大般涅槃經集解 24.4

24.4

案僧亮曰：次答三乘若無性，云何而得說也。上再說因果，經體已同，屢勸脩行而未明脩法。將說五行而是脩本，更以十問釋疑勸信。所以然者，經之因果理致幽遠，純陀先知時眾猶故有疑，文殊知疑而不能決，更以事問也。疑謂從緣得法皆是無性，三乘成果皆從緣得。若佛是常，二乘亦常；二乘無常，佛亦無常，故云無差別也。若二乘是常者，云何樂實未生而名為受樂耶？僧宗曰：從此訖「最勝無上道」，悉為廣歎也。經之為益，不出因果。前七問中，四問因益、三問果益，一周明義，因果兩益竟於前文。此下文殊騰純陀疑以為廣歎，以得解者由此經也。寶亮曰：純陀所疑與迦葉所問，意同而辭異也。

Sengliang comments: Next, this answers how, if the three vehicles have no nature, it can be preached. Above, cause and effect were spoken of twice, and the substance of the scripture was already identical; he repeatedly urged practice but had not yet clarified the method of practice. Being about to speak of the five practices as the foundation of cultivation, he further uses ten questions to resolve doubts and encourage faith. Why is this so? The scripture's principles of cause and effect are profound and distant; Cunda previously knew that the assembly at the time still harbored doubts, and Mañjuśrī, knowing their doubts but being unable to resolve them, questioned further by means of events. The doubt was that dharmas attained through conditions are all devoid of intrinsic nature, and the realized fruits of the three vehicles are all attained through conditions. If the Buddha is eternal, the two vehicles should also be eternal; if the two vehicles are impermanent, the Buddha should also be impermanent, which is why it was said that there is no distinction. If the two vehicles were eternal, why, when actual bliss has not yet arisen, would it be called experiencing bliss? Sengzong says: From here up to "the most supreme unsurpassed path," all of it is an extensive eulogy. The benefit of the scripture does not go beyond cause and effect. Among the previous seven questions, four asked about the benefit of the cause and three asked about the benefit of the fruit; one cycle of clarifying the doctrine, the two benefits of cause and effect, was concluded in the preceding text. Below, Mañjuśrī reiterates Cunda's doubts to make an extensive eulogy, because those who attain understanding do so through this scripture. Baoliang says: What Cunda doubted and what Kāśyapa asked are identical in intent though different in wording.