大般涅槃經疏 4.5

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.