大般涅槃經義記 4.214

4.214

第四釋中，初舉偈正答。「本有今無、本無今有」自立道理。此之偈義隨人不定。若就佛論，佛於過去無量劫前名之為本，即就彼時說之為今。佛於過去無量劫前有生死身，名為本有，當於爾時無常法身說為今無；佛於過去無量劫前無常法身，名為本無，當於爾時有生死身說為今有。若就凡夫二乘論之，望於當果宣說未成佛前為本，還即說此未成佛前以之為今。彼於現在有生死身名為本有，無常法身說為今無；又於現在無常法身名為本無，現有生死無常之身故曰今有。「三世有法無是處」者破他定義，此言不足，若具，應言三世無法亦無是處。此偈隨人亦復不定。若就佛論，佛本所有生死之身，三世恒有，無是處故，今已斷離；本無法身，三世恒無，無是處故，佛今已得。若就凡夫二乘論之，彼本所有生死之身三世恒有，無是處故，當必除斷；彼本所無常住法身三世恒無，無是處故，當必修證。「以是義故，諸佛、菩薩、聲聞、緣覺，亦有差別亦無差別」就人結答。以前偈中所辯義故，諸佛、菩薩、聲聞、緣覺，亦有差別亦無差別，將此偈義就佛解釋。交異二乘故有差別。是義如何？如來本昔所有生死三世恒有，無是處故，無量劫來斷之已竟；佛本所無常住法身三世恒無，無是處故，無量劫來修成已竟。此異二乘，故有差別。將此偈義就二乘解，當同如來，故無差別。是義云何？聲聞、緣覺本有生死，三世恒有，無是處故，未來當斷；二乘所無常住法身，三世恒無，無是處故，未來當得。當斷、當得，與佛不異，故無差別。道言差別，釋去向前純陀所疑，如來生死三世恒有，無有是處，佛今斷竟，何得難言佛本無常，後亦應爾？常住真法，三世恒無，無是處故，佛今證得，交異二乘，何得難言如來無常與彼二乘一向無別？道言無差，釋去文殊自己所疑，答并迦葉偈中之問。聲聞、緣覺當捨無常、當證常法，共佛無異，釋去文殊心中之疑。二乘之人當同佛得，何得難言三乘之人各別有性？

In the fourth part, the explanation, first a verse is cited to answer directly. "Originally existent, now nonexistent; originally nonexistent, now existent" establishes the principle on its own. The meaning of this verse varies depending on the person. If discussed with respect to the Buddha, the time countless kalpas ago in the past of the Buddha is called "originally," and with respect to that very time it is termed "now." That the Buddha possessed a body of birth-and-death countless kalpas ago in the past is called "originally existent," and at that time the permanent dharmakāya was called "now nonexistent"; that the Buddha countless kalpas ago in the past lacked the permanent dharmakāya is called "originally nonexistent," and at that time possessing a body of birth-and-death is called "now existent." If discussed with respect to ordinary persons and those of the two vehicles, looking toward the future fruit, the state prior to becoming a buddha is spoken of as "originally," and this very state prior to becoming a buddha is likewise taken as "now." Their possessing a body of birth-and-death at present is called "originally existent," and their lacking the permanent dharmakāya is called "now nonexistent"; further, their lacking the permanent dharmakāya at present is called "originally nonexistent," and presently possessing an impermanent body of birth-and-death is therefore called "now existent." As for "there is no such thing as an existent dharma throughout the three times," this refutes the definitive positions of others; this phrasing is incomplete—if complete, it should say that there is also no such thing as a nonexistent dharma throughout the three times. This verse also varies depending on the person. If discussed with respect to the Buddha, because it is impossible for the body of birth-and-death that the Buddha originally possessed to exist constantly throughout the three times, he has now severed and abandoned it; because it is impossible for the dharmakāya that he originally lacked to be constantly nonexistent throughout the three times, the Buddha has now attained it. If discussed with respect to ordinary persons and those of the two vehicles, because it is impossible for the body of birth-and-death that they originally possessed to exist constantly throughout the three times, they will definitely eliminate and sever it in the future; because it is impossible for the permanently abiding dharmakāya that they originally lacked to be constantly nonexistent throughout the three times, they will definitely cultivate and realize it in the future. "For this reason, the buddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas both have differences and have no differences" concludes the answer with respect to persons. Because of the meaning elucidated in the preceding verse, the buddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas both have differences and have no differences. Explaining this verse with respect to the Buddha: he is distinctly different from the two vehicles, hence there are differences. What is this meaning? Because it is impossible for the birth-and-death that the Tathāgata originally possessed in the past to exist constantly throughout the three times, he has completely severed it for countless kalpas; because it is impossible for the permanently abiding dharmakāya that the Buddha originally lacked to be constantly nonexistent throughout the three times, he has completely cultivated and perfected it for countless kalpas. This differs from the two vehicles, hence there are differences. Explaining this verse with respect to the two vehicles: they will be identical with the Tathāgata, hence there is no difference. What is this meaning? Because it is impossible for the birth-and-death originally possessed by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas to exist constantly throughout the three times, they will sever it in the future; because it is impossible for the permanently abiding dharmakāya lacked by the two vehicles to be constantly nonexistent throughout the three times, they will attain it in the future. Their future severing and future attainment are not different from the Buddha's, hence there is no difference. Saying that there are differences resolves the earlier doubt of Cunda: since it is impossible for the Tathāgata's birth-and-death to exist constantly throughout the three times, and the Buddha has now completely severed it, how could one object that if the Buddha was originally impermanent, he must also be so afterward? Since it is impossible for the permanently abiding true dharma to be constantly nonexistent throughout the three times, and the Buddha has now realized and attained it, being distinctly different from the two vehicles, how could one object that the Tathāgata's impermanence is completely indistinguishable from that of the two vehicles? Saying that there is no difference resolves the doubt that Mañjuśrī himself harbored, answering together with the question in Kāśyapa's verse. That śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas will abandon the impermanent and realize the permanent dharma without difference from the Buddha resolves the doubt in Mañjuśrī's mind. Since people of the two vehicles will attain just as the Buddha does, how could one object that people of the three vehicles each have distinct natures?