大乘玄論 3.12

3.12

會教第九。經中有明佛性、法性、真如、實際等，並是佛性之異名。何以知之？《涅槃經》自說佛性有種種名，於一佛性亦名法性、涅槃，亦名般若、一乘，亦名首楞嚴三昧、師子吼三昧。故知大聖隨緣善巧，於諸經中說名不同。故於《涅槃經》中名為佛性，則於《華嚴》名為法界，於《勝鬘》中名為如來藏自性清淨心，《楞伽》名為八識，《首楞嚴經》名首楞嚴三昧，《法華》名為一道一乘，《大品》名為般若、法性，《維摩》名為無住、實際。如是等名，皆是佛性之異名，故經云「無名相法，假名相說。於一法中說無量名，於一名中說無量門。」以是義故，名義雖異，理實無二。問：若理實無二，以何義故說種種名？答：若依名釋義，非無所以。何者？平等大道為諸眾生覺悟之性，名為佛性。義隱生死，名如來藏。融諸識性究竟清淨，名為自性清淨心。為諸法體性，名為法性。妙實不二，故名為真如。盡原之實，故名為實際。理絕動靜，名為三昧。理無所知、無所不知，名為般若。善惡平等妙運不二，名為一乘。理用圓寂，名為涅槃。如此諸義，如喻似何？譬如虛空不動無礙有種種名，雖有諸名實無二相。以是故云名字雖異、理實無二也。問：若言真如法性並是佛性之異名者，經說真如法性亦是空之異名。今未知佛性是二諦中第一義空不？若言是者，既言是空，那得以此為佛性耶？會通諸經使不相違，善則善矣。然新聞異響未見深旨，一切諸人並皆同疑，願為開示以遣疑滯也。答：《涅槃經》云「佛性者名第一義空。」豈非是空為佛性耶？若以空為空者，非佛性也，故下文云「所言空者，不見空與不空，名為佛性。」二乘之人但見於空、不見不空，不見佛性。故知於有所得人，不但空非佛性，佛性亦非佛性也。若於無所得人，不但空為佛性，一切草木並是佛性也。問：若皆是佛性，不得言非；若非佛性，不可言是。有何所以，言一切並非，而復即言一切並是？豈非是過分答耶？答：至論平等佛性之理，非空非不空、非有非不有、非法性非不法性、非佛性非不佛性也。以一切並非，故能得一切並是。何者？平等之理，以非空有故，假名法性。非不空有故，假名空有。以非法性故，假名佛性。空有非不法性故，假名法性。以非佛性故，假名法性。空有非不佛性故，假名佛性。當知平等大道，無方無住故，一切並非；無方無礙故，一切並得。若以是為是、以非為非者，一切是非並皆是非也。若知無是無非是無非無不非，假名為是非者，一切是非並皆是也。故知上來十一家所說正因，以是為是故，並非正因佛性。若悟諸法平等無二無是無非者，十一家所說並得是正因佛性。

