起信論註 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

[Treatise:] There is a teaching that can arouse the faculty of faith in the Mahāyāna; therefore, it should be expounded. [Commentary:] Next, the second part clarifies the main body section. Within this, there are two parts: first, stating the benefit and promising the exposition; later, properly explaining what is expounded. This is the first part. As for "Treatise:", it distinguishes the treatise from the sūtras to differentiate the signifier teaching. As for "There is a teaching...", it brings forward the signified doctrine to show that it possesses superior benefit. ([Interlinear note:] "Distinguishes the treatise from the sūtras to differentiate the signifier teaching": Answer: Treatises are distinct and sūtras are distinct. A treatise is secondary; a treatise is merely teaching, whereas sūtras are the profound principle. Therefore, this treatise is distinct in each respect. Thus it is said that it distinguishes the treatise from the sūtras to differentiate the signifier teaching; a treatise is merely the signifier teaching. As for "There is a teaching...", it brings forward the signified doctrine: the treatise is the signifier teaching, and "There is a teaching..." is the signified principle; thus they are called signifier and signified. This teaching signifies the principle, being already the signifier teaching; the teaching signifies the principle; hence it is called signifier and signified. "There is a teaching that can arouse [faith in] the Mahāyāna; therefore, it should be expounded": Answer: As for the Mahāyāna, Question: Is it the Mahāyāna mind of sentient beings? Answer: Sentient beings can arouse the mind of faith toward the Mahāyāna; this reveals that it has great and superior benefit. Therefore, [...] reveals the signifier teaching, which should be expounded first).

1.2

[...] the signifier teaching contains this signified [doctrine]—the teachings of the one mind, the two aspects, the three greatnesses, and so forth—which can arouse the faculty of faith in the Mahāyāna in sentient beings. This signifier teaching definitely should be expounded. Faith in the Mahāyāna means to have faith in one's own nature, knowing that when the mind is deludedly activated there are no external sensory objects. (Answer: That is, having faith in one's own nature [...], having faith that the tathatā of the mind within oneself is of the same kind as the Buddha's; one knows that the mind's [...] activation has no external sensory objects. Within [...] one can be vigorous and never turn back.) This faith definitely can maintain and grow one's own and other wholesome [qualities]; hence it is called the faculty of faith. (Question: What is meant by "can maintain and grow"? Answer: If a sentient being has faith, it can augment all wholesome practices; hence it is called "one's own and other wholesome [qualities]". It is just like raising a small tree: if one can nourish its root, the shoots will naturally be accomplished; hence it is called "can maintain and grow".) Hence it is called the faculty of faith.

1.3

[Treatise:] The treatise expounds five sections. [Commentary:] Next, the second part properly sets forth what is expounded. Within this, there are three parts: first, stating the number and providing a general presentation; next, listing the names according to the number; later, distinguishing the characteristics according to the names. This is the first part.

1.4

[Treatise:] What are the five? ... down to: the section on encouraging practice and the benefits. (The lowest text is this. For those of dull faculties, it presents the benefits to encourage practice.) [Commentary:] This is listing the names according to the number. Words do not arise by themselves; their composition must have a reason, which is called "causes and conditions". Because it marks the distinction from other passages, it is called a "section". (Question: What reason is there? Answer: An affair has a cause; it is a prompt. An affair arises from an affair; [...] when a person speaks, without an affair he does not speak; all have causes and conditions; this prompts speech.) As for "Because it marks the distinction from other passages, it is called a 'section'": (Section by section has its meaning; it is also called a section [...] different meaning; this meaning is [...] this meaning is distinct.) Therefore it is called "marking the distinction from other passages, hence called a section". Once the reason has arisen, briefly outlining the essential guidelines causes beings to produce faith. (Answer: "Guidelines" means the general guidelines; pointing to an essential matter, it is called essential guidelines.) This is called the section on the thesis. Since the cardinal essentials are brief, next one should explain them broadly to cause them to produce understanding; this is called the section on explanation. Based on the explanation, understanding arises; next one should undertake practice. In order to cause them to undertake practice, it is called the section on cultivating faith and practice. (Under cultivating faith and practice, the so-called four or five practices: "faith" refers to the faculty of faith; the fundamental practices refer to the five practices, up to contemplation and so forth.) Although this is the procedure of practice, for those of dull faculties who are lazy and negligent, one presents the benefits to encourage cultivation; this is called the section on encouraging practice and the benefits.

1.5

[Treatise:] First, expounding the section on causes and conditions. [Commentary:] Next, the third part distinguishes the characteristics according to the names. To separately explain the five sections, it is divided into five. Within the first, [the section on] causes and conditions, it is again divided into two: first, stating and presenting the name of the section; later, separately clarifying its meaning. This is the first part. As for "causes and conditions", it has the meaning of reason, the meaning of purpose, and the meaning of initiation; these are the meanings of causes and conditions.

1.6

[Treatise:] Question: For what causes and conditions is this treatise composed? Answer: Such causes and conditions are of eight kinds. What are the eight? [Commentary:] The answer below has three parts: first, stating the number as a general answer; next, distinguishing the meanings according to the number; later, concluding with the answer to what was asked. This is the first part.

