大般涅槃經疏 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Compiled by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān under the Sui

5.2

Re-edited by Śramaṇa Zhànrán of Tiāntái under the Tang

From "Mañjuśrī praised him, saying" onward is the third part: Mañjuśrī's praise. The text has four parts: first, accepting and confirming his explanation; second, praising the correspondence between his words and deeds; third, praising his profound accord with the Buddha's intention; fourth, accepting the exhortation and also exhorting, accepting and confirming the previous two exhortations while taking up both rebukes. The first is as in the text. Second, from "Good man, you now..." onward is the correspondence between words and deeds. Speaking of the "causes and conditions for long life": right view, right knowledge, right protection, and right explanation are the causes and conditions for permanent abiding. This accepts the intention of similarity understanding in the earlier application of the parable, hence it says "causes and conditions." "Being able to know that the Tathāgata is a permanently abiding dharma" accepts the understanding of partial realization in the earlier application of the parable. "Skillfully covering the Tathāgata" accepts the similarity understanding in the subsequent application of the parable. "Always receiving peace and joy" accepts the understanding of partial realization in the subsequent application of the parable. If it accepts the two understandings of the real and similarity, it simultaneously accepts the intent of the six positions. However, Mañjuśrī uttered only a single word of rebuke and exhortation, while Cunda made that much rebuke and exhortation; yet Mañjuśrī did not resist at all, but on the contrary praised him, truly because what Cunda said accorded with the teaching and with the capacities. A sage speaks only of his own dharma and does not speak of other dharmas; this proves that Cunda is in the position of partial realization, which is why Mañjuśrī in turn praised his words and deeds in terms of partial realization, disclosing the trace of Cunda's five precepts to reveal the origin of his partial realization. Personally, I say: one should know that the ten yieldings are spoken from the trace, and using the early lesser [vehicle] to challenge the later great [vehicle] was also for fear that the assembly at that time and future generations would exclusively cling to the early lesser to challenge the later great, impeding the later great from being used to refute the early lesser. As for the "assembly at that time," it refers to the newly arrived assembly. Why is this? The teachings of a whole lifetime have already rebuked, eliminated, and gathered the finest good; how could they cling to the Tathāgata definitely entering nirvāṇa like the early lesser vehicle? It was precisely for the dull-rooted with lesser habits in future times who cling to the lesser; therefore the Lotus Sūtra says, "Except after the Buddha's extinction." If not for this, why would the earlier excellent offerings of banners and standards from humans, devas, mixed crowds, bodhisattvas, and śrāvakas all be accepted in silence, whereas the modest, manual offering in the city was openly declared to be accepted, and through this the offerings of the assembly were gathered universally, and he was further able to challenge the Buddha and be praised by the Buddha? Moreover, he engaged in a side-discussion back and forth with Mañjuśrī; hence we know Cunda was no ordinary person. Third, from "Next, the Tathāgata..." onward praises his profound accord with the Buddha's intention, pointing to the chapter on "Lamentation" and others as the detailed exposition. Fourth, from "I and you..." onward accepts the exhortation: moreover, you exhort me to cover the conditioned, and I also exhort you to cover the unconditioned. Though one speaks of existence all day long, one cannot exhaust its function; though one speaks of non-existence all day long, one cannot exhaust its utmost limit; words cannot reach it, so cut it off and set it aside. Moreover, speaking of setting aside means pointing to the broad and setting aside the brief, which is setting aside in terms of the worldly mode. The correct essence of nirvāṇa is neither essence nor function, neither conditioned nor unconditioned; since it is not the correct essence, it can be set aside together, which is setting aside in terms of paramārthasatya. You exhort me to cover existence, and I exhort you to cover non-existence; mutually asserting right and wrong, neither knows what is correct, which is setting aside in terms of the antidotal mode. The conditioned and unconditioned are merely a side-discussion; here the offering of food is the principal theme. Setting aside the side-discussion to return to the principal theme, it says "let it be set aside for now," which is setting aside in terms of the individual mode.

