大乘起信論略述 1.66

1.66

論。當知真如至一異俱相　述曰。此廣釋也。謂修學者聞說真如。隨情起彼有無等見。皆非契真。故皆非之顯真空義。聞有真如。遂存有相。故今遮云。真既無相。非情疑境。云何為有。故云非有相。恐聞非有遂復存無。遮此見云。非汝謂有云非有相。非謂真如是其無相故。云非無相。恐聞皆非。存雙非相。破此見云。非汝有無云非有無。非謂真如。非謂真如是雙非相。故云非非有相非非無相。恐聞非非返存雙。是故遮之云。非汝雙非故云非非。非謂雙存是真如相故。云非有無謂相。雖聞真如非有無等。恐執與法而是一相。復遮之云。諸法無相悉是真如。是更與法而為一相。故云非一相。恐聞非復存實相故。遮之云。非汝謂一言非一相非謂真如與法實相故云非異相。恐聞皆非存雙非相。破此見云。非汝一異云非一異。非謂真如是非一異故。云非三相非非異相。恐聞非非返存雙。是故遮之云。非汝雙非故云非非。非謂雙存是真如相。故云非一異謂相。

Treatise: "One should know that suchness […] the attribute of being both one and different." Commentary: This is the broad explanation. That is to say, when practitioners hear of suchness, following their sentiment they give rise to views of existence, non-existence, and so forth, none of which tally with the ultimate; therefore, all of them are negated to reveal the meaning of true emptiness. Hearing that there is suchness, they then preserve the attribute of existence; hence, it is now refuted by saying: since the ultimate has no attributes and is not an objective realm of sentimental doubts, how could it be existent? Therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of existence." Fearing that hearing "not existent" will lead them to preserve non-existence, it refutes this view by saying: it is not what you call existence, hence it says "it is not the attribute of existence," but it does not mean that suchness has the attribute of non-existence; hence, it says "it is not the attribute of non-existence." Fearing that hearing both negated will lead them to preserve the attribute of negating both, it demolishes this view by saying: it is not what you call existence or non-existence, hence it says "it is not both existence and non-existence," not that suchness is the attribute of negating both; therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of neither existence nor non-existence." Fearing that hearing the double negation will cause them to turn back to preserving both, it therefore refutes this by saying: it is not your double negation, hence it says "neither not"; it does not mean that preserving both is the attribute of suchness; therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of both existence and non-existence." Although they hear that suchness is not existence, non-existence, and so forth, fearing they might grasp it as having a single attribute with phenomena, it again refutes this by saying: all phenomena are without attributes and are entirely suchness, so how could it have a single attribute with phenomena? Therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of unity." Fearing that hearing it is not [one] will lead them to preserve an actual attribute [of difference], it refutes this by saying: it is not what you call one, hence it says "it is not the attribute of unity," but it does not mean that suchness and phenomena have an actual attribute [of difference]; therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of difference." Fearing that hearing both negated will lead them to preserve the attribute of negating both, it demolishes this view by saying: it is not what you call one or different, hence it says "it is not one and different," not that suchness is neither one nor different; therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of neither unity nor difference." Fearing that hearing the double negation will cause them to turn back to preserving both, it therefore refutes this by saying: it is not your double negation, hence it says "neither not"; it does not mean that preserving both is the attribute of suchness; therefore, it says "it is not the attribute of both unity and difference."