"therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness."
As translated, very similar to Advaita.
I'm looking at the Chinese and that last sentence has an additional part.
《大乘起信論》卷1：「唯是一心故名真如，以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a12-14)
"They are only just one mind ergo the name suchness because all language and provisional appellations have no reality only accompanying delusional thoughts which are unattainable.
The "they" at the beginning is referring to "all dharmas" (一切法). "Transcend" is also not a good translation for li 離 which just means "apart from".
This is really just a Cittamatra position. Such remarks are made in the context of epistemology and not ontology. Mind here is equated to suchness. Is that really eternalist?
"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."
As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism.
《大乘起信論》卷1：「此真如體無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法不可說、不可念故，名為真如。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a14-18)
Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation.
This line ...
for all things in their Absolute aspect are real
...is an interpretation rather than a translation.
If you look at the Chinese and literally translate it word for word it sounds like this:以一切法悉皆真故[instrumental particle] all dharmas entirely all true/real thus
I don't see where the translator got "Absolute aspect" from. This section of the text is talking about how conventional phenomena and the principle behind them complement each other.