大般涅槃經義記 9.132

9.132

文中有二：一明如來妙用善行能益闡提、二品末迦葉領解讚嘆。前中有三：一答上問中眾生大依，明佛身業。二「迦葉白：如來具足知諸根力，是故能知一切生」下，答上問中兩足妙藥，明佛口葉。三「迦葉白：斷三世因名斷善」下，答上問中今欲問陰而我無智，如是甚深唯佛境界，明佛意業。又答初問，辨明如來為人物依，為令闡提於佛生信。答第二問，明佛所說法為妙藥，為令闡提於佛教法捨謗生信。答第三問，明佛智勝所知獨絕，為令闡提於佛義法仰推成信。初中，迦葉先問起發。前已問竟，何勞更問？去問遙遠，故須重問，上下多然。此問與前有何差別？迦葉前者直為讚問，讚嘆如來能為物依。今於此處具為兩問：一讚、二難。從初乃至「作大藥王」是其讚問。「善星是佛菩薩子」下是其難問。迦葉前者何不即難，至此方為？前者若舉善星為難，言辭浮廣不成偈義，故前不難。由前不難，此須為之。此中何不望直為難，先為讚乎？將奪先與，為難法爾，故先讚嘆。嘆中，初言「如來憐愍一切眾生」，嘆佛有慈，為利他心。「不調」已下，嘆有方便，為利他智。於中七句：前四化能，「不調能調」拔惡始也，「不淨能淨」拔惡終也，「無歸作歸」救苦始也，「未脫能脫」救苦終也。後三化德，「具八自在」救苦之德。「為大醫師作大藥王」拔惡之德，知病如醫，差病似藥。

In the text there are two parts: first, explaining that the Tathāgata's marvelous functions and good practices are able to benefit the icchantika; second, at the end of the chapter, Kāśyapa understands and praises. In the first part there are three: First, answering the previous question regarding sentient beings' great reliance, it explains the Buddha's physical karma. Second, from "Kāśyapa addressed [the Buddha]: 'The Tathāgata fully knows the power of faculties, and therefore is able to know all beings'" onward, answering the previous question regarding the marvelous medicine for two-footed [beings], it explains the Buddha's verbal karma. Third, from "Kāśyapa addressed [the Buddha]: 'Severing the causes of the three periods of time is called severing the roots of good'" onward, answering the previous question regarding "Now I wish to ask about the aggregates, but I have no wisdom; such profound depth is solely the realm of the Buddha," it explains the Buddha's mental karma. Furthermore, answering the first question clarifies that the Tathāgata is a refuge for beings, so as to cause the icchantika to generate faith in the Buddha. Answering the second question explains that the Dharma spoken by the Buddha is a marvelous medicine, so as to cause the icchantika to abandon slander and generate faith in the Buddha's teaching. Answering the third question explains that the Buddha's wisdom is superior and what he knows is peerless, so as to cause the icchantika to look up to and place faith in the Buddha's Dharma of meaning. In the first part, Kāśyapa first initiates the inquiry. Having already asked previously, why bother to ask again? The previous question was far removed, so it must be asked again; this is frequently so throughout. What is the difference between this question and the previous one? Kāśyapa previously merely asked with praise, praising the Tathāgata as able to be a refuge for beings. Here, he comprehensively makes two inquiries: first, praise; second, challenge. From the beginning up to "acting as a great king of physicians" is his question of praise. From "Sunakṣatra was the son of the Buddha as a bodhisattva" onward is his challenging question. Why did Kāśyapa not raise the challenge previously, but only does so here? If previously he had cited Sunakṣatra to challenge, his words would have been overly broad and would not have fulfilled the meaning of the verses; therefore he did not challenge previously. Because he did not challenge previously, he must do so here. Why did he not challenge directly here, but first praise? When about to take away, one first gives; this is the dharmic rule of challenging, and therefore he first praises. In the praise, first saying, "The Tathāgata pities all sentient beings," praises the Buddha's possession of benevolence, which is the mind to benefit others. From "the untamed" onward, it praises his possession of expedient means, which is the wisdom to benefit others. In this there are seven phrases: the first four are his capacity to convert: "able to tame the untamed" is the beginning of uprooting evil; "able to purify the impure" is the end of uprooting evil; "acting as a refuge for the refugeless" is the beginning of saving from suffering; "able to liberate the unliberated" is the end of saving from suffering. The last three are his virtues of conversion: "possessing the eight sovereignties" is the virtue of saving from suffering; "acting as a great physician and acting as a great king of physicians" is the virtue of uprooting evil—knowing the illness is like a physician, and curing the illness is like medicine.