T32n1639_提婆菩薩破楞伽經中外道小乘四宗論

大正藏第 32 冊 No. 1639 提婆菩薩破楞伽經中外道小乘四宗論

No. 1639

提婆菩薩破楞伽經中外道小乘四宗論

提波菩薩造

後魏北印度三藏菩提流支譯

問曰。外道所立四宗法非佛法者何者是。答曰。謂一異俱不俱。問曰。云何言一異俱不俱。答曰。有諸外道言。一切法一。有諸外道言。一切法異。有諸外道言。一切法俱。有諸外道言。一切法不俱。是諸外道于虛妄法中各各執著。以為實有物故。問曰。何等外道說一切法一。答曰。言一切法一者。外道僧佉論師說。言一切法異者。外道毗世師論師說。言一切法俱者。外道尼犍子論師說言一切法不俱者。外道若提子論師說。問曰。云何僧佉人說一切法一。答曰。僧佉外道言。我覺二法是一。何以故。二相差別不可得故。問曰。云何二相差別不可得。答曰。如牛馬異法。二相差別可見可取。言此是牛此是馬。而我離覺我不可得。離我覺不可得。如我經中說。我覺體相如火與熱。二法差別不可得。問曰。云何差別不可得。答曰。彼法不可說異故。譬如白疊不可說言此是白此是疊。二法差別如白疊。一切法因果亦如是。問曰。云何毗世師外道說一切法異。答曰。所言異者。我與覺異。何以故。以說異法。問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《提婆菩薩破楞伽經中外道小乘四宗論》

提婆菩薩造

後魏北印度三藏菩提流支譯

問：外道所立的四宗法，哪些不是佛法？答：所謂一、異、俱、不俱。問：如何解釋一、異、俱、不俱？答：有些外道說一切法是一，有些外道說一切法是異，有些外道說一切法是俱，有些外道說一切法是不俱。這些外道在虛妄的法中各自執著，認為那是真實存在的。問：哪些外道說一切法是一？答：說一切法是一的是外道僧佉論師（Samkhya，數論派）。說一切法是異的是外道毗世師論師（Vaisheshika，勝論派）。說一切法是俱的是外道尼犍子論師（Nigantha，耆那教）。說一切法是不俱的是外道若提子論師。問：僧佉人如何說一切法是一？答：僧佉外道說，『我』和『覺』這兩種法是一。為什麼呢？因為這兩種相的差別是不可得的。問：如何說這兩種相的差別是不可得的？答：比如牛和馬是不同的法，它們的兩種相的差別是可以看見可以分辨的，可以說這是牛，那是馬。但是離開『覺』就沒有『我』，離開『我』就沒有『覺』。正如我的經書里所說，『我』和『覺』的體相就像火和熱，這兩種法的差別是不可得的。問：如何說差別是不可得的？答：因為這種法不能說是不同的。比如白色的布，不能說這是白，這是布。這兩種法的差別就像白和布一樣。一切法的因果也是如此。問：毗世師外道如何說一切法是異？答：所說的『異』，是指『我』和『覺』是不同的。為什麼呢？因為他們說是不同的法。問：

【English Translation】 English version Treatise on the Four Non-Buddhist Schools According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra by Bodhisattva Deva

By Bodhisattva Deva

Translated by Bodhiruci, Tripiṭaka Master from Northern India during the Later Wei Dynasty

Question: Among the four doctrines established by non-Buddhists, which are not Buddhist doctrines? Answer: They are 'one,' 'different,' 'both,' and 'neither.' Question: How do you explain 'one,' 'different,' 'both,' and 'neither?' Answer: Some non-Buddhists say all dharmas are one. Some non-Buddhists say all dharmas are different. Some non-Buddhists say all dharmas are both. Some non-Buddhists say all dharmas are neither. These non-Buddhists each cling to these illusory dharmas, believing them to be real. Question: Which non-Buddhists say all dharmas are one? Answer: The Samkhya (Sāṃkhya, enumeration) school of non-Buddhists says all dharmas are one. The Vaisheshika (Vaiśeṣika, particularity) school of non-Buddhists says all dharmas are different. The Nigantha (Nirgrantha, Jain) school of non-Buddhists says all dharmas are both. The non-Buddhist followers of Raktika say all dharmas are neither. Question: How do the Samkhya people say all dharmas are one? Answer: The Samkhya non-Buddhists say, 'The 'self' and 'awareness' are one dharma.' Why? Because the difference between these two aspects cannot be obtained. Question: How is it that the difference between these two aspects cannot be obtained? Answer: For example, a cow and a horse are different dharmas. The difference between their two aspects can be seen and distinguished. One can say, 'This is a cow, that is a horse.' But without 'awareness,' there is no 'self,' and without 'self,' there is no 'awareness.' As it is said in my scriptures, the substance and characteristics of 'self' and 'awareness' are like fire and heat. The difference between these two dharmas cannot be obtained. Question: How is it said that the difference cannot be obtained? Answer: Because this dharma cannot be said to be different. For example, with white silk, one cannot say, 'This is white, this is silk.' The difference between these two dharmas is like white and silk. The cause and effect of all dharmas are also like this. Question: How do the Vaisheshika non-Buddhists say all dharmas are different? Answer: What is meant by 'different' is that 'self' and 'awareness' are different. Why? Because they say they are different dharmas. Question:

曰。云何名說異法。答曰。如說此是白此是疊。此是天德。此是天德疊。我與覺異亦如是。此是我此是智故。問曰。有何差別彼法不可說一。答曰。譬如白疊此是白此是疊。如是一切因果各異。不可說一故。問曰。云何尼乾子說一切法俱。答曰。言一切法俱者。如我與覺不可說一不可說異。復有異義可說一可說異故。問曰。云何不一不異亦一亦異。答曰。如我與命用相有異方便異故言。如貪瞋癡等得言有異。譬如燈明得說言一得說言異。以有此有彼無此無彼。得言一。燈異處明異處。故得言異。如燈明因果白疊一切法亦如是。亦得說一亦得說異。故言俱也。問曰。云何若提子外道說一切法不俱。答曰。不俱者。謂一切法不可說一不可說異。以二邊見過故。以說一異俱論師等皆有過失故。智者不立如是三法。問曰。云何過失。答曰。若離白別無疊者。白滅疊亦應滅。若異白更有疊者。應有疊非白有白非疊。是故一異俱等法我俱不立。雖然一異俱等一切法不可得言無。答曰。此諸外道虛妄分別。是邪見相非是智相。皆是不善。此義云何。又一等法虛妄分別。以不得言即彼法。彼法一不得言瓶。瓶一以瓶即是瓶故亦不得異法。異法一以不得言瓶共。疊一以瓶相異疊相異以異法離異法。異法不得一不得異。以異法不成異法。以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：什麼叫做『說異法』？答：比如我們說『這是白色』，『這是布』，『這是天德（Deva，神）』，『這是天德布』。『我』（Atman，真我）與『覺』（Buddha-gnana，覺悟）的差別也是如此。因為『這是我』，『這是智慧』。問：如果『彼法』（Paradharma，他法）不能說成『一』（Eka，同一），那麼有什麼差別呢？答：比如白布，我們說『這是白色』，『這是布』。同樣，一切因果各有不同，所以不能說成『一』。問：尼乾子（Nigantha，耆那教）如何說一切法都是『俱』（Simultaneous，同時存在）的呢？答：說一切法『俱』，就像『我』與『覺』，不能說成『一』，也不能說成『異』（Different，不同）。因為還有其他的意義，可以說成『一』，也可以說成『異』。問：如何理解『不一不異，亦一亦異』呢？答：比如『我』與『命』（Jiva，生命），它們的功用和方便不同，所以說它們有『異』。比如貪、嗔、癡等，可以說它們有『異』。又比如燈和光，可以說它們是『一』，也可以說它們是『異』。因為有此則有彼，無此則無彼，所以說『一』。燈在不同的地方，光也在不同的地方，所以說『異』。燈、光、因果、白布，一切法也是如此。既可以說成『一』，也可以說成『異』，所以說『俱』。問：若提子（Jotiputra，六師外道之一）外道如何說一切法不是『俱』的呢？答：說『不俱』，是指一切法既不能說成『一』，也不能說成『異』。這是因為他們執著於二邊（Two Extremes，兩種極端觀點）的過錯。因為說『一』、『異』、『俱』的論師等都有過失，所以智者不建立這樣的三種法。問：有什麼過失呢？答：如果離開白色就沒有布，那麼白色滅了，布也應該滅。如果除了白色之外還有布，那麼應該有布不是白色，有白色不是布。所以『一』、『異』、『俱』等法，我都不建立。雖然『一』、『異』、『俱』等一切法不可說成『無』。答：這些外道虛妄分別，是邪見之相，不是智慧之相，都是不善的。這是什麼意思呢？又『一』等法是虛妄分別，因為不能說『即彼法』，『彼法一』。不能說『瓶』，『瓶一』，因為瓶就是瓶。也不能說『異法』，『異法一』。不能說『瓶』共『布』一，因為瓶的相狀與布的相狀不同。因為『異法』離開『異法』，『異法』不得『一』，不得『異』。因為『異法』不能成就『異法』。 English version Question: What is meant by 'speaking of different dharmas'? Answer: For example, saying 'This is white,' 'This is cloth,' 'This is Deva (god),' 'This is Deva cloth.' The difference between 'Atman (the self)' and 'Buddha-gnana (Buddha's wisdom)' is also like this, because 'This is me,' 'This is wisdom.' Question: If 'Paradharma (other dharmas)' cannot be said to be 'Eka (one),' what is the difference? Answer: For example, with white cloth, we say 'This is white,' 'This is cloth.' Similarly, all causes and effects are different, so they cannot be said to be 'one.' Question: How does Nigantha (Jainism) say that all dharmas are 'Simultaneous (俱)'? Answer: Saying that all dharmas are 'Simultaneous' is like 'Atman' and 'Buddha-gnana,' which cannot be said to be 'one' or 'Different (異).' Because there are other meanings, they can be said to be 'one' or 'different.' Question: How should we understand 'neither one nor different, both one and different'? Answer: For example, 'Atman' and 'Jiva (life),' their functions and means are different, so it is said that they are 'different.' For example, greed, anger, and delusion, it can be said that they are 'different.' Also, like a lamp and light, it can be said that they are 'one' and they can be said to be 'different.' Because if there is this, there is that; if there is no this, there is no that, so it is said to be 'one.' The lamp is in a different place, and the light is also in a different place, so it is said to be 'different.' Lamp, light, cause and effect, white cloth, all dharmas are like this. They can be said to be 'one' and they can be said to be 'different,' so it is said to be 'Simultaneous.' Question: How does Jotiputra (one of the six heretical teachers) heretic say that all dharmas are not 'Simultaneous'? Answer: Saying 'not simultaneous' means that all dharmas cannot be said to be 'one' or 'different.' This is because they are attached to the fault of 'Two Extremes (二邊).' Because the theorists who say 'one,' 'different,' and 'simultaneous' all have faults, wise people do not establish these three dharmas. Question: What are the faults? Answer: If there is no cloth apart from white, then when white disappears, the cloth should also disappear. If there is cloth other than white, then there should be cloth that is not white, and white that is not cloth. Therefore, I do not establish dharmas such as 'one,' 'different,' and 'simultaneous.' Although all dharmas such as 'one,' 'different,' and 'simultaneous' cannot be said to be 'non-existent.' Answer: These heretics make false distinctions, which are signs of wrong views, not signs of wisdom, and are all unwholesome. What does this mean? Also, dharmas such as 'one' are false distinctions, because it cannot be said 'that is that dharma,' 'that dharma is one.' It cannot be said 'bottle,' 'bottle is one,' because a bottle is a bottle. Nor can it be said 'different dharma,' 'different dharma is one.' It cannot be said 'bottle' and 'cloth' are one, because the appearance of a bottle is different from the appearance of cloth. Because 'different dharma' is separated from 'different dharma,' 'different dharma' cannot be 'one' and cannot be 'different.' Because 'different dharma' cannot accomplish 'different dharma.'

