俱舍論記 12

English (machine translation) 12

Language: English

12.1

Expounded by the śramaṇa Śākyaputra Puguang.

"Having thus explained [the differences in bodily and spatial measurements of the receptacle world] by way of the yojana and so forth... up to: the three minimal measures": Below this is the third major division of text, which explains the three limits: first, it explains the three minimal [measures]; second, it explains the measures of the preceding two. Below this, the first part explains the three minimal measures. "Having thus explained the differences in bodily and spatial measurements of the receptacle world by way of the yojana and so forth" explains measure by way of matter (rūpa). "And having explained the distinctions in life-span by way of the year and so forth" explains measure by way of time (kāla). The differences between the two measures of matter and time have not yet been stated and should be stated. The establishment of these two different distinctions is entirely dependent upon name (nāma). The minimal measures of the preceding two measures and of name have not yet been examined in detail; hence, "now we should first distinguish the three minimal measures," concluding the preceding and posing the question to introduce [the next topic]. Another explanation: The differences between the two measures have not yet been stated and should be stated; this generally introduces what follows. From "The establishment of these two..." downward, the verses are specifically introduced.

12.4

"The verse states: ... up to: are the minimal measures of matter, name, and time": The verse answers.

12.5

"The commentary says: ... up to: is the minimal [measure] of matter": This clarifies the minimal [measure] of matter. "Analyzing in this way... up to: are the minimal [measures] of name and time": This generally explains the minimal [measures] of name and time; analyzing a name down to a single phoneme is the minimal [measure] of name, and analyzing time down to a single kṣaṇa is the minimal [measure] of time.

12.6

"A name of a single phoneme, such as stating the name 'go'": This specifically explains the minimal [measure] of name, revealing it by way of phonemes (akṣara). Names are of many kinds: there are names generated by one phoneme, names generated by two phonemes, and names generated by many phonemes. A name generated by one phoneme is like stating the name 'go' (cow).

12.7

"What is meant by the measure of one kṣaṇa?": Below this, the minimal [measure] of time is specifically explained. This is the question.

12.8

"When the assembly of conditions coalesces... up to: the measure of one kṣaṇa": When a conditioned dharma obtains its intrinsic nature during the coalescence of present conditions, it immediately perishes and does not endure any longer; this is called one kṣaṇa. Or, for a moving dharma, traversing one paramāṇu is called one kṣaṇa. Real dharmas have no motion; motion is only metaphorically posited within the course of continuity (saṃtati). The explanation of the Ābhidharmikas can be known from the text. A detailed explanation of the measure of a kṣaṇa is found in fascicle 136 of the Mahāvibhāṣā.

12.9

"Having understood the three minimal measures, what are the measures of the preceding two?": Below this is the second part, which explains the measures of the preceding two, concluding the preceding and posing the question to introduce [the next topic].

12.10

"Now we shall first distinguish the preceding... up to: these eight make a yojana": Within the answer, first the measure of matter is explained, and second the measure of time is explained. Below this, the measure of matter is explained. 'Yojana and so forth' includes the krośa and so forth.

12.11

"The commentary says: ... up to: make one yojana": This subtle [particle] is the utmost; hence it is called an ultimate atom (paramāṇu). According to the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 32: 'However, it is accepted that ultimate atoms are briefly of two kinds: first, real; second, nominal. What are their characteristics? "Real" refers to the fully established intrinsic characteristics of form and so forth, which are apprehended by direct perception (pratyakṣa) in their aggregated state. "Nominal" is known through analysis by inference (anumāna); that is, within aggregated form, one uses wisdom to gradually analyze down to the ultimate stage, and then within it distinguishes the ultimate-atom differences of visible form, sound, and so forth. That which is reached by this analysis is called a nominal ultimate atom, for it causes inquiry by wisdom to give rise to supreme joy. This subtle [particle] is the utmost, so it is called an ultimate atom. "Utmost" means that within form, analysis has reached the culmination; "subtle" means it is an object only of the wisdom eye (prajñā-cakṣus). Thus the term "ultimate atom" expresses the meaning of the utmost subtlety.' According to that text, there are two kinds of subtle [particles]. Accumulating seven ultimate atoms makes the measure of one subtle particle (aṇu). An aṇu denotes a fine aggregation. In Sanskrit it is called aṇu, here translated as 'subtle [particle]'; it is the most minute among forms visible to the eye. It should be known that it is seen only by the divine eye, the eye of a cakravartin, and the eye of a bodhisattva in their final existence. Accumulating subtle particles up to seven makes one gold-dust particle. Gold, silver, copper, and iron are collectively called 'gold'. The Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya calls it 'copper-dust', and the old Kośa calls it 'iron-dust'; these are both restricted to one aspect. Because the dust passes back and forth through gold without obstruction, it is called gold-dust. Another explanation: Only when seven subtle particles are accumulated can it rest upon gold; hence it is called gold-dust. The two explanations for water-dust are also like this. The measure of a hare-hair dust particle is equal to the tip of a hare's hair; hence it is called hare-hair dust. Another explanation: Only when seven water-dust particles are accumulated can they rest upon the tip of a hare's hair; hence it is called hare-hair dust. The two explanations for sheep-hair and cow-hair dust are also like this. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā has an explanation: Seven aṇus make one water-dust particle; seven water-dust particles make one copper-dust particle; seven copper-dust particles make one hare-hair dust particle. This master's intention means that water-dust is fine and copper-dust is coarse. The dust motes floating in sunbeams and so forth are evident and can be known from the text. If, according to the reckoning in this land, one calculates how many lǐ make a yojana: one cubit (hasta) is one chǐ and six cùn; four cubits make one bow (dhanus). One bow is six chǐ and four cùn; five hundred bows make one krośa; five hundred bows are calculated to be 3,200 chǐ. Eight krośas make one yojana; eight krośas are calculated to be 25,600 chǐ. Calculating at five chǐ per pace (bù), there are 5,120 paces. Calculating at 360 paces per lǐ, it is fourteen lǐ with eighty paces remaining, which constitutes one yojana. As for the word araṇya: 'a' means 'without', and 'raṇya' means 'noisy commotion'.

