止觀輔行傳弘決 2.40

English (machine translation) 2.40

Language: English

2.40.1

Next, in the section on various evils, first, in clarifying the object of contemplation, the words "Now, good and evil are not fixed..." and so forth first clarify good and evil in their general characteristics. These cannot yet entirely serve as objects of contemplation. Why? It is by viewing them in relative comparison that the names 'good' and 'evil' are acquired; this being so, who among humans lacks good? Who does not possess evil? For this reason, they are not taken as the present object of contemplation. As for the words "Rather arouse..." and so forth, ferocity in mind is 'evil' and disease of the body is called 'leprosy.' One would rather temporarily arouse the mind of the three destinies than give rise to the thought of the two vehicles. Regarding the 'vessel of poison,' the Dazhidulun rebukes the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka teaching, saying: "Fully endowed with the three poisons, how could you accumulate immeasurable merits? It is like a poisoned vase: though it stores sweet dew (amṛta), none of it is fit to consume. A bodhisattva cultivates all purely clean merits and only then attains buddhahood. If mixed with the three poisons, how could you be endowed with the pure dharma-gates?" A bodhisattva's body is like a vessel of poison: being fully endowed with afflictions is called being poisonous. Practicing and learning the Buddha-Dharma is like storing sweet dew. Teaching this Dharma to others causes them to lose their life of eternal presence. The words "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'From this [time forward]...'" and so forth cite proof for the distinctive teaching. Thus, in the "Chapter on the Four Marks," Kāśyapa's introductory words state: "Before I had heard the four virtues, all was false views." This was Kāśyapa humbly rebuking himself, [his views] being equivalent in meaning to false ones; how could he have suddenly become identical to the three outer paths prior to this? The present case is also like this: because it does not accord with the principle, it is called a false view in meaning. The false is precisely the evil; therefore, one should know that only the perfect [teaching] is good. Furthermore, there are two senses: first, taking compliance as good and defiance as evil—this is the sense of relative comparison. Next, from the words "If one penetrates..." downward, attachment is taken as evil and penetration is taken as good. In both relative comparison and absolute transcendence, one must abandon evil. Even attachment to the perfect is still evil, how much more so the rest? From the words "Like this..." downward, the general characteristics are concluded. From the words "Now with regard to..." downward, it specifically clarifies that only extreme evil becomes the object of contemplation. Therein, it first sets forth the substance of evil, namely the six coverings. From the words "Wholesome dharmas..." downward, it concludes the preceding and introduces what follows. From the words "Although previously..." downward, it clarifies the intention of contemplating evil. Because it is pure evil, one cannot fail to contemplate it; if one does not contemplate it, there is only evil and no good. Since this is so for both oneself and others, one must cultivate contemplation. From the words "Even if not..." downward, it is an explanation by concession. Even if others do not give rise exclusively to the unwholesome, partial evil is not absent. From the words "Renouncing the household and leaving the world..." downward, it explains the partial arising by way of comparison. If those who have left the household are not complete, in principle they must have partial evil. In the white-robed (laity) there is pure evil, so how much more must there be partial evil? The residual habit-energies of arhats are also still partial evil. From the words "Ordinary persons..." downward, it clarifies the reason for applying contemplation. If even sages still have residual habit-energies, how could ordinary persons indulge themselves? From the words "Like in the time of the Buddha..." downward, it first cites the benefit of applying contemplation in the time of the Buddha, quoting individuals as proof. In the preceding [explanation of] the intention of contemplating evil, the words "the notion of displeasure" refer to the Dazhidulun's explanation of the notion of displeasure regarding all the world among the ten notions: "There are two kinds of worlds: first, sentient beings; second, lands. To say that sentient beings are unpleasant refers to the three evils, the eight sufferings, the fourteen evils, and so forth (and so on). Some are poor yet fond of giving; some have much wealth yet are