[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) › [大般涅槃經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767) › 11.24 # 大般涅槃經疏 11.24 大般涅槃經疏 11.24 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.11.24) 從「若言無明」下，是第二約不二不異明中道，亦有法、譬。法說為三：一約因緣明不二、二約觀行明不二、三總結明不二。因緣是境、觀是智照，總結是境智。初十二因緣明不二，又三：先舉無明、次舉行識、三舉善惡。舊解：無明是惑，明即是解。又云：無明行是過去，識等是現在。三世分別，此不會經。經訶云「明與無明行識等異，是愚人法。智者了達其性無二。」「若言應修」下，第二約觀行明不二，又三：一苦、二無常、三無我。「我與無我」下，第三總結不二，又三：一結歎、二結勸、三結會。結歎又二：先結佛所歎、後結說已。結勸又二：初勸持不二法、二勸持不二經。「如我」下，三結會，懸指般若。舊云：引〈深奧品〉中燈炷喻。或云：《大品》度不盡，外國本經應有此文。或言：《大品》雖不的當，而不二之義無差。又云：諸有二者名有所得，無有二者名無所得。又二是眼、識，識內了別、眼外見色，此則是二。眼識無二，乃是智者，了達諸法亦爾。從「如因乳生酪」下，第二譬成因緣不二之義。如五味相生無自他性即是因緣，因緣即是中道，其意顯然。文為三：初列五味、二廣破自他、三結因緣義。初列五味者，五味相生成前不二。次「如是酪性」下，廣破自他，先立章門、後解釋。初章門中，酪從乳生為章門，次例四味。就初又兩：初從乳生酪即是章門，從自生他生並是非門。次「若從他生」下，第二釋二章門，先釋非門、次釋是章門。初非門中，先釋不從他生、次釋不從自生。初破他生可見。破自生中云「不應相似相續自生」，是一往將誰相似相續，而今見續乳後有酪等味，故知不從自生。自生即應五味一時，既前後相續，豈得一時？「雖不一時」下，釋是章門。破自他之後，因緣假記，云酪從乳生，而不自不他。而言先有者，亦是因緣。甘味多故不能自變者，乳味即甜、酪味即酢。下論義難此。「是牛食啖」下，第三結是因緣，先譬、次合。初譬中食水草譬稟經教，血變成乳譬變惡為善。若食甘草譬稟大教，若食苦草譬稟小教。雪山譬此經，肥膩譬佛性，牛若食者譬眾生，醍醐譬佛果。能依此經修行，得無上佛果，無有青黃赤白等色，譬依教而修，無聲聞天人之果，純得醍醐涅槃果也。此中六位，文義宛然（云云）。「是諸眾生」下，第二合譬中先合、次論義。初合中，先合二、後合不二。不二中云無明轉變為明者，他經復云「明起斷無明。」舊三解。一云：只斷是變、變是斷，文兩義一。二云：變語就體，斷語就用。一心體上有善惡兩義，只己心上變善為惡、變惡為善，心即不變。次就用者，須斷無明，只得於明，不斷不得。即莊嚴師解。開善嫌莊嚴淺近，就修習緣了兩緣釋之。 > From the passage beginning with "If one says that ignorance..." onwards, this is the second \[section\], which explains the middle way in terms of neither non-dual nor different, and it also contains both literal teaching and analogies. The literal teaching has three parts: first, explaining non-duality in terms of causes and conditions; second, explaining non-duality in terms of contemplative practice; third, generally concluding and explaining non-duality. Causes and conditions are the object, contemplation is cognitive illumination, and the general conclusion concerns both object and cognition. The first part, explaining non-duality in terms of the twelve links of dependent origination, also has three aspects: first, raising ignorance; second, raising formations and consciousness; third, raising good and evil. According to an old interpretation: ignorance is delusion, and clarity is understanding. It also says: ignorance and formations are the past, while consciousness and so forth are the present. This distinction of the three times does not accord with the sūtra. The sūtra rebukes this, saying: "That clarity is different from ignorance, formations, consciousness, and so forth is the view of fools. The wise thoroughly realize that their nature is non-dual." From "If one says one should cultivate..." onwards, the second part explains non-duality in terms of contemplative practice, also with three aspects: first, suffering; second, impermanence; third, non-self. From "Self and non-self..." onwards, the third part generally concludes non-duality, also with three parts: first, concluding with praise; second, concluding with an exhortation; third, concluding with a concordance. Concluding with praise also has two parts: first, concluding with what the Buddha praised; second, concluding that it has already been spoken. Concluding with an exhortation also has two parts: first, exhorting one to uphold the non-dual Dharma; second, exhorting one to uphold the non-dual sūtra. From "Just as I..." onwards, the third part is a concordance, pointing forward to the Prajñā\[pāramitā\]. An old view says: it cites the lamp-wick analogy from the \*Chapter on the Profound\*. Another says: the \*Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra\* did not translate it fully, and the original foreign text of the sūtra must contain this passage. Or it is said: although it is not specifically found in the \*Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra\*, the meaning of non-duality does not differ. It is also said: all that has duality is called "having attainments," and having no duality is called "having no attainments." Furthermore, duality refers to the eye and consciousness: consciousness inwardly discerns, and the eye outwardly sees forms—this then is duality. That the eye and consciousness are non-dual belongs to the wise, who thoroughly realize that all phenomena are likewise. From "Just as curd is produced dependent on milk..." onwards, the second part uses analogies to establish the meaning of the non-duality of causes and conditions. Just as the successive generation of the five flavors lacks any intrinsic nature of self or other, so it is with causes and conditions; causes and conditions are themselves the middle way, and this meaning is obvious. The text has three parts: first, listing the five flavors; second, extensively refuting self and other; third, concluding