大般涅槃經疏 27.18

27.18

次佛答，為二：初正答、次總結。初為四：一答同得涅槃難、二答吸取菩提難、三答不須修道難、四重答吸取難。答初，有譬、合、結。譬中，先總大意。河邊七人咸備手足，手足雖同而有度與不度。次別列七人。初七人者，前二是外凡、次一是內凡、後四是聖人。外凡窮惡闡提，次將立而退，故為二人。內凡有五方便，同為一者，雖復優劣俱未發真。聖人為四者，聲聞不侵習，支佛侵習，菩薩侵習復化眾生，佛習氣盡。若不作此解，無以取異。上說眾生皆有佛性，眾生何故不同得涅槃？欲令分明，更作一河七人不同。此經前後凡說六河，謂生死涅槃河、煩惱佛性河、善法惡法河，兩兩相對。生死論得出不得出，涅槃論得入不得入，煩惱論能斷不能斷，佛性論能見不能見，惡法論能離不能離，善法論至極不至極。此中正明恒河，譬生死。〈迦葉品〉以大涅槃為河，河中七人離合不同。此文明七人，後品明七眾生。此中合四果為一，第四離三乘為三人，後品離四果為四人，合支佛菩薩佛為第七人，至下當更分別。言洗浴者，譬出家受戒，自身清淨。怖畏寇賊者，譬煩惱。采華者，二解：一云七淨華即是求因；二云游諸覺華即是求果。出家應是出河，而言入河者，欲明生死涅槃非迢然別，須於生死中而求涅槃。「第一人者」下，別列七人。沒即闡提，過去乏善，宿因既劣，現在無信，故不習浮。第二人是將立而退身力大者，過去善深，今生不修，名不習浮能斷善根。第三人即是得住，以譬內凡。沒已出者，昔日經沒。第四人即是四果，以譬四方。四方者，下文以四方譬四諦，非今用譬。文云「不知出處故觀方」，以昔不知出處故不觀，今知出處故言觀方。又不知大乘出處，故取小果。第五人即支佛，亦云觀方過於四果，以利根故不取四果，但為自證故言而去，同畏生死故言怖。第六人即菩薩，去不住者，不住生死。淺處住者，心安生死，從其心邊故言淺處。第七人即是佛。「善男子生死大河」下，第二合譬。先合總譬。畏煩惱賊，合前怖畏。發意欲度，合前入河。出家剃髮，合前洗浴。身披法服，合前采華。「既出家已」下，第二合別譬七人。初合常沒，即一闡提，此中略合。「有六因緣」下，廣合。五部僧者，二解：一云五眾向五眾邊更互說過。二云是五部律。佛滅度後一百餘年，育王設會，上座他鞞羅立義，摩訶僧祇大眾不同，分為二部。後上座部更生二部，謂雪山、薩婆多。雪山絕後，薩婆多更習僧祇，生於三部，謂彌沙塞、曇無德、迦葉遺，就婆多、僧祇為五部。如來預見互相是非，《大集經》亦預指五部，如《宗輪論》廣明分部以為二十，非今文要，故不引。「第二人」下，合將立而退。即外凡人，亦能斷善而不同恒沒。「第三人者」下，此合內凡得住之人。小大兩位俱在中者，豈非通教三人共位？若作別義，大乘教異不應同位。文云「信如來是一切智常恒無變，一切眾生悉有佛性。」一云：此是三乘初業不愚於法，如《勝鬘》說。此文多有所關。若信如來常不變易、眾生有佛性，則似別義，以大涅槃心修方便行入方便位，下文須跋得果，即是其義。第四人者，合四為一，但斷正不侵習。第五人是支佛，但侵少許習。第六人是菩薩，能侵多習，復化眾生。第七人是佛，習究竟盡。為此義故，分四人之異，此是通義。既具兩文，未可專是。今作一種推之，只是通義。俱指分段生死為河，以大涅槃心發意求度，而有七種差別不同。同有佛性義、同成涅槃義，亦成答問，宜作此說。「是恒河邊」下，第三結譬，酬其應同涅槃之問。手足俱備，答其佛性是同。習浮不習浮、得度不得度，答其不同得涅槃之問。文為二：初明不修不得，非如來咎。法、譬如文。次明修者必得，舉三譬譬之，又二：先譬、次合，如文。「汝言眾生」下，第二超答第三問，又二：初牒問褒貶。若能修者必得不疑，是故褒歎；若不肯修，自恃有性，欲令吸取者，故貶之為非。次「譬如有人」下，正答，中二：初答修者必得故，舉汲井喻之。井譬五陰身，渴乏譬厭苦求樂心，井深譬身性理遠雖不見而必有，汲取譬因修見性。「佛性亦爾」下，合，如文。次「胡麻」下，譬不修則不得。合，如文。「如汝所說世有病人」下，第三追答第二問，又二：初訶其引經謬。解六住不同，一云：是十住中之第六住。二云：是十地中第六地，此地般若現前，有自差之義。佛訶云我言遇病自差者，為六住菩薩說，不為凡人，示其僻引。次「譬如虛空」下，正答，凡舉三譬。有人云：此舉世間眼所見空以之為喻，有取真諦空為喻。有云：即是理內非內非外之空。《中論》云「虛空非有非無，非內非外。」此譬佛性。次文中云財物者，財在他方，雖不現用，往取即得。譬佛性雖未能見，修之即會。後文中云造業者，造譬初心，業譬修習，果譬見性。其中有六句：一非內、二非外、三非有、四非無、五非本無今有、六非無因出。「非此作此受」下，二明修者必得。有五句，次第釋之。一云：非此陰作業此陰受果，若此作此受則是一陰，一即是常。又不由此陰而有後陰，此則為斷。第二句非字冠下，即非此作彼受者，非此陰作業，彼陰受果。河西云：人作天受者，則有因而無果、有果而無因，有果無因是常見，有因無果是斷見。亦應有彼作此受，無者可解。彼作彼受，同第一句。第四無作無受，都無因果，是則不可。時節和合，是第五句。「眾生佛性」下，合譬。初合造業六句，但合五，不合非無因出。初合第五句。非內非外，合第一雙。非有非無，合第二雙。非此非彼下，合第二修者必得感果之相。前有五句，今備合。初非彼非此，即合兩句。非彼是合非彼作彼受，非此即合非此作此受。非餘處來即合非此作彼受，非無因緣合上無作無受。「亦非一切眾生」下，合前時節和合而有。「善男子」下，第四重答第三問。前問答有法說譬說，今直答譬。初非其問。次答初非者，夫磁石不能吸鐵。次「何以故」下，釋不吸意，又二：先釋、次譬。初文者，石無心識，寧能吸取？如葵藿無心而隨日東西，芭蕉無耳聞雷出華，皆異法出生能隨能聽，琥珀吸芥亦復如是，安得以此例佛性耶？今釋異法出生異法滅壞者，異法有故異法出生，諸法皆為因緣所起，因緣於諸法名之為異，有異因緣便有諸法，故言異法有故異法出生。亦如水土為芽緣，芽與水土何時有心領解生法，云我與汝生、汝可受生。但有此異緣，芽則得生。亦如水因緣故火便盡滅，水火亦無更相領解：我起汝滅。次舉葵藿東西向日，豈應有心而作此事？故更為譬作譬，凡舉五譬。次「磁石吸」下又二：初還以譬合譬；次「眾生佛性」下，更以法合所譬之法即是佛性。文為三：一明因不吸果、二明佛性無有住處、三廣辨佛性。初文又三：初正合磁石之譬。次舉十二因緣顯無吸之義。無明為因、諸行為果，乃至生因死果，無明豈能吸諸行耶？亦如佛性不能吸菩提。三「有佛」下，正顯不吸。

Next is the Buddha's reply, which has two parts: first, the direct answer; next, the general conclusion. The first has four parts: 1. answering the objection regarding equally obtaining nirvāṇa; 2. answering the objection regarding attracting bodhi; 3. answering the objection regarding not needing to cultivate the path; 4. answering again the objection regarding attracting [bodhi]. Answering the first has a simile, an application, and a conclusion. In the simile, the general idea is first given: seven people beside a river are all equipped with hands and feet; although their hands and feet are the same, there are those who cross and those who do not cross. Next, the seven people are listed separately. Of the first [group of] seven people, the first two are external ordinary beings, the next one is an internal ordinary being, and the latter four are noble persons. External ordinary beings are the utterly evil icchantikas and next those who are about to stand firm but regress; hence they make two people. For internal ordinary beings, there are the five expedient means; they are taken together as one because, though differing in superiority and inferiority, neither has yet realized the truth. The noble persons make four because: śrāvakas do not affect [habitual] latencies; pratyekabuddhas affect latencies; bodhisattvas affect latencies and furthermore transform sentient beings; the Buddha's habitual latencies are completely exhausted. If one does not interpret it this way, there is no way to draw distinctions. Above, it was said that sentient beings all possess the buddhadhātu; why do sentient beings not equally obtain nirvāṇa? To make it clear, another [simile of] seven different people at one river is presented. Throughout this sūtra, a total of six rivers are spoken of, namely: the rivers of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, the rivers of defilements and buddhadhātu, and the rivers of wholesome dharmas and unwholesome dharmas—paired two by two. Concerning saṃsāra, it is discussed in terms of being able to get out or not being able to get out; concerning nirvāṇa, it is discussed in terms of being able to enter or not being able to enter; concerning defilements, it is discussed in terms of being able to sever them or not being able to sever them; concerning the buddhadhātu, it is discussed in terms of being able to see it or not being able to see it; concerning unwholesome dharmas, it is discussed in terms of being able to abandon them or not being able to abandon them; concerning wholesome dharmas, it is discussed in terms of reaching the ultimate or not reaching the ultimate. Here, the Gaṅgā River is specifically explained, allegorizing saṃsāra. The "Kāśyapa Chapter" takes the great nirvāṇa as the river, where the combinations and separations of the seven people in the river are different. This passage explains seven people, while a later chapter explains seven [types of] sentient beings. Here, the four fruits are combined into one, and the fourth separates the three vehicles into three people; in a later chapter, the four fruits are separated into four people, and the pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva, and Buddha are combined into the seventh person; they will be further distinguished below. As for "washing and bathing," it allegorizes leaving the household life and receiving the precepts, purifying one's own body. "Fearing bandits and robbers" allegorizes defilements. "Gathering flowers" has two explanations: one says that the flowers of the seven purities are indeed seeking the cause; the second says that roaming among the flowers of awakening is indeed seeking the fruit. Leaving the household life ought to be emerging from the river, yet speaking of entering the river is to show that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not distinctly separate, and that one must seek nirvāṇa within saṃsāra. From "the first person" onward, the seven people are listed separately. Drowning is the icchantika: lacking goodness in the past, their past cause is already inferior, and they have no faith in the present, so they do not learn to float. The second person is one who is about to stand firm but regresses, possessing great physical strength: their past goodness was deep, but they do not cultivate in this life, which is termed not learning to float and being able to sever roots of goodness. The third person is the one who attains stability, which allegorizes the internal ordinary being. "Having submerged, has emerged" means they previously underwent submersion. The fourth person is the four fruits, allegorized by the four directions. As for the four directions, a later passage allegorizes the four truths by the four directions, which is not the allegorical use here. The text states: "Not knowing the place of exit, they therefore observe the directions." Because in the past they did not know the place of exit, they did not observe; now knowing the place of exit, it says they observe the directions. Furthermore, not knowing the place of exit of the Great Vehicle, they therefore grasp the lesser fruit. The fifth person is the pratyekabuddha, of whom it is also said that observing the directions surpasses the four fruits; because of their sharp faculties, they do not grasp the four fruits, but merely for the sake of personal realization it says they depart, and because they equally fear saṃsāra, it says they are afraid. The sixth person is the bodhisattva; "departing without stopping" means not stopping in saṃsāra. "Staying in a shallow place" means the mind is at ease in saṃsāra; from the perspective of their mind, it is called a shallow place. The seventh person is the Buddha. From "Good sons, the great river of saṃsāra" onward, the second part applies the simile. First, it applies the general simile. Fearing the bandits of defilements matches the previous fear. Arousing the intention wanting to cross matches the previous entering the river. Leaving the household life and shaving the head matches the previous washing and bathing. Wearing the Dharma robes on the body matches the previous gathering flowers. From "having already left the household life" onward, the second part applies the specific similes of the seven people. First, applying the constant submerging: this is the icchantika, which is here briefly matched. From "there are six causes and conditions" onward is the detailed application. As for "monks of the five divisions," there are two explanations: one says that the five assemblies speak of faults to each other; the second says they are the Vinayas of the five divisions. More than a hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, King Aśoka held an assembly; the elder Sthavira established doctrines, and the Mahāsāṃghika great assembly differed, splitting into two divisions. Later, the Sthavira division further produced two divisions, namely the Haimavata and the Sarvāstivāda. After the Haimavata ceased, the Sarvāstivāda further practiced the Mahāsāṃghika and produced three divisions, namely the Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, and Kāśyapīya; together with the Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsāṃghika, they make the five divisions. The Tathāgata foresaw their mutually disputing right and wrong, and the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra also foretold the five divisions; as the Samayabhedoparacanacakra detailed the split into twenty divisions, this is not essential to the present text, so it is not cited. From "the second person" onward applies to those who are about to stand firm but regress. These are external ordinary beings who can also sever roots of goodness, yet differ from the constantly submerged. From "the third person" onward, this applies to the internal ordinary beings who attain stability. Both the lesser and greater stages are included within it; is this not the shared stage of the three persons of the Shared Teaching? If one adopts the Distinct meaning, because the Great Vehicle teaching differs, they ought not to be in the same stage. The text says: "Faith that the Tathāgata is omniscient, eternal, and unchanging, and that all sentient beings possess the buddhadhātu." One [explanation] says: this is the initial practice of the three vehicles being not ignorant of dharmas, as the Śrīmālā[devī-siṃhanāda-sūtra] explains. This passage has many connections. If one has faith that the Tathāgata is eternal and unchanging and that sentient beings possess the buddhadhātu, it resembles the Distinct meaning: cultivating expedient practices with the mind of great nirvāṇa and entering the expedient stages—below, Subhadra attaining the fruit is precisely this meaning. As for the fourth person, the four are combined into one: only severing the principal [defilements] without affecting the latencies. The fifth person is the pratyekabuddha: affecting only a tiny amount of latencies. The sixth person is the bodhisattva: able to affect many latencies and furthermore transform sentient beings. The seventh person is the Buddha: the latencies are completely and utterly exhausted. For this reason, the distinction among the four persons is divided; this is the Shared meaning. Since both passages are present, one cannot exclusively assert either. Now, inferring in one way, it is simply the Shared meaning. Both indicate the saṃsāra of portion and limit as the river, and arousing the mind to seek crossing with the mind of great nirvāṇa, yet there are seven kinds of distinctions and differences. The meaning of equally having the buddhadhātu and the meaning of equally accomplishing nirvāṇa also succeed in answering the question; it is appropriate to explain it this way. From "Beside this Gaṅgā River" onward, the third part concludes the simile, answering the question of why they should equally obtain nirvāṇa. Having hands and feet fully equipped answers that their buddhadhātu is identical. Learning to float or not learning to float, obtaining crossing or not obtaining crossing, answers the question of why they do not equally obtain nirvāṇa. The text has two parts: first, explaining that those who do not cultivate do not attain it, and that this is not the fault of the Tathāgata. The dharma and simile are as in the text. Next, explaining that those who cultivate will definitely attain it, adducing three similes to illustrate it; again there are two parts: first, the similes; next, the application, as in the text. From "You say that sentient beings" onward, the second part skips ahead to answer the third question, which also has two parts: first, restating the question with praise and censure. If one can cultivate, one will definitely attain it without doubt, which is why there is praise; if one is unwilling to cultivate, self-reliantly presuming that one has the nature and wishing to attract it, one is censured as incorrect. Next, from "It is like a person" onward is the direct answer, which has two parts: first, answering that those who cultivate will definitely attain it, adducing the simile of drawing water from a well. The well allegorizes the body of the five aggregates; thirst and exhaustion allegorize the mind weary of suffering and seeking joy; the depth of the well allegorizes that the principle of the nature of the body is profound and, though unseen, definitely exists; drawing water allegorizes seeing the nature through cultivation. From "The buddhadhātu is also like this" onward is the application, as in the text. Next, from "sesame seeds" onward allegorizes that if one does not cultivate, one does not attain it. The application is as in the text. From "As you have said, there is a sick person in the world" onward, the third part answers the second question retrospectively, which also has two parts: first, rebuking their erroneous citation of the sūtra. There are different explanations of the "sixth dwelling": one says it is the sixth dwelling among the ten dwellings; the second says it is the sixth ground among the ten grounds, where prajñā manifests directly and there is the sense of recovering spontaneously. The Buddha rebukes him, saying: when I said that one who encounters illness recovers spontaneously, I spoke for the bodhisattvas of the sixth dwelling, not for ordinary beings—showing that his citation was misapplied. Next, from "Like empty space" onward is the direct answer, which adduces three similes in total. Some say: this adduces the empty space seen by worldly eyes as a simile, and some take the emptiness of the ultimate truth as a simile. Some say: it is precisely the emptiness within principle that is neither internal nor external. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "Empty space is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither internal nor external." This allegorizes the buddhadhātu. Next, regarding what the text calls "wealth and property": when wealth is in another place, although it is not presently in use, if one goes to take it, one obtains it. This allegorizes that although the buddhadhātu cannot yet be seen, if one cultivates, one will immediately encounter it. Later, regarding what the text calls "creating karma": creating allegorizes the initial mind, karma allegorizes cultivation, and the fruit allegorizes seeing the nature. Within this there are six phrases: 1. not internal; 2. not external; 3. not existent; 4. not nonexistent; 5. not originally non-existent and now existent; 6. not arising without a cause. From "Not this one creates and this one receives" onward, the second part explains that those who cultivate will definitely attain it. There are five phrases, explained in sequence. The first says: it is not that this aggregate creates karma and this aggregate receives the fruit; if this one creates and this one receives, it would be a single aggregate, and being one would be eternal. Furthermore, it is not that subsequent aggregates exist without relying on this aggregate, which would be annihilation. The character "not" in the second phrase governs what follows; that is, "not that this one creates and that one receives" means it is not that this aggregate creates karma and that aggregate receives the fruit. Héxī says: if a human creates and a deva receives, there would be a cause without a fruit, and a fruit without a cause; having a fruit without a cause is an eternalist view, and having a cause without a fruit is an annihilationist view. There should also be "that one creates and this one receives," but its absence is understandable. "That one creates and that one receives" is identical to the first phrase. The fourth, having neither creator nor receiver, having no cause and effect whatsoever, is inadmissible. "The harmony of time and season" is the fifth phrase. From "The buddhadhātu of sentient beings" onward applies the simile. First, applying the six phrases of creating karma: it applies only five, not applying "not arising without a cause." First, it applies the fifth phrase. Neither internal nor external applies the first pair. Neither existent nor nonexistent applies the second pair. From "neither this nor that" onward applies the second [point], the marks of those who cultivate definitely attaining and experiencing the fruit. Previously there were five phrases, which are now completely matched. First, "neither that nor this" matches two phrases: "neither that" matches "not that that one creates and that one receives"; "neither this" matches "not that this one creates and this one receives." "Not coming from elsewhere" matches "not that this one creates and that one receives." "Not without causes and conditions" matches the above "neither creating nor receiving." From "Nor is it that all sentient beings" onward matches the previous "arising from the harmony of time and season." From "Good sons" onward, the fourth part answers the third question again. The previous questions and answers had explanations by Dharma and explanations by simile; here it directly answers the simile. First, it rejects his question. Next, in answering the initial rejection: a lodestone cannot attract iron. Next, from "For what reason?" onward explains the reason for not attracting, which again has two parts: first, the explanation; next, the simile. In the first passage, a stone has no mind or consciousness, so how could it attract? Just as mallows and sunflowers have no mind yet follow the sun from east to west, and plantains have no ears yet blossom upon hearing thunder—these are all different dharmas arising that can follow or hear; amber attracting mustard seeds is also like this; how could one use this as an analogy for the buddhadhātu? Now explaining "different dharmas arising and different dharmas perishing": because different dharmas exist, different dharmas arise; all dharmas are produced by causes and conditions; causes and conditions are termed "different" in relation to dharmas; when there are different causes and conditions, there are all dharmas; hence it is said that because different dharmas exist, different dharmas arise. It is also like water and earth being the conditions for a sprout: when do the sprout, water, and earth ever have minds to comprehend the arising of dharmas, saying, "I give you birth, you may receive birth"? Merely by having these different conditions, the sprout is able to grow. It is also like fire being completely extinguished due to the causes and conditions of water: water and fire also do not mutually comprehend: "I arise, you perish." Next, citing mallows and sunflowers facing east and west toward the sun: how could they have minds to do this? Therefore, similes are further made for the simile, adducing five similes in total. Next, from "The lodestone attracts" onward, there are two parts: first, matching simile to simile; next, from "sentient beings' buddhadhātu" onward, further matching by dharma the dharma allegorized, which is the buddhadhātu. The text has three parts: 1. explaining that the cause does not attract the fruit; 2. explaining that the buddhadhātu has no abiding place; 3. broadly distinguishing the buddhadhātu. The first text also has three parts: first, directly applying the simile of the lodestone. Next, adducing the twelve links of dependent origination to reveal the meaning of non-attraction: ignorance is the cause and volitional formations are the fruit, up to birth being the cause and death being the fruit—how could ignorance attract volitional formations? It is also like this with the buddhadhātu being unable to attract bodhi. Third, from "There are Buddhas" onward directly reveals non-attraction.