[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) › [大乘入道次第](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864) › 1.44 # 大乘入道次第 1.44 大乘入道次第 1.44 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.44) 問：法門一軌，適絕躊躇。教轍分岐，履焉不惑！且夫《阿含》至教，擯我法留。《般若》幽筌，無非若幻。《華嚴》一切心起，法性不亡。《涅槃》四德無為，我體照立。有無紛亂，人法交馳，使乎弱喪歸方何路？若存乎法我，外道之藉足依；觸類皆空，日親之典徒習。豈可擿空華為瓔珞，堰焰水為華池者哉？法類於斯，諸何可効？一切靡作，十行徒施。鉾楯斯存，物疑那遣？答：法體無異，應感有差。文雖不同，理實何別？良以有情無始執我不無，初折彼迷，說我非有。二乘由是計我為無，妄執離心而有實法。復除其病，總說為空。如來說空，空心外法。有情不悟，執一切空。空病既增，理當除遣。故《華嚴》說三界唯心，《涅槃》乃陳無為我淨。言心內有，空病因除；說境外無，有疾便盪。既殊外道，誠堪所依。又不全空，十行須習。 > Question: If the Dharma-gate had a single track, one would instantly cut off hesitation. But when the ruts of teaching branch into paths, how can one tread them without perplexity? Now, the supreme teachings of the Āgamas reject the self while retaining dharmas; the profound snare of the Prajñā\[-pāramitā\] regards everything as nothing but an illusion; the Avataṃsaka asserts that all arises from mind while dharma-nature does not perish; and the Nirvāṇa reveals the four virtues as unconditioned, with the substance of the self brilliantly established. Existence and non-existence are thrown into chaos, and person and dharma contend together—how can the lost child find a road back home? If a self of dharmas is preserved, it gives footing to the heterodox outsiders; if every category is empty, the scriptures of the Sun's Kinsman are studied in vain. How could one pluck flowers in the sky to make a necklace, or dam up mirage-water to make a lotus pond? With teachings categorized like this, what can be emulated? If nothing is done, the ten practices are applied in vain. If contradictions persist like this, how can the doubts of beings be dispelled? Answer: The essence of the Dharma is without difference, but responses to capacities differ. Although the texts are not the same, in their actual principle what difference is there? Truly, because sentient beings from beginningless time have grasped the self as not non-existent, to first break their delusion it was taught that the self does not exist. The two vehicles therefore regarded the self as non-existent, but falsely grasped real dharmas apart from the mind. Again, to remove their sickness, it was taught generally as empty. When the Tathāgata spoke of emptiness, it was to empty dharmas outside the mind. Sentient beings, not understanding, grasped everything as empty. Since the sickness of emptiness increased, principle demanded its dispelling. Therefore the Avataṃsaka states that the triple world is mind-only, and the Nirvāṇa then sets forth the unconditioned self and purity. By stating that the internal mind exists, the sickness of emptiness is thereby removed; by stating that external objects do not exist, the disease of existence is straightaway wiped away. Since this differs from the heterodox outsiders, it is truly worthy of reliance. Furthermore, because things are not entirely empty, the ten practices must be cultivated. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.43) - [Next: 1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.45) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864~en-mt.1.44) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.44) · Pramāṇa