[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) › [廣弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103) › 21.15 # 廣弘明集 21.15 廣弘明集 21.15 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [21.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.21.15) 丹陽尹晉安王蕭綱諮曰。解旨依人為辨有生不生。未審浮虛之與不生。只是一體為當有異。令旨答曰。凡情所見見其起動。聖人所見見其不生。依仁為論乃是異體。若語相即則不成異。具如向釋不復多論。又諮。若真不異俗。俗不異真。豈得俗人所見生法為體。聖人所見不生為體。令旨答。即俗知真。即真見俗。就此為談自成無異。約人辨見自有生不生殊。又諮。未審俗諦之體既云浮幻。何得於真實之中見此浮幻。令旨答。真實之體自無浮幻。惑者橫構。謂之為有。無傷真實體自虛玄。又諮。聖人所見見不流動。凡夫所見自見流動。既流不流異。愚謂不得為一。令旨答。不謂流不流各是一體。正言凡夫於不流之中橫見此流。以是為論可得成一。又諮。真寂之體本自不流。凡夫見流不離真體。然則但有一真不成二諦。令旨答。體恒相即理不得異。但凡見浮虛聖覩真寂。約彼凡聖可得立二諦名。 > Xiao Gang, Prince of Jin'an and Governor of Danyang, inquired: "The explanation in the decree distinguishes having arising and non-arising with reference to persons. I do not yet know: are the unreal and empty and the non-arising merely of one essence, or are they distinct?" > The imperial decree answered: "What ordinary sentiments see, they see its movement and arising; what the sages see, they see its non-arising. Discoursing with reference to persons, they are indeed distinct essences. But if speaking of their mutual identity, they do not constitute difference. It is fully as explained before; I will not discourse on it at length." > \[Xiao Gang\] also inquired: "If the ultimate is not distinct from the conventional, and the conventional is not distinct from the ultimate, how can what conventional persons see have arising dharmas as its essence, while what sages see has non-arising as its essence?" > The imperial decree answered: "Identical to the conventional, one knows the ultimate; identical to the ultimate, one sees the conventional. Discoursing on this basis, they are of themselves non-distinct. Distinguishing views in terms of persons, there are naturally the distinctions of arising and non-arising." > \[Xiao Gang\] also inquired: "I do not yet know: since the essence of conventional truth is said to be illusory, how can one see this illusion within the true and real?" > The imperial decree answered: "The essence of the true and real of itself has no illusion. The deluded perversely construct it and call it existent. It does no harm to the true and real, whose essence of itself is void and profound." > \[Xiao Gang\] also inquired: "What the sages see, they see as not fluctuating; what ordinary beings see, they of themselves see as fluctuating. Since fluctuating and not fluctuating are different, in my foolish opinion they cannot be one." > The imperial decree answered: "I do not say that fluctuating and not fluctuating are each a distinct essence. It is precisely that ordinary beings, within what does not fluctuate, perversely see this fluctuation. Discoursing on this basis, they can be established as one." > \[Xiao Gang\] also inquired: "The essence of the truly quiescent is originally not fluctuating. That ordinary beings see fluctuation does not depart from the essence of the ultimate. If so, then there is only one ultimate and two truths are not established." > The imperial decree answered: "The essences are ever mutually identical; in principle they cannot be distinct. Yet ordinary beings see the unreal and empty, while sages behold the truly quiescent. With reference to those ordinary beings and sages, the names of two truths may be established." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 21.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.21.14) - [Next: 21.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.21.16) - [Up: 21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.21) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103~en-mt.21.15) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.21.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.21.15) · Pramāṇa