[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) › [華嚴五十要問答](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869) › 2.14 # 華嚴五十要問答 2.14 華嚴五十要問答 2.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869.2.14) 初列名字并教興意者，謂初四尋思：一名，謂能詮教法；二義，謂所詮之義；三自性，謂名義之體能；四差別，謂名義相形，及對諸法相別不同故名差別。六尋思者，分其名義各有自性及差別，故有六也。三尋思者，合其名義、自性及差別，則為三也。教興意者，問：何故立四尋思？答：為中根人有其二見，一和合見、二差別見。和合見者，謂義與名和合成一。差別見者，謂義與名各有自性，有能相應而體不同也。聖者立教對治彼病，興四尋思開初名義。對治前差別見，合彼自性及差別義，對治相應成一之見。問：凡言對治，障治須別。外人立一能治之法，則界分別成其多法，顯一是假，及彰無等。因何今說開名義二以治差別？有何道理？答：若對外道及三乘見，不依論道則如來嘖。今此尋思是菩薩自觀，通對一切外道二乘及菩薩，或順論道，故興此治。所以知者，如界分別，分破合假及自性見則違論道。何以故？合假自性是緣聚法，及是成法界分別等，乃是壞法。成壞不同，賴緣各別，故不相治。是以文中興其觀門，分齊少別，如下具說，宜可思之。六尋思者，為治差別見，即為利根人。三尋思者，對治和合及一見等，為軟根人。何故？差別見者是見行故，和合一見者是愛行故也。 > First, listing the names and the intent behind the arising of the teachings: As for the initial four thorough inquiries: first, name, which refers to the teaching that expresses; second, referent, which refers to the meaning that is expressed; third, intrinsic nature, which refers to the substantial capacity of name and referent; fourth, distinction, which refers to the mutual comparison of name and referent, and their differing distinctions in relation to the characteristics of dharmas, hence called distinction. The six thorough inquiries divide name and referent into each having intrinsic nature and distinction, and therefore there are six. The three thorough inquiries combine name, referent, intrinsic nature, and distinction, thus making three. As for the intent behind the arising of the teachings: Question: Why are four thorough inquiries established? Answer: Because people of intermediate faculties have two kinds of views: first, the view of integration; second, the view of distinction. The view of integration means that referent and name integrate into one. The view of distinction means that referent and name each have intrinsic nature, possessing the capacity to correspond while their substances are distinct. The sages established teachings to counter those afflictions, giving rise to the four thorough inquiries to open up the initial name and referent. To counter the former view of distinction, they combined those meanings of intrinsic nature and distinction to counter the view of corresponding and becoming one. Question: In general, when speaking of antidotes, the obstacle and the antidote must be distinct. When non-Buddhists establish a single antidotal dharma, through the distinction of realms it forms multiple dharmas, revealing that the one is nominal, and demonstrating non-existence, and so forth. Why is it now said that opening up the two of name and referent remedies distinction? What is the reasoning? Answer: If confronted with the views of non-Buddhists and the triyāna, not relying on the methods of treatises would incur the Tathāgata's reproach. Now, these thorough inquiries are the bodhisattva's own contemplation, universally countering all non-Buddhists, two vehicles, and bodhisattvas, or conforming to the methods of treatises; hence this remedy arises. How is this known? If, like distinguishing realms, one analyzes and destroys integrated nominality and the view of intrinsic nature, this contradicts the method of the treatises. Why is this? Integrated nominality and intrinsic nature are dharmas assembled through conditions, and are constituent dharmas; the distinction of realms and so forth, rather, are destructive dharmas. Completion and destruction are not the same, and they rely on conditions distinctly; therefore they do not remedy each other. For this reason, the contemplation gates arising in the text have slightly different scopes, as explained fully below, and should be considered accordingly. The six thorough inquiries remedy the view of distinction, namely for persons of sharp faculties. The three thorough inquiries remedy integration and the view of oneness and so forth, for persons of dull faculties. Why? Because the view of distinction is an action of view, while the view of integration and oneness is an action of attachment. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869.2.13) - [Next: 2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869.2.15) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869~en-mt.2.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869.2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1869.2.14) · Pramāṇa