大般涅槃經義記 8.261

8.261

三師子吼乘言救義，如來隨破。師子救言：刀面非長，眼光到彼尋刀看面是故見長。亦應說言光到見闊，且舉一邊。下佛破之。「光實不到」總翻其言。「何以」下釋，句別有六，前五破其光到方見，後一破其光去不到亦能得見。前五句中，初以遠近一時能見，明光不到；眼光若到，遠應遲見。二以不見中間諸物證光不到，若到應見。三見火不燒明光不到，若到應燒。四遙見生疑明光不到，眼光若到到看應審何故生疑。五能見於水精物等明光不到。下次破其不到能見，因前被破人喜救義。眼光雖去無障礙處，光到而見；有障礙處，不到亦見，故今牒之「若不到見」。下就設難。等不到見，何故但見水精中物，而不見於壁外之色。如人上牆見牆外事，眼光若去往至牆上，何故不見壁外之色。上來六句廣破光到，「是故」已下總以結非。上來第一還以人取破其定有。

Third, Siṃhanāda follows up on his words to rescue his thesis, and the Tathāgata refutes it accordingly. Siṃhanāda rescues [his thesis] by saying: The face in the knife is not long; the light of the eye reaches there, and tracing the knife one looks at the face, which is why it is seen as long. One should also say that when the light reaches it, one sees it as broad; here he merely adduces one aspect. Below, the Buddha refutes it. "The light in fact does not reach [it]" generally overturns his statement. Below "For what reason?", it explains; there are six distinct clauses: the first five refute that one sees only when the light reaches it, and the last one refutes that one can also see even when the light departs and does not reach it. Among the first five clauses, first, by the fact that the distant and the near can be seen at the same time, he clarifies that the light does not reach it; if the light of the eye reached it, the distant should be seen more slowly. Second, by not seeing the various objects in between, he proves that the light does not reach it; if it reached it, they should be seen. Third, seeing fire without being burned clarifies that the light does not reach it; if it reached it, it should burn. Fourth, seeing from afar and generating doubt clarifies that the light does not reach it; if the light of the eye reached it, upon reaching and looking it should be distinct, so why would doubt arise? Fifth, being able to see objects inside crystal and the like clarifies that the light does not reach it. Next, he refutes that one can see without [the light] reaching it: because of the previous refutation, people are fond of rescuing the thesis [by claiming]: Although the light of the eye goes forth, where there are no obstructions, the light reaches and one sees; where there are obstructions, one also sees without it reaching; therefore he now takes this up: "If one sees without it reaching...". Below, he poses a challenge: If it is equally seen without reaching, why does one only see objects inside crystal and not see colors and shapes outside a wall? Just as when a person climbs a wall and sees affairs outside the wall, if the light of the eye went forth and arrived atop the wall, why does it not see colors and shapes outside the wall? The six clauses above broadly refute that the light reaches it; from "Therefore..." onward, it generally concludes the negation. The above first [point] turns back to human procurement to refute its definitive existence.