大般涅槃經義記 10.94

10.94

初中有四：第一如來略明自己不與世諍。二「何以」下顯不諍相。說有說無皆同智者，故曰不諍。三「迦葉言」下，顯向初段不諍所由，先問、後辨。辨中初舉，次列十名。此十與前〈師子吼〉中修十相似。「信戒近友」正與前同。「內善思惟」，前名寂靜。「精進正念」亦與前同。是中「智慧」，前為第十，此為第七。「正語樂法」亦與前同。「憐愍眾生」前名惠施。「如是」下結。四「迦葉白」下，顯前第二說有說無，先問、後辨，文顯可知。自下第三明佛五陰，先問、後答。問中初先定其智者即是菩薩一切聖人，下就設難。難有四句：一責佛不同世智說有。世智說陰有其無常苦空無我，如來云何不同其說，乃說佛身常恒無變？二責佛不同世智說無。世智說陰無常樂等，如來云何說言是有？三責佛不與世諍之言，作如是說，云何不諍？四責佛遠離顛倒之言，於中四句：一以理明佛遠離三倒；二列三名；三「應說」下，明佛離倒，應說佛色是無常等；四「今乃」下，以佛說常徵破離倒。下佛答中，初明「凡色從煩惱生」，彰其智者說有無常苦空所以；後明「佛色遠煩惱成」，彰己宣說常恒所由。

In the first [part] there are four [sections]: First, the Tathāgata briefly clarifies that he does not dispute with the world. Second, from "Why" onwards, he reveals the marks of non-disputation. Saying "exists" and saying "does not exist" are both identical to [what is said by] the wise; hence it is called "non-disputation." Third, from "Kāśyapa said" onwards, he reveals the reason for the non-disputation in the first section above; first asking, then discerning. In the discernment, he first raises [the matter], and next lists ten names. These ten are similar to the cultivation of the ten in the earlier "Lion's Roar" [chapter]. "Faith, precepts, and drawing near to [good] friends" are precisely identical to the earlier [text]. "Internal proper contemplation" was formerly named "quiescence." "Vigor and right mindfulness" are also identical to the earlier [text]. Among these, "wisdom" was formerly the tenth, but here is the seventh. "Right speech and joy in the Dharma" are also identical to the earlier [text]. "Pity for sentient beings" was formerly named "generous giving." From "thus" onwards, he concludes. Fourth, from "Kāśyapa addressed [the Buddha]" onwards, he reveals the earlier second [section's] saying "exists" and saying "does not exist"; first asking, then discerning, the text being clear and understandable. Next below, the third clarifies the five skandhas of the Buddha, first asking, then answering. In the question, he first determines that the wise are precisely the bodhisattvas and all noble persons, and below proceeds to pose an objection. The objection has four clauses: First, he rebukes the Buddha for not being identical to worldly wisdom in speaking of existence. Worldly wisdom says that the skandhas possess impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self; why is the Tathāgata not identical to its explanation, yet speaks of the Buddha's body as permanent, eternal, and unchanging? Second, he rebukes the Buddha for not being identical to worldly wisdom in speaking of non-existence. Worldly wisdom says that the skandhas are without permanence, bliss, and so forth; why does the Tathāgata speak of them as existing? Third, he rebukes the Buddha's statement of not disputing with the world: making such an exposition, how is it non-disputation? Fourth, he rebukes the Buddha's statement of being far removed from inverted views. In this there are four clauses: 1. By means of principle, clarifying that the Buddha is far removed from the three inversions; 2. Listing the three names; 3. From "he should say" onwards, clarifying that since the Buddha is free from inversions, he should say that the Buddha's form is impermanent and so forth; 4. From "now, however" onwards, through the Buddha's speaking of permanence, he challenges and refutes his freedom from inversions. Below in the Buddha's reply, he first clarifies that "ordinary form is born from afflictions," manifesting the reason why the wise speak of the existence of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness; afterwards, he clarifies that "the Buddha's form is accomplished through being far removed from afflictions," manifesting the ground for his own proclaiming of permanence and eternity.