大般涅槃經疏 17.8

17.8

Second, explaining the four immeasurable minds: they are also called the four equalities. 'Immeasurable' is derived from the objective realm; 'four equalities' is derived from the mind. Why? The objective realm before one is not single; hence it is called 'immeasurable'. Although things are manifold in the objective realm, my mind has a single mark; hence it is called 'equal'. Speaking broadly, the objective realm is also called equal, and the mind is also immeasurable (and so on). The text has two parts: first, explaining the four minds; second, explaining the fruit of the minds. First, analyzing the four minds also has two parts: first, explaining the gradual four; second, explaining the circular four. The gradual [four] also has three parts: first, briefly stating the headings; second, debating the meaning; third, receiving and understanding. The initial statement of the headings is as in the text. Next, from 'Kāśyapa' onward, debating the meaning has first questions and next answers. The questions present five challenges: 1. challenging that the four minds should be three; 2. challenging that the four minds should be one; 3. repeatedly challenging that the four minds should be three; 4. challenging that the four minds should be two; 5. repeatedly challenging that the four minds should be one. Combined, they also form three challenges: the first and third challenge the four to be three; the second and fifth challenge the four to be one; and the fourth single challenge challenges the four to be two. Provisionally following the sūtra text, they are divided into five challenges. The first: because two minds are without difference in both being able to counter anger, they should be the same single [mind]. Joy can bestow happiness, and equanimity can eliminate ignorance; therefore there are only three, and there should not be four. From 'Friendliness has three objects' onward, the second: all equally have three, challenging [them] to be only one; first stating the three objects, next explaining the three minds. The depth and shallowness of the three objects serve only as a single meaning. Although differing in terms of the objective realm, the cognitive mind has no distinction: if taking poverty as the object, that is the sentient-being object; knowing that this poor person requires clothing and food is the phenomenon object; and if knowing that sentient beings need to know the Tathāgata's experiencing of the foremost bliss so that there is nothing required, that is the non-objective. Since that which cognizes is already one, there should not be four; hence it is just a single object. The five aggregates being called the sentient-being object: from where do the five aggregates arise? Taking the required things as objects and giving them away is called the phenomenon object. If taking the Tathāgata as the object, these things are not needed, which is the non-objective. This is intended to explain that the mind cognizing the objective realm is all-pervading, even up to taking the Buddha as the object, let alone other objective realms. From 'That which friendliness takes as an object' onward, the third adduces the three objects to challenge. The sentient-being realm is shallow; emptiness of phenomena is deep; and the non-objective lacks both, and is therefore extremely deep. Since there are three objects, how could there be four? There should only be three. The followers of the Chengshi lun say: taking sentient beings as an object is emptiness of sentient beings; taking phenomena as an object is emptiness of phenomena; taking the Tathāgata as an object is emptiness of equality. This misses the sūtra's meaning. The text states: 'Taking sentient beings as an object means taking parents, wives, and children as objects, wishing to give them happiness.' When does it ever speak of emptiness? From 'There are two kinds of people' onward, the fourth challenges that people are of two kinds: those of view-practice with sharp faculties, and those of craving-practice with dull faculties. Sharp people are prone to anger when teaching dull ones; when they do not understand after ten attempts, anger arises. For this reason, one must cultivate friendliness and compassion to relinquish the angry mind. When the dull see the sharp, they constantly produce jealousy; therefore they are made to cultivate joy and equanimity, which eliminates jealousy. If so, only two are seen; there should not be four. From 'Now, as for the immeasurable' onward, the second challenges using the separation and combination of names: since it says 'immeasurable', how could there only be four? Since there are only four, they should not be immeasurable. If they are immeasurable, there should only be one. Next, the Tathāgata's reply has two parts: first, refuting the clinging to a fixed four; next, answering the challenge that there are not four. The first has three parts: 1. explaining that the teaching approaches are unfixed in being broad or brief; 2. explaining that defying the ordinary is unfixed; 3. explaining that curing afflictions is unfixed. Since they are unfixed, why must there be four? The first answers in terms of the twelve links of dependent origination being unfixed: sometimes eleven down to two or one link, benefiting in accordance with capacity, which cannot be fixed. Regarding omitting the single factor of birth: Héxī states that Satyaka Nirgrantha, who was clever and wrapped his belly with iron plates and wore a crown of fire on his