大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.13

31.13

疏「寶性論翻」下，即法性宗論。疏中一句但是義引，彼論具足云「無始時來性，作諸法依止。依性有諸道，及證涅槃果。」即第四論。彼論釋云「此偈明何義？無始時來性者，如經說言『諸佛如來依如來藏，說諸眾生無始本際不可得知故。』所言性者，如《聖者勝鬘經》言『世尊！如來說如來藏者是法界藏、出世間法身藏、出世間上上藏、自性清淨法身藏，自性清淨如來藏故。』作諸法依止者，如《聖者勝鬘經》言『是故如來藏，是依、是持、是住持、是建立』等。次論云依性有諸道者，如《聖者勝鬘經》言『世尊！生死者依如來藏。世尊有如來藏故說生死，是名善說故。』及證涅槃果者，如《聖者勝鬘經》言『世尊！依如來藏故有生死，依如來藏故證涅槃。世尊！若無如來藏者，不得厭苦樂求涅槃，不欲涅槃、不願涅槃故。』此明何義？明如來藏究竟如來法身不差別，真如體相畢竟云佛性體。於一切時、一切眾生身中，皆無餘盡應知。」疏「以此等文」下，第三雙結二宗。於中，先正結。以上諸教皆如來藏為識體故，知心體性即如來藏。此外無法，故為深也。「又唯識」下，引《唯識》文結同法性。故論云「此諸法勝義，亦即是真如，常如其性故，即唯識實性。」釋曰：既用真如為識實性，明知天親亦用如來藏而成識體。但後釋論之人唯立不變，故云「過歸後輩」。況世親造《佛性論》，廣用《勝鬘》。疏「又妄心之性」等者，此下一對成上二義，然有二意：一如次成上，謂妄心之性成心之性，以性相不同故；真心之性成上即性，真心即性故。二者通成，謂此之二性別名二藏，前之二性皆具二藏，但為妄覆，名如來藏。直語藏體，即自性心，故此自性清淨真心，不與妄合，名為空藏；具恒沙德，名不空藏。前明即離，此明空有，故重出也。言「皆平等無二」者，上二即離不同，由心之性故不即、由心即性故不離，不即不離為心之性。後二即空之實為不空、即實之空為空藏，空有不二為心之性。然空有無二之性，即是不即不離之性，故但云一也。

Regarding the commentary's "The Ratnagotravibhāga translates...", this represents a treatise of the Faxing school. The single line in the commentary is merely a paraphrased quotation; the complete verse in that treatise states: "The nature (dhātu) from beginningless time / Serves as the basis for all phenomena. / Relying on this nature there exist all realms of rebirth / And the realization of the fruit of nirvāṇa." This is in the fourth fascicle of the treatise. That treatise explains: "What meaning does this gāthā elucidate? 'The nature from beginningless time': as a sūtra states, 'All Buddha Tathāgatas, relying on the tathāgatagarbha, say that the beginningless root limit of all sentient beings cannot be known.' What is called 'nature': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'World-Honoured One! The tathāgatagarbha spoken of by the Tathāgata is the dharmadhātu-garbha, the transmundane dharmakāya-garbha, the supreme transmundane garbha, the naturally pure dharmakāya-garbha, for it is the naturally pure tathāgatagarbha.' 'Serves as the basis for all phenomena': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'Therefore the tathāgatagarbha is the support, the holder, the sustainer, the foundation,' and so forth. Next, the treatise says, 'Relying on this nature there exist all realms of rebirth': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'World-Honoured One! Samsāra relies on the tathāgatagarbha. World-Honoured One, because there is the tathāgatagarbha, samsāra is spoken of; this is called well-spoken.' 'And the realization of the fruit of nirvāṇa': as the Ārya-Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'World-Honoured One! Relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is samsāra; relying on the tathāgatagarbha one realizes nirvāṇa. World-Honoured One, if there were no tathāgatagarbha, one could not loathe suffering and delight in seeking nirvāṇa, nor desire nirvāṇa, nor aspire to nirvāṇa.' What meaning does this elucidate? It elucidates that the tathāgatagarbha is ultimately not different from the Tathāgata's dharmakāya; the ultimate essence and characteristics of tathatā are called the essence of the Buddha-nature. It should be known that at all times it is completely without remainder in the bodies of all sentient beings." Regarding the commentary's "Relying on these passages...", thirdly, this synthesizes both schools. In this, it first properly concludes: since all the teachings above take the tathāgatagarbha as the essence of consciousness, we know that the essence and nature of the mind is precisely the tathāgatagarbha. There are no phenomena outside of this, and hence it is profound. Regarding "Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratā...", this cites passages from the Triṃśikā to conclude that it is identical with the Faxing. Thus the treatise states: "This ultimate truth of all phenomena / Is likewise just tathatā, / Because it is eternally thus in its nature; / It is the true nature of consciousness-only." Explanation: since it takes tathatā as the true nature of consciousness, it is clear that Vasubandhu also used the tathāgatagarbha to constitute the essence of consciousness. However, subsequent commentators only posited [the aspect of] unchangingness; hence it is said that "the fault falls on later generations." Moreover, Vasubandhu composed the Buddha-Nature Treatise (Foxing lun), drawing extensively on the Śrīmālā-sūtra. Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, the nature of the false mind...", this subsequent pair establishes the previous two meanings, but with two senses. First, they establish the previous [points] in sequence: that the nature of the false mind establishes the nature of mind, because nature and characteristics are not identical; that the nature of the true mind establishes the above "identity with nature," because the true mind is identical with nature. Second, they establish them comprehensively: these two natures are respectively named the two garbhas; both previous natures possess both garbhas, yet when covered by falsity, it is called the tathāgatagarbha. Speaking directly of the essence of the garbha, it is the mind of self-nature. Hence, this naturally pure true mind, when not combined with falsity, is named the empty garbha; endowed with virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is named the non-empty garbha. The previous section explained identity and separation; this section explains emptiness and existence, hence it is restated. "All are equal and non-dual": the previous two modes of identity and separation differ; due to "the nature of mind" it is not identical, and due to "mind being identical with nature" it is not separate—being neither identical nor separate is the nature of mind. In the latter two, the real that is identical with emptiness is the non-empty, and the emptiness that is identical with the real is the empty garbha; emptiness and existence being non-dual is the nature of mind. Yet the nature of the non-duality of emptiness and existence is itself the nature of neither identity nor separation; hence it is simply said to be "one."