[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) › 70.79 # 大般涅槃經集解 70.79 大般涅槃經集解 70.79 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [70.79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.70.79) 案僧亮曰：上受異炷之明，今說明不異炷，於汝非譬，於我是譬。何者？炷是假名，以色觸為體，色即是明，明不異炷。我是假名，以二法為體，我不異二法也。寶亮曰：以即事為難。若謂炷明不相關者，現見炷大明盛，離炷無明也。 > Sengliang states: Above, he accepted that light is different from the wick; now he explains that light is not different from the wick. For you it is not an analogy, but for me it is an analogy. Why? A wick is a conventional designation, having form and touch as its substance; form is light, and light is not different from the wick. The ātman is a conventional designation, having the two dharmas as its substance; the ātman is not different from the two dharmas. Baoliang states: He objects by appealing to actual facts. If one says that wick and light are unrelated, we currently observe that when the wick is large, the light is bright; apart from the wick there is no light. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 70.78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.70.78) - [Next: 70.80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.70.80) - [Up: 70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.70) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763~en-mt.70.79) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.70.79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.70.79) · Pramāṇa