大般涅槃經集解 12

English (machine translation) 12

Language: English

12.1

Explaining the meaning of nirvāṇa with remainder and without remainder / Disclosing the inconceivable matter of the physical secret

12.2

Second Part of Chapter on the Four Marks

12.3

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: "If there are good men or good women who speak thus: 'The Tathāgata is impermanent.'

Sengliang states: From here down begins the answer to the fifth question. Disclosing the former oral secret comprises five objections in brief: the fourth and fifth adduce nirvāṇa without remainder; the first, second, and third adduce nirvāṇa with remainder. Fayao states: In what has been clarified above, permanent abidance has already been revealed; now from here down through 'the Tathāgata has no secret storehouse,' it discloses the former secret teaching of impermanence and the physical secret. 'May the Buddha disclose what is subtle and secret' is precisely this phrase. Sengzong states: This answers the question on disclosing what is subtle and secret. Although prajñā and dharmakāya were clarified above as distinct from the former nirvāṇa, the former teaching was not yet wiped clean; now clarifying solitary extinction breaks what was not real. Disclosing the former subtle and secret teaching is none other than disclosing the upāya of speech. The awakening flowers below clarify that the royal palace was not a real birth, and the Twin Trees was not a real extinction. Baoliang states: This is the beginning of the expanded text. The threshold of disclosing the subtle and secret clarifies the functioning of the fruit, revealing dharmakāya, prajñā, and vimokṣa. Now it first expands on the oral secret to clarify wisdom.

12.5

" 'How should one know that he is impermanent? (down to) is it a permanently abiding phenomenon that does not alter?' "

12.6

Fayao states: "This cites what was spoken formerly: that where the afflictions are extinguished is nirvāṇa with remainder. Once extinction into the unconditioned occurs, what dharma could possibly be called permanent?" Sengzong states: "Regarding the various objections here, commentators interpret them differently: some take them as four, others as five, yet neither division is problematic, for all of them grasp at the idea that with-remainder and without-remainder merely entail extinction into non-existence. However, the intention of the objection only produces understanding equivalent to the literal words and fails to grasp the Buddha's intention deeply." Baoliang states: "Below, four objections are raised. The first and third cite [nirvāṇa] with remainder to form objections; this is the first objection. In former days it was pointed out that where afflictions are absent is nirvāṇa, which is simply the non-existence of anything. If so, what permanence could there be?"

12.7

"As the Buddha said, 'One who is free from all realms of existence...' (and so on, down to) '...is it an unconditioned permanent dharma that does not alter?'"

12.8

Fayao states: "This relies on the Buddha's body being exhausted in nirvāṇa without remainder in former teachings: if both body and wisdom are extinguished, who remains permanently?" Mingjun notes: "If five objections are made, opening this analogy of the damaged robe constitutes the third objection."

12.9

"As the Buddha said, 'Free from desire, quiescent extinction...' (and so on, down to) '...is it an unconditioned permanent dharma that does not alter?'"

12.10

Fayao states: "This again is the exhaustion of fetters, nirvāṇa with remainder. The exhaustion of craving is the absence of desire. The preceding exhaustion of various afflictions was the severing of fetters."

12.11

"As the Buddha said, 'Like heated iron...' (and so on, down to) '...is it an unconditioned permanent dharma that does not alter?'"

12.12

Fayao states: "This again is the exhaustion of the body, nirvāṇa without remainder. It merely cites the Buddha's former analogy: the phrasing differs, but the purport is the same." Mingjun notes: "Regarding this citing of nirvāṇa with remainder and without remainder to formulate objections, there are five turns in all: first, the Buddha himself cites the former teachings to formulate the present objection; second, Kāśyapa constructs two further objections; third, the Buddha answers; fourth, he concludes the preceding purport; fifth, Kāśyapa grasps the understanding. Within the first turn, there are four steps: first, citing the former teachings; second, admonishing Kāśyapa; third, explaining and harmonizing the former purport; fourth, adducing the permanence of the Dharma as proof. This is the first step: citing the former teachings."

12.13

"Kāśyapa, if someone were to make such an objection... (and so on, down to) ...saying that the Tathāgata's nature is extinction."

12.14

Mingjun notes: "The second step. First he repudiates what is grasped by other people, thereby admonishing Kāśyapa."

12.15

"Kāśyapa, one who extinguishes afflictions is not called a thing... (and so on, down to) ...this phrase 'quiescent' is unsurpassed."

12.16

Sengliang states: "This answers the first, third, and fourth clauses concerning with-remainder. It explains that in with-remainder, afflictions arise and function without quiescence; extinguishing them is quiescence. With-remainder is the cause of extinction." Fayao states: "This answers the purport of with-remainder in the first and third clauses. In these two clauses, if the unconditioned quiescence of the exhaustion of fetters is still able to be permanent, how much more so the dharmakāya?" Sengzong states: "This answers the three repetitions concerning with-remainder. Saying 'is not called a thing' means it is not a thing among conditioned phenomena. At that time it was spoken in a concealed manner, and so it was said that afflictions are exhausted, with the intention being that it is not a thing within saṃsāra; but you erroneously took the Buddha's intention, thinking it meant total extinction. Yet the dharmakāya constantly exists; how could it be extinguished? Here, 'Why is this?' explains what was just said about not being called a thing. Saying 'eternally ultimate' means there is no delusion that is not exhausted, which is why the work of the path of remedy ceases. 'This phrase is quiescent' means that having just explained that it exists and is permanent, he now brings up again that the preceding phrase about extinguishing afflictions is precisely true quiescence." Mingjun notes: "Below is the third: explaining and harmonizing the former purport."

12.17

"All marks are extinguished without remainder... (and so on, down to) ...the Tathāgata is likewise permanent and unchanging."

12.18

Sengliang states: "These are the marks of the conditioned; this explains the second and fifth repetitions. 'This phrase is pure and white': conditioned phenomena are defilement, and because they are extinguished, it is pure, attaining this fruit of extinction without remainder." Fayao states: "This answers the second clause regarding the exhaustion of the body in without-remainder. If the unconditioned state of the exhaustion of the body can still be permanent, how much more so the Tathāgata's dharmakāya, which constantly endures and is never extinguished?" Sengzong states: "'Without remainder' means saṃsāra is exhausted. How could one rely on the former words 'free from existence' and immediately declare it to be completely extinguished? Formerly, because sentient beings had a deep revulsion toward suffering, he merely manifested the trace of extinguishing suffering. Another interpretation: sentient beings have the affliction of grasping at a self, so the true self could not be spoken of; the words were concealed while the principle was revealed, so how could the wondrous permanence be extinguished? 'This phrase is pure and white': having severed all realms of existence, it is therefore pure and white. People of the three vehicles still retain a ground in which impermanence abides, and thus cannot be praised as pure and white; only the Buddha's dharmakāya is truly without defilement, hence pure and white."

12.19

"What is called a shooting star refers to afflictions... (and so on, down to) ...it is a permanent dharma without alteration."

12.20

Fayao states: "This answers the fourth clause regarding without-remainder." Sengzong states: "Having finished answering the objection, he further explains the analogy."

12.21

"Furthermore, Kāśyapa, that which all Buddhas take as their teacher... (and so on, down to) ...because the Dharma is permanent, the Buddhas are also permanent."

12.22

Sengliang states: "Extinction is the method of severing suffering, hence it is called teacher. Above it was said that because nirvāṇa is permanent, the Buddha is permanent; since it had not yet clarified why nirvāṇa is permanent, he clarifies it again." Sengzong states: "Above he explained the Buddha's teaching; now he explains according to principle. Because the permanent teacher is perfect and ultimate, this principle is calm and clear, differing only in being concealed or revealed. When persons encounter it, it is not newly arisen. Since persons uphold the Dharma, and the Dharma is permanent, how could the persons be impermanent?" Mingjun notes: "The fourth step adduces the Dharma taken as teacher as proof."

12.23

Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha once more... (and so on, down to) ...is likewise extinguished without going anywhere."

