首楞嚴義疏注經 2.61

2.61

據此見河之見與我見聞無殊，於王即云不滅不生，於我即云遺失真性。王之與我孰親孰疎，苟或殊途，如何分辨？然此問意由來久矣，始因手自開合見無開合，頭自動搖見無搖動，一一佛印皆言如是。此則如來令於妄見即辨真見，無離生滅有不生滅。阿難罔知佛旨，猶謂生滅與不生滅別，遂合掌禮佛，願聞如來顯出身心真妄虛實現前，生滅與不生滅二發明性。匿王知其懷抱，又不發問伸誠，於是引外六師執身死後斷滅，所冀佛親開示，即妄見真，責引阿難，無執二別。阿難古佛豈茲不了？蓋為今日惑重情深，須示瞢然，確陳拒諍，故茲問也。

Based on this, the seeing of the river does not differ from my seeing and hearing; for the king you say it is non-ceasing and non-arising, while for me you say I have lost my true nature. Between the king and me, who is close and who is distant? If they are indeed different paths, how are they to be distinguished? Yet the intention behind this question has a long history: it began with the hand opening and closing of itself while seeing has no opening and closing, and the head moving of itself while seeing has no movement, every one of which the Buddha sealed as 'thus.' In this, the Tathāgata caused one to discern true seeing right within false seeing, without there being a non-arising and non-ceasing separate from arising and ceasing. Ānanda did not comprehend the Buddha's purport and still thought arising and ceasing were distinct from non-arising and non-ceasing; thereupon, pressing his palms together and paying homage to the Buddha, he wished to hear the Tathāgata reveal before them the true and the false, the unreal and the real of body and mind, illuminating the two natures of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing. King Prasenajit, knowing what he harboured, yet did not raise a question to extend his sincerity; thereupon he cited the six non-Buddhist teachers holding that after the body dies it is annihilated, hoping that the Buddha would personally explain, discerning the true right within the false, and reproaching and guiding Ānanda not to grasp at the two as distinct. As an ancient Buddha, how could Ānanda not understand this? It was because for the sake of those today whose confusion is heavy and attachments are deep, he had to display bewilderment and firmly present objections; hence this question.