金剛般若論會釋 1.48

1.48

何故說無餘涅槃界等者下，解皆令入無餘涅槃義有二，初、問，次、答。前問可知，何故不總言得一切涅槃，而但言無餘耶？然涅槃義諸教不同，《涅槃經》說，具足四德大般涅槃，大般涅槃具常、樂、我、淨四勝德故。《攝論》但說一無住處涅槃，又說二聲聞之人以小涅槃而般涅槃，大乘之人以大涅槃而般涅槃。《十地論》說二，謂同相、別相。《勝鬘》說二，有餘、無餘。《金光明》說三，有餘、無餘及無住處涅槃；又說四，自性淨、方便淨、有餘、無餘。《唯識》、舊梁《攝論》說四，自性淨、無住、有餘及無餘涅槃；又說三事具足入大涅槃，具足三事，非是三个涅槃，涅槃亦非三種，體成一涅槃。此中但簡世間六行所得彼分涅槃及有餘涅槃，不簡自性。簡中有四，一、但簡彼分涅槃非擇滅者；二、但簡有餘涅槃擇滅少分；三、「自以宿業」下，雙簡前二涅槃；四、「如是涅槃」等下，結釋簡不說二涅槃因。初中但總言得涅槃，與佛所說凡夫、外道所得世間六行伏惑所得非擇滅攝彼分涅槃，不異言中濫故。彼是五果中士用果，丈夫力得故，非離繫果，體因所得，無佛亦得，由非究竟，故不願與此。彼分涅槃亦名方便涅槃，行世間方便因之所得故。無餘不爾　下，第二簡不說有餘涅槃。前問可知，次答云彼共果故，彼有餘涅槃，有苦所依身、無苦所依身，皆共得之，雖解脫果，非如無餘。三乘聖人要無苦依，方始能得不共之果，是故偏說令入無餘。第三雙簡不說前二涅槃中，自以宿業，又值佛說而得果故，以二因解不說方便涅槃所以，又「非一向故」，以一因緣解不說有餘涅槃之所由，謂世間得彼分涅槃，不但丈夫力果，而非究竟，亦由宿業、數習為因，而得現入，如劫壞時任運而得。又如下地曾習次上地定，退生次下地，生已彼下地，由宿習力，任運漸習，上定現前。豈無餘滅亦宿業得？其無餘涅槃要由外緣聞法力等，值佛說得，不同彼分方便涅槃不待佛說，方便而得。又無餘涅槃一得已後，圓滿安樂，更無微苦，其有餘涅槃，惑業雖盡，苦依未除，而非一向果，「身苦有餘故」，故但說無餘，不說二涅槃。此通三乘二涅槃義，若依佛位，有漏身智無名無餘依涅槃，無漏身智在名為有餘滅，便無是義。

"Why does it say the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder, etc." below is the third part: explaining the meaning of causing all to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, which has two parts: first, question, and second, answer. The preceding question is understandable: Why not speak generally of attaining all nirvāṇa, but speak only of without remainder? However, the meaning of nirvāṇa differs across teachings: the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* speaks of great parinirvāṇa endowed with the four virtues, because great parinirvāṇa is endowed with the four supreme virtues of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* speaks only of one non-abiding nirvāṇa, and also speaks of two: persons of the śrāvaka vehicle pass into nirvāṇa through the lesser nirvāṇa, while persons of the Great Vehicle pass into nirvāṇa through the great nirvāṇa. The *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* speaks of two, namely, common characteristics and distinct characteristics. The *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* speaks of two: with remainder and without remainder. The *Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra* speaks of three: with remainder, without remainder, and non-abiding nirvāṇa; and it also speaks of four: inherently pure, provisionally pure, with remainder, and without remainder. The *Vijñaptimātratā* and the old Liang translation of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* speak of four: inherently pure, non-abiding, with remainder, and without remainder nirvāṇa; and they also speak of being endowed with three matters to enter great nirvāṇa—being endowed with three matters does not mean three separate nirvāṇas, nor is nirvāṇa of three kinds; in essence it constitutes one nirvāṇa. Here, it merely excludes that-portion nirvāṇa obtained through the worldly six practices and nirvāṇa with remainder; it does not exclude inherent nature. Within the exclusion there are four points: first, merely excluding that-portion nirvāṇa, which is non-analytical cessation; second, merely excluding nirvāṇa with remainder, which is a slight portion of analytical cessation; third, from "by one's own past karma" downward, mutually excluding both previous nirvāṇas; fourth, from "such nirvāṇa" and so forth downward, concluding the explanation of the reasons for excluding and not speaking of the two nirvāṇas. In the first point: if one merely spoke generally of attaining nirvāṇa, it would be indistinguishable from and conflated with the that-portion nirvāṇa subsumed under non-analytical cessation obtained by ordinary persons and non-Buddhists suppressing afflictions through the worldly six practices, as spoken of by the Buddha. That is the puruṣakāra-phala (fruit of virile effort) among the five fruits, because it is obtained by the power of a virile person; it is not the visaṃyoga-phala (fruit of disconnection), being obtained by causal practice, and can be attained even without a Buddha; because it is not ultimate, one does not vow to bestow this. That-portion nirvāṇa is also named expedient nirvāṇa, because it is obtained by relying on the causal practice of worldly expedients. "Without remainder is not like this" below is the second point, excluding and not speaking of nirvāṇa with remainder. The previous question is understandable; next, the reply says that it is a common fruit: that nirvāṇa with remainder is obtained in common by both those with a basis of suffering (the body) and those without a basis of suffering; although it is a fruit of liberation, it is not like without remainder. Only when the holy persons of the three vehicles are without a basis of suffering can they then attain the uncommon fruit; therefore it speaks specifically of causing them to enter without remainder. In the third point, mutually excluding and not speaking of the two previous nirvāṇas: through one's own past karma, and moreover by encountering the Buddha's preaching, one obtains the fruit; thus by two causes it explains the reason for not speaking of expedient nirvāṇa. Furthermore, "because it is not definitive": by one causal condition it explains the reason for not speaking of nirvāṇa with remainder; that is, attaining that-portion nirvāṇa in the world is not only a fruit of virile power, and not ultimate, but also has past karma and repeated practice as its cause to attain present entry, just as it is obtained spontaneously at the time of the destruction of an aeon. Moreover, just as one who previously cultivated the concentration of the next higher stage in a lower stage falls and is born in the next lower stage, and having been born in that lower stage, through the force of past practice spontaneously and gradually cultivates it, and the higher concentration becomes present before him. Could cessation without remainder also be attained through past karma? Nirvāṇa without remainder must rely on external conditions such as the power of hearing the Dharma, being attained by encountering the Buddha's preaching, unlike that-portion expedient nirvāṇa, which does not await the Buddha's preaching and is attained through expedients. Furthermore, once nirvāṇa without remainder is attained, it is perfect, peaceful, and joyful, with no subtle suffering remaining; whereas in nirvāṇa with remainder, although affliction and karma are exhausted, the basis of suffering has not been eliminated, hence it is not a definitive fruit, "because suffering of the body has a remainder"; therefore it only speaks of without remainder, and does not speak of the two nirvāṇas. This applies to the meaning of the two nirvāṇas in the three vehicles; if based on the Buddha stage, the absence of tainted body and wisdom is named nirvāṇa without remainder, and the presence of untainted body and wisdom is named cessation with remainder, then this meaning would not apply.