[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) › 8.17 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.17 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 8.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.17) 疏「若謂佛性有二」下，第七遮救無性。於中二：先牒救辭、後辯差當。今初。彼《法華疏》云「然性有二種：一者理性，《勝鬘》所說如來藏是。二者行性，《楞伽》所說如來藏是。前性皆有，後性或無。」故今許云「斯言可爾」。「故涅槃云」下，引經為證。 > The Commentary states: "If one maintains that Buddha-nature is twofold..." and below; this is the seventh part, blocking the defense of having no nature. Within this, there are two parts: first, citing their defense, and second, discerning its validity. As for the first: That commentary on the Lotus \[Sūtra\] says: "However, nature is of two kinds: first, the nature of principle, which is the tathāgatagarbha expounded in the Śrīmālā\[devī-sūtra\]; second, the nature of practice, which is the tathāgatagarbha expounded in the Laṅkā\[vatāra-sūtra\]. All possess the former nature, whereas some may lack the latter nature." Therefore, the text now concedes: "These words are acceptable." The phrase "Hence the Nirvāṇa says..." and below cites the sūtra as proof. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.16) - [Next: 8.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.18) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.8.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.17) · Pramāṇa