大乘起信論內義略探記 1.47

1.47

問：本識自相，若一向染緣所起不？若是染緣所起者，染法盡時自相可滅；若不隨染滅者，即自然有。又若自相滅者，論同斷見；若不滅者，是同常見。答：一云，梨耶心體是異熟法，但為業惑之辨生，是故業惑盡時，本識頓盡。然佛果位亦有福慧二行，所感大圓鏡智相應淨識，而於二處心義是同，以是義故說心至佛果。一云，心體舉體無明所起，是動靜合起，非言辨無令有此心。因無明起為業，此動之心本自為心，名自相義門，不由無明。而此動心亦有自類相生滅故，無自然通，而有不滅義。無明盡時動相隨滅，心隨始覺還歸本原也。有評云：二師所說，皆有道理、皆依聖教，初師得《瑜伽》意，後師得《起信》意，不可如言取義。若如初說取義者，是法我執，即墮斷見；若如後師說取義，是人我執，即墮常見。當知二義皆不可說，雖不可說而亦可說，以雖非然非不然故也。餘問答等及第七緣外境等義，如疏及別記并二障章等說也。

Question: Does the self-characteristic of the basic consciousness arise purely from defiled conditions or not? If it arises from defiled conditions, then when defiled dharmas are exhausted, its self-characteristic should cease; if it does not cease along with defilement, then it must exist spontaneously. Furthermore, if its self-characteristic ceases, that thesis agrees with the annihilationist view; if it does not cease, that agrees with the eternalist view. Answer: One master says that the mental substance of the ālayavijñāna is a dharma of maturation, produced merely by the distinct actuation of karma and afflictions; therefore, when karma and afflictions are exhausted, the basic consciousness is instantly exhausted. However, on the fruit-stage of Buddhahood there is also a pure consciousness corresponding to the great round mirror gnosis, brought about by the two practices of merit and wisdom; and because the meaning of "mind" is identical in both places, by this meaning it is said that the mind reaches the fruit of Buddhahood. Another master says that the mental substance in its entirety arises from avidyā, arising through the conjunction of motion and stillness; it is not said that it differentiates non-existence into existence for this mind. Because it arises caused by avidyā, it is karma; this moving mind is originally a mind in itself, which is called the aspect of its self-characteristic, not depending on avidyā. And because this moving mind also has arising and ceasing of its own kind, it is free from the error of spontaneous existence, and yet possesses the meaning of non-cessation. When avidyā is exhausted, the characteristic of motion ceases accordingly, and the mind follows initial awakening to return to its original source. A critique says: What both masters say has reasoned justification and both rely on the noble teachings. The first master grasps the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi, and the latter master grasps the intent of the Awakening of Faith; one must not take the meaning literally according to their words. If one takes the meaning according to the first explanation, it is clinging to the self of dharmas and falls into the annihilationist view; if one takes the meaning according to the latter master's explanation, it is clinging to the self of persons and falls into the eternalist view. One should know that both meanings are inexpressible; though inexpressible, they may also be expressed, because it is neither so nor not so. The remaining questions and answers, and meanings such as the seventh [consciousness] cognizing external objects, are as explained in the Commentary, the Separate Notes, the Chapter on the Two Obscurations, and so on.