勝鬘寶窟 2.43.2

2.43.2

According to the *Vibhāṣā*, "the brahma-conduct has been established" is the wisdom of cultivating the path; according to this text, it is the wisdom of witnessing cessation. The reason is this: *brahma* is a name for nirvāṇa, and the practice that witnesses the *brahma* is called the brahma-conduct; therefore it is said that "the brahma-conduct has been established" is the wisdom of cultivating the path. This sūtra takes what is witnessed by the brahma-conduct to be the wisdom of cessation. What is witnessed has two aspects: the first is [nirvāṇa] with remainder, and the second is [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Where [samsāra of] fragmentary [death] is exhausted is its [nirvāṇa] with remainder; where [samsāra of] inconceivable transformation is exhausted is its [nirvāṇa] without remainder. The arhats and pratyekabuddhas have only begun to witness [the nirvāṇa] with remainder; though they have made an attainment, it is commingled with the causes and fruits of transformation, which is termed the brahma-conduct with remainder being accomplished, and therefore it is not pure. Hence "the brahma-conduct has been established" is the wisdom of witnessing cessation.

"Their task is not definitive, and they must have something further to do": their wisdom that "what was to be done has been accomplished" is not definitive. According to the *Vibhāṣā*, this is the wisdom of witnessing cessation; according to this text, it is the wisdom of cultivating the path. The reason is this: according to the *Vibhāṣā*, witnessing and attaining nirvāṇa is called "what was to be done has been accomplished"; therefore "what was to be done has been accomplished" is the wisdom of witnessing cessation. This sūtra explains that the cultivation of the path has two aspects: first, the antidote to fragmentary [death]; second, the antidote to [samsāra of inconceivable] transformation. The two vehicles only cultivate the antidote to fragmentary [death] and have not yet cultivated the rest. Therefore it is said that "their task is not definitive," meaning that because the task of cultivating the path is not definitive, they must have something further to do. Hence in this sūtra it is the wisdom of cultivating the path.

"Because they have not crossed over it, there must be something to sever": their wisdom that "they will not receive further existence" is not definitive. According to the *Vibhāṣā*, this is the wisdom of knowing suffering; if according to this text, it is the wisdom of severing accumulation. The reason is this: the fruition of suffering is "further existence"; hence in the *Vibhāṣā* "not receiving further existence" is the wisdom of knowing suffering. This sūtra explains that accumulation has two kinds: first, the cause of fragmentary [death]; second, the cause of transformation. Although the two vehicles have severed the cause of fragmentary [death], the cause of transformation remains; this is called "not crossing over it," and therefore they must certainly sever it. Hence in this sūtra it is called the wisdom of severing accumulation. If one need not harmonize them, simply relying on the meaning in the *Vibhāṣā* is also acceptable; therefore among the masters of the *Śrīmālā*, there are those who harmonize them and those who do not.

Above, their four wisdoms were stripped away. From "because they have not severed" below, the second part shows that their nirvāṇa is incomplete. "Because they have not severed" reviews what precedes to reveal what follows. In principle it should fully review the four wisdoms, but it merely speaks on the basis of the last one. "Are far from the realm of nirvāṇa" means being far from great parinirvāṇa, properly showing that their nirvāṇa is incomplete. Furthermore, one may say that stripping away the four wisdoms strips away their [nirvāṇa] with remainder, and stripping away nirvāṇa strips away their [nirvāṇa] without remainder.

From "Why is this?" below, the first part above showed that the four wisdoms are not complete and nirvāṇa is not full; here below, the second part explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain them. "Why is this?" is a question: the Tathāgata in the past taught that the two vehicles' four wisdoms are definitive and their nirvāṇa complete; why does he now say they are incomplete? "Only the Tathāgata": this resolves the question. Because they do not accomplish all virtues, the two vehicles' four wisdoms and nirvāṇa are both incomplete. The text has two sections: first, it explains that nirvāṇa is incomplete; second, from "The arhats and pratyekabuddhas, contemplating liberation, [deem] the four wisdoms definitive and obtain a resting place" below, it explains that the former four wisdoms are incomplete.

Regarding the first, in terms of persons there are two, and the text has five pairs. As for the two persons: first, it explains that the Tathāgata attains parinirvāṇa; second, it explains that the arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not attain it. This relies on the Buddha's attainment to reveal their non-attainment. Moreover, wishing to show the place of refuge for the two vehicles, it clarifies the Buddha's attainment. As for the text's five pairs, below there are five rounds explaining that the Tathāgata attains it and the two vehicles do not attain it.

Now first, a general explanation of the overarching meaning of nirvāṇa: this is because since the Buddha's nirvāṇa is clarified here, it is fitting to rely on this passage to explain the overarching meaning of nirvāṇa. Here there are one meaning, two meanings, three meanings, four meanings, and no meaning. As for the four meanings, they are precisely the four kinds of merits herein. As for the three meanings, the five meanings are subsumed into three: the first three phrases explain prajñā; the fourth phrase explains liberation; the fifth phrase explains the dharmakāya. Why these three are clarified is because subsuming the three virtues constitutes overall nirvāṇa. Next, the three are subsumed into two: in the single virtue of liberation, there is no encumbrance that is not exhausted; in the dharmakāya and prajñā, there is no virtue that is not complete. Next, the two phrases are subsumed back into one phrase: that no encumbrance is unexhausted cannot be taken as existence; that no virtue is incomplete cannot be taken as non-existence. Being neither existent nor non-existent is called the single phrase of the middle way. The single phrase returns to no phrase, as the *Lotus [Sūtra]* says: "Definitive nirvāṇa, constantly of the mark of quiescent cessation, ultimately returns to emptiness." "Ultimately returns to emptiness" means that speech ceases and thought is cut off; one cannot speak of nirvāṇa or non-nirvāṇa. As Master Sengzhao's *Treatise on Nirvāṇa* says: "Existence and non-existence are cut off within, designations and discourses are discussed without; the nine currents herein converge, and the host of sages herein darkly unite." Next, from no phrase, phrases arise, as the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]* says: "The *tailapāyī* insect does not actually eat oil, but is arbitrarily called an oil-eater. Nirvāṇa is also like this: in reality it has no names or marks, but is arbitrarily spoken of in terms of names and marks." This clarifies that the ultimate truth cannot be spoken of as nirvāṇa or non-nirvāṇa; not knowing how to praise it, one merely forces oneself to praise it as nirvāṇa. If one were to say that nirvāṇa is truly permanent and samsāra impermanent, this would constitute the two views of annihilationism and eternalism, as explained in the chapter below. If it constitutes the two views of annihilationism and eternalism, then samsāra and nirvāṇa are both samsāra. Moreover, if samsāra and nirvāṇa are both affirmed, then samsāra and nirvāṇa are both manifestations of nirvāṇa; therefore one should not definitively grasp that nirvāṇa exists.

Now, the five rounds are divided into two: the first four clarify the four kinds of merits, and the last one is a general conclusion. The first four rounds are: first, the contrast of broad and narrow; second, the contrast of shallow and deep; third, the contrast of coarse and subtle; fourth, the contrast of pure and impure. In each and every pair there are two meanings, three meanings, and four meanings. As for the two meanings: discussed in terms of persons, it is said that the Buddha has nirvāṇa and that the two vehicles lack nirvāṇa. As for the three meanings: first, it explains that the Buddha attains nirvāṇa; next, it explains that the two vehicles do not attain nirvāṇa; third, it harmonizes the teachings. As for the four meanings: first, it explains that the Buddha attains it; second, it explains the reason for the Buddha's attainment; third, it explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain it; fourth, it properly clarifies that the two vehicles do not attain it.

"Only the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddha attains parinirvāṇa": this explains that the Tathāgata alone attains nirvāṇa. *Pari* means entering. "Because he has accomplished all virtues": this exclusively explains the reason why the Buddha accomplishes the attainment of nirvāṇa. Because the Buddha has accomplished all virtues, he attains nirvāṇa. From "The arhats" below, the second phrase shows the reason why the two vehicles do not attain nirvāṇa. "That they are said to attain nirvāṇa": the third harmonizes the former teachings. In reality they do not attain it; it was merely an expedient in the past that spoke of them attaining it.