大般涅槃經集解 64.74

64.74

案僧亮曰：釋同是涅槃，直以念念生滅、不生不滅為異也。非學者，以金剛名學，種智初起名無學。法身不生不滅，無二相也。佛出世及不出世常住不動者，以應為出，不應則不出也。然應常不生滅也。不解我意者，謂定是有為、定是無為，無為則常、有為無常也。僧宗曰：第五諍論。聞說滅者，謂無法身；聞法身不滅，謂應迹亦常。向我無我就隔身為論，此據現在為義也。寶亮曰：聞應身無常，謂無法身；若聞常住，復同外計。兩說天乖，故成諍也。

Sengliang comments: The explanation is that both are nirvāṇa, differing only in being moment-by-moment arising and ceasing, or not arising and not ceasing. As for 'neither learner', taking the adamantine [concentration] as a learner, the initial arising of all-knowledge is called non-learner (aśaikṣa). The dharmakāya neither arises nor ceases, having no dual characteristics. The statement that whether Buddhas appear in the world or do not appear, it is permanently abiding and immovable, means: taking the responsive manifestation as appearing, when there is no responsive manifestation, it does not appear. Yet the responsive manifestation is fundamentally neither arising nor ceasing. Those who do not understand my intention assert that it is definitively saṃskṛta or definitively asaṃskṛta; that if it is asaṃskṛta it is permanent, and if it is saṃskṛta it is impermanent. Sengzong says: This is the fifth disputed thesis. Hearing the teaching of cessation, they say there is no dharmakāya; hearing that the dharmakāya does not cease, they say the responsive traces are also permanent. The previous discussion of self and no-self was formulated across separate bodies; this is formulated on the basis of the present. Baoliang says: Hearing that the response body is impermanent, they say there is no dharmakāya; if they hear that it permanently abides, they become identical with non-Buddhist views. The two explanations are as far apart as heaven, hence a dispute is formed.