大般涅槃經疏 29.4

29.4

起卷詶其第三結問。如來善知根性，何故作不定說，使其爭論？文為二：初歎理深、次簡疑執。初歎又二：初明不定之說是佛境界，故是理深，非佛故作不定相違之說令其爭論，由其不達所以執爭。「若人於是」下，次誡勸，又二：先勸生疑、次誡勿執。聞不定說而生疑者，必牽於解，是故有勸。若聞不定執之為是，必成惑本，是故有誡。初文者，夫疑是解津，復是惑本。若十使中疑者是見疑，此疑非解津，不能破惑。如須彌山者，一云：煩惱高廣，如須彌之隆闊，疑能破之。又云：煩惱磐固，如須彌之安峙，疑能拔之。故以為喻。「迦葉白佛」下，二簡疑執，為二：前兩番問執、後四番問疑。前兩番，各有問答，如文。後問意者，未見涅槃，那忽疑之為有為無？佛答：生死名苦，涅槃非苦，其必因苦以疑非苦，定有非苦能斷苦耶？第二番舉現事問疑。若見苦疑非苦者，人見初果應疑墮苦。佛答中四：初責斯乃定義，不合疑之。我唯定說此果不墮，未嘗說墮。亦如言佛定一切智，何得於定生不定疑？次「何以故」下，出疑心相以顯不疑。中有三譬，並云先見後疑。三「一切眾生先見二物」下，結定疑執。四「何以故」下，釋出疑由。次第三番，問有二：先問涅槃、次問濁水。如此事理並未曾見而亦生疑，何必先見後生疑耶？佛答：亦先想度涅槃生死。生死是所治，涅槃是能治，故使比度能治為有為無。「汝意若謂」下，答後濁水，又二：先牒問非之、次「何以故」下正答。將餘先見有淺有深，以疑此中深之與淺。次第四番問答，如文。

The beginning of the fascicle answers his third concluding question: "The Tathāgata well knows faculties and natures; for what reason do you deliver indefinite teachings, causing them to argue?" The text has two parts: first, praising the depth of the principle; next, distinguishing doubt and adherence. Praising [the depth] also has two parts: first, explaining that indefinite teachings are the realm of the Buddha and therefore the principle is deep; it is not that the Buddha intentionally delivers indefinite and contradictory teachings to make them argue, but rather that because they do not comprehend, they adhere and argue. From "If someone in this case..." downward is, next, the admonition and exhortation, which also has two parts: first, exhorting them to give rise to doubt; next, admonishing them not to adhere. If one hears indefinite teachings and gives rise to doubt, this will inevitably lead to understanding, and for this reason there is an exhortation. If one hears indefinite [teachings] and adheres to them as correct, this will inevitably become the root of delusion, and for this reason there is an admonition. As for the first passage: indeed, doubt is the ford to understanding, and yet it is also the root of delusion. If it is the doubt among the ten fetters, that is doubt born of view; this doubt is not the ford to understanding and cannot destroy delusion. As for [the simile of] Mount Sumeru: one explanation says: afflictions are high and vast, like the towering breadth of Sumeru, and doubt is able to destroy them. Another says: afflictions are firmly entrenched, like the stable standing of Sumeru, and doubt is able to uproot them. Therefore it is taken as a simile. From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha..." downward is, second, distinguishing doubt and adherence, in two parts: the first two rounds question adherence; the latter four rounds question doubt. In the first two rounds, each has a question and an answer, as in the text. As for the meaning of the later question: not having seen nirvāṇa, how can one suddenly doubt whether it exists or not? The Buddha answers: saṃsāra is named suffering, and nirvāṇa is not suffering; one must, on account of suffering, doubt the non-suffering—is there definitely a non-suffering that can sever suffering? The second round adduces present affairs to question doubt: if seeing suffering causes one to doubt non-suffering, then when a person sees the first fruit [of the path], he should doubt whether it falls into suffering. In the Buddha's answer there are four parts: first, rebuking that this is a definite principle and should not be doubted: I have only definitely stated that this fruit does not fall, and have never said that it falls. It is also like saying that the Buddha is definitely all-knowing; how could one give rise to indefinite doubt regarding what is definite? Next, from "Why is this?" downward, revealing the characteristics of a doubting mind to make manifest non-doubt. Within this there are three similes, all saying that one first sees and afterwards doubts. Third, from "All sentient beings first see two objects..." downward, conclusively determining doubt and adherence. Fourth, from "Why is this?" downward, explaining the causes of doubt. Next, in the third round, the question has two parts: first, questioning nirvāṇa; next, questioning turbid water. When both such affairs and principles have never been seen, yet one still gives rise to doubt, why must one first see and only afterwards give rise to doubt? The Buddha answers: one also first conceptualizes and infers nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. Saṃsāra is what is to be treated, and nirvāṇa is the treatment; therefore it causes one to infer whether the treatment exists or does not exist. From "If you think..." downward answers the second [question on] turbid water, again in two parts: first, taking up the question and refuting it; next, from "Why is this?" downward, directly answering it. Taking other things previously seen to have shallowness and depth, one doubts the depth and shallowness herein. Next, the fourth round of question and answer is as in the text.