1.7

[Treatise:] What are the eight? The first is the cause of the general mark, which is: to cause sentient beings to be liberated from all suffering and attain ultimate bliss, not out of seeking worldly fame, profit, or respect. [Commentary:] Next, the second part distinguishes the meanings according to the number. Separately distinguishing the eight causes, it is divided into eight. Among them, the first one is the cause of the general mark; the subsequent seven kinds are the causes of particular marks. As for the general mark, it has three meanings: First, it serves as the reason common to all treatises. (Answer: "It serves as the reason common to all treatises": this following meaning applies throughout all the twelve divisions of scriptures; stated generally, it means causing sentient beings to be liberated from all suffering and attain ultimate bliss.) Second, it serves as the purpose common to all faculties, not merely for those of the undetermined group. Third, it serves as the initiation common to all sections, not merely as the cause for setting up the thesis. The explanation has three kinds. What are the three? The first is showing the correct meaning; the second is countering heterodox attachments; the third is analyzing the marks of setting out on the path. "Showing the correct meaning" properly explains the doctrine of the Mahāyāna dharma that has been posited. What is shown is not heterodox; hence it is called "correct meaning". Because it is clarified by means of teaching, it is called "showing the correct principle". Once set forth, emotional delusions are thereby dispelled. (Answer: If one sees the principle, emotional delusions are eliminated. Answer: Emotional delusions are delusory marks. Delusory marks exist in emotion but are absent in principle; hence it is called "emotional delusions are thereby dispelled".) Second, "countering heterodox attachments": falsely clinging to the two views is called "heterodox attachments". (Answer: What are called heterodox attachments? First, attachment to a personal self; second, attachment to dharmas as self.) Using the teaching to eliminate them is called "countering". (Answer: "Counter" means capable of being destroyed; capable of being remedied; yet [ultimately] none can be destroyed. Question: What is countering? Answer: The view of self and the view of person are all false attachments; false attachments are all delusory marks; because they cannot be destroyed, hence it is called "capable of being destroyed".) Once heterodox attachments are eliminated, one advances toward the correct according to stages; hence there is the third, "the marks of setting out on the path". Original enlightenment is open and unimpeded, which is designated as the "path". (Question: What is original enlightenment? Answer: Original enlightenment is the fundamental tathatā; when among ordinary beings, it is original enlightenment. If after understanding one achieves Buddhahood, it is called initial enlightenment. As for designating it as the path: Answer: "Designating" is also called the mind's eye; it is also called samādhi and wisdom; the "path" is non-discriminating, equal, and unified tathatā.) Undertaking practice toward it is called "setting out". (Question: Undertaking practice toward it—toward what place does one go? Answer: One simply aims for unsurpassed bodhi. Past Buddhas also practiced this path and attained right enlightenment; future Buddhas will also practice this path and attain right enlightenment.) The manner of setting out is called "marks"; setting it forth in teaching is called "analyzing".

1.8

[Treatise:] As for "showing the correct meaning", based on the dharma of the one mind, there are two aspects. [Commentary:] Next, the third part distinguishes the characteristics according to the names. To distinguish these three names, it is divided into three. First, explaining the first, "showing the correct meaning". This is again divided into two: first, generally explaining to explain what was generally posited above; then separately explaining to explain the particular meaning above. Within the first general explanation, it is again divided into three: first, opening the aspects based on the dharma; second, [presenting] its two aspects; third, the mutual subsumption of the two aspects. This is the first part. In terms of conditions, it is divided into three. First, "based on the dharma": the one universally originating mind, which is the tathāgatagarbha mind. It contains two meanings; that is, the tathāgatagarbha, the one universally originating mind, contains two meanings. First, the aspect of the essence transcending marks, which is the one mind. Its nature is neither defiled nor pure, equal and without distinction. The various sūtras of marks rely on this to state that sentient beings are nirvāṇa, afflictions are bodhi, ordinary beings and Maitreya are identical in tathatā, and so forth. (Answer: Afflictions are the manifold causes of tathatā; it is precisely through causes that one again attains the fruit of Buddhahood.) Hence it is said: Sentient beings are nirvāṇa, afflictions are bodhi, ordinary beings and Maitreya are identical in tathatā, and so forth. Second, the aspect of arising and ceasing following conditions: following the perfuming of avidyā, it transforms into defilement and purity. Although defilement and purity are formed, the nature of defilement and purity is constantly immovable. Precisely because of being immovable, it can form defilement and purity. Therefore, the immovable is also within the aspect of movement; this is the meaning of arising and ceasing and original enlightenment. (Answer: "Precisely because of being immovable, it can form defilement and purity": Answer: Just as when the water essence is still, it is waves; when it is waves, it is [...]; none lose the nature of water. Therefore [...] tathatā and delusory marks produce delusory marks. Hence the function of the tathatā realm is like water when it is waves [...], which is the function of water [...]; when the water is still, it is the essence of waves [...].) Relying on this, the sūtra says: "undefiled yet defiled, defiled yet undefiled." It also says: "The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of the wholesome and unwholesome; whether arising or ceasing, experiencing suffering and pleasure, and so forth." However, these two aspects are entirely interfused; the essence has no duality, and limits are not separated; provisionally it is named "one". Answer: As for limits not being separated, on this reality, defilement cannot be grasped, attainment cannot be grasped, and "one" also cannot [...]. Establishing difference is also this teaching of the aspect of transcending marks; hence it is said to be provisionally named "one". "One" also cannot be grasped; it is the real nature within phenomena. Because the nature possesses cognition, it is spoken of as "mind"; it does not mean an empty or real one mind, and so forth. Due to this, the real nature within all phenomena, even if perfumed and stirred by delusory marks, never loses the fundamental water nature. Therefore, although serving as the essence of the various waves, it is not subjected to deluded transformation; hence it is the real nature.

1.9

[Treatise:] What are the two? The first is the aspect of the mind as tathatā; the second is the aspect of the mind as arising and ceasing. [Commentary:] This lists the two aspects. That which is identical to the essence and transcends marks is called the aspect of tathatā; that which changes and moves following conditions is called the aspect of arising and ceasing. Although the essence has no difference, their meanings differ. Because of the difference in meaning, they are spoken of as "aspects". (Answer: Tathatā and arising and ceasing, in their entirety, are of one meaning. If arising and ceasing are taken, there are two aspects; hence they are spoken of as aspects.)

1.10

[Treatise:] These two aspects each completely subsume all dharmas. [Commentary:] Below, this explains the subsumption by the two aspects. Within this, there are two parts: first, properly showing it; later, explaining and establishing it. This is the first part. That is, it explains the thesis that this mind subsumes worldly dharmas, and so forth. (Answer: "And so forth" includes the subsumption spoken of by the two aspects of tathatā and arising and ceasing; the worldly aspect is arising and ceasing, and the supramundane aspect is tathatā.) Hence it says "and so forth". Above, the one mind was said to have two aspects; this is the common characteristic of defilement and purity. Outside the common characteristic, there is nothing separate. Therefore, defilement and purity are both subsumed by the common characteristic; hence the aspect of tathatā completely subsumes all dharmas. As for the aspect of arising and ceasing, it is this very tathatā which, in conjunction with conditions, transforms into defilement and purity, yet constantly does not lose its original nature of tathatā. Therefore, the aspect of particular characteristics also subsumes tathatā; hence it also subsumes all dharmas.

1.11

[Treatise:] What does this mean? Because these two aspects are not separate from each other. [Commentary:] This explains and establishes it. "What does this mean?": If the two aspects were separate, they could not follow each other; as with the original one mind, it could not yet be that both subsume. How could the two aspects each completely subsume? Therefore, the reply follows: "Because these two aspects are not separate from each other." Because the aspect of tathatā is the principle-essence of the mind, and the aspect of arising and ceasing is the phenomena-marks of the mind. Because principle and phenomena are not separate from each other, raising principle subsumes phenomena, and raising phenomena subsumes principle. Therefore, it is said that the two aspects each completely subsume. (Answer: Raising water is waves; hence waves are water; therefore, the two aspects each completely subsume.)

1.12

[Treatise:] Answer: If one knows that although all dharmas are spoken of, there is no speaker or that which can be spoken of, and although they are thought of, there is no thinker or that which can be thought of, this is called compliance. If one is free from thought, it is called gaining entry. Furthermore, tathatā, when distinguished in reliance on verbal expression, has two meanings. ([Interlinear note:] Question: What is meant by being distinguished in reliance on verbal expression? Answer: Tathatā has no verbal expression; it transcends the four propositions and cuts off the hundred negations. Because of complying with words and language, one then becomes attached to distinctions. What is spoken of is distinguished in reliance on verbal expression.)

1.13

Treatise: What are the two? The first is empty in accordance with reality, because it can ultimately reveal the real. The second is non-empty in accordance with reality, because it possesses an intrinsic essence endowed with uncontaminated nature-virtues. (Commentary: This opens the section to explain briefly. "In accordance with reality" means that the true essence is not nonexistent. What is called "empty" means that the true essence is devoid of delusion. "Ultimately revealing the real" means that by being free of [delusion] it to the utmost reveals the real; because it is devoid of delusion, it can to the utmost reveal the real, and therefore being in accordance with reality is called "empty." Question: What is "to the utmost"? Just as when water is clear, pebbles show forth, and none of the dusty realms abide—this is called "revealing to the utmost." "Non-empty" means it is essence and marks. As for these nature-virtues being called "uncontaminated," it is because they are free of severance, cessation, and the outflows of thought. This means that, in accordance with reality, it possesses its intrinsic essence and nature-virtues, and is therefore called "non-empty.")

1.14

Treatise: What is called empty is, from the beginning, not associated with any defiled dharmas, meaning it is free from the differentiating marks of all dharmas, because there are no false thoughts of the mind. (Commentary: Next below is the third part, which explains at length according to the section. Within this there are two parts: first, explaining its emptiness; next, revealing its non-emptiness. In the first part there are three: first, a brief explanation; next, an extensive explanation; finally, a general summary. This is the first. The first line reveals its non-association with defilement to explain the meaning of emptiness: because it is not associated with any defiled dharmas, it is therefore called empty. Why is it not associated with defiled dharmas? The next line explains: meaning it is free from the marks of differentiation that are apprehended. Why is it free from these apprehended marks? The final line explains: because it is without the deluded mental thoughts that can apprehend. That is, the deluded mind and objects exist in sentiment but are nonexistent in principle; the true essence and marks exist in principle but are nonexistent in sentiment. Because they are nonexistent, they are not associated with defiled dharmas.)

