大般涅槃經集解 20.32

20.32

案僧亮曰：上以不分別為失，此取因果定相著有為故為失，下以苦無常無我顯著無為之失也。我與無我性無有二者，此明第一義中道離有無二邊也。敬遺記僧宗曰：此第八段，曾聞師說：指此名為迷圓教而起惑也。就文而撿無，灼然有異，乃隨人釋耳。但上已明有無中道，然亦事須明顯相續中道，以其義勢相涉故也。前三句，就有漏法中明因果黑白二法通漏無漏，明因果也。凡夫聞因果之言，便謂天隔，生二法之想。深達之者，體因果之異故不得言一，因果相關不得言異也。法蓮記僧宗曰：此第二番，惑圓教也。聞說法身是常、學地無常，凡夫執言，佛與眾生，明無明異，有為無為各不相關也。偏教亦明十二因緣何以為異，借以為譬，於明無明若不了者，況能善達圓教妙理耶？無明為因，明則為果，下有為無為等句皆如是也。寶亮曰：此下第二重，明實相中道也。若直談昔教，偏取生死空有為實。若就今經為語，乃識神明妙體真如為實，知金剛心已還必是苦空無常，佛果必是常樂我淨。若作如斯之解，便於兩邊皆得實義，成中道行。所以然者，生死體空，亦從本來無二無別。涅槃體如如，亦本來無相。此是體識諸法實相之理也。然此中所明唯斯一途，下所歷事雖多，然其義要不復異也。夫執相者，云因緣之法有一定性，無明亦有一定性也，兩物各不相關。是故佛言：實相之理，彼此俱無也。智秀曰：此下明相續法上辯不異一段之中道也。有二意：第一說無二之性即是實性，正顯不異，一假名義也。第二從「我與無我性無有二」訖「無有二相」，第二意，以理相深遠，恐聞不即解，乃引諸佛所讚及《大品》所明，我亦曾說假一之理用證今說，明其理甚實，不可不信也。

Sengliang comments: Above, failing to discriminate was the fault; here, seizing upon fixed characteristics of cause and fruit and clinging to the saṃskṛta is the fault. Below, by means of suffering, impermanence, and non-self, the fault of clinging to the asaṃskṛta is revealed. "Self and non-self have no duality in their nature" clarifies the Middle Way of the supreme truth, which is free from the two extremes of existence and non-existence. Sengzong's record by Jingyi says: This eighth passage was once explained by my master as referring to being confused by the complete teaching and giving rise to delusion. Examining the text, there is no glaring difference, so it is just explained according to different interpreters. Above, the Middle Way of existence and non-existence has already been clarified, yet it is also necessary to clearly reveal the Middle Way of continuity, because their conceptual imports interpenetrate. The preceding three lines clarify cause and fruit within tainted dharmas; the black and white dharmas encompass both tainted and untainted, clarifying cause and fruit. When ordinary people hear the words "cause and fruit," they assume a vast separation and produce the thought of two dharmas. Those who deeply penetrate them realize the difference between cause and fruit, and therefore they cannot be said to be identical; yet because cause and fruit are interrelated, they cannot be said to be different. Sengzong's record by Falian says: This is the second round: confusion over the complete teaching. Hearing that the dharmakāya is permanent while the stage of training is impermanent, ordinary people cling to the claim that the Buddha and sentient beings, brightness and ignorance, differ, and that the saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta have no connection to each other. The partial teaching also clarifies the twelve links of dependent origination; why are they different? They are borrowed as an analogy: if one does not understand brightness and ignorance, how could one properly penetrate the wondrous principle of the complete teaching? Ignorance is the cause, and brightness is the fruit; the subsequent lines on saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta and so forth are all like this. Baoliang says: From here below is the second layer, clarifying the Middle Way of the true mark. If one strictly speaks of the past teaching, it took the emptiness and existence of saṃsāra as real in a one-sided way. If spoken in terms of the present sūtra, it recognizes the wondrous substance of the conscious spirit, tathatā, as real, knowing that from the vajra-like mind back must be suffering, emptiness, and impermanence, while the Buddha-fruit must be permanence, bliss, self, and purity. If one forms such an understanding, then at both extremes one attains the real meaning, fulfilling the practice of the Middle Way. Why is this? The substance of saṃsāra is empty, and from the beginning has been without duality or difference. The substance of nirvāṇa is suchness, and is also originally signless. This is the principle of realizing and knowing the true mark of all dharmas. Yet what is clarified here is solely this single path; although the matters passed through below are many, their essential meaning is no longer different. Those who cling to signs say that conditioned dharmas have a fixed nature, and ignorance also has a fixed nature, two things unrelated to each other. Therefore the Buddha says: in the principle of the true mark, both are non-existent. Zhixiu says: From here below, the Middle Way of non-difference upon continuous dharmas is explained in this section. There are two meanings: first, stating that "the nature of non-duality is itself the true nature" directly reveals non-difference, which is the meaning of a single nominal designation; second, from "self and non-self have no duality in their nature" down to "have no two marks" is the second meaning: because the mark of principle is profound and far-reaching, fearing that upon hearing it people will not immediately understand, he cites what was praised by all Buddhas and clarified in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā—that I also once spoke of the principle of designated oneness to corroborate the present teaching, clarifying that its principle is extremely real and cannot fail to be believed.