[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) › [首楞嚴義疏注經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799) › 4.269 # 首楞嚴義疏注經 4.269 首楞嚴義疏注經 4.269 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.269](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799.4.269) 此文釋有二重：初約佛自悟釋。發明，猶開悟也。佛雖開悟，諸妄圓滅，尚不能返覺至妄本，以妄無因而可覺故，故云猶不能返如是迷因也。復將如是迷因一句連下句牒，應云如是迷因，因迷自有。意云：若約妄法展轉生起而說因者，此即因妄說因，非謂妄有初因，故云因迷自有。既識迷之無因，則知妄無依處，說何為生而復有滅？此釋約佛自悟，無妄因之可返也。次約佛為他說，不能返迷成悟也。發明，猶宣辨也。雖佛廣為滿慈宣辨，尚自不能返迷令悟，故云猶不能返。如是下，釋意如前。良由此理難明，人多惑甚，如為病眼說無空華，孰能領悟？為妄執者說無諸妄，誰肯信從？忽若了悟，自知無因，將何為妄而有生滅耶！ > This text has a twofold explanation. First, it is explained in terms of the Buddha's own awakening: "Elucidated" is like awakening. Although the Buddha has awakened and all delusions are completely eliminated, he still cannot turn back awareness to reach the root of delusion, because delusion has no cause to be aware of; hence it says, "still cannot return \[to\] such a cause of delusion." Furthermore, taking the phrase "such a cause of delusion" and connecting it to the following clause for reiteration, it should say: "such a cause of delusion exists of itself because of delusion." The meaning is: if one speaks of causes in terms of delusive phenomena arising successively, this is merely speaking of causes based on delusion, not saying that delusion has a primal cause; hence it says, "exists of itself because of delusion." Since one recognizes that delusion has no cause, one knows that delusion has no basis of support; how can one speak of it as arising, and furthermore as having cessation? This explanation concerns the Buddha's own awakening, in which there is no cause of delusion that can be returned to. Next, it is explained in terms of the Buddha speaking for others, where one cannot turn delusion back into awakening: "Elucidated" is like proclaiming and discerning. Although the Buddha extensively proclaimed and discerned \[it\] for Pūrṇa, \[Pūrṇa\] was still personally unable to turn delusion back to bring about awakening; hence it says, "is still unable to return." From "such" downward, the meaning of the explanation is as before. Truly, because this principle is difficult to clarify, people are mostly heavily deluded. Just as when one speaks to someone with diseased eyes of the absence of flowers in space, who can grasp and awaken to it? When one speaks to someone with deluded attachments of the absence of all delusions, who is willing to believe and follow? If one suddenly awakens, one naturally knows the absence of a cause; how could one take anything as delusion that has arising and cessation?! > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.268](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799.4.268) - [Next: 4.270](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799.4.270) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799~en-mt.4.269) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799.4.269](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1799.4.269) · Pramāṇa