T30n1570_廣百論本
大正藏第 30 冊 No. 1570 廣百論本
No. 1570 [cf. Nos. 1569, 1571]
廣百論本一卷
聖天菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
破常品第一
一切為果生 所以無常性 故除佛無有 如實號如來 無有時方物 有性非緣生 故無時方物 有性而常住 非無因有性 有因即非常 故無因欲成 真見說非有 見所作無常 謂非作常住 既見無常有 應言常性無 愚夫妄分別 謂空等為常 智者依世間 亦不見此義 非唯一有分 遍滿一切分 故知一一分 各別有有分 若法體實有 卷舒用可得 此定從他生 故成所生果 若離所生果 無有能生因 是故能生因 皆成所生果 諸法必變異 方作餘生因 如是變異因 豈得名常住 若本無今有 自然常為因 既許有自然 因則為妄立 云何依常性 而起于無常 因果相不同 世所未曾見 若一分是因 余分非因者 即應成種種 種種故非常 在因微圓相 于果則非有 是故諸極微 非遍體和合 於一極微處 既不許有餘 是故亦不應 許因果等量 微若有東
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《廣百論本·破常品第一》
一切事物都是由因緣和合而生，所以沒有常住不變的自性。 因此，只有佛陀才能如實知見一切法的真相，所以被稱為如來（Tathagata）。 沒有任何事物，無論在時間、空間或物質上，是具有自性而非由因緣所生的。 所以，沒有任何事物，無論在時間、空間或物質上，是具有自性而能常住不變的。 事物不可能無因而有自性，如果由因緣所生，就不是常住不變的。 所以，爲了成就真實的智慧，佛陀說一切法皆非實有。 如果見到事物是因緣所作而生，就應知其無常；如果認為不是因緣所作而是常住不變， 既然已經見到無常的事物存在，就應該承認常住不變的自性是不存在的。 愚昧的人妄加分別，認為虛空等是常住不變的。 但即使是智者觀察世間，也無法找到這種常住不變的實體。 常住不變的事物，不可能只有一部分存在，而遍滿一切部分。 因此可知，每一部分都有其各自不同的存在。 如果一個法的本體是真實存在的，那麼它的卷舒作用應該是可以觀察到的。 但這種卷舒作用必定是從其他因緣所生，因此也是一種所生之果。 如果離開了所生之果，就沒有能生之因。 所以，一切能生之因，最終也都是所生之果。 諸法必須經歷變異，才能作為產生其他事物的因。 像這樣會變異的因，怎麼能被稱為常住不變呢？ 如果原本沒有而現在有了，就認為自然常住是其原因。 既然承認有自然常住，那麼其他的因就成了虛妄的假設。 怎麼能依靠常住不變的自性，而產生無常的事物呢？ 因和果的體相如果完全不同，這是世間從未見過的。 如果一部分是因，另一部分不是因， 那就應該成為種種不同的事物，既然是種種不同，就不是常住不變的。 在因中的微細或圓滿的相狀，在果中可能就不存在了。 因此，諸極微（atoms）並非遍佈整體的和合。 在一個極微之處，既然不承認有其他部分， 因此，也不應該承認因和果是等量的。 如果極微有東
【English Translation】 English version Guang Bai Lun Ben (Verses on a Hundred Topics) - Chapter 1: Refutation of Permanence
All things arise as a result of causes and conditions, therefore they have no permanent nature. Thus, only the Buddha truly knows the reality of all dharmas, and is therefore called Tathagata (Thus-Gone-One). There is no thing, whether in time, space, or matter, that has an inherent nature and is not born from conditions. Therefore, there is no thing, whether in time, space, or matter, that has an inherent nature and remains permanent. It is impossible for a thing to have an inherent nature without a cause; if it arises from causes, it is not permanent. Therefore, in order to achieve true wisdom, the Buddha said that all dharmas are not truly existent. If one sees that things are produced by causes and conditions, one should know that they are impermanent; if one thinks that they are not produced by causes and conditions but are permanent, Since one has already seen the existence of impermanent things, one should admit that a permanent nature does not exist. Foolish people make false distinctions, thinking that space and other things are permanent. But even wise people, observing the world, cannot find such a permanent entity. A permanent thing cannot exist only in one part and pervade all parts. Therefore, it can be known that each part has its own distinct existence. If the substance of a dharma is truly existent, then its contraction and expansion should be observable. But this contraction and expansion must arise from other causes and conditions, and is therefore also a produced result. If there is no produced result, there is no producing cause. Therefore, all producing causes are ultimately produced results. Dharmas must undergo change in order to serve as the cause for the production of other things. How can such a changing cause be called permanent? If something that did not exist before now exists, one considers natural permanence as its cause. Since one admits that there is natural permanence, then other causes become false assumptions. How can one rely on a permanent nature to produce impermanent things? If the substance of cause and effect are completely different, this has never been seen in the world. If one part is the cause and the other part is not the cause, Then it should become various different things; since it is various and different, it is not permanent. The subtle or complete appearance in the cause may not exist in the effect. Therefore, the atoms (paramanu) are not a pervasive and complete aggregation. In one atom, since one does not admit that there are other parts, Therefore, one should not admit that the cause and effect are equal in quantity. If an atom has an east
方 必有東方分 極微若有分 如何是極微 要取前舍后 方得說為行 此二若是無 行者應非有 極微無初分 中後分亦無 是則一切眼 皆所不能見 若因為果壞 是因即非常 或許果與因 二體不同處 不見有諸法 常而是有對 故極微是常 諸佛未曾說 離縛所縛因 更無真解脫 產生用闕故 設有亦名無 究竟涅槃時 無蘊亦無我 不見涅槃者 依何有涅槃 我時舍諸德 離愛有何思 若有我無思 便用無所有 無餘有我種 則定能生思 要無我無思 諸有乃無有 若離苦有我 則定無涅槃 是故涅槃中 我等皆永滅 寧在世間求 非求于勝義 以世間少有 于勝義都無
破我品第二
內我實非男 非女非非二 但由無智故 謂我為丈夫 若諸大種中 無男女非二 云何諸大種 有男等相生 汝我余非我 故我無定相 豈不于無常 妄分別為我 我即同於身 生生有變易 故離身有我 常住理不然 若法無觸對 則無有動搖 是故身作業 非命者能造 我常非所害 豈煩修護因 誰恐食金剛 執杖防眾蠹 若有宿生念 便謂我為常 既見昔時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 方：必然有東方這個方位。 極微如果還有分割的部分，那麼什麼是極微呢？（極微：物質的最小單位） 要捨棄前面的部分，才能得到後面的部分，這樣才能稱之為『行』（行：運動，變化）。 如果這兩者（前和后）都不存在，那麼『行者』（運動的主體）應該也不存在。 極微沒有最初的部分，中間和最後的部分也沒有。 這樣的話，一切眼睛都無法看見它。 如果因為結果的壞滅，導致原因也壞滅，那麼這個原因就不是常恒的。 或許結果和原因，是兩個不同的實體。 沒有看見任何法是常恒的，而且是有對立的。 所以，極微是常恒的，諸佛（Buddha）從未這樣說過。 離開了束縛和被束縛的原因，就沒有真正的解脫。 因為產生和作用的缺失，即使存在也等於沒有。 究竟涅槃（Nirvana）的時候，沒有五蘊（Skandha）也沒有我（Atman）。 沒有看見涅槃的人，依據什麼而有涅槃呢？ 當我有的時候，捨棄了各種功德，離開了愛慾，還有什麼思慮呢？ 如果我存在卻沒有思慮，那就等於什麼都沒有用。 如果沒有剩餘的我存在，那麼一定會產生思慮。 一定要沒有我，沒有思慮，各種存在才不會存在。 如果離開痛苦還有我存在，那麼一定沒有涅槃。 所以，在涅槃中，我和我所擁有的都永遠滅盡。 寧願在世間尋求，也不尋求勝義（Paramartha）。 因為世間還有少許存在，而勝義中什麼都沒有。
破我品第二
內在的我，實際上不是男人，不是女人，也不是非男非女。 只是因為沒有智慧，才認為我是丈夫。 如果各種大種（Mahabhuta）中，沒有男女和非男非女， 那麼各種大種，怎麼會有男等相的產生呢？ 你、我、余、非我，所以『我』沒有固定的相狀。 難道不是在無常的事物上，錯誤地分別認為是我嗎？ 我等同於身體，生生世世都有變易。 所以，離開身體而有我，常住不變的道理是不成立的。 如果法沒有觸對，就沒有動搖。 所以，身體的作業，不是命者（Jiva）所能造作的。 我如果是常恒的，不會被傷害，哪裡需要修習保護的原因呢？ 誰會害怕吃金剛（Vajra），拿著棍子防備各種蛀蟲呢？ 如果能夠憶起宿世的生命，就認為我是常恒的。 既然看見了過去的事情
【English Translation】 English version Direction: There must be an eastern direction. If an ultimate particle has parts, what is an ultimate particle? (Ultimate particle: the smallest unit of matter) To obtain the latter, one must abandon the former; only then can it be called 'motion' (motion: movement, change). If these two (the former and the latter) do not exist, then the 'mover' (the subject of motion) should also not exist. An ultimate particle has no initial part, nor does it have middle or final parts. In that case, all eyes would be unable to see it. If the cause is destroyed because of the destruction of the result, then that cause is not permanent. Perhaps the result and the cause are two different entities. No dharma (phenomenon) is seen to be permanent and also having opposition. Therefore, the Buddhas (Buddha) have never said that an ultimate particle is permanent. Apart from the cause of bondage and what is bound, there is no true liberation. Because of the lack of generation and function, even if it exists, it is as good as non-existent. At the time of ultimate Nirvana (Nirvana), there are no five aggregates (Skandha) and no self (Atman). How can there be Nirvana for someone who has not seen Nirvana? When I exist, having abandoned all virtues and being free from desires, what thoughts are there? If I exist without thoughts, then it is useless. If there is no remaining self, then thoughts will definitely arise. There must be no self and no thoughts for all existence to cease. If there is a self apart from suffering, then there will definitely be no Nirvana. Therefore, in Nirvana, the self and all that belongs to it are eternally extinguished. It is better to seek in the mundane world than to seek the ultimate truth (Paramartha). Because there is still a little existence in the mundane world, but there is nothing in the ultimate truth.
