涅槃經遊意 1.38

1.38

有解云：有義則疎，是義則密。釋難眾生則是佛為密，有性不密者，眾生則佛性義深，眾生有佛性不深。經云：眾生有佛性甚深，既有性為深，何意有佛性非密，不見好解（扶解孝奉落：疎密之語不言深不深者，如人。二人相近，即言密，不得言深。若向何得言深淺是亦如此？眾生即佛性，即相密；若單論佛性，即深。經云眾生有佛性甚深，是約佛性為言；眾生即佛者，是約眾生為論。所以眾生外，更無佛性。故即是佛性與眾生不疎為密。是密義甚深，故有佛性甚深者乎云）。

An explanation says: Having the sense of "possessing" is distant, while having the sense of "being" is intimate and esoteric. In resolving the difficulty of why sentient beings being precisely the Buddha is esoteric while having the nature is not esoteric: the meaning of sentient beings being Buddha-nature is profound, whereas sentient beings having Buddha-nature is not profound. The sūtra says: "Sentient beings have a Buddha-nature that is extremely profound." Since having the nature is profound, why would having Buddha-nature not be esoteric? One does not see a good explanation. (A supplementary explanation notes: The words "distant and intimate" do not speak of profound or not profound, just like two people. When two people are close to each other, one says they are intimate; one cannot say they are profound. If someone approaches, how could one speak of profundity and shallowness? This is just like that. Sentient beings being precisely the Buddha-nature is mutually intimate. If one discusses Buddha-nature alone, it is profound. When the sūtra says that sentient beings have a Buddha-nature that is extremely profound, this is stated with reference to the Buddha-nature. That sentient beings are precisely the Buddha is discussed with reference to sentient beings. Therefore, outside of sentient beings, there is no separate Buddha-nature. Thus, being precisely the Buddha-nature and not being distant from sentient beings is intimacy. Because this esoteric meaning is extremely profound, it is said that having Buddha-nature is extremely profound.)