大乘起信論義記 3.45

3.45

That the latter three as well as avidyā are all called 'unconjoined' also has two explanations. First, in the explanation in terms of the mind and mental factors, 'the non-enlightened mind itself is constantly without difference': this shows that fundamental avidyā stirs the quiet essence of the mind. This stirred mind itself is the mark of non-enlightenment, without any further distinction between mind and mental factors, hence it is said that 'the non-enlightened mind itself is constantly without difference'—this inverts the earlier 'the dharmas of mind and mental factors are different'. 'Not being identical in its aspects of knowing and aspects of objective support': since there is no distinction between mind and mental factors, how could there be identical knowing and identical objective support? This can be seen by inverting the earlier. Because these three kinds arise based on non-enlightenment and are not distinct from non-enlightenment, it is said to be 'itself'. As the text above says, 'Relying on non-enlightenment, three marks are produced, which do not separate from non-enlightenment'; this refers to this non-enlightenment of the mind itself, which is why it is said to 'not separate', not that it is conjoined and does not separate. The text below also says: 'Because avidyā is extinguished, the unconjoined mind is extinguished.' Second, in the explanation in terms of mind and realm, 'the non-enlightened mind itself and so on' means that this avidyā is itself this defiled mind without a separate substance; it is not by being conjoined with external realms that it becomes this non-enlightenment, but it is just present upon the fundamental mind, hence it is said 'the mind itself and so on'. 'Not being identical in its aspects of knowing and so on': this sets it apart from the conjoined above. Since this unconjoined mind is the ālayavijñāna, within it the meaning of not differentiating mind and mental factors, the meaning of not conjoining with external realms, and its having aspects of enlightenment and non-enlightenment are all in contradiction with various treatises; their reconciliation is as explained in the *Separate Record*.