[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) › 8.4 # 大般涅槃經疏 8.4 大般涅槃經疏 8.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.8.4) 「迦葉復白」去，是第四番問答，先問、次答。初問又三：初非佛旨、次譬釋非、三合譬結過。初非佛旨者，領上修平等心得三世福，謂此旨為非。次「何以故」下，舉譬，為三：一如知法人但有其言、二還至家中都無其行、三是知法人結言行相違（云云）。三合譬結過，亦為三：修習等心，合上知法。「今者世尊」去，合上無行。「如來將無」去，合上相違。若言慈心應得長壽，而今短壽，必有怨心，此結意行相違。不殺命長，而今短壽，凡殺幾生，此結身行相違。口行相違，已如上說。興皇述他釋云：迦葉恒執迹為難，佛恒用本為答，此則問答永不相關。不問本迹，何以為答，而云執此生疑難耶？只約丈六一身，疑者不達恒言無常，達者了此即是於常，常若異此則非常也。此釋未明常義甚多，佛以何常而為答問？無常亦多，迦葉為執何無常耶（云云）？ > From 'Kāśyapa again addressed \[the Buddha\]' downwards is the fourth round of question and answer, first the question, then the answer. The initial question also has three parts: first, rejecting the Buddha's purport; second, illustrating the objection with a simile; third, applying the simile to conclude the error. First, rejecting the Buddha's purport: seizing upon the above cultivation of an equal mind gaining merit across the three times, he considers this purport to be wrong. Next, from 'Why is this?' downwards, he adduces a simile, which has three parts: first, like someone who knows the Dharma having only words; second, returning home with no practice whatsoever; third, concluding that this person who knows the Dharma contradicts words with actions (and so forth). Third, applying the simile to conclude the error also has three parts: 'practicing an equal mind' corresponds above to knowing the Dharma; 'Now the World-Honoured One' downwards corresponds above to having no practice; 'Can it be that the Tathāgata' downwards corresponds above to contradiction. If you say that a friendly mind should obtain long life, but now \[your\] life is short, there must be a resentful mind—this concludes the contradiction in mental action. If not killing leads to a long life, but now \[your\] life is short, how many lives have you killed?—this concludes the contradiction in physical action. The contradiction in verbal action has already been stated above. Xīnghuáng cited another interpretation: 'Kāśyapa constantly clings to the trace to raise objections, while the Buddha constantly uses the fundamental to answer; thus question and answer would never be relevant to each other. Without asking about the fundamental and trace, how could one answer, and why say that clinging to this produces doubts and objections?' It is only with regard to the single sixteen-foot body: those who doubt do not comprehend that it is constantly said to be impermanent, while those who comprehend realize that this very \[body\] is permanent; if permanence were different from this, it would not be permanent. This interpretation does not yet clarify that the meanings of permanence are very numerous: with which permanence does the Buddha answer the question? Impermanence is also manifold: to which impermanence does Kāśyapa cling (and so forth)? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.8.3) - [Next: 8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.8.5) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.8.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.8.4) · Pramāṇa