大般涅槃經集解 4.53

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?