T30n1565_順中論

大正藏第 30 冊 No. 1565 順中論

No. 1565 [cf. Nos. 1564, 1566, 1567]

順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門翻譯之記

諸國語言。中天音正。彼言那伽夷離淳那。此雲龍勝。名味皆足。上世德人。言龍樹者。片合一廂。未是全當。龍勝菩薩通法之師。依大般若。而造中論眾典。于義包而不悉。大乘論師。名阿僧佉。解未解處。別為此部。魏尚書令儀同高公𨒌國上賓瞿曇流支。在第供養。正通佛法。對釋曇林。出斯義論。武定元年歲次癸亥八月十日揮辭丙寅凡有一萬三千七百二十七字。

順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門捲上

龍勝菩薩造　無著菩薩釋

元魏婆羅門瞿曇般若流支譯

歸命一切智。

不滅亦不生　　不斷亦不常　不一不異義　　不來亦不去　佛已說因緣　　斷諸戲論法　故我稽首禮　　說法師中勝

如是論偈。是論根本。盡攝彼論我今更解。彼復有義。如是如是。如彼義說。如是如是。斷諸眾生喜樂取著如是如是。隨義造論。無有次第。

問曰。汝說此論。義無次第。或有次第。何意因緣。而說義論。如所依法。如是造論。答曰。此如是義。世尊已於大經中說言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本大正藏第 30 冊 No. 1565 《順中論》

No. 1565 [cf. Nos. 1564, 1566, 1567]

《順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門翻譯之記》

諸國語言中，以中天（指古印度）的語音最為純正。他們那裡稱呼為那伽夷離淳那（Nāgārjuna），這裡翻譯為龍勝（Nāgārjuna），名稱和含義都非常完備。上古時代的賢德之人，稱呼為龍樹（Nāgārjuna）的，只是部分符合，並非完全恰當。龍勝菩薩（Nāgārjuna）是通達佛法的導師，依據《大般若波羅蜜經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra），創作了《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）等眾多經典。但其中含義有所包容而未完全闡述。大乘論師阿僧佉（Asaṅga），爲了解釋其中未解釋之處，特別撰寫了這部論著。魏朝尚書令、儀同高公𨒌，以及來自印度的賓客瞿曇流支（Gautama Prajñāruci），在府邸中供養。瞿曇流支精通佛法，與釋曇林（釋道林）一起，翻譯了這部義論。武定元年，歲次癸亥八月十日，完成於丙寅日，總共有一萬三千七百二十七字。

《順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門》捲上

龍勝菩薩（Nāgārjuna）造　無著菩薩（Asaṅga）釋

元魏婆羅門瞿曇般若流支（Gautama Prajñāruci）譯

歸命一切智。

不滅亦不生　　不斷亦不常不一不異義　　不來亦不去佛已說因緣　　斷諸戲論法故我稽首禮　　說法師中勝

像這樣的論偈，是本論的根本。全部攝取了那部論，我現在進一步解釋。其中還有這樣的含義：如是如是，就像那部論所說的那樣。如是如是，斷除眾生喜好和執著。如是如是，隨著含義來造論，沒有固定的次第。

問：你說這部論，含義沒有次第，或者有次第？因為什麼緣故，而宣說義論？依照什麼法，而造這部論？答：像這樣的含義，世尊已經在《大經》（Mahā Sūtra）中說過了。

【English Translation】 English version Tripitaka Volume 30, No. 1565, Shunchung Lun

No. 1565 [cf. Nos. 1564, 1566, 1567]

A Record of the Translation of 'Shunchung Lun's Explanation Entering the Initial Chapter Dharma Gate of the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra'

Among the languages of various countries, the pronunciation of Central India is the most accurate. There, he is called Nāgārjuna, which is translated here as Long Sheng (Nāgārjuna), the name and meaning are both complete. The virtuous people of ancient times, calling him Long Shu (Nāgārjuna), only partially match, not entirely accurate. Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna is a teacher who understands the Dharma, and based on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, he created the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and many other classics. However, the meaning is inclusive but not fully elaborated. The Mahayana philosopher Asaṅga, in order to explain the unexplained parts, specially wrote this treatise. Gao Gong𨒌, the Shangshu Ling and Yitong of the Wei Dynasty, and the Indian guest Gautama Prajñāruci, were supported in the mansion. Gautama Prajñāruci was proficient in Buddhism and, together with Shi Tanlin (釋道林), translated this treatise. It was completed on the day of Bingyin, August 10th, in the year Guihai of the Wuding era, totaling 13,727 words.

Shunchung Lun's Explanation Entering the Initial Chapter Dharma Gate of the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, Volume 1

Composed by Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna; Explained by Bodhisattva Asaṅga

Translated by Gautama Prajñāruci, a Brahmin of the Northern Wei Dynasty

I take refuge in the All-Knowing.

Neither extinction nor birth, Neither cessation nor permanence, Neither one nor different meaning, Neither coming nor going. The Buddha has spoken of causes and conditions, Cutting off all playful dharmas, Therefore, I bow my head in reverence, To the best of the teachers of Dharma.

Such verses of the treatise are the foundation of this treatise. All of that treatise is included, and I will now explain it further. There is also such a meaning: 'Thus, thus,' just as that treatise says. 'Thus, thus,' cutting off the likes and attachments of sentient beings. 'Thus, thus,' creating the treatise according to the meaning, without a fixed order.

Question: You say that the meaning of this treatise is without order, or with order? For what reason do you expound the treatise of meaning? According to what Dharma do you create this treatise? Answer: Such a meaning, the World Honored One has already said in the Mahā Sūtra.

。憍尸迦。于未來世。若善男子。若善女人。隨自意解。為他說此般若波羅蜜。彼人唯說相似般若波羅蜜。非說真實般若波羅蜜。帝釋王言。世尊。何者是實般若波羅蜜。而言相似非實般若波羅蜜。佛言。憍尸迦。彼人當說色無常。乃至說識無常。如是說苦無我不寂靜空無相無愿。如是乃至說一切智。彼如是人。不知方便。有所得故。如是應知。帝釋王言。世尊。何者是實般若波羅蜜。佛言。憍尸迦。尚無有色。何處當有常與無常。如是乃至無一切智。何處復有常與無常。如是等故。

又言。憍尸迦。若善男子。若善女人。如是教他修行般若波羅蜜。而說般若波羅蜜。作如是言。善男子。來修行般若波羅蜜。汝善男子。乃至無有少法可舍。汝心勿于少法中住。何以故。如是般若波羅蜜中。無有正法。若過法者。是則無法。於何處住。何以故。憍尸迦。如一切法自體性空。若其彼法自體空者。彼法無體。若無體者。是名般若波羅蜜。若是般若波羅蜜者。彼無少法可取可舍。若生若滅。若斷若常。若一義。若異義。若來若去。此是真實般若波羅蜜。依彼因緣故造此論。我如是知般若波羅蜜。此方便故。我今解釋。所謂入中論門。彼善男子。善女人言。我知色無常。乃至識無常苦無我等。以此因緣故。是相似般若波羅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：佛陀對憍尸迦（Indra，帝釋天）說：『在未來世，如果有善男子或善女人，隨自己的理解為他人講述般若波羅蜜（Prajnaparamita，智慧到彼岸），那麼他們所說的只是相似的般若波羅蜜，而不是真正的般若波羅蜜。』帝釋王問道：『世尊，什麼是真正的般若波羅蜜？又是什麼樣的說法是相似而非真正的般若波羅蜜？』佛陀說：『憍尸迦，如果有人說色（rupa，物質）是無常的，乃至說識（vijnana，意識）是無常的，像這樣說苦（duhkha，痛苦）、無我（anatman，非我）、不寂靜、空（sunyata，空性）、無相（animitta，無相）、無愿（apranihita，無愿）。乃至說一切智（sarvajnatva，一切智慧）。這樣的人，因為不知方便，心有所得，所以他們所說的只是相似的般若波羅蜜。』帝釋王問道：『世尊，什麼是真正的般若波羅蜜？』佛陀說：『憍尸迦，實際上連色都不存在，又哪裡會有常與無常呢？像這樣，乃至連一切智都不存在，又哪裡會有常與無常呢？』

佛陀又說：『憍尸迦，如果有善男子或善女人，這樣教導他人修行般若波羅蜜，並且在講述般若波羅蜜時這樣說：善男子，來修行般若波羅蜜吧！善男子，實際上沒有絲毫的法可以捨棄，你的心也不要住在任何法中。為什麼呢？因為在這樣的般若波羅蜜中，沒有正法，如果有什麼超過正法的，那就是無法，又住在哪裡呢？為什麼呢？憍尸迦，因為一切法的自性是空的。如果那個法的自性是空的，那麼那個法就沒有自體。如果沒有自體，這就叫做般若波羅蜜。如果是般若波羅蜜，那麼就沒有絲毫的法可以取，可以舍，沒有生，沒有滅，沒有斷，沒有常，沒有一義，沒有異義，沒有來，沒有去。這才是真正的般若波羅蜜。』『依據這些因緣，我造了這部論。我這樣理解般若波羅蜜，因為這個方便，我現在解釋它，也就是所謂的中觀入門。』『那些善男子或善女人說：我知道色是無常的，乃至識是無常的，苦，無我等等。因為這個原因，他們所說的是相似的般若波羅蜜。』

【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha said to Kausika (Indra, Lord of the Gods): 'In the future, if a good man or a good woman, according to their own understanding, explains the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) to others, they are only speaking of a semblance of Prajnaparamita, not the true Prajnaparamita.' King Sakra (Indra) asked: 'World Honored One, what is the true Prajnaparamita? And what kind of explanation is a semblance and not the true Prajnaparamita?' The Buddha said: 'Kausika, if someone says that rupa (form, matter) is impermanent, and even says that vijnana (consciousness) is impermanent, and speaks of duhkha (suffering), anatman (non-self), non-tranquility, sunyata (emptiness), animitta (signlessness), apranihita (wishlessness) in this way. And even speaks of sarvajnatva (omniscience). Such a person, because they do not know the expedient means and have attachments, is speaking only of a semblance of Prajnaparamita.' King Sakra asked: 'World Honored One, what is the true Prajnaparamita?' The Buddha said: 'Kausika, in reality, even rupa does not exist, so where would there be permanence or impermanence? Likewise, even sarvajnatva does not exist, so where would there be permanence or impermanence?'

The Buddha further said: 'Kausika, if a good man or a good woman teaches others to practice Prajnaparamita in this way, and when explaining Prajnaparamita, says this: Good man, come and practice Prajnaparamita! Good man, in reality, there is not the slightest dharma (phenomenon, teaching) that can be abandoned, and your mind should not dwell on any dharma. Why? Because in such Prajnaparamita, there is no righteous dharma, and if there is anything beyond righteous dharma, that is no-dharma, so where would one dwell? Why? Kausika, because the self-nature of all dharmas is empty. If the self-nature of that dharma is empty, then that dharma has no self-entity. If it has no self-entity, this is called Prajnaparamita. If it is Prajnaparamita, then there is not the slightest dharma that can be taken or abandoned, no arising, no ceasing, no cessation, no permanence, no one meaning, no different meaning, no coming, no going. This is the true Prajnaparamita.' 'Based on these causes and conditions, I created this treatise. I understand Prajnaparamita in this way, and because of this expedient means, I now explain it, which is the so-called introduction to Madhyamaka (the Middle Way).' 'Those good men or good women say: I know that rupa is impermanent, and even that vijnana is impermanent, suffering, non-self, and so on. Because of this reason, what they are saying is a semblance of Prajnaparamita.'

蜜。非是真實般若波羅蜜。

問曰。若說色空無相無愿。云何此法唯是相似。非實般若波羅蜜耶。此三解脫世尊所說。非有為故。云何彼空亦相似耶。答曰。以取著故。

問曰。取著何法。答曰。於色取著。于空取著。若有取著。云何得是般若波羅蜜。此取著者。豈非是見。一切諸見。皆因如來說空故斷。又復何人即見彼空。彼人復以何法對治。唯無二際。是則能除。無二際故。名為非際。是故如來已為迦葉。如是說言。一切諸見。見空得出。若人取空。于空生見。我不能救。以此義故。師說偈言。

空對一切見　　是如來所說　于空生見者　　彼則無對治

又復余師名羅睺羅跋陀羅言。

一切見對治　　如來說空是　不愛空不著　　著空空亦物　不愛空不空　　此二非不愛　無能壞佛語　　佛語處處遍

又復經中佛說偈言。

夫人不正見　　少智故取空　如捉蛇不堅　　如咒不善成

諸如是等。取著於色。取著色體。或分別空。分別不空。彼如是色。畢竟無物。云何當有空與不空。又如彼色。一切諸法皆亦如是。如佛世尊如是說言。如不異色。別更有空。亦不異空。別更有色。如色于空。空於色義。亦復如是。如是等故。又復經中佛言。迦葉。若有何人。見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：蜜（般若波羅蜜，指智慧的完美）。如果說色是空、無相、無愿的，這並非是真正的般若波羅蜜，而只是相似的般若波羅蜜。

問：如果說色是空、無相、無愿的，為什麼這種說法只是相似的，而不是真正的般若波羅蜜呢？這三種解脫是世尊（佛陀）所說，因為它們不是有為法。為什麼這種空也是相似的呢？答：因為有取著。

問：取著于什麼法呢？答：於色取著，于空取著。如果有所取著，怎麼能算是般若波羅蜜呢？這種取著難道不是一種見解嗎？一切諸見，都因為如來說空而被斷除。又有誰會執著于空呢？又用什麼方法來對治這種執著呢？只有無二際（超越二元對立的境界）才能消除這種執著。因為無二際，所以名為非際（超越邊際）。因此，如來（佛陀）曾為迦葉（佛陀的弟子）這樣說過：一切諸見，都是因為見到空而產生的。如果有人執著于空，對空產生見解，我就無法救度他。因為這個緣故，老師說偈語：

『空對一切見，是如來所說；于空生見者，彼則無對治。』

又有其他老師，名叫羅睺羅跋陀羅（一位阿羅漢），說：

『一切見的對治，如來說空是；不愛空不著，著空空亦物；不愛空不空，此二非不愛；無能壞佛語，佛語處處遍。』

又有經中，佛說偈語：

『夫人不正見，少智故取空；如捉蛇不堅，如咒不善成。』

諸如此類，都是取著於色，取著於色的本體，或者分別空，分別不空。像這樣的色，畢竟是無自性的，怎麼會有空與不空呢？又如彼色，一切諸法也都是這樣。如佛世尊這樣說：不是離開色，另外有空；也不是離開空，另外有色。色與空的關係，空與色的關係，也是這樣。因為這些原因，又有經中佛說：迦葉（佛陀的弟子），如果有人見到

【English Translation】 English version: Mi (Prajnaparamita, referring to the perfection of wisdom). If it is said that form is empty, without characteristics, and without wishes, this is not true Prajnaparamita, but only similar Prajnaparamita.

Question: If it is said that form is empty, without characteristics, and without wishes, why is this teaching only similar and not true Prajnaparamita? These three liberations are taught by the World Honored One (Buddha), because they are not conditioned phenomena. Why is this emptiness also similar? Answer: Because of attachment.

Question: Attachment to what dharma? Answer: Attachment to form, attachment to emptiness. If there is attachment, how can it be Prajnaparamita? Is this attachment not a view? All views are cut off because the Tathagata (Buddha) speaks of emptiness. And who would cling to emptiness? And what method is used to counteract this clinging? Only non-duality (a state beyond dualistic opposition) can eliminate this clinging. Because of non-duality, it is called non-boundary (beyond boundaries). Therefore, the Tathagata (Buddha) once said to Kashyapa (Buddha's disciple): All views arise from seeing emptiness. If someone clings to emptiness and develops views about emptiness, I cannot save them. For this reason, the teacher says in a verse:

'Emptiness is the antidote to all views, as taught by the Tathagata; those who develop views about emptiness have no antidote.'

And another teacher, named Rahula Bhadra (an Arhat), said:

'The antidote to all views, the Tathagata says is emptiness; not loving emptiness, not clinging, clinging to emptiness, emptiness is also a thing; not loving emptiness, not non-emptiness, these two are not not-loving; nothing can destroy the Buddha's words, the Buddha's words pervade everywhere.'

And in another sutra, the Buddha says in a verse:

'A person with incorrect views, takes emptiness because of little wisdom; like grasping a snake insecurely, like a mantra not well accomplished.'

All such things are attachment to form, attachment to the essence of form, or distinguishing emptiness, distinguishing non-emptiness. Such form, after all, has no self-nature, how can there be emptiness and non-emptiness? And like that form, all dharmas are also like this. As the Buddha, the World Honored One, said: It is not apart from form that there is emptiness; nor is it apart from emptiness that there is form. The relationship between form and emptiness, the relationship between emptiness and form, is also like this. Because of these reasons, and again in the sutra, the Buddha said: Kashyapa (Buddha's disciple), if someone sees

法不空。如是之人。法亦是空。空亦是法。又佛說言。所言空者。空自體空。所言色者。色自體空。若有少法而不空者。彼則有空。一切諸法皆無自體。何處當有空與不空。依此義故。有偈說言。

若法有不空　　空亦得言有　無有法不空　　依何法說空

我依此知。以取著故。相似義成。問曰。若師如是。以此方便。解釋般若波羅蜜義。以何義故。先造中論。名為造作。而非是經。答曰。若人愚癡。非是黠慧。彼人起心。如是分別。毀呰諸經。謂經不熟。唯論是實。余法無論。為彼人故。此有偈言。

伐煩惱怨盡　　救有救惡道　如來有伐救　　此二餘法無

此偈非唯直是根本。亦以讚歎供養如來。亦斷一切戲論。分別諸取著等故說此偈。問曰。云何。答曰。有無量種供養如來。以如來有無量功德。今且略說三種供養。一者隨法順行供養。二者資財奉施供養。三者自身禮拜供養。此初隨法順行供養。供養中勝。以此偈法。供養如來。供養中勝。非物供養。問曰。此說何人供養如來。答曰。若人通達不生際者。又復有說言。須菩提于先禮我。論師如是。以此偈法供養如來。問曰。供養世尊。第一上吉。是故論初。應法供養。謂此偈法。如說能斷一切取著。戲論等者。今應當說。答曰。汝聽。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本法不是空無的。如果有人這樣認為，那麼法對他來說才是空無的，而空無本身也是法。佛陀曾說，所謂的『空』，是空性本身也是空無的；所謂的『色』（rupa，物質現象），是色性本身也是空無的。如果存在哪怕一點點不是空無的法，那麼『空』的概念才能成立。但一切諸法都沒有自性，哪裡會有空與不空的區別呢？基於這個道理，有偈頌說：『如果法有不空，空的概念才能被說成存在；如果沒有法不是空，又依據什麼法來說空呢？』我因此知道，因為執著，相似的意義才得以成立。有人問：『如果大師您這樣，用這種方法解釋《般若波羅蜜》（Prajnaparamita，智慧到彼岸）的意義，那麼為什麼先要造《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika，中觀論頌），這豈不是一種造作，而不是遵循佛經呢？』回答說：『如果有人愚癡，沒有智慧，他們會生起這樣的分別心，詆譭佛經，認為佛經不夠成熟，只有論才是真實的，其他的法都不值得一提。』爲了這些人，有這樣的偈頌：『斷盡煩惱怨敵，救度有情脫離惡道，如來具有斷除和救度的能力，這兩種能力在其他法中是沒有的。』這個偈頌不僅僅是根本，也是爲了讚歎和供養如來，並且斷除一切戲論，分別諸種執著等，所以才說這個偈頌。有人問：『怎麼講？』回答說：『供養如來的方式有無數種，因為如來有無量的功德。現在且簡略地說三種供養：一是隨順佛法而行的供養，二是資財佈施的供養，三是自身禮拜的供養。這第一種隨順佛法而行的供養，是供養中最殊勝的。用這個偈頌來供養如來，是供養中最殊勝的，不是物質的供養。』有人問：『這是說誰在供養如來呢？』回答說：『如果有人通達不生不滅的真理。』又有人說：『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）先前禮敬我。』論師就是這樣，用這個偈頌來供養如來。有人問：『供養世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）是第一等的好事，所以應該在《中論》的開頭就用法供養，也就是用這個偈頌，就像您說的能斷除一切執著、戲論等。現在應該解釋一下。』回答說：『你聽著。』

【English Translation】 English version The Dharma is not empty. If such a person thinks so, then the Dharma is empty for him, and emptiness itself is also the Dharma. Furthermore, the Buddha said that what is called 'emptiness' (sunyata), is that emptiness itself is also empty; what is called 'form' (rupa), is that form itself is also empty. If there were even a little Dharma that is not empty, then the concept of 'emptiness' could be established. But all Dharmas have no self-nature, where would there be a distinction between emptiness and non-emptiness? Based on this principle, there is a verse that says: 'If a Dharma is not empty, then the concept of emptiness can be said to exist; if there is no Dharma that is not empty, then based on what Dharma is emptiness spoken of?' I know this because, due to attachment, similar meanings are established. Someone asks: 'If you, Master, are like this, explaining the meaning of the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) in this way, then why did you first compose the Madhyamaka-karika (Verses on the Middle Way), isn't this a fabrication, rather than following the sutras?' The answer is: 'If someone is foolish, without wisdom, they will give rise to such discrimination, disparaging the sutras, thinking that the sutras are not mature enough, and only the treatises are real, and other Dharmas are not worth mentioning.' For these people, there is this verse: 'Having completely destroyed the enemy of afflictions, saving sentient beings from evil paths, the Tathagata (Buddha) has the ability to destroy and save, these two abilities are not found in other Dharmas.' This verse is not only fundamental, but also to praise and make offerings to the Tathagata, and to cut off all frivolous discussions, distinguishing various attachments, etc., that's why this verse is spoken. Someone asks: 'How so?' The answer is: 'There are countless ways to make offerings to the Tathagata, because the Tathagata has immeasurable merits. Now, let's briefly mention three types of offerings: first, the offering of following the Dharma; second, the offering of giving wealth; and third, the offering of oneself in prostration. This first offering of following the Dharma is the most excellent of offerings. Using this verse to make offerings to the Tathagata is the most excellent of offerings, not material offerings.' Someone asks: 'Who is it that is making offerings to the Tathagata?' The answer is: 'If someone understands the truth of non-arising and non-ceasing.' And someone says: 'Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha) previously paid homage to me.' The commentator is like this, using this verse to make offerings to the Tathagata. Someone asks: 'Making offerings to the Bhagavan (another name for Buddha) is the best thing, so the Madhyamaka-karika should begin with the offering of the Dharma, that is, with this verse, just as you said it can cut off all attachments, frivolous discussions, etc. Now it should be explained.' The answer is: 'Listen.'