Chapter Two: Refuting the Self
The inner self is actually neither male, nor female, nor neither. It is only because of ignorance that one considers oneself to be a man. If there is no male, female, or neither among the great elements (Mahabhuta), How can the great elements give rise to the characteristics of male, etc.? You, I, other, non-self, therefore 'self' has no fixed characteristic. Isn't it that one mistakenly distinguishes and considers impermanent things as self? The self is the same as the body, changing in every life. Therefore, the principle of a permanent self existing apart from the body is not established. If a dharma (phenomenon) has no contact, there is no movement. Therefore, the actions of the body are not created by the Jiva (life force). If the self is permanent and cannot be harmed, why bother cultivating the cause of protection? Who would be afraid of eating Vajra (diamond), holding a stick to guard against various worms? If one can recall past lives, one would consider the self to be permanent. Since the past events are seen
痕 身亦應常住 若我與思合 轉成思念者 思亦應非思 故我非常住 我與樂等合 種種如樂等 我如樂等故 非一亦非常 若謂我思常 緣助成邪執 如言火常住 則不緣薪等 如至滅動物 作用彼無有 故有我無思 其理不成就 余方起思界 別處見於思 如鐵鋌镕銷 我體應變壞 思如意量小 我似虛空大 唯應觀自相 則不見於思 我德若周遍 何為他不受 能障既言通 不應唯障一 若德並悲思 何能造一切 彼應與狂亂 俱癡無所成 若德能善解 造舍等諸物 而不知受用 非理寧過此 有動作無常 虛通無動作 無用同無性 何不欣無我 或觀我周遍 或見量同身 或執如極微 智者達非有 常法非可惱 何舍惱解脫 是故計我常 證解脫非理 我若實有性 不應贊離我 定知真實者 趣解脫應虛 解脫中若無 前亦應非有 無雜時所見 彼真性應知 若無常皆斷 草等何不然 此理設為真 無明亦非有 現見色等行 從緣生住滅 故知汝執我 雖有而無有 如緣成芽等 緣成種等生 故無常諸法 皆無常所起 以法從緣生 故體而無斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『痕跡』（指常、一、自在的我）也應恒常存在。 如果『我』與『思』結合，轉變成能思考的念頭，那麼『思』也應該不是『思』本身，因此『我』不是恒常不變的。 『我』與快樂等感受結合，產生種種如快樂等的感受，『我』就像快樂等感受一樣，既不是單一的，也不是恒常的。 如果認為『我』的『思』是常住的，需要依靠外緣才能成立，這是一種邪見，就像說火是常住的，就不需要依靠柴薪等燃料一樣。 就像到達滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）的眾生，其作用已經停止一樣，所以說有『我』但沒有『思』，這個道理是不能成立的。 如果『思』在其他地方產生，在別處才能見到『思』，就像鐵錠被熔化一樣，『我』的本體應該會變壞。 『思』就像意念一樣微小，而『我』卻像虛空一樣廣大，如果只能觀察『我』的自性，就無法看到『思』的存在。 如果『我』的功德是周遍一切的，為什麼其他眾生不能感受到？如果說有東西能夠阻礙這種周遍性，既然說是通達無礙的，就不應該只能阻礙一部分。 如果功德與悲憫和思慮並存，怎麼能創造一切事物？那應該與狂亂一樣，愚癡而一無所成。 如果功德能夠巧妙地理解，創造房屋等事物，卻不知道如何享受這些事物，還有比這更不合道理的嗎？ 有動作的事物是無常的，虛空是通達而沒有動作的，沒有作用就如同沒有自性，為什麼不欣然接受無我的道理呢？ 有人觀察『我』是周遍的，有人認為『我』的量與身體相同，有人執著『我』像極微一樣，有智慧的人明白這些都是不存在的。 常法是不可被惱害的，為什麼要捨棄不可被惱害的常法，去追求從惱害中解脫呢？所以，認為『我』是常住的，以此來證得解脫是不合道理的。 如果『我』確實具有自性，就不應該讚歎離『我』的境界。如果確定真實存在『我』，那麼追求解脫就應該是虛妄的。 如果在解脫中沒有『我』，那麼之前所認為的『我』也應該是不存在的。在沒有混雜的時候所見到的，那才是真正的自性。 如果無常的事物都是斷滅的，那麼草木等植物為什麼不是斷滅的呢？如果這個道理成立，那麼無明（Avidyā）也應該是不存在的。 現在可以清楚地看到色（Rūpa）等諸行，都是從因緣生起、存在和滅去的，所以要知道你所執著的『我』，雖然好像存在，但實際上是不存在的。 就像依靠因緣產生了嫩芽等事物，依靠因緣產生種子等事物一樣，所以無常的諸法，都是由無常的因緣所產生的。 因為法是從因緣而生的，所以本體是相續不斷的。
【English Translation】 English version The 『trace』 (referring to the permanent, singular, and independent self) should also be permanent. If 『I』 combine with 『thought』 (思), transforming into a thinking mind, then 『thought』 should also not be 『thought』 itself. Therefore, 『I』 am not permanent. 『I』 combine with feelings like pleasure, producing various feelings like pleasure. 『I』 am like these feelings, neither singular nor permanent. If it is believed that the 『thought』 of 『I』 is permanent, requiring external conditions to arise, this is a false view. It's like saying fire is permanent and doesn't need fuel like firewood. Just as beings who have attained Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation of consciousness) have ceased their functions, so the idea of 『I』 existing without 『thought』 is untenable. If 『thought』 arises elsewhere, and 『thought』 is seen in a different place, like a molten iron ingot, the essence of 『I』 should be corrupted. 『Thought』 is as small as an intention, while 『I』 is as vast as space. If one can only observe the self-nature of 『I』, one cannot see the existence of 『thought』. If the virtues of 『I』 are all-pervasive, why can't other beings feel them? If something can obstruct this pervasiveness, since it is said to be unobstructed, it should not only obstruct a part. If virtues coexist with compassion and thought, how can they create all things? That should be like madness, foolish and unproductive. If virtues can skillfully understand and create things like houses, but do not know how to enjoy these things, what could be more unreasonable than this? Things with actions are impermanent, space is pervasive and without action. Being useless is the same as having no self-nature, why not gladly accept the principle of no-self (Anatta)? Some observe 『I』 as pervasive, some think the measure of 『I』 is the same as the body, some cling to 『I』 as being like atoms. The wise understand that these are non-existent. Permanent Dharma (法, law/teachings) cannot be harmed, why abandon the permanent Dharma that cannot be harmed to pursue liberation from harm? Therefore, believing that 『I』 is permanent to attain liberation is unreasonable. If 『I』 truly has self-nature, one should not praise the state of being without 『I』. If the existence of 『I』 is certain, then the pursuit of liberation should be false. If there is no 『I』 in liberation, then the previously believed 『I』 should also not exist. What is seen when there is no confusion, that should be the true self-nature. If all impermanent things are annihilated, why aren't plants like grass annihilated? If this principle holds true, then ignorance (Avidyā, 無明) should also not exist. It can be clearly seen that phenomena like Rūpa (色, form) arise, exist, and cease from conditions, so know that the 『I』 you cling to, although it seems to exist, actually does not exist. Just as sprouts and other things arise depending on conditions, seeds and other things arise depending on conditions, so all impermanent Dharmas arise from impermanent conditions. Because Dharma arises from conditions, the essence is continuous and unbroken.
