[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) › 4.16 # 大般涅槃經疏 4.16 大般涅槃經疏 4.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.16) 十一行半偈，為兩：初十行半明無常用、後一行明常用。初又二：前九行通明諸行無常、後一行半正用無常。初又五：初三行半無常觀、次一行苦觀、次一行空觀、次二行無我觀、次一行半不淨觀。問：諸天化生，豈是不淨？答：雖無臭薉，賢聖所訶，亦是不淨。次「諸欲」下，明正是無常用。如《瑞應》云「出四城門起於厭患，故不貪著。離欲思惟、六年苦行，證真實法，三十四心發無漏慧。今日當涅槃，即最後無餘。」次我度有彼岸一行，即常用。度者，度此彼之彼岸，亦度非此非彼之彼岸。於諸此彼而得自在，故我非但過一切苦，亦過諸樂及無苦樂，乃名大樂。我淨例然（云云）。他判前九行半是佛同於常無常行亦是真不真義，後兩行即是諸行同於如來無常常、不真真義，此常無常顯非常非無常真實法也。今言，若爾，常無常是二方便，因兩方便得顯真實，即如《纓絡》二觀方便得入中道第一義諦。此乃淺深三諦之意菩薩境界，云何得與佛境界同？此文分明云當觀諸佛境界，佛境界者三諦一諦、一諦三諦，非一非三而三而一，一空一切空三諦皆空，一假一切假三諦皆假，一中一切中三諦皆中。只中是俗真、只俗真是中，無二無別，如此乃名諸佛境界。所以用佛境界而遮請者，若一空一切空，云何請住？乃至一中一切中，云何請住？遮請之意正在於此，云何以菩薩境界釋佛境界耶？若但隨文，難見此意。今更就偈文以顯此意。前九行半明一空一切空，離欲一偈明一假一切假，我度一偈明一中一切中。偈中廣出，還釋長行佛境界意。且點其意，在後更釋（云云）。 > The eleven and a half lines of verse have two parts: the first ten and a half lines clarify the function of impermanence; the last one line clarifies the function of permanence. The first part also has two: the first nine lines generally clarify the impermanence of all conditioned phenomena; the following one and a half lines directly apply impermanence. The first part also has five: the first three and a half lines are the contemplation of impermanence; the next one line is the contemplation of suffering; the next one line is the contemplation of emptiness; the next two lines are the contemplation of non-self; the next one and a half lines are the contemplation of impurity. Question: The apparitional rebirth of the gods—how could it be impure? Answer: Although it lacks foul odor and filth, it is rebuked by the worthy and noble ones, and is thus also impure. Next, from "All desires..." onward, it clarifies the direct application of impermanence. As the \*Ruiying \[benqi jing\]\* says, "Going out of the four city gates, he gave rise to revulsion and weariness, and therefore did not greedily cling. Relinquishing desires, he reflected; through six years of asceticism he realized the true Dharma, and with thirty-four mental moments gave rise to uncontaminated wisdom. Today he shall enter nirvāṇa, which is the final \[nirvāṇa\] without remainder." Next, the one line "I have crossed to the other shore of existence" is the function of permanence. "Crossing" means crossing to the other shore beyond this and that shore, and also crossing to the other shore that is neither this nor that. Attaining mastery over all these and those shores, I therefore not only transcend all suffering, but also transcend all pleasures and that which is free of suffering and pleasure; only this is called great bliss. "Self" and "purity" are parsed analogously (and so forth). Others judge that the first nine and a half lines are the Buddha assimilating to the practice of permanence and impermanence, which is also the meaning of real and non-real; and that the latter two lines are all practices assimilating to the Tathāgata's permanence of impermanence and the real of the non-real, with this permanence and impermanence revealing the true dharma of neither permanence nor impermanence. Now I say: if so, permanence and impermanence would be two expedients, and dependent on these two expedients the real would be revealed, which is just like the \*Yingluo \[jing\]\* where the expedients of the two contemplations enable entry into the paramārthasatya of the middle way. This is the meaning of the shallow and deep three truths, the realm of the bodhisattva—how could it be identical to the realm of the Buddha? This text clearly says that one should contemplate the realm of all buddhas. The realm of the Buddha is the three truths as one truth, and the one truth as three truths; neither one nor three yet three and one. When one is empty, all are empty—the three truths are all empty; when one is provisional, all are provisional—the three truths are all provisional; when one is middle, all are middle—the three truths are all the middle. The middle is simply the conventional and the ultimate, and the conventional and the ultimate are simply the middle; they are without duality and without distinction. Only such is called the realm of all buddhas. The reason he uses the realm of the Buddha to refuse the request is that, if one is empty and all are empty, how could one request him to stay? And so on down to: if one is middle and all are middle, how could one request him to stay? The intent of refusing the request lies precisely in this. How could one explain the realm of the Buddha by means of the realm of the bodhisattva? If one merely follows the text, it is difficult to see this intention. Now I will further draw upon the verse lines to clarify this intention. The first nine and a half lines clarify that when one is empty, all are empty; the one verse on relinquishing desires clarifies that when one is provisional, all are provisional; the one verse on "I have crossed" clarifies that when one is middle, all are middle. In the verse it is extensively expounded, returning to explain the intent of the realm of the Buddha in the prose. For now I point out its meaning; it will be further explained later (and so forth). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.15) - [Next: 4.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.17) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.4.16) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.16) · Pramāṇa