我今為說。善意思念。言戲論者。所謂取著有得有物二。及不實取諸相等。是戲弄法。故名戲論。彼今略說。所謂取體。若取非體。取體非體。或取非體非非體等。此偈于彼一切皆斷。問曰。云何皆斷。答曰。偈言。

佛已說因緣　　斷諸戲論法　故我稽首禮　　說法師中勝

因緣生者。皆是戲論。問曰。因緣生者。云何戲論。答曰。因緣生者。世尊已於小乘中說。隨順次第得入法義。亦以對治外道取法。問曰。云何對治。答曰。外道惡見。彼有體見。有斷常見。如是樂著一切世界。摩醯首羅。時節微塵勝。及自性斷滅等。生如是分別。彼外道人。如是分別。則失因緣。彼人如是樂戲論故。名為惡見。此之戲論。是諸外道取著之法。為斷此故。世尊已說。無明因緣而生於行。無明滅故。諸行滅等。以如是故。有世界生。以如是故。則世界滅。非余法故。如是生滅。

問曰。摩醯首羅。時節微塵勝者。自性及斷滅等。此等因緣。能生世界。滅世界者。此諸因緣。可是戲論。若因緣生。因緣滅者。云何戲論。答曰。以取著故。次第乃至取著涅槃。如來亦遮。何況不遮取著因緣。外道之人。取著體故。失於善道。行於惡道。戲論不實。問曰。云何。答曰摩醯首羅。若作世界。彼為是常。為是無常。為為他

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：我現在為你們解說。要好好地思考。所謂『戲論』，就是指執著于『有得』和『有物』這兩種觀念，以及不真實地執取各種表象等等。這些都是虛妄不實的法，所以叫做『戲論』。現在簡略地說，就是執取『體』（實體），或者執取『非體』（非實體），執取『體非體』（既是實體又不是實體），或者執取『非體非非體』（既不是實體也不是非實體）等等。這首偈頌可以斷除所有這些戲論。有人問：『怎樣斷除呢？』回答說：偈頌中說：『佛已說因緣（pratītyasamutpāda，事物相互依存的法則），斷諸戲論法，故我稽首禮，說法師中勝。』因緣所生的事物，都是戲論。有人問：『因緣所生的事物，為什麼是戲論呢？』回答說：因緣所生的事物，世尊已經在小乘佛教中說過，是爲了隨順次第，使人得以進入佛法的真義，也是爲了對治外道（tīrthika）的執取。有人問：『怎樣對治呢？』回答說：外道有各種錯誤的見解，他們有『體見』（認為事物有不變的實體），有『斷常見』（認為事物要麼永恒不變，要麼徹底斷滅）。他們如此樂於執著於一切世界，執著于摩醯首羅（Maheśvara，印度教主神濕婆的別名），時節（時間），微塵（原子），勝（至高無上的存在），以及自性（本性）斷滅等等。他們產生這樣的分別。這些外道之人，如此分別，就失去了對因緣的理解。他們如此樂於戲論，所以被稱為有惡見。這些戲論，是外道所執著的法。爲了斷除這些戲論，世尊已經說過，因為無明（avidyā，對事物真相的無知）的因緣，而產生了行（saṃskāra，業力）。無明滅除，諸行也隨之滅除等等。因為這樣，世界產生。因為這樣，世界滅亡。不是因為其他什麼法。世界就是這樣生滅的。有人問：『摩醯首羅，時節，微塵，勝者，自性以及斷滅等等，這些因緣，能夠使世界產生，使世界滅亡嗎？這些因緣，難道是戲論嗎？如果因緣生，因緣滅，那為什麼是戲論呢？』回答說：因為執著于這些，從次第開始，乃至執著于涅槃（nirvāṇa，解脫）。如來（Tathāgata，佛陀的稱號）也禁止執著，更何況不禁止執著于因緣呢？外道之人，因為執著于『體』（實體），所以失去了通往善道的機會，而走向了惡道。戲論是不真實的。有人問：『為什麼呢？』回答說：摩醯首羅，如果創造了世界，那麼他是常（永恒不變）呢，還是無常（變化無常）呢？還是爲了他人而創造世界呢？

【English Translation】 English version: I will now explain this to you. Think carefully. 'Discursive proliferation' (prapañca) refers to clinging to the notions of 'having attainment' and 'having substance,' as well as unrealistically grasping at various appearances, and so on. These are all illusory dharmas, hence the name 'discursive proliferation.' Now, to put it briefly, it is grasping at 'inherent existence' (svabhāva), or grasping at 'non-inherent existence,' grasping at 'inherent existence and non-inherent existence,' or grasping at 'neither inherent existence nor non-inherent existence,' and so on. This verse cuts off all of these discursive proliferations. Someone asks: 'How does it cut them off?' The answer is: The verse says: 'The Buddha has spoken of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), cutting off all discursive proliferations. Therefore, I bow my head in reverence to the best of teachers.' Things that arise from dependent origination are all discursive proliferations. Someone asks: 'How are things that arise from dependent origination discursive proliferations?' The answer is: Things that arise from dependent origination, the World-Honored One (Bhagavān, an epithet of the Buddha) has already spoken of in the Lesser Vehicle (Hīnayāna), in order to follow the gradual path to enter the meaning of the Dharma, and also to counteract the grasping of the non-Buddhists (tīrthika). Someone asks: 'How does it counteract them?' The answer is: Non-Buddhists have various wrong views. They have the 'view of inherent existence' (the belief that things have an unchanging essence), and they have the 'view of eternalism and annihilationism' (the belief that things are either eternally unchanging or completely annihilated). They are thus attached to all worlds, attached to Maheśvara (Maheśvara, another name for the Hindu god Shiva), time, atoms, the Supreme Being, and annihilation of self-nature, and so on. They generate such distinctions. These non-Buddhists, by making such distinctions, lose sight of dependent origination. Because they are so fond of discursive proliferation, they are called those with wrong views. These discursive proliferations are the dharmas that non-Buddhists cling to. To cut off these discursive proliferations, the World-Honored One has said that because of the condition of ignorance (avidyā, unawareness of the true nature of things), actions (saṃskāra, karmic formations) arise. When ignorance ceases, actions also cease, and so on. Because of this, the world arises. Because of this, the world ceases. Not because of any other dharma. Thus, there is arising and ceasing. Someone asks: 'Maheśvara, time, atoms, the Supreme Being, self-nature, and annihilation, etc., these conditions, can they cause the world to arise and the world to cease? Are these conditions discursive proliferations? If there is arising and ceasing due to conditions, then why is it discursive proliferation?' The answer is: Because of clinging to these, starting with the gradual path, and even clinging to nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa, liberation). The Thus-Gone One (Tathāgata, an epithet of the Buddha) also prohibits clinging, let alone not prohibiting clinging to conditions? Non-Buddhists, because they cling to 'inherent existence' (svabhāva), lose the opportunity to reach the path of goodness and go down the path of evil. Discursive proliferation is unreal. Someone asks: 'Why?' The answer is: Maheśvara, if he created the world, is he permanent (eternal) or impermanent (changing)? Or did he create the world for others?

作。不為他作。彼為生已。而有所作。為是未生。而有所作為有而作。為無而作。彼如是等。皆悉不然。若作世界。為常而作。無常而作。為為他作。不為他作。為生不生。為有為無。如是一切。皆不相應。無道理故。

問曰。云何名為無道理耶。答曰。若是常法雲何而得造作世界。若是常法作世界者。虛空亦應得作世界。是事不可。若是無常作世界者。瓶等亦應造作世界。若常無常。作世界者。虛空與瓶皆應得作。是事不可。若汝意謂。常無常過。離常無常。更別有作作世界者。是則無窮作世界作。更復有作之所作故。此復有過。瓶亦應是作世界作。是事不可。若汝意謂。此是過者。則無作者而作世界。此義不成。問曰。云何不成。答曰。無眾生故。若無作者。尚自非有。況復有作。如其無作。得有造作。是則無物。亦應得作。若其得作。兔角亦應作石女兒。又亦應作虛空花鬘。是事不可。亦可作瓶而皆不作。

若已生者。當知不得造作世界。如瓶不作。若未生者。亦不得作。如石女兒。若是有者。不作世界。猶如其人。若是無者。不作世界。猶如兔角。

此於世界常無常等。不相似過。又復如是摩醯首羅常無常等。若是世界之因緣者。世間罪福。亦是所作。是事不可。若如是者。一切罪福。則

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不為自己而造作，也不為他人而造作。如果說因為已經存在而有所造作，或者爲了尚未存在而有所作為，或者因為存在而造作，或者爲了不存在而造作，這些說法都是不成立的。如果造作世界，是爲了常住不變而造作，還是爲了無常變化而造作？是爲了為他人造作，還是不為他人造作？是爲了已生而造作，還是爲了未生而造作？是爲了存在而造作，還是爲了不存在而造作？像這樣的一切說法，都是不相應的，因為沒有道理。問：為什麼說沒有道理呢？答：如果是常住不變的法，怎麼能夠造作世界呢？如果是常住不變的法能夠造作世界，那麼虛空也應該能夠造作世界，這是不可能的。如果是無常變化的法造作世界，那麼瓶子等也應該能夠造作世界。如果常住和無常都能造作世界，那麼虛空和瓶子都應該能夠造作世界，這是不可能的。如果你認為，有一種超越常住和無常的，既非恒常也非無常的東西，能夠造作世界，那麼就會有無窮無盡的造作者來造作世界，因為還有造作者的造作者。這又是一個過失。瓶子也應該成為造作世界的造作者，這是不可能的。如果你認為這是個過失，那麼就等於說沒有造作者而世界卻被造作出來，這個道理是不成立的。問：為什麼不成立呢？答：因為沒有眾生。如果沒有造作者，尚且自身不存在，更何況有造作呢？如果連造作都沒有，卻能有造作的行為，那麼就等於說沒有東西也能造作。如果這樣可以，那麼兔子角也應該能造出石女兒（沒有生育能力的女人所生的孩子），也應該能造出虛空中的花鬘（用虛空中的花朵編織成的花環），這是不可能的。也可以造出瓶子，但實際上卻什麼也造不出來。如果已經存在的，應當知道不能造作世界，就像瓶子不能造作一樣。如果尚未存在的，也不能造作，就像石女兒一樣。如果是存在的，不能造作世界，就像那個人一樣。如果是不存在的，不能造作世界，就像兔子角一樣。這對於世界是常住還是無常等問題，存在著不相似的過失。又像摩醯首羅（Mahesvara，印度教主神濕婆的別名）是常住還是無常等問題。如果摩醯首羅是世界的因緣，那麼世間的罪與福也是他所造作的，這是不可能的。如果這樣的話，一切罪與福都應該……

【English Translation】 English version: Not made for oneself, nor made for others. If it is said that there is making because of what already exists, or acting for what has not yet come into existence, or making because of existence, or making for non-existence, all such statements are not valid. If creating the world, is it to create for permanence or impermanence? Is it to create for others or not for others? Is it to create for the born or the unborn? Is it to create for existence or non-existence? All such things are not corresponding, because there is no reason. Question: What is meant by 'no reason'? Answer: If it is a permanent dharma (law, principle), how can it create the world? If a permanent dharma can create the world, then space should also be able to create the world. This is impossible. If an impermanent dharma creates the world, then a pot, etc., should also be able to create the world. If both permanent and impermanent can create the world, then both space and a pot should be able to create the world. This is impossible. If you mean that there is something beyond permanent and impermanent, separate from permanent and impermanent, that can create the world, then there would be endless creators creating the world, because there is a creator of the creator. This is another fault. A pot should also be the creator of the world, which is impossible. If you think this is a fault, then it means that there is no creator, but the world is created. This meaning is not established. Question: Why is it not established? Answer: Because there are no sentient beings. If there is no creator, it does not even exist itself, let alone create. If there is no creation, but there is creation, then it means that nothing can create. If that is possible, then a rabbit's horn should also be able to create a son of a barren woman (a child born to a woman who cannot conceive), and should also be able to create a garland of flowers in the sky (a garland woven from flowers in the sky). This is impossible. It is also possible to make a pot, but nothing is actually made. If it is already born, know that it cannot create the world, just as a pot does not create. If it is not yet born, it also cannot create, like the son of a barren woman. If it exists, it does not create the world, like that person. If it does not exist, it does not create the world, like a rabbit's horn. This has dissimilar faults regarding whether the world is permanent or impermanent, etc. It is also like whether Mahesvara (Mahesvara, another name for the Hindu god Shiva) is permanent or impermanent, etc. If Mahesvara is the cause of the world, then the sins and blessings of the world are also made by him, which is impossible. If so, all sins and blessings should...

無果報。然今現見世間。罪福皆有果報。又復勝等。無物體故。不作世界。此義成就。先已廣說。以無因緣。是故彼無。若丈夫作丈夫不成。自不成故。不能成法。若有丈夫。可有轉行。如勝是常。無因緣故。勝無轉行。以是常故。如丈夫覺。丈夫無覺。則常如勝。若如是者。一切諸法。皆悉是常。若無物者。何法為常。若無法常。云何分別流轉行等。迦卑羅師。汝是弟子。云何有勝。有丈夫者。汝當說之。令義成就。爾乃於後常等法成。

問曰。云何無勝。答曰。云何有勝。問曰。以阿含故。答曰。我今亦以阿含故無。問曰。以道理故。有勝成就。迭相攝故。答曰。何者道理。問曰。有勝以見次第有壞相故。如見樹皮。知有樹心。答曰。若如是者。是汝家中。私量所量。道理成就。實無此勝。見壞相故。猶如兔角。兔角是有見壞相故。如樹皮等。

若汝意謂。雖無面等。而是有者。不相類故。則知無勝。以不生故。如石女兒。若如虛空則不成就。若如涅槃。是則無物無體。云何成有不有。此我今說。汝雖有語。都無義理。如汝曏者。見宗因喻。而有所說。皆不相應。此我今說。破汝勝法。有無量種。不可具說。略說少分。于汝法中。言丈夫者。此無眾生。無因緣故。猶如兔角。如汝曏者。言丈夫是世界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本沒有果報。然而現在世間所見，罪與福都有果報。而且勝性（Prakriti），因為它沒有實體，所以不能創造世界。這個道理已經詳細說明過了。因為它沒有因緣，所以勝性不存在。如果丈夫（Purusha）能創造丈夫，那丈夫自己就不能存在，因為它自己都不能存在，就不能成就萬法。如果存在丈夫，就可以有轉變執行。如果勝性是常，因為它沒有因緣，勝性就沒有轉變執行。因為它恒常不變，就像丈夫的覺知一樣。如果丈夫沒有覺知，那就和勝性一樣恒常不變。如果這樣的話，一切諸法就都是恒常不變的了。如果沒有實體，什麼法是恒常的呢？如果沒有恒常的法，又如何區分流轉執行等等呢？迦毗羅（Kapila）啊，你是弟子，怎麼會有勝性，有丈夫呢？你應該說明，使這個道理成立。然後才能成立恒常等等的法。

問：怎麼會沒有勝性呢？答：怎麼會有勝性呢？問：因為有阿含經（Agama，聖傳）的緣故。答：我現在也因為有阿含經的緣故說沒有。問：因為有道理，所以勝性成立，互相攝持的緣故。答：什麼道理呢？問：因為有勝性，所以能看到次第的壞滅之相，就像看到樹皮，就知道有樹心一樣。答：如果這樣的話，這是你家中的私自推測，道理成立。實際上沒有這個勝性。看到壞滅之相，就像兔角一樣。兔角是存在的，因為能看到壞滅之相，就像樹皮等等一樣。

如果你認為，即使沒有面等，勝性也是存在的，因為不相似的緣故，就知道沒有勝性。因為它不生，就像石女的兒子一樣。如果像虛空一樣，那就不能成就。如果像涅槃（Nirvana），那就是沒有物體沒有實體。怎麼能成立有或者沒有呢？我現在說，你雖然有言語，但是都沒有義理。就像你剛才所說的宗、因、喻，都不相應。我現在說，破斥你的勝性之法，有無量種，不能全部說完。略說少分。在你的法中，所說的丈夫，這裡沒有眾生，因為沒有因緣，就像兔角一樣。就像你剛才所說的丈夫是世界。

【English Translation】 English version There is no retribution. However, it is now seen in the world that both sins and blessings have retribution. Moreover, Prakriti (the primordial substance), because it has no substance, cannot create the world. This principle has already been explained in detail. Because it has no cause and condition, Prakriti does not exist. If Purusha (the self) could create Purusha, then Purusha itself could not exist, because it cannot exist by itself, it cannot accomplish all dharmas. If Purusha exists, there can be transformation and movement. If Prakriti is eternal, because it has no cause and condition, Prakriti has no transformation and movement. Because it is constant and unchanging, like the awareness of Purusha. If Purusha has no awareness, then it is as constant and unchanging as Prakriti. If this is the case, all dharmas are constant and unchanging. If there is no substance, what dharma is constant? If there is no constant dharma, how can we distinguish between flowing, moving, and so on? Kapila, you are a disciple, how can there be Prakriti, how can there be Purusha? You should explain this so that this principle can be established. Only then can the dharmas of constancy and so on be established.

Question: How can there be no Prakriti? Answer: How can there be Prakriti? Question: Because of the Agama (scriptural tradition). Answer: I now also say there is none because of the Agama. Question: Because there is reason, Prakriti is established, because they mutually support each other. Answer: What reason? Question: Because there is Prakriti, we can see the signs of gradual destruction, just as seeing the bark of a tree, we know there is a heartwood. Answer: If this is the case, this is your family's private speculation, and the principle is established. In reality, there is no such Prakriti. Seeing the signs of destruction is like a rabbit's horn. The rabbit's horn exists because we can see the signs of destruction, like tree bark and so on.

If you think that even if there is no face, etc., Prakriti exists, because they are dissimilar, we know there is no Prakriti. Because it is not born, like the son of a barren woman. If it is like space, then it cannot be accomplished. If it is like Nirvana, then there is no object and no substance. How can we establish existence or non-existence? I say now, although you have words, they have no meaning. Just like the proposition, reason, and example you just mentioned, they are not consistent. I say now, there are countless ways to refute your Prakriti, and I cannot say them all. I will briefly say a few. In your dharma, the Purusha you speak of, there are no sentient beings here, because there is no cause and condition, like a rabbit's horn. Just like you said earlier that Purusha is the world.

因緣。已引喻者。世界因緣。今共籌量。若不能說緣具。則減緣具減故。是則有過。譬喻則減。汝則退壞一切諍對不成就者。無譬喻故。應先自觀己之朋。已說自因相。若其是常。則非作者。若是無常。亦非作者。若為他作。亦非作者。不為他作。亦非作者。若體已生。亦非作者。若是未生。亦非作者。若其是有。亦非作者。若其是無。亦非作者。皆有譬喻。不能具說。當審思量。自朋有喻。他朋無喻。如是如是。摩醯首羅。時微塵等。世界因緣。則不成就。若此成就。作與所作。迭互相作。無如是事。若有此事。摩醯首羅。則能作勝勝。亦能作摩醯首羅。如是等故。如是外道。說作所作。迭互相違。皆不相應。

問曰。如汝所說。緣具不成。是則有過。譬喻則減。復退壞者。此我今說。何等緣具。何者減相。若何等人。宗因喻等。三是緣具。彼如是人。則三種減。唯因譬喻。此二有過。以緣具故。宗則無減。以是言說之根本故。又義成故。此久已說有三種減。因喻二減。若人分別此之三分。具足和合故名緣具。彼如是人。應三種減。若復有人因三相語。則是緣具。彼人三種。云何有減。若緣具過。若譬喻減。云何彼人而當有減。若緣具過。汝未知故。作如是說。說喻減已。得緣具過。若復退壞。答曰。云何如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因緣。已經用比喻說明了。現在共同討論世界的因緣。如果不能說明緣的完備，那麼減少緣的完備性，這就是過失。比喻也會因此減少。你就會退敗，一切爭論都不能成立，因為沒有比喻。應該先觀察自己一方的論點，已經說明了自己的因相。如果它是常，就不是作者；如果是無常，也不是作者。如果是為他而作，也不是作者；如果不是為他而作，也不是作者。如果本體已經產生，也不是作者；如果是未產生，也不是作者。如果它是有，也不是作者；如果它是無，也不是作者。這些都有比喻，不能完全說清楚，應當仔細思考。自己一方有比喻，對方沒有比喻，就是這樣。摩醯首羅（Maheśvara，大自在天）如果是微塵等世界的因緣，那麼就不能成就。如果這個成就，作者和所作互相作用，沒有這樣的事。如果有這樣的事，摩醯首羅就能創造更勝一籌的事物，也能創造摩醯首羅。因為這些原因，像這樣的外道，所說的作者和所作，互相違背，都不相應。

問：如你所說，緣的完備不能成立，這就是過失，比喻也會減少，還會退敗。我現在要說，什麼是緣的完備，什麼是減少的相狀？如果有人認為宗、因、喻等三種是緣的完備，那麼這樣的人，就會有三種減少，只有因和比喻，這兩種有過失。因為緣的完備，宗就沒有減少，因為它是言說的根本。又因為義理已經成立，這已經說了很久了，有三種減少，因和喻兩種減少。如果有人分別這三個部分，具足和合，所以叫做緣的完備，那麼這樣的人，應該有三種減少。如果有人用因的三種相來說，這就是緣的完備，那麼這個人三種，怎麼會有減少呢？如果緣的完備有過失，如果比喻減少，那麼這個人怎麼會有減少呢？如果緣的完備有過失，你因為不知道，才這樣說。說了比喻減少之後，就得到了緣的完備的過失。如果退敗，回答說：怎麼樣呢？

【English Translation】 English version Causes and Conditions. Already illustrated with metaphors. Now let's discuss the causes and conditions of the world together. If one cannot explain the completeness of conditions, then reducing the completeness of conditions is a fault. The metaphors will also be reduced. You will be defeated, and all arguments will fail because there are no metaphors. One should first observe one's own side's arguments, having already explained the characteristics of one's own causes. If it is permanent, then it is not the creator; if it is impermanent, it is also not the creator. If it is created for others, it is also not the creator; if it is not created for others, it is also not the creator. If the entity has already arisen, it is also not the creator; if it has not yet arisen, it is also not the creator. If it exists, it is also not the creator; if it does not exist, it is also not the creator. These all have metaphors, which cannot be fully explained, and should be carefully considered. One's own side has metaphors, while the other side has no metaphors, that is how it is. Maheśvara (the Great Lord) as the cause and condition of worlds like dust motes, then it cannot be accomplished. If this is accomplished, the creator and the created act on each other mutually, but there is no such thing. If there were such a thing, Maheśvara could create even superior things, and could also create Maheśvara. Because of these reasons, like these heretics, what they say about the creator and the created contradicts each other and is not consistent.

Question: As you say, the completeness of conditions cannot be established, which is a fault, and metaphors will be reduced, and there will be defeat. Now I will say, what is the completeness of conditions, and what are the characteristics of reduction? If someone thinks that the proposition, reason, and example are the completeness of conditions, then such a person will have three reductions, only the reason and example, these two have faults. Because of the completeness of conditions, the proposition has no reduction, because it is the root of speech. Also, because the meaning has been established, this has been said for a long time, there are three reductions, the reason and example have two reductions. If someone distinguishes these three parts, complete and combined, so it is called the completeness of conditions, then such a person should have three reductions. If someone speaks with the three aspects of reason, then this is the completeness of conditions, then how can this person have three reductions? If the completeness of conditions has faults, if the metaphor is reduced, then how can this person have reductions? If the completeness of conditions has faults, you say this because you do not know. After saying that the metaphor is reduced, you get the fault of the completeness of conditions. If there is defeat, answer: How so?

是撾打虛空。若能捨離摩醯首羅之朋分已則可起心自謂黠慧爾乃攝取。若耶須摩之朋分也。汝此語言不能說于出世間法與世間法。復不相應。以其虛妄最凡鄙故。此如是故。則不須答。若耶須摩論師說言。此言語法。云何復離世諦之法。此我今說。以何者是。彼因三相。若何者法語為緣具。復以何者是因三相。

問曰。朋中之法。相對朋無。復自朋成。如聲無常。以造作故。因緣壞故。作已生故。如是等故。若法造作。皆是無常。譬如瓶等。聲亦如是。作故無常。諸如是等。一切諸法。作故無常。答曰。何名作法。為作名作。離作名作。此今解釋。若以作故。名為作者。聲是作法。聲皆是作。是故名作。若如是者。朋法不攝。則不得言。聲是朋法。若汝意謂。有如是過。聲與作異。聲則非作。若法離作。不得言作。以如是故。知聲非作。若聲非作。是則無法。若無法者。云何言常。或言無常。若分別物。分別物法。云何作聲。為有故作。為無故作。此今解釋。有法不作。無亦不作。若法有無。亦不成作。若汝說言。聲是作法。故無常者。是事不然。又如汝說三種相故。是名作法。因及因語。皆是緣具。則不相應。問曰。云何名為不相應耶。答曰。以不成故。一切作法無三種相。無朋對故。作朋之對。彼朋不作。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這是在敲打虛空。如果能夠捨棄摩醯首羅（Maheśvara，大自在天）的朋分，才能開始自以為聰明地去攝取若耶須摩（Yaśomitra）的朋分。你這些言論既不能闡述出世間法，也不與世間法相應，因為它們虛妄且極其鄙陋。因此，對於這些言論，無需回答。若耶須摩論師說：『這些言語語法，如何能脫離世俗諦的法則？』我現在就來闡述。什麼是彼因三相？什麼又是法語的緣具？又是什麼是因三相？問：朋中的法，是相對於朋而無，還是由自身朋而成？例如，聲音是無常的，因為它是被造作的，因緣壞滅的，以及產生后又消逝的。像這樣等等的原因。如果一個法是被造作的，那麼它就是無常的，比如瓶子等等。聲音也是如此，因為它是被造作的，所以是無常的。所有像這樣的法，都是因為被造作所以是無常的。答：什麼叫做作法？是以『作』為名而稱作『作』，還是脫離『作』而稱作『作』？現在來解釋這個問題。如果因為『作』的緣故，而稱之為『作者』，那麼聲音是作法，聲音都是『作』，所以稱之為『作』。如果是這樣的話，朋法就不能包含它，那麼就不能說聲音是朋法。如果你認為有這樣的過失，即聲音與『作』是不同的，那麼聲音就不是『作』。如果一個法脫離了『作』，就不能稱之為『作』。因為這個緣故，就知道聲音不是『作』。如果聲音不是『作』，那麼它就是無法。如果無法，又怎麼能說它是常，或者說它是無常呢？如果分別事物，分別事物之法，如何能造作聲音？是因為有而造作，還是因為無而造作？現在來解釋這個問題。有法不能造作，無法也不能造作。如果一個法既有又無，也不能成就造作。如果你說聲音是作法，所以是無常的，那麼這種說法是不對的。又如你所說的三種相的緣故，稱之為作法，因以及因語，都是緣具，這並不相應。問：為什麼說不相應呢？答：因為不能成立。一切作法都沒有三種相，沒有朋對的緣故。作朋的對立面，那個朋不是作。

【English Translation】 English version: This is like striking at emptiness. If one can relinquish the 'punga' (division, part) of Maheśvara (the Great Lord), then one can begin to think oneself clever and take up the 'punga' of Yaśomitra (a Buddhist philosopher). Your words can neither explain the supramundane dharma nor are they consistent with mundane dharma, because they are false and utterly base. Therefore, there is no need to answer them. The teacher Yaśomitra says: 'How can these linguistic expressions be separate from the laws of conventional truth?' I will now explain this. What are the three characteristics of that cause? What are the conditions for the 'dharma' (teaching, law) of speech? And what are the three characteristics of the cause? Question: Is the 'dharma' (law, teaching) within a 'punga' (division, part) non-existent relative to the 'punga', or is it formed by its own 'punga'? For example, sound is impermanent because it is produced, because its conditions are destroyed, and because it arises and then ceases. For reasons such as these. If a 'dharma' (law, teaching) is produced, then it is impermanent, like a pot, and so on. Sound is also like this; because it is produced, it is impermanent. All such 'dharmas' (laws, teachings) are impermanent because they are produced. Answer: What is called 'produced dharma'? Is it called 'produced' because of 'production', or is it called 'produced' apart from 'production'? Let us now explain this. If because of 'production' it is called 'producer', then sound is a produced 'dharma' (law, teaching), and all sounds are 'production', therefore it is called 'produced'. If this is the case, then the 'punga dharma' (division law) does not include it, so it cannot be said that sound is a 'punga dharma' (division law). If you think there is such a fault, that sound and 'production' are different, then sound is not 'production'. If a 'dharma' (law, teaching) is separate from 'production', it cannot be called 'production'. Because of this, it is known that sound is not 'production'. If sound is not 'production', then it is non-existent. If it is non-existent, how can it be said to be permanent or impermanent? If one distinguishes things, distinguishes the 'dharma' (law, teaching) of things, how can one produce sound? Is it produced because of existence, or is it produced because of non-existence? Let us now explain this. An existent 'dharma' (law, teaching) cannot produce, nor can a non-existent 'dharma' (law, teaching) produce. If a 'dharma' (law, teaching) both exists and does not exist, it cannot accomplish production. If you say that sound is a produced 'dharma' (law, teaching), therefore it is impermanent, then this statement is not correct. Furthermore, as you say, because of the three characteristics it is called a produced 'dharma' (law, teaching), the cause and the language of the cause are all conditions, this is not consistent. Question: Why is it said to be inconsistent? Answer: Because it cannot be established. All produced 'dharmas' (laws, teachings) do not have three characteristics, because there is no 'punga' (division, part) to oppose them. The opposite of the 'punga' (division, part) of production, that 'punga' (division, part) is not production.

