大乘法界無差別論疏 1.68

1.68

二、定義者，問，此等功德，如來藏中為實有此？為不實耶？設爾何失？二俱有過。謂若實有，應同有為，即乖理失；若非實有，應無恒沙，即違教失。釋：即實有此功德，而不異真如。然有三說。一云：謂如來藏實無如此差別功德，但與佛果修生萬德為依為性，從彼能依說有功德。若爾，在纏與染為依，何不說為過失性耶？以是離脫不證故。修德不爾，證此真如不離脫故。一云：如來藏實有如此恒沙法性德，以聖所說故。《如來藏經》云「我以佛眼觀眾生貪欲恚癡諸煩惱中，有如來智、如來眼、如來身結跏趺坐儼然不動，乃至云如我無異。」又如模中像等，乃至廣說九喻。又《華嚴．性起》云「佛子！如來智慧、無相智慧、無礙智慧，具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒相覆，不知不見，不生信心」，乃至廣說。《涅槃經》云「佛性者，名為智慧。」《佛性論》以真如為應得因，於中具一切佛法等。聖教處處皆說。但以冥同真如、不可分異，然其功德決定是有，如八功德水同一濕性，不可以功德八故分一池水作八分，是故不同有為法。然其八功德水無不具足，是故實有。當知此中道理亦爾。一云：依《起信論》，皆依妄染翻對而說，故論以問曰：上說真如其體平等、離一切相，云何復說體有如是種種功德？答曰：雖實有此諸功德義，而無差別之相，等同一味，唯一真如。此義云何？以無分別、離分別相，是故無二。復以何義得說差別？以依業識生滅相示。此云何示？以一切法本來唯心，實無於念，而有妄心不覺起念、見諸境界，故說無明。心性不起，即是大智慧光明義故。若心起見，即有不見之相。心性離見，即是遍照法界義故。若心有動，非真識知、無有自性、非常非樂非我非淨、熱惱衰變，即不自在，乃至具有過恒沙等妄染之義。對此義故，心性無動，即有過恒沙等諸淨功德相義示現。若心有起，更見前法可念者，即有所少。如是淨法無量功德，即是一心，更無所念，是故滿足，名為法身如來之藏。解云：以差別即無差別故，約真如體平等一味；以無差別即差別故，翻對妄說恒沙功德；以體對無二故，即差別無差別皆無障礙。又上三說，同一功德，以本性功德無不成果，成果功德，無非功德、莫不翻染，是故三說方為究竟。又初約至得果佛性，次約自性住佛性，後約引出佛性，此三俱在應得因中，如《佛性論》說可知。

Second, concerning defining the meaning: Question: Do these merits really exist within the tathāgatagarbha, or do they not really exist? If so, what is the fault? Both possess errors. That is to say, if they really exist, they would be identical to the conditioned, which is the error of contradicting principle; if they do not really exist, there would not be [merits as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges, which is the error of contravening the teachings. Explanation: These merits indeed really exist, yet they are not different from tathatā. However, there are three explanations. One says: It is said that the tathāgatagarbha actually has no such differentiated merits; it merely serves as the support and nature for the myriad merits cultivated and generated in the fruit of Buddhahood, and it is spoken of as having merits in terms of that which relies upon it. If so, since when enveloped [in defilement] it serves as the support for defilement, why is it not spoken of as having the nature of faults? Because these [defilements] are separable and detached, and are not realized. The cultivated merits are not like this, because realizing this tathatā is neither separated nor detached. Another says: The tathāgatagarbha really has such natures and merits as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, because the Noble One has spoken of it. The Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra says: "With the Buddha-eye I observe that within the kleśas of greed, anger, and ignorance of sentient beings, there are the tathāgata's wisdom, the tathāgata's eye, and the tathāgata's body sitting cross-legged, majestic and unmoving, down to saying: not different from me." Furthermore, it is like the statue within the mold, down to extensively explaining the nine analogies. Furthermore, the "Nature Arising" chapter of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "Sons of the Buddha! The wisdom of the Tathāgata, the signless wisdom, the unimpeded wisdom, is completely present within the bodies of sentient beings. But foolish sentient beings are veiled by inverted marks, neither knowing nor seeing it, and do not give rise to faithful minds," down to the extensive explanation. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Buddhadhātu is called wisdom." The Buddhadhātuśāstra takes tathatā as the cause to be attained, within which all Buddha-dharmas are complete. The noble teachings state this everywhere. It is only because it is profoundly identical with tathatā that it cannot be divided or differentiated; yet its merits are definitively existent. Just as the eight-merit water shares a single moist nature, and one cannot divide the water of a single pool into eight parts because there are eight merits, so it is not like conditioned dharmas. Yet the eight-merit water is completely present without exception; therefore it really exists. One should know that the principle here is also like this. Another says: According to the Awakening of Faith, all are spoken of in opposition to delusive defilement. Therefore the treatise asks: "It was said above that the essence of tathatā is equal and free from all signs; why is it said again that its essence has such various merits?" It answers: "Although it truly has the meanings of these various merits, yet it has no signs of differentiation; it is equal, of a single taste, and only the one tathatā. What does this mean? Because it is without conceptual differentiation and free from the marks of conceptual differentiation, it is therefore non-dual. By what meaning, then, can differentiation be spoken of? It is revealed based on the arising and ceasing marks of the karmic consciousness. How is this revealed? Because all dharmas are originally mind-only and truly devoid of thoughts, yet deluded mind unawares gives rise to thoughts and perceives objects, it is therefore called ignorance. Because the nature of the mind does not arise, it has the meaning of the great light of wisdom. If the mind gives rise to views, then there are marks of not seeing. Because the nature of the mind is free from views, it has the meaning of universally illuminating the dharmadhātu. If the mind moves, it is not true cognition, has no intrinsic nature, is not permanent, not blissful, not self, not pure, but is burning distress and decay-transformation, and thus not sovereign, down to having the meanings of delusive defilements exceeding the sands of the Ganges. In opposition to this meaning, because the nature of the mind is motionless, the meanings of the marks of pure merits exceeding the sands of the Ganges are manifested. If the mind gives rise [to thought] and further perceives external dharmas to be thought upon, there is something lacking. These pure dharmas of immeasurable merits are just the one mind, with nothing further to be thought upon; therefore, being complete, it is called the dharmakāya and the tathāgatagarbha." The explanation says: Because differentiation is non-differentiation, it refers to the equality and single taste of the essence of tathatā; because non-differentiation is differentiation, merits as numerous as the sands of the Ganges are spoken of in contrast to delusion; because the essence and the opposition are non-dual, both differentiation and non-differentiation are free from obstruction. Furthermore, the three explanations above are of the same merit: because the original intrinsic merits all bring about the fruit, and the merits bringing about the fruit are nothing other than merits and without exception overturn defilement, therefore only all three explanations together are ultimate. Moreover, the first is explained in terms of the buddhadhātu of attainment as fruit; the next is explained in terms of the naturally abiding buddhadhātu; the last is explained in terms of the emerging buddhadhātu. These three are all within the cause to be attained, as can be known from what the Buddhadhātuśāstra says.