大般涅槃經疏 22.26

22.26

「爾時世尊」下，第二佛答。有云：即次第答前三問，即為三別：初答本無之問；「有諸外道」下，答第二本有之問；「善男子諸佛終不定」下，答前第三不定之問。又謂不然，次第安處似相主對，亦觀文意全不相關。但隨義為三：先據正義、第二破執、第三廣辨因緣。中道此即第一，明心體非有非無、非心非不心、非貪非不貪，事事雙非兩捨，寧非中道正義？次「有諸外道」下，第二破於定執，又二：先破計有、次破執無。汝若謂心定有、貪定無，貪則同尼乾。初文又二：先廣出所計；「一切凡夫無明所盲」下，二結過訶之。「有諸凡夫」下，第二破其執無，亦二：先出所執；「如是等輩」下，正是訶責結過，有法說、譬說。「善男子諸佛菩薩」下，第三廣說中道因緣之義無所定執，又二：一明因果諸法非有非無，因緣故有；第二明心之有貪亦非有非無，因緣故有。初文為三：一明離於四句；「若言因中先定有果」下，第二定執為非；「諸佛菩薩」下，第三正顯中道之法。「善男子諸佛菩薩終不定說」下，第二章，正明心之有貪非有非無，因緣故有。又二：第一明心性本淨不定，非有非無；第二明心性本淨，無有和合。初文有三：一標、二釋、三結。釋中又三：先唱章門，從緣生貪、從緣解脫二章門。「因緣有二」下，第二、釋兩章門。「有因緣故」下，第三、四句料簡也。三「以是義故」下，因緣結。「善男子是心不與」下，第二明心性本淨故無和合，又二：先明無和合、次明因緣和合故有縛脫。此即初文，明畢竟清淨，故無和合。「諸佛菩薩」下，第二明因緣和合得有縛脫，又二：先明縛脫之境、次明縛脫之人。就境中又二：先標、次釋。標出境章，除貪欲是解境、有貪欲是縛境。次「譬如雪山」下，釋二章門，又二：初釋縛境，先譬、次合。初譬中，山譬八正道懸險，難行苦行。人譬魔、獼猴譬外道，俱不能行，悉不修聖道。獼猴能行，即是得上界定外外道。人不能行，即魔住欲界。二俱能行，即五塵六欲俱能行之。獵師者，還譬魔邪。黐膠，譬愛欲之境。置案上，譬五欲置果報上，以誑眾生。手觸，譬眼耳等觸色聲等。黏手者，於行心中以起繫著。五處皆著者，五根起染。杖貫之者，魔邪化行。負還歸者，將入三塗。合譬，如文。「譬國王」下，第二釋得解境，即四念處。「云何繫屬」下，第二明縛脫之人，為二：先明縛人、次明脫人。縛人為四：一起到故縛、二取相故縛、三我見故縛、四非法故縛，如文。最後文中云慳惜他家者，此家與我最為親厚，不許他往。稱譽者，唯應稱我，不許稱他。「若有不受」下，第二明得解之人，文略但一。後結，如文。

