宗鏡錄 80.13

80.13

答。大涅槃經云。正因佛性。眾生心是也。又云佛性者。不名一法。不名十法。不名百法。不名千法。不名萬法。未得菩提時。一切善惡無記。皆名佛性。故知未得菩提時。一切諸法。尚非名數。豈況悟了。更說二三。然雖開合。一性無差。約本末因果。而分多種。佛性論云。佛性有三種。所謂三因。三種佛性。三因者。一應得因。二加行因。三圓滿因。此三因。前一因則以無為如理為體。後二因則以有為願行為體。三種佛性者。應得因中。具有三性。一住自性性。二引出性。三至得果性。此三性復成三藏。一所攝藏。二隱覆藏。三能攝藏。一所攝為藏者。佛說約住自性如如。一切眾生是如來藏。言如者。有二義。一如如智。二如如境。並不倒故名如如。言來者。約從自性來。來至至得。是名如來。故如來性。雖因名應得。果名至得。其體不二。但由清濁有異。在因時為違二空。故起無明。而為煩惱所雜。故名染濁。雖未即顯。必當可現。故名應得。若至果時。與二空合。無復惑累。煩惱不染。說名清淨。果已顯現。故名至得。所言藏者。一切眾生。悉在如來智內。故名為藏。以如如智。稱如如境故。一切眾生。決定無有出如如境者。並為如來之所攝持。故名所藏。眾生。為如來藏。二隱覆為藏者。如來自隱不現。故名為藏。言如來者。有二義。一者現如不顛倒義。由妄想故。名為顛倒。不妄想故。名之為如。二者現常住義。此如性。從住自性性。來至至得。如體不變異故。是常住義。如來性住道前時。為煩惱隱覆。眾生不見。故名為藏。三能攝為藏者。謂果地一切過恒沙數功德。住如來應得性時。攝之已盡。若至果時。方言得性者。此性便是無常。何以故。非如今得。故知本有。是故言常。雖說三因佛性。但是一性。何以故。正因是本有。以眾生不覺。故為客塵所蔽。如金在礦。金體不現。要假其功。方成金用。此正因佛性。亦復如是。在纏不現。處煩惱礦中。須先假了因智慧。知有開發。次藉緣因。方便助顯。方成大用。緣用雖分。體恒一味。不動眾生性。而成佛性矣。以住自性之理。在凡而即真。以引出性之事。成果而不虛。以應得之文。處染而何失。以至得之道。證聖而無疑。又因自性有。故能引出。應得至果。剋證非虛。如大涅槃經云。一闡提等。定當得成。阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故。善男子。譬如有人。家有乳酪。有人問言。汝有酥耶。答言。我有。酪實非酥。以巧方便。定當得故。故言有酥。眾生亦爾。悉皆有心。凡有心者。定當得成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。以是義故。我常宣說。一切眾生。悉有佛性。又經論通明四種佛性。初因性。即染淨緣起。二因因性。即內熏發心。三果性。即始覺已圓。四果果性。即本覺已顯。又初隨緣隱顯。二徵起淨用。三染盡淨圓。四還原顯實。又初自性住性。即正因。二是引出佛性。即了因。三四皆是至得果性。即緣因。又初二因中理智。後二果中理智。因果雖異。智不殊理。契同無二。唯一心轉。絕相離言。無不包融。故名佛性。又涅槃疏云。涅槃正性有五。一正性。非因非因因。非果非果果。二因性。十二因緣。三因因性。十二因緣所生智慧。四果性。三藐三菩提。五果果性。大般涅槃。雖復分別。只是一法。又古釋有三種性。一理性。謂真如。二行性。謂無漏種子。三隱密性。即塵勞之疇。三性隱顯雖分。一體凡聖共有。又約常住隨緣。而分二種佛性。一常住義。經云。其藥本味。停留山中。如常不輕菩薩。敬四眾等。以此佛性。混煩惱而不污。顯菩提。而不淨。以常住不變故。所以菩薩。不敢輕一小眾生。以佛性不壞故。二隨緣義。經云。隨其流處。成種種味。如常慘菩薩。愍四眾等。以真心不守自性。舉體隨緣。而作人法。經云。法身流轉五道。號曰眾生。以眾生隨緣失性。不覺不知。所以菩薩。常生悲慘。又眾生佛性。皆有二義。一是所依佛性。如上二義。一是常住。二是隨緣。二能依雜染。一緣成似有義。二無性即空義。由染法有即空義故。所依佛性。常淨不變也。由染法有似有義故。所依佛性。隨緣成染也。故知以眾生無性即空故。在凡不凡。以法身隨緣故。處聖非聖。又以眾生緣成似有故。聖不是凡。以法身常住不變故。凡不是聖。則真俗一際。染淨恒分。凡聖兩途。生佛無異。如是鎔融。方明一心佛性。

Answer: The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'The Buddha-nature as the direct cause is the mind of sentient beings.' It also says: 'The Buddha-nature is not called one dharma, nor ten dharmas, nor a hundred dharmas, nor a thousand dharmas, nor ten thousand dharmas. When bodhi has not yet been attained, all wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate [states] are called the Buddha-nature.' Thus we know that when bodhi has not yet been attained, all dharmas are not even enumerated by name; how much less, once awakened and realized, would one still speak of two or three! Nevertheless, though there is expansion and contraction, the one nature is without difference. According to root and branch, cause and effect, it is divided into multiple kinds. The Fo xing lun (Treatise on Buddha-nature) states: 'The Buddha-nature has three kinds, namely, three causes and three kinds of Buddha-nature. As for the three causes: first, the cause that should be attained; second, the cause of applied practice; third, the cause of fulfillment. Of these three causes, the former cause takes unconditioned true principle as its substance, while the latter two causes take conditioned aspiration and practice as their substance. As for the three kinds of Buddha-nature: within the cause that should be attained, there are three natures: first, the nature dwelling in its own nature; second, the emerging nature; third, the nature of reaching and attaining the fruit. These three natures further constitute three treasuries (garbha): first, the treasury as what is subsumed; second, the treasury as concealment; third, the treasury as what subsumes. First, as for the treasury as what is subsumed: the Buddha explained that with respect to suchness dwelling in its own nature, all sentient beings are the tathāgatagarbha. The word "tathā" (thusness/suchness) has two meanings: first, suchness-wisdom; second, the suchness-realm. Neither being inverted, it is called "suchness". The word "āgata" (come) means coming from one's own nature, coming all the way to reaching and attaining [the fruit]; this is called the "Tathāgata". Therefore, although the nature of the Tathāgata is called "should be attained" in the cause and "reaching and attaining" in the fruit, its substance is non-dual. It is only due to the difference between purity and defilement: when in the cause, because it runs counter to the two kinds of emptiness, ignorance arises and is mingled with kleśas; hence it is called defiled and turbid. Although it is not immediately revealed, it must certainly be manifestable; hence it is called "should be attained". When reaching the fruit, it accords with the two kinds of emptiness, is no longer burdened by delusion, and is undefiled by kleśas; it is said to be pure. The fruit having already become manifest, it is called "reaching and attaining". As for what is called "treasury": all sentient beings are entirely within the Tathāgata's wisdom; hence it is called a "treasury". Because suchness-wisdom accords with the suchness-realm, definitely no sentient beings go beyond the suchness-realm; all are subsumed and upheld by the Tathāgata. Hence, as what is contained, sentient beings are the tathāgatagarbha. Second, as for the treasury as concealment: the Tathāgata is concealed of itself and not manifest; hence it is called a "treasury". The word "Tathāgata" has two meanings: first, the meaning of manifesting suchness without inversion. By reason of false discrimination, it is called inverted; by absence of false discrimination, it is called suchness. Second, the meaning of manifesting permanence. This nature of suchness comes from the nature dwelling in its own nature all the way to reaching and attaining; because the substance of suchness does not alter or change, it has the meaning of permanence. When the Tathāgata-nature abides prior to the path, it is concealed and covered by kleśas, and sentient beings do not see it; hence it is called a "treasury". Third, as for the treasury as what can subsume: it means that all the merits exceeding the number of sands of the Ganges on the stage of the fruit are completely subsumed when abiding in the Tathāgata's nature that should be attained. If one were to say that the nature is obtained only upon reaching the fruit, then this nature would be impermanent. Why? Because it is not obtained just now, one knows it is fundamentally present; therefore, it is said to be permanent.' Although three causes of Buddha-nature are spoken of, they are only the one nature. Why? The direct cause is fundamentally present; because sentient beings are unawakened, it is covered by adventitious defilements. Like gold in ore, the substance of gold does not show; one must rely on effort before the utility of gold is completed. This Buddha-nature as the direct cause is also like this: being in bondage, it does not show, being situated within the ore of kleśas. One must first rely on the revealing cause of wisdom to know it and open it up, and next depend on auxiliary causes as skillful means to help manifest it; only then is the great function accomplished. Although the auxiliary function is differentiated, the substance is ever of one taste. Without altering the nature of sentient beings, it accomplishes the Buddha-nature. Because the principle dwelling in its own nature is in the ordinary yet identical with the true; because the phenomenon of the emerging nature accomplishes the fruit and is not in vain; because the textual sense of 'should be attained' abides in defilement, yet how could it be lost?; and because the path of reaching and attaining realizes the noble state without doubt. Furthermore, because it exists by its own nature, it can emerge; what should be attained reaches the fruit, and its actual verification is not empty. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'Because icchantikas and the like will definitely attain anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi. Good man, for example, suppose someone has milk and curds in his house, and someone asks him, "Do you have clarified butter?" He answers, "I have it." Curds are not actually clarified butter, but because through skillful means he will definitely obtain it, he says he has clarified butter. Sentient beings are also like this: all have mind. Whoever has mind will definitely attain anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi. For this reason, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature.' Furthermore, the sūtras and treatises generally illuminate four kinds of Buddha-nature: first, the causal nature, which is the dependent origination of defilement and purity; second, the cause-of-cause nature, which is internal perfuming giving rise to the aspiration; third, the fruition nature, which is initial awakening already perfected; fourth, the fruit-of-fruit nature, which is fundamental awakening already revealed. Furthermore, the first conceals and reveals according to