大般涅槃經疏 3
English (machine translation) 3
- Language
- English
3.1
Composed by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān under the Sui
3.2
Revised by the Tiāntái Śramaṇa Zhànrán under the Tang
3.3
Chapter on Cunda, Part One
3.4
The chapter is explained in three parts: first, distinguishing between coarse and detailed [arrangements]; second, distinguishing [Cunda's] virtuous conduct; and third, explaining the title. Regarding the first intent: according to the Indic text, [this section] still belongs to the 'Chapter on Lifespan,' revealing and refuting past and present conceptions of permanence and impermanence; in terms of doctrine it is detailed, but in terms of the text it is coarse. Master Xie, following the person and the narrative, titled it the 'Chapter on Cunda'; in terms of the text it is detailed, but in terms of doctrine it is coarse. Now, elucidating the section on the bestowing of nirvāṇa, nothing is lost in either the Sanskrit or the Chinese text: according to the preceding person, [the Buddha] bestows permanent lifespan; according to the subsequent matter, [the Buddha] bestows permanent cultivation, and so on.
3.5
Next, regarding virtuous conduct: Cunda was [merely one] among the count of the two Ganges [sands of beings]; why establish a distinct chapter for him? Ten distinctions are briefly explained: first, the assembly first made offerings and afterwards made their requests, whereas Cunda first made his request and afterwards made his offering; second, the assembly requested three times and the Buddha remained silent each time, whereas Cunda requested once and the Tathāgata accepted immediately; third, because of [his offering], the great assembly was accepted; fourth, through food, the permanent was revealed; fifth, he personally requested [the Buddha] to remain; sixth, he reiterated the assembly's request; seventh, he was praised by the golden mouth [of the Buddha]; eighth, he was praised by the great assembly; ninth, the dialogue took place right before the assembly; tenth, his past vows. Since the assembly lacked even one of these, how could a chapter not be established? Question: If Cunda's ten distinctions vastly surpassed those of the assembly, why did he not offer first rather than presenting [his offering] later? Answer: Offering later was yielding to the virtues of others. Formerly, five yieldings were explained: the lowly yields to the noble, the ordinary yields to the noble, the coarse yields to the sublime, the few yield to the many, and the near yields to the far. Now, in accord with the text, there should be ten yieldings: first, yielding with the secular to the religious, meaning the community of monks and nuns; second, yielding with the ordinary to the noble, meaning those in training and beyond training; third, yielding with the shallow to the deep, meaning the bodhisattvas; fourth, yielding with the lowly to the noble, meaning kings and great ministers; fifth, yielding with the manifest to the hidden, meaning devas, nāgas, ghosts, and spirits; sixth, yielding with the few and coarse to the many and sublime, meaning humans, devas, and the like; seventh, yielding with material wealth to the Dharma, which refers to Māra's hosts; eighth, yielding with one's own kind to different kinds, meaning lions, birds, bees, and the like; ninth, yielding with the near to the far, meaning the bodhisattvas of the ten directions; tenth, yielding with those dwelling near cities to the recluses, meaning the assembly of forbearant ṛṣis. The five yieldings do not exhaust the text; the ten meanings are roughly complete. Question: Why is there a difference between acceptance and non-acceptance when both in the past and in the present [the Buddha remained] silent? Answer: The Buddha's intent is difficult to fathom; now it is explained generally and specifically. Both silences, past and present, are the four siddhāntas. Among worldly people, silence may indicate acceptance or non-acceptance; the Buddha, according to the mundane world, thus manifested two silences with the difference of acceptance and non-acceptance: either it was fitting to accept silently, or it was fitting to refuse silently; both generate goodness. Wishing to generate their goodness, he therefore had two silences; destroying evil and attaining the path are also like this. The sage does nothing in vain; it cannot be measured by ordinary people. In the specific explanation: the contemporary assembly had no extraordinary condition and their connection was weak, so they could not move [the Buddha], causing them to reflect upon and reproach their past conditions; this is called the mundane silent non-acceptance. If at first he had spoken words of refusal, the subsequent offerings would have ceased; when the offerings of the assembly were fully gathered, he accepted them universally and equally; this is called the individual-adapted silent non-acceptance. Silently not accepting was to reprove their inability to use food to clarify non-eating, and that their revealing of the permanent against the impermanent lacked superior remedial power; this is called the therapeutic silent non-acceptance. If it were a physical body sustained by food, it could silently accept food; the Dharma-body is eternally [abiding], with neither eating nor accepting; this is called the ultimate silent non-acceptance. Silent non-acceptance is the realm of the Buddha; its meaning is inexhaustible; these four are merely stated in brief.
