成唯識論了義燈 7.284

7.284

出涅槃體，諸部差別，大乘具四，餘部但二。然餘、無餘，薩婆多師體雖無別，俱擇滅為體；然體有多，隨有漏法各一擇滅故。大乘依一真如假立。經部無體，但苦因滅處名有餘依，苦果滅處名為無餘，皆是假立，不說有體。無為亦爾，然有餘、無餘俱擇滅攝。本疏釋云：中二擇滅攝，斷縛得故。所依縛盡，初得果時，名為擇滅。所依後無，方顯涅槃，後依無時，由前擇力。《要集》云：大乘聖道斷煩惱故，所證擇滅名有餘依。煩惱因滅苦果任運滅位，別得擇滅，遠由擇力而滅依故。故次下云中二擇滅攝，然入無餘無別無間、解脫道也。今謂：不爾。既云「煩惱因滅苦果任運滅位」，云何別得擇滅？自不許有無間、解脫。又《佛地論》云：「菩薩初證如來地時，頓證二種大涅槃界」。准此，二乘初得無學，亦應頓證二種涅槃。由此，應依本疏為勝。若云雖不別起無間、解脫，由前智故，此後斷滅名為擇滅，何不許前正斷障時已得二種？無餘後顯，故是擇滅。若云菩薩證如來地時捨有漏故，得二涅槃，二乘苦在不得無餘，故後時得者，後既任運，諸苦不生，應非擇滅。同黃門等見惑因盡，彼任運滅，得非擇故。

In identifying the essence of nirvāṇa, the various schools differ: the Mahāyāna possesses all four, while the other schools have only two. However, as for [nirvāṇa] with and without residue, although for the Sarvāstivādins their essence is not different—both taking cessation through deliberation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as essence—their essences are multiple, because there is an individual cessation through deliberation for each sāsrava dharma. The Mahāyāna establishes them nominally based on the one tathatā. The Sautrāntikas hold there is no essence; they merely designate the cessation of the cause of suffering as having residue, and the cessation of the result of suffering as without residue—both are nominal designations, not described as having an essence. The unconditioned is likewise, yet both with and without residue are subsumed under cessation through deliberation. The original commentary explains: "The middle two are subsumed under cessation through deliberation, because they are attained through the severance of bondage. When the bondage of the support is exhausted, upon first attaining the fruit, it is named cessation through deliberation. When the support later ceases, only then is nirvāṇa revealed; at the time when the subsequent support ceases, it is due to the previous power of deliberation." The Yaoji states: "Because the noble path of the Mahāyāna severs afflictions, the cessation through deliberation realized by it is named with residue. At the stage when the cause of afflictions is extinguished and the results of suffering naturally cease, one separately attains cessation through deliberation, because the support is extinguished distantly through the power of deliberation. Therefore, just below it says that the middle two are subsumed under cessation through deliberation; however, entering without residue has no separate ānantaryamārga or vimuktimārga." I say now: this is not so. Since it says, "at the stage when the cause of afflictions is extinguished and the results of suffering naturally cease," how could one separately attain cessation through deliberation? You yourself do not accept an ānantaryamārga or vimuktimārga [at that time]. Moreover, the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra states: "When a bodhisattva first realizes the Tathāgata stage, he suddenly realizes the two kinds of great nirvāṇa realms." According to this, when the two vehicles first attain the stage of non-learning (aśaikṣa), they should also suddenly realize the two kinds of nirvāṇa. Therefore, one should rely on the original commentary as superior. If you say that although a separate ānantaryamārga and vimuktimārga do not arise, because of the prior wisdom, this subsequent cessation is named cessation through deliberation, then why not accept that the two kinds were already attained earlier when directly severing the hindrances? The residue-free is revealed later, and thus is cessation through deliberation. If you say that a bodhisattva, when realizing the Tathāgata stage, renounces the sāsrava and therefore attains both nirvāṇas, whereas the two vehicles still have suffering and do not attain the residue-free, and thus attain it at a later time—then since later all suffering naturally does not arise, it should not be cessation through deliberation, just as when the cause of the view-delusions of a eunuch (paṇḍaka) and the like is exhausted, their natural cessation is attained as cessation not through deliberation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha).