[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘起信論別記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845) › 1.32 # 大乘起信論別記 1.32 大乘起信論別記 1.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.32) 問：為當心體常住、心相生滅，體相不離，合為一識？為當心體常住，亦即心體生滅耶？答：若得意者，二義俱許。何者？若論其常住不隨他成曰體，論其無常隨他生滅曰相，得言體常、相是無常。然言生滅者，非生之生，非滅之滅，故名生滅。是心之生，心之滅故，乃名生滅，故得言心體生滅。如似水之動，名為波，終不可說，是動非水之動。當知此中道理亦爾。設使心體不動，但無明相動者，則無轉凡成聖之理，以無明相一向滅故，心體本來不作凡故。難曰：若使心體生滅，則真心有盡，以生滅時無常住故。又若心體本靜而隨緣動，則生死有始，是為大過，以本靜時無生死故。又若心隨緣變作生滅，亦可一心隨緣反作多心。是三難不能得離，故知此義不可立也。解云：此義無妨，今從後而答。如說常心，隨無明緣，反作無常之心，而其常性恒自不反。如是一心，隨無明緣，反作多眾生心，而其一心常自無二。如《涅槃經》云「一味之藥，隨其流處，有種種味，而其真味亭留在山。」正謂此也。又「雖曰本靜，隨緣而動，而無生死有始之過，以如是展轉動靜皆無始。如說云先是果報，後反成因，而恒展轉。因果皆無始故。」當知此中道理亦爾。又雖心體生滅，而恒心體常住，以不一不異故。所謂心體不二而無一性，動靜非一而無異性故。如水依相續門則有流動，依生滅門而恒不動，以不常不斷故，所謂不度亦不滅故。當知此中道理亦爾。是故所設三難，無不消也。上來約體總立已竟。 > Question: Should we say that the essence of the mind is permanently abiding while the characteristics of the mind arise and cease, and that essence and characteristics are inseparable, combining into one consciousness? Or should we say that the essence of the mind is permanently abiding, yet the essence of the mind itself arises and ceases? Answer: If one grasps the meaning, both meanings are acceptable. How so? If we speak of its permanent abiding without following other \[conditions\] as being called 'essence', and speak of its impermanence in following other \[conditions\] to arise and cease as being called 'characteristics', one may say that the essence is permanent while the characteristics are impermanent. However, when speaking of 'arising and ceasing', it is not the arising of arising, nor the ceasing of ceasing, which is why it is called 'arising and ceasing'. It is the arising of the mind and the ceasing of the mind, and therefore is called arising and ceasing; hence one may say that the essence of the mind arises and ceases. Just as the motion of water is called waves, one can never say that this motion is not the motion of the water. One should know that the principle here is also like this. If the essence of the mind did not move and only the characteristics of avidyā moved, there would be no principle of transforming the ordinary into the noble, because the characteristics of avidyā would exclusively cease, and the essence of the mind originally did not become ordinary. Objection: If the essence of the mind arises and ceases, then the true mind would come to an end, because when it arises and ceases it would not permanently abide. Furthermore, if the essence of the mind is originally tranquil and yet moves in accordance with conditions, then saṃsāra would have a beginning, which would be a great error, because when it was originally tranquil there would be no saṃsāra. Furthermore, if the mind transforms into arising and ceasing in accordance with conditions, then the One Mind could also turn into many minds in accordance with conditions. These three objections cannot be escaped; therefore we know this meaning cannot be established. Explanation: There is no obstacle to this meaning; I will now answer from the last one onward. Just as it is said that the permanent mind, in accordance with the conditions of avidyā, turns into an impermanent mind, while its permanent nature constantly does not itself invert; so too this One Mind, in accordance with the conditions of avidyā, turns into the minds of many sentient beings, while its One Mind is constantly of itself non-dual. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'The single-flavored medicine, depending on where it flows, has various flavors, yet its true flavor remains gathered on the mountain.' This is precisely what it means. Furthermore, 'Although it is said to be originally tranquil and moves in accordance with conditions, there is no error of saṃsāra having a beginning, because such mutual unfolding of motion and tranquility are both without beginning. Just as it is said that what is first a retribution later turns into a cause, and continually unfolds mutually; because both causes and effects are without beginning.' One should know that the principle here is also like this. Furthermore, although the essence of the mind arises and ceases, the essence of the mind constantly permanently abides, because they are neither one nor different. That is to say, because the essence of the mind is non-dual, it has no unitary nature; and because motion and tranquility are not one, they have no different nature. Just as water, according to the gate of continuity, has flow and motion, yet according to the gate of arising and ceasing, it is constantly motionless, because it is neither permanent nor annihilated—namely, because it neither passes over nor ceases. One should know that the principle here is also like this. Therefore, none of the three objections raised fails to be resolved. The general establishment with respect to the essence above is now complete. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.31) - [Next: 1.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.33) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845~en-mt.1.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.32) · Pramāṇa