大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 57.3

57.3

疏「三句明三德」者，即前體德圓備是涅槃之相。若別說者，法身是體，般若、解脫是德。若通相說，三皆稱德，合為涅槃之體，故云三德涅槃。即對前解脫於諸趣，諸趣有三雜染，般若對煩惱、解脫對業繫、法身對生苦，翻三雜染成三德涅槃。釋此三德，疏文有三：先別釋、後總結。疏「初句即般若」者，指經辯德，即非言辭所及也。言「是觀行相」者，依論立名。然論無觀行之言，依下結中云「如是觀故」，立其名耳。疏「無分別觀」下，取論意釋。而論具云「如是解脫可同他音聲觀耶？不也。云何觀？偈言非言辭所說，離語言故。」此論有三節：初反問辯非；二「云何觀」下，順問彰是；三「離語言故」者，釋是異非。今疏文有二：先取意正釋，於中先辯是、後「不同」下揀非。後「前云觀智」下，揀濫。前即涅槃平等住，前云「一等二際是觀智相」，謂以智決了生死涅槃二平等理。今即三德中般若，以行契實。餘如前會。

The Commentary says: "Three lines clarify the three virtues." This is the preceding [notion that] complete endowment with essence and virtue is the characteristic of nirvāṇa. If spoken of distinctly: the dharmakāya is the essence, while prajñā and liberation are virtues. If spoken of with regard to their common characteristic: all three are called virtues, uniting to form the essence of nirvāṇa; hence it is called the nirvāṇa of the three virtues. This corresponds to the preceding liberation in all destinies. The destinies have three defilements: prajñā corresponds to afflictions, liberation corresponds to bondage of karma, and the dharmakāya corresponds to the suffering of birth. Overturning the three defilements constitutes the nirvāṇa of the three virtues. In explaining these three virtues, the text of the Commentary has three parts: first, explaining them distinctly; then, concluding generally. The Commentary says: "The first line is prajñā." Pointing to the sūtra to discern the virtue, it is precisely that which words cannot reach. The statement "is the characteristic of contemplative practice" establishes the name based on the Śāstra. Yet the Śāstra lacks the words "contemplative practice"; the name was established merely based on the concluding line below saying "because of contemplating thus." The Commentary from "Contemplation free from discrimination" onwards explains by drawing out the intent of the Śāstra. The Śāstra fully states: "Can such liberation be contemplated as identical to the sounds of another? No. How is it contemplated? The verse says: 'It is not spoken of by words, because it is divorced from language.'" This Śāstra has three clauses: first, a rhetorical question discerning what is incorrect; second, from "How is it contemplated?" onwards, a direct question revealing what is correct; third, "because it is divorced from language" explains what is correct to distinguish it from what is incorrect. Now the Commentary text has two parts: first, taking the intent to provide the direct explanation, wherein it first discerns what is correct, and then from "unlike" onwards eliminates what is incorrect. Next, from "Earlier, it was said that contemplative wisdom" onwards, it eliminates confusion. The earlier refers to abiding in the equality of nirvāṇa. Earlier it was said: "Equalizing the two extremes is the characteristic of contemplative wisdom," meaning that through wisdom one definitively realizes the principle of the equality of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Now, this is prajñā among the three virtues, tallying with reality through practice. The rest is harmonized as before.