大般涅槃經義記 7.196

7.196

就初段中，「有習氣故」略以標舉，「云何」下廣，先問次釋。「聲聞、緣覺有煩惱氣」對問總釋，「所謂」下別，謂我身等有為法中煩惱餘習，諸佛如來入於涅槃等無為法中煩惱餘習，「諸佛如來入於涅槃」謂佛實滅，此迷如來涅槃之性。無樂、無我、唯有、常淨四義不具此迷涅槃。二乘何故計佛涅槃無我、無樂、唯在、常淨？彼不見實。又謂如來無常遷逼，不得自在，故說無我。謂佛心滅，無所覺知，故說無樂。言佛永滅，故說為常。滅去惑累，所以言淨。

Within the first section, "because there are residual impressions" briefly marks and raises it; from "How..." downward expands [upon it], first asking and next explaining. "Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have the traces of afflictions" is an overall explanation responding to the question. From "That is to say..." downward differentiates them, referring to residual impressions of afflictions within conditioned dharmas such as one's own body, and residual impressions of afflictions within unconditioned dharmas such as the Buddhas, Tathāgatas, entering nirvāṇa. "The Buddhas, Tathāgatas, entering nirvāṇa" means that they consider the Buddha to be truly extinct; this is delusion regarding the nature of the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa. Lacking bliss, lacking self, having only permanence and purity: because the four meanings are incomplete, this is delusion regarding nirvāṇa. Why do the two vehicles conceive the Buddha's nirvāṇa to be without self and without bliss, but having only permanence and purity? They do not see the truth. Furthermore, they consider the Tathāgata to be constrained by impermanent transition and not having mastery, and therefore they speak of no self. They consider the Buddha's mind to be extinguished and devoid of awareness, and therefore they speak of no bliss. Saying that the Buddha is permanently extinguished, they therefore speak of it as permanent. Having extinguished afflictions and burdens, they therefore speak of it as pure.