大般涅槃經集解 68.54

68.54

Sengliang notes: This is the sixth major section, distinguishing the approach of permanence. The reason permanence is distinguished is that being able to discern the buddhadhātu, one regenerates the kuśalamūlas and properly attains the permanent fruit. It clarifies that permanence has only two kinds: first, non-existent permanence, which is empty space; second, existent permanence, which is the buddhadhātu. Non-existent permanence cannot be attained through learning. Existent permanence is seen by cultivating the path. The intent is to cause people to recognise the permanent fruit and cultivate the permanent cause, not regarding Brahmā and the like as permanent. From the beginning of the sūtra onwards, space has been used as a simile for the nature; above it was said that its existence is not like empty space, and now he asks about the intent of using this simile in the past. Sengzong says: The intent of the question is: if the buddhadhātu is not subsumed under the three periods of time yet is called existent, then empty space is also not subsumed under the three periods of time, so it ought also to be existent. This is a parallel question. Baoliang says: Once sentient beings' minds are settled regarding the principle of nature as cause and fruit, they then wish to cultivate the cause; but if they do not recognise the fruit, they have no way to advance. Therefore, because its essence as a whole is not subsumed under the three periods of time, those with consciousness will equally attain it in the future. Although the 'Lion's Roar' chapter above clarified that the essence of the fruit is permanent, it ultimately did not formally address the difference between existence and non-existence in this essence. Now it categorises and distinguishes that although empty space is permanent, its nature is non-existent; nirvāṇa is wondrous existence, and its nature is serene. Thus, while both are alike in not belonging to the three periods of time, they differ in existence and non-existence.