
The chapter now turns unexpectedly polemical, working through a series of arguments against the heterodox teachers who explain human fortune by appeal to a creator god, or to the season and constellation under which a person happens to be born.
雖復禮拜，所說邪法慎無受之。供養天時，當起慈心，為護身命、財物、國土、人民恐怖。所說邪見，何故不受？智者應觀外道所說云『一切物悉是自在天之所作』，若是自在之所作者，我今何故修是善業？或說『投淵、赴火、自餓捨命即得離苦』，此即苦因，云何說言得遠離苦？一切眾生作善惡業，以是業緣自受果報。
"Yet even while bowing in this way, one must take care never to accept whatever false teaching such beings might speak. When making offerings to a deva, one should raise a mind of loving-kindness, doing so only to protect one's own life, one's property, one's country, and one's people from calamity — never to accept the false views such a being might teach. Why should such false views not be accepted? The wise person should observe that the heterodox teachers claim, 'Every single thing is entirely the doing of Maheśvara' — but if that were truly Maheśvara's doing, why then should I myself have to cultivate any good deed at all? Others claim that 'throwing oneself into a chasm, into fire, or starving oneself to death brings release from suffering' — but this is itself a cause of suffering, so how can it be called a release from suffering? Every being creates good and evil karma, and it is by this very karmic cause that each receives its own result."
復有說言『一切萬物，時節、星宿、自在天作』如是邪說，我云何受現在造業，亦受過去所作業果？智者了了知是業果，云何說言『時節、星宿，自在作』耶？若以時節、星宿因緣受苦樂者，天下多有同時、同宿，云何復有一人受苦、一人受樂，一人是男、一人是女？天、阿修羅有同時生、同宿生者，或有天勝，阿修羅負，阿修羅勝，諸天不如；復有諸王同時、同宿，俱共治政，一人失國，一則保土。諸外道等亦復說言『若有惡年、惡宿現時，當教眾生令修善法以攘却之』，若是年、宿，何得修善而得除滅？以是因緣，智者云何受於外道邪錯之說？
"Still others claim that 'all things whatsoever are made by the seasons, by the constellations, or by Maheśvara' — but if this false teaching were true, how could it also be said that I myself experience the results of karma I create now, as well as of karma made in the past? The wise person understands with total clarity that these are the fruits of karma — so how could one say that 'the seasons, the constellations, or Maheśvara' are what make them? If one's suffering or joy were really caused by the season or the constellation under which one was born, then, since throughout the world many people share the same season and the same constellation, why would one person then experience suffering and another joy, one be born male and another female? Devas and asuras are sometimes born under the very same season and the very same constellation, and yet at times the devas triumph and the asuras are defeated, and at other times the asuras triumph and the devas fall short; likewise various kings, born under the same season and the same constellation, may rule at the very same time, and yet one loses his kingdom while the other keeps his land secure. The very same heterodox teachers also say, 'When an evil year or an evil constellation appears, one must teach beings to cultivate good deeds in order to ward it off' — but if it were truly the year or the constellation at fault, how could the mere cultivation of good deeds make it vanish? For this reason, how could a wise person possibly accept such mistaken and heterodox teachings?"
善男子！一切眾生，隨於業行，若修正見，受於安樂，修邪見者，受大苦惱。因修善業，得大自在，得自在已，眾生親近。復為宣說善業因緣，善業因緣故得自在，一切眾生皆由修善業因緣故得受安樂，非年、宿也。善男子！阿闍世王、提婆達多，皆由造惡業因緣故墮於地獄，非因年、宿得是報也！欝頭藍弗邪見因緣，未來當墮大地獄中。
"Good son, every being follows its own karmic conduct: cultivating right view, it receives peace and happiness; cultivating false view, it receives great suffering and torment. It is by cultivating good karma that one attains great sovereignty, and once that sovereignty is attained, other beings draw near and, in turn, are taught the causes and conditions of good karma — so that they too, through the causes and conditions of good karma, come to attain such sovereignty. Every being, without exception, receives peace and happiness through cultivating the causes and conditions of good karma — never through year or constellation. Good son, King Ajātaśatru and Devadatta both fell into hell entirely through the causes and conditions of the evil karma they created — not because of any year or constellation that brought about such a result! And Udraka Rāmaputra, through the causes and conditions of his own false views, is destined to fall into the great hell in the time still to come."
Taixu treats this whole stretch as anchored in a single principle: real faith in the Three Jewels is inseparable from real faith in karmic cause and effect. Once dependent origination is genuinely understood — that nothing possesses a fixed, independent nature of its own — a person's effort naturally turns inward, toward one's own conduct, rather than outward toward a creator god, a lucky season, or a favorable star. Devotional gestures toward heaven for practical ends like rain or protection remain harmless in themselves, he notes, so long as the deity in question is never mistaken for the ultimate, unsurpassed authority.
On the two named examples, Taixu glosses Ajātaśatru's name as meaning "unborn enmity" and Devadatta's as "god-given" — both familiar figures whose downfall the sutra insists on tracing to their own choices rather than to any external stroke of ill fortune.
