[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大般涅槃經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767) › 4.18 # 大般涅槃經疏 4.18 大般涅槃經疏 4.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.18) 第三、旁論者，何名旁論？先釋名、次帖文。釋名又三：一釋名、二出意、三料簡。初、釋名。言旁論者，前獻供為正，為無為是旁。又時眾是旁人，時眾未解，為旁故論。又兩人實慧為正，方便為旁，興斯問答是其權巧，故名旁論。又如來境界為正，二用為旁。今之所論論於二用，故言旁論。斯乃四悉意，思之。出意者，何故旁論？佛因獻供，施常以破無常，又明二施等無差別，利者玄解非常無常，惑者便生勝負之見，鄙無常而崇於常。如來又因請住，以不住破住，又明諸佛境界不可思議，利者即解非住非不住，惑者又謂不住勝住，迴惑自迷不能得解。是故文殊以無常不住訶其請住，純陀以常住難其無常不住，拒抗紛紜彰其非理，故云有為無為且共置之，懸指如來後當廣說。舉是顯非昭然可解，為是義故故須旁論。復次上純陀自云文殊師利法王子等，時眾懷疑文殊古佛，行遠解深能問能答；純陀初心位淺解微，上雖能問，未見其答，云何稱等？是故旁論。文殊深而墮負、純陀淺而獲勝，淺勝非勝、深負非負，非負非勝方顯其等。約斯事理顯旁論意，大略可見，不俟多釋。料簡者，問：文殊明空三昧而為正法，應是無為；純陀對有論無，無待有成，還應是有。那忽言文殊執有、純陀執無？解云：文殊扶昔教之空，望大是有；純陀扶於今教，對有論無，有去無無，還得是無。又復純陀始具足檀則行淺，不應云勝；文殊古佛則深，故不應負。解云：適物所宜更互椎砧，非定勝負，不負而負於深無損、不勝而勝於淺無增。文殊且共置之，則勝負雙捨。又文殊執昔，就昔為是，望今為非；純陀執今，就今為是，望昔為非。若作四句，各執二用顯體為俱是，各執二用傷體無俱非，各辨體用各有一是一非，即用而體即俱非是非非。 > Third, the subsidiary discussion: why is it called a subsidiary discussion? First, explain the name; next, comment on the text. Explaining the name also has three parts: first, explaining the name; second, presenting the intention; third, critical examination. First, explaining the name: regarding "subsidiary discussion," formerly presenting the offering was primary, while conditioned and unconditioned are subsidiary. Moreover, the assembly at the time were bystanders; the assembly did not yet understand, so for the bystanders there was a discussion. Again, the real wisdom of the two persons is primary, while expedients are subsidiary; raising these questions and answers was their skillful means, hence it is called a subsidiary discussion. Again, the realm of the Tathāgata is primary, and the two functions are subsidiary. What is discussed now is the discussion of the two functions; hence it is called a subsidiary discussion. This is the meaning of the four siddhāntas; reflect upon it. Presenting the intention: why is there a subsidiary discussion? Because of the presentation of the offering, the Buddha bestowed permanence to shatter impermanence, and also explained that the two offerings are equal and without difference; those of sharp faculties had a profound understanding of neither permanence nor impermanence, while the deluded gave rise to views of superiority and inferiority, scorning impermanence and exalting permanence. Furthermore, because of the request to stay, the Tathāgata used not staying to shatter staying, and also explained that the realm of all buddhas is inconceivable; those of sharp faculties immediately understood neither staying nor not staying, while the deluded again considered not staying superior to staying, turning around in delusion and self-bewilderment, unable to attain understanding. For this reason, Mañjuśrī used impermanence and not staying to scold his request to stay, and Cunda used eternal abiding to challenge his impermanence and not staying; their mutual opposition made manifest that it was not the principle, and hence it is said, "Let us set aside conditioned and unconditioned for now," pointing ahead to the Tathāgata who would explain it extensively later. Pointing out the correct to reveal the incorrect is distinctly clear and understandable; for this reason, there had to be a subsidiary discussion. Furthermore, above, Cunda himself said that he was equal to Mañjuśrī the Dharma Prince and others; the assembly harbored doubts, thinking that Mañjuśrī was an ancient buddha whose practice was far-reaching and whose understanding was profound, capable of questioning and answering; whereas Cunda was of an initial resolve, whose stage was shallow and whose understanding was slight—though above he had been able to ask, they had not yet seen him answer, so how could he claim to be equal? For this reason there was a subsidiary discussion. Mañjuśrī being deep fell into defeat, while Cunda being shallow achieved victory; shallow victory is not victory, and deep defeat is not defeat; being neither defeated nor victorious reveals their equality. Grounded in these facts and principles to reveal the intention of the subsidiary discussion, the general outline is visible; it does not require much further explanation. Critical examination: Question: Mañjuśrī clarifies the samādhi of emptiness as the true Dharma, which should be the unconditioned; Cunda discusses non-existence against existence, where non-existence depends upon existence to be established, so it should still be existence. How can you say that Mañjuśrī clings to existence and Cunda clings to non-existence? Answer: Mañjuśrī supports the emptiness of the former teachings, which, compared to the great, is existence; Cunda supports the present teaching, discussing non-existence against existence, where existence being removed leaves no non-existence, which still turns out to be non-existence. Furthermore, Cunda has only just completed the perfection of giving, so his practice is shallow and he should not be said to be victorious; Mañjuśrī is an ancient buddha and therefore deep, so he should not be defeated. Answer: Conforming to what is appropriate for sentient beings, they serve as hammer and anvil to one another; it is not a fixed victory or defeat. Being defeated without being defeated does no harm to the deep; being victorious without being victorious adds nothing to the shallow. Mañjuśrī setting it aside for now means both victory and defeat are cast off. Moreover, Mañjuśrī holds to the former, which in terms of the former is correct, but compared to the present is incorrect; Cunda holds to the present, which in terms of the present is correct, but compared to the former is incorrect. If one constructs a four-cornered proposition: each clinging to the two functions to reveal the essence is 'both are correct'; each clinging to the two functions and harming the essence without \[understanding\] is 'both are incorrect'; each discerning essence and function has one correct and one incorrect; accessing the essence through function is 'neither is correct nor is either incorrect'. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.17) - [Next: 4.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.19) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.4.18) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.18) · Pramāṇa