5.5

Next, from "You may according to the time" onward is the discussion of returning to the essential principle. The text has four parts: first, returning to the essential principle to urge the offering, which contains both an urging and a reprimand; second, the Tathāgata's endorsement and praise, confirming what preceded and initiating what follows; third, clarifying rejoicing and approving, which contains questions and answers; fourth, praising and revealing, praising Cunda's exposition and revealing Mañjuśrī's provisional traces. The first again has two parts: first urging, then reprimanding. Regarding urging the offering, there are three points: first, urging according to the time; second, urging haste; third, urging offering to the Buddha. Urging according to the time means: as at the time of first setting out, the time of first arrival, the time of illness, or when produce is newly ripe—here the final offering is the time of first departing. Second, urging haste means: in the practice of the ancient Buddhas, after midday they do not eat, so now one must quickly attend to this time. Third, urging offering to the Buddha means: specifically for the final offering to the Buddha's nirvāṇa. Next, Cunda's reprimand also has three points: first, not knowing the time; second, not knowing haste; third, not knowing the Buddha. First, regarding commanding the time: you command giving according to the time; for the Buddha it may be giving according to the time, but the entire great assembly does not all enter nirvāṇa, so this is not the time. Demanding a gift at the improper time in principle borders on greed. Next, regarding not knowing haste: during six years of austerities the Buddha lived on a single hemp seed and a single grain of rice; now in an instant, what need is there for haste? Third, regarding not knowing the Buddha: do you think the Tathāgata really needs food? Mañjuśrī shared the view of others that he needed mixed coarse food; Cunda stated his own understanding that eating is non-eating, and therefore reprimanded Mañjuśrī for falling into the three kinds of not knowing. Next, from "At that time the Buddha addressed..." onward, the Tathāgata's endorsement and praise confirms what preceded and initiates what follows. Endorsing his reprimand confirms what preceded; praising his wisdom initiates what follows. Third, from "Mañjuśrī said to Cunda" onward clarifies rejoicing and approving. The text has five parts: first, biasedly rejoicing and approving; second, refuting biased rejoicing and approving; third, challenging [the claim of] rejoicing and approving; fourth, resolving rejoicing and approving; fifth, quiescent and transcending rejoicing and approving. The assembly at the time thought Cunda's practice was shallow, so the Buddha endorsed what gave him joy in order to dispel the assembly's sentiments. First, Mañjuśrī used this to biasedly rejoice with him: "Because you spoke of the unconditioned, you received the Buddha's rejoicing and approval." Next, Cunda immediately used the perfect to refute the biased: "Not only does he rejoice and approve of me, but also of all." Third, Mañjuśrī made a two-fold dilemma to press him, first determining: if he definitely rejoices and approves of all sentient beings, then when I spoke of the conditioned, he should also rejoice and approve; if he does not rejoice in me, the universal rejoicing refutes the meaning of 'all,' and if that is not established, it is still biased rejoicing, establishing that the Buddha has love and hatred—this constitutes an implicit challenge. Fourth, Cunda perceived his implicit challenge and in turn resolved both horns: first, there is no biased, defiled rejoicing and approval; second, there is universal, pure rejoicing and approval. The absence of bias has three points: first, censuring [the claim of] biased rejoicing and approval; second, explaining the meaning of the absence of bias; third, adducing an analogy to reveal it, as in the text. Next, from "Viewing all equally" onward clarifies that there is universal, pure rejoicing and approval, which is the realm of the Tathāgata, not something that can be known by such as me, and so forth. Fifth, from "A king" onward clarifies quiescent and transcending rejoicing and approval: one should not calculate it as biased or universal. Above, Mañjuśrī stated that conditioned and unconditioned should temporarily be set aside together, which is the rejoicing that transcends words and cannot be spoken. The meaning here clarifies that whether there is rejoicing or no rejoicing is the Buddha's realm, which cannot be calculated, and is rejoicing and approval that transcends thought. The first analogy shows partial wisdom falling short of the ultimate: a royal carriage drawn by four horses illustrates ultimate wisdom; the inferior donkey-drawn carriage illustrates partial true wisdom. The latter analogy shows partial severance falling short of the ultimate: the turtle and dragon in water illustrate having ignorance; because the bodhisattva still moves, his vision is not clear. The garuḍa soaring in the sky illustrates the exhaustion of ignorance; because the Buddha does not move, his vision is clear. Kāishàn says: the former is the lower not knowing the higher, and the latter is the higher being able to know the lower. Yěchéng says: both analogies are the lower not knowing the higher—the first is not knowing the higher wisdom, and the second is not knowing the higher realm. Língwèi says: the first is not knowing the dharmakāya, and the second is not knowing the nirmāṇakāya, and so forth. Fourth, from "Mañjuśrī" onward is praising and revealing. Praising Cunda's exposition, he therefore says, "So it is, so it is." Because he exalted the Buddha's realm as beyond reckoning, he praised him. 'Revealing' means brushing away my attachment to a single path: "Because you tested me, a test is not real; therefore, conditioned is not conditioned. You deduced it without thorough understanding; therefore, unconditioned is not unconditioned." Earlier, Mañjuśrī said, "Let us temporarily set them aside together," which means the path of language is cut off. Now Cunda says, "It is the Buddha's realm and not what I can know," which means the place of mental activity is extinguished. When examined to the subtle, speech is exhausted; when investigated to the utmost, thought is depleted; therefore, exposition and contemplation are both quiescent. From "At that time from his face..." onward is the fourth, urging the offering. The text has four parts: first, urging the offering; second, requesting him to remain; third, receiving and understanding; fourth, preparing the offering. The various previous auspicious signs each had their own signification, so we know this light was specifically to urge the offering. Earlier Mañjuśrī urged Cunda to make the timely offering, and Cunda stubbornly censured and reprimanded him; now that the Buddha personally urges it, he dares not refuse. The text of urging has two parts: urging by light and urging by voice. Urging by light has two parts: first, urging; second, silence. The first, urging, again has three points: first, emitting light; second, understanding the light; third, surging of the light. First, in emitting light, that it illuminated Mañjuśrī means: above, the Buddha endorsed Cunda's exposition as conforming to the teaching and fitting the capacity; now the light illuminating Mañjuśrī also supports the superior to transform the inferior; the two men's debate and challenge were both due to the Buddha's power. Next, "immediately knowing this matter" is the understanding. Masters of the Abhidharma say that by seeing visible form one knows the mind; Mañjuśrī saw the light and thereupon understood the Buddha's intent. Third, the surging light urges the offering, as in the text. Next, grieving in silence: he grieves because of the urging of the offering, and is silent because he has not yet consented. Next, urging by voice also has two parts: first, urging three times; second, weeping with sorrow. Next, from "He again addressed the great assembly" onward, he requests him to remain. The text has two parts: first, addressing the assembly to request together; second, requesting again. First, addressing the assembly has two parts: first, addressing the assembly to request; second, the Buddha's response. Addressing to request is as in the text. Next, in the Buddha's response there are two parts: first, stopping the disturbance; second, speaking the five-gate contemplation. In the contemplation there are two parts: first, performing the contemplation; second, concluding. First, six analogies for emptiness, three analogies for impermanence, three analogies for impurity, two analogies for non-self, and finally a general conclusion. Why speak the five gates? You requested me to remain in the world fundamentally to open the path; if one can perform the five contemplations, it is no different from my remaining; if one cannot contemplate, what benefit is there in remaining in the world? The *Bequeathed Teaching* says: "When one can maintain the precepts, it is no different from the Buddha being present." It is precisely this meaning. Next, requesting again also has two parts: there is a request and there is a response. The request is as in the text. The second response has two parts: first, the response; second, the explanation. In the first text: you request me to remain long out of pity and compassion, but I enter cessation out of pity and compassion, and so forth. In the explanation there are two parts: prose and verses. The prose is as in the text. The verses share the same meaning with the two verses below, which will be explained later. In the verses there are two parts: first, the verses; second, prose stopping [them].

5.6

Third, at that time Cunda received and understood. Again there are two parts: first, receiving and understanding; second, validating and confirming. Regarding receiving and understanding: although he knew of non-cessation, he could not help but grieve, and could not help but make the request. Although he knew the Tathāgata ceases and yet does not cease, he could not help but rejoice, and could not help but feel pleasure. Validating and confirming also has two parts: first, validating that he cannot help but rejoice; second, stopping him from not being able to help grieving. First, regarding joy: since you are already able to know the Tathāgata's expedient means, you should also know the Tathāgata's reality; therefore, he adduced the two birds to illustrate that the provisional and real cannot be separated. The season of spring warmth illustrates properly suiting the capacities; the pool free from burning heat illustrates nirvāṇa's ease and fearlessness. All Buddhas equally use the two dharmas to respond to conditions without obstruction and with ease; to be able to understand like this: excellent, excellent! Next, from "You should not now ponder long life or short life" onward, four points are adduced in total to stop him from being unable to help grieving. First, adducing the Tathāgata's realm as beyond thought: whether long or short, all are like an illusion; illusory length and illusory shortness are neither short nor long—what is there to grieve over? Second, adducing the Tathāgata's expedient means: whether long or short, the Tathāgata is completely undefiled and unattached within them—what is there to grieve over? Third, adducing the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa: it brings about your cause of giving and attains the immovable fruit; cause and fruit being complete, what is there to grieve over? Fourth, "I serve as a fertile field to bring about your cause and fruit; when you attain cause and fruit, you yourself are a fertile field, and can further bring other people's causes and fruits to fullness; benefiting oneself and benefiting others, what is there to grieve over?" This can be seen by examining the text.

5.7

Fourth, from "At that time Cunda..." onward is preparing the offering. First he humbles himself, and next he prepares the offering. In the first text, when it says "nirvāṇa and non-nirvāṇa," this is also the meaning of the two birds flying together. It is the realm of the Tathāgata, so those of lower stages cannot conceive of it. Next, in preparing the offering, it says "he immediately, with Mañjuśrī..."; there are two explanations: First, it is said that Mañjuśrī understood the final offering, so he brought his friend along to prepare it together. Second, the six-fascicle text says that they burned incense and scattered flowers, with all their hearts making offerings to the Buddha and Mañjuśrī, without saying that they went together.

5.8

Chapter on Sorrowful Lamentation, Part One

5.9

Bitter pain lodged in the breast is called sorrow; the uttering of mournful wails is called lamentation. Labelled concisely after the event, it is called the 'Chapter on Sorrow and Lamentation'. Expounding it more broadly: losing the qualities of the Path within is called sorrow; losing the compassionate protection from without is called lamentation. The text states: 'Losing shelter and the flavor of the Dharma is like a calf losing its mother'—this is the worldly [siddhānta]. Furthermore, that good already produced deteriorates is the reason for sorrow; that good not yet produced is obstructed is the reason for lamentation. The text states: 'To rear children and deliver them over to a caṇḍāla; afflicted by the sufferings of age, youth, and sickness, they travel on a perilous path'—this is producing goodness [the individual siddhānta]. Furthermore, that present evils are not yet exhausted is the reason for sorrow; that impending evils are just arising is the reason for lamentation. The text states: 'Just like a gravely sick person eating what ought not to be eaten'—this is the therapeutic [siddhānta]. Furthermore, sorrow arises because one ought to attain the secret [teaching] yet does not attain it; lamentation arises because one ought not to lose the secret [teaching] yet loses it. The text states: 'He exclusively teaches the secret Dharma solely to Mañjuśrī, casting us aside'—this is the supreme truth [paramārthasatya siddhānta]. Thus, when the four conditions stimulate the Buddha, the Buddha arises in the world; when the four capacities subside, the Buddha proclaims his passing away. Therefore, the 'Chapter on Sorrow and Lamentation' is explained in terms of the four siddhāntas.

