T32n1631_回諍論

大正藏第 32 冊 No. 1631 回諍論

No. 1631

序回諍論翻譯之記

回諍論者。龍樹菩薩之所作也。數舒盧迦三十二字。此論正本凡有六百。大魏都鄴興和三年。歲次大梁。建辰之月。朔次癸酉。辛卯之日。烏萇國人剎利王種。三藏法師毗目智仙。共天竺國婆羅門人瞿曇流支。在鄴城內金華寺譯。時日所費二十餘功。大數凡有一萬一千九十八字。對譯沙門曇林之筆受。驃騎大將軍開府儀同三司御史中尉勃海高仲密啟請供養。且記時事。以章以聞。令樂法者。若見若聞。同崇翻譯矣。

回諍論偈初分第一

龍樹菩薩造

後魏三藏毗目智仙共瞿曇流支譯

問曰偈言。

若一切無體　　言語是一切　言語自無體　　何能遮彼體　若語有自體　　前所立宗壞　如是則有過　　應更說勝因　汝謂如勿聲　　是義則不然　聲有能遮聲　　無聲何能遮　汝謂遮所遮　　如是亦不然　如是汝宗相　　自壞則非我　若彼現是有　　汝可得有回　彼現亦是無　　云何得取回　說現比阿含　　譬喻等四量　現彼阿含成　　譬喻亦能成　智人知法說　　善法有自體　世人知有體　　余法亦如是　出法出法體　　是聖人所說　如是不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《回諍論》翻譯記

《回諍論》，是龍樹菩薩所作。每句三十二字，此論的梵文原本共有六百句。大魏都城鄴城，興和三年，歲在梁，建辰之月，初一癸酉日，辛卯日。烏萇國（Udyana）的剎帝利（Kshatriya）王族出身的三藏法師毗目智仙（Vimokshasena），與天竺國（India）的婆羅門（Brahmin）瞿曇流支（Gautama Prajnaruci），在鄴城內的金華寺共同翻譯。耗時二十餘日。總字數有一萬一千零九十八字。由對譯沙門曇林（Tanlin）筆受。驃騎大將軍、開府儀同三司、御史中尉勃海高仲密（Gao Zhongmi of Bohai）啟請供養。特此記錄此事，以彰顯並傳聞於後世，使愛好佛法的人，無論見到或聽到，都能共同尊崇翻譯事業。

《回諍論偈》初分第一

龍樹菩薩造

後魏三藏毗目智仙共瞿曇流支譯

問曰偈言：

『若一切法無自性，言語也是一切法之一；言語自身若無自性，如何能遮遣彼法的自性？若言語有其自性，則先前所立的宗義就被破壞。如果這樣說有錯失，應進一步說明更殊勝的理由。你認為如同『勿』這個聲音，但這種說法是不對的；聲音有能遮止聲音的作用，但無聲如何能遮止？你認為遮止能被遮止的，這樣說也是不對的；這樣你的宗義自身就已破壞，就不是我的過失。如果那（自性）現在是存在的，你才可以反駁；但那（自性）現在也是不存在的，如何能進行反駁？（你們）所說的現量（Pratyaksha）、比量（Anumana）、阿含量（Agama），譬喻量（Upamana）等四量；現量、阿含量能成立（自性），譬喻量也能成立（自性）。有智慧的人知道，佛所說的法，善法是有自性的；世人知道有自體，其餘的法也是這樣。出世法和出世法的自體，是聖人所說的；像這樣……』

【English Translation】 English version Record of the Translation of Refuting Arguments

Refuting Arguments was composed by Nagarjuna (Longshu Pusa). Each verse consists of thirty-two syllables, and the original Sanskrit text of this treatise contains six hundred verses. In the third year of the Xinghe era during the Great Wei dynasty, in the capital city of Ye, corresponding to the year of Liang, in the month of Jianchen, on the first day being Guiyou, and the Xinmao day. The Tripitaka Master Vimokshasena (Pimu Zhixian), a Kshatriya (Chali Wangzhong) of Udyana (Wuchang Guo), together with the Brahmin (Poluomen) Gautama Prajnaruci (Qutan Liuzhi) from India (Tianzhu Guo), jointly translated the text at Jinhua Monastery within the city of Ye. The translation took more than twenty days. The total number of characters amounts to eleven thousand and ninety-eight. The translation was received and recorded by the Shramana Tanlin (Shamen Tanlin). Gao Zhongmi of Bohai (Bohai Gao Zhongmi), the General of the Flying Cavalry, holding the title of Grand Master of the Palace, with the same status as the Three Excellencies, and serving as the Censor-in-chief, requested and supported the translation. This event is hereby recorded to manifest and transmit it to future generations, so that those who cherish the Dharma, whether seeing or hearing of it, may jointly revere the work of translation.

First Section of Verses on Refuting Arguments

Composed by Nagarjuna

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Vimokshasena and Gautama Prajnaruci of the Later Wei Dynasty

Question: Verse says:

'If all things are without inherent existence (svabhava), then language is also one of all things; If language itself is without inherent existence, how can it negate the inherent existence of those things? If language has its own inherent existence, then the previously established thesis is destroyed. If this is said to be a fault, one should further explain a more superior reason. You think it is like the sound 'no', but this statement is not correct; Sound has the function of negating sound, but how can no-sound negate? You think that negating what can be negated, saying so is also incorrect; Thus, your own tenet is destroyed, and it is not my fault. If that (inherent existence) is presently existent, then you can refute; But that (inherent existence) is also presently non-existent, how can one refute? (You) speak of direct perception (Pratyaksha), inference (Anumana), Agama (Agama), analogy (Upamana) and other four means of valid cognition; Direct perception and Agama can establish (inherent existence), analogy can also establish (inherent existence). Wise people know that the Dharma spoken by the Buddha, virtuous Dharma, has inherent existence; Worldly people know that there is self-nature, and other dharmas are also like this. The supramundane Dharma and the self-nature of the supramundane Dharma are what the sages speak of; Like this...'

出法　　不出法自體　諸法若無體　　無體不得名　有自體有名　　唯名云何名　若離法有名　　于彼法中無　說離法有名　　彼人則可難　法若有自體　　可得遮諸法　諸法若無體　　竟為何所遮　如有瓶有泥　　可得遮瓶泥　見有物則遮　　見無物不遮　若法無自體　　言語何所遮　若無法得遮　　無語亦成遮　如愚癡之人　　妄取炎為水　若汝遮妄取　　其事亦如是　取所取能取　　遮所遮能遮　如是六種義　　皆悉是有法　若無取所取　　亦無有能取　則無遮所遮　　亦無有能遮　若無遮所遮　　亦無有能遮　則一切法成　　彼自體亦成　汝因則不成　　無體云何因　若法無因者　　云何得言成　汝若無因成　　諸法自體回　我亦無因成　　諸法有自體　若有因無體　　是義不相應　世間無體法　　則不得言有　前遮后所遮　　如是不相應　若后遮及並　　如是知有體

回諍論偈上分第二

我語言若離　　因緣和合法　是則空義成　　諸法無自體　若因緣法空　　我今說此義　何人有因緣　　彼因緣無體　化人于化人　　幻人于幻人　如是遮所遮　　其義亦如是　言語無自體　　所說亦無體　我如是無過　　不須說勝因　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本出法：不是從法本身出發如果諸法沒有自性（自體），那麼就無法被命名。有了自性才能被命名，僅僅是名稱又如何命名呢？如果離開法而有名稱，那麼這個名稱在那個法中是不存在的。如果說離開法而有名稱，那麼這個人就可以被反駁。如果法有自性，就可以用來遮止其他的法。如果諸法沒有自性，那麼究竟要遮止什麼呢？比如有瓶子和泥土，就可以遮止瓶子和泥土。看到有東西就可以遮止，看不到東西就無法遮止。如果法沒有自性，那麼言語要遮止什麼呢？如果沒有法可以遮止，那麼沒有言語也成了遮止。就像愚癡的人，錯誤地把火焰當成水。如果你要遮止這種錯誤的認知，那麼這件事也是一樣的道理。取、所取、能取，遮、所遮、能遮，這六種意義，都是建立在有法的基礎上的。如果沒有取和所取，也就沒有能取。那麼就沒有遮和所遮，也就沒有能遮。如果沒有遮和所遮，也就沒有能遮，那麼一切法就成立了，它們的自性也就成立了。你的因就不成立，沒有自性的東西怎麼能作為因呢？如果法沒有因，那麼怎麼能說它成立呢？如果你說沒有因也能成立，那麼諸法的自性就恢復了。我也是沒有因也能成立，那麼諸法就有自性。如果有因卻沒有自性，這個道理是不相應的。世間沒有自性的法，就不能說它存在。前面遮止後面的，像這樣是不相應的。如果後面的遮止以及並存，像這樣就知道有自性。

回諍論偈上分第二

我的語言如果離開了因緣和合的法，那麼空性的意義就成立了，諸法就沒有自性。如果因緣法是空性的，我現在說的就是這個意義。什麼人有因緣呢？那個因緣是沒有自性的。化人對於化人，幻人對於幻人，像這樣遮止和被遮止，它的意義也是如此。言語沒有自性，所說的也沒有自性。我這樣就沒有過失，不需要說殊勝的因。

【English Translation】 English version Departure from the Dharma: Not departing from the Dharma itself. If all dharmas (phenomena) have no svabhava (intrinsic nature), then they cannot be named. Having svabhava allows for naming, but how can mere names name? If there is a name apart from the dharma, then that name does not exist within that dharma. If one says there is a name apart from the dharma, then that person can be refuted. If a dharma has svabhava, it can be used to negate other dharmas. If all dharmas have no svabhava, then what is being negated? For example, if there is a pot and clay, one can negate the pot and the clay. Seeing something, one can negate it; seeing nothing, one cannot negate. If a dharma has no svabhava, then what does language negate? If there is no dharma to negate, then the absence of speech also becomes negation. Like a foolish person, mistakenly taking flames for water. If you negate this mistaken perception, then the matter is the same. Grasping, what is grasped, and the grasper; negating, what is negated, and the negator; these six meanings are all based on the existence of dharmas. If there is no grasping and what is grasped, then there is no grasper. Then there is no negating and what is negated, and there is no negator. If there is no negating and what is negated, and there is no negator, then all dharmas are established, and their svabhava is also established. Your cause is not established; how can something without svabhava be a cause? If a dharma has no cause, then how can it be said to be established? If you say it is established without a cause, then the svabhava of all dharmas returns. I am also established without a cause, then all dharmas have svabhava. If there is a cause but no svabhava, this meaning is not consistent. A dharma without svabhava in the world cannot be said to exist. The former negating the latter is inconsistent in this way. If the latter negates and coexists, then one knows there is svabhava.

The Second Part of the Verses on Refuting Arguments

If my words are apart from dharmas that arise from conditioned co-arising (因緣和合法), then the meaning of emptiness (空義) is established, and all dharmas have no svabhava. If conditioned dharmas are empty, then I am now speaking of this meaning. Who has conditions? Those conditions have no svabhava. An illusionary person in relation to an illusionary person, a magical person in relation to a magical person; the meaning of negating and being negated is also like this. Language has no svabhava, and what is spoken has no svabhava. In this way, I have no fault and do not need to state a superior cause.

汝言勿聲者　　此非我譬喻　我非以此聲　　能遮彼聲故　如或有丈夫　　妄取化女身　而生於欲心　　此義亦如是　同所成不然　　響中無因故　我依於世諦　　故作如是說　若不依世諦　　不得證真諦　若不證真諦　　不得涅槃證　若我宗有者　　我則是有過　我宗無物故　　如是不得過　若我取轉回　　則須用現等　取轉回有過　　不爾云何過　若量能成法　　彼復有量成　汝說何處量　　而能成此量　若量離量成　　汝諍義則失　如是則有過　　應更說勝因　猶如火明故　　能自照照他　彼量亦如是　　自他二俱成　汝語言有過　　非是火自照　以彼不相應　　如見闇中瓶　又若汝說言　　火能自他照　如火能燒他　　何故不自燒　又若汝說言　　火能自他照　闇亦應如是　　自他二俱覆　於火中無闇　　何處自他住　彼闇能殺明　　火雲何有明　如是火生時　　即生時能照　火生即到闇　　義則不相應　若火不到闇　　而能破闇者　火在此處住　　應破一切闇　若量能自成　　不待所量成　是則量自成　　非待他能成　若不待所量　　而汝量得成　如是則無人　　用量量諸法　若所量之物　　待量而得成　是則所量成　　待量然

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：你說『不要發出聲音』，這並不是我的譬喻。我並非用這個聲音，就能遮蔽那個聲音的緣故。比如，如果有人，虛妄地執取幻化的女子之身，而生起慾望之心，這個道理也是如此。相同的事物所成是不可能的，因為響聲中沒有原因。我依存於世俗諦（samvriti-satya，相對真理），所以才這樣說。如果不依存於世俗諦，就不能證得真諦（paramartha-satya，絕對真理）。如果不能證得真諦，就不能證得涅槃（nirvana，解脫）。如果我的宗派主張『有』，我就會有過失。我的宗派主張『無』，所以這樣就不會有過失。如果我採取轉移辯論的方式，那就需要用現量等。轉移辯論是有過失的，否則怎麼會有過失呢？如果量（pramana，認識工具）能夠成立法（dharma，事物），那麼這個量又需要另一個量來成立。你說在什麼地方，有量能夠成立這個量呢？如果量離開量而能成立，那麼你的爭論意義就喪失了。這樣就會有過失，應該再說出更殊勝的理由。猶如火的光明，能夠自己照亮，也能照亮其他事物。那個量也是如此，自己和他人都能成立。你說我的話有過失，說火不能自己照亮。因為那是不相應的，就像在黑暗中看見瓶子一樣。又如果你說，火能自己照亮，也能照亮其他事物。就像火能燒其他事物，為什麼不能自己燒自己呢？又如果你說，火能自己照亮，也能照亮其他事物。黑暗也應該像這樣，自己和他人都能覆蓋。在火中沒有黑暗，黑暗在哪裡自己和他人都能存在呢？那個黑暗能殺死光明，火怎麼會有光明呢？像這樣，火產生的時候，就是產生的時候能照亮。火產生就到達黑暗，道理是不相應的。如果火不到達黑暗，而能破除黑暗的話，火在這裡住著，應該破除一切黑暗。如果量能自己成立，不等待所量（prameya，被認識的事物）成立。那麼就是量自己成立，不等待其他事物能成立。如果不等待所量，而你的量能夠成立，這樣就沒有人，用量來衡量諸法（dharma，事物）。如果所量的事物，等待量而能成立，那麼就是所量成立，等待量。

【English Translation】 English version: You say 'do not make a sound,' this is not my metaphor. It is not because I can obscure that sound with this sound. For example, if someone falsely grasps the body of an illusory woman, And generates a desire in their mind, this principle is also like that. It is impossible for something to be produced by the same thing, because there is no cause in the sound. I rely on conventional truth (samvriti-satya), therefore I speak like this. If one does not rely on conventional truth, one cannot attain ultimate truth (paramartha-satya). If one does not attain ultimate truth, one cannot attain nirvana (liberation). If my school asserts 'existence,' then I would have a fault. My school asserts 'non-existence,' so in this way there is no fault. If I adopt a shifting argument, then it is necessary to use direct perception, etc. Shifting the argument is a fault, otherwise how would there be a fault? If a means of knowledge (pramana) can establish a phenomenon (dharma), then that means of knowledge needs another means of knowledge to establish it. You say where is there a means of knowledge that can establish this means of knowledge? If a means of knowledge can be established apart from a means of knowledge, then the meaning of your argument is lost. In this way there would be a fault, one should state a more superior reason. Just like the light of fire, it can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things. That means of knowledge is also like that, it can establish itself and others. You say my words have a fault, saying that fire cannot illuminate itself. Because that is not corresponding, like seeing a pot in the darkness. Also if you say, fire can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things. Just like fire can burn other things, why can't it burn itself? Also if you say, fire can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things. Darkness should also be like this, it can cover itself and others. In fire there is no darkness, where can darkness exist for itself and others? That darkness can kill light, how can fire have light? Like this, when fire arises, it is when it arises that it can illuminate. Fire arises and reaches darkness, the principle is not corresponding. If fire does not reach darkness, but can destroy darkness, Fire dwells here, it should destroy all darkness. If a means of knowledge can establish itself, not waiting for the object of knowledge (prameya) to be established. Then it is the means of knowledge that establishes itself, not waiting for other things to be able to establish it. If not waiting for the object of knowledge, and your means of knowledge can be established, In this way there is no one, using means of knowledge to measure all phenomena (dharma). If the object of knowledge, waits for the means of knowledge to be able to be established, Then it is the object of knowledge that is established, waiting for the means of knowledge.

后成　若物無量成　　是則不待量　汝何用量成　　彼量何所成　若汝彼量成　　待所量成者　是則量所量　　如是不相離　若量成所量　　若所量成量　汝若如是者　　二種俱不成　量能成所量　　所量能成量　若義如是者　　云何能相成　所量能成量　　量能成所量　若義如是者　　云何能相成　為是父生子　　為是子生父　何者是能生　　何者是所生　為何者是父　　為何者是子　汝說此二種　　父子相可疑　量非自能成　　非是自他成　非是異量成　　非無因緣成　若法師所說　　善法有自體　此善法自體　　法應分分說　若善法自體　　從於因緣生　善法是他體　　云何是自體　若少有善法　　不從因緣生　善法若如是　　無住梵行處　非法非非法　　世間法亦無　有自體則常　　常則無因緣　善不善無記　　一切有為法　如汝說則常　　汝有如是過　若人說有名　　語言有自體　彼人汝可難　　語名我不實　若此名無者　　則有亦是無　若言有言無　　汝宗有二失　若此名有者　　則無亦是有　若言無言有　　汝諍有二失　如是我前說　　一切法皆空　我義宗如是　　則不得有過　若別有自體　　不在於法中　汝慮我故說　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若事物是無需衡量就能成立的，那麼就不需要衡量了。你用什麼來衡量它的成立呢？那個衡量本身又是如何成立的呢？如果你的衡量是通過被衡量的事物成立的，並且依賴於被衡量的事物才能成立，那麼衡量和被衡量，就像這樣是不能互相分離的。如果是衡量成立了被衡量的事物，或者被衡量的事物成立了衡量，如果你這樣認為，那麼這兩種情況都不能成立。衡量能夠成立被衡量的事物，被衡量的事物能夠成立衡量，如果道理是這樣，那又怎麼能互相成立呢？被衡量的事物能夠成立衡量，衡量能夠成立被衡量的事物，如果道理是這樣，那又怎麼能互相成立呢？這就像是父親生兒子，還是兒子生父親？哪個是能生的，哪個是被生的？哪個是父親，哪個是兒子？你說的這兩種關係，父子關係令人懷疑。衡量不是自身能夠成立的，也不是自身和他者共同成立的，不是通過其他的衡量成立的，也不是沒有原因和條件就能成立的。如果法師所說，善法具有其自身存在的實體（自體），那麼這個善法的實體，應該可以一部分一部分地來說明。如果善法的實體，是從因緣和合而生的，那麼善法就是他體（非自身之體），怎麼能說是自體呢？如果哪怕只有少許的善法，不是從因緣和合而生的，如果善法是這樣，那就沒有安住于清凈行為的地方了。既不是法，也不是非法，世間法則也不存在了。如果有自體，那就是永恒不變的，永恒不變的就沒有因緣。善、不善、無記（非善非惡），一切有為法（由因緣和合而成的法），如果像你所說的那樣是永恒的，你就有這樣的過失。如果有人說名（名稱），語言具有其自身存在的實體（自體），你可以反駁那個人，語和名是不真實的。如果這個名是不存在的，那麼存在也就等於不存在了。如果說存在又說不存在，你的宗義就有兩種錯誤。如果這個名是存在的，那麼不存在也就等於存在了。如果說不存在又說存在，你的辯論就有兩種錯誤。就像我之前所說，一切法都是空性的。我的宗義是這樣的，就不會有這些過失。如果另外存在一個自體，不在於法之中，你考慮到我的緣故這樣說，

