Name: Mahāyāna Profound Treatise · Volume 3 (大乘玄论 · 第三)
Author: 吉藏撰

異釋第二。古來相傳釋佛性不同。大有諸師。今正出十一家。以為異解。就十一師皆有名字。今不復據列。直出其義耳。第一家云。以眾生為正因佛性。故經言正因者。謂諸眾生。緣因者謂六波羅蜜。既言正因者。謂諸眾生。故知。以眾生為正因佛性。又言一切眾生悉有佛性。故知。眾生是正因也。第二師以六法為正因佛性。故經云。不即六法不離六法。言六法者。即是五陰及假人也。故知。六法是正因佛性也。第三師以心為正因佛性。故經云。凡有心者。必定當得無上菩提。以心識異乎木石無情之物。研習必得成佛。故知。心是正因佛性也。第四師以冥傳不朽為正因佛性。此釋異前以心為正因。何者。今直明神識有冥傳不朽之性。說此用為正因耳。第五師以避苦求樂為正因佛性。一切眾生。無不有避苦求樂之性。實有此避苦求樂之性。即以此用為正因。然此釋復異前以心為正因之說。今只以避苦求樂之用為正因耳。故經云。若無如來藏者。不得厭苦樂求涅槃。故知。避苦求樂之用為正因佛性也。第六師以真神為正因佛性。若無真神。那得成真佛。故知。真神為正因佛性也。第七師以阿梨耶識自性清淨心。為正因佛性也。第八師以當果為正因佛性。即是當果之理也。第九師以得佛之理為正因佛性也。第十師以真諦為正因佛性也。第十一師以第一義空為正因佛性。故經云。佛性者名第一義空。故知。第一義空為正因佛性也。但河西道朗法師與曇無讖法師。共翻涅槃經。親承三藏作涅槃義疏。釋佛性義正以中道為佛性。爾後諸師。皆依朗法師義疏。得講涅槃乃至釋佛性義。師心自作各執異解。悉皆以涅槃所破之義以為正解。豈非是經中所喻解象之殊哉。雖不離象。無有一人得象者也。是故應須破洗。今一一問義若得立。可得以為正因。義若不成。豈不取邪因為正因耶。大略言有十一家。其間細論更有諸釋。今時無有用者故。不復出之。然十一家。大明不出三意。何者。第一家以眾生為正因。第二以六法為正因。此之兩釋。不出假實二義。明眾生即是假人。六法即是五陰及假人也。次以心為正因。及冥傳不朽避苦求樂及以真神阿梨耶識。此之五解。雖復體用真偽不同。並以心識為正因也。次有當果與得佛理及以真諦第一義空。此四之家。並以理為正因也。今次第須破之。第一師以眾生為正因者。今只問。何者是眾生。而言以此為正因耶。經云。若菩薩有我相人相眾生相則非菩薩。又言。如來說眾生即非眾生。正因本為菩薩。經既說言有眾生相則非菩薩。寧得以眾生為正因耶。故知。有眾生者皆是妄想。何可以妄想顛倒得為正因耶。又若以眾生為正因者。只問。昔日初教已明有眾生不。若初教已明有眾生者。便應初教已明正因佛性。彼釋言。初教已明眾生。但未說為正因耳。若爾後教說眾生為正因者。還指初教眾生以為正因不。若爾初教眾生理中已是正因。若理中已是正因者。則理中已明佛性也。若不可言初教已辨佛性者。云何以眾生為正因耶。又汝引經言一切眾生悉有佛性。故知。眾生是正因佛性者不然。既言眾生有佛性。那得言眾生是佛性耶。若言眾生是佛性者。可得言一切眾生悉有眾生。一切佛性悉有佛性不。若不得者。故知。眾生與佛性有異。不得言眾生是佛性也。又難第二家。經云。佛性者不即六法不離六法者。言此是何語而橫引之此文乃明佛性。非是即六法。復非是離六法。何時明六法是佛性耶。若言不離六法故六法是佛性者。復言不即六法故六法非是佛性。此語若為得通。明知。以不解讀經故。所以致謬耳。次問中有五家。雖復五解言異或體或用。而皆是心家體用。前第三家。以心為正因佛性者不然。經云。有心必得菩提者。此明有心之者必得菩提。何時言心是正因佛性耶。于時畏有如此謬故。即下經云。心是無常佛性常。故心非佛性也。經既分明。言心非佛性而強言是者。豈非與佛共諍耶。心既不成。心家諸用冥傳不朽避苦求樂等。悉皆同壞也。大涅槃經。處處皆明佛性。是故時人解佛性者。盡引涅槃為證。何處文辨冥傳不朽避苦求樂為正因佛性耶。勝鬘經云。若無如來藏者。不得厭苦樂求涅槃者。此正明由如來藏佛性力故。所以眾生得厭苦求樂。何時明厭苦求樂是正因佛性耶。彼師云。指當果為如來藏。以有當果如來藏故。所以眾生得厭苦求樂者不然。性品云。我者即是如來藏。如來藏者即是佛性。明佛性本來有之如貧女寶藏。何勞指當果為如來藏。且當果體。猶尚未有而能令眾生厭苦求樂。豈非是漫語者哉。若據人證者。舊來誰作如此釋。此是光澤法師。一時推畫。作如此解。經無證句。非師所傳故不可用也。乃至第八阿梨耶識。亦非佛性故。攝大乘論。云是無明母生死根本。故知。六識七識乃至八九。設使百千無量諸識皆非佛性。何以故皆是有所得五眼所不見。故次有第三四家。並以理為正因佛性。而不無小異。前之兩家。以當果與得佛之理為正因佛性者。彼言。是世諦之理。次有兩家。以真諦與第一義空為正因佛性者。此是真諦之理也。以第一義空為正因佛性者。此是北地摩訶衍師所用。今問。若依涅槃文。以第一義空為佛性者。下文即言空者。不見空與不空名為佛性。故知。以中道為佛性。不以空為佛性也。真諦為佛性者。此是和法師小亮法師所用。問真諦為佛性。何經所出。承習是誰。無有師資亦無證句。故不可用也。當果為正因佛性。此是古舊諸師多用此義。此是始有義。若是始有。即是作法。作法無常。非佛性也。得佛理為佛性者。此是零根僧正所用。此義最長。然闕無師資相傳。學問之體。要須依師承習。今問。以得佛理為正因佛性者。何經所明。承習是誰。其師既以心為正因佛性。而弟子以得佛理為正因佛性者。豈非背師自作推畫耶。故不可用也。通論十一家。皆計得佛之理。今總破得佛之理。義通十一解。事既廣。宜作三重破之。第一作有無破。只問。得佛之理。為當有此理為當是無。若言是有。有已成事。非謂為理。若言是無。無即無理。即墮二邊不得言理也。第二作三時破。只問。得佛之理。為是已理為是未理為是理時有理。若言已理。則理已不用。無復有理。若言未理。未理故未有。若言理時有理者。若法已成則是已。若法未有則墮未。故無別第三法稱為理也。第三即離破。只問。得佛之理。為當即空為當離空。若言即空者。則早已是空。無復有理。若言離空有此理者。空不可離。豈得離空而言有理。又離空而有理者。則成二見。經云。諸有二者。無道無果。豈可以二見顛倒為正因耶。作此三條推求不可得。非唯四家義壞。通十一計皆碎也。問破他可爾。今時何者為正因耶。答一往對他則須併反。彼悉言有。今則皆無。彼以眾生為正因。今以非眾生為正因。彼以六法為正因。今以非六法為正因。乃至以真諦為正因。今以非真諦為正因。若以俗諦為正因。今以非俗諦為正因。故云非真非俗中道為正因佛性也。以藥治病則須此說。對他雖爾。又須橫竪論之。故此非眾生義有淺有深橫論為藥。則如向辨。竪則望道。只非眾生等即是正因。若言是是非是。亦何者非眾生而說眾生乎。但非眾生而說眾生。此之眾生豈可言其是有。豈可言其是無。豈可言其是亦有亦無非有非無耶。若識此眾生者。何為問非正因。乃至六法真諦義亦如此。若徹了深悟。此則正因佛性義已具足。前是橫論一重。此復是竪論一重。便成兩重論正因義也。

Alternative Explanation Two. Since ancient times, explanations of Buddha-nature have varied widely, with many masters offering their own views. Here I present eleven schools of thought as differing interpretations. All eleven masters have names, but I will not list them individually—I will simply state their positions directly.

The first school says that sentient beings are the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Thus the sutra says: "The primary cause refers to all sentient beings; the contributing causes refer to the six paramitas." Since it says the primary cause is all sentient beings, we know that sentient beings are the primary cause of Buddha-nature. It also says "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature," so we know sentient beings are the primary cause.

The second school takes the six dharmas as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Thus the sutra says: "It is not identical to the six dharmas, nor separate from the six dharmas." The six dharmas refer to the five aggregates and the conventional person. Therefore, the six dharmas are the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The third school takes the mind as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Thus the sutra says: "All who have minds will certainly attain supreme enlightenment." Because the mind-consciousness differs from wood, stone, and other insentient things, cultivating it will surely lead to Buddhahood. Therefore, the mind is the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The fourth school takes the imperishable transmission of consciousness as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. This differs from the previous view that takes the mind as the primary cause. Here, the point is simply that consciousness has the nature of imperishable transmission, and this function itself is taken as the primary cause.

The fifth school takes the aversion to suffering and seeking happiness as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. All sentient beings possess this nature of avoiding suffering and seeking joy. Since this nature truly exists, this function is taken as the primary cause. This explanation again differs from the mind-based view, because here only the function of avoiding suffering and seeking happiness is taken as the primary cause. Thus the sutra says: "If there were no Tathāgatagarbha, one could not tire of suffering and seek nirvāṇa." Therefore, the function of avoiding suffering and seeking happiness is the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The sixth school takes the true spirit as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Without the true spirit, how could one become a true Buddha? Therefore, the true spirit is the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The seventh school takes the ālaya-consciousness, the inherently pure mind, as the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The eighth school takes the future result as the primary cause of Buddha-nature—that is, the principle of the future fruit.

The ninth school takes the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The tenth school takes ultimate truth as the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

The eleventh school takes the emptiness of the first meaning as the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Thus the sutra says: "Buddha-nature is called the emptiness of the first meaning." Therefore, the emptiness of the first meaning is the primary cause of Buddha-nature.

However, when the monks Daolang of Hexi and Dharmakṣema together translated the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, they personally received instruction from the Tripiṭaka master and composed a commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. In explaining Buddha-nature, they took the Middle Way as Buddha-nature. Later masters all relied on Master Lang's commentary for lecturing on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and explaining Buddha-nature. Yet each followed their own mind and clung to different interpretations, all taking what the Nirvāṇa Sūtra actually refutes as their correct understanding. Is this not like the parable in the sutra of the blind men touching the elephant? Though none left the elephant, not one of them actually grasped the elephant. Therefore, these views must be refuted and cleansed. I will now question each view—if it can stand, it may be accepted as the primary cause; if it fails, would that not mean taking a wrong cause as the primary cause?

Broadly speaking, there are eleven schools, and in more detailed discussion there are other explanations, but since none are currently in use, I will not present them. However, these eleven schools can be broadly grouped into three categories. What are they? The first school takes sentient beings as the primary cause; the second takes the six dharmas. These two explanations do not go beyond the distinction between conventional and real—sentient beings are the conventional person, and the six dharmas are the five aggregates plus the conventional person.

Next, the schools taking the mind as the primary cause, along with imperishable transmission, avoiding suffering and seeking happiness, the true spirit, and the ālaya-consciousness—these five explanations, though differing in substance or function, real or false, all take mind-consciousness as the primary cause.

Then there are the schools of the future result, the principle of attaining Buddhahood, ultimate truth, and the emptiness of the first meaning—these four all take principle as the primary cause.

