[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) › 13.33 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 13.33 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 13.33 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [13.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.13.33) 疏「然隋朝」下，第二敘昔辨違。於中二：先敘昔、後辨順違。前中又二：先正立、後異名。前中，各從所立得名。四中各有二句：上句立義、下句指教。疏「又此四宗」下，辨異名不出性相，而前三從所破、後一就所顯。疏「初二小乘」下，辨順違。於中文二：先順釋，明順理；後約局，明違文。今初。言「各初淺後深」者，以初顯正因緣，立有因果之性，故為淺也。二破於定性，但從緣有，故為深也。萬法從緣，故無定實。如鐵之堅，遇火則鎔；如水之濕，遇寒則堅。明知從緣則無定性，假名而已，故為小乘深。早已參涉大乘，故云經部三是大乘之淺，望其第二亦是次深，以二但破性而有其相。如會指成拳，雖無定性，非無拳相。今復破之，明性相俱空，為法空矣。而言淺者，但除妄計以顯空義，未彰妙有不空真性，故名為淺。第四方顯妙有真性，故四為深。言「此亦有理」者，自淺之深、先小後大，一代佛教大意爾故。又第一宗，是因緣所生法。第二宗，我說即是空。第三宗，亦為是假名。第四宗，亦是中道義。故無大違。疏「但收義不盡」下，第二約局明違。言「但判二」者，唯明有部及經部故，除本二部，故云十八部中。 > In the Commentary, from "However, during the Sui dynasty" onward, is the second: recounting earlier views and discerning contradictions. Herein there are two: first, recounting earlier views; second, discerning conformity and contradiction. In the former there are also two: first, directly establishing \[them\]; second, different designations. In the former, each obtains its designation from what is established. Each of the four has two clauses: the upper clause establishes the doctrine, and the lower clause designates the teaching. In the Commentary, from "Moreover, these four doctrines" onward, discerning that the different designations do not go beyond nature and characteristics, the first three are based on what is refuted, and the latter one is based on what is revealed. In the Commentary, from "The first two are Hīnayāna" onward, discerning conformity and contradiction. Herein the text has two: first, an agreeable explanation, clarifying that it conforms with principle; second, in terms of limitation, clarifying that it contradicts the texts. Now, the first. As for the words "each having the earlier as shallow and the latter as profound," this is because the first reveals correct causes and conditions, establishing the nature of cause and effect, and is therefore shallow. The second refutes a fixed nature, holding that things exist only in dependence on conditions, and is therefore profound. The ten thousand phenomena depend on conditions and therefore lack fixed reality. Just as the hardness of iron melts when it encounters fire, and the wetness of water solidifies when it encounters cold, one clearly knows that what depends on conditions lacks a fixed nature and is merely conventional designation; therefore, it is the profound \[teaching\] of the Hīnayāna. It had already touched upon the Mahāyāna, which is why it speaks of the Sautrāntika. The third is the shallow of the Mahāyāna, yet looking back at the second, it is the next degree of profundity, because the second only refutes nature while retaining characteristics. For instance, bringing fingers together forms a fist; although it lacks a fixed nature, it is not without the characteristic of a fist. Now this also refutes that, clarifying that both nature and characteristics are empty, which constitutes the emptiness of dharmas. And as for its being called shallow, it merely eliminates deluded conceptualisation to reveal the meaning of emptiness, without yet manifesting the wondrous existence of the non-empty true nature, hence it is called shallow. Only the fourth manifests the true nature of wondrous existence, so the fourth is profound. As for the words "this also has principle," from shallow to profound, first small and later great, is indeed the overarching intention of the Buddha's lifelong teachings. Furthermore, the first doctrine is "Dharmas arisen from causes and conditions." The second doctrine is "I declare to be emptiness." The third doctrine is "It is also conventional designation." The fourth doctrine is "It is also the meaning of the Middle Way." Therefore, there is no great contradiction. In the Commentary, from "Yet it does not fully encompass all doctrines" onward, is the second: clarifying contradictions in terms of limitation. The words "only classifying two" mean that it only clarifies the Sarvāstivāda and the Sautrāntika; excluding the root two schools, it speaks of "among the eighteen schools." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 13.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.13.32) - [Next: 13.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.13.34) - [Up: 13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.13) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.13.33) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.13.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.13.33) · Pramāṇa