[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) › 3.2.6 # 涅槃玄義發源機要 3.2.6 涅槃玄義發源機要 3.2.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.3.2.6) 「但會」下，示己義會極為冥，不以體一為冥也。 「慧印」下，引證會極為冥，寂亦冥也。 「肇論」下，即《般若無知論》中文也。 故彼論云「用即寂，寂即用，用寂體一也。 」佛雖知幻等者，如下經中長者難佛云：「瞿曇知幻，應是幻人。 」佛反問云：「汝知旃陀羅，應即是旃陀羅耶？ 若其非者，如來之幻，豈是幻人？ 」「若爾」下，依經顯義。 須知中智雙照、當體雙遮，故知俗不冥俗、真不同真。 「三當有起用」下，前列章云「自在起用」，今云「當有」者，謂今第三即是第二，當有果成起自在用。 相由明義，故云當有起用。 望前列章，乃是互現。 疏中此例甚眾。 或改此文「當有」為「自在」者，非。 「且約三種」下，即三輪施化也。 不思議，謂芥納須彌，即身輪現通。 二鳥雙遊，謂雙照。 常與無常，即心輪。 鑒機善惡，邪正雙攝，謂聲教等被，即口輪說法也。 不思議用者，〈四相品〉明身密中，經云「善男子！ 是大涅槃能建大義。 汝等今當至心諦聽，廣為人說，莫生驚疑。 若有菩薩摩訶薩住大涅槃，須彌山王如是高廣，悉能取令入於芥子。 其諸眾生依須彌者，亦不迫迮無往來相，如本無異。 唯應度者見是菩薩以須彌山納芥子中，復還安止本所住處。 此名不思議用。 」而古來解釋七家不同。 「一云」下，次第出七家義也。 何謂神通者，但是眾生自見，何顯菩薩神通。 況經云「如是高廣悉能取令入芥子中」，而此師云其實不入，顯背佛言。 「三解」下，此成論師義。 下釋〈四相品〉，疏文重破此論師意，云「此是聖人權巧，於凡不解。 」故云「既是不可思議」等。 「餘者」下，經所談無非聖人境界，既皆釋義，驗悉解知，那於權巧獨云不解耶？ 小大皆空者，長沙所解義與此同。 彼頌云「須彌本不有，芥子本來空。 將空納不有，何處不相容。 」「若其」下，破也。 況大小相入正論事用，不應以皆空約理釋之。 大中有小性者，須彌有芥子性故能小。 小中有大性者，芥子有須彌性故能大。 「此亦」下，破此解凡有三失：一同外道、二同小乘，由執定性故。 縱非外道，還同小乘有門之義，故云「又似毘曇」。 三不成妙用，故云「還是大容於小」等。 地論師義，大約與第四師義同。 興皇謂法性本空，絕大小相，故云本無大小。 世諦虛假，相待而說，有大小名。 其體無異，但是一有為法耳。 小是大小者，芥子是須彌之大相也。 大是小大者，須彌是芥子之大相也。 既是一有為法中有此二相，何妨相入，故云故得相容。 大不自大等者，須彌自無大相，待他芥子之小為大相也； 小不自小等者，芥子自無小相，待他須彌之大為小相也。 故墮外道他性之執。 「自性」下，舉前第五師況斥興皇也。 前解云「大中有小性，小中有大性」，即是自性大小。 其義甚巧尚已被破，況今作他解，其義迂拙耶？ 「今明」下，明今義二：初依理起用、二用遍法界。 由分證妙理，故有大用，而自在應機、普周十界。 故有二文：初，又二：初、理絕四計。 以芥子之小、須彌之大。 二並是事，而此事即理，並絕四性，豈同古師？ 文中先明小、次以大例。 明小中，初句明不自生。 「亦不」下，明不他生。 「大不」下，此二句屬推大。 然是相對而來，以此段正推小，故下云「大亦如是」方是明大也。 因緣故小大者，明不共生。 應以上句「亦不」字貫下。 「亦不」下，明不無因生。 「不在」下，引經以證理絕四計也。 內自、外他、兩中間、共，常自有無因，由此妙理本絕四執，故不可以九界心思言議也。 「大亦」下，明大例小可見，故云「亦如是」。 「通達」下，明依理起用。 通達此理者，通達向明絕四之理也。 即事而真者，達大小事即實相理。 唯應度者，即能感之人。 見不思議等，即能應之事。 感應道交，以所見也。 > From 'Only converging' downward, he shows his own position that converging at the utmost point is 'merging', not that having an identical essence is 'merging'. From 'The seal of wisdom' downward, he cites proof that converging at the utmost point is 'merging', and that quiescence is also 'merging'. From 'Treatise of Sengzhao' downward, this is a passage in the Treatise on Prajñā Being without Knowing. Thus that treatise says: 'Function is itself quiescence; quiescence is itself function. Function and quiescence are identical in essence.' As for 'Although the Buddha knows illusions, etc.', it is as in the sūtra below where an elder challenges the Buddha, saying: 'Gautama knows illusions; he must be an illusionist.' The Buddha asks in return: 'You know an outcaste (caṇḍāla); does that mean you are an outcaste? If not, how could the Tathāgata's illusion make him an illusionist?' From 'If so' downward, he clarifies the meaning based on the sūtra. One must understand that the wisdom of the Middle Way illuminates both and in its very essence precludes both; hence one knows that the conventional does not merge into the conventional, nor is the ultimate identical with the ultimate. From 'Third, giving rise to function in the future' downward, earlier when listing the headings it said 'giving rise to sovereign function', but now it says 'future', which means that the present third is precisely the second: once the future fruition is accomplished, it gives rise to sovereign function. Clarifying the meaning based on their mutual dependence, it is therefore called 'giving rise to function in the future'. Compared to the previous listing of headings, they mutually manifest each other. Such instances are very numerous in the commentary. Those who alter 'future' in this text to 'sovereign' are mistaken. From 'Tentatively regarding three kinds' downward, these are the bestowals of transformation through the three wheels: 'inconceivable' refers to placing Mount Sumeru into a mustard seed, which is the bodily wheel manifesting supernormal powers; 'two birds flying in tandem' refers to double illumination of the permanent and impermanent, which is the mental wheel discerning the capacities of good and evil; 'gathering both the heterodox and the orthodox' refers to the voice and teaching being bestowed equally, which is the verbal wheel preaching the Dharma. As for 'inconceivable function', in the 'Chapter on the Four Marks' clarifying the secret of the body, the sūtra states: 'Good sons! This Great Nirvāṇa can establish great meaning. You should now listen attentively with a sincere mind and explain it broadly to others; do not give rise to alarm or doubt. If there is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who abides in the Great Nirvāṇa, a king of mountains such as Mount Sumeru, so high and broad, he can take it all and make it enter into a mustard seed. The various sentient beings who depend on Mount Sumeru will also not be cramped, nor will there be any mark of going or coming; it will be no different from before. Only those who should be saved will see this bodhisattva take Mount Sumeru and place it into a mustard seed, and then return it to settle in its original dwelling place. This is called inconceivable function.' Historically, however, the explanations of seven schools have differed. From 'One says' downward, he sets forth the positions of the seven schools in sequence. As for 'How can this be called supernormal powers?': it is merely that sentient beings see it themselves—how does this manifest the bodhisattva's supernormal powers? What is more, the sūtra says: 'So high and broad, he can take it all and make it enter into a mustard seed,' yet this master says that in reality it does not enter, which blatantly contradicts the Buddha's words. From 'The third explanation' downward, this is the position of the Chengshi master. Below, when commenting on the 'Chapter on the Four Marks', the commentary's text refutes this treatise master's view again, saying: 'This is the provisional skillfulness of a sage, which is not understood by ordinary beings.' Hence it says: 'Since it is inconceivable, etc.' From 'The others' downward, what the sūtra discusses is nothing other than the realm of the sages; since they interpret all the meanings, proving they comprehend and know them all, why do they say they do not understand only with respect to provisional skillfulness? As for 'Both the small and the large are empty', the meaning explained by Changsha is the same as this. His verse says: 'Sumeru originally does not exist; / The mustard seed is fundamentally empty. / Taking emptiness and inserting it into nonexistence, / Where would they not accommodate each other?' From 'If so' downward, this is a refutation. Furthermore, the mutual entrance of the large and the small directly discusses concrete function; one should not interpret it in terms of principle by taking them as both empty. 'Having the nature of the small within the large' means Sumeru has the nature of a mustard seed and therefore can be small. 'Having the nature of the large within the small' means the mustard seed has the nature of Sumeru and therefore can be large. From 'This also' downward, refuting this explanation involves three errors in total: first, it is identical with the heterodox; second, it is identical with the Hīnayāna, because of clinging to a fixed nature. Even if it is not heterodox, it still matches the doctrine of the Hīnayāna gate of existence, hence it says 'it also resembles the Abhidharma'. Third, it does not achieve wonderful function; hence it says: 'It is still the large accommodating the small, etc.' The position of the Dilun master is roughly the same as the fourth master's position. The master of Xinghuang said that the Dharma-nature is fundamentally empty, transcending the marks of large and small, hence he says 'fundamentally there is neither large nor small'. Conventional truth is deceptive and fictitious, spoken of relatively, having the names large and small. Their essence is not different; they are merely a single conditioned dharma. 'The small is the large of the small' means the mustard seed is the large mark of Sumeru. 'The large is the small of the large' means Sumeru is the small mark of the mustard seed. Since these two marks exist within a single conditioned dharma, what obstacle is there to their mutual entrance? Hence he says: 'Thus they can accommodate each other.' As for 'The large is not large of itself, etc.': Sumeru of itself has no large mark, but depends on the other—the smallness of the mustard seed—to be the large mark; 'the small is not small of itself, etc.' means the mustard seed of itself has no small mark, but depends on the other—the largeness of Sumeru—to be the small mark. Therefore he falls into the heterodox clinging to other-nature. From 'Own-nature' downward, he adduces the previous fifth master to rebuke Xinghuang by comparison. The previous explanation said: 'There is the nature of the small within the large, and the nature of the large within the small', which is large and small of own-nature. That meaning was very clever and yet was still refuted; how much more so when he now makes an explanation based on the other, whose meaning is convoluted and clumsy? From 'Now to clarify' downward, he clarifies the present position in two parts: first, giving rise to function based on principle; second, function pervading the Dharma realm. Because one partially realizes the wonderful principle, one has great function, which responds to capacities with sovereignty and universally encompasses the ten realms. Hence there are two sections: the first also has two parts: first, principle transcends the four propositions. As for the small of the mustard seed and the large of Sumeru, both are concrete phenomena, yet these concrete phenomena are themselves principle, and both transcend the four natures—how could this be the same as the ancient masters? In the text, he first clarifies the small, and next uses the large as an analogy. Within clarifying the small, the first sentence clarifies that it is not self-arisen. From 'Nor is it' downward, it clarifies that it is not other-arisen. From 'The large does not' downward, these two sentences belong to examining the large. However, they come about through mutual contrast; since this passage directly examines the small, the subsequent statement 'The large is also like this' is what truly clarifies the large. 'Small and large on account of causes and conditions' clarifies that they are not jointly arisen. One should carry down the words 'nor is it' from the preceding phrase. From 'Nor is it' downward, it clarifies that it is not arisen without a cause. From 'Not in' downward, he cites the sūtra to verify that principle transcends the four propositions. 'Internal' is self, 'external' is other, 'in between the two' is joint, and 'always of itself' is without cause. Because this wonderful principle fundamentally transcends the four clingings, it cannot be deliberated upon through the thoughts and words of the nine realms. From 'The large is also' downward, it clarifies that using the large as an analogy for the small can be understood, hence it says 'is also like this'. From 'Thoroughly penetrating' downward, it clarifies giving rise to function based on principle. 'Thoroughly penetrating this principle' means thoroughly penetrating the principle just explained that transcends the four \[propositions\]. 'Phenomena are identical with the real' means penetrating that the phenomena of large and small are themselves the principle of true reality. 'Only those who should be saved' are those who are capable of stimulating \[the response\]. 'Seeing the inconceivable, etc.' is the concrete matter of being capable of responding. Stimulus and response interact along the path, whereby it is seen. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.3.2.5) - [Next: 3.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.3.2.7) - [Up: 3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.3.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766~en-mt.3.2.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.3.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1766.3.2.6) · Pramāṇa