大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 53.36

53.36

Regarding the commentary's: "Second, lodging in contrast to reveal superiority" onward: this explains the latter two culminations. This line is a general heading. From "First, contrasting with what is below to show emergence" onward explains the second culmination. Regarding the commentary's: "Because the two vehicles, although crossing over the five destinies" onward: the commentary explains the treatise's "purity of the path of nirvāṇa" above. As for the "three remainders": first, the afflictions of the abiding ground of avidyā are the remainder of afflictions; second, uncontaminated karma with discrimination is the remainder of karma; third, inconceivable transformation death is the remainder of suffering. Because there are these three remainders, their nirvāṇa is not pure; this is from the text of the *Buddhadhātu-śāstra*. Therefore the *Lotus Sūtra* states: "From what is this person liberated? Merely leaving falsehood is called liberation. In reality, they have not yet attained all liberation; the Buddha says this person has not truly attained extinction, because this person has not yet attained the unsurpassed path," etc. In the first commentary, this has already been broadly distinguished. Now, Vajragarbha has already emerged from the three remainders, so the path of nirvāṇa is pure. The sūtra says "supramundane roots of goodness": roots are non-greed and so forth. Having exhausted what is to be known and transcended transformation [death], fulfilled bodhisattva practice, with all pāramitās complete, and the three virtues of permanence, bliss, self, and purity all complete, he abides [in it] without remaining; hence the path of nirvāṇa is pure. Question: It is indeed acceptable that this line differs from the two vehicles. But the preceding line, crossing over the five destinies, differs from ordinary beings; how can it be called differing from the two vehicles? Someone answered: It is merely in terms of transcending and excelling, so ordinary beings are omitted. This meaning is not correct. I say now: ordinary beings are not worth discussing here; now, clarifying that truly crossing over the five destinies might be confused with the Small Vehicle, he purifies nirvāṇa to show that he differs from them. Therefore, only by combining the two lines is this culmination achieved. Furthermore, both lines could be confused with the two vehicles, and now both differ: because of pure roots of goodness, he does not abide in nirvāṇa; because of crossing over the five destinies, he does not abide in saṃsāra. Combining the two non-abidings, he therefore differs from the two vehicles who cross over the five destinies to enter nirvāṇa.