[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) › 89.54 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 89.54 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 89.54 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [89.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.89.54) 疏「二契無性」下，有十一句，略不釋初三及八十一。若具釋者，既迴向菩提，豈謂後身而無果也。二即理故非常，以執定有則著常故。既知正因，非無因矣。斷見無果，此見無因。釋第四句中，「常計無常」是二乘倒，不見涅槃妙有實理。無常計常是凡夫倒，寧知二空如實之理？疏「自在見者」，即第五句，妄謂自在能生萬物。今知從業，故不從他。自修人業尚不生天，安得由他令我苦樂？釋次二句，疏文可知。其往來見，易故不釋。影像隨身去來無實，隨業六道，實無往來。《中論》云「諸行往來者，常不應往來，無常亦不應，眾生亦復然。」有無可知。離一切法見，釋有三句。初以理遣者，法性空中，法即非法。二緣會不得不生，緣離不得不滅，故一切法不得自在。三以願為因出生諸法，因成無性，淨法亦無。末句易見。 > In the commentary, from "Second, tallying with selflessness..." onward, there are eleven phrases, and he omits explaining the first three and the eighth and eleventh. If fully explained: since one dedicates towards bodhi, how could there be no fruit in a future life? Second, being identical to principle, it is not eternal, for grasping at definite existence clings to permanence. Since one already knows the correct cause, it is not causeless. The view of annihilation lacks fruit, while this view lacks causes. In explaining the fourth phrase, "conceiving the impermanent as permanent" is the inversion of the two vehicles, failing to see the real principle of the wondrous existence of nirvāṇa. Conceiving the impermanent as permanent is the inversion of ordinary beings; how could they know the true principle of the two emptinesses? In the commentary, "the view of a sovereign creator" is the fifth phrase: falsely claiming that a sovereign creator can produce the ten thousand things. Now knowing that things arise from karma, they therefore do not come from another. Even when one personally cultivates human karma, one does not necessarily ascend to heaven; how could another cause my suffering and pleasure? The explanation of the next two phrases can be known from the commentary text. As for the view of coming and going, it is omitted because it is simple. Shadows follow the body without real going or coming; following karma through the six destinies, there is truly no coming and going. The Madhyamakaśāstra states: "For conditioned formations that come and go, / If permanent, they should not come and go; / If impermanent, they also should not, / And the same applies to sentient beings." Existence and non-existence can be known. The view of being detached from all dharmas is explained in three phrases. First, dispensing with it through principle: within the emptiness of dharmatā, dharmas are non-dharmas. Second, when conditions convene, they cannot but arise, and when conditions disperse, they cannot but cease; therefore, all dharmas cannot obtain sovereignty. Third, producing all dharmas with vows as causes: the causes being established without self-nature, pure dharmas are also non-existent. The final phrase is easy to see. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 89.53](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.89.53) - [Next: 89.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.89.55) - [Up: 89](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.89) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.89.54) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.89.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.89.54) · Pramāṇa