大般涅槃經義記 10.66

10.66

自下第六約就虛空辨性同異令捨邪解。良以上來數說佛性猶如虛空，人謂全同，故須辨異。次前說性不如虛空，人謂全別，故須說同。文中，初先明性似空，「迦葉白言如來佛性非三世」下，彰性異空。前中，迦葉先問起發，「如佛所說性如虛空，云何如」也。下佛為辨，先辨、後結。辨中有三：一明佛性非三世攝，如似虛空；二非內外，如似虛空。三無罣礙，如似虛空。前中，初言「空非過去未來現在，佛性亦爾」略辨同義。「善男子」下廣顯同義，於中有四：一廣明虛空非三世攝。二「佛性亦爾」辨法同喻。三「虛空無故非三世攝」結前第一。四「佛性常故非三世攝」釋前第二。初中復二：一正明虛空非三世攝；二「以空無」下，破有顯空成非三世。前中先別，後總結之。別中，初言「空非過去」略以標舉。「何以」下釋。「無現」略解，下重顯之。現起之法緣離謝往可說過去，空無現起故無過去。「無現」略舉，「何以」下釋。「無未」略解，下重顯之。未來之法從緣始集可名現在，空不如是故無現在。「無未」略舉，「何以」下釋。「無現過去」，對問略解，下重顯之。若是現起、謝往之法，未起未謝說為未來，空不如是故無未來。「以是」下結。自下第二破有顯空成非三世。以諸外道說空為有故須破之，有即三世所以須破。「以空無故無有三世」正辨其無。「不以有故」破有顯無。次喻、後合。「無物是空」釋成無義。上來廣明空非三世。「佛性亦爾」辨法同喻。「虛空無」下結前第一。「佛性常」下釋前第二。「佛性常故非三世攝」略明佛性非三所以。「如來已得菩提」已下，就人顯之。佛得果時證窮性實，知性本來常寂不動，故「所有性、一切佛法常無變易」。「以是義」下結法同喻。

From here below is the sixth section: examining sameness and difference between the [buddha]-nature and space to cause them to abandon wrong understanding. Truly because it was repeatedly explained above that the buddha-nature is like space, people might think they are entirely identical; therefore, differences must be distinguished. Immediately before, it was said that the nature is not like space, and people might think they are entirely separate; therefore, sameness must be explained. In the text, it first explains that the nature resembles space, and from "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha, saying: 'The Tathāgata's buddha-nature is not subsumed under the three periods of time...'" onward, it clarifies how the nature differs from space. In the former part, Kāśyapa first poses a question to raise the topic: "As the Buddha has explained, the nature is like space; how is it like it?" Below, the Buddha distinguishes it for him, first making distinctions and then concluding. Within the distinctions there are three points: first, it clarifies that the buddha-nature is not subsumed under the three periods of time, just like space; second, it is neither internal nor external, just like space; third, it has no obstruction, just like space. In the first point, the initial statement, "Space is neither past, future, nor present; the buddha-nature is likewise," briefly distinguishes their shared meaning. From "Good son" onward, it broadly demonstrates the shared meaning, within which there are four parts: first, it broadly clarifies that space is not subsumed under the three periods of time; second, "the buddha-nature is likewise" distinguishes the phenomenon as being identical with the metaphor; third, "Because space is non-existent, it is not subsumed under the three periods of time" concludes the first part above; fourth, "Because the buddha-nature is eternal, it is not subsumed under the three periods of time" explains the second part above. Within the first, there are again two parts: first, directly clarifying that space is not subsumed under the three periods of time; second, from "Because space is non-existent..." onward, refuting existence to reveal emptiness, establishing that it is not of the three periods of time. Within the first, it first treats them separately and then summarizes. In the separate discussion, the opening phrase "Space is not past" briefly presents the topic. From "Why?" onward explains it. "It has no present" is a brief explanation, which is clarified again below. A phenomenon that arises in the present, when conditions separate and it passes away, can be said to be past; space has no present arising, and therefore has no past. "It has no present" is briefly raised; from "Why?" onward explains it. "It has no future" is a brief explanation, which is clarified again below. A future phenomenon, newly assembled through conditions, may be called present; space is not like this, and therefore has no present. "It has no future" is briefly raised; from "Why?" onward explains it. "It has no present or past" is a brief explanation in response to the question, which is clarified again below. If a phenomenon has arisen in the present and passed away, when not yet arisen and not yet passed away it is called future; space is not like this, and therefore has no future. From "For this reason..." onward is the conclusion. From here below, the second part refutes existence to reveal emptiness, establishing that it is not of the three periods of time. Because various non-Buddhists assert that space is existent, it must be refuted; being existent implies the three periods of time, which is why it must be refuted. "Because space is non-existent, it has no three periods of time" directly distinguishes its non-existence. "It is not on account of being existent" refutes existence to reveal non-existence. Next is the metaphor, followed by the application. "Non-thing is space" explains and establishes the meaning of non-existence. The above broadly clarified that space is not of the three periods of time. "The buddha-nature is likewise" distinguishes the phenomenon as identical with the metaphor. From "Space is non-existent..." onward concludes the first above. From "The buddha-nature is eternal..." onward explains the second above. "Because the buddha-nature is eternal, it is not subsumed under the three periods of time" briefly explains the reason why the buddha-nature is not of the three periods of time. From "The Tathāgata having already attained bodhi..." onward, it demonstrates this in terms of the person. When the Buddha attained the fruit, he fully realized the true reality of the nature and knew that the nature is originally eternally tranquil and unmoving; therefore, "all natures and all buddha-dharmas are eternally free from alteration." From "By this meaning..." onward concludes that the phenomenon is identical with the metaphor.