成唯識論了義燈 1.97

1.97

問：有餘涅槃、無餘涅槃體俱是擇滅，起金剛心，斷煩惱時，即證二理。何故乃言身智無時，方顯無餘涅槃耶？又問：無餘涅槃，是所證理，今言二乘證得涅槃，必須能證。身智既亡，說誰證得？答初問：云：據實此二涅槃，金剛心後，解脫道時，即已證得。然無餘，顯要身智無，非是已前曾未證得。答第二問：談實得滅身知不無，可言二乘得無餘滅。由身、智在，無餘不顯，不言彼得。身、智無時，無餘方顯。雖無身、智，今於果談因。從因談說，故不相違。問：菩薩得無住處，涅槃已不？答：得。何以得知？《攝論》智殊勝中云：菩薩遠離如是處所，般若、大悲皆具足故，能正安住無住涅槃。又辨菩薩、聲聞智差別中云：謂無住涅槃為所住故。若爾，亦云菩薩四。畢竟差別者，謂住無餘依涅槃界，無斷滅故。答：此非成難，下論釋中。又若諸菩薩，得成佛時，所證法身，窮生死際，無斷盡故，無住處中，真云菩薩住，不言成佛故。又《雜集論》、及《大莊嚴》第九，解大悲云：是故，得不住涅槃，亦不住生死。西明云：《本業經》說：金剛三昧，名為等覺。此意既云等覺，與如來等。如何得云：佛果智勝？《解深密經》第五說：由解脫身故，彼二乘與諸如來，平等平等。由法身故，說有差別。准此等文，二皆非勝，如何總言二勝果耶？解云：解脫實無差別，同斷煩惱所證得。而說勝者，從能證智故，不相違。此解不然。若從能證智者，應名菩提。菩提斷，俱名菩提。又此意，說真解脫者，簡二乘人所得擇滅，不得障盡，所顯真如，真實涅槃。故《涅槃經》云：聲聞之人，有苦有諦，而無真實。《勝鬘經》云：言得涅槃者，去涅槃界近。明知不得真實涅槃。今者說此真實涅槃，名為解脫，故名勝果。又復解脫二乘，得或障解脫未斷習氣，故非勝果。大乘斷習并所知障，故名勝果。故《入大乘論》云：如來解脫，勝於二乘，斷習氣故。《法華經》云：「但離虛妄，名為解脫。其實未得一切解脫。」《解深密》云：解脫等者，據斷煩惱，假解脫說，故不相違。然次論文，別斷障得者，據勝顯說，前且總說，亦約離所知障，故解脫勝。

Question: The essences of nirvana with remainder and nirvana without remainder are both analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha). When the vajra-like mind arises and severs afflictions, one immediately realizes the two principles. Why then do you say that nirvana without remainder is revealed only when body and wisdom are absent? Another question: Nirvana without remainder is the principle that is realized; now saying that the two vehicles realize and attain nirvana requires that there be someone capable of realization. Since body and wisdom have perished, who can be said to realize and attain it? Answer to the first question: In truth, these two nirvanas are already realized and attained at the time of the vimuktimārga following the vajra-like mind. However, for nirvana without remainder to be revealed, it requires that body and wisdom be absent; it is not that it had never been realized and attained prior to that. Answer to the second question: Speaking of the real attainment of cessation, body and wisdom are not absent, and one can say that the two vehicles attain the cessation without remainder. Because body and wisdom remain, nirvana without remainder is not manifest, and one does not say they have attained it. Only when body and wisdom are absent is nirvana without remainder manifest. Although there is no body or wisdom, now the cause is discussed in terms of the fruit. Because it is spoken of in terms of the cause, there is no contradiction. Question: Do bodhisattvas attain apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa or not? Answer: They attain it. How is this known? In the Chapter on Wisdom Excellence in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, it says: "Because bodhisattvas are far removed from such places, and are fully endowed with both prajñā and great compassion, they can correctly abide in apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa." Furthermore, in distinguishing the difference between the wisdom of bodhisattvas and śrāvakas, it says: "Namely, taking apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa as that in which they abide." If so, it also speaks of the four bodhisattvas. As for the definitive distinction, it refers to abiding in the realm of nirvana without remainder, because there is no annihilation. Answer: This does not constitute a difficulty, as in the treatise's explanation below. Furthermore, when all bodhisattvas attain buddhahood, the dharmakāya they realize exhausts the limits of saṃsāra and is inexhaustible; within apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa, it truly speaks of bodhisattvas abiding, and does not say attaining buddhahood. Furthermore, the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā and chapter nine of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, in explaining great compassion, say: "Therefore, they attain neither abiding in nirvana nor abiding in saṃsāra." Ximing says: "The Benye jing says: 'The vajra-samādhi is called equal awakening (samyaksambodhi).' Since this means equal awakening, it is equal to the Tathāgata. How can it be said that the wisdom of the Buddha-fruit is superior? Fascicle five of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: 'By virtue of the liberation-body, the two vehicles and the Tathāgatas are equal and identical. By virtue of the dharmakāya, a distinction is spoken of.' According to these texts, neither is superior; how can they both generally be called two superior fruits?" The explanation says: Liberation is truly without distinction, being realized equally through severing afflictions. That it is spoken of as superior is from the standpoint of the wisdom capable of realization, and so there is no contradiction. This explanation is not correct. If it were from the standpoint of the wisdom capable of realization, it should be called bodhi. Bodhi and severance would both be called bodhi. Furthermore, the intention here in speaking of true liberation is to distinguish the analytical cessation attained by people of the two vehicles, which does not attain the tathatā, the true nirvana, revealed by the exhaustion of obstacles. Therefore the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "For śrāvakas, there is suffering and there are truths, but there is no reality." The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: "Speaking of attaining nirvana means they are close to the realm of nirvana." Clearly one knows they do not attain true nirvana. Now speaking of this true nirvana is calling it liberation, and therefore it is called a superior fruit. Moreover, as for liberation: the two vehicles attain liberation from defilements or obstacles, but have not severed habit-energies, and so it is not a superior fruit. The Mahāyāna severs habit-energies and cognitive obstacles, and so it is called a superior fruit. Therefore the Introduction to the Mahāyāna says: "The Tathāgata's liberation is superior to the two vehicles because he has severed habit-energies." The Lotus Sūtra says: "Merely being free from delusion is called liberation; in reality they have not attained all liberation." When the Saṃdhinirmocana says liberation is equal, it speaks based on the severance of afflictions as conventional liberation, so there is no contradiction. However, in the subsequent treatise text, attaining through separate severance of obstacles speaks clearly based on what is superior; previously it was spoken of generally, and also with respect to separation from cognitive obstacles; therefore liberation is superior.