大般涅槃經疏 30

English (machine translation) 30

Language: English

30.1

Compiled by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān during the Sui dynasty

30.2

Re-edited by the Tiāntái Śramaṇa Zhànrán during the Tang dynasty

The beginning of the fascicle is the fourth section, distinguishing the methods of practice, which again has five parts: first, cultivating practice; second, the general and particular; third, name and essence; fourth, the number of persons; fifth, concluding on abiding. The first passage again has four parts: first, contemplation of impurity; second, contemplation of the stations of mindfulness; third, contemplation of causes and conditions; fourth, contemplation of the heat factor (ūṣmagata). However, since one who attains abiding possesses only two expedients, why use four? Impurity and causes and conditions are the prior expedients to mindfulness and heat: expanding them lists four, while combining them yields only mindfulness and heat. The first again has two parts: first, in explaining the arising of conditions it says that there are five things in which wisdom is not complete, which are the previous faith, morality, generosity, hearing, and wisdom; next, it directly explains the four dharmas, taking impurity as the name. If one relies on the three gates of liberation in the *Za xin* [i.e., *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*], here in addition eighteen realms are taught for those with excessive attachment to a self; if one relies on the five gates of liberation in the *Dichi* [i.e., *Bodhisattvabhūmi*], then causes and conditions are sufficient. Next, from "having practiced according to the Dharma" onward is the contemplation of the stations of mindfulness. Contemplations are general and particular: the general is profound, and the particular is shallow (and so on). From "having attained this contemplation" onward is the third, the contemplation of causes and conditions. From "having contemplated in this way" onward is the fourth, the contemplation of the heat factor. Speaking generally, by the former two expedients one can also attain abiding; speaking particularly, it properly relies on the heat factor. When the understanding of emptiness is completed, one definitely does not regress, which is called a "person who abides". Next, from "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha" onward explains the general and particular discriminating evaluation of the heat factor: first question, next answer. The initial question again has two parts: first, questioning regarding the person, generally bringing up contact with heat as a question; next, citing what the Buddha taught as proof. The Buddha's reply has two parts: first, rejecting his question: "What you rely upon is not what I have spoken." Next, from "Such a heat factor" onward directly answers, again having two parts: first, clarifying the distinction of stages; next, clarifying the distinction of persons. Regarding the first, the distinction of stages: it exists in the form [realm] and is absent in the desire [realm]. Regarding the next, the distinction of persons: my disciples have it, while non-Buddhists do not. The text says, "The heat factor exists in the form [realm] and is absent in the desire [realm]"; this is nevertheless explained with three meanings: first, predominantly using the concentration of the form [realm] to generate the contemplation of the heat factor, speaking from what is predominant; second, based on the middle, all three realms can generate the heat factor, but the form realm occupies the middle, so it is said to exist in the form realm; third, speaking based on the superior place, generating heat from the form realm is easy, while from the desire realm it is difficult. From "Although the form realm has it" onward is the second, clarifying the distinction of persons, eliminating non-Buddhists, [belonging] only to the Buddha's disciples. The six external modes of contemplation are: aspiring to what is above as superior, subtle, and an escape; and recoiling from what is below as suffering, coarse, and heavy. The sixteen modes of the Buddha's disciples are the sixteen [aspects of the] truths, which are also the receptivity to the dharma of suffering, knowledge of the dharma of suffering, subsequent receptivity to suffering, subsequent knowledge of suffering, and so on. Since afflictions are not yet severed here, these are merely the contemplations of the sixteen truths. Personally, I say: cultivating aspiration and recoil in connection with this contemplation of the truths means that the Buddha's disciples also cultivate aspiration and recoil; whereas non-Buddhists cultivate it solely with reference to the stages.

30.5

From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha" onward is the third, determining the name and essence: first question, next answer. In the question there are two parts: first asking about the name, next asking about the essence, as in the text. In the Buddha's reply, he first answers the later question and afterwards answers the earlier question. First, answering regarding the essence has two parts: first, directly answering; next, in the discriminating evaluation, first question, next answer. First, citing the Buddha's explanation that Aśvajit lacked faith, which is precisely lacking heat. Next, the Buddha replies: "I also do not take a faithful mind to be heat; faith is the cause of heat, and heat is produced from the wisdom that contemplates the four truths." Saying "sixteen" refers precisely to the sixteen under the four truths. From "as you asked, for what reason" onward next answers regarding the name, again having two parts: first directly answering, next discussing it again. The first again has two parts: first, reiterating "heat" and briefly answering, clarifying that the name is derived from an analogy. Next, from "Just as" onward is the second, an extensive answer, again having two parts: first the analogy, next the application, as in the text. Next is the questioning and answering again. In the initial question there are two parts: first, acknowledging the import; next, from "If it is conditioned" onward, directly questioning. Regarding the statement that the five aggregates of the form [realm] are karmic retributions obtained: if one relies on the Sarvāstivāda masters, one indeed uses the heat factor to obtain retribution in the form realm, but without taking on a body, for an outflow-free karma is precisely the extinction of retribution. The treatise masters explain: heat scorches saṃsāra so that one no longer receives retribution; it is merely that concentration of the form [realm] obtains retribution, and therefore it receives its name after it. In the Buddha's answer there are two parts: first, affirming his question. From "Such a heat factor" onward directly answers, having three parts: dharma, analogy, and application. The meaning agrees with the Sarvāstivāda explanation: taking the conceptual mind as attachment; because of attachment, receiving rebirth; because of recoil, practicing contemplation, which is the mark of being outflow-free.

