大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.12

37.12

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Yet the wisdom of sentient beings is the cause of Buddha-nature": from here down is the second [part], staving off external defenses, which is the defense by the proponent of the former intent. Now, although the Commentary retains both meanings, it takes the latter intent as correct, and therefore hypothetically sets up objections on behalf of the earlier master to defend the former [view]. The defense says: "Your intention in adding the latter—is it not because you consider the former meaning to have not yet penetrated the profound? For both the causal and fruitional natures have clear textual evidence. If there is clear textual evidence, how can you not accept it?" Thus the sūtra states: "Buddha-nature has a cause and a cause of cause; it has a fruit and a fruit of fruit. The cause is the twelve links of dependent origination; the cause of cause is called wisdom. The fruit is great bodhi; the fruit of fruit is great nirvāṇa." Since there are four kinds, the first two originally exist and the latter two will exist in the future, the text and principle being clear and evident, how can you not believe in the two natures of cause and fruit and instead state another principle? Therefore this resolution is made. To resolve this meaning, one should first counter-question the earlier master: The four natures cited just now are from one passage; there is also a passage stating: "It is cause and not fruit, which is called Buddha-nature; it is fruit and not cause, like great nirvāṇa; it is cause and is fruit, like the dharmas produced by the twelve links of dependent origination; it is neither cause nor fruit, which is called Buddha-nature." How about this? Even if you resolve it by saying that "is cause and not fruit" is the first nature, "is fruit and not cause" is the fourth nature, and "is cause and is fruit" is the third, so that the principle might be accommodated, how can "neither cause nor fruit is called Buddha-nature" be accommodated? This clearly shows that when speaking directly of the essence of Buddha-nature, the essence is neither cause nor fruit; when apprehended in the cause it is called the causal nature, and when apprehended in the fruit it is called the fruitional nature—it is not that Buddha-nature is divided into cause and fruit. Just as when a pot grasps space it is the space in the pot, and when a world grasps space it is the space in the world, how could space be different? Therefore it is said that the wisdom nature of sentient beings is the cause of Buddha-nature, and bodhi and nirvāṇa are the fruit of Buddha-nature; it is not that Buddha-nature is divided into cause and fruit. Therefore it concludes correctly, saying: "Thus Buddha-nature is neither cause nor fruit."