起信論疏筆削記 9.5

9.5

Regarding the question "if..." and what follows: second, question and answer resolving contradictions and obstacles. Regarding "if different, it does not constitute actualization": because the earlier text states that it is accomplished through the original, so that only when it dissolves into identity with the original essence is it named actualized enlightenment. Regarding "if identical, it does not constitute actualization": because it was said earlier that upon reaching the mind-source, actualized and original are non-dual, being equal in a single mark and having nothing to depend upon. Since neither identity nor difference can be established, how can one speak of establishing the original by contrast with the actualized? This question arises from the commentary passage just preceding. The gist of the answer: in the past one was non-enlightened, but now one is for the first time enlightened. If one investigates its essence, it is not different from the original; from the side of the relative meaning within the gate of arising and ceasing, it receives the names "actualized" and "original". Regarding "contrasting with the original non-enlightenment": it is established as "actualized" by contrasting with original enlightenment, and established as "enlightenment" by contrasting with non-enlightenment. If one reaches the mind-source, it is already subsumed under the gate of tathatā and is not subject to the earlier objection. Regarding "yet in truth actualized enlightenment" and what follows: because there are no defiled conditions of non-enlightenment to contrast with, there is no name of "enlightenment"; because it is equal to and not different from the original, there is no name of "actualized". It is simply named tathatā, not named actualized or original enlightenment. Therefore, within the gate of tathatā, only the essence is revealed, not the attributes and function.