起信論疏 1.20

1.20

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.