御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.175

2.175

經。須菩提若至說諸法斷滅　演曰。心具足中。自下第五不住生死涅槃。即無住涅槃也。向說法身非福因得便捨於福而求涅槃。若爾便同二乘寂滅或樂取福不求涅槃。便於生死受諸苦惱。為除此著令成佛德無住涅槃。故此文起論云。此中為遮一向寂靜故顯示不住涅槃。若不住涅槃應受生死苦。為離此著等。彼論為斷第二十四失福及果疑。論云。有人起如是心。若不依福德得大菩提。如是諸菩薩則失福德及失果報。此意既以福一相非法身之因。則證法身時福德應失。福德既失。應無所感果報之身故成斷滅。尋彼釋意。雖不得法身菩提。而亦不失福德及彼果報。以能成就智慧莊嚴功德莊嚴得報身菩提故。由有報身非同二乘。一向寂滅即不住涅槃。由受無漏福不取有漏福故。不住生死。彼因斷疑亦顯不住。與此無違。文分為二。初不住涅槃後不住流轉。初文有四問遮徵釋此問也。此雖教誡十地菩薩令求佛果無住涅槃。然說一切發趣大乘初心菩薩。尚不欲住生死涅槃。況於如來。故令菩薩知佛果德。而以願求。然諸菩薩意願虛空法界等盡。我願方盡故不可說。同於二乘有其斷盡。況同外道撥無因果起於斷見空見等耶。

Sūtra: “Subhūti, if […] speak of the annihilation of all phenomena.”
Exposition: Within the completeness of the mind, this is the fifth below: not abiding in saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, which is apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa. When it was said earlier that the dharmakāya is not attained through the cause of merit, one might then abandon merit and seek nirvāṇa. If so, one would become identical with the extinction of the two vehicles; or, taking pleasure in grasping merit, one would not seek nirvāṇa, and would thus undergo various afflictions in saṃsāra. In order to eliminate this attachment and bring about the Buddha’s virtue of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa, this passage arises. The treatise says: “Here, in order to preclude one-sided quiescence, it shows non-abiding in nirvāṇa. If one does not abide in nirvāṇa, one would suffer the pains of saṃsāra; in order to abandon this attachment, etc.” That treatise takes this to resolve the twenty-fourth doubt, concerning the loss of merit and its fruit. The treatise says: “Some people give rise to this thought: If one does not attain great bodhi in reliance on merit, then these bodhisattvas will forfeit merit and forfeit its karmic retribution.” This means that since the singular characteristic of merit is not the cause of the dharmakāya, then upon realizing the dharmakāya, merit should be lost. Once merit is lost, there should be no body of karmic retribution to be induced, resulting in annihilation. Investigating the intent of its explanation: although one does not attain the dharmakāya bodhi [through merit], neither does one lose merit and its karmic retribution, because through the ability to accomplish the adornment of wisdom and the adornment of merit, one attains the bodhi of the saṃbhogakāya. Because there is a saṃbhogakāya, it is not like the one-sided quiescence of the two vehicles; that is not abiding in nirvāṇa. Because one experiences undefiled merit and does not grasp defiled merit, one does not abide in saṃsāra. Its resolving of doubt also reveals non-abiding, which is not in conflict with this [treatise]. The text is divided into two: first, not abiding in nirvāṇa; and second, not abiding in transmigration. The first text has four parts: question, prohibition, interrogation, and explanation; this is the question. Although this admonishes bodhisattvas of the ten grounds to seek the apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa of the Buddha-fruit, it states that even beginning bodhisattvas who set their minds toward the Mahāyāna do not wish to abide in saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, how much less so the Tathāgata! Therefore it causes bodhisattvas to know the virtues of the Buddha-fruit and seek them through vows. Furthermore, the intention and vows of bodhisattvas are: “Only when space and the dharmadhātu are exhausted will my vows be exhausted”; therefore it cannot be said that, like the two vehicles, they have cessation and exhaustion. How much less could they be like the non-Buddhists who repudiate cause and effect and give rise to views of annihilation, views of emptiness, and the like!