大般涅槃經疏 31.17

31.17

「迦葉菩薩言」下，第二論義，有四番問答。此初番，先問、次答。答中有三：初唱十法、次列十法、三結不爭。倡結二文之中皆有沾字，須作點音。次第二番問答，論世智所說有無。問可見。答中定於法體，又二：先明有、次明無。次第三番，問中二：先正作相違之問、次結佛有顛倒。答中明不相違，各有所據。眾生之色從煩惱生，故色是無；佛色不然，故得是有。次第四問答，明色常無常相。問含二意：一問云何色陰從煩惱生而是無常？二問云何色不從煩惱生而得是常？答中具明二義。今問中略，故但舉色從煩惱生是無常一邊。佛答有三：一明觀與不觀為常無常之本、二正明常無常果、三結所屬之人。初文又二：初總明觀與不觀。次單明觀者，亦可云先略後廣，廣中唯明一義。前文又四，此即：一明生三漏是所觀境。「智者應當」下，二出能觀人。「如人將盲」下，三出不能觀者。「有四種人」下，第四雙舉二人。前二如文。第三文中不觀之人，人譬三漏，盲譬眾生，棘譬惡道。欲明三漏牽諸眾生令墮三惡，縱出惡道，法身破壞。法身破壞，故三身盡壞。四雙結兩人中有四句，前二即是觀不觀者，後二即是任業之人。「若人能觀」下，第二單出能觀人，又二：先單出人。次廣明其人，又二：初總、後別。總中又二：此初，正明觀漏，有六句。「復作是念」下，二明其自能勤修，亦有五句。「是故我於」下，第二別明觀漏，亦二：初正明觀漏、次明能自勤修。前文有三：此初，先觀因，有法、譬、合。「有智之人」下，次觀果報。「觀果報已」下，三觀於輕重。「智者若知」下，二明自能勤修，亦有法、譬、合。「有人能知煩惱」下，二正明常無常果，又二：先明不從煩惱生則得常果、次明從煩惱生得無常果。「知煩惱煩惱因」下，三結所屬人，又二：先結得常果者，即是如來；次明得無常果者，是凡夫。「世間智者」下，第三還結成不爭之用。

From "Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said" downwards, the second [section] is the debate, consisting of four rounds of questions and answers. This is the first round, first asking and then answering. The answer has three parts: first, declaring the ten dharmas; next, listing the ten dharmas; third, concluding with non-contention. In both the declaration and the conclusion texts, the character zhan occurs, which must be pronounced with a departing tone. Next is the second round of questions and answers, discussing existence and non-existence as spoken of by worldly wisdom. The question can be seen. In the answer, it determines the essence of dharmas, again in two parts: first, clarifying existence; next, clarifying non-existence. Next is the third round: the question has two parts: first, directly making the question about contradiction; next, concluding that the Buddha has delusions. In the answer, it clarifies that there is no contradiction, each having its own basis: the form of sentient beings arises from afflictions, so form is non-existent; the Buddha's form is not so, so it can be existent. Next is the fourth question and answer, clarifying the characteristics of the permanence and impermanence of form. The question contains two meanings: first, asking how the form aggregate arises from afflictions and yet is impermanent; second, asking how form does not arise from afflictions and can be permanent. In the answer, both meanings are fully explained. Here the question is brief, so it only raises the one side, that form arising from afflictions is impermanent. The Buddha's answer has three parts: first, clarifying that contemplation and non-contemplation are the roots of permanence and impermanence; second, directly clarifying the fruits of permanence and impermanence; third, concluding with the persons to whom they belong. The first text again has two parts: first, generally clarifying contemplation and non-contemplation; next, clarifying only those who contemplate—it can also be said that it is first brief and then broad, and within the broad section it clarifies only one meaning. The former text again has four parts; this is: first, clarifying that generating the three outflows is the object to be contemplated. From "A wise person should" downwards, second, it identifies the person who can contemplate. From "Like a person leading a blind man" downwards, third, it identifies those who cannot contemplate. From "There are four kinds of people" downwards, fourth, it mentions both types of people together. The first two are as in the text. In the third text, as for the person who does not contemplate: the person is an analogy for the three outflows, the blind man is an analogy for sentient beings, and the thorns are an analogy for the evil destinies. It intends to clarify that the three outflows drag sentient beings to fall into the three evil [destinies]; even if they emerge from the evil destinies, their dharmakāya is destroyed. Since the dharmakāya is destroyed, the three bodies are entirely destroyed. In the fourth, concluding both people together, there are four lines: the first two are those who contemplate and do not contemplate, while the latter two are those who resign themselves to karma. From "If a person can contemplate" downwards, second, it exclusively identifies the person who can contemplate, again in two parts: first, exclusively identifying the person; next, broadly clarifying that person, again in two parts: first general, then specific. The general again has two parts: this first directly clarifies contemplating the outflows, having six lines. From "Furthermore, making this reflection" downwards, second, it clarifies that they are personally able to practice diligently, also having five lines. From "Therefore, I regarding" downwards, second, it specifically clarifies contemplating the outflows, also in two parts: first, directly clarifying contemplating the outflows; next, clarifying being personally able to practice diligently. The former text has three parts: this first contemplates the cause, having the dharma, the analogy, and the application. From "A person of wisdom" downwards, next, they contemplate the retributive fruit. From "Having contemplated the retributive fruit" downwards, third, they contemplate the light and heavy. From "If a wise person knows" downwards, second, it clarifies being personally able to practice diligently, also having the dharma, the analogy, and the application. From "There is a person who can know afflictions" downwards, second, it directly clarifies the fruits of permanence and impermanence, again in two parts: first, clarifying that not arising from afflictions attains the permanent fruit; next, clarifying that arising from afflictions attains the impermanent fruit. From "Knowing afflictions and the causes of afflictions" downwards, third, it concludes with the persons to whom they belong, again in two parts: first, concluding that the one who attains the permanent fruit is the Tathāgata; next, clarifying that the one who attains the impermanent fruit is an ordinary person. From "The worldly wise person" downwards, third, it concludes again by establishing the functioning of non-contention.