[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) › [大般涅槃經集解](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763) › 7.78 # 大般涅槃經集解 7.78 大般涅槃經集解 7.78 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.78) 案道生曰：若昔說無我實亦表於我者，言教何以專說無我，得離於我而不說我，今方說耶？僧亮曰：若今修是正，昔日遍說其義云何耶？法瑤曰：若有我為真、無我非實者，昔日何故不說，幸使我等無謬取之倒？此之二說，如以鉾楯，其趣云何？僧宗曰：此奪果門，第四段也。第一奪果；第二奪因；第三寄寶珠譬，成其所修虛而不實；此第四，釋會二教，不相乖負也。寶亮曰：此第七段會通兩教。自〈哀歎品〉來，比丘三請、世尊三勸，而眾人唯懷一疑，故知從卷首至此未是正說，通為勸問明矣。此疑由是第三勸中生也。若其理皎然，昔日何以不先說耶？ > Daosheng states: If the past teaching of non-self in truth also expressed the self, why did the verbal teachings exclusively teach non-self so that one could be free from self, without teaching self, only to teach it now? Sengliang states: If the present cultivation is correct, what was the meaning of teaching it everywhere in the past? Fayao states: If possessing a self is true and non-self is not real, why was it not taught in the past, so that fortunately we would not have had the inversion of erroneously grasping it? These two teachings are like spear and shield; what is their purport? Sengzong states: This is the section on taking away the fruit, the fourth passage. The first took away the fruit; the second took away the cause; the third used the metaphor of the precious pearl to establish that what they cultivated was empty and unreal; this fourth passage explains and harmonizes the two teachings so that they do not conflict. Baoliang states: This is the seventh passage, harmonizing the two teachings. Since the 'Chapter on Grief and Lamentation', the monks have petitioned three times and the World-Honoured One has admonished three times, yet the assembly harbored only a single doubt; thus we know that from the beginning of the scroll up to here is not yet the primary exposition, but clearly serves as an overall exhortation and inquiry. This doubt arose from within the third exhortation. If its principle is so luminous, why was it not taught first in the past? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.77](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.77) - [Next: 7.79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.79) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763~en-mt.7.78) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.7.78) · Pramāṇa