大乘起信論別記 1.27

1.27

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.