大乘起信論義記 2.87

2.87

不生滅者，是上如來藏清淨心，動作生滅不相離，故云和合，非謂別有生滅來與真合，謂生滅之心，心之生滅無二相故。心之生滅因無明成，生滅之心從本覺起，而無二體不相捨離，故云和合。故下云「如大海水因風波動，水相風相不相捨離」，乃至廣說。此中水之動是風相，動之濕是水相，以水舉體動故，水不離於風相，無動而非濕，故動不離於水相。心亦如是，不生滅心舉體動故，心不離生滅相，生滅之相莫非真故，生滅不離於心相，如是不離名為和合。此是不生滅心與生滅合，以是隨緣門故，非是生滅與不生滅合，以此非是向本真如門故。非一非異者，真心全體動故，心與生滅非異；而恒不變真性故，與生滅不一。作《楞伽經》以七識染法為生滅，以如來藏淨法為不生滅，此二和合為阿梨耶識，以和合故，非一非異。非異門者有三種：一、以本從末明不異。經云「如來藏是善不善因，能遍興造一切趣生。」乃至下云「若生若滅」等，梁《攝論》中亦說，此識虛妄是其性故，說虛妄分別所攝也。又經云「佛性隨緣成別味」等。二、攝末同本明不異者，經云「眾生即如」故。又《涅槃》云「十二因緣即佛性」故。又《十地》云「三界唯一心」者，彼論釋云「第一義諦」也。又此論下文云「四相本來平等同一覺」云云。前即末之本，本無別本，故唯有生滅，更無別法可相異也；後即本之末，末無別末故，唯有不生滅，亦無別法可相異也。三、本末平等明不異者，經云「甚深如來藏，而與七識俱。」又經云「何梨耶識名如來藏，而與無明七識共俱，如大海波常不斷絕。」又論云「唯真不生，單妄不成，真妄和合方有所為。」此則本末鎔融、際限不分，故云不異也。第二、不一義者，即以前攝末之本唯不生滅故，與彼攝本之末唯生滅法而不一也。依是義故，經云「如來藏者，不在阿梨耶中，是故七識有生有滅，如來藏者不生不滅。」解云：此中唯生滅是七識，唯不生滅是如來藏，二義既分，遂使梨耶無別自體，故云不在中，此約不一義說，非謂不和合。何以故？此中如來藏不生滅，即七識生滅之不生滅，故與自生滅不一也。七識生滅即如來藏不生滅之生滅，故與自不生滅亦不一也。此中非直不乖不異以明不一，亦乃由不異故成於不一。何以故？若如來藏隨緣作生滅時失自不生滅者，則不得有生滅，是故由不生滅得有生滅，是則不異故不一也。又此中真妄和合諸識緣起，以四句辨之：一、以如來藏唯不生滅，如水濕性。二、七識唯生滅，如水波浪。三、梨耶識亦生滅亦不生滅，如海含動靜。四、無明倒執非生滅非不生滅，如起浪猛風非水非浪。此四義中隨舉一義即融體全攝，緣起義理無二相故。此中且約濕性不失義邊，動靜不一，故說水不在於浪中，豈可此浪離水之外別有體也？餘義準此思之。

As for 'neither arising nor ceasing', this is the aforementioned pure mind of the tathāgatagarbha; it moves as arising and ceasing without being separated, hence it is said to be 'combined'—it does not mean that there is a separate arising and ceasing that comes to combine with the real. That is to say, the mind of arising and ceasing and the arising and ceasing of the mind have no two marks. The arising and ceasing of the mind is formed due to avidyā; the mind of arising and ceasing arises from innate enlightenment; yet they have no two essences and do not abandon or part from each other, hence it is said to be 'combined'. Therefore it says below: 'Just as the water of the great ocean is stirred into waves due to the wind, and the marks of water and marks of wind do not abandon or part from each other', up to the detailed explanation. Here, the motion of the water is the mark of wind, and the wetness of the motion is the mark of water; because the entire essence of the water moves, water is not separate from the mark of wind; since there is no motion that is not wet, motion is not separate from the mark of water. The mind is also like this: because the mind that neither arises nor ceases moves in its entire essence, the mind is not separate from the mark of arising and ceasing; because every mark of arising and ceasing is nothing other than the real, arising and ceasing is not separate from the mark of mind; such non-separation is called 'combination'. This is the mind that neither arises nor ceases combining with arising and ceasing, because it is the gate of according with conditions; it is not arising and ceasing combining with what neither arises nor ceases, because this is not the gate that faces original tathatā. As for 'neither identical nor different': because the entire essence of the true mind moves, the mind is not different from arising and ceasing; yet because its true nature is constantly unchanging, it is not identical with arising and ceasing. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra takes the defiled phenomena of the seven consciousnesses to be arising and ceasing, and takes the pure phenomenon of the tathāgatagarbha to be neither arising nor ceasing; these two combine to become the ālayavijñāna; because of combination, they are neither identical nor different. As for the gate of non-difference, there are three kinds: First, clarifying non-difference by subordinating the branch to the root. The sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of the wholesome and unwholesome; it is able to universally generate all destinies and births', up to where it says below: 'whether arising or ceasing' and so forth. In the Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha it is also said that because this consciousness has falsehood as its nature, it is spoken of as subsumed by false conceptual differentiation. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'The Buddha-nature accords with conditions to become distinct flavors', and so forth. Second, clarifying non-difference by subsuming the branch into identity with the root: because a sūtra says 'Sentient beings are precisely tathatā.' Furthermore, because the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says 'The twelve links of pratītyasamutpāda are precisely the Buddha-nature.' Furthermore, regarding what the Daśabhūmika says: 'The three realms are only one mind', that treatise explains this as 'the ultimate truth.' Furthermore, the text below in this treatise says: 'The four marks are fundamentally equal, identical to the one enlightenment', and so on. The former is the root of the branch; since the root has no separate root, there is only arising and ceasing, and there is no other distinct phenomenon from which it could differ. The latter is the branch of the root; since the branch has no separate branch, there is only non-arising and non-ceasing, and there is also no other distinct phenomenon from which it could differ. Third, clarifying non-difference by the equality of root and branch: a sūtra says, 'The profound tathāgatagarbha is accompanied by the seven consciousnesses.' A sūtra also says, 'The ālayavijñāna is named the tathāgatagarbha, and it is accompanied together with avidyā and the seven consciousnesses, just as ocean waves continuously never cease.' A treatise also says, 'The real alone does not arise, the merely delusional does not form; only when the real and delusional combine is there activity.' This is the fusion of root and branch without demarcation; therefore it is said to be 'not different'. Second, regarding the meaning of 'not identical': by the preceding subsumption of the branch into the root being solely neither arising nor ceasing, it is not identical with that subsumption of the root into the branch being solely phenomena of arising and ceasing. Relying on this meaning, a sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālaya; therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing, while the tathāgatagarbha neither arises nor ceases.' It is explained: here, solely arising and ceasing is the seven consciousnesses, and solely non-arising and non-ceasing is the tathāgatagarbha; once the two meanings are distinguished, the ālaya is consequently rendered devoid of a separate self-essence; therefore it is said to be 'not within'. This is stated in terms of the meaning of non-identity, not to mean that they are not combined. Why? Here, the non-arising and non-ceasing of the tathāgatagarbha is precisely the non-arising and non-ceasing of the arising and ceasing of the seven consciousnesses; therefore it is not identical with its own arising and ceasing. The arising and ceasing of the seven consciousnesses is precisely the arising and ceasing of the non-arising and non-ceasing of the tathāgatagarbha; therefore it is also not identical with its own non-arising and non-ceasing. Here, it is not merely that non-identity is clarified without contradicting non-difference; it is also that non-identity is established because of non-difference. Why? If the tathāgatagarbha, when according with conditions to undergo arising and ceasing, lost its own non-arising and non-ceasing, then there could not be arising and ceasing; therefore, due to non-arising and non-ceasing, arising and ceasing can exist; thus, because of non-difference, they are not identical. Furthermore, here the pratītyasamutpāda of the various consciousnesses through the combination of the real and delusional is distinguished by four propositions: First, the tathāgatagarbha is solely neither arising nor ceasing, like the wet nature of water. Second, the seven consciousnesses are solely arising and ceasing, like the waves of water. Third, the ālayavijñāna is both arising and ceasing and neither arising nor ceasing, like the ocean containing both motion and stillness. Fourth, the inverted grasping of avidyā is neither arising and ceasing nor neither arising and ceasing, like the fierce wind that raises waves being neither water nor wave. Among these four meanings, whichever single meaning is adduced, it fuses the essence and totally subsumes [the others], because the principles of pratītyasamutpāda have no two marks. Here, provisionally speaking from the aspect of the wet nature not being lost, motion and stillness are not identical; therefore it is said that water is not within the waves—how could these waves have a separate essence outside of the water? The remaining meanings should be considered according to this standard.