大般涅槃經義記 7.87

7.87

問曰：下說涅槃是其了因之果，能了之因既非本有，所了涅槃何容非始？解有三義：一就一人始終分別。涅槃既是了因之果，明在顯時，果雖顯時，性是本有，今據果德，反談本性，故言本有。二就凡、佛二人分別。凡、佛雖殊，實性無二，以無二故，眾生佛性即是諸佛大涅槃果。何故如是？彼大涅槃眾生迷覆，未得顯了，是故不得名涅槃果，然所迷法與後顯時淨德為本，故名佛性。故下文言「涅槃因者，所謂佛性」，即此佛性據佛望之，由來清淨，無障無染，是故即名大涅槃果。故經說言「一切眾生畢竟寂滅即涅槃相，不復更滅」，良以於佛本來常淨，是涅槃故，今說非是本無今有，於凡未得是涅槃故。下文宣說了因所得。第三約緣就實分別。緣有染淨，實則常湛。實從染緣說之為因，因在凡時；實從淨緣說之為果，果在顯時。廢緣論實，實外無緣，知復約何說因說果，良以就實，非因果故。今說涅槃本有非今，隨緣當顯，故下宣說了因所得。

Question: Below it is said that nirvāṇa is the fruit of a revelatory cause; since the cause that is able to reveal it was not originally existent, how could the revealed nirvāṇa be allowed not to have a beginning? The explanation has three meanings: First, distinguishing in terms of the beginning and end of a single person. Since nirvāṇa is the fruit of a revelatory cause, it becomes clear at the time of manifestation; although the fruit is at the time of manifestation, its nature is originally existent. Now, relying on the virtue of the fruit, he turns back to speak of the original nature; therefore he says it is originally existent. Second, distinguishing in terms of the two persons, ordinary being and Buddha. Although ordinary being and Buddha are different, the true nature is non-dual; because it is non-dual, the buddha-nature of sentient beings is precisely the fruit of the great nirvāṇa of all buddhas. Why is this so? That great nirvāṇa is obscured by the delusion of sentient beings and has not yet become revealed; therefore it cannot be called the fruit of nirvāṇa. Yet the dharma that is obscured serves as the basis for the pure virtues at the later time of manifestation; therefore it is called buddha-nature. Thus the text below says: "The cause of nirvāṇa is what is called buddha-nature." Seen from the perspective of a Buddha, this very buddha-nature has always been pure, unobstructed, and undefiled; therefore it is precisely called the fruit of great nirvāṇa. Thus the sūtra says: "All sentient beings are ultimately quiescent, which is precisely the mark of nirvāṇa, not being extinguished again." Because it is inherently always pure in relation to a Buddha and is nirvāṇa, it is now said not to be originally non-existent and now existent; because it has not yet been attained in relation to an ordinary being, it is not nirvāṇa. The text below declares it is attained through a revelatory cause. Third, distinguishing by taking conditions into account and approaching the real. Conditions have defiled and pure, while the real is constantly tranquil. Speaking of the real from the defiled condition, it is called a cause, the cause being at the time of an ordinary being; speaking of the real from the pure condition, it is called a fruit, the fruit being at the time of manifestation. Setting aside conditions to discuss the real, outside the real there are no conditions; how then could one again rely on anything to speak of cause and fruit? Truly, because when approaching the real, it is neither cause nor fruit. Now it is said that nirvāṇa is originally existent and not newly arisen; in accordance with conditions it will become manifest; therefore the text below declares it is attained through a revelatory cause.