[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘起信論別記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845) › 1.21 # 大乘起信論別記 1.21 大乘起信論別記 1.21 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.21) 問：二門不同，其義已見。未知二門所攝理事，亦有隨門差別義不？答：隨門分別，亦有不同。何者？真如門中所攝事法，是分別性，以說諸法不生不滅，本來寂靜，但依妄念而有差別故。心生滅門所說事法，是依他性，以說諸法因緣和合，有生滅故。然此二性雖復非一而亦不異。何故？以因緣所生生滅諸法，不離妄念而有差別，故分別性不異依他，亦在生滅門也。又因緣之生，自他及共皆不可得，故依他性不異分別，亦在真如門也。如是二性雖復不異，而亦非一。何以故？分別性法，本來非有亦非不無，依他性法，雖復非有而亦不無，是故二性亦不雜亂。如《攝論》說「三性相望，不異非不異，應如是說。若能解此三性不一不異義者，百家之諍，無所不和也。」二門所攝理不同者。真如門中所說理者，雖曰真如，亦不可得而亦非無。有佛無佛，性相常住，無有反異，不可破壞，於此門中，假立真如、實際等名，如《大品》等諸般若經所說。生滅門內所攝理者，雖復理體離生滅相，而亦不守常住之性，隨無明緣流轉生死，雖實為所染，而自性清淨。於此門中，假立佛性、本覺等名，如《涅槃》、《華嚴經》等所說。今論所述《楞伽經》等，通以二門為其宗體，然此二義亦無有異，以雖離生滅而常住，性亦不可得；雖曰隨緣而恒不動，離生滅性故。以是義故，真如門中，但說不壞假名而說實相，不動實際建立諸法；生滅門中，乃說自性清淨心，因無明風動不染而染、染而不染。 > Question: That the two gates are different—their meaning has already been seen. We do not yet know whether the principle and phenomena subsumed by the two gates also have differentiated meanings according with the gates or not? Answer: Differentiating them according to the gates, there are also differences. Why is this? The phenomenal dharmas subsumed within the gate of tathatā are the conceptualized nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), because it is said that all dharmas neither arise nor cease and are originally quiescent, and differences exist only based on false thoughts. The phenomenal dharmas explained in the gate of the arising and ceasing of the mind are the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), because it is said that through the combination of causes and conditions of all dharmas, there is arising and ceasing. Yet these two natures, although not one, are also not different. Why? Because the arising and ceasing dharmas produced by causes and conditions do not depart from false thoughts to have distinctions; therefore, the conceptualized nature is not different from the other-dependent, and is also present in the gate of arising and ceasing. Furthermore, because arising from causes and conditions cannot be found from self, from other, or from both together, the other-dependent nature is not different from the conceptualized, and is also present in the gate of tathatā. Although these two natures are thus not different, they are also not one. Why? Dharmas of the conceptualized nature are originally neither existent nor non-existent; dharmas of the other-dependent nature, although not existent, are also not non-existent. Therefore, the two natures are also not conflated. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "When the three natures are viewed against each other, they are not different and not non-different; so it should be stated. If one can understand this meaning of the three natures being neither one nor different, there is no dispute among the hundred schools that cannot be harmonized." As for the differences between the principles subsumed by the two gates: the principle explained in the gate of tathatā, although called tathatā, cannot be apprehended, yet is also not non-existent. Whether Buddhas exist or do not exist, its nature and characteristics are constantly abiding, without change or difference, and cannot be destroyed; in this gate, names such as tathatā and the reality-limit are provisionally established, as explained in the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and other Prajñā sūtras. As for the principle subsumed within the gate of arising and ceasing, although the essence of the principle is free from the characteristics of arising and ceasing, it also does not maintain an eternally abiding nature, but follows the condition of avidyā to transmigrate in saṃsāra; although it is genuinely defiled, its self-nature is pure. In this gate, names such as Buddha-nature and innate enlightenment are provisionally established, as explained in the Nirvāṇasūtra, Avataṃsakasūtra, and so forth. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra and other texts expounded by the present treatise take both gates together as their central theme and essence. Yet these two meanings also have no difference: because although it is free from arising and ceasing and constantly abides, its nature also cannot be apprehended; although it is said to accord with conditions, it is constantly unmoving, because it is free from the nature of arising and ceasing. For this reason, in the gate of tathatā, it only speaks of expounding the true characteristic without destroying provisional names, and establishing all dharmas without moving from the reality-limit; in the gate of arising and ceasing, it then speaks of the naturally pure mind being moved by the wind of avidyā, being defiled without being defiled, and not defiled while being defiled. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.20) - [Next: 1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.22) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845~en-mt.1.21) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大乘起信論內義略探記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1849.1.23) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1845.1.21) · Pramāṇa