大般涅槃經疏 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

8.1

Composed by Master Guàndǐng of Zhāng'ān under the Sui

8.2

Revised by the Śramaṇa Zhànrán of Tiāntái under the Tang

From 'Kāśyapa again addressed [the Buddha]' downwards is the fourth round of question and answer, first the question, then the answer. The initial question also has three parts: first, rejecting the Buddha's purport; second, illustrating the objection with a simile; third, applying the simile to conclude the error. First, rejecting the Buddha's purport: seizing upon the above cultivation of an equal mind gaining merit across the three times, he considers this purport to be wrong. Next, from 'Why is this?' downwards, he adduces a simile, which has three parts: first, like someone who knows the Dharma having only words; second, returning home with no practice whatsoever; third, concluding that this person who knows the Dharma contradicts words with actions (and so forth). Third, applying the simile to conclude the error also has three parts: 'practicing an equal mind' corresponds above to knowing the Dharma; 'Now the World-Honoured One' downwards corresponds above to having no practice; 'Can it be that the Tathāgata' downwards corresponds above to contradiction. If you say that a friendly mind should obtain long life, but now [your] life is short, there must be a resentful mind—this concludes the contradiction in mental action. If not killing leads to a long life, but now [your] life is short, how many lives have you killed?—this concludes the contradiction in physical action. The contradiction in verbal action has already been stated above. Xīnghuáng cited another interpretation: 'Kāśyapa constantly clings to the trace to raise objections, while the Buddha constantly uses the fundamental to answer; thus question and answer would never be relevant to each other. Without asking about the fundamental and trace, how could one answer, and why say that clinging to this produces doubts and objections?' It is only with regard to the single sixteen-foot body: those who doubt do not comprehend that it is constantly said to be impermanent, while those who comprehend realize that this very [body] is permanent; if permanence were different from this, it would not be permanent. This interpretation does not yet clarify that the meanings of permanence are very numerous: with which permanence does the Buddha answer the question? Impermanence is also manifold: to which impermanence does Kāśyapa cling (and so forth)?

8.5

Next, the Buddha's answer has two parts: first, rebuking his coarse words; second, explaining that permanent longevity is foremost. Now, in explaining the coarse words: you investigate the cause by means of the effect, and go so far as to say that the Tathāgata has a resentful mind and commits killing. Why do you not investigate the effect by means of the cause, explaining that the Tathāgata's life is long? Positing an evil cause where there is surely none is precisely 'coarse words.' Next, regarding 'among all permanences it is foremost': with respect to what kinds of permanence is it said to be foremost? There is the continuous unbroken succession of the worldly realm called permanence; there are also the three unconditioned permanences: that obtained by cutting off afflictions is called permanence by analytical cessation; that due to the deficiency of conditions for affairs is called permanence by non-analytical cessation; that lacking these two is called the permanence of space. These four kinds all fall short of the Tathāgata's permanence; the Tathāgata's permanence is wondrous existence, hence called foremost. This is the meaning according to the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. Furthermore, the permanence of the ultimate truth stands opposed to the unreality of birth and death; it is said that since this true permanence lacks birth and death, it also lacks this reality and lacks illuminating response. The Tathāgata's permanence is originally self-existent, independent of any opposition, and its permanence truly illuminates, hence called foremost. This is in terms of the Shared [teaching]. Furthermore, speaking of permanence as surpassing both permanence and impermanence: it is neither permanence nor impermanence, but simply permanence. This is in terms of the Distinct [teaching]. Furthermore, the Tathāgata's permanence is identical to the extreme yet central, fully endowed with the three dots neither horizontal nor vertical; therefore this permanence is foremost of all. This is in terms of the Perfect teaching.

8.6

From 'addressed the Buddha' downwards is the second part, where the Buddha answers regarding the fruit of long life. The text has two parts: first, explaining that the Buddha-jewel is permanent; second, explaining that the Three Jewels are permanent. Regarding the first, there are two parts: first, a brief question and answer; next, a doctrinal discussion. The initial question is as in the text (and so forth). Next, the Buddha answers, citing four similes: first, all life-spans entering permanent life-span, permanent life-span being foremost; second, permanent life-span giving rise to all life-spans, permanent life-span being foremost; third, permanent life-span being neither permanent nor impermanent, permanent life-span being foremost; fourth, permanent life-span being able both to emerge and enter, permanent life-span being foremost. It is also the rivers of the life-span of birth and death entering the river of nirvāṇa, the river of nirvāṇa producing the rivers of birth and death, neither birth and death nor nirvāṇa, yet both birth and death and nirvāṇa (and so forth). Regarding the first text, an older commentary explains: the eight rivers represent the four modes of birth, each having cause and effect. Alternatively, the four modes of birth make four, and humans, gods, earth, and space make eight. We now say that within humans, gods, earth, and space, each has birth skandha, intermediate skandha, longevity, and life-span; these are the eight rivers. If we discuss their entering and emerging: all longevity and life-span possessed by all birth skandhas and intermediate skandhas, whether long or short, will all become the life-span of the Buddha's fruit stage, just as the eight rivers must flow into the sea. All life-spans enter the permanent life-span: this is the meaning of entering. Next, speaking of emerging: taking the permanent life-span of the great nirvāṇa river as the root, it can give rise to the long and short life-spans of humans, gods, earth, and space, just as Lake Anavatapta flows out into four rivers. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says, 'Through prajñā, kṣatriyas, brāhmaṇas, and so forth are produced'; the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, 'From the unstaying root, all dharmas are established': this is the meaning of emerging. Third, neither emerging nor entering: if emerging and entering were fixed, how could they emerge and enter? Therefore it is neither emerging nor entering, praised by citing space. Fourth, being able both to emerge and enter is praised by citing clarified butter (and so forth).

8.7

Next, regarding the doctrinal discussion, the text has three parts: first, seizing upon the core tenet to make a request; second, inquiring into worldly nature; third, inquiring into the nature of dharmas. In the first part, seizing upon the core tenet, the question is as in the text. Next, the answer has four parts: first, rejection; second, comparison; third, conclusion; fourth, exhortation; which can be understood.

8.8

Regarding the question on the worldly nature, it has two parts: first, stating the two general headings of the worldly and the supramundane; next, presenting the objections. The objections also have two parts: first, objecting that the two teachings would not differ; next, objecting that the two principles would not differ. Next, in the Buddha's replies, he answers each by establishing their difference. First, replying regarding the teaching: past Buddhas taught the teaching of permanence, and non-Buddhists stole this teaching of permanence. Stealing and not stealing are different, so how could they not differ? Next, regarding the difference in principle: the Buddha's principle is subtle and wondrous, and therefore does not appear [to mundane sight]; the non-Buddhists' principle is false, and therefore does not appear. How could the subtle and wondrous and the false not differ? The reply to this has four parts: 1. the past Buddhas being stolen from; 2. the subsequent Buddha claiming and returning it; 3. concluding what is correct; 4. exhorting cultivation. First, the section on the past Buddhas has an opening [of the metaphor] and a joining [to the doctrine]. First, in opening the metaphor, the 'elder' refers to the past Buddhas. The 'herd of cows' refers to the spoken teachings. The 'various colors' refer to the difference in adapting to faculties. 'Belonging to a single herd' refers to the equality of the principle expressed. 'Entrusting to cowherds' refers to those who propagate the sūtra. 'Causing them to seek water and pasture' refers to conferring benefit through conversion in accordance with capacities. 'Solely for the sake of ghee' refers to aiming for permanence. 'Not seeking milk or curd' refers to not aiming for the impermanence of humans, gods, or the two vehicles. 'Milking for their own consumption' refers to the propagators benefiting themselves. 'The elder passing away' refers to the past Buddhas departing the world. 'Thieves plundering the herd of cows' refers to the Buddhist teachings being stolen. 'Having no women' refers to having no compassionate mind. 'Milking for their own consumption' refers to gaining the benefit of attainment. 'Saying to one another, etc.' refers to longing for the profound principle. 'We have no vessels' refers to lacking the capacity. 'Even if we obtain milk, there is nowhere to store it': even if they can keep the precepts, they lack the foundation for permanence. 'There are only leather bags': karmic retribution as gods and humans; even if they can keep the precepts, it only constitutes the karma of mundane existences. 'Not knowing how to churn' refers to lacking the expedient means of concentration and wisdom. The 'thin whey' illustrates the good of gods and humans; the initial 'curd' illustrates the counterfeit path; the later 'ghee' illustrates the true path. 'Adding water to it' illustrates giving rise to views of self and personhood, and so forth. 'All is lost': giving rise to views and falling into evil, the good of gods and humans is lost. From 'Ordinary beings are also like this' onward, the joining also has two parts: first brief, then expanded. 'Good ordinary beings' steal the remaining Dharma of the Buddha; 'remaining' refers to the semblance and final eras, when theft can arise, whereas during the correct Dharma era it could not arise. 'After entering nirvāṇa' corresponds to the elder passing away. 'Although they obtain this' corresponds to not knowing how to churn. 'For the sake of liberation' corresponds to adding water. 'Having a little pure conduct' corresponds to milking for their own consumption, truly not knowing the cause. 'Those who with little pure conduct are born in the Brahmā heaven' corresponds to having no women. Although they practice and are born in heaven, they truly do not know that the cause lies in the Buddha-Dharma. From 'Therefore, after the Tathāgata appears in the world' onward is the second part, explaining that the present Buddha claims and returns it. This also has three parts: doctrine, metaphor, and joining. First, the doctrine is as in the text. Next, in the metaphor, the 'wheel-turning king' is the present Buddha. 'The gang of thieves retreats and scatters' refers to driving away the non-Buddhists. 'Throughout the six great cities, the cows do not lose their lives' refers to claiming permanence, bliss, and so forth. 'Returning them intact to the cowherds' refers to entrusting them to those who propagate the sūtra. 'Immediately obtaining ghee' refers to both oneself and others according with the permanence of dharmatā. Third, from 'The Dharma wheel-turning king' onward, joins it to the present Buddha appearing in the world. 'Ordinary beings are unable' corresponds to driving away the non-Buddhists. 'Causing all bodhisattvas, etc.' corresponds to the cowherds. Third, from 'The Tathāgata is permanent and unchanging' onward, concludes what is right and wrong, which is easily understood. Fourth, from 'Kāśyapa, you should know' downward, exhorts cultivation. This also has two parts: first, exhorting cultivation; next, discerning cultivation. The first also has two parts: first, exhorting Kāśyapa; next, exhorting generally, etc. Next, discerning cultivation means setting aside the past to reveal the present. If one cultivates the two words [of nirvāṇa] as a mark of extinction, that is the past teaching's dharmatā of ash and severance. If one cultivates the two words as permanent, that is the present teaching's dharmatā.

