[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) › [十二門論宗致義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826) › 1.15 # 十二門論宗致義記 1.15 十二門論宗致義記 1.15 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826.1.15) 問：如此二說，有和會不？答：有師說不可和會，亦不須強會，以此則是大乘之中諸部不同，致有違諍。如小乘中諸羅漢等異部不通，菩薩異部當知亦爾，故不可怪。良以佛法極甚深故，通其異諍各有教理，義自極成故不可會。今更重釋：無不可會，以理自通故。何者？謂若不破依他幻有令至不有，彼遍計執不永盡故，以此幻有是不有有故，若不受不有即是所執，是故破執欲令蕩盡，必至幻有不有之際；要破幻有令其永盡，方至所執不有之際。是故二說義不相違。又彼小乘是半字教，理義不盡，容有異諍；大乘滿教義理周備，豈亦同彼而有分部？又諸羅漢不得諸法一味法界，法執相應起見造論，故有相違。如入地菩薩通達諸法中道實相，豈亦同彼執見相違？是故龍猛及無著等諸大論主不相違者，是良證也。 > Question: Can these two views be harmonized? Answer: Some masters say they cannot be harmonized, nor is there any need to force a harmony, because these represent different schools within the Mahāyāna, which gives rise to dispute. Just as among the arhats in the Hīnayāna the different schools did not communicate, one should know that it is the same with the different schools of bodhisattvas; thus it is not strange. Truly, because the Buddha Dharma is exceedingly profound, each \[view\] has its scriptures and reasoning to account for their differences, and their meanings are inherently well-established; therefore they cannot be harmonized. Now, to explain further: they are by no means incapable of being harmonized, because the principles are intrinsically congruent. How so? If one does not refute the illusory existence of the paratantra so as to bring it to non-existence, then that parikalpita attachment will not be eternally exhausted. This is because this illusory existence is an existence that is non-existent; if one does not accept its non-existence, it is precisely what is attached to. Therefore, when refuting attachment with the intention of sweeping it away completely, one must arrive at the juncture where illusory existence is non-existent; and it is only when one necessarily refutes illusory existence to exhaust it eternally that one reaches the juncture where what is attached to is non-existent. Hence the meanings of the two views do not contradict each other. Furthermore, that Hīnayāna is the half-letter teaching, whose principles and meanings are not exhaustive, so differences and disputes may arise; but the Mahāyāna is the complete teaching, possessing fully comprehensive principles and meanings—how could it likewise have sectarian divisions like them? Moreover, the arhats had not attained the one-taste dharmadhātu of all dharmas; grasping at dharmas, they generated views and composed treatises, which is why there were contradictions. But how could bodhisattvas who have entered the bhūmis and fully penetrated the true mark of the middle way of all dharmas likewise contradict one another with grasping views like them? Therefore, that great treatise masters such as Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga do not contradict each other is fine proof of this. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826.1.14) - [Next: 1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826.1.16) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826~en-mt.1.15) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826.1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1826.1.15) · Pramāṇa