金光明最勝王經疏 4.470

4.470

贊曰：佛教習學之方中第三結勸修學。非住涅槃故異真，非住生死故異俗。或四智菩提及菩提斷，非即真如故異真，非即生死故異俗。前依無住修，後依稱理修。此深行相，難以分別尋伺之可思量。凡夫所見五蘊不離真如，聖者所見真如不離五蘊，云不異；蘊如性別，云不一。或聖見五蘊如幻，凡見為實，云不一；同緣五蘊，云不異。或凡見蘊如為一為異，聖見蘊如非一非異，俱因緣見解，別云非一異。此中云凡，二乘亦是，猶有一分異生性故。由二乘人見五蘊與法界異故，一向厭生死而求涅槃。凡夫見異故，一向怖涅槃而住生死。菩薩見於五蘊法界體非一異，故不捨俗不離於真，由得此平等法界理，不怖生死不樂涅槃，為此能修大悲大智二利妙行。問：行菩提行也，準無著菩薩《般若經論》解攝取無住涅槃云「如所通達故」，此意說如是所通達。如現在生死非生死迫，如在涅槃非涅槃拘，如是諸法之真體性，故能依修行。亦復如是住生死非苦迫，住涅槃非樂拘，故不住生死涅槃。不同二乘及以凡夫，不證如故各住一邊。準此，由如非住於二，如如而證，名無住涅槃。何故此間即說五蘊與如體非一異，依此而修名不住行耶？答：彼此不違。此中明如與蘊不一，即不住生死，非苦拘義。若如與蘊一，即住生死而為苦拘。由如不異，即不住涅槃，非涅槃拘義，故亦相似。

The Commentary says: The third [part] in "the method of study taught by the Buddha" is concluding and exhorting them to cultivate and study. Because one does not abide in nirvāṇa, it is different from the ultimate; because one does not abide in saṃsāra, it is different from the conventional. Alternatively, the bodhi of the four wisdoms and the cessation that is bodhi, because they are not identical to tathatā, are different from the ultimate, and because they are not identical to saṃsāra, are different from the conventional. The former is cultivated based on non-abiding; the latter is cultivated in accord with the principle. This profound mode of activity is difficult to fathom through conceptual discrimination and discursive investigation. The five aggregates seen by ordinary people do not depart from tathatā, and the tathatā seen by noble ones does not depart from the five aggregates: hence they are said to be "not different"; the natures of the aggregates and of Suchness are distinct: hence they are said to be "not identical." Alternatively, the noble ones see the five aggregates as like an illusion, while ordinary people see them as real: hence they are said to be "not identical"; both take the five aggregates as their object: hence they are said to be "not different." Alternatively, ordinary people see the aggregates and Suchness as identical or different, while noble ones see the aggregates and Suchness as neither identical nor different; because both are conditioned perceptions, their distinctness is called "neither identical nor different." In this context, "ordinary people" also includes the two vehicles, since they still possess a portion of the nature of ordinary beings. Because people of the two vehicles see the five aggregates and the dharmadhātu as different, they are entirely averse to saṃsāra and seek nirvāṇa. Because ordinary people see them as different, they are entirely terrified of nirvāṇa and abide in saṃsāra. The bodhisattvas see that the substance of the five aggregates and the dharmadhātu is neither identical nor different; therefore, they do not abandon the conventional and do not depart from the ultimate. Because they have attained this principle of the equal dharmadhātu, they are not terrified of saṃsāra and do not delight in nirvāṇa; for this reason they are able to cultivate the wondrous practice of the two benefits with great compassion and great wisdom. Question: Regarding "engaging in the practice of bodhi," following Bodhisattva Asaṅga's explanation of grasping non-abiding nirvāṇa in his *Treatise on the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra*, which says "because of what is penetrated"—this meaning says that it is thus penetrated: just as when in saṃsāra one is not oppressed by saṃsāra, and when in nirvāṇa one is not constrained by nirvāṇa, such is the true intrinsic nature of all phenomena, and therefore one can cultivate based upon it. It is likewise that abiding in saṃsāra one is not oppressed by suffering, and abiding in nirvāṇa one is not constrained by bliss, and thus one does not abide in either saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. This is unlike the two vehicles and ordinary people, who, because they do not realize Suchness, each abide on one side. According to this, because Suchness does not abide in the two, realizing it in accord with Suchness is called non-abiding nirvāṇa. Why, then, is it said here that the substance of the five aggregates and Suchness is neither identical nor different, and that cultivating based upon this is called non-abiding practice? Answer: The two do not contradict each other. Here, clarifying that Suchness and the aggregates are not identical means precisely not abiding in saṃsāra, the sense of not being constrained by suffering. If Suchness and the aggregates were identical, one would abide in saṃsāra and be constrained by suffering. Because Suchness is not different, one does not abide in nirvāṇa, which is the sense of not being constrained by nirvāṇa; therefore, they are also similar.