大般涅槃經義記 7.369

7.369

答第四中，義意云何？明己先來斷煩惱處實是涅槃，涅槃常恒，無有變易，隨化眾生唱言當般。就此答中，先解魔昔請滅所由，「爾時我諸聲聞」已下明己昔日許滅所以。初中「汝言波旬請」者牒上問辭，下對辯釋。於中先明魔不知真，故請我滅，初法、次喻、後合可知。「如來不說佛、法、僧」下明己體常，成魔不知。文有三番：一就三寶明常無差，三寶相別故佛不說，佛等無差，常、淨義等故說無差。常無差故，佛體是常。魔不知此，故請我滅。二就佛、佛性及與涅槃明常無差、此三義異故，佛不說此等無差，以其因果、人法別故。常恒不變，彼此齊等，故說無差。常無差故，佛體常住，魔不知此，故請我滅。三就涅槃、實相二法明常無差，此二義別，故佛不說此二無差。義如上辯。常恒不變，彼此齊等，故說無老。魔不知此，故請我滅。

In answering the fourth [challenge], what is the intended meaning? It clarifies that the locus where he previously severed the afflictions is truly nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa is eternal and constant, without change, and it is in accordance with transforming sentient beings that he proclaimed he would enter parinirvāṇa. In this reply, he first explains the reason why the Māra formerly requested his extinction; from 'at that time, my śrāvakas' onwards, he explains the reason why he formerly assented to extinction. In the first part, 'as to your statement that Pāpīmān requested' repeats the wording of the question above, and below he counters and explains it. Therein, he first clarifies that because the Māra did not know the truth, he requested my extinction; the initial [statement of the] dharma, the subsequent simile, and the concluding application can be known. From 'The Tathāgata does not say that the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha' onwards, he clarifies that his own substance is eternal, demonstrating the Māra's lack of knowledge. The text has three turns: First, in terms of the Three Jewels, he clarifies that they are eternally without difference; because the characteristics of the Three Jewels are distinct, the Buddha does not say [they are identical], yet the Buddha and the others are without difference, and because the meanings of permanence and purity are equal, he speaks of them as without difference. Because they are eternally without difference, the Buddha's substance is permanent. The Māra did not know this, and therefore requested my extinction. Second, in terms of the Buddha, the buddha-nature, and nirvāṇa, he clarifies that they are eternally without difference; because the meanings of these three are different, the Buddha does not say that these are without difference, since cause and effect, person and dharma are distinct. Being eternal, constant, and unchanging, the one and the other are equal, and therefore he speaks of them as without difference. Because they are eternally without difference, the Buddha's substance is permanently abiding; the Māra did not know this, and therefore requested my extinction. Third, in terms of the two dharmas of nirvāṇa and the true mark, he clarifies that they are eternally without difference; these two have distinct meanings, and therefore the Buddha does not say that these two are without difference. The meaning is explained as above. Being eternal, constant, and unchanging, the one and the other are equal, and therefore he speaks of them as without difference. The Māra did not know this, and therefore requested my extinction.