大般涅槃經義記 9.230

9.230

自下第二約就一種報佛佛性明非有無。「亦有亦無」略以標舉。「云何」下釋，「有無合」下約就有無明非有無。「是故」下結。上來就性明非有無。自下第二約理破情。亦得名為破情顯理成前遮止莫著之義，破却定無成前遮止，破遣定有成上莫著。文中有三：一約樹子相生因果破定有無、二約乳酪轉變因果破定有無、三約鹽喻緣助因果破定有無。就初段中有兩問答：初一問答明有無義，後一問答明生不生。前中，先就樹喻假問，「是種子中有果無耶」。下佛答之，先辨喻相，後約顯性。喻中「應答亦有亦無」略以標舉，「何以」下釋，「以是」下結。「所以」下釋，「時節有異」釋前無也，「其體是一」釋前有也，子果性一故言有果。合中，「佛性亦復如是」合前有無。「若言」已下，合時有異其體是一。先合體一，「若言生中別有佛性是義不然」非他異說。「何以故」下正明體一。真妄和合集成眾生，即此眾生可作佛義名為佛性，是故佛性即是眾生。又如世間麥芽麥莖乃至麥果同一麥性，麥性即是芽莖葉等。佛因佛果同一佛性，佛性即是眾生等也。由即是故，凡佛性一。「直以時異有淨不淨」合前時異。

From here below, the second [part] explains neither-existence-nor-non-existence with reference to the one buddha-nature of the reward buddha. "It is also existent and also non-existent" briefly introduces [the point]. From "How?" below is the explanation; from "when existence and non-existence combine" below, it explains neither-existence-nor-non-existence with reference to existence and non-existence; from "therefore" below is the conclusion. The preceding explains neither-existence-nor-non-existence with reference to the nature. From here below, the second [part] refutes attachments according to principle. It can also be called refuting attachments to reveal principle, fulfilling the preceding meaning of prohibiting clinging: refuting definite non-existence fulfills the preceding prohibition, and discarding definite existence fulfills the above [admonition] not to cling. In the text there are three [subdivisions]: first, refuting definite existence and non-existence with reference to the cause and effect of a tree and seed producing each other; second, refuting definite existence and non-existence with reference to the cause and effect of milk and curd transforming; third, refuting definite existence and non-existence with reference to the cause and effect of the salt analogy's auxiliary conditions. In the first section there are two questions and answers: the first question and answer clarifies the meaning of existence and non-existence; the latter question and answer clarifies production and non-production. In the former, it first poses a hypothetical question based on the analogy of the tree: "Is there a fruit in that seed, or not?" Below, the Buddha answers it, first analyzing the features of the analogy, and afterwards revealing the nature in reference to it. In the analogy, "one should reply that it is also existent and also non-existent" briefly introduces [the point]; from "Why?" below is the explanation; from "Because of this" below is the conclusion. From "For what reason" below is the explanation: "there is a difference in seasons" explains the preceding 'non-existence'; "its substance is one" explains the preceding 'existence'; because the nature of seed and fruit is one, it is said that there is a fruit. In the application: "The buddha-nature is also like this" applies to the preceding existence and non-existence. From "If one says" downward applies to the difference in time and unity of substance. First applying the unity of substance: "If one says that in living beings there is a separate buddha-nature, this meaning is not so" refutes the other, deviant assertions. From "Why?" below directly clarifies the unity of substance. The harmony of the true and the deluded brings together and forms sentient beings; precisely the meaning that these sentient beings can become buddhas is called the buddha-nature; therefore the buddha-nature is precisely sentient beings. Furthermore, just as in the world, barley sprouts, barley stalks, up to barley fruits share one identical barley-nature, and the barley-nature is precisely the sprouts, stalks, leaves, and so forth, so the buddha-cause and buddha-fruit share one identical buddha-nature, and the buddha-nature is precisely sentient beings, and so forth. Because of this identity, ordinary beings and the Buddha are of one nature. "Only because of difference in time are there purity and impurity" applies to the preceding difference in time.