[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) › [起信論疏筆削記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848) › 7.32 # 起信論疏筆削記 7.32 起信論疏筆削記 7.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.32) 論　當知下，二、四句：初、有無四句。疏離妄有者，謂人執有故言非有，若無所執，約何言非？妄有之言攝一切相。惑者下，為不了非有之言是遣情執之有，却認法體是無。今此釋云：上但以非，非汝執有，不道此法便是於無，故云非無。雙非是真法者，將謂真如是非有、是非無，故破云：非非有相、非非無相。此皆上非字是能治之藥，下三字是所治之病。釋云下，細詳可解。此中前後四箇謂字，前二箇中，上是計謂之謂，下是言謂之謂，後二例之。還立等者，執第一第二句同時有無相，並為真如也。非許雙是等者，我若單言非非，則從汝雙執有相無相。我以兩非和，非有相、非無相一時非却，何以迷倒，雙執有無？故今論云：非有無俱相。俱相者，即有無同時也，今皆非却。 > Śāstra: "One should know..." below: second, the four propositions; first, the four propositions on existence and non-existence. Commentary: "Free from false existence": because people cling to existence, it is said to be "not existent"; if there were nothing clung to, based on what could one speak of "not"? The words "false existence" subsume all marks. "Deluded ones..." below: because they do not understand that the words "not existent" dismiss the existence of sentimental clinging, they instead assume that the dharma-essence is non-existent. Now this explains: above, it only used "not" to negate your clinging to existence, not saying that this dharma is itself non-existent; hence it says "not non-existent". "Both negations are the true dharma": thinking that tathatā is non-existence and non-non-existence, it is therefore refuted: "not the mark of non-existence, not the mark of non-non-existence". In all these, the upper character "not" is the medicine that cures, and the lower three characters are the disease that is cured. "The explanation says..." below: can be understood through careful examination. Among the four occurrences of the word "deem" before and after this: in the first two, the upper is the "deem" of conceptual estimation, and the lower is the "deem" of verbal expression; the latter two are analogized to this. "Further positing..." and so forth: clinging to the first and second propositions as simultaneously having the marks of existence and non-existence, both being tathatā. "Not admitting that both are..." and so forth: if I merely said "not-not", you would be allowed to double-cling to the marks of existence and non-existence. But I use two negations together, negating the mark of existence and the mark of non-existence simultaneously—why be confused and upside-down, double-clinging to both existence and non-existence? Therefore the śāstra now says: "not the mark of both existence and non-existence together". "Mark of both": namely, the simultaneity of existence and non-existence; now both are negated. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.31) - [Next: 7.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.33) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848~en-mt.7.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1848.7.32) · Pramāṇa