大般涅槃經疏 8.4

8.4

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)?