大般涅槃經疏 16

English (machine translation) 16

Language: English

16.1

Composed by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān under the Sui

16.2

Revised by the Tiāntái Śramaṇa Zhànrán under the Tang

The opening of the fascicle is the Tathāgata's subsequent extensive answer to the questions raised, refuting the previous four attachments. The text has three parts: first, extensively refuting the conception of permanence; second, briefly refuting [the conceptions of] bliss and purity; third, extensively refuting the conception of self. Permanence and self are the primary roots of attachment, hence they are extensively refuted. First, refuting permanence, the text has three parts: first, clarifying that the heterodox principle is wrong; second, clarifying that their words are erroneous; third, directly answering the question. The first again has three: first, clarifying the error; second, citing the fault; third, concluding the error. In the first part, why is it called an error? They falsely conceive permanence. Permanence is not conditionally produced; what is conditionally produced is impermanent. However, among the heterodox, some conceive of spontaneous nature, which should not arise from conditions. If it were spontaneous nature, this conception arises when mental objects confront the mind—how could this not be conditionally produced? Therefore, the heterodox [views] are all impermanent. From "Good man, the buddhadhātu is unarisen" below, the second cites the fault, which is citing what is right to confront what is wrong. The old [commentary] said: Because it is the future-fruition buddhadhātu, it neither arises nor ceases; if it were conditionally produced, it would be arising and ceasing. This should not be so; here what is right is cited to confront heterodox conceptions. Third, concluding the error: it is precisely that the principle of the single path's purity, the nature of the buddhadhātu, neither arises nor ceases—how could one explain it solely as the future fruition? For this reason, one must conclude the error.

16.5

From "Good man, all these heterodox..." below, the second clarifies that the words of the heterodox are erroneous, which again has three parts: first, discussing that their words are erroneous; second, refuting what they cling to; third, citing what is right to reveal what is wrong. First, their words being erroneous: because they do not see the true principle of the buddhadhātu and the Three Jewels, what they say is erroneous and not real; if they saw this principle, their words would be real. From "All ordinary persons" below, the second refutes the attachments. Earlier, in the eighth occurrence of "furthermore" among the heterodox conceptions cited by Mañjuśrī, they clung to the great earth, physical forms, clothing, carts, and so forth, all conceiving them to be permanent; now this attachment is refuted. From "All conditioned [dharmas]" below, the third reveals the error.

