大般涅槃經疏 11.19

11.19

「佛性雄猛」下，第二答前十二中後二責覓處所之問也。前有別總之責，今正答總問。雖約五陰論有此性，而身可毀、性不可毀。身是性之住處，身家之性即是佛性，性家之身無非佛性。又二，初正說、次論義。初正說，為三：初牒不可壞、次廣辨、三總結。「迦葉白佛」下，二論義，有問有答。問者，前云佛性雄猛不壞，應無殺生之罪。次佛答，為二：先法、次譬。初法為四：一云五陰可殺故成惡業。所言住五陰中者，他用六法以為佛性，非解此文。六法只是五陰，何容五陰住五陰中？眾生還住眾生之中？若用心神為佛性者，心是四陰，是則心神還住心神。他解當果為佛性者，當果繼屬眾生，故言住五陰中。當果若有，復非當果；當果若無，何所繼屬？地人以梨耶為佛性，為惑所覆。釋此乃便，復當前難。若有佛性，即生之日便應有知。今用下文釋之。佛性不即六法、不離六法，不即故不如諸師所解，不離故言住五陰中。實理言之，佛性豈應有住不住？特是為緣作此異說，若定執此，妨前後文。畢竟清淨，寧有內外、當之與現、住不住耶？私謂：此說終窮。又五陰中者，約五陰論得有此性，不約草木。私云：作此說者仍挾方便。次「以業因緣」下，釋疑。疑云：或謂唯應殺墮地獄，那復得有二十五有？故今釋云：業緣不同，致諸趣異。三「非聖之人」下，簡諸外道自謂得聖，計我不同。四「出世我相」下，明正我相。二「復次善男子」下，譬也。又二：先譬、次合。初譬為二：先為五陰可毀作譬、後為佛性不可毀作譬。初譬中云善知伏藏者譬能殺人。利钁譬殺具，多殺於磐石砂鹵等。次「唯至金剛」下，為佛性不可毀作譬，可見。次合中，唯合不壞。

From "The buddhadhātu is valiant" onward is the second part: answering the last two of the twelve previous questions, which challenged and sought its location. Previously there were challenges regarding specific versus general [locations]; here it directly answers the general question. Although this nature is discussed in terms of the five aggregates, the body can be destroyed while the nature cannot be destroyed. The body is the dwelling place of the nature; the nature belonging to the body is precisely the buddhadhātu, and the body belonging to the nature is entirely the buddhadhātu. Again it has two parts: first, directly explaining; second, discussing the doctrine. First, directly explaining comprises three: first, citing its indestructibility; next, elaborately explaining; and third, summarizing. From "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha" onward is the second: discussing the doctrine, having questions and answers. As for the question: earlier it was said that the buddhadhātu is valiant and indestructible, so there should be no sin of taking life. Next, the Buddha's reply comprises two: first, the doctrine; next, the parable. First, the doctrine comprises four: first, it states that the five aggregates can be killed, thus constituting unwholesome karma. Regarding the statement that it "dwells within the five aggregates": other masters adopt the six dharmas as the buddhadhātu, but that does not explain this text. The six dharmas are merely the five aggregates; how could the five aggregates dwell within the five aggregates, or sentient beings dwell within sentient beings? If one adopts the mental consciousness as the buddhadhātu, mind is four of the aggregates, and thus mental consciousness would dwell within mental consciousness. When others explain the future fruit as the buddhadhātu, the future fruit pertains to sentient beings, hence it is said to dwell within the five aggregates. If the future fruit exists, it is no longer a future fruit; if the future fruit does not exist, to what could it pertain? The Dilun masters take the ālayavijñāna as the buddhadhātu, covered by delusion. Explaining it this way is convenient, yet it again encounters the previous objection: if there is a buddhadhātu, from the day one is born one should immediately have awareness. Now we explain it using the text below: the buddhadhātu is neither identical to the six dharmas nor separate from the six dharmas. Because it is not identical, it is not as the various masters explain; because it is not separate, it is said to dwell within the five aggregates. Speaking from the ultimate principle, how could the buddhadhātu have dwelling or non-dwelling? This different explanation is made especially for the sake of conditions; if one clings definitively to this, it hinders the preceding and following texts. Utterly pure as it is, how could there be internal and external, future and present, dwelling and non-dwelling? In my personal view, this explanation is exhaustive. Furthermore, "within the five aggregates" means that this nature is found when discussed in terms of the five aggregates, not in terms of grass and trees. In my personal view, one who makes this explanation still harbors provisional means. Next, from "Due to causes and conditions of karma" onward resolves doubts. The doubt was: some may think that killing should only result in falling into hell, so how could the twenty-five realms of existence still exist? Therefore it is now explained: karmic conditions differ, resulting in the difference of the various destinies. Third, from "People who are not noble" onward distinguishes the various non-Buddhists who claim to have attained nobility and conceive of the self differently. Fourth, from "The marks of the supramundane self" onward clarifies the true marks of the self. Second, from "Furthermore, good sons" onward is the parable. It also has two parts: first, the parable; next, the application. The first parable comprises two: first, an illustration for the five aggregates being destructible; next, an illustration for the buddhadhātu being indestructible. In the first parable, "one skilled in knowing hidden treasures" illustrates one who can kill people. The "sharp pickaxe" illustrates the instrument of killing, which mostly strikes boulders, gravel, and alkaline soil. Next, from "only upon reaching the vajra" onward illustrates that the buddhadhātu cannot be destroyed, as can be seen. Next, in the application, it applies only to indestructibility.