大乘起信論義記別記 1.8

1.8

第五、立義分內，問：何故前明體大中，通一切法，不簡染淨及其相用，唯是其善，不通不善？答：體大理曰通諸法，不得簡別。若真如外別有無明為不善體者，有多種過，且以二義顯之：一者、同於外道執冥性常，以其自有，不從因生故。二者、眾生畢竟無有得解脫義，以有自體不可斷故，生則常生，亦可恒不生也。有此過故，真如之外，不得別立無明作不善體，不善等法亦不得作真如相用。若是相用，亦有多過，且以二義釋之：一者、因果雜亂過，隨彼善因應得苦果；二者、聖人證得真如，應起不善惡業。有此過故，不善不得作真如相用。問：若爾，不善不應以真如作體。答：正以不善之法，用彼真如作體故，以違不相應，則名不善；又由違真故不離真，違真故不是用也。

Fifth, within the section explaining the doctrine, question: Why is it that previously, when clarifying the greatness of essence, it pervaded all dharmas without distinguishing between defiled and pure, whereas its marks and function are exclusively wholesome and do not extend to the unwholesome? Answer: The principle of the greatness of essence pervades all dharmas and cannot admit distinctions. If outside tathatā there were separately an ignorance serving as the essence of the unwholesome, there would be multiple faults; let us briefly demonstrate this with two points: First, it would be identical to the non-Buddhists clinging to primordial matter (prakṛti) as permanent, because it would exist of itself and not be produced from causes. Second, sentient beings would ultimately never attain liberation, because possessing an intrinsic essence, it could not be severed; if it arose it would arise eternally, or it could also constantly not arise. Because of these faults, outside tathatā one cannot separately establish ignorance as the essence of the unwholesome, nor can unwholesome dharmas and so forth serve as the marks and function of tathatā. If they were its marks and function, there would also be multiple faults; let us briefly explain this with two points: First, the fault of confusing causes and effects, in that following wholesome causes one would obtain bitter fruits. Second, when sages realize tathatā, they would give rise to unwholesome and evil karma. Because of these faults, the unwholesome cannot serve as the marks and function of tathatā. Question: If so, then the unwholesome should not take tathatā as its essence. Answer: It is precisely because unwholesome dharmas take that tathatā as their essence that, by being contrary and non-concordant, they are named unwholesome; furthermore, because they are contrary to the real they do not depart from the real, and because they are contrary to the real they are not its function.