16.6

From "Good sons, conditioned dharmas" below, thirdly, directly answers what was asked, further having three parts: 1. discerning both headings of form and mind together; 2. specifically explaining the impermanence of mind; 3. specifically explaining the impermanence of form. The older [commentaries] say: There are three aggregates in total, citing the "Pure Conduct" [Chapter] which says, "Dharmas of form, dharmas of non-form, and dharmas neither of form nor non-form." They took that which is neither of form nor non-form to be the aggregate of the unmanifest (avijñapti). They also cite the "Holy Conduct" [Chapter] which says, "One who attains it only after the white-four-karma attains the unmanifest." This meaning is not so: neither form nor formless is actually the middle way where both are forgotten and both relinquished; how could it be the unmanifest? The unmanifest is conditioned; this error is not small. If it is only attained after the white-four-karma, this is the precept attained by reception, which is insufficient to prove the unmanifest of the middle way. Why so? Both manifest and unmanifest are defiled wholesome [factors]; an icchantika believes in manifest [action] but does not believe in the unmanifest. If relying on the Hīnayāna, the unmanifest is defiled; if relying on the present intention, the unmanifest is undefiled. As with the previously cited precept of holy conduct taking reception of the unmanifest as proof, what kind of unmanifest is it? They defend by saying: If you do not allow the meaning of the unmanifest, why does the text below say that speaking of the unmanifest is a topic of dispute? Answer: The Sarvāstivādins say the unmanifest is form; the Sautrāntikas (treatise masters) say the unmanifest is non-form. Each clings to a different [view], which results in dispute. If I now provisionally say there is an unmanifest, I ultimately do not reckon it as form or non-form, let alone reckoning each separately! Furthermore, if I provisionally say there is an unmanifest, I ultimately do not definitely cling to the Hīnayāna having it and the Mahāyāna lacking it, so there is no dispute. Moreover, according to the text, it only says "form and mind"; why forcefully speak of manifest and unmanifest? As for the Sarvāstivādins, mind is the mental king, and the mental factors arise following the king. Furthermore, consciousness is the mental king, and mental factors are saṃjñā and so forth. There are eleven forms, namely the five sense faculties, the five sense objects, and unmanifest form. The Sautrāntikas explain five sense faculties, five sense objects, and the four great elements as fourteen forms. However, this [text] merely explains the four great elements and the five forms, while the text below explains eleven forms. The reason it is so is that each reveals one side alternately, not concentrating exclusively on one place. From "Good sons, mind is called impermanent" below, secondly, specifically explains that mind is impermanent. This further has four parts: 1. impermanence; 2. refuting the clinging to permanence; 3. repeatedly explaining impermanence; 4. repeatedly refuting the clinging to permanence. First, explaining impermanence has four further iterations: 1. difference in taking objects; 2. difference in the six consciousnesses; 3. difference in the six sense objects; 4. difference in mental associations. From "Good sons, if the mind were permanent" below, secondly, refuting the clinging to permanence has four further iterations: 1. explaining that consciousness should not take an object alone; 2. the six consciousnesses should not be different; 3. what it depends on should not be different; 4. what it is called should not be different. From "Furthermore, good sons" below, thirdly, repeatedly explaining impermanence has five further iterations: 1. explaining the difference in minds of the three sages; 2. the difference in minds of the three ordinary beings; 3. the difference in minds of the three feelings; 4. the difference in minds of the three poisons; 5. the difference in minds of the three non-Buddhists. The first is as in the text. Next, in the minds of the three ordinary beings, what is called "at home and secluded" means the body is at home while the mind is secluded. From "Good sons, if the mind were permanent" below, fourthly, repeatedly refuting permanence directly refutes the previous eight iterations; the text also has eight, and though they do not correspond one-to-one, some refute the earlier, and some give rise to the later without refuting. I privately note: The first seven refute the earlier, and the last one gives rise to the later. Also, their appearances and absences are not the same; the four that are absent mean they do not refute cause and effect, killing life, calculation, and shape and appearance. Yet there are surplus [iterations] that give rise to what follows: what has already been done and what is now done, neither enemy nor kin, and my possessions and others' possessions. The final eighth iteration summarizes impermanence. I privately note: Thus there is only the first refuting the third (focused mindfulness), the second refuting the fourth (recollection), the third refuting the seventh (recitation); the fourth, fifth, and sixth are surplus. The seventh refutes the fifth (cultivation), and the eighth gives rise to what follows, also being surplus text. The presence and absence of names are all according to what is appropriate, not what ordinary beings can fathom. From "In this non-form dharma, I now" below, thirdly, specifically explains that form is impermanent. This also has two parts: first, concluding the preceding to introduce the following; next, from "This form is impermanent" below, directly discerning impermanence, which of itself has ten sentences: 1. difference in initial arising; 2. difference in time; 3. difference in taste; 4. difference in strength; 5. difference in shape; 6. difference in retribution; 7. difference in name; 8. difference in destruction and combination; 9. difference in sequential arising; 10. difference in sequential cessation. All are discerned in contrast by raising the external; the middle ones are sometimes abbreviated, while the preceding and following all contrast.

16.7

From "If it is impermanent, then it is suffering" below, secondly, generally refutes the previous five iterations reckoning pleasure and three iterations reckoning purity. This also has two parts: first, directly refuting; later, pointing out that it was already answered above. "If it is impermanent, then it is suffering" refutes their reckoning of pleasure. "If it is suffering, then it is impure" refutes their reckoning of purity. As for its already having been answered due to Kāśyapa's question above, there are three explanations. First, Kāishàn says: In the previous holy conduct of the wisdom of the four truths, at the outset of explaining the truth of suffering, it explained that the five aggregates are all suffering. Kāśyapa then posed various objections, explaining that since there are conditions for pleasure and causes of pleasure, there should in principle be pleasure and they should not all be suffering. The Buddha answered below that they errantly produce the conception of pleasure amidst suffering, which was already answering it. Second, Yěchéng says: In the previous "Nature Chapter," the Buddha has the nature of the true self; Kāśyapa then raised twelve objections demanding to find its present function, and the Buddha answered it by citing metaphors such as the wrestler's forehead pearl. Third, most masters use the end of the "Longevity Chapter," where Kāśyapa asked: In the world it is also said that Brahmā is permanent; how does this differ from what the Buddha says? The Buddha answered that the non-Buddhists all stole these words, like the metaphor of stealing the cow; therefore it says it was already answered. In the Héxī Records, it says: That is, it was already answered in the seventh fascicle. Master Guān says: In the "Four Inversions Chapter" it fully explained inversions such as purity and pleasure; here it is no longer detailed, but merely refutes pleasure and purity in brief; hence it points to what came above.