1.15

Treatise: One should know that the self-nature of tathatā has neither the mark of existence nor the mark of nonexistence, neither the mark of not-existence nor the mark of not-nonexistence, nor the mark of both existence and nonexistence together; it has neither the mark of oneness nor the mark of difference, neither the mark of not-oneness nor the mark of not-difference, nor the mark of both oneness and difference together. (Reply: When [the treatise states that] the self-nature of tathatā has neither the mark of existence nor the mark of nonexistence, sentient beings then attach to neither existence nor nonexistence; taking the essence of tathatā to be neither the mark of not-existence nor the mark of not-nonexistence, nor the mark of both existence and nonexistence together, sentient beings again attach to neither the mark of not-existence, nor not-nonexistence, nor both together; taking tathatā to be neither the mark of oneness nor the mark of difference, neither the mark of not-oneness nor the mark of not-difference, nor the mark of both oneness and difference together, sentient beings again attach following the words; whatever they take to be tathatā is entirely unassociated [with it].)

1.16

Treatise: ...and so forth, up to stating in summary: because all sentient beings have deluded minds and discriminate thought after thought, none [of these] are associated [with it], and therefore it is spoken of as empty. (Commentary: Below this is the general summary. Within this there are two parts: first, summarizing along with the preceding meaning; next, summarizing in reverse to resolve doubts. This is the first. Deluded defilements are as numerous as sands of dust and difficult to enumerate exhaustively; now it speaks in brief summary: because no deluded mind defiles or touches it, it is spoken of as empty. Reply: "Deluded defilements as sands of dust" means that delusory marks are like grains of dust and sand, a multitude that cannot be exhaustively enumerated. Now it speaks in brief summary: because no deluded mind defiles or touches it, it is spoken of as empty. "Empty" receives its name by expressing [freedom from] delusion.)

1.17

Treatise: If one is free from the deluded mind, there is in reality nothing to be emptied. (Commentary: This summarizes in reverse to resolve doubts. Fearing that plainly speaking of emptiness would result in annihilationism, this explains: it is by negating all marks of thought that it is provisionally spoken of as empty; if one does not negate delusion, emptiness is not spoken of. Since the real is not empty, it is not annihilated. Therefore, it reveals that the true nature is empty yet not empty.)

1.18

Treatise: What is called non-empty is because it has already revealed that the essence of dharmas is empty and devoid of delusion... (Commentary: Below this is the second part, revealing the meaning of non-emptiness. Within this there are three parts: first, repeating the preceding emptiness, whereby by clarifying that delusion is empty, it then reveals the real essence of non-emptiness.)

1.19

Treatise: ...namely the true mind, up to: being constantly permanent and unchanging, completely endowed with pure dharmas, it is therefore called non-empty. (Commentary: This directly clarifies non-emptiness. "Namely the true mind": being empty and devoid of delusion is namely the true mind. This generally presents non-emptiness. The true mind is the greatness of essence; because it is unarisen, it is constantly [present]; because it does not die, it is permanent; because it is the self, it is unchanging—"self" has the meaning of sovereign mastery, just like the great ocean; because it is unchanging and thoughtless, it is completely endowed with pure dharmas. Although the nature-virtues are many, it mentions these four. That is the greatness of attributes of the true mind; being endowed with these essences and marks, it is called non-empty.)

1.20

Treatise: There are also no marks that can be apprehended, because it is a realm free of thought, only associated with realization. (Commentary: This resolves an outside doubt. Fearing that [by hearing of] non-emptiness one might suspect that marks exist, it negates this with thought, saying: although it is called non-empty, there are no marks that can be grasped. Below it explains the reason: it is not a realm navigated by deluded thought, but is only realized by realized cognition. That is, it reveals that the true mind is non-empty yet empty.)

1.21

Treatise: As for the mind of arising and ceasing, relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing; what is called neither arising nor ceasing is in conjunction with the mind of arising and ceasing. (Commentary: The preceding has already explained the tathatā aspect. Next below is the second part, explaining the aspect of arising and ceasing. Within this there are two parts: first, the dharma of the mind of arising and ceasing; next, distinguishing the meaning indicated. In the first part there are two: first, clarifying [...] arising and ceasing [...] mutually supporting. In this there are two: first, a general identification based on the essence; next, particular explanations according to the meanings. In the general part there are three: first, identifying the essence; next, distinguishing the marks; finally, establishing the name. This is the first. "Tathāgatagarbha" is the pure, unarising and unceasing mind, which, perfumed by avidyā, moves its entire essence to become the mind of arising and ceasing. Reply: "Tathāgatagarbha" is spoken of with regard to the aspect of arising and ceasing.)

1.22

Treatise: What is called neither arising nor ceasing is in conjunction with arising and ceasing, neither identical nor different. (Commentary: This distinguishes the marks. The unarising and unceasing mind of the tathāgatagarbha, because its entire essence [...], is not separated from arising and ceasing; because the marks of the mind of arising and ceasing are nothing other than the true, they are also not separated from the unarising and unceasing mind. Such non-separation is called conjunction. But it is only the unarising and unceasing in conjunction with arising and ceasing, because this is the aspect of proceeding toward the branches and following conditions; it is not arising and ceasing in conjunction with the unarising and unceasing, because it is not the aspect of proceeding toward the root and returning to the real. As for "neither identical nor different," it is the unarising and unceasing mind. Reply: Proceeding toward the branches is wholly arising and ceasing, without pure tathatā; proceeding toward the root and returning to tathatā is also pure tathatā. Reply: Tathatā and arising and ceasing being harmonious with each other accomplishes the meaning of conjunction; hence it says neither identical nor different. Because its entire essence moves, the mind and arising and ceasing are not different; yet because it constantly does not lose the mind-nature of tathatā, the mind and arising and ceasing are not identical. If they were definitively identical, when arising and ceasing ended the true mind would also cease, falling into the extreme of annihilationism. If they were definitively different, when perfumed by avidyā the mind would not move, falling into the extreme of eternalism. Since it is free from both extremes, it is neither identical nor different. Because it is neither identical nor different, conjunction is thereby accomplished.)

1.23

Treatise: It is called the ālayavijñāna. (Commentary: This establishes the name. "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing, etc.," is called the ālayavijñāna. "Ālaya" is glossed and translated as "non-disappearance." That is, although the unarising and unceasing mind of the tathāgatagarbha follows avidyā to become arising and ceasing, because the essence of the tathāgatagarbha does not perish or disappear, its marks of virtue are not lost or extinguished, and the wondrous functions of the dharmakāya are not concealed or vanished. These three are the preceding greatness of essence, greatness of attributes, and greatness of function. This is the correct meaning of ālaya. Reply: The meanings of laiye and alaiye are one; it is merely that earlier scriptures had a different translation as "storehouse" [zang]. Arising and ceasing that is formed and serves as that which is perfumed acts as cause and effect for the preceding seven consciousnesses; therefore, it can store all dharmas within its own essence, and store its own essence within all dharmas. Moreover, it is grasped and stored by self-love, and gathered by the view of self; hence it is called "storehouse." When one is free from the view of self, this name is absent; thus, when a bodhisattva reaches the seventh stage, because karmic consciousness is exhausted, they do not grasp a self, and thereby obtain the name ālaya, spontaneous and sovereign. If it were solely arising and ceasing, it would not differ from the seven consciousnesses; if it were solely neither arising nor ceasing, it would not differ from the tathāgatagarbha; due to the conjunction of the two, the ālaya is formed. If it is the ālayavijñāna, it is the cause and effect of the seven consciousnesses, gathered under the eighth consciousness; thus the eighth consciousness serves as cause and effect. Because the preceding seven consciousnesses obtain their seat from this eighth ālayavijñāna, it serves as cause and effect, and is also called the sovereign. This eighth consciousness is wholly arising and ceasing, so it is only called the ā-consciousness and not called the storehouse. If it is the tathāgatagarbha, because it belongs to the aspect of returning to the real, it is therefore called storehouse. It also contains and stores all meanings such as arising and ceasing, neither arising nor ceasing, and the three greatnesses; being gathered within it, it is therefore called storehouse.)

1.24

In the preceding opening of the chapter, it directly spoke of enlightenment and non-enlightenment. Enlightenment is original enlightenment, the nature of sentient beings. Non-enlightenment belongs to initial enlightenment within the aspect of following conditions. The aspect of following conditions produces thieves. Reply: Enlightenment is spoken of in terms of nature-virtues.

1.25

Treatise: The original enlightenment of tathatā in all sentient beings is of one identical essence with all Buddhas. Objection: If it is of one identical essence before the illumination of wisdom has arisen, then speaking of the meaning of enlightenment belongs to nature-virtues. "Enlightenment" receives its name by overturning defilement. The text below says that "original enlightenment" is because this nature-virtue can bring about the fruitional stage; it is called original, returning back to the original source, to reveal the dharmakāya of initial enlightenment. Therefore it receives the name "original enlightenment" (this clarifies original enlightenment, completed). This then clarifies initial enlightenment.

1.26

Treatise: The meaning of initial enlightenment is [spoken] in contrast to the meaning of original enlightenment. (Commentary: This briefly clarifies initial enlightenment. Saying "initial enlightenment" takes up its name. "Relying on original enlightenment there is non-enlightenment" clarifies the reason for the arising of initial enlightenment. "Relying on non-enlightenment, initial enlightenment is said to exist" directly reveals the meaning of the initial enlightenment that arises. That is, the true, pure mind-essence of original enlightenment, following the condition of avidyā, moves to produce deluded thoughts; therefore, relying on original enlightenment there is non-enlightenment. But through the internal perfuming power of original enlightenment, there gradually comes to be subtle enlightenment, which gives rise to revulsion, aspiration, and so forth, until, at the ultimate, it is once again identical with original enlightenment; therefore, relying on non-enlightenment there is initial enlightenment.)

1.27

Treatise: Furthermore, because of enlightening to the mind-source, it is called ultimate enlightenment; because of not enlightening to the mind-source, it is not ultimate enlightenment. (Commentary: The above briefly clarified the two enlightenments. Next below is the second part, extensively revealing the two enlightenments. Within this there are two: first, clarifying initial enlightenment; next, revealing original enlightenment. In the former there are three: first, a general indication of the cause and fruit, complete and incomplete enlightenment; next, relying extensively on the four marks to explain and accomplish its meaning; finally, revealing that initial enlightenment is not different from original enlightenment. This is the first. As for "mind-source," there are two meanings: original enlightenment tathatā is the source of the defiled mind, and the subtle thoughts of the karmic mark are the source of all defilements. Both the karmadhāraya and tatpuruṣa compounds are valid. That is, at the ultimate stage one enlightens to the fact that the mind of original enlightenment originally never moved, and now has nothing to be stilled; one enlightens to the fact that the mind of karmic consciousness is originally unarisen, and now has nothing to be reduced. One who enlightens to this source is called ultimately enlightened; this is the Buddha fruitional stage. Even if one has some enlightenment, if one has not reached this source, it is not ultimate enlightenment; this is prior to equal enlightenment.)

