大般涅槃經疏 24.5

24.5

From "Furthermore, the original limit of birth and death" below is the second [section], clarifying the meaning of the middle way that neither arises nor dies. The text has two [parts]: first, clarifying the middle way; next, presenting understanding and delusion. The first has three: first, proclaiming the middle way; second, clarifying its ability to destroy birth and death; third, concluding with [the assertion that this] is [the buddhadhātu]. From "buddhadhātu, ignorance, and the existence of craving" below, [one might ask:] since the middle is merely compositional factors, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense bases, and so forth, why does [the sūtra] say there are birth, aging, and death? The explanation says: a later passage states that consciousness in the present life is called future birth, and the present six sense bases and so forth are called future aging and death; the middle is precisely the meaning of birth and death. As for stating "the middle way": two causes flank one fruit, with the one fruit dwelling in the middle; to discuss the middle in this way is the wonderful middle, the meaning of destroying birth and death. Why is it that merely causes and conditions, cause and fruit, neither arising nor ceasing, are called the middle way? Now we make an easy explanation: ignorance and craving are present and past views—the path of afflictions. Pointing to the path of afflictions, it is prajñā itself; the middle is the path of suffering, which is the dharmakāya itself; the dharmakāya is the middle way itself. If it is the middle way, then there is no birth and death; because there is no birth and death, it is called destroying birth and death. From "For this reason" below is the third, concluding it as the buddhadhātu: since it is the middle way, how could it not be the buddhadhātu? From "Because all sentient beings" below is the second, presenting understanding and delusion, which has doctrine, simile, and application. Within the doctrine, it first clarifies the deluded: not seeing it, it is impermanence; next it clarifies those with understanding: being able to see it, it is not impermanence. This statement is properly used to concurrently answer the third objection. The objection stated: for what reason is it called permanent, blissful, self, and pure? Because one sees the buddhadhātu, it is permanent, blissful, self, and pure. From "For example" below, a simile is made for those with delusion and understanding, the same as the earlier simile of the poor woman. The application is as in the text.