12.12

"Having thus explained... up to: the wise know the nights decrease": Below this is the second part, which explains the measure of time. Within it, first the measure of years is explained, and second the measure of the various kalpas is explained. Here, it explains the measure of years. From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the nights increase and the days decrease. From the winter solstice to the summer solstice, the days increase and the nights decrease. Another explanation: When the time is long, it is called 'increasing'; when the time is short, it is called 'decreasing'. If one adopts this explanation, from the autumnal equinox to the vernal equinox, the nights increase and the days decrease; from the vernal equinox to the autumnal equinox, the days increase and the nights decrease; at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, day and night are equal. Muhūrta is translated here as an instant (xūyú). In one year, altogether six nights are diminished; this is called 'decreasing nights'. The daytime shadows also decrease by six, showing that six months in a year are hollow months (short months of 29 days). A year is divided into three seasons: cold, hot, and rainy, each having four months. In these twelve months of the cold, hot, and rainy seasons, when one month and another half-month have passed, in the remaining half-month one should know that a night decreases; in this manner, up to the sixth time that one month and another half-month have passed, in the remaining half-month another night is decreased. Using this verse as evidence, six nights are therefore diminished. By means of these diminished nights, intercalary months are established. The reason why the author of the treatise does not broadly explain the various calendar calculations is for fear that people might indulge in wrong livelihood to sustain themselves.

12.13

"Having thus distinguished... up to: now next we shall distinguish": Below this is the second part, which explains the measures of the various kalpas. Within it, first the magnitude of the kalpas is explained, second the humans within the kalpas, and third the disasters within the kalpas. Below this, the first explains the magnitude of the kalpas, concluding the preceding and posing the question to introduce [the next topic].

12.14

"The verse states: ... up to: a great kalpa comprises three incalculable ones": The first line cites the number of the four kalpas; the second line lists the names of the four kalpas; the next two lines explain the kalpa of destruction (saṃvartakalpa); the next two lines explain the kalpa of formation (vivartakalpa); the next six lines specifically explain the intermediate kalpas (antarakalpa); the next two lines explain the remaining three by analogy; the next line explains the great kalpa (mahākalpa); and the final line additionally explains the incalculable kalpa (asaṃkhyeyakalpa). Question: Why are the kalpas of emptiness and duration not mentioned among the four kalpas? Answer: Because destruction subsumes emptiness, and duration is explained with reference to the intermediate [kalpas], they are not separately stated. Another explanation: Duration is explained with reference to the intermediate [kalpas], and emptiness has no separate substantial entity; they are revealed by analogy in the verse. Another explanation: Destruction subsumes emptiness, and formation subsumes duration. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 135, says: 'Kalpas are of three kinds: first, intermediate kalpas; second, kalpas of formation and destruction; third, great kalpas. Intermediate kalpas are again of three kinds: first, kalpas of decrease; second, kalpas of increase; third, kalpas of increase and decrease. "Decrease" means from the time human life-span is immeasurable down to ten years. "Increase" means from human life-span of ten years up to eighty thousand years. "Increase and decrease" means from human life-span of ten years increasing up to eighty thousand years, and again from eighty thousand years decreasing down to ten years. Herein, there are one decrease, one increase, and eighteen increases and decreases, making twenty intermediate kalpas. Over twenty intermediate kalpas the world forms, and for twenty intermediate kalpas after having formed it endures; these together are called the kalpa of formation. Over twenty intermediate kalpas the world is destroyed, and for twenty intermediate kalpas after having been destroyed it is empty; these together are called the kalpa of destruction. Altogether eighty intermediate kalpas are collectively called a great kalpa.'

12.15

"The commentary says: ... up to: are collectively called the kalpa of destruction": This explains the kalpa of destruction; the text is evident and can be known. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'By this, one should understand that among the animal and ghost destinies, at that time there are no parasites within human bodies, just as with the Buddha's body, because animals have been destroyed. Some say: Those of the two destinies that benefit humans are destroyed along with humans; the rest are destroyed first. Of these two explanations, the former is better.' The Nyāyānusāra evaluates and adopts the former school. This treatise does not take the Nyāyānusāra as its standard; agreeing with that latter explanation is also without fault. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'When life in the Northern Continent ends, they are born in the heavens of the desire realm. Because those of dull faculties do not depart from desire, once born in the desire heavens, dhyāna manifests before them; shifting to obtain a superior basis, they are then able to depart from desire.'

12.16

"The so-called kalpa of formation... up to: should be known as complete": This explains the kalpa of formation, which can be known. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 32, says: 'All Great Brahmā Kings are necessarily included among ordinary worldlings (pṛthagjana), because no noble one is ever reborn below, and within the upper two realms there is no entry into the path of seeing.'

