大般涅槃經疏 6.10

6.10

Fourth, from “At that time the World-Honoured One praised the bhikṣus…” onwards is shattering attachment and eliminating doubt. The text has two parts: first praising, next shattering. As for the first text, there were three points above; why praise only non-self? Because non-self is the root of attachment, doubt, and the like. Why praise it? Because this is the natural way of worldly questions and answers. Furthermore, initially using non-self to shatter heterodoxy, they were able to accept and practice it; also, wishing to take away, he first grants it. Furthermore, attaching to the inferior stimulates the superior, which is the meaning of the four siddhāntas. Next, the Buddha's shattering has three parts: first, shattering their one-sided principle, as the lower text states, “These three kinds of cultivation have no real meaning”; second, shattering their one-sided practice, as the lower text states, “What you cultivated previously was entirely inverted”; third, shattering their one-sided teaching, as the lower text states, “The milk severed previously—these were not true words.” Each of these three points has two aspects, namely reciting their attachment and replying to shatter it. First, in shattering the one-sided principle, there is first reciting and next replying. The initial reciting has three parts: first, receiving the praise and reciting the attachment; second, making an analogy; third, concluding with praise from “World-Honoured One” downwards. Drunkenness has two faults: first, inversion and confusion; second, going against the good. In concluding with praise, the text has two parts: first, assigning the fault of drunkenness to those who do not cultivate; second, praising freedom from fault in those who cultivate well. Next, the Buddha's shattering is precisely using the reply as the shattering. In this there are two parts: first, shattering [their claim of] non-confusion as being confusion, returning drunkenness to them; next, shattering [their claim of] good cultivation as not being good cultivation, returning unwholesome cultivation to them. First, shattering confusion has four parts: first, admonishing to listen and taking up the points; second, clarifying their confusion; third, presenting non-confusion; fourth, concluding the fault and assigning it to them. In the admonition to listen, “taking up the points” means reiterating their view. “Only knowing the letters without knowing their meaning”: letters are speech, while meaning is the intended principle; a drunkard also hears words but does not understand the intent of the words. There are also those who have words without actual substance; you are also like this: hearing others speak of transmigration, [you think] others do not transmigrate; saying of yourselves that you cultivate well, in reality it is not good cultivation. Next, in [clarifying] confusion, bringing up the sun and moon directly shatters the analogy of confusion. Sentient beings: others say this directly refers to the bhikṣus while generally pointing to sentient beings. We now say this is not so. Since drunkenness is returned to them, one should know that the bhikṣus are precisely sentient beings. “Considering self to be non-self” shatters their confusion, and also shatters their attachment to impermanence and non-self as right. You take impermanence and non-self as right, but this correctness is also not real; where there is no non-self, you arbitrarily consider it non-self, like that drunkard who produces the idea of turning where there is no turning (and so forth). Third, from “Self…” onwards, presenting non-confusion is precisely permanence, bliss, self, and purity: what you reject is not wrong, but rather you reject what is right. “Buddha” has the meaning of awakening; being self-mastered, it is called “self.” “Permanence” is the dharmakāya; because it is not born from conditions, it is permanent. “Bliss” is precisely nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa having no feeling is called great bliss. “Purity” is precisely the Dharma; the Dharma is precisely unstained. What you rejected is now precisely right; that you do not know this meaning is truly due to drunkenness (and so forth). Fourth, from “You bhikṣus…” downwards, concluding and assigning is returning drunkenness back to them. The bhikṣus consider permanence to be inverted and impermanence to be non-inverted; the Buddha turns it around, saying impermanence is inverted and permanence is non-inverted. Just as the sun and moon do not turn, yet the drunkard sees them revolving—how could the sun and moon be drunk? It is solely the fault of the drunkard. Permanence, bliss, self, and purity are truly not impermanent; arbitrarily considering them impermanent is the fault of the inverted. Next, from “If you say…” onwards shatters [their claim of] good cultivation as not being good cultivation. The text has four parts: first, jointly indicating the two cultivations; next, jointly clarifying the eight inversions; third, jointly returning the faults back to them; fourth, exclusively raising superior cultivation. In the first part, “if you say” indicates that their good cultivation has no real meaning. Rejecting the good as not good, it is like the false words of a drunkard lacking truth. Next, indicating superior cultivation. In general, when contrasting them, the meaning can be broad or brief; they may differently make ten gates, eight inversions, six practices, and so forth, but now we only briefly contrast three. Next, from “the suffering considers bliss…” onwards jointly clarifies the eight inversions. If you practice the eight inversions, how can you establish yourselves and claim to cultivate well? The text says, “This person does not know how to correctly cultivate phenomena.” Third, from “You bhikṣus…” onwards jointly turns the eight inversions around and returns them back to them. The text has two parts: first, returning the four inversions of permanence and bliss back to them; afterwards, returning the four inversions of impermanence back to them. The first part also has two: first, directly returning the inversions; next, three rounds of analysis. The first is as in the text. The three rounds refer to worldly and world-transcending, existent and non-existent, inverted and non-inverted, and so forth. First, worldly and world-transcending: the supreme principle is like empty space, neither worldly nor world-transcending; being deluded about it constitutes inversion and is called worldly, while understanding it constitutes virtue and is called world-transcending; ignorance covering you, there is only inversion and no virtue. If they defend, saying: If it is inverted, how can it be called permanence, bliss, self, and purity? Next, from “worldly phenomena” downwards, existent and non-existent, hence analysing the words and meaning with respect to the world. From “the meaning is like…” downwards states that there are only the names, therefore they are not virtues and lack their meaning. Third, from “why is that” downwards, inverted and non-inverted, thus there are only four inversions and three inversions, revealing their lack of meaning. Old interpretations say: Three minds are without inversion, and the conscious mind is inverted. Others say: The conscious mind is without inversion, and the remaining three have three inversions—conception has the inversion of thought, feeling has the inversion of mind, and conditioning factors have the inversion of views. There are also general and distinct interpretations of the three inversions: generally, they exist within the four minds. In the distinct matching: the conscious mind is the inversion of mind, conception and feeling are the inversion of thought, and the mind of conditioning factors is the inversion of views. Furthermore, whenever there is a mind conditioned on an object, that is the inversion of mind; all that is imagining is the inversion of thought; all that can discriminate is the inversion of views. Furthermore, initial delusion in the mind is the inversion of mind; the mind conditioning an object to form a conception is the inversion of thought; when the conception forms a fixed attachment, that is the inversion of views. Furthermore, the inversion of views is in ordinary beings, the inversions of mind and thought are in those in training, and those beyond training have no inversions. We now ask: why are the inversions turned around and returned to the bhikṣus? These bhikṣus falsely believe their minds are exhausted, but their minds are not truly exhausted; because the uncontaminated mind is universally viewed as empty of conception, this constitutes three inversions. Each inversion possesses four, making twelve inversions, so the fault is concluded and returned to them. Question: If the worldly also has permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and the world-transcending is also like this, should one also say that the worldly also has impermanence and non-self, and the world-transcending is also like that? Answer: By analogy, the impermanence and non-self of the two vehicles are worldly; the impermanence and non-self of the Buddhas are unexcelled expedient means, which are world-transcending. Question: Having names without meaning (and so forth). Worldly and world-transcending, inverted and virtuous or non-inverted and non-virtuous, superior cultivation and inferior cultivation, should all be distinguished through the four alternatives (catuṣkoṭi). Furthermore, the worldly has only inversion and no virtue, and the world-transcending has only virtue and no inversion; the fact that inversion is non-inversion is the virtue of worldly inversion, and giving rise to expedient functions is the virtue of the world-transcending. By analogy with all the rest, all meanings are likewise. Old interpretations say: Impermanence and non-self are inferior cultivation, while permanence, bliss, self, and purity are superior cultivation. Others say: Cultivating singly is inferior, while cultivating doubly is superior. Others say: Cultivation that is neither one-sided nor circular is superior cultivation. We now ask: to whom do these various cultivations belong in differentiation (and so forth)? Those who singly practice superior cultivation are gradual persons; those who doubly practice superior cultivation are indeterminate persons; those who are neither one-sided nor circular are sudden persons (and so forth). Fourth, from “what is the meaning” onwards exclusively clarifies superior cultivation. The text has two parts: first, clarifying the superior in contrast to the inferior; second, exhorting to superior cultivation. If we discuss the inferior generally, it possesses all faults. It is only that he specifically shatters the extreme ones: saṃsāra has bondage and attachment, hence non-self; śrāvakas advance further, hence impermanent; non-Buddhists use suffering to abandon suffering, hence suffering; conditioned things have much defilement, hence impure (and so forth). Specifically raising the superior to shatter the inferior is as in the sūtra. Our comprehensive meaning now is: the initial text saying “Self is precisely the Tathāgata” simply indicates the Three Jewels subsuming all phenomena; “permanence is precisely the dharmakāya,” this indicates the three dots subsuming all phenomena; “bliss is precisely nirvāṇa,” this indicates the four virtues subsuming all phenomena; “purity is precisely the unconditioned,” this indicates the dharmadhātu subsuming all phenomena. However, these various meanings are neither vertical nor horizontal, neither one nor different, and inconceivable; therefore they attain this meaning and attain this superiority. Next, from “if you wish…” downwards exhorts to cultivate, as in the text.