大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 87.17

87.17

疏「第六入一切平等善根迴向善友」者，事理無違，皆入等理故。疏「楞伽云：無有涅槃佛」等者，即是經初大慧讚於如來具知三性以成三身。初有四偈，明了遍計、依他，謂世間離生滅等，〈十忍品〉已引。今此即歎具於圓成。云「一切無涅槃，無有涅槃佛，無有佛涅槃，遠離覺所覺。若有若無有，是二悉俱離，牟尼寂靜觀，是則遠離生。是名為不取，今世後世淨。」有二偈半，大雲解云：「初一偈令了一如，謂此約無願觀以顯圓成，無涅槃佛故無願矣。初句謂色心等一切法中無得涅槃，以一切法本性如故。若得涅槃，是斷常見，滅法是斷、證得是常。次二句，既無涅槃，云何有佛？故下經云『見斷煩惱而得成佛』。此則名為壞佛法者，煩惱與佛性寂滅故。三四句中，所覺如故無有涅槃，能覺如故無有得佛，離覺所覺混同一如。」釋曰：然上所解，理則盡矣，而消文未妙。今謂初句遣所證涅槃，次句遣能證之佛，第三句無能所契合，第四句總結所由。由離能所故皆無矣，無即空義，同一如矣。次若有下兩句，明不生二見，正顯圓成遠離見過。前偈破執，此顯不著。初句人法是有、無我是無，二障是有、無相是無，涅槃及佛此則是有、離覺所覺此則是無，皆成見過，義須離之，故云是二悉俱離。後一偈明牟尼正觀，此歎世尊寂靜功德。了一切法本來寂靜，無有一法而是生者。生見既亡，不生豈有？無生無滅，故無可取亦無可捨。非染非淨，故二世淨。今初但引二句，足證不般涅槃耳。疏「佛種從緣起佛緣理生」者，上句是《法華經》，下句是生公釋。古有二釋，並如前引。今引生公，正順經中佛種無盡之言。其即是常身法身，亦《涅槃》文。《涅槃》二十三云「又善男子！斷煩惱者不名涅槃，不生煩惱乃名涅槃。諸佛如來煩惱不起，是名涅槃。所有智慧於法無礙，是為如來。非是凡夫聲聞緣覺菩薩，是名佛性。如來身心智慧遍滿無量無邊阿僧祇土，無所障礙，是名虛空。如如常住無有變易，名曰實相。以是義故，如來實不畢竟涅槃。」釋曰：此皆明無永滅之涅槃與是常住真實涅槃矣。

Regarding the commentary's: "The sixth, the good friend of the pariṇāmanā of roots of goodness entering into universal equality": phenomenon and principle do not contradict each other, and all enter the equal principle. Regarding the commentary's: "The *Laṅkā[vatāra]* says: 'There is no nirvāṇa-buddha,'" and so forth: this is at the beginning of the sūtra where Mahāmati praises the Tathāgata as fully knowing the three natures to accomplish the three bodies. At first there are four verses clarifying the imagined (parikalpita) and the dependent (paratantra), stating that the world is free from arising and ceasing, which was already cited in the "Ten Forbearances" chapter. Now this verse praises the complete possession of the consummate (pariniṣpanna). It states: "In all things there is no nirvāṇa; / There is no nirvāṇa-buddha, / Nor is there a Buddha's nirvāṇa, / Far removed from the cognizer and the cognized. / Whether existent or non-existent, / Both of these are completely transcended; / The Muni's tranquil contemplation / Is thus far removed from arising. / This is called non-grasping, / Pure in this world and the next." There are two and a half verses. Dayun explained: "The first verse causes one to understand the single Suchness; that is, this relies on the contemplation of wishlessness to reveal the consummate; because there is no nirvāṇa-buddha, there is no wish. The first line means that among all dharmas such as form and mind, there is no obtaining of nirvāṇa, because the original nature of all dharmas is Suchness. If one were to obtain nirvāṇa, that would be the view of annihilation or eternity: extinguishing dharmas is annihilation, and realizing and obtaining is eternity. In the next two lines, since there is no nirvāṇa, how could there be a Buddha? Therefore a subsequent passage in the sūtra says: 'Seeing that through severing afflictions one attains buddhahood—this is called destroying the Buddha's Dharma, because afflictions and the buddha-nature are quiescent.' In the third and fourth lines, because the cognized is Suchness, there is no nirvāṇa; because the cognizer is Suchness, there is no obtaining of buddhahood; transcending both the cognizer and the cognized, they blend into a single Suchness." Explanation: However, while the above explanation exhausts the principle, the textual analysis is not subtle. I now say: the first line dispels the realized nirvāṇa; the second line dispels the realizing Buddha; the third line negates the union of subject and object; the fourth line summarizes the reason. Because of being free from subject and object, all are non-existent; non-existence is the meaning of emptiness, identical with a single Suchness. Next, the two lines beginning with "Whether existent" explain that the two views do not arise, directly revealing that the consummate is far removed from the fault of views. The previous verse broke attachments; this one reveals non-clinging. In the first line, persons and dharmas are 'existent', while non-self is 'non-existent'; the two obstructions are 'existent', while marklessness is 'non-existent'; nirvāṇa and the Buddha are 'existent', while freedom from cognizer and cognized is 'non-existent'—all these become faults of views, and by principle one must transcend them; hence it says: 'Both of these are completely transcended.' The final verse clarifies the Muni's correct contemplation, praising the World-Honoured One's tranquil merit: understanding that all dharmas are originally tranquil, there is not a single dharma that arises. When the view of arising is gone, how could non-arising exist? Free from arising and ceasing, there is nothing to grasp and nothing to discard. Neither defiled nor pure, therefore both worlds are pure. Now at first only two lines are cited, which are sufficient to prove that he does not enter parinirvāṇa. Regarding the commentary's: "The Buddha-seed arises from conditions; the Buddha's conditions arise from principle": the upper line is from the *Lotus Sūtra*, and the lower line is Master Sheng's explanation. Formerly there were two explanations, both as cited before. Citing Master Sheng here precisely accords with the sūtra's words that the Buddha-seed is inexhaustible. That this is the permanent body and the dharmakāya is also a passage from the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]*. Fascicle twenty-three of the *Nirvāṇa* says: "Furthermore, good sons! Severing afflictions is not called nirvāṇa; the non-arising of afflictions is called nirvāṇa. The non-arising of afflictions in the Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, is called nirvāṇa. Whatever wisdom is unobstructed in regard to dharmas is the Tathāgata. Not being an ordinary person, śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, or bodhisattva is called buddha-nature. The Tathāgata's body, mind, and wisdom pervade immeasurable, boundless, asaṃkhyeya lands without obstruction; this is called empty space. Eternally abiding in Suchness without alteration is called the true mark. For this reason, the Tathāgata truly does not enter ultimate nirvāṇa." Explanation: All these clarify that there is no nirvāṇa of perpetual extinction, and that this is the permanently abiding true nirvāṇa.