[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) › 3.22 # 勝鬘寶窟 3.22 勝鬘寶窟 3.22 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.22) 「於說如來藏如來法身不可思議」下，第三總舉身藏勸信二諦。初言「於說藏」者，舉如來藏。「如來法身」者，舉佛法身。此雙牒藏身二句也。「不可思議境界」者，明藏身真實，則非餘人所測，故不思議，唯佛所知，名佛境界。「及方便說」者，明藏身權實也。問：何者是藏身權實？答：藏實者，謂真如佛性；藏權者，如說生死以為藏等。又說如來藏明眾生有佛性者，此是真實；說有三乘等性者，此是方便。身實者，所謂諸佛法身；身權者，所謂化身。又如來藏及法身，有佛無佛性相常住，非是說時便有、不說便無，故是身藏實也。「及方便」者，昔說無常教也。有人言：明佛善巧，能為眾生說如來藏以為作無作二聖諦，名方便說。此師以所說身藏為真實，巧方便說名方便也。今謂不然。正以身權實，類諦亦有權實，有作為權諦、無作為實諦。「心得決定」者，於彼藏身權之與實信不疑也。信者，是決定義也。「此則信解說二聖諦」者，以前類後。若能信彼藏身權實，當知亦信諦權實也。「如是難知難解」下，第三廣釋二諦名義。就釋二諦為四：一標二數；「何等」以下，第二列二名；從「說作聖諦義」者已下，第三廣釋二聖諦；從「如是八聖諦」已下，第四明開權顯實。「如是難知」下，標二名。「何等」已下，列二數。權名有作，亦名有量；實名無作，亦名無量也。言作無作，從行立名。舉小乘諦聖後，更有大乘觀諦可以修作，名為有作。以有作觀智，詺所觀諦，故名有作諦。舉大乘觀諦聖後，更無餘觀可作，名曰無作。以無作觀智，詺所觀諦，名無作諦。又釋有邊四諦，是二乘所觀，其人未是究竟，方有所作。無邊四諦，是如來所照，佛是究竟，更無所作。故作無作從人為別。又云：有為諦名作，以有為法是起作義；無為諦名無作，以無為法無起作故。故下文云「有為生死，無為生死。」亦云有量無量者，二乘智力有限量，佛智無限量。邊無邊亦如是。二乘智有岸極為有邊，佛智無岸極為無邊，悉是隨人為名。今以四義釋之：一麁細門。若說分段因果及能治滅道，稱為有量；若說變易因果及能治滅道，稱曰無量。二廣狹門。若說苦集唯其分段因果、滅道唯是分段對治，故名有量；若說苦集該通分段變易兩種因果、滅道該攝分段變易二種對治，故名無量。三淺深門。小乘所願，唯知染淨因果法相，此毘曇宗也。□又說極深，唯知四諦，因緣假有無性之空，此成論宗也。故名有量也。大乘所觀，明空則本性寂滅、辨有則窮如來藏，故名無量。四總別門。小乘法中雖觀四諦，總相麁知，名為有量；大乘法中隨別細知，名為無量。知一苦中，具知法界微塵數苦；集等亦然。故《涅槃經》云「所說苦等，中智所知。分別苦等有無量種，非諸聲聞緣覺所知。我於彼經竟不說之。」今且約行明作無作也。「說作聖諦義」者，三廣釋。釋二即二：前釋有作、次釋無作。作中四：第一牒；二略釋；三「何以故」下，廣釋；四「是故」下，結也。「作聖諦」者，牒也。「是說有量」，轉名顯示，第二略釋也。「何以故」者，第三廣釋。何以故有作名有量？下對釋之。明二乘人因他知故，不知一切，故名有量。文言「非因他能知一切苦」者，二乘是因他得悟之人。今明非是因他之人得知一切苦，故名有量。有人言：若觀解中，未知萬法唯心，謂心外有法、心依境起，名曰因他。若因他知者，非是一切，是有量也。今謂非無唯識之義，此法師安不得所，今如上釋也。「是故世尊」下，第四結也。是二乘人，因他不知一切苦，故但知有為生死，不知別更有其無為生死，因他不能知一切滅，故但知有餘涅槃，不知別更有其無餘涅槃也。「有為生死無為生死」者，此二生死立名，凡有四種：一者分段變易，如上所釋。二者思議不思議，分段麁近，易可測度，名可思議；變易微細，難可測度，名不思議。三有量無量。分段局在三有，名為有量；變易出於三有，乃至金剛，名曰無量。四有為無為。分段名曰有為，變易名曰無為。分段之因名為有漏、變易因名無漏，分段果名有為、變易果名無為。對界內有漏、語界外為無漏，然實是有漏；對界內有為，名界外無為，然實是有為。又出三界分段桎梏籠煩，名為無為。而有念念生滅，稱為生死。如《法華》諸子出於火宅，到於空地，空地即是無為也。此以重苦為有為，輕苦為無為。如以重苦為苦，輕苦為樂。滅有為生死名有餘，以其猶有無為生死故；滅無為生死名曰無餘，以其無復餘生死故。有人言：有為生死者，蓋是從人以判名。凡夫學人於三有中造有漏業，起分段生，故曰有為。有為眾生所受生死，名有為生死。無學人不造結業起分段生，名曰無為。無為聖人所受生死，名無為生死也。有人言：有為生死者，為之言作，猶是有作智所觀生死。無為生死者，猶是無作智所觀生死也。涅槃亦有有餘無餘，有餘涅槃是有量滅諦，有餘不盡；無餘涅槃者是無量滅諦，無復餘果也。有人言：二乘方有所為，能知分段，故謂分段，名有為生死。如來無復所為，能照變易，故曰變易，名無為生死。此並從人得名。有人言：有漏業報得分段名有為，無漏因無明緣起變易名無為。此從因受名，有漏因感名有為，無漏因感名無為。依《寶性論》云「三種意生身，因無漏善根所作，名為世間；以離業煩惱所作，故亦名涅槃。」有人釋此論云：約有為義，名有為生死；約無為義，名無為生死。約世間名有為，名有餘涅槃；約無為涅槃，名無餘涅槃。今此論文者，三種意生身人，無復分段名為涅槃，猶有變易名為世間。故此人亦是涅槃人，亦是世間人。故有四句：一但生死非涅槃，謂凡夫及學；二但涅槃非生死，所謂佛也；三亦生死亦涅槃，謂二乘人也；四俱非者，泯上三句。故《華嚴》云「生死及涅槃，二俱不可得。」此得無為涅槃人。所感生死。名無為生死。未得無為涅槃人所感生死，名有為生死也；得無為人所得涅槃，名無餘涅槃；未得無為所得涅槃，名有餘涅槃。望後猶有大涅槃在，故名有餘。此是將後別前，故名有餘；無餘可知。有人言：從人別餘無餘。有餘果人所證，故曰有餘；無餘果人所證，故曰無餘。汎經論中明餘無餘涅槃，略為五對：一唯就小乘說，因亡名有餘，果盡名無餘。二唯就大乘說，因盡名有餘，果盡名無餘。如變易因盡為有餘，變易果盡為無餘。所以然者，金剛心斷變易因盡，而變易果猶存，有餘累故曰有餘。佛果為解脫道起，則無復因累，變易生死果亦亡，則無復果累故，故名無餘也。問：若爾，小乘金剛心斷分段因盡，分段果猶存，羅漢果作解脫道起。分段因既盡，分段果亦應無。答：不類。佛解脫道起，此是常智起，常智起即是常身起，常身起故無常身即謝。小乘解脫道起，此是無漏智，非是變易報，不得言智起變易報亦起，分段報即謝。所以然者，無漏智是變易因故。文云無漏業因，無明為緣，感變易報。所以無漏起時，非變易報起，是故分段報不即無。問：要待佛果常身起，無常報方無者，亦應要待變易報起，分段報方無。答：非類。斷分段因盡，而灰身滅智，分段報任運無，變易報方起。如人報謝，故天報起；不由天報起，故人報謝。佛果法身，與此非類。要由解脫起，解脫道是法身故。法身起，變易報方無。所以非類也。問：金剛心斷變易因盡即名有餘涅槃者，亦應金剛心斷變易因盡即是盡智。答：此是一類義。要由佛果起，方名盡智。要由佛果起，方名有餘涅槃。但約佛果望因盡義邊為有餘，望果盡義邊名無餘耳。非金剛心斷惑盡即名有餘涅槃。問：若爾，金剛心斷惑不盡。答：雖盡，要待解脫道起，證惑無處，始相離，故金剛心未得盡智名。問：若佛果起變易因果即無，若今豈非生死斷為斷見、佛果起為常見。如下文「見諸行無常為斷見、見涅槃常為常見。」答：有所得人，非此解者，則墮斷常。今明悟變易因果本來無生，故名為斷。非前有法斷，即今無也。三菩提所得因果無處為有餘，佛所得因果無處為無餘。四如《攝大乘論》及《金光明》，應化身為有餘，法身為無餘。故《金光明》云「是二身者，是假名有，念念滅故，名曰無常。」此取其非究竟義為有餘，法身究竟故名無餘。五大小相對，小乘中因果盡名有餘、大乘因果盡名無餘。《佛性論》云「二乘有三種餘：一煩惱餘，謂無明住地；二業餘，謂無漏業；三果報餘，即意生身陰。」問：前具明四諦，今何故但云生死涅槃？答：略論苦滅二果、集道二因，集道易知。又舉二死結苦集，舉涅槃結滅道。雖對舉二種，意明二乘止度一死、止證一涅槃也。 > From “Regarding the preaching of the tathāgatagarbha and the tathāgata's dharmakāya, which are inconceivable” downwards, the third \[section\] generally raises the body and the garbha to encourage faith in the two truths. First, “regarding the preaching of the garbha” raises the tathāgatagarbha. “The tathāgata's dharmakāya” raises the Buddha's dharmakāya. These two clauses restate the garbha and the body together. “Inconceivable realm” explains that the garbha and body are real and ultimate, hence beyond the comprehension of others; thus they are inconceivable, known only to the Buddha, and termed the Buddha's realm. “And the preaching through upāya” clarifies the provisional and real aspects of the garbha and body. Question: What are the provisional and real aspects of the garbha and body? Answer: The real aspect of the garbha refers to the tathatā-buddhadhātu; the provisional aspect of the garbha refers to expounding saṃsāra as a garbha, and so forth. Furthermore, explaining that sentient beings have the buddhadhātu through preaching the tathāgatagarbha is real; preaching that there are natures of the three vehicles and so forth is an upāya. The real aspect of the body is the dharmakāya of all Buddhas; the provisional aspect of the body is the nirmāṇakāya. Moreover, regarding the tathāgatagarbha and the dharmakāya, whether a Buddha exists or not, their nature and characteristics are eternally abiding; it is not that they exist only when preached and cease to exist when not preached. Hence they are the real body and garbha. “And upāya” refers to the former teaching of impermanence. Some say: this elucidates the Buddha's skillful means in being able to preach the tathāgatagarbha for sentient beings as the two noble truths of the created and the uncreated, which is termed preaching through upāya. This master regards the preached body and garbha as the real, and the skillful preaching through upāya as the upāya. Now, I consider this to be incorrect. Rather, by the provisional and real of the body, we analogously show that the truths also possess provisional and real: the created is the provisional truth, and the uncreated is the real truth. “Having gained decisive conviction in one's mind” means having unwavering faith without doubt in the provisional and the real of that garbha and body. Faith means decisive conviction. “This is faithful understanding of the preaching of the two noble truths” uses what precedes to analogously explain what follows. If one can believe in the provisional and real of that garbha and body, one should know that one also believes in the provisional and real of the truths. From “such are difficult to know and difficult to understand” downwards, the third \[section\] extensively explains the names and meanings of the two truths. The explanation of the two truths consists of four \[parts\]: first, marking the count of two; from “what are they” downwards, second, listing the two names; from “the meaning of the preaching of the created noble truths” onwards, third, extensively explaining the two noble truths; from “such eight noble truths” onwards, fourth, clarifying the opening of the provisional to reveal the real. From “such are difficult to know” downwards, it marks the two names. From “what are they” onwards, it lists the count of two. The provisional is called “created” and also called “limited”; the real is called “uncreated” and also called “illimitable.” The terms “created” and “uncreated” establish their designations from practice. After mentioning the noble truths of the Hīnayāna, there remains the Mahāyāna contemplation of the truths that can be cultivated and practiced; hence it is called “created.” By means of this created contemplative wisdom, the truth contemplated is designated; thus it is called the “created truth.” After mentioning the noble truths