[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) › 32.51 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.51 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.51 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [32.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.51) 疏「是以什公」下，第二引證，即〈悟玄序〉。其前文云「夫玄道不可以設功得，聖智不可以有心知，真諦不可以存我會，至功不可以營事為。」今疏即次下之言「此上二對反顯難思」。疏文所引，即順明難思。「忘言者」，捨筌蹄也。「虛懷者」，離取著也。「冥心者」，不已見也。「遺智者」，泥能證也。道理真聖大同小異，然上三即法，後一約人。道者虛通，即前玄道。理揀於事，即前至功所契。真揀於俗，即前真諦。聖揀於凡，即前聖智。故有心不契，遺智方知。若有契合，復應拂迹，故彼次云「雖云道合，無心於合，合者合焉。雖云聖同，不求於同，同者同焉。無心於合，則無合無散。不求於同，則無同無異。超非於百非之外，非所不能非焉；忘是於萬是之內，是所不能是焉。非所不能非，則無非矣；是所不能是，則無是矣。無異無同故怨親無二，無是無非則毀譽常一。夫然則幾於道矣。」今略引二對，足令得意。 > Regarding the commentary's "Therefore Master \[Kumāra\]jīva" and what follows, the second part cites proof, namely from the "Preface to Awakening to the Profound." Its preceding text states: "The profound Dao cannot be attained through contriving effort; holy cognition cannot be known through intentional mind; the ultimate truth cannot be met by maintaining an ego; the supreme achievement cannot be accomplished through worldly activities." The commentary now cites the words immediately following: "The two pairs above inversely reveal what is difficult to conceive." What the commentary text cites directly clarifies what is difficult to conceive. "Forgetting words" means relinquishing the fish-trap and hare-snare. "Emptying the mind" means departing from grasping and attachment. "Submerging the mind" means not using one's own views. "Discarding cognition" means ceasing attachment to that which realizes. The Dao, principle, truth, and sagehood are largely the same with minor differences; the first three pertain to phenomena/principles, while the last one concerns the person. "Dao" is vacant and all-penetrating, which is the aforementioned "profound Dao." "Principle" is distinguished from phenomena, which is what the aforementioned "supreme achievement" accords with. "Truth" is distinguished from the conventional, which is the aforementioned "ultimate truth." "Sage" is distinguished from the ordinary person, which is the aforementioned "holy cognition." Therefore, an intentional mind does not accord; only by discarding cognition does one know. If there is an accord, one must again sweep away its traces. Thus that text next states: "Although one speaks of according with the Dao, one has no mind for according; those who accord, accord. Although one speaks of being identical with the holy, one does not seek identity; those who are identical, are identical. Having no mind for according, there is neither accord nor dispersal. Not seeking identity, there is neither identity nor difference. Transcending negation beyond the hundred negations, negation cannot negate it; forgetting affirmation within the myriad affirmations, affirmation cannot affirm it. When negation cannot negate, there is no negation; when affirmation cannot affirm, there is no affirmation. Without difference or identity, enemy and kin are not two; without affirmation or negation, slander and praise are always one. Then one is near the Dao!" Here only two pairs are briefly cited, which are sufficient to enable one to grasp the idea. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 32.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.50) - [Next: 32.52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.52) - [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.32.51) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.32.51) · Pramāṇa