肇論 宗本義
宗本義以短章立四論之骨：一切法待緣而生、緣離則滅，若有固定自體便不應滅，故知現有而性常自空；性空、法性、實相、本無，是從緣會同一事實逐層所得的名稱。所謂不有不無，不是調和兩邊，而是不取常見的定有，也不取斷見的定無；觀有而不取相，觀法而不存斷無，聖心因而住無所住。三乘同觀性空，差別只在心量大小。般若觀空而不染，漚和涉有而不證，兩門在一念中相互具足。泥洹則只是煩惱結盡、生死永滅，不另有一個盡處。從本無實相到非有非無，從權慧相具到結盡無處，四論雖各自伸展，都從這一宗骨流出。
The Fundamental Thesis establishes, in a short chapter, the doctrinal backbone of the four treatises. All dharmas arise when conditions come together and cease when conditions disperse. If they possessed a fixed intrinsic entity, they should not cease; thus, although they presently appear, their nature has always been empty. Intrinsic-nature-emptiness, dharma-nature, true reality, and fundamental non-being are names reached step by step from this one fact of conditions coming together. Neither being nor non-being is not a compromise between two sides: it neither grasps the determinate being of a view of permanence nor the determinate non-being of an annihilationist view. One contemplates being without grasping a characteristic and contemplates dharmas without retaining annihilating non-being; the sage's mind thereby abides without anywhere fixed in which to abide. The three vehicles alike contemplate intrinsic-nature-emptiness, differing only in the measure of mind. Prajñā contemplates emptiness without being stained, while skillful means engages with being without taking realization as an immediately possessed fruit; within a single thought, each is present in the other. Nirvāṇa is simply the exhaustion of the afflictive bonds and the permanent ceasing of birth-and-death, not another place of exhaustion. From fundamental non-being and true reality to neither being nor non-being, from the mutual presence of prajñā and skillful means to the exhaustion of the bonds without a separate place, the four treatises unfold separately while all flowing from this one doctrinal backbone.
《肇論》一卷〈宗本義〉· 大正藏 T45n1858〔起 T45 0150c11〕。段/行首〔T45 …〕＝大正藏頁·欄·行錨。
〔T45 0150c11〕肇論 後秦長安釋僧肇作 宗本義 本無、實相、法性、性空、緣會，一義耳。何則？一切諸法，緣會而生。緣會而生，則未生無有，緣離則滅。如其真有，有則無滅。以此而推，故知雖今現有，有而性常自空。性常自空，故謂之性空。性空故，故曰法性。法性如是，故曰實相。實相自無，非推之使無，故名本無。言不有不無者，不如有見常見之有，邪見斷見之無耳。若以有為有，則以無為無。夫不存無以觀法者，可謂識法實相矣。雖觀有而無所取相，然則法相為無相之相，聖人之心為住無所住矣。三乘，等觀性空而得道也。性空者，謂諸法實相也。見法實相故云正觀，若其異者便為邪觀。設二乘不見此理，則顛倒也。是以三乘觀法無異，但心有大小為差耳。漚和般若者，大慧之稱也。諸法實相，謂之般若；能不形證，漚和功也。適化眾生，謂之漚和；不染塵累，般若力也。然則般若之門觀空，漚和之門涉有。涉有未始迷虛，故常處有而不染；不厭有而觀空，故觀空而不證。是謂一念之力權慧具矣。一念之力權慧具矣，好思，歷然可解。泥洹盡諦者，直結盡而已，則生死永滅，故謂盡耳；無復別有一盡處耳。
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
《肇論》，後秦長安釋僧肇作。
一、五個名稱，所說的是同一義理
本無、實相、法性、性空、緣會，這五個名稱所說的是同一義理。為什麼呢？一切事物和現象，都是各種條件聚合才生起的。既然由條件聚合而生，那麼在還沒有生起以前，它並不存在；條件一旦離散，它也就隨之消滅。假使它確實有一個固定真實的存在，既然真有，就不應當消滅。
由此推求便可知道：一切事物雖然現在顯現為有，它的本性卻一向是空的。因為本性一向是空，所以稱為性空。因為是性空，所以稱為法性。法性就是如此，所以稱為實相。實相本來就是無，並不是經過推求、排除以後，才被人弄成無；因為它本來如此，所以稱為本無。
二、不把有定成實有，也不把無定成斷無
經論所說的『不有不無』，意思是：這個『有』，不是有見、常見所執取的那種實有；這個『無』，也不是邪見、斷見所執取的那種斷無。如果一定把有認作固定的有，就會相對地把無也認作固定的無。
觀察一切法時，心中不保存一個斷滅的無，這樣才可以說是認識了諸法實相。雖然觀察眼前顯現的有，卻不從其中抓取一個固定的形相。如此說來，諸法的形相，是沒有固定形相的形相；聖人的心，則是安住而沒有任何固定的住處。
三、三乘同觀性空，差別在心量大小
聲聞、緣覺、菩薩三乘，同樣都是觀察性空而成就各自的道。所謂性空，就是一切法的實相。見到一切法的實相，才稱為正觀；如果所見與這一道理相異，便是邪觀。假使二乘沒有見到這一道理，他們的見解就應當是顛倒的。由此可知，三乘對一切法的觀察並沒有不同，只是心量有大有小，因此才有差別。
四、般若觀空，漚和涉有
漚和與般若，是大智慧的名稱。照見一切法實相，稱為般若；觀空而不立刻顯現取證，是漚和所成就的作用。前往教化眾生，稱為漚和；身在塵境而不受塵勞染著，是般若的力量。
因此，般若這一門觀察空，漚和這一門進入有的事相。雖然進入有的事相，卻從來不迷失空，所以常常身處有中而不受染著；雖然不厭離有的事相，仍然觀察空，所以觀空而不取證。這就是在一念之中，善巧運用與照見實相的智慧同時具足。這一句又重說一遍：在一念之中，這兩方面的智慧同時具足。好好思量，其中的層次便能清楚明白。
五、泥洹只是煩惱結盡，不另有一個盡處
所謂泥洹盡諦，只是煩惱的結使窮盡而已。結使既盡，生死便永遠息滅，所以稱為『盡』；並不是在生死之外，另外還有一個名叫『盡』的地方。
The Zhaolun, composed by Sengzhao of Chang'an under the Later Qin.
1. Five Names, One Meaning
Fundamental non-being, true reality, dharma-nature, being empty of intrinsic nature, and the coming-together of conditions: these five names express one and the same meaning. Why? All things and phenomena arise only when various conditions come together. Since they arise through the coming-together of conditions, they did not exist before they arose; once those conditions disperse, they cease accordingly. If they truly possessed a fixed and real existence, then, being truly existent, they should not cease.
From this we can know that although all things presently appear to exist, their nature has always been empty. Because their nature has always been empty, this is called being empty of intrinsic nature. Because they are empty of intrinsic nature, this is called dharma-nature. Because dharma-nature is just so, this is called true reality. True reality is fundamentally non-being; it is not made into non-being only after someone investigates and eliminates it. Because it is fundamentally so, it is called fundamental non-being.
2. Neither Fixing Being as Real Being nor Fixing Non-being as Annihilation
When the sūtras and treatises speak of neither being nor non-being, they mean that this "being" is not the real being grasped by views of existence and permanence, while this "non-being" is not the annihilating non-being grasped by wrong views and annihilationism. If being is fixed as an unchanging being, non-being will correspondingly be fixed as an unchanging non-being.
When contemplating all dharmas, one does not retain in the mind a non-being of annihilation; only then can one be said to know the true reality of all dharmas. Although one contemplates the being that presently appears, one does not grasp within it any fixed characteristic. Thus the characteristic of dharmas is a characteristic without any fixed characteristic, while the sage's mind abides without any fixed place in which to abide.
3. The Three Vehicles Alike Contemplate Intrinsic-nature-emptiness; Their Difference Lies in the Measure of Mind
The three vehicles—the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva—all contemplate intrinsic-nature-emptiness and thereby accomplish their respective paths. What is called intrinsic-nature-emptiness is the true reality of all dharmas. Seeing the true reality of all dharmas is called right contemplation; if what one sees differs from this principle, it is wrong contemplation. If the two vehicles did not see this principle, their view would have to be inverted. We therefore know that the three vehicles do not differ in what they contemplate in all dharmas. They differ only because their measures of mind are greater or smaller.
4. Prajñā Contemplates Emptiness; Skillful Means Engages with Being
Skillful means and prajñā are names for great wisdom. Illuminating the true reality of all dharmas is called prajñā. Contemplating emptiness without immediately manifesting the realization of its fruit is the function accomplished by skillful means. Going forth to teach and transform beings is called skillful means. Remaining amid sensory objects without being stained by their defilements is the power of prajñā.
Thus the gate of prajñā contemplates emptiness, while the gate of skillful means enters the affairs of being. Although one enters the affairs of being, one never loses sight of emptiness; therefore one constantly dwells amid being without being stained. Although one does not grow weary of the affairs of being, one still contemplates emptiness; therefore one contemplates emptiness without taking realization as an immediately possessed fruit. This is the simultaneous presence, within a single thought, of wisdom as skillful application and wisdom as the illumination of true reality. The text repeats the point: within a single thought, these two aspects of wisdom are present together. Consider it well, and its successive levels become clearly intelligible.
5. Nirvāṇa Is Simply the Exhaustion of the Afflictive Bonds, Not a Separate Place of Exhaustion
What is called the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa is simply the exhaustion of the afflictive bonds. Once those bonds are exhausted, birth-and-death ceases forever, and so this is called "exhaustion." It does not mean that somewhere apart from birth-and-death there is another place called "exhaustion."
經證先開：有與無，能不能各自定住？
一切法明明顯現，為何又說性空、本無？若因空便把眼前一切說成斷滅，因緣與業果便無從安立；若因顯現便認定有一個不變自體，又無法說明緣離則滅。《維摩詰所說經》把兩邊同時打開：「說法不有亦不無。以因緣故諸法生。」有不是固定的有，無也不是斷滅的無；法正因待緣而生，才不能被定在任何一邊。
〈宗本義〉於是先列五個名字：「本無、實相、法性、性空、緣會，一義耳。」問題不在五者能否排成一張名相表，而在如何沿著論主的推理，看見五名都指向同一件事。
為何先說本無，解釋時卻從緣會開始？
論文列名以本無居首，論證卻從緣會起步。這是因為，眼前最容易看見的是條件聚合而生、條件離散而滅。若一法真有固定自體，它便不應隨緣離而滅；既然會滅，就可知道它雖然現有，性卻常空。
元康指出：「前標列其義。先標本無。今會釋五義。先論緣會。逐便故也。」這條讀路要倒著走：由緣會而知性空，由性空而說法性，由法性如是而名實相，由實相本自無而名本無。五名不是五個彼此隔開的境界，而是同一事實從不同關節所得的名稱。
最容易誤讀的是本無。它不是說一件本來實有的東西，後來被觀空、推破，才終於變成沒有。論本明說：「實相自無，非推之使無，故名本無。」元康也緊跟著說：「諸法自無名為實相。非是推遣令無也。」所以，本無說的是實相本來如此，不是心用力把世界取消。
『不有不無』是在兩邊取一個折衷嗎？
若不有不無只是把有與無各削去一半，仍然沒有碰到論主所破的執取。論文先把兩邊說清楚：不有，不是有見、常見所認定的有；不無，不是邪見、斷見所認定的無。被遮遣的是定有與定無，不是因緣顯現，也不是性空之理。
因此，論主才接著說：「夫不存無以觀法者，可謂識法實相矣。」觀法時不在心中先存一個斷滅的無，才不會把空變成另一種可執取的東西。另一方面，雖然觀有，卻不取固定相。元康將兩面合起來：「不存無以觀法。則無非無也。觀有而不取相。則有非有也。」不住有，也不住無，正是『住無所住』的用心。
三乘同觀，差別究竟在哪裡？
論本說：「三乘，等觀性空而得道也。」若三乘所觀的性空各不相同，五名一義的宗骨便先在這裡裂開；若三乘全無差別，又何以分成三乘？論主的回答很節制：所觀之法無異，能觀之心有大小之差。
所以，見諸法實相稱為正觀；若所見與此相異，才是邪觀。元康把差別再說明為：「既云非倒。而有三乘之異者。為心有大小。智有淺深故也。」同觀不是抹去行者差別，差別也不必反過來分裂所觀實相。
觀空而不取證，涉有而不染著，如何同時成立？
只觀空而立即取證，便不能前往教化眾生；只涉有而迷失空，又會被塵勞染著。宗本義以般若與漚和兩門回答這個張力。般若觀諸法實相，使涉有而不染；漚和前往化生，使觀空而不立刻取證。
論本自己的句子最為清楚：「涉有未始迷虛，故常處有而不染；不厭有而觀空，故觀空而不證。」涉有不迷空，所以權中有實；觀空不厭有，所以實中有權。這不是先後輪替的兩個時刻，而是「一念之力權慧具矣。」元康由此明說，般若與漚和相互含攝；任何一門若遮住另一門，大慧便不能完整顯出。
結盡之後，是否另有一個泥洹處？
最後一門忽然收得極短：煩惱結盡，生死永滅，便稱泥洹盡諦。人很容易再追問，結盡之後究竟到哪裡？論主不讓這個追問另造一處：「無復別有一盡處耳。」
元康的利刃更短：「盡本盡於結。結盡無別盡。」盡所說的是煩惱已盡，不是離開生死後另有一個名為盡的地方。由此回看全章，緣會不立定有，性空不立斷無；般若不滯空，漚和不染有；泥洹也不被安立成另一個住處。四門都在阻止心把方便所說重新凝成可取之物。
承衍
元康把宗本義判為標宗，把不遷以下四論判為明教。這條承衍不是用後來的疏義取代僧肇，而是替讀者指出短章中已經埋好的四條路：本無實相展為物不遷，非有非無展為不真空，漚和般若展為般若無知，泥洹盡諦展為涅槃無名。
因此，讀宗本義不能只記五個名詞，也不能把它當作四論的內容摘要。它真正立下的是讀法：從緣會顯現中看性空，從性空中不落斷無；觀空而仍能涉有，涉有而不失般若；說結盡而不另造一個盡處。四論此後各自伸展，仍沒有離開這一章所立的宗骨。
The Scriptural Question First: Can Being and Non-being Each Stand Fixed?
All dharmas plainly appear. Why, then, call them empty of intrinsic nature and speak of fundamental non-being? If emptiness meant that everything before us had been annihilated, dependent conditions and the results of action could no longer be established. Yet if appearance meant that things possessed an unchanging intrinsic entity, their ceasing when conditions disperse could not be explained. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra opens both sides at once: the Dharma taught is neither being nor non-being, for dharmas arise because of causes and conditions. Being is not a fixed being, and non-being is not an annihilating non-being. Precisely because dharmas depend on conditions to arise, they cannot be fixed on either side.
The Fundamental Thesis therefore begins with five names: fundamental non-being, true reality, dharma-nature, intrinsic-nature-emptiness, and the coming-together of conditions are one meaning. The question is not how to arrange five items in a glossary, but how to follow Sengzhao's reasoning and see that all five names point to the same fact.
Why Is Fundamental Non-being Named First but the Explanation Begins with Conditions?
The list places fundamental non-being first, but the argument begins from the coming-together of conditions. The most readily visible fact is that things arise when conditions gather and cease when conditions disperse. If a dharma truly possessed a fixed intrinsic entity, it should not cease when conditions disperse. Since it does cease, we can know that although it presently appears, its nature has always been empty.
Yuankang points out that the text first lists fundamental non-being, then begins its joined explanation of the five meanings with the coming-together of conditions because this follows what is readily accessible. The path of reading therefore moves in reverse: from the coming-together of conditions to being empty of intrinsic nature; from intrinsic-nature-emptiness to dharma-nature; from dharma-nature being just so to true reality; and from true reality being fundamentally non-being to the name fundamental non-being. The five names are not five separate realms. They name different joints along a single fact.
Fundamental non-being is the term most easily misread. It does not mean that something once truly existed and was later contemplated as empty, refuted, and finally turned into nothing. The treatise says that true reality is of itself non-being; it is not made non-being through inferential elimination, and therefore it is called fundamental non-being. Yuankang follows by saying that dharmas are of themselves non-being and this is called true reality; they are not made non-being by being conceptually dismissed. Fundamental non-being thus says that true reality is fundamentally so. It does not describe a mind canceling the world.
Is Neither Being nor Non-being a Compromise Between Two Sides?
If neither being nor non-being merely shaved half away from being and half away from non-being, it would not yet touch the grasping Sengzhao seeks to remove. The treatise first identifies both sides precisely. "Not being" does not deny the conditioned appearance before us; it denies the determinate being posited by views of existence and permanence. "Not non-being" does not deny emptiness; it denies the determinate non-being posited by wrong views and annihilationism. What is dispelled is fixed being and fixed non-being, not dependent appearance or intrinsic-nature-emptiness.
This is why Sengzhao next says that one who contemplates dharmas without retaining non-being may be said to know the true reality of dharmas. If the mind first stores away an annihilating non-being, emptiness itself becomes another thing to grasp. At the same time, although one contemplates being, one does not grasp a fixed characteristic. Yuankang joins these two sides: contemplating dharmas without retaining non-being means that non-being is not non-being; contemplating being without grasping a characteristic means that being is not being. Abiding in neither being nor non-being is the practice of abiding without anywhere fixed in which to abide.
If the Three Vehicles Contemplate the Same Thing, Where Does Their Difference Lie?
The treatise says that the three vehicles equally contemplate intrinsic-nature-emptiness and thereby attain the path. If each vehicle contemplated a different intrinsic-nature-emptiness, the chapter's fundamental claim that the five names share one meaning would already split apart. Yet if the three vehicles did not differ at all, why would there be three vehicles? Sengzhao's answer is restrained: the dharma contemplated does not differ, but the contemplating mind differs in measure.
Seeing the true reality of all dharmas is therefore right contemplation; seeing something contrary to this is wrong contemplation. Yuankang explains the remaining difference as one of greater or smaller mind and deeper or shallower wisdom. Shared contemplation does not erase differences among practitioners, while differences among practitioners do not divide true reality into different objects.
How Can One Contemplate Emptiness Without Taking Realization and Engage with Being Without Being Stained?
If one contemplates emptiness and immediately takes realization as a possessed fruit, one cannot go forth to teach and transform beings. If one engages with being while losing emptiness, one becomes stained by sensory defilements. The Fundamental Thesis answers this tension through the two gates of prajñā and skillful means. Prajñā contemplates the true reality of all dharmas, so one engages with being without being stained. Skillful means goes forth to transform beings, so one contemplates emptiness without immediately taking realization as a possessed fruit.
Sengzhao's own formulation is clearest: engaging with being never loses emptiness, so one constantly dwells amid being without being stained; not growing weary of being while contemplating emptiness, one contemplates emptiness without taking realization. Engaging with being without losing emptiness means true insight is present within skillful means. Contemplating emptiness without growing weary of being means skillful means is present within true insight. These are not two moments alternating in sequence. They are skillful means and wisdom present together in the power of a single thought. Yuankang therefore says that prajñā and skillful means mutually include one another. If either gate obscures the other, great wisdom cannot appear in full.
When the Bonds Are Exhausted, Is There Another Place Called Nirvāṇa?
The final gate closes with striking brevity: when the afflictive bonds are exhausted, birth-and-death ceases forever, and this is called the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa. The mind may still ask where one goes after the bonds are exhausted. Sengzhao does not allow that question to manufacture another place: there is no separate place of exhaustion.
Yuankang's blade is briefer still: exhaustion exhausts the bonds; once the bonds are exhausted, there is no separate exhaustion. Exhaustion describes affliction as exhausted. It does not establish somewhere outside birth-and-death called "exhaustion." Looking back across the chapter, the coming-together of conditions does not establish determinate being, and intrinsic-nature-emptiness does not establish annihilating non-being. Prajñā does not become stranded in emptiness, and skillful means does not become stained by being. Nirvāṇa too is not solidified into another place in which to abide. All four gates prevent the mind from freezing an expedient expression into something graspable.
Continuation / What Carries Forward
Yuankang classifies the Fundamental Thesis as the statement of the thesis and the four treatises from Immutability onward as the elucidation of the teaching. This continuation does not replace Sengzhao with a later commentary. It points out the four paths already laid within the short chapter: fundamental non-being and true reality unfold as On the Immutability of Things; neither being nor non-being unfolds as On the Emptiness of the Unreal; skillful means and prajñā unfold as On Prajñā Without Knowing; and the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa unfolds as On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless.
The Fundamental Thesis should therefore be read neither as a list of five terms nor as a summary of the four later treatises. What it establishes is a way of reading: see intrinsic-nature-emptiness within the appearance of conditions coming together, yet do not turn emptiness into annihilating non-being; contemplate emptiness while continuing to engage with being, and engage with being without losing prajñā; speak of the exhaustion of the bonds without creating a separate place of exhaustion. Each of the four treatises will extend its own line, but none departs from the doctrinal backbone established here.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
〈宗本義〉是《肇論》八段脊的第二單元，也是四論之前的綱領章。底本範圍為〔T45 0150c11–0151a07〕，共四百四十八字；其中卷端題『肇論』與作者題署在宗本義篇題之前，只作卷端身分提示，不作本章義理正文。唐元康《肇論疏》的逐文疏釋範圍為〔T45 0165a07–0166c13〕。
元康先把本篇與後四論分為標宗、明教二層：「此文為二別。宗本一義。是謂標宗。不遷已下四論。是謂明教也。」〔T45 0165a11–0165a12〕又把本篇本身判為四宗：「論文有四。第一明本無實相宗。第二明非有非無宗。第三明漚和般若宗。第四明泥洹盡諦宗。」〔T45 0165a13–0165a15〕四宗依次作〈物不遷論〉、〈不真空論〉、〈般若無知論〉、〈涅槃無名論〉的宗本；本檔依此四門展開，不另造科判。
二、本論釋要
第一門從五名一義開始：「本無、實相、法性、性空、緣會，一義耳。」〔T45 0150c15〕論證從緣會順次推回本無：諸法由緣而生，緣離則滅；若有固定自體，便不應滅。故現有不妨性空，性空即法性，法性如是即實相，實相本自無而名本無。關鍵句是：「實相自無，非推之使無，故名本無。」〔T45 0150c20〕空不是推遣之後才造成的結果。
第二門說不有不無。論主所遮的不是眼前緣會之有，而是有見、常見所執取的定有；所遮的無也不是空義，而是邪見、斷見所執取的定無。因而一面說不存無，一面說觀有不取相，使法相成為無相之相，聖心則住而無所住。
第三門說三乘同觀性空而得道；正觀與邪觀以是否見法實相為界，三乘之差則在心量大小。第四門把般若與漚和合為大慧：般若觀實相、離染，漚和涉有、化生而不取證；兩門互具於一念。末以泥洹盡諦收束：盡只在煩惱結盡、生死永滅，不另安立一個可住的盡處。