conditions; the second summons forth the pure function; the third exhausts defilement and fulfills purity; the fourth returns to the source and reveals reality. Furthermore, the first is the nature dwelling in its own nature, which is the direct cause; the second is the emerging Buddha-nature, which is the revealing cause; the third and fourth are both the nature of reaching and attaining the fruit, which are auxiliary causes. Furthermore, the first two are principle and wisdom in the cause, while the latter two are principle and wisdom in the fruit. Although cause and effect differ, wisdom does not diverge from principle; they tally without duality, revolving as only the one mind, transcending marks and severed from speech, with nothing they do not embrace. Hence it is called Buddha-nature. Furthermore, the Niepan shu (Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra) states: 'The proper nature of nirvāṇa has five kinds: first, the proper nature, which is neither cause nor cause-of-cause, neither fruit nor fruit-of-fruit; second, the causal nature, which is the twelve links of dependent origination; third, the cause-of-cause nature, which is the wisdom produced by the twelve links of dependent origination; fourth, the fruition nature, which is samyaksaṃbodhi; fifth, the fruit-of-fruit nature, which is mahāparinirvāṇa. Although they are distinguished, they are just the one dharma.' Furthermore, ancient commentaries explain that there are three kinds of natures: first, the nature of principle, which is tathatā; second, the nature of practice, which is the untainted seeds; third, the concealed nature, which is the category of worldly dust and toil. Although the hidden and manifest aspects of the three natures are distinguished, their single substance is shared by ordinary beings and sages. Furthermore, in terms of permanence and according with conditions, two kinds of Buddha-nature are distinguished: First, the meaning of permanence. The sūtra says: 'The original taste of the medicine remained in the mountains.' This is like Bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta revering the four assemblies and others: because this Buddha-nature blends with kleśas without being soiled, and reveals bodhi without becoming pure. Because it is permanent and unchanging, the bodhisattva dared not look down on even a single minor sentient being, since the Buddha-nature is indestructible. Second, the meaning of according with conditions. The sūtra says: 'Following where it flows, it becomes various tastes.' This is like Bodhisattva Sadāprarudita grieving for the four assemblies and others: because the true mind does not preserve its own nature, but its entire substance accords with conditions to produce persons and dharmas. The sūtra says: 'The dharmakāya transmigrates through the five destinies, and is called sentient beings.' Because sentient beings accord with conditions and lose their nature, remaining unawakened and unknowing, the bodhisattva constantly gives rise to sorrow and grief. Furthermore, the Buddha-nature of sentient beings in every case has two meanings: first, the Buddha-nature that is the basis, which has the above two meanings—one is permanence, and the second is according with conditions; second, the defilements that depend on it: one is the meaning of seeming existence through conditioned completion, and the second is the meaning of being empty as having no nature. Because defiled dharmas have the meaning of being empty, the Buddha-nature that is their basis is ever pure and unchanging. Because defiled dharmas have the meaning of seeming existence, the Buddha-nature that is their basis accords with conditions and becomes defiled. Therefore, we know that because sentient beings have no nature and are empty, while in the ordinary they are not ordinary; because the dharmakāya accords with conditions, while situated in the sage it is not a sage. Furthermore, because sentient beings have seeming existence through conditioned completion, the sage is not the ordinary; because the dharmakāya is permanent and unchanging, the ordinary is not the sage. Thus, the ultimate and the conventional are of one limit, yet defilement and purity are ever distinct; ordinary and sage are two paths, yet beings and Buddhas are non-different. Only when fused in this manner is the Buddha-nature of the one mind clarified.