[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) › [大般涅槃經集解](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763) › 5.14 # 大般涅槃經集解 5.14 大般涅槃經集解 5.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.5.14) 案道生曰：純陀深得不滅之旨，說其所解以自陳也。僧亮曰：純陀當為請主，助佛弘化。上云諸佛境界無常，如似應身，性同諸行，與真身碩異。今欲明此義，故先歎涅槃，非淺識所知也。然純陀深解迹即本矣，但此丈六於己有恩，是故願得常應不捨也。法瑤曰：純陀既聞應身必滅、法身常住，始悟無請之理。但念智淺，雖復得在大菩薩中，猶不能知法身應身常無常義。以其道未成，猶須佛教，是故因此復致請也。僧宗曰：此下請門之第三也。佛向述其所歎，止其所請，本迹二理具如前釋。今純陀所領，已知妙本不可請也，而猶悕迹住者，謂丈六之現，事在化物。而為化參差、深淺不一，是則化功未遂也。又佛之虛心，如彼飢人，豈令化功未足而當見捨，所以復得請也。寶亮曰：純陀今請，凡有二義：一則明己是可教之人；二則自述有所未知，佛應住世教令成就。指饑人為喻，以顯至誠也。 > Daosheng states: Cunda deeply understood the principle of non-cessation, and spoke of what he understood to present it himself. > Sengliang states: Cunda was to be the leader of the entreaty, aiding the Buddha in propagating the transformation. Above it was said that the realm of the Buddhas is impermanent, as if the response-body (nirmāṇakāya), identical in nature to all conditioned phenomena, were vastly distinct from the true body. Now, wishing to clarify this meaning, he first praised nirvāṇa as something not knowable by shallow understanding. Cunda, however, deeply understood that the trace is none other than the source; yet because this sixteen-foot form had been benevolent to him, he therefore wished that it might constantly manifest in response and not abandon \[them\]. > Fayao states: Having heard that the response-body must cease while the dharmakāya is permanently abiding, Cunda only then awoke to the principle of there being no entreaty. Yet reflecting on his own shallow wisdom, even though he was counted among the great bodhisattvas, he was still unable to know the meaning of permanence and impermanence regarding the dharmakāya and response-body. Because his practice was not yet complete and he still required the Buddha's teaching, he therefore repeated his entreaty based on this. > Sengzong states: This is the third part of the entreaty section below. The Buddha previously related his praise and halted his entreaty; the two principles of source and trace are fully explained as before. Now what Cunda grasped was that he already knew the wondrous source cannot be entreated, yet he still longed for the trace to remain, considering that the manifestation of the sixteen-foot form exists for transforming sentient beings. Since the transformations are uneven, varying in depth and shallowness, the work of transformation has not yet been achieved. Moreover, the Buddha's empty mind is like that hungry person—how could he cause his unfulfilled work of transformation to be abandoned? Therefore he could make the entreaty again. > Baoliang states: Cunda's present entreaty has two meanings in all: first, it clarifies that he is a person capable of being taught; second, it relates that there is still something he does not know, and that the Buddha should remain in the world to teach and bring him to completion. Pointing to the hungry person as an analogy is to reveal his utmost sincerity. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.5.13) - [Next: 5.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.5.15) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763~en-mt.5.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.5.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.5.14) · Pramāṇa