三、經論宗依
本論正文沒有明標經名；以下經論，均是元康為五名一義、非有非無、三乘同觀、漚和般若與泥洹盡諦所引的古典依據。每條只按現存經論實文定位；疏中轉述若與經文有字異，兩文分列，不相混同。
（一）《維摩詰所說經》：本無、實相與緣會
元康釋本無時引作：「無我無造無受者。善惡之業亦不忘。」〔T45 0165b07–0165b08〕現存《維摩詰所說經》本句作：「無我無造無受者，善惡之業亦不亡。」〔T14n0475 0537c16〕『忘』與『亡』各守疏本、經本之字。
釋實相時，元康所舉經文在現存本可逐字定位為：「我觀如來前際不來，後際不去，今則不住」〔T14n0475 0555a01–0555a02〕；釋緣會時所舉偈句則為：「說法不有亦不無，以因緣故諸法生」〔T14n0475 0537c15〕。一處顯前後去來不可定住，一處顯諸法依因緣而生。
（二）《中論》：五名一義與非有非無
元康以〈觀有無品〉之偈說明本無：「若使無有有，云何當有無？有無既已無，知有無者誰？」〔T30n1564 0007c16–0007c17〕又以〈觀法品〉之偈釋實相：「諸法實相者，心行言語斷，無生亦無滅，寂滅如涅槃。」〔T30n1564 0024a03–0024a04〕
法性與性空兩名，元康分別引：「如來所有性，即是世間性；如來無有性，世間亦無性。」〔T30n1564 0031a06–0031a07〕以及：「如是性空中，思惟亦不可，如來滅度後，分別於有無。」〔T30n1564 0030c24–0030c25〕至第二宗，疏所引的遮執之界最為直接：「定有則著常，定無則著斷；是故有智者，不應著有無。」〔T30n1564 0020b17–0020b18〕
（三）《金剛般若波羅蜜經》：三乘同觀而有差別
元康釋三乘同觀性空，援引：「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」〔T08n0235 0749b17–0749b18〕此句用來說明同觀一理不妨所成有別；本論則把差別落在『心有大小』，不改所觀之法。
（四）《維摩詰所說經》：慧與方便相須
元康釋漚和般若，所引現存經文次第為：「無方便慧縛，有方便慧解；無慧方便縛，有慧方便解。」〔T14n0475 0545b06–0545b08〕疏據此說方便與慧不能偏廢；本論自身則以涉有不迷空、觀空不厭有，說明一念權慧具足。
（五）《大般涅槃經》：盡而無別處
元康以《大般涅槃經》說明泥洹盡諦，現存經文為：「涅槃之體亦復如是，無有住處，直是諸佛斷煩惱處，故名涅槃」〔T12n0374 0513b10–0513b12〕。這與本論『直結盡而已』相應：所說是煩惱斷盡，不是另有一個名為盡的處所。
四、古德疏釋
（一）少文統攝四論
元康先說：「亦可以此少文。為下四論之宗本。故云宗本義也。」〔T45 0165a10–0165a11〕隨即逐一繫屬四宗：「第一明本無實相宗。為物不遷論之宗本。第二明非有非無宗。為不真空論之宗本。第三明漚和般若宗。為般若無知論之宗本。第四明泥洹盡諦宗。為涅槃無名論之宗本。」〔T45 0165a15–0165a19〕故本篇雖短，功能不是摘要後文，而是先立四論所從出的宗骨。
（二）五名不是會通五家之作
元康記錄過把五名配給五家學說的解法，隨即辨其不當；他所取的正解是：「今直云此五家是經論中大義。有人謂同。有人謂異。肇法師今會之為一。不言異也。」〔T45 0165b04–0165b06〕又補一層二諦解釋：「又本無等四為真。緣會為俗。今會此真俗二諦不異也。」〔T45 0165b06–0165b07〕疏末判前一解為正，後一解並存誌錄。
（三）從緣會逆釋本無
論文列名先說本無，釋義卻先從緣會起。元康說：「前標列其義。先標本無。今會釋五義。先論緣會。逐便故也。」〔T45 0165c06–0165c07〕這一讀法使五名成為同一推論的連續步驟，不是五條彼此平列的定義。
（四）『性常自空』的三讀
元康記此句有三種斷讀，最後判：「三讀之中前為勝。今依前讀。即以性常自空名為性空也。」〔T45 0165c11–0165c12〕依此讀，『性常自空』到此成句；後面的法性、實相再逐層承接。這一判讀直接決定白話的句法次第。
（五）不有不無的雙遣
元康覆疏兩面說：「不存無以觀法。則無非無也。觀有而不取相。則有非有也。非有非無是為中道矣。」〔T45 0166a10–0166a12〕前一面不把空執成斷無，後一面不在現有上取固定相；兩面同時成立，才不會把『不有不無』讀成模糊折衷。
（六）三乘同觀，差在心智
釋『三乘觀法無異』時，元康說：「既云非倒。而有三乘之異者。為心有大小。智有淺深故也。」〔T45 0166b01–0166b02〕這把差別放在能觀之心智，不另分三種互異的性空。
（七）般若與漚和互具
元康釋一念權慧具足說：「涉有不迷空。權中有實。觀空不厭有。則實中有權。」〔T45 0166c02–0166c03〕般若不離涉有，漚和不失觀空；本論兩次重說『一念之力權慧具』，正為顯示兩門相互含攝。
（八）盡只在結盡
元康以極簡一句收束：「盡本盡於結。結盡無別盡。」〔T45 0166c11–0166c12〕這使泥洹不成生死之外另立的處所，也與本論『無復別有一盡處』逐字相應。
五、術語
| 術語 | 本論義界 |
|---|---|
| 本無 | 實相本自無，不是經由推遣才變成無；不可讀成一個先有後無的過程。 |
| 實相 | 諸法性空的真實之相；所謂相，是無固定相的相。 |
| 法性 | 性空之法如是；本論由性空承接法性，再承接實相。 |
| 性空 | 緣生法沒有固定自性；元康取『性常自空』到此成句。 |
| 緣會 | 諸法待條件聚合而生、條件離散而滅；是五名推論的起點。 |
| 不有不無 | 不取常見之定有，也不取斷見之定無；不是抹平有無二字。 |
| 住無所住 | 聖心安住而不執取任何固定住處，與觀有而不取相相應。 |
| 漚和般若 | 漚和涉有化生而不取證，般若觀實相而不染；兩門合稱大慧。 |
| 泥洹盡諦 | 煩惱結盡、生死永滅；盡在結盡，不另有一個盡處。 |
六、譬喻
本單元沒有另設故事或譬喻。它用一條緊密的推論代替譬喻：緣聚則生、緣離則滅；若是真有，便應不滅。由現有而性空、由性空而法性、實相、本無，五名沿同一條義路展開。義疏因此仍以前後推問為教學主軸，不另借他論之喻覆蓋本章。
七、史傳
慧皎《高僧傳》沒有具名記載〈宗本義〉，但保存僧肇進入羅什譯場的直接背景：「姚興命肇與僧叡等入逍遙園，助詳定經論」〔T50n2059 0365a21–0365a22〕；又說僧肇「及見什諮稟，所悟更多」〔T50n2059 0365a23〕。這兩句可作其經論學脈的史傳坐標，不足以單獨證成〈宗本義〉的成篇時序。
同傳明載〈般若無知論〉呈羅什後，什公稱：「吾解不謝子。辭當相挹。」〔T50n2059 0365a25–0365a26〕此條直接關聯本章第三宗所綱領的後論；至於〈宗本義〉本身，史傳既未具名，便不以後論的成篇記事替它補造年代。
八、校本定位
- 底本：T45n1858〈宗本義〉〔0150c11–0151a07〕；卷端題與作者題署在篇題之前，依原藏經結構收入本單元首。原典層四百四十八字已由八單元連續切分校驗，不改原典層。
- 鏡疏：唐元康《肇論疏》T45n1859〔0165a07–0166c13〕；本檔科判與逐處解說均取此段。
- 『性常自空』斷讀：元康記三讀，以第一讀為勝〔T45 0165c08–0165c12〕；白話與義疏依此把『性常自空』獨立成句，再承法性、實相、本無。
- 『無』字異讀：元康記：「有本有重無字。有本但有一無字。」〔T45 0166a04–0166a05〕並判重無字為正。本檔不據疏說改動已封存底本，只在此誌錄。
- 『設／故』異讀：底本作『設二乘不見此理』；元康記：「有本作故字非也。」〔T45 0166a28〕本檔仍守底本『設』字。
- 本章為漢造論綱領，沒有梵本或異譯對勘；校核軸以 T1858 論本與 T1859 元康疏逐文對讀為主。
I. Doctrinal-structural Placement
The Fundamental Thesis is the second unit in the eight-unit spine of The Zhaolun and serves as the programmatic chapter placed before the four treatises. The base-text span is 〔T45 0150c11–0151a07〕, comprising 448 Chinese characters. The collection title Zhaolun and the authorial byline precede the chapter title; they identify the work at the head of the scroll and are not part of this chapter's doctrinal prose. The corresponding line-by-line commentary in Yuankang's Zhaolun Shu spans 〔T45 0165a07–0166c13〕.
Yuankang first divides this chapter from the four treatises that follow into two levels, stating the thesis and elucidating the teaching: 「此文為二別。宗本一義。是謂標宗。不遷已下四論。是謂明教也。」〔T45 0165a11–0165a12〕 ["This text has two divisions. The one Fundamental Thesis is what is called stating the thesis. The four treatises from Immutability onward are what is called elucidating the teaching."]. He then divides the chapter itself into four theses: 「論文有四。第一明本無實相宗。第二明非有非無宗。第三明漚和般若宗。第四明泥洹盡諦宗。」〔T45 0165a13–0165a15〕 ["The treatise-text has four parts. First, it sets forth the thesis of fundamental non-being and true reality. Second, it sets forth the thesis of neither being nor non-being. Third, it sets forth the thesis of skillful means and prajñā. Fourth, it sets forth the thesis of the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa."]. These four theses form, in order, the foundations of On the Immutability of Things, On the Emptiness of the Unreal, On Prajñā Without Knowing, and On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless. This apparatus follows those four gates and does not create a separate outline.
II. Essential Exposition of the Treatise
The first gate begins with five names expressing one meaning: 「本無、實相、法性、性空、緣會，一義耳。」〔T45 0150c15〕 ["Fundamental non-being, true reality, dharma-nature, intrinsic-nature-emptiness, and the coming-together of conditions are one meaning."]. The argument moves backward from the coming-together of conditions to fundamental non-being: dharmas arise through conditions and cease when conditions disperse; if they had a fixed intrinsic entity, they should not cease. Present appearance therefore does not prevent them from being empty of intrinsic nature. Intrinsic-nature-emptiness is dharma-nature; dharma-nature being just so is true reality; and true reality being fundamentally non-being is called fundamental non-being. The key sentence is: 「實相自無，非推之使無，故名本無。」〔T45 0150c20〕 ["True reality is of itself non-being; it is not made into non-being through inferential elimination. Therefore it is called fundamental non-being."]. Emptiness is not a result produced only after things have been conceptually eliminated.
The second gate teaches neither being nor non-being. What Sengzhao negates is not the present being of things that arise through conditions, but the determinate being grasped by views of existence and permanence. What he negates as non-being is not emptiness, but the determinate non-being grasped by wrong views and annihilationism. Thus he says both that one does not retain non-being and that one contemplates being without grasping a characteristic. The characteristic of dharmas is thereby a characteristic without fixed characteristic, and the sage's mind abides without anywhere fixed in which to abide.
The third gate teaches that the three vehicles alike contemplate intrinsic-nature-emptiness and attain their respective paths. Right and wrong contemplation are distinguished according to whether one sees the true reality of dharmas; the three vehicles differ only in the greater or smaller measure of mind. The fourth gate joins prajñā and skillful means as great wisdom: prajñā contemplates true reality and remains unstained, while skillful means engages with being, transforms beings, and does not take realization as an immediately possessed fruit. The two gates are mutually present in a single thought. The conclusion turns to the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa: exhaustion means only that the afflictive bonds are exhausted and birth-and-death ceases forever; it does not establish a separate place of exhaustion.
III. Scriptural and Treatise Foundations
Sengzhao's text does not identify the cited scriptures by title. The following sūtras and treatises are the classical foundations Yuankang invokes for the five names as one meaning, neither being nor non-being, the shared contemplation of the three vehicles, prajñā with skillful means, and the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa. Each item is located only in the text as presently transmitted. Where Yuankang's wording differs from the sūtra witness, the commentary and sūtra readings are kept separate rather than conflated.
1. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra: Fundamental Non-being, True Reality, and the Coming-together of Conditions
When explaining fundamental non-being, Yuankang cites the line as: 「無我無造無受者。善惡之業亦不忘。」〔T45 0165b07–0165b08〕 ["There is no self, no agent, and no recipient; the deeds of good and evil are not forgotten."]. The corresponding sentence in the extant Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra reads: 「無我無造無受者，善惡之業亦不亡。」〔T14n0475 0537c16〕 ["There is no self, no agent, and no recipient; the deeds of good and evil do not perish."]. The commentary's 忘, "forgotten," and the sūtra's 亡, "perish," are each preserved according to their own witness.
For true reality, the sūtra passage cited by Yuankang is located verbatim in the extant text: 「我觀如來前際不來，後際不去，今則不住」〔T14n0475 0555a01–0555a02〕 ["I contemplate the Tathāgata: from the former limit he does not come, to the latter limit he does not go, and in the present he does not abide."]. For the coming-together of conditions, the cited verse reads: 「說法不有亦不無，以因緣故諸法生」〔T14n0475 0537c15〕 ["The Dharma taught is neither being nor non-being; because of causes and conditions, dharmas arise."]. The first passage shows that coming, going, and present abiding cannot be determinately established; the second shows that dharmas arise in dependence on causes and conditions.
2. The Madhyamaka Treatise: Five Names as One Meaning and Neither Being nor Non-being
Yuankang explains fundamental non-being with a verse from the chapter contemplating being and non-being: 「若使無有有，云何當有無？有無既已無，知有無者誰？」〔T30n1564 0007c16–0007c17〕 ["If there were no being, how could there be non-being? Since being and non-being are already both absent, who is there to know being and non-being?"]. He explains true reality with a verse from the chapter contemplating dharmas: 「諸法實相者，心行言語斷，無生亦無滅，寂滅如涅槃。」〔T30n1564 0024a03–0024a04〕 ["As for the true reality of all dharmas, the activities of mind and language cease: there is no arising and no ceasing; it is quiescent like nirvāṇa."].
