大般涅槃經義記 8.239

8.239

第三段中，師子先難「若因持戒得不悔果，因於解脫得涅槃果」牒佛前言。「戒則無因，涅槃無果」以理徵定。下就設難，「戒若無因則名為常」就前設難，不從因生故名為常。「涅槃有因則無常」下就後設難。然此不難涅槃無果，唯難向前從解脫因得涅槃義，先以有因難破常義、後難樂等。前難常中，「有因無常」是略語也，「若爾」已下是廣難也。若彼涅槃實爾有因，本無今有，便是無常。「如燈」喻真。下難樂等，「涅槃若爾云何得名我樂及淨」。下佛先嘆，「善哉」總嘆。「汝曾」下別，「無量佛所種善能問」嘆問所因，「不失本」等嘆能不忘。次勅許說。下為解釋，先解初難明戒有因彰戒非常，文有五句：一明戒行因於聽法、二明聽法因於近友、三明近友因於信心、四明信心因於聞法及思惟義、五明信心與彼聽法互相因起。於中，初法、次喻、後合。法中，「信心因於聽法，聽法因信」正明相起。「如是二法亦因、亦因因、亦果、亦果果」雙牒重顯。信心是彼聽法家因故名亦因，聽法復彼因作因名亦因因。聽法望信，義亦同爾。信心是其聽法家果故名亦果，聽法是彼果家之果故名果果。聽法望信，義亦同爾。喻中「尼乾立拒舉瓶」，色法為喻。「如無明」等，心法為喻。問曰：無明緣行可爾，云何行支能緣無明？解有兩義：一前後分別，從前無明生於其行，行後還復生於無明，謂生䨱業受生無明。二同時分別，前無明時亦有業思，後行支時亦有無明，互相因起，餘亦如是。「生能生」下，舉其非色非心之法以為譬喻。大小八相，廣如上辯，今明此八互相因起，於中且就大小二生明相因起，餘類可知。「生能生法不自生」者，彼大生相但能生於色心等法，不能自生，其猶世間眼不自見、指不自觸。「不自生故由生生生」明其大生由小生生，小生偏能生於大生，故名生生大生。為此生生所生，名生生生。「生生不自生賴生生」者，明其小生由大生生。小生雖復能生大生，不能自生，不自生故賴大生生。「如是二生亦因、亦因因、亦果、亦果果」雙牒重顯，解不異前。下合可知。

In the third section, Siṃha first challenges: "If by upholding the precepts one attains the fruit of non-regret, and by liberation one attains the fruit of nirvāṇa," reiterating the Buddha's previous words. "Then the precepts would be without a cause, and nirvāṇa would be without a fruit," establishing this by reasoning. Below, he raises objections based on this: "If the precepts are without a cause, then they must be permanent" raises an objection on the former point—not being produced from a cause, they are therefore termed permanent. "If nirvāṇa has a cause, then it must be impermanent" raises an objection on the latter point below. However, this does not challenge the notion that nirvāṇa has no fruit, but only challenges the previous meaning of attaining nirvāṇa from the cause of liberation. He first uses "having a cause" to refute the meaning of permanence, and later challenges [the attributes of] bliss and so forth. In the earlier challenge to permanence, "having a cause entails impermanence" is an abbreviated statement; from "if so" onward is the expanded challenge. If that nirvāṇa truly has a cause, having previously been non-existent and now being existent, it would be impermanent. "Like a lamp" is an analogy for the real. Below, he challenges [the attributes of] bliss and so forth: "If nirvāṇa is like that, how can it be called self, bliss, and purity?" Below, the Buddha first praises him: "Excellent" is a general praise. From "You previously" onward is specific: "having planted good roots before immeasurable buddhas, you are able to question" praises the cause of his questioning; "not losing the fundamental," etc., praises his ability not to forget. Next, [the Buddha] commands and permits him to speak. Below, he explains it. First, he resolves the first challenge, explaining that the precepts have a cause, thereby revealing that the precepts are not permanent. The text has five clauses: first, explaining that the practice of precepts is caused by listening to the Dharma; second, explaining that listening to the Dharma is caused by approaching spiritual friends; third, explaining that approaching spiritual friends is caused by faith; fourth, explaining that faith is caused by hearing the Dharma and contemplating its meaning; fifth, explaining that faith and listening to the Dharma reciprocally cause one another to arise. Therein, first is the doctrine, next the analogy, and finally the application. In the doctrine, "faith is caused by listening to the Dharma, and listening to the Dharma is caused by faith" directly explains their reciprocal arising. "Such two dharmas are both causes, both causes of causes, both fruits, and both fruits of fruits" reiterates both to elucidate them again. Faith is the cause of listening to the Dharma, hence it is called "also a cause"; listening to the Dharma again serves as a cause for that cause, hence it is called "also a cause of a cause." Viewing listening to the Dharma in relation to faith, the meaning is also the same. Faith is the fruit of listening to the Dharma, hence it is called "also a fruit"; listening to the Dharma is the fruit of that fruit, hence it is called "a fruit of a fruit." Viewing listening to the Dharma in relation to faith, the meaning is also the same. In the analogy, "Nirgrantha raising an objection by citing a jar" uses physical phenomena (rūpa) as an analogy. "Like ignorance," etc., uses mental phenomena (citta) as an analogy. Question: Ignorance conditioning formations is acceptable; how can the branch of formations condition ignorance? The explanation has two meanings: first, distinguishing them sequentially: from preceding ignorance, formations arise, and after formations, they in turn give rise to ignorance—namely, producing karma that conceals and receiving ignorance upon rebirth. Second, distinguishing them simultaneously: at the time of preceding ignorance, there is also karmic volition, and at the time of the subsequent branch of formations, there is also ignorance; they reciprocally cause each other to arise, and the rest are also like this. From "birth can give birth" onward, he adduces phenomena that are neither physical nor mental as an analogy. The eight major and minor characteristics have been broadly explained above; here it explains that these eight reciprocally cause each other to arise. Therein, it provisionally explains reciprocal causation with respect to the two [kinds of] birth, major and minor, and the remaining types can be known by extension. "Birth can give birth to dharmas, but cannot give birth to itself" means that the characteristic of major birth can only give birth to physical and mental dharmas, but cannot give birth to itself—just as in the world, the eye cannot see itself, and a finger cannot touch itself. "Because it cannot give birth to itself, it is born through birth-birth" explains that major birth is born through minor birth. Minor birth uniquely can give birth to major birth, hence it is called "birth-birth"; being born by this birth-birth, it is called "born of birth-birth." "Birth-birth cannot give birth to itself; it relies on birth to be born" explains that minor birth is born through major birth. Although minor birth can give birth to major birth, it cannot give birth to itself; because it cannot give birth to itself, it relies on major birth to be born. "Such two births are both causes, both causes of causes, both fruits, and both fruits of fruits" reiterates both to elucidate them again, the explanation of which is no different from before. The application below can be known.