大般涅槃經疏 21.17

21.17

「大名不可思議」下，第二釋大涅槃，即絕待釋，又二：先總、次別。初總釋又二：初明不可說、次可說。次別釋中但約三德不言常者，二義：一云前開宗廣明常竟，故略不言；二云〈名字品〉云「所言大者名之為常」，此更明大，不復言常。就三德中亦各有二：初大我中二者，先不可思議釋大、次多因緣釋大，即可說不可說也。今文中云「有大我故名大涅槃」，又云「涅槃無我」。舊有二解：一云無我者，絕名冥真，故涅槃無我；俗諦寄名，故涅槃有我。二云無我者，涅槃中無我者，無生死妄我；有我者，有常樂之我。觀師難此二解：若絕名冥真名無我者，亦應絕名冥真名為無常。彼解云：不得無常，涅槃是常，故以冥真四絕名為無我。更並冥真四絕，故無常（云云）。難次家云：既言無生死中我，亦應無生死中常。彼即反難：生死中何處有常？即應反問：生死中何得有知？彼若解云：生死無真我，而有假我者。又並無凝然常，有相續常。若爾，非但無生死之我，亦無生死之常，並之無窮。八自在者，一一多、二小大、三輕重、四色心、五根、六得、七說、八見，如文。「復次譬如寶藏」下，第二釋多因緣故名大我。次大樂，又二：一明不可說大樂；次「世間」下，明多因緣大樂。初文釋四樂，於中初樂之中有三復次，明無苦無樂之樂。二「大寂靜」下，即是明無喧無靜名大寂靜，名之為樂。三「一切」下，釋非知非無知乃名大知，名之為樂。四釋身不壞者，即是非生死非涅槃之身，是故不壞名為大樂。次「世間名字」下，第二釋有因緣。還對無緣以之為釋，故分有因、無因二文釋之，先明有因緣、次辨無因緣。涅槃即同，無有因緣，還是前絕待之意。初有因緣中云迦迦者，烏聲。究究者，雞聲。怛怛者，雉聲。次無因緣中云曼陀等者，河西云：曼陀婆者，梵本一音二物：一者高座敞堂、二者藥湯，而出經者言殿堂飲漿。薩婆車多，云似馬芹，一音二名。坻羅婆夷，是燕雀，亦一音二名。

From “'Great' means inconceivable” onward, the second [part] explains the great nirvāṇa; that is, the explanation in terms of absolute transcendence. This again has two [parts]: first, general; second, particular. The initial general explanation also has two: first, explaining the unexplainable; second, the explainable. In the subsequent particular explanation, [the sūtra] refers only to the three virtues and does not mention constancy. This has two meanings: first, it is said that previously, in the opening of the essential tenets, constancy was already extensively explained, so it is omitted here; second, it is said that the “Chapter on Names” states, “That which is called great is termed constancy,” so here, further explaining “great,” it does not mention constancy again. Within the three virtues there are also two [aspects] each. In the first, the Great Self, having two [aspects] means: first, explaining “great” through the inconceivable; second, explaining “great” through manifold causes and conditions; that is, the explainable and the unexplainable. Now the text says: “Because there is the Great Self, it is called the Great Nirvāṇa,” and also says, “Nirvāṇa is without self.” Formerly there were two interpretations: The first says that “without self” refers to cutting off names and merging with reality, hence nirvāṇa is without self; conventional truth conventionally borrows names, hence nirvāṇa has a self. The second says that regarding “without self,” there being no self in nirvāṇa means there is no false self of saṃsāra; having a self means having the self of constancy and bliss. Master Guan challenged these two interpretations: If cutting off names and merging with reality is called “without self,” then cutting off names and merging with reality should also be called “inconstancy.” That [opponent] explains: It cannot be inconstancy, for nirvāṇa is constant; hence by merging with reality and the four transcendences, it is called “without self.” [He] further presses: Because it merges with reality and the four transcendences, therefore it is inconstant (and so forth). He challenged the second master, saying: Since you say there is no self within saṃsāra, there should also be no constancy within saṃsāra. That [opponent] immediately countered: Where is there constancy within saṃsāra? One should then ask in return: How could there be knowing within saṃsāra? If he explains that saṃsāra has no true self, but has a provisional self, then [one] also presses: There is no immutable constancy, but there is continuous constancy. If so, not only is there no self of saṃsāra, there is also no constancy of saṃsāra, pressing [the contradiction] endlessly. The eight sovereignties are: one, one and many; two, small and great; three, light and heavy; four, form and mind; five, sense faculties; six, attainment; seven, preaching; eight, vision—as in the text. From “Furthermore, it is like a jewel treasury” onward, the second [part] explains that it is called the Great Self due to manifold causes and conditions. Next, Great Bliss also has two [aspects]: first, explaining inconceivable Great Bliss; second, from “worldly” onward, explaining Great Bliss of manifold causes and conditions. The initial text explains the four blisses, wherein within the first bliss there are three “furthermores,” explaining the bliss of neither suffering nor bliss. Second, from “great tranquility” onward, it explains that neither clamor nor quietude is called great tranquility, termed bliss. Third, from “all” onward, it explains that neither knowing nor non-knowing is called great knowing, termed bliss. Fourth, explaining the body not decaying refers to the body of neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa; therefore not decaying is called Great Bliss. Next, from “worldly names” onward, the second [part] explains having causes and conditions. Returning to contrast it with having no conditions to explain it, the text is divided into two—having causes and having no causes—to explain it: first, explaining having causes and conditions; next, distinguishing having no causes and conditions. Nirvāṇa is just the same, having no causes and conditions, which is still the previous meaning of absolute transcendence. In the initial [section on] having causes and conditions, “kāka” is the sound of a crow; “jiūjiū” is the sound of a chicken; “tātā” is the sound of a pheasant. Next, in [the section on] having no causes and conditions, regarding “mandā[rava]” and so forth, Hexi says: *Māndhāva* in the Sanskrit text has one sound for two things: first, an elevated seat in an open hall; second, a medicinal decoction; but the translator of the sūtra rendered it as “palace halls and drinks.” *Sarvachata* is said to resemble *mǎqín* (horse celery), one sound with two designations. *Tilabhāyin* is a swallow or sparrow, also one sound with two designations.