是故相破。若不作者。是則無法。若無法者。云何破壞。如是兩朋。非等非勝。非有作法。若無法壞。亦可說言。兔角破壞。以無體故。義不相應。

若汝意謂。無常之朋。常朋相對。如是隨起。此我今說。汝甚愚癡。以不成法。而欲成法。此無常者。名為無物。若無物者。則無自朋。自朋不成。不得隨起。不得迴轉。若如是者。不得言朋。如虛空等。以無物故。若汝說言。他朋常者。是義不然。問曰。云何不然。答曰常不成故。如此常者。為是有物。為是無物。若是有物。瓶則是常。以有物故。若常無物。兔角應常。以無物故。是故不得言常無常。若汝說言。作法隨自朋不離。是義不然。以其自朋不成就故。問曰。云何不成。答曰。此說不成與朋相似。得言相似。以相似故。有自他朋。而汝朋者。則不相應。以所成法。未成就故。

問曰。云何名為所成未成。答曰。以所成法是無常故。無常無物。如其無物。何處相似。何者相似。謂瓶無常亦相似生。若如是說。所成之法。有異相似。得言相似。以相似故。有自他朋。此所成法。若有二種得言相似。瓶與無常。有二種法。得言相似。無二種法故不相似。彼所成法。若未生者。何名無常。云何名為所成成就。云何無常所成成就。問曰。云何名為所成不成。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，相互破斥。如果不是造作的，那就是沒有法。如果沒有法，又如何破壞呢？像這樣兩方，既不相等也不優勝，因為沒有造作之法。如果無法可以被破壞，也可以說兔角被破壞了，因為它沒有實體，義理上不相應。

如果你認為，無常的一方與常的一方相對立，這樣隨之而起。我現在要說，你非常愚癡，因為想用不成之法來成就法。這個無常，名為無物。如果無物，就沒有自己的朋黨。自己的朋黨不成，就不能隨之而起，不能迴轉。如果這樣，就不能稱為朋黨，如同虛空等，因為沒有實體。如果你說，對方是常，這個說法是不對的。問：為什麼不對？答：因為常不成。這個常，是有物還是無物？如果是有物，瓶子就應該是常，因為它有物。如果常是無物，兔角也應該是常，因為它無物。所以不能說常與無常。如果你說，造作之法隨自己的朋黨不分離，這個說法是不對的，因為它的朋黨沒有成就。問：為什麼不成？答：這個說不成與朋黨相似，可以說相似，因為相似，有自己和他人的朋黨。而你的朋黨，則不相應，因為所要成就的法，還沒有成就。

問：什麼叫做所成未成？答：因為所要成就的法是無常的。無常是無物，如果無物，哪裡有相似？什麼東西相似？比如瓶子的無常也相似地生起。如果這樣說，所成就的法，有不同的相似之處，可以說相似，因為相似，有自己和他人的朋黨。這個所成就的法，如果有兩種，可以說相似。瓶子和無常，有兩種法，可以說相似。沒有兩種法，所以不相似。那個所成就的法，如果還沒有生起，怎麼叫做無常？怎麼叫做所成成就？怎麼叫做無常所成成就？問：什麼叫做所成不成？

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, they refute each other. If it is not created, then there is no dharma. If there is no dharma, how can it be destroyed? Thus, these two sides are neither equal nor superior, because there is no created dharma. If no dharma can be destroyed, one could also say that a rabbit's horn is destroyed, because it has no substance, the meaning is not consistent.

If you think that the side of impermanence is opposed to the side of permanence, and thus arises accordingly, I now say that you are very foolish, because you want to establish a dharma with a non-existent dharma. This impermanence is called 'no-thing'. If it is 'no-thing', then there is no own party. If the own party is not established, it cannot arise accordingly, it cannot turn around. If it is like this, it cannot be called a party, like empty space, because it is 'no-thing'. If you say that the other party is permanent, that is not right. Question: Why is it not right? Answer: Because permanence is not established. Is this permanence something or nothing? If it is something, then the pot should be permanent, because it is something. If permanence is nothing, then the rabbit's horn should be permanent, because it is nothing. Therefore, one cannot say permanence and impermanence. If you say that the created dharma does not separate from its own party, that is not right, because its own party is not accomplished. Question: Why is it not accomplished? Answer: This saying 'not accomplished' is similar to a party. One can say similar, because it is similar, there are own and other parties. But your party is not consistent, because the dharma to be accomplished has not yet been accomplished.

Question: What is called 'accomplished not accomplished'? Answer: Because the dharma to be accomplished is impermanent. Impermanence is nothing. If it is nothing, where is the similarity? What is similar? For example, the impermanence of a pot also arises similarly. If you say so, the dharma that is accomplished has different similarities. One can say similar, because it is similar, there are own and other parties. If this dharma that is accomplished has two kinds, one can say similar. The pot and impermanence, there are two kinds of dharmas, one can say similar. If there are not two kinds of dharmas, then they are not similar. If that dharma that is accomplished has not yet arisen, what is called impermanence? What is called 'accomplished accomplished'? What is called 'impermanent accomplished accomplished'? Question: What is called 'accomplished not accomplished'?

答曰。然此所成。或時是聲。或是無常。或聲無常。若合或和。此等一切皆不可成。若不可成。為於何處有所成法。若分別物。分別物法。若有相似。

若汝意謂。離聲無常二種法。外更攝余物。名所成者。是義不然。物不成故彼何者物。離聲等二。於何處攝。而得言物。彼若是聲。彼則不得名為所成。以成就故。若是無常。彼無法故。所成不成。聲不能破。若是合者。是亦不然。物與無物。不可得合。是故不合。和亦如是。而不可得。

若複意謂。聲異所成。是義不然。無常與聲。不別異故。不異成故。若汝說言。有朋法作。是義不然。離朋有法。義不成就。于佛法中。離物以外。更無物法。問曰。緣具所成。此二相對。名物物法。答曰。緣具所成。二皆不成。離作物外。更無作法。如是作法。與朋不離。若作離朋。朋則非作。唯作是法。離作無法。不離於聲。而有作法是故偈言。

生作唯相貌　　作者亦如是　一切生不實　　生法如兔角

如是作法。非有故有。非無故有。亦復非是有無故有。如是思量。作法三相。義不相應。作法無物語於何處得為緣具。若三種減。若緣具過。

又復語言。於三種相。則不相應。語所說法。皆空無故。無自相故。句之與語。非一非異。離字無句。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：回答說：『如果這樣，那麼這個『所成』（Siddha，已成就的事物），有時是『聲』（Shabda，聲音），有時是『無常』（Anitya，變化），或者『聲』是『無常』。如果組合或調和，這些一切都不能成就。如果不能成就，那麼在什麼地方有所成就的法呢？如果分別『物』（Vastu，事物），分別『物法』（Vastudharma，事物的性質），如果存在相似之處。』

『如果你的意思是，離開『聲』和『無常』這兩種法，之外再攝取其他事物，稱之為『所成』，這種說法是不對的。因為事物不成，那麼它是什麼事物呢？離開『聲』等二者，在什麼地方攝取，才能說它是事物呢？如果它是『聲』，那麼它就不能被稱為『所成』，因為它已經成就了。如果是『無常』，那麼它就沒有法，所以『所成』不成。『聲』不能破斥。如果是組合，這也是不對的。有物和無物，不可能組合在一起，所以不組合。調和也是如此，不可能得到。』

『如果又認為，『聲』和『所成』是不同的，這種說法是不對的。因為『無常』和『聲』，沒有區別。因為不異，所以不成。如果你說，有『朋法』（Bandhudharma，伴隨的性質）的作用，這種說法是不對的。離開『朋』，『有法』（Vidyamana dharma，存在的性質）的意義不能成就。在佛法中，離開事物以外，再沒有事物之法。』問：『緣具』（Hetusamagri，因緣和合）所成，這二者相對，稱為『物』和『物法』。答：『緣具』所成，二者都不能成就。離開『作』（Kriya，作用）以外，再沒有『作法』（Kriyadharma，作用的性質）。像這樣，『作法』和『朋』不分離。如果『作』離開『朋』，『朋』就不是『作』。只有『作』是法，離開『作』就沒有法，不離開『聲』，而有『作法』，所以偈頌說：

『生起、作用唯有相貌，作者也是這樣，一切生起都不真實，生起之法如兔角。』

『像這樣，『作法』不是因為有而有，不是因為無而有，也不是因為亦有亦無而有。像這樣思量，『作法』的三種相，意義不相應。『作法』沒有事物，在什麼地方能得到『緣具』呢？如果三種減少，如果『緣具』過多。』

『又說，在三種相中，則不相應。語言所說的法，都是空無的，因為沒有自相。句和語，非一非異。離開字就沒有句。』

【English Translation】 English version: He replied: 'If that is so, then this 'Siddha' (所成, accomplished thing), is sometimes 'Shabda' (聲, sound), sometimes 'Anitya' (無常, impermanence), or 'sound' is 'impermanent'. If combined or harmonized, all these cannot be accomplished. If they cannot be accomplished, then where is there an accomplished dharma? If one distinguishes 'Vastu' (物, thing), distinguishes 'Vastudharma' (物法, the nature of a thing), if there is similarity.'

'If you mean that, apart from these two dharmas of 'sound' and 'impermanence', other things are taken in and called 'Siddha', this is not right. Because the thing is not accomplished, then what thing is it? Apart from 'sound' and the other two, where is it taken in, so that it can be called a thing? If it is 'sound', then it cannot be called 'Siddha', because it is already accomplished. If it is 'impermanence', then it has no dharma, so 'Siddha' is not accomplished. 'Sound' cannot refute it. If it is a combination, this is also not right. Something and nothing cannot be combined together, so they do not combine. Harmony is also like this, it cannot be obtained.'

'If it is again thought that 'sound' and 'Siddha' are different, this is not right. Because 'impermanence' and 'sound' are not different. Because they are not different, they are not accomplished. If you say that there is the function of 'Bandhudharma' (朋法, accompanying nature), this is not right. Apart from 'Bandhu' (朋, companion), the meaning of 'Vidyamana dharma' (有法, existing nature) cannot be accomplished. In the Buddha-dharma, apart from things, there is no dharma of things.' Question: 'Hetusamagri' (緣具, the aggregation of causes and conditions) is accomplished, these two are relative, and are called 'thing' and 'thing-dharma'. Answer: 'Hetusamagri' is accomplished, and neither can be accomplished. Apart from 'Kriya' (作, action), there is no 'Kriyadharma' (作法, the nature of action). Like this, 'Kriyadharma' and 'Bandhu' are not separate. If 'Kriya' is separate from 'Bandhu', then 'Bandhu' is not 'Kriya'. Only 'Kriya' is dharma, apart from 'Kriya' there is no dharma, it is not separate from 'sound', and there is 'Kriyadharma', so the verse says:

'Arising and action only have appearances, the actor is also like this, all arising is unreal, the dharma of arising is like a rabbit's horn.'

'Like this, 'Kriyadharma' is not because it exists that it exists, it is not because it does not exist that it exists, nor is it because it both exists and does not exist that it exists. Thinking like this, the three aspects of 'Kriyadharma' are not corresponding in meaning. 'Kriyadharma' has no thing, where can 'Hetusamagri' be obtained? If the three are reduced, if 'Hetusamagri' is excessive.'

'Again, it is said that in the three aspects, they do not correspond. The dharma spoken by language is all empty, because it has no self-nature. Sentence and speech are neither one nor different. Without characters, there are no sentences.'

非一非異。字微塵成。因微塵有。然彼微塵。無分可得。以無分故。微塵自無。不能有成。若起若滅。

問曰。如汝所言。所說法空。以法空故。語三種相。皆不成者。是義不然。所說有故。此語所說有可得故。因緣壞等。云何而言。所說法空。遮三種相。答曰。因緣破壞。義不相應。不成就故。聲因緣壞。云何相應。以唸唸故。以不住故。既是無物。何處得有。因緣破壞。以不生故。猶如兔角。若復無常。此語三相。若常無常。二不相應。如虛空無。又亦如瓶。無有因緣。如是因緣。一切皆無。有二過故。此等一切。悉皆如是。邪法所攝。皆是戲論。破外道故。佛說因緣。

問曰。若如是者。云何因緣。得言戲論。如來世尊以諸因緣是實故說。佛如是說。此無明等。是大苦聚。和合而生。若無明滅。大苦聚滅。如來世尊說苦聖諦。或說苦滅。若是實者。云何戲論。答曰。賢面當聽。此今略說。何名無明。以不能知四顛倒故。說名無明。云何名實。又言。苦是苦聖諦者。如來世尊不如是說。如勝思惟梵天問經。佛言。梵天。若彼苦是實聖諦者。一切牛豬。諸畜生等。應有實諦。何以故。以彼皆受種種苦故。又言。梵天。若彼集是實聖諦者。六道眾生。應有實諦何以故。以彼因集生諸趣故。又言。梵天。若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：非一也非異也。從極小的微塵聚積而成。因為微塵的存在而存在。然而那些微塵，已經細微到無法再分割。因為無法再分割的緣故，微塵本身就不存在，既然不存在，就不能形成任何事物。無論是產生還是消滅。

問：如果像你所說，你所說的法是空性的，因為法是空性的緣故，所以關於三種相的說法，都不能成立，那麼這種說法是不對的。因為所說的事物是存在的，這種說法所說的事物是可以被認識到的。因緣壞滅等等，怎麼能說你所說的法是空性的，從而否定三種相呢？答：因緣破壞，在道理上是不相應的，因為不能成就的緣故。聲音的因緣壞滅，怎麼能相應呢？因爲念念生滅的緣故，因為沒有常住的緣故。既然是無實之物，又怎麼會有因緣破壞呢？因為不生起的緣故，就像兔子的角一樣。如果說是無常，那麼這種關於三種相的說法，無論是常還是無常，都是不相應的，就像虛空一樣不存在。又像瓶子一樣，沒有因緣。像這樣的因緣，一切都是不存在的，因為有二種過失的緣故。這些等等，都像這樣，被邪法所包含，都是虛妄的言論。爲了破斥外道，佛陀才說因緣。

問：如果像這樣，為什麼因緣可以被說成是虛妄的言論呢？如來世尊因為諸種因緣是真實的，所以才這樣說。佛陀是這樣說的：這無明等等，是大苦聚集，和合而生。如果無明滅除，大苦聚集就滅除。如來世尊說了苦聖諦，或者說了苦滅。如果是真實不虛的，為什麼說是虛妄的言論呢？答：賢者應當仔細聽。我現在簡略地說一下，什麼叫做無明？因為不能如實知見四顛倒的緣故，所以叫做無明。又怎麼能說是真實的呢？又說，苦是苦聖諦，如來世尊不是這樣說的。就像《勝思惟梵天問經》中，佛陀說：『梵天，如果那苦是真實的聖諦，那麼一切牛、豬、各種畜生等等，都應該有真實的聖諦。為什麼呢？因為它們都承受著種種痛苦的緣故。』又說：『梵天，如果那集是真實的聖諦，那麼六道眾生，都應該有真實的聖諦。為什麼呢？因為他們因為集而生於諸趣的緣故。』又說：『梵天，如果那

【English Translation】 English version: Neither one nor different. Formed from the accumulation of minute dust particles (微塵, wēi chén). Exists because of the existence of dust particles. However, those dust particles are so minute that they cannot be further divided. Because they cannot be divided, the dust particles themselves do not exist, and since they do not exist, they cannot form anything. Whether arising or ceasing.

Question: If, as you say, the Dharma you speak of is emptiness (法空, fǎ kōng), and because the Dharma is emptiness, the statements about the three characteristics (三種相, sān zhǒng xiāng) cannot be established, then this statement is incorrect. Because what is spoken of exists, and what is spoken of in this statement can be perceived. How can you say that the Dharma you speak of is emptiness, thereby negating the three characteristics, given the destruction of conditions (因緣壞, yīnyuán huài) and so on? Answer: The destruction of conditions is not logically consistent, because it cannot be accomplished. How can the destruction of the conditions for sound be consistent? Because of the moment-to-moment arising and ceasing, because of the lack of permanence. Since it is an unreal thing, where can the destruction of conditions be found? Because it does not arise, like the horn of a rabbit. If it is said to be impermanent, then this statement about the three characteristics, whether permanent or impermanent, is inconsistent, like empty space. And like a vase, there are no conditions. Such conditions are all non-existent, because of two faults. All of these are like this, encompassed by false Dharma, and are all false discourses. To refute the heretics, the Buddha spoke of conditions.

Question: If this is the case, why can conditions be said to be false discourses? The Tathagata (如來, Rúlái), the World-Honored One (世尊, Shìzūn), said so because all conditions are real. The Buddha said: 'This ignorance (無明, wúmíng) and so on, is a great accumulation of suffering (大苦聚, dà kǔ jù), arising from combination. If ignorance is extinguished, the great accumulation of suffering is extinguished.' The Tathagata spoke of the Noble Truth of Suffering (苦聖諦, kǔ shèngdì), or spoke of the cessation of suffering. If it is real and not false, why is it said to be a false discourse? Answer: The wise one should listen carefully. I will now briefly explain what is called ignorance. Because one cannot truly know the four inversions (四顛倒, sì diāndǎo), it is called ignorance. And how can it be said to be real? And saying that suffering is the Noble Truth of Suffering, the Tathagata did not say it that way. Like in the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (勝思惟梵天問經, Shèng Sīwéi Fàntiān Wèn Jīng), the Buddha said: 'Brahma, if that suffering is the real Noble Truth, then all cows, pigs, and various livestock, etc., should have the real Noble Truth. Why? Because they all endure various sufferings.' And said: 'Brahma, if that accumulation (集, jí) is the real Noble Truth, then the beings of the six realms (六道, liùdào) should have the real Noble Truth. Why? Because they arise in the various destinies because of accumulation.' And said: 'Brahma, if that

彼滅是實聖諦者。一切世間墮邪斷見說滅法者。應有聖諦。何以故。彼說滅法為涅槃故。又言。梵天。若彼道是實聖諦者。緣於一切有為道者。應有實諦。何以故。以彼依有為法。求離有為法故。以是故知。苦非實諦。又復說言。知苦無生。是名苦實聖諦。是故如來經說偈言。

一諦名不生　　有人說四諦　道場不見一　　何況復有四　如是未來世　　常有諸比丘　惡意出家已　　如是壞我法

是故得知一切諸法悉皆不生。通達知者。是實聖諦。是故如來複有說言。須菩提。乃至無有微塵等法故名不生。彼何法知而得。名為知不生法。若無生忍而得。名為無生法忍。以是故知。苦等四法。非四聖諦。若如彼人之所分別。則非是智。若有能知不生不滅。乃得言諦。乃得言智。此如是義。聖須菩提問如來言。

為苦是涅槃　　苦智是涅槃　為集是涅槃　　集智是涅槃　為滅是涅槃　　滅智是涅槃　為道是涅槃　　道智是涅槃　佛言須菩提　　苦非是涅槃　苦智非涅槃　　苦集非涅槃　集智非涅槃　　苦滅非涅槃　滅智非涅槃　　道非是涅槃　道智非涅槃　　又復須菩提　四聖諦平等　　我說是涅槃　如是涅槃者　　非苦非苦智　如是次第至　　非道非道智　時聖須菩提　　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果『滅』是真實的聖諦，那麼所有世間墮入邪見，宣說斷滅法的人，也應該有聖諦。為什麼呢？因為他們說滅法就是涅槃的緣故。又說，梵天啊，如果那條道路是真實的聖諦，那麼緣於一切有為之道的修行者，也應該有真實的聖諦。為什麼呢？因為他們依靠有為法，尋求脫離有為法。因此可知，苦不是真實的聖諦。又有人說，知道苦無生，才叫做苦的真實聖諦。所以如來在經中說偈語：『一個諦名為不生，有人說有四個諦；在道場中連一個都見不到，更何況有四個呢？像這樣，未來世常常會有一些比丘，心懷惡意出家，像這樣破壞我的佛法。』因此可以得知，一切諸法都是不生的。通達並知曉這一點，才是真實的聖諦。所以如來又說：『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱），乃至沒有微塵等法，所以叫做不生。』那麼，知曉什麼法才能被稱為知曉不生法呢？如果獲得無生忍，才能被稱為獲得無生法忍。因此可知，苦等四法，不是四聖諦。如果像那些人所分別的那樣，那就不是智慧。如果有人能知不生不滅，才能說是真諦，才能說是智慧。這個道理，聖者須菩提問如來說：『苦是涅槃嗎？苦智是涅槃嗎？集（Samudaya，苦的根源）是涅槃嗎？集智是涅槃嗎？滅（Nirodha，苦的止息）是涅槃嗎？滅智是涅槃嗎？道（Marga，達到滅苦的道路）是涅槃嗎？道智是涅槃嗎？』佛說：『須菩提，苦不是涅槃，苦智不是涅槃，集不是涅槃，集智不是涅槃，滅不是涅槃，滅智不是涅槃，道不是涅槃，道智不是涅槃。』又說：『須菩提，四聖諦平等，我說那就是涅槃。』這樣的涅槃，不是苦，不是苦智，像這樣次第直到，不是道，不是道智。當時聖者須菩提，

【English Translation】 English version: If 'cessation' is a true noble truth, then all those in the world who have fallen into wrong views and preach the doctrine of annihilation should also have noble truths. Why? Because they say that the doctrine of annihilation is Nirvana. Furthermore, it is said, 'Brahma, if that path is a true noble truth, then those who practice the path of conditioned existence should also have true noble truths.' Why? Because they rely on conditioned dharmas to seek liberation from conditioned dharmas. Therefore, it can be known that suffering is not a true noble truth. Furthermore, some say that knowing that suffering is unarisen is called the true noble truth of suffering. Therefore, the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) says in a verse in the sutra: 'One truth is called unarisen; some say there are four truths. In the Bodhimanda (道場，place of enlightenment), not even one is seen, let alone four. In the future, there will always be monks who, with malicious intent, leave home and thus destroy my Dharma (佛法，Buddha's teachings).' Therefore, it can be known that all dharmas are unarisen. To understand and know this is the true noble truth. Therefore, the Tathagata also says: 'Subhuti (須菩提，one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his understanding of emptiness), even there is no dharma as small as a mote of dust, therefore it is called unarisen.' Then, knowing what dharma is called knowing the unarisen dharma? If one obtains the forbearance of non-origination, then it is called obtaining the forbearance of non-origination. Therefore, it can be known that the four dharmas, such as suffering, are not the Four Noble Truths. If it is as those people distinguish, then it is not wisdom. If someone can know non-origination and non-cessation, then it can be said to be truth, then it can be said to be wisdom. This is the meaning, the venerable Subhuti asked the Tathagata: 'Is suffering Nirvana? Is the wisdom of suffering Nirvana? Is Samudaya (集，the origin of suffering) Nirvana? Is the wisdom of Samudaya Nirvana? Is Nirodha (滅，the cessation of suffering) Nirvana? Is the wisdom of Nirodha Nirvana? Is Marga (道，the path to the cessation of suffering) Nirvana? Is the wisdom of Marga Nirvana?' The Buddha said: 'Subhuti, suffering is not Nirvana, the wisdom of suffering is not Nirvana, Samudaya is not Nirvana, the wisdom of Samudaya is not Nirvana, Nirodha is not Nirvana, the wisdom of Nirodha is not Nirvana, Marga is not Nirvana, the wisdom of Marga is not Nirvana.' Furthermore, 'Subhuti, the Four Noble Truths are equal; I say that is Nirvana.' Such Nirvana is not suffering, not the wisdom of suffering, and so on, until it is not the path, not the wisdom of the path. At that time, the venerable Subhuti,

白佛言世尊　復以何者是　　四聖諦平等　佛言須菩提　　所言平等者　隨在於何處　　非苦非苦智　如是次第至　　非道非道智　若彼一切法　　一切法真如　不虛妄真如　　如是法住等　我說彼涅槃　　而非是苦等　一切法不生　　以無自體故　如是說能知　　一切法不生　是名實聖諦

問曰。若如是者。以何義故。如來經中說四聖諦。答曰。此為次第隨順入故。佛如是說。非第一義。或實或妄語。是故世尊說言。梵天言實聖諦。實聖諦者。何處無實無妄語等。以是義故。四顛倒起。此智非實。如是苦諦。實不成就。我義成就。

問曰。我則不說非智為實。我說非智覺故名實。云何而說。于無常法謂是常法故名非智。于苦謂樂故名非智。無我謂我故名非智。不凈謂凈故名非智。如是等者。皆非是智。若於無常。能知無常。于苦知苦。于無我法。能知無我。于不凈法。能知不凈。如是知者。彼得言智。彼得言實。如是我說智名為實。非無智實。答曰。此癡臭氣風來薰我以戲論故。此癡最大樂著智故。問曰。云何。答曰。偈言。

若其有無常　　可得言有常　既無少無常　　何處當有常　若其少有苦　　可得言有樂　既無微少苦　　何處當有樂　若少有無我　　可得言

有我　既無有無我　　何處當有我　若有不寂靜　　可得有寂靜　既無不寂靜　　何處有寂靜

而於色體。貪取著已。或分別常。分別無常。色自體空。畢竟無物。何處有常。及有無常。如是等類。如色如是。至一切法。皆此因緣。成就戲論。然此因緣。亦是戲論。非唯因緣。如是戲論。乃至取佛。亦是戲論。

問曰。云何。答曰。善男子。聽汝勿憍慢。佛智難解。世尊偈言。

持心如金剛　　深信佛智慧　知心地無我　　能聞微細智

今汝善意生。金剛心善。面汝今聽說戲論不戲論相。

問曰。云何。答曰。此如是義。佛大經中。覺菩薩故言。須菩提。非體不覺非體。須菩提言。世尊。云何體能覺非體耶。佛言。不爾。須菩提。須菩提言。世尊。云何非體能覺體耶。佛言。不爾。須菩提。須菩提言。世尊。云何體能覺體耶。佛言。不爾。須菩提。須菩提言。世尊。云何非體能覺非體耶。佛言。不爾。須菩提。須菩提言。世尊。云何一切法不可得耶。不可覺耶。不可證耶。若體不覺非體。非體不覺體。體不覺體非體不覺非體。此當無耶。佛言。有覺有得。非此四句法。須菩提言。世尊。云何覺。佛言。須菩提。非體非非體。彼如是覺。何處無戲論。彼如是覺。非戲論。非戲論法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有我嗎？既然沒有『有我』和『無我』，那麼『我』又在哪裡呢？如果存在不寂靜，或許可以找到寂靜。既然沒有不寂靜，那麼寂靜又在哪裡呢？

對於色身（rupa-kaya，物質的身體），如果貪戀執著，或者分別它是常（nitya，永恒的），或者分別它是無常（anitya，無常的），但色身自性本空（sunyata，空性），畢竟沒有任何事物，哪裡會有常，又哪裡會有無常呢？像色身這樣，乃至一切法（dharma，佛法、事物），都是因為這種因緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）而成就戲論（prapancha，虛妄分別）。然而這種因緣，也是戲論。不僅僅是因緣，像這樣的戲論，乃至執取佛（Buddha），也是戲論。

（有人）問道：這是什麼意思呢？（佛）回答說：善男子，聽著，不要驕慢。佛的智慧難以理解。世尊（Bhagavan，佛的尊稱）用偈頌說：

『持心如金剛（vajra，金剛），深信佛智慧，知心地無我（anatman，無我），能聞微細智。』

現在你生起了善意，金剛心很好，現在我當面為你解說戲論和非戲論的相狀。

（有人）問道：是什麼樣的相狀呢？（佛）回答說：這個道理，佛在大經中，爲了覺悟菩薩（bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）而說。須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子），非體（that which is not the essence）不覺非體（that which is not the essence）。須菩提說：世尊，什麼是體能覺非體呢？佛說：不是這樣的，須菩提。須菩提說：世尊，什麼是非體能覺體呢？佛說：不是這樣的，須菩提。須菩提說：世尊，什麼是體能覺體呢？佛說：不是這樣的，須菩提。須菩提說：世尊，什麼是非體能覺非體呢？佛說：不是這樣的，須菩提。須菩提說：世尊，為什麼一切法都不可得呢？不可覺呢？不可證呢？如果體不覺非體，非體不覺體，體不覺體，非體不覺非體，這難道不存在嗎？佛說：有覺有得，但不是這四句法。須菩提說：世尊，什麼是覺呢？佛說：須菩提，非體非非體，像這樣覺悟，哪裡沒有戲論？像這樣覺悟，就是非戲論，就是非戲論法。

【English Translation】 English version Is there a self? Since there is neither 'having a self' nor 'having no self,' where then is the self to be found? If there were non-quiescence, perhaps quiescence could be found. Since there is no non-quiescence, where then is quiescence to be found?

