大般涅槃經疏 3.7

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.