In the Sanskrit original, this text still belonged to the 'Chapter on the Lifespan'; Master Xie divided it into two, which broadly have ten differences: the previous chapter was named from the person, while the subsequent chapter is named from the event; the previous chapter addressed the laity, while the present chapter addresses the religious; the previous chapter involved offerings, while the present chapter has no offerings; the previous chapter had a twofold request, while this chapter has a single request; the previous chapter depended on another, while this chapter comes forth from oneself; the previous chapter briefly clarified the permanence of the buddhadhātu, while this chapter fully explains the three dots [of the letter i] and the four virtues; the previous chapter discussed the present teaching, while this chapter encompasses both present and past; the previous chapter was a debate between two people, while the present chapter is a discussion facing the Buddha; the previous chapter agitated attachments and gave rise to doubts, while this chapter smashes attachments and eliminates doubts; in the previous chapter, hearing the Dharma they suppressed and held back their sorrow, while in this chapter, seeing the earth shake, they sorrowed and lamented. However, these ten points fully contain both the general and the particular; here one side is cited to specifically highlight their differences.

[Master] Xīnghuáng explained this chapter with seven points, namely: three requests, three replies, and the concluding synthesis and origination. He says that because the Buddha is entering nirvāṇa and sentient beings will be left solitary and unprotected, they sorrowfully entreat him to remain in the world. The Buddha replies: 'You originally came to present offerings and hear the Dharma. Now the offerings have been accepted, generating merit for you, and the new letter i has already been preached, generating wisdom for you; yet you are unwilling to learn—what benefit would there be in my remaining?' Next, they pray and entreat: 'The Tathāgata's past teaching of impermanence took some fifty years to achieve completion; now that you preach the new letter i of permanence, bliss, self, and purity, you should remain long to teach and guide us. If you enter nirvāṇa, it would be better to return to cultivating the old teaching.' Citing the elephant's footprint and autumn plowing, they dread the teaching and do not accept it. The Buddha then replies: 'It is not that I will not teach at all; I will ultimately cause you to understand the new letter i. Thus it is said: I place all my sons within the secret treasury, and I too abide within it—this is termed entering nirvāṇa.' Having already sorrowfully prayed, and since he did not permit remaining, they could only make a pressing entreaty using mockery and their own lives: 'If the Tathāgata possesses permanence, bliss, self, and purity, he is free from the four inverted views, and would obtain sovereignty and remain long in the world. If you must enter nirvāṇa, you are not free from inversion, and the words "permanence and bliss" are set forth in vain. If you do not remain, how could our poisonous bodies be allowed to remain long? We should also enter nirvāṇa together with the Buddha.' The Buddha then replies: 'How could my going or remaining be known by you? You say that going is definitely going and remaining is definitely remaining. My going and remaining are like two birds flying together: going yet ever remaining—what need is there to entreat me to remain? Remaining yet ever going—what need is there to entreat? If you do not understand this, how could you enter nirvāṇa together with me?' Having had their three requests denied, their minds had no purchase, and they immediately gave rise to doubts: 'If impermanence is incorrect, it should not have been preached in the past; if permanence and bliss are correct, why were they not preached earlier? The Tathāgata would then have the fault of misjudging capacities.' The Buddha then harmonizes: 'In the past I preached impermanence to smash your sickness of permanence; now you take impermanence as a sickness, so for you I preach permanence. Your sicknesses have an earlier and a later, so the teachings have arising and setting aside. You yourselves arbitrarily think the presentation of the teaching is too late or too early, circuitous and roundabout, as the Tathāgata bends and turns to follow along. How could the Buddha have misjudged the capacity or the timing? You are merely turning around to blame the Tathāgata.' Origination such as this is easy to see in meaning. However, having the three requests placed before and the three replies placed behind, with the sub-sections in between interlinked everywhere—this was merely that master's profound discussion of the seven points; if one wishes to parse the text with it, it goes entirely contrary to the natural sequence. Now we clarify that this chapter delivers the new letter i to the bhikṣus, surpassing the practices of the three cultivations.

5.10

Analyzing the text, there are four parts: first, the assembly's request; second, the Tathāgata's reply; third, the bhikṣus' doubting attachments; fourth, the Buddha's smashing and elimination of their doubts. Regarding the request, there are again two parts: first, the condition of the request; second, the request proper. As for the condition: conditioned by the earth quaking, they know he must enter nirvāṇa, and therefore sorrowfully entreat him. Question: Who moved the earth to serve as the condition? Answer: Dharmas reside neither in primary causes nor in secondary conditions; they do not reside in causes and conditions, yet are not apart from causes and conditions. Since they arise from causes and conditions, how could there be an agent? Although there is no agent, it is also through the Buddha's supernatural powers that the earth is shaken, causing them to grieve with longing, placing those with affinity into liberation. It is also through the Buddha's power of wisdom preaching the Dharma, rejoicing and placing those with affinity into prajñā. It is also through the Buddha's power of essence, neither sorrowful nor joyful, placing those with affinity into the dharmakāya. It is also through Cunda and Mañjuśrī's power of wisdom, causing the assembly to gain understanding and enter into prajñā. It is also through the two persons' supernatural powers that when they depart, the earth shakes, causing the assembly to grieve with longing and enter into liberation. It is also through the two persons' power of the supreme truth, causing the assembly to be neither sorrowful nor joyful and enter into the dharmakāya. It is also the assembly's stimulus for the therapeutic power, hearing the Dharma with joy stimulating the power of human capacity. The quaking of the earth without sorrow stimulates the supreme truth; being neither sorrowful nor joyful brings about the condition of the earth quaking. Its meanings are immeasurable. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: 'Sometimes there is fear, sometimes joy; sometimes aversion arises, or doubts are severed—these are the unshared attributes of supernatural power.'

Regarding the quaking of the earth, there are again four aspects: the time, place, appearance, and cause. As for the time: the Buddha used four matters to stop the grief of the Licchavis; Cunda's choked chest cleared slightly, and lowering his head, he swallowed his tears; the assembly heard the Dharma, and their sorrow and distress temporarily subsided. The two persons having departed and the sound of the Dharma having ceased, wishing further to augment their goodness of sorrow and longing, in the brief moment after their departure—it was at that very time. The shaking and quaking of the earth took place at precisely this time. As for the place: the great earth is the horizontal location; the Brahmā world is the vertical location. Some say the first dhyāna is the Brahmā world; others say that through to the fourth dhyāna, all are the Brahmā world. Although not connected to the earth, they have jeweled palaces, which also all shook and trembled; this is precisely the matter. Question: Earlier, the sound and light were explained as reaching up to naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana as the Peak of Existence; why does this earth quaking stop at the Brahmā palace? Answer: Earlier it said the Peak of Existence; the text of 'Peak of Existence' is broad, allowing for a far-reaching interpretation; here it says the Brahmā world, which merely matches the text. If one relies on the subsequent text, 'when it quakes, it can cause the minds of sentient beings to quake, which is called the great earth quaking,' then the four minds of the formless realm should also be shaken; that is an analogous case. As for the appearances, there are three: first, the appearance of minor and major quakings; second, the six kinds of quaking appearances; third, the eighteen quaking appearances. These three kinds of appearances all take form and sound as their basis. Form has shaking, welling up, and rising; sound has crashing, booming, and roaring. If it is merely form or sound, it is a minor quaking; when form and sound shake together, it is called a major quaking. Form and sound each having three makes six kinds; within each one there are further three, namely shaking, universally shaking, and equally universally shaking: three times six is eighteen. If differentiated further: Jambudvīpa, one four-continent world, a minor chiliocosm, a medium chiliocosm, a trichiliocosm, and the ten directions, viewed successively in relation to each other, constitute minor quaking, major quaking, great-major quaking, and so forth. Someone said: 'This sūtra has six kinds, while the Avataṃsaka has eighteen quakings.' How could this be so? It is merely that within form, 'shaking' is mentioned concisely, and within sound, 'crashing' is mentioned concisely. Furthermore, it says 'major quaking,' and also says 'can cause the minds of sentient beings to quake'; one should know that its meaning encompasses the eighteen, which is different from ordinary sentiment. As for the cause: by analogy, there should also be minor causes, major causes, and great-major causes. When a wheel-turning king is born or dies, the earth gains a master or loses a master, and shakes out of sorrow or joy—this is called a minor cause. When a pratyekabuddha or arhat is born or dies, the earth gains one worthy of offerings or loses one worthy of offerings, and shakes out of sorrow or joy—this is called a major cause. When a Buddha is born or passes into extinction, the earth deities, mountain deities, and the heavenly beings and nāgas gain one worthy of offerings or lose one worthy of offerings, and shake out of sorrow and joy—this is a great-major cause. The present sūtra directly clarifies the Buddha's eight phases, lacking only ascending to heaven and subjugating Māra, which are omitted from the text. Among the eight phases, this is the Tathāgata's entering extinction, when the earth shakes greatly; this specifically speaks of the cause. If discussed generally, as explained previously, Cunda and the great assembly are all conditions for the quaking. Formerly it was said that the words delineating the quaking of the earth were a preface by the sūtra compiler, or some said they were spoken by the Buddha. Master Guān said: 'Not so. The words heard at that time—how could they be the sūtra compiler? The text has no label or announcement—how do we know it was the Buddha? It must be that the earth quaked and these words were produced.'

5.11

Next, from "At that time, the devas and nāgas" onward is the main entreaty. This further comprises three parts: first, the prose and eleven and a half verses constitute the entreaty of lamentation; next, two verses are the entreaty of prayer; third, the prose passage with five parables is the entreaty of reproach. First, the narrative prose text takes bristling hair and sorrowful weeping as its mark. Next, the eleven and a half verses comprise three parts: first, two verses and one line are a brief entreaty; next, seven verses and one line are an expanded entreaty; third, two verses conclude the entreaty. First, mentioning the tamer, the sage among humans, and the mother of the calf is a brief presentation of three matters to serve as the opening of the sorrowful entreaty, which is clear. Next, from "Just like an ailing patient" onward, it makes the parable of losing a master (and so forth). From "Like a kingdom without a ruler" onward, it makes the parable of losing a sovereign (and so forth). From "The elder's son" onward, it makes the parable of losing a parent (and so forth). The two verses from "The Tathāgata enters nirvāṇa" onward conclude the preceding sorrowful entreaty. At first, it explained the calf losing its mother; now concluding, it again explains that we and all sentient beings have no salvation or protection. The word "protect" concludes [the loss of] the sovereign, and the word "save" concludes [the loss of] the master. Next, the two verses of "Like the sun first rising" raise the two parables of the sun and the mountain as the entreaty of prayer, praising a single Buddha as possessing three benefits. The sun has three meanings: first, being high, round, and bright is a parable for the sovereign's benefit; producing and nurturing the ten thousand things is a parable for the parent's benefit; illuminating and clearing darkness is a parable for the master's benefit. Yet while the text of the parable discusses illuminating, the text matching it explains dispelling darkness; precisely speaking, the meaning of the master is primary, while concurrently possessing the other two capacities. The mountain also has three meanings: rising high above the water is a parable for the sovereign's benefit; sinking deep beneath the water is a parable for the parent's benefit; the color of the water being the same as the mountain is a parable for the master's benefit. The virtue of the master, like a mountain calmly resting in the ocean of the assembly, can proclaim wondrous wisdom to illuminate the confusion below; the phrasing is concise, but the meaning embraces [all three]. Older explanations debated back and forth on whether the sun illuminates itself, disagreeing with one another. Kāishàn and Zhuāngyán said: "The Buddha has wisdom that can illuminate itself." Guāngzhái said: "In the fruit of Buddhahood, there is no wisdom that reflects back upon itself." Master Guān challenged Guāngzhái: "If the Buddha has no wisdom that reflects back upon itself, he should also not know himself whether he has become a Buddha or not." The latter defended: "Although the Buddha lacks [such] wisdom, he knows whether he has become [a Buddha] or not. If he wishes to know, he borrows the wisdom of all Buddhas, because the path of the Buddhas is identical." Now I ask further: "Since the path of the Buddhas is identical, and all Buddhas lack [such] wisdom, what could be borrowed? Furthermore, if one can only know others and lacks the wisdom to know oneself, one should only awaken others and cannot be called self-awakened." These are the four errors of Guāngzhái: compartmentalising the ultimate truth, the cow-dung pure land, the seed-awakening on the fingertip, and the indeterminate Tathāgata. Next, I ask Kāishàn and Zhuāngyán: "If you use self-reflecting wisdom to illuminate the sarvākārajñatā, then what wisdom do you use to illuminate that self-reflecting wisdom? That would go on ad infinitum." Master Guān said himself: "The Buddha does not have a separate self-reflecting wisdom; he merely has his own wisdom, and this wisdom can reflect back on itself." Speaking in this way refutes both schools (and so forth). Now I clarify that the Buddha has one wisdom and three wisdoms; the three wisdoms are one wisdom, neither three nor one, yet three and one. First is the wisdom of the aspects of the path, which externally shatters all darkness; second is the all-knowledge, which can reflect back to illuminate oneself; third is the sarvākārajñatā, which is neither internal nor external, neither self nor other. If taken as the one being three, one can refute Guāngzhái; if taken as the three being one, one can refute Kāishàn; the unfathomability of three and one can refute Master Guān (and so forth). These two verses are also named the entreaty of prayer, [saying] that what the Tathāgata benefited while dwelling in the world was like this, praying that the Buddha leave his light to illuminate and benefit us; hence it is called the entreaty of prayer. From the prose onward is the third, the entreaty of reproach. First, I recount the older explanations, where the entreaty of reproach generally makes five parables: first, the parable of having a beginning but no end; second, the parable of fear; third, the parable of abandoning the original burden; fourth, the parable of inequality; fifth, the parable of lacking compassion. The first parable has three parts: expansion, matching, and conclusion. The king is the Buddha, and the sons are the fourfold assembly. Others say: "The arts and crafts refer to all the sūtras spoken from the Deer Park up to the Lotus Sūtra, which present a huge impediment." Now, it is not so: if matched with the dharma of the two vehicles, it can be understood. Well-proportioned means right view. Dearly loved means dhyāna concentration. Arts and crafts mean supernatural powers. Caṇḍāla means ignorance, as well as lingering habit energies. Initially teaching the three trainings seems to have a beginning, but because it does not exhaust the remaining afflictions, it is said to have no end. Second, the parable of fear also has three parts. Formerly it was said: "All the treatises is a parable for thoroughly comprehending all sūtras." Now I say this is not so: it is a parable for destroying the four māras, yet now not abiding and instead fearing the māra of death. Third, the parable of breaching the vow briefly lacks a concluding entreaty; the certain person is the Buddha. The business is the fundamental vow, vowing to ferry across sentient beings completely. The official duties are a parable for manifesting responsive incarnations; the prison is a parable for entering birth-and-death. As for the person asking, formerly it was said to be the Buddhas of the ten directions, or that the real wisdom questions the provisional, or that this question is a hypothetical construction. Now, taking sentient capacity as the bystander: when their capacity has waned, the Buddha announces the end, and this ending is like leaving prison, hence called peace and bliss. In the Xià it was called Xiàtái, in the Yīn it was called Yǒulǐ, and in the Zhōu it was called língyǔ. The *Báihǔ tōng* says: "*Líng* means to command; *yǔ* means to raise up. It commands them to contemplate their faults and raise their guilt (and so forth)." Fourth, the parable of inequality also has three parts. The medicinal formulas are the twelve divisions of scriptures. The secret formula is the esoteric teaching, teaching Mañjuśrī and the bodhisattvas, and not teaching outsiders and the two vehicles. Fifth, the parable of lacking compassion also has three parts, which can be examined. Older explanations of the entreaty of reproach only reproached [him as] a master, losing the two meanings of sovereign and parent. Now I harmonize them again: the first parable reproaches [him as] a dharma parent; the middle two parables reproach [him as] a dharma sovereign; the latter two parables reproach [him as] a dharma master. The first parable reproaches him as a dharma parent because 'parent' takes loving care as the basis; initially giving birth and teaching seemed like parental love, but handing them over to a caṇḍāla completely betrays flesh and blood. A dharma parent is also like this: being born from the Buddha's mouth is nurturing; obtaining a share of the Buddha-dharma is being well-proportioned. Arts and crafts mean the habit energies of non-learning in the reflections of learners. From the perspective of the Mahāyāna, wherever there is ignorance, it is wholly poisonous and harmful. Abandoning us and departing is handing us over to a caṇḍāla (and so forth). The next two parables reproach him as a dharma sovereign because a sovereign subdues enemies with majesty and nourishes the people with benevolence. The former parable is that majestic might was not fully exerted, and the latter parable is that benevolent kindness was not bountiful. Thoroughly comprehending all treatises is like being terrified when confronting an enemy; now fearing this treatise is like being deceived by the enemy. The Dharma King is also like this: he dispels the fear of sentient beings, but sentient beings are not yet exempt, so the Buddha has fear. Initially learning business is a parable for the people having livelihood. Being arrested and locked in prison is a parable for the people having no means of livelihood. Ceasing livelihood is a parable for having no kindness; imprisonment is a parable for having no benevolence. The Dharma King is also like this: he initially made learners and non-learners cultivate the business of the limbs of the path, yet they are still in the prison of ignorance and habit energies of thought. 'The guilt of the common people rests upon me alone'—when sentient beings suffer distress, how can the Tathāgata wish to enjoy peace and bliss? The next two parables reproach him as a dharma master because a master has the virtue of training and guiding; the former parable reproaches the master for inwardly withholding the good formula, and the latter parable reproaches the master for outwardly keeping secret the level path. Examining all the texts of the parables, they all have deep meaning, but this parable is the clearest. Aspiring to rival Mañjuśrī while being ashamed to tread the dangerous road—is this not the intent of reproaching the master?

5.12

Second is the response to the entreaties. First is the response to the sorrowful entreaty, which has prose and verses. The prose first halts external sorrow and encourages cultivating internal contemplation. For ordinary beings, the eight worldly winds bring gain and loss, worry and joy; the Path and the secular are contrary, their ascent and descent being vastly different. Why? A loss cannot be pursued with grief and sorrow; joy cannot be attained with grief and affliction. As the text below says: "If you are constantly grieved and distressed, grief will only increase, in vain toil and without benefit." If you can diligently prevent the two evils and diligently generate the two goods—evil is the root of worry and joy, so due to good there is no worry or joy. You should only be pure; therefore, make diligent effort to halt distress, and because distress is halted, there will be no grasping at conditions; calm and unconditioned is called right mindfulness. What is right mindfulness? It is non-thought. If there is non-thought, who is parent, sovereign, or master? Who is minister, son, or disciple? Who departs and who abides? Who is ferried across and who is not? Who is the one who grieves? What is grieved for? Still, without a sign. From this, humans and devas regain the correct path and cease crying. Furthermore, it is illustrated with a parable: the Buddha is the condition for generating goodness; attaining good is like a cherished son, losing good is like losing a son; now hearing the immediate wisdom, they do not worry about losing goodness, hence it says "the burial has already concluded" (and so forth). Next, the verses comprise two parts: the first verse is halting sorrow, and the next verse is encouraging contemplation. Yet they reciprocally contain two meanings and cannot be taken exclusively one way. First, "opening the mind" means that opening the mind of diligence already leaves no worry, how much more so opening concentration and wisdom! Again, "opening" means opening the mind to dharmatā: both extremes of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are tranquil, so the verse says, "Therefore, you should be silent." Again, "opening" means understanding that both functions are skillful means, hence it says, "Such is the nature of all Buddhas" (and so forth). As for the next verse, "delighting in heedfulness" encourages right mindfulness and wisdom; "guarding the mind" encourages concentration; "distancing" encourages effort; "comforting oneself" concludes the preceding instruction not to grieve; "experiencing bliss" means guarding this mindfulness and wisdom. You should maintain right mindfulness and cultivate your mind, not being like ordinary beings; what is the use of crying out in sorrow? However, these monks are all of the higher fruits, so how could they be identical to low, ordinary beings? This is specifically addressing the noble to rebuke the worldly; this directly responds to their sorrowful entreaty. From "Furthermore, bhikṣus" onward, he responds to their entreaty of prayer and praise. You praise the Buddha as being like the sun and like a mountain. As for the benefits of resting, illuminating, and so forth: the dharmakāya is eternally present, neither rising nor setting, but manifesting as concealed or exposed in accordance with the capacities for the two functions. Although the sun illuminates the world, only those with eyes behold it; although the mountain stands in the ocean, only those who drift into it see it. You are like those without eyes and who do not flow into it, so what further benefit could there be? If you say there is benefit, I now encourage you to ask. Even if you cannot ask, I will now open the inquiry for you; if you are able to ask, I will explain the nectar for you, and only then enter nirvāṇa. Since you cannot ask, what is the benefit of asking me to abide? This belittles their shortcomings, puts an end to their entreaty of prayer, and concurrently reveals the virtues of the bodhisattvas, directly responding to their entreaty of praise and prayer. In the older explanations of the fifteen pairs, they took them purely within the initial teaching in the sense of medicine and illness, saying that emptiness is the medicine and non-emptiness is the illness, and so on up to duality and non-duality being the same. Some took them purely in terms of the present teaching, saying that emptiness is birth-and-death and non-emptiness is nirvāṇa, and so on up to duality and non-duality being the same. If you are able to ask, then the door of nectar is opened and it will be of benefit to you; since you cannot ask, what is the benefit of asking me to abide? Xīnghuáng says: The text below fully contains this meaning, and the text below precisely relies on the meaning of the beginning and the end. Emptiness is the former teaching, non-emptiness is the present teaching, and so on up to duality and non-duality being the same. Now I clarify that this meaning is broad and wide, concurrently opening all inquiries; hence the text says, "Among such various dharmas, I shall follow along and sever them for you." The various commentaries are without fault; now I further categorize them into three kinds: empty, non-empty, and neither empty nor non-empty, and so on up to duality, non-duality, and neither duality nor non-duality being the same. Furthermore, categorize them into four kinds: empty, non-empty, both empty and non-empty, and neither empty nor non-empty, and so on up to duality and non-duality being the same. Both the former teaching and the present teaching can equally be broadly distinguished according to these three and four kinds (and so forth); these are precisely the three gates and four gates of the former teaching and present teaching.

5.13

From "O bhikṣus, encountering an era with a Buddha is difficult" onwards, [the text] responds to the request with criticism. Xinghuang says that this comprises eight stages. This is that master's prominent exposition: first, praising the five difficulties; second, praising the departure from the eight difficulties; third, adducing the Buddha's past causes in order to establish his present fruition; fourth, stripping away their fruition as faulty; fifth, stripping away their causes as faulty; sixth, revealing the true dharmatā to encourage their present cultivation and practice; seventh, exhorting them to abandon the past and rely on the present; eighth, directly pointing out the new letter [i]. First praising and then pointing out, first stripping away and later conferring, the sequence is successfully established; with these eight stages he responds to the five criticisms. First, the five difficulties are difficult for other people, but easy for you. The eight difficulties are difficult to leave behind, yet you have been able to leave them behind; therefore, he praises them. Since he praises their leaving [the difficulties behind] and praises their attainment of the fruit of an arhat, this belongs to the beginning; and now causing you to enter the secret treasury belongs to the end. How can you say that there is a beginning but no end? Furthermore, when he says 'passed in vain,' this is correct in terms of the Small [Vehicle] but faulty in terms of the Great; therefore, it is said to be 'passed in vain.' Adducing past causes to establish the present fruition directly responds to their criticism, clarifying that the Tathāgata for long kalpas relinquished his head, eyes, marrow, and brain to seek the great nirvāṇa solely for the sake of benefiting [beings]—how could he harbor fear? As for why he faults their fruition: your fruition is illusory and false; it is not the jewel of the true Dharma, lacks morality, concentration, and wisdom, and cannot adorn the jewel city of the true Dharma. Others take the jewel city as proof that nirvāṇa is complete and round because it completely contains everything, and therefore cannot be overturned. Xinghuang says: 'Nirvāṇa is neither general nor particular, yet is termed as containing both general and particular'; this is taken to respond to his not transgressing his original vow. As for why he faults their causes: only when one gives rise to the bodhisattva mind is it called renouncing home; since you did not give rise to this mind, you have not renounced home, and your kaṣāya is merely dyed clothing and nothing more. Because you are not dyed with the true Dharma, it is not the robe of the Mahāyāna. Although you have shaved your head, you have not eliminated the fetters for the sake of the true Dharma; therefore, he reveals and exhorts to the true dharmatā. The past Hīnayāna was illusory and false; today's Mahāyāna is genuine and real. In the past, the unconditioned was taken as the dharmatā; now, wonderful existence is taken as the dharmatā. The dharmatā has never been existent or non-existent; for the sake of external conditions, existence and non-existence are spoken of. Knowing that in the past the unconditioned was taken as the dharmatā is like Kāśyapa saying: 'The body is dharmatā; how could the body remain? If the body remains, it is not dharmatā.' One should know that in the past, when the unconditioned was taken as the dharmatā, the Buddha then refuted it: cessation is not the dharmatā. For dharmatā is not an annihilated dharma; this is taken to respond to their criticism of inequality. You grasp at extinction and cessation; it is not that I am unequal. As for abandoning the past and relying on the present, this directly resolves their doubts. The doubt says: 'If you cause us to abandon the past and rely on the present, why did you not speak of it in the past?' The Buddha then explains: 'Just like the great earth, my Dharma is also like this. In treating the diseases of sentient beings, I first preached impermanence to treat your disease, and now preach permanence also to treat your disease; both the beginning and the end are for the purpose of treating disease.' As for why the new [letter] i is spoken of: having exhorted them to abandon the past and rely on the present, the secret of the new [letter] i is therefore required to settle you all and cause you to dwell within it; it is not abandoning you without showing the level path, nor is it a lack of compassion. Together, the preceding and succeeding [sections] answer the five requests with criticism. Now I clarify that this is not so: obtaining the five difficulties and leaving the eight difficulties share one and the same meaning. Why divide them into two? Simply responding to the five requests with criticism right within the reprimand fully provides the textual meaning; what need is there to trouble with eight stages together to answer them? Therefore, [that theory] is not adopted.

First 13 of 16 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese