[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) › 80.30 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 80.30 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 80.30 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [80.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.80.30) 疏「不偏住著」等下，釋住於中道。然通妨難，生下契中。謂有難言：若離於邊，未免於邊，有取捨故。故釋云：不偏住著名曰離邊，非見有邊而可離也。謂不偏住染，染性空故；性即淨故，不偏住淨。若無染則無淨故，淨相離故、同染性故，染淨交徹，安可住耶？智契此理，故曰離邊。故言「非見有邊，邊即中故。」復有難云：有邊即有中，邊既即中，則無邊矣。既無有邊，對何說中？故次答云：無邊無中方住中道。此有二意：一順上答，謂誠如所言，無邊無中故曰中道，若有中邊非真中也。二者反上答，謂中道有二：一者相待則離邊住中、二者絕相即邊而中。相待而空則有邊中，無邊無中為真中矣。故相待絕待尚是相待，得意亡言言不盡矣。歷上染淨等，一一皆然。 > Regarding the commentary's "not one-sidedly abiding with attachment" and so forth: this explains abiding in the Middle Way. It resolves an objection and introduces the subsequent accord with the middle. That is, an objection might be raised: "If one leaves behind the extremes, one still does not escape an extreme, because there is grasping and rejecting." Therefore it explains: "Not one-sidedly abiding with attachment is called leaving behind the extremes; it is not that one sees there to be an extreme that can be left behind." This means not one-sidedly abiding in defilement, because the nature of defilement is empty; and because its nature is purity, not one-sidedly abiding in purity. If there is no defilement, there is no purity; because the characteristic of purity is departed from, and because it is identical with the nature of defilement, defilement and purity interpenetrate—how could one abide? Cognition accords with this principle; hence it is called leaving behind the extremes. Thus it says: "It is not that one sees an extreme, for the extreme is itself the middle." Again, an objection is raised: "Where there is an extreme, there is a middle. Since the extreme is itself the middle, then there is no extreme. Since there is no extreme, relative to what is 'middle' spoken of?" Therefore it next replies: "Only when there is neither extreme nor middle does one abide in the Middle Way." This has two meanings: First, agreeing with the above objection: it is indeed as you say; being without extreme and without middle is called the Middle Way, for if there were middle and extreme, it would not be the true middle. Second, reversing the above objection: the Middle Way has two aspects: (1) relative, wherein one leaves behind the extremes and abides in the middle; (2) absolute, wherein the extreme itself is the middle. When empty through relativity, there are extremes and middle; having neither extreme nor middle is the true middle. Therefore, relative and absolute are still relative; when one grasps the meaning and forgets words, words cannot exhaust it. Applied through the above defilement, purity, and so forth, every single one is like this. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 80.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.80.29) - [Next: 80.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.80.31) - [Up: 80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.80) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.80.30) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.80.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.80.30) · Pramāṇa