大乘起信論裂網疏 2.60

2.60

From being confused about the one mind, there are deluded thoughts. Due to having deluded thoughts, one falsely sees the marks of the mind as arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. But if one investigates the marks of the presently manifest single thought of mind, they are ultimately completely unobtainable, and then the deluded thoughts that posit marks of the mind will cease of themselves. Once deluded thoughts have ceased, one knows that the marks of the mind cannot even be found, so how could there be marks of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing? For if one claims that arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing actually have marks, is arising prior, or are abiding, changing, and ceasing prior? Is arising posterior, or are abiding, changing, and ceasing posterior? Or are arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing all simultaneous? If one claims that arising is prior: does it arise because there is mind, or does it arise because there is no mind? If it arises because there is mind, then there would be two minds; if it arises because there is no mind, then mind would have a beginning. Furthermore, what mark does the arisen mind actually have? Therefore, arising being prior does not accord. If abiding, changing, and ceasing are prior: there must first be arising before there can be abiding, changing, and ceasing; since there was no arising previously, how could there be abiding, changing, and ceasing? Therefore, abiding, changing, and ceasing being prior does not accord. If one claims that arising is posterior: since there was no arising previously, how could there suddenly be arising afterward? Furthermore, it is only due to ceasing that one speaks of arising; since there was no arising previously, there is nothing to cease; and since there was no ceasing previously, how could there be arising afterward? Therefore, arising being posterior does not accord. If abiding, changing, and ceasing are posterior: previously there must have been no ceasing; since previously there was no ceasing, there was also no arising; and since previously there was no arising, how could there afterward be abiding, changing, and ceasing? Therefore, abiding, changing, and ceasing being posterior does not accord. If one claims that arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing are all simultaneous: arising and ceasing are contradictory, and abiding and changing are contradictory, so this is even more in contradiction. Investigating and scrutinizing in this way, one knows that arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing exist merely in name; how have they ever had an intrinsic nature?