10. Milestone: Desire as the Root of Virtue, and Refuge Even Before Birth
Turning back from polemic to encouragement, the text names desire — in the sense of aspiration or wholesome longing — as the very root from which every good quality grows, tracing a direct line from that aspiration through refuge, precepts, and practice. It closes with two vivid illustrations of how far refuge can reach: to an animal in mortal terror, and even to a child not yet born.
善男子！一切善法，欲為根本，是欲因緣，得三菩提及解脫果，入出家法，破大惡業及諸有業，能受持戒，親近諸佛，能一切捨施於乞者，能作定性壞惡果報，滅大惡罪，得決定聚，離於三障，善能修集壞煩惱道；是欲因緣，能受三歸，因三歸已，即能受戒，既受戒已，行見、修道，過於聲聞。
"Good son, desire is the root of every wholesome dharma. It is through the causes and conditions of this desire that one attains the three kinds of bodhi and the fruit of liberation, enters the life of a renunciant, breaks through great evil karma and every kind of conditioned karma, becomes able to uphold the precepts, draws near to the Buddhas, becomes able to give away everything to those who come begging, becomes able to fix one's nature so as to break the fruit of evil results, extinguishes great and grave offenses, attains the assembly of the truly settled, is freed from the three obstructions, and skillfully cultivates and accumulates the path that destroys the afflictions. It is through the causes and conditions of this same desire that one is able to receive the threefold refuge; and having received the threefold refuge, one thereby becomes able to receive the precepts; and having received the precepts, one then practices the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, surpassing even the śrāvaka."
若有畏於師子、虎、狼、惡獸等類，歸依於佛尚得解脫，況發善心求出世者不得解脫？阿那邠坻教告家內在胎之子，悉受歸依，是胎中子實不成就。何以故？是法要當口自宣說。雖不成就，亦能護之。
"If even someone who merely fears lions, tigers, wolves, and other fierce beasts can attain release simply by taking refuge in the Buddha, how much more should one who raises the wholesome resolve to seek release from the world attain liberation? Anāthapiṇḍada instructed the unborn child still in the womb within his household to take refuge as well — though the child in the womb does not actually accomplish this. Why not? Because this Dharma must be spoken aloud with one's own mouth. Yet even though it does not accomplish full reception, it can still serve to protect that being."
Taixu draws out a practical implication from this passage: abundant good deeds can genuinely dissolve past unwholesome karma, or at least hold it in check, so that a person transforms the afflictions rather than being dragged around by them — the state he describes, borrowing a classical phrase, as "being sovereign king over one's own dharma" rather than its subject. He glosses "the three kinds of bodhi" as the awakening proper to each of the three vehicles, and "the three obstructions" as the obstruction of affliction, the obstruction of karma, and the obstruction of retribution — all three of which desire, rightly directed, works to dismantle.
The story of Anāthapiṇḍada's unborn child, he suggests, should not be read too literally as claiming the fetus actually receives refuge — the text itself says plainly that it does not, since the words must be spoken aloud by the one taking refuge. What the gesture accomplishes instead is a kind of protective blessing extended toward a being not yet capable of the act itself, which is exactly why the sutra bothers to record it as worth doing anyway.
11. Milestone: Refuting Maheśvara as Buddha-Maker, and the Real Meaning of Liberation
The polemic against the heterodox teachers resumes and sharpens, now targeting the specific claim that Maheśvara is the ultimate source even of Buddhas themselves, and the further claim that Brahmā, Maheśvara, and Viṣṇu are secretly one god under different names. The passage closes by turning from refutation to a positive claim: what liberation actually is, and how it is actually seen.
善男子！諸外道說『一切世間皆是自在天之所作』，亦復說言『未來之世過百劫已，當有幻出，所言幻者，即是佛也』。若自在天能作佛者，是佛云何能破歸依自在天儀？若自在天不能作佛，云何說言『一切皆是自在天作』？外道復說『大梵天王、大自在天、毘紐天主悉皆是一』，復說『生處各各別異，自在天者，名自在天，名常，名主，名有，名曰律陀，名曰尸婆，是一一名，各有異事，亦求解脫亦即解脫』。是義不然！何以故？若自在天能生眾生，造作諸有，作善惡業及業果報，作貪、瞋、癡繫縛眾生。
"Good son, the heterodox teachers claim that 'the entire world, in every respect, is the doing of Maheśvara,' and they also claim that 'after a hundred kalpas have passed in the age to come, an illusion will appear — and by this illusion, they mean the Buddha himself.' If Maheśvara is truly capable of producing a Buddha, then how could that very Buddha go on to refute the practice of taking refuge in Maheśvara? And if Maheśvara is not capable of producing a Buddha, then how can it be said that 'everything, without exception, is Maheśvara's doing'? The heterodox teachers further claim that 'the great god Brahmā, the great god Maheśvara, and the lord god Viṣṇu are all, in fact, one and the same,' while also claiming that 'they appear in separate places under separate names — Maheśvara, also called the Eternal, the Sovereign, the Existent, Rudra, and Śiva — each single name carrying its own distinct role, and each is at once the seeker of liberation and liberation itself.' This is not correct! Why not? If Maheśvara is truly able to give birth to beings, to fashion every mode of existence, to perform good and evil karma and its karmic results, and to bind beings with greed, hatred, and delusion..."