From "At that time the World-Honoured One" onwards is the second [part], the Buddha's reply. Some say that it sequentially replies to the three preceding questions, thus forming three distinctions: first, replying to the question on original nonexistence; from "There are non-Buddhists" onwards, replying to the second question on original existence; and from "Good son, the Buddhas are ultimately not definitive" onwards, replying to the previous third question on indeterminacy. Yet others say this is not so; although their sequential placement seems to correlate as counterparts, observing the purport of the text, they are completely unrelated. It simply follows the meanings to form three: first, relying on the correct doctrine; second, refuting attachments; third, extensively distinguishing conditioned arising. As for the middle way, this is the first [part], clarifying that the essence of the mind is neither existent nor non-existent, neither mind nor non-mind, neither lust nor non-lust—in all matters negating both and relinquishing both; how could this not be the correct doctrine of the middle way? Next, from "There are non-Buddhists" onwards is the second [part], refuting definitive attachments, which also has two: first, refuting the positing of existence; next, refuting the clinging to nonexistence. If you claim that the mind definitely exists and lust definitely does not exist, then lust is the same as [the view of] the Nirgranthas. The first text also has two: first, setting forth extensively what is posited; from "All ordinary persons are blinded by ignorance" onwards, secondly, concluding the error and rebuking it. From "There are ordinary persons" onwards is the second [part], refuting their clinging to nonexistence, which also has two: first, setting forth what is clung to; from "Such persons" onwards is properly rebuking and concluding the error, having an exposition in terms of Dharma and an exposition by similes. From "Good son, the buddhas and bodhisattvas" onwards is the third [part], extensively explaining the meaning of the conditioned arising of the middle way without any definitive attachment, which also has two: first, clarifying that conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, causes and fruits, are neither existent nor non-existent, but exist due to causes and conditions; second, clarifying that the mind's having lust is also neither existent nor non-existent, but exists due to causes and conditions. The first text comprises three: first, clarifying freedom from the four extremes; from "If one says that in the cause the fruit definitely exists beforehand" onwards, secondly, determining the attachment to be wrong; from "The buddhas and bodhisattvas" onwards, thirdly, directly revealing the Dharma of the middle way. From "Good son, the buddhas and bodhisattvas ultimately never speak definitively" onwards is the second chapter, directly clarifying that the mind's having lust is neither existent nor non-existent, but exists due to causes and conditions. This also has two: first, clarifying that the mind-nature is originally pure and indeterminate, neither existent nor non-existent; second, clarifying that the mind-nature is originally pure and has no combination. The first text has three: first, a statement; second, an explanation; third, a conclusion. Within the explanation are also three: first, stating the chapter headings—the two chapter headings of generating lust from conditions and being liberated from conditions; from "Causes and conditions are of two kinds" onwards, secondly, explaining the two chapter headings; from "Because there are causes and conditions" onwards, thirdly, an analytical discrimination of the four extremes; thirdly, from "For this reason" onwards, concluding conditioned arising. From "Good son, this mind does not [combine] with..." onwards is the second [part], clarifying that because the mind-nature is originally pure, there is no combination, which also has two: first, clarifying that there is no combination; next, clarifying that because of the combination of causes and conditions, there are bondage and liberation. This is the first text, clarifying that it is ultimately pure and therefore has no combination. From "The buddhas and bodhisattvas" onwards is the second [part], clarifying that through the combination of causes and conditions there can be bondage and liberation, which also has two: first, clarifying the objects of bondage and liberation; next, clarifying the persons of bondage and liberation. Regarding the objects, there are also two: first, a statement; next, an explanation. The statement presents the chapter on objects: eliminating lustful desire is the object of liberation; having lustful desire is the object of bondage. Next, from "For example, the Snowy Mountains" onwards explains the two chapter headings, which also has two: first, explaining the object of bondage, first by simile and next by application. In the initial simile, the mountain illustrates the Noble Eightfold Path as steep, perilous, difficult to traverse, and of bitter practice. The human illustrates Māra; the monkey illustrates non-Buddhists; neither can traverse it, and neither cultivates the noble path. The monkey being able to traverse it represents the non-Buddhists outside who have attained the dhyānas of the higher realms. The human being unable to traverse it represents Māra abiding in the desire realm. Both being able to traverse it represents that both can traverse the five sense-objects and six desires. The hunter again illustrates Māra's evil. The birdlime illustrates the objects of craving and desire. Setting it on a stand illustrates placing the five desires upon karmic recompense so as to deceive sentient beings. Touching with a hand illustrates the eye, ear, and so forth encountering visible forms, sounds, and so forth. The hand sticking represents giving rise to attachment within the mental actions. All five places sticking represents the five sense faculties generating defilement. Piercing it with a stick represents the evil of Māra taking effect. Carrying it back home represents leading them into the three evil destinies. The application of the simile is as in the text. From "Like a king" onwards is the second [part], explaining the object of attaining liberation, namely the four foundations of mindfulness. From "How is one bound and subordinated?" onwards is the second [part], clarifying the persons of bondage and liberation, forming two: first, clarifying the bound person; next, clarifying the liberated person. The bound person has four: first, bound because of arriving at and reaching [them]; second, bound because of grasping characteristics; third, bound because of the view of self; fourth, bound because of unrighteous dharmas, as in the text. In the final passage it says, "being begrudging of other families" means that this family is closest and most affectionate to me, and others are not allowed to go to them; "praise and honour" means that only I should be praised, and others must not be praised. From "If there are those who do not accept" onwards is the second [part], clarifying the person who attains liberation; the text is brief, with only one [point]. The subsequent conclusion is as in the text.