大般涅槃經集解 60
English (machine translation) 60
- Language
- English
60.1
Still explaining śamatha and vipaśyanā; discerning the meaning of severing afflictions and revealing the two kinds of cessation, namely essential cessation and ultimate cessation; correlating the three empty samādhis with the marks of samādhi, prajñā, and upekṣā; clarifying the accomplishment of ten dharmas to see the signless nirvāṇa; discerning giving to beasts yielding a hundredfold retribution and giving to an icchantika yielding a thousandfold retribution; extensively discerning light and heavy karma, determinate and indeterminate karma, and determinate retribution with indeterminate timing; extensively discerning the bodhisattva's lack of karma in the three miserable paths while visibly receiving retribution; presenting the causal origins of Devadatta and the Buddha acting as merchant leaders; presenting the causal origins of King Kalābu executing the brāhmaṇa; explaining how the power of cultivating the Way transforms heavy karma into light karma.
60.2
Chapter on the Lion's Roar, Part Seven
60.3
Siṃhanāda said: 'World-Honoured One! As it says in the sūtras [...] why must one further cultivate śamatha?'
60.4
Sengliang comments: At the end of the previous chapter, prajñā was able to destroy defilements; now it is shown that it is not merely the function of prajñā, but requires the combined use of the three dharmas, which is why samādhi is spoken of first. Baoliang comments: This is the ninth [section on] cultivating the Way, clarifying that samādhi and prajñā support each other. Having previously presented the person able to cultivate the Way, next the combined functioning of samādhi and prajñā is discerned, hence the initial question. If wisdom can cure delusion, why must one cultivate samādhi? Ordinary people think that wisdom can sever delusion, considering afflictions to be like substantial forms that are eradicated by wisdom. The Buddha now explains the meaning of non-severance within five approaches; without cultivating samādhi, one will not attain this insight. The five approaches are: first, in terms of real dharmas; second, in terms of the gateway of emptiness; third, in terms of contact and non-contact; fourth, clarifying accompaniment and non-accompaniment; fifth, investigating cessation by intrinsic nature. Examining within these five approaches, in none of them is there any meaning of destruction.
60.5
The Buddha said: 'Good man! As for what you say, that vipaśyanā [...] light being able to destroy darkness is impossible.'
60.6
Sengliang comments: Being able to know that all dharmas arise of themselves and cease of themselves, prajñā cannot destroy them; this cannot be seen without a concentrated mind. Baoliang comments: In the first approach, when wisdom arises, it is transformed by the three marks and ceases of its own substance. In the way of real dharmas, what destroyer and what destroyed could there be?
60.7
'Good man! Who possesses wisdom, and who possesses afflictions? [...] If there is none, there is nothing destroyed.'
60.8
Sengliang comments: The second approach discerns destroying and not destroying. Because there is no owner, it is empty. Baoliang comments: In the second approach, substance and nature are both empty, so there is no destroyer.
60.9
'Good man! If one says that wisdom can destroy afflictions [...] yet being able to destroy them—this meaning is not correct.'
60.10
Sengliang comments: The third approach concerns existence and non-existence. When wisdom arises, it exists, which is called 'contact'; when it does not arise, it does not exist, which is 'non-contact'. 'The first thought should destroy them' means that a single thought would destroy all defilements; if so, then without contact—just as light and darkness are opposed, when light arises darkness has already passed away, and light does not reach darkness—then without contact one would be the same as an ordinary person. Baoliang comments: The third approach concerns the flow of speech. It seems as though it destroys when wisdom reaches the afflictions and does not destroy when it does not reach them, but the conceptual meaning is not so. As for the claim of being able to destroy: does it destroy when wisdom reaches the practitioner's mind, or does it destroy before reaching it? If it destroys before reaching, then ordinary people should destroy [them]. If it destroys because of reaching, then the very first thought should destroy them. But now the practitioner has immeasurable thoughts; if the first thought does not destroy, then subsequent thoughts are not needed. If it indeed destroys upon first contact, then this is non-contact. Wisdom arises and ceases thought after thought, never reaching each other at first—what meaning of contact or non-contact could there be? If one says that combining contact and non-contact enables destruction, there is also no such meaning.
60.11
'Furthermore, as for vipaśyanā destroying afflictions [...] vipaśyanā is also like this.'
60.12
Sengliang comments: The fourth approach clarifies accompaniment and non-accompaniment. Baoliang comments: The fourth approach discerns whether, among the eightfold noble path, a single path-factor can destroy, or whether they can destroy because of functioning together. If one can destroy, then there is no need to cultivate all eight; if one cannot, then eight also cannot. He then raises the metaphor of the blind to illuminate this.
60.13
'Good man! Just as the solid nature of earth, the hot nature of fire [...] it definitely cannot destroy the afflictions.'
60.14
Sengliang comments: The fifth approach discerns cessation and non-cessation. Since the nature of afflictions is cessation, wisdom cannot extinguish them; if their nature is not cessation, wisdom also cannot extinguish them. He first uses the five great elements as a metaphor; making others solid would also be like this. Baoliang comments: In the fifth approach, this is opened into three meanings to clarify that there is also no meaning of severance. First, the four great elements are used as an analogy: each abides in its own nature, so who makes them so? The next meaning states: if one says that just as salt is salty by nature and forces other things to become salty, wisdom forces afflictions to cease, this is also not so. The final meaning states: both afflictions and wisdom cease thought after thought, and to say that wisdom can sever them is also not so.
60.15
'Good man! Just as the nature of salt is salty and makes other things salty [...] the nature of wisdom does not destroy afflictions.'
60.16
Sengliang comments: This clarifies that because the nature of defilements is not cessation, wisdom cannot extinguish them. If one takes saltiness being able to make the bland salty as a metaphor for wisdom being able to extinguish defilements, this meaning is not so. Why? Saltiness and blandness do not coexist. When saltiness arises, blandness has already passed away. The past ceases of itself, not extinguished by saltiness. If dharmas have no cessation, how could wisdom forcibly make them cease? If the cessation of past dharmas were not self-cessation, how could it be forced? How can one say it extinguishes delusion? As for 'other dharmas', this is raised by an opponent to resolve the objection about forcing above. They claim that because the power of the light of wisdom is strong and the nature of the darkness of delusion is weak, wisdom can extinguish delusion; but this is also not so. Why? Both dharmas cease as soon as they arise; in arising and perishing, how could strength and weakness extinguish another?
60.17
'Good man! All dharmas have two kinds of cessation [...] arising is different and cessation is different, without any maker.'
60.18
Sengliang states: That things can forcefully make another thing cease is an untenable principle; it is adduced and refuted. Thought after thought is like water: having ceased, it continues to arise; this is the aforementioned cessation in its own nature. It is like fire burning firewood: it does not continue any further; this is ultimate cessation. Where it is said that 'there should still be remaining embers': form is not a conscious understanding, and without waiting upon provisional means it ought to arise naturally of itself; this is an existent. Because the condition of fire forcefully displaces it, remaining embers persist, so one could speak of a forceful cessation; the mind, however, awaits provisional means, and the future has not yet existed, so it is not a forceful cessation. Baoliang states: The preceding five gates expounded the Dharma to make clear that there is nothing to be severed. Now, proceeding downward from cessation in its own nature and ultimate cessation, the marks of dharmas are determined. Afflictions also cease as soon as they arise, without depending on the path of antidotes; hence it is called 'cessation in its own nature.' 'Ultimate cessation' is phrased in terms of attaining understanding. From the moment a single thought of delusion arises, one fails to recognize anything across myriad sensory realms. If one cultivates the path and attains understanding, one is completely illuminated regarding all myriad sensory realms, and the functioning of delusion never arises again; this is called ultimate cessation. Now, when the path arises, there are also no afflictions to be severed. If one understands that it is non-severance yet severance, this is called the correct meaning. Originally, when there was no understanding, one was constantly deluded. If in a single instant clarity arises and one is thoroughly cognizant of sensory objects, only with the second movement onward does one receive the designation of 'severance.' In the preceding single thought nothing was yet configured, so it could not obtain that name. When it reaches the second thought onward, one says, 'What was previously delusion is now understanding; what was originally unsevered is now severed.'
60.19
"Good son! If one cultivates and gathers concentration […] up to anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
60.20
Sengliang states: Because the mind does not instruct wisdom, one comes to see the utility of the concentration on emptiness. 'Being able to bring about great benefit' refers to the benefit of severing afflictions. Baoliang states: This encourages practitioners. If one does not cultivate concentration, one will not obtain correct knowledge and correct view, nor will one comprehend the meaning of refutation and non-refutation in the preceding five gates.
60.21
"Good son! A bodhisattva-mahāsattva who is complete […] so too are the bodhisattva's concentration and wisdom."
60.22
Sengliang states: The third is the application of equanimity (upekṣā). Equanimity has no separate dharma as its substance. 'Grasping too tightly will snap it': with grass, if one is slack it slips away, and if tight it snaps. Exclusively focusing on emptiness and clinging to severance is an analogy for an excess of concentration. Abandoning emptiness and clinging to existence is an analogy for a deficiency of wisdom. Being neither empty regarding emptiness nor existent regarding existence is the application of the equanimity in which concentration and wisdom are equal. Baoliang states: From here downward, the text properly explains the intention behind the mutual support and combined application of concentration and wisdom.
60.23
"Good son! Just as a master artisan puts gold into a crucible […] cultivating these two dharmas can bring about great benefit."
60.24
Sengliang states: The crucible is an analogy for concentration, and the stirring is an analogy for wisdom.
60.25
"Good son! A bodhisattva-mahāsattva […] this is called the bliss of mahānirvāṇa."
60.26
Sengliang states: Above, the severing of fetters was explained; below, it explains that all virtues are accomplished through these three dharmas.
60.27
"Good son! The mark of concentration is called the emptiness samādhi […] this is called a bodhisattva practicing the path to bodhi."
60.28
Sengliang states: With marks is the contemplation of saṃsāra; without marks is the contemplation of nirvāṇa.
60.29
Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One! How does a bodhisattva know the proper time and the improper time?"
60.30
Sengliang states: About to explain the meaning of the proper time and the improper time mentioned above, he asks.
60.31
"Good son! A bodhisattva-mahāsattva […] this is called a bodhisattva knowing the proper time and the improper time."
60.32
Sengliang states: That 'it is not suitable to cultivate wisdom' means that if wisdom increases excessively, conceit will become severe.
60.33
"If there is a bodhisattva who diligently cultivates and accumulates […] this is called a bodhisattva knowing the proper time and the improper time."
60.34
Sengliang states: That 'it is not suitable to cultivate concentration' means that this person's faculties are dull, the power of his afflictions is rampant, and he doubts himself concerning transgressing precepts; these all stem from attachment to concentration, which is why it is suitable to cultivate emptiness and wisdom.
60.35
"Good son! If there is a bodhisattva in whom the two dharmas of concentration and wisdom […] through these causes and conditions he attains the mark of nirvāṇa."
60.36
Sengliang states: Although the two dharmas are equal, if afflictions stir and arise, one should further cultivate both, and only after being able to suppress the afflictions should one practice equanimity.
60.37
Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One! Because it is devoid of the ten marks […] he will immediately see the buddhadhātu clearly."
60.38
Sengliang states: For the sake of beginners, he further inquires about the ten-odd names of nirvāṇa, revealing the benefits of the signless so as to cause beginners to cultivate and believe in it. Baoliang states: From here downward is the tenth passage on cultivating the path, which broadens cause and effect to conclude the section. If one is complete in these ten dharmas, one will be able to see the buddhadhātu and attain signless nirvāṇa.
60.39
Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One! A bodhisattva-mahāsattva […] this is called a bodhisattva being complete in faith."
60.40
Sengliang states: Regarding 'being complete in faith': faith is the beginning of practice, which is why it stands at the head of the ten dharmas.
60.41
"Second, being complete in precepts. What is called […] then he will be able to clearly see signless nirvāṇa."
60.42
Sengliang states: This explains the complete endowment with the ten practices. That which can be severed refers to saṃsāra; that which cannot be severed is nirvāṇa. That which arises from conditions is the conditioned (saṃskṛta); that which is seen from conditions is the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). The results are also likewise.
60.43
Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One! As the Buddha previously told […] samyak-saṃbodhi, what is the meaning of this?"
60.44
Sengliang states: The fifth is the gate of transforming obstacles. Cultivating the path to transform karma is explained next after the path. Cunda's experiencing of retribution has no end in sight; how can he attain samyak-saṃbodhi? Sengzong states: The preceding discussion on bondage, liberation, and cultivating the path established the objection regarding [the result] already existing in the cause. Now, transforming obstacles and encouraging cultivation establishes the preceding seven attachments regarding the absence of the nature. The reason is that it states that down to beasts and up to all Buddhas, all are fields of merit, and if one gives to them, the reward of merit is inexhaustible. Is this not because there is no [Buddha-]nature in the cause, so that one remains forever in the three realms of existence? Within [the topic of] transforming obstacles there are five textual sections: First, it clarifies the substance of transforming the obstacles of good and bad karma. Second, it clarifies that a bodhisattva is born in the hells by the power of vows, not by actual birth, setting this apart. Third, it restores the correct substance of karma: above it was said that karma can be transformed, and people might think karmic retribution is chaotic and confused, so it further discriminates whether, although there is transformation, the principle of karmic retribution could fail to be apparent. Fourth, it clarifies that although transformation was spoken of above, it now identifies the person [who can transform it]. Fifth, it clarifies by what practice a person can transform it: clarifying that through such practice one transforms it, which identifies the practice of transforming karma. Baoliang states: About to clarify that karma is indeterminate, he first adduces the past teaching of determinate karma to formulate an objection; it is not only bad karma that obstructs the path, but good karma can also obstruct it. As taught in the past: if one creates karma with a heavy mind, one must definitely experience the retribution. If so, Cunda now gives to the Buddha with a heavy mind and will experience inexhaustible retribution among humans and devas; when will he ever enter the rank of the sages?
60.45
"World-Honoured One! Just as in the Buddha's sūtras: 'If one gives to a beast […] anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'"
60.46
Sengliang states: This clarifies that the retribution from an eminent field [of merit] cannot be exhausted, which is an obstacle of karma. Sengzong states: Giving to beasts is raising the partial teaching to formulate an objection. Giving to an icchantika takes their human category. Reaching down to beasts and up to all Buddhas, good and evil are alike in that their retributions are inexhaustible; none of this clarifies the principle of transformation, which is why this is drawn upon to formulate an objection. According to the past teaching, when the World-Honoured One received Cunda's offering, [Cunda] obtained measureless retribution; when would there ever be a time to see the buddhadhātu and attain Buddhahood?
60.47
"World-Honoured One! The sūtra also states: 'If a person with a heavy mind […] how can he again come to see the buddhadhātu?'"
60.48
Sengzong states: The second objection. Because the mind is heavy, the fruit should be inexhaustible.
60.49
"World-Honoured One! The sūtra also states: 'Giving to three kinds of people […] second, parents; third, the Tathāgata.'"
60.50
Sengzong states: Third, adducing the three kinds of sick people evokes the gravity of loving-kindness and compassion. Parents are of heavy [merit] on the side of their kindness in nurturing; the Tathāgata is the most supreme among the four [fields of merit]; giving to these three brings equal merit. This is cited as proof.
60.51
"World-Honoured One! The sūtra also states that the Buddha told Ānanda […] karma of the form and formless realms is also likewise."
60.52
Sengzong states: Fourth, adducing an established teaching of the past. If one devoid of the three karmas will certainly attain bodhi, then since sentient beings have never been without these karmas, they will incur unending retribution; when will they ever attain bodhi?
60.53
"World-Honoured One! As stated in the verse of the Dharmapada: 'Neither in the sky nor in the sea […] can one escape and not receive [the retribution of] karma.'"
60.54
Sengzong states: Fifth, adducing that retribution is certain and unavoidable.
60.55
"Furthermore, Aniruddha said: 'World-Honoured One […] fully accomplished the dāna-pāramitā.'"
60.56
Sengzong states: Sixth, adducing that the gift of a single meal still obtained a reward for eighty thousand kalpas, using the shallow to illustrate the profound.
60.57
"World-Honoured One! If the reward of good karma cannot be exhausted […] anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
60.58
Sengliang states: This clarifies the supremacy of the mind. Sengzong states: Seventh, comparing good karma to unwholesome karma: if even an icchantika experiences unending retribution, then there is no buddhadhātu.
60.59
The Buddha said: "Excellent, excellent, good son! […] among the ten powers of a Buddha, the power of karma is the most profound."
60.60
Sengliang states: Karma has long since ceased, yet the fruit arises later; this principle is difficult to perceive and easily gives rise to doubts and slander, hence it is said to be [pondered with] a profound mind. Sengzong states: About to answer what was asked, he therefore first offers praise.
60.61
"Good son! There are sentient beings […] for the sake of delivering them, such a teaching was given."
60.62
Sengliang states: This opens the gate of the past determinate teaching. Sengzong states: The past teaching that heavy retributions cannot be altered was a determinate teaching given because people lacked faith. If one thoroughly investigates the principle, it is not like that. It is not that karma fails to obtain a fruit, but rather that there are other conditions that release one from its former fruit; hence it is said that it can be transformed. Baoliang states: Originally, it was spoken for the lowest fools who lack wisdom. Because sentient beings within it did not believe in obtaining fruits, it was proclaimed to be determinate.
60.63
"Good son! All created karma has light and heavy […] first, determinate; second, indeterminate."
60.64
Sengliang states: Opening the present gate of indeterminacy means that all is indeterminate. Baoliang states: From here downward, three gates are initially opened: first, distinguishing indeterminacy; second, identifying the foolish and the wise; third, identifying the practices performed by the two persons.
60.65
"Good son! Or there are people who say that bad karma has no fruit […] of all created karma, none fails to yield a fruit."
60.66
Sengliang states: This explains the gate of the past determinate teaching.
60.67
"Good son! There is heavy karma that can be made light […] although not determinately obtained, it is also not unobtained."
60.68
Sengliang states: From 'created karma has light and heavy,' this is the first turn, making clear that karma is entirely indeterminate.
60.69
"Good son! Of all sentient beings, there are in general two kinds […] in the present life; light karma is experienced heavily in hell."
60.70
Sengliang states: This explains the gate of indeterminacy. That there are only the foolish and the wise explains that the reason it is indeterminate depends on the person. That heavy evil is experienced lightly does not mean it is not experienced at all. Sengzong states: This directly explains the meaning of transformation. It says that when a foolish person creates karma, he ought to receive only light suffering, but because he does not know shame or the way to cultivate good, his sinful obstacles increase day and night, turning this light retribution into a heavy experience in hell. If it is a wise person who previously created evil and planted the power of this karma, which would incur both the three evil paths and light suffering: because he has the conditions of cultivating the body, precepts, mind, and wisdom, he ultimately does not experience the retribution of heavy suffering, but only suffers such pain as headaches; hence its meaning is proclaimed as 'transformation.' Baoliang states: This is the second, identifying the two persons, the foolish and the wise.
60.71
Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One! If that is the case […] pure holy conduct (brahmacarya) and the fruit of liberation."
60.72
Sengliang states: The objection's intent is: if it is determinately experienced, one can cultivate holy conduct; in seeking liberation from the indeterminate, what use is seeking to leave it behind? Sengzong states: Since karma is indeterminate, it will inevitably transform evil and give rise to good. Baoliang states: From here downward is the third, identifying the practices performed by the two persons, the foolish and the wise. Intending to elucidate the principle, Siṃhanāda therefore first poses this objection, saying: If it is necessarily indeterminate, then one will naturally depart from it; what use is cultivating the path?
60.73
The Buddha said: "Good son! If all karma […] then one cultivates holy conduct and the fruit of liberation."
60.74
Sengliang states: "The meaning of the answer is that if it were fixed, how could one be liberated? It is because conditions are not fixed. Therefore, one must cultivate pure conduct in order to seek liberation." Sengzong states: "Precisely because the characteristics of dharmas are not fixed, cultivation is possible and there is the principle of transformation. If it were strictly fixed and unalterable, those who are evil should always remain evil, and even karma performed for a brief time should only be experienced for a brief time."
60.75
"Good son! If one can distance oneself from all bad karma […] how could there be the cultivation of the path and nirvāṇa?"
60.76
Sengliang states: "He brings up the various karmas again, meaning that if they were fixed, then there would be such faults." Baoliang states: "Precisely because it is not fixed, one must cultivate the path. If it were definitely fixed, what benefit would cultivating the path have?"
60.77
"Good son! There are two kinds of karma: fixed and unfixed."
60.78
Sengliang states: "From here down, he elaborates on the previous three headings, and later again brings up the two kinds of people—the foolish and the wise—as a concluding summary, combining the earlier and later parts into seven headings in total."
60.79
"Fixed karma is of two kinds: first, retribution is fixed; second, time is fixed […] namely, experienced in the present life, experienced in the next life, or experienced in subsequent lives."
60.80
Sengliang states: "This explains the fixed and unfixed karmas mentioned above. The Upāsaka-śīla Sūtra explains that karma has four varieties: first, retribution is fixed and time is fixed; second, retribution is fixed and time is unfixed; third, time is fixed and retribution is unfixed; fourth, time is unfixed and retribution is unfixed. Here, he speaks of two kinds because he combines the first two where retribution is fixed into one." Sengzong states: "He previously clarified that there is transformation; now he elaborates on fixed retribution and fixed time to make clear the principle of transformability. Speaking of the principle of retribution, it does not go beyond fixed time and fixed retribution. If both time and retribution are fixed, this category is the heaviest. If retribution is fixed but time is unfixed, this is the second. If time is fixed but retribution is unfixed, this is the third. If both retribution and time are unfixed, this is the fourth." Baoliang states: "From here down through the karmas of the three retributions, all serve to prove the initial first heading that the nature of karma is not fixed. Volitional karma is of two kinds: fixed and unfixed. Now he sets out four alternatives to clarify the substance of karma. First, time is fixed and retribution is unfixed: when this person performs karma, regardless of whether it is light or heavy, it is performed with a fiercely resolute mind. After the karma is accomplished, they further apply themselves and make a resolute vow to reinforce this karma; this is called 'fixed karma.' If this time passes, it will never be experienced again. As for 'retribution is fixed and time is unfixed': when this person performs karma, their mind is extremely earnest, but not necessarily definitive, and furthermore they have no resolute vow; therefore it is experienced either in the present life, the next life, or subsequent lives. As for 'both are unfixed': at the time of action it was not grave, nor was it definitive. As for 'both are fixed': it is the opposite of the above."
60.81
"Good son! If with a resolute mind one performs good or bad […] making offerings to the Three Jewels—these are called fixed karma."
60.82
Sengliang states: "This explains fixed karma." Baoliang states: "Among these four alternatives, the first, second, and fourth are all fixed for the foolish person. For the wise person, all four alternatives are unfixed. Because the foolish person lacks [cultivation of] body, precepts, mind, and wisdom, they all become fixed retributions."
60.83
"Good son! The wise person's roots of goodness are deeply planted and hard to shake […] all karmas are not called fixed."
60.84
Sengliang states: "This explains unfixed karma."
60.85
"A bodhisattva-mahāsattva has no hell karma […] it is not experiencing this bad karma in the present life, next life, or subsequent lives."
60.86
Sengliang states: "Having already severed fixed karma and unfixed karma, they willingly undergo unfixed karma through vows, which proves that all karma is unfixed. 'Causing the hells to become empty' explains the benefit of being born there." Baoliang states: "Because the wise person possesses these four virtues, all are unfixed. Therefore the bodhisattva constantly remains in the hells to awaken sentient beings. If their karma were fixed, how could they cause beings to leave suffering, ascend to the human and heavenly realms, and advance in virtue?"
60.87
"Furthermore, good son! In this Bhadrakalpa […] it is not experiencing this bad karma in the present life, next life, or subsequent lives."
60.88
Sengliang states: "Previously he spoke of having no hell karma; here he speaks of having no karma yet undergoing it in the present." Baoliang states: "He clarifies that the bodhisattvas take manifest birth among them to prove the unfixed nature of karma."
60.89
"Furthermore, good son! In this Bhadrakalpa […] it is not experiencing this bad karma in the present life, next life, or subsequent lives."
60.90
Sengliang states: "Next he explains that having no hungry ghost karma, they likewise undergo it in the present."
60.91
"Good son! In the Bhadrakalpa I was born into a family of butchers […] it is not experiencing this bad karma in the present life, next life, or subsequent lives."
60.92
Sengliang states: "Next he explains that having none of the sixteen bad vows of restraint, they likewise undergo it in the present."
60.93
"Good son! In this Bhadrakalpa I was also born in borderlands […] it is not experiencing this bad karma in the present life, next life, or subsequent lives."
60.94
Sengliang states: "Next he explains having no retribution obstacles such as the eight difficulties."
60.95
"Good son! I recall in the past […] this is called a bodhisattva-mahāsattva's explanation of present-life retribution."
60.96
Sengliang states: "He merely sets out in detail the past karmic circumstances concerning Devadatta."
60.97
"Good son! I recall in the past […] this is called a bodhisattva-mahāsattva's explanation of present-life retribution."
60.98
Sengliang states: "He again adduces karmic circumstances in detail to re-confirm that for a long time there has been none."
60.99
"Good son! If good karma has next-life retribution or subsequent-life retribution […] all karmas are completely experienced as present retribution."
60.100
Sengliang states: "Earlier he explained present retribution; now he adduces that next-life and subsequent-life retribution are also like this: they are all willingly undergone in the present through the power of loving-kindness and vows."
60.101
"Unwholesome bad karma receiving present retribution […] this is called bad karma receiving fruit and retribution in the present."
60.102
Sengliang states: "Earlier he explained willingly undergoing it through good karma; now he explains undergoing it through bad karma."
60.103
"Retribution in the next life is, for instance, an icchantika who violates the four grave prohibitions and commits the five heinous sins."
60.104
Sengliang states: "These three categories of people are all heavy; hence their retribution is in the next life. Only humans can generate this karma; but because the human body is small and undergoes little suffering, it cannot be experienced in the present life."
60.105
"Retribution in subsequent lives is, for instance, a keeper of precepts who deeply makes vows […] a wheel-turning sage king transforming sentient beings."
60.106
Sengliang states: "For the bodily retribution of pure precepts, one attains a body of pure precepts and [the status of] a wheel-turning king. This cannot be amassed within a single lifetime, so it is experienced as retribution in subsequent lives."
60.107
"Good son! If karma is definitely to receive retribution in the present life […] one without a store of goodness experiences light karma heavily."
60.108
Sengliang states: "Karma of present retribution is light and cannot reach subsequent lives. Karma of subsequent-life retribution is heavy, so its primary retribution is in the present life and the next life." Baoliang states: "There are twelve similes in all, which elaborate on the matters of the two types of persons—foolish and wise—from the second heading above. They are intended to reveal the understanding of the wise and the delusion of the foolish; how could one not take heed?"
60.109
Collected Commentaries on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Fascicle 60
Linked texts (1)
- 大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese