大般涅槃經疏 5.13

5.13

從「諸比丘佛世難值」下，是酬譏請。興皇云：此為八階。是彼師之盛釋：一歎五難、二歎離八歎、三舉佛昔因成佛今果、四奪其果非、五奪其因非、六顯真法性勸今修習、七勸捨昔依今、八正示新伊。先歎次示、先奪後與，得成次第，以此八階酬五譏也。初五難於餘人是難，於汝為易。八難難離而能得離，是故歎之。既歎離歎得羅漢果，即是於始；方令汝入祕密之藏，即是於終。云何而言有始無終？復言空過於小為是、於大為非，故言空過。舉於往因成今果者，正酬其譏，明如來久劫捨頭目髓腦求大涅槃，只為利益，豈當怖畏？所以非其果者，汝果虛偽，非正法寶無戒定慧，不能莊嚴正法寶城。他取寶城證涅槃是圓，總包含故，故不可翻。興皇云：涅槃非總非別名含總別，取此酬其不違本誓。所以非其因者，發菩薩心乃名出家，汝不發心則非出家，袈裟但是染衣而已。汝不染正法，故非大乘衣。汝雖剃頭，不為正法除諸結使，所以示勸真實法性。昔之小乘是虛偽，今日大乘是真實。昔以無為為法性，今以妙有為法性，法性未曾是有是無，為他緣故說有說無。知昔無為是法性者，如迦葉云：身是法性，身云何存？身若存者，即非法性。當知昔以無為為法性，佛即破之，滅非法性。夫法性者非是滅法，取此酬其不平等譏。汝取滅度，非我不等。所以捨昔依今，此正釋疑。疑云：令我捨昔依今者，昔何不說？佛即解云：譬如大地，我法亦爾。治眾生病，初說無常為治汝病，今說於常亦治汝病，初後並為治病故也。所以說新伊者，既勸捨昔依今，故須新伊祕密安置汝等令住其中，非是棄汝不示坦道不是無慈。前後共答五譏請也。今明不然，得五難離八難同是一意。何以分為二？只就斥中酬五譏請，文義具足，何煩八階共來答之，是故不用。

From "O bhikṣus, encountering an era with a Buddha is difficult" onwards, [the text] responds to the request with criticism. Xinghuang says that this comprises eight stages. This is that master's prominent exposition: first, praising the five difficulties; second, praising the departure from the eight difficulties; third, adducing the Buddha's past causes in order to establish his present fruition; fourth, stripping away their fruition as faulty; fifth, stripping away their causes as faulty; sixth, revealing the true dharmatā to encourage their present cultivation and practice; seventh, exhorting them to abandon the past and rely on the present; eighth, directly pointing out the new letter [i]. First praising and then pointing out, first stripping away and later conferring, the sequence is successfully established; with these eight stages he responds to the five criticisms. First, the five difficulties are difficult for other people, but easy for you. The eight difficulties are difficult to leave behind, yet you have been able to leave them behind; therefore, he praises them. Since he praises their leaving [the difficulties behind] and praises their attainment of the fruit of an arhat, this belongs to the beginning; and now causing you to enter the secret treasury belongs to the end. How can you say that there is a beginning but no end? Furthermore, when he says 'passed in vain,' this is correct in terms of the Small [Vehicle] but faulty in terms of the Great; therefore, it is said to be 'passed in vain.' Adducing past causes to establish the present fruition directly responds to their criticism, clarifying that the Tathāgata for long kalpas relinquished his head, eyes, marrow, and brain to seek the great nirvāṇa solely for the sake of benefiting [beings]—how could he harbor fear? As for why he faults their fruition: your fruition is illusory and false; it is not the jewel of the true Dharma, lacks morality, concentration, and wisdom, and cannot adorn the jewel city of the true Dharma. Others take the jewel city as proof that nirvāṇa is complete and round because it completely contains everything, and therefore cannot be overturned. Xinghuang says: 'Nirvāṇa is neither general nor particular, yet is termed as containing both general and particular'; this is taken to respond to his not transgressing his original vow. As for why he faults their causes: only when one gives rise to the bodhisattva mind is it called renouncing home; since you did not give rise to this mind, you have not renounced home, and your kaṣāya is merely dyed clothing and nothing more. Because you are not dyed with the true Dharma, it is not the robe of the Mahāyāna. Although you have shaved your head, you have not eliminated the fetters for the sake of the true Dharma; therefore, he reveals and exhorts to the true dharmatā. The past Hīnayāna was illusory and false; today's Mahāyāna is genuine and real. In the past, the unconditioned was taken as the dharmatā; now, wonderful existence is taken as the dharmatā. The dharmatā has never been existent or non-existent; for the sake of external conditions, existence and non-existence are spoken of. Knowing that in the past the unconditioned was taken as the dharmatā is like Kāśyapa saying: 'The body is dharmatā; how could the body remain? If the body remains, it is not dharmatā.' One should know that in the past, when the unconditioned was taken as the dharmatā, the Buddha then refuted it: cessation is not the dharmatā. For dharmatā is not an annihilated dharma; this is taken to respond to their criticism of inequality. You grasp at extinction and cessation; it is not that I am unequal. As for abandoning the past and relying on the present, this directly resolves their doubts. The doubt says: 'If you cause us to abandon the past and rely on the present, why did you not speak of it in the past?' The Buddha then explains: 'Just like the great earth, my Dharma is also like this. In treating the diseases of sentient beings, I first preached impermanence to treat your disease, and now preach permanence also to treat your disease; both the beginning and the end are for the purpose of treating disease.' As for why the new [letter] i is spoken of: having exhorted them to abandon the past and rely on the present, the secret of the new [letter] i is therefore required to settle you all and cause you to dwell within it; it is not abandoning you without showing the level path, nor is it a lack of compassion. Together, the preceding and succeeding [sections] answer the five requests with criticism. Now I clarify that this is not so: obtaining the five difficulties and leaving the eight difficulties share one and the same meaning. Why divide them into two? Simply responding to the five requests with criticism right within the reprimand fully provides the textual meaning; what need is there to trouble with eight stages together to answer them? Therefore, [that theory] is not adopted.