stingy (spoken mutually in terms of the six coverings). Some are poor and attractive, while some are wealthy and ugly; some are arrogant and haughty, refusing to bow, or deal with things deceitfully. Immeasurable instances like this cannot be fully stated. That the lands are unpleasant means that there is much misfortune without recourse, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, malignant epidemics, poisonous vapors, and various things of this kind, and even being born into the higher realms brings great distress exceeding that of the lower realms, just as falling from a supreme height brings suffering beyond words." When the text says "there are no good persons," it speaks briefly of sentient beings: viewing others from oneself, it is solely pure and not partial; therefore, one cannot fail to contemplate evil. Next, in the explanation by concession, the words "great stinginess" and so forth briefly cite the six coverings to explain partial arising. The first four are as in the text. Wine is the source of disorder, which is the covering of a disordered mind. "Root nature easily snatched away" is the covering of foolishness. If one has wisdom, one is not easily changed by evil. That which can generate is the 'root'; repeated habituation becomes the 'nature.' Constantly altering and changing is therefore called 'easily snatched away.' Furthermore, turning in accordance with objects is 'easy [to alter]'; delusion being strong and losing the real is 'snatched away.' Moreover, substituting foolishness for wisdom is 'easy [to alter]'; wisdom being pulled away by the real is 'snatched away.' Next, in the explanation by comparison, the words "residual habit-energies of arhats" mean: Śāriputra's habit of anger was because in a past lifetime he came from among the snakes. Pilindavatsa's habit of conceit was because in past lifetimes he had been a brāhmaṇa. For instance, while the Buddha was in the world, there was a bhikṣu who would constantly look at himself in a mirror, having come from among women lifetime after lifetime. There was a bhikṣu who was always fond of leaping and bounding, having come from among monkeys lifetime after lifetime. In quoting individuals as proof, the words "In the household..." and so forth broadly cite those who have evil. From "Aṅguli..." downward, it specifically cites evil persons, first clarifying that evil persons possess the Path. Regarding "Aṅguli..." and so forth, the Aṅgulimāla-sūtra states: "In a village named Sana north of the city of Śrāvastī, there was a poor brāhmaṇa woman named Bhadrā. She had a son named All-World-Appearance. He lost his father when young. When he was twelve years old, his complexion, strength, and human marks were all fully complete, and he was clever and skilled in speech. In a different village named Pohasi, there was a brāhmaṇa master named Maṇibhadra, well-versed in the four Vedas, under whom All-World-Appearance studied. The master accepted a king's invitation, and left All-World-Appearance to guard the house while he departed. The brāhmaṇa's wife saw that All-World-Appearance was handsome, and giving rise to a lustful mind, went forward and seized his clothes. At that time, All-World-Appearance addressed her, saying: 'You are my mother. How could I give rise to unwholesomeness toward an elder?' Feeling ashamed in his heart, he abandoned his clothes and kept far away from her. The woman, thwarted, scratched herself with her nails, tied herself with ropes, and kept her feet off the ground. After the husband returned, fearing that All-World-Appearance would expose her unwholesomeness, she slandered All-World-Appearance with evil deeds, saying: 'After you left, All-World-Appearance did improper things to me.' The master said: 'When he was first born, there were great auspicious signs; he surely does not have this fault.' Yet he said to him: 'If you kill a thousand people, you may be freed from your guilt.' Because All-World-Appearance respected the master's teachings, he addressed the master, saying: 'Alas, Preceptor! Killing a thousand people is not what I should do.' The master said: 'You are an evil person; do you not delight in being born as a brāhmaṇa?' He replied: 'Excellent! I obey your command.' Thereupon he bowed at the master's feet. Having heard and seen this, the master conceived an extraordinary thought: 'You are a greatly evil person, so why have you not died? You must be made to kill people one by one, take their fingers to make a garland, and crown your head with it; only then will you become a brāhmaṇa (for this reason he was named Aṅgulimāla).' [He replied:] 'Excellent! I receive your instruction.'" The Ekottarika-āgama states: "Having thus killed a thousand people in succession, he took their fingers to make a garland."

2.40.2

people reported to King Prasenajit: 'In the country there is a human serpent who has killed countless people.' Monks begging for food heard this and reported it to the Buddha. The Buddha straightaway went there. All the firewood gatherers and herders of cows and sheep could not pass through, saying, 'There is a brigand here.' The Buddha nevertheless advanced forward. Seeing the Buddha coming from afar, [Aṅgulimāla] said, 'The count for my garland of fingers is still incomplete.' His mother had just brought him food, and he thought to himself: 'I heard from my master that by killing one's mother one will be born in heaven.' He then grabbed his mother's head and drew his sword with his hand, intending to kill her. The Buddha emitted light that shone upon him, and [Aṅguli]māla said, 'Could this be a deva coming to strike me down?' The mother said, 'This is not the light of devas, the sun, or the moon; it must be the World-Honoured One.' Hearing the Buddha's name, [Aṅguli]māla said, 'My master also said, "If you kill a śramaṇa, you will definitely attain birth in heaven."' He told his mother, 'Wait here for now. I will go kill the śramaṇa.' Releasing his mother, he pursued the Buddha. He saw the Buddha like a mountain of gold; the Buddha walked along the road, and though he ran to chase him, he could not catch up." Speaking verses to the Buddha—which are identical to those in the *Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra*, where the *Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra* states: "Stop, stop, great śramaṇa, / eldest prince of King Śuddhodana! / I am Aṅgulimāla; / now I must levy a toll of one finger!" In this manner there are thirty-nine verses in all, differing only in the second line, saying: "O man in dyed robes free from greed," "O man of broken appearance with shaven head," "O man content holding an alms-bowl," and so on. The Buddha answered with two hundred and sixty-seven verses, saying: "Stop, stop, Aṅgulimāla! / You must abide in pure precepts. / I am the Equanimous and Fully Awakened One; / I offer you the toll of the sword of wisdom!" He altered only the third line, with the remaining lines being identical. The other third lines say: "I abide in the limit of non-arising," "I abide in the reality limit," "I abide in the limit of non-action." In all cases he used what he had realized to answer Aṅgulimāla. Having heard this, through the Buddha's power, [Aṅgulimāla] was made to awaken to the words of the Sanskrit original: "The Tathāgata appears in the world / only to be encountered after kotis of kalpas; / he delivers those who are not yet delivered, and so forth (the four universal vows); / for whoever sees the Buddha, / he immediately explains cessation." [Thinking,] "Since running after him I could not catch up, this must surely be the Tathāgata," he cast his sword into a deep pit and straightaway bowed down to the Buddha. The Buddha said, "Welcome, [monk]." He immediately became a śramaṇa and attained purity of the Dharma-eye. King Śuddhodana led the fourfold army to go attack him. The king thought he should first see the World-Honoured One. Having seen him, he reported everything to the Buddha. The Buddha asked his intention, and the king fully replied with his intention. The Buddha said to the king, "If you see that he has left home to practice the Path, what then?" The king said, "I would make offerings and bow down in service to him. But he has not the slightest good in him—how could he arouse such a mind?" At that time Aṅgulimāla was not far from the Buddha, upright in thought and seated cross-legged. The Buddha pointed him out to the king from afar. After paying homage and making offerings, the king praised the Buddha for being able to subdue such an evil person. Later, the Buddha again preached the Dharma for him, and he attained the fruit of an arhat, endowed with the six spiritual penetrations. Entering the city to beg for food, those who saw him recognized him. A woman was having a very difficult childbirth, and [her family] saw the Buddha. The Buddha [instructed Aṅgulimāla to say], "Since becoming a noble sage, I have never killed anyone." The woman suffered no harm. The monks asked the Buddha about the past causes, and so forth. Originally, in following the Brahmanical teaching to seek birth in heaven, not disobeying his master's instruction and moreover preserving the woman's deceptive flattery, he engaged in killing; therefore the present text says, "The