俱舍論記 30.27

30.27

「亦觀問者至不為定記」者，論主答。亦觀問者阿世邪故。問者若執我為世間而問世尊：世間常耶？無常耶？亦常亦無常？非常非無常耶？以彼問者實我世間，我體都無故，四答皆非理，故佛不答。若復執言生死五蘊皆名世間，佛四經答亦皆非理，故亦不答。謂若世間常者則不可斷，無得涅槃。若是非常，便自斷滅，不由功力勤勞修道感得涅槃。若答為常亦非常者，於生死中定應一分有情無得涅槃、一分有情自證圓寂。若答非常非非常者，此世間亦應非得涅槃、非不得涅槃。又解：非是非常故則應非得涅槃，非是常故則應非不得涅槃非常非非常決定相違便成戲論，何成答問？然依聖道可般涅槃，故四定記皆不應理。如外道離繫子以手執雀問佛死、生。佛知彼心不為定，若答言死，彼便放活；若答言生，彼便捨殺。故佛不答。此亦如是。

Regarding 'Also observing the inquirer's [intention ...] he did not give a definitive declaration': the author of the treatise replies. It is also because he observed the inquirer's intention (āśaya). If the inquirer grasped at the self as the world and asked the World-Honoured One: 'Is the world eternal? Is it impermanent? Is it both eternal and impermanent? Is it neither eternal nor impermanent?'—since to that inquirer the world was a real self, and the entity of the self is completely non-existent, all four answers would be unreasonable, and therefore the Buddha did not answer. If he alternatively grasped that the five aggregates of saṃsāra are all termed 'the world', the Buddha giving an answer according to the four alternatives would likewise be unreasonable, and therefore he also did not answer. That is to say: if the world were eternal, it could not be severed, and there would be no attaining of nirvāṇa. If it were impermanent, it would naturally perish of itself, and one would not, through the diligent labor of cultivating the path, realize nirvāṇa. If he had answered that it is both eternal and impermanent, within saṃsāra one portion of sentient beings would definitely not attain nirvāṇa, while one portion of sentient beings would spontaneously realize perfect quiescence. If he had answered that it is neither eternal nor impermanent, this world would also neither attain nirvāṇa nor not attain nirvāṇa. Another explanation: because it is not impermanent, it should not attain nirvāṇa; because it is not eternal, it should not fail to attain nirvāṇa. Being neither impermanent nor eternal is mutually contradictory and becomes mere sophistry; how could it constitute an answer to the question? However, based on the noble path, one can attain parinirvāṇa; therefore, none of the four definitive declarations would be reasonable. It is like the Nirgrantha non-Buddhist who held a sparrow in his hand and asked the Buddha whether it was dead or alive. The Buddha knew his mind and would not make a definitive statement: if he answered that it was dead, he would let it go alive; if he answered that it was alive, he would wring its neck and kill it. Therefore the Buddha did not answer. This case is also like that.