大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 3.10

3.10

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]?"