大般涅槃經集解 22.40

22.40

Sengliang states: When there are three obstacles, one does not receive the path; if everyone who hears it makes it a cause of bodhi, then good and evil would not differ. As for why the Tathāgata spoke of the meaning of the four reliances: if once it passes through the ear, what is obtained by this ear-consciousness already serves as a cause of bodhi, why did he say in the past to rely on wisdom and not rely on consciousness? As for how they can sever all afflictions: an irreversible bodhisattva must subdue and sever afflictions; if they do not understand the meaning, how could they subdue the fetters? Baoliang states: The two objections each have two prongs, thus making four. The first prong initially and provisionally disputes the present intention: if the three kinds of sinners, upon hearing the sūtra, take it as a cause of bodhi, what difference is there between upholding precepts and breaking precepts? The second prong concludes the objection using the chapter on the four reliances: if an upholder of precepts hearing the sūtra also becomes a bodhisattva, and a breaker of precepts does so too, why should the four reliances appear in the world to regulate those who break precepts? Furthermore, as the Buddha said, the second objection also has two prongs: the first prong adduces the 'Simile of the Birds Chapter' above: if one can take refuge in the Three Jewels of single substance, although one has afflictions, it is as though one has no afflictions. If indeed upon hearing this sūtra once, one can have decisive faith and cause the root of afflictions to become insubstantial, why did the Buddha himself say in the 'Four Reliances Chapter' that those who resolved their minds under buddhas numerous as the sands of the Ganges still did not understand the meaning upon hearing the sūtra? How could it merely passing through the ear once immediately sever afflictions? The second prong interrogates with principle to formulate the objection, meaning that understanding and delusion are contradictory: those who have accumulated merits still have not understood, so how could this mere passing through the ear dispel delusion? Zhixiu states: There are two objections. First: if the three kinds of sinners do not delight in or aspire toward it in their hearts, but by the power of the sūtra are forcibly caused to resolve their minds, why is there any need to rely on the four sorts of persons to be relied upon? Second: if resolving the mind indeed means attaining the principle and immediately dispelling delusion, why is it said there that those who resolved their minds under buddhas numerous as the sands of three Ganges rivers still did not understand the meaning? These two statements cannot yet be reconciled.