大般涅槃經義記 8.243

8.243

下佛答之。先取其義明同畢竟，「世法涅槃終不對」下簡有異無明全不同。良以無因似彼世法畢竟不我故說為同；彼畢竟無乃無於我，涅槃有我故說不同。初中「汝說如是六義，何故不引畢竟無者以喻涅槃，乃取時無」牒以教呵。「涅槃之體畢竟無因，如無我」等釋同畢竟。第二辯明不同義中，「世法涅槃終不相對，是故六事不得為喻」略顯不同。名前六無以為世法，就世以求唯空無我，無有涅槃真我可得。知復將何對於世法。以無涅槃真我為對，故說世法畢竟無我。若有真我以為對者，無我我所不名畢竟。若當就彼涅槃以求，唯是真我無有世法無我可得，知復將何對於涅槃？以無對故，不得宣說涅槃同彼世間之法畢竟無我。為是六事不得為喻。下重釋之。「一切諸法悉無有我」彰畢竟無不同涅槃，「而此涅槃真實有我」釋其涅槃不同畢竟，「以是義」下，第三總結。以是前說六義是果，七義無同，故涅槃法無因是果。上來第一正明涅槃是果無因。

Below, the Buddha answers him. First, he takes up its meaning to explain that it is identical to ultimate [non-existence]; from "worldly phenomena and nirvāṇa never correspond" onward, he distinguishes between existence and non-existence to clarify that they are completely dissimilar. Indeed, being without a cause resembles worldly phenomena's ultimate lack of self, and is therefore said to be identical; yet that ultimate non-existence is a non-existence of self, whereas nirvāṇa has a self, so they are said to be dissimilar. In the first part, "You spoke of such six meanings; why did you not cite ultimate non-existence as an analogy for nirvāṇa, but rather took temporal non-existence?" reiterates it to reprimand him with instruction. "The substance of nirvāṇa is ultimately without a cause, just like selflessness," etc., explains its identity with ultimate [non-existence]. In the second part, explaining the meaning of their dissimilarity, "worldly phenomena and nirvāṇa never correspond to each other, therefore the six things cannot serve as an analogy" briefly reveals their dissimilarity. The previously named six non-existences are considered worldly phenomena; seeking in terms of the world, there is only emptiness and selflessness, and no true self of nirvāṇa can be found. How, then, could one set anything in correspondence with worldly phenomena? Because there is no true self of nirvāṇa to serve as a counterpart, worldly phenomena are said to be ultimately devoid of self. If there were a true self to serve as a counterpart, selflessness and what belongs to self could not be called ultimate. If one seeks in terms of that nirvāṇa, there is only the true self, and no worldly selflessness can be found; how, then, could one set anything in correspondence with nirvāṇa? Because there is no counterpart, one cannot declare that nirvāṇa is identical to those worldly phenomena in being ultimately selfless. For this reason, the six things cannot serve as an analogy. Below, he explains it again. "All phenomena are entirely devoid of self" reveals ultimate non-existence, dissimilar to nirvāṇa; "yet this nirvāṇa truly has a self" explains that nirvāṇa is dissimilar to ultimate [non-existence]. From "by this meaning" onward is the third part, the general conclusion: because of these aforementioned six meanings of being a fruit and seven meanings of being identical in non-existence, the dharma of nirvāṇa is a fruit without a cause. The above is the first part, directly explaining that nirvāṇa is a fruit without a cause.