Regarding the physical body (rupa-kaya), if one is greedy and attached, or distinguishes it as permanent (nitya), or distinguishes it as impermanent (anitya), but the self-nature of the physical body is empty (sunyata), ultimately without any substance, where would there be permanence, and where would there be impermanence? Just like the physical body, and so on to all dharmas (dharma), all are due to this cause and condition (hetu-pratyaya) that give rise to conceptual proliferation (prapancha). However, this cause and condition is also conceptual proliferation. Not only cause and condition, such conceptual proliferation, even grasping onto the Buddha (Buddha), is also conceptual proliferation.

(Someone) asks: What does this mean? (The Buddha) replies: Good man, listen, do not be arrogant. The wisdom of the Buddha is difficult to understand. The World-Honored One (Bhagavan) said in a verse:

'Hold the mind like a diamond (vajra), Deeply believe in the wisdom of the Buddha, Know that the mind has no self (anatman), Able to hear subtle wisdom.'

Now you have generated good intentions, your diamond mind is good, now I will explain to you face to face the characteristics of conceptual proliferation and non-conceptual proliferation.

(Someone) asks: What are these characteristics? (The Buddha) replies: This principle, in the Great Sutra, the Buddha spoke for the sake of awakening bodhisattvas (bodhisattva). Subhuti, that which is not the essence does not awaken that which is not the essence. Subhuti said: World-Honored One, what is it that the essence can awaken that which is not the essence? The Buddha said: It is not so, Subhuti. Subhuti said: World-Honored One, what is it that that which is not the essence can awaken the essence? The Buddha said: It is not so, Subhuti. Subhuti said: World-Honored One, what is it that the essence can awaken the essence? The Buddha said: It is not so, Subhuti. Subhuti said: World-Honored One, what is it that that which is not the essence can awaken that which is not the essence? The Buddha said: It is not so, Subhuti. Subhuti said: World-Honored One, why are all dharmas unattainable? Unawakened? Unproven? If the essence does not awaken that which is not the essence, that which is not the essence does not awaken the essence, the essence does not awaken the essence, that which is not the essence does not awaken that which is not the essence, does this not exist? The Buddha said: There is awakening and attainment, but it is not these four statements. Subhuti said: World-Honored One, what is awakening? The Buddha said: Subhuti, neither the essence nor that which is not the essence, thus is awakening, where is there no conceptual proliferation? Thus is awakening, it is non-conceptual proliferation, it is the dharma of non-conceptual proliferation.

。彼如是覺。慧命須菩提白佛言。世尊。菩薩摩訶薩。何者戲論。佛言。須菩提。色常無常者。菩薩摩訶薩戲論。須菩提。受想行識常無常者。菩薩摩訶薩戲論。若知色。若不知色者。菩薩摩訶薩戲論。如是知受想行識。不知受想行識者。菩薩摩訶薩戲論。知苦聖諦者戲論。斷集者戲論。證滅者戲論。修道者戲論。修行四禪者戲論。修行四無量。四無色。三摩跋提。四念處。四正勤。四如意足。五根。五力。七覺分。八聖道者戲論。修行空解脫門。無相無愿解脫門者戲論。修行八解脫。九次第。隨順行。三摩跋提者戲論。得須陀洹果。斯陀含果。阿那含果。阿羅漢果。辟支佛道者戲論。我得緣覺菩提者戲論。我具足滿十菩薩地者戲論。我得菩薩行者戲論。我教化眾生。令成就者戲論。我生如來十力者戲論。我得四無所畏。四無礙智。十八不共法滿足者戲論。我得一切具足者戲論。我斷一切結習者戲論。彼菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜。已知色若常無常戲論。不應如是戲論。菩薩如是不戲論乃至我得一切智者戲論。不應如是戲論。如是不戲論。何以故。自體自體不戲論。非自體非自體不戲論。自體非自體不戲論。非自體自體不戲論。更無有法可以戲論。何處戲論。誰為戲論何者戲論。云何戲論。是故須菩提。色不戲論。乃

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他這樣覺悟。慧命須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）對佛說：『世尊，什麼是菩薩摩訶薩（Bodhisattva-Mahasattva，偉大的菩薩）的戲論呢？』佛說：『須菩提，認為色（rupa，物質現象）是常或者無常，這是菩薩摩訶薩的戲論。須菩提，認為受（vedana，感受）、想（samjna，知覺）、行（samskara，意志）、識（vijnana，意識）是常或者無常，這是菩薩摩訶薩的戲論。如果知色，或者不知色，這是菩薩摩訶薩的戲論。像這樣，知受想行識，或者不知受想行識，這是菩薩摩訶薩的戲論。』『認為知苦聖諦（duhkha satya，關於苦的真理）是戲論，認為斷集（samudaya，苦的根源）是戲論，認為證滅（nirodha，苦的止息）是戲論，認為修道（marga，通往滅苦的道路）是戲論，認為修行四禪（dhyana，禪定）是戲論，認為修行四無量心（apramana，慈、悲、喜、舍），四無色定（arupa-samapatti，四種非物質領域的禪定），三摩跋提（samapatti，等至），四念處（smrtyupasthana，四種正念的修行），四正勤（samyak-pradhana，四種正確的努力），四如意足（rddhipada，四種成就神通的基礎），五根（indriya，信、精進、念、定、慧五種能力），五力（bala，信、精進、念、定、慧五種力量），七覺分（bodhyanga，七種覺悟的因素），八聖道（arya-ashtangika-marga，八正道）是戲論，認為修行空解脫門（sunyata-vimoksha-mukha，通往空性的解脫之門），無相解脫門（animitta-vimoksha-mukha，通往無相的解脫之門），無愿解脫門（apranihita-vimoksha-mukha，通往無愿的解脫之門）是戲論，認為修行八解脫（ashta-vimoksha，八種解脫），九次第定（nava-anupurva-vihara-samapatti，九種次第的禪定），隨順行（anulomika，隨順智慧的修行），三摩跋提（samapatti，等至）是戲論，認為得到須陀洹果（srotapanna-phala，入流果），斯陀含果（sakrdagamin-phala，一來果），阿那含果（anagamin-phala，不來果），阿羅漢果（arhat-phala，無學果），辟支佛道（pratyekabuddha-yana，緣覺乘）是戲論，認為我得到緣覺菩提（pratyekabuddha-bodhi，緣覺的覺悟）是戲論，認為我具足圓滿了十地菩薩（dasa-bhumi-bodhisattva，十地菩薩的果位）是戲論，認為我得到菩薩行（bodhisattva-carya，菩薩的修行）是戲論，認為我教化眾生，令他們成就，是戲論，認為我生出如來的十力（tathagata-bala-dasa，如來的十種力量）是戲論，認為我得到四無所畏（catuh-vaisharadya，四種無畏），四無礙智（catuh-pratisamvid，四無礙解），十八不共法圓滿（ashtadasa-avenika-dharma，如來的十八種不共法）是戲論，認為我得到一切具足是戲論，認為我斷除一切結習是戲論。』『那位菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜（prajnaparamita，般若波羅蜜多），如果已知色是常或者無常是戲論，就不應該這樣戲論。菩薩像這樣不戲論，乃至認為我得到一切智（sarvajna，一切智慧）是戲論，就不應該這樣戲論。像這樣不戲論。』『為什麼呢？自體（svabhava，自性）對自體不戲論，非自體（nairatmya，無自性）對非自體不戲論，自體對非自體不戲論，非自體對自體不戲論，再沒有其他法可以戲論，在哪裡戲論？誰在戲論？什麼在戲論？怎樣戲論？所以，須菩提，色不是戲論，乃至……』

【English Translation】 English version: Thus he awakened. The venerable Subhuti (Subhuti, a disciple of the Buddha) said to the Buddha: 'World-Honored One, what is the playfulness of a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva (Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, a great Bodhisattva)?' The Buddha said: 'Subhuti, to consider form (rupa, material phenomena) as permanent or impermanent is the playfulness of a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva. Subhuti, to consider feeling (vedana, sensation), perception (samjna, perception), volition (samskara, mental formations), and consciousness (vijnana, consciousness) as permanent or impermanent is the playfulness of a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva. If one knows form, or does not know form, this is the playfulness of a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva. Likewise, to know feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, or not to know feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, this is the playfulness of a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva.' 'To consider knowing the Noble Truth of Suffering (duhkha satya, the truth of suffering) as playfulness, to consider abandoning the accumulation (samudaya, the origin of suffering) as playfulness, to consider realizing cessation (nirodha, the cessation of suffering) as playfulness, to consider practicing the path (marga, the path to the cessation of suffering) as playfulness, to consider practicing the four dhyanas (dhyana, meditation) as playfulness, to consider practicing the four immeasurables (apramana, loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity), the four formless attainments (arupa-samapatti, the four immaterial absorptions), samapatti (samapatti, meditative absorption), the four foundations of mindfulness (smrtyupasthana, the four establishments of mindfulness), the four right exertions (samyak-pradhana, the four right efforts), the four bases of power (rddhipada, the four bases of spiritual power), the five faculties (indriya, the five faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom), the five powers (bala, the five powers of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom), the seven factors of enlightenment (bodhyanga, the seven factors of enlightenment), the Noble Eightfold Path (arya-ashtangika-marga, the eightfold noble path) as playfulness, to consider practicing the door of liberation of emptiness (sunyata-vimoksha-mukha, the gate of liberation of emptiness), the door of liberation of signlessness (animitta-vimoksha-mukha, the gate of liberation of signlessness), the door of liberation of wishlessness (apranihita-vimoksha-mukha, the gate of liberation of wishlessness) as playfulness, to consider practicing the eight liberations (ashta-vimoksha, the eight liberations), the nine sequential abidings (nava-anupurva-vihara-samapatti, the nine successive dwelling attainments), the sequential practices (anulomika, practices in accordance with wisdom), samapatti (samapatti, meditative absorption) as playfulness, to consider attaining the fruit of a Stream-enterer (srotapanna-phala, the fruit of stream-entry), the fruit of a Once-returner (sakrdagamin-phala, the fruit of once-returning), the fruit of a Non-returner (anagamin-phala, the fruit of non-returning), the fruit of an Arhat (arhat-phala, the fruit of arhatship), the path of a Pratyekabuddha (pratyekabuddha-yana, the path of a solitary Buddha) as playfulness, to consider 'I have attained Pratyekabuddha enlightenment (pratyekabuddha-bodhi, the enlightenment of a solitary Buddha)' as playfulness, to consider 'I have fully accomplished the ten Bodhisattva grounds (dasa-bhumi-bodhisattva, the ten stages of a Bodhisattva)' as playfulness, to consider 'I have attained the conduct of a Bodhisattva (bodhisattva-carya, the practice of a Bodhisattva)' as playfulness, to consider 'I teach sentient beings, causing them to achieve [liberation]' as playfulness, to consider 'I have generated the ten powers of a Tathagata (tathagata-bala-dasa, the ten powers of a Tathagata)' as playfulness, to consider 'I have attained the four fearlessnesses (catuh-vaisharadya, the four fearlessnesses), the four analytical knowledges (catuh-pratisamvid, the four kinds of analytical knowledge), and the complete eighteen unshared qualities (ashtadasa-avenika-dharma, the eighteen unshared qualities of a Buddha)' as playfulness, to consider 'I have attained all completeness' as playfulness, to consider 'I have severed all fetters and habits' as playfulness.' 'That Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, practicing Prajnaparamita (prajnaparamita, the perfection of wisdom), if he already knows that form is permanent or impermanent as playfulness, should not engage in such playfulness. A Bodhisattva should not engage in such playfulness, even to the point of considering 'I have attained all-knowingness (sarvajna, omniscience)' as playfulness, he should not engage in such playfulness.' 'Why is that? Self-nature (svabhava, own-being) does not engage in playfulness with self-nature, non-self-nature (nairatmya, absence of self-nature) does not engage in playfulness with non-self-nature, self-nature does not engage in playfulness with non-self-nature, non-self-nature does not engage in playfulness with self-nature, there is no other dharma with which to engage in playfulness. Where is there playfulness? Who is engaging in playfulness? What is being played with? How is it being played with? Therefore, Subhuti, form is not playfulness, even to...'

至識不戲論。略說乃至菩提不戲論。如是須菩提。菩薩摩訶薩如是不戲論。應如是修行般若波羅蜜須菩提言。世尊。云何色不戲論。乃至識不戲論。略說乃至菩提不戲論。佛告慧命須菩提言。須菩提。色無自體。乃至識無自體。略說乃至一切智無自體。彼不戲論。須菩提。如是因緣色不戲論。乃至識不戲論。乃至一切智不戲論。如是菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜。成菩薩法。汝今善意。知此戲論不戲論相。偈言。

佛已說因緣　　斷諸戲論法　故我稽首禮　　說法師中勝

此偈成就四種所得。戲論則斷。

順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門捲上大正藏第 30 冊 No. 1565 順中論

順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門卷下

龍勝菩薩造　無著菩薩釋

元魏婆羅門瞿曇般若流支譯

問曰。阿阇梨意。為何義故。而造此論。答曰。依順道理。入大般若波羅蜜義。為令眾生舍諸戲論取著等故。既舍離已。依順道理。速入般若波羅蜜故。既依道理。速入般若波羅蜜已。舍諸戲論一切取著。舍諸戲論取著等已。速疾成就無上正覺。為此義故。師造此論。

問曰。此無因緣。而作是說。答曰。此因緣者第一因緣。謂令眾生依順道理。入于般若波羅蜜已。速成正

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：至識不戲論。簡略地說，乃至菩提（bodhi，覺悟）不戲論。須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）啊，菩薩摩訶薩（Bodhisattva-Mahasattva，偉大的菩薩）應如是不戲論，應如是修行般若波羅蜜（Prajnaparamita，智慧的完成）。須菩提說：『世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱），如何色（rupa，物質）不戲論，乃至識（vijnana，意識）不戲論？簡略地說，乃至菩提不戲論？』佛告訴慧命須菩提：『須菩提，色無自體（svabhava，自性），乃至識無自體。簡略地說，乃至一切智（sarvajna，一切智慧）無自體。彼不戲論。須菩提，如是因緣，色不戲論，乃至識不戲論，乃至一切智不戲論。如是菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜，成就菩薩法。你現在善意，知此戲論不戲論相。』偈頌說：『佛已說因緣，斷諸戲論法，故我稽首禮，說法師中勝。』此偈成就四種所得。戲論則斷。順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門捲上大正藏第 30 冊 No. 1565 順中論順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門卷下龍勝菩薩（Nagarjuna，佛教哲學家）造，無著菩薩（Asanga，瑜伽行派創始人之一）釋，元魏婆羅門瞿曇般若流支譯。問：阿阇梨（Acarya，導師）的意圖是什麼？為什麼要造這部論？答：爲了依順道理，進入大般若波羅蜜的意義，爲了讓眾生捨棄各種戲論和執著等。捨棄之後，依順道理，迅速進入般若波羅蜜。進入般若波羅蜜之後，捨棄各種戲論和一切執著。捨棄各種戲論和執著等之後，迅速成就無上正覺（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。爲了這個意義，導師造了這部論。問：這樣說沒有因緣。答：這個因緣是第一因緣，就是讓眾生依順道理，進入般若波羅蜜之後，迅速成就正覺。

【English Translation】 English version: To consciousness, non-proliferation. Briefly speaking, even to Bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment), non-proliferation. Subhuti (Subhuti, a disciple of the Buddha), the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva (Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, great Bodhisattva) should be non-proliferating in this way, and should cultivate Prajnaparamita (Prajnaparamita, perfection of wisdom) in this way. Subhuti said: 'Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Buddha's honorific title), how is form (rupa, matter) non-proliferation, and even consciousness (vijnana, consciousness) non-proliferation? Briefly speaking, even to Bodhi, non-proliferation?' The Buddha told the wise Subhuti: 'Subhuti, form has no inherent existence (svabhava, self-nature), and even consciousness has no inherent existence. Briefly speaking, even omniscience (sarvajna, all-knowing wisdom) has no inherent existence. That is non-proliferation. Subhuti, due to this cause and condition, form is non-proliferation, and even consciousness is non-proliferation, and even omniscience is non-proliferation. Thus, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva cultivates Prajnaparamita and achieves the Dharma of a Bodhisattva. You now have good intentions and know the characteristics of proliferation and non-proliferation.' The verse says: 'The Buddha has spoken of causes and conditions, cutting off all proliferating dharmas, therefore I bow my head and pay homage to the best of the Dharma teachers.' This verse achieves four kinds of attainments. Proliferation is then cut off. Following the Meaning of the Middle Treatise, Entering the First Chapter Dharma Gate of the Great Prajnaparamita Sutra, Volume 1 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 30, No. 1565, Following the Middle Treatise Following the Meaning of the Middle Treatise, Entering the First Chapter Dharma Gate of the Great Prajnaparamita Sutra, Volume 2 Composed by Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, Buddhist philosopher), explained by Asanga (Asanga, one of the founders of Yogacara), translated by the Brahman Gautama Prajnaruchi of the Yuan Wei Dynasty. Question: What is the Acarya's (Acarya, teacher) intention? Why was this treatise composed? Answer: In order to follow the principles and enter the meaning of the Great Prajnaparamita, in order to enable sentient beings to abandon all proliferation and attachments, etc. Having abandoned them, following the principles, quickly enter Prajnaparamita. Having entered Prajnaparamita, abandon all proliferation and all attachments. Having abandoned all proliferation and attachments, etc., quickly achieve Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). For this reason, the teacher composed this treatise. Question: There is no cause and condition for saying this. Answer: This cause and condition is the primary cause and condition, which is to enable sentient beings to follow the principles, enter Prajnaparamita, and quickly achieve enlightenment.

覺。問曰。若如是者。何者般若波羅蜜耶。答曰。豈可不作如是說言。

不滅亦不生　　不斷亦不常　不一不異義　　不來亦不去

此如是偈。是修多羅道理。阿含如次第釋。今釋偈句。非滅不滅。非生不生。應知。諸句皆如是說。

問曰。以何義故不如是言。此法非滅故名不滅。此法非生故名不生。或可說言。此法無滅故名不滅。此法無生故名不生。如是等耶。答曰。如是之義。以于阿含道理有妨。是故不得作如是說。問曰。云何有妨。答曰。何法無滅。何法無生。問曰。第一義諦。答曰。若如是者。有二種諦。所謂世諦。第一義諦。若有二諦。汝朋則成。問曰。若異世諦。有第一義諦。成我朋分。為有何過。如說偈言。

如來說法時　　依二諦而說　謂一是世諦　　二第一義諦　若不知此理　　二諦兩種實　彼于佛深法　　則不知實諦

答曰。汝快善說。我說亦爾。依於二諦如來說法。依二諦說。說法真如。不破不二。若其二者。異第一義。法真如別。有世諦法。真如一法。真如尚不可得。何處當有二法真如。而可得也。若說二諦。此如是說。不異世諦。而更別有第一義諦。以一相故。謂無相故。此如是義。師偈說言。

若人不知此　　二諦之義者　彼于佛深法　　則

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：覺。問：如果這樣，什麼是般若波羅蜜耶（Prajnaparamita，智慧的完美）？答：難道不應該這樣說嗎？

不滅亦不生，不斷亦不常，不一不異義，不來亦不去。

這首偈頌，是修多羅（Sutra，經）的道理。《阿含經》（Agama）是按照次第解釋的。現在解釋偈頌的意義：非滅不滅，非生不生。應該知道，所有的句子都應該這樣理解。

問：因為什麼緣故，不如是說：此法不是滅，所以名為不滅；此法不是生，所以名為不生。或者可以說：此法沒有滅，所以名為不滅；此法沒有生，所以名為不生。像這樣等等呢？答：這樣的意義，會妨礙《阿含經》的道理，所以不能這樣說。問：怎樣妨礙呢？答：什麼法沒有滅？什麼法沒有生？問：第一義諦（Paramartha-satya，勝義諦）。答：如果這樣，就有兩種諦，所謂世諦（Samvriti-satya，俗諦）和第一義諦。如果有兩種諦，你的朋黨就成立了。問：如果不同於世諦，有第一義諦，成立我的朋黨，有什麼過失呢？如偈頌所說：

如來說法時，依二諦而說，謂一是世諦，二第一義諦。若不知此理，二諦兩種實，彼于佛深法，則不知實諦。

答：你說得很好。我也是這樣說，依於二諦如來說法。依二諦說，說法真如（Tathata，如），不破不二。如果二諦是不同的，第一義諦和法真如是不同的，有世諦法，真如一法，真如尚且不可得，哪裡會有兩種法真如可以得到呢？如果說二諦，這樣說，不異於世諦，而另外有第一義諦，以一相的緣故，就是無相的緣故。這樣的意義，師父的偈頌說：

若人不知此，二諦之義者，彼于佛深法，則

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If that is so, what is Prajnaparamita (the perfection of wisdom)? Answer: Should it not be said like this:

Neither extinction nor arising, neither cessation nor permanence, Neither one nor different in meaning, neither coming nor going.

This verse is the principle of the Sutras. The Agamas explain it in order. Now explaining the meaning of the verse: not extinction not non-extinction, not arising not non-arising. It should be known that all sentences should be understood in this way.

Question: For what reason is it not said like this: this dharma is not extinction, therefore it is called non-extinction; this dharma is not arising, therefore it is called non-arising. Or it could be said: this dharma has no extinction, therefore it is called non-extinction; this dharma has no arising, therefore it is called non-arising. Like this and so on? Answer: Such a meaning would hinder the principle of the Agamas, therefore it cannot be said like this. Question: How does it hinder? Answer: What dharma has no extinction? What dharma has no arising? Question: Paramartha-satya (the ultimate truth). Answer: If that is so, there are two kinds of truths, namely Samvriti-satya (conventional truth) and Paramartha-satya. If there are two truths, your faction is established. Question: If different from Samvriti-satya, there is Paramartha-satya, establishing my faction, what is the fault? As the verse says:

When the Tathagata preaches the Dharma, he relies on two truths to preach, Namely, one is Samvriti-satya, and the second is Paramartha-satya. If one does not know this principle, the two truths are two kinds of reality, Then they do not know the true meaning of the Buddha's profound Dharma.

