法華玄論 2.14

2.14

第二明因果義。舊云初開三顯一以明因，次開近顯遠以辨果。依舊判者，因亦滿亦半，果則唯半不滿。明會三歸一，故一乘究竟為因滿；但明緣因未辨正因，故因不滿。明果雖有近遠之異，皆是無常，故唯半不滿也。評曰：此釋二失。一者云初段明因後章辨果，是義不然。昔明因三果三，今辨因一果一，何得開三顯一但明因耶？若今日明一唯是因者，則昔明三乘事亦應然。又明今一佛果乘究竟，明昔三因三果皆不究竟，正引物果一，云何乃明因耶？此義文中已說。二者若言初段明因了、後章辨果未了，即因勝而果劣、因深而果淺，是義不然。又因異聲聞、果同羅漢，所以然者，會三歸一故因異聲聞，猶是無常故果同阿羅漢。又以今一因感無常之果，亦應以昔二因招常住之報；不可以三乘因得常住果者，亦不可以一乘因得無常果。又因滿果半，則因非果因、果非因果，故非因果義也。今所明者對破二失以明二得。初段開三顯一，一者通因果，故昔則有因三果三，今則有因一果一也。二者此經辨究竟之因、圓滿之果，會三歸一之因，因名滿因；開近顯遠之果，果名圜果，故因名果因、果名因果也。又因具二因故因滿：一者正因謂佛性、二者緣因即萬善，如前說也。果具二果，一迹身果、二法身果也。

Second, clarifying the meaning of cause and fruit. The old tradition says: first, opening the three and displaying the one clarifies the cause; next, opening the near and displaying the distant explains the fruit. According to the old appraisal, the cause is both complete and half, while the fruit is only half and not complete. Because it clarifies converging the three to return to the one, the One Vehicle is ultimate and thus the cause is complete; but because it clarifies only the auxiliary cause and does not yet explain the direct cause, the cause is not complete. Because it clarifies that although the fruit has the difference of near and distant, both are impermanent, it is therefore only half and not complete. Evaluation: This interpretation has two errors. First, to say that the first section clarifies the cause and the latter chapter explains the fruit is incorrect. Formerly, three causes and three fruits were clarified; now, one cause and one fruit are explained. How could opening the three and displaying the one clarify only the cause? If what is clarified today as the 'one' were only the cause, then what was formerly clarified as the three vehicles would also be so. Furthermore, clarifying today's one Buddha-fruit vehicle as ultimate, and clarifying the former three causes and three fruits as all non-ultimate, is precisely guiding beings to the one fruit; how could it clarify only the cause? This meaning has already been explained in the text. Second, if one says that the first section clarifies the cause definitively and the latter chapter explains the fruit non-definitively, then the cause would be superior while the fruit would be inferior, and the cause would be deep while the fruit would be shallow; this meaning is incorrect. Furthermore, the cause would differ from the śrāvakas while the fruit would be identical to the arhats. Why is this? Because by converging the three to return to the one, the cause differs from the śrāvakas, but because it is still impermanent, the fruit is identical to the arhats. Furthermore, if today's one cause brings about an impermanent fruit, then the former two causes should likewise bring about a permanent reward; just as one cannot obtain a permanent fruit through the causes of the three vehicles, so one cannot obtain an impermanent fruit through the cause of the One Vehicle. Furthermore, if the cause is complete and the fruit is half, then the cause is not the cause of the fruit, and the fruit is not the fruit of the cause, so this is not the meaning of cause and fruit. What is now clarified refutes these two errors to clarify two merits. In the first section, opening the three and displaying the one, the 'one' encompasses both cause and fruit; therefore, formerly there were three causes and three fruits, while now there is one cause and one fruit. Second, this sūtra explains the ultimate cause and the consummate fruit: the cause of converging the three to return to the one is called the complete cause; the fruit of opening the near and displaying the distant is called the consummate fruit; therefore the cause is called the cause of the fruit, and the fruit is called the fruit of the cause. Furthermore, because the cause is endowed with both causes, the cause is complete: first, the direct cause, namely Buddha-nature; second, the auxiliary cause, namely the myriad good practices, as explained above. The fruit is endowed with both fruits: first, the trace-body fruit; second, the dharmakāya fruit.