大乘起信論別記 1.65

1.65

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.