華嚴一乘成佛妙義 1.33

1.33

問：宗意一切眾生皆是佛時，佛與眾生有何差別？答：同一緣起法故，佛時全佛無別眾生，眾生時全唯眾生亦無別佛。若非全佛非全眾生，緣起不成，故無眾生亦無佛。一切法是一如所成，緣起法故互全攝，方立眾生門故全眾生，佛門故皆佛。故非無彼能化佛、所化眾生。問：佛全覺人、眾全惑者，若佛與眾生一者，唯是惑耳，何有能化？亦眾生與佛一者，但全覺人，何有所化？答：有二義：一無能化所化、二有能化所化。初義意全眾生故無能化，全是佛故無所化。後義意全作二，故有能所化。何者，緣起無障無礙法，定不有一，故隨須皆得，如虛空化虛空，能化所化無障礙。然非所執情能所及也。問：佛見迷惑眾生時，若以惑心見？若以覺智見？若以惑心見者，惑非善，見何能見？若以覺智見者，覺絕見知，何可能見？答。有二義：一惑見覺見、二俱不得見。初義意如鬼，鬼見人不見。惑以惑見，覺不見。如於杌見鬼是迷惑，鬼見鬼非惑。此義亦然，惑見惑，亦覺非惑。是故佛言：「我與汝不異，汝自為別。」此意我者覺人，汝者迷執，故知惑覺不異也。後義意惑此見義，故非惑見，以惑見惑故非覺見。問：佛既覺者，何以惑見惑？答：覺惑體無二，而覺任自惑見，名為惑耳。具如《香象問答》。問：一成一切成，其義何？答：可有二義，一約人、一約位。初義，《問答》云：約緣起人說故，一人即一切人是一人，一切人即一人是一切人。故修言亦然，一修一切修、一切修一修，故同得云也。問：現一人修而餘不修，亦一人非餘人，何得為爾？答：汝所見但是遍計耳，不關緣起之法，不足言也。後義者，六相義章云：行德即一成一切成，理性即一顯一切顯，普別具足、始終皆齊，初發心時便成正覺等。疏一亦同。問：三乘人極至何位進入一乘即成佛？答：《五教》上云：至自位究竟處故，後皆進入別教一乘，此各得出世果處為自位，究竟處約菩薩。又三賢位是得出世益處，具如一乘義。問：一人現在世是人，未來世可成佛，化現在我身令修行？答：化令修行。問：現在人修行可得彼，何其佛化現在我令修行？答。彼佛不化者，今吾身不得作佛故。彼佛化時，方吾能修行成彼佛。意緣起道理，非彼佛時即無今吾身，非今吾身時無彼佛，故知爾也。如對今，乃至盡過去際亦然。問：未來佛是現在及過去人相即者，彼過現人已成佛未成？答：已成，與未來佛同一緣起法故。問：若爾，唯佛，何為化？答：過現人望未來佛是同一體，非他人故，未來佛化現等人。若他人者，不得化。所以者何？能化外有故，非自所化。問：可化外人，何言他人者不得化？答：若能化所化差別者，緣起不成，故不得化自外他人。問：自既佛，何用為化？答：是佛故化。若非是佛，終日化不得成佛。問：何自非佛時不得化？答：一切眾生本來成佛，而不知自即佛，故化令知此理，名為化之。故實化無所化，實無所成。問：若爾，但乃化都無化他之義。答：亦得化他，非化無自故。以自他緣成無分別故，是故佛能見自全他，故他無攝物。問：約此化非化及自他等分別四句，何答？問：化自？答：不也，非他無自故。問：化他？答：不也，化是佛故。問：自他共化？答：不也，二執不並，故共不化。答：二離執故。此遣非四句，示執顯四句，准三性門可知也。約自他亦可有此三四句，准上可知。問：未來佛還化現在自身者，有所依文，答：有所依文。故《瓔珞經》中第八地菩薩云「自身己身當果諸佛摩頂說法」，故已其說炳然可知。又既諸經經每云：三世佛拜故諸罪業滅，未來諸佛者何為畢也。問：他人修行已成佛，窮來際亦可成，說之言拜未來。何言拜彼自當成佛？答：拜他佛之義非無。雖然，他佛遠、自佛近。何者？汎諸佛為眾生說佛德，意為欲令眾生自亦得彼果，故令修行。是故眾生證自當來所得之果德，為欲得彼，故不借身命修行，非為得他佛果故修行。是故正今吾令發心修行，佛祖吾當果已成佛，非他佛也。此義不疑怪也。又有他已成佛，即是自當果佛。所以者何？他成佛時即得三世佛平等果故。又吾當果佛即是他今成佛。所以者何？吾得當佛即得三世佛平等法故。如是展轉更互平等，平等無差別果德皆化今吾令修行，其義亦非無故也。互有今吾身全體如來藏佛等是也。今吾即緣吾性佛，即吾而不知，故悲怪發至心修行欲返迷，是故其觀化吾佛即是吾體佛，非遠求他佛。此義甚正，觀行者大要也。又此吾性佛者，即於一切法界有情無情中全全即在，無非一物吾體佛故。若能拜自體佛者，無物不所作。此亦甚大要也，常可思性之。若行如是思得者，一切時一切處中，無一處中無一處一時起三毒煩惱之義，此即入一乘之觀方便。三世佛無非此行修成佛者也，具如《香象》答也。問：一切情非情皆有佛性成佛？答；約教不同。小乘唯佛一人有佛種性，餘無種性。始教門約有為無常法立種性，故不遍一切。終教為真性立種性，故一切有性。頓教門唯真如離言絕相名為種，不分性習。約一乘門有二說：一攝方便故，諸教所明種性並皆具足主伴成宗，以同教故、攝方便故。一據別教種性甚深因果無二，通依及正，盡三世間、該收一切理事解行等，廣如下卷說。問：此諸教所說有無種性，為理佛性？為行佛性？答：通二。何者二佛性？一體二義故，如下卷說。問：就一乘門有性無性、有情非情皆成佛者，說五性差別教何會？答：下卷云：論自有釋。故《寶性論》云「向說闡提無涅槃性、不入涅槃者，此義云何？為欲示顯謗大乘因故。此明何義？為欲迴轉誹謗大乘心，依無量時，故作是說。以彼彼實有清淨性故」等。問：若爾，唯可立不定性，何立性？答：修六度串習行已位到堪任住，成菩薩種性。若習小行到於忍位，成聲聞性。故《智論》云「𤏙頂忍等名為性地，獨覺准知。」若於三行隨一修行未至本位，爾時立為不定種性。若於三行全未修行，爾時立為無有種性。問：約種性分別四句何？答：終南問答云：或有佛性，闡提人有、善根人無，謂約行辨性也。或有佛性，善根人有、闡提人無，謂約位辨性也。或有佛性，二人俱有，謂約因辨性也。或有佛性，二人俱無，謂約果辨性也。問：闡提之義斷現善根，因何有行善性？答：此約位語。此世生善根可救者，有現行善性。他世生善根現不可救者，有行因種子。此義不同聲聞宗，此之四位皆具性得及修得二佛性也。何以故？此之二性同於信解淨心處說故、相由成故也。性得及修得二種佛性，非初非中後，前中後取故。又驗經文，如來藏為直進菩薩機說，佛性為淳熟聲聞機說。此中所明如來藏、佛性，雖約諸義差別不同，皆是同教一乘義也。何以故？為成普法故、普法所成故。問：本性住性、習所成種性，何前何後？答：隨機緣前後不定。故香象問答云：問：本有修生等四句中，有修生本有、本有修生二句，其即緣起法故。非本有無修生、非修生無本有，此二句因緣法可解。唯本有、但修生，此二句為因緣法乎？若非由修生而有本有者，與習種以前有本有之義有何別？云答：聖者能見機益，故四句皆普說。若有機緣眾生，□以性種為前、習種為後利益，即說本有前、有修生後。若有眾生以修生為前、本有為後利益，即說性種為後、習種為前。但隨機處中說耳，勿見法定有前後，以其法無前後故，即善當於先後耳。是故諸聖教之說前後不定。然而如言取者，定本有前有法故，失因緣旨違其意故，與彼人不同耳。餘一切法門皆爾，須解教所由，又解法實性也。

Question: When according to the doctrine all sentient beings are the Buddha, what difference is there between the Buddha and sentient beings? Answer: Because they are the same dharma of dependent origination, at the time of the Buddha it is completely the Buddha with no separate sentient beings, and at the time of sentient beings it is completely only sentient beings with also no separate Buddha. If it were not completely the Buddha and not completely sentient beings, dependent origination would not be established, and thus there would be neither sentient beings nor the Buddha. All dharmas are constituted by the one suchness; because they are the dharma of dependent origination, they completely subsume each other: established from the approach of sentient beings, it is completely sentient beings; from the Buddha approach, it is entirely the Buddha. Therefore, it is not that there is no transforming Buddha and transformed sentient