[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) › 1.15.4 # 涅槃玄義發源機要 1.15.4 涅槃玄義發源機要 1.15.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.15.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.4) 「方得」字上或有「滅度」二字者，文誤。 「以後」下，後謂妙覺，前謂分真。 第二第三者，文亦誤，應云第三第二也，第三約塵沙無明，第二約四住塵沙。 初番即有餘無餘尚不可。 以第四番中分破釋涅槃，況用第三第二，尚不可以第三第二，況用初番小乘義以釋圓頓極果涅槃耶？ 亦應凡夫從此至彼便應是度者，準前開善立義，乃云度者永免之名。 不云從此至彼，今此例難也。 既得以已有、還無釋滅，例應以凡夫死此生彼釋度也。 文中初難凡夫展轉複並，意云：既許是滅，即應是度； 若不是度，亦應非滅。 何得云滅通凡夫、度唯聖人耶？ 「若聖」下，次難聖人既許滅義同凡，例應度義亦同，故云聖人從此至彼等。 「若同」下，結難也。 若同小乘凡聖，則近同小果，非至圓極之高； 狹唯六道，非包十界之廣。 「若異」下，借使異小凡聖，但是通別，是故亦非高廣。 「云何」下，結斥。 應作四四十六番者，難第三第四解，亦應例前二解作四教難之，故有十六。 今文存略，前二解各約四教則成八，後二解各合為一，故但十番。 然後二解文雖但一，義各含四。 第三約有餘無餘及以三惑，則已該四教。 第四既約近狹非高廣以斥之，則高廣在圓。 近狹收三，義各含四，其旨煥若。 「明哲」下，示存略意。 哲，智也。 「時人」下，示研難意。 薳，音偉，遠也。 已如前說者，如前依開善翻名也。 > If above the characters "fang de (only then is it attained)" there are the two characters "mie du (extinction and crossing over)", it is a textual error. From "Taking the latter" downward: the "latter" refers to sublime enlightenment, and the "former" refers to partial truth. "The second and the third": this is also a textual error, and should read "the third and the second"; the third relates to dust-and-sand and ignorance, and the second relates to the four entrenchments and dust-and-sand. The first round, namely with and without remainder, is already inadmissible. If even the division into parts in the fourth round is inadmissible to explain nirvāṇa, how much less using the third and the second? If one cannot even use the third and the second, how much less using the Hinayāna meaning of the first round to explain the nirvāṇa of the ultimate fruit of the perfect and sudden? "It would also follow that an ordinary being going from here to there should just be crossing over": according to Kaishan's previous establishment of the doctrine, he said that crossing over is the name for eternal release. He did not say "going from here to there"; now this is challenged by analogy. Since he was able to explain extinction as having already existed and then returning to nonexistence, by analogy he should explain crossing over as an ordinary being dying here and being born there. In the text, he first challenges the cyclical repetition of ordinary beings; the meaning is: if you permit it to be extinction, then it should just be crossing over; if it is not crossing over, it should also not be extinction. How can one say that extinction applies generally to ordinary beings, while crossing over applies only to sages? From "If sages" downward, next he challenges: since the meaning of extinction for sages is admitted to be the same as for ordinary beings, by analogy the meaning of crossing over should also be the same; hence he says "a sage going from here to there", etc. From "If the same" downward is the concluding challenge. If it is the same as the Hinayāna ordinary beings and sages, then in proximity it is the same as the lesser fruit, not reaching the height of the perfect ultimate; in narrowness it is only the six destinies, not encompassing the breadth of the ten realms. From "If different" downward: even if it differs from the lesser ordinary beings and sages, it is merely the shared and separate, and therefore it is also not high and broad. From "How could" downward is the concluding reprimand. That "there should be four times four, or sixteen rounds": challenging the third and fourth explanations should also follow the example of the first two explanations by challenging them in terms of the four teachings, hence there would be sixteen. The present text is condensed: the first two explanations are each treated in terms of the four teachings, making eight, while the latter two explanations are each collapsed into one, hence there are only ten rounds. However, although the text for the latter two explanations is single, their meanings each contain the four. The third, in terms of with remainder, without remainder, and the three delusions, already encompasses the four teachings. Since the fourth reprimands it in terms of near and narrow rather than high and broad, high and broad lies in the perfect. Near and narrow gathers the three; their meanings each contain the four, and the import is resplendent. From "The discerning" downward indicates the intent behind condensing. "Discerning (zhe)" means wise. From "Contemporaries" downward indicates the intent behind investigating and challenging. "Wei (薳)" is pronounced wěi, meaning far. "As already stated previously": as stated previously regarding the translation of the name according to Kaishan. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.15.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.3) - [Next: 1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.16) - [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.1.15.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.1.15.4) · Pramāṇa