大般涅槃經疏 6.14

6.14

次「時王語醫」下，眾生不受，即前諸比丘疑執不受常住之言。文中有四：雙驚、雙譏，貶如來、褒外道。狂耶是一驚，熱病是一驚，故云雙驚。狂謂失心之病，今驚如來為是失本無常之解。熱病者是驚，如來為更起於邪常惑耶？汝先言毒，今云何服？即是雙譏。汝先言毒，今云何服？即是以昔譏今。今既令服，先那言毒？即是以今譏昔。迴互此語，即兩譏也。欲欺我耶者，還成上意。三「先醫所讚」下，是貶咎如來。如來誤我，驅逐舊醫。四「如汝所言」下，褒外道，如文。三「是時客醫」下，如來重說，即是此中破執釋疑。文中有四：一止其所說、二正為釋疑、三重問、四重答。此初，即一往止其所說。次「如蟲食木」下，正為解釋。又二：先譬、後合。此中通體是譬，今更為譬。作譬明外道橫計之我，偶與正我名同而非解理，如蟲食木。次「大王當知」下，合譬，可尋。

Next, from "At that time the king said to the physician" onward, sentient beings do not accept it; that is, the previous monks' doubtful grasping prevented them from accepting the words on eternal abidance. In the text there are four points: double astonishment and double mockery, disparaging the Tathāgata and praising the non-Buddhists. "Are you mad?" is one astonishment; "fever-stricken" is one astonishment; hence it says double astonishment. "Mad" refers to the disease of losing one's mind; here they are astonished at the Tathāgata, wondering whether he has lost his original understanding of impermanence. "Fever-stricken" is astonishment: has the Tathāgata again given rise to the delusion of false permanence? "You previously said it was poison, why consume it now?"—this is the double mockery. "You previously said it was poison, why consume it now?" mocks the present by means of the past. "Since you now tell me to consume it, why did you previously say it was poison?" mocks the past by means of the present. Alternating these statements constitutes the two mockeries. "Do you wish to deceive me?" further completes the preceding meaning. Third, from "What the previous physician praised" onward, disparages and blames the Tathāgata: the Tathāgata misled me into banishing the old physician. Fourth, from "As you have said" onward, praises the non-Buddhists, as in the text. Third, from "At that time the visiting physician" onward, the Tathāgata speaks again, which is the refutation of grasping and resolution of doubts here. In the text there are four parts: 1) stopping what he said, 2) directly resolving doubts for him, 3) questioning again, and 4) answering again. This first part is provisionally stopping what he said. Next, from "Just as an insect eats wood" onward, is directly explaining for him. There are again two parts: first, the parable, and second, the application. Here the overall substance is a parable, and now he further creates a parable. Making a parable clarifies that the non-Buddhists' arbitrary grasping of a self merely happened to share the same name as the true self, yet they did not understand the principle, just as an insect eats wood. Next, from "Great King, you should know" onward, is the application of the parable, which can be examined.