[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) › [肇論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858) › 1.61 # 肇論 1.61 肇論 1.61 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.61) 無名曰：有餘、無餘者，蓋是涅槃之外稱，應物之假名耳；而存稱謂者封名，志器象者耽形。名也極於題目，形也盡於方圓；方圓有所不寫，題目有所不傳。焉可以名於無名，而形於無形者哉。難序云：「有餘、無餘者，信是權寂致教之本意，亦是如來隱顯之誠跡也。但未是玄寂絕言之幽致，又非至人環中之妙術耳。」子獨不聞正觀之說歟？維摩詰言：「我觀如來無始無終，六入已過、三界已出，不在方、不離方，非有為、非無為，不可以識識、不可以智知，無言無說，心行處滅。以此觀者，乃名正觀；以他觀者。非見佛也。」《放光》云：「佛如虛空，無去無來，應緣而現，無有方所。」然則聖人之在天下也，寂莫虛無，無執無競，導而弗先，感而後應。譬猶幽谷之響、明鏡之像，對之弗知其所以來，隨之因識其所以往。恍焉而有，總焉而亡；動而逾寂，隱而彌彰；出幽入冥，變化無常。其為稱也，因應而作：顯迹為生，息迹為滅；生名有餘，滅名無餘。然則有無之稱本乎無名，無名之道於何不名？是以至人居方而方，止圓而圓，在天而天，處人而人。原夫能天能人者，豈天人之所能哉！果以非天非人，故能天能人耳。其為治也，故應而不為，因而不施。因而不施，故施莫之廣；應而不為，故為莫之大。為莫之大，故乃返於小成；施莫之廣，故乃歸乎無名。經曰：「菩提之道，不可圖度。高而無上，廣不可極；淵而無下，深不可測；大包天地，細入無間。」故謂之道。然則涅槃之道，不可以有無得之，明矣。而惑者覩神變，因謂之有；見滅度，便謂之無。有無之境，妄想之域，豈足以標榜玄道而語聖心者乎？意謂，至人寂怕無兆，隱顯同源，存不為有，亡不為無。何則？佛言：「吾無生不生，雖生不生；無形不形，雖形不形。」以知存不為有。經云：「菩薩入無盡三昧，盡見過去滅度諸佛。」又云：「入於涅槃而不般涅槃。」以知亡不為無。亡不為無，雖無而有；存不為有，雖有而無。雖有而無，故所謂非有；雖無而有，故所謂非無。然則涅槃之道，果出有無之域，絕言象之徑。斷矣！子乃云：「聖人患於有身，故滅身以歸無；勞勤莫先於有智，故絕智以淪虛。」無乃乖乎神極、傷於玄旨者也。經曰：「法身無象，應物而形；般若無知，對緣而照。」萬機頓赴而不撓其神，千難殊對而不干其慮，動若行雲，止猶谷神。豈有心於彼此、情係於動靜者乎？既無心於動靜，亦無象於去來。去來不以象，故無器而不形；動靜不以心，故無感而不應。然則心生於有心，象出於有象。象非我出，故金石流而不燋；心非我生，故日用而不動。紜紜自彼，於我何為？所以智周萬物而不勞，形充八極而無患，益不可盈、損不可虧，寧復痾癘中逵，壽極雙樹，靈竭天棺，體盡焚燎者哉！而惑者居見聞之境，尋殊應之迹，秉執規矩而擬大方。欲以智勞至人、形患大聖，謂捨有入無，因以名之。豈謂採微言於聽表，拔玄根於虛壤者哉？ > The Nameless One said: "\[The designations\] 'with remainder' and 'without remainder' are merely external appellations for nirvāṇa, provisional names in response to things. Yet those who cling to appellations are bound by names, and those whose intent is set on vessels and forms are engrossed in physical shapes. Names are exhausted by designations, and forms are fully encompassed by the square and the circle; yet there are things that the square and the circle cannot delineate, and things that designations cannot convey. How, then, could one name the nameless, or give form to the formless? Your objection's preface states: '"With remainder" and "without remainder" are truly the original intention in presenting the teaching through provisional quiescence, and are indeed the genuine traces of the Tathāgata's concealing and revealing. But they are not yet the profound purport of mysterious quiescence that transcends words, nor are they the wondrous art of the ultimate man who abides at the center of the ring.' Have you alone not heard the explanation of correct contemplation? Vimalakīrti said: 'I contemplate the Tathāgata as having neither beginning nor end, having passed beyond the six sense entrances, having transcended the three realms of existence, neither situated in any quarter nor separated from any quarter, neither saṃskṛta nor asaṃskṛta, impossible to know through consciousness, impossible to know through wisdom, beyond words and explanations, where the path of the mind's activity is extinguished. Contemplating in this way is named correct contemplation; contemplating otherwise is not seeing the Buddha.' The Fangguang jing says: 'The Buddha is like empty space, with neither coming nor going; appearing in response to conditions, he has no fixed place.' Thus, the sage's presence in the world is serene and empty, without grasping and without contention, guiding without taking precedence, responding only after being stimulated. It is like an echo in a deep valley or a reflection in a clear mirror: facing it, one does not know where it comes from; following it, one cannot discern where it goes. Indistinctly it is present, and suddenly it is gone; moving, it becomes ever more quiescent; concealing, it becomes ever more manifest; emerging from obscurity and entering darkness, its transformations are without constancy. Its appellations are produced according to response: making traces manifest is called birth; setting traces at rest is called cessation. Birth is named 'with remainder'; cessation is named 'without remainder.' Thus, the appellations 'being' and 'non-being' are rooted in the nameless; and where does the way of the nameless not acquire a name? Therefore, the ultimate man is square when dwelling among the square, round when stopping among the round, a god among gods, and a man among men. If one examines the origin of his ability to be a god or to be a man, how could it be what gods or men are capable of? It is precisely because he is neither god nor man that he can be a god and be a man. In his governance, he responds without acting and accords without initiating. Because he accords without initiating, no bestowal is broader than his; because