大般涅槃經疏 12.17

12.17

今就答十二問為兩：先自行、次利他。初自行又二：先答生善、次答滅惡。初答生善中，先牒譬歎經旁答上問、次正合問。初歎經旁答，文兩：一旁答、二料簡。興皇云：以涅槃經力，令未發心者發心，又偪令發心如夢羅剎，即是其義。若爾，乃是內因外緣令得發心，發心方乃名為菩薩，非未發心得菩薩名。又救云：先已聞經，中忘斯意，今蒙聲光冥入其體方能發心，發心之前已是菩薩。今不用此解。何者？中忘之前已曾發心，若未曾發何名中忘？若已曾發已是發心，何謂未發名為菩薩？涅槃光者，二解。一云：佛放身光入彼毛孔，佛即涅槃，名涅槃光。二云：以涅槃教詮理分明喻之若光，闡提無善光不入心，四重五逆善根微少故言毛孔。光譬於教，毛孔譬信。契經者脩多羅藏，故舉三藏以彰劣，顯涅槃以為勝。又今經當機，勝餘契經。二料簡中，先問、次答。問中先領歎旨、次仰非、後作難。初領旨者，先領生善之，歎即此品之前；次領滅惡之歎，即前品之末。次仰非，如文。後作難，有三：一作持犯等難、二作賞善罰惡不等難、三作難易難。初「何以故」去，即持犯等難。若光入毛孔皆能發心，持戒毀戒、修善作惡有何等異（云云）？次如來何故說四依義是不等難。四依出世正欲賞罰，若因光發心，何用賞罰？三「如佛言」下，即難易難。上說熙連三恒猶未解義，此即是難。今云經耳能除煩惱，此即是易。既不解義，焉能除惑？以此難難易。今明迦葉以別難圓，就別明義，則持犯升沈賞罰自異，云何得等？就圓為論皆即佛性，何故不等？就別為言，積善方解；就圓為語，即理為解。故佛答云大事大德，即是圓意。二「佛言」去，答，又為兩：一正答、二釋答。初正答中二：初明去取、次正答。初中二：初簡闡提、次明其餘皆能發心。然發心者，非是隨宜，乃是大福大事。二釋答者，大福大事乃是祕藏如來佛性，此即不簡闡提，闡提寧非祕藏佛性？欲明名字等菩薩，故簡闡提，通取其餘。欲明理性菩薩，故言祕藏如來性也。若無一家圓別之義，如何消經（云云）？

Now, the answers to the twelve questions are divided into two: first, one's own practice; second, benefiting others. First, within one's own practice, there are also two: first, answering the generation of good; second, answering the extinction of evil. First, in answering the generation of good, it first cites analogies to praise the sūtra, collaterally answering the earlier question; next, it directly corresponds to the question. In first praising the sūtra and collaterally answering, the text has two parts: first, the collateral answer; second, the analysis and resolution. [Master] Xīnghuáng said: By the power of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, it causes those who have not yet generated the aspiration to generate it, and also compels them to generate the aspiration like [the dream of] a rākṣasa in a dream; such is its meaning. If so, then it is internal cause and external condition that cause them to attain the generation of aspiration; only when the aspiration is generated are they called bodhisattvas, and it is not that they attain the name of bodhisattva without having generated the aspiration. He also countered in defence: Having previously heard the sūtra, they forgot this meaning in the interim; now, receiving the subtle entry of its sound and light into their bodies, they are only then able to generate the aspiration; before generating the aspiration, they were already bodhisattvas. We do not accept this explanation now. Why? Before forgetting in the interim, they had already once generated the aspiration; if they had never generated it, how could it be called forgetting in the interim? If they had already generated it, they are already those who generated the aspiration; how could those who have not generated it be called bodhisattvas? Regarding the "light of nirvāṇa", there are two explanations. One says: The Buddha emits physical light that enters their pores; the Buddha is himself nirvāṇa, hence it is called the light of nirvāṇa. The second says: The teaching of nirvāṇa interprets the principle clearly, which is analogised to light; icchantikas have no goodness, so the light does not enter their minds, while [those guilty of] the four grave offences and the five heinous deeds have scanty roots of goodness, hence it speaks of the pores. Light is an analogy for the teaching, and pores are an analogy for faith. "Sūtras" refers to the sūtra-piṭaka; thus it cites the tripiṭaka to reveal inferiority, and makes manifest the Mahāparinirvāṇa [Sūtra] as superior. Furthermore, the present sūtra is timely for its audience, surpassing other sūtras. In the second part, the analysis and resolution, there is first the question, then the answer. Within the question, it first grasps the purport of the praise, next reverently expresses doubt, and finally raises objections. First, in grasping the purport: it first grasps the praise of generating good, which is prior to this chapter; next, it grasps the praise of extinguishing evil, which is at the end of the previous chapter. Next, reverently expressing doubt is as in the text. Finally, in raising objections, there are three: first, the objection regarding the equality of upholding and violating [precepts]; second, the objection regarding the inequality of rewarding good and punishing evil; third, the objection regarding difficulty and ease. First, from "Why is this?" onward is the objection regarding the equality of upholding and violating [precepts]: If the light entering the pores enables all to generate the aspiration, what difference would there be between upholding precepts and violating precepts, or cultivating good and doing evil (and so forth)? Next, "Why did the Tathāgata explain the meaning of the four reliances?" is the objection regarding inequality: The appearance of the four reliances in the world is precisely intended for reward and punishment; if one generates the aspiration because of the light, what need is there for reward and punishment? Third, from "As the Buddha said" onward is the objection regarding difficulty and ease: Above it was said that after three Gaṅgā [eons in] the Hiraṇyavatī River one still did not understand the meaning—this is the difficulty. Now it says that passing through the ear can eliminate defilements—this is the ease. Since they do not understand the meaning, how could they eliminate delusions? By this, he objects with difficulty and ease. Now we explain: Kāśyapa raises objections based on the separate [teaching] against the perfect [teaching]. Explaining the meaning in terms of the separate, the fall and ascent of upholding and violating [precepts], as well as reward and punishment, are naturally different; how could they be equal? Discussing it in terms of the perfect, all are identically the buddhadhātu; why should they not be equal? In terms of the separate, only by accumulating good does one understand; in terms of the perfect, understanding is identical with principle. Therefore the Buddha answered that it is a great matter and great virtue, which is precisely the purport of the perfect [teaching]. Second, from "The Buddha said" onward is the answer, which also has two parts: first, the direct answer; second, the explanatory answer. Within the first, the direct answer, there are two: first, clarifying rejection and acceptance; second, the direct answer proper. Within the first, there are two: first, excluding the icchantika; second, clarifying that all the rest are able to generate the aspiration. However, generating the aspiration is not merely following expediency; it is indeed a great blessing and a great matter. Second, regarding the explanatory answer: The great blessing and great matter is indeed the secret treasury, the tathāgata's buddhadhātu; this does not exclude the icchantika, for how could the icchantika not be the secret treasury and buddhadhātu? Desiring to explain bodhisattvas of names-and-words and so forth, it therefore excludes the icchantika and generally includes the rest. Desiring to explain the bodhisattva of principle-nature, it therefore speaks of the secret treasury, the nature of the Tathāgata. If one lacked the single school's doctrine of the perfect and the separate, how could one interpret the sūtra (and so forth)?