Ninth, harmonising the teachings. In the sūtras there are explanations of buddha-nature, dharma-nature, thusness, the limit of reality, and so forth, which are all different names for buddha-nature. How is this known? The Nirvāṇasūtra itself states that buddha-nature has various names: for the one buddha-nature, it is also named dharma-nature and nirvāṇa; it is also named prajñā and the Ekayāna; it is also named Śūraṅgama samādhi and Siṃhanāda samādhi. Therefore we know that the Great Sage, adapting skillfully according to conditions, spoke different names in the various sūtras. Thus what in the Nirvāṇasūtra is named buddha-nature, is in the Avataṃsaka named the dharmadhātu; in the Śrīmālā it is named the tathāgatagarbha intrinsically pure mind; the Laṅkāvatāra names it the eight consciousnesses; the Śūraṅgamasūtra names it Śūraṅgama samādhi; the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka names it the one path and the Ekayāna; the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā names it prajñā and dharma-nature; the Vimalakīrti names it non-abiding and the limit of reality. Such names as these are all different names for buddha-nature. Therefore the sūtra says: "Phenomena that are without name and characteristics are spoken of by conventional designations and characteristics. Within one dharma immeasurable names are spoken; within one name immeasurable approaches are spoken." By this meaning, although names and senses differ, in principle there is truly no duality. Question: If in principle there is truly no duality, for what reason are various names spoken? Answer: If one explains the meaning according to the names, it is not without reason. Why so? The equal Great Path is the awakened nature of all sentient beings, named buddha-nature. Its meaning being hidden in birth-and-death, it is named tathāgatagarbha. Blending the natures of all consciousnesses into ultimate purity, it is named the intrinsically pure mind. Being the substantial nature of all dharmas, it is named dharma-nature. Being wondrous, real, and non-dual, it is therefore named thusness. Being the reality that exhausts the source, it is therefore named the limit of reality. In principle transcending movement and stillness, it is named samādhi. In principle knowing nothing and knowing everything, it is named prajñā. Wondrously conveying good and evil equally without duality, it is named the Ekayāna. In principle and function complete and tranquil, it is named nirvāṇa. As for such senses as these, what are they like in metaphor? They are like empty space, unmoving and unobstructed, having various names; although there are various names, there are truly no dual characteristics. Therefore it is said that although the names differ, in principle there is truly no duality. Question: If it is said that thusness and dharma-nature are all different names for buddha-nature, the sūtras explain that thusness and dharma-nature are also different names for emptiness. Now it is not known whether buddha-nature is the ultimate emptiness among the two truths or not. If it is said to be so, since it is said to be emptiness, how can this be taken as buddha-nature? Harmonising the various sūtras so that they do not contradict each other is good indeed. However, having recently heard this unfamiliar sound, we have not seen its profound purport, and everyone together doubts it; we pray that you will reveal and show it to dispel our doubts and hindrances. Answer: The Nirvāṇasūtra says: "Buddha-nature is named ultimate emptiness." Is it not that emptiness is buddha-nature? If one takes emptiness as emptiness, it is not buddha-nature; hence the text below says: "What is called emptiness is seeing neither emptiness nor non-emptiness; this is named buddha-nature." Persons of the two vehicles only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness, so they do not see the buddha-nature. Therefore we know that for a person of attainment, not only is emptiness not buddha-nature, buddha-nature is also not buddha-nature. For a person of non-attainment, not only is emptiness buddha-nature, all grasses and trees are also buddha-nature. Question: If all are buddha-nature, one cannot say they are not; if they are not buddha-nature, one cannot say they are. What is the reason for saying that all are not, and then immediately saying that all are? Is this not an excessive answer? Answer: In the ultimate discussion of the principle of equal buddha-nature, it is neither empty nor non-empty, neither existent nor non-existent, neither dharma-nature nor non-dharma-nature, neither buddha-nature nor non-buddha-nature. Because all are not, one can thereby obtain that all are. Why so? Because the equal principle is neither empty nor existent, it is conventionally designated dharma-nature. Because it is not neither empty nor existent, it is conventionally designated empty and existent. Because it is not dharma-nature, it is conventionally designated buddha-nature. Because emptiness and existence are not non-dharma-nature, they are conventionally designated dharma-nature. Because it is not buddha-nature, it is conventionally designated dharma-nature. Because emptiness and existence are not non-buddha-nature, they are conventionally designated buddha-nature. One should know that the equal Great Path, having no location and no abiding, is therefore entirely negated; having no location and no obstruction, it is therefore entirely affirmed. If one takes 'is' as 'is' and 'is not' as 'is not', all affirmations and negations are entirely wrong. If one knows that there is neither 'is' nor 'is not', and that neither 'is not' nor 'not is not' are conventionally designated as 'is' and 'is not', all affirmations and negations are entirely correct. Therefore we know that the correct causes spoken of by the eleven schools above, because they take 'is' as 'is', are entirely not the correct-cause buddha-nature. If one awakens to all dharmas as equal, non-dual, neither 'is' nor 'is not', what is spoken by the eleven schools can all be the correct-cause buddha-nature.