[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [起信論疏筆削記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848) › 12.7 # 起信論疏筆削記 12.7 起信論疏筆削記 12.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [12.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.12.7) 問上說下，二、釋妨。問意云：前明九相生滅，後即結云：當知無明能生一切染法，以一切染法皆是不覺相故。今文復云：唯心虛妄，心生法生、心滅法滅。二文不相遠，何以頓爾不同耶？答下，意云：前辨生滅，單就不覺說故，結過屬無明，以功在不覺故。今此下，明今文意，意明此文具說真如為因，無明為緣，由此因緣道理和合，成就色心諸法。既屬因緣，遂令諸法無性之義顯然可見，真如隨緣不住之理煥然明矣。彰，明也。故結下，既明和合本因真如隨緣成和合義，今結屬心，正其宜也。如水初動，功在於風，故前文中結屬無明；動無別體，則全屬於水，故此文中結屬心也。故不可言波無別體，而唯屬於風。法理亦然，如喻可知。 > "Question: The above explanation..." below: second, resolving objections. The question intends to say: previously, after clarifying the arising and ceasing of the nine marks, it then concluded, "One should know that avidyā can produce all defiled dharmas, because all defiled dharmas are marks of non-enlightenment." Now the text again says: "Mind-only is false; when the mind arises, dharmas arise; when the mind ceases, dharmas cease." The two texts are not far apart; why are they suddenly so different? The answer below intends to say: the previous analysis of arising and ceasing spoke solely with respect to non-enlightenment; hence, the fault was attributed to avidyā, because the agency lay in non-enlightenment. "Now this..." below: clarifies the intent of the present text. It intends to clarify that this text fully explains tathatā as the cause and avidyā as the condition; through the harmonious integration of this principle of cause and condition, all dharmas of form and mind are accomplished. Since they pertain to causes and conditions, the meaning that all dharmas lack self-nature is made clearly visible, and the principle that tathatā conforms to conditions without abiding becomes brilliantly evident. "Zhang" means to clarify. "Therefore concluding..." below: having clarified that the harmonization is originally because tathatā conforms to conditions to bring about harmonization, now concluding by attributing it to the mind is truly appropriate. Just as when the water first moves, the agency lies with the wind, so in the previous text it was attributed to avidyā; but since the movement has no separate essence, it belongs entirely to the water, so in the present text it is attributed to the mind. Therefore, one cannot say that the waves have no separate essence and belong solely to the wind. The principle of the Dharma is also like this; it can be understood from the metaphor. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 12.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.12.6) - [Next: 12.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.12.8) - [Up: 12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.12) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848~en-mt.12.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.12.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.12.7) · Pramāṇa