大般涅槃經疏 20.22

20.22

From "World-Honoured One, I have now understood" below is the third [section], Abhayapradāna's discussion of doctrine, which has three [parts]: first, requesting permission; second, discussing doctrine; third, requesting an answer to King of Virtue's questions. Requesting permission is as in the text. Second, Abhayapradāna's discussion of doctrine has three questions and answers. In the question expressing understanding, there are also two [parts]: first, asking about going from here to be born there; next, asking about the sharp faculties of those [beings]. These two complement each other, with shifts in perspective making the distinction. Question: The sūtras state that the bodhisattvas of the pure and defiled lands each have their superiorities and inferiorities; how is this reconciled now? Answer: If considered in direct opposition, the pure land is superior; if considered in terms of the provisional and real, if entering the real, the pure land is superior; if entering the provisional, the defiled land is superior. Next, the Buddha's answer directly answers the first question while also disposing of the latter question. There are twenty-one lines of verse, divided into two [parts]: the first ten lines concern the goodness of cessation, and the following eleven lines explain the goodness of practice. However, the karma of the pure land is none other than the bodhicitta; now discussing specific practices is precisely that general and specific are not distinct. Third, expressing understanding is as in the text.

From "This light shines universally" below is the third [part], requesting an answer to King of Virtue's questions. Those of superior and middling faculties having already understood, he requests again for those who have not yet awakened. First he asks, and next the Buddha answers. The question is as in the text. The Buddha's answer has two [parts]: first, praising and enjoining him to listen; next, the direct answer. In the answer, he first raises the unreached and reached, and next takes up hearing the unheard. The first also has two [parts]: first, presenting the section on reached and unreached; next, explaining it. The meaning of the explanation is that King of Virtue's initial question had three types and six types: after the Buddha spoke the six similes and the auspicious light in answering hearing the unheard, next after Vaiḍūryaprabha's discussion of doctrine had answered the unarisen arising, he now merely takes up again the unreached and reached. The first four phrases on hearing the unheard were already understood by those of superior faculties; the next four phrases on unarisen arising were awakened to by those of middling faculties; now, explaining the unreached and reached for those of lower faculties is what is appropriate for the conditions, and thus they emerged intermittently one after another. Regarding these four phrases, the first two phrases explain that nirvāṇa has reaching and not reaching: if one cultivates the path and eliminates afflictions, one reaches it; if not, one does not reach it. The lower two phrases explain that saṃsāra has reaching and not reaching: if one cultivates the path and turns away with revulsion, one does not reach it; if not, one reaches it. Turning back and forth again, they establish the previous phrases. However, the explanation here must still look back to what preceded: previously it was said that the non-arising of the unarisen is the great nirvāṇa; here saying "not reaching" is still "non-arising," with no difference. If so, why is it not the same as the previous explanation of "not reaching of the unreached"? Answer: It is a repetition for the sake of conditions. "Not reaching" is precisely that ordinary beings cannot practice and therefore do not reach it. "Reaching of the unreached" also looks back to the previous "at the time of first emerging from the womb it is called unarisen arising"; here saying "reaching of the unreached" takes up one side regarding saṃsāra. "Unreached of the reached" must also look back to what preceded: at the time of death in conventional truth it is called "unarisen of the arisen," which is also taking up one side. "Reaching of the reached" must also look back to what preceded: previously it said "uninterrupted arising of the arisen"; here it also discusses saṃsāra, so it is the same as before. Next, taking up "hearing what was unheard" also has two [parts]: first, laying out the four sections; next, in the explanation, only one phrase is explained, since having explained it completely before, he did not wish to burden the text. The Dilun masters separately distinguish the difference between shallowness and depth in teaching and realization; however, the intent of the present text is simply what is appropriate for conditions, so that it was suitable to make three expositions. It is merely that awakenings occur earlier or later, not that the Dharma itself has shallowness and depth. Why is this? Because the words differ while the meaning is identical.