起信論疏筆削記 11.38

11.38

Regarding "Furthermore, earlier...", it reinterprets these two passages by means of the two characters "true" (zhen) and "suchness" (ru) [of tathatā]. Regarding "entering long ago", the Yuanjue jing therefore says: "One begins to know that sentient beings have fundamentally attained buddhahood"; hence it says "long ago." Furthermore, all sentient beings are ultimate enlightenment; hence it says "no newly attained." Yet "entering long ago" and "no newly attained" are identical in meaning though different in phrasing, distinguished merely by taking "suchness" (ru) as nirvāṇa and "true" (zhen) as bodhi. Moreover, people of the time often considered nirvāṇa to be burdened by marks; hence it is stated that non-enlightenment is suchness (ru), fundamentally nirvāṇa. They surmised that bodhi is born from causes cultivated; hence it is stated that the nature of enlightenment is true (zhen), and likewise not newly attained. On this basis, marks are identical to marklessness; hence nirvāṇa is spoken of with respect to non-enlightenment. It is not produced through cultivation, but is original and fundamentally possessed; hence bodhi is spoken of with respect to the true nature. Regarding "With respect to nirvāṇa...", nirvāṇa ought properly to be revealed through the cultivation of discerning wisdom (liaoyin); but since non-enlightenment is suchness, and suchness is nirvāṇa, how could it wait for a discerning cause to discern it before being revealed? This means it has never not been revealed; why wait for it to be revealed further? Therefore the text above says: "entered nirvāṇa long ago." Regarding "With respect to bodhi...", bodhi ought properly to be produced by a generative cause (shengyin); but because bodhi is enlightenment, and the nature of enlightenment is true, it does not wait to be produced before coming into being. This means it has never not existed; what more is there to produce? Therefore the text above says: "Bodhi is not newly attained." Yet according to the earlier Commentary stating, "The bodhi of all buddhas is not cultivated...", these two lines were applied exclusively to bodhi. Now, dividing this "cultivation and production" to apply to the two places discussed appears to be an alternative interpretation. Scholars should know this. Regarding "This...", since it is a fundamentally possessed dharma, it is not fitting to speak of attaining it; because its essence is truly real and eternally unchanging, unlike delusive dharmas which have nothing real to be attained, this dharma of non-attainment is fundamentally true and real.