十不二門指要鈔 2.41

2.41

二、空像下，明德障體異。空惑像果，不實之義雖同，而空但有名，知無永絕，像雖無性，色相宛然，故云空虛像實也。像實等者，釋成體異。果德三千非今方得，故論非果。然稱本而證，不可泯亡，故云稱理本有。迷即無明，無明轉故即變為明，迷名永失轉成性明，故云迷轉成性。他云，須作性成，若云成性則令果成因也。若爾，後文云，了今無明為法性，豈亦果為因邪？

Second, from "Space and image..." downward, explaining the difference in essence between virtue and obstacle. Although the non-reality of the space of delusion and the image of effect is the same, space has only a name, and once known to be non-existent, it is forever severed; whereas an image, though lacking own-nature, has visible form clearly apparent. Hence it says, 'space is vacuous and the image is real.' As for 'the image is real' and so forth, it explains the difference in essence. The three thousand realms of the effect-virtue are not newly obtained today; hence it is argued not to be an effect. Yet realizing it in accordance with the origin, it cannot be obliterated; hence it says, 'accords with the principle and originally exists.' Delusion is ignorance; because ignorance turns, it immediately transforms into illumination. The name of delusion is forever lost, turning into natural illumination; hence it says, 'delusion turns to become the nature.' Others say it must be written as 'nature completes [it]'; if one says 'becomes the nature,' it would make the effect become the cause. If so, when the later text says 'understanding present ignorance to be the Dharma-nature,' would that also be the effect becoming the cause?