大般涅槃經義記 7.375

7.375

「有名」已下答第二難，難中兩句：「菩薩已斷，何故不得稱為涅槃」是第一句；「俱是斷處，何故佛有，菩薩無耶」是第二句。今此別答，先答初句，「涅言不」下答第二句。就初句中，答意如何？明諸菩薩斷煩惱處得名涅槃，但不見性斷煩惱故，不得名大。就後句中，答意云何？明其涅者但是不義，非是斷義，菩薩雖復斷諸煩惱，不能不生，不得稱可涅槃不義，是故佛有，菩薩無也。答意如是。

From 'there is that which is named' onwards answers the second challenge. In the challenge there are two clauses: 'Bodhisattvas have already severed [afflictions]; for what reason do they not obtain the designation of nirvāṇa?' is the first clause; 'Both are loci of severance; for what reason does the Buddha have it while bodhisattvas do not?' is the second clause. Now he answers these separately: first answering the initial clause, and from 'the word nie means non-' onwards answering the second clause. In the initial clause, what is the intended meaning of the reply? It clarifies that the locus where bodhisattvas sever afflictions obtains the name nirvāṇa, but because they do not see the nature when severing afflictions, it cannot be called 'great'. In the latter clause, what is the intended meaning of the reply? It clarifies that 'nie' merely has the meaning of 'non-', not the meaning of 'severance'; although bodhisattvas sever afflictions, they cannot achieve non-arising and do not accord with the meaning of 'non-' in nirvāṇa; therefore the Buddha has it and bodhisattvas do not. Such is the intended meaning of the reply.