16.8

From "Furthermore, good sons" below, thirdly, explains selflessness to answer the previous eight iterations reckoning a self. The text has two parts: first, generally explaining selflessness; second, directly refuting their clinging. First, it generally proclaims the two headings of form and formless; next, it explains the two headings. In the previous refutation of permanence, it also first posited and next explained, and the explanation was extensive; here, the explanation of the headings is brief. Previously it also refuted permanence with respect to form and mind; now, refuting the self is also with respect to form and mind. From "Form is not the self" below, in explaining the initial heading, it first explains that form is not the self. Why is form not the self? Because it can be destroyed and broken. From "Dharmas of non-form" below, it explains the heading of non-form. Non-form is the mind, and the mind is indeterminate, because it arises from sensory realms. When conditions of pleasure touch the mind, the mind is forthwith pleased; the same is true of suffering and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure. Since it arises from conditions, it is impermanent and selfless. From "If the non-Buddhists" below, secondly, directly refuting what was clung to above had eight iterations. Now there are nine iterations, which also do not correspond one-to-one. Here, they differ according to capacities: they do not refute the first (making) and fourth (undertaking action), while the first (focused mindfulness), second (recollection), and seventh (the three dharmas) are surplus. Thus the third refutes the seventh, the fourth refutes the eighth, the fifth refutes the sixth, the sixth refutes the fifth, the eighth refutes the second, and the ninth refutes the third. That they are not in sequence is simply that it refutes them as they are brought up, without any special intention. From "Good sons, these non-Buddhists" below, thirdly, concludes the fault and rebukes them. In all, it brings up two parables: first, a young child; later, one born blind. The first, the young child, is a parable for conduct being faulty; one born blind is a parable for doctrine being faulty. Just as an infant plays in vain all day long without managing the family enterprise, so too are the non-Buddhists: tormenting the body to no benefit, they fail to accomplish pure conduct; hence the text says "without wisdom and skillful means." Next, just as a person born blind hears four metaphors in vain without recognizing real milk, so too are the non-Buddhists: blindly believing in the Vedas, how could they know permanence and bliss? Hence the text says "and asked others, saying" (and so forth).

16.9

From "Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha" below, secondly, explains the practice of round wisdom. The older [commentaries] say: It refutes attachments that are confused about the four truths, two truths, or one truth. They also say: It refutes the previous discriminating mind, clarifying that ultimately, complete purity has nothing to abide in or attach to. This meaning is not so. Earlier, setting forth the headings, it explained the sequential five practices; the two practices of morality and concentration do not yet involve refuting attachments, so why wisdom alone? If the practice of wisdom is refuted, morality and concentration will naturally be refuted; if the three practices are refuted, that immediately refutes holy conduct; if holy conduct is refuted, the five practices are also refuted; if the five practices are refuted, there is nothing to cultivate; if there is no cultivation, there is no realization; if there is no realization, then the ten virtues are refuted. This meaning is not so. One should know that this text explains the practice of round wisdom. The text has four parts: 1. launching; 2. direct explanation; 3. understanding; 4. concluding the section. In the first part, launching, it does not name four or two, but only names the one reality. How is this known? Formerly, in the initial teaching, it analyzed dharmas into the four truths, and in the Mahāyāna, it explained the mutual identity of the two truths; these had already been taught previously, so they are not rare, nor are they unsurpassable. Now, on the verge of nirvāṇa, it further turns the true truth of the one reality; this is rare and named unsurpassable, so following in sequence, it launches round wisdom. The direct explanation has two parts: 1. clarifying non-nirvāṇa to reveal round wisdom; 2. revealing round wisdom in terms of not again. Non-nirvāṇa also has three parts: 1. directly revealing; 2. revealing horizontally across affairs in terms of non-turning; 3. revealing vertically in terms of the Tathāgata and empty space. On directly revealing, there are also two parts: first, stopping his "how so?"; second, revealing its true principle. "How so?" has two meanings: first, lodging with Mañjuśrī's lamentation over those who have not yet understood, hence saying "how so?"; second, pressing Mañjuśrī as to whether he has not understood or is asking in order to launch it, hence saying "how so?" Next, revealing the true principle is as in the text. Second, from "Good sons, if one reckons there is a self" onwards, clarifies non-turning horizontally across various affairs to reveal round wisdom. Clarifying non-turning passes through seven affairs in all, namely: non-effect, non-cause, non-turning, non-arising, non-emergence, non-action, and non-creation; all are the principle right within affairs, and all are permanently abiding. Third, from "Good sons, turning the wheel of Dharma is the realm of the Buddha" onwards, is vertically concluding round wisdom as none other than permanently abiding. Or it is said: the Tathāgata is in terms of the principle of fruition; buddhadhātu is in terms of the principle of the cause; empty space connects cause and fruition (and so forth). From "Good sons, words are of two kinds" below, is secondly, clarifying "not again," having two parts: first, clarifying not again because of difference; next, clarifying not again because of sameness. First, as for not again because of difference: since the two are different, how could one say "again"? There are eight differences: 1. difference in speech; 2. difference in the assembly; 3. difference in faculties; 4. difference in virtues; 5. difference in benefit; 6. difference in the requester; 7. difference in what was taught; 8. difference in the pervasiveness of the sound. The first turning of the Dharma wheel was for the five bhikṣus: 1. Kauṇḍinya; 2. Daśabala-Kāśyapa; 3. Bhadrika; 4. Aśvajit; 5. Mahānāma-Kulika; here they are spoken of collectively. From "Furthermore, whatever is spoken" below, secondly, clarifies not again because of sameness. This further has three parts: dharma, parable, and conclusion. First, in the dharma, it clarifies no repetition because of sameness. From "For example" below, it explains no repetition through parables. There are three parables in all: first, the parable of producing good and eliminating evil; second, solely eliminating evil; third, solely producing good. These meanings are identical, and therefore there is no repetition. From "Therefore you now" below, is thirdly, concluding no repetition.