3.6
Third, explaining the title: Cunda is a name. The six-fascicle [version] states: 'His clan name was Hua and his personal name was Zichun;
3.7
From this point through the congregation's questions is the gift of nirvāṇa. Dividing the text into three: this chapter gives the five fruits of permanence, intended to address the miscellaneous assembly of this land; the 'Lamentation Chapter' gives the superior three cultivations, intended to address the śrāvaka assembly of this land; and from the 'Longevity Chapter' onward, it gives according to their questions, intended to address the bodhisattva assembly of this land (and so forth). Question: There is an assembly from other directions; which text addresses them? Answer: From the 'Manifesting Illness Chapter' onward, further elucidating the five practices and ten virtues, the Siṃhanāda questions on nature, and Kāśyapa and Kauṇḍinya, are intended to address the bodhisattva assemblies from other directions. However, the Buddha teaches with impartiality, universally raining [the Dharma] upon all; how could there be divisions? Dividing the text provisionally is only to show the beginning and the end, making differentiated explanations within the non-differentiated. Question: If so, from beginning to end it is only a single gift of nirvāṇa, so there would be no other sections. Answer: Having previously explained the universal intent, one may speak in this way (and so forth). This chapter consists of four parts: First, by occasion of offering food, not eating is clarified. Not eating is permanence; it refutes impermanence and discloses neither-permanence-nor-impermanence. Second, by occasion of his requesting [the Buddha] to stay, refuting staying by non-staying discloses neither-staying-nor-non-staying. Third, by occasion of debating doctrine, temporarily setting aside both the conditioned and unconditioned discloses neither-conditioned-nor-unconditioned. Fourth, by occasion of urging the offering, clarifying that for extinction food is needed, whereas for non-extinction food is not eaten, discloses neither-extinction-nor-non-extinction. These four sections can be found in the text. As for the progression: The assembly was summoned with the intention of revealing the secret; hence, by occasion of food, permanence is clarified. If permanent, [the Buddha] ought to stay; hence, by occasion of permanence, he requests him to stay. Staying is not the consummate ultimate; therefore, staying is negated, refuting staying with non-staying. Staying and non-staying mutually constitute gain and loss; hence the conditioned and unconditioned are temporarily set aside together. If one sets aside the false to seek the true, the true is also without trueness, and thus is immediately not true. Therefore, the text states, 'The nirvāṇa of expedient means is precisely true and false,' and so he urges his offering, [saying] 'Now is precisely the time.' The second and third are also like this: both affirmation and negation are negated, and quiescence is bliss; phenomena and principle are fully exhausted, so he bows his head, weeps, and prepares the offering. As for the universal and particular: although divided into four sections, it must not be taken in only one way. Why so? The consummate and subtle preaching has inexhaustible meaning; according to their respective categories of sound, each attains understanding, and their individual understandings must not delimit the consummate Dharma. Now, looking at it through three perspectives: First, particularly raising permanence to refute impermanence. The text states: 'I now bestow upon you permanent life, colour, strength, ease, and unhindered eloquence.' Particularly clarifying the self: because there is a self, one therefore discusses 'my abiding' and 'my contemplating'; if there were no self, who would abide and who would contemplate? The text states: 'You should now contemplate.' Particularly clarifying purity: the conditioned is impure; the unconditioned is pure. The text states: 'Skillfully concealing the conditioned marks of the Tathāgata.' Particularly clarifying bliss: bliss is precisely nirvāṇa, and all Buddhas reach this place. The text states: 'Having arisen, it does not abide; quiescence is bliss.' If one follows the particular exclusively, it becomes an antidote and loses the consummate purport; this meaning can be understood (and so forth). Second, clarifying the universal: that which is now clarified as permanence does not mean that permanence is different from the self; permanence is precisely the self, and is also purity and bliss; the self is precisely permanence, and is also purity and bliss; purity and bliss are also like this. The text states: 'This seal of the permanent Dharma is precisely the dharmadhātu of the Buddhas.' If it were only permanence, permanence would be deficient and not complete with the four virtues; how could it be the seal of the dharmadhātu? Third, clarifying that it is neither universal nor particular, being completely pure. Why so? If it were only permanence refuting impermanence, it would be a relative phenomenon, which is repudiated by the sūtras and treatises. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* states: 'Impermanence is an antidotal Dharma, not the ultimate truth.' Permanence remedying impermanence is also like this. The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: 'If an entity is established in dependence, that entity again becomes dependent.' Now, in speaking of permanence, it is neither permanent nor impermanent; hence it is neither universal nor particular. If it were universal, universal would stand opposed to particular; since the particular has already been negated, how could the universal be affirmed? One should know that permanence is neither universal nor particular. The text states: 'The retributions of the two offerings are equal and without difference'; having neither universal nor particular is called equality. The self is also like this: neither self nor non-self. The text states: 'You should now contemplate the realm of the Buddhas.' The realm of the Buddhas is neither self nor non-self. Purity is also like this: neither pure nor impure. The text states: 'Temporarily set aside both the conditioned and unconditioned.' Relinquishing existence and relinquishing non-existence is precisely neither pure nor impure. Bliss is also like this: neither blissful nor non-blissful, termed the bliss of quiescence. The text states: 'One should not think of long life or short life.' Being neither long nor short is precisely neither blissful nor non-blissful. Such three perspectives cannot be fixed as three; they are neither vertical nor horizontal, neither parallel nor separate, being identical to the universal yet particular, and identical to neither universal nor particular, not one, two, or three, yet one, two, and three; one must recognize the consummate subtlety to understand permanence. Moreover, these four passages fulfill what precedes and introduce what follows. As for fulfilling what precedes: above, the loud voice universally announced, bidding them to ask the final questions, desiring to reveal the secret teaching of expedient means; now, as a result, the teaching of dual negation is disclosed. Above, emitting light from the face repelled obstacles and generated goodness, universally wishing to accomplish the practice of primary emptiness; now, as a result, it encourages the contemplation of the realm of the Buddhas. Above, the earth trembled and overturned, everyone returning to the Buddha's place; now, as a result, it indicates that the conditioned and unconditioned should temporarily be set aside together; if one wishes to seek the true Dharma, one should train like this; having trained like this, quiescence is bliss, identical to the place reached by the Tathāgata. Therefore, the gift of nirvāṇa fulfills the meanings of the preceding summoning and requesting. As for introducing what follows: teaching the contemplation of the realm of the Buddhas is precisely the virtue of prajñā. Wishing to seek the true Dharma, one should train like this, setting [the conditioned and unconditioned] aside together, which is precisely the virtue of liberation. The bliss of quiescence is the place reached by the Buddha, which is precisely the virtue of the dharmakāya. Dividing the text in this way reveals that the Buddha's words are good in the beginning, middle, and end, not merely dividing chapters.
3.8
First, the offering of food, which comprises four sections: first, requesting; second, accepting; third, challenging; fourth, replying. The request also has two parts: first, the redactor describes [Cunda's] virtues; second, [Cunda] speaks to present the request. The description of virtues has two parts: first, describing virtues; second, the deportment of respect. First, his virtue of deference is described; next, the virtue of that for the sake of which he acts. In describing his virtue of deference, ten points are simultaneously contained. An upāsaka, as explained earlier, represents three deferrals: the secular deferring to the monastic, the ordinary deferring to the holy, and the shallow deferring to the profound. The city of Kuśinagara, as explained earlier, represents the near deferring to the far, and the city's outskirts deferring to seclusion. The 'artisan’s son' has two meanings: if he is the son of a master artisan, he is of noble status; if he is the son of an axe-wielding laborer, he is of base status. It is not known which this is; tentatively, it indicates the base deferring to the noble, and the coarse deferring to the exquisite. As for 'fifteen companions', one manuscript says 'fifty', and the two-fascicle version says 'five hundred'. Fifteen refers to the principals; fifty refers to close relatives; five hundred refers to followers. It may well be like this. This phrase signifies those of like kind deferring to those of different kind, the apparent deferring to the hidden, and the few deferring to the many. The intention described here is that this man is solely requesting the Buddha to accept his offering, which is the material deferring to the Dharma. Evidenced according to the text, the meaning is fully satisfied on its own. Next, to 'cause the world to attain good fruits' describes the virtue of that for the sake of which he acts. Good fruits take many paths: agreeable fruits, outflow-free fruits, partial fruits, and ultimate fruits. Agreeable fruits are criticized by the worthy and the holy. The text says, 'I do not at this place seek a human or celestial body.' Outflow-free fruits belong to the two vehicles' [nirvāṇa of] reduced-to-ashes and extinguished, which the redactor praises, but is definitely not the fruit of self-discipline and self-purification. Partial fruits are the karmic reward stages attained by the three ranks of worthies and ten ranks of noble ones; they are partial and not ultimate. The text below says, 'The food I now offer, I pray to obtain the unsurpassable reward.' Thus it is not a partial fruit, but causes sentient beings to attain the ultimate fruit of the Buddha's bodhi. Next, from 'abandoning bodily deportment' onward describes the deportment of respect. Deportment differs; there are secular deportments, monastic deportments, Dharma-gate deportments, and Buddha deportments. For example, when King Prasenajit met the Buddhas, he discarded five deportments: crown, sword, parasol, shoes, and carriage. Although others might not discard all five, they also remove headgear, untie sashes, and walk barefoot—all of which are secular deportments. Monastic deportments mean baring the shoulder, wearing a single-stitched robe, celestial crowns and celestial robes, and following rules and regulations. Dharma-gate deportments mean various Dharma-gates such as patience toward living beings and patience toward dharmas. Buddha deportments mean dharmas such as marks, secondary characteristics, powers, fearlessnesses, and unshared qualities. Alternatively, one may abandon secular clothes to wear monastic robes, or abandon worldly robes to enter Dharma-gate robes, or realize that the secular robe itself is the powers and fearlessnesses. Baring the right shoulder has a secular baring, a monastic baring, a provisional baring, and a real baring. Secular baring is like baring one's flesh to apologize for an offense in the historical records. Monastic baring is for a disciple serving his teacher, facilitating service and chore; hence the right is bared and the left is covered. Provisional baring means provisional transformation is easy to practice; hence provisionality is bared and reality is covered. This explains other sūtras, not the teaching's intention here. Here, baring the real and covering the provisional means covering the provisionality of impermanence and baring the reality of the double negation; precisely responding to capacities and benefiting beings, it is easy and fitting. Thus it says 'baring the right shoulder'. Placing the right knee on the ground: since the sun turns to the right, in accordance with the world one touches the ground with the right; this is the worldly [siddhānta]. The sun is the essence of yang, symbolizing wisdom guiding practice; this is [the siddhānta] for individuals. The Mañjuśrī Sūtra says, 'The right is the correct path; the left is the heterodox path.' Using the correct to eradicate the heterodox is the counteractive [siddhānta]. The knee symbolizes practice, and the ground symbolizes principle; because practice tallies with principle, one touches the ground with the knee, which is the paramārtha [siddhānta]. This meaning is universally applicable and can explain other sūtras. If based on this sūtra, the knee is permanent practice, and the ground is the permanent principle; because practice reaches the principle, the knee touches the ground—this is the paramārtha. Joining palms is not explained; privately I note that the literal explanation is obvious: as in the worldly custom of folding hands, it signifies respect. If we consider what it symbolizes, the two [hands] symbolize the two principles of provisional and real; all teachings and flavors each possess these two. In this sūtra, having joined them, principle leaves nothing outside. Feeling sorrow and moved: sorrow means sorrow for others; moved means moved by the Buddha. The practices of others differ, and sorrows are also not single: if the offerings are not accepted, merit will not arise; hence the sorrow. If the offering is not accepted, one cannot through the offering open the permanent; hence the sorrow. If the permanent is not opened, the double negation is not revealed; hence the sorrow. If the Buddha accepts the offering, the final dāna will be completed, and the wishes of myself and my companions will all be fulfilled; hence with sorrow he assists others, and with being moved he entreats the Buddha. Prostrating at the feet is not explained; privately I note that placing one's crown at the Buddha's feet means the fruits of all teachings all return to the complete cause. Next, from 'addressed the Buddha' onward, he presents the request, which has the indication of the request, the main request, and the concluding request. The indication has two parts: first, indicating the ferryboat of the Three Jewels; next, indicating the seeking of liberation for oneself and others. First, 'the World-Honoured One and the bhikṣu-saṅgha' refers to the two jewels. The Buddha and the bhikṣus are endowed with wisdom and severance, which is the Dharma Jewel. 'Grief' refers to the Dharma-gate of loving-kindness and compassion; this single character also refers to the Dharma Jewel. The Three Jewels like this are the assembly without offerings, acting as a field of merit for the assembly with offerings. If there were no one without offerings, there would be nowhere for an offering to be made; if there were no acceptance of offerings, there would be no cause for making an offering; therefore, he must make the request. 'Accept us and the others' refers to his group of like companions. Saying 'final' comes about because the initial leads to the final. When the Tathāgata appeared in the world, he initially benefited sentient beings; now entering nirvāṇa, he finally benefits sentient beings. The Buddha will not have a time of accepting again, and I will not have a day of offering again; hence it is called 'final'. 'In order to deliver immeasurable [beings]' indicates others. Thus oneself and others wish to rely on the ferryboat and request deliverance. From 'World-Honoured One' onward is the main request, which has three parts: the Dharma, the simile, and the application. The Dharma explanation has two parts: first, requesting because of what is lost; second, requesting because of what is sought. What is lost has two parts: first, explaining what is lost; next, interpreting what is lost. First, what is lost is losing the Three Jewels. Having no master is losing the Buddha; having no kin is losing the Dharma; having no rescue is losing the Saṅgha. From 'having no protection' onward interprets what is lost. If there is no master, loyalty has nothing to protect; if there is no kin, filial piety has nowhere to return; if there is no teacher, learning has nowhere to aim. Neither being protected by a master, nor having a master to protect, there is neither honor nor emolument; hence he is said to be destitute. Neither having kin to return to, nor kin returning without departure, there is neither birth nor shelter; hence he is said to be impoverished. Having no teacher to aim toward, and the teacher not pointing the way, there is neither instruction nor accomplishment; hence he is said to be distressed. The meaning of explaining what is lost is evident. Next, from 'desiring from the Tathāgata' onward is requesting because of what is sought. This also has two parts: first, explaining what is sought; next, interpreting what is sought. The first passage: seeking the one-body Buddha fulfills three benefits: the Buddha is a good field, which is seeking emolument from above, hence saying 'seeking future food'; the Buddha can nourish the Dharma-body and wisdom-life, which is seeking life from kin; the Buddha can instruct and guide so that one reaches the correct track, which is seeking accomplishment from a teacher. If one seeks from the Tathāgata, this combines all these meanings. Next, from 'I only pray' onward interprets what is sought. Next, from 'World-Honoured One, like a kṣatriya' onward is requesting through simile. It divides into two: 1. the simile of poverty and destitution, which illustrates the request above regarding what is lost—having no master, no kin, and so forth; because of no master one is destitute, and because of no kin one is impoverished. 2. The simile of toiling in labor, which illustrates the request above regarding what is sought—seeking future food. In the simile of poverty and destitution, four castes are cited; the old interpretation held they were the four clans and surnames. This meaning is incorrect. It is readily observed that the four clans in a single region are all noble and do not differ in superiority or inferiority. In the present text, the four castes differ in high and low; applied to that meaning, it does not fit. Here it is clarified that they are four classes: 'kṣatriya' translates as 'lord of the field', the class of kings who love the people and govern the state; 'brāhmaṇa' translates as 'pure practice', the class of broadly learned and literarily accomplished; 'vaiśya' has not seen a translation, it should be the common people such as farmers and traders; 'śūdra' has not seen a translation, it should be the lowly servants such as nightsoil cleaners and corpse carriers. Formerly, the four castes were taken to illustrate the four modes of birth, or the six paths. This meaning is incorrect. If they were the four modes of birth and six paths, the simile would be too narrow and not exhaust the meaning. Here they illustrate the capacities and natures of the nine dharma-realms, consolidating the nine into four kinds. The capacities and natures of provisional bodhisattvas, having the ability to transform others and govern beings, are compared to kṣatriyas; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, sharing the outflow-free, pure nirvāṇa, are compared to brāhmaṇas; the two realms of devas and humans receiving karmic retribution on good paths are compared to vaiśyas; the four realms including hells, all being evil destinies, are compared to śūdras. Why is this? All sentient beings share the same buddhadhātu, whose taste is true and correct; the one-body Three Jewels are equal and without distinction, yet covered by afflictions, they cycle through the six paths and undergo various bodies. Divided by boundaries and differentiated, the taste becomes mixed: either sour, salty, sweet, or bitter. Having no master and no kin, losing their homes and losing their states, the one-body Three Jewels are hidden and not revealed. Externally, they are far removed from the Three Jewels and lose wholesome dharmas; hence they are said to be destitute and impoverished. Good and evil are severed from each other; hence they are said to go far away. It is not their own original source; hence they are said to go to other lands. The 'Nature Chapter' below says, 'Although all sentient beings have buddhadhātu, none can see it, and being covered by the three poisons, they fall into hells, animals, and hungry ghosts, or are born into various families such as kṣatriyas.' This is precisely its meaning. If one views the unfolding of the simile, taking kṣatriyas and the like to illustrate the capacities of the four kinds of persons is fitting; if one views the application of the simile, saying 'the poor person of the four castes is my own body', it can illustrate one person possessing the four capacities, and that meaning is fitting. Yet the text also says, 'rescuing immeasurable suffering sentient beings', which again seems to make the simile regarding many people. Since there are two passages, one cannot stick rigidly to one view. If one grasps this meaning, since it is so for one person, it is also so for many people; therefore, using both for one person presents no obstacle. However, the central doctrine of this sūtra is to illuminate permanence and discern the nature. Examining the initial Dharma explanation, there is a general loss of the three natures; when the three natures are not revealed, they are conceptually described as absent. The direct-cause nature not being revealed is called having no kin; the conditional-cause nature not being revealed is called having no master; the revealing-cause nature not being revealed is called having no rescue. Generally citing the three losses serves as the opening of the request. In the Dharma explanation of what is sought, saying 'only seeking future food from the Tathāgata' means exclusively seeking emolument from the master, which is seeking the conditional cause; the conditional can aid the revealing, and the revealing can make manifest the direct; this briefly cites one to make the request. Regarding the loss in the simile, the three natures are individually requested. The idea is that sentient beings originally possess the nature of the direct cause, where the one-body Three Jewels are equal and without distinction, yet covered by delusion, they undergo various bodies with differences such as the four castes. This cites difference to request non-difference, individually requesting the Tathāgata to reveal the direct nature. 'Because of poverty and destitution, going far away to other lands': having no master is called destitution, having no kin is called impoverishment, and having no teacher is called distress; this cites poverty to request wealth, individually requesting the Tathāgata to reveal the nature of the conditional cause. 'Toiling in farming labor, down to [weeding] overgrowth': this shows that starting from humans and devas up to bodhisattvas, eliminating afflictions in a biased manner is merely a small portion, and the unsurpassable good roots cannot be developed. Only hoping for heavenly rain: once the heavenly rain sprinkles, it can bring about growth; this individually requests the Tathāgata to reveal the nature of the revealing cause. Yet the three buddhadhātus are neither general nor individual; according with capacities and conditions, requests are made both generally and individually. The rest of the text is as in the sūtra. Below, in the Tathāgata's acceptance, there are also two meanings: 'I now sever poverty for you' is promising to act as master, revealing the nature of the conditional cause; 'the unsurpassable Dharma rain' promises to act as teacher, revealing the nature of the revealing cause; 'raining upon the field of your body to cause the Dharma sprout to grow' promises to act as kin, revealing the nature of the direct cause. This is individually promising the three-cause buddhadhātu. From 'Why? Cunda! Giving food has two rewards without difference' onward: how are they without difference? If promising to act as master, that is kin and teacher; if promising to act as kin and teacher, that is promising to act as master; these three are like one, equal and without distinction. If the conditional cause is revealed, the revealing and the direct are revealed; if the revealing and the direct are revealed, the conditional cause is revealed; the manifestation of the three natures is equal and without distinction. This is generally promising the three-cause nature. A confused person might say: 'Buddhadhātu has not yet been explained here, so why this interpretation?' Answer: The sūtra’s explanation of buddhadhātu is its primary doctrine; if it is not initially opened, what could be pursued later? Truly, because the initial request asks the one-body Buddha to act as master, kin, and teacher: the one-body kin bestows permanent life, form, and strength; the one-body master bestows permanent peace; the one-body teacher bestows permanent eloquence, causing the one-body Three Jewels and three buddhadhātus within their bodies to be revealed, so that self and other, internal and external, are equal and without distinction. Those of superior faculties and sharp wisdom already equal Cunda; for those who do not yet understand, when reaching the 'Lamentation Chapter', the secret treasury is opened, and all the sons are settled within it. The 'Longevity' and 'Vajra' chapters follow in sequence, culminating in Kāśyapa, Siṃhanāda, and others broadly revealing buddhadhātu. If the initial opening of the doctrine did not clarify buddhadhātu, what meaning would be opened? What meaning would serve as the primary doctrine? Fearing that following the text literally would scatter the meaning, I reveal this meaning in advance. Next, from 'toiling in farming labor' onward illustrates what was sought above. This simile briefly covers the wholesome dharmas possessed by humans, devas, the two vehicles, and provisional bodhisattvas, all of which are a minor portion of the conditional cause; therefore, this is cited as the seeking. 'Toiling in labor' directly illuminates disgust with the poverty of evil destinies and esteem for human and celestial good; hence it is called 'toiling in farming labor'. 'Obtaining well-tamed oxen' has two meanings in the text: if the ox illustrates the body, the body is a good fruit that still belongs to humans and devas; if the tamed ox illustrates the seven [actions] of body and speech, this illustrates precepts, the good field illustrates concentration, and being flat and level illustrates wisdom. Weeding out wild grass illustrates severing afflictions; this also has two meanings: if eliminating the four dwellings, it illustrates the good of the two vehicles; if eliminating dust-and-sand [delusions], it illustrates the three [ranks of] bodhisattvas. From 'only hoping for Dharma rain' onward directly seeks the revealing cause. 'Only hoping for the Tathāgata' is seeking the master and seeking the kin. 'Dharma rain' is seeking the teacher. If the three seekings are granted, like the destitute gaining a master, the impoverished gaining kin, and the ignorant gaining a teacher, then buddhadhātu will be revealed; the crucial point of what is sought lies precisely in this. The Buddha complies with his seeking, responding to the request and bestowing: bestowing permanent life, form, and strength is promising to be kin and revealing the direct nature; bestowing permanent peace is promising to be master and revealing the conditional nature; bestowing permanent eloquence is promising to be teacher and revealing the revealing nature. Front and back do not contradict, and only then is the text's purpose known. Third, from 'as for the tamed ox' onward applies the simile: first applying the toiling in labor, and later applying the poverty and destitution. That the text is not in sequence is because poverty and toiling are not fixed in before and after: precisely because of poverty one toils, and precisely because of toiling one is poor. From humans and devas up to the three [ranks of] bodhisattvas, all are poor; though slightly different, all are impoverished of the Tathāgata's unsurpassable treasure. That they are not applied in sequence: the meaning may lie here. Applying the simile of toiling in labor also has two parts: first, applying across dharmas; later, applying to the single body. In the initial application across dharmas, not applying to humans and devas is simply textual brevity. Guarding the seven branches of body and speech with precepts matches the tamed ox above. Concentration being able to assist wisdom matches the good field above. Wisdom forgetting distinctions matches being flat and level. Severing the delusions of the four dwellings matches removing wild grass above. Severing the delusions of dust-and-sand matches removing sand and gravel. Next, from 'World-Honoured One, my body now has...' onward applies to the single body. The body having precepts matches the tamed ox; concentration matches the good field; wisdom matches removing wild grass. Although having minor wholesome conditions, they cannot reveal the direct [cause]; from 'only hoping the Tathāgata' onward directly applies to seeking the verbal teaching of the revealing cause. From 'the poor person of the four castes' onward applies to the poverty and destitution above. Above it went through the four castes, and here it addresses the single body, as already explained earlier. From 'rescuing and reaching' onward applies the meaning of the distinct four castes above.
3.9
Third, from "What I now offer" onwards is a dual conclusion. This also has three parts: First, concluding the request for what is sought in the dharma and the parable above. In the dharma exposition, it says, "Accept my slight offering and only then enter nirvāṇa," which seems to make the request of the Buddha alone. Now concluding with the parable, it says, "hoping to satisfy the tathāgata and the great assembly," which concludes that it was not solely for the Buddha, but that he was well able to satisfy the fifty-two assemblies. Furthermore, this reveals that he was able to make a universal offering to the great assembly with a single meal: the assembly was vast yet the offering was sufficient; the offering was small yet it reached many—an inconceivable offering to an assembly difficult to conceive, and so forth. Next, from "I am now without master and without kin" onwards, dual-concluding the request regarding what would be lost in the dharma and the parable above. Third, "like Rāhula" dually concludes the request regarding seeking and losing in both dharma and parable: the Buddha is a golden wheel[-turning king], which means he is Rāhula's lord, and moreover his kin and teacher; I and all beings are also likewise, so in these three matters we are as one, just like Rāhula.
3.10
From "At that time the World-Honoured One" onwards is the second [section]: accepting the offering. The text has three parts: first, granting acceptance of the almsgiving; second, the actual acceptance; and third, explaining the almsgiving. Granting acceptance also has two parts: first, narrating the consent; and second, the Buddha vocally proclaiming his consent. First, the compiler of the sūtra raises three epithets. Because the Buddha assented to his request, he granted it in response through these three epithets: raising "World-Honoured One" grants being his lord; raising "All-Modes-Knowledge" (sarvākārajñatā) grants being his master; and raising "Tamer" grants being his kin. Since he grants being his lord, he cuts off his poverty; since he grants being his kin, he dispels his destitution; since he grants being his master, he removes his distress. The three losses are regained, and the three quests are fulfilled. "World-Honoured One" means that he is looked up to by all, just as in the world a filial child serves their parents, a brahmin serves fire, and the devas venerate Śakra. Serving parents conveys the meaning of kin; serving fire conveys the meaning of master; and venerating Śakra conveys the meaning of lord, and so forth. Furthermore, "World-Honoured One" means that just as the stars of those in training and beyond training look up to the moon of the Buddha, and just as the waters of the four kinds of bodhisattvas encircle the Buddha as Mount Sumeru, the precious mountain. The similes of the sandalwood forest, the lion, and so forth are metaphors for morality, concentration, and wisdom. Being revered and looked up to by the world, he is called "World-Honoured One". As for "All-Modes-Knowledge": he may universally confront all beings with his physical body endowed with marks and signs, and each being understands in their own way; hence it is named "All-Modes-Knowledge". Why? In the world there are sentient beings who worship eighty gods, and each god has a feature; according to what they behold, they see what they worship. The Tathāgata's single body causes all of them to understand universally; hence it is called All-Modes-Knowledge. Furthermore, one does not take the physical body to be the Buddha; one takes All-Modes-Knowledge to be the Buddha. All-Modes-Knowledge relies upon this physical body to manifest its ornamentation of marks; one should know that because wisdom is fully complete, it is called All-Modes-Knowledge. As for "Tamer": adapting to capacities and conditions, responding with appearance or extinction, accepting or not accepting—all are done to tame all sentient beings. Other sūtras treat "Tamer" and "Leader" (puruṣadamya-sārathi) as two titles; the present sūtra combines them into one title. The text states: "Being a hero himself, he further tames heroes." "Well said, well said!" endorses his two requests, in doctrine and in simile. Next, from "I shall now eliminate your poverty" onwards, is the Buddha's vocal proclamation of consent: cutting off poverty grants [being his] lord; the rain of Dharma grants [being his] master; causing the sprout of Dharma to grow grants [being his] kin. From "You now [desire to seek from me]" onwards is the actual acceptance. "You now desire to seek from me permanent life, physical strength..." recounts his request for a father; "peace" recounts his request for a lord; "unimpeded eloquence" recounts his request for a master. "I shall bestow them upon you" is precisely granting the three, and so forth. The old [commentators] explained that the real essence of nirvāṇa is permanence, which cures impermanence. Therefore, in setting forth the five periods, they said: Although the Prajñā sūtras explain the dignified and special Buddha in order to accomplish non-arising, and although the Śūraṅgama-sūtra speaks of seven hundred asaṃkhyeyas, how could they equal the immeasurable lifespan of the Lotus Sūtra? Yet the immeasurable lifespan of the Lotus Sūtra is still impermanence; only when reaching the teaching of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra are permanence and bliss first made clear. Remotely rejecting the Deer Park and closely refuting the Lotus Sūtra, they make all converge in the perfect permanence of the Nirvāṇa, as the discourse that fathoms the source and exhausts the nature. Those who speak in this way selectively pluck a single phrase spoken in response to conditions from the various sūtras and interpret it as impermanence, and selectively seize upon the permanence that cures illness in the Nirvāṇa as the real essence; both approaches are mistaken. Why? Prajñā is the mother of the Buddhas, and Nirvāṇa is the master of the Buddhas; the Śūraṅgama has the three Buddhas, and Nirvāṇa has the three dots [of the letter 'i']; the Lotus has the One Vehicle, and Nirvāṇa has the buddhadhātu. The One Vehicle is itself the buddhadhātu, because all sentient beings are entirely of the One Vehicle. How could the One Vehicle in turn refute the One Vehicle? How could the dharmakāya refute the Dharma-Buddha? How could the master of the Buddhas refute the mother of the Buddhas? Therefore, one should know that being confused about their expedient means and bewildered by the divisions of the teachings, they mutually affirm and deny, losing the correct purport. We do not accept this now. Although the Dilun masters do not hold to the five periods, by using future and present permanence to refute the meaning of impermanence, the force of their doctrine is similar and already shares the same flaw as the old [masters]. Master Xīnghuáng explained: Permanence and impermanence are medicine and illness curing one another: impermanence cures permanence. If one recognizes that impermanence is an expedient to cure permanence, when the illness is gone, the medicine is exhausted. If one does not recognize this, one clings to the medicine as the illness; the illness is the view of annihilation, hence it is said, "The king's illness is now severe." Permanence curing impermanence is also an expedient; when the illness is gone, the medicine is exhausted. If one does not recognize this, it turns into the view of permanence. If one recognizes both expedients, one can cut off both annihilation and permanence, and then it is neither annihilation nor permanence. Therefore, when the wise see dharmas arise, they extinguish the view of annihilation; when they see dharmas cease, they extinguish the view of permanence. If one does not recognize this, they remain the two views. Now we clarify that this interpretation is different from the old ones. If one grasps the meaning, there is nothing to find fault with; but if one pursues the words and generates conceptualizations, it shares the same illness as before. Why? Criticizing permanence and impermanence is a mutual discussion of expedients, pointing to neither-permanence-nor-impermanence as the real essence; this is like fleeing emptiness to seek emptiness, which takes one farther away from emptiness. Why? The Buddha stated that the karmic retributions of the two givings are equal and without distinction. If what was preached formerly was that the five fruits are impermanent, and what is preached now is that they are permanent, then there could indeed be a distinction. Only if both permanence and impermanence are neither-permanence-nor-impermanence are they equal and without distinction, which also reveals and manifests the esoteric teaching of expedient means. If one grasps this intention, nothing in the Prajñā or Śūraṅgama is not esoteric. However, this meaning of permanence is the throat and collar of this teaching, the heart and head of all sūtras, the dwelling place of the multitude of sages, and the dharmadhātu of all Buddhas; it is inconceivable, and the Tathāgata's wisdom cannot exhaust its exposition. Whether it be rigid permanence, future/present permanence, or the permanence that cures illness—how could these accord with the perfect principle? Let us now try to speak of it: The Buddha's appearance in the world is fundamentally for the sake of the one great cause and condition. The great cause and condition is itself permanent abiding. Because the permanent Dharma encompasses all, it is called "great"; because it permanently establishes all dharmas, it is called "cause"; because permanent capacities evoke permanent responses, it is called "condition". Permanence has no distinction, yet through distinction one speaks of permanence. Later the text states: "That which all Buddhas take as their master is the Dharma. Because the Dharma is permanent, all Buddhas are also permanent; all Buddhas of the three periods of time take this permanence as their master. In permanence there is neither master nor disciple, yet both master and disciple are permanent." Such distinctions are named the "worldly permanence". "I shall now eliminate your poverty and pour down the supreme rain of Dharma upon the field of your body, causing the sprout of Dharma to grow. You now desire to seek from me lifespan, physical strength, peace, and unimpeded eloquence; I shall bestow upon you permanent life, physical strength, peace, and unimpeded eloquence." It also states: "I now take pity on you and all beings; therefore I wish to enter nirvāṇa today. If devas and humans make this final offering to me, all shall attain the unshakeable karmic retribution." Such passages all illuminate that the permanent Dharma gives rise to permanent goodness; this is named the "permanence for persons". If one wishes to depart far from the four inversions, one should know permanence, bliss, self, and purity: "self" is the meaning of the Buddha; "permanence" is the dharmakāya; "bliss" is nirvāṇa; "purity" is the correct Dharma. By means of these four, one shatters the four inversions. It also states: "The marks of the four dharmas cultivated previously were all inversions. If one wishes to attain truth and cultivate various conceptions, one should be like that wise person who skillfully cultivates the conception of self, permanence, bliss, and purity. For example, a skilled physician first cures the original illness with salty and bitter [medicines]; although the original illness is gone, the patient suffers again from the salty and bitter, so later he cures the salty and bitter with pure milk. The Buddha is also like this: he first cures the illness of permanence with impermanence; once the illness of permanence is gone, they fall ill with impermanence; now he shatters the former impermanence with true permanence. Therefore he says: 'I am the king of physicians, wishing to subdue the non-Buddhists; therefore I proclaim no-self and no-person. For this reason and condition, I preach that there is a self.' Permanence shattering impermanence is also like this. Furthermore, the eastern pair signifies using permanence to shatter impermanence. Moreover, the two birds flying together illustrates the non-dual two functions of the Tathāgata. Such passages all illuminate the permanent Dharma as counteracting and shattering impermanence." The Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā] also states: "Permanence and impermanence are antidotal dharmas, not the ultimate truth (paramārthasatya)." This is named the "antidotal permanence". The ultimate truth is neither permanent nor impermanent. The present sūtra also states: "The karmic retributions of the two givings are equal and without distinction." If permanence shatters impermanence, and impermanence is different from permanence, then there is distinction, which is not the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is neither permanent nor impermanent, and therefore has no distinction. If the two birds flying together illuminates their two functions, the two birds resting together illuminates their dual quiescence; quiescence within function, and cessation as bliss—this is the great nirvāṇa. Such passages are all the "permanence of the ultimate truth". One should know that this permanence is unimpeded across the four siddhāntas: permanence also demarcates the great matter of causes and conditions; permanence also enters the quiescent, ultimate, wondrous principle; permanence also gives birth to and establishes all dharmas; permanence also counteracts and shatters inversions and delusions. Its freedom is like this. How could one grasp it one-sidedly, treating it merely as the mutual play of medicine and illness in an antidote, thereby burying the perfect power and harming the various sūtras and treatises? Furthermore, the great nirvāṇa is inherently possessed from the beginning; it is not something that just began now. Moreover, all the twenty-five states of existence possess the self; the self is the buddhadhātu, and the buddhadhātu is permanent. The buddhadhātu is heroic and fierce, difficult to destroy. These many texts and meanings are precisely "present permanence". It also states: "All who have minds shall become Buddhas; in the future they shall attain permanence, bliss, self, and purity." Such passages are precisely "future permanence". Furthermore, that there are dharmas in the three periods of time is impossible. Since there are no three periods of time, how could there still be present permanence and future permanence? The Vimalakīrti Sūtra states: "It is only through worldly words and letters that the three periods of time are spoken of; it does not mean that bodhi has past, future, or present." If one stubbornly clings to future and present, each relying on the three periods of time, failing to understand my meaning, how could one accord with the purport of the verse? Moreover, this permanence reveals and manifests the Tathāgata's esoteric teaching of expedient means. Formerly, permanence was concealed; now it is disclosed and explained that permanence is not distinct: present permanence is different from former impermanence, yet opening the former impermanence is itself present permanence. Next, as for "I shall now eliminate your poverty": if one eliminates the poverty of the four destinies, one opens up the impermanence of all evils to reveal permanence. The text below says: "Confessing the four grave prohibitions, eliminating the mind that slanders the Dharma, exhausting the five heinous sins, and extinguishing the icchantika." This is its meaning. If one cuts off the poverty of humans and devas, one opens up the impermanence of all goods to reveal permanence. The text says: "I now do not seek the body of a deva or human in this place; even if I were to obtain it, my mind would not relish it." It also states: "By destroying this physical form, one obtains permanent form, and so forth." This is its meaning. If one cuts off the poverty of the two vehicles, one opens up the impermanence of the undefiled to reveal permanence. The text says: "Opening the wisdom eye for all śrāvakas, and so forth." If one cuts off the poverty of expedient bodhisattvas, one opens up the impermanence of the common and distinct six perfections to reveal permanence. The text says: "Causing all bodhisattvas to clearly see the buddhadhātu." It also says: "Prior to this, all of us were called people of wrong views." In general summary, opening all that has remainder to be without remainder, and opening all that is non-definitive to be definitive meaning—this is named revealing and manifesting the Tathāgata's esoteric teaching of expedient means, completely placing them within the secret treasury of the three dots and the four virtues. Furthermore, this permanence is itself the buddhadhātu, and the buddhadhātu is permanent. Having opened permanence, one thereby opens the buddhadhātu. Since he acts as kin for them to open the direct cause, acts as lord to open the conditional cause, acts as master to open the revealing cause, eliminating poverty opens the nature of the objective realm, and all attaining the unshakeable karmic retribution opens the nature of the fruit. If we analogize according to this meaning, what person, what dharma, what teaching, what practice, what stage, or what function is not permanent? What dharma is not neither-permanent-nor-impermanent? How could there still be differentiated natures such as good, evil, or the three vehicles? Ultimately, all are the great parinirvāṇa, where the path of words is cut off and the realm of mental activity ceases, inconceivable, vertically deep and horizontally vast, boundless and bottomless, able to establish the great meaning and pervade the dharmadhātu without exhaustion. How could one judge it to be rigid permanence, permanence that cures illness, or future and present permanence? Such meaning of permanence is like empty space; we have briefly outlined it against the four schools. Next, the names of the five fruits in the actual acceptance are not explained in the text. In private reflection: since the five are all fruits, they fully encompass all the myriad virtues of cause and effect. First, we explain the names; next, we match them with dharmas. The five dharmas are all permanent; hence it first says "permanent". Continuing and sustaining is called "life". Permanent life is without beginning and without end, without discontinuation, taking non-form as form. My present body is itself the dharmakāya; its operation is power, pervading all places, with endless function. Non-motion is called "peace". Although possessing power and function, it is stable and unmoved. Responding to capacities, it has eloquence, universally bestowing the Dharma medicine with unconditioned compassion. Next, matching them with dharmas: these are the three secrets. Life is the mental secret; form, power, and peace are the physical secret; unimpeded eloquence is the vocal secret. They are also called the four virtues: mind is the virtue of permanence; body is bliss and self; speech is the virtue of purity. If one grasps this meaning, throughout all dharmas there is nothing that is not these five. The Buddha is endowed with these five, and therefore bestows them upon others; because the five are permanent, the giving is also inexhaustible; that which is called inexhaustible is precisely the five fruits.
First 10 of 12 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese