大般涅槃經疏 11.18

11.18

「迦葉白佛」下，第二論義問答。初問者，前明二十五有有我，今難此義。初總唱無。次「何以故」下，別作十二難、合為四意：初四難約果、次兩難約因、三四難又約果、四兩難難處。初為兩雙，謂始生終沒，差別勝負，可見。次因難又兩：十惡等是約惡因，酒後是約惡緣，可見。三重約果四難者，一據苦果、二據苦緣、三據忘失、四據憶念。四責處兩難，初難別在何處？次難遍在身耶？或可但作六雙為十二難，或可十難難現用、二難難處所（云云）。二「佛告」下，答也。還酬十二難。初舉兩譬答覓現用，後利钁譬答覓處。所言現用者，其難真我若常應無生滅。次差別勝負難，佛答意實有真我，為瞋癡所覆不能得見，故有終沒升沈。前譬得而失，後譬失而得。但此妙解，凡夫未得那忽言失？此是理數之言，應得不得故言得而復失，得無別得還得於失，失無別失還失於得，得無所得、失亦無失（云云）。於初二譬中，初譬三意，謂譬、合、結。譬為四：一本有性理、二遇緣起惑、三根緣扣召、四聖應破惑。初文中言王家者，佛所統處。力士者，譬眾生有能降魔制外之用，故言力士。眉間者，中道也。金剛珠者，或言理、或言解、或言理解圓淨，不可破壞如金剛珠。次與餘力士者，即遇緣起惑，失本有理。又二：一起惑、二失理。初文餘力士者，天魔外道諸惡知識（云云）。角力相撲者，斷常乖於正觀，正觀破於斷常，故言相撲。以頭觸之者，乃以身見觸中道解。次「其額上珠」下，明失正理，沒在斷常邪見身中。三其處有創，即是機緣感苦。二見傷正解為創，舊云感生死苦果為創。即命良醫，機召於佛。時有明醫，即聖智達知失理招苦。即便停住者，明失非失。四「是時良醫」下，說法破惑，又二：初譬偏說、次譬圓說。初偏說者，無我撿邪，如就覓珠。力士驚答，譬稟教作於無我之觀。從迷得解，故言驚答。將非幻化，即無我觀。為何所在，即無常觀。憂愁啼哭，即是苦觀。此為說偏教。次「是時良醫」下，譬說圓教，又為四：一為說、二不受、三重說、四即受，譬說佛性一往不受也。初文中言皮裏者，隱斷常中。影現外者，舊云：當果在當。興皇云：佛智默照。今明性理虛通遍一切處，是影現於外。次「是時力士」下，是眾生不受。舊云：皮裏譬現在，筋裏譬未來。若在現在，何不破惑而出？若在未來，不應可見。興皇云：惑輕曰皮，惑重曰筋。三「時醫執鏡」去，是如來重說。鏡譬圓經，照信心面，文明理顯，信諦明了。四力士見已，即是信受。次「善男子」下，合譬。但合三，不合第一。初合第二遇緣起惑。譬中有二，今唯合一，起惑合相撲。次「故墮地獄」下，合第三招苦感失。此中併得通答前十難。三如彼力士，合第四聖應說法。初合偏說。前有佛說眾生作無我觀，今但合後。意又二：先合作觀、後明不知。中有牒譬，正合也。「譬如非聖」下，是雖觀無我，亦不能解。何者？若解真我方識無我，既不解我所以，無我不成。先牒譬，後合也。次「如來如是」下，合為說圓。前譬有四，但合後二。此初，合第三如來重說。「是諸眾生」下，合第四信受，先合、後舉譬帖。正合中，先明有惑時不信，後明除惑時信受。第三結歎不思議。次「復次善男子」下，雪山甘藥譬。舊云：助答上問。觀師云：譬失而復得。開譬、合譬。開為四：一失、二得、三重失、四重得。初明失中二：初理性、次辨失。初文者，雪山譬眾生身，一味藥譬中道不二，故云一味。此理能除倒惑故名藥，名曰樂味。其味極甜者，教理相稱，即是教樂理甜也。次「在深叢下」者，明煩惱覆，所以失理。煩惱深邃，倒惑交加，致使不見。次「有人聞香」下，是第二明德，又二：先少分得、後具足得。初分得中云聞香者，一云：依經信知，故言聞香。二云：十住菩薩見未明了，故言聞香。「過去世中」下，第二明具足得。即是前佛已證此理。造作木筒者，即是說教。譬十地了因，以因承果，故言接藥。在在處處者，過去生生修十地因。從地流出集木筒中者，因果相應，了因克正，故言流出。三「王既沒已」下，重明失。即是前佛去世，眾生縱逸構諸煩惱，致使失之。六味，譬六道。本味真正，從起惑後流入六道或酢或醎。是藥真味停留在山，譬眾生身正性不異，隨六道流是故有異。凡夫薄福加功不得者，譬有著心苦行禪慧，求覓真理而不可得。亦譬種種掘鑿，欲覓性理了不相關。四「復有聖王」下，重得。即是今佛復證此理。「善男子」下，第二合譬，但合兩失、不合兩得。此初，合有理而失。前云在深叢下，今合為煩惱叢林所覆。前次譬云人無見者，今合云無明眾生不見。「以煩惱」下，合第三重明失。即是或酢或醎，正酬前勝負差別之問。

From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha" onward is the second part: a dialogue discussing the doctrine. As for the first question, previously it was explained that there is a self in the twenty-five realms of existence, and here this doctrine is challenged. First, he generally proclaims nonexistence. Next, from "Why is that?" onward, he separately raises twelve objections, combined into four intended points: the first four objections concern the fruit; the next two objections concern the cause; the third set of four objections also concerns the fruit; and the fourth set of two objections challenges its location. The first comprises two pairs—namely, beginning life and final death, and difference and superiority versus inferiority, as can be seen. Next, the objections regarding the cause also comprise two: the ten non-virtuous actions and so forth concern unwholesome causes, while what follows drunkenness concerns unwholesome conditions, as can be seen. The third set of four objections concerning the fruit comprises: first, based on painful fruit; second, based on painful conditions; third, based on forgetting; and fourth, based on remembering. The fourth set of two objections questions the location: first, challenging where it specifically resides; and second, challenging whether it pervades the entire body. Alternatively, one may simply take them as six pairs making twelve objections; or ten objections challenging its present function, and two objections challenging its location, and so forth. Second, from "The Buddha said" onward is the reply, responding in turn to the twelve objections. First, he raises two parables to reply to the search for its present function, and later, the parable of the sharp pickaxe replies to the search for its location. Regarding what is termed the "present function": his objection was that if the true self is permanent, there should be no arising