[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) › [肇論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859) › 1.27 # 肇論疏 1.27 肇論疏 1.27 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.27) 論文有四：第一、明本無實相宗；第二、明非有非無宗；第三、明漚和般若宗；第四、明泥洹盡諦宗。第一明本無實相宗，為〈物不遷論〉之宗本。第二明非有非無宗，為〈不真空論〉之宗本。第三明漚和般若宗，為〈般若無知論〉之宗本。第四明泥洹盡諦宗，為〈涅槃無名論〉之宗本。今云本無等者，有人云：會釋五家義也。竺法汰作《本無論》、什法師作《實相論》、遠法師作《法性論》、安法師作《性空論》、于道邃作《緣會二諦論》，今會此五家，故云一義耳。此非釋也。何者？若今會竺法汰《本無論》者，何故〈不真空論〉初彈本無義耶。又且遠法師作《法性論》，自問云：性空是法性乎？答曰：非。性空者即所空而為名，法性是法真性，非空名也。今何得會為一耶？復有人言：支法詳作《實相論》，今會此論。此釋彌復不然。支法詳不見什法師，承來至關中乃作書問什法師門人釋慧儀實相義，慧儀報答，名此為實相論。此並是肇法師同時人，才學又在肇法師下，寧肯會釋此人所作論耶？必不然也。今直云此五家是經論中大義，有人謂同、有人謂異，肇法師今會之為一，不言異也。又本無等四為真、緣會為俗，今會此真俗二諦不異也。言本無者，如《維摩經》云：無我無造無受者，善惡之業亦不忘。此本無義也。《仁王經》云：有本自無因緣成法。此亦本無義也。《中論》云：若使無有有，云何當有無？有無既已無，知有無者誰？又云：諸法不可得，滅一切戲論；無人亦無處，佛亦無所說。此亦本無義也。言實相者，如《維摩經》云：如自觀身實相，觀佛亦然。我觀如來，前際不來、後際不去、今則不住，不觀色、不觀色如、不觀色性。此實相義也。《中論》云：諸法實相者，心行言語斷，無生又無滅，寂滅如涅槃。此亦實相義也。言法性者，如《大品經》云：法性法住法位實際，有佛無佛法性相常住。此法性義也。《勝天王般若》第三卷有〈法性品〉，廣明法性不可思議。此性即諸佛法本，功德智慧因之而生也。《中論》云：如來所有性，即是世間性；如來無有性，世間亦無性。此亦法性義也。言性空者，如《涅槃經》云：一切諸法性本自空，亦因菩薩修空故空。此性空義也。《中論》云：如是性空中，思惟亦不可，如來滅度後，分別於有無。此亦性空義也。言緣會者，《維摩經》云：說法不有亦不無，以因緣故諸法生。此緣會義也。《中論》云：未曾有一法，不從因緣生；是故一切法，無不是空者。此亦緣會義也。如此五義，經論大宗，以理會之，一而無異，故云一義耳。又《涅槃》及《仁王經》皆明二諦一體，今明此五義唯是二諦，然此二諦一體無別，故云一義。雖有兩釋，前為正釋也。何則下，此論凡云何，則是假問之辭也。一切諸法緣會而生者，前標列其義先標本無，今會釋五義先論緣會，逐便故也。性常自空故謂之性空者，此有三讀：一者性常自空故謂之性空為句也。二者性常自空故謂之性空法性為句也。三者性常自空故謂之性空法性實相為句也。三讀之中前為勝。今依前讀，即以性常自空名為性空也。法性如是故曰實相者，性空即是法性，此性即是實相也。實相自無非推之使無者，諸法自無名為實相，非是推遣令無也。 > The text of the treatise has four parts: first, clarifying the doctrine of original non-being and the dharmatā; second, clarifying the doctrine of neither existence nor non-existence; third, clarifying the doctrine of upāya and prajñā; fourth, clarifying the doctrine of the cessation-truth of nirvāṇa. The first, clarifying the doctrine of original non-being and the dharmatā, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Wu buqian lun". The second, clarifying the doctrine of neither existence nor non-existence, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Buzhenkong lun". The third, clarifying the doctrine of upāya and prajñā, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Bore wuzhi lun". The fourth, clarifying the doctrine of the cessation-truth of nirvāṇa, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Niepan wuming lun". Now, regarding the words "original non-being", etc., someone says: "This integrates and explains the doctrines of the five houses. Zhu Fatai composed the Benwu lun; Master Kumārajīva composed the Shixiang lun; Master Huiyuan composed the Faxing lun; Master Dao'an composed the Xingkong lun; Yu Daosui composed the Yuanhui erdi lun. Now he integrates these five houses; hence he says they are 'just a single meaning'." This is not the explanation. Why? If it were now integrating Zhu Fatai's Benwu lun, why would the beginning of the "Buzhenkong lun" criticize the doctrine of original non-being? Furthermore, when Master Huiyuan composed the Faxing lun, he asked himself: "Is prakṛti-śūnyatā the Dharma-nature?" and replied: "No. Prakṛti-śūnyatā takes its name from that which is emptied; Dharma-nature is the true nature of dharmas, not the name for emptiness." How could they now be integrated into one? Someone else says: "Zhi Faxiang composed a Shixiang lun, and it is this treatise that is now being integrated." This explanation is even less correct. Zhi Faxiang never met Master Kumārajīva; having learned of him, he went to Guanzhong and wrote a letter asking Master Kumārajīva's disciple Shi Huiyi about the meaning of the dharmatā. Huiyi sent a reply, and this was titled Shixiang lun. These were all contemporaries of Master Sengzhao, and their talents and learning were beneath Master Sengzhao's; would he really integrate and explain treatises composed by such people? Certainly not. We now simply say that these five are great doctrines found within the sūtras and treatises: some considered them identical, while others considered them different; Master Sengzhao now integrates them into one, declaring they are not different. Furthermore, the four starting with original non-being constitute the absolute \[truth\], while the confluence of conditions constitutes the conventional \[truth\]; he now integrates these two truths, absolute and conventional, as not different. As for the term "original non-being", it is as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "There is no self, no maker, and no receiver of retribution; yet good and bad deeds are never lost." This is the meaning of original non-being. The Renwang jing says: "Existence is fundamentally from non-existence; through causes and conditions dharmas are formed." This too is the meaning of original non-being. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "If existence does not exist, how could there be non-existence? Since both existence and non-existence already do not exist, who is it that knows existence and non-existence?" It also says: "All dharmas cannot be apprehended, extinguishing all conceptual elaboration; there is no person and no place, and the Buddha has taught nothing." This too is the meaning of original non-being. As for the term "dharmatā", it is as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Just as I contemplate the dharmatā of my own body, I contemplate the Buddha likewise. I contemplate the Tathāgata: he does not come from the prior limit, does not go to the posterior limit, and now does not abide in the present; I do not contemplate form, do not contemplate the suchness of form, and do not contemplate the nature of form." This is the meaning of the dharmatā. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The dharmatā of all dharmas is that the movements of mind and words are severed; without arising and without cessation, quiescent like nirvāṇa." This too is the meaning of the dharmatā. As for the term "Dharma-nature", it is as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "The Dharma-nature, the Dharma-abode, the Dharma-realm, and the limit of reality: whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics of dharmas constantly abide." This is the meaning of Dharma-nature. Fascicle three of the Shengtianwang bore has a "Dharma-nature Chapter", which broadly clarifies that the Dharma-nature is inconceivable. This nature is the root of the dharmas of all Buddhas, through which merit and wisdom are produced. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The nature possessed by the Tathāgata is the very nature of the world; the Tathāgata has no nature, and the world likewise has no nature." This too is the meaning of Dharma-nature. As for the term "prakṛti-śūnyatā", it is as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The nature of all dharmas is fundamentally empty of itself, and it is also empty because bodhisattvas cultivate emptiness." This is the meaning of prakṛti-śūnyatā. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Within such prakṛti-śūnyatā, even conceptual thinking is impossible; after the Tathāgata enters cessation, to differentiate existence and non-existence \[is inadmissible\]." This too is the meaning of prakṛti-śūnyatā. As for the term "confluence of conditions", the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Teaching the Dharma as neither existing nor not existing; dharmas arise because of causes and conditions." This is the meaning of the confluence of conditions. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, of all dharmas, there is none that is not empty." This too is the meaning of the confluence of conditions. These five meanings are the great themes of the sūtras and treatises; when integrated through principle, they are one and without difference; hence he says they are "just a single meaning". Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa and Renwang sūtras both clarify that the two truths are of one essence; now, clarifying that these five meanings are exclusively the two truths, and yet these two truths are of one essence without distinction, he therefore says they are "a single meaning". Although there are two explanations, the former is the orthodox one. Below, "Why is this?": throughout this treatise, wherever it says "Why is this?", it is a hypothetical question. As for "All dharmas arise from the confluence of conditions": when setting out the meanings previously, he first set out original non-being; now, in integrating and explaining the five meanings, he discusses the confluence of conditions first, merely following convenience. As for "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā": there are three punctuations here. The first is taking "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā" as the sentence. The second is taking "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā and Dharma-nature" as the sentence. The third is taking "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā, Dharma-nature, and dharmatā" as the sentence. Among the three readings, the first is superior. We now follow the first reading: namely, that being constantly empty of itself by nature is called prakṛti-śūnyatā. As for "The Dharma-nature being thus, it is called dharmatā": prakṛti-śūnyatā is precisely the Dharma-nature, and this nature is precisely the dharmatā. As for "The dharmatā is naturally non-existent, not made non-existent by deductive reasoning": dharmas are naturally non-existent, which is called the dharmatā; it is not that deductive reasoning banishes them to make them non-existent. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.26) - [Next: 1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.28) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859~en-mt.1.27) — 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.1736.30.31) — Classical Chinese - [大般涅槃經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.mahaparinirvana-mahayana*zh-t375.24.42) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.27) · Pramāṇa