大般涅槃經義記 1.32

1.32

次非異說，於中有三：一破多相，有人於此建立七相，六種如前，加一現堂，通前為七。若林上現堂，堂為別相，堂下有池，池亦應異，池中有華，華亦應別，池、華、嚴堂不可別分，堂為嚴林，何得為別？故下文中現堂之後方言「爾時娑羅樹林種種莊嚴，甚可愛樂，如欝單越歡喜之園」，明知不別。二破少相，有人於此但立四相，動地、淨土非涅槃相，故但有四。何故動地非涅槃相？以眾哀泣，故令地動，非佛所現，故非滅相。何故淨土非涅槃相？淨土由於大眾心淨，非佛所現。又淨殊好，故非滅相。若言動地由眾哀泣，非表滅相，何故大眾見動止悲，相催詣佛？見動相催，何為非相？若動非相，大眾因何共相抑止？若言土淨，由眾心淨，非佛所現，全非滅相，何故下言「佛神力故，地皆柔軟」，不言由心？若土嚴淨便非滅相，莊嚴樹林何得為相？彼得為相，此亦同爾。三破異表，有人說言「第一聲相為表滅時，不表餘義」，聲中舉時便名表時，聲中道佛將欲涅槃，何為不表？人復說言「光示滅處，不表餘義」，若爾，文中應言眾生遇光知處，不應說言眾生遇光，罪垢煩惱皆悉消除。人復說言「何故變林得表滅者，林白死相，故得表滅」，此乃鮮白，非是艾白，故下文言「其林變白，猶如白鶴，甚可愛樂。」林白可愛，云何死相？人復說言「淨土為欲顯說淨法，不為表滅」，此同前破，嚴林表滅，淨土似彼，何為不表？此是第一就佛分別。

Next, refuting differing explanations, within which there are three: First, refuting too many marks. Someone here established seven marks: six kinds as before, adding one of manifesting a hall, making seven in all with the preceding ones. If manifesting a hall above the grove makes the hall a separate mark, then there is a pond beneath the hall, so the pond should also be distinct; there are flowers in the pond, so the flowers should also be separate. The pond, flowers, and adorned hall cannot be separately divided; since the hall serves to adorn the grove, how could it be distinct? Therefore, in the text below, only after manifesting the hall does it say: 'At that time the grove of Sāla trees was variously adorned, exceedingly delightful, like the Joyous Garden of Uttarakuru'; we clearly know it is not distinct. Second, refuting too few marks. Someone here established only four marks, [holding that] shaking the earth and purifying the land are not marks of nirvāṇa, and therefore there are only four. Why would shaking the earth not be a mark of nirvāṇa? [They say that] because the assembly wailed and wept, they caused the earth to shake, which was not manifested by the Buddha, and therefore is not a mark of cessation. Why would purifying the land not be a mark of nirvāṇa? [They say that] the pure land was due to the purity of mind of the great assembly and was not manifested by the Buddha; moreover, since the purity was exceptionally fine, it is not a mark of cessation. If one says that the shaking of the earth was due to the wailing and weeping of the assembly and did not symbolize the mark of cessation, why did the great assembly, upon seeing the shaking, stop their grief and urge one another to go to the Buddha? Beholding the shaking and urging one another—why would it not be a mark? If the shaking were not a mark, why would the great assembly have mutually restrained one another? If one says that the land's purity was due to the purity of mind of the assembly, was not manifested by the Buddha, and was completely not a mark of cessation, why does it say below: 'Due to the Buddha's spiritual power, the ground was all soft and pliable,' without saying it was due to the mind? If the land being adorned and pure means it is not a mark of cessation, how could adorning the grove be a mark? If that can be a mark, this is likewise the same. Third, refuting divergent symbolic interpretations. Someone said: 'The first mark of sound is meant to symbolize the time of cessation, and does not symbolize any other meaning.' Mentioning the time in the sound is called symbolizing the time; when in the sound it says that the Buddha is about to enter nirvāṇa, why would it not symbolize [the person]? Someone also said: 'The light indicates the place of cessation, and does not symbolize any other meaning.' If so, the text should have said that sentient beings encountering the light came to know the place; it should not have said that sentient beings who encountered the light had their defilements of sin and afflictions entirely eradicated. Someone also said: 'Why is it that transforming the grove can symbolize cessation? The grove turning white is a sign of death, and therefore can symbolize cessation.' This [whiteness] is fresh and radiant, not an ashen white; therefore the text below says: 'The grove turned white, just like white cranes, exceedingly delightful.' If the white grove is delightful, how could it be a sign of death? Someone also said: 'The pure land is meant to reveal and preach the pure Dharma, not to symbolize cessation.' This is the same as the refutation before: the adorned grove symbolizes cessation, and the pure land is similar to it, so why would it not symbolize it? This is the first [gate], distinguishing in reference to the Buddha.