[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) › [妙法蓮華經文句](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718) › 3.59 # 妙法蓮華經文句 3.59 妙法蓮華經文句 3.59 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.3.59) 一切法非權非實者，文云：「非如非異」又云：「亦復不行上中下法，有為無為、實不實法，非虛非實如實相也。」若一切法皆權，何所不破？縱令百千種師，一一師作百千種說，無不是權，如來有所說尚復是權，況復人師寧得非權？如前所出悉皆權也，若一切法皆實者，何所不破？「唯此一事實，餘二則非真」但一究竟道，寧得眾多究竟道耶？如前所出諸師，皆破入實，寧復保其樔窟耶？若一切法亦權亦實，復何所不破？一切悉有權有實，那得自是一途，非他異解，一一法中皆有權實，不得一向權一向實也。若一切法非權非實，復何所不破？何復紛紜強生建立？直列名尚自如此，遙觀玄覽曠蕩高明為若此，況論旨趣耶？ > That all dharmas are neither expedient nor real: the text says, 'Neither like this nor different.' It also says: 'Neither does one practice higher, middle, or lower dharmas, conditioned or unconditioned dharmas, real or unreal dharmas; they are neither unreal nor real, just as the true reality.' If all dharmas are entirely expedient, what would not be refuted? Even if there were hundreds of thousands of masters, and each master produced hundreds of thousands of explanations, none would not be expedient. Since what the Tathāgata preaches is still expedient, how much less could human masters avoid being expedient? What was previously cited is entirely expedient. If all dharmas are entirely real, what would not be refuted? 'Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true.' There is only one ultimate path; how could there be many ultimate paths? The various masters cited previously are all refuted and made to enter the real; how could they still cling to their entrenched nests? If all dharmas are both expedient and real, what again would not be refuted? Since everything has both expedient and real, how could one take only one way as correct and reject the different interpretations of others? In each and every dharma there is both expedient and real; one cannot take them as exclusively expedient or exclusively real. If all dharmas are neither expedient nor real, what again would not be refuted? Why make further tumultuous and forced constructions? Even merely listing the terms is already like this; gazing from afar upon the profound view, it is so vast, lofty, and clear, how much more so when discussing the ultimate purport? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.3.58) - [Next: 3.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.3.60) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718~en-mt.3.59) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1718.3.59) · Pramāṇa