大般涅槃經疏 8.9

8.9

三、問答法性中，問為四：初標問作請、次舉昔難今、三以今難昔、四結也。初可見。次文者，然昔教身智兩捨，今問法性即是捨身。不言捨智者，數師言：智有二種，有漏智滅即是涅槃，無漏智滅是非數緣不取為涅槃。既有是非，故不言捨智。論師云：兩智滅皆是涅槃，而有二義。若言道能致滅，此邊則非；若言果盡，此邊即是。涅槃既有是非，故不言捨智。觀師云：不應爾，特是略耳。若無所有者，難也，故以法性難身。三「身若存者」下，以今難昔。身若存者，是身難法性。法性是無，身即是有，有無相害更互相難。四「身有法性」下，結其不解。佛答為兩：先非、次譬。初非者，我不曾言滅身滅智名為法性。此乃昔說，今則不爾，是故非之。次譬又二：先譬、次合。譬又二：先正譬、次譬斥非。初云無想天者，數師云：無想初念猶有心起，從生愛結無想樂成，即便滅心則有，非色非心。補處論師云：心不可滅，而言無想者，爾時心細如蟄蟲氷魚似無細心。而言無色想者，不復緣於麁色。次「不應」下，譬非。此中具論五陰云何，住即色陰、受樂即受陰、想行即兩陰、見聞即識陰。一解云：但是四陰。後言若為行於想心，不別言行陰。次「善男子」下，合譬，又二：初合正譬、次合斥非。初合無想天成就色陰而無有色想。如來法性成就寂滅而無有滅，不應作滅不滅問也。次「汝今不應」下，合彈訶（云云）。

Third, in the question and answer on dharmatā, the questioning has four parts: first, positing the question and making the request; next, citing the past to challenge the present; third, using the present to challenge the past; fourth, concluding. The first is clear. As for the next passage: the past teaching relinquished both body and wisdom, whereas now the question takes dharmatā to be the relinquishment of the body. As for not speaking of relinquishing wisdom, the Abhidharma masters say: There are two kinds of wisdom; the extinction of defiled wisdom is nirvāṇa, while the extinction of undefiled wisdom is non-analytical cessation and is not taken as nirvāṇa. Since there is right and wrong, they do not speak of relinquishing wisdom. The Śāstra masters say: The extinction of both wisdoms is nirvāṇa, yet there are two meanings. If one says the path can bring about extinction, this aspect is not [nirvāṇa]; if one says the fruit is exhausted, this aspect is indeed [nirvāṇa]. Since nirvāṇa thus has right and wrong, they do not speak of relinquishing wisdom. Master Guan says: It should not be so; this is merely an abbreviation. 'If it has nothing' is the objection, hence dharmatā is used to challenge the body. Third, from 'If the body remains' downward, uses the present to challenge the past. 'If the body remains' uses the body to challenge dharmatā. Dharmatā is non-existence, while the body is existence; existence and non-existence impair each other and mutually challenge each other. Fourth, from 'The body has dharmatā' downward, concludes their lack of understanding. The Buddha's reply has two parts: first, refutation; next, metaphor. First, the refutation: I have never said that extinguishing the body and extinguishing wisdom is called dharmatā. That was a past teaching, but the present is not like that, which is why he refutes it. Next, the metaphor also has two parts: first, the metaphor itself; next, the joining. The metaphor also has two parts: first, the proper metaphor; next, using the metaphor to reprimand the error. First, regarding the 'heaven of non-conception', the Abhidharma masters say: In the first thought of non-conception, mind still arises; from the arising of the craving fetter, the bliss of non-conception is accomplished, and then mind is extinguished, so there is neither form nor mind. The Śāstra master on the stages of succession says: Mind cannot be extinguished; when it is called non-conception, at that time the mind is subtle, like a hibernating insect or a frozen fish, appearing to have no subtle mind. When it is said to have no perception of form, it no longer takes coarse form as an object. Next, from 'One should not' downward, is the metaphor's refutation. Here, how the five aggregates are fully discussed: dwelling is the form aggregate; experiencing bliss is the feeling aggregate; conception and volitional formations are two aggregates; seeing and hearing is the consciousness aggregate. One interpretation says: It is only four aggregates; later when it speaks of 'how can one practice a mind of conception?', it does not separately mention the aggregate of volitional formations. Next, from 'Good son' downward, joins the metaphor, again in two parts: first, joining the proper metaphor; next, joining the reprimand. First, it joins the heaven of non-conception accomplishing the form aggregate without having the perception of form. The Tathāgata's dharmatā accomplishes quiescence and extinction without having extinction, so one should not frame the question in terms of extinction or non-extinction. Next, from 'You now should not' downward, joins the reprimand, etc.