[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) › [大乘玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853) › 2.9 # 大乘玄論 2.9 大乘玄論 2.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.2.9) 第六料簡不有有也。若了單複諸句，則解不有有義。若不了單複，不有有亦難解，故須廣辨也。此意望兩大經宗明之：一經無所有為宗，故經云「正法寶城善有。」一經有所無為宗，故《大品》第三卷〈相行品〉云「身子白佛云：『諸法實相云何？』佛言：『諸法無所有如是有，如是無所有。是事不知名為無明也。』」不有有若相對而解釋，有十六意也。第一不有有者，明其道非有非無，而結為有，故言不有有也。然只結正道為有，不論其用，體無二相故。若結為有，不得結為無，結為無，不得結為有。此是結獨義。只道非有復非無，非是有而結為有，故言不有有也。約不無無，類然也。第二不有有，就假上明之。三假有是，不有有也。他假有是有故有，今假有是不有有也。第三不有有者，道非有非無，而側出有一用，故言不有有。然道非有非無，而起用應雙起，而但起一用，故言側出也。不無無亦然也。第四不有有者，明用假有非是有，故言不有。結用歸體，體是有故，今言不有有也。此異前約體上言不有有，亦異第三體不有是有而起一有用，此但以不特名用，用不是有而體是有故，言不有有也。不無無類之。第五不有有者，為破有執故。執者謂有是有，不知不有為有故。今破者，明有非有故，有乃是不有有。此是以有破有，但能破是不有有，所破是有有也。約不無無，類也。第六不有有者，為破無執，執法是無，今以不有有破之。若以有有破無，此乃是敵義，故執不去。今以不有有破無，無而得去，故言不有有也。不無無亦爾也。第七不有有者，破一切有。若有有、若不有有，皆以不特不之，故言不有，而起一切有用，若有有、若不有有為用故，合言不有有也。不無無亦類也，以不特不一切無，故言不無，而起一切無為用故，合不無無也。第八不有有者，重進明義。明不有則不一切有一切無，合空故言不有，而起一切有一切無為用故，合言不有有。不無無亦爾也，不無以不於一切有無故言不無，而起一切有無，故言不無無。然起一切有無用，此用應是有，何得言是無？然今望本為言，此有無起不有無，故此有無故是無也。又從他所起皆無體，故是無也。第九不有有者，橫門明義。不有自有，以無為有，故言不有有。然以無為有故，是以不有為有，故言不有有。不無無亦類也，以有為無，故言不無無也。第十不有有者，只以不特不此有有之，故言不有有。異前合用不有有破有有，亦異前以不特一切有合無，以起一切有無，故言不有有。今但單用一不特不此有有之執，令盡而不令起，故言不有有也。不無無亦爾也。第十一不有有者，合明具八意。何者為八意？一不有有屬非有、一不有有屬非無、一不有有屬非亦有亦無、一不有有屬非非有非非無、一不有有屬有、一不有有屬無、一不有有屬亦有亦無、一不有有屬非有非無。何者？初言不有有，豈可是有？非是有故，屬非有也。第二不有有不是無，故屬非無。第三不有有既不是有無，故不屬亦有亦無，故言屬非亦有亦無。第四不有有不屬非有無，故言屬非非有非非無。然不有有廼當屬有無二句，豈是非有無？故言非非有非非無也。第五不有有屬有者，以不有為有，豈不是有耶？第六不有有屬無者，只以不有為有，此望本故是無也。第七不有有屬亦有亦無者，既雙明不有有，豈不是亦有亦無耶？第八不有有屬非有非無者，不有有不名有，不有有不名無，故名非有非無。故此一章門中合明八意，正為八意相次第，故不煩離明。而前十章不可合說，故離辨也。不無無亦如是也。第十二明不有有兼用者，不有有故離斷過。何者？若不有不復有，可是斷；而今不有有，故離斷過。亦離常過者，若以有為有，可是常過；而今只不有為有，故離常過。如是一異有無是非即離等過皆勉也。不無無亦爾也。第十三不有有若攝諸法者，不有有攝得因得果一切法等，故言不有有也。不無無亦然也。第十四不有有類諸法者，不有有既具上十意八意及相益相攝等，不因因、不果果。如是不常常、不生生等，雖一法皆具上意，故可謂是一中解無量、無量中解一。如是展轉生非，實智者即無所畏也。第十五不有有得失意者，如經試問，答言：諸法不有，有即為得，即具五義：一得不二義、二得不自假名義、三得相待義、四得無所得空義、五得中道義也。若答者言諸法是有為有者，即失五義，故不有有判道非道義也。不無無亦類也。第十六不有有離門明義者，向合言不有有，今有時復須單言不有，有時應須單言有也。今此中單言不有者，此為欲明有義。何者？我以不不此有，不以不此無，故不有得是有也。若以不不於無，可令是無。而今以不不有故，只不有是有，事如小乘明義，色即是好，不可此色非好也，故得不有是有義。得此義故，聞破不畏、得訶不瞋等也。次得言有反成破有義。何者？我本破有故言有，如世人不耐惡而言惡，此惡之言豈不令除此惡？今有亦然，我不耐此有故言有，豈不破此耶？又直言有，不說有因緣，故是破有義。單言無亦然。次單言有則是中道，不得言有非方是中道也。何者？直言有，此非是非有，亦是有有。此有既非是是有，復非非有，豈非是中道乎？又有上自有是非，我直言有，不言其是復不言非，故此有即離是非，故是中道。若有雖離是非而有此有，故非中道者，汝中道雖離有無而有此中，故得是中道者，何妨我有離是非故得是中道耶？且自我直言有，亦不言有此有，知無此有，故言是中道。單無亦然。次單明有具足一切諸法。何者？此有是無所有故。若有所無，即失一切法；今是無所有名有，故具足一切法也。單言無亦然，但是無所得故言無，此無豈不具足一切法耶？次釋性空意者，然有無所以得有諸法，意無礙者，正由有性空故爾。今須釋性空。亦是多意，但辨八意也。一者明本性是空，但遇緣故有，有止還本性，故言性空也。二者明本性是空，而末是假有，如是意故性空也。三者本性常空，無有不空時，故言性空也。四者明只因緣諸法是空，故言性空也。五者破性有得此空，故言性空也。六者破無性法，此法明止空有性，故言性空也。七者明無所有法性是空，故言性空也。八者有所無法性空，故言性空也。今略明八意異相，而大意無異，但是一性空。如是諸法性空，隨義便用。用一即度之，須得意如空中織羅紋也。性空既爾，畢竟亦然。次明因性空辨得失待不待義也。失此性空故失，失不待得。得性空故為得，得即待失。何者？正為得失反故。失既失得，故失不待得；得者得於失，故得待失。此分際義也。第一須得意，最急事也。如中道絕假故不待假，假不絕故假待中也。次辨歛開意。然得失由歛開，故須釋也。但歛開自有橫竪判、自有二望取也。橫開為能、竪即斂。菩薩習行諸行，望道即是自行是斂；若望眾生，即是化他亦是能，但不化他時，是化他只自行即是化他。如是不有有，有病藥相治、去留成壞、理內外、有得無得、反順等種種用，不可具列也。大意如此也。問：既有不有有多種勢者，有不有亦多種勢不？答：亦得。假有還結有不有也。又假有不有，表理結體也。餘例可尋也。 > Sixth, examining \[the phrase\] "not-being being" (不有有). If one understands the various propositions of single and complex, one then understands the meaning of "not-being being." If one does not understand the single and complex, "not-being being" is also difficult to understand; hence it must be analyzed extensively. This meaning is explained in relation to the main tenets of two great sūtras: one sūtra takes "having no existence" as its tenet, thus a sūtra says: "The jewel-city of the True Dharma is well-existent." One sūtra takes "existing what is absent" as its tenet, thus the \*Dapin \[bore jing\]\*, fascicle 3, "Chapter on Practice of Signs," says: "Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: 'How is the true mark of all phenomena existent?' The Buddha said: 'All phenomena have no existence, yet are thus existent; being thus, they have no existence. Not knowing this matter is called ignorance.'" If "not-being being" is explained from correlative perspectives, there are sixteen meanings. > > The first \[meaning of\] "not-being being": this clarifies that the Way is neither existent nor non-existent, yet it concludes as existent; hence it is called "not-being being." However, this only concludes that the correct Way is existent, without discussing its function, because its substance has no dual marks. If it is concluded as existent, it cannot be concluded as non-existent; if concluded as non-existent, it cannot be concluded as existent. This is concluding a single exclusive sense. It merely says \[the Way\] is neither existent nor non-existent, not that it is existent, yet it concludes as existent; hence it is called "not-being being." Regarding "not-non-being non-being" (不無無), it is analogous. > > The second \[meaning of\] "not-being being": it is clarified in terms of the conventional. The conventional existence of the three conventionals is precisely "not-being being." Other \[schools'\] conventional existence is existent because of being existent; our present conventional existence is "not-being being." > > The third \[meaning of\] "not-being being": the Way is neither existent nor non-existent, yet sideways it produces a single existent function; hence it is called "not-being being." Now, the Way is neither existent nor non-existent, and when arising function, it ought to arise both \[existence and non-existence\] together; yet it only arises a single function; hence it is called "sideways-produced." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this. > > The fourth \[meaning of\] "not-being being": this clarifies that the conventional existence of function is not \[real\] existence; hence it is called "not-being." Concluding the function to return to substance, because substance is existent, now it is called "not-being being." This is different from the previous speaking of "not-being being" in terms of substance, and also different from the third where the substance of not-being is existent and arises an existent function; this merely uses "not" uniquely to designate function, and because function is not existent while substance is existent, it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is analogous to this. > > The fifth \[meaning of\] "not-being being": it is for the sake of refuting the attachment to existence. Those who are attached claim that existence is existence, not knowing that not-being is existence. Now, the refutation clarifies that existence is non-existence; hence existence is rather "not-being being." This is using existence to refute existence; however, that which can refute is "not-being being," and that which is refuted is "existent existence" (有有). Regarding "not-non-being non-being," it is analogous. > > The sixth \[meaning of\] "not-being being": it is for the sake of refuting the attachment to non-existence. They grasp phenomena as non-existent, and now we refute it with "not-being being." If one were to refute non-existence with "existent existence," this would be an opposing thesis, so the attachment would not be removed. Now, refuting non-existence with "not-being being," non-existence can be removed; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this. > > The seventh \[meaning of\] "not-being being": refuting all existence. Whether it is "existent existence" or "not-being being," all are negated uniquely with "not," hence it is called "not-being"; yet arising all existent functions, taking whether "existent existence" or "not-being being" as function, together it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also analogous: negating all non-existence uniquely with "not," it is called "not-non-being"; yet arising all non-existence as function, together it is "not-non-being non-being." > > The eighth \[meaning of\] "not-being being": advancing further to clarify the meaning. It clarifies that "not-being" negates all existence and all non-existence, uniting with emptiness; hence it is called "not-being"; yet arising all existence and all non-existence as function, together it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this: "not-non-being" negates all existence and non-existence with "not," hence it is called "not-non-being"; yet arising all existence and non-existence, it is called "not-non-being non-being." However, arising all existent and non-existent functions, this function ought to be existent—how can it be said to be non-existent? Now, speaking in reference to the root: this existence and non-existence arises \[from\] neither-existence-nor-non-existence; therefore this existence and non-existence is precisely non-existent. Furthermore, whatever arises from another is devoid of substance, so it is non-existent. > > The ninth \[meaning of\] "not-being being": clarifying the meaning through the horizontal gate. Not-being is intrinsically existent; taking non-existence as existence, it is therefore called "not-being being." Since it takes non-existence as existence, it takes not-being as existence; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also analogous: taking existence as non-existence, it is called "not-non-being non-being." > > The tenth \[meaning of\] "not-being being": merely negating this grasping of "existent existence" uniquely with "not," it is called "not-being being." This is different from previously combining the use of "not-being being" to refute "existent existence," and also different from previously negating all existence uniquely with "not" to unite with non-existence so as to arise all existence and non-existence, calling it "not-being being." Now it merely employs a single "not" uniquely to negate this grasping of "existent existence," causing it to be exhausted without letting it arise; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this. > > The eleventh \[meaning of\] "not-being being": combined, it clarifies eight complete senses. What are the eight senses? 1. "Not-being being" pertains to non-existence; 2. "Not-being being" pertains to non-non-existence; 3. "Not-being being" pertains to neither-both-existence-nor-non-existence; 4. "Not-being being" pertains to neither-neither-existence-nor-non-existence; 5. "Not-being being" pertains to existence; 6. "Not-being being" pertains to non-existence; 7. "Not-being being" pertains to both existence and non-existence; 8. "Not-being being" pertains to neither existence nor non-existence. Why? First, as it says "not-being being," how could it be existence? Because it is not existence, it pertains to non-existence. Second, "not-being being" is not non-existence, so it pertains to non-non-existence. Third, since "not-being being" is neither existence nor non-existence, it does not pertain to both existence and non-existence; hence it is said to pertain to neither-both-existence-nor-non-existence. Fourth, "not-being being" does not pertain to neither existence nor non-existence; hence it is said to pertain to neither-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. Yet "not-being being" ought to pertain to the two propositions of existence and non-existence—how could it be neither existence nor non-existence? Hence it is said to be neither-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. Fifth, "not-being being" pertains to existence: taking not-being as existence, how is it not existence? Sixth, "not-being being" pertains to non-existence: merely taking not-being as existence, viewed from the root, it is precisely non-existence. Seventh, "not-being being" pertains to both existence and non-existence: since it clarifies both not-being and being together, how is it not both existence and non-existence? Eighth, "not-being being" pertains to neither existence nor non-existence: "not-being being" is not named existence, and "not-being being" is not named non-existence; hence it is named neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, within this single section, eight senses are clarified together; precisely because the eight senses follow a sequence, there is no need to clarify them separately. The previous ten sections, however, could not be stated together, so they were distinguished separately. "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this. > > The twelfth \[meaning\], clarifying the concurrent function of "not-being being": because of "not-being being," it is free from the fault of annihilationism. Why? If there were not-being and no further being, that might be annihilationism; but now there is not-being being, so it is free from the fault of annihilationism. It is also free from the fault of eternalism: if one took existence as existence, that might be the fault of eternalism; but now one merely takes not-being as existence, so it is free from the fault of eternalism. In this way, faults such as identity and difference, existence and non-existence, right and wrong, contact and separation, are all avoided. "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this. > > The thirteenth \[meaning\], "not-being being" as subsuming all phenomena: "not-being being" subsumes attainment of causes, attainment of results, and all phenomena; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this. > > The fourteenth \[meaning\], "not-being being" analogized to all phenomena: since "not-being being" possesses the above ten senses, eight senses, mutual benefit, mutual subsumption, etc., so too does "not-cause cause" and "not-result result." In this way, "not-permanent permanent," "not-arising arising," etc.—though a single phenomenon, each possesses the above meanings; therefore it can be said that within one, one understands the immeasurable, and within the immeasurable, one understands the one. When errors arise in succession in this way, one with true gnosis is fearless. > > The fifteenth \[meaning\], the sense of gain and loss in "not-being being": as when tested with a question in the sūtra, answering: "All phenomena are not-being, being" constitutes gain, and immediately possesses five meanings: 1. gaining the meaning of non-duality; 2. gaining the meaning of conventional designation not from itself; 3. gaining the meaning of mutual relativity; 4. gaining the meaning of the emptiness of non-attainment; 5. gaining the meaning of the Middle Way. If the respondent says that all phenomena are existent as existent, they immediately lose the five meanings; hence "not-being being" judges the meaning of the Way and what is not the Way. "Not-non-being non-being" is also analogous. > > The sixteenth \[meaning\], clarifying the meaning of "not-being being" through the separate gate: previously we spoke of "not-being being" combined; now at times one must simply state "not-being" alone, and at times one must simply state "being" alone. Now here, simply stating "not-being" alone: this is done to clarify the meaning of being. Why? Because I negate this existence with "not," and do not negate this non-existence with "not"; hence not-being comes to be existence. If one negated non-existence with "not," it could be made into non-existence. But now, because of negating existence with "not," not-being is simply existence. This matter is like the explanation in the Hīnayāna: form is simply good, and it cannot be that this form is not good; hence one obtains the meaning that not-being is existence. Obtaining this meaning, hearing of refutation one is not terrified, receiving rebuke one is not angry, and so on. Next, stating "being" conversely becomes the meaning of refuting being. Why? I originally state "being" in order to refute being; just as people in the world cannot tolerate evil and so speak of "evil"—does not this word "evil" cause that evil to be eliminated? Now with "being" it is also like this: I cannot tolerate this being and so speak of "being"—does this not refute it? Furthermore, simply stating "being" without speaking of the dependent co-arising of being is precisely the meaning of refuting being. Stating "non-being" alone is also like this. Next, stating "being" alone is precisely the Middle Way; it cannot be said that only being-not-being is the Middle Way. Why? Simply stating "being": this is not non-being, nor is it existent existence. Since this being is neither existent existence nor non-being, is it not the Middle Way? Furthermore, upon being there naturally exists right and wrong; I simply state "being," neither stating its right nor stating its wrong; hence this being is free from right and wrong, and therefore is the Middle Way. If \[one objects that\] although being is free from right and wrong, there is still this being, so it is not the Middle Way—if your Middle Way, although free from existence and non-existence, has this middle and can thereby be the Middle Way, what prevents my being, being free from right and wrong, from thereby being the Middle Way? Moreover, since I simply state "being," and also do not say that there is this being, knowing that there is no such being, it is therefore said to be the Middle Way. Non-being alone is also like this. Next, explaining "being" alone is complete with all phenomena. Why? Because this being is devoid of existence. If it were existing what is absent, it would lose all phenomena; now, because having no existence is named being, it is complete with all phenomena. Stating "non-being" alone is also like this: it is merely non-attainment, hence it is called non-being; does this non-being not complete all phenomena? > > Next, explaining the meaning of intrinsic emptiness: now, the reason why existence and non-existence can have all phenomena with unobstructed intention is precisely due to the presence of intrinsic emptiness; hence one must now explain intrinsic emptiness. It also has many senses, but we distinguish only eight senses: 1. Clarifying that the original nature is empty, but due to encountering conditions it is existent; when existence ceases it returns to the original nature; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 2. Clarifying that the original nature is empty, while the branch is conventional existence; due to such a sense, it is intrinsic emptiness. 3. The original nature is constantly empty, with no time when it is not empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 4. Clarifying that dependently arisen phenomena are themselves empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 5. Refuting intrinsic existence to attain this emptiness; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 6. Refuting phenomena devoid of nature: this phenomenon clarifies merely that existence-nature is empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 7. Clarifying that phenomena having no existence are empty in their nature; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 8. The nature of phenomena of existing what is absent is empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. Now we briefly clarify the different marks of these eight senses, yet the great intent is not different; it is merely one intrinsic emptiness. As such, the intrinsic emptiness of all phenomena is used according to convenience of meaning. Using one, one crosses over; one must grasp the intent, like weaving gauze patterns in empty space. Intrinsic emptiness being like this, ultimate \[emptiness\] is also like this. > > Next, clarifying the meaning of gain and loss, relativity and non-relativity, on the basis of intrinsic emptiness: losing this intrinsic emptiness is therefore loss; loss is not relative to gain. Gaining intrinsic emptiness is therefore gain; gain is relative to loss. Why? Precisely because gain and loss are opposites. Since loss loses gain, loss is not relative to gain; as for gain, it gains upon loss, so gain is relative to loss. This is the meaning of distinction. Foremost, one must grasp the intent, which is the most urgent matter. Just as the Middle Way cuts off the conventional, so it is not relative to the conventional; the conventional does not cut off \[the Middle Way\], so the conventional is relative to the middle. > > Next, distinguishing the meaning of contraction and expansion. Since gain and loss stem from contraction and expansion, they must be explained. But contraction and expansion naturally have horizontal and vertical distinctions, and naturally have two perspectives from which they are taken: horizontal expansion is capacity, vertical is contraction. When a bodhisattva practices the various practices, looking toward the Way, it is self-cultivation, which is contraction; looking toward sentient beings, it is converting others, which is capacity. However, when not converting others, that is converting others; merely self-cultivation is itself converting others. In this way, "not-being being" has various functions—disease and medicine counteracting each other, discarding and retaining, establishing and demolishing, inside and outside principle, having attainment and non-attainment, contrary and accordant—which cannot be enumerated fully. The general intent is like this. > > Question: Since "not-being being" has many kinds of momentum, does "being not-being" (有不有) also have many kinds of momentum? > Answer: That is also possible. Conventional existence also concludes as "being not-being." Furthermore, "conventional existence is not-being" expresses the principle and concludes the substance. The remaining analogies may be inferred. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.2.8) - [Next: 2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.2.10) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853~en-mt.2.9) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大智度論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.pancavimsatisahasrika!mahaprajnaparamitopadesa*zh-kumarajiva.43.135) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.2.9) · Pramāṇa