以法從緣滅 故體亦非常
破時品第三
瓶等在未來 即非有過現 未來過現有 便是未來無 未來若已謝 而有未來體 此則恒未來 云何成過現 法若在未來 現有未來相 應即為現在 如何名未來 去來如現有 取果用何無 若體恒非無 何為不常住 過去若過去 如何成過去 過去不過去 如何成過去 未來若有生 如何非現在 未來若無生 如何非常住 若未來無生 壞故非常者 過去既無壞 何不謂為常 現在世無常 非由過去等 除斯二所趣 更無有第三 若後生諸行 先已有定體 說有定性人 應非是邪執 若法因緣生 即非先有體 先有而生者 生已復應生 若見去來有 如何不見無 既見有去來 應不說為遠 未作法若有 修戒等唐捐 若少有所為 果則非先有 諸行既無常 果則非恒有 若有初有後 世共許非常 應非勤解脫 解脫無去來 或許有去來 貪應離貪者 若執果先有 造宮舍嚴具 柱等則唐捐 果先無亦爾 諸法有轉變 慧者未曾有 唯除無智人 妄分別為有 無常何有住 住無有何體 初若有住者 后應無變衰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以法依循因緣而生滅，所以它的本體也不是永恒不變的。
破時品第三
如果瓶子等事物存在於未來，那麼它們就不應該與過去和現在有關聯。 如果未來包含了過去和現在，那麼未來就等同於不存在。 如果未來已經消逝，卻仍然具有未來的本體，那麼它就永遠是未來，又怎麼能成為過去和現在呢？ 如果法存在於未來，並且現在就具有未來的相狀，那麼它就應該已經是現在，又怎麼能稱之為未來呢？ 如果過去和未來如同現在一樣真實存在，那麼為何在獲取結果時卻說它們不存在呢？ 如果本體一直都不是不存在的，那又為何不是常住不變的呢？ 如果過去已經過去，又如何能成為過去呢？ 如果過去沒有過去，又如何能成為過去呢？ 如果未來有生起，又怎麼能不是現在呢？ 如果未來沒有生起，又怎麼能不是常住不變的呢？ 如果未來沒有生起，因為會壞滅所以不是常住， 那麼過去既然沒有壞滅，為何不能被認為是常住的呢？ 現在的世間是無常的，這並非由過去等因素造成的。 除了這兩種觀點之外，沒有第三種觀點存在。 如果後生的諸行（saṃskāra，有為法）在先前已經有了確定的本體， 那麼說有確定自性的人，應該就不是邪見的執著了。 如果法是因緣和合而生，那麼它就不是先前就存在的本體。 如果先前已經存在，然後又生起，那麼生起之後應該再次生起。 如果能看到過去和未來是存在的，為何看不到不存在呢？ 既然能看到過去和未來，就不應該說它們遙遠。 如果未造作的法已經存在，那麼修行戒律等等就是徒勞的。 如果稍微有所作為，那麼結果就不是先前就存在的。 諸行既然是無常的，那麼結果就不是恒常存在的。 如果事物有開始有結束，世間公認它不是永恒的。 那麼就不應該努力尋求解脫，因為解脫沒有過去和未來。 或者說解脫有過去和未來，那麼貪愛者就應該能遠離貪愛。 如果執著于結果是先前就存在的，那麼建造宮殿房屋和裝飾用具， 柱子等等就是徒勞的，如果結果先前不存在也是一樣。 諸法有轉變，有智慧的人從未認為這是有的。 只有無知的人，才會妄加分別認為它們是存在的。 無常的事物怎麼會有住留呢？住留的事物又怎麼會有本體呢？ 如果一開始就有住留，那麼後來就不應該有變化和衰敗。
【English Translation】 English version Since phenomena arise and cease according to conditions, their essence is also impermanent.
Chapter 3: Analysis of Time
If pots and other things exist in the future, then they should not be related to the past and present. If the future contains the past and present, then the future is equivalent to non-existence. If the future has already passed, yet still possesses the essence of the future, then it is always the future; how can it become the past and present? If a dharma (phenomenon) exists in the future and already has the characteristics of the future, then it should already be the present; how can it be called the future? If the past and future are as real as the present, then why is it said that they do not exist when obtaining results? If the essence is never non-existent, then why is it not permanent? If the past has already passed, how can it become the past? If the past has not passed, how can it become the past? If the future has arising, how can it not be the present? If the future has no arising, how can it not be permanent? If the future has no arising, and is not permanent because it decays, then since the past has no decay, why can it not be considered permanent? The impermanence of the present world is not caused by the past and other factors. Apart from these two views, there is no third view. If the later-arising saṃskāras (conditioned phenomena) already have a definite essence beforehand, then those who say there is a definite self-nature should not be considered to have wrong views. If a dharma (phenomenon) arises from conditions, then it is not an essence that existed beforehand. If it already existed beforehand and then arises, then after arising, it should arise again. If one can see that the past and future exist, why can't one see non-existence? Since one can see the past and future, one should not say that they are distant. If uncreated dharmas (phenomena) already exist, then practicing precepts and so on is in vain. If there is even a little bit of action, then the result is not something that existed beforehand. Since all saṃskāras (conditioned phenomena) are impermanent, then the result is not eternally existent. If things have a beginning and an end, the world universally acknowledges that they are not eternal. Then one should not strive for liberation, because liberation has no past and future. Or if liberation has a past and future, then those who are attached should be able to detach from attachment. If one clings to the idea that the result existed beforehand, then building palaces, houses, and decorative items, pillars and so on are in vain; it is the same if the result did not exist beforehand. All dharmas (phenomena) have transformation; wise people have never considered this to exist. Only ignorant people falsely discriminate and think that they exist. How can impermanent things have abiding? How can abiding things have essence? If there is abiding from the beginning, then there should be no change and decay later.
