大般涅槃經集解 63.3

63.3

Sengliang notes: In practicing the path together, there is transgression and non-transgression. The preceding 'Chapter on Siṃhanāda' distinguished non-transgression, while this chapter discusses transgression. Why is this? As for what the preceding chapter stated, although one possesses the buddhadhātu, one must cultivate goodness to bring it to completion; as for what this chapter states, although one possesses the buddhadhātu, those who sever goodness obstruct it. Thus we know that while both discuss the nature, there is the difference of transgression and non-transgression. Fayao says: The preceding chapter extensively explained that the buddhadhātu is not single: it is either cause or fruit, neither cause nor fruit; either cause or condition; either wholesome or unwholesome; or it is said to be the mind, or said not to be the mind; or it is said to be separate from the aggregates, or not so. Although the various explanations are not of a single track, the buddhadhātu is one; thus one must not cling one-sidedly to one dharma as correct and others as incorrect. Kāśyapa now cites the non-definitive teachings of forty-nine years, in which those who cling one-sidedly all miss the Buddha's intention. If clinging to the past was already mistaken, how could clinging to the present be correct? If anyone clings one-sidedly to what was stated above, none of them will grasp the Buddha's intention. The sūtra has explicit text stating that down to sentient beings bound by all fetters of affliction and the wholesome dharmas of the five aggregates, all are the buddhadhātu. It also says that the nature is neither internal nor external, both internal and external, neither existent nor non-existent, and both existent and non-existent; moreover, with respect to an icchantika or a person with roots of goodness, it elucidates the buddhadhātu through four alternatives. It further cites the seven persons in the Ganges River who are not apart from the water of the buddhadhātu, and also says that these seven persons, whether wholesome or unwholesome, whether on the path of expedients or the path of liberation, whether cause or fruit, are all the buddhadhātu. With the sūtra text being like this, how could one cling one-sidedly to a single dharma? If one does not examine and conclude what was discussed from beginning to end, but instead cites a single aspect of the buddhadhātu and takes it as definitive, regarding only the fruit as the buddhadhātu, one will, I fear, miss its intended meaning. The previous chapter explained that there are seven persons in the river of birth and death, showing that one does not naturally attain bodhi merely through the power of the buddhadhātu without cultivating the path, does one? Here it explains that there are seven kinds of persons in the river of nirvāṇa; the icchantika hears the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, and only then slanders it and does not believe, severing his roots of goodness. Yet the sound of nirvāṇa first secretly brings distant benefit, which is called entering the river of nirvāṇa; how much more so for the remaining six persons? Here it explains that although the seven persons differ, none of them is apart from the water of the buddhadhātu. Although both chapters explain the same thing, what they discuss differs substantially. Sengzong says: Above, in the thirty-fourth question regarding the nature of peace and bliss, Siṃhanāda initiated this discourse, but the principle revealed was still not fully clarified, so here it returns to complete the original question. Previously it explained that although an icchantika severs his roots of goodness, he still possesses the buddhadhātu; now, by way of Sunakkhatta, it extensively explains how an icchantika severs goodness and the cause of its rebirth. It explains that what is severed is active, produced goodness, and therefore the meaning of the primary cause is preserved. It explains the cause of its rebirth, and therefore the principle of the conditional cause is complete. Furthermore, viewing cause and fruit against each other, the Middle Way is detailed. The two sages complement each other and together reveal the wonderful principle; yet discerning the principle completely does not necessarily require an expansive text. Broadly speaking, the chapter has six sections: first, explaining the severing of the roots of goodness; second, discerning their rebirth; third, explaining the Middle Way; fourth, revealing the cultivation of the path; fifth, exhortation; sixth, praising the Buddha. Baoliang says: Siṃhanāda and Kāśyapa both discuss the buddhadhātu, but the broad difference in their main import is that Siṃhanāda speaks in terms of orderly progression in accord with principle, whereas Kāśyapa discusses it in terms of transgression. What Siṃhanāda stated speaks directly from cause to fruit, relying on principle to generate faith, and does not speak of the meaning of first severing the roots of goodness and later regenerating them. What Kāśyapa stated also speaks of sequential cultivation from cause; however, when one's practice is not yet established, one turns back, severs faithful mind, and becomes an icchantika, after which disgust is renewed, one is able to give rise to goodness, and one advances further toward attaining buddhahood. It is precisely this that constitutes the difference. Thus, although Siṃhanāda explained severing goodness, he had not yet clarified its rebirth. What Kāśyapa now discusses explains the meaning of its regenerating after having been severed. Broadly divided, there are nine sections: first, explaining the characteristics of severing the roots of goodness; second, explaining why goodness is severed, which is truly because the capacities and natures of sentient beings are indeterminate; third, discerning disputes, which arise because differing capacities and natures evoke distinct teachings, leading people to cling mutually to their views and deviate from the Middle Way; fourth, extensively explaining the fault of giving rise to wrong views through attachment, precisely because their indeterminate capacities and natures do not fathom the Buddha's teaching, and each follows their own attachments to slander and miss the intended meaning; fifth, explaining that later they all extricate themselves and regain the roots of goodness; sixth, explaining that they equally attain the permanent fruit; seventh, explaining the difference, in that birth and death take the three outflows as their cause and thus evoke impermanent retribution, while the fruit of buddhahood is assisted by true understanding, exhausting the outflows so that its substance is permanent; eighth, praising the sūtra; ninth, praising the Buddha. Daohui's private record states: What Siṃhanāda asked concerned matters at the Twin Śāla Trees. What Kāśyapa asked concerned matters since the attainment of the path. Classifying the beginning and the end establishes their difference. Moreover, this chapter elucidates the nature in terms of persons, while the preceding chapter elucidated the nature in terms of dharmas. Zhixiu says: Broadly divided, this chapter has six sections: first, explaining that the roots of goodness are severed while the buddhadhātu is not severed; second, explaining the rebirth of the roots of goodness; third, explaining the Middle Way of neither internal nor external, neither existent nor non-existent; fourth, explaining non-dispute; fifth, explaining pure conduct; sixth, praising the Buddha.