16.10

From "At that time Mañjuśrī" below, thirdly, understanding and disclosing the origin.

16.11

From "At that time the World-Honoured One" below, fourthly, concludes the beginning. First addressing Kāśyapa, in the middle addressing Mañjuśrī, now with the wisdom practice completed, he returns to addressing Kāśyapa, making a good start and bringing it to completion.

16.12

From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha" onward is the second [section], explaining the name of the practice. Question: Why is it that after precepts and wisdom both explanations of the practice's name are given, yet there is none for meditative absorption? Answer: Since the beginning and the end are explained, the middle is omitted for brevity. Now, the text has four parts: earlier the Buddha resumed the fundamental thesis and concluded it comprehensively; now first Kāśyapa asks; next the Tathāgata concludes particularly; third, Kāśyapa asks further; fourth, the Tathāgata unfolds and concludes the sequential five practices. These five practices were originally spoken as a Dharma gate for five kinds of persons who possess diseases in their spheres of practice. People of the two vehicles obtain the meaning of cultivation—that is, when śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas hear this, they are able to practice accordingly, and hence it is called "holy practice". Furthermore, there are bodhisattvas of distinct capacity and clumsy crossing over who cultivate sequentially; this is also called "holy practice". If it is that which is practiced by all Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, it is called "holy practice". This concludes the perfect practice. Since the Tathāgata practices it, he treats nothing as incurable. Whether encountered or not encountered, all obtain healing; this precisely concludes this person and this Dharma gate. In the past, people failed to see this concluding intent, and thus did not produce the two interpretations of the distinct and the perfect. If persons of the two vehicles and those of distinct capacity who have diseases in their spheres of practice cultivate it upon hearing the Buddha teach it, they are healed; if they do not cultivate it, they are not healed—this concludes the sequential [practice].

