大般涅槃經疏 28.4

28.4

此是善始發問，今欲令終，是故更請。前隨義題品，今從人立名，故云迦葉。迦葉，如前說。開善用此答安樂性問；地師為慈光善巧住持分；河西、興皇同為佛性門。今明第五涅槃用。此經初後通論佛性，此品與前有何同異？異略為五：一義用異。前品明中道佛性義，為菩提種子；今品明佛性勝用，能攝極惡闡提、偏邪外道。二因果異。前品明因性在因不在果，果性在果不在因。此品明一切惡陰皆是佛性，此即因性；從惡五陰生善五陰，此亦果性。又云佛性有三世、有非三世，聖人果性通三世、不通三世。由來解果性，通三世是應身佛性、不通三世是法身佛性。此不然，只說果性通於因果，何須分應法兩身？若善，五陰佛性通因果，因中佛性即三世攝、果佛性即非三世。三開合異。前品生死河，合四果、離三乘；此品涅槃河，離四果，合三乘。四通別異。前品通明五種佛性，天人六道皆有佛性；此品專明正因佛性，闡提由正因故還生善根。前品別據萬善了因佛性；今品通據善惡皆是佛性，故云善根人有、闡提人無，闡提人有、善根人無。五者前品對告一人，今品再對迦葉。諸異乃多。起品初明用異，從初意立章，故言涅槃用。

This was a good initial inquiry, and now wishing to bring it to completion, he requests again. Previously, chapters were titled according to their doctrinal meaning; now the title is established according to the person, hence it is called “Kāśyapa.” Kāśyapa is as explained earlier. Kāishàn uses this to answer the question on the nature of peaceful bliss; Dilun masters treat it as the section on the compassionate light and skillful maintenance; Hexi and Xinghuang both regard it as the gate of buddhadhātu. Now it is explained as the fifth: the function of nirvāṇa. From beginning to end, this sūtra thoroughly discusses the buddhadhātu; what are the similarities and differences between this chapter and the previous one? The differences are briefly five: First is the difference in meaning and function. The previous chapter clarified the meaning of the buddhadhātu of the middle way as the seed of bodhi; the present chapter clarifies the superior function of the buddhadhātu, capable of gathering the most evil icchantikas and biased, heterodox outsiders. Second is the difference in cause and fruit. The previous chapter clarified that the causal nature is in the cause and not in the fruit, and the fruitional nature is in the fruit and not in the cause. This chapter clarifies that all evil aggregates are themselves the buddhadhātu, which is the causal nature; from the evil five aggregates arise the wholesome five aggregates, which is also the fruitional nature. It also says that the buddhadhātu pertains to the three times and does not pertain to the three times; the fruitional nature of the noble ones pervades the three times and does not pervade the three times. Traditionally, the fruitional nature has been explained such that pervading the three times is the buddhadhātu of the response body (nirmāṇakāya), while not pervading the three times is the buddhadhātu of the Dharma body (dharmakāya). This is not correct: it simply says that the fruitional nature pervades both cause and fruit—why must one divide it into the two bodies of response and Dharma? If wholesome, the buddhadhātu of the five aggregates pervades cause and fruit: the buddhadhātu within the cause is subsumed under the three times, while the buddhadhātu of the fruit is not of the three times. Third is the difference in combining and separating. In the previous chapter’s river of saṃsāra, the four fruits were combined and the three vehicles separated; in this chapter’s river of nirvāṇa, the four fruits are separated and the three vehicles combined. Fourth is the difference in general and specific. The previous chapter generally clarified five kinds of buddhadhātu, where celestial, human, and the six destinies all have buddhadhātu; this chapter specifically clarifies the buddhadhātu as direct cause, whereby icchantikas, through the direct cause, regenerate wholesome roots. The previous chapter specifically relied on the revealing-cause buddhadhātu of myriad wholesome qualities; this chapter generally relies on both good and evil being the buddhadhātu, hence it says those with wholesome roots have it and icchantikas lack it, while icchantikas have it and those with wholesome roots lack it. Fifth, the previous chapter addressed one single person, while the present chapter again addresses Kāśyapa. The differences are indeed many. At the beginning of the chapter, it first clarifies the difference in function, and establishing the section based on this initial intent, it is called the function of nirvāṇa.