[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) › [維摩經略疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778) › 2.57 # 維摩經略疏 2.57 維摩經略疏 2.57 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.2.57) 問：外道亦說神及世間非常非無常，即是非有非無；小乘亦為車匿說離有無。今何得言但是大乘？答：凡夫外道尚不見真諦之無，況見非無。聲聞經中雖說非有非無，只見真諦之無，何曾見中非無之理。約教明雙非不同者，若外人計單複具足雙非之句及不可說，皆是妄情，不見空理、不出生死，尚無非有何況非無，悉為三藏有門所破。三藏破見凡有四門：為車匿說離有無經，但是非有非無門耳。若得方便從門入理，但名非有不名非無，不得方便即墮有無，與外道等。縱令入理，亦非大乘不有不無，通教觀色等皆如幻化不言有無。若從門入理，此即非有非無門也。若向通人聞說見理，若執為戲論，邪見火燒，縱令入理亦非中道不有不無。別觀中道約破二邊明非有非無者，此就藏性四門明非有非無，異前兩教。若得入理則不須破，若未悟者是愚癡論，非真中道不有不無。圓雖四門，一門即四門、四門即一門，不定有無無所依倚，將此虛心豁見中道。於此生著猶尚須破，何況於餘。今簡偽顯真得圓之意，不有不無以歎勝應不有不無也。復次前三雙非是權、圓教是實，權實皆說，故言說法不有亦不無也。 > Question: Non-Buddhists also say that the soul and the world are neither permanent nor impermanent, which is just 'neither existent nor non-existent'; and the Lesser Vehicle also, for Channa, spoke of freedom from existence and non-existence. How, then, can you say that this is solely the Mahāyāna? Answer: Ordinary persons and non-Buddhists do not even see the non-existence of the ultimate truth, let alone what is 'not non-existent'. Although 'neither existent nor non-existent' is spoken of in the śrāvaka sūtras, they only see the non-existence of the ultimate truth; when have they ever seen the principle of what is 'not non-existent' within the middle? To explain the differences among the 'double negations' in terms of the teachings: if non-Buddhists postulate single, complex, complete, double-negation propositions, as well as the ineffable, these are all deluded passions; they do not see the principle of emptiness and do not transcend birth and death—they do not even have 'not existent', let alone 'not non-existent'—and all of them are refuted by the existence-door of the Tripiṭaka. The Tripiṭaka's refutation of views has four doors in all: the sūtra spoken for Channa on freedom from existence and non-existence is merely the door of neither existence nor non-existence. If one attains the expedient means and enters the principle through this door, it is termed only 'not existent' and not 'not non-existent'; if one does not attain the expedient means, one falls into existence and non-existence, being equivalent to the non-Buddhists. Even if they enter the principle, it is still not the Mahāyāna's 'neither existent nor non-existent'. The shared teaching contemplates form and the like as being all like illusions and transformations, and does not speak of existence or non-existence. If one enters the principle through this door, this is the door of neither existence nor non-existence. If one turns to a person of the shared \[teaching\], hears the explanation, and sees the principle, yet grasps it as conceptual proliferation, burned by the fire of wrong views, then even if they enter the principle, it is still not the Middle Way's 'neither existent nor non-existent'. The separate \[teaching\]'s contemplation of the Middle Way, which explains 'neither existent nor non-existent' by refuting the two extremes, explains 'neither existent nor non-existent' with respect to the four doors of the matrix-nature (garbha-dhātu), differing from the preceding two teachings. If one succeeds in entering the principle, then refutation is not required; if one has not yet awakened, it is foolish discourse, not the true Middle Way's 'neither existent nor non-existent'. Although the perfect \[teaching\] has four doors, one door is itself the four doors, and the four doors are itself the one door; it does not fixate on existence or non-existence and has nothing on which to rely, using this empty, open mind to suddenly see the Middle Way. If attachment arises even toward this, it must still be refuted, let alone toward the rest. Now, distinguishing the spurious to reveal the true attains the meaning of the perfect \[teaching\]; 'neither existent nor non-existent' is used to praise the superior response \[body\]'s being 'neither existent nor non-existent'. Furthermore, the double negations of the preceding three \[teachings\] are provisional, while the perfect teaching is real; both the provisional and the real are spoken of, which is why it says that his expounding of the Dharma is 'neither existent nor non-existent'. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.2.56) - [Next: 2.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.2.58) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778~en-mt.2.57) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.2.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.2.57) · Pramāṇa