[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [勝鬘寶窟](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744) › 2.44 # 勝鬘寶窟 2.44 勝鬘寶窟 2.44 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.44) 「何以故有二種死」下，上總明二乘不得四智，今第二別明不得也。又上來明不得四智，今釋不得所以。就文有二：初「何以故」者，問也。問意云：如來昔說二乘有四智究竟，今何故言不究竟？「有二種死」者，第二答也。答中有二：一別釋不得四智所以；二「阿羅漢辟支佛後身菩薩為無明所覆」下，通釋不得四智所以。且初是明二乘不得四智、次明二乘不得四智功德，即成四別。前辨我生已盡智是方便；「得有餘」下，就梵行已立是方便。「凡夫人」下，就所作已辦明方便。「所斷煩惱更不能」下，就不受後有明方便。今前明我生已盡中，正以有二種生死者，就斷一生死盡，權言究竟；餘有一生死在，故不究竟。是故今昔教不相違。餘三智且爾。我生已盡中，前明二死、次辨方便。初文有三：一舉數；二列名；三「分段者謂虛偽眾生」下，約人顯別。「有二種死」者，此舉二數也。且有二生，但死是可厭之法，故偏說耳。二死別有義章，今略以四門解釋。第一釋名門。言分段生死者，謂色形區別、壽期短長也。言變易者，無復色形區別、壽期短長，但以心神念念相傳前變後易也。如《地持》云「生滅壞苦，名變易苦。」此微細生滅變易，通於凡聖。次三乘所得法身，神化自在能變易，故名變易。此變易性是死法，名變易死。此之一義，聖有凡無。三證得真實法身，隱顯自在，名為變易。變易非死，但此變易猶為無常死法所隨，名變易死。此之一義，大有小無。今所論者，正據第二門說聖人無漏法身為生死，不就神道變化為變易，以其雖是無漏猶是有為，故名變易。問：云何名生死？答：初受名生，命斷為死。諸受根起名生，諸受根沒、次第不受根起名死。後當釋之。「不思議」者，三種人雖受彼生，不能測度，名不思議。又三界分段顯然易了，變易取其微細改易難可了知，名不思議。又此生死至佛方盡，故不可能測度也。 > From "Why? There are two kinds of death" downward: previously the text broadly explained that \[practitioners of\] the two vehicles do not obtain the four wisdoms; now, secondly, it specifically explains why they do not obtain them. Furthermore, the preceding text explained their failure to obtain the four wisdoms; here it explains the reason why they do not obtain them. In the text there are two parts: first, "Why?" is a question. The meaning of the question is: "The Tathāgata in the past taught that \[practitioners of\] the two vehicles have the ultimate fulfillment of the four wisdoms; why does he now say that they are not ultimate?" "There are two kinds of death" is, secondly, the answer. Within the answer there are two parts: first, a specific explanation of the reason why they do not obtain the four wisdoms; second, from "arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas in their final bodily existence are veiled by ignorance" downward, a general explanation of the reason why they do not obtain the four wisdoms. Moreover, the first shows that the two vehicles do not obtain the four wisdoms; next it shows that the two vehicles do not obtain the virtues of the four wisdoms, thus forming four distinct sections. First, it analyzes that the wisdom of "my births are exhausted" is an upāya; from "obtaining the remainder" downward, it explains that "the noble practice has been established" is an upāya; from "ordinary people" downward, it explains the upāya in terms of "what was to be done has been accomplished"; from "the defilements that have been severed can never again..." downward, it explains the upāya in terms of "there will be no receiving of further existence." Now, in the first section explaining "my births are exhausted," precisely because there are two kinds of birth-and-death, with respect to the exhaustion of one kind of birth-and-death, it was provisionally stated to be ultimate; yet because the remaining one kind of birth-and-death still exists, it is not ultimate. Therefore, the present and past teachings do not contradict each other. The remaining three wisdoms are also like this. In the section on "my births are exhausted," it first clarifies the two deaths and next analyzes the upāya. The first passage has three parts: first, it adduces the number; second, it lists the names; third, from "fragmentary \[death\] refers to false and deceptive sentient beings" downward, it reveals the distinction in terms of persons. "There are two kinds of death": this adduces the number of two. There are also two kinds of birth, but because death is a phenomenon to be reviled, it is mentioned specifically. The two deaths have a separate thematic essay, but here they are briefly explained through four gates. The first is the gate of explaining the names. As for fragmentary birth-and-death: it refers to distinctions in physical form and differences in the span of lifespan, whether short or long. As for \[inconceivable\] transformation \[birth-and-death\]: there are no longer distinctions in physical form or differences in the span of lifespan, but merely the succession of thoughts in the mind, the preceding transforming and the succeeding altering. As the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: "The suffering of arising, ceasing, and deterioration is called the suffering of transformation." This subtle arising and ceasing transformation is common to both ordinary beings and nobles. Next, the dharmakāya attained by the three vehicles has spiritual power and sovereignty capable of transforming and altering; hence it is called transformation. This nature of transformation is a phenomenon of death; hence it is called transformation death. This single meaning belongs to nobles and is absent in ordinary beings. Third, having realized and attained the true dharmakāya, hiding and appearing at will is called transformation. Transformation is not death, but this transformation is still accompanied by the impermanent phenomenon of death; hence it is called transformation death. This single meaning belongs to the Great \[Vehicle\] and is absent in the Small. What is discussed here properly relies on the second gate: it speaks of the noble's uncontaminated dharmakāya as birth-and-death, not taking spiritual transformation as transformation; because although it is uncontaminated it is still conditioned, it is called transformation. Question: Why is it called birth-and-death? Answer: The initial reception \[of life\] is called birth, and the termination of the life-span is called death. The arising of the faculties that receive \[experience\] is called birth; the submergence of the faculties that receive \[experience\] and the sequential arising of faculties that do not receive \[it\] is called death. This will be explained later. "Inconceivable": although the three kinds of persons receive that birth, they cannot fathom it; hence it is called inconceivable. Furthermore, the fragmentary \[birth-and-death\] of the three realms is obvious and easy to understand, whereas transformation is taken in terms of its subtle alteration being difficult to understand; hence it is called inconceivable. Furthermore, this birth-and-death is only exhausted upon reaching Buddhahood; therefore it cannot be fathomed. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.43.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.43.4) - [Next: 2.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.45) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744~en-mt.2.44) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.2.44) · Pramāṇa