大般涅槃經疏 20

English (machine translation) 20

Language: English

20.1

Composed by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān under the Sui

20.2

Re-edited by the Śramaṇa Zhànrán of Tiāntái under the Tang

[Zhuang]yao and [Seng]liang state: The five practices are brief, and the ten merits are extensive. The first and second merits broaden the noble practice, up to the ninth and tenth merits broadening the illness practice. Zong of Taichang states: From the first to the sixth, they broaden the preceding three practices, corresponding as primary counterparts; the latter four broaden the latter two, entirely failing to correspond. Guāngzhái states: The five practices and the ten virtues are identical in essence but different in meaning; both are causal goods. Arising from external worldlings and terminating at the exhaustion of study, evoking subsequent aggregate fruits is called 'practice', while repaying previous habitual causes is called 'merit'; thus practice is the cause and virtue is the fruit. Kāishàn states: The five practices are based on the shallow, while the ten virtues are based on the deep. The five practices begin with hearing the sūtra and terminate at the initial bhūmi; the ten virtues begin at the initial bhūmi and terminate at the vajra-mind; therefore the start of the chapter praises that they are not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, causing listeners to be astonished. The sixth virtue takes the vajra-mind as its essence. Hexi [Dharmakṣema] states: The five practices are the causes of nirvāṇa; because their purport is profound and remote, fearing that people might shrink from cultivating them, he adduces the adornment of the ten virtues to encourage and urge them to study. Now, all these are not so. The former two masters relied on the correspondence of broad and brief, but the meaning does not correspond, as they stated. Guāngzhái speaks of habitual causes and habitual fruits, which pertain to the stages of a bodhisattva and do not concern the Buddha vehicle. Kāishàn states that practice is shallow and virtue is deep; however, the text says: "When the ninth virtue first arises, the five matters are all brought to fulfillment." This should not be deep. The noble practice is cultivated with the mind of great nirvāṇa, and the infant practice says one attains great nirvāṇa; how could this suddenly be shallow? Hexi states that these are words of encouragement. Encouragement is ubiquitous—where would he not offer encouragement? Scrutinizing his surviving words, they do not agree with the sūtra. None of these are accepted. Now, relying on the sūtra text: "A bodhisattva should cultivate five kinds of practice"—practice is precisely cultivation. The text states: "When a bodhisattva cultivates the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, he attains ten matters of merit"—is this not realization? The previous three noble practices each speak of the fruit of practice, which also pertains to realization, but the text there is brief; the subsequent ten merits do not fail to clarify cultivation, yet the passages on realization are extensive. Because this matter is obvious, we determine practice to be cultivation and virtue to be realization.

20.5

Looking at the text, there are three parts: first, the Buddha clarifies the ten merits; second, High and Noble Comprehension; third, the general conclusion. The first further has two parts: first, generally proclaiming the number ten; second, distinct explanations. The initial proclamation of the number has three parts: the addressee, proclaiming the number, and praising. First, as for the addressee: All-Pervading Radiance treats external transformation as broad; Bodhisattva King of Virtues Most High and Noble discerns internal practice as deep. Furthermore, Radiance is prajñā, High and Noble is the dharmakāya, and King of Virtues is liberation. Liberation gathers all dharmas and is therefore like a king; prajñā encompasses the principle and is therefore all-pervading; the dharmatā is exalted and ultimate and is therefore high and noble. The three virtues are fully present to designate this one person; the person is named after the virtues, and the chapter is titled after the person. Next, as for proclaiming the number: he merely proclaims the number ten without listing their names separately; their names are given one by one in the distinct explanations below. Third, as for praising: Hexi states: The Sanskrit text reads "rare and extraordinary"; those of dull faculties and small wisdom hear it and are astonished. The translator omitted "rare and extraordinary", preserving only nine phrases. Being solely the realm of the Buddha, it is not shared with the Hinayana; the path of words is cut off, and the sphere of mental activity is extinguished; hence it is inconceivable. Because it is bottomlessly deep, they are startled; because it is boundlessly vast, they marvel. Because it is not real, it is not internal; because it is not provisional, it is not external. Because it is not known by discriminating wisdom, it is not difficult; because nirvāṇa-wisdom cannot reach it, it is not easy. Because it has no form, it is not characteristic; because it has no mind, it is not non-characteristic. Because it lacks past, future, and present, it is not a worldly dharma; because it has neither boundary nor center, it lacks appearance. Severing the four [propositions] and departing from the hundred [negations], it does not exist in the world.

