大般涅槃經疏 33.10

33.10

「復有婆羅門名弘廣」下。第九外道，文為二：初論義、後歸伏。彼無所執，直問知心念不。佛知其念，故作異說。其本有四念，佛亦作四句答者，涅槃是常、有為無常，曲即邪見、直即八正。此四義者，與其名同而意則異，故重問之，佛方為說。即云乞食是常、別請無常。曲是戶蘥、直是帝幢，即是以所懷之事默以試佛。佛知其意，乃跨節用所表之理而以答之。答過其表，所以更請。然𨷲字，應門裏作，《說文》云「函𨷲下柱」。今經中草下作，此乃草名，《說文》言雀麥也。後問八正能令滅盡，佛不答者，以此問意眾生修道皆滅盡者，應無復眾生。然至理中眾生無盡，是故不答。若有可盡，即是有邊。私謂：準文恐且約事。舊用此文謂弘廣問終。

From "There was also a brahmin named Vastly Broad" below, this is the ninth non-Buddhist, with two parts: first, debating the meaning; second, yielding and submitting. He held to no position, but simply asked whether [the Buddha] knew the thoughts in his mind or not. Because the Buddha knew his thoughts, he formulated a different exposition. He originally had four thoughts, and the Buddha also answered with four phrases: nirvāṇa is permanent, conditioned things are impermanent, crooked is wrong view, and straight is the eightfold noble [path]. These four principles share the same names [as the non-Buddhist's thoughts] but differ in their meaning; therefore, he questioned [the Buddha] again, and only then did the Buddha expound them for him. He then said that begging for food is permanent, while individual invitations are impermanent; crooked is a door-bolt, and straight is the banner of Indra. This was to test the Buddha silently with the matters he held in mind. Knowing his intention, the Buddha bypassed his literal intent and answered using the principles they symbolized. Because the answers surpassed what was outward, he requested further instruction. However, the character yuè (bolt) should be written within the radical for door; the Shuowen Jiezi says, "A bolt under the lower pillar." In the present sūtra, it is written under the radical for grass, which is the name of a plant; the Shuowen Jiezi says it is wild oats. As for the subsequent question of whether the eightfold noble [path] can cause complete extinction, the Buddha did not answer because the intent of this question was that if sentient beings practice the path and are all completely extinguished, there should no longer be any sentient beings. However, in the ultimate principle, sentient beings are inexhaustible; therefore, he did not answer. If they could be exhausted, then that would entail having a limit. Personally, I would state: Judging by the text, this is probably provisionally based on phenomena. The old [commentators] took this passage to mean that Vastly Broad was inquiring about the end.