譬如無一識 能了於二義 如是無一義 二識所能知 時若有餘住 住則不成時 時若余住無 后滅應非有 法與無常異 法則非無常 法與無常一 法應非有住 無常初既劣 住力定應強 此二復何緣 后見成顛倒 若遍諸法體 無常力初劣 應都無有住 或一切皆常 無常若恒有 住相應常無 或彼法先常 后乃非常住 若法無常俱 而言有住者 無常相應妄 或住相應虛 無所見見無 迴心緣妄境 是故唯虛假 有憶念名生
破見品第四
稟和希勝慧 是法器應知 異此有師資 無因獲勝利 說有及有因 凈與凈方便 世間自不了 過豈在牟尼 舍諸有涅槃 邪宗所共許 真空破一切 如何彼不欣 不知舍證因 無由能捨證 是故牟尼說 清涼余定無 若於佛所說 深事以生疑 可依無相空 而生決定信 觀現尚有妄 知后定為虛 諸依彼法行 被誑終無已 智者自涅槃 是能作難作 愚夫逢善導 而無隨趣心 不知無怖畏 遍知亦復然 定由少分知 而生於怖畏 生死順流法 愚夫常習行 未曾修逆流 是故生怖畏 諸有愚癡人 障他真實見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 譬如沒有一個意識，能夠同時瞭解兩種不同的意義。 同樣地，也沒有一個意義，能被兩個意識同時認知。 如果時間還有剩餘的停留，那麼停留就不成其為時間。 如果時間沒有剩餘的停留，那麼後來的滅亡就不應該存在。 法（dharma）與無常是不同的，因此法（dharma）不是無常的。 如果法（dharma）與無常是相同的，那麼法（dharma）就不應該有停留。 無常最初是微弱的，停留的力量必定是強大的。 這二者又是什麼緣故，導致後來的見解成為顛倒的呢？ 如果無常遍及所有法的本體，無常的力量最初是微弱的， 那麼應該完全沒有停留，或者一切都是常。 如果無常恒常存在，那麼停留相應地就應該恒常不存在。 或者那個法（dharma）先前是常，後來才變成非常住的。 如果法（dharma）與無常同時存在，卻說有停留， 那麼與無常相應是虛妄的，或者與停留相應是虛假的。 沒有所見而見到無，迴轉心念緣于虛妄的境界。 所以只有虛假的憶念之名產生。
破見品第四
稟性和諧且希求殊勝智慧的人，是堪為法器的人，應該知道。 與此不同，即使有師資，也無法無因而獲得勝利。 說有和有因，清凈和清凈的方便， 世間自己不瞭解，過錯難道在於牟尼（釋迦牟尼佛的稱號）嗎？ 捨棄諸有而入涅槃（nirvana），是邪宗共同認可的。 真空破除一切，為什麼他們不歡喜呢？ 不知道捨棄證悟的原因，就無法捨棄證悟。 所以牟尼（釋迦牟尼佛的稱號）說，清涼的涅槃（nirvana）之外，其他地方一定沒有。 如果在佛所說的甚深道理上產生懷疑， 可以依靠無相空性，而生起決定的信心。 觀察現在尚且有虛妄，就知道未來必定是虛假的。 那些依靠虛妄之法而行的人，被欺騙終究沒有停止的時候。 智者自己證得涅槃（nirvana），是能夠做到難做到的事。 愚夫遇到善知識的引導，卻沒有隨順趣向的心。 不知道沒有怖畏，遍知也是這樣。 必定由於少分知，而產生怖畏。 生死順流之法，愚夫常常習慣修行。 未曾修習逆流之法，所以產生怖畏。 那些愚癡的人，障礙他人真實的見解。
【English Translation】 English version For example, no single consciousness can comprehend two different meanings. Similarly, no single meaning can be known by two consciousnesses. If time has remaining duration, then duration cannot be time. If time has no remaining duration, then subsequent cessation should not exist. Dharma (law, teaching) and impermanence are different; therefore, dharma (law, teaching) is not impermanent. If dharma (law, teaching) and impermanence are the same, then dharma (law, teaching) should not have duration. If impermanence is initially weak, then the power of duration must be strong. What is the reason that these two lead to later views becoming inverted? If impermanence pervades the essence of all dharmas, and the power of impermanence is initially weak, Then there should be no duration at all, or everything should be permanent. If impermanence is always present, then duration should always be absent accordingly. Or that dharma (law, teaching) was initially permanent, and only later became impermanent. If dharma (law, teaching) and impermanence exist simultaneously, yet it is said that there is duration, Then the correspondence with impermanence is false, or the correspondence with duration is illusory. Seeing non-existence where there is nothing to be seen, turning the mind to cling to illusory realms. Therefore, only the name of false recollection arises.
Chapter Four: Refuting Views
One who possesses a harmonious nature and seeks supreme wisdom should be known as a vessel for the Dharma. Different from this, even with teachers and resources, victory cannot be obtained without cause. Speaking of existence and the cause of existence, purity and the means to purity, The world itself does not understand; is the fault with Muni (epithet of Shakyamuni Buddha)? Abandoning all existence and entering nirvana (liberation) is commonly accepted by heretical sects. Emptiness refutes everything; why are they not pleased? Not knowing the cause of abandoning realization, one cannot abandon realization. Therefore, Muni (epithet of Shakyamuni Buddha) said that apart from the coolness of nirvana (liberation), there is certainly nothing else. If doubt arises regarding the profound teachings of the Buddha, One can rely on signless emptiness and generate resolute faith. Observing that there is delusion even in the present, one knows that the future is certainly false. Those who rely on false dharmas and practice will ultimately never cease being deceived. A wise person attaining nirvana (liberation) for themselves is capable of doing what is difficult to do. A foolish person encounters the guidance of a virtuous friend but has no mind to follow and approach. Not knowing fearlessness, and likewise, not knowing complete knowledge. Fear arises from knowing only a small part. The dharma of flowing with birth and death is what foolish people constantly practice. Having never practiced against the current, they therefore generate fear. Those foolish people obstruct others' true views.
無由生善趣 如何證涅槃 寧毀犯尸羅 不損壞正見 尸羅生善趣 正見得涅槃 寧彼起我執 非空無我見 后兼向惡趣 初唯背涅槃 空無我妙理 諸佛真境界 能怖眾惡見 涅槃不二門 愚聞空法名 皆生大怖畏 如見大力者 怯劣悉奔逃 諸佛雖無心 說摧他論法 而他論自壞 如野火焚薪 諸有悟正法 定不樂邪宗 為余出偽門 故顯真空義 若知佛所說 真空無我理 隨順不生欣 乖違無厭怖 見諸外道眾 為多無義因 樂正法有情 誰不深悲愍 婆羅門離系 如來三所宗 耳眼意能知 故佛法深細 婆羅門所宗 多令行誑詐 離系外道法 多分順愚癡 恭敬婆羅門 為誦諸明故 愍念離系者 由自苦其身 如苦業所感 非真解脫因 勝身業所生 亦非證解脫 略言佛所說 具二別余宗 不害生人天 觀空證解脫 世人耽自宗 如愛本生地 正法能摧滅 邪黨不生欣 有智求勝德 應信受真宗 正法如日輪 有目因能見
破根境品第五
于瓶諸分中 可見唯是色 言瓶全可見 如何能悟真 諸有勝慧人 隨前所說義 于香味及觸 一切類應遮
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無從產生善的去處，又如何能證得涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）？ 寧願毀壞戒律（Śīla，道德行為），也不要損壞正確的見解（正見）。 戒律能帶來好的去處，而正見能證得涅槃。 寧願生起對自我的執著（我執），也不要持有虛無的無我見解（空無我見）。 前者可能導致墮入惡趣，後者一開始就背離了涅槃。 空無我的精妙道理，是諸佛真正的境界。 能夠使各種錯誤的見解感到恐懼，是通往涅槃的不二法門。 愚昧的人聽到『空』的說法，都會產生極大的恐懼。 就像看到強大的力量，膽怯弱小的人都會四處逃散。 諸佛雖然沒有想要摧毀其他理論的心，卻宣說了能夠摧毀其他理論的佛法。 而其他的理論自然會崩潰瓦解，就像野火焚燒柴薪一樣。 所有領悟了正法的人，一定不會喜歡邪惡的宗派。 爲了揭露其他宗派的虛假之處，所以才顯現真空的意義。 如果知道佛所說的真空無我的道理。 那麼對於順應真理不會感到欣喜，對於違背真理也不會感到厭惡和恐懼。 看到那些外道，爲了許多沒有意義的原因而忙碌。 對於喜愛正法的有情眾生，誰不會深深地悲憫呢？ 婆羅門（Brāhmaṇa，古印度祭司階層）、離系外道（Nirgrantha，耆那教）和如來（Tathāgata，佛陀）是三種不同的宗派。 耳朵、眼睛和意識能夠感知，所以佛法是深奧而精細的。 婆羅門所信奉的，大多是導致欺騙和虛偽的行為。 離系外道的教法，大多順應愚癡。 恭敬婆羅門，是因為他們誦讀各種明咒。 憐憫離系外道，是因為他們自己折磨自己的身體。 像這樣由苦行所帶來的結果，並不是真正解脫的原因。 即使是殊勝的身業所產生的果報，也不是證得解脫的原因。 簡而言之，佛所說的教法，具備兩種不同於其他宗派的特點。 不傷害眾生，使他們能夠轉生到人道或天道，通過觀察空性來證得解脫。 世人沉溺於自己的宗派，就像愛戀自己出生的土地一樣。 正法能夠摧毀邪惡的黨派，所以他們不會感到欣喜。 有智慧的人爲了追求殊勝的功德，應該信受真正的宗派。 正法就像太陽一樣，有眼睛的人才能看到。 破根境品第五 在瓶子的各個部分中，能夠看到的只有顏色。 如果說整個瓶子都能被看到，又如何能夠領悟真理呢？ 所有具有殊勝智慧的人，應該按照前面所說的意義。 對於香味和觸覺，也應該用同樣的方式來否定。
【English Translation】 English version How can one be born in a good realm without a cause? How can one attain Nirvana (liberation)? Rather destroy the precepts (Śīla, moral conduct) than damage right view (correct understanding). Precepts lead to good realms, while right view leads to Nirvana. Rather arise with self-attachment (ego-grasping) than hold a nihilistic view of no-self (emptiness of self). The latter may lead to bad realms, while the former initially turns away from Nirvana. The subtle principle of emptiness and no-self is the true realm of all Buddhas. It can frighten all evil views and is the non-dual gate to Nirvana. Ignorant people, upon hearing the name of 'emptiness,' all generate great fear. Like seeing a powerful force, the timid and weak all flee. Although the Buddhas have no intention to destroy other theories, they speak the Dharma that destroys them. And other theories collapse on their own, like a wildfire burning firewood. All who realize the true Dharma will certainly not delight in evil sects. To expose the false doors of others, the meaning of emptiness is revealed. If one knows the principle of emptiness and no-self spoken by the Buddha. Then one will not be delighted by conforming to the truth, nor will one be disgusted or fearful by deviating from it. Seeing those non-Buddhists busy with many meaningless causes. Who would not deeply pity sentient beings who love the true Dharma? Brāhmaṇa (ancient Indian priestly class), Nirgrantha (Jainism), and Tathāgata (Buddha) are three different schools. The ears, eyes, and mind can perceive, so the Buddha's Dharma is profound and subtle. What the Brāhmaṇas believe in mostly leads to deceit and falsehood. The teachings of the Nirgranthas mostly conform to ignorance. Respecting the Brāhmaṇas is because they recite various mantras. Pitying the Nirgranthas is because they torture their own bodies. Results brought about by such asceticism are not the cause of true liberation. Even the results produced by superior bodily actions are not the cause of attaining liberation. In short, what the Buddha said has two characteristics different from other schools. It does not harm beings, enabling them to be reborn in human or heavenly realms, and it attains liberation by observing emptiness. Worldly people are addicted to their own sects, like being in love with their native land. The true Dharma can destroy evil parties, so they do not rejoice. Wise people, in order to seek superior virtues, should believe in the true school. The true Dharma is like the sun, which can be seen by those with eyes. Chapter Five: Analysis of the Bases and Objects Among the various parts of a pot, only color can be seen. If it is said that the entire pot can be seen, how can one realize the truth? All those with superior wisdom should, according to the meaning stated earlier. Negate smell and touch in the same way.
