大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 10.18

10.18

疏「一性無性即是佛性」者，第三會佛性義。先正會、後「故涅槃」下，引證。以第一義空即佛性故，大意秖爾，欲窮法源故復略引。然此經二十七〈師子吼品〉問於佛性，總有六問：一問云何為佛性（一問體性）？二以何義故名說佛性（二問性名義）？三何故復名常樂我淨（三問性德）？四若一切眾生有佛性者，何故不見一切眾生所有佛性（四問眾生不見所以）？五十住菩薩住何等法不得了了見於佛性？佛住何等法而了了見（五問住法差別）？六十住菩薩以何等眼不了了見？佛何眼而了了見（六問用眼不同）？答中，答第一問，經云「佛性者名第一義空，第一義空名為智慧。所言空者，不見空與不空。智者見空及與不空、常與無常、苦之與樂、我與無我。空者，一切生死。不空者，謂大涅槃。」乃至云「無我者即是生死，我者謂大涅槃。見一切空，不見不空，不名中道。」乃至云「見一切無我，不見我者，不名中道。中道者名為佛性。以是義故，佛性常恒，無有變異。無明覆故，令諸眾生不能得見。」薦福釋云「然佛性有二：一性得、二修得。佛性名第一義空，第一義空名為智慧。智慧者，即性得中道智慧覺性。如《密嚴》云『如來清淨藏，亦名無垢智，常住無始終，離四句言說。』亦如下經云『無相智、無礙智，具足在於眾生身中』等，非是從緣智慧名智慧也。有自性遍照法界光明義，故名智慧也。從所言空下，明修得性。修得覺性，觀第一義空，不見空與不空，離有無相故。從智者見空下，明見中道之人。智者，即佛及菩薩也。從空者下，明空有等法也。空即遍計依他，不空即圓成實性。下文云『一切諸法皆是虛假，隨其滅處即是第一義空』等，故知第一義空是不空如來藏，非空如來藏。諸佛菩薩真俗雙觀、有無齊照，故名中道。又準下文云『佛性云何為空？第一義空故。云何非空？以其常故。云何非空非非空？能與善法作種子故。』準此經文，第一義空不是空如來藏。」上即薦福意，亦有深理。今正釋者，與上少異。初云佛性者名第一義空，第一義空名為智慧者，即雙標空智。以第一義空該通心境故，明即是智慧，揀異瓦礫非情。從所言空者下，經自雙釋二義：所言空者，即是牒上第一義空，以空有雙絕方名第一義空，故云不見空與不空。智者見空及與不空下，釋上智慧，經文稍略，若具應云所言智慧者能見於空及與不空。故此中者字，非是人也，秖是牒詞。此中言見，非約修見，但明性見，本有智性能了空義及不空故。若無本智，誰知空不空耶？我無我等亦爾。約修見者，自在下經佛答第五六問中及無明覆下，方論見不見耳。今以即智明空，故名第一義空。即空之智，方是常恒智性，不生故常、不滅故恒。古德引下經空等二門，證成第一義空非空如來藏。今觀所引，正證是空如來藏義。云何？非空已下方證名為智慧之義，空智相成方為真佛性義。則知二藏亦不相離，以其佛性妄法不染故名為空，具恒沙妙德故名不空。要空諸妄，方顯不空之德，故不相離。思之。又言第一義空者，第一義諦上論空故，明知空性智性無二性也，故初言即是第一義空。又云見一切空、不見不空，不名中道，中道者名為佛性。若爾，雙見方有佛性，不雙見時應無佛性。故知一切空不空等言含於能所，約其所見空與不空即是中道佛性，約其能見即是智慧。若不雙見不識佛性，若見中道名見佛性。餘如彼經及疏。

Regarding the commentary's "The single nature which is naturelessness is precisely the buddha-nature," this is the third [part], reconciling the meaning of buddha-nature. First it directly reconciles it, and then from "Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra states]..." onward, it adduces scriptural proof. Because the emptiness of the ultimate truth is precisely the buddha-nature, the general purport is just this; yet wishing to exhaust the source of the Dharma, it again briefly cites [the sūtra]. Now, the twenty-seventh fascicle of this sūtra, the "Lion's Roar Chapter," inquires about the buddha-nature with six questions in total: First, it asks what the buddha-nature is (the first asks about its essential nature). Second, for what meaning is it named and explained as buddha-nature (the second asks about the meaning of the name of the nature)? Third, why is it also named permanent, blissful, self, and pure (the third asks about the virtues of the nature)? Fourth, if all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature, why do they not perceive the buddha-nature possessed by all sentient beings (the fourth asks about the reason sentient beings do not perceive it)? Fifth, in what dharmas do bodhisattvas of the ten abodes abide such that they do not see the buddha-nature clearly, and in what dharmas does the Buddha abide such that he sees it clearly (the fifth asks about the difference in the dharmas abided in)? Sixth, with what eye do bodhisattvas of the ten abodes fail to see it clearly, and with what eye does the Buddha see it clearly (the sixth asks about the difference in the eyes used)? In the answers, answering the first question, the sūtra says: "The buddha-nature is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth. The emptiness of the ultimate truth is named wisdom. What is called emptiness is not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness. The wise see emptiness and non-emptiness, the permanent and the impermanent, suffering and bliss, self and non-self. Emptiness is all saṃsāra; non-emptiness is great nirvāṇa." It further says: "Non-self is saṃsāra; self is great nirvāṇa. Seeing all as empty and not seeing the non-empty is not called the middle way." It further says: "Seeing all as non-self and not seeing the self is not called the middle way. The middle way is named the buddha-nature. For this reason, the buddha-nature is eternal and unchanging. Because they are obscured by avidyā, all sentient beings cannot perceive it." [Master] Jianfu explains: "Now, buddha-nature has two kinds: first, attained through nature; second, attained through cultivation. Buddha-nature is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth. The emptiness of the ultimate truth is named wisdom. Wisdom is the cognitive nature of the middle way's wisdom attained through nature. As the Ghanavyūha says: 'The Tathāgata's pure garbha is also named immaculate wisdom; it is permanently abiding without beginning or end, free from the four propositions and verbal expression.' It is also as stated later in the sūtra: 'Characteristicless wisdom and unobstructed wisdom are fully present within the bodies of sentient beings,' and so forth. It is not that wisdom arising from conditions is called wisdom. Because it possesses the meaning of the light of the self-nature illuminating the dharmadhātu universally, it is called wisdom. From 'What is called emptiness' onward, it clarifies the nature attained through cultivation. The cognitive nature attained through cultivation contemplates the emptiness of the ultimate truth, not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness, because it is free from the characteristics of existence and non-existence. From 'The wise see emptiness' onward, it clarifies the person who sees the middle way. The wise are the buddhas and bodhisattvas. From 'Emptiness is...' onward, it clarifies the dharmas of emptiness and existence, and so on. Emptiness is the parikalpita and paratantra; non-emptiness is the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. A later passage says: 'All dharmas are deceptive and false; wherever they perish is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate truth,' and so on. Thus we know that the emptiness of the ultimate truth is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha, not the empty tathāgatagarbha. The buddhas and bodhisattvas contemplate both the ultimate and the conventional together, and simultaneously illumine existence and non-existence; hence it is called the middle way. Furthermore, based on a later passage saying: 'Why is the buddha-nature empty? Because of the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Why is it non-empty? Because of its permanence. Why is it neither empty nor non-empty? Because it can act as the seed for wholesome dharmas.' Based on this sūtra text, the emptiness of the ultimate truth is not the empty tathāgatagarbha." The above is Jianfu's intention, which also has deep principle. Now our correct explanation differs slightly from the above. First, saying that the buddha-nature is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth, and the emptiness of the ultimate truth is named wisdom, is to mark both emptiness and wisdom together. Because the emptiness of the ultimate truth encompasses both mind and object, clarifying that it is precisely wisdom distinguishes it from rubble and insentient things. From 'What is called emptiness' onward, the sūtra itself explains both meanings: 'What is called emptiness' takes up the emptiness of the ultimate truth mentioned above; only when both emptiness and existence are severed is it named the emptiness of the ultimate truth, hence it says 'not seeing emptiness and non-emptiness.' 'The wise see emptiness and non-emptiness' onward explains the wisdom mentioned above. The sūtra text is somewhat brief; if complete, it should say: 'What is called wisdom is able to see emptiness and non-emptiness.' Therefore, the word 'wise' (zhizhe) here is not a person, but merely an introductory particle taking up the topic. The 'seeing' mentioned here is not spoken of in terms of seeing through cultivation, but merely clarifies seeing by nature, because the fundamentally inherent cognitive nature can comprehend the meaning of emptiness and non-emptiness. If there were no fundamental wisdom, who would know emptiness and non-emptiness? The same applies to self and non-self, and so on. As for seeing through cultivation, that is discussed later in the sūtra where the Buddha answers the fifth and sixth questions, and under 'obscured by avidyā,' where seeing and not seeing are only then discussed. Now, because emptiness is clarified as identical to wisdom, it is named the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Wisdom identical to emptiness is precisely the eternal cognitive nature; because it does not arise, it is permanent; because it does not perish, it is eternal. The ancient master cited the two gates of emptiness and so forth in the later sūtra to prove that the emptiness of the ultimate truth is not the empty tathāgatagarbha. Examining what was cited now, it precisely proves that it has the meaning of the empty tathāgatagarbha. Why? From 'non-empty' onward only then proves the meaning of being named wisdom; only when emptiness and wisdom complete each other is it the meaning of the true buddha-nature. Thus we know that the two garbhas are also not separate: because this buddha-nature is undefiled by false dharmas, it is called empty; because it is endowed with wondrous virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is called non-empty. One must empty all falsehoods before the virtues of non-emptiness are revealed; hence they are not separate. Ponder this! Furthermore, speaking of the emptiness of the ultimate truth: because emptiness is discussed on the basis of the ultimate truth, we clearly know that the nature of emptiness and the nature of wisdom are not two natures; therefore it initially states that it is precisely the emptiness of the ultimate truth. Furthermore, it says that seeing all as empty and not seeing the non-empty is not called the middle way, and the middle way is named the buddha-nature. If so, only when there is seeing of both would there be buddha-nature; when not seeing both, there would be no buddha-nature. Thus we know that words such as 'all empty and non-empty' contain both the subjective and the objective: in terms of the perceived emptiness and non-emptiness, it is the middle way buddha-nature; in terms of that which can see, it is wisdom. If one does not see both, one does not recognize the buddha-nature; if one sees the middle way, it is called seeing the buddha-nature. The rest is as in that sūtra and its commentary.