華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.5

4.5

前中，三性各有二義。真中二義者，一不變義、二隨緣義。依他二義者，一似有義、二無性義。所執中二義者，一情有義、二理無義。由真中不變、依他無性、所執理無，由此三義故，三性一際，同無異也，此則不壞末而常本也，經云「眾生即涅槃，不復更滅」也。又約真如隨緣、依他似有、所執情有，由此三義亦無異也，此則不動本而常末也，經云「法身流轉五道，名曰眾生」也。即由此三義與前三義是不一門也，是故真該妄末、妄徹真源，性相通融，無障無礙。問：「依他似有等，豈同所執是情有耶？」答：「由二義故，故無異也。一、以彼所執，執似為實，故無異法；二、若離所執，似無起故。真中隨緣當知亦爾，以無所執，無隨緣故。」問：「如何三性各有二義，不相違耶？」答：「以此二義無異性故。何者無異？且如圓成，雖復隨緣成於染淨，而恒不失自性清淨，秪由不失自性清淨，故能隨緣成染淨也。猶如明鏡現於染淨，雖現染淨而恒不失鏡之明淨，秪由不失鏡明淨故，方能現染淨之相。以現染淨知鏡明淨，以鏡明淨知現染淨，是故二義唯是一性，雖現淨法不增鏡明，雖現染法不污鏡淨。非直不污，亦乃由此反顯鏡之明淨。當知真如道理亦爾，非直不動性淨成於染淨，亦乃由成染淨方顯性淨；非直不壞染淨明於性淨，亦乃由性淨故方成染淨。是故二義全體相收，一性無二，豈相違耶？依他中，雖復因緣似有顯現，然此似有，必無自性，以諸緣生皆無自性故。若非無性，即不藉緣。不藉緣故，故非似有。似有若成，必從眾緣，從眾緣故必無自性。是故由無自性得成似有，由成似有是故無性，故《智論》云『觀一切法從因緣生，從因緣生即無自性，無自性故即畢竟空。畢竟空者，是名般若波羅蜜。』此則由緣生故，即顯無性也。《中論》云『以有空義故，一切法得成』者，此則由無性故即明緣生也。《涅槃經》云『因緣故有，無性故空。』此則無性即因緣，因緣即無性，是不二法門故也。非直二義性不相違，亦乃全體相收，畢竟無二也。所執性中，雖復當情稱執現有，然於道理畢竟是無，以於無處橫計有故。如於木杌橫計有鬼，然鬼於木畢竟是無，如於其木鬼不無者，即不得名橫計有鬼。以於木有非由計故。今既橫計，明知理無，由理無故得成橫計，成橫計故方知理無，是故無二唯一性也，當知所執道理亦爾。」上來直明竟。

In the former, each of the three natures has two meanings. The two meanings in the real [nature] are: first, the meaning of unchanging; second, the meaning of according with conditions. The two meanings in the other-dependent [nature] are: first, the meaning of appearing to exist; second, the meaning of being without self-nature. The two meanings in the imagined [nature] are: first, the meaning of existing in sentiment; second, the meaning of nonexistence in principle. Because the real is unchanging, the other-dependent is without self-nature, and the imagined is nonexistent in principle—due to these three meanings, the three natures are of one single limit, identical and without difference; this is not destroying the branches while being eternally the root. A sūtra states: "Sentient beings are themselves nirvāṇa, and do not extinguish again." Furthermore, in terms of suchness according with conditions, the other-dependent appearing to exist, and the imagined existing in sentiment—due to these three meanings they are also without difference; this is not moving the root while being eternally the branches. A sūtra states: "The dharma body transmigrates through the five paths, and is named sentient beings." That is, due to these three meanings and the previous three meanings, this is the gate of non-oneness; therefore, the real embraces the false branches, and the false penetrates to the real source; nature and characteristics thoroughly fuse, without hindrance or obstruction. Question: "How could the other-dependent's appearing to exist and so forth be identical to the imagined's existing in sentiment?" Answer: "Due to two meanings, there is no difference: (1) Because that imagined [nature] grasps what appears as real, there is no different dharma. (2) If separated from what is imagined, the appearance does not arise. One should know that according with conditions in the real is also thus, because without what is imagined, there is no according with conditions." Question: "How can each of the three natures have two meanings without mutually contradicting?" Answer: "Because these two meanings do not have different natures. What is this non-difference? Take, for example, the consummate [nature]: although it accords with conditions to form the defiled and pure, it never loses its own pure nature; precisely because it does not lose its own pure nature, it can accord with conditions to form the defiled and pure. It is like a bright mirror reflecting the defiled and pure: although it reflects the defiled and pure, it never loses the brightness and purity of the mirror; precisely because it does not lose the brightness and purity of the mirror, it is able to reflect the forms of defiled and pure. From the reflection of defiled and pure one knows the brightness and purity of the mirror; from the brightness and purity of the mirror one knows the reflection of defiled and pure. Therefore, the two meanings are only one single nature: although it reflects pure dharmas, it does not increase the brightness of the mirror; although it reflects defiled dharmas, it does not stain the purity of the mirror. Not only does it not stain it, but precisely because of this, it conversely reveals the brightness and purity of the mirror. One should know that the principle of suchness is also thus: not only does it form the defiled and pure without moving its pure nature, but also precisely by forming the defiled and pure does it reveal its pure nature; not only does it clarify the pure nature without destroying the defiled and pure, but also precisely because of its pure nature does it form the defiled and pure. Therefore, the two meanings completely embrace each other, one nature without duality; how could they contradict each other? In the other-dependent, although it is manifested as appearing to exist through causes and conditions, yet this apparent existence necessarily lacks self-nature, because all things born from conditions lack self-nature. If it were not without self-nature, it would not rely on conditions. Because it would not rely on conditions, it would not be an apparent existence. If apparent existence is established, it must proceed from multiple conditions; because it proceeds from multiple conditions, it necessarily lacks self-nature. Therefore, due to lacking self-nature, apparent existence is accomplished; because apparent existence is accomplished, it lacks self-nature. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Contemplate all dharmas as arising from causes and conditions; arising from causes and conditions, they are without self-nature; because they are without self-nature, they are ultimately empty. That which is ultimately empty is named the prajñāpāramitā.' This shows that due to condition-arising, lack of self-nature is revealed. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be accomplished'; this shows that due to lack of self-nature, condition-arising is clarified. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'Because of causes and conditions there is existence; because of lack of self-nature there is emptiness.' This means that lack of self-nature is causes and conditions, and causes and conditions are lack of self-nature; it is the non-dual Dharma gate. Not only do the two meanings not contradict each other in nature, but they also completely embrace each other, being ultimately non-dual. In the imagined nature, although it is presented as existing in sentiment in accordance with grasping, yet in principle it is ultimately nonexistent, because it falsely calculates existence where there is none. Just like falsely calculating a ghost on a tree stump, yet the ghost is ultimately nonexistent on the wood; if the ghost were not nonexistent on that wood, it could not be named falsely calculating a ghost, because existing on the wood would not be due to calculation. Now since it is falsely calculated, we clearly know it is nonexistent in principle; because it is nonexistent in principle, false calculation is accomplished; because false calculation is accomplished, only then do we know it is nonexistent in principle. Therefore there is no duality, but only one single nature; one should know that the principle of the imagined is also thus." The above direct clarification is concluded.