大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.27

4.27

論。此亦如是至則有淨用　釋曰。此法合也。文中雙顯染淨熏義。無明熏真有染相者。顯真無相隨熏示相。顯妄無體但熏有相。顯妄自無返染之用。故但言相不言用也。即釋經中如來藏者　惡習所熏名識藏等。真熏無明有淨用者。生滅門內本覺真如內熏不覺令成厭求返染明真。故云淨用。即釋經中由有如來藏能厭生死樂求涅槃樂。涅槃經云。未來佛性力因緣故還生善報。本覺內熏名佛性力。良以一識含此二義。更互相熏遍生染淨。故說無明熏真如等。問。如諸論說能熏所熏各具四義方名熏習。所熏四者。一堅住性。二無記性。三可熏性。四與能熏共和合性。能熏四者。一有生滅。二有勝用。三有增盛。四與所熏和合而轉。既簡真如空等常法。此何說真為能所熏。答。由有三義各不相違。一熏有可思議故。諸論且為初根性者說彼生滅可思議熏。此論顯為久根性者亦說常法不思議熏。二能所熏真有二門故。諸論且說不動真如。非能生故非能所熏。此論約其隨緣真如隨染起故成能所熏。三以真如法非定常故。諸論且約安立道理說真如常。非能所熏。此論亦約圓融道理。真非常一成能所熏。各依一義亦不相違。若說真如定常定一。則同外道所執神我。非定常一故熏無失。

[Treatise:] This is also like that: [tathatā is purely a pure phenomenon; having been perfumed by avidyā, it then has the characteristic of defilement. Avidyā is purely a defiled phenomenon; having been perfumed by tathatā, it then has pure activity.]
[Commentary:] This is the application of the simile to the doctrine. In the text both the defiled and pure senses of perfuming are revealed. That avidyā perfuming the true has the characteristic of defilement reveals that the true has no characteristic, but manifests characteristics following perfuming; it reveals that the false has no substance, but merely has characteristics when perfumed; and it reveals that the false of itself lacks the activity of turning away from defilement, hence it only speaks of 'characteristic' and does not speak of 'activity'. This explains the passage in the sūtra where the tathāgatagarbha, perfumed by bad habits, is called the repository of consciousness (vijñānagarbha), etc. That the true perfuming avidyā has pure activity means: within the gate of arising and ceasing, the internal perfuming of non-awakening by original awakening tathatā causes aversion and aspiration to be formed, turning away from defilement to illuminate the true; hence it is called 'pure activity'. This explains the passage in the sūtra stating that because of the existence of the tathāgatagarbha, one can feel revulsion toward saṃsāra and joyfully seek the bliss of nirvāṇa. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Due to the causes and conditions of the power of future buddha-nature, one is reborn with good retribution.' The internal perfuming of original awakening is called the power of buddha-nature. Because the one consciousness contains these two meanings, mutually perfuming each other and universally producing defilement and purity, it is said that avidyā perfumes tathatā, etc. Question: As various treatises say, that which perfumes and that which is perfumed must each possess four qualities before it can be called perfuming. The four of that which is perfumed are: 1. firm endurance; 2. neutrality (avyākṛta); 3. perfumability; 4. harmony with that which perfumes. The four of that which perfumes are: 1. having arising and ceasing; 2. having superior activity; 3. having increase and abundance; 4. moving in harmony with that which is perfumed. Since these exclude permanent phenomena like tathatā and space, why does this treatise say that the true is both that which perfumes and that which is perfumed? Answer: Because there are three meanings, none of which contradict each other. First, perfuming has the conceivable: the various treatises, for those of initial capacities, speak of that conceivable perfuming of arising and ceasing; this treatise, expressly for those of mature capacities, also speaks of the inconceivable perfuming of the permanent dharma. Second, for that which perfumes and that which is perfumed, the true has two gates: the various treatises speak of unmoved tathatā, which cannot generate and therefore is neither that which perfumes nor that which is perfumed; this treatise considers tathatā that accords with conditions, which arises following defilement and therefore constitutes both that which perfumes and that which is perfumed. Third, because the dharma of tathatā is not definitively permanent: the various treatises, based on the conventional doctrine (saṃvṛti-satya), say that tathatā is permanent and not that which perfumes or is perfumed; this treatise also accords with the doctrine of perfect interpenetration, in which the true is not permanently one, and thus constitutes that which perfumes and is perfumed. Each relying on one meaning, they do not contradict each other. If one says that tathatā is definitively permanent and definitively one, it would be identical to the ātman grasped by non-Buddhists; because it is not definitively permanent or one, there is no error in perfuming.