起信論疏筆削記 8.27

8.27

The second question's purport means: since the ālaya[-vijñāna] now pervades both stillness and motion, it should properly also belong to the gate of tathatā; why is it exclusively in the gate of arising and ceasing? In the answer, by provisionally explaining the rationale for its being solely in the gate of arising and ceasing, it follows by analogy that it is not in the gate of tathatā. Because the ālaya consists in rousing stillness to produce motion and their essences are not separate, stillness follows motion into this gate. "Not only...", etc., means: if what is unmoved is even so present in the gate of motion, how much more so that which combines both motion and stillness? "Why is this?", etc., is a question followed by an explanation, which is clear. "One should reflect and analogize this" is intended to lead one to understand by analogy that it is not in the gate of tathatā. For although the ālaya has the aspect of stillness, the reason it is not in the gate of tathatā is that this stillness is a stillness that follows motion, unlike the gate of tathatā, which is an unaroused stillness. Although the essence of stillness is the same, the meanings of stillness differ. Since the ālaya carries both motion and stillness together, it is not in the gate of tathatā, because this gate is purely still. The commentary omits explaining this meaning and merely says, "One should reflect and analogize this."