[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘義章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851) › 18.8 # 大乘義章 18.8 大乘義章 18.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [18.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.18.8) 次就性淨方便論二。於中略以三門分別：一釋其名、二辨其相、三定其因。名字如何？方便涅槃各別有四：一方便淨、二方便寂、三方便壞、四不同相。釋此四名各有兩義：一對因論果、二對體彰用。何故而然？方便涅槃有其二種：一從因修得名方便淨，二從體起用名方便淨。為是釋名各有兩義。方便淨者，從其初義。教行功德本無今有，從因方便斷障得淨，名方便淨。若從後義，作用善巧稱曰方便，作用中淨名方便淨。方便寂者，若就初義，從因方便斷障得寂，名方便寂。若就後義，作用善巧故曰方便，作用中寂名方便寂。方便壞者，若就初義，從因方便壞障得滅，名方便壞。若從後義，作用善巧名曰方便，用相不同名方便壞。不同相者，從其初義，方便涅槃斷染得淨，染淨別體名不同相。若從後義，作用差別名不同相。方便如是。性淨涅槃，名義有三：一名性淨、二名性寂、三名同相。釋此三名義各有二：一對因顯果、二對用彰體。何故如是？性淨涅槃有其二種：一本隱法性顯成今德名為性淨、二涅槃體淨說為性淨。於此門中，莫問修生修顯功德，對用論體，齊稱性淨。良以性淨有斯兩義，是故依之釋名各二。言性淨者，從初義，無始法性名之為性，是性本為妄想隱覆，相以不淨。故《勝鬘》云「自性淨心，不染而染。後息妄染，彼性始淨。」始淨法性說為涅槃，是故名為性淨涅槃。若據後義，涅槃法體名之為性，涅槃體淨名為性淨。言性寂者，從其初義，無始法性從緣飄動，如海波浪，名性不寂；後除妄染，法性始寂，始寂法性說為涅槃，是故名為性寂涅槃。若就後義，涅槃體寂，非是用寂，故云性寂。言同相者，從其初義，無始法性體通染淨稱曰同相，諸佛證會說為涅槃，是故名為同相涅槃。又此法性，體如一味亦名同相，諸佛證之說為涅槃，是故亦名同相涅槃。又本法性體雖一味，隨緣流變受種種形，如一味藥，隨其流處有種種味說為不同，息相稱本無有差別名曰同相。說此同相而為涅槃，是故復名同相涅槃。若據後義，涅槃體同故曰同相。體云何同？如《地論》說「一切法如，說自體空，名曰同矣。」是義云何？恒沙佛法莫不皆是一心中法，恒沙法如寧異心如？故得宣說一切法如為體空矣。名義如是。次辨其相。隨義進退，分別有五：一就方便修生德中隨義分二。二相云何？修生德中有二種作：一者緣修。對治熏發真心諸功德生，其猶蠟印印泥文生。二者體作，真隨行緣集成諸德，如金隨緣作莊嚴具。緣作義邊名方便淨，體作義邊說為性淨。二修生修顯相對說二。次前二種修生之德悉名方便，無始法性顯成今德說為性淨。如《地持》說「六入殊勝，無始法爾，名性種性。」以此性淨。若從先來修善所得，名習種性，以此方便。此二別分，修生功德直名菩提，修顯功德直名涅槃。如《涅槃》說。故彼經中，菩提從生因所生，涅槃必由了因所顯，無有生義。攝相通論，俱是菩提，以圓通故，如彼《金剛般若》中說。良以二種俱菩提故，須以性淨、方便名別，修生菩提說為方便，修顯菩提名為性淨。又此二種俱名涅槃，以寂滅故。良以二種俱涅槃故，亦須性淨、方便名別，修生涅槃說為方便，修顯涅槃名為性淨。三約修證以分二別。次前二種約修以論，方便修生、方便修顯悉名方便，證實亡緣說為性淨。是義云何？諸佛如來證實返望，從來無隱亦無今顯，淨非緣飾，故名性淨。此一對如《地經》說。故彼經中，淨相解脫遠離諸趣，名方便淨。自體本空自性常寂，非先有染後時離者，說為性淨。又此與彼《涅槃經》中緣離辨所故光明，其義相似。彼云「是光即是涅槃。」涅槃常住，不論因緣，云何如來問其因緣？即是性淨。亦有因緣，因滅無明獲得熾然三菩提燈，故有是光，即是方便。又復如彼《涅槃經》說「捨慈得慈，不從因緣。」其義相似。捨世諦慈，得第一義慈，即是方便第一義慈，不從因緣即是性淨。問曰：方便從緣，修得名果，可知性淨。涅槃證實緣，不從緣現，是果以不？釋言：不定，亦果非果。是義云何？體雖非果，至佛乃覺，為佛窮證，故得曰果。以是果故，《地經》宣說「滅佛行定者，即是性淨涅槃。」為佛所行，寧得非果？又是諸佛微智體相，何得非果？得時離緣，無因可酬，得言非果。以非果故，經中嘆佛獲得無因無果報法。又經亦言「涅槃之體非因非果。」涅槃既然，諸德齊爾。四體用分二。向前所說一切涅槃體名性淨，用稱方便。用相善巧，故名方便；德體常寂，故云性淨。五理事分二。向前所說一切涅槃行德善巧悉名方便，理體常寂說為性淨。此即經中一苦滅諦。問曰：此理與前所辨第三對中性淨何別？釋言：體一，隨義以分。向前所辨性淨涅槃，攝法從人，為佛所窮、為行所證。證已方便，無隱無顯、無因無果。今言理者，常法以論，凡佛一如、染淨不易，非隱非顯、非因非果。有斯異也。《涅槃》所說五種性中非因果性，義當此門。良以就實以論其實，實外無緣，緣即不有，知復約何說染說淨、說因說果？故非染淨、非因非果。體相如是。次定其因。先約對以辨其因。向前初對偏說方便修生功德，義分二種：生起義邊名方便淨，體起義邊說為性淨。今即就彼緣修六度及與佛性以辨其因。辨因有三：一緣正分別、二生了分別、三生作分別。緣正如何？望彼佛性體作義邊，佛性正因，以佛性中有可生義、有可依義能生彼德，故為正因；諸度等行說之為緣。與《涅槃》中「佛性正因、發心為緣，得菩提果。」其義相似。此修生德，分相論之即是菩提，故與彼同。望彼緣力動作義邊，諸度正因、佛性為緣。與《涅槃》中「六度生因、佛性了因，得菩提果。」其義相似。生即是正，了即是緣。次論生了。望彼佛性體作義邊，佛性生因，諸度為了。良以佛性是生因故，《涅槃》宣說「佛性雖無，不同兔角。兔角雖以無量方便不可得生，佛性可生。」以可生故說為生因，諸度了因。與《涅槃》中「復有了因，六波羅蜜阿耨菩提。」其義相似。若望緣力動作義邊，諸度生因，佛性了因。與《涅槃》中「復有生因，六波羅蜜阿耨菩提；復有了因，佛性菩提。」其義相似。佛性為境，由見佛性成就佛德，故說為了。次論生作。生因作因通釋一切，隨相且分非無差異。異相如何？一義分別緣力起者名為作因。作因名字，如《涅槃》說「佛性生德說為生因。以佛性中有可生義，從緣生故。」二得宣說緣生德名為生因，佛性成德名為作因，如金作器。初對如是。次對第二修生修顯二種涅槃以定其因。於中有二：一緣正分別、二生了分別。緣正如何？隱顯麁判，望性淨果，佛性正因，諸度為緣。望方便果，諸度正因，佛性為緣。以實細論，望二涅槃，同說佛性以為正因。但佛性中有二種義：一法佛性。本有法體，如礦中金。二報佛性。本法體上有其隨緣可生之義，而無法體，如礦中金有造作莊嚴具義，未有嚴具已在金中。彼法佛性望性淨果說為正因，彼報佛性望方便果說為正因。諸度不定。云何不定？六度有三：一緣修六度，謂於六識七識心中修諸所行。二者真實有作六度，藉前緣修熏發真心，令其心中諸功德起。三者真實無作六度，真心本是諸功德性，□緣顯了，說為真實無作六度。望方便果，真實有作六波羅蜜亦是正因，餘二為緣。望性淨果，真實無作六波羅蜜是其正因，餘二為緣。次論生了。佛性望彼方便之果是其生因，望性淨果是其了因。佛性體上有可生義，生方便果，故名生因。故《涅槃》云「佛性雖無，不同兔角。何以故？兔角叵生，佛性可生，故名生因。」佛性本來有其可顯可了之義，終得顯了成性淨果，故望彼果得名了因。故《涅槃》云「佛性雖有，不同虛空。何以故？虛空雖以無量方便不可得見，佛性可見。以有可見可了義故，名為了因。」又《涅槃》云「涅槃因者，所謂佛性。佛性之性，不生涅槃，故名了因。」六度不定。云何不定？六度三種，如前已辨。望方便果，真實有作六波羅蜜亦是生因，如乳生酪，酪出生蘇乃至醍醐，展轉相生，悉名生因；餘二名了，非正生故。望性淨果一切名了，無作六度終可圓顯成性淨果，可顯可了故名了因；餘二是其異相顯了，故名了因。何故不說生作二因？望方便果，有生有作，已如上辨。望性淨果，無生無作，故更不論。次望第三約修就證二種涅槃以定其因。望方便果，說緣說正、說生說了，備如上辨。彼性淨果，證實亡緣，故不可約之說緣說正、說生說了，但知平等非因果性。佛本在緣未證之時義說為因，說後證時以之為果。及後證時達本無緣，以無緣故本亦非因、今亦非果。次望第四體用相對一種涅槃以定其因。於此門中，涅槃體淨名為性淨，涅槃用淨名方便淨。對性淨體，說因如上。方便淨者，當知即是應化涅槃。應有二種：一者法應、二者報應。如《涅槃》說「大般涅槃能建大義現種種化」，是其法應。「大悲願力種種化現」，名為報應。今對此二以定其因。分別有二：一緣正分別、二生了分別。緣正如何？法家之應，如來藏中緣起法門以之為正。如《華嚴》中善財童子所求種種法門，是本大悲願力以之為緣。彼法雖有可起用義，若無悲願畢竟不生。譬如火珠雖能出火，要須見日。亦如水珠雖能出水，要須見月。是以經言「異法有故，異法出生。」報家之應，大悲願力以為正因，三昧法門以之為緣。若無彼法，悲願之力不能獨生。譬如人面雖能生像，要須依鏡。亦如音聲雖能發響，要須依谷。緣正如是。生了如何？親起名生，疎發稱了。准前緣正，義在可知。次望第五理事相對二種涅槃以定其因。於此門中，事為方便，猶如前辨。性淨是理，非因非果，不可說因。性淨方便二種涅槃，辨之麁爾。 > Next, discussing the two \[kinds of nirvāṇa\] in terms of the naturally pure (svabhāva-śuddha) and the expedient (upāya). Within this, they are briefly distinguished through three gates: first, explaining their names; second, distinguishing their characteristics; third, determining their causes. What are the names? Of expedient nirvāṇa there are four distinct varieties: first, expedient purification; second, expedient quiescence; third, expedient destruction; fourth, differentiated characteristics. Explaining these four names each involves two meanings: first, discussing the fruit in contrast to the cause; second, revealing the function in contrast to the essence. Why is this so? Expedient nirvāṇa is of two kinds: first, that which is cultivated and attained from causes is called expedient purification; second, that which arises as function from essence is called expedient purification. Therefore, explaining the names each involves two meanings. As for 'expedient purification,' according to the first meaning: the merits of instruction and practice, originally absent, are now present; through expedient means in the cause, obstacles are severed and purity is attained, hence termed 'expedient purification.' According to the latter meaning: the skill of active function is termed 'expedient,' and purity within that active function is termed 'expedient purification.' As for 'expedient quiescence,' according to the first meaning: through expedient means in the cause, obstacles are severed and quiescence is attained, hence termed 'expedient quiescence.' According to the latter meaning: the skill of active function is termed 'expedient,' and quiescence within that active function is termed 'expedient quiescence.' As for 'expedient destruction,' according to the first meaning: through expedient means in the cause, obstacles are destroyed and extinction is attained, hence termed 'expedient destruction.' According to the latter meaning: the skill of active function is termed 'expedient,' and the differing marks of function are termed 'expedient destruction.' As for 'differentiated characteristics,' according to the first meaning: in expedient nirvāṇa, defilement is severed and purity is attained, defilement and purity having distinct substances, hence termed 'differentiated characteristics.' According to the latter meaning: the distinctions of active function are termed 'differentiated characteristics.' Such is the expedient. As for naturally pure nirvāṇa, its name and meaning are threefold: first, naturally pure; second, naturally quiescent; third, identical characteristics. In explaining these three names, each meaning is twofold: first, revealing the fruit in contrast to the cause; second, revealing the essence in contrast to the function. Why is this so? Naturally pure nirvāṇa is of two kinds: first, the originally concealed dharmatā becomes manifest as present virtue, which is termed 'naturally pure'; second, the purity of the essence of nirvāṇa is termed 'naturally pure.' Within this gate, regardless of whether virtues are produced through cultivation or revealed through cultivation, when discussing essence in contrast to function, both are equally called 'naturally pure.' Because natural purity has these two meanings, in accordance with them the names are explained in two ways each. As for 'naturally pure,' according to the first meaning: the beginningless dharmatā is termed 'nature' (svabhāva); this nature was originally concealed and covered by false conceptualization, its marks thus impure. Therefore the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: 'The inherently pure mind is undefiled yet defiled. Later, when delusive defilement ceases, that nature is first purified.' The newly purified dharmatā is termed nirvāṇa, hence it is called 'naturally pure nirvāṇa.' According to the latter meaning: the dharma-essence of nirvāṇa is called 'nature,' and the purity of the essence of nirvāṇa is called 'naturally pure.' As for 'naturally quiescent,' according to the first meaning: the beginningless dharmatā drifts and stirs in accordance with conditions, like ocean waves, and is called 'naturally non-quiescent'; later, when delusive defilements are removed, the dharmatā is first quiescent, and the newly quiescent dharmatā is termed nirvāṇa, hence it is called 'naturally quiescent nirvāṇa.' According to the latter meaning: the essence of nirvāṇa is quiescent, not the quiescence of function, hence it is called 'naturally quiescent.' As for 'identical characteristics,' according to the first meaning: the essence of the beginningless dharmatā pervades both defilement and purity, which is termed 'identical characteristics'; the realization and attunement of all Buddhas is termed nirvāṇa, hence it is called 'identical-characteristics nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, because the essence of this dharmatā is of a single taste, it is also called 'identical characteristics'; the realization of it by all Buddhas is termed nirvāṇa, hence it is also called 'identical-characteristics nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, although the essence of the original dharmatā is of a single taste, following conditions it flows, transforms, and assumes diverse forms; like a medicine of a single taste that has various flavors according to where it flows and is said to be different, when appearances cease and conform to the origin, there is no differentiation, which is termed 'identical characteristics.' Stating this identical characteristic to be nirvāṇa, it is therefore also termed 'identical-characteristics nirvāṇa.' According to the latter meaning: the essence of nirvāṇa is identical, hence termed 'identical characteristics.' How is the essence identical? As the Daśabhūmika-śāstra says: 'The thusness of all dharmas is explained as the emptiness of own-nature, which is termed identical.' What does this mean? Among the sands-of-the-Ganges Buddha-dharmas, is there any that is not a dharma within the One Mind? How could the thusness of the sands-of-the-Ganges dharmas differ from the thusness of the mind? Therefore it can be proclaimed that the thusness of all dharmas is essential emptiness. Such are the names and meanings. Next, distinguishing their characteristics. Moving forward and backward according to meaning, there are five distinctions: First, dividing into two according to the meaning within the virtues produced through expedient cultivation. What are the two characteristics? Within the virtues produced through cultivation there are two kinds of production: first, conditioned cultivation (pratyaya-bhāvanā). Remedying and perfuming gives rise to all virtues of the true mind, just as a wax seal impressed on clay produces text. Second, essential production (svabhāva-kṛti): the true follows the conditions of practice to aggregate into all virtues, just as gold follows conditions to make ornaments. In terms of the meaning of conditioned production, it is called 'expedient purification'; in terms of the meaning of essential production, it is called 'natural purity.' Second, discussing the two in contrast between what is produced by cultivation and what is revealed by cultivation. The preceding two kinds of virtues produced by cultivation are both called 'expedient,' while the beginningless dharmatā revealed as present virtue is called 'natural purity.' As the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'The excellence of the six sense-bases, beginningless and nature-as-it-is, is called the nature-gotra.' This corresponds to natural purity. If it is acquired from previously cultivated wholesome roots, it is called the acquired gotra; this corresponds to the expedient. When distinguishing these two separately, the virtues produced through cultivation are directly called bodhi, and the virtues revealed through cultivation are directly called nirvāṇa. As the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says. Thus in that sūtra, bodhi is generated from a productive cause (janma-hetu), while nirvāṇa necessarily manifests by means of an illuminating cause (vyañjaka-hetu) and has no sense of being generated. Discussing them comprehensively by subsuming their characteristics, both are bodhi because of their perfect pervasion, as stated in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā. Truly, because both are bodhi, they must be differentiated by the names 'natural purity' and 'expedient': bodhi produced by cultivation is said to be expedient, while bodhi revealed by cultivation is said to be naturally pure. Furthermore, both are called nirvāṇa because of quiescence and cessation. Truly, because both are nirvāṇa, they must also be differentiated by the names 'natural purity' and 'expedient': nirvāṇa produced by cultivation is said to be expedient, while nirvāṇa revealed by cultivation is said to be naturally pure. Third, distinguishing the two based on cultivation versus realization. Discussing in terms of cultivation, the preceding two kinds—produced by expedient cultivation and revealed by expedient cultivation—are both called 'expedient'; realizing the real and extinguishing conditions is called 'natural purity.' What does this mean? When the Tathāgatas realize the real and look back, there was never any concealment originally, nor is there any present revelation; purity is not an ornament of conditions, hence it is called 'natural purity.' This pair is as spoken in the Daśabhūmika-sūtra. Thus in that sūtra, the liberation of pure characteristics, far removed from all destinies, is called 'expedient purification.' The fact that its own essence is originally empty and its own nature is constantly quiescent, not having defilement first and later becoming free from it, is called 'natural purity.' Moreover, this is similar in meaning to the passage in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra where light is discussed in terms of transcending conditions. There it says: 'This light is itself nirvāṇa.' Nirvāṇa is eternally abiding, without reference to causes and conditions; why then did the Tathāgata ask about its causes and conditions? This corresponds to natural purity. There are also causes and conditions: because of extinguishing ignorance, one attains the blazing lamp of sambodhi, and therefore there is this light; this corresponds to the expedient. Moreover, it is also similar in meaning to what the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Relinquishing loving-kindness and attaining loving-kindness does not come from causes and conditions.' Relinquishing conventional loving-kindness and attaining ultimate loving-kindness is the expedient; ultimate loving-kindness not coming from causes and conditions is natural purity. Question: The expedient comes from conditions and what is attained by cultivation is called a fruit; this is clear. Nirvāṇa's realization of the real transcends conditions and does not appear from conditions—is it a fruit or not? Explanation: It is not fixed: it is both fruit and non-fruit. What does this mean? Although its essence is not a fruit, only upon reaching Buddhahood is it awakened to, and as it is thoroughly realized by the Buddha, it can be called a fruit. Because it is a fruit, the Daśabhūmika-sūtra proclaims: 'The samādhi of the extinction of the Buddha's practice is itself naturally pure nirvāṇa.' Being that which is practiced by the Buddha, how could it not be a fruit? Moreover, it is the essential characteristic of the subtle wisdom of the Buddhas; how could it not be a fruit? When attained, it is free from conditions and there is no cause to requite, so it can be called non-fruit. Because it is non-fruit, the sūtra praises the Buddha as having attained the dharma of no cause and no retributive fruit. Also, the sūtra says: 'The essence of nirvāṇa is neither cause nor fruit.' As this is so for nirvāṇa, all virtues are likewise so. Fourth, dividing into two by essence and function. In all the nirvāṇas discussed previously, the essence is called natural purity, and the function is termed expedient. Because the characteristics of function are skillful, it is called expedient; because the essence of virtue is eternally quiescent, it is called natural purity. Fifth, dividing into two by principle and phenomenon. In all the nirvāṇas discussed previously, the skillful qualities of practice are all called expedient, while the eternal quiescence of the essence of principle is called natural purity. This is precisely the one truth of the cessation of suffering in the sūtras. Question: What is the difference between this principle and the natural purity distinguished in the third pair above? Explanation: Their essence is one, distinguished according to perspective. The naturally pure nirvāṇa distinguished above subsumes dharmas under the person: it is that which is exhausted by the Buddha, that which is realized through practice. When realized, it is expedient, neither concealed nor revealed, neither cause nor fruit. Here, when speaking of principle, it is discussed as eternal dharma: ordinary beings and Buddhas are of one thusness, defilement and purity are unaltering, neither concealed nor revealed, neither cause nor fruit. There is this difference. Among the five kinds of natures spoken of in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, the nature that is neither cause nor fruit corresponds in meaning to this gate. Truly, when discussing the real based on the real, there are no conditions outside the real, and conditions themselves are non-existent; based on what, then, could one speak of defilement or purity, of cause or fruit? Therefore it is neither defiled nor pure, neither cause nor fruit. Such are the substance and characteristics. Next, determining their causes. First, distinguishing their causes based on the pairs. The first pair above dealt exclusively with the virtues produced through expedient cultivation, their meaning divided into two: the aspect of arising was called expedient purification, and the aspect of essential arising was called natural purity. Now, based on those six pāramitās cultivated through conditions and Buddha-nature, we distinguish their causes. Distinguishing the causes has three \[aspects\]: first, distinguishing conditioning versus direct; second, distinguishing productive versus illuminating; third, distinguishing productive versus operative. What of conditioning versus direct? Looking at the aspect of the essential arising of that Buddha-nature, Buddha-nature is the direct cause (hetu), because within Buddha-nature there is the capability of production and the capability of reliance that can produce those virtues, hence it is the direct cause; practices such as the pāramitās are spoken of as conditions (pratyaya). This is similar in meaning to the Nirvāṇa-sūtra's 'Buddha-nature is the direct cause, and generating the mind \[for awakening\] is the condition, to attain the fruit of bodhi.' These virtues produced by cultivation, when discussed in terms of their distinct aspects, are bodhi itself, hence identical with that. Looking at the aspect of active operation through the power of conditions, the pāramitās are the direct cause, and Buddha-nature is the condition. This is similar in meaning to the Nirvāṇa-sūtra's 'the six pāramitās are the productive cause, and Buddha-nature is the illuminating cause, to attain the fruit of bodhi.' The productive is the direct, and the illuminating is the conditioning. Next, discussing productive versus illuminating. Looking at the aspect of the essential arising of Buddha-nature, Buddha-nature is the productive cause, and the pāramitās are illuminating. Truly, because Buddha-nature is the productive cause, the Nirvāṇa-sūtra proclaims: 'Although Buddha-nature does not exist \[phenomenally\], it is not like a hare's horns. Even with immeasurable expedient means, a hare's horns cannot be produced; but Buddha-nature can be produced.' Because it can be produced, it is said to be the productive cause, and the pāramitās are the illuminating cause. This is similar in meaning to the Nirvāṇa-sūtra's 'there is also the illuminating cause: the six pāramitās for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.' If looking at the aspect of active operation through the power of conditions, the pāramitās are the productive cause, and Buddha-nature is the illuminating cause. This is similar in meaning to the Nirvāṇa-sūtra's 'there is also the productive cause: the six pāramitās for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; and there is also the illuminating cause: Buddha-nature for bodhi.' With Buddha-nature as the object, by seeing Buddha-nature one accomplishes the Buddha-virtues, hence it is called illuminating. Next, discussing productive versus operative causes. Productive causes and operative causes explain everything comprehensively; when tentatively distinguishing them according to characteristics, they are not without difference. What are the differing characteristics? According to one explanation, that which arises through the power of conditions is called the operative cause. As for the name 'operative cause,' as the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Buddha-nature producing virtue is called the productive cause, because within Buddha-nature there is the capability of production, which is produced from conditions.' Second, it can be stated that virtues produced from conditions are called the productive cause, while virtues accomplished by Buddha-nature are called the operative cause, like gold making vessels. Such is the first pair. Next, determining the causes in contrast to the second \[pair\], the two kinds of nirvāṇa: produced by cultivation and revealed by cultivation. Within this are two: first, distinguishing conditioning versus direct; second, distinguishing productive versus illuminating. What of conditioning versus direct? Roughly judging by concealment and revelation: regarding the fruit of natural purity, Buddha-nature is the direct cause and the pāramitās are conditions. Regarding the expedient fruit, the pāramitās are the direct cause and Buddha-nature is the condition. Strictly speaking according to reality: regarding both nirvāṇas, Buddha-nature is equally said to be the direct cause. However, within Buddha-nature there are two meanings: first, the dharma Buddha-nature: the originally existing dharma-essence, like gold in ore. Second, the retribution Buddha-nature: on the original dharma-essence there is the capability of being produced according to conditions, yet without a dharma-essence \[apart from it\], just as gold in ore has the capability of being fashioned into ornaments, though the ornaments do not yet already exist within the gold. That dharma Buddha-nature is said to be the direct cause regarding the fruit of natural purity, and that retribution Buddha-nature is said to be the direct cause regarding the expedient fruit. The pāramitās are not fixed. Why are they not fixed? The six pāramitās are of three kinds: first, the six pāramitās cultivated through conditions, meaning practices cultivated within the mind of the six consciousnesses and seventh consciousness. Second, the real, active six pāramitās, relying on the preceding conditioned cultivation to perfume and activate the true mind, causing all virtues within the mind to arise. Third, the real, unconditioned six pāramitās: the true mind is inherently the nature of all virtues, which is revealed through conditions, called the real, unconditioned six pāramitās. Regarding the expedient fruit, the real, active six pāramitās are also the direct cause, and the other two are conditions. Regarding the fruit of natural purity, the real, unconditioned six pāramitās are its direct cause, and the other two are conditions. Next, discussing productive versus illuminating. Buddha-nature is the productive cause regarding the expedient fruit, and the illuminating cause regarding the fruit of natural purity. Because on the essence of Buddha-nature there is the capability of production, producing the expedient fruit, it is called the productive cause. Therefore the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Although Buddha-nature does not exist \[phenomenally\], it is not like a hare's horns. Why? A hare's horns cannot be produced; Buddha-nature can be produced, hence it is called the productive cause.' Buddha-nature originally has the capacity to be revealed and illuminated, and ultimately attains manifestation to accomplish the fruit of natural purity, hence regarding that fruit it is called the illuminating cause. Therefore the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Although Buddha-nature exists, it is not like empty space. Why? Although empty space cannot be seen through immeasurable expedient means, Buddha-nature can be seen. Because it has the capacity to be seen and illuminated, it is called the illuminating cause.' Also, the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'As for the cause of nirvāṇa, it is so-called Buddha-nature. The nature of Buddha-nature does not produce nirvāṇa, hence it is called an illuminating cause.' The six pāramitās are not fixed. Why are they not fixed? The six pāramitās are of three kinds, as distinguished above. Regarding the expedient fruit, the real, active six pāramitās are also the productive cause, just as milk produces curd, curd produces fresh butter, and so on up to clarified butter (ghee), successively producing each other, all being called productive causes; the other two are called illuminating, because they do not directly produce. Regarding the fruit of natural purity, all are called illuminating; the unconditioned six pāramitās can ultimately be fully revealed to accomplish the fruit of natural purity, and because they can be revealed and illuminated they are called the illuminating cause; the other two reveal it in diverse characteristics, hence they are called illuminating causes. Why are productive and operative causes not mentioned here? Regarding the expedient fruit, there are both production and operation, as distinguished above. Regarding the fruit of natural purity, there is neither production nor operation, so they are not discussed further. Next, determining the causes with regard to the third \[pair\], the two kinds of nirvāṇa based on cultivation and realization. Regarding the expedient fruit, speaking of conditioning and direct, and speaking of productive and illuminating, are fully distinguished as above. As for that fruit of natural purity, realizing the real extinguishes conditions; therefore one cannot apply to it the categories of conditioning versus direct, or productive versus illuminating; one only knows that it is the equanimous nature that is neither cause nor fruit. When the Buddha was originally amidst conditions and had not yet realized it, it was conceptually termed a cause, and upon subsequent realization it was considered a fruit. But upon subsequent realization, one penetrates to the fact that originally there are no conditions; because there are no conditions, originally it was not a cause, nor is it now a fruit. Next, determining the causes with regard to the fourth \[pair\], the one kind of nirvāṇa contrasted by essence and function. Within this gate, the purity of the essence of nirvāṇa is called natural purity, and the purity of the function of nirvāṇa is called expedient purity. With respect to the naturally pure essence, the causes are as discussed above. As for expedient purity, it should be known as the nirvāṇa of response and transformation. Responses are of two kinds: first, the dharma-response; second, the retribution-response. As the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Mahāparinirvāṇa can establish great meaning and manifest various transformations'—this is the dharma-response. 'Manifesting various transformations through the power of great compassionate vows'—this is called the retribution-response. Now we determine their causes in contrast to these two. The distinctions are twofold: first, distinguishing conditioning versus direct; second, distinguishing productive versus illuminating. What of conditioning versus direct? For the response of the dharma aspect, the dharmas of dependent origination within the tathāgatagarbha are taken as direct. Just as the various dharmas sought by the youth Sudhana in the Avataṃsaka, original great compassionate vows are taken as conditions. Although those dharmas have the capacity to give rise to function, without compassionate vows they would ultimately not arise. For example, though a fire pearl can produce fire, it must meet the sun; also, though a water pearl can produce water, it must meet the moon. Thus the sūtra states: 'Because another dharma exists, another dharma arises.' For the response of the retribution aspect, the power of great compassionate vows is taken as the direct cause, and the samādhi dharmas are taken as conditions. Without those dharmas, the power of compassionate vows cannot arise on its own. For example, though a human face can produce an image, it must rely on a mirror; also, though a sound can emit an echo, it must rely on a valley. Such is conditioning versus direct. What of productive versus illuminating? That which directly produces is called productive, and that which indirectly elicits is called illuminating. In accord with the preceding conditioning and direct, the meaning can be understood. Next, determining the causes with regard to the fifth \[pair\], the two kinds of nirvāṇa contrasted by principle and phenomenon. Within this gate, phenomena are the expedient, just as distinguished above. Natural purity is principle: neither cause nor fruit, its cause cannot be spoken of. The two kinds of nirvāṇa—natural purity and expedient—are thus roughly distinguished. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 18.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.18.7) - [Next: 18.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.18.9) - [Up: 18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.18) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851~en-mt.18.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.18.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.18.8) · Pramāṇa