起信論疏筆削記 10.24

10.24

二、喻。疏　真隨妄轉者，即下淨心因無明風動。論　水相風相不相捨離者，濕是水相，動是風相，動處全濕，濕處全動，是不相捨離。亦可水相者，波動也；風相者，亦波動也，以水之與風俱用彼為相，故云不相捨離。以喻一切染法依真而起，由癡所發，染法望真，是真之相；若望於癡，是癡之相。如下云：以一切染法皆是不覺相故。又云：皆同真如性相。故此喻之。疏　真妄相依者，即下心與無明不相捨離。真體不變者，即下心非動性，以心性寂滅，本非動作。以不守自性，隨他無明，故成起滅。如水濕性本不動搖，由風故動也。息妄顯真者，即下無明滅，相續則滅，智性不壞。此明等者，意明若真自性是動法者，識相滅時，真性應滅；今既不滅，應知非自性動也。如彼水性若自性動，波相滅時，濕性應滅；今既不滅，應知非自性動也。

Second, the metaphor. Commentary: 'The true turning along with the false' refers to the statement below that the pure mind is moved by the wind of ignorance. Treatise: Regarding 'the mark of water and the mark of wind are not separated from one another': wetness is the mark of water, and motion is the mark of wind; where there is motion, it is entirely wet, and where there is wetness, it is entirely in motion—this is being not separated from one another. Alternatively, the mark of water is the wave's motion, and the mark of wind is also the wave's motion; because both water and wind take that as their mark, it is said that they are not separated from one another. This illustrates that all defiled dharmas arise in reliance on the true and are initiated by delusion; when defiled dharmas are viewed in relation to the true, they are marks of the true; when viewed in relation to delusion, they are marks of delusion. As it is said below: 'Because all defiled dharmas are marks of non-enlightenment.' It also says: 'All share the nature and marks of tathatā.' Hence this metaphor is used. Commentary: 'The true and the false rely on each other' refers to the statement below that the mind and ignorance are not separated from each other. 'The essence of the true does not change' refers to the statement below that the mind does not have the nature of motion, because the mind-nature is quiescent and fundamentally not in motion. Because it does not preserve its own nature and follows the other, ignorance, it forms arising and ceasing. It is like the wet nature of water fundamentally not shaking, but moving due to the wind. 'Extinguishing the false reveals the true' refers to the statement below that when ignorance ceases, continuation ceases, and the cognitive nature is not destroyed. Regarding 'this clarifies...' and so forth: the meaning is that if the true's intrinsic nature were an active dharma, when the marks of consciousness cease, the true nature should also cease; now that it does not cease, one should know that it does not move by its intrinsic nature. Just as with the nature of that water, if it moved by its intrinsic nature, when the marks of waves cease, the wet nature should cease; now that it does not cease, one should know that it does not move by its intrinsic nature.