大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 81.2

81.2

疏「三顯種類」者，疏文有三：初總明深廣、二「今自狹」下正明種類、三「有餘無餘」下對經辨定。二中，言「餘無餘」者，釋有多義。依小乘中，自有二義：一有二義。一有宗云：涅槃體一，約時不同，得二名字。言體一者，於此宗中，煩惱業思以道力故應起不起，擇滅無為是涅槃體。此體是一。約對身智，得二名字。身智未盡，說前涅槃以為有餘；身智盡竟，向前涅槃轉名無餘。非身智滅即名涅槃，以身智起已謝滅是無常故。若斷因故令後不起，是非擇滅，故非涅槃。二依《成實》，涅槃體二：生死因盡名一涅槃、生死果盡名二涅槃。由有宗中要道親斷方稱擇滅，身口二業及生死果非道親斷，故不取之。《成實》由斷煩惱，餘不起故、見修斷故，亦得擇滅，故名涅槃。然望大乘，皆名有餘，有餘變易故。若依大乘，遠公自有四別：一云二死因盡名曰有餘，二死果盡名曰無餘；二云分段因果盡名曰有餘，變易因果盡名曰無餘；三云分段因果及變易因盡名曰有餘，變易果滅名曰無餘；四者唯就變易因果為二，分段因果屬小乘故。若依《金光明》，約三身說。〈三身品〉云「善男子！依此二身，一切諸佛說有餘涅槃，依法身者說無餘涅槃。何以故？一切無餘究竟盡故。依此三身，一切諸佛說無住涅槃。何以故？為二身故不住涅槃，離於法身無有別佛。何故不住涅槃？二身假名不實，念念滅，不住故；數數出現，以不定故。法身不爾。是故二身不住涅槃，法身者不二故不住生死。依三身故，說無住涅槃。」準上經文，法身即是自受用身，常在密嚴佛土。一切餘盡者，是煩惱正習、分段變易皆盡。肇公云：「生名有餘，滅名無餘。」亦即此中意，下疏用之。若依《唯識》，云「一有餘依涅槃，謂即真如出煩惱障，雖有微苦，所依未滅，而障永寂，故名涅槃。二無餘依涅槃，謂即真如出生死苦，煩惱既盡，餘依亦滅，眾苦永寂，故名涅槃。」釋曰：此通大小而說真如為體，即異小乘。論下料揀云「如何善逝有有餘依？」問也。「雖無實依而現似有，惑苦依盡說無餘依，非苦依在說有餘依，是故世尊可言具四。」釋曰：此答有二，前明示有同於二乘、後明以無漏蘊為有餘依，故云非苦依在。疏「二性淨方便淨」者，亦名二德，亦名二寂，亦名同相不同相，並如初地示說分齊中辨。性本淨故，從因方便之所顯故、作用善巧故，亦是體用。餘如別章。

On the commentary passage “Third, revealing the varieties,” the commentary text has three parts: first, generally clarifying its depth and breadth; second, from “Now, from narrow…” downwards, properly clarifying the varieties; third, from “With remainder and without remainder…” downwards, examining and determining them against the sūtras. In the second part, regarding “with remainder and without remainder,” there are many explanations. According to the Hīnayāna, there are inherently two views. First, the Sarvāstivāda has two aspects. The Sarvāstivādin School says: The essence of nirvāṇa is one; according to different times, it receives two names. As for the essence being one: in this school, when defilements, karma, and volitions, which ought to arise, do not arise by the power of the Path, cessation through deliberation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), an unconditioned dharma, is the essence of nirvāṇa. This essence is single. In relation to the body and wisdom, it receives two names. When the body and wisdom have not yet ended, that preceding nirvāṇa is spoken of as ‘with remainder’; when the body and wisdom have completely ended, the preceding nirvāṇa shifts its name to ‘without remainder’. It is not that the extinction of the body and wisdom is itself named nirvāṇa, because after the body and wisdom have arisen, their perishing is impermanence. If, by severing the cause, they are prevented from arising in the future, this is cessation without deliberation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), and hence not nirvāṇa. Second, according to the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, the essence of nirvāṇa is twofold: the exhaustion of the causes of saṃsāra is named the first nirvāṇa, and the exhaustion of the fruits of saṃsāra is named the second nirvāṇa. Because in the Sarvāstivāda it must be directly severed by the Path to be called cessation through deliberation, bodily and vocal karma as well as the fruits of saṃsāra are not directly severed by the Path, and are therefore not taken as such. The Satyasiddhi holds that because defilements are severed, the remainder does not arise, and because they are severed through seeing and cultivation, they also attain cessation through deliberation, and are therefore named nirvāṇa. However, when viewed from the Mahāyāna, these are all called ‘with remainder’, because they leave the remainder of transformation [birth-and-death]. If according to the Mahāyāna, Master Huiyuan himself has four distinctions: first, he says that the exhaustion of the causes of the two kinds of death is named ‘with remainder’, and the exhaustion of the fruits of the two kinds of death is named ‘without remainder’; second, he says that the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of delimited [birth-and-death] is named ‘with remainder’, and the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of transformative [birth-and-death] is named ‘without remainder’; third, he says that the causes and fruits of delimited [birth-and-death] as well as the causes of transformative [birth-and-death] being exhausted is named ‘with remainder’, and the extinction of the fruits of transformative [birth-and-death] is named ‘without remainder’; fourth, taking only the causes and fruits of transformative [birth-and-death] as two, because the causes and fruits of delimited [birth-and-death] belong to the Hīnayāna. If according to the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, it is explained in terms of the three bodies. The ‘Chapter on the Three Bodies’ says: ‘Good sons! Relying on these two bodies, all Buddhas speak of nirvāṇa with remainder; relying on the dharmakāya, they speak of nirvāṇa without remainder. Why? Because all remainder has been completely and utterly exhausted. Relying on these three bodies, all Buddhas speak of non-abiding nirvāṇa. Why? For the sake of the two bodies, they do not abide in nirvāṇa; apart from the dharmakāya, there is no other Buddha. Why do they not abide in nirvāṇa? The two bodies are provisional designations and not real; perishing moment by moment, they do not abide; appearing frequently, they are indeterminate. The dharmakāya is not so. Therefore, the two bodies do not abide in nirvāṇa; the dharmakāya, being non-dual, does not abide in saṃsāra. Relying on the three bodies, non-abiding nirvāṇa is spoken of.’ In accordance with the above sūtra text, the dharmakāya is precisely the body of self-enjoyment (svasaṃbhogakāya), eternally in the Ghanavyūha Buddha-land. ‘All remainder being exhausted’ means that defilements and residual latencies, both delimited and transformative [birth-and-death], are all exhausted. Sengzhao said: ‘Arising is named with remainder; ceasing is named without remainder.’ This is also the meaning here, which the commentary below employs. If according to the Vijñaptimātratā, it states: ‘First is nirvāṇa with remainder of support, which means tathatā emerging from the obstruction of defilements; although there is subtle suffering and the support has not yet ceased, the obstructions are eternally quieted, hence it is named nirvāṇa. Second is nirvāṇa without remainder of support, which means tathatā emerging from the suffering of saṃsāra; defilements having been exhausted, the remaining support is also extinguished, and all sufferings are eternally quieted, hence it is named nirvāṇa.’ Explanation: This spans both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna in stating that tathatā is the essence, which differs from the Hīnayāna. The treatise below sifts and differentiates: ‘How can the Sugata have a remainder of support?’ This is a question. ‘Although he has no real support, he manifests as if having one; when the supports of affliction and suffering are exhausted, it is spoken of as without remainder of support, not that because the support of suffering remains it is spoken of as with remainder of support. Therefore, the World-Honoured One can be said to possess all four.’ Explanation: This answer has two parts: the former clarifies that he manifests having [a support] identical to the two vehicles; the latter clarifies that he takes the untainted aggregates as the remainder of support, hence it says ‘not that because the support of suffering remains’. On the commentary passage “Second, naturally pure and pure through upāya,” these are also called the two virtues, also called the two quiescences, and also called identical characteristics and non-identical characteristics, all of which are distinguished as in the delineation of the explanation of the first bhūmi. Because its nature is fundamentally pure, because it is revealed through causal upāya, and because its active functions are skillful, they are also essence and function. The rest is as in the other chapters.