[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) › [大乘起信論義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846) › 2.18 # 大乘起信論義記 2.18 大乘起信論義記 2.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2.18) 問：前既泯相，相不存故，但示於體；亦可攬理，理不存故，應但示相用？答：不例也。何者？生滅起必賴於真，故攬理理不失；真如未必藉生滅，故泯相不存。泯相不存故唯示於體，理不失故具示於三，是故攝義是齊，示義別也。 > Question: Previously, since marks were eliminated and marks do not remain, it only revealed the essence; might it also be that when principle is gathered and principle does not remain, it should only reveal marks and function? Answer: They are not analogous. Why is this? The arising of arising and ceasing necessarily relies on the true; hence when gathering the principle, the principle is not lost. Tathatā does not necessarily rely on arising and ceasing; hence when marks are eliminated, they do not remain. Because eliminating marks leaves them not remaining, it only reveals the essence; because the principle is not lost, it fully reveals the three. Therefore, while their meaning of subsumption is equal, their meaning of revelation is distinct. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2.17) - [Next: 2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2.19) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846~en-mt.2.18) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大乘起信論內義略探記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1849.1.22) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.2.18) · Pramāṇa