大乘義章 18.14

18.14

次將攝三事約對涅槃分定總別。有人定說：涅槃定總，三事定別。此則不然。論總皆總，論別斯別。以皆總故，涅槃為門統攝三事皆成涅槃，法身為門統收涅槃解脫般若皆成法身，良以涅槃成法身故。《華嚴經》中宣說「十身涅槃入中名為法身。」又彼經中宣說「十佛涅槃入中名涅槃佛。」解脫般若成法身，義在可知。解脫為門，涅槃法身及與般若皆成解脫，如《涅槃》中百句解脫有德皆收。般若為門，統攝諸德皆成般若，故《地經》中說佛微智，於中開出二種涅槃及一切德。總相如是。隨別分之，莫不是別。以是別故，涅槃宣說「名義俱異，其猶十及三寶等。」言名異者，涅槃、法身、解脫、般若，四種各別。言義異者，涅槃寂滅義，法身是體義又亦聚積義，解脫無累義，般若鑒照義，故云義異。又復分相，斷德是涅槃，色報是法身，智慧是般若，餘德是解脫，是故皆別。問曰：前總，今何故別？辨義有二：一分相門，諸德皆別；二攝相門，諸德相成一切皆總。攝相有二：一攝同義。一切德上有寂滅義，收為涅槃。有其體義、有積聚義，攝為法身。有絕縛義、有無累義，說為解脫。有照鑑義、有覺知義，故為般若。二攝別義。具攝三事以成涅槃。是義云何？若無法身，苦報不盡，何成涅槃？若無解脫，業結不除，何成涅槃？若無般若，闇惑不滅，不成涅槃。故具一切方成涅槃。具攝一切以成法身，是義云何？若無涅槃，生死不滅，何名法身？若無解脫，結縛不盡，不成法身。若無般若，闇惑不除，不成法身。要具一切方成法身，故攝諸義以成法身。具攝諸義共成解脫，是義云何？若無涅槃，生死不滅，不成解脫。若無法身，苦報不盡，不成解脫。若無般若，闇惑不除，不成解脫。故具一切方成解脫。又攝諸義共成般若，是義云何？若無涅槃，諸過不滅，何成般若？若無法身，垢障為體，何成般若？若無解脫，纏縛不離，不成般若。故具一切方成般若。涅槃三事總別既然，自餘行德總別例爾（此五門竟）。

Next, using the subsumption of the three factors in contrast to nirvāṇa to determine the general and the particular. Some people definitely assert: nirvāṇa is definitely general, and the three factors are definitely particular. This is not so. If speaking of the general, all are general; if speaking of the particular, all are particular. Because all are general, taking nirvāṇa as the gate comprehensively subsumes the three factors so that all become nirvāṇa; taking dharmakāya as the gate comprehensively gathers nirvāṇa, liberation, and prajñā so that all become dharmakāya, truly because nirvāṇa constitutes dharmakāya. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra proclaims: "When the ten bodies enter nirvāṇa, it is called dharmakāya." Furthermore, that sūtra proclaims: "When the ten Buddhas enter nirvāṇa, they are called the nirvāṇa Buddhas." That liberation and prajñā constitute dharmakāya is an understood meaning. Taking liberation as the gate, nirvāṇa, dharmakāya, and prajñā all become liberation, just as in the hundred phrases on liberation in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], where all virtues are gathered. Taking prajñā as the gate, it comprehensively subsumes all virtues so that all become prajñā; hence the Daśabhūmika-sūtra speaks of the Buddha's subtle wisdom, within which are unfolded the two kinds of nirvāṇa and all virtues. The general characteristics are like this. When distinguished according to particulars, there is nothing that is not particular. Because they are particular, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] proclaims: "Their names and meanings are both different, just like the ten epithets and the Three Jewels, etc." In saying that their names are different: nirvāṇa, dharmakāya, liberation, and prajñā—these four kinds are individually distinct. In saying that their meanings are different: nirvāṇa has the meaning of quiescence and extinction; dharmakāya has the meaning of substance and also the meaning of accumulation; liberation has the meaning of being without burden; prajñā has the meaning of illuminating and reflecting; therefore, it says that their meanings are different. Furthermore, distinguishing their characteristics: the virtue of severance is nirvāṇa, the physical retribution is dharmakāya, wisdom is prajñā, and the remaining virtues are liberation; therefore, all are particular. Question: If earlier they were general, why are they now particular? The analysis of meaning has two aspects: First, the approach of distinguishing characteristics: all virtues are distinct. Second, the approach of subsuming characteristics: all virtues constitute one another, and all are general. Subsuming characteristics has two aspects: First, subsuming identical meanings: wherever on all virtues there is the meaning of quiescence and extinction, it is gathered as nirvāṇa; where there is the meaning of substance and the meaning of accumulation, it is subsumed as dharmakāya; where there is the meaning of cutting off bondage and the meaning of being without burden, it is described as liberation; where there is the meaning of illuminating and reflecting and the meaning of awareness and cognition, it is taken as prajñā. Second, subsuming particular meanings: fully subsuming the three factors to constitute nirvāṇa. What does this mean? If there were no dharmakāya, painful retributions would not be exhausted—how could that constitute nirvāṇa? If there were no liberation, karmic fetters would not be eliminated—how could that constitute nirvāṇa? If there were no prajñā, dark delusions would not be extinguished—that would not constitute nirvāṇa. Therefore, only by being complete with everything does it constitute nirvāṇa. Fully subsuming everything to constitute dharmakāya—what does this mean? If there were no nirvāṇa, saṃsāra would not be extinguished—how could it be called dharmakāya? If there were no liberation, fetters and bonds would not be exhausted—that would not constitute dharmakāya? If there were no prajñā, dark delusions would not be eliminated—that would not constitute dharmakāya. It must be complete with everything before it constitutes dharmakāya; therefore, all meanings are subsumed to constitute dharmakāya. Fully subsuming all meanings to together constitute liberation—what does this mean? If there were no nirvāṇa, saṃsāra would not be extinguished—that would not constitute liberation. If there were no dharmakāya, painful retributions would not be exhausted—that would not constitute liberation. If there were no prajñā, dark delusions would not be eliminated—that would not constitute liberation. Therefore, only by being complete with everything does it constitute liberation. Furthermore, subsuming all meanings to together constitute prajñā—what does this mean? If there were no nirvāṇa, all faults would not be extinguished—how could that constitute prajñā? If there were no dharmakāya, defilements and obstructions would be its substance—how could that constitute prajñā? If there were no liberation, entanglements and bonds would not be abandoned—that would not constitute prajñā. Therefore, only by being complete with everything does it constitute prajñā. As the general and particular of the three factors of nirvāṇa are such, the general and particular of the remaining practiced virtues follow the same pattern (this completes the fifth gate).