起信論疏筆削記 7.37

7.37

First, the correct explanation. The Commentary states: 'Citing the preceding' means citing the preceding [statement that] the essence is empty and devoid of delusion, in order to reveal the non-empty dharmas below. 'Adducing the essence': the essence is that which is relied upon, because all subsequent meanings, such as permanence, are explained in reliance upon this. 'Permanence' means that the three periods of time and the four marks cannot alter it. 'Bliss' means that the three sufferings and eight sufferings cannot harm it. The Commentary states: 'Taking constancy as bliss' means that because it is devoid of birth, old age, sickness, and death, it is called constant; birth, old age, and so forth are precisely painful dharmas, hence it is matched with this here. Previously, it was matched with the four marks in terms of afflictions and karma; here, it is matched with old age, death, and so forth in terms of karmic fruition. 'Self' means sovereign mastery, which is in contrast to the lack of sovereign mastery of that which is bound. Because it is free from the bondage of karmic activities, the treatise says 'unchanging'; 'unchanging' means being free from activities (saṃskāra), and activities are karma. Since it is not bound by karma, it attains sovereign mastery; therefore it says 'Self'. 'Purity' means being defiled yet undefiled. However, this gloss should properly be placed under the word 'purity', because the phrase 'replete with' is a summary conclusion. That is to say, beyond these four virtues, all meritorious qualities exceeding the sands of the Ganges are contained entirely within it; therefore it says 'replete with'. This is just as explained below: 'the great wisdom and radiance pervasively illuminates the dharmadhātu', and so forth. Therefore, the original commentary takes pure dharmas as the virtue of purity, not encompassing the words 'replete with'. However, the single word 'dharmas' still pertains to both above and below. Furthermore, closely examining the text on 'permanent, constant, and unchanging', it merely establishes a single meaning. Even if one matches them separately, that is naturally one approach. Now, offering an alternative interpretation, it differs from the Commentary: 'permanent, constant, and unchanging' vertically reveals that the real essence is inexhaustible across the three periods of time; this then explains the preceding [phrase] 'because it has an intrinsic essence'. 'Replete with pure dharmas' horizontally reveals that the pure virtues are boundless throughout the ten directions; this then reveals the preceding [phrase] 'fully endowed with anāsrava', and so forth. Since the intrinsic essence is permanent and unchanging, and furthermore endowed with anāsrava virtues, if the essence of dharmas is like this, how could it be empty? Therefore it concludes that it is non-empty.