大般涅槃經疏 12.8

12.8

The text has two parts: first the general, and next the specific. The general also has two parts: first the concise, and later the debate. In the concise part, first comes the simile, and later its application. In the initial simile, two birds are brought forward to illustrate the permanent and the impermanent, yet in the application text, it applies them by means of suffering and non-self, which is merely an abbreviation. I privately suggest: it also shows that their meaning is identical; therefore they are presented alternately; in a complete exposition there should be six. Next, in the debate, first is the question, and later the answer. In the answer, first is the Dharma, and later the simile. In the initial statement of the Dharma, where it speaks of "different phenomena are suffering and are pleasure": of old it was said that saṃsāra differs from nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa differs from saṃsāra, hence it speaks of suffering and pleasure. Master Guān says: Previously it mostly refuted inverted views, discussing the permanent and the impermanent from a vertical perspective; in this chapter it illuminates the permanent and the impermanent simultaneously, stating merely that within saṃsāra there are different phenomena and thus it speaks of suffering, and there are different phenomena and thus it speaks of pleasure, and the same applies up to self and non-self. The later simile of the five grains being each different establishes the former sense of difference. Below, where the specific simile states that flowers and leaves are impermanent while the fruit is permanent, this is not the permanent of permanent abiding. It means that because flowers and leaves are indefinite they are impermanent, while because the fruit is already determined it is permanent, borrowing this to illustrate that through the impermanent the permanent is accomplished. From "Such seeds as these" onward, it specifically explains joint practice, which again has three parts: first, clarifying impermanence in terms of saṃsāra; second, clarifying non-self in terms of nirvāṇa; third, clarifying suffering and pleasure jointly in terms of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. However, the first two are horizontal, while the latter one is vertical; in principle all should be fully discussed, but the text exhibits them alternately. The first text also has two parts: first, directly clarifying the two practices; next, concluding the section. In directly clarifying them, it presents five similes. The first simile also has two parts: first the simile, and next its application. The simile also has three parts: first, the simile; second, the debate; third, the reception of understanding. First, the sprouting illustrates impermanence within saṃsāra; the ripening illustrates permanence within saṃsāra. Next, the debate has two parts: first the question, and next the answer. In the answer, it clarifies that the permanence of saṃsāra differs from the permanence of the Tathāgata. Third, from "Kāśyapa" below is the reception of understanding, which also has two parts: first the reception of understanding, and next the confirmation, etc., which are all evident (and so forth). From "Good son, though cultivating all" below is the second, the application of the simile. Before hearing this sūtra, they all spoke of impermanence; having heard this sūtra, they all speak of permanence. How could saṃsāra not possess both the permanent and the impermanent? As for "the various concentrations of the sūtras," *sūtra* is translated as "matching scripture" and is also the repository of concentration, hence it says "various concentrations." The subsequent four similes all have applications. The next simile mentions *jīnpǔ* (unrefined gold): unpolished jade is called *pú*, and unrefined gold is also called *pǔ*; these have the difference between the wood-radical and the jade-radical. Unrefined gold is also called *kuàng* (ore); "ore" is a different name for gold (and so forth). Zhāotí calls it by the sound *pǔ*, while Master Guān calls it by the sound *kuàng*; however, the character *pǔ* has two readings (and so forth). From "Therefore I say" below is the second, concluding the section. Properly it should clarify the permanent and the impermanent, yet it concludes by speaking of non-self, desiring to show that the same applies to it by analogy.