Answer: You speak well. I also say the same, the Tathagata preaches the Dharma relying on the two truths. Relying on the two truths to preach, the Dharma is Tathata (suchness), not broken and not two. If the two truths are different, Paramartha-satya and Dharma Tathata are different, there is Samvriti-satya Dharma, Tathata is one Dharma, Tathata is not even attainable, where would there be two Dharma Tathatas that can be attained? If speaking of two truths, saying it like this, not different from Samvriti-satya, and separately there is Paramartha-satya, because of one characteristic, namely because of no characteristic. Such a meaning, the teacher's verse says:

If a person does not know this, the meaning of the two truths, Then they are in the Buddha's profound Dharma, then

不知真實

問曰。此云何諦。答曰。若此不破。問曰。此之二諦何物不破。答曰。一相。所謂無相。無自體。如本性空。如此則是諦。如有偈中說諦相言。

二種法皆無　　戲論不戲論　不分別不異　　此義是諦相

若如此偈。云何如來依二諦說。一切如來皆無所依。不依世諦。亦復不依第一義諦。如來說法。心無所依。何用多語。但說所論。舊所諦者。如前所說。第一義諦。若滅若生。二皆無者。此則應說。云何名為第一義諦。問曰。涅槃是常。彼涅槃處。無生無滅。若如是者。一切外道朋皆成就。彼外道人。豈可不作如是說言。我涅槃常。寂靜不動不變不壞。有法有物。彼涅槃中。無滅無生。此等皆是外道之人分別涅槃。取著涅槃。此不相應常我勝者。外道所說常我勝者。以無體故。答曰。云何汝涅槃者。何者涅槃。而涅槃中無生無滅。

問曰。貪慾瞋癡及陰等。盡更不復生。是名涅槃。答曰。此名盡者。謂失無體滅故名盡。彼滅云何。可於滅中復有滅耶。或於體中有無體耶。何故遮我汝此語者。為依何物以為境界。而說此語。為體境界非體境界。為體非體二種境界。一切諸法皆不如是。以相違故。若不生者。是則無體。彼義云何。于彼不生無體之中。為有生不而汝遮我此不生中則無有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不知真實

問：什麼是諦（satya，真理）？答：如果這個不被破斥。問：這二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）中，什麼是不被破斥的？答：一相（ekalakṣaṇa），也就是無相（alakṣaṇa），沒有自性（svabhāva），如本性空（prakṛti-śūnyatā）。這樣才是諦。如偈頌中所說諦的相狀：

二種法皆無，戲論不戲論。不分別不異，此義是諦相。

如果像這偈頌所說，如來（Tathāgata）如何依據二諦說法？一切如來都沒有所依，不依世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya），也不依第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）。如來說法，心中沒有所依。何必多說，只說所論。舊時所說的諦，如前面所說，第一義諦，無論是滅還是生，二者都沒有，這應該怎麼說呢？如何稱之為第一義諦？問：涅槃（nirvāṇa）是常（nitya）的，那涅槃之處，沒有生也沒有滅。如果這樣，一切外道（tīrthika）的朋黨都成就了。那些外道難道不會這樣說：『我的涅槃是常的，寂靜不動，不變不壞，有法有物。那涅槃中，沒有滅也沒有生。』這些都是外道之人分別涅槃，執著涅槃。這不相應于常我勝者（nityātma-śreṣṭha）。外道所說的常我勝者，因為沒有實體。答：你所說的涅槃是什麼？什麼是涅槃？而涅槃中沒有生也沒有滅？

問：貪慾（rāga）、瞋恚（dveṣa）、愚癡（moha）以及五蘊（skandha）等，窮盡之後不再產生，這叫做涅槃。答：這叫做『盡』（nirodha），是說失去而沒有實體，滅了所以叫做盡。那滅是什麼？可以在滅中再有滅嗎？或者在實體中沒有實體嗎？為什麼要遮止我這樣說？是依據什麼作為境界，而說這句話？是實體境界還是非實體境界？是實體非實體兩種境界？一切諸法都不是這樣，因為互相矛盾。如果不生，那就是沒有實體。那是什麼意思？在那不生沒有實體的狀態中，有生嗎？而你遮止我，這不生中就沒有了。

【English Translation】 English version Not Knowing Reality

Question: What is this 'satya' (truth)? Answer: If this is not refuted. Question: Of these two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), what is not refuted? Answer: The one characteristic (ekalakṣaṇa), that is, the absence of characteristics (alakṣaṇa), without inherent existence (svabhāva), such as emptiness of inherent nature (prakṛti-śūnyatā). This is truth. As it is said in a verse about the aspect of truth:

Both kinds of dharmas are absent, conceptual proliferation and non-proliferation. Without differentiation, without difference, this meaning is the aspect of truth.

If it is as this verse says, how does the Tathāgata (如來) teach according to the two truths? All Tathāgatas have no reliance; they do not rely on conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), nor do they rely on ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). The Tathāgata teaches the Dharma with no reliance in mind. Why say more? Just speak of what is being discussed. The truth as previously stated, as mentioned before, the ultimate truth, whether it is cessation or arising, both are absent. How should this be said? How is it called ultimate truth? Question: Nirvāṇa (涅槃) is permanent (nitya); in that place of Nirvāṇa, there is no arising and no cessation. If this is so, all the factions of externalists (tīrthika) are accomplished. Wouldn't those externalists say, 'My Nirvāṇa is permanent, peaceful, unmoving, unchanging, and indestructible; there is dharma and there is substance. In that Nirvāṇa, there is no cessation and no arising.' All these are externalists discriminating Nirvāṇa, clinging to Nirvāṇa. This does not correspond to the 'permanent self supreme' (nityātma-śreṣṭha). The 'permanent self supreme' spoken of by externalists, because it has no substance. Answer: What is your Nirvāṇa? What is Nirvāṇa? And in Nirvāṇa, there is no arising and no cessation?

Question: Craving (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), delusion (moha), and the five aggregates (skandha), etc., when exhausted, no longer arise; this is called Nirvāṇa. Answer: This called 'exhaustion' (nirodha) means losing and having no substance; extinguished, therefore it is called exhaustion. What is that extinction? Can there be extinction within extinction? Or is there non-substance within substance? Why do you prevent me from saying this? Based on what as an object, do you say this? Is it a substantial object or a non-substantial object? Is it both a substantial and non-substantial object? All dharmas are not like this, because they are contradictory. If it does not arise, then it has no substance. What does that mean? In that non-arising, without substance, is there arising or not? And you prevent me; in this non-arising, there is nothing.

生。依如道理阿含義故。汝難不退。涅槃空故。以異涅槃更無法故。如是成就。

有如是說。何者名為第一義空。彼處說言。第一義諦。名為涅槃。彼涅槃者。涅槃亦空。復有經中說言。世尊。言涅槃者。名為寂靜。無一切相。無一切念。復有說言。此涅槃者涅槃所謂體非體空。如是等說。

如是一切種種思量。第一義諦體不可得。是故不得遮生遮滅。若汝意謂。第一義諦微少有體。而可說者。即是我證。汝今何用思量此處。又如經說。我今說之。如來說言。文殊師利如所說法。無如是法。如是不說。亦如是無。亦不可得。問曰。如是說者。云何而避。答曰。若無少法無體聚物。若或可說。若不可說。一切皆無。如是名避。舍此二諦所攝諍對。

問曰。言誰語義為有何過。答曰。若如是說。則于道理阿含有妨。問曰。云何道理阿含有妨。答曰。如先聖者須菩提言。何時世尊本為菩薩摩訶薩時。修行般若波羅蜜故。正觀此法。彼時正觀色不生。乃至正觀一切智不生。正觀凡夫不生。乃至正觀佛不生。而汝意謂。此誰語義。別有法者。則不相應。又舍利弗不如是說。如慧命須菩提所說語義。我如是知色不生。乃至一切智不生。凡夫不生。乃至佛不生耶。如是阿含有妨礙故。是誰語義。則不相應。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生。因為符合道理的含義。你的提問不會退轉。因為涅槃是空性的。因為除了涅槃之外沒有其他法。這樣才能成就。

有人這樣說。什麼叫做第一義空（paramārtha-śūnyatā，終極真理的空性）？經中說，第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，終極真理）名為涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）。這個涅槃也是空性的。又有經中說，世尊說涅槃名為寂靜，沒有一切相，沒有一切念。還有的說，這個涅槃，其體性既非有體也非無體，是空性的。像這樣等等的說法。

像這樣一切種種思量，第一義諦的體性是不可得的。因此，不能遮止生，也不能遮止滅。如果你認為，第一義諦稍微有一點體性，是可以說的，那就是我的證明。你現在又何必在這裡思量呢？又如經中所說，我現在說一下，如來說，文殊師利（Mañjuśrī，智慧的象徵），如所說法，沒有這樣的法，像這樣不說，也是這樣沒有，也是不可得的。問：像這樣說，要如何避免過失呢？答：如果沒有絲毫的法，沒有實體聚集之物，無論是可說的，還是不可說的，一切都是沒有的。這叫做避免過失。捨棄這二諦（dve satye，兩種真理：世俗諦和勝義諦）所包含的諍論。

問：說『誰』的語義有什麼過失？答：如果這樣說，那麼對於道理的含義就有妨礙。問：怎麼會對道理的含義有妨礙呢？答：就像先聖須菩提（Subhūti，佛陀的弟子）所說，世尊最初作為菩薩摩訶薩（bodhisattva-mahāsattva，偉大的菩薩）時，因為修行般若波羅蜜（prajñāpāramitā，智慧的完美），正確地觀察此法。那時正確地觀察到色（rūpa，物質）不生，乃至正確地觀察到一切智（sarvajñāna，一切智慧）不生，正確地觀察到凡夫不生，乃至正確地觀察到佛不生。而你認為，這個『誰』的語義，是別有法，那就不相應了。又舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀的弟子）也如慧命須菩提所說的那樣，我知道色不生，乃至一切智不生，凡夫不生，乃至佛不生嗎？像這樣，對於阿含（āgama，聖典）的含義有妨礙，所以『誰』的語義是不相應的。

【English Translation】 English version: Birth. Because it accords with the meaning of reason. Your question will not regress. Because nirvāṇa is emptiness. Because there is no other dharma besides nirvāṇa. Thus, it is accomplished.

Some say thus. What is called the ultimate emptiness (paramārtha-śūnyatā)? It is said there, the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is called nirvāṇa. That nirvāṇa is also empty. Moreover, in a sutra it is said, 'World-Honored One, nirvāṇa is called tranquility, without any characteristics, without any thoughts.' Furthermore, it is said, 'This nirvāṇa, its nature is neither existent nor non-existent, it is emptiness.' Such are the various statements.

Like this, with all kinds of considerations, the nature of the ultimate truth is unattainable. Therefore, one cannot prevent birth, nor can one prevent cessation. If you think that the ultimate truth has a little bit of nature, which can be spoken of, that is my proof. Why do you need to contemplate here now? Moreover, as it is said in the sutra, I will speak of it now, as the Tathagata said, 'Mañjuśrī, as the dharma that is spoken of, there is no such dharma. Not speaking like this is also like this, also unattainable.' Question: Speaking like this, how can one avoid fault? Answer: If there is not the slightest dharma, no substantial aggregate, whether it can be spoken of or cannot be spoken of, everything is non-existent. This is called avoiding fault. Abandoning the disputes encompassed by these two truths (dve satye).

Question: What fault is there in saying 'whose' meaning? Answer: If you say so, then it hinders the meaning of reason. Question: How does it hinder the meaning of reason? Answer: Just as the venerable Subhūti said, 'When the World-Honored One was originally a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, because of practicing Prajñāpāramitā, he correctly observed this dharma. At that time, he correctly observed that rūpa does not arise, and even correctly observed that sarvajñāna does not arise, correctly observed that ordinary beings do not arise, and even correctly observed that Buddhas do not arise.' And you think that the meaning of this 'whose' is a separate dharma, then it is not in accordance. Moreover, Śāriputra also said, 'As the venerable Subhūti said, I know that rūpa does not arise, and even sarvajñāna does not arise, ordinary beings do not arise, and even Buddhas do not arise?' Like this, because it hinders the meaning of the Āgama, therefore the meaning of 'whose' is not in accordance.

若汝復謂是誰語義。雖不離法。而說言離。譬如乳渧。水渧像身。磨物石身。第一義諦亦復如是。言誰語義。此我今釋。此不相應。此乳等體。則是有體。汝取體已。渧等法外。更異法遮。汝今云何第一義諦可有體耶。若有體者。此滅生等。則可遮言。不離法有。是故汝義。則不相應。為有何法。非滅非生。問曰第一義諦。答曰。彼是何法。問曰。涅槃。答曰。彼復何物。問曰。煩惱陰盡則名為滅。亦名無體。如是我說名為涅槃是我意解。答曰。若如是者。斷滅之法。亦是涅槃。若彼先生煩惱業陰。后時盡滅。盡滅無體。亦是涅槃。未來未生亦是涅槃。如是涅槃。直是斷滅。若如是者。斷滅之法。則是涅槃義。可成就。未來是無。此既未至。云何相應。以是義故。汝應可羞放舍。如是攝取涅槃。問曰。汝涅槃。涅槃何類。答曰。經中可不如是說言。一切諸法。無始來滅。本性不生。無自體耶。

又復經中說言。世尊。若有沙門。諸法本性寂滅相中。求涅槃體。我說彼人。名為外道。如是等耶。又復經中有說偈言。

無始寂不生　　本來自性滅　而轉法輪時　　世尊開顯法

又阿阇梨復說偈言。

不寂靜不得　　不斷亦不常　不滅亦不生　　如是名涅槃

如是思量道理阿含。第一義諦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若你進一步追問『是誰的語義』。雖然不離於法（Dharma，佛法），但說成『離』。譬如乳滴、水滴的形象，以及磨石的本體。第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，最高真理）也是如此。至於『是誰的語義』，我現在解釋。這並不相應，這些乳滴等本體，是有實體的。你取了實體之後，在滴等法之外，又用其他法來遮蔽。你現在怎麼能說第一義諦有實體呢？如果它有實體，那麼它的滅、生等，就可以被遮蔽說成『不離法而有』。所以你的說法是不相應的。有什麼法，是非滅非生的呢？問：什麼是第一義諦？答：那是什麼法？問：是涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。答：那又是什麼？問：煩惱和五陰（Skandha，構成個體經驗的五種要素）的止息就叫做滅，也叫做無體。我這樣說，叫做涅槃，這是我的理解。答：如果這樣，斷滅之法，也是涅槃。如果先有煩惱、業和五陰，之後完全止息消滅，止息消滅而無實體，也是涅槃。未來未生也是涅槃。這樣的涅槃，直接就是斷滅。如果這樣，斷滅之法，就是涅槃的意義，可以成立。未來是無，既然還未到來，怎麼能相應呢？因為這個緣故，你應該感到羞愧，放棄這樣理解的涅槃。問：你的涅槃，屬於哪一類？答：經典中不是這樣說嗎？一切諸法，從無始以來就是寂滅的，本性不生，沒有自體嗎？而且經典中說：『世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀），如果有沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者），在諸法本性寂滅的相中，尋求涅槃的實體，我說這個人，叫做外道（Tīrthika，非佛教修行者）。』是這樣說的吧？而且經典中有偈頌說：『無始寂不生，本來自性滅，而轉法輪時，世尊開顯法。』而且阿阇梨（Ācārya，導師）也說了偈頌：『不寂靜不得，不斷亦不常，不滅亦不生，如是名涅槃。』像這樣思量道理和阿含（Āgama，聖典），才是第一義諦。

【English Translation】 English version If you further ask, 'Whose meaning is it?' Although it is not separate from the Dharma (law, teachings), it is spoken of as 'separate.' For example, the image of a drop of milk, a drop of water, and the body of a grinding stone. The Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) is also like this. As for 'Whose meaning is it?', I will now explain. This is not corresponding; these entities like milk drops have substance. After you take the substance, you use other dharmas to obscure it outside of the dharmas like drops. How can you now say that the Paramārtha-satya has substance? If it has substance, then its cessation, arising, etc., can be obscured and said to be 'not separate from the Dharma.' Therefore, your argument is not corresponding. What dharma is there that is neither ceasing nor arising? Question: What is the Paramārtha-satya? Answer: What dharma is that? Question: It is Nirvana (liberation). Answer: What is that? Question: The cessation of afflictions and the five Skandhas (aggregates of existence) is called cessation, and it is also called non-substantiality. I say this is called Nirvana, and this is my understanding. Answer: If that is the case, the dharma of annihilation is also Nirvana. If there are afflictions, karma, and Skandhas that arise first, and then they completely cease and are extinguished, and the cessation and extinction are without substance, that is also Nirvana. The future that has not yet arisen is also Nirvana. Such Nirvana is directly annihilation. If that is the case, the dharma of annihilation is the meaning of Nirvana, which can be established. The future is non-existent; since it has not yet arrived, how can it correspond? Because of this reason, you should be ashamed and abandon such an understanding of Nirvana. Question: To what category does your Nirvana belong? Answer: Isn't it said in the scriptures that all dharmas have been in a state of quiescence since the beginningless past, their nature is not arising, and they have no self-nature? Moreover, it is said in the scriptures: 'Bhagavan (the Blessed One), if there are Śrāmaṇas (ascetics) who seek the substance of Nirvana in the aspect of the quiescence of the nature of all dharmas, I say that person is called a Tīrthika (non-Buddhist).' Is that what is said? Moreover, there is a verse in the scriptures that says: 'Without beginning, quiescent, not arising, originally, self-nature extinguished, and when the Dharma wheel is turned, the Bhagavan reveals the Dharma.' Moreover, the Ācārya (teacher) also said in a verse: 'Not quiescent, not attainable, neither discontinuous nor permanent, neither ceasing nor arising, such is called Nirvana.' Like this, contemplating the reasoning and the Āgamas (scriptures), is the Paramārtha-satya.

。有物不成。以是義故。先說道理。非滅不滅。非生不生。如是一切如是。則為不二義成。此如是說。不生是色。不異不生別更有色。色是不生。不異於色別有不生。乃至一切智。乃至佛如是盡滅。則不異色。乃至一切智。乃至佛此如是說。若盡若色。若復不二。此一切法非合非離乃至一切智。乃至佛者此義成就。此語太煩。可舍不須。第一義諦。言說甚多。如是知已。可舍此語。不須更論修多羅義。我今解釋。或依道理。或以阿含。彼阿含者。何者阿含。所謂一切大乘經典。一切大乘修多羅中。皆說如是不滅等句。然于般若波羅蜜中。說此處多。此是阿含。今說道理。問曰。云何道理阿含。此如是偈。如經意釋。答曰。汝清凈心。至心善聽。我今解釋。此之滅名。于體上有。非無體有。如是生。如是斷。如是常。如是等。彼如是體。種種思量。皆不可成。問曰。彼體云何不成。答曰。以因緣故。若何等法。有因緣者。彼無自體。若無自體。彼法無體。此無體者。無自體故。譬如兔角。以無因緣。是故無法。此一切法。皆無自體。以因緣故。如幻如夢。

若汝意謂。彼實有體。有自體者。云何知有。因緣生故。猶如瓶者。此我今釋。如是因緣。分別無義。若法自體。何用因緣。先自有故。若無自體。何用因緣。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有一種東西不是獨立形成的。因為這個道理，首先要說明道理，即非滅亦非不滅，非生亦非不生。像這樣一切如是，就是不二的意義成立。這樣說，不生就是色（Rūpa，物質、形態），不異於不生，沒有另外的。，*就是不生。不異於色，沒有另外的不生。乃至一切智（Sarvajñāna，對一切事物和現象的徹底理解），乃至佛（Buddha，覺悟者）這樣完全寂滅，就不異於色，乃至一切智，乃至佛。這樣說，無論是寂滅還是色，還是不二，這一切法非合非離，乃至一切智，乃至佛，這個意義就成立了。這些話太繁瑣了，可以捨棄不需要。第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，最高的真理）的言說有很多，像這樣知道了以後，就可以捨棄這些話，不需要再討論修多羅（Sūtra，佛經）的意義。我現在解釋，或者依據道理，或者依據阿含（Āgama，聖傳、經）。那些阿含是什麼呢？就是一切大乘經典。一切大乘修多羅中，都說像這樣不滅等等的語句。但在般若波羅蜜（Prajñāpāramitā，智慧的完成）中，說這些地方很多。這就是阿含。現在說明道理。問：什麼是道理阿含？就像經文的意思解釋的偈頌。答：你清凈心，至心善聽。我現在解釋。這個滅的名稱，在體性上存在，不是沒有體性而存在。像這樣生，像這樣斷，像這樣常，像這樣等等。那個像這樣的體性，種種思量，都不能成立。問：那個體性為什麼不能成立？答：因為因緣的緣故。如果有什麼法，有因緣，那麼它就沒有自體。如果沒有自體，那麼這個法就沒有體性。這個沒有體性的東西，因為沒有自體。譬如兔角，因為沒有因緣，所以無法存在。這一切法，都沒有自體，因為因緣的緣故，如幻如夢。如果你認為，它確實有體性，有自體，那麼怎麼知道它有呢？因為它由因緣而生，就像瓶子一樣。我現在這樣解釋，像這樣的因緣，分別起來沒有意義。如果法有自體，為什麼需要因緣？因為它本來就存在。如果沒有自體，為什麼需要因緣？

【English Translation】 English version: There is something that is not independently formed. Because of this reason, first, the principle must be explained, that is, neither extinction nor non-extinction, neither arising nor non-arising. If everything is like this, then the meaning of non-duality is established. Saying it this way, non-arising is Rūpa (form, matter), not different from non-arising, there is no other . , * is non-arising. Not different from Rūpa, there is no other non-arising. Even Sarvajñāna (omniscience, complete understanding of all things and phenomena), even Buddha (the awakened one) completely extinguished in this way, is not different from Rūpa, even Sarvajñāna, even Buddha. Saying it this way, whether it is extinction or Rūpa, or non-duality, all these dharmas are neither combined nor separated, even Sarvajñāna, even Buddha, this meaning is established. These words are too verbose and can be discarded. There are many statements of Paramārtha-satya (the ultimate truth), after knowing this, these words can be discarded, and there is no need to discuss the meaning of Sūtra (Buddhist scriptures) anymore. I will now explain, either according to reason, or according to Āgama (scriptural tradition). What are those Āgamas? They are all Mahayana scriptures. In all Mahayana Sūtras, statements such as non-extinction are mentioned. However, in Prajñāpāramitā (perfection of wisdom), it is said that there are many such places. This is Āgama. Now I will explain the principle. Question: What is the principle Āgama? It's like the verses explained according to the meaning of the scriptures. Answer: Listen with a pure heart and sincere mind. I will now explain. The name of this extinction exists in the essence, not without essence. Like this arising, like this cessation, like this permanence, like this, and so on. That essence like this, after various considerations, cannot be established. Question: Why can't that essence be established? Answer: Because of the cause and condition. If there is any dharma that has cause and condition, then it has no self-nature. If it has no self-nature, then this dharma has no essence. This thing without essence, because it has no self-nature. For example, a rabbit's horn, because it has no cause and condition, it cannot exist. All these dharmas have no self-nature, because of cause and condition, like illusion and dream. If you think that it does have essence, has self-nature, then how do you know it has it? Because it is born from cause and condition, like a bottle. I will now explain it this way, such cause and condition, when distinguished, has no meaning. If a dharma has self-nature, why does it need cause and condition? Because it already exists. If it has no self-nature, why does it need cause and condition?

以無法故。以是義故。分別因緣。則無義理。若說體者。應如是知。彼無體者。無自體故。是故如來如是說言。須菩提。一切和合。皆無自體。以因緣故。一切和合。和合皆空如是一切。體不成就。問曰。云何滅等而不成就。答曰。體滅異體。彼體不生故不成就。問曰。云何不生而得有體。答曰。無自體故。若何者法。無自體者。彼法無生。則如兔角。自體無體。問曰。彼云何無。答曰以因緣故。若言有體。無因緣者。無如是法。

若汝意謂。空數緣滅。非數緣滅。如是等法。非有因緣。而有不無。是義不然。問曰。云何不然。答曰。如是滅者。汝豈可不作是思惟。彼滅云何。為有為無。又復何者空等無為。既非是生。云何為有。若是有者。兔角亦有。是義不可。問曰。若何等法。自體無者。彼生則無。云何而言。彼復無滅。答曰。汝心憍慢。自謂。數數被破。自愛己朋。攝滅不捨。我于曏者。可不說言。以不生故。若不生者。滅云何成。若不滅者。而復云何得成不生。不生法中。非唯無滅。亦復無斷。如是若常。若一若異。若來若去。此等一切于不生中。皆不成就。如說偈言。

于不生體中　　則無滅可得　不滅則不生　　皆不可成就

如是二法。則無前後。謂法先生。后時滅二。或亦先滅。后

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為沒有自性的緣故。因為這個道理的緣故，如果分別因緣，就沒有義理可言。如果說有自體，應當這樣理解：它沒有自體，因為沒有自身存在的緣故。所以如來這樣說：『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子），一切和合的事物，都沒有自體。』因為因緣的緣故，一切和合的事物，其和合的本性是空性的。像這樣，一切事物的自體都不能成立。問：『為什麼滅等無為法不能成立？』答：『自體滅與異體滅，它們的自體不生，所以不能成立。』問：『怎樣才能不生而有自體呢？』答：『因為沒有自體。』如果什麼法沒有自體，那麼這個法就不會產生，就像兔角一樣，自體本無。問：『它為什麼沒有呢？』答：『因為因緣的緣故。』如果說有自體，而沒有因緣，沒有這樣的道理。

如果你認為，空無為（Akasa，無為法之一），數緣滅（Samkhyanirodha，通過智慧力量達到的滅），非數緣滅（Asamkhyanirodha，不通過智慧力量達到的滅），等等這些法，不是由因緣產生的，而是本來就存在，也不是不存在，這種說法是不對的。問：『為什麼不對呢？』答：『像這樣的滅，你難道不應該這樣思考嗎？這個滅是什麼？是有還是無？』又，像空等無為法，既然不是生出來的，怎麼能說是有呢？如果說是有，那麼兔角也應該存在，這個道理是講不通的。問：『如果什麼法，自體本無，那麼它的生就不存在，為什麼又說它沒有滅呢？』答：『你心懷憍慢，自以為是，屢次被駁倒，還固執己見，執著于滅而不放。我剛才不是說了嗎，因為不生，所以滅又怎麼能成立呢？如果不滅，又怎麼能成立不生呢？在不生的法中，不僅沒有滅，也沒有斷。像這樣，無論是常、一、異、來、去，這些在不生的法中，都不能成立。』就像偈頌所說：

『在不生的自體中，就沒有滅可以得到；不滅，那麼就不生，這些都是不能成立的。』

像這樣兩種法，就沒有先後關係。所謂法先生起，后時才滅；或者先滅，后...

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the absence of inherent existence. Because of this reason, if we analyze causes and conditions, there is no meaning to be found. If one speaks of a self-nature, one should understand it thus: it has no self-nature, because it has no existence of its own. Therefore, the Tathagata (如來，the thus-gone one) said thus: 'Subhuti (須菩提，Buddha's disciple), all compounded things have no self-nature.' Because of causes and conditions, all compounded things, their compounded nature is emptiness. Like this, the self-nature of all things cannot be established. Question: 'Why are cessation and other unconditioned dharmas (無為法) not established?' Answer: 'Self-nature cessation and other-nature cessation, their self-nature does not arise, therefore they are not established.' Question: 'How can one not arise and yet have a self-nature?' Answer: 'Because there is no self-nature.' If what dharma has no self-nature, then that dharma will not arise, just like a rabbit's horn, which has no self-nature. Question: 'Why does it not exist?' Answer: 'Because of causes and conditions.' If one says there is a self-nature, but without causes and conditions, there is no such thing.

If you think that, space unconditioned (Akasa, 無為法之一), cessation through the power of wisdom (Samkhyanirodha, 通過智慧力量達到的滅), cessation not through the power of wisdom (Asamkhyanirodha, 不通過智慧力量達到的滅), and so on, these dharmas are not produced by causes and conditions, but exist inherently, and are not non-existent, this is not correct. Question: 'Why is it not correct?' Answer: 'Like this cessation, shouldn't you think like this? What is this cessation? Is it existent or non-existent?' Also, like space and other unconditioned dharmas, since they are not produced, how can they be said to exist? If they exist, then rabbit's horns should also exist, this reasoning is untenable. Question: 'If what dharma has no self-nature, then its arising does not exist, why do you say it does not have cessation?' Answer: 'Your mind is arrogant, self-righteous, repeatedly refuted, yet you cling to your own views, clinging to cessation and not letting go. Didn't I just say that, because it does not arise, how can cessation be established? If it does not cease, then how can non-arising be established? In the dharma of non-arising, not only is there no cessation, but there is also no cutting off. Like this, whether it is permanent, one, different, coming, or going, all these in the dharma of non-arising cannot be established.' Just like the verse says:

'In the self-nature of non-arising, there is no cessation to be found; if it does not cease, then it does not arise, these cannot be established.'

Like these two dharmas, there is no before and after relationship. The so-called dharma arises first, and then ceases later; or ceases first, and then...

時生二。問曰。云何無耶。答曰。以有為法無無始故。又一切法悉皆空故。問曰。若人有為無無始者。則無此過。我則不爾。有為有始。摩醯首羅。時微塵等。有為因緣。有無始故。是故何人有為無始。則無此過。或先生已。於後時滅。或先滅已。后時乃生無決定故。有為無始。非此決定。則非我義。我則不爾。有為有始。摩醯首羅。時微塵等。有為因緣。有無始故。又毗耶婆如是說言。生者必死。死者必生。如是等故。答曰。汝既倒已方始作勢。此我于先。可不已遮。摩醯首羅時微塵等。非因緣耶。若非因緣。云何成始。又復汝引。摩醯首羅時微塵等。為有因緣。為無因緣。若更有者。是則有為無始義成。若更無者。摩醯首羅時微塵等。非有為始。以非因故。猶如兔角。一切法體。皆無因緣。是義不成。若是何人。攝受此意。有為無始。彼如是人。則得見過。以其說言有為有始。有為無始。是故名見。

問曰。汝唯如是。與他朋過。不住自朋。答曰。若說體者。得如是過。過不在我。又我如是自體空中。一切法中。我無分別有為之法有。何者始。何者無始有。何者終。何者無終。如是等也。如阿阇梨所說偈言。

一切體中空　　何者終不終　終者是何終　　非終非何終

如是思量。滅生二種。次

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：時生二。問：什麼是『無』呢？答：因為有為法沒有起始，而且一切法本質上都是空性的。問：如果有人認為有為法沒有起始，就不會有這種過失。但我不同意，我認為有為法是有起始的，比如摩醯首羅（Maheśvara，大自在天）、時間、微塵等，都是有為法的因緣，並且是無始的。所以，如果有人認為有為法沒有起始，就不會有這種過失，因為事物可能先產生，然後在之後的時間裡滅亡，或者先滅亡，然後在之後的時間裡產生，沒有固定的規律，所以有為法沒有起始，並非是確定的。因此，我的觀點不同，我認為有為法是有起始的，比如摩醯首羅、時間、微塵等，都是有為法的因緣，並且是無始的。而且毗耶婆（Vyāvadā，一種論師）也這樣說：『生者必死，死者必生』，等等。答：你已經顛倒了，才開始建立你的觀點。我早就已經阻止了這種說法。摩醯首羅、時間、微塵等，不是因緣嗎？如果不是因緣，怎麼能成為起始呢？而且，你引用的摩醯首羅、時間、微塵等，是有因緣的，還是沒有因緣的？如果更有因緣，那麼有為法沒有起始的意義就成立了。如果更沒有因緣，那麼摩醯首羅、時間、微塵等，就不是有為法的起始，因為沒有原因，就像兔角一樣。一切法的本體，都沒有因緣，這種說法是不成立的。如果有人接受這種觀點，認為有為法沒有起始，那麼這個人就會有過失，因為他說有為法有起始，又說有為法沒有起始，所以這叫做見解上的錯誤。問：你只是這樣，指出別人的過失，卻不反省自己的過失。答：如果說的是本體，就會有這樣的過失，但過失不在我。而且，我是在自體空性中，在一切法中，我沒有分別，有為法是有，什麼是起始，什麼是無始，什麼是終結，什麼是無終結，等等。就像阿阇梨（Ācārya，導師）所說的偈頌：『一切體中空，何者終不終？終者是何終？非終非何終？』像這樣思量，滅和生這兩種。

【English Translation】 English version: Then two arise. Question: What is 『non-being』 (無, wú)? Answer: Because conditioned dharmas (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) have no beginning, and also because all dharmas are essentially empty (空, kōng). Question: If someone believes that conditioned dharmas have no beginning, then there would be no such fault. But I disagree; I believe that conditioned dharmas have a beginning, such as Maheśvara (摩醯首羅, 大自在天, the Great自在Heaven), time, dust particles, etc., which are the causes and conditions (因緣, yīnyuán) of conditioned dharmas and are without beginning. Therefore, if someone believes that conditioned dharmas have no beginning, there would be no such fault, because things may first arise and then perish later, or first perish and then arise later, without a fixed pattern. Therefore, conditioned dharmas having no beginning is not a certainty. Thus, my view is different; I believe that conditioned dharmas have a beginning, such as Maheśvara, time, dust particles, etc., which are the causes and conditions of conditioned dharmas and are without beginning. Moreover, Vyāvadā (毗耶婆, a type of philosopher) also says, 『Those who are born must die, and those who die must be born,』 and so on. Answer: You have already become inverted before you begin to establish your view. I have already prevented this kind of statement. Are Maheśvara, time, dust particles, etc., not causes and conditions? If they are not causes and conditions, how can they become a beginning? Furthermore, the Maheśvara, time, dust particles, etc., that you cite, do they have causes and conditions, or do they not have causes and conditions? If they have further causes and conditions, then the meaning of conditioned dharmas having no beginning is established. If they have no further causes and conditions, then Maheśvara, time, dust particles, etc., are not the beginning of conditioned dharmas, because there is no cause, just like a rabbit's horn. The essence of all dharmas has no causes and conditions; this statement is not established. If someone accepts this view, believing that conditioned dharmas have no beginning, then that person will have a fault, because he says that conditioned dharmas have a beginning and also says that conditioned dharmas have no beginning, so this is called a mistaken view. Question: You are just like this, pointing out the faults of others, but not reflecting on your own faults. Answer: If one speaks of essence (體, tǐ), there will be such a fault, but the fault is not in me. Moreover, I am in the emptiness of self-nature (自體空中, zìtǐ kōng zhōng), in all dharmas, I have no discrimination (分別, fēnbié). Conditioned dharmas exist; what is a beginning, what is without beginning, what is an end, what is without end, and so on. Just like the verse spoken by Ācārya (阿阇梨, 導師, teacher): 『In the emptiness of all essences, what ends and does not end? What is the end that ends? What is not the end and what is the end?』 Reflecting in this way, there are two kinds: cessation and arising.

第相對。如父子者。義不相應。則無此滅。問曰。云何無耶。答曰。思量此滅。如是滅法。或在前有。或后時有。或二時有。或一或異。若或二者。一切不成。又覆滅者。滅名無體。失盡非常。諸如是等。若無體者。彼復云何。成有成無。

若汝意謂。體亦是滅。非是非體。如是體者。云何滅體。而復可壞。如瓶可滅。以有體故。若無生者。何處有體。或得有滅。或有或無。如是如來有偈說言。

何人不取生　　彼人無物滅　彼不著有無　　不取世界物

此滅如是。云何成有。若成就無。又此滅者。滅名無常。于汝法中。無常三種。一者唸唸壞滅無常。二者和合離散無常。三者竟畢如是無常。此如是等三種無常。有無所攝。世尊皆遮。問曰。云何皆遮。答曰。世尊說言。須菩提。若有體者。可得言盡。復有說言。無常之物。則為不實。非生滅相。若體有滅。無常不成。如是滅義若依道理。阿含思量。皆不成就。是故於滅不應攝取。問曰此義云何。為唯遮滅。若有若無。為復遮餘一切法體。答曰。取一切體。若有若無。此取皆遮。非唯遮滅。問曰。何義故遮。答曰。斷過過故。師如是說。所謂偈言。

若取有著常　　無則墮斷見　是故黠慧者　　不依止有無

又復有說。所謂偈言。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第相對（Dì xiāngduì）：關於相對性。例如父子關係，如果意義不相應，就不會有這種滅（miè）的現象。有人問：『為什麼沒有呢？』回答說：『思量這種滅，這種滅法，或者在先前存在，或者在之後存在，或者在兩個時間都存在，或者是一，或者是異。如果或者二者都是，一切都不能成立。而且，滅這個概念，其本身沒有實體，是消失殆盡、無常的。諸如此類。如果沒有實體，那麼它又如何能成立為有，或者成立為無呢？』『如果你認為，體（tǐ）也是滅，而非非體，那麼這種體，如何能是滅的體，並且可以被破壞呢？就像瓶子可以被毀滅，因為它有實體。如果沒有生（shēng），哪裡來的體？又哪裡能有滅？或者是有，或者是無。』正如如來（Rúlái）有偈頌說：『何人不取生，彼人無物滅，彼不著有無，不取世界物。』這種滅就是這樣。如何能成立為有？如果成立為無？而且，這種滅，滅名為無常（wúcháng）。在你的法中，無常有三種：一是念念壞滅無常，二是和合離散無常，三是竟畢如是無常。這三種無常，無論是有還是無所包含，世尊（Shìzūn）都遮止。有人問：『如何都遮止呢？』回答說：『世尊說：須菩提（Xūpútí），如果有實體，就可以說盡。又有人說，無常之物，就是不真實的，不是生滅之相。如果體有滅，無常就不能成立。』像這樣，滅的意義如果依據道理，在阿含（Āhán）中思量，都不能成立。所以，對於滅不應該執取。有人問：『這個意義是什麼？是僅僅遮止滅，無論是有還是無？還是遮止其餘一切法的實體？』回答說：『執取一切實體，無論是有還是無，這種執取都被遮止，不僅僅是遮止滅。』有人問：『因為什麼緣故遮止？』回答說：『爲了斷除過失的過失。』老師這樣說，就是偈頌所說：『若取有著常，無則墮斷見，是故黠慧者，不依止有無。』又有人說，就是偈頌所說：

【English Translation】 English version: The Relative (Dì xiāngduì): Concerning relativity. For example, like the relationship between father and son, if the meaning is not corresponding, then there will be no such phenomenon of extinction (miè). Someone asks: 'Why not?' The answer is: 'Contemplate this extinction, this dharma of extinction, either exists before, or exists after, or exists at both times, or is one, or is different. If either or both are true, nothing can be established. Moreover, the concept of extinction itself has no substance, it is completely vanished and impermanent. Such things as these. If there is no substance, then how can it be established as being, or established as non-being?' 'If you think that substance (tǐ) is also extinction, and not non-substance, then how can this substance be the substance of extinction, and can be destroyed? Just like a bottle can be destroyed, because it has substance. If there is no arising (shēng), where does the substance come from? And where can there be extinction? Either there is being, or there is non-being.' Just as the Tathagata (Rúlái) has a verse saying: 'He who does not grasp arising, for him there is no thing to extinguish, he does not cling to being or non-being, he does not grasp the things of the world.' This extinction is like this. How can it be established as being? If it is established as non-being? Moreover, this extinction, the name of extinction is impermanence (wúcháng). In your dharma, there are three kinds of impermanence: one is momentary destruction impermanence, two is aggregation and dispersion impermanence, and three is complete and final impermanence. These three kinds of impermanence, whether contained in being or non-being, are all prohibited by the World-Honored One (Shìzūn). Someone asks: 'How are they all prohibited?' The answer is: 'The World-Honored One said: Subhuti (Xūpútí), if there is substance, it can be said to be exhausted. And some say that impermanent things are unreal, not the appearance of arising and ceasing. If substance has extinction, impermanence cannot be established.' Like this, if the meaning of extinction is based on reason, and contemplated in the Agamas (Āhán), it cannot be established. Therefore, one should not grasp at extinction. Someone asks: 'What is this meaning? Is it only prohibiting extinction, whether it is being or non-being? Or is it prohibiting the substance of all other dharmas?' The answer is: 'Grasping all substances, whether being or non-being, this grasping is prohibited, not just prohibiting extinction.' Someone asks: 'For what reason is it prohibited?' The answer is: 'In order to cut off the fault of faults.' The teacher said this, which is what the verse says: 'If one grasps being as permanent, one will fall into nihilistic views, therefore the wise do not rely on being or non-being.' And some say, which is what the verse says:

若人見於有　　或見無是癡　彼不知修行　　寂靜安隱處

又復有說言。迦旃延。有則墮常。無則墮斷。又復經中說言。迦葉。有是一邊。無是一邊。中者非有。亦非是無。以無體故。此義應知。無自體故。一切體有。一切體無。義皆不然。此如是義。如世尊說言。須菩提。于體自體一切法中。若有若無。義皆不然。須菩提言。實爾。世尊。如是處處。攝一切體。若有若無。一切皆遮。以無體故。以不生故。有無皆無。亦無有滅。

問曰。如是如是。於一切法不生法中。無有滅者。如一切法不生之義。汝今應說。此義云何。復無斷耶。答曰。此斷名者。則于體有。非於無體。彼體不成。問曰。云何不成。答曰。自體他體。悉皆無體。以無體故。猶如兔角。非有自體。非有他體。非體不體。以不生故。如是一切體不生者。此義則成。如阿阇梨所說偈言。

或自體他體　　或體或無體　如是見不見　　佛法第一義

是故無體。則亦無斷。又復如是。常斷之相。是有所攝。或非有攝。如是二種。世尊皆遮。問曰。此何故遮。答曰。佛為教成迦旃延故。有無皆遮。世尊。真知體非體者。是故無斷。又此若有本性成者。云何得言無法無物。或復言異。或言無體。此若有法。可斷可滅可失等者。可得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果有人執著于『有』（bhava，存在）的觀點，或者執著于『無』（abhava，不存在）的觀點，這是愚癡的。他們不瞭解修行，以及寂靜安穩的境界。

還有一種說法是：迦旃延（Kātyāyana），執著于『有』就落入『常』（sassata，常恒）的邊見，執著于『無』就落入『斷』（uccheda，斷滅）的邊見。還有，經中說：迦葉（Kāśyapa），『有』是一邊，『無』是一邊，中道既非『有』，也非『無』，因為沒有自性（svabhāva，事物自身存在的本性）。這個道理應該明白，因為沒有自體（ātmasvabhāva，獨立的自身本性），所以一切事物『有』，一切事物『無』的說法，都是不正確的。這個道理，就像世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）所說：須菩提（Subhūti），對於事物和自體，一切法中，說『有』或說『無』，都是不正確的。須菩提說：確實如此，世尊。像這樣處處，攝取一切事物，無論是『有』還是『無』，都應當遮止，因為沒有自性，因為不生（anutpāda，不產生），所以『有』和『無』都不存在，也沒有滅（nirodha，消滅）。

問：既然如此，在一切法不生（anutpāda-dharma，不生之法）的道理中，沒有滅的說法。就像一切法不生的意義一樣，您現在應該解釋，這個道理是什麼？是否也沒有斷滅呢？答：這個『斷滅』的說法，是針對『有體』（sat-kāya，實有之身）而言的，而不是針對『無體』（asat-kāya，非實有之身）。那個『體』是不成立的。問：為什麼不成立呢？答：自體（svakāya，自身）和他體（parakāya，他身），都沒有自性。因為沒有自性，就像兔角一樣，既沒有自體，也沒有他體，既非『體』也非『非體』，因為不生。像這樣一切事物不生，這個道理就成立了。就像阿阇梨（Ācārya，導師）所說的偈頌：

或者自體，或者他體，或者有體，或者無體，像這樣見或不見，是佛法的第一義諦。

因此，沒有自性，也就沒有斷滅。而且，『常』和『斷』的相狀，是被『有』所包含，或者被『非有』所包含。這兩種觀點，世尊都遮止。問：為什麼遮止呢？答：佛爲了教導和成就迦旃延，所以『有』和『無』都遮止。世尊真正了知事物和非事物，因此沒有斷滅。而且，如果事物有其本性（prakṛti，事物本來的性質）成就，怎麼能說無法無物，或者說不同，或者說沒有自性呢？如果事物有法，可以斷滅、可以消失等等，那才有可能。

【English Translation】 English version If a person sees 'being' (bhava), or sees 'non-being' (abhava), that is foolishness. They do not understand the practice, and the place of quietude and peace.

Furthermore, it is said: Kātyāyana, clinging to 'being' falls into 'permanence' (sassata), clinging to 'non-being' falls into 'annihilation' (uccheda). Moreover, in the sutras it is said: Kāśyapa, 'being' is one extreme, 'non-being' is one extreme, the middle way is neither 'being' nor 'non-being', because there is no inherent nature (svabhāva). This meaning should be understood, because there is no self-nature (ātmasvabhāva), therefore the meaning that all things 'are' or all things 'are not' is incorrect. This meaning is like what the World-Honored One (Śākyamuni) said: Subhūti, regarding things and self-nature, in all dharmas, whether 'being' or 'non-being' is asserted, both are incorrect. Subhūti said: Indeed, World-Honored One. Thus, everywhere, grasping all things, whether 'being' or 'non-being', should be rejected, because there is no inherent nature, because there is no arising (anutpāda), therefore 'being' and 'non-being' do not exist, and there is no cessation (nirodha).

Question: If that is so, in the principle of the non-arising of all dharmas (anutpāda-dharma), there is no cessation. Just as the meaning of the non-arising of all dharmas, you should now explain, what is this meaning? Is there also no annihilation? Answer: This term 'annihilation' refers to 'having a body' (sat-kāya), not to 'having no body' (asat-kāya). That 'body' is not established. Question: Why is it not established? Answer: Self-body (svakāya) and other-body (parakāya) both have no inherent nature. Because there is no inherent nature, like a rabbit's horn, there is neither self-body nor other-body, neither 'body' nor 'non-body', because there is no arising. Thus, the non-arising of all things, this meaning is established. Like the verse spoken by the Ācārya (teacher):

Either self-body, or other-body, or having a body, or having no body, seeing or not seeing in this way, is the supreme meaning of the Buddha's Dharma.

Therefore, without inherent nature, there is also no annihilation. Moreover, the characteristics of 'permanence' and 'annihilation' are encompassed by 'being', or encompassed by 'non-being'. Both of these views are rejected by the World-Honored One. Question: Why are they rejected? Answer: The Buddha, in order to teach and perfect Kātyāyana, rejects both 'being' and 'non-being'. The World-Honored One truly knows things and non-things, therefore there is no annihilation. Furthermore, if things had their own inherent nature (prakṛti) established, how could it be said that there is no dharma and no thing, or that they are different, or that there is no inherent nature? If things had a dharma, that could be annihilated, could disappear, could be lost, etc., that would be possible.

名斷。然彼有法本性自無。云何不失。而或言斷。如說偈言。

若法本性有　　此可得言無　若言本性異　　此義不可得　以本性無故　　變異不可得　若本性有者　　可得言變異

又復此中。前言有體。言有體已。后時言無。常斷過成。如偈說言。

若有自體者　　非無而亦常　先有後時無　　則成就斷見

此攝斷常二種過失。故如是遮。若說體者。成斷常過。以依如是道理阿含。思量彼斷。則不可成。彼如是斷則不成就。問曰。云何不成。答曰。以無因故。以不滅故。所謂斷者。名滅無體。無體無因。若或無滅。猶如兔角。若法有體。可得言因。可得言滅。其猶如瓶。師如是說。所謂偈言。

法有因有滅　　彼可見如芽　滅中無滅者　　是故無滅因

此無因故。則知是無。復不滅故。汝心如是。欲求真實。不應著斷。

問曰。我今已解。受此無斷。若攝此斷。一切惡中。最為鄙惡云何不常。答曰。我上豈可不說不生。若不生者。云何有常。若不生常。兔角亦常。是則不可。故非有常。世尊說言。若法不生。不得言常。亦復非斷。是故常斷二皆不成。以墮邊故。若汝意謂。虛空我等。不生而有。亦得是常。如說有法。無有因緣而實是常。以是義故。虛空我等。常則

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：名斷（nama-uccheda，名聲斷絕）。然而，如果事物（dharma）的本性（prakrti）本來就是不存在的，怎麼會失去呢？又怎麼能說是斷滅呢？正如偈頌所說：『如果法的本性是存在的，那麼才能說它是無。如果說本性是變化的，這個道理是講不通的。因為本性不存在的緣故，變化也是不可能存在的。如果本性是存在的，才能說它會變化。』此外，如果先前說有自體（svabhava），說了有自體之後，後來又說沒有，這就犯了常（sasvata）和斷（uccheda）的過失。正如偈頌所說：『如果事物有自體，那就不是無，而且是常。如果先前有，後來沒有，那就成了斷見。』這包含了斷和常兩種過失。所以要這樣遮止。如果說有自體，就會犯斷和常的過失。根據這樣的道理，在阿含（agama，聖典）中思量斷滅，是不能成立的。那樣的斷滅是不能成就的。問：為什麼不能成就呢？答：因為沒有原因。因為沒有滅亡。所謂的斷滅，是指滅亡而沒有實體。沒有實體就沒有原因。如果根本沒有滅亡，就像兔角一樣。如果法有實體，才能說有原因，才能說有滅亡，就像瓶子一樣。師父這樣說，就像偈頌所說：『法有因，有滅亡，這就像樹芽一樣可以看見。滅亡之中沒有滅亡者，所以沒有滅亡的原因。』因為沒有原因，所以知道它是沒有的。又因為它沒有滅亡。你的心如果是這樣，想要追求真實，就不應該執著于斷滅。問：我現在已經理解了，接受這種沒有斷滅的說法。如果接受這種斷滅，在一切惡之中，這是最卑劣的。但為什麼不是常呢？答：我上面難道沒有說不生嗎？如果不生，怎麼會有常呢？如果不生是常，那麼兔角也是常，這是不可能的。所以不是常。世尊（Bhagavan）說，如果法不生，就不能說是常，也不是斷滅。所以常和斷兩種見解都不能成立，因為它們都落入了邊見。如果你認為，虛空、我（atman）等，不生而存在，也可以說是常。就像有人說，有法沒有因緣而實際上是常。因為這個緣故，虛空、我等是常的，那麼……

【English Translation】 English version: Name cessation (nama-uccheda). However, if the inherent nature (prakrti) of a thing (dharma) is inherently non-existent, how can it be lost? And how can it be said to be annihilation? As the verse says: 'If the nature of a thing exists, Then it can be said to be non-existent. If it is said that the nature is different, This meaning is unattainable. Because the nature does not exist, Change is also unattainable. If the nature exists, It can be said to change.' Furthermore, in this context, if it is first said that there is self-nature (svabhava), and after saying that there is self-nature, it is later said that there is none, then the faults of permanence (sasvata) and annihilation (uccheda) are incurred. As the verse says: 'If a thing has self-nature, Then it is not non-existent, and it is also permanent. If it exists first and then does not exist later, Then the view of annihilation is established.' This includes the two faults of annihilation and permanence. Therefore, it should be refuted in this way. If it is said that there is self-nature, then the faults of annihilation and permanence will be incurred. According to such reasoning, considering annihilation in the Agamas (agama, scriptures) cannot be established. Such annihilation cannot be accomplished. Question: Why cannot it be accomplished? Answer: Because there is no cause. Because there is no cessation. So-called annihilation means cessation without substance. Without substance, there is no cause. If there is no cessation at all, it is like a rabbit's horn. If a thing has substance, then it can be said to have a cause, and it can be said to have cessation, just like a pot. The teacher says, as the verse says: 'A thing has a cause and has cessation, This can be seen like a sprout. In cessation, there is no one who ceases, Therefore, there is no cause for cessation.' Because there is no cause, it is known to be non-existent. And because it does not cease. If your mind is like this, wanting to seek the truth, you should not cling to annihilation. Question: I now understand and accept this statement of no annihilation. If this annihilation is accepted, it is the most despicable of all evils. But why is it not permanent? Answer: Did I not say above that it does not arise? If it does not arise, how can there be permanence? If not arising is permanent, then a rabbit's horn is also permanent, which is impossible. Therefore, it is not permanent. The Blessed One (Bhagavan) said that if a thing does not arise, it cannot be said to be permanent, nor is it annihilation. Therefore, the two views of permanence and annihilation cannot be established, because they both fall into extremes. If you think that space, self (atman), etc., exist without arising, and can also be said to be permanent. Just as someone says that there is a thing that has no cause and is actually permanent. For this reason, space, self, etc., are permanent, then...

成者。是義不然。何用思惟。石女之子。或黑或白。虛空等無。而汝思惟。是常亦爾。問曰。彼虛空等。云何無物。答曰。空等畢竟物不可得。猶如兔角。畢竟如是。六根各各皆不能得。如是空等。亦不可得。是故知無。以是無故。虛空等常。義則不成。又不生故。無義則成。如汝意謂。是有法者。若當未有法不成。有法不成。以不生故。無自體故。若有體者。以自體故。彼是有故。不須和合。以是有故。若無自體。無自體中。則無有法。以無物故。猶如兔角。如偈說言。

體無自體故　　是則無有法　此因緣此生　　此義不如是

若汝意謂。虛空是有。以有相者。彼相亦無。無初無後。亦無二故。復有不生。若不生法。而有相者。兔角應有。長短等相。此義不然。

若汝意謂。我相可得。彼相六識所不取故。相不可得。若汝意謂。相現見者。則失自法。以根得故。若如是者。汝所立我是無常等。若汝意謂。非根境界。相則不攝。

問曰。雖如是破而實有。我一句說故。此若一句。攝兩字說。則知彼有。猶如澡灌。我亦如是兩兩字說故。則知有我(此一我字翻彼二字)。答曰。此語不成。一廂語故。如彼虛空。亦如夢等(此一夢字翻彼二字)。我亦如是。是故無我。如彼虛空。又亦如夢。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

成就者說：『這種說法不對。』為什麼要思索呢？石女的兒子，或許是黑的，或許是白的，如同虛空一樣什麼都沒有，而你卻思索它。『是常』也是這樣。問：『那虛空等，為什麼沒有事物呢？』答：『虛空等畢竟是不可得的，就像兔角一樣，畢竟是這樣。六根各自都不能得到，像這樣虛空等，也是不可得的。』因此知道是沒有的。因為沒有的緣故，虛空等是常的說法，就不成立。又不生，所以無的意義就成立。如你所認為的，是有法者，如果當未有，法就不成立，有法也不成立。因為不生的緣故，沒有自體。如果有體，因為自體，它是有，所以不需要和合。因為是有。如果沒有自體，沒有自體中，就沒有有法。因為沒有事物，就像兔角一樣。如偈頌所說：

『體沒有自體，因此就沒有有法。此因緣此生，這個道理不是這樣。』

如果你認為，虛空是有，因為有相。那相也沒有，沒有開始沒有結束，也沒有二。又有不生。如果不生的法，而有相，兔角應該有長短等相。這個道理不對。

如果你認為，我相可以得到，那相六識所不能取，所以相不可得。如果你認為，相是現見的，那就失去了自法，因為根得到了。如果這樣，你所立的我是無常等。如果你認為，不是根的境界，相就不攝。

問：『即使這樣破斥，但實際上有我，因為一句說。』這如果一句，包含兩個字說，就知道它有，就像澡罐一樣。我也是這樣兩個字說，所以知道有我（這一個『我』字翻譯那兩個字）。答：『這種說法不成立，因為是一廂情願的說法。』就像那虛空，也像夢等（這一個『夢』字翻譯那兩個字）。我也是這樣。所以沒有我。就像那虛空，又像夢一樣。此 English version:

The accomplisher says: 'This statement is not correct.' Why contemplate? The son of a barren woman, perhaps black, perhaps white, like empty space, has nothing, yet you contemplate it. 'Is permanent' is also like that. Question: 'Then why is it that empty space and the like have no things?' Answer: 'Empty space and the like are ultimately unattainable, just like a rabbit's horn, it is ultimately like that. The six sense organs each cannot attain it; like this, empty space and the like are also unattainable.' Therefore, it is known to be non-existent. Because of this non-existence, the statement that empty space and the like are permanent is not established. Moreover, because it does not arise, the meaning of non-existence is established. As you think, if there is a dharma, if it does not yet exist, the dharma is not established, and the existing dharma is not established. Because it does not arise, it has no self-nature. If it has a substance, because of its self-nature, it exists, so it does not need to be combined. Because it exists. If it has no self-nature, in the absence of self-nature, there is no existing dharma. Because there is no thing, like a rabbit's horn. As the verse says:

'The substance has no self-nature, therefore there is no existing dharma. This cause and condition, this arising, this principle is not like that.'

If you think that empty space exists because it has characteristics. Then that characteristic also does not exist, having no beginning and no end, and not being twofold. And there is non-arising. If a dharma that does not arise has characteristics, then a rabbit's horn should have characteristics such as length and shortness. This principle is not correct.

If you think that the 'I' characteristic can be obtained, that characteristic cannot be taken by the six consciousnesses, so the characteristic is unattainable. If you think that the characteristic is directly seen, then it loses its own dharma, because the root obtains it. If it is like this, then the 'I' that you establish is impermanent, etc. If you think that it is not the realm of the root, then the characteristic is not included.

Question: 'Even if it is refuted like this, there is actually an 'I', because it is said in one phrase.' If this one phrase contains two words, then it is known to exist, just like a bathing vessel. I am also like this, said in two words, so it is known that there is an 'I' (this one word 'I' translates those two words). Answer: 'This statement is not established, because it is a one-sided statement.' Just like that empty space, also like dreams, etc. (this one word 'dream' translates those two words). I am also like that. Therefore, there is no 'I'. Just like that empty space, and also like a dream. This

【English Translation】 Accomplisher: 'That is not so. Why contemplate? The son of a barren woman, whether black or white, is like empty space, without anything, yet you contemplate it. "Is permanent" is also like that.' Question: 'Why is it that empty space and the like have no things?' Answer: 'Empty space and the like are ultimately unattainable, like a rabbit's horn. The six senses cannot grasp them. Thus, empty space and the like are unattainable.' Therefore, it is known to be non-existent. Because of this non-existence, the idea that empty space and the like are permanent is not established. Furthermore, because it does not arise, the meaning of non-existence is established. As you think, if there is a dharma, if it does not yet exist, the dharma is not established, and the existing dharma is not established. Because it does not arise, it has no self-nature. If it has a substance, because of its self-nature, it exists, so it does not need to be combined. Because it exists. If it has no self-nature, in the absence of self-nature, there is no existing dharma. Because there is nothing, like a rabbit's horn. As the verse says: 'The substance has no self-nature, therefore there is no existing dharma. This cause and condition, this arising, this principle is not so.' If you think that empty space exists because it has characteristics. Then that characteristic also does not exist, having no beginning and no end, and not being twofold. And there is non-arising. If a dharma that does not arise has characteristics, then a rabbit's horn should have characteristics such as length and shortness. This principle is not correct. If you think that the 'I' characteristic can be obtained, that characteristic cannot be taken by the six consciousnesses, so the characteristic is unattainable. If you think that the characteristic is directly seen, then it loses its own dharma, because the root obtains it. If it is like this, then the 'I' that you establish is impermanent, etc. If you think that it is not the realm of the root, then the characteristic is not included. Question: 'Even if it is refuted like this, there is actually an 'I', because it is said in one phrase.' If this one phrase contains two words, then it is known to exist, just like a bathing vessel. I am also like this, said in two words, so it is known that there is an 'I' (this one word 'I' translates those two words). Answer: 'This statement is not established, because it is a one-sided statement.' Just like that empty space, also like dreams, etc. (this one word 'dream' translates those two words). I am also like that. Therefore, there is no 'I'. Just like that empty space, and also like a dream. This

等一切二字所說。皆悉是無。我亦如是。是故無我。又復無我。以其作故。若物是作。則知無我。猶如彼瓶。如是身作。故身無我。以是作故。

若汝意謂。以于身中見命等相。知有我者。命等相中。無常無常。如是思量。常則不成。若汝意謂。我實不說有法是常。亦復不說。無法為斷。更復有法。於三世轉。不滅名常。若無法者。不得有義。是故我言有法是常。若無法者。則為是斷。汝是意。我今解釋。若有法者。是則得言三世流轉。常法定住。不動不變。云何而得三世流轉。若流轉者。則是無常。問曰。云何無常。答曰。若過去者。云何是常。若過去者。則是無常。云何過去。過去名失。名盡名滅。名為無體。彼云何常。若其無體。云何過去。若有物體。云何過去。若其有者。石女之子。亦應是常。以無體故。

又若過去。常義不成。未來世常。義亦不成。問曰。云何不成。答曰。此未來者。名為無體。名為不生。名為不出。彼若如是。云何為常。若其常者。兔角亦常。此義不可。若謂有物。云何未來。若或是常。若或未來。義不相應。

又現在常。義亦不成。問曰。云何不成。答曰。此現在者。現法流轉故。名現在。彼現在法。一念不住。若一念住。一劫亦住。而此住相。實不可得。以無住

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所有關於『一切』和『二』這兩個字的說法，都完全是『無』。我也是如此，所以是『無我』。進一步說，也是『無我』，因為身體是造作而成的。如果事物是造作的，那麼就知道是『無我』，就像瓶子一樣。身體也是造作的，所以身體是『無我』，因為它是被造作的。

如果你認為，因為在身體中看到生命等現象，就知道有『我』存在，那麼生命等現象中，有『無常』和『無常』。這樣思量，『常』就不能成立。如果你認為，我實際上並沒有說有法是常，也沒有說無法是斷滅，而是有另一種法，在三世中流轉，不滅就叫做『常』。如果沒有法，就不能有意義，所以我說有法是常。如果沒有法，那就是斷滅。你的意思是，我現在解釋一下。如果有法，那麼就可以說三世流轉，常法安定不動不變。怎麼能說三世流轉呢？如果流轉，那就是無常。問：怎麼是無常呢？答：如果是過去，怎麼能是常呢？如果是過去，那就是無常。什麼是過去？過去就是失去，就是盡頭，就是滅亡，就是沒有實體。那怎麼能是常呢？如果沒有實體，怎麼能是過去呢？如果有物體，怎麼能是過去呢？如果是有，石女的兒子也應該是常，因為沒有實體。

而且，如果過去是常，這個意義不能成立。未來世是常，這個意義也不能成立。問：怎麼不能成立呢？答：這個未來，就是沒有實體，就是不生，就是不出。如果它是這樣，怎麼能是常呢？如果是常，兔角也應該是常。這個道理是不成立的。如果說有物體，怎麼能是未來呢？如果是常，如果是未來，意義不相應。

而且，現在是常，這個意義也不能成立。問：怎麼不能成立呢？答：這個現在，因為現法流轉，所以叫做現在。這個現在的法，一念都不停留。如果一念停留，一劫也會停留。但是這種停留的現象，實際上是不可得的，因為沒有停留。

【English Translation】 English version: All that is said about the words 'all' and 'two' is entirely 'non-being'. I am also like that, therefore 'no-self'. Furthermore, it is also 'no-self' because the body is created. If something is created, then it is known to be 'no-self', just like a bottle. The body is also created, so the body is 'no-self' because it is created.

If you think that because you see phenomena such as life in the body, you know that there is a 'self', then in phenomena such as life, there is 'impermanence' and 'impermanence'. Thinking like this, 'permanence' cannot be established. If you think that I actually did not say that there is a dharma that is permanent, nor did I say that the absence of dharma is annihilation, but that there is another dharma that flows in the three times, and non-extinction is called 'permanence'. If there is no dharma, there can be no meaning, so I say that there is a dharma that is permanent. If there is no dharma, then it is annihilation. What you mean is, let me explain it now. If there is a dharma, then it can be said that the three times flow, and the permanent dharma is stable, unmoving, and unchanging. How can you say that the three times flow? If it flows, then it is impermanent. Question: How is it impermanent? Answer: If it is the past, how can it be permanent? If it is the past, then it is impermanent. What is the past? The past is loss, it is the end, it is extinction, it is without substance. Then how can it be permanent? If there is no substance, how can it be the past? If there is an object, how can it be the past? If it exists, then the son of a barren woman should also be permanent, because there is no substance.

Moreover, if the past is permanent, this meaning cannot be established. The future world is permanent, this meaning cannot be established either. Question: How can it not be established? Answer: This future is without substance, it is unborn, it does not appear. If it is like this, how can it be permanent? If it is permanent, the rabbit's horn should also be permanent. This reasoning is not valid. If you say there is an object, how can it be the future? If it is permanent, if it is the future, the meanings do not correspond.

Moreover, the present is permanent, this meaning cannot be established either. Question: How can it not be established? Answer: This present, because the present dharma flows, is called the present. This present dharma does not stay for even a moment. If it stays for a moment, it will stay for a kalpa. But this phenomenon of staying is actually unattainable, because there is no staying.

故。念亦是無。若念轉者。云何是常。若不生者。何有現在。未來過去。時節成就。時無體故。若有體者。是則過去。未來現在。則不是時。若是時者。過去未來。現在非體。時或與體。若一若異。義皆不成。又時與體。有尚不成。何況過去。未來現在。或復是常。若有體常。體自不成。體不成故。云何成常。是故常無。如汝意謂。如其無物。則非法者。此最不成。汝何意故謂無物者。則非是法。若以無物。則非法者。是則有法。亦非是法。以無與有。共相對故。以無法無。有法亦無。以彼無法不成就故。如其無法不成法者。云何有法而得成法。云何有法名為有法。

若汝意謂。此有法者。更有因緣。有此有法。則有法與彼無法。則不相對。此今解釋。若汝分別此有法者。更有有法。二有平等相似相對。不同無者。此之有法更有有法。更無有法。此我今釋。若彼有法。更有有法。是則無窮。若汝意謂。從於無法。而有有法。是則無因。而有法生。是則有法。義不成就。如是無法。而有法生。無信樂者。如是有無。汝舍勿攝。

又有法明相對明示彼有法者。若其有體。得言有法。若無體者。是則不得名為有法。彼體不成。體若不成。云何而得。成有成無。汝可舍此。有無分別。何用此為。

復有義釋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，念頭也是空無的。如果念頭會轉變，又怎麼能說是永恒不變的呢？如果不生起，又怎麼會有現在、未來、過去這些時節的成就呢？時間沒有實體，如果時間有實體，那麼過去、未來、現在就不是時間了。如果是時間，那麼過去、未來、現在就沒有實體。時間或者與實體，若是一體或是異體，在道理上都不能成立。而且，時間與實體的存在尚且不能成立，更何況過去、未來、現在呢？或者它們又是常恒不變的。如果存在有實體且常恒不變的事物，那麼實體本身就不能成立。實體不能成立，又怎麼能成就常恒不變呢？所以，常恒是不存在的。如果你的意思是說，如果不存在事物，那麼就不是法，這種說法最不成立。你為什麼認為不存在事物就不是法呢？如果因為不存在事物就不是法，那麼存在事物也不是法，因為無和有是相互對立的。因為沒有無法，所以有法也沒有。因為那個無法不能成立。如果無法不能成就法，那麼怎麼會有法而能成就法呢？又怎麼會有法能被稱為有法呢？如果你的意思是說，這個有法，還有其他的因緣，才會有這個有法，那麼有法和那個無法，就不相對立了。我現在解釋一下。如果你分別這個有法，還有其他的有法，兩個有法平等相似，相互對應，和沒有不同，這個有法還有其他的有法，再沒有其他的有法了。我現在解釋一下。如果那個有法，還有其他的有法，那麼就會無窮無盡。如果你的意思是說，從無法中，而有有法，那麼就是沒有原因，而有法產生。那麼有法的意義就不能成立。像這樣從無法中，而有法產生，沒有信樂的人。像這樣有和無，你捨棄吧，不要執取。又有法，明明相對，明示那個有法，如果它有實體，就可以說是有法。如果沒有實體，就不能稱為有法。那個實體不能成立。實體如果不能成立，又怎麼能成就成有成無呢？你可以捨棄這種有無的分別，要它有什麼用呢？還有其他的解釋。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, thought is also emptiness. If thought transforms, how can it be permanent? If it does not arise, how can there be the accomplishment of present, future, and past seasons? Time has no substance. If time had substance, then past, future, and present would not be time. If it is time, then past, future, and present have no substance. Whether time and substance are one or different, the meaning cannot be established. Moreover, the existence of time and substance cannot even be established, let alone past, future, and present. Or perhaps they are constant. If there exists something with substance that is constant, then the substance itself cannot be established. If the substance cannot be established, how can it achieve constancy? Therefore, constancy does not exist. If you mean that if there is no thing, then it is not Dharma (law, principle), this statement is most untenable. Why do you think that if there is no thing, then it is not Dharma? If because there is no thing, then it is not Dharma, then the existence of a thing is also not Dharma, because non-existence and existence are mutually opposed. Because there is no non-existence, there is also no existence. Because that non-existence cannot be established. If non-existence cannot accomplish Dharma, then how can there be Dharma that can accomplish Dharma? And how can there be Dharma that can be called existence? If you mean that this existence (有法, yǒu fǎ), has other causes and conditions, then there will be this existence, then existence and that non-existence will not be opposed. I will now explain. If you distinguish this existence, there are other existences, two existences are equally similar, corresponding to each other, and not different from non-existence, this existence has other existences, and no other existences. I will now explain. If that existence has other existences, then it will be endless. If you mean that from non-existence, there is existence, then there is no cause, and existence arises. Then the meaning of existence cannot be established. Like this, from non-existence, existence arises, there are no believers. Like this, existence and non-existence, you should abandon them, do not grasp them. Also, existence, clearly relative, clearly indicates that existence, if it has substance, can be said to be existence. If it has no substance, then it cannot be called existence. That substance cannot be established. If the substance cannot be established, how can it achieve being or non-being? You can abandon this distinction between existence and non-existence, what is the use of it? There are other explanations.

。如是滅生斷常等法。其義云何。為一物中一時而有。為目前后。此我今釋。不相應法。云何一處互相違故。滅等相違。不得同處。於一物中。云何不壞。

若汝意謂。於一念中。有滅有生。有斷常等。則不相應。若汝復謂。於一物中。非一念轉異異念中差別轉者。則不相應。問曰。云何名為不相應耶。答曰。若如是者。更異法滅。更異法生。更異法斷。更異法常。如是等故。此一物中。云何別異。若汝意欲避如是過。異物異滅。物外異生。異斷異常。如是等者。此則不成。問曰。云何不成。答曰。若如是者。則於一物。亦得言有。亦得言無無此道理。是故一異。義則不成。非唯滅等。一異不成。復何者。法若有滅等。彼共滅等。一異不成。問曰。云何為唯滅等。一異不成。為一切法一異不成。答曰。一切諸法皆亦如是。一異不成。如偈句言。亦非一義。非異義故。問曰。云何一切諸法一異不成。答曰。以不生故。如石女兒。若法生者。一異義成。若一切法皆不生者。一異之義。云何可成。如石女兒。本自不生。無自體故。又無自體。以因緣故。因緣法者。無法可得。若因緣者。則非是生。經中說故。此一異義。則不成就。

問曰。云何因緣名為不生。若不生者。云何而說名為因緣。若因緣者。云何不生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：像這樣關於『滅』（niè，消滅）、『生』（shēng，產生）、『斷』（duàn，斷絕）、『常』（cháng，永恒）等等的法，它們的意義是什麼呢？是在一個事物中同時存在，還是有先後順序？我現在來解釋。不相應法，怎麼可能在一個地方，因為互相違背的緣故？『滅』等等是相互違背的，不能在同一個地方。在一個事物中，怎麼可能不壞滅呢？如果你認為，在一念之間，有『滅』有『生』，有『斷』有『常』等等，那麼這就不相應。如果你又認為，在一個事物中，不是一念轉變，而是在不同的念頭中有差別地轉變，那麼這也不相應。問：什麼叫做不相應呢？答：如果像這樣，是不同的法滅，不同的法生，不同的法斷，不同的法常，像這樣等等，那麼這一個事物中，怎麼會有差別呢？如果你想要避免這樣的過失，認為不同的事物有不同的滅，事物之外有不同的生，不同的斷有不同的常，像這樣等等，那麼這就不成立。問：為什麼不成立呢？答：如果像這樣，那麼對於一個事物，也可以說有，也可以說沒有，沒有這樣的道理。所以，『一』（yī，單一）和『異』（yì，差異）的意義就不成立。不僅僅是『滅』等等，『一』和『異』不成立，還有什麼呢？法如果有『滅』等等，它們共同的『滅』等等，『一』和『異』不成立。問：怎麼說僅僅是『滅』等等，『一』和『異』不成立呢？是一切法『一』和『異』都不成立嗎？答：一切諸法都是這樣，『一』和『異』不成立。就像偈語所說：也不是單一的意義，也不是差異的意義。問：為什麼一切諸法『一』和『異』都不成立呢？答：因為不生。就像石女兒（shí nǚ ér，比喻不可能存在的事物）。如果法是生的，『一』和『異』的意義才能成立。如果一切法都不生，『一』和『異』的意義，怎麼可能成立呢？就像石女兒，本來就不生，沒有自體的緣故。又沒有自體，因為因緣的緣故。因緣法，沒有法可以得到。如果是因緣，那就不是生，經中這樣說。所以『一』和『異』的意義，就不成就。問：為什麼因緣叫做不生？如果不生，為什麼又說叫做因緣？如果是因緣，為什麼不生？

【English Translation】 English version: Thus, regarding the dharmas such as 『cessation』 (niè, extinction), 『arising』 (shēng, production), 『discontinuity』 (duàn, severance), 『permanence』 (cháng, eternity), etc., what are their meanings? Do they exist simultaneously within one thing, or do they occur sequentially? I will now explain. How can non-corresponding dharmas exist in one place, given that they contradict each other? 『Cessation』 and the like are contradictory and cannot coexist in the same place. Within one thing, how can it not be subject to destruction? If you think that within a single thought, there is 『cessation』 and 『arising,』『discontinuity』 and 『permanence,』 etc., then this is not corresponding. If you further think that within one thing, it is not a transformation within a single thought, but a differentiated transformation in different thoughts, then this is also not corresponding. Question: What is meant by not corresponding? Answer: If it is like this, then it is a different dharma that ceases, a different dharma that arises, a different dharma that is discontinuous, a different dharma that is permanent, and so on. Then how can there be differentiation within this one thing? If you want to avoid such a fault, thinking that different things have different cessations, outside of things there are different arisings, different discontinuities have different permanences, and so on, then this is not established. Question: Why is it not established? Answer: If it is like this, then regarding one thing, it can be said to exist and also be said not to exist, which is not reasonable. Therefore, the meaning of 『oneness』 (yī, singularity) and 『difference』 (yì, distinction) is not established. It is not only 『cessation』 and the like that do not establish 『oneness』 and 『difference,』 but what else? If dharmas have 『cessation』 and the like, their common 『cessation』 and the like do not establish 『oneness』 and 『difference.』 Question: How is it said that only 『cessation』 and the like do not establish 『oneness』 and 『difference』? Is it that 『oneness』 and 『difference』 are not established for all dharmas? Answer: All dharmas are like this, 『oneness』 and 『difference』 are not established. Just as the verse says: It is neither the meaning of oneness, nor the meaning of difference. Question: Why are 『oneness』 and 『difference』 not established for all dharmas? Answer: Because of non-arising. Like the barren woman's child (shí nǚ ér, metaphor for something that cannot exist). If a dharma arises, then the meaning of 『oneness』 and 『difference』 can be established. If all dharmas do not arise, how can the meaning of 『oneness』 and 『difference』 be established? Like the barren woman's child, which inherently does not arise, because it has no self-nature. Furthermore, it has no self-nature because of conditions. Conditional dharmas have no dharma that can be obtained. If it is conditional, then it is not arising, as the sutras say. Therefore, the meaning of 『oneness』 and 『difference』 is not accomplished. Question: Why is conditionality called non-arising? If it is non-arising, why is it called conditionality? If it is conditionality, why does it not arise?

