起信論疏筆削記 6.44

6.44

From "Furthermore..." onward explains in terms of the two gates mutually subsuming. The preceding was stated in terms of the two gates each subsuming the shared and the distinct, not as identical gates, so the meanings of subsumption were different. In the first gate, the shared aspect merely clarifies harmonious subsumption; merging, then defilement and purity are without difference, and it is thus named "shared." In the latter gate, the distinct aspect is comprehensive subsumption; encompassing, then defilement and purity are different, and it is thus named "distinct." Now, this passage does not divide shared and distinct, but simply speaks of it from one meaning on both sides, which immediately forms the meaning of the two gates each subsuming. What the present text states—that when arising and ceasing subsumes all, that is immediately tathatā subsuming all, because arising and ceasing has no essence and is entirely identical to principle—is why it says "in turn subsumes, etc." Furthermore, when tathatā subsumes all, that is immediately arising and ceasing subsuming all, because the principle that completely constitutes phenomena is not something separate outside them. Now, this commentary text still lacks this latter meaning; it should additionally have said: "Since tathatā is the true nature of all dharmas, and outside the true nature there are no separate dharmas, it in turn subsumes the gate of arising and ceasing." Only if this text were present would the meaning be complete, establishing mutual subsumption. Thus, when the gate of arising and ceasing subsumes dharmas, the dharmas of the tathatā gate are also within arising and ceasing; when the tathatā gate subsumes dharmas, the dharmas of the gate of arising and ceasing are also within tathatā. Being so, the defilement and purity subsumed within tathatā are immediately the defilement and purity subsumed by the gate of arising and ceasing, without duality or difference; to bring up one is to gather all completely, which is why it is called "the two gates mutually subsuming." Therefore the conclusion below states: "Equally subsuming without duality." Question: Why did the commentator not state that tathatā subsumes the gate of arising and ceasing? Answer: The previous passage on the shared aspect already contained this meaning, so it was not repeated.