大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.66

4.66

[Treatise:] Furthermore, as for the self-substance and marks of tathatā:
[Commentary:] Within the two divisions in the gate of arising and ceasing, previously the mind-dharma of arising and ceasing has been explained; the explanation in "Establishing the Meaning" of "the causes, conditions, and marks of this mind as arising and ceasing" is finished. Next below, the meaning of that which is indicated is clarified, explaining the meaning in "Establishing the Meaning" of "capable of demonstrating the substance of the Mahāyāna," and so forth. Within this there are two: first, explaining together the two greatnesses of substance and marks; second, separately clarifying the meaning of the greatness of activity. In the former there are again two: first, stating generally the names of the two greatnesses; second, separately explaining the meaning of the two greatnesses. This is the first. "Self-substance" is the greatness of substance; "marks" refers to the greatness of marks. Question: As in "Establishing the Meaning," below […] the establishing of dharma and meaning gives rise to the extensive explanatory text in the explanation below; why does it now only explain the established dharma and not separately explain the established meaning? Answer: The self-substance and activity shown by the causes, conditions, and marks of the mind as arising and ceasing are precisely the meaning of the established three greatnesses. Merely revealing the demonstrated self-substance, marks, and activity also already reveals the meaning of the three greatnesses; what need is there to separately explain the meaning of the three greatnesses? If it were clarified further, it would become redundant. If so, above the three greatnesses were established separately; why in this explanation is there an opening and combining? Answer: Previously, because there were distinctions in meaning, the three were established separately; now, in terms of the identity and difference in time, there is opening and combining. That is, the greatnesses of substance and marks are spoken of in terms of ordinary beings: there is only the meaning of substance and the meaning of marks, which must be present. As for the greatness of activity, it is clarified in terms of the compassion and wisdom of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and does not exist at the time of ordinary beings; even if they have substance and marks, they do not necessarily have activity. Therefore, substance and marks are combined while activity is opened separately. If so, why is it accepted that initial awakening is identical with original [awakening], given that substance and activity are not simultaneous? Answer: This objection is incorrect, because ordinary beings and noble ones are different. If the initial were identical with the original, that would make substance and activity simultaneous; at the time of initial awakening, substance and activity should also arise together. Therefore, although there is substance, activity has not yet arisen; explaining substance and activity separately is without contradiction in principle.