觀無量壽經義疏 1.3

From beginning to end, the text of this sūtra has three divisions: the preface, the main body, and the propagation. From the beginning down to 'For what reason, World-Honoured One, are you related to Devadatta?' is its preface. From 'I only pray that you will explain to me a place free of sorrow' onward is its main body. From 'Ānanda said to the Buddha, "What should this sūtra be named?"' onward is its propagation. Transforming [beings] must have an origin; therefore the preface is explained first. Once the preface has arisen, what is taught is properly set forth; therefore the main body is explained next. The teaching having been completely given, wishing to spread what has been taught to future generations, praising its excellence, encouraging study, and entrusting it to those who come after; therefore the propagation is explained. Within the initial preface, although the textual divisions are many, the essential meanings are only two: first, the initiating preface; second, the faith-confirming preface. As for the 'initiating': when the Buddha is about to teach a sūtra, he first relies on a time and place, and by his spiritual power gathers the assembly to initiate what is to be taught; this is called 'initiating'. Because this initiation serves as the occasion for teaching the sūtra, it is called the initiating preface. As for the 'faith-confirming preface': Ānanda, having received [the teaching] and wishing to transmit it to future generations, first says to sentient beings, 'Such a Dharma I heard from the Buddha,' confirming that it is worthy of trust; this is called 'confirming faith'. Because this confirmation of faith serves as the basis for transmitting the sūtra, it is called the faith-confirming preface. The meaning being so, how are the textual divisions [arranged]? The opening words, 'Thus have I heard', belong purely to confirming faith. From 'At one time the Buddha' onward, the meaning is twofold: taking the meaning of the original event's initiation, it is judged to be initiating; as Ānanda cites it to confirm that it is worthy of trust, it is called confirming faith. Since the meaning is twofold, it cannot be taken one-sidedly; people's views on what is right and wrong are thoroughly discussed as usual. Within the first, purely faith-confirming preface, it is explained through three gates: first, explaining the reasons why the words 'Thus have I heard' exist; second, clarifying the intention behind establishing them; third, explaining the words 'Thus have I heard'. Regarding the reasons: for what reason does the beginning of a sūtra come to have the words 'Thus have I heard'? Because of the Buddha's instruction. Why did the Buddha give this instruction? Because Ānanda requested it. On what account did he make the request? Because Aniruddha instructed him to do so. On what account did he give this instruction? Because he saw that Ānanda's mind was distressed and grieved. Why was the monk Ānanda distressed and grieved? Because he saw the Tathāgata enter parinirvāṇa. When the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, lying with his head to the north between the twin trees, at that time Ānanda, because the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, harboured distress and grief in his mind and could not contain himself. Aniruddha then enlightened Ānanda: 'You are the transmitter of the Dharma; why do you not question the Buddha about affairs of future generations? What benefit is there in grieving in vain?' Ānanda replied, 'My mind is now sunken in an ocean of grief; what should I know to ask?' Aniruddha then instructed Ānanda to inquire about four matters: first, to ask who the monks and others should take as their teacher after the Buddha's extinction; second, to ask upon what the monks and others should rely and abide after the Buddha's extinction; third, to ask how to live together with monks of bad character; fourth, to ask what words should be placed at the beginning of all sūtras. Having been instructed, Ānanda's mind awakened somewhat, and he then questioned the Buddha. The Buddha answered him accordingly. As for what the monks should take as their teacher: they should rely on the prātimokṣa as their teacher; if I were abiding in the world, it would be no different from this. Mokṣa is the precepts, that which monks study; therefore it is said to be the teacher. As for what the monks should rely upon and abide in: they should rely upon the four applications of mindfulness and abide there. What are called the four applications of mindfulness? Namely, a monk contemplates the internal body and cultivates contemplation of the body, diligently and single-mindedly removing worldly greed and craving; in this way he contemplates the external body and the internal-and-external body; feelings, mind, and dharmas are also like this. These are called the places where monks rely and abide. Therefore a sūtra says: 'If one abides in the four applications of mindfulness, this is called one's own domain, and one is not bound by Māra. If one abides in the five desires, this is called the domain of others, and one is bound by Māra.' As for how to live together with monks of bad character: punish them with brahmadanda. If their minds are tamed, preach the sūtra on leaving existence and non-existence to them. 'Brahmadanda' is a foreign word; in this land it is called remaining silent and not speaking with them. As for what words should be placed at the beginning of all sūtras: one should place words such as 'Thus have I heard'. Therefore, the beginning of this present sūtra likewise has the words 'Thus have I heard'. Second, next clarifying the intention behind establishing 'Thus have I heard': For what reason did the Buddha originally instruct that these words be placed [there]? In order to generate faith in beings. How do the words 'Thus' generate faith? Ānanda himself had faith in and conformed to the Buddha's words, declaring the Buddha's words to be 'as [things are]' and saying the Buddha's words are 'right', causing other sentient beings to generate faith together with him. How do the words 'have I heard' generate faith? Ānanda himself was an incomplete person; if he said that this Dharma was taught by himself, many people would not believe it. Because he said that this Dharma was heard from the Buddha, all people together believe it. In this way it generates faith. What significance does faith have that it should be generated? Faith is the initial gate for entering the Dharma, the foremost head for gathering the Dharma; whenever one enters the Buddha's Dharma, one must first give rise to faith. Therefore the sūtras and treatises say that faith is like a hand: just as a person with hands who arrives at a place of precious jewels can gather them as he pleases, whereas if he has no hands he comes away empty and gains nothing, faith is also like this. One who enters the Buddha's Dharma has the hand of faith and gathers the jewels of the noble Dharma as he pleases. If one has no faith, one comes away empty and gains nothing. Therefore it is generated. In the third gate, next explaining the words 'Thus have I heard': First, explaining 'Thus' (rushi): people explain it in many ways. Discussing it correctly now, the explanation has two meanings: first, explaining it in terms of dharmas; second, explaining it in terms of persons. Regarding 'in terms of dharmas': Ānanda declared the Buddha's words to be as (ru) all dharmas; hence it is called 'as' (ru). What the Tathāgata taught all corresponds to the preceding dharmas: when teaching principle, it is as principle; when teaching phenomena, it is as phenomena; when teaching causes, it is as causes; when teaching effects, it is as effects; everything is like this, and hence it is called 'as' (ru). Words that accord with dharmas are fitting to principle; this is termed 'right' (shi). For truly, diverging from dharmas is called wrong; according with dharmas is called 'right' (shi). Regarding 'in terms of persons': what Śākyamuni now teaches is just as (ru) all Buddhas of the past have taught; hence it is called 'as' (ru). Divergent teachings are wrong, but teachings that are 'as' [the past Buddhas'] are right (shi); therefore it is said to be 'thus' (rushi). Regarding 'have I heard': Ānanda, facing those future sentient beings, sets forth what he himself received and was taught; therefore he says 'have I heard'. Hearing is truly the ear; why say 'I'? The various distinct sense faculties are all instruments used by the self; naming it after the master, he therefore says 'have I heard'. Question: In dharmas there is no person; where is there a master, such that you say he speaks of 'have I heard' after the master? Explanation: Although in dharmas there is no fixed master, it is not without the nominal sense of governance and control; therefore one can say 'I'. Thus the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] says: 'For example, the four divisions of an army unite to make an army. Although there is no fixed master, one can also say, "Our army is valiant and surpasses the other."' This is also like that. Question: Ānanda is a noble one who has attained the principle; for what reason does he speak of 'I' in common with ordinary people? Explanation: Although Ānanda indeed speaks of 'I', it is not the same as ordinary people.

How are they not the same? As Nāgārjuna explains, there are three types of stating "I": First, stating "I" with a view-tainted mind, meaning ordinary people whose view-afflictions have not yet been abandoned, and who proclaim an "I" within a mind possessed of the view of self. Second, stating "I" with a proud mind, meaning trainees who, although they have eliminated view-afflictions, still retain the affliction of conceit, and proclaim an "I" within a mind of self-conceit. Third, stating "I" in conformity with worldly convention, meaning those beyond training whose views and conceits have already been eliminated, and who proclaim an "I" in conformity with worldly convention. Now, when Ānanda compiled the Dharma, he was established in the state beyond training, with views and conceit already eliminated, and proclaimed an "I" in conformity with worldly convention; therefore he was not like an ordinary person. Question: The principle of selflessness is refined and supreme; why does Ānanda not now base himself on what is supreme and proclaim selflessness, rather than conforming to the worldly to proclaim an "I"? [Answer:] To transform sentient beings who cling to a self, the teaching must be like this. If one did not say "I," how could one distinguish one from another and enable people to recognize them? For this reason, even the Buddhas, when transforming people, also speak of "I" themselves. From "at one time" onwards, although the meaning has a dual aspect, in contrast to the preceding strictly verifying-faith preface, from here down it is explained strictly in terms of the initiating preface. Within this, according to place, it is divided into two, with five distinct textual units. Speaking of the two places: first, the preface of initiating transformation from a different place: while the Buddha was at Gṛdhrakūṭa, he initiated in advance his later transformation in the royal palace. Second, the preface of the Buddha disappearing from Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa and descending in person to gather and transform [them]. This is broadly similar to the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra. Such instances are not unique among the sūtras. As for the five distinct textual units: first, stating "at one time" clarifies the time when the transformation was initiated. Second, clarifying "the Buddha" indicates the lord of the transformation. Third, from "in Rājagṛha" clarifies the place where the transformation was initiated. Fourth, from "together with a great" distinguishes and lists the assembly of followers. Fifth, from "at that time, in the great city of Rājagṛha" downwards clarifies the events initiating the transformation. Regarding the first, "at one time," there are divergent interpretations by others, all of which are refuted as usual. Now we discuss it correctly: the period of transformation is designated as "time." Among the Buddha's numerous times of transformation in a single lifetime, in order to differentiate it from other times, it therefore says "one." It is similar to the words in the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra], "At one time I was in Kāśi," "At one time I was in Rājagṛha," "At one time I was on the banks of the Ganges," and "At one time I was in the charnel ground"; one should not interpret it differently. "Buddha" is as explained before. In the third [unit], regarding the place, "in the city of Rājagṛha" is stated in a broad and general sense. In ancient times, kings frequently dwelt in this city, hence it is named the City of the Royal Residence (Rājagṛha). "Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa" points specifically to the particular place; here translated, it means Divine Vulture Mountain. Many immortals and spirits dwell on this mountain, and vulture birds also live on it, so the mountain is called Divine Vulture Mountain. It is also translated as Vulture Peak Mountain, because vultures dwell on the peak of this mountain, hence the name Vulture Peak Mountain. Moreover, the peak of this mountain resembles a vulture's head, hence the name Vulture Peak Mountain. Staying in the place of wandering and transforming is designated as "residing"; the Dharma body is impartial and truly has no fixed abode, but to show transformation appropriately in a specific place, it simply says "residing." For what reason was he in this specific place? This meaning is as explained in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa: it was to reveal the supreme Dharma that he resided here. Because among all cities Rājagṛha is the most supreme, and among the five mountains Gṛdhrakūṭa is the finest, it was used to signify the Dharma. In the fourth [unit], regarding the assembly, first the śrāvakas are listed and then the bodhisattvas are displayed; most sūtras are like this. Why is that? There are three meanings in explanation: First, distinguishing between near and far. Because all śrāvakas constantly follow the Tathāgata, they are clarified after the Buddha, listed first according to proximity; bodhisattvas are not like this, which is why they are discussed later. Why are śrāvakas especially close to the Tathāgata? There are two meanings in explanation: First, because the śrāvakas' wisdom and understanding are slight and inferior, and they are not yet thoroughly conversant with the Dharma of the Path, although they have attained the noble fruit, their deportment in moving and pausing constantly requires the Buddha's instruction; therefore they mostly stay close to the Buddha. For this reason, even up to the Twin Trees the Tathāgata constantly