大般涅槃經集解 51.48

51.48

案僧亮曰：有三重難。第一證身智滅是涅槃，非直煩惱滅也；第二證習滅是涅槃，非直煩惱滅也；第三證身滅三事即涅槃也。自期三月者，以時事重證身智滅是涅槃也。僧宗曰：此難之生，由前釋涅槃言直是斷處，承言為難。此有四句，斷處不應是涅槃也。難意引昔教，欲使涅槃同於空無也。初難言：魔來啟請，何故不入？佛自答：未有多聞弟子。當知以身智盡處，非直煩惱盡也。第二舉以菩薩決斷故，知不必斷處是也。第三魔復啟請，佛答言：却後三月當入。而此當入之言發自佛口，豈直斷處？第四難意，取初成佛便是涅槃。前第三成初句，今第四為成第二。寶亮曰：此下因於上，明涅槃直是諸佛斷煩惱處。物便致疑，謂言猶是昔日有餘涅槃故。德王今者作問來遣，凡據三種諭嬰兒事，明涅槃之虛實也。第一執無餘應是、有餘應非。何以然？如來昔在尼連禪河邊，告魔王言：我今未入。第二難，從「若斷煩惱非涅槃」下，訖「我今此身。即是涅槃」來，非但無餘是，有餘復應是也。何故爾？佛昔告生名婆羅門言：我今此身即是涅槃。如來身未滅，而言即是者，不當用有餘作涅槃耶？第三難言：論理不應兩是。不爾，應一是一非。若二俱非，佛云何發是虛妄之言也。然此中難辭雖多，正難意不出此三。從「在毘舍離國」以下，悉來證第一難，無餘應是涅槃意。如來既自期三月，不當即用死滅為涅槃耶。

Sengliang comments: There are three levels of objection. First, to prove that the extinction of body and wisdom is nirvāṇa, not merely the extinction of afflictions; second, to prove that the extinction of residual habits is nirvāṇa, not merely the extinction of afflictions; third, to prove that the extinction of the body, these three things, is precisely nirvāṇa. 'Fixing the term Himself at three months' uses temporal affairs to re-prove that the extinction of body and wisdom is nirvāṇa. / Sengzong comments: The arising of this objection stems from the previous explanation of nirvāṇa saying that it is simply the locus of severing, formulating an objection based on those words. Here there are four propositions, arguing that the locus of severing should not be nirvāṇa. The intention of the objection cites past teachings, wishing to make nirvāṇa identical with empty non-existence. The first objection says: When Māra came and besought Him, why did He not enter [nirvāṇa]? The Buddha Himself answered: 'I do not yet have disciples of wide learning.' One should know that it is the locus where body and wisdom are exhausted, not merely where afflictions are exhausted. The second raises that because bodhisattvas make determinations, one knows that the locus of severing is not necessarily it. The third: Māra besought Him again, and the Buddha answered him: 'After three months I shall enter.' And since these words 'I shall enter' came from the Buddha's own mouth, how could it be merely the locus of severing? The intention of the fourth objection takes the initial attainment of buddhahood to be nirvāṇa. The previous third completes the first proposition, and now the fourth completes the second. / Baoliang comments: From here on, relying on the above, it was explained that nirvāṇa is simply the locus where the buddhas sever afflictions. People then had doubts, thinking it was still the former nirvāṇa with remainder. Noble King now poses questions to dispel this, generally relying on three kinds of analogies with an infant to clarify the unreality and reality of nirvāṇa. The first holds that without remainder should be correct, and with remainder should not be. Why so? Long ago by the Nairañjanā River, the Tathāgata told the Demon King: 'I will not enter now.' The second objection, from 'If the severing of afflictions is not nirvāṇa' down to 'This present body of mine is precisely nirvāṇa', means that not only is without remainder correct, but with remainder should also be correct. Why is that? Long ago the Buddha told the brāhmaṇa Jātakarṇa: 'This present body of mine is precisely nirvāṇa.' Since the Tathāgata's body was not yet extinguished and yet He said 'it is precisely it', should one not use [nirvāṇa] with remainder to constitute nirvāṇa? The third objection says: In terms of principle, both should not be correct. Otherwise, one should be correct and the other incorrect. If both are incorrect, how could the Buddha utter such false words? Although the words of the objection here are many, the main intention of the objection does not go beyond these three. From 'In the country of Vaiśālī' on down, all come to prove the intention of the first objection, that without remainder should be nirvāṇa. Since the Tathāgata Himself set a term of three months, should one not precisely use death and extinction to constitute nirvāṇa?