<!-- Pramāṇa, a library of Indian primary sources · https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.425 -->

[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) › [肇論新疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860) › 2.425

# 肇論新疏 2.425

肇論新疏 2.425

- **Language:** Classical Chinese

### [2.425](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.425)

此有二義：一遺民依言求理、二論主依言答難。今皆遣之，一令妄言會旨、二顯言即無言。初二句，雙明過患所由，由於言象。異途，謂異執宗途也。而言下二句，有二義：一言象本空故、二聖心本絕故。是以下，承前正示。文甚隱奧，具云「善言言者，當言言所不能言之言」，謂理非言到，故云言所不能言。寄言顯理，故云當言。如經云「無說無示」，豈不說耶？又云「文字性離」豈取言耶？以遣言之言，談離言之理，方為言所不能言之言爾。迹可例說。

> Here there are two meanings: first, Liu Yimin relies on words to seek principle; second, the treatise master relies on words to answer difficulties. Now both are dispelled: first, to cause one to forget words and tally with the purport; second, to reveal that words are identical to non-words. The first two clauses mutually clarify that where the flaw arises is from words and images. "Divergent paths" refers to the doctrinal paths of differing attachments. The two clauses from "yet words" downward have two meanings: first, because words and images are fundamentally empty; second, because the sage mind is fundamentally severed. From "therefore" downward, it directly points out following the preceding. The text is very profound and abstruse; fully stated, it is: "Those who are skilled at speaking of words should speak the words that words cannot speak," meaning that principle is not reached by words, hence it is said "what words cannot speak." Words are borrowed to reveal principle, hence it says "should speak." As the sūtra says: "Without exposition and without indication"—could it be that there is no exposition? And it also says: "The nature of letters is detached"—could it be that words are grasped? Using words that dispel words to discourse on the principle that transcends words is precisely the words that words cannot speak. Traces can be explained by analogy.  
> — English (machine translation) (machine translation)

- [Previous: 2.424](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.424)
- [Next: 2.426](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.426)
- [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2)

## Translations (1)

- [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860~en-mt.2.425) — English, machine translation

---
Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.425](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.425) · Pramāṇa