【English Translation】 English version If things are formed without measurement, then there is no need for measurement. What do you use to measure its formation? And how is that measurement itself formed? If your measurement is formed through the measured thing, and depends on the measured thing to be formed, Then the measurement and the measured, like this, cannot be separated from each other. If the measurement forms the measured thing, or the measured thing forms the measurement, If you think like this, then both of these cases cannot be established. Measurement can form the measured thing, and the measured thing can form the measurement, If the principle is like this, then how can they form each other? The measured thing can form the measurement, and the measurement can form the measured thing, If the principle is like this, then how can they form each other? Is it like the father giving birth to the son, or the son giving birth to the father? Which is the one that can give birth, and which is the one that is born? Which is the father, and which is the son? The two kinds of relationships you speak of, the father-son relationship is doubtful. Measurement is not formed by itself, nor is it formed by itself and others together, It is not formed through other measurements, nor is it formed without causes and conditions. If the Dharma master says that good Dharma has its own inherent substance (svabhava), Then this inherent substance of good Dharma should be able to be explained part by part. If the inherent substance of good Dharma is born from causes and conditions, Then good Dharma is other-nature (not its own nature), how can it be said to be self-nature? If even a little bit of good Dharma is not born from causes and conditions, If good Dharma is like this, then there is no place to abide in pure conduct (brahmacarya). Neither is it Dharma, nor is it non-Dharma, and worldly Dharma does not exist. If there is self-nature, then it is eternal, and if it is eternal, then there are no causes and conditions. Good, unwholesome, neutral (neither good nor unwholesome), all conditioned dharmas (dharmas formed by causes and conditions), If they are eternal as you say, then you have such a fault. If someone says that name (nama), language has its own inherent substance (svabhava), You can refute that person, speech and name are not real. If this name does not exist, then existence is equal to non-existence. If you say existence and also say non-existence, your doctrine has two errors. If this name exists, then non-existence is equal to existence. If you say non-existence and also say existence, your argument has two errors. Just as I said before, all dharmas are empty (sunyata). My doctrine is like this, and there will be no such faults. If there is another self-nature, not within the dharmas, You say this because you are considering me,

此則不須慮　若有體得遮　　若空得言成　若無體無空　　云何得遮成　汝為何所遮　　汝所遮則空　法空而有遮　　如是汝諍失　我無有少物　　是故我不遮　如是汝無理　　枉橫而難我　汝言語法別　　此義我今說　無法得說語　　而我則無過　汝說鹿愛喻　　以明於大義　汝聽我能說　　如譬喻相應　若彼有自體　　不須因緣生　若須因緣者　　如是得言空　若取自體實　　何人能遮回　餘者亦如是　　是故我無過　此無因說者　　義前已說竟　三時中說因　　彼平等而說　若說三時因　　前如是平等　如是三時因　　與說空相應　若人信于空　　彼人信一切　若人不信空　　彼不信一切　空自體因緣　　三一中道說　我歸命禮彼　　無上大智慧

回諍論釋初分第三

釋曰論初偈言。

若一切無體　　言語是一切　言語自無體　　何能遮彼體

此偈明何義。若一切法皆是因緣。則是因緣因緣和合離諸因緣。是則更無一切自體。如是一切諸法皆空。如芽非是種子中有。非地非水非火非風非虛空等因緣中有。非是一一因緣中有。非諸因緣和合中有。非離因緣因緣和合余處別有。若此等中一切皆無。如是得言芽無自體。若如是無一切自體。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此則不必憂慮。如果認為存在可以被遮止的事物，或者認為空可以被言說成立。如果既沒有實體也沒有空性，又如何能夠遮止或成立呢？你想要遮止什麼呢？你所遮止的東西本身就是空性的。如果法是空性的，卻還要進行遮止，那麼你的辯論就失敗了。我沒有任何可以被遮止的東西，因此我不進行遮止。像這樣，你就沒有道理，只是無理取鬧地為難我。你說語法不同，這個道理我現在就說給你聽。沒有實體的東西是無法用語言表達的，所以我沒有過錯。你說用鹿愛（Mrga-trsna）的比喻，來闡明深刻的道理。你聽著，我也可以說出，與譬喻相應的道理。如果那個事物有自性（svabhava），就不需要依靠因緣而生。如果需要依靠因緣，那麼就可以說是空性的。如果執取自性為實有，誰能夠遮止或改變呢？其他情況也是如此，所以我沒有過錯。這種無因的說法，之前的意義已經說完了。在過去、現在、未來三時中說因，應該平等地說。如果說三時的因，之前也應該是平等的。像這樣，三時的因，與說空性是相應的。如果有人相信空性，那麼他就相信一切。如果有人不相信空性，那麼他就不相信一切。空性、自性、因緣，這三者以中道的方式來說明。我歸命頂禮那位，具有無上大智慧者。

《回諍論釋》初分第三

釋論開始的偈頌說：

如果一切都沒有實體，言語就是一切。言語本身沒有實體，又怎麼能遮止那個實體呢？

這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果一切法都是因緣，那麼就是因緣和合，離開了諸因緣。這樣就沒有一切自性。像這樣，一切諸法都是空性的。比如芽不是在種子中產生的，也不是在地、水、火、風、虛空等因緣中產生的，不是在單一的因緣中產生的，也不是在諸因緣和合中產生的，也不是在離開因緣和因緣和合之外的其他地方產生的。如果這些之中一切都沒有，那麼就可以說芽沒有自性。如果像這樣沒有一切自性。

【English Translation】 English version There is no need to worry about this. If there is something that can be obstructed, or if emptiness can be established by words, If there is neither entity nor emptiness, how can obstruction or establishment be achieved? What do you want to obstruct? What you obstruct is itself emptiness. If the Dharma (law, teaching) is empty, yet there is obstruction, then your argument is defeated. I have nothing to obstruct, therefore I do not obstruct. Like this, you have no reason, and you are just unreasonably making things difficult for me. You say the grammar is different, I will explain this reason to you now. Things without substance cannot be expressed in language, so I have no fault. You say to use the analogy of Mrga-trsna (deer's thirst, mirage) to illustrate profound principles. Listen, I can also speak of principles that correspond to analogies. If that thing has svabhava (self-nature), it does not need to rely on causes and conditions to arise. If it needs to rely on causes and conditions, then it can be said to be empty. If you cling to self-nature as real, who can obstruct or change it? Other situations are also like this, so I have no fault. This causeless statement, the meaning has already been said before. Speaking of causes in the three times (past, present, future), it should be said equally. If you speak of the causes of the three times, it should also be equal before. Like this, the causes of the three times correspond to the saying of emptiness. If someone believes in emptiness, then he believes in everything. If someone does not believe in emptiness, then he does not believe in everything. Emptiness, self-nature, causes and conditions, these three are explained in the Middle Way. I take refuge and prostrate to that one with unsurpassed great wisdom.

Chapter 3 of the First Part of the Commentary on the Refutation of Disputes

The verse at the beginning of the commentary says:

If everything has no substance, language is everything. Language itself has no substance, how can it obstruct that substance?

What meaning does this verse illustrate? If all dharmas (phenomena) are causes and conditions, then it is the combination of causes and conditions, apart from all causes and conditions. In this way, there is no self-nature in everything. Like this, all dharmas are empty. For example, a sprout is not produced in the seed, nor is it produced in the causes and conditions of earth, water, fire, wind, space, etc., nor is it produced in a single cause and condition, nor is it produced in the combination of all causes and conditions, nor is it produced in other places apart from the combination of causes and conditions. If there is nothing in all of these, then it can be said that the sprout has no self-nature. If there is no self-nature like this.

彼得言空。若一切法皆悉空者則無言語。若無言語則不能遮一切諸法。若汝意謂言語不空言語所說一切法空。是義不然。何以故。汝言一切諸法皆空則語亦空。何以故。以因中無。四大中無。一一中無。和合中無。因緣和合不和合中一切皆無。如是言語咽喉中無。唇舌齒根龂鼻頂等一一皆無。和合中無。二處俱無。唯有因緣因緣和合。若離如是因緣和合。更無別法。若如是者。一切言語皆無自體。若如是無言語自體。則一切法皆無自體。若此言語無自體者。唯有遮名不能遮法。譬如無火則不能燒。亦如無刀則不能割。又如無水則不能瀾。如是無語。云何能遮諸法自體。既不能遮諸法自體。而心憶念遮一切法自體。回者義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

若語有自體　　前所立宗壞　如是則有過　　應更說勝因

此偈明何義。若此言語有自體者。汝前所立義宗自壞。是則有過。若爾便應更說勝因。若汝意謂語有自體余法空者。如是則違諸法空語。汝宗亦壞。又復有義。言語不離一切法數。若一切法皆悉空者。言語亦空。若言語空則不能遮一切諸法。若如是者。於六種中諍論相應。彼復云何汝不相應。汝說一切諸法皆空。則語亦空。何以故。言語亦是一切法故。言語若空則不能遮。彼若遮言一切法空則不相應。又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：彼得（姓名）說空。如果一切法都是空性的，那麼就沒有言語。如果沒有言語，就不能遮止一切諸法。如果你認為言語不是空性的，而言語所說的一切法是空性的，這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？因為你說一切諸法都是空性的，那麼言語也是空性的。為什麼呢？因為在因中沒有，在四大（地、水、火、風）中沒有，在每一個組成部分中沒有，在和合中也沒有。在因緣和合與不和合中，一切都沒有。同樣的，言語在咽喉中沒有，在唇、舌、齒根、齦、鼻、頂等每一個部位都沒有。在和合中沒有，在兩個地方都沒有。只有因緣，因緣和合。如果離開這樣的因緣和合，就沒有別的法。如果這樣的話，一切言語都沒有自體。如果這樣沒有言語的自體，那麼一切法都沒有自體。如果這個言語沒有自體，那麼只有遮止的名稱，不能遮止法。譬如沒有火就不能燃燒，又如沒有刀就不能切割，又如沒有水就不能沖刷。這樣沒有言語，怎麼能遮止諸法的自體呢？既然不能遮止諸法的自體，而心憶念遮止一切法的自體，這種說法義理不相應。又有一種義理，偈頌說：『如果言語有自體，前面所立的宗義就破壞了，這樣就有了過失，應該再說出更殊勝的理由。』這句偈頌說明什麼義理呢？如果這個言語有自體，那麼你前面所立的義理宗義就自己破壞了。這樣就有了過失。如果是這樣，就應該再說出更殊勝的理由。如果你認為言語有自體，其餘的法是空性的，這樣就違背了諸法空性的說法。你的宗義也破壞了。又有一種義理，言語不離開一切法的範疇。如果一切法都是空性的，那麼言語也是空性的。如果言語是空性的，就不能遮止一切諸法。如果是這樣，在六種（六種諍論的場合）中，諍論就相應了。那又是什麼呢？你是不相應的。你說一切諸法都是空性的，那麼言語也是空性的。為什麼呢？因為言語也是一切法中的一種。言語如果是空性的，就不能遮止。如果它遮止說一切法是空性的，那麼就不相應了。又

【English Translation】 English version: Peter (name) speaks of emptiness. If all dharmas are empty, then there are no words. If there are no words, then one cannot negate all dharmas. If you think that words are not empty, but the dharmas spoken by words are empty, this is not correct. Why? Because you say that all dharmas are empty, then words are also empty. Why? Because there is nothing in the cause, nothing in the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), nothing in each individual component, and nothing in the combination. In the combination and non-combination of causes and conditions, there is nothing at all. Similarly, there are no words in the throat, nor in each part such as lips, tongue, tooth roots, gums, nose, crown, etc. There is nothing in the combination, nothing in both places. There are only causes and conditions, the combination of causes and conditions. If one departs from such a combination of causes and conditions, there is no other dharma. If this is the case, all words have no self-nature. If there is no self-nature of words, then all dharmas have no self-nature. If these words have no self-nature, then there is only the name of negation, but it cannot negate the dharma. For example, without fire, one cannot burn; also, without a knife, one cannot cut; also, without water, one cannot wash away. Thus, without words, how can one negate the self-nature of dharmas? Since one cannot negate the self-nature of dharmas, yet the mind remembers negating the self-nature of all dharmas, this statement is not consistent with the meaning. Furthermore, there is another meaning, as the verse says: 'If words have self-nature, the previously established tenet is destroyed. Thus, there is a fault, and one should state a superior reason.' What meaning does this verse explain? If these words have self-nature, then the tenet you previously established is self-destroyed. Thus, there is a fault. If this is the case, then one should state a more superior reason. If you think that words have self-nature, and the remaining dharmas are empty, then this contradicts the statement that all dharmas are empty. Your tenet is also destroyed. Furthermore, there is another meaning: words do not depart from the category of all dharmas. If all dharmas are empty, then words are also empty. If words are empty, then they cannot negate all dharmas. If this is the case, in the six (six occasions for disputes), the dispute is consistent. What is that? You are inconsistent. You say that all dharmas are empty, then words are also empty. Why? Because words are also one of all dharmas. If words are empty, then they cannot negate. If it negates saying that all dharmas are empty, then it is inconsistent. Also

若相應言語能遮一切法體。一切法空語則不空語。若不空遮一切法則不相應。若諸法空言語不空語何所遮。又若此語入一切中喻不相當。若彼言語是一切者。一切既空言語亦空。若語言空則不能遮。若語言空諸法亦空。以空能遮諸法令空。如是則空亦是因緣。是則不可。又若汝畏喻不相當。一切法空能作因緣。如是空語則不能遮一切自體。又復有義。一邊有過。以法有空亦有不空。彼若有過更說勝因。若一邊空一邊不空。如是若說一切法空無自體者。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

汝謂如勿聲　　是義則不然　聲有能遮聲　　無聲何能遮

此偈明何義。若汝意謂聲能遮聲。如有人言汝莫作聲。彼自作聲而能遮聲。如是如是一切法空空語能遮。此我今說此不相應。何以故。以此聲有能遮彼聲。汝語非有則不能遮諸法自體。汝所立義。語亦是無諸法亦無。如是若謂如勿聲者。此則有過。偈言。

汝謂遮所遮　　如是亦不然　如是汝宗相　　自壞則非我

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。遮與所遮亦如是者。彼不相應。若汝說言。我語能遮一切諸法有自體者。彼不相應。此我今說。是義不然。何以故。知如是宗相汝過非我。汝說一切諸法皆空。如是汝義前宗有過咎不在我。若汝說言。汝遮所遮不相應者。是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果相應的言語能夠遮蔽一切法的本體，那麼一切法皆空的言語就不應是空無的。如果它不是空無的，就不能遮蔽一切法，那麼它就不相應。如果諸法是空的，而言語不是空的，那麼它又能遮蔽什麼呢？此外，如果這種言語進入一切事物之中，那麼這個比喻就不恰當。如果這種言語就是一切事物，那麼一切事物既然是空的，言語也應該是空的。如果言語是空的，那麼它就不能遮蔽任何事物。如果言語是空的，那麼諸法也應該是空的，因為空能夠遮蔽諸法，使之成為空。這樣一來，空也就成了因緣，這是不可能的。此外，如果你害怕比喻不恰當，認為一切法空能夠作為因緣，那麼這種空的言語就不能遮蔽一切事物的自體。而且，還有一種觀點認為，一邊有過失，因為法既有空性，也有非空性。如果那一邊有過失，就應該提出更勝一籌的理由。如果一邊是空的，一邊不是空的，那麼如果說一切法都是空的，沒有自體，那麼這個道理就不相應。此外，還有一段偈語說：『你說就像『不要出聲』一樣，這個道理是不對的。聲音能夠遮蔽聲音，不出聲怎麼能遮蔽呢？』這段偈語說明了什麼呢？如果你認為聲音能夠遮蔽聲音，就像有人說『你不要出聲』，他自己發出聲音卻能遮蔽別人的聲音。像這樣，一切法空的言語也能遮蔽。我現在說這不相應。為什麼呢？因為這種聲音是有作用的，能夠遮蔽另一種聲音。而你的言語不是實在的，所以不能遮蔽諸法的自體。你所建立的道理，言語也是空的，諸法也是空的。如果說就像『不要出聲』一樣，這就有了過失。偈語說：『你說遮蔽和被遮蔽也是一樣的，這樣也是不對的。這樣你的宗派就自己瓦解了，就不是我的過失了。』這段偈語說明了什麼呢？如果你認為遮蔽和被遮蔽也是一樣的，那就不相應了。如果你說，我的言語能夠遮蔽一切諸法具有自體，那就不相應。我現在說，這個道理是不對的。為什麼呢？要知道這樣的宗派是你的過失，不是我的。你說一切諸法都是空的，這樣你的道理在前就已經有過失了，過錯不在我。如果你說，你遮蔽和被遮蔽是不相應的，那就是...

【English Translation】 English version: If the corresponding speech can obscure the essence of all dharmas (phenomena), then the speech of 'all dharmas are empty' should not be empty speech. If it is not empty, it cannot obscure all dharmas, then it is not corresponding. If the dharmas are empty, but the speech is not empty, then what can it obscure? Furthermore, if this speech enters into everything, then this metaphor is not appropriate. If this speech is everything, then since everything is empty, the speech should also be empty. If the speech is empty, then it cannot obscure anything. If the speech is empty, then the dharmas are also empty, because emptiness can obscure the dharmas, making them empty. In this way, emptiness also becomes a cause and condition (hetu-pratyaya), which is impossible. Furthermore, if you fear that the metaphor is not appropriate, thinking that the emptiness of all dharmas can act as a cause and condition, then this empty speech cannot obscure the self-nature (svabhava) of all things. Moreover, there is another view that one side has a fault, because dharma has both emptiness and non-emptiness. If that side has a fault, then a superior reason should be given. If one side is empty and the other side is not empty, then if it is said that all dharmas are empty and without self-nature, then the meaning is not corresponding. Furthermore, there is a verse that says: 'You say it's like 'don't make a sound,' but that's not right. Sound can obscure sound, how can no sound obscure?' What does this verse mean? If you think that sound can obscure sound, just like someone says 'you don't make a sound,' he makes a sound himself but can obscure other people's sounds. Like this, the speech of the emptiness of all dharmas can also obscure. I am now saying that this is not corresponding. Why? Because this sound is effective and can obscure another sound. But your speech is not real, so it cannot obscure the self-nature of the dharmas. The principle you established is that speech is also empty, and dharmas are also empty. If you say it's like 'don't make a sound,' then there is a fault. The verse says: 'You say that obscuring and being obscured are the same, but that's not right either. In this way, your sect will collapse by itself, and it's not my fault.' What does this verse mean? If you think that obscuring and being obscured are the same, then it is not corresponding. If you say that my speech can obscure all dharmas having self-nature, then it is not corresponding. I am now saying that this principle is not right. Why? Know that such a sect is your fault, not mine. You say that all dharmas are empty, so your principle already has a fault before, and the fault is not mine. If you say that your obscuring and being obscured are not corresponding, then it is...

