注大乘入楞伽經 9.142

9.142

Question: Since there is only one nature and not two, why do this sūtra and various sūtras teach that there are three natures (trisvabhāva) which comprehensively encompass everything?

Answer: One should understand that although the three natures, as they are distinguished according to their marks, each possess two aspects, yet root and branch subsume each other, so that there is only one nature.

The parikalpitasvabhāva has two aspects: first, it exists in subjective sentiment; second, it is non-existent in principle.

Pratītyasamutpāda (paratantrasvabhāva) has two aspects: first, it has a semblance of existence; second, it lacks self-nature.

Pariniṣpanna has two aspects: first, it is unchanging; second, it accords with conditions.

Because in pariniṣpanna there is the unchanging, in pratītyasamutpāda there is lack of self-nature, and in parikalpitasvabhāva there is non-existence in principle—due to these three aspects, the three natures are of a single limit, without differentiation. Therefore, a sūtra states: “All sentient beings are themselves nirvāṇa, and do not perish again.” This means not destroying the branches while ever remaining the root.

Because in pariniṣpanna there is according with conditions, in pratītyasamutpāda there is the semblance of existence, and in parikalpitasvabhāva there is existence in subjective sentiment—due to these three aspects, they are likewise not different. Therefore, a sūtra states: “The dharmakāya transmigrates through the five destinies, and is named ‘sentient beings’.” This means not moving from the root while ever remaining the branches.

Therefore, the true encompasses the false branches, the false penetrates to the true source, and nature and marks interpenetrate without being two. Hence it is said: “I teach only one nature; self-nature has no duality.”

Question: Since one teaches one nature without destroying the three natures, why do this sūtra and various sūtras also teach that all phenomena lack self-nature?

Answer: One should understand that the Tathāgata spoke with intentional meaning. Therefore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: “It is based on these three natures that those three nature-less-nesses are established; therefore the Buddha spoke with intentional meaning that all phenomena lack self-nature.”

First is the naturelessness of marks (meaning that parikalpitasvabhāva lacks both substance and marks);
second is the naturelessness of spontaneous arising (because the paratantra of pratītyasamutpāda is not spontaneous);
and last is due to being far removed from the previously grasped nature of self and phenomena (which is pariniṣpanna).

These words, “the three natures and three nature-less-nesses,” do not mean that paratantra and pariniṣpanna also lack substance; rather, they merely lack the deluded sentiment of grasping and conceptualising, and for this reason are all said to lack self-nature. From this we know that the ultimate destination points solely to the one true nature. Thus the subsequent verse says: “The meaning of the nature of these phenomena is also tathatā itself; because it is constantly such as its nature, it is the true nature of vijñaptimātra.” Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: “Apart from the dharmatā of all phenomena, all else is the work of Māra.” (If one can comprehend the meaning of these three natures and three nature-less-nesses, then regarding what this sūtra and other sūtras teach about all phenomena having nature and lacking nature, the principle will split open like bamboo.)