涅槃玄義發源機要 2.4

2.4

「有人難」下，次第破前四師。初、破莊嚴。二、「若為」下，破開善。三、「若佛」下，破冶城。四、「若佛」下，破龍光。此皆成論等者，為諸師皆依《成論》立義，謂佛果是無為也。及至釋義，翻在有為等故，使人情不伏，遭前四破。矛盾者，矛兵器，盾傍牌也。《莊子》曰「楚有鬻矛盾者，兩皆譽之。買者曰：『以子之矛，擊子之盾如何？』鬻者不答。」凡說義相違，皆喻矛盾。愜，伏也。「肇論」下，涅槃之理非色像，故不可以形名得；非緣慮，故不可以有心知。本無言而強興言說，故失其真實；本無知而強起慮知，故反成愚執。謂有則乖非有之體，謂無則傷非無之軀，此由涅槃不思議非有無故也。「肇意推之」下，正出肇意也。墮在四見者，謂以四句言之、以四句思之，謂有謂無但是邪見，故云不可以名得等也。然肇師立義，但離邪執及小四門，而正是通意，廣如前說。「經云」下，引〈哀嘆品〉喻以斥諸師以四見釋大涅槃，如捉瓦礫謂瑠璃珠也。春陽譬塵欲耽湎之境，乘船譬乘諸業，遊戲譬著可愛果，失寶譬無解。因於放逸，慧解潛昏，故言失耳。即共入水者，信教如入水。謂佛果是二諦等，如競捉瓦石皆謂得意故歡喜。以此示他如持出，謂是涅槃深理。如謂瑠璃珠，俱背圓常，故都非真寶體。非四執，故云澄渟清淨。為教所詮，人自不曉，故云故在水中周遍一切，如仰觀虛空圓備無缺。如彼月形非眾人所執者，結斥諸師解義，如執礫為寶。此喻本斥小乘三修，今借之以斥異解。眾盲所觸者，競執尾牙不見全象，亦譬諸師。色聚亦有亦無者，亦有真常妙色，亦無無常麁色。「經道色者」下，此師釋妨。恐他難云：佛果若但有心，何故經云「獲得常色」等，故以真應二義釋之。一則應同方類故有色，二者真果顯現有可見義，故喻以色，故云義說為色。「為」下多非字，或「為」字下缺「色其實」三字，應云義說為色，其實非色。兩界有色者，欲色二界也。無麁色耳者，《舍利弗毘曇》云「無色有色」，此經云「無色界色，非諸聲聞所知。」故此師定謂三界並有色也。六地已還者，通六地也。即前三果猶有生故，故云身在分段。「七地」下，殘思已盡故生界外。兩國中間者，以分段、變易為兩國，亦是同居、方便為兩國。金心者，即等覺是金剛心也。意生身者，《楞伽》大慧問佛：「何名意生？」佛言：「譬如意去速疾無礙。」此即從譬。彼經兩義而釋通名，初云「如十萬由旬外，憶先所見念念相續，疾至於彼。」次云「如幻三昧力，憶本願故，生諸聖中。」二義並是意憶生故也。而有三種意生，如《疏記》。皆有無作者，皆有第三聚也。何意不離者，既離妄色，亦應離妄心；若許有真心，何妨有真色？「如是」下，今師斥前，若立若破皆是妄語。無如是刀者，略如前記，廣在下經。今以貧賤寱言，喻諸師異解也。

From "Someone objects" downward, it refutes the previous four masters in succession. First, it refutes Zhuangyan. Second, from "If it is said" downward, it refutes Kaishan. Third, from "If the Buddha" downward, it refutes Yecheng. Fourth, from "If the Buddha" downward, it refutes Longguang. That these are all based on the *Tattvasiddhi*, etc., means that because those masters all established their doctrines on the basis of the *Tattvasiddhi*, they claimed that the Buddha-fruit is unconditioned. When they came to explaining its meaning, they turned around and placed it in the conditioned, and so forth, thereby failing to convince people's minds and suffering the previous four refutations. "Spear and shield (contradiction)": a spear is an offensive weapon, and a shield is a side-board [for defense]. *Zhuangzi* states: "In Chu there was someone selling spears and shields, praising both of them. A buyer asked, 'What if one strikes your shield with your spear?' The seller could not answer." Whenever doctrines stated contradict each other, it is compared to spears and shields. "*Qie*" means to submit. From "*Zhaolun*" downward: the principle of nirvāṇa is not color-form, so it cannot be attained through shape and name; it is not conceptual thinking, so it cannot be known with a discursive mind. Originally without speech, to force speech upon it is to lose its reality; originally without knowing, to force deliberate cognition upon it is to turn into foolish grasping. To assert it as existent contradicts its body that is non-existent; to assert it as non-existent harms its frame that is not non-existent. This is because nirvāṇa is inconceivable, neither existent nor non-existent. From "Inferring Master Zhao's intended meaning" downward, it directly brings forth Master Zhao's intended meaning. "Falling into the four views" means speaking of it in terms of the four tetralemma clauses and thinking of it in terms of the four clauses; asserting it to be existent or non-existent is merely wrong view, hence it says it cannot be attained through name, and so on. However, Master Zhao's established doctrine merely departs from wrong graspings and the small four gates, which corresponds precisely to the shared [teaching's] intent, as explained extensively above. From "The sūtra says" downward, it cites the metaphor from the "Lamentation Chapter" to criticize the various masters for interpreting great nirvāṇa in terms of the four views, like grabbing rubble and thinking it to be a lapis lazuli jewel. The "spring warmth" symbolizes the state of indulging in worldly desires; "boarding a boat" symbolizes mounting upon various karmas; "sporting" symbolizes attachment to desirable fruits; "losing the jewel" symbolizes having no understanding. Because of laxity, wisdom and understanding become obscure, hence it is called "lost." "Entering the water together": faith in the teaching is like entering the water. Asserting that the Buddha-fruit is the two truths, etc., is like competing to grab tiles and stones, all claiming to have caught it and thus rejoicing. Showing this to others is like carrying them out and asserting it to be the profound principle of nirvāṇa. Thinking it to be a lapis lazuli jewel: both turn their backs on the perfect and eternal, so none is the true body of the treasure. "Not having the four graspings," hence it says "still, calm, and pure." As expounded by the teaching, people themselves do not understand it, hence it says, "Therefore it remains in the water, pervasively permeating all, like looking up at the sky, complete without lack." "Like that form of the moon not being what the multitude grasps": this concludes the criticism of the masters' interpretations of the doctrine, like grasping rubble as a treasure. This metaphor originally criticized the three cultivations of the Hīnayāna; here it is borrowed to criticize divergent interpretations. "What the blind touch": competing to grab the tail or tusk without seeing the whole elephant also symbolizes the various masters. "The form aggregate is both existent and non-existent": it is both the true, eternal, sublime form and not the impermanent, coarse form. From "The sūtra speaks of form" downward, this master resolves an objection. Fearing another's challenge that if the Buddha-fruit has only mind, why does the sūtra state "attaining eternal form" and so forth, he therefore explains it in terms of the two meanings of true and response. First, in responding to various categories [of beings], it therefore possesses form; second, the true fruit becomes manifest and possesses the aspect of being visible, so it is metaphorically called form, hence it says "it is figuratively said to be form." Below "is" there is an extra character "not"; or below the character "is" the three characters "form, actually it" are missing; it should read: "It is figuratively said to be form, but actually it is not form." "The two realms have form": the desire and form realms. "It merely lacks coarse form": the *Śāriputrābhidharma* says, "The formless realm has form," and this sūtra says, "The form of the formless realm is not what the śrāvakas can know." Therefore, this master asserts that all three realms possess form. "Those from the sixth stage down": this refers to the shared sixth stage. That is, because the previous three fruits still undergo rebirth, it says "their bodies are within fragmented [samsāra]." From "The seventh stage" downward: remaining thoughts of desire being exhausted, they are reborn outside the realm. "Between the two countries": taking fragmented [samsāra] and transformation [birth] as the two countries; or also taking the realm of common residence and the realm of skillful means as the two countries. "Vajra mind": that is, virtual enlightenment is the vajra mind. "Manomayakāya (mind-made body)": in the *Laṅkāvatāra*, Mahāmati asked the Buddha: "Why is it called mind-made?" The Buddha said: "It is like the movement of the mind, swift and unimpeded." This is named after the metaphor. That sūtra explains the general name with two meanings: first it says, "Like being a hundred thousand yojanas away, remembering what was seen previously in unbroken succession of thought-moments, arriving there swiftly"; next it says, "Through the power of the illusion-like samādhi, remembering original vows, one is reborn among the noble ones." Both meanings are because of being born through the mind's recollection. There are three kinds of mind-made bodies, as explained in the commentary notes. "All have unmanifest [form]": all have the third category. "Why does it not leave [delusion]": since it leaves false form, it should also leave false mind; if one accepts that there is a true mind, what prevents there being true form? From "Like this" downward, the present master criticizes the previous ones: whether asserting or refuting, all are false speech. "Not having such a sword": it was briefly stated in the previous note, and is found extensively in the later sūtra. Here, the gibberish of the poor and lowly is used to symbolize the divergent interpretations of the various masters.