[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) › 28.6 # 大般涅槃經疏 28.6 大般涅槃經疏 28.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [28.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.28.6) 斷善文為三：一明斷善人、二明斷善相、三明斷善見。斷善人者，即善星是。斷善相者，不定根性，是聞不定教執成定解。斷善見者，分別推求諸法道理。初就人中二：先問、次答。問為二：先緣起、次正問。緣起中二：先明佛有能化之德、次明善星有可化之緣。就佛又二：初內有慈悲、二外有方便。初文者，憐即大慈，憫即大悲。次「不調能調」下，有七句，即外方便。「善星比丘」下，第二明有可化之機，又二：初明是子即羅云庶兄，此緣則重。次出家之後是有信戒，受持十二部經是慧，壞欲界結獲得四禪是定，具足三德豈非因深？次「云何如來」下，正問，先作兩難、後作兩結。初難何故記是惡人、後難何故不先為說法。初又二：初難何故記是闡提，即惡因；次難何故地獄劫住，是惡果。「如來何故」下，是第二難，與佛緣重何不先為說法。「如來世尊」下，結兩難。「云何得名有大慈憫」下，結初難。佛有慈悲，云何名為廝下劫住？既為廝下，當知佛無慈悲。次「有大方便」下，結後難。佛既不先為其說法，云何名為有大方便？若有方便，應為說法。佛答中，不答緣起，但答兩難兩結，先答後、後答前。前答後中凡七譬，前六譬明緣有淺深故說有次第，後一譬明佛心平等等說無偏。前六譬中例有三：一舉譬問、二述事奉答、三合譬作解。何以有此三之次第？解云：如佛初為提謂、文鱗瞽龍說人天五戒，次赴鹿苑為二乘人轉四諦法，後明方等教諸菩薩，自是一塗約小為初。若初成佛道以舍那教，初照山王，次照平地，此復一塗約大為初。今此文意包括始終，以山王為初，文鱗為中，雙林為後。然第三子雖復極惡，以體同故，是故須教；下田雖瘠，以家業故，是故不廢。下器雖破，防急用故；下病雖必死，以親屬故；下馬雖老，以代倦故；下人雖卑，以等施故。前六譬中雖差別答，義兼無差，意猶未顯。第七譬中文轉分明，舉師子王不重象輕兔俱盡壯勢，譬佛不厚善薄惡等運大悲。若巨細而觀，象不足、兔有餘；若量力而觀，象須疾、兔須徐。獸王不爾，等一無殊。就緣而觀，菩薩教深細、聲聞教淺近、闡提教世間、佛不二三大悲平等。「我於一時住王城」下，二追答記彼之問。問有二句，初答闡提、次答記意。初答闡提自謂有信慧定，盡非其問，不許有之。明無信又三：一不信佛是無所畏人；「我於一時在迦尸」下，二明不信佛是無妄語人；「我於一時與善星」下，三明不信佛是無嫉妬人。初文者，汝言出家表其有信，今以三事顯其無信。第二佛行時足離地四寸，千輻印文常現迹中，人皆欲見、其常滅之。既不能滅，取死蚯蚓置佛迹中，令無量人起踐害想（云云）。第三文者，夫人鬼報別而宛然相見，詶往問答豈實惡人所能為也。驗知是權（云云）。「善星雖復讀誦」下，二明其無慧。但得文字不解其義，是則非慧。「親近惡友」下，第三明無定，又二：初明雖得後失，故言無定。次「退禪」下，總結起邪，所以記之。「善男子汝若不信」下，第二答其前問記意，又二：先明記意、次明不可治。初文者，以其必入，故我記之；顯必入相，故往見之。見佛起惡即入地獄，必入明矣。往善星所者，或謂舉往事，或難思力不動而往（云云）。「善男子善星雖入佛法」下，二答不可治人。由彼放逸故不可治，憫之而已。有法、譬、合。合中二番，各二：皆先正合、次以譬帖合。「我後昔來」下，二答其兩結。初答先結無慈悲心，又二：先正答、次料簡。初正答中有法、譬、合。二更問答料簡，於中二：先問、次答。答中二：先正答、次「善男子」下引昔顯實。於中引目連記事，非全不著，但見前兩不見後接，但見頭白不見體駿（云云）。如來不爾，是故無二。「善星比丘常為無量」下，答後方便之結。明我令其恒在左右不令遠去，恐其為惡，云何是無方便。第五解力即是欲力，知眾生欲解也。 > The text on severing goodness has three parts: first, clarifying the person who severs goodness; second, clarifying the characteristics of severing goodness; third, clarifying the views that sever goodness. The person who severs goodness is Sunakṣatra. The characteristics of severing goodness are that with an indeterminate faculty nature, hearing the indeterminate teaching, he clings to it and forms a fixed understanding. The views that sever goodness are the discriminating analysis and seeking into the principles of phenomena. First, regarding the person, there are two parts: first the question, next the answer. The question has two parts: first the origin, next the main question. Within the origin, there are two: first, clarifying the Buddha's virtue of being able to transform, and next, clarifying Sunakṣatra's conditions of being transformable. Regarding the Buddha, there are also two: first, possessing friendliness and compassion within, and second, possessing skillful means without. In the first text, 'pity' refers to great friendliness, and 'compassion' refers to great compassion. Next, from 'able to tame the untamed' downward, there are seven phrases, which are the external skillful means. From 'Sunakṣatra the monk' downward is the second part, clarifying that he has the capacity to be transformed, which also has two parts: first, clarifying that he is a son, namely Rāhula's elder half-brother, which means the condition is deep. Next, after leaving household life, he possessed faith and precepts; receiving and upholding the twelve divisions of scriptures is wisdom; destroying the fetters of the desire realm and attaining the four dhyānas is concentration—endowed with the three virtues, how could his cause not be profound? Next, from 'Why did the Tathāgata...' downward is the main question, first presenting two objections, and later making two concluding objections. The first objection asks why he prophesied that this was an evil person, and the second asks why he did not teach the Dharma to him first. The first also has two: first, objecting to why he was prophesied as an icchantika, which is the evil cause; next, objecting to why he would abide in hell for a kalpa, which is the evil fruit. From 'Why did the Tathāgata...' downward is the second objection: having a deep connection with the Buddha, why did he not first teach him the Dharma? From 'Tathāgata, World-Honoured One...' downward concludes the two objections. From 'How can he be said to possess great pity and compassion...' downward concludes the first objection: the Buddha possesses friendliness and compassion, so how can he be called one who abides in the basest state for a kalpa? Since he is in the basest state, one should know that the Buddha lacks friendliness and compassion. Next, from 'having great skillful means...' downward concludes the second objection: since the Buddha did not first teach him the Dharma, how can he be called one of great skillful means? If he had skillful means, he should have taught him the Dharma. In the Buddha's reply, he does not answer the origin, but only answers the two objections and two concluding objections, answering the latter first and the former later. In answering the latter first, there are seven similes in all: the first six similes clarify that because conditions have depth and shallowness, the teachings have an order; the last simile clarifies that the Buddha's mind is equal and impartial, preaching without bias. In the first six similes, there are regularly three elements: first, posing the question via a simile; second, narrating the matter in response; third, matching the simile to form an understanding. Why is there this order of three? It is explained: just as when the Buddha first taught the five human and heavenly precepts for Trapuṣa and Mucilinda the blind dragon, next went to the Deer Park to turn the wheel of the Four Truths for the persons of the two vehicles, and later explained the vaipulya teachings to the bodhisattvas—this is one route that takes the small as the beginning. If it is that upon first attaining the Buddha Path he taught the Rocana teaching, first illuminating the king of mountains and next illuminating the plains, this is another route that takes the great as the beginning. Now the intent of this text encompasses beginning and end, taking the king of mountains as the beginning, Mucilinda as the middle, and the Twin Trees as the end. However, although the third son is extremely evil, because their essence is identical, he must therefore be taught; although the poor field is barren, because it is part of the family estate, it is therefore not abandoned. Although the inferior vessel is broken, it is kept against urgent need; although the severely ill person will surely die, because he is a relative \[he is cared for\]; although the inferior horse is old, because it spares exhaustion \[it is kept\]; although the inferior person is lowly, because of equal distribution \[he is given to\]. In the first six similes, although the answers are differentiated, the meaning concurrently encompasses non-differentiation, yet the intention is still not yet evident. In the seventh simile, the text becomes even clearer, bringing up the lion king who neither values the elephant nor disparages the hare, exerting his full strength equally for both, analogizing the Buddha who neither favors the good nor disdains the evil, equally exercising great compassion. If observed in terms of magnitude, the elephant is insufficient and the hare is in excess; if observed in terms of measuring strength, the elephant requires speed and the hare requires leisure. The king of beasts is not like this: he is equal and uniform, without distinction. Observed in terms of conditions, the teaching for bodhisattvas is profound and subtle, the teaching for śrāvakas is shallow and proximate, the teaching for icchantikas concerns the worldly; yet the Buddha does not have two or three \[minds\], his great compassion being equal and impartial. From 'Once, when I was residing in the City of the King...' downward is the second, answering after the fact the question concerning prophesying him. The question has two parts: first, answering about the icchantika, and next, answering the intent of the prophecy. First, answering that as an icchantika he claimed to possess faith, wisdom, and concentration: all \[these claims\] are refuted in the question and are not granted to him. Clarifying his lack of faith also has three parts: first, he did not believe the Buddha was one without fear; from 'Once, when I was in Kāśi...' downward, second, clarifying he did not believe the Buddha was one without false speech; from 'Once, when I was with Sunakṣatra...' downward, third, clarifying he did not believe the Buddha was one without jealousy. The first text means: you said that leaving the household life signified his having faith, but now by three matters his lack of faith is revealed. Second, when the Buddha walked, his feet were four inches above the ground, and the wheel-mark with a thousand spokes was constantly manifest in his footprints; all people wished to see it, but he constantly tried to obliterate it. Having failed to obliterate it, he took a dead earthworm and placed it in the Buddha's footprint to cause countless people to think that the Buddha had trampled and harmed it, and so forth. Regarding the third text: human and ghostly retributions are distinct, yet they clearly saw each other; could replying and conversing back and forth truly be done by a genuine evil person? By this test one knows he was a provisional manifestation, and so forth. From 'Although Sunakṣatra chanted and recited...' downward is the second, clarifying his lack of wisdom: only acquiring the words without understanding their meaning is not wisdom. From 'He associated with evil friends...' downward is the third, clarifying his lack of concentration, which also has two parts: first, clarifying that although he attained it, he later lost it, hence it is said he lacked concentration. Next, from 'falling away from dhyāna...' downward concludes generally the arising of heterodoxy, which was the reason for prophesying him. From 'Good man, if you do not believe...' downward is the second, answering his previous question about the intent of the prophecy, which also has two: first, clarifying the intent of the prophecy, and next, clarifying that he was untreatable. The first text means: because he was certain to fall \[into hell\], I therefore prophesied it; to display the sign of his certain entry, I therefore went to see him. Seeing the Buddha, evil arose in him and he immediately entered hell, so his certain falling was evident. Regarding going to Sunakṣatra's place, some say this cites a past event, or that by inconceivable power he went there without moving, and so forth. From 'Good man, although Sunakṣatra entered the Buddha-Dharma...' downward is the second, answering regarding the untreatable person: because of his heedlessness he was untreatable, so \[the Buddha\] merely pitied him. There are the principle, the simile, and the matching. In the matching, there are two rounds, each with two parts: both first match directly, and next match by applying the simile. From 'Since the past, I...' downward is the second, answering his two concluding objections. First, answering the prior concluding objection about lacking a compassionate mind, which also has two: first, answering directly, and next, discrimination. In the direct answer, there are the principle, the simile, and the matching. Second, there are further questions and answers of discrimination, within which are two: first the question, next the answer. Within the answer are two: first the direct answer, and next, from 'Good man' downward, citing the past to reveal the truth. In it, citing Maudgalyāyana's prophecies, it was not that he was entirely inaccurate, but only saw the first two without seeing the subsequent joining, only saw the white head without seeing the swift body, and so forth. The Tathāgata is not like this, and therefore is not dual. From 'The monk Sunakṣatra was constantly surrounded by immeasurable...' downward answers the latter concluding objection concerning skillful means: it clarifies that I kept him constantly by my side and did not let him go far away, fearing he would commit evil—how could this be a lack of skillful means? The fifth power of understanding is precisely the power of aspiration, knowing the aspirations and understandings of sentient beings. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 28.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.28.5) - [Next: 28.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.28.7) - [Up: 28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.28) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.28.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.28.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.28.6) · Pramāṇa