大般涅槃經義記 2.206

2.206

下佛答中，先明如來是有非無；「言燈滅者是羅漢」下，推滅屬小釋會昔言。前中有二：一明如來常而是有、二「雖不俱」下辯明如來有而是常。前中先呵，「汝不應言燈滅無有，如來亦爾。」下為辯釋，釋中先喻、次合顯法，下問迦葉，迦葉後答。喻中兩句：第一依真起惑之喻，「男女」喻於起惑之人；依真起惑名「燃燈時」；如來藏性為妄所依，說與「燈爐」；真隨妄轉，隨妄廣狹，故云「大小」；無明遍覆，名「滿中油」；依無明地生於四住，妄分別心如油起明，本存末隨故言「油在，其明猶存」。二「若油盡」下，是其滅惑顯真之喻。「若油盡已，明亦俱盡」，是滅惑喻。斷無明地名油盡亡，四住隨亡名明俱盡。顯真之喻，文中略無。若具，應言明雖滅盡，燈爐猶存。喻中雖無，合中具有。下次合之，起惑之喻今略不合，但合滅惑顯真之喻。其明滅者，喻煩惱滅，合滅惑喻。文少不足，若具，應言其油盡者喻無明滅。但昔教中唯說燈滅，不說油滅，故略不合。「明雖滅」下合顯真喻。「明雖滅盡，燈爐猶在」，舉喻顯法。「如來亦爾，煩惱雖滅，法身常存」，辯法同喻。法身常存，寧同燈滅一向是無？反問反答，文顯可知。「雖不俱」下，明有是常。

In the Buddha's answer below: first, he explains that the Tathāgata exists and is not non-existent; from "the statement that the lamp is extinguished refers to the arhat" onward, he relegates extinction to the Hīnayāna, interpreting and reconciling his past words. In the former part, there are two points: first, explaining that the Tathāgata is permanent and yet existent; second, from "although they do not together" onward, explaining that the Tathāgata is existent and yet permanent. In the first point, he first rebukes him: "You should not say that just as when a lamp is extinguished it has nothing that exists, the Tathāgata is also like this." Below, he explains it: in the explanation, there is first an analogy, next an application revealing the Dharma; below, he questions Kāśyapa, and afterwards Kāśyapa answers. In the analogy, there are two lines: the first is the analogy of giving rise to delusion based on the true. "Men and women" is an analogy for the person who gives rise to delusion; giving rise to delusion based on the true is called "when lighting a lamp"; the nature of the tathāgatagarbha is the basis for delusion, spoken of as the "lamp bowl"; the true turns in accordance with delusion, and conforms to delusion's breadth or narrowness, hence it says "large or small"; ignorance covering everywhere is called "filling it with oil"; based on the ground of ignorance the four entrenchments arise, and the falsely discriminating mind is like the light arising from the oil—the root remaining, the branch follows, hence it says "while the oil remains, its light still persists." Second, from "if the oil is exhausted" onward, it is the analogy of extinguishing delusion to reveal the true. "If the oil is exhausted, the light is also completely extinguished" is the analogy of extinguishing delusion. Severing the ground of ignorance is called the oil being exhausted and perished; the four entrenchments perishing accordingly is called the light being completely extinguished. The analogy of revealing the true is omitted in the text; if complete, it should say that although the light is completely extinguished, the lamp bowl still remains. Although absent in the analogy, it is fully present in the application. Next is the application: the analogy of giving rise to delusion is now omitted and not applied; it only applies the analogy of extinguishing delusion to reveal the true. The extinction of its light is an analogy for the extinction of afflictions, applying the analogy of extinguishing delusion. The text is somewhat incomplete; if complete, it should say that the exhaustion of its oil is an analogy for the extinction of ignorance. However, in the past teaching he only spoke of the lamp being extinguished and did not speak of the oil being extinguished, so it is omitted and not applied. From "although the light is extinguished" onward, it applies the analogy of revealing the true. "Although the light is completely extinguished, the lamp bowl is still present" adduces the analogy to reveal the Dharma. "The Tathāgata is also like this: although afflictions are extinguished, the dharmakāya is eternally present" explains that the Dharma is identical to the analogy. If the dharmakāya is eternally present, how could it be identical to the lamp's extinction being completely non-existent? The rhetorical question and answer are evident in the text and can be understood. From "although they do not together" onward, it explains that existence is permanent.