12.24

Sengliang states: "Kāśyapa grasps the analogy with a different intention, using the preceding analogy to raise an objection." Fayao states: "He again objects to the two clauses on with-remainder. The Buddha's answer just now explained that the unconditioned state of the exhaustion of fetters is permanent, and the Tathāgata is also permanent. Furthermore, the Tathāgata and the afflictions are extinguished together, and only then is there permanence. Hence this objection arises." Sengzong states: "The human mind has not yet understood, and still grasps at the analogy of iron. In the preceding clause, the heat and red color of the sparked iron, once extinguished, are not known to be anywhere. If it is really as the analogy states, the Tathāgata should not exist. The Tathāgata is a person, and afflictions are dharmas; when both person and dharma are absent, both being like the iron analogy, neither should exist any longer." Baoliang states: "In answering the fourth objection, human doubt had not yet ceased, and now the analogy is shifted to raise an objection. If, as the Buddha said, having abandoned afflictions, like that sparked iron which after extinction ceases to exist, the dharmakāya should be permanent; I would say: it should be like the iron on the anvil, not escaping impermanence—when that iron comes out of the fire it is black, and when it enters the fire it is red. The Buddha is likewise: after afflictions are extinguished, they should arise again." Zhixiu states: "Following the preceding answer which said 'not being in the five destinies,' he uses the phrasing to raise an objection. If he is not in the five destinies, then there should not be a permanent body; if there is a permanent body, then there should be a place where afflictions are visibly present. Like the red color of that sparked iron, once extinguished, no one knows where it goes. After afflictions are extinguished, it is the same as this analogy." Mingjun notes: "Below is the second turn, where Kāśyapa constructs two further objections."

12.25

"Furthermore, like the heat and red color of that iron... (and so on, down to) ...one should know that the Tathāgata is precisely impermanent."

12.26

Fayao states: "This again raises an objection regarding the two clauses on without-remainder, the meaning being the same as above. Taking heat as an analogy for afflictions and the red color as an analogy for the Buddha, this means that once afflictions are extinguished, the Buddha should also be extinguished, because of entering nirvāṇa without remainder." Sengzong states: "This is the second objection. Taking the heat and red color of iron on an anvil as an analogy, it means that although they are absent at that moment, since their fundamental substance remains, upon entering fire they arise." Zhixiu states: "This still reinforces the previous objection. This anticipates the Buddha's intention, fearing that the Buddha might say that while the red color may not be known to be anywhere, its heat still remains. Therefore he states again that both heat and red color, once extinguished, no longer exist." Mingjun notes: "The objection implies that if there is permanence, there should be an abiding place. Now that afflictions are extinguished, the Tathāgata is also extinguished; neither has a place, and no one knows where they are, so where does the meaning of permanence reside? The second 'Furthermore, like that iron...' further reinforces the previous objection. Taking the red color as an analogy for afflictions and heat as an analogy for the body, then when the Tathāgata enters nirvāṇa without remainder, both afflictions and body are completely exhausted; how then can one say there is a permanent state to abide in?"

12.27

"Good son, what is called iron refers to ordinary persons... (and so on, down to) ...being extinguished, it does not arise again; therefore it is called permanent."

12.28

Sengliang states: "I took both heat and red color together as an analogy for afflictions. Once the red color is extinguished, the iron is no longer visible; once afflictions are extinguished, the Tathāgata is no longer in the five destinies. This is merely a partial analogy. If it were a comprehensive analogy, iron would have two analogies: returning to redness would illustrate ordinary persons, while not turning red would illustrate the Buddha." Sengzong states: "Previously there were two objections; this first answers the latter objection. You must not apply the iron analogy entirely; the iron on the anvil can serve as an analogy for ordinary persons, because although ordinary persons suppress fetters even up to the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, they arise again afterward; with the Buddha it is not so, for they never arise again." Baoliang states: "The explanation is the same as this." Zhixiu states: "This refutes both analogies together, clarifying that ordinary persons are like this—sometimes being extinguished and then arising again, and therefore having an impermanent body." Mingjun notes: "Kāśyapa's preceding objection was aimed at the place of permanence; in this answer of the Buddha, he has not yet directly resolved that objection, but first applies the analogy to ordinary persons: although ordinary persons extinguish [fetters], it is not an ultimate extinction, and because the extinction is not ultimate, they can arise again; the Tathāgata is not like this, and therefore is not impermanent."

12.29

Kāśyapa said again: "As when the iron's color is extinguished... (and so on, down to) ...if fetters arise again, then it is impermanent."

12.30

Sengliang states: "Above, the difference between the extinction of ordinary persons and sages was spoken of, but the reason was not yet explained, so he repeats this objection." Baoliang and Zhixiu both agree with this explanation.

12.31

The Buddha said: "Kāśyapa, you should not now... (and so on, down to) ...is named damaged robe, decapitation, and broken pot."

12.32

Sengliang states: "'Having ash': although ash exists, it does not turn back into wood. The Buddha is wondrous existence and does not return to impermanence. 'Then there is nirvāṇa': as for nirvāṇa, whether it is the Tathāgata's extinction of fetters or an ordinary person's extinction of fetters, although the name 'extinction' is the same, in reality they are vastly different. Although an ordinary person extinguishes [them], it is still conditioned and shares the same characteristics as fetters, so it has no different name; after the Tathāgata is extinguished, it does not arise again, and because extinction is unconditioned, it has a further distinct name, being called nirvāṇa." Sengzong states: "This answers the first objection. Previously he cited sparked iron, making delusion exhausted and the person extinguished. Now he cites burning wood: after extinction there is ash, which means delusion is exhausted while wisdom remains." Zhixiu states: "When wood is extinguished there is ash: although it is no longer wood, it is not non-existent. After afflictions are extinguished, although he is not in the five destinies, there is a permanent body." Mingjun notes: "Ash is used as an analogy for nirvāṇa. When wood is extinguished there is ash; once afflictions are extinguished, there is nirvāṇa. Although nirvāṇa cannot be grasped and has no spatial location, through words it can be said that departing from the ground of ordinary persons, one attains an unshakeable place. Because words can be applied, wisdom is permanent; and because it is not a destructible dharma, it is not impermanent."

12.33

"Kāśyapa, just as iron, once cold, can be made hot again... (and so on, down to) ...the blazing fire of afflictions never arises again."

12.34

Sengzong states: "Above it was said that the extinction of fetters is permanent, but the reason why it is permanent was not yet explained. The undefiled sees extinction, and because the nature of extinction is permanent, fetters do not arise again; the defiled conditions existence, and because existence is not permanent, they are extinguished and arise again. This is the great distinction between the undefiled and the defiled." Sengzong states: "This answers the sub-clause objection just raised."

12.35

"Kāśyapa, you should know that immeasurable sentient beings... (and so on, down to) ...burn the afflictive fetters of those sentient beings."

12.36

Mingjun notes: "This concludes the preceding purport."

12.37

Kāśyapa said again: "Excellent, excellent!... (and so on, down to) ...sport among the flowers of awakening, rejoicing and enjoying pleasure."

12.38

Mingjun notes: "Here he first grasps the understanding."

12.39

Kāśyapa asked again: "As the Buddha said... (and so on, down to) ...I only pray that the Tathāgata will explain its causes and conditions."

12.40

Fayao states: "This introduces the secret of the Tathāgata's physical manifestations." Sengzong states: "Although the secret words have already been cleared away, sentient beings were still not free from perplexity regarding the beginning and end of a single transforming lifespan taking birth. Therefore, [the Buddha] points to specific matters and clears them away extensively so as to disclose the provisional traces. There are two distinctions: first, discussing the bodhisattvas in general; second, discussing the traces of Śākyamuni."

12.41

The Buddha told Kāśyapa: "You should not say... (up to) ...and returns to dwell quietly in his original dwelling place."

12.42

Sengliang states: "A bodhisattva 'dwelling in nirvāṇa' means that because they have seen the buddhadhātu to a small degree, it is called 'dwelling.' This uses the lower to illustrate the higher."

12.43

"Good son! There are also bodhisattva-mahāsattvas... (up to) ...and returns to dwell quietly in his original dwelling place."

12.44

Mingjun states: "Previously he pointed to one Mount Sumeru; now he raises a thousand crore Mount Sumerus. As is extensively explained in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra."