妙法蓮華經文句 7.16

7.16

From "The Tathāgata knows that this" down is the fourth [part], which takes up what preceded to summarize that he is able to know. "One characteristic, one flavour," and so forth are as explained before. One characteristic, one flavour, liberation, detachment, extinction, and so forth, being differentiated for conditions, is the immeasurable within the one; "ultimate nirvāṇa finally returning to emptiness" is the one within the immeasurable. This takes up what preceded to re-explain non-distinction. Why? If one characteristic, one flavour, liberation, detachment, and extinction were the dharma-substance of the Two Vehicles, they would still be expressed in terms of distinction; now, taking them as the Mahāyāna ultimate nirvāṇa finally returning to emptiness, they pervade non-distinction. "Ultimate nirvāṇa" concludes the preceding lines as none of them being the Two Vehicles' [nirvāṇa] with residue or without residue, but rather ultimate nirvāṇa. "Characteristics of eternal quiescence and extinction" concludes the lines as not being the Hīnayāna quiescence and extinction, but rather the eternally abiding quiescence and extinction. The previous passage says, "All dharmas from the beginning / are constantly marked by quiescence and extinction"—this is precisely that meaning. "Finally returning to emptiness" is not the emptiness of ashes and extinction, but the emptiness of the supreme truth of the Middle Way, earnestly clapping hands to distinguish the real from the expedient. The old interpretation said: "Regarding 'finally returning to emptiness', although by supernatural powers they extend life immeasurably, manifesting again double that number, when life ends they finally return to ashes and extinction; hence it says 'finally return to emptiness'." This torments the Buddha and torments the sūtra; how could one say such a thing? Guangzhai says: "They finally return and enter [nirvāṇa] with residue, relinquishing the impermanent body and wisdom." Someone refuted this interpretation: If so, how does it differ from the Two Vehicles? The sūtra text brings up two 'ultimates': first, "ultimately arriving at the knowledge of all modes," which brings up the effect of wisdom to contrast with the wisdom of the Two Vehicles being non-ultimate; second, bringing up "ultimate nirvāṇa, characteristics of eternal quiescence and extinction, finally returning to emptiness," which brings up cessation to contrast with the cessation of the Two Vehicles being non-ultimate. From the words 'ultimate', we know this is not Hīnayāna emptiness. Longyin says: "The emptiness of great nirvāṇa, being without dharma-characteristics and without afflictions, is therefore called emptiness; it finally returns to the eternally abiding emptiness of the supreme truth." Master Zhong says: "It finally returns to the wisdom of the emptiness of the supreme truth." Someone says: "Because the Buddha-fruit is without encumbrance, it is called empty." The commentator says: "Only when both emptiness and existence are thoroughly dismissed is it called empty." The ancient masters none of them made a Hīnayāna interpretation; why did Guangzhai alone do so?