大乘玄論 3.8

3.8

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.