[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [涅槃玄義發源機要](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766) › 1.15.3 # 涅槃玄義發源機要 1.15.3 涅槃玄義發源機要 1.15.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.15.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.3) 「四云」下，約所詮之理不可思議故，雙非華梵。 又理難思，故不可翻。 而摩訶亦可翻大，故非不可翻。 「滅據」下，法即五陰，人即假名。 「生死」下，滅生死妄法，證涅槃真法。 轉凡夫因人為極聖果人，以轉釋度義也。 滅名目無者，目謂題目，以滅名題目其無，以度名題目其有也。 實法即第一義諦，假人五陰俱不可得，故云俱滅。 相續即世諦，從因至果、革凡成聖，故云俱度。 「三云」下，苦依身在名有餘，身智俱滅名無餘。 而非永免者，謂死已還生，故但名滅。 佛於三界更不受生，方得名度。 「觀師」下，難開善初解也。 生死之人附何而度者，且人之與法豈得相離，由五陰實法有眾生假人，如攬指成拳，故無異體。 其法既已先滅，其人附何而度？ 此難彼釋滅義也。 「若生」下，人既可轉，例知法亦可轉，以人法無異體故，何得云生死法滅耶？ 此難彼釋度義也。 「今研」下，今師以四教望之，次第破彼四解。 三果生死未併滅者，初果雖滅四趣生死，而有欲界人天七生，二果尚有一生； 三果雖無欲界生死，尚有色無色生死，故前三果未併滅也。 「凡法」下，約有餘解脫難。 子縛已斷名因滅，苦依身在名果未滅。 「若灰」下，約無餘難假法俱寂者，謂假人實法也。 寂則不論度者，人既寂滅，約誰論度？ 「又不」下，小教所談二乘取證無餘，無作佛義。 凡法都不滅等者，以三藏菩薩不斷惑，故不論滅與不滅。 度與不度者，以本自不生今則無滅，若法若人俱如幻化故。 「非但」下，滅偽法在十住，滅真法在十行。 滅偽法故度凡人，滅涅槃故度聖人。 言不涉真法者，彼釋滅但云生死之法滅。 「語不」下，釋度但云生死之人轉，故云不涉真、不論聖也。 滅之與度不縱不橫者，滅即三解脫、度即三般若，而體同名異，三一相即不縱不橫。 「既非」下，小即三藏、共即通教、菩薩別教、佛即圓教，先聖法言唯茲四教。 彼既並非，故不敢道。 受此有無猶是苦等者，領受二見故逼迫為苦，執此起惑故成集，修行對治故是道，斷常俱離故是滅。 此斥開善有無之義全同斷常。 言猶是滅諦者，謂縱滅斷常未出三藏小乘，意未涉大，故云猶是。 「滅諦之真」下，開善所說尚非小乘滅義，云何釋今圓頓涅槃？ 若以至目有者，牒義。 「若雙」下，按定雙目。 生死者，謂以滅度俱約生死以說也。 「生死本自」下，正難。 則無度法等者，實法既無，假人亦無，故云亦無度者。 「既不可」下，以生死本空如幻化故。 「云何」下，生死尚不可，何況涅槃耶？ 疣贅者，上音尤，下之汭切。 《說文》曰「疣，贅也。 小曰疣，大曰贅。 」《釋名》云「疣者，丘也。 出於皮上，如地有丘。 」今以滅度之義如彼疣贅，通真之理喻之虛空。 「若以」下，約別教破。 且以初地中道為涅槃。 文中先邪、次小，約二邊次第縱破也。 縱非邪執乃是小義，縱非小義乃是教道，二邊定非中道。 涅槃以名召法等者，以滅度名召有無法，以有無法應滅度名。 名物尚存者，物即法也。 能通拙者，且據三藏二乘為破析色故拙。 所通偽者，所證偏真，非是真實故。 貧住化城者，乏大乘財食，猶如貧子止住草菴。 患佛道長遠，譬之疲商權息化城。 《法華》開顯，破草菴之滯情、蕩化城之執教，故云久已被棄。 「云何」下，安用《法華》已棄之義，用釋今經圓常之名。 偏邪二邊者，望當教但中理，故二邊悉是偏邪。 有不關無等者，有無不融故非圓義。 縱橫狼籍者，各體故縱，並得故橫。 劫掠下，掠，力尚反，奪取也。 經喻外道竊佛常樂之名，喻以劫牛。 今斥開善但得滅度之名，如掠劫群牛。 不知其義，如不解鑽搖。 三藏酪漿尚猶難得，況通別二酥、圓醍醐耶。 又滅度無明亦非究竟者，以破無明通分真故。 滅度究竟者，破惑究竟唯妙覺故。 > From "The fourth says" downward, it negates both Chinese and Sanskrit from the perspective of the unthinkability of the principle that is elucidated. Furthermore, because the principle is difficult to conceive, it cannot be translated. Yet, mahā can also be translated as "great"; hence, it is not the case that it cannot be translated. From "Extinction is based on" downward, the phenomenon (dharma) is the five aggregates, and the person is the nominal designation. From "Samsāra" downward, the false phenomena of samsāra are extinguished, and the true phenomena of nirvāṇa are realized. The causal person of an ordinary being is transformed into the fruitional person of the ultimate sage; this explains the meaning of "crossing over" through transformation. Extinction is a designation referring to nonexistence: "referring to" means a title or appellation; using the name "extinction" designates its nonexistence, while using the name "crossing over" designates its existence. Actual phenomena are the truth of the primary meaning; the provisional person and the five aggregates are both ungraspable, hence it is said that "both are extinguished." Continuity is the conventional truth; going from cause to fruit and transforming ordinary into sage, hence it is said that "both cross over." From "The third says" downward, the presence of the suffering-dependent body is called remainder; the extinction of both body and wisdom is called without remainder. That it is "not an eternal release" means that having died, one is born again, and so it is only called "extinction." Only when the Buddha no longer undergoes rebirth in the three realms is it entitled to be called "crossing over." From "Examining the master's" downward, it challenges the first explanation of Kaishan \[Zhizang\]. With regard to "on what does a person in samsāra rely to cross over?", can a person and phenomena ever be separated? It is due to the actual phenomena of the five aggregates that there is the nominal person of a sentient being, just as grasping the fingers forms a fist, so they do not have distinct substances. Since its phenomena are already extinguished first, on what does that person rely to cross over? This challenges his explanation of the meaning of extinction. From "If samsāra" downward, since the person can be transformed, by parallel we know that phenomena can also be transformed, because person and phenomena have no distinct substances. How then can one say that the phenomena of samsāra are extinguished? This challenges his explanation of the meaning of crossing over. From "Now examining" downward, our master \[Tiantai Zhizhe\], viewing it through the lens of the four teachings, refutes those four explanations in sequence. That the samsāra of the three fruitions is not completely extinguished means: although the first fruition has extinguished samsāra in the four evil destinies, there remain seven rebirths among humans and gods of the desire realm; the second fruition still has one rebirth; although the third fruition has no samsāra in the desire realm, it still has samsāra in the form and formless realms; therefore, the previous three fruitions have not completely extinguished it. From "Ordinary phenomena" downward, it challenges him from the perspective of liberation with remainder. The sub-entrenchments already severed is termed "causal extinction"; the presence of the suffering-dependent body is termed "fruitional non-extinction." From "If ash" downward, it challenges from the perspective of without remainder: "the provisional and phenomenal are both quiescent" refers to the nominal person and actual phenomena. If quiescent, one does not speak of crossing over: once the person is quiescent and extinguished, with reference to whom could one speak of crossing over? From "Furthermore, not" downward, what the lesser teaching discusses is that the two vehicles realize without remainder, and there is no meaning of becoming a Buddha. "Ordinary phenomena are not extinguished at all", etc.: because a tripiṭaka bodhisattva does not sever delusions, one does not discuss extinction or non-extinction. "Crossing over and not crossing over": because originally there is fundamentally no arising, now there is no extinction, for both phenomena and persons are like illusions. From "Not only" downward, extinguishing false phenomena is in the ten abodes; extinguishing true phenomena is in the ten practices. Because false phenomena are extinguished, ordinary persons cross over; because nirvāṇa is extinguished, sages cross over. Stating that it "does not touch upon true phenomena": his explanation of extinction merely says that the phenomena of samsāra are extinguished. From "The statement does not" downward: his explanation of crossing over merely says that the person of samsāra transforms; hence it is said that it does not touch upon the true and does not discuss sages. That extinction and crossing over are neither vertical nor horizontal means: extinction is the three liberations, and crossing over is the three prajñās, yet their substance is identical while their names differ; the three and the one are mutually identical, neither vertical nor horizontal. From "Since it is neither" downward: the "lesser" is the tripiṭaka; "shared" is the shared teaching; "bodhisattva" is the separate teaching; "Buddha" is the perfect teaching. The Dharma words of the ancient sages are confined only to these four teachings. Since he is none of these, he dares not speak. "Receiving these existence and nonexistence is still suffering", etc.: by accepting the two views, their affliction constitutes suffering; clinging to this produces delusion, constituting the origin; practicing the antidote constitutes the path; abandoning both annihilationism and eternalism constitutes cessation. This reprimands Kaishan's meaning of existence and nonexistence as being completely identical to annihilationism and eternalism. Saying "it is still the truth of cessation" means: even if annihilationism and eternalism are extinguished, it does not transcend the Hinayāna tripiṭaka; its intent has not yet touched upon the Mahāyāna, hence it says "it is still." From "The truth of the cessation truth" downward: what Kaishan states is not even the Hinayāna meaning of cessation; how could it explain the present perfect, sudden nirvāṇa? From "If to designate existence", it restates the meaning. From "If both", it holds fast to both designations. "Samsāra" means that both extinction and crossing over are explained in terms of samsāra. From "Samsāra is fundamentally" downward, it directly challenges. "Then there are no phenomena to cross over", etc.: since actual phenomena do not exist, the nominal person does not exist either; hence it says "there is also no one who crosses over." From "Since it cannot be" downward: because samsāra is fundamentally empty, like an illusion. From "How much less" downward: if even samsāra is inadmissible, how much more so nirvāṇa? "Wart and polyp (youzhui)": the upper character is pronounced yóu; the lower has the fanqie zhī-ruì. The Shuowen says: "A you is a zhui. A small one is called a you; a large one is called a zhui." The Shiming says: "A you is a mound. It emerges above the skin, just as the earth has mounds." Here, the meaning of extinction and crossing over is compared to that wart and polyp, while the principle of penetrating the true is compared to empty space. From "If using" downward, it refutes it in terms of the separate teaching, temporarily taking the Middle Way of the first stage as nirvāṇa. In the text, first comes the perverse, next the lesser, hypothetically refuting the two extremes in sequence. Even if it is not a perverse grasping, it is a lesser meaning; even if it is not a lesser meaning, it is \[merely\] the pedagogical path; the two extremes are definitively not the Middle Way. "Nirvāṇa uses the name to summon the phenomenon", etc.: the names of extinction and crossing over summon the phenomena of existence and nonexistence; the phenomena of existence and nonexistence correspond to the names of extinction and crossing over. "Names and objects still remain": "objects" means phenomena. "The means of access is clumsy": based for now on the tripiṭaka two vehicles, it is clumsy because of disintegrating and analyzing matter. "The access attained is false": what is realized is biased truth, not the real truth. "Poor, dwelling in the conjured city": lacking the wealth and provisions of the Mahāyāna, like a poor son staying in a straw hut; distressed by the vast distance of the Buddha Path, like exhausted merchants temporarily resting in the conjured city. The Lotus Sūtra's opening and revealing destroys the clinging sentiment toward the straw hut and clears away the dogmatic teachings of the conjured city; hence it is said to have "long been cast aside." From "How could" downward: how could one use a meaning already cast aside by the Lotus Sūtra to explain the name of the perfect and eternal of the present sūtra? "Biased and perverse, the two extremes": looking from the perspective of the "only-middle" principle of that teaching, the two extremes are entirely biased and perverse. "Existence is unrelated to nonexistence", etc.: because existence and nonexistence do not fuse, it is not the perfect meaning. "Vertically and horizontally scattered in disarray": because of distinct substances, they are vertical; because attained simultaneously, they are horizontal. From "Plunder" downward: "plunder (lüè)" has the fanqie lì-shàng, meaning to seize. The sūtra compares non-Buddhists stealing the Buddha's names of eternal and bliss to plundering cattle. Now it reprimands Kaishan for merely obtaining the names of extinction and crossing over, like plundering a herd of cattle, without understanding their meaning, like not understanding churning and shaking. Even the buttermilk of the tripiṭaka is difficult to obtain, let alone the curd and butter of the shared and separate, or the perfect ghee. Furthermore, extinguishing and crossing over ignorance is also not ultimate, because destroying ignorance applies generally to partial truth. "Extinguishing and crossing over is ultimate" because destroying delusions is ultimate only at sublime enlightenment. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.15.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.2) - [Next: 1.15.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.4) - [Up: 1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766~en-mt.1.15.3) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.3) · Pramāṇa