大般涅槃經義記 8.119

8.119

第三段中師子先問。問意如何？明一與二相麁易識，不假二嚴方能問答，而佛說具方能問答，所以問之。文中有二：一乘言正難、二「所以」下釋。前中，菩薩具二莊嚴則不應問一種、二種，難前菩薩具二能問。具二莊嚴應當解法無一、無二，何緣正能問一、問二？云何世尊說言能答一種、二種，難前我具二嚴能答。然此問中言有隱顯，准後類前，前應有二：一自立道理，具二莊嚴不應問於一種、二種；二徵破佛語，云何說言具二莊嚴能問一、二？准前類後，後亦應二：一自立道理，具二莊嚴不應答於一種、二種；二徵破佛語，云何說言具二莊嚴能答一、二？今前句中偏舉道理，略無徵辭。後句之中偏舉徵辭，略不立理。准此驗前，必知向者有其一種、二種之言。亦可此言准義為問，向前問中道言「佛性，眾生不見」即是其二，「佛菩薩見」即是其一，如來就之說為深義，故今師子取以為難。

In the third section, Siṃhanāda questions first. What is the intention of the question? It clarifies that the marks of the one and the two are coarse and easily known; one does not depend on the two adornments before being able to question and answer [concerning them]. Yet the Buddha said that only by possessing them can one question and answer, hence he questions it. Within the text there are two parts: first, taking up the words to pose the objection directly; second, the explanation from "For what reason" onward. In the former, if a bodhisattva possesses the two adornments, he should not ask about the single kind and the dual kinds—this objects to the previous [statement that] a bodhisattva who possesses the two is able to question. One who possesses the two adornments ought to understand that dharmas are without oneness and without dualness; on what grounds would he specifically be able to question about the one and question about the two? How can the World-Honoured One say that [he himself] is able to answer about the single kind and the dual kinds?—this objects to the previous [statement that] "I, possessing the two adornments, am able to answer." However, within this question the words contain both implicit and explicit [aspects]. Inferring the former from the latter, the former should have two parts: first, establishing the principle for himself, that one who possesses the two adornments should not ask about the single kind and the dual kinds; second, pressing and refuting the Buddha's words, [asking] how he could say that one who possesses the two adornments is able to question about the one and the two. Inferring the latter from the former, the latter should also have two parts: first, establishing the principle for himself, that one who possesses the two adornments should not answer about the single kind and the dual kinds; second, pressing and refuting the Buddha's words, [asking] how he could say that one who possesses the two adornments is able to answer about the one and the two. Now, in the former sentence, it one-sidedly adduces the principle, omitting words of pressing objection. In the latter sentence, it one-sidedly adduces the words of pressing objection, omitting the establishment of the principle. Examining the former in light of this, one definitely knows that previously there were the words concerning the single kind and the dual kinds. Alternatively, these words may formulate the question in accordance with the meaning: in the previous question, saying that "sentient beings do not see the buddha-nature" is precisely the two, and "buddhas and bodhisattvas see it" is precisely the one; the Tathāgata spoke of these as profound meanings, and therefore Siṃhanāda now takes them up to raise his objection.