大般涅槃經疏 16.4

16.4

起卷是如來次廣答所問，破前四執。文為三：一廣破計常、二略破樂淨、三廣破計我常。我是執之端首，故廣破之。初破常，文為三：一明外道理非、二明其言謬、三正答所問。初又三：一明非、二舉過、三結非。初文者，何故名非？橫計有常。常非緣生，緣生無常。然諸外道，有計自然，應不從緣。若自然者，法塵對意而起此計，豈非緣生？是故外道悉是無常。「善男子佛性無生」下，二舉過，即舉是對非。舊云：當果佛性故不生滅，若是緣生即是生滅。此不應然，今是舉正以對邪計。三結非者，正是一道清淨之理佛性之性不生不滅，豈得唯作當果釋耶？以是義故，故須結非。

The opening of the fascicle is the Tathāgata's subsequent extensive answer to the questions raised, refuting the previous four attachments. The text has three parts: first, extensively refuting the conception of permanence; second, briefly refuting [the conceptions of] bliss and purity; third, extensively refuting the conception of self. Permanence and self are the primary roots of attachment, hence they are extensively refuted. First, refuting permanence, the text has three parts: first, clarifying that the heterodox principle is wrong; second, clarifying that their words are erroneous; third, directly answering the question. The first again has three: first, clarifying the error; second, citing the fault; third, concluding the error. In the first part, why is it called an error? They falsely conceive permanence. Permanence is not conditionally produced; what is conditionally produced is impermanent. However, among the heterodox, some conceive of spontaneous nature, which should not arise from conditions. If it were spontaneous nature, this conception arises when mental objects confront the mind—how could this not be conditionally produced? Therefore, the heterodox [views] are all impermanent. From "Good man, the buddhadhātu is unarisen" below, the second cites the fault, which is citing what is right to confront what is wrong. The old [commentary] said: Because it is the future-fruition buddhadhātu, it neither arises nor ceases; if it were conditionally produced, it would be arising and ceasing. This should not be so; here what is right is cited to confront heterodox conceptions. Third, concluding the error: it is precisely that the principle of the single path's purity, the nature of the buddhadhātu, neither arises nor ceases—how could one explain it solely as the future fruition? For this reason, one must conclude the error.