大乘玄論 3.11

3.11

明見性第八。迦葉問言：「云何諸菩薩能見難見性？」師子吼問言：「若一切眾生有佛性者，何故不見一切眾生所有佛性？十住菩薩以何等眼不了了見佛？以何眼而了了見也。」〈性品〉答：見有二種。一者十地，或言十住，名為慧眼見，舉珠喻釋。二者外道凡夫名為信見，或如羊角、或如火聚等。〈師子吼品〉明慧眼見故見不了了，佛眼見故則了了。經文如此，判釋多言：十住菩薩方見佛性，猶如羅縠；九住以還未見佛性。但《華嚴經》云「初發心時便成正覺。」若如此者，初發心時則見佛性。故一師云：《涅槃》所明十地，應是地前未得真悟菩薩，故見性不明。而《華嚴》所明十地，從佛智慧出，此是真悟菩薩，故云初發心時便成正覺。但地論師據行位，判行通位別；《涅槃》辨位別義，故菩薩位智猶未極，故十地菩薩見性不明，九地猶未見；《華嚴》明行通義，故云初發心時便成正覺也。又《涅槃經》云「十地菩薩，但見其終不見其始；諸佛如來始終俱見。」諸師釋此文種種不同。或言：十地菩薩未斷無明，故言不見其始。而伏惑已周，去佛近故，言見終也。又云：十地菩薩，去終近故云見終，去無明住地遠故言不見其始。又云：十地去初地遠故，言不見其始但見其終。佛既眾惑已盡，因圓果備，故云始終俱見。一師云：因果本來不二，乃是無二無不二，故名為不二。雖復不二，而開因果二，菩提心為因、佛則是果，此是一重開也。又明果不可頓階，所以因中開為十地，此是第二重開也。如是於一一地中，或更開為三乃至為四。如初地先開為十迴向，乃至十住等，斯則初地為始、十地為終。十地非初，故云不見其始，則是第十故言見終，亦得對言初地見始不見終也。果既不開，所以始終俱見，此故是無始終始終、不見而見也。

Eighth, explaining the seeing of the nature. Kāśyapa asked: "How can the bodhisattvas see the difficult-to-see nature?" Siṃhanāda asked: "If all sentient beings have the buddha-nature, for what reason do they not see all sentient beings' buddha-nature? With what kind of eye do bodhisattvas of the ten abodes see the Buddha unclearly? With what eye do they see clearly?" The "Chapter on the Nature" answers: Seeing is of two kinds. First is that of the ten stages—or called the ten abodes—which is named seeing with the wisdom eye, explained by citing the metaphor of the pearl. Second is that of non-Buddhists and ordinary beings, which is named seeing by faith, [seeing it] either like a sheep's horn or like a heap of fire, and so forth. The "Siṃhanāda Chapter" explains that because of seeing with the wisdom eye, they see unclearly; because of seeing with the Buddha eye, they see clearly. The scriptural text being thus, interpretive explanations mostly state: Only bodhisattvas of the tenth abode begin to see the buddha-nature, like fine silk gauze; those from the ninth abode downward have not yet seen the buddha-nature. However, the Avataṃsakasūtra says: "At the time of first giving rise to the mind, one immediately attains correct enlightenment." If it is like this, at the time of first giving rise to the mind one then sees the buddha-nature. Therefore one master says: The ten stages explained in the Nirvāṇa[sūtra] must refer to bodhisattvas prior to the stages who have not yet attained true awakening; hence their seeing of the nature is not distinct. But the ten stages explained in the Avataṃsaka issue from the Buddha's wisdom; these are bodhisattvas of true awakening, which is why it says that at the time of first giving rise to the mind, one immediately attains correct enlightenment. Yet the Daśabhūmivyākhyāna masters, relying on practice and stages, determine that practice is common while stages are distinct: the Nirvāṇa explains the sense of distinct stages, so the bodhisattva's stage and gnosis are not yet ultimate, and thus the tenth-stage bodhisattva's seeing of the nature is not distinct, while the ninth stage has not yet seen it; the Avataṃsaka explains the sense of practice being common, and so it says that at the time of first giving rise to the mind, one immediately attains correct enlightenment. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: "Bodhisattvas of the ten stages see only its end and not its beginning; the Buddhas, Tathāgatas, see both its beginning and its end." The various masters explain this text in various different ways. Some say: Because bodhisattvas of the ten stages have not yet severed ignorance, it is said that they do not see its beginning; but because their subduing of afflictions is already complete and they are close to Buddhahood, it is said that they see the end. Others also say: Because the bodhisattvas of the ten stages are close to the end, it says they see the end; because they are far from the ground of the abiding of ignorance, it is said that they do not see its beginning. Others also say: Because the tenth stage is far from the first stage, it is said that they do not see its beginning and only see its end. Since the Buddha has already exhausted all afflictions and his cause is round and fruit complete, it says that he sees both the beginning and the end. One master says: Cause and fruit are originally non-dual; they are indeed neither dual nor non-dual, and therefore named non-dual. Although they are non-dual, they are differentiated into the duality of cause and fruit: the bodhicitta is the cause and Buddhahood is the fruit; this is the first level of differentiation. Furthermore, explaining that the fruit cannot be stepped into all at once, within the cause it is therefore differentiated into the ten stages; this is the second level of differentiation. In this way, within each and every stage, it is further differentiated into three or even four. As the first stage is first differentiated into the ten dedications, down to the ten abodes and so forth, in this case the first stage is the beginning and the tenth stage is the end. The tenth stage is not the first, hence it is said that it does not see its beginning; being the tenth, it is said that it sees the end. One can also conversely say that the first stage sees the beginning and does not see the end. Since the fruit is not differentiated, it therefore sees both the beginning and the end; this is indeed beginningless and endless beginning and end, seeing without seeing.