laid down precepts for them, as in the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] where he prohibited the śrāvakas from eating meat, and so forth; whereas bodhisattvas are deeply conversant with the Dharma of the Path and do not rely on the Buddha's instruction, so they do not stay close to the Buddha. Second, because the śrāvakas are currently delivered by the Buddha, crossing beyond the ordinary to become noble ones and bearing deep gratitude, they constantly follow the Buddha to attend upon and make offerings to him; whereas bodhisattvas wander and transform in response to conditions without fixed abode, so they do not stay close to the Buddha. This is the first: distinguishing between near and far. Second, distinguishing by outer appearance. The śrāvakas' deportment is strict and orderly, revered by the world together, hence they are listed first; the bodhisattvas' appearance and conduct are not fixed as they respond to transformation, hence they are displayed after. As the sūtra says: "Mañjuśrī spent one summer retreat in three places, and Kāśyapa reprimanded and punished him"—this is just such an affair. Third, distinguishing in terms of virtue. As Nāgārjuna said, teachings are of two kinds: First, the esoteric teaching. The bodhisattvas' virtue is venerable, so in principle they should come first; the śrāvakas' virtue is inferior, so by rule they must come after. Second, the explicit teaching. The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are identical to the Buddha in the exhaustion of outflows, hence they are listed first; bodhisattvas manifest as ordinary beings in accordance with transformation and do not sever all outflows. If people heard that bodhisattvas were placed above arhats, many would be astonished and perplexed, hence they are listed after. Now, following the explicit teaching, the śrāvakas are listed first and the bodhisattvas are displayed after. In the śrāvaka assembly, first stating "with" (yu) means accompanying them in person, which is called "with." "Great bhikṣus" designates and lists their assembly. "Great" in foreign languages is mahā; this translation has three meanings: first, "numerous," as a gathering of many people is called a "great assembly"; second, "superior," excelling other paths; third, "great," being broadly endowed with lofty virtues. "Bhikṣu" is the foreign language; the semantic translation in this land fully contains five meanings: first, "terrifier of Māra": when on the verge of leaving home, he causes Māra to tremble in fear, hence called "terrifier of Māra." When a bhikṣu leaves home, why does it concern Māra's affairs so as to give rise to terror? Māra's nature is jealous and deceitful, fearing that others will surpass him, and therefore gives rise to fear. Moreover, he fears that the bhikṣu will transform others to leave home together with him and empty his realm; therefore he is terrified. As the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] says. This single meaning is designated in terms of the initial stage. Second, he is called "mendicant." Having already left home, he stores nothing up and begs for food to sustain his life; therefore he is called a "mendicant." Third, he is called "one of pure livelihood." Begging with right livelihood and staying free from wrong livelihood, he is therefore called "pure livelihood." These two names are established in terms of the intermediate stage. Fourth, he is called "purely observing precepts." He vigorously observes precepts without any transgression. Fifth, he is called "destroyer of evil." Because he observes the precepts, he destroys and departs from all evils. These last two meanings are designated on the basis of the final stage. An assembly that is not singular is called a "multitude" (saṅgha). Saying "one thousand two hundred and fifty people" together lists their number. These one thousand two hundred and fifty bhikṣus are listed in most sūtras. Why is that?

When the Buddha first attained the Way, he first delivered the three Kāśyapa brothers together with their disciples, one thousand in all. Gradually coming to that city of Rājagṛha, he delivered Śāriputra and Mahāmaudgalyāyana together with their disciples, two hundred and fifty, making a total of one thousand two hundred and fifty. These noble ones, having received deliverance first from the Buddha, abandoned the heterodox and returned to the orthodox, bearing deep gratitude for the Buddha's kindness, and constantly followed him to make offerings; therefore, they are often listed. Below, the bodhisattvas are listed. As for the term "bodhisattva," it designates the distinction among the assemblies. In the foreign language, the correct term is bodhisattva; translators abridge it, simply saying pusa (bodhisattva). In this land, it is translated as "Way sentient being." Bodhi means the Way, and sattva means sentient being. This is truly because this person internally seeks the Way and possesses the practice of the Way, becoming complete through the Way; hence they are called "Way sentient being." If so, the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas also all seek the Way, equally possess the practice of the Way, and are likewise complete through the Way; why is this [title] uniquely and exclusively applied to the bodhisattva? It is explained: The names of the worthy and noble have both general and specific applications. In the general sense, the meanings are identical. Thus the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] says: "Even a srotāpanna is also called a bodhisattva, because they seek the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising. They are also called a buddha, because they share the correct awakening of the common path and the uncommon path. Even the buddhas are also called srotāpannas, because they cultivate the outflow-free and go against [the stream of] saṃsāra." To distinguish the worthy and the noble, therefore only these are called bodhisattvas. If they are equally divided among the worthy and noble, why is this [title] uniquely and exclusively applied to the bodhisattva? There are three explanations: First, distinguished in terms of the aspirational mind looking toward the fruit. Only these sentient beings resolve upon great bodhi, while the rest do not seek it; therefore, only these are called "Way sentient beings." Thus the Dilun says: "Because those of superior determination aspire to great bodhi, they alone are called bodhisattvas." The meaning corresponds to this. Second, distinguished in terms of the understanding mind looking toward the principle. Ordinary persons abide in existence, while the two vehicles cling to nonexistence; existence and nonexistence deviate from the middle and do not accord with the Middle Way; therefore, they cannot be called "Way sentient beings." Bodhisattvas are not so: they wondrously abandon existence and nonexistence and tally with the Middle Way; therefore, such a person is called a "Way sentient being." Third, distinguished in terms of practice. Entering the Buddha's Dharma has generally three gateways: first is teaching, second is meaning, and third is practice. The teaching is shallow, the meaning is deep, and practice is supreme. Śrāvakas, having soft faculties, take their name from the teaching. "Sound" (śrava) is the teaching; tasting the sound, they awaken and understand; hence they are named śrāvakas (voice-hearers). Pratyekabuddhas are next in excellence, establishing their title from meaning. Conditions (pratyaya) are the meaning; from conditions they awaken and understand; hence they are named condition-enlightened (pratyekabuddhas). Bodhisattvas are the most supreme, establishing their designation from practice. "Practice" refers to the Way of benefiting oneself and benefiting others; because they can accomplish the Way of both benefiting oneself and benefiting others—of benefiting both—they are called "Way sentient beings." Thus the Dichi [jing] says: "Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas can only deliver themselves; bodhisattvas are not so: delivering themselves and delivering others, this is called superiority of the Way." Because their Way is superior, they are called "Way sentient beings." As for the third [item], "thirty-two thousand," it distinguishes their number. Mañjuśrī is at the head, having his name listed; this can also be called selecting the superior to distinguish them from the inferior. "Mañjuśrī" is translated here as "Wondrous Virtue." From here down is the fifth: explaining the incident that initiated the teaching. In this there are two parts: First, explaining Bimbisāra's confinement by his son, and the Tathāgata dispatching someone to preach the Dharma for him. Second, from "At that time, Ajātaśatru asked the gatekeepers" downward, explaining Vaidehī's imprisonment by her son, and the Tathāgata going there in person to gather and transform her. For what reason was it fitting to dispatch someone first, and go in person afterward? It is explained: Previously, King Bimbisāra appropriately wished to hear the Dharma; dispatching someone to transmit it was sufficient for the purpose of teaching; hence he did not go in person. Lady Vaidehī sought rebirth in the pure land; the teaching of the pure land cannot be opened except by the Buddha; therefore, he had to go in person. Why was such an evil and rebellious matter raised to serve as the initiation? To reveal that this realm is utterly evil and repulsive, causing people to abandon and turn away from it. When even a king's own son causes him harm, how much more so with others! This was precisely to make people together long for the pure land. Thus below, Vaidehī says to the Buddha: "I only pray that you will explain for me a place free of sorrow; I will go there to be reborn. I do not take delight in this defiled and evil world of Jambudvīpa." This is precisely the matter. In the first section, there are four textual divisions: First, explaining that King Bimbisāra was confined by his son. Second, from "The state's chief consort, named Vaidehī" downward, explaining that the consort secretly offered food to the king to sustain the king's body. Third, from "Having finished rinsing his mouth" downward, [explaining that] the noble one preached the Dharma for him to moisten the king's mind. Fourth, from "In this manner, a period of three times seven days passed" downward, explaining that the king, due to the food and also through hearing the Dharma, did not die for many days. In the first part, "At that time in the great city of Rājagṛha, there was a crown prince named Ajātaśatru" identifies the person who imprisoned his father. Saying "at that time" refers to the time when the Buddha was in the city of Rājagṛha. "In the great city of Rājagṛha" indicates the location. "There was a crown prince" points out the person. "Named Ajātaśatru" distinguishes his name. In this land it is translated as "Unborn Enmity." Before he was born, a diviner prognosticated about him: "After this child is born, he will surely harm his father." Therefore, a name was established for him, calling him "Unborn Enmity." As for "following the instruction of the evil friend Devadatta," it explains