大般涅槃經疏 17.15

17.15

「善男子慈若有無」下，第五明實不可思議。又四：一歎大慈體、二歎行慈人、三歎詮慈教即大涅槃、四歎說慈主。初歎慈體，舊有三解。一云：眾生慈緣有，法緣緣無，無緣緣非有非無。二云：初地至三地，空心多故是無；四地至七地，有心多故是有；八地至十地，有無並觀，故云非有非無。三云：同據佛果妙有故是有，無生死界故是無，冥真故非有非無。今言不然。緣五陰法，如何是無？若是無者，即應入真。既不入真，何得是無？有若是無，無緣何異？又初地至三地豈一向空？又非有無豈皆佛地？今文歎於行慈之人，但行慈者皆有雙非，不必唯佛，此乃正明梵行中意。若緣淨淨是無，若緣不淨淨是有，若緣非淨非不淨是非有非無，不並不別。又緣於三諦，緣真故無，緣俗故有，緣中故非有非無。《中論》云「因緣所生法，即空即假即中道義。」問：四句是戲論，何以釋經？答：定性四句即是戲論，假名四句非是戲論。

From "Good son, whether friendliness is existent or non-existent" onward, the fifth [part] clarifies that it is truly inconceivable. Here too are four parts: 1. praising the essence of great friendliness; 2. praising the person who practices friendliness; 3. praising the teaching explaining friendliness, which is the great nirvāṇa; 4. praising the master who expounds friendliness. First, regarding praising the essence of friendliness, formerly there were three interpretations. The first says: "Friendliness towards sentient beings takes existence as its object; friendliness with dharma as object takes non-existence as its object; objectless friendliness takes neither existence nor non-existence as its object." The second says: "From the first stage to the third stage, because the mind of emptiness is predominant, it is non-existence; from the fourth stage to the seventh stage, because the mind of existence is predominant, it is existence; from the eighth stage to the tenth stage, existence and non-existence are contemplated simultaneously, hence it is called neither existence nor non-existence." The third says: "Jointly based on the wondrous existence of the Buddha-fruit, it is existence; having no realm of saṃsāra, it is non-existence; coalescing with reality, it is neither existence nor non-existence." Now we say this is not so. Taking the dharmas of the five aggregates as objects, how could it be non-existence? If it were non-existence, it should immediately enter the real; since it does not enter the real, how could it be non-existence? If existence were non-existence, how would it differ from objectless? Furthermore, from the first stage to the third stage, how could it be exclusively empty? And how could neither existence nor non-existence pertain solely to the Buddha stage? Now the text praises the person who practices friendliness: all who practice friendliness possess both negations, not necessarily only the Buddha; this precisely clarifies the intent within the Brahmā practices. If one takes purity as object, purity is non-existence; if one takes impurity as object, purity is existence; if one takes neither purity nor impurity as object, it is neither existence nor non-existence—neither combined nor separate. Furthermore, taking the three truths as objects: taking the real truth as object, hence non-existence; taking the conventional truth as object, hence existence; taking the middle as object, hence neither existence nor non-existence. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Dharmas arisen from causes and conditions are identical to emptiness, identical to provisional designation, and identical to the meaning of the middle way.' Question: the four alternatives are conceptual proliferation; why use them to explain the sūtra? Answer: the four alternatives of fixed nature are conceptual proliferation; the four alternatives of provisional designation are not conceptual proliferation.