more he killed, the more compassion [he thought he had]." As for "Jeta and Mallikā" and so on: according to the lower fascicle of the *Sūtra on the Unprecedented*, it states: "Prince Jeta said to the Buddha: 'Formerly I received the five precepts, but the prohibition on alcohol is difficult to uphold; I wish to relinquish the five precepts and uphold the ten wholesome [actions].' The Buddha said, 'What fault is there when you drink?' He answered, 'The eminent and worthy of the country sometimes bring [wine] to drink together with me; there is no other fault.' The Buddha said, 'If it is like this, there is no fault throughout your whole life.'" Now, wholesome [actions] are of two kinds: with outflows and without outflows. If drinking does not give rise to evil karma, this is a wholesome retribution, called wholesome with outflows. The Buddha thereupon explained the past causes and conditions: "Formerly in Śrāvastī there was a kṣatriya who, because of a minor quarrel, incurred great enmity and raised troops to attack each other. The king had a great minister named Tivera, who relied on his high status and was arrogant; at that time the prince truly wished to execute him. His royal father would not permit it, and [the prince] harbored resentment and vexation. The queen mother, seeing this, brought fine wine and encouraged me [to drink]. I said, 'Since the time of my ancestors, we have never drunk wine. If I drink wine, the god Nārāyaṇa will be angered, and the brahmins will attack me.' In the middle of the night, the queen mother secretly opened the palace gates and urged me repeatedly. Having drunk it, I forgot my worries. For three days I experienced joy and happiness, and because of this, the enmity ceased. The royal father again admonished [me]: 'Virtue has been cultivated for successive generations; why incur such enmity over a small matter? If one does not endure it, the kingdom will be lost.' Because of this there was peace and harmony; this was the power of drinking." As for Mallikā, the sūtra states: "Originally she was the slave girl of the brahmin Yajñadatta in Rājagṛha, named Yellow-Head, who was constantly assigned to guard the garden. By the merit of offering dried rice to the Buddha, later King Prasenajit, while on a hunting excursion, entered the garden and saw her. The slave girl provided various services and massages for the king, greatly pleasing the king's mind. The king asked the brahmin, 'Is she for sale?' He replied, 'A lowly slave girl, what is she fit for?' The king asked him again, and he replied, 'One thousand ounces of gold.' The king then bought her from him for one hundred thousand ounces of gold and made her his foremost consort." The *Sūtra on the Unprecedented* says: "King Prasenajit said to the Buddha: 'As the Buddha has spoken, because the mind is joyful and does not give rise to evil karma, it is called wholesome with outflows. But this matter is not so. Just as when a person drinks wine, their mind is joyful and does not give rise to afflictions; because afflictions do not arise, they do not kill. I remember formerly, when I was hunting, I forgot to bring the cook, and in the mountains I felt hungry. My attendants said to the king, "This morning you did not order the cook to be brought; right now there is no food." Having heard this, I galloped back to the palace and ordered food to be brought. The cook, named Śukra, said, "Right now there is no ready food; I am just about to make it." Oppressed by hunger, I was enraged and ordered the cook to be executed. The ministers discussed together: "In the entire country there is only this one person; after he is killed, there will be no one who understands cooking to suit the king's taste." At that time Consort Mallikā, having heard this, immediately had fine wine and delicious meat prepared, bathed, adorned her body with famous perfumes, and brought various singing girls to my presence. Seeing the consort, my anger immediately subsided. The consort, on her own initiative, sent a eunuch to falsely transmit an order not to execute the cook. When next morning came, I deeply regretted and reproached myself, being melancholy and unhappy. The consort asked me, "Why are you unhappy?" The king said, "Yesterday, pressed by the fire of hunger, I mistakenly killed the cook. For this reason, I am full of remorse and sorrow." The consort smiled and said, "The man is still alive; may the king not sorrow!" The king said, "Is this true, or is it a joke?"

2.40.3

… she answered, ‘He really is alive.’ She had a messenger summon him, and I rejoiced greatly.’ The king addressed the Buddha: ‘My lady upholds the five precepts and observes the six monthly fasts. Within a single day, among the five precepts she violated the two against intoxicants and lying, and among the eight precepts she violated five—namely, eating past noon, wearing flowers and fragrances, engaging in entertainment and dancing, sitting on high and broad beds, drinking intoxicants, and speaking falsehoods. Is her sin of breaking the precepts heavy or light?’ The Buddha said: ‘One who violates them in this manner attains great merit. Why is this? Because it was done to bring benefit.’ ” This concerns setting aside the prohibition to rescue beings, a bodhisattva benefiting others; only then can it be called “good within evil,” which is why [the text] says, “Only alcohol, only the precepts.” If one wishes to follow this precedent, one must carefully weigh matters oneself; if one merely follows a lustful mind, it is ultimately not the mark of upholding [the precepts]. Regarding “Vasumitrā” and so forth: The Shuowen says, “Yin (lust) means secret license.” The Zuo zhuan says, “Coveting sexual beauty.” The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: “Next journeying south, there was a city named Alaṃkāra. There lived a good friend, a woman named Vasumitrā (and so on). Sudhana arrived there seeking this woman. Those in the city who did not know better said: ‘This youth has senses that are tranquil, his wisdom is distinct, he has scrutinized her for a fathom’s length, his gaze does not blink, and his mind does not waver. He should not harbor a lustful mind toward that woman. This youth does not practice demonic fetters (and so on).’ Among them were wise persons who previously knew this woman, and they told Sudhana: ‘Excellent, excellent! You are now able to seek this woman. You have already obtained vast roots of goodness; you must resolutely seek the fruit of buddhahood.’ They offered varied admonitions to shatter the lustful thoughts that all sentient beings harbor toward female form. [They said,] ‘Good son! This woman lives in the city, north of the marketplace, in her own dwelling.’ Hearing this, he rejoiced and went to her gate, seeing that her dwelling was adorned in varied ways. He saw this woman of beautiful appearance and graceful form, skillful in conversation, having entered the skillful means dharma-gate of illusion-like wisdom, with varied adornments upon her body. From her body shone a vast light that universally illuminated the dwelling; those who encountered this light had their bodies purified. He went forward, paid homage at her feet, joined his palms, and addressed her: ‘Noble one! I have already aroused [the aspiration for awakening] (and so on).’ The woman said: ‘I have attained the liberation named the realm of detachment from desire. In accordance with what beings desire, I manifest my body, causing each to see it differently. If those bound by lustful thoughts come to my place, those who hear the Dharma, those who see me, those who hold my hand, those who momentarily ascend my bed, those who see me yawn, and those who see me blink their eyes—all attain detachment from desire. Those who embrace me and kiss my lips each attain a dharma-gate. Formerly, under the Tathāgata King of Lofty Conduct, I was an elder’s wife and gave a single gold coin. At that time Mañjuśrī was the Buddha’s attendant; he preached the Dharma for me and caused me to arouse the aspiration for awakening. Through this I attained the bodhisattva dharma-gate of the realm of detachment from desire. Hence we know that both the one who transforms and the one transformed achieve detachment from desire on account of desire.’ ” Thus it is said, “There is good within evil.” Furthermore, as in the first fascicle of the Bodhisattva Jñānottara Sūtra: Ānanda entered the city to beg for food and saw the Bodhisattva Vijayavikrāmin sitting on the same bed with a woman. [Ānanda] thought: “Has the committing of defilement reached someone so distinguished? Shall one practicing pure conduct commit such things within the teaching of the Tathāgata, contrary to what is seen and heard?” When he uttered these words, the great thousandfold [world] shook in six ways, and the bodhisattva immediately rose into the air, forty-nine feet above the ground, saying to Ānanda: “Could one who has committed desire rise into the air like this?” Ānanda threw himself to the ground in self-reproach: “How could I seek fault in a great dragon?” This too took desire as a dharma-gate. Recently I have seen shameless people who either claim unobstructedness or speak of the fusion of the principle. If they had attained the principle, they ought to be like the company of Vasumitrā and Jñānottara: rising into the air with their bodies, with their primary and dependent [karmic rewards] majestic and splendid, causing others to awaken and enter into immeasurable dharma-gates. Even if they could display supernormal powers, one should still ask them: “From what were these powers obtained? What is the name of the dharma-gate you have personally realized? Under which Buddha did you first arouse the aspiration [for awakening]? How many Buddhas have you served in the past? When in the future will you achieve bodhi? From which Buddha did you receive a prediction? In which direction will you purify a Buddha-field in the future? What will your Buddha-name be? How many assemblies of teaching will there be? What will be the names of your attendant and the one who succeeds your place? What will be your lifespan in kalpas? How many are the numbers of the true and semblance Dharma’s duration?” If they cannot answer such questions, then it is merely demonic power. For the fundamental, outflow-bound supernormal powers of non-Buddhists, once a lustful thought arises, these powers are lost again; or else such people are shameless liars. If they claim that this very body is already a Buddha: Śākyamuni has already entered parinirvāṇa, Maitreya has not yet descended, and this is not a Buddha coming from another world either. If not a demonic thief, who else would this be? If you do not believe in the Buddhas of the ten directions and call yourself a Buddha, this is an extreme transgression. Hence we know that such a person destroys their own aspiration for the path and shatters the good seeds of others. If it were a case of great provisional [beings] using counter-transformations, they would never declare of themselves: “My conduct is unobstructed.” The Bodhisattva Jñānottara Sūtra also says: “Incalculable kalpas ago, there was a brahmacārin named Dīpapradīpa, practicing auspicious vows in the midst of groves and thickets. After four hundred and twenty years, he entered the kingdom of Magadha. A potter’s daughter saw that the brahmacārin was handsome and cast herself before him. The brahmacārin told her: ‘I take no pleasure in desire.’ The woman said: ‘If you cannot [comply], I will immediately kill myself.’ The brahmacārin reflected: ‘I have constantly guarded the precepts; if I were to repeatedly violate them, it would not be auspicious.’ Stepping seven paces away from her, he immediately aroused compassion and wished to break the precept, for otherwise the woman would die. [He thought:] ‘Better that the woman be at peace and I enter hell.’ He complied with her wish for twelve years, and at the end of his life he was born in the Brahmā heaven.” The former case was the inconceivable transformation of the dharma-body; this case was an actual practice of abandoning pure conduct to rescue beings. Those who would emulate this must reflect carefully: if you cannot endure even minor worldly suffering, could you really break the precepts and enter hell? Regarding “Devadatta’s wrong views being identical to right [views]”: between the two characters duo and dou [in Chinese transcriptions of Devadatta], either one may be retained; if both are retained, it is likely a textual error, as noted briefly in the commentary to the first fascicle. He currently abides in Avīci suffering unremitting torment. The Lotus [Sūtra] also says: “Owing to Devadatta, [the Buddha] perfected the marks and signs, and he received the prediction that he would become a Buddha named Devarāja.” With the exception of the Lotus [Sūtra], all other teachings merely say that from life to life he was an evil companion causing affliction; this is because the teachings differ regarding the provisional and the real. Below, “If various…”, is the conclusion. The deep and shallow traces manifested by great provisional beings are difficult to fathom. Looking at the text in a general way, those like Aṅgulimāla seem like ordinary persons, while Vasumitrā entered the stages long ago. Although she had already entered the stages, it refers directly to when she was first an elder’s wife and was able to be detached from desire; this is called good within evil.

2.40.4

If she had remained an ordinary person forever, she could not have realized the dharma-gate of detachment from desire. Hence we know that Aṅgulimāla is discussed provisionally from his traces. If discussed from the source, it is also because in the past he was able to escape from evil deeds such as killing; therefore, in his traces, he also took killing as a dharma-gate for benefiting others. Furthermore, whenever “manifesting” is spoken of, it is manifested as actual practice to cause immeasurable people to no longer commit evil. Speaking in terms of actual practice does no harm to the principle. Worldly people are often confused about the meaning of provisional traces, dismissing all superior practices as merely provisional. If it were like this, all the practices of the bodhisattvas would be equivalent to empty fabrication. It is precisely because those who do actual evil fall, while those who reform evil ascend, that the sages manifest ascending and falling, in order to make those of actual practice turn from evil to good. Therefore the text says, “Although practicing the various hindrances, one is able to achieve sagehood.” When it says “does not obstruct,” it means that evil can be changed, and it encourages one to cultivate calming and contemplation in the presence of evil; one must not indulge in evil and remain an ordinary person forever. It does not mean that retaining evil is called being unobstructive. Below, “Furthermore, the path does not obstruct evil,” explains that although one has attained the path, there is still residual evil. Regarding “stream-enterer (srotāpanna)”: the eleventh fascicle of the Avadāna Sūtra (Chuyao jing) says: “Formerly there was an attainer of the first fruit whose mind was focused on female form even to the point of dreaming of it. His wife was greatly distressed by this. Encountering a monk who was a relative and an acquaintance, the woman said: ‘I wish to confide my feelings; may I do so?’ The monk answered: ‘There is no problem. Secret matters should be kept covered.’ The woman said: ‘My husband has so much lust that he leaves no room to eat or rest; because of this he has fallen ill, and I fear his life will not be preserved.’ The monk said: ‘When your husband approaches you, you should say to him: “Is this how a stream-enterer is supposed to act?”’ Later she acted as instructed. Hearing this, the husband felt ashamed, attained the third fruit, and no longer engaged in affairs with women. The woman asked her husband: ‘Why have you stopped forever?’ The husband said: ‘I have seen you thoroughly; why would I go to you again?’ The woman said: ‘What fault do I have, that you say you have seen me thoroughly?’ She then gathered their relatives and said: ‘My husband has become estranged from me and cast me aside, ending our intimacy forever.’ The husband said: ‘I will adduce proof to make it clear myself.’ He then took a painted vase, filled it with feces, covered its mouth, and told her to play with it. Seeing that she had finished playing with it, he struck and broke it with a stick, and the filth flowed out. [He asked:] ‘Can you still play with this vase now?’ The woman said: ‘I would rather embrace a corpse, enter a fire pit or deep water, or throw myself from a high mountain; I could never approach it.’ The husband said: ‘I view your body as worse even than this.’ He then spoke a verse:

Linked texts (1)

止觀輔行傳弘決 — Classical Chinese