首楞嚴義疏注經 2.61

2.61

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.