大般涅槃經疏 17.11

17.11

「迦葉白佛」下，第二明虛實。開善謂為實觀。亦先問、次答。問為三：一奪難、二縱難、三遮難。初奪難者又二：先法、次譬。初法者，明雖欲拔苦，實未拔苦，皆是虛言。雖欲與樂，實不得樂，此是假說。次舉譬顯。亦如比丘作假想觀，觀羹為薉而實非薉，雖言與樂實不得樂。「世尊若非虛妄」下，第二縱難。縱有實益，何以不見得安樂者？若實與樂，今佛菩薩無量無邊，何以不見與眾生樂？「若當真實」下，第三遮難。佛若答言是虛無實，如來亦由往昔行慈得為梵主最勝最上，何得無益？是故遮云不得無益，故名遮難。次「佛言善男子」下，答前三難：初答遮難、次答奪難、三答縱難。初答遮難為二：先歎其遮、次正答。答中四偈，為三：初一行明大慈、次一行大悲、三兩行格量。實能與樂，功福無量。「善男子夫修慈者」下，二答奪難。又二：初倡真實，故舉聲聞假想之非，顯菩薩是實。云何知耶？第二廣明是實。又五：一實能轉境、二實能治惑、三實能善本、四實能遍諸法、五實不可思議。初為三：一倡、二釋、三結。初如文。釋中意者，解此有二：一實能轉境、二但能令見。若轉金為土則可實轉，若令眾生為非眾生但能令見。一師云：經云能成，云何二解？菩薩非但能轉金成土，亦轉眾生成非眾生。非眾生者即是草木，轉非眾生成於眾生。若言眾生本來虛妄無所有者，當知眾生有非眾生。若言諸法有安樂性，即非眾生亦是眾生。情與無情、有性無性準此可知。私問：若眾生與非眾生實更互轉，情作無情、無情作情，是義難信；若不實轉，聖力徒施。總而言之，只是諸佛菩薩自既依正，不二而二二而不二，能令眾生亦復如是。此則永轉。若暫轉者，不無斯義，亦令轉者不自覺知。況復慈即如來、如來即慈，慈即佛性、佛性即諸法，敬請後德思之思之。「復次善男子」下，第二明實能治惑。又三，謂倡、釋、結。舊云：四等但是功德，猗樂相伏，非究竟斷。此中四等，即是般若即是能斷。「復次善男子四無量」下，第三明實為善本。又二：先明能為大乘善本、次明能為三乘善本。初又二：初明通為一切善本、次明能為布施之本。初文可見。「善男子菩薩」下，二偏明為布施之本。又五：一正施本、二無相為得、三有相為失、四明一心即四心、五廣發誓願。初明施本，舉八事為下八事作本。「如是施時」下，第二明無相為得。又三：初總、次別、三結。初如文。次別中云不見因果者，施時是因、得報是果，得果是常、不得是斷，菩薩皆不作如此施。三「雖復」下，結，如文。「善男子菩薩若見」下，第三明有相為失，為三：法、譬、合。法如文。譬中，人譬淺行菩薩，箭譬慳起，眷屬請醫譬知識勸施。言且待者，譬不肯時施。我當觀者，取相分別。毒箭誰射，譬分別福田，若持若犯。何箭竹柳，譬分別施物，何物可捨、何物不可。所有毒者，譬執施之人竟不知施。而命終者，既不得施，為慳所蔽，斷善根命。合譬，如文。「復次善男子」下，第四一心即四顯圓慈相，明行施時具有四等。施時生慈及以起悲，施時心喜、施已是捨。「菩薩於慈心中」下，第五廣發誓願。凡有八重。初明施食乃至燈明，初三如文。第四施衣，云離身一尺六寸者，一依理云：裂諸見衣，除十六知見；二依事云：面各四寸，即一尺六。第五施華香中云無戒者，是無戒之戒，非是不受及受不得之無。《華嚴》云「如虛空戒、無所依戒。」《大集》云「無所住戒，見住戒非故。」言無作戒者，非是非色非心之無作，乃是此戒，不作生死涅槃之戒。餘如文。

