..续本文上一页ents.

　　A breach of the mundane refuge might be blameable or blameless. It is blameable when occurring as a going for refuge by self-surrender, etc., to other religious masters: in that case the breach will have undesirable results. The breach is blameless at the time of death, as it will not cause any karmic result. The supramundane refuge is without breach. Even in another existence a holy disciple will not turn to another master.

　　II. Thoughts and Comments

　　BY NYANAPONIKA THERA

　　In all Buddhist lands the followers of the Enlightened One profess their allegiance to him and his liberating doctrine by the ancient, simple, and yet so touching formula of "taking refuge," or, more literal and more expressive, by going for refuge to the Triple Gem.

　　The going for refuge, as this figurative expression itself suggests, should be a conscious act, not the mere profession of a theoretical belief, still less the habitual rite of traditional piety. The protecting refuge exists, but we have to go to it by our own effort. It will not come to us by itself, while we stay put. The Buddha, as He repeatedly declared, is only the teacher, "pointing out the Way." (see Dhp 276; MN 107). Therefore, the going for refuge, expressive of Buddhist faith (saddhaa), is in the first place a conscious act of will and determination, directed towards the goal of liberation. Hereby the conception of faith as a mere passive waiting for "saving grace" is rejected.

　　In the Commentary, translated above, there is the remarkable statement that the expression "going for refuge" is meant to convey, in addition, the idea of "knowing" and "understanding." This points to the second aspect of going for refuge, namely as a conscious act of understanding. Hereby unthinking credulity and blind faith based on external authority are rejected.

　　The commentator emphasizes this aspect by describing the going for refuge as a state of mind, not relying on others (aparapaccaya). On many occasions the Master warned his disciples not to accept his teachings out of mere trust in him, but only after personal experience, practice, and reflection. Here it may suffice to remember the famous Sermon to the Kalamas:

　　"Do not go by hearsay, nor by tradition, nor by people”s tales, nor by the authority of Scriptures. Do not go by reasoning, nor by logic and methodical investigations, nor by approval of speculative views, nor moved by reverence, nor by the thought: ”The Recluse is my teacher!”"

　　— AN 3.65

　　It is a threefold knowledge that is, or should be, implied in the act of going for refuge. It is a knowledge answering the following questions: Is this world of ours really such a place of danger and misery that there is a need for taking refuge

　　 Does such a refuge actually exist

　　 And what is its nature

　　There are many who do not see any need for a refuge. Being well pleased with themselves and with the petty, momentary happiness of their life, they are fully convinced that "all is well with the world." They do not wish, or are not able, to look beyond their narrow horizon. For them neither the Buddha nor any other great religious teacher has yet appeared. But the majority of men know very well, by their own bitter experience, the hard and cruel face of the world which is only temporarily hidden by a friendly mask. There are some others who, sufficiently aware of a fellow being”s actual existence, add to that personal experience by observation of other lives. And there is a still smaller number of people who are able to reflect wisely on both experience and observation. Particularly to those latter ones "whose eyes are less covered by dust," life will appear as a vast ocean of suffering, of unfathomable depth, on the surface of which beings swim about for a little while, or navigate in their fragil…

《The Threefold Refuge》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…