金剛般若論會釋 1.46

1.46

下期化度我皆令入無餘涅槃分三，初、解何故不願與餘法而願與涅槃，次、解卵生、濕生等願得涅槃義，後、解唯設令入無餘不說令入餘義。初文問云，何故願此樂果體通世間、出世間，何故不願與世樂果？出世有二，一、菩提，二、涅槃，何故不願與菩提果？《善戒經》第一及《菩薩地》說，發菩提心，願令眾生得大涅槃及如來智，何故此中唯願與涅槃？依初解，問何故唯願與此涅槃不可得義，而不願與世間之樂可得之果；依第二解，問何故唯願與此涅槃，而不願與當菩提果，其不可得義，是答之文攝。依初問解答云，生所攝故無過。以皆是生故者，前說四生，而生有死，以生為苦，滅生為樂，世間樂果增生不滅，涅槃滅生，故願與之，故言生所攝故無過，以所度者皆是生攝故，與違生涅槃樂果。依第二問解答者，以菩提者不可得義，二乘定性不可得菩提，一切種智故，然依所度化者皆生所攝，故與涅槃，皆是生故為滅其生，與涅槃樂，同《華嚴經》初發心願言樂普令入涅槃故，非三乘者皆得菩提故。不說與非一切生皆悉得入無餘涅槃，此中說者，如前已解。又解，雖菩提智非皆可得，《瑜伽》初願，一、意樂普廣，二、由未解故，發願與之，此文據實故不說與，更有別解，至下當知。

The following section on the expectation of delivering beings, "I shall cause them all to enter nirvāṇa without remainder," is divided into three parts: first, explaining why one does not vow to bestow other phenomena but vows to bestow nirvāṇa; second, explaining the meaning of beings born from eggs, moisture, and so forth being vowed to attain nirvāṇa; and third, explaining why one only posited causing them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder and did not speak of causing them to enter other states. In the first text, the question asks: Why does one vow this? The substance of pleasurable fruition extends to both the mundane and the supramundane; why does one not vow to bestow mundane pleasurable fruitions? The supramundane has two: first, bodhi, and second, nirvāṇa; why does one not vow to bestow the fruition of bodhi? Fascicle 1 of the *Śīla-samāhita-sūtra* and the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* state that generating the bodhicitta vows to cause sentient beings to attain the great nirvāṇa and the wisdom of the Tathāgata; why is it that here one vows only to bestow nirvāṇa? According to the first explanation, it asks why one only vows to bestow this nirvāṇa—which is unattainable—and does not vow to bestow mundane pleasure, which is an attainable fruit? According to the second explanation, it asks why one only vows to bestow this nirvāṇa and does not vow to bestow the future fruition of bodhi; that "unattainability" is subsumed in the text of the reply. Replying according to the first question, [the treatise] says: "Because they are subsumed under birth, there is no fault." Because all are births: the four births were spoken of previously, and birth entails death; taking birth to be suffering, the cessation of birth is bliss; mundane pleasurable fruitions augment birth without ending it, whereas nirvāṇa extinguishes birth, hence one vows to bestow it. Therefore it says: "Because they are subsumed under birth, there is no fault"; since those to be delivered are all subsumed under birth, one bestows the pleasurable fruition of nirvāṇa, which contradicts birth. Replying according to the second question: Bodhi is unattainable because beings of the determined lineage of the two vehicles cannot attain bodhi, the knowledge of all aspects; however, based on the fact that those to be delivered are all subsumed under birth, one therefore bestows nirvāṇa. Because all are births, in order to extinguish their birth, one bestows the bliss of nirvāṇa, which agrees with the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra*'s vow at the initial generation of the mind, which speaks of wishing universally to cause them to enter nirvāṇa, for not all beings of the three vehicles can attain bodhi. Not stating that not all beings can enter nirvāṇa without remainder—what is stated here has already been explained above. Furthermore, it is explained: although the wisdom of bodhi cannot be attained by all, in the initial vow of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, first, the inclination is universal and vast, and second, because of not yet understanding [lineages], one makes the vow to bestow it; this text is based on actual reality, hence it does not speak of bestowing it. There are further alternative explanations, which will be understood below.