大般涅槃經疏 26.5

26.5

From "if this person attains" downward is the second part, explaining liberation, which also has four parts: first, explaining nearing, listening, reflecting, and practicing, all as in the text. From "Siṃhanāda said: 'There are no thorns in the sky'" downward is the second round: first the question, and later the answer. The initial question again has two parts: first, presenting a counter-parable, bringing up that there are no thorns in the sky; later, bringing up that there is no binder in the aggregates, so how could there be tying and binding? Above, the "Virtue King" [chapter] says, "The mind originally lacks greed; how could greedy desire bind the mind?" This is precisely that meaning. The answer has two parts, namely, the phenomenon and the parable. As for the first, the phenomenon: discussing it in terms of principle, it means that because of continuity it is not annihilated, and because of disintegration it is not permanent; being neither annihilated nor permanent, it is neither bondage nor liberation. If one has not realized this principle, then there are bondage and liberation. Adducing the house and adducing the fist, one discusses binding with reference to when the palms are joined, and one discusses opening with reference to when the palms are separated; when they were originally not joined, one discusses neither binding nor opening. The three terms, such as "tying and binding," have precisely this meaning. Bondage pertains to the provisional, release pertains to the real, and neither bondage nor release pertains to the middle way; this is the characteristic of the mutual identity of the three truths. From "Siṃhanāda said: 'Like the eye'" downward is the third round: first the question, and next the answer. This question follows on the preceding text of the answer to raise a challenge. Previously it said that name-and-form binds sentient beings, and sentient beings bind name-and-form. Name-and-form is merely sentient beings; how could it bind itself? Just as a knife does not cut itself. Therefore he later challenges again: if sentient beings are merely name-and-form, it is still name-and-form binding name-and-form; how could name-and-form bind sentient beings? The answer is as in the text. From "Siṃhanāda said: 'If name-and-form is binding'" downward is the fourth round of question and answer. The question is as in the text. In the answer there are the phenomenon, the parable, and the application. In the initial statement of the phenomenon, because the arhat's seeds are rotted, there is no bondage; because the retribution remains, there is bondage. As for saying that they have not yet seen the buddhadhātu: looking at it from the Mahāyāna, both seed and fruit are bondage; the Hīnayāna does not hold this. Next, the parable and the application are as in the text. From "Siṃhanāda said: 'The lamp and the oil'" downward is the fifth round, which also has first the question, and next the answer. The intention of the initial question is: the Buddha previously said that the lamp is a parable for sentient beings and the oil is a parable for afflictions; now challenging this statement, there are two explanations. One says: the lamp brings together many phenomena, so that the light, oil, vessel, and so forth together form one lamp; the light is called the lamp's light, and the vessel is called the lamp's vessel. The other says: the light and the oil are distinct; one strictly takes the light to be the lamp. The lamp is of the nature of fire, and the oil is of the nature of wetness; it strictly takes the latter meaning to raise the challenge. The lamp and the oil are each distinct in nature, while sentient beings and afflictions are originally not distinct; how can this serve as a parable? The Buddha's answer has two parts: first, adducing eight parables; later, applying the parable of the lamp. The eight parables have two parts: first, listing the headings; next, explaining them. Moving from small to large is a direct parable; moving from large to small is a reverse parable. "Present" means taking present affairs as a present parable; the preceding reverse and direct are also present affairs, but setting aside the aspects of reverse and direct, one takes other present affairs. "Discrepant" means completely not of that category. "Prior" means the parable first, followed by the application. "Posterior" means the phenomenon first, followed by the parable. *Dì* [渧] has the sound *dì* [帝]. *Dī* [滴] has the sound *dī* [的]. Prior and posterior can be understood. Here it should have the tone *yǎng* [養]; looking down from above is *yǎng*, and looking up from below has the sound *yàng* [樣]. A comprehensive parable is one that exhausts its beginning and end.