大乘起信論義記 2.105

2.105

"Why is this?" challenges the establishment of the name. There are two intentions behind the challenge: first, in opening the section above, it directly said "the meaning of enlightenment"; why does it now conclude by calling it "innate enlightenment"? Second, since it is called "innate enlightenment" here, why did the text above directly say "enlightenment"? These are reciprocal challenges. The explanation says: because it is in contrast to the incipient, it is spoken of as the innate—this answers the first intention. "Because incipient is precisely identical to innate": when reaching the source of the mind, incipient enlightenment is precisely identical to innate enlightenment, having no two marks. Therefore, the text above merely said "enlightenment"—this answers the second intention. Truly, because innate enlightenment accords with defilement to produce incipient enlightenment, it must also await this incipient enlightenment before being named innate enlightenment; therefore it says that innate enlightenment is spoken of in contrast to the incipient. Yet this incipient enlightenment is formed by innate enlightenment, and only when it accords with the source of the mind and fuses into a single substance is it named incipient enlightenment; therefore it says: "because incipient enlightenment is precisely identical to innate."