大乘義章 18.34

18.34

次明諸佛涅槃一異。涅槃若一，一人得時餘亦應得。又若定一，一人得已餘應無分。涅槃若別，別則不同，便有彼此多少增減邊畔可數，即是無常。其義云何？如《涅槃》中解佛性義不一不異，涅槃亦爾不一不異。此修此得，彼修彼得，故非定一；所得無別，故非定異。譬如一經，學者便解，不學不解，故經不一。及其所解體不殊，得言不異，此亦如是。又復約緣以論，其實緣別、彼實從異，故非定一。就實論實，實外無人，知復從誰說彼說此？為是不異。涅槃義深難以測窮，且尋詮況粗述云爾。

Next is clarifying the identity and difference of the nirvāṇas of all Buddhas. If nirvāṇa were one, then when one person attains it, others should also attain it. Furthermore, if it were definitely one, once one person has attained it, others should have no share. If nirvāṇa were distinct, then being distinct it would not be the same, and there would be 'this' and 'that', more and less, increase and decrease, and countable boundaries, which would mean it is impermanent. What is its meaning? Just as the meaning of Buddha-nature is explained in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* as neither one nor different, nirvāṇa is likewise neither one nor different. This one cultivates and this one attains; that one cultivates and that one attains; therefore it is not definitely one. What is attained has no distinction; therefore it is not definitely different. For example, with a single sūtra, one who studies it understands, while one who does not study does not understand; thus the sūtra is not one. Yet when it comes to what they understand, the substance is not distinct, and one can say it is not different; this is also like that. Furthermore, discussing it in relation to conditions: their conditions being distinct, their realities follow the difference; therefore it is not definitely one. Discussing the real in terms of the real: outside the real there is no person; who is there left to refer to when speaking of 'that' and 'this'? For this reason, they are not different. The meaning of nirvāṇa is profound and difficult to fathom; following the words and analogies, it is roughly stated thus.