起信論疏筆削記 9.42

9.42

四、結觀。論　以捨等者，此文兩勢：一則結觀、二是釋前，下二相例知。疏　以於等者，以覺我空故，不起我執煩惱，故云捨麁分別等。而猶等者，以未能覺法執故，此乃通明二乘、三賢俱名似覺。以此下，釋所以也。菩薩未證本分是似二乘，雖在自乘，名為入證，以望大乘但得我空，未證法空，亦名未證，故同似覺。斯則望於初地證真，故此名似。問中引前為難，可知。答中先縱。若約下，奪也，謂依覺有不覺，不覺是惑。不覺與覺是正敵對，轉依不覺之惑，方始造業。業與覺義猶隔一重，故非敵對。以敵對故名為似覺，非敵對故名為不覺。其猶塵鏡在匣，匣與鏡非正敵對，塵與鏡是正敵對也。此義亦然。

Fourth, concluding the contemplation. The Śāstra states: "By abandoning..."—this text has two aspects: first, it concludes the contemplation; second, it explains what precedes. The two below are to be understood by analogy. The Commentary explains: "Because in..." means that because one awakens to self-emptiness, the afflictions of self-grasping do not arise; hence it is called "abandoning coarse conceptual differentiation," and so forth. "Yet still..." means that because they are not yet able to awaken to dharma-grasping, this comprehensively clarifies that both the two vehicles and the three stages of worthies are called "approximate enlightenment." "Because..." below explains the reason. Bodhisattvas who have not yet realized their original portion are approximate to the two vehicles; although [the two vehicles] are in their own vehicle, it is termed "entering realization," [yet] in relation to the Mahāyāna they have only attained self-emptiness and not yet realized dharma-emptiness, so they are also termed "not yet having realized"; thus both are alike in approximate enlightenment. Hence, in relation to the realization of tathatā at the first bhūmi, this is termed "approximate." In the question, quoting what precedes to raise an objection is obvious. In the answer, it first concedes. "If from the perspective of..." below refutes [the objection], meaning: based on enlightenment there is non-enlightenment; non-enlightenment is delusion. Non-enlightenment and enlightenment are directly opposed; only by turning and relying on the delusion of non-enlightenment does one begin to create karma. Karma is separated from the meaning of enlightenment by another layer, so it is not directly opposed. Because it is directly opposed, it is called "approximate enlightenment"; because it is not directly opposed, it is called "non-enlightenment." It is like a dusty mirror in a case: the case and the mirror are not directly opposed, but the dust and the mirror are directly opposed. This meaning is also like that.