From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onward, the second [part] clarifies the unreal and the real. Kāishàn took this to be real contemplation. Here too, there is first a question and next an answer. The question has three parts: first, a destructive challenge; second, a concessive challenge; third, a pre-emptive challenge. In the first, destructive challenge, there are again two parts: first, in terms of Dharma; next, by analogy. First, in terms of Dharma, it clarifies that although one wishes to eradicate suffering, in reality one has not yet eradicated suffering, and these are all empty words; although one wishes to give joy, in reality [sentient beings] do not obtain joy, and this is a provisional statement. Next, an analogy is adduced to illustrate it: it is just like a bhikṣu performing the meditative visualization of provisional images, contemplating soup as impurity when in reality it is not impure; although one speaks of giving joy, in reality [sentient beings] do not obtain joy. From "World-Honoured One, if it is not false" onward is the second, concessive challenge: even granting that there is real benefit, why is no one seen to obtain peace and joy? If joy is truly given, and present buddhas and bodhisattvas are measureless and boundless, why are they not seen to give joy to sentient beings? From "If it were truly real" onward is the third, pre-emptive challenge: if the Buddha were to reply that it is unreal and without reality, the Tathāgata nevertheless became the most supreme and unexcelled Brahmā-lord through practicing friendliness in the past, so how could it be without benefit? Therefore, pre-empting [the reply by saying that] it cannot be without benefit, it is called a pre-emptive challenge. Next, from "The Buddha said: 'Good son'" onward, he answers the preceding three challenges: first, he answers the pre-emptive challenge; next, the destructive challenge; third, the concessive challenge. The first answer to the pre-emptive challenge has two parts: first, praising his pre-emption; next, the direct answer. Within the answer are four verses, which have three parts: the first single line clarifies great friendliness; the next single line, great compassion; the third two lines, evaluation and measurement. Truly being able to give joy, its merit and fortune are immeasurable. From "Good son, one who cultivates friendliness" onward, secondly, he answers the destructive challenge. Here too are two parts: first, proclaiming reality, he thus adduces the deficiency of the śrāvakas' provisional visualization to reveal that the bodhisattvas' is real. How is this known? The second [part] extensively clarifies that it is real. This again has five parts: 1. truly being able to transform the objective realm; 2. truly being able to cure afflictions; 3. truly being the root of goodness; 4. truly being pervasive through all dharmas; 5. truly being inconceivable. The first has three parts: 1. proclamation; 2. explanation; 3. conclusion. The first is as in the text. As for the meaning in the explanation, there are two interpretations of this: first, truly being able to transform the objective realm; second, merely being able to make them see it as such. If transforming gold into earth, it can be truly transformed; if making sentient beings into non-sentient beings, it can merely make them see it as such. One master says: "The sūtra says 'able to accomplish'; why make two interpretations? A bodhisattva not only can transform gold into earth, but also transforms sentient beings into non-sentient beings. Non-sentient beings are grass and trees; he transforms non-sentient beings into sentient beings. If one says sentient beings are originally unreal and non-existent, one should know that sentient beings have non-sentient being [nature]. If one says all dharmas have the nature of peace and joy, then non-sentient beings are also sentient beings. Sentient and insentient, having the nature and lacking the nature, may be understood accordingly by this standard." I privately ask: if sentient beings and non-sentient beings truly transform into each other mutually—the sentient becoming insentient and the insentient becoming sentient—this meaning is difficult to believe; yet if they are not truly transformed, the power of the noble ones is exerted in vain. To sum it up: it is simply that the buddhas and bodhisattvas themselves, regarding their own environment and sentient beings, being not two yet two, two yet not two, can cause sentient beings to be likewise. This is permanent transformation. If it is temporary transformation, such a meaning is not absent, and it also causes the one transformed not to be self-aware of it. How much more so since friendliness is the Tathāgata and the Tathāgata is friendliness; friendliness is buddhadhātu and buddhadhātu is all dharmas! I respectfully request later virtuous ones to reflect upon this and reflect upon this! From "Furthermore, good son" onward, the second [part] clarifies truly being able to cure afflictions. Here too are three parts, namely proclamation, explanation, and conclusion. The old [commentators] said: "The four equalities are merely merits; relying on joy, their characteristics are suppressed, not conclusively severed." Here, the four equalities are prajñā itself, and are capable of severing. From "Furthermore, good son, the four immeasurables" onward, the third [part] clarifies truly being the root of goodness. Here too are two parts: first, clarifying that they can be the root of goodness of the Great Vehicle; next, clarifying that they can be the root of goodness of the three vehicles. The first again has two parts: first, clarifying that they are generally the root of all goodness; next, clarifying that they can be the root of giving. The first passage is evident. From "Good son, a bodhisattva" onward, the second specifically clarifies being the root of giving. Here again are five parts: 1. the fundamental root of giving; 2. signlessness as gain; 3. possession of signs as loss; 4. clarifying that one mind is identical to the four minds; 5. extensively producing vows. First, clarifying the root of giving, he adduces eight matters to serve as the root for the eight matters below. From "When giving in this way" onward, the second clarifies signlessness as gain. This again has three parts: first, general; next, specific; third, conclusion. The first is as in the text. In the second, specific part, regarding not seeing cause and effect: the time of giving is the cause, and obtaining retribution is the fruit; obtaining fruit is permanence, and not obtaining is annihilationism; the bodhisattva does not perform such giving at all. Third, from "Although" onward, is the conclusion, as in the text. From "Good son, if a bodhisattva sees" onward, the third clarifies possession of signs as loss, having three parts: Dharma, analogy, and application. The Dharma is as in the text. In the analogy, the person illustrates a bodhisattva of shallow practice; the arrow illustrates the arising of stinginess; the relatives requesting a physician illustrate good friends urging giving. Saying "Wait a while" illustrates not being willing to give at the proper time. "I shall examine" illustrates grasping signs and discriminating. Who shot the poisoned arrow illustrates discriminating the field of merit, whether keeping or violating [the precepts]. Which arrow, bamboo or willow, illustrates discriminating the objects of giving, what things can be relinquished and what cannot. The poison it contains illustrates the person who grasps at giving never knowing giving. And dying illustrates, since one cannot give, being obscured by stinginess and severing the life of the roots of goodness. The application of the analogy is as in the text. From "Furthermore, good son" onward, the fourth, one mind being identical to four, reveals the characteristics of perfect friendliness, clarifying that when practicing giving, one completely possesses the four equalities: when giving, producing friendliness as well as giving rise to compassion; when giving, the mind rejoices; having given, it is equanimity. From "The bodhisattva, within the mind of friendliness" onward, the fifth extensively produces vows. There are eight tiers in all. First, clarifying the giving of food, down to lamps; the first three are as in the text. Fourth, giving clothing, regarding "one cubit and six inches away from the body": first, relying on principle, it means tearing the clothing of various views and removing the sixteen views; second, relying on concrete matters, it means four inches on each side, which is one cubit and six [inches]. In the fifth, giving flowers and incense, regarding "preceptless", this is the precept of no-precept, not the absence [of precepts] from not receiving or failing to receive them. The Huayan says: "Precepts like empty space, precepts without anything to rely on." The Great Collection says: "Precepts without abidance, because seeing abidance in precepts is wrong." As for the term "unmanifest precept", it is not the unmanifest [matter] that is neither material nor mental, but rather this precept: the precept that does not construct saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. The rest is as in the text.