[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) › 1.39 # 大乘起信論別記 1.39 大乘起信論別記 1.39 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.39) 問：為當心體只無不覺故名本覺，為當心體有覺照用名為本覺？若言只無不覺名本覺者，可亦無覺照故是不覺。若言有覺照故名本覺者，未知此覺為斷惑不？若不斷惑則無照用；如其有斷則無凡夫。答：非但無闇，亦有明照；以有照故，亦有斷惑。此義云何？若就先眠後覺名為覺者，始覺有覺，本覺中無。若論本來不眠名為覺者，本覺是覺，始覺則非覺。斷義亦爾。先有後無名為斷者，始覺有斷，本覺無斷。本來離惑名為斷者，本覺是斷，始覺非斷。若依是義，本來斷故，本來無凡。如下文云「一切眾生，從本已來，入於涅槃菩提之法。」然雖曰有本覺故本來無凡，而未有始覺故，本來有凡，是故無過。若汝言由有本覺本來無凡，則終無始覺，望何有凡者？他亦終無始覺則無本覺，依何本覺以說無凡？當知由有本覺故，本無不覺；無不覺故，終無始覺；無始覺故，本無本覺。至於無本覺者，源由有本覺；有本覺者，由有始覺；有始覺者，由有不覺；有不覺者，由依本覺。如下文云「本覺義者，對始覺義說，以始覺者即同本覺。始覺者依本覺故而有不覺，依不覺故說有始覺。」當知如是展轉相依，即顯諸法非無而非有、非有而非無也。 > Question: Is it called innate enlightenment merely because the essence of the mind lacks non-enlightenment, or is it called innate enlightenment because the essence of the mind has the function of enlightened illumination? If one says it is called innate enlightenment merely because it lacks non-enlightenment, then since it would also lack enlightened illumination, it would be non-enlightenment. If one says it is called innate enlightenment because it possesses enlightened illumination, then is it known whether this enlightenment severs afflictions or not? If it does not sever afflictions, then it lacks illuminative function; if it does sever them, then there would be no ordinary beings. Answer: It is not only that it lacks darkness; it also possesses bright illumination. Because it possesses illumination, it also severs afflictions. What does this mean? If one defines enlightenment in terms of waking after having first slept, then actualized enlightenment has enlightenment, while in innate enlightenment there is none. If one speaks of not sleeping from the very beginning as enlightenment, then innate enlightenment is enlightenment, while actualized enlightenment is not enlightenment. The meaning of severing is also like this: if having previously existed and subsequently being absent is called severing, then actualized enlightenment has severing, while innate enlightenment has no severing; if being fundamentally free from afflictions from the very beginning is called severing, then innate enlightenment is severing, while actualized enlightenment is not severing. If one relies on this meaning, because it is severed from the very beginning, from the very beginning there are no ordinary beings. As it says below: "All sentient beings, from the beginningless past, have entered into the dharmas of nirvāṇa and bodhi." However, although it is said that because innate enlightenment exists there are fundamentally no ordinary beings, because actualized enlightenment has not yet occurred, fundamentally there are ordinary beings; therefore there is no fault. If you say that because innate enlightenment exists there are fundamentally no ordinary beings, so that there is ultimately no actualized enlightenment, and ask with respect to what ordinary beings exist, \[the answer is that\] otherwise, if there were ultimately no actualized enlightenment, then there would be no innate enlightenment; relying on what innate enlightenment could one speak of the absence of ordinary beings? One should know that because there is innate enlightenment, fundamentally there is no non-enlightenment; because there is no non-enlightenment, ultimately there is no actualized enlightenment; because there is no actualized enlightenment, fundamentally there is no innate enlightenment. As for the absence of innate enlightenment, its source is due to the presence of innate enlightenment; the presence of innate enlightenment is due to the presence of actualized enlightenment; the presence of actualized enlightenment is due to the presence of non-enlightenment; the presence of non-enlightenment is due to reliance on innate enlightenment. As it says below: "The meaning of innate enlightenment is spoken of in contrast to the meaning of actualized enlightenment, because actualized enlightenment is identical to innate enlightenment. As for actualized enlightenment, it is because of innate enlightenment that non-enlightenment exists; because of non-enlightenment, actualized enlightenment is said to exist." One should know that their mutually dependent condition in this way demonstrates that all dharmas are neither non-existent nor existent, neither existent nor non-existent. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.38) - [Next: 1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.40) - [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.1.39) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大乘起信論義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2.104) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.39) · Pramāṇa