of the Mahāyāna contemplation, there remains no further contemplation to be practiced; hence it is called “uncreated.” By means of this uncreated contemplative wisdom, the truth contemplated is designated; thus it is called the “uncreated truth.” Another interpretation: the four truths with limits are what the two vehicles contemplate; those practitioners are not yet ultimate, and thus still have something to do. The four truths without limits are what the Tathāgata illuminates; the Buddha is ultimate, having nothing further to do. Thus “created” and “uncreated” are distinguished according to the persons. Again, it is said: the conditioned truths are called “created,” because conditioned phenomena carry the meaning of arising and creating; the unconditioned truths are called “uncreated,” because unconditioned phenomena lack arising and creating. Hence the text below says “conditioned saṃsāra and unconditioned saṃsāra.” It is also said that they are “limited” and “illimitable”: the intellectual capacity of the two vehicles has limitations, whereas the Buddha's wisdom is illimitable. “Bounded” and “unbounded” are also like this: the wisdom of the two vehicles has an edge or limit, so it is bounded; the Buddha's wisdom has no edge or limit, so it is unbounded. All these are designated in accordance with the persons. Now, I explain them through four meanings: First, the gate of coarse and subtle. If one explains the cause and effect of portioned \[saṃsāra\] and the cessation and path that can remedy them, it is called “limited”; if one explains the cause and effect of inconceivable transformation \[saṃsāra\] and the cessation and path that can remedy them, it is called “illimitable.” Second, the gate of broad and narrow. If one says that suffering and origin are solely the cause and effect of portioned \[saṃsāra\], and cessation and path are solely remedies against portioned \[saṃsāra\], it is called “limited”; if one says that suffering and origin encompass both kinds of cause and effect—portioned and transformative—and cessation and path encompass both kinds of remedies—portioned and transformative—it is called “illimitable.” Third, the gate of shallow and deep. What the Hīnayāna aspires to is solely knowing the dharmic characteristics of defiled and pure cause and effect; this is the Abhidharma school. \[…\] Again, when expounding profound depth, it only knows the four truths, and the emptiness of the lack of inherent nature in causal nominal existence; this is the Chengshi (Tattvasiddhi) school. Hence it is called “limited.” What the Mahāyāna contemplates explains emptiness as original tranquility, and discerns existence as fathoming the tathāgatagarbha; hence it is called “illimitable.” Fourth, the gate of general and particular. Although in the Hīnayāna Dharma one contemplates the four truths, it is a general and coarse knowledge, called “limited”; in the Mahāyāna Dharma, one knows them in fine detail according to particulars, called “illimitable.” In knowing a single suffering, one completely knows sufferings equal in number to the dust motes of the dharmadhātu; origin and the others are likewise. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “What is preached of suffering and the rest is known by intermediate wisdom. To distinguish that suffering and the rest have immeasurable varieties is not something known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. In that sūtra I did not preach it after all.” For now, we elucidate “created” and “uncreated” in terms of practice. “The meaning of the preaching of the created noble truths” is the third, the extensive explanation. Explaining the two involves two parts: first explaining the created, next explaining the uncreated. The created has four parts: first, restatement; second, brief explanation; third, from “why is that” downwards, extensive explanation; fourth, from “therefore” downwards, conclusion. “Created noble truths” is the restatement. “This is said to be limited” shifts the name to demonstrate it, which is the second, the brief explanation. “Why is that” is the third, the extensive explanation. Why is the created called limited? The explanation follows below in contrast. It clarifies that because people of the two vehicles know through others, they do not know all; hence it is called limited. The text says “it is not that through others one can know all suffering”; the two vehicles are persons who attain awakening through others. Here it clarifies that it is not that a person \[relying\] on others can know all suffering; hence it is called limited. Some say: if in contemplative understanding one does not yet know that the ten thousand dharmas are mind-only, believing that there are dharmas outside the mind and that mind arises based on objects, this is called “due to others.” If one knows due to others, it is not all; it is limited. Now, I say: it is not that there is no meaning of Consciousness-Only, but this master has misapplied it; it should be explained as above. From “Therefore, World-Honoured One” downwards is the fourth, the conclusion. Because these persons of the two vehicles do not know all suffering due to \[relying on\] others, they only know conditioned saṃsāra and do not know that there is separately an unconditioned saṃsāra; because through others they cannot know all cessation, they only know nirvāṇa with remainder and do not know that there is separately a nirvāṇa without remainder. Regarding “conditioned saṃsāra and unconditioned saṃsāra,” these two designations of saṃsāra have generally four kinds: First, portioned and transformative, as explained above. Second, conceivable and inconceivable: portioned is coarse and near, easily measured, so called conceivable; transformative is subtle, difficult to measure, so called inconceivable. Third, limited and illimitable: portioned is confined to the three existences, called limited; transformative transcends the three existences up to the vajra\[-like mind\], called illimitable. Fourth, conditioned and unconditioned: portioned is called conditioned, transformative is called unconditioned. The cause of portioned is called with outflows; the cause of transformative is called without outflows. The fruit of portioned is called conditioned; the fruit of transformative is called unconditioned. Relative to the internal realm with outflows, what is outside the realm is called without outflows, yet in reality it has outflows; relative to the conditioned inside the realm, what is outside the realm is called unconditioned, yet in reality it is conditioned. Moreover, transcending the shackles, cages, and vexations of portioned \[existence\] in the three realms is called unconditioned, yet possessing thought-by-thought arising and ceasing is termed saṃsāra. As in the Lotus Sūtra, where the children exit the burning house and reach the open ground, the open ground is precisely the unconditioned. Here, heavy suffering is taken as conditioned, and light suffering as unconditioned—just as heavy suffering is regarded as suffering, and light suffering as pleasure. Extinguishing conditioned saṃsāra is called “with remainder,” because there is still unconditioned saṃsāra; extinguishing unconditioned saṃsāra is called “without remainder,” because there is no further remaining saṃsāra. Some say: “conditioned saṃsāra” is distinguished in name based on the person. Ordinary beings and trainees generate karma with outflows in the three existences, giving rise to portioned birth; hence it is called conditioned. The saṃsāra undergone by conditioned sentient beings is called conditioned saṃsāra. Non-trainees do not create binding karma to give rise to portioned birth; hence they are called unconditioned. The saṃsāra undergone by unconditioned noble ones is called unconditioned saṃsāra. Some say: regarding conditioned saṃsāra, “wei” (conditioned) means “zuo” (created); it is the saṃsāra contemplated by created wisdom. Unconditioned saṃsāra is the saṃsāra contemplated by uncreated wisdom. Nirvāṇa also has with remainder and without remainder: nirvāṇa with remainder is the limited truth of cessation, having a remainder that is not exhausted; nirvāṇa without remainder is the illimitable truth of cessation, having no further remaining fruit. Some say: the two vehicles only now have something to do, and can know the portioned; hence they consider the portioned and call it conditioned saṃsāra. The Tathāgata has nothing further to do and can illuminate the transformative; hence he speaks of the transformative and calls it unconditioned saṃsāra. These both derive their names from persons. Some say: karmic retribution with outflows obtains portioned \[birth\] and is called conditioned; the non-outflow cause conditioned by fundamental ignorance gives rise to transformative \[birth\] and is called unconditioned. This receives its name from the cause: what is induced by causes with outflows is called conditioned, and what is induced by non-outflow causes is called unconditioned. According to the Ratnagotravibhāga: “The three kinds of mind-made bodies, being produced due to non-outflow roots of goodness, are called worldly; because they are produced free from karma and afflictions, they are also called nirvāṇa.” Someone explained this treatise: in terms of the meaning of conditioned, it is called conditioned saṃsāra; in terms of the meaning of unconditioned, it is called unconditioned saṃsāra. In terms of the worldly, it is called conditioned and is nirvāṇa with remainder; in terms of unconditioned nirvāṇa, it is nirvāṇa without remainder. Now, regarding the text of this treatise: persons with the three kinds of mind-made bodies no longer have portioned \[birth\], which is called nirvāṇa; yet they still have transformative \[birth\], which is called worldly. Therefore, this person is both a person of nirvāṇa and a person of the world. Thus there are four propositions: 1. only saṃsāra and not nirvāṇa, referring to ordinary beings and trainees; 2. only nirvāṇa and not saṃsāra, referring to the Buddha; 3. both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, referring to persons of the two vehicles; 4. neither, which obliterates the above three propositions. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: “Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, both are unattainable.” The saṃsāra induced by a person who has attained this unconditioned nirvāṇa is called unconditioned saṃsāra. The saṃsāra induced by a person who has not attained unconditioned nirvāṇa is called conditioned saṃsāra; the nirvāṇa attained by one who has attained the unconditioned is called nirvāṇa without remainder; the nirvāṇa attained by one who has not attained the unconditioned is called nirvāṇa with remainder. Viewed in light of the fact that the great nirvāṇa still remains ahead, it is called “with remainder.” This uses what follows to distinguish what precedes, hence it is called “with remainder”; “without remainder” can be understood accordingly. Some say: remainder and without remainder are distinguished by persons. What is realized by a person of the fruit with remainder is called with remainder; what is realized by a person of the fruit without remainder is called without remainder. Generally, in sūtras and treatises, the explanation of nirvāṇa with and without remainder comprises briefly five pairs: First, stated solely in terms of the Hīnayāna: the extinction of cause is called with remainder, and the exhaustion of fruit is called without remainder. Second, stated solely in terms of the Mahāyāna: the exhaustion of cause is called with remainder, and the exhaustion of fruit is called without remainder. As when the cause of transformative \[saṃsāra\] is exhausted, it is with remainder; when the fruit of transformative \[saṃsāra\] is exhausted, it is without remainder. Why is this so? The vajra-like mind exhausts the causes of transformative \[saṃsāra\], yet the fruit of transformative \[saṃsāra\] still remains; possessing the remaining burden, it is called “with remainder.” When the Buddha fruit arises as the path of liberation, there is no longer any causal burden, and the fruit of transformative saṃsāra also perishes, so there is no longer any burden of the fruit; hence it is called “without remainder.” Question: If so, when the Hīnayāna vajra-like mind exhausts the causes of portioned \[saṃsāra\], the portioned fruit still remains, and the arhat fruit arises as the path of liberation. Since the causes of portioned \[saṃsāra\] are exhausted, should not the portioned fruit also cease to exist? Answer: They are not analogous. When the Buddha's path of liberation arises, this is the arising of eternal wisdom; the arising of eternal wisdom is precisely the arising of the eternal body, and because the eternal body arises, the impermanent body immediately passes away. When the Hīnayāna path of liberation arises, this is non-outflow wisdom, not transformative retribution; one cannot say that when wisdom arises the transformative retribution also arises and the portioned retribution immediately passes away. Why is this? Because non-outflow wisdom is the cause of transformative \[saṃsāra\]. The text states: non-outflow karma as cause and fundamental ignorance as condition induce transformative retribution. Therefore, when the non-outflow arises, transformative retribution does not arise; hence the portioned retribution does not immediately cease to exist. Question: If one must wait for the eternal body of the Buddha fruit to arise before impermanent retribution ceases, then one should also have to wait for transformative retribution to arise before portioned retribution ceases. Answer: They are not of the same category. When the causes of portioned \[saṃsāra\] are completely severed, by reducing the body to ashes and annihilating consciousness, portioned retribution naturally ceases to exist, and only then does transformative retribution arise. Just as when human retribution passes away heavenly retribution arises—it is not that because heavenly retribution arises human retribution passes away. The dharmakāya of the Buddha fruit is not of the same category as this. It must arise through liberation, because the path of liberation is the dharmakāya. When the dharmakāya arises, only then does transformative retribution cease. Therefore, they are not analogous. Question: If the severance of transformative causes by the vajra-like mind is called nirvāṇa with remainder, then should the severance of transformative causes by the vajra-like mind also be the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna)? Answer: This is one perspective of interpretation. Only when the Buddha fruit arises is it called the knowledge of exhaustion; only when the Buddha fruit arises is it called nirvāṇa with remainder. It is only from the perspective of the Buddha fruit looking back at the meaning of causal exhaustion that it is called “with remainder,” and looking at the exhaustion of the fruit that it is called “without remainder.” It is not that the moment the vajra-like mind cuts off afflictions it is already called nirvāṇa with remainder. Question: If so, does the vajra-like mind fail to cut off afflictions completely? Answer: Although it cuts them off completely, one must wait for the path of liberation to arise, realizing the place free of afflictions, before they are fully dissociated; therefore, the vajra-like mind does not yet obtain the name “knowledge of exhaustion.” Question: If with the arising of the Buddha fruit transformative causes and fruits cease to exist, would this not mean that the cessation of saṃsāra is the view of annihilation, and the arising of the Buddha fruit is the view of eternalism? As the text below says: “To see conditioned states as impermanent is the view of annihilation; to see nirvāṇa as eternal is the view of eternalism.” Answer: For those with acquisitive attachment who lack this understanding, they fall into annihilation and eternalism. Here it is clarified that awakening to transformative causes and fruits as originally unborn is called cessation. It is not that a previously existing dharma is severed and now becomes non-existent. Third, the place devoid of causes and fruits attained by bodhi is with remainder; the place devoid of causes and fruits attained by the Buddha is without remainder. Fourth, as in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, the nirmāṇakāya and saṃbhogakāya are with remainder, and the dharmakāya is without remainder. Hence the Suvarṇaprabhāsa says: “These two bodies exist merely as nominal designations, perishing thought-by-thought, hence called impermanent.” This takes the non-ultimate meaning as with remainder, and the dharmakāya as ultimate, hence called without remainder. Fifth, the contrast between the Great and the Small: in the Hīnayāna, the exhaustion of causes and fruits is called with remainder; in the Mahāyāna, the exhaustion of causes and fruits is called without remainder. The Buddhadhātuvibhāga states: “The two vehicles have three kinds of remainders: 1. remainder of afflictions, namely the stage of abiding in ignorance; 2. remainder of karma, namely non-outflow karma; 3. remainder of fruit-retribution, namely the aggregates of the mind-made body.” Question: Previously the four truths were fully elucidated; why does it now speak only of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa? Answer: It briefly discusses the two fruits of suffering and cessation, and the two causes of origin and path; origin and path are easy to understand. Moreover, it raises the two saṃsāras to conclude suffering and origin, and raises nirvāṇa to conclude cessation and path. Although raising both pairs in contrast, the intention is to clarify that the two vehicles merely cross over one saṃsāra and merely realize one nirvāṇa. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.21) - [Next: 3.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.23) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744~en-mt.3.22) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.22) · Pramāṇa