復言『眾生得解脫時，悉入身中，是故解脫是無常法』。是義不然！何以故？若無常者，云何得名為解脫也？如婆羅門子還得壽命，是故不得名自在天。是三種天亦不得一。何以故？阿周那人毘紐大天為作解脫，以是義故亦不得一。若言解脫是無常者，當知即幻，非佛名幻。若能了了正見真我，是名解脫。
"...and if it is also claimed that 'when beings attain liberation, they are all absorbed back into his own body, so that liberation itself is an impermanent thing' — this too is not correct! Why not? If it is impermanent, how could it possibly be called liberation at all? Consider the case of a brahmin's son who was restored to life: this alone shows that such power cannot rightly be called Maheśvara. Nor, indeed, can these three gods truly be said to be one and the same. Why not? Because it is said that the people of Arjuna need the great god Viṣṇu specifically to grant them liberation — and for this very reason, too, the three cannot be one and the same. And if liberation is said to be impermanent, then know that this is nothing but illusion — it is not the Buddha who should be called an illusion. Only when one has genuinely and clearly attained right view of the true Self is that rightly called liberation."
復有說言『見微塵者，是名解脫』，復有說言『見性異、我異，是名解脫』。是義不然！何以故？若能修道見四真諦，是人乃得見性、見我。若人能受三歸依者，是人乃能真見四諦。是三歸依乃是一切無量善法，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之根本也。
"Still others claim, 'Seeing the subtlest particles of matter — this is called liberation,' while others claim, 'Seeing that one's own nature is one thing and the self another — this is called liberation.' Neither of these is correct! Why not? Only one who cultivates the path and truly sees the four noble truths thereby genuinely sees his own nature and sees the self. And only one who is able to receive the threefold refuge is thereby able to truly see the four truths. This threefold refuge is, in fact, the very root of every immeasurable wholesome dharma, and even of unsurpassed, perfect, complete enlightenment itself."
Taixu unpacks the pantheon named here rather than leaving it as background noise: Brahmā is the ruler of the first heaven of the form realm, Maheśvara the ruler of its highest heaven, and Viṣṇu another name for a mighty warrior-deity — three genuinely distinct figures the heterodox argument tries to merge into one. The names Rudra and Śiva he leaves as obscure, their sense no longer fully recoverable, and he reads "the people of Arjuna" as referring to a specific place whose inhabitants were said to depend on Viṣṇu in particular for liberation — a detail that, far from proving the three gods are one, actually proves they are kept carefully distinct even within the heterodox teaching itself.
He is precise about the barb in "if liberation is said to be impermanent, then know that this is nothing but illusion — it is not the Buddha who should be called an illusion": the heterodox teachers, he notes, were in the habit of calling the Buddha himself a demon or an illusion, and this line turns that accusation back on their own doctrine. On "the true Self," Taixu identifies it with the Self of permanence, bliss, self, and purity described in the Nirvana Sutra — the liberated dharma-body itself — pointedly not the self posited by rival schools. The two heterodox views he traces to the Sāṃkhya school, which holds that the world arises from the union of a primordial nature and an individual self, and that liberation consists in separating the two again; the sutra's objection, on his reading, is that this whole scheme still circles around cause and effect without ever actually arriving at the four truths — suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path — which alone constitute genuine seeing.
12. Milestone: Conclusion — Why the Lay Bodhisattva's Path Is Harder
The chapter closes where much of this sutra keeps returning: not with a flourish, but with a plain admission that the very practice just described is genuinely harder for the person who has not left ordinary life behind.
菩薩二種：一者、在家，二者、出家。出家菩薩淨三歸依，是不為難；在家修淨，是乃為難。何以故？在家之人多惡因緣所纏繞故。
"There are two kinds of bodhisattva: the lay bodhisattva, and the renunciant bodhisattva. For a renunciant bodhisattva, purifying the threefold refuge is no great difficulty; but for a lay bodhisattva to cultivate this purity is genuinely difficult. Why? Because a person living the householder's life remains entangled by so many evil causes and conditions."
Taixu's own notes stop just short of this closing line, letting the sutra's plain statement stand on its own rather than adding further gloss. Its placement here is nonetheless pointed: after an entire chapter spent defining refuge with technical precision and then defending it against a barrage of rival claims — astrology, fatalism, a creator god, false accounts of liberation — the text ends not by congratulating the lay disciple who has absorbed all this, but by naming plainly how much harder the same purity is to sustain amid a household's ordinary entanglements. It is a fitting close for a sutra whose entire project is making the lay life a genuine, if harder, path of bodhisattva practice rather than a lesser one.