beings. Question: The Buddha is an entirely awakened person, while sentient beings are entirely deluded; if the Buddha and sentient beings are one, then there would only be delusion, so how could there be one capable of transforming? Likewise, if sentient beings and the Buddha are one, there would only be an entirely awakened person, so how could there be those who are transformed? Answer: There are two meanings: first, there is neither transforming nor transformed; second, there are transforming and transformed. The first meaning means that because it is completely sentient beings, there is no one transforming; because it is completely the Buddha, there is nothing transformed. The second meaning means that because it completely acts as the two, there are transforming and transformed. Why so? The dharma of dependent origination is unobtrusive and unhindered; it is definitely not rigidly one, and therefore whatever is needed is obtained, just as space transforms space, transforming and transformed being unhindered. Yet this is not something accessible to the clinging mind. Question: When the Buddha sees deluded sentient beings, does he see them with a deluded mind, or does he see them with awakened wisdom? If he sees them with a deluded mind, delusion is not good—how could seeing be capable of seeing? If he sees them with awakened wisdom, awakening cuts off perception and cognition—how could it be possible to see? Answer: There are two meanings: first, delusion sees and awakening sees; second, neither can see. The sense of the first meaning is: like ghosts—a ghost sees, but a human does not see. Delusion sees by means of delusion; awakening does not see. Just as seeing a ghost in a tree stump is delusion, a ghost seeing a ghost is not delusion. This meaning is also like this: delusion sees delusion, and awakening is also not delusion. Therefore the Buddha said: "I and you are not different; you yourself make the distinction." This means: "I" is the awakened person, and "you" is deluded grasping; hence we know that delusion and awakening are not different. The sense of the second meaning is: delusion is this meaning of seeing, therefore it is not deluded seeing; because delusion sees delusion, it is not awakened seeing. Question: Since the Buddha is awakened, why does he see delusion by means of delusion? Answer: Awakening and delusion are not two in substance, yet awakening lets itself see delusion, which is merely called delusion. This is fully explained in Xiangxiang's Questions and Answers. Question: "When one attains, all attain"—what is its meaning? Answer: There can be two meanings: one according to persons, one according to stages. The first meaning, as the Questions and Answers states: Because it is spoken in terms of persons of dependent origination, one person is all persons as one person; all persons are one person as all persons. Therefore, the same is said of cultivation: one cultivating is all cultivating, and all cultivating is one cultivating; thus it is said that they attain simultaneously. Question: Presently one person cultivates while others do not cultivate, and also one person is not other persons—how can it be so? Answer: What you see is merely conceptual imputation; it does not concern the dharma of dependent origination and is not worth discussing. As for the second meaning, the Six Characteristics Chapter states: "In terms of virtues of practice, when one attains, all attain; in terms of principle-nature, when one is revealed, all are revealed; universal and particular are fully present; beginning and end are entirely equal; at the time of the initial arousal of the aspiration, one immediately achieves correct awakening," and so forth. The first fascicle of the Commentary is also the same. Question: At what highest stage do practitioners