大般涅槃經義記 1.153

1.153

第二因中亦應具三，文中但有第一、第三，略無第二。就初段中，釋難不盡。云何不盡？向前難中言先受施，六度不具、五眼不足，今但釋眼，六度不論；就五眼中但釋佛眼，餘四不解，故云不盡。一義既通，餘類可知，故不具釋。云何得知偏釋佛眼？照見佛性是佛眼故。文中初言「未見佛性名煩惱身、雜食身」等，約前顯實，亦得名為約果顯因。顯之云何？未見佛性名煩惱身，雜食、後邊，無常身故。向前宣說無量劫來無有食身、煩惱身等，明知我於無量劫來已見佛性，已見性故先有佛眼。「菩薩爾時受飲食」下，約真顯應。顯之云何？實則如來無量劫來已是常身、已見佛性，而言「爾時受飲食已入金剛定始見佛性、得菩提」者，明知是應。「是故我」下，結成無差，良以今昔同見性故，二果無差。

In the second, regarding the cause, there should also be three complete [parts], but the text has only the first and third, omitting the second. In the first section, the resolution of the objection is incomplete. Why is it incomplete? In the previous objection, it was said that when previously receiving the giving, the six pāramitās were not complete and the five eyes were insufficient; now he resolves only the eyes, leaving the six pāramitās undiscussed; among the five eyes, he resolves only the buddha eye, not explaining the remaining four—hence it is called incomplete. Once one meaning is mastered, the remaining categories can be known, and so it is not completely explained. How is it known that it specifically resolves the buddha eye? Because illuminating and seeing buddha-nature is the buddha eye. In the text, it first says that "not seeing buddha-nature is called an afflicted body, a body of coarse food," and so forth, which addresses the prior to reveal the real, and can also be called addressing the fruit to reveal the cause. How does it reveal it? Because not seeing buddha-nature is called an afflicted body, a body of coarse food, a final body, and an impermanent body. Previously it was proclaimed that for immeasurable kalpas he has been without an alimentary body, an afflicted body, and so forth, which makes it clear that for immeasurable kalpas I have already seen buddha-nature, and because I had already seen the nature, I previously possessed the buddha eye. From "at that time the bodhisattva received food and drink" down addresses the true to reveal the response. How does it reveal it? In reality, the Tathāgata has for immeasurable kalpas already been a permanent body and already seen buddha-nature, but saying that "at that time, having received food and drink, he entered the vajra-samādhi and only then saw buddha-nature and attained bodhi" makes it clear that this was a response. From "therefore I..." down concludes by establishing "no difference"; precisely because the present and the past identically saw the nature, the two fruits are without difference.