義不然。又復有義。偈言。

若彼現是有　　汝何得有回　彼現亦是無　　云何得取回

此偈明何義。若一切法有現可取。汝得回我諸法令空。而實不爾。何以知之。現量入在一切法數則亦是空。若汝分別依現有比。現比皆空。如是無現比。何可得現之與比。是二皆無雲何得遮。汝言一切諸法空者。是義不然。若汝復謂。或比或喻。或以阿含得一切法。如是一切諸法自體。我能回者。此義今說。偈言。

說現比阿含　　譬喻等四量　現比阿含成　　譬喻亦能成

此偈明何義。比喻阿含現等四量。若現能成。比阿含等皆亦能成。如一切法皆悉是空。現量亦空。如是比喻亦空。彼量所成一切諸法皆悉是空。以四種量在一切故。隨何等法。若為比成亦譬喻成亦阿含成。彼所成法一切皆空。汝以比喻阿含等三量一切法所量亦空。若如是者法不可得量所量無。是故無遮。如是若說一切法空無自體者。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

智人知法說　　善法有自體　世人知有體　　余法亦如是

此偈明何義。法師說善法。善法一百一十有九。謂心一相。一者受。二者想。三者覺。四者觸。五者觀察。六者欲。七者信解脫。八者精進。九者憶念。十者三摩提。十一者慧。十二者舍。十三者修。十四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此義不然。還有另外一種解釋。偈語說：『如果它們現在是存在的，你又如何能夠推翻？它們現在也是不存在的，又如何能夠取回？』這首偈語說明了什麼道理？如果一切法現在是存在的，可以被獲取，你就能推翻我的所有法，使之成為空。但事實並非如此。為什麼呢？因為現量（Pratyaksha，直接認知）也包含在一切法的範疇之內，所以也是空。如果你通過分別，依賴於現有的事物進行比較（Anumana，推理），那麼現量和比量都是空。這樣一來，沒有現量和比量，又如何能夠獲得現量和比量呢？這二者都不存在，又如何能夠遮蔽呢？你說一切諸法都是空，這種說法是不對的。如果你又說，或者通過比量，或者通過譬喻（Upamana，類比），或者通過阿含（Agama，聖言量）來獲得一切法，像這樣一切諸法的自體，我能夠推翻，現在就來說明這個道理。偈語說：『宣說現量、比量、阿含、譬喻等四量，現量、比量、阿含能夠成立，譬喻也能夠成立。』這首偈語說明了什麼道理？比量、譬喻、阿含、現量等四量，如果現量能夠成立，那麼比量、阿含等也都能成立。如果一切法都是空，那麼現量也是空，這樣一來，比喻也是空。這些量所成立的一切諸法都是空。因為四種量存在於一切法中。無論什麼法，如果是通過比量成立的，也是通過譬喻成立的，也是通過阿含成立的，那麼這些量所成立的法一切都是空。你用比量、譬喻、阿含等三量來衡量一切法，那麼一切法所衡量的也是空。如果這樣的話，法不可得，量和所量都沒有，所以無法遮蔽。像這樣，如果說一切法都是空，沒有自體，那麼這種說法是不相應的。還有另外一種解釋。偈語說：『智者了解法並宣說，善法具有自體，世人瞭解有自體，其餘的法也是如此。』這首偈語說明了什麼道理？法師宣說善法。善法有一百一十九種，即心的一相。一是受（Vedana，感受），二是想（Samjna，概念），三是覺（Vitarka，粗分別），四是觸（Sparsha，接觸），五是觀察（Vicara，細分別），六是欲（Chanda，意欲），七是信解脫（Shraddha-vimukti，通過信仰而解脫），八是精進（Virya，努力），九是憶念（Smriti，正念），十是三摩提（Samadhi，禪定），十一是慧（Prajna，智慧），十二是舍（Upeksha，捨棄），十三是修（Bhavana，修行），十四

【English Translation】 English version: This meaning is not so. There is another meaning. The verse says: 'If those are presently existent, how can you refute them? If those are also non-existent presently, how can you take them back?' What meaning does this verse clarify? If all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) are presently existent and can be apprehended, you could refute all my dharmas and render them empty. But this is not the case. How do we know this? Because direct perception (Pratyaksha) is included within the category of all dharmas, it is also empty. If you, through discrimination, rely on existing things for inference (Anumana), then both direct perception and inference are empty. In this way, without direct perception and inference, how can one obtain direct perception and inference? Since these two do not exist, how can they be refuted? Your statement that all dharmas are empty is incorrect. If you further say that through inference, or through analogy (Upamana), or through Agama (scriptural authority) one obtains all dharmas, and that you can refute the self-nature of all dharmas in this way, let me now explain this principle. The verse says: 'Declaring direct perception, inference, Agama, analogy, etc., as the four means of valid cognition; direct perception, inference, and Agama can be established, and analogy can also be established.' What meaning does this verse clarify? The four means of valid cognition—inference, analogy, Agama, and direct perception—if direct perception can be established, then inference, Agama, etc., can also be established. If all dharmas are empty, then direct perception is also empty, and thus analogy is also empty. All dharmas established by these means of valid cognition are empty because the four means of valid cognition are present in all dharmas. Whatever dharma is established through inference, is also established through analogy, and is also established through Agama; all dharmas established by these means are empty. You use inference, analogy, Agama, etc., the three means of valid cognition, to measure all dharmas, then all that is measured by dharmas is also empty. If this is the case, then dharma cannot be obtained, and neither the means of valid cognition nor what is measured exists, so there is nothing to refute. Thus, if one says that all dharmas are empty and without self-nature, this statement is not consistent. There is another meaning. The verse says: 'The wise know the Dharma and declare that good dharmas have self-nature; worldly people know that there is self-nature, and other dharmas are also like this.' What meaning does this verse clarify? The Dharma master declares good dharmas. There are one hundred and nineteen good dharmas, which are one aspect of the mind. The first is feeling (Vedana), the second is conception (Samjna), the third is initial application of thought (Vitarka), the fourth is contact (Sparsha), the fifth is sustained application of thought (Vicara), the sixth is desire (Chanda), the seventh is faith-liberation (Shraddha-vimukti), the eighth is effort (Virya), the ninth is mindfulness (Smriti), the tenth is concentration (Samadhi), the eleventh is wisdom (Prajna), the twelfth is equanimity (Upeksha), the thirteenth is cultivation (Bhavana), the fourteenth

者合修。十五者習。十六者得。十七者成。十八者辯才。十九者適。二十者勤。二十一者思。二十二者求。二十三者勢力。二十四者不嫉。二十五者自在。二十六者善辯才。二十七者不悔。二十八者悔。二十九者少欲。三十者不少欲。三十一者舍。三十二者不思。三十三者不求。三十四者不願。三十五者樂說。三十六者不著境界。三十七者不行。三十八者生。三十九者住。四十者滅。四十一者集。四十二者老。四十三者熱惱。四十四者悶。四十五者疑。四十六者思量。四十七者愛。四十八者信。四十九者樂。五十者不順。五十一者順取。五十二者不畏大眾。五十三者恭敬。五十四者作勝法。五十五者敬。五十六者不敬。五十七者供給。五十八者不供給。五十九者定順。六十者宿。六十一者發動。六十二者不樂。六十三者覆。六十四者不定。六十五者愁惱。六十六者求不得。六十七者荒亂。六十八者懈怠。六十九者憂憒。七十者希凈。七十一者內信。七十二者畏。七十三者信。七十四者慚。七十五者質直。七十六者不誑。七十七者寂靜。七十八者不驚。七十九者不錯。八十者柔軟。八十一者開解。八十二者嫌。八十三者燒。八十四者惺。八十五者不貪。八十六者不瞋。八十七者不癡。八十八者不一切知。八十九者放舍。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一、和合修習。二、學習。三、獲得。四、成就。五、辯才。六、適應。七、勤奮。八、思考。九、尋求。十、勢力。十一、不嫉妒。十二、自在。十三、善於辯才。十四、不後悔。十五、後悔。十六、少欲。十七、不多欲。十八、捨棄。十九、不思。二十、不求。二十一、不願。二十二、樂於說法。二十三、不執著境界。二十四、不行。二十五、生。二十六、住。二十七、滅。二十八、集（產生）。二十九、老。三十、熱惱。三十一、煩悶。三十二、疑惑。三十三、思量。三十四、愛。三十五、信。三十六、樂。三十七、不順從。三十八、順從取用。三十九、不畏懼大眾。四十、恭敬。四十一、作殊勝之法。四十二、尊敬。四十三、不尊敬。四十四、供給。四十五、不供給。四十六、決定順從。四十七、宿（過去）。四十八、發動。四十九、不樂。五十、覆蓋。五十一、不定。五十二、愁惱。五十三、求不得。五十四、荒亂。五十五、懈怠。五十六、憂愁昏亂。五十七、希望清凈。五十八、內心相信。五十九、畏懼。六十、相信。六十一、慚愧。六十二、質樸正直。六十三、不欺騙。六十四、寂靜。六十五、不驚慌。六十六、不錯亂。六十七、柔軟。六十八、開解。六十九、嫌隙。七十、燒燃。七十一、惺悟。七十二、不貪婪。七十三、不嗔恨。七十四、不愚癡。七十五、不一切知。七十六、放下捨棄。

【English Translation】 English version 1. Harmonious practice. 2. Learning. 3. Obtaining. 4. Accomplishment. 5. Eloquence. 6. Adaptation. 7. Diligence. 8. Thinking. 9. Seeking. 10. Power. 11. Non-jealousy. 12. Freedom. 13. Skillful eloquence. 14. Non-regret. 15. Regret. 16. Few desires. 17. Not few desires. 18. Abandonment. 19. Non-thinking. 20. Non-seeking. 21. Non-wishing. 22. Joyful speaking. 23. Non-attachment to realms. 24. Non-going. 25. Birth. 26. Abiding. 27. Cessation. 28. Arising (collection). 29. Aging. 30. Torment. 31. Depression. 32. Doubt. 33. Deliberation. 34. Love. 35. Faith. 36. Joy. 37. Non-compliance. 38. Compliant taking. 39. Non-fear of the assembly. 40. Respect. 41. Performing superior Dharma. 42. Reverence. 43. Non-reverence. 44. Offering. 45. Non-offering. 46. Determined compliance. 47. Past (previous existence). 48. Arousal. 49. Non-joy. 50. Covering. 51. Undetermined. 52. Sorrow and distress. 53. Seeking without obtaining. 54. Chaos and disorder. 55. Laziness. 56. Sorrowful confusion. 57. Hope for purity. 58. Inner faith. 59. Fear. 60. Belief. 61. Shame. 62. Honesty and integrity. 63. Non-deception. 64. Tranquility. 65. Non-fear. 66. Non-confusion. 67. Gentleness. 68. Understanding. 69. Resentment. 70. Burning. 71. Awakening. 72. Non-greed. 73. Non-hatred. 74. Non-ignorance. 75. Non-omniscience. 76. Letting go.

九十者不有。九十一者愧。九十二者不自隱惡。九十三者悲。九十四者喜。九十五者舍。九十六者神通。九十七者不執。九十八者不妒。九十九者心凈。一百者忍辱。一百一者利益。一百二者能用。一百三者福德。一百四者無想定。一百五者不一切智。一百六者無常三昧(少十三法無處訪本)。如是如是。善法一百一十有九。如彼善法善法自體。彼不善法不善法自體。如是無記無記。本性無記本性無記。欲界欲界。色界色界。無色界無色界。無漏無漏。苦集滅道苦集滅道。修定修定。如是如是見有無量種種諸法皆有自體。如是若說一切諸法皆無自體。如是無體得言空者。義不相應。此復有義。偈言。

出法出法體　　是聖人所說　如是不出法　　不出法自體

此偈明何義。如說出法出法自體。如是不出法不出法自體。覺分覺分自體。菩提分菩提分自體。非菩提分非菩提分自體。如是余法皆亦如是。若如是見彼無量種諸法自體。而如是說一切諸法皆無自體。以無自體名為空者。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

諸法若無體　　無體不得名　有自體有名　　唯名云何名

此偈明何義。若一切法皆無自體說無自體。言語亦無。何以故。有物有名。無物無名。以一切法皆有名故。當知諸法皆有自體。法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：九十歲的人沒有（煩惱）。九十一歲的人感到慚愧。九十二歲的人不掩飾自己的惡行。九十三歲的人感到悲傷。九十四歲的人感到喜悅。九十五歲的人懂得捨棄。九十六歲的人具有神通。九十七歲的人不執著。九十八歲的人不嫉妒。九十九歲的人內心清凈。一百歲的人能夠忍辱。一百零一歲的人利益他人。一百零二歲的人能夠運用（智慧）。一百零三歲的人具有福德。一百零四歲的人進入無想定（一種禪定狀態）。一百零五歲的人不具備一切智（佛陀所具有的智慧）。一百零六歲的人修習無常三昧（meditation on impermanence）。（缺少十三種法，無法找到原本）。就是這樣，就是這樣。善法有一百一十九種。如同那些善法，善法具有其自身體性。那些不善法，不善法具有其自身體性。如同那些無記法（既非善亦非惡），無記法具有其自身體性。本性無記，本性無記。欲界（realm of desire），欲界。*。無*，無。無漏（free from outflows），無漏。苦集滅道（the Four Noble Truths），苦集滅道。修定（cultivating meditation），修定。就是這樣，就是這樣，看到有無量種種諸法都具有自身體性。如果說一切諸法都沒有自身體性，那麼沒有體性卻能被稱為『空』，在道理上是不相應的。這裡還有另一種解釋，偈頌說：『出法（emergent dharma）具有出法體性，這是聖人所說的。同樣，不出法（non-emergent dharma）具有不出法自身體性。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？就像說出法具有出法自身體性，同樣，不出法具有不出法自身體性。覺分（factors of enlightenment）具有覺分自身體性。菩提分（aspects of enlightenment）具有菩提分自身體性。非菩提分（non-aspects of enlightenment）具有非菩提分自身體性。像這樣，其餘的法也都是如此。如果像這樣看到那無量種種諸法的自身體性，卻說一切諸法都沒有自身體性，用沒有自身體性來稱之為『空』，在道理上是不相應的。還有另一種解釋，偈頌說：『如果諸法沒有體性，沒有體性就不能有名。具有自身體性才能有名，只有名稱又如何能有名呢？』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果一切法都沒有自身體性，那麼言語也就不存在了。為什麼呢？因為有事物才有名，沒有事物就沒有名。因為一切法都有名稱，應當知道諸法都具有自身體性。法（dharma）……

【English Translation】 English version: A person at ninety has no (afflictions). A person at ninety-one feels shame. A person at ninety-two does not conceal their evil deeds. A person at ninety-three feels sorrow. A person at ninety-four feels joy. A person at ninety-five knows how to relinquish. A person at ninety-six possesses supernormal powers (神通, shéntōng). A person at ninety-seven is not attached. A person at ninety-eight is not jealous. A person at ninety-nine has a pure heart. A person at one hundred is able to endure insult (忍辱, rěnrǔ). A person at one hundred and one benefits others. A person at one hundred and two is able to utilize (wisdom). A person at one hundred and three possesses merit and virtue (福德, fúdé). A person at one hundred and four enters the state of non-perception (無想定, wúxiǎngdìng, a state of meditation). A person at one hundred and five does not possess omniscience (一切智, yīqièzhì, the wisdom of a Buddha). A person at one hundred and six cultivates the Samadhi of Impermanence (無常三昧, wúcháng sānmèi, meditation on impermanence). (Thirteen dharmas are missing, the original text cannot be found). Thus it is, thus it is. There are one hundred and nineteen kinds of wholesome dharmas. Just like those wholesome dharmas, wholesome dharmas have their own self-nature. Those unwholesome dharmas, unwholesome dharmas have their own self-nature. Just like those indeterminate dharmas (無記法, wújìfǎ, neither wholesome nor unwholesome), indeterminate dharmas have their own self-nature. The fundamental nature is indeterminate, the fundamental nature is indeterminate. The desire realm (欲界, yùjiè), the desire realm. *. No*, no. Without outflows (無漏, wúlòu), without outflows. The Four Noble Truths (苦集滅道, kǔjímièdào), the Four Noble Truths. Cultivating meditation (修定, xiūdìng), cultivating meditation. Thus it is, thus it is, seeing that countless kinds of dharmas all possess their own self-nature. If it is said that all dharmas do not have their own self-nature, then having no self-nature but being called 'emptiness' is not logically consistent. Here is another explanation, the verse says: 『Emergent dharma (出法, chūfǎ) has the nature of emergent dharma, this is what the sages say. Similarly, non-emergent dharma (不出法, bùchūfǎ) has its own self-nature of non-emergent dharma.』 What meaning does this verse explain? Just like saying emergent dharma has its own self-nature of emergent dharma, similarly, non-emergent dharma has its own self-nature of non-emergent dharma. Factors of enlightenment (覺分, juéfēn) have their own self-nature of factors of enlightenment. Aspects of enlightenment (菩提分, pútífēn) have their own self-nature of aspects of enlightenment. Non-aspects of enlightenment (非菩提分, fēipútífēn) have their own self-nature of non-aspects of enlightenment. Like this, the remaining dharmas are all like this as well. If one sees the self-nature of those countless kinds of dharmas in this way, but says that all dharmas do not have their own self-nature, and uses having no self-nature to call it 'emptiness', it is not logically consistent. There is another explanation, the verse says: 『If dharmas have no nature, having no nature cannot have a name. Having self-nature can have a name, how can only a name have a name?』 What meaning does this verse explain? If all dharmas have no self-nature, then language would also not exist. Why? Because having a thing means having a name, having no thing means having no name. Because all dharmas have names, it should be known that all dharmas have their own self-nature. Dharma (法, dharma)...

有自體故不得言一切法空。如是若說一切法空無自體者。義不相應。偈言。

若離法有名　　于彼法中無　說離法有名　　彼人則可難

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。有法有名離法有名。如是一切諸法皆空無自體成。非物無名有物有名。此我今說。若如是者。有何等人。說離法體別有名字。若別有名。別有法者。則不得示彼不可示。如是汝心分別別有諸法別有名者。是義不然。又復有義。偈言。

法若有自體　　可得遮諸法　諸法若無體　　竟為何所遮　如有瓶有泥　　可得遮瓶泥　見有物則遮　　見無物不遮

此偈明何義。有物得遮無物不遮。如無瓶泥則不須遮。有瓶得遮無瓶不遮。如是如是法無自體則不須遮。法有自體可得有遮。無雲何遮。若一切法皆無自體而便遮言。一切諸法無自體者。義不相應。汝何所遮。若有遮體。能遮一切諸法自體。偈言。

若法無自體　　言語何所遮　若無法得遮　　無語亦成遮

此偈明何義。若法無體語亦無體。云何遮言。一切諸法皆無自體。若如是遮。不說言語亦得成遮。若如是者火冷水堅如是等過。又復有義。偈言。

如愚癡之人　　妄取炎為水　若汝遮妄取　　其事亦如是

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。如愚癡人取炎為水。于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為有自性（svabhāva），所以不能說一切法皆空。如果說一切法皆空，沒有自性，那麼意義上是不相應的。偈語說：

『如果離開法而有名，在這個法中卻沒有（自性），說離開法而有名，這個人就可以被詰難。』

這首偈語說明什麼意義呢？如果你的意思是，有法有名，離開法也有名，像這樣一切諸法都是空無自性的。沒有事物卻有名，有事物卻有名。我現在說，如果像這樣，有什麼人會說離開法體而另外有名字呢？如果另外有名，另外有法，那就不能指示那不可指示的。像這樣，你心中分別另外有諸法，另外有名，這個道理是不對的。又有一種意義，偈語說：

『法如果有自性，就可以遮止諸法，諸法如果沒有體性，究竟要遮止什麼呢？如有瓶有泥，就可以遮止瓶和泥，見到有事物就遮止，見到沒有事物就不遮止。』

這首偈語說明什麼意義呢？有事物可以遮止，沒有事物就不能遮止。比如沒有瓶和泥，就不需要遮止。有瓶就可以遮止，沒有瓶就不能遮止。像這樣，如果法沒有自性，就不需要遮止。法有自性，才可以遮止。沒有（自性）要如何遮止呢？如果一切法都沒有自性，卻說一切諸法沒有自性，意義上是不相應的。你要遮止什麼呢？如果有遮止的本體，才能遮止一切諸法的自性。偈語說：

『如果法沒有自性，言語要遮止什麼呢？如果沒有法可以遮止，不說言語也成了遮止。』

這首偈語說明什麼意義呢？如果法沒有體性，言語也沒有體性，要如何遮止說一切諸法都沒有自性呢？如果像這樣遮止，不說言語也成了遮止。如果像這樣，就會有火是冷的，水是堅硬的等等過失。又有一種意義，偈語說：

『如同愚癡的人，錯誤地把熱氣當作水，如果你遮止這種錯誤認知，這件事也是如此。』

這首偈語說明什麼意義呢？如果你的意思是，如同愚癡的人把熱氣當作水，于

【English Translation】 English version: Because there is self-nature (svabhāva), it cannot be said that all dharmas are empty. If it is said that all dharmas are empty and without self-nature, then the meaning is not consistent. The verse says:

'If there is a name apart from the dharma, And there is no (self-nature) in that dharma, To say there is a name apart from the dharma, That person can be challenged.'

What meaning does this verse explain? If you mean that there is dharma with a name, and there is a name apart from dharma, like this, all dharmas are empty and without self-nature. There is no thing but there is a name, and there is a thing and there is a name. I say now, if it is like this, who would say that there is a name separate from the substance of the dharma? If there is a separate name and a separate dharma, then one cannot point out what cannot be pointed out. Like this, if in your mind you distinguish separate dharmas and separate names, this reasoning is not right. Furthermore, there is another meaning, the verse says:

'If a dharma has self-nature, Then one can obstruct all dharmas, If all dharmas have no substance, What ultimately is there to obstruct? If there is a pot and there is clay, Then one can obstruct the pot and the clay, Seeing that there is a thing, one obstructs it, Seeing that there is no thing, one does not obstruct it.'

What meaning does this verse explain? There is a thing that can be obstructed, and there is no thing that cannot be obstructed. For example, if there is no pot and clay, then there is no need to obstruct. If there is a pot, then one can obstruct it; if there is no pot, then one cannot obstruct it. Like this, if a dharma has no self-nature, then there is no need to obstruct it. If a dharma has self-nature, then one can obstruct it. How can one obstruct what has no (self-nature)? If all dharmas have no self-nature, but one says that all dharmas have no self-nature, the meaning is not consistent. What are you obstructing? If there is an entity that obstructs, then it can obstruct the self-nature of all dharmas. The verse says:

'If a dharma has no self-nature, What does language obstruct? If there is no dharma to obstruct, Not speaking also becomes obstruction.'

