大般涅槃經疏 22.23

22.23

「爾時光明」下，第二論義。問為二：一正問、二結難。初正問為三：一問斷煩惱處是涅槃、二問斷煩惱處非涅槃、三重問斷煩惱處是涅槃。初文又二：初領旨仰非、次正難。難又二：初據答魔、二據菩薩亦斷此惑。此難從前云直是諸佛斷煩惱處故名涅槃。準理只應難斷煩惱，而言處非涅槃者，恐佛轉宗，逆遮佛意以處作難。初據答魔者，若斷煩惱為涅槃者，初成道時已斷煩惱便是涅槃，何故待有多聞弟子方乃涅槃？及云却後三月是涅槃者，當知初斷煩惱未是涅槃。答魔之詞出《長阿含》。二引菩薩為難者，若必斷煩惱是涅槃者，菩薩亦斷應是涅槃。「若斷煩惱非涅槃」下，第二難，此遮佛意，非是正難，故文不多。若斷惑非涅槃者，何故昔告婆羅門云：「我今此身即是涅槃。」身若是者，斷非涅槃；斷若是者，身處即非。「如來又時」下，第三重難斷處是涅槃，又三：一還據答魔。云三月者，月令不同，亦得言却後二月三月四月，四月是周時，三月是殷時，二月是夏時。此云三月，用殷時。二云不爾，如今年十一月中魔催佛去，佛答却後三月我應涅槃。二據在道場時，三據語力士等為難。爾時者，二解：一云爾於道場時。爾時既是涅槃，何須今日後夜涅槃？二云爾者爾於二月十五日朝已是涅槃，何故方云後夜涅槃？佛答為二：先直答結其過。直是誠諦之言，已是不虛，況乃出廣長舌，寧當妄語？又復如來善識機緣適時逗益，或說斷為涅槃、或說斷非涅槃，皆是佛教，無非實者。後正答三難，但不次第。前答初難、第二答後難、第三答中間難。答初為二：先答魔。答魔不識涅槃，謂默為滅。佛隨其情，豈是涅槃之體？「善男子」下，二答菩薩之難，明佛菩薩同而有異者，佛有涅槃，菩薩即無，是僧寶故，故云三寶各有別相，但言常住清淨二事無異。後兩釋亦爾。「善男子爾時我」下，第二答第三重難斷處問，先明滅惡故唱涅槃、後明生善故唱涅槃。初滅惡中，先法說、次廣舉五譬。次「善男子如來懸見」下，是生善之時，故唱言涅槃。「善男子有名涅槃」下，第三答中間難斷處非涅槃，明有是有非。若不見佛性，唯斷煩惱，得名涅槃，非大涅槃；若見佛性斷煩惱者，是大涅槃。是非既爾，何得一向？又為二：初分別是非、二廣解大涅槃。凡十一復次，由來人引此中初文云「般涅言不，槃那言織。」將此為翻。文中了無槃那之語。又是「織」「識」二字，經本不同。餘之十文，文相可見。三結，如文（云云）。

From "At that time, Brightness..." onward is the second [section], debating the doctrine. The questioning consists of two parts: first, the direct question; second, concluding with an objection. The initial direct question consists of three parts: first, asking whether the place where defilements are severed is nirvāṇa; second, asking whether the place where defilements are severed is not nirvāṇa; third, re-asking whether the place where defilements are severed is nirvāṇa. The first text also has two parts: first, taking up the essential meaning and respectfully questioning its correctness; second, the direct objection. The objection also has two parts: first, relying on the reply to Māra; second, relying on [the fact that] bodhisattvas also sever this delusion. This objection follows from the previous statement that simply the place where all buddhas sever defilements is termed nirvāṇa. According to reason, one should only object to the severing of defilements; stating that the "place" is not nirvāṇa is due to fearing that the Buddha might shift his thesis, thus proactively refuting the Buddha's intent by raising an objection based on the "place". As for the first, relying on the reply to Māra: if severing defilements were nirvāṇa, then when he first attained the Way and had already severed defilements, that would have been nirvāṇa—why wait until he had disciples of wide learning before finally entering nirvāṇa? And as for saying that "after three months is nirvāṇa", one should know that the initial severing of defilements was not yet nirvāṇa. The words of the reply to Māra appear in the Dīrgha Āgama. As for the second, citing the bodhisattva to object: if severing defilements must be nirvāṇa, then bodhisattvas also sever them, so that should also be nirvāṇa. From "If severing defilements is not nirvāṇa..." onward is the second objection; this refutes the Buddha's intent and is not the main objection, so the text is not lengthy. If severing delusion is not nirvāṇa, why did he formerly tell the brāhmaṇa: "My present body is precisely nirvāṇa"? If the body is it, then severing [defilements] is not nirvāṇa; if severing is it, then the bodily place is not. From "The Tathāgata at another time..." onward is the third [part], re-objecting that the place of severing is nirvāṇa, which again has three parts: first, still relying on the reply to Māra. When it says "three months", because the calendar systems differ, one could also say "after two months, three months, or four months": the fourth month is that of the Zhou era, the third month is that of the Yin era, and the second month is that of the Xia era. Here, saying "three months" uses the Yin era. Second, saying it is not so: for example, in the eleventh month of this year, Māra urged the Buddha to depart, and the Buddha replied, "After three months I shall enter nirvāṇa." The second relies on the time at the site of awakening; the third relies on speaking to the wrestlers and others to raise the objection. "At that time" has two explanations: one says "at that time" refers to the time at the site of awakening. Since it was already nirvāṇa at that time, why is it necessary to enter nirvāṇa in the latter part of tonight? The second says "at that time" means that on the morning of the fifteenth day of the second month it was already nirvāṇa, so why only now speak of entering nirvāṇa in the latter part of the night? The Buddha's reply consists of two parts: first, directly answering and concluding their fault. It is purely words of truth and sincerity, already not false; how much less could he utter falsehood when extending his broad and long tongue? Furthermore, the Tathāgata well understands the faculties and conditions [of beings], providing benefit in accord with the occasion: sometimes saying severing is nirvāṇa, sometimes saying severing is not nirvāṇa—these are all the Buddha's teachings, none of which are not real. Second, directly answering the three objections, though not in order: first answering the first objection, second answering the last objection, third answering the middle objection. Answering the first has two parts: first, answering regarding Māra. The reply to Māra was that he did not know nirvāṇa and regarded silence as extinction. The Buddha accorded with his sentiment; how could that be the essence of nirvāṇa? From "Good son..." onward, second, is answering the objection concerning bodhisattvas, explaining that buddhas and bodhisattvas share commonalities yet have distinctions: the Buddha has nirvāṇa, while the bodhisattva does not, because the latter is the Saṅgha jewel; therefore it is said that the Three Jewels each have distinct characteristics, yet it is said that they do not differ in the two matters of being eternal and pure. The subsequent two explanations are also like this. From "Good son, at that time I..." onward is the second [part], answering the third question that re-objects to the place of severing: first explaining that he declared nirvāṇa to extinguish evil, and second explaining that he declared nirvāṇa to generate good. In the initial extinguishing of evil, first is the doctrinal explanation, and next is broadly presenting five similes. Next, from "Good son, the Tathāgata foresaw..." onward is the time of generating good, so he declared it to be nirvāṇa. From "Good son, there is what is called nirvāṇa..." onward is the third [part], answering the middle objection that the place of severing is not nirvāṇa, clarifying that there is that which is and that which is not. If one does not see the buddhadhātu and only severs defilements, it receives the name nirvāṇa, but is not the great nirvāṇa; if one sees the buddhadhātu and severs defilements, it is the great nirvāṇa. Since right and wrong are like this, how can it be exclusively one way? It again has two parts: first, distinguishing right and wrong; second, broadly explaining the great nirvāṇa. There are eleven repetitions in total. Traditionally, people cite the first text here saying: "'Parini' means 'not', and 'vāna' means 'weaving'." They take this as the translation. In the text there is entirely no phrasing of "vāna". Furthermore, the two characters "weaving" (zhi 織) and "consciousness" (shi 識) differ in various editions of the sūtra. The remaining ten passages have textual features that can be seen. Third, concluding, as in the text (and so on).