若唯見瓶色 即言見瓶者 既不見香等 應名不見瓶 有障礙諸色 體非全可見 彼分及中間 由此分所隔 極微分有無 應審諦思察 引不成為證 義終不可成 一切有礙法 皆眾分所成 言說字亦然 故非根所取 離顯色有形 云何取形色 即顯取形色 何故不由身 離色有色因 應非眼所見 二法體既異 如何不別觀 身覺于堅等 共立地等名 故唯于觸中 說地等差別 瓶所見生時 不見有異德 體生如所見 故實性都無 眼等皆大造 何眼見非余 故業果難思 牟尼真實說 智緣未有故 智非在見先 居后智唐捐 同時見無用 眼若行至境 色遠見應遲 何不亦分明 照極遠近色 若見已方行 行即為無用 若不見而往 定欲見應無 若不往而觀 應見一切色 眼既無行動 無遠亦無障 諸法體相用 前後定應同 如何此眼根 不見於眼性 眼中無色識 識中無色眼 色內二俱無 何能合見色 所聞若能表 何不成非音 聲若非能詮 何故緣生解 聲若至耳聞 如何了聲本 聲無頓說理 如何全可知 乃至非所聞 應非是聲性 先無而後有 理定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如果僅僅看見瓶子的顏色，就說看見了瓶子，既然沒有看見香味等其他部分，那麼應該叫做沒有看見瓶子。 有障礙的各種顏色，其整體並非完全可見。那些部分以及中間部分，因此被這些部分所隔開。 對於極微小的部分是否存在，應該仔細地思考和觀察。如果引用不能成立的觀點作為證據，那麼最終也無法證明。 一切有障礙的事物，都是由眾多部分組成的，言語文字也是如此，所以不是根識所能獲取的。 離開了明顯的顏色，如何獲取形狀和顏色？如果直接通過顯色來獲取形狀和顏色，為什麼不能通過身體來感知？ 如果離開顏色還有顏色的原因，那麼應該不是眼睛所能看見的。兩種法的本體既然不同，為什麼不能分別觀察？ 身體感覺堅硬等觸感，共同建立地等名稱。所以僅僅在觸覺中，說明地等的差別。 當看見瓶子的時候，沒有看見有其他的特性。事物的產生如同所見，所以真實自性根本不存在。 眼睛等都是由『大』所造，為什麼眼睛能看見而其他不能？所以業的果報難以思議，牟尼（釋迦牟尼佛的尊稱）真實地宣說了這個道理。 因為智慧的因緣還沒有產生，所以智慧不是在看見之前就存在的。如果在看見之後才產生智慧，那麼智慧就是多餘的；如果同時產生，那麼看見就沒有作用。 如果眼睛是移動到所見之境的，那麼看見遠處的顏色應該會比較遲緩。為什麼不能同樣清晰地照見極遠和極近的顏色？ 如果看見之後才移動，那麼移動就是沒有用的；如果沒有看見就移動，那麼想要看見的目的應該無法達成。 如果不移動就能看見，那麼應該能看見一切顏色。眼睛既然沒有移動，就沒有遠近，也沒有障礙。 諸法的本體、相狀和作用，前後必定應該相同。為什麼這個眼根，不能看見眼睛的自性？ 眼睛中沒有顏色的意識，意識中沒有顏色的眼睛。顏色內部兩者都沒有，如何能夠合起來看見顏色？ 如果所聽到的聲音能夠表達意義，為什麼不能成為非聲音？如果聲音不能詮釋意義，為什麼因聲音而產生理解？ 如果聲音到達耳朵才能被聽到，如何瞭解聲音的根本？聲音沒有同時表達所有道理的能力，如何能夠完全被瞭解？ 乃至不是所聽到的，應該不是聲音的性質。先沒有而後有，這是確定的道理。
【English Translation】 English version If one only sees the color of a pot, and then claims to have seen the pot, since one has not seen the scent and other aspects, one should be said to have not seen the pot. Various colors that have obstructions, their entirety is not completely visible. Those parts and the middle parts are therefore separated by these parts. Regarding whether extremely minute parts exist or not, one should carefully contemplate and observe. If one cites an untenable view as evidence, then ultimately it cannot be proven. All things that have obstructions are composed of numerous parts, and so are words and language, therefore they cannot be apprehended by the root consciousness. Apart from manifest color, how can one grasp shape and color? If one directly grasps shape and color through manifest color, why can't it be perceived through the body? If there is a cause of color apart from color, then it should not be visible to the eye. Since the substance of the two dharmas is different, why can't they be observed separately? The body feels hardness and other sensations, and together they establish names such as 'earth'. Therefore, only in touch is the difference of earth and so on explained. When seeing a pot, one does not see other different qualities. The arising of things is as seen, therefore true self-nature does not exist at all. The eyes and so on are all created by the 'Great', why can the eyes see and others cannot? Therefore, the result of karma is inconceivable, and Muni (an honorific title for Shakyamuni Buddha) truthfully declared this principle. Because the conditions for wisdom have not yet arisen, wisdom does not exist before seeing. If wisdom arises after seeing, then wisdom is superfluous; if they arise simultaneously, then seeing is useless. If the eye moves to the object of sight, then seeing distant colors should be slower. Why can't it clearly illuminate extremely distant and extremely near colors? If one moves after seeing, then moving is useless; if one moves without seeing, then the purpose of wanting to see should not be achieved. If one can see without moving, then one should be able to see all colors. Since the eye does not move, there is no distance, and no obstruction. The substance, characteristics, and function of all dharmas should definitely be the same before and after. Why can't this eye-root see the self-nature of the eye? There is no color consciousness in the eye, and no color eye in consciousness. There is neither within color, how can they combine to see color? If what is heard can express meaning, why can't it become non-sound? If sound cannot interpret meaning, why does understanding arise from sound? If sound reaches the ear to be heard, how can one understand the root of sound? Sound does not have the ability to express all principles simultaneously, how can it be fully understood? Even what is not heard should not be the nature of sound. First there is nothing, and then there is something, this is a definite principle.
