大般涅槃經疏 12.8

12.8

文為二：先總、次別。總又二：初略、後論義。略中，先譬、後合。初譬中舉二鳥譬常無常而合文，以苦無我合者但是略耳。私謂：又顯義同，是故互出，具論應六。次論義中，先問、後答。答中，先法、後譬。初法中言異法是苦是樂者，舊云：生死異涅槃、涅槃異生死，故言苦樂。觀師言：前多斥倒，約竪以論常與無常；今品一時明常無常，只生死中有異法而說苦，有異法而說樂，乃至我無我亦如是。後譬五穀各異，成前異意。下別譬中云華葉無常而果是常者，非常住常。言華葉不定故無常，果已定故是常，借此以顯無常成常。從「如是諸種」去，別說共行，又為三：一就生死明無常、二就涅槃明無我、三雙就生死涅槃以明苦樂。然前兩是橫、後一是竪，理應備論，但文互現。初文又二：初正明二行、次結章。初正明中，舉五譬。初譬又二：先譬、次合。譬又三：一譬、二論義、三領解。初萌芽譬生死中無常，熟時譬生死中常。次論義，二：先問、次答。答中明生死常與如來常異。三「迦葉」下，領解，又二：先領解、次述成等，皆可見（云云）。「善男子雖修一切」下，二合譬。未聞是經皆言無常，聞是經已皆云是常，豈非生死中具常無常。契經諸定者，修多羅翻名為契經，又是定藏，故言諸定。後四譬皆有合。次譬云金朴者，玉未理者名璞，金未理者亦名朴，此有木邊玉邊之異。金未理者亦名礦，礦者異金名也（云云）。招提呼為朴音，觀師呼為礦音，然朴字兩喚（云云）。「是故我言」下，第二結章。正應明常無常，而復結言無我，欲明例爾。

The text has two parts: first the general, and next the specific. The general also has two parts: first the concise, and later the debate. In the concise part, first comes the simile, and later its application. In the initial simile, two birds are brought forward to illustrate the permanent and the impermanent, yet in the application text, it applies them by means of suffering and non-self, which is merely an abbreviation. I privately suggest: it also shows that their meaning is identical; therefore they are presented alternately; in a complete exposition there should be six. Next, in the debate, first is the question, and later the answer. In the answer, first is the Dharma, and later the simile. In the initial statement of the Dharma, where it speaks of "different phenomena are suffering and are pleasure": of old it was said that saṃsāra differs from nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa differs from saṃsāra, hence it speaks of suffering and pleasure. Master Guān says: Previously it mostly refuted inverted views, discussing the permanent and the impermanent from a vertical perspective; in this chapter it illuminates the permanent and the impermanent simultaneously, stating merely that within saṃsāra there are different phenomena and thus it speaks of suffering, and there are different phenomena and thus it speaks of pleasure, and the same applies up to self and non-self. The later simile of the five grains being each different establishes the former sense of difference. Below, where the specific simile states that flowers and leaves are impermanent while the fruit is permanent, this is not the permanent of permanent abiding. It means that because flowers and leaves are indefinite they are impermanent, while because the fruit is already determined it is permanent, borrowing this to illustrate that through the impermanent the permanent is accomplished. From "Such seeds as these" onward, it specifically explains joint practice, which again has three parts: first, clarifying impermanence in terms of saṃsāra; second, clarifying non-self in terms of nirvāṇa; third, clarifying suffering and pleasure jointly in terms of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. However, the first two are horizontal, while the latter one is vertical; in principle all should be fully discussed, but the text exhibits them alternately. The first text also has two parts: first, directly clarifying the two practices; next, concluding the section. In directly clarifying them, it presents five similes. The first simile also has two parts: first the simile, and next its application. The simile also has three parts: first, the simile; second, the debate; third, the reception of understanding. First, the sprouting illustrates impermanence within saṃsāra; the ripening illustrates permanence within saṃsāra. Next, the debate has two parts: first the question, and next the answer. In the answer, it clarifies that the permanence of saṃsāra differs from the permanence of the Tathāgata. Third, from "Kāśyapa" below is the reception of understanding, which also has two parts: first the reception of understanding, and next the confirmation, etc., which are all evident (and so forth). From "Good son, though cultivating all" below is the second, the application of the simile. Before hearing this sūtra, they all spoke of impermanence; having heard this sūtra, they all speak of permanence. How could saṃsāra not possess both the permanent and the impermanent? As for "the various concentrations of the sūtras," *sūtra* is translated as "matching scripture" and is also the repository of concentration, hence it says "various concentrations." The subsequent four similes all have applications. The next simile mentions *jīnpǔ* (unrefined gold): unpolished jade is called *pú*, and unrefined gold is also called *pǔ*; these have the difference between the wood-radical and the jade-radical. Unrefined gold is also called *kuàng* (ore); "ore" is a different name for gold (and so forth). Zhāotí calls it by the sound *pǔ*, while Master Guān calls it by the sound *kuàng*; however, the character *pǔ* has two readings (and so forth). From "Therefore I say" below is the second, concluding the section. Properly it should clarify the permanent and the impermanent, yet it concludes by speaking of non-self, desiring to show that the same applies to it by analogy.