[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) › 20.16 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 20.16 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 20.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [20.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.20.16) 疏「三自相解脫」者，以一切法各各不同，色非心等，故名自相。今皆不生，故名解脫。此明無彼生相則法體不生，故名自相。若直遣生住滅相，亦共相耳。疏文有四：一略科釋、二「然不生」下開章門、三「別釋」下隨門別釋、四「斯為正法」下結勸。三中，有三釋：一別釋、二通釋、三展轉釋。今初，文二：先釋不生滅、後釋不來去。今初，自有五重者，前三別據三性文同，四即合前三而義別，五即融四句而無礙。就別約三性中各三釋者，初一通就當性說、二約當性二義說、三對三無性說，唯圓成二義小異。云何三性各二義耶？遍計二者：一情有、二理無。依他二者，一緣生、二無性。圓成二者，一性有、二相無。 > Regarding the commentary's statement, "Third, liberation of self-characteristics": because all dharmas are distinct from one another—form is not mind, etc.—they are called self-characteristics. Now none of them arise; hence it is called liberation. This clarifies that without those marks of arising, the essence of dharmas does not arise; hence they are called self-characteristics. If one simply dispels the marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing, they are also common characteristics. The commentary text has four parts: first, a brief structural explanation; second, from "However, not arising" downward, opening the topical headings; third, from "Distinguishing explanations" downward, explaining individually according to the headings; fourth, from "This is the correct Dharma" downward, concluding with an exhortation. In the third, there are three explanations: first, particular explanation; second, general explanation; third, progressive explanation. In the first of these, the text has two parts: first, explaining non-arising and non-ceasing; second, explaining non-coming and non-going. In the first of these, there are five levels: the first three separately rely on the three natures and their texts are identical; the fourth unites the previous three with differing meanings; the fifth perfectly fuses the four propositions without impediment. In separately relying on the three natures, each has three explanations: the first universally speaks in terms of the nature itself; the second speaks in terms of the two meanings of that nature; the third speaks in contrast to the three non-natures, where only the two meanings of the consummate nature differ slightly. How do the three natures each have two meanings? For the parikalpita there are two: first, existent to perception; second, non-existent in principle. For the paratantra there are two: first, conditionally arisen; second, without intrinsic nature. For the pariniṣpanna there are two: first, existent as nature; second, non-existent as marks. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 20.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.20.15) - [Next: 20.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.20.17) - [Up: 20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.20) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.20.16) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.20.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.20.16) · Pramāṇa