大般涅槃經集解 7.80

7.80

案僧亮曰：善問得時，能推本定今，以自斷疑也。法瑤曰：下引客舊醫譬，明古今之說其旨不殊也。昔歎無我，唯在三界，除三界我耳，不毀佛我也。但彼不解言之旨故，濫佛亦謂無我。今毀濫脩無我，非毀生死無我。歎毀雖異，其旨實同，非鉾楯也。僧宗曰：能以二教為徵，疑心所以斷也。今釋二教，則無執昔之迷。權實苟分，疑累斷也。明駿案：此下一品之中，第五段會通也。所言會通者，明昔所以不說常，今日所以說耳，非謂以昔無常偏教會今圓教也。是以下譬中云「此乳藥者，服與不服，皆是醫教。」不云醎苦辛酢等味即乳藥也。故知所言會通者，蓋說與不說之意也。

Sengliang states: Asking well and opportunely, they are able to examine the origin to determine the present, so as to cut off their own doubts. Fayao states: Below, the metaphor of the visiting physician and the old physician is cited to clarify that the ancient and present teachings do not differ in their intent. In the past, praising non-self was only directed at the three realms, merely eliminating the self of the three realms, not disparaging the Buddha-self. But because they did not understand the intent of the words, they erroneously extended it to the Buddha and thought he too lacked a self. Now, he disparages the erroneous cultivation of non-self, not the non-self of saṃsāra. Although praising and disparaging differ, their intent is truly the same, not like spear and shield. Sengzong states: Being able to question based on the two teachings, their doubts are therefore cut off. Now, explaining the two teachings, there is no delusion of clinging to the past. Once provisional and real are distinguished, doubts and entanglements are severed. Mingjun notes: Below, within this chapter, this is the fifth passage, which harmonizes. What is called harmonizing clarifies why permanence was not taught in the past and why it is taught today; it does not mean taking the past one-sided teaching of impermanence and conflating it with the present complete teaching. Therefore, in the metaphor below it says: 'This milk medicine, whether taken or not taken, is in both cases the physician's instruction.' It does not say that salty, bitter, pungent, and sour flavors are themselves the milk medicine. Thus we know that what is called harmonizing is merely the intent behind teaching and not teaching.