不相應 心若離諸根 去亦應無用 設如是命者 應常無有心 令心妄取塵 依先見如焰 妄立諸法義 是想蘊應知 眼色等為緣 如幻生諸識 若執為實有 幻喻不應成 世間諸所有 無不皆難測 根境理同然 智者何驚異 諸法如火輪 變化夢幻事 水月彗星響 陽焰及浮雲
破邊執品第六
諸法若實有 應不依他成 既必依他成 定知非實有 非即色有瓶 非離色有瓶 非依瓶有色 非有瓶依色 若見二相異 謂離瓶有同 二相既有殊 應離瓶有異 若一不名瓶 瓶應不名一 瓶一曾無合 瓶應無一名 若色遍於實 色應得大名 敵論若非他 應申自宗義 有數等能相 顯所相不成 除此更無因 故諸法非有 離別相無瓶 故瓶體非一 一一非瓶故 瓶體亦非多 非無有觸體 與有觸體合 故色等諸法 不可合為瓶 色是瓶一分 故色體非瓶 有分既為無 一分如何有 一切色等性 色等相無差 唯一類是瓶 余非有何理 若色異味等 不異於瓶等 瓶等即味等 色何即瓶等 瓶等既無因 體應不成果 故若異色等 瓶等定為無 瓶等因若有 可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不相應 如果心離開了諸根（indriya，感官），那麼捨棄它也應該沒有用處。 如果像這樣認為，生命就應該常常沒有心。 讓心虛妄地執取外塵（visaya，對像），就像先前所見到的火焰一樣。 虛妄地建立諸法的意義，這應該被理解為想蘊（saṃjñāskandha，知覺蘊）。 眼（cakṣu，視覺器官）、色（rūpa，顏色）等作為因緣，就像幻術一樣產生各種識（vijñāna，意識）。 如果執著它們是真實存在的，那麼幻術的比喻就不成立了。 世間的一切事物，沒有什麼是不可測度的。 根、境（āyatana，感覺的來源）和道理都是如此，有智慧的人為何感到驚異呢？ 諸法就像火輪（alātacakra，旋轉的火把產生的視覺幻象）、變化、夢幻之事， 如同水中的月亮、彗星、迴響、陽焰（mṛgatṛṣṇā，海市蜃樓）和浮雲。
破邊執品第六
如果諸法是真實存在的，那麼就不應該依賴其他事物而成立。 既然必定依賴其他事物而成立，必定知道它不是真實存在的。 瓶（ghaṭa，容器）不是即色（rūpa，顏色）而有，也不是離開色而有。 不是依賴瓶而有色，也不是有瓶依賴色。 如果看到兩種不同的相狀，認為離開瓶有相同之處。 兩種相狀既然有差別，就應該離開瓶有不同之處。 如果一（ekatva，單一性）不稱為瓶，瓶就不應該稱為一。 瓶和一從來沒有結合，瓶就不應該有一個名稱。 如果色遍佈于真實，色就應該得到大的名稱。 如果對方的論點不是他人的，就應該闡述自己的宗義。 有數論（Sāṃkhya，印度哲學流派）等所說的能相（lakṣaṇa，特徵），顯示所相（lakṣya，被定義的事物）不能成立。 除了這些，再沒有其他原因，所以諸法不是真實存在的。 離開各個部分就沒有瓶，所以瓶的本體不是一。 因為每一個部分都不是瓶，瓶的本體也不是多。 不是沒有觸體的（asparśa，無觸的）與有觸體的（sapraṭighāta，有障礙的）結合。 所以色等諸法，不可能合成為瓶。 色是瓶的一部分，所以色的本體不是瓶。 如果一部分是無，一部分如何存在呢？ 一切色等的自性，色等的相狀沒有差別。 只有一類是瓶，其餘不是，有什麼道理呢？ 如果色與味等不同，不異於瓶等。 瓶等即是味等，色為何即是瓶等？ 瓶等既然沒有原因，本體應該不能成果。 所以如果異於色等，瓶等必定是無。 如果瓶等的因存在，可以
【English Translation】 English version Non-Correspondence If the mind is separated from the senses (indriya), then abandoning it should also be useless. If it is thought like this, life should always be without mind. Causing the mind to falsely grasp external objects (visaya), like a flame seen before. Falsely establishing the meaning of phenomena, this should be understood as the aggregate of perception (saṃjñāskandha). The eye (cakṣu), color (rūpa), etc., as conditions, produce various consciousnesses (vijñāna) like an illusion. If one clings to them as truly existent, then the metaphor of illusion is not established. All things in the world, there is nothing that is not difficult to measure. The senses, objects (āyatana), and reasoning are all like this, why should the wise be surprised? Phenomena are like a fire wheel (alātacakra), transformations, dreamlike events, Like the moon in water, comets, echoes, mirages (mṛgatṛṣṇā), and floating clouds.
Chapter Six: Refuting Extreme Views
If phenomena were truly existent, then they should not arise dependently on others. Since they necessarily arise dependently on others, it is definitely known that they are not truly existent. A pot (ghaṭa) does not exist as the same as color (rūpa), nor does it exist apart from color. Color does not exist dependently on the pot, nor does the pot exist dependently on color. If two different aspects are seen, thinking there is sameness apart from the pot. Since the two aspects have differences, there should be difference apart from the pot. If one (ekatva) is not called a pot, the pot should not be called one. The pot and one never combine, the pot should not have one name. If color pervades reality, color should obtain a great name. If the opponent's argument is not another's, one should expound one's own doctrine. The characteristics (lakṣaṇa) stated by Sāṃkhya and others show that the defined (lakṣya) cannot be established. Apart from these, there is no other reason, so phenomena are not truly existent. Apart from the individual parts, there is no pot, so the essence of the pot is not one. Because each part is not the pot, the essence of the pot is also not many. It is not that the non-tangible (asparśa) combines with the tangible (sapraṭighāta). Therefore, phenomena such as color cannot be combined into a pot. Color is a part of the pot, so the essence of color is not the pot. If a part is non-existent, how can a part exist? The nature of all colors, etc., the aspects of colors, etc., have no difference. Only one kind is a pot, what reason is there for the rest not to be? If color is different from taste, etc., it is not different from the pot, etc. The pot, etc., are the same as taste, etc., why is color the same as the pot, etc.? Since the pot, etc., have no cause, the essence should not be able to produce a result. Therefore, if different from color, etc., the pot, etc., are definitely non-existent. If the cause of the pot, etc., exists, it can
為瓶等因 瓶等因既無 如何生瓶等 色等和合時 終不成香等 故和合一體 應如瓶等無 如離於色等 瓶體實為無 色體亦應然 離風等非有 暖即是火性 非暖如何燒 故薪體為無 離此火非有 余暖雜故成 如何不成火 若余不成暖 由火法應無 若火微無薪 應離薪有火 火微有薪者 應無火極微 審觀諸法時 無一體實有 一體既非有 多體亦應無 若法更無餘 汝謂為一體 諸法皆三性 故一體為無 有非有俱非 一非一雙泯 隨次應配屬 智者達非真 于相續假法 惡見諸真常 積集假法中 邪執言實有 諸法眾緣成 性羸無自在 虛假依他立 故我法皆無 果眾緣合成 離緣無別果 如是合與果 諸聖達皆無 識為諸有種 境是識所行 見境無我時 諸有種皆滅
破有為相品第七
若本無而生 先無何不起 本有而生者 後有復應生 果若能違因 先無不應理 果立因無用 先有亦不成 此時非有生 彼時亦無生 此彼時無生 何時當有生 如生於自性 生義既為無 於他性亦然 生義何成有 初中后三位 生前定不成 二一既為無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為瓶等因 如果瓶子等事物是無因而生的，那麼如何產生瓶子等事物呢？ 當顏色等要素聚合時，最終也不會產生香味等其他性質。 因此，和合而成的整體，應該像瓶子一樣，其自性是空無的。 如果離開了顏色等要素，瓶子的實體實際上是不存在的。 顏色的實體也應該如此，離開了風等要素就不存在。 溫暖就是火的性質，沒有溫暖又如何燃燒呢？ 所以薪柴的實體是空無的，離開了薪柴，火也不存在。 如果其他溫暖的要素混合在一起，為什麼不能形成火呢？ 如果其他要素不能形成溫暖，那麼按照火的法則，火也應該不存在。 如果火的微粒沒有薪柴，那麼應該離開薪柴而有火。 如果火的微粒有薪柴，那麼應該沒有火的最小單位。 仔細觀察諸法時，沒有一個實體是真實存在的。 既然一個實體不存在，那麼多個實體也應該不存在。 如果法不再有其他部分，你才認為它是一個整體。 諸法都具有三種性質（有、非有、亦有亦非有），所以一個整體是不存在的。 有、非有、俱非有，一、非一，這兩種對立的概念都應該消除。 按照順序應該這樣對應，智者能夠領悟到這些都不是真實的。 對於相續的假法，惡見之人會執著于真實和永恒。 在積聚的假法中，錯誤地執著認為是真實存在的。 諸法由眾多因緣和合而成，其自性是虛弱的，沒有自主性。 虛假的法依他而立，所以我和法都是空無的。 果由眾多因緣和合而成，離開了因緣就沒有獨立的果。 像這樣，和合與果，諸位聖者都領悟到它們是空無的。 識是諸有（bhava）（存在、生命）的種子，境是識所行之處。 當見到境中無我時，諸有的種子就都滅盡了。 《破有為相品》第七 如果本來沒有而產生，那麼先前沒有時為什麼不產生呢？ 如果本來有而產生，那麼後來有又應該再次產生。 如果果能夠違背因，那麼先前沒有就不合道理。 如果果成立了，那麼因就沒有作用，先前有也不成立。 在這個時候沒有產生，在那個時候也沒有產生。 這個和那個時候都沒有產生，那麼什麼時候才會有產生呢？ 就像產生於自性一樣，產生的意義已經不存在了。 對於他性也是如此，產生的意義如何能夠成立呢？ 在初、中、后三個階段，產生之前肯定是不成立的。 二和一既然不存在，
【English Translation】 English version On the Cause of a Jar, and So Forth If a jar, and so forth, arise without a cause, how can a jar, and so forth, arise? When colors, and so forth, come together, they ultimately do not become smells, and so forth. Therefore, a composite entity should be like a jar, and so forth, nonexistent. As apart from colors, and so forth, the entity of a jar is truly nonexistent. The entity of color should also be like that; apart from wind, and so forth, it is nonexistent. Warmth is the nature of fire; without warmth, how can there be burning? Therefore, the entity of fuel is nonexistent; apart from it, fire is nonexistent. If other warmth is mixed in, how can it not become fire? If other things do not become warmth, then according to the law of fire, fire should be nonexistent. If a particle of fire exists without fuel, then fire should exist apart from fuel. If a particle of fire exists with fuel, then there should be no ultimate particle of fire. When examining all phenomena, there is no single entity that truly exists. Since a single entity is nonexistent, then multiple entities should also be nonexistent. If a phenomenon has no other parts, you consider it to be a single entity. All phenomena have three natures (existence, nonexistence, both existence and nonexistence); therefore, a single entity is nonexistent. 