大乘法界無差別論疏 1.69

1.69

第三、剋分齊者，此諸功德，於真如三大中當相大攝。《起信論》云「體大者，真如平等不增減故。相大者，具足無漏性功德故。用大者，能成世間出世間善因果故。」以此相大要約妄染相違反對顯發說，是故經說如模中像。但因模㘭處像有埵現、因模培處像有㘭現，是故差別之像皆內模現。當知此中道理亦爾，妄染如模，性德如像，相違相顯。此中通論真妄相依，各有四義。約妄中四義者：一依真無體義、二違真覆障義、三反自論他義、四順成覺分義。真中亦四義：一隨緣義、二不變義、三反顯義、四熏內義。此真妄中各由初義故，隨流作眾生；各由第二義故，自性常清淨；各由第三義故，具足性功德；各由第四義故，名為佛性作反緣因。又各由前三義故，名法身為眾生界；由總具四義故，名法身為涅槃界。此俱是對妄門，不說佛地。又在纏真如具此四義無障礙故，是故或有處說真如隨熏若生若滅，就初義也；或有處說真如本性清淨不生不滅，據第二義也；或有處說真如具足恒沙功德，就第三義說；或有處說真如是佛性為出世因，據第四義。是故諸說各當一理，互不相違。真如甚深，於茲驗矣。今此所辨恒沙性德，據第三義說。問：若爾，此功德云何得有？若在纏時障故不現，不可為有；若出障時無染可對，亦不可說有。答：正在纏時，佛眼觀見纏內真如，不同妄染，翻說淨德。問：既在纏有染、有此淨德，豈不同彼因中計果？答：既各對妄相翻，即是相由緣起。既就緣說有，不同彼計，是故此有亦不有有也。問：真如與染俱，翻染有為說淨功德。真如亦與淨法俱，亦應翻淨有為說染過失？答：不爾。以染法違真說有翻，故云若離若脫。淨法順真不說翻，故云不離不脫。

Third, determining the delimitations: Among the three greats of tathatā, these merits are subsumed under the greatness of marks. The Awakening of Faith says: "The greatness of essence is because tathatā is equal and neither increases nor decreases. The greatness of marks is because it is complete with untainted intrinsic merits. The greatness of function is because it can bring about the mundane and supramundane wholesome causes and effects." Since this greatness of marks must be spoken of as revealed in opposition to the contrary marks of delusive defilement, the sūtra therefore speaks of it as being like the statue within the mold. Only because of a concave part of the mold does a convex part of the statue appear, and because of a convex part of the mold does a concave part of the statue appear; therefore, the differentiated statue is entirely manifested from within the mold. One should know that the principle here is also like this: delusive defilement is like the mold, intrinsic merit is like the statue, and they mutually oppose and mutually reveal each other. In discussing the mutual reliance of truth and delusion in general here, each has four meanings. In terms of the four meanings within delusion: first is the meaning of relying on truth while lacking an essence of its own; second is the meaning of opposing truth by veiling and obstructing; third is the meaning of referring to the other by reversing itself; fourth is the meaning of conformingly accomplishing the factors of awakening. Within truth there are also four meanings: first is the meaning of according with conditions; second is the meaning of being unchanging; third is the meaning of reverse revelation; fourth is the meaning of internal perfuming. Due to the first meaning in truth and delusion respectively, they follow the stream to become sentient beings; due to the second meaning respectively, their intrinsic nature is constantly pure; due to the third meaning respectively, they are replete with intrinsic merits; due to the fourth meaning respectively, it is called buddhadhātu and serves as the cause that reverses conditions. Moreover, due to the previous three meanings respectively, the dharmakāya is called the realm of sentient beings; due to possessing all four meanings together, the dharmakāya is called the realm of nirvāṇa. These are both gates of opposition to delusion, and do not speak of the Buddha-stage. Moreover, because tathatā in the enveloped state possesses these four meanings without obstruction, therefore in some places it is said that tathatā, according to perfuming, either arises or ceases—this refers to the first meaning; in some places it is said that the original nature of tathatā is pure, neither arising nor ceasing—this is based on the second meaning; in some places it is said that tathatā is replete with merits as numerous as the sands of the Ganges—this is spoken of in terms of the third meaning; in some places it is said that tathatā is buddhadhātu and is the supramundane cause—this is based on the fourth meaning. Therefore, each of the various explanations corresponds to one principle, without contradicting one another. The profound depth of tathatā is verified here. The intrinsic merits as numerous as the sands of the Ganges distinguished here are spoken of based on the third meaning. Question: If so, how can these merits exist? If during the enveloped state they are obstructed and thus do not manifest, they cannot be said to exist; if at the time of emerging from obstruction there is no defilement to contrast with, they also cannot be said to exist. Answer: Right at the time of being enveloped, the Buddha-eye perceives that tathatā within the envelope is not identical to delusive defilement, and speaks of pure merits by reversal. Question: Since there is defilement in the enveloped state and yet there are these pure merits, is this not identical to positing the effect within the cause? Answer: Since each is reversed in opposition to delusion, this is dependent origination based on mutual reliance. Since existence is spoken of in terms of conditions, it is not like that [heterodox] imputation; therefore, this existence is also not an existent existence. Question: Tathatā is together with defilement, and in reversing defiled conditioned [dharmas] pure merits are spoken of. Tathatā is also together with pure dharmas; should one not also reverse pure conditioned [dharmas] to speak of the faults of defilement? Answer: It is not so. Because defiled dharmas oppose truth, reversal is spoken of; therefore it is said that they are separable and detached. Pure dharmas accord with truth and reversal is not spoken of; therefore it is said that they are neither separated nor detached.