8.9

Third, in the question and answer on dharmatā, the questioning has four parts: first, positing the question and making the request; next, citing the past to challenge the present; third, using the present to challenge the past; fourth, concluding. The first is clear. As for the next passage: the past teaching relinquished both body and wisdom, whereas now the question takes dharmatā to be the relinquishment of the body. As for not speaking of relinquishing wisdom, the Abhidharma masters say: There are two kinds of wisdom; the extinction of defiled wisdom is nirvāṇa, while the extinction of undefiled wisdom is non-analytical cessation and is not taken as nirvāṇa. Since there is right and wrong, they do not speak of relinquishing wisdom. The Śāstra masters say: The extinction of both wisdoms is nirvāṇa, yet there are two meanings. If one says the path can bring about extinction, this aspect is not [nirvāṇa]; if one says the fruit is exhausted, this aspect is indeed [nirvāṇa]. Since nirvāṇa thus has right and wrong, they do not speak of relinquishing wisdom. Master Guan says: It should not be so; this is merely an abbreviation. 'If it has nothing' is the objection, hence dharmatā is used to challenge the body. Third, from 'If the body remains' downward, uses the present to challenge the past. 'If the body remains' uses the body to challenge dharmatā. Dharmatā is non-existence, while the body is existence; existence and non-existence impair each other and mutually challenge each other. Fourth, from 'The body has dharmatā' downward, concludes their lack of understanding. The Buddha's reply has two parts: first, refutation; next, metaphor. First, the refutation: I have never said that extinguishing the body and extinguishing wisdom is called dharmatā. That was a past teaching, but the present is not like that, which is why he refutes it. Next, the metaphor also has two parts: first, the metaphor itself; next, the joining. The metaphor also has two parts: first, the proper metaphor; next, using the metaphor to reprimand the error. First, regarding the 'heaven of non-conception', the Abhidharma masters say: In the first thought of non-conception, mind still arises; from the arising of the craving fetter, the bliss of non-conception is accomplished, and then mind is extinguished, so there is neither form nor mind. The Śāstra master on the stages of succession says: Mind cannot be extinguished; when it is called non-conception, at that time the mind is subtle, like a hibernating insect or a frozen fish, appearing to have no subtle mind. When it is said to have no perception of form, it no longer takes coarse form as an object. Next, from 'One should not' downward, is the metaphor's refutation. Here, how the five aggregates are fully discussed: dwelling is the form aggregate; experiencing bliss is the feeling aggregate; conception and volitional formations are two aggregates; seeing and hearing is the consciousness aggregate. One interpretation says: It is only four aggregates; later when it speaks of 'how can one practice a mind of conception?', it does not separately mention the aggregate of volitional formations. Next, from 'Good son' downward, joins the metaphor, again in two parts: first, joining the proper metaphor; next, joining the reprimand. First, it joins the heaven of non-conception accomplishing the form aggregate without having the perception of form. The Tathāgata's dharmatā accomplishes quiescence and extinction without having extinction, so one should not frame the question in terms of extinction or non-extinction. Next, from 'You now should not' downward, joins the reprimand, etc.

8.10

From 'Furthermore, good son' downward is the second major section, explaining generally that the single essence of the Three Jewels is the permanent refuge. The text has two parts: first, explaining that the Three Jewels are permanent; next, the theoretical discussion. The first also has three parts: 1. exhorting the contemplation of permanence; 2. explaining the gain and loss; 3. properly defining refuge. First, he exhorts one to form the notion of permanence, and then explains having no notion of impermanence. Next, from 'If toward these three dharmas' downward, explains gain and loss. Citing loss serves as a warning; citing gain serves as an encouragement. In the past four periods, it could never be said that by holding different notions of the three dharmas one failed to obtain the precepts. Why? Because one took refuge in distinct essences. Kaishan says: Earlier, one had already attained the path and obtained the precepts; if one had not obtained them, why would one not receive them again when the present teaching arose? Since one does not receive them again, one should know they were already obtained. If, seeing the present teaching of a single essence arise, one still clings to the past distinction and does not rely on the present roundness, that is lack of faith, hence it says 'there are no precepts.' 'If one can toward this' is a renewed exhortation. Third, from 'Just as depending on a tree' onward, properly defines refuge. This also has three parts: opening, metaphor, and joining. The metaphor cites what is incorrect to reveal what is correct. From 'Kāśyapa' downward is the theoretical discussion. There are two rounds: the first round of question and answer, and the next round of understanding and praise, all of which are clear, etc. Xinghuang says: The tree illustrates permanence, and the shadow illustrates the Tathāgata, serving as a refuge for sentient beings. Kāśyapa objected that in the dark there is a tree but no shadow, illustrating that after the Tathāgata's extinction he would not serve as a refuge for others. The Buddha replied that in the dark there is a shadow, but the fleshy eye cannot see it; the Tathāgata constantly serves as a refuge, but those of meager merit do not see him and claim he is not a refuge.

