維摩經略疏 8.39

8.39

問：無明依法性，即是法性為始，何得言無始？答：若無明依法性是有始者，法性非煩惱，不可指法性為煩惱本，故言無住則無本。若依法性立一切法者，無明不出法性，法性即為無明之本，此則以法性為本。今經撿覈煩惱之本，法性非煩惱，故言無住無本。既無有本，不得自住，依他而住。若說自住，望法性為他，亦得說是依他住也。說自住即別教意，依他住即圓教意。

Question: If ignorance relies upon the dharma-nature, this means the dharma-nature is its beginning; how can one say it is beginningless? Answer: If ignorance relying upon the dharma-nature had a beginning, since the dharma-nature is not an affliction, one cannot point to the dharma-nature as the basis of afflictions; hence it is said, "The non-abiding has no basis." If all dharmas are established in reliance on the dharma-nature, then ignorance does not transcend the dharma-nature, and the dharma-nature is precisely the basis of ignorance; in this sense it takes the dharma-nature as its basis. The present sūtra investigates the basis of afflictions; the dharma-nature is not an affliction, and so it says the non-abiding has no basis. Since it has no basis, it cannot abide in itself, but abides in reliance on another. If one speaks of abiding in itself, in relation to the dharma-nature it is "other," so one may also say it abides in reliance on another. Speaking of abiding in itself is the purport of the Separate Teaching; abiding in reliance on another is the purport of the Perfect Teaching.