【English Translation】 Question: What is meant by 'speaking of different dharmas'? Answer: For example, saying 'This is white,' 'This is cloth,' 'This is Deva (god),' 'This is Deva cloth.' The difference between 'Atman (the self)' and 'Buddha-gnana (Buddha's wisdom)' is also like this, because 'This is me,' 'This is wisdom.' Question: If 'Paradharma (other dharmas)' cannot be said to be 'Eka (one),' what is the difference? Answer: For example, with white cloth, we say 'This is white,' 'This is cloth.' Similarly, all causes and effects are different, so they cannot be said to be 'one.' Question: How does Nigantha (Jainism) say that all dharmas are 'Simultaneous (俱)'? Answer: Saying that all dharmas are 'Simultaneous' is like 'Atman' and 'Buddha-gnana,' which cannot be said to be 'one' or 'Different (異).' Because there are other meanings, they can be said to be 'one' or 'different.' Question: How should we understand 'neither one nor different, both one and different'? Answer: For example, 'Atman' and 'Jiva (life),' their functions and means are different, so it is said that they are 'different.' For example, greed, anger, and delusion, it can be said that they are 'different.' Also, like a lamp and light, it can be said that they are 'one' and they can be said to be 'different.' Because if there is this, there is that; if there is no this, there is no that, so it is said to be 'one.' The lamp is in a different place, and the light is also in a different place, so it is said to be 'different.' Lamp, light, cause and effect, white cloth, all dharmas are like this. They can be said to be 'one' and they can be said to be 'different,' so it is said to be 'Simultaneous.' Question: How does Jotiputra (one of the six heretical teachers) heretic say that all dharmas are not 'Simultaneous'? Answer: Saying 'not simultaneous' means that all dharmas cannot be said to be 'one' or 'different.' This is because they are attached to the fault of 'Two Extremes (二邊).' Because the theorists who say 'one,' 'different,' and 'simultaneous' all have faults, wise people do not establish these three dharmas. Question: What are the faults? Answer: If there is no cloth apart from white, then when white disappears, the cloth should also disappear. If there is cloth other than white, then there should be cloth that is not white, and white that is not cloth. Therefore, I do not establish dharmas such as 'one,' 'different,' and 'simultaneous.' Although all dharmas such as 'one,' 'different,' and 'simultaneous' cannot be said to be 'non-existent.' Answer: These heretics make false distinctions, which are signs of wrong views, not signs of wisdom, and are all unwholesome. What does this mean? Also, dharmas such as 'one' are false distinctions, because it cannot be said 'that is that dharma,' 'that dharma is one.' It cannot be said 'bottle,' 'bottle is one,' because a bottle is a bottle. Nor can it be said 'different dharma,' 'different dharma is one.' It cannot be said 'bottle' and 'cloth' are one, because the appearance of a bottle is different from the appearance of cloth. Because 'different dharma' is separated from 'different dharma,' 'different dharma' cannot be 'one' and cannot be 'different.' Because 'different dharma' cannot accomplish 'different dharma.'

異法不得言異法。若二法說一說異。彼二法應說一應說異。若不說一不說異者。此是虛妄分別。若彼二法是一者。不得言彼法是異。若無二者云何言一。以彼法相待成故依世諦虛妄分別。第一義諦中無彼外道虛妄分別戲論過故。此是總答四種外道邪見之相。

自此已下別答四義。如是一一觀察迦毗羅憂樓佉等外道虛妄分別義不成就。此義云何。言一切法一者。此義不然。以滅應滅。不滅不應滅。俱滅俱不滅此義云何。汝向說我與覺相差別不可得如白疊。我破此義。何以故。以此義不與諸經論相應故。汝說諸法差別不可得者。此義不然。如手爪彼法二相差別不可得故。此明何義。如爪指掌名之為手。若異此法手不可得。如是白疊一不可得。何以故。無異法故。我覺一不可得。如是白疊一不可得。如手與指掌。若此滅者彼亦應滅。此義云何。若白滅者疊應滅故。如截手即截指掌。汝意若謂白滅疊不滅者。此義不然。若疊不滅白亦不應滅。如截于手指掌應在如截指掌手亦應在故。汝意若謂青黃赤等唯滅白色不滅疊者。云何言一。若不爾者青黃赤等色不應滅。不爾疊不滅者青黃白等色亦不應滅。

問曰。我青黃赤等覆白色而不滅白。此義云何。答曰。疊亦如是覆疊而不滅疊。又此義不然。洗疊已還見白色故。疊亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：異法不能說成是異法。如果兩種法，一會兒說它們相同，一會兒說它們相異，那麼這兩種法應該說成是相同還是相異呢？如果既不說相同也不說相異，這就是虛妄分別。如果這兩種法是相同的，就不能說這種法是相異的。如果沒有兩種法，又怎麼能說成是相同呢？因為這種法是互相依存才能成立的，所以是依世俗諦的虛妄分別。在第一義諦中，沒有那些外道的虛妄分別戲論的過失。這是總的回答四種外道邪見的相狀。從這裡開始，分別回答四種意義。像這樣一一觀察迦毗羅（Kapila，數論派創始人）、優樓佉（Ulukha，勝論派創始人）等外道的虛妄分別義不能成立。這種意義是什麼呢？說一切法都是相同的，這種說法是不對的。因為應該滅的就會滅，不應該滅的就不會滅。既滅又不滅，既不滅又滅，這種意義是什麼呢？你先前說我和覺（Purusha，神我）的差別不可得，就像白布一樣。我破斥這種說法。為什麼呢？因為這種說法不符合諸經論的教義。你說諸法的差別不可得，這種說法是不對的。例如手和爪，這兩種法的相狀差別是不可得的。這說明什麼意義呢？例如爪、指、掌合起來才叫做手。如果離開了這些法，手就不可得。像這樣，白布的『一』是不可得的。為什麼呢？因為沒有不同的法。我的覺的『一』是不可得的。像這樣，白布的『一』是不可得的。就像手和指掌的關係一樣。如果這個滅了，那個也應該滅。這種意義是什麼呢？如果白色滅了，布也應該滅。就像截斷了手，也就截斷了指掌。你如果認為白色滅了，布卻不滅，這種說法是不對的。如果布不滅，白色也不應該滅。就像截斷了手指，手掌應該還在；就像截斷了指掌，手也應該還在。你如果認為青色、黃色、紅色等只是滅了白色，而沒有滅布，那麼又怎麼能說成是『一』呢？如果不這樣，青色、黃色、紅色等顏色就不應該滅。如果不這樣，布不滅，那麼青色、黃色、白色等顏色也不應該滅。問：我用青色、黃色、紅色等覆蓋白色，但白色並沒有滅。這種意義是什麼呢？答：布也是這樣，覆蓋了布，但布並沒有滅。而且這種說法是不對的，因為洗了布之後，還能看到白色。布也是這樣。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not permissible to call a different dharma a 'different dharma'. If, concerning two dharmas, one says they are the same at one moment and different at another, then should these two dharmas be said to be the same or different? If one says neither the same nor different, this is false discrimination. If these two dharmas are the same, one should not say that this dharma is different. If there are not two, how can one speak of 'one'? Because this dharma is established through mutual dependence, it is based on false discrimination according to conventional truth (Samvriti-satya). In ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya), there is no fault of those heretical, falsely discriminating, and playful arguments. This is a general answer to the characteristics of the four types of heretical views. From here onwards, there are separate answers to the four meanings. Observing each one in this way, the false discriminating meanings of Kapila (founder of Samkhya), Ulukha (founder of Vaisheshika), and other heretics are not established. What is this meaning? To say that all dharmas are one is not correct. Because what should be extinguished will be extinguished, and what should not be extinguished will not be extinguished. What is the meaning of both extinguishing and not extinguishing, or neither extinguishing nor not extinguishing? You previously said that the difference between 'I' and 'Awareness' (Purusha) is not obtainable, like white cloth. I refute this statement. Why? Because this meaning does not correspond with the teachings of the sutras and shastras. Your statement that the differences of dharmas are not obtainable is incorrect. For example, the difference in characteristics between the hand and the fingernail is not obtainable. What meaning does this clarify? For example, the fingernail, fingers, and palm together are called a hand. If these dharmas are absent, the hand is not obtainable. In this way, the 'one' of white cloth is not obtainable. Why? Because there is no different dharma. The 'one' of my Awareness is not obtainable. In this way, the 'one' of white cloth is not obtainable, like the relationship between the hand and the fingers and palm. If this is extinguished, that should also be extinguished. What is this meaning? If the white color is extinguished, the cloth should also be extinguished, just as cutting off the hand also cuts off the fingers and palm. If you think that the white color is extinguished but the cloth is not, this statement is incorrect. If the cloth is not extinguished, the white color should also not be extinguished, just as if the fingers are cut off, the palm should still be there; just as if the fingers and palm are cut off, the hand should still be there. If you think that blue, yellow, red, etc., only extinguish the white color and do not extinguish the cloth, then how can you say it is 'one'? If not, the colors blue, yellow, red, etc., should not be extinguished. If not, if the cloth is not extinguished, then the colors blue, yellow, white, etc., should also not be extinguished. Question: I cover the white color with blue, yellow, red, etc., but the white color is not extinguished. What is this meaning? Answer: The cloth is also like that, covering the cloth, but the cloth is not extinguished. Moreover, this statement is incorrect, because after washing the cloth, one can still see the white color. The cloth is also like that.

如是。覆疊不滅疊。是故白即是疊。疊即是白。若疊滅者青黃赤白等色云何見。若汝意謂白滅覆非滅疊應滅覆疊不應滅白。若爾有法滅覆有法不滅不覆。云何言一。是故一義不成。已答外道僧佉論師一切法一竟。

問曰。迦那陀外道論師言一切法異者。我與覺異。以說異法故。此是我此是覺。如白疊此是白此是疊故。答曰。此義不然。以無譬喻故。如人說言。此是手此是指掌。彼人雖說此語不能說異法。是故不得言我覺異。如白疊以見世間有二種差別故。一者相二者處。相差別者。色香味觸不異相有異相故。處差別者。如谷豆等有白疊不異相有差別。如彼色香味觸。若不爾者有四種過。此義云何。白滅疊亦滅。如彼色香味觸。譬如火和合燒瓶成赤色已又為青色。香味亦爾。若不爾者色香味觸亦不應滅。如彼白疊異不可得。若白滅者疊亦應滅。疊不滅者白亦不應滅。

問曰。此義不然。依彼法有此法。譬如畫壁依壁有畫。壁滅畫亦滅。畫滅壁不滅。我白滅疊不滅義亦如是。答曰。汝此譬喻事不相似。壁是先有畫是後作。而彼白疊起無前後。不可得言此白先有疊是後作。已答外道衛世師論師一切法異義竟。

問曰。尼揵子外道論師言一切法俱。迦毗羅等論師皆有過失。以說一異故。是故我說俱而不俱。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『如是。覆疊不滅，疊不滅。因此，白就是疊，疊就是白。如果疊滅了，那麼青、黃、赤、白等顏色如何能被看見？如果你認為白滅了，覆蓋（覆）不滅，那麼疊應該滅，覆蓋不應該滅白。如果這樣，就存在一種現象：有的法滅了，有的法不滅也不覆蓋。怎麼能說是一呢？因此，一切法一的觀點不能成立。』已經駁斥了外道僧佉論師關於一切法是一的觀點。

『問：迦那陀（Kanada，印度哲學術語，意為原子論者）外道論師說一切法是不同的。我和覺（Jnana，佛教術語，意為知覺、覺性）是不同的，因為說了不同的法。這是我，這是覺。就像白疊（Baita，一種白色布料），這是白，這是疊。』『答：這個觀點不對，因為沒有合適的比喻。就像人說，『這是手，這是指掌』，這個人雖然說了這句話，但不能說出不同的法。因此，不能說我和覺是不同的。就像白疊，因為看到世間有兩種差別：一是相（Lakshana，佛教術語，意為性質、特徵），二是處（Sthana，佛教術語，意為場所、位置）。相的差別是指，色、香、味、觸（Rupa, Gandha, Rasa, Sparsha，佛教術語，意為構成感官體驗的四種基本元素）不異，但相有異。處的差別是指，如谷、豆等，有白疊，相不異，但有差別。如果不是這樣，就會有四種過失。』『這是什麼意思呢？白滅了，疊也滅了，就像色、香、味、觸一樣。譬如火和合燒瓶，變成紅色后又變成青色，香味也是這樣。如果不是這樣，色、香、味、觸也不應該滅。就像白疊，不同是不可得的。如果白滅了，疊也應該滅。如果疊不滅，白也不應該滅。』