16.13

From "Good son, this bodhisattva" onward is the second [section], clarifying the fruit of the practice of wisdom. The text has five parts: first, stating the names of the stages; second, explaining the meaning of the stages; third, clarifying the essence of the stage; fourth, clarifying the function of the stage; fifth, concluding the lower stages to illustrate the higher stages by comparison. Regarding the first part, former [commentators] explained that the fruit of wisdom attains two stages, called the Stage of Fearlessness from the first to the sixth stage, and the Sovereign King Stage from the seventh stage to the Cloud of Dharma. The reason two stages of fruit are attained is that the practice of wisdom severs afflictions and opens the path rapidly and sharply. Now I say this is not so. If the two practices of precepts and meditative absorption do not sever delusion and open the path, what about the dull-witted? The former explanation held that the Immovable and the Forbearing are different names for the same single essence of the first stage. If they are equally the fruits of precepts and meditative absorption, why do the two stages not extend to the Cloud of Dharma? Now I clarify that it is only one stage; sovereign rebirth is indeed the function of fearlessness and should not be further divided. From "Good son, if there is a bodhisattva" onward is the second, explaining the meaning of the stage. This text accords with the Daśabhūmika Sūtra. That text explains that the first stage is free from five fears; the present text is also like this: there is a slight difference in name, but the meaning is identical. From "He does not fear greed or anger" onward means having no fear of livelihood and no fear of death. From "He does not fear the evil paths" onward means having no fear of evil paths. From "Evil is of two kinds" onward means having no fear of a bad reputation. From "Nor does he fear śramaṇas" onward means having no fear of the awe-inspiring virtue of great assemblies. Freedom from the fear of death is permanence; freedom from the fear of [lacking] livelihood and the evil paths is bliss; freedom from the fear of a bad reputation is purity; freedom from the fear of great assemblies is self. Possessing the four virtues and lacking the five fears, this stage is therefore called the Stage of Fearlessness. From "Nor does he fear receiving the twenty-five realms of existence" onward is the third, clarifying the essence of the stage. The text has three parts: first, presenting the position entered by this essence; next, from "Good son, dwelling in fearlessness" onward, presenting what is realized by the essence; third, from "This is called" onward, concluding. The first is as in the text. Next, regarding what is realized, this stage attains the twenty-five samādhis, named the king of all samādhis, into which all samādhis enter; that is, it is the middle way paramārtha-samādhi, which comprehensively subsumes all samādhis: conventional-truth samādhis and ultimate-truth samādhis all come to be subsumed under it, and hence it is entitled to be called the king. The one truth and the three truths are its very essence. Former [commentators] said: "The twenty-five samādhis sever the delusions of the three realms; therefore, the bodhisattva of the sixth stage is called the Stage of Fearlessness, equal to an arhat." Now this is not accepted. If the two vehicles severed the twenty-five realms of existence and could be called kings, one could say they were equal; but since they are not kings, how can one say they are equal? The text says, "Holy practice is that which is practiced by all Buddhas," and is not the realm of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; how could one say they are equal? Furthermore, that a bodhisattva of the sixth stage severs the delusions of the three realms pertains to the shared bodhisattva, not the intent of this text. The masters applied it erroneously, and it is entirely irrelevant. The explanation of the twenty-five samādhis is fully detailed in the fourth fascicle of the Fahua Xuan[yi]. That text explains that the twenty-five names possess the intent of the four siddhāntas: although none of the twenty-five is not a king, names are established differently to distinguish them, which is the worldly intent. Among the twenty-five, such as Sunlight and Moonlight, this is the intent for individual persons. Such as Non-regression and Joy of Mind, this is the therapeutic intent. Such as Permanence and Bliss, this is the paramārtha intent. Each single samādhi universally contains all four intents: first, clarifying the faults of the various realms of existence, namely the three delusions; second, the virtues of the fundamental Dharma, namely cultivating the samādhi of the three truths; third, concluding the fulfillment of practice, namely the fulfillment of samādhi and entry into the first stage; fourth, destroying existence through compassion, meaning that upon entering the first stage, one is able to manifest bodies throughout the ten dharmadhātus and ubiquitously enter the various realms of existence to cause others to destroy existence. The ancients had not the slightest sense of this in their explanations (and so forth). From "Good son, when the bodhisattva enters these kings of all samādhis" onward is the fourth, clarifying the function of the stage, which again has two parts: first, clarifying sovereignty in the function of power; next, clarifying sovereignty in the function of birth. In the first, the function of power, there are three pairs: first, environment and sentient beings form one pair, Mount Sumeru being the environment and the minds of sentient beings being sentient beings; second, self and other form one pair, taking others into oneself and transforming oneself into others; third, few and many form one pair, which is obvious. Next, regarding the function of birth: first is universally taking birth in various places, namely the places of the ten realms; next is particularly taking birth in places, which are the ten realms. Crushing Mount Sumeru and embracing worlds, dispersing and unifying the ten directions without defilement, roaming through the hells without suffering—these are the functions of the stage. From "Good son, when the bodhisattva accomplishes" onward is the fifth, concluding the lower to illustrate the high by comparison, as in the text. Question: Since the virtues of these bodhisattvas are all equal, why are there differences of higher and lower? Former [commentators] said: "Equal within the equal is completely identical without distinction; unequal within the equal is why there are shallowness and depth." Xinghuang explained: "Viewed horizontally, one stage is endowed with all virtues; viewed vertically, there are higher and lower. Yet how could horizontal and vertical be fixed? It is like a single object: pushed over, it is horizontal; held up, it is vertical" (and so forth).

16.14

From "At that time, in the assembly" onward is the second chapter, praising the sūtra. The sūtra expounds holy practice; practicing according to the teaching transforms an ordinary person into a sage, and therefore it is worthy of praise. The text has four parts: first, Vimalaprabhā praises the teaching; second, the Tathāgata endorses the praise; third, Kāśyapa makes his vow; fourth, the Tathāgata endorses the vow. Praising the teaching has two parts: first, the compiler of the sūtra narrates; next, directly praising the teaching. First, the compiler of the sūtra narrates the internal virtues and external deportment. First, within the internal, possessing great awe-inspiring virtue speaks generally of the essence and function of the Stage of Fearlessness. Awe-inspiring is external function, and virtue is internal realization; being equipped with internal and external virtues, it is said to possess great awe-inspiring virtue. Great supernatural powers praises the external function, like the Sovereign Stage having the function of blowing away mountains and overturning seas. Having obtained great dhāraṇī means having obtained the king of the twenty-five samādhis and retaining all samādhis. Having obtained fearlessness is fully as the Buddha explained. The above virtues are all completely fulfilled. "Arising from his seat" narrates the external deportment. From "World-Honoured One" onward is directly praising the teaching, which again has two parts: first, receiving the Buddha's intent to conclude the lower to illustrate the high by comparison with hundreds of thousands of virtues; next, praising the aforementioned sequential and non-sequential, distinct and perfect teachings. Why is it said that Buddhas and bodhisattvas are not equal to the Great Vehicle? The Great Vehicle is the mother of the Buddhas; a mother can give birth to a child, so the teaching is worthy of veneration. The text says, "Due to the power of the vaipulya, it can give birth to all Buddhas." If considered in terms of the fact that the Way does not propagate itself, but the Buddha can preach the teaching, then the Buddha is superior to the teaching. That the Buddha can propagate the teaching pertains to transforming others; that the teaching can give birth to Buddhas pertains to self-cultivation. What the King of the Treasury praises takes the side of self-cultivation.

