大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.5

8.5

From the Commentary's "Entering the Laṅkāvatāra..." downward, this also establishes the meaning of not entering into quiescence. As for "Entering the Laṅkāvatāra," this refers to the translation by Bodhiruci of the Later Wei, which comprises ten fascicles. The World-Honoured One entered the royal city of Laṅkā, hence it is called "Entering." It equally cites three fascicles of sūtra text, all of which state that there is no real nirvāṇa, from which it is clearly known that there is definitely no entering into quiescence. If so, why speak of attaining nirvāṇa? Viewed from their own perspective, they consider it to be nirvāṇa without remainder. Viewed from the Mahāyāna perspective, it is merely entering deeply into samādhi, remaining submerged in emptiness for a long time; it is nominally called nirvāṇa in order to attract inferior vessels. In the Commentary: "The intention in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa is also identical to this," so likewise there is no real nirvāṇa. When the treatise explains the seven parables, the fourth is the Parable of the Conjured City, expounded for those of determinate nature. The treatise states: "Fourth, it is genuinely non-existent, yet there are people of overweening pride. Because they have worldly mundane samādhi and samāpatti, they produce the notion of nirvāṇa where there is genuinely no nirvāṇa, grasping it mistakenly like this. To remedy this, the Parable of the Conjured City was spoken for them, as should be understood." Explanation: Since it speaks of no real nirvāṇa, one clearly knows it is an expedient designation, and thus accords with the preceding. Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra says: "Although I previously taught that you had attained extinction, that was only the exhaustion of birth and death, while in reality there was no extinction." Next, it cites the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, which also establishes that the nirvāṇa mentioned above is not real.