大般涅槃經集解 4.75

4.75

案僧亮曰：答第五用不用難也。羅漢尚不食，況後身菩薩乎？權之與實，前亦不食，後亦不食也。為諸聲聞者，佛若不受，則小志自絕，是故示彼去人不遠也。為此大眾者，向所以不受供，以顯去留之情異也。恐時人杜意，謂不復慈接，不敢請也。法瑤曰：答第四難也。明菩薩實不受用，跡受用耳。今入涅槃，亦是跡受。二受俱跡，非等如何？曇濟曰：昔亦無五事果，今亦無矣。昔為小乘故受，今為大眾故受。二迹不殊，何疑於不等耶？僧宗曰：答第五難也。二跡俱顯，有何優劣乎？

Sengliang comments: This answers the fifth objection regarding eating or not eating. If an arhat does not even eat, how much less a bodhisattva in his final body? Whether in provisional or real terms, he did not eat before, and he does not eat now either. In the case of the śrāvakas, had the Buddha not accepted it, their modest aspiration would have severed itself; therefore, he demonstrated to them that he was not far removed from ordinary mortals. In the case of this great assembly, the previous non-acceptance of offerings was to reveal the difference between the intentions to depart and to stay. He feared that the people of the time would close off their thoughts, thinking that he would no longer compassionately receive them, and not dare to make requests. Fayao says: This answers the fourth objection. It clarifies that the bodhisattva in truth does not partake, but only partakes as a trace. Now his entry into nirvāṇa is likewise an acceptance in trace. Since both instances of receiving are traces, how could they not be equal? Tanji says: In the past there was no fruit of the five matters, nor is there any now. In the past he accepted it for the sake of the Lesser Vehicle; now he accepts it for the sake of the great assembly. Since the two traces are not distinct, why doubt their equality? Sengzong says: This answers the fifth objection. With both traces equally apparent, what superiority or inferiority could there be?