起信論疏筆削記 8.59

8.59

論　離念相下，釋也。相謂義相，即下二義是也。此之二義正是本覺相，即相大也。等謂齊等，本覺之義與空齊等故也。疏　非唯等者，即正釋相之一字，即大智慧光明等義。以一一義稱體而周，不異不二，皆等虛空，故云與虛空等。此文乃是海東疏義，故今引用，二義如下所配。橫遍三際者，若言遍，則合云凡聖；若言通，則合云三際。今所異者，以三際凡聖互有相通，舉三際時，一一際中必具凡聖，凡聖皆如，故云橫遍三際。舉凡聖時，一一凡聖必具三際，始終皆爾，故云竪通凡聖。蓋欲異於常說橫不該竪，故有此言，顯無不遍也。在纏等者，此雖約時竪說，語似未盡，然理亦該收，謂在纏必具情器，出障必收身土，二俱無二也。

Regarding the treatise's "free from the marks of thought" and what follows: this is the explanation. "Marks" refers to marks of meaning, which are precisely the two meanings explained below. These two meanings are specifically the marks of original enlightenment, namely the greatness of attributes. "Equal to" means level and equal, because the meaning of original enlightenment is equal to empty space. Regarding the commentary's "not only" and what follows: this directly explains the single word "mark", namely the meanings such as great wisdom and radiance. Because each individual meaning corresponds to the essence and pervades universally, being neither different nor dual, and all are equal to empty space, it says "equal to empty space". This text represents the meaning from the Haedong [Wonhyo's] commentary; hence it is quoted here, and the two meanings are correlated as below. Regarding "horizontally pervading the three periods of time": if one speaks of "pervading", it should properly apply to ordinary beings and sages; if one speaks of "passing through", it should properly apply to the three periods of time. The reason for the variation here is that the three periods of time and ordinary beings and sages mutually interpenetrate. When raising the three periods of time, each single period must contain both ordinary beings and sages, and ordinary beings and sages are all suchness; hence it says "horizontally pervading the three periods of time". When raising ordinary beings and sages, each single ordinary being or sage must contain the three periods of time, which is so from beginning to end; hence it says "vertically passing through ordinary beings and sages". It was formulated with these words precisely to differ from the conventional view that the horizontal does not cover the vertical, thereby showing that there is nowhere it does not pervade. Regarding "in bondage" and what follows: although this is spoken vertically with respect to time and the phrasing may seem incomplete, the principle nonetheless encompasses it entirely, meaning that being in bondage necessarily includes sentient beings and the insentient vessel-world, and emerging from obstacles necessarily encompasses the [Buddha's] body and land; neither of the two admits of duality.