能顯中邊慧日論 4.5

4.5

依諸經論，所明佛性不過三種：一理性、二行性、三隱密性。言理性者，《佛性論》云「為除此執故，佛說佛性。佛性者，即是人法二空所顯真如。由真如故，無能罵所罵。通達此理，離虛妄過。」《涅槃》第二十五「善男子！佛性者，非陰界入，非本無今有、非有已還無。」第八云「開示如來祕密之藏，清淨佛性常住不變。」三十三云「如佛所說，眾生佛性猶如虛空，廣說非三世故、如虛空無故。非三世攝，佛性常故，非三世攝」等。行性者，通有漏無漏一切萬行。若望三身，無漏為正；生了有漏為緣，疎名生了。無漏正名佛性，有漏假名非正佛性。《善戒經》所明性種性及習種性。《楞伽經》云「阿梨耶識名空如來藏，具足熏習無漏法故名不空如來藏。」《涅槃》三十三云「若有說言眾生佛性非有如虛空、非無如兔角。何以故？虛空常故、兔角無故。是故得言亦有亦無，有故破兔角、無故破虛空。」二十六云「復有生因，謂六波羅蜜阿耨菩提。復有了因，謂六波羅蜜佛性。」第十二云「如是佛性從善五陰，乃至得阿耨菩提。」《寶性論》等明信般若、三昧、大悲為三身因。《菩薩淨行經》及《瑜伽．菩薩地》明七地四菩薩行，《伽耶山頂經》處處皆說。隱密性者，如《維摩經》云「塵勞之儔為如來種」等。《涅槃》三十三云「如來未得阿耨菩提時，一切善、不善、無記悉名佛性。」《涅槃》二十二云「一切無明煩惱等結悉是佛性。何以故？佛性因故。從無明行及煩惱得善五陰。」又《楞伽》、《思益》說行五逆而得菩提。《入大乘論》第二云「我不欲令具煩惱種生佛法芽。汝癡無智顛倒解故，謂煩惱為佛法種。」以此故知，不善無記諸煩惱結非是佛種。若爾，何故說為佛種？答：准《金剛上味陀羅尼經》云「文殊師利言：世尊！云何無明是菩提？佛言：文殊師利！以無無明故說無無明。若無無明則亦無生，若無生者彼則無染。文殊師利！菩提無染，以性清淨體光潔故。文殊師利！我見此事故說無明。是以不二說。」准此，即由斷無明故得理清淨，清淨不二故，說無明名為菩提。《大莊嚴論》有二頌明。一云「由離法性外，無別有諸法。是故如是說，煩惱即是菩提。」釋云。如經中說無明菩提同一，此謂無明法性施設菩提名，此義是經旨趣。又頌云「於貪起正思，於貪得解脫，故說貪出貪，瞋癡出亦爾。」釋云：若人於貪起正思觀察，如是知已於貪解脫，故說以貪出離於貪，出離瞋癡亦復如是，說為佛性。准此可解。此上三類，諸經論中或偏說一、或雙說理事、或復通明。如說真如，偏說理性；如菩薩行等偏說行性，或隨初勝。如《涅槃》二十二云「或說菩提信心為因。是菩提困雖復無量，若說信心則已攝盡。」或就果位偏彰勝因，如說信智定悲為佛四德三身因等。或理事雙彰，如《楞伽經》第七說「佛告大慧：如來之藏善不善因故，亦與六道作生死因緣。乃至依如來藏故五道生死。」又云「大慧！阿梨耶識名如來藏，與無明七識共俱，如大海波常不斷絕，身俱生故。」此說有漏識體能覆藏名如來藏。又云「大慧！如來藏識不在阿梨耶中，是故七種識有生有滅，如來藏識不生不滅。」此說理也。第八又云「阿梨耶識名空如來藏，無共意轉識熏習故名之為空，具足無漏熏習法名為不空。」此正行性。《勝鬘經》說「有二種如來藏：空智、空如來藏。若離若脫若異一切煩惱藏」，同《楞伽》空如來藏。「世尊！不空如來藏，過恒沙不離不脫不異不思議佛法」，即《楞伽經》云「如來藏識不生不滅，及具足熏習無漏法故，名不空如來藏。」乃至云「本所不得，一切苦滅，唯佛得證。壞一切煩惱藏，修一切滅苦道。」此一切苦滅，理也；修滅苦道，行也。如《寶性論》第四云「佛性有二：一者如地藏、二者如樹果。無始世來界，自性清淨心，修行無上道，依二種佛性，得出三種佛性、得出三種身。」乃至又引頌云「無始世來性，作諸法依止。依性有諸道，及證涅槃果。」下釋：所言性者，如《聖者勝鬘經》云「世尊！如來說如來藏者，是法界藏，乃至自性清淨。如來藏故，作諸法依止者，是故如來藏是依是持」等，多依理釋。下亦依事釋云「如是以何等煩惱、以何等處無，如是如實見知，名為空智。又何等諸佛法、何處具足有，如是實見知，名不空智。」即釋二種如來藏，前約攝相歸性及迷悟依釋，後約性相別明。《攝大乘論》等釋前經頌，依性相別及流轉還滅依說，義各不違。又《佛性論．顯體分．如來藏品》明三如來藏：一所攝藏，下云「一切眾生決無有出如如境者，并為如來之所攝持故，名所藏眾生為如來藏。」准此即是《楞伽》為生死因有漏識也。二所隱覆藏，下云「如來性住道前時，為煩惱隱覆，眾生不見，故名為藏。」此即《勝鬘》空如來藏。三能攝為藏者，謂果地一切過恒沙功德，應得性時攝之已盡，即不空藏。又〈三因品〉亦通理事，彼云「佛性體有三種，三性所攝，義應知。三種者，所謂三因、三種佛性。三因者：一應得因、二加行因、三圓滿因，真如為應得因、菩提心為加行因、菩提心及所起行為圓滿因。圓滿因，謂福慧行果圓滿，謂智斷恩德。」又〈顯體分．三性品〉說三性及三無性，攝如來性盡。此最寬通。若《涅槃》第三十六，染淨因果通名佛性。故經說云「是七眾生，若善法、若不善法，若方便道、若解脫道、若次第道，若因若果，悉是佛性。是名如來隨自意語。」隨前義辨，然應得因望應化身，可通生了。為依彼起，疎名生因；若准《涅槃經》。只名為了，如地望芽為了因故。由有如故，得有應化，可為了因。若望法身，非生了攝。《瑜伽論》云「他性為因，非自性故。真如因果體無別故，自不能顯自。若能自顯，非煩惱覆。又體常故，非有後生。故非二因。然名應得果因者，由有如故。後必當得淨位法身故，名應得因。」故《佛性論》云「雖未即顯，必當可現，故名應得正因。」《勝鬘》在纏名如來藏、出纏名法身，據有性說，非無性者。當能顯故，未顯名因、顯名法身故。二論中說為因者，以在因位，即名為因；若在果位，即名為果。即因位如是果法身，名為正因，非正生了。何以得知？《佛性論》云「初云因者有二：一佛性、二信樂。此兩法佛性，是無為信樂、是有為信樂。約性得佛性為了因，能顯了正因正性故；信樂約加行為生因，能生起眾行故。」此望法身四德，而說信樂約加行為生因，能起眾行故；此望報身，不說真如為生了故。《涅槃》第二十六云「眾生佛性亦二種因。正因者，謂諸眾生。此言眾生，眾生性故名為眾生，非說五陰名為眾生。緣因者，謂六波羅蜜，義亦同此。乃至心非佛性，心是無常，佛性常故。」《佛性論》第三云「復次總攝義應知。攝有二種：一者由因、二者由果。由因攝者，是如來性清淨有四種因。乃至言法身清淨因者，修習信樂大乘應知。或可此說報身如來，是功德法之所成故。不爾，報身豈無淨德、佛智德？生因者，修習般若及禪定應知。恩德者同，修習菩薩大悲應知，亦不說真如為法身因。」又《涅槃》二十七云「善男子！我所演說涅槃因者，所謂佛性。佛性之性不生涅槃，是故我說涅槃無因。」又十九云「涅槃之體非如是等五因所成。復有二因：一作、二了。三十七品、六波羅蜜等是名了因。」又三十三云「是故涅槃唯有了因，無有生因。」法身與涅槃義異體同，故知真如望於法身非生了因。若加行圓滿二即正因，於法身為了因、於餘為生因。此略明佛性不同。

According to the various sūtras and treatises, the buddhadhātu they explain does not exceed three kinds: first, the nature as principle; second, the nature as practice; third, the esoteric nature. Regarding the nature as principle, the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says: 'To eliminate this clinging, the Buddha taught the buddhadhātu. The buddhadhātu is precisely the tathatā revealed by the two emptinesses of person and phenomena. Because of tathatā, there is neither one who can revile nor one who is reviled. Thoroughly penetrating this principle, one is freed from the fault of false delusion.' Fascicle twenty-five of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'Good sons! The buddhadhātu is not the aggregates, realms, or sense-entrances; it is not non-existent originally and now existent, nor existent and then non-existent again.' Fascicle eight states: 'He reveals the secret treasury of the Tathāgata; the pure buddhadhātu is eternal and unchanging.' Fascicle thirty-three states: 'As the Buddha said, the buddhadhātu of sentient beings is like space, explained extensively as not being of the three times and being absent like space. It is not subsumed within the three times; because the buddhadhātu is eternal, it is not subsumed within the three times,' and so forth. As for the nature as practice, it extends throughout all myriad practices, sāsrava and anāsrava. If considered in relation to the three bodies, the anāsrava is primary; the productive and revelatory sāsrava serves as condition, and is only distantly termed productive and revelatory. The anāsrava is properly termed buddhadhātu, whereas the sāsrava is conventionally and not properly buddhadhātu. This refers to the innate gotra and acquired gotra explained in the *Śīlavantaprabhāsa-sūtra* (*Shan jie jing*). The *Laṅkāvatārasūtra* states: 'The ālayavijñāna is called the empty tathāgatagarbha; because it is fully perfumed with anāsrava phenomena, it is called the non-empty tathāgatagarbha.' Fascicle thirty-three of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'If someone says that the buddhadhātu of sentient beings is not existent like space, and not non-existent like a rabbit's horn—why is this? Because space is eternal and a rabbit's horn is non-existent. Therefore it may be said to be both existent and non-existent: because it exists, it refutes the rabbit's horn; because it is non-existent, it refutes space.' Fascicle twenty-six states: 'Furthermore, there is a janaka-hetu, namely the six pāramitās [producing] anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Furthermore, there is a jñāpaka-hetu, namely the six pāramitās [revealing] the buddhadhātu.' Fascicle twelve states: 'Such a buddhadhātu proceeds from the wholesome five aggregates, up to obtaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.' The *Ratnagotravibhāga* and others explain faith, prajñā, samādhi, and great compassion as the causes for the three bodies. The *Bodhisattvacaryā-viśuddhi-sūtra* (*Pusa jingxing jing*) and the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* of the *Yogācārabhūmi* clarify the bodhisattva practices of the seven grounds and the four [grounds], and the *Gayāśīrṣasūtra* explains this everywhere. As for the esoteric nature, it is as the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* says: 'The horde of defilements is the seed of the Tathāgata,' and so forth. Fascicle thirty-three of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'When the Tathāgata had not yet attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral [phenomena] were termed buddhadhātu.' Fascicle twenty-two of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'All knots of ignorance and defilement are buddhadhātu. Why? Because they are the cause of the buddhadhātu. From the activity of ignorance and defilements, one obtains the wholesome five aggregates.' Furthermore, the *Laṅkāvatāra* and the *Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā* speak of committing the five inexpiable offenses and attaining bodhi. Fascicle two of the *Mahāyānāvatāra-śāstra* (*Ru dasheng lun*) states: 'I do not wish to let the sprouts of the Buddha-dharma arise with the seeds of defilement. Because of your foolishness, lack of wisdom, and inverted understanding, you take defilements to be the seeds of the Buddha-dharma.' From this, we know that the unwholesome and neutral fetters of defilement are not the Buddha-seeds. If so, why are they spoken of as Buddha-seeds? Answer: According to the *Vajroparamarasa-dhāraṇī-sūtra*, it says: 'Mañjuśrī said: "World-Honoured One! How is ignorance bodhi?" The Buddha said: "Mañjuśrī! Because of the absence of ignorance, one speaks of the absence of ignorance. If there is no ignorance, there is also no arising; if there is no arising, then there is no defilement. Mañjuśrī! Bodhi is undefiled, because its nature is pure and its essence bright and clean. Mañjuśrī! Seeing this, I speak of ignorance. Hence it is taught as non-dual."' According to this, it is because of severing ignorance that the purity of principle is attained; because purity is non-dual, ignorance is said to be bodhi. The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra* explains this in two verses. One says: 'Because outside of the dharmatā / there are no distinct phenomena, / therefore it is spoken of in this way: / defilement is precisely bodhi.' The commentary explains: 'As it is said in the sūtras that ignorance and bodhi are identical, this means that the designation "bodhi" is applied to the dharmatā of ignorance; this meaning is the intent of the sūtras.' Another verse says: 'Relying on right mindfulness toward greed, / one attains liberation from greed; / hence it is said that greed escapes greed, / and escaping anger and delusion is also like this.' The commentary explains: 'If a person raises right mindfulness and contemplates greed, knowing it thus, they are liberated from greed; hence it is said that by means of greed one transcends greed, and transcending anger and delusion is likewise; this is spoken of as buddhadhātu.' Based on this, it can be understood. Among the above three categories, the various sūtras and treatises either explain one selectively, explain both principle and phenomena together, or comprehensively clarify them. When speaking of tathatā, they selectively speak of the nature as principle; when speaking of the bodhisattva practices and so forth, they selectively speak of the nature as practice, or according to the initial excellence. For example, fascicle twenty-two of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'Or it is said that the faithful mind is the cause of bodhi. Although these causes of bodhi are limitless, if one speaks of the faithful mind, they are already completely subsumed.' Or, in terms of the stage of fruition, they selectively highlight the superior cause, as when speaking of faith, wisdom, concentration, and compassion as the causes for the four virtues and three bodies of the Buddha, and so on. Or they highlight both principle and phenomena together, as fascicle seven of the *Laṅkāvatārasūtra* states: 'The Buddha said to Mahāmati: "Because the tathāgatagarbha is the cause of both wholesome and unwholesome, it also serves as the cause and condition for transmigration in the six destinies. Up to: relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is transmigration in the five destinies."' It also says: 'Mahāmati! The ālayavijñāna is called the tathāgatagarbha; together with ignorance and the seven consciousnesses, like waves on the great ocean, it is uninterrupted, because they arise together with the body.' This explains that the essence of the sāsrava consciousness can conceal and hide, and is thus called the tathāgatagarbha. It also says: 'Mahāmati! The tathāgatagarbha-consciousness is not within the ālayavijñāna; therefore, the seven kinds of consciousness have arising and ceasing, while the tathāgatagarbha-consciousness does not arise or cease.' This speaks of the principle. Fascicle eight further states: 'The ālayavijñāna is called the empty tathāgatagarbha; because it lacks the perfuming of the mutual mental functioning of the evolving consciousnesses, it is called empty; because it is replete with the perfumed anāsrava phenomena, it is called non-empty.' This is precisely the nature as practice. The *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* states: 'There are two kinds of tathāgatagarbha: the empty wisdom, the empty tathāgatagarbha, which is separated from, released from, and distinct from all repositories of defilement'—which is the same as the empty tathāgatagarbha in the *Laṅkāvatāra*. 'World-Honoured One! The non-empty tathāgatagarbha is not separated from, not released from, and not distinct from the inconceivable Buddha-dharmas that exceed the sands of the Ganges'—which is precisely what the *Laṅkāvatārasūtra* states: 'The tathāgatagarbha-consciousness does not arise or cease, and because it is replete with perfumed anāsrava phenomena, it is called the non-empty tathāgatagarbha.' Up to its statement: 'Originally unobtained, the cessation of all suffering is realized only by the Buddha. Destroying all repositories of defilement, one cultivates all paths leading to the cessation of suffering.' This cessation of all suffering is the principle; cultivating the paths leading to the cessation of suffering is practice. As the fourth fascicle of the *Ratnagotravibhāga* states: 'The buddhadhātu is of two kinds: first, like an underground treasure; second, like the fruit of a tree. Relying on the beginningless element, the naturally pure mind, one cultivates the unsurpassed path; relying on these two kinds of buddhadhātu, one attains three kinds of buddhadhātu and attains the three bodies.' Up to its quoting of the verse: 'The nature from beginningless time / serves as the basis for all phenomena. / Relying on the nature, there are all realms / and the realization of the fruition of nirvāṇa.' The commentary below explains: 'Regarding the word "nature", as the holy *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* states: "World-Honoured One! That which the Tathāgata calls the tathāgatagarbha is the dharmadhātu-garbha, up to being naturally pure. Because of the tathāgatagarbha, it serves as the basis for all phenomena; therefore the tathāgatagarbha is the support and the sustainer,"' and so forth, mostly explaining it based on principle. Below, it also explains it based on phenomena: 'Thus, knowing and seeing in accordance with reality what defilements are absent and in what place they are absent is called empty wisdom; again, knowing and seeing in accordance with reality what Buddha-dharmas are fully present and in what place they are present is called non-empty wisdom.' This explains the two kinds of tathāgatagarbha: the former explains it in terms of subsuming phenomenal marks into the nature and as the basis of delusion and awakening; the latter explains it in terms of distinguishing nature and phenomenal marks. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* and other texts, in explaining the verse of the earlier sūtra, explain it according to the distinction between nature and phenomenal marks and as the basis for transmigration and cessation; the meanings do not contradict each other. Furthermore, the 'Chapter on Tathāgatagarbha' in the 'Section on Revealing the Essence' of the *Buddhagotraśāstra* explains three tathāgatagarbhas: First, the repository that is subsumed. Below it says: 'Sentient beings definitely never go beyond the realm of suchness, and because they are embraced and sustained by the Tathāgata, the sentient beings who are the repository are called the tathāgatagarbha.' According to this, it is the sāsrava consciousness that serves as the cause of saṃsāra in the *Laṅkāvatāra*. Second, the repository that is concealed. Below it says: 'When the Tathāgata-nature abides prior to the path, it is concealed by defilements and sentient beings do not see it; therefore it is called a repository.' This is the empty tathāgatagarbha of the *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra*. Third, the repository that can subsume: that is, at the stage of fruition, all merits exceeding the sands of the Ganges are fully subsumed at the time of the nature to be attained; this is the non-empty repository. Furthermore, the 'Chapter on the Three Causes' also encompasses both principle and phenomena; it says: 'The essence of buddhadhātu has three kinds, subsumed under the three natures, as should be understood. The three kinds are the so-called three causes and three kinds of buddhadhātu. The three causes are: first, the cause of what should be attained; second, the cause of applied practice; third, the cause of fulfillment. Tathatā is the cause of what should be attained; the bodhicitta is the cause of applied practice; the bodhicitta and the practices arising from it are the cause of fulfillment. The cause of fulfillment refers to the fulfillment of the practices of merit and wisdom; the fruition of fulfillment refers to the virtues of wisdom, eradication, and benevolence.' Furthermore, the 'Chapter on the Three Natures' in the 'Section on Revealing the Essence' states that the three natures and the three non-natures completely subsume the Tathāgata-nature. This is the broadest and most encompassing. In fascicle thirty-six of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, the defiled and pure causes and fruitions are all comprehensively termed buddhadhātu. Therefore, the sūtra states: 'These seven types of sentient beings, whether wholesome phenomena or unwholesome phenomena, whether the path of expedients, the path of liberation, or the sequential path, whether cause or fruition, are all the buddhadhātu. This is called the Tathāgata speaking according to his own intention.' This is distinguished in accordance with the prior meaning. However, in relation to the nirmāṇakāya, the cause of what should be attained can extend to both productive and revelatory. Because [the nirmāṇakāya] arises based on it, it is distantly called a janaka-hetu; but according to the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, it is only called a jñāpaka-hetu, just as the earth is a jñāpaka-hetu in relation to the sprout. Because of the existence of suchness, the nirmāṇakāya can exist; hence it can be considered a jñāpaka-hetu. If viewed in relation to the dharmakāya, it is not subsumed under either the janaka-hetu or jñāpaka-hetu. The *Yogācārabhūmi* states: 'The nature of another serves as the cause, not one's own nature. Because the essence of tathatā as cause and fruition is not distinct, it cannot itself reveal itself. If it could reveal itself, it would not be covered by defilements. Furthermore, because its essence is eternal, it does not arise later. Therefore, it is neither of the two causes. However, it is called the cause of the fruition that should be attained because, by virtue of the existence of suchness, one will certainly attain the pure-stage dharmakāya later; hence it is called the cause of what should be attained.' Therefore the *Buddhagotraśāstra* states: 'Although not immediately revealed, it must certainly be manifest; therefore it is called the pradhāna-hetu of what should be attained.' The *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* states that when bound, it is called tathāgatagarbha, and when freed from bondage, it is called dharmakāya; this is said based on those who possess the nature, not those who lack the nature. Because it will be able to be revealed, when unrevealed it is called the cause, and when revealed it is called the dharmakāya. When spoken of as cause in the two treatises, it is called the cause because it is at the causal stage; if at the stage of fruition, it is called the fruition. That is, suchness at the causal stage is the dharmakāya of the fruition stage; it is called the pradhāna-hetu, not properly productive or revelatory. How is this known? The *Buddhagotraśāstra* says: 'First, saying that there are two causes: first, the buddhadhātu; second, faith and joy. In these two phenomena, the buddhadhātu is unconditioned and faith and joy are conditioned. In terms of obtaining the buddhadhātu through nature, it is a jñāpaka-hetu, because it can reveal the pradhāna-hetu and the true nature; faith and joy, in terms of applied practice, are the janaka-hetu, because they can give rise to the myriad practices.' This is said in relation to the four virtues of the dharmakāya, stating that faith and joy, in terms of applied practice, are the janaka-hetu because they can give rise to the myriad practices; in relation to the saṃbhogakāya, tathatā is not said to be productive or revelatory. Fascicle twenty-six of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'The buddhadhātu of sentient beings also has two kinds of causes. The pradhāna-hetu refers to sentient beings. This word "sentient beings" is called sentient beings because of sentient-being-nature; it does not mean that the five aggregates are called sentient beings. The pratyaya-hetu refers to the six pāramitās; the meaning is also the same as this. Up to: the mind is not the buddhadhātu; the mind is impermanent, while the buddhadhātu is eternal.' The third fascicle of the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says: 'Furthermore, the comprehensive meaning should be understood. Subsumption is of two kinds: first, by cause; second, by fruition. Subsumption by cause means that the purity of the Tathāgata-nature has four kinds of causes. Up to: the cause of purity of the dharmakāya should be known as cultivating faith and joy in the Mahāyāna. Or it may be that this refers to the saṃbhogakāya Tathāgata, because it is accomplished through meritorious phenomena. If not, could the saṃbhogakāya lack the pure virtues and the Buddha's wisdom virtue? The janaka-hetu should be known as cultivating prajñā and dhyāna-concentration. The virtue of benevolence is the same, and should be known as cultivating the great compassion of the bodhisattva; neither does it state that tathatā is the cause of the dharmakāya.' Furthermore, fascicle twenty-seven of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* states: 'Good sons! The cause of nirvāṇa that I explain is the so-called buddhadhātu. The nature of the buddhadhātu does not produce nirvāṇa; therefore, I say that nirvāṇa has no cause.' Again, fascicle nineteen states: 'The essence of nirvāṇa is not accomplished by these five causes. Furthermore, there are two causes: first, the productive; second, the revelatory. The thirty-seven factors of awakening, the six pāramitās, and so forth are called the jñāpaka-hetu.' Again, fascicle thirty-three states: 'Therefore, nirvāṇa has only a jñāpaka-hetu and has no janaka-hetu.' The dharmakāya and nirvāṇa differ in meaning but are identical in essence; therefore, we know that tathatā, in relation to the dharmakāya, is neither a janaka-hetu nor a jñāpaka-hetu. As for the two [causes] of applied practice and fulfillment, they are precisely the primary causes: in relation to the dharmakāya, they are the jñāpaka-hetu; in relation to the rest, they are the janaka-hetu. This briefly explains the differences in buddhadhātu.