大乘起信論別記 1.27

1.27

問：理實而言為絕，若不絕言則非絕慮。若言得說理實絕言者，則隨自宗相違過，先以絕言之言不絕而理實絕言故。若使絕言之言亦言絕者，則墮自語相違過，先以絕言之言亦絕而言得說言故。又若不絕言者，正體離言則過於理。若實絕言者，後得帶言則倒於理。又若不絕言，則初段論文斯為妄語。若實絕言，則後段論文徒為虛設。如說虛空為青黃等。答：或有說者，是故當知，理非絕言非不絕言，以是義故，理亦絕言亦不絕言。如是等言，無所不當故無所當，由無所當故無所不當也。真如門中，絕不絕義既如是說，生滅門中亦同此說。

Question: In terms of the reality of principle, it is transcendent; if it does not transcend words, then it does not cut off thought. If it is said that one can explain that principle in reality transcends words, then there is the fault of contradicting one's own thesis, because previously the words that transcend words were not transcendent, while principle in reality transcends words. If it is maintained that the words that transcend words also transcend words, then one falls into the fault of self-contradiction, because previously the words that transcend words also transcended, yet one says words can be spoken. Furthermore, if it does not transcend words, then the fundamental [unconditioned] essence being free from words would exceed the principle. If it really transcends words, then the subsequent attainment entailing words would invert the principle. Furthermore, if it does not transcend words, then the treatise text of the first section would be false speech; if it really transcends words, then the treatise text of the latter section would be uselessly contrived, like calling space blue or yellow. Answer: Some say: Therefore, one should know that principle is neither transcendent of words nor not transcendent of words; by this meaning, principle is both transcendent of words and not transcendent of words. Such statements, because there is nothing they do not apply to, have nothing to which they specifically apply; because there is nothing to which they specifically apply, there is nothing they do not apply to. Since the meaning of transcendent and non-transcendent in the gate of tathatā is explained in this way, it is also explained in the same way in the gate of arising and ceasing.