大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 3.49

3.49

論。是故修多羅至無可見故　釋曰。此引證也。是前染淨同真相故。經依此義說諸眾生本來涅槃得菩提等。總說雖然。別分別者。本末不覺即真如故。眾生即涅槃不復更滅。本始二覺即真如故。菩提亦本有非新得者。故此涅槃非待修習了因方證。故言非可修相。即此菩提非待生因而方起作。故言非可作相。此之二果既性本有非更得故。故言畢竟無得。亦無已下猶是經文。為遣疑難故論具引。謂有難言若諸眾生已涅槃等何不如佛現報化等色身相耶。故此初句釋此義云。法性自體非色可見。如何更能現色相耶。故言亦無色相可見。又復疑云。若以法性非色可見不現色者。諸佛何故現色相耶。故下諸句釋此義云。彼見諸佛種種色者並隨眾生染幻之心變異所現。非謂不空智性之色。以智真體非可見故。故言而有見色等也。非謂智色不空性者。此文既倒釋乖文耳。

[Treatise:] Therefore the sūtras [… down to …] because there is nothing that can be seen.
[Commentary:] This is citing scriptural evidence. Because defilement and purity are identical in tathatā as stated before, sūtras rely on this meaning to state that all sentient beings are originally in nirvāṇa, attain bodhi, and so forth. Although stated generally like this, to distinguish them specifically: because fundamental and derivative non-awakening are identical to tathatā, sentient beings are immediately in nirvāṇa and do not undergo further cessation; because original and initial awakenings are identical to tathatā, bodhi is also fundamentally existent, not newly attained. Therefore, this nirvāṇa does not await cultivation of a revealing cause before being realized; hence it says: 'not a characteristic that can be cultivated.' This bodhi does not await a productive cause before being produced; hence it says: 'not a characteristic that can be produced.' Since these two fruits are fundamentally existent by nature and not further attained, it says: 'ultimately unattainable.' From 'also without' onward is still the sūtra text; to dispel doubts and objections, the treatise cites it in full. That is to say, there is an objection saying: If all sentient beings are already in nirvāṇa, etc., why do they not manifest physical marks of the saṃbhogakāya, nirmāṇakāya, etc., like the Buddha? Therefore, this first clause explains this meaning, saying: The substance of dharmatā itself is not visible as physical form; how could it further manifest physical marks? Hence it says: 'also without visible physical marks.' Again, there is a doubt saying: If, because dharmatā is not visible as physical form, it does not manifest form, why do the Buddhas manifest physical marks? Therefore, the clauses below explain this meaning, saying: That those [sentient beings] see the various forms of the Buddhas is entirely manifested through variations conforming to sentient beings' defiled, illusory minds; it does not mean the form of the nature of non-empty cognition, because the true substance of cognition cannot be seen. Hence it says: 'yet there is the seeing of form,' and so forth. 'Does not mean the form of the non-empty nature of cognition': if this text is interpreted in reverse, it contradicts the text.