[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大般涅槃經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767) › 25.16 # 大般涅槃經疏 25.16 大般涅槃經疏 25.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [25.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.25.16) 「善男子一切眾生」下，第三結歎佛性。此文具五種佛性：眾生即正因，諸佛境界即果性、果果性，業果即了因，佛性即境界性。又一解：眾生是正因，諸佛境界是境界性，業是了因性，果是果性、果果性，後佛性是總結章耳。又一解：一切眾生明凡夫，諸佛明聖人，業即是因性、因因性，果即是果性、果果性，佛性即正因性。下總結四法，即指此為四。皆稱不可思議者，不可以定相取，即一性是五性、五性即一性，非一五性而一五性，不縱橫不並別，如是乃名不可思議。若得此意，望上兩番破義，無性即有性、有性即無性，非有性非無性而有性而無性，即是非內非外。雖非內外而不失壞，名諸眾生悉有佛性。若失此意，全非祕藏之宗，文理抗行焉釋涅槃？文云四法者，眾生、諸佛、境界、業果是為四法。文云眾生煩惱覆障故常者，只名此為常，以其煩惱起故是常。又一解云：只眾生中有佛性之理，是故名常。今謂此解淺近，常義亦不成。眾生煩惱障覆即是常者，眾生是生死，生死即涅槃，煩惱即菩提。既言即是，寧不是常？問：果果、了因、萬善如何是常？一解云：能了佛性故云是常。今謂此不然，皆不可思議，不可思議故常。明文在茲，何勞餘解。不可思議故常，此是圓義。無常覆障，破無常已，得受樂故，此是別義（云云）。 > From "Good son, all sentient beings" onward, the third is the concluding praise of buddhadhātu. This passage contains the five kinds of buddhadhātu: sentient beings are the direct cause; the realm of all buddhas is the nature of the effect and the nature of the effect's effect; the karmic effect is the revealing cause; and buddhadhātu is the nature of the cognitive realm. Another explanation says: sentient beings are the direct cause, the realm of all buddhas is the nature of the cognitive realm, karma is the revealing causal nature, the effect is the nature of the effect and of the effect's effect, and the buddhadhātu at the end is merely the concluding section. Another explanation says: "all sentient beings" clarifies ordinary beings, "all buddhas" clarifies the noble ones, karma is the causal nature and the cause's causal nature, effect is the nature of the effect and the effect's effect, and buddhadhātu is the nature of the direct cause. The concluding summary below of "four dharmas" refers to these as the four. All are called inconceivable because they cannot be grasped through fixed characteristics: that is, the one nature is the five natures, and the five natures are the one nature; they are neither one nor five natures, yet are one and five natures, neither vertical nor horizontal, neither parallel nor distinct—such alone is called inconceivable. If one grasps this meaning, looking back at the two rounds of refutation above: lacking the nature is possessing the nature, possessing the nature is lacking the nature; neither possessing the nature nor lacking the nature, yet possessing the nature and lacking the nature; this is precisely neither internal nor external. Though neither internal nor external, they are not lost or destroyed; this is called all sentient beings possessing buddhadhātu. If one loses this meaning, it is completely outside the core of the secret treasury; how could one interpret nirvāṇa when his textual reasoning runs counter to it? The text refers to "four dharmas": sentient beings, all buddhas, the cognitive realm, and karmic effects are the four dharmas. The text says, "Because sentient beings are covered and obstructed by afflictions, it is permanent": this alone is called permanent, because when their afflictions arise, it is permanent. Another explanation says: it is simply that the principle of buddhadhātu is within sentient beings, and therefore it is called permanent. I now say that this explanation is shallow and superficial, and the meaning of permanence is also not established. When sentient beings are covered and obstructed by afflictions, that itself is permanent: sentient beings are saṃsāra, saṃsāra is nirvāṇa, and afflictions are bodhi. Since it says "is itself", how could it not be permanent? Question: How are the effect's effect, the revealing cause, and the myriad good deeds permanent? One explanation says: because they can reveal the buddhadhātu, they are said to be permanent. I now say this is not so: all are inconceivable, and because they are inconceivable, they are permanent. The clear text is right here; why trouble oneself with other explanations? Being permanent because it is inconceivable—this is the perfect teaching's meaning. Being covered and obstructed by the impermanent, and after destroying the impermanent, attaining the enjoyment of bliss—this is the distinct teaching's meaning, and so on. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 25.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.25.15) - [Next: 25.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.25.17) - [Up: 25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.25) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.25.16) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.25.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.25.16) · Pramāṇa