能顯中邊慧日論 2.10

2.10

四不悟四記失。云：若依四記，以生必死故，證佛智有生必滅。亦應以無或死死不生，證佛智滅更不起，不可一向記者。說剎那分別記者，即分段身佛既無，或滅還生，有生必死，非約佛者。不爾。由未善知四記之意，故此難生。解斯四記，猛難便息。何者？生者必死，一向記，不論剎那與一期。死者生耶？分別記，剎那、一期俱分別。若不分別，何名分別記？今為分別，若約一期，無煩惱者死必不生。若據剎那，有、或無、或俱須分別。無煩惱中且據如來，現起之智望更生種，名為生。現起滅已不熏種，即死者不生。若據種子生現行，不妨滅，餘種起。雖無煩惱，死復生。舉一例餘。二乘定性無煩惱人，一期滅已必不復起。若據剎那，現起智心還熏成種。雖復現滅，新種更生。不定性人俱有剎那滅、無一期滅，不捨此身更受身故。若許回心無學果人捨分段已更受變易，如何得言無煩惱死死不復生？論佛，即佛不死，更有何人名死不生？據有煩惱，生者皆死。死者生耶？據分段說，亦有不生。趣向三乘定入見道。不退之者，三惡等身從前死已，必不更生，人天不定。約剎那者，生必皆死。死者生耶？即須為分別。若業異熟，心雖生不熏種，死已不復生。若從舊種論，雖死還復起。是報佛既有生已，必定有滅，不須分別。剎那、一期死者生耶？則須分別。若如是知，名解四記。佛自定說生者皆死，是一向記。如何今者更為分別？

Fourth is the fault of failing to understand the four ways of answering questions. [The opponent] says: "If, relying on the four ways of answering questions, because whatever is born must die, one proves that the Buddha's wisdom, having arisen, must necessarily cease; then one should also, on the grounds that without affliction, or once dead, the dead is not reborn, prove that once the Buddha's wisdom has ceased it never arises again, such that it cannot be answered categorically." [If one claims that] this is answered by distinguishing moments—that is, that having extinguished a portion of samsāric existence, the Buddha has no affliction, or having ceased arises anew, and whatever is born must die, but this is not said with respect to the Buddha—this is not so. It is because you do not properly understand the intention of the four ways of answering questions that this objection arises. Once you understand these four ways of answering, this fierce objection will immediately subside. What are they? "Those that are born must die" is answered categorically, without discussing whether it is momentary or across a lifespan. "Does the one who has died get born?" is answered by distinguishing, distinguishing both momentary and lifelong [cases]. If one does not distinguish, why call it an answer by distinguishing? Now, to distinguish: if according to a lifespan, one without afflictions, having died, will certainly not be reborn. If based on moments, whether there are afflictions, or no afflictions, or both, must be distinguished. Among those without afflictions, taking the Tathāgata for instance: wisdom that has currently arisen, viewed in relation to seeds that will generate further, is called "born." Once the currently arisen [wisdom] ceases and no longer perfuses seeds, that is "the dead does not get born." If viewed as seeds generating actual functioning, there is no obstacle to [one] ceasing and other seeds arising; although there are no afflictions, the dead is born again. Bringing up one exemplifies the rest. In persons of the two vehicles with fixed gotra who lack afflictions, once a lifespan has ceased it will certainly not arise again. If based on moments, their currently arisen wise minds still perfuse and form seeds; although the manifest [moment] ceases, new seeds are born again. Persons of unfixed gotra have both momentary cessation and the absence of lifespan cessation, because they do not abandon this body to take on another body again. If you grant that a person of the fruition of non-training who turns their mind, having abandoned the portion of samsāric existence, further undergoes the transformationally produced [body], how can you say that one who dies without afflictions never arises again after death? As for discussing the Buddha, the Buddha does not die; what other person could be called "dying and not being born"? With respect to those with afflictions, those who are born all die. Does the dead get born? Stated in terms of the portions of samsāric existence, there are also those who are not born: those progressing toward the three vehicles who are destined to enter the path of seeing and do not regress, having died from their previous bodies in the three evil realms and the like, will definitely not be born there again, while human and heavenly [rebirths] are indefinite. In terms of moments, what is born must all die. Does the dead get born? Then one must make a distinction: if it is karmic vipāka, although the mind arises it does not perfuse seeds, so having died it does not arise again; if discussed from previous seeds, although it dies it arises anew. Thus, since the Saṃbhogabuddha has birth, he must certainly have cessation, without need for distinction; as to whether the dead is born, momentarily or over a lifespan, one must then distinguish. If one understands in this way, it is called understanding the four ways of answering questions. The Buddha himself definitively stated that all who are born die, which is a categorical answer. How can you now make further distinctions about it?