12.17

"After this there is further... up to: the kalpa of duration after having formed": This explains the intermediate kalpas and also reveals the kalpa of duration. According to this text, only when the life-span gradually decreases is it called the kalpa of duration; when the life-span has not yet decreased, it is included within the kalpa of formation. Question: The first kalpa is only decreasing, and the last kalpa is only increasing; how can their time be equal to the intermediate eighteen? Answer: When comparing the twenty kalpas of duration earlier and later, the merits of earlier sentient beings are superior, while the merits of later sentient beings are inferior. Because merits are supreme in the first kalpa of duration, they are entitled to enjoy superior and marvelous realms; hence, the time of decreasing is extremely slow. From the second kalpa onward, their merits gradually diminish; the increase is slightly slower, and the decrease is gradually faster. Because the realms during the time of increase are superior, due to deficient merit they are not entitled to enjoy them, so the time of increase is slow. Because the realms during the time of decrease are inferior, due to deficient merit they are entitled to enjoy them, so the time of decrease is fast. In this manner, up to the nineteenth kalpa, merits become increasingly deficient; the time of increase is extremely slow, and the time of decrease is extremely fast. Reaching the twentieth kalpa, merits are the most deficient; hence the time of increase is extremely slow. Therefore, the first and last kalpas are equal to the intermediate eighteen. Another explanation: The time before the life-span decreases is included within the kalpa of formation; only from the initial decrease from an immeasurable life-span onward is it called the kalpa of duration. In the twentieth kalpa, it increases up to eighty thousand [years] and remains for a long time; therefore, the first and last kalpas are equal to the intermediate eighteen.

12.18

"The remaining [kalpas] of formation and destruction... up to: twenty intermediate kalpas": By way of explaining the kalpa of duration, it further reveals that the three periods of formation, destruction, and emptiness all conform to the kalpa of duration.

12.19

"[The period] from the first kalpa of formation [...] until sentient beings gradually abandon [it]" explains the two differences between the kalpas of formation and destruction: because common karma is easy [to manifest], formation and destruction [of the receptacle world] take one kalpa; because individual karma is difficult [to manifest], [the formation and destruction of sentient beings] take nineteen [kalpas]. Based on this treatise text, the Brahmā King experiences only fifty-eight kalpas—namely, nineteen of formation, twenty of continuation, and nineteen of destruction. Therefore the Da zhidu lun says: "The lifespan of the Brahmā King is fifty-eight kalpas." The previous statement that the Brahmā King [lives for] sixty kalpas is made in terms of a round number. Another explanation is: at the time of the initial kalpa of formation, the Brahmā King is already abiding; the statement that nineteen kalpas form sentient beings is discussed in terms of the majority. Based on the receptacle world having already formed, at the subsequent time of the kalpa of destruction the Brahmā King also abides; as the fire destroys from below, only when it reaches near the Brahmā King does he take rebirth in the higher heaven, so the number fulfills sixty, though he does not necessarily experience them in full. Question: If, according to the Lokasthiti-śāstra, ten kalpas form the receptacle world, ten kalpas form the world of sentient beings, ten kalpas destroy the world of sentient beings, and ten kalpas destroy the receptacle world, how are these reconciled? The explanation is: the Lokasthiti-śāstra states that the Brahmā King abides alone for ten minor kalpas, and thereafter the Brahmā-purohita and others are born. The intention of that sūtra is to say that because the Great Brahmā King is solitary and singular, he is subsumed within the receptacle [world]; therefore it says that ten kalpas form the receptacle world. Taking from the Brahmā-purohita downwards, speaking from the predominant part, it therefore says that ten kalpas form the world of sentient beings. This treatise comprehensively discusses the many and the few together; therefore it says that nineteen kalpas form the world of sentient beings, and one kalpa forms the receptacle world. Furthermore, the Lokasthiti-śāstra states that from the destruction of the hells up to the destruction of the Brahmā-purohita, ten minor kalpas elapse wherein the world of sentient beings is destroyed, but the Brahmā King has not yet ascended in rebirth. The intention of that sūtra is to say that because the Great Brahmā King is solitary and singular, he is subsumed within the receptacle [world]. Moreover, based on gradual destruction, it therefore says that ten kalpas destroy the receptacle world. Taking from the Brahmā-purohita downwards, speaking from the predominant part, it therefore says that ten kalpas destroy the world of sentient beings. This treatise comprehensively discusses the many and the few together; therefore it says that nineteen kalpas destroy the world of sentient beings, and one kalpa destroys the receptacle world. Previously, in the world of sentient beings, the position of the evaluators in the Vibhāṣā was cited. The statement that the Brahmā King abides solitary and alone for twenty intermediate kalpas combines the beginning and the end: for the first ten kalpas he abides solitary and alone, and after the Brahmā assembly is born they do not yet dare to dwell together with him; another ten kalpas elapse, and only then do they begin to dwell together; thus we know there are twenty kalpas.

12.20

"Such as what has been explained [...] constitutes the measure of a great kalpa" explains the great kalpa.

12.21

"What is the intrinsic nature of a kalpa?" is a question.

12.22

"It is merely the five skandhas" is the answer. A kalpa refers to a division of time; time has no separate real entity, but is clarified in reference to conditioned phenomena; therefore it takes the five skandhas as its entity. Hence the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 135, says: "What is the entity of a kalpa? Some say it is matter. Citation of proof, etc." The correct statement is: the states of day, night, and so forth are without exception all the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas, and through these a kalpa is formed. The entity of a kalpa is likewise. However, since a kalpa pervades the time divisions of the three realms, it takes the five skandhas and the four skandhas as its nature.

12.23

"The sūtras state that three kalpas [...] to three asaṃkhyeyas" raises a question based on sūtras. A means "non-" (wu), and saṃkhyā means "number" (shu).

12.24

"Accumulating the preceding great kalpas [...] to three asaṃkhyeyas" is the answer. Accumulating the preceding eighty great kalpas into tens, hundreds, thousands, up to three kalpa-asaṃkhyeyas.

12.25

"Since it is called 'innumerable' (asaṃkhyeya), why speak again of 'three'?" is an objection.

12.26

"The word 'innumerable' does not [...] it is one number among them" is the explanation, citing a sūtra as proof.

12.27

"What are the sixty?" is a question.

12.28

"As that sūtra states [...] three kalpa-asaṃkhyeyas" answers by citing a sūtra. Asaṃkhyeya is the fifty-second, one among these sixty numbers. By the time the author of the treatise appeared in the world, the first fifty-two were extant, while the reciters had forgotten the last eight. If one counts great kalpas up to the fifty-second among these sixty numbers, it is called a kalpa-asaṃkhyeya. When this kalpa-asaṃkhyeya is accumulated to three, it is described in the sūtras as three kalpa-asaṃkhyeyas. It is not that reckoning calculations are unable to count and know it; thus it can be called three kalpa-asaṃkhyeyas. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 177, states: "Altogether there are seven explanations." This treatise corresponds to the third explanation, as fully explained therein.

12.29

"For what reason does a bodhisattva [...] only then expect the fruit of buddhahood?" is a question.

12.30

"How could one not allow [...] generates long-term aspirations?" is the answer. Pāra means "the other shore" (bi'an). Mita means "reached" (dao).

12.31

"If by other means [...] long practice of many austerities?" is an objection. If the other two vehicles, practicing minor means, also attain nirvāṇa, why engage in long practice of many austerities for the sake of bodhi?

12.32

"Desiring to benefit and bring happiness [...] seeks unsurpassed bodhi" is the answer. To benefit sentient beings, they cultivate vows over a long time; therefore, relinquishing the lesser path of the nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, they turn around to seek unsurpassed complete enlightenment.

12.33

"How does rescuing other sentient beings benefit oneself?" is a question.

12.34

"The bodhisattva rescues beings [...] is precisely benefit to oneself" is the answer.

12.35

"Who believes that a bodhisattva has such a thing?" is an objection. Who would believe that a bodhisattva is exclusively devoted to benefiting others without benefiting himself?

12.36

"Those who harbor self-moistening [...] because they take others as themselves" is the answer. Persons of the two vehicles harbor self-moistening and lack great compassion; for them, regarding the rescue of other sentient beings as benefiting oneself is indeed difficult to believe. Bodhisattva practitioners have no intention of self-moistening and possess great compassion; for them, regarding the rescue of other sentient beings as benefiting oneself is not difficult to believe. Furthermore, three proofs are cited: first, the proof citing the lack of pity versus the presence of compassion; second, the proof citing grasping at self-love versus the absence of self-love; third, the proof citing the differences in sentient beings' cultivated lineages—because it relies on the distinctions among sentient beings' lineages (gotra).

12.37

"There is a verse that says": The first two lines explain the inferior person among ordinary beings, who diligently seeks human and heavenly pleasures for their own person. The next two lines explain the intermediate person of the two vehicles, who seeks the cessation of the three sufferings and does not seek sāsrava pleasures, because these pleasures are the basis of future suffering. Another explanation is: these pleasures are the basis of the suffering of conditioned existence (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā). Another explanation is: because these pleasures are suffering when they deteriorate (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā), they are called the basis of suffering. The latter verse explains the superior person, the bodhisattva, who constantly and diligently seeks to bear multiple sufferings on their own, enabling other sentient beings to immediately attain the peace and joy of the good destinies of humans and devas, and ultimately causing other sufferings to be eradicated forever so that they attain the joy of nirvāṇa. Why is this? Because their lineages differ, they take the suffering and happiness of others as their own suffering and happiness.

12.38

"Having thus explained [...] the rhinoceros-horn-like [pratyekabuddha] takes a hundred kalpas": Below this is the second [section], explaining the persons in a kalpa. Within this, first it explains buddhas and pratyekabuddhas; second, it explains the four wheel-turning kings; third, it explains the arising of petty kings. This is the first, explaining buddhas and pratyekabuddhas. The upper two lines explain buddhas; the lower two lines explain pratyekabuddhas.

