大般涅槃經集解 66.84

66.84

案僧亮曰：廣上分別答也。以偏執生諍，終斷善根。分別中道，去其偏執，此皆答不得定說之義也。法瑤曰：色陰為外、四陰為內，緣因性耳。正因佛性非色，非內非外也。上來非內非外、非有非無，中道義也，是以復發斯問也。僧宗曰：此大段第三也。若論得旨，則不假復明。猶人未解，故爾就上明還生，明佛性三世攝，將來作佛，要修善故得作佛。自下中道觀，是以次明此中道。可有七段：第一以合用明中道。第二非有非無以釋成內外明中道。第三寄乳酪遣執以明中道。第四明如來有隨自意語。明如來所解不同凡夫，正以不善解諸法因果，隨物而說，豈可隨語生著耶？第五明寄七種語以遣著。有因語果語，自有因中說果、自有果中說因，云何於此生著？第六還定因果。明有果時無因，因時何得已有果耶？第七寄七種人譬明也。云何言非內非外者，難佛前句也。寶亮曰：此下第二大段，明中道佛果。佛性非內非外，上〈師子吼品〉以明果非即正因中有，亦非緣因中已有，然復不離五陰得，故言非內非外。今此中明一切法善惡等盡是佛性。恐人情迷故，迦葉謬領，即捉上語作難也。謂若一切法盡是佛性者，是為無一法而非者，上何故言佛性非內非外耶？智秀曰：上明當性是眾生有，復言即是五陰，恐物情偏執、用乖理衷。此第三大段，為除惑執，辨明中道，顯當果之性非是有無，離於內外也。有三別：第一從此訖三種，正顯中道性非內非外離有無。第二訖恒河譬，最後隨自意語，舉如意語，可得隨緣說為多種，況明佛性，不可定執耶。第三科簡虛空與佛性之異也。

Sengliang notes: "This expands on the discriminative answer above. By biased attachment, disputes arise, and ultimately roots of goodness are severed. Discriminating the Middle Way eliminates their biased attachments; these are all answers to the principle that it cannot be definitively stated." Fayao says: "The rūpaskandha is external, and the [remaining] four aggregates are internal; this is merely the conditioned-cause nature. The direct-cause buddhadhātu is not form, being neither internal nor external. Hitherto, neither internal nor external, neither existent nor non-existent, has been the meaning of the Middle Way; therefore, he raises this question again." Sengzong says: "This is the third major section. If we speak of grasping the intent, there would be no need to explain it again. But because people do not yet understand, in connection with the above explanation of regeneration, explaining that buddhadhātu is subsumed by the three times, and that to become a Buddha in the future one must cultivate goodness to achieve it, from here on is the contemplation of the Middle Way. Hence this Middle Way is explained next. There are seven subsections: First, explaining the Middle Way through combined function. Second, explaining the Middle Way through neither existence nor non-existence to elucidate internal and external. Third, using milk and curd to dispel attachment in order to explain the Middle Way. Fourth, explaining that the Tathāgata speaks according to his own intention—explaining that what the Tathāgata understands differs from ordinary beings, and precisely because they do not skillfully understand the causes and effects of dharmas, he speaks in accordance with beings; how could one give rise to attachment based on his words? Fifth, explaining that he relies on seven kinds of speech to dispel attachment: there is causal speech and fruit speech; sometimes fruit is spoken of within the cause, and sometimes cause is spoken of within the fruit; how could one give rise to attachment to this? Sixth, establishing cause and effect again, explaining that when the fruit exists, the cause is absent; at the time of the cause, how could the fruit already exist? Seventh, explaining by means of the analogy of seven kinds of persons. 'Why say neither internal nor external?'—this objects to the Buddha's preceding statement." Baoliang says: "From here down is the second major section, explaining the Middle Way Buddha-fruit. Buddhadhātu is neither internal nor external; above, in the 'Chapter on the Lion's Roar', it was explained that the fruit is neither already present in the direct cause, nor already present in the conditioned cause, yet it is not attained apart from the five aggregates; hence it is said to be neither internal nor external. Now, here it is explained that all dharmas, good and evil, are entirely buddhadhātu. Fearing that people's minds would be confused, Kāśyapa misunderstood the receipt, seizing upon the previous statement to formulate an objection. He thought: if all dharmas are entirely buddhadhātu, which means there is not a single dharma that is not it, why was it stated above that buddhadhātu is neither internal nor external?" Zhixiu says: "Above, it was explained that the future nature is possessed by sentient beings, and it was further said to be the five aggregates; fearing that beings' minds would have biased attachments and deviate from the balance of principle, this third major section, in order to remove delusional attachments, distinguishes and explains the Middle Way, revealing that the nature of the future fruit is neither existent nor non-existent, free from internal and external. There are three distinctions: First, from here down through the three kinds, directly revealing that the Middle Way nature is neither internal nor external, free from existence and non-existence. Second, up to the Ganges analogy, ending with speech according to one's own intention, citing wish-fulfilling speech that can be spoken in many ways according to conditions; how much more so for the buddhadhātu, which cannot be definitively grasped! Third, classifying and distinguishing the difference between empty space and buddhadhātu."