起信論疏筆削記 8.23

8.23

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.