What meaning does this verse explain? If a dharma has no substance, then language also has no substance. How can one obstruct by saying that all dharmas have no self-nature? If one obstructs like this, then not speaking also becomes obstruction. If it is like this, then there will be faults such as fire being cold and water being hard. Furthermore, there is another meaning, the verse says:

'Like a foolish person, Mistakenly taking heat for water, If you obstruct this mistaken perception, The matter is also like this.'

What meaning does this verse explain? If you mean that, like a foolish person taking heat for water, in

無水中虛妄取水。有黠慧人為回彼心而語之言。汝妄取水。如是如是于無自體一切法中取法自體。為彼眾生妄心回故。說一切法皆無自體。此我今說。偈言。

取所取能取　　遮所遮能遮　如是六種義　　皆悉是有法

此偈明何義。若當如是有眾生者。有取所取有能取者。得言虛妄遮所遮等。如是六種義成。若六義成而說諸法一切空者。是義不然。偈言。

若無取所取　　亦無有能取　則無遮所遮　　亦無有能遮

此偈明何義。若汝意謂無如是過。非取所取。非能取者。彼若如是虛妄取遮。一切諸法無自體者。彼遮亦無所遮亦無能遮亦無。偈言。

若無遮所遮　　亦無有能遮　則一切法成　　彼自體亦成

此偈明何義。若非有遮非有所遮非有能遮。是則不遮一切諸法。則一切法皆有自體。偈言。

汝因則不成　　無體云何因　若法無因者　　云何得言成

此偈明何義。若一切法空無自體。如是義中說因不成。何以故。一切諸法空無自體。何處有因。若法無因一切法空以何因成。是故汝說一切法空無自體者。是義不然。偈言。

汝若無因成　　諸法自體回　我亦無因成　　諸法有自體

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。我無因成法無自體。如汝無因自體回成。我

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如同在沒有水的地方虛妄地取水一樣。如果有聰慧之人爲了糾正他的想法而告訴他說：『你這是虛妄地取水。』同樣，對於沒有自性的一切法中，執取法的自性，爲了糾正這些眾生的虛妄之心，所以說一切法都沒有自性。我現在要說的是：『取、所取、能取，遮、所遮、能遮，像這樣的六種意義，都是有法的。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果當真有這樣的眾生，有取、所取、有能取，才能說虛妄地遮止所遮等，這樣六種意義才能成立。如果六種意義成立，卻說諸法一切皆空，這個道理是不對的。偈頌說：『如果沒有取、所取，也就沒有能取；那麼就沒有遮、所遮，也沒有能遮。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果你認為沒有這樣的過失，沒有取、所取，沒有能取，那麼像這樣虛妄的取和遮，一切諸法沒有自性，那麼這個遮止也就沒有所遮，也沒有能遮。偈頌說：『如果沒有遮、所遮，也就沒有能遮；那麼一切法成立，它的自性也成立。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果沒有遮止，沒有所遮，沒有能遮，那麼就不會遮止一切諸法，那麼一切法都有自性。偈頌說：『你的因就不成立，沒有體性怎麼能作為因呢？如果法沒有因，怎麼能說成立呢？』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果一切法空無自性，那麼在這種意義下說因是不成立的。為什麼呢？因為一切諸法空無自性，哪裡來的因呢？如果法沒有因，一切法空，又憑藉什麼因來成立呢？所以你說一切法空無自性，這個道理是不對的。偈頌說：『如果你沒有因也能成立，諸法的自性就會改變；我也可以沒有因就成立，諸法有自性。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果你認為，我沒有因也能成立，法沒有自性，就像你沒有因，自性也能改變成立一樣，我

【English Translation】 English version: It is like falsely taking water where there is no water. If a wise person, in order to correct his mind, tells him, 'You are falsely taking water.' Similarly, regarding all dharmas (phenomena) that have no inherent existence (svabhava), one grasps at the inherent existence of dharmas. In order to correct the deluded minds of these beings, it is said that all dharmas have no inherent existence. What I am about to say is: 'Grasping, the grasped, the grasper; negating, the negated, the negator; these six meanings all exist as phenomena.' What meaning does this verse illuminate? If there truly are such beings, with grasping, the grasped, and the grasper, then one can speak of falsely negating the negated, etc. Only then can these six meanings be established. If these six meanings are established, yet one says that all dharmas are empty, this reasoning is incorrect. The verse says: 'If there is no grasping, no grasped, then there is also no grasper; then there is no negating, no negated, and no negator.' What meaning does this verse illuminate? If you think there is no such fault, no grasping, no grasped, no grasper, then such false grasping and negation, all dharmas having no inherent existence, then that negation has no negated, and no negator. The verse says: 'If there is no negating, no negated, then there is also no negator; then all dharmas are established, and their inherent existence is also established.' What meaning does this verse illuminate? If there is no negation, no negated, no negator, then one does not negate all dharmas, and then all dharmas have inherent existence. The verse says: 'Your cause is not established; how can something without substance be a cause? If a dharma has no cause, how can it be said to be established?' What meaning does this verse illuminate? If all dharmas are empty and without inherent existence, then in this meaning, the cause is said to be not established. Why? Because all dharmas are empty and without inherent existence, where does the cause come from? If a dharma has no cause, all dharmas are empty, then by what cause are they established? Therefore, your saying that all dharmas are empty and without inherent existence is incorrect. The verse says: 'If you are established without a cause, the inherent existence of dharmas will change; I can also be established without a cause, and dharmas have inherent existence.' What meaning does this verse illuminate? If you think that I can be established without a cause, and dharmas have no inherent existence, just as you, without a cause, can change and be established, then I

自體法亦無因成。偈言。

若有因無體　　是義不相應　世間無體法　　則不得言有

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。我有因成因無自體。若如是者無自體義則不相應。何以故。一切世間無自體者。不得言有。偈言。

前遮后所遮　　如是不相應　若后遮及並　　如是知有體

此偈明何義。若遮在前所遮在後。義不相應。未有所遮遮何所遮。若遮在後所遮在前。亦不相應。所遮已成遮何能遮。若遮所遮二法同時不相因緣。遮不因所遮。所遮不因遮。皆有自體故。則不得言遮。如角並生各不相因。左不因右右不因左。如是若說一切諸法無自體者。是義不然。釋初分竟。

回諍論釋上分第四

釋曰。如汝所說我今答汝。汝說偈言。

若一切無體　　言語是一切　言語自無體　　何能遮彼體

此偈。我今答。偈言。

我語言若離　　因緣和合法　是則空義成　　諸法無自體

此偈明何義。若彼言語。因中大中和合中無。離散中無。咽喉唇舌齒根龂鼻頂等諸處皆各有力。如是二處和合中無。若離如是因緣和合。更無別法。以如是故無有自體。無自體故我言一切皆無自體。空義則成。如此言語無自體空。諸法如是無自體空。是故汝言。汝語空故不能說空。是義不然。又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：自體法（Svalakshana-dharma，指具有自身獨特性質的法）也不能由因緣構成。偈頌說：『如果存在因，而沒有自體（Svalakshana，自身獨有的性質），這種說法是不相應的。世間如果存在沒有自體的法，那就不能說它存在。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義？如果你的意思是，我所說的因是由因緣構成，而因本身沒有自體。如果這樣，那麼沒有自體的意義就不相應。為什麼呢？因為在世間，一切沒有自體的法，都不能說它存在。偈頌說：『如果遮在前，所遮在後，這樣的關係是不相應的。如果遮在後，或者同時，這樣就知道有自體。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義？如果遮（Varana，遮蓋）在前面，所遮（Varnya，被遮蓋）在後面，意義是不相應的。因為還沒有所遮，遮又遮什麼呢？如果遮在後面，所遮在前面，也不相應。因為所遮已經成立，遮又有什麼作用呢？如果遮和所遮兩種法同時存在，互不相干，遮不依賴於所遮，所遮也不依賴於遮，它們都有各自的自體，因此就不能說是遮。就像兩隻角同時生長，互不相干，左邊的角不依賴於右邊的角，右邊的角也不依賴於左邊的角。如果說一切諸法都沒有自體，這種說法是不對的。第一部分的解釋結束。回諍論釋上分第四解釋說：就像你所說的，我現在回答你。你說偈頌：『如果一切都沒有自體，那麼言語就是一切。言語本身沒有自體，又怎麼能遮蔽其他事物的自體呢？』這首偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『我的語言如果脫離了因緣和合之法，那麼空（Sunyata，空性）的意義就成立了，諸法沒有自體。』這首偈頌說明了什麼意義？如果這些言語，在因中、大中、和合中都沒有，在離散中也沒有。咽喉、嘴唇、舌頭、牙根、齒齦、鼻子、頭頂等各個部位都有各自的力量。像這樣兩個地方的和合中也沒有。如果脫離了這樣的因緣和合，就沒有其他的法。因為這樣，所以沒有自體。因為沒有自體，所以我說一切都沒有自體，空的意義就成立了。就像這樣的言語沒有自體是空的一樣，諸法也是這樣沒有自體是空的。因此你說，因為你的語言是空的，所以不能說空，這種說法是不對的。還有。

【English Translation】 English version: Svalakshana-dharma (the dharma with its own unique nature) also cannot be formed by causes. The verse says: 'If there is a cause, but no svalakshana (self-nature), this statement is not consistent. If there is a dharma without svalakshana in the world, then it cannot be said to exist.' What meaning does this verse illustrate? If you mean that the cause I speak of is formed by conditions, but the cause itself has no svalakshana. If so, then the meaning of having no svalakshana is inconsistent. Why? Because in the world, everything without svalakshana cannot be said to exist. The verse says: 'If the negation (Varana) is in front and the negated (Varnya) is behind, such a relationship is inconsistent. If the negation is behind, or simultaneous, then it is known to have self-nature.' What meaning does this verse illustrate? If the negation is in front and the negated is behind, the meaning is inconsistent. Because there is nothing to be negated yet, what does the negation negate? If the negation is behind and the negated is in front, it is also inconsistent. Because the negated has already been established, what effect does the negation have? If the negation and the negated two dharmas exist simultaneously and are not interdependent, the negation does not depend on the negated, and the negated does not depend on the negation, they all have their own self-nature, therefore it cannot be said to be negation. Just like two horns growing simultaneously and not being interdependent, the left horn does not depend on the right horn, and the right horn does not depend on the left horn. If it is said that all dharmas have no self-nature, this statement is incorrect. The explanation of the first part ends. Returning to the Debate: Explanation of the Fourth Upper Part The explanation says: As you said, I will now answer you. You said in the verse: 'If everything has no self-nature, then language is everything. Language itself has no self-nature, how can it obscure the self-nature of other things?' To this verse, I now answer. The verse says: 'If my language is separated from the dharma of conditioned arising, Then the meaning of emptiness (Sunyata) is established, and dharmas have no self-nature.' What meaning does this verse illustrate? If these words are not in the cause, not in the great, not in the combination, and not in the separation. The throat, lips, tongue, tooth roots, gums, nose, crown of the head, etc., each have their own power. Like this, there is also no combination of these two places. If separated from such conditioned arising, there is no other dharma. Because of this, there is no self-nature. Because there is no self-nature, I say that everything has no self-nature, and the meaning of emptiness is established. Just as such language has no self-nature and is empty, so too dharmas have no self-nature and are empty. Therefore, you say that because your language is empty, you cannot speak of emptiness, this statement is incorrect. Furthermore.

復有義。偈言。

若因緣法空　　我今說此義　何人有因緣　　彼因緣無體

此偈明何義。汝不能解一切法空。不知空義何能咎我。如汝所言。汝語言空語無自體。無自體故不能遮法。此法若是因緣生者。生故得言一切法空。得言一切皆無自體。以何義故。知因緣生法無自體。若法一切皆因緣生。則一切法。皆無自體。法無自體則須因緣。若有自體何用因緣。若離因緣則無諸法。若因緣生則無自體。以無自體故得言空。如是我語亦因緣生。若因緣生則無自體。以無自體故得言空。以一切法因緣生者自體皆空。如輿瓶衣蕃等諸物。彼法各各自有因緣。世間薪草土所作器水蜜乳等。將來將去及舉掌等。又復寒熱風等障中諸受用法。因緣生故皆無自體。如是如是我語因緣和合而生。如是得言無有自體。若無自體如是得言無自體成。如是空語世間受用。是故汝言無自體故汝語亦空。則不能遮諸法自體。是義不然。又復有義。偈言。

化人于化人　　幻人于幻人　如是遮所遮　　其義亦如是

此偈明何義。如化丈夫于異化人。見有去來種種所作而便遮之。如幻丈夫于異幻人。見有去來種種所作而便遮之。能遮化人彼則是空。若彼能遮化人是空。所遮化人則亦是空。若所遮空遮人亦空。能遮幻人彼則是空

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：還有一種意義，用偈語來說明：

若因緣法是空性，我現在就說這個道理。
什麼人有因緣，那因緣本身就沒有實體。

這偈語說明什麼道理呢？你不能理解一切法皆是空性，不瞭解空性的意義，怎麼能責怪我呢？就像你所說的，你的語言是空性的，語言沒有自體。因為沒有自體，所以不能遮止諸法。如果這個法是由因緣所生，因為是生出來的，所以可以說一切法都是空性的，可以說一切都沒有自體。因為什麼道理，知道因緣所生的法沒有自體呢？如果一切法都是因緣所生，那麼一切法都沒有自體。法沒有自體，就需要因緣。如果有自體，那要因緣做什麼呢？如果離開因緣，就沒有諸法。如果是因緣所生，就沒有自體。因為沒有自體，所以可以說它是空性的。像我所說的話也是因緣所生。如果是因緣所生，就沒有自體。因為沒有自體，所以可以說它是空性的。因為一切法都是因緣所生，所以自體都是空性的。比如車輿、瓶子、衣服、幡蓋等各種事物，這些法各自都有各自的因緣，世間的柴草、泥土所做的器物、水、蜂蜜、乳酪等，拿來拿去以及舉起手掌等等，還有寒冷、炎熱、風等障礙中的各種受用之法，因為是因緣所生，所以都沒有自體。就像這樣，我所說的話也是因緣和合而生。像這樣，就可以說它沒有自體。如果沒有自體，就可以說它沒有自體成就。像這樣，空性的語言在世間被受用。所以你說因為沒有自體，所以你的話也是空性的，因此不能遮止諸法的自體，這個道理是不對的。還有一種意義，用偈語來說明：

化人對於化人，幻人對於幻人，
像這樣遮止和被遮止，其中的道理也是這樣。

這偈語說明什麼道理呢？就像變化出來的人對於另一個變化出來的人，看到有來來去去種種作為，就去遮止他。又像幻術師變出的人對於另一個幻術師變出的人，看到有來來去去種種作為，就去遮止他。能遮止化人的人，他本身就是空性的。如果他能遮止的化人是空性的，那麼被遮止的化人也同樣是空性的。如果被遮止的是空性的，那麼遮止的人也是空性的。能遮止幻人的人，他本身就是空性的。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, there is another meaning, expressed in a verse:

If conditioned dharmas are empty, I now speak of this meaning.
Whoever possesses conditions, those conditions themselves have no substance.

What meaning does this verse convey? You cannot understand that all dharmas are empty; not knowing the meaning of emptiness, how can you blame me? As you say, your speech is empty; speech has no inherent existence. Because it has no inherent existence, it cannot obstruct dharmas. If this dharma arises from conditions, because it is produced, it can be said that all dharmas are empty, and it can be said that everything lacks inherent existence. For what reason do we know that dharmas arising from conditions have no inherent existence? If all dharmas arise from conditions, then all dharmas lack inherent existence. If dharmas lack inherent existence, they require conditions. If they had inherent existence, what would be the use of conditions? If separated from conditions, there would be no dharmas. If arising from conditions, there is no inherent existence. Because there is no inherent existence, it can be said to be empty. Likewise, my speech also arises from conditions. If it arises from conditions, it has no inherent existence. Because it has no inherent existence, it can be said to be empty. Because all dharmas arise from conditions, their inherent existence is empty. Like carts, bottles, clothes, banners ( *fān* ) and other things, these dharmas each have their own conditions, such as firewood, grass, earthen vessels, water, honey, milk, etc., that are brought and taken away, and the raising of a palm, and also the various experiences within obstacles such as cold, heat, and wind. Because they arise from conditions, they all lack inherent existence. Just so, my speech arises from the aggregation of conditions. Thus, it can be said that it has no inherent existence. If it has no inherent existence, it can be said that it is not inherently established. Thus, empty speech is used in the world. Therefore, your statement that because it has no inherent existence, your speech is also empty, and therefore cannot obstruct the inherent existence of dharmas, is not correct. Furthermore, there is another meaning, expressed in a verse:

A created man towards a created man, an illusionary man towards an illusionary man,
Thus, the obstructing and the obstructed, their meaning is also like this.

What meaning does this verse convey? Just as a transformed man, towards another transformed man, sees coming and going and various actions, and then obstructs him. Or like an illusory man created by a magician, towards another illusory man, sees coming and going and various actions, and then obstructs him. The one who obstructs the transformed man is himself empty. If the transformed man he obstructs is empty, then the obstructed transformed man is also empty. If the obstructed is empty, then the obstructor is also empty. The one who obstructs the illusory man is himself empty.

。若彼能遮幻人是空。所遮幻人則亦是空。若所遮空遮人亦空。如是如是我語言空。如幻化空。如是空語。能遮一切諸法自體。是故汝言。汝語空故。則不能遮一切諸法有自體者。汝彼語言則不相應。若汝說言彼六種諍彼如是遮。如是我語非一切法。我語亦空諸法亦空。非一切法皆悉不空。又復汝說偈言。

若語有自體　　前所立宗壞　如是則有過　　應更說勝因

此偈。我今答。偈言。

言語無自體　　所說亦無體　我如是無過　　不須說勝因

此偈明何義。我此語言。以因緣生非有自體。如前所說。自體不生故得言空。如是得言此語言空餘一切法悉皆是空。如是空故我則無過。若我說言此語不空餘一切法悉皆空者。我則有過。我不如是是故無過。理實不得語言不空餘一切法皆悉是空。我以是故不說勝因。若語不空餘一切法皆悉空者。可說勝因。是故汝言。汝諍論壞語則有過。應說勝因。是義不然。又復汝說。偈言。

若謂如勿聲　　是義則不然　聲有能遮聲　　無聲何能遮

此偈。我今答。偈言。

汝言勿聲者　　此非我譬喻　我非以此聲　　能遮彼聲故

此偈明何義。此非我喻。如何人言莫作聲者。彼自作聲以聲遮聲。聲非不空我則不爾。語言亦空遮法亦空

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果他能遮蔽幻人是空性的，那麼被遮蔽的幻人也同樣是空性的。如果被遮蔽的空性遮蔽了人也是空性的，就像這樣，我的語言也是空性的，如同幻化是空性的一樣。這樣的空性語言，能夠遮蔽一切諸法的自性。所以你說，因為我的語言是空性的，就不能遮蔽一切諸法具有自性，你的這種說法是不相應的。如果你說那六種諍論是這樣被遮蔽的，就像我的語言不是一切法，我的語言是空性的，諸法也是空性的，並非一切法都不是空性的。你又說了偈頌：『如果語言有自性，前面所立的宗義就破壞了，這樣就有了過失，應該再說出更殊勝的理由。』對於這個偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『語言沒有自性，所說的話也沒有實體，我這樣就沒有過失，不需要說出更殊勝的理由。』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義？我的這些語言，因為因緣和合而生，沒有自性。如前面所說，自性不生，所以可以說它是空性的。這樣就可以說這個語言是空性的，其餘一切法全部都是空性的。因為這樣是空性的，所以我沒有過失。如果我說這個語言不是空性的，其餘一切法全部都是空性的，我才會有過失。我不是這樣說的，所以沒有過失。實際上不能說語言不是空性的，其餘一切法全部都是空性的。因此我不說殊勝的理由。如果語言不是空性的，其餘一切法全部都是空性的，才可以提出殊勝的理由。所以你說，你的諍論破壞了，語言就有了過失，應該說出殊勝的理由，這個說法是不對的。你又說了偈頌：『如果說像『不要出聲』一樣，這個說法是不對的，聲音有能力遮蔽聲音，沒有聲音怎麼能遮蔽呢？』對於這個偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『你說『不要出聲』，這不是我的比喻，我不是用這個聲音，來遮蔽那個聲音的。』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義？這不是我的比喻。就像有人說『不要作聲』，他自己卻發出聲音，用聲音來遮蔽聲音，聲音並非不是空性的，我不是這樣的。語言也是空性的，遮蔽的法也是空性的。

【English Translation】 English version: If he can obscure the illusory person as empty (śūnya), then the obscured illusory person is also empty. If the obscured emptiness obscures the person and makes him empty, just like that, my language is also empty, just as illusion is empty. Such empty language can obscure the self-nature (svabhāva) of all dharmas (phenomena). Therefore, you say that because my language is empty, it cannot obscure the fact that all dharmas have self-nature, your statement is not appropriate. If you say that those six kinds of disputes are obscured in this way, just as my language is not all dharmas, my language is empty, and all dharmas are also empty, and not all dharmas are not empty. You also said the verse: 'If language has self-nature, the proposition established earlier is destroyed, and thus there is a fault, and a superior reason should be stated again.' To this verse, I now answer. The verse says: 'Language has no self-nature, and what is said has no substance either. I have no fault in this way, and there is no need to state a superior reason.' What meaning does this verse explain? These languages of mine arise from the combination of causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya) and have no self-nature. As said before, self-nature does not arise, so it can be said to be empty. Thus, it can be said that this language is empty, and all other dharmas are all empty. Because it is empty in this way, I have no fault. If I say that this language is not empty, and all other dharmas are all empty, then I would have a fault. I do not say that, so I have no fault. In reality, it cannot be said that language is not empty, and all other dharmas are all empty. Therefore, I do not state a superior reason. If language is not empty, and all other dharmas are all empty, then a superior reason can be put forward. Therefore, you say that your dispute is destroyed, and the language has a fault, and a superior reason should be stated, this statement is not correct. You also said the verse: 'If it is said to be like 'do not make a sound', this statement is not correct, sound has the ability to obscure sound, how can no sound obscure?' To this verse, I now answer. The verse says: 'You say 'do not make a sound', this is not my metaphor, I am not using this sound to obscure that sound.' What meaning does this verse explain? This is not my metaphor. Just like someone says 'do not make a sound', but he himself makes a sound, using sound to obscure sound, sound is not not empty, I am not like that. Language is also empty, and the dharma that obscures is also empty.

