大乘起信論義疏 1.87

1.87

自下第二釋不覺章門，此中有二：一者明不覺體；二者「復次依不覺」以下，明諸惑轉生。就初中有二：一者明不覺義；二者「以有不覺」以下，對明真覺。初中有三：一者法說、二者開譬、三合喻。「言不覺義者」，是顯名也。不覺名者，無明別名。「謂不如實知真如法一」者，就境明體。真如無二，故名法一也。「不覺心起」者，是第七識。「而有其念」者，是染心也。通而言之，皆是妄識；別而言之，不覺是其根本無明，染心是其業識，以後乃至相續識也。「念無自相不離真覺」者，明其妄法不孤立故，詑真而立。若無此真，妄不得生也。次下開喻。「如迷人」者，諸群盲類諸眾生等，迷二諦理不知超出生死之津，似是迷人。「依方故迷」者，喻依真有妄。「若離於方則無有迷」者，若無真識不得有妄。故《勝鬘》言「依如來藏故有生有死，若無藏識，不得厭苦，樂求涅槃」也。自下合喻。「眾生亦爾」者，合上迷人。「依覺故迷」者，合上依方故迷。「若離覺性則無不覺」者，合上若離方則無迷也。自下第二明對真覺，此中有三句：一者、釋覺義，謂有不覺心，故能知名義，為說真覺也。二者、絕待明體。謂若離不覺之心，則無有真識也。三者、遣著。雖皆是真亦無真相，謂離不覺，心則無真覺自相可說。

From here below, the second section explains non-enlightenment. In this there are two [parts]: first, clarifying the essence of non-enlightenment; second, from "Furthermore, based on non-enlightenment" onward, clarifying the progressive arising of the various delusions. In the first part there are two: first, clarifying the meaning of non-enlightenment; second, from "Because there is non-enlightenment" onward, clarifying it in contrast to true enlightenment. In the first there are three: first, explanation in terms of dharmas; second, presenting an analogy; third, applying the analogy. "The meaning of non-enlightenment": this reveals the name. The name non-enlightenment is an alternative name for avidyā. "Namely, not knowing in accordance with reality the oneness of the dharma of tathatā": this clarifies the essence in terms of the object. Tathatā is non-dual, hence it is called "the oneness of the dharma." "The non-enlightened mind arises": this is the seventh consciousness. "And thoughts exist": this is the defiled mind. Broadly speaking, these are all delusional consciousnesses; specifically speaking, non-enlightenment is its root avidyā, and the defiled mind is its karmic consciousness, down to the continuing consciousness. "Thoughts have no self-mark and are not apart from true enlightenment": this clarifies that delusional dharmas do not stand alone, but stand depending on the real. If this real did not exist, delusion could not arise. Next below, an analogy is presented. "Like a lost person": the various blind sorts of sentient beings who are confused about the principle of the two truths and do not know the crossing to transcend saṃsāra are like a lost person. "Confused based on direction": this is an analogy for delusion existing based on the real. "If separated from direction, there would be no confusion": if the true consciousness did not exist, delusion could not exist. Thus the Śrīmālā [Sūtra] says: "Based on the tathāgatagarbha there is birth and death; if the ālayavijñāna did not exist, one could not loathe suffering and joyfully seek nirvāṇa." From here below, the analogy is applied. "Sentient beings are also like this": this corresponds to the "lost person" above. "Confused based on enlightenment": this corresponds to "confused based on direction" above. "If separated from the nature of enlightenment, there is no non-enlightenment": this corresponds to "if separated from direction, there is no confusion" above. From here below, the second [part] clarifies it in contrast to true enlightenment. In this there are three clauses: First, explaining the meaning of enlightenment: because there is a non-enlightened mind, one is able to know names and meanings, and true enlightenment is taught for its sake. Second, clarifying the essence through transcendence of duality (advaya): if separated from the non-enlightened mind, then there would be no true consciousness. Third, dispelling attachment: although all is real, there is also no mark of the real; if separated from the non-enlightened mind, there is no self-mark of true enlightenment that can be spoken of.