[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) › [大般涅槃經義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764) › 7.431 # 大般涅槃經義記 7.431 大般涅槃經義記 7.431 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.431](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.7.431) 自下第四重顯前正，於中有三：一對前德王本有之執明其妄心因緣之法性非本有、二「是心不與貪結合」下對前德王本無之執明其真法性非本無、三「一切眾生從緣貪」下對前德王不定之執明非不定。初中有二：一對前外道不知心相明心緣性非是本有、二「終不說心有淨」下對前外道不知貪相明貪緣生非是本有。前中，初言「諸佛菩薩顯示中道」總以標舉。「何以故」下以非有無釋成中道者，「何以」下釋非有無。六識心中且就一種眼識釋之，餘類可知。句別有四：一正明眼識非有非無，因眼色等而生眼識，所以非無，不在眼等所以非有；二結非有無，非有結前不在眼等，非無結前因眼等生；三「從緣」下釋非有無；四「是故」下結非有無。 > From here below is the fourth part, reiterating and revealing the preceding correct \[teaching\], in which there are three parts: first, against the previous grasping at original existence by Guṇarāja, it clarifies that the nature of the conditioned phenomena of the deluded mind is not originally existent; second, from "this mind does not unite with the fetter of greed" downward, against the previous grasping at original non-existence by Guṇarāja, it clarifies that the nature of true dharmas is not originally non-existent; third, from "all sentient beings have greed from conditions" downward, against the previous indeterminate grasping by Guṇarāja, it clarifies that it is not indeterminate. In the first part there are two: first, against the previous non-Buddhists who do not know the characteristics of mind, it clarifies that the conditioned nature of mind is not originally existent; second, from "never saying that the mind has a pure nature" downward, against the previous non-Buddhists who do not know the characteristics of greed, it clarifies that greed's conditioned arising is not originally existent. In the former, first the phrase "the buddhas and bodhisattvas reveal the Middle Way" generally marks it out. From "why is that?" downward, where it explains and completes the Middle Way through neither existence nor non-existence, from "why is that?" downward explains neither existence nor non-existence. Among the minds of the six consciousnesses, it provisionally explains it in terms of one type, the eye-consciousness, and the rest can be known by analogy. The phrases are distinctively four: first, directly clarifying that the eye-consciousness is neither existent nor non-existent—because it arises dependent on the eye and form, it is therefore not non-existent; because it does not reside in the eye and so on, it is therefore not existent; second, concluding neither existence nor non-existence—"not existent" concludes the preceding absence in the eye and so on, and "not non-existent" concludes the preceding arising dependent on the eye and so on; third, from "from conditions" downward explains neither existence nor non-existence; fourth, from "therefore" downward concludes neither existence nor non-existence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.430](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.7.430) - [Next: 7.432](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.7.432) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764~en-mt.7.431) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.7.431](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.7.431) · Pramāṇa