[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) › 7.31 # 起信論疏筆削記 7.31 起信論疏筆削記 7.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.31) 初、略明。疏　能所分別者，即心境也。染法雖多，統唯此攝，故論云一切，而疏云能所。下即心境別明。所取相者，即境界相，於中有色香味觸等不同，故云差別。能取見者，即智相相續等，於中分見聞覺知不同，總名能取，即下分離識也。此即約雙遣心境釋。又以下，約唯遣境界釋。前二句但說境無，此則出境無所以，謂凡是境界皆從心念所生，心念既無，境從何有？故前文云：一切境界唯依妄念而有差別，若離於念，則無一切境界。據此是本識中能見相也，以與智相生境取境功能別故。良以下，通釋文意。情有理無者，妄情中有，真理中無，猶如空華，翳病故見。理有已下，反前可見。故不相應者，結前妄法。理中既無，說何相應？斯則却與情為相應，以從妄念生故，離念則無一切法故。 > First, brief explanation. Commentary: "Conceptual differentiation of subject and object": namely, mind and objects. Although defiled dharmas are numerous, they are completely subsumed by these; therefore the śāstra says "all", while the commentary says "subject and object". Below, mind and objects are distinguished separately. "Marks grasped": namely the mark of the objective realm, within which there are differences of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and so forth; hence it says "distinctions". "Views that grasp": namely the mark of cognition, continuing consciousness, and so forth, within which differences of seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing are distinguished, collectively called "that which grasps", which is the consciousness that separates below. This is an explanation in terms of mutually dismissing both mind and objects. "Moreover..." below: explains in terms of solely dismissing the objective realm. The previous two clauses only said that objects are non-existent; this now provides the reason why objects are non-existent, meaning that whatever is an objective realm is generated from thoughts of the mind: since thoughts of the mind are non-existent, from where could objects exist? Hence the previous text says: "All objective realms exist with distinctions solely relying on false thoughts; if one is free from thoughts, then there are no objective realms whatsoever." According to this, it is the mark of the perceiver in the fundamental consciousness, because its function of generating objects and grasping objects is distinct from the mark of cognition. "Because..." below: comprehensive explanation of the textual meaning. "Existent in sentiment, non-existent in principle": existent within false sentiment, non-existent within true principle, like sky-flowers seen because of cataracts. "Existent in principle" and below: can be understood as the inverse of the above. "Therefore they do not associate": concludes the preceding delusive dharmas. Since they do not exist within principle, what association could be spoken of? These, on the contrary, associate with sentiment, because they are born from false thoughts, and apart from thoughts there are no dharmas whatsoever. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.30) - [Next: 7.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.32) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848~en-mt.7.31) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.31) · Pramāṇa