大般涅槃經集解 11

English (machine translation) 11

Language: English

11.1

Explaining the four meanings of rectifying oneself and so forth; instituting the prohibition on eating meat; explaining the meaning of the prātimokṣa; explaining the meaning of gradually instituting the precepts.

11.2

Chapter Seven: The Four Dharmas

11.3

Note: The older version had "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata." Sengliang states: "Nature of the Tathāgata" answers the fifth [question], elaborating upon the cause, fruit, and letters mentioned above. Because duplicate titles cannot be used, and these are all the nature of the Tathāgata's causes and fruits, it is named after "nature." "The four dharmas" collectively answers the fourth and fifth questions. Why? Having already expounded the causes and fruits of long life and the vajra, as well as the name of the sūtra and the method of propagating the sūtra, the matter of the sūtra is completed; therefore it answers the fourth question. Because a name is narrow, it is not suitable for propagation. The name "buddhadhātu" is universal, and is thus subsumed under the "Chapter on Buddhadhātu." Fayao states: In the preceding chapter Kāśyapa had already asked, "What should this sūtra be named, and how should it be upheld?" Today, by means of the four [dharmas] of rectifying oneself and so forth, the meaning of upholding is clarified, which is why this meaning of rectifying oneself is expounded. Stating that "one should uphold it in this way" provides the conclusion. Another interpretation: The preceding chapter briefly explained mahānirvāṇa by means of eight meanings; now, from here down to the end of the passage on vimokṣa, the meaning of mahānirvāṇa is broadly discriminated. The four matters of rectifying oneself and so forth broadly elaborate upon the meaning of prajñā, completing mahānirvāṇa. From "How should one know that it is impermanent?" down to "possesses a secret treasury," the esoteric meanings of body and speech are opened up, revealing the boundless capacity of the dharmakāya; this explains the meaning of mahānirvāṇa in terms of the dharmakāya. Broadly explaining the meaning of vimokṣa completes mahānirvāṇa; its substance must be revealed by means of these three meanings. What was asked in the previous chapter—"How should it be upheld?"—already brought forth the Dharma that is upheld; now, being fully endowed with these four dharmas and able to propagate the sūtra is precisely the meaning of upholding. Another interpretation: The essential purport of the sūtra having already been completed, it may then be propagated. Yet as for persons of propagation, without virtue it cannot be transmitted. If the teaching is consummate and the principle complete, this is the perfection of the sūtra; if people are able to generate consummate understanding within the sūtra's teaching, benefiting both their own practice and others, and ultimately achieving right awakening, this is the perfection of the person. Therefore this chapter collectively answers two questions. Zhixiu states: The six-fascicle Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "In how many ways does a bodhisattva transform sentient beings and expound the Dharma?" This sūtra states: "May the Buddha open up the subtle and esoteric." Although the purports of the questions differ, the principle they reveal is one. Therefore the six-fascicle text, having finished explaining vimokṣa, states: "This is called the bodhisattva achieving the four dharmas." Tanqian states: The six-fascicle text has the bodhisattva transforming sentient beings, but lacks "May the Buddha open up the subtle and esoteric"; whereas this [text] has opening up the subtle and esoteric, but lacks transforming sentient beings. Each has its omission. It would be superior if both were present. From here to the end of "skilfully understanding the meaning of causes and conditions," it precisely answers how many ways there are to expound the Dharma. From the metaphors such as the ruined robe down to the broad exposition of vimokṣa, it answers the omitted question on the subtle and esoteric.

11.4

The Buddha again addressed Kāśyapa: "Good son, [...] fourth, skilfully understanding the meaning of causes and conditions."

11.5

Note. Sengliang states: Rectifying others means causing people to receive the sūtra, aligning them with what oneself has understood. Being able to answer in accordance with questions means being able to cause people to awaken; hence, when difficult to answer, one is able to answer. The foundation for possessing the three matters above arises from skilfully understanding causes and conditions. Only by being endowed with these four virtues can one propagate the sūtra. Sengzong notes: Wanting to transmit the supreme principle to others, one must first rectify oneself. Once oneself is already rectified, one can extend the Path to those with affinities; therefore, the second is to explain rectifying others. Within the approach of rectifying others, according to its supreme functions, it is opened into four. As for "rectifying oneself," the first refers to correctness of conduct, acting in accordance with the Vinaya. The second refers to correctness of understanding, carefully understanding that the Buddha is eternal, while from the vajra [stage] on down is impermanent. Having first been endowed with these virtues, one is definitely able to transform others. Baoliang states: Although there are four names, the principle is no more than two: namely, rectifying oneself and rectifying others. From within rectifying others, the latter two are separated out. Why so? If one were unable to answer in accordance with questions, then external transformation would not be carried out; furthermore, if one does not clearly recognize faculties and natures, then one's expounding would not accord with beings' capacities. If it were like this, one would be deficient in rectifying others; hence, from the meaning of rectifying others, two marks are divided out. Zhixiu states: This chapter has three sections: the first clarifies the four virtues in the stage of cause, directly answering what was asked; the second clarifies resting in the four dharmas in the stage of fruition; the third adduces past teachings that were not definitive, seeking the Buddha's explanation and resolution to demonstrate and complete the four meanings, thereby opening up all the esoterica.

