大般涅槃經義記 6.418

6.418

初中有四：一就法徵定，明有與無不得並立，法若有者便應定有，立有非無；法若無者便應定無，立無非有。由佛前說涅槃之法非有、非無，故為此徵。二「無不應」下以法有無類定生滅，明不並立。無不應生，立滅非生；有不應滅，存生破滅。三「如其」下以前生滅兩義不俱，類聞、不聞不並立。「如其聞者是則為聞」以生類聞，明唯是聞不得不聞；「若不聞者則為不聞」以前滅義類顯不聞，唯定不聞不得為聞；四「云何言」下結非聖說，聞與不聞既非並立，云何聖言聞所不聞？

In the first part there are four: first, inquiring into and determining in terms of dharmas, clarifying that existence and non-existence cannot stand simultaneously; if a dharma exists, it should be definitively existent, establishing existence and not non-existence; if a dharma does not exist, it should be definitively non-existent, establishing non-existence and not existence. Because the Buddha previously said that the dharma of nirvāṇa is neither existent nor non-existent, this inquiry is made. Second, from "the non-existent should not" on down, by means of the existence and non-existence of dharmas he determines by analogy arising and cessation, clarifying that they do not stand simultaneously: the non-existent should not arise, establishing cessation and not arising; the existent should not cease, preserving arising and refuting cessation. Third, from "if it" on down, by means of the two meanings of arising and cessation not occurring together, he analogizes that hearing and not hearing do not stand simultaneously: "if it is heard, then it is heard" analogizes hearing to arising, clarifying that it is only hearing and cannot be not hearing; "if it is not heard, then it is not heard" uses the previous meaning of cessation to analogize and reveal not hearing, that it is definitively only not hearing and cannot be hearing. Fourth, from "how can it be said" on down, concludes by negating the noble teaching: since hearing and not hearing do not stand simultaneously, how can the noble words say that one hears what was not heard?