大般涅槃經疏 27.20

27.20

「譬如四大」下，第三廣明佛性，為四：一明非當非現而說當有、第二明非即非離、第三簡邪正、第四廣出體性。初非當非現，約眾生當得，故名當有。有譬、有合。然四大無的，一業能感地大，復有一業能感火大，餘二亦爾。但聽業緣，總能感得。佛性亦爾，時至即現，故以四大為譬。譬云有輕有重者，風火輕、地水重。又言赤白黃黑者，此配其色，火赤、風白、地黃、水黑。若配五行，火赤、金白、地黃、水黑、木青。又小乘中明風無色，大乘明風有色。五行中金在西方，主白又主秋，秋氣白，秋風蕭飋，故言風白，未詳。合，如文。「譬如有王」下，二明佛性非即非離，有譬、有合。初文中言萊茯根者，《爾雅》作蘆菔，郭注為蘿茯，蘿茯為正。牽象示眾盲者，他作一存一亡釋之，頭足等皆非象，亡也；不離頭足等是象，存也。佛性非六法，亡也；六法之外無別佛性，還用六法，存也。如此釋者，不得出於即離兩句，況得絕於四句離百非耶？此文雙彈即離，非頭足為象，此彈即也；離是無象，此彈離也。頭足之中既無有象，不可即也；頭足之外既無別象，不可離也。非即非離、非內非外而得言象。眾生佛性亦復如是，非即六法、非離六法，非內非外故名中道，名為佛性。若取六法為佛性者，乃是眾盲之佛性；若離六法為佛性者，如指虛空為佛性。如諸婆羅門所謗、為仙豫所害。取不即不離中道為佛性者，如大王臣智所見佛性。若得不即不離意，廣歷諸法悉是佛性。四無量、六度等，悉如文。於合文中，又二：先總合；次「是諸眾生」下別合，於中又三：先正合：次更舉本盲帖合：三結。初正合中六，一一皆三：先合六法、次舉譬帖、三結，悉如文。

From “For example, the four great elements” downwards, the third [part] broadly explains the buddhadhātu, divided into four: first, explaining that it is neither future nor present yet spoken of as existing in the future; second, explaining that it is neither identical nor separate; third, distinguishing the heterodox from the orthodox; fourth, broadly setting forth its essential nature. First, regarding neither future nor present: in terms of sentient beings attaining it in the future, it is called “existing in the future.” There are a metaphor and an application. However, the four great elements have no fixed determination: one karma can induce the earth element, another karma can induce the fire element, and the remaining two are also like this. Relying solely on karmic conditions, all can be induced. The buddhadhātu is also like this: when the time arrives, it immediately manifests; hence, the four great elements are used as a metaphor. When the metaphor says there are light and heavy ones: wind and fire are light, while earth and water are heavy. It also speaks of red, white, yellow, and black, which match their colors: fire is red, wind is white, earth is yellow, and water is black. If correlated with the five phases: fire is red, metal is white, earth is yellow, water is black, and wood is cyan. Furthermore, in the Hīnayāna it is explained that wind has no color, while the Mahāyāna explains that wind has color. In the five phases, metal is in the west, governing white and autumn; the autumn qi is white, and the autumn wind is bleak, so it is said that wind is white, though this remains unclear. The application is as in the text. From “For example, there was a king” downwards, the second [section] explains that the buddhadhātu is neither identical nor separate, having both metaphor and application. In the first text, regarding the term “radish root” (laifugen), the Erya writes it as lufu, and Guo [Pu]’s commentary writes it as luofu; luofu is correct. Regarding bringing an elephant to show the blind men: others explain this in terms of one presence and one absence—the head, feet, and so forth are all not the elephant, which is absence; not departing from the head, feet, and so forth is the elephant, which is presence. The buddhadhātu is not the six dharmas, which is absence; outside the six dharmas there is no other buddhadhātu, and it still employs the six dharmas, which is presence. Such an explanation cannot transcend the two propositions of identity and separation, much less extinguish the four propositions and transcend the hundred negations. This text refutes both identity and separation: that the head and feet are not the elephant refutes identity; that there is no elephant apart from them refutes separation. Since within the head and feet there is no elephant, it cannot be identical; since outside the head and feet there is no other elephant, it cannot be separate. It is neither identical nor separate, neither internal nor external, yet can be called an elephant. The buddhadhātu of sentient beings is also like this: neither identical to the six dharmas nor separate from the six dharmas, neither internal nor external; therefore it is called the middle way, and called the buddhadhātu. If one takes the six dharmas to be the buddhadhātu, that is the buddhadhātu of the blind men; if one separates from the six dharmas to find the buddhadhātu, that is like pointing to empty space as the buddhadhātu. This is like what the brāhmaṇas slandered and for which [King] Seniya was slain. Taking the middle way of neither identity nor separation to be the buddhadhātu is like the buddhadhātu seen by the great king’s wise minister. If one grasps the meaning of neither identity nor separation, in broadly traversing all dharmas, all are the buddhadhātu. The four immeasurables, the six perfections, and so forth are all as in the text. Within the text of the application, there are again two parts: first, a general application; next, from “all these sentient beings” downwards, a specific application, in which there are again three parts: first, the direct application; next, adducing the original blindness to match the application; third, the conclusion. In the first direct application there are six points, each having three aspects: first, applying the six dharmas; next, adducing the metaphor to match; third, concluding—all as in the text.