起信論疏 1.20

1.20

此下第二依義別解，此中有三：一開義總標，略明功能；二依義別釋，廣顯體相；三明同異。初中言「此識有二種義，能攝一切法、生一切法」者，能攝之義如前廣說。然上說二門各攝一切，今此明一識含有二義，故此一識能攝一切，不言二義各攝一切，以此二義唯在生滅門內說故；如是二義不能各攝一切法故。又上二門但說攝義，以真如門無能生義故，今於此識亦說生義。生滅門中有能生義故，此義云何？由不覺義熏本覺故生諸染法，又由本覺熏不覺故生諸淨法；依此二義通生一切，故言識有二義生一切法。此文即起下「有四種熏習」以下文也。當知一心義寬，總攝二門；此識義狹，在生滅門。此識二義既在一門，故知門寬而義狹也，引經釋義如《別記》也。第二廣中有三：初言「云何為二」者，問數發起；次言「覺義、不覺義」者，依數列名；「所言」以下，第三別解，先釋覺義、後解不覺。覺中有二：先略、後廣。略中亦二：先本、後始。明本覺中，亦有二句：先明本覺體、後釋本覺義。初中言「心體離念」者，謂離妄念，顯無不覺也；「等虛空界」者，非唯無闇，有慧光明遍照法界平等無二，如下文云「有大智慧光明義故，遍照法界義故。」「何以故」下，第二釋義，是對始覺釋本覺義。明本覺竟，次釋「始覺」。於中有二：先顯亦對本覺不覺起義、後對不覺釋始覺義。此中大意，欲明始覺待於不覺、不覺待於本覺。本覺待於始覺，既互相待則無自性，無自性者則非有覺，非有覺者由互相待，相待而成則非無覺，非無覺故說名為覺。非有自性名為覺也。略明二覺竟在於前。此下，第二廣釋二覺，於中先釋始覺、後廣本覺。初中有三：一者總標滿不滿義、二者別解始覺差別、三者總明不異本覺。總標中言「覺心源故名究竟覺」者，在於佛地；「不覺心源故非究竟覺」者，金剛已還也。次別解中，約四相說，此中先明四相，然後消文。問：此中四相，為當同時、為是前後？此何所疑？若同時，那論說四相覺時差別？若前後，那下言「四相俱時而有。」或有說者：此依薩婆多宗四相，四體同時、四用前後。用前後故，覺時差別；體同時故，名俱時而有。或有說者：是依《成實》前後四相而言，俱時而有者，以本覺望四相，則無四相前後差別，故言俱時而有，皆無自立。或有說者：此是大乘祕密四相，覺四相時，前後淺深；所覺四相，俱時而有。是義云何？夫心性本來離生滅相，而有無明迷自心性，由違心性離於寂靜，故能生起動念四相。四相無明和合力故，能令心體生住異滅，如似小乘論議之中，心在未來未逕生滅，而由業力引於四相，能令心法生住異滅。大乘四相當知亦爾，如經言「即此法身，為諸煩惱之所漂動，往來生死，名為眾生。」此論下文云「自性清淨心因無明風動」，正謂此也。總說雖然，於中分別者，四相之內各有差別，謂生三、住四、異六、滅七。生相三者：一名業相，謂由無明不覺念動，雖有起滅，見相未分；猶如未來生相將至正用之時。二者轉相，謂依動念轉成能見，如未來生至正用時。三者現相，謂依能見現於境相，如未來生至現在時。無明與此三相和合，動一心體隨轉至現；猶如小乘未來藏心，隨其生相轉至現在；今大乘中如來藏心隨生至現，義亦如是。此三皆是阿梨耶識位所有差別，於中委悉，下文當說，是名甚深三種生相。住相四者，由此無明與生和合，迷所生心無我我所，故能生起四種住相，所謂我癡、我見、我愛、我慢。如是四種依生相起能相心體，令至住位內緣而住，故名住相。此四皆在第七識位。異相六者，無明與彼住相和合，不覺所計我我所空，由是能起六種異相，所謂貪、瞋、癡、慢、疑、見。如新論云「煩惱自性唯有六種」，此之謂也。無明與此六種和合，能相住心令至異位外向攀緣，故名異相。此六在於生起識位。滅相七者，無明與此異相和合，不覺外塵違順性離，由此發起七種滅相，所謂身口七支惡業。如是惡業，能滅異心，令墮惡趣，故名滅相。猶如小乘滅相，滅現在心，令入過去；大乘滅相當知亦爾。由是義故，四相生起，一心流轉，一切皆因根本無明。如經言「無明住地，其力最大。」此論云「當知無明力，能生一切染法」也。又所相之心，一心而來，能相之相，無明所起。所起之相，隨其所至，其用有差別，取塵別相，名為數法，良由其根本無明違平等性故也；其所相心，隨所至處，每作總主，了塵通相，說名心王，由其本一心，是諸法之總源故也。如《中邊論》云「唯塵智名心，差別名心法。」長行釋云「若了塵通相名心，取塵別相名為心法。」《瑜伽論》中亦同是說。以是義故，諸外道等多於心王計為宰主、作者、受者，由不能知其無自性隨緣流轉故也。總此四相名為一念，約此一念四相以明四位階降。欲明本依無明不覺之力，起生相等種種夢念，動其心源、轉至滅相，長眠三界、流轉六趣；今因本覺不思議熏，起厭樂心，漸向本源，始息滅相乃至生相。朗然大悟，覺了自心本無所動、今無所靜，本來平等，住一如床。如經所說夢度河喻。此中應廣說，大意如是。

Below this is the second [section], explaining specifically according to meaning. Herein there are three parts: first, positing meanings and stating them in summary, briefly explaining their functions; second, interpreting specifically according to meaning, extensively revealing essence and characteristics; third, clarifying identity and difference. In the first part, the statement that "this consciousness has two meanings, which can embrace all phenomena and produce all phenomena"—the meaning of "can embrace" is as extensively explained above. However, above it was stated that the two gates each embrace everything, whereas here it is clarified that the one consciousness contains two meanings; thus, this one consciousness can embrace everything. It does not say that the two meanings each embrace everything, because these two meanings are stated solely within the gate of arising and ceasing; thus these two meanings cannot each embrace all phenomena. Furthermore, the two gates above only stated the meaning of embracing, because the gate of tathatā lacks the meaning of being able to produce; now, with respect to this consciousness, the meaning of producing is also stated. Because within the gate of arising and ceasing there is the meaning of being able to produce, how is this meaning [constituted]? Because the meaning of non-enlightenment perfuses original enlightenment, it produces all defiled phenomena; furthermore, because original enlightenment perfuses non-enlightenment, it produces all pure phenomena. Based on these two meanings, it universally produces everything; therefore it is said that consciousness has two meanings that produce all phenomena. This text indeed initiates the text below from "there are four kinds of perfumings" onward. One should know that the meaning of the One Mind is broad, embracing both gates in their entirety; the meaning of this consciousness is narrow, residing within the gate of arising and ceasing. Since the two meanings of this consciousness reside within one gate, one knows that the gate is broad while the meanings are narrow. Citing sūtras to explain this meaning is as presented in the *Separate Record* (*Byeolgi*). In the second [part], the extensive explanation, there are three sections: first, stating "what are the two?" initiates with an inquiry into the number; next, stating "the meaning of enlightenment and the meaning of non-enlightenment" lists the names according to the number; from "what is called" onward is third, specifically explaining: first interpreting the meaning of enlightenment, and later explaining non-enlightenment. Within enlightenment there are two: first brief, then extensive. Within the brief there are also two: first original, then initial. In clarifying original enlightenment there are also two sentences: first clarifying the essence of original enlightenment, and later explaining the meaning of original enlightenment. In the first part, the statement that "the essence of mind is free from thought" means that it is free from deluded thought, revealing the absence of non-enlightenment. "Equal to the realm of empty space" means that it is not merely devoid of darkness, but possesses the radiance of wisdom shining everywhere across the dharma realm, universally equal and non-dual, just as the text below says: "Because it has the meaning of the radiance of great wisdom, because it has the meaning of illuminating the entire dharma realm." Below "why is this?" is second, explaining the meaning: it is an explanation of the meaning of original enlightenment in contrast to initial enlightenment. Having clarified original enlightenment, next is the explanation of "initial enlightenment." There are two parts within this: first, revealing that the meaning also arises in contrast to original enlightenment and non-enlightenment; second, explaining the meaning of initial enlightenment in contrast to non-enlightenment. The general purport here is to clarify that initial enlightenment depends on non-enlightenment, and non-enlightenment depends on original enlightenment. Original enlightenment depends on initial enlightenment; since they mutually depend on one another, they lack inherent nature. Lacking inherent nature, it is not existent enlightenment; that it is not existent enlightenment is due to their mutual dependence. Being established through mutual dependence, it is not non-existent enlightenment; because it is not non-existent enlightenment, it is called enlightenment. It is not an inherent nature that is called enlightenment. A brief clarification of the two enlightenments has concluded above. Below this is the second part, extensively explaining the two enlightenments, wherein first initial enlightenment is explained, and later original enlightenment is elaborated. In the first part there are three sections: first, generally positing the meanings of complete and incomplete; second, specifically explaining the distinctions of initial enlightenment; third, generally clarifying non-difference from original enlightenment. In the general positing, the statement "because one awakens to the source of the mind, it is called ultimate enlightenment" pertains to the Buddha stage. "Because one does not awaken to the source of the mind, it is not ultimate enlightenment" refers to everything prior to the vajra[-like samādhi]. Next, in the specific explanation, it is explained in terms of the four marks. Here, the four marks are clarified first, and then the text is elucidated. Question: Regarding these four marks, do they occur simultaneously, or are they sequential? What doubt is there here? If simultaneous, why does the treatise explain distinct stages when the marks are awakened to? If sequential, why does it state below that "the four marks exist simultaneously"? Some say: This relies on the four marks of the Sarvāstivāda school: their four substances are simultaneous, while their four functions are sequential. Because their functions are sequential, their awakening stages are distinct; because their substances are simultaneous, they are said to exist simultaneously. Some say: This relies on the sequential four marks of the *Chengshi lun*, and when it says they exist simultaneously, it is because viewing the four marks from original enlightenment, there is no sequential difference among the four marks; thus it says they exist simultaneously, all lacking independent existence. Some say: These are the esoteric four marks of the Mahāyāna; when awakening to the four marks, there is sequential depth; while the four marks that are awakened to exist simultaneously. What does this mean? The nature of the mind is originally free from the marks of arising and ceasing, yet there is avidyā that deludes one about the nature of one's own mind. Because it goes against the nature of the mind and departs from tranquility, it can produce and initiate the four marks of moving thoughts. Due to the conjoined power of the four marks and avidyā, they can cause the essence of the mind to undergo arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. This is like the doctrinal debates in the Hīnayāna, where the mind in the future has not yet undergone arising and ceasing, but through the power of karma drawing the four marks, they can cause mental dharmas to arise, abide, change, and cease. One should know that the Mahāyāna four marks are also like this, just as a sūtra says: "This very dharmakāya, being drifted and agitated by all defilements, wandering to and fro in saṃsāra, is called a sentient being." When this treatise states below that "the naturally pure mind is stirred by the wind of avidyā," it precisely refers to this. Although spoken of generally in this way, when discriminating within them, each of the four marks contains distinctions: namely, three for arising, four for abiding, six for changing, and seven for ceasing. As for the three marks of arising: the first is called the karmic aspect, meaning that due to the non-enlightened movement of thought by avidyā, although there is arising and ceasing, seeing and object are not yet differentiated; this is like the future mark of arising on the verge of reaching its active function. The second is the evolving aspect, meaning that based on the moving thought, it evolves into the subject that can see; this is like the future arising reaching its active function. The third is the manifesting aspect, meaning that based on that which can see, objective marks are manifested; this is like the future arising reaching the present time. Avidyā conjoins with these three marks, stirring the essence of the One Mind to follow its evolution up to manifestation. This is just like the future storehouse-mind of the Hīnayāna following its mark of arising and evolving into the present; now in Mahāyāna, the Tathāgatagarbha mind following arising up to manifestation is also like this. These three are all distinctions at the stage of the ālayavijñāna, detailed below; these are called the three profoundly subtle marks of arising. As for the four marks of abiding: because this avidyā conjoins with arising, being deluded about the produced mind being devoid of self and what belongs to self, it can produce the four kinds of marks of abiding, namely: self-delusion, self-view, self-love, and self-pride. These four, arising based on the mark of arising, can characterize the essence of the mind, causing it to reach the stage of abiding and abide by cognizing inwardly; thus they are called marks of abiding. These four are all at the stage of the seventh consciousness. As for the six marks of changing: avidyā conjoining with those marks of abiding, being unaware that the apprehended self and what belongs to self are empty, thereby can give rise to the six kinds of marks of changing, namely: greed, anger, delusion, pride, doubt, and view. As the *New Treatise* says: "The self-nature of defilement is only of six kinds"—this is what it means. Avidyā conjoining with these six can characterize the abiding mind, causing it to reach the stage of changing and cling outwardly to objects; thus they are called marks of changing. These six reside at the stage of arising consciousnesses. As for the seven marks of ceasing: avidyā conjoining with these marks of changing, unaware that external dust is devoid of agreeable and disagreeable nature, thereby initiates the seven kinds of marks of ceasing, namely the seven branches of unwholesome karma of body and speech. Such unwholesome karma can destroy the changing mind and cause it to fall into the evil destinies; thus they are called marks of ceasing. Just as the mark of ceasing in Hīnayāna destroys the present mind and causes it to enter the past, one should know that the Mahāyāna mark of ceasing is also like this. By this meaning, the arising of the four marks and the transmigration of the One Mind are all caused by fundamental avidyā. As a sūtra says: "The ground of abiding avidyā has the greatest power." This treatise says: "One should know that the power of avidyā can produce all defiled phenomena." Furthermore, the mind that is characterized comes from the One Mind; the marks that can characterize arise from avidyā. The marks that arise, wherever they reach, have distinct functions; grasping the particular marks of objects is called mental factors (caittas), truly because their fundamental avidyā goes against the nature of equality. The mind that is characterized, wherever it reaches, always acts as the master, cognizing the general marks of objects, and is called the king of mind (citta), because its original One Mind is the general source of all dharmas. As the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra* says: "Cognizing mere objects is called mind; distinction is called mental factors." The commentary explains: "If cognizing the general marks of objects, it is called mind; grasping the particular marks of objects is called mental factors." The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* also speaks identically. For this reason, various non-Buddhists mostly grasp the king of mind as the ruler, the agent, and the experiencer, because they cannot know that it lacks inherent nature and transmigrates conforming to conditions. Summarizing these four marks, they are termed "one thought"; in terms of these four marks in one thought, the hierarchical gradations of the four stages are clarified. This intends to clarify that originally, based on the power of the non-enlightenment of avidyā, various dream-thoughts such as the mark of arising are initiated, stirring the source of the mind and evolving into the mark of ceasing, sleeping long in the three realms and transmigrating through the six destinies. Now, due to the inconceivable perfuming of original enlightenment, a mind of revulsion [toward saṃsāra] and aspiration [for nirvāṇa] arises, gradually returning toward the original source, first stilling the mark of ceasing up to the mark of arising. Awakening profoundly in great illumination, one awakens to one's own mind as originally having had no stirring and presently having no stillness, being originally equal and abiding in the couch of tathatā. This is like the parable of crossing a river in a dream spoken in the sūtra. Here it should be extensively explained; such is the general purport.