30.6

From "a person who has attained the heat factor" onward is the fourth, clarifying the number of persons. As for the statement "seventy-three", there are three explanations. First, Zhuāngyán says: the mind corresponding to the ten goods in the desire realm is called lightning-flash concentration; because it is attained at times and lost at times, it is called lightning-flash; this person is called "one possessing the nature of affliction", without distinguishing grades. If discussing the methods, concentration has nine grades and afflictions also have nine grades; using nine [grades of] concentration to sever nine [grades of] afflictions, adding the lightning-flash person makes ten persons in total. In the four dhyānas of the form realm and the three voids of the formless realm, within each and every stage there are nine grades of afflictions and nine grades of concentration: seven times nine is sixty-three. Adding the previous ten persons makes seventy-three in total. Second, Kāishàn says: there is no separate lightning-flash distinct from the methods, nor are there methods distinct from lightning-flash; it is simply that the lightning-flash concentration corresponds to the nine afflictions to form nine concentrations. The first grade of concentration is merely an actual dharma, not yet relying on the provisional; it still confronts affliction on equal terms and cannot yet subdue affliction. The second grade of concentration forms a continuity-provisionality with the initial grade of concentration, acting together in power and function, only then being able to subdue the first grade of affliction. The third grade of concentration subdues the second grade of affliction, and so on up to the ninth grade of concentration subduing the eighth grade of affliction; the remaining one grade of affliction of the desire realm is left over, drawing forth the first grade of concentration of the first dhyāna to arise and jointly subdue it. Together with the four dhyānas and three voids, each and every one has nine afflictions and nine concentrations, up to the ninth grade of concentration of the stage of nothingness subduing the eighth grade of affliction; the ninth grade of affliction still remains, and one further brings the concentration of neither-conceptualization nor non-conceptualization to subdue the ninth grade of affliction of the stage of nothingness: eight times nine is seventy-two. Taking the concentration of neither-conceptualization nor non-conceptualization again to supplement it makes seventy-three in total. Citing Udraka Rāmaputra attaining the concentration of neither-conceptualization nor non-conceptualization is precisely this meaning. Here it says from the desire realm and the first dhyāna up to the stage of nothingness; and the earlier text on attaining the concentration of neither-conceptualization nor non-conceptualization severing the afflictions of the stage of nothingness—these are both fine proofs. Third, as for the explanation by the Sarvāstivādins, there are also two different versions: obstacle by phenomena in the preparatory [dhyāna], and obstacle by nature in the fundamental [dhyāna]. One says: divided into nine grades of understanding, one grade of understanding corresponds to one grade of affliction. Furthermore, there is the mind corresponding to the ten goods, which is precisely "possessing the nature of affliction"; adding this to the previous makes ten. The person possessing afflictions together with the first grade of concentration jointly sever one grade of affliction; thereafter, one grade of understanding corresponds to and severs one grade of affliction; for the four dhyānas and three voids, each has nine concentrations and nine afflictions, also forming seventy-three persons. The second explanation says: regarding obstacle by nature in the fundamental, the nine grades of concentration of the preparatory dhyāna sever the nine grades of afflictions of the desire realm; taking the one person possessing the nature of affliction in the desire realm and adding the nine grades forms ten persons in total. In this way the eight persons all have preparatory [concentrations]: the preparatory concentration of the second dhyāna severs the nine grades of afflictions of the first dhyāna; the nine grades of preparatory concentration of the third dhyāna sever the nine grades of afflictions of the second dhyāna, and so on up to the preparatory concentration of neither-conceptualization severing the nine grades of afflictions of the stage of nothingness, also yielding seventy-three persons. Question: Earlier it was said that heat is a dharma of the form realm; how can it apply across the three realms to make seventy-three persons? Answer: A beginner must rely on the four dhyānas; based on later when one is sharp, it then applies across the three realms. Furthermore, in the past when one was an ordinary person or non-Buddhist, one had previously attained the seventy-three concentrations; now, entering into the Buddha's Dharma, one performs the contemplation of the heat factor.

30.7

From "Persons such as these" downwards, the fifth concludes [the discussion of] the persons who attain stability, who no longer cut off their roots of goodness and do not commit the four major offenses. From "These persons are of two kinds" downwards, it correlates with the fourth, the persons who observe the directions; this also has two parts: first, it lists the essential nature of the persons who observe the directions; next, it further questions and answers, discussing the meaning of the first fruit. The first part also has two sections: this first takes up the preceding text, and next directly makes the correlation. As for the first passage, it takes up the previous second type of person who temporarily emerges and sinks back down. If they meet a bad friend, they will always remain this type of person; if they meet a good friend, they then advance to become a stable person, and furthermore become one who observes the directions; for this reason, it first returns to discussing this previous person. Next, from "Those who observe the four directions" downwards, the second part sets forth the essential nature of the persons who observe the directions. Some say that from the forbearance of suffering onward up to the first fruit are the persons referred to here. The meaning of the text is not so; there are altogether five persons: first, the stage of the summit; second, the stage of forbearance; third, the stage of worldly supreme dharmas; fourth, from the forbearance of suffering up to the fifteen moments of mind; fifth, the first fruit up to the sixteenth moment of mind. Because these five persons all contemplate the four truths, they are all called observers of the directions. However, the preceding stage of warmth also contemplates the four directions, yet its designation was established only based on attaining stability, obscuring the meaning of observing the directions; from the summit stage onward, they only then receive this designation. Clarifying these five positions constitutes five sections, and the text is entirely visible. However, both of the preceding passages state that their nature consists of the five aggregates; in actual discussion, the summit stage is solely the aggregate of formations. Yet stating five is because it is not yet free from being covered by the aggregates; therefore, it broadly speaks of the five aggregates. As for the stage of worldly supreme dharmas being able to contemplate the four truths and being spoken of as the five faculties, because it is the most profound and superior, proximately giving rise to true understanding, it manifests the meaning of faculties. Another edition also says aggregates. Next, attaining the forbearance of suffering is precisely true understanding. As for taking a single truth as object, it attains the equal, true emptiness of the single truth. In the "Siṃhanāda" chapter, the four directions are used to illustrate the four fruits, whereas here they illustrate the four truths; each has its textual basis. Moreover, the *Vibhāṣā* states: "The eastern direction is suffering, and so on up to the northern direction being the path." Next, from "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" downwards, the second part discusses the meaning, which is the meaning of the first fruit. There are three rounds of question and answer. In the first round, the question comes first, containing four parts: first, asking about severing defilements; second, asking about observing the directions; third, asking about the meaning of the name; fourth, asking about the analogy. View and thought [defilements] altogether have ninety-eight latent afflictions: viewing the truths has eighty-eight, and cultivation has ten. The eighty-eight are exhausted first, leaving only ten latent afflictions; hence they are said to be light. A sūtra states, "A srotaāpanna dreams that an eighty-eight-headed snake dies," which expresses this very meaning. As for the forty leagues of water, it is as in the *Sūtra on the Analogy of the Pool* (and so forth). The Buddha's answer to the four questions has four parts: first, answering the question about severing defilements, which has two sections: first, directly answering; next, clarifying the purpose. The first part also has two sections: first, introducing the two headings; next, explaining them. The first part also has two sections: first, the heading on gravity; second, the heading on subsuming all defilements. From "For example" downwards, next it explains the two headings. First, explaining the heading on subsumption, there are the analogy and the correlation. These three defilements can subsume all; just as when a king travels accompanied by many people, worldly folk merely say "the king has come" or "the king has gone," so these three are the roots of delusion and ubiquitously subsume all delusions. From "For what reason" downwards, next it explains the first heading on gravity, having altogether five clauses: first, because they constantly arise; second, because they are subtle and difficult to recognize; third, because they are difficult to sever and eliminate; fourth, because one is distressed by delusions; fifth, because these three are the antidotes to all enemies. In the first clause, constantly arising means that continually positing a self is the view of self, believing entirely in deviant spirits is adherence to rules and rituals, and wavering without clear comprehension is the doubtful mind. Next, difficult to recognize means that the view of self resembles right view, adherence to rules and rituals resembles right discipline, and the doubtful mind resembles right understanding. The third and fourth are evident. The fifth, that these three are antidotes to enemies, means that the view of self contradicts the wisdom of view, adherence to rules and rituals contradicts right discipline, and the doubtful mind contradicts right concentration. From "There are sentient beings" downwards, the second part clarifies the purpose, which is to guide beings; hence it briefly mentions these three. If it were said that they sever immeasurable defilements, sentient beings might perhaps generate thoughts of regression; therefore, it does not state many. Next, answering [the question on] observing the directions also has two sections: first, taking up the question; next, from "Good man" downwards, directly answering. In the answer, mentioning the five faculties refers to the five faculties headed by faith. Speaking of rebuking internal and external defilements, the three poisons are internal, and doubts and various views are external. Next, answering the third question on the meaning of the name also has two sections: first, directly answering; next, re-elucidating. In directly answering, there are two parts: first, taking up the question; next, in directly answering, it directly answers two things: first, explaining the name of cultivating the undefiled; next, from "two kinds" downwards, explaining the name of going against the stream. There are two kinds of streams: first, the stream of saṃsāra, which the srotaāpanna goes against, whereas sentient beings flow along with it; second, the stream of the path, into which the srotaāpanna enters in accordance, as the smaller *Prajñā* says: "It is called entering the stream, yet there is nowhere entered." Next, discussing the meaning and re-elucidating it. First, asking about the general meaning: If one goes against the stream, do the persons of the later three fruits also all go against the stream, and are they all called srotaāpannas or not? The Buddha's answer also has two sections: first, directly answering; next, clarifying differences in faculties. In directly answering, there are two parts: first, clarifying that the lower name applies generally to the higher; next, clarifying that the higher name applies generally to the lower. That the lower name applies to the higher also has two parts: first, clarifying that the name of cultivating the undefiled applies generally; next, clarifying that the name of going against the stream applies generally. As for why the lower name applies to the higher, it is because upon first attainment one is called a srotaāpanna, and upon later attainment one is called a sakṛdāgāmin (and so forth). From "A srotaāpanna is also called a bodhisattva" downwards is the second part, where the higher name applies generally to the lower, which also has two parts: first, clarifying that the name bodhisattva applies to the lower; next, clarifying that the name buddha applies to the lower. A buddha is simply awakening, being able to perceive the principle. Now, when a srotaāpanna awakens to and knows all dharmas, severs delusions, and perceives the principle, how could they not be called a buddha? From "This srotaāpanna" downwards, the second part clarifies differences in faculties, which also has two sections: first, introducing the two faculties; next, explaining them separately. In the separate explanations, two are explained: first, explaining the dull faculties, where the most dull undergo seven returns in saṃsāra, temporarily diminishing without departure, and within the dull there are also six, five, four, three, and two. Next, explaining the sharp faculties, who in that very life attain the fourth fruit. Next, answering the fourth question regarding the analogy also has two sections: first, taking up the question; next, explaining, within which are two: indicating and explaining. In the explanation, firmly holding means, for instance, when Māra speaks of five truths, the elder does not believe him; this is firmly holding.