1.28

Treatise: If one attains thoughtlessness, then one knows the mind's marks of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, because of being equal to thoughtlessness. (Commentary: This reveals the virtue of the enlightened one. If delusion has not yet ceased, one does not know that the one mind is originally devoid of marks and thoughts. If one reaches the mind-source and attains thoughtlessness, then one knows that the essence of sentient beings is itself thoughtlessness. The Buddha's essence of thoughtlessness is equal to them; therefore, he can universally know that all thoughts are thoughtless. In response to the previous text on the four marks: in the aspect of the stage of gradual enlightenment, it is said that sentient beings have not reached ultimate enlightenment only because avidyā is not yet exhausted. In the tathatā aspect, originally there are no marks or thoughts; likewise, original enlightenment and non-enlightenment are only because delusion has not yet ceased, and one does not know that the one mind is originally devoid of marks and thoughts. Reply: If delusion has not ceased in all sentient beings, they are profoundly separated from the Buddha's essence, and so they do not know that the Buddha's essence is thoughtless. If they reach the original tathatā mind-source and attain thoughtlessness, then they know that the essence of sentient beings is itself thoughtlessness; the Buddha's essence of thoughtlessness is equal and without difference to the essence of sentient beings, and therefore one knows that all thoughts are originally thoughtless.)

1.29

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.)

1.30

Treatise: Furthermore, original enlightenment, in discrimination following defilement, produces two kinds of marks that are not separate from that original enlightenment. (Commentary: Having broadly explained initial enlightenment, the broad explanation of original enlightenment follows below. Therein are two parts: first, clarifying the original enlightenment that follows defilement, and second, revealing the originally pure original enlightenment. Therefore it says, 'original enlightenment, in discrimination following defilement...'. Since it moves following conditions, it is said to 'produce'. Although it is produced following conditions, it does not lose its essential purity; hence it is said to be 'not separate from that'. Since this followed defilement is of two kinds, following this defilement the two marks below are produced. Regarding the two defilements: the first is called self-defilement, which is the mark of defilement produced by the perfuming of avidyā in the causal state; the second is called other-defilement, which is having the same essence as sentient beings in the fruitional state. Answer: 'Same essence' means having the same essence as sentient beings. The defilements of sentient beings: relying on self-defilement, the mark of wisdom-purity is produced, because it is said that from defilement one attains wisdom-purity; due to other-defilement, inconceivable karma is produced, because transformed defilement gives rise to superior karma.)

1.31

Treatise: What are the two? The first is the mark of wisdom-purity; the second is the mark of inconceivable karma. (Commentary: This lists their names. What is called 'wisdom' is the wisdom-purity of initial enlightenment. In leaving defilement, it is identical to original enlightenment. The functions of the fruitional virtues are called 'karma'. Aiding the inferential evaluation of the lower stages, it is called 'inconceivable'. 'Mark' means appearance. It is called such because enlightenment, following defilement, possesses these two appearances that are to arise.)

1.32

Treatise: The mark of wisdom means, relying on the perfuming power of the Dharma, practicing in accordance with reality to fulfill the expedient means. (Commentary: Next below, the third part distinguishes the marks according to their names. Therein are two parts: first, clarifying the mark of wisdom-purity, and second, revealing the mark of inconceivable karma. Within [the mark of] wisdom are two parts: first, directly clarifying the mark of purity, and second, explaining through questions and answers. Yet the former also has two parts: first the cause, and then the fruit. This is the cause. It means that before the bhūmis, relying on the internal perfuming power of the dharma of tathatā and the external hearing power of the teachings flowing from it, one can cultivate the wholesome roots of the provisions and preparatory applications; hence it is said, 'relying on the perfuming power of the Dharma'. If one ascends to the bhūmis, realizing tathatā, whenever all practices arise they are cultivated relying on the real; hence it is said, 'practicing in accordance with reality'. Gradually cultivating and surpassing the practices of the ten bhūmis, reaching the vajra-like stage, when the causal practices are perfected it is called 'fulfilling the expedient means'. Answer: Fulfillment is the expedient means; it is the expedient means belonging to fulfillment.)

1.33

Treatise: Furthermore, the essence and marks of enlightenment have four kinds of great meanings, which are equal to empty space and like a clear mirror. (Commentary: From here begins the second part, on the originally pure original enlightenment. Therein are two parts: first, a general statement, and second, a distinct explanation. This is the first. Previously, clarifying the aspect of original enlightenment moving, it was spoken of as 'following defilement'. Now, clarifying the unmoving nature of original enlightenment, it is spoken of as 'originally pure'. Since these two originally have no distinct essence, this shows that original enlightenment is unmoving yet moving, moving yet unmoving. Answer: Waves are not separate from water, and water is not separate from waves. When precisely in the form of waves, they are not separate from water; therefore arising and ceasing is just tathatā, and tathatā is just arising and ceasing. Since their essence is not different, it is therefore said to be unmoving yet moving, moving yet unmoving.)

1.34

Because the essence of enlightenment has four great pure meanings, it is equal to empty space and like a clear mirror. The four meanings of original enlightenment will be spoken of below. Regarding the four meanings of empty space: first, being empty and devoid of any single mark, yet able to contain all things. (Answer: Regarding 'first, being empty and devoid of any single mark, yet able to contain all things': Answer: Because the essence of all sentient beings has defilement, forms and images do not appear; hence it is said to be 'empty and devoid of any single mark'.) Then it can contain all things. Answer: If the essence of sentient beings is pure, all worldly spheres of cognition appear within it, just as in a mirror: if the mirror has dirt, forms and images do not appear; if the mirror is pure, all forms and images appear within it. Question: The second meaning of empty space is leaving defilement to reveal the pure space, manifesting all things. (Answer: If the minds of sentient beings leave defilement, then they can manifest all things; worldly) spheres of cognition all appear within it. Answer: The mind of sentient beings is like empty space: if in empty space there are no clouds, wind, or dust, then all worldly spheres of cognition appear within it, also like a clear mirror. Question: The third meaning of empty space. Regarding the four meanings of the mirror: Answer: being empty of external objects, its essence contains all images, emerging from all dirt and dust, and manifesting images as the function for beings. Answer: 'Being empty of external objects' means merely that within the essence of tathatā there are originally no delusory marks. Delusory marks cannot enter the essence of tathatā. Only because there is no delusion do all spheres of cognition appear upon the mind of tathatā. Hence it says 'its essence contains all images, emerging from all dirt and dust, and manifesting images as the function for beings'. Answer: The various kinds of minds all appear upon the mind of tathatā; following the minds of sentient beings, it displays myriad transformations, all able to benefit all sentient beings; hence it is called 'the function for beings'. The fourth meaning of empty space is concluded. Through this empty space and mirror, the real is illustrated.)

1.35

[Delusory dharmas] do not appear, just like a hare's horns [or] turtle's hair. Delusory dharmas in the mirror also indicate the essence of tathatā. There is originally no delusion upon it, hence it says 'there is no dharma that can appear'. Because nothing can appear, the delusory dharmas of mind and its objects, looking toward original enlightenment, are not that which is enlightened and illuminated; enlightenment, looking toward mind and its objects, is not that which enlightens and illuminates. Since that which is illuminated does not exist, that which illuminates does not exist; hence it is said, 'it does not have the meaning of enlightening illumination'. This reveals that there is no real substance of the imagined nature that can appear; it is not enlightening illumination. (Answer: 'Imagined nature' means all sentient beings clinging to all spheres of cognition with various discriminations; that is tathatā [in essence, yet] that is avidyā; hence it is called 'imagined nature'. Within the dharma of tathatā, enlightenment and what is enlightened are also unobtainable; they are all entirely delusory, hence it is said 'it does not have the meaning of enlightening illumination'. Therefore, as for 'a real substance can appear': just as within the real dharma there is no single real substance that appears, like delusory dharmas not appearing in a mirror. Delusory dharmas are entirely illusory; as for a 'real substance', if there were really a single delusory dharma, then it would be said that 'a real substance appears'. Just as delusory dharmas do not appear in a mirror, hence it is said 'it does not have the meaning of enlightening illumination'.)

1.36

Below, where it is said that 'spheres of cognition appear within it', based on the aspect of arising and ceasing, within enlightenment there seem to be delusory dharmas, appearing seemingly dependent on other; this is also not contradictory. (Answer: 'Other' means delusion; hence it says 'appearing seemingly dependent on other is also not contradictory'.)

1.37

Treatise: The second is the mirror of causal perfuming, meaning truly not-empty: all worldly spheres of cognition all appear within it, neither going out nor coming in, neither lost nor destroyed, permanently abiding in the one mind, because all dharmas are just the true nature; furthermore, it cannot be defiled by any defiled dharmas, the essence of wisdom being unmoving, fully endowed with the untainted, perfuming sentient beings. Commentary: This is the second meaning. 'The mirror of causal perfuming' designates its name. That which can produce the fruit of enlightenment is called 'cause'. Because this can perfume internally, it is called 'perfuming'. Because it can manifest all dharmas, it is called a 'mirror'. Next, in distinguishing its marks, the text has three clauses: 'meaning truly not-empty' reveals the essence of the cause. Because it has untainted nature-merit marks and a real essence, it is said to be 'truly not-empty'—meaning true and real, not different from truth. Because it is not-empty, it can then serve as the direct cause for that initial enlightenment; hence 'not-empty' establishes the meaning of the cause. From 'all worldly...' onward explains the meaning of the mirror: all dharmas apart from this mind have no separate essence or nature, just like being able to manifest reflections within a mirror. Answer: Being able to reflect images is like being able to manifest the marks of waves in pure water: although manifesting the marks of waves, it does not destroy the pure nature of the water. Tathatā within delusory dharmas [...]. 'Neither going out' clarifies that the mind awaits perfuming to transform and manifest all dharmas, but they do not come out from themselves; what is transformed [...] does not go out of the mind. 'Coming in' means that the mind follows conditions to perfume, transform, and manifest all dharmas; hence it is said that this mind can subsume all dharmas. Even if it transforms and moves following conditions, it is not different from tathatā. Even if it transforms, breaks down, and proceeds as arising and ceasing, it is not different from tathatā. Tomorrow, when it is perfumed to attain Buddhahood, it is also not [...] different from tathatā. This mind is the causal essence of all tathatā, arising, and ceasing. Although reflections of defilement are seen, [its essence is not lost]; hence it is said 'neither lost'—this is all the real serving as the essence able [to sustain] all defiled and pure dharmas. Even though it acts as arising and ceasing, its subsequent moving real nature is unobtainable.)

