大般涅槃經義記 8.253

8.253

下廣釋之。先就向前第二段中眾生當性明凡未有，顯成非內；「師子吼言：乳中無酪、麻無油」下廣就向前第一段中眾生現性明凡不無，顯前非外。「汝不可以有退心故言無性」下，明有性因終必得果，顯非失壞。初中有二：一約乳酪轉變因果明性非有、二約樹子相生因果明性非有。前中有五：一師子吼當相立有，佛破明無。二「若乳無酪角亦無」下，師子以其非異因生證性定有，佛破明無。三「若乳無酪乳中亦無菴摩羅」下，師子以其不生異果證性定有，佛破明無。四「我今定知乳有酪」下師子以其人取證有，佛破明無。五「若乳無酪，云何佛說二因」已下，師子以其緣正二因證性定有，佛破明無。就初段中有二問答：初師子吼牒佛上言執為定有，「如佛所說眾生有性，如乳中酪、金剛力士」牒上因性。「諸佛佛性如淨醍醐」牒上果性。「云何說言非內非外」將前微此。此問之中正徵非內，非外隨來。下佛對之，明性非有，於中且就酪喻以答。「我亦不說乳中有酪，酪從乳生故言有酪」釋有顯無。下師子吼乘言立有。乳實有酪，但一切法生各有時。酪法在於乳後而生，非是先無。下佛對破，句別有四：一反有立無、二以二名破有立無、三舉後類前、四釋有顯無。就初句中，「乳時無酪亦無蘇等」自立無義，「一切眾生亦謂是乳」舉世同知證成無義，「是故」下結。

Below, it is explained at length. First, with reference to the future nature of sentient beings in the second section above, it clarifies that ordinary beings do not yet have it, showing that it is 'neither internal'. From 'Siṃhanāda said: There is no curd in milk, and no oil in sesame seeds...' below, it broadly relies on the present nature of sentient beings in the first section above to clarify that ordinary beings are not without it, showing the former 'nor external'. From 'You must not say there is no nature because there is a regressive mind...' below, it clarifies that possessing the cause of the nature will ultimately result in the fruit, showing that it is 'not lost or destroyed'. In the first part there are two: first, relying on the cause and fruit of the transformation of milk into curd to explain that the nature is not existent; second, relying on the cause and fruit of seeds generating trees to explain that the nature is not existent. In the former part there are five: 1. Siṃhanāda establishes existence based on manifest characteristics, and the Buddha refutes it, clarifying nonexistence. 2. From 'If milk has no curd, horns also have no...' below, Siṃhanāda proves the definite existence of the nature on the grounds that it is not produced from a different cause, and the Buddha refutes it, clarifying nonexistence. 3. From 'If milk has no curd, neither is there an āmalaka in milk...' below, Siṃhanāda proves the definite existence of the nature on the grounds that it does not produce a different fruit, and the Buddha refutes it, clarifying nonexistence. 4. From 'I now definitely know that milk has curd...' below, Siṃhanāda proves existence on the grounds that people extract it, and the Buddha refutes it, clarifying nonexistence. 5. From 'If milk has no curd, why does the Buddha speak of two causes?' onward, Siṃhanāda proves the definite existence of the nature on the grounds of the two causes, auxiliary and primary, and the Buddha refutes it, clarifying nonexistence. In the first section there are two questions and answers: First, Siṃhanāda takes up the Buddha's words above and clings to them as definitely existent: 'As the Buddha said, sentient beings have the nature, like curd in milk or a vajra wrestler' takes up the causal nature above. 'The buddha-nature of all buddhas is like pure ghee' takes up the fruitional nature above. 'Why do you say it is neither internal nor external?' brings the former to question this. In this question, he directly questions 'neither internal', and 'nor external' follows along. Below, the Buddha responds to him, explaining that the nature is not existent, therein provisionally answering with the metaphor of curd: 'Neither do I say that there is curd in milk; because curd is born from milk, it is said that there is curd'—this explains existence to reveal nonexistence. Below, Siṃhanāda builds upon these words to establish existence: Milk truly has curd, but all dharmas arise each at their own time. The dharma of curd is produced after milk; it is not that it was nonexistent previously. Below, the Buddha refutes it, distinct in four clauses: 1. Inverting existence to establish nonexistence; 2. Using two names to refute existence and establish nonexistence; 3. Citing the later to analogize to the former; 4. Explaining existence to reveal nonexistence. In the first clause, 'At the time of milk there is no curd, nor is there butter, etc.' independently establishes the meaning of nonexistence; 'all sentient beings also consider it to be milk' cites worldly consensus to substantiate the meaning of nonexistence; 'therefore' below concludes it.