起信論疏筆削記 13.44

13.44

無明熏中，疏　謂根本等者，即前依不覺生三種相也。論不備舉，故但標一。亦可無明熏真，但成業識。業識熏無明，方起轉現，故但標一也。謂枝末等者，然今事識親從境起。境界不亡者，蓋緣枝末無明念念熏習真如之力。如何熏習？但是於境不了虛無，定執有實，名為熏習。以定執故，起後諸相也。此則取迷前者為能成，能成即枝末不覺；後起者為所成，所成即六麁事識。如前所說睡夢之事，心境已具，於中取著，不了是夢，如能成之無明，分別前境，如所成之事識。然不了妄，即是熏真互相成也，引文可知。但末下，釋上所起之言，謂根本無明是能起故，對上根本以彰枝末也。

In the perfuming by avidyā, regarding the commentary's "namely fundamental and so forth": this is the three kinds of marks produced in reliance on non-awakening previously. The treatise does not mention them exhaustively, so it only indicates one. It can also be that when avidyā perfumes the real, it only forms the karmic consciousness; only when the karmic consciousness perfumes avidyā does it give rise to the transforming and manifesting [consciousnesses], so it only indicates one. Regarding "namely branch-and-leaf and so forth": now the consciousness of phenomena directly arises from sense-objects. That sense-objects do not perish is due to the power of branch-and-leaf avidyā perfuming tathatā from thought to thought. How does it perfume? It is merely that with respect to sense-objects, one does not understand their emptiness and unreality, and definitely grasps them as truly existent; this is called perfuming. Because of definitely grasping, it gives rise to the subsequent marks. Thus, taking the delusion of the former is that which establishes: that which establishes is branch-and-leaf non-awakening; what arises later is that which is established: that which is established is the consciousness of phenomena of the six coarse marks. It is like the aforementioned matter of sleeping and dreaming: mind and objects are already complete, and grasping within them, not understanding that it is a dream, is like that which establishes, avidyā; conceptually differentiating the objects before one is like that which is established, the consciousness of phenomena. However, not understanding the false is itself perfuming the real, mutually accomplishing each other; citing the text makes this clear. Regarding "Only branch-and-leaf..." below: this explains the above words "what arises"; it means that fundamental avidyā is that which can give rise [to them], so it is contrasted with the fundamental above to clarify the branch-and-leaf.