Now I will refute them in order. Regarding the first school, which takes sentient beings as the primary cause: I simply ask, what are sentient beings, that you would take them as the primary cause? The sutra says: "If a bodhisattva has the marks of self, person, or sentient being, then he is not a bodhisattva." It also says: "The Tathāgata says sentient beings are not sentient beings." The primary cause is meant for bodhisattvas. Since the sutra says that having the mark of sentient beings means one is not a bodhisattva, how can sentient beings be the primary cause? Therefore, all notions of sentient beings are delusions—how can deluded, inverted thoughts serve as the primary cause?

Moreover, if sentient beings are the primary cause, I ask: did the earlier teachings already acknowledge sentient beings? If the earlier teachings already acknowledged sentient beings, then they should have already taught the primary cause of Buddha-nature. Their reply would be: the earlier teachings acknowledged sentient beings but did not yet call them the primary cause. If so, when the later teachings call sentient beings the primary cause, are they referring to the same sentient beings from the earlier teachings? If so, then in principle sentient beings were already the primary cause in the earlier teachings. And if in principle they were already the primary cause, then in principle Buddha-nature was already taught. But if they cannot say the earlier teachings already explained Buddha-nature, then how can sentient beings be the primary cause?

Furthermore, your citation of the sutra saying "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature" to prove that sentient beings are the primary cause of Buddha-nature is incorrect. Since it says sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, how can you say sentient beings are Buddha-nature? If sentient beings are Buddha-nature, can you also say all sentient beings possess sentient beings, and all Buddha-natures possess Buddha-nature? If not, then sentient beings and Buddha-nature are distinct—you cannot say sentient beings are Buddha-nature.

Now I refute the second school. The sutra says "Buddha-nature is neither identical to the six dharmas nor separate from the six dharmas." What kind of passage is this that you cite carelessly? This passage clarifies that Buddha-nature is not the six dharmas nor separate from them. When did it say the six dharmas are Buddha-nature? If you argue that because it is not separate from the six dharmas, the six dharmas are Buddha-nature, then conversely, because it is not identical to the six dharmas, the six dharmas are not Buddha-nature. How can this be reconciled? Clearly, it is a misunderstanding of the sutra that leads to this error.

Next I question the five schools in the middle. Though the five explanations differ—some speaking of substance, some of function—they all concern the substance and function of mind. The third school, taking the mind as the primary cause of Buddha-nature, is incorrect. The sutra says "those with minds will certainly attain enlightenment"—this means those who have minds will attain enlightenment. When did it say the mind is the primary cause of Buddha-nature? Fearing such a misunderstanding, the sutra immediately states: "The mind is impermanent; Buddha-nature is eternal. Therefore, the mind is not Buddha-nature." Since the sutra clearly states that the mind is not Buddha-nature, to insist otherwise is to argue with the Buddha himself. Since the mind fails, all its functions—imperishable transmission, avoiding suffering and seeking happiness, and so forth—are destroyed along with it.

The Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains Buddha-nature everywhere, which is why people explaining Buddha-nature all cite it as evidence. But where in the text does it say that imperishable transmission or avoiding suffering and seeking happiness is the primary cause of Buddha-nature? The Śrīmālā Sūtra says: "If there were no Tathāgatagarbha, one could not tire of suffering and seek nirvāṇa." This simply means that because of the power of the Tathāgatagarbha Buddha-nature, sentient beings can tire of suffering and seek happiness. When did it say that tiring of suffering and seeking happiness is the primary cause of Buddha-nature?

That master says: "The future result is the Tathāgatagarbha. Because the future-result Tathāgatagarbha exists, sentient beings can tire of suffering and seek happiness." This is incorrect. The chapter on the nature says: "The self is the Tathāgatagarbha; the Tathāgatagarbha is Buddha-nature." This makes clear that Buddha-nature is originally present, like the poor woman's hidden treasure. Why drag in the future result as the Tathāgatagarbha? Moreover, the future result does not yet exist at all—how could it cause sentient beings to tire of suffering and seek happiness? Is this not empty talk? As for textual authority, who in the past ever made such an interpretation? This is a fabrication by Master Guangze, devised on his own. There is no scriptural support, and it is not from the tradition—so it cannot be used.

As for the eighth school's ālaya-consciousness, it is also not Buddha-nature. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says it is the mother of ignorance and the root of birth and death. Therefore, the six consciousnesses, seven, eight, or even hundreds of thousands of countless consciousnesses—none are Buddha-nature. Why? Because they are all forms of grasping, invisible to the five eyes.

Now for the four schools in the latter group, which all take principle as the primary cause of Buddha-nature—though with minor differences. The earlier two of these take the future result and the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the primary cause, calling this the principle of conventional truth. The latter two take ultimate truth and the emptiness of the first meaning as the primary cause, calling this the principle of ultimate truth.

The view taking the emptiness of the first meaning as the primary cause of Buddha-nature is used by the Mahāyāna masters of the northern region. I ask: if you rely on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's statement that the emptiness of the first meaning is Buddha-nature, the text immediately clarifies: "Emptiness means not seeing emptiness or non-emptiness—this is called Buddha-nature." Therefore, the Middle Way is Buddha-nature, not emptiness itself.

The view taking ultimate truth as Buddha-nature is used by Master He and Master Xiaoliang. I ask: what scriptural source establishes ultimate truth as Buddha-nature? Who is the teacher in this lineage? There is no teacher-student transmission and no scriptural evidence—so it cannot be used.

The view taking the future result as the primary cause of Buddha-nature was commonly used by many ancient masters. This is the doctrine of "having beginning." But if something has a beginning, it is a product of conditions. What is produced by conditions is impermanent—and impermanence is not Buddha-nature.

The view taking the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the primary cause is used by the monastic chief of Linggen. This view is the most developed, but it lacks teacher-student transmission. The proper method of study requires reliance on a teacher. I ask: what sutra supports the principle of attaining Buddhahood as the primary cause? Who is the teacher in this line? His teacher took the mind as the primary cause of Buddha-nature, but the disciple took the principle of attaining Buddhahood—is this not turning against the teacher and inventing one's own view? Therefore, it cannot be used.

Speaking generally of all eleven schools, they all posit a principle of attaining Buddhahood. Now I will refute the principle of attaining Buddhahood, which applies across all eleven interpretations. Since the matter is broad, I will use three levels of refutation.

First, refutation through existence and non-existence. I simply ask: does the principle of attaining Buddhahood exist or not? If you say it exists, then existence is already an accomplished fact—it is no longer a mere principle. If you say it does not exist, then non-existence means no principle. Either way, you fall into one of the two extremes and cannot claim there is a principle.

Second, refutation through the three times. I ask: is the principle of attaining Buddhahood a past principle, a future principle, or a present principle? If you say it is already a past principle, then the principle is no longer needed—there is no principle left. If you say it is a future principle, then being future, it does not yet exist. If you say it is a present principle, then if the thing is already accomplished, it is past; if it does not yet exist, it falls into the future. There is no third thing to call a principle.

Third, refutation through identity and separation. I ask: is the principle of attaining Buddhahood identical to emptiness or separate from emptiness? If you say it is identical to emptiness, then it is already emptiness—there is no principle. If you say it is separate from emptiness, emptiness cannot be separated from—how can you claim a principle apart from emptiness? Moreover, if there is a principle separate from emptiness, that constitutes a dualistic view. The sutra says: "All who hold duality have no path and no fruit." How can the inverted view of duality be the primary cause?

Having investigated through these three lines of inquiry and found nothing, not only are the four schools destroyed, but all eleven positions are shattered as well.

Question: It is fine to refute others, but what is the primary cause in the present teaching?

Answer: As a first approximation, in opposition to them, we must reverse all their claims. They all say "exists"; we say "does not exist." They take sentient beings as the primary cause; we take non-sentient beings as the primary cause. They take the six dharmas as the primary cause; we take non-six-dharmas as the primary cause. Even regarding ultimate truth as the primary cause, we take non-ultimate-truth as the primary cause. If they take conventional truth as the primary cause, we take non-conventional truth as the primary cause. Therefore it is said: the Middle Way of neither truth nor non-truth is the primary cause of Buddha-nature. This is like using medicine to cure illness—such a statement is needed.

Though this is the response to others, we must also discuss it both horizontally and vertically. The meaning of "non-sentient beings" has both shallow and deep levels. Horizontally, it serves as medicine, as just discussed. Vertically, it points toward the path. This very "non-sentient beings" is the primary cause. If one speaks of it as "this is" or "this is not," what is this? It is called "sentient beings" only in a conventional sense. But this conventional designation of sentient beings—can it be said to exist? Can it be said not to exist? Can it be said both to exist and not exist, or neither to exist nor not exist? If one recognizes the true nature of this "sentient being," why ask whether it is the primary cause? The same applies to the six dharmas and ultimate truth. If one thoroughly penetrates and deeply awakens to this, the meaning of the primary cause of Buddha-nature is already complete. The former discussion is the horizontal level; this is the vertical level—together they form two levels of discussing the primary cause.

尋經第三。既識佛性。應須遍讀眾經。由來舊辨阿含經中亦明佛性。但有小妨耳。故云。一切眾生悉有聲聞性。悉有辟支佛性。悉有佛性。阿含既爾。其餘諸經。亦有說佛性語。但不甚分明。如是眾經明佛性。亦復何嫌。故新金光明經云。若了義說是身。即是大乘。即如來藏。即如來性也。華嚴經云。菩薩隨喜心不斷如來性又言。欲不斷佛種性者。當發菩提心。又華嚴性起品。即是明佛性義。從寶王如來性。而起離世間因。得入法界果。結前因果。生後因果。故華嚴明佛性有因有果。而未作正因緣因之名。亦未作果與果果之秤。至如具足明佛性義。即如涅槃中所辨。故具明有因有因因有果有果果。今時一師每以涅槃經為證。然此一教處處皆明佛性。故哀歎品中瑠璃珠喻。亦是具足明佛性義。如是如來性品皆明佛性義。乃至師子吼迦葉廣明佛性事。義乃顯然。故一師所引文句。以師子吼文為正也。故師子吼菩薩問言。云何為佛性。以何義故名為佛性。如是凡有五問佛性。如來次第答。答第一問言。善男子汝問云何為佛性者。善男子佛性者。名第一義空。第一義空名為智慧。斯則一往第一義空以為佛性。又言第一義空名為智慧。豈不異由來義耶。今只說境為智。說智為境。復云。所言空者。不見空與不空。對此為言。亦應云。所言智者。不見智與不智。即不見空除空。不見不空除不空。除智又除不智。遠離二邊名聖中道。又言。如是二見不名中道。無常無斷乃名中道。此豈非以中道為佛性耶。是以除不空則離常邊。又除於空即離斷邊。不見智與不智義亦如是。故以中道為佛性。是以文云佛性者。即是三菩提中道種子也。是故今明。第一義空名為佛性。不見空與不空。不見智與不智。無常無斷名為中道。只以此為中道佛性也。若以此足前十一師。則成第十二解。然若識正道知。道無有一。豈復有二釋於其間哉。而言第一義空為佛性者。非是由來所辨第一義空。彼明第一義空但境而非智。斯是偏道。今言智慧。亦非由來所明之智慧。彼明智慧但智而非境。斯亦是偏道義。非謂中道也。但中道義難識。具如二諦中辨。非中非邊不住中邊。中邊平等假名為中。若了如是中道。則識佛性。若了今之佛性。亦識彼之中道。若了中道。即了第一義空。若了第一義空。即了智慧。了智慧即了金光明諸佛行處。若了金光明諸佛行處。則了此經云光明者名為智慧。若了智慧即了佛性。若了佛性即了涅槃也。

**Chapter Three: Seeking the Scriptures**

Once you have recognized your Buddha-nature, you should then read widely across all the scriptures. It has long been noted that the Āgama scriptures also discuss Buddha-nature, though with some limitations. They say that all beings possess the nature of a voice-hearer, possess the nature of a pratyekabuddha, and possess Buddha-nature. Since the Āgamas say this, other scriptures also mention Buddha-nature, though not always with full clarity. So what fault could there be in these many scriptures explaining Buddha-nature?

