大般涅槃經義記 9.229

9.229

自下第四重顯向前置答中義。於中有二：一明佛性非有非無；二「有人問」下約理破情，亦得名為破情顯理，成前遮止莫著之義。初中復二：一約法報二種佛性明非有無，二「亦有無」下偏就報佛一種佛性明非有無。法報兩性云何非有而復非無？汎解有二：一就體說之，法佛之性本有法體，如礦中金，名為非無；報佛之性本無法體，但有方便可生之義，如子中樹，說為非有。此之一義，如下文說。二約對辨，如此中說法佛之性是可見有，不同虛空不可見有，故名非有；報佛之性是可生無，不同兔角不可生無，故曰非無。法報兩性有無如是。直就一種，報佛性中云何非有復言非無？如下文釋，因中無果名為非有，有可生義說為非無。以有斯義，今並論之。就初段中，「性非有無」略以標舉，「所以」下釋，「是故非有非無」總結。釋中先問，下對辨之。先明非有，明法佛性不同虛空不可見有故曰非有，不說無法以為非有。「佛性雖有，非如虛空」略以標舉。「何以」下釋。「虛空雖以無量方便不可得見」彰空異性，「佛性可見」辨性異空，「是故」下結。良以虛空說無為有故有叵見，法佛之性說有為有故有可見。下明非無。明報佛性不同兔角不可生無故曰非無，非說有法以為非無。「佛性雖無，不同兔角」略以標舉。「何以」下釋。「龜毛兔角雖以方便不可得生」彰無異性，「佛性可生」辨性異無，「是故」下結。良以兔角是畢竟無故無叵生，彼報佛性是其有時未生之無故無可生。「是故佛性非有非無」總以結之。

From here below, the fourth [section] re-elucidates the meaning in the preceding [section on] setting aside [the question] to reply. In this there are two [parts]: first, explaining that the buddha-nature is neither existent nor non-existent; second, from "Someone asks" below, refuting emotional attachments according to principle, which may also be called refuting attachments to reveal principle, fulfilling the preceding meaning of prohibiting clinging. Within the first there are again two: first, explaining neither-existence-nor-non-existence with reference to the two kinds of buddha-nature, the dharma[-kāya] and reward[-kāya]; second, from "it is also existent and non-existent" below, explaining neither-existence-nor-non-existence with special reference to the one buddha-nature of the reward buddha. How are the two natures of the dharma and reward [buddhas] neither existent nor non-existent? Generally explained, there are two [aspects]: First, explaining them in terms of their substance: the nature of the dharma buddha originally possesses the dharma-substance, like gold in ore, and is termed 'not non-existent'; the nature of the reward buddha originally lacks the dharma-substance, possessing only the sense of being producible through expedient means, like a tree in a seed, and is described as 'not existent'. This one meaning is as explained in the text below. Second, distinguishing them in terms of contrast: as explained here, the nature of the dharma buddha is an existence that can be seen, unlike space which is an existence that cannot be seen, and hence is called 'not existent'; the nature of the reward buddha is a non-existence that can be produced, unlike a hare's horn which is a non-existence that cannot be produced, and hence is called 'not non-existent'. The existence and non-existence of the two natures of dharma and reward are like this. If we treat directly the single nature of the reward buddha, how is it both not existent and said to be not non-existent? As the text below explains: the absence of the fruit in the cause is termed 'not existent', while the possession of the sense of being producible is described as 'not non-existent'. Because these meanings exist, they are now treated together. In the first section, "the nature is neither existent nor non-existent" briefly introduces [the topic]; from "For what reason" below is the explanation; "Therefore it is neither existent nor non-existent" is the concluding summary. In the explanation, there is first a question, and below it is distinguished in contrast. First it explains 'not existent', clarifying that the dharma-buddha nature is unlike space, which is an existence that cannot be seen, and hence is called 'not existent'—it does not speak of the absence of dharmas as being 'not existent'. "Although the buddha-nature exists, it is not like space" briefly introduces [the point]. From "Why?" below is the explanation. "Although space [is sought] through immeasurable expedient means, it cannot be seen" reveals that space is distinct from the nature; "the buddha-nature can be seen" distinguishes the nature as distinct from space; from "therefore" below is the conclusion. Truly, because space is described as existent by virtue of non-existence, its existence cannot be seen; the nature of the dharma buddha is described as existent by virtue of existence, and hence its existence can be seen. Below, it explains 'not non-existent'. It clarifies that the reward-buddha nature is unlike a hare's horn, which is a non-existence that cannot be produced, and hence is called 'not non-existent'—it does not speak of an existing dharma as being 'not non-existent'. "Although the buddha-nature is non-existent, it is not like a hare's horn" briefly introduces [the point]. From "Why?" below is the explanation. "Although tortoise hair and hare's horn [are sought] through expedient means, they cannot be produced" reveals that non-existence is distinct from the nature; "the buddha-nature can be produced" distinguishes the nature as distinct from non-existence; from "therefore" below is the conclusion. Truly, because a hare's horn is utterly non-existent, its non-existence cannot be produced; that reward-buddha nature is a non-existence that has not yet been produced at that time of its existence, and hence its non-existence can be produced. "Therefore the buddha-nature is neither existent nor non-existent" summarizes and concludes it.