the meaning of causes and conditions. First, as for listing the five flavors, the mutual generation of the five flavors establishes the aforementioned non-duality. Next, from "Such a nature of curd..." onwards, it extensively refutes self and other, first setting forth the topic heading and then explaining it. In the initial topic heading, curd being produced from milk serves as the topic heading, and the other four flavors follow by analogy. Regarding the first, there are two parts again: first, curd being produced from milk is the affirmative proposition; producing from self and producing from other are both the negative propositions. Next, from "If it is produced from another..." onwards, the second part explains the two topic headings, first explaining the negative proposition, and next explaining the affirmative topic heading. In the initial negative proposition, it first explains that it is not produced from another, and next explains that it is not produced from itself. The refutation of production from another is readily apparent. In refuting production from self, it states: "It should not arise from itself in similarity and continuation." For at the outset, with what could it be similar and continuous? Yet now we see curd and the other flavors succeeding milk; thus we know it is not produced from itself. If it were produced from itself, then the five flavors should exist simultaneously; since they succeed one another sequentially, how could they be simultaneous? From "Although they are not simultaneous..." onwards, it explains the affirmative topic heading. After refuting self and other, by provisional designation based on causes and conditions, it is said that curd is produced from milk, yet it is neither from self nor from other. As for stating that it previously existed, this too is causes and conditions. In saying that because the sweet flavor is abundant, it cannot transform itself: the flavor of milk is sweet, while the flavor of curd is sour. The debate below raises difficulties against this. From "When this cow eats and drinks..." onwards, the third part concludes that this is causes and conditions, first by analogy and next by application. In the initial analogy, eating grass and drinking water illustrates receiving the scriptural teachings, while blood transforming into milk illustrates transforming evil into good. Eating sweet grass illustrates receiving the great teaching; eating bitter grass illustrates receiving the small teaching. The Snow Mountains illustrate this sūtra, the rich fatness illustrates the buddhadhātu, the cow eating it illustrates sentient beings, and the ghee illustrates the fruit of buddhahood. Being able to practice in reliance on this sūtra, one attains the unsurpassed fruit of buddhahood; that there are no blue, yellow, red, white, or other colors illustrates that practicing according to the teaching, there are no fruits of śrāvakas, gods, or humans, but purely the attainment of the fruit of nirvāṇa, which is ghee. In this, the six stages are fully manifest in text and meaning (and so forth). From "All these sentient beings..." onwards, in the second part applying the analogy, it first applies the analogy and next presents the debate. In the initial application, it first applies the dual, and afterwards applies the non-dual. In the non-dual, it states that ignorance transforms into clarity; another sūtra also states, "Clarity arises and cuts off ignorance." There are three old interpretations. The first says: cutting off is simply transforming, and transforming is simply cutting off; the texts are two, but their meaning is one. The second says: the term "transforming" pertains to essence, while the term "cutting off" pertains to function. In the single mind's essence there are both good and evil aspects: within one's own mind alone, good transforms into evil and evil transforms into good, while the mind itself does not transform. Next, regarding function: one must cut off ignorance, and only then obtain clarity; without cutting it off, it cannot be obtained. This is the interpretation of Master Zhuāngyán. Kāishàn considered Zhuāngyán's view shallow and simplistic, and explained it in terms of the two conditions of cultivation: the auxiliary conditions and the revealing condition. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.11.23) - [Next: 11.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.11.25) - [Up: 11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.11) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.11.24) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.11.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.11.24) · Pramāṇa