16.15

From "Then the Buddha praised him, saying" onward, the second [part] is the Tathāgata's endorsement of the praise. It has three [sections]: endorsement, explanation, and conclusion. The endorsement is as in the text. In the explanation, the doctrinal exposition opens the metaphor and joins the metaphor. Kāishàn considers it to metaphorically represent the teachings of the five periods: the Buddha corresponds to the cow; producing the twelve divisions of scriptures refers to the initial teaching; the sūtras refer to the Prajñā[-pāramitā], stating that the sūtras are the root of the Dharma and prajñā is the root of practice; the Vaipulya refers to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā, because they praise the bodhisattvas; prajñā refers to the Lotus Sūtra, since the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the great wisdom of equality, and great wisdom is simply prajñā; and nirvāṇa is understandable. He also says that prajñā begins during the twelve years and ends adjacent to nirvāṇa, coming after the Lotus Sūtra, citing the "Ultimate Chapter" of the Dazhidulun as proof. If so, then the sūtras are the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, the Vaipulya is the Lotus Sūtra, and prajñā is the Prajñā[-pāramitā]. Zhāotí says: The first three clarify the teachings, and the latter two clarify the principle. Regarding the first three as teachings: the twelve divisions are the Śrāvakayāna piṭaka, the sūtras are the miscellaneous piṭaka (saṃyukta-piṭaka), and the Vaipulya is the Bodhisattva piṭaka, for the Buddha's teachings do not go beyond these three. Regarding the latter two as principle: prajñā is the cause and nirvāṇa is the fruit; practicing the cause of prajñā attains the fruit of nirvāṇa. Xīnghuáng says: The Buddha's expounding of the Dharma is precisely the twelve divisions of scriptures; studying these twelve leads to understanding the sūtras; knowing the root of all dharmas reaches the Vaipulya; reaching the Vaipulya gives rise to prajñā; and because prajñā arises, one can understand nirvāṇa. Master Guān says: These all proceed from the many to the few, from the broad to the brief. First praising the twelve divisions: the twelve divisions apply to both the Small and Great [Vehicles], so this is the general. Further praising the sūtras specifically: the sūtras also apply broadly, so he further praises the Vaipulya specifically. The Vaipulya not yet being rare, he again praises prajñā specifically. Within prajñā, he further praises the single phrase of nirvāṇa, the buddhadhātu, specifically. Just as from a cow milk is produced, up to ghee, so nirvāṇa is supreme. None of these interpretations is correct. Why is that? The twelve divisions of scriptures apply to both the Great and Small [Vehicles]; how could they be solely the Hīnayāna? Furthermore, regarding the twelve divisions being the beginning: the Small [Vehicle] was not the initial preaching, so this cannot be adopted. Furthermore, why make the sūtras prajñā? Do other sūtras lack prose sections? Why also make prajñā the Lotus Sūtra? The names do not correspond; how could their meanings harmonize? Even if prajñā were adjacent to nirvāṇa, prajñā would then be the teaching of the fourth period, which again contradicts your sequence of the five periods. As for Zhāotí's three teachings and two principles: this text endorses his praise of the teaching; why would it use metaphors for principle? Even as Zhāotí explains it, it would be praising other sūtras, not praising the present teaching. What Xīnghuáng says is merely the sequence of generating understanding, which again is not praising the teaching. King of the Treasury says: "Although the Buddhas possess immeasurable merits, they are still not equal to this Great Mahāparinirvāṇa." Generating understanding from teaching is not what the text praises. As for what Master Guān says about proceeding from broad to brief and being the most supreme: the text says, "Ghee is supreme; all medicinal herbs enter into it." How could breadth surpass this? Since it is broad, could it not be praised? The various masters all wish to encompass and subsume [the meaning], yet failing to notice what is right before their eyes, they lose the essential宗旨. Imitating the stride of Handan, they attain neither (and so forth). Now, relying solely on the sūtra: just as the King of the Treasury heard the Buddha speak of the sequential distinct and non-sequential perfect [teachings], where the sequential teaching can produce the merits of bodhisattvas of gradual practice, and the non-sequential teaching can produce the merits of all Buddhas. Rejoicing and leaping with joy, he praised both teachings, and the Buddha assisted his joy by endorsing and praising it in turn. If they arise in sequence, exhausting the profound and reaching the ultimate subtlety, they are praised all the more. The cow is the master of the Nirvāṇa teaching; the milk is the noble practice of moral discipline; the curd is the noble practice of meditation; the raw butter is the noble practice of the wisdom of the four truths; the clarified butter is the noble practice of the wisdom of the two truths; the ghee is the noble practice of the wisdom of the single real truth. Just as the five flavors sequentially culminate in ghee, so the five practices deepen progressively, culminating in the single reality; therefore it is said to be the most supreme and highest—this endorses his praise of the sequential teaching. If one speaks solely of real wisdom, one wisdom is all wisdom; wisdom as the dharmadhātu gathers all wisdom, not relying on a sequence. The Buddha is precisely ghee, the highest and most wonderful, and all medicinal herbs enter into it; the Tathāgata is the ghee among persons. The single real truth is the ghee of Dharma; the person of ghee expounds the Dharma of ghee. The Dharma of ghee delivers the person of ghee; person and Dharma are one and non-dual, and the intermediate dharmas are all nothing but ghee. The sequential and the single real are one and non-dual; praising the single reality of the five practices is precisely praising the five practices of the single reality. When this interpretation is made, both meanings—the sequence and the praise of the teaching—are established. If viewed in terms of the sequence of the teachings of an entire lifetime: emerging from the Buddha as the twelve divisions refers to the Avataṃsaka, for the Avataṃsaka was originally the twelve divisions. The sūtras are one of the baskets within the Tripiṭaka; because beings could not bear the great, he preached the small for them. The Vaipulya teaching refutes the small, criticizes the biased, praises the great, and extols the perfect. The Prajñā teaching has the three persons hear it together and exclusively return to the single reality, leading the small to return to the great, connecting the biased to become the perfect, and granting those dwelling in expedients who have not yet realized the small fruit permission to universally study the Mahāyāna path. The Great Mahāparinirvāṇa is the supreme, ultimate teaching; for those who already dwell in the small fruit, it rejects and abandons the three cultivations and preaches the superior permanence and bliss. If so, why does it not mention the Lotus Sūtra? The Lotus Sūtra shatters the small fruit, extinguishes the conjured city, and leads into the treasure trove, which is identical with the Nirvāṇa. Furthermore, the two myriad Dīpaṅkara Tathāgatas and Kāśyapa Tathāgatas all expounded the Lotus Sūtra as the ultimate song and did not preach Nirvāṇa. Now, this Śākyamuni manifested his traces in an evil age; it was fitting to reveal permanence and bliss under a different name. The two teachings are identically ultimate; the intention in not mentioning the Lotus lies here. Moreover, those of the earlier group whose small capacity had ripened were matured by the Lotus; those of the later group who were not yet ripe were further cleansed by Prajñā; and now they are matured by Nirvāṇa. The treatise says, "Prajñā extends to after the Lotus," which is precisely this meaning. Furthermore, praising this teaching does not contradict the teachings of an entire lifetime either. Moral discipline is the foremost of the noble practices; moreover, moral discipline broadly subsumes, as the text states, which matches the meaning of the initial illumination in the Avataṃsaka. The noble practice of meditation corresponds precisely to the basket of meditation within the sūtras. The wisdom practice of the four truths uses the three cultivations of the Great Nirvāṇa to censure the errors of the small undefiled state, which matches the reprimands of the Vaipulya. The wisdom practice of the two truths takes the real and conventional as identical, matching precisely the Mahāyāna principle that form is identical to emptiness. The wisdom practice of the single real truth is precisely the Nirvāṇa teaching. Thus it can be known that the sequence across the entire lifetime and within the single sūtra are both established, their meanings not contradicting each other. From "For this reason" onward, the third [section] concludes the praise.

16.16

From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onward, the third [part] is Kāśyapa's making of vows. The text has three [sections]: first, grasping the import; second, pitying others; third, making vows himself. Making vows himself has four [aspects]: first, vowing to use the skin and bones of his direct retribution as paper and brush to transmit and uphold the five practices; second, vowing to provide ample and abundant material wealth and power of circumstantial retribution so that they may be promulgated and practiced; third, vowing to use the power of wisdom to subdue and gather; fourth, vowing to devote his three karmas entirely to honor and serve those of like aspiration.

16.17

From "Then the Buddha praised him" onward, the fourth [part] is the Buddha's endorsement of his vows. It also has three [sections]: first, praise; second, prophecy; third, confirmation. This initial part is the praise. From "You now" onward is the prophecy. The prophetic text has three [parts]: first, prophesying transcendent practice; second, prophesying the attainment of the fruit of the Way; third, prophesying the turning of the wheel of Dharma. Third, from "In the past" onward, adducing confirmation: first, adducing the past; next, confirming the present. In the initial citation of the past, there are three [aspects]: first, recounting the bodhisattva's past practices; second, the deliberation of the devas; third, testing and recounting understanding. The initial past practice is as in the text. From "I cultivate such" onward is the deliberation of the devas. The two wheels are merit and wisdom. From "Great Sage, I shall go together with you" onward is the third, the testing. First, it uses the metaphor of the three tests of burning, striking, and grinding; next, it matches the three tests: First, speaking half a verse to test whether he has wisdom or lacks wisdom; if he knows that the textual meaning is incomplete, he possesses wisdom, and if he does not know, he lacks wisdom. Second, manifesting a terrifying body to test whether he has fear or lacks fear; if his mind is firm, he does not give rise to terror, and if it is weak and floating, he gives rise to terror. Third, demanding his body to test whether he can renounce it or not (and so forth). "Half a verse" means it only speaks of the impermanent side and does not speak of the permanent side; hence it is called half a verse. Among the three characteristics of the conditioned, why does it only clarify arising and cessation without mentioning abiding? One explanation: a four-line verse is narrow and restricted, therefore it was abbreviated. Question: If it was abbreviated, why not abbreviate other words? Answer: There is another meaning to this. The dharma of abiding does not clearly show the transition and decay of arising and cessation; it only clarifies the beginning and the end, so the middle ought to be abbreviated. Question: How can there be abiding in the transitional dharmas of the three characteristics? Abiding is permanence, and permanence is non-transition, which is different from impermanence. Answer: It is called the abiding of impermanence; together with the three characteristics, it is inherently impermanent, yet there is an abiding of impermanence, just as there must be a permanence devoid of abiding (and so forth). The text says, "the meaning of emptiness spoken." This verse clarifies impermanence; how can it be emptiness? An ancient explanation states: impermanence is not yet emptiness, but merely an expedient for emptiness, and later it says one attains emptiness. Another explanation states: this is not so. Impermanence is simply another name for emptiness. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says, "Impermanence is the characteristic of movement; the characteristic of movement is the characteristic of emptiness." The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, "Non-arising and non-cessation is the meaning of impermanence." Here too, impermanence is the meaning of non-arising and non-cessation. As for the text saying "extinction is bliss": the essence of nirvāṇa is neither arising nor cessation. Now, since it says here that extinction is bliss, arising and ceasing having arisen and ceased, it is extinct. Is arising bliss or not? Answer: Those who conform to the Way follow the analogy; those who do not conform do not follow the analogy. Arising is the characteristic of originating; cessation is the characteristic of eliminating. It precisely takes the elimination of arising and elimination of cessation as the bliss of tranquil extinction. Arising is the characteristic of originating, and nirvāṇa is devoid of arising, therefore it does not follow the analogy. Regarding transcending twelve kalpas: sūtras such as the Udāna and the Buddhapiṭaka all state transcending nine kalpas. Alternatively, it is said: Because capacities and conditions differ, the Buddha spoke of it with increase or decrease. Next, from "Good son, you now are also like this" onward, confirms the present (and so forth).

16.18

Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Fascicle 16

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese