大般涅槃經疏 18.8

18.8

From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onwards, it secondly clarifies knowledge and vision of non-attainment. This also has three parts: first, clarifying non-attainment; second, citing a verse as proof; and third, attaining through non-attainment. The first also has three parts: first the question, second the answer, and third the expression of understanding. The question also has three parts: first, referring back to the previous text. The previous text is already distant, and so it speaks of "pure conduct". Next, from "the bodhisattva's knowledge and vision" onwards is the objection proper. Third, from "How does the Tathāgata" onwards is the concluding objection. The Buddha's answer also has two parts: first, praising his question; next, the direct answer, which also has two parts: first the direct answer, and next concluding what is correct while setting aside what is false. In the first direct answer, there are ten instances of "furthermore". Attainment and non-attainment are set against each other: attainment does not mean attainment within attainment, but rather the attainment of non-attainment. This "non-" is not the non-existence of analytical cessation; it is the non-existence of penetrating comprehension. The ten pairs are: attainment and non-attainment, perversion and non-perversion, wisdom and ignorance, nirvāṇa and realms of existence, Great Vehicle and Lesser Vehicle, vaipulya and the three baskets, true emptiness and saṃsāra, permanence and impermanence, true emptiness and the five views, and bodhi and the two vehicles. From "Next, good son, that which you asked" onwards, it concludes, as in the text. The *Pañcaviṃśati* explains that whatever possesses duality is having attainment, while whatever lacks duality is called non-attainment (and so forth). From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onwards, third is the expression of understanding, which also has two parts: having an expression of understanding and having the attainment of benefit; next is citing a verse as proof. The Tathāgata previously said "here", directly at the Twin Trees; why does he point again to the Twin Trees? The explanation states: it is merely a manner of speaking, not necessarily pointing to these Twin Trees from a different place. The second says: seeing and hearing differ, so how could there be a fixed place? Even if it were a different place, what harm is there in pointing to this? This verse appears for the second time, explaining attainment and non-attainment. The text has two parts: first, raising the verse to ask; second, explaining the verse in reply. The answer has three parts: first, distinct explanations; second, a general explanation; and third, a concluding explanation. The distinct [explanation] also has three: first, a brief indication; second, a repeated question; and third, the explanation proper. In the explanation there are two parts: first, admonishing and granting permission; next, the direct answer. In the answer there are eight rounds: the first six rounds are explanations proper, while the latter two clarify not attaining the fruit. In each explanation, the first half of the verse is explained first, and the second half of the verse is explained later; one must also look ahead to the meaning of the general explanation below. An old explanation of this verse takes "originally having afflictions" as the past origin, and "now lacking nirvāṇa" as the past "now"; one cannot say it is the "now" of today. Why? Because now there is nirvāṇa. If heavenly Māra or Brahmā says that the Tathāgata has afflictions, there is no such possibility—this is today's buddha-fruit not being subsumed by the three times. Explaining the text in this manner works for an initial reading, but it does not dispel other objections. Precisely because previously there was existence and non-existence, impermanence, and later there is permanence, it is still "originally non-existent and now existent"—how could it dispel doubt? [Master] Xīnghuáng said: "Originally non-existent and now existent" are both in accord with conditions. Originally having afflictions is speaking of existence when it is not existence; now lacking nirvāṇa is speaking of non-existence when it is not non-existence. If heavenly Māra or Brahmā can understand this, then to say that the Tathāgata has afflictions is without possibility. Dispelling objections and explaining the text, both paths are completely resolved. We now say that this is the meaning within the general answer. If applied to the distinct explanations of the text, it still does not work. The intent of this verse is to transform sentient beings: sentient beings form only views of good and evil, thinking that formerly there was evil and now there is good; the two vehicles form the view that the real and the conventional are not unified; bodhisattvas form the view that the three truths are distinct; Mañjuśrī forms the understanding that the three truths are mutually identical, which is also the understanding of the four doors and four siddhāntas, and so forth. How could one adopt only one kind of explanation like the masters above? Privately, I consider: The Tathāgata himself gave an eightfold explanation; the Buddha's intent was to take these eight as a model, and one should know that its meaning extends across all phenomena. If it were as the various masters say, each with a single view, why would the Buddha not have given only one kind of explanation? One might wish to grant that each of the various masters is correct. Yet if one wishes to reject them, even if there are various explanations, how could they attain the Buddha's intent? Briefly, as Zhāng'ān held, because of the four siddhāntas they are all correct; apart from the siddhāntas they are all incorrect. Therefore know that when the four are produced, the four are correct; when each is grasped, the four are also incorrect. Because the four are incorrect, all are incorrect; because the four are correct, all eight rounds are correct. Therefore, he further gives a general explanation, crowning the distinct with the general, so that it only then accords with the Buddha's intent. The four siddhāntas and four doors are fully as explained before.