大般涅槃經義記 9.150

9.150

第五迦葉乘言重難。難有兩句：一難前佛性，「性如虛空，如來何故說為未來」；二難上闡提無善之義，「若言闡提斷故無善，一闡提輩於同學等亦生愛念，豈非善乎」。下佛先嘆，後正答之。先答佛性，初先正解，有難解者問答重顯。就正解中，「性如虛空非過去」等，述其所立。「一切眾生有三身」下，釋其所難，初先正解、後類顯之。就正解中，「一切眾生有三種身」汎以通舉。「過未現在」列其三名。「未來身淨而得性故，我言未來」正解所問。此乃明其未來身得，性非未來。就類顯中，舉先其類。「我為眾生說因為果、說果為因」略以標舉。「是故經中說命為食、見色名觸」略辨其相。說因為果，如似世人說食為命。四大名色，今略不舉。說果為因，其猶世人說命為食。見色名觸，今偏論之。色是造色，謂青黃等。觸者所謂能造四大。色實非觸，說果為因，是故見色名為觸矣。人言見色名為觸者，一向不是。未來身淨故說佛性，約類顯法，未來身淨如前命也、如食也。若就前句類顯佛性，食因非命，說因為果故名為命，所顯如是。性因非是未來身果，說因為果，故名佛性以為未來。若就後句類顯佛性，命非食因，說果為因故名為食，色觸亦然，所顯如是。未來之果實非佛性，說果為因，故說未來身淨為性。

Fifth, Kāśyapa takes advantage of [the Buddha's] words to raise another objection. The objection consists of two points: First, he challenges the previous [teaching on] the buddha-nature: "The nature is like empty space; why does the Tathāgata say it belongs to the future?" Second, he challenges the previous proposition that the icchantika lacks good: "If it is said that because the icchantika has severed [roots of goodness] they have no good, those of the icchantika class also produce affectionate thoughts toward fellow students and the like; how could that not be good?" Below, the Buddha first praises him and then gives the actual reply. First he answers regarding the buddha-nature; he first gives a direct explanation, and for what is difficult to understand, clarifies it further through questions and answers. Within the direct explanation, from "The nature is like empty space, not past..." and so forth, he relates what he has established. From "All sentient beings have three bodies..." onward, he resolves the objection; first he gives the direct explanation, and then clarifies it by analogy. Within the direct explanation, "All sentient beings have three kinds of bodies" is a general and comprehensive statement. "Past, future, and present" lists the three names. "Because the future body is pure and thus obtains the nature, I say 'future'" directly explains what was asked. This clarifies that the future body is obtained, whereas the nature is not future. Within the clarification by analogy, he first adduces its type: "For the sake of sentient beings, I speak of cause as effect and speak of effect as cause" briefly sets forth [the principle]. "Therefore in the sūtra it speaks of life as food, and seeing form is called contact" briefly distinguishes their aspects. Speaking of cause as effect is like worldly people calling food life. The four great elements are called form; here they are omitted for brevity. Speaking of effect as cause is like worldly people calling life food. "Seeing form is called contact" is now specifically discussed: form is derived form, meaning blue, yellow, and so forth. Contact refers to the creating four great elements. Form is not actually contact, but speaking of effect as cause, seeing form is therefore called contact. People who say that seeing form is literally contact are completely mistaken. Because the future body is pure, he speaks of the buddha-nature; using the analogy to clarify the dharma, the future pure body is like life earlier, or like food. If one uses the former clause to clarify the buddha-nature by analogy: the cause, food, is not life, yet speaking of cause as effect, it is called life; what is clarified is just like this. The cause, the nature, is not the effect that is the future body, yet speaking of cause as effect, the buddha-nature is called future. If one uses the latter clause to clarify the buddha-nature by analogy: life is not the cause, food, yet speaking of effect as cause, it is called food; form and contact are also like this; what is clarified is just like this. The future effect is not actually the buddha-nature, yet speaking of effect as cause, the purity of the future body is spoken of as the nature.