大般涅槃經疏 32.4

32.4

憍陳如，翻火器，姓也。阿若，翻無知，名也。其義甚多，且出四意：在先得道，是最初上座，左面右面。前佛滅度持法領法，于今未來耆年長德，為最後座首。佛欲善始令終。故對其人。二初轉法輪最先對之布衍甘露，後轉法輪復更對之以開祕藏。三本行理外最初翻邪，今因其人最後破外。四初對之令五人見諦，後對之令十仙見理，以是義故，從人得名。若作付法對陳如者，若領受言教應在阿難，若住持紹繼應在迦葉，弘闡大旨應在文殊。而諸大弟子，或已滅度、或復未來，耆年長德見佛始終，必藉上座堪任付囑，故對告之，流通遺命。開善云：翻經未盡只，有序、正。正又為三：初開宗略說、二辨宗廣說、此品是第三攝邪歸正說。光宅云：翻雖未盡，三段且足，此品即是流通段也。又云：此品答第三十七，今欲問諸陰，而我無智慧。興皇云：若是答問，得前少意、失後諸文。若言流通，得命阿難文，又失其餘。若評諸師，各得一意。若引曇無讖言：此經義足，而文未盡。若引《居士請僧經》云：三品未來。又引下文命阿難，則有二事：一令化須跋、二應付囑。命化已竟未見付囑，當知未盡。言有流通者，一攝邪歸正流通、二付囑流通。雖無付囑之文，而有攝邪，故言有流通分。今明此品猶是涅槃用，其義則寬。現在有攝邪攝惡之用，將來有救惡救邪之用，欲為正說、流通兩塗，皆得欲作翻盡不盡，二義無妨。今明涅槃用，前品是攝惡用、此品是攝邪用。就文為二：第一結正觀行、第二破諸邪說，修行之要莫過此兩。正觀是自行上求，破邪是利他下化。正觀是行善，破邪是止善。正觀是解生，破邪是惑滅。正觀是智德，破邪是斷德。即四悉意。初明正觀，又二：第一正辨觀行、第二總結褒貶。此初，雙明常無常觀，皆憑陰為境。不論餘法者，總有四義：一化道始終、二隨物所宜、三結一經首末、四諸法初後。一化道始終者，《法華》云「昔於波羅柰，轉四諦法輪，分別說諸法，五眾之生滅。」五眾即五陰，生滅即無常。今入涅槃，還滅五無常，得五皆常。二隨所宜者，可見。三言結一經首末者，此經開宗便言我今施汝常命色力，今最後經還結此意。辨五陰是常，欲明命色安辨即是五陰。四言結諸法始終者，凡觀行之體，無不先以五陰為始、種智為終。故《大品》等經多言色空受想等空，乃至種智。五陰即其始，涅槃即其終，略其中間。他解：色是閡法、心是緣法，佛無閡無緣，故無色心。若有色者，應覆之以屋、著之以衣。所言色者，辨智明淨，譬之於色。今明此解違經，經云「因滅是色獲得常色」，亦應滅於閡色獲無閡色，亦應滅於緣心獲無緣心。何得猶存緣心，復呼緣心而為色耶？若以色譬智慧，受想行識復譬何等？豈可以小乘牛迹乘於大海？又一師云：據實論之，佛無色心。引經云「爾時過意界，住在智業中。」雖引此經，還成自害。智業是何，豈非佛心？又言凡夫名陰，佛豈然乎？佛名五分何者？陰名蓋覆。佛無蓋覆，故非是陰。例如因名萬行、果名萬德。此亦違經。經云「獲得常色，受想行識亦復如是。」豈非常陰常色心耶？上文云「我今施汝常命色力安無閡辨」，即常住陰覆蓋法界，何所妨害而言非陰？夫法身者，非常陰非無常陰，界入亦爾；而能常陰、能無常陰。此中正對陳如說於前義，破無常色獲得常色，即常色陰。云何違經言無色陰？若作圓說，即無常色仍是常色，受等亦爾，即無常陰是於常陰，界入亦爾。雖別圓二種，同明常陰常界入等。二結成褒貶，其文可見，因此破邪。

"Kauṇḍinya" translates as "fire vessel," which is his family name. "Ājñāta" translates as "understood," which is his personal name. Its meanings are very numerous, but we may briefly present four points: First, he was the first to attain the Way and is the foremost elder seated on the left or the right. When the previous buddhas entered parinirvāṇa, he preserved and upheld the Dharma, and now, among the venerable and virtuous elders who have not yet passed away, he stands as the foremost head of the final assembly. The Buddha wished to make a good beginning and bring it to a good conclusion, and therefore addressed this person. Second, when the wheel of the Dharma was first turned, it was to him that the Buddha first dispensed the sweet dew [of the teaching]; and when the wheel of the Dharma is turned for the last time, it is again to him that the Buddha opens the secret treasury. Third, originally he practiced outside the principle [as a non-Buddhist] and was the very first to overturn heterodoxy; now, relying on this person, [the Buddha] refutes the non-Buddhists for the last time. Fourth, the Buddha first addressed him to enable the five persons to see the truths, and finally addresses him to enable the ten ṛṣis to see the principle. For these reasons, the chapter takes its title from this person. If one takes it as conferring the Dharma upon Kauṇḍinya: if it were for receiving and upholding the spoken teachings, it should be given to Ānanda; if it were for abiding, upholding, and continuing the lineage, it should be given to Kāśyapa; if it were for propagating and elucidating the great tenets, it should be given to Mañjuśrī. Yet of the great disciples, some had already passed into extinction, while others had not yet arrived; and the venerable and virtuous elder had witnessed the Buddha from beginning to end and was necessarily an elder capable of bearing the entrustment. Therefore [the Buddha] addressed him, circulating his final bequest. Kāishàn said: "The translation of the sūtra was not completed; it contains only the prologue and the main body. The main body in turn comprises three parts: first, a brief statement presenting the fundamental tenet; second, an extensive explanation discerning the fundamental tenet; and this chapter is the third, an exposition gathering the heterodox and returning them to the correct." Guāngzhái said: "Although the translation is not complete, the three divisions are provisionally sufficient, and this chapter is precisely the propagation section." He also said: "This chapter answers the thirty-seventh question: 'Now I wish to ask about the aggregates, yet I lack wisdom.'" Xīnghuáng said: "If it is an answer to a question, it captures a small part of the earlier intention but loses all the subsequent text. If it is said to be the propagation section, it captures the text commanding Ānanda, but loses the rest." If we appraise the various masters, each captures one aspect. If we cite Dharmakṣema's words: "The meaning of this sūtra is complete, but its text is not yet exhausted." If we cite the *Gṛhapati-saṅghanimantraṇa-sūtra*, it says: "Three chapters have not yet arrived." Furthermore, citing the text below where Ānanda is commanded, there are two matters: first, instructing him to transform Subhadra; second, that there should be an entrustment. Since the command to transform has been carried out, yet no entrustment is seen, one should know that it is incomplete. As for saying that there is a propagation section: first, a propagation that gathers the heterodox and returns them to the correct; second, an entrustment propagation. Although there is no text of entrustment, there is the gathering of the heterodox; hence it is said to have a propagation section. Now, clarifying that this chapter is still the function of nirvāṇa, its meaning is broad. In the present, it has the function of gathering the heterodox and gathering evil; in the future, it has the function of rescuing from evil and rescuing from heterodoxy. Whether one wishes to make it both the main exposition and the propagation, either is acceptable; whether one wishes to take it as fully translated or not fully translated, the two meanings do not obstruct each other. Now, clarifying the function of nirvāṇa: the previous chapter was the function of gathering evil; this chapter is the function of gathering the heterodox. Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, concluding the correct meditative contemplation; second, refuting the various heterodox doctrines. The essentials of cultivation do not exceed these two. Correct contemplation is one's own practice in seeking upward; refuting the heterodox is benefiting others in transforming downward. Correct contemplation is the goodness of active practice; refuting the heterodox is the goodness of cessation. Correct contemplation is the arising of understanding; refuting the heterodox is the extinction of delusion. Correct contemplation is the virtue of wisdom; refuting the heterodox is the virtue of severance. These are the meanings of the four siddhāntas. First, explaining correct contemplation also has two parts: first, correctly discerning the meditative contemplation; second, generally concluding with praise and censure. Here in the first part, it explains both the contemplation of permanence and impermanence, both relying on the aggregates as their sphere. That it does not discuss other dharmas is due to four reasons in total: first, the beginning and end of the teaching path; second, according with what is suitable for beings; third, concluding the beginning and end of this single sūtra; fourth, the beginning and end of all dharmas. First, regarding the beginning and end of the teaching path, the *Lotus Sūtra* says: "Formerly in Vārāṇasī, I turned the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths, discriminatively expounding all dharmas, the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates." The five aggregates are the five skandhas, and arising and ceasing is impermanence. Now entering nirvāṇa, he extinguishes the five impermanent ones and attains the five that are all permanent. Second, according with what is suitable is apparent. Third, regarding concluding the beginning and end of this single sūtra: when this sūtra opened its tenets, it immediately said, "I now bestow upon you permanent life, form, and strength"; now at the conclusion of the sūtra, it returns to conclude this intention. Discerning that the five aggregates are permanent, it wishes to explain that life, form, and peace are precisely the five aggregates. Fourth, regarding concluding the beginning and end of all dharmas: as for the substance of meditative contemplation, there is none that does not take the five aggregates as its beginning and sarvākārajñatā as its end. Therefore, sūtras such as the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā* frequently state that form is empty, sensation and perception, etc., are empty, up to sarvākārajñatā. The five aggregates are its beginning, and nirvāṇa is its end, omitting what is in between. Another explanation states: "Form is an obstructive dharma; mind is a cognitive dharma. The Buddha is free of obstruction and free of cognition, and therefore has neither form nor mind. If he had form, he should be covered by a house and clad in garments. What is spoken of as form refers to discerning wisdom as luminous and pure, using form as an analogy." Now we clarify that this explanation contradicts the sūtra. The sūtra says, "By extinguishing this form, one attains permanent form"; one should also extinguish obstructive form to attain unobstructed form, and should extinguish cognitive mind to attain uncognitive mind. How could one still preserve a cognitive mind and then call that cognitive mind "form"? If form is an analogy for wisdom, what are sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness analogies for? How could one use the cow's footprint of the Small Vehicle to ride upon the great ocean? Another master says: "Speaking according to reality, the Buddha has neither form nor mind. The sūtra is cited: 'At that time, passing beyond the realm of mind, he abides in the activity of wisdom.'" Although he cites this sūtra, it turns out to harm his own position. What is the activity of wisdom—is it not the Buddha's mind? Furthermore, it is said that ordinary beings are termed "aggregates," but how could that be so for the Buddha? The Buddha is named by the five divisions—why is that? "Aggregate" means concealing and covering. The Buddha has no concealment or covering, so he is not an aggregate. For example, the cause is named the myriad practices, and the fruit is named the myriad virtues. This also contradicts the sūtra. The sūtra says: "One attains permanent form; sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness are also like this." How is this not the permanent aggregates, permanent form and mind? The text above says, "I now bestow upon you permanent life, form, strength, peace, and unimpeded eloquence"; this is precisely the permanently abiding aggregates covering the dharmadhātu. What obstruction is there that one should say they are not aggregates? The dharmakāya is neither permanent aggregates nor impermanent aggregates, and the dhātus and āyatanas are also like this; yet it can be permanent aggregates and can be impermanent aggregates. Here, addressing Kauṇḍinya directly, [the Buddha] speaks of the former meaning: refuting impermanent form and attaining permanent form is precisely the permanent aggregate of form. How can one contradict the sūtra by saying there is no aggregate of form? If one gives the perfect explanation, then impermanent form is itself permanent form, and sensation and the rest are also like this; that is, the impermanent aggregates are the permanent aggregates, and the dhātus and āyatanas are also like this. Although there are the two kinds—distinct and perfect—both equally elucidate the permanent aggregates, the permanent dhātus and āyatanas, and so forth. Second, concluding with praise and censure, the text is evident; by this means, heterodoxy is refuted.