[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) › 3.25 # 勝鬘寶窟 3.25 勝鬘寶窟 3.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.25) 「世尊非壞法故名為苦滅」者，第二廣明知滅苦究竟。就文為二：一簡非、二明是。「非壞法」下，簡非也。二乘得滅，名壞法滅也。昔教以身灰智斷，是壞法之滅。今則妙有常住，無累湛然，非同此滅。問：小乘滅分段苦集，既是壞法滅；大乘滅變易苦集，何故非壞法滅？答：了變易因果本自不生，則今所無滅，說此為滅耳。《大品》云「若法前有後無，諸佛菩薩則有過罪。」即其證也。《佛性論》云「破三界諦得有餘，破四種生死思惟煩惱得無餘。」此皆是壞法滅，與大品意同。「所言苦滅者」，第二明是。「無始」者，理滅本有也，非生因造，故云無作。若為生因造作，則是本無今有，故名為起。既非本無今有，故無起。若本無今有，則已有還無，故名滅盡。既非本無今有，則非已有還無，是故無盡。有盡故則是無常，今既離盡是故常住。「自性清淨」者，未現之時名為性淨，顯現之時為方便淨，故云自性清淨。「離一切煩惱藏」者，本隱之時，有惑不能染；顯現之時，無惑之可染。故云離煩惱藏也。有人言：無始無作者，顯理滅不同於道始生終作也。無起無盡者，顯理滅不同於苦始起終盡。離盡常性者，顯前無起無盡，故離盡。以無起，故常住。自性清淨，故離一切煩惱藏。上對苦明滅，今對集明滅，以自性清淨故，非是對治故令煩惱滅也。此釋對三諦明滅，故滅諦異三諦。「世尊過於恒沙」者，釋此一章不同，凡有二說。一古舊釋云：上來所說雖有藏身，並為成聖諦。此文如是〈法身章〉，下不離煩惱藏是〈如來藏章〉。問：依後立名次第，前如來藏、後法身，今乃前明法身、後如來藏，何故爾耶？答：上已論藏身次第竟，今直說身藏體，故不相違。問：今何故不依章名次第前藏後身，而前身後藏？答：諦是果，法身亦是果。欲接果，故滅果明法身果，却明此果本由於藏，故次明於藏。故前章前藏後身是一種次第，今前身後藏復是一種次第。第二江南旻師等，從此文即明空義隱覆成上〈如來藏〉及〈法身章〉者，上舉身藏為明聖諦甚深，故在〈聖諦章〉內。今明在昔，所以未說。由於眾生常我病重，出世之始，須說苦空破物常我，未得早明甚深之理，是為空義隱覆於理。又是空教隱覆真智，故名空義隱覆真實。略同《涅槃》塗乳之譬。彼釋文云：過於恒沙者，謂五住煩惱數過恒沙，法身理隱在眾惑之內，故云不離不脫。與惑識混然未得相異，故云不異。二乘不能思議，故名不思議。以是大覺真性，故云佛法。了因具足，煩惱斷除、真性顯現，是法身成就。今亦不同此說。凡有三意：一者此中未有空義隱覆之文；二者此文亦無無常隱覆之說；三者此文乃明法身不離不脫，不應就佛性釋之。今所明者，如上說。上來明諦體相竟，今第二明法身體。二者若長觀文意，此二猶屬釋滅諦文。但釋滅諦體有三：初正明滅諦體、今次約滅諦明法身、次約法身明如來藏。所以然者，欲明滅諦、法身、如來藏，體一義異。約苦滅義，稱為滅諦；即此苦出纏之義，名為法身；即此法身為煩惱所藏，名如來藏。故既滅諦體中明此三法。又於滅諦明三法者，二乘之人苦滅之時，同於虛空無有法身，亦無如來藏。為對此義，故就苦滅明於身藏。又亦是對二乘明於四法：一者二乘壞法明滅，今明不壞；二者二乘但滅分段、不滅變易，今則一切俱滅；三對二乘滅諦無有法身，今明法身；四對二乘滅諦無如來藏，今則明有。以是義故，就滅諦中明此四法也。問：何故此章明小滅無四、大滅有四？答：滅諦是大乘究竟極地，是故須明大小差別。下辨其相，是諸佛同體義分，非今別體，故言不離。又對生死五陰成身，其體各別，故云不離。體真常住，不可因緣易脫使失，故云不脫。對眾生五陰成身前後易脫，始終不變名為不異。對眾生身十時之異，故云不異。妙出情外，名不思議也。「佛法成就說如來法身」者，上來解法身體，此正解法身名。以一切佛法成就，故名為法身。 > "World-Honoured One, the cessation of suffering is not by way of destroying phenomena": this is the second \[part\], which explains in detail that the cessation of suffering is known definitively. The text has two parts: first, setting aside what is incorrect; second, clarifying what is correct. "Not by way of destroying phenomena" and so on sets aside what is incorrect. For the two vehicles, the attainment of cessation is called cessation through destroying phenomena. In former teachings, using the reduction of the body to ashes and the extinction of consciousness is cessation through destroying phenomena. Now, however, it is wondrous existence eternally abiding, free of encumbrance and pellucidly serene, and is not identical to that cessation. Question: If the Hīnayāna's cessation of the suffering and accumulation of karmic rebirth is already cessation through destroying phenomena, why is the Mahāyāna's cessation of the suffering and accumulation of transformational birth not cessation through destroying phenomena? Answer: Having realized that the causes and effects of transformational birth are fundamentally unproduced, that which is now devoid of cessation is merely spoken of as cessation. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: "If phenomena existed beforehand and were absent thereafter, all buddhas and bodhisattvas would incur transgression." This is its proof. The Buddhagotra-śāstra states: "Destroying the truths of the three realms, one attains \[nirvāṇa\] with residue; destroying the affective afflictions of the four kinds of saṃsāra, one attains \[nirvāṇa\] without residue." These are all cessation through destroying phenomena, identical in intention to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā. / "What is called cessation of suffering": this is the second, clarifying what is correct. "Beginningless": the cessation as principle is fundamentally present; it is not produced by productive causes, and is therefore called "unconditioned (asamskṛta)". If it were produced and conditioned by a productive cause, it would be fundamentally non-existent and only presently existing, which is called "arising". Since it is not fundamentally non-existent and only presently existing, it is "without arising". If it were fundamentally non-existent and presently existing, then having existed it would revert to non-existence, which is called "extinction and ending". Since it is not fundamentally non-existent and presently existing, it does not revert to non-existence after having existed; therefore it is "without end". Because there is an end, it would be impermanent; now, being free from ending, it is eternally abiding. "Purity of intrinsic