淨名玄論 5.31

5.31

問：若會境生智然後斷惑，與舊何異？答：不言惑外別有實相，但了煩惱本自不生、今亦無滅則是實相，故名會實相斷。問：為但般若斷、薩婆若亦斷？答：此義舊有二師，或言金剛心斷，則是般若也斷；或言佛智所斷，則薩婆若斷。今明《大品》云「菩薩無礙道中行，佛在解脫道中行，無一切暗弊」。詳此文意，無礙、解脫俱有斷不斷義。若一念正觀，惑不現前，則無礙正斷。解脫出居累外，故解脫不斷，故云「佛在解脫道中行，無一切暗弊」也。若言解脫續於無礙，鎮前無惑之處、遮未來惑令不得續生，則有遮斷，故名斷。無礙正斷，故得言金剛惑盡；未有解脫，遮未來惑，得言不盡。故盡與不盡，二說不違。

Question: If one accords with the object to generate cognition and only then severs afflictions, how does this differ from the old [views]? Answer: We do not say that there is a separate dharmatā apart from affliction; rather, simply comprehending that afflictions are originally unborn and now also unceasing is itself dharmatā. Hence this is called severing through according with dharmatā. Question: Is it severed only by prajñā, or is it also severed by sarvajña? Answer: Regarding this meaning, in the past there were two masters: some said that it is severed by the adamantine mind (vajrasamādhi), which is severance by prajñā; others said that it is severed by the Buddha's cognition, which is severance by sarvajña. We now clarify that the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "Bodhisattvas practice in the unhindered path (ānantarya-mārga); the Buddha practices in the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga), without any darkness or obscuration." Examining the intent of this text, both the unhindered [path] and [the path of] liberation possess the meanings of severing and not severing. If in a single moment of correct contemplation afflictions do not manifest, then the unhindered [path] directly severs [them]. Liberation transcends and abides outside of defilements; hence liberation does not sever, which is why it says, "The Buddha practices in the path of liberation, without any darkness or obscuration." If one says that liberation continues from the unhindered [path], settling upon the prior affliction-free locus and blocking future afflictions so that they cannot continue to arise, then there is obstructive severance, and thus it is called severing. Because the unhindered [path] directly severs, one may say that the afflictions are ended at the adamantine [stage]; because liberation has not yet [arisen to] block future afflictions, one may say that they are not yet ended. Therefore, [between] ending and not ending, the two explanations do not contradict each other.