[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) › [妙法蓮華經玄義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716) › 9.5 # 妙法蓮華經玄義 9.5 妙法蓮華經玄義 9.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.9.5) 一、明融不融者，別教四門，所據決定妙有善色，不關於空；據畢竟空，不關於有，乃至非空非有門亦如是。四門歷別，當分各通。不得意者，作定相取，似同性實，殆濫冥初生覺（云云）。前、三藏有門，已破外道邪計先盡；次、空等三門，破邪則少；又、通巧四門，破三藏之拙；又、別教之門，破通門之近，已不與二乘共，何況外道冥覺而濫妙有！妙有依如來藏分判四門，何得同彼尼犍性實？如周璞、鄭璞，名同質異，貴賤天懸。今時學地論人，反道還俗，竊以此義，偷安莊老，金石相糅，遂令邪正混淆，盲暝之徒不別涇渭。若得諸四門意，精簡真偽，偷盜不生。 > First, clarifying interpenetrating and non-interpenetrating: what the four gates of the distinctive teaching rely upon is definitively wondrous existence and wholesome form, which does not relate to emptiness; relying on ultimate emptiness, it does not relate to existence; up to the gate of neither emptiness nor existence, it is also like this. The four gates are distinct and separate; each accesses \[the truth\] within its own sphere. Those who fail to grasp the intent grasp them as fixed marks, resembling the real substantial nature \[of non-Buddhists\], almost blurring into the primordial darkness giving rise to consciousness (and so forth). Previously, the tripiṭaka gate of existence already exhausted and shattered the false reckonings of non-Buddhists; next, the three gates of emptiness and so forth shatter few false \[views\]; furthermore, the skillful four gates of the shared \[teaching\] shatter the clumsiness of the tripiṭaka; furthermore, the gates of the distinctive teaching shatter the shallowness of the shared gates, already not shared with the two vehicles, so how could they be confused with the non-Buddhist primordial darkness and consciousness, mistaking them for wondrous existence! Wondrous existence distinguishes the four gates based on the tathāgatagarbha; how could it be the same as the real nature of the Nirgranthas? Like the jade of Zhou and the jade of Zheng, their names are identical but their substances differ, as far apart as heaven and earth in value. Nowadays, students of the Daśabhūmika treatise abandon the path and return to the laity, secretly using this meaning to illicitly graft it onto Zhuangzi and Laozi, mixing gold and stone, thereby causing the heterodox and the orthodox to be confused, so that blind and benighted people cannot distinguish the Jing from the Wei river. If one grasps the intent of these four gates and rigorously discerns the genuine from the spurious, such plagiarism will not arise. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.9.4) - [Next: 9.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.9.6) - [Up: 9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.9) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716~en-mt.9.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.9.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1716.9.5) · Pramāṇa