大乘玄論 3.8

3.8

釋名第五。釋名有二種，先釋通名、次釋別名。通名不同，有三家。第一解云：佛性兩字皆是果名。佛名覺者，此故宜非因。性以不改為義，果體既常，所以不改也。因中暗識，故非覺者。既其遷改，不得名性。但眾生必有當得此佛性之理，故言悉有佛性也。第二師釋：佛性者，此是因中。難第一家云：經既言一切眾生悉有佛性，云何言因中無有此名？因中眾生有覺義故是佛，有必當之理不改名性也。第三家分字解釋：佛是果名，性是因名。還舉第一家為難：眾生愚暗癡惑耳，然未有智慧。若有覺法，可許佛覺。而即眾生都無有覺，云何言眾生是佛？乃研生死小智，終成果地大覺。其果始名為佛，故佛是果名。但眾生必當得，此之理不改，故名為性。性只是理，所以性是因中也。然此三說，今並不用，皆須洗之。還以三家義自相難破也。問：今義云何？為當在因？為當在果？為當在因果耶？答：今時明義，無在無不在，故云無在無不在，佛所說也。只以如此義，故名為佛性。雖無在無不在，而說在說不在者，佛性在因、性佛在果，故果因名佛性，因果名性佛。此是不二二義。不二二故二則非二，故云二不二是體、不二二是用，以體為用、以用為體，體用平等不二中道方是佛性。一切諸師釋佛性義，或言佛性是因非果，或言是果非因，此是因果二義，非佛性也。故經云「凡有二者皆是邪見。」故知一切諸師不知佛性，各執一邊，是非諍論，失佛性也。若知因果平等不二，方乃得稱名為佛性，故經云「非因非果名為佛性」也。佛性既爾，涅槃亦然。若知生死涅槃平等不二，此乃得稱名為涅槃，故經云「佛知一切眾生畢竟寂滅，是涅槃相，不復更滅」也。次釋別名。先言正因佛性非因非果。非因而因故有二因，謂境界因與了因。非果而果故有二果，謂菩提與涅槃也。言境界因者，即是十二因緣能生觀智，以是觀智境界，故名境界因；以能生觀智之前緣，故亦名緣因。言了因者，觀智能了出佛果，故名了因。既了出佛果之緣因，故有時呼了因以為緣因也。菩提者，此言正遍知道，是從智為名。涅槃者，此言寂滅，是則從斷為目也。前四句有因者，謂十二因緣。正言十二因緣，非菩提之正因，而言因者，以其能生觀智與因作因，故名為因。若例此者，大涅槃亦非是正觀之正果，以菩提果為果，故亦應單名為果。若言涅槃與果為果故宜名果果者，十二因緣亦爾，與因作因故應名因因。而經云因因者，謂十二因緣所生觀智，此因因而有，故名因因。若爾，十二因緣亦因因而有，何故不名因因？然雖復例通有如此義，但十二因緣作因因始，故單名為因，所以經云「是因非果」也。觀智從十二因緣而生，因因而有，故名因因也。所以有果，則是三菩提。從觀智因而有，故名為果。若言三菩提是觀智之正果故單名果者，觀智亦是三菩提之正因，亦應單名有因。若言觀智從因而有故宜名因因者，三菩提亦從果而有，故亦應名果果。而不爾，正言三菩提酬因之始，故直名為果。涅槃從三菩提果而有，故名果果也。然此四種兩因兩果，並皆是傍，不得名正，非因非果乃名正因。不因故有二因，不果故有二果，所以此因是不因，此果是不果，故非因非果乃名為正。然非因非果自可名正，但其在因故名正因，其果則呼為正果。然此正義，終不復可定言，故或時呼為道、或時呼為中、或時呼為正因。若齊言而取，終亦不得。何者？言其正也。果自不正，因亦非正。亦非是非因非果，亦不非是非因非果也。問：若爾，是何？答：此中無是，故當有以超然悟言解之旨，點此悟心以為正因。付此觀心非言可述，故迦葉每歎不可思議也。

Fifth, explaining the names. There are two kinds of explaining the names: first, explaining the general name; next, explaining the specific names. Regarding the general name, there are differences among three traditions. The first explanation states: Both characters of 'buddha-nature' (foxing) are names of the fruit. 'Buddha' means 'awakened one', and for this reason it should not pertain to the cause. 'Nature' has the meaning of being unalterable; since the substance of the fruit is eternal, it is therefore unalterable. In the causal stage there is dark consciousness, so it is not an awakened one; since it is subject to change and alteration, it cannot be called 'nature'. However, sentient beings necessarily have the principle of bound-to-attain this buddha-nature, and therefore it is said that all have buddha-nature. The second master explains: Buddha-nature pertains to the causal stage. He refutes the first school, saying: Since the sūtra says that all sentient beings have buddha-nature, how can one say that there is no such name in the causal stage? Because sentient beings in the causal stage have the meaning of awakening, they are 'buddha'; because they have the unalterable principle of bound-to-attain, it is called 'nature'. The third school explains the characters separately: 'Buddha' is the name of the fruit, and 'nature' is the name of the cause. He also brings up the first school to raise an objection: Sentient beings are merely benighted and deluded, and do not yet have wisdom. If they possessed the quality of awakening, one might grant buddha-awakening; but since sentient beings have no awakening at all, how can one say sentient beings are buddha? Only by grinding away with the minor wisdom of saṃsāra does one ultimately achieve the great awakening of the fruit-ground. That fruit is first named 'buddha', so 'buddha' is the name of the fruit. But sentient beings will bound-to-attain it; this principle is unalterable, and therefore it is called 'nature'. 'Nature' is simply the principle, and so 'nature' pertains to the causal stage. However, none of these three explanations are adopted now; all must be washed away. One can simply use the doctrines of the three schools to refute each other. Question: What is our present doctrine? Is it in the cause? Is it in the fruit? Or is it in [both] cause and fruit? Answer: The doctrine explained at present is neither present nor absent; hence it is said that 'neither present nor absent' is what the Buddha taught. It is solely on the basis of this meaning that it is named 'buddha-nature'. Although it is neither present nor absent, when we speak of being present and being absent: buddha-nature is in the cause, and nature-buddha is in the fruit; therefore, cause of the fruit is called 'buddha-nature', and fruit of the cause is called 'nature-buddha'. This is the meaning of the non-dual being dual. Because the non-dual is dual, duality is not dual; hence it is said that duality being non-dual is the substance, and non-duality being dual is the function. Taking substance as function and function as substance, the Middle Way where substance and function are equal and non-dual is truly buddha-nature. When the various masters explain the meaning of buddha-nature, some say buddha-nature is cause and not fruit, and some say it is fruit and not cause; these are the dual meanings of cause and fruit, not buddha-nature. Therefore the sūtra says, 'All that is dual is wrong view.' Thus we know that none of the masters know buddha-nature; each clings to one side, disputing right and wrong, and losing buddha-nature. Only if one knows that cause and fruit are equal and non-dual can it properly be termed 'buddha-nature'; hence the sūtra says, 'Neither cause nor fruit is named buddha-nature.' As it is with buddha-nature, so it is with nirvāṇa. Only if one knows that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equal and non-dual can it properly be termed 'nirvāṇa'; hence the sūtra says, 'The Buddha knows that all sentient beings are ultimately quiescent; this is the mark of nirvāṇa, not becoming extinguished anew.' Next is explaining the specific names. First, it was said that buddha-nature as the direct cause is neither cause nor fruit. Because it is non-cause yet cause, there are two causes: namely, the objective-sphere cause and the revelatory cause. Because it is non-fruit yet fruit, there are two fruits: namely, bodhi and nirvāṇa. As for the objective-sphere cause, it is the twelve links of dependent co-arising capable of generating contemplative gnosis; because it is the objective sphere of contemplative gnosis, it is named the objective-sphere cause; because it is the prior condition capable of generating contemplative gnosis, it is also named the conditioning cause. As for the revelatory cause, contemplative gnosis can reveal and bring forth the buddha-fruit, and therefore it is named the revelatory cause. Since it is the conditioning cause that reveals and brings forth the buddha-fruit, the revelatory cause is therefore sometimes called the conditioning cause. Bodhi means here the path of correct and universal knowledge; it is named from [the standpoint of] gnosis. Nirvāṇa means here quiescence; it is designated from [the standpoint of] cessation. In the previous catuskoṭi, that which is 'cause' refers to the twelve links of dependent co-arising. Strictly speaking, the twelve links of dependent co-arising are not the direct cause of bodhi; yet it is called 'cause' because it can generate contemplative gnosis, serving as a cause for the cause, and is therefore named 'cause'. If we follow this analogy, great nirvāṇa is likewise not the direct fruit of correct contemplation, but takes the fruit of bodhi as its fruit, and so it should also simply be named 'fruit'. If one says that because nirvāṇa serves as a fruit for the fruit, it should properly be named the 'fruit of the fruit', the twelve links of dependent co-arising are also like this: because they serve as a cause for the cause, they should be named the 'cause of the cause'. Yet the sūtra says that 'cause of the cause' refers to the contemplative gnosis generated by the twelve links of dependent co-arising; because this exists dependent on the cause, it is named 'cause of the cause'. If so, the twelve links of dependent co-arising also exist dependent on a cause; why are they not named 'cause of the cause'? However, although the analogy universally allows such an interpretation, the twelve links of dependent co-arising serve as the beginning of the cause of the cause, and are therefore simply named 'cause'; hence the sūtra says 'it is cause and not fruit'. Contemplative gnosis is produced from the twelve links of dependent co-arising and exists dependent on the cause; therefore it is named 'cause of the cause'. That there is a 'fruit' refers to sambodhi. It exists dependent on the cause of contemplative gnosis, and is therefore named 'fruit'. If one says that because sambodhi is the direct fruit of contemplative gnosis it is simply named 'fruit', contemplative gnosis is also the direct cause of sambodhi, and so it should also simply be named 'cause'. If one says that because contemplative gnosis exists dependent on a cause it should properly be named 'cause of the cause', sambodhi also exists dependent on a fruit, and so it should also be named 'fruit of the fruit'. But it is not so: strictly speaking, sambodhi is the beginning of the recompense of the cause, and so it is directly named 'fruit'. Nirvāṇa exists dependent on the fruit of sambodhi, and is therefore named 'fruit of the fruit'. However, these four kinds—the two causes and the two fruits—are all incidental and cannot be named direct; only that which is neither cause nor fruit is named the direct cause. Because it is non-cause, there are two causes; because it is non-fruit, there are two fruits. Thus this cause is non-cause, and this fruit is non-fruit; therefore, neither cause nor fruit is named the direct. While neither cause nor fruit may itself be named direct, because it is in the cause it is named direct cause, and its fruit is termed direct fruit. Yet this direct meaning can ultimately never be definitively stated; thus it is sometimes called the Path, sometimes called the Middle, and sometimes called the direct cause. If one grasps it by taking the words at face value, one will ultimately never obtain it. Why? When speaking of its being direct: the fruit itself is not direct, nor is the cause direct. It is neither not neither-cause-nor-fruit, nor is it not not neither-cause-nor-fruit. Question: If so, what is it? Answer: Herein there is no 'this is it'. Therefore, one must have that by which one transcends and awakens to the principle of speech and understanding, pointing to this awakened mind as the direct cause. Entrusted to this contemplative mind, it cannot be expressed in words; hence Kāśyapa repeatedly sighed in praise of its being inconceivable.