大般涅槃經集解 6.47

6.47

Daosheng comments: Above it was said that cultivating impermanence can eliminate the perception of impermanence; 'perception' is another name for wisdom, which seems contradictory and should be clarified further. 'If he is free from' means that if one does not cultivate the perception of impermanence, there is no prajñā; since there is no prajñā, there is no vimokṣa—how could he enter nirvāṇa today? 'If he is not free from' means that seizing upon the marks of the past teaching as the perception of impermanence is an inversion; how could it be said to be abandoned together with arrogance and the rest?
Sengliang comments: This is an entreaty. For one who has attained the contemplation of principle, the object and wisdom are not separated. If the Tathāgata is permanent, he is free from the perception of impermanence; if he is free from the perception of impermanence, for the sake of beings he should not enter nirvāṇa. Since above there were words about 'for the sake of living beings', through this an entreaty can be made. 'If he is not free from' means: if the Buddha does not abide in the order of principle, naturally terminating the contemplation of impermanence, he will never be free from the Buddha's analogy of the syllable *i*, which would only increase delusions and inversions.
Fayao comments: Previously he praised the delightful teaching of the perception of impermanence as able to eliminate delusions such as the view of permanence in the three realms and the inverted perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha. Now next he praises this perception as also able to attain permanence. Why is this so? If the Tathāgata originally had not cultivated the perception of impermanence, he would not have known that impermanence lies in what is not the Buddha and permanence lies in the Buddha; how could he have cultivated unconfused impermanence and entered the syllable *i* nirvāṇa? This discusses present understanding, not the past. 'If he is not free from' refers to the past understanding: if one indeed cultivates the past perception of impermanence, this perception of impermanence will mistakenly extend to the Buddha; not only would one fail to recognize permanence, one would also not yet deeply recognize impermanence. How could it be able to eliminate the delusions of the three realms and the inverted perception of impermanence regarding the Buddha? The monks spoke these two lines on gain and loss, stating their own understanding and awakening to the purport of impermanence, completing the meaning of the 'delightful teaching' mentioned above.
Sengzong comments: The monks' intention is to say: 'I have not reached the ultimate; necessarily I must extinguish the body and only then escape suffering. Now exalting the Tathāgata as unlike me, since he is said to be permanently abiding, how could he wait to extinguish the body before it is called nirvāṇa?' 'If he is not free from' anticipates the Buddha's intention: if you say 'I too am not free from it', then you are improperly equated with me, and you should not say that cultivating the perception of impermanence is wrong.
Baoliang comments: These are words of entreaty. Grasping the line 'already free from impermanence' in the two verses on permanence and bliss in the preceding chapter, if one pursues these words, the Buddha is indeed free from the perception of impermanence. 'He should not enter nirvāṇa': this responsive body is the dharmakāya's unfree unconditioned. If it is indeed not free, how can he say 'I am permanently abiding'? 'If he is not free from': if the Buddha now indeed enters nirvāṇa, he has not yet been freed from the perception of impermanence; how can he say 'I am already free from impermanence'?
Zhizang comments: 'Free from' is another term for extinction. 'Perception' is another name for the wisdom of emptiness. The Buddha just said he wished to enter the three-dot nirvāṇa; if he extinguishes the wisdom of emptiness, there is no prajñā—how could there be a three-dot nirvāṇa to enter? 'If he is not free from' takes the Buddha's intention: if you say this wisdom is not extinguished, why did you formerly speak of extinguishing the perception of impermanence? Thus the wisdom of emptiness must inevitably be extinguished; where, then, are the three dots?