地點：印度 菩提迦耶 德噶寺 Tergar Monastery, Bodhgaya
時間：2009年12月8日 December 7, 2009
報導：Lhundup Damcho
攝影：Tashi Paljor

在今天的開示中，法王深入佛法的哲學領域，探究了一系列有關戒律本質的觀點。
In today’s teaching, His Holiness moved deep into philosophical territory, exploring a range of positions on the nature of vows.

法王首先探討的主要問題是：三戒律的本質是同一，還是分別迥異？有部學派將戒律界定為一種特定的外在形式，而與寂天菩薩（Shantideva）所認為的觀點———戒律是一種自制的決心———相對立。法王首先駁斥了有部學派的觀點，而在闡述其論點時，充份展現出其高超的辯經技巧。接下來，法王分別駁斥了兩個西藏學者的看法。第一個西藏學者的看法是薩迦派著名學者紮巴蔣稱尊者（Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen）的立場。紮巴蔣稱認為：三戒律的本質為一，但當行者領受更高的戒律時，便轉化了較低的戒律。而第二個西藏學者的立場認為，較低的戒律是更高戒律的一部分、或者說是某個層面。秉承第七世噶瑪巴確紮嘉措的觀點，法王以下面的論說來證明此立場的謬誤：如果說較低的戒律是更高戒律的一部分，那麼違犯了較低的戒律，也就等同於是毀壞了更高的戒律。在證明了這些立場都站不住腳之後，法王開示說，噶舉傳承追隨崗波巴大師的觀點，認為三戒律在本質上是獨立的；當行者領受較高的戒律時，並不會轉化較低的戒律。法王強調，在分別領受過三戒律後，我們仍然負有持守全部三戒律的責任。最後，法王對於一個人如何能同時持守所有戒律的問題，綜述了印度主要學者的看法。
The main question raised was whether the three types of vow are one in nature or distinct. His Holiness’ skills in debate were much in evidence as he pitted the positions of the Vaibhasika school, who identify vows as a particular type of physical form, against that of Shantideva, who describes vows as the resolve to abstain. Gyalwang Karmapa further surveyed the views of major Indian scholars as to precisely how the vows co-exist within a single person at the same time. Turning next to presentations by Tibetan scholars, he decisively refuted the stance of the great Sakya scholar Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen, who holds that the three vows are one in nature but the lower vows transform when the higher vow is taken. His Holiness further tackled a second Tibetan view that maintains that the lower vows become parts, or aspects, of the higher vow. Adopting the position staked out by the Seventh Karmapa Chödrak Gyatso, he demonstrated the fallacy of this view, on the basis that if lower vows were parts of higher vows, then actions damaging the lower vows would render the higher vows incomplete. After establishing that these opposing views are untenable, His Holiness clarified that the Kagyu tradition follows Gampopa in understanding that the three types of vow are separate in nature, and that the lower vows do not transform when the higher are taken. Rather, he emphasized, when we have taken all three types of vow, we remain responsible for observing and guarding all three of them.

再來，法王討論了依於不同動機的三類戒律。第一類戒律的發心是基於恐懼。法王指出，根據律典多處的記載，印度曾經有人為逃避國王的刑罰而剃度為僧。第二類戒律的發心是基於對來世轉生至上三道(增上生)的希求。第三類戒律的發心是基於對輪迴的出離心。法王說，第三類不僅比前二者更好，更是持守戒律唯一真實的基礎。
Gyalwang Karmapa spoke of three types of discipline, each based on a different motivation. One form of discipline is grounded in fear, and His Holiness noted that the vinaya contains many accounts of people in India seeking monastic ordination out of a wish to escape punishment by the king. A second type of discipline is motivated by the hope or wish to be reborn in higher realms in the future, and the third is a discipline based on renunciation of cyclic existence itself. Not only is the third form of discipline superior to the other two, His Holiness said, it is the only authentic basis for holding the vows.

為了詳細說明這點，法王講述了一位噶當派格西——格西波托瓦（Geshe Potowa）的故事。格西波托瓦在遇到在家居士仲敦巴大師——西藏噶當派創始人阿底峽尊者（著名印度大班智達）的心子之前，早已受過出家戒。但在遇到仲敦巴大師並從其處領受教法之後，格西波托瓦生起了強烈的出離心。因此，雖然早已在另一位上師處受出家戒，但讓他首次生起真實的出離心的人卻是仲敦巴大師，因此，格西波托瓦宣稱：授他出家戒的傳戒師，是在家居士仲敦巴大師。這種出離心將他的出家戒轉化為第三類的戒律——基於出離心的清淨戒律。從這個意義上來說，儘管仲敦巴大師並未主持格西波托瓦的授戒儀式，傳戒師的稱呼仍然當之無愧。
Illustrating this point, he related the story of the Kadam geshe, Geshe Potowa, who had already taken monastic ordination before he met the layman Dromtonpa, heart disciple of the founder of the Tibetan Kadam tradition, the great Indian pandit Jowo Atisha. Upon seeing Dromtonpa and receiving instruction from him, Geshe Potowa underwent an intense experience of renunciation, and, consequently, although he had already received his monastic ordination from another teacher, Geshe Potowa declared that Dromtonpa the layteacher was his abbot—that is, the preceptor who had granted him his monastic vows—because it was from Dromtonpa that he had received his first genuine experience of renunciation. It was this renunciation that transformed his monastic discipline into the third type of discipline—pure discipline that is based on renunciation. In that sense, Dromtonpa merited the title of abbot even if he did not preside over the actual ceremony conferring the vows.