起信論疏 1.17

1.17

「心真如者」以下，釋上別立，別釋二門，即為二分。真如門中，亦有二意：初釋真如、後釋如相；又復初是總釋，後是別解。又初文明不可說，顯理絕言；後文明可得說，顯不絕言。問：理實而言，為絕為不絕？若不絕言者，正體離言，即通於理；若實絕言，後智帶言，即倒於理。又若不絕，則初段論文斯為漫語；若實絕言，則後段論文徒為虛設，如說虛空為金銀等。解云：是故當知，理非絕言，非不絕言。以是義故，理亦絕言，亦不言絕，是則彼難無所不審。且止傍論，還釋本文。初文有三：一者略標、二者廣釋、其第三者往復除疑。略標中言「即是一法界」者，是舉真如門所依之體，一心即是一法界故。此一法界通攝二門，而今不取別相之門，於中但取總相法門。然於總相有四品中，說三無性所顯真如，故言「大總相」。軌生真解，故名為「法」；通入涅槃，故名為「門」。如一法界舉體作生滅門，如是舉體為真如門，為顯是義，故言「體」也。此下廣釋，於中有二：一者顯真如體、二者釋真如名。初中有三：一者當真實性以顯真如、二者對分別性而明真如絕相、三者就依他性以顯真如離言。初中言「心性」者，約真如門論其心性。心性平等，遠離三際，故言「心性不生不滅」也。第二中有二句：初言「一切諸法唯依妄念而有差別」者，是舉遍計所執之相；次言「若離心念即無一切境界相」者，對所執相顯無相性。猶如空華，唯依眼病而有華相；若離眼病，即無華相，唯有空性。當知此中道理亦爾。第三中有三句：先約依他性法以明離言絕慮、次依離絕之義以顯平等真如、後釋平等離絕所以。初中言「是故一切法」者，謂從緣生依他起法；「離言說相」者，非如音聲之所說故；「離名字相」者，非如名句之所詮故；「離心緣相」者，名言分別所不能緣故。如虛空中鳥迹差別，謂隨鳥形空相顯現，顯現之相實有差別，而離可見之相差別。依他起法當知亦爾，隨諸熏習差別顯現，而離可言之性差別；既離可言可緣差別，即是平等真如道理，故言畢竟平等，乃至故名真如。此是第二顯真如平等。「以一切」下，釋其所以。所以真如平等離言者，以諸言說唯是假名，故於實性不得不絕。又彼言說「但隨妄念」，故於真智不可不離。由是道理故說離絕，故言乃至「不可得故」。顯體文竟。此下釋名，於中亦三：初標立名之意，所謂因言遣言，猶如以聲止聲也；次正釋名，此真如體無有可遣者，非以真體遣俗法故，「以一切法悉皆真故」者，依他性一切諸法，離假言說，故悉是真；悉是真者，不壞差別即是平等；是平等故，無別可立，故言「一切皆同如故」。「當知」以下，第三結名，直顯真如竟在於前。「問曰」以下往復疑。問中言「云何隨順」者，是問方便；「而能得入」者，是問正觀。「答中」次第答此二問。初中言「雖說、雖念」者，明法非無，以離惡取空見故；「無有能說可說」等者，顯法非有，離執著有見故；能如是知順中道觀，故名「隨順」。第二中言「離於念」者，離分別念；名「得入」者，顯入觀智也。

From “As for the tathatā of the mind” onward, [the text] explains the separate establishment above and separately expounds the two gates, which constitute two sections. Within the gate of tathatā there are also two points: first, it explains tathatā; second, it explains the characteristics of tathatā. Moreover, the first is a general explanation, and the second is a specific analysis. Furthermore, the first passage clarifies the ineffable, showing that principle transcends words; the second passage clarifies what can be spoken of, showing that words are not discontinued. Question: Speaking truthfully of the principle, does it transcend [words] or not? If it does not transcend words, then the fundamental [wisdom] that transcends words would fail to accord with principle; if it truly transcends words, then subsequent wisdom, which carries words, would be contrary to principle. Furthermore, if it does not transcend them, then the first section of the treatise would be idle chatter; if it truly transcends words, then the second section of the treatise would be constructed in vain, like speaking of space as gold, silver, and the like. Explanation: Therefore, one should know that the principle neither transcends words nor does it not transcend words. For this reason, the principle both transcends words and does not transcend words; in this way, that objection is thoroughly resolved. Setting aside peripheral discussion for now, let us return to explaining the root text. The first passage has three parts: first, a brief indication; second, a detailed explanation; third, resolving doubts through exchange. In the brief indication, stating “It is the one dharmadhātu” points to the essence on which the gate of tathatā relies, because the One Mind is itself the one dharmadhātu. This one dharmadhātu comprehensively subsumes the two gates, but here it does not take the gate of specific characteristics; rather, it takes only the Dharma-gate of the universal characteristic. Now, among the four categories of universal characteristics, [this] speaks of the tathatā revealed by the three absence of natures (tri-niḥsvabhāva); hence it is called the “great universal characteristic.” Because it models and generates true understanding, it is named “Dharma”; because it leads into nirvāṇa, it is named “gate.” Just as the one dharmadhātu takes its entire essence to make the gate of arising and ceasing, so it takes its entire essence to be the gate of tathatā; to reveal this meaning, it is called “essence.” Below this is the detailed explanation, within which there are two parts: first, revealing the essence of tathatā; second, explaining the name of tathatā. In the first part there are three points: first, revealing tathatā by taking the truly real nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva); second, clarifying that tathatā transcends characteristics in contrast to the discriminated nature (parikalpita-svabhāva); third, relying on the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) to reveal that tathatā transcends words. In the first point, the words “the nature of the mind” discuss the nature of the mind in terms of the gate of tathatā. The nature of the mind is equal and far removed from the three periods of time; hence it says “the nature of the mind is unarising and unceasing.” In the second point there are two clauses: first, saying “all phenomena have distinctions only on the basis of false thoughts” points to the characteristic of the imagined nature (parikalpita); next, saying “if one is free from thoughts of the mind, there are no characteristics of any objective realm” reveals the signless nature in contrast to the imagined characteristic. It is like flowers in the sky, which have the appearance of flowers only on the basis of an eye disease; if one is free from the eye disease, there is no appearance of flowers, and only the nature of empty space remains. One should know that the principle here is also like this. In the third point there are three clauses: first, relying on phenomena of dependent nature to clarify the transcendence of words and cessation of deliberation; next, relying on the meaning of transcendence and cessation to reveal the equal tathatā; finally, explaining the reason for equality, transcendence, and cessation. In the first of these, saying “Therefore, all phenomena” refers to phenomena arisen dependently from conditions; “transcend the characteristic of verbal expression” means that they are not as expressed by vocal sounds; “transcend the characteristic of names” means that they are not as expressed by names and sentences; “transcend the characteristic of mental objects” means that they cannot be taken as objects by the conceptual distinctions of names and words. It is like the distinct bird tracks in the sky: following the bird's form, spatial appearances manifest; while the manifested appearances indeed have distinctions, they are free from visible differences of characteristics. One should know that phenomena of dependent nature are also like this: manifesting distinctions in accord with various vāsanās, they are nonetheless free from distinct natures that can be expressed in words. Since they are free from distinctions that can be spoken of or taken as objects, this is the principle of equal tathatā; therefore it says “ultimately equal,” down to “hence it is named tathatā.” This is the second part, which reveals the equality of tathatā. From “Because all” onward, it explains the reason. The reason tathatā is equal and transcends words is that all verbal expressions are merely conventional designations; therefore, in relation to the true nature, they must be cut off. Furthermore, those verbal expressions “merely follow false thoughts”; therefore, in relation to true wisdom, they cannot but be separated from. Through this principle, it is said to transcend and cease, hence saying down to “cannot be attained.” The passage revealing the essence ends. Below this is the explanation of the name, in which there are also three parts: first, indicating the intention behind establishing the name, which is to use words to discard words, just as using a sound to stop sound; next, directly explaining the name: that this essence of tathatā has nothing to be discarded does not mean using the true essence to discard worldly phenomena; as for “because all phenomena are entirely true,” all phenomena of dependent nature, being free from false verbal expressions, are entirely true; being entirely true, without destroying distinctions, they are precisely equal; being equal, there is nothing else to establish, hence saying “because all are equally such.” From “One should know” onward is the third part, concluding the name, as the direct revelation of tathatā has already been concluded before. From “Question” onward, doubts are resolved through exchange. In the question, saying “How does one conform?” asks about the upāya; “and be able to enter?” asks about correct contemplation. The answer replies to these two questions in turn. In the first, saying “Although speaking, although thinking” clarifies that phenomena are not non-existent, because of being free from the view of wrongly grasping emptiness; “there is neither speaker nor that which can be spoken,” and so on, shows that phenomena are not existent, being free from the view of clinging to existence. Being able to understand in this way conforms to the middle path contemplation, hence it is called “conforming.” In the second, saying “free from thought” means being free from discriminative thought; being named “able to enter” indicates entering the wisdom of contemplation.