[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) › [法界圖記叢髓錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b) › 2.50 # 法界圖記叢髓錄 2.50 法界圖記叢髓錄 2.50 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.2.50) 大記云：第五問答中，問意則前問答中但明緣起無性與本不異，不現其本與末不異，故欲現此義，起此問也。答中先總答其義。若為者，牒問。所證在言下，廣答。此廣答中，并現前中別不別之義，於中有二：先明教證中道，後亦可正說下現正義正說無二中道。此正義正說者，一云：正義內證，正說外化也。然正義則一乘，正說則三乘也。諸法實相不在言中者，問：以言為義，則言是中道，何云實相不在言耶？答：言義究竟之處，言正是義，即是中道，故云不在言也，在機益故。名無真性者，非是牒上不在真性為無真性，約無自性之實故云無真性也，離名性故。名而無名下，牒現諸法實相不在言中之義。名無真性故下，牒現言說之法不在真性之義也。 > The Great Record says: In the fifth question-and-answer, the intention of the question is that the previous question-and-answer only clarified that pratītyasamutpāda without nature is not different from the root, but did not reveal that the root is not different from the branch; thus, wishing to reveal this meaning, it raises this question. In the answer, it first answers its meaning in general. 'If so' takes up the question. From 'What is realized lies in words' downward is the extensive answer. In this extensive answer, it also reveals the previous meaning of distinct and not distinct, within which there are two parts: first it clarifies the Middle Way of teaching and realization, and next, from 'It can also be correctly spoken' downward, it reveals the Middle Way of non-duality of correct meaning and correct speech. Regarding this correct meaning and correct speech, one \[master\] says: 'Correct meaning is internal realization, and correct speech is external transformation. Furthermore, correct meaning is the One Vehicle, and correct speech is the three vehicles.' Regarding 'the true mark of all phenomena does not lie within words': Question: 'If words are taken as meaning, then words are the Middle Way; why say that the true mark does not lie within words?' Answer: 'At the ultimate point of words and meaning, words are precisely meaning, which is the Middle Way; therefore it says they do not lie within words, because they lie in benefiting capacities.' Regarding 'names have no true nature': this is not taking up the above 'not lying within the true nature' to mean having no true nature; it is in terms of the reality of having no self-nature that it is called having no true nature, because it is separated from the nature of names. From 'names are without names' downward takes up and reveals the meaning that the true mark of all phenomena does not lie within words. From 'because names have no true nature' downward takes up and reveals the meaning that the phenomena of verbal expression do not lie within the true nature. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.2.49) - [Next: 2.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.2.51) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b~en-mt.2.50) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.2.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.2.50) · Pramāṇa