[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) › 6.10 # 大般涅槃經疏 6.10 大般涅槃經疏 6.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.6.10) 第四從「爾時世尊讚諸比丘」去，是破執除疑。文為二：先讚、次破。初文者，上有三意，何故獨讚無我？無我是執疑等本故也。何故讚之？世間問答法爾故也。又初以無我破邪其能服用，又將欲奪而先與之。又執劣感勝，即四悉意也。次佛破，為三：初破其偏理，下文云「是三種修無有實義。」二破其偏行，下文云「先所修習悉是顛倒。」三破其偏教，下文云「先所斷乳，此非實語。」此三意各二，謂騰執、酬破。初破偏理，先騰、次酬。初騰為三：一接讚騰執、二作譬、三「世尊」下結歎。醉有二過：一倒亂、二乖善。三結歎，文二：初結醉過與不修者、二歎無過與善修者。次佛破者，即以酬為破。於中為二：初破不倒亂是倒亂，迴醉與之；次破善修非善修，迴不善修而與之。初破倒亂為四：一誡聽牒起、二明其倒亂、三出不倒亂、四結過歸之。誡聽中言牒起者，重牒彼計。但知文字不知其義者，文是語言、義是理趣，醉亦聞語，不曉語意。亦自有語而無實錄，汝亦如是，聞他流轉，他不流轉；自言善修，實非善修。次倒亂中提日月來者，正破倒亂譬也。眾生者，他云：正寄比丘，汎指眾生。今謂不爾。既迴醉與之，當知比丘即是眾生。我計無我者，破其倒亂，亦是破其執於無常無我為是。汝以無常無我為是，此是亦非實，非無我橫計無我，如彼醉人於非轉處而生轉想（云云）。三「我者」去，出不倒亂者即常樂我淨，汝之所非則不非，乃非其所是。佛者覺義，以自在故名我。常者法身，不從緣生故常。樂者即是涅槃，涅槃無受名為大樂。淨即是法，法即無染。汝所非者而今則是，是義不知良由於醉（云云）。四「汝等比丘」下，結歸者，即迴醉還之。比丘謂常是倒、無常不倒，佛迴無常是倒、常是不倒。如日月不轉，醉見迴轉，日月豈醉？醉者過耳。常樂我淨實非無常，橫計無常，是倒者過。次從「汝等若言」去，破善修非善修。文為四：初雙標兩修、次雙明八倒、三雙迴過還之、四專舉勝修。初中云汝等若言者，是標其善修無有實義。斥善非善，如醉偽言而無真實。次標勝修。夫相對者，義有廣略，或作十門八倒六行等不同，今但略對三。次從「苦者計樂」去，是雙明八倒。汝行八倒，云何自樹稱為善修？文云「是人不知正修諸法。」三從「汝諸比丘」去，是雙迴八倒而反歸之。文為二：初迴常樂四倒歸之、後迴無常四倒歸之。就初又二：初正迴倒、次三番料簡。初如文。次三番者，謂世出世、有不有、倒不倒等。初世出世者，夫至理如空非世出世，惑之者成倒名為世間，解之者成德名出世間，無明覆汝唯倒非德。彼若救云：若是倒者，云何名為常樂我淨？次「世間法」下，有不有，故於世間料簡字義。「義如」下，說但有其名，是故非德而無其義。三「何以故」下，有倒無倒，是則但有四倒三倒，顯其無義。舊云：三心無倒，識心是倒。又云：識心無倒，餘三三倒，想有想倒、受有心倒、行有見倒。又通別二釋三倒，通在四心之中。差別對者，識心心倒，想受想倒、行心見倒。又凡有心緣境即心倒，通是想像即想倒，通能分別即見倒。又初心妄計即心倒，心緣成想是想倒，想成水執是見倒。又見倒在凡夫，心倒想倒是學人，無學則無倒。今謂何故却以倒還比丘？是等比丘妄謂心盡，心實不盡無漏，心空想遍見故，故成三倒。一倒具四，成十二倒，故結過還之。問：世間亦有常樂我淨，出世亦爾者，亦應言世間亦有無常無我，出世亦然耶？答：例二乘無常無我，即是世間諸佛無常無我無上方便，即出世間。問：有名無義（云云）。世間出世間、倒德非倒德、勝修劣修，並應四句分別。又世間唯倒無德、出世唯德無倒，即倒不倒是世倒之德，起方便用是出世之德。例餘一切，諸義悉然。舊云：無常無我是劣修，常樂我淨是勝修。又云：單修者劣，雙修者勝。又非偏圓修乃是勝修。今問：屬當諸修與誰分別（云云）。單勝修者是次第人，雙勝修者是不定人，非偏非圓者是頓人（云云）。四從「何等為義」去，是專明勝修。文為二：一對劣明勝、二勸勝修。若通論其劣，備有諸過。但偏破甚者，生死有縛著故無我，聲聞更進趣故非常，外道以苦捨苦故是苦，有為多染是不淨（云云）。偏舉勝破劣，如經。今通意者，初文云我者即如來，只標三寶攝一切法；常即法身，此標三點攝一切法；樂即涅槃，此標四德攝一切法；淨即無為，此標法界攝一切法。然此諸義不縱不橫不一不異不可思議，故得是義故得是勝。次「若欲」下，勸修，如文。 > Fourth, from “At that time the World-Honoured One praised the bhikṣus…” onwards is shattering attachment and eliminating doubt. The text has two parts: first praising, next shattering. As for the first text, there were three points above; why praise only non-self? Because non-self is the root of attachment, doubt, and the like. Why praise it? Because this is the natural way of worldly questions and answers. Furthermore, initially using non-self to shatter heterodoxy, they were able to accept and practice it; also, wishing to take away, he first grants it. Furthermore, attaching to the inferior stimulates the superior, which is the meaning of the four siddhāntas. Next, the Buddha's shattering has three parts: first, shattering their one-sided principle, as the lower text states, “These three kinds of cultivation have no real meaning”; second, shattering their one-sided practice, as the lower text states, “What you cultivated previously was entirely inverted”; third, shattering their one-sided teaching, as the lower text states, “The milk severed previously—these were not true words.” Each of these three points has two aspects, namely reciting their attachment and replying to shatter it. First, in shattering the one-sided principle, there is first reciting and next replying. The initial reciting has three parts: first, receiving the praise and reciting the attachment; second, making an analogy; third, concluding with praise from “World-Honoured One” downwards. Drunkenness has two faults: first, inversion and confusion; second, going against the good. In concluding with praise, the text has two parts: first, assigning the fault of drunkenness to those who do not cultivate; second, praising freedom from fault in those who cultivate well. Next, the Buddha's shattering is precisely using the reply as the shattering. In this there are two parts: first, shattering \[their claim of\] non-confusion as being confusion, returning drunkenness to them; next, shattering \[their claim of\] good cultivation as not being good cultivation, returning unwholesome cultivation to them. First, shattering confusion has four parts: first, admonishing to listen and taking up the points; second, clarifying their confusion; third, presenting non-confusion; fourth, concluding the fault and assigning it to them. In the admonition to listen, “taking up the points” means reiterating their view. “Only knowing the letters without knowing their meaning”: letters are speech, while meaning is the intended principle; a drunkard also hears words but does not understand the intent of the words. There are also those who have words without actual substance; you are also like this: hearing others speak of transmigration, \[you think\] others do not transmigrate; saying of yourselves that you cultivate well, in reality it is not good cultivation. Next, in \[clarifying\] confusion, bringing up the sun and moon directly shatters the analogy of confusion. Sentient beings: others say this directly refers to the bhikṣus while generally pointing to sentient beings. We now say this is not so. Since drunkenness is returned to them, one should know that the bhikṣus are precisely sentient beings. “Considering self to be non-self” shatters their confusion, and also shatters their attachment to impermanence and non-self as right. You take impermanence and non-self as right, but this correctness is also not real; where there is no non-self, you arbitrarily consider it non-self, like that drunkard who produces the idea of turning where there is no turning (and so forth). Third, from “Self…” onwards, presenting non-confusion is precisely permanence, bliss, self, and purity: what you reject is not wrong, but rather you reject what is right. “Buddha” has the meaning of awakening; being self-mastered, it is called “self.” “Permanence” is the dharmakāya; because it is not born from conditions, it is permanent. “Bliss” is precisely nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa having no feeling is called great bliss. “Purity” is precisely the Dharma; the Dharma is precisely unstained. What you rejected is now precisely right; that you do not know this meaning is truly due to drunkenness (and so forth). Fourth, from “You bhikṣus…” downwards, concluding and assigning is returning drunkenness back to them. The bhikṣus consider permanence to be inverted and impermanence to be non-inverted; the Buddha turns it around, saying impermanence is inverted and permanence is non-inverted. Just as the sun and moon do not turn, yet the drunkard sees them revolving—how could the sun and moon be drunk? It is solely the fault of the drunkard. Permanence, bliss, self, and purity are truly not impermanent; arbitrarily considering them impermanent is the fault of the inverted. Next, from “If you say…” onwards shatters \[their claim of\] good cultivation as not being good cultivation. The text has four parts: first, jointly indicating the two cultivations; next, jointly clarifying the eight inversions; third, jointly returning the faults back to them; fourth, exclusively raising superior cultivation. In the first part, “if you say” indicates that their good cultivation has no real meaning. Rejecting the good as not good, it is like the false words of a drunkard lacking truth. Next, indicating superior cultivation. In general, when contrasting them, the meaning can be broad or brief; they may differently make ten gates, eight inversions, six practices, and so forth, but now we only briefly contrast three. Next, from “the suffering considers bliss…” onwards jointly clarifies the eight inversions. If you practice the eight inversions, how can you establish yourselves and claim to cultivate well? The text says, “This person does not know how to correctly cultivate phenomena.” Third, from “You bhikṣus…” onwards jointly turns the eight inversions around and returns them back to them. The text has two parts: first, returning the four inversions of permanence and bliss back to them; afterwards, returning the four inversions of impermanence back to them. The first part also has two: first, directly returning the inversions; next, three rounds of analysis. The first is as in the text. The three rounds refer to worldly and world-transcending, existent and non-existent, inverted and non-inverted, and so forth. First, worldly and world-transcending: the supreme principle is like empty space, neither worldly nor world-transcending; being deluded about it constitutes inversion and is called worldly, while understanding it constitutes virtue and is called world-transcending; ignorance covering you, there is only inversion and no virtue. If they defend, saying: If it is inverted, how can it be called permanence, bliss, self, and purity? Next, from “worldly phenomena” downwards, existent and non-existent, hence analysing the words and meaning with respect to the world. From “the meaning is like…” downwards states that there are only the names, therefore they are not virtues and lack their meaning. Third, from “why is that” downwards, inverted and non-inverted, thus there are only four inversions and three inversions, revealing their lack of meaning. Old interpretations say: Three minds are without inversion, and the conscious mind is inverted. Others say: The conscious mind is without inversion, and the remaining three have three inversions—conception has the inversion of thought, feeling has the inversion of mind, and conditioning factors have the inversion of views. There are also general and distinct interpretations of the three inversions: generally, they exist within the four minds. In the distinct matching: the conscious mind is the inversion of mind, conception and feeling are the inversion of thought, and the mind of conditioning factors is the inversion of views. Furthermore, whenever there is a mind conditioned on an object, that is the inversion of mind; all that is imagining is the inversion of thought; all that can discriminate is the inversion of views. Furthermore, initial delusion in the mind is the inversion of mind; the mind conditioning an object to form a conception is the inversion of thought; when the conception forms a fixed attachment, that is the inversion of views. Furthermore, the inversion of views is in ordinary beings, the inversions of mind and thought are in those in training, and those beyond training have no inversions. We now ask: why are the inversions turned around and returned to the bhikṣus? These bhikṣus falsely believe their minds are exhausted, but their minds are not truly exhausted; because the uncontaminated mind is universally viewed as empty of conception, this constitutes three inversions. Each inversion possesses four, making twelve inversions, so the fault is concluded and returned to them. Question: If the worldly also has permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and the world-transcending is also like this, should one also say that the worldly also has impermanence and non-self, and the world-transcending is also like that? Answer: By analogy, the impermanence and non-self of the two vehicles are worldly; the impermanence and non-self of the Buddhas are unexcelled expedient means, which are world-transcending. Question: Having names without meaning (and so forth). Worldly and world-transcending, inverted and virtuous or non-inverted and non-virtuous, superior cultivation and inferior cultivation, should all be distinguished through the four alternatives (catuṣkoṭi). Furthermore, the worldly has only inversion and no virtue, and the world-transcending has only virtue and no inversion; the fact that inversion is non-inversion is the virtue of worldly inversion, and giving rise to expedient functions is the virtue of the world-transcending. By analogy with all the rest, all meanings are likewise. Old interpretations say: Impermanence and non-self are inferior cultivation, while permanence, bliss, self, and purity are superior cultivation. Others say: Cultivating singly is inferior, while cultivating doubly is superior. Others say: Cultivation that is neither one-sided nor circular is superior cultivation. We now ask: to whom do these various cultivations belong in differentiation (and so forth)? Those who singly practice superior cultivation are gradual persons; those who doubly practice superior cultivation are indeterminate persons; those who are neither one-sided nor circular are sudden persons (and so forth). Fourth, from “what is the meaning” onwards exclusively clarifies superior cultivation. The text has two parts: first, clarifying the superior in contrast to the inferior; second, exhorting to superior cultivation. If we discuss the inferior generally, it possesses all faults. It is only that he specifically shatters the extreme ones: saṃsāra has bondage and attachment, hence non-self; śrāvakas advance further, hence impermanent; non-Buddhists use suffering to abandon suffering, hence suffering; conditioned things have much defilement, hence impure (and so forth). Specifically raising the superior to shatter the inferior is as in the sūtra. Our comprehensive meaning now is: the initial text saying “Self is precisely the Tathāgata” simply indicates the Three Jewels subsuming all phenomena; “permanence is precisely the dharmakāya,” this indicates the three dots subsuming all phenomena; “bliss is precisely nirvāṇa,” this indicates the four virtues subsuming all phenomena; “purity is precisely the unconditioned,” this indicates the dharmadhātu subsuming all phenomena. However, these various meanings are neither vertical nor horizontal, neither one nor different, and inconceivable; therefore they attain this meaning and attain this superiority. Next, from “if you wish…” downwards exhorts to cultivate, as in the text. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.6.9) - [Next: 6.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.6.11) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.6.10) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.6.10) · Pramāṇa