[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) › [維摩經玄疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777) › 2.69 # 維摩經玄疏 2.69 維摩經玄疏 2.69 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.2.69) 答曰：生若稱自，滅豈非他！滅若非他，生豈是自！生是自性，滅即他性。生是自性，不得成假；滅是他性，何得說假？滅是他性，遂得說假；生是自性，亦應說假。如此檢覈，由生故生，即是自性之過；說滅為生，即墮他性之失。如是論者，由滅說生，假不成也。 > Answer: If arising is called "self," how could cessation not be "other"! If cessation is not other, how could arising be self! Arising is self-nature, and cessation is other-nature. Since arising is self-nature, it cannot establish provisionality; since cessation is other-nature, how could one speak of provisionality? If cessation being other-nature allows one to speak of provisionality, then arising being self-nature should also allow one to speak of provisionality. Examining it critically in this way: arising due to arising is the error of self-nature; speaking of cessation as arising falls into the fault of other-nature. In this kind of argument, speaking of arising due to cessation fails to establish provisionality. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.2.68) - [Next: 2.70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.2.70) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777~en-mt.2.69) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.2.69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.2.69) · Pramāṇa