起信論疏筆削記 5.21

5.21

疏　諸眾生下，二、反顯。以雖有本覺而無始覺，故不得名如來。斯則如義寬通，來義局狹，故《淨名》云：一切眾生皆如也，眾聖賢亦如也，至於彌勒亦如也，而不言來。又地前雖有始覺，以比觀修行，未造真理，未得智無分別，不名如來。地上雖有此智，以障累未盡，觀心有間，始本二覺未得究竟冥合，亦無斯稱。以此推之，唯妙覺一人，餘皆不可。然若約性德，則無此揀，故《圓覺》云：眾生本來成佛。又云：一切障礙即究竟覺。今約修論，故有此說。

Commentary: From "All sentient beings" down, the second part clarifies by contrast. Because although they possess original enlightenment, they lack actualized enlightenment, they cannot be named Tathāgata. Thus, the meaning of "thus" (tathā) is broad and pervasive, while the meaning of "come" (āgata) is narrow and restricted. Hence the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa states: "All sentient beings are 'thus,' all the noble ones and sages are also 'thus,' even Maitreya is also 'thus,'" yet it does not say "come." Furthermore, although those before the bhūmis have actualized enlightenment, because their cultivation is by inferential contemplation, they have not reached the real principle, nor have they attained non-conceptual wisdom; hence they are not named Tathāgata. Although those on the bhūmis possess this wisdom, because their hindrances and bondages are not yet exhausted and their contemplative mind has intervals, their actualized and original enlightenments have not attained ultimate tacit union, so they also do not have this title. Deducing from this, it applies only to the single person of wondrous enlightenment, and none of the others qualify. However, if spoken in terms of the nature's virtue, there is no such exclusion; hence the Yuanjue jing states: "Sentient beings are originally fully enlightened buddhas." It also states: "All obstacles are identical to ultimate enlightenment." The present discussion is in terms of cultivation, which is why there is this statement.