大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 24.59

24.59

疏「初二句」下，釋初對中，先雙摽、「謂以因因性」下雙釋。先釋正入一切佛平等性。言「因因」等者，即《涅槃》二十七〈師子吼菩薩品〉云「佛性有因、有因因，有果、有果果。因者，十二因緣。因因者，即是智慧發心已去。果者，即阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。果果者，無上大涅槃。」今疏文意，因因即觀緣之智，通發心已去。果即所證之理能證至果為大菩提。為大菩提所證至果名大涅槃。前二是因，後二是果。而有重因果言者，謂十二因緣是正因性。雖有此性，若無觀智不能成果。今由觀智令彼成果，即與因作因，故名因因。菩提對前已名為果，而大涅槃由菩提顯，故此涅槃即是菩提果家之果。故彼經喻云「如無明為因、諸行為果。行緣識果，則無明亦因亦因因，識亦果亦果果。」舉此無明為因因則在行前。行如十二因緣，無明如觀智，則觀智在於十二因緣前。而遠公云：「十二因緣近起觀智，遠為涅槃正因，故名為因。方依前因以起觀智，依因起因故名因因者，則因因在於十二緣後。」理則可矣，而不順喻，無明因因在於行前耳。然上四句之後，經中復有四句云「一是因非果，如佛性。二是果非因，如大涅槃。三是因是果，如十二因緣所生之法。四非因非果，名為佛性。」此之四句，三即是前二三兩句，智慧菩提皆依十二因緣生故。初及第四皆前中初一，以十二緣約相是因。若約緣性，即非因非果是中道正性法身理也。二即第四，而菩提望前是果、望後是因，故言亦因亦果。涅槃之後更無所顯，故唯是果。又第四句非前四句，總為四句之體，就緣成四，與此為因名為因性，與此為果名為果性。猶如真如出煩惱障名為涅槃，出所知障名為菩提，而體無二，隨出得名。佛性亦爾，因等四句皆望緣取。而佛性體，體絕四句，俱非因果，四句已亡。思之可見。若總合上二種四句，成五佛性，復成四句：一或有佛性，闡提人有、善根人無。是前因性之中一分之義，以未成佛時，善惡無記皆名佛性，亦取其惡，故云一分闡提有也。二或有佛性，善根人有、闡提人無，即因因性。三或有佛性，二人俱有，即是因性中通十二緣，亦非因非果之性。四或有佛性，二人俱無，即彼果性及果果性。對前兩重四句，可以意得。十二因緣名佛性者，一當體淨故、是法身性。二能知名義成反流故、名報身性。又前滅後生、非斷非常、顯中道故。又三雜染即三德故、翻煩惱雜染以成般若，翻業雜染以成解脫，翻苦雜染以成法身。當相即是性淨三德，觀之則是觀行三德，證之則是圓滿三德。又初因性，即染淨緣起。二因因性，即內熏發心。第三果性，即始覺已圓。四果果性，即本覺已顯。又初隨緣隱顯，二微起淨用，三染盡淨圓，四還源顯實。又初與四俱是理性，但染淨分二。二之與三俱是行性，但因果有殊。又初染而非淨，二淨而非染，三亦淨亦染，四非染非淨。又初自性住性，二是引出佛性，三四皆是至得果性。又初二因中理智，後二果中理智。因果雖異，理智不殊。理智似分，冥契無二，唯一心轉。絕相離言，無不包融，故名佛性。由此名為佛性契合門也。

In the commentary, under 'The first two lines', in explaining the first pair, it first sets out both together, and then from 'meaning that by the nature of the cause-of-causes' down, it explains both together. First, it explains the correct entering into the equality of all buddhas. As for the words 'cause-of-causes' and so forth, this comes from chapter 27 of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], the 'Lion's Roar Bodhisattva Chapter', which states: 'Buddha-nature has a cause, and a cause-of-causes; it has a fruit, and a fruit-of-fruits. The cause is the twelve links of dependent origination. The cause-of-causes is wisdom from the arousal of the mind onward. The fruit is anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi. The fruit-of-fruits is unsurpassed great nirvāṇa.' Now, the meaning of the commentary's text is: the cause-of-causes is the wisdom that contemplates conditions, extending from the arousal of the mind onward. The fruit is the principle that is realized, [and] the ultimate fruit attained by what realizes it is great bodhi. The ultimate fruit realized by great bodhi is called great nirvāṇa. The former two are causes, and the latter two are fruits. As for why 'cause' and 'fruit' are doubled, it means that the twelve links of dependent origination are the direct-cause nature. Although there is this nature, without contemplating wisdom it cannot accomplish the fruit. Now, because contemplating wisdom causes it to accomplish the fruit, it serves as the cause for the cause, and hence is called the cause-of-causes. Bodhi, in contrast to what precedes, is already called a fruit, yet great nirvāṇa is revealed through bodhi; therefore this nirvāṇa is the fruit of the household of the fruit of bodhi. Thus that sūtra gives the analogy: 'Just as ignorance is the cause and formations are the fruit. Formations condition consciousness as the fruit; then ignorance is both a cause and a cause-of-causes, and consciousness is both a fruit and a fruit-of-fruits.' Bringing up this ignorance as the cause-of-causes, it precedes formations. Formations are like the twelve links of dependent origination, and ignorance is like contemplating wisdom; thus contemplating wisdom precedes the twelve links of dependent origination. However, Master Yuan said: 'The twelve links of dependent origination directly give rise to contemplating wisdom and remotely serve as the direct cause of nirvāṇa, hence they are called the cause. Only by relying on the preceding cause does one give rise to contemplating wisdom; giving rise to a cause based on a cause, it is therefore called the cause-of-causes; thus the cause-of-causes follows after the twelve links.' The principle may be acceptable, but it does not accord with the analogy, in which ignorance as the cause-of-causes precedes formations. However, following the above four lines, the sūtra further has four lines that state: 'One is a cause and not a fruit, like buddha-nature. Two is a fruit and not a cause, like great nirvāṇa. Three is both cause and fruit, like dharmas produced by the twelve links of dependent origination. Four is neither cause nor fruit, called buddha-nature.' Of these four lines, the third is the former second and third lines, because both wisdom and bodhi are produced relying on the twelve links of dependent origination. The first and the fourth are both the first among the former ones, because the twelve links, in terms of characteristics, are causes. If considered in terms of conditioned nature, then being neither cause nor fruit is the Middle Way's direct-nature dharmakāya principle. The second is the fourth, but bodhi, looking to what precedes, is a fruit, and looking to what follows, is a cause; hence it is said to be both cause and fruit. Beyond nirvāṇa nothing further is revealed, so it is solely a fruit. Furthermore, the fourth line is not the former four lines; it is the overall essence of the four lines. Becoming four with reference to conditions, serving as a cause for this, it is called the causal nature; serving as a fruit for this, it is called the fruitional nature. Just as tathatā emerging from the affliction hindrance is called nirvāṇa, and emerging from the cognitive hindrance is called bodhi, yet the essence is not two, receiving its name according to emergence. Buddha-nature is also like this: the four lines of cause and so forth are all posited in reference to conditions. But the essence of buddha-nature in its essence transcends the four lines; both being neither cause nor fruit, the four lines are already extinguished. If one reflects on it, this can be seen. If one synthesizes the above two sets of four lines, they make five buddha-natures, which again form four propositions: First, there may be a buddha-nature that icchantikas possess and those with roots of goodness lack. This is a partial sense within the former causal nature, because prior to achieving buddhahood, good, evil, and indeterminate are all called buddha-nature; evil is also included, so it is said that icchantikas partially possess it. Second, there may be a buddha-nature that those with roots of goodness possess and icchantikas lack, which is the nature of the cause-of-causes. Third, there may be a buddha-nature that both persons possess, which is the nature that pervades the twelve links within the causal nature and is also neither cause nor fruit. Fourth, there may be a buddha-nature that neither person possesses, which is that fruitional nature and the nature of the fruit-of-fruits. In comparison with the preceding two sets of four lines, this can be understood in thought. As for why the twelve links of dependent origination are called buddha-nature: First, because their very essence is pure, they are the nature of the dharmakāya. Second, because knowing names and meanings enables reversing the flow, they are called the nature of the saṃbhogakāya. Furthermore, because previous cessation and subsequent arising are neither annihilation nor permanence, they reveal the Middle Way. Furthermore, because the three defilements are identical to the three virtues: overturning the defilement of affliction accomplishes prajñā, overturning the defilement of karma accomplishes liberation, and overturning the defilement of suffering accomplishes the dharmakāya. In their very characteristics they are the naturally pure three virtues; contemplating them, they are the practice-contemplation three virtues; realizing them, they are the consummated three virtues. Furthermore, the initial causal nature is dependent origination of defilement and purity. The second, the nature of the cause-of-causes, is internal perfuming arousing the mind. The third, the fruitional nature, is that initial awakening is fully completed. The fourth, the nature of the fruit-of-fruits, is that inherent awakening is revealed. Furthermore, the first is hidden or revealed in concordance with conditions; the second subtly gives rise to pure functioning; the third is the exhaustion of defilement and completion of purity; the fourth is returning to the origin and revealing the real. Furthermore, the first and the fourth are both the nature of principle, only divided into two by defilement and purity. The second and the third are both the nature of practice, only differing as cause and fruit. Furthermore, the first is defiled and not pure; the second is pure and not defiled; the third is both pure and defiled; the fourth is neither defiled nor pure. Furthermore, the first is the nature abiding in its own nature; the second is the elicited buddha-nature; the third and fourth are both the attained fruitional nature. Furthermore, the first two are principle and wisdom in the cause; the latter two are principle and wisdom in the fruit. Although cause and fruit differ, principle and wisdom are not different. Principle and wisdom seem distinct, yet they secretly accord without duality, turning as only the one mind. Transcending characteristics and detached from words, there is nothing they do not embrace and harmonize; hence it is called buddha-nature. On account of this, it is called the gateway of accord with buddha-nature.