大乘玄論 3.6

3.6

Third, investigating the sūtras. Having recognized buddha-nature, one should read widely across the various sūtras. Traditionally, past discriminators held that the Āgamas also explain buddha-nature, but with slight reservations: they say that all sentient beings possess the nature of a śrāvaka, possess the nature of a pratyekabuddha, and possess the nature of a buddha. Since this is so in the Āgamas, other sūtras also contain statements on buddha-nature, though not very clearly. What objection could there be to these various sūtras explaining buddha-nature in this way? Thus the new Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra states: "In an explicit exposition, this body is the Mahāyāna, is the tathāgatagarbha, is the nature of the Tathāgata." The Avataṃsakasūtra states: "A bodhisattva's rejoicing mind does not sever the Tathāgata-nature." It also says: "One who wishes not to sever the lineage of the buddhas should produce the mind of awakening (bodhicitta)." Furthermore, the chapter on "Emergence of the Nature" in the Avataṃsaka precisely clarifies the meaning of buddha-nature. Emerging from the nature of the Jewel-King Tathāgata, departing from worldly causes, one attains entry into the fruit of the dharmadhātu. Tying together previous cause and fruit, it engenders subsequent cause and fruit; thus the Avataṃsaka clarifies that buddha-nature has cause and fruit, though it has not yet coined the names "primary cause" (正因) and "contributory cause" (緣因), nor the terms "fruit" (果) and "fruit-of-fruit" (果果). As for fully explaining the meaning of buddha-nature, it is as articulated in the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, which therefore fully explains: there is cause, cause-of-cause, fruit, and fruit-of-fruit. At present, a certain master constantly cites the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra as proof. Indeed, this single teaching explains buddha-nature everywhere: the parable of the lapis lazuli jewel in the "Lamentation" chapter also completely clarifies the meaning of buddha-nature; so too the chapter on "The Nature of the Tathāgata" entirely clarifies the meaning of buddha-nature; and going on to the chapters on "Lion's Roar" and "Kāśyapa", the matters of buddha-nature are extensively elucidated, its meaning becoming manifest. Therefore, among the passages cited by this master, the text of the "Lion's Roar" chapter is taken as primary. Bodhisattva Lion's Roar asks: "What is buddha-nature? For what reason is it called buddha-nature?" There are five such questions on buddha-nature, which the Tathāgata answers in turn. Answering the first question, he says: "Good son! You ask what is buddha-nature, good son? Buddha-nature is called ultimate emptiness; ultimate emptiness is called wisdom." This, on an initial reading, takes ultimate emptiness as buddha-nature. Yet it also says that ultimate emptiness is called wisdom—how is this not different from the traditional meaning? Now it simply explains the cognitive object as gnosis, and explains gnosis as the cognitive object. It further states: "What is called empty means not seeing either empty or non-empty." In response to this, one should also say: "What is called wisdom means not seeing either wisdom or non-wisdom." That is: not seeing emptiness removes emptiness; not seeing non-emptiness removes non-emptiness. Removing wisdom and also removing non-wisdom, being far removed from both extremes is called the noble Middle Way. It also says: "Such two views are not called the Middle Way; neither impermanent nor eternal is called the Middle Way." How is this not taking the Middle Way as buddha-nature? Therefore, removing non-emptiness departs from the extreme of permanence, and removing emptiness departs from the extreme of annihilation; not seeing wisdom and non-wisdom is also like this. Hence, the Middle Way is taken as buddha-nature. Thus the text states: "Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way of saṃbodhi." Therefore, it is now explained that ultimate emptiness is called buddha-nature. Not seeing empty or non-empty, not seeing wisdom or non-wisdom, neither impermanence nor annihilation is called the Middle Way; it is simply this that is the Middle Way buddha-nature. If this were added to the previous eleven masters, it would make a twelfth interpretation. However, if one realizes the true path, knowing that the path does not have even one [interpretation], how could there be two interpretations within it? When it is said that ultimate emptiness is buddha-nature, it is not the ultimate emptiness distinguished traditionally. Their explanation of ultimate emptiness is merely cognitive object and not gnosis; this is a one-sided path. When wisdom is spoken of now, it is also not the wisdom explained traditionally. Their explanation of wisdom is merely gnosis and not cognitive object; this is also a one-sided doctrine, not what is called the Middle Way. Yet the meaning of the Middle Way is difficult to recognize, as fully distinguished in [the discussion of] the two truths: neither middle nor extreme, not abiding in middle or extreme, the equality of middle and extreme is conventionally designated as "middle". If one understands such a Middle Way, one recognizes buddha-nature; if one understands present buddha-nature, one also recognizes that Middle Way; if one understands the Middle Way, one understands ultimate emptiness; if one understands ultimate emptiness, one understands wisdom; understanding wisdom, one understands the sphere of practice of all buddhas of the Golden Radiance; understanding the sphere of practice of all buddhas of the Golden Radiance, one understands that this sūtra says: "Radiance is called wisdom." If one understands wisdom, one understands buddha-nature; if one understands buddha-nature, one understands nirvāṇa.