起信論疏筆削記 11.38

11.38

又前下，重以真如二字釋此二段也。舊入者，故《圓覺》云：始知眾生本來成佛，故云舊來。又一切眾生即究竟覺，故云無新得也。然舊來入與無新得，義同文異，但以如為涅槃、真為菩提為別也。又時人多謂涅槃為相所累故，說不覺即如，本來涅槃。計菩提修因所生故，說覺性即真，亦非新得。由是相即無相，故約不覺說涅槃。非是修生，元自本有，故約真性說菩提。望涅槃等者，涅槃合是修其智了所顯，以不覺即如，如即涅槃，豈待了因了之方顯？斯則未嘗不顯，何待更顯？故上文云：舊來入涅槃。望菩提等者，菩提合是生因所作，以菩提是覺，覺性即真故，不待作之始生。斯則未嘗不有，更何作耶？故上云：菩提無新得。然據前疏云：諸佛菩提非修等，即將此二句獨就菩提而論。今又分此修作以望兩處所說，又似別是一解。學者知之。此之下，既是本有之法，不合言得，以體如實，常不變故，不同妄法無實可得，斯無得法元真實故。

Regarding "Furthermore, earlier...", it reinterprets these two passages by means of the two characters "true" (zhen) and "suchness" (ru) [of tathatā]. Regarding "entering long ago", the Yuanjue jing therefore says: "One begins to know that sentient beings have fundamentally attained buddhahood"; hence it says "long ago." Furthermore, all sentient beings are ultimate enlightenment; hence it says "no newly attained." Yet "entering long ago" and "no newly attained" are identical in meaning though different in phrasing, distinguished merely by taking "suchness" (ru) as nirvāṇa and "true" (zhen) as bodhi. Moreover, people of the time often considered nirvāṇa to be burdened by marks; hence it is stated that non-enlightenment is suchness (ru), fundamentally nirvāṇa. They surmised that bodhi is born from causes cultivated; hence it is stated that the nature of enlightenment is true (zhen), and likewise not newly attained. On this basis, marks are identical to marklessness; hence nirvāṇa is spoken of with respect to non-enlightenment. It is not produced through cultivation, but is original and fundamentally possessed; hence bodhi is spoken of with respect to the true nature. Regarding "With respect to nirvāṇa...", nirvāṇa ought properly to be revealed through the cultivation of discerning wisdom (liaoyin); but since non-enlightenment is suchness, and suchness is nirvāṇa, how could it wait for a discerning cause to discern it before being revealed? This means it has never not been revealed; why wait for it to be revealed further? Therefore the text above says: "entered nirvāṇa long ago." Regarding "With respect to bodhi...", bodhi ought properly to be produced by a generative cause (shengyin); but because bodhi is enlightenment, and the nature of enlightenment is true, it does not wait to be produced before coming into being. This means it has never not existed; what more is there to produce? Therefore the text above says: "Bodhi is not newly attained." Yet according to the earlier Commentary stating, "The bodhi of all buddhas is not cultivated...", these two lines were applied exclusively to bodhi. Now, dividing this "cultivation and production" to apply to the two places discussed appears to be an alternative interpretation. Scholars should know this. Regarding "This...", since it is a fundamentally possessed dharma, it is not fitting to speak of attaining it; because its essence is truly real and eternally unchanging, unlike delusive dharmas which have nothing real to be attained, this dharma of non-attainment is fundamentally true and real.