大般涅槃經義記 1.126

1.126

次須即文驗其是非。就前所立六分之中，初分明果，第二分中辨明緣因，麁有此相。若言「二十五有」已下至後〈眾品〉通皆明其佛性正因。是義不然。如下文中辨明菩薩，見難、見性，解字半滿。未發心者得為菩薩，於眾無畏，處在濁世不污如華，處在煩惱煩惱不染，觀察三寶得不壞眾，為諸生盲作眼目導。此答九問，皆明菩薩緣因之行。云何得名佛性正因？又如下說如來現化、如迦隣提、日月歲星、佛為船師、佛捨生死、如蛇脫皮、佛示多頭、說如初月。此答八問，皆明如來現果作用。云何得名佛性正因？人復釋言：「雖辨此義，宗顯佛性，故名正因。」文既不說，云何得知？爾許經文偏顯佛性，是大難解。又若此等實不論性而言顯性，〈純陀〉、〈哀歎〉實不辨因，應名顯因；「三告」已下實不說果，應名顯果。然說果處不可名因、說因之處不可名果。不說性處，云何強抑令使說性？良以世人不識其文，妄為此判，六分科文，大過在斯。

Next, one must examine its correctness in accordance with the text itself. Regarding the six divisions posited previously: the first division explains the fruit, and the second division clarifies the contributing cause; roughly speaking, these characteristics are present. But if one says that from "twenty-five realms of existence" onward through to the subsequent "Chapter on the Assemblies" it entirely clarifies the direct cause that is buddha-nature, this meaning is incorrect. As the text below clarifies bodhisattvas seeing difficulty and seeing the nature, and understanding half and complete letters; those who have not yet generated the mind [for awakening] being able to become bodhisattvas; being fearless among the assembly; dwelling in the turbid world undefiled like a lotus flower; dwelling amidst afflictions yet untainted by afflictions; observing the Three Jewels and obtaining an indestructible assembly; and acting as eyes and guides for those born blind. These answer nine questions, all of which clarify the practice of the contributing cause of a bodhisattva. How could this be called the direct cause that is buddha-nature? Furthermore, as the text below speaks of the Tathāgata manifesting transformations, such as the kalaviṅka, the sun, moon, and year star, the Buddha as a ferryman, the Buddha casting off birth and death like a snake shedding its skin, the Buddha displaying multiple heads, and speaking of it like the crescent moon. These answer eight questions, all of which clarify the functions of the Tathāgata's manifest fruit. How could this be called the direct cause that is buddha-nature? People further explain by saying: "Although it clarifies these meanings, its central theme reveals buddha-nature, and therefore it is called the direct cause." Since the text does not say so, how could one know this? For so much scriptural text to exclusively reveal buddha-nature is exceedingly difficult to understand. Moreover, if these [passages] do not actually discuss the nature and yet are said to reveal the nature, then "Cunda" and "Lamentation" do not actually discern the cause and ought to be called revealing the cause; and from the "Three Announcements" onward does not actually speak of the fruit and ought to be called revealing the fruit. Yet a place that speaks of the fruit cannot be called the cause, and a place that speaks of the cause cannot be called the fruit. Where the nature is not spoken of, how could one forcefully compel it to be made to speak of the nature? Truly, it is because worldly people do not understand the text and arbitrarily make this division; the great error of the sixfold structural division of the text lies right here.