大乘起信論義記別記 1.41

1.41

問：本覺若滅惑者，即應無不覺，以障治相違故；若有不覺，即不得有本覺。如何說言依本覺有不覺耶？答：由本覺性自滅不覺故，是故依本覺得有不覺。何者？若本覺不滅不覺者，即應本覺中自有不覺；若本覺中自有不覺者，則諸凡夫無不覺過，以不覺在本覺中，凡夫不證本覺故，不覺即不成凡夫過。又若本覺中有不覺者，即諸凡夫既有本覺，應得本覺，覺故，名不成凡夫過。若本覺中有不覺者，聖人得本覺，應有不覺，有不覺故，即非聖人，是無聖人過。又若本覺中有不覺者，聖人無不覺故，即無本覺，無本覺故，即無聖人過。既有此義，是故本覺性滅不覺是。又若不滅不覺，即無本覺，無本覺故，即無所迷，無所迷故，即無不覺。是故得有不覺者，由於本覺，本覺有者，由滅不覺，是故當知由滅不覺，得有不覺也。

Question: If original enlightenment eradicates delusion, then there should be no non-enlightenment, because hindrances and antidotes are mutually contradictory; if there is non-enlightenment, then there cannot be original enlightenment. How can it be said that depending on original enlightenment there is non-enlightenment? Answer: Because the nature of original enlightenment intrinsically eradicates non-enlightenment, it is therefore depending on original enlightenment that non-enlightenment can exist. How so? If original enlightenment did not eradicate non-enlightenment, then original enlightenment would itself contain non-enlightenment. If original enlightenment itself contained non-enlightenment, then there would be the fault that ordinary beings have no non-enlightenment, because non-enlightenment would be within original enlightenment, and since ordinary beings do not realize original enlightenment, non-enlightenment would not constitute the fault of ordinary beings. Furthermore, if original enlightenment contained non-enlightenment, then since ordinary beings possess original enlightenment, they should attain original enlightenment; because of being enlightened, there would be the fault that they do not constitute ordinary beings. If original enlightenment contained non-enlightenment, then when noble ones attain original enlightenment, they should have non-enlightenment; because of having non-enlightenment, they would not be noble ones, which is the fault of having no noble ones. Furthermore, if original enlightenment contained non-enlightenment, then because noble ones have no non-enlightenment, there would be no original enlightenment; because there would be no original enlightenment, there would be the fault of having no noble ones. Since these implications exist, original enlightenment by nature eradicates non-enlightenment. Moreover, if it did not eradicate non-enlightenment, there would be no original enlightenment; because there would be no original enlightenment, there would be nothing to be deluded about; because there would be nothing to be deluded about, there would be no non-enlightenment. Therefore, that non-enlightenment can exist is due to original enlightenment; that original enlightenment exists is due to eradicating non-enlightenment. Hence, you should know that due to eradicating non-enlightenment, non-enlightenment can exist.