For the names dharma-nature and intrinsic-nature-emptiness, Yuankang respectively cites: 「如來所有性，即是世間性；如來無有性，世間亦無性。」〔T30n1564 0031a06–0031a07〕 ["Whatever nature the Tathāgata has is precisely the nature of the world; the Tathāgata has no nature, and the world likewise has no nature."], and: 「如是性空中，思惟亦不可，如來滅度後，分別於有無。」〔T30n1564 0030c24–0030c25〕 ["Within such intrinsic-nature-emptiness, thought too is impossible; after the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa, one discriminates between being and non-being."]. In the second thesis, the boundary against grasping is stated most directly by the verse: 「定有則著常，定無則著斷；是故有智者，不應著有無。」〔T30n1564 0020b17–0020b18〕 ["To determine being is to attach to permanence; to determine non-being is to attach to annihilation. Therefore one who possesses wisdom should not attach to either being or non-being."].
3. The Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: Shared Contemplation with Differentiated Attainment
In explaining how the three vehicles alike contemplate intrinsic-nature-emptiness, Yuankang cites: 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」〔T08n0235 0749b17–0749b18〕 ["All the worthy ones and sages are differentiated by the unconditioned dharma."]. The line shows that shared contemplation of one principle does not prevent differentiated attainment; Sengzhao locates that differentiation in the greater or smaller measure of mind, without changing the dharma contemplated.
4. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra: Wisdom and Skillful Means Require Each Other
In explaining skillful means and prajñā, Yuankang cites the extant sūtra in this sequence: 「無方便慧縛，有方便慧解；無慧方便縛，有慧方便解。」〔T14n0475 0545b06–0545b08〕 ["Wisdom without skillful means is bound; wisdom with skillful means is liberated. Skillful means without wisdom is bound; skillful means with wisdom is liberated."]. On this basis the commentary says that neither wisdom nor skillful means can be abandoned. Sengzhao's own text explains their mutual presence through engaging with being without losing emptiness and contemplating emptiness without growing weary of being.
5. The Great Parinirvāṇa Sūtra: Exhaustion Without a Separate Place
Yuankang explains the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa with the extant sūtra passage: 「涅槃之體亦復如是，無有住處，直是諸佛斷煩惱處，故名涅槃」〔T12n0374 0513b10–0513b12〕 ["The essence of nirvāṇa is likewise so: it has no abiding place; it is simply where the buddhas cut off afflictions, and therefore it is called nirvāṇa."]. This corresponds to Sengzhao's statement that it is "simply the exhaustion of the bonds": what is spoken of is the complete severing of afflictions, not another place called exhaustion.
IV. The Ancient Master's Commentary
1. A Short Passage Governing the Four Treatises
Yuankang first states: 「亦可以此少文。為下四論之宗本。故云宗本義也。」〔T45 0165a10–0165a11〕 ["This short passage may also be taken as the fundamental thesis of the four treatises below. Therefore it is called the Fundamental Thesis."]. He then connects each thesis to its treatise: 「第一明本無實相宗。為物不遷論之宗本。第二明非有非無宗。為不真空論之宗本。第三明漚和般若宗。為般若無知論之宗本。第四明泥洹盡諦宗。為涅槃無名論之宗本。」〔T45 0165a15–0165a19〕 ["First, setting forth the thesis of fundamental non-being and true reality forms the fundamental thesis of On the Immutability of Things. Second, setting forth the thesis of neither being nor non-being forms the fundamental thesis of On the Emptiness of the Unreal. Third, setting forth the thesis of skillful means and prajñā forms the fundamental thesis of On Prajñā Without Knowing. Fourth, setting forth the thesis of the truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa forms the fundamental thesis of On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless."]. Although the chapter is short, its function is not to summarize what follows but to establish the doctrinal backbone from which the four treatises proceed.
2. The Five Names Are Not an Attempt to Reconcile Five Schools
Yuankang records an interpretation that assigns the five names to five schools and then explains why it is inappropriate. The reading he accepts is: 「今直云此五家是經論中大義。有人謂同。有人謂異。肇法師今會之為一。不言異也。」〔T45 0165b04–0165b06〕 ["Here it simply says that these five are great meanings within the sūtras and treatises. Some take them to be the same; some take them to be different. Dharma Master Sengzhao now brings them together as one and does not say that they are different."]. He adds an explanation in terms of the two truths: 「又本無等四為真。緣會為俗。今會此真俗二諦不異也。」〔T45 0165b06–0165b07〕 ["Further, fundamental non-being and the other three are ultimate, while the coming-together of conditions is conventional. Here he brings together these two truths, ultimate and conventional, as not different."]. The commentary judges the first explanation correct and preserves the latter explanation alongside it as a recorded reading.
3. Explaining Fundamental Non-being in Reverse from the Coming-together of Conditions
The treatise lists fundamental non-being first but begins its explanation with the coming-together of conditions. Yuankang writes: 「前標列其義。先標本無。今會釋五義。先論緣會。逐便故也。」〔T45 0165c06–0165c07〕 ["Earlier it listed the meanings, placing fundamental non-being first. Now, in bringing together and explaining the five meanings, it first discusses the coming-together of conditions, because this follows what is readily accessible."]. This reading makes the five names successive steps in one argument, not five definitions standing separately beside one another.
4. Three Readings of "Its Nature Is Always of Itself Empty"
Yuankang records three ways of punctuating the sentence and finally judges: 「三讀之中前為勝。今依前讀。即以性常自空名為性空也。」〔T45 0165c11–0165c12〕 ["Among the three readings, the first is superior. I now follow the first reading: it is precisely 'its nature is always of itself empty' that is called intrinsic-nature-emptiness."]. On this reading, "its nature is always of itself empty" completes the sentence; dharma-nature and true reality then follow in successive steps. This decision directly determines the syntax of the continuous reading.
5. The Double Dispelling of Neither Being nor Non-being
Yuankang brings the two sides together: 「不存無以觀法。則無非無也。觀有而不取相。則有非有也。非有非無是為中道矣。」〔T45 0166a10–0166a12〕 ["To contemplate dharmas without retaining non-being means that non-being is not non-being. To contemplate being without grasping a characteristic means that being is not being. Neither being nor non-being is the Middle Way."]. The first side does not turn emptiness into annihilating non-being; the second does not grasp a fixed characteristic in present being. Only when both hold together does "neither being nor non-being" avoid becoming an indistinct compromise.
6. The Three Vehicles Contemplate Alike; Their Minds and Wisdom Differ
Explaining that the three vehicles do not differ in contemplating dharmas, Yuankang writes: 「既云非倒。而有三乘之異者。為心有大小。智有淺深故也。」〔T45 0166b01–0166b02〕 ["Since it is said not to be inverted, why are there differences among the three vehicles? Because their minds are greater or smaller and their wisdom is deeper or shallower."]. The distinction lies in the contemplating mind and wisdom; it does not divide intrinsic-nature-emptiness into three different objects.
7. Prajñā and Skillful Means Are Mutually Present
Yuankang explains their joint presence in a single thought: 「涉有不迷空。權中有實。觀空不厭有。則實中有權。」〔T45 0166c02–0166c03〕 ["Engaging with being without losing emptiness means that within skillful means there is true insight. Contemplating emptiness without growing weary of being means that within true insight there is skillful means."]. Prajñā does not leave the engagement with being, and skillful means does not lose the contemplation of emptiness. Sengzhao repeats twice that skillful means and wisdom are present in the power of a single thought precisely to show their mutual inclusion.
8. Exhaustion Lies Only in the Exhaustion of the Bonds
Yuankang closes with a spare sentence: 「盡本盡於結。結盡無別盡。」〔T45 0166c11–0166c12〕 ["Exhaustion fundamentally exhausts the bonds. Once the bonds are exhausted, there is no separate exhaustion."]. Nirvāṇa is therefore not made into a place established apart from birth-and-death; this reading also corresponds word for word to Sengzhao's statement that there is no separate place of exhaustion.
V. Terms
| Term | Scope in This Treatise |
|---|---|
| Fundamental non-being | True reality is fundamentally non-being; it is not changed into non-being by inferential elimination. It must not be read as a process in which something first exists and later becomes absent. |
| True reality | The true reality of all dharmas as empty of intrinsic nature. What is called a characteristic is a characteristic without fixed characteristic. |
| Dharma-nature | Dharmas are just so in being empty of intrinsic nature. The argument proceeds from intrinsic-nature-emptiness to dharma-nature and then to true reality. |
| Intrinsic-nature-emptiness | Dharmas arisen through conditions have no fixed intrinsic nature. Yuankang takes "its nature is always of itself empty" as a complete sentence. |
| The coming-together of conditions | Dharmas arise when conditions come together and cease when conditions disperse. This is the starting point of the argument joining the five names. |
| Neither being nor non-being | Neither the determinate being of a view of permanence nor the determinate non-being of an annihilationist view is grasped. The phrase does not erase the distinction between being and non-being. |
| Abiding without anywhere to abide | The sage's mind abides without grasping any fixed place of abiding, corresponding to contemplating being without grasping a characteristic. |
| Skillful means and prajñā | Skillful means engages with being and transforms beings without taking realization as an immediately possessed fruit; prajñā contemplates true reality and remains unstained. Together they are great wisdom. |
| The truth of the exhaustion that is nirvāṇa | The afflictive bonds are exhausted and birth-and-death ceases forever. Exhaustion lies in the exhaustion of the bonds; no separate place of exhaustion exists. |
VI. Simile
This unit introduces no separate story or simile. In place of a simile it uses a compact argument: things arise as conditions gather and cease as conditions disperse; if they truly possessed fixed being, they should not cease. The sequence proceeds from present being to intrinsic-nature-emptiness, and from intrinsic-nature-emptiness to dharma-nature, true reality, and fundamental non-being. The exposition therefore retains the chapter's sequence of questions and answers as its teaching axis and does not overlay it with a simile borrowed from another treatise.
VII. Historical Record
Huijiao's Biographies of Eminent Monks does not mention the Fundamental Thesis by name, but it preserves the immediate setting of Sengzhao's entry into Kumārajīva's translation community: 「姚興命肇與僧叡等入逍遙園，助詳定經論」〔T50n2059 0365a21–0365a22〕 ["Yao Xing ordered Sengzhao, Sengrui, and the others to enter the Xiaoyao Garden and assist in the careful settling of sūtras and treatises."]. It also says of Sengzhao: 「及見什諮稟，所悟更多」〔T50n2059 0365a23〕 ["After he met Kumārajīva, questioned him, and received instruction, his realizations became still more extensive."]. These two statements locate his line of scriptural and treatise learning; they do not by themselves establish when the Fundamental Thesis was composed.
The same biography states that after Sengzhao presented On Prajñā Without Knowing to Kumārajīva, Kumārajīva praised him: 「吾解不謝子。辭當相挹。」〔T50n2059 0365a25–0365a26〕 ["My understanding does not fall short of yours; in phrasing, we should draw upon one another."]. This record directly concerns the later treatise governed by this chapter's third thesis. Since the biography does not name the Fundamental Thesis itself, the composition account for the later treatise is not used to manufacture a date for this chapter.
VIII. Witness Position
- Base text: T45n1858, the Fundamental Thesis 〔0150c11–0151a07〕. The collection title and authorial byline precede the chapter title and are included at the beginning of this unit according to the structure of the canon witness. The source layer's 448 Chinese characters have been verified through the continuous division of all eight units and are not altered here.
- Mirror commentary: Tang Yuankang's Zhaolun Shu, T45n1859 〔0165a07–0166c13〕. The structural division and line-by-line explanations in this apparatus are taken from this span.
- The punctuation of "its nature is always of itself empty": Yuankang records three readings and takes the first as superior 〔T45 0165c08–0165c12〕. The continuous reading and exposition therefore treat this clause as a complete sentence before proceeding to dharma-nature, true reality, and fundamental non-being.
- The variant number of 無: Yuankang records: 「有本有重無字。有本但有一無字。」〔T45 0166a04–0166a05〕 ["Some witnesses have the graph 無 repeated; some witnesses have only a single graph 無."]. He judges the reading with the repeated 無 to be correct. This apparatus does not alter the sealed base text on the authority of the commentary; it records the variant here.
- The 設／故 variant: the base text reads "if the two vehicles do not see this principle" with 設; Yuankang records: 「有本作故字非也。」〔T45 0166a28〕 ["Some witnesses read the graph 故; this is not correct."]. The present edition retains the base text's 設.
- This chapter is a Chinese-authored programmatic treatise with neither a Sanskrit source text nor another ancient translation for collation. Its primary axis of verification is the line-by-line comparison of the T1858 treatise text with Yuankang's T1859 commentary.