For instance, the new *Golden Light Sūtra* says: "When spoken in its ultimate meaning, this body is itself the Great Vehicle, is itself the Tathāgata-garbha, is itself the nature of the Tathāgata."

The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* says: "The Bodhisattva, with a joyful mind, never cuts off the nature of the Tathāgata." It also says: "Those who wish not to cut off the lineage of the Buddha should arouse the mind of enlightenment."

Furthermore, the "Chapter on the Arising of Nature" in the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* directly addresses the meaning of Buddha-nature. From the nature of the Jewel King Tathāgata, one arises into causes that transcend the mundane world, and thereby enters the fruit of the Dharma-realm. This ties together the earlier causes and effects, and gives rise to later ones. Thus, the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* clarifies that Buddha-nature has both cause and effect, though it does not yet use the terms "direct cause" and "contributing cause," nor does it distinguish between "fruit" and "fruit of the fruit."

For a complete explanation of Buddha-nature, one must turn to the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, which fully sets out the teaching of cause, cause of cause, fruit, and fruit of fruit. One particular teacher today always cites the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* as evidence, and indeed this single teaching explains Buddha-nature throughout. For example, the simile of the lapis lazuli bead in the "Chapter of Lamentation" is a complete exposition of Buddha-nature. Likewise, the "Chapter on the Nature of the Tathāgata" explains Buddha-nature, and the chapters on Lion's Roar and Kāśyapa expand on this matter at length, making the meaning perfectly clear.

Thus, the teacher's cited passages take the Lion's Roar chapter as authoritative. In that chapter, the Bodhisattva Lion's Roar asks: "What is Buddha-nature? By what meaning is it called Buddha-nature?" In total, there are five such questions about Buddha-nature, and the Tathāgata answers them in order.

In answering the first question, he says: "Good man, you ask what Buddha-nature is. Good man, Buddha-nature is called the ultimate emptiness of the first principle. This ultimate emptiness of the first principle is called wisdom."

This is one way of saying that the ultimate emptiness of the first principle is Buddha-nature. But then it also says that this emptiness is called wisdom—does this not differ from previous interpretations? Here, we are simply calling the object wisdom, and calling wisdom the object. It further says: "What is called emptiness means not seeing emptiness and not seeing non-emptiness."

In response to this, we should likewise say: "What is called wisdom means not seeing wisdom and not seeing non-wisdom." That is, not seeing emptiness eliminates emptiness, and not seeing non-emptiness eliminates non-emptiness. Likewise, eliminating wisdom and eliminating non-wisdom—departing from both extremes is called the sacred Middle Way.

It also says: "These two views are not called the Middle Way. It is neither impermanence nor annihilation that is called the Middle Way." Is this not making the Middle Way itself the Buddha-nature?

Therefore, eliminating non-emptiness departs from the extreme of permanence; eliminating emptiness departs from the extreme of annihilation. The meaning of not seeing wisdom and non-wisdom is the same. Hence, the Middle Way is Buddha-nature. This is why the text says: "Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way of the three enlightenments."

Thus, we now state: The ultimate emptiness of the first principle is called Buddha-nature—not seeing emptiness or non-emptiness, not seeing wisdom or non-wisdom, neither impermanent nor annihilated—this is called the Middle Way. This alone is the Buddha-nature of the Middle Way.

If we add this to the previous eleven teachers' interpretations, it becomes a twelfth understanding. Yet if one truly recognizes the right path and knows that the Way has no fixed unity, how could there be two interpretations in between?

When we say that the ultimate emptiness of the first principle is Buddha-nature, this is not the same as what previous teachers meant by that phrase. They understood it as object only, not wisdom—a one-sided path. And when we speak of wisdom, neither is this the wisdom previous teachers spoke of. They understood wisdom as wisdom only, not object—also a one-sided path, not the Middle Way.

The meaning of the Middle Way is difficult to grasp, as fully explained in the discussion of the two truths. It is neither middle nor extreme, not dwelling in either. Middle and extreme are treated as equal, and only conventionally is it called "middle." If you understand the Middle Way in this sense, you recognize Buddha-nature. If you recognize Buddha-nature in this present sense, you also understand that Middle Way. If you understand the Middle Way, you understand the ultimate emptiness of the first principle. If you understand that emptiness, you understand wisdom. Understanding wisdom, you understand the sphere of practice of all Buddhas as taught in the *Golden Light Sūtra*. And understanding that sphere, you understand this sūtra's statement: "Light is called wisdom." Understanding wisdom, you understand Buddha-nature. And understanding Buddha-nature, you understand Nirvāṇa.

簡正因第四。但正因難識。今作兩種檢之。一作車輪明義。無始終檢。二作三世明義。有始終檢也。無始終義。即如涅槃云。十二因緣不生不滅不一不二不常不斷不來不去不因不果。又言。佛性者。有因有因因。有果有果果也。是以無始終義。作四句明之。所言因者。即是境界因。謂十二因緣也。所言因因者。即是緣因。謂十二因緣所生觀智也。境界已是因。此之觀智。因因而有故名因因。好體十二因緣。應是因因而有故名因因。彼向望前。此即望後。皆是因因也。所言果者。即三菩提。由因而得故名為果。所言果果者。即是大般涅槃。由菩提故。得說涅槃以為果果。菩提即是智。涅槃即是斷。由智故說斷也。此是無始終義。何者。如所生觀智因因而有故名因因。十二因緣。亦因因而有。又是因因。既互為因與因因故。是無始終也。第二作三世有始終檢者。凡有三句。一者是因非果。即是境界因。故經言。是因非果如佛性。二者是果非因。即是果果性。故經言。是果非因名大涅槃。三者是因是果。即如了因及三菩提。斯即亦因亦果。望後為因。望前為果。既言境界是因非果涅槃是果非因。所以名為有始終義。問先明四句後說三句。有正因不。答未有正因。問若前明四句後說三句。既並非正因者未知。何者為正因耶。答前四句所明因果。因是傍因果是傍果義。所以然者。因則異果。果則異因。豈非是傍義。故先言有因有因因有果有果果。皆未是正因。若言非因非果。乃是正因耳。後說三句。是因非果是果非因是因是果。皆未名正若言非因非果。此乃是正。故經云。非因非果名為佛性也。故於四句中。更足第五句。方是正因。於三句中。更足第四句。方是正因。所以佛性非因非果。而說因說果。不因而因。開境智故有二因。謂因與因因也。不果而果。開智斷故有二果。謂果與果果。至論正因。豈是因果。故非因非果。即是中道名為正因。故以中道為正因佛性。故經云。佛性是三菩提中道種子也。所以佛性即是中道種子。亦可。得以中道因為正種子也。若單道義者。此中應須眼見師子吼文也。然先言正因佛性。非因而因故有二因。謂境了二因。非果而果故有二果謂菩提與涅槃。今此二因二果。並非正因。由非因非果正因故。有此因果。所以此二因二果。並皆是傍。若非因非果乃是正因。故若緣若了並非正因。非緣非了乃是正因。若菩提涅槃並非正果。非菩提非涅槃乃是正果也。問若爾則成六種佛性。何者因中有緣因了因。復有正因。豈非三因。果有菩提涅槃則成二果。復有非菩提非涅槃名為正果。豈非六種佛性耶。答亦得六種佛性。今則不爾。所以然者。但因中名為佛性。至果便成性佛。故在因但名為非因。在果則名為非果。只是一箇非因非果。而今為辨佛性。故經為正因。所以但有五性不為六性也。

Now I will explain the fourth section, the True Cause. But the True Cause is difficult to recognize. Therefore, I will examine it in two ways. First, I will explain its meaning through the analogy of a wheel, which has no beginning or end. Second, I will explain its meaning through the three periods of time, which has a beginning and an end.

**The Meaning of No Beginning or End:** As the Nirvana Sutra says, "The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are neither arising nor ceasing, neither one nor different, neither permanent nor annihilated, neither coming nor going, neither cause nor effect." It also says, "The Buddha-nature has causes and causes of causes, and has fruits and fruits of fruits." Therefore, the meaning of no beginning or end is explained in four statements:

- What is called "cause" refers to the environmental cause (the realm of conditions), namely, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. - What is called "cause of cause" refers to the contributory cause, namely, the contemplative wisdom that arises from the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination.

Since the environment is already a cause, this contemplative wisdom arises because of a cause—hence it is called the "cause of cause." However, the good nature of the Twelve Links themselves should also be seen as arising because of a cause of cause. From the earlier perspective, this is looking forward; from the later perspective, this is looking backward. Both are cases of "cause of cause."

- What is called "fruit" refers to the three kinds of Enlightenment (the enlightenment of disciples, solitary realizers, and Buddhas), which is obtained because of the cause—hence called "fruit." - What is called "fruit of fruit" refers to Great Nirvana. Because of enlightenment, one speaks of Nirvana as the "fruit of fruit." Enlightenment is wisdom, and Nirvana is the cessation. Because of wisdom, cessation is explained.

This is the meaning of no beginning or end. Why? Just as the contemplative wisdom that arises is called "cause of cause" because it arises from a cause, so too the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination also arise from a cause of cause and are themselves a cause of cause. Since both serve as each other's cause and cause of cause, there is no beginning or end.

**Second, the Examination Through the Three Periods of Time with a Beginning and End:** This has three statements:

1. **That which is cause, not fruit:** This refers to the environmental cause. As the scripture says, "This is a cause, not a fruit, like the Buddha-nature." 2. **That which is fruit, not cause:** This refers to the nature of the fruit of fruit. As the scripture says, "This is a fruit, not a cause, called Great Nirvana." 3. **That which is both cause and fruit:** This refers to the understanding cause and the three kinds of Enlightenment. These are both cause and fruit—looking forward, they are cause; looking backward, they are fruit.

Since it is said that the environment is a cause without being a fruit, and Nirvana is a fruit without being a cause, this is called the meaning of having a beginning and an end.

**Question:** In the earlier explanation, there were four statements, and in the later, three statements. Does this establish the True Cause?

**Answer:** This does not yet establish the True Cause.

**Question:** If the earlier four statements and the later three statements are both not the True Cause, then what is the True Cause?

**Answer:** In the earlier four statements, what is explained as cause and fruit—the cause is a secondary cause, and the fruit is a secondary fruit. Why is this so? Because here, cause differs from fruit, and fruit differs from cause. Isn't this secondary meaning? Therefore, the first explanation says "there are causes and causes of causes, fruits and fruits of fruits"—none of these are yet the True Cause. If spoken of as "neither cause nor fruit," then this is the True Cause.

Similarly, in the later three statements—"cause not fruit, fruit not cause, both cause and fruit"—none of these are called True. Only if spoken of as "neither cause nor fruit" is this True. Therefore, the scripture says, "Neither cause nor fruit is called the Buddha-nature." Hence, in the four statements, adding a fifth statement is what establishes the True Cause. In the three statements, adding a fourth statement is what establishes the True Cause.

This is why the Buddha-nature is neither cause nor fruit, yet we speak of cause and fruit. Not being cause, it appears as cause, distinguishing the environment and wisdom into two causes—the cause and the cause of cause. Not being fruit, it appears as fruit, distinguishing wisdom and cessation into two fruits—the fruit and the fruit of fruit. But ultimately, the True Cause is not cause and not fruit, for "neither cause nor fruit" is the Middle Way, which is called the True Cause. Thus, the Middle Way is the True Cause of Buddha-nature. This is why the scripture says, "The Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way among the three Enlightenments."

Therefore, the Buddha-nature is the seed of the Middle Way. One may also say that the cause of the Middle Way is the true seed.

If discussing only the "Path" meaning, one should directly see the text of the Lion's Roar chapter here.

Now, first of all, the True Cause is the Buddha-nature. Not being a cause, it appears as cause, hence there are two causes—the environmental cause and the understanding cause. Not being a fruit, it appears as a fruit, hence there are two fruits—Enlightenment and Nirvana. These two causes and two fruits are not the True Cause. It is because of the True Cause [which is neither cause nor fruit] that these causes and fruits exist. Thus, these two causes and two fruits are all secondary. Only what is neither cause nor fruit is the True Cause. Therefore, both the conditional cause and the understanding cause are not the True Cause. What is neither conditional nor understanding is the True Cause. Likewise, both Enlightenment and Nirvana are not the True Fruits. What is neither Enlightenment nor Nirvana is the True Fruit.

**Question:** If so, would this make six kinds of Buddha-nature? Why? Among the causes, there are the conditional cause, the understanding cause, and the True Cause—wouldn't that make three causes? Among the fruits, there are Enlightenment and Nirvana, making two fruits. And then there is what is neither Enlightenment nor Nirvana, called the True Fruit. Wouldn't that make six kinds of Buddha-nature?

**Answer:** One could also speak of six kinds of Buddha-nature, but in the present case, it is not so. Why? Because within the cause, we call it "Buddha-nature," but when reaching the fruit, it becomes "the nature that is Buddha." So, in the cause, it is only called "neither cause," and in the fruit, it is called "neither fruit." It is a single "neither cause nor fruit." Now, to distinguish this Buddha-nature, the scripture explains it as the True Cause. Therefore, there are only five natures and not six.

釋名第五。釋名有二種。先釋通名次釋別名。通名不同有三家。第一解云。佛性兩字皆是果名。佛名覺者。此故宜非因。性以不改為義。果體既常。所以不改也。因中暗識故非覺者。既其遷改不得名性。但眾生必有當得此佛性之理。故言悉有佛性也。第二師釋。佛性者此是因中。難第一家云。經既言一切眾生悉有佛性。云何言因中無有此名。因中眾生。有覺義故是佛。有必當之理不改名性也。第三家分字解釋。佛是果名。性是因名。還舉第一家為難。眾生愚暗癡惑耳。然未有智慧。若有覺法。可許佛覺。而即眾生都無有覺。云何言眾生是佛。乃研生死小智。終成果地大覺。其果始名為佛。故佛是果名。但眾生必當得。此之理不改故名為性。性只是理。所以性是因中也。然此三說。今並不用。皆須洗之。還以三家義自相難破也。問今義云何。為當在因為當在果為當在因果耶。答今時明義。無在無不在。故云無在無不在。佛所說也。只以如此義故名為佛性。雖無在無不在。而說在說不在者。佛性在因性佛在果。故果因名佛性。因果名性佛。此是不二二義。不二二故二則非二。故云二不二是體不二二是用。以體為用。以用為體。體用平等不二中道。方是佛性。一切諸師。釋佛性義。或言佛性是因非果。或言是果非因。此是因果二義非佛性也。故經云。凡有二者皆是邪見。故知。一切諸師。不知佛性。各執一邊。是非諍論。失佛性也。若知因果平等不二。方乃得稱名為佛性。故經云非因非果名為佛性也。佛性既爾。涅槃亦然。若知生死涅槃平等不二。此乃得稱名為涅槃。故經云。佛知一切眾生畢竟寂滅。是涅槃相。不復更滅也。次釋別名。先言正因佛性非因非果。非因而因故有二因。謂境界因與了因。非果而果故有二果。謂菩提與涅槃也。言境界因者。即是十二因緣能生觀智。以是觀智境界故名境界因。以能生觀智之前緣故。亦名緣因。言了因者。觀智能了出佛果故名了因。既了出佛果之緣因故。有時呼了因以為緣因也。菩提者此言正遍知道。是從智為名。涅槃者。此言寂滅。是則從斷為目也。前四句有因者。謂十二因緣。正言十二因緣。非菩提之正因。而言因者。以其能生觀智。與因作因。故名為因。若例此者。大涅槃亦非是正觀之正果。以菩提果為果。故亦應單名為果。若言涅槃與果為果故宜名果果者。十二因緣亦爾。與因作因故應名因因。而經云因因者。謂十二因緣所生觀智。此因因而有故名因因。若爾十二因緣。亦因因而有。何故不名因因。然雖復例通有如此義。但十二因緣作因。因始故單名為因。所以經云是因非果也。觀智從十二因緣而生。因因而有故名因因也。所以有果則是三菩提。從觀智因而有故名為果。若言三菩提是觀智之正果故單名果者。觀智亦是三菩提之正因。亦應單名有因。若言觀智從因而有故宜名因因者。三菩提亦從果而有故亦應名果果。而不爾正言三菩提。酬因之始故直名為果。涅槃從三菩提果而有故名果果也。然此四種兩因兩果。並皆是傍不得名正。非因非果乃名正因。不因故有二因。不果故有二果。所以此因是不因。此果是不果故。非因非果乃名為正。然非因非果自可名正。但其在因故名正因。其果則呼為正果然此正義。終不復可定言故。或時呼為道。或時呼為中。或時呼為正因。若齊言而取。終亦不得。何者言其正也。果自不正。因亦非正。亦非是非因非果。亦不非是非因非果也。問若爾是何。答此中無是故。當有以超然悟言解之旨。點此悟心以為正因。付此觀心非言可述。故迦葉每歎不可思議也。

本有始有第六。問佛性為是本有為是始有。答經有兩文。一云。眾生佛性。譬如暗室瓶瓫力士額珠貧女寶藏雪山甜藥。本自有之非適今也。所以如來藏經。明有九種法身義。二云。佛果從妙因生。責騲馬直不責駒直也。明當服蘇今已噵臭。食中已有不淨。麻中已有油。則是因中言有之過。故知。佛性是始有。經既有兩文。人釋亦成兩種。一師云。眾生佛性本來自有。理性真神阿梨耶識故。涅槃亦有二種。性淨涅槃本來清淨。方便淨涅槃從修始成也。第二解云。經既說佛果從妙因而生。何容食中已有不淨。故知。佛性始有。復有人言。本有於當故名本有。問若爾便是本有耶。答復有始有義。又問。若始有應是無常。答我復有本有義。此何異二人作劫張王互答耶。彼若如本有。應如如來藏經諸喻。若言始有。應是無常。而言本有於當。此是何語。定本定當耶。無量世界無邊佛智。應不圓耶。若言如無邊而照可自破之。何勞更難。照若窮盡。即是有邊。照若不盡。智則不圓。此難那得去。本有始有義亦如是。一切有所得義。無不自死。而人不覺耳。故一切諸人莫不網羅於其中矣。若執本有則非始有。若執始有則非本有。各執一文不得會通經意。是非諍競。作滅佛法輪。不可具陳。但地論師云。佛性有二種。一是理性二是行性。理非物造故言本有。行藉修成故言始有。若有所得心。望之一往消文似如得旨。然尋推經意。未必如此。何者。但大聖善巧方便。逐物所宜破病說法。何曾說言理性本有行性始有耶。例如說如來藏義。楞伽經說無我為如來藏。涅槃說我為如來藏。此兩文復若為配當耶。本有始有其義亦爾。若言理性本有非始行性始有非本者。更執成病聖教非藥。而世間淺識之人。但見其語定以為是。以成迷執也。今一家相傳明佛性義。非有非無非本非始亦非當現。故經云。但以世俗文字數故說有三世。非謂菩提有去來今。以非本非始故。有因緣故。亦可得說故。如涅槃性品明。佛性本有。如貧女寶藏。而諸眾生執教成病。故下文即明始有。故知。佛性非本非始。但為眾生說言本始也。問若言佛性非本始者。以何義故說本始。答至論佛性理實非本始。但如來方便。為破眾生無常病故。說言一切眾生佛性本來自有。以是因緣得成佛道。但眾生無方便故。執言佛性性現相常樂。是故如來。為破眾生現相病故。隱本明始。至論佛性。不但非是本始。亦非是非本非始。為破本始故。假言非本非始。若能得悟本始非本始。是非平等始可得名正因佛性。眾生因是深保成佛道。若不如是非佛性也。若廣論本有始有義。例如新故。何者第一念是新。第二念是故。譬如新米初出者是新。次者非復是新。亦得第一念為故第二念為新。先者名故。後始起者是新。是則先後皆得名新。故言新新生滅。亦可。初後皆得名故。故言初故後亦故。新故既通初後。本有始有義亦復然。新故義通初後。但說初故名新。久新名故。定知。何者為新。何者為故。故知。都無新無故。故釋十號文云。上者名新。士者名故。體大涅槃無新無故。既言體大涅槃無新無故。亦得言體大涅槃無本無始。此一往明無本無始義。然無本無始義。此是清淨體。亦何失寄言本始義耶。今約事論之。如無明初念始起為新佛果後起為故。何異先兩念相望初念為新後念為故耶。亦得佛果始起此則名新。無明住地已久此則名為故。何異兩念相望初念名故後念名新。然本始只是新故。本只是故。始只是新。無明初念與佛果相望。既皆得是新。皆得是故。亦皆得是始。皆得是本。無明與佛果既得如此。生死涅槃亦爾。皆得是始皆得是本。是故生死為始。涅槃為本。涅槃為始。生死為本。生死始有。涅槃本有。何異第一念為新第二念為故。生死本有。涅槃始有。何異第一念為故第二念為新。故生死涅槃。不是本有不是始有。而終是無本無始。而今假名說故更互為本始無異。經言本有今無本無今有。本若是有今則是無。本若是無今則是有。故今之與本。皆得名有。皆得名無。此文意終為明無本無今義。故下文即結言三世有法無有是處。故知。三世皆不得言有。但今假名說故。本有今無本無今有。通生死涅槃。皆是有無。若悟假名。論有論無。至竟終是無有無無。故言三世有法無有是處。何異說新故本始至竟終是無有新故本始義耶。當知。說新故本來指新為故。指故為新。本始亦爾指本為始指始為本。指始為本故。此本是始本。指本為始故。此始是本始。本始非始。始本非本。故云至竟終是無本無始義也。

辨內外有無第七。今辨佛性內外有無義。此重最難解。或可。理外有佛性理內無佛性。或可理內有佛性理外無佛性。今先辨理內外次說有無。然由來亦言有理內外凡夫及內道外道。故信等五根未立者。理外行心名外凡夫。五根立者。理內行心名內凡夫。故言理內行心理外行心。既有此語。亦即是理內外義。但舊師等不甚分明。作此名教耳。經言。復次道有二種。一外二內。外道道者。無常無樂。內道道者。有常有樂。菩提解脫亦復如是。聲聞菩提。無常無樂。諸佛菩薩所有菩提。常樂我淨。解脫亦然也。問菩提只是道。何故兩出耶。解云。菩提者是所行之道。先明。道者是能行之道。能所為異也。又若言一切諸法有生滅者。皆是理外。悉屬外道。若一切諸法無生滅者。皆是理內則屬內道。故今明。發心悟不生不滅。如般若中所辨。名為內道也。分理內外竟。今次明佛性之有無。問為理外眾生有佛性。為理內眾生有佛性耶。答曰。問理外眾生有佛性不。此不成問。何者理外本自無有眾生。那得問言理外眾生有佛性不。故如問炎中之水。本自不曾有。何得更問炎中之水從何處來。是故理外既無眾生。亦無佛性。五眼之所不見。故經云。若菩薩有我相人相眾生相。即非菩薩。是故我與人乃至今人無有佛性。不但凡夫無佛性。乃至阿羅漢亦無佛性。以是義故。不但草木無佛性。眾生亦無佛性也。若欲明有佛性者。不但眾生有佛性。草木亦有佛性。此是對理外無佛性。以辨理內有佛性也。問眾生無佛性草木有佛性。昔來未曾聞。為有經文為當自作。若眾生無佛性。眾生不成佛。若草木有佛性。草木乃成佛。此是大事。不可輕言令人驚怪也。答少聞多怪。昔來有事。是故經言。有諸比丘。聞說大乘。皆悉驚怪。從坐起去。是其事也。今更略舉愚見以詶來問。大涅槃哀歎品中。有失珠得珠喻。以喻眾生。迷故失無佛性。悟故得有佛性。故云。一闡提無佛性。殺亦無罪也。又呵二乘人如燋種。永絕其根。如根敗之士。豈非是明凡聖無佛性耶。眾生尚無佛性。何況草木。以此證知。不但草木無佛性。眾生亦無佛性也。又華嚴明。善財童子。見彌勒樓觀即得無量法門。豈非是觀物見性即得無量三昧。又大集經云。諸佛菩薩。觀一切諸法無非是菩提。此明迷佛性故為生死萬法悟即是菩提。故肇法師云。道遠乎哉。即物而真聖遠乎哉。悟即是神也。若一切諸法無非是菩提。何容不得無非是佛性。又涅槃云。一切諸法中悉有安樂性。亦是經文。唯識論云。唯識無境界。明山河草木皆是心想。心外無別法。此明理內一切諸法依正不二。以依正不二故。眾生有佛性則草木有佛性。以此義故。不但眾生有佛性。草木亦有佛性也。若悟諸法平等。不見依正二相故。理實無有成不成相。無不成故。假言成佛。以此義故。若眾生成佛時。一切草木亦得成佛。故經云。一切諸法皆如也。至於彌勒亦如也。若彌勒得菩提。一切眾生皆亦應得。此明以眾生彌勒一如無二故。若彌勒得菩提一切眾生皆亦應得。眾生既爾。草木亦然故知。理通故欲作無往不得。是故得名大乘無礙。此是通門明義也。若論別門者。則不得然。何以故明眾生有心迷故得有覺悟之理。草木無心故不迷。寧得有覺悟之義。喻如夢覺不夢則不覺。以是義故。云眾生有佛性故成佛草木無佛性故不成佛也。成與不成。皆是佛語。有何驚怪也。上來至此。明理外無佛性理內有佛性也。第二明理外有佛性理內無佛性。如般若經云。如是滅度無量眾生。實無眾生得滅度者。華嚴亦云。平等真法界一切眾生入。真實無所入。既言一切眾生入。當知。是理外眾生入。而實無所入者。此入理內無復眾生。故言實無所入。是知。理外有眾生故得入也。如是滅度實無度者。亦作此釋。此至理內。實無眾生得滅度者。當知。理內既無眾生。亦無佛性。理外有眾生可度。故言理外眾生有佛性也。然本有理內故說理外。理內既無理外。豈復有耶。先則為成交互辨義故。理外若無理內則有。理內若無理外則有。或時言內外俱有。或時說內外俱無。故經云。闡提人有善根人無。善根人有闡提人無。二人俱有二人俱無也。問那得作此不定說耶。答此豈得有定。故涅槃經云。若有人說一闡提人定有佛性定無佛性。皆名謗佛法僧。今既不欲謗佛法僧。豈敢定判。義中自有四句。故內外有無不定。所以作此不定說者。欲明佛性非是有無故。或時說有。或時說無也。問若言定為非者不定為是耶。答若言不定為是者。還復成定。定既非是。不定亦非。具如論破。但破定故言不定有四句如前。若洗淨已。復不定而為定亦何得而無定耶。今只就不定為定者。有理外眾生理外草木。有理內眾生理內草木。定何者有佛性。何者無佛性耶。若不定為定說者。經中但明化於眾生。不云化於草木。是則內外眾生有佛性。草木無佛性。雖然至於觀心望之。草木眾生豈復有異。有則俱有無則俱無。亦有亦無非有非無。此之四句皆悉並聽觀心也。至於佛性非有非無。非理內非理外。是故若得悟有無內外平等無二。始可名為正因佛性也。故涅槃論云。眾生有佛性非密。眾生無佛性亦非密。眾生即是佛乃名為密也。所以得言眾生無佛性者。不見佛性故。佛性無眾生者。不見眾生故。亦得言眾生有佛性。依如來藏故亦得言佛性有眾生。如來藏為生死作依持建立故。

**Section Seven: Distinguishing Inner and Outer, Existence and Non-Existence**

Now we turn to the question of whether Buddha-nature exists inside or outside, and whether it exists or does not exist. This level of inquiry is the most difficult to understand.

Some say there is Buddha-nature outside the principle but not within it. Others say there is Buddha-nature within the principle but not outside it.

Let us first clarify what we mean by "inside the principle" and "outside the principle," and then discuss existence and non-existence.

Traditionally, we speak of ordinary beings both inside and outside the principle, and of inner and outer paths. Those whose five faculties of faith have not yet taken root are called "outer ordinary beings" — their minds still operate outside the principle. Those whose five faculties have taken root are called "inner ordinary beings" — their minds operate within the principle. This distinction between inner and outer practice has long been recognized, though earlier masters did not articulate it with full clarity — they merely used these terms as labels.

The sutra says: "Again, the path has two kinds: one outer, one inner. The outer path is impermanent and without true joy. The inner path is permanent and truly joyful. Enlightenment and liberation are likewise. The enlightenment of Hearers is impermanent and without true joy. The enlightenment of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is permanent, joyful, self, and pure. Liberation is likewise."

**Question:** Enlightenment is just the path — why is it mentioned twice?

**Explanation:** Enlightenment (Bodhi) is the path that is traveled — the destination achieved. The path itself is the journey of practice. The difference is one of agent and object.

Furthermore, if one says that all phenomena arise and cease, this view is "outside the principle" and belongs to the outer path. If one sees that all phenomena neither arise nor cease, this view is "inside the principle" and belongs to the inner path. Thus we declare: one who awakens to the truth of no arising and no ceasing — as taught in the Prajñā scriptures — is following the inner path.

---

**Having distinguished inner from outer, we now examine whether Buddha-nature exists or not.**

**Question:** Is it beings outside the principle who have Buddha-nature, or beings inside the principle?

**Answer:** To ask whether beings outside the principle have Buddha-nature is not a valid question. Why? Because outside the principle, there are fundamentally no beings at all. How can you ask whether beings outside the principle have Buddha-nature? It is like asking where the water in a mirage comes from — there never was any water to begin with.

Therefore, since there are no beings outside the principle, there is no Buddha-nature there either. It cannot be seen even by the five eyes. As the sutra says: "If a Bodhisattva has notions of self, of person, of being, then he is not a Bodhisattva." Thus, from self to other — even to the present moment — there is no Buddha-nature. Not only do ordinary beings lack Buddha-nature — even Arhats lack it. By this reasoning, it is not merely that plants and trees lack Buddha-nature — beings themselves lack it as well.

If we wish to speak of having Buddha-nature, then not only do beings have it — plants and trees have it too. This is to contrast with the statement that outside the principle there is no Buddha-nature, thereby revealing that within the principle there is.

**Question:** That beings lack Buddha-nature while plants and trees possess it — this has never been heard before. Is there scriptural basis, or is this your own invention? If beings lack Buddha-nature, beings could never become Buddhas. If plants and trees have it, then plants and trees would become Buddhas. This is a matter of great consequence — it cannot be spoken lightly, for it will shock and alarm people.

**Answer:** What one has heard little of, one finds strange. This has happened before. The sutra relates that when certain monks heard the Great Vehicle preached, they were startled and alarmed, rose from their seats, and left. Such is the precedent.

Let me now briefly offer my humble understanding in response to your question:

In the "Lamentation" chapter of the Great Nirvana Sutra, there is the parable of the lost and recovered pearl. It illustrates that beings, being deluded, lose sight of their Buddha-nature; upon awakening, they recover it. Thus it is said: "An icchantika has no Buddha-nature; killing him incurs no fault."

The sutra also rebukes practitioners of the Two Vehicles, comparing them to scorched seeds — their roots forever destroyed — like men whose faculties are ruined. Does this not clearly show that ordinary beings and sages alike lack Buddha-nature? If even beings lack it, how much more so plants and trees! This confirms: it is not only plants and trees that lack Buddha-nature — beings also lack it.

Conversely, the Avataṃsaka Sutra tells of the youth Sudhana who, upon beholding Maitreya's tower, attained countless Dharma-gates. Is this not an instance of seeing the nature of things and thereby attaining countless liberations?

The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sutra says: "Buddhas and Bodhisattvas observe that all phenomena are none other than Enlightenment." This teaches that because beings are confused about Buddha-nature, they experience the cycle of birth and death; upon awakening, all things are Enlightenment itself. Thus, Master Sengzhao said: "Is the Path far away? Touch the very thing and it is real. Is the sage far away? Awaken, and you are divine."

If all phenomena are none other than Enlightenment, how can they not all be none other than Buddha-nature?

The Nirvana Sutra also states: "Within all phenomena there resides the nature of peace and joy." This too is scriptural.

The Treatise on Consciousness-Only says: "Consciousness-only — there is no realm outside it." This reveals that mountains, rivers, plants, and trees are all projections of mind. Apart from mind, there is no separate reality. This demonstrates that within the principle, all phenomena are non-dual between subject and environment. Because of this non-duality, if beings have Buddha-nature, then plants and trees have it as well.

For this reason: not only do beings have Buddha-nature — plants and trees do too.

If one awakens to the equality of all phenomena and no longer perceives a distinction between subject and environment, then ultimately there is no separate mark of "becoming" or "not becoming." Since there is no non-becoming, we speak conventionally of "becoming Buddha." By this principle, when beings become Buddhas, all plants and trees also become Buddhas.

Thus the sutra says: "All phenomena are thusness. Even Maitreya is thusness. If Maitreya attains Enlightenment, all beings should equally attain it." This speaks of the fact that beings and Maitreya are one thusness, without duality. Since Maitreya attains Enlightenment, all beings should equally attain it. And since beings are so, plants and trees are likewise.

Therefore, we know: because the principle pervades all, there is nowhere that attainment cannot reach. This is why it is called the Great Vehicle without obstruction.

This is the universal interpretation.

---

If we speak from the particular perspective, however, it is not so. Why? Because beings have minds — they are deluded — and therefore possess the potential for awakening. Plants and trees have no minds; they are not deluded — so how could they possess the potential for awakening?

To use an analogy: one who dreams can awaken; one who does not dream has nothing from which to awaken.

For this reason, we say: beings have Buddha-nature and therefore become Buddhas; plants and trees lack Buddha-nature and therefore do not.

Both "becoming" and "not becoming" are words of the Buddha. What is there to be alarmed about?

---

Thus far we have established: outside the principle, there is no Buddha-nature; within the principle, there is.

**Second: Now we discuss the view that outside the principle there IS Buddha-nature, while inside the principle there is NOT.**

As the Prajñā Sutra says: "Thus do I liberate countless beings, yet in truth no being is liberated."

The Avataṃsaka Sutra likewise says: "The true Dharma-realm is equal — all beings enter it. Yet in reality, nothing enters."

Since it says "all beings enter," we know it is beings from outside the principle who enter. And "in reality, nothing enters" means that upon entering the principle, there are no longer any beings — hence, nothing actually enters. This shows that beings exist outside the principle, and therefore they can enter.

"Thus do I liberate them, yet no one is truly liberated" — the same explanation applies. Once within the principle, there are truly no beings to be liberated.

This shows: since there are no beings within the principle, there is no Buddha-nature there either. But since beings exist outside the principle and can be liberated, we say that beings outside the principle have Buddha-nature.

