大般涅槃經疏 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

4.1

Composed by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān under the Sui

4.2

Re-edited by the Tiāntái Śramaṇa Zhànrán under the Tang

Second, from "For what reason?" onward explains the almsgiving. By explaining the beginning and explaining the end, the middle may be understood. The meaning here is not only that the later teaching opens [the realization of] permanence; opening the beginning is also like this. Since having raised the various teachings one knows by analogy the practices and stages, the persons of realization are likewise so. This seal of the permanent Dharma seals all things, and there are none that are not permanent. The initial and final offerings are permanence of practice; the initial and final givings of Dharma are permanence of teaching; that these two initial and final givings must have their persons is permanence of persons; the initial and final retributions are permanence of realization; that realization must have stages is permanence of stages; and that they are equal without distinction is permanence of phenomena, and so forth. Furthermore, "equal without distinction" has various senses according to the text of the reply: either because in both the beginning and the end both receive, both eat, or both do not eat, they are equal; or because in both the beginning and the end both obtain the five fruits, they are equal; or because in both the beginning and the end both see the buddhadhātu, both eradicate afflictions, and both are able to expound the Dharma, they are equal. If according to the Śūraṅgama[-samādhi Sūtra], because both the beginning and the end are tathatā and both are empty, they are equal; if according to the Commentary [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā], because both the beginning and the end are the dharmatā of all phenomena, they are equal; if the meaning in this context, it is that because both the beginning and the end are permanent, they are equal. "Permanent" means equal because of being permanent as neither permanent nor impermanent. If one attains this meaning of neither permanent nor impermanent, traversing all phenomena, teachings, practices, stages, and persons, they are equal without distinction. Question: Is the permanence of all sentient beings present or future? Answer: As already explained above, it is permanent throughout the three times. Question: If it is presently permanent, are sentient beings identical to the Buddha? Answer: Like a child in the womb, does he not share his father's surname? If he shares the father's surname, how could one fault his being old or young? There are, in all, six identities: all sentient beings are identity in principle; hearing the great nirvāṇa and understanding and knowing the buddhadhātu is identity in name; knowing the nature and being able to cultivate it is identity in contemplative practice; like seeing a tree stump in the night is identity in resemblance; like the golden probe piercing the cataracts so that the three fingers are clearly distinguished is identity in partial realization of truth; supreme great awakening is ultimate identity. Among such forms of permanence, what kind of permanence do you doubt? As for anuttarā bodhi, the translation of the name and the explanation of its meaning may be seen as usual. Receiving the final offering, the affairs of a single period are concluded and the principle of the Dharma is fully complete. If you, hearing and seeing this, practice giving accordingly, your dāna will certainly be fully complete.

4.5

Third, Cunda sets forth objections. The text has two parts: first, a general rejection; after "It is not so," he raises the objections individually. [Master of] Yěchéng made four objections, and Kāishàn made five objections, their headings being different, and so forth. Now I clarify five objections: 1. having wisdom and eradication vs. lacking wisdom and eradication; 2. having the noble title vs. lacking the noble title; 3. possessing the four bodies vs. the three bodies; 4. possessing the eyes of crossing over vs. lacking the eyes of crossing over; 5. attaining the five fruits vs. not attaining the five fruits, and so forth. The first objection comprehensively discusses both self and other; the latter four objections discuss only the self. These objections originally clarify the beneficiary's benefiting others; since the first fully raises both, the subsequent ones do not burden the text, and so they are abridged. However, these five objections cross horns and are difficult to resolve. Why? The ultimate principle is quiescent, without great or small; yet if traces are manifested to transform beings, conditions may be sharp or dull, and responses may be superior or inferior. What is seen by those of lesser capacity is inferior in both the beginning and the end; what is seen by those of greater capacity is superior in both the beginning and the end. If, when first sitting beneath the tree, he received the milk-rice meal from the cowherd woman, and after this meal was filled with the ten powers, this is the inferior view of those of lesser capacity. If, when first sitting upon the lotus pedestal, his retinue of bodhisattvas all sat on the lotus petals, and the buddhas of the ten directions emitted light from between their eyebrows that entered the crown of the lotus pedestal, while the retinues of the buddhas emitted light from between their eyebrows that entered the crowns of the lotus petals, and the bodhisattva on the lotus pedestal received the office through samādhi and became the retribution buddha, while the bodhisattvas on the lotus petals became the response buddhas, this is the superior view of those of greater capacity. One should know that the cowherd woman and the buddhas are not the same, and milk-rice and radiant light are perpetually distinct; this is the initial receipt of offerings by the two buddhas, the small and the great. If one sees the Buddha begging for food by himself, arriving at Cunda's house and eating the mushroom soup, entering extinction at midnight, being carried toward the Twin Trees, and having his body burned with fire, this is the inferior view of those of lesser capacity. If one sees Cunda moved by grief and offering only an inconceivable gift of eight hu and four dou that fully sates everyone, and one sees the buddhas of the ten directions sending their great disciples with bowls filled with fragrant rice to present to the Buddha at his nirvāṇa, this is the superior view of those of greater capacity. One should know that begging for food and having food delivered are not the same, and fragrant rice and mushrooms are perpetually distinct; the marks of the final receipt of offerings by the two buddhas, the small and the great, are like this. By analogical deduction, wisdom and eradication, down to the five fruits, should also each be distinct. Cunda crosses horns by setting the end of the greater capacity alongside the beginning of the lesser capacity to construct an objection of disparity; the Buddha, relying on what is seen by the greater capacity wherein the beginning and the end are without disparity, answers, so that the Jing and Wei rivers are distinct, and the beginning and the end are non-dual. Now I shall further cite sūtras to differentiate this. In the Superior King [of the Heavens] Sūtra, when he first sat beneath the tree, there were four marks: some saw him sitting on auspicious grass, some saw him sitting on celestial robes, some saw him sitting on the seven jewels, and some saw him sitting in empty space. In the Sūtra on Resolving Doubts in the Semblance Dharma, the Buddha's entry into nirvāṇa also has four marks: some saw the soil, stones, and forest grove of Kuśinagara; some saw it adorned with the seven jewels; some saw it as the dwelling place traversed by the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three times; and some saw it as true suchness, dharmatā, the pure realm of buddhas. Since earlier and later there appeared four different marks, by analogical deduction, wisdom and eradication, down to the five fruits, should also each be distinct. Now I shall further explain this briefly in relation to the masters of the teachings. In the case of the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka [teaching], when he first received the milk-rice, he did not yet possess wisdom and eradication and could not transform others to cause them to attain wisdom and eradication; having not yet departed from the mundane condition, he did not obtain the noble title; his body being emaciated from ascetic practices, he externally required coarse food; unoutflowing [wisdom] not having arisen, internally there were afflictions, and the binding of retribution still remained; this was his final body, bound to return to destruction, an impermanent body. Although practicing the dāna of phenomena, he had not yet attained the crossing over of principle, and his dāna was not fully complete. The same applies down to prajñā. The body from his parents was merely the physical eye, not yet having superknowledges and clarities, and thus he lacked the four eyes. After receiving the meal, he obtained the five benefits for himself and was able to confer the five benefits on others. Observing Cunda's words, he exclusively cites the initial attainment of the Tripiṭaka Buddha to make his objection. In the case of the Buddha of the Shared Teaching, when on the bodhisattva path, he had already severed the principal afflictions; unoutflowing [wisdom] appearing before him, he personally attained wisdom and eradication and also caused others to attain them; having already abandoned mundane conditions, he entered the stage of the noble ones; through the habit-energy sustained by vows, he appeared sitting in the place of awakening and manifested a body that received food; having no more four abodes, he possessed only habit-energy, which is called an impermanent body and a final body, not an impermanent body of principal afflictions. This final body has already completely eliminated the three [aspects of giver, recipient, and gift]; from dānapāramitā down to prajñā, he had already attained the four eyes though not yet the buddha eye; he manifested the digestion of solid food to benefit others and cause them to attain the five fruits. What Cunda objects to does not touch upon this at all. In the case of the Buddha of the Distinct and Perfect [teachings], when he first received the offering, it was as the Buddha replied: "Since I became a buddha, immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas have passed; I have long possessed wisdom and eradication and caused others to have wisdom and eradication," down to having long since neither eaten nor digested, and being without the fruits of the five matters, merely manifesting the initial attainment and initial receipt, the final attainment and final receipt. How could one use the beginning of the inferior view to object to the end of the superior view? That the two fruits of the beginning and the end are equal without distinction—this meaning is clear.

4.6

Fourth, the Buddha's reply. There are two parts: first, he directly answers the five objections; next, he universally receives the great assembly. As for first answering the third objection regarding the four bodies and three bodies: because bodies may be separated or combined, there are four and three; since permanence is the foremost theme of this teaching, he bypasses the others to answer it first. However, Cunda had first raised the beginning of the Tripiṭaka Buddha to make his objection: for six years the Tripiṭaka Buddha practiced austerities, his vital energy nearly exhausted, and the milk-rice nourished and benefited him so that his physical strength became full; thus, it was a body of food. Such a body of food, manifested from karmic conditions, was therefore an afflicted body. With the thirty-four minds he completely severed the bonds of defilements, but the binding of retribution alone remained; this was a final body, and because it would ultimately enter extinction, it was an impermanent body. Thus he raised these as objections. Now the Buddha uses three to refute four, precisely saying that the final [body] is the same as the impermanent [body], and so combines them into one impermanent body. The four bodies you raised are what is seen by those of lesser capacity; what is viewed by those of greater capacity is without these four. Why? Radiant light is wisdom, and wisdom is permanent abiding; a body of permanent abiding is not a body of food. Furthermore, radiant light is wisdom; the light of wisdom destroys the darkness of afflictions, so it is not an afflicted body. If one has just severed afflictions and still has the binding of retribution, it is a final body; now, it was not just severed, so it is not a final body. The binding of retribution consisting of the four great elements may well be impermanent, but permanently abiding wisdom is like vajra, so it is not impermanent. What is viewed by those of greater capacity has only three and not four; how much more so for the Tathāgata, who for immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas has been without these four bodies! Both the small and the great are denied; both four and three are dismissed. That is: neither eating nor non-eating, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither afflicted nor non-afflicted, neither dharma nor non-dharma, neither final nor non-final, neither vajra nor non-vajra. Being able to respond to both capacities, he makes four or makes three, yet for the Tathāgata they are neither four nor three, profound and yet more profound. Therefore, that the retributions of the two givings are without disparity is clear.

4.7

Next, from "Good man, before having seen the buddhadhātu" onward, answers the first objection regarding having wisdom and eradication vs. lacking wisdom and eradication. Cunda cites the Tripiṭaka Buddha when he was a bodhisattva, taking a consort and fathering a child, renouncing the country and giving up kingship, sitting on grass beneath the tree, arising to bathe and receiving the food; at that time he had not yet severed even a hair of affliction and could not transform beings. Basing himself on this, he made his objection. The Buddha takes what is seen by those of greater capacity as his reply, refuting the attainment of buddhahood according to the capacities of both the Tripiṭaka and the Shared [teachings]. Why? As seen by these two capacities, not only did the Tripiṭaka [practitioner] not see the buddhadhātu before receiving the meal, but even after receiving it and becoming a buddha he still did not see the nature; the Buddha of the Shared [teaching] is also like this. One should know that not seeing the nature refutes both teachings. When the bodhisattva on the lotus pedestal received the office of a buddha, he entered the vajra-concentration, ascended to the rank and office of a buddha, and attained sambodhi, clearly seeing the buddhadhātu; the permanent body, the dharmakāya, and the vajra body are called wisdom, and being free from the four kinds of bodies is eradication; he was also able to cause others to be fully endowed with wisdom and eradication. Furthermore, entering the vajrasamādhi is the vajra body that shatters the impermanent body, which is one turn of wisdom and eradication. Attaining sambodhi is the dharmakāya that shatters the afflicted body, which is another turn of wisdom and eradication. Ultimately seeing the nature is the permanent body that shatters the body of food, which is yet another turn of wisdom and eradication; he was also able to cause others to be fully endowed with wisdom and eradication. Therefore, the retributions of the two givings are without disparity, and wisdom and eradication are without distinction; they merely differ in the time they obtain their names.

4.8

Third, from "The bodhisattva at that time destroyed the four māras" onward, answers the second objection regarding having the noble title vs. lacking the noble title. Cunda bases himself on the days when the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva was a householder, possessing the marks of a cakravartin and being a deva among humans. From his renunciation until the time he received the meal, he had not yet attained the Way; being even inferior to being born in the heavens, how could he obtain the noble title? He was neither a deva born in heaven, nor could he be a deva born in the pure heavens. Since he lacked this title, Cunda said he was still a sentient being. The Buddha now does not answer based on the Tripiṭaka, but on the lotus pedestal viewed by those of greater capacity. The bodhisattva on the lotus pedestal had already destroyed the four māras. Thus the Commentary [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā] states: "Attaining the bodhisattva path, one destroys the kleśamāra; attaining the dharmatākāya, one destroys the skandhamāra and the mṛtyumāra; attaining the unshakeable samādhi, one destroys the devaputramāra." The present sūtra is also like this: entering the vajra-concentration is the vajra body, which destroys the devaputramāra, and this is being born in heaven. Attaining sambodhi is the dharmakāya, which destroys the kleśaskandha. Attaining the vision of the buddhadhātu is the permanent body, which destroys the mṛtyumāra. How could such merits not be being born in heaven, the pure heavens, the deva among devas? Now entering nirvāṇa, he also destroys the māra of the four inversions such as impermanence; because there are no four inversions, he destroys the kleśamāra; when there are no afflictions, skandhas, or death, there is no devamāra. Since in both the initial attainment and the final extinction he destroys the four māras, in both he is not a sentient being, and in both he obtains the noble title as the deva among devas, they are equal without distinction.

4.9

Fourth, from "At that time, although the bodhisattva did not broadly preach..." onward answers the fourth objection regarding the six perfections and the five eyes. Cunda relied on the [view of the] Tripiṭaka [teaching], where [the bodhisattva] abandoned his kingdom and renounced his throne without being seen to preach the Dharma, only having the abandonment of material wealth without seeing the principle of dāna; therefore, he said that he had not yet fulfilled dānapāramitā up to prajñā. Seeing only within the obscurations, he therefore said that [the bodhisattva] had only the fleshly eye and lacked the Buddha eye up to the wisdom eye. Now the Buddha replies with what was seen on the flower-pedestal by those of great conditions: although he did not preach the Dharma, he had already previously penetrated material giving and the Dharma, phenomena and principle; dānapāramitā up to prajñā were all already fulfilled, surpassing what is seen by humans, gods, the two vehicles, and bodhisattvas, and he also partially attained the Buddha eye. Here the Buddha replies regarding the single matter of the Dharma gift; the remaining perfections and five eyes are to be understood by analogy with this, and therefore he omitted answering them. Previously he broadly penetrated them, and now for the sake of sentient beings he broadly reveals that penetration; therefore, the two offerings are equal and without distinction.

4.10

Fifth, from "Good son, the body of the Tathāgata..." onward answers the fifth objection regarding having the five fruits or lacking the five fruits. Cunda took the five virtues of offering food in the Tripiṭaka—life, complexion, strength, and ease—and spoke of the donor in turn obtaining five kinds of fruit and retribution. Now, hearing the Buddha say, "I in truth do not eat," the donor should also lack the fruit of the five things. The Buddha now answers this in terms of the fundamental ground of initial realization. For immeasurable kalpas I have neither accepted nor eaten, being ultimately pure; those of lesser conditions at first saw me receive the milk-gruel with my mouth, while those of great conditions at first saw me receive the radiance upon my crown; yet regarding the Dharma body, it is neither eating nor non-eating. Those of lesser conditions later saw me accept the dāna broth, while those of great conditions later saw me universally accept [the offerings of] the great assembly; yet regarding the Tathāgata, there is neither begging nor accepting. Therefore, the fruits and retributions of the initial and final offerings are equal and without distinction.

4.11

Next, the universal acceptance, from "I now..." onward, is the acceptance of the assembly's offerings, followed by their requesting [the Buddha] to abide. The text has four parts: first, making the request due to a cause; second, conveying the request; third, checking the request; and fourth, repeating the request. First, to trace the arising of the four intentions: The assembly all presented offerings and requested him to abide; since the offerings were not granted, the request to abide was not yet expressed. Because of Cunda, the Buddha consented to accept the offerings of the assembly; because of Cunda, the assembly again requested the Buddha to abide; Cunda complied with the intent and accordingly conveyed the mind of the assembly; the Buddha accepted the offerings of the assembly and universally opened up the eternal. The eternal Dharma is not abiding, so one should not request him to abide; yet the eternal Dharma is profound and arcane, and the assembly was not yet able to comprehend it; the assembly's intention was earnest, and therefore they repeated their request. Master Xīnghuáng explained: The great assembly together heard the voice announcing that he would soon pass away. Hearing the reply to the objection, they said the Dharma body is an eternal body; again, at first hearing of his passing away, they thought it was like an extinguishing lamp, and hearing of eternity, they thought he was always remaining in the world. As for the Tathāgata, he originally has no going or abiding; how could he ever be as they see, abiding or going? Just going is abiding, and just abiding is going; without rising from quiescence, he manifests his body in other assemblies; the aspect of going is vivid, yet he always remains; the aspect of abiding does not go, yet he always goes. If so, of what benefit to the assembly are the Tathāgata's going and abiding? (and so forth). Now I clarify that the Buddha has no going or abiding; the suitability for conditions varies, and there are roughly four kinds: Some see him going and rejoice for themselves, saying: "Immeasurable sentient beings have fallen before or after the Buddha; I am now fortunate to see the Buddha from beginning to end," comforting themselves that they have attained [the encounter]—this is seeing going through worldly conditions. Some weep in sorrow and anguish, beating their heads and wailing, longing with their three karmas—this is seeing going through conditions for the sake of persons. Some see going and destroy immeasurable evils, [thinking], "The Tathāgata still departs; how could I be attached?"—this is seeing going through therapeutic conditions. Some see going and enter the secret treasury, arriving where the Buddha arrives, clearly seeing the nature, equal to the Dharma Prince—this is seeing going through supreme truth conditions. It may be that one person possesses all four, or only three, or only two, or it may be that four persons each have one; they are varied and not uniform, yet for the Tathāgata there is no going or abiding at all. Take Cunda for example: at times he is grieved, at times delighted; at times he says, "The Tathāgata does not enter parinirvāṇa, yet I cannot help but harbor sorrow and anguish"; at times he says of himself, "I am now equal to the Dharma Prince Mañjuśrī." If the assembly had no conditions, how could Cunda be thus? Hence we know that Cunda was not [acting for] himself; it was all for the sake of conditions. For the single phrase of going, the four conditions vary; the remaining three phrases—abiding, both going and abiding, and neither going nor abiding—are to be understood by analogy.