11.6

[The Buddha said,] "Kāśyapa! How does one rectify oneself? If the Buddha, the Tathāgata [...] as being like a mass of fire, this is called rectifying oneself."

11.7

Sengliang states: Taking present circumstances to make a vow. Sengzong states: There is another circumstance appearing in the Withered Tree Sūtra. When the Buddha was walking with the monks in an open wilderness, he saw a dry tree that was blazing furiously, and immediately asked the monks: "Can this tree be embraced or not?" They answered: "It cannot." He asked again: "Suppose someone coerced you to say that the Buddha is impermanent; if you did not say so, you would have to embrace this withered tree. Which would you prefer?" "World-Honoured One! We would rather die embracing the fire." Within these very words both meanings are present: rectifying oneself and rectifying others. Zhixiu states: Regarding "contemplating one's own body": the arising of wrong views inevitably originates from the body; therefore he causes them to contemplate the body as being like a mass of fire.

11.8

[The Buddha said,] "Kāśyapa! How does one rectify others? When the Buddha expounds the Dharma [...] 'The Tathāgata speaks truly; therefore I am joyful.'"

11.9

Sengliang states: This reveals the characteristics of rectifying others. It is because one is able to cause the recipient to attain understanding and awakening. The woman at that time is precisely this case. If her distraction over thinking about her child had not first been dispelled, she would not have awakened to the teaching on permanence; this is what is called skilfully rectifying people. Sengzong states: Here the four dharmas of the bodhisattva are clarified, yet they are revealed through the Buddha because it is intended to show that the marvel of exhausting the four belongs only to the ultimate person. When the Tathāgata presents teachings, he gauges the faculties and capacities, so that what he expounds is necessarily beneficial; this is precisely rectifying others, causing the great masters who propagate the Dharma to be devoted to following his methods. Another interpretation: If one wishes to discuss benefiting and transforming, its paths are naturally manifold: there are those who attain benefit through the exposition of the Dharma, and those for whom it is suitable to be benefited merely through spiritual superknowledges; what is clarified here takes only the exposition of the Dharma. Baoliang states: Within this text, it also possesses being able to answer in accordance with questions and skilfully understanding causes and conditions. Why? Responding to that person with an exposition is rectifying others. The back-and-forth discrimination of principle is answering in accordance with questions. Knowing that person's capacities and affinities and providing what is suitable is understanding causes and conditions. It is not yet known whether this woman had just arrived when nirvāṇa was being expounded. It was not so. Having arrived and sat down, she first harboured a doubt, and subsequently had a thought. The doubt was: she doubted whether the Buddha was omniscient or not. Next, she thought about whether the butter her child had consumed was digested or not. Because she harboured these two, her listening to the Dharma did not penetrate. The Buddha responded to her mind and borrowed this as an analogy. Zhixiu states: It is also citing genuine teachings of the past to illuminate present matters.

11.10

[The Buddha said,] "'World-Honoured One! It is thus. In order to subdue [...] would be identical to those non-Buddhists and would immediately depart.'"

11.11

Sengliang states: He expounds the Dharma for the woman to verify the purport of rectifying others. Sengzong states: "World-Honoured One! It is thus" are the words of the Buddha. Baoliang states: It could also be the words of the woman. Why could it not be that she had planted deep roots in the past and awakened immediately upon hearing it? Zhixiu states: It is truly the words of the woman. Immediately afterward, the World-Honoured One cites it as an example, saying, "My disciples are also like this."

11.12

[The Buddha] further addressed the woman: "When the child has grown up [...] causing all the disciples to find it completely delectable."

11.13

Sengliang states: Because it was not digested, he expounded the three practices. If one is able to digest it, he expounds the six practices. Sengzong states: Regarding the six flavours, there are three for the conditioned and three for the unconditioned. Suffering takes transforming pleasure as its function, just as vinegar can transform sweetness. That all phenomena fluctuate and change is because impermanence presses urgently upon them, just as a salty flavour can make what is not salty become salty. The teaching of non-self runs contrary to desires because of lacking self-mastery, like the bitter flavour not pleasing people. Bliss takes pleasing oneself as its meaning, just as the sweet flavour is savoured by people. Self means exercising control freely without anything being able to obstruct, like the penetrating pungency of a spicy flavour. The principle of permanence is serene and tranquil, of a single mark without difference, like the absence of discrimination in a bland flavour. Using the fire of wisdom that understands permanence to burn the firewood of the delusions of the eight inversions so as to nourish the life of wisdom is likened to cooked rice.

11.14

[The Buddha] further addressed the woman: "If you have affinities [...] entrusted the supreme secret treasury to all the bodhisattvas."

11.15

Sengliang states: Above explained rectifying others while the Buddha was in the world; this explains rectifying others after his extinction.

11.16

[The Buddha said,] "Good son! If there are sentient beings who say the Buddha is eternally abiding [...] then there is a Buddha; this is called rectifying others."

11.17

Zhixiu states: Goodness is established on the basis of faith, taking faith as its home. Through this good mind, that which is apprehended in thought after thought rests solely in eternal abiding; thus the eternally abiding dharmakāya is also constantly in its home of faith.

11.18

[The Buddha said,] "Kāśyapa! How is one able to answer in accordance with questions? [...] this is called being able to answer in accordance with questions."

11.19

Sengliang states: "Merit being superior constitutes greatness" means that the merit of not diminishing wealth is superior to the merit of diminishing wealth; this is truly a great gift. Yet this question is difficult to answer. Now, delicious flavours are what ordinary people crave; when confronted with such a matter, thoughts of abundance or scarcity will inevitably arise. Yet if one can restrain oneself and not accept it, cutting off craving, cultivating the precepts, and nourishing the dharmakāya, then because the use of the wealth is pure, the donor does not diminish their own wealth, and the merit is great. If one does not restrain oneself and accepts it, generating craving and breaking the precepts, increasing birth and death, then the use of the wealth is not pure, the donor diminishes wealth, and the merit is small. This is truly difficult to answer, yet one is able to answer it. Fayao states: For the mind not to be disordered when not seeing what is desirable is easy, but seeing it makes it difficult. Now, when given what is desirable, if the mind is unstained, then because what is desired was given, the state of mind free from desire becomes daily renewed, and the mind of contentment reaches even further; is giving what is difficult to give—what is desired—not precisely the means by which the Dharma is given? Thus with the expense of a single hair, the benefit of the gift of Dharma is vast. That the donor's reputation is widely proclaimed—its meaning lies herein. Sengzong states: The previous explanation of rectifying oneself and rectifying others exhausted the principle completely; it is precisely because within the matters of transforming others things contradict ordinary thinking and are not understood by people that one must know them. Giving material wealth is easy, but giving a person a renown is difficult; here it is explained in terms of giving renown. Why? All these people uphold the precepts with few desires and contentment, and this donor's original intention was to make manifest this person's excellent virtue, not to part with wealth; therefore, amidst a dense crowd of people, he gives what will not be accepted. Since that person does not accept it, seen from the perspective of the multitude, the fame of few desires and contentment of the one who does not accept is made manifest, and the reputation of being able to bestow a great gift of the donor is proclaimed. Zhixiu states: The explanation of the meaning below has five turns: first, directly explaining the mark of answering in accordance with questions; second, requesting the Buddha to institute the prohibition on cutting off meat on account of events; third, citing genuine teachings of the past to formulate an objection; fourth, bringing forward future faults to establish the present prohibition on cutting off meat; fifth, inquiring about the pure dharma.

11.20

At that time, Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! To a person who eats meat, one should not give meat."

11.21

Daosheng comments: Giving [meat] as a gift is already impermissible, how much less so eating it oneself! If one gives free rein to it without prohibition, how could it be a cause for long life? Sengliang says: One who does not eat meat possesses the virtue of great compassion. Sengzong says: Relying on what was discussed above, the force of the principle reaches this point; it is valued for clarifying the principle. Baoliang says: The reason the prohibition against meat-eating is explicitly and suddenly established today is that in former times sentient beings had long been accustomed to foul and rank foods, so it was impossible to prohibit it all at once. Arriving at the teachings of the present sūtra, people's minds are fully matured and their comprehension of the principle is distinct and clear; they perceive this foul and rank food as naturally lowly and worthless. Therefore, prohibiting meat at this time ensures that the practice will certainly be carried out. Relying on what was said above, it is therefore stated that one should not even give it to meat-eaters, how much less should one give it to those who do not eat it? This is because those who already abstain from meat have great merit. Zhixiu says: Intending to request the prohibition, he therefore follows upon and cites the meaning of the previous reply, immediately expressing what he observes, maintaining that giving meat to people is inappropriate. Zhixiu says: This explains why it should not be given. If those who do not eat it have great merit, how could one not institute the rule that it should not be given?

11.22

"Why is this? I see that those who do not eat meat [… down to …] bodhisattvas who protect the Dharma should be like this."

11.23

Sengliang comments: Now long life is explained; compassion is the cause of long life. That which harms compassion should be severed; because his explanation was timely, [the Buddha praised him for] understanding my intent well.

11.24

"Good son! From this day forward, I do not permit the śrāvaka disciples to eat meat."

11.25

Mingjun comments: Above, the cause of permanence was explained, which means taking up the precept against killing out of great compassion. But if one still consumes meat now, one personally engages in conduct that harms compassion; yet one wishes to instruct others with the precept against killing—would one not feel ashamed in one's mind? The precepts are the root of all virtues, and compassion is the basis of myriad practices. If one cuts down the root and harms the basis, how can the branches survive? Zhixiu says: The prohibition against meat-eating begins with this statement. Why should the meaning of 'not permitting' apply only to śrāvakas? Inferring from this, bodhisattvas originally did not eat meat.

11.26

"When receiving offerings made in faith from a dānapati, one should contemplate this food as if it were the flesh of one's own child."

11.27

Zhixiu comments: Even other foods are treated thus, how much more so meat? The contemplation of one's child's flesh has a distinct origin found in other sūtras.

11.28

Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! Why does the Tathāgata not permit the eating of meat?"

11.29

Zhixiu comments: He requests to hear about the faults of eating meat.

11.30

"Good son! One who eats meat cuts off the seed of great compassion."

11.31

Daosheng comments: Of rich flavours, none goes deeper than eating meat. If the craving for meat is strong, one will surely forget compassion and pity. The greatness of compassion and pity is called the 'seed.' Once the seed is cut off, the principle of long life is severed. Sengzong says: Killing harms great compassion, while eating harms lesser compassion. Because one attains the great based on the lesser, lesser compassion is the seed of great compassion. Another explanation says: The fruit is great compassion, and the cause is lesser compassion; thus causal compassion is the seed of the fruit of compassion. Now that one consumes meat, it goes against the compassion of the causal stage; therefore it is said to cut off the seed of compassion. Huidan says: Eating meat obstructs the lesser compassion that accumulates substantial roots of goodness; how could it give rise to the great compassion of the stage of lineage (gotra) and above?

11.32

Kāśyapa further said: "For what reason did the Tathāgata [… down to …] one should know that this is the meaning of now prohibiting meat."

11.33

Sengliang comments: If compassion is the root of longevity and eating meat harms compassion, then why did he previously permit eating it? The 'three pure kinds' refers to excluding what is seen, heard, or suspected. As for the 'ten impure kinds,' there is a definite enumeration later. The 'nine kinds': regarding not seeing, there are three, meaning joy before eating, joy while eating, and joy after eating; not hearing and not suspecting each likewise have three. Sengzong says: The three kinds, the ten kinds, and the nine kinds all invoke previous regulations. The three kinds refer to seen, heard, and suspected. As for the ten kinds, there is a clear passage below. The receiving of the nine kinds: in the past he made a provisional proclamation that one was permitted to eat if free from seeing, hearing, or suspecting. Although the rule was made at that time, many lives were still harmed; hence, the second rule was that aside from the ten, one was permitted to eat if free from seeing, hearing, or suspecting. Even though this was so, injuries and harm were still numerous; therefore, the third [rule] gradually made it pure and exhaustive. Each of the three aforementioned matters had its prior and posterior preparatory stages: three per matter, combining to make nine. The three within seeing are: seeing when life is severed, seeing when it is dragged away, and seeing when it is butchered after being killed. The three within hearing are: hearing when it is killed, hearing when it is dragged away, and hearing when it is butchered. The three within suspicion likewise do not depart from seeing and hearing: suspecting whether it was killed for oneself, or killed for another, down to suspecting the prior and posterior preparatory stages. Another explanation of suspicion is: as when earlier one was at that house, and now at this house one receives meat, doubt arises in the mind: 'Is this the earlier meat? Or is it not the earlier meat?' One also may not eat it. If suspicion arises regarding the prior or posterior preparatory stages, in all cases one may not eat it. Suspicion arising within hearing is analogous to the former. But since the circumstances of seeing and hearing are different, each is divided into three, making six. The suspicion concerning the two households is not differentiated further; it is identically a single suspicion. Now that the teaching of permanence has arisen, all [meat-eating] is entirely severed; this shows that removing attachments has a gradual order and cannot be done all at once. Another interpretation: The essential practice for the fruit of permanence lies in granting life; it is clear that it should be severed completely and at once.

