大般涅槃經集解 9.70

9.70

案僧亮曰：將說內行因果，先難果常也。若果不常現，云何得與世法別也。性者，異道計云：以冥初為世間性也。法瑤曰：前明如來常理曉然，但據今日現入涅槃似是虛妄，則與世間所說同也。若無以辨異，則致惑者眾。故發斯問，使畫然有判也。僧宗曰：就答果中有四章。第一寄言行相違，顯本是常也。雖知是常，外道亦言有常。第二釋常我之名本在於佛，為外道所竊。今釋其真偽，真則佛法涅槃，其體是常，常即法性。但昔涅槃亦言法性，二教既同，事須洗釋，故第三簡今昔二名同明法性、所明不同。昔明法性，但以單滅；今明法性，常而妙有。極果體圓備三歸之德，是故第四勸厲行人使歸依也。有何異有，誠知本當，但即事為滅也。如即外道亦有空言，俱無事驗。滯言之徒無以取信，願佛為釋，使真偽有在也。智秀曰：此下第二意，舉例重貴也。若同不現者，則應俱是無常。

Sengliang comments: Intending to explain the internal practice of cause and fruit, he first questions the permanence of the fruit. If the fruit does not constantly manifest, how can it be distinguished from worldly phenomena? 'Nature' refers to the heterodox reckoning that the unmanifest primal [matter, pradhāna] is the nature of the world. Fayao says: Previously it was explained that the Tathāgata's principle of permanence is luminous, but judging from his presently manifesting entry into nirvāṇa, it appears illusory, which would be the same as what the world teaches. If there is no way to discern the difference, those who are deluded will be numerous. Therefore he raises this question so that a clear distinction may be made. Sengzong says: In answering regarding the fruit, there are four chapters. First, lodging in the contradiction between words and deeds, he reveals that the origin is eternal. Although known to be eternal, heterodox paths also claim to have permanence. Second, he explains that the designations of permanence and self originally resided with the Buddha and were stolen by heterodox paths; now he explains their genuineness and falsity: the genuine is the nirvāṇa of the Buddhadharma, whose essence is eternal, and the eternal is dharmatā. But the nirvāṇa of the past was also called dharmatā; since the two teachings are identical [in name], the matter requires clarification; therefore, third, he distinguishes that the past and present names both clarify dharmatā, yet what they clarify is not the same: past [teachings] clarified dharmatā merely through bare extinction, whereas the present clarifies dharmatā as eternal and wondrously existent. The ultimate fruit's essence is complete, fully possessing the virtues of the Three Refuges; therefore, fourth, he encourages practitioners to take refuge. What difference is there in existence? One truly knows the origin should be so, yet with respect to actual affairs it appears as extinction. Just as heterodox paths also have empty words, both lack experiential verification in actual affairs. Followers who cling to words have no way to gain faith; we pray that the Buddha will explain it, so that the true and the false may be determined. Zhixiu says: Below this is the second point, raising an analogy to repeat the challenge: if they are alike in not manifesting, then both should be impermanent.