[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) › 7.16 # 大般涅槃經集解 7.16 大般涅槃經集解 7.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.16) 案道生曰：具倒非脩，理固然矣。而以此人，尤諸比丘也。僧亮曰：先說耶脩。以耶顯正，相對為四也。法瑤曰：釋無實義也。夫解則無偏，惑亦俱斷。諸比丘以樂為苦，亦以苦為樂，非但不識樂，亦復不了苦空。是等四倒，常無常各有四也。僧宗曰：一往分八倒者，四在具縛凡夫，四在小乘人也。大通為語，凡聖皆具八也。既不辨真，理不識偽。然推實為論，此中言對聖人，而旨在凡夫。何者？入聖位以上，不假言教自然信常，經有誠文。上來抑揚，蓋為未達者耳。寶亮曰：八倒者，大判有四重：第一明亦得一人具八、一人具四。若談始終成就，則一人具八；論其現起為言，但有四也。惑之體用，性是癡迷，莫問起與不起，悉成就也。第二論其起用。謂若起前四者，則無後四互相倚伏，故言一人但四也。第三辨俱伏。若信首五根立者，則八倒永伏也。是知後四起時，乃信首五根之前，隣四念處假名法空，未成就作無常觀時，在觀心中起此惑也。論此惑容有可得涉思惟之細不？耶時無明住地惑為其正體也。何者？見諦惑已伏，復不得起。思惟惑雖非平等，然是虛心，事惑不起，故知是無明住地惑也。第四論斷道。得正觀無偏時，必先除麁而後除細，不得如相似解俱伏時也。何者？伏必約理傍情，情背者盡伏，莫問麁細也。真觀斷時，是數法相違，故以淺治麁也。 > Daosheng states: Fully possessing inversions is not \[true\] cultivation; the principle is certainly thus. Yet with this person, \[the Buddha\] blames the monks. Sengliang states: First he speaks of erroneous cultivation. By means of the erroneous, the correct is revealed, making four pairs. Fayao states: This explains 'lacking real meaning'. Now, when there is understanding, there is no bias; delusions are also entirely severed. The monks took bliss to be suffering, and also took suffering to be bliss. Not only did they fail to recognize bliss, but they also failed to comprehend suffering and emptiness. These are the four inversions; permanence and impermanence each have four. Sengzong states: If we provisionally divide the eight inversions, four belong to fully bound ordinary beings, and four belong to persons of the Small Vehicle. Speaking comprehensively, both ordinary beings and noble ones fully possess the eight. Since they do not distinguish the true, they in principle do not recognize the false. Yet investigating the reality, while the words here are addressed to the noble ones, the intent is directed toward ordinary beings. Why is this? Once one enters the noble stages and above, one does not depend on verbal teachings to naturally believe in permanence; the sūtra has explicit text \[on this\]. The suppression and praise thus far was merely for those who had not yet attained comprehension. Baoliang states: Regarding the eight inversions, broadly determined there are four levels: First, it clarifies that one person may possess all eight, or one person may possess four. If we speak of their accomplishment from beginning to end, then one person possesses eight; speaking of their manifest arising, there are only four. As for the substance and function of delusion, its nature is bewilderment; regardless of whether it arises or does not arise, it is entirely accomplished. Second, discussing their arising function: If the former four arise, then there are not the latter four mutually relying and lying latent; hence it is said that one person has only four. Third, discerning their mutual subdual: If the five faculties headed by faith are established, then the eight inversions are eternally subdued. From this it is known that the time when the latter four arise is prior to the five faculties headed by faith, adjacent to the emptiness of nominal dharmas in the four stations of mindfulness; when one has not yet accomplished the contemplation of impermanence, one gives rise to this delusion within the contemplating mind. In discussing this delusion, can it possibly involve the subtlety of thought \[passions\]? At that time, the delusion of the entrenchment of ignorance (avidyāvāsabhūmi) is its primary substance. Why is this? Delusions \[severed by\] seeing the truths are already subdued and cannot arise again. Although the delusions of thought are not impartial, yet this is an unreal mind; external delusions do not arise, so it is known to be the delusion of the entrenchment of ignorance. Fourth, discussing the path of severance: When one attains correct contemplation without bias, one must first eliminate the coarse and afterward eliminate the subtle; it cannot be like when the semblance of understanding subdues both together. Why is this? Subdual must be based on principle to suppress emotional inclinations; all that runs counter to emotional inclinations is subdued, regardless of coarse or subtle. When the true contemplation severs them, it is because mental factors are opposed to one another; therefore one treats the coarse with what is shallow. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.15) - [Next: 7.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.17) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763~en-mt.7.16) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.16) · Pramāṇa