[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) › [華嚴一乘教義分齊章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866) › 4.8 # 華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.8 華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.4.8) 依他性者，問：「依他是有耶？」答：「不也，緣起無性故。」問：「依他是無耶？」答：「不也，無性緣起故。」問：「亦有亦無耶？」答：「不也，無二性故。」問：「非有非無耶？」答：「不也，有多義門故。」又問：「有耶？」答：「不也，緣起故。何以故？以諸緣起皆無性故。」問：「無耶？」答：「不也，無性故。何以故？以無性故，成緣起也。」餘二句可知。又以緣起雖於四句，又以無性故亦離四句，並可知矣。又問：「依他有耶？」答：「不也，約觀遣故。」問：「無耶？」答：「不也，能現無生故。」下二句離相違故，離戲論故可知。又問：「有耶？」答：「不也，異圓成故，又約遍計分故，又離所謂故。」問：「無耶？」答：「不也，異遍計故，以圓成分故，又智境故。」餘句準之。 > Regarding the other-dependent nature: Question: "Is the other-dependent existent?" Answer: "No, because it is dependently originated and without nature." Question: "Is the other-dependent nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is dependent origination that lacks a nature." Question: "Is it both existent and nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it lacks a dual nature." Question: "Is it neither existent nor nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it possesses multiple approaches of meaning." Again, question: "Is it existent?" Answer: "No, because of dependent origination. Why is that? Because all dependent originations are without nature." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is without nature. Why is that? Because being without nature, it constitutes dependent origination." The remaining two phrases can be understood \[accordingly\]. Furthermore, because dependent origination \[transcends\] the four phrases, and also because being without nature it is also free from the four phrases, all of this can be understood. Again, question: "Is the other-dependent existent?" Answer: "No, because it is eliminated according to contemplation." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it can manifest non-arising." The lower two phrases can be understood because they are free from contradiction and free from conceptual proliferation. Again, question: "Is it existent?" Answer: "No, because it is different from the fully perfected, and also in terms of the parikalpita fraction, and also because it is free from what is referred to \[by words\]." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is different from the imagined, because of the fully perfected fraction, and also because it is an object of gnosis." The remaining phrases correspond to this. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.4.7) - [Next: 4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.4.9) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866~en-mt.4.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.4.8) · Pramāṇa