大乘玄論 3.7

3.7

簡正因第四。但正因難識，今作兩種檢之：一作車輪明義，無始終檢；二作三世明義，有始終檢也。無始終義，即如《涅槃》云「十二因緣，不生不滅、不一不二、不常不斷、不來不去、不因不果。」又言「佛性者，有因有因因，有果有果果」也，是以無始終義。作四句明之。所言因者，即是境界因，謂十二因緣也。所言因因者，即是緣因，謂十二因緣所生觀智也。境界已是因，此之觀智因因而有，故名因因。好體十二因緣，應是因因而有，故名因因。彼向望前，此即望後，皆是因因也。所言果者，即三菩提，由因而得，故名為果。所言果果者，即是大般涅槃，由菩提故得，說涅槃以為果果。菩提即是智，涅槃即是斷，由智故說斷也。此是無始終義。何者？如所生觀智，因因而有，故名因因。十二因緣亦因因而有，又是因因。既互為因與因因，故是無始終也。第二作三世有始終檢者，凡有三句：一者是因非果，即是境界因，故經言「是因非果，如佛性。」二者是果非因，即是果果性，故經言「是果非因，名大涅槃。」三者是因是果，即如了因及三菩提，斯即亦因亦果，望後為因、望前為果。既言境界是因非果，涅槃是果非因，所以名為有始終義。問：先明四句、後說三句，有正因不？答：未有正因。問：若前明四句、後說三句既並非正因者，未知何者為正因耶？答：前四句所明因果，因是傍因、果是傍果義。所以然者，因則異果、果則異因，豈非是傍義。故先言有因有因因、有果有果果，皆未是正因；若言非因非果，乃是正因耳。後說三句，是因非果、是果非因、是因是果，皆未名正；若言非因非果，此乃是正，故經云「非因非果，名為佛性」也。故於四句中，更足第五句，方是正因。於三句中，更足第四句，方是正因。所以佛性非因非果，而說因說果。不因而因，開境智故有二因，謂因與因因也。不果而果，開智斷故有二果，謂果與果果。至論正因，豈是因果？故非因非果。即是中道名為正因，故以中道為正因佛性。故經云「佛性是三菩提中道種子」也。所以佛性即是中道種子，亦可得以中道因為正種子也。若單道義者，此中應須眼見〈師子吼〉文也。然先言正因佛性，非因而因故有二因，謂境了二因。非果而果，故有二果，謂菩提與涅槃。今此二因二果，並非正因。由非因非果正因故有此因果，所以此二因二果並皆是傍。若非因非果乃是正因，故若緣若了並非正因，非緣非了乃是正因。若菩提涅槃並非正果，非菩提非涅槃乃是正果也。問：若爾，則成六種佛性。何者？因中有緣因了因，復有正因，豈非三因？果有菩提涅槃則成二果，復有非菩提非涅槃名為正果，豈非六種佛性耶？答：亦得六種佛性。今則不爾。所以然者，但因中名為佛性，至果便成性佛，故在因但名為非因，在果則名為非果，只是一箇非因非果。而今為辨佛性，故經為正因，所以但有五性，不為六性也。

Fourth, selecting the primary cause. Because the primary cause is difficult to recognize, we examine it now through two approaches: first, explaining the doctrine via the wheel of a cart, examining it as without beginning or end; second, explaining the doctrine via the three times, examining it as having beginning and end. The meaning of being without beginning or end is as the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: "The twelve links of dependent co-arising are neither arising nor ceasing, neither one nor two, neither eternal nor annihilated, neither coming nor going, neither cause nor fruit." It also states: "Buddha-nature has cause, cause-of-cause, fruit, and fruit-of-fruit." Therefore, the meaning of being without beginning or end is explained through four propositions. What is called "cause" is the cause as cognitive object, namely the twelve links of dependent co-arising. What is called "cause-of-cause" is the contributory cause, namely the contemplative gnosis born of the twelve links of dependent co-arising. The cognitive object is already a cause; this contemplative gnosis exists caused by that cause, hence it is called "cause-of-cause". Strictly speaking, the twelve links of dependent co-arising should also exist caused by a cause, hence called "cause-of-cause". Looking back to what precedes, looking forward to what follows—both are cause-of-cause. What is called "fruit" is saṃbodhi, which is attained by means of the cause, hence called "fruit". What is called "fruit-of-fruit" is mahāparinirvāṇa, which is attained on account of bodhi; nirvāṇa is called "fruit-of-fruit". Bodhi is gnosis, and nirvāṇa is abandonment; on account of gnosis, abandonment is spoken of. This is the meaning of being without beginning or end. Why? Just as the contemplative gnosis produced exists caused by a cause, and is therefore called "cause-of-cause", so too the twelve links of dependent co-arising exist caused by a cause, and are also "cause-of-cause". Since they mutually serve as cause and cause-of-cause, it is without beginning or end. Second, examining it through the three times as having beginning and end consists of three propositions: First, being cause and not fruit, which is the cause as cognitive object; thus the sūtra states: "It is cause and not fruit, like buddha-nature." Second, being fruit and not cause, which is the nature of the fruit-of-fruit; thus the sūtra states: "It is fruit and not cause, called great nirvāṇa." Third, being both cause and fruit, as with the revealing cause and saṃbodhi; this is both cause and fruit, being a cause looking to what follows, and a fruit looking to what precedes. Since it states that the cognitive object is cause and not fruit, and nirvāṇa is fruit and not cause, it is called the meaning of having beginning and end. Question: In first explaining the four propositions and later stating the three propositions, is there a primary cause? Answer: There is not yet the primary cause. Question: If the four propositions explained first and the three propositions stated later are both not the primary cause, what is the primary cause? Answer: In the cause and fruit explained by the previous four propositions, cause has the meaning of secondary cause, and fruit has the meaning of secondary fruit. Why is this? Cause is different from fruit, and fruit is different from cause; how could this not be a secondary meaning? Therefore, previously saying that there is cause, cause-of-cause, fruit, and fruit-of-fruit—none of these is yet the primary cause; if one speaks of neither-cause-nor-fruit, that is the primary cause. In the three propositions stated later—being cause and not fruit, being fruit and not cause, being both cause and fruit—none is yet called "primary"; if one speaks of neither-cause-nor-fruit, this is primary. Thus the sūtra states: "Neither cause nor fruit is called buddha-nature." Therefore, within the four propositions, adding a fifth proposition constitutes the primary cause. Within the three propositions, adding a fourth proposition constitutes the primary cause. This is why buddha-nature is neither cause nor fruit, yet cause and fruit are taught. Cause through non-cause: opening cognitive object and gnosis, there are two causes, namely cause and cause-of-cause. Fruit through non-fruit: opening gnosis and abandonment, there are two fruits, namely fruit and fruit-of-fruit. When it comes to discussing the primary cause, how could it be cause or fruit? Hence it is neither cause nor fruit. That which is the Middle Way is called the primary cause; therefore the Middle Way is taken as the primary-cause buddha-nature. Thus the sūtra states: "Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way of saṃbodhi." Therefore, buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way; one may also take the Middle Way cause as the primary seed. If discussing the doctrine simply, here one must see with one's own eyes the text of the "Lion's Roar" chapter. However, previously it was stated that primary-cause buddha-nature, being cause through non-cause, has two causes, namely the two causes of cognitive object and revealing [cause]. Being fruit through non-fruit, it has two fruits, namely bodhi and nirvāṇa. Now these two causes and two fruits are not the primary cause. Because of the primary cause of neither-cause-nor-fruit, these causes and fruits exist; therefore, these two causes and two fruits are all secondary. If neither-cause-nor-fruit is the primary cause, then neither contributory nor revealing [cause] is the primary cause; neither-contributory-nor-revealing is the primary cause. Neither bodhi nor nirvāṇa is the primary fruit; neither-bodhi-nor-nirvāṇa is the primary fruit. Question: If so, that would make six kinds of buddha-nature. Why? In the cause there are the contributory cause and the revealing cause, and furthermore there is the primary cause—are these not three causes? In the fruit there are bodhi and nirvāṇa, making two fruits, and furthermore there is neither-bodhi-nor-nirvāṇa called the primary fruit—would these not be six kinds of buddha-nature? Answer: Six kinds of buddha-nature are also acceptable. Here, however, it is not so. Why is this? It is called buddha-nature only in the cause; when reaching the fruit, it becomes the nature-buddha. Therefore, in the cause it is merely called "non-cause", and in the fruit it is called "non-fruit"; it is just a single neither-cause-nor-fruit. But now, in order to distinguish buddha-nature, the sūtra takes it as the primary cause, and therefore there are only five natures, not six natures.