大乘起信論別記 1.65

1.65

問：若言始覺同於本覺離生滅者，此說云何通？如《攝論》云「本既常住，未依於本，相續恒在」乃至廣說。答：二意異故，理不相違。何者？此論主意，欲顯本由不覺，動於靜心；今息不覺，還歸本靜，故成常住。彼《攝論》意，欲明法身，本來常住不動，依彼法身，起福惠二行，能感萬德報果。既為因緣所起，是故不離生滅，故說相續具義。而說始成萬德，要具二義，依前義故常住，依後義故生滅。生滅、常住不相妨礙。以一一念迷，遍三世不過一念，故如似一一毛孔皆遍十方；雖遍十方，不增毛孔。佛佛如是，無障無礙，豈容偏執於其門哉！如《花嚴經》偈云「牟尼離三世，相好悉具足，住於無所住，法界悉清淨。因緣故法生，因緣故法滅，如是觀如來，究竟離癡惑。」今二論主各述一義，有何相妨耶？又如經「依諸伏道，起事心滅；依法斷道，依根本心滅；依勝拔道，根本心盡。」此言諸伏道者，謂三十心；起事心滅者，猶此論中捨麁分別執著相，即異相也；依法斷道，在法身位；依根本心滅者，猶捨分別麁念相，是住相也；勝拔道者，金剛無礙；根本心盡者，猶此遠離微細念也。此謂生相。「是故」已下，引經證成也。

Question: If actualized enlightenment is identical to innate enlightenment and free from arising and ceasing, how is this explanation reconciled? As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Since the basis is permanently abiding, what is not reliant on the basis continues perpetually," up to extensive explanations. Answer: Because the two intentions are different, the principles do not contradict each other. How so? The intention of this treatise master is to show that fundamentally, due to non-enlightenment, the tranquil mind was stirred; now, putting an end to non-enlightenment, one returns to the original tranquility, and therefore it becomes permanently abiding. The intention of that Mahāyānasaṃgraha is to clarify that the dharmakāya is fundamentally permanently abiding and unmoving, and relying on that dharmakāya, one gives rise to the two practices of merit and wisdom, which can bring about the fruition of the retribution body endowed with myriad virtues. Since it is produced by causes and conditions, it is therefore not free from arising and ceasing; hence it speaks of continuity possessing these meanings. Thus, in speaking of initially accomplishing the myriad virtues, it must possess both meanings: relying on the former meaning, it is permanently abiding; relying on the latter meaning, it is arising and ceasing. Arising and ceasing and permanent abiding do not obstruct each other. Because delusion in each thought-moment pervades the three times without exceeding a single thought-moment, it is just like each and every pore pervading the ten directions; although pervading the ten directions, the pores do not increase. All Buddhas are like this, unobstructed and unhindered; how could one allow one-sided grasping at either gate! As a gāthā in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / "The Muni is free from the three times, / fully endowed with the marks and signs; / abiding in no abode, / the dharmadhātu is entirely pure. / Due to causes and conditions dharmas arise, / due to causes and conditions dharmas cease; / contemplating the Tathāgata in this way, / one is ultimately free from delusion." / Now, the two treatise masters each explain one meaning; what contradiction is there? Furthermore, as a sūtra says: "Relying on the paths of subduing, the mind that produces activities ceases; relying on the path of severing according to dharma, the mind that relies on the root ceases; relying on the supreme uprooting path, the root mind is exhausted." What is called "paths of subduing" refers to the thirty minds; "the mind that produces activities ceases" is like relinquishing the characteristic of coarse discriminative attachment in this treatise, which is the characteristic of change; "the path of severing according to dharma" is at the stage of the dharmakāya; "the mind that relies on the root ceases" is like relinquishing the characteristic of coarse thoughts of discrimination, which is the characteristic of abiding; "the supreme uprooting path" is the diamond-like unhindered [path]; "the root mind is exhausted" is like being far removed from subtle thoughts here. This refers to the characteristic of arising. From "Therefore..." onward, it cites sūtras to corroborate it.