20.6

From "What are the ten?" downwards is the second [major division], which is the section-by-section explanation. First [the question] is raised, and next comes the main explanation, forming ten chapters. The older masters differed in dividing this. [Master] Yěchéng made it into two cycles: the first virtue is hearing what has not been heard, going from shallow to deep, with the sixth virtue, the vajrasamādhi, constituting one cycle; the seventh virtue begins with generating the mind anew, up to the tenth virtue, which is practicing the thirty-seven factors [of awakening] and seeing the buddhadhātu, constituting another cycle. Kāishàn made it into three cycles: the first cycle is as before; the seventh and eighth form the second cycle, meaning that arising from a good friend is the external condition; the ninth and tenth form the third cycle, meaning that obtaining through faith is the cause. We now say: if we look at the meaning of the three cycles explained in the Lotus Sūtra—first the Dharma, next the parables, and later the causes and conditions, all repeating the earlier meaning, hence called three cycles—here the names and meanings of the virtues are perpetually different, so how could they be like the three cycles? We take them simply as ten [distinct virtues]. The initial passage has three parts: first, clarifying the five matters; next, debating their meanings; third, the conclusion. The initial passage also has three parts: first, listing the five headings; next, enumerating them; third, the detailed explanation. The older masters explained the five matters as the three wisdoms: the first is the wisdom of hearing, the second is the wisdom of contemplation, and the latter three are the wisdom of cultivation. Some say: the first two are the two wisdoms of hearing and contemplation, the middle two are the functions of hearing and contemplation, and the last one is the wisdom of cultivation. [Master] Xīnghuáng took the first one as the root and the latter four as mutually completing it: through hearing, benefit is gained; due to benefit, doubts are severed; because doubts are eliminated, [the mind] becomes upright; because it is upright, it knows the secret. We now clarify that this is not so. The three wisdoms belong to the semblance path, whereas this text clearly discusses realization: by cultivating the great nirvāṇa, one gains the ten virtues, and the true realization is brilliantly clear. One cannot even explain it using the separate, true path, so why explain it using the semblance path shared with the lesser [vehicle]? That departs even further from the text. Xīnghuáng took the five dharmas as depending on one another in succession; this too is not so. Now, when entering realization in the mind, it is no longer a matter of before and after, nor of a time of non-practice, let alone still having a sequence at the time of realization! Where the text clearly speaks of realization, they interpret it as cultivation; where the text clearly speaks of the unshared, they interpret it as shared; where the text clearly speaks of hearing what was unheard, they interpret it as hearing from another; where the text clearly speaks of the inconceivable, they interpret it as conceivable; where the text clearly speaks of the secret, they interpret it as manifest; where the text clearly speaks of the complete and consummate, they interpret it as partial and deficient; where the text clearly speaks of astonishment and wonder, they interpret it as ordinary; where the text clearly speaks of non-differentiation, they interpret it as differentiated; where the text clearly speaks of the middle way, they interpret it as the exhaustion of the extremes. If one relies on the text, there are not these ten faults; one does not know why they resist the Buddhist sūtra (and so on). I privately inquire of later scholars: please look at the text of the five dharmas of the first virtue. "Hearing what has not been heard" still partakes somewhat of the mark of the cause, but the four beginning with "having heard, one attains benefit" are entirely terms belonging to the fruit. Since the first predominantly establishes names of the fruit, even if the remaining nine resemble cultivating causes, they are nonetheless practices within the central [realization]. When Zhāng'ān laid down the words about "more and less," his intention was also like this, up to a close examination of the text of the nine lines, which all accord with both cultivation and realization. Therefore we know: in all commentaries on sūtras, whether one examines the text to draw out the meaning, or determines the text based on the meaning, if it is otherwise, then one will vaguely interpret the text and inevitably incur many errors. The detailed explanation of the five dharmas itself comprises five parts. The initial explanation of "hearing what has not been heard" has three parts: the presentation, the explanation, and the conclusion. Presenting "hearing what has not been heard" refers to the marvelous awakening of perfect realization; giving rise to understanding is called "hearing," not receiving it from another. If it were hearing from another, that would be hearing what is heard—how could it be hearing what has not been heard?

20.7

Next, from "that is to say, extremely profound" downwards is the explanation. It explains this perfect hearing: hearing one is hearing all. It cannot be fully expressed, but three kinds are briefly raised: first, hearing the paramārthasatya that was not heard; second, hearing the conventional truth that was not heard; third, hearing the ultimate truth that was not heard. These three truths are three dharmas in one mind, neither before nor after, neither shallow nor deep; therefore it says, "not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." Persons of the two vehicles never realize the middle, so it is not shared with them; nor do they realize the conventional, so again it is not shared with them. Although they realize the ultimate, they do not know the secret of the ultimate, so again it is not shared with them. Being unshared in this way, it causes astonishment and wonder. Up to "it is not a worldly dharma"—what was praised above precisely extolled this. Now, the initial section on hearing the paramārthasatya that was not heard has two parts: first, a general enumeration; next, a general explanation. In the initial enumeration: first, the buddhadhātu; second, the Three Jewels as one single body; third, the four virtues; fourth, the eternal abiding of nirvāṇa; fifth, the nirvāṇa of the Tathāgata. Next, the general explanation shows that in every single matter there is nothing that is not the profound middle way. There are twenty lines in all, and the rest are also like this. Next, from "further, hearing all the external scriptures and books that were not heard" downwards is the second: hearing the conventional truth that was not heard. It also has two parts: first, enumerating the dharmas of the conventional truth; second, clarifying the secret. Regarding the initial conventional dharmas: fundamentally there are three non-Buddhist schools, each having scriptures and books; here it only lists Kapila and Ulūka, omitting Ṛṣabha for the sake of brevity. Furthermore, Kapila posits oneness, that the aggregates themselves are the self. Ulūka posits duality, that the self is different from the aggregates. Ṛṣabha posits both oneness and duality, that it is both identical with and different from the aggregates. Being broadly similar to the two, he is not mentioned. From "further, there are the twelve divisions of scriptures" onward is the third: hearing the dharma of the ultimate truth that was not heard. This also has two parts: first, hearing the dharma of the ultimate truth; second, hearing the secret. Both state that because of this sūtra one comes to hear them, which is precisely the meaning of perfect realization. In the Vaipulya, clarifying that the Three Jewels are one single body, the buddhadhātu, eternal abiding, and nirvāṇa are absent in the Hinayana, and for that reason they are excluded. Third, the conclusion is as in the text.

