大乘起信論別記 1.2

1.2

將釋此論略有二門：一者述論大意；二即依文消息。言大意者，然夫佛道之為道也，簫焉空寂，堪爾冲玄，玄之又玄之，出萬像之表；寂之又寂之，猶在百家之談。非像表也，五眼不能見其軀；在言裏也，四辯不能談其狀。欲言大矣，入無內而莫遺；欲言微矣，苞無外而有余。將謂有耶，一如由之而空；將謂無耶，萬物用之而生。不知何以言之，強為道。其體也，曠兮其若大虛而無私焉，蕩兮其若巨海而有至公焉。有至公故，動靜隨成；無其私故，染淨斯融。染淨融故，真俗平等；動靜成故，昇降參差。昇降差故，感應路通；真俗等故，思議路絕。思議絕故，體之者乘影響而無方；感應通故，祈之者超名相而有歸。所垂影響，非形非說。既超名相，何超何歸？是謂無理之至理，不然之大然也。自非杜口開士、目擊丈夫，誰能論大乘於無乘，起深信於無信者哉。所以馬鳴菩薩無緣大悲，傷彼無明妄風動心海而易㵱，愍此本覺真性睡長夢而難悟，同體智力堪造此論，贊述如來深經奧義，欲使為學者暫開一軸遍掬三藏之指，為道者永息萬境遂還一心之源。其為論也，無所不立，無所不破。如《中觀論》、《十二門論》等，遍破諸執，亦破於破，而不還許能破所破，是謂往而不遍論也。其《瑜伽論》、《攝大乘》等，通立深淺判於法門，而不融遣自所立法，是謂與而不奪論也。今此論者，既智既仁、亦玄亦傳，無不立而自遣，無不破而還許。而還許者，顯彼往者往極而遍立；而自遣者，明此與者窮與而奪。是謂諸論之祖宗，群諍之評主也。所述雖廣，可略而言，開二門於一心，栝摩羅百八之廣誥；示性淨於相染，普綜踰闍十五之幽致。至如鵠林一味之宗，鷲山無二之趣，《金鼓》、《同性》三身之極果，《花嚴》、《瓔珞》四階之深因，《大品》、《大集》矌蕩之至道，《日藏》、《月藏》祕密之玄門，凡此等輩眾典肝心一以貫之者，其唯此論乎。故下文云「為欲總攝如來廣大深法無邊義故，應說此論。」然以此論言邇理遐、文少義多，從來釋者尠得其宗，良以各守所習而牽文，不能虛懷而尋旨，由是不近論主之意，或望源而述流，或把葉而云幹，或割領而補袖，或折杖而帶根。今直依此論文屬當所述經本，略舉綱領，為自而記耳，不敢望宣通世。述大意竟。

In intending to explain this treatise, there are, briefly, two sections: first, presenting the general meaning of the treatise; second, interpreting the text according to the passages. Regarding the general meaning: Indeed, as for the Buddha's path as a path, it is desolate, empty, and tranquil; deep and unfathomable. It is profound, and yet more profound, going beyond the outward form of all phenomena; it is quiet, and yet more quiet, remaining within the discourses of the hundred schools. Not having outward forms, the five eyes cannot see its body; being within words, the four kinds of unobstructed eloquence cannot speak of its state. If one wishes to say it is great, entering into what has no interior, nothing is left out; if one wishes to say it is minute, enveloping what has no exterior, it has room to spare. Would one consider it to exist? The single thusness is empty on account of it. Would one consider it not to exist? The ten thousand things are born through its function. Not knowing what to call it, one arbitrarily names it the Path. As for its essence: vast, it is like the great void without partiality; boundless, it is like the great ocean with supreme impartiality. Because it has supreme impartiality, movement and stillness are accomplished accordingly; because it lacks partiality, defilement and purity are thereby fused. Because defilement and purity are fused, the ultimate and the conventional are equal; because movement and stillness are accomplished, rising and descending are varied. Because rising and descending are varied, the path of sympathetic resonance is open; because the ultimate and conventional are equal, the path of thinking and deliberation is cut off. Because thinking and deliberation are cut off, those who realize its essence ride shadows and echoes without fixed direction; because sympathetic resonance is open, those who pray to it transcend names and characteristics and have a refuge. What it casts as shadows and echoes is neither physical form nor spoken word. Having already transcended names and characteristics, what is transcended, and what is refuge? This is called the ultimate principle of no principle, the great so-ness of non-so-ness. Were it not for the silent bodhisattvas and the masters who understand at a glance, who could discuss the Mahāyāna where there is no vehicle, and give rise to deep faith where there is no faith? Therefore, Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa, with unconditioned great compassion, grieved that the deluded wind of avidyā stirs the ocean of the mind so that it easily drifts, and pitied that this true nature of innate enlightenment sleeps in a long dream and is difficult to awaken; with the power of cognition of identical essence, he was able to compose this treatise, praising and expounding the profound sūtras and esoteric meanings of the Tathāgata, wishing to cause students to open a single scroll for a moment and grasp the essentials of the Tripiṭaka everywhere, and to cause practitioners of the Path to eternally bring an end to the myriad objects and finally return to the source of the One Mind. As a treatise, there is nothing it does not establish, and nothing it does not refute. For example, such works as the Madhyamakaśāstra and the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra comprehensively refute all attachments, and also refute refutation, yet they do not in turn concede what can refute or what is refuted; this is called a treatise that goes forth but is not comprehensive. Such works as the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha broadly establish the profound and the shallow to differentiate dharma-gates, yet they do not harmonize and eliminate what they themselves have established; this is called a treatise that gives but does not take away. Now, this treatise is both wise and benevolent, both profound and widely transmitted; there is nothing it does not establish and yet eliminate of itself, and nothing it does not refute and yet concede in turn. As for conceding in turn, it reveals that those who go forth reach the utmost and establish comprehensively; as for eliminating of itself, it clarifies that those who give exhaust giving and take away. This is called the ancestral progenitor of all treatises, the supreme judge of the host of disputes. Although what it explains is broad, it can be stated briefly: opening two gates within the One Mind, it summarizes the broad proclamations of the hundred and eight [questions] of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra; showing that nature is pure amidst characteristics of defilement, it completely synthesizes the profound import of the fifteen [meanings] of the *Vajrasamādhi. As for the single-taste tenet of the Crane Forest, the non-dual purport of Vulture Peak, the ultimate fruit of the three bodies in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa and the Tongxing [jing], the profound causes of the four stages in the Avataṃsakasūtra and the Yingluo [jing], the vast supreme path of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Mahāsaṃnipāta, and the esoteric profound gates of the Sūryagarbha and Candragarbha—that which pierces through all these scriptures like a single thread into their very core is solely this treatise! Therefore the text below says: "Because [I] wish to encompass generally the Tathāgata's broad, great, and profound dharma and boundless meanings, this treatise should be spoken." However, because the words of this treatise are close at hand while its principle is far-reaching, its text concise while its meaning is abundant, among those who have explained it up to now, few have grasped its tenet. This is truly because each held to what they had practiced and forced the text, unable to empty their minds and seek its purpose. Consequently, they did not come close to the treatise master's intent: some looked at the source and described the stream, some grasped a leaf and called it the trunk, some cut the collar to patch the sleeve, or broke the staff while retaining the root. Now, strictly relying on the text of this treatise to correspond to the source sūtras it expounds, I briefly present the main points merely to record them for myself, not daring to hope for widespread dissemination in the world. The presentation of the general meaning is concluded.