華嚴五十要問答 1.76

1.76

問：經論所辨三性、三無性，異相云何？答：三性法門本安立意，欲別法相，知其解行理事教義分齊不同，離其慢執故興斯教。今就《攝論》引他四經明三性果相，即為大軌：初引《毘佛略經》明有三性；二引《婆羅門問經》證有三性；三引《阿毘達磨修多羅》證有三性；四復次有處世尊說等引常無常等三法聖教證有三性。又前一文義差別，為知詮旨法相故；二三性相從，為顯理融無性故；三具分秉然，顯融事相無礙故；四聖教通目，以理會教成智故。若分別性有其一義，用無品類為其體者，與無相性云何差別？答：若分別實相即空是分別性，不現實相是無相性也。若依《攝論》明三無性差別相者，有其三種：一自非有無性。本有法體不自現前，藉因託緣方能生果，無自生故，故名無性。此義通三宗。二體非有無性。明諸法體本性非有，若落過未無有自體，但具因緣方始現前。現在有為假有無實，念念遷異不能自住。此亦分成佛無我義，故名無性。此通《成實》及以大乘。三如取不有等，約彼本識法無我理，三性不有成其無性。由自體定自非有，有不二不盡，離諸分別故，非聞思修地上報生善意識智所緣境界，故名無性。此義唯大乘也。此三性印，總則為一，別則為四，廣則無量。若對解行用三性印，三性之後別明三無性，此約解明。若二性後則辨無性，更不會真實性者，此約行說。如是準知。此文在三乘，亦通一乘用。何以故？由此法門應法界性無邊用故。

Question: What are the distinct characteristics of the three natures and three non-natures discerned in the sūtras and treatises? Answer: The original intention in establishing the teaching of the three natures was to distinguish dharma-characteristics, to understand the different scopes of understanding and practice, principle and phenomenon, teaching and meaning, and to give rise to this teaching so as to abandon arrogance and clinging. Now, regarding the Mahāyānasaṃgraha citing four other sūtras to explain the fruitional characteristics of the three natures, this serves as the great standard: first, it cites the Vaipulya-sūtra to show that there are three natures; second, it cites the Brāhmaṇa-paripṛcchā-sūtra to prove that there are three natures; third, it cites the Abhidharma-sūtra to prove that there are three natures; fourth, it cites the sacred teaching that 'furthermore in some place the World-Honored One spoke' and so forth, citing three dharmas such as permanent and impermanent, to prove that there are three natures. Furthermore, the first passage's difference in meaning is for knowing the signifier and signified of dharma-characteristics; the second shows the three natures following one another to reveal that principle blends into non-nature; the third is fully and distinctly manifest, revealing that blending with phenomenal characteristics is unobstructed; the fourth's sacred teaching generally denotes, harmonizing teaching with principle to accomplish wisdom. If parikalpita-svabhāva has a meaning wherein the absence of categories is taken as its essence, how does it differ from lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā? Answer: If parikalpita is the real mark being empty, that is parikalpita-svabhāva; not manifesting the real mark is lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā. If according to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha in explaining the distinct characteristics of the three non-natures, there are three kinds: 1. non-nature of non-existence of self-nature: the fundamentally existent essence of dharmas does not manifest by itself, but depends on causes and conditions before being able to produce a fruit; because there is no self-production, it is called non-nature. This meaning extends to the three traditions. 2. Non-nature of non-existence of substance: explaining that the essence of all dharmas is fundamentally non-existent in its nature; if relegated to the past and future, it has no self-substance, but only when endowed with causes and conditions does it first manifest. Conditioned dharmas of the present are conventionally existent and without reality, changing from moment to moment and unable to abide of themselves. This also partially accomplishes the Buddha's meaning of non-self, and is therefore called non-nature. This extends to the Tattvasiddhi and to the Mahāyāna. 3. Non-existence like apprehension and so forth: in terms of the principle of dharmanairātmya of that mūlavijñāna, the non-existence of the three natures accomplishes their non-nature. Because their self-substance is definitely non-existent in itself, existence is non-dual and inexhaustible, and free from all conceptual distinctions, it is not an objective realm cognized by the wholesome wisdom of the mental consciousness arising as retribution on the grounds through hearing, contemplation, and cultivation; therefore it is called non-nature. This meaning belongs solely to the Mahāyāna. This seal of the three natures is one when taken generally, four when taken specifically, and immeasurable when taken broadly. If applying the seal of the three natures to understanding and practice: distinctly explaining the three non-natures after the three natures is explained in terms of understanding. If discerning non-nature after two natures without further harmonizing with pariniṣpanna-svabhāva, this is spoken in terms of practice. One should infer in this way. This text is in the triyāna, but its application also extends to the Ekayāna. Why? Because this dharma-approach corresponds to the boundless function of the dharmadhātu nature.