30.8

From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" downwards, the second round first questions and next answers. In the question, there are two assertions and two concluding objections. The first two assertions are as in the text. From "If first attaining the path" downwards, it concludes the two objections. First, it concludes the first objection: If one who first attains the path is called a srotaāpanna, then one who attains the true understanding of the forbearance of suffering should also be called a srotaāpanna, and should not be called one progressing toward it (and so forth). Next, it concludes the second objection: It adduces that non-Buddhists formerly severed defilements, attained the higher concentrations, and suppressed the lower fetters; later, when they turn their minds around, they sever up to what was suppressed and immediately become an anāgāmin; since this is their first fruit, they ought to be called a srotaāpanna. The Buddha's answer has two parts. This answers the first objection: Originally, the first fruit is named srotaāpanna; at the time of the forbearance of suffering, one has not yet attained the first fruit, because one is still progressing toward it; therefore, it is not so. From "As you have asked" downwards answers the latter question, which also has two parts: first, taking up the question; later, directly answering; this is evident.

30.9

From "Kāśyapa said: '[One who] attains the anāgāmin...'" below, is the third round, first asking and then answering. The question states that the anāgāmin also possesses the eight knowledges and the sixteen practices. The Buddha's answer also has two parts: first clarifying the difference in practice, and next clarifying the difference in objective support. Here, first, the difference in practice is clarified. The so-called sixteen practices are the contemplation of the sixteen [aspects of the] truths. As for "with contamination," this refers to approximate understanding. Regarding "with common and uncommon," there are three interpretations: First, the master of the Abhidharma says that the preceding fifteen minds contemplate in common, whereas the sixteenth is uncommon, simultaneously and collectively contemplating suffering. When contemplating suffering, one can only contemplate suffering and does not extend to the remaining truths. The same applies up through the path; hence they are said to be common. If upon attaining the sixteenth mind one simultaneously and uniquely contemplates the sixteen truths, it is therefore called uncommon. Second, Master Ai says: The sixteen with contamination are shared in common with ordinary worldlings; the sixteen without contamination are not shared in common with ordinary worldlings. This interpretation is not correct: the sūtra text says "those with contamination have both common and uncommon," so why explain it in terms of the uncontaminated? Third, [Master] Héxī says: Among the seven skillful means, the first three skillful means also contemplate the sixteen, so this is called common; the latter four skillful means are uncommon. If a candidate for the first fruit practices sequentially, they fully perform the contemplation of the seven skillful means, relinquishing the common and attaining the uncommon. If one is an escalating [practitioner], they merely perform the latter four skillful means and directly realize the third fruit; therefore [the sūtra] says it is not so. As for the sixteen uncontaminated practices also having two kinds—one being the path toward and the other being the attainment—the treatise masters explain: Before the first fruit there is as yet no fruit; hence it is called relinquishing the path toward and attaining the fruit. Before the anāgāmin there are already two fruits; an escalating practitioner, though not realizing them, passes through them, and therefore it is said to be not so. If according to the Abhidharma tradition, an escalating practitioner directly attains the anāgāmin without passing through the preceding two fruits, then from the path of skillful means they enter the sixteen minds: the fifteen minds are the path toward the anāgāmin, and the sixteenth mind realizes the fruit of the anāgāmin; this is also relinquishing the path toward and attaining the fruit. Explaining it this way is inconvenient, and they also explain: For the first fruit it is definitely so, but for the anāgāmin it is indefinite; for escalating ones it is also so, while for sequential ones it is not so. Since it is indefinite, it is therefore said to be not so. The eight knowledges also being of two kinds means that the four truths each have inferential and direct [perceptions], thus making eight, not the eight of the ten knowledges. If according to the Abhidharma masters, then on the path toward there are only seven knowledges, and in the fruit there is only one knowledge; this too is inconvenient. From "A srotāpanna takes the four truths as objective support" below, the second part clarifies the distinction of objective support. Saying that the first fruit takes the four truths as objective support while the anāgāmin takes one truth as objective support means: When the first fruit initially enters the path, at the time of skillful means they fully traverse the contemplation of the sixteen practices, and therefore comprehensively take the four truths as objective support. The anāgāmin is on the path of cultivation: whatever single truth they attain in accordance with the factor of awakening of dharmapravicaya serves as their objective support, and therefore it is said to be one truth. "Comprehensively contemplating one's own practice" matches the fifth analogy, which is the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin. If it subsumes the noble ones, it subsumes the path toward the anāgāmin, further subsumes the path toward the sakṛdāgāmin, along with the fruit of its own level. Subsuming these three things, why does it subsume the path toward the anāgāmin? The anāgāmin essentially takes abiding upon having contemplated; while you are on the path toward, you are still practicing and not abiding, and therefore it is subsumed, because the path toward an upper [fruit] is subsumed under the lower fruit. If one attains the anāgāmin, it is called having practiced and then abiding, just as an arhat is internally subsumed under the fruit of the anāgāmin. If according to this analogy, the path toward the sakṛdāgāmin ought to be subsumed under the first fruit. But this is not so, because the first fruit only clarifies the correct stage and does not speak of advancing practice, and furthermore, the paths of seeing and cultivation are distinct, so they do not subsume each other. Now the stage of the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin has one fruit and two paths toward. The text says that for the sake of severing the four afflictions, three poisons, and conceit, it ought to fully speak of the ten fetters; but because in the path of cultivation the five views and doubt are all subsumed under conceit, they are not mentioned. The text has two parts: first matching directly, and next citing the analogy to align with it. From "having practiced, then abiding" below, matches the sixth analogy of the anāgāmin person, and has four parts: first, the topic headings; second, the explanation; third, distinguishing the one who attains extinction in the intermediate state; fourth, explaining "abiding again." In these initial topic headings there are again four: first, listing two persons; second, listing five persons; third, listing six persons; fourth, listing seven persons. Here first the two persons are listed: that is, passing through rebirth and not passing through rebirth; the one who passes through rebirth is the upward-faring person. Question: According to the *Zhuāngyán*, there are eleven anāgāmins; among the nine persons they further clarify those who are released by faith and those attained through vision, making up eleven. Master Kāishàn merely says there are nine, and further critiques the *Zhuāngyán*, saying: This distinguishes sharp from dull, and they are not two persons. Now we only ask regarding this text: Among the nine, why does it only present seven, not speaking of bodily witnesses and those who transfer rebirths? The answer has three points: First, not speaking of those who transfer rebirths and bodily witnesses is because those who transfer rebirths never emerge from absorption, so they are not spoken of; bodily witnesses enter the cessation absorption, and the Mahāyāna does not teach this absorption, so there are not these two persons. Second, it is merely a difference of breadth and brevity. Third, bodily witnesses and those who transfer rebirths are clarified in the *Prakaraṇapāda*, but do not exist in our Mahāyāna.

30.10

From "Attaining parinirvāṇa in practice also has two kinds" below is the second part, explaining the topic headings. Although there were four above, now only two are explained: first explaining the two persons, and next explaining the five persons. The two topic headings of six and seven are both omitted and not explained. Here first, the two persons are explained. Among the two persons, the first, the person who attains extinction in the present life, although in the topic heading, was already explained in the preceding section. Furthermore, having attained the anāgāmin in the present body, they further cultivate and advance to attain the arhat directly, never extinguishing this body, attaining two fruits directly in the present body; being of extremely sharp faculties and easy to understand, they are not explained, and only the upward-faring person is explained. This also has two parts: first clarifying the number of births, and next distinguishing differences in practice. This is the first text. "Practicing toward parinirvāṇa" refers to the upward-flowing one who is attached to the form and formless realms. As for "sometimes receiving two bodies," one dies in the first dhyāna and is reborn in the second dhyāna. "Four bodies" means taking rebirth throughout the four dhyānas. Two bodies is for the sharp, and four bodies is for the dull. Sharpness and dullness are also not strictly connected to the number of births; here it is clarified in terms of more and fewer. An anāgāmin of sharp faculties dies in the first dhyāna and is reborn in the second dhyāna, immediately attaining the fruit of an arhat. A dull person originally is reborn from the first dhyāna into the second dhyāna; failing to attain an arhat, they are further reborn into the third dhyāna; failing again, they are further reborn into the fourth dhyāna, and only then is it called attaining the fruit of an arhat. Here it is spoken of in terms of the four dhyānas. From "There are further two kinds" below is the second part, clarifying differences in practice; mentioning two kinds together forms four alternatives, distinguished in terms of the presence or absence of the two practices of advancement and absorption.

30.11

From "Sentient beings of the desire and form realms have two karmas" below explains the second topic heading of the five persons, which constitutes five parts. Here first, the person who attains extinction in the intermediate state (antarābhava) is explained. Who is this? It is one who has already abandoned desire and not yet reached the form realm, and in between attains the fruit of an arhat. This also has three parts: first, clarifying the karmas used; second, explaining the name "intermediate state"; third, clarifying the entry into extinction. In this first part clarifying the karmas used, "two karmas" means that karma is scattered karma, while taking rebirth is the meditative karma of the upper realms. From "Furthermore, relinquishing the body of the desire realm" below, the second part explains the name "intermediate state," because it is between two lives. Privately I consider: it is entering nirvāṇa in the intermediate state of the form realm; since they do not take actual rebirth, they are said to be of sharp faculties. From "Attaining nirvāṇa therein" below is the third part, clarifying the mind of entering extinction. As for the "four minds," there are two explanations: One says that the first two are the two minds of emptiness and existence of the anāgāmin fruit, and the latter two are the two minds of emptiness and existence of the arhat fruit. First, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the anāgāmin's mind taking conventional truth as objective support; second, in training is the anāgāmin's mind taking ultimate truth as objective support; third, beyond training is the arhat's mind taking ultimate truth as objective support; fourth, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the arhat's mind taking conventional truth as objective support. Because the anāgāmin's attaining extinction is itself the fruit of the arhat, it is clarified with reference to both. The second explanation says: These four alternatives are all clarified with reference to the fruit of the anāgāmin: first, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the guided mind; second, in training is the mind taking the ultimate as objective support; third, beyond training is the mind cultivating the old; fourth, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the mind of lost mindfulness. A master says: This explanation is unacceptable. Seeing the text say "four minds of the anāgāmin," one should say that the anāgāmin itself possesses these four minds; the former explanation accords with reason, where the first two minds belong to the anāgāmin and the latter two minds belong to the arhat. Question: Since the two fruits share four minds, how can it say the four minds of an anāgāmin? Explanation: Saying now "four minds of an anāgāmin" speaks in terms of carrying over the origin; here it explains the person who attains extinction in the intermediate state, and having attained extinction, they are simply an arhat. Furthermore, "one is and two are not" should likewise have two explanations: According to the former explanation, it says the two minds of the arhat are nirvāṇa, and the two minds of the anāgāmin are not nirvāṇa. The arhat attains the ultimate fruit without remainder, so it is nirvāṇa. The anāgāmin has not attained [the fruit] without remainder and is not the ultimate fruit, so it is not nirvāṇa. According to the latter explanation, the two minds of conventional truth are, and the two minds of ultimate truth are not, which requires further explanation.

30.12

Next is the explanation of the second, attaining nirvāṇa upon receiving a body, which also has two parts: first, the direct explanation; next, the debate. Here first is the direct explanation: that is, the person who attains extinction upon rebirth attains extinction upon being reborn in the first dhyāna. Next is the debate, first asking and then answering, which can be seen. Next is the explanation of the third, attaining extinction through practice. One who constantly practices is of dull faculties. Saying "samādhi" is because the mind of wisdom is tranquil, hence it is named samādhi. Next is the explanation of the fourth, attaining extinction without practice. Not waiting for one's own exertion before attaining extinction, it is therefore sharp. Next is the explanation of the fifth, the upward-flowing person, which also has two parts: first, solely with respect to the form realm; next, universally with respect to the upper two realms. This is the first text. As for saying that having attained the fourth dhyāna one regresses and is born in the first dhyāna, the explanation is: In reality no noble one attains the absorption of an upper realm, is born in an upper realm, and then regresses to be born below. There is this statement because having previously attained the upper absorption in anticipatory cultivation and then regressed, they are born below; it is not that their person is in an upper realm and then regresses. Furthermore, saying that they are born upward due to the stream of the path means it is a skillful means, not taking rebirth through actual afflictions. In "these four dhyānas" below, the second part universally covers the upper two realms; branching out from here, they are born into the two realms: those who delight in debate are born in Akaniṣṭha, and those who delight in samādhi are born in the plane of nothingness. Question: There are those who from the first dhyāna are immediately born in Akaniṣṭha and then attain extinction. There are also those who are born in the plane of nothingness and only then attain extinction. There are those who attain extinction before reaching Akaniṣṭha, and those who attain extinction before reaching the plane of nothingness. To which persons do these belong? Answer: These belong to the two persons of attained through vision and released by faith; they are not called upward-flowing. Altogether four meanings are contrasted: first, based on delighting in absorption versus delighting in wisdom; second, clarifying cultivating the five gradations versus not cultivating the five gradations; third, delighting in tranquility versus delighting in debate; fourth, cultivating perfumed dhyāna versus not cultivating perfumed dhyāna. These four meanings resolve back into two points: the third establishes the first—delighting in wisdom versus delighting in samādhi; the fourth resolves back into the previous distinction between having the five gradations and not having gradations. The first three are as in the text. Regarding "perfuming" in the fourth, there are two explanations: First, the Abhidharma masters say that two uncontaminated minds sandwich and perfume one contaminated mind; second, treatise masters say that one perfumes this absorption with the mind of friendliness and compassion. The reason why the latter two topic headings are not explained is that the former six persons originally added the person who attains extinction in the present life, and the preceding topic heading had already finished explaining the person who attains extinction in the present life, so now they are not explained. The former seven persons originally added the upward-faring person who goes up to the formless realm to attain extinction, and above this was already explained along with the fifth person, so there is no need to explain it.

30.13

From “Kāśyapa addressed [the Buddha]” below, third, is the discussion and analysis of those who attain extinction in the intermediate state, first asking and next answering. Within the question there are two: first, asking that since one who attains extinction in the intermediate state has sharp faculties, why do they not attain extinction in the present [life] and immediately achieve arhatship? Second, asking why the desire realm has an intermediate [state], whereas the form realm does not? The Buddha's reply has two [parts]. This answers the first question: owing to three factors, they do not attain extinction in the present [life]: first, frailty; second, lack of manifold conditions; third, a fondness for worldly, hurried activities and the like. The rest are clear to see. The first is as in the text. The second, regarding the lack of manifold conditions, appears in the *Vibhāṣā*, which says: “Devarāja Subhūti is not the Subhūti who presently understands emptiness.” From “As you have asked” below, he answers the second question, again with two [parts]: first, clarifying the distinction of conditions; next, clarifying the distinction of faculties. Within the first, the distinction of conditions, there are again two: first, clarifying that the desire realm is mostly beset by conditions; second, clarifying that because of its valiant nature, within the form realm there are no external sufferings, and hence it is not attained. Since the desire realm has external afflictions, out of revulsion towards these one cultivates the factors of awakening; cultivation is termed valiant. If according to the Abhidharma explanation, in the higher realms there is absolutely no one who enters the Path for the first time. Among treatise masters, some also agree with the former that there are none, while others say that in the higher realms there are also those who enter for the first time. Thus the *Lalitavistara Sūtra* (*Pǔyào Jīng*) states: “Eighty thousand devas attained the purity of the Dharma-eye”; this means that in the higher realms they also realize the first fruit. The reason this text exists is that practitioners of faith and dharma initially abide in provisional expedients, and can emerge from contemplation and be born in higher realms, wherefore it is said that they attain the fruit, not that they initially arose from ordinary persons to sages. Next is clarifying the valiant nature of their faculties. Next, from “There are three kinds” below, it clarifies the difference in faculties, as in the text.

30.14

From “Comparing to a makara” below, fourth, explains the one who, having walked, pauses again and reaches the other shore, corresponding to the seventh person. Here too there are four persons: first, arhats; second, pratyekabuddhas; third, bodhisattvas; fourth, buddhas. The first three have all reached it partially; the Buddha has reached it ultimately. From “Just as in the Ganges River” below, third, concludes the analogies, again with three [parts]: first, properly concluding the analogies; next, clarifying gain and loss; third, discerning sameness and difference to confirm the preceding meaning. Within the first proper conclusion there are again three: first, generally concluding the seven persons; second, further questions and answers in discussion; third, separately concluding the persons who reach the other shore. The first text again has two: first, concluding the seven persons, namely, the persons who see the buddhadhātu; next, concluding the seven dharmas, the dharmas being the buddhadhātu. This first part clarifies that the seven persons are none of them separated from the water of the buddhadhātu, containing both analogy and application. From “These seven sentient beings” below, second, clarifies the seven dharmas as being the buddhadhātu: first, wholesome; second, unwholesome; third, expedient; fourth, liberation; fifth, sequential; sixth, cause; seventh, fruit. The first and last are clear to see; the middle three are the three paths of the *Vibhāṣā*: expedient is resemblance understanding, liberation is the path of liberation, and sequential is the unimpeded path; hence the treatise's chapter “Smṛtyupasthāna” states: “Sequential unimpededness inevitably engenders liberation.” Now, that these seven dharmas constitute the buddhadhātu has two meanings: first, sequentially matching the seven persons above; second, collectively matching them. Regarding matching sequentially: wholesome dharmas match the second person, an ordinary sentient being with a minor root of goodness. Unwholesome matches the first person, who remains constantly submerged; the most severe icchantika has no goodness to speak of, hence termed unwholesome. The path of expedients matches the third person who attains stability, possessing the two expedients of the four applications of mindfulness and the heat stage. The path of liberation matches the fourth person who observes the directions; from the summit stage up to the sixteen minds, these are persons of true liberation, hence named the path of liberation. The sequential path matches the fifth person who, having observed, proceeds; from the path of seeing the truth, next entering contemplation, they attain sakṛdāgāmin, hence termed sequential. The cause matches the one who has walked and pauses again; having not yet attained arhatship, they are initially an anāgāmin, hence termed cause. The fruit matches the seventh person who reaches the other shore, the four persons of arhat, middling vehicle, bodhisattva, and buddha. Second, regarding collectively matching the seven persons: with respect to the former two persons, wholesome and unwholesome, they are those in the river who constantly submerge and who, having emerged, submerge again. As for cause, from attaining stability up to anāgāmin, all are cause. As for fruit, the four persons including arhats and so forth are all fruit. The former path of expedients wholly belongs to causal stages. From “Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said” below, second, discusses the meaning, forming two rounds of questions and answers. The first question has two: first, asking that since nirvāṇa lacks a cause, how can it be called a fruit? Next, asking why nirvāṇa is further called the fruit of the śramaṇa? The Buddha answers with two: first answering the initial question, and next answering the subsequent question. Here he first answers the initial question, again with two: first, clarifying the seven fruits, with nirvāṇa being the fruit of disjunction; next, clarifying the two causes, with nirvāṇa possessing a revealing cause. Broadly speaking, it is also acceptable to metaphorically speak of non-arising as an engendering cause, though in reality it is revealing. The text says that the three gates of liberation can serve as an engendering cause of non-arising for the afflictions: causing afflictions not to arise while wholesome dharmas are able to arise is metaphorically speaking of the revealing cause of the three liberations as an engendering cause, which furthermore can serve as a revealing cause for nirvāṇa; this is the orthodox meaning. From “As you have asked” below, he answers the subsequent question, which possesses three meanings: first, severing deficiency; second, delighting in tranquility; third, superior persons. From “Kāśyapa said” below, is the second round of questions and answers. The first question further discusses the preceding meaning. The Buddha replies: *Śramaṇa* translates as the Path, and also names deficiency. Severing the rest and lacking the rest of paths is named the Noble Eightfold Path; this is the meaning of neither of the two. From “Arhats” below, third, separately concludes the four persons who reach the other shore, again with two: first, concluding arhats and pratyekabuddhas; next, concluding bodhisattvas and buddhas. Regarding the first text: it is asked, the pratyekabuddha is a fruit belonging to reaching the other shore; to what is their approaching path subsumed? Answer: As previously stated, the approaching path of the anāgāmin belongs to the fifth, who having observed immediately proceeds. Originally, attaining stability was taken as the sixth; within the approaching path one is still walking, so why would it not belong to the fifth practitioner? Alternatively, their original fruit is the seventh person, and the approaching path is still a cause, which is why it belongs to the sixth, who having walked pauses again. Question: Originally, attaining the fruit was used to define the seventh person; the bodhisattva has not yet attained the fruit, so how can they be the seventh person? Answer: The sūtra explains, “Why are they a bodhisattva? Because they practice the six pāramitās.” *Pāramitā* translates as crossing to the other shore. Furthermore, the ten grounds are the ten pāramitās; how could they not be persons who cross to the other shore? Now I say this answer has not resolved the difficulty, and has another meaning (and so on).

30.15

From “These seven sentient beings do not cultivate the body” below, second, clarifies gain and loss, again with three [parts]: first, further concluding the indeterminate middle way; next, properly clarifying gain and loss; third, collectively concluding the great core principle. The first text again has four; this first clarifies the submerged person. Stating that none of the seven persons can cultivate body, precepts, mind, and wisdom: the four kinds of realized persons are precisely those able to cultivate, so how can they be unable? Explanation: Initially none cultivate; later, buddhas and bodhisattvas cultivate and therefore reach the other shore, whereas icchantikas are unable to cultivate and thus do not reach the other shore. The buddhadhātu also exists and does not exist; attaining this also exists and does not exist, which refutes both sides (and so on). Now I say one should not give this explanation. The seven persons initially all have not cultivated; at the time of not cultivating, they are not the seventh person; only after cultivating are they named the seventh person. The sūtra text presently says “all seven persons are unable to cultivate”; how could it say that at the very beginning they are not the seventh person? Now I clarify that this refutes the general by means of the specific, wherefore all seven persons cannot cultivate body, precepts, mind, and wisdom. Here, general nirvāṇa is taken as the river; the explicit text is here, so one must not harbor doubt. From “Among these seven persons” below, second, clarifies the emerged person. From “If there is anyone who says” below, third, clarifies that one-sided attachment is inadmissible. From “These seven kinds of persons” below, fourth, properly clarifies the indeterminate middle way. Either one person embodies all seven, which is spoken from beginning to end: though initially doing evil, later gradually cultivating, fulfilling the second and third up to the seventh; or the seven persons are each distinct, which is spoken according to their specific categories. From “If a person's mind and mouth” below, second, properly clarifies gain and loss, again with two: first, individually clarifying loss; next, jointly clarifying gain and loss. The first again has two: first, clarifying loss regarding the three dharmas; next, concluding the loss. The first has three: first, regarding the icchantika; next, regarding the noble path; third, regarding the buddhadhātu—definitively fixing any of them is inadmissible. From “Therefore, in the sutras I” below, second, concludes the meaning of loss, again with four: first, identifying two persons able to slander. From “If a faithful mind” below, second, identifies faith and wisdom mutually lacking each other. From “A faithless person” below, third, concludes that both are slander. From “Therefore I say” below, fourth, concludes mutual absence. From “If there is anyone who says” below, second, jointly clarifies gain and loss, again with two: first, regarding whether icchantikas attain buddhahood or do not attain buddhahood; next, regarding sentient beings possessing buddhadhātu or not possessing buddhadhātu, each having three propositions. For the first three: the first two are slander, and the last one is not slander. Why is this? Each relies on one extreme, grasping existence or grasping non-existence; hence both propositions constitute slander. If one holds an understanding of the easy, flowing middle way, then that single proposition is not slander. Some say: An icchantika attaining buddhahood without renouncing evil intention is a slandering meaning. Further saying that an icchantika, merely in this present body, cannot attain buddhahood, but only in a different body can attain buddhahood, is also a slandering meaning. Some say: An icchantika reforming evil and cultivating goodness, with their wholesome mind continuing without interruption, is not a slandering meaning. The meaning of buddhadhātu is also like this. Some say: Sentient beings possess buddhadhātu, already endowed in their bodies with marks, signs, permanence, and bliss, and attain it upon severing delusions—this too is a slandering meaning. If one says sentient beings completely lack buddhadhātu, this is also called slander. Nowadays those who speak of a future-fruit buddhadhātu fall into this. For the subsequent three propositions, the first two are slander, and the last one is not slander, as in the text. From “Now, the buddhadhātu is not named” below, third, collectively concludes the great core principle, again with four: 1. clarifying the principle of the buddhadhātu; from “Not yet having attained bodhi” below, 2. clarifying, in reference to dharma, speaking of the fruit within the cause; 3. citing proof that the Tathāgata either speaks of the fruit within the cause or speaks of the cause within the fruit; from “This is named the Tathāgata” below, 4. concluding speech according to his own intention.

First 15 of 18 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese