Nirvana Sutra Commentary (涅槃經會疏)

Here is the translation of the provided text:

**Chapter Fourteen: The Parable of the Birds**

The Simile of the Bird

The text from the west of the river says: "The chapter on Words and Letters and the chapter on Birds both illuminate three aspects. The true response, words, and letters—complete and incomplete—are merely metaphors using birds. Constancy and impermanence, constancy and inconstancy, are merely metaphors using the moon. Hidden and manifest, through words one comes to understand principle, reaching what is constant and what is impermanent, able to be hidden and able to be manifest. Now I will further elaborate."

The Thus Come One always relies on the two truths and the three truths when preaching the Dharma. Therefore, know that words and letters are the Buddha's teaching. Through words and letters, one reaches the fullness of the three truths. One teaching is all teachings. To reveal the complete and perfect sutra, the chapter on Words and Letters is placed here.

Next, the bird metaphor: relying on the teaching establishes practice, which is the dual flowing practice. The two practices are contemplated together. One practice is all practices. The text below says, "There is further one practice—that is the Thus Come One's practice." After the chapter on Words and Letters, the two birds are shown traveling together, thus establishing the sequence.

This is also relying on the teaching to give rise to wisdom. Wisdom looks back at the teaching, and the teaching becomes the realm. From the realm, wisdom arises. From wisdom, practice is established. The teaching transforms into the realm, and wisdom transforms into practice—this is the sequence. This chapter answers the question: "How do they practice the holy path together—the sala tree and the kalavinka bird?" This again uses the bird as a metaphor for practice, as the answer to the question.

The capability of the metaphor is the sala tree and kalavinka bird; what is metaphorized is the dual flowing, co-practice. Old interpretations differ: some say "sala" means a pair, and "kalavinka" means bird. But "sala" is translated as "firm" or "solid"—how could it mean "a pair"? Some say "sala" is one bird and "kalavinka" is another—these are two different species, not a pair. Some say "sala" is a pair and "kalavinka" is a pair, citing the text below: "Birds are of two kinds—one called mandarin ducks, the other called kalavinka." This makes two pairs of two species.

Some say "sala" is translated as "mandarin duck." The question asks about "sala," and the answer gives "mandarin duck"—the species differs but the meaning is the same, substituting mandarin duck for sala. Some say "kalavinka" has no translation, or it is translated as "heavenly crane," citing the six-volume version: "wild goose, crane, and sariputra." But the Chinese failed to properly transliterate the Sanskrit, only increasing disputes.

The intent lies in the metaphor—taking the male and female, flying together and resting without separation—to metaphorize "one in the midst of countless, countless in the midst of one; neither one nor countless, yet one yet countless." This is called dual flowing, and thus named co-practice.

Question: Is it ordinary beings co-practicing with ordinary beings, saints co-practicing with saints, or ordinary beings co-practicing with saints?

Other interpretations say: contemplating the impermanence of birth and death, without recognizing the constancy of nirvana; or contemplating the constancy of nirvana, without recognizing the impermanence of birth and death. These two interpretations are unclear—like knowing only gold but not brass, or knowing only brass but not gold. If one precisely knows both things, this is the dual contemplation of suffering and happiness, self and no-self, likewise.

Saints practice thus, ordinary beings also practice thus—therefore called co-practice.

This is not correct, for it contradicts the metaphor. The metaphor says two birds roam together. According to your explanation, one bird exhausts the lower birth-and-death, and one bird exhausts the higher nirvana. Rising and sinking are greatly divergent—the dual roaming is not clearly shown. Even if two birds roam only below and not above, or roam above and not below, the dual roaming is not accomplished.

Another school cites complete and incomplete as one dharma, and dual roaming as two dharmas. If one takes birth-and-death as impermanent and the Buddha-fruit as constant, together making the "complete," then the two things are each distinct—pear and apple are different in substance—how can this be "complete"?

The dual roaming means: contemplating that within birth and death there is both constancy and impermanence, and contemplating that within the Buddha-fruit there is also both constancy and impermanence. Taking the two "constants" of birth-and-death and nirvana as one pair of "complete," and taking the two "impermanences" of birth-and-death and nirvana as one pair of "incomplete"—that is, two dharmas arising together—this is called dual roaming.

Now I clarify that all these meanings are not correct. Two constants arising together are two males flying together. Two impermanences arising together are two females flying together. This contradicts the metaphor—the dual roaming is not accomplished.

Now, the dual roaming means: birth and death possess both constancy and impermanence, and nirvana also does. Below and above, they fly in pairs and rest in pairs. In the very phenomena, there is principle; in the very principle, there are phenomena. The two truths are exactly the middle, and the middle is exactly the two truths. Not two middles, yet two and middle—this is how the meaning of dual roaming is accomplished. The male and female are also accomplished.

Phenomena and principle roaming in duality—once this meaning is accomplished, name and contemplation, even to the ultimate, dual roaming is all accomplished. Horizontal and vertical are both complete, without deficiency. In this, there are complete contents of ordinary-with-ordinary co-practice, ordinary-and-saint co-practice, and neither-ordinary-nor-saint co-practice. Analyzed according to person and dharma, all are accomplished.

For this reason, it is called the chapter on the Bird Metaphor. The text has two parts: first the general, then the specific. The general has two parts: first the brief, then the discussion of meaning. In the brief, there is first the metaphor, then the correlation.

The Buddha further said to Kāśyapa, "Good man, there are two kinds of birds: one is called the Kalaviṅka, and the other is called the mandarin duck. They roam and rest together, never parting from each other."

Just as suffering, impermanence, and non-self are inseparable, so too are all phenomena—they cannot be separated from one another.

In the initial analogy, the two birds are cited to illustrate permanence and impermanence, while the matching text pairs suffering and non-self—this is merely a brief summary. Privately, I think this also reveals that the meanings are the same, so the two are mutually expressed; according to the full exposition, there should be six aspects.

In this discussion, the first question is raised.

Kashyapa Bodhisattva said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, what does it mean that suffering, impermanence, and no-self are like those mandarin ducks and Kalavinka birds?"

In the subsequent explanation, the principle is first discussed, followed by an illustrative example.

In the earlier teachings, it is said that within the realm of conditioned existence, there are distinct factors that are suffering, and distinct factors that are happiness. Previously, it was explained that birth-and-death (samsara) is separate from nirvana, and nirvana is separate from birth-and-death, hence the distinction between suffering and happiness. The contemplative master noted that earlier discussions primarily refuted mistaken views and spoke of permanence and impermanence in a vertical, sequential manner. Now, in this chapter, permanence and impermanence are addressed simultaneously. It is only within birth-and-death that there are certain factors described as suffering, and other factors described as happiness, and likewise with self and no-self.

Just as rice differs from sesame and wheat, and sesame and wheat differ from beans, millet, and sugarcane.

Next, the parable of the five grains differing illustrates the previous point about differences. The following separate parable says: "Flowers and leaves are impermanent, but the fruit is constant." This does not refer to the eternal permanence of nirvana. It means that flowers and leaves are uncertain, hence impermanent, while the fruit, once formed, is fixed, hence constant. This is used to illustrate that impermanence leads to constancy.

From this point onward, the discussion of shared practices is divided into two parts: first, a detailed explanation; second, a discussion of the doctrine. The detailed explanation is further divided into three sections: first, explaining impermanence in relation to birth and death; second, explaining non-self in relation to nirvana; third, explaining suffering and joy by combining both birth-and-death and nirvana. Among these, the first two are horizontal, while the last is vertical. Ideally, all should be fully discussed, but the text presents them alternately. The first section is further divided into two parts: first, explaining the two practices directly; second, concluding the chapter. In the direct explanation, five analogies are given. The first analogy is further divided into two parts: first, the simile; second, its application. The simile itself has three aspects: first, the analogy; second, the discussion of its meaning; third, the understanding and acceptance.

All these plants, from their sprouts to their flowers and leaves, are impermanent. When the fruits ripen and are enjoyed by people, they are then called permanent. Why? Because their nature is truly real.

This treatise has two parts: first, a question; second, an answer.