大般涅槃經集解 60.10

60.10

案僧亮曰：第三門，有無也。智起則有，故名到；不起則無，故不到也。初念應破者，一念破一切結，是則不到者，如明闇相違，明起闇以過去，明不及闇不到則同凡夫也。寶亮曰：第三門，語勢。如以智到煩惱時破，不到時不破，義意不爾也。謂能破者，為當智到行人心時能破？為當未到破耶？若未到而破，則凡夫應破。若到故破者，則初念應破。而今行人有無量念，若初念不破則不須後念。若果初到便破，是則不到也。智慧念念生滅，初不相及，有何到不到義？若言到不到合故能破，亦無此義。

Sengliang comments: The third approach concerns existence and non-existence. When wisdom arises, it exists, which is called 'contact'; when it does not arise, it does not exist, which is 'non-contact'. 'The first thought should destroy them' means that a single thought would destroy all defilements; if so, then without contact—just as light and darkness are opposed, when light arises darkness has already passed away, and light does not reach darkness—then without contact one would be the same as an ordinary person. Baoliang comments: The third approach concerns the flow of speech. It seems as though it destroys when wisdom reaches the afflictions and does not destroy when it does not reach them, but the conceptual meaning is not so. As for the claim of being able to destroy: does it destroy when wisdom reaches the practitioner's mind, or does it destroy before reaching it? If it destroys before reaching, then ordinary people should destroy [them]. If it destroys because of reaching, then the very first thought should destroy them. But now the practitioner has immeasurable thoughts; if the first thought does not destroy, then subsequent thoughts are not needed. If it indeed destroys upon first contact, then this is non-contact. Wisdom arises and ceases thought after thought, never reaching each other at first—what meaning of contact or non-contact could there be? If one says that combining contact and non-contact enables destruction, there is also no such meaning.