大般涅槃經集解 47.12

47.12

案僧亮曰：先答後問也。僧宗曰：就答中先答第四。其前引四種邪定為難，今且舉闡提，後更歷四人出也。次答第三，義勢兼答第一第二。下答二乘竟，未答第五，先答涅槃第六句也。初句實如汝語，正以不定故得佛。但法不可一類，欲使涅槃亦是不定。何以故爾？夫法有有同異。若是有為，則備三種，以其體無常故，是相續假。以其無自性故，有一時，因成假也。相待得稱故，有相待假。答涅槃唯可名中相待耳。以如此義故，亦義稱不定。以其是常，免二假之相，故可為實不定也。僧亮曰：未是正答，且略舉第二問，以虛眾人之心，令體萬法無定相也。智秀曰：所以別答前問難者，欲明闡提成佛，知所斷之善非是佛性，為成答前三難義耳。此第一，先舉第四難。第四事偏別答第四難者，欲明闡提後得成佛。故知因中所斷之善，非是佛性，為成答前三難義耳。

Sengliang comments: He answers the later question first. Sengzong says: Within the answer, he first answers the fourth. Previously, he cited the four kinds of the wrongly determined as a challenge; now he provisionally adduces the icchantika, and later will go through the four persons one by one. Next, he answers the third, the thrust of which concurrently answers the first and the second. Below, after answering concerning the two vehicles, before answering the fifth, he first answers the sixth line regarding nirvāṇa. The first line is truly as you said: precisely because of indeterminacy, he attains buddhahood. But phenomena cannot be treated as of a single category, wishing to make nirvāṇa also indeterminate. Why is this so? Phenomena have sameness and difference. If it is saṃskṛta, it possesses three kinds: because its essence is impermanent, it is nominal continuity; because it lacks self-nature, it exists at one time, which is nominal causal establishment; and because its designation is attained relative to another, there is nominal relativity. Nirvāṇa can only be said to have relativity within its name. By this principle, it is also nominally termed indeterminate. Because it is eternal, it is free from the characteristics of the two nominalities, and thus can be truly indeterminate. Sengliang says: This is not yet the definitive answer; he merely adduces the second question in brief to empty the minds of the assembly, causing them to realize that the myriad phenomena have no fixed characteristics. Zhixiu says: The reason he separately answers the previous challenge is that he wishes to clarify that the icchantika attains buddhahood, so one knows that the wholesome roots severed are not the buddhadhātu, in order to complete the meaning of answering the previous three challenges. This is the first, initially adducing the fourth challenge. The fourth matter specifically and separately answers the fourth challenge because he wishes to clarify that the icchantika later attains buddhahood. Thus one knows that the wholesome roots severed in the causal stage are not the buddhadhātu, in order to complete the meaning of answering the previous three challenges.