大般涅槃經義記 2.122

2.122

佛答有四：一明法性非無、二明二乘不知、三明佛身非無、四明二乘不知，文別可見。就初段中，「汝不應說滅是法性」，呵其難辭。「夫性無滅」，正顯非無。第二段中，就喻以明二乘不知，仰類佛德。「如無想天成就色陰而無色想」，舉其喻事。第四禪中廣果天處，有諸外道修無想定生於彼中，初生有想，中間想滅，經五百劫命欲盡時心想還生，便謗涅槃，終入地獄。佛今舉之，彼想滅時但有色陰，而無色陰所依之想，亦無依色攀緣之想，名無色想。「不應問」下，彰其難知。彼無想天雖無麁想，非無細想，所有心識二乘不知，故不應問。喻明如來生死雖滅，真德常存，所有真德非二乘知，故不應問。「云何住」者，問其色陰；「云何受樂」，問其受陰；「云何行」者，問其行陰；「云何想」者，問其想陰；「云何見聞」，問其識陰。此皆不應。「如來境」下，顯前不應問之所以。無想天報，唯佛境界，非二乘知，故不應問；所況佛德類亦同爾。第三段中，「不應說言如來身滅」，明身非無。又明佛身非是無常遷滅之法，是故不應說身是滅。第四段中，就法以明二乘不知。「如是滅法」，牒前涅槃是佛境界，明唯佛知。「非諸」已下，明非二乘之所知也。

The Buddha's reply has four parts: first, explaining that the Dharma-nature is not non-existent; second, explaining that the two vehicles do not know it; third, explaining that the Buddha's body is not non-existent; fourth, explaining that the two vehicles do not know it—the distinctions in the text can be seen. In the first section, "You should not say that extinction is the Dharma-nature" scolds his phrasing of the difficulty; "Now, nature has no extinction" directly shows that it is not non-existent. In the second section, relying on an analogy, he explains that the two vehicles do not know it, looking up by comparison to the Buddha's virtues: "Just as in the Heaven of Non-conception, form-aggregate is achieved yet there is no thought of form" adduces the matter of the analogy. In the place of the Heaven of Extensive Fruition within the Fourth Dhyāna, there are heterodox practitioners who cultivate the non-conception concentration and are born therein; upon initial birth they have thought, in the intermediate period thought is extinguished, and when five hundred kalpas pass and life is about to end, mental thought arises again, whereupon they slander nirvāṇa and end up entering hell. The Buddha now adduces this: when their thought is extinguished, there is only the form-aggregate, yet without the thought upon which the form-aggregate depends, and also without the thought that takes form as an object of clinging; hence it is called "having no thought of form." From "One should not ask..." onwards, he manifests that it is difficult to know. Although that Heaven of Non-conception lacks coarse thought, it is not without subtle thought; the two vehicles do not know whatever consciousness is present, and therefore one should not ask. The analogy clarifies that although the Tathāgata's saṃsāra is extinguished, his true virtues constantly abide; whatever true virtues are present are not known by the two vehicles, and therefore one should not ask. "How does it abide?" asks about his form-aggregate; "How does it experience pleasure?" asks about his sensation-aggregate; "How does it act?" asks about his volition-aggregate; "How does it conceptualize?" asks about his conception-aggregate; "How does it see and hear?" asks about his consciousness-aggregate. None of these should be [asked]. From "The realm of the Tathāgata..." onwards, he reveals the reason why one should not ask earlier: the retribution of the Heaven of Non-conception is solely the realm of the Buddha and not known by the two vehicles, hence one should not ask; the Buddha's virtues compared thereto are also of the same kind. In the third section, "One should not say that the Tathāgata's body is extinguished" clarifies that the body is not non-existent. It also clarifies that the Buddha's body is not an impermanent dharma of changing extinction; therefore one should not say the body is extinguished. In the fourth section, relying on the doctrine, he explains that the two vehicles do not know it: "Such an extinguished dharma..." takes up the earlier [statement that] nirvāṇa is the Buddha's realm, explaining that only the Buddha knows it; from "Not all..." onwards, he explains that it is not what the two vehicles know.