涅槃玄義發源機要 1.7

1.7

二、「若佛」下，複疎釋成，三：初、按定。「是則」下，釋上二句義。如即理事也，因理即果理，故佛性非因。「果如」下，果理即因理，故涅槃非果。二、「若因」下，複釋上文。既顯因果理同，則非但極果所證之理非新非故，下凡所具之理亦非新非故也。文中反覆釋成，故云因如不異果如、果如不異因如，大抵只顯因果理一耳。問：據前所釋，乃以涅槃為新、佛性為故。此中合云非止涅槃之如非故，何以却云非新耶？答：若因果對明，誠如所責。今雖分句釋義，但顯因果理同，並非新故耳。故下結云：是則佛性涅槃因果之如皆是非新非故也。三、「是則」下，結成。

Second, from 'If the Buddha' down provides a further loose explanation to establish [the meaning], which has three parts: first, determining [the terms]. From 'This being so' down explains the meaning of the preceding two lines. 'Suchness' is principle and phenomena: the causal principle is the fruitional principle, hence Buddha-nature is not a cause. From 'the fruitional suchness' down: the fruitional principle is the causal principle, hence nirvāṇa is not a fruit. Second, from 'If the cause' down re-explains the preceding text. Having demonstrated that the principle of cause and effect is identical, then not only is the principle realized at the ultimate fruit neither new nor old, but the principle possessed by ordinary beings below is also neither new nor old. The text repeatedly explains and establishes this, hence it says that causal suchness is not different from fruitional suchness, and fruitional suchness is not different from causal suchness; in general, it simply reveals that the principle of cause and effect is one. Question: According to the previous explanation, nirvāṇa was taken as new, and Buddha-nature as old. Here it ought to say, 'It is not only that the suchness of nirvāṇa is not old'; why does it instead say 'not new'? Answer: If cause and effect are explained in contrast, it is truly as you challenge. Although the lines are now divided to explain the meaning, they merely reveal that the principle of cause and effect is identical, and neither is new or old. Hence it concludes below: 'This being so, the suchness of the cause and effect of Buddha-nature and nirvāṇa is neither new nor old.' Third, from 'This being so' down concludes the point.