『問：這個觀點不對。因為有此法依賴彼法。譬如畫在墻壁上，畫依賴墻壁而存在。墻壁滅了，畫也滅了。畫滅了，墻壁不滅。我（Atman，印度哲學概念，意為靈魂、真我）的白滅了，疊不滅，道理也是這樣。』『答：你的這個比喻不相似。墻壁是先有的，畫是后畫的。而白疊的產生沒有先後。不能說白是先有的，疊是后產生的。』已經駁斥了外道衛世師（Vaisheshika，印度哲學術語，意為勝論學派）論師關於一切法是不同的觀點。

『問：尼揵子（Nigantha，耆那教術語，意為無繫縛者）外道論師說一切法是俱（同時存在）。迦毗羅（Kapila，印度哲學術語，意為數論學派的創始人）等論師都有過失，因為他們說一和異。因此，我說俱而不俱。』

【English Translation】 English version: 'Thus it is. The covering (覆) of the cloth (疊) does not perish, the cloth does not perish. Therefore, white is cloth, and cloth is white. If the cloth perishes, how can colors such as blue, yellow, red, and white be seen? If you think that the white perishes, but the covering does not perish, then the cloth should perish, but the covering should not perish the white. If so, there is a phenomenon where some dharmas perish, and some dharmas do not perish or cover. How can it be said to be one? Therefore, the view that all dharmas are one cannot be established.' This has refuted the Samkhya (僧佉, one of the six major schools of Hindu philosophy) heretics' view that all dharmas are one.

'Question: The Kanada (迦那陀, founder of the Vaisheshika school of Hindu philosophy, known for its atomistic theories) heretic teacher says that all dharmas are different. I am different from awareness (覺, Jnana, knowledge or consciousness), because different dharmas are spoken of. This is me, this is awareness. Like white cloth (白疊, Baita, a type of white fabric), this is white, this is cloth.' 'Answer: This view is not correct, because there is no suitable analogy. It's like a person saying, 'This is a hand, this is a finger and palm.' Although this person says this, they cannot speak of different dharmas. Therefore, it cannot be said that I and awareness are different. Like white cloth, because it is seen that there are two kinds of differences in the world: one is characteristic (相, Lakshana, characteristic, attribute), and the other is location (處, Sthana, place, position). The difference in characteristics refers to the fact that form, smell, taste, and touch (色香味觸, Rupa, Gandha, Rasa, Sparsha, the four basic elements constituting sensory experience) are not different, but the characteristics are different. The difference in location refers to things like grains and beans, which have white cloth, the characteristics are not different, but there are differences. If this is not the case, there will be four kinds of faults.' 'What does this mean? When the white perishes, the cloth also perishes, just like form, smell, taste, and touch. For example, fire combines to burn a bottle, turning it red and then blue, and the same is true for smell and taste. If this is not the case, form, smell, taste, and touch should not perish either. Like white cloth, difference is unattainable. If the white perishes, the cloth should also perish. If the cloth does not perish, the white should not perish either.'

'Question: This view is not correct. Because this dharma depends on that dharma. For example, a painting on a wall depends on the wall for its existence. When the wall perishes, the painting also perishes. When the painting perishes, the wall does not perish. The white of my self (我, Atman, the self or soul) perishes, but the cloth does not perish, and the principle is the same.' 'Answer: Your analogy is not similar. The wall exists first, and the painting is made later. But the arising of white cloth has no before or after. It cannot be said that the white exists first and the cloth is produced later.' This has refuted the Vaisheshika (衛世師, one of the six major schools of Hindu philosophy, known for its emphasis on particularity and difference) heretic teacher's view that all dharmas are different.

'Question: The Nigantha (尼揵子, a term for Jain ascetics, meaning 'free from bonds') heretic teacher says that all dharmas are simultaneous (俱, existing at the same time). Kapila (迦毗羅, founder of the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy) and other teachers all have faults, because they speak of one and different. Therefore, I say simultaneous but not simultaneous.'

譬如燈明。有此有彼。有彼有此。無此無彼。無彼無此。如有燈有明有明有燈。無燈無明無明無燈。異者能照所照。以燈異處明異處。是故說異。如我覺白疊等。亦得說一亦得說異。譬如白于疊中別處不可得言此是白此是疊。如世間此是牛此是馬等。白疊不爾。是故我不說異亦不說一。若一者白滅疊應滅。又若一者亦不應說赤疊黑疊等。是故我言得說一得說異。此義云何。答曰。此義不然。如向說僧佉毗世師等過失。與此無異。以何等義僧佉一如向說。以何等義毗世師異如向說。云何向說。如向說言。燈明一者燈即是明。明即是燈。此唯有別數而無別義。若爾燈亦應明。明亦應燈。若此二法。一者云何異處。如手與指掌無差別。腳手有差別。手指掌無差別。若一者云何言異。是故不得言一言異。此一異義不成。已答外道尼犍子論師一切法俱竟。