nature": when it has not yet become manifest, it is called purity of nature; when it is manifest, it is purity through expedient means; hence it is called "purity of intrinsic nature". "Free from all storehouses of afflictions": when fundamentally concealed, though there are delusions, they cannot defile it; when manifest, there are no delusions to be defiled by. Hence it says "free from the storehouse of afflictions". Some say: "Beginningless and unconditioned" shows that cessation as principle differs from the path, which has a beginning in arising and an end in action. "Without arising and without end" shows that cessation as principle differs from suffering, which has a beginning in arising and an end in exhaustion. "By nature eternally free from ending" clarifies the preceding "without arising and without end," and is thus free from ending. Being without arising, it is eternally abiding. Because its intrinsic nature is pure, it is free from all storehouses of afflictions. Above, cessation was clarified in contrast to suffering; here, cessation is clarified in contrast to accumulation: because its intrinsic nature is pure, it does not cause afflictions to cease by means of an antidote. This explanation clarifies cessation in contrast to the \[other\] three truths; hence the truth of cessation differs from the three truths. / "World-Honoured One, exceeding the sands of the Gaṅgā": as for the differing interpretations of this one section, there are altogether two accounts. First, the old explanation says: Although the storehouse and the body have been mentioned above, both were to establish the noble truths. This passage corresponds to the 'Chapter on the Dharmakāya', and below, not being separated from the storehouse of afflictions is the 'Chapter on the Tathāgatagarbha'. Question: According to the order in which the names are established subsequently, tathāgatagarbha comes first and dharmakāya later; why is dharmakāya clarified first now, and tathāgatagarbha later? Answer: Above, the sequence of storehouse and body has already been discussed; here, the essence of the body and the storehouse is directly discussed, so they do not contradict each other. Question: Why not follow the order of the chapter titles now with the storehouse first and the body later, but instead the body first and the storehouse later? Answer: A truth is a fruit, and the dharmakāya is also a fruit. Desiring to connect to the fruit, following the fruit of cessation, it clarifies the fruit of the dharmakāya, and then turns to clarify that this fruit fundamentally stems from the storehouse; therefore it next clarifies the storehouse. Thus, the previous chapter having storehouse first and body later is one kind of sequence; here, having body first and storehouse later is again another kind of sequence. / Second, Master Min of Jiangnan and others hold that from this passage onward, it clarifies how the doctrine of emptiness conceals and covers, establishing the preceding 'Chapter on the Tathāgatagarbha' and 'Chapter on the Dharmakāya'. The body and storehouse were raised above to clarify that the noble truths are profound, and were thus included within the 'Chapter on the Noble Truths'. Now it clarifies why it was not taught in the past: because sentient beings had a grave sickness regarding permanence and self, at the outset of appearing in the world, the Buddha had to teach suffering and emptiness to dismantle beings' \[attachment to\] permanence and self, and could not early on clarify the profound principle; this is the doctrine of emptiness concealing the principle. Furthermore, the teaching of emptiness concealed true wisdom; hence it is called the doctrine of emptiness concealing the truth. This is roughly similar to the metaphor of rubbing milk \[on the sore\] in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. Their commentary states: "Exceeding the sands of the Gaṅgā" refers to the afflictions of the five entrenchments exceeding in number the sands of the Gaṅgā; the principle of the dharmakāya lies concealed within the multiple delusions, so it says "neither separated nor detached". Mixed indistinctly with the conscious delusions, it is not yet differentiated, so it says "not different". The two vehicles cannot conceive of it, so it is called "inconceivable". Because it is the true nature of great