and ceasing. Next, regarding the objection of difference and superiority versus inferiority, the Buddha's intended reply is that there truly is a true self, but because it is covered by anger and delusion it cannot be seen, and therefore there is final death, rising, and sinking. The former parable illustrates gaining and then losing, while the latter parable illustrates losing and then gaining. Yet as for this wondrous understanding, how can ordinary beings, who have not yet attained it, suddenly be said to have lost it? These are words of the principle's workings: what should have been attained is not attained, hence it is said to be gained and then lost; the gaining is no distinct gaining, but a return to what was lost; the loss is no distinct loss, but a return to what was gained; gaining is devoid of anything gained, and losing is also devoid of anything lost, and so forth. Within the first two parables, the first parable has three points: the parable, the application, and the conclusion. The parable comprises four: first, the principle of the originally existent nature; second, encountering conditions and giving rise to delusion; third, the faculties and conditions evoking a response; and fourth, the holy one responding to shatter delusion. In the first text, "the king's house" refers to the domain governed by the Buddha. "A wrestler" illustrates that sentient beings have the function of subduing māras and overcoming non-Buddhists; hence he is called a "wrestler." "Between the eyebrows" refers to the middle way. "The vajra jewel": some say it is the principle; some say it is understanding; some say the principle and understanding are completely pure, indestructible like a vajra jewel. Next, "with another wrestler" refers to encountering conditions and giving rise to delusion, losing the originally existent principle. This also comprises two: first, giving rise to delusion; and second, losing the principle. In the first text, "another wrestler" refers to heavenly māras, non-Buddhists, and evil companions, and so forth. "Wrestling and grappling with each other": [the views of] annihilation and permanence conflict with right contemplation, and right contemplation shatters [the views of] annihilation and permanence; hence it is called "grappling with each other." "Striking him with the head": this is using the view of self to strike the understanding of the middle way. Next, from "the jewel on his forehead" onward explains the loss of the correct principle, sinking into the body of the wrong views of annihilation and permanence. Third, "there was a wound in that place": this is the faculties and conditions bringing about suffering. The two views wounding the correct understanding is the wound; an ancient commentary says that bringing about the painful fruit of saṃsāra is the wound. "Immediately summoned a skilled physician": the faculties evoke the Buddha. "At that time there was a clear-sighted physician": this is the noble wisdom penetratingly knowing that losing the principle invites suffering. "He then remained there": this clarifies that what was lost was not truly lost. Fourth, from "At that time the skilled physician" onward, teaching the Dharma to shatter delusion, also comprises two: first, an illustration of provisional teaching; next, an illustration of perfect teaching. In the first provisional teaching, using no-self to inspect the false is like searching for the jewel. The wrestler's startled reply illustrates receiving the teaching and cultivating the contemplation of no-self. Moving from confusion to understanding, it is therefore called a startled reply. "Could it not be an illusion?" is the contemplation of no-self. "Where could it be?" is the contemplation of