大般涅槃經義記 8.309

8.309

下次廣上業果不思，文中有二：一明縛解業果不思；二「師子言：眾生陰空，誰受教」下，明其修道業果不思。前明縛解，令人斷縛以求解脫；後彰修道，便人修業以求其果。就縛解中有五問答：前三就凡明有縛解、後二就彼二乘之人明有縛解。就前三中，初師子吼廣以多義難無縛解，如來釋有。第二師子舉無我人難無縛解，如來釋有。第三師子乘言重難，如來為解。初中，師子廣以三義難無縛解：一舉如來所說二因難無縛解，一切淨法有二因生故應無縛，一切染法有二因生故應無解；二舉五陰生滅無人難無縛解；三舉五陰前後生滅不常不斷難無縛解，以不常故前不至後故應無縛，以不斷故後生不絕故應無解。難意如是。文中，初法、次喻、後合。下就結難。

Next, he elaborates extensively on the above inconceivability of karma and fruit. The text has two parts: first, explaining the inconceivability of the karma and fruit of bondage and liberation; second, from "Siṃhanāda said: The aggregates of sentient beings are empty; who receives teaching?..." and below, explaining the inconceivability of the karma and fruit of cultivating the path. The former explains bondage and liberation, leading people to sever bondage in order to seek liberation; the latter clarifies the cultivation of the path, causing people to cultivate karma in order to seek its fruit. Within bondage and liberation, there are five questions and answers: the first three explain the existence of bondage and liberation with respect to ordinary beings; the latter two explain the existence of bondage and liberation with respect to people of the two vehicles. Among the first three, first Siṃhanāda extensively uses multiple arguments to object that there is neither bondage nor liberation, and the Tathāgata explains that they exist. Second, Siṃhanāda adduces the absence of a self and person to object that there is neither bondage nor liberation, and the Tathāgata explains that they exist. Third, Siṃhanāda takes up his words to object again, and the Tathāgata resolves it for him. In the first, Siṃhanāda extensively uses three arguments to object that there is neither bondage nor liberation: first, adducing the two causes spoken of by the Tathāgata to object that there is neither bondage nor liberation—since all pure dharmas arise from two causes, there should be no bondage, and since all defiled dharmas arise from two causes, there should be no liberation; second, adducing that the five aggregates arise and perish without a person to object that there is neither bondage nor liberation; third, adducing that the prior and subsequent arising and perishing of the five aggregates is neither permanent nor annihilated to object that there is neither bondage nor liberation—since it is not permanent, the prior does not reach the subsequent, and thus there should be no bondage; since it is not annihilated, subsequent arising is uninterrupted, and thus there should be no liberation. Such is the intent of the objection. In the text, first is the doctrine, next the metaphor, and afterward the application. Below, he concludes the objection.