大般涅槃經集解 54.211

54.211

案僧亮曰：問意謂若因亦佛性、果亦佛性，名義無差者，何用修道以求成佛耶？僧宗曰：此難之生，由佛上說見法即是佛，佛即佛性。人情於此言中新生此疑：若佛與佛性不異者，是則有性則有佛，何假修道耶？寶亮曰：此下去為釋疑而生問。此疑藉何而起？因上答三問後定因果性，物便生疑：若因果佛性俱不離十二因緣，是則因性與果性竟自無差別，何用脩道？既致疑有兩，故下答亦二。無有差別，以為一問。何用修道，為第二問。故佛下答去，開為三問答：兩問即為二段，第二勸令忘懷。今言是義不然者，先遣也。

Sengliang comments: The meaning of the question is that if the cause is the buddhadhātu and the fruit is also the buddhadhātu, with no difference in name or meaning, why cultivate the path to seek the realization of Buddhahood? / Sengzong says: The arising of this objection comes from the Buddha previously stating that seeing the Dharma is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the buddhadhātu. Human sentiments develop a new doubt from these words: if the Buddha and the buddhadhātu are not different, then having the nature implies having the Buddha; why rely on cultivating the path? / Baoliang says: From here on, questions are raised to resolve doubts. On what does this doubt arise? Because after answering the three questions above, the causal and fruitional natures were defined, sentient beings then gave rise to doubt: if both the causal and fruitional buddhadhātu are not separate from the twelve conditioning links, then the causal nature and fruitional nature ultimately have no difference at all, so why cultivate the path? Since the doubt raised has two aspects, the answer below also has two. 'Having no difference' constitutes the first question; 'why cultivate the path' constitutes the second question. Thus in the Buddha's answer below, it opens into three question-answers: the two questions make two sections, and the second section admonishes them to forget mental clinging. Now stating that 'this meaning is not so' refutes it first.