華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.22

4.22

Second, in the general explanation: The three natures are of a single limit; raising one completely subsumes them all. The true and the deluded mutually interpenetrate, and the natures are unobstructed. As stated in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, citing the Questions of the Brāhmaṇa Sūtra: 'Based on what meaning did the World-Honoured One make this statement: "The Tathāgata sees neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa"? Within the other-dependent, the discriminated nature and the true nature are such that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are supported without distinction. Why? This other-dependent nature, by virtue of one part which is discriminated, becomes saṃsāra; and by virtue of one part which is true, becomes nirvāṇa.' The commentary explains: 'The other-dependent nature is not saṃsāra, because by virtue of this nature becoming nirvāṇa through the true [part]. This nature is not nirvāṇa. Why? Because this nature, by virtue of one part which is discriminated, is saṃsāra. Therefore, one cannot definitively assert one part alone. If one sees one part, the nature of the other part is not different; therefore, he sees neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa.' Based on this intent, the Tathāgata answered the brāhmaṇa in this way. It also says: 'In the Abhidharma-sūtra, the World-Honoured One said that phenomena are of three kinds: first, the defiled portion; second, the pure portion; third, the defiled and pure portion. Based on what meaning did he speak of these three portions? Within the other-dependent nature, the discriminated nature is the defiled portion, the true nature is the pure portion, and the other-dependent nature is the defiled and pure portion; it is based on this meaning that he spoke of three portions.' The commentary explains: 'The Abhidharma-sūtra states that the discriminated nature has affliction as its nature, the true nature has the pure portion as its nature, and the other-dependent nature, having both portions, has the two natures as its nature. Thus it is said that phenomena are of three kinds: one with affliction as its portion, two with purity as its portion, and three with both phenomena as its portion; it is based on this meaning that this is said.' The above treatise passages further clarify that the true encompasses the extremes of delusion, so that nothing fails to match the true; delusion penetrates to the source of the true, so that its essence is completely quiescent. The true and the deluded mutually interpenetrate, the two portions are mutually fused, and unobstructed, totally include [each other]; this can be recognized upon reflection.