大般涅槃經集解 6.41

6.41

Daosheng comments: Illumination reaches the ultimate in the unconditioned, holding the primary place above. What is above cannot stand alongside [the others]; hence, being horizontal is necessarily false. As for the afflictions to be eliminated, when close at hand there is vimokṣa; below, it responds everywhere, and moreover, the rūpakāya is concurrent with it. Since there is no prior or subsequent, being vertical is also false. Because the three have no principle of separation, separating them is especially false. Therefore, serene and without difference, they are just like the syllable *i*. Since it is called permanent, how could there be a present extinction? The present extinction is not real, and the rūpakāya endures. Expressed in a single phrase, it is illustrated by the syllable *i*.
Sengliang comments: If they were side by side, the body is able to produce wisdom, and because the function of wisdom is fulfilled, the three dharmas are all permanent. Because the merit of wisdom is superior, they are not side by side. That being vertical is also not established is because there is no superiority or inferiority between the extinction of the body and wisdom. As for the three eyes on the face, prajñā occupies the top, and because body and vimokṣa are neither superior [to the other], they are arranged side by side below. This explains how the three virtues mutually condition one another and the reason they obtain permanence. If they were separate, they would not be causally related to one another. If the body obtained wisdom not by wisdom's obtaining extinction, then all would be non-existent. Endowed with these three dharmas, it is therefore called resting securely. Entering nirvāṇa means that the permanent dharma has no extinction, yet for the sake of beings it becomes extinct.
Fayao comments: Regarding the three dharmas being distinct from one another: if their substances are different, they have parts; if they have parts, they are impermanent. How could they be distinct from one another and combine to form nirvāṇa? Furthermore, although it is said that each individual one is not [nirvāṇa], outside of these there is also nothing else.
Sengzong comments: That side-by-side is not established clarifies that their functions are not the same. That vertical is not established clarifies that in meaning there is neither superior nor inferior. That separate is not established clarifies that they have no different substances. 'Vimokṣa is also not [nirvāṇa]' combines the preceding two lines: if one says the function of vimokṣa is the function of the dharmakāya, that is wrong. 'The three dharmas are distinct from one another' matches the third line, 'if they are separate'. Saying that vimokṣa is also not existent has only the single meaning of extinguishing afflictions, not encompassing complete virtues; the phrasing is concise and implicit. For one who grasps the intended meaning, one should say that vimokṣa alone is not the complete substance constituted by nirvāṇa. Why? Because the secret storehouse is constituted by the three virtues, which completely encompass all the virtues of the Buddha-stage. Previously, the three virtues each took up one meaning, which was seizing upon distinctions; how could that encompass them all? Hence it is said not to be nirvāṇa.
Baoliang comments: 'Side by side' uses simultaneous co-existence as an analogy. Why? Formerly, the unconditioned [attained by] severance of affairs was taken as nirvāṇa, and this unconditioned stood alongside body and wisdom; hence it is not today's syllable *i*. 'Vertical' designates prior and subsequent, and also serves as an analogy for the former nirvāṇa without remainder, meaning that first there is the body, next there is wisdom, and later there is extinction; hence it is said to be false. 'Like the three eyes': the preceding two lines refuted the past; this line directly validates the present, meaning that nirvāṇa generally clarifies what is atop the myriad virtues. 'If the three dots were separate' means that taking each one of the three virtues in isolation is also inadmissible, as the lower line says, 'the dharmakāya is also not [nirvāṇa]', and so forth. 'That the three dharmas are distinct from one another is also not [nirvāṇa]' means that each has a separate substance.