大般涅槃經集解 12.28

12.28

案僧亮曰：我以熱及赤色同譬煩惱也。赤色滅已，鐵則不現；煩惱滅已，如來不在五趣中矣。此少分譬耳。若遍譬者，鐵則兩譬：還赤則譬凡夫，不赤以譬佛也。僧宗曰：前有兩難，此先答後難也。汝不得全引鐵譬也，鉆上之鐵可譬凡夫，以凡夫伏結雖至非想，後還復起；佛則不爾，永不復起也。寶亮曰：釋與此同。智秀曰：并破二譬，明凡夫如是，或滅復起，故無常身也。明駿案：迦葉向難，意在常處；就佛此答，未正塞其難也，且先結譬持與凡夫，凡夫雖滅，非究竟滅，滅非究竟，可更還生；如來不爾，故不無常也。

Sengliang states: "I took both heat and red color together as an analogy for afflictions. Once the red color is extinguished, the iron is no longer visible; once afflictions are extinguished, the Tathāgata is no longer in the five destinies. This is merely a partial analogy. If it were a comprehensive analogy, iron would have two analogies: returning to redness would illustrate ordinary persons, while not turning red would illustrate the Buddha." Sengzong states: "Previously there were two objections; this first answers the latter objection. You must not apply the iron analogy entirely; the iron on the anvil can serve as an analogy for ordinary persons, because although ordinary persons suppress fetters even up to the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, they arise again afterward; with the Buddha it is not so, for they never arise again." Baoliang states: "The explanation is the same as this." Zhixiu states: "This refutes both analogies together, clarifying that ordinary persons are like this—sometimes being extinguished and then arising again, and therefore having an impermanent body." Mingjun notes: "Kāśyapa's preceding objection was aimed at the place of permanence; in this answer of the Buddha, he has not yet directly resolved that objection, but first applies the analogy to ordinary persons: although ordinary persons extinguish [fetters], it is not an ultimate extinction, and because the extinction is not ultimate, they can arise again; the Tathāgata is not like this, and therefore is not impermanent."