起信論註 1.29

1.29

論而實無有始覺之異以四相俱時而有皆無自立本來平等同一覺故　（述曰。此即第三始不異本。文中標釋而實無有始覺異者。此標始覺不異本覺。以四相下釋成四義。以彼四相無別自體。可辯前後故言俱時。答　真如中更無有別地。四可得故言俱時。只依麤細念覺時有差別而有前後故言而有。離心無有俱時前後自性可立故言皆無自立。離心無性即同一覺故言本來同一覺等。此總意云。既覺四相說為始覺所無故能覺亦無。故無覺異於本覺）。

Treatise: Yet in reality there is no distinction of initial enlightenment, because the four marks exist simultaneously, none having self-subsistence, being originally equal and of the same single enlightenment. (Commentary: This is the third part, showing that the initial is not different from the original. In the text, the thesis and explanation are given. 'Yet in reality there is no distinction of initial enlightenment' states the thesis that initial enlightenment is not different from original enlightenment. From 'because the four marks...' onward explains the four aspects. Since those four marks have no distinct self-nature whereby one could distinguish before and after, it is said that they are 'simultaneous'. Answer: In tathatā there are no separate stages [or] four [marks] to be found; hence it is said that they are 'simultaneous'. It is only based on the discrimination at the time of enlighting to coarse and subtle thoughts that there is before and after; hence it is said 'exist'. Apart from the mind, there is no self-nature of simultaneity or before-and-after that can be established; hence it is said 'none having self-subsistence'. Apart from the mind there is no nature, which is identical to the single enlightenment; hence it is said 'originally... the same single enlightenment', etc. The general meaning of this is: since having enlightened to the four marks is spoken of as initial enlightenment, and the marks are non-existent, the enlightening mind is also non-existent. Therefore, there is no enlightenment distinct from original enlightenment.)