大乘起信論義記 2.87

2.87

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.