20.8

Next, explaining "having heard, one attains benefit" has three parts: the presentation, the explanation, and the conclusion. Presenting the benefit of realization, it is not the benefit of the wisdom of contemplation; the text says, "attains closeness to sambodhi." The wisdom of contemplation has not yet brought forth the real—how could it mean "closeness"? Next, the explanation has two parts: first, brief; second, extensive. In the brief, there are again two parts: first, raising the causal conditions, hence it says "listening and accepting"; next, revealing that true realization is the three wisdoms in one mind, illustrating it by raising three parables: true wisdom illuminating principle is like the inside of a mirror being clear; provisional wisdom illuminating affairs is like a torch making external objects distinct; the middle wisdom illuminating all-round is like the sun brightly shining everywhere. Explaining it in three turns is to make it easy for people to understand; at the time of realization, one simultaneously obtains the three wisdoms in one mind. Second, from "if there is a bodhisattva" onward is the extensive explanation of the benefits, which also has two parts: first, narrating the causal conditions; next, going through the four dharmas. Clarifying the benefits is as in the text. Not hearing from another is the benefit of true realization, and being able to know for oneself closeness to sambodhi makes it clear that this is not the wisdom of contemplation. Third, the conclusion is as in the text.

20.9

Third, explaining "severing the doubting mind" has three parts: the presentation, the explanation, and the conclusion. The presentation is as in the text. The earlier benefit was internal realization; severing doubts [arising from] "these external treatises" and so on, leaving them behind is also called severing by wisdom. Although the arising of light and the destruction of darkness are mutually clarified before and after, they equally reveal the virtues of perfect realization. The older masters said this was the function of hearing and contemplation. If it were Hinayana hearing and contemplation, when did they ever hear and contemplate the meaning of the buddhadhātu? If it were Mahāyāna hearing and contemplation, they have not yet seen the buddhadhātu; now, taking it as the meaning of departure and severing accords well with the meaning of realization. The explanatory text has two parts: first, briefly explaining departure; second, extensively explaining departure. The brief explanation has three turns: first, leaving behind the two doubts concerning name and meaning; next, leaving behind the doubts concerning the eight inversions; third, leaving behind the doubts concerning the provisional and the real. The first, on name and meaning, is evident. Next, doubting the eight inversions: it says doubting whether the Buddha's nirvāṇa is the inversion of impermanence. Next, explaining the inversion of permanence: in principle there should be eight, but the text is brief, setting three singles against one pair, which makes five kinds (and so on). The four inversions regarding nirvāṇa have the distinction between general and particular. Third, from "doubting that there are three" downwards, is leaving behind doubts regarding the provisional and the real. Doubting the three vehicles is doubting the provisional; comprehending that sentient beings have the buddhadhātu is the real principle. In principle the buddhadhātu should be fully enumerated, but here they are merely shown alternately. From "further" downwards, the second part is the extensive departure, which also has three parts: first, leaving behind numerous doubts. With impermanence at the head, this leaves behind doubts regarding real dharmas. Next, from "further, form is the self" onward, this leaves behind doubts regarding provisional designations. Third, from "the four grave offenses and the five unpardonable acts" downward, is leaving behind doubts regarding the two retributions of environment and sentient beings. The five unpardonable acts and four grave offenses are discussed as extreme evil in terms of sentient beings; having or lacking the buddhadhātu is discussed as ultimate good in terms of sentient beings. The world having bounds or being boundless pertains to the environment. The first is as in the text. Next, in the section on provisional designations, it says that the dharma of saṃsāra has a beginning and an end: having a beginning and an end is posited by heterodox outsiders, but it also exists within the Buddhist teaching. First, some say saṃsāra has no end or beginning at all, the twelve links of dependent origination revolving without limit. Second, some say a single thought of fundamental ignorance is its beginning, and the final mind of vajra is its end. Third, some say it is beginningless yet has an end: the sūtra speaks of beginningless ignorance, which is beginningless; and the fruit of buddhahood, which is having an end. If one firmly holds to these three attachments, it becomes dispute; at the time of true realization, one immediately leaves them behind. From "listening to this sūtra" downward, the third part is the conclusion, as in the text.

20.10

Fourth, explaining "the mind of wisdom is upright and without deviousness" also has three parts: the presentation, the explanation, and the conclusion. First is the presentation. The preceding clarified the three wisdoms of internal realization and the external departure from all doubts, but it was not yet known which wisdom this is. Now it presents the upright wisdom that is free from the two extremes; therefore, it raises both headings: upright and devious. Next, in explaining them, once the two extremes are recognized, the upright reveals itself. When the bodhisattva cultivated the noble practices, he was already able to eliminate the deviousness of ordinary people and the two vehicles, from which we should know that the five practices are cultivation; once devious views are eliminated, what is seen is upright, from which we should know that the ten virtues are clearly realization. The explanation of the devious views of the śrāvakas is as in the text. Third, from "practicing like this" downward is the conclusion, which is easy to understand.

20.11

Fifth, explaining the "secret meaning" also has three parts: the presentation, the explanation, and the conclusion. First, "being able to know" is the presentation. Previously there were no devious deviations of the two extremes, but there is the upright wisdom of the middle way; this wisdom is able to know the profound and secret meaning. Next, within the explanation, there are three parts: first, the fruit as profound and secret; second, the cause as profound and secret; third, the inconceivable as profound and secret. First, from "that is to say" downwards is the Tathāgata's mahāparinirvāṇa, which is the fruit as profound and secret. Next, from "all" downwards is regarding the cause. Third, from "further" downwards is regarding the inconceivable. The two lines from "there is truly no self, yet in the future karmic fruits are not lost" downward take occasion of non-existence to speak of existence. Next, the four lines from "all karmas" downward take occasion of existence to speak of non-existence. Taking occasion of existence and non-existence, it speaks of neither existence nor non-existence; taking occasion of neither existence nor non-existence, it speaks of the inconceivability of existence and non-existence. Inconceivable and further inconceivable, profound and yet more profound—it discusses the profound and secret in terms of the inconceivable.

20.12

From "At that time, [Bodhisattva] Guāngmíng [Déwáng]..." downward is the second [section], debating the meaning, which has four [parts]: first, Déwáng's debate; second, Liúguāng's debate; third, Wúwèi's debate; and fourth, Déwáng's repeated debate. The first has two: first, his question; next, his praise. The question has two: first, he accepts the essential point while respectfully pointing out what is untenable; second, he raises the main challenge. Although five matters were explained above, he now raises a challenge specifically concerning the first matter, in all making three pairs: the first pair forms the approach of refutation; next, he forms the approach of concession; and third, he forms the approach of analogy. The first, the approach of refutation, has two: first, the exposition in terms of Dharma; next, the parables. The exposition in terms of Dharma has three: first, refuting generally in terms of existence and non-existence; next, refuting specifically with regard to hearing what is not heard; and third, concluding. The first, refuting in terms of existence and non-existence, also has two: first, refuting; next, precluding. In the first passage, his refutation divides them so that they become two. Next, from "[If it is] non-[existent], it should not..." downward, he precludes arising and ceasing from being capable of being made into one. Next, from "If its..." downward, he refutes with regard to hearing what is not heard. Third, from "World-Honoured One, if not..." downward, he formally concludes. First, he concludes that they definitely become two; next, from "How..." downward, he concludes that they definitely should not be one. From "Just as..." downward is the second [part], the explanation through parables, with the parables first and their application next. In the refutation within the parables, altogether three parables are accumulated: having arrived is a characteristic of abiding, so by what cause is there going? Going has not yet arrived, so it is necessary to go. What is already born is born, hence it does not arise again; if it is not born, it is unborn and unborn. The same applies to not obtaining and not obtaining. All are definitely refuted into two. Next, from "Having heard..." downward, he applies the parables to show they cannot be one. In the parables there is no parable of non-oneness; it is merely that opening and combining appear alternately. From "World-Honoured One, if hearing what is not heard..." downward is the second pair, which is the challenge through concession. The challenge has three: first, conceding sentient beings, which has three concessions and one interrogation; next, conceding the Buddha-fruit, which has one concession and one interrogation; third, again concluding the two concessions, as in the text. From "World-Honoured One, whatever is form..." downward is the third pair, which is the challenge through analogy. First, he draws an analogy in terms of form and sound; next, he draws an analogy in terms of the three times. As for the first text: form within an obstruction can be seen, while form outside an obstruction cannot be seen; coarse [form] can be seen, while subtle [form] cannot be seen; one side of a material pillar is seen, while the remaining sides are not seen. If worldly form still has what can be seen and what cannot be seen, how much more so for the subtle and wondrous nirvāṇa—how could it be seen? Sound is of the same kind. Next, regarding the three times: if conditioned phenomena of the three times still cannot be seen, how could unconditioned nirvāṇa be seen or heard?

20.13

From "At that time, the World-Honoured One..." downward is the second [part], replying with praise. Traditionally it was said that this is praise, not a reply. Now it is explained that it is also a reply: because he challenged the Buddha with fixed characteristics, [the Buddha] clarified that things such as illusions can hardly be grasped as fixed, whereupon the doubts of the assembly were all laid to rest; this is a reply through praise. As for Liúlíguāng (Vaiḍūryaprabha): when the light came, it was not blue yet blue was seen, and not yellow yet yellow was seen; is this not hearing what is not heard? This is a reply through an auspicious sign. Afterwards, when Liúlíguāng answered the question, it simultaneously answered Déwáng's raising of questions for the sake of the assembly though he had no doubt himself. All together there are these three replies, and through the three replies the three capacities were released [from doubt]. Héxī also said: the praise is a general reply, while what follows is a specific reply.

20.14

From "At that time, amidst the great assembly..." downward is the second [section], Liúlíguāng's debate, which has two: first, his coming from afar; second, his debate upon arrival. The first also has two: first, manifesting the signs of his coming; next, directly explaining his coming. In the first, manifesting the signs, first he emits light, and next there is a dialogue. First, emitting light is indeed extraordinary. It continues to explain the previous question and is called a reply through an auspicious sign, serving to show the signs of his coming. Emitting light is the essence of the light; the great assembly encountering the light is the function of the light. The siṃharājasamādhi is sovereign samādhi. Since its trace is sovereign, it reveals that the essence of the light is inconceivable (and so forth). From "At that time, Mañjuśrī..." downward is the second [part], the dialogue, which also has two: first, clarifying its root; next, clarifying its trace. The first, the root, also has two: first, discerning the root without words; next, discerning the root by relying on words. First, that the four bodhisattvas questioned one another and were all silent: first, reveals that all phenomena are wordless; second, reveals that this doubt should find resolution through Mañjuśrī, and hence the other people did not answer. Mañjuśrī asked the Buddha, and the Buddha was silent. Seeing that the Buddha replied with silence, the assembly all considered that Mañjuśrī had profound understanding; therefore Kāśyapa again asked Mañjuśrī, and Mañjuśrī was also silent, so the assembly considered that Kāśyapa had already understood. In this way it was transmitted along, even up to five hundred [bodhisattvas]. From "At that time, the World-Honoured One..." downward is the second [part], clarifying the root by relying on words. First is the question, next is the answer, altogether having seven rounds: the first six all refute fixed characteristics, and the subsequent one explains causes and conditions. In my personal view: this reply through causes and conditions is both a refutation and an establishment; extinguishing ignorance through causes is refutation, just as earlier all were silent; blazing bodhi is establishment, as in the worldly conventions that follow. Furthermore, the former was refutation and establishment in terms of one's own practice, hence the assembly was entirely silent; the latter was refutation and establishment for the sake of others, hence he replied concerning the conditions of the light. Therefore one knows that the root of the light is none other than the lamp of bodhi; for this reason, this light is non-form yet manifests form. Arising as responsive [manifestation] from the real, he came from that [land] and emitted light to summon those of appropriate capacity; hence, being non-manifest, it manifested. Question: Is the bodhisattva's emitting of light permanent? One says: Relying on that Buddha's power, there is permanent light. Another says: That bodhisattva is a Buddha, so he inherently possesses this light. From "The Buddha said, 'Mañjuśrī...'" downward is the second [part], discerning the trace of the light, which also has a dialogue. The Buddha said, "Do not enter [into it]," which stopped [inquiry into] its root; one should use worldly truth and ought to clarify its trace. The text on the trace has three: first, this [land] relates that land; next, that [land] relates this land; third, clarifying that the bodhisattva wishes to come.

20.15

From "At that time, Liúguāng..." downward is the second [part], that bodhisattva actually coming. It is not that that Buddha was unable to answer; it shows that the path of the Buddhas is identical. Wishing to generate good in this land and eliminate evil in this land, causing them to see the nature and attain the Way, he was therefore sent to come. Question: If the path of all Buddhas is identical, and that land sent [him] to come, this [land] should also send [someone] to go. Answer: [Someone] should also have been sent to go, but it is merely omitted and not stated. Furthermore, it depends on what the transforming master brings forward: this Buddha brought forward that bodhisattva, hence the bodhisattva came; that [Buddha] should also have brought forward this one, but it is merely omitted and not brought forward. Question: Kāśyapa [Buddha] did not preach this sūtra in a good age; now the Buddha preaches the sūtra on permanence in an evil age as an antidote to impermanence. The Tathāgata Pūrṇacandra also appeared in a good age; why did he preach it? Were his questions and challenges all identical to Déwáng's? Answer: Permanence remedies impermanence, which should not exist in that land. Yet if he adapted to capacities for permanence and spoke in accord with principle, it is therefore said to be identical. They both said, "What was previously unheard is now heard," which may not be an antidote. Furthermore, Kāśyapa Tathāgata also had capacities for permanence; why did he not preach it? Now it is explained that this is not so. Although that land lacked preaching as an antidote, it also spoke in terms of the two siddhāntas, and Kāśyapa did likewise.

20.16

From "At that time, the World-Honoured One asked..." downward is the second [part], debating the meaning upon arrival, which has two: first, discussing going and coming as a subsidiary topic; second, directly asking about the above meaning. As for the first text: however, the sequence of question and answer varies indeterminately according to conditions; herein, the Buddha asks first, and next the bodhisattva asks. Herein, the subsidiary discussion differs from that of Cunda: in the above text, facing the Buddha, Mañjuśrī raised a subsidiary challenge, which means the person was subsidiary while the Dharma was not subsidiary; herein, one properly should have asked about hearing what is not heard, yet asked about going and coming, which means the Dharma is subsidiary while the person is not subsidiary. As for the Buddha's intention in asking: Do you see that all phenomena have going and coming and therefore come? Or do you see that they have no going and coming and therefore come? Liúguāng replied in ten rounds: the first two clarify the absence of coming with regard to the external objective realm; the subsequent eight rounds concern delusion and awakening—for awakening there is no going and coming, while for delusion there is going and coming. Liúguāng clarified that in principle there is no going and coming while in traces there are going and coming, and the same is true for delusion and awakening; this simultaneously answered Gāoguì's hearing what is not heard. From "World-Honoured One, let this be set aside..." downward is the debate on the meaning proper, which has four: first, requesting and granting; second, the dialogue; third, reinvestigating; and fourth, concluding the challenges. Requesting and granting are as in the text. Next, from "Liúguāng..." downward is the question. If asking fully, it should be like Déwáng's three pairs and six items; herein, he directly asks about hearing what is not heard. Altogether there are three differences: first, Déwáng asked broadly, while Liúguāng asked briefly; second, Déwáng asked about realization, while Liúguāng asked about cultivation; third, Déwáng asked about hearing what is not heard [bùwén wén], while Liúguāng asked about hearing that which is not heard [wén suǒ bùwén]. How are they reconciled? It is explained: In his native land, Liúguāng also framed the question as three pairs; since the assembly had already heard it broadly, it is therefore only brief here. Déwáng broadly asked about the realization of the five practices; realization is internal awakening not relying on external hearing, hence he said 'hearing what is not heard'. Liúguāng asked about cultivation within realization, which is the heavenly practice; heavenly practice operates spontaneously, increasing in clarity from moment to moment, hence he said 'hearing that which is not heard'. The words differ, but the principle is identical (and so forth). The Buddha's reply has two: first, the causal conditions; second, the direct reply. Within the first, the causal conditions, there are two: praising and granting, and admonishing to listen. The granting has six clauses, which resemble the six perfections though not in sequential order. "You wish to exhaust the ocean, and I am able to explain it well"—this is granting in terms of diligence. Extracting the poisoned arrow—this is granting in terms of the perfection of discipline. Illuminating with a torch of wisdom—this is granting in terms of prajñā. When he asked about hearing what is not heard, the Buddha granted: 'You are not yet clear regarding the buddhadhātu; I have a torch of wisdom that can illuminate it'—one should know that broadly explaining hearing what is not heard is broadly explaining the buddhadhātu. The text above states: "What is hearing what is not heard? It is obtaining the hearing of permanence, bliss, self, and purity." This again is its meaning. If Liúguāng's question is identical to Déwáng's, then Liúguāng attained the revealing cause, and Gāoguì did likewise. The text below states: "Because of this matter, I then attained an awakening to a single phrase or half a phrase, attained the vision of the buddhadhātu, and entered great nirvāṇa." If hearing what is not heard is the buddhadhātu, there are three clauses: How is hearing what is not heard the revealing cause? How is hearing what is not heard the conditional cause? How is not hearing what is not heard the direct cause? Hearing what is heard is the objective sphere and also the causal nature; hearing what is not heard is the cause-of-cause nature (and so forth). The same applies by analogy to coming and not coming, arising and not arising, arriving and not arriving, and so forth. Acting as a ferryman—this is granting in terms of the perfection of forbearance. Giving rise to the mind towards an infant—this is granting in terms of the perfection of dhyāna. Giving alms—this is granting in terms of the perfection of dāna. Next, from "Listen attentively..." onward is admonishing to listen, which also has two: first, admonishing concerning what has not yet been heard; next, admonishing concerning what has already been heard. Admonishing concerning what has not yet been heard has three: listening attentively keeps the vessel from being overturned, reflecting well keeps the vessel from leaking, and mindfulness keeps the vessel from being defiled; because it is not overturned, it can receive; because it does not leak, it does not lose; because it is not defiled, it is fit for drinking. Admonishing concerning what has already been heard also has three: first, three matters admonish against being overturned; next, two matters admonish against leaking; next, five matters admonish against being defiled. First, he marks being overturned; next, he explains being overturned. One should give rise to reverence and faith: marking the Dharma. Hearing and receiving with the utmost mind: marking oneself. Respecting and honouring: marking the teacher. Not seeking their faults: explaining the vessel being overturned regarding the Dharma. Not giving rise to the three poisons: explaining the vessel being overturned regarding oneself. Not viewing caste: explaining the vessel being overturned regarding the teacher. If one is free from these three matters, the vessel is not overturned. From "Having heard the Dharma..." downward, the second is admonishing against leaking. From "Do not give rise to arrogance..." onward is not leaking into saṃsāra. From "Nor should you give rise to the thought..." onward is not leaking into nirvāṇa. Being devoid of these two extremes is non-leaking. From "Toward the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha..." onward admonishes against being defiled: first, do not defile the single essence; second, do not defile the four virtues; third, do not defile the Great Vehicle; fourth, do not defile non-abiding; fifth, do not defile the characteristics of phenomena. If one conceives of them as distinct essences and defiles them, one cannot honour the teacher; if one gives rise to the four inversions and defiles them, one cannot honour the Dharma; if one gives rise to the Small Vehicle, abides in attachment, and gives rise to greed and defilement, one cannot honour oneself. Being free from these five faults is non-defilement. Practising all ten dharmas concludes that it is the utmost mind (and so forth). Question: Liúguāng emitted light, and light is permanent; how does this admonition apply to him? Answer: Striking the mallet can sound the object; it relies on the sage to admonish ordinary beings.

20.17

From "Good son, there is not-hearing hearing" onward is the second [section], the direct answer, which comprises two parts: first, [expounding] the four propositions of not-hearing hearing; second, broadly unfolding the two sets of four propositions on not-arising arising. The old interpretation of the South held that the first four propositions are an exposition in terms of Dharma, while the latter two sets of four propositions are an exposition by means of analogies. The Dilun masters held that the first four propositions concern doctrinal aspects, while the next two concern aspects of realization. Master Guan said: The various four propositions are not different; they are spoken in three rounds to adapt to the three capacities [of beings]. Regarding the old interpretations of the first round of four propositions, various masters differed. One master explained them in terms of the two truths, stating that "not-hearing hearing" means the ultimate becoming the conventional, and therefore in the ultimate there comes to be hearing; [in] "not-hearing not-hearing", here the ultimate truth alone is utterly free of seeing and hearing; "hearing not-hearing" means the conventional becoming the ultimate, so that there is nothing heard; and "hearing hearing" is merely having seeing and hearing within the conventional. Another master explained them in terms of the true and response [bodies]: "not-hearing hearing" means the dharmakāya giving rise to the response [body]; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the dharmakāya remaining loftily motionless; "hearing not-hearing" means gathering the response [body] back into the true; and "hearing hearing" is the response-traces engaging in hearing and seeing. Another master explained them in terms of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa: nirvāṇa is truly quiescent, which is "not-hearing not-hearing"; when there is a resonance, it responds, which is "not-hearing hearing"; saṃsāra is turbulent and entangled, and if one can cultivate the path, then it is "hearing not-hearing", whereas if one does not cultivate the path, it is constantly "hearing hearing". Another master said: The four propositions of hearing and hearing are not the primary import; the subsequent re-examination of the four propositions of not-arising is the true import, and one ought to explain them with reference to not-arising and so forth: "not-hearing not-hearing" is nirvāṇa having no beginning and no end; "not-arising arising" is nirvāṇa having a beginning where there is no beginning; "arising not-arising" is nirvāṇa having an end where there is no end; saṃsāra is likewise: "arising arising" is saṃsāra having no beginning and no end; "not-arising arising" is having a beginning where there is no beginning; "arising not-arising" is having an end where there is no end, and so on. Now I state: None of these interpretations is correct. Why is that? These three rounds of four propositions encompass all dharmas perfectly, leaving none that is not comprehensively pervaded. Even when using the perfect [teaching] to interpret the sūtra, one still fears failing to accord with it; how could one interpret them in a biased manner as doctrine, practice, realization, Dharma, or analogy? Not only does the biased fail to accord with the perfect, but it furthermore carves up and damages the essential body. Moreover, one master relied on a single truth to explain the four propositions; though claimed to be intimate, it becomes all the more loose and deficient. How much more so when applying the two truths, where the extraneous encumbrances multiply even further! The dualities such as true and response, or saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, are likewise. How much worse is the interpretation made with the three propositions such as "arising arising", where the distortion runs deep! And explaining them as mutual non-existence is merely a minor perspective of the Hīnayāna, having nothing to do with the Great Path. None of them are adopted now. Furthermore, these ten matters all concern internal realization. Deva-rāja questioned not-hearing hearing, while Prabhā-raśmi questioned hearing not-hearing; though their words differed, they both asked about realization, and the answer directly and broadly clarifies the four propositions. If one wishes to explain them, though thousands of paths and myriads of tracks concur in illuminating this realization, one still fears falling short; yet the various masters have drifted like tumbleweeds across the wilds or duckweed over the seas, relying one-sidedly on phenomenal marks, clinging to one and harming the rest—not only deviating from the perfect, but never hearing realization. If one uses the four propositions to explain all meanings comprehensively, there is thorough penetration wherever they are applied. If one wishes to understand the first four propositions, one should accord with the Buddha's words. Although the Buddha answered regarding realization, his intent encompasses cultivation. Upon first entering the path of realization, the path of cultivation suddenly falls away and nothing whatsoever remains; this is called "not-hearing". The true illumination opens wide and illuminates everything; this is "hearing"; hence it is called "not-hearing hearing". When one realizes such great nirvāṇa, great nirvāṇa has no marks of hearing; hence it is called "not-hearing not-hearing". When realization arises and defilements are extinguished, this is called "hearing not-hearing". Quiescent yet constantly illuminating, responding whenever appealed to, this is called "hearing hearing". Now, taking the Buddha's own explanation of the four propositions within "not-arising arising" to interpret this—since it is the Buddha's explanation, it is by no means far-fetched speculation: the first proposition clarifies the wisdom of realization; the second clarifies the principle of realization; the third clarifies the eradication of realization; the fourth clarifies the response of realization. Whether phenomenal or noumenal, wisdom or eradication, self or other, all are complete without deficiency within the initial realization. Such realization is not shared with the lesser [vehicles] and is inconceivable; upon hearing it, one is astonished, exhausting the ocean of nirvāṇa. This single wondrous realization resolves the doubts of both individuals. Furthermore, this "not-hearing hearing" is the realization of holy practice; "hearing not-hearing" is the realization of pure practice; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the realization of heavenly practice; "hearing hearing" is the realization of baby practice and illness practice: one realization is all realizations, the perfect realization complete. Therefore, the earlier text says: "The Buddha told Kāśyapa: 'It is not you alone who have attained such five practices; now within this assembly, five hundred and thirty thousand people have all likewise attained such five practices.'" This is its meaning. Furthermore, "not-hearing hearing" is the realization of the revealing cause; "hearing not-hearing" is the realization of the conditional cause; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the realization of the direct cause; "hearing hearing" is the realization of the sphere [of objects]. Thus the Buddha answered Prabhā-raśmi: "You are not yet clear regarding the buddhadhātu; I have a torch of wisdom that can illuminate it for you." This is its meaning. Furthermore, "not-hearing hearing" is the realization of perfect purity; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the realization of natural purity; "hearing not-hearing" and "hearing hearing" are the realization of expedient purity. Thus the Buddha answered Prabhā-raśmi: "You now wish to exhaust the ocean of the great nirvāṇa; I can fully explain it for you." This is its meaning. If one grasps this idea, within a single realization one may expound freely and broadly, and so on.

20.18

Second, broadly clarifying the four propositions. From "as with not-arising arising" onward, two sets of four propositions are clarified. What is meant by "as" (ru) is the meaning of non-difference, because this set and that set of four propositions cannot be different. Within those four propositions, names and meanings are further established to mutually illuminate and explain each other, and the analogies can be made universally applicable. Briefly raising two types reveals the broad principles to encompass all internal and external dharmas; how could one say that these four are an exposition by means of analogies? Master Xinghuang used these four propositions by analogy to interpret verses such as "originally existent, now non-existent" and the cutting of flesh in the Snow Mountains: "not-arising arising" is originally non-existent, now existent; "arising not-arising" is originally existent, now non-existent; "arising arising" is the dharmas existent throughout the three times; "not-arising not-arising" is there being no such thing; "arising not-arising" is all conditioned phenomena being impermanent; "not-arising arising" is this being the dharma of arising and ceasing; "arising arising" is having ceased arising and ceasing; "not-arising not-arising" is quiescent extinction being bliss; "not-arising arising" is the Tathāgata realizing nirvāṇa; "arising not-arising" is perpetually severing saṃsāra; saṃsāra is "arising arising"; and if one can listen with dedicated mind, one constantly attains immeasurable bliss, which is "not-arising not-arising". Now it is clarified: first, based on the root of perfect realization, once its principle is established, it completely pervades all internal and external dharmas. Not only does it apply to the various Mahāyāna sūtras, it also applies to the Hīnayāna Vinaya: "arising arising" is all evils; "arising not-arising" is committing none; "not-arising arising" is reverently practicing all good; "not-arising not-arising" is purifying one's own mind, and so on. Not only does it apply to the sūtras and Vinaya of both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, it can also apply to the treatises of the bodhisattvas: "arising arising" is dharmas arisen from causes and conditions; "arising not-arising" is I say they are empty; "not-arising arising" is also called provisional designations; "not-arising not-arising" is also the meaning of the middle way, and so on.

20.19

From "World-Honored One, what is not-arising arising?" onward is the third [section], the re-examination. Why is there a re-examination? Truly because the meanings of "not-hearing hearing" and the rest were still difficult to understand, [the Buddha] further examined "not-arising arising" and the rest to re-assist the explanation. If one had understood "not-hearing hearing" and the rest, there would have been no need to re-examine "not-arising arising" and the rest; now, desiring to extend the analogies to make them pervade all things, they are re-examined. This again has two parts: first, in terms of the internal four propositions; second, in terms of the external four propositions. Within the internal four propositions, each proposition first presents a question, followed by an answer. "Abiding in conventional truth" has two meanings: if in terms of the external dharmas of saṃsāra, it is entering the womb at the initial thought-moment that is called abiding in conventional truth; if in terms of the internal dharma of nirvāṇa, the stage of cultivating expedients is called abiding in conventional truth. Developing realization from cultivation, with ignorance opened and broken through, is the time of first emerging from the womb, and is also speaking of a beginning where nirvāṇa has no beginning. Applying this to analogize and penetrate "not-hearing hearing" and the rest, it is perfect realization, and its meaning becomes all the more clear. "Dying according to conventional truth" also has two meanings: if in terms of the external dharmas of saṃsāra, when merit and lifespan are both exhausted, it is called dying according to conventional truth; if in terms of the internal dharma of nirvāṇa, it is when ignorance is exhausted that is called dying according to conventional truth, which is also an end where saṃsāra has no end. Regarding the "four-abode bodhisattva", the old [interpretations] say: in the ten abodes, it is the fourth, "noble birth", abiding in mastery over birth. Another says: in the ten grounds, it is the fourth ground where the view-delusions are completely severed, so one is not born in the three evil destinies and can manifest birth with mastery through spiritual power. Now examining these two interpretations, one resembles the distinctive [teaching] meaning and one resembles the shared [teaching] meaning, neither having grasped this text. Investigating the intent of this meaning: it simply requires that the bodhisattva has exhausted the defilements of the four abodes; it is not that binding karma pulls them into birth in the three realms, yet they can manifest [birth], which is called the stage of mastery over birth. The sūtra has the meaning of the six abodes, and the fourth abode corresponds with this meaning, as fully explained in the fifth fascicle of the Zhiguan; that quotation of it also serves to corroborate "not-arising arising" and the rest. Second, in the four propositions regarding external dharmas, speaking of "not yet arising arising", the terms "not yet" (wei) and "not" (bu) are used as convenient for each respective meaning.

First 19 of 25 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese