大乘起信論義記 2.258

2.258

Question: Above it was said that relying on enlightenment, there is non-enlightenment, and by the power of this non-enlightenment, it stirs that essence of the mind, causing arising and ceasing to combine, only after which there are the ālayavijñāna, karmic consciousness, and so forth. Why does it say here that relying on the ālayavijñāna, there is avidyā? Answer: There are three explanations for this. First: because the ālayavijñāna has two meanings—that is, avidyā stirs the true mind to form the ālayavijñāna; moreover, this very ālayavijñāna in turn serves as the basis for that avidyā, because they are inseparable. How so? It means that relying on delusion, a semblance arises; thus it stirs the true mind to produce the karmic consciousness, and because of mistaking the semblance for real, relying on the ālayavijñāna there is avidyā. The second says: the ālayavijñāna has two meanings, namely enlightenment and non-enlightenment. Previously, looking specifically at its root, it said that relying on enlightenment there is non-enlightenment; now, discussing it from the standpoint of the branches, it says that relying on the ālayavijñāna there is avidyā. This is the meaning of non-enlightenment between the two meanings; because it resides in the ālayavijñāna, it is said to rely on it. The third says: the primary intended meaning here takes only the sense of the true mind conforming to conditions; because this meaning of conforming to conditions is difficult to designate, either from the perspective of what has not yet arisen, it says that relying on tathatā there is avidyā, or from the perspective of what has already arisen, it says that relying on the ālayavijñāna there is avidyā. Yet only these two terms fully exhaust its meaning; therefore the passages before and after speak reciprocally.