大般涅槃經集解 20.32

20.32

Sengliang comments: Above, failing to discriminate was the fault; here, seizing upon fixed characteristics of cause and fruit and clinging to the saṃskṛta is the fault. Below, by means of suffering, impermanence, and non-self, the fault of clinging to the asaṃskṛta is revealed. "Self and non-self have no duality in their nature" clarifies the Middle Way of the supreme truth, which is free from the two extremes of existence and non-existence. Sengzong's record by Jingyi says: This eighth passage was once explained by my master as referring to being confused by the complete teaching and giving rise to delusion. Examining the text, there is no glaring difference, so it is just explained according to different interpreters. Above, the Middle Way of existence and non-existence has already been clarified, yet it is also necessary to clearly reveal the Middle Way of continuity, because their conceptual imports interpenetrate. The preceding three lines clarify cause and fruit within tainted dharmas; the black and white dharmas encompass both tainted and untainted, clarifying cause and fruit. When ordinary people hear the words "cause and fruit," they assume a vast separation and produce the thought of two dharmas. Those who deeply penetrate them realize the difference between cause and fruit, and therefore they cannot be said to be identical; yet because cause and fruit are interrelated, they cannot be said to be different. Sengzong's record by Falian says: This is the second round: confusion over the complete teaching. Hearing that the dharmakāya is permanent while the stage of training is impermanent, ordinary people cling to the claim that the Buddha and sentient beings, brightness and ignorance, differ, and that the saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta have no connection to each other. The partial teaching also clarifies the twelve links of dependent origination; why are they different? They are borrowed as an analogy: if one does not understand brightness and ignorance, how could one properly penetrate the wondrous principle of the complete teaching? Ignorance is the cause, and brightness is the fruit; the subsequent lines on saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta and so forth are all like this. Baoliang says: From here below is the second layer, clarifying the Middle Way of the true mark. If one strictly speaks of the past teaching, it took the emptiness and existence of saṃsāra as real in a one-sided way. If spoken in terms of the present sūtra, it recognizes the wondrous substance of the conscious spirit, tathatā, as real, knowing that from the vajra-like mind back must be suffering, emptiness, and impermanence, while the Buddha-fruit must be permanence, bliss, self, and purity. If one forms such an understanding, then at both extremes one attains the real meaning, fulfilling the practice of the Middle Way. Why is this? The substance of saṃsāra is empty, and from the beginning has been without duality or difference. The substance of nirvāṇa is suchness, and is also originally signless. This is the principle of realizing and knowing the true mark of all dharmas. Yet what is clarified here is solely this single path; although the matters passed through below are many, their essential meaning is no longer different. Those who cling to signs say that conditioned dharmas have a fixed nature, and ignorance also has a fixed nature, two things unrelated to each other. Therefore the Buddha says: in the principle of the true mark, both are non-existent. Zhixiu says: From here below, the Middle Way of non-difference upon continuous dharmas is explained in this section. There are two meanings: first, stating that "the nature of non-duality is itself the true nature" directly reveals non-difference, which is the meaning of a single nominal designation; second, from "self and non-self have no duality in their nature" down to "have no two marks" is the second meaning: because the mark of principle is profound and far-reaching, fearing that upon hearing it people will not immediately understand, he cites what was praised by all Buddhas and clarified in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā—that I also once spoke of the principle of designated oneness to corroborate the present teaching, clarifying that its principle is extremely real and cannot fail to be believed.