起信論疏筆削記 7.28

7.28

初、總標。論　復次真如者，問：此既說真如之相，何不牒云相耶？答：以從無相中辨相，相即無相，不異離言之法故。又相即義也，今於真體之中開說二義，故云有二種義，義即相也。一味者，前云一心一法界故。然且約理，離諸相故，強名為一，而此一相即不可得。《法句經》云：森羅及萬像，一法之所印，一亦不為一，為欲破諸數。淺智之所聞，見一謂為一。幸諸深智者，忘懷而體之。有二者，既容言說分別，故有一二之相也。不可隨言者，前雖顯體離言，不可執為無說，以有二義故。今雖分別二義，不可取為有相，以相即無相，不異離言故，故不得隨言執取也。但為下，必若無言，憑何信解？必若有二，法體全乖，證入絕分，引文可知。

First, the general presentation. Śāstra: "Furthermore, as for tathatā—" Question: Since this is now explaining the marks of tathatā, why does it not bring forward the word "marks"? Answer: Because marks are distinguished from within the markless, marks are identical to the markless, not different from the dharma that transcends words. Moreover, marks are meanings; now, within the true essence, two meanings are unfolded and explained, and hence it says "there are two kinds of meanings"—meaning is itself mark. "Single flavor": because it was previously said that it is the One Mind and the single dharma-realm. However, this is provisionally from the perspective of principle: because it is free from all marks, it is forcibly designated as "one", yet this single mark is itself ungraspable. The Dharmapada-sūtra says: "The myriad phenomena in their dense profusion / are imprinted by a single dharma. / Yet the one is not a 'one', / [spoken] only to shatter all numbers. / Those of shallow wisdom upon hearing it / see 'one' and deem it a one; / may those of deep wisdom / forget conceptual thought and embody it." "There are two": since it admits of verbal explanation and conceptual differentiation, there are marks of one and two. "One must not follow the words": although the essence was previously revealed to transcend words, one must not cling to it as having no explanation, because it has two meanings. Now, although the two meanings are conceptually differentiated, one must not grasp it as having marks, because marks are identical to the markless and do not differ from transcending words; therefore, one cannot cling and grasp in accordance with the words. "Only because..." below: if there were definitely no words, on what could one rely for faith and understanding? If there were definitely two, it would completely conflict with the dharma-essence and one would be utterly cut off from realization; the citation of the text can be understood from this.