大般涅槃經疏 11.16

11.16

此題不標佛而言如來者，允同三世，三世諸佛皆初號如來。又舉初以標後。又如名不異，破諸異計。又如來即佛、佛即如來，故言如來性品，四悉檀（云云）。又如來是極果之勝號，性是至理之本名。非但極果名曰如來，眾生本性亦名如來。又如來擬果、性擬於因，雖因果雙列，意在於因，故言如來性品。又果之本性性隱難辨，舉顯以目隱，故言如來性品。又性理含藏備種種性善惡三乘，舉勝棄劣，故言如來性品。又如來名通，夫有心者悉未來如來，四依開士猶如如來，十方諸佛同稱如來。就一佛之上有化應報法，皆稱如來。今文中正辨如來藏之如來。二十五有悉皆有我，以我同故故名如，以如示人故言來，常不可壞名之為性，從此立名名如來性品。當知此如來藏即佛性也。諸師解藏義不同。論師言：佛果在當，即時未有，故名為藏。又言：佛性，眾生心神，心神自能避苦求樂，即是心神。開善云：六法是佛性，義皆不然。此品以如來自性，不以心神、不以六法。又如來藏隱，心神六法皆顯；又如來藏常，心神六法遷變無常，與如來性全不相關，今皆不用。地人云：惑覆於理名之為藏。是義不然，私謂：非無一邊，但不與此品題合。彼以惑與理異，故惑能覆理；今依經，一切諸法中悉有安樂性，那得無性之惑覆於無惑之性？不會經旨，故不用也。私謂：非但惑性相即，一切何所不收？涅槃何法不在？一切眾生即涅槃相，一切國土即涅槃相（云云）。又論人云：當果為性，此即在外；六法為性，此即在內。地人云：惑覆黎耶，此亦是內。興皇云：非內非外，偏據正性。地人偏據本有，論人偏據緣了，復據當果，果性果果性，悉為經訶，如盲觸象不會玄旨。今明四句平等清淨無爭故名為如，以四悉檀巧示眾生故名為來，常不變易故名為性，豈獨一法為藏性耶？又人執云：如來藏者，不得不有。是義不然。佛性非有、非無、非亦有亦無、非非有非無，那得獨言是有？雖非此四，有因緣時於一門中作四悉說，故言如來藏者不得不有，以有接斷、以有破常、以有令悟。悟佛性時佛性非有，三門亦爾，云何執有而害三門？如人問橋，多爭何益？今明佛性，其意若此。若得此意，亦在本性、中間、極果，亦隱亦顯、亦外亦內。如經「舍內金藏，大小不知。善能掘出，宗仰是人。」即其義也。問：藏性理三，云何同異？答：只是一義。若欲分別，理惑合論名之為藏，全不論惑稱之為理，不可改變稱之為性（云云）。有師生起五譬，初問二十五有有我不耶？佛舉貧女藏答，明其有我但隱而不顯。若爾，何不早說？佛舉毒塗譬之，由常病未歇，不得洗乳。前後兩病就眾生論，隱顯塗洗就佛教論。若爾，眾生等有何故六道區分升沈碩異？佛舉因鬪失珠，致有悲喜不等。若爾，何故鬪耶？佛舉甜藥真正停留在山，寡德所招流乎鹹酢。若爾，真味不變，誰能毀傷？若叵毀傷則無殺罪。佛舉利钁能穿石砂不損金剛，如佛不可害，興心逆罪；性不可毀，毀陰得罪。然一答可解，何故聯翩？只為佛性難明，須萬斧劈樹。生起五譬是彼之巧思，故今存之（云云）。

This title does not specify "Buddha" but says "Tathāgata" because it applies equally to the three periods of time; the Buddhas of the three periods of time are all initially designated as Tathāgata. Moreover, it brings forward the beginning to designate the end. Furthermore, "tathā" (suchness) means non-difference, refuting all deviant assertions. In addition, the Tathāgata is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the Tathāgata; therefore it is called the "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata"—the four siddhāntas (and so forth). Furthermore, "Tathāgata" is the supreme designation for the ultimate fruit, and "nature" is the fundamental name for the ultimate principle. Not only is the ultimate fruit called Tathāgata, the fundamental nature of sentient beings is also called Tathāgata. Moreover, Tathāgata corresponds to the fruit, and nature corresponds to the cause; although both cause and fruit are listed, the intention lies in the cause; therefore it is called the "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata." Moreover, the fundamental nature of the fruit is hidden and difficult to discern; bringing forward the manifest to designate the hidden, it is therefore called the "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata." Moreover, the principle of nature contains and conceals, being fully endowed with various natures: good, evil, and the three vehicles; bringing forward the superior and discarding the inferior, it is therefore called the "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata." Furthermore, the name Tathāgata is universal: whoever possesses mind is a future Tathāgata; the noble beings of the four reliances are just like the Tathāgata; the Buddhas of the ten directions are alike called Tathāgata. With respect to a single Buddha, there are the transformation, response, reward, and Dharma [bodies], which are all called Tathāgata. In the present text, it properly distinguishes the Tathāgata of the tathāgatagarbha. In the twenty-five states of existence, all possess a self; because the self is identical, it is called suchness (tathā); because it manifests suchness to people, it is said to have come (āgata); being permanent and indestructible, it is called nature; named from this, it is called the "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata." One should know that this tathāgatagarbha is precisely the buddhadhātu. Various masters explain the meaning of "garbha" differently. The Treatise Masters say: the fruit of Buddhahood lies in the future and does not exist at present, so it is called a treasury (garbha). They also say: the buddhadhātu is the mental consciousness of sentient beings; since the mental consciousness can naturally avoid suffering and seek bliss, it is precisely the mental consciousness. Kāishàn says: the six dharmas are the buddhadhātu. None of these meanings is correct. This chapter takes the Tathāgata's own nature [as buddhadhātu], not the mental consciousness, nor the six dharmas. Furthermore, the tathāgatagarbha is hidden, while the mental consciousness and the six dharmas are manifest; moreover, the tathāgatagarbha is permanent, while the mental consciousness and the six dharmas undergo change and are impermanent, bearing no relation whatsoever to the nature of the Tathāgata; none of these are accepted now. The Dilun masters say: delusion concealing the principle is called a treasury. This meaning is incorrect. I personally remark: it is not without one aspect, but it does not fit the title of this chapter. They hold that delusion is different from principle, so delusion can conceal the principle; now, relying on the sūtra, within all dharmas there is the nature of peace and bliss; how could natureless delusion conceal the delusionless nature? It does not accord with the sūtra's meaning, so it is not accepted. I personally remark: not only are delusion and nature mutually identical, what does everything not include? What dharma is not present in nirvāṇa? All sentient beings are the mark of nirvāṇa; all lands are the mark of nirvāṇa (and so forth). Furthermore, the Treatise Masters say: the future fruit is the nature, which means it is external; the six dharmas are the nature, which means it is internal. The Dilun masters say: delusion concealing the ālaya[vijñāna], which is also internal. Xīnghuáng says: neither internal nor external, relying exclusively on the correct nature. The Dilun masters rely exclusively on inherent existence; the Treatise Masters rely exclusively on the conditions and manifestation, and also rely on the future fruit, the nature of the fruit, and the nature of the fruit-of-the-fruit; all are rebuked by the sūtra, like the blind touching the elephant, failing to understand the profound purport. Now, it is explained that the four propositions are equal, pure, and non-contentious, hence called suchness (tathā); skillfully demonstrating it to sentient beings via the four siddhāntas, it is called coming (āgata); being permanent and unvarying, it is called nature. How could a single dharma alone be the treasury-nature? Furthermore, someone clings to the view: the tathāgatagarbha cannot but exist. This meaning is not correct. The buddhadhātu is not existent, not non-existent, not both existent and non-existent, and not neither existent nor non-existent; how could one exclusively say it is existent? Although free from these four, when there are causal conditions, one speaks via the four siddhāntas within a single gate; therefore it is said that the tathāgatagarbha cannot but exist, using existence to receive those who hold annihilation, using existence to refute permanence, and using existence to bring about awakening. When one awakens to the buddhadhātu, the buddhadhātu is not existent; the other three gates are also like this. How could one cling to existence and damage the three gates? Like someone asking about a bridge, what is the benefit of excessive disputation? The buddhadhātu explained now has an intention such as this. If one captures this intention, it is also in the fundamental nature, the intermediate stage, and the ultimate fruit; it is both hidden and manifest, both external and internal. As the sūtra says: "The gold treasury in the house, its size is unknown. The person who skillfully digs it out is revered." That is precisely its meaning. Question: As for the three—treasury, nature, and principle—how are they identical or different? Answer: They are just a single meaning. If one wishes to distinguish them: speaking of principle and delusion combined is called treasury; speaking completely without delusion is called principle; being immutable is called nature (and so forth). A certain master presented five similes: first, asking whether the twenty-five states of existence have a self or not? The Buddha cited the poor woman's treasure to answer, clarifying that there is a self, but it is hidden and not manifest. If so, why was it not spoken of earlier? The Buddha used the poison-smeared [drum] to illustrate it: because the sickness of [clinging to] permanence had not yet subsided, one could not wash away the milk. The earlier and later sicknesses are discussed in terms of sentient beings; the hidden, manifest, smeared, and washed are discussed in terms of the Buddha's teaching. If so, since sentient beings possess it equally, why are the six destinies differentiated, rising and falling with immense disparity? The Buddha cited losing the jewel due to fighting, which leads to unequal grief and joy. If so, why was there fighting? The Buddha cited the sweet medicine, true and genuine, abiding in the mountains, but due to lack of virtue, it flowed into salty and sour flavors. If so, since the true flavor is unchanging, who can damage it? If it cannot be damaged, there would be no sin of killing. The Buddha cited the sharp mattock being able to pierce stone and sand without damaging diamond: just as the Buddha cannot be harmed, yet harboring the intention incurs a rebellious sin; so the nature cannot be destroyed, yet destroying the aggregates incurs sin. However, although one answer would suffice, why are they successive? Only because the buddhadhātu is difficult to understand, requiring ten thousand axes to split the tree. The arrangement of the five similes was his ingenious conception, so it is preserved now (and so forth).