[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) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 3.36 # 中觀論疏 3.36 中觀論疏 3.36 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.36) 長行為三：初明無緣緣、二釋疑、三結無緣緣。就初又二：初法說、次舉譬。法說之中，前明緣緣、次明無緣緣。「有色無色」者，問：何故列色無色等法？答：即此色是緣緣，求此色不可得，故無緣緣，而不無緣緣義，今只明緣緣即是無緣緣。若無緣緣者，云何得言緣緣空耶？只言色空，豈得無色方空耶？若聞色自安置世諦、聞空置第一義，此是空者自空、不空者自不空耳，則是斷常二見。今只是有者不有，豈得無有？只明空者不空，豈得無空？故知空有不二，但破偏執定有定無，故言非有非無耳。《成論》十四種色，五根、五塵及四大也。數人十一種色，謂五根、五塵及無作假色也。無色者，心及無為等，總名無色。「有形無形」者，形必是色，色未必形，故數人有三種色：一可見有對色，即青黃等；二不可見有對色，謂五根等；三不可見無對色，謂無作色。三種色中，可見有對是有形，餘是無形也。「有漏」者，數人有緣縛、相應縛，名為有漏；無此二縛，名為「無漏」。論人無相心名無漏，取相心名有漏。「有為無為」者，三相所切名有為，無三相名無為。「入於法性一切皆空」者，第二明無緣緣。問：既有入法性，應有出法性。答：有二義。就二門說之，故名為出入，就差別門說故名為出、就無差別門說故名為入。二者約迷悟明其出入，以迷故名出、悟故名入。迷故言出，實無所出；悟故言入，實無所入。故《華嚴》云「一切眾生入，真實無所入。」亦一切眾生出，真實無所出也。問：誰是出法性人：答：如薩婆多分別有色無色決定相者，即是出法性人也。「無相無緣」者，無相無所緣，無緣無能緣也。「譬如眾流下」，第二譬說也。從流入海，海是流海；從海出流，流是海流。無有異流之海，無有異海之流。若有異流之海，則海非流海，若有異海之流，則流非海流。「實法可信」下，第二釋疑。疑有緣緣是佛說，無緣緣亦是佛說，云何以無破有耶？是故釋云：無緣緣是真實說，有緣緣是隨宜說，所以用無以破有。問：何故就此偈明權實耶？答：此偈有二意，一者引正破邪、二者舉實顯權。偈既云真實微妙法，則知有方便隨宜法也。「是故無緣緣」下，第三結破也。 > The prose has three parts: first, clarifying the non-existence of the objective condition; second, resolving doubts; third, concluding the non-existence of the objective condition. The first part also has two: first, an exposition through dharma; second, an illustration through metaphor. Within the exposition through dharma, first the objective condition is clarified, and next the non-existence of the objective condition is clarified. Regarding "having form, formless": Question: Why are dharmas such as form and formless listed? Answer: Precisely this form is the objective condition; seeking this form is impossible, and therefore there is no objective condition, yet it does not lack the principle of the objective condition. Now it is simply clarified that the objective condition is precisely the non-existence of the objective condition. If there were no objective condition, how could one say that the objective condition is empty? Just saying that form is empty, how could it be that it is only empty when there is no form? If upon hearing "form" one arbitrarily places it in conventional truth, and upon hearing "emptiness" places it in ultimate truth, this would mean the empty is self-empty and the non-empty is self-non-empty, which would be the two views of annihilation and permanence. Now it is simply that what exists does not exist, yet how could there be non-existence? It simply clarifies that what is empty is not empty, yet how could there be non-emptiness? Therefore we know that emptiness and existence are non-dual, merely refuting one-sided attachments to definite existence and definite non-existence; hence it says neither existent nor non-existent. The Tattvasiddhi has fourteen kinds of form: the five sense faculties, five dust-fields, and four great elements. The Sarvāstivādins have eleven kinds of form, meaning the five sense faculties, five dust-fields, and avijñapti-rūpa. The formless refers to the mind and unconditioned dharmas, collectively termed the formless. Regarding "with shape, shapeless": that which has shape must be form, but form does not necessarily have shape. Therefore the Sarvāstivādins have three kinds of form: first, visible and resistant form, namely blue, yellow, and so on; second, invisible and resistant form, meaning the five sense faculties and so on; third, invisible and non-resistant form, meaning avijñapti-rūpa. Among the three kinds of form, the visible and resistant is that with shape, and the remainder are shapeless. Regarding "defiled (sāsrava)": the Sarvāstivādins have the fetter of grasping and the fetter of mental association, which are termed defiled; being free from these two fetters is termed "undefiled (anāsrava)." The treatise masters say the signless mind is called undefiled, and the sign-grasping mind is called defiled. Regarding "conditioned and unconditioned": that which is delimited by the three characteristics is called conditioned; that which lacks the three characteristics is called unconditioned. "Entering into the Dharma-nature, all are empty": this is second, clarifying the non-existence of the objective condition. Question: Since there is entering the Dharma-nature, there should be exiting the Dharma-nature. Answer: There are two meanings. Spoken in terms of two approaches, they are called exiting and entering: spoken in terms of the differentiated approach, it is called exiting; spoken in terms of the non-differentiated approach, it is called entering. Second, exiting and entering are clarified in terms of delusion and awakening: because of delusion it is called exiting, and because of awakening it is called entering. Because of delusion it is called exiting, yet in reality there is nowhere exited; because of awakening it is called entering, yet in reality there is nowhere entered. Thus the Avataṃsaka states: "All sentient beings enter, yet in reality there is nowhere entered." Likewise, all sentient beings exit, yet in reality there is nowhere exited. Question: Who is a person who exits the Dharma-nature? Answer: Such as the Sarvāstivādins who distinguish determinate characteristics of form and the formless—they are precisely people who exit the Dharma-nature. "Signless and non-grasping": signless means without a grasped object; non-grasping means without a grasper. From "Just as all the various streams" downward is second, the explanation by metaphor. Flowing from streams into the ocean, the ocean is the ocean of streams; emerging from the ocean into streams, streams are streams of the ocean. There is no ocean distinct from streams, and no streams distinct from the ocean. If there were an ocean distinct from streams, the ocean would not be the ocean of streams; if there were streams distinct from the ocean, the streams would not be streams of the ocean. From "The real Dharma is trustworthy" downward is second, resolving doubts. The doubt is: that there is an objective condition was taught by the Buddha, and that there is no objective condition was also taught by the Buddha—why use non-existence to refute existence? Therefore it explains: the absence of the objective condition is the real teaching, while the presence of the objective condition is an adapted teaching suited to capacity; therefore non-existence is used to refute existence. Question: Why clarify expedient and real in connection with this verse? Answer: This verse has two meanings: first, citing the correct to refute the heterodox; second, presenting the real to reveal the expedient. Since the verse says "the real and subtle Dharma," one knows that there are expedient teachings suited to capacity. From "Therefore there is no objective condition" downward is third, concluding the refutation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.35) - [Next: 3.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.37) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.3.36) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.36) · Pramāṇa