金光明最勝王經疏 1.15

1.15

問：若爾，法身即涅槃者，二義何別？答：言法身者據功德依義邊，言涅槃者取息苦等義，故二有別。又影略故，不重說之，任意取捨。然雙取勝。何以故？說壽量、三身，即以菩提為宗。既說涅槃，何故不取涅槃為宗？若云經內但說獲甚深法菩提正因，不言涅槃正因，故知但取菩提為宗者，若爾，涅槃離菩提因，別修何法為涅槃因？故菩提因亦涅槃因。又菩提果望於涅槃亦得名因，如《瑜伽論》九十五說轉法輪相，有五種相：一為得所得所緣相故、二為得所得之方便。方便者，即三轉相皆名方便。方便即因，前為後因。既第三轉亦名方便，明知菩提望證涅槃亦得名因，故不別說。

Question: If so, and the dharmakāya is nirvāṇa, what is the distinction between the two meanings? Answer: The term 'dharmakāya' is said from the side of being the support for virtues, while the term 'nirvāṇa' takes the meaning of the cessation of suffering and so forth; thus the two are distinct. Furthermore, through ellipsis, it is not restated; one may accept or reject either at will. However, taking both is superior. Why? Expounding lifespan and the three bodies takes bodhi as the theme. Since it also expounds nirvāṇa, why not take nirvāṇa as the theme? If one says that the sūtra only speaks of obtaining the direct cause of bodhi through profound Dharma, without mentioning the direct cause of nirvāṇa, and therefore knows it only takes bodhi as the theme: if so, apart from the cause of bodhi, what separate phenomenon could be cultivated as the cause of nirvāṇa? Therefore, the cause of bodhi is also the cause of nirvāṇa. Furthermore, relative to nirvāṇa, the fruit of bodhi can also be called a cause, just as fascicle ninety-five of the *Yogācārabhūmi* expounds five characteristics of the turning of the wheel of Dharma: first, being the characteristic of the object of what is to be attained; second, being the upāya to attain what is to be attained. As for upāya, the three turnings are all called upāya. Upāya is cause, the prior being the cause of the latter. Since the third turning is also called upāya, it is clear that relative to realizing nirvāṇa, bodhi can also be termed a cause; hence they are not stated separately.