[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) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 11.51 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 11.51 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 11.51 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.11.51) 疏「是故一緣是能起」下，四別示其相。於中有三：初明一望多、次則多望一、後結成句數。今初亦二：先明一有體、後例多有體。前中文二：先正明，可知；後「由一有體不得與多有體俱」下，釋成。亦是解妨。謂有難言：一之與多俱有有體無體二義，云何獨言一有體耶？故今通云：由有無二義不得並故。今一為能起邊，多為所起故。若不爾者，能所不成，緣起亦壞。言「是故無有不多之一」者，此一即是多故。「無有不一之多」者，此多即是一故。問：一不即多，有何過耶？答：有二過故。一不成多過，謂一既不成多，餘亦不成多故。如一不成十，二三四等亦不成十，故無十過。二多不成一過，謂若一不成十，此十即不成一。由十不成故，一義亦不成。以無於十，是誰一故。一不即多成過既爾，多不即一成過亦然。又若不相即，緣起門中空有二義即不成立，便有自性斷滅等過故。 > From the Commentary's "Therefore, the one condition is that which is able to bring about…" onward, the fourth part distinctively indicates its aspects. Within this there are three: first, clarifying looking from the one toward the many; next, looking from the many toward the one; finally, concluding with the propositional permutations. Now the first also has two: first, clarifying that the one possesses essence; second, drawing an analogy that the many possess essence. The first part has two: first, directly clarifying, which is clear; second, from "Because the one possessing essence cannot be together with the many possessing essence…" onward, explaining and completing it. It also resolves an objection. That is, someone might object: "Both the one and the many possess the two meanings of having essence and lacking essence; why say solely that the one possesses essence?" Therefore this now resolves it by saying: "Because the two meanings of having and lacking cannot coexist." Now, as the one is the aspect that is able to bring about, the many are that which is brought about. If it were not so, that which is able and that which is brought about would not be established, and dependent origination would also be destroyed. The statement "Therefore there is no one that is not many" means that this one is precisely the many. "There are no many that are not one" means that these many are precisely the one. Question: If the one is not identical to the many, what fault is there? Answer: Because there are two faults. First, the fault of not establishing the many: that is, since the one does not establish the many, the rest also do not establish the many. Just as one does not establish ten, two, three, four, and so forth also do not establish ten; hence there is the fault of having no ten. Second, the fault of the many not establishing the one: that is, if one does not establish ten, this ten does not establish one. Due to ten not being established, the meaning of one is also not established. For if there is no ten, of what would this be the one? The fault established by the one not being identical to the many is thus, and the fault established by the many not being identical to the one is also thus. Furthermore, if they were not mutually identical, the two meanings of emptiness and existence within the gateway of dependent origination would not be established, resulting in faults such as intrinsic nature and annihilation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.11.50) - [Next: 11.52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.11.52) - [Up: 11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.11) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.11.51) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.11.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.11.51) · Pramāṇa