起信論疏筆削記 7.28

7.28

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.