the cause for imprisoning his father, the matter being as related in the sūtra. Devadatta was the Buddha's paternal cousin and Ānanda's own elder brother. After going forth, he cultivated and attained the five supernormal knowledges, relying on Ajātaśatru as his dānapati. Furthermore, at one time he went to the Buddha's place to seek his followers: "The World-Honoured One is advanced in years; the assembly should be entrusted to me. I shall instruct them." The Buddha then reproved him, saying: "Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana possess supernormal powers and great wisdom; I do not even entrust the followers to them, how much less to you, a foolish person who eats spittle!" Hearing this, Devadatta became enraged. He went to King Ajātaśatru's place, spoke of the circumstances of King Ajātaśatru's being harmed on the day he was first born, and urged him to harm his father and make himself king, [saying,] "I will kill Gautama and make myself the Buddha. A new king and a new Buddha governing the world together—would that not be delightful?" Because of this, King Ajātaśatru conceived the intention to harm his father. Therefore it is now said: "following the instruction of the evil friend Devadatta." From here down explains the imprisonment of the father. "Arrested his father," etc., means confining his person. "Forbade all the ministers from going, not permitting a single one," means barring them so he would see no one. What past cause did Bimbisāra have to suffer this harm? As the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] says: "Formerly, Bimbisāra was a king; he wandered about on Mount Vipula hunting deer, but caught nothing. Encountering a rishi, the king then thought: 'It is precisely because of this person!' He drove him away, and then ordered him killed. At the point of death, the rishi made an evil vow: 'May I in a future life, just as today, harm you in mind and speech!' That rishi is today's Ajātaśatru. The one who ordered the killing is King Bimbisāra." Therefore, in the present time, he was harmed by King Ajātaśatru.

From here below, the second [part] explains that his consort secretly offered food to the king to sustain his body. Herein, it first explains that the consort offered food, and afterwards the king ate it. In the former part, it first says: 'The chief consort of the kingdom, named Vaidehī'—this introduces and identifies the person. She was King Ajātaśatru's birth mother. 'Respectfully revered the great king' explains her mental reverence. Because she offered food out of reverence, it is mentioned. 'Bathed, cleansed', and so forth, indicates that her body offered the food. The king's eating of it can be understood. From here below, the third [part] explains the noble one preaching for [the king] to moisturize his mind. Herein, first it explains Bimbisāra's supplication. From 'At that time Maudgalyāyana' below, the noble one arrives to preach for him. In the supplication, it first says: 'Having finished rinsing his mouth'—this sums up what precedes to introduce what follows. 'Joined his palms and paid homage from afar' is making a supplication to the Buddha through physical action: wishing to have the Tathāgata grant his compassion and bestow the Dharma, he therefore paid physical homage. From 'and spoke these words' below, he orally petitioned Maudgalyāyana. Saying: 'Great Maudgalyāyana is my close friend' means wishing that you will come. 'May you arouse compassion and bestow the eight precepts upon me' begs for your compassion in bestowing them. In [the section on] the noble one preaching for him, first it explains Maudgalyāyana responding to the preceding oral supplication by conferring the eight precepts on him. 'Flew like a falcon swiftly to the king's place', matching the preceding 'my close friend', is arriving by physical action. 'Daily conferring the eight precepts upon the king in this manner', matching the preceding request for precepts, is conferring them through spoken words. What are the eight precepts? Not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, not drinking alcohol, not singing, dancing, or acting, nor going to see or hear them, not wearing perfume-scented clothes or other bodily adornments, not using high and wide beds, and not eating past midday: these are the eight. These are actually nine; how can they be called eight? If according to the Abhidharma, not wearing perfume-scented clothes and not using high beds both arise from ornamentation and are combined into one; therefore they are called eight. If according to the *Tattvasiddhi* and the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, the first eight are the precepts (śīla) and the last one is the fast (upavāsa). When the fast and precepts are mentioned together, it is called the eight-precept fast. The meaning of the eight-precept fast is explained at length as in a separate chapter; it should be fully discussed there. These eight are the renunciation rules kept by householders; hence [Maudgalyāyana] was made to confer them. Below it explains that the Tathāgata responded to his physical supplication by dispatching a person to preach for him. Why he did not go in person is explained as above. Why did he specifically dispatch Pūrṇa to preach? Because among all disciples Pūrṇa was supreme in preaching the Dharma and skillful in opening people's minds, he specifically dispatched him. Below, the fourth [part] explains that Bimbisāra did not die for many days because of the food and hearing the Dharma. The details are evident and can be understood. From here below, the second [part] explains that because his consort was imprisoned by her son, the Buddha went to gather and convert her. Herein there are four: first, explaining that the consort was imprisoned by her son; second, from 'At that time Vaidehī was imprisoned' below, supplicating the Buddha because of her imprisonment; third, from 'Before she had raised her head' below, the Buddha and disciples arriving because of the supplication; fourth, from 'At that time Vaidehī saw the World-Honoured One' below, lamenting in distress upon seeing [him]. In the first [section] there are three: first, explaining that King Ajātaśatru wished to harm his mother; second, from 'At that time there were ministers' below, the ministers advising him and his refusal to listen; third, from 'He ordered the palace eunuchs' below, the mother being imprisoned out of lingering anger. In the first there are three sentences: first, Ajātaśatru asked the gatekeeper whether the king was still alive; second, the gatekeeper answered in full detail with the facts; third, upon hearing it, the king became furious and immediately wished to harm his mother. Therein, it first says: 'Having heard these words', which explains the cause of the anger. 'Angered at his mother' and so forth indicates rebuking his mother with spoken words. He called his father a bandit and his mother an accomplice, and afterwards rebuked the śramaṇas as wicked people; the words are evident and can be understood. From 'Immediately seized a sword' below, he intended bodily harm. This concludes the first segment. In the second [segment], where the ministers advise him and he does not listen, the phrasing has four parts: first, the ministers advise him and he does not listen; second, the king is startled and terrified upon seeing this; third, Jīvaka advises him again; fourth, upon hearing this, the king releases his mother. In the first segment, it first lists the people who offered advice. From 'Paid homage to the king' below, it explains the manner of their advice. From 'At that time the two great ministers, having spoken these words' below, they abandoned him and withdrew after advising. The persons advising can be understood. In the manner of advising, paying homage was physical advice, and speaking and so forth was oral advice. Therein, first it reveals that the past differed from the present: from the beginning of the eon onward there have been countless evil kings, but none who harmed their mothers. From 'Now the king' below, it explains that the present differs from the past: if he were now to harm his mother, it would stain the kṣatriya lineage. From 'We ministers cannot bear' below, it explains their own aversion. 'We ministers cannot bear to hear' is being unable to bear it in their minds. Killing a mother is seen with one's eyes; how can it be called hearing? It means they could not bear to hear people in the world report it. 'It is not fitting to remain here' means their bodies would not stay. Above, the advice concludes; below explains their departure. 'Having spoken these words' concludes what precedes to introduce what follows. 'Hand on sword, stepped backward and retreated' directly explains their departure. Having turned against the king, the ministers feared the king would harm them and used their swords for self-defence; therefore, they held them and stepped backward to retreat. The above is the ministers' advice. From here below, second: the king is startled and terrified upon seeing this. King Ajātaśatru was startled and fearful, terrified within his mind. Because he saw the two ministers retreat with their hands on their swords, he feared they had a different plan, and therefore was startled and terrified. 'Said to Jīvaka' and so forth is asking with spoken words. Fearing that they had turned against him and become close to his father the king, he therefore now asked whether they were against him. From 'Jīvaka said' below is the third segment: Jīvaka's renewed advice. 'Beware of harming your mother' is the word of advice. From 'The king, hearing this' below is the fourth segment: releasing his mother due to the advice. 'Hearing these words' means hearing the preceding words of renewed advice from Jīvaka. 'Repented and sought rescue' means repenting his previous fault. That is, repenting the previous fault of wishing to harm her, he begged those two ministers not to kill him; hence it says 'sought rescue'. 'Immediately cast aside his sword and stopped without harming his mother' ceased the subsequent fault; it halted the act of killing. The above four segments are combined into the second part: the ministers advising and his refusal to listen. From 'He ordered' below is the third segment, explaining Ajātaśatru imprisoning his mother out of lingering anger. His lingering anger had not yet ceased, and fearing that his mother might again offer food to the king, he therefore ordered her locked away. From Ajātaśatru asking the gatekeeper up to this point is the first [part], explaining Vaidehī being imprisoned by her son. From here below, second: supplicating the Buddha because of the imprisonment. That is, supplicating the Tathāgata to dispatch disciples to meet with her. Herein there are three: first, paying homage prior to supplicating; second, from 'spoke these words' below, uttering words of direct supplication; third, from 'Having spoken these words, weeping sorrowfully' below, paying homage again after supplicating. In the former, it first says: 'Having been imprisoned', which sums up what precedes to introduce what follows. 'Sorrowful and haggard' explains the vexation of her mind.