head, came to the Buddha's place. His mind was haughty and would not listen to the Buddha's Dharma, until Guhyapada raised his vajra-sceptre to terrify him, whereupon he finally listened to the Dharma. His father was a brāhmaṇa and his mother was a Nirgrantha, and both had gone forth together. Because he was born from illegitimate parents, he felt ashamed of this alone and was not intimidated by anything else. The Buddha accommodated him, and so omitted the single factor of birth, teaching only eleven. For Kāśyapa, because his pratyekabuddha faculties were sharp and moreover had no taboos, he taught all twelve. From 'Good son, the Tathāgata's skillful means' onward, the second is that defying the ordinary is unfixed, also termed the oral secret being unfixed: the Buddha is truly complete with permanence, bliss, self, and purity, yet he also teaches impermanence and impurity. Saṃsāra is truly impermanence and impurity, yet he also teaches permanence, bliss, self, and purity. From 'Good son, there are sentient beings' onward, the third is that curing afflictions is unfixed, termed the bodily secret being unfixed: acting as a wheel-turning king and giving wealth is equanimity; giving the pleasure of the five desires is joy; acting as a servant running errands is friendliness; and rebuking and admonishing is compassion. From 'Good son, these immeasurables' onward, the second answers the question of there not being four. This also has two parts: first general, then specific. The general also has two parts: first, adducing two matters; next, generally negating the previous questions. Adducing two matters: first, adducing difference in essence; next, explaining difference in function. First, difference in essence: obtaining different retributions—friendliness obtains the all-pervading purity, compassion obtains the station of infinite space, joy obtains the station of infinite consciousness, and equanimity obtains the station of nothingness; because the stations differ, their curing of afflictions differs. From 'Such immeasurable companions' onward, the second explains difference in function: greed seizes others' possessions, while friendliness gives others possessions; anger gives others suffering, while compassion eradicates others' suffering; jealousy begrudges others' happiness, while joy gives others happiness; ignorance increases hatred and craving, while equanimity eliminates craving and hatred. From 'For this reason' onward, the second generally concludes the previous errors: negating one negates the second and fifth; negating two negates the fourth; negating three negates the first and third. From 'As you have said' onward, the second specifically answers the five questions, forming five sections. This first answers the first challenge on curing afflictions, that there are only three and not four. Here it explains that although they equally counter anger, anger has lightness and heaviness, and so they form four. There are six successive points, as in the text. From 'Therefore, Kāśyapa, these immeasurables' onward, this answers the second challenge on sharing objects: curing afflictions differs and there are four companions, so how could they be made identical? There are three objects, but they only combine into one. From 'Furthermore, by vessels' onward, this answers the third challenge on depth and shallowness, which challenged them to be three. Here it explains that in accordance with function there are four; how could they follow practice and be three? Or it is said that 'vessels' refers to the objective realms. From 'Distinguished by practice' onward, this answers the fourth challenge based on people's sharpness or dullness. It intends to explain that although there are two people, there are four practices, and they cannot be made into two. From 'Because of being immeasurable' onward, this answers the fifth challenge on names, having two parts: first, listing the four section headings; next, explaining them at length. It intends to explain that 'immeasurable' has four propositions, so what prevents there being four kinds of immeasurables? From 'Kāśyapa said to the Buddha' onward, the third is receiving and understanding, as in the text. From 'World-Honoured One, are there bodhisattvas' onward, the second explains the non-gradual, namely the circular four minds, also having two parts: first, sorting out small friendliness; next, revealing great friendliness. Concerning these small and great: the small is also not small; one cannot take ordinary beings as small and the two vehicles as great, or the two vehicles as small and bodhisattvas as great. Why is this? Because ordinary beings and the two vehicles alike do not abide in the great nirvāṇa. Here, gradual friendliness is taken as small, and non-gradual friendliness is taken as great, because both of these abide in the great nirvāṇa. Some take the semblance as small and the true as great. This too is not so: gradual semblance and true are both small; non-gradual semblance and true are both great. Therefore, sorting out the small has two questions and answers. The first asks whether there are bodhisattvas abiding in the great nirvāṇa who have the mind of friendliness and compassion, yet it is not the mind of great friendliness. This directly asks about the gradual pure practice. Next, the Buddha's reply has three parts: 1. stating that there are; 2. explaining that there are; 3. concluding that there are. The initial statement is as in the text. Next, in explaining that there are, there are two parts: first, presenting the objective realms; next, explaining the contemplation. First, the objective realms have nine grades: enemies, kin, and neutral persons each have three grades. Some say neutral persons are only one, so there are only seven, because neutral persons are neither enemies nor kin to me, so there is no need to expand into three; at first glance this is so. However, these neutral persons are not without differences of foolishness and wisdom, nobility and baseness, so they can be divided into three, thereby forming nine objective realms, and thus there are nine friendlinesses. Next, from 'This bodhisattva' onward, directly explaining the cultivation of contemplation: if one has not cultivated at all, one only wishes to give the three kinds of kin the three kinds of happiness, the three kinds of enemies the three kinds of suffering, and to the three kinds of neutral persons neither give suffering nor happiness. If one begins cultivating friendliness, among the three kinds of kin one gives three grades of happiness, to the three neutral persons one gives three grades of happiness, and to the three enemies, to the highest enemy one gives lower happiness, to the middle enemy middle happiness, and to the lower enemy higher happiness. When cultivating for the second time, to the highest enemy one gives middle happiness, and to both the middle and lower enemies one gives higher happiness. When cultivating for the third time, to all three enemies together one gives higher happiness, which is not yet the three kinds of happiness of kin and neutral persons. When cultivating for the fourth time, one then takes the lower happiness of neutral persons and gives it together to the three enemies. When cultivating for the fifth time, one takes the middle happiness of neutral persons and gives it together to the three enemies. When cultivating for the sixth time, one takes the higher happiness of neutral persons and gives it together to the three enemies. When cultivating for the seventh time, one takes the lower happiness of the three kinds of kin and gives it together to the three enemies. When cultivating for the eighth time, one takes the middle happiness of the three kinds of kin and gives it together to the three enemies. When cultivating for the ninth time, one takes the higher happiness of the three kinds of kin and gives it together to the three enemies; this is called giving superior happiness to the highest enemy, and at that time it is called the fulfillment of the mind of friendliness. Furthermore, directly taking the three grades of happiness and giving them to the nine kinds of objective realms: when first entering the contemplation, to the three kinds of kin one gives the three happinesses; the second time, to middle kin one gives higher happiness, and to lower kin middle happiness; the third time, to lower kin one gives higher happiness; the fourth time, to lower neutral persons one gives lower happiness; the fifth time, to lower neutral persons one gives middle happiness; the sixth time, to lower neutral persons one gives higher happiness; the seventh time, to the highest enemy one gives lower happiness; the eighth time, to the highest enemy one gives middle happiness; the ninth time, to the highest enemy one gives higher happiness; this is called the fulfillment of the mind of friendliness. Now the text is merely brief, having four rounds of entering contemplation. The first round: to the three kinds of kin equally giving higher happiness—this combines the three kinds of kin into one round, and separately opens the three kinds of enemies into three rounds. If explaining the cultivation of contemplation, there are truly nine grades of different cultivation, but now the text only explains three grades. From 'Good son, this is called attaining friendliness' onward, the third concludes that there are. From 'World-Honoured One, for what reason' onward, this is the second round, which also has first questions and next answers. The answer has three parts: 1. stating it is difficult to accomplish; 2. explaining; 3. concluding. The initial text states it. Next, from 'Why is this?' onward, explaining: first phenomena, next similes. In all, it adduces four similes, as in the text. When afflictions are strong and friendliness is weak, it cannot be called great; only when afflictions are penetrated and friendliness is accomplished is it called great friendliness. From 'For this reason' onward, the third concludes. From 'Good son, when a bodhisattva abides in the first bhūmi' onward, this is the second, revealing the great: explaining that only the circular four minds are great friendliness. The text has two parts: 1. explaining great friendliness; 2. explaining the provisional and the real. First, great friendliness also has three parts: 1. directly explaining great friendliness; 2. explaining combined function; 3. explaining the root of goodness. First, directly explaining great friendliness also has three parts, namely stating, explaining, and concluding. The initial statement is as in the text. Next, regarding the meaning in the explanation: previously, to the highest enemy one gave higher happiness, but had not yet given higher happiness to icchantikas. Now this circular friendliness takes icchantikas as its object, seeing only the dharmatā and not seeing their faults, and therefore does not generate anger; only this is great friendliness. The third, concluding, is as in the text.