大般涅槃經義記 7
English (machine translation) 7
- Language
- English
7.1
Expounded by the śramaṇa Shi Huiyuan of Jingying Monastery under the Sui
7.2
The preceding has refuted the meanings of hearing and not hearing. From here below, the second part discriminates reality from differentiated characteristics, clarifying that it cannot be heard. However, here we clarify that it cannot be heard provisionally in terms of the single dharma of nirvāṇa; the rest can be known by analogy. Herein there are two: first, clarifying that because nirvāṇa is not identical to form and sound, it cannot be heard; second, clarifying that because nirvāṇa is not subsumed within the three periods of time, it cannot be heard.
7.3
In the former [section] there are two clauses: First, adducing the coarse to reveal the subtle, clarifying that form and sound can be seen and heard. Regarding 'all dharmas of form are either visible or invisible': there are three types of form: 1. visible and obstructive, meaning the domain of the eye; 2. invisible and obstructive, meaning the form confronted by the ear, nose, tongue, and body; 3. invisible and non-obstructive, meaning non-informative form among mental objects. Among these three types, the first one is visible and the rest are invisible; hence it says 'either.' Furthermore, among form objects, the present is visible, while the past and future cannot be seen, so one may also say 'either.' Regarding 'sound is likewise, either audible or inaudible': the present is audible, while the past and future cannot be heard. Second, discriminating the subtle from the coarse, clarifying: 'Great nirvāṇa is not identical to form and sound; how can it be said that it can be seen and heard?'
7.4
In the latter [section] there are also two parts: First, investigating through the sounds of the three periods of time, clarifying that one cannot thereby hear nirvāṇa. 'The past has already ceased and cannot be heard' means that past sound has already ceased, and one cannot trace it to hear nirvāṇa. 'The future has not yet arrived and is also not heard' means that because future sound has not yet arrived, one cannot trace it to hear nirvāṇa. 'At the time of listening in the present, it is not called hearing' means that right at the time of listening in the present, the ear merely hears the sound and has not yet been able to trace the sound to grasp that nirvāṇa; therefore, at the time of listening, it also cannot be called hearing nirvāṇa. 'Having heard, the sound ceases and is no longer heard' means that when listening is finished and the sound has ceased, there is no further grasping or tracing; hence one also cannot hear nirvāṇa. Second, investigating through the dharma-essence of nirvāṇa, clarifying that because it is beyond the three periods of time, nirvāṇa cannot be heard. 'It is also neither past, present, nor future' directly clarifies that the essence of nirvāṇa is not of the three periods of time. From 'if it is not of the three' downward clarifies that hearing it cannot be spoken of. From 'how can it be said' downward concludes that this is not the noble teaching.
7.5
The preceding was the first part, King of Virtue raising objections. Below, the Buddha praises him. 'Excellent!' is the general praise; from 'You now' downward is the specific praise. Within the specific there are two: first, praising what he has understood; second, praising whom he is equal to. Regarding what he has understood: 'You know all dharmas are like an illusion, a mirage,' and so forth, praises his understanding of emptiness; 'traces of drawing on water,' and so forth, praises his understanding of impermanence; 'like foam,' and so forth, praises his understanding of non-self; 'without suffering or pleasure,' and so forth, praises his understanding of suffering. Lack of pleasure is the characteristic of suffering; lack of suffering is the reality of suffering. Therefore the sūtra states: 'Penetrating the five aggregates thoroughly to be empty without arising is the meaning of suffering.' Question: King of Virtue previously raised objections against the Buddha regarding the meanings of hearing and not hearing; why does the Tathāgata praise his knowing illusions and the like? Answer: Because King of Virtue previously knew that dharmas are unreal and illusory, impermanent with arising and ceasing, and that through investigating the three periods of time there is no meaning of hearing at all, [the Buddha] gives this praise.
7.6
Next, praising whom he is equal to, clarifying that it is like what is known and seen by the ten grounds. Where is the stage of King of Virtue himself located, such that he is like the ten grounds? Below it says that King of Virtue has long since accomplished the virtues of bodhi and transformed immeasurable sentient beings, causing them to abide in bodhi. From the initial ground upward, all are called having accomplished the virtues of bodhi. However, here King of Virtue may either be a buddha manifesting his residence in the stage of training, or at the culmination of training, and what he understands is equal to the rest of the bodhisattvas of the ten abodes; therefore it says 'like.' Just as when the sūtra praises the Buddha, saying that what he expounds does not vary from the buddhas of the three periods of time, this also resembles that. Why does the Tathāgata not answer here? Some say it is because guests arrived. Without guests, would he not answer? The noble transformation is leisurely and unhurried; how could there be such a hindrance? It is simply that the Buddha skillfully transforms, withholding this answer so as to also benefit the newly arrived bodhisattvas and others; therefore he does not answer here.
7.7
From here below is the second part: Vaiḍūrya asks questions, and the Tathāgata replies. Herein there are six: 1. Vaiḍūrya, about to arrive, first manifests the mark of light; 2. discriminating where the light comes from; 3. Vaiḍūrya's person arriving to make offerings to the Buddha; 4. the questions and answers brushing away the marks of coming and going; 5. the questions and answers discriminating the Dharma; 6. Vaiḍūrya hearing the Dharma, rejoicing, and grasping its understanding. The textual divisions can be known: The noble transformation has its cause, so he first manifests the mark; the mark has its source, so next he discriminates it; having manifested the mark, there must be a response, so next his person arrives; the marks of coming obscure the real, so next they are brushed away; his coming is for revealing the Dharma, so next he discriminates the Dharma; having obtained the Dharma to his heart's content, he must grasp its understanding.
7.8
First, discriminating the mark of light: 'At that time, in the great assembly' clarifies the place where the light was manifested. 'In an instant' clarifies the time the light was manifested. 'There was a great radiant light' directly clarifies the manifestation of the light. From 'not blue' downward shows the mark of this light. Vaiḍūrya Bodhisattva, from within the body of equal, real realization, emitted the light of the Āgamas to make people behold it; therefore, the great assembly saw blue where there was no blue, and up to being able to see where there was no seeing. 'When the great assembly encountered the light, their bodies and minds were joyful' clarifies the benefit of the light, first in terms of the Dharma, and then by analogy. Question: Why did Boundless emit light that made this assembly afraid, while Vaiḍūrya emitted light that made this assembly joyful? It is simply because what was appropriate for transformation differed. How did it differ? Boundless was about to come to symbolize the noble extinction, desiring to make this assembly aware of the worldly unrest; hence he made the assembly afraid. Now the light emitted by this Vaiḍūrya was for the purpose of revealing the Dharma to make the assembly realize and enter it; supreme benefit was about to arrive, so he made the assembly joyful.
7.9
From here below is the second [section], discriminating where the light comes from. The text has two distinct parts: 1. clarifying that this light emanated from within his equal, real realization; 2. in terms of its transformed mark, clarifying that it came from the eastern direction, from the side of Vaiḍūrya. In the former, first he provisionally lodges in silence to manifest tranquility; from 'at that time the World-Honoured One asked Mañjuśrī' downward, he reveals reality by means of speech. In the former, lodging in silence: First Mañjuśrī asked, and the Buddha remained silent, not answering where the light came from; because tranquility and cessation are beyond words, he manifested it through silence. The Buddha's realization being thoroughly profound, he first manifested it through silence; Mañjuśrī awakened to and understood the meaning of tranquility from the Buddha. Therefore, second, Kāśyapa asked in turn, and Mañjuśrī did not answer; Kāśyapa again awakened and understood from Mañjuśrī. Therefore, third, Boundless asked in turn, and Kāśyapa did not answer; Boundless again awakened and understood from Kāśyapa. Therefore, fourth, King Pure Abiding asked, and Boundless did not answer. The noble assembly shared the same realization; therefore, even up to five hundred asking one another, all remained silent and did not answer.
7.10
In revealing through speech: from 'the Tathāgata first asked Mañjuśrī' downward, it is broadly discriminated through seven clauses. The first six clauses, in terms of reality, reveal reality, clarifying that there are no causes and conditions. The latter one clause, in accordance with marks, reveals reality, clarifying that there are causes and conditions: because the extinction of ignorance results in the lamp of bodhi, there is this light.
7.11
The preceding revealed reality; below discriminates in terms of transformation. Herein, the Tathāgata first instructs him to speak, not to enter the ultimate, but to explain it by means of conventional truth. From 'Mañjuśrī' downward discriminates it, wherein there are three parts: 1. this [side] manifests the matters of that [land]; 2. that [side] manifests the matters of this [land]; 3. concluding by answering the Tathāgata. In this side manifesting that, the text has four distinct parts: 1. manifesting the matters of that land and its people; 2. manifesting that transforming master; 3. from 'according to where they dwell' downward, manifesting that what was expounded there is not different from here; 4. from 'Vaiḍūryaprabha asked Pūrṇacandraprabha' downward, manifesting that what was asked there is not different from here.
7.12
In that side manifesting this, the text has five distinct parts: 1. Pūrṇacandraprabha Buddha manifests the matters of the people of this world; 2. manifesting this transforming master; 3. from 'great compassion is unadulterated' downward, manifesting that what was expounded here is not different from there; 4. from 'there is a bodhisattva there named Light' downward, manifesting that what was asked there is not different from there; 5. from 'the Buddha now answers' downward, that [buddha] encourages Vaiḍūrya to come here. Question: Why did this side not encourage going to that side? There are five meanings in explanation: 1. Sentient beings of that land had past causes and conditions with this Buddha, so he encouraged coming here; this assembly did not necessarily have conditions with that land, so he did not encourage going. 2. It was appropriate for sentient beings of this land to see him come to request the Dharma and obtain benefit, so he encouraged coming here; that assembly did not necessarily have such appropriateness regarding this land, so he did not encourage going. 3. Desiring to have those bodhisattvas come to guide this assembly to be reborn in the pure land, so that the transformative benefit would be vast and manifold, he encouraged coming here; if this assembly were to go, there would be no such benefit, so he did not encourage going. 4. Desiring to have those newly practicing bodhisattvas come to this evil realm to increase their compassionate vows, he encouraged coming here; if this assembly were to go, there would be no such benefit, so he did not encourage going. 5. If King of Virtue had transformative benefit there, the Buddha would also have encouraged going; but since this exposition was not initiated for that, he did not discuss it.
7.13
From 'That Vaiḍūrya' downward is the third section: Mañjuśrī adduces the impending arrival of that Vaiḍūrya to conclude his answer to the Tathāgata. This concludes the second part.
7.14
The third major section: Vaiḍūrya arrives and makes offerings to the Buddha, which can be known.
7.15
From here below is the fourth part: questions and answers brushing away the marks of coming and going. The Buddha first tests him by asking: 'Does one who arrives come? Or does one who does not arrive come?' From 'Vaiḍūrya' downward is the answer. First, he clarifies that there is no coming in terms of the body; next, he discriminates in terms of dharmas; finally, he reveals in terms of the mind, clarifying that because all faults are exhausted, there is no coming. In the first part, regarding 'World-Honoured One! The one who arrives does not come, and the one who does not arrive also does not come': there are two meanings in explanation: 1. Explaining in terms of the impermanence of the response body: The response body reaching here is called arriving; one that perishes along the way is called not arriving. Discussing the one who arrives: it is newly produced in this place and does not come from there, so it is not called coming. As for the one who does not arrive: it perishes right on the road and does not come to this place, so it also does not come. 2. Explaining in terms of the permanence of the true body: The aforementioned response body, whether arriving or not arriving, is originally motionless with respect to true, permanent tranquility, and therefore neither comes. 'I view this meaning as having no coming at all' summarizes and concludes it: whether arriving or not arriving, neither has coming; hence it says 'none at all.' Next, discriminating in terms of dharmas: 'If conditioned phenomena are permanent, they also do not come' is the same as the latter explanation; 'if they are impermanent, they also do not come' is like the former explanation. Here the five aggregates are termed conditioned phenomena. Below, revealing in terms of the mind, there are eight distinct clauses: The first three are being far removed from the faults of ordinary persons, and therefore there is no going or coming: first is being free from self-view, next is being free from arrogance, and last is being free from grasping practice (or seeing the two graspings is termed grasping practice). The latter five are being far removed from the faults of the two vehicles: the first two and the last one are the faults of delusion regarding the Mahāyāna; the middle two clauses are the faults of attachment to the Hīnayāna.
7.16
From here below is the fifth [section], questions and answers discerning phenomena. Within this there are two parts: first, seeking permission to ask and the Tathāgata granting permission; second, Vaiḍūryaprabha asking his questions properly and the Tathāgata discerning them for him. In the former part, first Vaiḍūryaprabha wishes to question and requests the Buddha's permission. "Let this matter be set aside" halts the previous discourse on the meaning of neither coming nor going; because an exposition of it cannot be exhausted, he says "let it be set aside." "I wish to make an inquiry" expresses his own mind. "May you condescend to show compassion, etc." requests the Buddha's permission. Below, the Buddha permits him: "ask as you wish" properly permits his question; "now is precisely the time" urges him to ask quickly; and from "I shall" onward promises to expound subsequently. From "why is this?" downward explains [it]: why do I say "now is precisely the time"? It is because buddhas are difficult to encounter and the Dharma is difficult to hear. "All buddhas are difficult to encounter, like the udumbara flower" means that buddhas are difficult to encounter. "The Dharma is also like this, difficult to hear, etc." means that the Dharma is difficult to hear. Herein, it first explains that the lesser Dharma is difficult to hear, being difficult to hear like a buddha, and therefore says "also." "Among the twelve divisions, the vaipulya is further difficult [to hear]" explains that the Great [Vehicle] is difficult to hear. From "therefore" downward concludes by exhorting him to listen attentively.
7.17
In the section where Vaiḍūryaprabha properly asks and the Tathāgata answers, the text divides into two: first, Vaiḍūryaprabha for his own sake asks about hearing and not hearing, and the Tathāgata explains for him; second, Vaiḍūryaprabha on behalf of others asks about arising and non-arising, and the Tathāgata explains for them. How is this known? The text below discerns it itself. Thus below, in Vaiḍūryaprabha's expression of understanding, it says, "I have received the Buddha's explanation of hearing and not hearing," so hearing and not hearing was specifically for his own sake; "and it has also caused eighty-four thousand bodhisattvas to know arising and non-arising," which clarifies that arising and non-arising was specifically on behalf of others.
7.18
Question: Why are hearing and not hearing specifically for his own sake, while arising and non-arising are specifically on behalf of others? [Answer:] Because hearing and not hearing are distinguished in terms of the ultimate truth, and their meaning is profound, they are specifically for his own sake. As for arising and non-arising, they discern the characteristics of dharmas of causes and conditions in conventional truth, and their meaning is coarse and proximate, so they are specifically on behalf of others. In reality and principle, what was asked was all for the sake of others; but in order to distinguish the different practices of benefiting oneself and benefiting others, this distinction is made.
7.19
Question: Since they equally constitute the two distinct practices, for what reason does he not act on behalf of others first? The explanation has three aspects: First, in the sequence of initiating practice, one must first cultivate oneself before being able to benefit others; therefore, he acts for himself first. Second, regarding hearing and not hearing, Bodhisattva Vaiḍūryaprabha had previously asked about this in his original land, and now continuing that request, he therefore asks about it first. Third, hearing and not hearing are the substance of the initial virtue; continuing the discernment above, he therefore asks about them first.
7.20
Question: If you say that in the sequence of initiating practice one must first act for oneself, why does the Tathāgata below admonish Vaiḍūryaprabha to act first for others and only afterward for himself? Explanation: Giving rise to the intention and initiating practice are distinct. If we speak of giving rise to the intention, one must put others first, because all practices take compassion as their root. If we speak of initiating practice, one must first cultivate oneself, and only afterward bring benefit to others. Below pertains to giving rise to the intention; here it pertains to initiating practice. Hence, they are different.
7.21
Within the first section, Vaiḍūryaprabha first requests: "Having received permission and also having been admonished" is the sūtra compiler's narrative. The Tathāgata's previous words, "ask as you wish," is receiving permission; "therefore you should concentrate your mind and be capable of receiving it" is the admonition. His immediately saying "What is meant by hearing what is not heard?" is precisely the words of his request.
7.22
The Buddha's answer has four parts: first, praising his excellent question and clarifying that he himself is capable of answering; second, enjoining him to listen and promising to expound; third, instructing him on the meaning of listening; fourth, properly explaining in accordance with the questions. In the first part, "Excellent!" is an expression of praise; "You now wish, etc." clarifies that he himself is capable of answering. Within this there are six clauses: the first four clarify that he has the ability to expound; the next one clarifies that he has the mind [to do so]; and the last one clarifies that he has the Dharma [to give]. Among the first four, "You wish to exhaust the ocean" presents what is sought, and from "you have encountered, etc." downward clarifies that he himself is capable of expounding; "You have an arrow of doubt" presents his affliction, and "I am a physician, etc." clarifies that he himself is capable of curing it; "Regarding the Buddha, etc." presents his confusion, and "I have wisdom, etc." clarifies that he himself is capable of showing [the truth]; "You wish to cross, etc." presents his departure, and "I can act as a [ferryman], etc." clarifies that he himself is capable of conveying him across. In clarifying that he has the mind, "You regarding me, etc." presents his affection, and "I regarding you, etc." reveals his own loving compassion. In clarifying that he has the Dharma, "You crave the Dharma-jewel" presents what he needs, and "you have encountered my possessing it, etc." clarifies that he himself is capable of bestowing it.
7.23
In the second, the injunction: first he enjoins, next he promises, and afterward he teaches how to listen well, sternly urging his mind.
7.24
In the third, the instruction: first [he teaches] individually, and afterward he concludes. Within the individual teachings there are twenty-one clauses, grouped into three: first, there are eight clauses teaching one to abandon the mind of an ordinary person; next, seven teaching one to relinquish the mind of the two vehicles; and finally, six teaching one to cultivate the mind of a bodhisattva.
7.25
Among those teaching the abandonment of the ordinary [mind]: first, "reverently having faith upon hearing the Dharma" teaches the abandonment of doubt and slander; second, "listening and receiving with the utmost mind" teaches the abandonment of laxity and indolence; third, "being reverent and respectful" teaches the abandonment of slighting [the teaching] as insignificant; fourth, from "toward the true Dharma" downward teaches the abandonment of hatred and disgust; fifth, from "do not harbor greed" downward teaches the abandonment of a defiled mind; sixth, from "do not view" downward teaches the abandonment of a resentful mind; seventh, from "having heard the Dharma" downward teaches the abandonment of an arrogant mind; eighth, from "do not, for the sake of..." downward teaches the abandonment of a mind of false discrimination and seeking differently.
7.26
In the next seven teaching the abandonment of the mind of the two vehicles, the first four teach the abandonment of the narrow mind of the two vehicles: "Also do not give rise to the thought: 'After I hear the Dharma, I will first liberate myself and only afterward liberate others'" is narrowness regarding suffering; having previously taught the abandonment of the ordinary mind, he also encourages relinquishing the lesser vehicle, hence saying "also do not." "First emancipating oneself and only afterward emancipating others" is narrowness regarding origination; "first pacifying oneself and only afterward pacifying others" is narrowness regarding the path; "first attaining nirvāṇa oneself and afterward causing others to do so" is narrowness regarding cessation. The latter three teach the abandonment of the small mind of the two vehicles: "Toward the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha one should give rise to the thought of equality" teaches the relinquishment of a mind of differentiation; "Toward birth and death one should give rise to the thought of great suffering" teaches the relinquishment of an attached mind—transmutation birth-and-death is truly great suffering, so one must not regard it as pleasure and become attached to it; "Toward the Mahāparinirvāṇa one should give rise to [the thought of] permanence, etc." teaches the abandonment of an inverted mind.
7.27
The six below teach the cultivation of the bodhisattva mind. First, [acting] first for the sake of others teaches the cultivation of a broad mind, also called teaching the cultivation of a mind mindful of sentient beings. "You should act for the sake of the Great Vehicle, not for the sake of the two vehicles" teaches the cultivation of a great mind, also called teaching the cultivation of the mind that seeks the Buddha's wisdom. The last four clauses teach the cultivation of a profound mind, also called teaching the cultivation of a mind free from the conditioned. Among these, the first two teach the abandonment of the mind of views: "Toward all dharmas you should have no abiding" is not abiding in non-existence; "also do not exclusively grasp at the characteristics of all dharmas" is not grasping at existence. "Do not be greedy toward dharmas" teaches the abandonment of a mind of attachment. "Always give rise to the mind that knows dharmas and sees dharmas" teaches the abandonment of a mind of delusion. "If you are capable of being like this, it is called hearing the unheard" brings together the conclusion and displays the benefit.
7.28
From here below is the fourth part, properly explaining in accordance with the questions. First, it explains the meaning of hearing and not hearing; afterward, it arrays categories by way of arising in order to make it clear. In the former part, there are four clauses; what is their distinction? In accordance with the explanation below, there are two kinds of dharmas: first, the hearable dharmas of birth and death; second, the dharmas of nirvāṇa that are beyond hearing. Persons are also of two kinds: first, ordinary people; second, noble ones. Taking the ordinary and the noble paired against that nirvāṇa constitutes the first two clauses: noble ones being capable of listening to and receiving the unhearable dharmas of nirvāṇa is called "hearing the unheard"; ordinary people being unable to listen to and receive the unhearable dharmas of nirvāṇa is called "not hearing the unheard." Taking the ordinary and the noble paired against that birth and death constitutes the latter two clauses: noble ones no longer taking in and receiving the hearable dharmas of birth and death is called "not hearing what is heard"; ordinary people ceaselessly taking in and receiving the hearable dharmas of birth and death is therefore called "hearing what is heard." Among the four, the first clause directly answers the previous question; the second exists to present the ordinary and reveal the noble; and the third and fourth exist to present the defiled and reveal the pure. As for the categories that follow, first arising and then arriving each have four clauses, which the text below explains itself.
7.29
From here below is the second part: Vaiḍūryaprabha brings forward the question on arising and non-arising, asking the Buddha to explain it so that those newly arrived bodhisattvas may understand and know it. From "as for arriving and not arriving" downward answers the King of Virtuous Brightness. In the initial question, the Buddha himself expounds extensively, which is not discussed here. In the text there are four parts: first, question; second, answer; third, objection; fourth, resolution. "World-Honoured One! What is meant by non-arising arising?" is the initial question. The previous four clauses ought in principle to have been asked together, but he merely speaks according to the beginning.
7.30
In the second, the answer: first it discusses it in terms of the internal, and afterward discerns it in terms of the external. Sentient beings are the internal; insentient things are the external. In the internal, it first explains and afterward summarizes in conclusion. In the explanation, first saying, "abiding firmly in conventional truth, when first emerging from the womb, it is called non-arising arising" explains the first clause above. Only when being in conventional truth does one receive birth; therefore it speaks of "abiding in the conventional." Moreover, receiving a body in conventional truth without disintegration is also called "abiding in the conventional." "When first emerging from the womb" properly explains the meaning of arising: "first" distinguishes it from what comes after, and "emerging from the womb" differentiates it from what came before. From "this is called" downward concludes: originally, when not yet born, it is called "non-arising"; when emerging, it is called "arising"; combining before and after, it is called "non-arising arising."
7.31
"What is meant by non-arising non-arising?" questions the second clause. "This Mahāparinirvāṇa has no characteristic of arising": the quiescent essence of nirvāṇa is one "non-arising"; and further, not being produced by the characteristic of arising is the second "non-arising." From "this is called" downward concludes. Herein, it does not intend to clarify the dharma of nirvāṇa [itself]; it clarifies the non-arising non-arising of the body of birth and death with reference to the dharma of nirvāṇa. One must attain nirvāṇa before one can attain non-arising non-arising; hence it discusses it in this manner.
7.32
"What is meant by arising non-arising?" questions the third clause. "At the time of death in conventional truth" explains and reveals its characteristic. This refers to the present retribution as conventional truth; conventional truth is arising, and death is called non-arising. From "this is called" downward concludes.
7.33
"What is meant by arising arising?" questions the fourth clause. Below, the explanation has four parts: First, it points generally to persons: "all ordinary people are called arising arising"; precisely because noble ones' births are not continuous, it points to ordinary people. Second, from "why is this?" downward explains; first it asks and then it explains: "arising arising without interruption" explains the meaning of arising arising in terms of the impermanence of mortal transmigration; "all outflows arising thought-moment by thought-moment" explains the meaning of arising arising in terms of moment-to-moment impermanence; from "this is called" downward concludes. Third, from "a bodhisattva of the fourth abode" downward presents the noble to reveal the ordinary: a bodhisattva of the fourth abode "is called arising non-arising," and therefore the ordinary is called arising arising. A bodhisattva of the Flaming Ground is called [one of] the fourth abode; within the mutual entry of the characteristics of the grounds, the third ground and below are called worldly, while the fourth ground and above are called world-transcending; a bodhisattva of the fourth abode relinquishes that worldly realm and realizes entry into the world-transcending wisdom of non-arising practice, and is called "arising non-arising." Fourth, from "why is this?" downward explains that meaning of arising non-arising for the fourth abode: first it asks and then it explains; because they have mastery in eliminating and severing rebirth, what originally arose now arises no more; from "this is called" downward concludes that this is called the internal dharmas.
7.34
Next, with regard to external phenomena, [the text] first poses questions to initiate [the inquiry]: "What is it for external phenomena to arise when not [yet] arisen?" questions the first line above; "not to arise when not [yet] arisen" questions the second line; "not to arise when arisen" questions the third line; and "to arise when arisen" questions the fourth line. Afterward, it explains their characteristics. In explaining the first question: "Just as a seed has not yet arisen..." explains the meaning of "not [yet] arisen"; "obtaining the four great elements..." and so forth explains the meaning of "arising"; and from "this is called..." downward concludes. In explaining the second: it first asks and then explains; "for instance, a ruined seed" explains the former "not [yet] arisen"; "and not yet having met with conditions" explains the latter "not [yet] arisen"; "such types as these..." cites this to categorize the rest; and from "called not [yet]..." downward concludes. In explaining the third: it first asks and then explains; "just as a sprout has arisen..." explains the first "arising"; "not increasing or growing" explains the subsequent "not [yet] arisen"; and from "this is called..." downward concludes. In explaining the fourth line: it first asks and then explains; "just as a sprout increases and grows" directly explains "arising when arisen"; "if it does not arise when arisen, there is no increase or growth" adduces "not arising when arisen" to illuminate the preceding "arising when arisen," its meaning being similar to the above; "all such things..." cites this to categorize the rest; and from "this is called..." downward concludes. Question: For what reason are these four meanings explained with reference to internal and external phenomena? Answer: In order to demonstrate that the meanings of dharmas are not one-sidedly fixed; because they are not one-sidedly fixed, all can be empty.
7.35
From "Vaiḍūrya said..." downward is the third [part], raising objections. The objections consist of six lines. The first two object to the above assertion that all contaminated [phenomena] have arising moment by moment. What was obscured before such that an objection is required? The explanation states: Previously it was said that the substance of contaminated dharmas has arising moment by moment, but the mark of arising apart from the dharma had not yet been distinguished before; therefore he objects here to make the Buddha explain it. The latter four [lines] object to the meanings of the four lines above, such as "arising when not [yet] arisen." What was incomplete before such that he objects again? Previously it was explained in terms of coarse internal and external things, and the mark of arising had not yet been analyzed in contrast to the dharmas; therefore he raises objections again to make the Buddha analyze it.
7.36
Among the former [two], the opening statement, "If contaminated dharmas have arising..." takes up the mark of arising based on the preceding contaminated [dharmas]. This cites that mark of arising apart from the dharma and not the arising of the dharma's own substance; wishing to pose an objection on its basis, he therefore cites it, examining and determining whether it is "permanent or impermanent" by advancing and retreating.
7.37
Below, in formulating the objections, there are five lines of differentiation: First is determining the substance of the dharmas: matter, mind, and that which is neither matter nor mind are contaminated dharmas.
7.38
Second is discerning the meaning of the four marks in terms of the aforementioned dharmas. There are two kinds of four marks: First, the four marks inherent to the substance of the dharma: in dharmas such as matter and mind, in each moment each has four marks—initial arising, subsequent abiding, ultimate difference, and final cessation. Second, the four marks apart from the dharma: alongside dharmas such as matter, there are separately and simultaneously the four marks of arising and so forth. Broadly speaking, there are four marks; divided finely, there are eight, namely the four great marks and the four secondary marks, also called minor marks: alongside that great arising there is a minor arising, up to alongside cessation there is a minor cessation. Because the former four kinds mark broad and numerous dharmas, they are called "great"; because the functioning of the latter four marks is narrow and few, they are called "minor." These eight marks are described collectively as four; these four marks are named according to their functions. That which is called "arising": because it can produce another, it is called "arising," not being the arising that first begins before abiding; up to the mark of cessation: because it can extinguish another, it is called "cessation," not being the cessation that completely destroys after difference. Strictly speaking in terms of substance, all eight exist. Initial arising, subsequent abiding, ultimate difference, and final cessation—the four marks are like this. Now, this specifically discusses the meaning of arising in terms of the four marks apart from the dharma.
7.39
Third is clarifying permanence and impermanence with respect to the mark of arising. One should know that this arising is also permanent and impermanent, as explained in the text below. In terms of the scope of phenomena, alongside dharmas such as matter, there is constantly this arising; hence it is called permanent. In terms of the scope of dharmas, this mark of arising rises and falls moment by moment; once it has passed away, it never appears again; hence it is called impermanent.
7.40
Fourth is clarifying the intention of the objection. Vaiḍūrya now prompts the Tathāgata to explain the meanings of permanence and impermanence, existence and non-existence, in terms of arising, so as to enable those newly arrived bodhisattvas to understand and know them; therefore he poses objections.
7.41
Fifth is explaining in accordance with the text. First he objects to the meaning of permanence: "If arising is permanent..." cites what was determined before; "...then contaminated dharmas would have no arising" objects and refutes in terms of the dharma. Contaminated [dharmas] are impermanent; alongside an impermanent dharma, how could there be a permanently abiding arising? If it exists alongside the contaminated, it is clearly known to be impermanent. Below he objects to impermanence: "If arising is impermanent..." takes up what was determined before; having arisen once, it passes away and never returns, hence it is called impermanent; "...then the contaminated is permanent" objects and refutes in terms of the dharma. If arising is impermanent, having arisen once, it passes away and never returns; alongside contaminated dharmas there would then be no arising. Without arising or alteration, it ought to be permanent. However, the nature of contaminated dharmas is impermanent; there is constantly a mark of arising that follows and alters them; thus one clearly knows that the mark of arising is not impermanent.
7.42
Among the latter four objections: the first objects to the aforementioned meaning of "arising when arisen"; the second objects to the aforementioned meaning of "not arising when arisen"; the third objects to the aforementioned meaning of "arising when not [yet] arisen"; the fourth objects to the aforementioned meaning of "not arising when not [yet] arisen." This poses objections by juxtaposing the mark of arising with the dharmas. For what reason does it not follow the previous order? Truly, because the first two contrast self and other, while the latter two contrast the presence and absence of arising at the nascent stage, it follows this convenience and does not adhere to the previous order.
7.43
Among the former two: the first line specifically formulates an objection in terms of what produces; the second line formulates an objection in contrast to what is produced. What is the first objection? If that mark of arising could furthermore produce itself, it could be called "arising when arisen"; but arising does not produce itself, so how could it be called "arising when arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, that mark of arising can only produce dharmas such as matter and mind, but cannot produce itself; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If arising produces itself, arising has no intrinsic nature," refuting it through reason. If it had intrinsic nature, it could arise and thus could produce itself; since arising has no intrinsic nature, how could it produce itself? Question: Previously it was said that alongside dharmas such as matter, there is separately a mark of arising that is neither matter nor mind; why does he now say that arising has no intrinsic nature? The explanation states: This mark is determined to be that which produces; apart from that which produces, there is no further intrinsic nature of the dharma that is produced; hence he says "none."
7.44
What is the second [objection]? If that mark of arising could produce other dharmas that do not arise, the Tathāgata could speak of it as "not arising when arisen"; but it cannot produce other dharmas that do not arise, so how could it be called "not arising when arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, that mark of arising can only produce co-arising dharmas of its own kind that are capable of arising, and cannot produce other unconditioned, uncontaminated dharmas that cannot arise; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If it can produce others, by what cause and condition does it not produce the uncontaminated?" refuting it through reason. If it could produce others, by what cause and condition would it not produce unconditioned, uncontaminated dharmas? Since it cannot produce them, it is not "not arising when arisen."
7.45
Among the latter two: the first line refutes having arising with respect to the time when it has not yet arisen; the latter line refutes lacking arising with respect to the time when it has not yet arisen. What is the first line? If at the time when it has not yet arisen it already had arising, the Tathāgata could speak of it as "arising when not [yet] arisen"; but at the time when it has not yet arisen it cannot have arising, so how could the Tathāgata speak of "arising when not [yet] arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, dharmas such as matter are called "arisen" when they appear; when they have not yet appeared, they cannot be called "arisen"; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If when not [yet] arisen there is arising, why only now is it called arising?" refuting it through reason: if at the time when it has not yet arisen it already previously had arising, why only now, at the time of its present appearance, is it called arising?
7.46
What is the latter line? If at the time when it has not yet arisen it entirely lacked the nature of arising, the Tathāgata could speak of "not arising when not [yet] arisen"; but at the time when it has not yet arisen it already had the nature of arising, so why does the Buddha speak of "not arising when not [yet] arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, when conditioned dharmas have not yet arisen previously, although they lack the occurrence of arising, they already have the nature of arising; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If when not [yet] arisen there is no arising, why is space not said to arise?" refuting it through reason: if conditioned dharmas fundamentally lacked the nature of arising and only later came to arise, space fundamentally also lacks the nature of arising, so why does it not arise? Since space does not arise, it may be that previously there was no arising; but conditioned [dharmas] can arise, which clearly shows that fundamentally there is arising. Because fundamentally there is arising, it is not "not arising when not [yet] arisen."
7.47
From here on is the fourth [part], the Tathāgata explaining and resolving [the objections]. "Excellent!" praises the question. Below he directly analyzes and explains, the text having four distinct parts: First, he takes up the previous six objections and explains that they are ineffable, eliminating people's fixed attachments. Second, from "There are causes and conditions..." downward, he explains that the aforementioned can be spoken of, prompting people to seek understanding. Third, from "What is it that 'arising when not [yet] arisen'..." downward, he explains the former first meaning of ineffability. Fourth, from "How is it that with causes it can also be spoken of..." downward, he explains the former second meaning of being speakable.
7.48
In the first section: saying "arising when not [yet] arisen is ineffable" takes up the fifth objection previously made by Vaiḍūrya and clarifies that it is ineffable; saying "arising when arisen is ineffable" takes up the third objection previously made by Vaiḍūrya and clarifies that it is ineffable; saying "not arising when arisen is ineffable" takes up the fourth objection previously made by Vaiḍūrya and clarifies that it is ineffable; "not arising when not [yet] arisen is ineffable" takes up the sixth objection made by Vaiḍūrya above and clarifies that it is ineffable; "arising is ineffable" clarifies the first objection previously made by Vaiḍūrya, that a permanently existing arising cannot be definitively asserted; saying "non-arising is ineffable" clarifies the second objection previously made by Vaiḍūrya, that after the mark of arising ceases there is absolute non-arising alongside contaminated dharmas, which cannot be definitively asserted. These all cannot be definitively asserted; hence they are called "ineffable," not that they are completely unexpressed.
7.49
Question: For what reason does he explain that these six lines are all ineffable? Answer: In order to demonstrate that the meanings of dharmas are not one-sidedly fixed; because they are not one-sidedly fixed, all six meanings are fully possessed. What is this meaning? Because "arising when not [yet] arisen" cannot be fixed, there is the meaning of "arising when arisen." What is this meaning? Below, subsequent arising is used to refute initial non-arising, explaining that conditioned dharmas, at the time when they have not yet arisen, have a nature capable of arising, so they cannot be definitively asserted as not arising. Because they are not non-arising, when that mark of arising produces such dharmas capable of arising, it is called producing what is capable of arising; therefore there is the meaning of "arising when arisen." Because that "arising when arisen" cannot be fixed, there is the meaning of "not arising when arisen." What is this meaning? Below, initial arising is used to refute subsequent arising, explaining that conditioned dharmas are called "arisen" because they are produced by another mark of arising, but their substance is not arising. Because their substance is not arising, when that mark of arising produces this dharma, it is called producing what does not arise; therefore there is the meaning of "not arising when arisen." Because "not arising when arisen" is ineffable, there are the meanings of "arising when arisen" and "not arising when not [yet] arisen." What is this meaning? Below, initial arising is used to refute subsequent non-arising, explaining that because conditioned dharmas are produced together with another mark of arising, their substance is not non-arising. Because they are not non-arising, when that mark of arising produces this dharma, it is called "arising when arisen"; therefore there is the meaning of "arising when arisen." The text below furthermore uses the subsequent phrase "not arising" to refute initial arising, explaining that because the initial mark of arising can produce non-arising dharmas such as matter, it is called arising, but its substance is not arising. Since the nature of both that which produces and that which is produced is not arising, it is called "not arising when not [yet] arisen"; therefore there is the meaning of "not arising when not [yet] arisen." Because "not arising when not [yet] arisen" is ineffable, there is the meaning of "arising when not [yet] arisen." What is this meaning? Below it states that the unarisen dharma of nirvāṇa also has arising; hence an unarisen dharma can have the meaning of arising. Nirvāṇa being so, other dharmas are categorized likewise; therefore there is the meaning of "arising when not [yet] arisen." Furthermore, because the meaning of arising is not one-sidedly fixed, there is the meaning of non-arising; because non-arising is not fixed, there is the meaning of arising. Question: For what reason are these six meanings established? Answer: In order to explain that the meanings of dharmas are not one-sidedly fixed; because they are not fixed, all can be empty.
7.50
In the second section, "Because there are causes and conditions, they can also be spoken of" explains that, on the basis of causes and conditions, all six are also speakable. What is the meaning of this? The mark of arising external to the dharma is able to produce dharmas capable of arising, such as form; therefore there can be the meaning of "arising of what arises." Those very forms and so forth, in their essence, are not the mark of arising, and are termed "non-arising." The mark of arising external to the dharma producing these non-arising dharmas, such as form, is called the "arising of non-arising." When they have not yet arisen, they already possess the nature of capability to arise; therefore there can be the meaning of "non-arising arising." When they have not yet arisen, the actual event of arising does not yet exist; hence there is the meaning of "non-arising non-arising." From the standpoint of phenomenal demarcation, alongside dharmas such as form, the mark of arising is constantly present; therefore there is the meaning of arising. From the standpoint of dharma demarcation, they arise and cease from moment to moment; once having passed away into the past, there is no principle of their recurring; therefore there can be the meaning of non-arising.
7.51
In the third section, it explains them sequentially according to the previous six lines. "How is it that the non-arising arising cannot be spoken of?" cites the question regarding the first line; below, it explains its characteristics, specifically using the subsequent arising to refute the initial non-arising to show that it cannot be spoken of. "Non-arising" cites the initial non-arising; "is called arising" is the subsequent arising. At the time of non-arising, there is the meaning of capability to arise; how could one definitively speak of it? Below "Non-arising," it clarifies it again. "Why?" is the question. "Because of arising" means that because it is capable of arising, one cannot definitively speak of it strictly as non-arising.
First 51 of 436 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大般涅槃經義記 — Classical Chinese