大般涅槃經疏 20.23

20.23

「爾時光明」下，第四德王重論，為二：初襌問果、次雙問因果。初問為二：一問、二答。問為三：一問涅槃始有即是無常；二問因莊嚴故復是無常；三問涅槃若有亦是無常，於第三問中復有四章。不者，直作七問：一問本無今有故無常、二問因莊嚴故無常、三問若是有故無常、四問可見故無常、五問不平等故無常、六問有須待故無常、七問有名字故無常。初問又三：謂領旨、略問、廣問。廣問有法、譬、合。第二第三第四，如文。第五有兩重譬合，第六有譬有合引昔，第七如文。「爾時世尊」下，第二佛答三問。初答本無今有，有法、有譬、有合。地人作真緣兩修釋，言真修是本有、緣修是始有。三論師用正因緣因釋，正因是本有、緣因是始有。從「汝言因莊嚴故」下，答第二，有法、有譬。譬中三重譬，合如文。從「汝言因緣故」下，答第三涅槃是有，一往問答似不相應。問直云涅槃是有即應無常，今舉五因者，明涅槃不同五因之有，後舉生了而復簡生，但同於了，只答此問即兼餘四。前舉五因，似四緣三因，生因即報因但長有；草木和合因，即是習因，善惡自然相似；住因即依因。增長因即增上緣，遠因即緣緣，但無次第緣。後二因者，不同作因，同於了因，如文。以後二因簡前五因，皆作因故。「爾時光明」下，第二雙，問因果。問中二：先六度，即是問因；次問涅槃，即是問果。佛答又二：一雙答因果、二別答因果。初雙答，如文。「善男子云何是施」下，二別答因果，又二：先因、次果。初因中又二：初明順因、次明違因。初文又二：初正答：次歎經。初正答為六辨度非度，前五是少分涅槃、後一正是判度。有相有得則非度義，無相無得乃名為度。其中廣舉一檀為首，餘五悉指《雜華》。「云何菩薩不聞十二」，歎經，先結菩薩為歎、次結三乘為歎。初文中云十二部經其義深粹者，昔十二部但明於空，比生死為深而非邃。此經明生生即不生生、即生不生、即不生不生，故為深邃。亦是即有不有、即空不空、即非空非不空，是故深邃（云云）。

From "At that time Light..." below is the fourth [section], King of Virtue discussing again, which has two [parts]: first, asking solely about the fruition; next, asking jointly about cause and fruition. The first question has two [parts]: first, asking; second, answering. The questions are threefold: first, asking whether nirvāṇa's having a beginning means it is impermanent; second, asking whether, because it is adorned through causes, it is again impermanent; third, asking whether, if nirvāṇa is an existent, it is also impermanent. Within the third question there are further four sections. If not [divided this way], they simply make seven questions: first, asking whether, being previously non-existent and now existent, it is impermanent; second, asking whether, because it is adorned through causes, it is impermanent; third, asking whether, because it is an existent, it is impermanent; fourth, asking whether, because it is visible, it is impermanent; fifth, asking whether, because it is non-equal, it is impermanent; sixth, asking whether, because it is dependent, it is impermanent; seventh, asking whether, because it has a name, it is impermanent. The first question also has three [parts]: expressing the essential idea, a brief question, and an expanded question. The expanded question has the principle, a simile, and the application. The second, third, and fourth are as in the text. The fifth has two tiers of simile and application. The sixth has simile and application, citing the past. The seventh is as in the text.

From "At that time the World-Honoured One..." below is the second [part], the Buddha answering the three questions. First, answering "previously non-existent and now existent" has the principle, a simile, and the application. The Dilun masters explain this in terms of the two cultivations—true and conditional—saying that true cultivation is inherently existing, while conditional cultivation begins to exist. The Sanlun masters explain it using the direct cause and the conditioning cause: the direct cause is inherently existing, and the conditioning cause begins to exist.

From "As to your statement that because it is adorned through causes..." below answers the second [question], having the principle and similes. Within the similes there are three tiers of similes, with the application as in the text.

From "As to your statement that because of causes and conditions..." below answers the third [question], that nirvāṇa is an existent. At first glance the question and answer seem not to correspond. The question simply says that if nirvāṇa is an existent, it must be impermanent; now raising the five causes explains that nirvāṇa is not like the existence of the five causes. Later, raising the generative and revealing [causes], he further eliminates the generative, assimilating it only to the revealing [cause]; answering this question thus encompasses the other four. Raising the five causes earlier resembles the four conditions and three causes: the generative cause is the retributive cause, which merely perpetuates existence; the harmonious cause of grasses and trees is the practice cause, where good and bad are naturally similar; the abiding cause is the supporting cause; the increasing cause is the predominant condition; the distant cause is the object-condition, lacking only the immediate condition. As for the latter two causes, not being like productive causes, they are like the revealing cause, as in the text. This is because the latter two causes screen out the previous five causes, which are all productive causes.

From "At that time Light..." below is the second [part], asking jointly about cause and fruition. Within the question are two: first, the six pāramitās, which is asking about the cause; next, asking about nirvāṇa, which is asking about the fruition. The Buddha's answer also has two [parts]: first, answering cause and fruition jointly; second, answering cause and fruition separately. The first joint answer is as in the text.

From "Good man, what is giving..." below is the second, answering cause and fruition separately, which again has two [parts]: first, the cause; next, the fruition. Within the first, the cause, there are again two: first, explaining the accordant cause; next, explaining the contrary cause. The first text also has two: first, the direct answer; next, praising the sūtra. The first direct answer distinguishes crossing over from not crossing over across six points: the first five are partial nirvāṇa, and the last one strictly determines crossing over. Possessing signs and possessing attainment are not the meaning of crossing over; having no signs and no attainment is what is called crossing over. Therein, giving (dāna) is broadly raised first, and the remaining five all refer to the Avataṃsaka. "How does a bodhisattva not hear the twelve..." praises the sūtra: first concluding with the bodhisattvas as praise, and next concluding with the three vehicles as praise. In the first text, saying that the meaning of the twelvefold scriptures is deep and profound: formerly the twelvefold scriptures merely clarified emptiness, which is deep compared to saṃsāra, but not profound. This sūtra clarifies that the arising of the arisen is precisely the unarisen arising, is precisely the unarisen of the arisen, is precisely the non-arising of the unarisen, and therefore it is deep and profound. It is also that existence is precisely non-existence, emptiness is precisely non-emptiness, and it is precisely neither empty nor non-empty; therefore it is deep and profound (and so forth).