涅槃經遊意 1.198

1.198

初家凡有兩難：一者、明三德本共為涅槃體，云何但以法身為體？又且法身亦得為用，豈謂智斷偏為用耶？若云身是體異名，故以法身當體者，下文云「涅槃名解脫」，應以解脫當名，而今不以解脫者，當那忽以法身當解。二者、文中自道縱亦不成，別異亦不成，三法曾無縱橫之異，豈有體用之殊？若有體用，有本末；若有本末，則有劣勝。

The first school faces two difficulties: First, since the three virtues originally together constitute the essence of nirvāṇa, how can one take only the dharmakāya as the essence? Furthermore, the dharmakāya can also serve as function; how could one say that wisdom and severance are exclusively function? If one says that 'body' (kāya) is another name for essence, and therefore takes the dharmakāya as the essence, a later passage states that 'nirvāṇa is named liberation', so liberation ought to serve as the name; yet since it does not take liberation as such now, why would it take the dharmakāya as the explanation? Second, the text itself states that vertical [succession] is untenable, and distinct difference is also untenable; since the three dharmas have never had any difference of vertical or horizontal, how could there be a distinction between essence and function? If there are essence and function, there are root and branch; if there are root and branch, there are inferior and superior.