of the Three Vehicles enter the One Vehicle and immediately attain Buddhahood? Answer: The first fascicle of the Five Teachings states: Because they reach the culmination of their own stage, afterwards they all enter the Separate Teaching of the One Vehicle. These [stages] where they each attain the supramundane fruit are their own stages; the culmination is spoken of in terms of bodhisattvas. Furthermore, the stages of the three classes of worthies are the places where the supramundane benefit is obtained, fully as in the meaning of the One Vehicle. Question: A single person is a human in the present life, and can attain Buddhahood in a future life; does [that future Buddha] transform my present body to cause me to cultivate? Answer: He transforms it to cause cultivation. Question: The present person cultivates and can attain that [Buddha]; why would that Buddha transform my present self to cause cultivation? Answer: If that Buddha did not transform, my present body could not become a Buddha. Only when that Buddha transforms can I cultivate and become that Buddha. The principle of dependent origination means that when it is not that Buddha, there is no present body of mine; and when it is not my present body, there is no that Buddha. Thus we know it is so. Just as in relation to the present, it is also likewise extending to the exhaustion of the past. Question: If the future Buddha and the present and past persons are mutually identical, have those past and present persons already attained Buddhahood or not yet attained it? Answer: They have already attained it, because they are the same dharma of dependent origination as the future Buddha. Question: If so, it is only the Buddha; why does he transform? Answer: When past and present persons are viewed from the perspective of the future Buddha, they are the identical substance, not other people; therefore, the future Buddha transforms the present and other persons. If they were other people, he could not transform them. Why is that? Because if the one capable of transforming existed externally, it would not be one's own transformed [object]. Question: One could transform external persons; why do you say that other people cannot be transformed? Answer: If there were a difference between transforming and transformed, dependent origination would not be established; therefore, one cannot transform other people outside oneself. Question: Since oneself is already a Buddha, what use is transformation? Answer: Because one is a Buddha, one transforms. If one were not a Buddha, even with all-day transformation, one could not attain Buddhahood. Question: Why is it that when oneself is not a Buddha, one cannot be transformed? Answer: All sentient beings have originally attained Buddhahood, yet they do not know that they themselves are the Buddha; therefore, they are transformed to be caused to know this principle, which is called transforming them. Thus, in reality of transformation, there is nothing transformed, and in reality nothing is achieved. Question: If so, it is only transformation with no meaning whatsoever of transforming others. Answer: One can also transform others, because transformation does not lack self. Since self and other dependently originate without distinction, therefore the Buddha can see that self is entirely other, and thus others do not subsume things. Question: In distinguishing the four propositions regarding this transformation, non-transformation, self, other, and so forth, how does one answer? Question: Does one transform oneself? Answer: No, because other does not exist apart from self. Question: Does one transform others? Answer: No, because what is transformed is the Buddha. Question: Do self and other jointly transform? Answer: No, because two attachments cannot coexist, hence jointly they do not transform. Answer: Because both are free from attachment. This refutes the 'is not' four propositions, and reveals attachment to show the four propositions; this can be known by following the approach of the three natures. In terms of self and other, there can also be these three [sets of] four propositions, which can be understood following the above. Question: Are there authoritative texts for the future Buddha in turn transforming his own present body? Answer: There are authoritative texts. Therefore, regarding the eighth-stage bodhisattva, the Yingluo jing states: "One's own body, the future-fruit Buddhas of one's own person, rub the crown of one's head and preach the Dharma"; hence this explanation is clearly known. Furthermore, since various sūtras repeatedly state: "Because one bows to the Buddhas of the three periods, all sinful karma is extinguished," why would the future Buddhas be finished? Question: Other persons have cultivated and already attained Buddhahood, and exhausting the future limit they can also attain it, and it is spoken of as bowing to the future [Buddhas]; why speak of bowing to that Buddha that one will oneself become? Answer: The meaning of bowing to other Buddhas is not absent. Even so, other Buddhas are distant, while one's own Buddha is near. Why so? In general, when the Buddhas preach the Buddha-virtues for sentient beings, their intention is to cause sentient beings themselves also to attain that fruit, and so they cause them to cultivate. Therefore, sentient beings realize the fruit-virtue to be attained by themselves in the future, and in order to attain it, they cultivate without begrudging body or life; they do not cultivate in order to attain another Buddha's fruit. For this reason, the one who directly causes my present self to arouse the aspiration and cultivate is indeed the Buddha already accomplished as my future fruit, not another Buddha. This meaning should not be doubted or wondered at. Moreover, there is another who has already attained Buddhahood who is none other than the Buddha of one's own future fruit. Why is this? When another attains Buddhahood, he immediately attains the equal fruit of the Buddhas of the three periods. Furthermore, the Buddha of my future fruit is none other than his present attainment of Buddhahood. Why is this? When I attain the future Buddha, I immediately attain the equal Dharma of the Buddhas of the three periods. Thus, mutually unfolding and equal to each other, the fruit-virtues of equality without distinction all transform my present self to cause cultivation, the meaning of which is also not absent. Mutually, my present body in its entirety is the tathāgatagarbha Buddha and so forth. My present self is conditioned by my nature-Buddha; it is myself, yet I do not know it, and therefore sorrowing and wondering, I arouse the utmost mind to cultivate, wishing to return from delusion; therefore, that Buddha visualized as transforming me is none other than the Buddha of my own substance, not another Buddha sought from afar. This meaning is extremely correct, a great essential for contemplative practitioners. Furthermore, this nature-Buddha of mine is entirely present in all the dharmadhātu, among sentient and insentient beings, and there is not a single thing that is not the Buddha of my own substance. If one can bow to the Buddha of one's own substance, there is nothing that is not done. This is also extremely essential, and one should constantly contemplate its nature. If one practices and attains such contemplation, at all times and in all places, there is not a single place or single time where the afflictions of the three poisons arise; this is the contemplative expedient for entering the One Vehicle. None of the Buddhas of the three periods has failed to cultivate this practice and attain Buddhahood; it is fully as answered by Xiangxiang. Question: Do all sentient and insentient beings possess Buddha-nature and attain Buddhahood? Answer: It differs according to the teachings. In the Small Vehicle, only the Buddha alone has the Buddha-lineage, and the rest have no lineage. The approach of the Initial Teaching establishes lineage based on conditioned, impermanent dharmas, and therefore it is not pervasive to all. The Final Teaching establishes lineage on the basis of true nature, and therefore all have the nature. The approach of the Sudden Teaching designates only tathatā beyond words and severed from marks as the seed, without distinguishing nature and habituation. In terms of the approach of the One Vehicle, there are two explanations: First, because of subsuming expedients, the lineages explained in all teachings are all fully complete, forming the doctrine as host and companion, because of the Shared Teaching and because of subsuming expedients. Second, based on the profound lineage of the Separate Teaching, cause and fruit are not two, extending across the dependent and proper [retributions], exhausting the three realms, and encompassing all principle, phenomena, understanding, practice, and so forth, as extensively explained in the lower fascicle. Question: Are the possession and lack of lineage taught by these various teachings the principle Buddha-nature or the practice Buddha-nature? Answer: It extends to both. Why are there two Buddha-natures? Because they are two meanings of one substance, as explained in the lower fascicle. Question: According to the approach of the One Vehicle, where both those with nature and those without nature, and both sentient and insentient beings all attain Buddhahood, how does one reconcile the teachings that explain the distinctions among the five lineages? Answer: The lower fascicle states: The treatises themselves have explanations. Thus the Ratnagotravibhāga states: "Regarding what was previously said, that an icchantika lacks the nature of nirvāṇa and does not enter nirvāṇa—what is the meaning of this? It is in order to reveal the cause of slandering the Mahāyāna. What meaning does this clarify? It is in order to turn around the mind that slanders the Mahāyāna, based on an immeasurable duration of time, that this was said. Because this and that [person] truly possess the pure nature," and so forth. Question: If so, one should only establish the indeterminate lineage; why establish [the icchantika] lineage? Answer: Having cultivated and become habituated in the six perfections, when one's stage reaches the stage of competence, the bodhisattva lineage is formed. If one habituates in the practice of the small vehicle and reaches the stage of patience, the śrāvaka lineage is formed. Hence the Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa states: "Heat, summit, patience, and so forth are called the stage of nature; the pratyekabuddha is known by analogy." If one cultivates any one of the three practices but has not reached the original stage, at that time it is established as the indeterminate lineage. If one has completely failed to cultivate the three practices, at that time it is established as having no lineage. Question: What are the four propositions distinguishing lineages? Answer: The Zhongnan Questions and Answers states: There is Buddha-nature that an icchantika has and a person with roots of goodness lacks—this is distinguishing nature in terms of practice. There is Buddha-nature that a person with roots of goodness has and an icchantika lacks—this is distinguishing nature in terms of stage. There is Buddha-nature that both persons have—this is distinguishing nature in terms of cause. There is Buddha-nature that both persons lack—this is distinguishing nature in terms of