法華文句記 10.12

10.12

次約報身不滅者為二：先牒前說。不滅即是報稱於法，法既不滅報亦不滅。次「以理」下約事理相對以釋，先約理無滅，次「就有」下約事有滅，從約理邊即是不滅。初約理中云「為到故」等者，於其惑智四句檢責，還約體檢，惑尚不滅、智體無破。此用《大經》師子吼難，難言：若毘婆舍那破煩惱者，何故復修奢摩他耶？佛反質云：若言智慧能破煩惱，為到故破？為不到能破？若到故破，凡夫能破。若不到破，初念應破。若初念不破，後亦不破。若到不到破者，是義不然。如是推求，誰有智慧能破煩惱？言「共獨」者，佛言：如一盲人不能見色，雖伴眾盲亦不能見。慧定共別準說可知。此即報智不能滅惑。次「就有智慧」等者，復更約事而定判之，智能滅惑智不名滅。

Next, regarding the non-extinction of the saṃbhogakāya, there are two [parts]: first, repeating the previous explanation. Non-extinction is the saṃbhoga matching the Dharma; since the Dharma is not extinguished, the saṃbhoga is also not extinguished. Next, from "In terms of principle..." downward explains by contrasting phenomena and principle: first, in terms of principle there is no extinction; next, from "Taking it in terms of existence..." downward, in terms of phenomena there is extinction; from the side of principle, it is non-extinction. In the first part, in terms of principle, when it says "Does it do so by reaching..." and so on, it examines and questions delusion and wisdom through the four propositions, which still examines in terms of essence: delusion is not yet extinguished, and the essence of wisdom has no destruction. This employs the objection of Siṃhanāda in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, where he objected: "If vipaśyanā destroys afflictions, why cultivate śamatha again?" The Buddha questioned him in return: "If you say that wisdom can destroy afflictions, does it destroy by reaching them, or can it destroy without reaching them? If it destroys by reaching them, ordinary people could destroy them. If it destroys without reaching them, the initial thought should destroy them. If the initial thought does not destroy them, subsequent ones would not destroy them either. If it destroys by both reaching and not reaching, this principle is not correct. Investigating in this way, who has the wisdom that can destroy afflictions?" As for the words "together or alone," the Buddha said: "Just as one blind person cannot see forms, even if accompanied by a crowd of blind people they still cannot see." Wisdom and concentration together or separate can be known by following this explanation. This means that the wisdom of the saṃbhogakāya cannot extinguish delusion. Next, from "Taking it in terms of having wisdom..." downward, it further determines it in terms of phenomena: wisdom can extinguish delusion, and wisdom is not called extinguished.