起信論疏筆削記 10.61

10.61

二、顯覺。疏　初義者，即文云：以有不覺，乃至為說真覺。後義者，即文云：若離不覺等。此即節釋論文也。良以下，正辨其意。依真下，顯初意，如依金之器方能顯金，反之則不可也。隨妄下，顯後意，如隨器之金還待器顯，反之亦不可也。此乃前依覺故迷，則為妄之所損；今依迷顯覺，則為妄之所益也。然論之大意，明不覺與覺皆是相待，以顯生滅、染淨無有自相，皆不可得也。此中初言以有不覺妄想心者，無明所起妄想分別，由此分別能知名義，故有言說。說於真覺，是明真覺之名待於妄立也。若離不覺，即無真覺。自相可說者，是反明真覺必待不覺，若不相待，即無自相。待他而有，豈成自相？自相既無，他亦不立，是顯染淨無所得義，故後譯云：然彼不覺自無實相，不離本覺。復待不覺以說真覺，不覺既無，真覺亦遣。如下文云：當知一切染法淨法皆悉相待，無有自相可說，故《圓覺》云：依幻說覺，亦名為幻。《智論》亦云：若世諦如毫釐許有實者，第一義諦亦應有實。此之謂也。

Second, revealing enlightenment. The commentary states: Regarding the 'first meaning', it is the text that says: 'Because there is non-enlightenment... up to... true enlightenment is spoken of for its sake.' Regarding the 'latter meaning', it is the text that says: 'If one is free from non-enlightenment,' etc. This is analyzing and explaining the treatise's text. From 'Because' below, it directly discerns its intention. From 'relying on the true' below, it reveals the first meaning: just as only a vessel made of gold can reveal the gold, whereas the reverse is impossible. From 'following delusion' below, it reveals the latter meaning: just as the gold that follows the vessel still depends on the vessel to be revealed, whereas the reverse is likewise impossible. This means: previously, relying on enlightenment there was delusion, which was a detriment caused by delusion; now, relying on delusion enlightenment is revealed, which is a benefit brought by delusion. However, the general meaning of the treatise is to clarify that both non-enlightenment and enlightenment are mutually dependent, thereby revealing that arising-and-ceasing, defilement and purity, have no intrinsic characteristics and are entirely unobtainable. Herein, the initial statement, 'Because there is the mind of deluded thinking of non-enlightenment,' refers to the deluded conceptual differentiation arising from ignorance; because of this conceptual differentiation, one is able to know names and meanings, and therefore there is verbal expression. When it says 'true enlightenment is spoken of,' this clarifies that the name of true enlightenment is established in dependence upon delusion. 'If one is free from non-enlightenment, then there is no true enlightenment whose intrinsic characteristics could be spoken of' inversely clarifies that true enlightenment necessarily depends upon non-enlightenment; if they are not mutually dependent, then there is no intrinsic characteristic. Since it exists in dependence upon the other, how could it constitute an intrinsic characteristic? Since the intrinsic characteristic does not exist, the other is not established either; this reveals the meaning that defilement and purity are unobtainable. Therefore, the later translation says: 'However, that non-enlightenment itself has no real mark and is not separate from original enlightenment. Furthermore, in dependence upon non-enlightenment, true enlightenment is spoken of; once non-enlightenment does not exist, true enlightenment is also set aside.' As the text below says: 'One should know that all defiled dharmas and pure dharmas are mutually dependent, and have no intrinsic characteristics that can be spoken of.' Therefore the Yuanjue jing says: 'Enlightenment spoken of in reliance on illusion is also called illusion.' The Da zhidu lun also says: 'If conventional truth had reality even to the extent of a hair's breadth, then ultimate truth should also have reality.' This is what it means.