勝鬘寶窟 3.43

3.43

「世尊若無如來藏者」，上明真實，今明顛倒。就文亦三：一破二乘及空亂意二種顛倒，明不顛倒；第二破外道顛倒，明不顛倒；第三總結顛倒人，明不知如來藏。初又三：一破其謂無如來藏、二破其七法有依持之義、三對顯如來藏為正依。「若無如來藏不得厭苦樂求涅槃」者，此第一，破其不立如來藏為依持義。破意云：若不依真，妄不孤立，故無厭苦樂求涅槃。如人睡時，若無報心，則無夢中向河求水。此亦如是。又此文是反解。反解者，以無顯有。若無藏，不得厭苦求涅槃；當知厭苦樂求涅槃，要由於藏。又勝鬘為破小乘等人不知有佛性者，尚無厭苦求涅槃之因，云何有離生死苦得涅槃之果？是故應當信有佛性也。靈味淳師云：「是理知厭苦求樂，故終能反，異於木石，由有佛性故爾。用此厭苦求樂之心為正因佛性，由之得佛。」于時猶有光宅師，以厭苦求樂為正因。但厭苦求樂是功德性，極至金剛心得佛時則無。今謂文意悉不爾，但明有佛性故得厭苦求樂，無佛性不得厭苦求樂，不用厭樂以為佛性也。

From "World-Honoured One, if there were no tathāgatagarbha" onward: the preceding explained the real, and now the inverted is explained. In terms of the text, there are also three parts: first, refuting the two kinds of inversions of the two vehicles and of those confused by emptiness, to clarify the non-inverted; second, refuting the inversions of the non-Buddhists, to clarify the non-inverted; third, concluding comprehensively with inverted persons, to clarify that they do not know the tathāgatagarbha. The first part also has three: 1. refuting their claim that there is no tathāgatagarbha; 2. refuting their notion that the seven dharmas can serve as a support; 3. demonstrating conversely that the tathāgatagarbha is the correct support. Regarding "if there were no tathāgatagarbha, one could not feel revulsion toward suffering and take joy in seeking nirvāṇa": this is the first part, refuting their position of not establishing the tathāgatagarbha as a support. The intent of the refutation is: if one does not rely on the real, delusion cannot stand alone, and therefore there would be no revulsion toward suffering and no joy in seeking nirvāṇa. Just as when a person is asleep, if there were no retributive mind, there would be no going to a river in a dream to seek water. This is just the same. Furthermore, this passage is an inverse explanation. An inverse explanation reveals existence through non-existence: if there were no [tathāgata]garbha, one could not feel revulsion toward suffering and seek nirvāṇa; one should know that feeling revulsion toward suffering and taking joy in seeking nirvāṇa necessarily depends on the [tathāgata]garbha. Moreover, in order to refute those of the Small Vehicle and others who do not know that there is buddhadhātu, Śrīmālā [shows that] they would lack even the cause for feeling revulsion toward suffering and seeking nirvāṇa, so how could there be the fruit of leaving the suffering of saṃsāra and attaining nirvāṇa? Therefore, one should have faith that there is buddhadhātu. Master Chun of Lingwei said: "It is this principle that knows revulsion toward suffering and seeks joy; hence it is ultimately able to return, differing from wood and stone, precisely because there is buddhadhātu. Using this mind of revulsion toward suffering and seeking joy as the direct cause for buddhadhātu, one attains buddhahood by means of it." At that time there was still Master Guangzhai, who took revulsion toward suffering and seeking joy to be the direct cause. But revulsion toward suffering and seeking joy is the nature of merit; when one reaches the adamantine mind and attains buddhahood, it no longer exists. Now I say that the intent of the text is not like this at all: it merely explains that because there is buddhadhātu, one can feel revulsion toward suffering and seek joy; if there were no buddhadhātu, one could not feel revulsion toward suffering and seek joy; it does not take revulsion and joy themselves to be buddhadhātu.