he responds without acting, no deed is greater than his. Because no deed is greater, he returns to small accomplishment; because no bestowal is broader, he returns to the nameless. The sūtra says: 'The path of bodhi cannot be measured. High, it has nothing above it; wide, it cannot be bounded; deep, it has no bottom; profound, it cannot be fathomed; vastly, it embraces heaven and earth; minutely, it enters where there is no space between.' Hence it is called the Path. Thus it is clear that the path of nirvāṇa cannot be apprehended through being or non-being. Yet the confused, seeing miraculous transformations, therefore call it 'being'; seeing parinirvāṇa, they thereupon call it 'non-being.' The realms of being and non-being are domains of delusive ideation; how could they suffice to designate the mysterious path or speak of the sage's mind? In my view, the ultimate man is quiescent and without omen; concealment and manifestation share a single source: \[his\] presence is not being, and \[his\] demise is not non-being. Why is this? The Buddha said: 'I do not fail to give birth to anything that is born, yet though born I am unborn; I do not fail to give form to anything that has form, yet though formed I am formless.' By this we know that presence is not being. The sūtra says: 'The bodhisattva enters the inexhaustible samādhi and sees all past parinirvāṇa buddhas.' It also says: 'He enters nirvāṇa yet does not enter parinirvāṇa.' By this we know that demise is not non-being. Since demise is not non-being, though non-being, it is being; since presence is not being, though being, it is non-being. Because though being, it is non-being, it is called 'not being'; because though non-being, it is being, it is called 'not non-being.' Thus, the path of nirvāṇa truly transcends the domain of being and non-being and cuts off the paths of words and images. That is conclusive! Yet you say: 'The sage suffers from having a body, and therefore destroys the body to return to nothingness; of toilsome labors none surpasses having wisdom, and therefore he cuts off wisdom to sink into emptiness.' Is this not at variance with the spiritual culmination and detrimental to the mysterious purport? The sūtra says: 'The dharmakāya has no image, but takes form in response to things; prajñā has no knowing, but illuminates when facing conditions.' Even if the myriad affairs arrive at once, they do not perturb his spirit; even if a thousand distinct difficulties are confronted, they do not disturb his thoughts. Moving, he is like floating clouds; at rest, he is like the spirit of the valley. How could he have any intention regarding this or that, or have feelings attached to motion and rest? Since he has no mind regarding motion and rest, he also has no image of coming and going. Because coming and going are not through images, there is no vessel he does not take form in; because motion and rest are not through intentional mind, there is no stimulus he does not respond to. Thus, mind arises from having an intentional mind, and images emerge from having an objective image. Since images do not emerge from me, gold and stone may melt without my burning; since mind does not arise from me, it operates daily without moving. The bustle is entirely on their side; what does it have to do with me? Therefore, wisdom encompasses the myriad things without toil, and the body fills the eight extremities without suffering; it cannot be augmented to overflow, nor diminished to incur loss. How could he ever suffer pestilence in the midst of the road, end his lifespan between the twin trees, exhaust his spirit in the celestial coffin, or have his body consumed in flames? Yet the confused, abiding in the realm of seeing and hearing, seek after the traces of different responses and grasp compass and square to measure the Great Square. Wishing to burden the ultimate man with wisdom and afflict the great sage with a body, they say he abandons being and enters non-being, and name him accordingly. How could this be called gleaning subtle words beyond hearing, or pulling up the mysterious root from the soil of emptiness?" > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.60) - [Next: 1.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.62) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858~en-mt.1.61) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.81.10) — Classical Chinese - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.91.9) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.61) · Pramāṇa