大乘起信論別記 1.32

1.32

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.