大般涅槃經集解 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

6.1

Explaining the earthquake; Setting forth the fifteen Dharma gates of emptiness, non-emptiness, and emptiness [of both]; Matching the analogy of the jewel city of the True Dharma; Explaining the i-letter nirvāṇa; Explaining the meaning of being with or without the perception of impermanence; Explaining the meaning of the fifty-seven defilements.

6.2

Chapter 3: Lamentation

6.3

Huilang's account records that Sengzong stated: "From the end of the previous chapter, where the Buddha radiated light from his mouth to hasten the offerings, through to the simile of the jewel, this still belongs to the approach of entreaty clarifying permanence; it was spoken for those of inferior faculties. It consists of six sections: first, radiating light to hasten the offerings; second, the earth quaking and the great assembly lamenting in sorrow; third, speaking five similes to remonstrate with and entreat the Buddha; fourth, the Buddha encouraging questions and refuting what they had attained; fifth, the bhikṣus praising the past teachings; and sixth, explaining the superior cultivation." The notes of Jingyi record that Sengzong stated: "The beginning of the 'Chapter on Lamentation' still belongs to the previous chapter, in which Cunda expressed the entreaty of the great assembly; it is the second approach of entreaty clarifying permanence. From 'Furthermore, bhikṣus, if you have doubts' onward is the third approach within the opening of the doctrine, which clarifies permanence by means of encouragement and refutation. It has four distinct parts: first, refuting the fruit; second, refuting the cause; third, presenting the simile of the precious jewel to establish why the past fruit was empty; and fourth, concluding by synthesizing the two teachings." Baoliang stated: "Broadly speaking, this chapter has seven sections. First, speaking verses and prose to express their own suffering and remonstrate with and entreat the Buddha. Second, the Buddha immediately encourages them to abandon what they had attained and cultivated in the past. Third, the bhikṣus again entreat the Buddha to remain in the world to teach us the method of cultivation. Fourth, the Buddha again encourages them merely to follow the Buddha's teaching and cultivate the three superior cultivations, whereby they will certainly attain the permanent fruit. Fifth, the bhikṣus again entreat, asking: if the Buddha's fruit is permanent, why does he not remain in the world and show us the superior cultivation? Sixth, he further encourages them, clarifying that passing into extinction today is because you have the illness of one-sided grasping: you simply must not maintain what you practiced in past days as ultimate truth. Once the three encouragements and three entreaties were concluded, the assembly for the first time harboured a doubt, saying: if the principle is indeed so, why did the Buddha, when first appearing in the world, not explain it to us earlier? Seventh, he synthesizes and harmonizes the ancient and the present." The notes of Daohui record: "Broadly dividing this chapter, there are four sections: first, the great assembly's sorrowful lament; second, the Buddha opening the doctrine of nirvāṇa; third, explaining the superior cultivation; and fourth, synthesis and harmonization." It also states: "Divided into nine sections: first, about to enter nirvāṇa, hence the earth quakes. Second, the great assembly speaks verses and similes to entreat the Buddha. Third, the Buddha speaks two verses to halt their sorrowful entreaties. Fourth, from 'if there are doubts', opening the beginnings of permanence and impermanence, giving rise to the assembly's doubts, encouraging them to ask, and then speaking of the three-dot nirvāṇa. Fifth, because the bhikṣus were not yet able to accept it, they turned back to praise the past teaching as correct. Sixth, the Buddha explains for them the dharma of the three superior cultivations. Seventh, the bhikṣus again entreat the Buddha to remain, and the Buddha halts their two entreaties by pointing to Kāśyapa as their future refuge. Eighth, returning to the jewel simile, he encourages them to abandon what was cultivated in the past and cultivate the present superior cultivation. Ninth, synthesizing and harmonizing the intention behind why it could not be spoken immediately in past days but can be spoken today. The latter six sections are interconnected." Zhixiu stated: "From here entering the 'Chapter on Longevity' up to the questions of the Youth Kāśyapa is the second part of the main discourse. The broad outline has six sections: first, manifesting the quaking of the earth to indicate that the Buddha will certainly depart; second, the assembly at that time speaks verses and five similes to entreat the Buddha to remain in the world; third, the Buddha presents various dharmas to encourage questions; fourth, explaining the superior cultivation to refute their graspings; fifth, speaking the simile of the physician to synthesize and harmonize the ancient and present; and the sixth section makes six turns again, presenting dharmas to offer encouragement." Fa'an stated: "This chapter is the second section of opening the doctrine, having three distinct parts: first, remonstrating and entreating, from the beginning of the chapter through to the i-character nirvāṇa; second, clinging to past teachings and entreating, from 'rightly speak of impermanence' through to the three cultivations; third, adducing the present teaching to entreat, from 'as the Buddha spoke of abandoning the four inversions' through to the end of the chapter. Within each of the three series there are two turns: from the beginning through to the five similes is the substance of the entreaty; next, from 'the Buddha addressed the bhikṣus' onward answers what was entreated. In the second entreaty, first from 'rightly speak' onward is clinging to past teachings to entreat: since we do not understand, we pray you remain in the world to explain it. Next, from 'the Buddha praised the bhikṣus' onward responds to what they entreated, saying that merely practicing the present teaching will allow one to leave behind the four inversions. In the third entreaty, first from 'abandoning the four inversions' through to following the Buddha into nirvāṇa, it means: if the Buddha is permanent, and permanence implies non-extinction, why not remain and guide us? Next, from 'I entrust the correct Dharma to Kāśyapa' onward responds to what they entreated." Mingjun notes: "This chapter is broadly divided into five sections. First, the great assembly sees the earth quake, knows it signifies extinction, and sorrowfully laments and speaks five similes to invite and entreat the Buddha. Second, the Buddha speaks two verses to halt their sorrowful lamentations. Third, presenting dharmas to encourage questions, through to the jewel simile. Fourth, when the bhikṣus at that time hear the jewel simile spoken, they begin to awaken to the principle and thereupon raise a question: why was it not spoken immediately in past days? Fifth, the Buddha uses the similes of the new and old physicians to synthesize and harmonize the ancient and present. In the first section, there are three subsections: first, the compiler of the sūtra recounts the event of the earth quaking; second, the great assembly speaks verses to state their case; third, using five similes to remonstrate and entreat. In the second section, there are two subsections: first, lodging words with vehemence, stating they should not be like ordinary people; second, using verses to preach the Dharma to halt their sorrowful feelings. In the third section, there are five turns: first, presenting dharmas to encourage questions; second, the bhikṣus cling to what was attained in the past, failing to understand the present intent; third, the Buddha speaks of superior cultivation, refuting what they grasped; fourth, the bhikṣus hear of the superior and hear of the refutation, realizing that their past was wrong and the Buddha's present is right, yet because they have not yet understood, they persist in entreating, saying the Buddha ought rightly to remain in the world to teach them to understand the superior cultivation, even using their lives to insist on the entreaty; fifth, the Buddha uses the jewel simile to enlighten their confusion. The fourth and fifth sections are not further subdivided."

6.4

"Not long after Cunda had departed, [...] and therefore this earth quaked greatly in this manner."

6.5

Sengliang notes: "The Buddha's explanation to Cunda of the meaning of the permanent response and resonance was fully set out in the text above. After Cunda had departed, those who had doubts ought to have raised them, yet did not immediately ask because they hoped the Buddha would delay. Therefore, he manifested the sign of certain departure to urge them to ask. The meaning of the six kinds of quaking is fully explained in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. There are two ideas here: up to 'the minds of sentient beings were shaken', within the quaking there was sound, describing the aspects of magnitude. From 'Tuṣita heaven' down to 'quaked greatly in this manner', it clarifies that there must be a great event. There are three kinds [of quakings] for the stage of training (śaikṣa) and three kinds for the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa); five kinds have already passed, and this is the sixth." Fayao stated: "Now that the Great Being had departed and there was no one to initiate the questioning, the earth was therefore shaken to signify nirvāṇa, accelerating the occasion for their entreaty; the i-character nirvāṇa was proclaimed on account of this." Baoliang stated: "This is the seventh sign. The intention behind the occurrence of this sign was not to summon the assembly; rather, seeing the Buddha's majestic light remained tranquil, the people of the time became somewhat indolent in mind, so he manifested this sign again to signify that he would certainly depart. From here down to the simile of the two men, old and young, is the first part: stating their own suffering, entreating while remonstrating with the Buddha. It contains three ideas: first, speaking eleven and a half lines of verse directly stating their suffering and entreating; second, the final two lines of verse clarify that if the Buddha remains in the world, there will be the benefit of dispelling suffering; third, because the Buddha remained silent after the entreaty, they further cite circumstances to remonstrate with the Buddha." Zhixiu stated: "This is the first section. That there was this sound in the earth signifies two meanings: first, to let them know that this is a great quaking; second, to let them know that this quaking is a sign of nirvāṇa." Huilang stated: "Radiating light from the mouth at the end of the previous chapter, and the quaking at the beginning of this chapter, are both intended to expound permanence again for those of inferior faculties. From radiating light from the mouth down to the verses, it is the first section among six, manifesting the sign of nirvāṇa. It has three subsections, and this is the first subsection."

6.6

"At that time, all the devas, nāgas, gandharvas, [...] the Tathāgata abandons us just like casting away spittle and tears."

6.7

Sengliang notes: "This clarifies the suffering of the Buddha's departure." Zhixiu stated: "From here down to the five similes is the second section, stating their own sorrowful lament to entreat the Buddha."

6.8

"Just as when the sun first rises, its brilliance is extraordinarily bright, [...] like Mount Sumeru."

6.9

Sengliang notes: "If the Buddha remains in the world, there are benefits such as these."

6.10

"World-Honoured One! Just as a king gives birth to many sons, [...] we only pray that you remain long and do not enter nirvāṇa."

6.11

Sengliang notes: "The two subsections above fully stated the losses and benefits of leaving or staying, expressing their own suffering to entreat the Buddha, yet they did not receive his compassionate regard. From here down through the prose, they fault the Buddha with five similes: first, clarifying that there is no virtue of having a good beginning and bringing it to a fine conclusion; second, clarifying that saṃskṛta is suffering and asaṃskṛta is bliss, and because he fears the saṃskṛta, the Buddha is not asaṃskṛta; third, explaining the bliss of asaṃskṛta by using the simile that when a son is in prison, the father cannot experience joy; fourth, that his compassion is not impartial; fifth, that he has no compassion at all." Fayao stated: "This simile states that although they have obtained right view, their prajñā is not yet complete, and so they entreat the Buddha to remain in the world to bring their prajñā to completion." Sengzong stated: "The fourfold assembly being diverse is compared to the sons; their clear wisdom not being crooked is compared to being upright and handsome. First teaching concentration and wisdom caused us to cultivate and learn, giving birth to our life of wisdom; he ought to pursue superior wisdom to teach the profound principle so that the life of wisdom is not severed. Now that the Buddha departs, superior wisdom will not continue; how is this different from killing them?" Baoliang stated: "We have not yet escaped the four māras, yet the Buddha abandons us; how is this not like handing a son over to a caṇḍāla?"

6.12

"World-Honoured One! Just as someone who is well versed in treatises [...] would no longer fear falling into hell."

6.13

Fayao notes: "This simile means that the Buddha has complete mastery: if he ought to remain in the world, he should speak it for us; if he enters nirvāṇa, it is out of fear of dharmas that he does not speak it." Tanji stated: "It is as though the Tathāgata fears the saṃskṛta."

6.14

"World-Honoured One! Just as a person newly undertaking tasks [...] how can the Tathāgata attain and enjoy peaceful bliss?"

6.15

Fayao notes: "This simile clarifies that we have not yet attained vimokṣa, entreating the Buddha to remain in the world and teach us to attain it." Tanji stated: "This illustrates the initial practice of the Hīnayāna. The prison represents avidyā. The person who inquires is a bodhisattva." The notes of Jingyi record that Sengzong stated: "Cultivating the śrāvaka teaching to sever various afflictions is the initial undertaking; that person, through diligence, incurs an offense and is imprisoned. Now it clarifies that although coarse afflictions have been severed, subtle ones have not been eliminated, so one is caged by the fruit of the aggregates. As for someone asking what offense he incurred: in the world there are matters where a bystander asks out of courtesy, but cannot provide benefit; if the World-Honoured One indeed departs, he is just like a bystander, being casually devoid of compassion. Another explanation: compassion itself is the official." Baoliang stated: "This means the Buddha should not betray his vow: in the past he made the four great vows to abide in saṃsāra and deliver all sentient beings, saying that only when the illness of sentient beings is cured will my illness be dispelled. Now we happen to be among those who can be delivered, yet the Buddha ceases his transformation; how is this not violating his vow?" Huilang's account records that Sengzong stated: "A newly practicing bodhisattva cherishes great compassion and vows for the sake of sentient beings not to abandon saṃsāra. The retribution of saṃsāra is surely unavoidable, like being arrested by an official. Only if sentient beings are delivered will the Buddha be at peace and bliss; how could he today alone depart from suffering and distress? As for someone asking, it refers to other great bodhisattvas inquiring of the beginner."

6.16

"World-Honoured One! Just as a king of physicians who well understands prescriptions and medicines [...] we only pray that you remain long and do not enter parinirvāṇa."

6.17

Fayao notes: "If the Buddha does not remain to teach us to attain vimokṣa, he would be hoarding secrets stingily, like that physician." Tanji stated: "Although claimed to possess compassion, his mind retains notions of superiority and inferiority, hurting impartiality."

6.18

"World-Honoured One! Just as a person suffering from illness, old or young, [...] remain long in the world and do not enter nirvāṇa."

6.19

Fayao states: "This simile clarifies that one's own practice and study have only just begun and the dharmakāya is not yet perfected. One therefore requests the Buddha to abide in the world, so that by questioning and practicing under him, the dharmakāya may be attained." Tanji states: "If one has compassion, one ought to rescue [beings from] suffering; now that he abandons them in their suffering, how can he be said to possess compassion?"

6.20

"At that time the World-Honoured One addressed the monks: […] stay far away from all that is not Dharma, comfort yourselves, and experience joy."

6.21

Sengliang states: "It is out of compassionate pity that he manifests extinction. This has been fully explained in the preceding text. Ordinary beings, however, are attached to conditions of affection and heavy in sorrow, unable to awaken to the principle. Now he specifically addresses the monks in order to encourage the assembly." Baoliang states: "Below is the second [section], the exhortation. It has three meanings: first, admonishing the contemporary assembly; second, a general exhortation regarding cause and fruit; third, exhorting them to abandon what they previously attained and cultivate the present letter *i*. This is the first, facing the monks to admonish ordinary beings. 'Such is the nature of all Buddhas': where there is an evocative condition, there is a response; when the condition is exhausted, he returns to the real. 'Delighting in diligence' instructs them to uphold the precepts and guard the mind. 'Mindfully recollecting' is their cultivation of concentration; the following phrase is their cultivation of wisdom." Zhixiu states: "Below is the third section, directly setting forth all dharmas and stating the Buddha's original intention to urge them to question. It has three distinct parts: first, intending to have them question, he first uses two verses to stop their distracted minds; second, he broadly sets forth all dharmas to urge questioning; third, he further sets forth other conditions to urge questioning. This is the first, stopping their grief and distraction."

6.22

"Furthermore, monks, if you have doubts […] I shall adapt to you and sever them for you."

6.23

Daosheng states: "Although the Buddha explained the meaning of non-extinction for Cunda, the monks continually clung to the former teachings. Now he is about to resolve them, to clarify that the present and former teachings are subtly and wonderfully identical. In stating that 'all are [empty],' he originally did so because sentient beings were afflicted by attachments to the three realms, simply to eliminate the disease of non-emptiness. Since the traces of his words were extensive, it was only natural for doubts to arise; now he permits them to question their doubts, so that the subtle words may be revealed, guiding those who have turned their backs to return to the fundamental doctrine." Sengliang states: "Opening the doctrine can be brief or broad; this is broadly urging them to question. The monks contemplated the four non-permanences, severed doubts, and attained the path. Hearing that the Buddha is permanent, they should have conceived doubt regarding this fruition; that they ought to have questioned yet did not must be because they took what was previously spoken as real. If they take what was previously spoken as real, they will never awaken to the present teaching. Therefore, he calls upon them to bring forth the source of their doubts. Previously he stated that all is empty; now he says it is not empty—this is indeed doubtful." Sengzong states: "This is the third [part] within opening the doctrine. First, he explained permanence on the occasion of the offering; second, Cunda relayed the assembly's request to explain permanence; now thirdly, he explains permanence by means of the gate of exhortation and deprivation. Why does he first urge them to question before depriving them? Just previously, they criticized the Buddha with five similes, either calling him miserly with the Dharma or claiming his compassion was partial. Now he urges them to question the intent of the aforementioned opening of the doctrine, bringing forth the two teachings, former and present, and revealing that neither type of [Buddha] should be requested [to remain]. Since they have not yet penetrated this, they should now question their doubts. Saṃsāra is unreal and deceptive, ultimately resolving into emptiness; nirvāṇa is consummate and ultimate, serenely and permanently enduring, being not empty. Previously he spoke of impermanence, confined to the three realms; now when he speaks of impermanence, it extends outside the three realms. Previously he took the three unconditioned dharmas as permanent; now he clarifies that wondrous existence is the permanent." Baoliang states: "Below is the second [part], setting forth cause and fruit to generally urge questioning." Zhixiu states: "The second is broadly setting forth all dharmas to urge questioning."

6.24

"I shall also first preach the nectar [of the Dharma] for you, and only then enter into nirvāṇa."

6.25

Daosheng states: "If you truly have no doubts and do not know to question, I shall also speak for you of my own accord, and never allow you to fall into doubt and confusion." Sengliang states: "This means: 'If you yourselves have doubts yet cannot question, I shall speak for you, and only then attain nirvāṇa.'" Baoliang states: "This is a general reply to the intent of their five similes of criticism and request. 'Since appearing in the world, I have spoken of suffering and impermanence to eliminate the other four inversions; now I speak of permanence and bliss, so that you may enter the path fully equipped—why then raise the criticism of a contradiction between beginning and end? What I have spoken, both now and formerly, exhausts the profound and subtle principle; how could there be any fault of hoarding the Dharma? Now, entering nirvāṇa, I broadly explain for you the ultimate principle of nectar, enabling you to attain the dharma of permanence, bliss, self, and purity—how does this contradict your wishes? Now I wish to make you recognize permanence, equal to Mañjuśrī—how could my compassion be called partial? Since appearing in the world I have taught you the correct path, and now I again show you the wondrous path of nectar—how could I be said to lack compassion?'"

6.26

"Monks! The appearance of a Buddha in the world is rare; a human body is difficult to obtain […] like searching for gold sand or an udumbara flower."

6.27

Sengliang states: "As the saying goes: 'To take something away, one must first surely grant it.'" Sengzong states: "Hitherto he urged questioning; from here downward he deprives them. There are four sections: first, depriving them of the fruit; second, depriving them of the cause; third, presenting the simile of the precious jewel to clarify why the former fruit was empty; fourth, synthesizing the two teachings." Baoliang states: "Below is the third [section], specifically exhorting them to abandon the fruit previously attained. It has four points: first, praising the monks for being able to leave behind the five difficulties and encouraging them; second, directly depriving them of the fruit; third, depriving them of the cause previously practiced; fourth, exhorting them to cultivate and grasp the present permanent fruit." Zhixiu states: "From here down to 'like the worldly letter *i*', the third part further sets forth other conditions to urge questioning. There are three chapters: first, setting forth the monks' virtues; second, setting forth the monks' shortcomings; third, setting forth the Buddha's true instruction to urge questioning."

6.28

"Monks! Being free from the eight difficulties and obtaining a human body is difficult […] therefore, you all should not be negligent."

6.29

Sengliang states: "Previously he granted; now he deprives. Formerly, they clung to a partial grasp and considered it sufficient, seeking no further progress—are they not people who have passed their time in vain through negligence?" Sengzong states: "The monks having earnestly requested him to abide, the Buddha did not grant their request to abide, but instead urged them to question. The principle he set forth was not their realm; lacking any way to inquire, they retreated to hold fast to what they had attained, halting the path of progress. Responding to this thought of theirs, he thus reprimands them for passing their time in vain. He cites their former austerities to show that great compassion must not be betrayed."

6.30

"How is it that you monks adorned […] encountering a jeweled citadel, you took false and unreal goods?"

6.31

Sengliang states: "This simile expands upon the matter above. The citadel is an analogy for nirvāṇa." Sengzong states: "The Buddha-fruit dispels defilements, likened to the citadel's defense against wrongs. Precepts guard against external faults of body and speech, like a wall; the water of concentration serves as a moat; wisdom can resolve and eliminate evils, like parapets. Holding fast to what they had attained is called 'taking false and unreal goods.'" Baoliang states: "The second is depriving them of the fruit. The jeweled citadel has no single substance; it is formed of many jewels. If a single virtue is lacking, it cannot be called mahānirvāṇa. What was spoken previously was merely an explanation within the causes and conditions of nirvāṇa."

6.32

"Monks, do not with an inferior mind […] have not yet eliminated all fetters for the sake of the true Dharma."

6.33

Baoliang states: "This third [section] deprives them of the causes they practiced in the past. It has four phrases, solely urging them to forget duality, cultivate both, and attain virtue. Although wearing the kāṣāya, this is merely the initial gate of beginning study, not the ultimate path of entering truth."

6.34

"You monks should now truly […] good medicine for various diseases of affliction."

6.35

Sengliang states: "'True matters' refers to the principle of permanence. The principle of permanence is difficult to understand; since it is not known by a scattered and timid mind, one must collect the mind. Only the sun of the Buddha can illuminate it; once the sun of the Buddha has set, you will be covered by ignorance—how then could you see it? The great earth is the shared karmic reward of sentient beings; the Buddhadharma is also like this. Originally sought for the sake of sentient beings, this is already the Dharma of sentient beings." Sengzong states: "The setting of the sun of wisdom of the ten powers means that the opportune moment is difficult to encounter again. The grasses and trees being for the use of sentient beings means that they supply the medicine of the Dharma to eliminate suffering. Since the medicine of the Dharma exists, the time must not be lost." Baoliang states: "This fourth [part] exhorts them to cultivate the present cause and grasp the present fruit. Intending to urge cultivation, he first concludes with a sentence of admonition, and briefly presents the substance and characteristics of permanence, saying that the Tathāgata's dharmatā is real and not inverted. Formerly he also spoke of dharmatā, but that was a teaching of annihilation. The substance of the permanent fruit clarified today cannot be grasped by the hundred negations, being neither existent nor non-existent; it is called single-characteristic and without characteristic, neither cut off nor permanent. How could such a condition of mind be an inversion? Thereupon three dharmas are generated as the method for cultivating the cause: vigour, collecting the mind, and bravery."

6.36

"I shall now cause all sentient beings […] all to securely abide within the secret treasury."

6.37

Sengliang states: "'To enter' refers to the principle of permanence. Formerly obscured by impermanence, sentient beings did not see it; now that they are able to see it, it is termed 'entering.'" Sengzong states: "Above, he briefly broached permanence, but did not reveal its substance; now, having deprived them of what they attained, it is fitting to display its characteristics. 'Secret' means that it is unseen by the ten stages and can only be comprehended by a Buddha. The multitude of virtues is held within the consummate fruit; this is the meaning of 'treasury.'" Baoliang states: "'To abide' has three stages, namely faith, seeing, and attainment. What are they? From external ordinary beings up to the ninth stage, it is universally called 'abiding in faith'; the tenth stage is called 'abiding in seeing'; and only the Buddha dwells in the stage of 'abiding in attainment.'"

6.38

"I, too, shall securely abide therein and enter into nirvāṇa."

6.39

Sengliang states: "Because the Buddha has attained permanence, it is called 'abiding.' Nirvāṇa is for the sake of living beings; the Buddha is not extinguished." Sengzong states: "Previously he pointed to the great assembly; now he points to the Tathāgata, clarifying that their attainment is identical and not different. 'Entering' refers to the traces of the sixteen-foot body. When conditions are exhausted, he returns to the real; with respect to the responsive manifestation not appearing, it is therefore said that he 'enters.'"

6.40

"What is called the secret treasury? […] is termed entering into nirvāṇa, like the worldly letter *i*."

6.41

Daosheng comments: Illumination reaches the ultimate in the unconditioned, holding the primary place above. What is above cannot stand alongside [the others]; hence, being horizontal is necessarily false. As for the afflictions to be eliminated, when close at hand there is vimokṣa; below, it responds everywhere, and moreover, the rūpakāya is concurrent with it. Since there is no prior or subsequent, being vertical is also false. Because the three have no principle of separation, separating them is especially false. Therefore, serene and without difference, they are just like the syllable *i*. Since it is called permanent, how could there be a present extinction? The present extinction is not real, and the rūpakāya endures. Expressed in a single phrase, it is illustrated by the syllable *i*.
Sengliang comments: If they were side by side, the body is able to produce wisdom, and because the function of wisdom is fulfilled, the three dharmas are all permanent. Because the merit of wisdom is superior, they are not side by side. That being vertical is also not established is because there is no superiority or inferiority between the extinction of the body and wisdom. As for the three eyes on the face, prajñā occupies the top, and because body and vimokṣa are neither superior [to the other], they are arranged side by side below. This explains how the three virtues mutually condition one another and the reason they obtain permanence. If they were separate, they would not be causally related to one another. If the body obtained wisdom not by wisdom's obtaining extinction, then all would be non-existent. Endowed with these three dharmas, it is therefore called resting securely. Entering nirvāṇa means that the permanent dharma has no extinction, yet for the sake of beings it becomes extinct.
Fayao comments: Regarding the three dharmas being distinct from one another: if their substances are different, they have parts; if they have parts, they are impermanent. How could they be distinct from one another and combine to form nirvāṇa? Furthermore, although it is said that each individual one is not [nirvāṇa], outside of these there is also nothing else.
Sengzong comments: That side-by-side is not established clarifies that their functions are not the same. That vertical is not established clarifies that in meaning there is neither superior nor inferior. That separate is not established clarifies that they have no different substances. 'Vimokṣa is also not [nirvāṇa]' combines the preceding two lines: if one says the function of vimokṣa is the function of the dharmakāya, that is wrong. 'The three dharmas are distinct from one another' matches the third line, 'if they are separate'. Saying that vimokṣa is also not existent has only the single meaning of extinguishing afflictions, not encompassing complete virtues; the phrasing is concise and implicit. For one who grasps the intended meaning, one should say that vimokṣa alone is not the complete substance constituted by nirvāṇa. Why? Because the secret storehouse is constituted by the three virtues, which completely encompass all the virtues of the Buddha-stage. Previously, the three virtues each took up one meaning, which was seizing upon distinctions; how could that encompass them all? Hence it is said not to be nirvāṇa.
Baoliang comments: 'Side by side' uses simultaneous co-existence as an analogy. Why? Formerly, the unconditioned [attained by] severance of affairs was taken as nirvāṇa, and this unconditioned stood alongside body and wisdom; hence it is not today's syllable *i*. 'Vertical' designates prior and subsequent, and also serves as an analogy for the former nirvāṇa without remainder, meaning that first there is the body, next there is wisdom, and later there is extinction; hence it is said to be false. 'Like the three eyes': the preceding two lines refuted the past; this line directly validates the present, meaning that nirvāṇa generally clarifies what is atop the myriad virtues. 'If the three dots were separate' means that taking each one of the three virtues in isolation is also inadmissible, as the lower line says, 'the dharmakāya is also not [nirvāṇa]', and so forth. 'That the three dharmas are distinct from one another is also not [nirvāṇa]' means that each has a separate substance.

6.42

[The sūtra says:] 'At that time the monks, having heard the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, [...] among all perceptions it is the foremost.'

6.43

Daosheng comments: Having heard that nirvāṇa is like the worldly syllable *i*, they began to awaken to the fact that the intent of the past teaching of impermanence was confined to the three realms, and distantly indicated permanence.
Sengliang comments: This is accepting understanding and making an entreaty. Having heard the present analogy of the syllable *i*, they understand that the Buddha's past teaching that all is impermanent was an upāya. And this upāya is able to sever the actual fetters of the three realms—how delightful it is!
Fayao comments: When the Buddha taught the permanence of the syllable *i* nirvāṇa, he thereby already taught that what is not nirvāṇa is impermanent. Furthermore, from their present understanding they realized that the intent of the past teaching of impermanence lay in what is not the Buddha, and was precisely the means to indicate that the Buddha is permanent; this may well be called a delightful teaching.
Sengzong comments: The purport of the three meanings previously explained is profound and subtle; seeking it in one's mind, it is obscure and beyond one's ken. Directly hearing the proclamation of extinction, abandoning the responsive and returning to the fundamental, being forever separated from living beings, they were filled with sorrow and grief. Regarding 'delightfully teaching impermanence': the teaching of the syllable *i* is not what ordinary sentiments can understand; the road ahead is difficult to tread, so they retreat to cling to the former teaching. How is this shown? The Tathāgata's former teaching instructed me to train in contemplations such as impermanence and abandon the delusions of the three realms; practicing according to the teaching, one indeed transcends suffering, so it was not difficult. As for today's teaching: although he now speaks of permanence, I have not yet attained it. Since I have not yet attained it, the matter rests with the Tathāgata. Directly witnessing extinction, although there are words of permanence, I do not see the reality; if he does not abide, then the former teaching is what can be relied upon; hence they praise it. The elephant's footprint being supreme: the upper line praises the teaching, while this line praises the understanding arising from the teaching.
Baoliang comments: From here downward is the second section of the entreaty. For the general entreaty, the main purports are two: First, the Buddha taught the twenty-five states of existence and formulated the contemplation of the five approaches. Yet the Buddha remains permanent; one knows that up to the vajra[-like samādhi] is saṃsāra, and the final mind is permanent. I am a person capable of being taught, and the Buddha should abide in the world. Second, although the Buddha has taught the syllable *i* nirvāṇa for my sake, I do not know how to attain it. Within this second entreaty there are three sections: First, clarifying that I am a person capable of being taught and have a slight understanding, he thus first uses two analogies to praise the present five approaches of suffering, emptiness, and impermanence for eliminating delusions as superior to the past. Second, from 'the monarch' up to the analogy of the drunken man is the formal entreaty. Third, from the praise of the plantain downward, he clings to the former teaching to demand [the Buddha's presence]: if the Buddha does not abide in the world, I shall pursue my past training and apply it to the Buddha, practicing suffering and impermanence. 'Delightful' means finding delightful the contemplation of the five approaches in the 'Cunda Chapter' above. The 'Cunda Chapter' spoke of permanence and impermanence; now he merely praises the principle of impermanence. The principle of permanence contemplated from the past was originally not understood, so he temporarily reserves this principle as words of entreaty, saying, 'Since I do not understand, you should abide in the world to teach me. If I already understood today's purport of permanence, what need would there be to plead?'
Zhixiu comments: Below this is the fourth section, stripping away attachments. It has four divisions: first, direct attachment; second, stripping away attachment; third, requesting him to abide; fourth, the Buddha's reply. From here up to 'yet to hold various views, this cannot be', the first part finds the former teaching delightful and prepares a counter-entreaty.
Mingjun comments: From here down to 'the perception of non-self', this is the second part of urging inquiry, reversing the above to cite the superior dharma to urge inquiry. Since it is not what they understand themselves, they return to cling to the former teaching. It has three steps: First, urging the past teaching of impermanence, which I have already understood. Second, citing analogies like the monarch to clarify that what is not understood lies in today's teaching; if the Buddha does not abide, who will teach me to understand it? Third, citing praises of the teachings of non-self and so forth.

6.44

[The sūtra says:] 'If there is anyone who diligently cultivates and gathers it, [...] ignorance, arrogance, and the perception of impermanence.'

6.45

Sengliang comments: He cites the actual fetters of the three realms to reveal the efficacy of the teaching of impermanence. He does not mention anger because it is easily severed.
Fayao comments: If one can diligently cultivate the perception of impermanence, one will not fail to abandon the delusions of the three realms and the inversion of the perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha. The meaning of 'delightful teaching' lies precisely in this.
Sengzong comments: Perceptions are of two kinds: if one practices the preliminary upāya before the contemplation of emptiness, it cannot eliminate fetters; now taking the contemplation of emptiness to assist the understanding of impermanence is precisely the wisdom of emptiness. It is spoken of under the name of 'perception'. If not so, one returns to the preliminary upāya before emptiness to subdue the fetters, and because severance follows subdual, it is broadly said to sever them. 'And the perception of impermanence' means severing the view of impermanence.
Baoliang comments: These are the very last to be severed in the approach of contemplation; hence they are singled out, not that the coarse [delusions] were not severed first. 'And the perception of impermanence' concurrently eliminates the inversion regarding the Buddha.

6.46

[The sūtra says:] 'World-Honoured One! If the Tathāgata is free from the perception of impermanence, [...] ignorance, arrogance, and the perception of impermanence.'

6.47

Daosheng comments: Above it was said that cultivating impermanence can eliminate the perception of impermanence; 'perception' is another name for wisdom, which seems contradictory and should be clarified further. 'If he is free from' means that if one does not cultivate the perception of impermanence, there is no prajñā; since there is no prajñā, there is no vimokṣa—how could he enter nirvāṇa today? 'If he is not free from' means that seizing upon the marks of the past teaching as the perception of impermanence is an inversion; how could it be said to be abandoned together with arrogance and the rest?
Sengliang comments: This is an entreaty. For one who has attained the contemplation of principle, the object and wisdom are not separated. If the Tathāgata is permanent, he is free from the perception of impermanence; if he is free from the perception of impermanence, for the sake of beings he should not enter nirvāṇa. Since above there were words about 'for the sake of living beings', through this an entreaty can be made. 'If he is not free from' means: if the Buddha does not abide in the order of principle, naturally terminating the contemplation of impermanence, he will never be free from the Buddha's analogy of the syllable *i*, which would only increase delusions and inversions.
Fayao comments: Previously he praised the delightful teaching of the perception of impermanence as able to eliminate delusions such as the view of permanence in the three realms and the inverted perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha. Now next he praises this perception as also able to attain permanence. Why is this so? If the Tathāgata originally had not cultivated the perception of impermanence, he would not have known that impermanence lies in what is not the Buddha and permanence lies in the Buddha; how could he have cultivated unconfused impermanence and entered the syllable *i* nirvāṇa? This discusses present understanding, not the past. 'If he is not free from' refers to the past understanding: if one indeed cultivates the past perception of impermanence, this perception of impermanence will mistakenly extend to the Buddha; not only would one fail to recognize permanence, one would also not yet deeply recognize impermanence. How could it be able to eliminate the delusions of the three realms and the inverted perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha? The monks spoke these two lines on gain and loss, stating their own understanding and awakening to the purport of impermanence, completing the meaning of the 'delightful teaching' mentioned above.
Sengzong comments: The monks' intention is to say: 'I have not reached the ultimate; necessarily I must extinguish the body and only then escape suffering. Now exalting the Tathāgata as unlike me, since he is said to be permanently abiding, how could he wait to extinguish the body before it is called nirvāṇa?' 'If he is not free from' anticipates the Buddha's intention: if you say 'I too am not free from it', then you are improperly equated with me, and you should not say that cultivating the perception of impermanence is wrong.
Baoliang comments: These are words of entreaty. Grasping the line 'already free from impermanence' in the two verses on permanence and bliss in the preceding chapter, if one pursues these words, the Buddha is indeed free from the perception of impermanence. 'He should not enter nirvāṇa': this responsive body is the dharmakāya's unfree unconditioned. If it is indeed not free, how can he say 'I am permanently abiding'? 'If he is not free from': if the Buddha now indeed enters nirvāṇa, he has not yet been freed from the perception of impermanence; how can he say 'I am already free from impermanence'?
Zhizang comments: 'Free from' is another term for extinction. 'Perception' is another name for the wisdom of emptiness. The Buddha just said he wished to enter the three-dot nirvāṇa; if he extinguishes the wisdom of emptiness, there is no prajñā—how could there be a three-dot nirvāṇa to enter? 'If he is not free from' takes the Buddha's intention: if you say this wisdom is not extinguished, why did you formerly speak of extinguishing the perception of impermanence? Thus the wisdom of emptiness must inevitably be extinguished; where, then, are the three dots?

6.48

[The sūtra says:] 'World-Honoured One! Just as a farmer in the autumn months [...] among all perceptions, impermanence is the foremost.'

6.49

Tanji comments: This is making an entreaty by means of reproach. If the Buddha indeed enters nirvāṇa, one knows thereby that the perception of impermanence is superior.

6.50

[The sūtra says:] 'World-Honoured One! Just as a monarch, knowing that his life is about to end, [...] yet now you wish to abandon us and enter nirvāṇa.'

6.51

Sengliang comments: A monarch's benevolence extends to a single country, yet he still issues amnesties; the Buddha's benevolence extends to all, yet will he not take pity?
Fayao comments: Although they say the past was wrong and the present is right, it has not yet become functional in their minds; still bound by ignorance and not yet having attained liberation, they need the Buddha to instruct them.
Baoliang comments: This is the second section, the words of entreaty.

6.52

[The sūtra says:] 'World-Honoured One! Just as a person possessed by a ghost, [...] dharmas such as liberation are like the worldly syllable *i*.'

6.53

Sengliang states: An ordinary physician’s compassion is shallow, yet he still does not abandon the sick; how much less should the supreme physician transcending the world fail to save us? Fayao states: The preceding analogy clarified that they had not yet attained vimokṣa; this analogy clarifies that they have not yet attained prajñā. Sengzong states: Although the śrāvakas have severed coarse fetters, the subtle ones still remain. The Buddha is a skilled master of incantations; the previous analogy clarified afflictions as effects, while this analogy clarifies afflictions as causes.

6.54

[“World-Honoured One! It is like a fragrant elephant bound by humans…” up to: “…and then wish to abandon [us] and enter nirvāṇa.”]

6.55

Daosheng states: Bodhisattvas are like fragrant elephants, but śrāvakas are not yet so; how could you abandon [us]? Sengliang states: This attributes fault to the Buddha. It suggests that the Tathāgata’s compassion is equal, and he should not manifest his body solely for the śrāvakas, but also transform bodhisattvas in other regions. If so, compassion primarily relieves urgency. Since we cannot untie ourselves, our suffering is severe and therefore urgent; bodhisattvas are capable of untying themselves, so their suffering is light and not urgent. As for the 'fifty-seven', following the aforementioned fetters called craving, conceit, and ignorance: horizontally applied to the five activities they make fifteen; vertically applied across the three realms, they total forty-five. Impermanence is a view, and the four truths also run through the three realms; the four truths [across the three realms] make twelve, which together make fifty-seven. Fayao states: This analogy clarifies that they are not yet sovereign like the great dharmakāya. Sengzong states: The arhats have completely severed the afflictions, but it is not that there is no succession of habit energies (vāsanā); therefore it is said that fifty-seven still remain. Another explanation: Not taking the reflective wisdom of seeing and cutting [delusion], but taking the twelve by applying the four truths across the three realms. Wisdom being darkened by subtle delusion is itself ignorance, and is also called affliction. Baoliang states: They give rise to the three inversions concerning the Buddha: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. These three afflictions are cured by revealing the seeing of the unconditioned four truths; under each truth there are three, making twelve, which combined make forty-five. As for not taking 'emptiness' among the four inversions, emptiness is non-self and has no separate meaning. Impurity is fundamentally not a contemplation of principle, hence it is not taken here.

6.56

[“World-Honoured One! Like a person suffering from malaria who encounters a skilled physician…” up to: “…and then wish to abandon [us] and enter nirvāṇa.”]

6.57

Daosheng states: Even if they attain understanding according to the past teaching, they are still not clear about the other teachings. Sengliang states: This again attributes fault to the Buddha. If compassion must rescue the grave, and should leave the holy to attend to the ordinary, then ordinary persons cling to permanence, and so the Buddha should manifest extinction. If that is so, we have a half-[cured] illness, hence using malaria as an analogy, and the Buddha should save us. Fayao states: This analogy clarifies impermanent nirvāṇa. Although they have escaped fragmented [samsāric death], death by inconceivable transformation still remains; this is the half-day illness. Baoliang states: Malaria is a sickness of alternating cold and fever; it clarifies that our ninety-eight proclivities have not all been eliminated. Zhixiu states: The Buddha eliminated our coarse afflictions so that they do not arise on that day; yet the subtle roots still remain unremoved, like malaria that has not yet flared up.

6.58

[“World-Honoured One! It is like a drunkard who is unconscious and unaware…” up to: “…and then wish to abandon [us] and enter nirvāṇa.”]

6.59

Daosheng states: If one with partial understanding should still receive further teaching, how much more so one who is entirely without understanding? Sengliang states: This means the illness of the śrāvaka is completely identical to that of an ordinary person, not a half-day illness. Why? If one understands the impermanence of the three realms, one should not give rise to the notion of impermanence regarding the Buddha. To state that the Buddha is impermanent means one does not understand causes and conditions, and possesses the view of permanence regarding the three realms; in principle, this is identical to an ordinary person. Fayao states: This analogy clarifies why they have not yet attained the four meanings above: it is truly because when they were ordinary persons they were drunk on the five desires, their passions were heavy, and their faculties dull; therefore today they have only a faint understanding and are not yet sobered—how could you abandon them? Sengzong states: The preceding four analogies were analogies for the noble ones; this one applies commonly to both ordinary persons and noble ones. Zhiyong states: This analogy differs in its story from the previous malaria analogy, but the intent is the same; both use the unexhausted delusion as an illustration.

First 59 of 63 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese