大般涅槃經集解 65
English (machine translation) 65
- Language
- English
65.1
Sixth: Explaining whether the twelve links of dependent origination are conditioned (saṃskṛta) or unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). Seventh: Explaining whether the mind is said to be permanent or impermanent. Eighth: Explaining whether the pleasures of the five desires obstruct the path or do not obstruct the path. Ninth: Explaining whether the warmth, summit, patience, and supreme worldly dharmas are in the desire realm or in the three realms. Tenth: Explaining whether giving resides solely in mental karma or in the five aggregates. Eleventh: Explaining whether there are three unconditioned dharmas or no three unconditioned dharmas. Twelfth: Explaining whether there is derived form (bhautikarūpa) or no derived form. Thirteenth: Explaining whether there is non-informative form (avijñaptirūpa) or no non-informative form. Fourteenth: Explaining whether there are mental associates (caitta) or no mental associates. Fifteenth: Explaining whether there are twenty-five states of existence or five, six, seven, or eight states of existence. Sixteenth: Explaining the meaning of a partial upāsaka. Seventeenth: Explaining whether committing a grave offense loses the precepts or does not lose them. Eighteenth: Explaining whether people of the four fruits attain Buddhahood or do not attain it. Nineteenth: Explaining whether the buddhadhātu exists within sentient beings or apart from sentient beings. Twentieth: Explaining whether there are Buddhas of the ten directions or no Buddhas of the ten directions.
65.2
Chapter on Kāśyapa, Part Three
65.3
"Good son! In my sūtras, I have explained: What is meant by..." up to "... the twelve links of dependent origination are definitively conditioned (saṃskṛta)."
65.4
Sengliang comments: What is saṃskṛta is impermanent; what is asaṃskṛta is permanent. There are two kinds [of impermanence]: first, impermanence by annihilation, which is not of the category of sentient beings; second, non-annihilating impermanence, which is the twelve links of dependent origination. Permanence also has two kinds: the permanence of arising and ceasing, which is the twelve links; and the permanence of non-arising and non-ceasing, which is nirvāṇa. Thus the twelve links of dependent origination are both permanent and impermanent. Yet the confused, hearing of the arising and ceasing of dependent origination, immediately equate it with the extinction of grass and trees; hearing of non-arising and non-ceasing, they think it shares a single characteristic with nirvāṇa, and thus they give rise to dispute. Sengzong says: This is the sixth disputed thesis. In terms of the correct doctrine, the twelve causes and effects arise mutually, coming to an end only upon reaching Buddhahood. Now, the error of clinging to them as saṃskṛta is that from birth to old age and death, they are thought to be severed without continuity, which contradicts succession; saying they are asaṃskṛta means they are thought to have no severance whatsoever. Baoliang says: The twelve links of dependent origination are indeed conditioned. That they are called conditioned and thereby cause dispute is because people do not take them to be the conditioned process of cause and effect in mutual succession; they think each individual entity is annihilated on its own without any characteristics of cause and effect.
65.5
"Furthermore, at one time I addressed the monks..." up to "... whether there are Buddhas or no Buddhas, their nature and characteristics permanently abide."
65.6
Sengliang comments: Because their succession does not vary, they are called permanent.
65.7
"Good son! There are twelve links that do not arise from conditions..." up to "... say that the twelve links are definitively unconditioned (asaṃskṛta)."
65.8
Sengliang comments: Although four propositions are cited, only the first proposition is taken to explain the origin of confusion. That which 'does not arise from conditions' has not yet combined with conditions. That which 'arises from conditions yet is not the twelve links' does not possess all twelve, hence it is said to be 'not'. Baoliang says: The second proposition states that there are twelve links not born from conditions, referring to the twelve branches of future lives; because the future has not yet arisen, it is said they are not born from conditions. But the confused think they are permanent and therefore not born from conditions. This originally spoke on the basis of past teachings. However, each adherent is biased: one says they are saṃskṛta without succession, and the other contradicts this; hence they dispute.
65.9
"Good son! In my sūtras, I have explained that for all sentient beings..." up to "... proclaim that the Tathāgata stated the mind is definitively permanent."
65.10
Sengliang comments: Because form has divergent characteristics, it is said to decay; because the mind has no divergent characteristics, it is said to be permanent. The confused, hearing that form decays while the mind is permanent, immediately assume that the mind does not arise and cease, traveling from the lower to the higher [realms]. Sengzong says: This is the seventh disputed thesis. In terms of the correct doctrine, according to real dharmas, the preceding ceases and the succeeding is born; according to conventional designations, beginning and end are one. The confused, hearing it said that the mind proceeds upward, do not understand succession; they claim that this mind is permanent and unceasing, proceeding upward to receive rebirth.
65.11
"Good son! At one time, for the sake of Bimbisāra..." up to "... proclaim that the Tathāgata stated the mind is definitively severed."
65.12
Sengliang comments: Hearing that the five aggregates all decay, they immediately assume that the mind is also like form, possessing differences of large, small, long, and short. Sengzong says: Hearing it taught that it is impermanent, they think that upon relinquishing this aggregate body, the mind is also severed and destroyed, no longer continuing. Baoliang says: Stating that it is permanent means it never ceases; stating that it is severed means it suddenly lacks continuity; this is why dispute arises.
65.13
"Good son! In my sūtras, I have explained that my disciples..." up to "... say that indulging in the five desires definitively obstructs the correct path."
65.14
Sengliang comments: Non-Buddhists take the cessation of external matters as the path, hence they lie on ashes and eat chaff. The Buddha's Dharma is not like this. Yet the confused, hearing that being amidst desires is not an obstruction, think that the presence of desire in the mind also does not obstruct the path; hearing that the desirous mind is an obstruction, they immediately assume that external objects such as incense and flowers can also obstruct the path; thus disputes arise.
65.15
"Good son! In my sūtras, I have explained that being far removed from defilements..." up to "... say that the supreme worldly dharma is in the formless realm."
65.16
Sengliang comments: This speaks of the fruit of arhatship. It has nowhere to abide in the desire realm, being an arhat. The absorptions of the three realms can all cultivate the supreme worldly dharma and enter the path of seeing the truths, with the sole exception of the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The lower three can all be done in the desire realm; the Buddha taught differently according to circumstances, but the confused each take what they heard, clinging one-sidedly and generating disputes. When cultivating the supreme worldly dharma, being able to suppress the fetters of views is called 'far removed'; not yet having seen the four truths and not yet having definitively severed them, one has not yet attained liberation, residing in the first dhyāna. As for 'up to the fourth dhyāna', the desire realm has little concentration and much wisdom, the formless realm has much concentration and little wisdom, and the form realm has equal concentration and wisdom and is easy to apply; therefore its easy stages are taught. The confused then assume that neither the higher nor the lower realms are capable. As for 'attaining the fruit of anāgāmin', this sūtra has no doctrine of skipping stages. For those who attain the third fruit, the lower fetters of the three formless stages are already suppressed and severed; when seeing the true truth, their undefiled contemplation is sharp, and although passing through the first fruit, they never abide there. Here it merely states where they abide. Sengzong says: This is the ninth disputed thesis. In terms of the correct doctrine, both the desire-realm mind and the four dhyāna minds can all make the contemplation of the supreme worldly dharma. It can also occur in the three formless absorptions, but the minds in those stages are difficult to employ; therefore, practitioners do not follow the difficult but mostly take the easy. Every single stage merely suppresses the fetters; at that time one has not yet attained true undefiledness. If one is of sharp faculties, while one's body is in the desire realm, one can fully anticipate the minds of higher stages and suppress the fetters of higher stages. Those of dull faculties cannot necessarily do so; they must take birth sequentially. For the sake of the sharp-rooted, it is taught that the supreme worldly dharma is in the desire realm. Failing to understand the Buddha's intention, they claim it is solely in the desire realm and that one cannot use the mind of the dhyāna stages. If they hear it taught that the four dhyānas perform the contemplation of the four dharmas, taking it to be from the fundamental stage mind, they claim that one definitely cannot use the desire realm; contradicting the middle path, disputes arise. Baoliang says: Speaking from principle, when the minds of the three realms are exhausted, one is able to perform the supreme worldly dharma. There are those who have not yet attained the eight dhyānas, but only the lightning-like concentration of the desire realm, and still use this concentration to contemplate the emptiness of dharmas as conventional designations. Therefore the Buddha taught that such a person uses the desire-realm mind to perform it. There are also those who have attained the eight dhyāna concentrations to contemplate the emptiness of dharmas as conventional designations. There are further those who have previously suppressed fetters up to the three formless stages, encounter the sage in that stage, and immediately use the three formless concentrations to perform the supreme worldly dharma. Yet the confused do not understand: hearing that it is performed with the desire-realm mind, they say that the upper two realms cannot; hearing that the upper three realms can perform it, they again say that the desire realm cannot; hence disputes are formed. Zhixiu says: Both realms can perform the supreme worldly dharma. Mingjun comments: The explanations above all rely on the doctrine of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (*Ch'eng-shih lun). If one relies on the Abhidharma doctrine, only two realms can perform it; the four formless concentrations definitely cannot. Why? Because even from the superior patience upward, one cannot take them as objects; how much less could the supreme worldly dharma, which resembles the undefiled, be performed there? The doctrines conflict; let the discerning examine this.
65.17
"Good son! In my sūtras, I have explained that among the four kinds of giving..." up to "... proclaim that the Tathāgata stated giving resides solely in intention."
65.18
Sengliang states: Physical, verbal, and mental karmas are all the substance of giving. They are either pure or impure; if pure, the merit is abundant, and if impure, the merit is slight. Purity necessarily stems from faith, meaning there is mental purity. In the first three, one has both [faith and pure mind]; the remaining two have faith alternately. Although there are superiority and inferiority, all may be called pure. Yet deluded people, hearing it said that pure giving stems from faith and that faith is mental karma, thereupon claim that the requisites of giving reside only in the mind, thus giving rise to disputes.
65.19
"Good son! At another time I also stated […] proclaiming that the Buddha said giving is just the five aggregates."
