大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 3.6

3.6

論。如菩薩至名究竟覺　釋曰。此第四覺相者。如菩薩地盡者。初明能覺人。文中總別顯其二道。初句總標能觀之位。即是金剛等覺之位。非謂十地名為盡地。以新論說為若超過菩薩地故。其次二句別明二道滿足方便。是加行道即是滿足之方便故。而新論言究竟道滿足。舉總取別。即加行道是此攝故。一念相應是無間道。其無間道一剎那中與理契會斷細念故。如對法云。究竟道者謂金剛喻定。此有二種。謂方便道攝。及無間道攝。覺心初起等者。顯所覺相。根本無明依覺故迷動彼靜心令起細念。即是此中初起心也。今至此位方始覺知。離本覺無不覺。即動心本來靜。如正迷時謂東為西。及其悟也西即是東。豈於悟時更有西相。故覺初心相也。故言覺心初起心無初相。或始覺心初始而起名覺心初起。故新論言。覺心初起始名為覺離於覺相。前釋順古違新論文。後釋順理不違二論。即經所說諸如來禪。故楞伽云。謂入佛地住自證聖智三種樂為諸眾生作不思議事。前三種位中雖有動念故言念無住等。今此位中動念都盡唯一心在。故云心無初相。是則心無初念相也。遠離等者。明覺利益。業相動念。念中最細名微細念。即生相也。或細分別名微細念。不論別配無明業相。謂第三位覺念無念皆無有相捨中分別。今此位中覺相亦無。都無所得故離細念。新論但名細分別故。此念永無故云遠離。遠離虛相故真心性即得顯現。故云得見心性。無明風止性海浪息永無生滅。故言心即常住。依此二義故新論言心根本性常住現前。前三位中念相未盡。是故不云得見心性。覺未至源。無明猶在。動彼靜心。業識起滅。是故不云心即常住。名究竟覺者。結觀分齊。未至心源。夢念未盡。始末同本非究竟覺。求滅此動。望至彼岸。今夢念息。覺了心源。本無流轉。今無始靜。常自一心。始異本得為如來。名究竟覺。若爾始覺既成常住。豈不違彼攝論所說。本既常住。末依於本相續恒存。乃至廣說。蘊二意異。故理不相違。此論欲顯本由不覺動彼靜心。今息不覺還歸本靜。故成常住。攝論欲明依常法身起福惠行。所感報果既從緣起。故說相續始覺。萬德要具二義。依前義故常住。依後義故生滅。生滅常住不相妨礙。以一一念悉通三世。雖遍三世不過一念如一毛孔。遍於十方。雖遍十方不增毛孔。佛德如是無障無礙。豈寧偏執於其間哉。如花嚴經頌此義云。

Treatise: As bodhisattvas having reached the end of the stages [...] it is called ultimate awakening. Commentary: As for this fourth characteristic of awakening: "As bodhisattvas having reached the end of the stages" first clarifies the persons capable of awakening. In the text, the two paths are shown generally and specifically. The first phrase generally designates the stage capable of contemplation, which is the stage of the vajra-like equal awakening; it does not mean that the tenth stage is called the end of the stages, because the new treatise says "if one transcends the bodhisattva stages." The next two phrases specifically clarify the two paths: "satisfying expedient means" is the path of preparatory application, because it is the expedient means of satisfaction. The new treatise says "the ultimate path is satisfied," taking the specific by presenting the general, because the path of preparatory application is subsumed under this. "In one thought corresponding" is the uninterrupted path; because in that uninterrupted path, within a single kṣaṇa one tallies with the principle and cuts off subtle thoughts. As the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] says: "The ultimate path refers to the vajra-like samādhi; this has two kinds: namely, that subsumed under the path of expedient means, and that subsumed under the uninterrupted path." In "awakening to the mind's initial arising," this shows the characteristic of what is awakened to. Fundamental avidyā, relying on awakening, becomes deluded and stirs that calm mind, causing subtle thoughts to arise; this is precisely the "mind's initial arising" here. Only upon reaching this stage does one first awaken to and know it: apart from original awakening there is no non-awakening, which means the stirred mind is originally calm. Just as when one is truly lost, one considers east to be west; when one awakens, west is itself east—how could there still be a mark of west at the time of awakening? Thus one awakens to the mark of the initial mind. Therefore it says "awakening to the mind's initial arising, the mind is without the initial mark." Alternatively, the mind of initial awakening initially arising is called "awakening to the mind's initial arising." Thus the new treatise says: "awakening to the mind's initial arising is first called awakening, departing from the mark of awakening." The former explanation conforms to the old treatise and contradicts the new treatise; the latter explanation conforms to principle and does not contradict either treatise. This is the "dhyāna of the Tathāgatas" spoken of in the sūtra. Thus the Laṅkāvatāra says: "Entering the Buddha stage, abiding in the three kinds of joy of the noble cognition of self-realisation, and performing inconceivable deeds for sentient beings." Although in the previous three stages there were stirred thoughts, hence it said "thoughts are without abiding" and so forth, now in this stage stirred thoughts are entirely exhausted and only the one mind remains, hence it says "the mind is without the initial mark"; this means that the mind is without the mark of the initial thought. In "far departing from," this clarifies the benefit of awakening. The stirred thought of the characteristic of karma is the subtlest among thoughts, named the micro-subtle thought; that is the characteristic of arising. Alternatively, subtle discrimination is called micro-subtle thought, without distinguishing and matching it to avidyā and the characteristic of karma. In the third stage, one awakens that thought and thoughtlessness are both markless, abandoning medium discrimination; now in this stage, even the mark of awakening does not exist, and with nothing whatsoever to be attained, one departs from subtle thoughts. The new treatise only calls it "subtle discrimination." Because this thought is forever gone, it says "far departing from." Far departing from empty marks, the true mind-nature is then manifested, hence it says "attaining the vision of the mind-nature." The wind of avidyā ceases, the waves on the ocean of nature become calm, and there is forever no arising or ceasing; hence it says "the mind is immediately permanently abiding." Relying on these two meanings, the new treatise says: "The mind's fundamental nature permanently abides and is manifest before one." In the previous three stages, the marks of thought were not yet exhausted; therefore, it did not say "attaining the vision of the mind-nature." Because awakening had not reached the source, avidyā still remained, stirring that calm mind so that the karmic consciousness arose and ceased; therefore, it did not say "the mind is immediately permanently abiding." In "it is called ultimate awakening," this concludes the scope of contemplation. Before reaching the source of the mind, dream thoughts are not yet exhausted; beginning and end are not identical with the source, so it is not ultimate awakening. Seeking the cessation of this stirring, one hopes to reach the other shore; now that dream thoughts have ceased, one has awakened to the source of the mind—originally there was no transmigration, and now there is no beginning of calm; it is constantly of itself the one mind. When the beginning is not different from what was originally attained, one becomes a Tathāgata; this is called ultimate awakening. If so, since initial awakening becomes permanently abiding, does this not contradict what is taught in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha: "Since the root is permanently abiding, the branches rely on the root and continuously persist forever," and so forth in detail? The two works have different intentions, so their principles do not conflict. This treatise intends to show that originally due to non-awakening the calm mind was stirred, and now having ceased non-awakening, it returns to original calm, thus becoming permanently abiding. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha intends to explain that relying on the permanent dharmakāya one gives rise to practices of merit and wisdom; since the resultant reward thus incurred arises from conditions, it speaks of continuity. The myriad virtues of initial awakening must possess both meanings: relying on the former meaning, it is permanently abiding; relying on the latter meaning, it is arising and ceasing. Arising and ceasing, and permanent abiding, do not obstruct each other. Because each and every thought penetrates the three times, although pervading the three times it does not exceed a single thought—just as a single pore pervades the ten directions, yet although pervading the ten directions it does not enlarge the pore. The Buddha's virtues are like this, unobstructed and unhindered; how could one cling one-sidedly between them? As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra praises this meaning in verse: