[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) › 29.14 # 大般涅槃經疏 29.14 大般涅槃經疏 29.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [29.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.29.14) 「如恒河中」下，第二修因趣果用，亦是約譬明中道，有譬、合、結。譬說二：先總、次別。舉七眾生不同，而佛性是一。「如是微妙」下，合譬，具合前品以河譬生死，今以河譬涅槃。初合總，如文。次「常沒者」下，合別譬。合初常沒闡提，為四：初合背善。次「作是念」下，合其向惡。三「如惡法住」下，合住惡。四「是人具足」下，合是斷善人。「我雖復說」下，合第二暫出還沒人，亦四：初起行背理，即是為有修善。次「何故名沒」下，是第二釋出沒義。「是人雖信」下，第三明行不具足。「出還沒」下，第四別出其人。就行不具足。又二：初正出五事、次結。初五事者，一信不具、二戒不足、三聞、四施、五慧信，可見。第二戒中言威儀戒者，內無實德、外揚廉儉，欲人恭敬。從戒戒者，內外相稱，不為人事。但求實利而持戒者，謂從戒戒也。求戒者，求三有也。捨戒者，捨三有也。第三聞中云信六部不信六部者，河西云：修多羅、祇夜、毘伽羅、優陀那、伊帝目多伽、優波提舍，此六顯現易解故信，餘六深隱難解故不信。復有人言：但於十二中信六、不信六。餘者可見。「是人不具」下，第二結。「第二之人」下，第三合得住之人。準理應言第三，那云是第二人耶？解云：此第二人習行，應得作第三人，故言第二。〈師子品〉通五方便三十心皆是得住，今此中但據初得位且據小乘，即前二方便念處、煗法。若作七方便，即前四方便，從頂法、忍法已上至初果，便屬觀方人。若據大乘，則通三十心為觀方人，登地已上屬到彼岸。文為四：一本起、二出其人、三明得住、四辨行法。前三在此卷末。今第一明本起。因前第二為今第三，或改為第三者非。「我佛法中」下，第二出其人。應出似解之人，而今身子目連並是真解者，舊有二義：一云此第三人位通上至羅漢，所以通舉其人。二者取其昔初是似解人修得入真，今仍本似位，所以列之。「云何為住」下，第三明得住。問：涅槃河中四人同得涅槃，羅漢、支佛、菩薩、佛。生死河中唯佛一人是第七人，餘三未度。有人解云：涅槃河中三乘同得涅槃，所以皆是第七人。生死河中四果未免生死河，故不得度也。羅漢後雖無生，而猶有此生在，故是不度。所以得涅槃，未必免生死；度生死已，必得涅槃（云云）。今評此解，解語似去，其理未明。今更問：涅槃河中四人同得涅槃者，四人同見佛性不？彼若答云同見性者，此殊不見理。若答不同見者，亦不同得涅槃。那忽前文同為第七？既同第七有見性不見性者，故知涅槃有異、生死不同。今觀經意，生死河者亘於變易，唯佛得度，餘悉河中。涅槃河者專在分段，通於四人，即小乘七人。故《釋論》云「阿羅漢地名為佛地」。又迦葉共佛同解脫床，即是其義。通別互舉，適悅時宜，不可定執。 > From "Just as in the Ganges River..." onwards is the second: the function of cultivating causes to advance toward the fruit. It also explains the middle way by means of a simile, containing simile, matching, and conclusion. The explanation of the simile has two parts: first, general; next, specific. It adduces the differences among the seven sentient beings, while buddhadhātu is one. From "Such a subtle and wondrous..." onwards matches the simile, combining and matching the previous chapter where the river is a simile for saṃsāra, whereas now the river is a simile for nirvāṇa. First, matching the general is as in the text. Next, from "The one who constantly sinks..." onwards matches the specific simile. Matching the first, the icchantika who constantly sinks, comprises four parts: first, matching turning one's back on the good. Next, from "Formulating this thought..." onwards matches tending toward evil. Third, from "Dwelling as in evil dharmas..." onwards matches abiding in evil. Fourth, from "This person is endowed with..." onwards matches being a person who has severed roots of goodness. From "Although I have further preached..." onwards matches the second person who temporarily emerges and then sinks again, also in four parts: first, initiating practice that goes contrary to principle, which is cultivating goodness for the sake of existence. Next, from "Why is it called sinking?" onwards is the second: explaining the meaning of emerging and sinking. From "Although this person has faith..." onwards is the third: explaining that practice is incomplete. From "Emerging and sinking again..." onwards is the fourth: specifically identifying the person. In regard to practice being incomplete, there are again two parts: first, directly identifying the five matters; next, the conclusion. The first five matters are: first, faith is incomplete; second, morality is insufficient; third, learning; fourth, generosity; fifth, wisdom and faith can be seen. In the second, morality, what is called the morality of deportment means lacking real virtue within and outwardly displaying frugality and restraint in order to gain others' respect. Morality following from morality means inside and outside correspond, not done for worldly affairs. Maintaining morality merely seeking real benefit is what is called morality following from morality. Seeking morality means seeking the three existences. Renouncing morality means renouncing the three existences. In the third, learning, regarding believing six divisions and not believing six divisions: Héxī says: sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, udāna, itivṛttaka, and upadeśa—these six are explicit and easy to understand, hence believed; the other six are profound and difficult to understand, hence not believed. Another person says: merely out of the twelve, believing six and disbelieving six. The rest can be seen. From "This person is not endowed with..." onwards is the second: conclusion. From "The second person..." onwards is the third: matching the person who attains abiding. According to principle, one should say the