awakening, it is called "buddhadharmas". When the revealing causes are fulfilled, afflictions are severed, and the true nature becomes manifest, this is the accomplishment of the dharmakāya. / Now, our view also differs from this account, for three reasons: first, herein there is no text on the doctrine of emptiness concealing \[the truth\]; second, in this passage there is also no statement about impermanence concealing \[the truth\]; third, this text actually clarifies that the dharmakāya is neither separated nor detached, and one should not explain it in terms of the buddha-nature. What is now clarified is as stated above. Above, the essence and marks of the truths have been completely clarified; now secondly, the essence of the dharmakāya is clarified. Furthermore, if one examines the intention of the text over the long run, both of these still belong to the text explaining the truth of cessation. But in explaining the essence of the truth of cessation there are three parts: first, directly clarifying the essence of the truth of cessation; next, clarifying the dharmakāya in reference to the truth of cessation; next, clarifying the tathāgatagarbha in reference to the dharmakāya. The reason for this is that it seeks to show that the truth of cessation, the dharmakāya, and the tathāgatagarbha are one in essence but different in meaning. In reference to the meaning of the cessation of suffering, it is called the truth of cessation; the very meaning of this suffering emerging from entanglement is called the dharmakāya; this very dharmakāya being concealed by afflictions is called the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore, within the essence of the truth of cessation, these three dharmas are clarified. / Moreover, the reason these three dharmas are clarified in reference to the truth of cessation is that when the suffering of persons of the two vehicles ceases, it is like empty space, having neither dharmakāya nor tathāgatagarbha. In contrast to this meaning, the body and the storehouse are clarified in reference to the cessation of suffering. Furthermore, it is also to clarify four dharmas in contrast to the two vehicles: first, the two vehicles clarify cessation through destroying phenomena, whereas here it is clarified as non-destruction; second, the two vehicles only cease karmic rebirth and do not cease transformational birth, whereas here all are ceased together; third, in contrast to the two vehicles' truth of cessation having no dharmakāya, here the dharmakāya is clarified; fourth, in contrast to the two vehicles' truth of cessation having no tathāgatagarbha, here it is clarified as existing. For this reason, these four dharmas are clarified within the truth of cessation. / Question: Why does this chapter clarify that the Hīnayāna cessation lacks the four, while the Mahāyāna cessation possesses the four? Answer: The truth of cessation is the ultimate, supreme stage of the Mahāyāna; therefore one must clarify the distinction between the Great and the Small. / Below, discriminating its marks: these are the distinctions of meaning within the one essence of all buddhas, not separate essences at present; hence it says "not separated". Furthermore, in contrast to the five aggregates of saṃsāra forming a body where the entities are individually distinct, it says "not separated". The essence is truly eternally abiding and cannot be changed or lost through causes and conditions; hence it says "not detached". In contrast to sentient beings' five aggregates forming a body that changes and sheds before and after, being unchanging from beginning to end is called "not different". In contrast to the differences among the ten periods of a sentient being's body, it says "not different". Subtly transcending ordinary comprehension, it is called "inconceivable". / "Accomplished with the buddhadharmas, it is called the Tathāgata's dharmakāya": the above explained the essence of the dharmakāya; this directly explains the name of the dharmakāya. Because it is accomplished with all buddhadharmas, it is called the dharmakāya. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.24) - [Next: 3.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.26) - [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.3.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.3.25) · Pramāṇa