[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) › [仁王經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708) › 1.6 # 仁王經疏 1.6 仁王經疏 1.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1.6) 第二辨所詮宗、能詮教體者，自有兩門：先辨教體、後顯宗旨。然出教體，諸宗不同。薩婆多宗、毘曇俱舍及舊毘婆沙皆有兩說：一說音聲、二名句文，雖有兩說而無別判。新翻《俱舍》第一，具申兩釋亦無別判。《正理》第三敘兩師說，亦同《俱舍》兼有問答。故《正理》第三卷頌曰「牟尼說法蘊，數有八十千，彼體語或名，此色行蘊攝。」論云「有說：佛教語為自性，彼說法蘊皆色蘊攝，語用音聲為自性故。有說：佛教名為自性，彼說法蘊皆行蘊攝，名不相應行為性故。問：語教異名，教容是語，名教別體。教何是名？彼作是釋：要由有名，乃說為教。是故佛教體即是名。所以者何？詮義如實，故名佛教。名能詮義，故教是名。由是佛教定名為體，舉名為首，以攝句文。」《顯宗》第三亦同《正理》。解云：西方諸師傳作此釋，《俱舍》、《正理》各有所歸。所以者何？令物生喜，音聲為勝；若依詮法，名等即強。故知所對皆有准據，由斯兩說皆是正義。依《大婆沙》百二十六，具申兩說，評家正義以聲為體。故彼論云「問：如是佛教以何為體？為是語業？為是名等？答：應作是說，語業為體。問：若爾，次後所說當云何通？如說佛教名何法？答謂名身、句身、文身，次第行列、次第安布、次第建立。答：後文為顯佛教作用，不欲開示佛教自體。謂次第行列安布建立名句文身，是佛教用。有說：佛教名等為體。問：若爾，此文所說當云何通？如說佛教，云何答謂佛語言唱詞評論語音語路語業語表，是謂佛教？答：依展轉因，故作是說。如世子孫展轉生法，謂語起名，名能顯義。評家釋云：如是說者語業為體，佛意所說，他所聞故。」具說如彼。問：定不正理，依評家義。答：正理師意，理長為正。故別生理，名等為正。又解：眾賢具申兩家問答，非自判定，是故不違評家正義。若依經部以聲為體，就彼宗中有三師說。一云：十二處中聲處為性，離聲無別名句字故。一云：法處相續假聲以為自性，唯是意識所緣性故。一云：通用假實二聲為體，前二義故。若依大乘，諸教不同。有處唯聲，如《維摩》等，「佛以一音演說法，眾生隨類各得解。」又《大界經》云「如來一語說法中，演說無量契經海。」如是等教，誠證非一。有處但用名等為體，如《成唯識》云「若名句文不異聲者，法詞無礙境應無別。」有處合說聲及名等以為自性，如《無垢稱》云「或以音聲語言文字而作佛事」。有處能詮所詮合說為體，如《瑜伽》八十一云「謂契經體，略有二種：一文、二義。文是所依，義是能依。如是二種，總名一切所知境界。」《顯揚》亦同。所以如是諸教異者，三藏解云：「據實皆名句文身聲及文義合說為體。而諸聖教各據一義，故不相違。所以者何？以假從實，用聲為體。離聲無別名句等故。以體從用，名等為體，能詮諸法自性差別二所依故。假實相藉合說為體，隨闕一種說不成故。生解究竟必由文義，是故諸說互不相違。」依此經文，唯有兩門：一法數門，以名句等四法為體。故下文云「是經名味句，乃至千佛萬佛，說名味句。」又下經云「名味句音聲果，文字記句，一切如故。」二歸真門，以真如為體。故下經云「法本如，重頌如，乃至論議如。」若廣分別，如《解深密經》第一卷記。 > Second, concerning discerning the signified central theme and the signifier teaching-essence, there are naturally two sections: first, discerning the teaching-essence; later, clarifying the central theme. Now, regarding the presentation of the teaching-essence, the various schools differ. The Sarvāstivāda school, the Abhidharma Kośa, and the Old Vibhāṣā all have two explanations: one explains it as voice, and the other as nāma, pada, and vyañjana; although there are two explanations, there is no distinct judgment between them. The newly translated Kośa, fascicle one, fully presents both explanations and likewise makes no distinct judgment. Fascicle three of the Nyāyānusāra recounts the explanations of the two masters, also matching the Kośa, accompanied by questions and answers. Therefore, the verse in fascicle three of the Nyāyānusāra states: 'The Muni expounded the aggregates of Dharma, / In number there are eighty thousand; / Their essence is speech or names, / Subsumed under these rūpa- and saṃskāra-skandhas.' The treatise says: 'Some say: The Buddha's teaching has speech as its intrinsic nature; they say that the aggregates of Dharma are all subsumed under the rūpa-skandha, because speech takes voice as its intrinsic nature. Some say: The Buddha's teaching has name as its intrinsic nature; they say that the aggregates of Dharma are all subsumed under the saṃskāra-skandha, because name has non-concomitant formations as its nature. Question: Speech and teaching are different names; a teaching may well be speech, while name and teaching have distinct essences. How can teaching be name? They make this explanation: It is precisely because there are names that it is spoken of as teaching. Therefore, the essence of the Buddha's teaching is simply name. Why is this? Because it signifies the meaning as it truly is, it is called the Buddha's teaching. Name is capable of signifying meaning; therefore the teaching is name. For this reason, the Buddha's teaching definitively takes name as its essence; citing name as the foremost, it subsumes pada and vyañjana.' The Samayapradīpikā, fascicle three, also agrees with the Nyāyānusāra. As an explanation: Western masters have transmitted this interpretation, each finding their support in the Kośa and the Nyāyānusāra. Why is this? If it is to cause living beings to produce joy, voice is superior; if relying on the signification of dharmas, name and so forth are stronger. Thus we know that each side relied on has a valid basis, and therefore both explanations are correct meanings. According to the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred twenty-six, which fully presents both explanations, the correct doctrine of the evaluators takes voice as the essence. Thus that treatise says: 'Question: What is the essence of such a teaching of the Buddha? Is it vākkarman? Or is it name and so forth? Answer: It should be said that vākkarman is the essence. Question: If so, how is what is stated immediately after to be reconciled? As it says: What dharma is called the Buddha's teaching? Answer: It means nāmakāya, padakāya, and vyañjanakāya arranged in sequential ranks, disposed in sequence, established in sequence. Answer: The later passage is meant to reveal the function of the Buddha's teaching, not to disclose the Buddha's teaching's intrinsic essence. Arranging, disposing, and establishing the nāma-, pada-, and vyañjana-kāya in sequence is the function of the Buddha's teaching. Some say: The Buddha's teaching takes name and so forth as its essence. Question: If so, how is what this passage says to be reconciled? As it says: What is the Buddha's teaching? Answer: It means the Buddha's spoken words, chanting, expressions, discussions, vocal tones, vocal pathways, vākkarman, and vocal intimation—this is called the Buddha's teaching? Answer: It is spoken on the basis of a mediate cause. Just as in the world children and grandchildren successively generate lineages, speech gives rise to names, and names are capable of revealing meaning. The evaluators explain: The statement that vākkarman is the essence is because it is what is spoken from the Buddha's intention and heard by others.' It is fully stated as in that text. Question: If it definitively is not the Nyāyānusāra's \[view\], it relies on the evaluator's position. Answer: The intention of the master of the Nyāyānusāra is that what is superior in reasoning is correct. Therefore, generating an independent reasoning, name and so forth are taken as correct. Another explanation: Saṃghabhadra fully presented the questions and answers of both schools and did not personally decide, and therefore does not contradict the evaluators' correct doctrine. If relying on the Sautrāntika, they take voice as the essence; within that school there are three masters' explanations. One says: It has the sound-base among the twelve bases as its nature, because apart from sound there are no separate names, phrases, or syllables. One says: It takes the continuity designation of sound in the dharma-base as its intrinsic nature, because it is an object-domain solely of the mental consciousness. One says: It universally uses both designated and real sound as the essence, due to the previous two meanings. If relying on the Mahāyāna, the various teachings differ. In some places it is solely voice, as in the Vimalakīrti and so forth: 'The Buddha with one sound expounds the Dharma; sentient beings, according to their kind, each obtain understanding.' Also, the Mahādhātu-sūtra says: 'Within the Tathāgata's single word of preaching the Dharma, he expounds an ocean of immeasurable sūtras.' Such teachings as these provide sincere testimony more than once. In some places they take only name and so forth as the essence, as the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'If nāma, pada, and vyañjana were not different from sound, the object-domains of dharma-pratisaṃvid and nirukti-pratisaṃvid would not be distinct.' In some places sound and name and so forth are combined and spoken of as the intrinsic nature, as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Or by means of voice, spoken words, and written characters, doing the work of a buddha.' In some places the signifier and the signified are combined and spoken of as the essence, as the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle eighty-one, says: 'The essence of a sūtra is broadly of two kinds: first, text; second, meaning. Text is that upon which \[meaning\] relies, and meaning is that which relies upon it. These two kinds together are called the object-domain of all that is knowable.' The Prakaraṇāryavācā is also the same. As to why the various teachings differ like this, the Tripiṭaka Master explained: 'In reality, nāma-, pada-, and vyañjana-kāya, voice, and text and meaning together are spoken of as the essence. Yet the various sacred teachings each rely on one aspect, and therefore do not contradict one another. Why is this? Subordinating the designated to the real, voice is used as the essence, because apart from voice there are no separate names, phrases, and so forth. Subordinating the essence to the function, names and so forth are the essence, because they are the two supports for signifying the intrinsic nature and distinctions of all dharmas. Relying mutually on the designated and the real, they are combined and spoken of as the essence, because if either one is lacking, the teaching cannot be established. The ultimate arising of understanding necessarily depends on text and meaning; therefore, the various explanations do not contradict one another.' Relying on the text of this sūtra, there are only two gates: first, the gate of dharma categories, which takes the four dharmas of name, phrase, and so forth as the essence. Thus the text below says: 'The names, phonemes, and phrases of this sūtra, up to thousands and tens of thousands of buddhas, preach its names, phonemes, and phrases.' Also the sūtra below says: 'The fruits of voice, which are names, phonemes, and phrases, as well as written characters and demarcated phrases, are all suchness.' Second, the gate of returning to the real, which takes tathatā as the essence. Thus the sūtra below says: 'The root of dharmas is suchness, the verses of reiteration are suchness, up to the discussions being suchness.' If distinguishing this extensively, it is as in the commentary to the first fascicle of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1.5) - [Next: 1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1.7) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708~en-mt.1.6) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (5) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.341) — Classical Chinese - [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.271) — Classical Chinese - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.12.25) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨順正理論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!nyayanusara*zh-xuanzang.3.34) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨藏顯宗論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!abhidharmakosasastrakarikabhasya*zh-xuanzang.3.12) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1708.1.6) · Pramāṇa