大般涅槃經集解 5.16

5.16

Daosheng states: Cunda's words and traces seemed to imply non-cessation; hence [Mañjuśrī] raised an objection based on cessation.
Sengliang states: Mañjuśrī wished to cause Cunda to clearly explain the meaning of nirvāṇa's non-cessation; thus, concealing his own wisdom as if not yet comprehending, he clung to the trace to raise an objection, asserting that one should not entreat [the Buddha].
Sengzong's Jingyi ji states: This is the fourth part of the entreaty section, an argument clarifying permanence.
Huilang, citing Sengzong, states: What permanently abides is wondrous existence; this is not empty. Impermanence ceases and cuts off; therefore it is said that he 'possesses the samādhi of emptiness'.
Baoliang states: Mañjuśrī ostensibly took the losing ground in order to highlight Cunda's virtue, intending to cause the assembly at that time to relinquish their past understanding and comply with their present faith. Mañjuśrī's clinging to the trace entails two faults: If one says that the sixteen-foot form truly undergoes arising and ceasing, then the path of response would be abolished, which is the first fault. The sixteen-foot form takes the dharmakāya as its source; though source and trace differ, they have no separate substance. If the arising and ceasing of the sixteen-foot form were real, how could the source, the dharmakāya, alone be permanent? These are the two faults.