大般涅槃經疏 27.8

27.8

From "Good sons, if there are bodhisattvas who cultivate" onward is the third [section], on the power and function of cultivating the path, which has two parts: first, explaining how experiencing joy leads to attaining nirvāṇa; second, explaining how leaving suffering behind transforms hindrances. The first part also has two [sections]: first, explaining the attainment of nirvāṇa; next, debating the doctrine. The doctrinal debate consists of two rounds of questions and answers. The first question takes up the point that cultivating the three dharmas brings about the attainment of nirvāṇa, and thus asks about its marks. The text has two [parts]: first, it cites that being devoid of the ten marks is called great nirvāṇa. But since the causal response had concluded, this essential purport was already grasped, while the remainder was not yet understood, so he further asks about the ten dharmas. Kāishàn took this extinction of the fires of defilement to be called "extinction and deliverance" (mièdù), using it to translate nirvāṇa. Zhuāngyán took the separation from all discursive thought to be called nirvāṇa, criticizing Kāishàn by saying: "The exhaustion of seed-bonds (zǐfù) is called extinction and deliverance, while the exhaustion of fruit-bonds (guǒfù) is called nirvāṇa. How can one take a passage on seed-bonds to translate the fruit of nirvāṇa?" Kāishàn defended himself, saying: "Fully preserved in the foreign language, the exhaustion of both seed- and fruit-bonds is called liberation, and both extinctions—with remainder and without remainder—are called extinction and deliverance; but the translators of the sūtra skillfully alternated their phrasing, retaining this phonetic rendering as extinction and deliverance for the exhaustion of seed-bonds, and retaining that phonetic rendering as liberation for the exhaustion of fruit-bonds." However, the ten answers here all answer regarding the perfect virtues of nirvāṇa; the two masters each clung to a single line and stirred up disputes, which is giving rise to afflictions based on interpreting doctrines, and is also akin to touching the elephant (and so forth). From "Siṃhanāda" onward, Siṃhanāda questions again. Having already heard the ten meanings, he does not yet know how many dharmas the practitioner must cultivate to attain nirvāṇa. Next, from "The Buddha said" onward, the Buddha answers. The purport of the answer is that the aforementioned ten dharmas were merely the distinctions among the fruits of the fruits of nirvāṇa. If one wishes to practice, one must further be endowed with ten dharmas. Therein are three parts: presentation, explanation, and conclusion. From "Siṃhanāda said: 'As the Buddha previously declared'" onward is the second [major section], explaining how leaving suffering behind transforms hindrances, which also has two parts: first, explaining the karmic hindrances that are transformed; next, explaining the curative path that can transform them. First, there are two rounds of questions and answers: the first round explains that because karma is indeterminate, hindrances can be transformed; the next explains that because karma is indeterminate, the path can be cultivated. The first question and answer has two [parts]: first, inquiring about wholesome karma; next, inquiring about unwholesome karma. The initial inquiry into wholesome karma has five [points]: first, explaining its inexhaustibility; second, explaining its certainty; third, reiterating its inexhaustibility; fourth, reiterating its certainty; fifth, drawing a comparison to conclude the question. The first point also has three parts: first, the opening words; second, grasping the purport; third, concluding the question. The initial address to Cunda is the reason for posing the question. From "Gradually, as the Buddha" onward, he grasps the purport. Giving to an animal yields a hundredfold [reward], and to an icchantika a thousandfold: for the animal, the previous cause was evil and the present retribution is base; for the icchantika, the previous cause was wholesome and the present retribution is superior; hence there is the difference of a hundred and a thousand. Above it was said that killing an animal incurs a minor offense, while killing an icchantika incurs no offense; how is this reconciled? Answer: animals have no fault of severing wholesome roots and slandering the Dharma, whereas icchantikas have this fault. From "Great Being Cunda" onward, he concludes the question. Next, from "World-Honoured One, in the sūtra it is further said" onward, he asks about certainty, which also has two [parts]: first, grasping [the meaning]; next, directly questioning regarding Cunda. If the intention was profound and the cause superior, this karma is fixed; how could he become a Buddha? Third, from "World-Honoured One, in the sūtra it is said" onward, he reiterates inexhaustibility. Fourth, from "World-Honoured One, in the sūtra it is said" onward, he reiterates certainty. Fifth, from "Furthermore, Aniruddha" onward, he draws a comparison to conclude the question.