[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) › 8.23 # 起信論疏筆削記 8.23 起信論疏筆削記 8.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.8.23) 二、釋。何以故者，徵意云不乖非異，其義已明，有何所以能成非一？若如等者，釋意云：若如來藏隨緣時，失自不生滅體，即兼無生滅相，以無所依故。此文且顯二法若異，有如此失，是則不成不異義也。彼義既不成，兼此不一義亦不成，以二義既失，約於何法以明不一耶？是故下，明不異義。今由不異故，生滅起時不失不生滅。由不失故，生滅得存。二義既存，故得不一義成立。豈非由不異故成得不一耶？又亦由此非一義，故得成彼非異義，以真起成妄，故得說有妄不異真。妄若不起，說何不異？前段所不言者，以未說後義故。 > Second, explaining. 'Why is this?': probing the meaning, saying that not violating non-difference has already had its meaning clarified, but for what reason can it establish non-oneness? 'If like' and so forth explains the meaning, saying: if when the tathāgatagarbha accords with conditions it were to lose its own unarising-and-unceasing essence, then it would concurrently lack the mark of arising-and-ceasing, because it would have nothing on which to rely. This text temporarily reveals that if the two dharmas were different, such a fault would occur; thus the meaning of non-difference would not be established. Since that meaning would not be established, concurrently this meaning of non-oneness would also not be established, because once the two meanings are lost, in terms of what dharma could one clarify non-oneness? 'Therefore' and below clarifies the meaning of non-difference. Now because of non-difference, when arising-and-ceasing arises, it does not lose the unarising-and-unceasing. Because it does not lose it, arising-and-ceasing can subsist. Since the two meanings already subsist, the meaning of non-oneness can be established. Is it not that due to non-difference, non-oneness comes to be established? Furthermore, it is also due to this meaning of non-oneness that that meaning of non-difference comes to be established: because the true arises to form the false, one can therefore say that the false is not different from the true. If the false did not arise, what non-difference could be spoken of? That which was not stated in the previous section was because this latter meaning had not yet been spoken. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.8.22) - [Next: 8.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.8.24) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848~en-mt.8.23) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.8.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.8.23) · Pramāṇa