'Facing Gṛdhrakūṭa' and so forth is paying homage through physical action; homage is itself a physical supplication. In the third [part], uttering words of direct supplication: 'In the past the World-Honoured One constantly sent Ānanda to console me' brings up the past to analogize the present, expecting that the Buddha will surely send someone. 'Now that I am sorrowful' and so forth seeks the present to be like the past. 'Now that I am sorrowful' manifests that she herself has suffering. 'The World-Honoured One's majesty is solemn, and there is no way for me to see him' means not presuming to hope to see the Buddha. From 'May you dispatch' below, she requests that he dispatch disciples to meet with her. Why did Vaidehī specifically ask to see Maudgalyāyana and Ānanda? Because Maudgalyāyana was her family preceptor, and Ānanda was the Buddha's attendant who had previously come and gone constantly; hence she specifically asked to see them. Furthermore, the consort resided deep in the palace, and asking to see only one would be unseemly in appearance; thus she asked to see both. Why did she ask to see them? Deep in her mind Vaidehī was revulsed by this evil world and sought birth in the pure land, and she wished to have the two weep and convey her intention to supplicate the Buddha; therefore she asked to see them. In the third segment, 'Having spoken these words, she wept sorrowfully with tears like rain', hoping for the Buddha's pity. 'Paying homage to the Buddha from afar' sought to fulfill her request. Having already paid homage before, she now paid homage again to demonstrate her sincerity. From here below, the third [section]: the Buddha and disciples arrived in accordance with the supplication. Therein, it first says: 'Before she had raised her head', which explains the time of arrival. The appropriate opportunity cannot be missed; thus before Vaidehī had raised her head, the noble ones arrived. From 'At that time' below, it explains the arrival of the noble ones. 'At that time the World-Honoured One was on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa' indicates where the noble one was located. 'Knew what was in Vaidehī's mind' indicates his knowing it within his mind. 'Ordered the great Maudgalyāyana and Ānanda' indicates his ordering them with spoken words. 'The Buddha vanished from Gṛdhrakūṭa and emerged in the royal palace' indicates his arriving in person. To respond to Vaidehī's deep reverence, he ordered his disciples to go through the air, while the Tathāgata himself vanished here and appeared there. Furthermore, Vaidehī was locked deep within the palace and travelling by foot would be difficult to arrive; hence he manifested this transformation. Since Vaidehī had previously requested to see the disciples, why did the Tathāgata also go in person? The teaching of the pure land cannot be revealed except by the Buddha, and conveying it through reports cannot be exhaustive; therefore, he had to go in person. From here below, the fourth [section] explains that Vaidehī lamented in distress upon seeing [him]. Herein, first is seeing, and afterwards lamenting in distress before him. In the former seeing, 'At that time Vaidehī, having paid homage, raised her head' explains the time of seeing. 'Saw the World-Honoured One' and so forth directly explains what was seen. The Buddha and his disciples were all great men whom worldly propriety required women to avoid, and the preaching in the women's quarters was not something one should rashly occupy; therefore, they manifested in the air with the disciples. Below explains her lament in distress. 'Vaidehī saw the Buddha' sums up what was previously seen. 'Tore off her necklaces and threw her whole body to the ground' expresses the vexation of her physical action. From 'She said to the World-Honoured One' below expresses the resentment and sorrow of her verbal action. 'What sin did I commit in the past that I bore this evil son?' laments her own past faults. 'For what reason is the World-Honoured One kin with Devadatta?' asks about the Buddha's past causes. Furthermore, the former phrase laments her own evil son, and the latter phrase resents the Buddha having an evil disciple; because Devadatta taught Ajātaśatru to commit evil and rebellious acts, she made this complaint.