8.11

Chapter on the Vajra Body

8.12

Vajra is that which illustrates; body is that which is illustrated. Vajra has four meanings: 1. purple-burnished gold essence, the foundation of the world; 2. its substance is firm and solid, unable to be invaded or damaged; 3. its function is keen and sharp, with nothing able to stand before what it targets; 4. its color is unfixed, glittering and dazzling to behold. The gold essence illustrates the Dharma-body reaching the ultimate and gathering all phenomena. The substance being firm and solid illustrates being permanent, unchanging, detached from the hundred [negations] and severed from the four [propositions]. Keen and sharp illustrates being quiescent yet constantly illumining, greatly awakened and greatly luminous. Unfixed illustrates being unobstructed, sovereign, and pervading all places. Now, the Dharma-body is endowed with immeasurable virtues; here it properly explains being detached from the hundred, severed from the four, firm and solid, and permanent, answering the earlier question on the vajra. If titled from that which illustrates, it is called the Chapter on the Vajra; if titled from that which is illustrated, it should be called the Chapter on the Dharma Body. This combines both the doctrine and the metaphor in the title, hence it is called the 'Chapter on the Vajra Body'. Furthermore, although there were thirty-four questions above, they universally share a single intent, simply on account of longevity. The vajra body is precisely the solid strength that cannot be destroyed; the Dharma-body is the permanent body, not a body sustained by coarse food, perfectly pervasive without separation. If one understands longevity, one understands the vajra body, and so on up to being thoroughly versed in all questions; if one does not understand longevity, neither does one understand the vajra body or any of the other phrases. For those who do not understand, it is analyzed and explained further. If the general represents the title, it is not devoid of specific meaning; if the specific represents the title, it is not devoid of general meaning. If the general does not represent the title, then the general is not general; if the specific does not represent the title, then the specific is not specific. Being neither general nor specific, it is yet general and yet specific. Now, in accordance with the specific intent, it explains the vajra body in answer to the second question. Someone explains: Longevity is the dharma, and this dharma belongs to the person; vajra is the person, and this person possesses longevity; solid strength is the function. This distinguishes general and specific based on the differences of person, dharma, essence, and function. Now I clarify: if one wishes to differentiate equally, why not accord with the text? The preceding text says: 'I bestow upon you permanent life, form, strength, ease, and unobstructed eloquence.' This was briefly stated earlier, and now it is broadly explained: 'longevity' is permanent life; 'vajra body' is permanent form; 'solid' is permanent strength; 'names and virtues' are permanent ease; 'four characteristics' are permanent unobstructed eloquence. The later extensive answers to the questions also do not depart from these five fruits of permanence. Being five fruits, they are specific; being permanent, they are general. Whether specific or general, whether bound together or dispersed, they are neither aggregate nor specific, neither bound nor dispersed, sovereign and unobstructed. Directly explaining that the general and specific share a single intent comprehensively encompasses the principle and meaning; deduced, it becomes clear on its own, so it will not be elaborated. Furthermore, others explain long life and short life, destructible and indestructible, permanent and impermanent, etc., as two separate extremes that do not concern each other. Neither long nor short, neither destructible nor indestructible, neither permanent nor impermanent, are placed outside the two extremes. This is vertical, horizontal, and mutually distinct, which is just one approach and not the correct intent of the sūtra. Now it is not so: precisely being long, it is short, hence entering extinction in the withered grove; precisely being short, it is long, hence entering extinction in the flourishing grove. The pair in the east is spoken to shatter impermanence by teaching permanence, which is neither short nor long. Between the Twin Trees is the middle-way dharmatā that is neither flourishing nor withered. In paramārthasatya, when one is middle, all are middle; flourishing is the real, and when one is real, all are real; withered is the conventional, and when one is conventional, all are conventional. The three truths are the single truth; the single truth is the three truths. Difference is non-difference; non-difference is difference. Neither different nor non-different, yet different and yet non-different. The realm of all Buddhas is fully endowed with such incomprehensibility and indestructibility, hence it is called the 'Chapter on the Vajra Body'.

8.13

Approaching the text, there are two parts: first, explaining the result that is the dharmakāya; next, explaining the cause of the dharmakāya. The question above contained two [points], and now the answer forms two sections. The first, explaining the result that is the body, also has two parts: 1. explaining the dharmakāya; 2. discussing its meaning, briefly citing five bodies to explain the meaning of the dharmakāya. An older interpretation says: The dharmakāya and the permanent body receive their names from their actual essence; the indestructible body and the body not [sustained by] miscellaneous food receive their names from departing from faults; and the vajra body receives its name from a metaphor. It also says that the four bodies mutually establish one another: because it is a permanent body it is indestructible, and because it is indestructible it is a permanent body; because it is not [sustained by] miscellaneous food it constitutes the dharmakāya, and because it is the dharmakāya it is not [sustained by] miscellaneous food; hence the vajra serves as a metaphor for it. Now, it is explained that all four phrases pertain to the actual essence, all depart from faults, all are dharmas, all are metaphors, and they also mutually establish one another. Why is this? The vajra has four capacities that establish and reveal the dharmakāya; the dharmakāya has four virtues that establish the import of the metaphor. The vajra founding the world illustrates the essence of the dharmakāya; its firmness illustrates the permanent body; its sharpness illustrates the indestructible body; its indeterminate [colour] illustrates the body not [sustained by] miscellaneous food. It is precisely through this meaning that the chapter is titled—how could one give any other explanation? From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onwards is the second part, discussing the meaning. The text has three parts: the question, the answer, and the understanding. In the initial question there are two parts: first the question, then the explanation. The initial question raises what is seen to challenge what is not seen. Since [the Tathāgata] is to enter extinction, this is an impermanent body. Being afflicted by pain and illness, it is a destructible body. Being broken into relics, it is a body of dust and earth. Receiving Cunda's offering, it is a body of miscellaneous food. Since the four bodies are not seen, neither is the vajra body that serves as the metaphor seen. Next, from "Why is this?" onwards, is the explanation of the first, the impermanent body; the rest can be understood by analogy. Next, from "The Buddha told…" onwards is the answer, which also has three parts: first, negating what he questioned; next, directly answering; third, concluding with an exhortation. The first is as in the text. Next, in the direct answer, regarding possessing the hundred negations: if these hundred negations are counted as single [propositions], there are one hundred and sixty phrases; if as compound [propositions], there are one hundred phrases. Since it says "a hundred negations," by principle it should be compound. However, within the hundred negations, some are double negations that abandon both sides, while others preserve one and abolish the other. "Although not permanently abiding, it is not destroyed moment by moment" is the sense of double negation; "it is not a body, it is a body" is preserving one and abolishing the other. Yet ancient traditions failed to understand the hundred negations and merely explained the single phrase "is not a body, is a body." Seven schools are now presented here. One says: "Not a body" means it is not a body of food; "is a body" means it is the dharmakāya. Another says: "Not a body" means it is not a physical body; "is a body" means it is the dharmakāya. Another says: "Not a body" means it is not the body prior to the vajra[-like concentration]; "is a body" means it is the body subsequent to the vajra[-like concentration]. These three schools all take the conventional as the negation and the real as the affirmation. Another says: "Not a body" means the dharmakāya obscurely conforms to suchness; "is a body" means manifesting responsively in the ten directions. Another says: "Not a body" is the ultimate truth; "is a body" is the conventional truth. These two schools take the real as the negation and the conventional as the affirmation. Another says: "Not a body" means it is not the true body; "is a body" means it is an excellent body. This one school is vague and diffuse, not knowing which is the negation and which the affirmation. Although vague and diffuse, it ultimately contains affirmation and negation. [Master] Xīnghuáng says: The dharmakāya is neither affirmation nor negation; it cannot be affirmed by affirmation, nor negated by negation; it cuts off the hundred negations and negates the hundred affirmations; it is without affirmation or negation, yet capable of affirmation and negation; hence it is said to be "a body, not a body." Master [Fa]guan says: "Is a body, is not a body" are mutually established through causes and conditions; that the dharmakāya is not a body does not prevent it from being a body; all day long it is a body and yet not a body; all day long it is not a body and yet is a body. The text says: "It is empty, yet free from emptiness; although not permanently abiding, it is not destroyed moment by moment." These two schools share one single intention. Now, unable to thoroughly discern the purports of all these schools, I merely record them here. The Great Master Tiāntái explained three kinds of tetralemmas: first, simple; second, compound; third, complete. The simple tetralemma refers to: is; is not; both is and is not; neither is nor is not. The compound tetralemma is: is is; is not; both is and is not; neither is nor is not. Is is; is not is; both is and is not is; neither is nor is not is. The former phrase is according to negation, the next phrase is according to affirmation; it should also proceed from simple first to compound later. The complete [tetralemma] is: is is is is; is is not is is is; both is is and is not is; is is neither is is nor is not is—this is called the complete affirmative lemma. Neither is; nor is not; neither both is nor is not; neither neither is nor is not. Neither is is nor is not is; neither both is is nor is not is; neither neither is is nor is not is—this is called the complete negative lemma. The remaining two complete lemmas can be understood by analogy and need not be elaborated further. Simply relying on the characteristics of the three tetralemmas in the Great Master Tiāntái's Zhǐguān, it can be easily understood. Privately, I note: Since it says that simply relying on the text of the Zhǐguān makes it easily understood, comparing it now with that text, affirmation and negation each form three kinds of tetralemmas. First, according to affirmation: is; is not; both is and is not; neither is nor is not—this is simple. Is is; is not; not is is is not; both is and is not is; both is and is not not; neither is nor is not is; neither is nor is not not—this is compound. Is is; is not; is both is and is not; is neither is nor is not. Not is is; not is not; not both is and is not; not neither is nor is not. Both is and is not is; both is and is not not; both is and is not both is and is not; both is and is not neither is nor is not. Neither is nor is not is; neither is nor is not not; neither is nor is not both is and is not; neither is nor is not neither is nor is not. Next, according to negation, there are also three tetralemmas: not; not not; both not and not not; neither not nor not not—this is simple. Not not; not not not; not not not not not not; both not and not not not; both not and not not not not; neither not nor not not not; neither not nor not not not not—this is compound. Not not; not not not; not both not and not not; not neither not nor not not. Not not not; not not not not; not both not and not not; not neither not nor not not. Both not and not not not; both not and not not not not; both not and not not both not and not not; both not and not not neither not nor not not. Neither not nor not not not; neither not nor not not not not; neither not nor not not both not and not not; neither not nor not not neither not nor not not. I still preserve Zhāng'ān's earlier explanation, not daring to alter it arbitrarily. However, although affirmation and negation each form separate lemmas, not-negation is affirmation and not-affirmation is negation; to complete the three tetralemmas, they must be set against one another. Taking these three kinds of tetralemmas and looking at the earlier masters, what they negated constitutes negation. Which tetralemma was not yet negated, and which tetralemma was negated? All these various tetralemmas of theirs merely produce views of the tetralemma, and have not transcended the view of ineffability—how then could they conclude that it is the dharmakāya? Now, saying "not a body" means that it is not the body of miscellaneous food, the impermanent body of dust and earth obtained through such views; hence it says "not a body." Being identical to affirmation through negation, it is the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body. Yet the Buddha's body is neither affirmation nor negation, and is able to manifest as "not a body, is a body" for the sake of beings. Another explanation: "Except for the one characteristic of dharma" means non-duality. The Tathāgata's body is truly a double negation, and speaking of the dharmakāya is merely for the sake of conditions; hence it says "except for the one characteristic of dharma." The Larger Prajñāpāramitā says: "Except for the mind of sarvajñatā." From ancient times, not only did they fail to explain the hundred negations, but they also did not bring forth their meaning: why proclaim a hundred as negations, and to what do they correspond? Let me now attempt to speak of it: The Tathāgata's body is free from the hundred negations; since the Buddha's body differs in provisional and real, the hundred negations also have differences of shallow and deep. Regarding the hundred negations: the text below says, "Possessing the hundred merits, one characteristic is accomplished; in this way, progressively, the thirty-two marks are fully accomplished." Regarding the "hundred merits": upholding the precept against killing has five kinds of minds—inferior, middling, superior, superior-superior, and superior-middling-superior—and this is likewise true up to right view. These fifty minds are called the resolute accomplishment of the initial aspiration, and these fifty minds are called the hundred merit-virtues; such a hundred merits accomplish one mark. It is also said: "One good possesses ten, which makes the hundred merits." The Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā] says: "If the people of the great trichiliocosm were to lose their eyes and their lives, one who could save and preserve their eyes and lives would achieve one merit. Doing so a hundred times is called the hundred merit-virtues." Opposing the hundred merits, one discusses the hundred evils. The hundred evils are the negations; from the hundred evils, one receives the karmic retribution of the body of miscellaneous food, impermanence, and dust and earth in the four [unfortunate] destinies—this is called "not a body." From the hundred merits, one receives the Tathāgata's body of marks and signs, the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body. The fivefold pure [dharmadhātu] is called the dharmakāya; attaining the three unconditioned states is called the permanent body; not being destructible by eighty kotis of māras is called the vajra body; hence it is called "is a body." This is the Tripiṭaka Buddha's body being free from the hundred negations. Furthermore, the pure body of the thirty-two marks brought about by the hundred merits is entirely within the realm of existence. The karmic retributions of existence are rebuked by the noble and wise. The Treatise says: "A poisoned vessel is unfit for storing food; if eaten, it kills a person." Practising practices with an intentional mind is unfit for attaining the Way. Thus we know that Kāśyapa was precisely challenging this: "I now see only a body of miscellaneous food, impermanence, and dust and earth." One should know that the hundred merits are the negations, and because the nature of merit is empty, it is the affirmation. Therefore it is said: "All that has marks is illusory; if one sees all marks as non-marks, one sees the Tathāgata." Here, empty dharma is taken as the dharmakāya, emptiness free from arising is the permanent body, and emptiness in which emptiness cannot be attained is the vajra body. This is the Shared Teaching Buddha's body being free from the hundred negations. Furthermore, in emptiness there are no dharmas, neither affirmation nor negation, nor any body; how could emptiness be taken as the affirmation? If it is not an affirmation, then it is a negation. When the two vehicles attain emptiness, why is it not an affirmation? The Buddha's body is like space, inexhaustible, signless and unobstructed, capable of universally manifesting—only then can it be called an affirmation. That the two vehicles cannot manifest it is because it is merely biased emptiness. Realizing the fruit out of season is called the body of miscellaneous food; that this emptiness can be broken is the impermanent body; that this emptiness must be discarded is the body of dust and earth; hence emptiness is "not a body." When the buddhas attain emptiness, their ability to manifest bodies is the emptiness of the middle way; the middle way is precisely the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body. This is called the Distinct Teaching Buddha's body being free from the hundred negations. Furthermore, negating the hundred evils to enter the hundred merits, negating the hundred merits to enter the hundred emptinesses, negating the hundred emptinesses to enter the hundred middles—sequential shallow and deep, horizontal and vertical, being entirely separate—are all negations. Sequentially realizing the fruit is the body of miscellaneous food; prior and subsequent, superior and inferior, is the impermanent body; distinctions and obstructions are the body of dust and earth; therefore the Distinct [Teaching] is a negation. The Buddha's body is perfect and wondrous, without any multiplicity: within one there is the immeasurable, within the immeasurable there is the one; neither one nor immeasurable, neither identical nor different; complete and without lack, it is called the great nirvāṇa. Evil is immediately the middle way, without duality and without distinction; all dharmas are of the nature of peace and joy. If even the hundred evils are the middle way, how much more so the hundred merits and emptinesses—how could they not immediately be the middle way? The dharma that is immediately the middle way—the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body—can only then be called the affirmation. This is called the Perfect Buddha being free from the hundred negations. Being free from the former three negations and being named the Buddha's body is the intention of other sūtras; being identical to negation and named the Buddha's body is the correct intention of the present sūtra. Ancient masters completely failed to examine and distinguish this; although they proclaimed the hundred negations, they did not know which negations they were, and vainly spoke of the dharmakāya without knowing what it was. The general meaning of this explanation can now be seen. Since this is the realm of the buddhas, profound, wondrous, and hard to fathom, boring into and gazing up at it becomes all the more difficult. There is yet another explanation: The first phrase, regarding the human and heavenly body, already possesses the virtues of the ninety-nine phrases; the final phrase on nirvāṇa also possesses the virtues of the ninety-nine phrases; and the intermediate ones are likewise. Why? Because a single phrase is itself the dharmakāya, it is endowed with all virtues. According to the sūtra, there are three rounds: The first three phrases form one round, explaining that it is not a human or heavenly body, which seems like negating the conventional to enter the real. The intention of entering the real is that the conventional is immediately the real, double negating and abandoning both sides, like casting a vajra, which stops only when reaching the vajra-limit. The next eighty phrases form one round, explaining that "is not a body, is a body," which seems like negating the real to emerge into the conventional. The intention of emerging into the conventional is that emptiness is immediately the middle, wherein once one emerges, all emerge, so that all who are ready to be saved are able to see and hear. The final seventeen phrases form one round, explaining that there is none who knows and none who does not know, which seems like double negating the two extremes, entering the middle directly from the extremes, where not a single colour or fragrance fails to be the middle way. Although this distinction is made, it is not one-sided; if it were one-sided, it would not constitute the subtle and wondrous. What is subtle and wondrous is: immediately entering, immediately emerging, immediately the middle; also, immediately emerging, immediately entering, immediately the middle; also, immediately the middle, immediately emerging, immediately entering—neither one, two, nor three, and yet one, two, and three.

8.14

Third, from "The Tathāgata" onward concludes and encourages. This also has two parts: first, it concludes that this is termed the subtle and marvelous dharmakāya, replete with merit; the remaining four bodies are also concluded in this manner. That it is not what is known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas concludes and establishes the permanent body. That the two vehicles, being impermanent, cannot know the permanent and that it is not nurtured [by worldly food] concludes and establishes the non-mixed-food body. That the real body is not like a fragile earthen vessel concludes and establishes the indestructible body. The conclusion of the vajra body is as in the text. Furthermore, concluding the indestructible body by saying that "manifesting painful illness is for the sake of taming sentient beings" is precisely manifesting a destructible body. By analogy with this text, one should also manifest non-dharmakāyas such as the bodies of deer, horses, and so forth; one should also manifest impermanent bodies that are born in the morning and perish in the evening; one should also manifest mixed-food bodies such as being a hunter who eats meat; and one should also manifest non-vajra bodies such as plantain trees, water bubbles, and so forth. Explaining the five phrases of the dharmakāya is entering the meaning of "not a body"; manifesting the five bodies that are not the Dharma is emerging into the meaning of "is a body." Immediate entering being immediate emerging, and immediate emerging being immediate entering, is precisely the meaning of subtle and marvelous merit; neither entering nor emerging is the meaning of being ineffable. According to entering the five bodies, each body possessing one hundred phrases yields five hundred phrases; according to emerging into the five bodies, each body possessing one hundred phrases yields five hundred phrases; together these make one thousand. Furthermore, immediate entering being immediate emerging, and immediate emerging being immediate entering, make another two thousand. Neither immediate nor not-immediate, neither immediately emerging nor immediately entering, make another two thousand. In total there are five thousand phrases. When the text states "such immeasurable subtle and marvelous merit," how could it be limited to five thousand? In reference to this sūtra text, we briefly formulate five thousand. Next, from "You today" onward is encouragement. It encourages one's own practice and transforming others, as in the text. Third, from "addressed the Buddha" onward is accepting and understanding; it accepts the preceding two encouragements (and so forth).

8.15

From "Only indeed, World-Honoured One" onward is the second part, answering [concerning] the cause of the dharmakāya. The cause has the capacity to attain the fruit, and this capacity is called "power"; thus, it answers the question on attaining great, firm power. Kāśyapa previously doubted impermanence and swift decay, and upon hearing the Buddha's hundred negations that negated bodies of mixed food, dust, and so forth, only then was the permanent and indestructible body revealed, bringing him awakening, understanding, and joy. Yet, still not knowing what the cause of the dharmakāya was, he reiterated his doubt and formulated his question again. "Vajra body" reiterates the preceding cause; "how" gives rise to what follows. The Buddha's answer has three parts: first, the direct answer; second, accepting and understanding; third, encouraging practice. The first has a brief and an extensive [treatment]. The brief has two parts: first, explaining the protection of the Dharma; second, citing proof. In the first passage, through protecting the Dharma without destruction, one now attains permanence; an indestructible body takes a similar cause to answer the question. Next, "I in the past" briefly cites proof. From "Good sons, guarding and upholding the true Dharma" onward is the extensive answer. It also has two parts: first, extensively explaining the protection of the Dharma; second, extensively citing proof. The first also has two parts: first, the laity; second, the renunciants. For the laity protecting the Dharma, one takes what was intended in their original mind: abandoning mundane affairs to preserve the principle and uphold and spread the great teaching; hence it says "guarding and upholding the true Dharma." Not being bound by minor matters, it says "not cultivating deportment." Protecting the Dharma has four alternatives: both renunciants and laypeople being unable to protect refers to monks without reputation or practice, and worldly people without influence. Laypeople or renunciants individually being unable to protect refers back to these two classes each individually lacking capacity. Laypeople or renunciants individually being able to protect refers to the Buddha and [King] Senyo. Both renunciants and laypeople being able to protect refers to the present text. What was right in the past is wrong in the present; what is wrong in the present was right in the past. Both past and present are wrong; both past and present are right. In past times, when things were tranquil and the Dharma flourished, one should keep the precepts and not take up weapons; in present times, when things are perilous and the Dharma is obstructed, one should take up weapons and not keep [rigid] precepts. If both past and present are perilous, both should take up weapons; if both past and present are tranquil, both should keep the precepts. Taking up and setting aside must be fitting; one must not be one-sided. Next, from "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onward concerns the protection of the Dharma by renunciants, containing questions and answers. In the questions, abandoning the principle to preserve mundane affairs is raised as an objection; in the answers, abandoning mundane affairs to preserve the principle serves as the reply, as in the text. Second, from "Good sons, in the distant past" onward extensively cites proof. The text has four parts: first, the original circumstances of protecting the Dharma. Next, from "At that time there was one" onward explains the practice of protecting the Dharma. Third, from "Soon his life ended" onward is the karmic reward of protecting the Dharma. Fourth, from "The king at that time" onward brings together and reconciles the preceding two, as in the text. In the third part, regarding Akṣobhya, the Daoxing says "Without Anger" (Wunu), the Fangguang says "Wonderful Joy" (Miaole); the two names "Without Anger" and "Wonderful Joy" complement each other. The Vimalakīrti says "Immovable" (Wudong). The king's prior birth is the first; the monk's subsequent birth is the second. Furthermore, in terms of the four reliances, the king is the first of the first reliance; the monk is the second reliance. As for being a śrāvaka, this is not the Hīnayāna, but a Mahāyāna śrāvaka. In adducing these two persons, which person is definitively taken as proof? Former [commentators] took the king's capacity to protect as proof, or took both together as proof. The fourth is as in the text. Next, Kāśyapa's addressing the Buddha that the Tathāgata's permanent body is like an engraving on stone is accepting and understanding. With an understanding of permanence I understand the Buddha's permanent body, lucid and indelible, likened to an engraving on stone. Third, from "By this reason" downward encourages practice. This also has two parts: first, generally adducing cause and fruit to encourage the four assemblies; second, specifically encouraging the laity to permit the holding of knives and weapons. The text has two parts: first, the encouragement; second, the differentiation, which further has four parts: first, questioning; second, answering; third, accepting; fourth, validating. Within the questioning there are two parts: first, questioning whether there is a teacher; second, questioning the keeping or breaking of precepts. The questioner asks whether one who accompanies those holding knives and weapons still possesses the virtue of a teacher, or lacks the virtue of a teacher. The Buddha's answer also has two parts: first, the direct answer; later, the concluding praise. Within the direct answer there are two: first, answering the presence or absence of precepts; second, answering the presence or absence of a teacher. In the first passage there are two: first, directly answering that it is a person without precepts who accompanies the protector of the Dharma, whereas the protector of the Dharma is not a person without precepts, as in the text. Next, since he himself keeps the precepts, how does he transform others? This matter is questioned further. The Buddha answers that he is together with the protector of the Dharma, as in the text. From "Kāśyapa, one who protects the Dharma" onward is the second, answering the question of whether there is a teacher or no teacher, first briefly, then extensively. In the brief [treatment] there are three points: first, upholding the sūtras; second, upholding the vinaya; third, subduing the precept-breakers. Because one possesses these three virtues, one can be a teacher. Right view is internally understanding the sūtras and vinaya; encountering the conditions for propagation to subdue evil persons is the external function. From "Kāśyapa, if there is a monk" downward is the extensive answer, which also expands upon the previous three, though not in sequence. First, extensively explaining subduing has three parts: first, pointing out the teachers and disciples of the corrupt assembly; second, generally adducing the three assemblies; third, explaining that the pure assembly can destroy the former two assemblies. From "skillfully upholding the vinaya" onward extensively explains that upholding the vinaya can destroy the former two. The vinaya explains six kinds of five dharmas: first, the learner; second, the non-learner; third, spiritual understanding; fourth, keeping disciples; fifth, instructing; sixth, practical affairs. Here it refers precisely to the five dharmas of spiritual understanding, by which one attains release from reliance and is fit for the rank of teacher. Four items differ slightly from the vinaya's questions and answers, while one item is different. The vinaya calls it reciting the prātimokṣa; here it is called teaching and transforming in accord with the occasion. The five dharmas of spiritual understanding are: first, taming sentient beings; second, knowing the light [offenses]; third, knowing the heavy [offenses]; fourth, certifying what is vinaya; fifth, not certifying what is not vinaya. What is taming? When taming sentient beings, one must not choose times and places, nor may one indiscriminately tame them across the board (and so forth). Knowing the heavy is evident. Knowing the light refers to the thirteen [saṃghāvaśeṣas]: the first nine have no admonition, while the last four have admonitions. If two admonitions are not heeded, the preparatory offense of completion is not yet established; only when three admonitions are not heeded is the principal offense established. Not certifying what is not vinaya means knowing that another violates the vinaya and one should not certify it. For example, some people say: "The Buddha entered among worldlings and engaged in the five desires, then forgot himself that he was a sage. Later he met a good friend who said to him, 'You are a sage; why do you do this?' and only then realized himself that he was a sage." Also: "The Buddha entered hell to undergo suffering on behalf of sentient beings, truly experiencing the pain of being sliced and flayed." Statements such as these I do not certify at all; how could a sage be so? Also, they say: "Maitreya should be five hundred [persons], and I am one of them." All such statements cannot be certified. Skillfully understanding a single word refers to a single word of the vinaya; one should explain the five designations according to the words of the vinaya, as in the Zhiguan (and so forth). From "skillfully upholding the sūtras" onward extensively explains that the sūtras are also like this; by analogy with the vinaya, there should be five items: first, teaching and transforming in accord with the occasion; second, knowing what has a remainder; third, knowing what has no remainder; fourth, not certifying what is not a sūtra; fifth, certifying what is a sūtra. Second, that the Buddhadharma is immeasurable is the concluding praise. From "Kāśyapa" downward is the third, accepting and understanding. From "The Buddha praised" downward is the fourth, validating and completing (and so forth). The five dharmas of a learner are faith, morality, concentration, wisdom, and broad learning, from the fivefold stilling of the mind up to the [stage of] Ānanda. The five dharmas of a non-learner are the five-part dharmakāya, up to the fourth fruit. The five dharmas of spiritual understanding are as before. The five dharmas of keeping disciples are: first, ten rains-retreats. Ten rains-retreats constitutes seniority, fitting one to keep disciples. Second, keeping the precepts without violating even the slightest fraction. Nowadays, not violating the first category [of pārājika] is called non-violation, because the rest can be repented. Third, broad learning. If one cannot be thoroughly versed in the greater and lesser [vehicles] and the inner and outer [teachings], one must definitely master one piṭaka; lacking this, it is not permissible. Fourth, being able to dispel a disciple's grief and remorse. If they wish to regress from the precepts and return to the lay life, one should explain stern and poignant matters. Fifth, being able to dispel a disciple's evil heresies. When a disciple lacks clothing, food, and influence, and thus wishes to transgress and cross bounds, one should dispel their evil heresies for them. The remaining two five dharmas are not discussed (and so forth).

First 15 of 20 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大般涅槃經疏 — Classical Chinese