大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經略疏 1.1028

1.1028

法合也。鑛喻煩惱，金喻覺性。鍊出潔淨即有晶光，及能隨匠隨模作佛等像、或種種器，喻佛三身也。然此一喻唯答佛不再迷之難。前就圓悟之理生佛俱是本真，以成普眼段中眾生本來成佛之義，故舉空華元來不起，非後始滅，法合云：「生死涅槃同於起滅。」所以俱通三難。今就不壞因果之相，故說銷鑛出金，華則始終本無，鑛則因銷始盡。意云：圓頓之理雖齊，迷悟不妨成異。既有多生習障，還須背習顯真，真顯則究竟清淨。若但用前喻，即撥無迷悟因果之相，便成邪見。若但用此喻，即成眾生覺性本來不淨，失真常理，亦成邪見。道理微妙，一喻難齊，故說兩事，是知此喻唯答第三難也。

This is the application of the metaphor. The ore illustrates defilements, and the gold illustrates the nature of enlightenment. When refined and pure, it has crystalline brilliance and can follow the artisan and mold to be made into images of buddhas and the like, or various vessels; this illustrates the Buddha's three bodies. However, this single metaphor answers only the objection that a buddha might become deluded again. Previously, in terms of the principle of perfect awakening, both sentient beings and buddhas are fundamentally true, so as to establish the meaning in the Samantacakṣus section that sentient beings originally become buddhas; thus it was adduced that flowers in the sky originally do not arise and do not merely cease later, and the application of the metaphor said: 'Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are identical to arising and ceasing.' Therefore, both [points] resolved all three objections. Now, in terms of not destroying the marks of cause and effect, it is said that smelting the ore brings forth the gold: the flowers are fundamentally non-existent from beginning to end, while the ore is brought to an end only because of smelting. The point is: although the principle of the perfect and sudden is equal, delusion and awakening still differ. Since there are habit-obstacles from many lives, one must still turn away from habits to manifest the true; once the true is manifested, there is ultimate purity. If one used only the previous metaphor, one would negate the marks of cause and effect in delusion and awakening, and this would turn into heterodoxy. If one used only this metaphor, then sentient beings' nature of enlightenment would be originally impure, losing the principle of the true and eternal, and this too would become heterodoxy. The principle is subtle, and a single metaphor can hardly encompass it, so both matters are spoken; hence we know this metaphor answers only the third objection.