大般涅槃經義記 9.159

9.159

下佛答之。明己所說皆是眾生病之良藥，愚人不解故起諍論。文中有四：第一總答、二「若如來畢竟」已下隨問別答、三「如是諍訟是佛境」下總嘆顯深令人仰推、四「若人於是生疑心者猶能摧壞無量惱」下明取捨得失令人捨著。初總答中文別有二：一當法略答、二「於一名」下約類廣答。略中有四：一嘆法深，「如是之義非六識識唯智慧知」。二約對愚智彰說不同，「於有智者不作二說，智亦謂佛不作二說。於無智者作不定說，彼亦謂佛作不定說。」是義云何？今且約初涅槃辨之，餘類可知。佛於智者宣說應身入於涅槃、真身不入，隨其別法各施一言名不二說。智人解此，故亦謂佛不作二說；愚人於法多喜偏執，聞佛應滅謂一向滅，佛為破之說真不滅；聞真不滅謂應亦然，佛為破之說應有滅。兩言相反名不定說，彼亦謂佛作不定說。三彰己所說各為病治并是妙藥。「所有一切悉為調生」法說明也。「譬如醫」等，喻說明也。四明所說不定所以。「為國土」者，處別故異。「為他語」者，隨解故異。「為人故」者，隨生故異，人有愚智大小等別，故說不同。「為眾根」者，隨機故異。為是等故，於一法中作二種說。

Below, the Buddha answers him, clarifying that all he has spoken is good medicine for the illnesses of sentient beings, and that foolish people do not understand and therefore give rise to disputes. The text has four parts: first, a general reply; second, from "If the Tathāgata definitely..." onward, specific replies according to the questions; third, from "Such disputes are the realm of buddhas..." downward, a general praise manifesting its depth to make people look up to and infer it; fourth, from "If a person gives rise to doubt about this, they can still destroy immeasurable afflictions..." downward, clarifying the gain and loss in adopting and rejecting to make people abandon attachment. Within the first general reply, the text has two parts: first, a brief answer regarding the Dharma itself; second, from "In a single name..." onward, a broad answer based on categories. Within the brief part are four sections: First, praising the depth of the Dharma: "Such a meaning is not known by the six consciousnesses, but is known only by wisdom." Second, contrasting the foolish and the wise to show differences in preaching: "For the wise, he does not make two different statements, and the wise also consider that the Buddha does not make two statements. For the unwise, he makes indeterminate statements, and they also consider that the Buddha makes indeterminate statements." What does this mean? Now let us briefly distinguish it in terms of the initial [topic of] nirvāṇa; the other categories can be understood by extension. For the wise, the Buddha proclaims that the response body enters nirvāṇa while the true body does not enter; according to their distinct dharmas, he applies one term to each, which is called not making two statements. Wise people understand this, and therefore also consider that the Buddha does not make two statements. Foolish people often delight in biased grasping regarding dharmas; hearing that the Buddha's response [body] ceases, they think it is an absolute cessation, so the Buddha, to refute this, says the true [body] does not cease; hearing that the true [body] does not cease, they think the response [body] is also like this, so the Buddha, to refute this, says the response [body] has cessation. The two statements being opposed is called indeterminate preaching, and they also consider that the Buddha makes indeterminate preaching. Third, manifesting that all he has spoken cures illnesses and is wondrous medicine: "All that exists is entirely to tame sentient beings" is the explanation in terms of dharma; "Just as a physician..." and so forth is the explanation by analogy. Fourth, clarifying the reason why what is spoken is indeterminate: "For the sake of lands" means differences due to distinct places; "for the sake of others' speech" means differences in accord with understanding; "for the sake of persons" means differences in accord with sentient beings—since persons have distinctions of foolish and wise, great and small, the preaching is therefore different; "for the sake of the faculties" means differences in accord with capacities. For such reasons as these, within a single dharma he makes two kinds of statements.