請觀音經疏闡義鈔 1.20

1.20

'The dharmadhātu is unobstructed': the three truths in a single mind are called the dharmadhātu; sentient beings and Buddhas interpenetrate, each completely pervading, hence it is said to be unobstructed. As for 'defiled without defilement': the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra states, 'The inherently pure mind of the middle way is not defiled by afflictions, being fundamentally neither bound nor liberated; that it is defiled without defilement is difficult to comprehend.' This means that sentient beings, deluded about the liberation of true nature, give rise to the sixty-two views. Examining the meaning of those words, they fully accord with the present text. If we explain the present text, we should say that the dharmatā and ignorance together completely create all dharmas, which is being defiled without defilement. The entirety of the nature of principle becoming poisonous is called poison in the nature of principle. Due to poison in principle, there are poisons in practice and poisons in phenomena. Now, contemplating all dharmas as mind-only, the substance of defilement is entirely pure—this is the divine dhāraṇī curing the poison in the nature of principle. This corresponds to the statement in the sūtra below: 'all enter the limit of reality.' If so, how does it differ from [elimination] in terms of practice? Answer: The previous discussion in terms of practice was in terms of wisdom and severance. Wisdom is that which can sever, and severance is that which is severed; where the five entrenchments are severed is called eliminating poison in practice. Now it is not so: it is exclusively in terms of the principle of truth. Principle is neither active nor passive; merely because it is endowed with delusion, it is defiled without defilement, which is termed poisonous affliction. Delusion is itself dharmatā, which is being defiled yet undefiled, termed eliminating and subduing. Thus delusion and nature are mutually correlative, and this does not concern wisdom and severance. If someone says that inherent evil is poison in principle, although the meaning of poison is established, the meaning of eliminating is completely absent. If there is no meaning of eliminating, how can it be called a function? If one says it exists, one would have to break inherent evil. The Dharma gate of inherent evil cannot be broken.