肇論新疏 1.186

1.186

初句中果極至得、因在應得，二位相遠故不俱也。次句果由因得故。次二句，躡示不去。次二句，躡示不來。後二句，釋成不遷。雖舉果顯因，亦即合於性空，故不遷也。問：前通會諸法，因亦在其中矣。何故別舉其因再明之耶？答：深有所以。恐進行之人謂所修隨化、勞而無功，故舉如來果身由昔因感，果在因存，豈唐捐乎。如童子熟書，非不由生而至於熟。書熱之時，前功尤顯。隨相之行熏引尚爾，況無相之行乎。所以不辨果不遷者，因且不遷，況夫果道。是故佛果、有為無為非一非異，吾今此身即是常身。

In the first line, the fruit is ultimate attainment, whereas the cause is in the state of being destined to attain; the two stages are far apart, and therefore do not accompany each other. The next line is because the fruit is obtained through the cause. The next two lines follow upon this to demonstrate non-departing. The next two lines follow upon this to demonstrate non-coming. The final two lines explain and establish immutability. Although it adduces the fruit to reveal the cause, it also accords directly with prakṛti-śūnyatā, and is therefore immutable. Question: Previously there was a general harmonizing of all dharmas, and the cause was already included therein. Why adduce the cause separately to clarify it again? Answer: There is a profound reason. Fearing that practitioners in progress might think their cultivation transforms away with time and that their labor is devoid of merit, it adduces that the Tathāgata's fruitional body is induced by past causes: when the fruit is present, the cause persists, so how could it be in vain? It is like a child mastering a book: it is certainly not without going from unlearned to mastery; when the book is thoroughly mastered, the prior effort is all the more evident. If even practices that follow marks can exert such perfuming influence, how much more so practices without marks? The reason the treatise does not distinguish the immutability of the fruit is that the cause is already immutable, so how much more the Way of the fruit! Therefore, the Buddha-fruit, the conditioned and the unconditioned, are neither one nor different; this very body of mine is itself the eternal body.