摩訶止觀 5.97

5.97

如是性者，性以據內，總有三義。一、不改名性，《無行經》稱「不動性」，性即不改義也。又性名「性分」，種類之義，分分不同，各各不可改。又性是實性，實性即理性。極實無過，即佛性異名耳。不動性扶空；種性扶假；實性扶中。今明內性不可改，如竹中火性，雖不可見，不得言無；燧人乾草，遍燒一切。心亦如是，具一切五陰性，雖不可見，不得言無；以智眼觀，具一切性。世間人可笑，以其偏聞判圓經。《涅槃》明「佛知眾生有佛性」，判為極常；《法華》明「佛知一切法如是性」，判為無常。豈可以少知為常，多知為無常？又《法華》云：「佛知一切法，皆是一種一性。」此語亦少，何故判為無常？又有師判「法華十如」，前五如屬凡，是權；後五屬聖，為實。依汝所判，則凡無實，永不得成聖；聖無權，非正遍知。此乃專輒之說，誣佛慢凡耳。又《涅槃》明「一切眾生悉有佛性」，而言是常；《淨名》云「一切眾生即菩提相」，判是無常。若佛性、菩提相異者，可一常、一無常；若不異者，此判大謬。如占者見王相、王性，俱得登極；佛性、菩提相，何故不同？

Regarding "suchness of nature": nature is based on the internal, and has three meanings in total. First, that which does not change is called nature; the Sūtra of No Action refers to the "unmoving nature", and "nature" means unchangeability. Second, nature is called "inherent portion" (xingfen), in the sense of category; part by part they are different, each unchangeable. Third, nature is the true nature; the true nature is the nature of principle. Being utterly real without surpass, it is merely another name for Buddha-nature. The unmoving nature supports emptiness; the lineage-nature supports the provisional; the true nature supports the middle. Here it clarifies that the internal nature cannot be changed: just like the nature of fire within bamboo, although it cannot be seen, one cannot say it does not exist; when a fire-maker applies dry grass, it burns everything entirely. The mind is also like this: possessing all natures of the five aggregates, although they cannot be seen, one cannot say they do not exist; when contemplated with the eye of wisdom, it possesses all natures. Worldly people are ridiculous: on account of their one-sided learning, they judge the perfect sūtras. When the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains that "the Buddha knows sentient beings have Buddha-nature", they judge it to be ultimate permanence; when the Lotus [Sūtra] explains that "the Buddha knows suchness of nature in all dharmas", they judge it to be impermanence. How can knowing little be permanent, while knowing much is impermanent? Furthermore, the Lotus [Sūtra] states: "The Buddha knows all dharmas to be of one seed and one nature." This statement is also brief; why judge it to be impermanent? Furthermore, there are masters who judge the "ten suchnesses of the Lotus": the first five suchnesses belong to ordinary beings and are provisional; the latter five belong to sages and are real. According to your judgment, ordinary beings would have nothing real and could never become sages; sages would have nothing provisional and would not be fully and correctly enlightened. This is merely an arbitrary assertion that slanders the Buddha and disdains ordinary beings. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains that "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature", and they say it is permanent; the Vimalakīrti states that "all sentient beings are themselves the characteristics of bodhi", and they judge it to be impermanent. If Buddha-nature and the characteristics of bodhi were different, one could be permanent and one impermanent; if they are not different, this judgment is a great error. Just as when a diviner sees the characteristics of a king and the nature of a king, both result in ascending the throne; why should Buddha-nature and the characteristics of bodhi be different?