1.38

Treatise: Defiled mind has six kinds. Commentary: Next, revealing the marks of the conditioned arising of defiled mind. Therein are two parts: first, a general statement, and second, a distinct explanation. This is the first. This explains the previous sentence, 'being defiled by avidyā, there is a defiled mind'. What was previously stated as 'defiled by avidyā, there is its defiled mind'—this defiled mind has six kinds. Yet these six defilements are the aforementioned mental consciousness and five kinds of mind. Previously, to clarify the meaning of conditioned arising relying on causes, they were explained in sequence from subtle to coarse. Now, wishing to concurrently distinguish the meaning of countermeasure and abandonment, they are clarified in sequence from coarse to subtle. Therefore, the first is defilement associated with attachment, and the sixth is fundamental karmic unassociated defilement.)

1.39

[Treatise:] What are the six? First is defilement associated with attachment, which is distanced by relying on the liberation of the two vehicles and the stage of corresponding faith. [Commentary:] "And" includes the bodhisattvas of the three stages of worthies. Those of the two vehicles obtain the gateway of the two emptinesses, practicing through causal power without yet realizing tathatā; therefore it says, "the stage of corresponding faith." In commentary: Below, the six defilements are explained individually, thus dividing into six parts. Question: What are the six defilements? Answer: The five kinds of mind mentioned previously, now together with the sixth consciousness, are called the six defilements. The five minds above went from subtle to coarse. Now, intending also to distinguish the meaning of counteracting and severing, they are elucidated in order from coarse to subtle, and divided from ordinary people to noble ones. Afflictions have the coarse and the subtle: the coarse are conceptually differentiated, while the subtle are innate causes. Because of this, there are the coarse and the subtle. Subtle afflictions can be severed by bodhisattvas of the ten stages. If they are coarse and evil afflictions, ordinary people can sever them. Question: What are the coarse? For example, killing and slaughtering are surely fierce, coarse, and evil afflictions. If an ordinary person generates the mind [of renunciation], all these coarse and evil afflictions can be severed; therefore it is said that ordinary people can sever them. Hence it is said that the lowest of low-grade afflictions are [severed by] the highest of high-grade [stages], and the highest of high-grade afflictions are [severed by] the ordinary people, while bodhisattvas of the ten stages [sever subtle afflictions]; thus it is said that ordinary people can sever them. Here, the first, defilement associated with attachment, is the aforementioned sixth consciousness, which arises together with coarse attachments to self and what belongs to self; hence it is called associated attachment. Polluting the pure mind is called defilement. The meaning of this and the two below is associated, as explained below. For a person of the two vehicles reaching the stage beyond study, afflictions of view and cultivation can be severed ultimately, hence this first defilement [is abandoned]. For a bodhisattva abiding in the stage where the marks of faith are perfected without falling back, it is called corresponding faith. A bodhisattva at this stage attains the gateway to the emptiness of persons, and the afflictions of view and craving do not become manifest. (Question: What is manifest activity? All the highest-grade coarse afflictions do not arise, hence it is said that they do not become manifest. Although they do not become manifest, the seeds are not yet corrected; when encountering conditions, they arise.) Therefore it says "distanced", not that the latent propensities are eliminated. (Question: What are the latent propensities? Answer: Persons of the two vehicles forcibly suppress afflictions, and the seeds remain hidden in the ālayavijñāna. It is like when sleeping, no afflictions arise; but when suddenly waking, the afflictions are still there. When encountering conditions they suddenly arise, because the seeds are not yet corrected; hence they are called latent propensities. It is also like persons of the two vehicles,) whose six consciousnesses do not operate; they cultivate and attain the absorption of the formless realm, and are born in the formless realm for eighty thousand great kalpas. When their merit in absorption is exhausted, they fall back into hell. Why is this? Because previously, when cultivating absorption, they made an evil vow. Although they attained absorption and were born in the formless realm, because their past evil karma followed the bodily activities and the seeds were not eradicated. (Question: What evil vow did they have? Answer: In a previous situation, when cultivating absorption, one sat under a tree. The birds in that tree made noise, so one went to sit beside the water. The aquatic creatures in the water made noise again, so an evil vow was made, saying: "May I abandon this body and become a flying, evil yakṣa. When flying, I will eat all flying birds; when entering water, I will eat all aquatic creatures in the water." Although he attained absorption and by causes and conditions of good karma was born in the formless heaven, remaining there for eighty thousand kalpas, due to the power of the evil vow, when his merit there was exhausted, he fell back into hell and again became a yakṣa. Therefore it is said that the seeds of latent propensities were not yet eradicated.)

First 39 of 44 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

起信論註 — Classical Chinese