[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) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 29.18 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 29.18 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 29.18 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [29.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.29.18) 大文第二「佛子菩薩摩訶薩。以諸善根如是迴向時」下離相迴向，即向實際，行稱涅槃。此彰行深，前彰行廣。深廣同時，言不並彰耳。文分為二：先正明離相、後「菩薩如是觀察」下不礙隨相。前中三：初略標、二「無眾生」下別顯、三「何以故」下徵釋。今初三句解脫是總。不著於解、不繫於縛，是真解脫。二別顯中分二，一內絕想念，故無縛解；二「佛子」下觸境離染，故無縛解。今初，分二：先明絕想、後「如是」下彰其行成。前中又二：先絕我想，但法上妄執故，具如前釋；後「無有想」下絕其法想。前段以法奪我，今則以我除法。既無有我則無我所，故法我無礙。文有六對：一不於法體起增減想、二於法時離三世想、三於分位離流轉想、四於法義離斷常想、五於影像離依處想、六於法本遣心非心想。「無知所以」下經自釋，今且略明，初對為總，言無有想者，有即空故、二空一味等無差故。言無無想，乃有五意：一以事例無，有法觸目尚不生想，無法無物安可念耶？二者相無來去故，謂有本自無，非有去無來，即以此義則無可無也，故無無想。三者有即非有，不可謂之為有，況得言無，則言思道斷。四者假非有以遣有，非謂有於非有，故復遣之。五者以是法無我理，非是斷無，必不礙有，故無無也。故下釋云非有非非有矣。有無既寂，俱及俱非豈當有寄？餘對例知。末對總結，前有無等想總名為想，一切都絕是曰無想。假非想以遣想，非有非想，故云非非想。餘義例知。二顯行成，文有五對：初對為總。由絕如是我法想故無有縛解，謂非想故非縛，非非想故非解。下四對別。初對唯語於縛但因果之異，由無作者及受者故。次對雙顯縛解，由無有無等想故，即顯上來有分別業、無分別業二皆絕故。次對雙顯二業行俱為思行，後為思已。後對亦雙明縛解即思所依，王有心則生死波浪，無心則同乎外道。又以無心為是則未免於有，故皆非之。 > The second major section: from 'O sons of the Buddha, when bodhisattva-mahāsattvas dedicate with such kuśala-mūla' onward is pariṇāmanā detached from marks, which is turning toward the true limit, practice conforming to nirvāṇa. This demonstrates the depth of practice; the preceding demonstrated the breadth of practice. Depth and breadth are simultaneous, though words cannot express them together. The text is divided into two: first, directly clarifying detachment from marks; next, from 'when the bodhisattva observes in this way' onward, not obstructing conformity to marks. In the former are three: first, a brief indication; second, from 'no sentient beings' onward, specific revelation; third, from 'for what reason' onward, questioning and explanation. Now in the first, liberation in three phrases is general: not clinging to liberation and not tied to bondage is true liberation. In the second, specific revelation, there are two: 1. internally cutting off ideation, hence neither bondage nor liberation; 2. from 'O sons of the Buddha' onward, touching objects and leaving defilement, hence neither bondage nor liberation. In the first are two: first, clarifying the cutting off of ideation; next, from 'in this way' onward, demonstrating the accomplishment of practice. In the former are also two: first, cutting off the ideation of self, which is only deluded clinging onto dharmas, fully as explained above; next, from 'having no idea of existence' onward, cutting off the ideation of dharmas. The preceding passage used dharmas to eliminate self; now it uses self to eliminate dharmas. Since there is no self, there is no belonging to self; hence dharmas and self are unobstructed. The text has six pairs: 1. not giving rise to the idea of increase or decrease regarding the dharma essence; 2. leaving the idea of the three times regarding the time of dharmas; 3. leaving the idea of transmigration regarding states; 4. leaving the idea of annihilation or permanence regarding the meaning of dharmas; 5. leaving the idea of resting place regarding reflected images; 6. discarding the idea of mind and non-mind regarding the basis of dharmas. From 'without knowing the reason' onward, the sūtra explains itself; now we briefly clarify: the first pair is general. 'Having no idea of existence' means existence is emptiness, and the two emptinesses are of one flavor, equal without difference. 'Having no idea of non-existence' has five meanings: 1. using phenomena to exemplify non-existence: if one does not even produce ideation toward existent dharmas right before one's eyes, how could one keep non-existent dharmas and non-existent things in mind? 2. marks have no coming or going: existence is fundamentally non-existent, not that existence leaves and non-existence arrives; by this very meaning there is nothing to be non-existent, hence no idea of non-existence. 3. existence is non-existence, which cannot be called existence, much less spoken of as non-existence, so the path of speech and thought is cut off. 4. provisionally using non-existence to discard existence does not mean possessing non-existence, so it is discarded again. 5. because this is the principle of the selflessness of dharmas, not annihilating non-existence, it certainly does not obstruct existence, hence no idea of non-existence. Therefore the explanation below says: 'neither existent nor non-existent.' Since existence and non-existence are both tranquil, how could 'both' and 'neither' find any footing? The remaining pairs are understood by analogy. The final pair is the general conclusion: the preceding ideas of existence, non-existence, and so forth are collectively named 'ideas'; cutting off all of them is called 'no ideation.' Provisionally using non-ideation to discard ideation does not mean possessing non-ideation, hence it is said to be 'not non-ideation.' The remaining meanings are understood by analogy. Second, demonstrating the accomplishment of practice: the text has five pairs. The first pair is general: by cutting off such ideation of self and dharmas, there is neither bondage nor liberation; meaning, because of non-ideation there is no bondage, and because of not non-ideation there is no liberation. The four pairs below are specific. The first pair speaks solely of bondage, differing only as cause and effect, due to having no agent and no experiencer. The next pair reveals both bondage and liberation: due to having no ideas of existence, non-existence, and so forth, it reveals that the preceding two karma types—with conceptual discrimination and without conceptual discrimination—are both severed. The next pair reveals that both types of karma actions are actions of volition, and subsequently actions having willed. The final pair also clarifies both bondage and liberation as the basis of volition: if the mental king has mind, there are waves of saṃsāra; if without mind, it is identical to non-Buddhists. Further, taking 'without mind' to be right still does not avoid existence, hence both are negated. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 29.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.29.17) - [Next: 29.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.29.19) - [Up: 29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.29) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.29.18) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.29.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.29.18) · Pramāṇa