金剛般若論會釋 3.39

3.39

自下大文第五論名不住生死、涅槃。若依世親《攝論》等，悲智所輔，名為無住，以簡二凡。若依《大品》及此經意，不但二行輔，亦由般若不見有生死、涅槃可住，故名無住。經文有二，先明菩薩不見有煩惱可斷故不見涅槃可住，顯佛不住涅槃。何故此文來者，時眾聞佛不以諸相為因而得菩提，遂執諸佛同於二乘由斷煩惱，得住有餘，捨此身始住無餘，為破此執故，次明佛不住涅槃。於中有三，初、問，次、遮，第三、徵釋。魏本問中云，「菩薩發菩提心者說諸法斷滅相」已，以明菩薩不說有惑可斷，譯人失也。若依真諦本云，「汝謂如來說行菩薩乘人有法可滅可斷耶」，此則明佛不說菩薩有惑可滅可斷。若依唐本，直問發行菩薩乘者頗有少法若壞若斷，此則直明菩薩不見有惑可滅可斷。真諦釋云，滅者滅集，顯住有餘；斷者斷苦，顯住無餘。若見有苦、集可滅、可斷，則見有涅槃可住，今教菩薩不見有苦、集可斷、可滅故，不見有涅槃可住，故為問也。

From here below is the fifth major section of the treatise, titled 'Non-abiding in Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa'. If based on Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha[-bhāṣya] and the like, being assisted by compassion and wisdom is termed 'non-abiding', in order to distinguish [bodhisattvas] from the two [types of] ordinary beings. If based on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra and the purport of this sūtra, it is not merely assistance by the two practices, but also because by prajñā one does not see any saṃsāra or nirvāṇa in which to abide; hence it is termed 'non-abiding'. The sūtra text has two parts: first it explains that the bodhisattva does not see any afflictions to be severed, and therefore does not see any nirvāṇa in which to abide, revealing that the Buddha does not abide in nirvāṇa. Why does this text come here? When the assembly at that time heard that the Buddha did not attain bodhi by means of the marks as causes, they came to cling to the view that the Buddhas are the same as the two vehicles in abiding in [nirvāṇa] with remainder by severing afflictions, and only upon relinquishing this body do they abide in [nirvāṇa] without remainder. In order to refute this clinging, it next clarifies that the Buddha does not abide in nirvāṇa. Herein there are three parts: first, a question; second, a negation; third, an interrogation and explanation. In the question of the Wei translation, it says: 'Does a bodhisattva who has generated bodhicitta state that dharmas have the characteristic of cessation?' which already explains that the bodhisattva does not say there are afflictions to be severed; this was an error by the translator. If based on Paramārtha's translation, it says: 'Do you say that the Tathāgata states that persons practicing the bodhisattva vehicle have dharmas that can be extinguished or severed?' This then clarifies that the Buddha does not say bodhisattvas have afflictions that can be extinguished or severed. If based on the Tang translation, it directly asks whether one who generates the practice of the bodhisattva vehicle has any dharma whatsoever that is destroyed or severed; this directly clarifies that the bodhisattva does not see any affliction that can be extinguished or severed. Paramārtha explains: 'extinguishing' means extinguishing the origin [of suffering], indicating abiding in [nirvāṇa] with remainder; 'severing' means severing suffering, indicating abiding in [nirvāṇa] without remainder. If one sees suffering and origin as capable of being extinguished and severed, one then sees a nirvāṇa in which to abide. Now, bodhisattvas are instructed not to see suffering and origin as capable of being severed and extinguished; thus they do not see any nirvāṇa in which to abide. Hence this question is asked.