。若不生者。云何因緣。如其因緣。名不生者。義不相應。答曰。此不相應。若說因緣。則不相應。若體是有。云何因緣。以先有故。如其無者。則是無法。云何因緣。以無法故。如其無法。有因緣者。是則兔角亦須因緣。因者無體。以無物故。如虛空花。是故此義道理則成。思惟因緣。則是不生。何者因緣。

問曰。因緣二種。一內。二外。內者。所謂無明緣行。乃至老死。外因緣者。所謂一切器世間中。種子芽等。答曰。此如是法。今共籌量。若汝分別此無明等十二諸分。因緣法者。如汝所說。此十二分。為如車分。于車為分。名為因緣。為此十二而共和合。名為因緣。為一一分。自是因緣。為二二分二分因緣。為當於此一切分外。更有因緣。為唯相貌。此一切法。如是思量。皆不相應。問曰。云何名為不相應耶。答曰。以唸唸故。若唯是一。則無因緣。問曰。云何是一。則無因緣。答曰。若如是者。唯一無明。得為因緣。余非因緣。又復二者。亦非因緣。以滅與生。二不俱故。如生不生。則不和合。分別車分。亦不相應。因緣和合。不可得故。現見車分。於一時中。有法和合。無明等分。於一時中。不見有法。如是因緣。說名因緣。如車分車。無明等分。則不如是。滅生生滅。法無和合。若無和合。為說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果不是不生，那麼是什麼因緣呢？如果按照因緣來說，稱為『不生』，意義上不相符。回答說：這確實不相符。如果說是因緣，那就不相符。如果本體是存在的，還需要什麼因緣呢？因為本來就存在。如果本體是不存在的，那就是沒有法，還需要什麼因緣呢？因為沒有法。如果不存在的法，還需要因緣，那麼兔角也需要因緣了。因本身沒有實體，因為沒有事物，就像虛空中的花。所以這個道理是成立的。思維因緣，就是不生。什麼是因緣呢？

問：因緣有兩種，一是內因緣，二是外因緣。內因緣，就是指無明緣行，乃至老死。外因緣，就是指一切器世間中的種子、芽等。答：這些法，現在一起來討論。如果你分別無明等十二個部分，作為因緣法，就像你所說的，這十二個部分，是像車的各個部件對於車一樣，還是說這十二個部分共同和合，稱為因緣？還是說每一個部分，自身就是因緣？還是說兩個部分兩個部分是因緣？還是說在這所有部分之外，還有其他的因緣？還是說僅僅是相貌？這樣思量這些法，都是不相應的。問：為什麼說是不相應呢？答：因爲念念生滅。如果唯一是一個，就沒有因緣。問：為什麼唯一是一個，就沒有因緣呢？答：如果這樣，唯一無明可以作為因緣，其餘就不是因緣了。而且兩個也不是因緣，因為滅和生，二者不能同時存在。就像生和不生，不能和合。分別車的各個部件，也不相應，因為因緣和合是不可得的。現在看到車的各個部件，在同一時間中，有法和合。無明等各個部分，在同一時間中，沒有看到有法和合。這樣的因緣，才稱為因緣。就像車的各個部件對於車。無明等各個部分，則不是這樣。滅生生滅，法沒有和合。如果沒有和合，還說什麼呢？

【English Translation】 English version: If it is not non-arising, then what is the cause and condition (hetu-pratyaya)? If according to cause and condition, it is called 'non-arising,' the meaning is not consistent. The answer is: This is indeed inconsistent. If it is said to be cause and condition, then it is inconsistent. If the entity is existent, what cause and condition is needed? Because it already exists. If the entity is non-existent, then it is no-dharma (non-being), what cause and condition is needed? Because there is no-dharma. If a non-existent dharma needs a cause and condition, then even rabbit horns would need a cause and condition. The cause itself has no substance, because there is no thing, like flowers in the sky. Therefore, this principle is established. Contemplating cause and condition is non-arising. What is cause and condition?

Question: There are two kinds of cause and condition: internal and external. Internal cause and condition refers to ignorance conditioning activity (avidya-pratyaya-samskara), up to old age and death (jara-marana). External cause and condition refers to seeds, sprouts, etc., in all the world of vessels (bhajana-loka). Answer: Let us now discuss these dharmas together. If you distinguish these twelve parts, such as ignorance, as the dharma of cause and condition, as you say, are these twelve parts like the parts of a cart in relation to the cart? Or are these twelve parts combined together and called cause and condition? Or is each part itself a cause and condition? Or are two parts each a cause and condition? Or is there another cause and condition outside of all these parts? Or is it merely an appearance? Contemplating these dharmas in this way, they are all inconsistent. Question: Why are they said to be inconsistent? Answer: Because of moment-to-moment arising and ceasing. If it is only one, there is no cause and condition. Question: Why is it that if it is only one, there is no cause and condition? Answer: If that is the case, only ignorance can be a cause and condition, and the rest are not cause and condition. Moreover, two are also not cause and condition, because cessation and arising cannot exist simultaneously. Just like arising and non-arising cannot be combined. Distinguishing the parts of a cart is also inconsistent, because the combination of cause and condition is unattainable. Now we see that the parts of a cart have dharmas combined together at the same time. The parts such as ignorance, at the same time, we do not see that there are dharmas combined together. Such a cause and condition is called cause and condition, just like the parts of a cart in relation to the cart. The parts such as ignorance are not like that. Cessation-arising, arising-cessation, the dharmas are not combined. If there is no combination, what is there to say?

何法。若無所說。云何說法。所有言說。是法相貌。云何相貌。可得言有。如阿阇梨提婆偈言。

一法名無體　　以無和合故　若一無體者　　是則無和合

若離諸分。更別有法。則非因緣。以不生故。如是因緣不生義成。如佛說言。言因緣者。因緣則空。是故應舍因緣之義。不應攝受。如是思量。一義異義。二皆不成。又見一已。取異相對。既見異故。取一相對。相對不成。如偈說言。

異異因緣外　　更無有法生　不異因緣外　　則無法可得　異異更無異　　不異異亦無　如其異無者　　異更不可得

如是一異。應舍勿攝。如是舍已。知本性空。心念彼空。何用攝受。虛妄不實。問曰。如是如是。一切諸法本性自空。此第一義。是真是實。我今始解。如來實語。如世尊說。一切諸法本性自空。無自體故。此復云何。世間之人。一切現見去來不成。答曰。以阿含故。問曰。何者阿含。答曰。此如是義。于大經中。如來說言。須菩提。一切諸法去來行空。彼人不覺。取著不捨。而彼空法。不去不來。無有一法。而不空者。又復說言。一切諸法悉不來者。此是阿含。又道理故。若法不生。則無去來。猶如兔角。此義成就。又偈說言。

已去則不去　　未去亦不去　離已去未去　　現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『什麼是法？』如果沒有任何可以言說的，又如何說法呢？所有言說，都只是法的表象。『什麼是表象？』表象又怎麼能說是真實存在的呢？正如阿阇梨提婆（Ācārya Deva，聖天論師）的偈頌所說：『一法名為無自體，以無和合之故。若一無自體者，是則無和合。』如果離開各個組成部分，另外存在一個『法』，那麼它就不是因緣所生，因為它不是由因緣產生的。這樣，因緣不生的道理就成立了。正如佛陀所說：『所謂因緣，因緣即是空。』因此，應該捨棄因緣的觀念，不應執取。這樣思量，『一』的意義和『異』的意義，兩者都不能成立。而且，看到『一』之後，就取『異』作為相對；既然看到『異』，就取『一』作為相對。這種相對關係是不能成立的。正如偈頌所說：『在異異的因緣之外，更沒有法可以產生；在不異的因緣之外，則沒有法可以得到。異異之外更沒有異，不異之外也沒有異；如果異不存在，那麼異就更不可能存在。』像這樣，『一』和『異』都應該捨棄，不要執取。像這樣捨棄之後，就知道萬法的本性是空。心中念及這種空性，又何必執取呢？因為它們都是虛妄不實的。有人問：『像你所說的，一切諸法的本性本來就是空，這是第一義諦（paramārtha，最高的真理），是真實不虛的。我現在才明白，如來說的是真實語。正如世尊所說，一切諸法的本性本來就是空，因為沒有自體的緣故。』但這又如何解釋世間之人所親眼見到的過去、未來是不成立的呢？回答說：『這是根據阿含（Āgama，聖典）所說。』問：『什麼是阿含？』答：『就是這樣的道理。在大乘經典中，如來說：『須菩提（Subhūti，解空第一的弟子），一切諸法的過去、未來都是空寂的。』那些人不覺悟，執著而不捨棄。而那空法，不去也不來。沒有一法不是空性的。』又說：『一切諸法都不來。』這就是阿含。而且從道理上來說，如果法不生，就沒有去來，就像兔角一樣。這個道理是成立的。又有偈頌說：『已去的則不再去，未去的也還沒有去；離開已去、未去，現在』

【English Translation】 English version: 『What is Dharma (法, the universal law or teachings of the Buddha)?』 If there is nothing to be said, how can one expound the Dharma? All speech is merely the appearance of the Dharma. 『What is appearance?』 How can appearance be said to truly exist? Just as Ācārya Deva』s (阿阇梨提婆, Holy Deva) verse says: 『One Dharma is named without substance, because there is no combination. If one has no substance, then there is no combination.』 If, apart from the various components, there exists another 『Dharma,』 then it is not caused by conditions (因緣, hetu-pratyaya), because it is not produced. Thus, the principle of non-arising from conditions is established. Just as the Buddha said: 『What is called conditions, conditions are empty.』 Therefore, one should abandon the notion of conditions and not cling to it. Thinking in this way, neither the meaning of 『one』 nor the meaning of 『different』 can be established. Moreover, upon seeing 『one,』 one takes 『different』 as its opposite; since one sees 『different,』 one takes 『one』 as its opposite. This relative relationship cannot be established. As the verse says: 『Outside of different and different conditions, there is no Dharma that can arise; Outside of non-different conditions, then no Dharma can be obtained. Outside of different and different, there is no difference; If difference does not exist, then difference is even more unattainable.』 Like this, both 『one』 and 『different』 should be abandoned, not clung to. Having abandoned them in this way, one knows that the nature of all dharmas is empty. When the mind contemplates this emptiness, why cling to them? Because they are all illusory and unreal. Someone asks: 『As you say, the nature of all dharmas is originally empty; this is the ultimate truth (paramārtha, 第一義), which is true and real. Only now do I understand that the Tathagata (如來, Thus-Gone One, an epithet of the Buddha) speaks truthfully. Just as the World-Honored One (世尊, an epithet of the Buddha) said, the nature of all dharmas is originally empty, because they have no self-nature.』 But how does this explain the fact that people in the world clearly see that the past and future are not unestablished? The answer is: 『It is according to the Āgama (阿含, scriptures).』 The questioner asks: 『What is the Āgama?』 The answer is: 『It is this very principle. In the Mahayana sutras, the Tathagata says: 『Subhūti (須菩提, foremost in understanding emptiness), the past and future of all dharmas are empty.』 Those people do not realize this, clinging to them without letting go. And that empty Dharma neither goes nor comes. There is not a single Dharma that is not empty.』 It is also said: 『All dharmas do not come.』 This is the Āgama. Moreover, logically speaking, if a Dharma does not arise, then there is no going or coming, just like a rabbit's horn. This principle is established. There is also a verse that says: 『What has already gone does not go again, what has not gone has not yet gone; Apart from what has already gone and what has not gone, the present』

去則非去

此復廣說。何者為去。何法是去。去者是誰。若是我去。以無我故。去義不成。汝法我常。不動不搖。云何能去。若我能去。虛空亦去。而此虛空。實無去法。我者不能從於此方而到彼方。無離無合。汝所立我。遍一切處。則無去處。自在秉執。遍一切故。以是義故。我則不去。若汝意謂。以身隨心。是故有行。此義不然。以其有常無常過故。又以有分無分過故。又以有色無色過故。心非作故。身不隨行。行不可得。心身有無。常不成就。云何此方行到彼方。如迦卑邏弟子意謂由勝因緣丈夫流轉。如是名行。丈夫作已回故名還。是故由勝得有去來。此我解釋。汝今乃以虛空之華。作歡喜丸。與石女兒。令使食之。汝勝是無。而汝意謂。由勝力故。丈夫去來。勝雖是常。而能令使丈夫去來。義亦如是。如汝意解。如丈夫行。則非是作。亦不成就有所行法。若村城等。此先已遮。以不生故。

又復更有說有為者。彼則無去無動搖故。行是相貌。如是相貌。非有為體。如是皆說。一切有爲念念無常。如是不住。云何有行。是故偈言。有生得言行。亦得言作者。如是故知。有為之法。雖生雖行。如是生者。于先已遮。復有偈言。

有為無來處　　唸唸不住故　又亦無去處　　如是故無住

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本去則非去

此段進一步詳細闡述。什麼是『去』（qu，going）？什麼法是『去』？『去』的執行者是誰？如果是我（wo，self）去，因為沒有『我』的緣故，『去』的意義無法成立。你所說的『我』是常恒不變，不動不搖的，怎麼能去呢？如果『我』能去，虛空也應該能去，但是虛空實際上並沒有『去』這種行為。『我』不能從這個地方到達那個地方，既沒有分離也沒有結合。你所設立的『我』，遍佈一切地方，因此沒有可以去的地方。『我』自在地掌握一切，因為它遍佈一切地方。因為這個原因，『我』是不會去的。如果你認為，身體跟隨心意，所以才有了行走，這種說法是不對的，因為它有常與無常的過失。而且，它還有有分與無分的過失，以及有色與無色的過失。心不是造作者，身體不會跟隨心意而行走，行走是不可得的。心和身的存在與不存在，常恒不能成立，怎麼能從這個地方走到那個地方呢？就像迦毗羅（Kapila）的弟子認為，由於殊勝的因緣，丈夫（zhangfu，man）流轉於世。這樣就叫做『行』。丈夫做了之後返回，叫做『還』。因此，由於殊勝的因緣，才有了去和來。這種對『我』的解釋，你現在就像用虛空中的花，做成歡喜丸，給石女兒（shinv er，stone woman's daughter）吃一樣。你的『殊勝』是不存在的，而你卻認為，由於『殊勝』的力量，丈夫才能去來。『殊勝』即使是常恒的，但能使丈夫去來，這種說法也是一樣的荒謬。就像你理解的那樣，如果丈夫行走，就不是造作，也不能成就任何行走的行為。至於村莊、城市等等，這在前面已經駁斥過了，因為它們是不生的。

又有人說有為法（youwei fa，conditioned dharma），他們認為有為法沒有去，也沒有動搖。行走只是一種相貌，這種相貌並不是有為法的本體。他們都說，一切有為法念念無常，這樣不住留，怎麼會有行走呢？所以偈語說：『有生才能說行，也能說作者。』因此可知，有為之法，雖然生起，雖然行走，但是這種生起，在前面已經駁斥過了。又有偈語說：

『有為無來處，唸唸不住故，又亦無去處，如是故無住。』

【English Translation】 English version Going is Not Going

This is further elaborated. What is 'going' (qu)? What dharma is 'going'? Who is the one who 'goes'? If it is 'I' (wo) who goes, because there is no 'self' (wu wo), the meaning of 'going' cannot be established. Your 'self' is constant, unmoving, and unshakable, how can it go? If 'I' can go, then emptiness should also be able to go, but emptiness actually has no such action as 'going'. 'I' cannot go from here to there, neither separating nor combining. The 'self' you posit pervades all places, therefore there is no place to go. The 'self' freely controls everything because it pervades all places. For this reason, 'I' does not go. If you think that the body follows the mind, therefore there is movement, this is not correct, because it has the fault of permanence and impermanence. Moreover, it also has the fault of having parts and not having parts, as well as the fault of having form and not having form. The mind is not a creator, the body does not follow the mind to move, movement is unattainable. The existence and non-existence of mind and body cannot be established as constant, how can one go from here to there? Like the disciples of Kapila (迦卑邏), who believe that due to superior causes and conditions, a man (zhangfu) transmigrates. This is called 'going'. When a man does something and then returns, it is called 'returning'. Therefore, due to superior causes, there is going and coming. This explanation of 'self' is like you taking flowers in the sky, making them into joy pills, and giving them to the daughter of a stone woman (shinv er) to eat. Your 'superior' is non-existent, and yet you think that due to the power of 'superior', a man can go and come. Even if 'superior' is constant, the idea that it can cause a man to go and come is equally absurd. Just as you understand it, if a man walks, it is not creation, nor can it accomplish any act of walking. As for villages, cities, etc., this has already been refuted earlier, because they are unproduced.

Furthermore, there are those who speak of conditioned dharmas (youwei fa), who believe that conditioned dharmas have no going and no movement. Walking is only an appearance, and this appearance is not the substance of conditioned dharmas. They all say that all conditioned dharmas are impermanent from moment to moment, thus not abiding, how can there be walking? Therefore, the verse says: 'With arising, one can speak of going, and also speak of a creator.' Thus it is known that although conditioned dharmas arise and walk, this arising has already been refuted earlier. There is another verse that says:

'Conditioned dharmas have no place of coming, because they do not abide from moment to moment, and also have no place of going, thus there is no abiding.'

如是有為行至異處。則無此理。無行作故。如是有為有尚不成。況有行去。若到已還。自體空故。

若汝意謂。陰有行去。有為不攝。此義不然。陰不成故。問曰。云何不成。答曰。因緣空故。此義云何。猶如兔角。畢竟如是。無有因緣。色等諸陰。亦復如是。因緣畢竟。不可得也。此如是知因緣空故。色等陰無。如阿阇梨所說偈言。

離色之因緣　　色則不可得　亦復不離色　　而見色因緣　離色之因緣　　色自成就色　物不得因緣　　不得無因緣

應如是知。無因緣故。色則是無。如是一切。若汝意謂。微塵是有。此不成故。如是行義。則不可成。如汝說言。一切現見有行去來。此義不然。現不成故。問曰。云何不成。答曰。此現者名或知或物。此我今釋。若知應說。何者是知。是誰之現。若六境界。是可得者。境界無故。云何可得知是現耶。有唸唸者。彼則無現。乃至不疑。有現無現。是則為勝。知現之知。此知非現知境界故。知不成故。說有物人。則舍自法。物云何現。此之現相。量遮法中。廣遮此事。此何者現。今何者現。又復如來有偈說言。

眼則不見色　　識則不知法　此第一隱密　　世間不能知

如是之義。阿阇梨言。

何人自於自　　不曾能自見　若不

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "如果說有為法（Samskrta dharma）的執行會導致它到達另一個地方，這是不合理的，因為它本身沒有執行的動作。如果說有為法尚未形成，更不用說它能執行到哪裡去。如果說它到達后又返回，那是因為它的自性本空。", "", "如果你認為，五蘊（Skandha）可以執行和移動，並且不受有為法的限制，這種說法是不對的，因為五蘊本身並不成立。有人問：為什麼不成立呢？回答說：因為因緣（Hetupratyaya）是空性的。這是什麼意思呢？就像兔角一樣，畢竟是不存在的，沒有任何因緣。色蘊（Rupa Skandha）等諸蘊也是如此，因緣畢竟是不可得的。應該這樣理解，因為因緣是空性的，所以色蘊等五蘊是不存在的。正如阿阇梨（Acarya）所說的偈頌：", "", "『離開了色的因緣，色是不可得的，\n也不離開色，而能見到色的因緣。\n離開了色的因緣，色自身成就色，\n事物得不到因緣，也得不到無因緣。』", "", "應該這樣理解。因為沒有因緣，所以色就是不存在的。一切法都是如此。如果你認為微塵（Paramanu）是存在的，這種說法是不成立的。因此，執行的意義是無法成立的。如果你說，一切事物都可以親眼看到它們的執行和來去，這種說法是不對的，因為『現見』本身是不成立的。有人問：為什麼不成立呢？回答說：這個『現』這個名稱，或者是指『知』（Jnana），或者是指『物』（Vastu）。我現在來解釋。如果是指『知』，就應該說明，什麼是『知』？是誰的『現』？如果六種境界（Sad Ayatana）是可以獲得的，但境界本身是不存在的，又怎麼能說『知』是『現』呢？有些人執著于唸唸相續，但那裡沒有『現』。甚至不懷疑有『現』或無『現』，這才是殊勝的。知『現』的『知』，這個『知』不是『現』，因為它所知的是境界，所以『知』是不成立的。如果說是『物』的顯現，那就違背了你自己的觀點。『物』如何顯現呢？這種顯現的相狀，在量遮法（Pramana-pratiṣedha）中，已經廣泛地遮破了。這是什麼顯現？現在是什麼顯現？而且，如來（Tathagata）有偈頌說：", "", "『眼睛不能看見色，\n識也不能知法，\n這是第一隱秘，\n世間不能知。』", "", "就像這樣的意義，阿阇梨說：", "", "『沒有人能自己看見自己，\n如果不』", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ], "english_translations": [ "English version:", "If the movement of conditioned phenomena (Samskrta dharma) leads to them arriving at another place, this is unreasonable because they inherently lack the action of moving. If conditioned phenomena have not even come into being, how much less can they move anywhere? If they arrive and then return, it is because their self-nature is empty.", "", "If you think that the five aggregates (Skandha) can move and are not included within conditioned phenomena, this is incorrect because the aggregates themselves do not exist. Someone asks: How do they not exist? The answer is: Because causes and conditions (Hetupratyaya) are empty. What does this mean? It is like a rabbit's horn, which is ultimately non-existent and has no causes or conditions. The aggregates such as the form aggregate (Rupa Skandha) are also like this; causes and conditions are ultimately unattainable. It should be understood in this way: because causes and conditions are empty, the aggregates such as the form aggregate do not exist. As the Acarya (teacher) said in a verse:", "", "'Apart from the causes and conditions of form, form is unattainable,\nNor apart from form can the causes and conditions of form be seen.\nApart from the causes and conditions of form, form itself accomplishes form,\nThings cannot obtain causes and conditions, nor can they obtain no causes and conditions.'", "", "It should be understood in this way. Because there are no causes and conditions, form is non-existent. Everything is like this. If you think that atoms (Paramanu) exist, this statement is not established. Therefore, the meaning of movement cannot be established. If you say that everything can be seen with one's own eyes moving and coming and going, this statement is incorrect because 'direct perception' itself is not established. Someone asks: How is it not established? The answer is: This name 'direct perception' either refers to 'knowledge' (Jnana) or to 'things' (Vastu). I will now explain. If it refers to 'knowledge,' then it should be explained, what is 'knowledge'? Whose 'direct perception' is it? If the six sense bases (Sad Ayatana) are obtainable, but the sense bases themselves do not exist, how can it be said that 'knowledge' is 'direct perception'? Some people cling to the continuity of thoughts, but there is no 'direct perception' there. Even not doubting whether there is 'direct perception' or not, this is superior. The 'knowledge' that knows 'direct perception,' this 'knowledge' is not 'direct perception' because what it knows is the sense base, so 'knowledge' is not established. If it is said to be the manifestation of 'things,' then that contradicts your own view. How do 'things' manifest? This aspect of manifestation has been extensively refuted in the refutation of valid cognition (Pramana-pratiṣedha). What is manifesting? What is manifesting now? Moreover, the Tathagata (Thus Come One) has a verse that says:", "", "'The eye does not see form,\nNor does consciousness know dharma,\nThis is the first hidden secret,\nThe world cannot know.'", "", "Like this meaning, the Acarya says:", "", "'No one can see themselves by themselves,\nIf not'" ] }

能見自　　云何能見他

如是無現。現不可得。如汝說言。一切現見。有去來者。此義不然。去來非色。云何言現。非眼所得。非意所念。彼不成有。豈可現見。若汝意謂。以有比故。知是有者。比亦不成。前有現故。比之與現。俱不成故。比者名知。是意分別。如是比者。唯意能取。意所攝故。是故此義則不如是。意亦無故。

問曰。此如是義若法不生。則無去來。亦復無現。誰安隱心。不狂之人。而受此義。謂於一切不生法中。而有去來。如是異義。如是一義。如是常義。如是斷義。如是生義。如是滅義。此等一切以不生故。皆悉不成。又一切法雲何不生。答曰偈言。

非自亦非他　　非二非無因　一切法如是　　是故皆不生

順中論義入大般若波羅蜜經初品法門卷下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『能見自』，如何能見他？像這樣，沒有『現』（直接顯現）。『現』是不可得的。如你所說，一切『現見』（直接看見）的事物，有去有來，這種說法是不對的。去來不是色（物質現象），怎麼能說是『現』呢？不是眼睛能看到的，也不是意識能想到的，那樣的事物是不存在的，怎麼能直接看見呢？如果你認為，因為有比量（推理），所以知道事物存在，那麼比量也是不成立的。因為先前有『現』，比量和『現』都不能成立。比量名為『知』，是意識的分別。這樣的比量，只有意識能夠把握，因為是被意識所攝持的。所以這種說法是不對的，因為意識也是不存在的。有人問：如果像這樣，一切法不生，就沒有去來，也沒有『現』，那麼誰會安心，不是瘋癲的人，會接受這種說法呢？認為在一切不生之法中，有去來，這樣的異義，這樣的一義，這樣的常義，這樣的斷義，這樣的生義，這樣的滅義，這些一切因為不生，都不能成立。又，一切法為什麼不生呢？回答說：不是從自身生，也不是從他物生，不是從自身和他物共同生，也不是無因而生。一切法就是這樣，所以都不生。（以上）是順應《中論》（Mādhyamaka-kārikā）的義理，進入《大般若波羅蜜經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）初品法門的下卷。

【English Translation】 English version 『One who can see oneself,』 how can one see another? Thus, there is no 『manifestation』 (pratyakṣa). Manifestation is unattainable. As you say, all 『direct seeing』 (pratyakṣadarśana) things have coming and going; this meaning is not so. Coming and going are not form (rūpa), how can you say 『manifestation』? Not obtained by the eye, not conceived by the mind, that which is not existent, how can it be directly seen? If you mean that because there is inference (anumāna), one knows that it exists, then inference is also not established. Because prior there is 『manifestation,』 both inference and 『manifestation』 are not established. Inference is named 『knowing,』 it is a discrimination of consciousness. Such inference, only consciousness can grasp, because it is grasped by consciousness. Therefore, this meaning is not so, because consciousness is also non-existent. Someone asks: If, as such, all dharmas are unarisen, then there is no coming and going, and no 『manifestation,』 then who, with a peaceful mind, not a mad person, would accept this meaning? Thinking that in all unarisen dharmas, there is coming and going, such a different meaning, such a same meaning, such a permanent meaning, such a annihilation meaning, such a arising meaning, such a ceasing meaning, all these, because of non-arising, are not established. Furthermore, why do all dharmas not arise? The answer is in verse: Not from oneself, nor from another, not from both, nor without a cause. All dharmas are thus, therefore all are unarisen. This (above) accords with the meaning of the Mādhyamaka-kārikā (中論), entering the first chapter Dharma gate of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大般若波羅蜜經), lower volume.