[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) › [仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709) › 1.18 # 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏 1.18 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏 1.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.18) 問：此二三性所立何別？答：前對遣三立三無性、後但依三立三無性，前空後有，是二別也。謹詳至理，實不相遣。如於色蘊立三性者，依色蘊上橫計我法是計所執，色蘊有為即是依他，色性真如即圓成實。若說三性俱有俱空，悉皆無過，但可意會勿滯於言。言俱有者，遍計妄有、依他緣有、圓成真有。言俱空者，遍計體空、依他自性空、圓成勝義空。於如是義，聖賢具悉。勿謂上文前二菩薩、後二三藏所說相違。言空有者，為彼時中樂聞空有能起修證。由諸凡愚無始熏習起有空執，彼彼病深，佛為斷除而作此說。諸菩薩等依奉聖言，各對彼時執見過失，依至教量廣有弘揚。幸而詳之，勿復興病。即前所說三性無性、二諦有空皆此經宗，至文當悉。明諸教說。 > Question: What is the distinction between what is established by these two accounts of the three natures? Answer: The former, by refuting the three, establishes the three naturelessnesses; the latter merely relies on the three to establish the three naturelessnesses. The former is emptiness and the latter is existence—this is the distinction between the two. If one carefully examines the ultimate principle, they actually do not refute one another. For example, regarding establishing the three natures with respect to the form aggregate: the arbitrary clinging to a self and phenomena upon the form aggregate is the parikalpita; the conditioned form aggregate itself is the paratantra; and the true suchness that is the nature of form is the pariniṣpanna. If one says that the three natures are all existent or all empty, both are completely without error; one need only understand the meaning in one's mind and not become attached to words. To say they are all existent means: the parikalpita is falsely existent, the paratantra is dependently existent, and the pariniṣpanna is truly existent. To say they are all empty means: the parikalpita is empty in substance, the paratantra is empty in intrinsic nature, and the pariniṣpanna is empty in the ultimate sense. The sages and noble ones fully comprehend such meaning. Do not say that the statements of the two bodhisattvas above and the two tripiṭaka masters below contradict one another. As for speaking of emptiness or existence, it is for those who at that time took delight in hearing of emptiness or existence that they could generate practice and realization. Because ordinary fools have since beginningless time been perfumed with the clinging to existence and emptiness, and their sickness was deep, the Buddha gave these teachings to eradicate it. All the bodhisattvas and others, respectfully following the noble words, addressed the faults of clinging and views in their respective times and widely propagated the teaching relying on valid scriptural testimony. May you examine this carefully and not give rise to the sickness again. The aforementioned three natures and naturelessness, and the two truths as existence and emptiness, are all the central theme of this sūtra, as will be understood when we come to the text. This clarifies the various scriptural explanations. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.17) - [Next: 1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.19) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709~en-mt.1.18) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.18) · Pramāṇa