大乘義章 18.29

18.29

次明通局。於中約就凡夫、二乘、菩薩及佛五人辨之。於此人中，通局有四：一極通論之，此五種人齊有涅槃。如《涅槃》說「諸凡夫人依世俗道六行斷結，名凡涅槃。」又如經說「得少飯食，名涅槃等。」此二是其凡夫涅槃。修八聖道，斷滅四住所得涅槃，名為聲聞緣覺涅槃。修治斷除無明地等，說之以為菩薩涅槃。證法本寂，由來不生今亦不滅，是佛涅槃。二簡聖異凡，聖有凡無。如《地經》說「三乘之中定有涅槃，名為正定。外凡定無，名為邪定。三乘內凡，形前名有、望後稱無，名為不定。」三簡大異小，大有小無。大乘法中實有涅槃，小乘法中權有實無。故《勝鬘》云「阿羅漢辟支佛等得涅槃者，是佛方便。」明知實無。又彼經說「阿羅漢等去涅槃遠。」明知實無。又《涅槃》說「世若無佛，非無二乘得二涅槃。一切世間唯一佛乘，更無二乘別得涅槃。」故知實無。經說「菩薩住大涅槃，諸佛亦爾。」明知大有。四簡果異因，唯佛一人獨得涅槃，餘者悉無，如《涅槃》說。故彼第七功德中言「菩薩之人雖斷煩惱，不名涅槃。諸佛如來不生煩惱，乃名涅槃。」是故涅槃獨唯在佛。問曰：何故斷煩惱者不名涅槃，不生煩惱方名涅槃？佛自釋言「涅是不義，槃是生義。」諸佛如來不生煩惱，稱當涅槃不生之義，故佛有之。菩薩雖復斷除煩惱，不當涅槃不生之義，為是言無。問曰：何故菩薩斷結不名不生，諸佛斷結偏名不生？解有三義：一約惑論。菩薩之人雖分斷結，斷之不盡，心中殘結客使更起，故非不生；佛斷已盡；更無可起；故言不生。二就心解。菩薩之人雖斷煩惱；七識心在；心性生滅，故非不生；佛斷煩惱，妄心亦盡，真心常寂，故名不生。三約理釋。菩薩見有煩惱可斷，非本不起，故非不生；諸佛窮實，達妄本空，無惑可起亦無可斷，故曰不生。故經說言「法本不然，今亦不滅，是寂滅義。」具此三義，故佛獨有，餘者無之。問曰：不生偏在如來，是涅槃唯應在佛，何故前說菩薩亦有？釋言：解義有通有局。通而論之，涅槃名滅，菩薩斷結即是滅義，故說通有。局則無者，涅槃名寂滅義，不生不斷方是寂滅，故佛獨有。有起有斷，紛動不寂，故說局無。問曰：通則涅槃名滅，得通菩薩；二乘之人亦滅煩惱，通之應齊，何故前者簡大異小不通二乘？釋言：滅中義有通有局。通則一切有所滅者悉名涅槃，故前通說二乘有之。局則斷惑，辨息緣治，得實不動，方名涅槃，故說大有；二乘之人雖少斷結，未滅緣治，不得法實，故說無之。問曰：就通有可滅者悉名涅槃，得通二乘；凡夫之人亦滅煩惱，通之應好，何故前者簡聖異凡不通凡夫？釋言：此義亦有通局。前則一切有所滅者悉名涅槃，故前通說凡夫亦有。局則永滅方名涅槃，故說聖有；凡夫暫滅，非永滅度，故說無之。通局如是（此二門竟）。

Next is clarifying universal and restricted. Herein it is differentiated with reference to the five persons: ordinary persons, the two vehicles, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. Among these persons, universal and restricted has four aspects: First, discussed most universally, all these five kinds of persons equally have nirvāṇa. As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'All ordinary persons who, relying on the worldly path, sever fetters through the six practices have what is called the nirvāṇa of ordinary persons.' Also, as the sūtra says: 'Obtaining a little food and drink is called nirvāṇa,' and so forth. These two are the nirvāṇa of ordinary persons. Cultivating the eightfold noble path and severing the four entrenchments to attain nirvāṇa is called the nirvāṇa of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Cultivating the antidotes and severing the stage of ignorance and so forth is spoken of as the nirvāṇa of bodhisattvas. Realizing that dharmas are fundamentally quiescent, originally unarisen and now also unextinguished, is the nirvāṇa of buddhas. Second, distinguishing the noble from the ordinary: noble ones have it, ordinary persons do not. As the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: 'In the three vehicles, nirvāṇa is definitely possessed, which is called the definitely correct group. External ordinary persons definitely lack it, which is called the definitely wrong group. The internal ordinary persons of the three vehicles, compared to the former, are called possessing it, but looking toward the latter, are called lacking it; this is called the indeterminate group.' Third, distinguishing the Mahāyāna from the Hīnayāna: the Mahāyāna has it, the Hīnayāna does not. In the teachings of the Mahāyāna, there is truly nirvāṇa; in the teachings of the Hīnayāna, it exists provisionally but is truly absent. Therefore the Śrīmālā says: 'The attainment of nirvāṇa by arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and so forth is the Buddha's expedient means.' Thus we clearly know it is truly absent. Also that sūtra says: 'Arhats and so forth are far from nirvāṇa.' Thus we clearly know it is truly absent. Also the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'If there were no buddha in the world, it is not that there would be no two vehicles attaining the two nirvāṇas. In the entire world there is only the single Buddha-vehicle; there are no two vehicles separately attaining nirvāṇa.' Hence we know it is truly absent. The sūtra states: 'Bodhisattvas abide in great nirvāṇa, and so too do all buddhas.' Thus we clearly know that the Mahāyāna has it. Fourth, distinguishing the fruition from the cause: only the Buddha alone attains nirvāṇa, and all others do not have it, as the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says. Therefore, in its seventh virtue, it says: 'Although a bodhisattva severs afflictions, it is not called nirvāṇa. That the buddhas, Tathāgatas, do not give rise to afflictions is indeed called nirvāṇa.' Therefore, nirvāṇa belongs exclusively to the Buddha. Question: Why is the severance of afflictions not called nirvāṇa, and only the non-arising of afflictions called nirvāṇa? The Buddha himself explained: '"Nie" (nir) means not; "pan" (vāṇa) means arising.' The buddhas, Tathāgatas, do not give rise to afflictions, which accords with the meaning of non-arising in nirvāṇa; therefore the Buddha has it. Although bodhisattvas sever afflictions, it does not accord with the meaning of non-arising in nirvāṇa; therefore it is said that they lack it. Question: Why is the bodhisattvas' severance of fetters not called non-arising, while the buddhas' severance of fetters is specifically called non-arising? The explanation has three meanings: First, discussing in terms of delusion. Although bodhisattvas sever fetters in portions, they do not sever them completely; within their minds the residual fetters and adventitious afflictions arise again, so it is not non-arising; the Buddha has severed them completely, and there are none that can arise again, so it is called non-arising. Second, explaining in terms of the mind. Although bodhisattvas sever afflictions, the mind of the seven consciousnesses remains; the nature of the mind arises and ceases, so it is not non-arising; when the Buddha severs afflictions, the deluded mind is also completely extinguished and the true mind is ever quiescent, so it is called non-arising. Third, explaining in terms of principle. Bodhisattvas see afflictions as something that can be severed, not as fundamentally non-arisen, so it is not non-arising; all buddhas fathom reality, realizing that delusion is fundamentally empty, with no delusion that can arise and none that can be severed, so it is called non-arising. Therefore the sūtra states: 'Dharmas are fundamentally not burning, and now also unextinguished; this is the meaning of quiescence.' Possessing these three meanings, therefore the Buddha alone has it, and all others lack it. Question: If non-arising pertains specifically to the Tathāgata, then nirvāṇa should only be in the Buddha; why was it said earlier that bodhisattvas also have it? Explanation: Understanding the meaning has a universal and a restricted sense. Discussed universally, nirvāṇa means extinction; the bodhisattvas' severance of fetters is precisely the meaning of extinction, so it is spoken of as universally had. In the restricted sense it is absent: nirvāṇa means the sense of quiescence and extinction; only non-arising and non-severing is true quiescence and extinction, so the Buddha alone has it. Where there is arising and severing, there is agitation and non-quiescence, so in the restricted sense it is said to be absent. Question: If universally nirvāṇa means extinction and can extend to bodhisattvas, persons of the two vehicles also extinguish afflictions and universally they should be equal; why did the previous distinction between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna not extend it to the two vehicles? Explanation: Within extinction, the meaning has a universal and a restricted sense. Universally, all that have something extinguished are called nirvāṇa, so earlier it was universally said that the two vehicles have it. In the restricted sense, severing delusion, discriminating the cessation of conditions and antidotes, and attaining reality without movement is alone called nirvāṇa, so it is said that the Mahāyāna has it; although persons of the two vehicles sever a small part of the fetters, they have not extinguished conditions and antidotes and have not attained the reality of dharmas, so it is said that they lack it. Question: According to the universal, all who have something to extinguish are called nirvāṇa, which extends to the two vehicles; ordinary persons also extinguish afflictions and universally it should apply well; why did the previous distinction between noble and ordinary not extend it to ordinary persons? Explanation: This meaning also has universal and restricted senses. Formerly, all who have something extinguished are called nirvāṇa, so earlier it was universally said that ordinary persons also have it. In the restricted sense, only eternal extinction is called nirvāṇa, so it is said that noble ones have it; ordinary persons' extinction is temporary and not eternal extinction, so it is said that they lack it. Universal and restricted are like this. (This concludes section two.)