大般涅槃經集解 64.10

64.10

案僧亮曰：智者見法，法理無二，謂佛說實不說權也。無智不見法故，佛說權道，謂道有權實，說不定也。謂我作不定說者，自不見法，謂佛說有二，所以起諍論也。僧宗曰：第二釋著言之惑也。隨方釋化，豈是凡夫六識所知？是以不解此意，故生此諍論耳。智者理歸一致，及其化物方便故也，說本跡不相違，故言不二也；於愚者不解偏執，謂呼二也。寶亮曰：將欲釋難，且一往總解云如是之義非六識所知，乃是智者所達也。眾生根性不等，須法藥不同，何得定說耶？是故一家恒勸行者，若體解此諸諍論，名通達佛法也。佛所說法，本一時之益，生後解之資。應縱容取旨，豈得偏執？但學者自乖於理，豈是佛之過耶？

Sengliang comments: The wise perceive phenomena, and the principle of phenomena is non-dual; they consider the Buddha to preach the real and not the provisional. Because the unwise do not perceive phenomena, when the Buddha preaches the provisional path, they think the path has provisional and real, and that his preaching is not fixed. In saying that I make non-definitive statements, they themselves do not perceive phenomena, yet they claim that the Buddha's preaching has duality; hence controversies arise. Sengzong says: Second, he explains the delusion of clinging to words. How could transforming beings in response to circumstances be known by the six consciousnesses of ordinary beings? It is because they do not understand this intent that they give rise to these controversies. For the wise, the principle returns to unity, and as for his upāya of converting beings, the fundamental and the trace do not contradict each other; therefore it is said to be non-dual. To the foolish who fail to understand, they cling one-sidedly and declare it to be dual. Baoliang says: Wishing to resolve the objection, he first offers a general explanation, saying that such meaning is not known by the six consciousnesses, but is penetrated by the wise. The faculties and natures of sentient beings are not equal, requiring different medicines of Dharma; how could he speak definitively? Therefore, our lineage constantly encourages practitioners: if you fully realize these controversies, this is called penetrating the Buddha's Dharma. The Dharma preached by the Buddha originally provided momentary benefit and established provision for later understanding. One should grasp the purport with flexibility; how could one cling one-sidedly? It is simply that learners themselves deviate from the principle; how could this be the Buddha's fault?