However — the very notion of "outside" exists only in relation to "inside." If there is nothing inside the principle, how could there be anything outside it either?

---

These two positions are set forth in mutual contrast to clarify the meaning:

If outside has none, then inside has it. If inside has none, then outside has it. Sometimes we say both inside and outside have it. Sometimes we say both inside and outside lack it.

Thus the sutra says: "An icchantika has it; a person with good roots does not. A person with good roots has it; an icchantika does not. Both have it. Both do not."

**Question:** How can you make such indefinite statements?

**Answer:** How could this possibly be fixed? The Nirvana Sutra says: "If anyone says an icchantika definitely has Buddha-nature or definitely lacks it, both are slander of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha."

Since I do not wish to slander the Three Jewels, how dare I make a definitive judgment? The meaning naturally has four possibilities. Therefore, regarding inner and outer, existence and non-existence — all is indeterminate.

Why make such indeterminate statements? To reveal that Buddha-nature is beyond existence and non-existence. Sometimes we speak of existence; sometimes of non-existence — each as an expedient.

**Question:** If you say "definite" is wrong, does that make "indefinite" right?

**Answer:** If you say the indefinite view is right, that itself becomes a definite position. Since the definite is wrong, the indefinite is equally wrong. As the treatises argue: it is only to refute the fixed view that we speak of four possibilities, as above.

But after washing away all fixed views, if one then clings to indeterminacy as a fixed position — how is that any better?

If we must settle the matter by taking the indefinite as definite, let us ask: There are beings inside and outside the principle; there are plants and trees inside and outside the principle. Who, definitively, has Buddha-nature, and who does not?

If we must make a definitive statement, the sutras only speak of liberating beings — never of liberating plants and trees. Therefore: beings, inside or outside, have Buddha-nature; plants and trees do not.

However — when we observe the mind itself, is there truly any difference between plants and beings? If one has it, both have it. If one lacks it, both lack it. Both having and both lacking, both neither — these four statements are all valid when observing the mind.

---

As for Buddha-nature itself: it is neither existent nor non-existent, neither inside the principle nor outside it. Therefore, only when one awakens to the equality of existence and non-existence, inner and outer — without duality — can one be said to possess the true cause of Buddha-nature.

Thus the Treatise on Nirvana says: "That beings have Buddha-nature is not a secret. That beings lack Buddha-nature is also not a secret. That beings themselves ARE Buddha — this is the secret."

We may say beings lack Buddha-nature because they do not see it. Buddha-nature lacks beings because it does not see them. We may also say beings have Buddha-nature because they rely on the Tathāgatagarbha (the womb of the Thus-Come One). And Buddha-nature has beings because the Tathāgatagarbha supports and establishes the cycle of birth and death.

會教第九。經中有明佛性法性真如實際等。並是佛性之異名。何以知之。涅槃經自說佛性有種種名。於一佛性亦名法性涅槃。亦名般若一乘。亦名首楞嚴三昧師子吼三昧。故知。大聖隨緣善巧。於諸經中說名不同。故於涅槃經中。名為佛性。則於華嚴。名為法界。於勝鬘中。名為如來藏自性清淨心。楞伽名為八識。首楞嚴經名首楞嚴三昧。法華名為一道一乘。大品名為般若法性。維摩名為無住實際。如是等名。皆是佛性之異名。故經云。無名相法假名相說。於一法中說無量名。於一名中說無量門。以是義故。名義雖異理實無二。問若理實無二以何義故說種種名。答若依名釋義。非無所以。何者。平等大道為諸眾生覺悟之性。名為佛性。義隱生死名如來藏。融諸識性究竟清淨。名為自性清淨心。為諸法體性名為法性。妙實不二故名為真如。盡原之實故名為實際。理絕動靜名為三昧。理無所知。無所不知。名為般若。善惡平等妙運不二。名為一乘。理用圓寂名為涅槃。如此諸義如喻似何譬。如虛空不動無礙有種種名。雖有諸名實無二相。以是故。云名字雖異理實無二也。問若言真如法性並是佛性之異名者。經說真如法性亦是空之異名。今未知。佛性是二諦中第一義空不。若言是者既言是空。那得以此為佛性耶。會通諸經使不相違。善則善矣。然新聞異響未見深旨。一切諸人並皆同疑。願為開示以遣疑滯也。答涅槃經云佛性者名第一義空。豈非是空為佛性耶。若以空為空者非佛性也。故下文云。所言空者。不見空與不空名為佛性。二乘之人。但見於空不見不空。不見佛性。故知。於有所得人。不但空非佛性。佛性亦非佛性也。若於無所得人。不但空為佛性。一切草木並是佛性也。問若皆是佛性不得言非。若非佛性不可言是。有何所以。言一切並非而復即言一切並是。豈非是過分答耶。答至論平等佛性之理。非空非不空。非有非不有。非法性非不法性。非佛性非不佛性也。以一切並非故。能得一切並是。何者。平等之理。以非空有故。假名法性。非不空有故。假名空有。以非法性故假名佛性。空有非不法性故。假名法性。以非佛性故。假名法性。空有非不佛性故。假名佛性。當知。平等大道無方無住故。一切並非。無方無礙故。一切並得。若以是為是以非為非者。一切是非並皆是非也。若知無是無非是無非無不非假名為是非者。一切是非並皆是也。故知。上來十一家所說正因。以是為是故。並非正因佛性。若悟諸法平等無二無是無非者。十一家所說。並得是正因佛性。

出體第二。一乘體者。正法中道為體。攝論云性乘行乘果乘。中邊分別論云。乘具五義。一乘本謂真如佛性。二乘行即福慧等。三乘攝謂慈悲等。四乘障謂智障無明。五乘果即佛乘也。唯識論云。乘三體六義。三體者。一自性二乘隨三主得。六義者。一體如空出離四謗。二者因謂福慧。三者攝一切眾生。四者境界真俗。五者障即皮肉心。六者果謂無上菩提。十二門論云。乘具四事。一者乘本謂諸法實相。二者乘主由波若導萬行得成。三者乘行餘一切行。四者果謂薩婆若。法華論云。亦明三種。一者乘體謂如來平等法身。即是佛性。二者乘果謂如來大般涅槃。三乘緣即是六度了因。此猶三種佛性。不說果果性者。果果性屬果門。境界性者。屬因門故。廣說有五。略說唯三也。問乘以何為體。答經論雖種種說。不過三種。謂理行果。今以正法為體。問理是不動云何名運出耶。答以其不動故。能令眾生運出。別而論之。順忽為運。得無生忍為出。通論一一皆運出。因乘自運運他。果乘與理乘。自不運而能運他。問此經明乘。正以何為體。答若就因果用。以果為宗。若就正法體。即以正法為宗。今明若因若果皆正法故。運故以正法為宗。有人言。此經萬善為乘體。有人言。以果萬德為宗。有人言。境智為宗。今明。就用非無此義。而不得乘深體故。以正法中道為經宗。為一乘正體。問三論學者恒彈有所得義。云何稱用異說耶。答若言破相為宗。是有所得義。今申無所得。諸師義皆得皆非。得用不得體。異執永消。同歸一極。無執不破。無義不攝。巧用如甘露。拙服成毒藥也。問大品明理教行果四乘。與今何異耶。答彼經不明開權。與此為異。問勝鬘法華何異。答法華會三乘。為漸悟菩薩說。正對三乘。勝鬘為頓悟菩薩說。不對聲聞緣覺。但對人說。與此為異。問若爾法華究竟說。何故須涅槃教。答失心子須涅槃。不失心子不須涅槃。但為鈍根眾生故說是以大通智勝佛燃燈佛。不說涅槃。利根眾生故。又此經明三事。一車二牛三儐從。車因果萬行萬德。牛亦通因果。中道正觀。離斷常垢。為白牛。由正觀故。引萬行出生死。此即婆若導成萬行。問婆若是乘。云何喻牛耶。答一法兩義。引導如牛。運義如車。餘不爾。運出故有車義。無引導之能故無牛義。界內為儐從果地牛者。真慧為牛。六通無垢為白牛。駕遊五道運出眾生。儐從者。即界外因為儐從。問此經未明正因佛性。此義何耶。答此人不得經味。法華論云。七處明正因性。今略出四處。諸法從本來常自寂滅相。此明自性住佛性。又云同入法性。此是佛性之異名。又云開示悟入佛之知見。論釋知見明佛性。普賢菩薩及授惡人記有正因性故。問有人言。此經未明常住。此義云何。答此是小乘氣分。此經諸法從本來常自寂滅相。此是法常住義。常在靈鷲山。明人常義。我淨土不毀。此名依報常義依報正報人法皆常。云何是無常耶。依論釋壽量品文。三身壽量法報二身是常。問有人言遣三而一存。此義為得。答此是有所得義。大品云。非三非一故名大乘。此經不可示。言辭相寂滅。此以超四句百非洞遣。強說明乘。三一為二。非三非一為不二。二不二為麁。非二不二為妙。二不二非二非不二為麁。言忘慮絕為妙。三一開會凡有十門。一者開三顯一。二者會三歸一。三者廢三立一。四者破三明一。五者覆三明一。六者三前明一。七者三中明一。八者三後辨一。九者絕三明一。十者無三辨一也。開三顯一者。開昔三乘是方便。示今一乘是真實。故云開三顯一也。會三歸一者。會彼三行歸一佛乘。故云汝等所行是菩薩道也。廢三立一者。廢昔三教立今一乘教。故云於諸菩薩中正直捨方便但說無上道也。破三明一者。破其執三異之情。以明一乘之道也。覆三明一者。如來趣三一兩緣。當有三一之教。昔則以三覆一。今則以一覆三。三前明一者。未趣鹿苑說三之前。寂滅道場已明一實之教。謂三前明一也。三中明一者。從趣鹿苑說於三乘。佛乘第一緣覺第二聲聞第三。謂三中明一也。三後辨一者。三乘之後法華教門。以會彼三乘同歸一道。謂三後一也。絕待一者。如無言世界。外則無言無示。內則無慮無識。故不論一三而已。即此為佛事故。則復是一故。云絕待一也。無三辨一者。如香積佛土。彼土無有二乘名字。謂無三辨一也。但有清淨大菩薩眾。謂有一也。前之五種。就義論一。後之五種。約時處。諸文不同教門差別。故開五也。問云何名會三歸一。答若識會三歸一。先須知開一為三。開一為三者。昔指大乘之因說。為小乘究竟之果也。今還指小乘究竟之果。即是大乘之因。故名會也。問小乘人謂是究竟。為是迷因為是迷果乎。答實是大因。謂是小果故是迷因也。問以何義故明一乘是三乘中佛乘。復以何義明一乘非是三乘中佛乘耶。答若明三乘。攝出世乘盡。故對二乘之方便。明佛乘是真實。故文云唯此一事實餘二即非真。所以明一乘是三乘中之一也。就佛乘中。復開真應。昔為二乘人說佛方便身。故佛乘是方便身。則以今教明佛身是真實故。真實之乘異方便佛。如師子坐長者異著弊垢衣長者。是以約今昔兩教。明佛有權實不同。是故一乘非三乘中之一也。問此經中始末。或言佛以方便力示以三乘教。則三乘並是方便。又云唯此一事實餘二則非真。則二是方便。兩文相違。何以會通耶。答此二文猶是一義。無相違也。於一佛乘方便說三。次云一乘是實二是方便。如人手內實有一果方便言三果。次第論者。一果是實二是方便。故方便說三及二。是方便猶是一義。不相違也。問為會三歸一為會二歸一。答此亦是一義。智度論云。於一佛乘開為三分。如人分一斗米為三聚亦得合三聚為一聚。亦得言會二聚歸一聚。會三會二。猶是一義不相違也。若究竟為言。中道為宗。論云性乘。若就用為談。萬善為乘體。萬善之中。以般若為體。報習兩善。取習因為乘體。報因住生死不取。問若爾不應會人天五乘為一乘。答曰。人天是報果而此乘體。有習因義故會。乃是增上緣義。別而為論。有漏善非乘體。無漏善為乘體。乘有二種。有漏善為遠乘。無漏善為近乘。乘有二種。一者動乘。二者不動乘。萬行為動乘。如來藏佛性中道為不動乘。問乘以運出為義。中道佛性不運出。云何名為乘體。答以其不動故。能令萬善動出。亦令行者動出生死住彼涅槃。故名為乘。小乘初教。以果為乘。故言三車在門外。此是盡無生智果。大乘因與果為乘。問曰。若大乘因果為乘者。何故經言於佛果上更無說一乘法事。答曰。此約自不運義。不言不運他。

次同異第三。有人言。因成假為乘用。一善不滿不成乘用。故合為萬方有運用。例如樑椽等。非假則無有用。二云相續為用。若實法念念自滅無有運用故言相續為有用。三云相待為一此中果一故因一。善既眾多。以此一果一於萬善。今明。萬善悉有運出之義。亦如百流一一自有向海義不以海一故百流為一。問曰。若非因成有力。復非相續。云何一念實法善有運出耶。答曰。以不運為運。不續為續故。終是相待為本。是以相待有乘用。次引經文。問曰。經云十方佛土中唯有一乘法無二亦無三。云何名無二無三耶。答曰。有人言。無二者無聲聞緣覺二。無三者無偏行六度菩薩。又昔三乘皆是方便。今教別有一車異昔三也。問何以然。答經云佛以方便力示以三乘教。通以三為方便。則以三為方便。則以一為真實。則會昔三乘歸今一實也。又云願賜我等三種寶車。昔既索三今便賜一。故索所不與。與所不索。則知。別有大車異昔三。小以文理推之。則有四車也。評曰。三車四車。諍論紛綸由來久矣。了之則一部可通。迷之則八軸皆壅。今以八文徵之。方見此釋為謬。第一文云。如來但以一佛乘故。為眾生說法。無有餘乘。若二若三。此文次第列三乘也。但以一佛乘者。謂佛乘為第一也。無有餘乘若二若三者。無有緣覺為第二聲聞為第三。以此文詳之。則唯有三車。則執四為謬矣。問曰。經常列三乘不作次二次第。今何以然耶。答曰。以佛乘為第一。緣覺為第二。聲聞為第三。此從上數至下。豈非次第耶。問曰。何故作此次第耶。答曰。此正判三乘有無義也。初句明唯有一佛乘。次句無二無三。明無餘乘。以唯有一佛乘故。佛乘為實。無二無三故。二乘為方便也。又普門品中。亦列佛乘為初。次及緣覺後明聲聞。與今同矣。第二文云。尚無二乘何況有三。大論舉況者。皆舉勝以況劣。若言第三是偏行六度菩薩者。昔三乘中。佛乘為勝二乘為劣。若言第三。乃應舉三況餘二。云何舉二況第三耶。三者偈云。唯此一事實餘二則非真。唯此一事者。即一佛乘實也。餘二則非真。緣覺聲聞。此二非真也。則以偈文。釋長行無二無三意。佛恐像末鈍根尋經不解故。轉勢頌之。令煥然易悟。第四文云。諸佛語無異。唯一無二乘。全同前矣。第五文云。但以一乘法教化諸菩薩。無聲聞弟子。此文最分明。既云但以一乘教化菩薩。則有菩薩也。無聲聞弟子。則無餘二乘也。六者信解品云。密遣二人。七者化城喻品云。世間無有二乘而得滅度。唯一佛乘而得滅度耳。八者偈云。唯有一佛乘息處故說二。諸文甚多。略舉八證。此釋既非。則四乘義謬。會三亦失。復有人言。但有三乘。會三歸一者。歸三中佛乘。非三外別有一也。評曰。若但有三乘。不違八證。尋經首尾。復害六文。佛以方便力示三乘教。則知。三乘皆是方便。云何會二方便歸一方便耶。又云。於一佛乘。分別說三。又云。於一佛乘。隨宜說三。又諸子索三。父皆不與。明無三可趣索。有一以賜機。若三中之一是實有者。諸子無所索。父無所賜也。又虛指門外明有三車。諸子出門無三可見。若三中之一。是實有者。父非虛指。子出應見。又三中之一是實者。則會二歸一。不名會三歸一。問立四則違八證。辨三復害六文。請會通之令無豪滯。答世間淺識言不相違。況復一切智人說應鉾楯。又如來說八萬法藏乃至塵沙法門。尚無二言。況一經中應有兩說。以此推之。是知。失在學人。何復敢嫌大聖。今所明者。八證六文猶一意耳。且會二文餘皆可領。一云方便說三。次云唯一是實餘二非實者。唯一佛乘欲引導眾生故。方便說三。考實而言。唯一佛乘。是實餘二非真。是故說三說二。猶一意耳。假設近喻以況遠旨。如父手中唯有一果。欲引諸子說一果為三果。考實而論。唯有一果無二果。是故二文無相違也。以三二既明。會義可領。晚見法華論。釋十方佛土中尚無二乘何況有三。與今意同。論云。此是遮者。明無二乘涅槃唯佛究竟無上菩提有大涅槃耳。此但明無有二乘唯有佛乘。不言無偏行六度菩薩。故光宅失旨也。次論四句。問會三歸一破三歸一開三顯一廢三立一有何異耶。答會三歸一者。乃會教會行會緣。言會教者。昔開三乘五乘之教。並為顯一道。所表之道既一。能表之教亦復言一。故一切教皆名大乘教也。會行者。汝等所行是菩薩道。如來昔說有三行者。為趣一道。故令修三行。所期之道無二。能趣之行豈三耶。所言會人者。如來出世。本為教菩薩。不教餘人。三所行既是菩薩道。能行之人。皆成菩薩也。故文云但為教菩薩無聲聞弟子。會教正是一時。會行及人。遠令至佛也。問會有幾種。答自有融會稱會。自有會歸稱會。如向明也。融會稱會者。既會三歸一竟。緣即疑云。三若歸一。何故說三。是故釋言。昔以方便故說三。今以如實故說一。此是融會今昔三一之義。亦名會也。若是會歸之義。正就三行。融會之義。宜就教門。所以然者。若會三因同歸作佛。如是之義。會行為正。不用教門作佛故。教非會歸也。問有人言。此經未明佛性。但明緣因。復言。覆相明常。此義云何。答乃是成論淺悟之徒。有如此失。值大寶而不取。遇深經而不求。豈異弱喪與窮子反走於舍宅。此經云。常在靈鷲山。常在此不滅。劫火燒盡時。我淨土不毀。既言依正兩報常住。又法華論。云釋壽量品文。有法身壽量報佛壽量化身壽量。豈非常耶。又處處明法性。法性是佛性之異名。身子言。我等同入法性。云何如來以小乘法而見濟度。又方便品初明佛知見。即是佛性。乘有三種。理乘即是中道佛性。行乘即是緣因佛性。果乘即是果佛性。因因性境界性屬正因。果果性屬果性。故不開五性也。索車義第二問。為是三人索三為是二人索三耶。答舊經師云。三人索三車也。何以知然。下文云。爾時諸子各白父言。願賜我等三種寶車。故知。三人索三。又所以索三者。實無三乘。但昔於一佛乘方便說三。以是方便行所以索也。評曰。今以十義推之。不應有三人索也。一者本以三車譬於三果。故云。今此三車皆在門外。二乘人。出門外至許車處。覓果不得。可言索果。菩薩之人。未至許處覓佛果不得。何有索佛果耶。答曰。原索意者。本為昔有今無。是故索耳。若今昔俱有者。必不索也。尋大小乘經始終。皆明佛乘是有。如初教明佛乘是有。至法華亦明佛乘是有。以始終明佛乘是有故不索也。問乘以何物障。答大論既以六度為大乘體。六弊即是障也。若取乘出義。即著生死以為障。若取乘廣大義。即以狹劣為障。若以出世無所得六度故能動出。即以有所得六度為通障。六弊為別障。譬中云三車在門外者。此總相說耳。依昔義者。二車在三界正使門外。佛果在習氣無知門外。二乘人。以正使限域為門。佛以無知習氣限域為門。昔說二乘人盡無生智在三界正使門外。今二乘人斷正使盡。而不見車。是故索耳。昔說佛果在習氣無知門外。今菩薩斷正使盡。習氣無知即盡。即便成佛亦無索也。問何時索車耶。答舊云。得羅漢已後。法華之前有索。又難。若未說法華已生疑者。身子得果竟。應言我今自於智疑惑不能了為是究竟法為是所行道。豈待法華方有此釋索。故今明。待法華方索也。次論一乘壽量果。有人言。未明常住。又難。若度五百而未常。亦應未度五百。即應是常。若未度非常則已度。是常矣。又經云佛度五百而言未度者。佛昔明度三百亦應未度。若昔言度三百佛實度者。今亦應實度五百也。若順經故遂度五百。則已免三相。何事非常。今所釋者。壽量品亦具明三身。法華論云。王宮現生伽耶成佛。名為化佛。久已成佛乃至復倍上數故名為報佛。如實知見三界之相無有生死。若退若出明法身佛。但三身不同。若法華論明三身者。以佛性為法身。修行顯佛性為報佛。化眾生義為化身。若攝大乘論所明。隱名如來藏。顯名為法身耳。此二皆名法身。就應身中自開為二。化菩薩名報身。化二乘名化身。或云。化地上名報身。化地前名化身。地論法華論。是菩提留支所出。攝大乘。是真諦三藏所翻。此三部皆天親之所述作。而明義有異者。或當譯人不體其意。今欲融者。會眾經及論。或二身或三身或四身。今總束為四句。一合本迹。如金光明經。但辨一本迹也。故云佛真法身猶如虛空應物現形如水中月。二開本開迹如此。大凡論明有四佛。開本為二身。一法身二報身。法身即佛性。報身謂修因滿迹。為二身化菩薩名舍那。化二乘名釋迦也。三開本合迹。如地論法華論所明。開本謂二身。謂佛性是法身。佛性顯為報身。四開迹合本。如攝大乘論所明。合佛性及佛性顯皆名法身。開迹身為二。化菩薩名舍那。化二乘名釋迦。此皆經論隨義說之不違。亦皆不體其意故起諍論耳。若常無常者。別而為言。法應二身為常。化身無常。通而為言。三身俱常俱無常。化身以大悲為體故是常。法身有隱顯故。義說無常。應身始起義。是無常。金光明經云應化二身無常者。開迹合本。問三身有幾名耶。答經論不同。法身舍那身釋迦身。亦名法身報身化身。亦名法身應身化身。又名佛所見身菩薩所見身二乘凡夫所見身。法身亦名自性身。又名法性身。問若如是者應有六身八身。應有一佛身本迹二身。何故但明三身耶。答依法華論。二身為自德。化身為化他德。攝論法身為自德。二身為化他德。若爾法身為自德。化身為化他德。應身亦自亦化他。故立三身。亦可。法身為體。報身為相。化身為用。體相用故立三身也。

辨體第二。靈正云。涅槃體者法身是也。尋此法身更非遠物。即昔神明成今法身。神明既是生死萬累之體。法身亦是涅槃萬德之體。今明不然。以用為體。不及涅槃深體。今以中道正法為涅槃體。開善云。總明萬德體無累為滅度。而經初明三德者。簡異昔日二種涅槃。有餘時。身智在解脫不滿。無餘時。解脫滿身智不在。今日涅槃身智在解脫。滿三德之中。法身為體。波若解脫為用。今明。萬德三德為體者。離此無別涅槃用望。若言法身為體。無有萬德。云何是涅槃體。今明。涅槃體者。正法為體。而正法絕能所四句百非。故中論涅槃品云。有亦非涅槃。無亦非涅槃。亦有亦無非有非無亦非涅槃。無得無至。無得者非因果所得。無至者無處可至。開善云。凡夫不會不冥。初地以上亦會亦冥。佛果冥而不會。又云。金剛以還會而不冥。佛果亦會亦冥。今明。若初地以上冥義。應常。亦常亦無常俱有。若佛果冥一者。為智一為境一。一何所目。若智成境者無智耶。彼云。至亡彌存。至亡義成一。彌存義度眾生。彼云。初地以上。稱境而智是會義。而有無當方所不得冥一。佛果萬累永絕。無有方所故冥。若成一者。無有度眾生義。彌存不成。今明。波若無知故冥。無所不知故彌存。為緣故冥。為緣故彌存。非定有冥存。地論云。性淨方便淨涅槃。性淨涅槃。是本有理顯現名性淨涅槃。緣修萬德名方便淨涅槃。二涅槃體別異。今明。二涅槃體無別。非一非異。非亦一亦異。絕四句為涅槃體。成實師云。本有始有涅槃體一。若一者為始有一為本有一。何處離本有始有。別有涅槃一也。今明。於本有詺始有。始有詺本有。非離本有有始有。非離始有名本有。離四句名本有始有二涅槃體也。地論師性淨涅槃有二種解。一云本有萬德。二云本無萬德。但是萬德體故言萬德。問修成涅槃假有萬德。正法涅槃有萬德不。答若有亦非。無亦非。四句皆非。故言無受名涅槃。五種不受名五不受三昧。問地論師性淨涅槃。成論師本有涅槃。今日正法涅槃有何異耶。答曰。地論師阿梨耶識。攝論師阿摩羅識。成論師成佛理顯現名為法身。定是有法故。以常為經宗。今明。中道為佛性。中道有何隱顯。若以常為經宗者。大論云。無常一邊常為一邊。非是常為究竟。純陀哀嘆。對生死苦無常。明佛果常樂。至後迦葉。涅槃非常非無常。非有非無。非因非果。今明。四句百非洞遣為涅槃體。常無常是用。諸法師。但得其用不識深體。但解涅槃。不同外道三師小乘二說方等四計。檀提婆羅門。計於此身即是涅槃。蓋明欲界為涅槃。阿羅羅仙人。計無想為涅槃。此計色界為涅槃。欝頭蘭弗。計非想為涅槃。三外道。以三有為涅槃。小乘二師者。毘曇計無為為涅槃。是常是善本有。在煩惱外。斷煩惱起得得之屬於行者。成論明涅槃。但是無法。大乘四種。一明涅槃是妙有為體。是世諦法。二云以空為涅槃。即是實相名第一義諦。三云涅槃非真非俗。出二諦外。四云超出四句方是涅槃。唯四師大明二義。成實明本有始有。地論師性淨方便淨。攝論師四種涅槃。一本性寂滅涅槃。二有餘。三無餘。四無住處涅槃。法身故不住於生死。應化二身故不住於涅槃。次用無我真如理又三無性理。名無住處涅槃。諸師同釋。涅槃備於三德。謂法身般若解脫。所以三德為涅槃者。略有四種義。生死與涅槃相對。生死有三障。謂煩惱業苦。對報障故名法身。對業障故辨解脫。對煩惱障說於波若。二者欲顯如來三業自在。有法身故身業自在。具波若故口業自在。有解脫故意業自在。三者無境不照名為波若。無感不應名法身。無累不盡稱解脫故。三德為宗。四者為對二乘三德不圓。有身智解脫不足。解脫亦圓則無身智。故名如來三德圓備。成論云。佛果名妙有。若爾應是妙為。若妙故非為。亦妙故非有。彼云。有是法體。為即是相。佛果是法體之有。已離生滅相故。非是有為。竝云。若涅槃離相故非為者。亦應離始故非生。若始起故名生。亦始起故名為。又竝。若有而非為。亦應為而非有。成論師云。有四種生死。流來生死。分段生死。八地已上變易生死。七地中間生死。攝論師云。有七種生死。三界分段為三種。變易有四種。初二三地為方便生死。四五六地為因緣生死。七八九地為有有生死。第十地名無有生死。夫人經言。有漏業因四住為緣。感分段生死。無漏業因無明住地為緣。感變易生死。今言方便生死。即是無明住地。因緣生死即是無漏業。有有生死即是生住二相。無有生死即是滅相。若通而為論。一一地皆具四種。地前三阿僧祇地地三阿僧祇三十三阿僧祇。今望經論無定。若言無量阿僧祇是小劫。言三十三阿僧祇是中劫。三阿僧祇劫成佛是大劫。有人言。從初發心斷五住煩惱。同麁同細。又言。地前斷四住煩惱。又攝論師。地前伏四住上心。初地已上方斷種子。成論師明。地前伏見諦。初地斷上品。二地斷中品。三地斷下品盡。四地斷修道上品。五地斷中品。六地斷下品盡。七地斷習氣。八地已上斷無明三品盡。今明。十信伏見一處住地。十解伏欲愛住地。十行伏色愛住地。十迴向伏有愛住地。初地初心斷四住地盡。初地已上斷十重無明。地持論云。二障三處過。地前一向伏。初地至十地。斷煩惱障盡。從初地斷智障。至金剛心斷智障習氣。問與他家何異耶。答他家生死在此。涅槃在彼。眾生在生死。佛在涅槃。今明。生死即涅槃。故中論云。若求如來性。即是眾生性。求涅槃性。即是世間性。故經云。明無明愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。若捨生死別取涅槃。是為愚人。不離生死。若知生死與涅槃無有差別。方得涅槃。他家前有煩惱。後起智慧斷彼煩惱。內外大小乘。皆言有煩惱生而今斷滅。即煩惱不滅。今求煩惱。本自不生。今亦無滅。若能如是知。前念為無礙。後念為解脫。故能斷惑。外人見煩惱不煩惱二。即同明無明。愚者謂二。今明。煩惱不煩惱本無二相。故能斷惑。問何以得知。地前為分段。初地已上為變易耶。答涅槃云初地菩薩破二十五有得金剛三昧。法華論云初地以上有無雙照受變易身。若迴小入大聲聞。從初發心受變易果報。問成論師云一向無實行聲聞。此義為理不耶。彼言。夫人經云三乘初業不愚於法故。答此義不然。一切經論。皆有聲聞法華經中。內祕菩薩行外現是聲聞者。權行聲聞。故權實二種聲聞。夫人經不愚於法者。是利根人。非是鈍根能爾也。

八倒第三。問經明三修八倒。何等是三修比丘耶。答三修者。一常無常。二苦樂。三我無我。常者凝然也。無常者遷流。樂者怡愈。苦者逼惱。我者性實。無我者不自在通稱。修者習義也。然此三種相對合辨。名為三修。離說即是六修。若具足而應是四修。離即八修。謂淨不淨。所以除淨不淨但明三修六修者。不淨觀是遠方便因中除不淨觀。故果中除淨觀。若對治八倒。應辨八修。因中苦無常無我不淨。果上取常樂我淨故八修。有人言。六修皆是俗觀。又言。果上三修。一向俗觀。因中前三修是俗。無我是真。今明。通皆是俗皆是真。八倒者。前倒常樂我淨外道時起四倒。謂常倒樂倒我倒淨倒。佛破四倒故。說無常苦無我不淨。比丘佛果上更起苦無常無我不淨。更起後四倒。謂無常倒苦倒無我倒不淨倒。前倒後倒合論故有八倒。外道起生死計有常樂我淨。佛初說四諦破四倒。說生死中但有苦無常無我不淨無有常樂我淨。比丘聞此。非但生死苦無常無我不淨。佛果亦苦無常無我不淨。起後四倒故。涅槃云。但生死苦無常無我不淨。佛果是常樂我淨。破其佛果苦無常無我不淨故。有八修八倒。若外凡夫起八倒者。是見諦煩惱。若學人起八倒者。是修道煩惱。若羅漢起八倒者。是界外煩惱。八倒體者。謂三倒是也。一心倒二想倒三見倒。謂一切心了別是心倒。一切心想像皆是想倒。一切心決了名見倒。今所用也。生死中四倒。正迷生死無常苦。傍迷佛果常樂。果上四倒。正迷佛果常樂。傍迷生死無常苦。所以然者。計生死常。非但不識無常。亦不識常。計佛無常者。非但不識常。亦則不識無常。問若計常者。正迷無常。傍迷常法。計無常者。正迷常傍迷無常者。得言解無常之解即解常。解常之解即解無常不。答惑性浮慢。得言一惑兩迷。解性不漫。解無常解不解常。解常之解不解無常。起倒人者。外凡夫人起前四倒。入內凡位不復起之。後四倒者。入內凡位。乃至羅漢起之。智度論云。三倒生時。前起想心後起見倒。此從輕至重。斷時前斷見倒後斷想心。四倒體者。婆沙云。以慧數為體。前倒是凡夫後倒是聖。合論具八倒也。外謂無常見常為倒。無常見無常不倒。今依中論。倒與不倒皆倒。前後八倒前後八行皆倒。故十六倒。常無常亦常亦無常非常非無常四句皆倒。我樂淨皆四句。皆生死十六倒。佛果上苦無常無我各四句。合十六倒。并合三十二倒。問前明斷伏。以何文證初地斷見諦與思惟。答十住論云。初地斷見諦盡。又斷三界思惟。問以何文證初地以上斷十重無明。答相續解脫經。云斷二十二愚。初地斷二愚。第十地斷二愚。金剛心斷二愚。合為二十二無明。攝論云斷十重無明。初地斷凡夫性無明。問何意初地斷凡夫性無明。答地前猶有習故。離二種我。未真證生法二空。初地以上。真證生法二空。凡夫性無明開為二。一者障一切法無明。二者潤三惡道無明。問何為人斷伏耶。答內凡夫伏惑。聖位斷也。有人言。十解六心為外凡夫。七心以上名內凡夫。今明。若就位退為論。十信六信為外凡夫。七信以上名內凡夫。若就發心為論。未入十信名外凡夫。十信初心名內凡夫。問為空智斷為有智斷。答經云。佛為增上慢人說斷煩惱。實不斷也。又經云斷。何者是也。若言有煩惱不能斷。無煩惱何所斷也。若言斷者。為見惑斷。若見惑斷者。即明闇並。云何斷煩惱。若不見懸斷者。天竺燃燈。振旦闇皆破。如此推之。即畢竟不斷。如此了悟即是斷也。有所得人。空解斷有解不斷。今明。有所得人。空有俱不斷。無所得空有俱斷。自有中伏假斷。如求性有無不可得故名非有非無。但伏性有無猶未斷也。次明假有假無。即性有無始斷。既識假有假無。知畢竟無有定性有無。故名假斷。次云假伏中斷者。對性有無。說假有無。以伏性有無。故云假伏。悟假有不有假無不無為中道。前性有無惑斷故名假伏中斷。亦得假伏假斷中伏中斷。如識假有無即性有無永斷。名為假斷。自有識假有無但伏性也。問金剛心斷惑盡耶。答開善云。佛地斷惑盡。夫人經云佛智所斷。佛菩提智所斷。今明。金剛心斷惑盡。夫人經云斷者。解脫道遮未來不生。正是金剛心無礙道中斷。問得言地前為無礙初地為解脫不。答開善云爾。今謂不然。初地自開為無礙解脫。問金剛為轉為謝耶。答毘曇則謝。成實則轉。金剛若謝別有佛果。云何波若變名薩波若。轉金剛成者。云何轉無常而後常。今所明者。應有轉謝及不轉不謝。若了悟金剛本不生滅。即金剛是佛。故不轉不謝。經云。一切眾生本來寂滅。不復更滅。於妄謂之心。息生滅之見。故名為謝。得了悟之者。為生滅悟無生滅故名為轉。