大般涅槃經疏 25.7

25.7

The third exchange of questions and answers. Within the question, there are also three parts: first, acknowledging the import; second, raising a challenge; third, concluding. The first is as in the text. Next, in raising the challenge, it first challenges: Śīla is the foundation of all practices; it has an effect but no cause, so it should be real and permanent. Nirvāṇa lies at the end of all practices; it has a cause but no effect, so it should be impermanent. Finally, it uniquely concludes on one side, which is visible (and so on). The Buddha's answer: first, praising; second, answering. Within the praise, there are three parts: first, praising the depth of the cause; second, praising the power of upholding [śīla]; third, admonishing [him] to listen. The first is as in the text. In the next text, the reason that Śāntalabdha's time was long while Śākyamuni's days were short is due to what was appropriate to conditions; for example, the sixty small kalpas of Candrasūryapradīpa were like the span of a meal here (and so on). Second, the Buddha answers. First, answering the question that upholding śīla has no cause: there are the doctrine, the analogies, and the application. In the doctrine, there are two parts: first, declaring that it has a cause; second, preventing [the fallacy of] infinite regress. First, 'having a cause' means taking listening to the Dharma, good friends, and so forth as the causes of śīla. From 'Faith is caused by listening to the Dharma' onward, the second part prevents the challenge of fearing infinite regress; hence it points out that the two dharmas mutually serve as cause and effect. Next, from 'For example' onward, three analogies in all are raised. The first is formulated as an analogy to prevent infinite regress. Many teachers say: The pure-living Nirgrantha does not place his vase on the ground; three pieces of wood serve as a tripod to support the single vase; the vase stands by virtue of the tripod, and the tripod is completed relying on the vase. Second, Emperor Wu of Liang said: 'The Nirgrantha eats cow dung with his mouth and exposes his defiled genitals nakedly; what pure conduct does he have that could be praised? The tripod is what is nowadays called a suction tube (ke-wu) for drawing water, also called a windlass (lu-lu); installed over a well, they alternately go up and down, which is precisely the meaning of mutually serving as cause and effect.' As for saying 'Nirgrantha', it points to the fact that his household has this tripod. Next, the twelve links of dependent origination are raised as an analogy. If one definitely specifies three time periods, using it as an analogy here is inconvenient; taking saṃsāra's endlessness, the meaning of mutual [causation] is established. Third, the eight characteristics in the Hīnayāna are raised as an analogy: the primary arising is simply called 'arising' (jāti), while secondary arising is called 'arising of arising' (jāti-jāti). The masters of the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra refute the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma's doctrine of primary and secondary arising, explaining this text by saying: 'The lifespan of one period is the primary arising; momentary arising and ceasing is the secondary arising. Because of one period, there are moments; because of moments, there is one period.' They do not thoroughly understand the text, and furthermore do not permit the use of the Abhidharma doctrine. This should not be so; refutation and establishment are suited to the occasion, so how can borrowing an analogy be mistaken? In my private view: The ancients took one period and moments as mutually generating each other—why should that not be acceptable? However, it does not equal the kṣaṇa; the eight characteristics are within a single kṣaṇa as both arising and the arising of arising. Therefore, within a single kṣaṇa, the primary characteristic is the cause, and the secondary characteristic is the cause of the cause; the secondary characteristic is the fruit, and the primary characteristic is the fruit of the fruit. This is precisely mutual causation and mutual fruition. Just as with a single faithful mind: this very faithful mind is the mind that listens to the Dharma, and this very mind that listens to the Dharma is the faithful mind; though they are the same single thought-moment, they are mutually causal to one another. Since they are mutually causal, they mutually accomplish the fruits. From 'Faith and listening to the Dharma' onward, it applies the analogies, answering the former first challenge and clarifying that śīla has a cause. From 'It is a fruit and not a cause' onward, it answers the latter challenge, clarifying the answer that nirvāṇa is a fruit and has no cause. The latter also has three parts: first, stating the two headings: one, it is a fruit; two, it is not a cause. Next, from 'Why is it called a fruit?' onward, it explains the heading of 'being a fruit'. Because it is a supramundane fruit, it is called a superior fruit. Because it is a fruit of cultivation, it is [the fruit of] a śramaṇa. Because the fruit of a brāhmaṇa is the fruit of buddhahood, it says 'severing birth and death'. Because it is an absolute fruit, it says 'free from afflictions'. Afflictions are called 'faults beyond faults' (guo-guo) because their essence is the cause of death—one fault further obtains the fruit of suffering, hence they are called 'faults beyond faults'. Furthermore, fundamental ignorance can obscure principle and can also obstruct wisdom, so it is a 'fault beyond faults'. From 'Nirvāṇa has no cause' onward, the second part explains the heading of 'not being a cause'. 'Having no arising and ceasing' means having no worldly cause. 'Having nothing done' means having no retributional cause. 'Not conditioned' means having no generative cause. The three phrases 'constant, unchanging', etc., signify having no relative cause. Third, from 'Good son' onward, it concludes the meaning of having no cause.