大般涅槃經義記 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Shi Huiyuan of Jingying Monastery under the Sui.

The sacred teachings exhibit ten thousand differences, but in essentials there are only two: namely, the śrāvaka piṭaka and the bodhisattva piṭaka. Teaching the dharmas of the śrāvaka is called the śrāvaka piṭaka; teaching the dharmas of the bodhisattva is called the bodhisattva piṭaka.

1.3

Those taught within the śrāvaka piṭaka are of two kinds: first, the śrāvaka śrāvaka, and second, the pratyekabuddha śrāvaka. As for the śrāvaka śrāvaka, this person has originally sought the śrāvaka path from before, constantly delighting in contemplating the dharma of the four noble truths and forming a śrāvaka disposition. In their final body, encountering a buddha, the four noble truths are explained to them, and they thereby awaken to the path. Since they originally had a śrāvaka disposition and now also hear the voice [of the Buddha] and thereby awaken to the path, they are therefore called a 'śrāvaka śrāvaka,' as the sūtra states: 'For those who seek to be śrāvakas, the four truths are explained.' Stated on this basis, as for the pratyekabuddha śrāvaka, this person has originally sought the pratyekabuddha path, constantly delighting in contemplating the dharma of the twelve links of dependent origination. In their final body, encountering a buddha, the dharma of the twelve links of dependent origination is explained to them, and they thereby awaken to the path. Having originally a pratyekabuddha disposition, they hear the voice [of the Buddha] in their final body and awaken to the path; therefore they are called a 'pratyekabuddha śrāvaka,' as the sūtra states: 'For those who seek to be pratyekabuddhas, the twelve links of dependent origination are explained.' Discussing it on this ground, although these two are distinct, they equally seek the lesser dharma and rely equally on teaching and place; therefore, that which is spoken for these two persons is the śrāvaka piṭaka.

1.4

The persons taught within the bodhisattva piṭaka are also of two kinds: first, gradual; second, sudden. As for those of gradual entry, this person previously practiced the great dharma in the past, studied the lesser in the interim, and later returned to enter the great. Entering the great by way of the lesser is called 'gradual'; hence the sūtra states: 'Excepting those who previously practiced and studied the Hīnayāna, I now also cause them to enter into this dharma.' This is gradual entry. As for those of sudden awakening, there are sentient beings who have long practiced roots of goodness corresponding to the Mahāyāna; upon first seeing the Buddha now, they are able to enter the great. Entering the great without relying on the lesser is designated as 'sudden'; hence the sūtra states: 'There are sentient beings who, throughout generations until now, have constantly received my transformation; upon first seeing my body and hearing what I preach, they all have faith, accept it, and enter into the Tathāgata's wisdom.' This is sudden awakening. The bodhisattva of gradual entry begins with the lesser and ends with the great; the person of sudden awakening enters the profound all at once. Although sudden and gradual are distinct, because at that time their locus of receiving the great is one, that which is spoken for these two persons is the bodhisattva piṭaka.

1.5

Although the sacred teachings are numerous, they do not go beyond these two. Thus Nāgārjuna said: 'After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Kāśyapa and Ānanda compiled the tripiṭaka at Rājagṛha as the śrāvaka piṭaka; Mañjuśrī and Ānanda compiled the Mahāyāna sūtras at the Cakravāḍa Mountains as the bodhisattva piṭaka.' The Bodhisattvabhūmi also says: 'For the practices of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas leading out of suffering, the Buddha taught the sūtras.' Those who compiled the scriptures compiled them into two piṭakas: by explaining the practices of śrāvakas, it is the śrāvaka piṭaka; by explaining the practices of bodhisattvas, it is the bodhisattva piṭaka. That treatise further states: 'Among the twelve divisions, only the vaipulya section is the bodhisattva piṭaka; the remaining eleven divisions are the śrāvaka piṭaka.' This sūtra also states: 'Only the vaipulya section is upheld by bodhisattvas; the remaining eleven divisions are upheld by the two vehicles.' What is upheld by bodhisattvas is the bodhisattva piṭaka; what is upheld by the two vehicles is the śrāvaka piṭaka. Therefore, we know that the sacred discourses do not go beyond these two. These two are also called the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, the teachings of half letters and complete letters, and so forth. Although the names change, their meaning is not distinct. Now, this sūtra is subsumed under the bodhisattva piṭaka among the two piṭakas; it is a dharma gate that nurtures sentient beings of the gradual teaching. Hence the text below states: 'First teach the half letters, and afterward teach the complete letters.' The demarcation of the teaching is now known.

1.6

Next, its title is explained. To speak now of 'Great Nirvāṇa' is to designate the specific title of this text. Scripture titles are not identical, being of many kinds: some correspond to dharmas, some refer to persons, some accord with events, some derive from similes, some refer to person and dharma, some derive from dharma and simile, and some accord with events and dharmas; such examples are more than one. Now, this sūtra takes its title from dharma. 'Dharma' refers to the fruit of the Great Nirvāṇa of the buddhas; therefore, it is raised at the outset. This title is not complete [in transcription]: if one relies on the Sanskrit text, it is called mahāparinirvāṇa. Mahā means great, an expression of praise for its excellence. Nirvāṇa is threefold: namely, that attained by śrāvakas, by pratyekabuddhas, and by the Buddha. To distinguish it, the former two do not add ['great']; therefore, it is called 'great.' Its essence in truth transcends duality, yet it is revealed by relying on contrast.

1.7

The meaning of 'great' has six aspects: First, it is called great because it is eternal; hence the text below states, 'Great means eternal.' Second, it is called great because it is superior, just as a superior person in the world is called a great person; hence the text below states, 'If this person can securely abide in the correct Dharma, they are called superior among people'—being superior, it is called great, and nirvāṇa is likewise. Third, it is called great because it is vast; hence the text below states, 'Great means vast and expansive'—its essence exhausts the dharmadhātu, hence its nature is called vast and expansive. Fourth, it is called great because it is manifold; hence the text below states, 'Like a great storehouse containing many precious and rare things'—nirvāṇa is likewise, possessing many kinds of wonderful dharmas and precious jewels, hence it is called great. Fifth, it is called great because it is lofty; hence the text below states, 'Like a great mountain that people cannot ascend, hence it is called a great mountain'—nirvāṇa is likewise, because ordinary beings, the two vehicles, and even up to the ten abodes cannot reach it, hence it is called great. Sixth, it is called great because it is deep, just as the ocean is unfathomably deep and is called the great ocean; hence the text below states, 'Great means inconceivable; unfathomably deep and difficult to measure, it is called inconceivable.' As for the substance of the great, it differs and is briefly of three kinds: first, the greatness of essence, which refers to the naturally pure nirvāṇa, whose essence exhausts the true nature and whose meaning fills the dharmadhātu; second, the greatness of characteristics, which refers to the nirvāṇa of expedient means, where faults are utterly exhausted and virtues are fully complete; third, the greatness of function, which refers to the nirvāṇa of manifestation and transformation, whose wonderful function is vast and all-pervading, and whose skillful transformation is inexhaustible. Hence the text below states: 'The Mahāparinirvāṇa can establish great meaning'—meaning is equivalent to function; possessing these three meanings, it is therefore called 'great.'

1.8

As for parinirvāṇa, pari is translated here as 'entry.' The meaning of entry is threefold: First, discussing it in terms of reality, to bring delusions to rest and return to the real, proceeding from cause toward fruit, is called entry. Second, discerning entry based on transformation, manifesting extinction has its causes, manifesting the cessation of body and wisdom and proceeding to enter the unconditioned. Third, speaking of entry in terms of the contrast between the real and the manifest, to bring transformation to rest and return to the real. What is discussed here is fully endowed with these three meanings.

1.9

As for the word 'nirvāṇa,' someone has explained: 'It is neither Sanskrit nor Chinese, but simply the words of the Buddha.' If one speaks of the Buddha's words, all are such; how could it be nirvāṇa alone? Hence the text below states: 'The various divergent treatises, compositions, and incantations are all spoken by the Buddha.' Although they are spoken by the Buddha, they are not separate from regional dialects; if separated from regional dialects, the Buddha would have no speech—how can one say it is neither Sanskrit nor Chinese? Someone also says: 'It is the language of India; the name encompasses the ten thousand virtues, and in this land there is no single term that can translate it, so the Sanskrit original is retained and it is called nirvāṇa.' The essence of nirvāṇa is indeed fully endowed with the ten thousand virtues, but the single name 'nirvāṇa' does not exhaust the ten thousand virtues. If the name 'nirvāṇa' were to contain the ten thousand virtues, then when proclaiming the ten thousand virtues, one should not establish further names according to each virtue; since one establishes separate names when wishing to speak of the ten thousand virtues, we clearly know it is not all-encompassing. If it is said that in this land there is no word that can translate it, this principle is not so. As in the text below, where the Tathāgata broadly announces to sentient beings according to their kinds: 'Today the Tathāgata wishes to enter nirvāṇa.' Since he announces this differently according to different sounds, how could it be untranslatable? Now, properly translating it according to its sense, it is called 'extinction.' When translated laterally according to its meanings, its names are distinct and manifold: some say 'unborn,' some say 'unceasing,' some call it 'unburning,' some say 'unwoven,' some call it 'tranquil,' some name it 'unconditioned,' and some call it 'markless'; such are more than one. How is it known that it means extinction and is not all-encompassing? Now we may examine this briefly with four points: First, seeking it in terms of the past: in other sūtras in the past, the Tathāgata always proclaimed the place where the causes and fruits of birth and death are completely exhausted as nirvāṇa; the nirvāṇa of today does not differ in name from the past, so why should it suddenly be all-encompassing? Second, verifying it based on the end: now, between the śāla trees, the Tathāgata broadly proclaims with a great voice, 'Now I enter nirvāṇa.' When sentient beings heard this, they all grieved and were distressed, and went to the Buddha to entreat him to remain. If the name 'nirvāṇa' encompassed the ten thousand virtues, then proclaiming the ten thousand virtues and displaying them to people, sentient beings ought to have rejoiced; why would they weep in grief and go to the Buddha to entreat him to remain? Judging by this, we clearly know it is not all-encompassing. Third, determining it by regional dialect: when foreigners see a person die, they all say that so-and-so has entered nirvāṇa. When worldly people die, what virtue could be encompassed? Fourth, taking the text as proof: as in the text below, the Buddha praises Cunda for being able to know the Tathāgata, saying that he accords with sentient beings in the nirvāṇa of expedient means; how could worldly sentient beings ever have that nirvāṇa of ten thousand virtues with which he could display concordance? It is simply that the Tathāgata conforms with the worldly cessation of life, which is termed 'manifesting nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, in the Lotus Sūtra, when the Buddha Sun Moon Lamp finished preaching the Lotus Sūtra, he entered parinirvāṇa in the latter part of the night, and the verses below state: 'Tonight the Buddha enters extinction, / Like fire extinguished when firewood is spent.' From this we clearly know that nirvāṇa means extinction and is not all-encompassing.

1.10

Question: If nirvāṇa is called "cessation," yet a later passage says, "The extinguishing of the fires of all afflictions is called extinction-deliverance, and being free from thought and reflection is called nirvāṇa," this would mean nirvāṇa and cessation differ in meaning. Why, then, say that nirvāṇa is called cessation? Explanation: In foreign lands there are many names for cessation, namely nirvāṇa, vinaya, and mṛta, etc. Because the names are manifold, different designations are applied according to their different meanings. Thus, the cessation of thought and reflection is spoken of as nirvāṇa, while the extinguishing of the fires of all afflictions is given a different appellation, which is translated here as "cessation." In this land names are few; nirvāṇa, vinaya, mṛta, and the like are all similarly translated as "cessation," just as in foreign lands bodhi and mārga are both called "path" here. What is cessation? Cessation has four meanings: First is cessation in terms of facts: extinguishing the causes of birth-and-death and exhausting the fruits of birth-and-death. Second is cessation in terms of virtues: relinquishing practice and resting in quiescence, hence called cessation; furthermore, the Tathāgata's true virtues are free from marks and free from nature, which is also called cessation. Being free from marks is like pure ghee: although its substance exists, it lacks marks such as blue, yellow, red, and white; it is also like the mental consciousness of all sentient beings: although its substance exists, it lacks marks such as large, small, long, and short. Nirvāṇa is also like this: although its substance exists, it has no single mark, nor any mark whatsoever, as the text below says: "It means having no marks of form, sound, smell, taste, or touch, no marks of arising, abiding, ceasing, male, female, and so forth, down to having no self-mark that can be grasped." Being free from nature means that within Great Nirvāṇa the various virtues share one substance and are collectively formed together; not a single virtue separately maintains its own nature. For example, when expounding the meaning of permanence with respect to the various virtues, apart from those various virtues there is no separate nature of permanence that can be found; all other meanings are alike in this. Therefore the text below says, "Moreover, because they are not distinct, it constitutes nirvāṇa." Third is cessation in terms of manifestation: in accordance with transforming the world, displaying the cessation of that which has causes, and appearing to extinguish body and wisdom. Fourth is cessation in terms of principle: as the sūtra says, "The one truth of the cessation of suffering—the ultimate quiescence of all sentient beings—is the mark of nirvāṇa," and so forth. Cessation in terms of principle is twofold: first is the emptiness of marks, where all dharmas of false conceptualisation are empty and devoid of any reality of their own; second is true emptiness, where the buddha-dharmas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges within the tathāgatagarbha are free from marks and free from nature. Being free from marks is as Aśvaghoṣa says: "That is, it is neither the mark of existence, nor the mark of non-existence, nor the mark of neither-existence-nor-non-existence, nor the mark of both-existence-and-non-existence; it is neither the mark of self, nor the mark of other, nor the mark of neither-self-nor-other, nor the mark of both-self-and-other. All such discriminations of the deluded mind do not correspond with it; it is exclusively the realm of realization." Being free from nature means that these buddha-dharmas share a single essence and nature, mutually constitute one another, and are not separated, not detached, not severed, and not different; because they share the same substance, not a single dharma separately maintains its own nature. Although the meanings of cessation are numerous, the essentials are only these four. Among these four cessations, cessation in terms of principle is the root: by seeing the emptiness of marks, the former cessation of facts is accomplished; by seeing true emptiness, the former cessation of virtues is accomplished; and relying on virtue to give rise to function, there is cessation in terms of manifestation. If distinguished by marks, the former three cessations are spoken of as nirvāṇa; if discussed by subsuming marks, all four cessations are it.

1.11

Question: This sūtra fully clarifies various meanings; why does it speak exclusively of Great Nirvāṇa? Answer: Nirvāṇa is the central theme, and therefore it is spoken of exclusively; or it may be said that the various meanings cannot all be made apparent at once, so nirvāṇa is provisionally adduced. The syllable [vā]nā means "resting," which is here omitted for brevity. Resting has three meanings: first, resting the causes and fruits of conditioned birth-and-death and entering into the unconditioned is called resting; second, resting practice and tallying with reality is called resting, which is why the text below says, "If one is able to sever the practices of the thirty-seven factors [of awakening], this is called nirvāṇa"; third, resting transformation and returning to reality is called resting. This adduces that which is expressed.

1.12

The sūtra is that which expresses. The correct sound in foreign lands is sūtra, which is translated here as "thread" [or "warp-string"]: because it can thread through all marks of dharmas just as a thread strings flowers, it is called a thread by way of metaphor. As for saying "scripture" (jing): a thread can string flowers, and warp-threads can hold the weft; their functions are similar, hence it is also called a scripture (jing). According to worldly glosses, jing means constant: as a dharma of teaching, it passes through the ancient and traverses the present, and being ever-existent, it is called constant.

1.13

"Lifespan Chapter": According to the extensive-chapter recension, it is called the "Introductory Chapter"; according to the brief-chapter recension, it is called the "Lifespan Chapter." The establishment of chapters in sūtras generally follows three patterns: some follow the extensive, some follow the brief, or some are named according to their marks. Here, calling it "Lifespan" follows the brief. After Kāśyapa's verse-request below, it explains that through the causes and conditions of loving-kindness, compassion, and non-killing, long life is obtained; the title is designated in view of this, and hence it is called the "Lifespan Chapter." A limit of life is termed "longevity" (shou), while the continuity of spiritual wisdom is designated as "life" (ming). A "chapter" (pin) means a division; it can also be said that a pin is a category: according to what is clarified, those of the same class are gathered together, hence called categories. This sūtra has thirteen distinct chapters in total; this chapter is the beginning, and is therefore called the first.

1.14

From beginning to end, the text of this sūtra is divided into five sections: first, the introductory section; second, from "Cunda" onward, the section revealing the central theme and demonstrating virtues; third, from the "Three Announcements" onward, the section explaining practice and the accomplishment of virtues; fourth, from "If a person is able to know, he is called a śramaṇa or a brāhmaṇa" onward, the section refuting the heterodox and communicating the correct; fifth, the section on the Tathāgata's extinction-deliverance and jhāpita offerings. This last section did not arrive from the foreign land. Transformation must have an origin, so the introduction is clarified first; once the origin and preface have arisen, it is proper to demonstrate what is to be clarified, so second is the revelation of the central theme and demonstration of virtues; the central theme refers to the perfectly ultimate, wonderful fruit of the buddhas, and the accomplishment of the fruit arises from causes, so third is the explanation of practice and the accomplishment of virtues; once the true Dharma has been disclosed, one desires to propagate and transform continuously with what has been clarified, so fourth is refuting the heterodox and communicating the correct—therefore in the text below heterodox paths are refuted to communicate correct meaning, and the māras are refuted to communicate correct discourse; when transforming is complete, the shadow is withdrawn and returns to quiescence, so fifth the Tathāgata displays extinction, and the great assembly of humans and devas conduct the jhāpita and make offerings.

1.15

Question: Most people divide this sūtra into three sections; why is it now divided into five? Explanation: Following the threefold division of texts as in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra is indeed reasonable, for in that sūtra there is a distinct origin and preface before the fifteen chapters, and a distinct dissemination section established after the fifteen chapters. The division of the text of this sūtra cannot be the same as that, because the fifth section is not a dissemination section. Moreover, when treatise masters compose treatises to explain sūtras, they also mostly do not divide the texts into three sections. Among the five, the first is the expedient means for transforming and benefiting; the middle three are the principal benefit; the final section is the completion of transformation and the entry into extinction.

1.16

Within the initial introductory section, the essentials of the meaning are twofold: first, the initiating preface; second, the faith-attesting preface. In explaining these two prefaces, there are briefly five approaches: first, explaining the names and meanings along with demonstrating the intent of their establishment; second, clarifying the differences in the names of the two prefaces along with demonstrating their advantages and disadvantages; third, clarifying the broad and narrow scopes of the names of the two prefaces; fourth, determining the precedence and succession of the texts of the two prefaces; fifth, explaining according to the text.

1.17

Under the first approach, the names and meanings are explained first. As for "initiating": when the Buddha is about to preach a sūtra, he first relies upon a time and place, and gathers the assembly with spiritual power to initiate what is to be preached; this is called initiating. Because this initiating serves as the reason for the preaching, it is called the initiating preface. As for "faith-attesting": when Ānanda previously received the Buddha's preaching, wishing to transmit what he had heard to later generations, he first addressed sentient beings, saying, "Such dharmas I heard from the Buddha," attesting that it is worthy of trust; this is called faith-attesting. Because this faith-attesting serves as the reason for transmitting the sūtra, it is called the faith-attesting preface. Such are the names and meanings. Next, demonstrating the intent of their establishment: Why are there two? Because the sūtra is twofold. A sūtra is precisely one; how could it ever be twofold? Although the substance of a sūtra is one, with respect to time and person it can be divided into two: first, the sūtra preached by the Tathāgata; second, the sūtra transmitted by Ānanda. What was preached by the Tathāgata benefited that time; what was transmitted by Ānanda was transmitted to later generations. In relation to these two sūtras, two prefaces are established: the initiating preface is established in relation to what was preached by the Buddha, and the faith-attesting preface is established in relation to what was transmitted by Ānanda.

