大般涅槃經疏 8.9

8.9

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.