'Existence', 'nonexistence', and 'both existence and nonexistence'; 'one' and 'not one'—both pairs should be eliminated. They should be assigned in sequence; the wise realize that these are not real. Regarding the continuous, imputed phenomena, those with wrong views cling to the real and permanent. In the accumulation of imputed phenomena, they wrongly cling to the belief that they are truly existent. All phenomena arise from numerous causes and conditions; their nature is weak and without autonomy. False phenomena are established dependently; therefore, both 'I' (ātman) and phenomena (dharma) are nonexistent. A result arises from the combination of numerous causes and conditions; apart from conditions, there is no separate result. Thus, combination and result are understood by all the noble ones to be nonexistent. Consciousness (vijñāna) is the seed of all existences (bhava), and objects are what consciousness acts upon. When seeing that there is no self (ātman) in objects, the seeds of all existences are extinguished. Chapter Seven: Refuting the Characteristics of the Conditioned If something arises from nothing, why does it not arise when there is nothing beforehand? If something arises from something already existing, then what already exists should arise again. If a result can contradict its cause, then it is unreasonable for it to be nonexistent beforehand. If a result is established, then the cause is useless; it is also not established if it already exists beforehand. At this time, there is no arising; at that time, there is also no arising. If there is no arising at this and that time, then when will there be arising? Just as arising from its own nature, the meaning of arising is nonexistent. It is the same for other natures; how can the meaning of arising be established? In the three stages of beginning, middle, and end, arising is definitely not established before. Since two and one are nonexistent,
一一如何有 非離於他性 唯從自性生 非從他及俱 故生定非有 前後及同時 二俱不可說 故生與瓶等 唯假有非真 舊若在新前 前生不應理 舊若居新后 後生理不成 現非因現起 亦非因去來 未來亦不因 去來今世起 若具即無來 既滅應非往 法體相如是 幻等喻非虛 生住滅三相 同時有不成 前後亦為無 如何執為有 若生等諸相 復有別生等 應住滅如生 或生住如滅 所相異能相 何為體非常 不異四應同 或復全非有 有不生有法 有不生無法 無不生有法 無不生無法 有不成有法 有不成無法 無不成有法 無不成無法 半生半未生 非一生時體 或以未生位 應亦是生時 生時若是果 體即非生時 生時若自然 應失生時性 已生異未生 別有中間位 生時異二位 應別有中間 若謂生時舍 方得已生時 是則應有餘 得時而可見 若至已生位 理必無生時 已生有生時 云何從彼起 未至已生位 若立為生時 何不謂無瓶 未生無別故 非生時有用 能簡未生時 亦非體未圓 別於已生位 前位生時無 后位方言有 兼成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一一如何存在？ 如果不是脫離於其他事物（他性），僅僅是從自身本性（自性）產生，不是從其他事物以及自身和他物共同產生，那麼『生』（產生）必定是不存在的。 在時間上，無論是『前』（先前）、『后』（之後）還是『同時』，都不能同時成立。因此，『生』（產生）和瓶子等事物一樣，只是假象的存在，並非真實。 如果舊的事物在新事物之前，那麼先前的事物產生是不合理的；如果舊的事物在新事物之後，那麼之後的事物產生是不可能成立的。 現在的事物不是由現在的事物產生的，也不是由過去或未來的事物產生的。未來也不是由過去、未來或現在的事物產生的。 如果已經具備，就不會有『來』（未來）；如果已經滅亡，就不應該有『往』（過去）。事物的本體和現象就是這樣，如幻象一般的比喻並非虛假。 『生』（產生）、『住』（存在）、『滅』（消亡）這三種狀態，同時存在是不可能成立的；在時間上先後存在也是不可能的，怎麼能執著地認為它們是存在的呢？ 如果『生』（產生）等現象，還有其他的『生』（產生）等現象，那麼『住』（存在）和『滅』（消亡）應該像『生』（產生）一樣，或者『生』（產生）和『住』（存在）應該像『滅』（消亡）一樣。 被『相』（現象）所區分的事物和能區分『相』（現象）的事物，為什麼本體不是永恒的呢？如果不區分，那麼四者應該相同，或者完全不存在。 已存在的事物不會產生已存在的事物，已存在的事物不會產生不存在的事物；不存在的事物不會產生已存在的事物，不存在的事物不會產生不存在的事物。 已存在的事物不能成為已存在的事物，已存在的事物不能成為不存在的事物；不存在的事物不能成為已存在的事物，不存在的事物不能成為不存在的事物。 一半產生一半未產生，不是一個產生時的狀態。或者以未產生的狀態，也應該是產生時的狀態。 產生時如果是結果，那麼本體就不是產生時。產生時如果是自然而然的，那麼就應該失去產生時的性質。 已產生和未產生是不同的，存在一個中間狀態。產生時和這兩種狀態不同，應該存在一個中間狀態。 如果說產生時捨棄了，才能得到已產生時，那麼就應該有剩餘，在得到的時候可以看見。 如果到達已產生的狀態，那麼道理上一定沒有產生時。已產生的事物有產生時，怎麼能從那裡產生呢？ 如果未到達已產生的狀態，就設立為產生時，為什麼不說沒有瓶子呢？因為未產生沒有區別。 不是產生時有用處，能夠區分未產生時；也不是本體未圓滿，區別于已產生狀態。 前一個狀態產生時沒有，后一個狀態才說有，兼顧成立。
【English Translation】 English version How does 'existence' come to be? If it is not separate from otherness (paratva), but arises solely from its own nature (svabhava), and not from both itself and others, then 'birth' (utpada) is definitely non-existent. In terms of time, neither 'before' (purva), 'after' (paschat), nor 'simultaneously' (ekada) can be asserted together. Therefore, 'birth' (utpada), like a pot and other things, is merely a conventional existence, not truly real. If the old exists before the new, then the prior birth is unreasonable; if the old exists after the new, then the subsequent birth cannot be established. The present does not arise from the present, nor does it arise from the past or the future. The future also does not arise from the past, future, or present. If it is already complete, there is no 'coming' (future); if it has already ceased, there should be no 'going' (past). The essence and phenomena of things are like this; the simile of illusion is not false. The three characteristics of 'birth' (utpada), 'duration' (sthiti), and 'cessation' (bhanga) cannot exist simultaneously; existing sequentially in time is also impossible. How can one cling to the belief that they exist? If phenomena such as 'birth' (utpada) have other 'births' (utpada), then 'duration' (sthiti) and 'cessation' (bhanga) should be like 'birth' (utpada), or 'birth' (utpada) and 'duration' (sthiti) should be like 'cessation' (bhanga). What is distinguished by 'characteristics' (lakshana) and what can distinguish 'characteristics' (lakshana), why is the essence not eternal? If there is no distinction, then the four should be the same, or completely non-existent. An existent thing does not produce an existent thing, an existent thing does not produce a non-existent thing; a non-existent thing does not produce an existent thing, a non-existent thing does not produce a non-existent thing. An existent thing cannot become an existent thing, an existent thing cannot become a non-existent thing; a non-existent thing cannot become an existent thing, a non-existent thing cannot become a non-existent thing. Half born and half unborn is not a state of being born. Or, in the state of being unborn, it should also be the state of being born. If the time of birth is the result, then the essence is not the time of birth. If the time of birth is natural, then it should lose the nature of the time of birth. Born and unborn are different, there is an intermediate state. The time of birth is different from these two states, there should be an intermediate state. If it is said that the time of birth is abandoned, then the time of being born can be obtained, then there should be a remainder, which can be seen when obtained. If the state of being born is reached, then there is certainly no time of birth in principle. If the born has a time of birth, how can it arise from there? If the state of being born is not reached, and it is established as the time of birth, why not say there is no pot? Because there is no difference in being unborn. It is not that the time of birth is useful, and can distinguish the time of being unborn; nor is it that the essence is not complete, and is different from the state of being born. The previous state has no time of birth, and the latter state says it exists, taking both into account.
已生位 故此位非無 有時名已生 無時名未起 除茲有無位 誰復謂生時 諸有執離因 無別所成果 轉生及轉滅 理皆不可成
教誡弟子品第八
由少因緣故 疑空謂不空 依前諸品中 理教應重遣 能所說若有 空理則為無 諸法假緣成 故三事非有 若唯說空過 不空義即成 不空過已明 空義應先立 諸欲壞他宗 必應成己義 何樂談他失 而無立己宗 為破一等執 假立遣為宗 他三執既除 自宗隨不立 許執為現見 空因非有能 余宗現見因 此宗非所許 若無不空理 空理如何成 汝既不立空 不空應不立 若許有無宗 有宗方可立 無宗若非有 有宗應不成 若諸法皆空 如何火名暖 此如前具遣 火暖俗非真 若謂法實有 遮彼說為空 應四論皆真 見何過而舍 若諸法都無 生死應非有 諸佛何曾許 執法定為無 若真離有無 何緣言俗有 汝本宗亦爾 致難復何為 諸法若都無 差別應非有 執諸法皆有 差別亦應無 若謂法非有 無能破有因 破有因已明 汝宗何不立 說破因易得 是世俗虛言 汝何緣不能 遮破真空義
有名詮法有 謂法實非無 無名錶法無 法實應非有 由名解法有 遂謂法非無 因名知法無 應信法非有 諸世間可說 皆是假非真 離世俗名言 乃是真非假 謗諸法為無 可墜于無見 唯蠲諸妄執 如何說墮無 有非真有故 無亦非真無 既無有真無 何有于真有 有因證法空 法空應不立 宗因無異故 因體實為無 謂空喻別有 例諸法非空 唯有喻應成 內我同烏黑 若法本性空 見空有何德 虛妄分別縛 證空見能除 法成一成無 違真亦違俗 故與有一異 二俱不可言 有非有俱非 諸宗皆寂滅 于中欲興難 畢竟不能申
聖天菩薩。造論既周。重敘摧邪。復說頌曰。
我在為燎邪宗火 沷以如來正教酥 又扇因明廣大風 誰敢如蛾投猛焰
廣百論本一卷
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "以『名』來詮釋『法』的存在，是說『法』實際上並非不存在；", "用『無名』來表示『法』的空無，『法』實際上應該並非存在。", "通過『名』來理解『法』的存在，於是認為『法』並非不存在；", "因為『名』而知曉『法』的空無，應該相信『法』並非存在。", "世間一切可以言說的，都是虛假的而非真實的；", "脫離世俗的名言概念，才是真實的而非虛假的。", "誹謗諸法為空無，可能會墮入虛無主義的見解；", "如果只是去除各種虛妄的執著，又怎麼能說是墮入虛無呢？", "存在並非真正的存在，所以空無也並非真正的空無；", "既然沒有真正的空無，又哪裡會有真正的存在呢？", "如果因為『有』來證明『法』的空性，那麼『法』的空性就應該不能成立；", "因為作為理由的『因』與所要證明的『宗』沒有差別，所以作為理由的『因』的本體實際上是空無的。", "如果說『空』只是一個比喻，與其他法不同，以此為例說明諸法並非空性；", "那麼只有比喻能夠成立，內在的『我』就如同烏鴉一樣是黑色的（意指比喻不當）。", "如果法的本性本來就是空性的，那麼見到空性又有什麼功德呢？", "正是因為有虛妄分別的束縛，證悟空性的見解才能去除這些束縛。", "如果說『法』成立為一或成立為無，這既違背了真諦也違背了世俗諦；", "所以，對於『法』來說，說它與『一』相同或不同，這兩種說法都是不可取的。", "說『有』、『非有』、『亦有亦非有』，各種宗派的爭論都應該寂滅；", "如果想要在這些寂滅的爭論中興起辯難，最終也是不能成立的。", "", "聖天菩薩（Āryadeva）在造論完畢之後，再次敘述摧毀邪說的內容，又說了以下偈頌：", "", "我如同燎燒邪說的火焰，澆上如來正教的酥油；", "又扇動因明（Hetuvidyā）廣大的風，誰敢像飛蛾一樣投入這猛烈的火焰？", "", "《廣百論本》一卷", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "english_translations": [ "English version", "To explain the existence of 'dharma' (法, law, principle) through 'name' (名), is to say that 'dharma' is actually not non-existent;", "To use 'no-name' (無名) to represent the emptiness of 'dharma', 'dharma' should actually not be existent.", "To understand the existence of 'dharma' through 'name', then one thinks that 'dharma' is not non-existent;", "Because of 'name' knowing the emptiness of 'dharma', one should believe that 'dharma' is not existent.", "All that can be spoken of in the world is false and not true;", "To be free from worldly names and concepts is true and not false.", "To slander all dharmas as non-existent may lead to a nihilistic view;", "If one only removes all false attachments, how can it be said to fall into nihilism?", "Existence is not truly existent, so non-existence is not truly non-existent;", "Since there is no true non-existence, where can there be true existence?", "If 'existence' is used to prove the emptiness of 'dharma', then the emptiness of 'dharma' should not be established;", "Because the 'reason' (因, hetu) as the basis for proof is no different from the 'thesis' (宗, paksha) to be proven, the substance of the 'reason' is actually empty.", "If it is said that 'emptiness' (空) is just a metaphor, different from other dharmas, taking this as an example to illustrate that dharmas are not empty;", "Then only the metaphor can be established, and the inner 'self' is as black as a crow (meaning the metaphor is inappropriate).", "If the nature of dharma is originally empty, then what merit is there in seeing emptiness?", "It is because of the bondage of false discriminations that the view of realizing emptiness can remove these bondages.", "If it is said that 'dharma' is established as one or established as non-existent, this violates both the ultimate truth and the conventional truth;", "Therefore, for 'dharma', saying that it is the same as or different from 'one', both of these statements are unacceptable.", "Saying 'existence', 'non-existence', 'both existence and non-existence', the disputes of various schools should all be extinguished;", "If one wants to raise difficulties in these extinguished disputes, it will ultimately not be established.", "", "Āryadeva Bodhisattva (聖天菩薩) having completed the treatise, again narrates the content of destroying heresies, and speaks the following verses:", "", "I am like a flame burning heresies, pouring on it the ghee of the Tathāgata's (如來) correct teaching;", "And fanning the vast wind of Hetuvidyā (因明), who dares to throw themselves into this fierce flame like a moth?", "", "《Guang Bai Lun Ben》 (廣百論本, One Hundred Verses - Extensive Version) One Volume" ] }