大乘玄論 3.7

3.7

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.