大般涅槃經疏 9.23

9.23

就文為二：初開身密、次論義。初開密為兩：一問、二答。問為四：一領旨、二正難、三結問、四請答。初如文。次難者，耶輸此言名聞，羅睺此言宮生（云云）。三四如文。答為三：初總非、次誡聽、三正答。初如文。次「是大涅槃」下，誡聽。「若有菩薩」去，是正答。正答又二：初通舉菩薩住大涅槃，有八復次；後別舉釋迦。初文又二：初七復次正釋、後一總結。初中舊解菩薩住大涅槃為三。一云：是佛，應為菩薩示作因人為能住果，故言住大涅槃。二云：不爾，若是佛者，還是佛在涅槃，何謂菩薩住涅槃？住者有二種：一信住、二真住。既是因人，但是信住。有人難此兩解：若其是佛，應為菩薩，此還是佛住於涅槃，非關菩薩；若是信住，何能作於如是大事？夫涅槃體逈出因果，雖非因果而能因果。若將因人來望涅槃，云涅槃是因，因人住故；若將果人來望涅槃，云涅槃是果，果人住故。例如正性非因非果而果而因（云云）。今明圓菩薩從初發心常觀涅槃行道，故上文云「一切眾生皆悉安住祕密藏中。」圓教菩薩何以不能住大涅槃？所以明菩薩者，舉因以顯果。因尚若此，何況於果。此義自成。何故？言佛應作菩薩，復何故云菩薩不能作諸變現？下文云「菩薩住大涅槃，修種種行。」何意不能住大涅槃種種神變？故不用彼解此。七復次並從少至多，初直舉一須彌入芥，乃至十方入塵，展轉相望，彌顯不可思議之妙。次總結，可知。「善男子我已久住」去，次別舉釋迦。文為三：一略明化道之法、二廣辨方便之處、三總結。初如文。次「於此三千」去，廣辨方便之處。又為三：初總明三千施化、二別明閻浮施化、三總結諸方便。就別約閻浮，又為四：一此生應現、二明餘生、三重明此生、四重辨餘生（云云）。初此生中，言摩耶者，《賢劫經》翻極妙，《瑞應》翻曰妙，又翻大智母。十方各行七步者，河西云：象王初生即行七步，如來示同象王行故。冶城云：示過六道，故行七步。《大善權經》云「各行七步，應七覺分，覺未覺故。」南方言作上福田者，河西云：梵本以南方為右，右是便手，明佛法以淨戒為便，故為上福田。開善云：南是陽方能生萬物，故言福田。西方示七步者，河西云：西方是後，故曰生盡為最後身。開善云：西是秋方，謂言死地。北方者，河西云：梵本言勝，故云已度生死。東方是諸方之首，生長為義。從「我於閻浮提示現出家」，是第二辨餘生。若依一方示現出家，即生成佛；今言四果，故是餘生。又蓋由眾生感見不同，若作今生者，亦有此事，二乘之人咸言如來是阿羅漢。《釋論》云「聲聞法中阿羅漢地名為佛地（云云）。」「為欲度脫」去，即是第三重辨此生成佛之事。輸頭檀亦云閱頭檀，此云白淨，亦云淨飯（云云）。瞿曇者，《善見婆沙》翻為滅惡，《阿含》云純淑。「我又示現」去，第四重辨餘生（云云）。

The text has two parts: first, opening the secret of the body; next, the debate. Opening the secret has two parts: 1. the question, 2. the answer. The question has four parts: 1. grasping the import, 2. raising the actual objection, 3. concluding the question, 4. requesting the answer. The first is as in the text. Second, regarding the objection: 'Yaśo[dharā]' here means 'Renowned'; 'Rāhula' here means 'Born in the Palace' (and so forth). The third and fourth are as in the text. The answer has three parts: first, a general negation; next, an admonition to listen; third, the proper answer. The first is as in the text. Next, from "This great nirvāṇa" below is the admonition to listen. From "If there is a bodhisattva" onward is the proper answer. The proper answer also has two parts: first, generally citing bodhisattvas dwelling in the great nirvāṇa, which has eight restatements; afterward, specifically citing Śākyamuni. The first text also has two parts: the first seven restatements provide the proper explanation; the final one provides the general conclusion. Within the first, the ancient explanations of bodhisattvas dwelling in the great nirvāṇa were threefold. One said: this is the Buddha, who in response acts as a bodhisattva, manifesting as a causal person to be capable of dwelling in the fruition; therefore it says 'dwelling in the great nirvāṇa'. The second said: not so; if this were the Buddha, it would still be the Buddha in nirvāṇa, so why say a bodhisattva dwells in nirvāṇa? Regarding 'dwelling', there are two kinds: 1. dwelling in faith, 2. dwelling in reality. Since he is a causal person, it is merely dwelling in faith. Someone objected to these two explanations: if he is the Buddha responding as a bodhisattva, this is still the Buddha dwelling in nirvāṇa and has nothing to do with a bodhisattva; if it is dwelling in faith, how could he perform such great deeds? Indeed, the essence of nirvāṇa transcends cause and fruition; although it is neither cause nor fruition, it can be both cause and fruition. If one views nirvāṇa from the perspective of a causal person, one says nirvāṇa is the cause because the causal person dwells in it; if one views nirvāṇa from the perspective of a fruition person, one says nirvāṇa is the fruition because the fruition person dwells in it. This is just as true nature is neither cause nor fruition, yet is fruition and cause (and so forth). We now clarify that the bodhisattva of the perfect teaching, from his initial arousal of the aspiration, constantly contemplates nirvāṇa and practices the path; therefore the text above says: "All sentient beings peacefully dwell within the secret treasury." Why should a bodhisattva of the perfect teaching be unable to dwell in the great nirvāṇa? The reason a bodhisattva is elucidated is to cite the cause to make manifest the fruition. If the cause is already like this, how much more so the fruition! This meaning is naturally established. Why say the Buddha responds as a bodhisattva, and why say that a bodhisattva cannot produce all these transformations? The text below says: "A bodhisattva dwelling in the great nirvāṇa cultivates diverse practices." Why would he be unable to dwell in the great nirvāṇa and its diverse supernatural transformations? Therefore, we do not adopt those explanations. These seven restatements all proceed from the lesser to the greater: first directly raising one Sumeru entering a mustard seed, up to the ten directions entering a dust mote; looking at them successively, they increasingly reveal the wonder of the inconceivable. Next, the general conclusion can be understood. From "Good son, I have long dwelt..." onward, Śākyamuni is specifically cited next. The text has three parts: 1. briefly explaining the method of the teaching path, 2. broadly discerning the places of skillful means, 3. general conclusion. The first is as in the text. Next, from "In this three-thousand[fold world]" onward broadly discerns the places of skillful means. This also has three parts: first, generally explaining the dispensing of transformation in the three-thousandfold world; second, specifically explaining the dispensing of transformation in Jambudvīpa; third, generally concluding all the skillful means. Specifically regarding Jambudvīpa, it also has four parts: 1. the responsive manifestation in this life, 2. explaining other lives, 3. re-explaining this life, 4. re-discerning other lives (and so forth). First, within this life, regarding 'Māyā': the *Bhadrakalpika Sūtra* translates it as 'Extremely Wonderful', the *Ruìyìng* translates it as 'Wonderful', and it is also translated as 'Mother of Great Wisdom'. Regarding taking seven steps in each of the ten directions: Héxī states: when an elephant king is newly born, he takes seven steps; the Tathāgata manifests taking steps identical to an elephant king. Yěchéng states: to manifest transcending the six destinies, he took seven steps. The *Dàshànquán Jīng* says: "Taking seven steps in each direction corresponds to the seven factors of awakening, awakening those not yet awakened." Regarding the statement about being the supreme field of merit in the southern direction: Héxī states: in the Sanskrit text, the south is the right; the right is the convenient hand, clarifying that the Buddha-Dharma takes pure precepts as convenient, hence it is the supreme field of merit. Kāishàn states: the south is the yang direction, able to give birth to all things; hence it is called the field of merit. Regarding manifesting seven steps in the west: Héxī states: the west is the rear, hence it says that with births exhausted, this is the final body. Kāishàn states: the west is the autumn direction, meaning the land of death. Regarding the north: Héxī states: the Sanskrit text says 'supreme/conquering', hence it says already having crossed over birth and death. The east is the foremost of all directions, taking growth as its meaning. From "In Jambudvīpa I manifest leaving home" onward is the second part, discerning other lives. If following the manifestation of leaving home in one direction, one attains buddhahood in this very life; now it mentions the four fruitions, so it refers to other lives. Furthermore, it is probably because the impressions and perceptions of sentient beings differ; if taking it as this life, this matter also exists, as people of the two vehicles all say the Tathāgata is an arhat. The *Treatise* states: "In the śrāvaka Dharma, the stage of an arhat is called the stage of a buddha (and so forth)." From "In order to liberate..." onward is the third part, re-discerning the matter of attaining buddhahood in this life. Śuddhodana is also written as Yuètóután, translated here as Pure and White, and also as Pure Rice (and so forth). Gautama: the *Samantapāsādikā* translates it as 'Extirpating Evil', and the *Āgama* says 'Pure and Virtuous'. From "I also manifested..." onward is the fourth part, re-discerning other lives (and so forth).