起信論疏筆削記 11.54

11.54

然此下，二、結答也。意云：若唯取初義，則似真前妄後之失，亦有悟後再迷之過，亦同數論冥初生覺。若唯取後義，則似諸法不由迷真而成，但從本識建立，則有真妄別體之失，亦何異法相宗耶？今以後義免前過，以前義免後過，故互言也。以二義更互用之，隱顯相成，如綺之文，故云綺互。

"However, this..." below: second, concluding answer. The idea is: if one accepts only the former meaning, there would be the fault of seemingly placing the real before and delusion after, and also the error of being deluded again after awakening, which would likewise be the same as the Sāṃkhya notion of the primordial darkness giving rise to intellect (buddhi). If one accepts only the latter meaning, it would seem that all phenomena do not arise through delusion regarding the real, but are established solely from the root consciousness, in which case there would be the fault of the real and delusion having separate substances, and how would this differ from the Faxiang school? Now, by means of the latter meaning one avoids the former fault, and by means of the former meaning one avoids the latter fault; hence both are stated reciprocally. Because the two meanings are employed alternately, their implicit and explicit aspects complement each other like the patterns of fine brocade; therefore it is said to be "interwoven."