third person; why does it say this is the second person? It is explained: this second person, through accumulated practice, should come to become the third person, hence called the second. The Siṃhanāda chapter encompasses the five expedients and thirty minds as all attaining abiding; here it merely refers to the initial attainment of the stage, temporarily based on the Small Vehicle, which is the first two expedients: the stations of mindfulness and the stage of warmth. If made into seven expedients, it is the first four expedients: from the summit dharmas and acceptance dharmas on up to the first fruit, which then belongs to the person observing the directions. If based on the Great Vehicle, then it encompasses the thirty minds as the person observing the directions, and ascending to the bhūmis and above belongs to reaching the other shore. The text has four parts: first, original arising; second, identifying the person; third, explaining attaining abiding; fourth, discerning the practice method. The first three are at the end of this fascicle. Now, the first explains the original arising: because the preceding second becomes the present third, those who alter it to "the third" are mistaken. From "In my buddhadharma..." onwards is the second: identifying the person. One ought to identify a person of semblance understanding, yet here Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana are both of true understanding. Traditionally there are two meanings: one says that this third person's stage extends upward to the arhat, which is why such persons are generally cited. The second is taking their initial state in the past as persons of semblance understanding who cultivated and attained entry into the true, but are listed now while still retaining their original semblance stage. From "What is meant by abiding?" onwards is the third: explaining attaining abiding. Question: In the river of nirvāṇa, four persons together attain nirvāṇa—arhats, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. In the river of saṃsāra, only the Buddha alone is the seventh person, while the other three have not crossed over. Someone explains: In the river of nirvāṇa, the three vehicles together attain nirvāṇa, so all are the seventh person. In the river of saṃsāra, the four fruits have not escaped the river of saṃsāra, hence cannot cross over. Although an arhat will have no subsequent rebirth, he still has this present life remaining, hence is not crossed over. Therefore, attaining nirvāṇa does not necessarily mean escaping saṃsāra; having crossed over saṃsāra, one necessarily attains nirvāṇa. Now evaluating this explanation: the phrasing of the explanation seems plausible, but its principle is not clear. We now ask further: As for the four persons together attaining nirvāṇa in the river of nirvāṇa, do the four persons equally see buddhadhātu or not? If he replies that they equally see the nature, this shows an utter failure to see the principle. If he replies that they do not equally see it, then they also do not equally attain nirvāṇa. How then could the preceding text have them together as the seventh? Since they are equally the seventh yet there are those who see the nature and those who do not see the nature, one knows that their nirvāṇas are different and their saṃsāras are not the same. Now examining the sūtra's intention: the river of saṃsāra extends throughout transformational death, where only the Buddha attains crossing over and all others remain in the river. The river of nirvāṇa is strictly within fragmented death, extending to the four persons—namely, the seven persons of the Small Vehicle. Therefore the Commentary says: "The stage of the arhat is called the stage of the Buddha." Furthermore, Kāśyapa sharing the couch of liberation with the Buddha is precisely this meaning. General and specific are alternately cited according to what suits the occasion; one must not rigidly cling \[to either\]. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 29.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.29.13) - [Next: 29.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.29.15) - [Up: 29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.29) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.29.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.29.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.29.14) · Pramāṇa