問曰。若提子論師言。僧佉等論師說一切法一異俱皆有過失。我若提子不說一切法一異俱。如我論中不許此義。唯許不俱。是故我無僧佉等過失。雖然不得說言無不俱。此義云何。答曰。此義不然。以無譬喻故。以無譬喻者我說。世諦有如是法。第一義諦中無如是相。是故此成我所說義。此明何義。以無彼法即無此法無彼法體亦無此法體。以此法不成彼法。彼法不成此法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：譬如燈和光明，有燈則有光明，有光明則有燈。沒有燈就沒有光明，沒有光明就沒有燈。如果說有燈就有光明，有光明就有燈，那麼燈和光明之間是不同的，因為燈在不同的地方，光明也在不同的地方，所以才說是不同的。比如我感知到白色的布匹等事物，既可以說它們是『一』，也可以說它們是『異』。比如在布匹中，無法找到一個獨立於布匹之外的白色部分，然後說『這是白色，這是布匹』。就像世俗中說『這是牛，這是馬』那樣，白色和布匹不是這樣。因此，我不說它們是『異』，也不說它們是『一』。如果說它們是『一』，那麼白色消失了，布匹也應該消失。而且，如果說它們是『一』，就不應該說『紅色的布匹』、『黑色的布匹』等等。所以我說可以認為它們是『一』，也可以認為它們是『異』。這其中的含義是什麼呢？回答說：這種說法是不對的。就像之前說的數論派（Sāmkhya）和勝論派（Vaiśesika）的過失一樣，與這個沒有區別。數論派在什麼意義上說是『一』，就像之前說的那樣？勝論派在什麼意義上說是『異』，也像之前說的那樣？之前是怎麼說的呢？就像之前說的，燈和光明是『一』，燈就是光明，光明就是燈。這僅僅是數量上的區別，而沒有本質上的區別。如果這樣，燈也應該是光明，光明也應該是燈。如果這兩種法是『一』，那麼它們怎麼會在不同的地方呢？就像手和手指、手掌沒有差別一樣，腳和手有差別，手指和手掌沒有差別。如果它們是『一』，怎麼能說是『異』呢？所以不能說『一』也不能說『異』。這種關於『一』和『異』的說法是不成立的。以上已經回答了外道尼犍子（Nigantha）論師關於一切法都是『俱』的觀點。問：如果離系子（Vikramaaditya）論師說，數論派等論師說一切法『一』、『異』、『俱』都有過失。我離系子不說一切法『一』、『異』、『俱』。我的理論中不允許這種觀點，只允許『不俱』。因此我沒有數論派等的過失。雖然不能說『無不俱』，這其中的含義是什麼呢？答：這種說法是不對的，因為沒有合適的比喻。因為沒有合適的比喻，我說，在世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）中有這樣的法，但在第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）中沒有這樣的現象。因此，這成就了我所說的意義。這說明什麼意義呢？因為沒有那個法，就沒有這個法；沒有那個法的本體，也沒有這個法的本體。因為這個法不能成就那個法，那個法也不能成就這個法。

【English Translation】 English version: For example, like a lamp and its light, if there is a lamp, there is light; if there is light, there is a lamp. If there is no lamp, there is no light; if there is no light, there is no lamp. If we say that where there is a lamp, there is light, and where there is light, there is a lamp, then the lamp and the light are different because the lamp is in a different place, and the light is also in a different place, so they are said to be different. For example, when I perceive white cloth and other things, we can say they are 'one' or 'different'. For example, in the cloth, it is impossible to find a white part separate from the cloth and say, 'This is white, this is cloth.' Like in the mundane world where we say, 'This is a cow, this is a horse,' white and cloth are not like that. Therefore, I do not say they are 'different,' nor do I say they are 'one.' If they are 'one,' then when the white disappears, the cloth should also disappear. Moreover, if they are 'one,' we should not say 'red cloth,' 'black cloth,' etc. Therefore, I say that they can be considered 'one' or 'different.' What is the meaning of this? The answer is: This statement is incorrect. It is like the faults of the Sāmkhya (enumeration) and Vaiśesika (particularity) schools mentioned earlier; there is no difference. In what sense does the Sāmkhya school say 'one,' as mentioned earlier? In what sense does the Vaiśesika school say 'different,' as also mentioned earlier? How was it said earlier? It was said earlier that the lamp and the light are 'one,' the lamp is the light, and the light is the lamp. This is merely a difference in number, not a difference in essence. If so, the lamp should also be light, and the light should also be a lamp. If these two dharmas are 'one,' then how can they be in different places? Just as there is no difference between the hand and the fingers or the palm, there is a difference between the foot and the hand, and there is no difference between the fingers and the palm. If they are 'one,' how can they be said to be 'different'? Therefore, one cannot say 'one' or 'different.' This statement about 'one' and 'different' is not valid. The view of the Nigantha (naked) teacher of the external path that all dharmas are 'both' has been answered. Question: If the Vikramaaditya (sun of valor) teacher says that the Sāmkhya and other schools say that there are faults in all dharmas being 'one,' 'different,' or 'both.' I, Vikramaaditya, do not say that all dharmas are 'one,' 'different,' or 'both.' My theory does not allow this view; it only allows 'not both.' Therefore, I do not have the faults of the Sāmkhya and others. Although one cannot say 'not not both,' what is the meaning of this? Answer: This statement is incorrect because there is no suitable analogy. Because there is no suitable analogy, I say that in conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) there are such dharmas, but in ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) there are no such phenomena. Therefore, this accomplishes the meaning of what I have said. What meaning does this illustrate? Because there is no that dharma, there is no this dharma; there is no the essence of that dharma, and there is no the essence of this dharma. Because this dharma cannot accomplish that dharma, and that dharma cannot accomplish this dharma.

。以此法畢竟非彼法。彼法亦畢竟非此法。以白非疊以疊非白。以滅不應滅。以一者即白是疊疊即是白。不爾者滅是滅。不滅者不滅。若爾云何虛妄分別。彼法是一異俱不俱。若爾疊亦應非疊非不疊。白亦應非白非不白。以疊即是疊白即是白。是故疊非疊白非白。是故非白不得白。如是一異俱不俱皆是虛妄分別。唯有言說無有實義。如是我覺因果等義亦如是故。已答外道若提子論師一切法不俱竟。

提婆菩薩破楞伽經中外道小乘四宗論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以這種方法來說，最終不是那種方法。那種方法最終也不是這種方法。因為白色不是墊子，墊子不是白色。以滅盡來說，不應該滅盡。以一來說，就是白色是墊子，墊子就是白色。如果不是這樣，滅盡就是滅盡，不滅盡就是不滅盡。如果是這樣，那什麼是虛妄分別呢？那種法是一、異、俱、不俱嗎？如果是這樣，墊子也應該既不是墊子也不是非墊子，白色也應該既不是白色也不是非白色。因為墊子就是墊子，白色就是白色。所以墊子不是墊子，白色不是白色。因此，非白色不能得到白色。像這樣，一、異、俱、不俱都是虛妄分別，只有言語表達，沒有實際意義。像我覺、因果等意義也是如此。已經回答了外道若提子論師關於一切法不俱的問題。

提婆菩薩在《破楞伽經》中對外道和小乘四宗的論述。現代漢語譯本：以這種方式來說，最終不是那種方式。那種方式最終也不是這種方式。因為白色不是墊子，墊子不是白色。以滅盡來說，不應該滅盡。以一來說，就是白色是墊子，墊子就是白色。如果不是這樣，滅盡就是滅盡，不滅盡就是不滅盡。如果是這樣，那什麼是虛妄分別呢？那種法是一、異、俱、不俱嗎？如果是這樣，墊子也應該既不是墊子也不是非墊子，白色也應該既不是白色也不是非白色。因為墊子就是墊子，白色就是白色。所以墊子不是墊子，白色不是白色。因此，非白色不能得到白色。像這樣，一、異、俱、不俱都是虛妄分別，只有言語表達，沒有實際意義。像我覺、因果等意義也是如此。已經回答了外道若提子論師關於一切法不俱的問題。

提婆菩薩在《破楞伽經》中對外道和小乘四宗的論述。

【English Translation】 English version: By this method, ultimately it is not that method. That method, ultimately, is not this method. Because white is not a mat (die), and a mat is not white. In terms of extinction, there should be no extinction. In terms of oneness, that is, white is the mat, and the mat is white. If it is not so, extinction is extinction, and non-extinction is non-extinction. If so, then what is false discrimination (虛妄分別, xūwàng fēnbié)? Is that dharma one, different, both, or neither? If so, the mat should also be neither a mat nor a non-mat, and white should also be neither white nor non-white. Because a mat is a mat, and white is white. Therefore, a mat is not a mat, and white is not white. Therefore, non-white cannot obtain white. Likewise, one, different, both, and neither are all false discriminations, with only verbal expressions and no real meaning. Likewise, the meanings of my awareness, cause and effect, etc., are also like this. The question of the heretics (外道, wàidào) and the Tirthika (提子論師, Tízǐ lùnshī) teachers regarding all dharmas not being together has already been answered.

Deva Bodhisattva's discourse in the Breaking the Lankavatara Sutra on the four schools of heretics and Hinayana (小乘, xiǎoshèng). English version: By this method, ultimately it is not that method. That method, ultimately, is not this method. Because white is not a mat (die), and a mat is not white. In terms of extinction, there should be no extinction. In terms of oneness, that is, white is the mat, and the mat is white. If it is not so, extinction is extinction, and non-extinction is non-extinction. If so, then what is false discrimination (虛妄分別, xūwàng fēnbié)? Is that dharma one, different, both, or neither? If so, the mat should also be neither a mat nor a non-mat, and white should also be neither white nor non-white. Because a mat is a mat, and white is white. Therefore, a mat is not a mat, and white is not white. Therefore, non-white cannot obtain white. Likewise, one, different, both, and neither are all false discriminations, with only verbal expressions and no real meaning. Likewise, the meanings of my awareness, cause and effect, etc., are also like this. The question of the heretics (外道, wàidào) and the Tirthika (提子論師, Tízǐ lùnshī) teachers regarding all dharmas not being together has already been answered.

Deva Bodhisattva's discourse in the Breaking the Lankavatara Sutra on the four schools of heretics and Hinayana (小乘, xiǎoshèng).