大般涅槃經疏 28.6

28.6

The text on severing goodness has three parts: first, clarifying the person who severs goodness; second, clarifying the characteristics of severing goodness; third, clarifying the views that sever goodness. The person who severs goodness is Sunakṣatra. The characteristics of severing goodness are that with an indeterminate faculty nature, hearing the indeterminate teaching, he clings to it and forms a fixed understanding. The views that sever goodness are the discriminating analysis and seeking into the principles of phenomena. First, regarding the person, there are two parts: first the question, next the answer. The question has two parts: first the origin, next the main question. Within the origin, there are two: first, clarifying the Buddha's virtue of being able to transform, and next, clarifying Sunakṣatra's conditions of being transformable. Regarding the Buddha, there are also two: first, possessing friendliness and compassion within, and second, possessing skillful means without. In the first text, 'pity' refers to great friendliness, and 'compassion' refers to great compassion. Next, from 'able to tame the untamed' downward, there are seven phrases, which are the external skillful means. From 'Sunakṣatra the monk' downward is the second part, clarifying that he has the capacity to be transformed, which also has two parts: first, clarifying that he is a son, namely Rāhula's elder half-brother, which means the condition is deep. Next, after leaving household life, he possessed faith and precepts; receiving and upholding the twelve divisions of scriptures is wisdom; destroying the fetters of the desire realm and attaining the four dhyānas is concentration—endowed with the three virtues, how could his cause not be profound? Next, from 'Why did the Tathāgata...' downward is the main question, first presenting two objections, and later making two concluding objections. The first objection asks why he prophesied that this was an evil person, and the second asks why he did not teach the Dharma to him first. The first also has two: first, objecting to why he was prophesied as an icchantika, which is the evil cause; next, objecting to why he would abide in hell for a kalpa, which is the evil fruit. From 'Why did the Tathāgata...' downward is the second objection: having a deep connection with the Buddha, why did he not first teach him the Dharma? From 'Tathāgata, World-Honoured One...' downward concludes the two objections. From 'How can he be said to possess great pity and compassion...' downward concludes the first objection: the Buddha possesses friendliness and compassion, so how can he be called one who abides in the basest state for a kalpa? Since he is in the basest state, one should know that the Buddha lacks friendliness and compassion. Next, from 'having great skillful means...' downward concludes the second objection: since the Buddha did not first teach him the Dharma, how can he be called one of great skillful means? If he had skillful means, he should have taught him the Dharma. In the Buddha's reply, he does not answer the origin, but only answers the two objections and two concluding objections, answering the latter first and the former later. In answering the latter first, there are seven similes in all: the first six similes clarify that because conditions have depth and shallowness, the teachings have an order; the last simile clarifies that the Buddha's mind is equal and impartial, preaching without bias. In the first six similes, there are regularly three elements: first, posing the question via a simile; second, narrating the matter in response; third, matching the simile to form an understanding. Why is there this order of three? It is explained: just as when the Buddha first taught the five human and heavenly precepts for Trapuṣa and Mucilinda the blind dragon, next went to the Deer Park to turn the wheel of the Four Truths for the persons of the two vehicles, and later explained the vaipulya teachings to the bodhisattvas—this is one route that takes the small as the beginning. If it is that upon first attaining the Buddha Path he taught the Rocana teaching, first illuminating the king of mountains and next illuminating the plains, this is another route that takes the great as the beginning. Now the intent of this text encompasses beginning and end, taking the king of mountains as the beginning, Mucilinda as the middle, and the Twin Trees as the end. However, although the third son is extremely evil, because their essence is identical, he must therefore be taught; although the poor field is barren, because it is part of the family estate, it is therefore not abandoned. Although the inferior vessel is broken, it is kept against urgent need; although the severely ill person will surely die, because he is a relative [he is cared for]; although the inferior horse is old, because it spares exhaustion [it is kept]; although the inferior person is lowly, because of equal distribution [he is given to]. In the first six similes, although the answers are differentiated, the meaning concurrently encompasses non-differentiation, yet the intention is still not yet evident. In the seventh simile, the text becomes even clearer, bringing up the lion king who neither values the elephant nor disparages the hare, exerting his full strength equally for both, analogizing the Buddha who neither favors the good nor disdains the evil, equally exercising great compassion. If observed in terms of magnitude, the elephant is insufficient and the hare is in excess; if observed in terms of measuring strength, the elephant requires speed and the hare requires leisure. The king of beasts is not like this: he is equal and uniform, without distinction. Observed in terms of conditions, the teaching for bodhisattvas is profound and subtle, the teaching for śrāvakas is shallow and proximate, the teaching for icchantikas concerns the worldly; yet the Buddha does not have two or three [minds], his great compassion being equal and impartial. From 'Once, when I was residing in the City of the King...' downward is the second, answering after the fact the question concerning prophesying him. The question has two parts: first, answering about the icchantika, and next, answering the intent of the prophecy. First, answering that as an icchantika he claimed to possess faith, wisdom, and concentration: all [these claims] are refuted in the question and are not granted to him. Clarifying his lack of faith also has three parts: first, he did not believe the Buddha was one without fear; from 'Once, when I was in Kāśi...' downward, second, clarifying he did not believe the Buddha was one without false speech; from 'Once, when I was with Sunakṣatra...' downward, third, clarifying he did not believe the Buddha was one without jealousy. The first text means: you said that leaving the household life signified his having faith, but now by three matters his lack of faith is revealed. Second, when the Buddha walked, his feet were four inches above the ground, and the wheel-mark with a thousand spokes was constantly manifest in his footprints; all people wished to see it, but he constantly tried to obliterate it. Having failed to obliterate it, he took a dead earthworm and placed it in the Buddha's footprint to cause countless people to think that the Buddha had trampled and harmed it, and so forth. Regarding the third text: human and ghostly retributions are distinct, yet they clearly saw each other; could replying and conversing back and forth truly be done by a genuine evil person? By this test one knows he was a provisional manifestation, and so forth. From 'Although Sunakṣatra chanted and recited...' downward is the second, clarifying his lack of wisdom: only acquiring the words without understanding their meaning is not wisdom. From 'He associated with evil friends...' downward is the third, clarifying his lack of concentration, which also has two parts: first, clarifying that although he attained it, he later lost it, hence it is said he lacked concentration. Next, from 'falling away from dhyāna...' downward concludes generally the arising of heterodoxy, which was the reason for prophesying him. From 'Good man, if you do not believe...' downward is the second, answering his previous question about the intent of the prophecy, which also has two: first, clarifying the intent of the prophecy, and next, clarifying that he was untreatable. The first text means: because he was certain to fall [into hell], I therefore prophesied it; to display the sign of his certain entry, I therefore went to see him. Seeing the Buddha, evil arose in him and he immediately entered hell, so his certain falling was evident. Regarding going to Sunakṣatra's place, some say this cites a past event, or that by inconceivable power he went there without moving, and so forth. From 'Good man, although Sunakṣatra entered the Buddha-Dharma...' downward is the second, answering regarding the untreatable person: because of his heedlessness he was untreatable, so [the Buddha] merely pitied him. There are the principle, the simile, and the matching. In the matching, there are two rounds, each with two parts: both first match directly, and next match by applying the simile. From 'Since the past, I...' downward is the second, answering his two concluding objections. First, answering the prior concluding objection about lacking a compassionate mind, which also has two: first, answering directly, and next, discrimination. In the direct answer, there are the principle, the simile, and the matching. Second, there are further questions and answers of discrimination, within which are two: first the question, next the answer. Within the answer are two: first the direct answer, and next, from 'Good man' downward, citing the past to reveal the truth. In it, citing Maudgalyāyana's prophecies, it was not that he was entirely inaccurate, but only saw the first two without seeing the subsequent joining, only saw the white head without seeing the swift body, and so forth. The Tathāgata is not like this, and therefore is not dual. From 'The monk Sunakṣatra was constantly surrounded by immeasurable...' downward answers the latter concluding objection concerning skillful means: it clarifies that I kept him constantly by my side and did not let him go far away, fearing he would commit evil—how could this be a lack of skillful means? The fifth power of understanding is precisely the power of aspiration, knowing the aspirations and understandings of sentient beings.