大般涅槃經疏 29.11

29.11

「迦葉白佛若言五陰」下，第二單明中道為成生善。眾生若無中道之理，何能生善？由有佛性依持建立。文為三：一明非內非外中道、二非有非無中道、三約諸法廣明中道。亦得言前兩正明中道體，後一廣明中道用。初文，兩番問答。初番如文。次番，先迦葉自申非是我意，專為利物。佛答有六復次：一就解惑明中、二約內外道明中、三就果內外明中、四就內外因緣明中、五就內外行明中、六就身內外明中。六中為二：初一略明大意，故約解惑；後五廣此非內非外。初略明又三：一標是中道、二釋、三結。此初標。「善男子我為眾生」下，第二釋，總明為物。非內者，非內六根。非外者，非外六塵，但後五別為破兩執。「是故如來」下，第三結。私謂：此之一經大分五章皆稱涅槃，涅槃只是佛性，即三而一即正因性，即一而三即三德性。今明眾生有佛性者，備此二義。章安至此稱為中道，豈有無真俗之中名佛性耶？是故佛性中道，佛性咸遍。故上下文多處論遍。所以至此云非內非。外言雙非者，不唯雙非，復應雙是，故下諸文云亦內亦外。若無雙是，云何言遍？故文斥云「凡夫眾生或言佛性在五陰中，如器中果及如虛空。」世言佛性唯有情者，如器中果耳，尚未能計，猶如虛空，安能曉了非內非外？況經文自釋，根塵合故乃名中道。根塵合者豈非體一？豈非相即？豈非性遍？豈同器果？今問：牆壁為是根耶？為是塵耶？為二合耶？為雙非耶？若雙非者，亦非五陰，何但牆壁。哀哉世人、苦哉講者，請細將六門以括一部，願以一部統收一期釋迦，以望十方三世，理無二是、事弗毫差，所失不輕，故勤勤耳。「復次」下，第二廣明中道有五復次，皆明非內非外。於中二：初一復次先出二執、次四復次正結中道。「善男子眾生佛性非有非無」下，第二文二：一明宗、二廣破執。初明宗又三：先明非有非無、次明亦有亦無、三結非有非無。初又三：先倡兩非、次釋兩非、三結兩非。次亦有亦無，文為三：雙倡、雙釋、雙結。倡釋如文。「有無」下結。「是故佛說」下，三結兩非，如文。

From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha: If one says that the five aggregates..." downward is the second part, which solely clarifies the middle way to establish the production of goodness. If sentient beings lacked the principle of the middle way, how could they produce goodness? It is because they possess the buddhadhātu that it supports and establishes them. The text has three parts: first, clarifying the middle way of neither internal nor external; second, the middle way of neither existent nor non-existent; and third, broadly clarifying the middle way in terms of all phenomena. One may also say that the first two directly clarify the essence of the middle way, while the last one broadly clarifies the function of the middle way. In the first text, there are two rounds of questions and answers. The first round is as in the text. In the next round, first Kāśyapa himself explains that this was not his own intention, but solely for the benefit of beings. The Buddha's reply has six further expositions: first, clarifying the middle in terms of understanding and delusion; second, clarifying the middle in terms of internal and external paths; third, clarifying the middle in terms of the internal and external of the fruit; fourth, clarifying the middle in terms of internal and external causes and conditions; fifth, clarifying the middle in terms of internal and external practice; and sixth, clarifying the middle in terms of the internal and external of the body. Within the six, there are two parts: the first briefly clarifies the broad meaning, hence it is in terms of understanding and delusion; the subsequent five broadly expand upon this 'neither internal nor external'. The first brief clarification also has three parts: first, indicating that it is the middle way; second, explaining; and third, concluding. This is the first, indicating it. From "Good son, for the sake of sentient beings..." downward is the second, the explanation, generally clarifying that it is for the sake of beings. "Neither internal" means not the internal six sense-faculties. "Nor external" means not the external six sense-objects. However, the subsequent five separately refute the two attachments. From "Therefore, the Tathāgata..." downward is the third, the conclusion. I personally note: This single sūtra is broadly divided into five chapters, all termed nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is simply the buddhadhātu. 'Three yet one' is the primary cause nature (正因性); 'one yet three' is the nature of the three virtues (三德性). Now, in clarifying that sentient beings possess the buddhadhātu, it encompasses both of these meanings. Zhāng'ān, arriving here, terms it the middle way—could there be a middle devoid of ultimate and conventional [truths] called the buddhadhātu? Therefore, the buddhadhātu is the middle way, and the buddhadhātu is entirely pervasive. Hence, the text above and below discusses pervasiveness in many places. Thus, coming to this point, it says 'neither internal nor external'. Saying 'double negation' means not only a double negation, but there should also be a double affirmation; hence the various passages below say 'both internal and external'. If there is no double affirmation, how can one speak of pervasiveness? Therefore, the text reproaches: "Ordinary sentient beings sometimes say the buddhadhātu is in the five aggregates, like a fruit in a vessel or like empty space." When people of the world say that the buddhadhātu belongs only to sentient beings, it is merely like a fruit in a vessel; they cannot even conceive of it as being like empty space, so how could they comprehend that it is neither internal nor external? Moreover, the sūtra text itself explains: it is because sense-faculties and sense-objects combine that it is called the middle way. If sense-faculties and sense-objects combine, are they not of one essence? Are they not mutually identical? Is the nature not pervasive? How could it be like a fruit in a vessel? Now I ask: Are walls sense-faculties? Are they sense-objects? Are they the combination of the two? Or are they the negation of both? If they are the negation of both, they are also not the five aggregates—why only walls? How lamentable are the people of the world! How painful are the lecturers! Please carefully take the six gates to encompass the entire work; may the entire work systematically subsume the entirety of Śākyamuni's lifetime, so that when looking toward the ten directions and the three times, in principle there are no two, and in phenomena there is not a hairsbreadth of discrepancy. What is lost is not light, which is why I am so earnest. From "Furthermore" downward, the second part broadly clarifies the middle way through five further expositions, all clarifying neither internal nor external. Herein are two: first, one further exposition first sets forth the two attachments; next, four further expositions directly conclude with the middle way. From "Good son, the buddhadhātu of sentient beings is neither existent nor non-existent" downward, the second text has two parts: first, clarifying the main tenet; and second, broadly refuting attachments. The first, clarifying the main tenet, also has three: first, clarifying neither existent nor non-existent; next, clarifying both existent and non-existent; and third, concluding with neither existent nor non-existent. The first also has three: first, proposing the two negations; next, explaining the two negations; and third, concluding the two negations. Next, as for both existent and non-existent, the text has three: proposing both, explaining both, and concluding both. Proposing and explaining are as in the text. From "Existent and non-existent" downward is the conclusion. From "Therefore the Buddha said..." downward is the third, concluding the two negations, as in the text.