[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) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 1.56 # 華嚴經探玄記 1.56 華嚴經探玄記 1.56 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.56) 初中有二：先辨小乘、後顯大乘。前中依薩婆多宗諸德三說。一云：但名句文身以為教體。故《發智論》云「十二部經以何為性？答：名身句身文身次第住等。」一云：以聲善故是佛教體，名等無記是教作用。《婆娑論》第一百二十六云「佛教云何？答：謂佛語言、詞唱評論、語音語路語表是佛教，乃至說者語業為體。佛語何法？答：謂名身句身文身，次第行列、次第安布、次第連合，此即總顯佛教作用。」解云：評家正義，音聲為體。經部宗亦以音聲為性，故《順正理論》第十四破經部云「汝不應立名句文身即聲為體。」又無性《攝論》破彼云「諸契經句語為自性，不應理故，初是法處，後是聲處。」亦又因前二說，諸德合取以為教體，餘如彼說。就大乘宗有四句：初攝假從實，唯聲為體，以名等依聲屈曲假立無別體故。無性《攝論》云「依弘誓願立菩薩聲。」《雜集論》云「成所引聲，謂諸聖說。」二分假異實，以名等為性故。《唯識論》第二云「若名句等不異聲者，法詞無礙境應無別。」三假實合辯，亦聲亦名等。《維摩經》云「有以音聲語言文字而作佛事。」《十地論》中說者以二事說，聽者以二事聞，謂音聲、名字。問：依此宗聲表善惡，聲是無記；又名句文是自性無記，何得無記為聖教體？答：若有漏心變，可是無記；若佛菩薩後得智說，俱是善攝。《十地論》云「依止何事者，謂音聲及善字。」四假實雙泯，非聲非名，以即空故、言即無言故。《維摩》云「文字性離是即解脫。」《十地論》中，風喻音聲、畫喻名字，若動樹葉風及壁上畫是即可取，若空中風及空中畫皆不可取。大乘聲名當知亦爾，皆不可取以相盡故。此上四句為一教體，是故空有無礙名大乘法。謂空不異有，有是幻有，幻有宛然，舉體是空；有不異空，空是真空，真空湛然，舉體是有。是故空有無毫分別。故《佛藏經》云「諸法如毫𣯛許不空者，即諸佛不出世。」又下云「諸法畢竟空，無有毫末相。」如是非一也。 > The first \[gate\] has two parts: first discriminating the Hīnayāna, and later demonstrating the Mahāyāna. Within the former, relying on the masters of the Sarvāstivāda school, there are three explanations. One states: only name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and phoneme-bodies constitute the essence of the teaching. Therefore the \*Jñānaprasthāna\* states: "What is the nature of the twelvefold scriptures? Answer: the sequential residence of name-bodies, phrase-bodies, phoneme-bodies, and so forth." Another states: because voice is virtuous, it is the essence of the Buddha's teaching, while names and the like, being indeterminate, are the function of the teaching. Fascicle 126 of the \*Mahāvibhāṣā\* states: "What is the Buddha's teaching? Answer: it refers to the Buddha's spoken words, chanting and discourse, speech sounds, pathways of speech, and vocal intimation—these are the Buddha's teaching; down to the vocal karma of the speaker being its essence. What dharmas are the Buddha's words? Answer: they refer to name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and phoneme-bodies, sequentially arrayed, sequentially established, and sequentially joined; this comprehensively demonstrates the function of the Buddha's teaching." The explanation says: the correct doctrine of the commentators takes sound as the essence. The Sautrāntika school also takes sound as the nature; therefore fascicle 14 of the \*Nyāyānusāra\* refutes the Sautrāntikas, stating: "You should not establish that name-bodies, phrase-bodies, and phoneme-bodies take sound itself as their essence." Furthermore, Asvabhāva's commentary on the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* refutes them, saying: "That the words of all sūtras have speech as their own-nature is unreasonable, because the former belongs to the āyatana of dharmas, while the latter belongs to the āyatana of sound." Furthermore, drawing from the two prior explanations, various masters combine both to constitute the essence of the teaching; the rest is as stated there. With regard to the Mahāyāna school, there are four propositions: First, subsuming the nominal under the real: sound alone is the essence, because names and the like are nominally established based on the inflections of sound, lacking a separate essence. Asvabhāva's commentary on the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says: "Based on the great vow, the sound 'bodhisattva' is established." The \*Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā\* says: "Sound that has been produced: that refers to the speech of the noble ones." Second, differentiating the nominal from the real: taking names and the like as the nature. Fascicle 2 of the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi\* states: "If names, phrases, and the like were not distinct from sound, the objects of the unhindered Dharma and unhindered expression would not differ." Third, jointly discriminating the nominal and the real: both sound and names and the like. The \*Vimalakīrti Sūtra\* states: "There are those who perform the Buddha's work by means of sounds, speech, and letters." In the \*Daśabhūmikavyākhyāna\*, the speaker speaks by means of two things, and the listener hears by means of two things: namely, sounds and names. Question: according to this school, sound expresses good and bad, yet sound is indeterminate; furthermore, names, phrases, and phonemes are intrinsically indeterminate; how could the indeterminate be the essence of the noble teaching? Answer: if transformed by the defiled mind, it may well be indeterminate; but if spoken by the subsequent attainment wisdom of buddhas and bodhisattvas, both are subsumed under the virtuous. The \*Daśabhūmikavyākhyāna\* states: "What things does it rely upon? It refers to sounds and virtuous characters." Fourth, doubly eliminating both nominal and real: neither sound nor name, because it is identical to emptiness, and speech is identical to non-speech. The \*Vimalakīrti Sūtra\* states: "The detachment of the nature of letters is itself liberation." In the \*Daśabhūmikavyākhyāna\*, the wind is a metaphor for sound, and a painting is a metaphor for names; if it is the wind moving tree leaves and a painting upon a wall, these can indeed be grasped; but if it is wind in the sky and a painting in the sky, neither can be grasped. One should know that the sounds and names of the Mahāyāna are also like this: none can be grasped, because their marks are exhausted. These four propositions above constitute one teaching-essence; therefore the non-obstruction of emptiness and existence is called the Mahāyāna Dharma. That is, emptiness is not distinct from existence: existence is illusory existence; while illusory existence is vividly present, its entire essence is empty. Existence is not distinct from emptiness: emptiness is true emptiness; while true emptiness is serenely clear, its entire essence is existent. Therefore between emptiness and existence there is not a hair's breadth of distinction. Hence the \*Buddhapiṭaka Sūtra\* states: "If all dharmas were unempty even by the measure of a fine hair, all buddhas would not appear in the world." And it states below: "All dharmas are ultimately empty, without the mark of a hair's tip." Passages like these are not singular. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.55) - [Next: 1.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.57) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.1.56) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大乘起信論義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.1.24) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.56) · Pramāṇa