起信論疏筆削記 19.23

19.23

論　亦不下，三、重揀。疏　若心等者，先反縱，意云：外境若實有體，抑心不緣，終不可得。以不可不緣之故，後得以心除心，此即縱其可除也。然剩者之一字，復詳此文，似剩不故者之三字，但只可言：抑令不緣可得後以心除心也，義方彰顯，請更詳之。今既下，正明既知無境，心自不生，豈得放心外緣，後更除遣，豈非自徒勞耶？如人令子為非，又復譴責，斯何理耶？

The Treatise states: "Neither should..." downward: Third, re-filtering. The Commentary states: "If the mind..." and so on: first, it grants a counter-assertion, with the meaning being: if external objects truly possessed real essence, restraining the mind so that it does not cognize them would ultimately be impossible. Because it would be impossible not to cognize them, one would subsequently be able to eliminate mind with mind; this then concedes that it could be eliminated. However, regarding the surplus character zhe 者, carefully examining this passage again, it seems that the three characters bu gu zhe 不故者 are surplus, and it should only say: "restraining it so that it does not cognize could be attained, and subsequently one eliminates mind with mind." Only then does the meaning become clear; please examine this further. From "Now since..." downward correctly clarifies that, once it is known that there are no objects, the mind naturally does not arise; how could one allow the mind to cognize outwardly and then subsequently dispel it—would that not be laboring in vain? Just like a person telling their child to do wrong and then rebuking them again—what sense would there be in that?