起信論疏筆削記 9.27

9.27

雖復下，五、據理融攝。先縱牃前文，謂細不是麁，惑不是業，法執非我執，本識非事識。前位異後位，故云階降。然其下，攝彼麁細差別以為一念。所言一念有兩意：一則但是一無明之念；二則一剎那之念。且如一人忽逢一怨，便行殺害（業起），如以為張人王人（計名），定言於我有怨（執取），惡心無間（相續），分別是怨非親（智相）。彼為所見（現相），已為能見（轉相），心念起動（業相），即於一念之中八相具足，然於二義中正唯前義。亦可一念者，即一心也，故下文云：一念相應，即無念之一念也。謂麁下，出所以。或問曰：「既有麁細前後等差，何得說為一念？」故此釋也，謂雖有麁細等差，而是一心而作，豈有心在滅相而生相中無心？若言無者，生何所依？亦不可分此一心以應四相。既心不可分，復無前後，如何四相得有前後耶？如人是一，夢種種事，夢事雖多，即無前後。故說下，引證，即始覺末文。正云：而實無有始覺之異，以四相俱時而有，皆無自立，本來平等，同一覺故。

"Although [the marks] again..." is fifth: synthesizing and subsuming according to principle. First, it concedes and recapitulates the preceding text, meaning: the subtle is not the coarse, affliction is not karma, attachment to dharmas is not attachment to self, and the fundamental consciousness is not the object-engaging consciousness. The prior stage differs from the subsequent stage, hence it says "gradation." "Yet its..." subsumes those distinctions of coarse and subtle into a single thought-moment. The expression "a single thought-moment" has two meanings: first, it is simply a single thought of fundamental ignorance; second, it is a thought-moment of a single kṣaṇa. For example, suppose a person suddenly encounters an enemy and proceeds to kill him (arising of karma), conceptualizing him as a person named Zhang or Wang (reckoning names), definitively declaring, "He bears an enmity toward me" (clinging and grasping), with an evil mind continuing uninterrupted (continuation), differentiating between enemy and friend (mark of cognition). That [enemy] constitutes the seen (manifesting mark), oneself constitutes the seer (transforming mark), and the mental thought begins to stir (karmic mark)—thus within a single thought-moment, the eight marks are fully present. Yet between the two meanings, it is strictly only the former meaning. It can also be that "a single thought-moment" is just the One Mind; hence the text below states: "A single thought-moment corresponding" is precisely the single thought of no-thought. "Because coarse..." brings out the reason. Someone might ask: "Since there are gradations of coarse and subtle, before and after, how can it be spoken of as a single thought-moment?" Hence this explains it: although there are gradations of coarse and subtle, they are produced by the One Mind. How could the mind be present in the mark of cessation while there is no mind in the mark of arising? If one says it is absent, upon what would arising depend? Nor can this One Mind be divided to correspond to the four marks. Since the mind cannot be divided, and further has no before and after, how could the four marks have a before and after? It is like one person dreaming of various matters: though the dream-matters are manifold, they have no before and after. "Therefore it is said..." adduces proof, namely the concluding text on actualized enlightenment. The text properly says: "Yet in truth there is no difference of actualized enlightenment, because the four marks exist simultaneously, none having self-subsistence; they are fundamentally equal, being the same enlightenment."