淨名經關中釋抄 2.4.4

2.4.4

Birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are both provisional names. Therefore the lower text states, 'I and nirvāṇa—both of these are empty.' In what way are they empty? They are empty merely because they are names. Regarding 'emerging from the mire': ordinary people take the five desires as the mire; the two vehicles take grasping at realization as the mire. 'The four graspings' are the four clingings. It is also said that they mean not clinging to the triple realm or to nirvāṇa. 'Ānanda' here is translated as 'Joy'. On the night the Buddha attained the Way, Ānanda was born; because joy arose, his royal father named him thus. Furthermore, because of roots of goodness in past lives, those who saw him rejoiced; hence the name. Regarding 'do not slander the Tathāgata': the Lesser Vehicle claims that the Buddha has a body born of karma, which achieved the Way in this present body. The Great Vehicle takes awakening to the fact that the body is originally without a body as the dharmakāya, and manifesting a body in response to beings as the trace body. That is, manifesting sickness in response to beings is not actual sickness. Now grasping at it as incurred by actual karma—is that not slandering? What the various teachings say about the golden spear, the horse barley, and the like is explained by analogy with this. Regarding 'that is the dharmakāya': the Lesser Vehicle takes the sixteen-foot body as the body of birth and death, and the fivefold Dharma body as the dharmakāya. The Great Vehicle takes form as not separate from emptiness; the sixteen-foot body is the real itself. The real is the permanently abiding Dharma-nature, not born of volitional karma. To be identical with the aggregates is to be identical with emptiness and to transcend the triple realm. Emptiness is purity; what contamination could exist? The four marks flow and move; arising and ceasing have no self-nature; being identical with shifting is being non-shifting; hence it is called unconditioned. 'The categories' are the categories of the four marks of the conditioned. [Master Hui]yuan said: 'Not [born of] desire and thought' means severing the obstacle of afflictions. 'Transcending the triple realm' means leaving behind the retribution of portion and limitation. 'Uncontaminated' means breaking through the obstacle to the known. 'Unconditioned' means leaving behind the retribution of change. Chongfu said: 'Not born of desire and thought' means not born of volitional karma, because birth is sovereign; this is the self. 'Transcending the triple realm': the triple realm is suffering; transcending the suffering of the triple realm is bliss. 'Uncontaminated': the defilement of the contaminated; uncontaminated is purity. 'Unconditioned': conditioned dharmas are impermanent; the Buddha's body being unconditioned is permanence. Regarding 'as the layman says': the Buddha's body is truly permanent as analyzed above; this reveals the ultimate. Not being born into the five turbidities yet manifesting sickness to benefit beings: this opens the provisional. Not speaking and not manifesting leads to grasping at the sick body as real; hearing that sickness is a response clarifies that the body is not 'I'—thus there is this opening of the provisional. Yet if the body is not my own, it exists solely for the sake of beings; having a body for the sake of beings, the body is not a [mere] body, but is the dharmakāya. This also reveals the ultimate. The sūtra text being like this, the principle is also crystal clear. Yet those who are confused go so far as to say that only when reaching the Lotus Sūtra does one speak of opening the provisional and revealing the ultimate, and only upon arriving at the Nirvāṇa Sūtra does one begin to distinguish the present body as the dharmakāya—is this not a mistaken view of the sūtra texts? Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra also states that for the sake of the five turbidities it opens the One Vehicle into the three vehicles; this sūtra also, for the sake of the five turbidities, displays the dharmakāya as a sick body. What difference is there between knowing the three to be provisional and understanding the sickness to be a response? What difference is there between awakening to the three as the one and realizing the response to be the real? Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra also states, 'My present body is the permanent body, the dharmakāya.' This sūtra also states, 'The Buddha's body is the dharmakāya.' It also states, 'The Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into categories.' How could one distinguish the unconditioned apart from this sixteen-foot body? Yet those who cling to the teachings and miss the intent, when reaching the Lotus Sūtra, grasp at the one and fix upon the one, saying other sūtras are not the one; arriving at the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, [hearing that] the retribution Buddha is permanent, they immediately say other teachings are not permanent. How could the non-dual Dharma gate not be the one, and true-mark prajñā not be permanent? Thus we know that when tracing the origin and reaching the ultimate, the principle cannot be different. According to capacities, they mutually illuminate; the teachings cannot be single. Names and teachings are not fixed; the bright principle originally has no name. As for the name of the nameless, how could one cling to the name and confine one's view?