大乘義章 1.43

1.43

言因因者，謂菩薩道，道起必由十二緣生，從因起因，故曰因因。然此通說證教兩行以為因因，非獨教行。言果性者，謂大菩提。言果果者，謂大涅槃。前言果者，方便菩提，有作之果；此果者，性淨涅槃，無作果也。通而論之，性淨、方便俱是菩提並是涅槃，為別兩門，異名互說。此之二果雖復同時，隨義分之，得以菩提顯彼涅槃，菩提能顯，義說為因；涅槃所顯，義說為果。然彼菩提，返望前因已受果名，涅槃是彼果家果，故云果果。云何？因中因緣之理，單說為因。所生行德，名為因因。乃至果中方便菩提，單名為果。性淨之體，名為果果，以彼因中始終方便依理起行。是故理本，直名為因。行為因因。果據終極，攝德歸體，德名為果，體名果果。然彼果中，方便菩提說名為果，性淨涅槃別為果果。何故因中證教兩行通為因因？以果類因，因中教行應名為因，證為因因。但彼因中位分參差、義別前後，凡時生死就本說因。聖道之中證教雖殊，同依前起，但名因因。果無先後，故就同時。體德分二，隨義左右，隱顯言耳。非因果者，釋不異前。又准經中乳酪等喻，分性為六。喻相如何？一雜血乳、二出血乳、三者是酪、四者生蘇、五者熟蘇、六者醍醐。以此況性，差別有六，四門分別：第一依彼〈迦葉品〉中，凡夫佛性，如雜血乳；須陀斯陀斷小煩惱，所有佛性，如出血乳；那含之人佛性如酪；羅漢佛性，如似生蘇；緣覺菩薩，性如熟蘇；佛如醍醐。第二依彼〈如來性品〉說：凡夫佛性，如雜血乳；聲聞佛性，如出血乳；緣覺如酪；菩薩佛性，如生熟蘇；七地已還，如似生蘇；八地已上，如似熟蘇；佛如醍醐。第三通說，凡夫二乘乃至大乘善趣之人所有佛性，如雜血乳；種性解行，如出血乳；初地如酪；二地已上乃至七地，如似生蘇；八地已上，如似熟蘇；佛如醍醐。第四門中，凡夫、二乘、地前菩薩所有佛性，如雜血乳；初地佛性，如出血乳；二地已上，佛性如酪；八地已上，性如生蘇；後身佛性，猶如熟蘇；佛如醍醐。此後兩門，義有文無。或復隨義分性為七，如經中說：眾生佛性，不即六法、不異六法。不即六法，以之為一；不異六法，即以為六、通前說七。言六法者，所謂五陰及以我也。何者是我？五陰和合，假名集用，說名為我。真性緣起，集成此六，六即是性，故云不異；性體平等，妙出名相，稱曰不即。又如經說：涅槃河中有七眾生，不離性水。性隨人別，亦分七種。七眾生者，一是常沒、二是暫出還沒、三出已即住、四住已觀方、五觀方已行、六行已後住、七水陸俱行。然此所說差別有五：

As for the cause-of-cause, it refers to the bodhisattva path. The arising of the path must be produced through the twelve links of dependent origination: because a cause arises from a cause, it is called the cause-of-cause. However, this comprehensively refers to both practices—realisation and teaching—as the cause-of-cause, not exclusively the practice of teaching. As for the fruitional nature, it refers to great bodhi. As for the fruit-of-fruit, it refers to great nirvāṇa. What was called the fruit earlier is expedient bodhi, an active fruit; this fruit here is naturally pure nirvāṇa, an inactive fruit. Speaking comprehensively, both the naturally pure and the expedient are both bodhi and nirvāṇa; to distinguish the two approaches, different names are used interchangeably. Although these two fruits are simultaneous, dividing them according to meaning, one may use bodhi to manifest that nirvāṇa: bodhi, as that which can manifest, is nominally explained as the cause; nirvāṇa, as that which is manifested, is nominally explained as the fruit. Now that bodhi, looking back at the preceding cause, has already received the name of fruit; nirvāṇa is the fruit of that fruit, hence it is called the fruit-of-fruit. How is this? In the causal stage, the principle of dependent origination is simply called the cause. The practice-virtue produced by it is called the cause-of-cause. Likewise, in the fruitional stage, expedient bodhi is simply called the fruit. The essence of natural purity is called the fruit-of-fruit. Because in the cause, the expedient means from beginning to end arises in practice based on principle, therefore the root of principle is directly called the cause, and practice is the cause-of-cause. The fruit is based on the ultimate: gathering virtues back to the essence, the virtue is called the fruit, and the essence is called the fruit-of-fruit. Yet within that fruit, expedient bodhi is called the fruit, and naturally pure nirvāṇa is separately the fruit-of-fruit. Why are the two practices of realisation and teaching in the cause comprehensively called the cause-of-cause? If one were to analogise the cause to the fruit, in the cause teaching practice should be called the cause, and realisation the cause-of-cause. But in that cause, the stages are uneven and their meanings differ as earlier and later: at the ordinary stage, saṃsāra is spoken of as cause in terms of the root; within the noble path, although realisation and teaching differ, they equally arise based on the preceding, and so are only called the cause-of-cause. Fruits have no earlier or later, so they are treated as simultaneous. Essence and virtue are divided into two, spoken of as concealed or manifest according to the perspective of the meaning. That which is neither cause nor fruit is explained no differently from before. Furthermore, based on the analogies of milk, curd, and so forth in the sūtra, the nature is divided into six. What are the aspects of the analogy? (1) Milk mixed with blood, (2) milk with blood drawn out, (3) curd, (4) fresh butter, (5) clarified butter, and (6) ghee. Using these to illustrate the nature, there are six differences, differentiated through four gates: First, according to the 'Kāśyapa Chapter': the Buddha-nature of ordinary persons is like milk mixed with blood; the Buddha-nature possessed by srotāpannas and sakṛdāgāmins who have severed minor afflictions is like milk with blood drawn out; the Buddha-nature of anāgāmins is like curd; the Buddha-nature of arhats is like fresh butter; that of pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas is like clarified butter; and the Buddha is like ghee. Second, according to the 'Tathāgata-nature Chapter': the Buddha-nature of ordinary persons is like milk mixed with blood; the Buddha-nature of śrāvakas is like milk with blood drawn out; that of pratyekabuddhas is like curd; the Buddha-nature of bodhisattvas is like fresh and clarified butter—up to the seventh stage it is like fresh butter, and from the eighth stage onward it is like clarified butter; and the Buddha is like ghee. Third, speaking comprehensively: the Buddha-nature possessed by ordinary persons, followers of the two vehicles, and even those in the good destinies of the Mahāyāna is like milk mixed with blood; that of the lineage and understanding-practice [stages] is like milk with blood drawn out; the first stage is like curd; from the second stage up to the seventh stage is like fresh butter; from the eighth stage onward is like clarified butter; and the Buddha is like ghee. In the fourth gate: the Buddha-nature possessed by ordinary persons, followers of the two vehicles, and pre-stage bodhisattvas is like milk mixed with blood; the Buddha-nature of the first stage is like milk with blood drawn out; from the second stage onward, Buddha-nature is like curd; from the eighth stage onward, the nature is like fresh butter; the Buddha-nature in the final bodily existence is like clarified butter; and the Buddha is like ghee. These last two gates have the meaning but lack scriptural text. Alternatively, the nature is divided into seven according to meaning, as the sūtra says: the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither identical to nor different from the six dharmas. Being not identical to the six dharmas, it is taken as one; being not different from the six dharmas, it is taken as six; combining the previous makes seven. As for the six dharmas, they are the five aggregates and the self. What is the self? It is the provisional name and collective function of the union of the five aggregates that is called the self. The dependent origination of the true nature gathers together to form these six: the six are precisely the nature, hence it is said to be 'not different'; the essence of the nature is impartial and wondrously transcends names and marks, hence it is called 'not identical'. Furthermore, as the sūtra says: in the river of nirvāṇa there are seven kinds of sentient beings who do not depart from the water of the nature. Differentiating the nature according to persons, it is also divided into seven kinds. The seven sentient beings are: (1) those who are constantly submerged, (2) those who briefly emerge and submerge again, (3) those who emerge and remain, (4) those who remain and survey the directions, (5) those who survey the directions and move, (6) those who move and then remain, and (7) those who travel by both water and land. However, what is spoken of here has five distinctions: