大般涅槃經集解 54.111

54.111

案道生曰：三種皆與見中道名也。有真見者，居然自別也。僧亮曰：辨正因緣因性也。凡夫二乘即情為見，非見也。明因有耶正亦有遠近，以三種別之也。僧宗曰：從此下答第二問也。答中凡有三種：初明正因、第二明緣因、第三明境界因。其前問云：生死無常，復以何理亦稱性耶？今先收因地三種人神明斯盡，以其有正因之義，必有成佛之理，非木石也。因中說果，亦稱為性耳。寶亮曰：第二重，辨出緣因正因二因性之體也。佛今出三種中道，一定樂行、二定苦行、三苦樂行，云此三人盡稱見中道。故菩薩居定樂行者，解稱真俗二諦，終歸除苦得樂、津濟六道，緣因行成就，可為正位。而凡夫居在苦中，心無厭背，云何見中道耶？故一家解云：夫中道有二途，自有二諦中中道、自有理中中道。二諦中中道解，即是緣因性也；理中中道，即是一切眾生避苦求樂，解正因佛性。夫中道之義，本是稱理之心。然有神識者，無一剎那心中無有此解。天下苦實可避、樂實可求，既用心得所，豈非中道？若苦不可避而欲強厭、樂不可得而欲強求，此便乖理。然今此心既不乖大理，云何非解？但此解是境中之用，非造緣之知，亦非善惡因之所生。若善因所生耶，唯應人天中有，三塗應無；若惡因所生耶，則應三塗獨有，人天應無。而今莫問人天六道，無一剎那無此解故，故知此解乃是妙本之異用，無變改之心也。是以《勝鬘經》說，出如來藏，與自性清淨心。冥會此旨。然則經經微，據理自彰矣。苦樂行謂聲聞緣覺者，二乘人非不厭背求出世之意，故名為樂；封執居心，不免生死，故名為苦。但二諦中中道解不成，非不是善，故屬緣因。攝正因性故，自宜有然。今者出三種中道以為二因之體，二因乃同用真如為體，今唯得據用來辨。

Daosheng states: All three are designated as ‘seeing the middle way’. Those who possess true vision are naturally distinct. Sengliang states: This clarifies the natures of the direct cause and the contributory cause. Ordinary persons and [followers of] the two vehicles take their emotional inclinations to be seeing, but it is not [real] seeing. It clarifies that causes have both perverse and correct kinds, and also distant and proximate ones, distinguishing them by way of the three types. Sengzong states: From here downward, the second question is answered. Within the answer there are three types overall: first, clarifying the direct cause; second, clarifying the contributory cause; third, clarifying the cognitive-object cause. The earlier question asked: ‘Saṃsāra is impermanent; by what principle is it also called a nature?’ Here, it first encompasses the three types of people at the causal stage, whose conscious minds are all included; because they possess the meaning of the direct cause, they must have the principle of attaining Buddhahood—they are not wood or stone. Speaking of the fruit within the cause, it is also merely called ‘nature’. Baoliang states: In the second section, the essence of the two causal natures—the contributory cause and the direct cause—is clarified. The Buddha now puts forward three kinds of middle paths: first, practice of fixed bliss; second, practice of fixed suffering; third, practice of suffering and bliss, stating that all three types of people are designated as seeing the middle way. Thus, bodhisattvas abiding in the practice of fixed bliss understand in accord with the two truths, the absolute and the conventional; ultimately returning to eradicating suffering and obtaining bliss, they ferry the six destinies across; when their contributory causal practice is fulfilled, they can be considered in the correct stage. Ordinary persons, however, abide amidst suffering without any aversion or turning away in their minds; how could they see the middle way? Therefore, one tradition explains: The middle way has two paths. There is the middle way within the two truths, and there is the middle way within the principle. Understanding the middle way within the two truths is the contributory causal nature; the middle way within the principle is that all sentient beings avoid suffering and seek bliss, which is understanding the direct causal buddhadhātu. The meaning of the middle way is fundamentally the mind that accords with principle. For all who possess consciousness, there is not a single thought-moment in their minds without this understanding. In the world, suffering can truly be avoided and bliss can truly be sought; since the mental application finds its proper place, how could it not be the middle way? If suffering could not be avoided yet one forcefully sought to turn away from it, or if bliss could not be attained yet one forcefully sought after it, this would contradict principle. But now, since this mind does not contradict the great principle, how could it not be understanding? However, this understanding is a function within the cognitive object, not the cognition that constructs conditions, nor is it generated by good or bad causes. If it were generated by good causes, it should exist only among humans and devas and be absent in the three evil destinies; if it were generated by bad causes, it should exist only in the three evil destinies and be absent among humans and devas. Yet at present, whether in the human and deva realms or the six destinies, there is not a single thought-moment without this understanding; therefore, we know that this understanding is a distinct function of the wondrous origin, an immutable mind. Hence, the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra speaks of the tathāgatagarbha emerging along with the intrinsically pure mind. It subtly accords with this meaning. Thus, though sūtra after sūtra is subtle, when based on principle it becomes naturally manifest. Those of the practice of suffering and bliss refer to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; people of the two vehicles do not lack the aversion [to saṃsāra] and the desire to seek world-transcendence, hence it is called ‘bliss’; but clings to and abides in conceptions, failing to escape saṃsāra, hence it is called ‘suffering’. However, their understanding of the middle way within the two truths is not fulfilled; yet it is not the case that it is not wholesome, so it belongs to the contributory cause. Since it subsumes the direct causal nature, it naturally ought to be so. Now, the three kinds of middle paths are brought forth to serve as the essence of the two causes; the two causes indeed take suchness (tathatā) as their shared essence, but here they can only be distinguished based on function.