大般涅槃經疏 24.7

24.7

「善男子佛性者」下，第四約因果明中道，為三：一明有因有果、二明非因非果、三明亦是因果亦非因果。只應明非因非果，何得云因果？若不明因果，何所辨非？初文有法、譬。法說中論兩因兩果，兩因者謂因、因因，兩果者謂果、果果。尋此文意，不得以因家之因為因因，而得以果家之果為果果。得以因家之果為因因，得以果家之果為果果。何故爾？𭁏因是境，重因是觀。𭁏果是菩提，重果是涅槃。境但是因，不從因至於因，但因非因因，觀智從因至於因故。得是因因，菩提但是果，不從果至於果，但果非果果，涅槃從果至於果故。得是果果，譬說中意，是則不然。譬中以無明為因因。無明當體是因，而復為行作因，故是因因。識當體是果，復為行作果，故是果果。以譬例法，境是因因，菩提應是果果。而不例者，境體非因，不從因至於因，但是因非因因。觀智體非果，不從果至於果。若然，譬與法乖。答：取少分譬。私謂：亦非全取無明行識以為境智菩提涅槃之譬，但是先舉無明行等亦有因果、因因、果果之名，故下文中具舉四句：佛性涅槃為初二句，十二因緣為第三句。言少分者，名同義異，故云少分。若欲將境智為二因、菩提涅槃為二果，是則境體是因，復為智作因，故名因因。智體是因，復為二果作因，例二果亦爾。準因作之，亦應可見。「以是義故」下，第二明非因非果即中道正性。此中十不賸，《中論》中有不因不果。從「是因非果」下，第三明亦是因果亦非因果。開善作五性：是因非果即境界性，是果非因即果果性，是因即了因，是果即菩提果，非因非果即正性。而彼家用眾生為正性，與非因非果義不相應。莊嚴作四性：是因即了因，是果即涅槃，是因即正因，是果即菩提。非因非果非復是性，但非前義。觀師亦作五性：是因非果即境界性，是果非因即果果性，是因是果即了因性及菩提性。言了因者，以望境界為果、望菩提是因。若爾，菩提性亦應兩望，望了因是果、望果果是因。非因非果即正性。興皇但名正法正性，不許稱為正因。今經中有正因之名，何以不許？然此五性乃是開合之異。正性不二，緣性則二。二是因果，開因出因因，開果出果果，合四為二，所謂因果；合二為一，合緣為正，正無復數。「以是義故」下，第三結歎甚深，又為三：一略歎、二廣歎、三總結。初略歎者，簡凡小不見，唯佛能見。

From "Good son, the buddhadhātu..." below is the fourth, clarifying the middle way in terms of cause and fruit; it has three: first, clarifying that there are cause and fruit; second, clarifying that it is neither cause nor fruit; third, clarifying that it is both cause and fruit, and neither cause nor fruit. One should only clarify neither cause nor fruit—how can one speak of cause and fruit? If one does not clarify cause and fruit, what is there to distinguish as negated? The first passage has doctrine and simile. Within the doctrinal explanation, it discusses two causes and two fruits: the two causes are called cause and cause-of-cause; the two fruits are called fruit and fruit-of-fruit. Investigating the intent of this passage: one cannot take the cause of the cause-aspect as cause-of-cause, but one can take the fruit of the fruit-aspect as fruit-of-fruit. One can take the fruit of the cause-aspect as cause-of-cause, and take the fruit of the fruit-aspect as fruit-of-fruit. Why is this? The single cause is the object; the double cause is the contemplation. The single fruit is bodhi; the double fruit is nirvāṇa. The object is merely a cause; it does not proceed from a cause to become a cause; it is merely a cause and not a cause-of-cause; because the wisdom of contemplation proceeds from a cause to become a cause, it is able to be the cause-of-cause. Bodhi is merely a fruit; it does not proceed from a fruit to become a fruit; it is merely a fruit and not a fruit-of-fruit; because nirvāṇa proceeds from a fruit to become a fruit, it is able to be the fruit-of-fruit. The meaning within the simile is not like this. In the simile, ignorance is taken as the cause-of-cause: ignorance in its own essence is a cause, and furthermore acts as a cause for compositional factors, hence it is a cause-of-cause. Consciousness in its own essence is a fruit, and furthermore acts as a fruit for compositional factors, hence it is a fruit-of-fruit. If one matches the doctrine by this simile, the object would be the cause-of-cause, and bodhi should be the fruit-of-fruit. Yet they do not correspond: the essence of the object is not a cause, and does not proceed from a cause to become a cause; it is merely a cause and not a cause-of-cause. The essence of the wisdom of contemplation is not a fruit, and does not proceed from a fruit to become a fruit. If so, the simile and the doctrine are at variance. Answer: it is taken as a partial simile. I personally consider: it also does not wholly take ignorance, compositional factors, and consciousness as similes for object, wisdom, bodhi, and nirvāṇa; it merely first adduces that ignorance, compositional factors, and so forth also have the names of cause, fruit, cause-of-cause, and fruit-of-fruit; hence in the passage below, it fully presents the four propositions: buddhadhātu and nirvāṇa are the first two propositions, and the twelve links of dependent origination are the third proposition. That it is called partial is because the names are the same but the meanings are different; hence it is called partial. If one wishes to take object and wisdom as two causes, and bodhi and nirvāṇa as two fruits: then the essence of the object is a cause, and furthermore acts as a cause for wisdom, hence it is called cause-of-cause; the essence of wisdom is a cause, and furthermore acts as a cause for the two fruits; by analogy, the two fruits are also like this. Following the cause to construct this, it should also be visible. From "For this reason" below is the second, clarifying that neither cause nor fruit is the correct nature of the middle way. Here the ten negations are not redundant; in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* there is "neither cause nor fruit." From "It is cause and not fruit" below is the third, clarifying that it is both cause and fruit, and neither cause nor fruit. Kāishàn proposed five natures: "is cause and not fruit" is the objective nature; "is fruit and not cause" is the fruit-of-fruit nature; "is cause" is the revelatory cause; "is fruit" is the bodhi-fruit; "neither cause nor fruit" is the correct nature. Yet that school takes sentient beings as the correct nature, which does not correspond with the meaning of neither cause nor fruit. Zhuāngyán proposed four natures: "is cause" is the revelatory cause; "is fruit" is nirvāṇa; "is cause" is the primary cause; "is fruit" is bodhi; "neither cause nor fruit" is no longer a nature, but merely negates the preceding meanings. Master Guān also proposed five natures: "is cause and not fruit" is the objective nature; "is fruit and not cause" is the fruit-of-fruit nature; "is cause and is fruit" are the revelatory cause nature and the bodhi nature. As for the revelatory cause: viewed in relation to the objective realm, it is a fruit; viewed in relation to bodhi, it is a cause. If so, the bodhi nature should also have two perspectives: viewed in relation to the revelatory cause, it is a fruit; viewed in relation to the fruit-of-fruit, it is a cause. "Neither cause nor fruit" is the correct nature. Xīnghuáng only named it the correct dharma and the correct nature, not permitting it to be called the primary cause. In the present sūtra there is the name "primary cause"; why not permit it? However, these five natures are merely the difference of expansion and combination. The correct nature is not dual, whereas the conditioned nature is dual. The dual are cause and fruit: expanding cause brings out cause-of-cause; expanding fruit brings out fruit-of-fruit; combining the four makes two, the so-called cause and fruit; combining the two makes one, combining the conditioned into the correct, and the correct has no further number. From "For this reason" below is the third, concluding in praise of its profound depth; it also has three: first, a brief praise; second, an extensive praise; third, a general conclusion. The first, the brief praise, distinguishes that ordinary beings and Hinayānists do not see it, and only the Buddha can see it.