大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 45.15

45.15

疏「二涅槃」者，涅槃即同擇滅。先明性淨，乃傍出異義耳。言「涅槃三十四亦同此說」者，此即《刊定記》釋，謂同此經所說虛空及涅槃也。故《涅槃經》釋緣生四句中云「有非緣生非十二因緣者，謂虛空涅槃是也。」此則同性淨義。二後義為正，云性淨之果即圓淨涅槃。應有問言：若是果者，何殊擇滅？由因果殊，故分二道，所以先總明中以此義為正，云於擇滅中開出涅槃二道別故。「然大乘」下，斷上二義。「則後解為正」者，若《唯識》解非擇滅云「不由擇力本性淨故」。

The commentary's "Second, nirvāṇa": nirvāṇa is identical to cessation through deliberation. It first clarifies original purity (prakṛtiviśuddhi), which is merely a tangential presentation of an alternative interpretation. When it says "The thirty-fourth [fascicle] of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also agrees with this statement," this is the explanation in the Kanding ji, meaning that it agrees with what is spoken in this sūtra regarding space and nirvāṇa. Hence, in explaining the four propositions on arising through conditions, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "Those which are neither arisen through conditions nor the twelve links of dependent origination are space and nirvāṇa." This then agrees with the meaning of original purity. Second, the latter interpretation is correct, stating that the fruit of original purity is precisely the completely purified nirvāṇa. A question might be asked: If it is a fruit, how does it differ from cessation through deliberation? Because cause and fruit differ, two paths are distinguished; therefore, in the initial general explanation it takes this interpretation as correct, stating that within cessation through deliberation, nirvāṇa is divided out because the two paths are distinct. From "Yet the Mahāyāna..." below, it settles the above two interpretations. As for "the latter explanation is correct," this matches where the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi explains cessation without deliberation by saying: "It does not depend on the power of deliberation, because its intrinsic nature is originally pure."