大乘起信論義疏 1.89

1.89

自下第三從「復次覺與不覺」下，料簡因果，亦可釋上非一非異。此中有三：一者總舉數；二者「云何」以下，列名；三者「同相」者以下，釋章門。就第三中有二：一者釋同章門、二者釋異章門。就初中有三：一者開喻；二者「如是無漏」以下，合喻；三者「是故」以下，引經證成。「譬如瓦器」者，喻第七識種種妄法也。「皆同微塵性相」者，喻真如為體也。「如是」以下，合喻。「無漏無明」，皆七識也。「皆同真如」者，合上「同微塵性相」也。自下第三引證。「是故修多羅中依此義說」者，取彼經說，釋成此義也。此有二句：初明理涅槃，後明釋難。言「一切眾生本來常住涅槃菩提」者，唯是真識，悉無餘法故也。言「非可修相作相」者，非如報應也。「畢竟無得」者，既已常已常得，更無得也。「亦無色相可見」者，以理無色故也。自下釋難。若無色相者，何故得有？以相之身利益眾生，釋此難故。「而有見色」者，唯隨染業幻所作也，非是真智，理色不空性也。何故非理智無色者，以智相不可見故也。

From here below, the third [part], from "Furthermore, enlightenment and non-enlightenment" onward, analyzes cause and effect; it can also explain the aforementioned [meaning of] neither identical nor different. In this there are three [parts]: first, generally stating the number; second, from "What are [they]?" onward, listing the names; third, from "The mark of identity" onward, explaining the section. Within the third there are two: first, explaining the section on identity; second, explaining the section on difference. Within the first there are three: first, presenting an analogy; second, from "Thus, undefiled..." onward, applying the analogy; third, from "Therefore..." onward, citing a sūtra to verify and establish it. "Just as with earthenware vessels": an analogy for the various delusional dharmas of the seventh consciousness. "All share the same nature and mark of subtle dust particles": an analogy for tathatā as the essence. From "Thus" onward applies the analogy. "Undefiled and avidyā": both are the seventh consciousness. "All share identity with tathatā": corresponds to "sharing the same nature and mark of subtle dust particles" above. From here below is the third, citing verification. "Therefore, in the sūtras, based on this meaning it is said": taking what is said in that sūtra to explain and establish this meaning. Here there are two clauses: first, clarifying principle nirvāṇa; later, resolving an objection. "All sentient beings originally and constantly abide in nirvāṇa and bodhi": because it is solely the true consciousness, entirely without any other dharma. "Not marks that can be cultivated or made": not like the saṃbhogakāya or nirmāṇakāya. "Ultimately unobtainable": since it is already constantly obtained, there is no further obtaining. "Nor are there visible marks of form to be seen": because the principle is without form. From here below resolves an objection: If there are no marks of form, why is it possible to have bodies with marks that benefit sentient beings? To resolve this objection, [it says:] "Yet having visible form": it is only created magically in accordance with defiled karma; it is not true wisdom, nor the nature of the non-empty form of principle. Why is it that the form of principle and wisdom is not form? Because the mark of wisdom cannot be seen.