起信論疏筆削記 10.16

10.16

故令等者，比以無明和合，染心相續，故使本覺曠劫隨流。今既無明破、染心滅，無所拘累，故得此心却復元淨，其猶窮子歸家，摩尼出垢也。成淳淨圓智者，不雜故淳，離染故淨，無缺故圓，滅識故智。成應身始覺者，應字平聲呼，謂始覺智與本覺相應，即報身也。真諦三藏亦呼報身為應身。然此始覺與前本覺皆是能成，此應身與前法身皆是所成，意謂識相破而性在，性即本覺，本覺能成法身；心相滅而智淨，智即始覺，始覺能成報身。此皆義說能所成也。然此段文是《海東疏》義，圭山參而用之。石壁失照，作應化解，深為不可，以下不思議業相方是應化身故。若如上解，三身義足。不爾，文中便成缺剩，剩一化身，缺一報也。有智請詳。

Regarding 'thereby causing...' and so forth: previously, due to combination with ignorance, the defiled mind continued, causing original enlightenment to flow along with the stream for vast kalpas. Now, since ignorance has been broken and the defiled mind extinguished, without any restraint or encumbrance, this mind is able to return to its original purity, like the poor son returning home, or the maṇi jewel cleansed of dirt. Regarding 'accomplishing the pure, perfect, and all-encompassing cognition': it is pure because it is unmixed; it is cleansed because it is free from defilement; it is perfect because it lacks nothing; it is cognition because consciousness has been extinguished. Regarding 'accomplishing the actualized enlightenment of the response body': the character 'response' (ying) is pronounced in the level tone, meaning that the cognition of actualized enlightenment corresponds (ying) with original enlightenment; this is the sambhogakāya. The Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha also called the sambhogakāya the 'response body'. However, this actualized enlightenment and the preceding original enlightenment are both that which accomplishes; this response body and the preceding dharmakāya are both that which is accomplished. The meaning is that the marks of consciousness are broken while the nature remains; the nature is original enlightenment, and original enlightenment can accomplish the dharmakāya; the marks of mind are extinguished while cognition is purified; cognition is actualized enlightenment, and actualized enlightenment can accomplish the sambhogakāya. These are all nominal explanations of that which accomplishes and that which is accomplished. This passage represents the interpretation of the Haedong Commentary, which Guishan consulted and adopted. Shibi failed to examine this carefully, taking it as the response-transformation body, which is profoundly mistaken, because the subsequent marks of inconceivable karma are precisely the response-transformation body. If explained as above, the meaning of the three bodies is complete. Otherwise, the text would result in deficiency and excess—an excess of one nirmāṇakāya, and a deficiency of one sambhogakāya. Let the wise examine this.