fruit. Question: The meaning of an icchantika is severing present roots of goodness; by what cause do they have the nature of practicing goodness? Answer: This is spoken in terms of stage. Those whose roots of goodness can be saved in this life have the active nature of goodness. Those whose roots of goodness will arise in another life and cannot be saved at present have the seed of practicing cause. This meaning is not the same as the śrāvaka school; these four stages all possess both the innately acquired and cultivated Buddha-natures. Why so? Because these two natures are both explained at the locus of the pure mind of faith and understanding, and because they are established by depending on each other. The innately acquired and cultivated Buddha-natures are neither beginning, middle, nor end, yet they are grasped as former, middle, and latter. Furthermore, examining the sūtra texts, the tathāgatagarbha was preached for the capacity of direct-progressing bodhisattvas, while Buddha-nature was preached for the capacity of ripe śrāvakas. Although the tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature clarified here are different according to various meanings, they are all the meaning of the One Vehicle of the Shared Teaching. Why so? Because it is to accomplish the universal Dharma, and because it is accomplished by the universal Dharma. Question: Which comes first and which comes later: the lineage abiding in the original nature, or the lineage accomplished through habituation? Answer: They are not fixed as prior and posterior, depending on capacities and conditions. Thus Xiangxiang's Questions and Answers states: Question: Among the four propositions of original existence, production through cultivation, and so forth, there are two propositions: produced through cultivation and originally existent, and originally existent and produced through cultivation; these are precisely the dharma of dependent origination. Not that without original existence there is production through cultivation, nor without production through cultivation is there original existence—these two propositions can be understood as the dharma of causes and conditions. But 'solely originally existent' and 'only produced through cultivation'—are these two propositions the dharma of causes and conditions? If original existence existed without being due to production through cultivation, what difference would there be between that and the meaning of original existence prior to the habituated lineage? The answer says: Because the sage can see what benefits capacities, all four propositions are universally preached. If there are sentient beings of capacity and conditions for whom benefit comes from the nature lineage being prior and the habituated lineage being posterior, then it is preached that original existence is prior and production through cultivation is posterior. If there are sentient beings for whom benefit comes from production through cultivation being prior and original existence being posterior, then it is preached that the nature lineage is posterior and the habituated lineage is prior. It is merely preached in an intermediate way according to capacity; do not see the dharma as definitively having prior and posterior. Because that dharma has no prior and posterior, it aptly corresponds to prior and posterior. Therefore, the preachings of all the sacred teachings are not fixed as prior and posterior. However, those who grasp according to the words determine that original existence is prior to existent dharmas; thus they lose the purport of causes and conditions and contravene its intent, so they are not the same as that person. All other Dharma gates are also like this: one must understand that from which the teaching arises, and also understand the true nature of dharmas.