4.12

First, making the request due to a cause has two parts: first the prose, and second the verses. The first part has two: namely, joy and praise. At first he did not accept the offerings, so they were choked with grief. Now, hearing that he universally accepts them, all are joyful; their joy is due to Cunda, and therefore they praise him; wishing to fulfill their original intent, they therefore proceed to make their request. The praise has two parts: first brief, second broad. The brief raises four praises: namely, name, benefit, virtue, and vow. As for "name": the fine name was established first, and the wondrous meaning arose later; verifying the earlier by the later, the name was not praised in vain; therefore they praised him with one voice, saying: "Rare, O Cunda!" Speaking of "great meaning": horizontally, it is vast and boundless. Speaking of "wondrous meaning": vertically, it is profound and bottomless. Furthermore, the eternal and non-eternal is the profound meaning; the single eternal and all eternal is the great meaning; neither eternal nor non-eternal is the wondrous meaning, as explained before. Next, from "You now..." downward: "benefit" refers to the auspicious field of merit. The entire land assembled together, and the ten directions echoed in gathering; banners hung up to the Brahmā world, and canopies covered the three thousand [worlds]; yet the Tathāgata remained silent and accepted nothing at all. Cunda requested later, and the previous offerings were universally gathered in; such renown is peerless and surpasses the world, so the assembly praised him, saying: "In this present life you have attained great renown and benefit." "Virtue" is the single word "virtue": the ten deferrals come last, and the five fruits take precedence. Being just a single person and [his offering] meager at eight hu, he thereby perfected the perfection of giving—this is his virtue. "Vow" is the three characters "equal to vows" and so forth; "fulfilled" runs through the above four being complete; because the vow was made under the previous Buddha and now the vow is rounded out under this Buddha, it is said that "his vow is fulfilled." From "Most extraordinary, Cunda!" onward is the broad praise, praising the four virtues from the latter to the former. First, it further raises six difficulties to broadly praise the fourth, the fulfillment of his vow. When the lives of the devas come to an end and the signs of the five decays manifest, the other devaputras chant prayers for them, saying: "May you be born in a good place; may you obtain good benefit." The "place" is the human realm; the "benefit" is upholding the precepts. Below, the text says: "The earth in the ten directions is much; the earth on a fingernail is little." Relinquishing a human or divine body, one mostly obtains the three evil destinies; relinquishing a human or divine body, few obtain human or divine states. Relinquishing the divine to obtain the divine, the devas do not rejoice; relinquishing the divine to obtain the human, that is what the devas desire. It is like two persons on two Mount Sumerus: one stands a needle vertically with its eye up, and the other lets loose a thread with the wind; for it to enter the needle's eye is extremely difficult; for one in the human realm to be able to uphold the precepts is even more difficult than this. A blind turtle at the bottom of the sea surfaces once every thousand years, encounters the hole in a floating log, and enters the hole to dwell; this is extremely difficult; for one in the human realm to encounter the presence of a Buddha in the world is even more difficult than this. Pointing a needle upward on the ground and casting a mustard seed from the Brahmā palace so that it lands on the tip of the needle: this is extremely difficult; encountering a Buddha and generating faith is even more difficult than this; generating faith and hearing the Dharma is even more difficult than this; preparing the final offering is even more difficult than this. These six are difficult for others, but easy for Cunda; therefore the great assembly praised him, saying: "Most extraordinary, Cunda, who has further attained the difficult-to-attain, unsurpassed benefit!" "Like the udumbara flower": the flower portends a wheel-turning king; being able to make the final offering and attain the fruit of the five things, he will certainly become a Dharma King; the great assembly has already bestowed the prediction upon him. The broad praise of the fulfillment of his vow is finished. Next, from "Namo..." onward broadly praises his virtue. "Namo" is translated by some as "save me," by some as "taking refuge with life," or by some as "bending the knees," meaning bending both knees. Because he has the virtue of the ten deferrals, the five fruits, and the perfection of giving, they now praise him. Furthermore, "namo" possesses three meanings: the verbal utterance is vocal karma; bending the knees is physical karma; and taking refuge with life is mental karma. Third, from "Like the autumn moon..." onward broadly praises his benefit. Autumn is the yin season, and the moon is the essence of yin; when its time arrives it flourishes, outshining the multitude of stars, shining solitary and uniquely outstanding, beautifying heaven and illuminating earth, looked up to by all. Cunda is also like this: having wondrous benefit, he meets with the supreme and wondrous time and establishes the wondrous meaning; before the great assembly, none could precede him; facing the Buddha, he opened up the eternal and received the universal acceptance of the offerings, with the entire great assembly taking refuge in and revering him with their three karmas. Fourth, from "Namo to Cunda, whose mind is like the Buddha's mind" downward broadly praises his name. Above, it said his name was a hu of wondrous meaning, so his name accords with the Dharma; his mind is like the Buddha's mind, so his name accords with the Buddha; being truly a son of the Buddha, his name accords with the Saṅgha. According with the Three Jewels reveals that his body is the single-essence Three Jewels, and also the five fruits, three dots, four virtues, five Buddhas, and nature equal to the entire dharmadhātu, fully as explained earlier. Praising his attaining a master: his mind is like the Buddha's mind; praising his attaining a teacher: his name understands the wondrous meaning; praising his attaining a parent: he is like Rāhula (and so forth).

4.13

Next, the verses have two parts: first, one verse summarizes the praise above; next, three verses make the request. In the first text, "You": "you" refers to Cunda, versifying the "name" above. "Born in the human realm" is one of the six difficulties, versifying the fulfillment of the vow. "Surpassing the sixth heaven and equaling the Brahmā King" in requesting the Buddha to reveal the eternal: this versifies virtue. "I and everyone": the assembly versifies renown. Above, they praised with one voice; here, it says "I and everyone." As if having a head to delegate the discussion below, it seems as though Mañjuśrī is the leader of the request.

