大乘起信論義疏 1.24

1.24

問曰：萬法無有，別守自性；以樂德中，無生滅義，名之為常。如是一切，何不賴他？解曰：萬法一體，無異體故，以樂體異，無有常體，故言無賴。難曰：若爾，以堅觸用，以為柱用，無異柱用，亦應此柱無賴他乎？解言：不例。柱是無體，以四微上假號柱名，賴他義顯。真法之中，同一體中隨義分萬；舉一尋體，即是其體。萬亦如是，一中全體、萬中全體，何用彼中他用為己、他體為己？此真法中，同一體中，萬義互相緣集，不相捨離。故經說言「譬如父母，各各異故，故名無常。有彼此者，即是無常。理是一體，無彼此故，故湛然常。」又經說言「我所說法，非一非異，湛然常住，非如假合一，故言非一；非如實法各別體故，故言非異。」是故異也。

Question: The ten thousand phenomena do not exist [as separate substances] preserving their distinct self-natures; because within the virtue of bliss there is no arising and ceasing, it is called "permanence." Everything being like this, why do they not depend on each other?

Explanation: Because the ten thousand phenomena are of one essence and have no different essence, and because the essence of bliss is not different and has no separate essence of permanence, it is said that they do not depend [on each other].

Objection: If so, when the function of tangible solidity is taken as the function of a pillar, there being no other function of a pillar, should this pillar also not depend on anything else?

Explanation: It is not analogous. A pillar has no [independent] substance; the name "pillar" is merely designated upon the four subtle atoms, so its dependence on others is evident. Within true reality, within the single essence, myriad aspects are distinguished according to meaning; if you raise one and search for its essence, it is precisely that essence. The ten thousand [aspects] are also like this: in the one it is the complete essence, and in the ten thousand it is the complete essence. Why would it need to take another's function as its own or another's essence as its own within that? Within this true reality, within the single essence, the myriad meanings conditionally aggregate with one another and do not abandon or separate from one another. Therefore a sūtra says: "Just as father and mother are each distinct, they are called impermanent. Where there are 'this' and 'that', that is impermanence. The principle is a single essence and has no 'this' or 'that'; therefore it is serenely permanent." A sūtra also says: "The Dharma I preach is neither one nor different. It is serenely permanent; because it is not like a nominal composite unity, it is said to be not one; because it is not like real entities having distinct substances, it is said to be not different." Therefore, it is distinct.