大般涅槃經疏 30.11

30.11

從「欲色界眾生有二業」下，釋第二五人章門，即為五。此先釋中陰滅人。何者是耶？即已離欲、未及色界，於中即得阿羅漢果。又三：初明用業、二釋中陰名、三明入滅。此初明用業中言二業者，業即散業，受生即上界定業。「又捨欲界身」下，第二釋中陰名，在兩生中間故。私謂：是於色界中陰而入涅槃，既不受正生，故言利根。「是中涅槃」下，第三明入滅之心。言四種心者，二解：一云前兩是那含果空有二心，後兩即羅漢果空有二心。一非學非無學者，即那含緣世諦心；二者學，即那含緣真諦心；三無學，即羅漢緣真諦心；四非學非無學，即羅漢緣世諦心。以那含得滅即是羅漢果，就兩故明之。二解云：此四句同就那含果上明之，一非學非無學即被導心；二學即緣真心；三無學即修舊心；四非學無學即失念心。有師云：此解不可。其見文云「阿那含四心」，應言那含自有此四心，前解當理，初二心是那含、後兩心是羅漢。問：既其二果共四心者，何得云那含四心？解云：今云那含四心者，此是帶本為語，此中是釋中滅人，只滅已是羅漢。又言：一是二非，還應兩解。若前解者，則言羅漢兩心是涅槃，那含兩心非涅槃。羅漢得無餘極果，所以是涅槃。那含未得無餘，非極果，故非涅槃。若後解，則世諦兩心是，真諦兩心非，更須釋之。

From "Sentient beings of the desire and form realms have two karmas" below explains the second topic heading of the five persons, which constitutes five parts. Here first, the person who attains extinction in the intermediate state (antarābhava) is explained. Who is this? It is one who has already abandoned desire and not yet reached the form realm, and in between attains the fruit of an arhat. This also has three parts: first, clarifying the karmas used; second, explaining the name "intermediate state"; third, clarifying the entry into extinction. In this first part clarifying the karmas used, "two karmas" means that karma is scattered karma, while taking rebirth is the meditative karma of the upper realms. From "Furthermore, relinquishing the body of the desire realm" below, the second part explains the name "intermediate state," because it is between two lives. Privately I consider: it is entering nirvāṇa in the intermediate state of the form realm; since they do not take actual rebirth, they are said to be of sharp faculties. From "Attaining nirvāṇa therein" below is the third part, clarifying the mind of entering extinction. As for the "four minds," there are two explanations: One says that the first two are the two minds of emptiness and existence of the anāgāmin fruit, and the latter two are the two minds of emptiness and existence of the arhat fruit. First, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the anāgāmin's mind taking conventional truth as objective support; second, in training is the anāgāmin's mind taking ultimate truth as objective support; third, beyond training is the arhat's mind taking ultimate truth as objective support; fourth, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the arhat's mind taking conventional truth as objective support. Because the anāgāmin's attaining extinction is itself the fruit of the arhat, it is clarified with reference to both. The second explanation says: These four alternatives are all clarified with reference to the fruit of the anāgāmin: first, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the guided mind; second, in training is the mind taking the ultimate as objective support; third, beyond training is the mind cultivating the old; fourth, neither-in-training-nor-beyond-training is the mind of lost mindfulness. A master says: This explanation is unacceptable. Seeing the text say "four minds of the anāgāmin," one should say that the anāgāmin itself possesses these four minds; the former explanation accords with reason, where the first two minds belong to the anāgāmin and the latter two minds belong to the arhat. Question: Since the two fruits share four minds, how can it say the four minds of an anāgāmin? Explanation: Saying now "four minds of an anāgāmin" speaks in terms of carrying over the origin; here it explains the person who attains extinction in the intermediate state, and having attained extinction, they are simply an arhat. Furthermore, "one is and two are not" should likewise have two explanations: According to the former explanation, it says the two minds of the arhat are nirvāṇa, and the two minds of the anāgāmin are not nirvāṇa. The arhat attains the ultimate fruit without remainder, so it is nirvāṇa. The anāgāmin has not attained [the fruit] without remainder and is not the ultimate fruit, so it is not nirvāṇa. According to the latter explanation, the two minds of conventional truth are, and the two minds of ultimate truth are not, which requires further explanation.