涅槃玄義發源機要 2.3.1

2.3.1

二、「其論」下，以四句判論文也。 彼論凡有九折十演共十九篇。 今之所斥，皆於上秦主表及第一開宗、第二覈體中撮其妙言要辭，不出四句，故參雜引之，不成次比。 今先指會其文、次消釋其義。 初有句中，初是開宗中文。 「若無」下，表中文。 次無句中，初二句即開宗中文，具云「余甞試言之。 夫涅槃之為道也，寂寥虛曠」等。 「豈有」下一句，是表中文，具云「既曰涅槃，復何容有名於其間哉。 」兩亦句中，「唯恍惚窈冥，其中有精」句，是表中語，餘開宗中語。 雙非句，並開宗中文。 「而欲」下，具云「斯乃希夷之境、太玄之鄉，而欲以有無題牓標其方域而語其神道者，不亦邈哉。 」次釋義者，出處至假名者，有餘住世名出、無餘入滅名處，斯皆應機示有生滅。 既無實體，故並假名。 「若無」下，此本秦主之語，斥諸家通第一義諦皆廓然空寂無有聖人。 故肇舉之，若真諦廓然無聖人者，誰知真諦耶？ 既有知者，驗有聖人。 故彼文云「實如明詔」也。 「若無」下，即肇公伸明秦主之意。 聖人忘懷，動靜合道，故曰與遊。 即其有句者，既存能知能遊之人，豈非有句？ 即無句也者，既無形名，復非有心所知，豈非無句？ 故不可得而有者，此即亦無。 不可得而無者，此即亦有。 恍，有也。 惚，無也。 窈，幽也。 冥，暗也。 謂有無不定、幽暗難測，故曰窈冥。 雖曰難測，而有靈明知覺其妙甚存，故曰有精也。 窈冥即亦無，有精即亦有； 五陰永滅故亦無，幽靈不竭故亦有。 有無絕於內者，冲而不改，故不可為有，故有絕； 至功常存，故無絕。 「稱謂」下，涅槃之體既內絕有無，故外沒稱謂。 「視聽」下，釋上二句也。 由外絕稱謂，故兩界視聽之所不及； 由內絕有無，故無色四空之所不了。 題牓，謂名字也。 方域，謂理體。 不亦邈哉者，若執有無，去道甚遠。 「然其」下，以四教定論意。 文云等者，開宗云「滅度者，言乎大患永滅、超度四流。 」不涉界外者，但度界內欲、有、見、無明之四流耳。 不滅涅槃患者，但以陰身為大患故。 「辨差」下，既彼論是大又非別圓，今尋辨差之文，知屬通教。 辨差，即第九章也。 無為一也者，彼云「以俱出生死故同稱無為。 」「此以」下，彼云「三乘諸道，皆因無為而有差別。 此三三於無為，非無為有三也。 」「如來」下，彼云「放光云：涅槃有差別耶？ 答曰：無差別。 但如來結習都盡，聲聞結習未盡耳。 請以近喻以況遠旨，如人斬木，去尺無尺、去寸無寸，修短在於尺寸，不在無也。 」今師引之，語或改轉。 有本云「聲聞結盡習不盡」者，結下多盡字也。 在於尺寸不在無也者，尺寸喻三乘淺深，無喻涅槃理一。 「雖俱」下，彼岸涅槃也，升降三乘也。 以無言說道者，即《大品》共般若也。 𠊩（士限切）然者，《尚書》曰「方鳩𠊩工」，孔安國云：「鳩聚，𠊩現也。 」「夫通」下，斥肇四失也，次第在文。 俯提枝末者，肇云「仰攀玄根，俯提弱喪。 」初句是上求、下句是下化。 理為道本，故云玄根。 嬰兒失故鄉，名為弱喪。 方便善微，名為嬰兒。 本有真如，名曰故鄉。 今判彼意，故云乃是等也。 是泯憂喜等者，通人了達幻化即空，故憂喜等一切亡泯。 齊明暗者，智明惑暗也。 不作大小者，下疏釋云「是別教嬰兒，謂不造五逆名不作大，不起二乘心名不作小。 今為通教嬰兒者，不以文害意也，以達即空故亡巨細。 喻之以嬰兒者，準下品意，但是和光利物，能令眾生得見。 菩薩同其始學，名嬰兒行，是則示同人天。 三教并圓住前，悉名嬰兒也。 今判《肇論》但是通教嬰兒也。 」喻之以三獸度河，以三乘俱證涅槃而智有深淺，文載《大品》及今經第二十一卷，則聲聞如兔、緣覺如馬、菩薩如象。 灰斷喻，文載《智論》「聲聞斷正使，如燒木成炭。

Second, from "His treatise" downward, it evaluates the text of the treatise according to the four propositions. That treatise has in total nine refutations and ten expositions, making nineteen sections in all. What is now criticized consists of its subtle words and essential expressions excerpted from the above memorial of the ruler of the Qin, as well as the first [section], "Opening the Tenet," and the second, "Examining the Substance." None of them exceeds the four propositions, and hence they are cited in an intermingled fashion without forming a sequential order. Now, first, the text will be indicated and correlated, and next, its meaning will be elucidated. Within the initial proposition of existence, the first part is from the text of "Opening the Tenet." From "If there were no" downward, it is from the memorial. Within the subsequent proposition of non-existence, the first two sentences are from the text of "Opening the Tenet," which reads fully: "I have once ventured to state: As for the Way of nirvāṇa, it is serene, empty, and vast," and so forth. The single sentence below "How could there be" is from the text of the memorial, which reads fully: "Since it is called nirvāṇa, how could there further be any room for names within it?" Within the proposition of both [existence and non-existence], the sentence "Only in indistinctness and obscurity is there an essence within it" is language from the memorial; the remainder is language from "Opening the Tenet." The proposition of neither [existence nor non-existence] is entirely from the text of "Opening the Tenet." From "Yet wishing" downward, it reads fully: "This is indeed a realm of imperceptibility, a domain of the profoundest mystery; yet to wish to use existence and non-existence as labels to demarcate its territory and speak of its spiritual path—is this not exceedingly remote?" Next, in explaining the meaning: from "emerging and dwelling" to "provisional designation," abiding in the world with remainder is called "emerging," and entering extinction without remainder is called "dwelling"; these are both manifestations of birth and death shown in response to capacities. Since they have no real substance, they are both provisional designations. From "If there were no" downward, these were originally the words of the ruler of the Qin, criticizing the various masters who, in