起信論疏筆削記 13.32

13.32

合中，論二：一、染熏淨。疏　無相等者，此約真釋相字，相即九相。然前說九相是不覺相者，以約親生義說故。今此說為真如相者，就根本說故。是則兼彼無明不覺，亦是真如相，如前云：如是無漏無明種種業幻，皆同真如性相也。又顯下，約妄解相字。以妄有差別，可覽可別，而無自體故。又自不能反染歸淨，用義亦無，然非無染用，今就反流名無用也。既無此用，故但云相。此約下，顯意可知。然此染淨二法各不無相用，且迷真執妄，起惑造業，豈非染用？智淨相、法出離鏡、大智慧光明義等，豈非淨相？今此文中意在影略，故各舉一義，疏文所釋且一往耳。惡習所熏等，即《楞伽經》，如前略辨。然準他宗，於能所熏中皆揀真如，以是堅密及不生滅。今此實教，約不思議熏變，故有斯義。

In matching [the metaphor], the treatise has two parts: first, defilement perfuming purity. Commentary: "Without marks..." This interprets the word "marks" with respect to the real; "marks" refers to the nine marks. However, the nine marks were previously described as marks of non-enlightenment because they were spoken with respect to the meaning of directly producing [them]. Now they are spoken of as marks of tathatā because they are spoken with respect to the fundamental. In that case, together with that avidyā and non-enlightenment, they are also marks of tathatā. As was said earlier: "Such uncontaminated and avidyā-based various karmic illusions are all identical with the nature and marks of tathatā." "Furthermore, revealing..." interprets the word "marks" with respect to delusion. Because delusion has differences that can be viewed and distinguished, yet lacks its own essence. Furthermore, it cannot of itself reverse defilement and return to purity, so the meaning of function is also absent; yet it is not without a defiled function—now it is called "without function" with respect to reversing the flow. Since it lacks this function, it is merely called "marks." "This with respect to..." reveals the intention, which can be known. However, these two dharmas of defilement and purity are each not without marks and functions. Furthermore, being confused about the real and grasping at the deluded, arousing afflictions and creating karma—how could that not be a defiled function? The mark of the purity of wisdom, the mirror of the dharma emerging from separation, the meaning of the great wisdom light, and so on—how could these not be pure marks? In the present text, the intention lies in elliptical implication, and so each mentions only one aspect; the explanation in the commentary is merely a preliminary observation. "Perfumed by evil predispositions..." and so forth refers to the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, as briefly distinguished earlier. However, according to other schools, in both the perfuming agent and that which is perfumed, tathatā is excluded because it is solid, dense, unarisen, and unceasing. Now this definitive teaching discusses it in terms of inconceivable perfuming and transformation, and therefore possesses this meaning.