起信論疏筆削記 13.36

13.36

略中，論二：一、總舉能所熏體者，就此門中，即無明是能熏、真如是所熏。若在後門，即真如為能、無明為所。亦可下，別義。以無明本無自體，單說不得，凡欲舉之，必須帶所依真體，真體即無明本起之處。如欲說波，必須兼水也。雖復雙舉，意取無明。或則意顯無明非實有體，依他起故，本來即空。或則意顯染淨互熏之所以也。若本抗行，則不可熏故，如相宗說無明真如敵體有異，是故真如堅如玉石，不能受熏也。

In the brief explanation, the treatise has two parts: First, generally identifying the essences of the perfuming agent and that which is perfumed: Within this gate, avidyā is the perfuming agent and tathatā is that which is perfumed. If in the subsequent gate, tathatā is the perfuming agent and avidyā is that which is perfumed. "It may also be..." is a distinct interpretation. Because avidyā originally lacks its own essence, it cannot be spoken of in isolation; whenever one wishes to mention it, one must bring along the real essence upon which it relies, which is the very place where avidyā originally arose. Just as when one wishes to speak of waves, one must also include water. Although both are mentioned together, the intention focuses on avidyā. Or it is intended to reveal that avidyā does not substantially possess an essence: because it is dependently arisen (paratantra), it is fundamentally empty. Or it is intended to reveal the reason why defilement and purity mutually perfume each other. If they were originally antagonistic rivals, they could not perfume each other, just as the characteristics school says that avidyā and tathatā are diametrically opposed and distinct, and therefore tathatā is as hard as jade and stone, unable to receive perfuming.