大般涅槃經義記 4.213

4.213

第三段中，「純陀心疑如來常住以見佛性」牒佛上言。下就設難，「若見佛性而為常者，本未見時應是無常」。以後推前，「若本無常，後亦應爾」，將前類後。「何以故」下舉事類徵，「以是義」下結以顯過，同皆無常故與聲聞、緣覺無別。文殊上來舉彼純陀佛上之疑令佛解釋，文殊是中亦自有疑，疑彼凡夫二乘人等為當與佛一向定別？亦有究竟無別之義？故下文言「文殊師利將欲問我，我知其意即為宣說，文殊師利即得解了。」又復下言「不但正為純陀說偈，亦為文殊。」故知文殊今亦有疑。文殊玄知佛釋，純陀疑心竟時己疑亦遣，故默不問。

In the third section, "Cunda doubts in his mind that the Tathāgata's permanent abiding is due to seeing buddha-nature" cites the Buddha's earlier words. Below, he poses the difficulty: "If he is permanent because of seeing buddha-nature, then originally when he had not yet seen it, he ought to have been impermanent." Inferring the past from the later: "If he was originally impermanent, he ought to be so later as well," drawing an analogy from the earlier to the later. From "Why?" onward, he adduces facts and makes analogical scrutiny. From "For this reason..." onward, he concludes to demonstrate the fault: being equally impermanent, he would not be different from śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Above, Mañjuśrī raised Cunda's doubt concerning the Buddha to have the Buddha explain it; Mañjuśrī also had his own doubt in this regard, doubting whether ordinary beings, those of the two vehicles, and the like are definitively and utterly distinct from the Buddha, or whether there is also a sense in which they are ultimately non-different. Thus the text below says: "Mañjuśrī was about to question me; knowing his intention, I proclaimed it for him, and Mañjuśrī immediately attained understanding." Furthermore, it says below: "I spoke the verses not only for Cunda, but also for Mañjuśrī." Thus we know that Mañjuśrī also had a doubt at this time. Knowing beforehand the Buddha's explanation, and that when Cunda's doubts were exhausted his own doubts would also be dispelled, Mañjuśrī remained silent and did not ask.