大般涅槃經集解 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

4.1

Explaining the meaning of the field of merit; explaining the name Cunda.

Sengzong notes: Of the five divisions of the sūtra, the two chapters below constitute the second division, which establishes the fundamental teaching (zong) to illuminate the cause and effect of permanence. In general, it is divided into three sections: First, illuminating permanence by occasion of the giving—also called illuminating permanence by occasion of requesting [the Buddha] to accept the offering—from the beginning of the chapter up to 'Śakra, Brahmā, and all the devas have all come to make offerings to me'; second, illuminating permanence by occasion of the entreaty, from 'All the worlds produce great distress and anguish' up to the simile of the lapis lazuli jewel; third, illuminating permanence by occasion of harmonizing and synthesising, which is the simile of the new and old physicians. Dharmakṣema says: This single chapter has four sections: first, illuminating permanence by occasion of the giving; second, illuminating permanence by occasion of the assembly's rejoicing; third, illuminating permanence by occasion of Mañjuśrī's debate with Cunda; fourth, illuminating permanence by occasion of hastening the offering. Tan'ai says: This chapter is divided into eight sections: First, Cunda requests [the Buddha] to accept the offering, and the Buddha consents to receive it; second, Cunda poses five objections, and the Buddha immediately answers them; third, the assembly congratulates Cunda and then requests Cunda to urge the Buddha to abide; fifth, Cunda congratulates himself and expresses the intent of the assembly to entreat the Buddha; sixth, the Buddha confirms what Cunda congratulated himself on and halts Cunda's entreaty, whereupon Cunda grasps the import of the Buddha's answer and restates the reason for his entreaty; seventh, Mañjuśrī and Cunda extensively engage in debate; eighth, [the Buddha] emits light to hasten the offering. The Record of Daohui says: This chapter has four sections: first, illuminating permanence by occasion of receiving the offering; second, illuminating permanence by occasion of entreating [the Buddha] to abide; third, illuminating permanence by occasion of the two great beings debating together; fourth, illuminating permanence by occasion of halting the entreaty. Fazhi says: From here down to the 'Chapter on Mourning and Lamentation', establishing the fundamental teaching has two divisions: the former is brief, and the latter is extensive. This chapter has three sections: First, by occasion of the two entreaties, permanence is explained twice; this is the Tathāgata's exposition establishing the fundamental teaching. Second, from 'It is truly as the holy teaching says' up to the end of the debate; this is Cunda's exposition of faith and understanding. Although he previously heard [the teaching] twice by occasion of the two entreaties, the principle had not yet become his own and taking faith was difficult, so it required the initial entry of faith to be proclaimed and clarified before he understood; hence Mañjuśrī says, 'I was testing you in the deeds of a bodhisattva.' Third, from the emission of light to the end of the chapter; this is the Tathāgata's concluding exposition of the assembly. Huilang relates Sengzong's view: Regarding these two chapters establishing the fundamental teaching to illuminate the cause and effect of permanence, there are altogether four places. Which are they? First, Cunda's giving serves as the cause, and the Buddha then establishes the fundamental teaching to illuminate the effect of permanence; second, Cunda and Mañjuśrī debate back and forth, citing the thousand strong men, the king, and so on to reveal the effect of permanence, and citing the two similes of the poor woman and the strong man to illuminate the cause of permanence; third, the Buddha explains the i-character nirvāṇa as the effect, and explains the supreme three cultivations down to the lapis lazuli simile as the cause; fourth, the new and old physicians harmonize the teachings on cause and effect of present and past, thereby revealing permanence.

4.4

At that time, there was an upāsaka in the assembly,

4.5

Sengliang notes: By the power of Cunda's former vow, the Tathāgata accepted the offering. And his intention had six aspects: this first one demonstrates that he does not abandon beginners while valuing long-standing practitioners. Fayao says: The trace of response descends thus as a reflection, and the Great Sage prompts the disclosure of the supreme principle. Sengzong says: There are briefly five intentions for accepting Cunda's offering. This is the first: because Cunda was situated in poverty and lowliness, it was to make clear that the Tathāgata does not leave out the poor and humble while welcoming the wealthy and noble; second, Cunda's intention in making the offering universally embraced all beings; third, he already possessed wondrous understanding and could discuss permanence; fourth, he had affinity with the assembly; fifth, at the time of Kāśyapa Buddha, he made a vow saying, 'On the day of Śākyamuni Tathāgata's nirvāṇa, I shall present the final offering.' From here up to 'Śakra, Brahmā, and all the devas have all come to make offerings to me' is the first [part], illuminating permanence by occasion of the giving. It has five sections: First, Cunda requests the Buddha to accept the offering; second, the Buddha accepts his offering, entrusting retribution and so forth to reveal permanence, whereupon [Cunda] raises five objections and the Buddha immediately answers them; third, the assembly rejoices; fourth, they speak verses requesting Cunda to urge the Buddha [to stay]; fifth, Cunda congratulates himself. Dharmakṣema says: From here down to the end of answering the five objections, within the four sections, the first, illuminating permanence by occasion of the giving, has four parts: first, from the beginning up to 'like Rāhula', requesting the Buddha to accept the offering; second, from 'At that time, the World-Honoured One' up to 'cause you to fulfill the dāna-pāramitā', the Buddha accepts the offering; third, Cunda raises five objections; fourth, the Buddha answers them. Tan'ai says: From here down to 'cause you to fulfill the dāna-pāramitā' is the first among the eight sections. It has two parts: first, Cunda's request; second, the Buddha's acceptance. Huilang relates Sengzong's view: From here entering Cunda's verse of self-congratulation, down to 'Śakra, Brahmā, and all the devas have all come to make offerings to me', is the first among the three sections. It has six parts: first, requesting acceptance of the offering; second, the Buddha accepting the offering; third, Cunda's objection that it is inappropriate, and so forth; fourth, the Buddha's reply; fifth, the assembly requesting Cunda to urge the Buddha; sixth, Cunda congratulating himself. Fa'an says: That the two chapters below each have two sections in establishing the fundamental teaching means: first, from the beginning up to the end of answering the five objections, establishing the fundamental teaching by occasion of requesting acceptance of the offering; second, from the assembly's rejoicing to the end of the chapter, establishing the fundamental teaching by occasion of entreating [the Buddha] to abide. Within the former, requesting acceptance of the offering, there are four parts: first, Cunda requests acceptance of the offering; second, the Buddha accepts Cunda's offering; third, Cunda raises five objections; fourth, the Buddha answers the five objections. Within the latter, entreating [the Buddha] to abide, there are three parts: first, the assembly's entreaty, from 'the assembly rejoiced' up to 'Cunda receives supreme wondrous bliss'; second, Cunda's entreaty, from Cunda grasping the import up to 'testing you in the deeds of bodhisattvas'; third, Cunda's rallying the assembly to entreat [the Buddha] together, from emitting light to hasten the offering up to the end of the chapter. Mingjun notes: This chapter has four divisions, all of which are approaches through entreaty: First, establishing the fundamental teaching by occasion of Cunda's request to accept the offering. Second, establishing the fundamental teaching by occasion of the assembly's entreaty to abide, distinguishing both origin (ben) and trace (ji). Third, by occasion of Cunda's entreaty, a side debate is initiated, which then returns to rectify the fundamental teaching, distinguishing both the acceptance of the offering and the rejoicing. Why? Above, Cunda requested acceptance of the offering and the Buddha immediately granted acceptance as though he were truly receiving it; this trace ought to be cleared away. Furthermore, with the back-and-forth of the five objections above, the Sage's mind was pleased, and when Mañjuśrī initiated the debate, his trace appeared on the losing side, which also ought to be dispelled. Fourth, from emitting light to hasten the offering up to the end of the chapter, again illuminating both origin and trace to expand the above meaning. Although he previously said that he would accept your offering universally on behalf of the great assembly, at the start of establishing the fundamental teaching it was only said that he would bestow upon Cunda permanence of life, form, and strength. Now this section settles this purport; hence it says, 'If human and heavenly beings make this final offering to me, they shall all attain the unshakeable retribution. For I am the good field of merit for sentient beings.'

4.6

of the city of Kuśinagara,

4.7

Sengliang notes: This is the second intention: not setting aside what is near to pursue what is distant. Huilang says: It indicates his home region.

4.8

the son of an artisan,

4.9

Sengliang notes: This is the third intention: not leaving behind the lowly to go to the superior. Huilang says: This speaks of his occupation.

4.10

named Cunda, together with fifteen companions of his class.

4.11

Sengliang notes: This is the fourth intention: not abandoning the few to follow the many. Huilang says: It states his name and reveals his virtue.

4.12

For the sake of causing the world to attain good fruit,

4.13

Sengliang notes: This is the fifth intention: revealing that he internally possessed the virtue of a great being, surpassing the assembly. Fayao says: It describes how, although his status and origins were lowly, his aspiration and virtue were immense. If one possesses the Way, it does not depend on being noble or lowly; this causes those of low status not to belittle themselves. Zhixiu says: The reason he did not bring the offering with him was to initiate the purpose of hastening the offering.

4.14

he set aside his bodily decorum, arose from his seat,

4.15

Sengliang notes: This is the sixth intention: not looking down on the coarse while craving the fine. Why? The Buddha had previously instructed Cunda to prepare an offering. Because his offering was coarse, he did not dare present it to the Buddha and merely remained in his seat; only upon seeing that [the Buddha] would not accept the offerings of others did he rise to make his presentation. Fayao says: 'Setting aside his bodily decorum' means setting aside the ways of his craft and rising afresh with a reverent demeanor that venerates the Dharma. Sengzong says: Since he had a moment of prayerful entreaty, he should set aside ordinary, relaxed deportment.

4.16

bared his right shoulder, touched his right knee to the ground, [and said to the Buddha: …] in order to deliver immeasurable sentient beings.

4.17

Baoliang notes: These words contain both trace and reality. As for the trace: if the Buddha accepts what I offer, other people will also receive the benefit. As for reality: if the offering is presented, it fulfills the perfection of giving (dāna-pāramitā); once the perfection of giving is fulfilled, he can assist the Buddha in propagating the transformation. The Record of Daohui says: A great being fundamentally does not act for himself; these are words whose Way encompasses the entire world.

4.18

'World-Honoured One! From now on we are without master, without kin, without savior, without protector, without refuge, without destination.

4.19

Sengliang notes: A master saves within a realm, and kin protect within a household; the Buddha is the savior and protector of all. Being without savior and without protector, one is therefore without refuge and without destination. Sengzong says: Pulling one out of suffering is called saving; establishing one in goodness is called protecting. Being without refuge or destination means the mind has nowhere to rely. Baoliang says: Being far removed from sheltering protection is like having no master; being separated from close counsel is like having no kin. If the Sage is in the world, evil does not arise, which is like saving; good flourishes daily, which is like protecting. Because what one relies upon is lost, one is without refuge or destination.

4.20

Impoverished, starved, and destitute, we wish to obtain from the Tathāgata […] our meager offering, and only then enter nirvāṇa.'

4.21

Daosheng notes: The suffering of hunger and thirst is an analogy for saṃsāra. If one can be free of it, that is metaphorically called food. What the donor seeks now is drawn by analogy to this. Sengliang notes: If the perfection of giving is necessarily accomplished, this then nourishes the future dharmakāya. Fayao says: The reality of permanence lies in the ultimate; that one is about to attain it depends on the Buddha; hence it says 'to obtain from the Tathāgata'. Sengzong says: He directs his aspiration toward the food of the Dharma of the Buddha's fruit of permanence, yet speaks of it covertly, not having explicitly disclosed it yet.

4.22

'World-Honoured One! It is, for example, like a kṣatriya, a brāhmaṇa, a vaiśya, or a śūdra

4.23

Sengliang notes: The body is formed of the four great elements; the analogy is drawn from the four castes. Sengzong says: From among the four castes, one person is arbitrarily taken as an analogy.

4.24

who, on account of poverty,

4.25

Sengliang notes: This is an analogy for lacking supramundane goodness.

4.26

travels far to another country,

4.27

Daosheng notes: Leaving what one is bound to and entering the Buddha's conversion. Sengliang notes: Going from this triple realm to that realm of the Buddha is likened to reaching another country. Sengzong says: Nirvāṇa is 'other' in relation to saṃsāra; the practitioner directs his mind to seek it with reverence, hence it is said to travel far. This is speaking of the effect within the cause; one is certain to arrive. Zhixiu says: The realm where goodness is generated is the territory where delusion is transcended; hence it is called 'other'. Fazhi says: The correct path is 'other' in relation to the heterodox path.

4.28

and expends his labor on farming;

4.29

Daosheng notes: Doing good runs contrary to one's habitual nature; driving oneself is the means to achieve diligence, just as a farmer does not miss the season and reaps a myriad-fold harvest. Sengliang notes: Giving is an initial practice; it requires driving oneself to be accomplished. The Record of Daohui says: Goodness when first practiced runs contrary to one's original evil nature, which is likened to hired labor; through diligent exertion one reaps a myriad-fold harvest, which is likened to farming.

4.30

obtaining fine, well-tamed oxen,

4.31

Sengliang notes: From here down is an analogy for the conditions for completing giving being fully assembled: internally having right view, and externally being free of obstructions in body and speech; once the Buddha accepts the offering, the dharmakāya will come into being. Sengzong says: This is an analogy for subduing the sevenfold evils of body and speech.

4.32

and good, even fields.

4.33

Sengzong says: Wisdom is compared to a field. Oxen are used to plow the field, and a field is considered fine when it is level and even. Here, using the goodness of body and speech to assist the mental karma is how one attains correct wisdom. Baoliang says: A field has the capacity to produce; if it is not plowed with oxen, its productive capacity will not be fulfilled. This is an analogy for how the karma of body and speech can fulfill the function of the mental sphere.

4.34

"Free from sands, saline soil, noxious weeds, and overgrown filth,"

4.35

Sengliang says: This illustrates subduing the ninety-eight dormant defilements.

4.36

"only longing for heavenly rain."

4.37

Sengzong says: When the Tathāgata accepts what is given, the dharmakāya can then arise, just as rain provides moisture. Zhixiu says: The mind of giving is the seed. There ought to be an analogy of sowing seeds; the text is simply concise here.

4.38

"Speaking of 'tamed oxen' illustrates the seven branches of body and speech […] to rescue and extend to immeasurable suffering, distressed sentient beings."

4.39

Sengliang says: If my practice is established, then sentient beings will be saved. Sengzong says: If what I present must be accepted, the offerings of the great assembly are likewise so. Mingjun says: If my offering is accepted, [the Buddha] will also stay in the world for my sake; if there is a Buddha in the world, then sentient beings will be rescued.

4.40

"Although what I now offer is slight and small, I hope it will suffice to satisfy the Tathāgata and the great assembly."

4.41

Huilang says: Since what is presented is little, he hopes to rely on spiritual authority to universally satisfy the great assembly.

4.42

"I now have no master, no kin, and no refuge; I pray you will bestow pity, as if towards Rāhula."

4.43

Tanji says: A country relies on its lord for shelter and protection; a family relies on relatives for refuge. If there is no sage in the world, who will deliver them? Zhixiu says: He adduces the root of the analogy to conclude his entreaty.

4.44

Then the World-Honoured One, the Omniscient One, the Unexcelled Tamer,

4.45

Sengliang says: In all the entreaties made previously, not only were the offerings exquisite, the people were also prominent and worthy, yet their offerings were not accepted. Now he grants Cunda's [request], so the underlying purport must have a purpose; therefore, the compiler of the Dharma uses these two phrases to look up and praise his utmost virtue.

4.46

said to Cunda: "Well done! Well done! […] raining down upon the field of your body to cause the dharmakāya to grow."

4.47

Daosheng says: Although one practices good and possesses wisdom, if one has not understood permanence, the sprout of Dharma has not yet arisen. Sengliang says: Dāna is the beginning of the myriad practices and the sprout of the dharmakāya. The records of Sengzong by Jingyi state: From here down to the end of answering the five difficulties, this is the second of five sections. Regarding 'raining down upon the field of your body,' other sūtras mostly take expounding the Dharma as rain; here it specifically clarifies that accepting an offering makes the shoots of dāna grow, just like that rain. The records of Sengzong by Falian state: 'Body' refers back to the aforementioned body and speech. 'Field' refers back to the aforementioned wisdom, which is mental karma. Baoliang says: Regarding 'eradicating poverty,' this clarifies that what is intended today has two purposes: first, granting the acceptance of the offering; second, granting the exposition of the Dharma. This is eradicating two kinds of poverty. Huilang relates Sengzong's view: Here there are three stages; this is the first, where the Buddha responds to his entreaty and agrees to accept his offering. If the Buddha agrees to accept it, the sprout of dāna has already arisen; it is not necessarily the case that the sprout of dāna arises only after the acceptance has taken place. Huilang says: Drawing out the acceptance of the offering by request to clarify permanence briefly has ten points. First: the Buddha serves as an external condition to generate two kinds of goodness: merit and wisdom. Wisdom is the understanding of permanence that is generated; merit is the generated semblance of dānapāramitā. The internal causes that can generate them are also of two kinds: the seed of merit, which is the mind of giving, and the seed of wisdom, which is the mind that inquires into cause and effect. Second: distinguishing that what can generate and what is generated share the same nature, namely the mind of giving and dānapāramitā, and the mind inquiring into cause and effect and the understanding of permanence; yet there is a distinction between the new and the old. How so? Inquiring wisdom is the old; obtaining the understanding of permanence from the Buddha is the new. Moreover, the seed of the mind of giving is the old; obtaining dānapāramitā from the Buddha is the new. Third: broadly distinguishing the two kinds of seeds. The Dharma determines that the mind does not exceed three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. These three kinds of mind all have two aspects: diffuse and inquiring. Inquiring with respect to the wholesome is the seed of wisdom; being diffuse is the seed of merit. Fourth: broadly explaining the meaning of merit and wisdom. Fifth: discussing how Cunda and the Buddha are mutually donors and recipients. Cunda uses a contaminated mind to transport contaminated wealth and bestows it upon an uncontaminated person; thus the donor is contaminated and the recipient is uncontaminated. The Buddha uses an uncontaminated mind to convey the uncontaminated Dharma and bestows it upon a contaminated person; thus the donor is uncontaminated and the recipient is contaminated. Sixth: selecting that although Cunda and the Buddha are mutually donors, they cannot mutually be fields of merit. A field has the function of generating and the utility of nourishing and growing; since the Buddha's merit is complete and full, how could he rely on the benefit of a field? Seventh: clarifying that the Buddha is the determinate recipient and Cunda is the determinate donor. Since both are determinate, as soon as the Buddha agrees to accept, the perfection of giving arises without waiting for the transport of wealth to reach the recipient's place. It is like when a person's property is in another land and he designates it from afar as a gift—it immediately belongs to the recipient. Eighth: distinguishing the stages of persons. How so? Cunda's outward trace is that of an ordinary external worldling; by hearing the Buddha explain permanence he gains understanding, achieves semblance-prajñā, obtains the semblance of the perfection of giving, and enters the stage of an inner ordinary person. By means of answering the five difficulties, he then ascends to the uncontaminated. Ninth: distinguishing between causal giving and conditioning giving, which refers to the Buddha explaining permanence. Causal giving refers to Cunda renouncing wealth. The cause is intimate while the condition is distant. How so? Material giving is intimate in terms of phenomena but distant in terms of principle; giving of Dharma is intimate in terms of principle but distant in terms of phenomena. Material giving sustains the body, which is why it is distant in principle; giving of Dharma sustains the spirit, which is why it is intimate in principle. Moreover, damaging oneself to renounce wealth is intimate with respect to phenomena, hence it is called cause; giving of Dharma causes no loss to oneself and is distant with respect to phenomena, hence it is called condition. Tenth: broadly explaining the meaning of the field of merit.

4.48

"You now wish to seek life from me […] permanent life, form, strength, ease, and unhindered eloquence."

4.49

Daosheng says: When giving requires food, it causes the obtainment of five fruits, and thus all five return to oneself. If the giving does not require food, then the five permanent ones are manifested. Because the five permanent ones are manifested, only then is there permanence. Thus, that the giving obtains a permanent fruit must stem from the recipient being permanent. Sengliang says: Above he encouraged questions on doubts, and now he opens the theme of doubts. How so? In the past he taught that from ordinary persons up to Buddhas all are impermanent; now he says that giving yields permanence. The words contradict the past, so in principle one ought to doubt and question. Fayao says: This purport has two aspects. How so? First, it expresses that what Cunda seeks from future eaters is intended to reveal the purport of permanence. Second, it clarifies that the Tathāgata today can bestow permanence, being himself the field of permanence. Thus, by means of eating he expresses non-eating, and by lodging in extinction he clarifies non-extinction; the destination and purport of the sūtra are revealed here. The records of Sengzong by Jingyi state: From the Deer Park to the Vulture Peak, the four periods unfolded in sequence, reaching the extreme of 'doubling the previous count.' There were also regional, separate teachings, such as the Mahāmegha and Śrīmālādevī sūtras, which were solely for those of superior faculties. Today, opening the doctrine to reveal permanence is precisely for those of lower faculties, hence there is this gradual sequence. Baoliang says: Form corresponds to the position of the body; strength corresponds to the position of the mind. That which is composed of form and mind does not arise and perish moment by moment, hence it is called permanent life. When the Tathāgata appears in the world, whatever he transforms to produce even a single thought of good is entirely bestowing permanence upon people. How so? Although the eighty thousand [eons] of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception are attained, they are still fabricated by defilement and karma. If there is even a hair of good, it will surely remotely aid the permanent fruit and not invite birth and death; thus we know that this belongs to the province of permanence. But because this principle is profound, it could not be taught right away; it is only now revealed. Zhixiu says: Now, in saying 'bestow upon you,' the purport has two aspects. How so? First, because Cunda's giving today encounters the field of permanence, it logically accomplishes a permanent fruit. The fruit is obtained from the field, hence it is said that the Buddha bestows it. Second, if Cunda, by the cause of a single giving, can still evoke permanence, how much more so the Buddha, who has accumulated practices over countless kalpas—how could he be impermanent? Huilang relates Sengzong's view: This is the second stage, clarifying the fruit of giving in terms of the gate of merit. These five matters are spoken of as permanent in contrast to impermanence. Form and eloquence are spoken of with respect to the trace; the three matters of life, strength, and ease are discussed with respect to the root.

4.50

"Why is this? Cunda, food has two retributions, without any difference."

4.51

Daosheng says: Speaking from the ultimate perspective, because the Buddha is permanent, he can bestow permanence on people. Discussing in terms of a bodhisattva, before substance and trace have reached the ultimate, there is definitely a need. If there is definitely a need, how could he suddenly go from a coarse form to instantly accomplish wondrous permanence? Showing that he must be identical with the previous statement makes it real. Sengliang says: The reason he clarifies permanence in terms of the Buddha-field is that the previous words were contradictory and could not be harmonized without generating this discussion based on giving. How so? Because the eater obtains five benefits, the donor acquires five fruits. If the giving aids the eater to serve as a utility, that utility is impermanent; how could the fruit be permanent? Only because the Buddha does not rely on food for utility can he cause the donor to obtain utility-free merit. Fayao says: This clarifies that both traces—the bodhisattva and the Buddha—are provisional upāya, so that later it can be revealed that the Buddha has long been permanent and not merely beginning now. If it were now, then the bodhisattva receiving food and attaining the Way would also be real; if real, it would be impermanent. Now the bodhisattva and the Buddha share a single body; how could he suddenly and abruptly attain a permanent body that does not eat? Investigating this, it becomes clear that the wondrous substance of permanence has its own separate meaning and is not the present sixteen-foot form. Once permanence is revealed, receiving food, attaining the Way, and even nirvāṇa are all adaptive traces. Sengzong says: 'Why is this?' is an explanatory comparison. In the past, when he was a tree spirit, mental giving still obtained a permanent fruit; how much more so when you now give rise to the mind of all-knowledge toward the Buddha? Both the present and the past are the dharmakāya, subtly opening without difference; their fruit and retribution are identical in principle. Baoliang says: Straightforwardly explaining according to the text, it means: why say today that he bestows upon you the permanence of the five matters? Fearing this was not the Buddha's intent, someone had an interpretation that reached a bit further: namely, clarifying that he was already permanent in the past, and receiving the offering today is also his original permanence; why does he only today speak of bestowing permanence and did not say so in the past? Therefore it is said: although receiving the offering occurs twice, the fruit obtained has no difference. The records of Daohui state: Explaining why he is able to bestow permanent life: because the giving of food has two occasions: one where after eating he enters nirvāṇa with remainder, and one where after eating he enters nirvāṇa without remainder. Each is separated from two Māras, the removal of afflictions is identical, and they are able to accomplish great deeds; this is because the efficacy of these two times is great.

4.52

"What are the two? First, after receiving it […] causing you to fully perfect dānapāramitā."

4.53

Sengliang comments: The reason for adducing the stage of training is to show that impermanence has both coarse and subtle aspects. Dependence on morsel-food, contact-food, and fragmented saṃsāra are coarse impermanence; moment-by-moment arising and ceasing is subtle impermanence. How could a bodhisattva in his final lifetime rely on morsel-food to suddenly ascend to wondrous permanence? He must surely be a diamond-like [bodhisattva who] does not depend on food, so wondrous permanence is immediately reached. The reason the two gifts are equal is because their functions are superior. If, according to the provisional path, conditioned causes and effects are severed, since they are difficult to sever, the diamond-like [stage] serves as the practice; and because effects are difficult to sever, the aśaikṣa can eliminate them. Therefore, the retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference. If one depends on food to sever them, the inner function is superior. Although the true path does not rely on food, it gives rise to the conception in donors that it is rare to encounter, so the outer function is superior. Sengzong, as recorded by Jingyi, says: There are two main points here: first, to reveal the past teachings; second, to dispel people's clingings and ordinary sentiments. If the past was truly a bodhisattva, yet now the merit is provisionally said to be equal, then the meaning of permanence is naturally revealed. Zhixiu says: Briefly adducing the two offerings, initial and final, both encounter a permanent field and will certainly obtain a permanent fruit; you are one of the two. Sengzong, as related by Huilang, says: This is the third stage, presenting the door of wisdom to explain why they are equal. Baoliang says: When distinguishing fields of merit, it must be revealed by contrasting transgression and merit. What does this mean? From a single thought of good, ascending to the diamond-like [stage], the unbroken succession of good after good is the rank of the field of merit. From the avidyāvāsabhūmi down to the four stages of dwelling, a single thought of delusion that can induce the karmic fruit of birth and death is entirely a field of transgression. This is the general division; when examining the principle in detail, it does not exceed three pairs and six propositions. The first pair: making merit within merit, where merit comes to assist. The preceding field is pure, the donation is made with deep sincerity, and there is no separation from the field; hence it comes to assist. Next, in distinguishing within a field of transgression, committing a transgression brings evil to assist. For example, if a person gives a gift that leads the recipient to commit evil, then the two are mutually linked; thus transgression comes to assist. In the second pair, discussing within a field of merit, doing merit does not bring merit to assist. This means one's intention was directed toward this person, but one had no mind toward that person, and when what is given contradicts the mind. Having previously had no intention toward that [person], that person has no merit to come and assist; and although one had the intention toward this one, this one lacks the fact, so again no merit comes to assist. As for committing a transgression in a field of transgression where evil does not come to assist: as when a person kills an icchantika, because it is an adverse field, transgression does not assist. In the third pair, committing evil in a field of merit, the field has no evil to come and assist. Evil arises only from the mind; transgression goes against merit and has no power of mutual assistance. Also, making merit in a field of transgression: as when a person makes an offering to an icchantika, merit arises solely from the mind itself. Thus, when discerning the mind, each has its reason. Although the milk-gruel woman offered it with the intention of making an offering to a tree spirit, her mind had no obstacle, and there was a dark, mutual resonance. Mingjun comments: The greatness of the field of merit is found only at these two times: first, attaining buddhahood; second, entering nirvāṇa. An offering that encounters these times will certainly secure a permanent fruit. This principle has two meanings: first, to clarify that although present and past are distinct, both equally obtain a permanent fruit, in order to give rise to Cunda's subsequent objection; second, to clarify that if an offering meeting this time will certainly obtain a permanent fruit, I also once encountered it, so how could it not be permanent?

4.54

At that time, Cunda said to the Buddha, [...] "that they are without difference—this meaning is not correct."

4.55

Daosheng comments: At first glance it was said to be equal, but not yet understanding why, it was necessary to pose objections based on facts before discerning it. Sengliang says: If the Buddha's wisdom is complete, his stage pure, and his function superior, causing the giver to obtain permanence, then the former is inferior to the latter. If the latter does not make use of it while the former does, then the latter is inferior to the former. Among these five objections, the first four clarify that the stage is not pure, while the last one clarifies that the Buddha does not make use of it. Fayao says: Just before, it was merely stated that they are equal, without knowing why. Now, using the objection that they are unequal, he wishes to clarify that the two traces are equally provisional and not real. If the bodhisattva were truly real and not provisional, then the Buddha would also share in that nature. Why is this? Since they share one body, how could the Buddha alone be permanent while the bodhisattva is not? Now, basing this on the Buddha being permanent actually serves to reveal that the bodhisattva is provisional. Sengzong, as recorded by Jingyi, says: The intent of the objection provisionally clings to the past teaching, consistently making the former inferior and the latter superior. If the meaning of inequality is established, then the meaning of permanence is undone. Although he grants that the latter is superior, it actually implies it is not superior. Why? If he was formerly impermanent, how could he become permanent in just a short time? The first raises an objection based on whether merit and wisdom are complete or incomplete; the second contrasts sentient beings with non-sentient beings; the third contrasts retribution with non-retribution; the fourth contrasts practice with non-practice; the fifth contrasts using with not using. Sengzong, as recorded by Falian, says: The five objections challenge the practice so as to make them unequal, and the fruits also differ. It is observed that the practice of giving to a bodhisattva is inferior to giving to a Buddha, so the practice is superior. Baoliang says: Cunda's intention is also difficult to perceive, and commentators explain it in many ways. Now let us first examine the Buddha's teaching. If the Buddha was originally a permanent body of the dharmakāya and is so today as well, what objection could there be? If both past and present were impermanent, the two times would again be equal; he should properly infer from the birth in the royal palace to frame his objection. Why? In past teachings, the Buddha attained under the Bodhi tree was taken as real; until the Śūraṅgama Sūtra says, 'A lifespan of seven hundred asaṃkhyeyas is the true, while the sixteen-foot body is the manifestation.' Yet both principles are wondrous and beyond my knowledge; one merely sees the body of afflictions born in the royal palace first becoming a Buddha, just as Maitreya questioned in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra. If speaking from the deduction of principle: karma and afflictions can produce an impermanent, suffering retribution; now that afflictions and karma are exhausted, the retribution should also be gone, so how can these five aggregates still exist? However, it may also be a transformation, which is beyond my knowledge. But today the practice of the ten stages is fulfilled and the uncontaminated is perfected; the karmic retribution obtained should in principle be permanent. If so, at the time of previously receiving the offering he had not yet attained buddhahood, so it should be impermanent, whereas today it is permanent; how could the retributions of the two offerings be said to be equal? Tan'ai says: Below, this second section has two parts: first, the objection; second, the reply.

4.56

"Why? He who first received the offering had not yet exhausted afflictions, [...] fully endowed with the dāna-pāramitā."

4.57

Fayao comments: Nirvāṇa stands as the supreme principle and encompasses many things; three meanings are briefly raised to reveal its essence. This raises an objection based on the bodhisattva's real trace. If afflictions are not yet exhausted, then the omniscient wisdom has not yet been attained; because it has not yet been attained, entanglements and fetters still remain and vimokṣa has not yet been attained. This raises the objection based on vimokṣa. Sengzong says: Delusion obstructs illumination; if even a single hair of it is not exhausted, omniscient wisdom does not arise. This means wisdom and severance are not complete, so how could it generate the merit of giving? Baoliang says: The intention of the five objections: the first objects that omniscient wisdom has been attained or not yet attained; the second objects that the four Māras have been subdued or not yet subdued; the third objects that the dharmakāya has been attained or not yet attained; the fourth objects that the causal practice is fulfilled or not yet fulfilled; the fifth objects that he relies on the nourishment of food or does not rely on it. This is the first. Fa'an says: Among the five objections, the first three clarify that when he previously received the offering, what should have been eliminated had not yet been eliminated; the next one clarifies that formerly what should have been attained had not been attained; the fifth objects regarding using and not using.

4.58

"He who first received the offering was still a sentient being; he who received it later is the God of Gods."

4.59

Sengzong comments: This second objection is framed in terms of the person. There are two editions of the sūtra: one says 'was still a sentient being', which takes the end and looks back to the beginning; another says 'was merely', meaning he was merely a person on the stage of practice.

4.60

"He who first received the offering was a body of mixed food, [...] the retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference."

4.61

Fayao comments: This raises an objection in terms of the dharmakāya. Sengzong says: Although nourished by food, it was the culmination of this single life, so it says 'the final limit'. Having already become a Buddha, afflictions must be exhausted, so it says 'a body without afflictions'.

4.62

"He who first received the offering had not yet been able to fulfill [...] the retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference."

4.63

Fayao comments: This raises prajñā. If these three matters have completeness and incompleteness, then the permanently abiding nirvāṇa has attainment and non-attainment; how could they be equal? Sengzong, as recorded by Jingyi, says: He adduces the six perfections to clarify that the myriad practices are not yet fulfilled, and he adduces the five eyes to reveal that the manifold virtues are not yet accomplished. 'Only obtaining the fleshy eye' is named based on concession and denial. What the fleshy eye sees is the coarsest, so it is conceded to him. A Buddha is named 'the awakened one', which in principle he had not yet attained. As for 'up to the wisdom eye', ordinary sentiment supposes that one might not have attained the Buddha eye, but how could one not have attained the Buddha's wisdom eye? Now it says that since he had not yet attained the Buddha eye, how could the Buddha's wisdom eye be attained? Thus, even the wisdom eye of the fruit has not yet been attained, how much less the Buddha eye. Another explanation says: Among the five eyes, the fleshy eye and the divine eye belong to the ordinary stage; the remaining three eyes belong to the fruit. The Buddha eye is the most superior, followed by the Dharma eye, and then the wisdom eye. Here, taking the lowest among the superior ones, it speaks concisely of what is in the middle, hence it says 'up to'. Sengzong, as related by Huilang, says: Saying 'complete with the fleshy eye up to the wisdom eye' without mentioning the Buddha eye is because the Buddha eye has no separate substance: when what is seen by these four eyes is clear, that itself is the Buddha eye; therefore, merely saying 'complete with the four eyes' already indicates possessing the Buddha eye. Zhixiu says: In the causal stage there are only four eyes. Previously he was already granted the fleshy eye, and next it was clarified that he had not yet attained the Buddha eye. Now it clarifies that the reason the Buddha eye has not been attained is because the causes are not yet fulfilled; hence it says that even the wisdom eye of the causal stage has not yet been attained.

4.64

"World-Honoured One, he who first received the offering ate it after receiving it, [...] the retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference."

4.65

Fayao comments: The previous three objections clarified that having reached the ultimate versus not having reached the ultimate cannot be equal; this single objection clarifies receiving and using versus not receiving and using. Receiving and using brings the five fruits; not using brings none, so they should not be equal. Sengzong says: One who receives and uses it has something that nourishes him; because it nourishes, it is digested, and the donor in turn obtains an impermanent fruit. If there is no receiving and no nourishing, it is merely a manifested trace, and in principle one secures a permanent retribution.

4.66

The Buddha said: 'Good son, the Tathāgata already [...] a permanent body, a dharmakāya, a diamond body.'

4.67

Sengliang comments: This provides a general answer to the previous four objections. Fayao says: Since he has long ceased to be a body of food, it is clear that the trace of the bodhisattva was not real. Because it is permanent, it equally bestows permanence. This answers the third objection that the dharmakāya was not yet complete. Sengzong says: Although the intent of the five objections provisionally posits inequality, the intention is to reveal equality; explaining equality on this basis, the purport of permanence is proclaimed. This first answers the third objection, but in principle resolves all five. The intent of the objection was solely to make the one who previously received the offering truly a bodhisattva; now the reply says that he has long been without a body of food, which means from beginning to end it is provisional. Zhixiu says: This directly answers the third objection and concurrently answers the first objection. This directly clarifies that the two times are manifestations, while the true field of the dharmakāya has long been permanent.

4.68

"Good son, one who has not yet seen the buddhadhātu [...] the retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference."

4.69

Daosheng comments: How do we know he has long ceased to be a body of food? When one sees the buddhadhātu and illumination reaches its ultimate, how could he rely on food? Yet saying that he saw it after eating, one replies knowing it is not real. Sengliang says: With respect to a bodhisattva of real practice, there is both relying on food for function and not really using it; both are pure. Why is this? As a matter of principle, food is digested into the hundred vessels and becomes functional in the body. By the time it is used, he immediately sees the buddhadhātu and no longer has afflictions; therefore, they are equal.

4.70

"At that time, the bodhisattva destroyed the four Māras [...] the retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference."

4.71

Sengliang comments: When he first attained the Way, he defeated the māra of the heavens and the māra of defilements; today he defeats the māra of the aggregates and the māra of death. Since this merely mentions their major numbers, he speaks generally of all four. Fayao says: This answers the first objection. Indeed, an impermanent body has not yet exited the realm of māras. Why is this? Since it is bound up with defilements, it is the māra of defilements. Because it is conditioned, it is the māra of the aggregates. Because it is subject to death, it is the māra of death. Being the same as the māra of the heavens, how could it have exited their realm? When it is said that he defeated the four māras, does the meaning not reside in eternal permanence? Yet as for this eternal permanence, was it only first attained at the Twin Śāla Trees? It is because it was only first made clear [here] that the meaning of freedom from māras is manifested. Sengzong says: This answers the second objection, which was merely about sentient beings. Delusion obstructs luminosity and is also essential in impelling rebirth. Now, together, they defeat the four [māras], which is why he says they are equal.

4.72

"At that time, although the bodhisattva did not explain in detail [...] the karmic retributions of the two offerings are equal and without distinction."

4.73

Fayao comments: This answers the third objection. He had attained prajñā long ago; it is only that the times of expounding and not expounding differed. Sengzong says: This answers the fourth objection regarding not yet having cultivated the six perfections and five eyes. The capacities of those to be transformed include the mature and the immature; hence there is merely the difference between speech and silence.

4.74

"Good son! The body of the Tathāgata has already, for immeasurable [...] regarding that which was offered at the very end, in truth he also does not eat it."

4.75

Sengliang comments: This answers the fifth objection regarding eating or not eating. If an arhat does not even eat, how much less a bodhisattva in his final body? Whether in provisional or real terms, he did not eat before, and he does not eat now either. In the case of the śrāvakas, had the Buddha not accepted it, their modest aspiration would have severed itself; therefore, he demonstrated to them that he was not far removed from ordinary mortals. In the case of this great assembly, the previous non-acceptance of offerings was to reveal the difference between the intentions to depart and to stay. He feared that the people of the time would close off their thoughts, thinking that he would no longer compassionately receive them, and not dare to make requests. Fayao says: This answers the fourth objection. It clarifies that the bodhisattva in truth does not partake, but only partakes as a trace. Now his entry into nirvāṇa is likewise an acceptance in trace. Since both instances of receiving are traces, how could they not be equal? Tanji says: In the past there was no fruit of the five matters, nor is there any now. In the past he accepted it for the sake of the Lesser Vehicle; now he accepts it for the sake of the great assembly. Since the two traces are not distinct, why doubt their equality? Sengzong says: This answers the fifth objection. With both traces equally apparent, what superiority or inferiority could there be?

4.76

"At that time the great assembly heard the Buddha, the World-Honoured One [...] this disciple of the Buddha is equal and without difference from Rāhula."

4.77

Sengzong comments: Hearing that the Buddha accepted food for the sake of the great assembly, there was bound to be the significance of requiting the offering, and there was also reason to request him to remain; hence they rejoiced. Tanxian says: From here below is the second of the four sections: the rejoicing of the great assembly, using the request for him to remain to illuminate permanence. Tan'ai says: This is the third of the eight sections, containing two parts: first, rejoicing and praising Cunda; second, requesting Cunda to ask the Buddha. Huilang relates Sengzong's view: From here below is still the fifth of the seven parts within the first section: the great assembly praising Cunda. Jingyi records Sengzong's view: This is the third of the five parts of the chapter on the offering: the rejoicing of the great assembly. Baoliang says: The rejoicing of the great assembly has three purposes. First, at dawn the extinction was proclaimed without clarifying a specific time, and they only feared arriving too late; having now looked up and beheld his compassionate countenance, they rejoiced. Second, earlier, when he did not accept the offerings of the multitude, they feared their efforts were discarded in vain; now hearing that he accepted Cunda's offering and furthermore stated that it was universally on behalf of the great assembly, they rejoiced. Third, they did not know when he would enter nirvāṇa; although we ourselves did not comprehend the Buddha's intent, Cunda skillfully grasps the sage's mind, so now by requesting Cunda to ask the Buddha to remain, there might be a reason for him to remain; therefore they rejoiced. Zhixiu says: From here below is the second of the four sections, containing three parts: first, the great assembly rejoices and requests Cunda; second, Cunda rejoices in his own fortune and expresses the great assembly's intent to request the Buddha; third, the Buddha approves his self-congratulation and stops his request. 'Understanding the subtle meaning' praises his previous discussion with the Buddha on the profound depths of the two offerings.

First 77 of 87 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese