大乘義章 1.49

1.49

第三門中，差別有四（一明有無、二明內外、三就世論、四辨當現）。言有無者，義有兩門：一約緣以論、二就體分別。言約緣者，經說有四：一闡提人有、善根人無；二善根人有、闡提人無；三二人俱有；四二人俱無。義如上辨，今重論之。闡提有者，有不善性，佛性緣起為不善故，不善之法即是佛性。此不善性，闡提則有、善人無也。善根人有、闡提無者，謂善性也，佛性緣起三乘無漏，名之為善。善即是性，故名善性。此性聖有、闡提無也。二人有者，同有理性。二人無者，同無果性。言就體性辨有無者，佛性之體亦得說有、亦得說無、亦得說為非有非無。所言有者，如來藏中緣起法界恒沙佛法，說之為有。所言無者，解有兩義：一離相名無，如淨醍醐體雖是有，而無青黃赤白等相。亦如一切眾生心識體雖是有，無有大小長短等相。佛性亦爾，體雖是有，而無一相。無相之義，如後八識章中具辨。二無性名無，如來藏中恒沙佛法同一體性，互相緣集，無有一法別守自性。如說諸法以之為常，離諸法外無別有一常性可得。諸法齊爾，故說為無。有無如是。非有無者，非謂有無兩法並說為非有無，亦非無除捨有無二法為非有無，亦非有無合為一法為非有無，亦非有無二法之中別立一法為非有無。當知說彼無法為有，有則非有，還即說此有法為無，無則非無，是故為名非有非無。故經說言「有無方便入非有非無。」遣相論之，妙絕四句。何等為四？一者非有、二者非無、三者非有非無、第四非是非有非無。緣起諸法皆無自性，以無性故說無為有，無為有故有即非有。無無性故說有為無，有為無故無即非無，還即說彼有無之法為非有非無。無有非無亦無自性，故經說言「乃至如離性也」，還即說此非有非無。為有無故，有無之法亦不可得，是即佛性。理絕形名、心言不及，無取無捨，正智所知、聖慧巧悟，妙在其中（此一門竟）。

In the third section, the distinctions are fourfold: first, clarifying existence and non-existence; second, clarifying internal and external; third, discussing with respect to the [three] periods of time; fourth, discerning the future and the present. Regarding existence and non-existence, the meaning has two aspects: first, discussing it in terms of conditions; second, distinguishing it in terms of essence. Regarding 'in terms of conditions', the sūtra teaches four: first, icchantikas have it, while people of good roots lack it; second, people of good roots have it, while icchantikas lack it; third, both have it; fourth, neither has it. The meaning was discerned as above; now it is discussed again. As for 'icchantikas have it', they have unwholesome nature; because Buddha-nature conditionally arises into unwholesomeness, unwholesome phenomena are themselves Buddha-nature. This unwholesome nature is possessed by icchantikas and lacked by good people. As for 'people of good roots have it and icchantikas lack it', this refers to the wholesome nature; the conditional arising of Buddha-nature as the untainted [states] of the three vehicles is called wholesome. Wholesomeness is itself nature; hence it is called wholesome nature. This nature is possessed by the noble and lacked by icchantikas. As for 'both have it', they equally possess the nature of principle. As for 'neither has it', they equally lack the nature of fruition. Regarding the discernment of existence and non-existence in terms of essential nature: the essence of Buddha-nature may also be said to exist, may also be said not to exist, and may also be said to be neither existent nor non-existent. As for 'existence': the dharmadhātu of conditional arising and the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges within the tathāgatagarbha are said to exist. As for 'non-existence', the understanding has two meanings. First, being free from marks is called non-existence: just as the essence of pure clarified butter is indeed existent yet lacks marks such as blue, yellow, red, or white, and just as the essence of the mind-consciousness of all sentient beings is indeed existent yet lacks marks such as large, small, long, or short, Buddha-nature is likewise: although its essence is existent, it lacks any mark whatsoever. The meaning of marklessness is explained in detail later in the chapter on the eight consciousnesses. Second, having no self-nature is called non-existence: the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges within the tathāgatagarbha share the same single essence, conditionally combining with one another without a single dharma separately maintaining its own nature. Just as when dharmas are said to be permanent, apart from dharmas there is no other separate permanent nature to be found; all dharmas are uniform in this regard, and thus it is spoken of as non-existence. Such are existence and non-existence. As for 'neither existent nor non-existent': it does not mean that the two dharmas of existence and non-existence are stated together as 'neither existent nor non-existent', nor does it mean eliminating and abandoning the two dharmas of existence and non-existence to constitute 'neither existent nor non-existent', nor does it mean combining existence and non-existence into a single dharma to constitute 'neither existent nor non-existent', nor does it mean separately establishing a dharma between the two dharmas of existence and non-existence to constitute 'neither existent nor non-existent'. One should know that when that non-existent dharma is spoken of as existent, existence is then non-existence; and when this existent dharma is in turn spoken of as non-existent, non-existence is then not non-existence; therefore it is named 'neither existent nor non-existent'. Hence the sūtra says: 'Using the skillful means of existence and non-existence, one enters into neither existence nor non-existence.' Discussing it through the dispelling of marks, it wondrously transcends the four propositions (catuṣkoṭi). What are the four? First, not existent; second, not non-existent; third, neither existent nor non-existent; fourth, not 'neither existent nor non-existent'. The conditionally arisen dharmas all lack self-nature; because they lack nature, non-existence is spoken of as existence, and since non-existence is existence, existence is not existent. Because there is no non-nature, existence is spoken of as non-existence, and since existence is non-existence, non-existence is not non-existent; in turn, those dharmas of existence and non-existence are spoken of as neither existent nor non-existent. That which is not existent and not non-existent also lacks self-nature; hence the sūtra says: 'even up to being free from nature as it is', in turn speaking of this neither existent nor non-existent. Because they are existence and non-existence, the dharmas of existence and non-existence are also ungraspable; this is Buddha-nature. Principle transcends forms and designations; mind and words cannot reach it. Free from taking up and casting aside, it is known by correct wisdom and skillfully realized by noble prajñā; the wondrous lies therein. (This concludes the first section.)