大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 3.10

3.10

論。又心起者至即謂無念　釋曰。此重釋前文也。此釋伏疑重舉前文。覺心初起故言又心起者。謂前所言覺心初起若謂覺。彼初起之心。則不名覺。有初心故。若無初心。則何所覺。所覺既無。無能覺故。若覺悟心初起名覺。既有覺相。不應名覺。起初覺心是不覺故。如何前言覺心初起。顯通此難故舉此文。前說覺心初起相者。於所覺相無相可知。而言覺心初起相者。覺彼初心即無念起。如覺迷方知西即東更無西相是可覺知。知西相者謂即東也。覺心之時知初動念即本來靜。所覺初心既不可得。能覺初相亦何所存。故云即謂無念。故新論云。心尚無有。何況有初。

Treatise: Furthermore, when the mind arises [...] it is said to be thoughtlessness. Commentary: This re-explains the previous text. This resolves a hidden doubt by re-citing the previous text. Since it [spoke of] "awakening to the mind's initial arising," it says "furthermore, when the mind arises." That is, if what was previously stated as "awakening to the mind's initial arising" meant awakening to that initially arisen mind, then it would not be called awakening, because there would be an initial mind. If there is no initial mind, what would be awakened to? Since what is awakened to does not exist, there would be no subject capable of awakening. If the mind of awakening initially arising is called awakening, then since there would be a mark of awakening, it should not be called awakening, because the arising of the initial mind of awakening is non-awakening. How could it previously be said that one "awakens to the mind's initial arising"? To demonstrate the resolution of this objection, this passage is cited. In the previous explanation of the characteristic of "awakening to the mind's initial arising," regarding the characteristic of what is awakened to, there are no marks to be known; and in saying "awakening to the characteristic of the mind's initial arising," one awakens to the fact that that initial mind is without thoughts arising. Just as when awakening from losing one's direction, one knows that west is itself east and there is no mark of west that can be perceived; knowing the mark of west means it is precisely east. When one awakens to the mind, one knows that the initial stirred thought is originally calm. Since the initial mind that is awakened to cannot be obtained, where could the initial mark capable of awakening remain? Therefore it says "it is said to be thoughtlessness." Thus the new treatise says: "The mind does not even exist, how much less could there be an initial [arising]?"