[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) › 64.16 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.16 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [64.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.64.16) 疏「上之九句」下，第二總相料揀。疏文有二：一明遣三會一，謂遣有遣無及俱有無，會非有無之中道也；二「又此不二則不壞有無」下，重明第九成不壞義。能遣俱句及俱非句，即分為二：初以不壞有無成俱非義，以遣俱句；後以不壞有無成俱句義，遣俱非句。今初，先標不二。意云：若無有無，將何不二？故《涅槃》云「若無一二，云何說言非一非二？」故不二義成於不壞。「謂說空遣於有執」下，辯相。於中，先明不壞以成俱非。此句明不壞空，而非相於空，故空非空也。言「說有為遣空迷」者，此句明不壞有，而非存於有，故有非有也。故成俱非。次云「有是不異空之有，空是不異有之空」者，此二句顯經不二，成不壞義。次云「無別空有而為二」者，正遣俱也。 > Regarding the commentary's "the above nine clauses" onward: this is the second, a general appraisal. The commentary's text has two parts: 1. explaining the elimination of the three \[alternatives\] and converging them into the one, namely eliminating existence, eliminating non-existence, and eliminating both existence and non-existence, thereby converging into the middle way of neither existence nor non-existence; 2. from "furthermore, this non-duality does not destroy existence and non-existence" onward, re-explaining that the ninth accomplishes the meaning of non-destruction. It can eliminate the clause of both and the clause of neither, and is thus divided into two: first, using the non-destruction of existence and non-existence to establish the meaning of neither, thereby eliminating the clause of both; second, using the non-destruction of existence and non-existence to establish the meaning of both, thereby eliminating the clause of neither. Now, the first begins by indicating non-duality. The idea is: if there were no existence and non-existence, what would be non-dual? Thus the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: "If there were no one or two, how could one say 'neither one nor two'?" Therefore, the meaning of non-duality is accomplished through non-destruction. From "speaking of emptiness eliminates attachment to existence" onward, it discerns the characteristics. Within this, it first explains non-destruction to establish neither. This clause clarifies not destroying emptiness, yet not regarding emptiness as a mark; therefore, emptiness is non-emptiness. As for "speaking of existence is to eliminate delusion about emptiness": this clause clarifies not destroying existence, yet not preserving existence; therefore, existence is non-existence. Thus neither is established. Next, it says: "Existence is the existence that is not different from emptiness; emptiness is the emptiness that is not different from existence": these two clauses reveal the sūtra's non-duality, accomplishing the meaning of non-destruction. Next, it says: "There is no separate emptiness and existence that form a duality": this directly eliminates both. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 64.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.64.15) - [Next: 64.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.64.17) - [Up: 64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.64) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.64.16) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.64.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.64.16) · Pramāṇa