65.20
Sengliang states: The Buddha spoke of the effect within the cause, referring to giving as five items. Deluded people, hearing that this food is the karma of giving, think that external objects to be given are nothing other than giving. Because the five aggregates subsume phenomena exhaustively, they say that giving is just the five aggregates. Sengzong states: This is the tenth dispute. Speaking in terms of the correct doctrine, the mind is the master of giving and the like, while form assists in its completion; body and speech assist the mind, but body and speech are not phenomena endowed with sentience. Hearing it said that two kinds are pure, they thereupon claim it is solely mental karma and has nothing to do with body and speech; hearing it said that giving consists of five items, they thereupon claim it is merely form and not mind, again giving rise to disputes. Baoliang states: If someone has practiced the Path for a long time and his mind of relinquishment is perfected, such that he practices it constantly at all times, the Buddha told this person that giving is just the mind, not waiting for body and speech to be completed. Again, there are others whose wholesome roots are slight and inferior, requiring the assistance of body and speech to be able to bestow gifts; if they do not move body and speech but merely arouse mental thoughts, they do not complete the karma of giving, and the Buddha told this person that the requisites of giving are the five aggregates. Deluded people misconstrue the Buddha's intent: hearing that giving is solely the mind, they think it has nothing at all to do with body and speech; hearing that it comprises the five aggregates, they think all three karmas must be complete. Each clinging to one side, they thus form disputes.
65.21
"Good son! At another time I proclaimed that nirvāṇa […] proclaiming that the Buddha said there are no three unconditioned [phenomena]."
65.22
Sengliang states: The Buddha spoke of the two truths. In conventional truth there are causes, and causes are of two kinds: first, those with the function of existent phenomena; second, those with the function of nonexistent phenomena. Those with the function of nonexistent phenomena are the three unconditioned [phenomena]. Those with the function of existent phenomena are the five aggregates. Deluded people, hearing that nirvāṇa can cut off saṃsāra, thereupon say there are unconditioned phenomena subsumed within the sphere of mental objects (dharmāyatana); hearing that it is nonexistent phenomena, they say there is no nirvāṇa that can cut off saṃsāra, giving rise to disputes. When a lamp is extinguished, it is merely that the light is extinguished; no separate phenomenon of extinction is produced. Nirvāṇa is also like this: it is merely that afflictions are extinguished, and no separate phenomenon is produced. Because afflictions are extinguished, saṃsāra does not continue; this is the function of nonexistent phenomena, which is called space (ākāśa). Because this is emptiness of general characteristics, it is called permanent and all-pervading. The world's emptiness of horses and the like is emptiness of particular characteristics; it also takes nonexistent phenomena as empty and is borrowed as an analogy. Because it is of particular characteristics, it is neither permanent nor all-pervading. Regarding extinction not due to knowledge (apratisaṃkhyānirodha): extinction due to knowledge (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) is supramundane and uncontaminated; extinction not due to knowledge is mundane and uncontaminated. Although there is the difference of mundane and supramundane, the meaning of extinction is permanent, identical with space, and thus they are called the three unconditioned [phenomena]. Non-Buddhists do not attain the uncontaminated to sever defilements; their defilements are extinguished and then arise again, so they cannot be called permanent. Sengzong states: This is the eleventh dispute. Speaking in terms of the correct doctrine, it is not that there are no three unconditioned [phenomena], but merely that they are not three separate phenomena. Baoliang states: Deluded people claim that because there are no things in space, it cannot be differentiated; it is solely one emptiness, and there are no three unconditioned [phenomena]. The Buddha's intent here is that one may say they exist, and one may also say they do not exist: because within emptiness there are no separate phenomena, one says they do not exist; seeking in accordance with their meanings, one says they exist.
65.23
"Good son! At another time, for Maudgalyāyana's sake […] proclaiming that the Tathāgata said there is nirvāṇa."
65.24
Sengliang states: To call it nirvāṇa refers to its textual expressions. That which the noble ones tread is called the path. That which is permanently never lost is called the ultimate. Being free from the eight sufferings is called fearlessness. Curing the illness of saṃsāra is called the Great Master. The fruit of knowledge, forbearance, and unobstructed samādhi are all names according to different meanings. Having the same characteristics as phenomena, it is called the Great Dharmadhātu. Severing old age, sickness, and death, it is called the taste of nectar (amṛta). Having nothing that can be grasped, it is called difficult to see.
65.25
"Again at another time, for Maudgalyāyana's sake […] determinatively stated that there is the unconditioned [phenomenon] of space."
65.26
Sengliang states: If it had an intrinsic nature, its nature could not be destroyed; because it has no intrinsic nature, it is called unstable. As for being named space: having no nature and no phenomena, yet nonexistent phenomena having a function, its nature is identical with space, so it is named accordingly. Regarding food going down and circulating: it says that when all sounds and the two existences follow each other, food cannot go down and sound does not issue forth; because absence of the one allows food to go down and sound to issue forth, this speaks of the function of space. Deluded people, hearing that space has a function, claim that there is a phenomenon of space, subsumed under the sphere of mental objects or the sphere of form.
65.27
"Again at another time, for Maudgalyāyana's sake, I stated […] determinatively stated that there is extinction not due to knowledge."
65.28
Sengliang states: 'Extinguished not through knowledge' means not through supramundane, uncontaminated knowledge. From heat and summit up to the worldly supreme dharmas, these are mundane and uncontaminated, permanently severing the retribution of the three evil destinies. Baoliang states: If it is extinguished by knowledge, it is also named unconditioned [extinction] through knowledge. Since space contains no things, it may also be distinguished from space and also termed the unconditioned [phenomenon] of space. Within space there is nothing further to be calculated, so it is named the unconditioned [phenomenon] not due to calculation. Those who do not understand the intent, hearing that it does not exist, then think that according to the meaning there cannot be three; hearing that it exists, they say the three have distinct substances. Because they grasp at concrete forms, disputes thus arise.
65.29
"Good son! Again at another time, for Vāppa's sake […] determinatively stated that form is the four great elements."
65.30
Sengliang states: That the four great elements are called form means: phenomena of form are of five kinds; the four great elements are provisional, and by speaking of the four, all visible objects are spoken of exhaustively. Sound issues from the four great elements; by citing the root, the branches are subsumed. 'Determinatively stated that form is the four great elements' means: wherever there is form, the four great elements are always together; there is fire in water, cold in hot water, and sound in the air also has the four great elements—this misses the point. Sengzong states: This is the twelfth dispute. Speaking in terms of the correct doctrine, color, smell, and taste constitute the four great elements, and the four great elements in turn constitute the five sense faculties such as the eye. Although they are called fourteen kinds of form, in terms of subsumption by nature, they do not go beyond the four great elements. If the four great elements are the cause and the five sense faculties are the effect, there is no cause apart from the effect, so one may say they are produced by the cause. Hearing it said that the four great elements are called form, not understanding subsumption by nature, they claim there are only the four great elements and no other forms. Hearing it said that derived form is made based on the four great elements, one may say that derived faculties are completed through the great elements, and apart from the cause there is no effect. […] If based on what is explained in the Chapter on the Four Great Elements, they all do not differentiate the four great elements. Not discerning these words, they say the four great elements of the past produce the form of the three times, asserting that the present physical and verbal karmic form exists because the fourteen great forces of the past are strong and therefore able to produce them; the present produces two times, and the future produces only one time. Failing to grasp the Buddha's intent, they again dispute. Baoliang states: Some people claim that the four great elements have strong power and can produce form and the like, while form and the like have weak power and cannot produce the four great elements. They constantly make this reckoning. Again, at another time, the Buddha said to the monks: The five aggregates are entirely empty; what is form? Form is just the four great elements. Thereupon they said the four great elements cannot produce form. Again, at another time, he said that the four great elements produce form, such as squareness, roundness, and so forth; this is merely a cause of mutual dependence. Those who heard this statement thereupon said that the four great elements definitely can produce form. Speaking of the Middle Way and speaking of the correct doctrine, one should say they both produce and do not produce. Why? Because various provisional forms such as square and round arise based on the four great elements, one also says they produce. The preceding is the four great elements and the succeeding is also the four great elements, so there is no production. The five sense objects are also like this: because the coarse is completed based on the subtle, one may also say form produces form. Since the preceding is form and the succeeding is also form, one says they do not produce. People do not understand: hearing of production, they make everything produce; hearing of non-production, they claim nothing produces. Both productions miss the Middle Way, which is why disputes arise.
65.31
"Good son! I also said, for example, just as depending on a mirror […] this is called derived form, like an echo or an image."
65.32
Sengliang states: The provisional names of the four great elements have functions: firm support, wind moving, water moistening, and fire ripening, whereby form can grow, just as an image appears depending on a mirror.
65.33
"After my disciples heard this explanation […] saying that when there are the four great elements, there is derived form.
65.34
Sengliang states: Saying that the four great elements can produce, but are not what is produced; form is what is produced, not what can produce.
65.35
"Or that there are the four great elements without derived form."
65.36
Sengliang states: Saying that the four great elements are provisional, produced by real phenomena. Real phenomena such as form are not produced. The Buddha spoke of producing what is produced, and the four great elements also produce form, like a bundle of reeds supporting each other to stand. The one-sided attachments of the above two schools both fail to grasp the Buddha's intent.
65.37
"Good son! In the past, at one time, Prince Bodhi […] this is not called losing the precepts; one is still called an upholder of the precepts."
65.38
Sengliang states: Non-manifestation (avijñapti) is the substance of precepts. This refers to the precepts of the ten wholesome actions: the seven physical and verbal branches arise from manifest form to produce non-manifest form, so non-manifestation is form; the remaining three do not arise from manifestation, so they are not called form. Sengzong states: This is the thirteenth dispute. Speaking in terms of the correct doctrine, non-manifestation is not mind. Although it is neither form nor mind, it cannot be nonexistent. This wholesome phenomenon's nature opposes evil; because the cause is spoken of within the effect, non-manifestation is called form. It is aroused and obtained from form, and is merely named from the cause. Deluded people, hearing this without understanding, thereupon claim that non-manifestation is form. Baoliang states: Explaining to Prince Bodhi that non-manifestation is form was because if he had merely said that mind is the precept, the prince would have thought that whenever an evil thought arose, all the precepts received would be lost, and there would be no precepts to maintain; thus, regarding the seven physical and verbal branches, he said that non-manifest precepts are obtained. Those who misconstrued the Buddha's intent thereupon claimed that non-manifestation is simply the precepts and has nothing to do with the mind anymore. Furthermore, he explained that the precepts are simply the restraint of evil phenomena, and that if the mind does not commit evil, that is the precepts. Hearing this statement, they thereupon claimed that there are no non-manifest precepts whatsoever. This is why disputes arose.
65.39
"For what reason is it called non-manifest form? It is not the cause of a different form, nor does it produce the cause or effect of a different form."
65.40
Sengliang comments: 'Not the cause of a different form' means: the bodily and vocal manifest actions are material in nature, [consisting of] the three kinds—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. The precepts take wholesome manifest [action] as their cause. Wholesome manifest action is different from the unwholesome and the indeterminate; hence it is called 'the cause of a different form.' 'Does not serve as the cause and effect of a different form' means: non-manifest [action] is the effect of the cause that is the different form. To say that it has no difference as its cause means that it does not have this effect as its like effect. Sengzong says: 'Not the cause of a different form' means: the different form is the substance of the non-manifest [action]. If other forms do not give rise to non-manifest [action], they are not the cause of non-manifest [action], as in the case of indeterminate bodily and vocal [actions] and the forms of mountains and rivers. Since it is said that it is not the cause belonging to a different form, a different form is also not its effect. If wholesome bodily and vocal form can give rise to non-manifest [action], it is the cause of a different form, and the different form is also its effect. Because it is produced from wholesome form, it is called non-manifest. Because [some] did not understand, they then said that non-manifest [action] is itself form. Baoliang says: 'Not the cause of a different form': a different form refers to the mind, clarifying that it does not simply take the mind as its cause. 'Not the effect belonging to a cause that is different': this precept is also not solely the effect belonging to the mind; material form and mind must be combined in application before it is called the wholesome [action] of the precepts. Daohui's notes say: This clarifies that if one wishes to generate non-manifest [action], one must first align the body and join the palms, performing an extraordinary form, and only then can one generate this effect of non-manifest [action]. Zhixiu says: Mind is not body or speech; it is called a different form. The non-manifest [action] of body and speech does not arise from it, and therefore it is said that it does not take a different form as its cause. 'Does not serve as the cause and effect of a different form': it does not serve as an effect for the mind, and therefore it is said that it does not serve as the effect belonging to the cause that is a different form. Huilang sets forth an alternative explanation separately, saying: Non-manifest [action] is a different form, meaning that if it is not the cause of a different form, then it does not serve as the effect of a different form.
65.41
"Good sons, after my disciples heard this teaching, [...] proclaimed, 'The Buddha taught that there is non-manifest form.'
65.42
Sengliang comments: The Buddha's intention was that non-manifest [action] is not form; because it arises due to form, it is named 'form' after its cause. Not understanding the Buddha's intention, they thought that non-manifest [action] is material in nature.
65.43
"Good sons, in other sūtras I spoke in this way: [...] definitely proclaimed that there is no non-manifest form.
65.44
Sengliang comments: Vowing not to commit evil gives rise to the precept of non-manifest [action], which is able to prevent evil phenomena. Not committing evil is called 'upholding the precepts' because when one does not commit evil, non-manifest [action] arises by itself and the nature of the precept is bright and pure; this is called 'upholding the precepts.' If one gives rise to evil actions, the precept coexists with evil and the precept is not bright and pure; because one has transgressed one's original vow, this is not called upholding the precepts. Not understanding the Buddha's intention, hearing it said 'not doing [evil],' they thought that no further active factor arises and that there is no non-manifest [action].
65.45
"Good sons, in the sūtras I spoke in this way: [...] All ordinary beings are likewise."
65.46
Sengliang comments: The sūtras say that suffering and pleasure take the mind as primary. The mind has understanding and delusion; delusion is called ignorance, and understanding is called right view. Right view is the cause of pleasure, and ignorance is the root of suffering; these two are different capabilities of the mind. Established as mental factors: the five aggregates are suffering, arising from ignorance; this explains the faults and perils of delusion. Sengzong says: This is the fourteenth dispute. Some teach that there are mental factors, and some teach that there are no mental factors. If we discuss the correct meaning, mind and its factors both exist and do not exist. To say that there are factors means they arise successively before and after. To say that there are no factors means that they do not exist simultaneously at one time. Baoliang says: The Buddha on one occasion taught that, regardless of ordinary person or noble one, the five aggregates are entirely obtained due to ignorance, and this extends even to the twelve links being likewise. Some people did not understand, and then said it is merely a single ignorance with no further mutual generation of cause and effect in between, simply being one permanent entity throughout. Merely constructing different names and different expositions, they posited that there are twelve links, and then proclaimed that there are no mental factors. Zhixiu says: Because the Buddha spoke of the twelvefold causal conditions and the two stages of cause and effect, two schools generated attachments. First, clarifying past causes, there are three modifications to the conventional: first, from the link of ignorance, the links of craving and grasping are produced; second, changing the link of karmic formations to be spoken of as existence; third, speaking of the name of the cause directly upon the effect. Next, distinguishing the five effects, there are five differences: first, changing consciousness into feeling; second, speaking of the name of the cause directly upon the effect; third, elaborately setting forth the various links after name-and-form; fourth, abbreviating the two links of contact and feeling; fifth, speaking of the name of the effect directly with respect to the link of feeling. Some, on the basis of this, clung to the nonexistence of mental factors. Next, he spoke of three causes and two effects. In speaking of the three causes, there are two modifications to the conventional: first, prior to the link of feeling, eye-consciousness and so forth are produced; second, changing it to the name of 'karmic action.' In speaking of the two effects, there are two modifications to the conventional: first, changing the link of birth to consciousness; second, dividing aging-and-death to elaborately make various names for the links, according to which saṃjñā and so forth are not identical to contact. Some, on the basis of this, clung to the simultaneous co-arising of mental factors side by side. Daohui's notes say: The distinctions before and after within the mind are simply called 'factors.' If one posits that before and after are still one mind and that there are no mental factors at all, this is also an error. If one says that within a single instant there are distinct mental factors co-arising, this is also an error.
65.47
"From ignorance arises craving; one should know that this craving [...] this existence is precisely ignorance, craving, and grasping.
65.48
Sengliang comments: This explains the defilements of the present life, clarifying that mental factors have no separate substance, but simply arise within conditions, or are divided into four according to their lightness or heaviness. How so? When the mind does not understand conditions and takes what is not good to be good, this is called ignorance. Attachment to what is good and generating defilement is called craving. Craving's nature is greedy seeking, which is called grasping. Giving rise to bodily and vocal karma is called existence. The reason it is said 'is precisely' is that the original name is not compromised; it is merely renamed according to what is prominent, and the substance combines them, establishing them as distinct factors. Sengzong says: If we discuss cause and effect giving rise to one another successively, the prior cause and posterior effect are not simultaneous. Some are not necessarily sequential: just as ignorance serves as the cause for karmic formations, naturally from coarse defilements subtle ones arise in turn, and even up to craving and feeling, all can have the sense of being created again. This is the mutual generation through sequential conditions. 'Ignorance is craving, and craving is...': from beginning to end it is a single spirit-mind; although cause and effect are distinct, they cannot be separated, hence it is said 'is precisely.'
65.49
"From existence arises feeling; one should know that this feeling [...] Therefore, feeling is precisely the twelve links.
65.50
Sengliang comments: Feeling is the initial link of consciousness. Consciousness can receive rebirth, and therefore it is named 'feeling.' Daohui's notes say: 'One should know that this feeling is precisely karmic formations and existence.' This future link of consciousness, because it is obtained from the karmic consciousness link of this life and from the karma of this life, is precisely karmic formations and existence. This karma is also named 'karmic formations' and is also named 'existence.' 'From the causal conditions of feeling arise name-and-form, ignorance, craving, grasping, existence, and karmic formations': these are all events within one future life. In these events, below name-and-form there should be the six sense bases, contact, feeling, and so forth, but these three links are abbreviated and omitted. 'Feeling, contact, consciousness, the six sense bases, and so forth; therefore, feeling is precisely the twelve links': this is again an event in a subsequent existence. Because in a future life there are ignorance, craving, grasping, existence, and karmic formations, feeling, contact, consciousness, the six sense bases, and so forth are again generated in a subsequent existence. 'The six sense bases and so forth': this abbreviates and does not set forth the names of the links below, and therefore it says 'and so forth.' 'Feeling' is still just the link of consciousness when newly born. 'Contact and consciousness' are precisely the link of name-and-form. The four aggregates are called 'name'; the substance of the four aggregates is precisely the mind and mental factors. Therefore, now saying 'contact and consciousness' brings up the mind and factors, which constitute the four aggregates. Daohui recounts Tanxian's words: The names of the various links here, which are normally concealed and not set forth, are now fully listed. It is also said: The names and items of mind and mental factors are exceedingly numerous; if they are instituted as the twelve causal conditions, they are instituted across the three times. Distinguishing the mental factors of the three times: from 'from ignorance arises craving' down to 'is precisely ignorance, craving, and grasping,' this clarifies that the past mental factors have four dharmas in total. If taken according to the meaning of the twelve causal conditions, the first three meanings are combined into the link of ignorance; craving and grasping are components of ignorance, and therefore can be combined into one link. 'One should know that it is precisely': this clarifies that the effect does not exist apart from the cause, and therefore is identical to it. Ordinary beings do not understand and think it is a single substance without mental factors successively giving rise to one another; this is an error. From 'from existence arises feeling' down to 'again grasping existence and karmic formations,' this clarifies present mental factors. 'Feeling' is the consciousness that first receives rebirth, hence it takes 'feeling' as its name. 'Karmic formations and existence' are spoken of under different names according to their meanings. Taken according to the meaning of the twelve causal conditions, it abbreviates and lacks the three links of the six sense bases, contact, and feeling. Ignorance and craving are combined into a link; grasping is the link of grasping; existence and karmic formations are the link of existence. 'Feeling, contact, consciousness, the six sense bases, and so forth' abbreviates and does not list contact and feeling. If taken according to the meaning of the twelve causal conditions, feeling is precisely the link of birth, and the rest are all combined into links. 'Therefore, feeling assists the twelve links.' Feeling is the consciousness that receives rebirth in the present; consciousness is the master of receiving rebirth. Based on its master, the three times all have the twelve.
65.51
"Good sons, after my disciples heard this teaching, [...] proclaimed, 'The Tathāgata taught that there are no mental factors.'
65.52
Sengliang comments: Having heard this teaching, they thought there are no mental factors, that there is only one mind employed before and after, not acknowledging that there are factors such as perception (saṃjñā) and feeling (vedanā).
65.53
"Good sons, in the sūtras I spoke in this way: [...] proclaimed, 'The Tathāgata taught that there are mental factors.'
65.54
Sengliang comments: Evil knowledge is the foremost condition of consciousness. The reason it is spoken of as a condition is to clarify that while consciousness is obscured among conditions, craving and grasping inevitably arise. 'Arising due to contact': when consciousness is upon an object-condition, it is called contact; later it is merely called consciousness; the substance is one, but the meaning is different. 'Yet it is not contact': contact when first taking an object-condition is obscure, but when the multiple factors arise in succession it is clear; because clarity and obscurity are different in nature, it says 'is not.' 'Teaching that there are mental factors': hearing that it is not contact, they thought the nature of the factors is distinct. Arising together with contact, taking conditions differently, they are distinct from the substance of the mind; this loses the meaning. Sengzong says: Hearing that four dharmas generate eye-consciousness, and so on up to feeling and grasping mutually generating, they did not understand 'before and after' and thought they exist simultaneously all at once, even up to an unwholesome mind having twenty-one factors. Both are inappropriate, again becoming a dispute. Baoliang says: The consciousness that first encounters conditions, after eye-consciousness, gives rise to perception, feeling, craving, grasping, existence, and so forth, yet it is not the initial consciousness. People then said there is separately a pleasant contact that can harmoniously generate the various mental factors, and which is again not the mind; therefore they said there are mental factors. The Buddha's intention is that one may say they exist, and one may also say they do not exist. What precedes is mind and what follows is mind; therefore there are no separate mental factors. Because of an object they apprehend conditions, and so various minds come together to condition a single object. As factors belonging to the mind, one may also have mental factors. Some people did not understand; hearing 'exist,' they made the mind have separate factors in itself; hearing 'not exist,' they thought it is merely a single mind, incapable of arising and ceasing in between. For this reason, it became a dispute. Daohui's notes say: 'Grasping is named karmic action': the heavier one is named karmic action. 'Contact conditions perception and feeling': generating pleasant feeling. After pleasant feeling, craving arises; after craving, the various wholesome mental factors arise extensively. 'Arising due to contact': arising after the six consciousnesses. 'Yet it is not contact': perception, feeling, and so forth arising successively after consciousness are named mental factors. Ordinary beings do not understand and think there are separate dharmas of mental factors; this is an error.
65.55
"Good sons, I sometimes taught that there is only one existence [...] spoke of five existences, or spoke of six existences.
65.56
Sengliang comments: There being sentient beings has the five aggregates, called the sentient being aggregates, which are conditioned (saṃskṛta). Two refers to cause and effect. Three refers to the three realms. Four refers to the four modes of birth. Five refers to the five paths. Six refers to the six destinies. Seven refers to the seven stations of consciousness. Eight refers to the eight births of spirits—or, some say these are the eight dhyānas, yet this does not encompass existence and would seem not to include humans. Nine refers to the nine abodes of sentient beings. Failing to grasp the Buddha's intent and not understanding the broad and the concise, people rigidly take five or six as definitive. Sengzong says: This is the fifteenth dispute. The Buddha's expounding from one realm of existence up to twenty-five are all pedagogical adaptations responding to circumstances.
65.57
"Good son! Once in the past [...] proclaimed, 'The Tathāgata said that the eightfold abstinence precepts are obtained only by taking them completely.'"
65.58
Sengliang comments: 'Not obtained without taking them completely' refers to not receiving the five [precepts] at one time. Because one's mind is weak and unable to vow to desist from the five evils, one cannot produce the precepts. If one receives all five at one time, the mind is strong and capable of producing them. If one is unable to keep them fully, one then abandons four and retains one; this is called 'one part.' This does not contradict the Buddha's intent; it means that receiving merely a single precept on its own does not obtain the precept. 'Obtained only by taking them completely' takes one day and one night as complete. Why is this? Householder precepts are of two kinds: first, lifelong; second, not lifelong. As for the not lifelong, one sets the mind to a term—whether one day, or fifteen days, or one day and one night, or merely one month, or merely one night—all can constitute the abstinence. The sūtra contains proof: regarding Kātyāyana, down to a single moment of thought, because the moment of thought is brief, the mind is weak and cannot generate the precepts, so it answers that it does not constitute it. Some who hear this take one day and one night as a fixed limit, believing that more or less does not constitute abstinence; this misses the point. Sengzong says: This is the sixteenth dispute. In terms of the correct doctrine, with the five precepts, according to how many one receives and observes, one accordingly obtains their merit. As for the eight precepts, whether for one day or even a single moment, they are obtained only by observing them completely; this differs from the five precepts. Hearing that the five precepts can be received partially, they thought the eight precepts could also be obtained partially. Hearing that the eight precepts are obtained only when fully received, they thought the five precepts were also like this. Baoliang says: Regarding the 'one-part upāsaka,' the Buddha once said that after taking the three refuges, receiving one precept among the five precepts is called 'one part.' Sentient beings fail to understand and then claim that the Buddha said receiving merely one precept among the five precepts obtains all five in full. This again became a dispute. Furthermore, he stated for one person that one day and one night is good, but is not called obtaining the abstinence: originally speaking of one day and one night, merely a single moment or a single thought is not called keeping abstinence. That person is virtuous, which is to say they obtain the precepts. Some fail to understand, claiming that one neither obtains the abstinence nor obtains the precepts, which is why disputes arise. Daohui's notes state: An 'one-part upāsaka' is one who first receives all five precepts, and afterward abandons four to observe one; this is 'one part.' If one initially undertakes only one precept from home, this cannot give rise to the non-manifest (avijñapti). If one says that an upāsaka undertaking it from home without receiving it completely obtains it, this misses the point. Now, as for the eightfold abstinence, whether undertaken yesterday and tonight, down to two days or one day, all are permissible. If merely for one day and one night, or a single thought or a single moment, these are all termed obtaining good, not obtaining the eightfold abstinence precepts. The notes state: Abstinence means not eating past noon. Purity and simplicity for one day and one night is called abstinence. The eight precepts are for adorning this abstinence, hence called the eightfold abstinence precepts. Receiving the eight precepts for merely a single thought or a single moment is not without acquisition, but the abstinence is not completed; therefore it is said one obtains good, not that one obtains the abstinence. Ordinary people do not understand, thinking that one must completely receive them for one day and one night before obtaining the method of the eightfold abstinence precepts; this is an error.
65.59
"Good son! In the sūtras, I have spoken thus: [...] having violated the grave prohibitions, one loses the bhikṣu precepts."
65.60
Sengliang comments: 'Slayer of thieves' means slaying the thieves of afflictions. Because pure precepts can generate pure wisdom, they are called precepts received by the noble ones. Once one commits a grave offense, one shatters the noble precepts and is no longer called a bhikṣu. 'Losing the bhikṣu [precepts]': hearing that one loses the precepts received by the noble ones, they thought that everything is lost; this misses the point. Sengzong says: This is the seventeenth dispute. In terms of the correct doctrine, when violating the four grave precepts, that which is shattered does not arise, while that which is not shattered all remains. Daohui says: One loses according to what is violated. Baoliang's notes state: It is only that one cannot generate the undefiled (anāsrava); it is not that one completely loses the precepts, for the broken precepts still remain. Yet saying that violating a grave offense loses everything and is not the bhikṣu precepts misses the point.
65.61
"Good son! In the sūtras, I stated for Cunda: [...] having committed the four grave offenses, one does not lose the prohibitive precepts."
65.62
Sengliang comments: 'Those who receive the path' refers to the eightfold noble path. These three are all pure precepts. Achieving complete undefilement is called 'reaching'; worldly undefilement is called 'receiving'; not yet arriving is called 'showing.' 'Those who defile the path': that which is pure and able to reach nirvāṇa is called the 'path.' 'Defilement' means that which is impure is not the path. 'Not losing the prohibitive precepts' means that the pure precepts permanently remain. Co-arising with unwholesome karma is called defilement, just as jade cast into mud is called defiled jade; this misses the point. Sengzong says: Hearing it said that they do not arise, they then say that all is completely lost. Hearing of 'defiling the path,' they then say that committing the grave offenses does not lose the prohibitive precepts. Baoliang says: Now speaking of 'defiling the path,' because violating precepts defiles conduct, one does not attain the noble path. But imperceptive people, upon hearing of 'loss,' assert that all is lost regardless of whether one violated or not; upon hearing of 'defilement,' assert that all is defiled without loss regardless of whether one violated or not. Therefore a dispute arises. 'Those who ultimately reach the path' refers to undefiled precepts. 'Those who show the path' refers to the precepts within the five faculties of faith in the path. 'Those who receive the path' refers to the precepts of external ordinary persons. Daohui's notes state: The correct doctrine is that one who violates grave offenses merely retains the defiled precepts, while the pure precepts are lost. Some think that because the pure precepts are lost, the defiled precepts are also lost; those who think the defiled precepts are not lost say that the pure precepts are also not lost—both miss the point. 'Those who ultimately reach the path' refers to attaining arhatship in a single lifetime. 'Those who show the path' refers to the candidate for srotāpanna. 'Those who receive the path' refers to from the first fruit up to the third fruit. 'Those who defile the path' refers to precept-breakers. He also says: Reaching the path is the arhat. Showing the path is the third fruit, also called signless practice. Receiving the path is from the fruits onward. He also says: From the five virtues onward and external ordinary persons who uphold precepts. Zhixiu says: 'Those who reach the path' are those who have attained the true undefiled. 'Those who show the path' are those whose faculty of faith is already established. 'Those who receive the path' are those who are initially able to accept and uphold, whose faculty of faith is not yet established. These three all take precept goodness as their substance. 'Those who defile the path' are those who violate the grave prohibitions, using their transgression to practice the remaining pure precepts.
First 62 of 90 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大般涅槃經集解 — Classical Chinese