起信論疏筆削記 6.27

6.27

疏　何故下，二、通妨。牃難可知。以不下，正釋。若善因果，內順真如、外治諸惡，此法若起，從因至果能感勝處，故得名為真如淨用，以從真如內熏，所起報化二用所發，今茲用大宜發此法。若不善因果，內違真理、外被善治，此法若起，從因至果能感苦處，何名淨用？以從不覺所生，塵勞發現故，故此文中不言不善也。若爾下，轉難可知。釋云下，重釋。雖是惡法，以是不覺，迷真所成。所成之法不離真體，如水起波，不離濕性故。下文云：以依真如法故，有於無明。又云：依覺故迷，若離覺性，則無不覺。以違下，結成前義，可知。然此用大正是果上二身，如下具說。今疏以善為用者，乃是旁義，亦即以所生顯能生也。然論不言滅惡者，以善起必惡滅故。

The Commentary states: "Why..." down to..., second, resolving doubts. Repeating the objection can be known. "Because not..." down directly explains. Wholesome causes and fruits inwardly accord with tathatā and outwardly eradicate various evils; when these dharmas arise, from cause to fruit they can induce superior states, and therefore can be named the pure function of tathatā. Because they are aroused by the two functions of sambhoga and nirmāṇa that arise from the inner perfuming of tathatā, the present greatness of function should arouse these dharmas. If unwholesome causes and fruits inwardly violate true principle and are outwardly eradicated by the wholesome, when these dharmas arise, from cause to fruit they can induce states of suffering; how could they be called pure function? Because they are produced from non-enlightenment and are manifestations of afflictions, unwholesomeness is not spoken of in this text. "If so..." down: the further objection can be known. "The explanation says..." down explains again. Although they are evil dharmas, because they are non-enlightenment, they are formed through delusion regarding the true. The dharmas that are formed are not separated from the true essence, just as when water gives rise to waves, they are not separated from the nature of wetness. Therefore, the later text says: "Because it relies on the dharma of tathatā, there is avidyā." It also says: "Relying on enlightenment, there is delusion; if separated from the nature of enlightenment, there is no non-enlightenment." "Because of violating..." down concludes and establishes the former meaning, as can be known. However, this greatness of function is precisely the two bodies at the stage of fruition, as fully explained below. Now, that the Commentary takes the wholesome as the function is a secondary meaning, and also reveals that which produces by means of that which is produced. Moreover, that the treatise does not speak of destroying evil is because when good arises, evil is necessarily destroyed.