。何以故。譬如彼聲能回此聲。我不如是。我如是說。一切諸法皆無自體。以無自體故得言空。何以故。若無體語回無自體。則一切法皆成自體。如言勿聲聲能遮聲。如是如是無自體語遮無體法。若如是遮無自體者。則一切法皆成自體。若有自體則一切法皆悉不空。我說法空不說不空。譬喻如是。偈言。

如或有丈夫　　妄取化女身　而生於欲心　　此義亦如是

此偈明何義。如化婦女實自體空。如或丈夫于化女身。生實有想起于欲心。彼虛妄取諸法亦爾。彼或如來如來弟子聲聞之人。為回彼人虛妄取心。或是如來威神之力。如來弟子聲聞威力。化作化人。如是如是語空如化。如化婦女無自體空。法如是空。取法自體能遮令回。如是如是以此空喻能成空義。我則相應非汝相應。偈言。

同所成不然　　響中無因故　我依於世諦　　故作如是說

此偈明何義。若汝或謂如勿聲者因同所成。何以故。以因不離一切諸法無自體故。非彼聲響而有自體。以因緣生故無自體。若無自體汝說聲有能遮聲者。彼義則壞。又我所說不違世諦不捨世諦。依世諦故能說一切諸法體空。若離世諦法不可說。佛說偈言。

若不依世諦　　不得證真諦　若不證真諦　　不得涅槃證

此偈明何義。如是諸法非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：為什麼呢？譬如一個聲音能夠反過來影響另一個聲音，但我所說的空不是這樣。我是這樣說的：一切諸法都沒有自性。因為沒有自性，所以才能說是空。為什麼呢？如果無自性的語言能夠反駁無自性，那麼一切法就都變成有自性了。就像說『不要出聲』，這個聲音能夠阻止其他聲音一樣。同樣，無自性的語言能夠遮止無自性的法。如果這樣遮止無自性，那麼一切法就都變成有自性了。如果有了自性，那麼一切法就都不空了。我所說的是法空，而不是不空。這個譬喻就是這樣。偈頌說：『如有男子，錯誤地把幻化的女子身體，當作真實的而生起慾望，這個道理也是這樣。』這首偈頌說明了什麼道理呢？就像幻化的婦女實際上是自性空的。如果有個男子對幻化的女子身體，生起真實存在的想法，從而產生慾望。那麼，虛妄地執取諸法也是這樣。或者如來、如來的弟子、聲聞之人，爲了使那個人迴轉虛妄的執取之心，或是如來的威神之力，如來的弟子、聲聞的威力，幻化出化人。像這樣，語言的空性就像幻化一樣。就像幻化的婦女沒有自性是空的一樣，法也是這樣空的。執取法的自性，能夠遮止並使之迴轉。像這樣，用這個空的譬喻能夠成就空的意義。我所說的才是相應的，而不是你所說的相應。偈頌說：『共同產生是不成立的，因為響聲中沒有原因。我依靠世俗諦，所以才這樣說。』這首偈頌說明了什麼道理呢？如果你認為像『不要出聲』那樣，是因為相同的因所產生的，為什麼呢？因為原因離不開一切諸法沒有自性的緣故。那個響聲並沒有自性，因為是因緣所生，所以沒有自性。如果沒有自性，你說聲音能夠遮止聲音，那個道理就錯了。而且我所說的並不違背世俗諦，也不捨棄世俗諦。依靠世俗諦，才能說一切諸法的體性是空的。如果離開了世俗諦，法就無法述說。佛說偈頌：『如果不依靠世俗諦，就不能證得真諦；如果不能證得真諦，就不能證得涅槃。』這首偈頌說明了什麼道理呢？像這樣的諸法並非……

【English Translation】 English version: Why is that? For example, a sound can counteract another sound, but my statement about emptiness is not like that. I say it this way: all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) have no inherent existence (svabhava). Because they have no inherent existence, they can be said to be empty (sunya). Why is that? If a statement of no inherent existence could refute no inherent existence, then all dharmas would become inherently existent. Just as saying 'Be quiet' can stop other sounds, similarly, a statement of no inherent existence can negate dharmas without inherent existence. If no inherent existence is negated in this way, then all dharmas would become inherently existent. If there were inherent existence, then all dharmas would not be empty. I speak of the emptiness of dharmas, not the non-emptiness. This is the analogy. The verse says: 'If a man were to mistakenly take an illusory woman's body and develop desire for it, the meaning is also like this.' What does this verse mean? Like an illusory woman, who is truly empty of inherent existence. If a man were to think that an illusory woman's body is real and develop desire for it, then falsely grasping at dharmas is also like that. Or, a Tathagata (Buddha), a disciple of the Tathagata, or a Sravaka (listener, disciple) might, in order to turn that person away from their false grasping, or through the power of the Tathagata's majestic virtue, or the power of the Tathagata's disciples or Sravakas, create an illusion. Just like that, the emptiness of language is like an illusion. Just as an illusory woman has no inherent existence and is empty, dharmas are also empty in this way. Grasping at the inherent existence of dharmas can obstruct and turn it around. In this way, this analogy of emptiness can establish the meaning of emptiness. What I say is consistent, not what you say. The verse says: 'Being produced together is not established, because there is no cause in the echo. I rely on conventional truth (samvriti-satya), therefore I speak in this way.' What does this verse mean? If you were to say that, like 'Be quiet,' it is produced by the same cause, why is that? Because the cause cannot be separated from the fact that all dharmas have no inherent existence. That echo has no inherent existence because it arises from conditions (hetu-pratyaya), therefore it has no inherent existence. If there is no inherent existence, and you say that a sound can stop a sound, then that reasoning is flawed. Moreover, what I say does not contradict conventional truth, nor does it abandon conventional truth. Relying on conventional truth, I can say that the nature of all dharmas is empty. If one departs from conventional truth, dharmas cannot be spoken of. The Buddha said in a verse: 'If one does not rely on conventional truth, one cannot realize ultimate truth (paramartha-satya); if one does not realize ultimate truth, one cannot realize Nirvana.' What does this verse mean? Such dharmas are not...

是不空。一切諸法皆無自體。此二無異。又復汝說偈言。

汝謂遮所遮　　如是亦不然　如是汝宗相　　自壞則非我

此偈。我今答。偈言。

若我宗有者　　我則是有過　我宗無物故　　如是不得過

此偈明何義。若我宗有則有宗相。若我有宗有宗相者。我則得汝向所說過。如是非我有宗。如是諸法實寂靜故。本性空故。何處有宗。如是宗相為於何處宗相可得。我無宗相何得咎我。是故汝言。汝有宗相得過咎者。是義不然。又復汝說偈言。

若彼現是有　　汝可得有回　彼現亦是無　　云何得取回　說現比阿含　　譬喻等四量　現比阿含成　　譬喻亦能成

此偈。我今答。偈言。

若我取轉回　　則須用現等　取轉回有過　　不爾云何過

此偈明何義。我若如是少有法物。則須現比阿含譬喻如是四量。復有四量。我若如是取轉回者。我則有過。我既不取少法轉回。若我如是不轉不回。汝若如是與我過者。是義不然。若現等量復有量成量則無窮。汝如是義不能咎我。又復有義。偈言。

若量能成法　　彼復有量成　汝說何處量　　而能成此量

此偈明何義。若汝意謂量能成物。如量所量。現比阿含喻等四量。復以何量成此四量。若此四量更無量成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是不空（Amoghavajra）。一切諸法都沒有自性（svabhāva）。這兩種說法沒有區別。而且，你又說了偈頌：『你認為遮遣（pratiṣedha）了所遮遣的，像這樣也是不對的。像這樣你的宗派（宗相，svasiddhānta）的特徵，自己崩壞了，那就不是我的了。』對於這個偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『如果我的宗派有東西，我就會有過失。我的宗派什麼都沒有，像這樣就不會有過失。』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果我的宗派有東西，那就會有宗派的特徵。如果我的宗派有宗派的特徵，那我就會得到你先前所說的過失。像這樣我沒有宗派。像這樣諸法實際上是寂靜的，本性是空（śūnyatā）的，哪裡會有宗派呢？像這樣宗派的特徵在哪裡可以得到呢？我沒有宗派的特徵，怎麼能責怪我呢？所以你說，你有宗派的特徵，所以有過失，這個說法是不對的。而且，你又說了偈頌：『如果那個現在是有的，你就可以進行反駁（回，nivṛtti）。那個現在也是沒有的，怎麼能進行反駁呢？』『說現量（pratyakṣa）、比量（anumāna）、阿含量（āgama）、譬喻量（upamā）等四種量。現量、比量、阿含量成立，譬喻量也能成立。』對於這個偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『如果我採取反駁，就需要用現量等。採取反駁有過失，不這樣怎麼會有過失呢？』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果我像這樣稍微有一點法物，就需要現量、比量、阿含量、譬喻量這四種量。再加上四種量。如果我像這樣採取反駁，我就會有過失。我既然不採取任何法進行反駁。如果我像這樣不反駁不回擊，你如果像這樣給我過失，這個說法是不對的。如果現量等量再加上量，那麼量就無窮無盡了。你像這樣的說法不能責怪我。而且還有這樣的意義。偈頌說：『如果量能夠成立法，那麼那個法又需要有量來成立。你說什麼地方的量，能夠成立這個量呢？』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果你認為量能夠成立事物，比如量所量，現量、比量、阿含量、譬喻量等四種量，又用什麼量來成立這四種量呢？如果這四種量不再有量來成立，

【English Translation】 English version: It is Amoghavajra (不空). All dharmas are without self-nature (svabhāva). These two are not different. Moreover, you said in a verse: 'You say that the negation (pratiṣedha) of what is to be negated is also not right. Like this, the characteristics of your own tenet (宗相, svasiddhānta) collapse by themselves, then it is not mine.' To this verse, I now answer. The verse says: 'If my tenet has something, then I will have faults. My tenet has nothing, so like this, there will be no faults.' What meaning does this verse explain? If my tenet has something, then there will be characteristics of the tenet. If my tenet has the characteristics of the tenet, then I will have the faults you mentioned earlier. Like this, I have no tenet. Like this, all dharmas are actually tranquil, and their nature is emptiness (śūnyatā), where would there be a tenet? Like this, where can the characteristics of the tenet be obtained? I have no characteristics of the tenet, how can you blame me? So you say that you have the characteristics of the tenet, so there are faults, this statement is not right. Moreover, you said in a verse: 'If that is currently existent, you can make a refutation (回, nivṛtti). That is also currently non-existent, how can you make a refutation?' 'Say the four kinds of valid cognition (量, pramāṇa) such as perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), scriptural testimony (āgama), and analogy (upamā). Perception, inference, and scriptural testimony are established, and analogy can also be established.' To this verse, I now answer. The verse says: 'If I take back a refutation, then I need to use perception and so on. Taking back a refutation has faults, if not, how can there be faults?' What meaning does this verse explain? If I have even a little bit of dharma like this, then I need these four valid cognitions: perception, inference, scriptural testimony, and analogy. Plus four more valid cognitions. If I take back a refutation like this, then I will have faults. Since I do not take back any dharma. If I do not refute or counter like this, if you give me faults like this, this statement is not right. If perception and other valid cognitions are added to the valid cognitions, then the valid cognitions will be endless. Your statement like this cannot blame me. Moreover, there is such a meaning. The verse says: 'If a valid cognition can establish a dharma, then that dharma needs a valid cognition to establish it. You say what kind of valid cognition can establish this valid cognition?' What meaning does this verse explain? If you think that a valid cognition can establish things, such as the valid cognition and what is cognized, the four valid cognitions such as perception, inference, scriptural testimony, and analogy, then what valid cognition is used to establish these four valid cognitions? If these four valid cognitions are no longer established by valid cognitions,

。量自不成。若自不成能成物者。汝宗則壞。若量復有異量成者。量則無窮。若無窮者則非初成非中后成。何以故。若量能成所量物者。彼量復有異量來成彼量。復有異量成故。如是。無初。若無初者如是無中。若無中者何處有後。如是若說彼量復有異量成者。是義不然。偈言。

若量離量成　　汝諍義則失　如是則有過　　應更說勝因

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。量離量成。所量之物為量成者。若如是諍量成所量。汝則有過。有物量成有不量成。若如是者應說勝因。若說勝因則可得知。何者量成何者不成。汝不能示如是分別。義不相應。此我今說。如有人言。我所說量自他能成。而說偈言。

猶如火明故　　能自照照他　彼量亦如是　　自他二俱成

此偈明何義。如火自照亦能照他。量亦如是。自成成他。我今答彼偈言。

汝語言有過　　非是火自照　以彼不相應　　如見闇中瓶

此偈明何義。彼量如火自他能成難不相應。何以故。非火自照。如初未照闇中瓶等不可得見。以火照已然後得見。如是如是。若火自照。初火應闇后時乃明。如是得言火能自照。若初火明則不得言火能自照。如是分別火自他照義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

又若汝說言　　火自他能照　如火能燒

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果量自身不能成立，如果它自身不能成立卻能成立其他事物，那麼你的宗義就崩潰了。如果量需要另一個量來成立，那麼量就會無窮無盡。如果無窮無盡，那麼就既不是最初成立，也不是中間成立，也不是最後成立。為什麼呢？如果量能夠成立所量的物體，那麼這個量又需要另一個量來成立它，如此反覆，沒有開始。如果沒有開始，那麼就沒有中間，如果沒有中間，哪裡會有最後呢？因此，如果說這個量需要另一個量來成立，這種說法是不對的。偈語說：『如果量離開量而成立，你的爭論意義就喪失了，這樣就會有過失，應該進一步說明殊勝的原因。』這句偈語說明了什麼意義呢？如果你的意思是，量離開量而成立，所量的物體被量所成立，如果像這樣爭論量成立所量，你就會有過失，因為有些事物被量成立，有些事物不被量成立。如果是這樣，就應該說明殊勝的原因，如果說明殊勝的原因，就可以知道哪些是被量成立的，哪些是不被量成立的。你不能展示這樣的分別，意義不相應。這是我現在要說的。就像有人說，我所說的量，自身和他人都能成立，並且說了偈語：『就像火的光明，能夠自己照亮，也能照亮其他事物，那個量也是這樣，自身和他人都能成立。』這句偈語說明了什麼意義呢？就像火自己照亮，也能照亮其他事物，量也是這樣，自己成立，也成立其他事物。我現在回答他的偈語說：『你的語言有過失，不是火自己照亮自己，因為這不相應，就像看到黑暗中的瓶子。』這句偈語說明了什麼意義呢？那個量像火一樣，自身和他人都能成立，這種說法不相應。為什麼呢？不是火自己照亮自己。比如，最初沒有被照亮的黑暗中的瓶子等，是無法看到的，因為火照亮之後才能看到。像這樣，如果火自己照亮自己，最初火應該是黑暗的，之後才明亮，這樣才能說火能夠自己照亮自己。如果最初火就是明亮的，就不能說火能夠自己照亮自己。像這樣分別，火自己照亮自己和他人的意義是不相應的。還有另一種意義，偈語說：『又如果你說，火自己和他人都能照亮，就像火能夠燃燒』

【English Translation】 English version: If a 'measure' (量) [means of knowing, proof, or standard] cannot establish itself, and if it cannot establish itself yet can establish other things, then your doctrine collapses. If a 'measure' requires another 'measure' to be established, then 'measures' would be endless. If they are endless, then there is no initial establishment, no middle establishment, and no final establishment. Why? If a 'measure' can establish the object being measured, then that 'measure' requires another 'measure' to establish it, and so on, without beginning. If there is no beginning, then there is no middle, and if there is no middle, where is the end? Therefore, if you say that a 'measure' requires another 'measure' to be established, this statement is incorrect. A verse says: 'If a 'measure' is established apart from another 'measure', your argument loses its meaning. Thus, there is a fault, and you should further explain the superior cause.' What does this verse mean? If you mean that a 'measure' is established apart from another 'measure', and the object being measured is established by the 'measure', if you argue in this way about the 'measure' establishing the measured, you will have a fault, because some things are established by 'measure' and some are not. If this is the case, you should explain the superior cause. If you explain the superior cause, you can know which are established by 'measure' and which are not. You cannot show such a distinction, and the meaning is not consistent. This is what I am saying now. It is like someone saying, 'The 'measure' I speak of can establish itself and others,' and saying a verse: 'Just like the light of fire, it can illuminate itself and illuminate others. The 'measure' is also like this, establishing itself and establishing others.' What does this verse mean? Just like fire illuminates itself and can also illuminate others, the 'measure' is also like this, establishing itself and establishing others. I now answer his verse: 'Your language has a fault; fire does not illuminate itself, because this is inconsistent, like seeing a bottle in the dark.' What does this verse mean? That the 'measure', like fire, can establish itself and others is inconsistent. Why? Fire does not illuminate itself. For example, a bottle in the dark that has not been illuminated is not visible, because it can only be seen after the fire illuminates it. Like this, if fire illuminates itself, the initial fire should be dark, and only later become bright, then it can be said that fire can illuminate itself. If the initial fire is bright, then it cannot be said that fire can illuminate itself. Distinguishing in this way, the meaning of fire illuminating itself and others is inconsistent. There is another meaning, a verse says: 'Also, if you say that fire can illuminate itself and others, just like fire can burn'

他　　何故不自燒

此偈明何義。若汝說言。如火自照亦能照他。如是如是自照照他。如是如是既能燒他亦應自燒。而實不見有如是事。若說彼火自他能照義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

又若汝說言　　火能自他照　闇亦應如是　　自他二俱覆

此偈明何義。若汝說言。火自他照能卻闇者。闇何以不自他皆覆。而實不見有如是事。若說彼火自他照者義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

於火中無闇　　何處自他住　彼闇能殺明　　火雲何有明

此偈明何義。火中無闇火處無闇。云何名為明能破闇。若彼火中如是無闇。何處有闇火能破闇。若當無闇可破滅者。云何而得自他俱照。此我今說。若如是者非火中闇非火處闇。如是如是火自他照。彼火生時即能破闇。如是火中無闇火處無闇。如是火生能照自他。此我今說。偈言。

如是火生時　　即生時能照　火生即到闇　　義則不相應

此偈明何義。若火生時能自他照義不相應。何以知之。如是初火不能到闇。何以知之。若未到闇不能破闇。若不破闇不得有明。偈言。

若火不到闇　　而能破闇者　火在此處住　　應破一切闇

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。火不到闇能破闇者。火此處住則應能破一切世間所有處闇。何以故。俱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本他為何不自我焚燒？

此偈說明什麼道理？如果你說，如同火能照亮自己也能照亮他人，像這樣，像這樣既能照亮自己也能照亮他人。既然這樣，它也應該能自我焚燒。但實際上並沒有看到這樣的事情發生。如果說那火能照亮自己和他人，這個道理是不相應的。還有另一種說法，偈語說：

又如果你說，火能照亮自己和他人，那麼黑暗也應該像這樣，自己和他人全都覆蓋。

此偈說明什麼道理？如果你說，火能照亮自己和他人，能夠驅除黑暗，那麼黑暗為什麼不能自己和他人全都覆蓋呢？但實際上並沒有看到這樣的事情發生。如果說那火能照亮自己和他人，這個道理是不相應的。還有另一種說法，偈語說：

在火中沒有黑暗，黑暗在哪裡安住自身和他處？那黑暗能消滅光明，火又怎麼會有光明？

此偈說明什麼道理？火中沒有黑暗，火所在的地方沒有黑暗，怎麼能說光明能破除黑暗呢？如果那火中像這樣沒有黑暗，哪裡有黑暗讓火去破除呢？如果根本沒有黑暗可以破滅，又怎麼能照亮自己和他人呢？我現在這樣說，如果像這樣，不是火中有黑暗，也不是火所在的地方有黑暗，像這樣，像這樣火就能照亮自己和他人。那火產生的時候就能破除黑暗。像這樣，火中沒有黑暗，火所在的地方沒有黑暗，像這樣火產生就能照亮自己和他人。我現在這樣說。偈語說：

像這樣火產生的時候，就在產生的時候能照亮，火產生就到達黑暗，這個道理是不相應的。

此偈說明什麼道理？如果火產生的時候能照亮自己和他人，這個道理是不相應的。為什麼知道呢？像這樣，最初的火不能到達黑暗。為什麼知道呢？如果未到達黑暗就不能破除黑暗。如果不破除黑暗，就不能有光明。偈語說：

如果火不到達黑暗，而能破除黑暗，火在這裡安住，就應該破除一切黑暗。

此偈說明什麼道理？如果你認為，火不到達黑暗也能破除黑暗，火住在這裡就應該能破除世間所有地方的黑暗。為什麼呢？都是...

【English Translation】 English version Why doesn't it burn itself?

What meaning does this verse convey? If you say, like fire illuminates itself and also illuminates others, in this way, in this way it illuminates both itself and others. Since it can burn others, it should also burn itself. But in reality, we don't see such a thing happening. If you say that fire illuminates both itself and others, this reasoning is not consistent. There is another meaning, as the verse says:

Furthermore, if you say that fire can illuminate itself and others, then darkness should also, in the same way, cover both itself and others.

What meaning does this verse convey? If you say that fire illuminates itself and others and can dispel darkness, then why can't darkness cover both itself and others? But in reality, we don't see such a thing happening. If you say that fire illuminates both itself and others, this reasoning is not consistent. There is another meaning, as the verse says:

In fire, there is no darkness. Where does darkness reside in itself and elsewhere? That darkness can destroy light. How can fire have light?

What meaning does this verse convey? In fire, there is no darkness; where fire is, there is no darkness. How can it be said that light can dispel darkness? If there is no darkness in the fire like this, where is the darkness for the fire to dispel? If there is no darkness to be destroyed, how can it illuminate both itself and others? I say this now: if it is like this, it is not that there is darkness in the fire, nor is there darkness where the fire is. In this way, in this way, fire can illuminate both itself and others. When that fire arises, it can dispel darkness. In this way, there is no darkness in the fire, and there is no darkness where the fire is. In this way, when fire arises, it can illuminate both itself and others. I say this now. The verse says:

In this way, when fire arises, it can illuminate at the moment of arising. Fire arises and reaches darkness. This reasoning is not consistent.

What meaning does this verse convey? If fire can illuminate both itself and others at the moment of arising, this reasoning is not consistent. How do we know this? In this way, the initial fire cannot reach darkness. How do we know this? If it does not reach darkness, it cannot dispel darkness. If it does not dispel darkness, there cannot be light. The verse says:

If fire does not reach darkness but can dispel darkness, if fire stays here, it should dispel all darkness.

What meaning does this verse convey? If you think that fire can dispel darkness without reaching darkness, if fire stays here, it should be able to dispel darkness in all places in the world. Why? Because both are...

不到故。而實不見有如是事。若俱不到。云何唯能破此處闇。不破世間一切處闇。若汝意謂。火不到闇而能破闇義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

若量能自成　　不待所量成　是則量自成　　非待他能成

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。量與所量如火成者。量則自成不待所量。何以故。若自成者則不待他。若待他者非自成故。此我今說。若不相待何不自成。若待於他則非自成。此我今說。若量不待所量之物為有何過。此我今說。偈言。

不待所量物　　若汝量得成　如是則無人　　用量量諸法

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。不待所量而量得成。則無有人用量量法。有如是過。若何等人須用量者。不待所量而得有量。若不待成彼得何過。則一切法皆不待量。若一切法不待量成。彼得何過。成得言成未成叵成。以無待故。若汝復謂。待所量物量得成者。如是四量皆有待成。何以故。若物未成云何相待。物若已成不須相待。天得未成則不待物。若已成者更不待成。如物已作無作因緣。又復有義。偈言。

若所量之物　　待量而得成　是則所量成　　待量然後成

此偈明何義。若所量物待量而成。是則以量成彼所量。何以故。所成非成量成所量。又復有義。偈言。

若物無量成　　是則不待量

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不到達的緣故。但實際上並沒有看到有這樣的事情。如果都不到達，為什麼唯獨能破除這個地方的黑暗，而不能破除世間一切地方的黑暗呢？如果你認為，火不到達黑暗卻能破除黑暗，這個道理是不相應的。還有另一種說法，偈頌說：『如果量能自己成立，就不依賴於所量之物而成立，那麼量就是自己成立的，而不是依賴於其他事物而成立。』這首偈頌說明了什麼道理？如果你認為，量和所量就像火的成立一樣，量就能自己成立，不需要依賴所量之物。為什麼呢？如果能自己成立，就不依賴於其他事物；如果依賴於其他事物，就不是自己成立的。我現在說，如果不互相依賴，為什麼不能自己成立？如果依賴於其他事物，就不是自己成立的。我現在說，如果量不依賴於所量之物，會有什麼過失呢？我現在說，偈頌說：『如果不依賴於所量之物，你的量就能成立，那麼就沒有人用量來衡量諸法了。』這首偈頌說明了什麼道理？如果你認為，不依賴於所量之物，量就能成立，那麼就沒有人用量來衡量諸法了，會有這樣的過失。如果有什麼人需要使用量呢？不依賴於所量之物就能有量。如果不依賴於成立，那會有什麼過失呢？那麼一切法都不需要量來成立。如果一切法都不需要量來成立，那會有什麼過失呢？成立、未成立、不可成立，因為沒有依賴的緣故。如果你又認為，依賴於所量之物，量才能成立，那麼這四種量都需要依賴才能成立。為什麼呢？如果事物沒有成立，怎麼能相互依賴呢？事物如果已經成立，就不需要相互依賴。還沒有成立，就不依賴於事物；如果已經成立，就不再需要成立，就像事物已經完成，就不需要完成的原因。還有另一種說法，偈頌說：『如果所量之物，依賴於量才能成立，那麼就是用量來成立那個所量之物，依賴於量然後才能成立。』這首偈頌說明了什麼道理？如果所量之物依賴於量才能成立，那麼就是用量來成立那個所量之物。為什麼呢？所成立的不是成立，而是量成立了所量之物。還有另一種說法，偈頌說：『如果事物沒有量也能成立，那麼就不依賴於量。』

【English Translation】 English version: It is not because of reaching. But in reality, there is no such thing seen. If neither reaches, how can it only break the darkness of this place and not break the darkness of all places in the world? If you think that fire not reaching darkness can break darkness, this reasoning is not consistent. Furthermore, there is another meaning, as the verse says: 'If the measure can establish itself, it does not depend on the measured object to be established. Then the measure is self-established, not dependent on others to establish it.' What does this verse mean? If you think that the measure and the measured object are like the establishment of fire, then the measure can establish itself without depending on the measured object. Why? If it can establish itself, it does not depend on others; if it depends on others, it is not self-established. I say now, if they do not depend on each other, why can't it establish itself? If it depends on others, it is not self-established. I say now, if the measure does not depend on the measured object, what fault is there? I say now, the verse says: 'If your measure can be established without depending on the measured object, then no one would use measure to measure all dharmas (phenomena, laws).' What does this verse mean? If you think that the measure can be established without depending on the measured object, then no one would use measure to measure dharmas, and there would be such a fault. If someone needs to use measure, they can have measure without depending on the measured object. If it does not depend on establishment, what fault is there? Then all dharmas do not need measure to be established. If all dharmas do not need measure to be established, what fault is there? Established, not established, and un-establishable, because there is no dependence. If you think again that the measure can be established by depending on the measured object, then these four measures all need dependence to be established. Why? If the object is not established, how can they depend on each other? If the object is already established, it does not need to depend on each other. If it is not yet established, it does not depend on the object; if it is already established, it no longer needs establishment, just like when an object is already made, there is no cause for making it. Furthermore, there is another meaning, as the verse says: 'If the measured object depends on the measure to be established, then the measure establishes that measured object, depending on the measure to be established.' What does this verse mean? If the measured object depends on the measure to be established, then the measure establishes that measured object. Why? What is established is not establishment, but the measure establishes the measured object. Furthermore, there is another meaning, as the verse says: 'If an object can be established without measure, then it does not depend on measure.'

汝何用量成　　彼量何所成

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。不待彼量所量成者。汝今何用求量而成。何以故。彼量義者為何所求。彼所量物離量成者。彼量何用。又復有義。偈言。

若汝彼量成　　待所量成者　是則量所量　　如是不相離

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。待所量物是故有量。畏有前過。汝若如是量所量一不得相離。汝若如是量即所量。何以知之。所量成量所量即量。量成所量量所量一。偈言。

若量成所量　　若所量成量　汝若如是者　　二種俱不成

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。量成所量見待量故。所量成量見待所量。汝若如是二俱不成。何以故。偈言。

量能成所量　　所量能成量　若義如是者　　云何能相成

此偈明何義。若量能成所量之物。彼所量物能成量者。量自未成因緣不成。云何能成所量之物。又復有義。偈言。

所量能成量　　量能成所量　若義如是者　　云何能相成

此偈明何義。若所量物能成彼量。彼量能成所量之物。所量未成因緣不成。云何成量。偈言。

為是父生子　　為是子生父　何者是能生　　何者是所生

此偈明何義。如有人言父能生子。彼若如是子亦生父。汝今為說。何者能生何者所生。汝如是說。量成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『你用什麼來成立量（pramana，認識的工具）？』『那個量又是由什麼成立的？』

這首偈頌闡明了什麼意義？如果你的意思是，不需要依靠所量（prameya，被認識的對象）量就能成立，那你現在又為何要尋求量來成立呢？為什麼呢？那個量的意義是爲了尋求什麼？如果那個所量之物離開了量就能成立，那量又有什麼用呢？還有另一種意義，偈頌說：

『如果你的那個量，需要依靠所量才能成立，那麼量和所量，就像這樣不能分離。』

這首偈頌闡明了什麼意義？如果你的意思是，因為有被量之物，所以才有量，害怕前面所說的過失。如果你這樣認為，量和所量就不能分離。如果你這樣認為，量就是所量。憑什麼知道呢？所量成立量，所量就是量。量成立所量，量和所量是一體的。偈頌說：

『如果量成立所量，如果所量成立量，如果你這樣認為，那麼兩者都不能成立。』

這首偈頌闡明了什麼意義？如果你的意思是，量成立所量，是因為依賴於量；所量成立量，是因為依賴於所量。如果你這樣認為，那麼兩者都不能成立。為什麼呢？偈頌說：

『量能夠成立所量，所量能夠成立量，如果意義是這樣，怎麼能夠相互成立呢？』

這首偈頌闡明了什麼意義？如果量能夠成立所量之物，那個所量之物能夠成立量，量自身尚未成立，因緣也不成立，怎麼能夠成立所量之物呢？還有另一種意義，偈頌說：

『所量能夠成立量，量能夠成立所量，如果意義是這樣，怎麼能夠相互成立呢？』

這首偈頌闡明了什麼意義？如果所量之物能夠成立那個量，那個量能夠成立所量之物，所量尚未成立，因緣也不成立，怎麼能夠成立量呢？偈頌說：

『是父親生兒子，還是兒子生父親？哪個是能生的，哪個是被生的？』

這首偈頌闡明了什麼意義？比如有人說父親能生兒子，如果這樣，兒子也能生父親。你現在說說，哪個是能生的，哪個是被生的？你這樣說，量成立

【English Translation】 English version 『By what do you establish the pramana (means of knowledge)?』『And by what is that pramana established?』

What meaning does this verse clarify? If you mean that the pramana is established without depending on the prameya (object of knowledge), then why do you now seek to establish it with a pramana? Why? What is the meaning of that pramana that you seek? If that prameya is established without depending on the pramana, then what is the use of the pramana? There is also another meaning, as the verse says:

『If your pramana is established depending on the prameya, then the pramana and the prameya are inseparable like this.』

What meaning does this verse clarify? If you mean that the pramana exists because there is an object to be measured, fearing the previous fault. If you think so, the pramana and the prameya cannot be separated. If you think so, the pramana is the prameya. How do you know? The prameya establishes the pramana, the prameya is the pramana. The pramana establishes the prameya, the pramana and the prameya are one. The verse says:

『If the pramana establishes the prameya, if the prameya establishes the pramana, if you think so, then both cannot be established.』

What meaning does this verse clarify? If you mean that the pramana establishes the prameya because it depends on the pramana; the prameya establishes the pramana because it depends on the prameya. If you think so, then both cannot be established. Why? The verse says:

『The pramana can establish the prameya, the prameya can establish the pramana, if the meaning is like this, how can they establish each other?』

What meaning does this verse clarify? If the pramana can establish the object of knowledge, and that object of knowledge can establish the pramana, the pramana itself is not yet established, and the conditions are not established, how can it establish the object of knowledge? There is also another meaning, as the verse says:

『The prameya can establish the pramana, the pramana can establish the prameya, if the meaning is like this, how can they establish each other?』

What meaning does this verse clarify? If the object of knowledge can establish that pramana, and that pramana can establish the object of knowledge, the object of knowledge is not yet established, and the conditions are not established, how can it establish the pramana? The verse says:

『Is it the father who gives birth to the son, or is it the son who gives birth to the father? Which is the one who gives birth, and which is the one who is born?』

What meaning does this verse clarify? For example, someone says that the father can give birth to the son, if so, the son can also give birth to the father. Now you tell me, which is the one who gives birth, and which is the one who is born? You say like this, the pramana establishes

所量所量成量。汝今為說。何者能成何者所成。又復有義。偈言。

為何者是父　　為何者是子　汝說此二種　　父子相可疑

此偈明何義。前說二種所謂父子。何者為父何者為子。父子二相若相待生彼則可疑。何者為父何者為子。如是如是。若汝說此量與所量。彼何者量何者所量。此之二種若能成物可得言量。若物可成得言所量則不疑雲何者是量何者所量。如是能成可得言量。如是可成得言所量。此則不疑。何者是量何者所量。偈言。

量非能自成　　非是自他成　非是異量成　　非無因緣成

此偈明何義。如是量非自成。現非現成。比非比成。喻非喻成。阿含亦爾非阿含成。非是自他迭互相成。現非比喻阿含等成。比非現喻阿含等成。喻非現比阿含等成。阿含非現比喻等成。非異現比譬喻阿含別有現比譬喻阿含異量來成。如量自分和合不成。自他境界和合不成。非無因成非聚整合。此之因緣如先所說。二十三十或四五六。二十三十四十五十或有六十。若汝所說以有量故得言所量。有量所量證一切法皆有自體義不相應。又復汝說偈言。

智人知法說　　善法有自體　世人知有體　　余法亦如是　出法出自體　　是聖人所說　如是不出法　　不出法自體

此偈。我今答。偈

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所量和量成就量。你現在說說，什麼能夠成就什麼，什麼被什麼成就。還有另外一個含義，偈語說：『什麼是父親，什麼是兒子？你說這兩種關係，父親和兒子之間存在可疑之處。』這句偈語說明了什麼？前面說了兩種關係，即父親和兒子。誰是父親，誰是兒子？如果父親和兒子的關係是相互依賴而產生的，那麼就存在疑問。誰是父親，誰是兒子？就是這樣。如果你說量和所量，那麼什麼是量，什麼又是所量？如果這兩種東西能夠成就事物，就可以說是量。如果事物可以被成就，就可以說是所量，那麼就不會懷疑什麼是量，什麼是所量。像這樣，能夠成就事物就可以說是量，像這樣，可以被成就的事物就可以說是所量。這樣就不會懷疑什麼是量，什麼是所量。偈語說：『量不是自己成就的，也不是自己和他者共同成就的，不是通過其他量成就的，也不是沒有因緣而成就的。』這句偈語說明了什麼？像這樣，量不是自己成就的。現量不是通過現量成就的，比量不是通過比量成就的，譬喻量不是通過譬喻量成就的，阿含量也不是通過阿含量成就的。也不是自己和他者相互交替成就的。現量不是通過比量、譬喻量、阿含量等成就的，比量不是通過現量、譬喻量、阿含量等成就的，譬喻量不是通過現量、比量、阿含量等成就的，阿含量不是通過現量、比量、譬喻量等成就的。也不是通過與現量、比量、譬喻量、阿含量不同的其他量來成就的。如同量自身的分和合不能成就，自身和他者的境界和合也不能成就。不是沒有原因地成就，也不是聚集在一起就能成就。這些因緣就像先前所說的，二十、三十，或者四、五、六，二十、三十、四十五十，或者有六十。如果你說因為有量，所以才能說有所量，那麼用量和所量來證明一切法都有自體的觀點是不恰當的。而且你還說了偈語：『智者了解法並宣說，善法具有自體（svabhāva）。世人知道有自體，其他法也是如此。超越法，超越自體，這是聖人所說的。如果不超越法，就不超越法的自體。』這句偈語，我現在回答。偈語

【English Translation】 English version: That which is measured and the measure accomplish measurement. You now explain, what can accomplish what, and what is accomplished by what. Furthermore, there is another meaning, as the verse says: 'What is the father, and what is the son? You speak of these two relationships, the father-son relationship is questionable.' What does this verse mean? Earlier, two relationships were mentioned, namely father and son. Who is the father, and who is the son? If the father-son relationship arises dependently on each other, then there is doubt. Who is the father, and who is the son? Just so. If you speak of measure and that which is measured, then what is the measure, and what is that which is measured? If these two can accomplish things, then it can be said to be a measure. If things can be accomplished, then it can be said to be that which is measured, then there will be no doubt as to what is the measure and what is that which is measured. Thus, that which can accomplish can be said to be the measure. Thus, that which can be accomplished can be said to be that which is measured. Then there is no doubt as to what is the measure and what is that which is measured. The verse says: 'The measure is not self-accomplished, nor is it accomplished by itself and others, nor is it accomplished by a different measure, nor is it accomplished without causes and conditions.' What does this verse mean? Thus, the measure is not self-accomplished. Direct perception (pratyakṣa) is not accomplished by direct perception, inference (anumāna) is not accomplished by inference, analogy (upamāna) is not accomplished by analogy, the Āgama (āgama) is not accomplished by the Āgama. Nor is it accomplished by itself and others alternately. Direct perception is not accomplished by inference, analogy, the Āgama, etc. Inference is not accomplished by direct perception, analogy, the Āgama, etc. Analogy is not accomplished by direct perception, inference, the Āgama, etc. The Āgama is not accomplished by direct perception, inference, analogy, etc. Nor is it accomplished by a different measure that is different from direct perception, inference, analogy, and the Āgama. Just as the division and combination of the measure itself cannot accomplish it, the combination of the realms of itself and others cannot accomplish it. It is not accomplished without a cause, nor is it accomplished by mere aggregation. These causes and conditions are as previously stated, twenty, thirty, or four, five, six, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or even sixty. If you say that because there is a measure, therefore it can be said that there is that which is measured, then using measure and that which is measured to prove that all dharmas have their own self-nature (svabhāva) is inappropriate. Moreover, you also said in the verse: 'The wise know the Dharma and proclaim it, good dharmas have self-nature (svabhāva). Worldly people know that there is self-nature, and other dharmas are also like this. Transcending the Dharma, transcending self-nature, this is what the saints say. If one does not transcend the Dharma, one does not transcend the self-nature of the Dharma.' To this verse, I now reply. Verse

言。

若法師所說　　善法有自體　此善法自體　　法應分分說

此偈明何義。若彼法師。謂彼善法有自體者。應分分說此善自體。此之善法如彼善心。善心自體如是如是。一切諸法不如是見。若如是說亦法自體義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

若善法自體　　從於因緣生　善法是他體　　云何是自體

此偈明何義。若善法體從於因緣和合而生。彼是他體。善法雲何得有自體。如善法體余亦如是。若汝說言如彼善法善法自體。如是不善不善體等義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

若少有善法　　不從因緣生　善法若如是　　無住梵行處

此偈明何義。若汝意謂。少有善法不因緣生。如是不善不善自體。無記無記自體。若當如是無住梵行。何以故。汝若如是。是則舍離十二因緣。若當舍離十二因緣。是則舍見十二因緣。若如是無十二因緣。則不得見十二因緣。如其不見十二因緣。不得見法。世尊說言。若比丘見十二因緣。彼則見法。若不見法不住梵行。若離如是十二因緣。則離苦集。十二因緣是苦集故。若離苦集是則離苦。若無集者何處有苦。若無苦者云何有滅。若無苦滅當於何處修苦滅道。若如是者無四聖諦。無四聖諦則亦無有聲聞道果。見四聖諦如是則證聲聞道果。無聲聞果無住梵

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：言。

若法師所說，善法有自體，此善法自體，法應分分說。

此偈說明什麼意義？如果那位法師說，善法具有自體，那麼就應該詳細地、分門別類地說明這個善的自體。這個善法就像那個善心一樣，善心的自體是如此這般。一切諸法不應如此看待。如果這樣說，也與法自體的意義不符。另外還有一種解釋，偈頌說：

若善法自體，從於因緣生，善法是他體，云何是自體。

此偈說明什麼意義？如果善法的本體是從因緣和合而生，那麼它就是他體。善法怎麼能有自體呢？如同善法的本體一樣，其餘的法也是如此。如果你說，如同那個善法一樣，善法有自體，那麼不善法有不善的自體等等，這樣的說法在意義上是不相應的。另外還有一種解釋，偈頌說：

若少有善法，不從因緣生，善法若如是，無住梵行處。

此偈說明什麼意義？如果你認為，少許的善法不是從因緣而生，如同不善法有不善的自體，無記法有無記的自體。如果真是這樣，那就沒有安住梵行的地方了。為什麼呢？如果你這樣認為，那就是捨棄了十二因緣（Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada，佛教關於生命輪迴的理論）。如果捨棄了十二因緣，那就是捨棄了對十二因緣的見解。如果這樣就沒有十二因緣，也就不能見到十二因緣。如果不能見到十二因緣，就不能見到法（Dharma，佛法）。世尊（Bhagavan，對佛的尊稱）說，如果比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）見到十二因緣，他就見到了法。如果不能見到法，就不能安住梵行。如果離開了這樣的十二因緣，就離開了苦集（Dukkha-samudaya，苦的生起）。十二因緣是苦集的原因。如果離開了苦集，就是離開了苦（Dukkha，痛苦）。如果沒有集，哪裡會有苦？如果沒有苦，又怎麼會有滅（Nirodha，涅槃）？如果沒有苦滅，又在哪裡修習苦滅之道（Dukkha-nirodha-marga，通往涅槃的道路）？如果這樣，就沒有四聖諦（Arya-satyani，佛教的基本教義）。沒有四聖諦，也就沒有聲聞道果（Sravaka-phala，阿羅漢果）。見到四聖諦，就能證得聲聞道果。沒有聲聞果，就不能安住梵行。

【English Translation】 English version: Statement.

If the Dharma master says, 'Good Dharma has its own self-nature,' this good Dharma's self-nature should be explained part by part.

What does this verse mean? If that Dharma master says that good Dharma has its own self-nature, then this good self-nature should be explained in detail, part by part. This good Dharma is like that good mind; the self-nature of the good mind is such and such. All Dharmas should not be viewed in this way. If it is said like this, it is also inconsistent with the meaning of Dharma's self-nature. Furthermore, there is another meaning. The verse says:

If good Dharma's self-nature arises from causes and conditions, good Dharma is 'other' in nature; how can it be 'self' in nature?

What does this verse mean? If the essence of good Dharma arises from the combination of causes and conditions, then it is 'other' in nature. How can good Dharma have its own self-nature? Just like the essence of good Dharma, the rest are also like this. If you say that just like that good Dharma, good Dharma has its own self-nature, then saying that non-good Dharma has non-good self-nature, etc., is inconsistent in meaning. Furthermore, there is another meaning. The verse says:

If there is a little good Dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions, if good Dharma is like this, there is no place to abide in pure conduct (Brahmacharya).

What does this verse mean? If you think that a little good Dharma does not arise from causes and conditions, just like non-good Dharma has non-good self-nature, and indeterminate (avyākrta) Dharma has indeterminate self-nature. If it is like this, then there is no place to abide in pure conduct. Why? If you think like this, then you are abandoning the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada, the Buddhist theory of the cycle of life). If you abandon the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, then you are abandoning the view of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. If there are no Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, then one cannot see the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. If one cannot see the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, one cannot see the Dharma (Dharma, Buddhist teachings). The World Honored One (Bhagavan, a respectful term for the Buddha) said, 'If a Bhikkhu (Bhikkhu, Buddhist monk) sees the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, then he sees the Dharma. If he cannot see the Dharma, he cannot abide in pure conduct.' If one departs from such Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, then one departs from the arising of suffering (Dukkha-samudaya, the origination of suffering). The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are the cause of the arising of suffering. If one departs from the arising of suffering, then one departs from suffering (Dukkha, suffering). If there is no arising, where will there be suffering? If there is no cessation of suffering, where will one cultivate the path to the cessation of suffering (Dukkha-nirodha-marga, the path to Nirvana)? If it is like this, there are no Four Noble Truths (Arya-satyani, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism). If there are no Four Noble Truths, then there is also no fruit of the path of the Hearer (Sravaka-phala, the fruit of Arhatship). Seeing the Four Noble Truths, one can attain the fruit of the path of the Hearer. Without the fruit of the Hearer, one cannot abide in pure conduct.

行。又復有義。偈言。

非法非非法　　世間法亦無　有自體則當　　常則無因緣

此偈明何義。若當如是離於因緣和合生者。汝得多過。以不得法及非法故。一切世間法皆不可得。何以故。因緣和合生一切法。以一切法皆從因緣和合而生。若無因緣和合生者。則一切法皆不可得。又復自體不從因緣和合而生。無因緣有則是常法。何以故。無因緣法則是常故。彼若如是無住梵行。又復汝法自有過失。何以故。世尊所說。一切有為皆悉無常。彼何自體皆悉無常。偈言。

善不善無記　　一切有為法　如汝說則常　　汝有如是過

此偈明何義。若說善法有法自體。不善無記亦如是說。若如是者。汝說一切有為法常。何以故。法若無因無生住滅。無生住滅非有為法。則一切法皆是無為。若說善等一切諸法皆有自體。則一切法皆悉不空。義不相應。又復汝說偈言。

諸法若無體　　無體不得名　有自體有名　　唯名云何名

此偈。我今答。偈言。

若人說有名　　語言有自體　彼人汝可難　　語名我不實

此偈明何義。若何人說名有自體。彼人如是汝則得難。彼人說言。有體有名無體無名。我不如是說有名體。何以知之。一切諸法皆無自體。若無自體彼得言空。彼若空者得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：還有另外一種含義。偈語說：

『既不是有法也不是非法，世間法也不存在。如果存在自性，那麼就應該是常法，因為沒有因緣。』

這首偈語說明了什麼含義？如果像你所說的那樣，脫離因緣和合而產生，你就會有很多過失。因為你既得不到有法也得不到非法，一切世間法都不可得。為什麼呢？因為一切法都是因緣和合而生。如果一切法不是從因緣和合而生，那麼一切法都不可得。而且，自性不是從因緣和合而生，沒有因緣而有，那就是常法。為什麼呢？因為沒有因緣的法就是常法。如果那樣，就沒有安住的梵行（brahmacarya，清凈行）。而且你的法自身也有過失。為什麼呢？世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）說過，一切有為法（saṃskṛta，有條件的事物）都是無常的。那麼，你所說的自性也都是無常的。偈語說：

『善、不善、無記（avyākṛta，既非善亦非惡）一切有為法，如果像你所說的那樣，就是常法，你就有這樣的過失。』

這首偈語說明了什麼含義？如果說善法有法自性，不善和無記也這樣說。如果這樣，你說一切有為法都是常法。為什麼呢？因為法如果沒有因、沒有生住滅，沒有生住滅就不是有為法，那麼一切法都是無為法（asaṃskṛta，無條件的事物）。如果說善等一切諸法都有自性，那麼一切法都不是空（śūnyatā，空性）。意義不相應。而且，你說偈語：

『如果諸法沒有自性，沒有自性就不能得名。有自性就有名，只有名，又如何有名呢？』

這首偈語，我現在回答。偈語說：

『如果有人說有名，語言有自性，你可以去詰難那個人，我說名不是真實的。』

這首偈語說明了什麼含義？如果有人說名有自性，你就可以去詰難那個人。那個人說，有自性就有名，沒有自性就沒有名。我不是那樣說名有自性。為什麼知道呢？因為一切諸法都沒有自性。如果沒有自性，就可以說是空。如果說是空，就可以...

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, there is another meaning. The verse says:

'Neither Dharma nor non-Dharma, worldly Dharmas are also non-existent. If there is inherent existence, then it should be permanent, because there is no cause and condition.'

What meaning does this verse clarify? If, as you say, it arises apart from the combination of causes and conditions, you will have many faults. Because you cannot obtain either Dharma or non-Dharma, all worldly Dharmas are unobtainable. Why? Because all Dharmas arise from the combination of causes and conditions. If all Dharmas do not arise from the combination of causes and conditions, then all Dharmas are unobtainable. Moreover, inherent existence does not arise from the combination of causes and conditions; existing without causes and conditions is a permanent Dharma. Why? Because a Dharma without causes and conditions is permanent. If that is the case, there is no abiding in pure conduct (brahmacarya, pure conduct). Furthermore, your Dharma has its own faults. Why? The World-Honored One (Śākyamuni, Shakyamuni) said that all conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta, conditioned things) are impermanent. Then, the inherent existence you speak of is also impermanent. The verse says:

'Good, unwholesome, and neutral (avyākṛta, neither good nor evil) all conditioned Dharmas, if as you say, are permanent, you have such a fault.'

What meaning does this verse clarify? If you say that good Dharmas have inherent existence, and you say the same for unwholesome and neutral Dharmas. If so, you say that all conditioned Dharmas are permanent. Why? Because if a Dharma has no cause, no arising, abiding, and ceasing, and without arising, abiding, and ceasing, it is not a conditioned Dharma, then all Dharmas are unconditioned Dharmas (asaṃskṛta, unconditioned things). If you say that all Dharmas, such as good, etc., have inherent existence, then all Dharmas are not empty (śūnyatā, emptiness). The meaning is not consistent. Moreover, you say in the verse:

'If Dharmas have no inherent existence, without inherent existence, they cannot be named. With inherent existence, there is a name; with only a name, how can there be a name?'

To this verse, I now reply. The verse says:

'If someone says there is a name, and language has inherent existence, you can challenge that person; I say that names are not real.'

What meaning does this verse clarify? If someone says that names have inherent existence, you can challenge that person. That person says that with inherent existence, there is a name; without inherent existence, there is no name. I do not say that names have inherent existence. How do I know this? Because all Dharmas have no inherent existence. If there is no inherent existence, it can be said to be empty. If it is said to be empty, then it can...

言不實。若汝有名有自體者。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

若此名無者　　則有亦是無　若言有言無　　汝宗有二失　若此名有者　　則無亦是有　若言無言有　　汝諍有二失

此偈明何義。若此名無如是宗失。如其是有如是諍失。我宗不爾。有物有名無物無名。如是諸法有自體者。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

如是我前說　　一切法皆空　我義宗如是　　則不得有過

此偈明何義。我前已說。一切法空亦說名空。汝取空名而有所說。若一切法皆無自體名亦無體。我如是說義宗無過。我不說名有自體故。又復汝說偈言。

若離法有名　　不在於法中　說離法有名　　彼人則可難

此偈。我今答。偈言。

若別有自體　　不在於法中　汝慮我故說　　此則不須慮

此偈明何義。彼不須慮汝妄難我。我則不遮諸法自體。我不離法別有物取何人取法。彼人須慮我不取法故不遮法雲何有過。若我取法有自體者。則可難言汝不相應。我不如是。汝難大賒全不相當。又復汝說偈言。

法若有自體　　可得遮諸法　諸法無自體　　竟為何所遮　如有瓶有泥　　可得遮瓶泥　見有物則遮　　見無物不遮

此偈。我今答。偈言。

若有體得遮　　若空得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果你的言論不真實，如果你所說的『名』（nāma）具有自身實體，那麼你的論點就不成立。還有另一種解釋，如偈頌所說：『如果這個『名』（nāma）不存在，那麼『有』（bhava）也等同於『無』（abhava）。如果說『有』（bhava）或『無』（abhava），你的宗派就會出現兩種錯誤。如果這個『名』（nāma）存在，那麼『無』（abhava）也等同於『有』（bhava）。如果說『無』（abhava）或『有』（bhava），你的辯論就會出現兩種錯誤。』這首偈頌說明了什麼？如果認為『名』（nāma）是『無』（abhava），就會犯宗派上的錯誤；如果認為是『有』（bhava），就會犯辯論上的錯誤。我的宗派不是這樣。有事物就有名稱，沒有事物就沒有名稱。像這樣，如果諸法具有自身實體，那麼這個論點就不成立。還有另一種解釋，如偈頌所說：『正如我之前所說，一切法皆是空（śūnyatā）。我的義理宗派就是這樣，所以不會有過失。』這首偈頌說明了什麼？我之前已經說過，一切法都是空（śūnyatā），也說名稱是空（śūnyatā）。你抓住『空』（śūnyatā）這個名稱來有所論說。如果一切法都沒有自身實體，那麼名稱也沒有實體。我這樣說，義理宗派上沒有過失。我不說名稱具有自身實體。還有，你說偈頌：『如果離開法（dharma）而有『名』（nāma），不在法（dharma）之中，說離開法（dharma）而有『名』（nāma），那個人就可以被詰難。』這首偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『如果『名』（nāma）另外有自身實體，不在法（dharma）之中，你因為顧慮我才這樣說，這就不需要顧慮。』這首偈頌說明了什麼？你不需要顧慮，你是在胡亂詰難我。我不會遮止諸法的自身實體。我不離開法（dharma）而另外取事物，誰會取法（dharma）呢？那個人需要顧慮，我不取法（dharma），所以不遮止法（dharma），怎麼會有過失呢？如果我取法（dharma）具有自身實體，就可以詰難說你不相應。我不是這樣。你的詰難完全不相關。還有，你說偈頌：『如果法（dharma）有自身實體，就可以遮止諸法。如果諸法沒有自身實體，究竟要遮止什麼呢？就像有瓶子就有泥土，就可以遮止瓶子和泥土。看到有事物就遮止，看到沒有事物就不遮止。』這首偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『如果有實體就可以遮止，如果空（śūnyatā）可以』

English version: If your words are not true, if the 'name' (nāma) you speak of has its own self-nature, then your argument is not consistent. There is also another meaning, as the verse says: 'If this 'name' (nāma) does not exist, then 'existence' (bhava) is also equivalent to 'non-existence' (abhava). If you say 'existence' (bhava) or 'non-existence' (abhava), your school will have two faults. If this 'name' (nāma) exists, then 'non-existence' (abhava) is also equivalent to 'existence' (bhava). If you say 'non-existence' (abhava) or 'existence' (bhava), your argument will have two faults.' What does this verse explain? If you consider 'name' (nāma) to be 'non-existence' (abhava), you will commit a sectarian error; if you consider it to be 'existence' (bhava), you will commit an argumentative error. My school is not like this. If there is a thing, there is a name; if there is no thing, there is no name. Like this, if all dharmas have their own self-nature, then this argument is not consistent. There is also another meaning, as the verse says: 'As I said before, all dharmas are empty (śūnyatā). My doctrinal school is like this, so there will be no fault.' What does this verse explain? I have already said before that all dharmas are empty (śūnyatā), and also said that names are empty (śūnyatā). You seize the name 'emptiness' (śūnyatā) to argue about something. If all dharmas have no self-nature, then names also have no substance. When I say this, there is no fault in the doctrinal school. I do not say that names have their own self-nature. Also, you say in the verse: 'If there is a 'name' (nāma) apart from the dharma (dharma), not within the dharma (dharma), and you say there is a 'name' (nāma) apart from the dharma (dharma), then that person can be challenged.' To this verse, I now reply. The verse says: 'If the 'name' (nāma) has its own self-nature separately, not within the dharma (dharma), you say this because you are concerned about me, but there is no need to be concerned.' What does this verse explain? You don't need to be concerned; you are just randomly challenging me. I will not prevent the self-nature of all dharmas. I do not take things separately from the dharma (dharma); who would take the dharma (dharma)? That person needs to be concerned; I do not take the dharma (dharma), so I do not prevent the dharma (dharma). How can there be a fault? If I take the dharma (dharma) to have its own self-nature, then it can be challenged that you are not consistent. I am not like that. Your challenge is completely irrelevant. Also, you say in the verse: 'If the dharma (dharma) has its own self-nature, then all dharmas can be prevented. If all dharmas have no self-nature, what exactly is to be prevented? Just like if there is a bottle, there is clay, then the bottle and clay can be prevented. If you see something, you prevent it; if you see nothing, you do not prevent it.' To this verse, I now reply. The verse says: 'If there is substance, it can be prevented; if emptiness (śūnyatā) can'

【English Translation】 If your words are not true, if the 'name' (nāma) you speak of has its own self-nature, then your argument is not consistent. There is also another meaning, as the verse says: 'If this 'name' (nāma) does not exist, then 'existence' (bhava) is also equivalent to 'non-existence' (abhava). If you say 'existence' (bhava) or 'non-existence' (abhava), your school will have two faults. If this 'name' (nāma) exists, then 'non-existence' (abhava) is also equivalent to 'existence' (bhava). If you say 'non-existence' (abhava) or 'existence' (bhava), your argument will have two faults.' What does this verse explain? If you consider 'name' (nāma) to be 'non-existence' (abhava), you will commit a sectarian error; if you consider it to be 'existence' (bhava), you will commit an argumentative error. My school is not like this. If there is a thing, there is a name; if there is no thing, there is no name. Like this, if all dharmas have their own self-nature, then this argument is not consistent. There is also another meaning, as the verse says: 'As I said before, all dharmas are empty (śūnyatā). My doctrinal school is like this, so there will be no fault.' What does this verse explain? I have already said before that all dharmas are empty (śūnyatā), and also said that names are empty (śūnyatā). You seize the name 'emptiness' (śūnyatā) to argue about something. If all dharmas have no self-nature, then names also have no substance. When I say this, there is no fault in the doctrinal school. I do not say that names have their own self-nature. Also, you say in the verse: 'If there is a 'name' (nāma) apart from the dharma (dharma), not within the dharma (dharma), and you say there is a 'name' (nāma) apart from the dharma (dharma), then that person can be challenged.' To this verse, I now reply. The verse says: 'If the 'name' (nāma) has its own self-nature separately, not within the dharma (dharma), you say this because you are concerned about me, but there is no need to be concerned.' What does this verse explain? You don't need to be concerned; you are just randomly challenging me. I will not prevent the self-nature of all dharmas. I do not take things separately from the dharma (dharma); who would take the dharma (dharma)? That person needs to be concerned; I do not take the dharma (dharma), so I do not prevent the dharma (dharma). How can there be a fault? If I take the dharma (dharma) to have its own self-nature, then it can be challenged that you are not consistent. I am not like that. Your challenge is completely irrelevant. Also, you say in the verse: 'If the dharma (dharma) has its own self-nature, then all dharmas can be prevented. If all dharmas have no self-nature, what exactly is to be prevented? Just like if there is a bottle, there is clay, then the bottle and clay can be prevented. If you see something, you prevent it; if you see nothing, you do not prevent it.' To this verse, I now reply. The verse says: 'If there is substance, it can be prevented; if emptiness (śūnyatā) can'

言成　若無體無空　　云何得遮成

此偈明何義。法若有者則可得遮法。若無者則不得遮。汝難我言。一切諸法皆無自體。實如汝言一切諸法皆無自體。何以知之。以汝遮法無自體成。若遮諸法無自體成。得言一切諸法皆空。偈言。

汝為何所遮　　汝所遮則空　法空而有遮　　如是汝諍失

此偈明何義。若一切法遮有自體。若無自體彼得言空彼空亦空。是故汝言有物得遮無物不遮。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。

我無有少物　　是故我不遮　如是汝無理　　抂橫而難成

此偈明何義。若我如是少有物遮汝得難我。我無物遮。如是無物我無所遮。如是無遮一切法空。如是無物遮與所遮。是故汝向如是難言何所遮者。此汝無理抂橫難我。又復汝說偈言。

若法無自體　　言語何所遮　若無法得遮　　無語亦成遮

此偈。我今答。偈言。

汝言語法別　　此義我今說　無法得說語　　而我則無過

此偈明何義。若汝說言無有言語亦成遮者。隨何等法。彼一切法皆無自體。說彼諸法無自體語。非此言語作無自體。此我今答。若說諸法無自體語。此語非作無自體法。又復有義。以無法體知無法體。以有法體知有法體。譬如屋中實無天得。有人問言。有天得不。答者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本言成若無體無空，云何得遮成此偈明何義。法若有者則可得遮法。若無者則不得遮。汝難我言。一切諸法皆無自體。實如汝言一切諸法皆無自體。何以知之。以汝遮法無自體成。若遮諸法無自體成。得言一切諸法皆空。偈言。汝為何所遮，汝所遮則空，法空而有遮，如是汝諍失此偈明何義。若一切法遮有自體。若無自體彼得言空彼空亦空。是故汝言有物得遮無物不遮。義不相應。又復有義。偈言。我無有少物，是故我不遮，如是汝無理，抂橫而難成此偈明何義。若我如是少有物遮汝得難我。我無物遮。如是無物我無所遮。如是無遮一切法空。如是無物遮與所遮。是故汝向如是難言何所遮者。此汝無理抂橫難我。又復汝說偈言。若法無自體，言語何所遮，若無法得遮，無語亦成遮此偈。我今答。偈言。汝言語法別，此義我今說，無法得說語，而我則無過此偈明何義。若汝說言無有言語亦成遮者。隨何等法。彼一切法皆無自體。說彼諸法無自體語。非此言語作無自體。此我今答。若說諸法無自體語。此語非作無自體法。又復有義。以無法體知無法體。以有法體知有法體。譬如屋中實無天得。有人問言。有天得不。答者

【English Translation】 English version Refutation of Accomplishment If there is no substance, no emptiness, how can there be refutation? What is the meaning of this verse? If a dharma (phenomenon, teaching) exists, then it can be refuted. If it does not exist, then it cannot be refuted. You challenge me by saying that all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) lack inherent existence (svabhava). Indeed, as you say, all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) lack inherent existence (svabhava). How is this known? Because your refutation of dharmas (phenomena, teachings) is accomplished without inherent existence (svabhava). If the refutation of all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) is accomplished without inherent existence (svabhava), it can be said that all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) are empty (sunyata). The verse says: What do you refute? That which you refute is empty. If emptiness is refuted, then you lose the argument. What is the meaning of this verse? If all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) refute inherent existence (svabhava), and if there is no inherent existence (svabhava), then it can be said that emptiness is empty. Therefore, your statement that something can refute nothing is inconsistent. Furthermore, there is another meaning. The verse says: I have nothing at all, therefore I do not refute. Thus, you are unreasonable, wrongly and forcibly making an argument. What is the meaning of this verse? If I had something to refute, you could challenge me. I have nothing to refute. Thus, since there is nothing, I have nothing to refute. Thus, with no refutation, all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) are empty (sunyata). Thus, there is no thing to refute and no thing being refuted. Therefore, your challenge asking what is being refuted is unreasonable and forcibly challenges me. Furthermore, you say in the verse: If dharmas (phenomena, teachings) have no inherent existence (svabhava), what does language refute? If nothing can be refuted, then even without language, refutation is accomplished. This verse, I now answer. The verse says: You say that language is different. I will now explain this meaning. Without substance, one can speak, and I am without fault. What is the meaning of this verse? If you say that even without language, refutation is accomplished, then regarding whatever dharmas (phenomena, teachings) are involved, all those dharmas (phenomena, teachings) lack inherent existence (svabhava). Speaking of those dharmas (phenomena, teachings) as lacking inherent existence (svabhava) does not make them lack inherent existence (svabhava). This I now answer. If one speaks of dharmas (phenomena, teachings) as lacking inherent existence (svabhava), this speech does not create dharmas (phenomena, teachings) that lack inherent existence (svabhava). Furthermore, there is another meaning. One knows the absence of substance through the absence of substance, and one knows the presence of substance through the presence of substance. For example, if there is truly no 'tiande' (heavenly virtue) in a house, and someone asks, 'Is there 'tiande' (heavenly virtue)?' The answerer...

言有。復有言無。答言無者語言。不能于彼屋中作天得。無但知屋中空無天得。如是若說一切諸法無自體者。此語不能作一切法無自體。無但知諸法自體無體。若汝說言。若無物者則不得言法無自體。以無語故。不得成法無自體者。義不相應。又復汝說偈言。

如愚癡之人　　妄取炎為水　若汝遮妄取　　其事亦如是　取所取能取　　遮所遮能遮　如是六種義　　皆悉是有法　若無取所取　　亦無有能取　則無遮所遮　　亦無有能遮　若無遮所遮　　亦無有能遮　則一切法成　　彼自體亦成

此四行偈。我今答汝偈言。

汝說鹿愛喻　　以明於大義　汝聽我能答　　如譬喻相應

此偈明何義。汝若說此鹿愛譬喻。以明大義。汝聽我答。如喻相應。偈言。

若彼有自體　　不須因緣生　若須因緣者　　如是得言空

此偈明何義。若鹿愛中妄取水體。非因緣生。汝喻相當。鹿愛因緣彼顛倒見。顛倒見者以不觀察因緣而生。如是得言因緣而生。若因緣生彼自體空。如是之義如前所說。又復有義。偈言。

若取自體實　　何人能遮回　餘者亦如是　　是故我無過

此偈明何義。若鹿愛中取水體實。何人能回。若有自體則不可回。如火熱水濕空無障礙。見此得回

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有人說：『有』。又有人說：『無』。回答說『無』的人，他的語言並不能在那個屋子裡變出天來。說『無』的人只是知道屋子裡空無一物，不能變出天來。同樣，如果有人說一切諸法沒有自性，這句話並不能使一切法變成沒有自性。說『無』的人只是知道諸法的自性是空無的。如果你說，如果沒有事物，就不能說法的自性是空無的，因為沒有語言的緣故，就不能成立法無自性，這種說法是不相應的。』你又說了這樣的偈語：『如同愚癡之人，妄想把熱氣當成水；如果你要遮止這種妄想，道理也是一樣的。取、所取、能取，遮、所遮、能遮，這六種意義，都是有法。如果沒有取和所取，也就沒有能取；那麼就沒有遮和所遮，也就沒有能遮。如果沒有遮和所遮，也就沒有能遮，那麼一切法就成立了，它們的自性也就成立了。』對於這四句偈語，我現在用偈語回答你：『你說鹿愛（指海市蜃樓）的譬喻，是爲了闡明大的道理。你聽著，我來回答你，就像這個譬喻所相應的那樣。』這句偈語說明了什麼意義呢？如果你說這個鹿愛的譬喻是爲了闡明大的道理，你聽著我的回答，就像這個譬喻所相應的那樣。偈語說：『如果它有自性，就不需要因緣而生；如果需要因緣，就可以說是空。』這句偈語說明了什麼意義呢？如果在鹿愛中妄想取水體，不是因緣所生，你的比喻就恰當了。鹿愛是由於顛倒見（錯誤的見解）的因緣而產生的。顛倒見是由於不觀察因緣而產生的。這樣就可以說是由因緣而生。如果由因緣而生，那麼它的自性就是空的。這樣的意義就像前面所說的那樣。另外還有這樣的意義，偈語說：『如果所取（的對象）的自性是真實的，誰能夠遮止和改變它呢？其餘的（能取，遮，能遮，所遮）也是一樣的，所以我沒有過失。』這句偈語說明了什麼意義呢？如果在鹿愛中取水體是真實的，誰能夠改變它呢？如果有自性，就不可改變，就像火的熱性、水的濕性、空的無障礙性一樣。見到這些就可以改變。

【English Translation】 English version: Someone says: 'There is.' And someone else says: 'There is not.' The one who answers 'there is not,' their words cannot create a heaven in that room. The one who says 'there is not' only knows that the room is empty and cannot create a heaven. Similarly, if someone says that all dharmas (phenomena) have no inherent existence (svabhava), this statement cannot make all dharmas without inherent existence. The one who says 'there is not' only knows that the inherent existence of dharmas is empty. If you say that if there is no thing, then one cannot say that the inherent existence of dharmas is empty, because there is no language, then one cannot establish that dharmas have no inherent existence, this statement is not corresponding.' You also said this verse: 'Like a foolish person, falsely taking heat for water; if you want to stop this false perception, the principle is the same. Grasping, the grasped, the grasper, negating, the negated, the negator, these six meanings are all existing dharmas. If there is no grasping and no grasped, then there is no grasper; then there is no negating and no negated, then there is no negator. If there is no negating and no negated, then there is no negator, then all dharmas are established, and their inherent existence is also established.' Regarding these four lines of verse, I now answer you with a verse: 'You speak of the mirage (deer's love) analogy, in order to clarify a great principle. Listen to me, I will answer you, just as this analogy corresponds.' What meaning does this verse explain? If you say that this mirage analogy is to clarify a great principle, listen to my answer, just as this analogy corresponds. The verse says: 'If it has inherent existence, it does not need to be born from causes and conditions; if it needs causes and conditions, then it can be said to be empty.' What meaning does this verse explain? If in the mirage, the water body is falsely perceived, not born from causes and conditions, your analogy is appropriate. The mirage arises from the causes and conditions of distorted perception (viparyasa-darshana). Distorted perception arises from not observing causes and conditions. Thus, it can be said to be born from causes and conditions. If born from causes and conditions, then its inherent existence is empty. Such a meaning is as previously stated. Furthermore, there is this meaning, the verse says: 'If the inherent existence of the grasped (object) is real, who can stop and change it? The rest (grasper, negating, negator, negated) are the same, so I have no fault.' What meaning does this verse explain? If in the mirage, the water body is taken as real, who can change it? If there is inherent existence, it cannot be changed, like the heat of fire, the wetness of water, the unobstructedness of space. Seeing these, one can change it.

。如是取自體空。如是如是。余法中義應如是知。如是等如取無實。餘五亦爾。若汝說彼六法是有。如是得言一切諸法皆不空者。義不相應。又復汝說偈言。

汝因則不成　　無體云何因　若法無因者　　云何得言成　汝若無因成　　諸法自體回　我亦無因成　　諸法有自體　若有因無體　　是義不相應　世間無體法　　則不得言有

此偈。我今答。偈言。

此無因說者　　義前已說竟　三時中說因　　彼平等而說

此偈明何義。如是大義於前已說。此則無因應如是知。如是論義前因已說遮六種回。彼前論義今於此說。又復汝說偈言。

前遮后所遮　　如是不相應　后遮若俱並　　如是知有體

此偈我今答。偈言。

若說三時因　　前如是平等　如是三時因　　與說空相應

此偈明何義。若遮此因三時言語。此先已答。應如是知。何以故。因平等故。如遮三時彼不相應。彼語亦在遮所遮中。若汝意謂。無遮所遮猶故得遮。我已遮竟。此三時因與說空人言語相應。又復云何。先已說竟。如向偈言。

我無有少物　　是故我不遮　如是汝無理　　抂橫而難我

若汝復謂。三時遮成。見前時因。見后時因。見俱時因。彼前時因如父以子。后時因者如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：像這樣理解自體本空（svabhāva-śūnyatā，自性的空性）。像這樣，像這樣。其餘法中的意義也應該這樣理解。像這樣等等，就像理解無實一樣。其餘五種（蘊）也是如此。如果你說這六法是有自性的，像這樣就能夠說一切諸法都不空，這樣的意義是不相應的。而且，你又說了這樣的偈頌：『你所提出的因是不成立的，沒有自體又怎麼能作為因呢？如果法沒有因，又怎麼能說它成立呢？如果你沒有因也能成立，那麼諸法的自體就回復存在了。我也能沒有因就成立，諸法就有了自體。如果因沒有自體，這個意義是不相應的，世間沒有自體的法，就不能說它存在。』對於這個偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『這無因的說法，其中的意義前面已經說完了。在過去、現在、未來三時中說因，都是平等而說的。』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？像這樣的大義在前面已經說過了。這無因的道理應該這樣理解。像這樣的論義，前面的因已經說了，用來遮破六種回覆。前面所說的論義，現在在這裡再說一遍。而且，你又說了這樣的偈頌：『先遮和后遮，像這樣是不相應的。后遮如果和先遮同時並存，像這樣就知道是有自體的。』對於這個偈頌，我現在回答。偈頌說：『如果說三時的因，前面已經這樣平等地說了。像這樣三時的因，與說空是相應的。』這個偈頌說明了什麼意義呢？如果遮這個因的三時言語，這在前面已經回答過了，應該這樣理解。為什麼呢？因為因是平等的。像遮三時那樣，它是不相應的。那些言語也包含在遮所遮之中。如果你認為，沒有遮所遮仍然可以遮，我已經遮完了。這三時因與說空的人的言語是相應的。而且，又怎麼樣呢？前面已經說完了。就像之前的偈頌所說：『我沒有絲毫的實物，所以我不遮任何東西。像這樣你沒有道理，枉自橫加指責於我。』如果你又認為，三時遮是成立的，看見前時的因，看見后時的因，看見同時的因。那前時的因就像父親和兒子，后時的因就像……

【English Translation】 English version: Thus is the understanding of self-emptiness (svabhāva-śūnyatā, emptiness of inherent existence) taken. Thus, thus. The meaning in other dharmas should also be understood in this way. Thus and so on, like understanding non-reality. The other five (skandhas) are also like this. If you say that these six dharmas have inherent existence, then to say that all dharmas are not empty is not in accordance with the meaning. Moreover, you have said the following verse: 'Your cause is not established; how can something without substance be a cause? If a dharma has no cause, how can it be said to be established? If you are established without a cause, then the inherent existence of all dharmas returns. I can also be established without a cause, and all dharmas have inherent existence. If a cause has no substance, this meaning is not in accordance. A dharma without substance in the world cannot be said to exist.' To this verse, I now reply. The verse says: 'This saying of no cause, its meaning has already been said before. Speaking of cause in the three times, they are spoken of equally.' What meaning does this verse clarify? Such a great meaning has already been said before. This principle of no cause should be understood in this way. Such an argument, the previous cause has already been stated, used to refute the six kinds of reversion. The previous argument is now stated here again. Moreover, you have said the following verse: 'The prior negation and the subsequent negation, like this, are not in accordance. If the subsequent negation and the prior negation coexist, then it is known to have inherent existence.' To this verse, I now reply. The verse says: 'If speaking of the cause of the three times, it has already been said equally before. Like this, the cause of the three times is in accordance with speaking of emptiness.' What meaning does this verse clarify? If negating this cause with the language of the three times, this has already been answered before, and should be understood in this way. Why? Because the cause is equal. Like negating the three times, it is not in accordance. Those words are also included in the negation of what is to be negated. If you think that even without the negation of what is to be negated, one can still negate, I have already negated it. This cause of the three times is in accordance with the words of those who speak of emptiness. Moreover, how is it? It has already been said before. Like the previous verse said: 'I have no object whatsoever, therefore I negate nothing. Like this, you have no reason, wrongly and unjustly accusing me.' If you think again that the negation of the three times is established, seeing the cause of the prior time, seeing the cause of the subsequent time, seeing the cause of the simultaneous time. Then the cause of the prior time is like father and son, the cause of the subsequent time is like...

師弟子。俱時因者如燈以明。此我今說。此不如是前說三種。彼三種中一一復有三種過失。此前已說。複次第遮。汝立宗失如是等自體遮成。偈言。

若人信于空　　彼人信一切　若人不信空　　彼不信一切

此偈明何義。若人信空。彼人則信一切世間出世間法。何以故。若人信空。則信因緣和合而生。若信因緣和合而生。則信四諦。若信四諦。彼人則信。一切勝證。若人能信一切勝證。則信三寶謂佛法僧。若信因緣和合而生。彼人則信法因法果。若人能信法因法果。彼人則信非法因果。若人能信法因法果信非法因信非法果。則信煩惱煩惱和合煩惱法物。彼人如是一切皆信。如是前說彼人則信善行惡行。若人能信善行惡行。彼人則信善惡行法。若人能信善惡行法。則知方便過三惡道。彼人如是能信一切世間諸法。如是無量不可說盡。

空自體因緣　　三一中道說　我歸命禮彼　　無上大智慧

釋回諍論偈義已竟。

作此論者。阿阇梨龍樹菩薩摩訶薩。一切論義皆能解釋。

回諍論一卷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：師父和弟子，都因為像燈一樣照亮真理而聚集在一起。我今天所說的，與之前所說的三種情況不同。之前所說的三種情況，每一種都包含三種過失，這些之前已經說過了，現在依次進行駁斥。你所建立的宗義的過失，就像這樣通過自身遮遣而成立。偈語說：『如果有人相信空性（Śūnyatā，佛教中的一個重要概念，指一切事物沒有固定不變的自性），那個人就相信一切；如果有人不相信空性，那個人就不相信一切。』這首偈語說明了什麼意義？如果有人相信空性，那個人就相信一切世間法和出世間法。為什麼呢？如果有人相信空性，就相信事物是由因緣和合而生。如果相信因緣和合而生，就相信四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，苦、集、滅、道）。如果相信四諦，那個人就相信一切殊勝的證悟。如果有人能相信一切殊勝的證悟，就相信三寶（triratna，佛、法、僧），即佛、法、僧。如果相信因緣和合而生，那個人就相信善法的因和善法的果。如果有人能相信善法的因和善法的果，那個人就相信非善法的因和非善法的果。如果有人能相信善法的因和善法的果，相信非善法的因和非善法的果，就相信煩惱、煩惱的和合以及煩惱的法物。那個人像這樣一切都相信。像這樣，之前所說的，那個人就相信善行和惡行。如果有人能相信善行和惡行，那個人就相信善惡的行為法則。如果有人能相信善惡的行為法則，就知道通過方便法門超越三惡道。那個人像這樣能相信一切世間諸法。像這樣無量無邊，不可說盡。『空性、自體、因緣，以三一中道的方式宣說。我歸命禮敬那無上的大智慧。』對辯論偈語的解釋到此結束。作這部論的人是阿阇梨（Ācārya，導師）龍樹菩薩摩訶薩（Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva Mahāsattva），他能解釋一切論義。《回諍論》一卷

【English Translation】 English version: The teacher and disciples gathered together because of the light illuminating the truth, like a lamp. What I am saying today is different from the three situations mentioned earlier. Each of the three situations mentioned earlier contains three faults, which have already been discussed and are now refuted in order. The fault of the tenet you established is thus established through self-negation. The verse says: 『If a person believes in emptiness (Śūnyatā, an important concept in Buddhism, referring to the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena), that person believes in everything; if a person does not believe in emptiness, that person does not believe in everything.』 What meaning does this verse illustrate? If a person believes in emptiness, that person believes in all mundane and supramundane dharmas. Why? If a person believes in emptiness, they believe that things arise from the aggregation of causes and conditions. If they believe that things arise from the aggregation of causes and conditions, they believe in the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, suffering, origin, cessation, path). If they believe in the Four Noble Truths, that person believes in all supreme realizations. If a person can believe in all supreme realizations, they believe in the Three Jewels (triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), namely the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. If they believe that things arise from the aggregation of causes and conditions, that person believes in the cause of wholesome dharma and the result of wholesome dharma. If a person can believe in the cause of wholesome dharma and the result of wholesome dharma, that person believes in the cause of unwholesome dharma and the result of unwholesome dharma. If a person can believe in the cause of wholesome dharma and the result of wholesome dharma, and believe in the cause of unwholesome dharma and believe in the result of unwholesome dharma, they believe in afflictions, the aggregation of afflictions, and the objects of afflictions. That person believes in everything like this. Like this, as mentioned earlier, that person believes in good deeds and bad deeds. If a person can believe in good deeds and bad deeds, that person believes in the laws of good and bad actions. If a person can believe in the laws of good and bad actions, they know how to transcend the three evil realms through skillful means. That person can believe in all mundane dharmas like this. Like this, it is immeasurable and cannot be fully described. 『Emptiness, self-nature, and dependent origination are taught in a way that is threefold and yet one, the Middle Way. I take refuge and pay homage to that unsurpassed great wisdom.』 The explanation of the verses refuting the arguments is now complete. The author of this treatise is Ācārya (Ācārya, teacher) Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva Mahāsattva, who is able to explain all doctrines. 《Vigrahavyāvartanī》, one fascicle.