肇論新疏 1.234

1.234

釋此有二：一通、二局。通者，名相二法該盡俗諦，然性各異，互推無在，顯兩虛也。初句物不在於名中，以名非物，故召火不燒其口。次句名不在於物中，以物非名故，見物不知其名。應知因物立名、以名名物，俗假施設竟不相到，故不能互顯其真實，如火以熱為實等。局者，但屬此論。名謂名教，相謂義相。所以空者，方便安立各無自性，能所詮異故不即。就論意雖通，其旨實局。以下云「真諦獨靜於名教之外」，故為此釋。

There are two explanations of this: first, general; second, specific. As for the general: the two dharmas of names and appearances exhaust the conventional truth; yet their natures are distinct, and investigating them mutually reveals no abiding place, demonstrating the emptiness of both. In the first line, the thing does not reside in the name; because the name is not the thing, calling 'fire' does not burn the mouth. In the second line, the name does not reside in the thing; because the thing is not the name, seeing a thing one does not know its name. One should know that establishing names based on things and naming things with names are conventional provisional designations that ultimately never reach each other; therefore, they cannot mutually reveal their reality, as fire has heat as its reality, and so forth. As for the specific: it pertains solely to this treatise. 'Name' refers to verbal teachings; 'appearance' refers to semantic marks. The reason they are empty is that expediently established, each lacks self-nature; because the expressive and the expressed differ, they are not identical. In terms of the treatise's meaning, although it is general, its purport is actually specific. Because it says below, 'The ultimate truth stands solitary and quiescent outside verbal teachings,' this explanation is made.