大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經略疏 2.1275

2.1275

由前心息相依，息調心淨，故了知心中生、住、異、滅麁細妄念，本末分齊頭緒數量。謂生滅各一、住四、異二。經無異字者，或脫或略，義必具有。據《論》所說，十信凡夫覺滅相，三賢覺異相，十地覺住相，位滿覺生相。覺生相者，動念都盡，唯一心在。故《論》云：「心無初相，而言知初相者，即謂無念。若得無念者，則知心相。生、住、異、滅乃至皆無自立，本來平等，同一覺故。」釋曰：既云動念都盡，本來平等，同於一覺，正當此門絕待中觀。問：「文無無念之言，如何同此？」答：「三觀體用文在前章，今此但明修之方便。彼有絕待之念，又有寂滅之文，由是科云：靈心絕待。絕待無念，一覺靈心豈非同邪？是知絕念之慧，方能了知生、住、滅念，故於此觀明之。」

Because previously mind and breath were mutually dependent, with the breath regulated and the mind purified, one therefore clearly knows the roots, branches, limits, beginnings, and numbers of the coarse and subtle deluded thoughts of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing in the mind. That is to say, arising and ceasing have one each, abiding has four, and changing has two. That the sūtra lacks the character 'changing' is either an omission or an abbreviation; the meaning must fully contain it. According to what the Treatise states, ordinary persons of the ten faiths awaken to the mark of ceasing, the three stages of worthies awaken to the mark of changing, the ten stages awaken to the mark of abiding, and at the culmination of the stages one awakens to the mark of arising. One who awakens to the mark of arising has exhausted all moving thoughts, and only the One Mind remains. Therefore the Treatise says: 'The mind has no initial mark; to speak of knowing the initial mark refers to being without thought. If one attains non-thought, then one knows the marks of the mind. Arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, up to all having no independent standing, are originally equal, being identical to the one enlightenment.' Exegesis: Since it says moving thoughts are completely exhausted, originally equal, and identical to the one enlightenment, this directly corresponds to the middle contemplation of absolute transcendence in this approach. Question: 'The text lacks the words "non-thought"; how can it be identical to this?' Answer: 'The essence and function of the three contemplations were presented in the previous chapter; here it only clarifies the expedient means of cultivation. There it had the thought of absolute transcendence and also the text on quiescence, for which reason the outline said: the numinous mind transcends relativity. When absolute transcendence is non-thought, how could the numinous mind of the one enlightenment not be the same? One must know that only the wisdom that transcends thought can clearly know the thoughts of arising, abiding, and ceasing; hence it is clarified in this contemplation.'