大般涅槃經集解 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Mañjuśrī discusses doctrine with Cunda; Explaining the marvelous source, seeing the sixteen-foot body, using the garuḍa bird as a simile.

5.3

The Buddha told Cunda: "So it is, so it is [...] accomplish and fulfill the dānapāramitā."

5.4

Zhixiu comments: The Buddha confirms his joyful self-congratulation.

5.5

"You should not request the Buddha to abide long in the world [...] the nature and characteristics of all conditioned phenomena are likewise so."

Daosheng comments: Matters of response and resonance belong to the realm of the Buddhas; outwardly manifesting identical [with phenomena], in principle he cannot be requested [to remain]; internally he is truly ever-abiding, so what would there be to request? Sengliang says: The responsive trace is the realm of the Buddhas. Responding to beings and passing away, extinction does not depend on me, just as when a form moves, its shadow departs; how could he be requested? In the real realm there is no extinction; what again could be requested? 'The nature and characteristics of all conditioned phenomena' means that by nature they arise and by nature they cease; their nature cannot be requested. Responding as appropriate, how could he be requested? Fayao says: The response arises from the resonance of beings; when resonance ceases, it departs; how could he be requested? Sengzong says: The sixteen-foot body is the trace of the dharmakāya; this is still known by the utmost spiritual power, hence it is called 'realm'. Responding to what is to be responded to, how could he be detained? 'The nature and characteristics of all conditioned phenomena': above, he cited 'realm' to show that the response is identical to what is responded to; now he cites 'nature and characteristics' to show that what is responded to is identical to the response. 'Nature' speaks of its interior, taking ceaseless flux and hidden departure as its substance; 'characteristics' speaks of its exterior, taking the final extinction after a hundred years as its meaning.

5.7

He immediately spoke these verses for Cunda: [...] up to the bodies of the various gods, all are likewise so.

5.8

Sengliang comments: This proves that conditioned phenomena cannot be requested [to remain]. Sengzong says: In these verses one could also randomly explain the various faults of impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Now, following the conceptual connections: The first three and a half stanzas are the gate of impermanence. The next stanza on the wheel of all sufferings is the gate of suffering. Next, 'the paths of existence' refers to the twenty-five states of existence; this half-stanza is the gate of emptiness. The next two and a half stanzas on destructible phenomena are the gate of non-self. Already possessing faults such as these, it says 'like a silkworm in a cocoon, without autonomy'. The stanza and a half on 'this body is an accumulation of suffering' is the gate of impurity.

5.9

"'All desires are impermanent, therefore I am not greedy for or attached to them [...] today I shall enter nirvāṇa.'"

5.10

Daosheng comments: Verifying it through principle, one knows this is not real nirvāṇa. Indeed, having a body derived from delusion, the body inevitably generates delusion; how could it reverse this? It must depend on a teacher to awaken. Receiving awakening, one attains understanding, and delusion is deeply subdued. Being deeply subdued and not arising is also termed 'extinction', but it is not yet eternal extinction. Only when one reaches the state of having no teacher is it finally completely exhausted, which is called ultimate severance. Thus, having long been without it, casting off the body today clearly demonstrates that it is not real extinction. Since extinction is not real, why request of him when he is merely manifesting identity [with ordinary mortals]?

5.11

"I have crossed over to the other shore of existence and transcended all suffering; therefore, at present, I experience only the supreme, marvelous bliss."

5.12

Daosheng states: Where there is existence, there is cessation; where there is cessation, there is suffering. Having already crossed beyond existence, how could there be the suffering of cessation? The culmination of freedom from suffering is nominally called wondrous bliss. It is nominally called 'experiencing'; thus, there is nothing for which one ought to entreat [the Buddha].
Sengliang states: One who 'testifies to the real' intends fully to state that his own true reality does not cease again. 'Utterly severing existence' means that the severance of existence is itself nirvāṇa. Stating that he is about to enter nirvāṇa is an accommodation to sentient beings; he cannot be entreated. 'I have crossed over to the other shore of existence' testifies that the dharmakāya is serene, permanent, and blissful, and again needs no entreaty.

5.13

At that time Cunda addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honoured One […] remain permanently in the world and do not enter nirvāṇa.'

