大乘起信論別記 1.39

1.39

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.