妙法蓮華經玄贊 7.564

7.564

贊曰：此解所由。由一佛乘究竟滅度，無異二乘究竟體故。方便說教可有三乘，或唯一極果體方便說有三因。因言長理。其《涅槃經．高貴德王品》「云何涅槃？云何大涅槃？聲聞、緣覺，八萬劫、六萬劫、四萬劫、二萬劫、一萬劫所住，名為涅槃。無上法王聖主住處，名大涅槃。」古人解云，二乘諸果經爾所時入彼無餘涅槃，後起迴心，便引《楞伽》菩薩佛等化作文，經爾所時耽三昧酒醉，然從彼起迴向大乘。今解不然，彼二乘位經爾所時脩行向大者，彼於先時未迴心前，所應證得有餘涅槃者名為涅槃，法王所得名大涅槃，非二乘者。諸有學位已經八萬劫乃至四萬已入涅槃，亦非無學入無餘依身智並無，入涅槃已便起身智，經二萬劫等脩行大行。〈信解品〉云「我等長夜脩習空法。乃至住最後身有餘涅槃，則為已得報佛之恩。」《莊嚴論》云「餘人善根涅槃時盡，菩薩不爾。」其二乘者入無餘涅槃善根若盡，同《莊嚴論》，云何經一萬劫等脩行始入十信，後經三無數劫方得菩提？本識既無，無識持種其身都盡，將何脩行？誰得菩提？入無餘已若有善根，非但違教亦違正理。身智既在，云何名為無餘涅槃？不同如來無漏依在，名有餘依；有漏依盡，名無餘依。《勝鬘》亦言「二乘得涅槃者是佛方便」。《成唯識》云「不得無住，故名方便；或住有餘迴心向大，不得無餘，名得方便。」《涅槃經．病行品》云「須陀洹人天七返斷結入於涅槃，是人未來過八萬劫當得成阿耨菩提。斯陀含人一往來斷結入於涅槃，未來過六萬劫得阿耨菩提。阿那含人不還，未來過四萬劫當得菩提。阿羅漢人過二萬劫當得菩提。辟支佛人過十千劫當得菩提。」彼經又云「過八萬劫當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，非成正覺，名得菩提。」古師解云：阿羅漢曾經七生者，以須陀洹名說；曾經二生者，以斯陀含名說；曾經上界生者，以阿那含名說；不經生而藉教者，以阿羅漢名說；不經生而得獨覺，以辟支佛名說。此前三人，凡身得果、聖身涅槃；後之二人，凡身得果、凡身涅槃。逕多生者鈍，所以經寂時多；經生少者利，所以逕寂時小。所經八萬劫，引菩提留支解，仍以悲想八萬劫為一日夜，積此歲數成大劫。彼壽無量大劫，過此已後方始發心。驗之釋之未為典據。經釋須陀洹者，七生斷結得入涅槃，是須陀洹經八萬劫始得大菩提心。十信初位，誰言八萬劫住於涅槃？此阿羅漢，名須陀洹。經八萬劫始得發心，甚成可咲。又若入無餘，身依永盡，云何無因而後起耶？不爾無餘說是何義？若如佛入無餘涅槃；有漏永盡更得無漏，無漏既圓何不名佛？若斷縛盡名入無餘，身智不亡，無餘何在？有依身故，無餘、有餘二種何別？種種推徵，義難符信。然《涅槃經》「須陀洹人八萬劫」等，義如前說，實是彼果，非阿羅漢以彼名說，亦非阿羅漢有經生者。若彼經意但總說阿羅漢人，實有學人發心向大，復經幾時，應《涅槃經》無有學中而迴心者。由此應以《涅槃》等經同《瑜伽》等最為善說。

Eulogy: This explains the reason. It is because through the Single Buddha Vehicle there is ultimate extinction, since there is no distinct, ultimate entity of the two vehicles. In the teachings spoken by expedient means, there can be three vehicles, or based on the single ultimate entity of the fruit, three causes are spoken of by expedient means. Through words regarding causes, the principle is extended. In the 'Noble and Virtuous King Chapter' of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, [it says]: 'What is nirvāṇa? What is mahāparinirvāṇa? That in which śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas abide for eighty thousand kalpas, sixty thousand kalpas, forty thousand kalpas, twenty thousand kalpas, and ten thousand kalpas is called nirvāṇa. The dwelling place of the Unsurpassed Dharma King, the Holy Master, is called mahāparinirvāṇa.' Ancient masters interpreted this as meaning: across those various spans of time, the fruition-attainers of the two vehicles enter that nirvāṇa without remainder, and later, having a turn of mind, they arise [from it]. They then cited the passage from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra where bodhisattvas, buddhas, and others make transformations: having spent such spans of time intoxicated by the wine of samādhi, they then arise from it and turn toward the Great Vehicle. Now I explain that this is not so. When practitioners in those stages of the two vehicles spend such spans of time practicing toward the Great Vehicle, what they were supposed to realize before turning their minds, namely nirvāṇa with remainder, is called nirvāṇa; what is attained by the Dharma King is called mahāparinirvāṇa, not that of the two vehicles. Those in the stages of training have already spent eighty thousand kalpas down to forty thousand entering nirvāṇa; nor is it that non-trainees enter [nirvāṇa] without residue where both body and consciousness are absent, and after entering nirvāṇa, they then give rise to body and consciousness, spending twenty thousand kalpas and so on practicing the great practice. The 'Faith and Understanding Chapter' states: 'For the long night we practiced the dharma of emptiness... until, abiding in our final bodies in nirvāṇa with remainder, we considered ourselves to have already repaid the Buddha\'s kindness.' The Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra says: 'The roots of good of other people are exhausted at the time of nirvāṇa; not so for bodhisattvas.' If the roots of good of those of the two vehicles are exhausted upon entering nirvāṇa without remainder, as in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, how could they spend ten thousand kalpas and so on practicing to just enter the ten faiths, and then after three incalculable kalpas finally attain bodhi? Since the fundamental consciousness no longer exists, and there is no consciousness to hold the seeds, their bodies being completely extinguished, with what would they practice? Who would attain bodhi? If there were still roots of good after entering without remainder, it would not only contradict scripture but also contradict correct reasoning. Since body and consciousness would still exist, how could it be called nirvāṇa without remainder? It is not like the Tathāgata, where because the untainted basis remains, it is called with remainder; and because the tainted basis is exhausted, it is called without remainder. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra also says: 'That the two vehicles obtain nirvāṇa is the Buddha\'s expedient means.' The Cheng weishi lun says: 'Because they do not obtain non-abiding [nirvāṇa], it is called expedient means; or abiding in remainder, they turn their minds toward the Great Vehicle, not obtaining [extinction] without remainder, which is called obtaining expedient means.' The 'Ailment Practice Chapter' of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'A srotaāpanna returns seven times among humans and devas, cuts off the fetters, and enters nirvāṇa; this person, passing eighty thousand kalpas in the future, will attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi. A sakṛdāgāmin returns once, cuts off the fetters, and enters nirvāṇa; in the future, passing sixty thousand kalpas, he will attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi. An anāgāmin does not return; in the future, passing forty thousand kalpas, he will attain bodhi. An arhat, passing twenty thousand kalpas, will attain bodhi. A pratyekabuddha, passing ten thousand kalpas, will attain bodhi.' That sūtra also says: 'Passing eighty thousand kalpas, he will generate the aspiration for anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi; it is not that he achieves complete awakening, yet it is called obtaining bodhi.' Ancient teachers interpreted this as: an arhat who previously passed through seven births is referred to by the name of srotaāpanna; one who passed through two births is referred to by the name of sakṛdāgāmin; one who passed through births in higher realms is referred to by the name of anāgāmin; one who did not pass through births but relied on teaching is referred to by the name of arhat; one who did not pass through births and attained solitary realization is referred to by the name of pratyekabuddha. The first three persons attain the fruit in an ordinary body and enter nirvāṇa in a noble body; the latter two attain the fruit in an ordinary body and enter nirvāṇa in an ordinary body. Those who pass through many births are dull, which is why their time spent in quiescence is long; those who pass through few births are sharp, which is why their time spent in quiescence is short. Concerning the eighty thousand kalpas traversed, they cited the explanation of Bodhiruci, which still takes eighty thousand kalpas of sorrowful conception as one day and night, accumulating such years to form a mahākalpa. Their lifespan is immeasurable mahākalpas, and only after this do they first generate the aspiration. When examined, this interpretation lacks authoritative basis. The sūtra explains that for a srotaāpanna, cutting off the fetters through seven births and entering nirvāṇa, it is this srotaāpanna who, passing eighty thousand kalpas, first generates the great mind of bodhi. As this is the initial stage of the ten faiths, who said they abide in nirvāṇa for eighty thousand kalpas? Calling this arhat a srotaāpanna, and having him spend eighty thousand kalpas to only then generate the aspiration, is truly laughable! Moreover, if they enter without remainder, the bodily support is extinguished forever; how could they arise later without a cause? If not so, what is the meaning of stating 'without remainder'? If it is like the Buddha entering nirvāṇa without remainder, with the tainted forever exhausted and obtaining the untainted further, since the untainted is already complete, why would they not be called buddhas? If exhausting the severance of bonds is called entering without remainder, but body and consciousness do not perish, where is the 'without remainder'? Since there is an embodied support, what distinction is there between the two kinds, with remainder and without remainder? Inquiring through various analyses, the meaning is difficult to credit. However, regarding 'a srotaāpanna eighty thousand kalpas' and so forth in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, the meaning is as explained before: they are truly those fruitions, not an arhat designated by those names, nor is it that arhats have traversed births. If the meaning of that sūtra were merely to speak generally of arhats, then if actual persons in training generate the aspiration toward the Great Vehicle, how long would they spend? It would imply that in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra there are none among those in training who turn their minds. Therefore, taking sūtras such as the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to agree with texts such as the Yogācārabhūmi is the best explanation.