大般涅槃經義記 2.106

2.106

二「迦葉白佛：世、出世法有何別」下，寄對辯異，彰其不同。前中有三：初言菩薩修習此業得壽命長，善知宿世，略明得果；二「迦葉白」下問答廣辯；三「迦葉當知佛是常」下結勸修學。初段可知。第二廣中有三問答：第一迦葉執因徵果，難佛無常，如來答之，明己是常；第二迦葉聞常不解，請佛宣說，如來為辯；第三迦葉執真難應，如來為釋。初中，迦葉先牒佛言呵不應說，「何以故」下以理徵責成前不應。於中有二：一舉因徵果，難佛無常；二從「如來將無」已下准果驗因，疑無慈行。就初難中，先喻、後合。喻中有二：一言行相違喻，名佛以為「知法之人」；佛說常果酬遂常因，名「說種種孝真之法」；因為父母、果為子故，攝義就己，名「至家中」；以無常果乖違常因，名「以瓦石打擲父母」。二「而是」下，嘆因責果喻，先嘆其因，「如是父母」舉佛昔因，得果所依名「良福田」，能生常果名「多利益」，此因叵得名「難遭遇」，應以常果而酬遂之名「應供養」。下責今果，無常之果乖違常因名「反惱害」。下次合之，先合初句，「是知法人言行相違」，牒次前喻。「如來所言亦如是」者，舉法以合。「菩薩修」下合第二句，「菩薩修等應得長壽」合前嘆因；「今者」已下合後責果。第二舉果驗因之中，「將無於生有怨憎想」明無慈心，「世尊昔日作何惡」下明無善行。下佛答之。「汝今何緣」呵其難辭，翻上後難；「如來長壽於諸壽」下明佛體常，對上初難。「諸壽中勝」是佛報常，「所得常法諸常中最」是佛法常。

Second, from "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: What distinction is there between worldly and supramundane dharmas?" downward, it distinguishes their difference through contrast, revealing their divergence. Within the first [part] there are three: first, saying that a bodhisattva cultivating this karma attains long life and knows past lives well briefly explains the attainment of the fruit; second, from "Kāśyapa said..." downward, questions and answers elaborate in detail; third, from "Kāśyapa, you should know that the Buddha is permanent" downward concludes by encouraging study. The first section is obvious. In the second elaboration there are three questions and answers: first, Kāśyapa clings to the cause to examine the fruit, challenging the Buddha on impermanence, and the Tathāgata answers, clarifying that he is permanent; second, Kāśyapa hears of permanence and does not understand, requesting the Buddha to explain it, and the Tathāgata elucidates it for him; third, Kāśyapa clings to the true to challenge the responsive, and the Tathāgata explains it. In the first: Kāśyapa first repeats the Buddha's words to rebuke that they should not be said; from "Why?" downward, he challenges with reason to establish the previous "should not." Here there are two [parts]: (1) raising the cause to examine the fruit, challenging the Buddha on impermanence; (2) from "Could it be that the Tathāgata..." downward, deducing the cause from the fruit, suspecting a lack of compassionate practice. Within the first challenge, there are first a parable and then an application. In the parable there are two: (1) The parable of words and deeds contradicting each other calls the Buddha a "person who knows the Dharma"; the Buddha explaining that the permanent fruit repays the permanent cause is called "speaking of various filial and genuine dharmas"; because the cause is the parents and the fruit is the child, taking the meaning upon oneself is called "arriving at his home"; using an impermanent fruit to contradict the permanent cause is called "throwing tiles and stones at his parents." (2) From "Yet these..." downward is the parable of praising the cause and reproaching the fruit: first praising the cause, "such parents" raises the Buddha's past causes; that upon which attaining the fruit relies is called an "excellent field of merit"; being able to produce the permanent fruit is called "of great benefit"; this cause being difficult to attain is called "hard to encounter"; that one ought to repay it with the permanent fruit is called "worthy of offerings." Below he reproaches the present fruit: an impermanent fruit contradicting the permanent cause is called "contrarily distressing and harming." Next is the application: first applying to the first clause, "This person who knows the Dharma whose words and deeds contradict each other" repeats the previous parable. "What the Tathāgata has said is also like this" raises the teaching to apply it. From "The bodhisattva cultivating..." downward applies to the second clause; "a bodhisattva cultivating impartiality ought to attain long life" applies to the previous praise of the cause; from "Now..." downward applies to the subsequent reproach of the fruit. In the second [part], deducing the cause from the fruit: "Could it be that toward sentient beings he holds thoughts of enmity and hatred?" explains the lack of a compassionate mind; from "What evil did the World-Honoured One commit in the past?" downward explains the lack of wholesome practice. Below, the Buddha answers. "By what reason do you now...?" rebukes the phrasing of his challenge, refuting the latter challenge above; from "The Tathāgata's long life among all lifespans..." downward explains that the Buddha's substance is permanent, countering the first challenge above. "Supreme among all lifespans" is the permanence of the Buddha's retribution; "the permanent dharma attained is foremost among all permanent things" is the permanence of the Buddha's Dharma.