大般涅槃經集解 30.34

30.34

案道生曰：答最後難，前兩難自解也。如是一下不生樂想，是都無樂之驗也。僧亮曰：實無樂者，案句解也。是人當受千罰，脫餘多苦，於一罰上橫生樂想。曇愛曰：是以不以一下為樂，以脫重為樂。緣脫重之心實是行苦，凡夫以之為樂。以此一答并答三難。何者？一罰之與千罰俱是重苦。既不一下為樂，云何而言於底下之苦而生樂耶？即答第一難。又是人緣於脫重苦而橫生樂想，云何而言於下樂生苦想耶？即答第二關。寶亮曰：即此答三難也。今先釋橫生義。若一下而脫者，到緣一下安之為樂，豈非妄樂耶？非是受一罰時生樂也。

Daosheng comments: In answering the final objection, the previous two objections are naturally resolved. That such a single stroke does not give rise to the notion of pleasure is proof that there is no pleasure at all. Sengliang comments: As for 'in reality there is no pleasure', he explains it according to the sentence. This person ought to receive a thousand punishments; being spared the remaining vast suffering, he erroneously gives rise to the notion of pleasure regarding the single stroke. Tan'ai says: Therefore, he does not take the single stroke as pleasure, but takes being spared the heavy [punishment] as pleasure. The mind that conditions itself upon being spared the heavy is in reality the suffering of conditioning; ordinary beings take it as pleasure. With this single answer, he answers all three objections together. How so? The single punishment and the thousand punishments are both heavy suffering. Since he does not take the single stroke as pleasure, how can it be said that he gives rise to pleasure in the lowest suffering? This answers the first objection. Furthermore, this person erroneously gives rise to the notion of pleasure based on escaping heavy suffering; how could one say that he gives rise to the notion of suffering regarding lesser pleasure? This answers the second checkpoint. Baoliang says: This directly answers the three objections. Now he first explains the meaning of 'erroneously giving rise'. If through one stroke he is spared, when he relies upon the single stroke and settles upon it as pleasure, how is that not false pleasure? It is not that he gives rise to pleasure at the time of receiving the single stroke.