1.18

Under the second approach, first the differences between the names of the two prefaces are clarified, and then their advantages and disadvantages are examined. The distinctions in names are fourfold: First, named according to their marks: called the initiating and the faith-attesting. Second, named in terms of the persons: called the Tathāgata's preface and Ānanda's preface; the initiating preface, being what the Tathāgata did, is called the Tathāgata's preface, while the faith-attesting preface, being what Ānanda made, is called Ānanda's preface. Third, named in terms of time: called the present preface and the future preface; the Tathāgata's preface is called the present preface, and Ānanda's preface is called the future preface. Fourth, named in relation to the sūtra: called the preface before the sūtra and the preface after the sūtra; the Tathāgata's preface is called before the sūtra, and Ānanda's preface is spoken of as after the sūtra. Here the Buddha's preaching is taken as the sūtra, and in relation to this sūtra, before and after are distinguished. That faith-attesting preface has yet another name, called the bequeathed teaching preface: when the Buddha was about to enter extinction, he gave his bequeathed instructions to set it down, hence it is called bequeathed teaching. Such are the distinctions in names. Next, clarifying the advantages and disadvantages. Among these four pairs, "faith-attesting" and "initiating" are without flaw in name and meaning. In the second pair, the name "Ānanda's preface" is also without fault, but calling it "the Tathāgata's preface" is insufficient in meaning. Why is it insufficient? For example, when the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra was spoken, there were five persons acting in concert to initiate it: the Buddha as the transforming host, the king, the queen, Candanā, and Śrīmālā. In most sūtras, the initiation is not by the Buddha alone; if the initiation is called the Tathāgata's preface, it loses the meaning of the initiation by those other persons. Since the Tathāgata's preface has a fault and must be abandoned, its counterpart, Ānanda's preface, cannot stand either. In the third pair, "present" is without flaw, but "future" is inappropriate. What does this mean? If, when the Tathāgata preaches the sūtra in the present, the preface established is called "present," then when Ānanda transmits it, it is also a preface established in the present; why would it not be present? If, in relation to the Tathāgata's present preaching, Ānanda's preface is called "future," then in relation to Ānanda's transmission, the Tathāgata's preface should be called "past." Although the Buddha is in the past, one takes precisely the time of preaching as the present; Ānanda is also like this: although future relative to the Buddha, taking precisely the time of transmission, it is also the present. Both being present, how could one be designated exclusively as future? Indeed, because "future" has a fault and must be abandoned, the "present" that stands in opposition to it cannot be established either. In the fourth pair, "before the sūtra" is without fault, but "after the sūtra" is inappropriate. If it is called "after the sūtra," how can it be called a preface? If it is spoken of as a preface, then it is not after the sūtra. One should know that in relation to the two sūtras, both prefaces are "before the sūtra"; one cannot determine exclusively that one is "after the sūtra." Indeed, because "after the sūtra" is inappropriate and must be abandoned, the meaning of "before the sūtra" that stands in opposition to it cannot be established either. Truly, because those names all have faults, this present commentator exclusively preserves the designations "faith-attesting" and "initiating."

1.19

Third, clarifying the broad and narrow scopes of their names: Broadly speaking, both prefaces are named faith-attesting and both are termed initiating; the intent of establishing a preface is in each case to generate faith, hence they are broadly named faith-attesting, and as both serve to initiate, they are alike termed initiating. Now, in order to differentiate the two prefaces, the Tathāgata's preface is exclusively named initiating, and Ānanda's preface is exclusively termed faith-attesting. Both being distinct prefaces, they are designated according to convenience. What is the meaning of convenience? Ānanda is a lesser sage; fearing that people would slight or slander, the intent of establishing his preface was specifically to generate faith; therefore, the present commentator, looking to his original intent, names Ānanda's preface faith-attesting. The Tathāgata is a great sage whom all revere and trust; the intent of establishing his preface was mostly to initiate, not specifically for the sake of faith; therefore, the present commentator, looking to his original intent, speaks of it as initiating.

1.20

Fourth, determining the order of the text: first, the differing theories are recounted; next, their strengths and flaws are analyzed; finally, the correct meaning is revealed. What are the differing theories? In the past it was traditionally transmitted that within the verification of faith there are five distinct clauses: first, 'Thus'; second, 'have I heard'; third, 'at one time'; fourth, the dwelling place; fifth, the co-hearers. Later commentators added 'the Buddha', making six together with the rest. Such are the differing theories. As for their strengths and flaws: determining 'Thus have I heard' as verification of faith accords with principle; this is its strength. Definitely determining 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest as coming after the sūtra conflicts with principle; this is its flaw. What is the meaning of this? First, it is examined through facts; next, it is verified through text. As for examining it through facts: if 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest were after the sūtra, then before the sūtra there would be no Buddha, and who would preach the sūtra? Without time and without place, upon what would the preaching rely? Before the sūtra there would be no assembly, and who would receive the preaching? One depends upon these to initiate what is preached; how could one unreservedly determine them to be after the sūtra? Someone might counter to save [the theory]: 'Although the facts were before the sūtra, they are cited afterward to verify and establish credibility, and are therefore determined to be after the sūtra.' If so, why only five or six clauses? Before the main discourse there could only have been the facts, and all the spoken words were cited afterward. Just as in this sūtra before the shedding of blood, at that time there could only have been the facts, and the words therein were all cited afterward by Ānanda; yet in the text below, although the six marks and the like were cited afterward, they can be determined to be before the sūtra—why should 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest not be likewise? Deductively testing by this, to definitely determine 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest as being after the sūtra is truly unreasonable. Such is the empirical test. Now to verify it through texts: as that Dilun explains the Buddha preaching in the Heaven of Mastery Over Transformations on the second seventh day, stating that the time, place, and so forth are appraised to display supremacy; because this Dharma is supreme, it is preached at the initial time and in a supreme place. When the Buddha is about to preach a sūtra, he first relies on time and place to manifest the supremacy of the Dharma and then begins to preach; this clearly shows that time and place initiate before the sūtra. Furthermore, the Fahua lun's explanation of the Lotus Sūtra's meaning is also the same: it says, 'Why is it in the city of Rājagṛha, on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain? Because this Dharma is supreme.' It expresses the Dharma by relying on the place and then begins to preach, clearly showing that it is not after the sūtra. Such are the strengths and flaws. Next, the correct meaning is revealed: 'Thus have I heard' is unreservedly verification of faith. From 'at one time, the Buddha' downward, the meaning encompasses both: taking its meaning of initiating at that time, it is determined as initiation; when Ānanda cites it to verify and establish credibility, it is determined as verification of faith. Since the meaning encompasses both, one cannot take only one side.

1.21

In the fifth section, first the words 'Thus have I heard' are explained. It is analyzed and explained through three sections: first, explaining the reasons for the existence of 'Thus have I heard'; second, clarifying the intention behind establishing it; third, explaining its text. Through what causes and conditions does 'Thus have I heard' exist? It is due to the Buddha's instruction. Why did the Buddha instruct it? Because Ānanda requested it. By what cause did he make the request? Because Aniruddha instructed him. Due to what cause did he instruct him? Due to seeing Ānanda's grief and distress. Why was the monk Ānanda grieved and distressed? Due to seeing the Tathāgata enter parinirvāṇa. When the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, he lay with his head to the north between the twin trees. At that time, because the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, Ānanda harbored sorrow and distress in his heart and could not contain himself. Aniruddha enlightened Ānanda: 'You are the transmitter of the Dharma; why do you not question the Buddha about affairs of the future age? What is the use of grieving in vain?' Ānanda replied: 'My mind is now sunken in an ocean of grief; what should I ask?' Aniruddha then instructed Ānanda to question the Buddha on four matters: 'First, ask: after the Buddha passes into extinction, whom shall the monks take as their teacher? Second, ask: upon what shall the monks rely and abide? Third, ask: how shall one dwell together with ill-natured monks? Fourth, ask: what words should be placed at the head of all sūtras?' Hearing this, Ānanda regained some clarity, received the instructions, and questioned the Buddha. The Buddha answered him accordingly: As for whom the monks should take as teacher: they should rely on the prātimokṣa as their teacher; if I were to remain in the world, it would be no different from this. Mokṣa is the precepts, which the monks study, hence it is called their teacher. As for upon what all monks should abide: they should abide relying on the four foundations of mindfulness. What are the four foundations of mindfulness? Namely, a monk contemplates the internal body by following the contemplation of the body, diligently and with one mind, removing worldly greed and grief; likewise he contemplates the external body, the internal and external body; feelings, mind, and dharmas are also like this. These are called the dwelling places upon which monks rely. Therefore, the sūtra says: 'If one abides in the four foundations of mindfulness, it is called one's own domain, and one is not bound by Māra; if one abides in the five desires, it is called the domain of others, and one is bound by Māra.' As for how to dwell together with ill-natured monks: punish them with brahmadanda; if they become subdued, preach the sūtra of transcendence over existence and nonexistence to them. Brahmadanda is silence and not speaking with them. As for what words to place at the head of all sūtras: one should place 'Thus have I heard: at one time the Buddha was in such-and-such direction, in such-and-such forest grove,' and so forth. It is due to the Buddha's original instruction that these words exist. As for clarifying the intention behind establishing it: it is to generate faith in living beings. How does it generate faith? Saying 'Thus' means Ānanda manifests his own belief in the Buddha's words, stating that what the Buddha preached is thus, causing other living beings to generate faith together with him. Saying 'have I heard' means Ānanda himself is an imperfect person; if he were to say that this Dharma was preached by himself, many people would not believe it; because he says 'have I heard', many people generate faith. Generating faith is like this. What meaning does faith have, such that it should be generated? Faith is the initial gate of entering the Dharma and the foremost head of gathering the Dharma; whenever entering the Buddha's Dharma, one must first generate faith. Therefore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states that faith is hands: 'Just as a person who has hands can gather as he pleases upon reaching a place of rare jewels, but if he has no hands, he returns empty with nothing obtained.' Faith is also like this: one who enters the Buddha's Dharma has the hand of faith and gathers the treasures of the path and the Dharma as he pleases; if one lacks faith, one returns empty with nothing obtained.

1.22

Next, explaining its text: first, 'Thus' is explained, wherein it is first determined in relation to the person, and then explained. How is it determined? In the past it was mostly explained in relation to Ānanda: what Ānanda transmitted was as the Buddha had preached, hence it is called 'like' (ru); differentiating it from mere resemblance, it is further called 'this' (shi). Investigating this statement thoroughly, it is explained in relation to the Buddha, not in relation to Ānanda. How is this known? As the Dazhidulun says: ''Thus' (rushi) is an expression of faithful compliance; one who believes says, 'This matter is thus'; one who does not believe says, 'This matter is not thus.'' Ānanda manifests his own faithful compliance with the Buddha's words, declaring what the Buddha preached to be thus. Furthermore, the beginning of the Wenshi jing says: 'Ānanda said, 'I heard thus from the Buddha.'' Therefore, we know that Ānanda declared what the Buddha preached to be thus. It is only that the regional languages differ: that Wenshi jing conforms to the speech of this region, hence it says 'heard thus from the Buddha'; other sūtras mostly conform to the speech of foreign countries, first mentioning 'Thus' and afterward manifesting 'have I heard'. Such is a rough determination of it. How is it explained? As for the word 'Thus' (rushi), the explanation has two meanings: first, explaining in terms of dharmas: Ānanda says that what the Tathāgata preached is in accordance with (ru) all dharmas, hence it is called ru; preaching principle accords with principle, preaching phenomena accords with phenomena, preaching cause accords with cause, preaching fruit accords with fruit; all such statements in accordance with the Dharma accord with principle, hence called rushi ('thus'); indeed, because conflict with the Dharma is called wrong, statements in accordance with the Dharma can be called right (shi). Second, explaining in terms of persons: Ānanda says that what Śākyamuni now preaches is in accordance with (ru) the preaching of all past buddhas, hence called ru; being in accordance with the preaching of all buddhas accords with principle, hence called rushi; indeed, because conflict with what the Buddha preached is wrong, being in accordance with the preaching of all buddhas can be called right. As for the words 'have I heard' (wo wen): Ānanda, addressing future living beings, says that he received the preaching, hence called 'have I heard'. Hearing is actually done by the ear; why is it called 'I'? The various faculties are all instruments used by the self; it is named in terms of the master, hence called 'have I heard'. Within dharmas there is no person; why declare 'have I heard' in terms of a master? The explanation says: although there is no fixed master within dharmas, there is no lack of a provisional name governing living beings, hence it can be called 'I'. For example, when the four divisions of an army unite to form an army, although there is no fixed master, one can still say, 'Our army is brave and robust,' or 'Our army surpasses them.' This is also the same.

1.23

Question: Ānanda is a sage who has attained the principle; for what reason does he speak of 'I' identically with ordinary beings? The explanation says: although Ānanda speaks of 'I', it is not the same as ordinary beings. How is it not the same? There are three ways of speaking of 'I': first, speaking of 'I' with a view-bound mind—this refers to ordinary beings whose self-view has not yet perished, declaring that there is an 'I' within this mind; second, speaking of 'I' with an arrogant mind—this refers to trainees whose self-view has perished but whose self-pride still remains, declaring that there is an 'I' within this mind; third, the worldly conventional 'I'—this refers to those beyond training whose views and pride have already been eliminated, who follow worldly convention in declaring that there is an 'I'. At the time of collecting the Dharma, Ānanda's status was that of one beyond training; his views and pride had already been eliminated, and he spoke of 'I' in accordance with worldly convention. Therefore, it is not the same.

1.24

Question: Selflessness is superior, while having a self is inferior; why not follow the superior instead of speaking of 'I' according to the inferior? Answer: The Dharma for transforming living beings who cling to a self must be like this. If one did not speak of 'I', by what means could one demarcate and distinguish this from that, enabling people to recognize them? Therefore, even the Buddha, when transforming living beings who cling to a self, speaks of 'I' himself.

1.25

From 'at one time' downward, although the meaning encompasses both, in contrast to the previous preface of verification of faith, it is now explained solely in terms of initiation. Therein, first the place is clarified in relation to the Buddha; from 'together with the great' downward, the assembly is clarified in relation to the Buddha; the time applies to both. Within the former there are three: first, clarifying the time of transformation; second, clarifying the lord of transformation; third, clarifying the place of transformation. As for 'at one time', it is the time of transformation. In explaining this time, first the differing theories are recounted, next the faults are analyzed, and finally the correct meaning is revealed. As for the differing theories, it was traditionally transmitted in the past that the time of the Buddha's preaching and the time of Ānanda's hearing had no before and after; this excludes transmission errors and establishes the 'have I heard' above, hence it is called 'at one time'. Such are the differing theories. What is the analysis of their faults? First, it is examined through facts; next, it is verified through text. As for examining it through facts: Ānanda was born on the night the Buddha attained the Way. After the Buddha attained the Way, past six [periods of] seven days, he immediately preached sūtras. If relying on the Mahāyāna, past two [periods of] seven days the Buddha immediately preached sūtras. Ānanda at that time was still an infant in arms and did not personally participate in the assembly. Only after twenty years did he first leave the household, and only after thirty years did he become the attendant. Most of the sūtras preached before this were not heard by him in person. Although he did not hear them in person, the sūtras he collected all say 'at one time'; thus we know with certainty that 'at one time' is not a term distinguishing transmission [from direct hearing]. Furthermore, in the Hīnayāna, one cannot say that Ānanda was an expedient manifestation; by what means could one say that preaching and listening occurred at one time? Deductively testing by this, we know for certain that this is merely human opinion and cannot be lightly relied upon.

1.26

How is it known that Ānanda was born on the night the Buddha attained the Way? To verify this meaning, one must know the causes and conditions for bestowing the name Ānanda. Ānanda is a foreign word; here it is translated as 'Joy'. Joy has three causes: first, past causes and conditions: when Śākyamuni practiced as a bodhisattva in the past, he saw the Śākyamuni Buddha of the past whose father was named Śuddhodana, mother named Māyā, attendant disciple named Ānanda, and whose realm and retinue were no different from the present; thereupon he made a vow: 'May I in the future attain buddhahood with no difference from now.' Due to this fundamental vow, he has now attained the fruit, and therefore the attendant at present is also named Ānanda. Second, present causes and conditions: Ānanda was handsome and upright, and everyone who saw him was joyful, hence he was named Joy. Third, the parents bestowing the name: by what cause did the parents give him the name Joy? Because he was born at the time of joy. What was the time of joy? The time when the Buddha attained the Way.

1.27

The Tathāgata went over the city wall to leave household life at nineteen. After leaving household life, he practiced meditation for five years and starved himself for six years. The father-king knew that his son's body had become extremely emaciated and frail, and was constantly afraid that he would not survive. Later, the Bodhisattva realized that starving himself was not the path, accepted and ate milk-rice, and wished to attain correct awakening. Māra formed this thought: 'If the Buddha achieves the path, he will empty my realm; while the path is not yet achieved, I must crush his resolve.' Thereupon he led eighteen hundred million officials and subordinates, and brought all kinds of instruments of torment to terrify the Bodhisattva. At that time, the Bodhisattva entered the meditation of supreme loving-kindness, causing Māra's retinue to fall into inversion and tumble down. Once Māra was subjugated, he then formed this thought: 'The Bodhisattva's power is vast, not something I can overcome; I should torment his father.' Thereupon he went to the palace of Śuddhodana and cried out in this manner: 'Great King, you should know that Prince Siddhārtha died last night!' Hearing these words, the king fell from his couch, like a king of fish scorched by hot sand, and only revived after a long while, thinking: 'Had my son stayed at home, he would have been a wheel-turning king; who could have expected that he would leave household life only to gain nothing in vain?' Before long, the tree spirit of the Bodhi tree, on account of the Buddha's achievement of the path, took heavenly flowers to congratulate the father-king at Śuddhodana's palace, crying out in this manner: 'The Divine Prince of the Earth achieved the path last night; at the rise of the morning star he subjugated Māra's military host and succeeded in achieving the Buddha path, and so I congratulate you with heavenly flowers.' Hearing this, the king felt doubt: 'Just now a deva said my son had died, and now another deva says my son has achieved the path; which is to be believed?' The Bodhi spirit said: 'My words are to be believed; the one before was Māra, who merely came to torment you.' The king then had this thought: 'Had my son stayed at home, he would have been a wheel-turning king; today he has left household life and is a king of the Dharma wheel—in neither case has anything been lost. Just now I heard he was dead, and now I suddenly hear he is alive: this is one fold of great joy; furthermore, I hear he has achieved the path: this is a second fold of great joy.' Before long, the king's younger brother Droṇodana gave birth to Ānanda during the night, and at the dawn hour brought him in his arms to the king, saying: 'Last night I, your younger brother, fathered this boy.' The king then answered: 'My son has achieved the path, and you have also fathered a boy; multiple felicitations have converged together—let him be named Joy.' Inferred and verified by this, Ānanda was certainly born on the night [the Buddha] attained the path; on what grounds could one say that the preaching and the hearing occurred at one and the same time? The factual verification is like this. Next, to prove it through texts: for example, when the Sutra on Turning the Wheel of the Dharma recounts Ānanda compiling the Dharma, he first ascended the high seat and spoke a verse: / 'When the Buddha first preached the Dharma, / at that time I did not see it. / Thus having heard it through succession, / the Buddha wandered to Vārāṇasī / and for the assembly of five monks, / turned the Dharma wheel of the four truths.' / Yet the beginning of that sūtra also says 'at one time'; that [text] speaks of hearing it through succession and yet also says 'at one time,' so we clearly know that 'at one time' is not an expression meant to weed out the errors of transmission. Discerning its faults is like this.

1.28

Next, to discern the correct meaning: this is simply the occasion on which the Tathāgata engaged in teaching, which is spoken of as the 'time'; the occasions of teaching were numerous, and to distinguish it from other times, it therefore says 'at one [time].' How is this known? For example, in the larger version of that Daśabhūmika Sūtra it says: 'At that time the Buddha was among the devas'; when it came to a separate transmission, it changed 'at that' (er) to 'one' (yi). The words 'at that time' cannot be made to complete what is above; having changed 'that' to 'one,' how could it not belong to what follows? There are many instances of this throughout the sūtras, as in the text below: 'At one time I was in the Śmaśāna Forest,' 'At one time I was in the land of Kāśi,' 'At one time I was in Rājagṛha,' 'At one time I was on the bank of the Ganges'—cases like this are not just one.

1.29

As for what is called 'Buddha,' this designates the master of conversion. Translated here, it is named 'awakened.' Awakening has two meanings: first, awareness is named awakening, like a person becoming aware of a thief; second, awakening from sleep is named awakening, like a person waking from sleep. Regarding awareness, this is in contrast to the affliction-obstacle: the harm and encroachment of afflictions are identical in nature to a thief; only the noble ones are aware of them and are not harmed by them, hence it is called awakening. Regarding awakening from sleep, this is in contrast to the cognitive obstacle: the stupor and slumber of ignorance are identical in nature to sleep; as soon as noble wisdom arises, one brightly has a great awakening, like one who was sleeping gaining wakefulness, hence it is called awakening. Ignorance has two aspects: first, the ignorance of natural fetters, which deludes and veils true nature; to counter and eliminate that, one awakens fully to one's own real tathāgatagarbha nature, hence it is called awakening; second, unknowing regarding phenomena, which fails to comprehend conventional truth; to counter and eliminate that, one awakens to and knows all dharmas of the three aggregates—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate—hence it is called awakening. Thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'Because one equally and fully awakens to the aggregate of beneficial meaning, the aggregate of non-beneficial meaning, and the aggregate of neither beneficial nor non-beneficial meaning, one is called a Buddha.' The aggregate of meaning is the wholesome, non-meaning is the unwholesome, and neither meaning nor non-meaning is the indeterminate; knowing all of these, one is therefore called awakened. Being able both to awaken oneself and to awaken others, with one's awakened practice fully perfected, one is named a Buddha. Awakening oneself sets one apart from ordinary persons; awakening others sets one apart from śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; and having one's awakened practice fully perfected distinguishes one from bodhisattvas; therefore, this [state] alone is specifically named Buddha.

First 29 of 249 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經義記 — Classical Chinese