大般涅槃經集解 20.76

20.76

案曇纖曰：從此下，答問云何諸菩薩能見難見性也。寶亮曰：佛性非是作法者，謂正因佛性非善惡所感，云何可造？故知神明之體，根本有此法性為源。若無如斯天然之質，神慮之本其用應改；而其用常爾，當知非始造也。若神明一向從業因緣之所構起，不以此為體者，今云何言毒身之中有妙藥王，所謂佛性非是作法耶？故知據正因而為語也。若是果性，則毒身之中理自無也。復不應以果來依因。若以果來依因者，《勝鬘經》應言依生死故有如來藏，而云「依如來藏有生死，是名善說」，不亦即此文乎。大海雖醎亦有上味者，微理可據也。

Tanxian states: From here down answers the question of how the bodhisattvas are able to see the difficult-to-see nature. Baoliang states: That 'the buddhadhātu is not a created dharma' means that the primary-cause buddhadhātu is not elicited by good or evil; how could it be manufactured? Therefore we know that the essence of conscious awareness fundamentally has this dharmatā as its source. If it lacked such an inherent quality, the fundamental function of conscious thought would change; but since its function is always thus, we should know it was not newly created. If conscious awareness were exclusively constructed through the causal conditions of karma and did not take this as its essence, how could it now be said that within the poisonous body there is the wondrous king of medicines, namely the buddhadhātu, which is not a created dharma? Thus we know that this is spoken with reference to the primary cause. If it were the nature of the fruit, then in principle it would naturally not exist within the poisonous body. Furthermore, the fruit should not be made to depend on the cause. If the fruit depended on the cause, the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra would have had to say that dependent on saṃsāra there is the tathāgatagarbha; yet it says, 'Dependent on the tathāgatagarbha there is saṃsāra—this is called a good exposition.' Is this not the very meaning of this text? That 'though the great ocean is salty, it also contains the supreme flavor' means that the subtle principle can be relied upon.