楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 3.205

3.205

前論二乘所得涅槃，與外道以妄想識滅為涅槃，辯之明矣。大慧於此復有所請者，恐理未盡明、見未盡破，或墮邪見，則究竟解脫之道、無上涅槃之城反致侵毀，本有法身慧命不得而顯。此大慧之所憂，不可不復請也。如來乃告曰或有外道陰界入滅等作涅槃想者，按提婆論釋，凡外道妄計涅槃有二十種，此當第一，論曰：「諸受陰盡，如燈滅、種壞、風止，名涅槃。」今文則又曰境界離欲等，謂於六塵無染，故曰離欲。見諸法無常故，不起心心數法，以不念過、現等境故，諸受陰盡，如燈滅、種壞。受滅則想滅，故曰「妄想不生」，且約想滅云爾。其實見想不除，故斥曰「非以見壞為涅槃」也。此總破諸計。

The previous discussion clearly differentiated between the nirvāṇa attained by the two vehicles and the tīrthikas taking the cessation of the conceptualizing consciousness as nirvāṇa. That Mahāmati here makes an inquiry again is because he feared that the principle was not yet fully clarified and the views were not yet fully crushed, and that if one falls into heterodox views, the path of ultimate liberation and the city of unsurpassable nirvāṇa would instead be damaged and destroyed, and the originally existing Dharma-body and wisdom-life could not be revealed. This was Mahāmati's worry, so he could not but ask again. The Tathāgata then told him, 'There are some tīrthikas for whom the aggregates, elements, and sense bases cease' and so forth, forming the notion of nirvāṇa. According to Āryadeva's treatise commentary, there are twenty kinds of nirvāṇa falsely conceptualized by tīrthikas, and this corresponds to the first. The treatise says: 'All aggregates of feeling are exhausted, like a lamp extinguishing, a seed being destroyed, or the wind ceasing—this is named nirvāṇa.' Now the text further says 'their sensory realms are free from desire' and so forth, meaning they are untainted by the six dusts, hence it says 'free from desire.' Because they see all dharmas as impermanent, they do not give rise to mind and mental factors; because they do not keep in mind past, present, and other realms, all aggregates of feeling are exhausted, like the extinction of a lamp or the destruction of a seed. When feeling ceases, perception ceases, hence it says 'false conceptualization does not arise,' speaking merely in terms of the cessation of perception. In reality, their views and perceptions are not eliminated; therefore he refutes them, saying: 'It is not by the destruction of views that it is named nirvāṇa.' This is an overall refutation of their various conceptualizations.