impermanence. "Grieving and weeping" is the contemplation of suffering. This illustrates the provisional teaching. Next, from "At that time the skilled physician" onward illustrates teaching the perfect teaching, which again comprises four: first, preaching it to him; second, his not accepting it; third, preaching it again; and fourth, his accepting it immediately—illustrating preaching the buddhadhātu, which is not accepted right away. In the first text, "under the skin" means hidden within annihilation and permanence. "Its reflection appeared outside": an ancient commentary says that the future fruit is in the future; Xīnghuáng says that it is the Buddha's wisdom silently illuminating. Now it is explained that the principle of the nature is open and pervasive throughout all places—this is "its reflection appearing outside." Next, from "At that time the wrestler" onward is sentient beings not accepting it. An ancient commentary says: under the skin illustrates the present; inside the sinews illustrates the future. If it is in the present, why does it not break through delusion and emerge? If it is in the future, it should not be visible. Xīnghuáng says: light delusion is called the skin, and heavy delusion is called the sinews. Third, from "The physician then held up a mirror" onward is the Tathāgata preaching it again. The mirror illustrates the perfect sūtra, illuminating the face of faithful understanding: the text is clear, the principle is revealed, and faithful truth is plainly evident. Fourth, after the wrestler saw it, this is his faithful acceptance. Next, from "Good sons" onward is the application of the parable. It applies only three, not applying the first. First, it applies the second: encountering conditions and giving rise to delusion. In the parable there were two aspects, but here it applies only one: giving rise to delusion applies to grappling. Next, from "therefore falls into hell" onward applies the third: inviting suffering and experiencing loss. Here it also provides a thorough answer to the previous ten objections. Third, "just like that wrestler" applies the fourth: the noble one responding by preaching the Dharma. First, it applies the provisional teaching. Previously there was the Buddha preaching and sentient beings practicing the contemplation of no-self; here it applies only the latter. The intent again has two parts: first, applying the practice of contemplation; and next, clarifying non-understanding. Within this, the parable is reiterated, which is the direct application. From "Just as an ignoble person" onward means that although one contemplates no-self, one still cannot understand. Why is that? If one understands the true self, only then does one recognize no-self; since one does not understand the self, no-self is not established. First, the parable is reiterated, and then it is applied. Next, from "The Tathāgata is also like this" onward applies the preaching of the perfect teaching. Previously the parable had four parts, but it applies only the last two. Here first, it applies the third: the Tathāgata preaching again. From "All these sentient beings" onward applies the fourth: faithful acceptance; first it applies it, and then it adduces the parable to correspond. In the direct application, first it clarifies that when there is delusion they do not believe, and next it clarifies that when delusion is removed they faithfully accept. Third, it concludes by praising its inconceivability. Next, from "Furthermore, good sons" onward is the parable of the sweet medicine on the Snowy Mountains. An ancient commentary says that it assists in replying to the previous question. Master Guān says that it illustrates losing and then gaining again. This is divided into the opening of the parable and the application of the parable. The opening comprises four: first, losing; second, gaining; third, losing again; and fourth, gaining again. In the first, clarifying the loss comprises two: first, the nature of the principle; second, explaining the loss. In the first text, the Snowy Mountains illustrate the bodies of sentient beings; the medicine of a single flavor illustrates the non-duality of the middle way, hence it is called "a single flavor." This principle can eliminate inverted delusions, hence it is called "medicine," and is named "the flavor of bliss." "Its flavor is extremely sweet": the teaching and the principle correspond, meaning the teaching is blissful and the principle is sweet. Next, "under a deep thicket" explains that defilements cover it, which is why the principle is lost. The defilements are deep, and inverted delusions intermingle, causing it to remain unseen. Next, from "a person smelled its fragrance" onward is the second: clarifying the attainment, which also comprises two: first, partial attainment; and next, complete attainment. In the first partial attainment, regarding "smelling its fragrance," one explanation says: knowing through faith based on the sūtra, hence it is called "smelling its fragrance." A second explanation says: the bodhisattvas of the ten abodes see it without full clarity, hence it is called "smelling its fragrance." From "In past ages" onward is the second: clarifying complete attainment. This refers to past buddhas having already realized this principle. "Fashioned wooden tubes": this is the expounding of the teaching. It illustrates the clarifying causes of the ten stages; using the cause to receive the fruit, it is therefore called "catching the medicine." "In various places": in life after life in the past, cultivating the causes of the ten stages. "Flowing out from the ground and gathering in the wooden tubes": cause and fruit correspond, and the clarifying cause attains realization; hence it is said to "flow out." Third, from "After the king passed away" onward explains the loss again. This is when the past buddha passed away, and sentient beings indulged in laxity and produced various defilements, causing them to lose it. The six flavors illustrate the six realms. The original flavor is true and genuine; after giving rise to delusion, it flows into the six realms and becomes either sour or salty. That the true flavor of the medicine remains on the mountain illustrates that the true nature of the bodies of sentient beings does not differ, yet as it flows along with the six realms, differences arise. "Ordinary beings of meager merit applying effort without obtaining it" illustrates having an attached mind in asceticism, meditation, and wisdom, seeking the true principle but unable to attain it. It also illustrates all kinds of digging and excavating, desiring to find the nature of the principle, yet being completely irrelevant. Fourth, from "Again there was a holy king" onward is gaining it again. This refers to the present Buddha realizing this principle again. From "Good sons" onward is the second part: applying the parable, but it applies only the two losses and does not apply the two gains. Here first, it applies having the principle yet losing it. Previously it said "under a deep thicket"; here it is applied as being "covered by the thickets of defilements." Previously in the parable it said "no one saw it"; here it is applied as "sentient beings of ignorance do not see it." From "Because of defilements" onward applies the third: explaining the loss again. This corresponds to "either sour or salty," directly answering the earlier question regarding difference and superiority versus inferiority.