大般涅槃經集解 9.70

9.70

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.