5.14

Daosheng states: Cunda deeply understood the principle of non-cessation, and spoke of what he understood to present it himself.
Sengliang states: Cunda was to be the leader of the entreaty, aiding the Buddha in propagating the transformation. Above it was said that the realm of the Buddhas is impermanent, as if the response-body (nirmāṇakāya), identical in nature to all conditioned phenomena, were vastly distinct from the true body. Now, wishing to clarify this meaning, he first praised nirvāṇa as something not knowable by shallow understanding. Cunda, however, deeply understood that the trace is none other than the source; yet because this sixteen-foot form had been benevolent to him, he therefore wished that it might constantly manifest in response and not abandon [them].
Fayao states: Having heard that the response-body must cease while the dharmakāya is permanently abiding, Cunda only then awoke to the principle of there being no entreaty. Yet reflecting on his own shallow wisdom, even though he was counted among the great bodhisattvas, he was still unable to know the meaning of permanence and impermanence regarding the dharmakāya and response-body. Because his practice was not yet complete and he still required the Buddha's teaching, he therefore repeated his entreaty based on this.
Sengzong states: This is the third part of the entreaty section below. The Buddha previously related his praise and halted his entreaty; the two principles of source and trace are fully explained as before. Now what Cunda grasped was that he already knew the wondrous source cannot be entreated, yet he still longed for the trace to remain, considering that the manifestation of the sixteen-foot form exists for transforming sentient beings. Since the transformations are uneven, varying in depth and shallowness, the work of transformation has not yet been achieved. Moreover, the Buddha's empty mind is like that hungry person—how could he cause his unfulfilled work of transformation to be abandoned? Therefore he could make the entreaty again.
Baoliang states: Cunda's present entreaty has two meanings in all: first, it clarifies that he is a person capable of being taught; second, it relates that there is still something he does not know, and that the Buddha should remain in the world to teach and bring him to completion. Pointing to the hungry person as an analogy is to reveal his utmost sincerity.

5.15

At that time the Dharma Prince Mañjuśrī […] 'Those who wish to seek the correct Dharma should train like this.'

5.16

Daosheng states: Cunda's words and traces seemed to imply non-cessation; hence [Mañjuśrī] raised an objection based on cessation.
Sengliang states: Mañjuśrī wished to cause Cunda to clearly explain the meaning of nirvāṇa's non-cessation; thus, concealing his own wisdom as if not yet comprehending, he clung to the trace to raise an objection, asserting that one should not entreat [the Buddha].
Sengzong's Jingyi ji states: This is the fourth part of the entreaty section, an argument clarifying permanence.
Huilang, citing Sengzong, states: What permanently abides is wondrous existence; this is not empty. Impermanence ceases and cuts off; therefore it is said that he 'possesses the samādhi of emptiness'.
Baoliang states: Mañjuśrī ostensibly took the losing ground in order to highlight Cunda's virtue, intending to cause the assembly at that time to relinquish their past understanding and comply with their present faith. Mañjuśrī's clinging to the trace entails two faults: If one says that the sixteen-foot form truly undergoes arising and ceasing, then the path of response would be abolished, which is the first fault. The sixteen-foot form takes the dharmakāya as its source; though source and trace differ, they have no separate substance. If the arising and ceasing of the sixteen-foot form were real, how could the source, the dharmakāya, alone be permanent? These are the two faults.

5.17

Cunda asked, saying: 'Mañjuśrī […] If it were a conditioned phenomenon, it would be a dharma of arising and ceasing.'

5.18

Sengliang states: To truly know the Tathāgata, one must know the sameness of suchness. 'Tathāgata' means one who has come riding suchness and reality. Since what he rides is real, the fruit must also be true; thus he is not a conditioned phenomenon.
Fayao states: From here below, the two together broadly expound the principle of non-entreaty. What Mañjuśrī relied on is that the response-body's arising and ceasing is identical with the characteristics of conditioned phenomena, and cannot be made to remain by entreaty. What Cunda discussed is that the dharmakāya is unconditioned, and abides without waiting for entreaty. The two each take one side, mutually challenging and elevating, in order to express the Buddha's intent regarding the principle of non-entreaty.
Tanji states: Cunda uses five points to clarify that the Tathāgata is not identical to conditioned phenomena: first, clarifying that if he were identical to conditioned phenomena, he would be like that chariot wheel; second, he could not be called the God among Gods; third, he would be like a village chief; fourth, clarifying that because he is not identical to conditioned phenomena, he is like that strongman; fifth, clarifying that if he were identical to conditioned phenomena, he would be like that elder's son.
Sengzong states: This clarifies that the superior cannot be identical to the inferior. The Tathāgata is the God among Gods; how could he be identical to conditioned phenomena? Below there are five parables expressing that the Buddha is permanent and not identical to the conditioned.
Zhixiu states: Below there are six parables: one comparison first raising four parables; one comparison directly showing that the Tathāgata has long been unconditioned; and later raising two parables to caution Mañjuśrī.
Huilang's distinct commentary states: Below, four matters are raised as the Dharma exposition, each having one parable, divided into eight. This is the Dharma exposition of the first matter, meaning that since the Buddha is the God among Gods, how could he be identical to an ordinary person?

5.19

For instance, like a water bubble that quickly arises and quickly perishes […] so too are all conditioned phenomena.'

5.20

Sengliang states: A chariot wheel is alternately high and low. Above it was said that he is the supreme among all fruits; how could he again be like a chariot wheel?
Zhixiu states: This is the first parable, meaning how could the Buddha be identical to the arising and ceasing of water bubbles or the endless turning of a chariot wheel?
Huilang's distinct commentary states: This is the first parable. If one were to say that the superior can be categorized with the inferior, it would be identical to these two parables.

5.21

'I have heard that the devas have extremely long lifespans […] yet your lifespan is even briefer, not filling a hundred years.'

5.22

Sengzong states: This uses the inferior to compare with the superior. If the lifespan in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is eighty thousand kalpas, how much more so that of the Tathāgata?
Huilang's distinct commentary states: This is the second Dharma exposition, meaning that if he were identical to conditioned phenomena, he would have been prolonged in the past and shortened now. Why? The Buddha previously descended from the heavens; how could he, upon briefly being in the human realm, lose his heavenly lifespan?

5.23

'Just like a village chief who possessed power and sovereign control […] do not view the Tathāgata as identical to conditioned phenomena.'

5.24

Sengzong states: The third parable begins with excellence and ends in decline. Beneath the Bodhi tree of old, the Buddha's awe-inspiring power was lofty and magnificent; how could he now suddenly lose power and strength?
Huilang's distinct commentary states: This is the second parable; it is inadmissible that he should lose power and strength like that.

5.25

'Furthermore, Mañjuśrī, do you speak knowing […] is the God among Gods, the sovereign Dharma King.'

5.26

Huilang's distinct commentary states: The third Dharma exposition means that if he were identical to conditioned phenomena, he would not be the Dharma King. The Buddha is revered in the three realms through the perfection of the myriad practices; how could one speak of the characteristics of conditioned phenomena?

5.27

'Just as a human king has a great strongman […] therefore he is called the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddha.'

5.28

Sengliang states: The king is an analogy for the past Buddha, and the strongman is an analogy for the present Buddha. The skills and abilities are an analogy for fearlessness in the ten directions. The Buddha conquers the four māras; how could he be a conditioned phenomenon?
Sengzong states: This is the fourth parable. The Buddha's path surpasses the realm of Māra; how could it be a dharma of death?
Huilang's distinct commentary states: This is the third parabolic exposition. Because the strongman possesses various skills and abilities, he can match a thousand men. Because the Buddha has perfected the myriad practices, he is revered in the three realms.

5.29

'Mañjuśrī! You should not now engage in conceptual discrimination, taking the Tathāgata's Dharma to be identical to conditioned phenomena.'

5.30

Huilang's distinct commentary states: The fourth Dharma exposition means one should not vainly give rise to deluded thoughts, taking the permanent to be impermanent.

5.31

'Just as an immensely wealthy elder has a son born to him […] the Tathāgata is identical to all conditioned phenomena.'

5.32

Daosheng states: Taking what the Buddha taught as proof, the real principle is fundamentally unalterable. It is only known when one attains awakening through the teacher. Since the principle taught cannot alter, one clearly knows that awakening to it also serenely endures permanently.
Sengliang states: What all Buddhas take as their teacher is the dharma of nirvāṇa. If the Buddha were impermanent, the Dharma would also be impermanent; hence it is said that no one would believe the true Dharma he taught either.
Huilang's distinct commentary states: This is the fourth parable. The reason the family members no longer loved this child was due to the deluded pronouncement of a trustworthy physiognomist. If people hear you say the Buddha is impermanent, since you are a trustworthy person, they might also not believe on your account.

5.33

'Furthermore, Mañjuśrī, for instance, a poor woman…'

5.34

Daosheng states: Above it was said that one should not say the Buddha is identical to conditioned phenomena; this is to understand that the Buddha is unconditioned. Having understood it and being able to explain it is true protection of the Dharma. He cites this as an analogy to reveal this purport. 'Poor' means lacking the wealth of the Dharma. 'Woman' means that through fundamental slight goodness, she is able to give birth to present understanding.
Sengliang states: Above it was said that the Buddha is unconditioned; this principle is superior. The expedient means responding to beings is inferior. One who protects the Dharma should manifest what is superior and conceal what is inferior. The woman is an analogy for impermanence-wisdom. Wisdom has three kinds; because wisdom born of hearing does not penetrate deeply into the principle, she is analogized as poor.
Fayao states: Previously it was said that one should not speak of the Buddha as identical to the characteristics of conditioned phenomena; this means that having true understanding within, one is able constantly to have faith in this principle and can be called a protector of the Dharma. Now, that true understanding permanently abides necessarily stems from the faith of slight awakening in past kalpas; therefore the practitioner is designated a woman, and having not yet enriched wholesome dharmas is designated poor.
Tanji states: The woman is an analogy for wisdom born of hearing being able to give birth to wisdom born of contemplation.
Sengzong's Jingyi ji states: This is the fifth. Previously, five parables were used to refute Mañjuśrī and admonish those not yet awakened; now these two parables clarify that one who is able to cultivate in this way will surely attain the permanent fruit. A woman takes giving birth and nurturing as her meaning, illustrating that an initial-stage bodhisattva can give birth to the understanding of permanence, and as the cherished understanding grows clearer, the meaning is identical to nurturing. Not yet possessing the untainted wealth of the Dharma, she is called poor.
Baoliang states: In the two parables below, the first uses a woman capable of proclaiming permanence as an analogy, and the second speaks of a man concealing conditioned phenomena as an analogy.
Sengzong's Falian ji states: The two parables below merely take the internal and external as their distinction. The woman, using the protection of her child as an analogy, reveals the firmness and correctness of her internal understanding; the man, using capability and fortitude as an analogy, reveals that his external preaching cannot be destroyed.

5.35

'…having no home or family to rescue and protect her…'

5.36

Daosheng states: Because practice is not yet profound, one cannot avoid being destroyed by evil; since that in which one fundamentally rested is not established, it is said that she has none.
Sengliang states: Merit and wisdom mutually support each other, analogized as home and family members. Because she lacks these, she is analogized as having no protection.
Fayao states: Past goodness not yet being strong, one cannot eternally solidify one's faith and is pulled back by the five desires and manifold evils, losing the home of slight faith in which one originally dwelt. Internally there is no household goodness, and externally there are no friends to protect.
Sengzong states: Having generated wisdom from hearing, this understanding resonates from afar with the permanent fruit; the understanding of permanence residing within oneself resembles transcendence of the world. Thus the three realms are no longer one's home, yet one has not yet obtained the permanent fruit. Being between these two fullnesses, it is said that she has no home. As for 'rescue and protect', since the power of understanding is slight, she is not yet able to evoke upward assistance and guidance from good spiritual friends.
Baoliang states: The Buddha-Dharma takes the five faculties, headed by faith, as its home; for a beginner whose cultivation of virtue is not yet profound, the Buddha's home is not yet established.
Daohui ji states: When the mind is detached from birth and death, the three realms are not its home. If one completes the thirty minds and ascends to the untainted first stage, one may be said to be born in the Buddha's home. A beginner is still far from this; hence it is said that she has none.

5.37

'…further afflicted by the suffering of illness…'

5.38

Note: One edition has 'destitute and exhausted'. Sengliang states: This refers to the afflictions that obstruct the wisdom born of hearing. Zhixiu states: Being afflicted by the eight sufferings.

5.39

'…and oppressed by hunger and thirst.'

5.40

Daosheng comments: The various fetters are the suffering of illness; saṃsāra is hunger and thirst. Fayao says: Internally lacking the goodness of one's home and externally lacking the protection of friends, one is therefore afflicted by bad companions and many diseases, and pressed by hunger and thirst. Sengzong says: Lacking the syrup of dhyāna-concentration and also deficient in the Dharma-food of nirvāṇa, it therefore says 'hunger and thirst.'

5.41

"Wandering about begging for food."

5.42

Daosheng comments: Wholesomeness is a phenomenon outside the three realms, yet destroyed by evil, one comes into saṃsāra; wandering about away from home is the meaning of 'wandering.' Having grown weary of suffering and seeking joy, yet it not being original goodness, what ought to be attained is not attained—this is the meaning of 'begging for food.' Sengliang says: Passing through the five destinies is allegorized as wandering. Saṃsāra is not a place of joy, which is allegorized as begging for food. Fayao says: Pressed by suffering, one longs for goodness to replace it, which is allegorized as begging for food. Sengzong, recorded by Jingyi, says: Lacking the food of concentration and wisdom, one cultivates goodness with characteristics to sustain oneself. This goodness is not much and moreover is not one's own share, which in meaning is the same as begging for food. 'Wandering' is hesitating and treading a long course, not the image of swift departure, making clear that goodness with characteristics cannot directly lead to the essentials of escape. Sengzong, recorded by Falian, says: Distant from the fruit of buddhahood, yet with the understanding of permanence dimly guiding across the ford, there is the sense of heading toward the fruit; therefore it says 'wandering.'

5.43

"She lodged in someone else's guest-house."

5.44

Daosheng comments: The body in the three realms is the residence of wrong views; being lodged in by evil, with respect to one's original goodness, it is 'someone else's house.' Sengliang says: The fruits of humans and gods are a travelers' inn. Fayao says: The bodies of humans and gods are obtained through delusion. Originating outside principle, they ultimately must come to nothing, which is allegorized as a guest-house. Tanji says: Within saṃsāra is not one's long-term abode, which is allegorized as someone else's house. Zhixiu says: The habituated cause of the understanding of permanence is not a kin of saṃsāra, thus it is a 'guest.' The five aggregates have the meaning of a temporary lodging, hence 'house.'

5.45

"She gave birth to an only son there."

5.46

Daosheng comments: Since she takes the unconditioned nature of the Tathāgata as her understanding, the principle has no one-sided delusion, which is allegorized as an only son; being born in the place of lodging is called 'giving birth there.' Sengliang says: The brightness of the wisdom of reflection being born from darkness is called 'lodging.' Though brightness and darkness differ, what is understood is not distinct, which is called 'one.' Bound to succeed to the family of the Buddha, it is called a 'son.' Fayao says: Understanding relying on the aggregates for its birth is called 'lodging.' Being real and without duality is called 'one.' Tanji says: It allegorizes the wisdom of reflection. Sengzong says: A bodhisattva dwelling in this aggregate-body conceives the understanding of permanence. Understanding is what is born from me, which in meaning is called a 'son.' Baoliang says: Being born from hearing [and turning to] reflection is called a 'son.' Zhixiu says: The understanding of permanence is one, without the duality of arising and ceasing, which is called 'one son.'

5.47

"The master of this guest-house drove her out, and she had given birth not long before."

5.48

Daosheng comments: Wrong view is the root of receiving a body, hence it is the master of the house. Repudiating her understanding is likened to driving her out. Sengliang says: Ignorance is the root of receiving birth, allegorized as the master. The wisdom of reflection departing from it ever farther is allegorized as being driven out. Fayao says: The body is her house, created by wrong consciousness, which is called the master of the house. Wrong views slander and do not believe in permanence, which is the meaning of driving out. Baoliang says: Understanding and delusion are contrary to each other, the meaning of which is like driving out. From this one knows that the slightest wholesome deed certainly does not induce saṃsāra, which is evident. Huilang says: The view of annihilation is contrary to the understanding of permanence, and the view of annihilation is the master of saṃsāra, hence it says the master drives out the guest. Regarding 'she carried this child in her arms, desiring to reach another country,' Daosheng comments: One edition reads 'she had given birth not long before.' Sengliang says: The wisdom of reflection has just been born, allegorized as 'not long before.' Holding fast and not letting go is compared to carrying in one's arms. Distant from permanence and bliss, it is allegorized as 'another country.' Tanji says: The two wisdoms of hearing and reflection sharing a single understanding is allegorized as carrying in one's arms. The wisdom of cultivation ought to be attained but has not yet arisen, which is allegorized as desiring to head to another country.

5.49

"On the way she encountered fierce wind and rain [up to] being bitten and stung by bees, wasps, and venomous insects."

5.50

Daosheng comments: The five desires are like the wind and rain; the various fetters are like the suffering of cold; evil companions are like mosquitoes and gnats. Sengliang says: Afflictions that obstruct the wisdom of reflection are allegorized as the suffering of cold. The fruits of affliction are allegorized as being bitten and devoured. Fayao says: The Buddha path is long and distant, and cultivating difficult and bitter practices is allegorized as the suffering of cold. Not escaping the harassment of Māra is allegorized as being bitten and devoured. Sengzong says: Being resisted and broken by false doctrines is allegorized as wind and rain. Not yet escaping the afflictions devouring the roots of goodness is allegorized as venomous insects. Daohui's record says: The suffering fruits of saṃsāra are allegorized as cold and rain. The evil bandits of the six sense-objects are allegorized as venomous insects.

5.51

"Passing by the Ganges River, she held her child in her arms to cross over."

5.52

Daosheng comments: Harboring crookedness and envying the upright, one will certainly inflict harm on others, which is allegorized as the river. Holding fast to true understanding without regarding danger is allegorized as holding the child to cross over. Sengliang says: Having already attained the conditioned wisdom of cultivation while the unconditioned wisdom of cultivation is not yet attained, impermanence is difficult to cross, which is allegorized as the Ganges River. Tanji says: The river allegorizes the teachings of teachers of impermanence. Holding the child allegorizes holding fast to the understanding of the wisdom of reflection. Sengzong says: The river allegorizes the country of the Hīnayāna. According to the customs of foreign lands, if there are differing beliefs, they will not even drink water together from the same river. Here it allegorizes that one heading to another country must necessarily cross a river. And the great being who penetrates the Dharma, harboring the understanding of permanence and seeking buddhahood, should also expediently transform differing attachments.

5.53

"The water drifted swiftly, yet she did not let go."

5.54

Sengliang comments: The matter of arising and ceasing is urgent, rushing faster than a torrential stream; holding fast to understanding and not letting go is truly extraordinary.

5.55

"Thereupon mother and child were both submerged."

5.56

Sengliang comments: Although amidst impermanence, she was able not to produce deviant views. If there were someone who slandered the Dharma, she would risk her life to save it. Fayao says: One who protects the Dharma must dwell in an evil world and a place of many perils, and will certainly be envied. Yet being able, though swept away by the current, to hold fast to understanding without letting go, even to the point of losing one's life, consequently causes the understanding of permanence not to circulate in the world. Person and Dharma both falling, it is said in meaning that mother and child were both submerged. Sengzong says: The sharp edge of falsehood forcefully obstructed upright speech, thereby silencing speech at the time. When understanding is not unfolded, the meaning is like the child sinking; when the person is humiliated and broken, the meaning is like the mother sinking.

5.57

"Because of the merit of this woman's loving thought, after her life ended, she was born in the Brahmā Heaven."

5.58

Sengzong comments: This is the retribution for skillfully protecting the understanding of permanence. 'Brahmā' means pure, which is nirvāṇa. 'Heaven' is the Heaven of the Supreme Truth.

5.59

"Mañjuśrī! If there is a good man [up to] definitely conditioned or definitely unconditioned."

5.60

Sengliang comments: If one has not yet seen the principle of permanence, merely remaining silent will prevent external evils from growing; what use is it to distinguish between conditioned and unconditioned? Below this, protecting the Dharma is set forth. Baoliang says: If one claims that the Tathāgata is definitely conditioned by arising and ceasing, one might as well say he is unconditioned by total annihilation. He also says: One should not say that the Buddha is entirely and constantly identical to the conditioned, yet the Buddha is definitely unconditioned. Tan'ai says: Taking the text straightforwardly, it means one must not say the Tathāgata is definitely conditioned; one should say he is definitely unconditioned. Sengzong says: If one merely realizes permanence while confused about traces, that is not the way to have understanding. If one can explain the root without violating the traces, and understand the traces without going against the root, then one accords with the Middle Way. Therefore it says that one should not definitely declare him identical to conditioned phenomena, nor may one say he is entirely different. If he were entirely different, it would damage the traces. If one has not yet reached this today, one should simply blame oneself.

5.61

"If one has right view, one should declare that the Tathāgata [up to] because of giving rise to wholesome dharmas, and because of giving rise to a mind of pity."

5.62

Sengliang comments: Declaring him definitely unconditioned means preaching permanence to transform people, which is what is called protecting the Dharma above. 'Giving rise to wholesome dharmas' means transforming people through goodness so that people attain wholesome life. Therefore the Tathāgata achieves the retribution of long life, just as the eight rivers return to the sea. 'Giving rise to pity' means lovingly protecting the lives of sentient beings, which is the cause of long life.

5.63

"Like that poor woman at the Ganges River [up to] not seeking the Brahmā Heaven, the Brahmā Heaven naturally arrived."

5.64

Sengzong, as related by Huilang, says: It does not match the allegory in full detail, but merely grasps the essential import, raising it as an admonition and encouragement.

5.65

"Mañjuśrī! It is like a person traveling far."

5.66

Daosheng comments: This allegory shows that by not saying the Buddha is conditioned, one will certainly accomplish the meaning of unconditioned. Sengliang says: Holding the understanding of permanence to seek buddhahood is allegorized as traveling far. Fayao says: The previous allegory of the Dharma-protector revealed the unconditioned; this allegory conceals the conditioned. When initial understanding is not yet deep and one is far removed from the Buddha, it is allegorized as traveling far. Sengzong says: This is the fifth section of the inquiry section.

5.67

"Exhausted midway."

5.68

Daosheng comments: Right view is not yet rich, while a wrong mind arises from within. Sengliang says: Passing through saṃsāra, the understanding of permanence becomes increasingly faint. Baoliang says: This refers to one who cultivates practice while holding to characteristics.

5.69

"Lodging in someone else's house, while asleep."

5.70

Daosheng comments: The wrong mind is dark within, allegorized as being asleep. Sengliang says: Borne by delusion to receive retribution, not what was originally expected, is called 'lodging.' Having drifted for a long time, one ultimately loses the understanding of permanence and declares the Buddha to be impermanent, allegorized as being asleep. Tanji says: Saṃsāra cannot be dwelt in for long, hence 'lodging.' Zhixiu says: Although having slight understanding, delusion obstructs the eye of wisdom, temporarily forgetting what one harbored, like being in a dim sleep.

5.71

"A great fire suddenly broke out in the room."

5.72

Daosheng comments: Harm pressing upon body and life is allegorized as fire burning the room. Sengliang says: Having produced this slander, the calamity of slander reaches one's person. Fayao says: It still allegorizes wrong disputation. Tanji says: Only beginning to awaken, it therefore says 'suddenly broke out.'

5.73

"He immediately woke up startled."

5.74

Daosheng comments: Knowing that the fault was incurred by oneself is like awakening from sleep. Sengliang says: Knowing that misfortune was brought upon oneself. Baoliang says: Wondering at the error of wrong disputation is called 'startled'; investigating principle and finding it not to be so is called 'waking up.' Daohui's record says: Previously not attending to it temporarily, now he regains understanding.

5.75

"He at once thought to himself: 'I shall now definitely die, without a doubt.'"

5.76

Sengliang comments: He considers the sin of slandering the Buddha to be heavy and ineradicable. Fayao says: Holding fast to right understanding and not following wrong speech, he knows he will certainly be harmed. Baoliang says: He considers that if he follows the wrong path, he will definitely enter hell.

5.77

"Because he was endowed with shame and conscience, he wrapped his body in clothes."

5.78

Daosheng comments: Taking shame and conscience as clothes. If one says the Buddha is conditioned, one lacks shame and conscience. Vowing not to commit it again is allegorized as shame and conscience. Returning to declare the Buddha permanent to cover his former deficiency is allegorized as wrapping the body. Tanji says: Wrapping the understanding of permanence with words that protect permanence.

5.79

"He then died and was born in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven [up to] being reborn successively always in places of peace and joy."

5.80

Tanji comments: Because of shame and conscience he is born in heaven; because of protecting permanence he attains liberation. Sengzong says: This concludes the retribution. In the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven there are thirty-two ministers, allegorically representing the thirty-two marks. The eighty returns represent the eighty minor marks. The Great Brahmā King: Brahmā means nirvāṇa, and the king is the Buddha.

5.81

"For this reason, Mañjuśrī [up to] swiftly accomplish anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi."

5.82

Sengzong comments: Raising an allegory to admonish and encourage.

5.83

"At that time the Dharma Prince Mañjuśrī [up to] should also cover the Tathāgata's conditioned nature."

5.84

Sengliang comments: The Buddha opened the principle of permanence, and Cunda expanded upon it. His preaching hit the mark, hence he praises him. Sengzong says: This is the sixth section of the inquiry section, which concludes by applying the allegory of the man in the fire to Cunda. Fayao says: Not only praising his ability to speak, but also admiring his profound understanding. People think that regarding dying for the Dharma, there has never been such a person; therefore concluding by pointing to Cunda shows that it is not distant.

5.85

"Conditioned and unconditioned—let us set both aside [up to] such a giver is the foremost among all givers."

5.86

Sengliang comments: [Mañjuśrī] wished to have the aforementioned meaning of "not eating" expanded, so by prompting the offering he reveals it. Fayao comments: Above, it was explained that the Tathāgata is unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). Now, by prompting the offering, he reveals that the sixteen-foot [manifestation] is not unconditioned and does not have the same active characteristics. Sengzong comments: This is the seventh [section] of the request gate, prompting the offering. Baoliang comments: From here below, prompting the offering is the fourth section.

5.87

"Whether monks, nuns, […] should with purity provide it according to the season."

5.88

Sengliang comments: This explains that when the time and the items are pure, giving material goods will certainly accomplish the perfection of giving (dāna).

5.89

"Making such a swift donation is to possess fully […] The Tathāgata will right now enter parinirvāṇa."

5.90

Sengliang comments: Giving is the seed of the dharmakāya; the timely provision of goods is the seed of giving. Regarding "scant or abundant": above, the items were already discussed, but the mental disposition had not yet been clarified. Next, it is stated that there are eight kinds of giving, as explained in the treatise text. Here it clarifies that the minds of the Buddha and the Saṅgha are definitively pure, and they are mostly people who uphold the precepts; it is merely that the quantity of items is not fixed.

5.91

Cunda said: "Mañjuśrī, why do you now […] is indeed the dharmakāya, not a body sustained by food."

5.92

Fayao comments: Once Mañjuśrī prompted him, fearing that people would think the sixteen-foot body is entirely identical to ordinary mortals, Cunda therefore further clarifies that it is merely a manifestation of conformity: how could [the Buddha] truly need it? Sengzong comments: Cunda reveals that the dharmakāya does not eat, and thus adduces the past to illustrate the present.

5.93

At that time, the Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: "[…] have well entered into the profound Mahāyāna scriptures."

5.94

Baoliang comments: Because Cunda's words accorded with the Buddha's intent, [the Buddha] commended and endorsed them.

5.95

Mañjuśrī said to Cunda: "[…] also gladdens and satisfies all sentient beings."

5.96

Sengliang comments: Affectionate thoughts arise from partial attachment. Here it is clarified that if there is conformity with principle, the Tathāgata approves; in his feelings, there is no partiality. Regarding "gladdening and satisfying all": because the principle was not yet fully evident, he examined it in greater detail. Huilang comments: Herein, dispelling thoughts has three turns; this is the first turn, dispelling partial thoughts.

5.97

Mañjuśrī said: "The Tathāgata towards you […] you, humane sir, and I would both be practicing inversion."

5.98

Huilang comments: This is the second [turn], dispelling all thoughts.

5.99

"Mañjuśrī! The Tathāgata has no affectionate thoughts […] is precisely the realm of wisdom of all buddhas."

5.100

Huilang comments: This is the third [turn], presenting an analogy to clarify that there is no thought that grasps at marks. Mingjun notes: Since the collateral discussion between the two men began up to this point, there are three sources. First, distinguishing the meanings of permanent and impermanent generally brushed away the traces of the conditioned to reveal the wondrous root of eternal presence, which constitutes the meaning of what can and cannot be requested. Second, brushing away the traces of the responsive body (nirmāṇakāya). Food is that which sustains the body; if, although eating, he does not eat, how could the body be real? Third, brushing away the traces of the responsive mind. Relying on gladdening and satisfying him expresses the thought of non-thought. Therefore, relying on this endorsement, the traces of mind are dispelled.

5.101

"Mañjuśrī! It is like a king […] I merely wished to test you on matters of the bodhisattvas."

5.102

Sengliang comments: The bird is an analogy for the Buddha; the immeasurable yojanas are an analogy for contemplating emptiness; the ocean is an analogy for saṃsāra; the turtles and fish are an analogy for the six destinies. Its own shadow is an analogy for the responsive body, clarifying that both emptiness and existence cease. "Ordinary mortals" refers to those who are completely bound. "Those of scant wisdom" refers to the two vehicles. Sengzong, recorded by Jingyi, comments: This is the eighth [section] of the request gate, brushing away the traces of the two great beings. Huilang, recounting Sengzong, comments: Here there are two analogies. First, it explains that the lower cannot reach the higher, using the analogy of the bird to clarify that the higher can know the lower; second, Mañjuśrī brushes away his own traces.

5.103

At that time, the World-Honoured One, from his mouth, […] When Cunda heard this, he was choked with sorrow and remained silent.

5.104

Sengliang comments: Cunda's past vow was to provide the final offering and proclaim eternal presence. The principle having already been made manifest, his manifesting extinction while not being extinct, and manifesting eating while not eating, have broadly reached completion. Now Mañjuśrī initiates it first, and only then does the Buddha tell him verbally. Fayao comments: Previously, Mañjuśrī prompted Cunda to prepare the offering and was scolded by Cunda, making it seem as if Mañjuśrī's previous words were empty, which would mean that the sixteen-foot body also does not accept people's donations at all. The offerings of the assembly at that time would have been made in vain, failing to fulfill their original intent. Therefore, [the Buddha] emitted light that illuminated Mañjuśrī's body to verify that Mañjuśrī's earlier words were not empty, and thus it was appropriate to prompt him. Sengzong comments: The ninth [section] of the request gate, prompting the offering. As revealing the permanent and brushing away the traces have already been completed above, the minds of living beings will no longer stagnate in traces. Even while eating, they know he does not eat; thus he emits light again to express that the traces must depart. Daohui notes: Cunda earlier requested him to remain, and Mañjuśrī engaged in collateral discussion. The matter being finished, [the Buddha] now emits this light to respond to his intention. Since he does not permit him to request his remaining, he therefore uses the light to prompt the offering. Huilang, recounting Sengzong, comments: From here below down to the analogy of the lapis lazuli jewel, he opens the doctrine of cause and fruit of eternal presence for those of lower faculties.

5.105

The Buddha told Cunda: "The offering you present […] A second and a third time, it was also like this."

5.106

Fayao comments: Wishing to make him prepare it swiftly so that the assembly at that time might each fulfill their original intent, he therefore told him three times.

5.107

At that time, when Cunda had heard the Buddha's words, […] with one voice exhorted the Buddha not to enter parinirvāṇa.

5.108

Sengliang comments: Fearing that the sincerity of one person could not move the Buddha above, he therefore relied on the great assembly to have them make the request together.

5.109

At that time, the World-Honoured One again told Cunda: "Do not weep loudly […] Conditioned phenomena have many faults and afflictions."

5.110

Sengliang comments: It is not that it brings no benefit; but disturbing the mind and being confused about the Way is not appropriate for a practitioner. "You should contemplate your body" explains the principle of it being of no benefit. Your body is that which is responded to; since that which is responded to cannot remain, how could the responsive one remain? Baoliang comments: Regarding "mixed poison": in the past teaching, when generating understanding, cause and fruit were not yet distinguished, which was also called mixed poison. In terms of the present sūtra, from the adamantine [concentration] downward, although clear understanding is not poison, its substance is not yet distinguished from suffering, and so it is also called mixed poison.

5.111

Thereupon Cunda again said to the Buddha: "[…] Therefore, you should not weep now."

5.112

Sengliang comments: Cunda's intention in making the request again was that the Buddha's loving-kindness and compassion respond to suffering sentient beings; now I manifest suffering, which is why I vow for the Buddha to remain in compassion to respond. The Buddha's intent in responding is that departing will certainly have benefit, while remaining would have no benefit. "Such is the nature of all buddhas" means that taking arising and ceasing as suffering and non-arising and non-ceasing as bliss, I therefore extinguish this suffering of arising and ceasing.

5.113

At that time, Cunda again said to the Buddha: "[…] reflecting and contemplating this within myself, I again gave rise to joy and delight."

5.114

Sengliang comments: The Tathāgata manifests conformity with the conditioned. When people realize that having a body is suffering, they loathe suffering and seek cessation; because what this benefits is vast, he rejoices.

5.115

The Buddha praised Cunda: "Excellent, excellent! […] quickly prepare what is to be offered; it is not fitting to delay for long."

5.116

Sengliang comments: "All reach this place" refers to the place of manifesting conformity with arising and ceasing. "All are like illusory appearances" causes him to contemplate emptiness, in order to stop the disturbance of sorrowful longing. "Through the power of expedient means": if phenomena were not empty and engaged in existence, it could not be called expedient means, and the Buddha's mind would not be unattached; because the Buddha's mind is unattached, it proves that all phenomena are empty. "Such is the nature of all buddhas" proves that non-attachment is the fruit of buddhahood. "I now accept your food" proves expedient means. Receiving it without eating is indeed the benefit of expedient means. Sengzong comments: From here to the end of the chapter is the tenth section, accepting understanding.

5.117

At that time, Cunda, for the sake of all sentient beings, […] rose from his seat and departed to prepare the utensils for the meal.

5.118

Sengliang comments: Having rejoiced, his present giving will certainly become the Buddha's field of merit. Nirvāṇa is difficult to comprehend; if the practice of giving is perfected, one will naturally comprehend it. Daohui notes: As for his external traces, Cunda did not yet fully understand the ritual method of preparing an offering, so he took Mañjuśrī along with him.

5.119

Fascicle 5 (Part Two of the Chapter on Cunda)

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese