大般涅槃經義記 7.415

7.415

下別答中，大判有四：一破邪歸正、二「佛菩薩終不定說因有果」下辯正異邪、三「若言因中先定有」下重非前邪、四「諸佛菩薩顯中道」下重明前正。初中有三：一前舉第二本有之執，呵以顯過；二復言「凡夫心有貪」下舉前第三不定之執，呵以顯過；三「有凡夫復言因中悉無果」下舉前第一本無之執，呵以顯過。何故不次？「一切凡夫執有者多」先舉以非，「執無過重」後舉廣呵。不定之執無此兩義，據中而辯，為是不次。

In the individual answers below, broadly distinguished, there are four: 1. Refuting the heterodox to return to the correct; 2. From "Buddhas and bodhisattvas ultimately never determinately say that the cause has the fruit" onward, discerning the correct to distinguish it from the heterodox; 3. From "If one says that in the cause it previously determinately exists" onward, re-negating the former heterodoxy; 4. From "All buddhas and bodhisattvas reveal the middle way" onward, re-clarifying the former correctness. In the first there are three: 1. Citing the former second attachment to fundamental existence, scolding it to reveal its faults; 2. Stating again from "The ordinary person's mind has greed" onward, citing the former third attachment to indeterminacy, scolding it to reveal its faults; 3. From "There are ordinary persons who further say that in the cause there is entirely no fruit" onward, citing the former first attachment to fundamental nonexistence, scolding it to reveal its faults. Why are they not in sequence? "Of all ordinary persons, those attached to existence are many," so it is cited first to negate it; "the attachment to nonexistence is an exceedingly grave fault," so it is cited later to broadly scold it. The attachment to indeterminacy lacks these two meanings and is discerned occupying the middle; for this reason they are not in sequence.