interpreting the ultimate truth, all held that it was vast, empty, and quiescent, without any sage. Therefore, Sengzhao adduced it: if the ultimate truth were vastly empty without a sage, who would know the ultimate truth? Since there is one who knows, this verifies that there is a sage. Hence that text says: "It is truly as the enlightened decree states." From "If there were no" downward, Master Sengzhao expands upon and clarifies the intention of the ruler of the Qin. The sage forgets conceptualizations, and in motion and stillness accords with the Way; hence it says "traveling with it." Regarding "this is the proposition of existence": since there exists a person capable of knowing and capable of traveling, how could this not be the proposition of existence? Regarding "this is the proposition of non-existence": since there is neither form nor name, nor is it known by a mind that conceives of existence, how could this not be the proposition of non-existence? Therefore, "it cannot be grasped as existing": this is "also non-existent." "It cannot be grasped as non-existing": this is "also existing." Huang means existing; hu means non-existing. Yao means secluded; ming means dark. That is to say, existence and non-existence are unfixed, secluded, dark, and difficult to fathom; hence it is called "indistinct and obscure." Although it is said to be difficult to fathom, there is a numinous luminosity and awareness whose marvel thoroughly endures; hence it says "there is an essence." Indistinct and obscure is "also non-existent"; having an essence is "also existing." Because the five aggregates are eternally extinguished, it is "also non-existent"; because the subtle spirit is inexhaustible, it is "also existing." Regarding "existence and non-existence are terminated within": being vacuous and unchanging, it cannot be deemed existent, and therefore existence is terminated; its supreme efficacy ever endures, and therefore non-existence is terminated. From "Designations" downward: since the substance of nirvāṇa terminates existence and non-existence internally, designations are obliterated externally. From "Seeing and hearing" downward, it explains the two sentences above. Because designations are externally terminated, it is beyond the reach of seeing and hearing in the two realms; because existence and non-existence are internally terminated, it cannot be fathomed by the formless [realm] and the four immaterial [attainments]. Labels refers to names. Territory refers to the principle-substance. Regarding "is this not exceedingly remote?": if one clings to existence or non-existence, one is very far from the Way. From "However, its" downward, it determines the treatise's intention according to the four teachings. Regarding "The text says" and so forth: "Opening the Tenet" states, "Extinction and salvation refers to great affliction being eternally extinguished and transcending the four currents." Not involving what is outside the realms means merely crossing the four currents of desire, existence, views, and ignorance within the realms. Not extinguishing the affliction of nirvāṇa means it merely takes the body of the aggregates to be the great affliction. From "Distinguishing differences" downward: since that treatise belongs to the Mahāyāna and yet is neither the separate nor the perfect [teaching], now, tracing the text of "Distinguishing Differences," one knows that it belongs to the shared teaching. "Distinguishing Differences" is the ninth chapter. Regarding "the unconditioned is one": it says, "Because they equally emerge from birth and death, they are identically termed the unconditioned." From "This is because" downward: it says, "The various paths of the three vehicles all have distinctions by reason of the unconditioned. This threefoldness is threefold in relation to the unconditioned; it is not that the unconditioned has three." From "The Tathāgata" downward: it says, "The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: 'Does nirvāṇa have distinctions?' Answer: 'There are no distinctions. It is only that the Tathāgata has completely exhausted defilements and residual habituations, whereas the voice-hearers have not yet exhausted residual habituations.' I request to use a proximate metaphor to illustrate this remote purport: like a person cutting timber, removing a foot leaves no foot, and removing an inch leaves no inch; length and shortness lie in the feet and inches, not in the absence." The present master cites this, perhaps with some wording altered. Some editions have "voice-hearers have exhausted defilements but not residual habituations," which adds the character "exhausted" below "defilements." Regarding "lies in the feet and inches, not in the absence": feet and inches illustrates the shallowness or depth of the three vehicles; absence illustrates the oneness of the principle of nirvāṇa. From "Although both" downward: the other shore is nirvāṇa; the rising and falling is the three vehicles. By means of the ineffable path refers to the shared prajñā of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā. Regarding "strikingly apparent" (xian, phonetic shi-xian): the Shangshu states, "Just now gathering and manifesting the artisans." Kong Anguo says, "Jiu means gathering; xian means manifesting." From "Now, the shared" downward, it criticizes Sengzhao's four faults, in the sequence of the text. Regarding "stooping to pull up the branches and twigs": Sengzhao says, "Looking upward to climb the mysterious root, stooping to pull up those lost in weakness." The first line is seeking above, and the second line is transforming below. Principle is the root of the Way, hence called the "mysterious root." An infant losing its hometown is called "lost in weakness." Skillful means and virtues being slight is called an "infant." Inherent suchness is called the "hometown." Now determining his intention, it therefore says "it is indeed" and so forth. Regarding "This obliterates sorrow and joy" and so forth: a person of the shared [teaching] thoroughly realizes that illusory transformations are identical with emptiness; therefore, sorrow, joy, and so forth are all completely obliterated. Equating light and darkness means that wisdom is light and delusion is darkness. Regarding "not engaging in the great or small": the commentary below explains, "This is an infant of the separate teaching, meaning that not committing the five heinous crimes is called not engaging in the great, and not giving rise to the mind of the two vehicles is called not engaging in the small. Here, making it an infant of the shared teaching does not let the letter harm the meaning: because of realizing identity with emptiness, greatness and smallness are eliminated. Metaphorizing it as an infant, following the intention of the chapter below, is merely harmonizing one's light to benefit beings, enabling sentient beings to see. The bodhisattva conforming to their initial learning is called 'infantile conduct'; this is manifesting conformity with humans and devas. All those prior to the stages of abiding in the three teachings as well as the perfect [teaching] are called infants. Now, evaluating the Zhaolun, it is merely an infant of the shared teaching." It is illustrated by the three animals crossing the river: because the three vehicles all realize nirvāṇa yet their wisdom has depth and shallowness—as the text is recorded in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the twenty-first fascicle of the present sūtra—then the voice-hearer is like the hare, the pratyekabuddha is like the horse, and the bodhisattva is like the elephant. The metaphor of ash and severance is recorded in the Dazhidulun: "The voice-hearer severs the primary afflictions like burning wood into charcoal."