大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.4

31.4

疏「二顯深理」者，疏文分二：先正明，令始涉者便悟心性超乎大方，故云「始終皆實」。「起信論云」下，第二引證。於中四：初至應說，是論初標文。二從「所言法者謂眾生心」，即立義分。又論云「次說立義分。摩訶衍者，總說有二種：一者法、二者義。所言法者，謂眾生心，是心即攝一切世間法、出世間法。依於此心，顯示摩訶衍義。何以故？是心真如相，即是摩訶衍體故。是心生滅因緣相，能示摩訶衍自體相用故。」釋曰：法通軌持，亦能顯下義，故稱為法。該於染淨，大位在因，故言謂眾生心為染淨依，故攝世出世。何以故下，出攝所以。以有三大故。三大即義大，位在果。今取通為緣起之本，故但引法以證真心隨緣。三從依一心法有真如門及生滅門，即義引解釋分，顯示正義中文，以釋前法。論云「顯示正義者，依一心法有二種門：一者心真如門、二者心生滅門。是二種門皆各總攝一切法盡。是義云何？以是二門不相離故。心真如門者，即是一法界大總相法門體，所謂心性不生不滅」等。次下釋心生滅云「心生滅者，依如來藏有生滅心。所謂不生不滅與生滅和合，非一非異，名阿賴耶識」等。廣如彼釋。今以真如證心性一，隨緣生滅而成種種，為此深理故。四從彼論依此生淨信故，即結示為實。馬鳴依此造論，令物生信，何不信耶？疏「二述問意」，於中三：初正釋前難。二「設彼救」下釋。「業不知」下，經文先出伏難、後「為遮此救」下舉經通釋。三「既離真性各無自立」下，結成本難。於中二：先出所以、後方正結。今初。言「各無自立」者，《起信》云「若得無念者，則知心相生住異滅。以無念等故，而實無有始覺之異。以四相俱時而有，皆無自立，本來平等同一覺故。」

Regarding the Commentary's statement "Second, revealing the profound principle," the text of the Commentary is divided into two: first, directly clarifying it, causing those who first engage to immediately awaken to the fact that the nature of the mind transcends vast boundaries, hence it says "from beginning to end all is real." From "The Awakening of Faith states..." onward is the second: citing proof. Within this there are four: first, up to "should be explained" marks the initial passage of the treatise. Second, from "What is called dharma is the mind of sentient beings" is the section setting forth the fundamental principles. Furthermore, the treatise states: "Next, the section setting forth the fundamental principles is expounded. Mahāyāna, generally speaking, has two kinds: first, the dharma; second, the meaning. What is called dharma is the mind of sentient beings. This mind encompasses all worldly dharmas and world-transcending dharmas. Relying on this mind, the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed. Why? Because the characteristic of the tathatā of this mind is precisely the essence of Mahāyāna. The characteristics of the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing of this mind can reveal the essence, characteristics, and functions of Mahāyāna itself." Explanation: "Dharma" extends to that which holds its own nature and serves as a standard, and can also reveal the meanings below; hence it is called dharma. It covers defilement and purity; its general stage is in the cause; hence it says "the mind of sentient beings," which serves as the basis for defilement and purity, thus encompassing worldly and world-transcending [dharmas]. From "Why?" onward, it brings out the reason for encompassing: because it possesses the three greatnesses. The three greatnesses are the greatnesses of meaning, whose stage is in the fruition. Here, taking it as universally being the root of dependent origination, it merely cites the dharma to verify that the true mind accords with conditions. Third, from "relying on the one mind dharma, there are the gate of tathatā and the gate of arising and ceasing," it draws on the meaning of the section explaining and demonstrating correct meaning to explain the preceding dharma. The treatise states: "As for demonstrating the correct meaning: relying on the one mind dharma, there are two kinds of gates: first, the gate of the mind as tathatā; second, the gate of the mind as arising and ceasing. These two gates each completely encompass all dharmas without remainder. What does this mean? Because these two gates are not separate from each other. The gate of the mind as tathatā is precisely the essence of the great general characteristic dharma-gate of the one dharmadhātu, namely, the nature of the mind is unarisen and unceasing," and so forth. Below this, explaining the arising and ceasing of the mind, it says: "Regarding the mind as arising and ceasing, relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing. The so-called unarisen and unceasing combined with arising and ceasing, being neither one nor different, is named the ālaya-vijñāna," and so forth. It is fully as explained there. Now, using tathatā to verify that the nature of the mind is one, and according with conditions it arises and ceases to become manifold, this constitutes this profound principle. Fourth, from "because that treatise relies on this to generate pure faith," it concludes and indicates that it is real. Aśvaghoṣa relied on this to compose the treatise to cause beings to generate faith; how could one not believe it? Regarding the Commentary's statement "Second, relating the intent of the question," within this there are three: first, directly explaining the previous difficulty. Second, from "Supposing that they rebut..." onward explains. From "karma does not know..." onward, the sūtra text first brings out the concealed difficulty, and later from "in order to preclude this rebuttal..." onward cites the sūtra to explain generally. Third, from "Since apart from the true nature neither has independent subsistence..." onward concludes the fundamental difficulty. Within this there are two: first, bringing out the reason; only afterward concluding directly. Now for the first: As for "neither has independent subsistence," the *Awakening of Faith* states: "If one attains thoughtlessness, one knows the mind's characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. Because of the equality of thoughtlessness, there is in reality no difference of initial awakening; because the four characteristics exist simultaneously, none having independent subsistence, being fundamentally equal as the same single enlightenment."