成唯識論了義燈 7.283

7.283

如來具四，明有有餘。《論》中二釋，本解如《疏》。有解云：依《金光明》第一，依應、化身說有餘故。有云同有解。《要集》云：「有解為勝。」今謂：此同本疏。《金光經》云依應、化身，即此論初解有似苦依王宮生身，智者應知。若云引證故說為勝者，此義極成，何煩引證？處處皆說化非真故。

Regarding the Tathāgata possessing all four [nirvāṇas], this explains that he possesses [nirvāṇa] with residue (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa). In the Śāstra there are two explanations; the original commentary's explanation is as in the Commentary (Shu). One explanation states: "Based on the first [fascicle of the] Suvarṇaprabhāsa, it is explained with residue based on the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya." Some say this is the same as the [first] explanation. The Yaoji states: "That explanation is superior." I say now: this is identical to the original commentary. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra speaks based on the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, which is just the Śāstra's first explanation of having the semblant basis of suffering in the birth-body born in the royal palace; the wise should know this. If one claims it is superior because it cites textual proof, this principle is already well established—why trouble to cite proof? It is stated everywhere that transformations are not real.