大般涅槃經集解 6.47

6.47

案道生曰：上云脩無常能除無常想，想是慧名，似若鉾楯，宜更明之也。若離者，謂不脩無常想則無般若，般若既無則無解脫，今日豈得入涅槃乎？若不離者，取昔說相為無常想則是顛倒，豈得言與慢等俱離耶？僧亮曰：請也。得理觀者，境智不相離。如來若常則離無常想，若離無常想，為物則不應涅槃。上既有為眾生之言，因之得有請也。若不離者，若佛不住理數，自滅無常之觀，竟不離佛伊字之譬更增惑倒也。法瑤曰：向美快說無常想，能除三界常見等惑，及佛上無常想倒。今次歎此想亦能得常也。何以然耶？如來本若不脩無常想者，則不知無常在於非佛、常在於佛，云何得脩不濫之無常入伊字涅槃耶？此論今日所解，不談昔日也。若不離者，此言昔解也。若果脩昔無常想者，此無常想濫該於佛，非唯不識於常，亦未深識無常，豈得能除三界之惑及佛上無常想倒耶？諸比丘說此得失二句，自陳已解悟無常之旨，成向所言快說之意也。僧宗曰：比丘意言我未造極，事須滅身然後免苦。今高推如來不同我者，既曰常住，豈待滅身方稱涅槃耶？若不離者懸取佛意，若言我亦不離者，即猥與我同，則不應言脩無常想為非也。寶亮曰：請辭也。捉前品中常樂二偈已離無常句，若尋此語，佛便是離無常想也。不應入涅槃者，此應身乃是法身之未自在無為。若果不自在，云何言我是常住？若不離者，佛今果入涅槃，便是未離無常想，那得言我已離無常也。智藏曰：離者，滅之異稱。想者，空慧之別名。佛向云欲入三點涅槃，若滅空慧則無般若，豈有三點涅槃可入耶？若不離者取佛意，若言不滅此慧者，云何昔言滅無常想？是則空慧不得不滅，三點安在也。

Daosheng comments: Above it was said that cultivating impermanence can eliminate the perception of impermanence; 'perception' is another name for wisdom, which seems contradictory and should be clarified further. 'If he is free from' means that if one does not cultivate the perception of impermanence, there is no prajñā; since there is no prajñā, there is no vimokṣa—how could he enter nirvāṇa today? 'If he is not free from' means that seizing upon the marks of the past teaching as the perception of impermanence is an inversion; how could it be said to be abandoned together with arrogance and the rest?
Sengliang comments: This is an entreaty. For one who has attained the contemplation of principle, the object and wisdom are not separated. If the Tathāgata is permanent, he is free from the perception of impermanence; if he is free from the perception of impermanence, for the sake of beings he should not enter nirvāṇa. Since above there were words about 'for the sake of living beings', through this an entreaty can be made. 'If he is not free from' means: if the Buddha does not abide in the order of principle, naturally terminating the contemplation of impermanence, he will never be free from the Buddha's analogy of the syllable *i*, which would only increase delusions and inversions.
Fayao comments: Previously he praised the delightful teaching of the perception of impermanence as able to eliminate delusions such as the view of permanence in the three realms and the inverted perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha. Now next he praises this perception as also able to attain permanence. Why is this so? If the Tathāgata originally had not cultivated the perception of impermanence, he would not have known that impermanence lies in what is not the Buddha and permanence lies in the Buddha; how could he have cultivated unconfused impermanence and entered the syllable *i* nirvāṇa? This discusses present understanding, not the past. 'If he is not free from' refers to the past understanding: if one indeed cultivates the past perception of impermanence, this perception of impermanence will mistakenly extend to the Buddha; not only would one fail to recognize permanence, one would also not yet deeply recognize impermanence. How could it be able to eliminate the delusions of the three realms and the inverted perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha? The monks spoke these two lines on gain and loss, stating their own understanding and awakening to the purport of impermanence, completing the meaning of the 'delightful teaching' mentioned above.
Sengzong comments: The monks' intention is to say: 'I have not reached the ultimate; necessarily I must extinguish the body and only then escape suffering. Now exalting the Tathāgata as unlike me, since he is said to be permanently abiding, how could he wait to extinguish the body before it is called nirvāṇa?' 'If he is not free from' anticipates the Buddha's intention: if you say 'I too am not free from it', then you are improperly equated with me, and you should not say that cultivating the perception of impermanence is wrong.
Baoliang comments: These are words of entreaty. Grasping the line 'already free from impermanence' in the two verses on permanence and bliss in the preceding chapter, if one pursues these words, the Buddha is indeed free from the perception of impermanence. 'He should not enter nirvāṇa': this responsive body is the dharmakāya's unfree unconditioned. If it is indeed not free, how can he say 'I am permanently abiding'? 'If he is not free from': if the Buddha now indeed enters nirvāṇa, he has not yet been freed from the perception of impermanence; how can he say 'I am already free from impermanence'?
Zhizang comments: 'Free from' is another term for extinction. 'Perception' is another name for the wisdom of emptiness. The Buddha just said he wished to enter the three-dot nirvāṇa; if he extinguishes the wisdom of emptiness, there is no prajñā—how could there be a three-dot nirvāṇa to enter? 'If he is not free from' takes the Buddha's intention: if you say this wisdom is not extinguished, why did you formerly speak of extinguishing the perception of impermanence? Thus the wisdom of emptiness must inevitably be extinguished; where, then, are the three dots?