御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.175

2.175

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!