The Meaning of Non-Abiding Nirvāṇa

The Fourth Nirvāṇa · Freed of the Cognitive Obstruction · The Twofold Flow of Compassion and Wisdom · Causing Non-Abiding in Both Extremes · The Turning of the Basis · The Not-Taking of "Recall Your Original Vow" — The Bodhisattva's Mastery Refusing Its Own Final Rest

中文主題：無住處涅槃義——非住生死非住涅槃，菩薩自在拒其自身終極之寂

I. The Live Question

There is a question almost everyone who hears of the bodhisattva path runs into sooner or later: if the bodhisattva can already be liberated, can already take the realization of nirvāṇa, why does he not take it? If the answer is "he does not take it for the sake of delivering beings," has he not then left himself forever in the bitter sea of birth-and-death — able to reach the shore, yet refusing to, turning back to soak in the water again? Is such a "not-taking" a greater freedom, or a deeper unfreedom (bound by "beings who can never all be delivered," with no end in sight)?

The question is sharp because it touches the most counter-intuitive point of the bodhisattva's mastery. Through the whole division, a hidden vein has pointed again and again to one word, "not": P01 established that the bodhisattva's mastery is signed by not-taking-the-realization ("long due for nirvāṇa, yet not taking its realization · practising the real-limit, yet not realizing it"); P05 established that the bodhisattva's altruistic realm of "returning to deliver beings" is "what the śrāvaka cannot see"; P07/P08 established that the eighth-ground bodhisattva's effortless non-regress, near to quiescence, does not rest in that quiescence but must be "roused" by the buddhas to advance further toward buddhahood. These "nots" — not taking the realization, not exiting, not resting in quiescence — were, in the earlier papers, only opened, their ultimate ground not yet unfolded. Together they force a question: if the bodhisattva abides neither in birth-and-death (he is no ordinary being, not bound by saṃsāra) nor in nirvāṇa (he does not take the cessation that was his to take), then where does he "abide"?

This paper's answer is a seemingly paradoxical term: non-abiding nirvāṇa (apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa) — the nirvāṇa "of no abiding-place," a nirvāṇa that "does not abide in any one place." It is not "the failure to attain nirvāṇa" (the bodhisattva is not someone who cannot reach the shore), nor "suffering on in birth-and-death" (he is not someone still flailing in the water); it is one of the nirvāṇas (the Cheng weishi lun counts four; this is the fourth), but a "non-stationing" nirvāṇa — neither stationed in birth-and-death (by wisdom, unbound by saṃsāra) nor stationed in nirvāṇa's quiescence (by compassion, not forsaking beings to take cessation). To return to the opening question: the bodhisattva's "not-taking" is not the self-torment of "able to reach the shore but refusing," but the freedom of "no longer needing to reach the shore to escape the danger of the water, and so free to remain in the water to save others" — his remaining in the water is not being drowned by it (not abiding in birth-and-death), and his not climbing ashore is not an inability to (not abiding in nirvāṇa), but a freedom, for the sake of rescue, to be free between shore and water. This freedom of "non-abiding in both extremes" is the signature of the bodhisattva's mastery refusing its own final rest.

The thesis: non-abiding nirvāṇa is the ultimate core of the bodhisattva's mastery refusing its own final rest — the turning-of-the-basis disclosed by cutting the cognitive obstruction, the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom, abiding in neither extreme of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa while benefiting beings to the end of future time; it is precisely the terminus toward which the earlier vein of "not taking the realization / not exiting / not resting in quiescence" tends. The argument: §II presents the canon (the four-nirvāṇa schema and the definition · the mechanism of non-abiding in both extremes and the two obstructions · the Saṃgraha's turning-of-the-basis · the Prajñā stream's substance of not-taking-nirvāṇa); §III argues in three layers (the definition and coordinates, 3.1; the mechanism of the twofold flow, 3.2; non-abiding nirvāṇa as the ultimate gathering of the "not-taking" vein, 3.3); §IV is cut, with reason given in §VI; §V corrects misreadings and marks the three boundaries of term, causal-versus-fruit, and divergent emphases; §VI concludes, taking up P01/P05/P07/P08 and opening P10's ultimate adjudication.

Three boundaries flagged here (detailed in §V): first, "non-abiding nirvāṇa" is a technical term established by the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha treatises; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Prajñā stream) supplies its doctrinal substance (not-taking-nirvāṇa · the original vow, great compassion, knowing the real) but contains no occurrence of this term in the entire treatise (physically verified, zero compound occurrences), and this paper does not cite it as the term's source. Second, the Cheng weishi lun states "only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four" — non-abiding nirvāṇa's perfect, fruit-stage form belongs only to the buddha; this paper takes it as the bodhisattva's causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis (the Saṃgraha's "the bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa," the vast turning), its fruit-stage perfection belonging to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication; this paper adjudicates neither the superiority of causal versus fruit stage nor the cross-division reconciliation (the same boundary as P08). Third, the divergent emphases of the Saṃgraha and the Cheng weishi lun on whether the bodhisattva's non-abiding nirvāṇa is "already accomplished" or "its provisions still being cultivated" stand side by side; this paper sets them side by side without forcing them into one, the ground-by-ground placement left to the author.

II. Canonical Basis

This section presents three clusters: the four-nirvāṇa schema and the definition of non-abiding nirvāṇa (2.1); the mechanism of non-abiding in both extremes and the two obstructions (2.2); the Saṃgraha's turning-of-the-basis and the Prajñā stream's substance of not-taking-nirvāṇa (2.3). The sources are the Cheng weishi lun (T1585), the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (Paramārtha's translation, T1593), and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (T1509), all CBETA-verified.

2.1 The Four-Nirvāṇa Schema and the Definition of Non-Abiding Nirvāṇa

Nirvāṇa is not one. The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 10, sets out four nirvāṇas, marking for each the cutting on which it rests:

The meaning of nirvāṇa differs; in brief there are four kinds. First, nirvāṇa intrinsically pure by nature — the principle of the suchness of the character of all dharmas, which, though it has adventitious defilement, is by nature pure … Second, nirvāṇa with remainder — the suchness freed of the afflictive obstruction, which, though a slight suffering-basis is not yet extinguished, has the obstruction forever quieted, hence called nirvāṇa. Third, nirvāṇa without remainder — the suchness freed of the suffering of birth-and-death, where, the afflictions being ended, the remaining basis too is extinguished and all suffering forever quieted, hence called nirvāṇa. Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa — the suchness freed of the cognitive obstruction, ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting beings to the end of future time, functioning yet ever quiescent, hence called nirvāṇa.¹

The key division among the four lies in "the cutting on which each rests": the intrinsically-pure nirvāṇa is inherent in all beings (suchness pure by nature); the with-remainder and without-remainder nirvāṇas are both gained by "being freed of the afflictive obstruction" / "freed of the suffering of birth-and-death, the afflictions being ended" — their basis is the cutting of the afflictive obstruction (and the extinction of the suffering-basis). The fourth alone, "non-abiding nirvāṇa," is "the suchness freed of the cognitive obstruction" — its basis is the cutting of the cognitive obstruction, and its mark is "ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting beings to the end of future time, functioning yet ever quiescent." So non-abiding nirvāṇa stands apart among the four: the first three turn on "cutting the afflictive obstruction / extinguishing the suffering-basis" (pointing to the resolution of birth-and-death), the fourth alone turns on "cutting the cognitive obstruction · the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom · non-abiding in both extremes · benefiting beings to the end of future time" (pointing to the non-abiding in both extremes). This is the coordinate of non-abiding nirvāṇa: the fourth of the four nirvāṇas, the nirvāṇa gained by cutting the cognitive obstruction.

The "distribution" of the four nirvāṇas the Cheng weishi lun then marks by station:

All beings have the first; the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three; only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four.²

"All beings have the first" (intrinsically-pure nirvāṇa, inherent); "the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three" (the adept stage of śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha may have the first three, above all the without-remainder as their utmost); "only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four" (only the buddha fully possesses the four, including the fourth, non-abiding). This distribution is the framework shared with P10 (which takes it as the anchor of the distinction from the arhat's without-remainder nirvāṇa); here one sense must be marked first: the perfect, fruit-stage form of non-abiding nirvāṇa the Cheng weishi lun judges "only the buddha has" — a boundary bearing on this paper's taking of non-abiding nirvāṇa as the core of the bodhisattva's mastery, where the distinction of "causal-stage orientation / fruit-stage perfection" must be kept (see 2.3, 3.1, §V).

2.2 The Mechanism of Non-Abiding in Both Extremes · Each Obstruction Obstructing One Fruit

Wherein lies the sense of "non-abiding"? The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 10, defines it head-on when explaining why cutting the cognitive obstruction yields the non-abiding place:

The cognitive obstructions, since they do not impel rebirth, how is it that cutting them yields the non-abiding place? They can veil the dharma-emptiness suchness, preventing the arising of great compassion and wisdom that benefits beings to the end of future time. So when they are cut, the principle of dharma-emptiness is disclosed; this principle just is non-abiding nirvāṇa — because it causes non-abiding in both extremes.³

This passage is the pivot of the sense of "non-abiding": the cognitive obstruction "can veil the dharma-emptiness suchness, preventing the arising of great compassion and wisdom" — what it obstructs is the disclosure of dharma-emptiness suchness and the arising of great compassion and wisdom; cut it, and the principle of dharma-emptiness is disclosed, "this principle just is non-abiding nirvāṇa," and the reason it is named "non-abiding" is precisely that it "causes non-abiding in both extremes." The "two extremes" are birth-and-death and nirvāṇa; "non-abiding in both" is not stationing in either. Why does cutting the cognitive obstruction cause non-abiding in both extremes? Because once the cognitive obstruction is cut and the dharma-emptiness suchness disclosed, great compassion and wisdom can arise and benefit beings to the end of future time — compassion and wisdom flowing together, and so naturally falling into neither extreme (on the standard doctrinal reading: by great compassion, one cannot bear to forsake beings and take nirvāṇa's quiescence alone — this is "not abiding in nirvāṇa"; by wisdom, one comprehends that birth-and-death is intrinsically empty and is not bound by it — this is "not abiding in birth-and-death"). The motive force of "non-abiding in both extremes" is the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom.

And the reason it must be the cognitive obstruction that is cut (not only the afflictive) rests on each obstruction's obstructing one fruit. The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 9, defines the two obstructions:

The afflictive obstruction — grasping the pervasively-imagined real self, with the view of the reifying self at its head … all of which disturb and afflict beings' bodies and minds, able to obstruct nirvāṇa, is named the afflictive obstruction. The cognitive obstruction — grasping pervasively-imagined real dharmas, with the view of the reifying self at its head: view, doubt, ignorance, craving, anger, conceit, and so on. Veiling the unmistaken nature of the knowable realm, able to obstruct awakening, it is named the cognitive obstruction.⁴

Each obstruction obstructs one fruit: the afflictive obstruction (with grasping a real self at its head) "disturbs and afflicts body and mind, able to obstruct nirvāṇa" — what it obstructs is nirvāṇa (liberation); the cognitive obstruction (with grasping real dharmas at its head) "veils the unmistaken nature of the knowable realm, able to obstruct awakening" — what it obstructs is awakening (omniscient knowing). So cutting the afflictive obstruction yields nirvāṇa (the basis of the first three nirvāṇas), and cutting the cognitive obstruction yields awakening (the basis of non-abiding nirvāṇa — great compassion and wisdom can arise, non-abiding in both extremes). Non-abiding nirvāṇa rests on cutting the cognitive obstruction precisely because what it wants is not merely "freedom from the suffering of birth-and-death" (cutting the afflictive obstruction suffices for that), but "the dharma-emptiness suchness disclosed · great compassion and wisdom arisen · benefiting beings to the end of future time without abiding in either extreme" — and this requires cutting the cognitive obstruction that obstructs awakening, veils dharma-emptiness, and prevents great compassion and wisdom from arising. (Each obstruction's obstructing one fruit is also the premise of P10's distinction "the two vehicles cut one obstruction · the bodhisattva cuts both"; here only the sense "non-abiding nirvāṇa requires cutting the cognitive obstruction" is taken.)

2.3 The Saṃgraha's Turning-of-the-Basis · The Prajñā Stream's Substance of "Not-Taking Nirvāṇa"

The mark of non-abiding nirvāṇa the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (Paramārtha's translation) glosses as the "turning of the basis" (āśrayaparāvṛtti):

The bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa. What is its mark? Upon the two supports of forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death, the turning of the basis is its mark.⁵

The Saṃgraha judges outright that "the bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa," and its mark is the "turning of the basis" — "forsaking defilement" (forsaking the defilement of affliction · not abiding in the defilement of birth-and-death) "and not-forsaking birth-and-death" (not forsaking birth-and-death · not taking nirvāṇa's quiescence but continuing to dwell in birth-and-death to deliver beings), "upon these two supports, the turning of the basis is its mark." The "turning of the basis," upon the dependent nature, turns the defiled into the pure (turns the defiled portion of the basis into the pure portion); its marvel is just "simultaneously forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death" — forsaking defilement on one side (and so not bound by birth-and-death), not-forsaking birth-and-death on the other (and so not entering nirvāṇa's quiescence but continuing to deliver beings). The Saṃgraha further judges this turning the bodhisattva's distinctive "vast turning," set against the śrāvaka's "inferior turning":

Fifth, the inferior turning: because the śrāvaka comprehends the selflessness of persons, and one-pointedly turns his back on birth-and-death, for the sake of forever forsaking birth-and-death. Sixth, the vast turning: because the bodhisattva comprehends the selflessness of dharmas, contemplating therein the merit of quiescence, for the sake of forsaking-and-not-forsaking.⁶

The śrāvaka's turning is the "inferior turning" (comprehending the selflessness of persons · one-pointedly turning his back on birth-and-death · for forever forsaking birth-and-death) — its direction is "one-pointedly turning away from birth-and-death" (a single-directional exit); the bodhisattva's turning is the "vast turning" (comprehending the selflessness of dharmas · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking) — its direction is "forsaking-and-not-forsaking" (both forsaking [defilement] and not-forsaking [birth-and-death, to deliver beings]). The pairing of "one-pointedly turning his back on birth-and-death" against "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" marks precisely the difference in turning-of-the-basis structure between non-abiding nirvāṇa (the vast turning) and the two-vehicle nirvāṇa (the inferior turning) — this pairing is an anchor for P10's ultimate adjudication; here the sense "the bodhisattva's turning is for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" is taken to clarify the mark of non-abiding. The Saṃgraha then closes with a verse marking the non-forsaking-and-non-taking of the two extremes of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa:

As to birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, when knowledge arises in equality, birth-and-death just is nirvāṇa, the two having no "this" and "that." Therefore of birth-and-death there is neither forsaking nor non-forsaking; of nirvāṇa likewise, neither gaining nor non-gaining.⁷

"Of birth-and-death, neither forsaking nor non-forsaking; of nirvāṇa likewise, neither gaining nor non-gaining" — of birth-and-death, neither forsaking (not forsaking birth-and-death, to deliver beings) nor non-forsaking (yet not bound by it, truly forsaking its defilement); of nirvāṇa, neither gaining (not taking its quiescence) nor non-gaining (not failing to gain nirvāṇa). The verse, by this double negation of "neither-forsaking-nor-taking," marks the very form of non-abiding nirvāṇa's non-abiding in both extremes.

And the doctrinal substance of non-abiding nirvāṇa — the bodhisattva's motive for "being able to take, yet not taking" — the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Prajñā stream) records most aptly in the "buddhas of the ten directions stroke his head" at the seventh abode:

Question: If the bodhisattva cultivates these thirty-seven factors, how is it that he does not take nirvāṇa? Answer: Because his original vow is firm, because great compassion has entered deep, because he clearly knows the true character of dharmas, because the buddhas of the ten directions are mindful and protect him. As the sutra says: "The bodhisattva, reaching the seventh abode, contemplates without that all dharmas are empty, and contemplates within that there is no self …" (the bodhisattva, contemplating emptiness, is about to extinguish himself, when) the buddhas of the ten directions stretch out their hands and stroke his head: "Excellent, son of the Buddha! Do not give rise to regret! Recall your original vow! Though you know this, beings have not yet awakened; you must teach beings with this dharma of emptiness. What you have gained is but one gate … you have not yet completed the six perfections, up to the eighteen distinctive dharmas; you must complete these dharmas …"⁸

The bodhisattva, reaching the seventh abode, contemplates without the emptiness of dharmas and within the absence of self — he can already take the realization ("about to extinguish himself"); and as to "how is it he does not take nirvāṇa," the Śāstra answers with four causes: "because his original vow is firm, because great compassion has entered deep, because he clearly knows the true character of dharmas, because the buddhas of the ten directions are mindful and protect him." The sutra shows it in the image of "the buddhas of the ten directions stretch out their hands and stroke his head": when the bodhisattva, contemplating emptiness, is about to extinguish himself, the buddhas exhort, "Do not give rise to regret! Recall your original vow! … beings have not yet awakened; you must teach beings with this dharma of emptiness" — with the original vow and great compassion, they exhort him not to take the cessation that was his to take, but to continue teaching beings with the emptiness he has realized. This "seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head · recall your original vow · not taking nirvāṇa" is the Prajñā-stream canonical substance of P01's "not-taking," P05's "returning to deliver beings," and P07/P08's "not resting in the eighth ground's quiescence · the buddhas' rousing" (the bodhisattva's motive for being able to take, yet not taking: the original vow · great compassion · knowing the real). The Śāstra further marks not-taking-nirvāṇa for the sake of delivering beings with the illusionist's simile:

[The bodhisattva], because he widely delivers beings, does not take nirvāṇa; he is also like an illusionist who transforms his own body to teach others …⁹

A scope-note on the term (detailed in §V): to be marked first — the two Śāstra passages cited above (⁸, ⁹) supply the doctrinal substance of "not-taking-nirvāṇa · the original vow, great compassion, knowing the real," yet the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra contains nowhere in the entire treatise this technical term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" (physically verified: all 33 occurrences of "non-abiding" in the treatise mean "no fixed location / ultimate emptiness" or "the non-abiding samādhi," not one being the nirvāṇa-term). The term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" is established by the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha treatises (2.1, 2.3 / ¹⁵). This paper takes the Śāstra as the Prajñā-stream canonical witness of this doctrine's substance, not as the term's source.

III. Core Argument

§II has shown that "the four-nirvāṇa schema and the definition of non-abiding nirvāṇa · the mechanism of non-abiding in both extremes and the two obstructions · the Saṃgraha's turning-of-the-basis and the Prajñā stream's substance of not-taking-nirvāṇa" are the plain word of the canon. This section argues in three layers: the definition and coordinates of non-abiding nirvāṇa (3.1), the mechanism of the twofold flow (3.2), and non-abiding nirvāṇa as the ultimate gathering of the "not-taking" vein (3.3).

3.1 The Definition and Coordinates: The Fourth of the Four Nirvāṇas · Gained by Cutting the Cognitive Obstruction

The first sense of non-abiding nirvāṇa is its coordinate among the nirvāṇas. This layer establishes its definition and place, and keeps the boundary of "causal-stage orientation / fruit-stage perfection."

Nirvāṇa is not one. The Cheng weishi lun counts four (2.1): intrinsically pure by nature (the suchness inherent in all beings), with-remainder (freed of the afflictive obstruction, a slight suffering-basis remaining), without-remainder (freed of the suffering of birth-and-death, afflictions ended and remaining basis extinguished, all suffering forever quieted), and non-abiding (freed of the cognitive obstruction, compassion and wisdom in twofold flow, non-abiding in both extremes, benefiting beings to the end of future time). The root difference among the four lies in "the cutting on which each rests": the first two (with- and without-remainder) both turn on "cutting the afflictive obstruction · extinguishing the suffering-basis" — their aim is "the resolution of birth-and-death" (suffering ended, no more becoming — precisely the arhat's mastery's without-remainder nirvāṇa, this axis's ARHAT-P07). The fourth alone turns on "cutting the cognitive obstruction" — its aim is not "the resolution of birth-and-death" but "non-abiding in both extremes · benefiting beings to the end of future time."

A homely contrast: four kinds of "freedom." First, "the freedom intrinsically pure" (the buddha-nature inherent in all, as the gold in ore is by nature pure); second and third, "the freedom of leaving suffering" (the illness cured · the debt cleared, escaping from suffering — as the with- and without-remainder nirvāṇas, weighted toward "being liberated from …"); fourth, "the freedom of not being bound by either end" (bound neither by birth-and-death nor by nirvāṇa's quiescence, free to come and go between the two to benefit others — as non-abiding). The first three can each be told as "free from" (liberated from something); the fourth alone is "free even to stay" (free enough to choose to remain without being bound by remaining). Non-abiding nirvāṇa is just the fourth: not "leaving the suffering of birth-and-death" (that is the business of the first three), but "leaving the binding of the extreme of 'either abide in birth-and-death or abide in nirvāṇa'" — bound neither by birth-and-death (not abiding in it) nor by nirvāṇa's quiescence (not abiding in it).

Yet here a boundary must be strictly kept (one of this paper's boundaries). The Cheng weishi lun judges the distribution of the four nirvāṇas plainly: "all beings have the first; the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three; only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four" (2.1 / ²) — non-abiding nirvāṇa's perfect, fruit-stage form "only the buddha has." Then does this paper, in taking non-abiding nirvāṇa as the core of the bodhisattva's mastery, overstep (saying of the bodhisattva what is the buddha's fruit alone)? Answer: this paper takes non-abiding nirvāṇa as the core of the bodhisattva's mastery in its causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis mark, not in its fruit-stage perfection. On two grounds. First, the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha states plainly "the bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa" (2.3 / ⁵) — the Saṃgraha takes the bodhisattva's turning-of-the-basis (extinction of defilement · forsaking-and-not-forsaking) outright as the mark of non-abiding nirvāṇa, so that the bodhisattva's (from the grounds onward) turning-of-the-basis already is the mark of non-abiding nirvāṇa (the vast turning). Second, the Cheng weishi lun itself, in the context of provisions, marks the six perfections — "giving and the rest not abiding in nirvāṇa, and the latter three not abiding in birth-and-death" — as "the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa"¹⁰: the bodhisattva, at the causal stage, accumulates the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa by the six perfections (orienting toward it · cultivating its provisions). On both grounds: the core of the bodhisattva's mastery, "non-abiding nirvāṇa," is what the bodhisattva, from the causal stage (the grounds, and even from the arising of the mind in accumulating provisions), orients toward and turns the basis into the mark of; while its perfect fruit-stage form (only the buddha has all four) belongs to this axis's tathāgata division and the author's seam adjudication. This paper establishes only "non-abiding nirvāṇa as the core of the bodhisattva's mastery in its causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis mark," and does not adjudicate the superiority of causal versus fruit stage, nor reconcile with the fruit-stage non-abiding nirvāṇa of the tathāgata division (the same boundary P08 kept).

✅ Doctrinally sound: non-abiding nirvāṇa is the fourth of the four nirvāṇas (intrinsically pure / with-remainder / without-remainder / non-abiding), gained uniquely by cutting the cognitive obstruction (Cheng weishi lun, 2.1), its mark the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom · non-abiding in both extremes · benefiting beings to the end of future time — unlike the first three's turning on "cutting the afflictive obstruction · extinguishing the suffering-basis" (pointing to the resolution of birth-and-death). This paper takes it as the bodhisattva's causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis mark (the Saṃgraha's "the bodhisattva's extinction of defilement is non-abiding nirvāṇa" · the six perfections as its provisions, 2.3 / ¹⁰); its fruit-stage perfection "only the buddha has all four" belongs to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication, this paper adjudicating neither superiority nor cross-division reconciliation (§V).

3.2 The Mechanism of the Twofold Flow: Cutting the Cognitive Obstruction · The Principle of Dharma-Emptiness Disclosed · Compassion and Wisdom Causing Non-Abiding in Both Extremes

The second sense of non-abiding nirvāṇa is the how of its "non-abiding" — how does it "abide in neither extreme"? This layer establishes its twofold mechanism.

The mechanism is in the Cheng weishi lun's passage "cutting the cognitive obstruction · the principle of dharma-emptiness disclosed · just is non-abiding nirvāṇa · causing non-abiding in both extremes" (2.2 / ³). Three moments. First, the cognitive obstruction as obstruction: it "can veil the dharma-emptiness suchness, preventing the arising of great compassion and wisdom" — what it obstructs is not the defilement that impels birth-and-death (it "does not impel rebirth," so it does not obstruct nirvāṇa [liberation]), but the disclosure of dharma-emptiness suchness and the arising of great compassion and wisdom. Second, what the cutting discloses: cut the cognitive obstruction, and "the principle of dharma-emptiness is disclosed, this principle just is non-abiding nirvāṇa" — the dharma-emptiness suchness disclosed is the substance of non-abiding nirvāṇa. Third, the sense of non-abiding: this nirvāṇa is named "non-abiding" precisely because it "causes non-abiding in both extremes" — causes non-stationing in either birth-and-death or nirvāṇa.

The motive force of "non-abiding in both extremes" is the twofold flow of "great compassion and wisdom." Why does the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom cause non-abiding in both extremes? On the standard reading (the established Yogācāra gloss), the distribution is: by great compassion, one does not abide in nirvāṇa — because great compassion is deep, one cannot bear to forsake beings and take nirvāṇa's quiescence alone (to take the quiescence and enter the without-remainder would be to abandon beings), and so one does not station in nirvāṇa; by wisdom, one does not abide in birth-and-death — because wisdom sees that birth-and-death is intrinsically empty, the dharma-emptiness suchness, one is not bound or defiled by birth-and-death (dwelling in birth-and-death yet unbound by it), and so one does not station in the defilement of birth-and-death. The two in twofold flow: wisdom lets one "dwell in birth-and-death without being bound by it" (so one can not-abide in birth-and-death while dwelling in it), compassion lets one "be able to take nirvāṇa without taking its quiescence" (so one can not-abide in nirvāṇa while still tending toward nirvāṇa's truth). Together this is "not abiding in birth-and-death and nirvāṇa" — non-abiding in both extremes, benefiting beings to the end of future time. (Note: the Cheng weishi lun's 0055b16 passage says only "ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa," without word-for-word distributing "compassion ↔ not-abiding-in-nirvāṇa · wisdom ↔ not-abiding-in-birth-and-death"; this distribution is the established Yogācāra gloss, which this paper invokes, marking it as the standard doctrinal reading, not the word-for-word text of that passage.)

This mechanism the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha confirms in the mark of "turning of the basis" (2.3): "upon the two supports of forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death, the turning of the basis is its mark" — "forsaking defilement" is just the function of wisdom (forsaking the defilement of affliction · not bound by birth-and-death, answering to not-abiding in birth-and-death), "not-forsaking birth-and-death" is just the function of compassion (not forsaking beings · not taking nirvāṇa's quiescence but continuing to dwell in birth-and-death to deliver beings, answering to not-abiding in nirvāṇa); the marvel of the turning is just "simultaneously forsaking [defilement] and not-forsaking [birth-and-death]." The Saṃgraha's "vast turning · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" (2.3 / ⁶) marks both in one phrase: "for forsaking" (forsaking defilement · wisdom) "and not-forsaking" (not-forsaking birth-and-death · compassion). The Saṃgraha's verse, "of birth-and-death neither forsaking nor non-forsaking, of nirvāṇa neither gaining nor non-gaining" (2.3 / ⁷), draws the form of "non-abiding in both extremes" by fourfold negation: not forsaking birth-and-death (not forsaking the delivering of beings) · not non-forsaking (yet truly forsaking its defilement), not gaining nirvāṇa (not taking its quiescence) · not non-gaining (not failing to gain nirvāṇa).

A contrast (one layer deeper than P05's "able to withdraw yet not withdrawing"): the ferry and the ferryman. One who seeks only his own crossing, having crossed to the far shore, abandons the boat and climbs ashore (abiding in nirvāṇa · as the two vehicles entering the without-remainder — having crossed, not returning to the water). One trapped by the flood, unable to cross at all, drowns on this shore (abiding in birth-and-death · as the unliberated ordinary being bound by the water). But one who can already cross (unbound by the water · wisdom), yet of his own will remains on the boat, plying back and forth between this shore and the far shore to carry people across (non-abiding · the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom) — he does not climb the far shore and abandon the boat (not abiding in nirvāṇa) because compassion cannot bear to abandon those waiting at the bank; he stays long on the water without drowning (not abiding in birth-and-death) because he is already a master of the water, unbound by it (wisdom). Where does he "abide"? Not on this shore (birth-and-death), not on the far shore (nirvāṇa); he "abides" in the very act of "plying back and forth to carry beings across" — and this "non-abiding" ferrying takes "mastery of the water (wisdom) + the unwillingness to abandon people (compassion)" for its motive force. The bodhisattva's non-abiding nirvāṇa is just like this ferryman's "non-abiding": not abiding in birth-and-death (by wisdom, not drowned), not abiding in nirvāṇa (by compassion, not climbing the far shore to rest), non-abiding in both extremes while ferrying beings to the end of future time.

✅ Doctrinally sound: the mechanism of non-abiding is "cutting the cognitive obstruction → the principle of dharma-emptiness disclosed → great compassion and wisdom able to arise → causing non-abiding in both extremes" (Cheng weishi lun, 2.2 / ³). Standard gloss: by great compassion, not abiding in nirvāṇa (not forsaking beings to take quiescence); by wisdom, not abiding in birth-and-death (not bound by saṃsāra); the two in twofold flow are "not abiding in birth-and-death and nirvāṇa" (note: the item-by-item distribution of compassion / wisdom is the established Yogācāra gloss, not the word-for-word text of the 0055b16 passage). The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha confirms this with "the turning of the basis · forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death · the vast turning, for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" (2.3 / ⁵⁶) and the verse "of birth-and-death neither forsaking nor non-forsaking · of nirvāṇa neither gaining nor non-gaining" (⁷).

3.3 Non-Abiding Nirvāṇa as the Ultimate Gathering of the "Not-Taking" Vein (Gathering P01/P05/P07/P08)

The third sense of non-abiding nirvāṇa is its place in this division — it is the ultimate gathering of the earlier vein of "not taking the realization / returning to deliver beings / not resting in quiescence." This layer gathers the earlier papers' veins here in one, and keeps the boundary of the term.

Look back over the division's hidden vein. P01 established that the bodhisattva's mastery is signed by "not-taking-the-realization": "long due for nirvāṇa yet not taking its realization · fully contemplating yet not realizing · practising the real-limit yet not realizing it" — three phrases of one tenor, all "at the point of realization, not taking it"; and P01 already marked that the deep sense of this "not-taking / not-abiding" is non-abiding nirvāṇa, "treated fully in this axis's P09, here only opened." P05 established "altruism is mastery · the śrāvaka cannot see": the bodhisattva's realm of "returning to deliver beings, embracing them with the four embraces" is what the śrāvaka cannot see, and its ultimate ground, "not abiding in one's own quiescence of realization, returning to deliver beings," P05 already pointed to P09. P07/P08 established the eighth-ground bodhisattva's effortless non-regress as "not resting in quiescence": near to cessation (the activity of mind, will, and consciousness no longer manifesting), yet "not resting in that quiescence," needing the buddhas to "rouse" him to advance toward buddhahood; and P07/P08 already marked that the ultimate ground of this "not abiding in the eighth ground's quiescence, advancing to seek the buddha-fruit" (abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa) belongs to P09.

These veins find their ultimate gathering in this paper — and the pivot of the gathering is precisely the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra's "seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head" (2.3 / ⁸). Read it together: the bodhisattva "reaching the seventh abode, contemplates without that all dharmas are empty, contemplates within that there is no self" — this is just P01's "fully contemplating" and P06's direct realization of the forbearance of non-arising (he can already take the realization); the bodhisattva "contemplating emptiness, about to extinguish himself" — this is just the "long due for nirvāṇa" at the point of realization (the realization his to take); the buddhas of the ten directions "stretch out their hands and stroke his head," exhorting "Do not give rise to regret! Recall your original vow! beings have not yet awakened; you must teach beings with this dharma of emptiness" — this is just P07/P08's "the buddhas' rousing" (for fear he rest in quiescence, exhorting him to rouse the original vow and continue delivering beings), in its Prajñā-stream canonical form; the bodhisattva, "because his original vow is firm, because great compassion has entered deep, because he clearly knows the true character of dharmas," does not take nirvāṇa — this is just P01's motive for "not-taking" (the original vow · great compassion · knowing the real), and just the motive force established at 3.2 of "the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom" (great compassion entered deep = compassion · clearly knowing the true character of dharmas = wisdom). This Śāstra passage may be called the Prajñā-stream master-root of the division's veins of "not-taking / rousing / not-resting-in-quiescence": the bodhisattva can take the realization (contemplating emptiness, about to extinguish) yet does not (the original vow, great compassion), his not-taking-but-continuing-to-deliver-beings being "not abiding in nirvāṇa," his delivering beings yet unbound by birth-and-death (knowing the real · contemplating emptiness) being "not abiding in birth-and-death" — and this is the substance of non-abiding nirvāṇa.

So non-abiding nirvāṇa is the ultimate gathering of the division's "nots": P01's "not-taking" of "not taking the realization," P05's return of "not abiding in one's own realization," P07/P08's advance of "not resting in the eighth ground's quiescence" — the ultimate ground all three share is just the "abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa" of non-abiding nirvāṇa. The bodhisattva's mastery's several faces (vow · delivering · the perfections · the embraces · the forbearance of non-arising · effortless non-regress · the ten masteries) here see their ultimate core: they are all the mastery of "refusing its own final rest" — the bodhisattva could take that final rest (nirvāṇa), yet by the original vow and great compassion does not, non-abiding in both extremes while benefiting beings to the end of future time. This "refusing its own final rest" is the deepest point where the bodhisattva's mastery differs from the arhat's (the arhat's mastery signed by taking that final rest — the without-remainder · no-more-becoming; the bodhisattva's signed by refusing that final rest — non-abiding · to the end of future time); their ultimate adjudication awaits P10.

Yet the boundary of the term must be strictly kept (this paper's second boundary). In taking the Śāstra's seventh-abode passage as the canonical witness of non-abiding nirvāṇa, this must be honestly marked: the Śāstra supplies the doctrinal substance of "not-taking-nirvāṇa · the original vow, great compassion, knowing the real," yet contains nowhere in the entire treatise this technical term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" (verified: all 33 occurrences of "non-abiding" mean "no fixed location / ultimate emptiness / the non-abiding samādhi," none being the nirvāṇa-term). The term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" is established by the Yogācāra (Cheng weishi lun) / Saṃgraha (Mahāyāna-saṃgraha) treatises (2.1, 2.3). So this paper's argumentative structure is: the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha supply the technical term and doctrinal framework of "non-abiding nirvāṇa" (the four-nirvāṇa schema · cutting the cognitive obstruction · great compassion and wisdom · the turning of the basis); the Prajñā stream (the Śāstra) supplies its doctrinal substance and canonical witness of motive (the seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head · not taking nirvāṇa by the original vow and great compassion); the two streams composed make this paper, with the term's source (Yogācāra/Saṃgraha) transparently marked, not passing the Śāstra off as the term's source.

⚠️ Boundaries (detailed in §V): first (the term), this paper takes the Śāstra's seventh-abode passage as the doctrinal substance of non-abiding nirvāṇa, yet the Śāstra contains nowhere this term (verified, zero occurrences), the term belonging to the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha; this paper marks its source transparently, not passing the Śāstra off as it. Second (causal vs fruit), this paper takes non-abiding nirvāṇa as the bodhisattva's causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis mark (3.1), its fruit-stage perfection "only the buddha has all four" belonging to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication, this paper adjudicating neither superiority nor cross-division reconciliation. Third (divergent emphases), the Saṃgraha's "the bodhisattva's extinction of defilement is non-abiding nirvāṇa" and the Cheng weishi lun's "only the buddha has four · the bodhisattva cultivates its provisions" stand side by side, this paper setting them side by side without forcing them into one, the ground-by-ground placement left to the author.

Taking the three layers together: non-abiding nirvāṇa is the fourth of the four nirvāṇas · gained by cutting the cognitive obstruction (the coordinate, 3.1); its "non-abiding" mechanism is the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom disclosed by cutting the cognitive obstruction, causing non-abiding in both extremes (the mechanism, 3.2); it is the ultimate gathering of the division's veins of "not taking the realization / returning to deliver beings / not resting in quiescence" (the place, 3.3). The three together witness this paper's thesis: non-abiding nirvāṇa is the ultimate core of the bodhisattva's mastery refusing its own final rest — the turning-of-the-basis disclosed by cutting the cognitive obstruction, the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom, non-abiding in both extremes while benefiting beings to the end of future time; it is precisely the terminus toward which the earlier "not-taking" vein tends (fruit-stage perfection and cross-axis reconciliation left to the author).

IV. Interdisciplinary Reconciliation

(This paper deliberately cuts the interdisciplinary section; the reason and the statement of the cut are given in §VI. The paper's spine is the Mahāyāna Yogācāra/Saṃgraha doctrine of "non-abiding nirvāṇa · cutting the cognitive obstruction · great compassion and wisdom causing non-abiding in both extremes · the turning of the basis." Contemporary models of "engaged detachment," "in the world but not of it," and "sustainable altruism / servant-leader resilience," though on the surface resembling "abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa" in the sense of "both engaged and unbound by engagement · neither withdrawing nor burning out," cannot sustain a three-layered reconciliation free of forced analogy on three counts: that the "non-abiding" of non-abiding arises from cutting the cognitive obstruction · the disclosure of dharma-emptiness suchness · the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom (not a psychological balance or emotional regulation); that the "nirvāṇa" of not-abiding-in-nirvāṇa is the ultimate cessation that was his to take (not a worldly retreat or rest); and that "the turning of the basis is its mark" (a turning of the defiled into the pure upon the dependent nature, not an adjustment of attitude or habit) — above all the middle count, where what "not abiding in nirvāṇa" refuses is the ultimate liberative quiescence that was his to take (the without-remainder nirvāṇa, the real exit of body-and-mind extinguished), not any worldly "retreat / rest / leaving a job"; the "non-attachment" of engagement psychology is still an attitude of the conditioned mind, only superficially like and essentially other than the realized state of "the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom disclosed by cutting the cognitive obstruction." To force the analogy would make non-abiding nirvāṇa a "work-life-balance" technique, losing its deep liberative / turning-of-the-basis lineage. Hence the cut, per the series' editorial convention, here stated.)

V. Madhyamaka Correction

This section clears away three misreadings adjacent to the paper's thesis; the latter two, bearing on the boundaries of term, causal-versus-fruit, and divergent emphases, must be marked with special honesty.

❌ Misreading one: "non-abiding nirvāṇa = the failure to attain nirvāṇa / the bodhisattva forever sunk in birth-and-death, suffering (able to reach the shore but refusing, self-tormenting without end)." This the paper breaks at the outset and reaffirms here. To read "not abiding in nirvāṇa" as "failing to attain nirvāṇa," and "not abiding in birth-and-death" as "forever suffering in saṃsāra like an ordinary being," is a double error. First, non-abiding nirvāṇa is itself a nirvāṇa (the fourth of the four, 2.1) — it is the "functioning yet ever quiescent" of the dharma-emptiness suchness disclosed by cutting the cognitive obstruction (functioning yet ever quiescent: giving rise to the great function of benefiting others while its substance is ever quiescent), not the lack of "nirvāṇa not yet attained." "Not abiding in nirvāṇa" means not stationing in nirvāṇa's quiescence (not taking the without-remainder's extinction to rest), not "being unable to attain nirvāṇa" (the bodhisattva is not someone who cannot reach the shore). Second, "not abiding in birth-and-death" means not being bound or defiled by birth-and-death (the bodhisattva has cut/suppressed the afflictive obstruction · by wisdom contemplates emptiness, dwelling in birth-and-death yet unbound by its suffering), not "suffering in saṃsāra like an ordinary being" (his dwelling in birth-and-death is the "non-abiding" return to deliver beings, not the "bound" flowing-on and receiving of recompense). So non-abiding nirvāṇa is not "self-torment without end" but the supreme bliss of "freedom in both extremes" (functioning yet ever quiescent · benefiting beings to the end of future time). To read it as "the self-torment of able-to-reach-the-shore-but-refusing" is still to measure the bodhisattva by the two-vehicle yardstick of "climbing ashore = the only liberation" — whereas the bodhisattva's liberation lies precisely in "no longer needing to climb ashore to escape the danger of the water, and so free to remain in the water to save others" (the ferryman simile, 3.2).

⚠️ Correction two: "non-abiding nirvāṇa" is a technical term established by the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Prajñā stream) supplies its doctrinal substance but contains no occurrence of this term in the entire treatise, and this paper does not cite the Śāstra as the term's source; further, the Sanskrit correspondences are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML. This must be marked with the strictest honesty. First (the term's source): this paper's core term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" (with its framework of "four nirvāṇas," "freed of the cognitive obstruction," "great compassion and wisdom," "turning of the basis") issues from the Cheng weishi lun, fascicles 9–10, and the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (2.1, 2.3 / ¹³⁴⁵⁶⁷). The Śāstra passages cited in this paper — the seventh-abode passage (⁸) and the illusionist simile (⁹) — supply the doctrinal substance and canonical witness of motive for "not-taking-nirvāṇa · the original vow, great compassion, knowing the real," yet the Śāstra contains nowhere in the entire treatise this technical term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" (physically verified: all 33 occurrences of "non-abiding" mean "no fixed location / ultimate emptiness" or "the non-abiding samādhi," none being the nirvāṇa-term). This paper marks its boundary transparently: the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha as the source of the term and framework, the Śāstra as the Prajñā-stream canonical witness of the doctrine's substance, not passing the Śāstra off as the term's source. Readers should not take the places where this paper cites the Śāstra as the source of the term "non-abiding nirvāṇa." Second (the Sanskrit): the Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa (non-abiding nirvāṇa) / āśrayaparāvṛtti (turning of the basis) are not directly verified in the CBETA Chinese-translation XML, being marked only by standard translation-equivalents; Sanskrit textual attestation would require separate consultation of Skt sources.

⚠️ Correction three: the Cheng weishi lun's "non-abiding nirvāṇa is the buddha-fruit's alone" and this paper's taking of non-abiding nirvāṇa as the core of the bodhisattva's mastery must keep the causal-versus-fruit boundary; and the Saṃgraha's and the Cheng weishi lun's divergent emphases stand side by side without adjudication. This is the locus of this paper's boundary, to be most strictly kept. First (causal vs fruit): the Cheng weishi lun judges plainly "all beings have the first; the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three; only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four" (2.1 / ²) — non-abiding nirvāṇa's perfect fruit-stage form only the buddha has. This paper takes non-abiding nirvāṇa as the core of the bodhisattva's mastery in its causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis mark (the Saṃgraha's "the bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa" · the vast turning · the six perfections as its provisions, 2.3, 3.1 / ⁵¹⁰), that is, the non-abiding mark the bodhisattva orients toward and turns the basis into from the grounds (and even from the arising of the mind in accumulating provisions) onward; its perfect fruit-stage form (only the buddha has all four) belongs to this axis's tathāgata division and the author's (Shi Huijing's) seam adjudication. This paper does not adjudicate the superiority of causal versus fruit stage (neither judging the bodhisattva's causal-stage non-abiding "inferior to" the buddha-fruit's, nor the buddha-fruit's "superior to" the bodhisattva's), and does not reconcile doctrinally the bodhisattva's causal-stage non-abiding nirvāṇa with the tathāgata's fruit-stage non-abiding nirvāṇa (whose full correlation belongs to the tathāgata division's domain). This is the same boundary P08 kept with "the eighth-ground bodhisattva's ten masteries vs. the tathāgata's ten masteries · marking the path-position, not adjudicating superiority, not reconciling." Second (divergent emphases): the Saṃgraha's emphasis ("the bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa" — the bodhisattva's turning-of-the-basis already is the mark of non-abiding nirvāṇa) and the Cheng weishi lun's emphasis ("only the buddha has four" · the bodhisattva at the causal stage cultivates its provisions / orients toward it) stand side by side with some tension. This paper sets the two side by side (taking the Saṃgraha for the mark of the bodhisattva's turning-of-the-basis, the Cheng weishi lun for the four-nirvāṇa framework and the fruit-stage "only the buddha has four"), without forcing them into one (not adjudicating whether the bodhisattva's non-abiding nirvāṇa is "already accomplished" or "still being oriented toward"), the precise ground-by-ground placement (non-abiding's mark from the grounds · or from the seventh / eighth ground · or only at the fruit-stage perfection) left to the author.

VI. Conclusion

Restatement in essence. Non-abiding nirvāṇa is the ultimate core of the bodhisattva's mastery refusing its own final rest. On the canon, the Cheng weishi lun sets out four nirvāṇas, the first three gained by cutting the afflictive obstruction / extinguishing the suffering-basis (pointing to the resolution of birth-and-death), the fourth alone — "non-abiding nirvāṇa, the suchness freed of the cognitive obstruction, ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting beings to the end of future time, functioning yet ever quiescent" — gained by cutting the cognitive obstruction; the sense of its "non-abiding" is "causing non-abiding in both extremes," its mechanism "cutting the cognitive obstruction → the principle of dharma-emptiness disclosed → great compassion and wisdom able to arise" (standard gloss: by compassion not abiding in nirvāṇa, by wisdom not abiding in birth-and-death). The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha glosses it as "the turning of the basis · forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death," judging the bodhisattva's "vast turning · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" distinct from the śrāvaka's "inferior turning · one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death," and marks in verse "of birth-and-death neither forsaking nor non-forsaking · of nirvāṇa neither gaining nor non-gaining." The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Prajñā stream) records, in the seventh abode's "the buddhas stroke his head · recall your original vow," the bodhisattva's not taking nirvāṇa "because his original vow is firm, because great compassion has entered deep, because he clearly knows the true character of dharmas," supplying its doctrinal substance. On doctrine, three layers: the fourth of the four nirvāṇas · gained by cutting the cognitive obstruction (the coordinate, 3.1); the twofold flow of compassion and wisdom disclosed by cutting the cognitive obstruction, causing non-abiding in both extremes (the mechanism, 3.2); the ultimate gathering of the division's veins of "not taking the realization / returning to deliver beings / not resting in quiescence" (the place, 3.3). Three boundaries are to be marked (§V): the term (the Śāstra supplies substance but contains not the term, which belongs to the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha), causal-versus-fruit (this paper takes the causal-stage orientation, the fruit-stage "only the buddha has four" belonging to the tathāgata division and the author), and divergent emphases (the Saṃgraha's "is" and the Cheng weishi lun's "cultivates its provisions" side by side, unadjudicated).

Guidance for practice. Here the practitioner should put away one delusion, recognize one direction, hold one vow. The delusion to put away: do not take "not abiding in nirvāṇa" for "failing to attain nirvāṇa / forever sunk in birth-and-death, self-tormenting" — non-abiding is itself a nirvāṇa (functioning yet ever quiescent), its "non-abiding" the supreme bliss of "freedom in both extremes," not the self-torture of "able to escape yet not escaping." The direction to recognize: the true direction of the bodhisattva's mastery is not "leaving the suffering of birth-and-death" (that is the arhat's mastery's direction, real and not inferior), but "being bound by neither extreme of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa" — so one who treads the bodhisattva path seeks not "to climb ashore soon" but "to cultivate until one can come and go freely in the water to save others" (by wisdom not drowning · by compassion not abandoning). The vow to hold: hold the vow of "recall your original vow" — the bodhisattva is able to take yet does not take because of "the original vow firm · great compassion entered deep · clearly knowing the true character of dharmas" (the Śāstra's four causes); in one's own practice, one should take the three — "the original vow (to deliver beings)," "great compassion (unwilling to abandon beings)," "wisdom (knowing the real, unbound by birth-and-death)" — as the root of "not taking the rest that was one's to take." Yet one must also remember: this "not-taking" is not the ordinary being's "being unable to take" (to speak of not-taking without having realized is overweening conceit) — it must first have the realization of "being able to take" (as the realization of contemplating emptiness about to extinguish at the seventh abode); only then is its "not-taking" mastery; to speak of not-taking before one can take is mere talk.

Taking up and opening. This paper gathers the whole division's hidden vein in one: P01 established that the bodhisattva's mastery is signed by "not-taking-the-realization" (marking its deep sense as non-abiding nirvāṇa, treated here), this paper establishing non-abiding nirvāṇa as the ultimate core of that "not-taking" (abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa). P05 established "altruism is mastery · the śrāvaka cannot see," whose ultimate ground of "not abiding in one's own quiescence of realization" is this paper's non-abiding nirvāṇa (by compassion not abiding in nirvāṇa · returning to deliver beings). P07/P08 established the eighth-ground "not resting in quiescence · the buddhas' rousing · advancing to seek buddhahood," whose ultimate ground (abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa) is this paper; and the Śāstra's "seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head · recall your original vow" is the Prajñā-stream master-text of P07/P08's "the buddhas' rousing." Opening forward: this paper establishes the meaning and mechanism of non-abiding nirvāṇa (non-abiding in both extremes · great compassion and wisdom · the turning of the basis); the ultimate adjudication of the bodhisattva's mastery (non-abiding nirvāṇa) and the arhat's mastery (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · no-more-becoming, this axis's ARHAT-P07) — the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas (non-abiding freed of the cognitive obstruction · benefiting beings to the end of future time vs. the without-remainder freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming), the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions (the bodhisattva cuts both vs. the two vehicles cut only the afflictive), the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis (the vast turning "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" vs. the inferior turning "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death") — awaits this axis's P10, the load-bearing close. And: the fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has all four) of non-abiding nirvāṇa, and its reconciliation with the bodhisattva's causal-stage non-abiding nirvāṇa, belongs to this axis's tathāgata division and the author's seam adjudication; this paper establishes only the causal-stage orientation's mark, leaving room for that seam without overstepping. As for the Realization axis: this paper's non-abiding nirvāṇa correlates thematically with the bodhi-path division's closing papers (the ninth and tenth grounds · and toward the buddha-fruit) — the Realization axis walks the course of the ten grounds and toward the buddha-fruit, the Attainment axis (this paper) reads the core of mastery, non-abiding nirvāṇa, toward which that course tends; the seam's doctrine is the author's, and this paper does not speak for the Realization axis.

Open questions. First, the paper cuts §IV (non-abiding nirvāṇa is only superficially like "engaged detachment / sustainable altruism"), as above. Second, the term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" belongs to the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha; the Śāstra supplies substance but contains not the term (verified, zero occurrences); the inquiry into the term's earliest source this paper does not cover. Third, this paper takes non-abiding nirvāṇa as the bodhisattva's causal-stage orientation's mark, its fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four) belonging to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication, this paper adjudicating neither causal-versus-fruit superiority nor cross-division reconciliation. Fourth, the Saṃgraha's "the bodhisattva's extinction is non-abiding nirvāṇa" and the Cheng weishi lun's "only the buddha has four · the bodhisattva cultivates its provisions" stand side by side, this paper forcing them into no one reading, the ground-by-ground placement left to the author. Fifth, this paper's designated sources are the three treatises (Cheng weishi lun, Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra), and it does not take the Daśabhūmika/Avataṃsaka stream's textual support (e.g., the sixth, Present-before-one's-eyes ground · and the seventh, Far-reaching ground's "non-abiding path" conduct); should the Avataṃsaka/Daśabhūmika canon's "seventh-ground non-abiding path" anchor be required, a separate verification of the Daśabhūmika stream is needed (this paper takes only the Śāstra's "seventh abode" passage as substance, citing no Daśabhūmika "non-abiding path" text). Sixth, the Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa / āśrayaparāvṛtti are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML, marked only by standard equivalents, Sanskrit attestation awaiting separate consultation.

Notes

References

Primary Buddhist Sources

• Cheng weishi lun (成唯識論). By Dharmapāla et al., trans. Xuanzang. T31, no. 1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗. Fasc. 9 (the definition of the two obstructions · the six perfections as the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa); fasc. 10 (the four-nirvāṇa schema · the definition of non-abiding nirvāṇa · the distribution "only the buddha has four" · cutting the cognitive obstruction causing non-abiding in both extremes).
• Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (攝大乘論). By Asaṅga, trans. Paramārtha. T31, no. 1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗. Fasc. 3, "On the Excellent Mark of the Quiescence That Is the Fruit of Training" (non-abiding nirvāṇa = the turning of the basis · forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death · the inferior and the vast turning · the verse of neither-forsaking-nor-taking the two extremes).
• Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (大智度論). By Nāgārjuna, trans. Kumārajīva. T25, no. 1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗. Fasc. 29 ("On Dedication," chapter 45: abiding at the tenth abode, not taking nirvāṇa · the illusionist simile); fasc. 48 ("The Four Foundations of Mindfulness," chapter 19: the seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head · the four causes of not-taking nirvāṇa).

Modern Scholarship

(This paper cites no modern scholarship; its argument rests entirely on the Buddhist canon, in the open-source spirit of "returning to the source." The interdisciplinary section having been cut, there is no associated modern literature. The term "non-abiding nirvāṇa" belongs to the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha; the Śāstra supplies the doctrinal substance but contains not the term [verified, zero occurrences], a boundary this paper marks transparently without pre-citing modern studies of the term's source-history; the Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa / āśrayaparāvṛtti are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML, marked by standard equivalents, no Sanskrit attestation pre-cited. The fruit-stage perfection "only the buddha has four" and its reconciliation with the bodhisattva's causal stage belong to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication, no relevant adjudication pre-cited.)

Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Citation	Source	CBETA id
The four-nirvāṇa schema (first three cut afflictive / extinguish suffering-basis · fourth cuts cognitive)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 10	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b07
The distribution of the four nirvāṇas (first inherent · two-vehicle may have first three · only the buddha has four)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 10	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b19
Cutting the cognitive obstruction · dharma-emptiness disclosed · causing non-abiding in both extremes (the sense of "non-abiding")	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 10	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055c13
The definition of the two obstructions (afflictive obstructs nirvāṇa · cognitive obstructs awakening)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 9	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0048c06
The six perfections as the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 9	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0051c16
Non-abiding nirvāṇa = the turning of the basis (forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death)	Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, fasc. 3, Quiescence-Fruit	T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129a27
The inferior turning (śrāvaka, one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death) vs. the vast turning (bodhisattva, for forsaking-and-not-forsaking)	Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, fasc. 3, Quiescence-Fruit	T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129b11
Verse: of birth-and-death neither forsaking nor non-forsaking · of nirvāṇa neither gaining nor non-gaining	Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, fasc. 3, Quiescence-Fruit	T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129b26
The seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head · the four causes of not-taking nirvāṇa (original vow · great compassion · knowing the real · the buddhas' protection)	Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, fasc. 48, Four Foundations of Mindfulness	T25n1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0405c24
Abiding at the tenth abode, complete in the buddha-dharmas, dwelling in the world · not taking nirvāṇa to deliver beings · the illusionist simile	Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, fasc. 29, On Dedication	T25n1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0273b11

Series Cross-Reference Index

• BODHI-P01, "The Bodhisattva's Mastery Does Not Succeed the Arhat-Fruit" §3.2, §VI: this paper gathers it — P01 established that the bodhisattva's mastery is signed by "not-taking-the-realization," marking its deep sense as non-abiding nirvāṇa, "treated fully in this axis's P09"; this paper establishes non-abiding nirvāṇa as the ultimate core of that "not-taking" vein (abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, 3.3).
• BODHI-P05, "The Four Embraces: Altruism Is Mastery" §3.3, §VI: this paper gathers it — P05 established the return-to-deliver-beings of "altruism is mastery · the śrāvaka cannot see," whose ultimate ground of "not abiding in one's own quiescence of realization" is this paper's non-abiding nirvāṇa (by compassion not abiding in nirvāṇa · returning to deliver beings, 3.2).
• BODHI-P07, "Irreversibility and Effortless Flow" & BODHI-P08, "The Ten Masteries of the Eighth Ground" §3.3, §VI: this paper gathers them — P07/P08 established the eighth-ground "not resting in quiescence · the buddhas' rousing · advancing to seek the buddha-fruit," whose ultimate ground (abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa) is this paper; the Śāstra's "seventh abode · the buddhas stroke his head · recall your original vow" (⁸) is the Prajñā-stream master-text of P07/P08's "the buddhas' rousing."
• BODHI-P02, "The Two Boundless Accumulations" §3.1: this paper's 3.1 / ¹⁰ "the six perfections as the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa" binds with P02's "mastery measured by accumulation" — the bodhisattva at the causal stage accumulates the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa by the six perfections.
• BODHI-P10, "The Ultimate Adjudication of the Bodhisattva's and the Arhat's Masteries" (forthcoming · close): this paper establishes the meaning and mechanism of non-abiding nirvāṇa; the ultimate adjudication of the bodhisattva's mastery (non-abiding nirvāṇa) and the arhat's (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · no-more-becoming, ARHAT-P07) — the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas, the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions, the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis — awaits P10.
• ★ The Arhat's Mastery ARHAT-P07, "The Doctrine of No-More-Becoming" (Attainment axis, Div 1 · contrast): this paper's non-abiding nirvāṇa (freed of the cognitive obstruction · benefiting beings to the end of future time) and ARHAT-P07's without-remainder nirvāṇa (freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming) are the two sides of the ultimate adjudication; P10 adjudicates them.
• ★ This axis's tathāgata division (the fruit-stage of non-abiding nirvāṇa) (forthcoming division · the author's seam adjudication): the perfection and reconciliation of "the bodhisattva's causal-stage non-abiding nirvāṇa vs. the tathāgata's fruit-stage non-abiding nirvāṇa (only the buddha has four)" that this paper strictly keeps and does not adjudicate belongs to the tathāgata division and the author's (Shi Huijing's) seam adjudication; this paper establishes only the causal-stage orientation's mark, leaving room for that seam without overstepping.
• ★ Realization-axis bodhi-path closing papers (the ninth and tenth grounds · toward the buddha-fruit) (parallel · thematically related): the Realization axis walks the course of the ten grounds and toward the buddha-fruit, the Attainment axis (this paper) reads the core of mastery, non-abiding nirvāṇa, toward which that course tends; the seam's doctrine is the author's, and this paper does not speak for the Realization axis.

---

Paper: BODHI-P09 · 無住處涅槃義 · The Bodhisattva's Mastery · Part 6 · The Refused Rest Author: 釋慧鏡 (Shi Huijing) · Project: 指月 / Pointing-at-the-Moon · Series: The Attainment Signatures（證 自在簽名） License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 CBETA collation: 全文引用均依 CBETA 電子佛典核校（《成唯識論》T1585、《攝大乘論》T1593、《大智度論》T1509）。本篇為大乘分區，無巴利雙軌義務；引文均依 CBETA XML 實核（含卷數更正：智論不取涅槃段為卷四十八〈四念處品第十九〉，原檢索誤記卷十九，已正）。Three boundaries (see §V): first, "non-abiding nirvāṇa" is a Yogācāra/Saṃgraha term; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra supplies the doctrinal substance but contains not the term anywhere (verified: all 33 occurrences of "non-abiding" are non-nirvāṇa senses), and this paper does not cite it as the term's source. Second, this paper takes non-abiding nirvāṇa as the bodhisattva's causal-stage orientation / turning-of-the-basis mark, its fruit-stage perfection "only the buddha has four" belonging to this axis's tathāgata division and the author's adjudication; this paper adjudicates neither causal-versus-fruit superiority nor cross-division reconciliation. Third, the Saṃgraha's "the bodhisattva's extinction is non-abiding nirvāṇa" and the Cheng weishi lun's "only the buddha has four · the bodhisattva cultivates its provisions" stand side by side without being forced into one, the ground-by-ground placement left to the author. The Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa / āśrayaparāvṛtti are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML, marked by standard equivalents. Repository: https://github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/attainment-signatures

Footnotes

1. 《成唯識論》卷第十, T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b07. By Dharmapāla et al., trans. Xuanzang. "The meaning of nirvāṇa differs; in brief there are four kinds. First, nirvāṇa intrinsically pure by nature … Second, nirvāṇa with remainder — the suchness freed of the afflictive obstruction … Third, nirvāṇa without remainder — the suchness freed of the suffering of birth-and-death, the afflictions being ended and the remaining basis too extinguished … Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa — the suchness freed of the cognitive obstruction, ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting beings to the end of future time, functioning yet ever quiescent, hence called nirvāṇa." The four-nirvāṇa schema: the first three gained by cutting the afflictive obstruction / extinguishing the suffering-basis, the fourth alone by cutting the cognitive obstruction. CBETA-verified. ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. 《成唯識論》卷第十, T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b19. "All beings have the first; the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three; only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four." The distribution of the four nirvāṇas: the first inherent · the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three · only the buddha has four (non-abiding nirvāṇa's perfect fruit-stage form is the buddha's alone — the locus of this paper's causal-versus-fruit boundary, §V; also a P10 adjudication anchor). ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. 《成唯識論》卷第十, T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055c13. "The cognitive obstructions, since they do not impel rebirth, how is it that cutting them yields the non-abiding place? They can veil the dharma-emptiness suchness, preventing the arising of great compassion and wisdom that benefits beings to the end of future time. So when they are cut, the principle of dharma-emptiness is disclosed; this principle just is non-abiding nirvāṇa — because it causes non-abiding in both extremes." The pivot of the sense of "non-abiding": cutting the cognitive obstruction → dharma-emptiness disclosed → great compassion and wisdom arise → causing non-abiding in both extremes. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. 《成唯識論》卷第九, T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0048c06. "The afflictive obstruction — grasping the pervasively-imagined real self … able to obstruct nirvāṇa, is named the afflictive obstruction. The cognitive obstruction — grasping pervasively-imagined real dharmas … veiling the unmistaken nature of the knowable realm, able to obstruct awakening, is named the cognitive obstruction." Each obstruction obstructs one fruit: the afflictive obstruction obstructs nirvāṇa · the cognitive obstruction obstructs awakening; so non-abiding nirvāṇa requires cutting the cognitive obstruction (also the premise of P10's "the two vehicles cut one obstruction · the bodhisattva cuts both"). ↩ ↩²

5. 《攝大乘論》卷下〈學果寂滅勝相品第九〉, T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129a27. By Asaṅga, trans. Paramārtha. "The bodhisattvas' extinction of defilement just is non-abiding nirvāṇa. What is its mark? Upon the two supports of forsaking defilement and not-forsaking birth-and-death, the turning of the basis is its mark." The Saṃgraha's definition of non-abiding nirvāṇa: the turning of the basis (forsaking defilement yet not forsaking birth-and-death) is its mark. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

6. 《攝大乘論》卷下〈學果寂滅勝相品第九〉, T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129b11. "Fifth, the inferior turning: because the śrāvaka comprehends the selflessness of persons, and one-pointedly turns his back on birth-and-death, for forever forsaking birth-and-death. Sixth, the vast turning: because the bodhisattva comprehends the selflessness of dharmas, contemplating therein the merit of quiescence, for forsaking-and-not-forsaking." The inferior turning (śrāvaka · one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death) vs. the vast turning (bodhisattva · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking) — the turning-of-the-basis structure of non-abiding nirvāṇa (also a P10 adjudication anchor). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

7. 《攝大乘論》卷下〈學果寂滅勝相品第九〉, T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129b26. "As to birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, when knowledge arises in equality, birth-and-death just is nirvāṇa, the two having no 'this' and 'that.' Therefore of birth-and-death there is neither forsaking nor non-forsaking; of nirvāṇa likewise, neither gaining nor non-gaining." Verse: neither forsaking nor taking the two extremes — the verse-witness of the non-abiding mark. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

8. 《大智度論》卷第四十八〈釋四念處品第十九〉, T25n1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0405c24. By Nāgārjuna, trans. Kumārajīva. "Question: If the bodhisattva cultivates these thirty-seven factors, how is it that he does not take nirvāṇa? Answer: Because his original vow is firm, because great compassion has entered deep, because he clearly knows the true character of dharmas, because the buddhas of the ten directions are mindful and protect him. As the sutra says: 'The bodhisattva, reaching the seventh abode, contemplates without that all dharmas are empty, and contemplates within that there is no self …' (the buddhas of the ten directions stretch out their hands and stroke his head) 'Do not give rise to regret! Recall your original vow! … beings have not yet awakened; you must teach beings with this dharma of emptiness … you have not yet completed the six perfections, up to the eighteen distinctive dharmas …'" The four causes of the bodhisattva's being able to take (contemplating emptiness, about to extinguish) yet not taking nirvāṇa (the original vow · great compassion · knowing the real · the buddhas' protection); the Prajñā-stream doctrinal substance of non-abiding nirvāṇa. (Note: the fascicle number of this CBETA_id, mis-recorded in the earlier source-gathering pass as "fasc. 19," is corrected here — "nineteen" is the chapter number 〈the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, chapter 19〉; the fascicle, verified against the juan milestone, is fascicle 48.) ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

9. 《大智度論》卷第二十九〈釋初品中迴向釋論第四十五〉, T25n1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0273b11. "The bodhisattva has great spiritual power; abiding at the tenth abode, complete in the buddha-dharmas, he dwells in the world, and because he widely delivers beings, does not take nirvāṇa; he is also like an illusionist who transforms his own body to teach others …" The bodhisattva, abiding at the tenth abode · complete in the buddha-dharmas yet dwelling in the world · for the sake of widely delivering beings, does not take nirvāṇa (the illusionist simile) — the simile-witness of the substance of not-taking-nirvāṇa. ↩ ↩² ↩³

10. 《成唯識論》卷第九, T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0051c16. "Further, by giving and the rest not abiding in nirvāṇa, and by the latter three not abiding in birth-and-death, they are the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa." The Yogācāra takes the six perfections (giving and the rest not abiding in nirvāṇa · the latter three [vigor / meditation / wisdom] not abiding in birth-and-death) as the provisions-cause for non-abiding nirvāṇa — the bodhisattva at the causal stage cultivates the provisions for non-abiding nirvāṇa (this paper's ground for taking non-abiding nirvāṇa as the bodhisattva's "causal-stage orientation," see 3.1, §V). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