4.14

Next, the request has two parts: first, two lines for the sake of the assembly and for the sake of everyone (and so forth); next, one line urgently makes the request. Urging him with life: if the Buddha is not in the world and one does not receive the ambrosia of the Dharma body, the wisdom-life will not be preserved. Next, conveying the request has two parts: first the prose, narrated by the compiler of the sūtra; next the verses, which are Cunda's words of request. In the first prose section, saying "suddenly perished" is brief; fully stated, it should say perished from master, parent, and teacher (and so forth). Previously, upon encountering the sound and light, the great assembly rushed, stumbled, and blood splattered the ground; therefore it now says "suddenly perished." Receiving the bestowal of eternal life, complexion, strength, ease, and eloquence, which subsumes the dharmadhātu, and granting them master, teacher, and parent, it therefore says "suddenly came back to life." At that time the assembly was overjoyed; before this, Cunda rejoiced, and afterward this is again a deferral. Next, the eighteen and a half lines of verse have two parts: first, eleven and a half lines convey the assembly's praise; next, seven lines convey the assembly's request. In the first text, it briefly conveys three praises: first it conveys the praise of the vow; in the middle it first conveys the six difficulties; and later, from "Just as..." downward, it concludes with a simile. First, saying "having obtained his own benefit" conveys the praise of the difficulty of good benefit. The difficulty of the human body and good realm, "removing" and so forth, are what are separated from through good benefit. The "heap of gold and jewels" conveys the difficulty of the Buddha's era, and "without fear" is what is separated from. The "udumbara flower" conveys the difficulty of generating faith; "throwing onto the needle's tip" conveys the difficulty of the final offering; from "The Buddha is not defiled by worldly dharmas" onward conveys the difficulty of hearing the Dharma; from "The food I now offer" onward conveys the praise of virtue. Because of the offering he makes a vow, wishing for the unsurpassed fruit and not wishing for realms of existence. From "Like sandalwood emerging from the eraṇḍa" onward: relying on the meager, it satisfies the great assembly. Furthermore, through food it reveals non-eating, neither eating nor non-eating; the fragrance of the Way and the wind of virtue unfold all phenomena as neither eternal nor impermanent. From "I now attain the present retribution" onward conveys the praise of benefit, as in the text. From "All the worlds..." onward directly conveys the assembly's request, divided into three: the first two verses convey the sense of grief and suffering; the next three verses convey the sense of the benefits of requesting him to abide; the last two verses conclude both senses. The text says that the world has no tamer, lacking master, parent, and teacher, generating great affliction. In the next text, from "The Tathāgata is among the Saṅgha" onward generally clarifies the benefit of the Three Jewels. "Like Mount Sumeru" specifically clarifies the benefit of the teacher: if the mountain is reflected in the water, the water takes on the color of the mountain; if the teacher preaches the Dharma, it is practiced in accordance with the Dharma; hence it is the benefit of the teacher. The half-line "The Buddha's wisdom can skillfully sever" is the benefit of the perfection of wisdom; "Clouds arise with cool refreshment" is the benefit of skillful means: these two clarify the benefit of the parent. From "The Tathāgata can skillfully eliminate" onward is the benefit of the master. The thieves of affliction disturb the practitioner; the sun of the Buddha shines and eliminates them, putting an end to disorder and returning to rectitude; hence it is the benefit of the master. Third, the conclusion: if one loses the three benefits, longing and grief increase—this concludes the sense of suffering above; if one obtains the three benefits, faith increases—this concludes the sense of requesting him to abide above.

4.15

From "The Buddha told Cunda, 'So it is, so it is'" onward, the third section is the refusal of the request, which comprises prose and verses. The prose has two parts: first, describing and praising the difficulties; next, refusing the request by means of the difficulties. As for the first passage: the six difficulties are interrelated; three of them exist even when there is no buddha, and three exist only when a buddha appears. Here he describes the three difficulties when a buddha appears; the others may be known [by inference] (and so forth). Next, refusing the request by means of the difficulties has three parts: first, refusing the request by means of the difficulties; second, refusing the request by means of the realm of the buddhas; third, refusing the request by means of the two functions. Regarding refusing the request by means of the difficulties: you reported the assembly's four praises and took joy yourself in the six difficulties. The six difficulties and the four praises stem from my nirvāṇa, which bestows eternal life upon you, its diverse merits extending to all. If I were to stay long, there would be no final offering; if your vow were not fulfilled, the assembly would not sing your praises and your name would be established in vain, forfeiting your own benefit and obstructing others. How could you now rejoice in the final offering yet request a long stay? If I stay long, there is no final offering; if there is a final offering, there is no long stay. You contradict yourself; hence he refuses, saying it is improper. The intention is precisely this. Next, from "You now..." onward, adducing the realm of the Buddha to refuse: the realm of the Buddha is known only to buddhas; it is not to be calculated by those of lower stages. The path of words is cut off, and the locus of mental activity is extinguished. At its utmost presence it is increasingly absent; at its utmost absence it is increasingly present. Neither present nor absent, it is precisely staying and not staying, not staying and precisely staying, neither staying nor not staying. Regarding such a realm, whoever speaks of it falters, and whoever grasps at it loses it. Putting an end to his emotional calculations, he therefore refuses, saying it is improper. Question: Cunda abides on the stage of the ten abodes; how could he suddenly be refused, being equated with ordinary people who do not know? Answer: Knowing is of six kinds (and so forth). It is also to suppress the high for the sake of the low: if even the high should not do so, the low will naturally cease their expectations. Third, from "All..." onward, adducing the two functions to refuse the request: it is just that the profundity of the Buddha's realm and the Buddha's supreme functions are what you do not know. This means that the two birds of permanence and impermanence fly together; going or staying is fitted to what is appropriate, being concealed or revealed according to capacity. At times he uses staying, and at times he uses not staying; yet not staying is precisely staying, and it is also neither staying nor not staying. Formerly, he used impermanence: giving obtained five fruits, and all conditioned phenomena were entirely impermanent. If it were definitely impermanent, how could the present teaching bestow the five fruits of permanence? Throughout all dharmas he universally revealed impermanence; one should know that it is neither permanent nor impermanent, yet capable of permanence and capable of impermanence. Moreover, formerly he used impermanence to discuss the five gates of contemplation, calling it the realm of others; now the teaching uses permanence to discuss the five gates of contemplation, which is one's own realm. Could self and other be fixed such that they can produce such self and other? One should know that all are the Buddha's supreme functions. If he uses permanence, there is no need to make a request; if he uses impermanence, again there is no need to request. Therefore, adducing the two functions, he refuses, saying it is improper.

4.16

The eleven and a half lines of verse have two parts: the first ten and a half lines clarify the function of impermanence; the last one line clarifies the function of permanence. The first part also has two: the first nine lines generally clarify the impermanence of all conditioned phenomena; the following one and a half lines directly apply impermanence. The first part also has five: the first three and a half lines are the contemplation of impermanence; the next one line is the contemplation of suffering; the next one line is the contemplation of emptiness; the next two lines are the contemplation of non-self; the next one and a half lines are the contemplation of impurity. Question: The apparitional rebirth of the gods—how could it be impure? Answer: Although it lacks foul odor and filth, it is rebuked by the worthy and noble ones, and is thus also impure. Next, from "All desires..." onward, it clarifies the direct application of impermanence. As the *Ruiying [benqi jing]* says, "Going out of the four city gates, he gave rise to revulsion and weariness, and therefore did not greedily cling. Relinquishing desires, he reflected; through six years of asceticism he realized the true Dharma, and with thirty-four mental moments gave rise to uncontaminated wisdom. Today he shall enter nirvāṇa, which is the final [nirvāṇa] without remainder." Next, the one line "I have crossed to the other shore of existence" is the function of permanence. "Crossing" means crossing to the other shore beyond this and that shore, and also crossing to the other shore that is neither this nor that. Attaining mastery over all these and those shores, I therefore not only transcend all suffering, but also transcend all pleasures and that which is free of suffering and pleasure; only this is called great bliss. "Self" and "purity" are parsed analogously (and so forth). Others judge that the first nine and a half lines are the Buddha assimilating to the practice of permanence and impermanence, which is also the meaning of real and non-real; and that the latter two lines are all practices assimilating to the Tathāgata's permanence of impermanence and the real of the non-real, with this permanence and impermanence revealing the true dharma of neither permanence nor impermanence. Now I say: if so, permanence and impermanence would be two expedients, and dependent on these two expedients the real would be revealed, which is just like the *Yingluo [jing]* where the expedients of the two contemplations enable entry into the paramārthasatya of the middle way. This is the meaning of the shallow and deep three truths, the realm of the bodhisattva—how could it be identical to the realm of the Buddha? This text clearly says that one should contemplate the realm of all buddhas. The realm of the Buddha is the three truths as one truth, and the one truth as three truths; neither one nor three yet three and one. When one is empty, all are empty—the three truths are all empty; when one is provisional, all are provisional—the three truths are all provisional; when one is middle, all are middle—the three truths are all the middle. The middle is simply the conventional and the ultimate, and the conventional and the ultimate are simply the middle; they are without duality and without distinction. Only such is called the realm of all buddhas. The reason he uses the realm of the Buddha to refuse the request is that, if one is empty and all are empty, how could one request him to stay? And so on down to: if one is middle and all are middle, how could one request him to stay? The intent of refusing the request lies precisely in this. How could one explain the realm of the Buddha by means of the realm of the bodhisattva? If one merely follows the text, it is difficult to see this intention. Now I will further draw upon the verse lines to clarify this intention. The first nine and a half lines clarify that when one is empty, all are empty; the one verse on relinquishing desires clarifies that when one is provisional, all are provisional; the one verse on "I have crossed" clarifies that when one is middle, all are middle. In the verse it is extensively expounded, returning to explain the intent of the realm of the Buddha in the prose. For now I point out its meaning; it will be further explained later (and so forth).

4.17

Fourth, the repeated request: some say it is not a repeated request because the Buddha did not answer again. Or it is said that looking both ways, looking back it is a repeated request, and looking forward it is the beginning of the discussion. Within this there are three parts: first, receiving the instruction; next, modesty and gratitude; third, the formal request. Receiving the instruction arises from refusing the request by means of the difficulties: the six difficulties depend on the Buddha, truly as the holy word says. Modesty and gratitude arise from the realm of the Buddha. The realm of all buddhas is vast, without boundary or bottom; how could a mosquito or gnat know its limits? Knowing a portion is not ultimate knowing: knowing this is modesty. Gratitude arises from the functions: receiving the Buddha's acceptance of the offering accomplishes the final dāna. The defilements of stinginess being severed, he is equal to Mañjuśrī in receiving the Buddha's acceptance of the offering; his wisdom of the other shore being accomplished, he is equal to a great bodhisattva; hence he adduces dragons and elephants as metaphors for wisdom and severing. Moreover, he uses his youth to describe himself, using having just received full ordination to contrast with those who have long attained. Pulling him from beneath the abyss to place him above the clouds is entirely the grace of the Buddha and bodhisattvas; therefore he must express gratitude, expressing gratitude for the function of impermanence. Third, the formal request: the function of eternal abiding can give birth to the good of sentient beings; the great assembly has met with suffering, yet the Tathāgata has not yet affirmed it, and therefore he repeats the request. There are the teaching, the metaphor, and the application. First, the teaching is as in the text. Next, regarding "vomiting" in the metaphor, there are two explanations: one says it is a metaphor for the longing, hunger, and thirst of the great assembly, wishing for the Tathāgata to stay, which will never be vomited up. Hence the text says, "I now wish to cause the Tathāgata to abide long"; thus we know it is a metaphor made for sentient beings. The second says it is a metaphor made for the Buddha: the reflection on sentient beings and the capacities of sentient beings are also like hunger and thirst; wishing the Buddha to abide in the world is also never vomited up. Hence the application of the metaphor says, "We only pray the World-Honoured One will also be like this"; thus we know it is a metaphor made for the Buddha. Now, the holy words are skillful and subtle, and must not be taken one-sidedly (and so forth).

4.18

Third, the subsidiary discussion: why is it called a subsidiary discussion? First, explain the name; next, comment on the text. Explaining the name also has three parts: first, explaining the name; second, presenting the intention; third, critical examination. First, explaining the name: regarding "subsidiary discussion," formerly presenting the offering was primary, while conditioned and unconditioned are subsidiary. Moreover, the assembly at the time were bystanders; the assembly did not yet understand, so for the bystanders there was a discussion. Again, the real wisdom of the two persons is primary, while expedients are subsidiary; raising these questions and answers was their skillful means, hence it is called a subsidiary discussion. Again, the realm of the Tathāgata is primary, and the two functions are subsidiary. What is discussed now is the discussion of the two functions; hence it is called a subsidiary discussion. This is the meaning of the four siddhāntas; reflect upon it. Presenting the intention: why is there a subsidiary discussion? Because of the presentation of the offering, the Buddha bestowed permanence to shatter impermanence, and also explained that the two offerings are equal and without difference; those of sharp faculties had a profound understanding of neither permanence nor impermanence, while the deluded gave rise to views of superiority and inferiority, scorning impermanence and exalting permanence. Furthermore, because of the request to stay, the Tathāgata used not staying to shatter staying, and also explained that the realm of all buddhas is inconceivable; those of sharp faculties immediately understood neither staying nor not staying, while the deluded again considered not staying superior to staying, turning around in delusion and self-bewilderment, unable to attain understanding. For this reason, Mañjuśrī used impermanence and not staying to scold his request to stay, and Cunda used eternal abiding to challenge his impermanence and not staying; their mutual opposition made manifest that it was not the principle, and hence it is said, "Let us set aside conditioned and unconditioned for now," pointing ahead to the Tathāgata who would explain it extensively later. Pointing out the correct to reveal the incorrect is distinctly clear and understandable; for this reason, there had to be a subsidiary discussion. Furthermore, above, Cunda himself said that he was equal to Mañjuśrī the Dharma Prince and others; the assembly harbored doubts, thinking that Mañjuśrī was an ancient buddha whose practice was far-reaching and whose understanding was profound, capable of questioning and answering; whereas Cunda was of an initial resolve, whose stage was shallow and whose understanding was slight—though above he had been able to ask, they had not yet seen him answer, so how could he claim to be equal? For this reason there was a subsidiary discussion. Mañjuśrī being deep fell into defeat, while Cunda being shallow achieved victory; shallow victory is not victory, and deep defeat is not defeat; being neither defeated nor victorious reveals their equality. Grounded in these facts and principles to reveal the intention of the subsidiary discussion, the general outline is visible; it does not require much further explanation. Critical examination: Question: Mañjuśrī clarifies the samādhi of emptiness as the true Dharma, which should be the unconditioned; Cunda discusses non-existence against existence, where non-existence depends upon existence to be established, so it should still be existence. How can you say that Mañjuśrī clings to existence and Cunda clings to non-existence? Answer: Mañjuśrī supports the emptiness of the former teachings, which, compared to the great, is existence; Cunda supports the present teaching, discussing non-existence against existence, where existence being removed leaves no non-existence, which still turns out to be non-existence. Furthermore, Cunda has only just completed the perfection of giving, so his practice is shallow and he should not be said to be victorious; Mañjuśrī is an ancient buddha and therefore deep, so he should not be defeated. Answer: Conforming to what is appropriate for sentient beings, they serve as hammer and anvil to one another; it is not a fixed victory or defeat. Being defeated without being defeated does no harm to the deep; being victorious without being victorious adds nothing to the shallow. Mañjuśrī setting it aside for now means both victory and defeat are cast off. Moreover, Mañjuśrī holds to the former, which in terms of the former is correct, but compared to the present is incorrect; Cunda holds to the present, which in terms of the present is correct, but compared to the former is incorrect. If one constructs a four-cornered proposition: each clinging to the two functions to reveal the essence is 'both are correct'; each clinging to the two functions and harming the essence without [understanding] is 'both are incorrect'; each discerning essence and function has one correct and one incorrect; accessing the essence through function is 'neither is correct nor is either incorrect'.

First 18 of 22 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese