[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) › [起信論疏筆削記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848) › 18.5 # 起信論疏筆削記 18.5 起信論疏筆削記 18.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [18.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.18.5) 顯失。論文此中有二反前正理，故成不知之失。一、迷本真心，故論云以眾生等也。諸法本來唯心，以眾生迷本唯心，妄見有境，以妄見有限齊故，遂令境有分齊，所以不能遍知也。此即對前第一本來唯心以顯其失。疏　見有限等者，境即無限，但能見之心有限，故論云心有分齊，不言境有分齊。二、妄起想念，故論云以妄起等也，謂一真心本來無妄常住法性，以眾生妄起想念，違於無妄，不稱真性，所以不能遍知也。此即對前第二離於妄念，以顯其失。疏　二釋成等者，據論二段，總是對前釋成失義，不唯此文，詳之可知。即明等者，性本離念，妄起想念，即是乖真。以乖真故不能了知，不了知言貫通前段，義則顯矣。 > Revealing the fault. In the treatise's text here, there are two points that reverse the preceding correct principles, thus constituting the fault of not knowing: First, deluded regarding the fundamental true mind; hence the treatise says “Because sentient beings” and so forth. All dharmas are fundamentally mind-only; because sentient beings are deluded regarding the fundamental mind-only, they falsely see external objects, and because false seeing has limits, it consequently causes objects to have delimitations; therefore they cannot know universally. This precisely contrasts with the first \[principle\] above—fundamentally mind-only—to reveal its fault. Commentary: Regarding “Seeing has limits” and so forth: The objects are boundless; it is merely that the cognizing mind has limits; hence the treatise says “the mind has delimitations,” and does not say that the objects have delimitations. Second, falsely giving rise to thoughts and conceptualizations; hence the treatise says “Because of falsely giving rise” and so forth. That is, the One True Mind is fundamentally free of delusion, an ever-abiding dharmatā; because sentient beings falsely give rise to thoughts and conceptualizations, they contravene non-delusion and do not accord with the true nature; therefore they cannot know universally. This precisely contrasts with the second \[principle\] above—freedom from deluded thought—to reveal its fault. Commentary: Regarding “The two explain and establish” and so forth: In terms of the treatise's two passages, both serve to contrast with the preceding so as to explain and establish the meaning of the fault, not merely this text; this is clear upon careful examination. Regarding “Precisely clarifies” and so forth: Nature is fundamentally free from thought; falsely giving rise to thoughts and conceptualizations is precisely contrary to the real. Because it is contrary to the real, one cannot fully know; the phrase “cannot fully know” runs through the preceding passage, and the meaning is thus evident. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 18.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.18.4) - [Next: 18.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.18.6) - [Up: 18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.18) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848~en-mt.18.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.18.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.18.5) · Pramāṇa