11.34

Bodhisattva Kāśyapa again said to the Buddha: [… down to …] "how much more so craving and clinging to the flavours of fish and meat?"

11.35

Sengliang comments: In terms of human inclinations, flavours are considered very weighty, whereas adornments and fine things are very light. If even the lighter things are prohibited, how much more so the weightier?

11.36

Kāśyapa further said: "If the Tathāgata prohibits [… down to …] one also should not receive such things."

11.37

Sengliang comments: If one is defiled by and attached to the above items, one also should not receive them. Fayao says: If one abstains from meat for the sake of the merit of great compassion, then flavours such as milk and curd, as well as leather, also should not be received. If the robes one wears must be of dyed, subdued colours to signify the absence of greed, then treasures such as gold and silver should not be received.

11.38

"Good son! One should not agree with the views of the Nirgranthas [… down to …] all prohibitive precepts each have a different purpose."

11.39

Fayao comments: One who is free of desire values reducing emotional attachments; how could one agree with those heterodox views, taking nakedness as practicing the Path, or taking total abstinence from things as severing desire?

11.40

"Because of different purposes, eating the three pure kinds of meat was permitted [… down to …] all are completely prohibited, as well as [animals that] died naturally."

11.41

Daosheng comments: Afflictions are of two kinds: arising from intention and arising from conception. Pursuing what pleases one's feelings is called 'arising from intention.' What one craves having no limit is called 'arising from conception.' Therefore, a minor prohibition curbs one's intention, whereas a total prohibition curbs one's conception. Sengliang says: It removes their intention of greed and nourishes their compassion. Fayao says: What is easily obtained gives rise to an intention upon encountering it; what is difficult to obtain is constantly conceptualized and desired. Therefore, when permitted to eat the three pure kinds of meat, the intention toward the three impure kinds naturally dissolved. But regarding the three pure kinds, because they were difficult to obtain, people conceptualized and desired them; next, when among the ten kinds the three pure kinds were further prohibited from being eaten, conception toward the ten was severed. They conceptualized only the three pure kinds outside the ten, and because these were even more difficult to obtain, their conceptualizing became even more defiled. Now that all are severed, there is no longer any place for any conception to arise; hence all conceptions are severed. Baoliang says: If [the use of] provisions for the body causes severe harm, the Buddha prohibits it. If its practical use involves lesser and more distant [harm], the Buddha provisionally permits it. Sentient beings have illusory karmic retributions and necessarily require sustenance; if he severed everything all at once, their physical form could not be maintained. Zhixiu says: 'Different conceptions' and 'different purposes' are interchangeable expressions. It means being different from those evil intentions.

11.42

"Kāśyapa! From this day forward, I prohibit all disciples from eating any meat."

11.43

Zhixiu comments: This concludes the formulation of the prohibition.

11.44

"Kāśyapa! As for those who eat meat, whether walking or standing [… down to …] smelling their meaty odour, they all give rise to terror."

11.45

Zhixiu comments: Using concrete matters to reveal the principle.

11.46

"Just as someone who has approached a lion [… down to …] still does not wish to look upon it, how much less approach it!"

11.47

Zhixiu comments: Formulating a simile for the meat-eater.

11.48

"All those who eat meat are also like this [… down to …] all are terrified, giving rise to the thought of fearing death."

11.49

Zhixiu comments: If a person has no intention to harm beasts, beasts will not harm the person either; this is how one can probe a bone from a tiger in the mountains, or be familiar with gulls hovering over the sea. If one already eats their flesh, how could the intention to harm ever be extinguished? When they smell the killer's aura, they give rise to the thought of fearing death.

11.50

"Creatures with life that move through water, on land, or in the air all flee from them and run away, all saying: 'This person is our enemy!'"

11.51

Zhixiu comments: If benevolence and pity are not yet complete, it is truly fitting to avoid them.

11.52

"For this reason, bodhisattvas do not practice eating meat [… down to …] they still do not eat it, how much less should they eat meat?"

11.53

Zhixiu comments: Citing the practices of great beings, he praises not eating meat as truly precious.

11.54

"Good son! Innumerable hundreds of years after my nirvāṇa [… down to …] one should say that this person is truly my disciple."

11.55

Zhixiu comments: Raising the evil matters of the Latter Dharma. If there are renunciants who can keep distant from this, they are truly my disciples.

11.56

Then Kāśyapa again said to the Buddha: [… down to …] "none should be eaten; whoever eats them incurs sin."

11.57

Zhixiu comments: He requests the method by which food may be accepted.

11.58

"Now that I proclaim this prohibition against meat-eating [… down to …] this is called being able to reply according to the question."

11.59

Zhixiu comments: This concludes the above.

11.60

"Kāśyapa! What is meant by being skilled at understanding the meaning of causes and conditions [… down to …] what is meant by the meaning of the prātimokṣa?"

11.61

Sengliang states: Precepts are instituted when the time arrives and not instituted when it has not arrived; this refers to being skilled in understanding the meaning of causes and conditions. As for 'what is termed "falling" down to "prātimokṣa"': 'falling' is the designation for committing an offense; the Vinaya is the catalog of the minor and the grave; 'mokṣa' is the designation for the meaning of the precepts, also called 'contentment' and also called 'liberation.' As for 'why not preach this Dharma-gate': if one observes them, one attains liberation from all sufferings; if one breaches them, one falls into the evil destinies. Precepts ought to have been instituted early to make them know the minor and the grave. Sengzong states: When one wishes to rectify others, one must possess skillful understanding. If one does not penetrate their faculties and natures, on the contrary burden will arise for them, which cannot be called benefiting beings. Above, in the text on rectifying others, it also said that one considers the feelings of beings and preaches when they are capable of hearing it; it is no different from this. Speaking in general, that is truly not rectifying others. Regarding rectifying others, an example was briefly raised above, relying on the confrontation with a woman to clarify the marks of rectifying others. As for 'why not first preach this Dharma-gate for King Prasenajit': the ruler of the realm originally knew the king's law; and though black and white differ, the removal of harm is the same, which is why the Buddha permitted him to know the marks of the precepts in brief. In that country, stealing up to five coins incurs the penalty of death; when one who has left household life breaches [this], the offense merits expulsion. When it comes to discussing offenses, [the Buddha] always conferred with the ruler of the realm. Now it is asked: 'Why not preach all at once the profound principle of the sūtras and the Vinaya?' Although there are five lines here, the general sense does not exceed two. The first asks why they were not instituted all at once; the second asks about the marks of the precepts and Vinaya. As for 'sometimes preaching the profound': the past teaching also had profound and shallow; for instance, the ten good deeds and the five precepts are shallow, while the four noble truths and the twelve links of dependent origination are profound. If one compares the past with the present teaching, all are profound. That the Buddha did not preach all at once when he first appeared in the world must have had causes and conditions. As for 'sometimes termed offense or non-offense': in the past he instituted generally, 'Commit no evils.' Since there was no text for establishing offenses, it was not spoken of as an offense; and when specific institutions were made according to circumstances, it was then spoken of as an offense. As for 'what is termed "falling"': these three ask generally about the marks of transgressing or not transgressing; transgressing is called 'falling,' and not transgressing is the Vinaya. As for 'what is termed "mokṣa"': this specifically asks about the precept-essence. Here 'mokṣa' is clarified a second time because the earlier passage directly clarified the precept-essence. Because it overlaps with the Vinaya, fearing that people might harbor doubt, it is therefore distinguished again: taking the departure from the unwholesome of body, speech, and mind as the precept-essence, while the Vinaya is taken to guard outer deportment and establish classifications and items. Wishing to distinguish the difference between the two, it is therefore set forth a second time. Baoliang states: Concerning the five questions: the first objection is, 'Why did he not preach the sūtra-teachings all at once, but rather had profound and shallow preachings?' The second objection is, 'Why did he not first institute the precepts all at once, but rather had to wait until an offense occurred before instituting them?' The third asks about 'falling,' what is stated being different from the third class of the past; it comprehensively states that the five classes and seven gatherings are all karmic retributions of the family of falling. The fourth asks about the Vinaya; the Vinaya fundamentally evaluates the minor and the grave, which is just what was discerned earlier regarding the matters of the family of falling. The fifth asks about 'prātimokṣa,' which asks about the unmanifest precept. Zhixiu states: There are four questions. The first asks why he did not preach the sūtras and the Vinaya all at once; the remaining three questions are no different from the previous explanation. Huilang states: 'Vinaya' means category.

11.62

The Buddha said: "Prātimokṣa (down to) not receiving or hoarding anything is also called pure livelihood.

11.63

Sengzong states: If one discusses the precept-essence, it is none other than the unmanifest; if one treats its meaning, it is called ultimate compliance with affairs. Stating 'contentment' is not the primary explanation of the name and meaning of mokṣa; it rather clarifies the precepts in terms of the functional mind. The teachings of the śrāvakas take having few desires as their practice; if one esteems few desires, then the unmanifest that one received will increase day and night; this raises having few desires to clarify the precepts. Baoliang states: The unmanifest is fundamentally an inert phenomenon, not the nature of understanding; how could it stop evil? That it now obtains the name of 'cessation' has three meanings: first, establishing the designation from the cause; second, obtaining the name from conditions; third, speaking of the fruit within the cause. Obtaining the name from the cause means that it arises from the mind that halts evil. Since this phenomenon arises from halting evil, the unmanifest is spoken of as halting evil. Receiving the name from conditions means that having received this precept, one guards it in mind and does not commit the multitude of evils; hence it is called 'obtaining the name from conditions.' Speaking of the fruit within the cause means that due to observing this precept, the mind becomes tranquil; because it is tranquil, it sees the principle and achieves the uncontaminated, capable of cutting off the bond of marks, and is called a liberated noble one; therefore it is said that the unmanifest halts evil.

11.64

" 'Falling' refers to the four evil destinies (down to) for these meanings it is called 'falling.' "

11.65

Sengzong states: 'Falling' is spoken of in three places: the first two are places where retribution for offenses is undergone; the latter speaks of the inevitability of falling. Sengzong [also] states: Here 'falling' is clarified threefold: first, generally regarding the minor and grave; next, specifically clarifying the grave; and finally, clarifying 'falling' in terms of causes.

11.66

"Prātimokṣa is departing from the unwholesome, deviant karma of body, speech, and mind.

11.67

Sengliang states: That the precept is spoken of a second time is because the earlier passage was spoken in terms of persons, while this latter passage discerns its essence in terms of the precept itself.

11.68

"The Vinaya enters into the deportment of precepts, the profound sūtras, and the wholesome meanings (down to) and impure causes and conditions.

11.69

Sengliang states: 'Enters' means accords with. It classifies the minor and grave of offenses, and the shallow and profound of obstacles to the path. 'The profound sūtras and wholesome meanings, and impure causes and conditions': its essence being not pure, it can generate impurity; like eating at improper times, all should be prevented. Sengzong states: This explains the word 'Vinaya.' The texts of the five divisions of the Vinaya are what is clarified by the Precept Sūtra; hiding the subtle makes it profound, not transgressing the intention of the institutions. Body and speech are in accord with Dharma, hence it is said to 'enter.' Being contrary to evil, it is called 'wholesome meanings.' Preventing the receiving of the impure refers to the one hundred impure items.

11.70

"It also prevents the four grave [offenses], the thirteen saṅghāvaśeṣas (down to) the numerous rules for training, the seven rules for settling disputes, and so forth.

11.71

Sengzong states: This clarifies receiving and upholding all the intentions of the Vinaya.

11.72

"Or again, there may be persons who break all precepts (down to) up to the seven rules for settling disputes.

11.73

Sengliang states: There are two kinds of precepts: first, receiving precepts; second, instituting precepts. When the Buddha first attained enlightenment, the 'Come, monk' bhikṣus immediately received the precepts. There having been no instituted precepts yet, because they did not know offenses, they broke all the classified items of minor and grave offenses. Sengzong states: This answers the earlier phrase on offense and non-offense. It means that prior to the general institution, all evils arose in ignorance. If they had been instituted all at once, beings' dispositions could not have borne it. Therefore, the Tathāgata first instituted 'commit no evils' to suppress their grave evils, and only afterwards instituted precepts according to circumstances. Zhixiu states: From here down answers the first question. It clarifies that the reason they were not instituted all at once was that those who heard them would not believe and would inevitably slander them. From 'At that time there were good men' onwards, based on explaining the intention of being unable to institute them all at once, another objection is then raised.

11.74

"Or again, there may be persons who slander the true Dharma (down to) they were instituted gradually and could not be all at once.

11.75

Sengliang states: 'Exhausting all marks' means all marks of evil. 'Concealing' means not confessing spontaneously to the wise. Speaking in terms of their disposition, since they did not know it was an offense, how could they know to expose it? Speaking in terms of the fact, it was simply concealing. Not repenting is also like this. 'Instituted gradually' speaks of the marks of the minor and grave among the seven classes. Sengzong states: This answers the first question. It means that people's faculties were shallow and narrow, not yet capable of bearing the profound teaching; if it had been preached all at once, it would have further aggravated their illness, even to becoming icchantikas. 'Exhausting all marks' is the mark of severing wholesome roots. 'Having no causes and conditions' means having no causes and conditions for being saved; it can also mean holding that everything has no causes and conditions. 'Becoming further rampant' is because deep slandering obscures in ignorance.

11.76

"At that time there were good men and good women (down to) for this reason we entreat that the precepts should have been instituted beforehand.

11.77

Sengliang states: 'Going to other lands' means seeking escape from saṃsāra, which is 'other.' 'Illegalities and breaking precepts' refers to going astray. 'Not seeing anyone whom one could ask about right and wrong' means not knowing offense and non-offense. 'The superior merits of the ten good deeds' have five grades: the lower ten good deeds are humans and devas; the medium are śrāvakas; the upper are pratyekabuddhas; the upper-medium are bodhisattvas; the supreme are buddhas, realizing the Buddha's knowledge of the path. Baoliang states: The intent of being unable to institute them all at once is not yet clear, so another question is now formulated. The answer is that the Tathāgata also knew this matter; for instance, Sudinna would commit an offense tomorrow, so why not preemptively institute it today? If there were an instituted rule, he would naturally not offend; since he would certainly not offend, he would not fall into the evil destinies; hence it is said that they should have been instituted beforehand.

11.78

"The Buddha said: 'Good man! If one says that the Tathāgata (down to) wishes to cause sentient beings to enter hell.

11.79

Zhixiu states: First he cites the above objection and tentatively turns it aside, saying that this objection cannot be made.

11.80

" 'If I see a single person who has [karma] to fall into the Avīci hell (down to) who thinks of them as his children to cause them to enter hell?'

11.81

Zhixiu states: Next he shows the Buddha's great compassion, possessing the virtue of compassionate rescue.

11.82

" 'Good man! Just as in a kingdom there is a patcher of garments (down to) then patches it with the wholesome of the precepts.'

11.83

Sengliang states: Garments serve to block leaks, just as precepts cover evil. In a patch of five layers, though four layers are pierced, because the leak has not emerged, one cannot patch it preemptively; when the leak emerges, one patches it. This is why when Śāriputra requested the Buddha to institute the precepts, the Buddha said that because the leaks had not emerged, they could not be instituted. Later there was a monk who begged for food as night fell; someone thought he was a ghost, was frightened, and suffered a miscarriage, incurring worldly censure. Because the leaky phenomenon had emerged, the Buddha then instituted the precepts. Zhixiu states: Next two similes are set forth to answer the objection directly. The first simile directly clarifies that evil must first arise, and only then is it patched with the wholesome.

11.84

" 'Good man! It is like a wheel-turning sage king (down to) and only then personally practices the laws of a sage king.'

11.85

Zhixiu states: This second simile shows the Buddha's intention in first instituting generally and later instituting specifically.

11.86

" 'Good man! I am also like this (down to) the meaning of causes and conditions in the Mahānirvāṇa.'

11.87

Zhixiu states: He combines the two similes together.

11.88

" 'Furthermore, rectifying oneself refers to obtaining this (down to) is identical with Mahānirvāṇa, equal and without distinction.'

11.89

Sengzong states: This is based specifically on the fruit, intending to clarify that at the time of the cause, in carrying out transformation, one is complete in the four virtues and ultimately reaches the other shore. This person, having ultimately reached the fruit, again transforms people with it, hence we know that the four virtues are complete. The words of dissemination lie in being free of error; therefore, adducing the fruit inspires faith and possesses proof, which will cause one to admire the previous model and strive to practice it.

11.90

Fascicle 11

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese