大乘起信論義記 2.89

2.89

問：梨耶既通動靜，不應唯在生滅門。答：為起靜以成動，無別有動體，是故靜性隨於動亦在生滅中。非直梨耶具動靜在此生滅中，亦乃如來藏唯不動亦在此門中。何以故？以彼生滅無別法故。可思準之。又若一者，生滅識相滅盡之時，真心應滅，則墮斷過；若是異者，依無明風熏動之時，靜心之體應不隨緣，則墮常過。離此二邊，故非一異。又若一則無和合，若異亦無和合，非一異故得和合也。如經云「譬如泥團微塵非異非不異，金莊嚴具亦復如是。若泥團異者，非彼所成，而實彼成，是故非異；若不異者，泥團微塵應無差別。如是轉識藏識真相若異者，藏識非因；若不異者，轉識滅藏識亦應滅，而自真相實不滅，是故非自真相識滅，但業相滅。」解云：此中真相是如來藏，轉識是七識，藏識是梨耶。今此論主總括彼《楞伽經》上下文意作此安立，故云非一異也。

Question: Since the ālayavijñāna pervades both motion and stillness, it should not reside solely in the gate of arising and ceasing. Answer: Because it stirs stillness to constitute motion, and there is no separate entity of motion, the nature of stillness accords with motion and is therefore also within arising and ceasing. Not only does the ālayavijñāna, possessing both motion and stillness, reside within this [gate of] arising and ceasing, but even the tathāgatagarbha, which is purely unmoving, also resides within this gate. Why is this? Because that arising and ceasing has no separate dharmas. You should contemplate and reflect on this. Furthermore, if they were one, when the marks of the arising-and-ceasing consciousness are extinguished, the true mind should also be extinguished, thus falling into the error of annihilationism. If they were different, when it is perfumed and stirred by the wind of avidyā, the substance of the quiet mind should not accord with conditions, thus falling into the error of eternalism. Being free from these two extremes, they are therefore neither one nor different. Furthermore, if they were one, there would be no union; if they were different, there would also be no union. Because they are neither one nor different, union is obtained. As the sūtra says: "Just as a lump of clay and its fine particles of dust are neither different nor not different, and gold ornaments are also like this: if the lump of clay were different, it would not be formed of them, yet in fact it is formed of them, and is therefore not different; if it were not different, the lump of clay and the fine particles of dust should have no distinction. In this way, if the evolving consciousness, the storehouse consciousness, and the true mark were different, the storehouse consciousness would not be the cause; if they were not different, when the evolving consciousness ceases, the storehouse consciousness should also cease, yet its own true mark is in fact not extinguished. Therefore, it is not that its own true-mark consciousness ceases, but only that the karmic mark ceases." In explanation: here, the "true mark" is the tathāgatagarbha; the "evolving consciousness" refers to the seven consciousnesses; and the "storehouse consciousness" is the ālayavijñāna. Now, the author of this treatise summarises the context and meaning of that Laṅkāvatārasūtra to establish this; therefore he says they are neither one nor different.