[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) › 1.29 # 肇論疏 1.29 肇論疏 1.29 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.29) 第二、明非有非無宗，為〈不真空論〉之宗本也。言者，謂經論所言也。《大品經》云：色非空非不空，受想行識非空非不空。《涅槃經》云：佛性非真如虛空，非無如兔角。《中論》云：定有則著常，定無則著斷，是故有智者，不應著有無。今通釋經論此語。所言不有者，不如有見常見之有；而言不無者，不如邪見斷見無，故云爾耳。有見者，謂有所得見也。邪見者，謂無所得見也。常見者猶是有見，斷見者猶是邪見也。又有見者謂有我見也，常見者謂身是常也，邪見者謂無我見也，斷見者謂身是無常也。《中論》云：我於過去世，為有為是無？世間常等見，皆依過去世。我於未來世，為作為不作？有邊等諸見，皆依未來世也。亦可此中通以計萬法定有為有、定無為無，有則是常、無則為斷也。若以有為有則以無為無者，有若定是有，無則定是無也。有既不有，則無無也。有本有重「無」字，有本但有一「無」字。若有兩「無」字，則此句已足，言有既非有、言無亦非無也。若唯有一「無」字，則此句遣有，後方始遣無。今以重「無」字為正也。夫不存無以觀法者下，前既雙遣有無，今更覆疏兩義。今此句覆疏無無句也。是為雖觀有而無所取相者，此句覆疏無有句也。不存無以觀法，則無非無也；觀有而不取相，則有非有也，非有非無是為中道矣。然則法相為無相之相者，此謂實相法也。無有法相名為無相，以此無相為相故名實相也。聖人之心為住無所住者，此謂般若也。安住無為名之為住，住無所住故名無住也。三乘等觀性空而得道者，前云有既不有、無亦不無，皆是性空之妙理，三乘聖人同觀此理而後成道也。《涅槃經》云：觀十二因緣智慧，凡有四種：一者下、二者中、三者上、四者上上。下智聲聞、中智緣覺、上智菩薩、上上智是佛。開佛及菩薩，故有四種；合佛及菩薩，則有三種。然此三人同觀因緣性空，故得成三乘道果也。《金剛般若經》云：一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。此之謂矣。性空者諸法實相者，諸法性空，此是真實之理，故名實相也。見法實相故為正觀下，見空為正，見有為邪也。設二乘不見此理則顛倒者，有本作「故」字，非也。設，謂假設。假令二乘不見性空，則是顛倒；而今見空，故非顛倒也。是以三乘觀法無異下，既云非倒，而有三乘之異者，為心有大小、智有淺深故也。 > Second, clarifying the doctrine of neither existence nor non-existence, which serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Buzhenkong lun". "Speaking of" refers to what is spoken in the sūtras and treatises. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "Form is neither empty nor non-empty; feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are neither empty nor non-empty." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Buddha-nature is not real like space, nor non-existent like a hare's horn." The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Determinate existence clings to permanence; determinate non-existence clings to annihilationism. Therefore, the wise should not cling to existence or non-existence." Now he comprehensively explains these statements in the sūtras and treatises. That which is spoken of as "not existing" is not the existence of the view of existence and the view of permanence; and that which is spoken of as "not non-existing" is not the non-existence of wrong views and annihilationist views. Hence he speaks thus. The "view of existence" refers to the view that involves apprehension. The "wrong view" refers to the view of non-apprehension. The view of permanence is simply the view of existence; the view of annihilation is simply the wrong view. Furthermore, the view of existence means the view that there is a self; the view of permanence means that the body is permanent; the wrong view means the view that there is no self; the view of annihilation means that the body is impermanent. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "In past ages, did I exist or did I not exist? Views such as the world being eternal all rely on past ages. In future ages, will I act or will I not act? Views such as the finite and infinite all rely on future ages." Alternatively, one may broadly take calculating the myriad dharmas as determinately existent to be "existence", and determinately non-existent to be "non-existence"; existence is permanence, and non-existence is annihilation. As for "If one takes existence to be existence, one then takes non-existence to be non-existence": if existence were determinately existent, non-existence would determinately be non-existence. "Since existence is not existence, non-existence is not non-existence." Some editions have a repeated character "wu" (non-existence), while others have only a single "wu". If there are two "wu" characters, then this clause is already complete, meaning that existence is already not existence, and non-existence is also not non-existence. If there is only a single "wu" character, then this clause negates existence, and only afterward negates non-existence. We now take the repeated character "wu" as correct. Below, from "Now, one who does not retain non-existence in contemplating dharmas": having previously refuted both existence and non-existence together, he now reiterates and comments on the two meanings. The present clause reiterates and comments on the clause "non-existence is not non-existence". As for "This is to contemplate existence without grasping at signs": this clause reiterates and comments on the clause "existence is not existence". If one does not retain non-existence in contemplating dharmas, then non-existence is not non-existence; if one contemplates existence without grasping at signs, then existence is not existence. Neither existence nor non-existence—this is the Middle Way. As for "Thus the characteristic of dharmas is the mark of signlessness": this refers to the dharma of the dharmatā. Being devoid of the characteristics of dharmas is called signlessness; taking this signlessness as their mark, they are called the dharmatā. As for "The mind of the sage abides without anywhere to abide": this refers to prajñā. Peaceful abiding in the unconditioned is called "abiding"; abiding where there is nowhere to abide, it is called "non-abiding". As for "The three vehicles equally contemplate prakṛti-śūnyatā and attain the Way": previously he said that existence is already not existence and non-existence is also not non-existence; these are all the wondrous principle of prakṛti-śūnyatā. The sages of the three vehicles together contemplate this principle and subsequently achieve the Way. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Wisdom contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination has four kinds in all: first, inferior; second, middling; third, superior; fourth, supreme. Inferior wisdom belongs to śrāvakas, middling wisdom belongs to pratyekabuddhas, superior wisdom belongs to bodhisattvas, and supreme wisdom belongs to Buddhas." When opening the Buddha and bodhisattvas \[apart\], there are four kinds; when combining the Buddha and bodhisattvas, there are three kinds. Thus these three kinds of persons together contemplate the prakṛti-śūnyatā of causes and conditions, and therefore achieve the fruits of the Way of the three vehicles. The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "All worthy ones and sages are distinguished by the unconditioned dharma." This is what it refers to. As for "Prakṛti-śūnyatā is the dharmatā of all dharmas": the prakṛti-śūnyatā of all dharmas is the true and real principle; therefore it is called the dharmatā. Below, from "Seeing the dharmatā of dharmas is therefore right contemplation": seeing emptiness is right, and seeing existence is wrong. As for "If the two vehicles did not see this principle, they would be inverted": some editions have the character 'gu' (therefore), which is incorrect. "She" means hypothetical. If hypothetically the two vehicles did not see prakṛti-śūnyatā, they would be inverted; but now they see emptiness, and therefore are not inverted. Below, from "Therefore the three vehicles have no difference in their contemplation of dharmas": having said they are not inverted, that there are nonetheless differences among the three vehicles is because their minds have great and small, and their wisdom has shallow and deep. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.28) - [Next: 1.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.30) - [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.1.29) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.29) · Pramāṇa