大般涅槃經集解 56.4

56.4

案僧亮曰：觀門第四，觀於因中非有非無也。難意謂：若如上乳中有酪、力士額珠者，便因中已有，云何非有非無耶？僧宗曰：大段之第二也。上答六難，明佛性之理，其義不倫；今師子吼欲成前中道之旨，假為定有定無之難。如來解釋，不可一向定有，亦不可一向定無，故為中道義也。初五種執有為難，下七句執無也。佛性不內者，即時未有也。非外者，不離因而有果也。乳中有酪金剛力士者，推理尋說，剋終驗始，便為已有也。寶亮曰：第四翻，觀因中無果。今先開章門。非內非外，與因中無果作章門也。然非失壞，乃遠為下第五因中立性作章門，內者正因、外者緣因。明有神識者，皆有避苦求樂之解，始終用不改，故名為內。緣因之善，託外緣而生，有時而有、有時而無，故名為外。明此二因之中都無有果，故言非內非外。因中雖無有果，非無緣正二因，此二因未來必得佛果。既將明因中無果，故師子吼取外之謬執，謂因中已有果，如乳中以有酪。若乳中果有酪，當知眾生身中已有佛也。今云何言佛性非內非外耶？外道計生因生果故，因中有果，過至於內。義所以無失者，不言乳中已有酪也，但有因故言有。明眾生佛性亦然，非即身中已有。一切種智亦有因，故言有眾生佛性。若無此天然之質為神解之主，終不修因除迷求解；正以神明之道異於木石，可得瑩飾，故習解虛衿，斷生死累盡，有萬工現前。所以種為一切智，豈得言眾生有此法性為體，使即時有果，如外道所計生因生果耶？其大意乃爾。故下云：凡作五執。細而尋之，乃不翅五，要而為據事異便成五別。此第一，直執因中有果。何以知之？眾生生法各有時節，但說時有異，非因中都無，故知乳中有酪也。

Sengliang comments: The fourth contemplative approach contemplates that within the cause there is neither existence nor non-existence. The intention of the objection is: if, as stated above, curd is present in milk, or the jewel is in the wrestler's forehead, then it already exists in the cause; how could it be neither existent nor non-existent? Sengzong comments: This is the second major section. Above, having answered the six objections to clarify the principle of the buddhadhātu, its meaning was unmatched; now Siṃhanāda, wishing to establish the previous purport of the middle way, provisionally raises objections assuming definite existence and definite non-existence. The Tathāgata explains that it cannot be definitively existent in one way, nor can it be definitively non-existent in one way; hence it is the meaning of the middle way. The first five raise objections by clinging to existence, and the seven clauses below cling to non-existence. That buddhadhātu is 'not internal' means that at present it does not yet exist. That it is 'not external' means that the fruit does not exist apart from the cause. As for curd in milk and the diamond-wrestler: tracing the principle and examining the teaching, verifying the beginning by determining the end, it would already exist. Baoliang comments: The fourth round contemplates the absence of the fruit in the cause. Now we first open the headings. 'Neither internal nor external' serves as the heading for the absence of the fruit in the cause. Yet it is not a loss or destruction, but serves from afar as the heading for establishing the nature in the cause below in the fifth section. The 'internal' is the direct cause, and the 'external' is the contributory cause. Clarifying that those with conscious spirit all possess the understanding of avoiding suffering and seeking bliss, which functions unchanged from beginning to end; hence it is called 'internal.' The goodness of the contributory cause arises by relying on external conditions, sometimes existing and sometimes absent; hence it is called 'external.' Clarifying that within these two causes there is no fruit at all, it is therefore said to be 'neither internal nor external.' Although there is no fruit within the cause, it is not that the two causes—contributory and direct—do not exist; these two causes will definitely obtain the fruit of buddhahood in the future. Since he is about to clarify that there is no fruit within the cause, Siṃhanāda takes the erroneous clingings of outsiders, alleging that the fruit already exists within the cause, like curd already existing in milk. If curd truly existed in milk, one should know that a Buddha already exists within the bodies of sentient beings. Why is it now said that buddhadhātu is neither internal nor external? Non-Buddhists conceptualise generative causes generating fruits, and therefore that the fruit exists within the cause, their error penetrating into the internal. The reason our meaning is free from error is that we do not say curd already exists in milk; it is only because of the cause that it is spoken of as existing. Clarifying that the buddhadhātu of sentient beings is also like this: it does not already exist immediately within the body. Omniscience (sarvākārajñatā) also has its cause, and therefore it is said that the buddhadhātu of sentient beings exists. If one lacked this innate substance to serve as the master of spiritual understanding, one would never cultivate causes to dispel delusion and seek liberation. Precisely because the path of the spiritual consciousness differs from wood and stone and can be polished, one trains in understanding with an open mind, completely severing the burdens of saṃsāra, and myriad masteries appear before one. Therefore it is the seed for omniscience; how could one say that sentient beings have this dharmatā as their substance such that they immediately possess the fruit, like the non-Buddhists' conception of generative causes generating fruits? Its general purport is just this. Thus below it says: overall five attachments are made. Examining them in detail, there are not merely five, but taking what is essential based on differing matters, they form five distinct ones. This first one straightforwardly clings to the fruit existing within the cause. How is this known? The arising of phenomena for sentient beings each has its season; it is merely that the time of speaking is different, not that it is entirely absent in the cause; hence we know curd is in milk.