大般涅槃經疏 32.18

32.18

「富那言請說一喻」下，第二歸伏。譬云如大村外者，此譬佛果涅槃。有娑羅林者，有人譬金剛心，今譬眾生心。中有一樹者，譬佛性。足一百年者，是一數之圓名，譬中道佛性圓滿端正。文云「一樹先林而生」，一樹既譬佛性，可云佛性在眾生前。無眾生而已，有眾生即有佛性。今何以云先林而生？若言佛性眾生有先有後、若共若離，皆悉不可，並須破之。性執破已，方得假說有前有後，此之前後則不相乖。既不相乖，乍可義說佛性在前。何以故？佛性本有。以本有故，故義云先，即不失理。林主修治者，即修持人。其樹陳朽皮膚悉脫者，譬煩惱諸惡一切都盡。唯真實在，即是萬德。

From "Pūrṇa said: 'Please speak of a simile...'" downward is the second part, submission. The simile says: 'Just as outside a great village...', which illustrates the Buddha-fruit of nirvāṇa. 'There is a śāla grove', which some compare to the adamantine mind, but here illustrates the minds of sentient beings. 'In the midst there is a tree', which illustrates buddhadhātu. 'Full one hundred years', which is the round designation of a number, illustrating the perfection and uprightness of the middle way buddhadhātu. The text says 'one tree was born before the grove'; since the one tree illustrates buddhadhātu, one could say that buddhadhātu precedes sentient beings. If there were no sentient beings, that would be all, but when there are sentient beings, there is buddhadhātu. Why now does it say 'born before the grove'? If one says that buddhadhātu and sentient beings have a before and after, or are combined or separate, none of these is admissible; all must be refuted. Only after clinging to an intrinsic nature is refuted can one provisionally speak of before and after; this before and after then do not contradict each other. Since they do not contradict each other, one may provisionally speak doctrinally of buddhadhātu being prior. Why? Buddhadhātu is fundamentally existent. Because it is fundamentally existent, it is doctrinally called 'prior', which does not lose the principle. 'The grove's owner cultivates it' refers to the person who cultivates and upholds it. 'The tree is old and decayed, and the bark has entirely fallen off' illustrates that defilements and all evils are completely exhausted. Only the true and actual remains, which is the myriad virtues.