大般涅槃經集解 6.43

6.43

案道生曰：既聞涅槃如世伊字，始悟昔說無常之旨止於三界，而遠表於常也。僧亮曰：受解請也。聞今伊字之譬，解佛昔說一切無常是方便也。而此方便，能斷三界實結，何快如之。法瑤曰：佛說伊字涅槃之常，是則已說非涅槃者無常也。又自因今解，悟昔說無常旨在非佛，乃所以表佛是常，可謂快說也。僧宗曰：向釋三義旨趣幽深，求之於心冥然分外。交聞唱滅，捨應歸本，長與物隔，故愁憂也。快說無常者，伊字之說非情所解，前塗難涉，退保先教，何以示耶？如來昔教，令我修學無常等觀、離三界惑，依教修行，果得出苦，所以不難。今日教者，今雖言常，而我未得。我既未得，事在如來。交見滅度，雖有常言，不覩其事，如其不住，則昔說可憑，是以歎也。象跡為上者，上句歎教，此句歎從教生解也。寶亮曰：從此以下，請中第二文也。若為凡請，大旨有二：第一者佛說二十五有，作五門觀。而佛故是常，得知金剛以還是生死，而後心是常也。我是可教人，佛應住世也。第二佛雖為我說伊字涅槃，不知云何而得也。就此第二請中有三段：第一明我是可教之人，略有所解，故先以二譬歎今苦空無常五門除惑，勝於昔日也。第二從「帝王」訖醉人譬，正請辭也。第三從歎芭蕉已下，執昔教以要。佛若不住世，我當尋昔所習通於佛上，脩苦無常也。快者，快上〈純陀品〉中五門觀也。〈純陀品〉中說常無常，今但歎無常之理。昔來所觀常理本所未達，且留此理以為請辭，謂我未解，應住世教我也。我若已解今日常旨，用請何為也。智秀曰：此下第四段奪執也。有四別：第一正執、第二奪執、第三請住、第四佛答。從此訖「而有諸見其無是處」，第一快昔教，擬為反請也。明駿曰：此下訖「無我想」，勸問中第二，翻上舉勝法勸問。既非己所解，乃還執昔教也。有三階：第一勸昔無常教，於我已解。第二舉帝王等譬，明所未解者在乎今教，而佛不住，教我令解耶？第三舉歎無我等教也。

Daosheng comments: Having heard that nirvāṇa is like the worldly syllable *i*, they began to awaken to the fact that the intent of the past teaching of impermanence was confined to the three realms, and distantly indicated permanence.
Sengliang comments: This is accepting understanding and making an entreaty. Having heard the present analogy of the syllable *i*, they understand that the Buddha's past teaching that all is impermanent was an upāya. And this upāya is able to sever the actual fetters of the three realms—how delightful it is!
Fayao comments: When the Buddha taught the permanence of the syllable *i* nirvāṇa, he thereby already taught that what is not nirvāṇa is impermanent. Furthermore, from their present understanding they realized that the intent of the past teaching of impermanence lay in what is not the Buddha, and was precisely the means to indicate that the Buddha is permanent; this may well be called a delightful teaching.
Sengzong comments: The purport of the three meanings previously explained is profound and subtle; seeking it in one's mind, it is obscure and beyond one's ken. Directly hearing the proclamation of extinction, abandoning the responsive and returning to the fundamental, being forever separated from living beings, they were filled with sorrow and grief. Regarding 'delightfully teaching impermanence': the teaching of the syllable *i* is not what ordinary sentiments can understand; the road ahead is difficult to tread, so they retreat to cling to the former teaching. How is this shown? The Tathāgata's former teaching instructed me to train in contemplations such as impermanence and abandon the delusions of the three realms; practicing according to the teaching, one indeed transcends suffering, so it was not difficult. As for today's teaching: although he now speaks of permanence, I have not yet attained it. Since I have not yet attained it, the matter rests with the Tathāgata. Directly witnessing extinction, although there are words of permanence, I do not see the reality; if he does not abide, then the former teaching is what can be relied upon; hence they praise it. The elephant's footprint being supreme: the upper line praises the teaching, while this line praises the understanding arising from the teaching.
Baoliang comments: From here downward is the second section of the entreaty. For the general entreaty, the main purports are two: First, the Buddha taught the twenty-five states of existence and formulated the contemplation of the five approaches. Yet the Buddha remains permanent; one knows that up to the vajra[-like samādhi] is saṃsāra, and the final mind is permanent. I am a person capable of being taught, and the Buddha should abide in the world. Second, although the Buddha has taught the syllable *i* nirvāṇa for my sake, I do not know how to attain it. Within this second entreaty there are three sections: First, clarifying that I am a person capable of being taught and have a slight understanding, he thus first uses two analogies to praise the present five approaches of suffering, emptiness, and impermanence for eliminating delusions as superior to the past. Second, from 'the monarch' up to the analogy of the drunken man is the formal entreaty. Third, from the praise of the plantain downward, he clings to the former teaching to demand [the Buddha's presence]: if the Buddha does not abide in the world, I shall pursue my past training and apply it to the Buddha, practicing suffering and impermanence. 'Delightful' means finding delightful the contemplation of the five approaches in the 'Cunda Chapter' above. The 'Cunda Chapter' spoke of permanence and impermanence; now he merely praises the principle of impermanence. The principle of permanence contemplated from the past was originally not understood, so he temporarily reserves this principle as words of entreaty, saying, 'Since I do not understand, you should abide in the world to teach me. If I already understood today's purport of permanence, what need would there be to plead?'
Zhixiu comments: Below this is the fourth section, stripping away attachments. It has four divisions: first, direct attachment; second, stripping away attachment; third, requesting him to abide; fourth, the Buddha's reply. From here up to 'yet to hold various views, this cannot be', the first part finds the former teaching delightful and prepares a counter-entreaty.
Mingjun comments: From here down to 'the perception of non-self', this is the second part of urging inquiry, reversing the above to cite the superior dharma to urge inquiry. Since it is not what they understand themselves, they return to cling to the former teaching. It has three steps: First, urging the past teaching of impermanence, which I have already understood. Second, citing analogies like the monarch to clarify that what is not understood lies in today's teaching; if the Buddha does not abide, who will teach me to understand it? Third, citing praises of the teachings of non-self and so forth.