大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79.61

79.61

疏「上之二解俱明心意識有」者，第二結前生後，明結前二是法相宗，生後一解是法性宗。問：二俱是有，復有何別？答：前釋有淨無染，後釋有體無用，故義不同也。然二義相成，以無思等故說無染，以無染故說非積集思量義等。疏「一云佛果無實心意」等者，即第三師，是無相宗及法性宗。先正明，可知；「故金光」下，第二引證。論當第三。論云「此中自性身」者，即法身也。釋論云「唯有真如及真如智獨存，名為法身。」

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The above two explanations both clarify the existence of mind, thought, and consciousness": this is the second [section], concluding what precedes to introduce what follows, showing that the preceding two [explanations] belong to the Dharma-characteristic school (Dharmalakṣaṇa), whereas the one explanation that follows belongs to the Dharma-nature school (Dharmatā). Question: Both assert existence; what difference is there between them? Answer: The former explains that there is the pure and not the defiled, whereas the latter explains that there is the essence and not the function; hence their meanings differ. However, the two meanings complement each other: because there is no deliberation and the like, it is said to lack defilement; because it lacks defilement, it is said to lack the meanings of accumulation, deliberation, and so forth. Regarding the commentary's statement, "One says that in the Buddha-fruit there is no real mind or thought," and so on: this is the third master, representing both the Markless school and the Dharma-nature school. First, the direct explanation is clear. From "Hence the Suvarṇaprabhāsa..." downward, it is the second part, citing proof. The treatise corresponds to the third [chapter]. The treatise says, "Here, the svabhāvakāya"—this is the dharmakāya. The commentary on the treatise says, "Only tathatā and the cognition of tathatā remain alone, which is called the dharmakāya."