[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) › 32.3 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.3 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [32.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.3) 疏「是以緣起之法」下，第二通明緣起之義。於中四：一總明、二開義、三融合、四別釋性義。初中二：先立義配經、後「是以無性緣生故空」下，會歸中道。今初。就四義中，二義是空有之義，謂緣生故有，是有義；無性故空，是空義。二義是空有所以，謂無性故有，是有所以；緣生故空，是空所以。所以即是因緣。謂何以無性得成空義？釋云：由從緣生，所以無性。是故緣生無性，是空之所以也。何以緣生得為有義？釋云：特由無定性故，方始從緣而成幻有，是故無性是有所以。故《中論．四諦品》云「若人不知空、不知空因緣，及不知空義，是故自生惱。如不善呪術，不善捉毒蛇。」若將四句總望空有，則皆名所以，故云緣生故名有，緣生故名空；無性故名有，無性故名空。良以諸法起必從緣，從緣有故必無自性，由無性故所以從緣。緣有性無，更無二法，而約幻有萬類差殊故名俗諦，無性一味故名真諦。又所以四句，唯第三句引證成者，無性故有，理難顯故。若具證者，一緣生故有者，《法華》云「但以因緣有，從顛倒生故說。」《淨名》云「以因緣故諸法生」，《中論》云「未曾有一法，不從因緣生」等，皆因緣故有義也。「二緣生故空」者，經云「因緣所生無有生」，論云「若法從緣生，是則無自性。若無自性者，云何有是法？」三中言「以有空義故一切法得成」者，亦〈四諦品〉文。由前諸品以空遣有，小乘便為菩薩立過云：若一切法空無生無滅者，如是則無有四聖諦之法。菩薩反答云：若一切不空無生無滅者，如是則無有四聖諦之法。謂小乘以空故無四諦，菩薩以不空故則無四諦，若有空義四諦方成，故有偈云「以有空義故，一切法得成；若無空義者，一切則不成。」即無性故有也。 > Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Therefore, the dharmas of dependent origination": this is the second \[section\], which comprehensively explains the meaning of dependent origination. Within it there are four \[parts\]: first, a general explanation; second, opening up the meanings; third, harmonisation and integration; fourth, a separate explanation of the meaning of nature. The first part has two sections: first, establishing the meaning and correlating it with the sūtras; and second, from "Therefore, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature and dependently arisen, they are empty" onwards, reconciling and returning to the middle way. Now for the first. Among the four meanings, two meanings are the meaning of emptiness and existence: that is, being dependently arisen and therefore existing is the meaning of existence; being devoid of intrinsic nature and therefore empty is the meaning of emptiness. Two meanings are the rationale for emptiness and existence: that is, being devoid of intrinsic nature and therefore existing is the rationale for existence; being dependently arisen and therefore empty is the rationale for emptiness. The "rationale" is simply causes and conditions. That is to say, on what grounds does \[the notion of\] being devoid of intrinsic nature establish the meaning of emptiness? The explanation states: because \[dharmas\] arise from conditions, they are devoid of intrinsic nature. Therefore, dependent arising devoid of intrinsic nature is the rationale for emptiness. On what grounds does dependent arising serve as the meaning of existence? The explanation states: precisely because they lack a fixed intrinsic nature, they first come to constitute illusory existence from conditions; therefore, being devoid of intrinsic nature is the rationale for existence. Hence the Madhyamakaśāstra, "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths", states: "If one does not know emptiness, does not know the causes and conditions of emptiness, and does not know the meaning of emptiness, one will consequently produce vexation for oneself—just as one who is unskilled in incantations or unskilled in seizing a venomous snake." If one views these four phrases collectively in relation to emptiness and existence, they are all called rationales; therefore it is said that because they are dependently arisen, they are called existing, and because they are dependently arisen, they are called empty; because they are devoid of intrinsic nature, they are called existing, and because they are devoid of intrinsic nature, they are called empty. Truly, because all dharmas necessarily arise from conditions, existing from conditions they are necessarily devoid of intrinsic nature; and because they are devoid of intrinsic nature, they therefore follow conditions. Conditioning is existence and nature is nonexistence—there are no two dharmas whatsoever; yet, in terms of the myriad differentiated classes of illusory existence, it is termed the conventional truth, and in terms of the single flavour of being devoid of intrinsic nature, it is termed the ultimate truth. Furthermore, regarding the fact that among the four phrases, only the third phrase cites scriptural proof for its establishment: this is because \[the principle of\] "existing because of being devoid of intrinsic nature" is difficult to reveal. If one provides proofs in full: first, regarding "existing because of being dependently arisen", the Lotus Sūtra says: "They exist only through causes and conditions, being spoken of because they arise from inverted views"; the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "All dharmas arise by reason of causes and conditions"; the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Never has there been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions", and so forth—all of which are the meaning of "existing through causes and conditions". Second, regarding "being empty because of being dependently arisen", a sūtra says: "That which is produced by causes and conditions is devoid of arising"; the treatise says: "If a dharma arises from conditions, it is devoid of intrinsic nature. If it is devoid of intrinsic nature, how can this dharma exist?" Third, as for the statement, "Because the meaning of emptiness exists, all dharmas can be established", this is also a passage from the "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths". Because the preceding chapters eliminated existence by means of emptiness, the Hīnayāna pointed out a fault to the bodhisattva, saying: "If all dharmas are empty, devoid of arising and devoid of cessation, then the dharmas of the four noble truths would not exist." The bodhisattva replied by reversing it, saying: "If everything were not empty, devoid of arising and devoid of cessation, then the dharmas of the four noble truths would not exist." That is to say, the Hīnayāna maintains that because of emptiness the four truths do not exist, whereas the bodhisattva maintains that because of non-emptiness the four truths would not exist; if the meaning of emptiness exists, only then are the four truths established. Hence the verse states: "Because the meaning of emptiness exists, / All dharmas can be established; / If the meaning of emptiness does not exist, / Then nothing can be established." This is precisely "existing because of being devoid of intrinsic nature". > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 32.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.2) - [Next: 32.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.4) - [Up: 32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.32.3) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5.2) — Classical Chinese - [中論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.madhyamaka.mmk!pingala*zh-kumarajiva.4.111) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.3) · Pramāṇa