12.39

"The commentary says [...] the appearance of buddhas": Among the eighty kalpas, during the twenty kalpas of formation, the twenty kalpas of destruction, and the twenty kalpas of emptiness, no buddha appears in the world; buddhas appear in the world only during the twenty kalpas of continuation. Yet among the twenty kalpas of continuation, no buddha appears during the nineteen periods of increase, while buddhas appear during the nineteen periods of decrease. Concerning the periods of decrease in a kalpa, starting from eighty thousand years down to one hundred years, buddhas appear in the world within this interval. Therefore, the Bhadrakalpika-sūtra, fascicle 10, states: Krakucchanda Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was forty thousand years; Kanakamuni Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was thirty thousand years; Kāśyapa Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was twenty thousand years; Śākyamuni Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was one hundred years. According to the Xiyu ji, fascicle 6: Krakucchanda Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was sixty thousand years; Kanakamuni Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was forty thousand years; Kāśyapa Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was twenty thousand years; Śākyamuni Buddha appeared in the world when the human lifespan was one hundred years. This is probably due to differences among schools. Question: Among these twenty kalpas of continuation, in which kalpa did Śākyamuni Buddha appear in the world? The explanation is: he appeared in the ninth kalpa of continuation. Thus, the Lokasthiti-abhidharma, fascicle 9, speaking of the kalpas of continuation, says: "Among these twenty minor kalpas, of those that have arisen, formed, and are continuing in the world, how many have passed? How many have not passed? Eight minor kalpas have passed, eleven minor kalpas are in the future, and the ninth kalpa is presently not yet exhausted." Based on the text of the Lokasthiti, we thus know that Śākyamuni Buddha appeared in the ninth kalpa, and Maitreya Buddha will appear in the tenth kalpa. Furthermore, Dharma Master Tai says: "According to the Lokasthiti-śāstra, among these twenty kalpas of continuation, in the latter ten kalpas of continuation no buddha appears in the world, while in the former kalpas of continuation buddhas appear in the world. Within the former ten kalpas of continuation, in the first five kalpas of continuation no buddha appears in the world, while in the latter five kalpas of continuation buddhas appear in the world. In the sixth kalpa of continuation, when [lifespan] decreases to forty thousand years, Krakucchanda Buddha appears in the world. In the seventh kalpa of continuation, when it decreases to thirty thousand years, Kanakamuni Buddha appears in the world. In the eighth kalpa of continuation, when it decreases to twenty thousand years, Kāśyapa Buddha appears in the world. In the ninth kalpa of continuation, when it decreases to one hundred years, Śākyamuni Buddha appears in the world. In the tenth kalpa of continuation, at the beginning of the decrease from eighty thousand years, Maitreya Buddha appears in the world." Upon checking the text of the Lokasthiti, it only states that the present time corresponds to the ninth kalpa among the kalpas of continuation, and contains no other statement. Furthermore, upon checking the Qishi jing, there is likewise no such statement. It is unknown from where Dharma Master Tai obtained this text. The rest of the treatise text is understandable.

12.40

"For what reason does no buddha appear in periods of increase?" is a question.

12.41

"Because sentient beings' pleasures increase, making it difficult to teach aversion" is the answer.

12.42

"For what reason does no buddha appear when [lifespan] decreases below one hundred?" is a question.

12.43

"The five defilements extremely increase [...] and freedom from disease" is the answer. As an opportune point of doctrine, this clarifies the five defilements (kaṣāya). The lifespan defilement takes life-vitality (jīvitendriya) as its entity. As for the kalpa defilement: a kalpa refers to time; time has no separate entity, but is clarified in reference to conditioned phenomena, taking the five skandhas as its entity. Another explanation is: if one generally sets forth the entity of a kalpa, it takes the five skandhas as its entity. Here, the kalpa defilement takes matter (rūpa) as its entity; hence the treatise says "decline of necessities". The defilement of afflictions takes the five dull defilements as its entity. The defilement of views takes the five views as its entity. As for the defilement of sentient beings: sentient beings have no separate nature apart from phenomena, taking the five skandhas as their entity. Another explanation is: it takes bad karma as its entity. When the decrease of the kalpa approaches its end, lifespan and so forth become degraded and base, like dregs and impurities; therefore they are called "defilements". Due to the arising of the preceding lifespan defilement, lifespan is extremely depleted and reduced, down to ten years. Due to the arising of the preceding kalpa defilement, necessities such as clothing and food are extremely depleted and reduced; from this, one knows that the kalpa defilement takes matter as its entity. Due to the arising of the subsequent defilements of afflictions and views, wholesome dharmas decline: because through the defilement of afflictions one indulges in sensual pleasures, one generates greed which damages the wholesome; because through the defilement of views one undergoes self-mortification, one generates clinging to precepts and vows which damages the wholesome. Alternatively, the defilement of afflictions damages the wholesome dharmas of householders, while the defilement of views damages the wholesome dharmas of renunciants. Due to the arising of the subsequent defilement of sentient beings, one's own person is damaged and depleted: bodily stature becomes short and small, white complexion turns black, strength shifts from strong to weak, correct mindfulness and correct awareness turn into wrong mindfulness and wrong awareness, diligence shifts to indolence, and freedom from disease shifts to having disease. From this, one knows that the defilement of sentient beings takes the five skandhas as its entity. Question: Fascicle 113 of the Vibhāṣā says: "The decline of sentient beings means that at the beginning of the kalpa this Jambudvīpa was vast, magnificent, and pure, with many pure, good, and virtuous sentient beings, where cities and hamlets were contiguous and filled with people, but by the end of the kalpa only ten thousand people remain." According to that Vibhāṣā, it depletes sentient beings by making them gradually fewer; why does this treatise speak of damaging one's own person? The explanation is: the Vibhāṣā speaks in terms of reducing many to few; this treatise speaks in terms of damaging one's own person. In truth, both are encompassed, as both concern sentient beings.

12.44

"The appearance of pratyekabuddhas [...] the two: the rhinoceros-horn-like" explains the appearance of pratyekabuddhas in the world and indicates their two types.

12.45

"Regarding 'The group-dwelling pratyekabuddhas [...] shift to being called solitary conquerors': this explains the group-dwelling pratyekabuddha. Because they follow along with a group, they are called 'group-dwelling.' Because they awaken on their own without teaching, they are called 'pratyekabuddha.' A group-dwelling pratyekabuddha was previously a person at one of the first three fruits of a śrāvaka; later, when attaining the fourth superior fruit, they independently realize the superior fruit without teaching, shifting to being called a 'solitary conqueror.' Another explanation says: they were previously at the first fruit of a śrāvaka; later, when attaining the three subsequent superior fruits, they independently awaken to the superior fruits without teaching, shifting to being called a 'solitary conqueror.' The former explanation is superior.

12.46

"Regarding 'Others say that they [...] should not cultivate ascetic practices': this recounts an alternative opinion. If one were previously a noble person, one would not give rise to the attachment to rules and rituals and cultivate ascetic practices; through this, it is known that they were previously an ordinary person (pṛthagjana). The remaining text is easily understood.

12.47

"Regarding 'The rhinoceros-horn-like one necessarily dwells alone': this explains the rhinoceros-horn likeness. Just as a rhinoceros has a single horn without a second growing beside it, because they dwell alone and awaken to the Path, they are compared to a rhinoceros horn. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 30, states: 'Regarding the rhinoceros-horn-like: because their faculties are extremely superior, and because they delight in emerging alone, one should know that, just like a Buddha, there can never be two emerging together in the world. Just as even Śāriputras do not emerge together, how much less could there be of the rhinoceros-horn-like, who surpass them many times over!' Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 99, states: 'Question: Can a Buddha cognize the mind-reading cognition of another Buddha? Some say: they cannot. Why is that? Because two Tathāgatas do not emerge together in the world. Others say: they can. This refers to their capacity to cognize, not to an actual manifestation. Question: Can a pratyekabuddha cognize the mind-reading cognition of another pratyekabuddha? Answer: The rhinoceros-horn-like should be understood by analogy with a Buddha. Yet another opinion states: Some make this assertion: a rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha certainly can cognize the mind-reading cognition of another rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha, which also refers to the capacity to cognize and to actual manifestation. For there is no reason to rule out the emergence of a rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha in another world realm.' Although there are two explanations, there is no critical master's verdict. Since the earlier text did not say 'some say,' we provisionally take the earlier explanation as correct. It is also consistent with the previous passage of the Mahāvibhāṣā.

12.48

"Regarding 'Among the two kinds of pratyekabuddhas [...] the rhinoceros-horn-like pratyekabuddha': this explains the time and duration of cultivation for the rhinoceros-horn-like.

12.49

"Regarding 'They are called pratyekabuddhas [...] because they do not discipline others': this explains the name.

12.50

"Regarding 'For what reason is it said that the pratyekabuddha [...] the antidote path': this is an external objection. For what reason is it said that the pratyekabuddha does not discipline others? It is not that they lack the ability to expound the true Dharma, for they also have attained the four unhindered understandings (pratisaṃvid). If the author of the treatise claims that although they can preach the Dharma, they cannot preach to suit the faculties of others and therefore do not preach, then furthermore, that pratyekabuddha has attained the knowledge of past lives and can recollect the teachings and principles spoken by the Buddhas heard in the past; why could they not preach to suit faculties? If the author of the treatise claims that although they can preach the Dharma and know the faculties, they lack compassion and therefore do not preach, one also cannot say that that pratyekabuddha lacks compassion, since they manifest supernormal powers to gather beings. If the author of the treatise claims that although they can preach the Dharma, know faculties, and possess compassion, they do not discipline others because there is no capacity among beings to receive the Dharma, one also cannot say there is no capacity to receive the Dharma, for sentient beings at that time can also produce the mundane, sāsrava path of detachment from desire.

12.51

"Regarding 'Although this principle holds [...] because of fearing noisy distractions': this is the response. Although this principle holds, because that pratyekabuddha has long cultivated in the past a resolute determination (adhimokṣa) characterized by little delight and desires no preaching of Dharma. Because resolute determination is strong amidst having little delight, it is specifically mentioned. Furthermore, they know that sentient beings find it difficult to receive the profound Dharma; because having long followed the flow of saṃsāra, it is difficult to make them go against the flow of saṃsāra. Furthermore, to avoid gathering an assembly, they do not preach the true Dharma, because they fear noisy distractions.

12.52

"Regarding 'When a wheel-turning king appears [...] what authority and what marks?': below, this is the second part, explaining the four wheel-turning kings: first asking about the time, second asking about the types, third asking about coexistence, fourth asking about authority, and fifth asking about the marks.

12.53

"Regarding 'The verse says [...] therefore they are not equal to a Buddha': the first line answers the first question; the second line, third line, and the two words 'reverse order' in the fourth line answer the second question; the three words 'sole, like a Buddha' in the fourth line answer the third question; the fifth and sixth lines answer the fourth question; the seventh and eighth lines answer the fifth question.

12.54

"Regarding 'The treatise says [...] is called a wheel-turning king': this explains the first line. Based on this text of the treatise, all four kinds of wheel-turning kings appear in the world only when the human lifespan is eighty thousand years or more.

12.55

"Regarding 'In the Prajñaptiśāstra [...] one should know that it is also thus': this explains the second and third lines, as well as the two words 'reverse order' in the fourth line. First, the treatise is cited to explain the four kings: the iron-wheel king rules one, namely Jambudvīpa; the copper-wheel king rules two, adding Pūrvavideha; the silver-wheel king rules three, further adding Aparagodānīya; the gold-wheel king rules four, further adding Uttarakuru. From 'The sūtra' onwards, the sūtra text is reconciled and explained. According to the treatise, four wheels are spoken of; the sūtra speaks in terms of the preeminent and mentions only the gold-wheel. Having finished citing the sūtra as proof, the author of the treatise explains: 'Since this is so for the gold-wheel, the turning of the remaining three wheels should be known to be likewise.' Or it can be understood altogether that the sūtra text focuses on the preeminent, mentioning only the gold-wheel, and the remaining three are explained by analogy.

12.56

"Regarding 'A wheel-turning king is like a Buddha [...] a wheel-turning king is also thus': this explains 'sole, like a Buddha' in the fourth line. A wheel-turning king has no second arising alongside him in one world realm, just as Buddhas do not coexist. The cited sūtra is clear. 'Place' means spatial location; 'position' means temporal position.

12.57

"Regarding 'One should examine and reflect carefully [...] or with reference to all world realms?': the author of the treatise encourages reflection. When the sūtra says 'only one,' is it based on a single trichiliocosm, or is it spoken with reference to all trichiliocosms?

12.58

"Regarding 'Some say in other realms [...] there is only one Tathāgata': this is the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda. Throughout the realms of the ten directions, there is only one Tathāgata; no two arise together. The established reasoning and cited scriptures are clear. 'Poluomen' (brāhmaṇa) is here translated as 'seeker of purity' (fanzhi). 'Gautama' is one lineage among the kṣatriyas. 'Shi' means lineage or clan.

12.59

"Regarding 'If so, for what reason [...] proceeds with mastery?': the opponent cites a sūtra to raise an objection.

12.60

"Regarding 'It has an intentional meaning': this is the answer.

12.61

"Regarding 'What is the intentional meaning?': the opponent questions.

12.62

"Regarding 'It means that if the World-Honoured One [...] one should know that it is by analogy with this': this thoroughly explains the sūtra text. The Brahmā Sūtra is based on not making preparatory effort (prayogika); the Buddha-eye sees with mastery only in a single trichiliocosm. If it is based on generating preparatory effort, the Buddha-eye can see with mastery in boundless world realms. The divine ear supernormal cognition and so forth should be understood by analogy with this.

12.63

"Regarding 'Masters of other schools say [...] there are certainly multiple Buddhas': this refers to the masters of other schools who maintain that there are Buddhas of the ten directions. It is clear.

12.64

"Regarding 'However, that which they cite [...] and the path to definitive excellence': the school maintaining Buddhas of the ten directions resolves the earlier Śāriputra Sūtra. Does this sūtra refer to a single realm, or to multiple realms? If it refers to multiple realms having only one Buddha, then a wheel-turning king would not exist in other realms, because the sūtra says that just like a Buddha, co-arising is precluded. Since your school already accepts that wheel-turning kings exist separately in other realms, how can you not accept Buddhas in other realms? With simultaneous manifestation the benefit is manifold; how can you not accept that they cause beings to attain the superior rebirth as humans and devas, and to attain the definitive, anāsrava, superior path?"}, Clean up punctuation if necessary.

12.65

"Regarding 'If so, why [...] appear at the same time?': the Sarvāstivāda raises an objection.

12.66

"Regarding 'Because it would be useless [...] no two Buddhas appear': the school maintaining Buddhas of the ten directions answers: first, because it is useless; second, through the power of vows; third, to inspire veneration; fourth, to cause rapid practice.

12.67

"Regarding 'Thus what is spoken of [...] the minister of the army treasure': this explains the fifth and sixth lines.

12.68

"Regarding 'The five treasures such as the elephant [...] give rise to other sentient beings': an objection. Among the seven treasures, excluding the wheel and the jewel treasures, the remaining five, such as the elephant, are categorized as sentient beings. How could the karma of that wheel-turning king produce other sentient beings? This raises an objection regarding the direct cause (pratyaya/hetu).

12.69

"Regarding 'It is not that other sentient beings [...] arise by riding upon their own karma': this is the answer. It is not that other sentient beings, such as the elephant, arise from the direct causal karma of that wheel-turning king, for each arises from their own direct cause. However, through previously created mutually connected, indirect, sovereign karma (adhipati-karma), if one among them arises riding upon their own karma, the others also simultaneously arise riding upon their own karma.

12.70

"Regarding 'Thus what is spoken of [...] the marks of the great person differ': this explains the last two lines. The four types being more than one are referred to as 'all.' The wheel-turning kings all possess the thirty-two marks; the gold-wheel king possesses the most preeminent ones. Although the other three have them, they are not like those of the gold-wheel king.

12.71

"Regarding 'If so, how does a wheel-turning king differ from a Buddha?': a question.

12.72

"Regarding 'The great person marks of a Buddha [...] therefore there is a difference': this is the answer. The Nyāyānusāra explains: '"Properly placed" means that on the Buddha's body, the various marks are not skewed, each being in its proper position. "Clear and distinct" means that on the Buddha's body, the marks are extremely distinct, capable of captivating the mind. "Complete and full" means that on the Buddha's body, the various marks are completely rounded, without any defect or deficiency.'"}, Clean up punctuation if necessary.

12.73

"Regarding 'The people at the beginning of the aeon [...] hiring someone to guard the fields to prevent [theft]': below, this is the third part, explaining the rise of minor kings. A question and a verse answer.

12.74

"Regarding 'The treatise says [...] long-lived and abiding for a long time': this explains the first line. Being apparitionally born at the beginning of the aeon, they are called 'mind-made.' At first they do not have solid food, taking joy and pleasure as their food.

12.75

"Regarding 'There were such types [...] without hoarding': this explains the second line. 'Earth-essence' means coming out from the ground, like melted maltose. 'Earth-cake,' being produced when the earth-essence gradually dries to form cakes, is called earth-cake. 'Forest creepers'—these creepers form forests, hence they are called forest creepers. Before eating the forest creepers, the body had no bodily waste; only after eating fragrant rice did bodily waste appear. The remaining text is easily understood.

12.76

"Regarding 'Later, a person [...] began at this time': this explains the third line.

12.77

"Regarding 'To prevent and guard [...] this time was the beginning': this explains the fourth line. 'Saṃmata' (Sanmota) here means 'universally agreed upon,' referring to a good person universally agreed upon by the crowd. Among paths of unwholesome karma, they are specifically expounded according to their gravity; the remaining minor ones are omitted without discussion. The remaining text is easily understood.

12.78

"Regarding 'During the decline of the aeon, there are three minor calamities': below, this is the third part, explaining the calamities within an aeon. Within this: first, explaining the three minor calamities; second, explaining the three major calamities. Below explains the three minor calamities. The thesis is stated prior to the verse.

12.79

"Regarding 'What are their characteristics?': a question.

12.80

"Regarding 'The verse says [...] ending in seven days, months, and years': the verse answers.

12.81

"Regarding 'The treatise says [...] the calamity of famine arises': this explains the upper three lines. Using this text as proof, the three minor calamities arise separately at the end of intermediate aeons. Furthermore, the Lokasthāiti-abhidharma, fascicle 9, also says that the three minor calamities arise in distinct aeons, as extensively explained there. 'Continuum' refers to the physical body. 'Deviant teachings' refers to various unwholesome teachings. One should know that at this time other faults also arise; from the perspective of what is predominant and serious, greed and hatred are specifically mentioned. A threshing floor is a place where grains and wheat are gathered, hence it is called 'threshing-floor accumulation.' 'Harītakī' is the name of a fruit; the old translation 'helile' is erroneous. Because death from the weapon calamity is rapid, its days are the fewest; death from the epidemic calamity is slower, so its days are somewhat longer; death from the famine calamity is the slowest, so its duration is the longest. The remaining text is easily understood.

12.82

"Regarding 'When these three calamities arise [...] Uttarakuru lacks them altogether': this explains the fourth line.

12.83

"Regarding 'The previously mentioned calamity of fire [...] now should be fully discerned': below, this is the second part, explaining the three major calamities. Mentioning what came before to introduce the question. Previously it was said that the calamity of fire burns the world; the remaining calamities of water and wind are also like this, as should be understood accordingly. What are the remaining calamities of water and wind? Now these three major calamities will be fully discerned.

12.84

"Regarding 'The verse says [...] after seven water and fires, then wind': the first three lines explain the three calamities; the next three lines explain that the fourth dhyāna has no calamities; the last two lines explain the sequence of the calamities arising."} ] } ] }

12.85

On the passage beginning "The treatise says: […] nor is there anything remaining": This explains the first line [of the verse]. Fascicle 133 of the Vibhāṣā states: "When the fire disaster arises, some say: Seven suns were originally hidden behind Mount Yugandhara; first one shines, and later the other six gradually emerge, thereby destroying the world. Some say: One sun divides into seven suns. Some say: One sun becomes seven times hotter. Some say: The seven suns were originally concealed underground and later gradually appeared. As for the correct view (orthodox master): The predominant power of the karma of sentient beings caused the world to form; when the end of the kalpa arrives, because the power of their karma is exhausted, disaster-fire arises according to the proximity of the place, burning everything up to the Brahma palaces. When the water disaster arises, some say: Hot ash-water rains down near the Third Dhyāna, capable of destroying the world. Some say: It wells up from the water mandala below. As for the correct view: The predominant power of the karma of sentient beings caused the world to form; when the end of the kalpa arrives, because the power of their karma is exhausted, disaster-water arises according to the proximity of the place, and through that cause and condition the world is destroyed. When the wind disaster arises, some say: Wind arises near the Fourth Dhyāna, capable of destroying the world. Some say: A violent wind arises from the wind mandala below. As for the correct view: The predominant power of the karma of sentient beings caused the world to form; when the end of the kalpa arrives, because the power of their karma is exhausted, disaster-wind arises according to the proximity of the place, scattering and destroying everything up to the Śubhakṛtsna Heaven." These three disasters in this treatise do not completely align with the orthodox doctrine of the Vibhāṣā. This treatise does not take the arbiters of the Vibhāṣā as authoritative, but speaks as it pleases.

First 85 of 136 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論記 — Classical Chinese