T42n1824_中觀論疏
大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
No. 1824 [cf. No. 1564]
中論序疏
吉藏制
僧睿是魏群長樂人也。少出家。依僧賢法師為弟子。嘗聽中山康僧朗講每興譏難。師深相秤述。年二十四歷游名邦。常弘講說。方簡高潔。一方云。芳簡高結冰霜摻操。什至長安因從請業。門徒三千入室唯八。睿為首領。文云。老則融睿。少則生肇。什嘆曰。傳吾業者寄在道融曇影僧睿乎。什翻成實論竟命睿講之。謂道融曰。此諍論中有七處破阿毗曇。在言小隱。能不問我可謂英才。融曰。其人思力有分未必咨稟。遂剖折無遺。眾益嗟重。天子姚興聞睿景行。問安城侯姚嵩曰。睿何如人。嵩曰。業衛之松柏也。后自引睿見之。謂嵩曰。斯乃四海之標頒。豈獨業衛乎。於是美聲遐扇流於遠邇。著中論大智論及成實論禪經等序雅傳於世。春秋六十有一。作中論序非止一人。曇影制義疏序。河西道朗亦制論序。而睿公文義備舉理事精玄。興皇和上開講常讀。蓋是信而好古述而不作。但文有微隱。余略釋之。就斯一序裁為七分。一通標人法。二釋名題。三序論緣起。四嘆釋功能。五述注論青目。六廣嘆四論。七作者自謙。中論五百偈標所造法也。龍樹菩薩序能造之人也
。道不孤運。弘之由人。故前明所弘之道。後序弘道之人。又題中論五百偈者重其法也。龍樹菩薩者尊其人也。又初句簡二邊之法也。后句別小乘之人也。所言中論者玄義具述。今既釋序略明五意。一者斯論定佛法之偏正。判得失之根原。是以龍樹標中論名也。二者斯文論中實之理。從所詮理實得名故云中論。業品云。此論所明義離於斷常見故云中論。三者龍樹所作凡有三論。一無畏之廣。次十二之略。今是折中之說。故秤中論。四者以文表義。斯論前無緣起后略餘勢但有正文。以文表義理故秤中論。五者龍樹大士是中道人。中道人所製作。從人立名故秤中論。五百偈者。前標其名今序偈數。偈有二種。一是首盧偈。謂胡人數經法也。則是通偈。言通偈者。莫問長行偈頌。但令數滿三十二字。則是偈也。二者別偈。謂結句為偈。莫問四言五言六言七言。但令四句滿便是偈也。偈者外國具音應言竭夜。或秤祇夜。今示存略但秤為偈。偈者句也頌也。又言偈者。此土漢書亦有此音。訓言竭義。謂明義竭盡故秤為偈。但結句秤偈凡有二種。一路伽偈。謂頌長行偈也。二伽陀偈。謂孤起偈也。此論秤偈者。通別二中謂別偈也。后二之文謂孤起偈也。五百者。即文審之凡四百四十六偈。或是全其大數。或翻之不盡。以本為名故秤
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 道不是獨自執行的，弘揚它在於人。所以前面說明所弘揚的佛法，後面敘述弘揚佛法的人。又在題目中提到『五百偈』，是重視這部佛法。提到『龍樹菩薩』，是尊敬這個人。而且第一句概括了不落兩邊的佛法，后一句區別于小乘之人。所說的『中論』，其玄妙意義已在玄義中詳盡闡述。現在既然解釋序文，就簡略地說明五個方面的意義：一是這部論典確定佛法的偏頗與正統，判斷得失的根源。因此龍樹菩薩標名為『中論』。二是這部論著論述中實之理，從所詮釋的真實道理而得名，所以稱為『中論』。《業品》中說：『這部論所闡明的意義，遠離斷見和常見，所以稱為中論。』三是龍樹菩薩所作的論著共有三種：一是《無畏論》，內容廣博；二是《十二門論》，內容簡略；現在這部論是折中的說法，所以稱為『中論』。四是以文字表達義理。這部論前面沒有緣起，後面省略了其餘的勢用，只有正文，以文字表達義理，所以稱為『中論』。五是龍樹大士是奉行中道的人，由奉行中道的人所製作，從人來立名，所以稱為『中論』。 『五百偈』，前面標明它的名稱，現在敘述偈頌的數量。偈有兩種：一是首盧偈（Sloka，梵文，指詩頌），這是胡人計算經文的方法，是通用的偈。所說的通用偈，不論是長行還是偈頌，只要字數滿三十二字，就是偈。二是別偈，指以結句為偈。不論是四言、五言、六言、七言，只要四句完整，就是偈。『偈』這個詞，在外國完整的發音應該說成『竭夜』（Geya）或『祇夜』（Giti），現在爲了簡略，只稱為『偈』。『偈』的意思是句或頌。而且『偈』這個詞，在中國的漢書中也有這個音，解釋為『竭盡』的意思，意思是說明義理竭盡，所以稱為『偈』。但結句稱為偈，總共有兩種：一是路伽偈（Loka-gatha），指頌揚長行的偈；二是伽陀偈（Gatha），指獨立產生的偈。這部論所說的偈，在通用偈和別偈中指的是別偈。後面所說的『二』，指的是獨立產生的偈。『五百』，如果仔細審查原文，總共有四百四十六偈。或許是取其大概的數字，或許是翻譯得不完全，以原本的數字作為名稱，所以稱為『五百偈』。
【English Translation】 English version: The Tao (道) does not operate in isolation; its propagation depends on people. Therefore, the preceding text elucidates the Tao (道) being propagated, while the subsequent text narrates the individuals who propagate it. Furthermore, the mention of 'Five Hundred Gathas' (偈) in the title emphasizes the Dharma (法). The mention of 'Nagarjuna Bodhisattva' (龍樹菩薩) reveres the person. Moreover, the initial phrase encapsulates the Dharma (法) that avoids extremes, while the latter phrase distinguishes it from those of the Hinayana (小乘). The term 'Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論) has its profound meaning fully elaborated in the introduction. Now that the preface is being explained, five aspects are briefly clarified: Firstly, this treatise determines the correctness and deviation of the Buddha-dharma (佛法), and judges the root of gains and losses. Hence, Nagarjuna (龍樹) designates it as 'Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論). Secondly, this text discusses the principle of true reality, deriving its name from the reality it expounds, thus it is called 'Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論). The Karma Chapter (業品) states: 'The meaning elucidated in this treatise is free from views of permanence and annihilation, hence it is called Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論). Thirdly, Nagarjuna (龍樹) composed three treatises: 'The Fearless Treatise' (無畏論), which is extensive; 'The Twelve Gate Treatise' (十二門論), which is concise; and this treatise is a compromise between the two, hence it is called 'Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論). Fourthly, the text expresses the meaning. This treatise lacks an introduction on dependent origination and omits the remaining momentum, containing only the main text. Because the text expresses the meaning, it is called 'Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論). Fifthly, the great Nagarjuna (龍樹) is a person of the Middle Way (中道). It is created by a person of the Middle Way, and named after the person, hence it is called 'Madhyamaka-sastra' (中論). 'Five Hundred Gathas' (五百偈): the name is indicated earlier, and now the number of verses is described. There are two types of Gathas (偈): firstly, Sloka (首盧偈), which is the method used by the Hu (胡) people to count scriptures. This is a general Gatha (偈). A general Gatha (偈) means that regardless of whether it is prose or verse, as long as it has thirty-two characters, it is a Gatha (偈). Secondly, a specific Gatha (偈) refers to a concluding verse. Regardless of whether it has four, five, six, or seven words, as long as it has four complete lines, it is a Gatha (偈). The complete pronunciation of 'Gatha' (偈) in foreign languages should be Geya (竭夜) or Giti (祇夜), but now it is abbreviated to 'Gatha' (偈). 'Gatha' (偈) means a sentence or a hymn. Moreover, the term 'Gatha' (偈) also exists in Chinese books, meaning 'exhaustion', implying that the meaning is fully exhausted, hence it is called 'Gatha' (偈). However, there are two types of concluding verses called Gathas (偈): firstly, Loka-gatha (路伽偈), which refers to verses praising prose; secondly, Gatha (伽陀偈), which refers to independently arising verses. The Gathas (偈) mentioned in this treatise refer to specific Gathas (偈) among general and specific Gathas (偈). The 'two' mentioned later refers to independently arising verses. 'Five Hundred' (五百): upon careful examination of the text, there are a total of four hundred and forty-six Gathas (偈). Perhaps it is an approximate number, or perhaps the translation is incomplete. The original number is used as the name, hence it is called 'Five Hundred Gathas' (五百偈).
五百。眾經及論文有三焉。一但長行。即百論也。二但有偈。斯文。三具二種。十二門論之流。龍樹十住毗婆沙云。或有樂長行。或有樂偈頌。或有樂雜說莊嚴章句者。所好各不同。我隨而不捨。論三既爾。經義例然。龍樹者。依梵音應云伽那馥力叉。伽那者龍也。馥力叉者樹也。智度論云。童籠磨者龍也。馥力叉是樹通名也。別名阿阇那。如此間梨李樹等。問龍樹是何位之人。答聖蹟無方高下未易可測。僅依經傳敘其淺深。睿公云。功格十地道摸補處。是窮學之人。傳云。智慧日已頹。斯人令再耀。世昏寢已久。斯人悟令學。外國為之立廟事之若佛。安知非佛示為菩薩乎。匡山遠法師云。名貫道位德備三忍。亦十地高仁也。依楞伽經。大慧菩薩問。世尊滅度后佛法何人持。佛答。大慧汝當知。南天竺大國中有大德比丘。名龍樹菩薩。為人說大乘無上法。能破有無見。住初歡喜地。往生安養國。釋此語不同。舊云。龍樹是初地人。關內姚道安學智度論云。此是龍樹引眾生令入初地。而實是十地人也。問何依人也。答若云初地則二依人也。若是窮學則第四依人。問云何是四依。答且依一判。如小乘見道前具煩惱人是一依。須陀洹斯陀含是二依。阿那含是三依。羅漢第四依。約大乘望十回向是一依。初地至七地是二依。八
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五百部經典以及論著有三種形式。第一種只有散文，例如《百論》。第二種只有偈頌，例如《斯文》。第三種兼有散文和偈頌，例如《十二門論》等。《龍樹十住毗婆沙》中說：『有些人喜歡散文，有些人喜歡偈頌，有些人喜歡散文和偈頌混合的華麗文句。』每個人的喜好都不同，我都隨順而不捨棄。論著有這三種形式，經典的道理也是一樣。 龍樹，根據梵語發音，應該寫作伽那馥力叉（Gana馥力叉）。伽那（Gana）是龍的意思，馥力叉（馥力叉）是樹的意思。《智度論》中說，童籠磨（童籠磨）是龍的意思，馥力叉（馥力叉）是樹的通稱，它的別名是阿阇那（阿阇那），就像我們這裡的梨樹、李樹等。問：龍樹（Nagarjuna）是什麼地位的人？答：聖人的事蹟沒有固定的模式，高低深淺難以衡量。只能根據經典記載來敘述他的淺深。睿公說：『他的功德堪比十地菩薩，他的道行可以作為補處菩薩的典範。』這是窮究學問的人。傳說：『智慧的太陽已經衰落，這個人讓它再次閃耀；世人昏睡已經很久，這個人覺悟並引導他們學習。』外國為他建立廟宇，像對待佛一樣侍奉他。怎麼知道他不是佛示現為菩薩呢？匡山慧遠法師說：『他的名聲貫穿于菩薩的果位，他的德行具備三忍。』也是十地的高人。根據《楞伽經》，大慧菩薩（Mahamati）問：世尊（Bhagavan）滅度后，佛法由什麼人來護持？佛回答：大慧（Mahamati），你應該知道，在南天竺（South India）大國中，有一位大德比丘，名叫龍樹菩薩（Nagarjuna Bodhisattva），他為人宣說大乘無上法，能破除有無二見，安住于初歡喜地（Pramudita），往生安養國（Sukhavati）。對這段話的解釋不同。舊的說法認為，龍樹（Nagarjuna）是初地菩薩。關內的姚道安學習《智度論》后說：『這是龍樹（Nagarjuna）引導眾生進入初地，而他實際上是十地菩薩。』問：他屬於哪一類依人？答：如果說是初地菩薩，那麼屬於第二類依人。如果是窮究學問的人，那麼屬於第四類依人。問：什麼是四依？答：且按照一種判別方法來說，如小乘見道前具足煩惱的人是第一依，須陀洹（Srotapanna）、斯陀含（Sakrdagamin）是第二依，阿那含（Anagamin）是第三依，阿羅漢（Arhat）是第四依。從大乘的角度來看，十回向（Parinamanā）是第一依，初地（Bhumis）到七地（Bhumis）是第二依，八 地至十地是三依。佛是四依。又約自他。如但自未度度人名一依。自度未度人名二依。自未度亦未度人名三依。自度亦度人名四依。問何故名依。答依者是所歸趣義。如人依樹。鳥依林也。
【English Translation】 English version The five hundred scriptures and treatises have three forms. The first is only prose, such as the Shastra on the Middle Way. The second is only verses, such as this text. The third has both prose and verses, such as the Twelve Gate Treatise and others. The Nagarjuna's Commentary on the Ten Grounds Sutra says: 'Some people like prose, some people like verses, and some people like ornate sentences that mix prose and verses.' Everyone has different preferences, and I follow them all without abandoning any. Since treatises have these three forms, the principle is the same for scriptures. Nagarjuna, according to the Sanskrit pronunciation, should be written as Gana馥力叉 (Gana馥力叉). Gana (Gana) means dragon, and 馥力叉 (馥力叉) means tree. The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says that 童籠磨 (童籠磨) means dragon, and 馥力叉 (馥力叉) is a general term for tree, its other name is 阿阇那 (阿阇那), like pear trees and plum trees here. Question: What is the position of Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna)? Answer: The deeds of saints have no fixed pattern, and their height and depth are difficult to measure. We can only describe his shallowness and depth based on the records in the scriptures. Master Rui said: 'His merits are comparable to the Ten Grounds Bodhisattvas, and his conduct can be a model for the Bodhisattva who will attain Buddhahood in the future.' This is a person who has thoroughly studied. Legend has it: 'The sun of wisdom has declined, and this person makes it shine again; the world has been asleep for a long time, and this person awakens and guides them to learn.' Foreign countries have built temples for him and serve him as if he were a Buddha. How do we know that he is not a Buddha manifested as a Bodhisattva? Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu said: 'His name runs through the Bodhisattva's position, and his virtue is equipped with the three forbearances.' He is also a high-ranking person of the Ten Grounds. According to the Lankavatara Sutra, Mahamati Bodhisattva (Mahamati) asked: After the Bhagavan (Bhagavan) passes away, who will uphold the Dharma? The Buddha replied: Mahamati (Mahamati), you should know that in the great country of South India (South India), there is a great virtuous Bhikshu named Nagarjuna Bodhisattva (Nagarjuna Bodhisattva), who preaches the unsurpassed Mahayana Dharma to people, can break through the views of existence and non-existence, abide in the first Joyful Ground (Pramudita), and be reborn in the Land of Bliss (Sukhavati). There are different interpretations of this passage. The old saying is that Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) is a Bodhisattva of the first ground. Yao Daoan in Guanzhong said after studying the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra: 'This is Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) guiding sentient beings to enter the first ground, but he is actually a Bodhisattva of the ten grounds.' Question: To which type of reliance does he belong? Answer: If he is said to be a Bodhisattva of the first ground, then he belongs to the second type of reliance. If he is a person who thoroughly studies, then he belongs to the fourth type of reliance. Question: What are the four reliances? Answer: Let's say according to one method of judgment, such as a person who has not attained the path of seeing in the Hinayana and is full of afflictions is the first reliance, Srotapanna (Srotapanna) and Sakrdagamin (Sakrdagamin) are the second reliance, Anagamin (Anagamin) is the third reliance, and Arhat (Arhat) is the fourth reliance. From the perspective of Mahayana, the Ten Dedications (Parinamanā) are the first reliance, the first ground (Bhumis) to the seventh ground (Bhumis) are the second reliance, eight grounds to the tenth ground are the third reliance. The Buddha is the fourth reliance. Also, in terms of self and others, such as only liberating others without liberating oneself is called the first reliance, liberating oneself without liberating others is called the second reliance, not liberating oneself or others is called the third reliance, and liberating oneself and others is called the fourth reliance. Question: Why is it called reliance? Answer: Reliance means the place to which one returns. Like a person relying on a tree, or a bird relying on a forest.
九地是三依。十地第四依。如楞伽是第二依。如睿師是第四依。以釋迦佛法無別菩薩僧。龍樹是出家之人。故依小乘位分之。名貫道位者。菩薩位之通名也。德備三忍。謂信順無生也。問龍樹更有異名耶。答有。順中論是天親所作。言順中論者。廣引大品等經證釋八不。八不則是中道。依文釋義故云順中論。順中論雲龍勝菩薩非龍樹也。今宜會之。以龍成其勝道故云龍勝。蓋但敘其未字。前則道俗雙舉。故義無所害。以中為名者下第二釋論名題。但論有廣略二本。略但云中論。廣則加以觀也。然斯廣略皆有其義。所言略者。謂理教義也。中是所詮之理。論是能詮之教。斯無理不攝。無教不收。問何由爾耶。答所詮之中則三種中道。世諦中真諦中非真非俗中。能詮之教即論此三中。是以無教不收無理不攝。所言廣本具三者。中諸佛菩薩所行之道。觀謂諸佛菩薩能觀之心。諸佛觀辨於心宣之於口。秤之為經。菩薩觀辨於心宣之於口。目之為論。要具斯三義乃圓足。玄章內已釋之。但中有三。一者對斷常之偏明中。此是對偏中。二者盡偏中。立於中名欲盡于偏病。故名盡偏中。又一意亦為偏病盡得有于中也。問盡偏對偏及絕待中此三何異。答玄意已明。今重略敘。盡偏中者。蓋是洗凈斷常故強名為中。雖盡于偏而有于中。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 九地是三依（三種依靠）。十地是第四依。如《楞伽經》是第二依。如睿師是第四依。因為釋迦佛法中沒有區別于菩薩的僧侶。龍樹（Nāgārjuna，印度佛教哲學家）是出家之人，所以依據小乘的位階來劃分他。名為貫道位的人，是菩薩位階的通用名稱。德行具備三忍，指的是信順於無生法忍。問：龍樹還有其他的名字嗎？答：有。《順中論》是天親（Vasubandhu，印度佛教哲學家）所作。說《順中論》的意思是，廣泛引用《大品般若經》等經典來證明解釋八不（不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異，不去不來）。八不就是中道。依據經文來解釋意義，所以叫做《順中論》。《順中論》說龍勝菩薩不是龍樹。現在應該會通一下。因為龍成就了他的殊勝之道，所以叫做龍勝。大概只是敘述了他的未字。前面道俗一起舉出，所以意義上沒有妨礙。以下第二段解釋論的名稱題目，以『中』為名。但是《中論》有廣本和略本兩種。略本只叫做《中論》，廣本則加上『觀』字。然而這兩種版本都有它的意義。所說的略本，指的是理、教、義。『中』是所詮釋的理，『論』是能詮釋的教。這樣沒有理不包含，沒有教不收攝。問：為什麼會這樣呢？答：所詮釋的『中』就是三種中道：世諦中、真諦中、非真非俗中。能詮釋的『教』就是論述這三種中道。因此沒有教不收攝，沒有理不包含。所說的廣本具備三種含義：『中』是諸佛菩薩所行之道，『觀』是諸佛菩薩能觀之心。諸佛觀察辨析於心，宣之於口，稱之為經。菩薩觀察辨析於心，宣之於口，稱之為論。要具備這三種意義才圓滿充足。《玄章》裡面已經解釋過了。但是『中』有三種：第一種是對治斷常之偏而顯明的中道，這是對偏中。第二種是盡除偏頗的中道，立於中道的名稱是爲了要消除偏頗的病癥，所以叫做盡偏中。還有一種意思是，偏頗的病癥全部消除才能得到中道。問：盡偏中、對偏中以及絕待中這三種有什麼不同？答：《玄意》已經說明了，現在重新簡略敘述。盡偏中，大概是洗凈斷常的偏頗，所以勉強稱之為中。雖然盡除了偏頗，但還是有『中』的存在，比如
【English Translation】 English version: The ninth Bhumi (stage of a Bodhisattva's path) is the three reliances. The tenth Bhumi is the fourth reliance. Like the Lankavatara Sutra is the second reliance. Like Master Rui is the fourth reliance. Because in Shakyamuni Buddha's Dharma, there is no distinction between Sangha and Bodhisattvas. Nagarjuna (Nāgārjuna, Indian Buddhist philosopher) is a monastic, so he is classified according to the position of the Hinayana. The one named 'Penetrating the Path Position' is the general name for the Bodhisattva position. Virtues are equipped with the three forbearances, referring to believing and complying with the non-origination. Question: Does Nagarjuna have other names? Answer: Yes. The 'Shun Zhong Lun' (Commentary Conforming to the Middle Treatise) was written by Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu, Indian Buddhist philosopher). Saying 'Shun Zhong Lun' means extensively quoting the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and other scriptures to prove and explain the Eight No's (neither birth nor death, neither permanence nor impermanence, neither identity nor difference, neither coming nor going). The Eight No's are the Middle Way. Explaining the meaning according to the text is why it is called 'Shun Zhong Lun'. 'Shun Zhong Lun' says that Bodhisattva Long Sheng is not Nagarjuna. Now it should be reconciled. Because the dragon achieves his supreme path, it is called Long Sheng. It probably only narrates his last name. The former mentions both monastics and laity, so there is no harm in meaning. The second paragraph below explains the title of the treatise, using 'Middle' as the name. However, there are two versions of the Middle Treatise, an extensive version and a concise version. The concise version is only called the 'Middle Treatise', while the extensive version adds the word 'Contemplation'. However, both versions have their meaning. The concise version refers to principle, teaching, and meaning. 'Middle' is the principle being explained, and 'Treatise' is the teaching that can explain. In this way, no principle is not included, and no teaching is not encompassed. Question: Why is that so? Answer: The 'Middle' being explained is the three Middle Ways: the mundane truth, the ultimate truth, and the neither true nor mundane truth. The 'teaching' that can explain is the discussion of these three Middle Ways. Therefore, no teaching is not encompassed, and no principle is not included. The extensive version has three meanings: 'Middle' is the path practiced by all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and 'Contemplation' is the mind that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can contemplate. Buddhas observe and discern in their minds and proclaim it through their mouths, calling it Sutra. Bodhisattvas observe and discern in their minds and proclaim it through their mouths, calling it Treatise. It is necessary to have these three meanings to be complete and sufficient. It has already been explained in the 'Profound Chapter'. However, there are three types of 'Middle': the first is the Middle Way that clarifies against the bias of permanence and annihilation, this is the Middle Way against bias. The second is the Middle Way that eliminates bias, establishing the name of the Middle Way to eliminate the illness of bias, so it is called the Middle Way that eliminates bias. Another meaning is that the illness of bias is completely eliminated to obtain the Middle Way. Question: What is the difference between the Middle Way that eliminates bias, the Middle Way against bias, and the Absolute Middle Way? Answer: The 'Profound Meaning' has already explained it, now I will briefly restate it. The Middle Way that eliminates bias is probably washing away the bias of permanence and annihilation, so it is reluctantly called the Middle Way. Although bias is eliminated, there is still the existence of 'Middle', such as
經云。眾生起見凡有二種。一斷二常。無常無斷乃名中道。對偏中者。此約所詮之理對破偏病。故名為中。絕待中者凡有二種。一者如涅槃云。有小涅槃有大涅槃。小涅槃者待苦說樂。大涅槃者絕此苦樂乃名大樂。此之絕待猶是待義。二者此絕待涅槃不可說其苦樂。不知何以美之。強名為樂乃秤大樂。方是絕待樂。中義亦然。須深見此意。問獨空與絕待中何異。答人多不體獨空之旨。但依智度論文。十八空是對有明空。秤相待空。非空非有無所因待秤為獨空。今謂蓋是一種方言。尋獨空意不然。以本來畢竟無所有唯有實相法性故秤為獨。正宗爾也。攝大乘雲。真如獨存。亦同此意。問何故此獨作空名說耶。答以畢竟無一切患累有法故秤為空。大集云。不可說故無相貌故名為空。法華經云。終歸於空。義亦如是。就睿師釋題有三。一釋名。二立名意。三利益。以中為名者照其實也。照有二義。一照訓顯。立此中名顯理實也。二蓋是以譬題名。非燈無由照了於物。非中名無由顯于理實。故云照也。以論為稱者盡其言也。盡者蓋是暢盡無餘之名。如小乘有所得之論。破邪未窮論正不足。蓋是有餘之說故不名為盡。與此相違秤為盡也。蓋是論理既窮其言亦盡。故云盡言。不云無言秤盡。睿師但釋中論不明觀者。以中是理論名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：經書中說，眾生生起知見，總共有兩種：一是斷滅見，二是常見。既不是斷滅也不是常，就叫做中道。針對偏頗而說的『中』，這是就所詮釋的道理，爲了破除偏頗的毛病而說的，所以叫做『中』。絕對待的『中』，總共有兩種：一種如《涅槃經》所說，有小涅槃，有大涅槃。小涅槃是相對於苦而說樂，大涅槃是超越了苦樂，才叫做大樂。這種絕對待仍然是相對待的意義。另一種是這種絕對待的涅槃，不可說它是苦是樂，不知道用什麼來讚美它，勉強稱之為樂，才是真正絕對待的樂。『中』的意義也是這樣，必須深刻理解這個意思。問：獨空和絕對待的中有什麼不同？答：很多人不理解獨空的宗旨，只是依據《智度論》，十八空是針對有而說明空，是相對待的空。非空非有，沒有什麼可以依賴對待，稱之為獨空。現在說這只是一種方言。探尋獨空的意義不是這樣，因為本來畢竟什麼都沒有，只有實相法性，所以稱之為獨。這才是正宗的意義。《攝大乘論》說，真如獨存，也是這個意思。問：為什麼這個『獨』要用空的名字來說明呢？答：因為畢竟沒有一切患累的有法，所以稱之為空。《大集經》說，不可說，沒有相貌，所以稱之為空。《法華經》說，終歸於空，意義也是這樣。就鳩摩羅什法師解釋經題，有三個方面：一是解釋名稱，二是確立名稱的意義，三是利益。用『中』作為名稱，是照亮它的真實。照有兩層意義：一是照訓顯，確立這個『中』的名稱，是爲了顯明道理的真實。二是大概是用譬喻來命名，沒有燈就無法照亮物體，沒有『中』這個名稱就無法顯明道理的真實，所以說『照』。用『論』作為稱謂，是窮盡它的言語。『盡』大概是暢達窮盡沒有剩餘的意思。比如小乘有所得的論，破除邪說沒有窮盡，論述正理也不夠充分，大概是有剩餘的說法，所以不叫做『盡』。與此相反，稱之為『盡』。大概是論述的道理已經窮盡，它的言語也窮盡了，所以說窮盡言語。不說沒有言語稱之為『盡』。鳩摩羅什法師只是解釋了『中論』，沒有解釋『觀』，因為『中』是理論，名稱是
【English Translation】 English version: The sutra says: Sentient beings give rise to views, which are of two kinds: one is annihilationism (斷見, duànjiàn), and the other is eternalism (常見, chángjiàn). Neither annihilation nor eternity is called the Middle Way. The 'middle' in contrast to bias is about the principle being explained, to break the sickness of bias, so it is called 'middle'. The absolute middle is of two kinds: one is as the Nirvana Sutra says, there is small Nirvana and there is great Nirvana. Small Nirvana speaks of happiness relative to suffering, great Nirvana transcends suffering and happiness, and is called great happiness. This absoluteness is still a relative meaning. The other is that this absolute Nirvana cannot be said to be suffering or happiness, and it is not known how to praise it. Forcibly calling it happiness is truly absolute happiness. The meaning of 'middle' is also like this, and this meaning must be deeply understood. Question: What is the difference between solitary emptiness (獨空, dūkōng) and the absolute middle? Answer: Many people do not understand the purpose of solitary emptiness, but only rely on the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra (智度論文, Zhìdù Lùnwén). The eighteen emptinesses are to explain emptiness in relation to existence, and are relative emptinesses. Neither emptiness nor existence, without anything to rely on, is called solitary emptiness. Now it is said that this is just a dialect. Seeking the meaning of solitary emptiness is not like this, because originally there is ultimately nothing, only the true nature of reality (實相法性, shíxiàng fǎxìng), so it is called solitary. This is the orthodox meaning. The Mahayana-samgraha (攝大乘論, Shè Dàchéng Lùn) says that true thusness (真如, zhēnrú) exists alone, which is also this meaning. Question: Why is this 'solitary' explained using the name of emptiness? Answer: Because there is ultimately no dharma (法, fǎ) with all afflictions and burdens, it is called emptiness. The Mahasamnipata Sutra (大集經, Dàjí Jīng) says that because it cannot be spoken of and has no characteristics, it is called emptiness. The Lotus Sutra (法華經, Fǎhuá Jīng) says that it ultimately returns to emptiness, and the meaning is also like this. Regarding Kumarajiva's (鳩摩羅什, Jiūmóluóshí) explanation of the title, there are three aspects: one is to explain the name, two is to establish the meaning of the name, and three is the benefit. Using 'middle' as the name is to illuminate its reality. Illumination has two meanings: one is to illuminate and explain, establishing this name of 'middle' is to reveal the reality of the principle. The second is probably to name it using a metaphor, without a lamp there is no way to illuminate objects, without the name of 'middle' there is no way to reveal the reality of the principle, so it is called 'illumination'. Using 'treatise' as the term is to exhaust its words. 'Exhaust' is probably the meaning of thoroughly exhausting without remainder. For example, the treatises of the Hinayana (小乘, Xiǎochéng) with something to be attained, do not exhaust the refutation of heresy, and the discussion of the correct principle is insufficient, which is probably a remaining statement, so it is not called 'exhaust'. In contrast to this, it is called 'exhaust'. It is probably that the discussed principle has been exhausted, and its words have also been exhausted, so it is called exhausting words. It is not said that there are no words called 'exhaust'. Kumarajiva only explained the Madhyamaka Sastra (中論, Zhōnglùn), and did not explain 'contemplation' (觀, guān), because 'middle' is the theory, and the name is
教。此二既含故不釋觀也。實非名不悟下第二立名意。然至道非中不中非名不名而立中名者。理雖非中不中。為令物得悟故強立中名也。言非釋不盡故假論以明之者。若不假問答以釋于言。則宣道之言無由得盡。以假問答申釋此言故。宣道之言方得明顯。以斯文詳之。故知非無言而秤盡言也。然言只是論耳。但令綺互解釋故云言非釋不盡假論明之耳。其實既宣。第三立名利益。初明理教。次敘得益。其實既宣者理顯也。其言既明者教明瞭也。于菩薩之行道場之照下辨得益也。以理顯言明故。因教悟理。則因成果立。又則是法華唯顯一理唯教一人也。朗然懸解者。借莊周之言以顯因果成立之義。安時而處順。哀樂不能入也。謂是帝之懸解也。斯可敘二義。一者菩薩因成道場照顯。則永離生死欣戚。如哀樂之不入。二者有系曰顯。無系秤解。有系者謂斷常諸邊秤之為系。諸見既寂故目為解。夫滯惑生於倒見者。第三敘造論緣起。就文為二。初敘緣起。次明龍樹出世破迷造論。初有二句。一凡迷二聖失。凡迷者謂九十六術及起愛之流也。聖失者執小乘及有所得大乘者也。斯二無失不該。初謂自樹失。次稟教迷。凡迷為二。一起迷因。二迷所得果。迷因二句。在果亦然。夫滯惑者。滯謂滯著。則起愛之流也。惑謂迷惑。起見之
流也。生死眾生以在家起愛出家起見。則法華毒蟲之與惡鬼。火宅之內唯斯二物。亦生死根本唯愛與見。如涅槃說。生於倒見者。前明愛見末。此句次尋其根。所以有愛見者。皆由顛倒橫見故生。如凈名云。善惡由身。身由於貪。貪由分別虛妄。虛妄分別由於顛倒。是以顛倒所見為在家出家愛見本也。又前句既明有愛有見。后句亦有倒有見。倒則顛倒也。見謂虛妄分別。故末有其二。在本亦兩。三界以之而淪溺者。此第二次明失果也。起愛見二因感三界淪溺兩果。沒水為溺。土陷為淪。法華云。如是種種諸苦眾生沒在其中。以苦喻大海。故沒在苦之內則溺義也。三界無常舍之崩倒則陷義也。故起愛見兩因感無常苦二果。如法華云。惡鬼毒蟲二因感舍之崩倒及火起燒宅二果。睿師全同法華意及維摩之說也。偏悟起于厭智者。第二次辨聖失。凡失重故前明。聖失輕故后辨。則重輕次第。又前是外迷。今辨內惑。亦是外重內輕為次第也。就文為二。一正辨失。二得失互相顯釋。初中二句。一辨失因。二明失果。失因有二。失果亦兩。與上相對也。偏悟者。對上凡迷故聖秤為悟。若望大乘故秤為偏。所以云偏悟也。涅槃云。二乘之人名為曲見。又云。若以聲聞辟支佛心言無佈施。是則名為破戒邪見。法華云眇目座陋。眇目者所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 流也（流動）。生死眾生因為在家而生起愛慾，因為出家而生起邪見。那麼，《法華經》中的毒蟲和惡鬼，火宅之內只有這兩種東西。也是生死的根本，只有愛和見。如《涅槃經》所說：『生於倒見者』，前面已經闡明了愛和見的末端，這句經文接著探尋其根源。之所以有愛和見，都是因為顛倒的橫見而產生。如《維摩詰經》所說：『善惡由身，身由於貪，貪由分別虛妄，虛妄分別由於顛倒。』因此，顛倒所見是無論在家出家，愛和見的根本。又，前一句已經說明有愛有見，后一句也有倒有見。倒就是顛倒，見就是虛妄分別。所以末端有這兩種，在根本上也是兩種。三界因此而沉淪，這是第二次說明失去果報。生起愛和見兩種因，感得三界沉淪兩種果報。沒入水中為溺，陷入土中為淪。《法華經》說：『如是種種諸苦，眾生沒在其中。』用苦來比喻大海，所以沒在苦中就是溺的意思。三界無常，舍宅崩塌就是陷的意思。所以生起愛和見兩種因，感得無常和苦兩種果報。如《法華經》所說：惡鬼和毒蟲兩種因，感得舍宅崩塌和火起燒宅兩種果報。睿師完全贊同《法華經》的意旨以及《維摩詰經》的說法。 偏悟起于厭智者。第二次辨聖失。凡失重故前明。聖失輕故后辨。則重輕次第。又前是外迷。今辨內惑。亦是外重內輕為次第也。就文為二。一正辨失。二得失互相顯釋。初中二句。一辨失因。二明失果。失因有二。失果亦兩。與上相對也。偏悟者。對上凡迷故聖秤為悟。若望大乘故秤為偏。所以云偏悟也。涅槃云。二乘之人名為曲見。又云。若以聲聞辟支佛心言無佈施。是則名為破戒邪見。法華云眇目座陋。眇目者所
【English Translation】 English version It flows (流也). Sentient beings in the cycle of birth and death generate attachment (愛) because of being at home, and generate wrong views (見) because of being a renunciate. Thus, the poisonous insects and evil spirits in the Lotus Sutra are the only two things within the burning house. Also, the root of birth and death is only attachment and wrong views. As the Nirvana Sutra says, 'Those born from inverted views (倒見),' the previous statement has already clarified the end of attachment and wrong views; this sentence then seeks its root. The reason why there is attachment and wrong views is all because of inverted and perverse views that arise. As the Vimalakirti Sutra says, 'Good and evil arise from the body, the body arises from greed, greed arises from discriminating falsehood, and false discrimination arises from inversion.' Therefore, inverted views are the root of attachment and wrong views, whether one is at home or a renunciate. Furthermore, the previous sentence has already stated that there is attachment and wrong views, and the following sentence also has inversion and wrong views. Inversion is inversion, and wrong views are false discrimination. Therefore, there are these two at the end, and there are also two at the root. The Three Realms sink and drown because of this; this is the second time explaining the loss of the result. Generating the two causes of attachment and wrong views results in the two consequences of the Three Realms sinking and drowning. Being submerged in water is drowning, and being trapped in the earth is sinking. The Lotus Sutra says, 'All kinds of suffering like this, sentient beings are submerged within it.' Using suffering to compare to the great sea, therefore being submerged in suffering is the meaning of drowning. The Three Realms are impermanent, and the collapse of the house is the meaning of being trapped. Therefore, generating the two causes of attachment and wrong views results in the two consequences of impermanence and suffering. As the Lotus Sutra says, the two causes of evil spirits and poisonous insects result in the two consequences of the collapse of the house and the fire burning the house. Master Rui completely agrees with the meaning of the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of the Vimalakirti Sutra. Partial enlightenment arises from those who are weary of wisdom (厭智者). This is the second time distinguishing the loss of the sages. The loss of ordinary beings is serious, so it is explained first. The loss of the sages is light, so it is distinguished later. Thus, there is an order of heavy and light. Also, the previous was external delusion, and now internal confusion is distinguished. This is also an order of external heavy and internal light. In terms of the text, there are two parts: first, directly distinguishing the loss; second, mutually clarifying the gain and loss. In the first part, there are two sentences: first, distinguishing the cause of the loss; second, clarifying the result of the loss. There are two causes of loss, and there are also two results, which are opposite to the above. 'Partial enlightenment (偏悟)' is called enlightenment (悟) in contrast to the delusion of ordinary beings. If viewed from the perspective of the Great Vehicle, it is called partial (偏). Therefore, it is called partial enlightenment. The Nirvana Sutra says, 'Those of the Two Vehicles are called crooked views (曲見).' It also says, 'If one speaks of no giving with the mind of a Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha, then this is called breaking the precepts and wrong views (破戒邪見).' The Lotus Sutra says, 'Squinting eyes and a lowly seat (眇目座陋).' 'Squinting eyes (眇目)' refers to what...
見不正也。所謂空有二見並皆不正見。王宮實生雙林實滅。謂所見不正。智度論云。二乘之空名為但空。故空見不正。又二乘無有中道正觀。如涅槃說。但見於空不見不空。故不行中道不見佛性。名為偏悟也。起于厭智者。第二句尋悟之根也。二乘所以偏悟者。由厭生死而欣涅槃。如法華云。先取其價然後除糞。二乘之人畏老病死。故斷貪瞋癡以求涅槃永滅。故云厭智。耿介以之而致乖者。第二次明得果。亦兩句。初敘其迷執。次明得果。耿介者。外典文言不同。眾師釋亦異。然多不體其意旨。今明耿介者猶志節也。以封執小乘自謂究竟。永不回小心進求大道。故名耿介。以之致乖者。此第二明得果也。既封執小乘則與大道相乖。所以然者。道實無二。而妄謂言二。故乖無二之道。智度論云。阿羅漢人于佛道迂迴稽留。又復虛言得道。皆是乖道之義。又道實無生滅。二乘之人謂有煩惱生而滅之得有餘。謂有身智生滅之得無餘。故法華云。分別說諸法五眾生滅。則乖無生大道之義。然二乘既爾。有所得大乘亦然。終言有惑滅解生。猶是小也。故知大覺在乎曠照下。此第二得失互相釋也。前舉大得以顯小失。大覺曠照者。此舉大得也。對二乘生滅之小了一切無生畢竟空秤為曠照。又二乘但得人空不得法空名為小智。大乘具
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 見解不正，指的是空和有這兩種見解都不正確。佛陀在王宮中真實出生，在雙林樹下真實涅槃，如果認為這些所見是不正確的，那就是見解不正。《智度論》中說，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）所證悟的空，被稱為『但空』，所以執著于空的見解也是不正確的。而且，二乘沒有中道正觀。如《涅槃經》所說，他們只見到空，而沒有見到不空，所以不能行於中道，不能見到佛性，這被稱為偏頗的證悟。『起于厭智者』，這是第二句，是尋覓證悟之根源。二乘之所以會產生偏頗的證悟，是因為厭惡生死而欣求涅槃。如《法華經》所說，『先取其價，然後除糞』。二乘之人畏懼衰老、疾病和死亡，所以斷除貪婪、嗔恨和愚癡，以求涅槃的永恒寂滅，所以說是『厭智』。 『耿介以之而致乖者』，這是第三次說明證得的果位，也分為兩句。首先敘述他們的迷惑和執著，然後說明他們證得的果位。『耿介』，外道的文辭言語各不相同，各位法師的解釋也各異，然而大多沒有體會其中的意義和旨趣。現在說明『耿介』，意思是固守節操。因為他們固守執著于小乘，自認為已經達到了究竟的境界，永遠不迴轉小乘的心，進而尋求大道，所以稱為『耿介』。『以之致乖者』，這是第二句，說明他們證得的果位。既然固守執著于小乘，就與大道相違背。之所以這樣說，是因為道實際上是無二的，而他們卻妄自認為有二，所以就違背了無二之道。《智度論》中說，阿羅漢（證得阿羅漢果位的修行者）對於佛道迂迴遲留，又虛假地說自己已經得道，這些都是違背正道的含義。而且，道實際上是沒有生滅的，二乘之人認為有煩惱的生起和滅除，從而證得有餘涅槃；認為有身智的生滅，從而證得無餘涅槃。所以《法華經》說，分別解說諸法為五蘊的生滅，就違背了無生的大道之義。然而，二乘既然如此，有所得的大乘也是如此，最終認為有迷惑的滅除和解脫的生起，仍然是小的境界。所以要知道，大覺悟在於廣闊的照見之下。 『此第二得失互相釋也』，這是第二次從得失兩方面互相解釋。前面舉出大得，是爲了顯示小失。『大覺曠照者』，這是舉出大得。相對於二乘生滅的小智，將一切無生畢竟空稱為曠照。而且，二乘只證得人空，而沒有證得法空，這被稱為小智，大乘具足人法二空。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Incorrect views' refer to the incorrectness of both views of emptiness and existence. The Buddha was truly born in the royal palace and truly entered Nirvana under the twin Sala trees. If one considers these perceptions to be incorrect, then that is an incorrect view. The Śāstra on the Great Perfection of Wisdom (智度論) states that the emptiness realized by the Two Vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘) is called 'mere emptiness,' so clinging to the view of emptiness is also incorrect. Moreover, the Two Vehicles do not have the Middle Way correct view. As the Nirvana Sutra says, they only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness, so they cannot walk the Middle Way and cannot see the Buddha-nature, which is called a partial enlightenment. 'Those who arise from the wisdom of aversion' is the second sentence, which seeks the root of enlightenment. The reason why the Two Vehicles produce partial enlightenment is because they are averse to birth and death and rejoice in Nirvana. As the Lotus Sutra says, 'First take the price, then remove the filth.' People of the Two Vehicles fear old age, sickness, and death, so they cut off greed, hatred, and delusion in order to seek the eternal extinction of Nirvana, so it is said to be 'wisdom of aversion'. 'Those who are obstinate and thus lead to divergence' is the third explanation of the fruit attained, also in two sentences. First, it narrates their confusion and attachment, and then it explains the fruit they have attained. 'Obstinate' - the words and language of external paths are different, and the explanations of various masters are also different, but most do not understand the meaning and purpose. Now explaining 'obstinate' means adhering to integrity. Because they stubbornly cling to the Small Vehicle (小乘), thinking that they have reached the ultimate state, and never turn back the mind of the Small Vehicle to seek the Great Path (大道), so it is called 'obstinate'. 'Those who thus lead to divergence' is the second sentence, explaining the fruit they have attained. Since they stubbornly cling to the Small Vehicle, they are contrary to the Great Path. The reason for saying this is that the Path is actually non-dual, but they falsely think that there are two, so they violate the non-dual Path. The Śāstra on the Great Perfection of Wisdom states that Arhats (阿羅漢, practitioners who have attained the fruit of Arhatship) detour and linger on the Buddha-path, and falsely say that they have attained the Path, all of which are the meaning of violating the Path. Moreover, the Path is actually without arising and ceasing, but people of the Two Vehicles think that there is the arising and ceasing of afflictions, thereby attaining the Nirvana with remainder; they think that there is the arising and ceasing of body and wisdom, thereby attaining the Nirvana without remainder. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says that explaining the dharmas as the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates violates the meaning of the unarisen Great Path. However, since the Two Vehicles are like this, the Great Vehicle with attainment is also like this, ultimately thinking that there is the extinction of delusion and the arising of liberation, which is still a small realm. Therefore, know that great enlightenment lies under vast illumination. 'This second explains the gains and losses mutually' is the second time to explain mutually from the two aspects of gains and losses. The previous example of great gain is to show small loss. 'Great enlightenment and vast illumination' is an example of great gain. Relative to the small wisdom of the arising and ceasing of the Two Vehicles, calling all unarisen and ultimately empty as vast illumination. Moreover, the Two Vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons but do not attain the emptiness of dharmas, which is called small wisdom, the Great Vehicle possesses both the emptiness of persons and dharmas.
得二空秤為曠照。又二乘亦得二空。但是折法明空故秤小智。大乘得自性空自相空秤為曠照。又二乘但得三界內人法空名為小智。大乘得三界內外空名為曠照。又二乘但見於空不見不空名為小智。大乘見空及以不空故秤曠照。所言隘心者。書云。一人守隘萬夫莫進。蓋是迮小之名也。照之不曠下。此廣敘小乘之失也。夷有無者。夷之訓平。不能平除有無二見義也。一道俗者。智度論云。聲聞法中未說生死即是涅槃眾生則是佛。故二乘不能一道俗也。道則涅槃俗則生死。知之不盡未可以涉中途泯二際者。行山為踐。履水為涉。蓋是別論耳。今通取行義為涉。二乘之人照理不窮。故不能行於中道也。泯二際者。泯之言滅。謂不能滅於二際也。問前云一道俗夷有無。則是泯二際。何故重說。答睿師深見文意。涅槃品有二偈。初云。世間與涅槃無有少分別。涅槃與世間無有少分別。此是一道俗之義。次偈云。生死之實際及與涅槃實際。如是二際者無豪厘差別。論既兩文。今還敘此二意也。道俗之不夷二際之不泯菩薩之憂也。第二破迷作論又開二別。初明大悲內充。次別明破迷作論。初是慈悲。后明智慧。即菩薩福慧二業。又初是知病識藥。后是應病授藥。又初是悲心。后明悲事。問何故云有無不夷二際不泯。但明此兩句也。答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得二空秤（兩種空性的衡量）為曠照（廣闊的照耀）。又二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）亦得二空。但是折法明空（通過分析法來明白空性），故秤小智（衡量為小智慧）。大乘（菩薩乘）得自性空（自體本空）自相空（現象本空），秤為曠照。又二乘但得三界（欲界、色界、無色界）內人法空（眾生和現象的空性），名為小智。大乘得三界內外空，名為曠照。又二乘但見於空，不見不空，名為小智。大乘見空及以不空，故秤曠照。所言隘心者（狹隘之心），書云：『一人守隘，萬夫莫進。』蓋是迮小之名也（狹小侷限）。照之不曠下，此廣敘小乘之失也（廣泛敘述小乘的缺失）。夷有無者（平等對待有和無），夷之訓平（夷的訓釋是平等）。不能平除有無二見義也（不能平等去除有和無的兩種見解）。一道俗者（平等對待聖道和世俗），智度論云：『聲聞法中未說生死即是涅槃，眾生則是佛。』故二乘不能一道俗也。道則涅槃（聖道即是涅槃），俗則生死（世俗即是生死）。知之不盡，未可以涉中途（不能完全瞭解，就不能涉足中道），泯二際者（泯滅兩種邊際）。行山為踐（在山上行走稱為踐），履水為涉（在水上行走稱為涉）。蓋是別論耳（這是一種分別的說法）。今通取行義為涉（現在統一取行走的意義作為涉）。二乘之人照理不窮（二乘之人對真理的理解不透徹），故不能行於中道也。泯二際者（泯滅兩種邊際），泯之言滅（泯的意思是滅除），謂不能滅於二際也（指不能滅除兩種邊際）。問：前云一道俗夷有無（前面說平等對待聖道和世俗，平等對待有和無），則是泯二際（就是泯滅兩種邊際）。何故重說（為什麼重複說）？答：睿師深見文意（睿師深刻理解文章的含義）。涅槃品有二偈（《涅槃經》中有兩個偈頌）。初云：『世間與涅槃無有少分別（世間和涅槃沒有絲毫分別）。涅槃與世間無有少分別（涅槃和世間沒有絲毫分別）。』此是一道俗之義（這是平等對待聖道和世俗的意義）。次偈云：『生死之實際及與涅槃實際（生死的實際和涅槃的實際）。如是二際者無豪厘差別（這兩種邊際沒有絲毫差別）。』論既兩文（經論既然有兩段文字），今還敘此二意也（現在還是敘述這兩種意義）。道俗之不夷（不能平等對待聖道和世俗），二際之不泯（不能泯滅兩種邊際），菩薩之憂也（是菩薩所憂慮的）。第二破迷作論又開二別（第二部分，爲了破除迷惑而造論，又分為兩個部分）。初明大悲內充（首先說明大悲心充滿內心）。次別明破迷作論（其次分別說明爲了破除迷惑而造論）。初是慈悲（第一部分是慈悲），后明智慧（後面說明智慧）。即菩薩福慧二業（就是菩薩的福德和智慧兩種事業）。又初是知病識藥（第一部分是瞭解疾病，認識藥物），后是應病授藥（後面是根據疾病給予藥物）。又初是悲心（第一部分是悲心），后明悲事（後面說明悲憫之事）。問：何故云有無不夷二際不泯（為什麼說不能平等對待有和無，不能泯滅兩種邊際），但明此兩句也（只說明這兩句話）？答：
【English Translation】 English version Obtaining the 'two emptinesses' (二空, two kinds of emptiness) is measured as 'vast illumination' (曠照, broad and far-reaching illumination). Furthermore, the 'two vehicles' (二乘, Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) also attain the 'two emptinesses'. However, because they analyze the Dharma to understand emptiness (折法明空), it is measured as 'small wisdom' (小智, limited wisdom). The 'Great Vehicle' (大乘, Mahāyāna) attains 'self-nature emptiness' (自性空, emptiness of inherent existence) and 'self-characteristic emptiness' (自相空, emptiness of own-characteristics), which is measured as 'vast illumination'. Moreover, the 'two vehicles' only attain the emptiness of persons and phenomena within the 'three realms' (三界, desire realm, form realm, formless realm) and this is called 'small wisdom'. The 'Great Vehicle' attains emptiness within and beyond the 'three realms', which is called 'vast illumination'. Furthermore, the 'two vehicles' only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness, which is called 'small wisdom'. The 'Great Vehicle' sees both emptiness and non-emptiness, therefore it is measured as 'vast illumination'. What is meant by 'narrow mind' (隘心)? The book says: 'One person guarding a narrow pass, ten thousand cannot advance.' This is the name of narrowness and limitation (迮小). 'Illumination that is not vast' (照之不曠) below, this extensively narrates the faults of the 'Small Vehicle' (小乘). 'Equalizing existence and non-existence' (夷有無), 'equalizing' (夷) is trained as 'leveling'. It means not being able to level and eliminate the two views of existence and non-existence. 'Unifying the sacred and the mundane' (一道俗), the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'In the Śrāvaka Dharma, it is not said that saṃsāra is nirvāṇa, and sentient beings are Buddhas.' Therefore, the 'two vehicles' cannot unify the sacred and the mundane. The sacred is nirvāṇa, the mundane is saṃsāra. 'Knowing it incompletely, one cannot traverse the middle path' (知之不盡，未可以涉中途), 'obliterating the two extremes' (泯二際). Walking on a mountain is called 'treading' (踐), walking on water is called 'crossing' (涉). This is a separate discussion. Now, generally taking the meaning of 'walking' as 'crossing'. People of the 'two vehicles' do not thoroughly illuminate the principle, therefore they cannot walk the middle path. 'Obliterating the two extremes' (泯二際), 'obliterating' (泯) means 'extinguishing', referring to not being able to extinguish the two extremes. Question: Previously it was said 'unifying the sacred and the mundane, equalizing existence and non-existence' (一道俗夷有無), which is 'obliterating the two extremes' (泯二際). Why is it repeated? Answer: Master Rui deeply understands the meaning of the text. There are two gāthās in the Nirvāṇa chapter. The first says: 'There is no difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. There is no difference between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra.' This is the meaning of unifying the sacred and the mundane. The next gāthā says: 'The ultimate reality of saṃsāra and the ultimate reality of nirvāṇa. These two extremes have no difference, not even a hair's breadth.' Since the treatise has two passages, now we are still narrating these two meanings. Not equalizing the sacred and the mundane, not obliterating the two extremes, is the worry of the bodhisattva. Secondly, 'refuting delusion and composing treatises' (破迷作論) is further divided into two parts. First, clarifying that 'great compassion fills within' (大悲內充). Second, separately clarifying 'refuting delusion and composing treatises'. The first is loving-kindness and compassion, the latter clarifies wisdom. These are the two activities of merit and wisdom of the bodhisattva. Also, the first is knowing the disease and recognizing the medicine, the latter is administering the medicine according to the disease. Also, the first is compassionate mind, the latter clarifies compassionate deeds. Question: Why is it said 'not equalizing existence and non-existence, not obliterating the two extremes' (有無不夷二際不泯), but only clarifying these two sentences? Answer:
有無是眾見之根。障中道之本。故偏說也。二際不泯。謂破一道清凈也。又前敘能障。后明所障。又前是凡迷。后為聖惑。又前是外迷。后為內惑。言約事終也。菩薩之憂者。既見凡迷六道紛然。聖惑三乘異逕。為此而興無緣大悲。故秤憂也。是以龍樹下第二破迷作論又開兩別。前破內迷。后破外迷。亦前破聖惑。后破凡迷。問初段中何故前敘凡迷后明聖惑。今前破聖惑后破凡迷。答有文有義。言其義者。前就起惑次第。故前凡后聖前重后輕。后約傍正次第。斯論正破于內傍破于外。亦前正破封執二乘之失。后傍洗九十六術。約文者。在初文后敘聖迷。接聖破聖故便除聖迷。折之以中道者。折之言齊。齊者生死涅槃不二眾生與佛平等。則是中道。又將中道之理折二際令齊。故言折之以中道。使惑趣之徒望玄指而一變者。惑者迷也。趣者理也。謂迷理之人。即是封執二乘有所得大乘菩薩。玄指者即是斯論。藉斯論重玄之言。因改二乘之執回有所得菩薩同歸不二。故名為一變。若守二乘不歸一道。封執偏大未悟平等。並是守指忘月。不名一變。今改小入大。回有得而悟無得。如因指得月。故秤為變。括之以即化。第二破于外惑。括者撿括。即化者如肇公云。道遠乎哉。觸事即真。聖遠乎哉。體之即神。十二門序亦有斯意。
故云悟大覺于夢境即百化以安歸。猶是論文明一切諸法即是無生。故云即化。令玄悟之賓喪諮詢于朝徹。此寄斥震旦莊周。以呵天竺外道。良以此土無別外道。而用老莊以為至極。是以斥之。諮詢者問善道之辭也。喪之言亡也。朝徹者。郭象云。遺死生亡內外。豁然無滯見機而作。故云朝徹也。又云。朝者旦也。徹者達也。又云。一旦能達于理故云朝徹。又云。不崇朝而徹理。崇者言重。猶是一朝而達耳。故云朝徹也。今明既悟斯論知一切法即是實相無生。須忘問答朝徹之事。故云喪諮詢于朝徹也。既不諮詢于老莊。豈復稟承六師及十八一切智人並九十六術耶。蕩蕩焉下第四贊論功能又開三別。初顯道益物嘆。次舉大對小嘆。亦名抑小揚大嘆。三感幸欣遇嘆。蕩蕩者。書云。王道蕩蕩無偏無儻。蓋是泯內外兩迷息凡聖二見。同歸乎大道。故秤蕩蕩。蕩蕩是曠遠之貌也。坦夷路于沖階者。龍樹未出之前。虛言將實教並興。險逕與夷路爭徹。是以論主出世更整坦夷路。故言坦也。夷路既整。則菩薩之因道場之果階位可登。故言于沖階也。敝玄門于宇內者。前化及一方。此明遐宣六合。玄門者。老子云。玄之又玄。眾妙之門。借斯言以目今論也。天地上下曰宇。往古來今秤宙。故云敝玄門于宇內也。扇惠風于陳枚者。前二句
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所以說，在夢境中領悟了大覺，就能將一切變化歸於安寧。這就像闡明一切諸法都是無生的道理。所以說這是『即化』。使那些深奧領悟的賓客，不再向那些自以為通達的人請教。這裡是借用批評震旦（指中國）的莊周，來呵斥天竺（指印度）的外道。因為在這個地方沒有其他的外道，而把老莊的思想當作最高的真理，所以要加以駁斥。『諮詢』是指詢問善道的言辭。『喪』的意思是失去，消失。『朝徹』，郭象解釋說：『忘記生死，泯滅內外，豁然貫通，見機而作。』所以說『朝徹』。又說：『朝是早晨，徹是通達。』又說：『一旦能夠通達真理，所以說朝徹。』又說：『不用一早上就能通達真理。』『崇』是重複的意思，就像一早上就通達一樣。所以說『朝徹』。現在說明，既然領悟了這個理論，知道了所有法都是實相，都是無生的，就必須忘記問答和朝徹的事情。所以說『喪諮詢于朝徹』。既然不向老莊請教，又怎麼會聽從六師、十八一切智人以及九十六種方術呢？
『蕩蕩焉』，下面是第四個讚歎理論功能的段落，又分為三個方面。第一，彰顯佛道利益眾生，進行讚歎。第二，舉出大和小進行對比，進行讚歎，也叫做抑制小、讚揚大。第三，因為幸運遇到佛法而感到欣喜，進行讚歎。『蕩蕩』，《尚書》上說：『王道蕩蕩，沒有偏頗和邪曲。』大概是泯滅了內外兩種迷惑，止息了凡夫和聖人兩種見解，共同歸於大道。所以稱之為『蕩蕩』。『蕩蕩』是曠遠的樣子。
『坦夷路于沖階者』，在龍樹菩薩未出現之前，虛假的言論和真實的教義一同興起，危險的小路和坦蕩的大路爭相顯現。因此，龍樹菩薩出世，重新整理坦蕩的大路，所以說『坦』。坦蕩的大路既然整理好了，那麼菩薩的因地修行和道場的果位階梯就可以登上了，所以說『于沖階』。
『敝玄門于宇內者』，之前的教化只侷限於一方，這裡說明佛法廣為傳播於天下。『玄門』，老子說：『玄之又玄，眾妙之門。』借用這句話來指代現在的理論。天地上下叫做『宇』，往古來今叫做『宙』，所以說『敝玄門于宇內』。
『扇惠風于陳枚者』，前面兩句...
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that realizing the Great Enlightenment in a dream means returning to peace by transforming everything. It is like explaining that all Dharmas are unborn. Therefore, it is said to be 'immediate transformation'. It makes the guests of profound understanding lose their inquiries to those who consider themselves enlightened. This is using the criticism of Zhuang Zhou of Zhendan (China) to rebuke the heretics of Tianzhu (India). Because there are no other heretics in this land, and the thoughts of Lao Zhuang are regarded as the ultimate truth, they must be refuted. 'Consultation' refers to the words of asking about the good path. 'Loss' means to lose, to disappear. 'Morning Thoroughness', Guo Xiang explained: 'Forget life and death, eliminate inside and outside, be thoroughly enlightened, and act according to the opportunity.' Therefore, it is said to be 'Morning Thoroughness'. It also says: 'Morning is dawn, thoroughness is understanding.' It also says: 'Once you can understand the truth, so it is said to be morning thoroughness.' It also says: 'You can thoroughly understand the truth without a morning.' 'Esteem' means repetition, just like understanding in one morning. Therefore, it is said to be 'Morning Thoroughness'. Now it is explained that since you have realized this theory and know that all Dharmas are the true form and are unborn, you must forget the matters of questions and answers and morning thoroughness. Therefore, it is said 'lose consultation in morning thoroughness'. Since you do not consult Lao Zhuang, how can you listen to the Six Teachers (six heretical teachers), the Eighteen Omniscient People, and the Ninety-six Arts?
'Vast and boundless', the following is the fourth paragraph praising the function of the theory, which is divided into three aspects. First, highlight the benefits of the Buddha's path to sentient beings and praise it. Second, compare the big and the small and praise it, also called suppressing the small and praising the big. Third, feel happy because of the lucky encounter with the Dharma and praise it. 'Vast and boundless', the Book of Documents says: 'The king's way is vast and boundless, without bias and crookedness.' It probably eliminates the two confusions of inside and outside, stops the two views of ordinary people and saints, and jointly returns to the Great Dao. Therefore, it is called 'vast and boundless'. 'Vast and boundless' is the appearance of being vast and distant.
'Leveling the road to the ascending steps', before the appearance of Nagarjuna (Longshu) Bodhisattva, false words and true teachings arose together, and dangerous paths and smooth roads competed to appear. Therefore, Nagarjuna Bodhisattva was born and reorganized the smooth road, so it is said to be 'level'. Since the smooth road has been reorganized, the cause of the Bodhisattva's practice and the fruit position steps of the Bodhimanda can be ascended, so it is said 'to the ascending steps'.
'Covering the mysterious gate in the universe', the previous teachings were only limited to one side, here it is explained that the Dharma is widely spread throughout the world. 'Mysterious gate', Lao Tzu said: 'Mysterious and mysterious, the gate of all wonders.' Borrow this sentence to refer to the current theory. The heaven and earth above and below are called 'universe', the past and present are called 'time', so it is said 'cover the mysterious gate in the universe'.
'Fanning the beneficial wind in the old plum trees', the previous two sentences...
明顯道。今兩句明益物。陳枚者。陳者朽故之名也。毛詩云。伐其條枚。枚者小枝也。惠風者謂春風也。以扇斯論智慧之風。使凡夫之流以得益也。流甘露于枯椊者。前句辨益凡。此章明利聖。前句益外道。后句利小乘。又前句利小乘。后句益菩薩。具此諸意也。夫柏梁之構興者。第二舉大對小嘆又開二別。前譬后合。柏梁者漢武帝臺名也。外書釋此自有二家。一云。以柏木為梁故云柏梁。此臺初成。柏木香氣流數十里。元帝以柏梁對柘館。以此詳之。應是柏木之梁。又云。梁有百數故云百梁。茅仄茨陋者。茨之言次。撰次於茅故秤為茨。仄者長安偏鵲舍但有一邊。故秤為仄。陋猶隘義也。又柏梁大臺即法華長者大宅。茅茨仄陋其猶門外草菴。睿師一言含內外兩事也。睹斯論下第二合譬。鄙倍者出論語。鄙猶鄙惡。倍是倍戾。幸哉此區之赤縣者。第三感幸欣遇嘆亦二句。幸者幸遇。此區者。區秤區域。而言此以對彼也。彼總名天竺。天竺別開則五。次有十六大國五百中國十千小國。此區總名赤縣。河圖云。崑崙山東地方五千里。一曰神洲亦名赤縣。禹于赤縣之內畫地分疆以為九州。故鑄九鼎鎮九州。則知赤縣是九州之總名。忽得移靈鷲以作鎮者。赤縣唯以五嶽為鎮。而今假設移靈鷲而鎮赤縣。喻斯論而化九州也。險陂
之邊情乃蒙流光之餘慧者。第二重舉事以合上喻。毛詩云。內有佐公進賢之志。外無私謁險陂之心。禮注云。偏立曰陂。故云勞而無祖立而不陂。陂謂偏險之心耳。流光之餘惠者。中道正觀光流此土。惠益險陂之人。而秤邊情者。一者目此土為邊地。彼秤為中國。昔河承公與嚴法師諍此土天竺偏正之事。嚴師善解外國曆算云。正陽之月方中無影。故知天竺為正國也。河公善解此土歷算不能難之。故知彼為中國此曰邊情。又彼有佛出故云中國。此無佛出秤曰邊情。又四依等出於彼土故名正國。不出此土目為邊情。又轉輪王常出彼土故為中國。此唯粟散故曰邊情。餘光者。龍樹造論正益彼土傍化此國。故名餘光。而今而後談道之賢始可與論實矣者。論語云。而今而後用此事也。睿師云。自羅什未度之前講肆流詠已來。格義迂而乖本。六家偏而不即。中百二論文未及此。又無通鑑。誰與正之。前匠所以輟章遐慨。思決言于彌勒者。良在於此。而今已后中百二論既傳來此土。論道之賢始可與言實矣。故知斯論定佛法之偏正。判得失之根源也。雲天竺諸國者。第五敘注論之人。又開二別。前嘆此論為諸國所重。二別敘註釋之人。此文秤云凡述二人。一羅什法師所云故秤云也。二秦弘始七年天竺剎利泛舶至長安。聞羅什門徒三千解
大乘之教。以中百二論咨而驗之。羅什因為剖折。剎利乃頂受絕嘆不能已。已白雲。跋荼阇梨當以此明振耀天竺。何由蘊此摩尼乃在邊地。又云。羲和鸞轡蘊明於無目之地。甚可恨也。夜光之寶鬻珍于田父之客。甚可惜也。此剎利述天竺論師呵諸小乘人。嘆羅什云。我在天竺聞。諸論師深怪罽賓小乘學者自美其師以為比方如朗月之照。其師是鳩摩羅陀。造日出論。又自彌帝戾已后牢有其比。天竺論師呵云偏悟小才非此喻也。若是拘止那國鳩摩羅耆婆法師以當此喻無所愧也。何故羅什如朗月之照無所愧。以其善解中百故。敢預是天竺學大乘之流無不玩味斯論。敢者果也決也。喉衿要宗事也。喉為內要。衿為外要。故藉以喻焉。其染翰申釋者甚亦不少者。此出注論者非復一師。影公云凡數十家。河西云凡七十家。翰者。古人以雞勒毛為筆故秤為翰。青目非天親。付法藏云。婆藪槃豆善解一切修多羅義。而青目注斯論有其乖失。故知非也。其中乖闕煩重者。略明長行釋偈凡有四失。一長行釋與偈意乖。二釋偈不足而秤為闕。三少言可以通文。而長行在重言煩也。四前章已明。后須更說故秤為重。曇影法師中論疏四處敘青目之失。一因緣品四緣立偈云。此偈為問。蓋是青目傷巧處耳。二釋四緣有廣略。影師云。蓋是青目勇於取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 大乘的教義，用《中論》和《百論》來驗證它。鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）因為精闢的剖析，剎利（Kshatriya，印度種姓制度中的武士階層）對他頂禮膜拜，讚歎不已。剎利說：『跋荼阇梨（Bhadra Acharya，賢 आचार्य）應當憑藉此論的光輝照耀天竺（India）。為什麼蘊藏著這顆摩尼寶珠（Maṇi，如意寶珠）卻在邊遠之地呢？』又說：『羲和（Xihe，神話中太陽的母親）的鸞車蘊藏著光明，卻在沒有眼睛的地方，真是太可恨了。夜光寶珠（Ye Guang，夜裡發光的寶珠）被賣給鄉下老農，真是太可惜了。』 這位剎利講述天竺的論師呵斥那些小乘（Hinayana）之人，讚歎鳩摩羅什說：『我在天竺聽說，各位論師非常奇怪罽賓（Kashmir）的小乘學者自誇他們的老師，認為可以比作朗月的照耀。他們的老師是鳩摩羅陀（Kumāralāta），著有《日出論》。而且自從彌帝戾（Mitra，朋友）之後，他們就一直這樣比較。』天竺的論師呵斥說：『這是片面的小聰明，不能這樣比喻。如果是拘止那國（Kucha）的鳩摩羅什法師，用這個比喻就當之無愧了。』 為什麼鳩摩羅什像朗月一樣照耀而當之無愧呢？因為他善於理解《中論》和《百論》。敢於參與天竺學習大乘的潮流，沒有誰不仔細研究這部論著。『敢』是果斷、決定的意思。『喉衿』比喻重要的宗旨。喉是內在的要害，衿是外在的要害，所以借用來比喻重要的宗旨。為這部論著潤筆解釋的人也很多。這裡說的是註釋論著的人不止一位。曇影（Tanying）法師說總共有幾十家，河西（Hexi）說總共有七十家。 『翰』，古人以雞毛為筆，所以稱筆為翰。青目（Pingala，青目菩薩）不是天親（Vasubandhu）。《付法藏傳》說，婆藪槃豆（Vasubandhu）善於理解一切修多羅（Sutra，經）的意義，但是青目註釋這部論著卻有錯誤，所以知道他不是天親。其中乖謬缺失繁瑣的地方，簡要說明長行（prose）解釋偈頌（verse）有四個缺失：一是長行的解釋與偈頌的意義不符；二是解釋偈頌不足夠，卻稱之為缺失；三是可以用簡短的語言來貫通文義，而長行卻重複繁瑣；四是前面章節已經說明，後面又需要重複說明，所以稱之為重複。曇影法師的《中論疏》四處敘述了青目的缺失。一是在《因緣品》中，四緣（four conditions）立偈說：『這個偈頌是提問。』大概是青目賣弄聰明的地方。二是解釋四緣有廣有略，影法師說：『大概是青目勇於取捨。』
【English Translation】 English version: The teachings of Mahayana are verified by consulting the Madhyamaka-karika and the Shatashastra. Kumārajīva, due to his insightful analysis, was revered by the Kshatriya, who praised him endlessly. The Kshatriya said, 'Bhadra Acharya should illuminate India with the brilliance of this treatise. Why is this Mani jewel hidden in a remote land?' He also said, 'Xihe's chariot of luan birds carries light, yet it is in a place without eyes, which is truly regrettable. The Ye Guang pearl is sold to a peasant, which is truly a pity.' This Kshatriya recounted how the Indian masters rebuked those of the Hinayana, praising Kumārajīva, saying, 'I heard in India that the masters were very surprised that the Hinayana scholars of Kashmir praised their teacher, comparing him to the illumination of the bright moon. Their teacher is Kumāralāta, who wrote the Kalpanā-maṇḍitikā. And they have been making this comparison firmly since Mitra.' The Indian masters rebuked, saying, 'This is a one-sided, petty cleverness, and this comparison is not appropriate. If it were the Dharma Master Kumārajīva of Kucha, this comparison would be worthy.' Why is Kumārajīva like the bright moon, shining without shame? Because he is skilled in understanding the Madhyamaka-karika and the Shatashastra. Those who dare to participate in the Mahayana learning trend in India all carefully study this treatise. 'Dare' means decisive and resolute. 'Throat and collar' are metaphors for important tenets. The throat is the inner essence, and the collar is the outer essence, so they are used as metaphors for important tenets. There are also many who write and explain this treatise. This refers to those who annotate the treatise, not just one master. Dharma Master Tanying said there are dozens of them in total, and Hexi said there are seventy. 'Han', in ancient times, chicken feathers were used as pens, so pens were called 'han'. Pingala is not Vasubandhu. The Fu Fa Zang Zhuan says that Vasubandhu is skilled in understanding the meaning of all Sutras, but Pingala's annotations of this treatise have errors, so it is known that he is not Vasubandhu. Among the discrepancies, omissions, and redundancies, a brief explanation of the prose explaining the verses has four shortcomings: first, the explanation of the prose does not match the meaning of the verses; second, the explanation of the verses is insufficient, yet it is called an omission; third, simple language can be used to connect the text, but the prose is repetitive and redundant; fourth, what has already been explained in the previous chapter needs to be repeated later, so it is called repetition. Dharma Master Tanying's Madhyamaka-karika Commentary narrates Pingala's shortcomings in four places. First, in the Nidana chapter, the four conditions establish the verse, saying, 'This verse is a question.' This is probably where Pingala showed off his cleverness. Second, the explanation of the four conditions is broad and brief, and Master Ying said, 'This is probably where Pingala was bold in choosing.'
類劣於尋文。三釋業品偈云。雖空不斷。青目云。空無可斷。此非釋也。四釋邪見品長行雲。此中紛弦為復彼助鬧。復龍樹自有偈釋之。今文云。法師裁而裨之者。法師即羅什也。裁其煩重裨其乖闕。于通經之理盡者。經即中論。外國詺論為經。付法藏經云。提婆造百論經。智度論云。迦旃延造發智經。故知目論為經。于通經理盡。文或左右未盡善者。如影師四處述之。百論治外以閑邪者下第六通嘆四論。前別嘆四論。從尋斯四者下總嘆四論。明學之者有其深益。前別嘆四論有二對。初內外一雙。次略廣相對。流滯者。學內教人壅滯佛教。今祛其壅滯使佛教宣流。故云流滯。師又云。決二壅合兩教。流二壅者。一小乘人學小乘迷小乘故小教壅。二大乘人學大乘迷大乘故大乘壅。今中論決斯二教之壅使二教流也。故云祛內以流滯。閑邪者。閑有多訓。此中正宜以靜釋之。肇師云。於時外道紛然競起。今為防外道紛動故須靜而息之。大智則理深而文博。十二門即文精而理詣也。予玩之味之下第七作者自謙。不能釋手者。謂手不釋卷也。並目品義題之於首者。謂釋二十七品目也。予昔在江南尋之不得。至京訪問又無。當是失落也。
中論序疏(畢)
中觀論疏卷第一(本)
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『類劣於尋文』。《三釋業品偈》說：『雖空不斷。』青目（Pingala，中觀論的註釋者）說：『空無可斷。』這並非解釋。《四釋邪見品》長行說：『此中紛弦為復彼助鬧。』龍樹（Nagarjuna，中觀論的作者）自己有偈頌解釋它。現在文里說：『法師裁而裨之者。』法師就是鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva，著名的佛經翻譯家）。裁減其煩瑣重複，補充其缺失遺漏。對於通達《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）的道理達到完盡。外國稱『論』為『經』。《付法藏經》說：『提婆（Aryadeva，龍樹的弟子）造百論經。』《智度論》說：『迦旃延（Katyayana，佛陀的弟子）造發智經。』所以知道稱『論』為『經』。對於通達經理達到完盡，文字或許左右未盡善者，如影師四處述之。《百論》治理外道以止息邪見。下面第六段總贊四論。前面分別讚歎四論，從『尋斯四者』下面總贊四論，說明學習它的人有很深的益處。前面分別讚歎四論有兩對，最初是內外一對，其次是略廣相對。『流滯者』，指學習內教的人壅塞佛教，現在去除其壅塞，使佛教宣揚流佈，所以說『流滯』。師父又說：『決二壅合兩教。』流二壅者，一是小乘人學習小乘，迷惑于小乘，所以小教壅塞；二是大學習大乘，迷惑于大乘，所以大乘壅塞。現在《中論》決斷這兩種壅塞，使二教流通，所以說『祛內以流滯』。『閑邪者』，『閑』有多種解釋，這裡正宜用『靜』來解釋。肇師（僧肇，東晉時期的佛教思想家）說：『於時外道紛然競起。』現在爲了防止外道紛亂擾動，所以需要靜止而止息它。『大智』則道理深刻而文辭淵博，『十二門』就是文辭精煉而道理精深。『予玩之味之下』是第七段作者的自謙。『不能釋手者』，是說手不放下書卷。『並目品義題之於首者』，是說解釋二十七品目的意義。我過去在江南尋找它而不得，到京城訪問也沒有，想來是失落了。 《中論序疏》（結束） 《中觀論疏》卷第一（本） 釋吉藏（Jizang，隋代佛教三論宗的實際創始人）撰 因緣品第一
【English Translation】 English version 'Inferior in kind to seeking the text.' The Gatha of the 'Three Explanations of Karma' says: 'Although empty, it is not 끊임없이.' Pingala (commentator of Madhyamaka-karika) says: 'Emptiness cannot be 끊임없이.' This is not an explanation. The long passage of the 'Four Explanations of Wrong Views' says: 'Here, the confused strings are either helping him make noise.' Nagarjuna (author of Madhyamaka-karika) himself has a Gatha to explain it. Now the text says: 'The Dharma master trims and benefits it.' The Dharma master is Kumarajiva (famous translator of Buddhist scriptures). Trim its tedious repetition, and supplement its missing omissions. For those who thoroughly understand the principles of the Madhyamaka-karika, it is complete. Foreign countries call 'Treatise' as 'Sutra'. The Fu Fa Zang Jing says: 'Aryadeva (Nagarjuna's disciple) made the Hundred Treatise Sutra.' The Zhi Du Lun says: 'Katyayana (Buddha's disciple) made the Fa Zhi Jing.' So I know that 'Treatise' is called 'Sutra'. For those who thoroughly understand the principles, the text may not be perfect in some places, as the shadow master describes in four places. The Hundred Treatise governs external paths to stop evil views. The following sixth paragraph praises the four treatises in general. The previous separate praise of the four treatises, from 'Seeking these four' below, praises the four treatises in general, explaining that those who study it have profound benefits. The previous separate praise of the four treatises has two pairs, the first is an internal and external pair, and the second is a brief and broad relative. 'Those who are stagnant' refers to those who study the inner teachings and block Buddhism. Now remove its blockage and make Buddhism propagate and spread, so it is said 'stagnant'. The master also said: 'Resolve the two blockages and combine the two teachings.' Those who flow through the two blockages, one is that the Hinayana people study Hinayana and are迷於Hinayana, so the small teachings are blocked; the second is that the Mahayana people study Mahayana and are迷於Mahayana, so the Mahayana is blocked. Now the Madhyamaka-karika resolves these two blockages and makes the two teachings circulate, so it is said 'remove the inner to flow the stagnant'. 'Idle evil' has many explanations, and here it is appropriate to explain it with 'quiet'. Master Zhao (Sengzhao, Buddhist thinker of the Eastern Jin Dynasty) said: 'At that time, external paths arose in confusion.' Now, in order to prevent the confusion and disturbance of external paths, it is necessary to be quiet and stop it. 'Great wisdom' means that the principles are profound and the words are broad, and 'Twelve Doors' means that the words are refined and the principles are profound. 'Below the taste of my play' is the author's self-deprecation in the seventh paragraph. 'Those who cannot release their hands' means that their hands do not put down the book. 'And the meaning of the title of the product is at the head' means to explain the meaning of the twenty-seven product titles. I used to look for it in Jiangnan but could not find it, and there was none when I visited the capital. I think it was lost. The Preface and Commentary on the Madhyamaka-karika (End) Chapter 1 of the Commentary on the Madhyamaka-karika (Original) Written by Jizang (Jizang, the actual founder of the Three Treatise School of Buddhism in the Sui Dynasty) Chapter 1: Conditions
將欲釋文大明二義。初釋因緣品名。二論開合。釋因緣品名略為五門。一通別門。二正名門。三釋名門。四破申門。五同異門。問何因緣故標中觀論。復題觀因緣品。答略明四義。一者中觀論是一部之通名。觀因緣謂一章之別稱。示所顯之理無二故中名唯一。能顯之教非一故有眾品之殊。二者所申之理唯一故總名無二。所破之病非一故有眾品不同。三者題中觀論標章門也。觀因緣品者釋章門也。問觀因緣品云何釋中觀論耶。答以觀此正因緣不生不滅乃至不來不去故此因緣即是中道。因於中道發生正觀。觀辨於心論宣于口。故知觀于因緣釋中觀論。如下偈云。因緣所生法。我說即是空。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。問斯乃是觀正因緣明中道。云何名破因緣耶。答觀正因緣既不生不滅。即破邪因緣是斷常生滅。是故偈云。能說是因緣善滅諸戲論能說是因緣。謂顯正也。善滅諸戲論謂破邪也。問觀之與破有何異耶。答亦得不異。亦得言異。云不異者。正觀檢邪因緣不得。即是破邪因緣。言其異者。觀名據申正。破名約破邪。如雲觀身實相觀佛亦然不可言破身實相破佛亦然。故觀約申正。破據破邪。問應以論題正因緣。何故稱觀因緣耶。答即此觀名是論字也。以觀辨於心論宣于口。觀此因緣不生不滅故稱為觀。問若爾何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
現在要解釋文中的兩大要義。首先解釋『因緣品』的名稱，其次討論開合的問題。解釋『因緣品』的名稱，大致分為五個方面：一、通名和別名；二、正名；三、釋名；四、破申；五、同異。有人問：因為什麼緣故標名為《中觀論》，又題為《觀因緣品》？回答是：略微說明四個方面的意義。一是《中觀論》是一部書的通名，『觀因緣』是其中一個章節的別稱。表明所闡述的道理沒有差別，所以『中』這個名稱是唯一的。能夠闡述道理的教義不是唯一的，所以有眾多品目的不同。二是所闡述的道理是唯一的，所以總的名稱沒有差別。所要破除的錯誤觀點不是唯一的，所以有眾多品目的不同。三是題為《中觀論》是標明全書的綱領，題為《觀因緣品》是解釋章節的綱領。有人問：《觀因緣品》如何解釋《中觀論》呢？回答是：因為觀察這正確的因緣，它不生不滅，乃至不來不去，所以這因緣就是中道。因為中道而產生正確的觀察，觀察在心中辨析，用言語在論中宣說。所以知道觀察因緣就是解釋《中觀論》。如下面的偈頌所說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。』有人問：這乃是觀察正確的因緣來闡明中道，為什麼又說是破除因緣呢？回答是：觀察正確的因緣，它既不生也不滅，這就破除了錯誤的因緣，即是斷滅和常存、生起和滅亡。所以偈頌說：『能說是因緣，善滅諸戲論』，能說這因緣，是闡明正確的道理。『善滅諸戲論』，是破除錯誤的觀點。有人問：『觀』和『破』有什麼不同呢？回答是：也可以說沒有不同，也可以說有不同。說沒有不同，是因為用正確的觀察來檢驗錯誤的因緣，如果得不到，那就是破除了錯誤的因緣。說有不同，是因為『觀』這個名稱側重於闡述正確的道理，『破』這個名稱側重於破除錯誤的觀點。例如說『觀身實相』，『觀佛亦然』，不能說『破身實相』，『破佛亦然』。所以『觀』側重於闡述正確的道理，『破』側重於破除錯誤的觀點。有人問：應該用論題來闡述正確的因緣，為什麼稱作『觀因緣』呢？回答是：這『觀』的名稱就是『論』的意思。因為觀察在心中辨析，用言語在論中宣說。觀察這因緣不生不滅，所以稱作『觀』。有人問：如果這樣，為什麼
【English Translation】 English version:
Now, I will explain the two major meanings in the text. First, explain the name of the 『因緣品 (Hetu-pratyaya Chapter, Chapter on Conditions)』; second, discuss the issue of opening and closing. Explaining the name of the 『因緣品 (Hetu-pratyaya Chapter, Chapter on Conditions)』 is roughly divided into five aspects: 1. General name and specific name; 2. Correct name; 3. Explanation of the name; 4. Refutation and statement; 5. Similarity and difference. Someone asks: For what reason is it titled 《中觀論 (Madhyamaka-śāstra, Treatise on the Middle Way)》 and also titled 『觀因緣品 (Examination of Conditions)』? The answer is: Briefly explain four aspects of meaning. First, 《中觀論 (Madhyamaka-śāstra, Treatise on the Middle Way)》 is the general name of a book, and 『觀因緣 (Examination of Conditions)』 is the specific name of one of its chapters. It indicates that the principle being expounded is without difference, so the name 『中 (Middle)』 is unique. The teachings that can expound the principle are not unique, so there are differences in the numerous chapters. Second, the principle being expounded is unique, so the general name has no difference. The erroneous views to be refuted are not unique, so there are differences in the numerous chapters. Third, titling it 《中觀論 (Madhyamaka-śāstra, Treatise on the Middle Way)》 is to state the outline of the entire book, and titling it 『觀因緣品 (Examination of Conditions)』 is to explain the outline of the chapter. Someone asks: How does the 『觀因緣品 (Examination of Conditions)』 explain the 《中觀論 (Madhyamaka-śāstra, Treatise on the Middle Way)》? The answer is: Because observing this correct condition, it neither arises nor ceases, and even neither comes nor goes, therefore this condition is the Middle Way. Because of the Middle Way, correct observation arises. Observation discerns in the mind, and it is proclaimed in the treatise through language. Therefore, knowing that observing conditions is explaining the 《中觀論 (Madhyamaka-śāstra, Treatise on the Middle Way)》. As the following verse says: 『The Dharma that arises from conditions, I say is emptiness, it is also a provisional name, and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.』 Someone asks: This is observing the correct conditions to elucidate the Middle Way, why is it also said to be refuting conditions? The answer is: Observing the correct conditions, it neither arises nor ceases, which refutes the erroneous conditions, namely annihilation and permanence, arising and ceasing. Therefore, the verse says: 『Being able to speak of these conditions, well extinguishes all fabrications.』 Being able to speak of these conditions is elucidating the correct principle. 『Well extinguishes all fabrications』 is refuting erroneous views. Someone asks: What is the difference between 『觀 (examination)』 and 『破 (refutation)』? The answer is: It can also be said that there is no difference, and it can also be said that there is a difference. Saying there is no difference is because using correct observation to examine erroneous conditions, if it cannot be obtained, then that is refuting the erroneous conditions. Saying there is a difference is because the name 『觀 (examination)』 emphasizes elucidating the correct principle, and the name 『破 (refutation)』 emphasizes refuting erroneous views. For example, saying 『觀身實相 (examining the true nature of the body)』, 『觀佛亦然 (examining the Buddha is also thus)』, one cannot say 『破身實相 (refuting the true nature of the body)』, 『破佛亦然 (refuting the Buddha is also thus)』. Therefore, 『觀 (examination)』 emphasizes elucidating the correct principle, and 『破 (refutation)』 emphasizes refuting erroneous views. Someone asks: One should use the treatise title to elucidate the correct conditions, why is it called 『觀因緣 (Examination of Conditions)』? The answer is: This name 『觀 (examination)』 is the meaning of 『論 (treatise)』. Because observation discerns in the mind, and it is proclaimed in the treatise through language. Observing these conditions that neither arise nor cease, therefore it is called 『觀 (examination)』. Someone asks: If that is so, why
故不云論因緣品而言觀耶。答示諸佛菩薩如行而說。顯論從於觀生。欲令眾生如說而行。因論發觀故立觀名也。四者標中觀論是中發於觀。觀因緣品明觀發於中。論主因中發觀。故名中發於觀。為眾生故觀于因緣。顯因緣是中。故是觀發於中。所以觀發中者。欲令眾生亦因中發觀故也。正名門第二。問品題因緣。是何等因緣。答總談論意因緣有三。一從下破四緣受名。以四緣攝生義盡。今破四緣欲釋八不畢竟無生。顯于中實令因中發觀。故從所破受名故以目品。二者因緣義總。故標在論初。以生死涅槃凡聖解惑皆是假名相待無有自性稱為因緣義。故因緣義總。又九十六種術非因緣義。以對外道非因緣義明一切佛法皆是因緣義因緣義總。問何故辨此因緣耶。答亦為釋成八不義。以萬法皆是因緣無有自性。以無自性是故不生。顯于中實令因中發觀。是以建首辨通因緣。三者此品觀十二因緣。故云觀因緣品。問何以知觀十二因緣以目品耶。答凡有三證。一者論主偈云。能說是因緣善滅諸戲論。能說是因緣者。謂說十二因緣不生不滅等。故知是十二因緣。故青目釋云。前為聲聞人說十二因緣是生滅法。后為菩薩說十二因緣不生不滅。二者論引大品經云。菩薩坐道場時觀十二因緣如虛空不可盡。三者后小乘兩品外人問云。前已聞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為什麼不說本品是論述因緣，而說是『觀』呢？回答是，這是爲了向諸佛菩薩展示如何依修行而宣說。這部論典是從『觀』而產生的，目的是讓眾生能夠依所說而修行。因為通過論述引發『觀』，所以立名為『觀』。四者，標題『中觀論』表明『中』能引發『觀』，而『觀因緣品』則闡明『觀』能顯發『中』。論主因為『中』而生髮『觀』，所以稱為『中』能引發『觀』。爲了眾生的緣故，觀察因緣，彰顯因緣即是『中』，因此說是『觀』能顯發『中』。之所以說『觀』能顯發『中』，是爲了讓眾生也能通過『中』來生髮『觀』。 正名門第二。問：品題為『因緣』，這是指什麼樣的因緣？答：總的來說，本論所要闡述的因緣有三種。第一種是從破斥四緣的角度來命名的。因為四緣涵蓋了有情眾生的所有意義，現在破斥四緣是爲了解釋八不（不生不滅等）的畢竟空性，從而顯明『中』的真實，使人能從『中』生髮『觀』。因此，本品從所破斥的對象來命名。第二種是因緣的意義是總體的，所以放在論的開頭。因為生死、涅槃、凡夫、聖人、迷惑、解脫，都是假名安立，相互依存，沒有自性，這就被稱為因緣的意義。所以說因緣的意義是總體的。而且，九十六種外道之術不是因緣的意義。爲了對外道表明非因緣的意義，從而闡明一切佛法都是因緣的意義，所以說因緣的意義是總體的。問：為什麼要辨明這種因緣呢？答：也是爲了解釋和成就八不的意義。因為萬法都是因緣所生，沒有自性。因為沒有自性，所以不生。從而顯明『中』的真實，使人能從『中』生髮『觀』。因此，在開頭辨明通用的因緣。第三種是此品觀察十二因緣，所以稱為『觀因緣品』。問：憑什麼知道本品是以觀察十二因緣來命名的呢？答：總共有三個證據。第一，論主的偈頌說：『能說是因緣，善滅諸戲論。』能說這因緣的，就是說十二因緣的不生不滅等。所以知道是十二因緣。因此，青目釋說：『先前為聲聞人說十二因緣是生滅法，後來為菩薩說十二因緣是不生不滅。』第二，論中引用《大品經》（摩訶般若波羅蜜經）說：『菩薩坐在道場時，觀察十二因緣如同虛空，不可窮盡。』第三，在後面的小乘兩品中，外人問道：『先前已經聽聞……』
【English Translation】 English version Why is it not said that this chapter discusses cause and condition (因緣, Hetupratyaya) but rather 'contemplation' (觀, Vipassanā)? The answer is to show the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas how to speak according to practice. This treatise arises from 'contemplation,' with the aim of enabling sentient beings to practice according to what is said. Because contemplation is generated through discussion, the name 'contemplation' is established. Fourth, the title 'Madhyamaka-kārikā' (中觀論, Treatise on the Middle Way) indicates that the 'middle' (中, Madhyama) can generate 'contemplation,' while the 'Contemplation of Conditions Chapter' (觀因緣品) clarifies that 'contemplation' can reveal the 'middle.' The author generates 'contemplation' because of the 'middle,' hence it is called the 'middle' generating 'contemplation.' For the sake of sentient beings, one contemplates conditions, demonstrating that conditions are the 'middle,' therefore it is 'contemplation' revealing the 'middle.' The reason for 'contemplation' revealing the 'middle' is to enable sentient beings to also generate 'contemplation' through the 'middle.' The Second Gate of Correct Naming. Question: The chapter is titled 'Conditions' (因緣, Hetupratyaya), what kind of conditions does this refer to? Answer: Generally speaking, there are three types of conditions that this treatise intends to explain. The first is named from the perspective of refuting the four conditions (四緣, Catuḥpratyaya). Because the four conditions encompass all meanings for sentient beings, now refuting the four conditions is to explain the ultimate emptiness of the eight negations (八不, Aṣṭānirodha) (such as non-arising, non-ceasing, etc.), thereby revealing the truth of the 'middle,' enabling people to generate 'contemplation' from the 'middle.' Therefore, this chapter is named from the object being refuted. The second is that the meaning of conditions is comprehensive, so it is placed at the beginning of the treatise. Because birth and death, nirvāṇa, ordinary beings, sages, delusion, and liberation are all provisionally established names, mutually dependent, and without inherent nature (自性, Svabhāva), this is called the meaning of conditions. Therefore, the meaning of conditions is comprehensive. Moreover, the ninety-six non-Buddhist doctrines are not the meaning of conditions. In order to show the meaning of non-conditions to externalists, thereby clarifying that all Buddhist teachings are the meaning of conditions, it is said that the meaning of conditions is comprehensive. Question: Why is this kind of condition explained? Answer: It is also to explain and accomplish the meaning of the eight negations. Because all dharmas are produced by conditions and lack inherent nature. Because there is no inherent nature, therefore there is no arising. Thereby revealing the truth of the 'middle,' enabling people to generate 'contemplation' from the 'middle.' Therefore, the common conditions are explained at the beginning. The third is that this chapter contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣, Dvādaśāṅgapratītyasamutpāda), so it is called the 'Contemplation of Conditions Chapter.' Question: How do we know that this chapter is named after contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination? Answer: There are three pieces of evidence in total. First, the author's verse says: 'Being able to speak of these conditions, well extinguishes all discursive fabrications.' Being able to speak of these conditions refers to speaking of the non-arising, non-ceasing, etc., of the twelve links of dependent origination. Therefore, it is known that it is the twelve links of dependent origination. Therefore, Qingmu (青目, commentator) explains: 'Previously, for the Śrāvakas (聲聞人, Hearers), the twelve links of dependent origination were said to be arising and ceasing dharmas; later, for the Bodhisattvas, the twelve links of dependent origination were said to be non-arising and non-ceasing.' Second, the treatise quotes the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大品經, Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra), saying: 'When the Bodhisattva sits in the bodhimaṇḍa (道場, place of enlightenment), he contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination like empty space, inexhaustible.' Third, in the two later chapters on Hīnayāna (小乘, Lesser Vehicle), an externalist asks: 'Previously, we have already heard...'
大乘法入第一義。今欲聞聲聞法入第一義。論主還舉十二因緣答之。小乘從十二生滅門入第一義。則知大乘悟十二無生滅門名入第一義。以三義推之。故知觀十二因緣以目因緣品也。問何故從觀十二因緣立名不從破四緣受稱也。答略明十義。一者十二因緣正明內法過患。菩薩欲度十二因緣河。故觀於十二。四緣通有為無為。不正明內法過患。故菩薩不欲度於四緣河。故不就四緣以明觀行。但為外人不受十二無生故舉四緣生立有生義。今破四緣生還成十二無生義。所以觀十二緣也。二者十二因緣通於得失苞含大小。是故觀之。如不達因緣成於兩見。一邪因外道。二無因執計。舉此二迷則總收九十六種術。得於因緣亦有二人。一者聲聞。二者菩薩。是故十二該羅得失苞含大小。三者經言。三狩同度十二緣河。二乘未盡其原。猶如兔馬。大士方徹其底類彼象王。此論欲明菩薩所行故觀於十二。四者經曰。凡夫順十二因緣故流轉生死。二乘逆十二因緣沈彼涅槃。大士體此因緣本自不生故不同凡夫之順。今亦不滅則異二乘之逆。故非凡夫行非賢聖行是菩薩行。此論欲申明菩薩所行故觀於十二。五者此論引大品云。菩薩坐道場時。觀十二因緣不生不滅如虛空不可盡。即具三種波若。十二因緣不生不滅即實相波若。由十二因緣本無生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 大乘佛法進入第一義諦（Paramārtha，最高的真理）。現在想聽聞聲聞乘佛法如何進入第一義諦。論主仍然用十二因緣（Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，佛教關於生命輪迴的理論）來回答。小乘通過十二因緣的生滅之門進入第一義諦，由此可知大乘領悟十二因緣的無生滅之門，名為進入第一義諦。通過這三重意義來推斷，所以知道觀察十二因緣是爲了標明因緣品。 問：為什麼從觀察十二因緣來立名，而不是從破斥四緣（catuḥpratyaya，事物產生的四種條件）來受稱呢？答：簡略說明十種意義。第一，十二因緣正是闡明內在之法的過患。菩薩想要度過十二因緣之河，所以觀察十二因緣。四緣則通於有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有生滅變化的事物）和無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma，無生滅變化的事物），不能明確闡明內在之法的過患。所以菩薩不想要度過四緣之河，因此不就四緣來闡明觀行。只是因為外人不接受十二因緣的無生，所以才舉出四緣的生來建立有生的意義。現在破斥四緣的生，反而成就十二因緣的無生之義，所以要觀察十二因緣。第二，十二因緣貫通得失，包含大小，所以要觀察它。如果不能通達因緣，就會形成兩種見解：一是邪因外道（mithyāhetu，錯誤的因），二是無因的執計。舉出這兩種迷惑，就總括了九十六種外道邪術。通達因緣也有兩種人：一是聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而修行的弟子），二是菩薩（Bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）。所以十二因緣涵蓋得失，包含大小。第三，經書上說，三種根性的眾生共同度過十二因緣之河，二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）沒有窮盡其根源，就像兔子和馬一樣。大士（Mahāsattva，偉大的菩薩）才能徹底明白其底蘊，如同象王。此論想要闡明菩薩所修行的，所以要觀察十二因緣。第四，經書上說，凡夫順著十二因緣，所以在生死中流轉。二乘逆著十二因緣，沉溺於涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）。大士體悟到此因緣本來就不生，所以不同於凡夫的順流，現在也不滅，就不同於二乘的逆流。所以既不是凡夫的行徑，也不是賢聖的行徑，而是菩薩的行徑。此論想要申明菩薩所修行的，所以要觀察十二因緣。第五，此論引用《大品般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）說，菩薩坐在道場（bodhimaṇḍa，覺悟的場所）時，觀察十二因緣不生不滅，如同虛空不可窮盡，就具備了三種般若（Prajñā，智慧）。十二因緣不生不滅就是實相般若（bhūta-koṭi-prajñā，證悟實相的智慧），因為十二因緣本來無生
【English Translation】 English version: Entering the First Principle of Mahayana Dharma. Now I wish to hear how the Śrāvakayāna Dharma enters the First Principle. The author still answers with the Twelve Nidānas (Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda, the Buddhist theory of the cycle of life). The Hinayana enters the First Principle through the gate of the arising and ceasing of the Twelve Nidānas, from which it is known that the Mahayana realizes the gate of non-arising and non-ceasing of the Twelve Nidānas, which is called entering the First Principle. Inferring from these three meanings, it is known that observing the Twelve Nidānas is to mark the chapter on conditions. Question: Why is the name established from observing the Twelve Nidānas, and not from refuting the Four Conditions (catuḥpratyaya, the four conditions for the arising of things)? Answer: Briefly explain ten meanings. First, the Twelve Nidānas precisely clarify the faults of the inner Dharma. Bodhisattvas want to cross the river of the Twelve Nidānas, so they observe the twelve. The Four Conditions are common to conditioned (saṃskṛta-dharma, things that arise and cease) and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma, things that do not arise and cease), and do not clearly explain the faults of the inner Dharma. Therefore, Bodhisattvas do not want to cross the river of the Four Conditions, so they do not use the Four Conditions to clarify their practice. It is only because outsiders do not accept the non-arising of the Twelve Nidānas that the arising of the Four Conditions is brought up to establish the meaning of arising. Now, refuting the arising of the Four Conditions instead accomplishes the meaning of the non-arising of the Twelve Nidānas, so the Twelve Nidānas are observed. Second, the Twelve Nidānas encompass gain and loss, and contain both the great and the small, so they are observed. If one cannot understand conditions, two views will be formed: one is the heretical path of wrong causes (mithyāhetu, wrong causes), and the other is the clinging to no cause. By mentioning these two confusions, all ninety-six kinds of heretical arts are included. There are also two kinds of people who understand conditions: one is the Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka, a disciple who practices by hearing the Dharma), and the other is the Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, a practitioner who aspires to become a Buddha). Therefore, the Twelve Nidānas cover gain and loss, and contain both the great and the small. Third, the scriptures say that beings of three capacities jointly cross the river of the Twelve Nidānas. The Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna, the Hearer Vehicle and the Solitary Buddha Vehicle) have not exhausted its source, like rabbits and horses. Only the Great Being (Mahāsattva, a great Bodhisattva) can thoroughly understand its depths, like the elephant king. This treatise wants to clarify what Bodhisattvas practice, so the Twelve Nidānas are observed. Fourth, the scriptures say that ordinary people follow the Twelve Nidānas, so they transmigrate in samsara. The Two Vehicles go against the Twelve Nidānas, sinking into Nirvana (Nirvāṇa, extinction). The Great Being embodies that these conditions are originally unborn, so they are different from the ordinary person's following, and now they are not extinguished, so they are different from the Two Vehicles' going against. Therefore, it is neither the conduct of ordinary people nor the conduct of the wise, but the conduct of Bodhisattvas. This treatise wants to clarify what Bodhisattvas practice, so the Twelve Nidānas are observed. Fifth, this treatise quotes the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, saying that when Bodhisattvas sit in the bodhimaṇḍa (bodhimaṇḍa, the place of enlightenment), they observe that the Twelve Nidānas do not arise and do not cease, like the inexhaustible void, and thus possess the three Prajñās (Prajñā, wisdom). The non-arising and non-ceasing of the Twelve Nidānas is the Real Aspect Prajñā (bhūta-koṭi-prajñā, the wisdom of realizing the real aspect), because the Twelve Nidānas are originally unborn.
無滅發生正觀即觀照波若。為眾生故如實說之即文字波若。問觀因緣但是般若亦是傴和不。答大士體因緣雖畢竟空於六道眾生宛然而有。以照因緣有本來畢竟空名為傴和般若。照畢竟空于眾生宛然而有名般若傴和。以因緣能生權實兩慧為法身父母。故命初觀之。六者大涅槃經明五種佛性。蓋是諸佛之秘藏萬流之宗極蘊在因緣之內。所以然者十二因緣不生不滅謂境界佛性。由十二因緣本無生滅發生正觀即觀智佛性。斯觀明瞭即名菩提果佛性。正觀既彰生死患累畢竟空永滅。即大涅槃果果佛性。然十二因緣本性寂滅未曾境智。亦非因果。不知何以目之強名正性。正性者五性之本也。然此五性更無別體。但因緣一法轉而為五。因緣既具五性。是以命初即須論之。七者涅槃經云。諸行無常是生滅法生滅滅已寂滅為樂。雪山大士嘆斯一偈為全如意珠。為此半行偈棄捨身命。若住十二因緣迴流生死。是則無有常樂我凈。此論觀彼十二因緣本自不生今亦無滅。即生滅便息。生滅既息是則為常。既其有常即具我樂凈。有斯大利故初觀因緣。八者此論雖無法不窮無言不盡。統其要歸會通二諦。然二諦隨處明之今就因緣辨。則其言顯易。因緣宛然常畢竟空名第一義。雖畢竟空而因緣宛然稱為世諦。此論正申二諦。故觀因緣。九者欲釋中觀論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無滅發生正觀，即觀照般若（prajna，智慧）。爲了眾生的緣故，如實地宣說它，就是文字般若。 問：觀照因緣，僅僅是般若，還是傴和（yu he，一種譬喻，指相互依存）？ 答：大士（菩薩）體悟到因緣雖然畢竟空，但在六道眾生中卻宛然存在。以觀照因緣而有本來畢竟空，這稱為傴和般若。觀照畢竟空，而在眾生中宛然存在，這稱為般若傴和。因為因緣能夠產生權實兩種智慧，作為法身的父母，所以首先要觀照它。 六者，《大涅槃經》闡明五種佛性。這大概是諸佛的秘藏，萬流的歸宗，蘊藏在因緣之內。之所以這樣說，是因為十二因緣不生不滅，這稱為境界佛性。由於十二因緣本來沒有生滅，發生正觀，這就是觀智佛性。這種觀照明了，就稱為菩提果佛性。正觀既然彰顯，生死患累畢竟空，永遠滅除，這就是大涅槃果果佛性。然而十二因緣的本性寂滅，未曾有境智，也不是因果。不知道用什麼來稱呼它，勉強稱為正性。正性是五性的根本。然而這五性更沒有別的本體，只是因緣一法轉變成為五種。因緣既然具備五性，因此一開始就必須討論它。 七者，《涅槃經》說：『諸行無常，是生滅法，生滅滅已，寂滅為樂。』雪山大士讚歎這一偈頌為完全如意珠。爲了這半句偈頌，他捨棄了身命。如果停留在十二因緣的迴流生死中，那麼就沒有常樂我凈。此論觀察那十二因緣本來不生，現在也沒有滅，生滅便止息。生滅既然止息，那就是常。既然有常，就具備我樂凈。因為有這樣的大利益，所以首先要觀照因緣。 八者，此論雖然沒有哪種法不能窮盡，沒有哪種言語不能表達，但總的來說，是要會通二諦（真諦和俗諦）。然而二諦隨處都可以闡明，現在就因緣來辨析，那麼它的言語就顯得容易理解。因緣宛然存在，常畢竟空，這稱為第一義諦。雖然畢竟空，而因緣宛然存在，這稱為世俗諦。此論正是闡述二諦，所以要觀照因緣。 九者，想要解釋《中觀論》
【English Translation】 English version 'No cessation and arising' is the correct contemplation, which is to contemplate prajna (wisdom). For the sake of sentient beings, to speak of it truthfully is textual prajna. Question: Is contemplating dependent origination only prajna, or is it yu he (a metaphor for interdependence)? Answer: The Bodhisattva realizes that although dependent origination is ultimately empty, it is clearly present in the six realms of sentient beings. To contemplate dependent origination and have original ultimate emptiness is called yu he prajna. To contemplate ultimate emptiness and be clearly present in sentient beings is called prajna yu he. Because dependent origination can generate both provisional and real wisdom, as the parents of the Dharmakaya, it is necessary to contemplate it first. Sixth, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra clarifies the five kinds of Buddha-nature. This is probably the secret treasure of all Buddhas, the origin of all streams, hidden within dependent origination. The reason for this is that the twelve links of dependent origination do not arise or cease, which is called the Buddha-nature of realm. Because the twelve links of dependent origination originally have no arising or ceasing, the arising of correct contemplation is the Buddha-nature of contemplative wisdom. This clear contemplation is called the Buddha-nature of the Bodhi fruit. Since correct contemplation is manifested, the suffering and burdens of birth and death are ultimately empty and permanently extinguished, which is the Buddha-nature of the great Nirvana fruit. However, the original nature of the twelve links of dependent origination is quiescent, without realm or wisdom, and not cause or effect. Not knowing what to call it, it is勉強 called the correct nature. Correct nature is the root of the five natures. However, these five natures have no other substance, but dependent origination transforms into five. Since dependent origination possesses the five natures, it is necessary to discuss it from the beginning. Seventh, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'All conditioned things are impermanent, they are subject to arising and ceasing; having arisen, they cease; their cessation is bliss.' The Great Hermit of Snow Mountains praised this verse as a complete wish-fulfilling jewel. For the sake of this half-verse, he gave up his life. If one dwells in the cycle of birth and death of the twelve links of dependent origination, then there is no permanence, bliss, self, or purity. This treatise observes that the twelve links of dependent origination originally do not arise, and now do not cease; arising and ceasing then cease. Since arising and ceasing cease, then there is permanence. Since there is permanence, it possesses self, bliss, and purity. Because there is such great benefit, it is necessary to contemplate dependent origination first. Eighth, although this treatise does not exhaust any dharma and does not fail to express any word, in general, it is to understand the two truths (ultimate truth and conventional truth). However, the two truths can be clarified everywhere, but now, by analyzing dependent origination, its words appear easy to understand. Dependent origination is clearly present, and is always ultimately empty, which is called the first truth. Although ultimately empty, dependent origination is clearly present, which is called conventional truth. This treatise is precisely to expound the two truths, so it is necessary to contemplate dependent origination. Ninth, wanting to explain the Madhyamaka-karika
三字。故明於因緣。十二因緣不生不滅具三種中道故稱中。發生三觀目之為觀。以觀辨於心論宣于口目之為論。一部始終但釋三字。是以因緣建乎首篇。十者大明物病不出二種。一者執性。二者迷假。此論正破性假二生悟入無生。故觀因緣。問云何破性假耶。答既稱因緣。即知假因托緣無有自性。故性病便息。本對自性是故有假。在性既無。假亦非有。性假若空便入實相。是故論云。因緣所生法是即無自性。若無有自性云何有是法。問此論但應破洗迷執蕭焉無寄玄道自通。何故乃解五種佛性及三種波若。答關內中論序云。其實既宣。其言既明。則于菩薩之行道場之照朗然懸解矣。菩薩之行為因。道場之照為果。內外迷執既盡大乘因果則成。斯乃總攝萬流。豈止乎十義。因緣一品既具此十門。自下諸文其義亦類。若精鑒斯意則如白日朗其胸衿甘露流其四體矣。問三種釋因緣。正用何耶。答正用通因緣。以通必攝別。十二門亦然。釋名門第三。問云何名為因緣。答依下偈云。因緣所生法。我說即是空。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。略明因緣凡有三義。一者因緣是空義。以因緣所生法即是寂滅性故知。因緣即是空義。二者因緣是假義。既無自性故不得言有。空亦復空故不得言空。為化眾生故以假名說。故因緣是假義。三者因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 三字（指'因緣'二字和一個隱含的'中'字）。因此，要明白因緣的道理。十二因緣不生不滅，具足三種中道（空、假、中）的含義，所以稱為'中'。發生三種觀行（空觀、假觀、中觀），稱之為'觀'。用觀行來辨析於心，用言論來宣說于口，稱之為'論'。這部論從始至終，只是解釋這三個字（因、緣、中）。因此，以因緣作為首篇的建立基礎。十者，主要闡明眾生的病根不出兩種：一是執著于'性'（自性），二是迷惑于'假'（假有）。此論正是爲了破除對'性'和'假'的執著，從而悟入無生的境界。所以要觀察因緣。問：如何破除對'性'和'假'的執著呢？答：既然稱為'因緣'，就應當知道假有的事物依賴於因和緣，沒有自身的自性。因此，對自性的執著就會止息。本來是爲了對治自性的執著，所以才說有假有。如果自性本來就沒有，那麼假有也就不存在。如果對自性和假有的執著都空了，就能進入實相。所以論中說：'因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。' 如果沒有自性，又怎麼會有這些法呢？問：這部論只應當破除迷執，使心境空寂，玄妙的道理自然通達。為什麼還要解釋五種佛性以及三種般若呢？答：關內《中論》的序言說：'如果它的真實含義已經宣揚，它的言辭已經明白，那麼對於菩薩的行持，道場的照耀，就會朗然顯現。' 菩薩的行持是因，道場的照耀是果。如果對內外的迷執都消除了，大乘的因果就成就了。這乃是總攝萬法，豈止是十種含義？因緣這一品就具備了這十個方面的內容。從下面的文章來看，它的含義也是類似的。如果能夠精通理解這個意思，那麼就會像白日一樣照亮胸懷，甘露一樣滋潤全身。問：三種解釋因緣的方法，主要用哪一種呢？答：主要用通因緣。因為通因緣必然包含別因緣。十二門也是這樣。釋名門第三。問：什麼是因緣呢？答：依據下面的偈頌說：'因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。' 簡要說明因緣，大概有三種含義：一是因緣是空義。因為因緣所生的法，就是寂滅的本性，所以知道因緣就是空義。二是因緣是假義。既然沒有自性，就不能說有。空也空掉了，所以不能說空。爲了教化眾生，所以用假名來說。所以因緣是假義。三是因緣是中道義。
【English Translation】 Three words (referring to the two words 'hetu-pratyaya' (因緣) and an implicit 'middle' (中)). Therefore, one must understand the principle of hetu-pratyaya. The twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣) are neither produced nor extinguished, fully possessing the meaning of the three middle ways (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way), hence they are called 'middle'. Generating the three contemplations (emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way), it is called 'contemplation'. Using contemplation to discern in the mind, and using speech to proclaim it, it is called 'treatise'. This treatise, from beginning to end, only explains these three words (hetu, pratyaya, and middle). Therefore, hetu-pratyaya is established as the foundation of the first chapter. The ten aspects mainly clarify that the root of suffering for sentient beings does not go beyond two types: first, attachment to 'svabhava' (自性, self-nature); second, delusion about 'prajñapti' (假, provisional existence). This treatise is precisely to break through the attachment to 'svabhava' and 'prajñapti', thereby realizing the state of non-origination. Therefore, one must contemplate hetu-pratyaya. Question: How does one break through the attachment to 'svabhava' and 'prajñapti'? Answer: Since it is called 'hetu-pratyaya', one should know that provisional existences rely on causes and conditions, and do not have their own self-nature. Therefore, the attachment to self-nature will cease. Originally, it was to counter the attachment to self-nature that provisional existence was spoken of. If self-nature originally does not exist, then provisional existence also does not exist. If the attachment to both self-nature and provisional existence is emptied, one can enter the true reality. Therefore, the treatise says: 'That which arises from causes and conditions, I say is emptiness, and is also a provisional name, and is also the meaning of the middle way.' If there is no self-nature, how can there be these dharmas? Question: This treatise should only break through delusions and attachments, making the mind empty and silent, and the profound principle will naturally be understood. Why is it also necessary to explain the five Buddha-natures (五種佛性) and the three prajnas (三種般若)? Answer: The preface to the Madhyamaka-karika (中論) within the pass says: 'If its true meaning has been proclaimed, and its words have been made clear, then for the practice of the Bodhisattva, the illumination of the Bodhimanda will be clearly revealed.' The practice of the Bodhisattva is the cause, and the illumination of the Bodhimanda is the result. If the delusions and attachments within and without are eliminated, the cause and effect of the Mahayana will be accomplished. This is to encompass all phenomena, how can it be limited to ten meanings? This chapter on hetu-pratyaya already possesses these ten aspects. From the following texts, its meaning is also similar. If one can thoroughly understand this meaning, then it will be like the sun illuminating the chest, and like nectar flowing through the whole body. Question: Among the three methods of explaining hetu-pratyaya, which one is mainly used? Answer: The general hetu-pratyaya is mainly used. Because the general hetu-pratyaya necessarily includes the specific hetu-pratyaya. The twelve doors are also like this. The third is the door of explaining the name. Question: What is hetu-pratyaya? Answer: According to the following verse: 'That which arises from causes and conditions, I say is emptiness, and is also a provisional name, and is also the meaning of the middle way.' Briefly explaining hetu-pratyaya, there are roughly three meanings: first, hetu-pratyaya is the meaning of emptiness. Because the dharma that arises from causes and conditions is the nature of quiescence, therefore it is known that hetu-pratyaya is the meaning of emptiness. Second, hetu-pratyaya is the meaning of provisional existence. Since there is no self-nature, it cannot be said to exist. Emptiness is also emptied, so it cannot be said to be empty. In order to teach sentient beings, it is spoken of with a provisional name. Therefore, hetu-pratyaya is the meaning of provisional existence. Third, hetu-pratyaya is the meaning of the middle way.
是中道義。即此因緣離於二邊。故名為中道。蓋是論文自以三義釋之。四者依名釋義亦有三種。一者種子親而能生為因。水土疏而助發故為緣。二者本無互體。辨之令有故稱為因。有可生之義假緣助發。故目為緣。故互具有無二義種受因緣兩名。故曰因緣。三者毗曇人云。攝因為緣故名因緣。又經有三說。一者但作因名。如六因十因之例。六因如雜心說十因地持論明。二者但作緣名。如四緣十緣之流。四緣經論皆備。十緣如舍利弗毗曇敘。三者因緣兩說皆如十二因緣。此皆適化不同故立名非一也。破申門第四。問上云破因緣名因緣品。破何等人耶。答異執乃多略標四種。一摧外道。二折毗曇。三排成論。四呵大執。總談外道凡有二計。一計邪因。二執無因。言邪因者略明三種。一者即一因外道。謂自在天等之一因緣能生萬類之果。二者宿作外道。謂萬法之果但由往業無有現緣。三者現緣外道。謂四大和合能生外法。男女交會能生眾生。二者無因外道。謂萬法自然而生不從因生。所言毗曇因緣者本有果性。假六因四緣辨之令生。即二世有義。所言成實因緣者。雖不明因中本有果性但果有可生之理。故假三因四緣辨之得生。即二世無義。所言大乘因緣者。如成論大乘明世諦有三假。假是不自。而世諦三假名為因緣。如舊地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這就是中道（Madhyamā），也就是遠離兩種極端的因緣（hetupratyaya）。因此，它被稱為中道。這篇論文用三種方式來解釋它。第四種是根據名稱來解釋含義，也有三種方式。第一種是種子（bīja）是親近的，能夠產生結果，而水土是疏遠的，幫助引發它，所以稱為緣（pratyaya）。第二種是本來沒有相互的自體（svabhāva），辨別它使之存在，所以稱為因（hetu）。有可以產生的意義，憑藉緣的幫助引發，所以稱為緣。因此，相互具有有和無兩種意義，種子接受因緣這兩個名稱，所以說因緣。第三種是毗曇（Abhidharma）學者說，攝取因為緣，所以名為因緣。此外，經文中有三種說法。第一種是隻作為因的名稱，如六因（hetu）和十因（hetu）的例子。六因如《雜心論》所說，十因《地持論》闡明。第二種是隻作為緣的名稱，如四緣（pratyaya）和十緣（pratyaya）的流派。四緣經論都具備，十緣如《舍利弗毗曇》敘述。第三種是因緣兩種說法都有，如十二因緣（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda）。這些都是適應不同的教化而建立的名稱，並非只有一個。 破申門第四。問：上面說破因緣名因緣品，破的是哪些人呢？答：不同的執著有很多，略微標出四種。一是摧毀外道（tīrthika），二是折服毗曇，三是排斥成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra），四是呵斥大執。總的來說，外道有兩種計較。一是計較邪因，二是執著無因。所說的邪因，略微說明三種。一是即一因外道，認為自在天（Īśvara）等的一個因緣能夠產生萬類的果。二是宿作外道，認為萬法的果只由往昔的業（karma）產生，沒有現在的緣。三是現緣外道，認為四大（mahābhūta）和合能夠產生外法，男女交會能夠產生眾生。二是無因外道，認為萬法自然而生，不從因產生。所說的毗曇因緣，是本來具有果的自性（svabhāva），憑藉六因四緣辨別它使之產生，也就是二世有義。所說的成實因緣，雖然不明說因中本來具有果的自性，但果有可以產生的道理，所以憑藉三因四緣辨別它得以產生，也就是二世無義。所說的大乘（Mahāyāna）因緣，如成實論大乘闡明世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）有三種假（prajñapti）。假是不自生的，而世俗諦的三假名為因緣，如舊地。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the Middle Way (Madhyamā), which is the conditionality (hetupratyaya) that is apart from the two extremes. Therefore, it is called the Middle Way. This treatise explains it in three ways. The fourth is to explain the meaning according to the name, and there are also three ways. The first is that the seed (bīja) is close and can produce the result, while the water and soil are distant and help to initiate it, so it is called condition (pratyaya). The second is that there is originally no mutual self-nature (svabhāva), distinguishing it to make it exist, so it is called cause (hetu). There is the meaning of being able to be produced, relying on the help of conditions to initiate it, so it is called condition. Therefore, they mutually have the two meanings of existence and non-existence, and the seed receives the two names of cause and condition, so it is called cause and condition. The third is that the Abhidharma scholars say that taking the cause as the condition is called cause and condition. In addition, there are three statements in the scriptures. The first is only as the name of cause, such as the examples of six causes (hetu) and ten causes (hetu). The six causes are as explained in the Tattvasaṃgraha, and the ten causes are clarified in the Bodhisattvabhūmi. The second is only as the name of condition, such as the schools of four conditions (pratyaya) and ten conditions (pratyaya). The four conditions are fully equipped in the scriptures and treatises, and the ten conditions are described in the Śāriputrābhidharma. The third is that both cause and condition are mentioned, such as the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda). These are all names established to adapt to different teachings, and there is not only one. Fourth, the Chapter on Refuting and Explaining. Question: Above it says 'Refuting Cause and Condition' in the chapter on cause and condition, who is being refuted? Answer: There are many different attachments, but four kinds are briefly indicated. The first is to destroy the non-Buddhist (tīrthika), the second is to subdue the Abhidharma, the third is to reject the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, and the fourth is to rebuke great attachments. In general, non-Buddhists have two kinds of calculations. The first is to calculate wrong causes, and the second is to cling to no cause. The so-called wrong causes are briefly explained in three ways. The first is the non-Buddhist who claims a single cause, believing that a single cause and condition such as Īśvara can produce the fruits of all kinds. The second is the non-Buddhist who claims past actions, believing that the fruits of all dharmas are only produced by past karma, without present conditions. The third is the non-Buddhist who claims present conditions, believing that the combination of the four great elements (mahābhūta) can produce external dharmas, and the intercourse of men and women can produce sentient beings. The second is the non-Buddhist who claims no cause, believing that all dharmas arise naturally and are not produced from a cause. The so-called Abhidharma cause and condition is that it originally has the self-nature (svabhāva) of the result, and it is distinguished by the six causes and four conditions to make it produce, which is the meaning of existence in the two times. The so-called Satyasiddhi cause and condition, although it does not explicitly state that the cause originally has the self-nature of the result, the result has the principle of being able to be produced, so it is distinguished by the three causes and four conditions to be produced, which is the meaning of non-existence in the two times. The so-called Mahāyāna cause and condition, such as the Satyasiddhi-śāstra Mahāyāna explains that conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) has three kinds of provisionality (prajñapti). Provisionality is not self-arising, and the three provisionalities of conventional truth are called cause and condition, such as the old ground.
論師等辨四宗義。謂毗曇云是因緣宗。成實為假名宗。波若教等為不真宗。涅槃教等名為真宗。如斯等類並是學于因緣而失因緣。故正因緣成邪因緣。如服甘露反成毒藥。亦如入水求珠謬持瓦礫。此論破洗如此因緣故云破因緣品。以破如此邪執因緣申明大乘無得因緣。故以目品。問龍樹菩薩對緣云何。答有四種人學因緣而失因緣。一者犢子云。因緣謂性。五隱因緣別有人法生。四大因緣別有眼法生。二者毗曇因緣。無有人法。而有眼法。三者成實因緣。明世諦因緣俱有假人法。真諦即俱無。四者方廣云。都無世諦人法因緣。如此四人並學因緣失因緣。故破此四人申正因緣。故以目品。同異門第五。問中論破因緣品與十二門論觀因緣門。此有何異。答破邪因緣申正因緣。其義大同。但文有廣略離合為異。此論因緣一品攝彼三門。亦合彼三門為今一品。如因緣門即是此品如諸法自性不在於緣中一偈。第二觀有果無果門是此品別破四緣初偈。第三觀緣門是此品結破四緣偈。問何故離此一品為彼三門。答彼論欲示總別觀義。總謂因緣門。別謂因門及以緣門。此論但明總觀不明於別觀。而文互有廣略義可知矣。第二明論章開合。尋天竺之與震旦著筆之與口傳敷經講論者凡有二種。一者直解釋。二者科章門。如曇影制疏明。此論文
有四卷。品二十七。領其大宗為破眾生斷常之病申二諦中道。令因此中道發生正觀也。二者北立三論師明。此論文有四卷。大明三章。初有四偈。標論大宗。第二從破四緣以下竟邪見品破執顯宗。第三最後一偈推功歸佛。以初攝初故四偈標宗在於初品。以後攝后故最後一偈推功歸佛在後品也。師云夫適化無方陶誘非一。考聖心以息病為主。緣教意以開道為宗。若因開以受悟即聖教為之開。由合而受道則聖教為之合。如其兩曉併爲甘露必也。雙迷俱成毒藥。豈可偏守一途以壅多門者哉。具如法華玄義以備斯意矣。但末世鈍根尋其長文不見起盡。講經論者相與開之。問經有序正流通。論何故無耶。答大聖三達圓明鑑二世根性。故立通別兩序。弟子智猶未逮故不立之。又群生不窮大悲無限。非止益當時。欲遠傳遐代故有流通。弟子造論但當時解益不敢傳通後世。故不立流通。二者造論本為通經。故不別立流通也。問餘論有正說餘勢。此論何故無耶。答無畏廣本故有。今即是略論故無。二者因事表理。正以略于初后故名中論。自攝嶺相承分二十七品以為三段。初二十五品破大乘迷失明大乘觀行。次有兩品。破小乘迷執辨小乘觀行。第三重明大乘觀行推功歸佛。所以有此三段者正道未曾小大。赴大小根緣故說大小兩教。而佛在世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此《中論》共有四卷，分為二十七品。其主要宗旨是破除眾生對於斷見和常見這兩種極端錯誤的執著，闡明不落兩邊的中道實相。目的是使眾生能夠通過這中道之理，生起正確的智慧觀照。 第二種觀點是北方三論宗的學者所闡明的。他們認為此《中論》有四卷，主要闡述三個方面的內容。首先，開篇有四句偈頌，標明了全論的宗旨。其次，從破斥四緣的觀點開始，到《邪見品》結束，破除各種錯誤的執著，彰顯中道之理。最後，以最後一首偈頌將功德歸於佛陀。因為開篇的偈頌總攝全論，所以這四句偈頌被放在第一品。因為最後一首偈頌總結全論，所以將功德歸於佛陀的偈頌放在最後一品。 有位法師說：『佛陀適應不同根性的眾生進行教化，所用的方法多種多樣，但其根本目的是爲了消除眾生的煩惱病根。佛陀依據教法的意旨來開顯證悟的道路。如果眾生能夠因為佛陀的開示而獲得覺悟，那麼聖教對於他們來說就是開啟智慧之門。如果眾生能夠通過契合佛陀的教導而證得真理，那麼聖教對於他們來說就是引導他們走向真理的橋樑。如果眾生能夠同時明白這兩點，那麼佛法對於他們來說就是甘露妙藥。如果眾生對這兩點都迷惑不解，那麼佛法對於他們來說就變成了毒藥。因此，我們不應該固守一種觀點而阻塞其他法門。』這些道理在《法華玄義》中已經詳細闡述過了。但是末法時代的眾生根器遲鈍，閱讀長篇大論難以把握要點。因此，講解經論的人就將經論的內容進行分段。 有人問：『經典有有序分、正宗分和流通分，為什麼論典沒有這些分科呢？』 回答說：『佛陀具有三達智（Tridharmacakra）和圓滿的智慧，能夠洞察過去和未來眾生的根性，所以設立了通序和別序。而弟子們的智慧還不夠圓滿，所以沒有設立序分。』此外，眾生的數量是無窮無盡的，佛陀的慈悲也是沒有止境的。佛陀不僅要利益當時的眾生，還要將佛法流傳到遙遠的未來，所以設立了流通分。而弟子們所造的論典只是爲了解決當時的問題，不敢奢望能夠流傳到後世，所以沒有設立流通分。還有一種說法是，造論的根本目的是爲了通達經義，所以沒有另外設立流通分。 有人問：『其他的論典有正說和餘勢，為什麼這部論典沒有呢？』 回答說：『無畏（Abhaya）的廣本中有這些內容，現在這部是簡略的論典，所以沒有。』還有一種說法是，這部論典是通過具體的事例來闡明真理的，主要在於簡略地闡述事物的開端和結果，所以稱為《中論》。自攝嶺（Sheling）以來，人們將二十七品分為三個部分。前二十五品破除大乘的迷惑，闡明大乘的觀行。接下來的兩品破除小乘的迷惑，辨析小乘的觀行。第三部分再次闡明大乘的觀行，並將功德歸於佛陀。之所以有這三個部分，是因為正道本來就沒有大小之分，只是爲了適應大小乘根性的眾生，所以才宣說了大小乘兩種教法。而佛陀在世的時候
【English Translation】 English version There are four volumes in this text, comprising twenty-seven chapters. Its main purpose is to break through the diseases of sentient beings, namely the afflictions of eternalism and annihilationism, and to expound the Middle Way of the Two Truths (Dva Satya). The aim is to enable sentient beings to generate right view (Samyag-dṛṣṭi) through this Middle Way. The second view is clarified by the Three Treatise School (Sanlun Zong) of the North. They believe that this text has four volumes, clearly explaining three aspects. First, there are four verses at the beginning, marking the main purpose of the treatise. Second, from the refutation of the Four Conditions (Hetu) to the end of the 'Examination of Wrong Views' chapter, it refutes attachments and reveals the main principle. Third, the last verse attributes merit to the Buddha. Because the initial verses encompass the entire treatise, the four verses marking the main purpose are placed in the first chapter. Because the last verse summarizes the treatise, the verse attributing merit to the Buddha is placed in the last chapter. A Dharma master said: 'The Buddha adapts his teachings to different beings, using various methods, but the fundamental purpose is to eliminate the root of suffering. The Buddha relies on the meaning of the teachings to reveal the path to enlightenment. If beings can gain enlightenment through the Buddha's teachings, then the sacred teachings are opening the door of wisdom for them. If beings can attain truth by conforming to the Buddha's teachings, then the sacred teachings are guiding them towards truth. If beings can understand both of these points, then the Dharma is like nectar for them. If beings are confused about both of these points, then the Dharma becomes poison for them. Therefore, we should not cling to one view and block other Dharma gates.' These principles have been explained in detail in the 'Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra'. However, beings in the degenerate age have dull faculties and find it difficult to grasp the main points when reading long texts. Therefore, those who explain the sutras and treatises divide the content into sections. Someone asked: 'Sutras have an introduction, main body, and conclusion. Why do treatises not have these divisions?' The answer is: 'The Buddha has the Threefold Knowledge (Tridharmacakra) and perfect wisdom, and can discern the faculties of beings in the past and future, so he established the general and specific introductions. However, the wisdom of the disciples is not yet perfect, so they did not establish an introduction.' Furthermore, the number of beings is endless, and the Buddha's compassion is limitless. The Buddha not only wants to benefit beings at that time, but also wants to transmit the Dharma to the distant future, so he established a conclusion. However, the treatises created by the disciples were only intended to solve the problems of that time, and they did not dare to hope that they could be transmitted to later generations, so they did not establish a conclusion. Another explanation is that the fundamental purpose of creating treatises is to understand the meaning of the sutras, so there is no separate conclusion. Someone asked: 'Other treatises have a main exposition and supplementary explanations. Why does this treatise not have them?' The answer is: 'The extensive version by Abhaya has these contents, but this is a concise treatise, so it does not have them.' Another explanation is that this treatise uses specific examples to clarify the truth, mainly focusing on briefly explaining the beginning and the end of things, so it is called the 'Middle Treatise'. Since Sheling, people have divided the twenty-seven chapters into three parts. The first twenty-five chapters refute the delusions of the Mahayana and clarify the practice of Mahayana contemplation. The next two chapters refute the delusions of the Hinayana and distinguish the practice of Hinayana contemplation. The third part again clarifies the practice of Mahayana contemplation and attributes merit to the Buddha. The reason for having these three parts is that the right path has never been divided into Mahayana and Hinayana, but in order to adapt to the faculties of beings of Mahayana and Hinayana, the two teachings of Mahayana and Hinayana were expounded. And when the Buddha was in the world
時眾生福德利根稟斯兩教並皆迷失。論主破彼二迷俱申兩教。是故有三段之文。又菩薩欲遍學諸道。初已知大道。次須識小。則權實洞明可得大小雙化也。問龍樹為何人雙破大小雙申兩教。答略為四緣。一者為學大失大故破大申大。何以知然。十二門論云末世眾生薄福鈍根雖尋經文不能通了。我愍此等欲令開悟。即此論云。聞大乘法說畢竟空不知何因緣故空。遂失二諦。故知。為破學大失大之緣申于大教也。又三世十方佛赴大緣而說大教。三世十方四依菩薩赴大緣重說大教也。二者為小緣而申大教。以封執小乘障隔大道故須破小而明於大。亦有文證故初品破毗曇四緣。乃至燃可燃品破薩婆多執法犢子部計人。即其事也。又三世十方佛為二緣而說大乘。一為直往菩薩。二為回小入大之人。三世十方四依菩薩造論亦為二人前為學大乘失大故破大申大。即是直往之人。次為破學小障大令回小入大也。三者為九十六種外道執邪障大乘之正故破邪申正。論處處有文。又三世佛就大乘中破外道。令外道悟入大乘。如涅槃六師及十仙之類。三世四依亦爾。破九十六邪令回邪入大乘之正。四者四依為未曾學大小乘內外之緣。如始出家二眾及在家二眾。為此眾生直論大法令其取悟。以此等緣雖未曾學大小。內外而無始任運在虛妄失道計有
內身外物。今直令觀行求撿。無從便得悟道也。次申小乘亦為四緣。一為學小乘失小故破小申小。即小乘因緣品是。二為破外道障于少乘令回邪入正。前令回失從得。今便回邪入正。即邪見品是。三為大乘菩薩申于小教。自有菩薩解大而未通小。如法華藥草喻品有此菩薩。今令菩薩解大解小即悟于權實二智。二十五品破大申大令菩薩悟實智。次兩品令菩薩悟權智。便入佛知見得成法身。十方三世佛出世大意既爾。四依菩薩出世大意亦爾。四依菩薩出世大意亦爾。故四依如佛亦即是佛也。四為未曾學大小內外之人直為說小乘教。令其悟小乘道果也。又總判四種障障于大乘。一外道障中之重障中之遠。二小乘障中之次。三有所得大乘障無所得。四無明都不識大小。而昔本有大乘根性菩薩為之說大。令破此四迷又令此四人悟入大也。小亦有四種障。一外道。二有所得小。三偏執大以大斥小。如法華論偏執一乘菩薩。四無明都不識大小。今亦令此四人悟入小也。問十二門與中論申破何異。答中論破四迷申大小二教。十二門亦破四迷而獨申大教。第三重明大乘觀行推功歸佛者凡有十義。一者欲示小乘破邪見不盡。顯大乘破邪見盡。故重明大乘破邪見。二者前明從大生小。后辨攝小歸大。故重明大。如法華經總序十方諸佛及釋迦一
化。凡有三輪。一根本法輪。謂一乘教也。二枝末法輪之教。眾生不堪聞一故於一佛乘分別說三。三從一起故稱枝末也。三攝末歸本。會彼三乘同歸一極。此之三門無教不收無理不攝。如空之含萬像若海之納百川。今論三段還申佛三經。初二十五品申一乘根本之教。次兩品申佛枝末之教。後重明大乘申攝末歸本。是故有三段之文破此三迷申茲三教。並是佛功。故最後推功歸佛。三輪之經既無教不攝。申三輪之論亦無教不收。是故斯論窮深極廣也。三者初申大乘。次申小乘。則似成大小乘論不專名大論。以其中間雖復明小以初后並大故名大論。四者示小不苞大大能含小。由具明一化始終大小諸教然後始名大乘論。是故第三重論大乘。至論未曾大小耳。五者申大有其二門。一者就大申大。二者舉小顯大。二十五品即是就大申大。后之兩品舉小顯大。六者前但為大緣申明大法。后但為小緣不堪受大故請說于小。所以明小。七者此論正明中道。欲辨觀中道者凡有四人。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。乃至上智觀故得諸佛菩提。前二十五品已明上智及上上智觀得菩提。后之兩品次辨中下二智得菩提義。故此論文云。上已聞大乘法入第一義。今欲聞聲聞法入第一義。第一義即中道。故知。中道無二入者投法不同即其證也。八者初明大次辨小
。惑者便起大小二見。是故最後俱泯二見明正道未曾大小。九者申大乘有二門。一者前略后廣二者前廣后略。初七品略明大乘觀行。次作者品已去廣明大乘觀行。此是為解義故。二者二十五品廣明大乘觀行。后一偈略明大乘觀行。為易持故也。十者二十七品雙破大小二邪。俱申二正。惑者便起邪正二心。是故最後雙泯二見。道門未曾邪正故后長行雲。無人無法不應生邪見正見。體用權實亦爾。初大次小。從體起用從實起權。次攝用歸體收權入實。入實則無復有權。亦未曾有實。如是五句故云佛不能行不能到是法不可示。言辭相寂滅不知何以目之約此論則稱為中。經則名為妙法法身佛性波若。問依經明佛前說聲聞法。后說菩薩法。論主應前申小教后論大乘。何故前大后小耶。答經乃前小后大。但此論正申大乘傍申小教。故前申于大后申于小也。又佛雖說小意在於大。故法華云。諸佛如來但為教菩薩。今欲申佛本意故初明大也。又佛經亦前說于大后明於小。如初在道樹說華嚴之教。后趣鹿苑轉小乘法輪。今亦依佛此旨故前大后小。就二十五品舊開為二。初二十一品破世間人法明大乘觀行。后四品破出世人法明大乘觀行。所以世出世俱破者。稟教之流謂世出世為二。故成二見。故大品云。諸有二者無道無果。涅槃云。明無明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：迷惑的人因此產生大小兩種見解。所以最後泯滅這兩種見解，彰顯正道，原本就沒有大小之分。第九，闡述大乘有兩種方式：一是前面簡略後面詳細，二是前面詳細後面簡略。前面的七品簡略地闡明大乘的觀行，接下來的《作者品》開始詳細地闡明大乘的觀行。這是爲了解釋義理的緣故。另一種是二十五品詳細地闡明大乘的觀行，後面用一個偈頌簡略地闡明大乘的觀行，這是爲了容易受持的緣故。第十，二十七品同時破斥小乘和大乘的兩種邪見，同時闡述兩種正見。迷惑的人因此產生邪正兩種心。所以最後泯滅這兩種見解，因為道門原本就沒有邪正之分，所以在後面的長行文中說：『無人無法，不應生邪見正見。』體、用、權、實也是這樣。先大后小，從體起用，從實起權。然後收用歸體，收權入實。入實則不再有權，也未曾有實。像這樣的五句話，所以說佛不能行，不能到，這法不可示，言辭相寂滅，不知用什麼來稱呼它，按照這個理論就稱為中，經中就稱為妙法、法身、佛性、般若（prajna，智慧）。問：依據經典闡明，佛先說聲聞法（sravaka-dharma，小乘佛法），后說菩薩法（bodhisattva-dharma，大乘佛法）。論主應該先闡述小乘教義，后論述大乘。為什麼先大后小呢？答：經典是先小后大。但這部論主要是闡述大乘，順帶闡述小乘教義。所以先闡述大乘，后闡述小乘。而且佛雖然說了小乘，但意圖在於大乘。所以《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）說：『諸佛如來只是爲了教導菩薩。』現在想要闡述佛的本意，所以先闡明大乘。而且佛經也是先說大乘，后闡明小乘。如最初在菩提樹下說《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）的教義，後來前往鹿野苑轉小乘法輪。現在也是依據佛的這個旨意，所以先大后小。就二十五品來說，以前分為兩種。最初的二十一品破斥世間人法，闡明大乘觀行。後面的四品破斥出世間人法，闡明大乘觀行。之所以世間和出世間都要破斥，是因為接受教義的人認為世間和出世間是兩種，所以形成兩種見解。所以《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說：『諸有二者，無道無果。』《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『明無明』
【English Translation】 English version: Those who are deluded then generate two views, namely 'large' and 'small'. Therefore, in the end, both views are extinguished, revealing the correct path, which never had 'large' or 'small'. Ninth, expounding the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) has two approaches: one is brief at the beginning and extensive later, and the other is extensive at the beginning and brief later. The first seven chapters briefly explain the contemplation and practice of the Mahayana. The subsequent 'Author' chapter onwards extensively explain the contemplation and practice of the Mahayana. This is for the sake of explaining the meaning. The other approach is that twenty-five chapters extensively explain the contemplation and practice of the Mahayana, and then a single verse briefly explains the contemplation and practice of the Mahayana. This is for the sake of easy retention. Tenth, the twenty-seven chapters simultaneously refute the two wrong views of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and the Mahayana, and simultaneously expound the two correct views. Those who are deluded then generate two minds, namely 'wrong' and 'correct'. Therefore, in the end, both views are extinguished, because the path never had 'wrong' or 'correct'. Therefore, the subsequent prose says: 'No person, no dharma, one should not generate wrong views or correct views.' Principle (體), function (用), expedient (權), and reality (實) are also like this. First large, then small; from principle arises function, from reality arises expedient. Then, gathering function back to principle, collecting expedient back into reality. Entering reality, then there is no longer expedient, and there never was reality. Like these five sentences, therefore it is said that the Buddha cannot go, cannot arrive, this dharma cannot be shown, words and speech are extinguished, one does not know what to call it. According to this theory, it is called the Middle Way. In the sutras, it is called the Wonderful Dharma, Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma Body), Buddha-nature (佛性, Buddha-nature), Prajna (般若, wisdom). Question: According to the sutras, the Buddha first spoke the Sravaka-dharma (聲聞法, teaching for the Hearers), and later spoke the Bodhisattva-dharma (菩薩法, teaching for Bodhisattvas). The author of the treatise should first expound the Hinayana teachings and then discuss the Mahayana. Why is it first large and then small? Answer: The sutras are first small and then large. But this treatise mainly expounds the Mahayana, and incidentally expounds the Hinayana teachings. Therefore, it first expounds the Mahayana and then expounds the Hinayana. Moreover, although the Buddha spoke the Hinayana, his intention was in the Mahayana. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra (法華經) says: 'The Buddhas and Tathagatas only teach Bodhisattvas.' Now wanting to expound the Buddha's original intention, therefore it first clarifies the Mahayana. Moreover, the Buddha's sutras also first speak of the large and then clarify the small. For example, initially under the Bodhi tree, he spoke the teachings of the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經), and later went to Deer Park to turn the wheel of the Hinayana Dharma. Now also following the Buddha's intention, therefore it is first large and then small. Regarding the twenty-five chapters, previously they were divided into two. The first twenty-one chapters refute the worldly people and dharma, clarifying the Mahayana contemplation and practice. The last four chapters refute the supramundane people and dharma, clarifying the Mahayana contemplation and practice. The reason why both worldly and supramundane are refuted is that those who receive the teachings think that worldly and supramundane are two, therefore forming two views. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) says: 'Those who have two, have no path and no fruit.' The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says: 'Clarity and non-clarity.'
愚者謂二。華嚴云。迷惑賢聖道生死涅槃謂二。法華云。如來如實知見三界之相。天親釋云。眾生界與涅槃界不離。眾生有如來藏故。凈名云。悟不二故得無生忍。今欲破如此二見申無二之道。故前破世間后破出世。今明求世間出世間畢竟不可得。即是非世非出世乃名中道。所以前破世間后破出世者。蓋是從易至難為次第故也。就二十一品又開為三。初至觀業有十七品。破稟教邪迷顯中道實相。第二觀法一品次明得益。第三時因果成壞有三品。重破邪迷重明中道實相。所以開此三者依智度論釋習應品。初正說菩薩習應波若。第二明於得益。謂重罪消滅諸天守護。三重明習應。諸佛說經既其有三。菩薩造論義亦如是。以邪教覆正經其義不明照。故破于偏邪顯中道之實相。中道之實相既顯三乘賢聖由之而成。故次明得益。睿師序云。其實既宣其言既明。于菩薩之行道場之照朗然懸解矣。但略說未周兼鈍根難悟。故重破邪迷重說實相也。就初十七品又開為二。初有七品。略破人法明大乘觀行。次十品。廣破人法辨大乘觀行。初略后廣為解義故。又利根易悟略釋便解。鈍根難了廣開乃悟。就七品即為七段。就因緣品中自開為二。第一牒八不享造論意。第二重牒八不而解釋之。就第一又二。初牒八不第二序造論意。就牒八不分為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 愚者認為有二元對立。 《華嚴經》說：『迷惑于賢聖之道，將生死與涅槃視為二。』《法華經》說：『如來如實地知見三界之相。』天親菩薩解釋說：『眾生界與涅槃界不相分離，因為眾生具有如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，所有眾生皆具的佛性）。』《維摩詰經》說：『領悟不二法門，因此獲得無生法忍（Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti，對法不生不滅的證悟）。』現在想要破除這種二元對立的見解，闡明不二之道，所以前面破斥世間法，後面破斥出世間法。現在闡明追求世間和出世間都是畢竟不可得的，這就是非世間非出世間，稱為中道。之所以先破斥世間法，后破斥出世間法，是因為這是從易到難的次第。 就《中論》二十七品又分為三部分。最初到《觀業品》共十七品，破斥依據教法的邪見迷惑，彰顯中道實相。第二《觀法品》闡明獲得利益。第三《時因果成壞品》有三品，再次破斥邪見迷惑，再次闡明中道實相。之所以分為這三部分，是依據《智度論》解釋《習應品》。最初是正式宣說菩薩應該修習般若（Prajna，智慧）。第二闡明獲得利益，即重罪消滅，諸天守護。第三再次闡明修習般若。諸佛說經有這三種方式，菩薩造論也是如此。因為邪教覆蓋正經，其義理不明顯，所以破斥偏頗邪見，彰顯中道實相。中道實相既然彰顯，三乘賢聖由此而成，所以接著闡明獲得利益。《睿師序》說：『其實質既然宣揚，其言語既然明瞭，對於菩薩的行道，道場的照耀，自然懸解了。』但只是略說不夠周全，加上鈍根之人難以領悟，所以再次破斥邪見迷惑，再次宣說實相。 就最初的十七品又分為兩部分。最初有七品，簡略地破斥人法二執，闡明大乘觀行。接著十品，廣泛地破斥人法二執，辨析大乘觀行。先簡略后廣泛是爲了解釋義理。而且利根之人容易領悟，簡略解釋就能理解。鈍根之人難以理解，廣泛展開才能領悟。就這七品分為七段。在《因緣品》中又分為兩部分。第一，引述八不（不生、不滅、不常、不斷、不一、不異、不來、不去）闡述造論的意圖。第二，再次引述八不而解釋它。就第一部分又分為兩部分。最初引述八不，第二敘述造論的意圖。就引述八不分為八段。
【English Translation】 English version Fools speak of duality. The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Deluded about the path of the wise and holy, they regard Samsara (birth and death) and Nirvana (liberation) as two.' The Lotus Sutra says: 'The Tathagata (the thus-gone one, Buddha) truly knows and sees the aspects of the triple world.' Vasubandhu explains: 'The realm of sentient beings and the realm of Nirvana are not separate, because sentient beings possess the Tathagatagarbha (the womb of the Tathagata, Buddha-nature in all beings).' The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Realizing non-duality, one attains Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti (the patience with the unoriginated nature of reality).' Now, I wish to refute such dualistic views and expound the non-dual path. Therefore, I first refute the worldly and then the supramundane. Now, I clarify that seeking the worldly and the supramundane is ultimately unattainable. This is neither worldly nor supramundane, and it is called the Middle Way. The reason for first refuting the worldly and then the supramundane is because it follows the order from easy to difficult. The twenty-seven chapters of the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) are divided into three parts. The first, up to the 'Examination of Karma' chapter, consists of seventeen chapters, refuting the heretical delusions based on teachings and revealing the true nature of the Middle Way. The second, the 'Examination of the Self' chapter, clarifies the attainment of benefits. The third, the 'Examination of Time, Causes, Conditions, Production, Duration, and Destruction' chapter, consists of three chapters, again refuting heretical delusions and again clarifying the true nature of the Middle Way. The reason for dividing it into these three parts is based on the explanation of the 'Practice and Response' chapter in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom). First, it formally expounds the Bodhisattva's practice of Prajna (wisdom). Second, it clarifies the attainment of benefits, namely, the elimination of heavy sins and the protection of the devas (gods). Third, it again clarifies the practice and response. Just as the Buddhas preach the sutras in these three ways, the Bodhisattvas compose treatises in the same way. Because heretical teachings cover the correct sutras, their meaning is not clear. Therefore, I refute biased and heretical views and reveal the true nature of the Middle Way. Since the true nature of the Middle Way is revealed, the three vehicles (Shravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, and Bodhisattvayana) and the wise and holy ones are formed from it. Therefore, I next clarify the attainment of benefits. The preface by Master Rui says: 'Since its essence is proclaimed and its words are clear, the Bodhisattva's practice and the illumination of the Bodhimanda (place of enlightenment) are naturally understood.' However, it is only a brief explanation and is not comprehensive, and dull-witted people find it difficult to understand. Therefore, I again refute heretical delusions and again expound the true nature. The first seventeen chapters are divided into two parts. The first consists of seven chapters, briefly refuting the attachment to persons and dharmas (phenomena) and clarifying the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) contemplation. The next ten chapters extensively refute the attachment to persons and dharmas and analyze the Mahayana contemplation. The reason for first being brief and then extensive is to explain the meaning. Moreover, those with sharp faculties easily understand, and a brief explanation is sufficient. Those with dull faculties find it difficult to understand, and an extensive explanation is necessary. These seven chapters are divided into seven sections. The 'Examination of Conditions' chapter is divided into two parts. First, it cites the eight negations (neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither identical nor different, neither coming nor going) to explain the intention of composing the treatise. Second, it again cites the eight negations and explains them. The first part is divided into two parts. First, it cites the eight negations, and second, it narrates the intention of composing the treatise. The citation of the eight negations is divided into eight sections.
三別。第一正牒八不明所申教體。第二半偈嘆八不之用。第三半偈敬人美法。初明教體。即是二諦。次明教用。即是二智。所以先明二諦次明二智者。然諦智未曾一二。不二而二。故諦智方便約緣不同。非諦無以悟智。非智無以明諦。如來內智明瞭外照根緣。故說二諦言教。內有二智外說名諦。即是智慧諦所。諦不說諦諦還說智。即是諦能智所。欲明諦智行說因緣。今正赴緣說教。故先明於諦次辨于智也。又先明二諦后明二智者。前正明說教后明教意。所以說八不二諦者。為令眾生髮生二智故也。望佛從本至末。望緣即是因教發智也。又此論正申二諦傍明二智義。故先說諦而後智。百論正明二智傍明二諦。故先智而後諦也。問何故標八不有論初也。答略明十義。一者為欲辨經論資申之義。八不即是三世諸佛方等要經。論主稟經發生二智然後為物造論。此即是經資于論。后解釋八不破外道迷失。謂論申于經也。所以須牒經者。恐小乘之流不生信受。故命初標經八不即明勸信意也。二者題標中論。今解釋之。初標八不即是中道。后解釋八不即是明論。是以題文稱中論也。三者序眾生失本。故牒八不在論初。問失八不為有幾人。答略有四人。一者迷失八不故有六道紛然。如涅槃經云是一味藥。隨其流處有六種味。即是失中道
【現代漢語翻譯】 三別：第一，正式闡述八不（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不去、不來）所依據的教義體系。第二，用半偈讚歎八不的作用。第三，用半偈尊敬人和讚美佛法。
首先闡明教義體系，即是二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）。其次闡明教義的作用，即是二智（根本智和后得智）。為什麼要先闡明二諦，后闡明二智呢？雖然諦和智從未曾是一或二，是不二而二。因此，諦和智的方便是根據因緣的不同而設立的。沒有諦，就無法領悟智；沒有智，就無法明白諦。如來的內在智慧明瞭，向外照見眾生的根器和因緣，所以宣說二諦的言教。內在擁有二智，向外宣說名為諦。即是智慧是諦所依據的，諦不說諦，諦反而能說智，即是諦能是智所依據的。想要闡明諦智的修行和宣說的因緣，現在正是應機說法，所以先闡明諦，再辨別智。而且，先闡明二諦，后闡明二智，前者是正式闡明說教，後者是闡明教義的意圖。所以宣說八不二諦，是爲了令眾生生起二智的緣故。從佛的角度來看，是從根本到末端；從因緣的角度來看，即是因教而生智。
而且，此論（中論）正式闡述二諦，附帶闡明二智的含義，所以先說諦而後說智。《百論》正式闡明二智，附帶闡明二諦，所以先說智而後說諦。問：為什麼要在論的開頭標明八不呢？答：簡略地說明十個意義。一是爲了辨別經和論互相資助和闡發的意義。八不即是三世諸佛所說的方等重要經典。論主依據經典生起二智，然後為眾生造論。這就是經資助於論。後來解釋八不，破除外道的迷惑顛倒，這就是論闡發經典。所以必須引述經典，是恐怕小乘之流不生信受。因此在開頭標明經中的八不，即是表明勸信的意圖。二是標題標明《中論》，現在解釋它。開頭標明八不即是中道，後來解釋八不即是闡明論。因此題文稱為《中論》。三是敘述眾生喪失根本，所以在論的開頭引述八不。問：喪失八不的有幾類人？答：簡略地有四類人。一是迷失八不，所以有六道輪迴的紛亂。如《涅槃經》所說，這是一種味道的藥，隨著流向不同的地方，就有六種味道。即是喪失了中道。
【English Translation】 Three distinctions: First, formally stating the doctrinal system based on the Eight No's (no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going). Second, praising the function of the Eight No's with half a verse. Third, respecting people and praising the Dharma with half a verse.
First, clarify the doctrinal system, which is the Two Truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth). Second, clarify the function of the doctrine, which is the Two Wisdoms (fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom). Why clarify the Two Truths first, and then clarify the Two Wisdoms? Although Truth and Wisdom have never been one or two, they are non-dual yet dual. Therefore, the expediency of Truth and Wisdom is established according to different conditions. Without Truth, there is no way to realize Wisdom; without Wisdom, there is no way to understand Truth. The Tathagata's inner wisdom is clear, and outwardly illuminates the faculties and conditions of sentient beings, so he speaks of the teachings of the Two Truths. Inwardly possessing the Two Wisdoms, outwardly speaking of them as Truth. That is, intelligence is what Truth relies on; Truth does not speak of Truth, but Truth can speak of Wisdom, that is, Truth can be what Wisdom relies on. If you want to clarify the practice of Truth and Wisdom and the conditions for speaking, now is the time to speak according to the occasion, so first clarify Truth, and then distinguish Wisdom. Moreover, first clarify the Two Truths, and then clarify the Two Wisdoms, the former is formally clarifying the teaching, and the latter is clarifying the intention of the doctrine. Therefore, speaking of the Eight No's and the Two Truths is for the sake of causing sentient beings to generate the Two Wisdoms. From the Buddha's point of view, it is from the root to the end; from the point of view of conditions, it is generating wisdom through teaching.
Moreover, this treatise (the Middle Treatise) formally expounds the Two Truths and incidentally clarifies the meaning of the Two Wisdoms, so it speaks of Truth first and then speaks of Wisdom. The Hundred Treatise formally expounds the Two Wisdoms and incidentally clarifies the Two Truths, so it speaks of Wisdom first and then speaks of Truth. Question: Why mark the Eight No's at the beginning of the treatise? Answer: Briefly explain ten meanings. One is to distinguish the meaning of the scriptures and treatises supporting and elucidating each other. The Eight No's are the important Vaipulya Sutras spoken by the Buddhas of the three worlds. The author of the treatise relies on the scriptures to generate the Two Wisdoms, and then creates the treatise for sentient beings. This is the scriptures supporting the treatise. Later, explaining the Eight No's and dispelling the delusions of external paths, this is the treatise elucidating the scriptures. Therefore, it is necessary to quote the scriptures, for fear that those of the Hinayana school will not generate faith and acceptance. Therefore, marking the Eight No's in the scriptures at the beginning is to show the intention of encouraging faith. Second, the title marks the Middle Treatise, and now explain it. Marking the Eight No's at the beginning is the Middle Way, and later explaining the Eight No's is explaining the treatise. Therefore, the title is called the Middle Treatise. Third, narrating that sentient beings have lost their roots, so the Eight No's are quoted at the beginning of the treatise. Question: How many types of people have lost the Eight No's? Answer: Briefly, there are four types of people. One is that they are lost in the Eight No's, so there is the chaos of the six realms of reincarnation. As the Nirvana Sutra says, this is a medicine of one flavor, and as it flows to different places, it has six flavors. That is, they have lost the Middle Way.
佛性成六道味。八不即是中道佛性也。二者諸外道等求此一道而不能得。故成九十六種。如涅槃經云凡夫之人雖加功苦不得是藥。三者二乘之人封執諸法決定有生。聞說無生心不信受。如智度論云。佛滅度後有五百部。聞畢竟空如刀傷心。四者學大乘人聞畢竟空。遂成斷見失於罪福。又無二諦。如此四人並失八不。今欲題其失本以顯曉示之。令知所失故在論初。四者示眾聖得原故標在論初。得此八不亦有四人。如涅槃云。觀中道者凡有四種。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。中智觀故得緣覺菩提。上智觀故得菩薩菩提。上上智觀故得諸佛菩提。以為欲明眾聖得本故題之在首。五者此論以二諦為宗。八不正明二諦故標之在初。六者欲示學教人所表。如來說生死涅槃因果等法者。為表不生死不涅槃不因果之正道也。七者欲明八不言約意包總攝眾教。故標在初。智度論云。四悉檀攝十二部經八萬法藏。三悉檀可破。第一義悉檀不可破。雖說三悉檀為顯第一義悉檀。第一義悉檀是八不。今欲明八不攝四悉檀及十二部經八萬法藏。故標在初。問何以知八不即是第一義悉檀。答智度論引中論八不釋第一義悉檀。故知。八不是第一義悉檀也。八者欲明此論是折中之說。前無序分。后略餘勢。命初即標中道。九者初標中觀論是標章門。次題觀因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛性成就六道輪迴的滋味。『八不』(不生不滅、不常不斷、不一不異、不去不來)即是中道佛性。其次，各種外道等尋求這唯一的真道卻不能得到，因此形成了九十六種不同的見解。如《涅槃經》所說：『凡夫之人即使勤加苦修，也無法得到真正的解藥。』 第三，二乘(聲聞乘和緣覺乘)之人執著于諸法實有生滅，聽聞『無生』之說，內心不信受。如《智度論》所說：『佛陀滅度后，有五百部派，聽聞畢竟空，如同刀割心一般痛苦。』 第四，學習大乘佛法的人，聽聞畢竟空，於是產生斷滅見，失去了對罪與福的正確認識，也不瞭解二諦(世俗諦和勝義諦)。以上這四種人，都失去了『八不』的真義。現在想要標明他們失去的根本，以此來曉喻指示他們，讓他們知道自己所失去的，所以在論的開頭就加以說明。 這四種人也顯示了眾聖證得真理的根源，所以標明在論的開頭。證得這『八不』也有四種人。如《涅槃經》所說：『觀察中道的人，有四種。下智觀察，證得聲聞菩提；中智觀察，證得緣覺菩提；上智觀察，證得菩薩菩提；上上智觀察，證得諸佛菩提。』因為想要闡明眾聖證得真理的根本，所以將它放在開頭。 第五，此論以二諦為宗旨，『八不』正是闡明二諦的，所以標明在開頭。 第六，想要顯示學教之人所應表達的。如來說生死、涅槃、因果等法，是爲了表達不生死、不涅槃、不因果的正道。 第七，想要闡明『八不』言簡意賅，總攝一切教義，所以標明在開頭。《智度論》說：『四悉檀(世界悉檀、各各為人悉檀、對治悉檀、第一義悉檀)涵蓋了十二部經和八萬四千法藏。前三種悉檀可以被破斥，但第一義悉檀不可破斥。』雖然宣說前三種悉檀，是爲了彰顯第一義悉檀，而第一義悉檀就是『八不』。現在想要闡明『八不』涵蓋了四悉檀以及十二部經和八萬四千法藏，所以標明在開頭。問：憑什麼知道『八不』就是第一義悉檀？答：《智度論》引用《中論》的『八不』來解釋第一義悉檀，所以可知『八不』就是第一義悉檀。 第八，想要闡明此論是折中的說法，前面沒有序分，後面省略了其餘的部分，一開始就標明中道。 第九，一開始標明《中觀論》，是標明綱領。其次是『觀因緣』。
【English Translation】 English version Buddha-nature becomes the taste of the six realms of existence. The 'Eight No's' (neither birth nor death, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going) are precisely the Middle Way Buddha-nature. Secondly, various non-Buddhist paths seek this one true path but cannot attain it, thus forming ninety-six different views. As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Ordinary people, even with diligent effort, cannot obtain the true medicine.' Thirdly, those of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) cling to the belief that all dharmas truly arise and cease, and when they hear the teaching of 'no arising,' their minds do not accept it. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'After the Buddha's Parinirvana, there were five hundred schools, and when they heard of ultimate emptiness, it was like a knife cutting their hearts.' Fourthly, those who study Mahayana Buddhism, upon hearing of ultimate emptiness, then develop a nihilistic view, losing the correct understanding of merit and demerit, and also not understanding the Two Truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth). All four of these types of people have lost the true meaning of the 'Eight No's.' Now, I want to indicate the root of what they have lost, in order to enlighten and instruct them, so that they know what they have lost, and therefore it is explained at the beginning of the treatise. These four types of people also show the source from which all sages attain enlightenment, so it is marked at the beginning of the treatise. There are also four types of people who attain these 'Eight No's.' As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Those who contemplate the Middle Way are of four types. Those who contemplate with lower wisdom attain Śrāvaka Bodhi; those who contemplate with middle wisdom attain Pratyekabuddha Bodhi; those who contemplate with higher wisdom attain Bodhisattva Bodhi; those who contemplate with the highest wisdom attain the Bodhi of all Buddhas.' Because I want to clarify the root from which all sages attain enlightenment, I place it at the beginning. Fifthly, this treatise takes the Two Truths as its principle, and the 'Eight No's' precisely clarify the Two Truths, so it is marked at the beginning. Sixthly, I want to show what those who study the teachings should express. The Tathagata speaks of birth and death, Nirvana, cause and effect, and other dharmas in order to express the correct path of neither birth nor death, neither Nirvana, nor cause and effect. Seventhly, I want to clarify that the 'Eight No's' are concise and comprehensive, encompassing all the teachings, so it is marked at the beginning. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'The Four Siddhantas (world siddhanta, siddhanta for each individual, remedial siddhanta, first principle siddhanta) encompass the twelve divisions of the scriptures and the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures. The first three siddhantas can be refuted, but the first principle siddhanta cannot be refuted.' Although the first three siddhantas are spoken of, it is to reveal the first principle siddhanta, and the first principle siddhanta is the 'Eight No's.' Now I want to clarify that the 'Eight No's' encompass the Four Siddhantas, the twelve divisions of the scriptures, and the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures, so it is marked at the beginning. Question: How do we know that the 'Eight No's' are the first principle siddhanta? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa quotes the 'Eight No's' from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā to explain the first principle siddhanta, so we know that the 'Eight No's' are the first principle siddhanta. Eighthly, I want to clarify that this treatise is a compromise, with no introductory section at the beginning and omitting the remaining parts at the end, marking the Middle Way at the beginning. Ninthly, marking the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā at the beginning is to mark the outline. Next is 'Examination of Conditions'.
品謂釋章門。明八不是釋因緣。是故偈云能說是因緣善滅諸戲論也。問八不即是因緣。論破因緣應破八不。答了因緣即是八不則申而不破。迷因緣即是不八即破而不申。故標八不因緣滅不八戲論。此即釋因緣品在論初意。八不則是因緣八不既在論初。因緣即居眾品之首。十者欲分大小二論不同。故初標八不。小乘論則是生滅之論。故有生滅觀。大乘論是無生滅論。故初明無生滅觀。問何以知然。答法華曰。昔于波羅㮈轉四諦法輪。分別說諸法五眾之生滅。小乘四諦十二因緣皆是生滅。苦集即是相生故名為生滅道為明還滅故是滅義。三諦並是有為故入無餘。時悉舍故是斷。滅諦是無為稱之為常。三諦有差別名之為異。滅諦無差別故稱為一。苦集是生死法故名為來。滅道為欲反原稱之為出。故滅諦名滅止妙出。四諦既爾。十二因緣亦然。十二相生為生。十二還滅為滅。滅十二為斷。得無為曰常。十二三世因果不同名之為異。滅十二無三世因果名之為一。七果從五因而來目之為來。滅十二出生死故稱之為出。則知。為二乘明生滅法。故是生滅觀。成實雖有五聚明義四諦為其正宗。毗曇之流亦復如是。今欲簡異小乘生滅論明大乘無生滅論。諸法本自不生。故非苦非集今亦無滅。故非道本自無生豈有苦集可斷。今亦無滅豈有無為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這一品名為『釋章門』，闡明『八不』是爲了解釋因緣。因此偈頌說，能夠闡述因緣，就能很好地止息各種戲論。問：『八不』就是因緣，如果論證要破斥因緣，是否也應該破斥『八不』？答：瞭解因緣就是了解『八不』，這樣就是闡述而不是破斥。迷惑于因緣就是不瞭解『八不』，這樣就是破斥而不是闡述。所以標明『八不』，因緣就能止息不『八』的戲論。這就是在論的開頭解釋因緣品的用意。『八不』就是因緣，『八不』既然在論的開頭，因緣就位於眾多品之首。設立『十門』是爲了區分大小乘兩種論的不同，所以在開頭標明『八不』。小乘論是關於生滅的論述，所以有生滅觀。大乘論是關於無生滅的論述，所以在開頭闡明無生滅觀。問：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？答：《法華經》說：『過去在波羅奈國轉四諦法輪，分別解說諸法五蘊的生滅。』小乘的四諦、十二因緣都是生滅。苦、集是相生，所以稱為生滅；道是爲了闡明還滅，所以是滅的含義。三諦都是有為法，所以進入無餘涅槃時就全部捨棄，所以是斷。滅諦是無為法，稱之為常。三諦有差別，所以稱為異。滅諦沒有差別，所以稱為一。苦、集是生死法，所以稱為來。滅、道是爲了反本還原，所以稱為出。所以滅諦名為滅、止、妙、出。四諦是這樣，十二因緣也是這樣。十二相生為生，十二還滅為滅。滅十二因緣為斷，得到無為法稱為常。十二因緣三世因果不同，稱為異。滅十二因緣沒有三世因果，稱為一。七果從五因而來，稱之為來。滅十二因緣出生死，所以稱之為出。由此可知，是為二乘人闡明生滅法，所以是生滅觀。《成實論》雖然有五聚明義，但四諦是其正宗。《毗曇論》等也是這樣。現在想要區分于小乘的生滅論，闡明大乘的無生滅論。諸法本來就不生，所以非苦非集；現在也沒有滅，所以非道；本來就沒有生，哪裡有苦集可以斷？現在也沒有滅，哪裡有無為可以證得？
【English Translation】 English version: This chapter is named 'Explanation of the Chapter Gates,' clarifying the 'Eight No's' to explain the concept of dependent origination (因緣, Hetu-pratyaya). Therefore, the verse says that being able to explain dependent origination can well extinguish all conceptual proliferations (戲論, Prapancha). Question: The 'Eight No's' are dependent origination. If the treatise aims to refute dependent origination, should it also refute the 'Eight No's'? Answer: Understanding dependent origination is understanding the 'Eight No's,' which is elaboration rather than refutation. Being deluded about dependent origination is not understanding the 'Eight No's,' which is refutation rather than elaboration. Therefore, stating the 'Eight No's' allows dependent origination to extinguish the conceptual proliferations that are not the 'Eight No's.' This is the intention behind explaining the chapter on dependent origination at the beginning of the treatise. The 'Eight No's' are dependent origination, and since the 'Eight No's' are at the beginning of the treatise, dependent origination is at the head of all chapters. Establishing the 'Ten Gates' is to differentiate between the two treatises of the Small Vehicle (小乘, Hinayana) and the Great Vehicle (大乘, Mahayana), so the 'Eight No's' are stated at the beginning. The Small Vehicle treatise is about arising and ceasing, so it has the contemplation of arising and ceasing. The Great Vehicle treatise is about non-arising and non-ceasing, so it clarifies the contemplation of non-arising and non-ceasing at the beginning. Question: How do we know this is the case? Answer: The Lotus Sutra says: 'In the past, in Varanasi (波羅㮈, Baranasi), the Wheel of the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths (四諦, Catvari-arya-satyani) was turned, explaining the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates (五眾, Panca-skandha) of all dharmas.' The Four Noble Truths and the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (十二因緣, Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada) of the Small Vehicle are all about arising and ceasing. Suffering (苦, Dukkha) and accumulation (集, Samudaya) arise together, so they are called arising and ceasing; the path (道, Marga) is to clarify cessation, so it is the meaning of cessation. The three truths are all conditioned (有為, Samskrta), so when entering Nirvana without remainder (無餘涅槃, Nirupadhishesha-nirvana), they are all abandoned, so it is cessation. Extinction (滅, Nirodha) is unconditioned (無為, Asamskrta), called permanent (常, Nitya). The three truths have differences, so they are called different (異, Nanatva). Extinction has no difference, so it is called one (一, Ekatva). Suffering and accumulation are the dharmas of birth and death, so they are called coming (來, Agati). Extinction and the path are to return to the origin, so they are called going out (出, Nirgati). Therefore, extinction is named extinction, cessation, wonderful, and going out. As are the Four Noble Truths, so are the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. The twelve arising together is arising, the twelve ceasing is ceasing. Extinguishing the twelve links is cessation, attaining the unconditioned is called permanent. The causes and effects of the twelve links in the three times are different, called different. Extinguishing the twelve links has no causes and effects in the three times, called one. The seven effects come from the five causes, called coming. Extinguishing the twelve links goes out of birth and death, so it is called going out. Thus, it is known that it is to clarify the dharmas of arising and ceasing for the Two Vehicles (二乘, Dvi-yana), so it is the contemplation of arising and ceasing. Although the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論, Satyasiddhi-sastra) has the meaning of clarifying the five aggregates, the Four Noble Truths are its main principle. The Abhidharma schools (毗曇, Abhidharma) are also like this. Now, wanting to differentiate from the Small Vehicle's theory of arising and ceasing, we clarify the Great Vehicle's theory of non-arising and non-ceasing. All dharmas originally do not arise, so they are neither suffering nor accumulation; now there is also no extinction, so it is not the path; originally there is no arising, so where is there suffering and accumulation to be cut off? Now there is also no extinction, so where is there the unconditioned to be attained?
之常。下例可知。問何以知不生不滅明無四諦耶。答下四諦品外人難論主。若一切法空無生亦無滅。如是即無有四聖諦之法。即良證也。問生滅論既名四諦無生滅論是何諦耶。答即是一實諦。如勝鬘明一實諦是究竟圓極之性。即顯斯論是究竟圓極滿字論也。此即是一種正意釋八不也。問法華信解品云。四大聲聞說一切諸法無生無滅無大無小。小乘亦有八不。與大乘何異。答五義不同。一者小乘人但得眾生空。故得眾生不生不滅。未得法空未得法無生滅。大乘則人法俱無生滅也。二者設如成實論及智度論。明小乘人具得二空俱無生滅者。但是拆法明無生。未得本性無生。大乘則明本性無生也。三者小乘人滅生滅方得無生滅。此猶是生滅。有生滅故是生也。滅于生滅故是滅。故小乘無生滅猶是生滅。故涅槃云。二乘之人名有所得也。四者小乘人但得三界內人法無生。大乘人具得內外一切法無生。五者小乘人但見虛妄無生。不見中道佛性無生。故但見空不見不空不行中道。大乘則異之。見虛妄無生又見中道佛性無生也。然八不文約義豐。意深理遠。自攝嶺興皇隨經傍論破病顯道。釋此八不變文易體方言甚多。今略撰始終以二條解釋。一者就初牒八不略釋解之。後重牒八不廣料簡也。就初牒八不述師三種方言。第一云。所以牒
八不在初者。為欲洗凈一切有所得心。所以然者有所得之徒所行所學無不墮此八計之中。如小乘人謂有解之可生有惑之可滅。生死無常為斷。佛果凝然是常。真諦無差別故一。俗諦方有差別不同故異。眾生從無明地流轉故來。反本還原故出。今二十七品橫破八迷。豎窮五句。以求彼生滅不得故云不生不滅。生滅既去不生不滅。亦生滅。亦不生滅。非生滅。非不生滅五句自崩。是故論末偈云。一切法空故世間常等見何處於何時誰起是諸見。次偈推功歸佛云。瞿曇大聖主憐愍說是法悉斷一切見。我今稽首禮。故此論一部橫破八迷。豎窮五句洗顛倒之病。令畢竟無遺。即是中實故云不生不滅乃至不常不斷也。然非生非不生既是中道。而生而不生即是假名。此假生假不生即是二諦。故以無生滅生滅以為世諦。以生滅無生滅為第一義諦。然假生不可言生不可言不生。即是世諦中道。假不生不可言不生不可言非不生。名為真諦中道。此是二諦各論中道。然世諦生滅是無生滅生滅。第一義無生滅是生滅無生滅。然無生滅生滅。豈是生滅。生滅無生滅。豈是無生滅。故非生滅非無生滅。名二諦合明中道也。師又一時方言云。所以就八不明三種中道者凡有三義。一者為顯如來從得道夜至涅槃夜常說中道。中道雖復無窮略明三種。則該羅一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『八不在初者』，是爲了洗凈一切有所得之心。之所以這樣說，是因為有所得之人，其所行所學，無不落入這八種計較之中。例如小乘之人，認為有煩惱可以生起，有惑業可以滅除，生死無常可以斷絕，佛果凝然是常住不變的。真諦沒有差別，所以說『一』；俗諦才有差別不同，所以說『異』。眾生從無明之地流轉而來，返回到本源就說是『出』。現在用這二十七品橫向破除八種迷惑，縱向窮盡五句，以求證那生滅之法不可得，所以說『不生不滅』。生滅既然已經去除，不生不滅，也同樣是生滅，也同樣是不生滅，非生滅，非不生滅，這五句自然崩塌。所以《中論》最後的偈頌說：『一切法空故，世間常等見，何處於何時，誰起是諸見？』接下來的偈頌將功德歸於佛陀，說：『瞿曇（Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛的姓氏）大聖主，憐憫說是法，悉斷一切見，我今稽首禮。』所以這部《中論》橫向破除八種迷惑，縱向窮盡五句，洗滌顛倒之病，使之畢竟無有遺余，這就是中道實相，所以說『不生不滅』乃至『不常不斷』。然而，非生非不生，已經是中道；而生而不生，就是假名。這假生、假不生，就是二諦。所以用無生滅的生滅作為世俗諦，用生滅的無生滅作為第一義諦。然而假生不可說是生，不可說是不生，這就是世俗諦的中道。假不生不可說是不生，不可說不是不生，這稱為真諦的中道。這是二諦各自論述中道。然而世俗諦的生滅是無生滅的生滅，第一義諦的無生滅是生滅的無生滅。然而無生滅的生滅，難道是生滅嗎？生滅的無生滅，難道是無生滅嗎？所以非生滅非無生滅，名為二諦合起來闡明中道。老師又用當時的方言說：『之所以就八不來說明三種中道，凡有三種意義。一是為顯示如來從得道之夜到涅槃之夜，常常宣說中道。中道雖然無窮無盡，但略微說明三種，就概括了一切。』
【English Translation】 English version 『The eight negations are not at the beginning』 means to wash away all minds that cling to attainment. The reason for this is that those who cling to attainment, in their actions and learning, inevitably fall into these eight calculations. For example, those of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) believe that afflictions can arise, that delusions can be extinguished, that the impermanence of birth and death can be severed, and that the Buddha-fruit is solidified and permanent. The ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) has no difference, so it is called 『one』; the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) has differences, so it is called 『different』. Sentient beings flow from the ground of ignorance, and returning to the original source is called 『departure』. Now, these twenty-seven chapters horizontally break through the eight confusions and vertically exhaust the five phrases, in order to seek that the phenomena of arising and ceasing are unattainable, so it is said 『neither arising nor ceasing』. Since arising and ceasing have been removed, neither arising nor ceasing is also arising and ceasing, also not arising and ceasing, neither arising nor ceasing, nor not arising and ceasing; these five phrases naturally collapse. Therefore, the concluding verse of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) says: 『Because all dharmas are empty, the views of permanence, etc., in the world, where, when, and who arises these views?』 The following verse attributes merit to the Buddha, saying: 『Gautama (釋迦牟尼佛的姓氏), the great sage and lord, out of compassion, spoke this Dharma, completely severing all views; I now bow my head in reverence.』 Therefore, this Mūlamadhyamakakārikā horizontally breaks through the eight confusions and vertically exhausts the five phrases, washing away the sickness of inverted views, so that there is ultimately nothing remaining, which is the Middle Way reality, so it is said 『neither arising nor ceasing』 and even 『neither permanent nor impermanent』. However, neither arising nor not arising is already the Middle Way; and arising and not arising is a provisional name. This provisional arising and provisional not arising are the two truths (Dva Satya). Therefore, the arising and ceasing of no arising and ceasing is taken as the conventional truth, and the no arising and ceasing of arising and ceasing is taken as the ultimate truth. However, provisional arising cannot be said to be arising, nor can it be said to be not arising; this is the Middle Way of the conventional truth. Provisional not arising cannot be said to be not arising, nor can it be said to be not not arising; this is called the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. These are the two truths each discussing the Middle Way. However, the arising and ceasing of the conventional truth is the arising and ceasing of no arising and ceasing, and the no arising and ceasing of the ultimate truth is the arising and ceasing of no arising and ceasing. However, is the arising and ceasing of no arising and ceasing arising and ceasing? Is the no arising and ceasing of arising and ceasing no arising and ceasing? Therefore, neither arising nor ceasing nor no arising and ceasing is called the two truths combined to explain the Middle Way. The teacher also said in the local dialect of the time: 『The reason for explaining the three Middle Ways based on the eight negations is threefold. First, it is to show that the Tathagata (如來) constantly preached the Middle Way from the night of enlightenment to the night of Nirvana (涅槃). Although the Middle Way is infinite, briefly explaining three encompasses everything.』
切故就此偈辨於三中。總申佛一切教。二者此論既稱中論。故就八不明於中道。中道雖多不出三種。故就此偈辨於三中。三者為學佛教人作三中不成故墮在偏病。今對彼中義不成欲成中義故辨三種中也。問云何學佛教人三中不成。答他云。實法滅故不常。假名相續故不斷。不常不斷名世諦中道。今謂不常猶是斷。不斷猶是常。唯見斷常何中之有。又言。因中未有果事故言非有。有得果之理故言非無。非有非無為世諦中道。考而論之非有猶是無。非無猶是有。亦無中矣。又云。真諦四絕故名為中。今請問之。為有四絕之理為無此理耶。若有四絕之理則名為有。不得稱中。若無四絕之理則無真諦。亦非中矣。又真諦定絕不可不絕此乃是偏。何謂中道耶。又中是無礙。真諦定絕遂不得不絕。既其有礙云何名中。又真諦四絕絕除四句。則是無於四句。故名為斷。有此四絕之理則名為有。故是常見。故成壞品云。若有所受法則墮于斷常。當知所受法若常若無常。彼二諦合明中道者。謂非真非俗名為中道。是亦不然。非真猶是俗。非俗猶是真。還是二諦。更無別中。以此推之三中不成。為對此三種中不成故今明三種中道。問云何辨三種中耶。答他有有可有則有生可生。則有生可生則有滅可滅。有生可生生不由滅。有滅可滅滅不由生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，就此偈頌來辨析三種中道。一是總括佛陀的一切教義。二是此論既然名為《中論》，就用八不來闡明中道。中道雖多，但不超出三種，因此就此偈頌來辨析三種中道。三是為學習佛教的人闡明，因為他們對三種中道的理解不正確，所以會陷入偏頗的錯誤。現在爲了糾正他們對中道理解的偏差，想要成就真正的中道之義，所以辨析這三種中道。 問：為什麼學習佛教的人對三種中道的理解不正確？ 答：他們說，『實法』（dharma，構成世界的基本元素）滅盡，所以不是常；『假名』（prajñapti，為事物所起的名稱）相續，所以不是斷。『不常不斷』名為世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）中的中道。現在我認為，『不常』仍然是『斷』，『不斷』仍然是『常』。只看到斷和常，哪裡有中道呢？ 又說，因中沒有果事，所以說『非有』；有得到果的道理，所以說『非無』。『非有非無』為世俗諦中的中道。考察起來，『非有』仍然是『無』，『非無』仍然是『有』，也沒有中道。 又說，真諦（paramārtha-satya，絕對真理）四絕（否定四種可能性：存在、不存在、既存在又不存在、既非存在又非不存在），所以名為中。現在請問，是有四絕的道理，還是沒有這個道理呢？如果有四絕的道理，那就名為『有』，不能稱為中。如果沒有四絕的道理，那就沒有真諦，也不是中道。 而且真諦必定是斷絕的，不可不斷絕，這乃是偏頗。什麼叫做中道呢？而且中道是無礙的，真諦必定斷絕，於是不得不絕，既然是有障礙，怎麼能叫中道呢？而且真諦四絕，斷絕了四句（四種可能性），就是沒有四句，所以名為斷。有這四絕的道理，就名為有，所以是常見。所以《成壞品》說，『若有所受法則墮于斷常』，應當知道所受的法，若常若無常。他們用二諦（二種真理）合起來闡明中道的人說，『非真非俗』名為中道，這也是不對的。『非真』仍然是『俗』，『非俗』仍然是『真』，還是二諦，更沒有別的中道。由此推論，三種中道都不能成立。爲了糾正這三種中道的不成立，現在闡明三種中道。 問：如何辨析三種中道呢？ 答：他們有『有』可以有，那麼就有『生』可以生，那麼就有『生』可以生，那麼就有『滅』可以滅。有『生』可以生，『生』不由『滅』；有『滅』可以滅，『滅』不由『生』。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, based on this verse, we will distinguish the three Madhyamas (middle ways). Firstly, it encompasses all the Buddha's teachings. Secondly, since this treatise is called the 'Mūlamadhyamakakārikā' (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), it uses the eight negations (the eight negations of origination, cessation, permanence, impermanence, coming, going, oneness, and manyness) to elucidate the Middle Way. Although there are many Middle Ways, they do not exceed three, so based on this verse, we will distinguish the three Madhyamas. Thirdly, it is for those who study Buddhism, because their understanding of the three Madhyamas is incorrect, they fall into the error of bias. Now, in order to correct their deviation in understanding the Middle Way, and to achieve the true meaning of the Middle Way, we will distinguish these three Madhyamas. Question: Why do those who study Buddhism have an incorrect understanding of the three Madhyamas? Answer: They say, 'Real dharmas' (dharma, the basic elements that constitute the world) are extinguished, so they are not permanent; 'provisional names' (prajñapti, the names given to things) continue, so they are not discontinuous. 'Neither permanent nor discontinuous' is called the Middle Way in conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, relative truth). Now I think, 'not permanent' is still 'discontinuous', 'not discontinuous' is still 'permanent'. Only seeing discontinuity and permanence, where is the Middle Way? They also say, there is no result in the cause, so it is said 'not existent'; there is a reason to obtain the result, so it is said 'not non-existent'. 'Neither existent nor non-existent' is the Middle Way in conventional truth. Upon examination, 'not existent' is still 'non-existent', 'not non-existent' is still 'existent', and there is no Middle Way either. They also say, ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, absolute truth) is the four negations (negating the four possibilities: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), so it is called the Middle Way. Now I ask, is there a reason for the four negations, or is there no such reason? If there is a reason for the four negations, then it is called 'existent', and cannot be called the Middle Way. If there is no reason for the four negations, then there is no ultimate truth, and it is not the Middle Way either. Moreover, ultimate truth must be absolutely cut off, and cannot not be cut off, which is biased. What is called the Middle Way? Moreover, the Middle Way is unobstructed, and ultimate truth must be cut off, so it must be cut off. Since it is obstructed, how can it be called the Middle Way? Moreover, the four negations of ultimate truth cut off the four sentences (four possibilities), which means there are no four sentences, so it is called discontinuity. Having the reason for these four negations is called existence, so it is eternalism. Therefore, the 'Chapter on Formation and Destruction' says, 'If there is something accepted, then it falls into discontinuity and permanence'. It should be known that the accepted dharma is either permanent or impermanent. Those who use the two truths (two kinds of truth) together to explain the Middle Way say, 'neither true nor conventional' is called the Middle Way, which is also incorrect. 'Not true' is still 'conventional', 'not conventional' is still 'true', and it is still the two truths, and there is no other Middle Way. From this reasoning, the three Madhyamas cannot be established. In order to correct the non-establishment of these three Madhyamas, we will now explain the three Madhyamas. Question: How to distinguish the three Madhyamas? Answer: They have 'existence' that can exist, then there is 'arising' that can arise, then there is 'arising' that can arise, then there is 'cessation' that can cease. There is 'arising' that can arise, 'arising' does not depend on 'cessation'; there is 'cessation' that can cease, 'cessation' does not depend on 'arising'.
。生不由滅生非滅生。滅不由生滅非生滅。生非滅生故生是自生。滅非生滅故滅是自滅。自生則是實生。自滅則是實滅。實生實滅則是二邊。故非中道。今明無有可有以空故有。則無生可生亦無滅可滅。無生可生由滅故生。無滅可滅由生故滅。由滅故生生是滅生。由生故滅滅是生滅。生是滅生生不自生。滅是生滅滅不自滅。生非自生但世諦故假說生。滅非自滅但世諦故假說滅。假生不生假滅不滅。不生不滅名世諦中道。對世諦生滅明真諦不生滅。以空有為世諦世諦假生假滅。有空為真諦真諦不生不滅。此不生不滅非自不生不滅。待世諦假生明真諦假不生。待世諦假滅明真諦假不滅。非不生非不滅為真諦中道。二諦合明中道者無生滅生滅為世諦。生滅無生滅為真諦。無生滅生滅。豈是生滅。生滅無生滅。豈是無生滅。故非生滅非無生滅名二諦合明中道。問后明三中與前何異。答前明二諦中道。是因緣假名破自性二諦。故名為中。第三雙泯二假稱為體中。故前語有四重階級。一者求性有無不可得。故云非有非無名為中道。外人既聞非有非無。即謂無復真俗二諦便起斷見。是故次說而有而無。以為二諦接其斷心。次欲顯而有而無明其是中道有無。不同性有無義。故次明二諦用中雙彈兩性。次欲轉假有無二明中道不二故明體中
【現代漢語翻譯】 生不是由滅而生，生也不是非滅而生。滅不是由生而滅，滅也不是非生而滅。生不是由滅而生，所以生是自生。滅不是由生而滅，所以滅是自滅。自生就是實生，自滅就是實滅。實生實滅就是二邊，所以不是中道。現在說明沒有可以有的，因為空所以有，就沒有生可以生，也沒有滅可以滅。沒有生可以生，因為滅的緣故而生。沒有滅可以滅，因為生的緣故而滅。因為滅的緣故而生，生是滅生。因為生的緣故而滅，滅是生滅。生是滅生，生不是自生。滅是生滅，滅不是自滅。生不是自生，只是世俗諦的緣故假說為生。滅不是自滅，只是世俗諦的緣故假說為滅。假生不是真的生，假滅不是真的滅。不生不滅，名為世俗諦中的中道。針對世俗諦的生滅，說明真諦的不生不滅。以空和有作為世俗諦，世俗諦是假生假滅。有和空作為真諦，真諦是不生不滅。這不生不滅不是自身的不生不滅，而是對待世俗諦的假生，說明真諦的假不生。對待世俗諦的假滅，說明真諦的假不滅。非不生非不滅，為真諦中的中道。二諦合起來說明中道，就是無生滅的生滅為世俗諦，生滅的無生滅為真諦。無生滅的生滅，難道是生滅嗎？生滅的無生滅，難道是無生滅嗎？所以非生滅非無生滅，名為二諦合起來說明中道。 問：後面說明的三中與前面說明的有什麼不同？答：前面說明的二諦中道，是用因緣假名來破除自性的二諦，所以名為中。第三重雙重泯除二假，稱為體中。所以前面的話有四重階級：一者，尋求自性有無是不可得的，所以說非有非無，名為中道。外道之人既然聽到非有非無，就認為沒有真俗二諦，便產生了斷見。因此接著說而有而無，作為二諦來接引他的斷心。接著想要顯示而有而無，說明這中道的有無，不同於自性的有無之義。所以接著說明二諦用中雙重彈破兩種自性。接著想要轉變假有假無二明中道不二，所以說明體中。
【English Translation】 Birth is not born from extinction, nor is birth born from non-extinction. Extinction is not extinguished from birth, nor is extinction extinguished from non-birth. Birth is not born from extinction, therefore birth is self-born. Extinction is not extinguished from birth, therefore extinction is self-extinguished. Self-birth is real birth, and self-extinction is real extinction. Real birth and real extinction are the two extremes, therefore it is not the Middle Way. Now it is explained that there is nothing that can exist, because of emptiness there is existence, then there is no birth that can be born, and no extinction that can be extinguished. No birth can be born because of extinction. No extinction can be extinguished because of birth. Because of extinction, birth arises, birth is extinction-birth. Because of birth, extinction arises, extinction is birth-extinction. Birth is extinction-birth, birth is not self-born. Extinction is birth-extinction, extinction is not self-extinguished. Birth is not self-born, but conventionally it is falsely said to be birth. Extinction is not self-extinguished, but conventionally it is falsely said to be extinction. False birth is not truly birth, and false extinction is not truly extinction. Non-birth and non-extinction is called the Middle Way in conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). In contrast to the birth and extinction of conventional truth, the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is non-birth and non-extinction. Taking emptiness and existence as conventional truth, conventional truth is false birth and false extinction. Taking existence and emptiness as ultimate truth, ultimate truth is non-birth and non-extinction. This non-birth and non-extinction is not self non-birth and non-extinction, but in relation to the false birth of conventional truth, it explains the false non-birth of ultimate truth. In relation to the false extinction of conventional truth, it explains the false non-extinction of ultimate truth. Non-non-birth and non-non-extinction is the Middle Way in ultimate truth. The two truths combined explain the Middle Way, which is the birth and extinction of non-birth and non-extinction as conventional truth, and the non-birth and non-extinction of birth and extinction as ultimate truth. The birth and extinction of non-birth and non-extinction, how can it be birth and extinction? The non-birth and non-extinction of birth and extinction, how can it be non-birth and non-extinction? Therefore, non-birth and non-extinction, and non-non-birth and non-non-extinction, is called the two truths combined to explain the Middle Way. Question: What is the difference between the three middles explained later and the ones explained earlier? Answer: The two truths' Middle Way explained earlier uses dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and provisional names (prajñapti) to break down the two truths of self-nature (svabhāva), so it is called the Middle. The third, which doubly eliminates the two falsities, is called the Middle of Essence. Therefore, the previous words have four levels: First, seeking self-nature's existence or non-existence is unattainable, so it is said to be neither existence nor non-existence, which is called the Middle Way. Since outsiders have heard of neither existence nor non-existence, they think that there are no two truths of conventional and ultimate, and thus generate a view of annihilation. Therefore, it is then said to be both existence and non-existence, as the two truths to receive their mind of annihilation. Next, wanting to show both existence and non-existence, it explains that the existence and non-existence of this Middle Way is different from the meaning of self-nature's existence and non-existence. Therefore, it then explains that the two truths use the Middle to doubly refute the two self-natures. Next, wanting to transform the false existence and false non-existence into two illuminations of the non-duality of the Middle Way, it therefore explains the Middle of Essence.
。此是攝嶺興皇始末。對由來義有此四重階級。得此意者解一師立中假體用意也。又初非性有無以為中者此是假前中義。次而有而無名為二諦是中后假義。次假有非有假無非無二諦合明中道者此是假后中義。問破性中此是假前中。二諦表中道是假后中。云何是中前假中后假耶。答中前假者未說體中。而前明於假。則上而有而無是也。中后假者說體中。竟方說而有而無是也。又中前假即從有無入非有非無。從用入體。中后假非有非無假說有無。從體起用也。中假義內具足明之。今略示大宗也。后意明漸舍義。則世諦破性生滅。以辨不生不滅明於中道。真諦破假生滅。以辨不生不滅明於中道。二諦合明中則雙泯假性。欲同明二諦俱無生義故與前異也。問世諦不性生云不生。真諦不假生明不生。此是釋八不。今二諦合明中道則云非生滅非不生滅。即是非八不。非非八不云何是釋八不義。答八不言約意包。若有生滅無生滅猶是生滅義。非生滅非不生滅乃是無生滅義。故二諦理雖泯生無生猶是釋八不義也。師又一時方言云。世諦即假生假滅。假生不生。假滅不滅。不生不滅為世諦中道。非不生非不滅為真諦中道。二諦合明中道者非生滅非不生滅。則是合明中道也。問此與上何異耶。答此有二意。一者則世諦生是不生。如色即是空
。故不生即是世諦也。真諦亦不生者此則明相因義。因世諦生故明真諦不生。云此是師正意也。二者欲示階漸明義者世諦中不生不滅。即是真諦之假。非是破性明中。乃明世諦假生雖生不起。世諦假滅雖滅不失。故生滅宛然而未曾生滅。故世諦之中即是真諦之假。真諦假不生滅此是生滅無生滅。故不生不滅宛然而未曾無生無滅。故是二諦合明雙泯二諦。大意如前。問云何乃取真諦之假為世諦中耶。答師云。方等大意言以不住為端。心以無得為主。故說世諦為令悟真。故以真諦假為世諦之中。如涅槃云。欲令眾生深識第一義故說世諦。又云五受陰空名為苦義。說苦為令舍樂亦不住苦故以空為苦義。說俗不令住俗乃令因俗悟不俗。故以真諦為俗義。真諦之中亦爾。說不生為明非生非不生。故非生非不生是不生義。乃至說真俗二令悟不二。故不二以為二義。華嚴云。一切有無法了達非有無。即其事也。方言甚多略明三種。至後重牒八不廣料簡之。能說是因緣善滅諸戲論下第二明教用。即是辨二智中道。以佛智慧說八不中道滅諸戲論。即是教之用也。又初一偈正說八不。此偈明說八不意。所以說八不者有二種意。一為顯三種中道。二為滅諸戲論。佛說八不既有二意。今標在論初申八不者亦有二意。故摩耶經云。龍樹燃正法炬滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所以，不生就是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）。真諦（Paramartha-satya，勝義諦）也不生，這說明了相因的道理。因為世俗諦產生，所以說明真諦不生。這可以認為是老師（指龍樹菩薩）的真正意圖。第二種意圖是想顯示階梯漸進地明瞭真義：世俗諦中不生不滅，就是真諦的假象。這不是破除自性來顯明中道，而是說明世俗諦的假生，雖然生起卻沒有真正的生起；世俗諦的假滅，雖然滅去卻沒有真正的失去。所以生滅宛然存在，但從未真正生滅。因此，世俗諦之中就是真諦的假象。真諦的假不生滅，這就是生滅即無生滅。所以不生不滅宛然存在，但從未真正無生無滅。因此，這是二諦合起來說明，雙雙泯滅二諦。大意如前所述。問：為什麼選取真諦的假象作為世俗諦呢？答：老師說，《方等經》的大意說以不住為根本，心以無所得為主。所以說世俗諦是爲了使人領悟真諦。因此，以真諦的假象作為世俗諦。如《涅槃經》所說：『爲了讓眾生深刻認識第一義諦，所以說世俗諦。』又說：『五受陰（Panca-skandha）空，名為苦義。』說苦是爲了讓人捨棄樂，也不執著于苦，所以以空為苦義。說世俗諦不是爲了讓人執著於世俗諦，而是爲了讓人通過世俗諦領悟非世俗諦。所以以真諦為世俗諦的意義。真諦之中也是如此，說不生是爲了說明非生非不生。所以非生非不生是不生義。乃至說真俗二諦是爲了讓人領悟不二。所以不二作為二諦的意義。《華嚴經》說：『一切有法、無法，了達非有非無。』就是這個道理。方便之說很多，略明三種。到後面重新列舉八不，廣泛地加以辨析。『能說是因緣，善滅諸戲論』，下面第二部分說明教法的功用，也就是辨別二智（世俗智和勝義智）的中道。因為佛的智慧能夠說八不中道，滅除各種戲論，這就是教法的功用。另外，最初一偈是正式說明八不，此偈說明說八不的意圖。之所以說八不，有兩種意圖：一是為顯示三種中道，二是為滅除各種戲論。佛說八不既然有兩種意圖，現在在論的開頭標明八不，也是有兩種意圖。所以《摩耶經》說：龍樹燃起正法炬，滅除……
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, 'no arising' is the conventional truth (Samvriti-satya). That the ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya) also does not arise clarifies the meaning of interdependent origination. Because the conventional truth arises, it clarifies that the ultimate truth does not arise. This can be considered the true intention of the teacher (referring to Nagarjuna). The second intention is to show the gradual clarification of meaning: 'no arising, no ceasing' in the conventional truth is the appearance of the ultimate truth. This is not to destroy inherent existence to reveal the Middle Way, but to explain that the false arising of the conventional truth, although arising, does not truly arise; the false ceasing of the conventional truth, although ceasing, does not truly disappear. Therefore, arising and ceasing are clearly present, but have never truly arisen or ceased. Thus, within the conventional truth is the appearance of the ultimate truth. The appearance of the ultimate truth is 'no arising, no ceasing,' which is arising and ceasing being no arising and no ceasing. Therefore, 'no arising, no ceasing' is clearly present, but has never truly been without arising and ceasing. Thus, this is the combined explanation of the two truths, mutually negating both truths. The general meaning is as previously stated. Question: Why is the appearance of the ultimate truth taken as the conventional truth? Answer: The teacher says, the main idea of the Vaipulya Sutras is to take 'non-abiding' as the foundation, and the mind takes 'non-attainment' as the main principle. Therefore, the conventional truth is spoken to enable people to realize the ultimate truth. Thus, the appearance of the ultimate truth is taken as the conventional truth. As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'To enable sentient beings to deeply understand the first principle, the conventional truth is spoken.' It also says: 'The emptiness of the five aggregates (Panca-skandha) is called the meaning of suffering.' Speaking of suffering is to make people abandon pleasure, and not be attached to suffering, so emptiness is taken as the meaning of suffering. Speaking of the conventional truth is not to make people attached to the conventional truth, but to enable people to realize the non-conventional truth through the conventional truth. Therefore, the ultimate truth is taken as the meaning of the conventional truth. It is the same within the ultimate truth. Speaking of 'no arising' is to clarify 'neither arising nor non-arising.' Therefore, 'neither arising nor non-arising' is the meaning of 'no arising.' Even speaking of the two truths, ultimate and conventional, is to enable people to realize non-duality. Therefore, non-duality is taken as the meaning of the two truths. The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'All existing and non-existing dharmas are understood as neither existing nor non-existing.' This is the principle. There are many expedient teachings, briefly explaining three types. Later, the eight negations will be listed again and extensively analyzed. 'Being able to speak of this dependent origination, skillfully extinguishing all fabrications,' the second part below explains the function of the teachings, which is to distinguish the Middle Way of the two wisdoms (conventional wisdom and ultimate wisdom). Because the Buddha's wisdom can speak of the Middle Way of the eight negations, extinguishing all fabrications, this is the function of the teachings. In addition, the first verse formally explains the eight negations, and this verse explains the intention of speaking of the eight negations. There are two intentions for speaking of the eight negations: one is to reveal the three Middle Ways, and the other is to extinguish all fabrications. Since the Buddha's speaking of the eight negations has two intentions, now marking the eight negations at the beginning of the treatise also has two intentions. Therefore, the Maya Sutra says: Nagarjuna ignited the torch of the true Dharma, extinguishing...
邪見幢。楞伽云。為人說大乘能破有無見也。既是佛智慧說故須明於二智。此二智由二諦中道而生。二諦既是中道。故二智亦是中道。二智謂方便及以實智。亦具三種中道。實方便不可定言方便。不可定言不方便。謂方便慧中道。方便實不可定言實。不可定言不實。名為實智中道。此是二慧各明中道。實方便則非方便。方便實即非實。非實非方便謂二智合明中道。非實非方便名一正觀。非真非俗名一正境。境智是因緣之義。既稱境智是則非智。既稱智境是則非境。非智非境泯然無際。前雖開境智竟無所開。后雖合境智亦未曾合。若游此玄門則戲論斯寂。故龍樹致敬。問二智二諦皆是中道顯正性不答亦得也。問與涅槃五性何異也。答此中明二智與二諦。則二智是果性。以明佛二智故也。二諦是佛所照之境。但有此兩性。此境智皆開發正性。非境非智亦有正性義也。問何故彼明五性今明兩性。答正明二智之能說二諦之所說。不正明因果。故但有二性。彼經正明因果開發正性。故明五性義也。若就論主悟二諦發生二智。亦是因因。開發正性故亦得具五性也。師又釋。能說是因緣開為二雙。上半破邪顯正。下半敬人嘆法。能說是因緣者嘆佛智慧說三種中道因緣。即顯正也。善滅諸戲論者第二破邪也。謂能說八不因緣滅不八戲論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 邪見幢（xié jiàn chuáng）：《楞伽經》（Léngqié jīng）中說，為他人宣講大乘佛法，能夠破除有和無的偏見。既然是佛的智慧才能宣講，所以必須明白二智。這二智由二諦中道而生。二諦既然是中道，所以二智也是中道。二智指的是方便智和實智。也具備三種中道。實方便不可斷定說是方便，也不可斷定說不是方便，這叫做方便慧中道。方便實不可斷定說是實，也不可斷定說不是實，這叫做實智中道。這是二慧各自闡明中道。實方便就不是方便，方便實就不是實。非實非方便，指的是二智合起來闡明中道。非實非方便，叫做一正觀。非真非俗，叫做一正境。境和智是因緣的意義。既然稱為境智，那麼就不是智。既然稱為智境，那麼就不是境。非智非境，泯然無際。前面雖然分開闡述境智，最終卻無所分開。後面雖然合起來闡述境智，也未曾真正合起來。如果能遊歷這個玄妙的門徑，那麼戲論就會止息。所以龍樹菩薩致以敬意。 問：二智二諦都是中道，是否能顯現正性？答：也可以。 問：這與《涅槃經》（Nièpán jīng）中的五性有什麼不同？答：這裡闡明二智與二諦，那麼二智是果性，因為闡明佛的二智的緣故。二諦是佛所照見的境界，只有這兩種性質。這境和智都能開發正性。非境非智也有正性的意義。問：為什麼《涅槃經》（Nièpán jīng）闡明五性，而這裡闡明兩性？答：這裡主要闡明二智的能說和二諦的所說，不主要闡明因果，所以只有二性。《涅槃經》（Nièpán jīng）主要闡明因果，開發正性，所以闡明五性的意義。如果就論主的領悟而言，領悟二諦而發生二智，也是因因，開發正性，所以也具備五性。 師父又解釋說，能說是因緣，分開為二雙。上半部分破除邪見，顯現正見。下半部分敬佩人和讚歎法。能說是因緣，是讚歎佛的智慧能夠宣說三種中道的因緣，也就是顯現正見。善於滅除各種戲論，是第二部分破除邪見。指的是能夠宣說八不因緣，滅除不八的戲論。
【English Translation】 English version Xiejian Chuang (邪見幢) (Banner of Wrong Views): The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經) says that expounding the Mahayana (大乘) to others can break through the views of existence and non-existence. Since it is the wisdom of the Buddha that can expound, it is necessary to understand the Two Wisdoms. These Two Wisdoms arise from the Middle Way of the Two Truths. Since the Two Truths are the Middle Way, the Two Wisdoms are also the Middle Way. The Two Wisdoms refer to the Wisdom of Expedient Means and the Wisdom of Reality. They also possess the Three Middle Ways. The Reality of Expedient Means cannot be definitively said to be expedient, nor can it be definitively said not to be expedient; this is called the Middle Way of the Wisdom of Expedient Means. The Expedient Means of Reality cannot be definitively said to be real, nor can it be definitively said not to be real; this is called the Middle Way of the Wisdom of Reality. This is the Two Wisdoms each clarifying the Middle Way. The Reality of Expedient Means is not expedient, and the Expedient Means of Reality is not real. Non-reality and non-expediency refer to the Two Wisdoms combined to clarify the Middle Way. Non-reality and non-expediency are called One Correct View. Non-truth and non-conventionality are called One Correct Realm. Realm and Wisdom are the meaning of cause and condition. Since it is called Realm-Wisdom, then it is not Wisdom. Since it is called Wisdom-Realm, then it is not Realm. Non-Wisdom and non-Realm are completely boundless. Although Realm and Wisdom are explained separately earlier, ultimately there is nothing to separate. Although Realm and Wisdom are explained together later, they have never truly come together. If one can travel through this profound gateway, then discursive thoughts will cease. Therefore, Nāgārjuna (龍樹) pays homage. Question: Are the Two Wisdoms and Two Truths all the Middle Way, and can they reveal the True Nature? Answer: They can. Question: How is this different from the Five Natures in the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經)? Answer: Here, the Two Wisdoms and Two Truths are explained, so the Two Wisdoms are the nature of the result, because they explain the Buddha's Two Wisdoms. The Two Truths are the realm illuminated by the Buddha, and there are only these two natures. Both Realm and Wisdom can develop the True Nature. Non-Realm and non-Wisdom also have the meaning of True Nature. Question: Why does the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) explain the Five Natures, while here the Two Natures are explained? Answer: Here, the main focus is on explaining the ability of the Two Wisdoms to speak and what the Two Truths speak about, not primarily on cause and effect, so there are only Two Natures. The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) mainly explains cause and effect, developing the True Nature, so it explains the meaning of the Five Natures. If, according to the commentator's understanding, one understands the Two Truths and generates the Two Wisdoms, it is also a cause of a cause, developing the True Nature, so it also possesses the Five Natures. The master further explained that the ability to speak is a cause and condition, divided into two pairs. The first half breaks through wrong views and reveals correct views. The second half reveres people and praises the Dharma. The ability to speak is a cause and condition, praising the Buddha's wisdom to expound the cause and condition of the Three Middle Ways, which is to reveal correct views. Being good at extinguishing various discursive thoughts is the second part of breaking through wrong views. It refers to being able to expound the Eight No-Births cause and condition, extinguishing the discursive thoughts of not-eight.
。不八戲論者即二乘人是也。令二乘人回小入大也。又破菩薩有所得生滅心。令菩薩悟入于大。即知。說八不因緣破三乘人戲論。令三乘人皆悟入大乘也。又就觀法品明戲論有二。一者愛論。謂於一切法有取著心。二者見論。於一切法作決定解。又利根者起見論。鈍根人起愛論。又在家人起愛論。出家人起見論。又天魔起愛論。外道起見論。又凡夫起愛論。二乘起見論。今說此八不滅二種戲論也。師又約漸舍義明五種戲論。一者佛有誡勸二門。諸惡莫作名為誡門。諸善奉行名為勸門。惡有乖理㾈墜。損他感苦故名戲論。善是符理清升。利他招樂故非戲論。二者善有二門。有所得善不動不出名為戲論。無所得善能動能出故非戲論。三者得無得二名為戲論。如雲明與無明愚者謂二。諸有二者無道無果。若有得無得平等不二者名不戲論。智者了達其性無二。無二之性即是實性。第四明二與不二是二邊並是戲論。若能非二不二中道則無戲論。次二不二非二非不二並是名相皆是戲論。言亡慮絕則非戲論。第五若有戲論若有不戲論並是戲論。若無戲論無不戲論方是不戲論也。問何故就戲論不戲論明二智中道。答戲論破慧眼是皆不見佛。故名戲論。無戲論者即是慧眼故名為中也。我稽首禮佛者。此第三推功歸佛論主致敬。明向能說是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『不八戲論』指的是二乘人（聲聞乘和緣覺乘的修行者）。目的是爲了讓二乘人回小向大，轉入大乘。另一方面，也爲了破除菩薩有所得的生滅心，使菩薩能夠悟入大乘。由此可知，宣說『八不因緣』是爲了破除三乘人（聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）的戲論，使三乘人都能悟入大乘。 此外，在《觀法品》中說明戲論有兩種：一是愛論，指的是對於一切法有取著心；二是見論，指的是對於一切法作出決定的解釋。利根之人容易產生見論，鈍根之人容易產生愛論。在家人容易產生愛論，出家人容易產生見論。天魔容易產生愛論，外道容易產生見論。凡夫容易產生愛論，二乘人容易產生見論。現在所說的這『八不』，就是要滅除這兩種戲論。 師父又從漸舍的角度說明五種戲論：一是佛有誡勸二門，『諸惡莫作』稱為誡門，『諸善奉行』稱為勸門。惡是違背道理、墮落、損害他人而感受痛苦，所以稱為戲論。善是符合道理、清凈提升、利益他人而招致快樂，所以不是戲論。二是善有二門，有所得的善不動不發，稱為戲論；無所得的善能動能發，所以不是戲論。三是得與無得這兩種名稱都是戲論。如同所說，明與無明，愚者認為是二。凡是有二，就沒有道，沒有果。如果能做到得與無得平等不二，就稱為不戲論。智者了達其性無二，無二之性就是實性。第四說明二與不二這兩種邊見都是戲論。如果能夠做到非二非不二的中道，就沒有戲論。其次，二、不二、非二、非不二，這些都是名相，都是戲論。言語斷絕，思慮停止，就不是戲論。第五，如果有戲論，或者有不戲論，都是戲論。如果沒有戲論，也沒有不戲論，這才是不戲論。 問：為什麼就戲論與不戲論來說明二智（權智和實智）的中道？答：戲論遮蔽慧眼，使人看不見佛，所以稱為戲論。沒有戲論，就是慧眼，所以稱為中道。 『我稽首禮佛』，這是第三部分，推功歸於佛，論主表達敬意，表明自己能夠宣說這些
【English Translation】 English version 『Non-eightfold play of concepts』 refers to the practitioners of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). The purpose is to lead the practitioners of the two vehicles from the small to the great, transitioning into Mahāyāna. On the other hand, it is also to break the mind of arising and ceasing with attachment of Bodhisattvas, so that Bodhisattvas can awaken to Mahāyāna. From this, it can be known that the declaration of 『eight non-conditions』 is to break the play of concepts of the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna), so that all practitioners of the three vehicles can awaken to Mahāyāna. Furthermore, in the 『Contemplation of Dharmas』 chapter, it is explained that there are two types of play of concepts: first, the play of attachment, which refers to having an attached mind to all dharmas; second, the play of views, which refers to making definite interpretations of all dharmas. People with sharp faculties easily generate the play of views, while people with dull faculties easily generate the play of attachment. Laypeople easily generate the play of attachment, while renunciants easily generate the play of views. Heavenly demons easily generate the play of attachment, while non-Buddhist paths easily generate the play of views. Ordinary people easily generate the play of attachment, while practitioners of the two vehicles easily generate the play of views. The 『eight non-』 that are now spoken of are to eliminate these two types of play of concepts. The master further explains five types of play of concepts from the perspective of gradual abandonment: first, the Buddha has two gates of admonishment and encouragement, 『Do no evil』 is called the gate of admonishment, 『Practice all good』 is called the gate of encouragement. Evil is contrary to reason, falling, harming others and experiencing suffering, so it is called play of concepts. Good is in accordance with reason, pure and uplifting, benefiting others and inviting happiness, so it is not play of concepts. Second, good has two gates, good with attachment does not move or arise, it is called play of concepts; good without attachment can move and arise, so it is not play of concepts. Third, the two names of attainment and non-attainment are both play of concepts. As it is said, ignorance and non-ignorance, fools consider them as two. Whenever there are two, there is no path and no fruit. If one can achieve equality and non-duality between attainment and non-attainment, it is called non-play of concepts. The wise realize that their nature is non-dual, and the nature of non-duality is the true nature. Fourth, it is explained that the two extremes of duality and non-duality are both play of concepts. If one can achieve the middle way of neither duality nor non-duality, there is no play of concepts. Secondly, duality, non-duality, neither duality nor non-duality, these are all names and forms, all are play of concepts. When speech is cut off and thoughts cease, it is not play of concepts. Fifth, if there is play of concepts, or if there is non-play of concepts, both are play of concepts. If there is no play of concepts and no non-play of concepts, then it is non-play of concepts. Question: Why explain the middle way of the two wisdoms (expedient wisdom and ultimate wisdom) in terms of play of concepts and non-play of concepts? Answer: Play of concepts obscures the eye of wisdom, preventing people from seeing the Buddha, so it is called play of concepts. No play of concepts is the eye of wisdom, so it is called the middle way. 『I bow my head and pay homage to the Buddha』, this is the third part, attributing the merit to the Buddha, the author expresses respect, indicating that he is able to declare these
因緣善滅諸戲論者。此是佛說非是我說也。又稽首者欲請佛加護。敢佛弟子有所說法無不承于佛力。今欲申佛無生二諦破于眾邪。故請佛加護。又龍樹未悟無生。欲自樹為佛從。托跡海宮得無生忍。方以佛為師己為弟子。是故禮也。又論主因佛悟無生。今報佛恩。是故禮佛。又禮佛者欲令後人于論生信。明八不者此是佛說。非天魔外道調達等說。亦非我說。此是佛說。以小乘人不信一切法畢竟空。如刀傷心故推功歸佛也。問云何名諸說中第一。答九十六種術名為邪說。非是第一。諸佛正法名為第一。就佛說中有大乘小乘。小乘不了不名第一。大乘了義名為第一。就大乘中此之八不是方等中心諸佛要觀。是第一中之第一也。問何故作此嘆耶。答欲明佛略說於前。龍樹廣敷於後。說之於前既是第一之經。敷之於后即是第一之論。學此論者蓋是第一之人矣。又欲勸信故作此言。小乘人云。生滅亦是佛說。無生滅亦是佛說。云何說無生以破生耶。是故明生滅是方便非第一之說。無生是真實名第一之說也。
中觀論疏卷第一(本畢)
中觀論疏卷第一(末)
釋吉藏撰
問曰何故造斯論下第二明造論意。龍樹造論唯有偈本。自下長行皆是青目所釋。就文為二。一問二答。問有二種。一因上生。二者孤起
【現代漢語翻譯】 因緣善於止息所有戲論，這是佛陀所說，不是我說的。又，稽首（Qishou，叩頭）是爲了祈請佛陀加持，希望佛陀弟子所說的法都承蒙佛力。現在想要闡述佛陀的無生二諦，破除各種邪見，所以祈請佛陀加持。而且，龍樹（Nagarjuna）未悟無生之前，想要自己樹立為佛陀，依附於海宮，得到無生忍，才以佛陀為師，自己作為弟子，所以要禮敬佛陀。又，論主（指龍樹）因為佛陀而領悟無生，現在是爲了報答佛恩，所以禮敬佛陀。還有，禮敬佛陀是爲了讓後人對這部論產生信心，說明『八不』（指不生不滅、不常不斷、不一不異、不來不去這八種否定性的描述）是佛陀所說，不是天魔外道、提婆達多（Devadatta）等人所說，也不是我說的，而是佛陀所說。因為小乘人不相信一切法畢竟空，如同刀傷心一樣，所以把功勞歸於佛陀。問：為什麼稱作諸說中第一？答：九十六種術法稱為邪說，不是第一。諸佛的正法稱為第一。在佛陀所說之中，有大乘和小乘，小乘不了義，不能稱為第一。大乘了義，稱為第一。在大乘之中，這『八不』是方等經（Vaipulya Sutra）的中心，是諸佛重要的觀法，是第一中的第一。問：為什麼要這樣讚歎呢？答：想要說明佛陀在前面略說，龍樹在後面廣為闡述。在前面所說的已經是第一的經典，在後面所闡述的就是第一的論。學習這部論的人，大概就是第一等人了。又，想要勸人相信，所以這樣說。小乘人說，生滅也是佛陀所說，無生滅也是佛陀所說，為什麼要說無生來破除生呢？所以說明生滅是方便之說，不是第一之說，無生是真實之說，稱為第一之說。 《中觀論疏》卷第一（本畢） 《中觀論疏》卷第一（末） 釋吉藏撰 問：為什麼要造這部論？下面第二部分說明造論的意圖。龍樹造論只有偈頌原本，從下面開始的長行都是青目（Pingala）所解釋的。就文義來說分為兩部分：一問，二答。問有兩種：一種是因上而生，一種是孤起。
【English Translation】 That which is well-suited to extinguish all disputations arises from conditions; this is what the Buddha said, not what I said. Furthermore, prostration (Qishou) is to request the Buddha's blessing, hoping that whatever Dharma the Buddha's disciples speak is supported by the Buddha's power. Now, I wish to expound the Buddha's doctrine of the two truths of non-origination and to refute all heresies, therefore I request the Buddha's blessing. Moreover, before Nagarjuna realized non-origination, he wanted to establish himself as the Buddha, relying on the sea palace, obtaining the patience of non-origination, and then regarded the Buddha as his teacher and himself as his disciple, so he prostrates. Also, the author of the treatise (referring to Nagarjuna) realized non-origination because of the Buddha, and now he repays the Buddha's kindness, so he prostrates to the Buddha. Furthermore, prostrating to the Buddha is to inspire faith in this treatise in later generations, clarifying that the 'eight negations' (referring to neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going) are what the Buddha said, not what the heretics, Devadatta, and others said, nor what I said, but what the Buddha said. Because the Hinayana practitioners do not believe that all dharmas are ultimately empty, as if a knife were piercing their hearts, they attribute the merit to the Buddha. Question: Why is it called the foremost among all teachings? Answer: The ninety-six kinds of arts are called heretical teachings, not the foremost. The true Dharma of all Buddhas is called the foremost. Among what the Buddha said, there are Mahayana and Hinayana; Hinayana is not definitive and cannot be called the foremost. Mahayana is definitive and is called the foremost. Among Mahayana, these 'eight negations' are the core of the Vaipulya Sutra, the essential contemplation of all Buddhas, the foremost among the foremost. Question: Why is this praise made? Answer: To clarify that the Buddha spoke briefly in the beginning, and Nagarjuna elaborated extensively later. What was said in the beginning is already the foremost sutra, and what is elaborated later is the foremost treatise. Those who study this treatise are probably the foremost people. Also, to encourage faith, this is said. The Hinayana practitioners say that arising and ceasing are also what the Buddha said, and non-arising and non-ceasing are also what the Buddha said, so why use non-arising to refute arising? Therefore, it is explained that arising and ceasing are expedient teachings, not the foremost teachings, and non-arising is the true teaching, called the foremost teaching. Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 1 (End of the Text) Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 1 (End) Written by Jizang Question: Why was this treatise written? The second part below explains the intention of writing the treatise. Nagarjuna's treatise only has the original verses, and the long prose sections from below are all explained by Pingala. In terms of the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts: a question and an answer. There are two types of questions: one arises from a cause, and the other arises independently.
。因上生者上云能說是因緣善滅諸戲論。既嘆佛能開中道善滅諸戲論。若爾佛已顯中道。已滅戲論。汝今何故更復造論。若更復造論則佛未顯中道。未滅戲論。第二孤起問者凡有八意。一者佛經既無量。眾生尋讀猶尚不盡。汝今何故更復造論。若更造者將非屏于佛經開顯汝論。二者佛言巧智深。眾生尋讀猶不能解。汝言不及佛言。智淺于佛智。尋讀汝論豈得悟耶。若尋讀汝論遂得解者則言智勝佛。三者如成實論立論品云。問曰。不應造論論佛語也。所以然者一切智人意趣難解。若佛自論可名為論。若佛不論餘人不能論。龍樹既未齊佛。何能論佛意耶。四者諸佛明見未來根性在世說經。預杜其迷逆開其解。斯事已足。汝今何故更復造論耶。五者馬鳴等已造論竟。汝今何故更復造論耶。六者汝已造大無畏論。廣明中實廣滅戲論。中觀已在其內。汝今何故更復造耶。七者凡造論者多有過失。顯他之短明己之長。假使內無是非外觀多過失故不應造論。八者龍樹出世如佛重興。外人不敢遮于造論。但未解造論所由故請陳其意。是故問耳。答曰下第二論文既長今懸答之。答第一問云。佛經已開中實已滅戲論。此但化益當時。末世眾生亦更起戲論覆障中道。是故我今更須造論。答第二問云。正為佛經文言浩博難可尋究。是故我今略撮
方等中心諸佛要觀名為八不。則眾生悟之為易。故下文云。諸法雖無量略說八事。則為總破一切法空。又佛在世時眾生利根聞佛略說則悟。佛滅度后眾生鈍根待論主廣𢾭乃解。如佛直說無生。龍樹以種種門釋于無生也。又佛隨機散說。論主隨義束說。為是因緣應須造論。答第三問云。佛雖智深言巧但末代根緣屬在於我。是故經云。若緣不屬佛佛不能度。今緣屬四依。故四依度之。如阿難度須跋陀事經云。答第四問。龍樹雖未齊佛少見佛意隨力解釋。是故無過。故成實論云。解者造論不解者止。答第五問。如經云。所應度者皆已度竟。余未度者為作得度因緣。則未來度之正在四依非佛所化。故須造論也。答第六問。馬鳴造論自為馬鳴之緣。龍樹造論自為龍樹之緣。不應責也。答第七問云。無畏之廣自為廣緣。此論之略自為略緣。不應難也。答第八問云。今造論者不為破他顯己。但以慈悲所以造論。如有目人見無目者入深水火境若不悟之便非菩薩。今造論破邪顯正意亦如是。答第九問云。如來在世說經有益。我今造論亦有深利益。答前孤起及因上生故有九問答也。就答開為二章。第一序佛出世說經意。佛滅度後下第二序龍樹出世作論意也。問外人但問造論不問說經。今但應答其造論。何故答說經耶。答解有五義。第一明雖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果方等（Vaipulya，大乘經典）中心諸佛所要觀察的法門被概括為『八不』，那麼眾生就更容易領悟。因此，下文說：『諸法雖然無量，但略說八事，就能總括性地破除一切法空。』而且，佛陀在世時，眾生根器銳利，聽聞佛陀略說就能領悟；佛陀滅度后，眾生根器遲鈍，需要論主廣泛闡釋才能理解。例如，佛陀直接說『無生』，而龍樹（Nagarjuna）則用種種方法來解釋『無生』。 此外，佛陀隨機散說，而論主則隨義歸束而說。因為這些因緣，所以應當造論。回答第三個問題時說：『佛陀雖然智慧深邃，言辭巧妙，但末法時代的根器因緣在於我（指論主）。』所以經中說：『如果因緣不屬於佛陀，佛陀也不能度化。』現在因緣屬於四依（Srotapanna，須陀洹；Sakrdagamin，斯陀含；Anagamin，阿那含；Arhat，阿羅漢），所以由四依來度化。就像阿難（Ananda）度須跋陀（Subhadra）的事情一樣。回答第四個問題：龍樹雖然不能與佛陀相比，但他略微見到佛陀的意旨，並隨自己的能力來解釋，所以沒有過錯。因此，《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi Shastra）說：『理解的人造論，不理解的人停止。』回答第五個問題：如經中所說：『所應度化的人都已經度化完畢，其餘未度化的人，為他們創造得度的因緣。』那麼，未來要度化的人，正在於四依，而不是佛陀所教化，所以需要造論。回答第六個問題：馬鳴（Ashvaghosa）造論是爲了馬鳴的因緣，龍樹造論是爲了龍樹的因緣，不應該責備。回答第七個問題：無畏（Abhaya）的廣說是爲了廣緣，此論的略說是爲了略緣，不應該責難。回答第八個問題：現在造論的人不是爲了破斥他人，彰顯自己，而是以慈悲心來造論。就像有眼睛的人看到沒有眼睛的人進入深水火境，如果不告知他們，就不是菩薩。現在造論破除邪說，顯揚正義，用意也是如此。回答第九個問題：如來在世時說經有益，我現在造論也有深刻的利益。』 回答前面孤起和因上生的問題，所以有九個問答。就回答展開為兩個章節。第一章序述佛陀出世說經的意義；『佛滅度后』以下是第二章序述龍樹出世作論的意義。外人只是問造論，不問說經，現在只應該回答造論，為什麼要回答說經呢？回答有五種意義。第一，說明雖然...
【English Translation】 English version: If the Dharma to be contemplated by all the Buddhas in the center of Vaipulya (Mahayana sutras) is summarized as the 'Eight No's,' then it will be easier for sentient beings to comprehend. Therefore, the following text says: 'Although the Dharmas are immeasurable, briefly speaking of eight things can comprehensively refute the emptiness of all Dharmas.' Moreover, when the Buddha was in the world, sentient beings had sharp faculties and could understand when they heard the Buddha's brief explanations; after the Buddha's Parinirvana, sentient beings had dull faculties and needed the treatise masters to explain extensively in order to understand. For example, the Buddha directly spoke of 'no-birth,' while Nagarjuna explained 'no-birth' in various ways. In addition, the Buddha spoke randomly and dispersedly, while the treatise masters spoke by summarizing and organizing according to the meaning. Because of these causes and conditions, treatises should be composed. When answering the third question, it is said: 'Although the Buddha's wisdom is profound and his words are skillful, the root affinities of the degenerate age belong to me (referring to the treatise master).' Therefore, the sutra says: 'If the causes and conditions do not belong to the Buddha, the Buddha cannot liberate them.' Now the causes and conditions belong to the Four Noble Ones (Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat), so they are liberated by the Four Noble Ones. It's like Ananda liberating Subhadra. Answering the fourth question: Although Nagarjuna cannot be compared to the Buddha, he slightly saw the Buddha's intention and explained it according to his ability, so there is no fault. Therefore, the Tattvasiddhi Shastra says: 'Those who understand compose treatises, those who do not understand stop.' Answering the fifth question: As the sutra says: 'Those who should be liberated have already been liberated, and for those who have not yet been liberated, create the causes and conditions for them to be liberated.' Then, those who are to be liberated in the future are in the Four Noble Ones, not what the Buddha taught, so treatises need to be composed. Answering the sixth question: Ashvaghosa composed treatises for Ashvaghosa's causes and conditions, and Nagarjuna composed treatises for Nagarjuna's causes and conditions, so there should be no blame. Answering the seventh question: Abhaya's extensive explanation is for extensive causes and conditions, and this treatise's brief explanation is for brief causes and conditions, so there should be no criticism. Answering the eighth question: The person who composes the treatise now is not to refute others and highlight himself, but to compose the treatise with compassion. It's like a person with eyes seeing a person without eyes entering deep water and fire, if they don't inform them, they are not a Bodhisattva. Now composing treatises to refute heresies and promote righteousness, the intention is also like this. Answering the ninth question: When the Tathagata was in the world, speaking the sutras was beneficial, and now my composing treatises also has profound benefits.' Answering the questions that arose independently and from causes, so there are nine questions and answers. The answers are divided into two chapters. The first chapter describes the meaning of the Buddha appearing in the world to speak the sutras; 'After the Buddha's Parinirvana' below is the second chapter describing the meaning of Nagarjuna appearing in the world to compose treatises. Outsiders only ask about composing treatises, not about speaking sutras, now only composing treatises should be answered, why answer speaking sutras? There are five meanings to the answer. First, explain that although...
復答其說經即是解造論所由。以經是所論論是能論。若無所論則無能論。能論所論具足方名為論。二者先序佛說經意。即是佛說中經。后明造論意即是明論中義。故秤中論。此是論中經故名中論。三者論主引佛說經以並外人問。汝若遮我不聽造論亦應遮佛不聽說經。所以然者有佛必有菩薩。有經必有論。如白日潛光明月接曜。如來戢影菩薩舒暉。是故不應遮造論也。四者前序說經意。是經生於論。後序造論意。即是論生於經。經生於論者龍樹稟于佛經發生二智。有二智方得作論。故經云。從佛口生從正法化生即其事也。云何論生於經。佛滅度后邪義障經亦令不復現。今破病申經即是論生經也。五者初序說經意。明眾生所迷。後序造論意。即辨破能迷。若不辨經是所迷則不得明於能迷。既不得明於能迷則不得辨于能破。便無有論也。就第一序佛說經意中又二。第一明佛說小乘經意。又第二明佛說大乘經意。然至道未曾大小。但赴大小兩緣故明大小兩教。今因此大小以悟非大非小。所以前小后大者欲示一途次第。若就三輪初明大教。次辨于小。后攝小歸大。今欲示從淺至深。故自小之至大。問前釋云初序佛說中經。后明立論意。若爾但應明大乘經。何故辨小乘耶。答有二義。一者欲舉小對大。如法華將欲嘆今大先明昔小教
。故云分別說諸法五眾之生滅。大品見第二轉法輪。以涅槃十三卷明今昔二法輪皆舉小對大。二者此論具申大小。是故雙牒佛說大小也。就說小中又開為二。一辨邪興。二明說正。前亦是感后復亦是名應。就說邪興為二。初別列八計。后總結過患。問眾計非一何故止列八計。答有五義。一者雖有九十六種略說八計。如部雖有二十略明五部。二者此八計是眾計中大。列大則小可知。三者八計之中前二計人。后六執法。舉法人則總攝一切。四者前計二天所說。后六計人所說。人天該羅眾異。五者八計之中七為有因。一為無因。有因無因具攝收萬執。問八謬何故偏列計生。答凡有二義。一者生為萬化之根。若伐其根則枝條自壞。二者上列八不則明於藥。今敘八生次陳其病。若無八生之病則無八不之藥。良以諸法未曾生與無生。問若唯破生明無生即但有破性。明空無本性空也。答為破性本不空故言本性空耳。窮考法實非空非不空。何破不破。又所以明八計生者。以失諸法無生故橫計八生。上標八不題其所失。今敘八生正陳其失。問下文乃明破八計生辨十二因緣生。此是破生說生。豈關破生明無生耶。答后說因緣生凡有三義。一者破外道生。即應為說大乘本性無生。但為倒情既重不堪聞說大乘本自無生。故權說小乘因緣生義。此
是以輕倒用奪重倒。以㨝出㨝義也。二者欲顯外道具有二迷。一迷大乘本自無生。二迷小乘因緣生義。三者顯外道復有二迷。一迷第一義諦本自無生。二迷世諦因緣假生。自在天生者此中列計具足三寶。有人言即僧寶也。自在天謂佛寶也。萬物從自在天生。作此說之即是法寶也。問三論列彼二天有何異耶。答此中所列是佛所破緣。百論所列是提婆所破緣。十二門論所列是佛滅度后小乘人所破緣。是故異也。又此中論所列為明法義。百論所列為明人義。十二門論所列通為明人法義。以自在天能造作萬物即是作者名為人義。六道之苦是自在天所作。名為法義。故十二門論破作者門具破人法。問云何名從自在天生。答如十二門論說。自在天變化造作萬法。萬法若滅還歸彼天。自在天三品苦行。下品苦行生腹行蟲。中品苦行生飛鳥。上品苦行生人天。故生六道故有三種苦行。此天面有三目。騎白牛手執白拂。又言。頭戴日月手執髑髏。並出他經。涅槃明。第五迦羅鳩馱計自在天生義。韋紐天者影師云。前天色界之頂。此天是欲界之極。問自在天三品苦行生六道。今云何生耶。答劫初之時一切皆空。有大水聚。十方風起能令波。波相次風風相持。水上有一人。千頭二千手足。化從水生。名曰韋紐天。此天齊中有一千葉蓮華。中有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這是以輕視、顛倒、用奪、重視、顛倒的方式來闡述。用㨝（此處應為『簡』的異體字，意為簡略）要顯出㨝（簡）的意義。這二者是爲了顯示外道具有兩種迷惑：一是迷惑于大乘的本自無生，二是迷惑于小乘的因緣生義。三者顯示外道又有兩種迷惑：一是迷惑于第一義諦的本自無生，二是迷惑於世俗諦的因緣假生。『自在天生』，這裡列舉了具足三寶（佛、法、僧）。有人說，自在天就是僧寶。自在天指的是佛寶。萬物從自在天產生，這樣說就是法寶。問：三論（《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》）列舉那兩個天神有什麼不同呢？答：這裡所列舉的是佛陀所破斥的因緣。百論所列舉的是提婆（Āryadeva）所破斥的因緣。《十二門論》所列舉的是佛陀滅度后小乘人所破斥的因緣。所以不同。而且，這裡的論述是爲了闡明法義，百論的列舉是爲了闡明人義，《十二門論》的列舉則是爲了闡明人法二義。因為自在天能夠創造萬物，是作者，所以是人義。六道之苦是自在天所造作，所以是法義。因此，《十二門論》的破作者門同時破斥了人法。問：怎樣叫做『從自在天生』呢？答：如《十二門論》所說，自在天變化造作萬法，萬法如果滅亡，還會歸於自在天。自在天有三種苦行：下品苦行生出腹行蟲，中品苦行生出飛鳥，上品苦行生出人天。所以生出六道，因此有三種苦行。這個天神面有三隻眼睛，騎著白牛，手執白拂。又有人說，頭戴日月，手執髑髏，這些都出自其他經典。《涅槃經》闡明了第五迦羅鳩馱（Kālakūṭa）計自在天生義。韋紐天（Viṣṇu），影師（一種外道）說，在前一個天神**（此處原文有缺失）的頂端。這個天神是欲界的最頂端。問：自在天以三種苦行生出六道，現在又是怎樣生出來的呢？答：劫初的時候，一切都是空無。有巨大的水聚集。十方風起，能夠使水產生波浪。波浪相繼，風與風互相支援。水上有一個人，千頭二千手足，變化從水中產生，名叫韋紐天。這個天神的肚臍中有一千葉蓮華，蓮華中...
【English Translation】 English version This is explained by means of belittling, inverting, usurping, valuing, and inverting. '㨝' (likely a variant of '簡', meaning brief) is used to reveal the meaning of '㨝' (brief). These two are to show that the heretics have two confusions: first, they are confused about the inherent non-origination of Mahayana; second, they are confused about the meaning of dependent origination in Hinayana. Third, it shows that the heretics have another two confusions: first, they are confused about the inherent non-origination of the first noble truth; second, they are confused about the false origination of dependent origination in the mundane truth. 'Born from Maheśvara (自在天)' here lists the complete Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). Some say that Maheśvara is the Sangha Jewel. Maheśvara refers to the Buddha Jewel. All things arise from Maheśvara, and saying this is the Dharma Jewel. Question: What is the difference between the two deities listed in the Three Treatises (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Śataśāstra, Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra)? Answer: What is listed here is the condition refuted by the Buddha. What is listed in the Śataśāstra is the condition refuted by Āryadeva. What is listed in the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra is the condition refuted by the Hinayana practitioners after the Buddha's Parinirvana. Therefore, they are different. Moreover, the discussion here is to clarify the meaning of the Dharma, the listing in the Śataśāstra is to clarify the meaning of the person, and the listing in the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra is to clarify both the meaning of the person and the Dharma. Because Maheśvara can create all things, he is the creator, so it is the meaning of the person. The suffering of the six realms is created by Maheśvara, so it is the meaning of the Dharma. Therefore, the chapter on refuting the creator in the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra refutes both the person and the Dharma. Question: What is meant by 'born from Maheśvara'? Answer: As the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra says, Maheśvara transforms and creates all dharmas. If all dharmas perish, they will return to Maheśvara. Maheśvara has three kinds of ascetic practices: the lowest ascetic practice gives rise to crawling insects, the middle ascetic practice gives rise to flying birds, and the highest ascetic practice gives rise to humans and devas. Therefore, the six realms are born, so there are three kinds of ascetic practices. This deity has three eyes on his face, rides a white ox, and holds a white whisk in his hand. It is also said that he wears the sun and moon on his head and holds a skull in his hand, which are found in other scriptures. The Nirvana Sutra clarifies the meaning of the fifth Kālakūṭa counting Maheśvara as the origin. Viṣṇu (韋紐天), the shadow master (a type of heretic) says, at the top of the previous deity's ** (missing text in the original). This deity is the highest point of the desire realm. Question: Maheśvara gives rise to the six realms through three kinds of ascetic practices, so how are they born now? Answer: At the beginning of the kalpa, everything is empty. There is a huge accumulation of water. The winds of the ten directions arise and can cause waves in the water. The waves follow each other, and the winds support each other. There is a person on the water, with a thousand heads and two thousand hands and feet, transformed from the water, named Viṣṇu. In the navel of this deity is a thousand-petaled lotus flower, and in the lotus flower...
光如萬日俱照。有一梵王因此華生。亦放光明如萬日俱照。梵王作念。此處何故空無眾生。作是念時光音天子命盡之者應生此土。有八天子。一時化生。此八天子心念。我從梵王生。梵王亦念。我生此八天子。從八天子生天地人民萬物。八天子是眾生之父。梵王是八天子之父。韋紐是梵王之父。韋紐手執輪戟。有大威勢故云萬物從其生也。問智度論列三天。二天如上列。第三名鳩摩羅伽天。鳩摩羅伽者此言童子。天以其是初禪梵王。顏如童子故以為名。亦那羅延天。那羅延此云生本。以其是眾生之本故也。中百二論何故但列二天。答凡有二義。一者外道明有三天者。即是彼家三身。自在天為本。如內法身佛。應為韋紐。如內應身佛。韋紐齊中化為梵王。如內化身佛也。智度論具明三身義。所以列三天也。彼家復有真應兩身義。故中百二論但列二天。二者列二天攝得三天。以韋紐齊中即有梵王。故不須列第三天也。從和合生者凡有四義。一者其人推求諸法不應從二天生。所以然者若萬物從二天生者。二天覆從誰生耶。故現見四大和合有外物生。父母和合生於眾生。所以言此執為謬者以其但見緣因不識正因。正因謂遠由業行。蓋是見近不見遠是故為謬。二者諸法從眾因緣生。無有從一因生義。上計從二天生者。是從一因而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 光芒如同萬個太陽同時照耀。有一位梵王（Brahmā，印度教的創造之神）因此而生。也放出光明，如同萬個太陽同時照耀。梵王心想，這裡為什麼空無一人？當他這樣想的時候，光音天（Ābhāsvara，色界第二天）上的天子壽命將盡，應當轉生到這裡。有八位天子，同時化生。這八位天子心想，我們是從梵王所生。梵王也想，我生了這八位天子，從這八位天子又生了天地人民萬物。八天子是眾生的父親，梵王是八天子的父親。韋紐（Viṣṇu，印度教的保護之神）是梵王的父親。韋紐手執輪和戟，有很大的威勢，所以說萬物是從他所生。問：在《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）中列出了三天。其中兩天如上面所列。第三個名字叫鳩摩羅伽天（Kumārakadeva）。鳩摩羅伽，意思是童子。因為這位天是初禪梵王，容顏像童子，所以用這個名字。也叫那羅延天（Nārāyaṇa）。那羅延，意思是生本，因為他是眾生的本源。在《中百二論》（Śūnyatāsaptati）中，為什麼只列出兩天？答：一般有兩種解釋。一是外道認為有三天，這三天就是他們家的三身。自在天（Īśvara）為本，如同內道的法身佛。應化為韋紐，如同內道的應身佛。韋紐在中間化為梵王，如同內道的化身佛。《智度論》詳細說明了三身義，所以列出三天。他們家還有真應兩身義，所以《中百二論》只列出兩天。二是列出兩天就包含了三天。因為韋紐在中間就有了梵王，所以不需要列出第三天。從和合而生，一般有四種解釋。一是有人推求諸法，不應該從二天所生。為什麼呢？如果萬物是從二天所生，那麼二天又是從誰所生呢？所以現見四大和合有外物產生，父母和合生出眾生。所以說這種執著是錯誤的，因為他們只看到緣因，不認識正因。正因是指遠由業行。這是隻見近不見遠，所以是錯誤的。二是諸法是從眾多因緣所生，沒有從單一因所生的道理。上面所說的從二天所生，就是從單一因而生。
【English Translation】 English version Its light is like ten thousand suns shining together. A Brahmā (the Hindu god of creation) is born because of this. He also emits light like ten thousand suns shining together. The Brahmā thinks, 'Why is this place empty of beings?' As he thinks this, deities from the Ābhāsvara heaven (the second heaven of the Form Realm) who are about to die should be born here. Eight deities are simultaneously manifested. These eight deities think, 'We are born from the Brahmā.' The Brahmā also thinks, 'I created these eight deities, and from these eight deities, the heavens, earth, people, and all things are born.' The eight deities are the fathers of beings, and the Brahmā is the father of the eight deities. Viṣṇu (the Hindu god of preservation) is the father of the Brahmā. Viṣṇu holds a wheel and a halberd, and has great power, so it is said that all things are born from him. Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa lists three gods. Two of them are as listed above. The third is named Kumārakadeva. Kumāraka means 'child'. Because this god is the Brahmā of the first dhyāna, and his face is like a child's, he is given this name. He is also called Nārāyaṇa. Nārāyaṇa means 'source of birth', because he is the source of all beings. In the Śūnyatāsaptati, why are only two gods listed? Answer: There are generally two explanations. First, the heretics believe that there are three gods, and these three gods are their three bodies. Īśvara (the Lord) is the basis, like the Dharmakāya Buddha in the inner teachings. He should transform into Viṣṇu, like the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha in the inner teachings. Viṣṇu transforms into Brahmā in the middle, like the Transformation Body Buddha in the inner teachings. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains the meaning of the three bodies in detail, so it lists three gods. Their school also has the meaning of the True Body and the Response Body, so the Śūnyatāsaptati only lists two gods. Second, listing two gods includes three gods. Because Viṣṇu in the middle already includes Brahmā, there is no need to list the third god. Being born from combination generally has four meanings. First, some people investigate all dharmas and believe that they should not be born from two gods. Why? If all things are born from two gods, then from whom are the two gods born? Therefore, it is seen that external things are produced from the combination of the four great elements, and beings are born from the combination of parents. Therefore, this attachment is said to be wrong, because they only see the conditional cause and do not recognize the direct cause. The direct cause refers to the distant cause of karma. This is seeing the near but not the far, so it is wrong. Second, all dharmas are born from many causes and conditions, and there is no principle of being born from a single cause. The above-mentioned being born from two gods is being born from a single cause.
生故不同上說也。三者諸法從平等因生。平等因者謂。因能生果因復從因。故名平等。自在天等但能生他不從他生。故非平等因。四者提婆論中明。有一外道計。未有天地本有一男一女。從此男女生一切人物。故云和合生也。從時生智度論明。時有二種。一者時體是常。但為萬法作于了因不作生因。是故此時名不變因。不變因者謂常相因也。二者謂別有時體。能生萬物。故為萬物作生殺因。如偈云。時來眾生熟時去即摧朽。時轉如車輪。是故時為因。開善謂。三相是時。能生萬法。與此大同。從世性生者即是冥初外道。以神通力見八萬劫事。自爾之前冥然不知。謂此一冥為諸法始。故云冥初。一切世間以為本性。名為世性。成論師辨無明流來。地論者執乖真起妄與此相似。從變生者。變生者變有四種。一神通變如變石為玉。二性自變如少變為老。三遇緣變如水遇寒則變為冰。四者外道謂別有變法能變生萬法。如阿毗曇種類以類于眾生。若執虎變成人鹿變成佛亦猶此執之例。然將外道難。數論亦難。何故六道眾生別有種類。而萬法無耶。又若眾生別有種類萬法無者。亦眾生別有生法萬物應無生。又眾生自有變異法不須變法變之。亦應自有生不須別有生法生之義。若答云四相中已有異相。相即是變法者。與外道別有變法變
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『生』的含義與上述不同。第三種是諸法從平等因生。平等因是指，作為因能生果，而因本身又從其他因產生，所以稱為平等。自在天（Mahesvara，印度教神祇，被認為是世界的創造者和毀滅者）等只能生他物，卻不是由他物所生，所以不是平等因。第四種，提婆論中闡明，有一種外道認為，在天地未形成之前，本來就有一男一女，一切人物都是從此男女結合而生，所以說是和合而生。從時生，智度論中說明，時間有兩種，一種是時間本身是常住不變的，只是作為萬法的了因，而不是生因。因此，這種時間被稱為不變因。不變因是指常相因。另一種是認為有獨立的時間實體，能夠產生萬物，因此作為萬物的生殺之因。如偈語所說：『時來眾生熟，時去即摧朽。時轉如車輪。』所以時間是因。開善認為，三相（生、住、異）就是時間，能夠產生萬法，與此大同小異。從世性生，指的是冥初外道。他們以神通力看到八萬劫的事情，但在此之前卻一無所知，認為這一片混沌是諸法的開始，所以稱為冥初。一切世間都以此為本性，稱為世性。成論師辨析無明流來，地論師執著于背離真如而生起妄想，與此相似。從變生，變有四種：一是神通變，如將石頭變成玉；二是性自變，如少年變為老年；三是遇緣變，如水遇寒冷則變為冰；四是外道認為有獨立的變法，能夠變化產生萬法，如阿毗曇種類以類區分眾生。如果執著于老虎變成人，鹿變成佛，也與此類似。然而，用外道的觀點來詰難，也可以用數論來詰難。為什麼六道眾生有不同的種類，而萬法卻沒有呢？又如果眾生有不同的種類，而萬法沒有，那麼眾生有不同的生法，萬物就應該沒有生。又眾生自身就有變異的法則，不需要變法來改變它，也應該自身就有生，不需要另外的生法來產生它的道理。如果回答說四相中已經有異相，異相就是變法，那麼就與外道有獨立的變法來變化沒有什麼區別了。
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'birth' is different from the above. The third is that all dharmas arise from equal causes. Equal causes mean that the cause can produce the effect, and the cause itself arises from other causes, so it is called equal. Mahesvara (a Hindu deity, considered the creator and destroyer of the world), etc., can only produce other things, but are not produced by other things, so they are not equal causes. Fourth, the Deva Sastra clarifies that there is an externalist school that believes that before the heavens and the earth were formed, there was originally a man and a woman, and all people and things were born from the union of this man and woman, so it is said to be born from union. From time, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra explains that there are two kinds of time. One is that time itself is permanent and unchanging, but only acts as the 'understanding cause' (hetu) of all dharmas, not the 'producing cause' (utpada-hetu). Therefore, this time is called the unchanging cause. The unchanging cause refers to the constant mutual cause. The other is the belief that there is an independent entity of time that can produce all things, and therefore acts as the cause of the birth and death of all things. As the verse says: 'When time comes, beings mature; when time goes, they decay. Time turns like a wheel.' Therefore, time is the cause. Kaisan believes that the three characteristics (birth, duration, change) are time, which can produce all dharmas, which is largely the same. Born from Svabhava (self-nature), refers to the Pradhana (primordial matter) of the externalist school. They use supernatural powers to see events of eighty thousand kalpas, but before that they know nothing, and believe that this chaos is the beginning of all dharmas, so it is called Pradhana. All the world takes this as its self-nature, called Svabhava. The Satyasiddhi Sastra analyzes the flow of ignorance, and the Dasabhumika Sastra clings to the arising of delusion from deviating from Tathata (suchness), which is similar to this. Born from transformation, there are four kinds of transformation: one is supernatural transformation, such as turning stone into jade; the second is self-transformation, such as youth turning into old age; the third is transformation due to conditions, such as water turning into ice when it encounters cold; the fourth is the externalist school believes that there is an independent transformation law that can transform and produce all dharmas, such as the Abhidhamma categories distinguishing beings by class. If one clings to a tiger turning into a person, or a deer turning into a Buddha, it is similar to this. However, using the views of externalists to question, one can also use Samkhya to question. Why do beings in the six realms have different kinds, but the myriad dharmas do not? Also, if beings have different kinds, but the myriad dharmas do not, then beings have different laws of birth, and the myriad things should have no birth. Also, beings themselves have the law of transformation, and do not need the law of transformation to transform them, and should also have birth themselves, and do not need a separate law of birth to produce them. If the answer is that there is already the characteristic of difference among the four characteristics, and the characteristic of difference is the law of transformation, then there is no difference from the externalists having an independent law of transformation to transform.
於一切有何異耶。從自然生者外道推求諸法。因義不成故謂萬法自然而生。但解自然有二家。若如莊周所論明有之已生則不須生。無之未生復何能生。今言生者自然爾耳。蓋是不知其所以然。謂之自然。此明自然有因自然無因。二者外道謂諸法無因而生名為自然。故經云。䓶頭自尖飛鳥異色。誰之所作。自然爾耳。成實者謂。無明元品之惑托空而生。皆無因之類也。微塵生者外道計。至妙之色圓而且常。聚則成身散則歸本。天人六道莫不由之生。數論師云。以細色成粗色。而鄰虛最小。與此執略同。羅什師云。佛不說有極微。若說極微即墮邊見。但說一切色若粗若細皆是無常苦空無我令人得道。以諸論義師自說有極微色耳。有如是等謬下第二總結過患。所以須總結者凡有二義。一者略上雖列八計未辨邪正。今欲明此八計是邪非正。故須總結之。二者為欲攝法。上略明八計則是總攝眾邪。故須結也。有如是等謬者有二。一不識實相無生而計有生。是故為謬。二者不識諸法從因緣而生。謂從八種而生。故名為謬。然有此身心。已是顛倒。于中更復起邪。既是倒中之倒。所以秤謬。墮于無因邪因者凡就此文有三義。一者若就正義無如此因故名無因。于彼邪心謂有名為邪因。此迷悟合名也。二者即邪因之計具邪因無因。萬物從
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 於一切有何不同呢？那些從『自然』出發的外道，他們推求諸法的來源，因為他們的理論無法成立，所以就說萬法是自然而生的。但對於『自然』的解釋，有兩派觀點。如果像莊周所說的那樣，認為『有』已經存在，就不需要再產生；而『無』本來就不存在，又怎麼能產生呢？現在他們所說的『生』，只是『自然而然』罷了。這實際上是不明白事物為什麼會這樣，就稱之為『自然』。這裡說明了『自然』有有因的自然和無因的自然兩種。外道認為諸法是無因而生的，就稱之為『自然』。所以經中說，『䓶頭（一種草）自然尖銳，飛鳥的顏色自然各異，這是誰造成的呢？自然就是這樣罷了。』成實宗的人認為，無明（佛教術語，指對真理的迷惑）最初的惑念，依託于空性而產生，都屬於無因之類。 外道還認為，至妙的色是圓形且永恒的，聚集起來就形成身體，散開就回歸本源。天人六道（佛教輪迴的六個去處）的產生都離不開它。數論師說，細微的色組成粗大的色，而鄰虛（最小的物質單位）是最小的。這種觀點與外道的執著大致相同。鳩摩羅什大師說，佛陀不說有極微（最小的物質單位）。如果說有極微，就落入了邊見（佛教指偏頗的見解）。佛陀只是說一切色，無論是粗是細，都是無常、苦、空、無我的，以此來引導人們得道。這些論義師自己說有極微色罷了。 像上面這些都是謬誤的觀點。下面第二點總結這些觀點的過患。之所以需要總結，有兩個原因：一是前面雖然列舉了八種計度，但沒有辨別邪正，現在要說明這八種計度是邪非正，所以需要總結。二是為要攝法，前面簡略地說明了八種計度，實際上是總攝了一切邪見，所以需要總結。 『有如是等謬』，這裡有兩層含義：一是不認識實相（佛教指事物的真實面貌），不認識無生（佛教指不生不滅的真理）而認為有生，所以是謬誤的。二是不認識諸法是從因緣（佛教指事物產生的條件）而生的，卻認為是從八種原因而生的，所以是謬誤的。然而，有了這個身心，已經是顛倒的了，在顛倒之中又產生邪見，這真是倒中之倒，所以稱之為謬誤。 『墮于無因邪因』，就這段文字來說，有三種解釋：一是如果從正義的角度來說，沒有這樣的因，所以稱為無因。但在那些邪心看來，卻認為有名為邪因，這是迷和悟的結合。二是邪因的計度同時具備邪因和無因。萬物從...
【English Translation】 English version How are they different from everything else? Those heretics who start from 'nature' seek the origin of all dharmas (laws, phenomena). Because their theories cannot be established, they say that all dharmas arise naturally. However, there are two schools of thought regarding the interpretation of 'nature'. If, as Zhuang Zhou (a Chinese philosopher) said, 'existence' already exists, then there is no need for it to be produced; and 'non-existence' does not exist in the first place, so how can it be produced? What they now call 'birth' is simply 'natural'. This is actually not understanding why things are the way they are, and calling it 'nature'. This explains that 'nature' has two types: nature with cause and nature without cause. Heretics believe that all dharmas are born without cause, and call it 'nature'. Therefore, the sutra says, 'The tip of the 棘頭 (a type of grass) is naturally sharp, and the colors of flying birds are naturally different. Who created this? It is just natural.' Those of the Satyasiddhi school (an early Buddhist school) believe that the initial delusion of ignorance (avidyā, in Buddhism, the delusion about the truth), relying on emptiness, arises, and all belong to the category of causelessness. Heretics also believe that the most subtle form is round and eternal, gathering to form the body, and scattering to return to its origin. The birth of gods and humans in the six realms (the six destinations of reincarnation in Buddhism) cannot be separated from it. The Samkhya school (an ancient Indian philosophical system) says that subtle forms form coarse forms, and the 鄰虛 (smallest unit of matter) is the smallest. This view is roughly the same as the heretics' attachment. Master Kumarajiva said that the Buddha did not say that there was a 極微 (smallest unit of matter). If you say there is a 極微, you fall into biased views (邊見, in Buddhism, refers to biased views). The Buddha only said that all forms, whether coarse or fine, are impermanent, suffering, empty, and selfless, in order to guide people to attain enlightenment. These theorists themselves say that there is a 極微 form. Like the above, these are all erroneous views. The second point below summarizes the faults of these views. The reason for the need to summarize is twofold: first, although eight calculations have been listed above, there is no distinction between right and wrong. Now we want to explain that these eight calculations are wrong and not right, so we need to summarize. Second, in order to collect the Dharma (teachings), the eight calculations are briefly explained above, which actually summarizes all heresies, so it needs to be summarized. 'Having such errors', there are two meanings here: one is not recognizing the real aspect (實相, in Buddhism, refers to the true appearance of things), not recognizing no-birth (無生, in Buddhism, refers to the truth of non-birth and non-death) and thinking that there is birth, so it is an error. The second is not recognizing that all dharmas are born from causes and conditions (因緣, in Buddhism, refers to the conditions for the emergence of things), but thinking that they are born from eight causes, so it is an error. However, having this body and mind is already inverted, and in the inversion, evil views arise again, which is really inversion in inversion, so it is called error. 'Falling into causeless and evil causes', in terms of this text, there are three explanations: one is that from the perspective of righteousness, there is no such cause, so it is called causeless. But in the eyes of those evil minds, they think that there is a name for evil cause, which is a combination of delusion and enlightenment. Second, the calculation of evil cause has both evil cause and causelessness. All things from...
自在天生。是邪因。而自在天不從他生。是無因義。三者前六后一名為邪因。自然一計謂無因也。問何故八計之中不以邪因為一類。無因為一類。而前列六計邪因。次列第七無因。后列第八邪因也。答示外道所計虛妄。初立有因推因義不成。次執無因推無因不成。還執有因。是故前後相間列也。斷常者有因是有故名為常。無因是無故所以名斷。又從因生果即是本無今有。必已有還無故名為斷。無因有果此則為常。初義就因明斷常。后義就果明斷常。三者邪因是常而果無常。故是斷常。無因是無故斷。有果是有故常亦具斷常。邪見者邪見有二種。一別邪見。謂撥無因果非此中所明。二通邪見。以其所見不正故名為邪。即今文是也。問無因邪因五見中何見所攝。答身見者計有於我。邊見者執我斷常。見取是正諸見。戒取謂非道為道。邪見撥無因果。此無因邪因非四見所攝。四見所不攝者屬通邪見。又有數論師云。邪因屬戒取攝。即苦諦下戒取。然戒取雖明非道為道。但此是略舉其一。非因計因通屬戒取。無因是集諦下邪見所攝。以撥無集諦因故也。有人言。非因計因如計微塵為因。此是執果為因即是迷果。如計杌為人正是迷杌故屬苦諦下通邪見攝。實有集因而撥言無因。是集諦下別邪見所攝。種種說我我所者外道有二迷。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自在天生（Maheśvara，印度教中的一個神祇）。這是邪因。而自在天不由其他事物所生。這是無因的含義。三者中，前六種計都屬於邪因，自然論者則主張無因。問：為什麼八種計中不將邪因作為一類，無因作為一類，而是先列出六種邪因，再列出第七種無因，最後列出第八種邪因呢？答：這是爲了揭示外道所持的虛妄之見。最初立論有因，但推論因的意義卻不能成立。接著執著于無因，推論無因的意義也不能成立。最終還是執著于有因。所以前後交錯排列。斷常論者認為，有因是有，所以稱為常。無因是無，所以稱為斷。又從因產生果，就是本來沒有現在有，必然已經有的還會消失，所以稱為斷。無因卻有果，這就可以稱為常。最初的意義是就因來闡明斷常，後面的意義是就果來闡明斷常。三者中，邪因是常，而果是無常，所以是斷常。無因是無，所以是斷。有果是有，所以是常，也具備斷常的特性。邪見有兩種。一種是別邪見，即否定因果，這不是這裡所要闡明的。另一種是通邪見，因為其所見不正，所以稱為邪。即現在文中所說的。問：無因、邪因屬於五見中的哪一種？答：身見是執著于有我。邊見是執著於我的斷滅或常存。見取是認為自己的見解才是正確的。戒取是認為不是正道的才是正道。邪見是否定因果。這種無因、邪因不屬於四見所攝。四見所不攝的屬於通邪見。又有數論師說，邪因屬於戒取所攝。即苦諦下的戒取。然而戒取雖然闡明了非道為道，但這只是簡略地舉出一個例子。非因計因都屬於戒取。無因屬於集諦下的邪見所攝。因為否定了集諦的因。有人說，非因計因，比如認為微塵是因。這是執果為因，就是迷惑于果。比如把樹樁看成人，正是迷惑于樹樁，所以屬於苦諦下的通邪見所攝。實際上有集因而否定說無因，這是集諦下的別邪見所攝。種種說我我所的外道有兩種迷惑。
【English Translation】 English version Maheśvara (a deity in Hinduism) is born. This is a false cause. But Maheśvara is not born from anything else. This is the meaning of having no cause. Among the three, the first six views belong to false causes, while naturalists advocate for no cause. Question: Why are the eight views not categorized with false causes as one type and no cause as another, but instead, the first six views are listed as false causes, then the seventh as no cause, and finally the eighth as a false cause? Answer: This is to reveal the false views held by externalists. Initially, they establish the existence of a cause, but the meaning of the cause cannot be established through reasoning. Then they cling to the idea of no cause, but the meaning of no cause cannot be established through reasoning either. In the end, they still cling to the existence of a cause. Therefore, they are arranged alternately. Those who hold the annihilationist and eternalist views believe that having a cause is existence, so it is called 'eternal'. Having no cause is non-existence, so it is called 'annihilation'. Furthermore, when a result arises from a cause, it means that what was originally non-existent now exists, and what already exists will inevitably disappear, so it is called 'annihilation'. If there is a result without a cause, then it can be called 'eternal'. The initial meaning is to clarify annihilation and eternity based on the cause, while the later meaning is to clarify annihilation and eternity based on the result. Among the three, a false cause is eternal, but the result is impermanent, so it is annihilation and eternity. No cause is non-existence, so it is annihilation. Having a result is existence, so it is eternal, and it also possesses the characteristics of annihilation and eternity. There are two types of wrong views. One is specific wrong views, which deny cause and effect, and this is not what is being clarified here. The other is general wrong views, which are called wrong because their views are incorrect. This is what the text is referring to now. Question: To which of the five views do 'no cause' and 'false cause' belong? Answer: 'Self-view' clings to the existence of a self. 'Extremist view' clings to the annihilation or permanence of the self. 'View-attachment' considers one's own views to be correct. 'Morality-attachment' considers what is not the right path to be the right path. 'Wrong view' denies cause and effect. These 'no cause' and 'false cause' are not included in the four views. What is not included in the four views belongs to general wrong views. Furthermore, some Samkhya philosophers say that 'false cause' is included in 'morality-attachment'. That is, 'morality-attachment' under the truth of suffering. However, although 'morality-attachment' clarifies that what is not the path is the path, this is only a brief example. Attributing a cause to what is not a cause all belongs to 'morality-attachment'. 'No cause' is included in the 'wrong view' under the truth of the origin. Because it denies the cause of the origin. Some say that attributing a cause to what is not a cause, such as considering dust particles as a cause, is clinging to the result as the cause, which is being deluded by the result. For example, mistaking a tree stump for a person is precisely being deluded by the tree stump, so it belongs to the general wrong view under the truth of suffering. In reality, there is an origin, but denying it and saying there is no cause is the specific wrong view under the truth of the origin. Externalists who speak of 'self' and 'what belongs to self' in various ways have two delusions.
一者迷法無生。二者迷人無生。上來明不知諸法無生橫計有生。故是迷法無生。今是迷人無生也。迷法無生墮無因邪因。迷人無生墮即陰離陰。又有外道。非但迷我無我。亦迷無我我。以迷二無我謂迷第一義諦。迷於二我謂迷世諦也。不知正法者自上以來敘其能迷。此之一句明其所迷。所以計人及法者以不知正法故也。佛欲斷如是等下第二明佛出世破邪顯正。即是辨應義也。問前既是邪即應障佛。云何感佛。答有二種邪。一者若邪定不可改便障于佛不得感佛。故法華云。入邪見稠林于千萬億劫不聞佛名字。亦不聞正法。二者本習正教。中途逢邪緣起于邪迷。此邪將滅。正觀將生。是故感佛。故智度論云。惡將滅善將生。是時見佛聞法也。江南廣明有三種感。一者未來感佛如上。二過去感佛引法華云。我等宿福慶今得值世尊。三現在感佛如勝鬘云。即生此念時佛于空中現也。問他亦云惡將滅善將生。與今何異。答此是龍樹舊義他取用之。故非他義也。又他言。有惡之可滅。有善之可生。今明。諸法本性清凈未曾善惡。亦非生滅。但約倒情虛妄故有惡生。倒情若歇秤之為滅耳。實非定有生滅也。就文為二。一明說教意。二正明說教。就說教意中凡有二意。一者破邪。二者顯正。佛欲斷如此等諸邪見即破邪也。令知佛法故謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一者，對法的無生之理迷惑不解。二者，對人的無生之理迷惑不解。前面已經說明了因為不瞭解諸法本無生，反而錯誤地認為有生，所以這是對法無生的迷惑。現在說的是對人無生的迷惑。對法無生的迷惑會墮入無因邪因的謬誤。對人無生的迷惑會墮入執著於五蘊或脫離五蘊的極端。還有一些外道，不僅對『我』（ātman）和『無我』（anātman）感到迷惑，也對『無我之我』感到迷惑。他們對兩種『無我』的迷惑，稱之為對第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）的迷惑。對兩種『我』的迷惑，稱之為對世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）的迷惑。不瞭解正法的人，從上面開始敘述他們能夠產生的迷惑。這一句說明了他們所迷惑的內容。他們之所以執著於人及法，是因為不瞭解正法的緣故。佛想要斷除這些邪見，下面第二部分說明佛出世是爲了破除邪見，彰顯正法，這就是辨明應化的意義。有人問：前面既然是邪見，就應該會障礙佛陀，怎麼會感應到佛陀呢？回答說：邪見有兩種。一種是邪見已經根深蒂固，無法改變，就會障礙佛陀，無法感應到佛陀。所以《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）說：『進入邪見稠林，在千萬億劫中聽不到佛的名字，也聽不到正法。』另一種是本來學習正教，中途遇到邪惡的因緣，產生了邪迷。這種邪迷將要消滅，正確的觀念將要產生，所以能夠感應到佛陀。所以《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa）說：『惡將要消滅，善將要產生，這個時候就能見到佛，聽到佛法。』江南廣明有三種感應。一是未來感應佛陀，如上面所說。二是過去感應佛陀，引用《法華經》說：『我們過去有福慶，今生才能遇到世尊。』三是現在感應佛陀，如《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）說：『就在生起這個念頭的時候，佛陀就在空中顯現。』有人問：其他人也說『惡將要消滅，善將要產生』，這和現在說的有什麼不同？回答說：這是龍樹（Nāgārjuna）的舊義，他們拿來使用，所以不是他們的意思。而且他們說，有惡可以消滅，有善可以產生。現在說明，諸法的本性是清凈的，從來沒有善惡，也不是生滅。只是就顛倒的情感虛妄而言，才有惡的產生。顛倒的情感如果停止，就稱之為滅，實際上並不是真的有生滅。就文義來說，分為兩部分。一是說明說教的意圖，二是正式說明說教的內容。就說教的意圖中，大概有兩種意思。一是破除邪見，二是彰顯正法。佛想要斷除如此等等的各種邪見，這就是破除邪見。爲了讓人瞭解佛法，所以說……
【English Translation】 English version First, there is confusion regarding the unoriginated nature of dharmas (dharma: teachings, laws, phenomena). Second, there is confusion regarding the unoriginated nature of beings. The previous section explained that due to not understanding that all dharmas are unoriginated, one mistakenly assumes they are originated, thus it is confusion about the unoriginated nature of dharmas. Now, it speaks of confusion about the unoriginated nature of beings. Confusion about the unoriginated nature of dharmas leads to falling into the errors of causelessness and wrong causes. Confusion about the unoriginated nature of beings leads to falling into the extremes of clinging to or separating from the five skandhas (skandha: aggregates of existence). Furthermore, there are some non-Buddhist schools (tīrthika) who are not only confused about 'self' (ātman) and 'no-self' (anātman), but also confused about 'no-self of no-self'. Their confusion about the two 'no-selves' is called confusion about the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Their confusion about the two 'selves' is called confusion about the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). Those who do not understand the correct Dharma, from the above, describe what they are capable of being confused by. This sentence clarifies what they are confused about. The reason they cling to beings and dharmas is because they do not understand the correct Dharma. The Buddha wants to cut off such wrong views, the second part below explains that the Buddha's appearance in the world is to break through wrong views and reveal the correct Dharma, which is to distinguish the meaning of response and transformation. Someone asks: Since the previous was wrong views, it should obstruct the Buddha, how can it resonate with the Buddha? The answer is: There are two kinds of wrong views. One is that if the wrong views are deeply rooted and cannot be changed, it will obstruct the Buddha and cannot resonate with the Buddha. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) says: 'Entering the dense forest of wrong views, for millions of kalpas (kalpa: cosmic aeon) one will not hear the name of the Buddha, nor will one hear the correct Dharma.' The other is that one originally studied the correct teachings, but encountered evil conditions midway, giving rise to wrong confusion. This wrong confusion is about to be extinguished, and the correct view is about to arise, so it can resonate with the Buddha. Therefore, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom (Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa) says: 'Evil is about to be extinguished, and good is about to arise, at this time one can see the Buddha and hear the Dharma.' Guangming in Jiangnan has three kinds of resonance. One is future resonance with the Buddha, as mentioned above. Two is past resonance with the Buddha, quoting the Lotus Sutra: 'We have past blessings, so we can meet the World Honored One in this life.' Three is present resonance with the Buddha, as the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra says: 'Just as this thought arises, the Buddha appears in the sky.' Someone asks: Others also say 'Evil is about to be extinguished, and good is about to arise', what is the difference between this and what is said now? The answer is: This is Nāgārjuna's old meaning, they take it and use it, so it is not their meaning. Moreover, they say that there is evil that can be extinguished, and there is good that can be produced. Now it is explained that the nature of all dharmas is pure, there has never been good or evil, nor is there arising or ceasing. Only in terms of the inverted emotions and delusions is there the arising of evil. If the inverted emotions cease, it is called extinction, but in reality, there is no fixed arising or ceasing. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. One is to explain the intention of teaching, and the other is to formally explain the content of teaching. In terms of the intention of teaching, there are roughly two meanings. One is to break through wrong views, and the other is to reveal the correct Dharma. The Buddha wants to cut off such various wrong views, which is to break through wrong views. In order to let people understand the Buddha's teachings, so it says...
顯正也。此是對邪所以說正在邪若去正亦不留。至論道門未曾邪正。先於聲聞法中下第二正明說教。前說教意。謂內智察緣即知病識藥。今外吐言教謂應病授藥。問前云佛欲斷邪見令知佛法。今云何乃言于聲聞法中說十二因緣。答凡有二意。一者是內外相對。前明諸外道法。今總辨五乘之教。悉名佛法。所以聲聞教亦名佛法也。二者前云令知佛法者此就佛本意。諸佛本意但為大事因緣明於佛道。今為鈍根之流不堪受佛道。故於一佛乘權說小乘教。故前據于本實。今約于末權。不相違也。依此義即具三輪。令知佛法即根本法輪。先於聲聞法中說十二因緣謂枝末法輪。后為說大乘。是攝末歸本教也。以經具三輪。論申于經亦具三輪矣。聲聞有四種。如法華論說。一決定聲聞。謂本習小乘證於小果。二退菩提心聲聞。本發大心退大取小。三增上慢聲聞。未得小果謂得小果。四應化聲聞。方便示現。總此四種名為聲聞也。又所以名聲聞法者。此欲明聲聞菩薩兩藏相對小乘名聲聞藏。故云聲聞法。大乘名菩薩藏。故名菩薩法。問小乘有聲聞緣覺二人。何故偏名聲聞法。大乘中有佛菩薩。云何獨名菩薩法耶。答立二藏名者此是立教名也。夫立教之意正為稟教之人。緣覺不稟教。聲聞稟教。故名聲聞藏。菩薩稟教佛不稟教。故名菩薩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是爲了顯明正法。這是針對邪法而說的，如果去除正法，邪法也不會存在。如果從道的角度來說，沒有邪正之分。這裡先在聲聞法中闡述第二種正法，明確說明教義。前面說的是教義的意圖，即通過內在的智慧觀察因緣，就能知道病癥並識別藥物。現在通過外在的言語教導，即根據病癥給予藥物。有人問：前面說佛陀想要斷除邪見，使人瞭解佛法，現在為什麼又說在聲聞法中宣說十二因緣呢？回答是：這裡有兩層含義。一是內外相對而言，前面闡明了各種外道法，現在總括地辨析五乘的教義，都稱為佛法。所以聲聞教也稱為佛法。二是前面說使人瞭解佛法，這是就佛陀的本意而言。諸佛的本意只是爲了以大事因緣來闡明佛道。現在爲了根器遲鈍的人，無法接受佛道，所以在一佛乘的基礎上，權宜地宣說小乘教。所以前面是根據根本實義，現在是根據枝末權宜之說，兩者並不矛盾。依據這個意義，就具備了三輪。使人瞭解佛法，是根本法輪。先在聲聞法中宣說十二因緣，是枝末法輪。之後再宣說大乘，是攝末歸本的教義。因為經文具備三輪，所以論述經文也具備三輪。聲聞有四種，如《法華論》所說：一是決定聲聞，即本來修習小乘，證得小果。二是退菩提心聲聞，即本來發大心，後來退轉大心而取小乘。三是增上慢聲聞，即沒有得到小果，卻自認為得到了小果。四是應化聲聞，即爲了方便而示現。總而言之，這四種都稱為聲聞。又，之所以稱為聲聞法，是因為要闡明聲聞藏（Śrāvakapiṭaka）和菩薩藏（Bodhisattvapiṭaka）相對而言，小乘稱為聲聞藏，所以稱為聲聞法，大乘稱為菩薩藏，所以稱為菩薩法。有人問：小乘有聲聞（Śrāvaka）、緣覺（Pratyekabuddha）兩種人，為什麼偏稱為聲聞法？大乘中有佛（Buddha）、菩薩（Bodhisattva），為什麼只稱為菩薩法呢？回答是：建立二藏的名稱，這是建立教義的名稱。建立教義的意圖，正是爲了接受教義的人。緣覺不接受教義，聲聞接受教義，所以稱為聲聞藏。菩薩接受教義，佛不接受教義，所以稱為菩薩藏。
【English Translation】 English version: This is to manifest the right. This is spoken in opposition to the wrong; if the right is removed, the wrong will not remain. As for the path of the Tao, there is no right or wrong. Here, the second right teaching is first explained within the Śrāvakayāna, clearly stating the doctrine. The previous explanation concerned the intention of the teaching, that is, through inner wisdom observing conditions, one can know the illness and recognize the medicine. Now, through external verbal instruction, medicine is given according to the illness. Someone asks: Previously it was said that the Buddha wished to cut off wrong views and enable people to understand the Buddhadharma; why is it now said that the Twelve Nidānas are expounded within the Śrāvakayāna? The answer is: There are two meanings here. First, in terms of inner and outer relativity, the previous explanation clarified various non-Buddhist paths, while now the teachings of the Five Vehicles are collectively distinguished and all are called Buddhadharma. Therefore, the Śrāvakayāna is also called Buddhadharma. Second, the previous statement about enabling people to understand the Buddhadharma refers to the Buddha's original intention. The original intention of all Buddhas is solely to elucidate the Buddhayāna through the great cause and condition. Now, for those of dull faculties who are incapable of receiving the Buddhayāna, the Śrāvakayāna is expediently taught on the basis of the One Buddha Vehicle. Therefore, the former is based on the fundamental reality, while the latter is based on the expedient teaching of the branches; the two are not contradictory. According to this meaning, the Three Wheels are complete. Enabling people to understand the Buddhadharma is the fundamental Dharma Wheel. First expounding the Twelve Nidānas within the Śrāvakayāna is the Dharma Wheel of the branches. Later, the Mahāyāna is expounded, which is the teaching of gathering the branches and returning to the root. Because the Sutra possesses the Three Wheels, the commentary on the Sutra also possesses the Three Wheels. There are four types of Śrāvakas, as explained in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra: First, the determined Śrāvaka, who originally practiced the Śrāvakayāna and attained the small fruit. Second, the Śrāvaka who retreated from the Bodhi mind, who originally generated the great mind but retreated from the great and took the small. Third, the Śrāvaka with increased arrogance, who has not attained the small fruit but claims to have attained it. Fourth, the manifested Śrāvaka, who appears for the sake of expediency. In summary, these four types are called Śrāvakas. Furthermore, the reason it is called Śrāvakayāna is to clarify that in relation to the Śrāvakapiṭaka (Basket of Disciples) and the Bodhisattvapiṭaka (Basket of Bodhisattvas), the Śrāvakayāna is called the Śrāvakapiṭaka, hence it is called Śrāvakayāna, while the Mahāyāna is called the Bodhisattvapiṭaka, hence it is called Bodhisattvayāna. Someone asks: In the Śrāvakayāna, there are two types of people, Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas; why is it specifically called Śrāvakayāna? In the Mahāyāna, there are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas; why is it only called Bodhisattvayāna? The answer is: The establishment of the names of the two Piṭakas is the establishment of the name of the teaching. The intention of establishing the teaching is precisely for the people who receive the teaching. The Pratyekabuddha does not receive the teaching, while the Śrāvaka receives the teaching, hence it is called Śrāvakapiṭaka. The Bodhisattva receives the teaching, while the Buddha does not receive the teaching, hence it is called Bodhisattvapiṭaka.
藏。問法華經言為聲聞說四諦。今云何乃說十二因緣。答經有通教別教。法華明其別教。涅槃經云十二緣河三聖俱度。此是通教。此論正辨其正意。俱度之義。所以菩薩聲聞同觀十二因緣也。又十二因緣即是四諦。略因緣為四諦。廣四諦為因緣。故十二相生名為苦集。還滅之義名為滅道。問乃知。教為通別。今何故就通不取別。乃知。因緣即四諦何故辨因緣不辨四諦耶。答夫論設教因病而起。經云。眾生病有三種。一貪慾病。教不凈觀。二瞋恚病。教慈悲觀。三愚癡病。教因緣觀。今此八計正是愚癡。故說因緣。若說四諦者此是藥廣而病狹。以四諦遍破三毒故則藥病不得相秤。是故說十二因緣。問經云。因緣甚深。愚人云何能解。答此非牛羊等癡。乃是世智辨聰邪推僻執計無因邪因。故名癡耳。問青目自作此釋為有所承。答智度論釋般若無盡品云。為破世間無因邪因故說十二因緣。青目引彼釋此也。問云何十二因緣治上諸計耶。答上來諸計凡有五句。今次第治之。以不識因緣故名為謬。若識因緣不名謬也。過去二因生現在五果。現在三因生未來兩果。治無因也。此十二因緣名為正因。即破微塵自在之邪因也。十二相生不斷不常。以因壞故不常。果續故不斷。即破斷常也。若見十二因緣名為正見。故四諦品云。若見因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：在《法華經》中說，佛為聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法者）宣講四諦（catvāri-ārya-satyāni，四條聖諦）。為什麼現在又說十二因緣（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，十二緣起）呢？ 答：佛經有通教和別教之分。《法華經》闡明的是別教。《涅槃經》說，十二因緣之河，三乘聖者（聲聞、緣覺、菩薩）都能渡過。這屬於通教。這部論著正是爲了辨明其中的正意，即共同渡過的含義。所以菩薩和聲聞共同觀察十二因緣。 又：十二因緣就是四諦。簡略地說因緣就是四諦，詳細地說四諦就是因緣。所以，十二相生稱為苦集（duḥkha-samudaya，苦和集諦），還滅之義稱為滅道（nirodha-mārga，滅和道諦）。 問：既然知道教義有通教和別教之分，為什麼現在只取通教而不取別教呢？既然知道因緣就是四諦，為什麼只辨析因緣而不辨析四諦呢？ 答：設立教義是因為眾生有病。經中說，眾生有三種病：一是貪慾病，教導不凈觀（aśubha-bhāvanā，觀想身體不凈）；二是瞋恚病，教導慈悲觀（maitrī-bhāvanā，修習慈悲）；三是愚癡病，教導因緣觀。現在這八種計執正是愚癡，所以宣說因緣。如果宣說四諦，那就是藥廣而病狹，因為四諦普遍能破除貪、嗔、癡三毒，這樣藥和病就不能相稱。所以才宣說十二因緣。 問：經中說，因緣非常深奧，愚人怎麼能夠理解呢？ 答：這裡的愚癡不是指牛羊之類的癡愚，而是指那些世俗的聰明人，他們善於辯論，卻邪僻執著，計較無因或邪因，所以才稱為愚癡。 問：青目（作者名）自己作此解釋，還是有所依據？ 答：《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）解釋《般若經》（Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）的無盡品時說，爲了破除世間無因和邪因的觀點，所以宣說十二因緣。青目引用了《智度論》的解釋。 問：十二因緣如何對治上述的各種計執呢？ 答：上述的各種計執總共有五種說法，現在依次對治它們。因為不認識因緣，所以才稱為謬誤。如果認識因緣，就不稱為謬誤了。過去二因（無明、行）生現在五果（識、名色、六入、觸、受），現在三因（愛、取、有）生未來兩果（生、老死），這是爲了對治無因論。這十二因緣稱為正因，即破除微塵（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）和自在天（Īśvara，印度教中的主神）的邪因論。十二相生，不斷也不常。因為因壞滅，所以不是常；因為果相續，所以不是斷。這就能破除斷常二見。如果能見到十二因緣，那就是正見。所以《四諦品》中說，如果能見到因緣
【English Translation】 English version Question: The Lotus Sūtra says that the Buddha spoke the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni) for the Śrāvakas (listeners). Why are you now talking about the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda)? Answer: The Sūtras have teachings that are common and teachings that are distinct. The Lotus Sūtra clarifies the distinct teachings. The Nirvana Sūtra says that the three types of sages (Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas) can all cross the river of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. This belongs to the common teachings. This treatise is precisely to clarify the correct meaning of this, which is the meaning of crossing together. Therefore, Bodhisattvas and Śrāvakas both contemplate the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. Furthermore, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are the Four Noble Truths. Briefly speaking, Dependent Origination is the Four Noble Truths; in detail, the Four Noble Truths are Dependent Origination. Therefore, the arising of the twelve aspects is called Suffering and Accumulation (duḥkha-samudaya), and the meaning of cessation is called Cessation and the Path (nirodha-mārga). Question: Since we know that the teachings are common and distinct, why do we now only take the common teachings and not the distinct teachings? Since we know that Dependent Origination is the Four Noble Truths, why do we only analyze Dependent Origination and not the Four Noble Truths? Answer: The establishment of teachings arises because beings have illnesses. The Sūtra says that beings have three kinds of illnesses: first, the illness of greed, for which we teach the contemplation of impurity (aśubha-bhāvanā); second, the illness of anger, for which we teach the contemplation of loving-kindness (maitrī-bhāvanā); and third, the illness of ignorance, for which we teach the contemplation of Dependent Origination. Now, these eight attachments are precisely ignorance, so we speak of Dependent Origination. If we were to speak of the Four Noble Truths, that would be a broad medicine for a narrow illness, because the Four Noble Truths universally break down the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance, so the medicine and the illness would not be proportionate. That is why we speak of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. Question: The Sūtra says that Dependent Origination is very profound. How can fools understand it? Answer: The foolishness here does not refer to the foolishness of cattle and sheep, but to those worldly clever people who are good at debate, but are perversely attached and calculate causelessness or wrong causes, so they are called foolish. Question: Did Qingmu (author's name) make this explanation himself, or does he have a basis for it? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains the inexhaustible chapter of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra by saying that in order to break down the worldly views of causelessness and wrong causes, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are spoken. Qingmu quoted the explanation from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Question: How do the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination counteract the various attachments mentioned above? Answer: The various attachments mentioned above have a total of five statements, and now we will counteract them in order. Because one does not recognize Dependent Origination, it is called error. If one recognizes Dependent Origination, it is not called error. The two causes of the past (ignorance and action) give rise to the five effects of the present (consciousness, name and form, the six entrances, contact, and feeling), and the three causes of the present (craving, grasping, and becoming) give rise to the two effects of the future (birth and old age and death). This is to counteract the theory of causelessness. These Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are called the correct cause, which breaks down the wrong cause theory of particles (paramāṇu) and the god Īśvara. The twelve aspects arise interdependently, neither constantly nor discontinuously. Because the cause is destroyed, it is not constant; because the effect continues, it is not discontinuous. This can break down the two views of permanence and annihilation. If one can see the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, that is correct view. Therefore, the Chapter on the Four Noble Truths says that if one can see Dependent Origination
法是人能見佛。見苦集滅道則破邪見也。但有十二不同無有一我。若有我者應有十三。既無有我亦無我所。故說十二破我我所也。又為已習行有大心者。下此第二明佛說大乘教意。即是說八不。意明說八不為大乘人。不為小乘人。八不是大乘教非小乘教也。就文為二。初辨教緣。即是感。次辨緣教。即是應。問前感應與此何異。答前明邪感正應。此是小乘感應。亦是遠感應也。今是習無生之緣感無生之教。是大乘感應。亦是近感應也。問此猶是前小緣轉悟入大乘。別有大緣耶。答具有二義。一者別有兩緣。前赴小緣而說小法。今為大緣而演大乘。二者猶是前人初即從邪入正。今即回小入大。故望法華經意者有二種菩薩。一直往菩薩。二回小入大之人。即此事也。已習行者無量劫來習無生觀。故法華云。有佛子心凈柔軟亦利根。無量諸佛所而行深妙道也。有大心者前明過去久習。此明現在大心。又向雖言久習或可習小。故今簡之明有大心也。堪受深法者雖發大心。或未能堪受深法。故大品如化品云。為新發意菩薩說生滅如化不生不滅不如化。為久行大士辨生滅不生滅一切如化。即如今辨一切無生也。以大乘法說因緣相下此第二明緣教。就文為二。初正辨教。次引經證。一切法不生者小乘人云。無為無生有為有生。非一切
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法是人能夠見到佛（Buddha）的。見到苦（duhkha）、集（samudaya）、滅（nirodha）、道（marga）四聖諦，就能破除邪見。雖然有十二因緣的不同，但沒有一個『我』（atman）。如果存在『我』，就應該有十三種要素。既然沒有『我』，也沒有『我所』（belonging to self）。所以說十二因緣是爲了破除『我』和『我所』。另外，這是爲了已經習慣修行且具有大心（mahācitta）的人而說的。下面第二部分闡明佛陀宣說大乘（Mahāyāna）教義的意圖，也就是宣說『八不』（eight negations）。意在說明宣說『八不』是為大乘根器的人，不是為小乘（Hinayana）根器的人。『八不』是大乘的教義，不是小乘的教義。從文義上分為兩部分。首先辨別教化的因緣，這就是『感』（cause）。其次辨別因緣所生的教化，這就是『應』（effect）。問：前面的『感應』與這裡的『感應』有什麼不同？答：前面說明的是邪感正應，這裡是小乘的感應，也是遠距離的感應。現在是習慣於無生（anutpāda）之緣而感得無生的教化，這是大乘的感應，也是近距離的感應。問：這仍然是前面小乘根器的人轉變領悟而進入大乘，還是另有大乘的因緣？答：兼具兩種含義。一是另有不同的兩種因緣。先前是應赴小乘的因緣而宣說小乘法，現在是爲了大乘的因緣而演說大乘。二是仍然是先前的人最初就從邪道進入正道，現在是從小乘迴向大乘。所以從《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）的意義來看，有兩種菩薩（bodhisattva）：一是直往菩薩，二是回小向大的菩薩，說的就是這件事。『已習行者』是指無量劫以來修習無生觀。所以《法華經》說：『有佛子心凈柔軟亦利根，無量諸佛所而行深妙道。』『有大心者』，前面說明過去長久修習，這裡說明現在具有大心。又先前雖然說長久修習，或許修習的是小乘，所以現在加以簡別，說明具有大心。『堪受深法者』，雖然發了大心，或許還不能夠堪受甚深的佛法。所以《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）如化品中說：『為新發意菩薩說生滅如化，不生不滅不如化。為久行大士辨生滅不生滅一切如化。』也就是現在辨明一切法無生。『以大乘法說因緣相』，下面第二部分闡明因緣所生的教化。從文義上分為兩部分。首先正式辨明教化，其次引用經文來證明。『一切法不生者』，小乘人說，無為法（asaṃskṛta）是無生的，有為法（saṃskṛta）是有生的，並非一切法都是無生的。
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma is what enables people to see the Buddha. Seeing the Four Noble Truths of suffering (duhkha), its origin (samudaya), its cessation (nirodha), and the path (marga) to its cessation, one can break through wrong views. Although there are twelve different links of dependent origination, there is no 'self' (atman). If a 'self' existed, there should be thirteen elements. Since there is no 'self,' nor anything 'belonging to self' (mama), it is said that the twelve links break down the notion of 'self' and 'belonging to self.' Furthermore, this is spoken for those who are already accustomed to practice and possess a great mind (mahācitta). The second part below clarifies the Buddha's intention in expounding the Mahāyāna teachings, which is to speak of the 'eight negations' (eightfold negation). The intention is to clarify that speaking of the 'eight negations' is for those of Mahāyāna capacity, not for those of Hinayana capacity. The 'eight negations' are the teachings of Mahāyāna, not the teachings of Hinayana. From the perspective of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, distinguishing the conditions for teaching, which is the 'cause' (hetu). Second, distinguishing the teachings arising from the conditions, which is the 'effect' (phala). Question: How does the 'cause and effect' mentioned earlier differ from this 'cause and effect'? Answer: The previous one clarifies the wrong cause and the right effect, while this one is the cause and effect of Hinayana, which is also a distant cause and effect. Now, it is the condition of being accustomed to non-arising (anutpāda) that elicits the teaching of non-arising, which is the cause and effect of Mahāyāna, and also a near cause and effect. Question: Is this still the case of the previous person of Hinayana capacity transforming their understanding and entering Mahāyāna, or is there a separate Mahāyāna cause? Answer: It encompasses both meanings. One is that there are two separate causes. Previously, the Lesser Vehicle Dharma was taught in response to the Lesser Vehicle cause, and now the Greater Vehicle is expounded for the sake of the Greater Vehicle cause. The second is that it is still the case of the previous person initially entering the right path from the wrong path, and now turning from the Lesser Vehicle to the Greater Vehicle. Therefore, from the perspective of the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra), there are two types of Bodhisattvas (bodhisattva): one is the direct-path Bodhisattva, and the other is the one who turns from the Lesser Vehicle to the Greater Vehicle, which is what this refers to. 'Those who have already practiced' refers to those who have cultivated the contemplation of non-arising for countless kalpas. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'There are Buddha's children whose minds are pure, gentle, and sharp-witted, who have practiced the profound and subtle path in the presence of countless Buddhas.' 'Those with a great mind' refers to the long-term practice in the past, while this refers to having a great mind in the present. Furthermore, although it was said earlier that they have practiced for a long time, perhaps they have practiced the Lesser Vehicle, so now it is clarified that they have a great mind. 'Those who are capable of receiving the profound Dharma' refers to those who, although they have generated a great mind, may not yet be capable of receiving the profound Dharma. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, in the chapter on illusions, says: 'For newly aspiring Bodhisattvas, it is said that arising and ceasing are like illusions, and non-arising and non-ceasing are not like illusions. For great beings who have practiced for a long time, it is explained that arising, ceasing, non-arising, and non-ceasing are all like illusions.' That is, now it is clarified that all dharmas are non-arising. 'Using the Mahāyāna Dharma to explain the characteristics of dependent origination,' the second part below clarifies the teachings arising from conditions. From the perspective of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, formally clarifying the teachings, and second, citing sutras to prove it. 'That all dharmas are non-arising,' the Hinayana practitioners say that unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta) are non-arising, and conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta) are arising, and that not all dharmas are non-arising.
無生。今明。有為與無為一切不生也。故大品經云。雖生死道長眾生性多。菩薩應如是正憶念。生死邊如虛空。眾生性邊亦如虛空。是中無生死往來。亦無解脫者。以生死本自不生故無往來。既無生死之往來生何所滅。故名為涅槃。故無解脫。所以生死涅槃畢竟皆空。故一切無生。又涅槃本自不生。生死亦本自不生。故名一切不生。畢竟空者若有生有不生則非畢竟空。以一切無生名畢竟空。問何故言畢竟空耶。答涅槃經云。菩薩猶如香象。徹十二因緣河底。所言底者名為空相。今欲簡異兔馬故有此言。如般若中說下第二引大品無盡品證也。問此論遍申眾經。何故偏引般若。答有六義。一者智度論云。三藏中未說菩薩行。般若中正明菩薩行。即波若是大乘之初。正對小乘故偏引其初也。二者般若明於二道。一般若道。二方便道。蓋是三世諸佛法身父母。故智度論云。於一切大乘經中最為深大。故偏引之。三者又般若正顯實相破洗顛倒有所得。開發正觀滅諸重罪。入道為要。故偏引之。四者昔江南大令般若師云。般若名為得道經。以其得道正由實相故也。五者山中大師云。智度論雖廣釋般若。而中論正解般若之中心。故偏引般若。所以然者中論正明實相中道。令識于中道發生正觀。大品亦正明實相。因實相發生般若。以明
義正同故偏引之。六者又蓋是趣引一文不應難也。觀十二因緣如虛空不可盡者。此中具明五性及三種般若。品初已解釋竟。言不可盡者凡有三義。一者十二因緣如虛空。虛空即是實相。由觀實相發生正觀。故有三世諸佛。過去佛觀實相發生正觀。實相不可盡。餘二世佛亦然。故無盡品云。過去佛學是般若得成佛。而般若不可盡。二世佛亦然。二者實相若是有無四句此即有盡極處。名為有盡。以實相絕有無四句無盡極處。故名不盡。三者二乘滅十二因緣。即是盡義。以二乘滅十二因緣則是但見於空。不見十二因緣即是中道佛性。今正對二乘明菩薩。知十二因緣本自不生今亦無滅。故言不盡。即此十二因緣不生不滅是佛性。故菩薩坐道場時即見佛性也。佛滅度後下第二序龍樹作論意。分為四別。第一明時節。第二明鈍根。第三明迷教。第四明作論破迷。解佛滅后不同。部執論云。一百一十六年分為兩部。一上坐部。謂佛畢竟涅槃。此小乘執也。二大眾部。謂佛雖般涅槃而不般涅槃般之言入。涅槃言滅。此明應身雖滅法身常存。宋代二師同兩部義。彭城竺僧弼作丈六即真論云。如月在高天影現百水。水清則像現。水濁即像隱。緣見有生滅。佛實無去來。此略同大眾部義也。次彭城嵩法師云。雙林滅度此為實說。常樂我凈乃為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為義理相同，所以偏頗地引用它。第六個問題大概是關於『趣引』一詞，不應該成為疑問。觀察十二因緣如同虛空，不可窮盡，這裡面詳細說明了五種根性以及三種般若。在品的第一部分已經解釋完畢。說『不可窮盡』有三種含義。第一，十二因緣如同虛空。虛空就是實相。通過觀察實相，產生正確的見解。所以有過去、現在、未來三世諸佛。過去的佛觀察實相，產生正確的見解，而實相是不可窮盡的。其餘兩世的佛也是這樣。所以《無盡品》說，過去的佛學習般若而成就佛果，而般若是不可窮盡的，其餘兩世的佛也是這樣。第二，實相如果是有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無這四句，那就是有窮盡的極限，稱為『有盡』。因為實相超越了有、無這四句，沒有窮盡的極限，所以稱為『不盡』。第三，二乘人滅除十二因緣，就是『盡』的含義。因為二乘人滅除十二因緣，只是看到了空，沒有看到十二因緣就是中道佛性。現在正是針對二乘人，說明菩薩知道十二因緣本來就不生，現在也沒有滅，所以說『不盡』。這十二因緣不生不滅就是佛性。所以菩薩坐在道場的時候，就能見到佛性。佛滅度后，下面第二部分敘述龍樹（Nagarjuna）菩薩作論的意圖，分為四個方面。第一，說明時節。第二，說明鈍根。第三，說明迷惑于教義。第四，說明作論破除迷惑。對於佛滅度后的情況，各部派的說法不同。部執論說，佛滅度一百一十六年後，分為兩個部派。一是上座部，認為佛畢竟涅槃。這是小乘的執著。二是大眾部，認為佛雖然般涅槃，但不是真的涅槃。『般』的意思是『進入』，『涅槃』的意思是『滅』。這說明應化身雖然滅度，但法身常存。宋代的兩位法師的觀點與這兩個部派的義理相同。彭城竺僧弼（Zhu Sengbi）作《丈六即真論》說，如同月亮在高空中，影子顯現在百川之中，水清澈則影像顯現，水渾濁則影像隱沒，（人們）因為看到（水中月影）有生滅，（就認為月亮）有去來，但佛實際上沒有去來。這大致與大眾部的義理相同。其次，彭城嵩法師（Song Fashi）說，在雙林樹下滅度是真實的說法，常樂我凈才是……
【English Translation】 English version: Because the meaning is the same, it is quoted with bias. The sixth question is probably about the term 'qu yin' (趣引, guiding), which should not be a question. Observing the twelve links of dependent origination as empty space, which cannot be exhausted, this clearly explains the five natures and the three prajnas (般若, wisdom). It has already been explained in the first part of the chapter. Saying 'cannot be exhausted' has three meanings. First, the twelve links of dependent origination are like empty space. Empty space is the true nature (實相, reality). By observing the true nature, correct views arise. Therefore, there are Buddhas of the past, present, and future. The Buddhas of the past observed the true nature and generated correct views, and the true nature is inexhaustible. The Buddhas of the other two times are also like this. Therefore, the 'Inexhaustible Chapter' says that the Buddhas of the past learned prajna and attained Buddhahood, and prajna is inexhaustible, and the Buddhas of the other two times are also like this. Second, if the true nature is the four phrases of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence, then it has a limit, which is called 'exhaustible'. Because the true nature transcends the four phrases of existence and non-existence, there is no limit, so it is called 'inexhaustible'. Third, the two vehicles (二乘, Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) extinguish the twelve links of dependent origination, which is the meaning of 'exhaustion'. Because the two vehicles extinguish the twelve links of dependent origination, they only see emptiness and do not see that the twelve links of dependent origination are the Middle Way Buddha-nature. Now, specifically addressing the two vehicles, it is explained that the Bodhisattva knows that the twelve links of dependent origination are originally unborn and have no extinction now, so it is said 'inexhaustible'. This twelve links of dependent origination, neither arising nor ceasing, is the Buddha-nature. Therefore, when the Bodhisattva sits in the Bodhi-mandala (道場, place of enlightenment), he sees the Buddha-nature. After the Buddha's Parinirvana (滅度, passing away), the second part below narrates Nagarjuna's (龍樹, Nāgārjuna) intention to write the treatise, divided into four aspects. First, explain the time. Second, explain the dull roots. Third, explain the confusion about the teachings. Fourth, explain the writing of the treatise to dispel confusion. Regarding the situation after the Buddha's Parinirvana, the various schools have different views. The 'Treatise on Doctrinal Adherence' says that 116 years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, it was divided into two schools. One is the Sthavira school (上座部, Theravada), which believes that the Buddha ultimately entered Nirvana. This is the attachment of the Hinayana (小乘, Lesser Vehicle). The second is the Mahasanghika school (大眾部, Mahāsāṃghika), which believes that although the Buddha entered Parinirvana, it was not true Nirvana. 'Para' means 'entering', and 'Nirvana' means 'extinction'. This explains that although the manifested body is extinguished, the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body) always exists. The views of the two masters in the Song Dynasty are the same as the doctrines of these two schools. Zhu Sengbi (竺僧弼, Zhu Sengbi) of Pengcheng wrote the 'Treatise on the Sixteen-Foot Image is True' saying that just as the moon is in the high sky and its shadow appears in hundreds of rivers, if the water is clear, the image appears, and if the water is turbid, the image disappears. Because (people) see the arising and ceasing (of the moon's reflection in the water), (they think that the moon) has coming and going, but the Buddha actually has no coming and going. This is roughly the same as the doctrine of the Mahasanghika school. Secondly, the Dharma Master Song (嵩法師, Song Fashi) of Pengcheng said that the Parinirvana under the twin Sala trees is the true statement, and permanence, bliss, self, and purity are...
權說。故信大品而非涅槃。此略同上座部義。后得病舌爛口中。因改此迷。引懸鏡高堂為喻。像雖去來鏡無生滅。然境雖起謝而智體凝然。問佛為有應法起息應名滅。為無應法起而云滅耶。答自古爰今凡有三種釋。開善藏師用弼公義。眾生於佛法身上見有生滅。佛實無生滅。故經云。慈善根力令彼見之。五指實無師子。莊嚴旻法師云。別有應法起。故以本垂跡為生。息跡歸本秤滅。如經云金翅鳥王上升虛空。高無量由旬。觀彼水性及見己影。即其證也。招提琰法師云。具有二義。今明正為異論紛綸。或言實滅。或言不滅。或言有應法起。或言無起。並是諍論。是故龍樹出世破之。諸見若息然後乃識因緣假名。無方大用非起非不起。非亦起亦不起。非非起非非不起。適緣而用具諸善根。雖具諸義亦不同他說。蓋是起無所起名為不起。不起而起名之為起。不可聞起定為起解。聞不起定作不起解也。問由佛滅度故眾生起迷。佛若不滅則不起迷。即咎在於佛。答智度論云。佛有三時利益眾生。一為菩薩時。二得佛時。三滅度時。華嚴經云。欲令眾生生歡喜善故現王宮生。欲令眾生生戀慕善故示雙林滅。既云三時利益物。故知。緣自起迷佛無過也。后五百歲者問釋迦佛法凡有幾年。答出處不同。今略引六處從小至多。一者俱舍論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 權且這樣說。所以相信《大品般若經》而不相信《涅槃經》。這大致與上座部的觀點相似。後來（他）得了病，舌頭潰爛在口中，因此改變了這個迷惑的觀點。引用懸掛的鏡子和高大的廳堂作為比喻，鏡中的影像雖然來來去去，但鏡子本身並沒有生滅。同樣，外境雖然生起消謝，但智慧的本體卻凝然不變。問：佛是否有應化之法生起和止息，所以稱之為『滅』？還是沒有應化之法生起，卻說（佛）『滅』了呢？答：自古至今，總共有三種解釋。開善藏師採用了弼公的觀點，認為眾生在佛的法身上看到有生滅，但佛實際上沒有生滅。所以經中說：『慈善根的力量使他們看到這一點。』（就像）五指實際上並沒有獅子（一樣）。莊嚴旻法師說，另外有應化之法生起，所以用『本垂跡』（從本體垂示應跡）作為生，『息跡歸本』（止息應跡迴歸本體）作為滅。如經中所說，金翅鳥王上升虛空，高無量由旬，觀察水性並看到自己的影子，這就是證明。招提琰法師說，具有兩種含義。現在闡明正義是爲了消除不同的爭論。有人說（佛）確實滅了，有人說不滅，有人說有應化之法生起，有人說沒有生起，這些都是爭論。因此，龍樹菩薩出世來破除這些見解。各種見解止息之後，才能認識到因緣假名，（佛的）無方大用既非生起也非不生起，也非亦生起亦不生起，也非非生起非非不生起，適應因緣而運用，具備各種善根。雖然具備各種含義，也不同於其他人的說法。大概是生起而無所生起，稱之為不生起；不生起而生起，稱之為生起。不可聽到生起就一定理解為生起，聽到不生起就一定理解為不生起。問：由於佛的滅度，所以眾生生起迷惑；如果佛不滅度，就不會生起迷惑，那麼過錯就在於佛嗎？答：《智度論》中說，佛有三個時期利益眾生：一是作為菩薩時，二是成佛時，三是滅度時。《華嚴經》中說：『爲了讓眾生生起歡喜和善心，所以示現在王宮中出生；爲了讓眾生生起戀慕和善心，所以示現在雙林中滅度。』既然說三個時期都利益眾生，所以知道是（眾生）自己生起迷惑，佛沒有過錯。后五百歲的人問：釋迦佛的佛法總共有多少年？答：出處不同，現在簡略地引用六個出處，從少到多。一是《俱舍論》。
【English Translation】 English version Let's just say that. Therefore, (he) believed in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Dapin banruo jing 大品般若經) rather than the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana jing 涅槃經). This is roughly similar to the views of the Theravada school. Later, (he) became ill, and his tongue ulcerated in his mouth, so he changed this confused view. He cited the hanging mirror and the tall hall as metaphors, although the images in the mirror come and go, the mirror itself does not arise or cease. Similarly, although external circumstances arise and pass away, the essence of wisdom remains constant. Question: Does the Buddha have responsive dharmas that arise and cease, so it is called 'extinction'? Or are there no responsive dharmas that arise, but it is said that (the Buddha) is 'extinct'? Answer: From ancient times to the present, there have been three interpretations. The Kaishan Zangshi (開善藏師) adopted Bi Gong's (弼公) view, believing that sentient beings see arising and ceasing in the Buddha's Dharma body, but the Buddha actually does not arise or cease. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The power of charitable roots allows them to see this.' (Just as) the five fingers do not actually have a lion (on them). Zhuangyan Min Fashi (莊嚴旻法師) said that there are other responsive dharmas that arise, so 'manifesting traces from the origin' (ben chui ji 本垂跡) is used as arising, and 'returning to the origin by ceasing traces' (xi ji gui ben 息跡歸本) is used as extinction. As the sutra says, the Garuda King rises into the sky, hundreds of thousands of yojanas high, observing the nature of water and seeing its own shadow, which is the proof. Zhaoti Yan Fashi (招提琰法師) said that it has two meanings. Now, clarifying the correct meaning is to eliminate different disputes. Some say (the Buddha) is indeed extinct, some say not extinct, some say there are responsive dharmas that arise, and some say there are none, these are all disputes. Therefore, Bodhisattva Nagarjuna appeared in the world to break these views. After various views cease, one can recognize the conditional names, (the Buddha's) boundless great function is neither arising nor not arising, neither both arising and not arising, nor neither not arising nor not not arising, adapting to conditions and using, possessing various good roots. Although possessing various meanings, it is also different from other people's statements. It is probably arising without anything arising, called not arising; not arising but arising, called arising. One should not necessarily understand arising as arising when hearing arising, and one should not necessarily understand not arising as not arising when hearing not arising. Question: Because of the Buddha's extinction, sentient beings become confused; if the Buddha did not become extinct, they would not become confused, so is the fault with the Buddha? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Zhi du lun 智度論) says that the Buddha benefits sentient beings in three periods: first, when he is a Bodhisattva; second, when he becomes a Buddha; and third, when he becomes extinct. The Avatamsaka Sutra (Hua yan jing 華嚴經) says: 'In order to make sentient beings generate joy and goodness, he manifested birth in the royal palace; in order to make sentient beings generate longing and goodness, he manifested extinction in the twin trees.' Since it is said that all three periods benefit sentient beings, it is known that (sentient beings) themselves generate confusion, and the Buddha is not at fault. Someone from the later five hundred years asked: How many years in total is Sakyamuni Buddha's Dharma? Answer: The sources are different, now briefly citing six sources, from least to most. First is the Abhidharmakosa (Ju she lun 俱舍論).
引經云。釋迦佛法住世千年。所以然者釋迦過去世為瓦師。值過去釋迦佛。而過去釋迦佛法住世千年。因是發願。未來作佛亦名釋迦。佛法亦得千年。此言千年者但說正法不論像法。二者摩耶經云。正法五百年。像法一千年。合一千五百年。三者真諦三藏引毗婆沙云。七佛法住世久近不同。迦葉佛法住世七日。𤘽那含牟尼佛法住世六十年。𤘽留村馱佛法住世十二年。釋迦牟尼佛精進力故法住世二千年。問若住二千年何故摩耶經云一千五百年。答不相違也。二千年者此據其本。一千五百此約其末。佛法本應二千年。為度女人出家損正法五百年。故唯有一千五百年。問損五百年。為迫失為不失耶。答凡有三釋。一云。迫失即是引摩耶經為證。二解云。此五百流入像法。此解無所出。三釋云。尼修八敬。故還復千年。出十誦律文。四者大集經明六種堅固。初五百年得道堅固。次五百年多聞堅固。次五百年三昧堅固。次五百年塔寺堅固。次五百年斗諍堅固。次五百年愚癡堅固。此即三千年也。更撿彼經取定。五者善見毗婆沙二十二捲雲。初千年得阿羅漢具三明。次千年但得羅漢不得三明。次千年得阿那含。次千年得二果。次千年得初果。五千年已后但剃髮著袈裟而已。更不得道。六者外國祇洹精舍銘出在古涅槃經后載之。云佛
正法千年。像法千年。末法萬年。天竺朝夕眾中恒唱此事云。佛法若千年已過佛法欲滅。老死至近宜須精進。此即佛法一萬二千年也。后五百歲者此是五百歲后耳。智度論釋信毀品云。佛滅度后五百歲後有五百部。則其證也。像法中者初五百為正法。后五百歲即屬像法。問佛二月十五日般涅槃。四月十五日結集三藏。界內有千人。名上坐部。界外萬餘人。名大眾部。爾時但有二部名字。以執義未異故至一百十六年分成二部。乃至三百年有二十部。既有諸部異計。云何名正法。答睿師作喻疑論云。前五百年得道者多。不得道者少。無相是非。故名正法。后五百年不得道者多。得道者少。但相是非執競盈路。故名像法。此釋從人以分像正也。次慧義法師雜門論云。前五百年多說無相法。少說有相法。故名正法。后五百年多說有相。少說無相。故名像法。此從法以分之也。以此釋望即時講說人多有分別。作有所得學。不專心學無所得觀者。蓋是時節數之然矣。問龍樹于像法中何時出耶。答睿師成實論序述羅什語云。馬鳴是三百五十年出。龍樹是五百三十年出。摩耶經云七百年出。匡山惠遠法師云。接九百年之運則九百年出。具如玄義中釋。問經中何故正法時少。像法時多。答正法是好時。像法是惡時。眾生薄福好時則少。惡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 正法（Saddharma）千年，像法（Sadrisha-dharma）千年，末法（Antima-dharma）萬年。在天竺（India），僧眾們早晚都在唱誦這件事：『佛法如果已經過了一千年，佛法就將要滅亡。衰老和死亡非常接近，應該努力精進。』這就是佛法一萬二千年的說法。『后五百歲』，指的是五百年之後的事情。《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）解釋信毀品時說：『佛陀滅度后五百年，會有五百部派。』這就是證據。像法時期，最初的五百年是正法，之後的五百年就屬於像法。有人問：佛陀在二月十五日般涅槃（Parinirvana），四月十五日結集三藏（Tripataka），界內有一千人，名為上座部（Sthavira），界外有一萬多人，名為大眾部（Mahasanghika）。當時只有這兩個部派的名字，因為對教義的執著還沒有出現差異。到一百一十六年時，才分成兩部，乃至三百年時有二十部。既然有各個部派不同的見解，怎麼能稱為正法呢？答：睿師在《作喻疑論》中打比方說：前五百年得道的人多，不得道的人少，沒有互相誹謗，所以稱為正法。后五百年不得道的人多，得道的人少，只是互相誹謗，爭執充滿了道路，所以稱為像法。這種解釋是從人的角度來區分像法和正法。其次，慧義法師在《雜門論》中說：前五百年多說無相法（Nirakara-dharma），少說有相法（Sakara-dharma），所以稱為正法。后五百年多說有相法，少說無相法，所以稱為像法。這種解釋是從法的角度來區分的。從這種解釋來看，當時講說的人大多有分別，做有所得的學問，不專心學習無所得的觀法，大概是時節氣運使然吧。有人問：龍樹（Nagarjuna）在像法時期什麼時候出現呢？答：睿師在《成實論序》中敘述鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）的話說：馬鳴（Asvaghosa）是在三百五十年出現，龍樹是在五百三十年出現。《摩耶經》（Maya Sutra）說七百年出現。匡山慧遠法師說，接續九百年的氣運，那麼就是在九百年出現。具體情況如《玄義》中的解釋。有人問：經中為什麼正法時期短，像法時期長呢？答：正法是好時期，像法是壞時期。眾生福報淺薄，好時期就短，壞
【English Translation】 English version The Proper Dharma (Saddharma) lasts for a thousand years, the Semblance Dharma (Sadrisha-dharma) for a thousand years, and the Degenerate Dharma (Antima-dharma) for ten thousand years. In India, the Sangha constantly chants this matter morning and evening, saying: 'If the Buddha-dharma has passed a thousand years, the Buddha-dharma is about to perish. Old age and death are very near, one should strive diligently.' This is the saying of twelve thousand years of the Buddha-dharma. 'The latter five hundred years' refers to the events after five hundred years. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra explains in the chapter on Faith and Defamation, saying: 'Five hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, there will be five hundred schools.' This is the proof. In the Semblance Dharma period, the first five hundred years are the Proper Dharma, and the subsequent five hundred years belong to the Semblance Dharma. Someone asks: The Buddha entered Parinirvana on the fifteenth day of the second month, and the Tripataka was compiled on the fifteenth day of the fourth month. Within the boundary, there were a thousand people, called the Sthavira (Elders), and outside the boundary, there were more than ten thousand people, called the Mahasanghika (Great Assembly). At that time, there were only the names of these two schools, because the adherence to doctrines had not yet differed. It was not until one hundred and sixteen years that they were divided into two schools, and even after three hundred years, there were twenty schools. Since there are different views among the various schools, how can it be called the Proper Dharma? The teacher Rui uses a metaphor in the Zuoyu Yilun, saying: In the first five hundred years, there were many who attained the Way and few who did not, and there was no mutual defamation, so it was called the Proper Dharma. In the latter five hundred years, there were many who did not attain the Way and few who did, but they only defamed each other, and disputes filled the roads, so it was called the Semblance Dharma. This explanation distinguishes the Semblance Dharma and the Proper Dharma from the perspective of people. Secondly, the Dharma master Huiyi says in the Zamen Lun: In the first five hundred years, the Nirakara-dharma (formless dharma) was mostly spoken, and the Sakara-dharma (form-possessing dharma) was spoken less, so it was called the Proper Dharma. In the latter five hundred years, the Sakara-dharma was mostly spoken, and the Nirakara-dharma was spoken less, so it was called the Semblance Dharma. This explanation distinguishes them from the perspective of the Dharma. From this explanation, most of the speakers at that time had distinctions, doing the learning of what is attainable, and not focusing on learning the contemplation of what is unattainable, which was probably due to the times. Someone asks: When did Nagarjuna appear in the Semblance Dharma period? The teacher Rui narrates Kumarajiva's words in the preface to the Chengshi Lun, saying: Asvaghosa appeared in the three hundred and fiftieth year, and Nagarjuna appeared in the five hundred and thirtieth year. The Maya Sutra says he appeared in the seven hundredth year. The Dharma master Huiyuan of Mount Kuang said that he would continue the fortune of nine hundred years, so he would appear in the nine hundredth year. The specific situation is explained in the Xuanyi. Someone asks: Why is the Proper Dharma period short and the Semblance Dharma period long in the sutras? The answer is: The Proper Dharma is a good period, and the Semblance Dharma is a bad period. Sentient beings have shallow blessings, so the good period is short, and the bad
時即多。問法華經云舍利弗成佛時何故像正時等耶。答舍利弗是凈土中成佛。故好時則多。得像與正等。人根轉下第二明失教之意。所以失教者正為人根鈍故也。問何根鈍耶。答正是慧根鈍也。亦得云信等五根俱鈍。又二十二根並鈍。故名鈍也。佛在世時有利有鈍。總名利根。佛滅度后雖有利鈍總名鈍根也。就鈍根中前五百年既是正法。即是鈍中之利。后五百年名為像法。是鈍中之鈍。故名轉鈍。深著諸法下第三正明迷教。即釋上鈍根義也。就文為二。初明迷小。次明迷大。佛在世時雙說大小。眾生根利聞並得悟。佛滅度后以根鈍故雙迷大小。是故龍樹霍破二迷俱申兩教。所言深著者以其埋著諸見根深故言深著也。求五陰十二入十八界者。問小乘有幾失耶。答總判諸部有三種失。一者同失。如同計有五陰謂決定有。佛說五陰意在破我。不在於法。而諸部不領無我而取著於法。與佛意乖也。二者異失諸部。執五陰不同。互相是非起于諍論。是故為失。或言色有十一。或言色有十四。或有無作色。或言無無作色。或言四心一時。或言四心前後。或言別有心數。或言無別心數。遂成諍論。以諍論。故便是煩惱因緣。以煩惱因緣即便起業。以業因緣即有生死憂悲苦惱。三者佛教所無穿鑿橫造。是故為失。若體佛意我妄不存法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 當時就是這樣。問：《法華經》中說舍利弗成佛時，為什麼正法時期和像法時期相等呢？答：舍利弗是在凈土中成佛的。所以好的時期就長，得到的像法時期和正法時期相等。『人根轉下』第二段說明失去教化的意思。之所以失去教化，正是因為人的根器遲鈍的緣故。問：什麼根器遲鈍呢？答：正是慧根遲鈍。也可以說是信等五根都遲鈍。甚至二十二根都遲鈍。所以叫做遲鈍。佛在世的時候，有利根也有鈍根，總稱為利根。佛滅度后，即使有利根和鈍根，總稱為鈍根。在鈍根中，前五百年是正法時期，就是鈍根中的利根。后五百年名為像法時期，是鈍根中的鈍根。所以叫做『轉鈍』。『深著諸法』第三段正式說明迷惑于教義。就是解釋上面遲鈍根器的含義。就文義來說分為兩部分。首先說明迷惑于小乘。其次說明迷惑于大乘。佛在世的時候，同時宣說大乘和小乘，眾生根器銳利，聽聞后都能領悟。佛滅度后，因為根器遲鈍的緣故，同時迷惑于大乘和小乘。所以龍樹菩薩破除兩種迷惑，同時闡述兩種教義。所說的『深著』，是因為他們埋沒于各種見解之中，根深蒂固，所以說『深著』。『求五陰（色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）十二入（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根和色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵）十八界（六根、六塵、六識）者』。問：小乘有幾種過失呢？答：總的來說，各部派有三種過失。第一種是共同的過失。如同他們執著於五陰，認為五陰是真實存在的。佛說五陰的用意在於破除『我』的執著，而不是執著於法。但是各部派不領會無我的道理，反而執著於法。與佛的本意相違背。第二種是各部派不同的過失。各部派對於五陰的理解不同，互相爭論是非，引起爭端。所以是過失。或者說色有十一種，或者說色有十四種。或者說有無作色，或者說沒有無作色。或者說四心一時，或者說四心前後。或者說另外有心數，或者說沒有另外的心數。於是形成爭論。因為爭論的緣故，就成為煩惱的因緣。因為煩惱的因緣，就會產生業。因為業的因緣，就會有生死憂悲苦惱。第三種是佛教所沒有的，穿鑿附會，橫生枝節。所以是過失。如果體會佛的本意，『我』的妄念不存在，法也就不存在了。
【English Translation】 English version At that time, it was like this. Question: The Lotus Sutra says that when Shariputra (one of the Buddha's foremost disciples, known for his wisdom) attains Buddhahood, why are the periods of the True Dharma and the semblance Dharma equal? Answer: Shariputra attains Buddhahood in a Pure Land. Therefore, the good period is long, and the obtained semblance Dharma period is equal to the True Dharma period. 'The capacity of people declines' The second section explains the meaning of losing the teachings. The reason for losing the teachings is precisely because people's faculties are dull. Question: What faculties are dull? Answer: It is precisely the faculty of wisdom that is dull. It can also be said that the five faculties of faith, etc., are all dull. Even the twenty-two faculties are all dull. Therefore, it is called dull. When the Buddha was in the world, there were both sharp and dull faculties, collectively called sharp faculties. After the Buddha's Parinirvana (death), even if there are sharp and dull faculties, they are collectively called dull faculties. Among the dull faculties, the first five hundred years are the True Dharma period, which is the sharpest among the dull. The next five hundred years are called the semblance Dharma period, which is the dullest among the dull. Therefore, it is called 'declining dullness'. 'Deeply attached to all dharmas' The third section formally explains being deluded by the teachings. It explains the meaning of the dull faculties mentioned above. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, it explains being deluded by the Hinayana (Small Vehicle). Second, it explains being deluded by the Mahayana (Great Vehicle). When the Buddha was in the world, he simultaneously taught the Hinayana and Mahayana. Beings with sharp faculties could understand after hearing them. After the Buddha's Parinirvana, because of the dullness of faculties, they were simultaneously deluded by the Hinayana and Mahayana. Therefore, Nagarjuna (an Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosopher) dispelled the two delusions and simultaneously expounded the two teachings. The so-called 'deeply attached' is because they are buried in various views, deeply rooted, so it is said 'deeply attached'. 'Seeking the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), twelve ayatanas (sense bases: six internal and six external), and eighteen dhatus (elements: six sense organs, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses)'. Question: How many faults are there in the Hinayana? Answer: Generally speaking, there are three kinds of faults in the various schools. The first is the common fault. Like their attachment to the five skandhas, thinking that the five skandhas are real. The Buddha's intention in speaking of the five skandhas was to break the attachment to 'self', not to be attached to the dharmas (teachings). But the various schools do not understand the principle of no-self, but instead cling to the dharmas. This is contrary to the Buddha's intention. The second is the different faults of the various schools. The various schools have different understandings of the five skandhas, arguing with each other about right and wrong, causing disputes. Therefore, it is a fault. Some say that form has eleven kinds, some say that form has fourteen kinds. Some say there is unconditioned form, some say there is no unconditioned form. Some say four minds are simultaneous, some say four minds are sequential. Some say there are separate mental functions, some say there are no separate mental functions. Thus, disputes are formed. Because of disputes, it becomes the cause of afflictions. Because of the cause of afflictions, karma arises. Because of the cause of karma, there will be birth, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering. The third is what the Buddha's teachings do not have, far-fetched interpretations, and extraneous additions. Therefore, it is a fault. If one understands the Buddha's intention, the delusion of 'self' does not exist, and the dharmas also do not exist.
心無所依便得解脫。陰門既爾。界入亦然。十二因緣者佛欲借妄止妄。故說十二因緣生。外道計無因邪因生。是妄中之妄。今借輕妄止其重妄。明諸法從十二因緣生。重妄既息輕妄亦去。意令悟諸法本自無生。而諸部不體斯意。謂決定言有十二緣生。又既決定謂有于中。更復種種推斥。如薩婆多之流執于因緣定是有為。毗婆阇婆提等定執無為。遂成諍論。涅槃云。以是諍論名為執著。如是執著名為能斷善根。又破外道自性故。明諸法無有自性假諸因緣。然性病若去因緣亦舍。然性病雖去實無所去。雖舍因緣亦無所舍。心無依寄即便得道。而觀諸部有性之可舍。有因緣之可立。即是取捨成斷常見不體佛意也。問小乘人俱迷人法。何故但說執於法耶。答今就此文始末大判三計。階級不同。外道執我。小乘計法。大乘著空也。又就小乘中自有三執。一計人法俱有。即犢子是也。二迷法不計人。薩婆多等是也。三俱不執人法。即成論是也。但小乘中少計人多執法。是故此中偏敘計法耳。如智度論云。佛滅度后五百歲。五百部皆執諸法有決定相。聞畢竟空如刀傷心。以此推之。故知。多執於法盛行天下。故偏敘之。問小乘中三部何者得失。答望文殊問經明十八部及本二皆從大乘出。及大集經云。雖有五部不妨法界大般涅槃。三部
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 心無所依就能獲得解脫。六根（陰門）是這樣，十八界（界入）也是這樣。佛陀宣說十二因緣，是爲了用虛妄來止息虛妄，所以說十二因緣生起。外道認為萬物是無因而生，或者邪因而生，這是虛妄中的虛妄。現在用輕微的虛妄來止息他們嚴重的虛妄，闡明諸法是從十二因緣產生的。當嚴重的虛妄止息后，輕微的虛妄也隨之消失，目的是爲了讓人領悟到諸法本來就是無生的。但是各部派沒有領會這個意思，認為確實有十二因緣的生起，並且既然已經確定有十二因緣，就進一步地進行各種推論和辯駁。例如，薩婆多部（Sarvastivadins）執著于因緣是決定性的有為法，毗婆阇婆提部（Vibhajyavadins）等則執著于無為法，因此形成了爭論。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『因為這些爭論，所以叫做執著。』像這樣的執著，叫做能斷善根。又因為要破斥外道的自性論，所以闡明諸法沒有自性，是依靠各種因緣而產生的。然而，如果自性這個病根去除了，因緣也應該捨棄。但是，雖然自性這個病根去除了，實際上並沒有去除什麼；雖然捨棄了因緣，實際上也沒有捨棄什麼。心中沒有依賴，就能獲得解脫。但是觀察各部派，有的認為自性可以捨棄，有的認為因緣可以建立，這就是取捨，形成了斷見和常見，沒有領會佛陀的真正意思。 問：小乘人既迷惑於人（眾生）和法（事物），為什麼只說他們執著於法呢？ 答：現在就這篇文章的始末，大致判斷有三種不同的執著階段。外道執著於我（ātman），小乘執著於法（dharma），大乘執著于空（śūnyatā）。又從小乘內部來說，也有三種執著。第一種是認為人和法都存在，這是犢子部（Vatsīputrīya）的觀點。第二種是迷惑於法，但不執著於人，這是薩婆多部（Sarvastivadins）等的觀點。第三種是不執著於人和法，這是成實論師（Satyasiddhi school）的觀點。但是，小乘中很少有人執著於人，而多數人執著於法，所以這裡偏重敘述執著於法的情況。如《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）說：『佛陀滅度后五百年，五百部都執著于諸法有決定性的相狀，聽到畢竟空（śūnyatā）就像刀割心一樣。』由此推斷，就知道執著於法盛行於天下，所以偏重敘述這種情況。 問：小乘中的這三部，哪一部的觀點是正確的，哪一部的觀點是錯誤的呢？ 答：根據《文殊問經》（Manjushri's Questions Sutra）的說法，十八部以及根本二部都是從大乘（Mahayana）中分離出來的。以及《大集經》（Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra）說：『即使有五部，也不妨礙法界大般涅槃（Mahāparinirvāṇa）。』這三部
【English Translation】 English version Liberation is attained when the mind has nothing to rely on. This is true for the sense bases (Ayatana). The realms and aggregates (Dhatu and Skandha) are also the same. The Buddha spoke of the Twelve Nidanas (Twelve Links of Dependent Origination) to use delusion to stop delusion, hence the arising of the Twelve Nidanas. The heretics believe that things arise without cause or from a wrong cause, which is delusion within delusion. Now, using a lighter delusion to stop their heavier delusion, it clarifies that all dharmas arise from the Twelve Nidanas. When the heavier delusion ceases, the lighter delusion also disappears, with the intention of making people realize that all dharmas are originally unborn. However, the various schools do not understand this intention, believing that there is indeed the arising of the Twelve Nidanas, and since they have determined that there are Twelve Nidanas, they further engage in various inferences and refutations. For example, the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins) cling to the idea that dependent origination is a definite conditioned dharma, while the Vibhajyavadins (Vibhajyavadins) and others cling to the idea of unconditioned dharma, thus forming disputes. The Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says: 'Because of these disputes, it is called attachment.' Such attachment is called the ability to cut off good roots. Furthermore, because of refuting the heretics' self-nature theory, it clarifies that all dharmas have no self-nature and arise from various conditions. However, if the disease of self-nature is removed, the conditions should also be abandoned. But although the disease of self-nature is removed, in reality nothing is removed; although the conditions are abandoned, in reality nothing is abandoned. When the mind has no reliance, one can attain the Way. But observing the various schools, some believe that self-nature can be abandoned, and some believe that conditions can be established, which is grasping and abandoning, forming the views of annihilation and permanence, and not understanding the Buddha's true intention. Question: Since the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) practitioners are deluded about both person (sentient beings) and dharma (things), why is it only said that they are attached to dharma? Answer: Now, based on the beginning and end of this text, there are roughly three different stages of attachment. The heretics are attached to self (ātman), the Hinayana are attached to dharma (dharma), and the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) are attached to emptiness (śūnyatā). Furthermore, within the Hinayana itself, there are three types of attachment. The first is the belief that both person and dharma exist, which is the view of the Vatsīputrīya (Vatsīputrīya) school. The second is being deluded about dharma but not attached to person, which is the view of the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins) and others. The third is not being attached to either person or dharma, which is the view of the Satyasiddhi school (Satyasiddhi school). However, in the Hinayana, there are few who are attached to person, and many who are attached to dharma, so this passage focuses on describing the attachment to dharma. As the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra) says: 'Five hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, the five hundred schools all cling to the idea that all dharmas have definite characteristics, and hearing about ultimate emptiness (śūnyatā) is like a knife cutting their hearts.' From this, we can infer that attachment to dharma is prevalent throughout the world, so this passage focuses on describing this situation. Question: Among these three schools of Hinayana, which school's view is correct, and which school's view is wrong? Answer: According to the Manjushri's Questions Sutra (Manjushri's Questions Sutra), the eighteen schools and the two fundamental schools all separated from the Mahayana (Mahayana). And the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra (Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra) says: 'Even if there are five schools, it does not hinder the Dharma Realm Mahaparinirvana (Mahāparinirvāṇa).' These three schools
之言皆是如來方便。能開道利人無淺深也。若封執定相俱是顛倒。不知佛意也。但今望大乘實相言亡慮絕。則計人法俱有為下品。無人有法為中品。人法俱空為上品。如玄義中敘之也。聞大乘法中說畢竟空下第二次明迷大。又亦得云前文著有。此文滯空即是迷於二諦。故前敘序云。睹空教則謂罪福俱泯。聞說有則封執定性。探此文作之。就文為四。一則明聞教。二不識教意。三明起迷。四結過失。聞大乘法說畢竟空者此聞教也。小乘法中不說畢竟空。唯大乘法有畢竟空。故言聞大乘法說畢竟空也。不知何因緣故空下第二明不識教意。經中所以說畢竟空者凡有四義。一為對破有病。所以說空。有病既息。空樂亦除。乃至五句無所依止。而舍有著空。故不識佛意。故行品云。大聖說空法為離諸見故。若復見有空諸佛所不化。第二經說畢竟空者此明第一義諦畢竟空。不明世諦畢竟空。而方廣之流謬取佛意。謂世諦亦畢竟空。故不知說空因緣。如智度論初捲雲。明人等世諦故有。第一義諦故無。如實際等第一義故有。世諦故無。即其證也。三者道門非空非不空無名相。中為眾生故假名相說。稱之為空。非空非不空即是中道。空不空即是假名。而學教之流不識中假。謂實有空。故不知說空因緣。故四諦品云。因緣所生法。我說即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這些話都是如來（Tathagata，意為如實而來者）的方便之說，能夠開啟道路，利益眾生，沒有深淺之分。如果執著于固定的相狀，都是顛倒的，不瞭解佛的真實意圖。但現在從大乘（Mahayana，佛教的一個主要分支，意為『大運載工具』）實相（Reality）的角度來說，言語和思慮都已止息。那麼，執著於人法（Dharma，佛法）俱有的，是下品；執著于無人有法的，是中品；人法俱空的，是上品。就像《玄義》中所敘述的那樣。 『聞大乘法中說畢竟空』，下面第二次說明迷惑之大。也可以說，前面的文字執著于『有』，這裡的文字滯留于『空』，這就是迷惑於二諦（Two Truths，真諦和俗諦）。所以前面的序言說：『看到空教，就認為罪福都泯滅；聽到說有，就執著于固定的自性。』探究這段文字，可以分為四個部分：一是說明聽聞教法，二是不認識教法的意義，三是說明產生迷惑，四是總結過失。 『聞大乘法說畢竟空者』，這是聽聞教法。小乘法（Hinayana，佛教的一個早期分支，意為『小運載工具』）中不說畢竟空（Ultimate Emptiness），只有大乘法有畢竟空。所以說『聞大乘法說畢竟空』。 『不知何因緣故空』，下面第二部分說明不認識教法的意義。經中所說畢竟空，凡有四種意義：一是為對治『有』的病，所以說『空』。『有』的病已經止息，『空』的快樂也應去除，乃至五句（指佛教中的五句否定式）都無所依止，而捨棄執著于『有』而執著于『空』。所以不認識佛的真實意圖。所以《行品》說：『大聖（Great Sage，指佛陀）說空法，是爲了離開各種見解。如果又見到有『空』，諸佛（Buddhas，覺悟者）所不能教化。』第二，經中說畢竟空，這是說明第一義諦（Ultimate Truth）的畢竟空，不是說明世諦（Conventional Truth）的畢竟空。而方廣（指某些大乘經典）之流錯誤地理解佛的意圖，認為世諦也是畢竟空。所以不瞭解說『空』的因緣。如《智度論》初卷說：『明智的人認為世諦是有的，第一義諦是無的。如實際（Reality）等，第一義是有的，世諦是無的。』這就是證明。 第三，道門（指修行之門）非空非不空，沒有名稱和相狀，爲了眾生的緣故，假借名稱和相狀來說，稱之為『空』。非空非不空，就是中道（Middle Way）。空和不空，就是假名。而學習教法的人不認識中假（Middle Way and Provisional Truth），認為真實有『空』。所以不瞭解說『空』的因緣。所以《四諦品》說：『因緣所生法，我說即是'
【English Translation】 English version: These words are all expedient teachings of the Tathagata (meaning 'one who comes thus'), capable of opening the path and benefiting beings without any distinction of depth. If one clings to fixed characteristics, it is all delusion, not understanding the Buddha's true intention. But now, from the perspective of Mahayana (a major branch of Buddhism, meaning 'Great Vehicle') Reality, speech and thought have ceased. Then, clinging to the existence of both person and Dharma (Buddhist teachings) is the lowest grade; clinging to the non-existence of person but the existence of Dharma is the middle grade; the emptiness of both person and Dharma is the highest grade. Just as described in the Profound Meaning. 'Hearing the Great Vehicle Dharma speaks of ultimate emptiness,' the second time below explains the greatness of delusion. It can also be said that the previous text was attached to 'existence,' and this text is stuck on 'emptiness,' which is delusion regarding the Two Truths (Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth). Therefore, the previous preface said: 'Seeing the teaching of emptiness, one thinks that both sin and merit are extinguished; hearing about existence, one clings to fixed nature.' Exploring this text, it can be divided into four parts: first, explaining hearing the teachings; second, not recognizing the meaning of the teachings; third, explaining the arising of delusion; and fourth, concluding the faults. 'Hearing the Great Vehicle Dharma speaks of ultimate emptiness,' this is hearing the teachings. The Hinayana (an early branch of Buddhism, meaning 'Small Vehicle') Dharma does not speak of ultimate emptiness; only the Great Vehicle Dharma has ultimate emptiness. Therefore, it is said, 'Hearing the Great Vehicle Dharma speaks of ultimate emptiness.' 'Not knowing what causes emptiness,' the second part below explains not recognizing the meaning of the teachings. The ultimate emptiness spoken of in the scriptures has four meanings: first, to counteract the illness of 'existence,' therefore, 'emptiness' is spoken of. Once the illness of 'existence' has ceased, the joy of 'emptiness' should also be removed, even to the point where the five negations (referring to the five negations in Buddhism) have no basis, and abandoning attachment to 'existence' and clinging to 'emptiness.' Therefore, one does not recognize the Buddha's true intention. Therefore, the Chapter on Practice says: 'The Great Sage (referring to the Buddha) speaks of the Dharma of emptiness to be free from all views. If one sees emptiness again, the Buddhas (enlightened beings) cannot transform them.' Second, the ultimate emptiness spoken of in the scriptures explains the ultimate emptiness of the Ultimate Truth, not the ultimate emptiness of the Conventional Truth. However, those of the Fang Guang (referring to certain Mahayana scriptures) mistakenly take the Buddha's intention, thinking that the Conventional Truth is also ultimately empty. Therefore, they do not understand the causes and conditions for speaking of 'emptiness.' As the first volume of the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: 'The wise consider the Conventional Truth to exist, and the Ultimate Truth to be non-existent. Like Reality, the Ultimate Truth exists, and the Conventional Truth is non-existent.' This is the proof. Third, the gate of the Path (referring to the path of practice) is neither empty nor non-empty, without name or form, but for the sake of sentient beings, names and forms are borrowed to speak of it, calling it 'emptiness.' Neither empty nor non-empty is the Middle Way. Emptiness and non-emptiness are provisional names. However, those who study the teachings do not recognize the Middle Way and Provisional Truth, thinking that 'emptiness' truly exists. Therefore, they do not understand the causes and conditions for speaking of 'emptiness.' Therefore, the Chapter on the Four Noble Truths says: 'The Dharma produced by causes and conditions, I say is'
是空。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。長行釋云。因緣所生法無自性故空。空亦復空。但為教化眾生故假名說。即其證也。四者因緣有宛然即畢竟空。雖畢竟空宛然因緣有。即是不壞假名而說實相。不動真際建立諸法。而稟教之流聞因緣有即失畢竟空。聞畢竟空即失因緣有。故不知說空意也。即生疑見下第三正辨起迷。功學畢竟空即發生二慧。無方便學畢竟空即生見疑。如涅槃經云。或有服甘露壽命得長存。或有服甘露傷命而早夭。即其事也。就文為二。初列見疑二章門。次釋二章門。偏執一理名見。猶預二途秤疑也。若都畢竟空下第二釋二章門也。前釋于疑后釋于見。迷教之心必先疑后見。故前釋疑后釋見也。然空有具得二疑。一者以空疑有。若實畢竟空即不應有罪福二者以有疑空。若實有罪福則不應都畢竟空。今此文是學大乘人謂畢竟空為實。故信畢竟空而疑于罪福。正是以空疑有也。如是則無世諦第一義下第二釋上見義也。既是學大乘人即信大畢竟空是盡理之說。故無有罪福。既無罪福故即無世諦。因世諦故有第一義諦。既無世諦亦無第一義。作此牽文出智度論。問小乘人聞畢竟空云何耶。答大乘執畢竟空排撥有法。小乘人執決定有斥畢竟空。故智度論云。五百部聞畢竟空如刀傷心。即其證也。問上執有中雲但著文
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是空（一切事物的本質是空性）。亦為是假名（也是一種方便的說法）。亦是中道義（也是一種中道的意義）。 長行釋云（用散文形式解釋說）：因緣所生法無自性故空（由因緣和合而生的事物沒有獨立的自性，所以是空性的）。空亦復空（空性的本質也是空性的）。但為教化眾生故假名說（只是爲了教化眾生，才用假名的說法）。即其證也（這就是證明）。 四者因緣有宛然即畢竟空（四者，因緣和合而生之物明明存在，但其本質卻是畢竟空）。雖畢竟空宛然因緣有（雖然本質是畢竟空，但因緣和合之物卻明明存在）。即是不壞假名而說實相（這就是不破壞假名，而宣說真實相）。不動真際建立諸法（在不改變真如實際的情況下，建立各種事物）。 而稟教之流聞因緣有即失畢竟空（但是接受教義的人，聽到因緣和合之有，就忘記了畢竟空）。聞畢竟空即失因緣有（聽到畢竟空，就忘記了因緣和合之有）。故不知說空意也（所以不明白宣說空性的真正用意）。即生疑見（就會產生疑惑和錯誤的見解）。 下第三正辨起迷（下面第三部分，正式辨析產生迷惑的原因）。功學畢竟空即發生二慧（如果正確地學習畢竟空，就能生起兩種智慧）。無方便學畢竟空即生見疑（如果沒有方便善巧地學習畢竟空，就會產生錯誤的見解和疑惑）。 如涅槃經云（如《涅槃經》所說）：或有服甘露壽命得長存（有些人服用甘露，壽命得以長久）。或有服甘露傷命而早夭（有些人服用甘露，反而損傷性命而早夭）。即其事也（就是這個道理）。 就文為二（就文義來說，分為兩部分）。初列見疑二章門（首先列出『見』和『疑』兩個章節）。次釋二章門（然後解釋這兩個章節）。偏執一理名見（偏執於一種道理，叫做『見』）。猶預二途秤疑也（在兩種途徑之間猶豫不決，叫做『疑』）。 若都畢竟空下第二釋二章門也（如果一切都是畢竟空，下面第二部分解釋『見』和『疑』兩個章節）。前釋于疑后釋于見（先解釋『疑』，后解釋『見』）。迷教之心必先疑后見（對教義產生迷惑，一定是先有疑惑，後有錯誤的見解）。故前釋疑后釋見也（所以先解釋『疑』，后解釋『見』）。 然空有具得二疑（然而，對於空和有，都可能產生兩種疑惑）。一者以空疑有（第一種是以空性來懷疑有）。若實畢竟空即不應有罪福（如果確實一切都是畢竟空，就不應該有罪和福）。二者以有疑空（第二種是以有來懷疑空性）。若實有罪福則不應都畢竟空（如果確實有罪和福，就不應該一切都是畢竟空）。 今此文是學大乘人謂畢竟空為實（現在這段文字是說，學習大乘佛法的人認為畢竟空是真實的）。故信畢竟空而疑于罪福（所以相信畢竟空，而懷疑罪和福的存在）。正是以空疑有也（這正是以空性來懷疑有）。 如是則無世諦第一義下第二釋上見義也（這樣就沒有世俗諦和第一義諦，下面第二部分解釋上面的『見』）。既是學大乘人即信大畢竟空是盡理之說（既然是學習大乘佛法的人，就相信大乘的畢竟空是究竟的道理）。故無有罪福（所以認為沒有罪和福）。既無罪福故即無世諦（既然沒有罪和福，就沒有世俗諦）。 因世諦故有第一義諦（因為有世俗諦，所以有第一義諦）。既無世諦亦無第一義（既然沒有世俗諦，也就沒有第一義諦）。作此牽文出智度論（這裡引用《智度論》的文字）。 問小乘人聞畢竟空云何耶（問：小乘修行人聽到畢竟空會怎麼樣呢？）答大乘執畢竟空排撥有法（答：大乘修行人執著畢竟空，排斥有法）。小乘人執決定有斥畢竟空（小乘修行人執著決定有，排斥畢竟空）。故智度論云（所以《智度論》說）：五百部聞畢竟空如刀傷心（五百部派聽到畢竟空，就像刀割心一樣）。即其證也（這就是證明）。 問上執有中雲但著文（問：上面執著于有中說，只是執著于文字）
【English Translation】 English version It is emptiness (the essence of all things is emptiness). It is also a provisional name (also a convenient way of speaking). It is also the meaning of the Middle Way (also a meaning of the Middle Way). The prose explanation says: 'Because phenomena arising from conditions have no inherent nature, they are empty. Emptiness is also empty. But for the sake of teaching sentient beings, it is provisionally named.' This is the proof. Fourthly, conditioned existence is clearly present, yet it is ultimately empty. Although ultimately empty, conditioned existence is clearly present. This means speaking of the true nature without destroying provisional names. Establishing all dharmas without moving the true reality. However, those who receive the teachings, upon hearing of conditioned existence, lose sight of ultimate emptiness. Upon hearing of ultimate emptiness, they lose sight of conditioned existence. Therefore, they do not understand the true intention of speaking of emptiness. This gives rise to doubt and wrong views. The third part below formally analyzes the cause of confusion. Correctly studying ultimate emptiness gives rise to two kinds of wisdom. Studying ultimate emptiness without skillful means gives rise to wrong views and doubts. As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Some who take nectar have their lives prolonged. Others who take nectar have their lives harmed and die early.' This is the principle. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, list the two chapters of 'views' and 'doubts'. Then explain the two chapters. Clinging to one principle is called 'view'. Hesitating between two paths is called 'doubt'. If everything is ultimately empty, the second part below explains the two chapters. First explain 'doubt', then explain 'view'. Confused minds about the teachings must first have doubts and then wrong views. Therefore, first explain 'doubt', then explain 'view'. However, one can have two kinds of doubts about both emptiness and existence. The first is to doubt existence with emptiness. If everything is truly ultimately empty, there should be no merit or demerit. The second is to doubt emptiness with existence. If there is truly merit and demerit, everything should not be ultimately empty. Now this text says that those who study Mahayana Buddhism consider ultimate emptiness to be real. Therefore, they believe in ultimate emptiness and doubt the existence of merit and demerit. This is precisely doubting existence with emptiness. Thus, there is no conventional truth or ultimate truth. The second part below explains the above 'view'. Since they are studying Mahayana Buddhism, they believe that the Mahayana's ultimate emptiness is the ultimate truth. Therefore, they believe there is no merit or demerit. Since there is no merit or demerit, there is no conventional truth. Because there is conventional truth, there is ultimate truth. Since there is no conventional truth, there is no ultimate truth. Here, the text from the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom is quoted (Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa). Question: What happens when Hinayana practitioners hear about ultimate emptiness? Answer: Mahayana practitioners cling to ultimate emptiness and reject existence. Hinayana practitioners cling to definite existence and reject ultimate emptiness. Therefore, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: 'When the five hundred schools hear about ultimate emptiness, it is like a knife cutting their hearts.' This is the proof. Question: Above, in clinging to existence, it is said that they only cling to the text.
字。何故不生疑耶。答有則符情。故直起見。空既反情所以生疑。問前執有亦失二諦不。答亦失執性有乖假有。失世諦尚失世諦。何況第一義耶。取是空相而起貪著下第四總結過失。前明於空生見。此辨于空起愛見。愛見是煩惱。煩惱即有業苦也。於畢竟空生種種過者初生疑。次起見。后從見起愛。故名種種過也。龍樹菩薩為是等故下第四明論主出世造論。可具三意。一者總對前大小二人。破先計有令有不有故令有見息。破前執空令空不空故空見便息。即是中道。問非有非無是愚癡論。云何是中道。答不取非有非無為中。乃明離有無見乃名為中耳。若離有無而著非有非無者即非中也。二者別對上小乘人。一往小乘人計諸法有。得於世諦不知諸法空。即失第一義。然既不識第一義。亦不識世諦。故俱失二諦。今申二諦中道令小乘人識二諦中道。發生正觀戲論斯滅。故龍樹造此中論也。三者對上學大乘人。一往大乘人得諸法畢竟空。得第一義失於世諦。然既不識世諦。亦不識第一義。雖畢竟空宛然而有。故不滯空。雖因緣有常畢竟空。故不著于有。即是二諦中道。今為破斷常二邊申於二諦。令學大乘人識。人識中道發生正觀。故言為是等故造此中論。
中觀論疏卷第一(末畢) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 18
【現代漢語翻譯】 字（指空性）。為何不產生懷疑呢？回答說，因為執著于『有』，符合人們的情感，所以直接產生『有』的見解。而『空』則與人們的情感相反，所以產生懷疑。問：之前執著于『有』，也喪失了二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）嗎？答：是的，也喪失了。執著于自性『有』，就違背了假『有』。喪失了世俗諦，就更是喪失了世俗諦，更何況是第一義諦呢？取著于『空』相而產生貪愛執著，下面第四部分總結過失。前面闡明了因『空』而產生見解，這裡辨析因『空』而產生愛見。愛見是煩惱，煩惱就是業和苦。對於畢竟空產生種種過失，首先是產生懷疑，其次是產生見解，最後從見解產生愛，所以稱為種種過失。龍樹菩薩爲了這些人，下面第四部分闡明論主出世造論的意義。大概有三重含義：一是總的針對前面大小乘兩種人，破除他們先前執著于『有』的觀點，使『有』不成為『有』，從而使『有』見止息；破除他們先前執著于『空』的觀點，使『空』不成為『空』，從而使『空』見止息。這就是中道。問：非『有』非『無』是愚癡的論調，怎麼能說是中道呢？答：不是執取非『有』非『無』作為中道，而是闡明遠離『有』和『無』的見解才稱為中道。如果離開了『有』和『無』，卻執著于非『有』非『無』，那就不是中道了。二是分別針對上面的小乘人。一般來說，小乘人執著于諸法『有』，得到了世俗諦，卻不知道諸法是『空』，就喪失了第一義諦。然而既然不認識第一義諦，也就不認識世俗諦，所以都喪失了二諦。現在闡明二諦中道，使小乘人認識二諦中道，發生正觀，戲論就會止滅。所以龍樹（Nagarjuna）造這部《中論》（Madhyamaka-karika）。三是針對上面學習大乘的人。一般來說，大乘人得到了諸法畢竟空，得到了第一義諦，卻喪失了世俗諦。然而雖然畢竟空，卻宛然而有，所以不滯留于『空』；雖然因緣『有』，卻常常是畢竟空，所以不執著于『有』。這就是二諦中道。現在爲了破除斷滅和常有的兩種邊見，闡明二諦，使學習大乘的人認識中道，發生正觀。所以說爲了這些人而造這部《中論》。
《中觀論疏》卷第一（未完） 《大正藏》第42冊 No. 1824
【English Translation】 Word (referring to emptiness). Why not generate doubt? The answer is that because clinging to 'existence' aligns with people's emotions, it directly generates the view of 'existence'. However, 'emptiness' contradicts people's emotions, so doubt arises. Question: Did previously clinging to 'existence' also lose the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth)? Answer: Yes, it also lost them. Clinging to inherent existence violates provisional existence. Losing conventional truth is even more so losing conventional truth, let alone ultimate truth? Grasping onto the aspect of 'emptiness' and generating attachment and clinging, the fourth part below summarizes the faults. The previous section clarified the generation of views from 'emptiness', while this section distinguishes the generation of attachment and views from 'emptiness'. Attachment and views are afflictions, and afflictions are karma and suffering. Regarding the generation of various faults from ultimate emptiness, first, doubt arises, second, views arise, and finally, love arises from views, so it is called various faults. For the sake of these people, the fourth part below clarifies the meaning of the author's appearance in the world to create the treatise. There are roughly three meanings: First, it is generally aimed at the two types of people, both Hinayana and Mahayana, refuting their previous view of clinging to 'existence', so that 'existence' does not become 'existence', thereby stopping the view of 'existence'; refuting their previous view of clinging to 'emptiness', so that 'emptiness' does not become 'emptiness', thereby stopping the view of 'emptiness'. This is the Middle Way. Question: Non-'existence' and non-'non-existence' is a foolish argument, how can it be said to be the Middle Way? Answer: It is not grasping non-'existence' and non-'non-existence' as the Middle Way, but rather clarifying that being away from the views of 'existence' and 'non-existence' is called the Middle Way. If one leaves 'existence' and 'non-existence' but clings to non-'existence' and non-'non-existence', then it is not the Middle Way. Second, it is specifically aimed at the Hinayana people above. Generally speaking, Hinayana people cling to the 'existence' of all dharmas, obtain conventional truth, but do not know that all dharmas are 'empty', and thus lose ultimate truth. However, since they do not recognize ultimate truth, they also do not recognize conventional truth, so they both lose the two truths. Now, clarifying the Middle Way of the two truths enables Hinayana people to recognize the Middle Way of the two truths, generate correct views, and speculative arguments will cease. Therefore, Nagarjuna created this Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way). Third, it is aimed at the people above who are studying Mahayana. Generally speaking, Mahayana people obtain the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas, obtain ultimate truth, but lose conventional truth. However, although ultimately empty, it is clearly existent, so they do not dwell in 'emptiness'; although conditioned 'existence', it is often ultimately empty, so they do not cling to 'existence'. This is the Middle Way of the two truths. Now, in order to refute the two extreme views of annihilation and permanence, clarifying the two truths enables people studying Mahayana to recognize the Middle Way and generate correct views. Therefore, it is said that this Madhyamaka-karika was created for these people.
Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 1 (Unfinished) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42, No. 1824
24 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第二(本)
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
不生亦不滅下第二重牒八不解釋。前已略出三種方言。但八不既是眾經大意此論宗旨。略釋難明。廣敷乃現。以去仁壽三年三月二日。江南學士智泰來至皇朝請述所聞。遂為其委釋開為十門。一大意門。二尋本門。三得失門。四正宗門。五淺深門。六同異門。七攝法門。八次第門。九料簡門。十新通門。大意門第一。八不者蓋是正觀之旨歸方等之心骨。定佛法之偏正示得失之根原。迷之即八萬法藏冥若夜遊。悟之即十二部經如對白日。余昔在江左鉆仰累年。未棲河右用為心鏡。雖復東西阻隔未始分乖。周旋南北何嘗徒步。略陳宿記用別門人。豈曰窮微。蓋是題自心之路耳。第二尋本門。問此論文有四卷。博含五百偈。何故八不標在論初。答領前序意足已明之。未曉向言。今當委示。凈名經云。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。一切眾導師無不由是生。即知。波若方便為十方三世諸佛法身之父母也。以眾聖托二慧而生。二慧由二諦而發。二諦因八不而正。即知。八不為眾教之宗歸群聖之原本。但稟教之流捨本崇末。四依出世令棄末歸本。故標八不貫在論初。問八不但是佛菩薩本。亦是二乘人天本耶。答由八不即二諦正。二諦正即二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 24 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第二(本)
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
『不生亦不滅』下，第二重解釋八不。前面已經簡略地提出了三種方言。但是八不既然是眾多經典的大意，也是這部論的宗旨，簡略地解釋難以明白，廣泛地闡述才能顯現。在仁壽三年三月二日，江南的學士智泰來到皇朝，請求講述所聽聞的，於是為他詳細解釋，分為十個方面：一大意門，二尋本門，三得失門，四正宗門，五淺深門，六同異門，七攝法門，八次第門，九料簡門，十新通門。
大意門第一。八不，大概是正觀的宗旨歸宿，方等經典的心髓骨幹，確定佛法的偏頗與正統，揭示得與失的根源。迷惑它，那麼八萬法藏就像在黑夜裡行走一樣迷茫；領悟它，那麼十二部經就像面對白日一樣清晰。我過去在江左鉆研仰慕多年，未曾在河右居住，把它作為心中的鏡子。雖然東西阻隔，未曾分離乖離，周旋南北，何嘗是徒勞無功。簡略地陳述過去的記憶，用來區別門人。哪裡能說窮盡了精微之處，大概是題寫自己內心的道路罷了。
第二尋本門。問：這部論文有四卷，廣泛地包含五百偈頌，為什麼八不被標在論的開頭？答：領會前面的序言，意思已經足夠明白了。如果還不明白，現在應當詳細地說明。《維摩詰經》說：『智度（prajna-paramita，智慧到彼岸）是菩薩的母親，方便（upaya，善巧方法）是菩薩的父親，一切眾生的導師沒有不是從這裡出生的。』由此可知，般若（prajna，智慧）和方便是十方三世諸佛法身的父母。因為眾聖依靠智和慧而生，智和慧由二諦（satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）而生髮，二諦因為八不而正。由此可知，八不為眾教的宗旨歸宿，群聖的根本源頭。但是接受教義的人捨本逐末，四依（catuh-pratisaranani，四依法）出世，是爲了讓人們拋棄末節迴歸根本，所以標明八不貫穿在論的開頭。問：八不只是佛菩薩的根本，也是二乘（sravaka-pratyeka-buddha-yana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）人天的根本嗎？答：因為八不就是二諦正，二諦正就是二
【English Translation】 English version 24. Commentary on the Middle Treatise
Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 2 (Original)
Composed by Shi Jizang
Chapter 1: Conditions
The second layer, starting with 'neither arising nor ceasing,' explains the Eight No's. Previously, three types of local expressions were briefly mentioned. However, since the Eight No's represent the main idea of many sutras and the purpose of this treatise, a brief explanation is difficult to understand, while a broad exposition reveals it. On March 2nd of the third year of Renshou, the scholar Zhi Tai from Jiangnan came to the imperial court requesting an explanation of what he had heard. Therefore, I explained it in detail for him, dividing it into ten aspects: 1. The Gate of General Meaning, 2. The Gate of Seeking the Root, 3. The Gate of Gain and Loss, 4. The Gate of the Main Doctrine, 5. The Gate of Shallow and Deep, 6. The Gate of Similarities and Differences, 7. The Gate of Embracing the Dharma, 8. The Gate of Order, 9. The Gate of Brief Analysis, and 10. The Gate of New Understanding.
The Gate of General Meaning (1): The Eight No's are roughly the ultimate goal of right view and the essence of the Vaipulya sutras. They determine the bias and correctness of the Buddha-dharma and reveal the origin of gain and loss. Confused by them, the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures are as dark as wandering in the night; enlightened by them, the twelve divisions of scriptures are as clear as facing the bright sun. I used to study and admire them for many years in Jiangzuo, and although I have not lived in Heruo, I use them as a mirror in my heart. Although separated by east and west, we have never been divided or deviated. Traveling north and south, we have never been in vain. I briefly present my past memories to distinguish my disciples. How can I say that I have exhausted the subtle points? It is probably just writing the path of my own mind.
The Gate of Seeking the Root (2): Question: This treatise has four volumes and broadly contains five hundred verses. Why are the Eight No's marked at the beginning of the treatise? Answer: Understanding the meaning of the preceding preface is sufficient to clarify it. If you still don't understand, I should now explain it in detail. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Prajna-paramita (wisdom to the other shore) is the mother of the Bodhisattvas, and upaya (skillful means) is the father. All the guides of beings are born from this.' Thus, it is known that prajna (wisdom) and upaya are the parents of the Dharmakaya (Dharma body) of the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times. Because the saints rely on wisdom and knowledge to be born, and wisdom and knowledge arise from the two truths (satya-dvaya, conventional truth and ultimate truth), and the two truths are correct because of the Eight No's. Thus, it is known that the Eight No's are the ultimate goal of all teachings and the original source of all saints. However, those who receive the teachings abandon the root and pursue the branches. The four reliances (catuh-pratisaranani, four supports) appear in the world to let people abandon the branches and return to the root. Therefore, marking the Eight No's throughout the beginning of the treatise. Question: Are the Eight No's only the root of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, or are they also the root of the Two Vehicles (sravaka-pratyeka-buddha-yana, Hearer Vehicle and Solitary Realizer Vehicle) and humans and devas? Answer: Because the Eight No's are the correctness of the two truths, and the correctness of the two truths is the
慧生。二慧生即有佛菩薩。有佛菩薩故說二乘及人天之教。即知。八不亦是二乘人天之本。如大品云。若無菩薩出世即無三乘之教。亦無世間五戒十善也。問二慧云何由二諦而生。答須精識二諦即二慧始成。關內曇影法師中論序云。斯論雖無法不窮。無言不盡。統其要歸即會通二諦。以真諦故無有。俗諦故無無。真諦故無有雖無而有。俗諦故無無雖有而無。雖無而有不滯于無。雖有而無不著于有。不著于有即常著冰消。不滯于無即斷無見滅。即知。二諦遠離二邊名為中道。問云何真諦雖無而有。俗諦雖有而無。答此由是不壞假名而說實相。故有宛然而無。不動真際建立諸法。故無宛然而有。二諦生二慧者以悟有宛然而無故生漚和波若。了無宛然而有故生波若漚和。漚和波若即波若宛然而漚和。波若漚和即漚和宛然而波若。以漚和宛然而波若故不著常。波若宛然而漚和故不滯斷。不斷不常名為正觀。然離二諦無別中道。即因緣二諦名為中道。離二慧無別正觀。即因緣二慧名為正觀。故以二諦中道發生二慧正觀。以得二慧正觀寂滅斷常諸邊故有佛菩薩。所以二慧名為法身父母。問已知。二慧由二諦而發。眾聖托二慧而生。何故以波若為母。方便為父耶。答意乃無窮。略明二義。一者實慧虛凝。與陰同靜。方便動用。共彼陽
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 慧生（指智慧的產生）。有了兩種智慧的產生，才會有佛和菩薩。因為有了佛和菩薩，才會有聲聞乘、緣覺乘以及人天乘的教法。由此可知，八不中道也是聲聞乘、緣覺乘和人天乘的根本。如同《大品般若經》所說：『如果沒有菩薩出世，就沒有三乘的教法，也沒有世間的五戒十善。』 問：兩種智慧是如何由二諦（指真諦和俗諦）而產生的？ 答：必須精通並認識二諦，兩種智慧才能形成。關內曇影法師在《中論序》中說：『這部論著雖然沒有哪種法沒有窮盡，沒有哪種言語沒有表達，但總的來說，就是要會通二諦。因為真諦的緣故，認為一切法「無有」；因為俗諦的緣故，認為一切法「非無有」。因為真諦的緣故，認為一切法「雖無而有」；因為俗諦的緣故，認為一切法「雖有而無」。雖然「無」而「有」，卻不執著于「無」；雖然「有」而「無」，卻不執著于「有」。不執著于「有」，就像冰雪消融一樣；不執著于「無」，就能滅除斷滅的邪見。』由此可知，二諦遠離有和無這兩種邊見，就叫做中道。 問：為什麼說真諦是「雖無而有」，俗諦是「雖有而無」呢？ 答：這是因為不破壞假名（指世俗的名稱和概念），而說實相（指事物的真實面貌）。所以，雖然「有」，卻宛如「無」；不改變真如實際的理體，而建立諸法。所以，雖然「無」，卻宛如「有」。二諦產生兩種智慧，是因為領悟到「有」宛然而「無」，所以產生漚和波若（指方便智慧）；了達「無」宛然而「有」，所以產生波若漚和（指根本智慧）。漚和波若就是波若宛然而漚和，波若漚和就是漚和宛然而波若。因為漚和宛然而波若，所以不執著于常；波若宛然而漚和，所以不執著于斷。不斷不常，就叫做正觀。然而，離開二諦，就沒有別的中道，所以說因緣二諦就是中道；離開兩種智慧，就沒有別的正觀，所以說因緣兩種智慧就是正觀。所以，用二諦中道來發生兩種智慧正觀，因為得到兩種智慧正觀，就能寂滅斷見和常見等各種邊見，所以才有佛和菩薩。因此，兩種智慧被稱為法身（指佛的真身）的父母。 問：已經知道兩種智慧是由二諦而生髮的，眾聖（指聖人）依託兩種智慧而產生，為什麼又說般若（指智慧）是母親，方便是父親呢？ 答：其中的含義無窮無盡，這裡簡要說明兩種含義。一是實慧虛靜，與陰性相同，是靜止的；方便是能動的，與陽性相同，是運動的。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Hui Sheng' (the arising of wisdom). With the arising of two wisdoms, there are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Because there are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the teachings of the Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Human-Deva Vehicle are spoken. Thus, it is known that the Eight No's (the Eightfold Negation) are also the foundation of the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Human-Deva Vehicles. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'If there were no Bodhisattvas appearing in the world, there would be no teachings of the Three Vehicles, nor would there be the Five Precepts and Ten Virtues of the world.' Question: How do the two wisdoms arise from the Two Truths (the Conventional Truth and the Ultimate Truth)? Answer: One must be proficient in and recognize the Two Truths for the two wisdoms to be formed. Dharma Master Tan Ying of Guan Nei, in his preface to the Madhyamaka-karika, says: 'Although this treatise leaves no Dharma unexplored and no word unexpressed, its main purpose is to reconcile the Two Truths. Because of the Ultimate Truth, it is held that all dharmas are 'non-existent'; because of the Conventional Truth, it is held that all dharmas are 'not non-existent'. Because of the Ultimate Truth, it is held that all dharmas are 'existent though non-existent'; because of the Conventional Truth, it is held that all dharmas are 'non-existent though existent'. Although 'non-existent' yet 'existent', one does not cling to 'non-existence'; although 'existent' yet 'non-existent', one does not attach to 'existence'. Not attaching to 'existence' is like ice melting away; not clinging to 'non-existence' extinguishes the view of annihilation.' Thus, it is known that the Two Truths, being apart from the two extremes, are called the Middle Way. Question: Why is it said that the Ultimate Truth is 'existent though non-existent' and the Conventional Truth is 'non-existent though existent'? Answer: This is because, without destroying provisional names (conventional names and concepts), the Real Aspect (the true nature of things) is spoken. Therefore, although 'existent', it is like 'non-existent'; without altering the reality of True Suchness, all dharmas are established. Therefore, although 'non-existent', it is like 'existent'. The Two Truths give rise to two wisdoms because, upon realizing that 'existence' is like 'non-existence', Upaya-prajna (skillful means wisdom) arises; upon understanding that 'non-existence' is like 'existence', Prajna-upaya (fundamental wisdom) arises. Upaya-prajna is Prajna being like Upaya, and Prajna-upaya is Upaya being like Prajna. Because Upaya is like Prajna, one does not cling to permanence; because Prajna is like Upaya, one does not cling to annihilation. Neither permanent nor annihilated is called Right View. However, apart from the Two Truths, there is no other Middle Way; thus, the Two Truths of Dependent Origination are called the Middle Way. Apart from the two wisdoms, there is no other Right View; thus, the two wisdoms of Dependent Origination are called Right View. Therefore, the Two Truths of the Middle Way give rise to the two wisdoms of Right View. Because one attains the two wisdoms of Right View, one can pacify the extremes of annihilation and permanence, and thus there are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Therefore, the two wisdoms are called the parents of the Dharmakaya (the Body of Dharma). Question: It is already known that the two wisdoms arise from the Two Truths, and the sages rely on the two wisdoms to arise. Why is Prajna (wisdom) called the mother and Upaya (skillful means) called the father? Answer: The meaning is inexhaustible. Here, two meanings are briefly explained. First, Real Wisdom is empty and still, like the Yin, and is quiescent. Upaya is active and functional, like the Yang, and is dynamic.
齊。故配之父母。又凡夫著有。二乘滯空。波若鑒空。即越凡。漚和涉有。即超聖。越凡淺易。即義同於母。超聖深難。故比之於父。故什師答王稚遠問。明波若方便更無兩體。但以淺深勝劣故分為二。問波若漚和何故無二體耶。答智度論云。譬如金為巧物離金無巧物。離巧物無金。而有金巧二義。金喻波若。巧喻漚和。故知。唯一正觀義分權實。問漚和云何巧耶。答二乘下位不能照空即便鑒有。故無善巧。大士雖復照空宛然而有。故名為巧。問菩薩何由有此巧耶。答此之善巧由二諦而生。良由不動真際。建立諸法雖入深空即能涉有。故有此善巧也。問照空宛然而有既名巧者。亦照有宛然而空亦應名巧。則並是漚和。有何波若。答實如所問。故什師云。觀空不證涉有不著。皆是漚和。以同巧故也。但觀空不證雖是漚和而從波若受名沒其巧稱。但取涉有不著故名漚和。此解與智度論同。智度論釋譬喻品云。波若將入畢竟空無諸戲論。漚和將出畢竟空嚴土化人。凈名等經及釋僧肇大同此意。
問直觀空為波若。于空不證為方便者亦直照有名為波若。取照有不著名曰漚和。答以羅什意釋者觀空不證。雖是漚和而從波若受名沒其巧稱。亦照有之義雖是波若從漚和受名沒其波若之稱。而從方便則受名。而肇師正用斯意。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 齊備。所以將般若比作父母。而且凡夫執著于『有』（bhava），二乘（Śrāvaka-yāna and Pratyeka-buddha-yāna）滯留于『空』（śūnyatā），般若（prajñā）照見空性，就超越了凡夫。方便（upāya）和『有』相涉，就超越了聖人。超越凡夫淺顯容易，所以義同於母親。超越聖人深刻困難，所以比作父親。因此鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）大師回答王稚遠的問題時說，闡明般若方便更沒有兩個實體，只是因為淺深勝劣的緣故分為二者。問：般若和方便為什麼沒有兩個實體呢？答：《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra）中說：『譬如金為巧物，離開金就沒有巧物，離開巧物就沒有金。』而有金和巧兩種含義。金比喻般若，巧比喻方便。所以知道，唯一正觀的意義分為權巧和真實。問：方便為什麼是巧呢？答：二乘下位不能照見空性，即便照見『有』，也沒有善巧。大士（Mahāsattva）雖然照見空性，宛然存在於『有』，所以名為巧。問：菩薩（bodhisattva）如何有這種巧呢？答：這種善巧由二諦（satya-dvaya）而生。正是因為不動真際（bhūta-koṭi），建立諸法，雖然進入深空，即能涉入『有』，所以有這種善巧。問：照見空性宛然存在於『有』既然名為巧，那麼照見『有』宛然而空也應該名為巧，那麼都是方便，哪裡有般若呢？答：確實如你所問。所以鳩摩羅什大師說：『觀空不證，涉有不著，都是方便，因為同樣是巧。』但觀空不證，雖然是方便，而從般若接受名稱，掩蓋了它的巧稱。只取涉有不著，所以名為方便。這種解釋與《大智度論》相同。《大智度論》解釋譬喻品時說：『般若將入畢竟空，沒有各種戲論。方便將出畢竟空，莊嚴國土教化眾人。』《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti-nirdesa-sūtra）等經典以及釋僧肇（Sengzhao）的解釋大同小異。
問：直接觀空為般若，對於空不執著為方便，那麼直接照見『有』名為般若，取照見『有』不執著，名叫方便。答：以鳩摩羅什大師的意思解釋，觀空不證，雖然是方便，而從般若接受名稱，掩蓋了它的巧稱。也照見『有』的意義，雖然是般若，從方便接受名稱，掩蓋了般若的稱謂，而從方便接受名稱。而僧肇大師正是使用這個意思，所以。
【English Translation】 English version: Complete. Therefore, prajñā (prajñā) is compared to parents. Moreover, ordinary beings are attached to 'existence' (bhava), the Two Vehicles (Śrāvaka-yāna and Pratyeka-buddha-yāna) are stuck in 'emptiness' (śūnyatā), and prajñā illuminates emptiness, thus transcending ordinary beings. Upāya (upāya) interacts with 'existence', thus surpassing sages. Transcending ordinary beings is shallow and easy, so it is similar in meaning to a mother. Surpassing sages is profound and difficult, so it is compared to a father. Therefore, Master Kumārajīva (Kumārajīva) answered Wang Zhiyuan's question by saying that clarifying prajñā and upāya does not involve two separate entities, but they are divided into two due to differences in depth, superiority, and inferiority. Question: Why do prajñā and upāya not have two separate entities? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra) says: 'For example, gold is used to make skillful objects; without gold, there are no skillful objects, and without skillful objects, there is no gold.' However, there are two meanings: gold and skill. Gold is a metaphor for prajñā, and skill is a metaphor for upāya. Therefore, it is known that the meaning of the one true view is divided into expedient and real. Question: Why is upāya skillful? Answer: Those in the lower positions of the Two Vehicles cannot illuminate emptiness, so even if they perceive 'existence', they lack skill. Although great beings (Mahāsattva) illuminate emptiness, they are still present in 'existence', so they are called skillful. Question: How do bodhisattvas (bodhisattva) possess this skill? Answer: This skill arises from the two truths (satya-dvaya). Precisely because they do not move from the ultimate reality (bhūta-koṭi), they establish all dharmas, and although they enter deep emptiness, they can still engage with 'existence', so they possess this skill. Question: If illuminating emptiness while still being present in 'existence' is called skillful, then illuminating 'existence' while being empty should also be called skillful, so both are upāya. Where is prajñā? Answer: Indeed, as you asked. Therefore, Master Kumārajīva said: 'Observing emptiness without attachment and engaging with existence without clinging are both upāya because they are both skillful.' However, observing emptiness without attachment, although it is upāya, takes its name from prajñā, obscuring its skillful name. Only engaging with existence without clinging is taken, so it is called upāya. This explanation is the same as that in the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, in its explanation of the Parable Chapter, says: 'Prajñā enters ultimate emptiness, without various frivolous discussions. Upāya emerges from ultimate emptiness, adorning the land and transforming people.' The Vimalakīrti-nirdesa-sūtra (Vimalakīrti-nirdesa-sūtra) and Sengzhao's (Sengzhao) explanations are largely the same.
Question: Directly observing emptiness is prajñā, and not being attached to emptiness is upāya. Then directly illuminating 'existence' is called prajñā, and taking illuminating 'existence' without attachment is called upāya. Answer: According to Kumārajīva's interpretation, observing emptiness without attachment, although it is upāya, takes its name from prajñā, obscuring its skillful name. Also, the meaning of illuminating 'existence', although it is prajñā, takes its name from upāya, obscuring the name of prajñā, and takes its name from upāya. Master Sengzhao is precisely using this meaning, so.
云。直達法相名之為慧照空不證涉有不著。二巧之義名曰漚和。問亦得直照空義名為波若。照空不證。及以照有並涉有不著。此之三義皆是漚和耶。答亦有斯義波若直照諸法實相。故名為體。體即無二。方便即是波若之巧用。用有多門。一能照空不證於空義。此一巧也。次觀空即能照有。此二巧也。三涉有復能無著。此三巧也。總此諸巧悉名方便。故用金為體。金上諸巧皆名方便問此與前釋相違。云何會通。答合照空有皆名波若。即合取二巧皆名方使。即波若具照空有。方便具空有二巧。故以波若名慧。即慧有二照。方便無有慧名。故但稱二巧。此就二照二巧釋之。若直照實相名波若。取觀空不證及照有不著悉是波若之用。故皆名方便。此就體一用多門釋。此皆合離適時眾義無違。異文皆會。雖三種不同猶一意耳。問若凈名經以二慧為法身父母者。何故瓔珞經以二諦為父母耶。答若以二慧名為佛二慧由二諦而生。即以二諦為父母。若言二慧生佛故以二慧為父母。二慧復由二諦而生即二諦為祖父母。二諦復由八不而正即八不為祖中之祖。故八不為眾教之宗歸群聖之根本顯在於斯。得失門第三。問八不但是眾聖之得源。亦是群生之失本。答悟無生即有三乘眾聖。迷八不即有六趣。紛然故涅槃云。是一味藥隨其流處有六種味
。一味藥者即即中道佛性。中道佛性不生不滅不常不斷即是八不。故知。失於八不有六趣紛然。問云何失於八不有六趣紛然。答以不悟八不即不識二諦。不識二諦即二慧不生。二慧不生即有愛見煩惱。以煩惱故即便有業。以有業故即有生老病死憂悲苦惱。故知。失於八不有六趣紛然。問得失八不凡有幾人。答且據二門各有四種。失人四者一鈍根起愛眾生。二利根起見外道。三即此愛見眾生迴心學佛小乘之教。但薄福鈍根遂成三失。一得語不得意。聞說小乘名。故云得語。不知說小通大。守指忘月。故名失意。二者語意俱失。如智度論呵迦旃延云。是語非大乘中說。亦三藏所無。蓋是諸論義師自作此說耳。三者保執小乘遂謗方等。如五百部。為執諸法有決定相。不知佛意為解脫。故聞畢竟空如刀傷心。四者即此小乘人迴心學大乘亦有三失。一得語不得意。聞說大作大解成有所得大。不知是因緣假名小大為表非大非小。故名為失。二者語意俱失。于大乘中種種推斥非三藏義。亦方等所無。三者保執大乘遂撥無小。如法華論釋藥草喻品破菩薩病。以菩薩聞道理有一無有二乘遂撥無小。雖一地所生一兩所潤而諸草木各有差別。道理乃唯有大不妨于緣成小。而菩薩遂撥無小守實喪權。故名為失。此之四人並不悟八不中道。不發生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『一味藥』指的是中道佛性（不偏不倚的佛性）。中道佛性不生不滅、不常不斷，即是『八不』（不生不滅、不常不斷、不一不異、不去不來）。因此可知，迷失於『八不』，就會有六道輪迴的紛擾。 問：為什麼迷失於『八不』，就會有六道輪迴的紛擾？ 答：因為不領悟『八不』，就是不認識『二諦』（真諦和俗諦）。不認識『二諦』，兩種智慧（根本智和后得智）就無法生起。兩種智慧無法生起，就會有愛和見的煩惱。因為有煩惱，就會造業。因為造業，就會有生老病死憂悲苦惱。所以可知，迷失於『八不』，就會有六道輪迴的紛擾。 問：在得失『八不』方面，大致有幾種人？ 答：且根據兩種門徑，各有四種情況。迷失的人有四種：一是鈍根（根器遲鈍）而生起愛著的眾生；二是利根（根器敏銳）而生起邪見的外道；三是這些生起愛見煩惱的眾生，迴心向佛學習小乘佛法。但因福薄根鈍，遂造成三種迷失：一是得語不得意，聽聞小乘的名相，所以說『得語』，卻不知小乘是爲了通向大乘而說，執著于指頭而忘記了月亮，所以叫做『失意』。二是語意俱失，如《智度論》呵斥迦旃延（佛陀十大弟子之一）說：『這些話不是在大乘中說的，也不是三藏（經、律、論）所有的，大概是各論義師自己作的。』三是保執小乘，於是誹謗方等（大乘經典）。如五百部，因為執著諸法有決定不變的相狀，不知道佛陀的用意是爲了解脫，所以聽聞畢竟空，如同刀割心一樣。四是這些小乘人迴心學習大乘，也有三種迷失：一是得語不得意，聽聞大乘，就作出大的解釋，成為有所得的大，不知道這是因緣假名，小大隻是爲了表述，並非真正的大或小，所以叫做『失』。二是語意俱失，在大乘中種種推斥，認為不是三藏的意義，也不是方等所有的。三是保執大乘，於是否定小乘，如《法華論》解釋藥草喻品，破斥菩薩的毛病，因為菩薩聽聞道理，認為只有一佛乘，沒有二乘，於是否定小乘。雖然同在一塊土地生長，同被一雨所滋潤，但各種草木各有差別。道理雖然唯有大乘，不妨礙因緣成就小乘。而菩薩卻否定小乘，執著于實相而喪失了權巧方便，所以叫做『失』。這四種人都不領悟『八不』中道，不發生智慧。
【English Translation】 English version: 'One flavor medicine' refers to the Middle Way Buddha-nature (the impartial Buddha-nature). The Middle Way Buddha-nature, which neither arises nor ceases, neither is permanent nor impermanent, is the 'Eight Negations' (neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going). Therefore, it is known that losing sight of the 'Eight Negations' leads to the turmoil of the six realms of existence. Question: Why does losing sight of the 'Eight Negations' lead to the turmoil of the six realms of existence? Answer: Because not realizing the 'Eight Negations' means not recognizing the 'Two Truths' (conventional truth and ultimate truth). Not recognizing the 'Two Truths' means that the two wisdoms (fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom) cannot arise. If the two wisdoms cannot arise, there will be afflictions of love and views. Because of afflictions, karma will be created. Because of karma, there will be birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering. Therefore, it is known that losing sight of the 'Eight Negations' leads to the turmoil of the six realms of existence. Question: In terms of gaining or losing the 'Eight Negations', how many types of people are there roughly? Answer: Based on two approaches, there are four situations for each. The four types of people who are lost are: first, sentient beings with dull faculties who give rise to attachment; second, non-Buddhist with sharp faculties who give rise to wrong views; third, these sentient beings who give rise to attachment and wrong views, turn their minds towards Buddhism and study the Small Vehicle (Hinayana) teachings. However, due to meager blessings and dull faculties, they create three kinds of loss: first, gaining the words but not the meaning, hearing the names of the Small Vehicle, hence 'gaining the words', but not knowing that the Small Vehicle is taught to lead to the Great Vehicle, clinging to the finger and forgetting the moon, hence 'losing the meaning'. Second, losing both words and meaning, as the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra scolds Katyayana (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), saying: 'These words are not spoken in the Great Vehicle, nor are they found in the Tripitaka (sutras, vinaya, shastras), they are probably made up by the commentators themselves.' Third, clinging to the Small Vehicle, they then slander the Vaipulya (Mahayana sutras). Like the Five Hundred Schools, because they cling to the idea that all dharmas have a fixed and unchanging nature, they do not understand the Buddha's intention is for liberation, so hearing about ultimate emptiness is like a knife cutting their hearts. Fourth, these Small Vehicle practitioners turn their minds to study the Great Vehicle, there are also three kinds of loss: first, gaining the words but not the meaning, hearing about the Great Vehicle, they make great interpretations, becoming a Great Vehicle with something to be attained, not knowing that this is a causal condition, a provisional name, small and great are only for expression, not truly great or small, hence 'loss'. Second, losing both words and meaning, in the Great Vehicle, they reject everything, thinking it is not the meaning of the Tripitaka, nor is it found in the Vaipulya. Third, clinging to the Great Vehicle, they then deny the Small Vehicle, as the Lotus Sutra explains the Parable of the Herbs, criticizing the fault of Bodhisattvas, because Bodhisattvas hear the doctrine and think there is only one Buddha Vehicle, and no Two Vehicles, so they deny the Small Vehicle. Although growing on the same land and nourished by the same rain, the various herbs and trees are different. Although the doctrine is only the Great Vehicle, it does not hinder the causal conditions from accomplishing the Small Vehicle. But the Bodhisattvas deny the Small Vehicle, clinging to the real aspect and losing the expedient means, hence 'loss'. All four of these people do not realize the Middle Way of the 'Eight Negations', and wisdom does not arise.
正觀。故成四種失。雖有四失合成三迷。初之一失有顛倒病不知是病。不知救治。次之一失知其是病欲求救治。但服邪藥即舊病不除更增新病。后之二失知其是病求于救治。但無方便服於甘露遂成毒藥。亦舊病不除更起新病。雖有四失合成二過。初之二失自樹起迷。后之二失學教成病。初二人異者初鈍根起愛。后利根起見。又初人但有一失。後人失中更復起失。所以然者有此身心。已名為失。而復推斥成九十六種異。故去城逾遠。岐路逾多。故法華經以此二人喻毒蟲惡鬼也。問八不具於二諦。小乘人知諸法生得於世諦。云何言失。答世諦是因緣無生生。而小乘之流執成性生故失於世諦。尚失世諦。況第一義耶。問方廣道人學于大乘。明一切法不生不滅畢竟空應得八不。云何言失。答八不無生者蓋是因緣生無生。不壞生而說無生。而方廣之流執無生而失生。既失無生生亦失生無生。即俱壞二諦。問如來出世正為何人。龍樹后興復斥何病。答通而言之佛併爲四人。是故出世。但佛未出世唯有前之二人。為破此二人故說五乘之教。此二人中有無聞非法者。以人天善根而成就之。有三乘根性者說三乘之教。龍樹出世雖通為四人。此論正為大小乘人故申大小兩教。傍為前二人也。又佛雖說五乘之教意在大事因緣。四依雖申大小兩
教。意歸一極令悟中道發生正觀。次明得四人者。如前所明觀中道者凡有四種。中道即不生不滅八不義也。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。中智觀故得緣覺菩提。上智觀故得菩薩菩提。上上智觀故得佛菩提。菩提云智。即是因中發觀。故成於四人此論合四人為二。前二十五品令因中發觀得佛及菩薩菩提。后之二品令二乘人因中發觀得二乘菩提。故后品云。前已聞大乘法入第一義。今欲聞聲聞法入第一義。第一義即是中道。但悟有淺深。猶如三狩。故成四品。問若三乘同觀中道。即三乘人同稟八不。何故經文云爲聲聞人說十二因緣生滅。為菩薩說十二無生滅耶。答大明聲聞凡有二種。一者得於人空不得法空。不得法空故有十二相生。知無有我。故入第一義。大士具得二空非但無我。亦無十二。故入第一義。故異於彼二乘。二者聲聞之人具得二空。但聲聞前有十二而折之。令空方入第一義。菩薩知十二本自不生。今亦無滅故入第一義空。如智度論釋大小二空。聲聞分折人法故人法空。菩薩知人法本性自空。雖有折法及本性不同。而同明入于空義。以同入空義故三乘同入第一義。有折法不折法故聲聞名于生滅觀菩薩名無生滅觀。問同入空者空義有異以不。答玄義中具釋。今略明一句。智度論云。二乘名但空。菩薩名不可得空。二乘但
住于空名為單空。大士知空亦復空名不可得空。智度論又云。二乘得二空如毛孔空。大士得二空如十方空也。正宗門第四。問前言二諦由八不而正。請為陳之。答由八不故世諦成中道。即世諦義正。由八不故真諦成中道。即真諦義正。由八不故二諦合成中道。即二諦合正。以三種正故十二部經八萬法藏一切教正。以一切教正故即發生正觀戲論皆滅。即便得道。以斯義要故八不在初。是以論主因八不定佛法偏正也。問何故三種正而一切正耶。答三世十方諸佛所說法皆依二諦。以二諦總攝一切佛法。二諦既正。豈非一切正耶。問論主何故以八不正佛教耶。答為三種人學於二諦皆墮偏邪。一者如五百部等執定性有即世諦墮性有。故成偏邪。二者方廣執定性空即真諦墮在偏邪。為破此二偏故申因緣空有為二諦。即二諦始正。三者即世所行亦云。有三種中道。世諦明不常不斷中道。真諦明不生不滅中道。二諦合辨非真非俗中道。但考責三中。皆不成中墮在偏邪。故今對此偏邪明八不。正於二諦成三種中道。故三中得正。問八不即是二諦。云何以八不正於二諦。答八不雖即是二諦。但說有無以為二諦不言八不。而稟教之流聞有無二邊墮斷常。故不成中道。若言二諦不生不滅不常不斷。即知。二諦便是中道。故將八不釋成二諦。問云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 住于空，名為單空（Shān kōng，唯一的空）。大士（Dàshì，菩薩）知空亦復空，名為不可得空。智度論又云：『二乘（Èrshèng，聲聞和緣覺）得二空如毛孔空，大士得二空如十方空也。』 正宗門第四。問：『前言二諦（Èrdì，真諦和俗諦）由八不（Bābù，八不中道）而正，請為陳之。』答：『由八不故，世諦（Shìdì，俗諦）成中道（Zhōngdào，不落兩邊的中正之道），即世諦義正。由八不故，真諦（Zhēndì，真諦）成中道，即真諦義正。由八不故，二諦合成中道，即二諦合正。以三種正故，十二部經（Shí'èrbù jīng，佛經的十二種分類）八萬法藏（Bā wàn fǎzàng，大量的佛法）一切教正。以一切教正故，即發生正觀（Zhèngguān，正確的觀察），戲論（Xìlùn，無意義的爭論）皆滅，即便得道。以斯義要故，八不在初。是以論主因八不定佛法偏正也。』 問：『何故三種正而一切正耶？』答：『三世十方諸佛所說法皆依二諦。以二諦總攝一切佛法。二諦既正，豈非一切正耶？』 問：『論主何故以八不正佛教耶？』答：『為三種人學於二諦皆墮偏邪。一者如五百部等執定性有，即世諦墮性有，故成偏邪。二者方廣執定性空，即真諦墮在偏邪。為破此二偏故，申因緣空有為二諦，即二諦始正。三者即世所行亦云：有三種中道，世諦明不常不斷中道，真諦明不生不滅中道，二諦合辨非真非俗中道。但考責三中，皆不成中，墮在偏邪。故今對此偏邪明八不，正於二諦成三種中道，故三中得正。』 問：『八不即是二諦，云何以八不正於二諦？』答：『八不雖即是二諦，但說有無以為二諦，不言八不。而稟教之流聞有無二邊，墮斷常（Duàncháng，斷見和常見）。故不成中道。若言二諦不生不滅、不常不斷，即知二諦便是中道。故將八不釋成二諦。』 問：『云』
【English Translation】 English version Dwelling in emptiness is called single emptiness (Shān kōng, the only emptiness). A Bodhisattva (Dàshì) knowing that emptiness is also empty is called unattainable emptiness. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra also says: 'The two vehicles (Èrshèng, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) attain two emptinesses like the emptiness of a pore, while Bodhisattvas attain two emptinesses like the emptiness of the ten directions.' Chapter Four of the Orthodox School. Question: 'It was previously said that the two truths (Èrdì, conventional truth and ultimate truth) are rectified by the Eight No's (Bābù, the Middle Way of the Eight No's). Please explain this.' Answer: 'Because of the Eight No's, the conventional truth (Shìdì) becomes the Middle Way (Zhōngdào, the balanced path that does not fall into extremes), which means the meaning of the conventional truth is correct. Because of the Eight No's, the ultimate truth (Zhēndì) becomes the Middle Way, which means the meaning of the ultimate truth is correct. Because of the Eight No's, the two truths together become the Middle Way, which means the combination of the two truths is correct. Because of these three correctnesses, the twelve divisions of scriptures (Shí'èrbù jīng, the twelve categories of Buddhist scriptures), the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures (Bā wàn fǎzàng, a vast amount of Buddhist teachings), and all teachings are correct. Because all teachings are correct, correct views (Zhèngguān, correct observation) arise, and frivolous debates (Xìlùn, meaningless arguments) cease, and one attains enlightenment. Because of the importance of this meaning, the Eight No's come first. Therefore, the author of the treatise uses the Eight No's to determine the correctness of the Buddhist Dharma.' Question: 'Why is it that if the three are correct, everything is correct?' Answer: 'All the teachings of the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions are based on the two truths. The two truths encompass all Buddhist teachings. If the two truths are correct, how can everything not be correct?' Question: 'Why does the author of the treatise use the Eight No's to rectify Buddhism?' Answer: 'It is because three types of people fall into bias and error when studying the two truths. First, those like the five hundred schools, who cling to fixed existence, fall into the existence of the conventional truth, thus becoming biased and erroneous. Second, those who cling to fixed emptiness fall into bias and error in the ultimate truth. To break these two biases, the author explains that conditioned emptiness and existence are the two truths, and thus the two truths begin to be correct. Third, worldly practices also say that there are three Middle Ways: the conventional truth clarifies the Middle Way of neither permanence nor impermanence, the ultimate truth clarifies the Middle Way of neither arising nor ceasing, and the two truths together clarify the Middle Way of neither truth nor falsehood. But examining these three Middle Ways, none of them become the Middle Way and fall into bias and error. Therefore, now, in response to this bias and error, the Eight No's are explained, rectifying the two truths to form the three Middle Ways, so the three Middle Ways become correct.' Question: 'The Eight No's are the two truths, so how can the Eight No's rectify the two truths?' Answer: 'Although the Eight No's are the two truths, they only speak of existence and non-existence as the two truths, without mentioning the Eight No's. Those who receive the teachings hear of the two extremes of existence and non-existence and fall into eternalism and annihilationism (Duàncháng, the views of annihilation and permanence). Therefore, they do not achieve the Middle Way. If it is said that the two truths are neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, then it is known that the two truths are the Middle Way. Therefore, the Eight No's are used to explain and complete the two truths.' Question: 'Clou'
何將八不釋成世諦中道。世諦義正耶。答一師語多對他而起。他有有可有即有空可空。有有可有不由空故有。若有空可空不由有故空。今無有可有即無空可空。無有可有由空故有。無空可空由有故空。故以空有為世諦。有空為真諦。空有為世諦。世諦即是因緣假有。因緣假有即是因緣假生因緣假滅。因緣假生不可定生。因緣假滅不可定滅。不可定生故無性實之生。不可定滅故無性實之滅。故不生不滅為世諦中道。問師云。假生不生。假滅不滅。不生不滅名世諦中道。此乃是不于假生。云何不性生耶。答師云假生不生此有三意。若明二諦俱無生義者即假生不生。此明無有性實之生義耳。非是不于假生也。二者自有假生不生。即不于假生。為世諦中道。此用真諦之假為世諦之中。具如上釋也。三者明此假生即是不生。若安不生置於真諦生自在世諦。此乃是真俗二見耳。問世諦無性實生滅云何是中道耶。答世諦若是性實生滅即墮偏邪不成中道。以世諦遠離性實偏邪故成中道。問性實生滅云何名偏邪。答以生定生即生是常生。滅若實滅故滅成斷滅。故性實生滅即是偏邪。問離性生滅但成世諦中道。亦成世諦假名耶。答即一性實之執具於二義。以性實是偏義故障于中道。以自性義故障于假名。能障一惑既具二義。所障世諦中假亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 如何用八不來解釋世俗諦中的中道呢？世俗諦的意義正確嗎？回答說，一位老師的言語多是針對他人而產生的。他人認為『有』是可以『有』的，那麼『空』就是可以『空』的。『有』之所以可以『有』，不是因為『空』的緣故而『有』；如果『空』之所以可以『空』，不是因為『有』的緣故而『空』。現在沒有『有』是可以『有』的，也就沒有『空』是可以『空』的。沒有『有』是可以『有』的，是因為『空』的緣故而『有』；沒有『空』是可以『空』的，是因為『有』的緣故而『空』。所以用『空有』作為世俗諦，『有空』作為真諦。『空有』作為世俗諦，世俗諦就是因緣假有（hetupratyaya-prajñapti-sat，由因緣條件產生的暫時存在）。因緣假有就是因緣假生、因緣假滅。因緣假生不是固定不變的生，因緣假滅不是固定不變的滅。不是固定不變的生，所以沒有自性的真實的生；不是固定不變的滅，所以沒有自性的真實的滅。所以『不生不滅』作為世俗諦的中道。 有人問：老師說，『假生』不是真正的生，『假滅』不是真正的滅，『不生不滅』叫做世俗諦的中道。這明明是不執著于『假生』，怎麼能說不是自性生呢？回答說：老師說『假生』不是真正的生，這裡有三重含義。如果明白二諦（dve satye，真諦和俗諦）都是沒有『生』的意義，那麼『假生』就不是真正的生，這說明沒有自性的真實的『生』的意義，並非是不執著于『假生』。第二種情況是，自身具有『假生』不是真正的生，就是不執著于『假生』，作為世俗諦的中道。這是用真諦的『假』作為世俗諦的『中』，具體解釋如上。第三種情況是，說明這『假生』就是『不生』。如果將『不生』安置在真諦，而將『生』自在地安置在世俗諦，這就是真諦和俗諦的兩種見解。 有人問：世俗諦沒有自性的真實的生滅，怎麼能是中道呢？回答說：世俗諦如果是自性的真實的生滅，就落入了偏頗和邪見，不能成為中道。因為世俗諦遠離了自性的偏頗和邪見，所以才成為中道。有人問：自性的生滅為什麼叫做偏頗和邪見呢？回答說：如果認為『生』是固定不變的生，那麼『生』就是常生；如果認為『滅』是真實不虛的滅，那麼『滅』就成了斷滅。所以自性的真實的生滅就是偏頗和邪見。有人問：離開了自性的生滅，只是成就了世俗諦的中道，也能成就世俗諦的假名嗎？回答說：執著于自性真實，就包含了兩種含義。因為自性真實是偏頗的意義，所以障礙了中道；因為自性的意義，所以障礙了假名。能夠障礙一種迷惑，就包含了兩種含義，所障礙的世俗諦的中道和假名也包含了兩種含義。
【English Translation】 How can the Eight No's be explained as the Middle Way in conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya)? Is the meaning of conventional truth correct? The answer is that a teacher's words often arise in response to others. Others believe that 'existence' can exist, then 'emptiness' can be empty. 'Existence' can exist not because of 'emptiness'; if 'emptiness' can be empty, it is not because of 'existence'. Now, there is no 'existence' that can exist, and therefore no 'emptiness' that can be empty. There is no 'existence' that can exist because of 'emptiness'; there is no 'emptiness' that can be empty because of 'existence'. Therefore, 'emptiness and existence' are taken as conventional truth, and 'existence and emptiness' as ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). 'Emptiness and existence' are taken as conventional truth, which is provisional existence due to conditions (hetupratyaya-prajñapti-sat). Provisional existence due to conditions is provisional arising and provisional ceasing due to conditions. Provisional arising due to conditions is not a fixed arising, and provisional ceasing due to conditions is not a fixed ceasing. Because it is not a fixed arising, there is no inherently real arising; because it is not a fixed ceasing, there is no inherently real ceasing. Therefore, 'no arising and no ceasing' is the Middle Way in conventional truth. Someone asks: The teacher says, 'Provisional arising' is not true arising, 'provisional ceasing' is not true ceasing, and 'no arising and no ceasing' is called the Middle Way in conventional truth. This clearly does not cling to 'provisional arising', so how can it be said that it is not inherent arising? The answer is: The teacher says 'provisional arising' is not true arising, which has three meanings. If it is understood that both truths (dve satye, conventional and ultimate) have no meaning of 'arising', then 'provisional arising' is not true arising, which means that there is no inherently real meaning of 'arising', and it is not that it does not cling to 'provisional arising'. The second case is that it inherently has 'provisional arising' that is not true arising, which does not cling to 'provisional arising', as the Middle Way in conventional truth. This uses the 'provisional' of ultimate truth as the 'middle' of conventional truth, as explained above. The third case is that it explains that this 'provisional arising' is 'no arising'. If 'no arising' is placed in ultimate truth, and 'arising' is freely placed in conventional truth, then these are two views of ultimate and conventional truth. Someone asks: Conventional truth has no inherently real arising and ceasing, so how can it be the Middle Way? The answer is: If conventional truth is inherently real arising and ceasing, it falls into bias and wrong views and cannot become the Middle Way. Because conventional truth is far from inherent bias and wrong views, it becomes the Middle Way. Someone asks: Why are inherent arising and ceasing called bias and wrong views? The answer is: If it is believed that 'arising' is a fixed arising, then 'arising' is eternal arising; if it is believed that 'ceasing' is truly ceasing, then 'ceasing' becomes annihilation. Therefore, inherent arising and ceasing are bias and wrong views. Someone asks: Leaving inherent arising and ceasing only achieves the Middle Way of conventional truth, can it also achieve the provisional name of conventional truth? The answer is: Clinging to inherent reality contains two meanings. Because inherent reality is a biased meaning, it obstructs the Middle Way; because of the meaning of inherent nature, it obstructs the provisional name. Being able to obstruct one delusion contains two meanings, and the Middle Way and provisional name of conventional truth that are obstructed also contain two meanings.
然。以有不自有故有是假有。即此假有遠離二邊。故稱中道。問若爾中假何別。答論云。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。故更無二體約義不同耳。問若爾攝山大師云何非有非無名為中道。而有而無稱為假名。即體稱為中。用即是假。云何無別。答此是一往開于體用。故體稱為中。用名為假。問大師何故作是說。答論文如此。故大師用之。四諦品云。眾因緣生法。我說即是空。亦為最假名。亦是中道義。長行釋云。以遠離二邊故名中道。為眾生故以假名說。中道為體不可說其有無。用是有無故可得假說。故以非有非無為中。而有而無為假。蓋是一途論耳。若辨三中三假即中假常通。后當具說也。問何等是性實生滅。答略明四種人計。一者世間所說。但就耳目所見地水和合即外物生。父母和合有內法起。以其決定有內外法生故名性實。二者諸外道所計無因邪因決定有生。亦名性實。三者小乘之人執未來定有性生。從於未來起來現在。故名為生。亦是性實。四者有所得大乘學人雖言諸法是假。決定有生可生。即生不因滅故產生自性。如此四種性生並障如來因緣世諦。論主出世破此四人性實之執。申明世諦是因緣假名。故世諦始成中道也。問世諦破此性實生滅是性空義以不。答即是性空也。以如是等性畢竟空寂五眼不見故名性空。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『然。』因為有不是自身所擁有的，所以有是假有。而這假有遠離了有和無兩種極端，因此稱為中道。問：如果這樣，那麼中和假有什麼區別？答：《論》中說：『也稱為假名，也是中道的意義。』所以並沒有兩個不同的實體，只是從意義上有所不同罷了。問：如果這樣，攝山大師為什麼說『非有非無』稱為中道，而『有而無』稱為假名？本體稱為中，作用就是假，這怎麼能說沒有區別呢？答：這只是一種從本體和作用上進行區分的方式。所以本體稱為中，作用稱為假。問：大師為什麼這樣說？答：因為《論》中是這樣說的，所以大師引用了它。《四諦品》中說：『眾因緣生法，我說即是空，也稱為最假名，也是中道的意義。』長行的解釋說：『因為遠離了有和無兩種極端，所以稱為中道。爲了眾生的緣故，用假名來說明。中道作為本體，不能說它是有還是無。作用是有和無，所以可以用假說。』所以用『非有非無』來表示中，而用『有而無』來表示假，這只是一種方便的說法。如果辨別三中三假，那麼中和假是常常相通的，後面會詳細說明。問：什麼是性實生滅？答：簡要說明四種人的觀點。第一種是世俗所說的，只是就耳目所見，地水和合就產生了外物，父母和合就產生了內法。因為他們認為內外法是決定會產生的，所以稱為性實。第二種是各種外道所認為的無因邪因決定有生，也稱為性實。第三種是小乘之人認為未來必定有性生，從未來來到現在，所以稱為生，也是性實。第四種是有所得的大乘學人，雖然說諸法是假，但認為決定有生可以產生，即生不依賴於滅，所以產生了自性。這四種性生都障礙瞭如來的因緣世諦。論主出世就是爲了破除這四種人性實的執著，闡明世諦是因緣假名，所以世諦才成就了中道。問：世諦破除這種性實生滅，就是性空的意義嗎？答：就是性空。因為這樣的自性畢竟是空寂的，五眼都不能看見，所以稱為性空。』
【English Translation】 English version 『Indeed.』 Because existence does not own itself, existence is provisional existence (假有, jiǎ yǒu - provisional existence). This provisional existence is far from the two extremes, therefore it is called the Middle Way (中道, zhōng dào). Question: If so, what is the difference between 『middle』 and 『provisional』? Answer: The treatise says: 『It is also called provisional name, and it is also the meaning of the Middle Way.』 Therefore, there are no two different entities, only different meanings. Question: If so, why does Master Sheshan say that 『neither existent nor non-existent』 is called the Middle Way, while 『existent and non-existent』 is called provisional name? The substance is called the Middle, and the function is the provisional. How can it be said that there is no difference? Answer: This is just a way of distinguishing between substance and function. Therefore, the substance is called the Middle, and the function is called the provisional. Question: Why did the master say this? Answer: Because the treatise says so, the master used it. The chapter on the Four Noble Truths says: 『The Dharma (法, fǎ - teachings, principles) that arises from various causes and conditions, I say is emptiness (空, kōng - emptiness), also called the most provisional name, and also the meaning of the Middle Way.』 The commentary explains: 『Because it is far from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, it is called the Middle Way. For the sake of sentient beings, it is explained by provisional names. The Middle Way as the substance cannot be said to be existent or non-existent. The function is existent and non-existent, so it can be provisionally said.』 Therefore, 『neither existent nor non-existent』 is used to represent the Middle, and 『existent and non-existent』 is used to represent the provisional. This is just a convenient way of speaking. If the three middles and three provisionals are distinguished, then the middle and the provisional are always interconnected, which will be explained in detail later. Question: What is inherently real arising and ceasing? Answer: Briefly explain the views of four types of people. The first is what the world says, only based on what is seen by the ears and eyes, the combination of earth and water produces external objects, and the combination of parents produces internal Dharma. Because they believe that internal and external Dharma are definitely produced, it is called inherently real. The second is the various heretics who believe that causeless or wrong causes definitely produce, which is also called inherently real. The third is the Hinayana (小乘, xiǎo shèng - lesser vehicle) people who believe that the future definitely has inherently real arising, coming from the future to the present, so it is called arising, which is also inherently real. The fourth is the Mahayana (大乘, dà shèng - great vehicle) practitioners who have attained something, although they say that all Dharmas are provisional, they believe that there is definitely arising that can be produced, that is, arising does not depend on cessation, so it generates its own nature. These four types of inherently real arising all obstruct the Thus Come One's (如來, rú lái - tathagata) causal mundane truth (世諦, shì dì - worldly truth). The author of the treatise appeared in the world to refute these four people's attachment to inherently real, and to clarify that mundane truth is a provisional name of causes and conditions, so mundane truth achieves the Middle Way. Question: Is the mundane truth refuting this inherently real arising and ceasing the meaning of emptiness of nature (性空, xìng kōng - emptiness of nature)? Answer: It is emptiness of nature. Because such a nature is ultimately empty and still, and cannot be seen by the five eyes, it is called emptiness of nature.』
問為是本性空。為是破性空。答具二義也。此性本來空寂。非破故空名本性空。如謂炎為水。水本性空。若據妄謂之情名為性執。就其求此性執不可得名破性空也。問既是性空。云何稱中道耶。答空無二邊。故稱中道。問即此亦得明。非有非無。中道以不。答以空無性實故不可為有。有因緣假名。故不可為無。此即閤中與假皆是中道。問此出何處。答涅槃經云。亦有亦無名為中道。即是其事。又涅槃云。無生死不可為有。有常樂我凈不可為無。如此之類其義非一。問云何用此以為中道。答中是正義。明無性實有于假名。在義始正。故稱為中。問性空有幾種。答論性空有四種。一者計有空性名為性空。此從所執立名。二者破外人性實故名性空。三者此性執本自空名本性空。四者因緣本性自空名為性空。此性空即是佛性波若實相之異名耳。二乘人不見性空者不見此性空。此以體為性。非性執之性。問二諦俱不生。俱不說。俱如俱絕。俱性俱空。性空何異。答猶一義耳。無性假兩生故俱不生。世諦不說性生。真諦不說假生。名俱不說。二諦絕假實兩生名為俱絕。絕即是如。故云俱如。問何故初就不生不滅明中道耶。答隨寄一門冀得諸悟。不應茍責所由。必欲尋之非無深致。世諦雖具萬化。但因果相生是眾義大宗立信之根本。
【現代漢語翻譯】 問：什麼是本性空？是破性空嗎？ 答：兼具兩種含義。此自性本來就是空寂的，並非通過破除才空，所以稱為本性空。比如把火焰誤認為水，水本來就是空的。如果根據虛妄的執著之情，就有了『性執』這個概念。探求這個『性執』而不可得，就稱為破性空。 問：既然是性空，為什麼又稱為中道呢？ 答：因為空無有二邊（有和無），所以稱為中道。 問：那麼，可不可以用『非有非無』來闡明中道呢？ 答：因為空沒有自性實體，所以不可說為『有』；但它有因緣和合的假名，所以不可說為『無』。這正是結合了『中』和『假』，都是中道的體現。 問：這個說法出自哪裡？ 答：《涅槃經》中說：『亦有亦無名為中道』，就是這個意思。又如《涅槃經》中說：『無生死不可為有，有常樂我凈不可為無』。像這樣的例子還有很多，其含義並非單一。 問：如何用這個道理來理解中道呢？ 答：『中』是正的意思，說明沒有自性實體，而有假名，在義理上才是正的，所以稱為『中』。 問：性空有幾種？ 答：關於性空，論中有四種說法：一是執著『有空性』，稱為性空，這是從所執著的對象來立名的；二是破除外道的『人有自性實體』的觀點，所以稱為性空；三是此自性執著本來就是空的，稱為本性空；四是因緣和合的本性自然是空的，稱為性空。這個性空就是佛性（Buddha-nature），般若（Prajna，智慧），實相（Reality）的別名。二乘人（Hinayana practitioners）不見性空，就是不見這個性空。這是以本體為『性』，而不是以『性執』為『性』。 問：二諦（Two Truths，世俗諦和勝義諦）都是不生、不說、如如不動、寂滅、性空，那麼性空有什麼不同呢？ 答：其實是一個意思。因為沒有自性，假名才能生起，所以說『俱不生』。世俗諦不說自性生，真諦不說假名生，所以說『俱不說』。二諦斷絕了假和實兩種生起，所以稱為『俱絕』。『絕』就是『如』，所以說『俱如』。 問：為什麼一開始就用『不生不滅』來闡明中道呢？ 答：這是隨順一個方便之門，希望能夠由此領悟其他道理，不應該隨意指責其原因。如果一定要探尋，其中並非沒有深刻的道理。世俗諦雖然包含萬千變化，但因果相生是各種義理的大宗，是建立信仰的根本。
【English Translation】 Question: What is original nature emptiness (本性空, ben xing kong)? Is it destructive emptiness (破性空, po xing kong)? Answer: It has both meanings. This nature is originally empty and tranquil. It is not emptied by destruction, so it is called original nature emptiness. For example, mistaking flames for water, water is originally empty. If based on deluded clinging, it is called 'nature clinging' (性執, xing zhi). Seeking this 'nature clinging' and finding it unattainable is called destructive emptiness. Question: Since it is nature emptiness, why is it called the Middle Way (中道, zhong dao)? Answer: Because emptiness has no two extremes (existence and non-existence), it is called the Middle Way. Question: Then, can we use 'neither existence nor non-existence' to explain the Middle Way? Answer: Because emptiness has no self-nature entity, it cannot be said to 'exist'; but it has provisional names arising from conditions, so it cannot be said to 'not exist'. This is precisely the combination of 'middle' and 'provisional', both of which are manifestations of the Middle Way. Question: Where does this statement come from? Answer: The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Both existence and non-existence are called the Middle Way,' which is the meaning. Also, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Without birth and death, it cannot be said to exist; with permanence, bliss, self, and purity, it cannot be said to not exist.' There are many such examples, and their meanings are not singular. Question: How do we use this principle to understand the Middle Way? Answer: 'Middle' means correctness, indicating that there is no self-nature entity, but there are provisional names. In terms of meaning, this is correct, so it is called 'middle'. Question: How many kinds of nature emptiness are there? Answer: Regarding nature emptiness, there are four kinds of statements in the treatises: First, clinging to 'having emptiness as nature' is called nature emptiness, which is named from the object of clinging. Second, refuting the heretical view of 'persons having self-nature entity' is called nature emptiness. Third, this clinging to nature is originally empty, called original nature emptiness. Fourth, the nature of conditioned arising is naturally empty, called nature emptiness. This nature emptiness is another name for Buddha-nature (佛性, Fo xing), Prajna (般若, Bo re), and Reality (實相, Shi xiang). Hinayana practitioners (二乘人, Er cheng ren) who do not see nature emptiness do not see this nature emptiness. This takes the essence as 'nature', not 'nature clinging' as 'nature'. Question: The Two Truths (二諦, Er di, Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth) are all unarisen, unspoken, Suchness, extinction, and nature emptiness. So what is the difference in nature emptiness? Answer: Actually, it is the same meaning. Because there is no self-nature, provisional names can arise, so it is said 'all unarisen'. Conventional Truth does not speak of self-nature arising, and Ultimate Truth does not speak of provisional name arising, so it is said 'all unspoken'. The Two Truths cut off the two kinds of arising, false and real, so it is called 'all cut off'. 'Cut off' is 'Suchness', so it is said 'all Suchness'. Question: Why did you start by explaining the Middle Way with 'neither birth nor death'? Answer: This is following a convenient gate, hoping to gain enlightenment of other principles from it. One should not arbitrarily criticize the reason. If one must explore it, there is profound meaning within it. Although Conventional Truth contains myriad changes, the arising of cause and effect is the great principle of all meanings and the foundation for establishing faith.
因果若成即一切皆成。因果若壞即一切皆壞。今欲正世諦因果相生之義。是故命初就不生不滅論世諦中道。問何以知欲破邪偏因果正世諦因果耶。答青目釋不生即出內外論師九種因果。皆悉不成。故知。就因果以明世諦中道。問何故不言不因不果如涅槃十不耶。答今欲以無生滅正世諦因果。故不得發旨即明非因非果。問既說不生不滅便足。何故復說六事。答利根者聞初即悟。不須更說。所以然者以世諦無性實生滅即病無不破。了因緣假名生滅即正無不顯。故不須更說六事。但為鈍根未悟宜轉勢演之。又根性不同受悟非一。自有聞不生不滅不悟。聽不常不斷便了。故更趣異緣宜開別教。如凈名三十餘菩薩說不二法門。又如曇無蝎菩薩說六百萬億波若之門。問已知。更說異門今何故。次不生不滅明不常不斷。答略有三義。一者成前世諦破性生滅義。所以世諦破性實生滅者。良由實生即墮常。實滅即墮斷。是故世諦破實生滅也。二者顯成世諦中道義。所以世諦假生假滅是中道者。良由假生非定生故不常。假滅非定滅故不斷。不斷不常故名中道。故舉不常不斷釋成世諦中道也。問不常不斷既是中道。不生不滅亦是中道。云何以中道顯中道。答就不生不滅明世諦中道義即不顯。若就不常不斷明於中道在義易彰。所以然者以經論之
中多就不常不斷明中道。涅槃師子吼品云。眾生見起凡有二種。一斷二常。如是二見不名中道。無常無斷乃名中道。此論業品云。此論所說義離於斷常。以經論多就不常不斷明中道其義顯彰。其言易信。故舉不常不斷釋成中道。三者上雖言世諦因果相生是假生滅。非實生滅。此乃離性實之過。猶未勉因中有果無果之失。所以然者既稱假生。或可謂因中有果故假生。或是因中無果故假生。故今明假名因果相生不得有無。若如僧佉計因中有果故生。即是常義。如百論云。種種果生時種種因不失。不失者常是有不可失滅。故名為常。衛世師執因中無果。故名為斷。以因中無果因滅於前。果生於后。故名為斷。佛法內薩婆多明三世有。即是本果性在未來。從未來至現在。從現在謝過去。三世常有。故名為常。僧祇部二世無義。以本無今有已有還無故是斷滅。今明。因緣因果不可定有。不可定無。故是不斷不常。名為中道。具如涅槃師子吼品說也。次明不一不異者。世諦雖離性實生滅及決定斷常。猶恐墮於一異。如僧佉與大眾部明因果一體。衛世與上座部明因果異體。如此一異並壞世諦因果中道。故次明不一不異。問世諦因果云何不一不異耶。答觀法品云。眾因緣生法不即因。不異因。以因果不同能所二義何得為一。因名果因。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中多就不常不斷明中道。《涅槃師子吼品》說：『眾生見解的產生，總共有兩種，一是斷見，二是常見。』像這樣的兩種見解，不能稱為中道，既不是無常也不是斷滅，才可稱為中道。此論《業品》說：『此論所說的意義，是遠離斷見和常見的。』因為經論大多是不常不斷的闡明中道，其意義顯而易見，其言論容易使人信服，所以舉出不常不斷的例子來解釋中道。 三者，上面雖然說世俗諦的因果相生是虛假的生滅，不是真實的生滅，這只是避免了自性的真實，但仍然沒有避免因中有果或因中無果的過失。之所以這樣說，是因為既然稱為假生，或許可以認為因中有果所以是假生，或者是因為因中無果所以是假生。所以現在說明假名的因果相生，不能執著于有或無。如果像僧佉派（Samkhya，印度古代哲學流派，主張二元論）那樣認為因中有果所以產生果，那就是常的意義。如《百論》所說：『種種果產生時，種種因不會消失。』不消失就是常，是永遠存在不可消失的。所以稱為常。衛世師派（Vaisheshika，印度古代哲學流派，主張實在論和原子論）執著于因中無果，所以是斷滅。因為因中沒有果，因在前面滅亡，果在後面產生，所以稱為斷滅。佛法內部的薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，說一切有部）認為三世是有，就是說果的本性存在於未來，從未來到現在，從現在到過去，三世常有，所以稱為常。僧祇部（Samghika，大眾部）認為二世是無，因為本來沒有現在有，已經有了還會消失，所以是斷滅。現在說明，因緣因果不可定說是有，不可定說是無，所以是不常不斷，稱為中道。具體如《涅槃師子吼品》所說。 其次說明不一不異。世俗諦雖然遠離了自性的真實生滅以及決定的斷常，仍然恐怕會落入一或異的偏見。如僧佉派（Samkhya）與大眾部（Mahasamghika）認為因果是一體，衛世師派（Vaisheshika）與上座部（Sthavira）認為因果是異體。這樣的一或異都會破壞世俗諦因果的中道。所以接著說明不一不異。問：世俗諦的因果怎麼是不一不異呢？答：《觀法品》說：『眾因緣所生的法，不等於因，也不異於因。』因為因果不同，有能和所的兩種意義，怎麼能說是一呢？因叫做果的因。
【English Translation】 English version 'Zhong duo jiu bu chang bu duan ming zhong dao.' The Nirvana Lion's Roar Chapter says: 'The arising of sentient beings' views generally has two types: one is annihilationism (斷見, duàn jiàn), and the other is eternalism (常見, cháng jiàn).' Such two views cannot be called the Middle Way (中道, zhōng dào); neither impermanent nor annihilated can be called the Middle Way. This Karma Chapter of the treatise says: 'The meaning explained in this treatise is to be apart from annihilationism and eternalism.' Because the sutras and treatises mostly explain the Middle Way by being neither permanent nor annihilated, its meaning is obvious and its words are easy to believe. Therefore, the example of neither permanent nor annihilated is given to explain the Middle Way. Thirdly, although it was said above that the arising and ceasing of cause and effect in conventional truth (世俗諦, shì sú dì) are false arising and ceasing, not real arising and ceasing, this only avoids the fault of the reality of self-nature, but still does not avoid the fault of whether there is a result in the cause or no result in the cause. The reason for saying this is that since it is called false arising, perhaps it can be considered that there is a result in the cause, so it is false arising, or because there is no result in the cause, so it is false arising. Therefore, now it is explained that the arising of nominal cause and effect cannot be attached to existence or non-existence. If, like the Samkhya (僧佉, Sēngqié) school, it is believed that there is a result in the cause, so the result arises, then that is the meaning of permanence. As the Hundred Treatise says: 'When various results arise, the various causes do not disappear.' Not disappearing is permanence, which is eternal and cannot be lost or destroyed, so it is called permanence. The Vaisheshika (衛世師, Wèishìshī) school adheres to the view that there is no result in the cause, so it is annihilation. Because there is no result in the cause, the cause perishes before, and the result arises after, so it is called annihilation. The Sarvastivada (薩婆多, Sàpóduō) school within Buddhism believes that the three times are existent, which means that the nature of the result exists in the future, from the future to the present, and from the present to the past, the three times are always existent, so it is called permanence. The Samghika (僧祇, Sēngqí) school believes that the two times are non-existent, because originally there was nothing, now there is something, and what already exists will disappear again, so it is annihilation. Now it is explained that the causes and conditions of cause and effect cannot be definitely said to exist, nor can they be definitely said to not exist, so it is neither permanent nor annihilated, and is called the Middle Way. This is fully explained in the Nirvana Lion's Roar Chapter. Secondly, it explains neither one nor different. Although conventional truth is apart from the real arising and ceasing of self-nature and the definite annihilation and permanence, it is still feared that it will fall into the prejudice of one or different. For example, the Samkhya school and the Mahasamghika (大眾部, Dàzhòngbù) school believe that cause and effect are one entity, while the Vaisheshika school and the Sthavira (上座部, Shàngzuòbù) school believe that cause and effect are different entities. Such oneness or difference will destroy the Middle Way of cause and effect in conventional truth. Therefore, it is then explained that it is neither one nor different. Question: How is the cause and effect of conventional truth neither one nor different? Answer: The Contemplation of Dharmas Chapter says: 'The dharma produced by various causes and conditions is not the same as the cause, nor is it different from the cause.' Because cause and effect are different, there are two meanings of the able and the caused, how can they be said to be one? The cause is called the cause of the result.
果名因果。云何得異。故稱中道。次不來不出者惑病無窮。不可備舉。世諦中道無量。亦不可具明。今更以二門頒其大要即病無不破。中無不顯。惑者雖聞上六不而終謂決定有果。既決定有果。若從外來必從內出。故次明不來不出。如計眾生苦樂萬物生滅皆從自在天來謂外來義。復有外道計苦樂之果皆是我之自作我之自受。故名內出。復有宿作外道。如須跋之流。計苦樂之果皆從往因。不由現緣為內出義。復有外道。謂男女和合生於眾生。四大共聚以生外物名為外來。此以因為內。以緣為外。又如毗曇計木有火性。從於性火以成事火為內出義。成論明木無火性。但假緣生為外來義。若計有內火性復假外緣。即具計來出。今明如此來出皆壞世諦因果。是故次明不來不出。問世諦因果云何不來不出耶。答因緣因果不可內外。故名中道。所以然者論云。眾因緣生法以果不偏在因故不內。不偏在緣故不外。凈名云。法不屬因。不在緣。故以不偏在二邊故稱中道。問何故但說八事。答八事四對。一一相對病無不破。中無不顯。即義無不足。但以四對歷破眾計。歷明中道于義略圓。故但說八也。次明真諦具八不。明真諦中道者以空有為世諦。有空為真諦。以空有為世諦世諦則是假生假滅。對世諦假生明真諦假不生。對世諦假滅明真
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 果和因的關係，為什麼會有差異呢？所以才稱為中道。接下來講『不來不出』，是因為迷惑產生的病癥是無窮無盡的，無法一一列舉。世俗諦的中道也是無量的，無法完全說明。現在再用兩個方面來闡述其要點，那麼所有的病癥都會被破除，中道的道理也會完全顯現。那些迷惑的人即使聽了前面的六個『不』，最終還是認為果是決定存在的。既然決定有果，如果不是從外面來，就必定是從裡面產生。所以接下來闡明『不來不出』。例如，有人認為眾生的苦樂、萬物的生滅都是從自在天（Maheśvara，印度教神祇，被認為是宇宙的創造者和毀滅者）而來，這就是所謂的外來之義。還有一些外道認為苦樂的果報都是自己造作自己承受的，這叫做內出。還有宿作外道，比如須跋（Subha），認為苦樂的果報都是由過去的業因造成的，與現在的因緣無關，這是內出之義。還有外道認為男女結合產生眾生，四大（地、水、火、風）聚合產生外物，這叫做外來。這是以內為因，以外為緣。又比如毗曇宗（Abhidharma）認為木頭有火性，從潛在的火性發展成實際的火，這是內出之義。《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi-śāstra）則認為木頭沒有火性，只是憑藉因緣而生，這是外來之義。如果認為既有內在的火性，又需要外在的因緣，那就是既計來又計出。現在說明，這樣的『來』和『出』都破壞了世俗諦的因果關係，所以接下來闡明『不來不出』。問：世俗諦的因果關係為什麼是不來不出的呢？答：因為因緣和因果是不可分割的，不能說是在內還是在外，所以稱為中道。原因是《論》中說，眾因緣所生的法，果不完全在於因，所以不是內；不完全在於緣，所以不是外。《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）說，法不屬於因，也不在於緣。因此，不偏於任何一邊，所以稱為中道。問：為什麼只說八件事呢？答：這八件事是四對，每一對都相互對應，所有的病癥都會被破除，中道的道理也會完全顯現。這樣，道理就沒有不足之處了。只是用這四對來歷次破除各種計較，歷次闡明中道，在道理上就比較圓滿了，所以只說八件事。接下來闡明真諦具備八個『不』。闡明真諦的中道，是以空有為世俗諦，以有空為真諦。以空有為世俗諦，世俗諦就是假生假滅。針對世俗諦的假生，闡明真諦的假不生。針對世俗諦的假滅，闡
【English Translation】 English version The relationship between fruit (果) and cause (因), why are there differences? Therefore, it is called the Middle Way (中道). Next, 『neither coming nor going』 (不來不出) is discussed because the illnesses arising from delusion are endless and cannot be enumerated one by one. The mundane truth (世諦) of the Middle Way is also immeasurable and cannot be fully explained. Now, further explaining its main points with two aspects, then all illnesses will be eradicated, and the principle of the Middle Way will be fully revealed. Those who are deluded, even after hearing the previous six 『nots,』 ultimately believe that the fruit is definitely existent. Since the fruit is definitely existent, if it does not come from the outside, it must arise from within. Therefore, next, 『neither coming nor going』 is clarified. For example, some believe that the suffering and happiness of sentient beings, and the arising and ceasing of all things, all come from Maheśvara (自在天, a Hindu deity considered the creator and destroyer of the universe), which is the meaning of 『coming from the outside.』 There are also some non-Buddhist schools (外道) who believe that the fruits of suffering and happiness are all created and experienced by oneself, which is called 『arising from within.』 There are also those who believe in past actions (宿作外道), such as Subha (須跋), who believe that the fruits of suffering and happiness all arise from past causes and are unrelated to present conditions, which is the meaning of 『arising from within.』 There are also non-Buddhist schools who believe that the union of male and female produces sentient beings, and the aggregation of the four elements (四大, earth, water, fire, and wind) produces external objects, which is called 『coming from the outside.』 This takes the cause as internal and the condition as external. Furthermore, for example, the Abhidharma (毗曇) school believes that wood has the nature of fire, and the potential fire nature develops into actual fire, which is the meaning of 『arising from within.』 The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (成實論) believes that wood does not have the nature of fire but arises only through conditions, which is the meaning of 『coming from the outside.』 If one believes that there is both an internal fire nature and a need for external conditions, then one is counting both 『coming』 and 『going.』 Now, it is explained that such 『coming』 and 『going』 both destroy the causal relationship of the mundane truth, so next, 『neither coming nor going』 is clarified. Question: Why is the causal relationship of the mundane truth neither coming nor going? Answer: Because cause and condition, and cause and effect, are inseparable and cannot be said to be internal or external, so it is called the Middle Way. The reason is that the Treatise (論) says that the dharma produced by numerous causes and conditions, the fruit is not entirely in the cause, so it is not internal; it is not entirely in the condition, so it is not external. The Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩詰經) says that the dharma does not belong to the cause and is not in the condition. Therefore, not leaning to either side is called the Middle Way. Question: Why are only eight things mentioned? Answer: These eight things are four pairs, and each pair corresponds to each other, all illnesses will be eradicated, and the principle of the Middle Way will be fully revealed. In this way, there is nothing lacking in the principle. It is just that these four pairs are used to repeatedly refute various calculations and repeatedly clarify the Middle Way, which is relatively complete in principle, so only eight things are mentioned. Next, it is clarified that the ultimate truth (真諦) possesses eight 『nots.』 Clarifying the Middle Way of the ultimate truth is to take emptiness and existence as the mundane truth, and existence and emptiness as the ultimate truth. Taking emptiness and existence as the mundane truth, the mundane truth is false arising and false ceasing. In response to the false arising of the mundane truth, it is clarified that the false non-arising of the ultimate truth. In response to the false ceasing of the mundane truth, it is clar
諦假不滅。不生不滅為真諦中道。問何以知二諦俱無生耶。答瓔珞經佛母品云。二諦者不一不二不常不斷不來不出不生不滅。故知。八不具二諦也。此論明大小二人俱亡失二諦。小乘執有撥空。故失於真諦。大乘人執空排有。故失於世諦。接此二失仍牒八不。故知。八不具足二諦。又大乘人執畢竟空無有世諦。既失世諦亦失第一義諦。是故今明雖畢竟無生而有二諦。問但應直明二諦。何故乃明二諦俱無生耶。答直明空有二諦者。容謂還具取前大小二人所明空有。合成二諦。此即偏病不破中道不顯。故今明二諦俱無生即雙破二偏。具明中道。所以然者以世諦無生故破于性生。即小乘執性有此病得除。以真諦無生明因緣生宛然即是無生。故大乘偏空病息。故知。二諦無生霍破兩病。又以世諦無性生。有因緣假生故世諦成中道。真諦無假生。明因緣假不生真諦成中道。以具得顯二中道。所以明二諦俱不生。又由來但明一諦生。一諦不生。欲對破彼計。故明二諦俱無有生。又明二諦俱不生者。欲示一切法本來畢竟無生。令一切眾生悟無生忍。故明二諦俱無生。所以然者夫心若有生即有所依。有所依即有所縛。有所縛不得離生老病死憂悲苦惱。尚不得二乘。何況佛道。若心無生即無所依。離一切縛即便得中道。故五十二賢聖皆就
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦假不滅（真實和虛幻的道理不會消失）。不生不滅是真諦的中道（不產生也不消滅是真理的中庸之道）。 問：憑什麼知道二諦（兩種真理，即世俗諦和勝義諦）都沒有產生呢？ 答：《瓔珞經·佛母品》中說：『二諦，不一不二，不常不斷，不來不出，不生不滅。』所以知道，八不（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不來、不出）包含了二諦。這個論點說明大小乘二者都喪失了二諦。小乘執著于有，否定空，所以喪失了真諦（勝義諦）。大乘人執著于空，排斥有，所以喪失了世諦（世俗諦）。 針對這兩種缺失，仍然要強調八不。因此可知，八不具足二諦。而且大乘人執著於畢竟空，認為沒有世諦。既然喪失了世諦，也就喪失了第一義諦（最高真理）。所以現在說明，雖然畢竟無生，但有二諦。 問：只應該直接說明二諦，為什麼還要說明二諦都沒有產生呢？ 答：如果只說明空有二諦，可能會認為還是採取了之前大小乘人所說的空有，合成了二諦。這是一種偏頗的毛病，不能破除中道，也不能顯現中道。所以現在說明二諦都沒有產生，就是同時破除了兩種偏頗，完整地闡明了中道。 之所以這樣說，是因為世諦無生，所以破除了自性生（事物自身具有的生滅的性質）的觀點，這樣小乘執著于自性有的毛病就可以消除。用真諦無生來說明因緣生（事物由因緣條件和合而生）宛然就是無生，所以大乘偏執于空的毛病也得以平息。因此可知，二諦無生可以徹底破除兩種毛病。 而且，因為世諦沒有自性生，有因緣假生，所以世諦成就了中道。真諦沒有虛假的生，說明因緣假不生真諦，成就了中道。因為完整地獲得了兩種中道，所以要說明二諦都沒有產生。 而且，向來只說明一諦生，一諦不生。爲了針對破除他們的觀點，所以說明二諦都沒有產生。而且，說明二諦都沒有產生，是爲了顯示一切法本來畢竟沒有產生，讓一切眾生領悟無生忍（對事物不生不滅的真理的證悟）。所以說明二諦都沒有產生。 之所以這樣說，是因為心如果有了生，就會有所依賴。有所依賴就會有所束縛。有所束縛就不能脫離生老病死憂悲苦惱。尚且不能證得二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的果位，更何況是佛道。如果心沒有產生，就沒有所依賴，脫離一切束縛，就能證得中道。所以五十二賢聖（佛教修行中的五十二個階位）都依靠...
【English Translation】 English version 'Dì' (Truth) and 'Jiǎ' (Provisionality) are not extinguished. 'Not arising, not ceasing' is the Middle Way of True Reality. Question: How do we know that the Two Truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) are both without arising? Answer: The 'Buddha-Mother' chapter of the 'Yingluo Sutra' says: 'The Two Truths are neither one nor two, neither constant nor discontinuous, neither coming nor going, neither arising nor ceasing.' Therefore, we know that the Eight Negations (no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going) encompass the Two Truths. This argument clarifies that both the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) traditions lose sight of the Two Truths. The Hinayana clings to existence and denies emptiness, thus losing the Ultimate Truth. The Mahayana clings to emptiness and rejects existence, thus losing the Conventional Truth. Addressing these two losses, we still emphasize the Eight Negations. Therefore, it is known that the Eight Negations fully embody the Two Truths. Moreover, Mahayana practitioners cling to ultimate emptiness, believing there is no Conventional Truth. Since they lose the Conventional Truth, they also lose the First Principle (highest truth). Therefore, it is now clarified that although there is ultimately no arising, there are the Two Truths. Question: We should directly explain the Two Truths. Why explain that both Truths are without arising? Answer: If we only explain the Two Truths of emptiness and existence, it might be thought that we are still adopting the emptiness and existence as explained by the Hinayana and Mahayana, combining them into the Two Truths. This is a biased fault, which cannot break through the Middle Way, nor reveal it. Therefore, explaining that the Two Truths are both without arising simultaneously breaks through the two biases, fully clarifying the Middle Way. The reason for this is that the Conventional Truth is without arising, thus breaking through the view of inherent arising (that things have an inherent nature of arising and ceasing). In this way, the Hinayana's fault of clinging to inherent existence can be eliminated. Using the Ultimate Truth's lack of arising to explain that conditioned arising (things arise from the combination of causes and conditions) is clearly without arising, so the Mahayana's fault of clinging to emptiness is also pacified. Therefore, it is known that the Two Truths without arising can thoroughly break through both faults. Moreover, because the Conventional Truth has no inherent arising, but has provisional arising from conditions, the Conventional Truth achieves the Middle Way. The Ultimate Truth has no false arising, clarifying that provisional arising from conditions does not give rise to the Ultimate Truth, achieving the Middle Way. Because both Middle Ways are fully obtained, it is necessary to explain that both Truths are without arising. Furthermore, traditionally, it has only been explained that one Truth arises and one Truth does not arise. In order to target and break through their views, it is explained that both Truths do not arise. Moreover, explaining that both Truths do not arise is to show that all phenomena are originally and ultimately without arising, allowing all sentient beings to awaken to the forbearance of non-arising (the realization of the truth of the non-arising and non-ceasing of things). Therefore, it is explained that both Truths do not arise. The reason for this is that if the mind has arising, it will have something to rely on. If it has something to rely on, it will be bound. If it is bound, it cannot escape birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, suffering, and affliction. It cannot even attain the fruits of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), let alone the path of Buddhahood. If the mind has no arising, it has nothing to rely on, escapes all bonds, and can attain the Middle Way. Therefore, the fifty-two sages (the fifty-two stages of practice in Buddhism) all rely on...
無生觀內分其階級。初信諸法本性無性故名十信。稍析伏生心令不起動念。故名為伏忍。即三十心人。以折伏生心不起動念。即無生稍明。順諸法無生不墮于生。故名為順忍。初地至六地也。生心動念不復現前。無生現前故名無生忍。七地至九地也。生心動念畢竟寂滅。無生妙語了了分明。故稱寂滅忍。十地等覺妙覺地也。以階級無階級唯一無生觀。無階級階級故有五十二位不同。所以五十二位並作無生觀者。良由二諦本來無生。故因二諦無生髮無生觀。如涅槃云。十二因緣不生不滅能生觀智。即知。八不是五十二賢聖之根本也。問云何五十二賢聖皆悟二諦無生。答以了世諦故一切性實有所得心畢竟不生。以了真諦故知因緣生即無生。於一切假生不復生心動念。總攝生病無出假實。於此二處不復動念。即悟無生法忍。故有一切賢聖也。問世諦破性生滅明不生不滅。真諦破假生滅明不生不滅以不。答正意則不然。世諦破實生滅明不生不滅。真諦明假生宛然即是無生。故不破也。所以經云。不壞假名而說諸法實相。論云。因緣生法。我說即是空。若破假生滅者即違此經論。問何故破性生辨無生。而假生即是無生。答諸法畢竟無有性生。故五眼不見。但顛倒橫謂言有。所以須破性生既竟。始得辨因緣假生。為佛菩薩世諦。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：無生觀（Anutpāda-dṛṣṭi）在內部劃分了不同的階級。最初相信諸法（dharma）的本性是無自性的，因此稱為十信位。稍微分析並降伏生起之心，使其不起任何念頭，因此稱為伏忍位，也就是三十心位的人。通過折伏生起之心，使其不起任何念頭，無生的道理就稍微明白了。順應諸法無生的道理，不墮入生滅之中，因此稱為順忍位，也就是初地（prathamā bhūmi）到六地（ṣaṣṭhā bhūmi）的菩薩。生起之心和動念不再現前，無生之理現前，因此稱為無生忍位，也就是七地（saptamī bhūmi）到九地（navamī bhūmi）的菩薩。生起之心和動念畢竟寂滅，無生的微妙語言清清楚楚、明明白白，因此稱為寂滅忍位，也就是十地（daśamī bhūmi）、等覺（samāna-buddha）和妙覺（samyak-saṃbuddha）的菩薩。以階級來說，又沒有階級，唯一是無生觀。因為沒有階級，所以有五十二個位次的不同。所以，五十二個位次的菩薩都修習無生觀，是因為二諦（dve satye）本來就是無生的。因此，因為二諦無生，而發起無生觀。如《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）所說：『十二因緣（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda）不生不滅，能生觀智。』由此可知，八不是五十二賢聖的根本。 問：為什麼五十二賢聖都能領悟二諦無生？答：因爲了解了世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya），所以一切自性實有的執著心畢竟不生起。因爲了解了勝義諦（paramārtha-satya），所以知道因緣生就是無生。對於一切虛假的生起，不再生起心和動念。總而言之，生滅的病不出虛假和真實二者。對於這兩處不再動念，就領悟了無生法忍（anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti）。所以才有一切賢聖。 問：世俗諦破斥自性生滅，闡明不生不滅；勝義諦破斥虛假生滅，闡明不生不滅嗎？答：真正的意思不是這樣。世俗諦破斥真實的生滅，闡明不生不滅。勝義諦闡明虛假的生起宛然就是無生，所以不破斥。所以經中說：『不壞假名（prajñapti-nāman）而說諸法實相（dharma-lakṣaṇa）。』論中說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空（śūnyatā）。』如果破斥虛假的生滅，就違背了這部經和論。 問：為什麼破斥自性生來辨明無生，而虛假的生起就是無生呢？答：諸法畢竟沒有自性生。所以五眼（pañca cakṣūṃsi）看不見。只是因為顛倒，才橫生出有自性的想法。所以必須破斥自性生，才能辨明因緣假生，是佛菩薩的世俗諦。這
【English Translation】 English version: Within the Anutpāda-dṛṣṭi (view of non-origination), there are internal divisions of stages. Initially, believing that the inherent nature of all dharmas (phenomena) is without self-nature, it is called the Ten Faiths. Slightly analyzing and subduing the arising mind, preventing it from generating thoughts, it is called Subduing Endurance, which refers to individuals in the Thirty Minds stage. By subduing the arising mind and preventing it from generating thoughts, the principle of non-origination becomes slightly clearer. Conforming to the non-origination of all dharmas and not falling into origination and cessation, it is called Compliant Endurance, which refers to Bodhisattvas from the first bhūmi (stage) to the sixth bhūmi. The arising mind and thoughts no longer appear, and the principle of non-origination manifests, hence it is called Non-Origination Endurance, which refers to Bodhisattvas from the seventh bhūmi to the ninth bhūmi. The arising mind and thoughts are ultimately extinguished, and the subtle language of non-origination is clear and distinct, hence it is called Quiescent Extinction Endurance, which refers to Bodhisattvas in the tenth bhūmi, Samāna-buddha (Equal Enlightenment), and Samyak-saṃbuddha (Perfect Enlightenment). In terms of stages, there are no stages; the only thing is the view of non-origination. Because there are no stages, there are differences in the fifty-two positions. Therefore, the Bodhisattvas in the fifty-two positions all practice the view of non-origination because the two truths (dve satye) are inherently non-originated. Therefore, due to the non-origination of the two truths, the view of non-origination is developed. As the Nirvana Sutra states: 'The twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda) neither arise nor cease, and can generate the wisdom of observation.' From this, it can be known that the eight are not the foundation of the fifty-two sages. Question: Why can the fifty-two sages all realize the non-origination of the two truths? Answer: Because they understand the saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth), the mind that clings to the inherent existence of all natures does not arise at all. Because they understand the paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth), they know that dependent origination is non-origination. They no longer generate mind and thoughts towards all false arising. In short, the illness of origination and cessation does not go beyond the two, falsity and reality. No longer generating thoughts in these two places, they realize the Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti (tolerance of the non-origination of dharmas). That is why there are all the sages. Question: Does the conventional truth refute the origination and cessation of self-nature and clarify non-origination and non-cessation; does the ultimate truth refute the false origination and cessation and clarify non-origination and non-cessation? Answer: The true meaning is not like that. The conventional truth refutes the real origination and cessation and clarifies non-origination and non-cessation. The ultimate truth clarifies that false origination is precisely non-origination, so it does not refute it. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Without destroying the prajñapti-nāman (provisional names), it speaks of the dharma-lakṣaṇa (real characteristics) of all dharmas.' The treatise says: 'The dharmas that arise from conditions, I say are śūnyatā (emptiness).' If false origination and cessation are refuted, it would violate this sutra and treatise. Question: Why is self-nature origination refuted to clarify non-origination, while false origination is non-origination? Answer: All dharmas ultimately do not have self-nature origination. Therefore, the pañca cakṣūṃsi (five eyes) cannot see it. It is only because of delusion that the idea of having self-nature arises. Therefore, self-nature origination must be refuted before it can be clarified that conditioned false origination is the conventional truth of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This
因緣假生為佛眼所見。云何破因緣世諦耶。但因緣生即寂滅性故名為真諦無生。為真諦中道。問舊何得云世諦破性生。真諦破假生耶。答此據假病為言耳。本對性立假。而惑者複決定謂道理有此假。故成假生病。今破此假生病故言破假耳。而不破因緣無所得假。故二諦俱破性假凡有二義。若世諦破性即破而不收。真諦破假亦破亦收。破其能迷之情收取所惑之假。故但除其病而不除其法。亦有二門。一無法可除。即破性實之法。二但除能迷之情。不除所迷之法。即真諦破假義也。問若因緣假生即是無生故不破者。亦因緣性生即是無生。亦應不破。答因緣性如佛性法性等。此猶是假義耳。今取有所得生。是性生故生。不得是無生。如此之性即但破不收。問何人執假生。而言真諦破假生。答有二種人。一者不空假名二諦。二者空假名二諦。為此二人故明真諦破假。不空假人謂世諦空無性實生。而假生不可空。為此人故明世諦因緣。假生即是無生。何處有此假法不空。若有此假法不空者。須破此假法也。問即此不空假名義。亦得是今世諦中道以不。答亦有斯意。汝云。空無性實故是真諦。有于假法名為世諦。此二諦猶是今之世諦義耳。以世諦是因緣假名。無有性實之法。云何乃用世諦之空。為真諦空耶。問觀由來義亦同今說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因緣和合而生，這是佛眼所見的實相。那麼，如何破除因緣和合的世俗諦呢？因為因緣所生即是寂滅的本性，所以稱為真諦，是無生之理，是真諦的中道。有人問：舊說為何說世俗諦破除自性生，而真諦破除虛假生呢？回答說：這是針對虛假的病癥而說的。本來是爲了對治自性而設立虛假，但迷惑的人又執著地認為道理上確實存在這種虛假，因此形成了虛假生的病癥。現在破除這種虛假生的病癥，所以說破除虛假。但並不破除因緣和合的無所得的虛假。所以，二諦都破除自性和虛假，凡是有兩種含義。如果世俗諦破除自性，就是破除而不收回。真諦破除虛假，既破除也收回。破除的是能使人迷惑的情執，收回的是所迷惑的虛假。所以，只是去除病癥，而不是去除法本身。也有兩種途徑：一是沒有法可以去除，即破除自性真實的法；二是隻是去除能使人迷惑的情執，不去除所迷惑的法，這就是真諦破除虛假的含義。有人問：如果因緣和合的虛假生就是無生，所以不破除，那麼，因緣和合的自性生就是無生，也應該不破除。回答說：因緣和合的自性，如佛性（Buddha-nature，指眾生本具的成佛的可能性）、法性（Dharma-nature，指諸法的本性）等，這仍然是虛假的含義。現在所取的是有所得的生，是有自性的生，所以生。不得就是無生。這樣的自性，就是隻破除而不收回。有人問：什麼人執著于虛假生，而說真諦破除虛假生呢？回答說：有兩種人。一種是不空假名二諦（two truths of empty names，指不認為空性和假名是相互對立的兩種真理），一種是空假名二諦（two truths of empty names，指認為空性和假名是相互對立的兩種真理）。爲了這兩種人，所以闡明真諦破除虛假。不空假名的人認為世俗諦是空無自性真實的生，而虛假生不可空。爲了這種人，所以闡明世俗諦的因緣和合的虛假生就是無生。哪裡有這種虛假法不可空呢？如果存在這種虛假法不可空，就必須破除這種虛假法。有人問：這不空假名的含義，也可以是現在的世俗諦中道嗎？回答說：也有這種意思。你說，空無自性真實，所以是真諦；存在虛假法，名為世俗諦。這二諦仍然是現在的世俗諦的含義。因為世俗諦是因緣和合的假名，沒有自性真實的法。怎麼能用世俗諦的空，作為真諦的空呢？有人問：觀察以往的含義也和現在所說的一樣嗎？
【English Translation】 English version Conditional arising is seen by the Buddha's eye as a provisional existence. How then is the conventional truth of conditioned arising refuted? It is because that which arises from conditions is itself of a nature of quiescence, hence it is called the ultimate truth, the unborn, the middle way of the ultimate truth. Someone asks: Why did the old teachings say that the conventional truth refutes self-nature arising, while the ultimate truth refutes false arising? The answer is: This is spoken in response to the ailment of falsity. Originally, falsity was established in opposition to self-nature, but those who are deluded insist that such falsity truly exists in principle, thus creating the ailment of false arising. Now, we refute this ailment of false arising, hence we say we refute falsity. However, we do not refute the unobtainable falsity of conditioned arising. Therefore, both truths refute self-nature and falsity, which have two meanings. If the conventional truth refutes self-nature, it is refuted and not recovered. If the ultimate truth refutes falsity, it is both refuted and recovered. What is refuted is the emotional attachment that causes delusion, and what is recovered is the falsity that is the object of delusion. Therefore, we only remove the ailment and not the Dharma itself. There are also two approaches: first, there is no Dharma to be removed, which is to refute the Dharma of self-nature's reality; second, we only remove the emotional attachment that causes delusion, and not the Dharma that is the object of delusion, which is the meaning of the ultimate truth refuting falsity. Someone asks: If conditioned arising's false arising is itself unborn and therefore not refuted, then conditioned arising's self-nature arising is also unborn and should also not be refuted. The answer is: Conditioned arising's self-nature, such as Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature, referring to the inherent potential for enlightenment in all beings), Dharma-nature (Dharma-nature, referring to the inherent nature of all phenomena), etc., is still a provisional meaning. What we now take is the arising with attainment, which is the arising of self-nature, hence it arises. Non-attainment is unborn. Such self-nature is only refuted and not recovered. Someone asks: Who clings to false arising, and says that the ultimate truth refutes false arising? The answer is: There are two kinds of people. One is those who do not empty the two truths of empty names (two truths of empty names, referring to those who do not consider emptiness and provisional names as two opposing truths), and the other is those who empty the two truths of empty names (two truths of empty names, referring to those who consider emptiness and provisional names as two opposing truths). For these two kinds of people, we explain that the ultimate truth refutes falsity. Those who do not empty the empty names believe that the conventional truth is empty and without self-nature's real arising, but that false arising cannot be emptied. For these people, we explain that the conditioned arising's false arising of the conventional truth is itself unborn. Where is this false Dharma that cannot be emptied? If there is such a false Dharma that cannot be emptied, then this false Dharma must be refuted. Someone asks: Can this meaning of not emptying empty names also be the middle way of the current conventional truth? The answer is: It also has this meaning. You say that emptiness without self-nature's reality is the ultimate truth; the existence of false Dharma is called the conventional truth. These two truths are still the meaning of the current conventional truth. Because the conventional truth is the provisional name of conditioned arising, without the Dharma of self-nature's reality. How can you use the emptiness of the conventional truth as the emptiness of the ultimate truth? Someone asks: Is the observation of past meanings the same as what is said now?
世諦是三假。即無復性實。真諦是四絕。即不復有三假。此亦是二諦破假實義。與今何異也。答淺深門自當具釋。由來雖言世諦是三假。今以無所得望之終是性義。為今世諦所破。今明。裁起一念作于生解即是性義。何者既起心作生解。心謂有此生復起于生心。即是有所得。故名為性也。若聞生謂生是滅生名為因緣生。而遂作因緣解即成因緣病。須破此因緣。故破假實。須望觀心精密投之。不爾還成舊義。二者空假名人謂空于假生方是無生。蓋是壞生而辨無生。為對此緣故明假生即是無生名為真諦。問不生不滅云何是真諦中道。答以有空為真諦遠離生滅。故稱為中。既稱有空則空不自空。故名為假。如世諦不異也。問既云空有為世諦。有空為真諦。即二諦並是因緣假名。稟教之流聞有作有解。聞無作無解。即二諦併成性病。論主破此性實二諦。申明因緣假名二諦。即二諦俱破性。云何世諦破性。真諦破假。答餘年二十二。于紹隆寺以此義咨師。師云。通論破假實。即具有四句。向所問者即二諦俱破性。世諦破性生。真諦破性無生。故二諦俱是假也。二者二諦俱破假。由來有所得世諦是假故假。今明世諦是不假假故世諦破假也。因緣不假假真諦破由來假故假真諦。問他不明真諦是假。何以破之。答彼真諦雖非假而假為真
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 世俗諦（Samvriti-satya）是三假，即沒有實在的自性。勝義諦（Paramartha-satya）是四絕，即不再有三假。這兩種諦（二諦）都是爲了破除假有和實有的意義，這和現在所說的有什麼不同呢？ 回答是，淺深之門自然會詳細解釋。雖然一直以來都說世俗諦是三假，但如果用『無所得』的觀點來看，它最終還是具有自性的意義，因此會被現在的世俗諦所破除。現在說明，只要生起一念，認為事物是生起的，這就是自性的意義。為什麼呢？因為既然心中產生了『生』的念頭，就認為有這個『生』，並且又產生了『生』的心，這就是『有所得』，所以稱為『性』。 如果聽到『生』，就認為『生』是滅的生，稱為因緣生，並且因此產生了因緣的理解，那就成了因緣的毛病。必須破除這種因緣的執著。所以破除假有和實有，必須精密地觀察內心，然後才能對癥下藥。否則，還是會回到舊的理解。 第二種情況是，空假名人認為，在假有中空才能產生，才是無生。這實際上是破壞了生，然後才辨別出無生。爲了針對這種執著，所以說明假生就是無生，稱為勝義諦。 問：不生不滅怎麼是勝義諦的中道呢？ 答：因為有空，所以勝義諦遠離了生滅，因此稱為中道。既然稱為有空，那麼空就不是自己空，所以稱為假，就像世俗諦一樣。 問：既然說空有是世俗諦，有空是勝義諦，那麼兩種諦都是因緣假名。接受教導的人，聽到『有』就理解為『有』，聽到『無』就理解為『無』，那麼兩種諦都成了自性的毛病。論主破除這種自性實有的兩種諦，闡明因緣假名的兩種諦，那麼兩種諦都破除了自性，為什麼說世俗諦破除自性，勝義諦破除假有呢？ 答：我在二十二歲的時候，在紹隆寺用這個義理請教老師。老師說，總的來說，破除假有和實有，就具有四句。你剛才問的，是兩種諦都破除自性。世俗諦破除自性生，勝義諦破除自性無生，所以兩種諦都是假有。 第二種情況是，兩種諦都破除假有。一直以來，有所得的世俗諦是假有，所以是假有。現在說明，世俗諦是不假借的假有，所以世俗諦破除假有。因緣不假借的假有，勝義諦破除一直以來假借的假有。 問：他宗不說明勝義諦是假有，怎麼破除它呢？ 答：他們的勝義諦雖然不是假有，但是把假有當作真有。
【English Translation】 English version Samvriti-satya (conventional truth) is the three falsities, meaning it lacks inherent reality. Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth) is the four absolutes, meaning it no longer possesses the three falsities. These two truths (the two truths) are both for the purpose of refuting the meaning of the falsely existent and the truly existent. How is this different from what is being discussed now? The answer is that the gates of shallow and deep will naturally explain this in detail. Although it has always been said that Samvriti-satya is the three falsities, if viewed from the perspective of 'no attainment', it ultimately still possesses the meaning of inherent nature, and therefore it is refuted by the current Samvriti-satya. Now, it is explained that as soon as a thought arises, considering things to be arising, this is the meaning of inherent nature. Why? Because since the thought of 'arising' has arisen in the mind, it is considered that there is this 'arising', and the mind of 'arising' arises again. This is 'having attainment', so it is called 'nature'. If, upon hearing 'arising', one considers 'arising' to be the arising of cessation, called conditioned arising, and thereby develops an understanding of conditioned arising, then it becomes the sickness of conditioned arising. It is necessary to refute this attachment to conditioned arising. Therefore, to refute the falsely existent and the truly existent, it is necessary to observe the mind closely and then prescribe the appropriate remedy. Otherwise, one will return to the old understanding. The second situation is that the empty-provisional-name person considers that emptiness can only arise in the provisional, and that is non-arising. This is actually destroying arising and then distinguishing non-arising. To address this attachment, it is explained that provisional arising is non-arising, called Paramartha-satya. Question: How is non-arising and non-ceasing the Middle Way in Paramartha-satya? Answer: Because there is emptiness, Paramartha-satya is far from arising and ceasing, therefore it is called the Middle Way. Since it is called having emptiness, then emptiness is not empty by itself, so it is called provisional, just like Samvriti-satya. Question: Since it is said that emptiness-having is Samvriti-satya, and having-emptiness is Paramartha-satya, then both truths are conditioned provisional names. Those who receive teachings, upon hearing 'having', understand it as 'having', and upon hearing 'non-having', understand it as 'non-having', then both truths become the sickness of inherent nature. The author refutes these two truths of inherent reality, and elucidates the two truths of conditioned provisional names, then both truths refute inherent nature. Why is it said that Samvriti-satya refutes inherent nature, and Paramartha-satya refutes the provisional? Answer: When I was twenty-two years old, I consulted my teacher at Shaolong Temple with this meaning. The teacher said that, generally speaking, refuting the falsely existent and the truly existent has four statements. What you just asked is that both truths refute inherent nature. Samvriti-satya refutes inherent arising, and Paramartha-satya refutes inherent non-arising, so both truths are provisional. The second situation is that both truths refute the provisional. All along, the Samvriti-satya with attainment is provisional, so it is provisional. Now it is explained that Samvriti-satya is the unborrowed provisional, so Samvriti-satya refutes the provisional. The conditioned unborrowed provisional, Paramartha-satya refutes the borrowed provisional all along. Question: Since the other school does not explain that Paramartha-satya is provisional, how can it refute it? Answer: Although their Paramartha-satya is not provisional, they treat the provisional as the real.
立名。此假名是名故名則亦得真破假。又中假師聞假作假解。亦須破此假。師云。中假師罪重。永不見佛。所以作此呵者本為對性故說假。令其迥悟耳。而遂舍性存假謂決定。為是心有所依故永不見佛。宜須破之。三者世諦破假。真諦破實。此正對由來義。由來世諦是三假。真諦四絕。則非假。故今明世諦破此有所得假。始得辨世諦為假。問云何破耶。答世諦是假者世諦何所待耶。若待真諦者真諦非所待。世諦云。何是能待。世諦既不待真諦。又不自待世諦。即知。世諦非待世諦非待。云何是假。今世諦既無此假。故云世諦破假。今之世諦有不自有。由空故有。即世諦始成假也。真諦破實者真不自真。名為俗真。真非俗真則真不成真。故因緣假真破彼性實真。四者世諦破實。真諦破假。如前釋之。問世諦破實而世諦是假。真諦破假即應真諦非假。答真諦破假生滅。不言真諦破一切假。問既具有四句。今何故言世諦破實真諦破假耶。答通論假實乃具四句。今欲釋二諦俱無生。故世諦無實生。真諦無假生。故得分二諦無生為異。若言世諦破實生。真諦破實不生。即破生復破不生。便不釋八不。是以二諦不得俱破實也。若世諦破假生。真諦破假不生。亦非釋八不義。故不得俱破假也。若世諦破假生。真諦破實不生。亦不釋八
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『立名』。這個假名只是一個名稱，因此，如果破除了這個假名，也就等於破除了真實中的虛假。此外，中假師如果用虛假來解釋虛假，也必須破除這種虛假。老師說：『中假師的罪過很重，永遠無法見到佛。』之所以這樣呵斥，原本是爲了針對執著于自性的人，通過說假來讓他們徹底醒悟。然而，他們卻捨棄自性而執著于虛假，認為那是絕對的。因為他們的心有所依賴，所以永遠無法見到佛，因此必須破除它。第三種是世諦破假，真諦破實。這正是針對由來已久的錯誤觀念。由來已久的世諦是三種虛假，而真諦是四種絕待，因此不是虛假。所以現在闡明世諦破除這種有所得的虛假，才能辨別世諦是虛假的。有人問：『如何破除呢？』回答說：『世諦是虛假的，那麼世諦依賴什麼呢？』如果依賴真諦，那麼真諦是不依賴任何東西的。世諦又怎麼能依賴真諦呢？世諦既不依賴真諦，也不依賴自身，由此可知，世諦不是依賴。世諦不是依賴，又怎麼是虛假的呢？』現在世諦既然沒有這種虛假，所以說世諦破假。現在的世諦不是自身存在，而是因為空性而存在，這樣世諦才成為虛假的。真諦破實，意思是真諦不是自身為真，而是被稱為俗真。真諦如果不是俗真，那麼真諦就不能成為真諦。所以，因緣和合的虛假真諦破除了自性真實的真諦。第四種是世諦破實，真諦破假，如同前面解釋的那樣。有人問：『世諦破實，而世諦是虛假的；真諦破假，那麼真諦就應該不是虛假的。』回答說：『真諦破除的是生滅的虛假，並不是說真諦破除一切虛假。』有人問：『既然具有四句，現在為什麼說世諦破實，真諦破假呢？』回答說：『通盤來說，假和實具有四句。現在想要解釋二諦都是無生的，所以世諦沒有真實的生，真諦沒有虛假的生。因此可以區分二諦的無生是不同的。』如果說世諦破除真實的生，真諦破除不生，那麼就破除了生，又破除了不生，就不能解釋八不了。因此二諦不能同時破除真實。如果世諦破除虛假的生，真諦破除不生，也不能解釋八不的含義，所以不能同時破除虛假。如果世諦破除虛假的生，真諦破除真實的
【English Translation】 English version 'Establishing Names'. This provisional name is merely a name; therefore, if this provisional name is refuted, it is equivalent to refuting the falsity within the truth. Furthermore, if a 'Middle Provisional Teacher' uses falsity to interpret falsity, this falsity must also be refuted. The teacher says: 'The sin of the Middle Provisional Teacher is grave, and they will never see the Buddha.' The reason for this rebuke is originally to address those attached to inherent nature, using the concept of falsity to awaken them thoroughly. However, they abandon inherent nature and cling to falsity, considering it absolute. Because their minds have something to rely on, they will never see the Buddha, and therefore it must be refuted. The third is the mundane truth refuting the provisional, and the ultimate truth refuting the real. This directly addresses the long-standing misconception. The long-standing mundane truth is the three provisionalities, while the ultimate truth is the four negations, and therefore not provisional. So now, clarifying that the mundane truth refutes this provisionality of 'something attained' allows one to discern that the mundane truth is provisional. Someone asks: 'How is it refuted?' The answer is: 'The mundane truth is provisional; then what does the mundane truth rely on?' If it relies on the ultimate truth, then the ultimate truth does not rely on anything. How can the mundane truth rely on the ultimate truth? Since the mundane truth neither relies on the ultimate truth nor relies on itself, it can be known that the mundane truth is not reliant. If the mundane truth is not reliant, how can it be provisional?' Now that the mundane truth does not have this falsity, it is said that the mundane truth refutes the provisional. The current mundane truth does not exist on its own but exists because of emptiness; thus, the mundane truth becomes provisional. The ultimate truth refutes the real, meaning that the ultimate truth is not true by itself but is called conventional truth. If the ultimate truth is not conventional truth, then the ultimate truth cannot become the ultimate truth. Therefore, the provisional ultimate truth of dependent origination refutes the inherently real ultimate truth. The fourth is the mundane truth refuting the real, and the ultimate truth refuting the provisional, as explained earlier. Someone asks: 'The mundane truth refutes the real, and the mundane truth is provisional; the ultimate truth refutes the provisional, then the ultimate truth should not be provisional.' The answer is: 'The ultimate truth refutes the provisional of arising and ceasing; it is not said that the ultimate truth refutes all provisionalities.' Someone asks: 'Since there are four possibilities, why is it now said that the mundane truth refutes the real, and the ultimate truth refutes the provisional?' The answer is: 'Generally speaking, the provisional and the real have four possibilities. Now, the intention is to explain that both truths are without arising, so the mundane truth has no real arising, and the ultimate truth has no provisional arising. Therefore, it can be distinguished that the non-arising of the two truths is different.' If it is said that the mundane truth refutes real arising, and the ultimate truth refutes non-arising, then arising is refuted, and non-arising is also refuted, which cannot explain the Eight Negations. Therefore, the two truths cannot simultaneously refute the real. If the mundane truth refutes provisional arising, and the ultimate truth refutes non-arising, it also cannot explain the meaning of the Eight Negations, so the provisional cannot be simultaneously refuted. If the mundane truth refutes provisional arising, and the ultimate truth refutes the real
不。故四門之中但得世諦明無實生。真諦辨無假生耳。問叵有真諦亦破實生以不。答取其義意即亦有之。以計實無生既是有所得。猶是生義耳。但就外人一往立義不言真諦是生。故真諦不破生也。次不常不斷者既聞真諦不生不滅。由來便謂有真諦天然四絕之理。有佛無佛性相常住是故常。而真諦絕於四句。此即為斷。今破此斷常故云不斷不常。以非定有此真理故不常。不曾有四句可絕故云不斷。名為中道。不一不異者。惑者既聞不生不滅不斷不常。便謂真諦理無差別。故名為一。即開善用之。光宅謂真理亦有淺深故累隔真諦。故名為異。今俱破之。故云不一不異。所以經云。無色無形對一相所謂無相。以一相故不可為異。以無相故不可言一。不一不異名為中道。不來不出者由來折俗得真。故名為來。從真出俗。目之為出。今破此來出故明不來不出。問何處作此釋。答智度論釋集散品。解無為法有集散云。穿物得空。是無為之集。塞物失空是無為之散。集散即是來出義也。又空色不可一故。空非色內而出。空色不可異故。空非色外而來。不來不出為真諦中道。問世諦假生滅即不生不滅為真諦中道者。亦得世諦假斷常即不斷不常為真諦中道耶。答通即例之。但佛弟子許世諦是生滅。諱世諦是斷常。故非例也。一異來出即可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不。所以四門之中，只在世俗諦中說明沒有真實的生起，在真諦中辨析沒有虛假的生起罷了。問：難道真諦也破斥真實的生起嗎？答：從它的意義上來說，也可以這麼認為。因為認為真實沒有生起，這本身就是有所得，仍然是生起的意思。但只是對外人暫且立義，不說真諦是生起。所以說真諦不破斥生起。其次，『不常不斷』，是因為迷惑的人聽聞真諦不生不滅，便認為有真諦天然具有四種絕待的道理，認為有佛沒佛，其自性常住，所以是『常』。而真諦超越於四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無），這就成了『斷』。現在破斥這種斷常的觀點，所以說『不斷不常』。因為並非一定有這種真理，所以說『不常』。不曾有四句可以絕待，所以說『不斷』。這叫做中道。『不一不異』，是因為迷惑的人聽聞不生不滅、不斷不常，便認為真諦的道理沒有差別，所以稱為『一』。即開善用此觀點。光宅則認為真理也有深淺，所以累積間隔了真諦，所以稱為『異』。現在一併破斥這些觀點，所以說『不一不異』。所以經中說：『無色無形，對一相，所謂無相。』因為是一相的緣故，不可以認為是異。因為是無相的緣故，不可以認為是一。不一不異，名為中道。『不來不出』，是因為向來折損世俗諦而證得真諦，所以名為『來』。從真諦而出於世俗諦，稱之為『出』。現在破斥這種來出，所以說明『不來不出』。問：在哪裡作這樣的解釋？答：《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）解釋集散品時，解釋無為法有集散說：穿透物體得到空間，是無為的聚集；堵塞物體失去空間，是無為的散失。集散就是來出的意思。又因為空和色不能視為一體，所以空不是從色內部而出；空和色不能視為異體，所以空不是從色外部而來。不來不出是真諦的中道。問：世俗諦是虛假的生滅，那麼不生不滅是真諦的中道，是否也可以說世俗諦是虛假的斷常，那麼不斷不常是真諦的中道呢？答：貫通來說，可以類比。但是佛弟子承認世俗諦是生滅，忌諱世俗諦是斷常，所以不能類比。一異來出也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version No. Therefore, within the four gates, only the conventional truth (世諦, Satya) explains that there is no real arising, and the ultimate truth (真諦, Paramārtha) distinguishes that there is no false arising. Question: Does the ultimate truth also refute real arising? Answer: From its meaning, it can also be considered so. Because considering that there is no real arising is itself something obtained, it is still the meaning of arising. But it is only for outsiders that a provisional meaning is established, not saying that the ultimate truth is arising. Therefore, it is said that the ultimate truth does not refute arising. Next, 'neither permanent nor impermanent' is because those who are confused, upon hearing that the ultimate truth is neither arising nor ceasing, then believe that the ultimate truth naturally has the principle of four absolutes, believing that whether there is a Buddha or not, its nature is permanent, so it is 'permanent'. And the ultimate truth transcends the four statements (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), which becomes 'cessation'. Now refuting this view of permanence and cessation, it is said 'neither permanent nor impermanent'. Because there is not necessarily this truth, it is said 'not permanent'. There have never been four statements that can be absolute, so it is said 'not cessation'. This is called the Middle Way. 'Neither one nor different' is because those who are confused, upon hearing neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor impermanent, then believe that the principle of the ultimate truth has no difference, so it is called 'one'. That is what Kaisan uses. Guangzhai believes that the truth also has depths, so the ultimate truth is accumulated and separated, so it is called 'different'. Now refuting these views together, it is said 'neither one nor different'. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Without color and without form, facing one aspect, which is called without aspect.' Because it is one aspect, it cannot be considered different. Because it is without aspect, it cannot be considered one. Neither one nor different is called the Middle Way. 'Neither coming nor going' is because traditionally, by diminishing the conventional truth and attaining the ultimate truth, it is called 'coming'. From the ultimate truth to the conventional truth, it is called 'going'. Now refuting this coming and going, it is explained 'neither coming nor going'. Question: Where is this explanation made? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra explains the chapter on gathering and scattering, explaining that unconditioned dharmas have gathering and scattering, saying: penetrating an object to obtain space is the gathering of the unconditioned; blocking an object to lose space is the scattering of the unconditioned. Gathering and scattering is the meaning of coming and going. Also, because emptiness and form cannot be regarded as one, emptiness does not come out from within form; emptiness and form cannot be regarded as different, so emptiness does not come from outside form. Neither coming nor going is the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. Question: The conventional truth is false arising and ceasing, then neither arising nor ceasing is the Middle Way of the ultimate truth, can it also be said that the conventional truth is false permanence and cessation, then neither permanent nor impermanent is the Middle Way of the ultimate truth? Answer: Generally speaking, it can be analogized. However, Buddhist disciples admit that the conventional truth is arising and ceasing, and avoid the conventional truth being permanence and cessation, so it cannot be analogized. The same applies to one and different, coming and going.
通二義。次二諦合具八不。合明二諦中道者此有二義。一者合論二諦以釋中道。二者泯二歸乎不二辨于體中。就合明二諦為中復有三義。一者欲釋經論但明二諦義。即二諦攝法義周。不須明於三諦。二者單明二諦。此是單明用中。合明二諦合辨用中。第三明非真非俗方是體中。此釋經中三諦義也。問云何但明二諦為中耶。答則關內影師舊二諦中道義是也。彼云。真故無有。俗故無無。真故無有雖無而有。俗故無無雖有而無。雖無而有不滯于無。雖有而無不累于有。不滯于無。故不斷。不累于有故不常。即是不有不無不斷不常中道。此合釋四不之義。以生常是有。滅斷為無故也。不一不異者例上應云。以俗諦故非一。以真諦故不異。俗故無一雖異而。一真故無異雖一而異。雖異而一。故不滯于異。雖一而異。故不著於一。不一不異名為中道。若對破立者開善謂真俗一體。故名為一。龍光謂真俗異體。故名言異。今俱斥之。故云不一不異。所以天親釋大品明十種散動。而一異是二種散動。故知。真俗不可一異。東陽傅大士二諦頌云。二諦並非雙。恒乖未曾各。沉浮隨不隨。飄飏泊無泊。其人本不學問。尚知。二諦不可一異。況尋經論者有定執乎。不來不出者真諦空故不來。俗諦有故不出。出猶去也。例上可知。問各明二諦
中道已竟。何故複合明二諦中道耶。答但明俗諦不明真諦。即偏墮有邊。但明真諦不明俗諦。即偏墮空邊。今合明二諦離此二邊。故名中道。大朗法師教周顒二諦。其人著三宗論云。佛所以立二諦者。以諸法具空有二。所以不偏。故名中道。問世諦絕性。真諦絕假。合明二諦治何偏耶。答但明世諦絕性不明真諦絕假。即名為偏。但明真諦絕假不明世諦絕性在義亦遍。以具明二諦俱絕假實即義始圓正。故名中道。問云何是二諦合明中假耶。答合明離二偏為中。合明二諦因緣故是假也。次泯二諦。以歸不二明中道者。若作體用明之上三種皆是用中。但用中有離有合。各明二諦中道為離。即是各正二諦義。合明二諦中道即是合正二諦義。今次明體中者即是收用歸體。所以須此一重者。稟教之流聞說二諦。便作二解即成二見。故大品經云。諸有二者無道無果。涅槃經云。明與無明愚者謂二。亦真之與俗愚者謂二。今明諸佛菩薩無名相中強名相。說欲令因名相悟無名相。故不二而二名為二諦。欲令因不二二悟二不二。故名不二中道。以空有為世諦。世諦即生。有空為真諦。真諦名為滅。既稱空有即不有。故云不生。有空即非空。故云不滅。不生不滅即是非真非俗中道。不常不斷者亦得例上。真諦有佛無佛性相常住。故名為常。世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中道已經講完了，為什麼還要再次結合來說明二諦中道呢？回答是：只說明俗諦而不說明真諦，就會偏頗地墮入『有』的邊見；只說明真諦而不說明俗諦，就會偏頗地墮入『空』的邊見。現在結合說明二諦，是爲了遠離這兩種邊見，所以稱為中道。大朗法師教周顒二諦的道理，周顒寫了《三宗論》，其中說：『佛陀設立二諦的原因，是因為諸法同時具備空和有，所以不會偏頗，因此稱為中道。』 問：世俗諦是斷絕自性的，真諦是斷絕虛假的，結合說明二諦能糾正什麼樣的偏頗呢？回答是：只說明世俗諦斷絕自性，而不說明真諦斷絕虛假，這就叫做偏頗。只說明真諦斷絕虛假，而不說明世俗諦斷絕自性，在意義上也是片面的。只有完整地說明二諦都斷絕虛假和實在，意義才算圓滿和正當，所以稱為中道。 問：什麼是二諦結合說明的中假呢？回答是：結合說明，遠離兩種偏頗就是『中』。結合說明二諦，因為是因緣和合而生，所以是『假』。 其次，泯滅二諦，歸於不二來說明中道。如果從體和用的角度來說明，以上三種都是『用中』。但『用中』有分離和結合。分別說明二諦中道，就是分別正立二諦的意義。結合說明二諦中道，就是結合正立二諦的意義。現在要說明『體中』，就是將『用』收歸於『體』。所以需要這一層的原因是：接受教義的人，聽到二諦的說法，就產生兩種理解，從而形成兩種見解。所以《大品經》說：『凡是有二的，就沒有道，沒有果。』《涅槃經》說：『明與無明，愚者認為是二。』真與俗，愚者也認為是二。現在說明諸佛菩薩在沒有名相中強立名相，是爲了讓人通過名相領悟沒有名相，所以不二而二，稱為二諦。想要讓人通過不二的二，領悟二的不二，所以稱為不二中道。以空有為世俗諦，世俗諦就是生。有空為真諦，真諦名為滅。既然稱為空有，就不是有，所以說不生。有空就不是空，所以說不滅。不生不滅就是非真非俗的中道。不常不斷的道理也可以像上面那樣類推。真諦有佛無佛，自性常住，所以稱為常。世
【English Translation】 English version The Middle Way has already been explained. Why combine and clarify the Two Truths Middle Way again? The answer is: only explaining the Conventional Truth (saṃvṛti-satya) without explaining the Ultimate Truth (paramārtha-satya) leads to the extreme of existence. Only explaining the Ultimate Truth without explaining the Conventional Truth leads to the extreme of emptiness. Now, combining the explanation of the Two Truths avoids these two extremes, hence it is called the Middle Way. The Dharma Master Da Lang taught Zhou Yong about the Two Truths. That person wrote the 'Treatise on the Three Schools,' saying: 'The reason the Buddha established the Two Truths is that all dharmas possess both emptiness and existence, so there is no bias, hence it is called the Middle Way.' Question: The Conventional Truth is the cessation of inherent nature, and the Ultimate Truth is the cessation of falsity. What kind of bias does combining the explanation of the Two Truths correct? The answer is: only explaining that the Conventional Truth is the cessation of inherent nature without explaining that the Ultimate Truth is the cessation of falsity is called bias. Only explaining that the Ultimate Truth is the cessation of falsity without explaining that the Conventional Truth is the cessation of inherent nature is also one-sided in meaning. Only when both Truths are fully explained as the cessation of falsity and reality does the meaning become complete and correct, hence it is called the Middle Way. Question: What is the Middle Way of combining the explanation of the Two Truths? The answer is: combining the explanation, avoiding the two extremes is 'Middle.' Combining the explanation of the Two Truths, because it arises from conditions, is 'Provisional (假, jiǎ)'. Next, to extinguish the Two Truths and return to non-duality to explain the Middle Way. If explained from the perspective of essence and function, the above three are all 'Function Middle.' But 'Function Middle' has separation and combination. Explaining the Middle Way of the Two Truths separately is to separately establish the meaning of the Two Truths. Combining the explanation of the Middle Way of the Two Truths is to combine and establish the meaning of the Two Truths. Now, to explain the 'Essence Middle' is to return the 'Function' to the 'Essence.' The reason this layer is needed is that those who receive the teachings, upon hearing the Two Truths, develop two understandings, thus forming two views. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Those who have duality have no path and no fruit.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Enlightenment and ignorance, fools consider them two.' Truth and convention, fools also consider them two. Now, it is explained that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas establish names and forms where there are no names and forms, in order to allow people to realize the absence of names and forms through names and forms, so non-dual yet dual is called the Two Truths. Wanting to allow people to realize the non-duality of duality through the duality of non-duality, hence it is called the Non-Dual Middle Way. Taking emptiness and existence as the Conventional Truth, the Conventional Truth is arising. Taking existence and emptiness as the Ultimate Truth, the Ultimate Truth is called cessation. Since it is called emptiness and existence, it is not existence, so it is said not to arise. Existence and emptiness is not emptiness, so it is said not to cease. Not arising and not ceasing is the Middle Way of neither truth nor convention. The principle of neither permanence nor annihilation can also be inferred as above. The Ultimate Truth, whether there is a Buddha or not, the nature of reality abides permanently, hence it is called permanence. The Conve
諦有法虛假。必歸磨滅。故稱為斷。如來說此因緣常無常。為令眾生了悟非常非無常。故名為中道。亦得展轉相釋。惑者聞非真非俗不生不滅中道。便為是常。既非真俗絕於真俗。故名為斷。為止此心。既非生滅亦非斷常。乃名中道。不一不異者。若例上義以空有為世諦。世諦即是無差別差別。故名一異。以有空為真諦。真諦是差別無差別。故名異一。異一即非一。一異即非異。非異非一名為中道。若為成上者。惑者既聞中道不生不滅非常非斷。便謂泯然一相。若除一相便謂中道亦有淺深。便是異相。以有所得人心必有所依。若不住一便墮于異。是故今明既非生滅斷常。即亦非一異。不來不出者例上明以空有為世諦。世諦故有來。有空為真諦真諦息于有法。故名為去。如來說此來去為令悟無來去。以來是不來相來。故來無所來。去是不去相去故去無所去。不來不去名為中道。若成上義者既聞中道具上六不。便謂中道出二邊之外。故名為出。向執二邊即中道不成。今舍二邊故有中道。故中道始成。為息此心明中非邊外。是故不出。尚無邊可出。何中可來。問何故作如此釋。答論云。以此八事總破一切法。破一切法者歷破眾生心所行事。眾生心唯行此八事中。故今皆悉不之。令心無所行。無所行故無所得。即是迥悟無生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諦有法（真實存在的法）虛假，必定歸於磨滅，所以稱為『斷』（斷滅）。如來（佛）說此因緣（事物之間的相互關係）是常（永恒不變）還是無常（變化不定）呢？是爲了讓眾生了悟『非常非無常』（既不是永恒不變，也不是徹底斷滅）的道理，所以名為『中道』（不偏不倚的道路）。 也可以輾轉相釋（互相解釋）。迷惑的人聽到『非真非俗』（既不是真諦，也不是俗諦），『不生不滅』（沒有產生，也沒有消滅）的中道，便以為是常（永恒不變）。既然既非真諦也非俗諦，超越了真諦和俗諦，所以名為『斷』（斷滅）。爲了止息這種想法，說明中道既非生滅，也非斷常，才名為『中道』。 『不一不異』（既不是相同，也不是相異）是什麼意思呢？如果按照上面的意思，以空（空性）和有（存在）為世諦（世俗諦），世諦就是無差別（沒有區別）的差別（區別），所以名為『一異』（既相同又相異）。以有（存在）和空（空性）為真諦（勝義諦），真諦是差別（區別）的無差別（沒有區別），所以名為『異一』（既相異又相同）。異一即非一（相異就不是相同），一異即非異（相同就不是相異），非異非一（既不是相異，也不是相同）名為中道。 如果是爲了成就上面的說法，迷惑的人聽到中道『不生不滅』、『非常非斷』，便認為是一種泯然一相（完全融合爲一體的狀態）。如果去除這種一相，便認為中道也有淺深（程度上的差異），便是異相（不同的狀態）。因為有所得（執著于某種見解）的人心必定有所依（依賴的對象）。如果不執著于『一』（相同），便會墮入『異』（相異）。所以現在說明，中道既非生滅斷常，也就不是一異。 『不來不出』（既不來，也不出）按照上面的例子說明，以空（空性）和有（存在）為世諦（世俗諦），世諦所以有來（產生）。以有（存在）和空（空性）為真諦（勝義諦），真諦止息于有法（存在的法），所以名為去（消逝）。如來說此來去（產生和消逝）是爲了讓眾生領悟無來去（沒有產生，也沒有消逝）的道理。因為『來』是不來相（沒有來相）的來，所以來無所來（來沒有來處）。『去』是不去相（沒有去相）的去，所以去無所去（去沒有去處）。不來不去（沒有產生，也沒有消逝）名為中道。 如果爲了成就上面的說法，聽到中道具有上面的六不（不生、不滅、非常、非斷、不一、不異），便認為中道在二邊（兩種極端）之外，所以名為『出』（超出）。如果執著於二邊，中道就不能成立。現在捨棄二邊，所以有中道，所以中道才得以成立。爲了止息這種想法，說明中道並非在二邊之外，所以不出（超出）。尚且沒有邊可以超出，哪裡有中可以來呢？ 問：為什麼要作如此解釋？答：論中說，用這八事（不生、不滅、不常、不斷、不一、不異、不來、不出）總破一切法（破除一切法）。破一切法，就是歷破眾生心所行事（破除眾生心中所執著的事物）。眾生的心只在這八事中執行，所以現在全部否定它們，讓心無所行（沒有執著）。無所行故無所得（沒有執著，所以沒有獲得），就是徹底領悟無生（沒有產生）的道理。
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma (law, principle) that is considered real is false and will inevitably return to annihilation, hence it is called 'cessation' (斷, duàn). Does the Tathagata (如來, Rúlái, 'Thus Come One', Buddha) say that this cause and condition (因緣, yīnyuán, the relationship between things) is permanent (常, cháng) or impermanent (無常, wúcháng)? It is to enable sentient beings to realize the principle of 'neither permanent nor impermanent' (非常非無常, fēicháng fēi wúcháng), hence it is called the 'Middle Way' (中道, zhōngdào, the path of non-extremes). It can also be explained reciprocally (展轉相釋, zhǎn zhuǎn xiāng shì, mutually interpreting). Those who are confused, upon hearing the Middle Way of 'neither true nor conventional' (非真非俗, fēi zhēn fēi sú, neither ultimate truth nor conventional truth), 'neither arising nor ceasing' (不生不滅, bù shēng bù miè), take it to be permanent (常, cháng). Since it is neither ultimate truth nor conventional truth, transcending both, it is called 'cessation' (斷, duàn). To stop this thought, it is explained that the Middle Way is neither arising nor ceasing, nor is it annihilation or permanence, hence it is called the 'Middle Way'. What does 'neither one nor different' (不一不異, bù yī bù yì) mean? If according to the above meaning, taking emptiness (空, kōng) and existence (有, yǒu) as conventional truth (世諦, shìdì), conventional truth is difference (差別, chābié) within non-difference (無差別, wú chābié), hence it is called 'one and different' (一異, yī yì, both same and different). Taking existence (有, yǒu) and emptiness (空, kōng) as ultimate truth (真諦, zhēndì), ultimate truth is non-difference (無差別, wú chābié) within difference (差別, chābié), hence it is called 'different and one' (異一, yì yī, both different and same). Different and one is not one (異一即非一, yì yī jí fēi yī, being different is not being the same), one and different is not different (一異即非異, yī yì jí fēi yì, being the same is not being different), neither different nor one (非異非一, fēi yì fēi yī) is called the Middle Way. If it is to accomplish the above statement, those who are confused, upon hearing the Middle Way of 'neither arising nor ceasing', 'neither permanent nor annihilated', take it to be a state of complete fusion (泯然一相, mǐnrán yī xiàng, a completely integrated state). If this state of fusion is removed, then it is thought that the Middle Way also has degrees of shallowness and depth (淺深, qiǎnshēn, differences in degree), which is a state of difference (異相, yì xiàng, different states). Because the mind of someone who has attainment (有所得, yǒu suǒ dé, clinging to a certain view) must have something to rely on (有所依, yǒu suǒ yī, an object of reliance). If one does not cling to 'one' (相同, xiāngtóng, sameness), one will fall into 'different' (相異, xiāngyì, difference). Therefore, it is now explained that the Middle Way is neither arising nor ceasing, nor annihilation or permanence, and therefore it is neither one nor different. 『Neither coming nor going』 (不來不出, bù lái bù chū) according to the above example, taking emptiness (空, kōng) and existence (有, yǒu) as conventional truth (世諦, shìdì), conventional truth therefore has coming (來, lái, arising). Taking existence (有, yǒu) and emptiness (空, kōng) as ultimate truth (真諦, zhēndì), ultimate truth ceases in the Dharma of existence (有法, yǒu fǎ, existing dharmas), hence it is called going (去, qù, ceasing). The Tathagata speaks of this coming and going (來去, láiqù, arising and ceasing) to enable sentient beings to realize the principle of neither coming nor going (無來去, wú láiqù). Because 'coming' is coming without the appearance of coming (來是不來相來, lái shì bù lái xiàng lái), therefore coming has nowhere to come from (來無所來, lái wú suǒ lái). 'Going' is going without the appearance of going (去是不去相去, qù shì bù qù xiàng qù), therefore going has nowhere to go to (去無所去, qù wú suǒ qù). Neither coming nor going (不來不去, bù lái bù qù) is called the Middle Way. If it is to accomplish the above statement, upon hearing that the Middle Way has the above six negations (六不, liù bù, not arising, not ceasing, not permanent, not annihilated, not one, not different), it is thought that the Middle Way is outside of the two extremes (二邊, èr biān, two extremes), hence it is called 'going out' (出, chū, exceeding). If one clings to the two extremes, the Middle Way cannot be established. Now, abandoning the two extremes, therefore there is the Middle Way, so the Middle Way can be established. To stop this thought, it is explained that the Middle Way is not outside of the two extremes, therefore it does not go out (不出, bù chū, exceed). There are not even extremes to exceed, so where can the middle come from? Question: Why make such an explanation? Answer: The treatise says that these eight things (八事, bā shì, not arising, not ceasing, not permanent, not annihilated, not one, not different, not coming, not going) are used to completely break down all dharmas (一切法, yīqiè fǎ, all phenomena). Breaking down all dharmas is to successively break down the actions of sentient beings' minds (眾生心所行事, zhòngshēng xīn suǒ xíngshì, the things that sentient beings' minds cling to). Sentient beings' minds only operate within these eight things, so now they are all negated, so that the mind has nothing to act upon (無所行, wú suǒ xíng, no clinging). Because there is no action, there is no attainment (無所得, wú suǒ dé, no clinging, therefore no attainment), which is to thoroughly realize no arising (無生, wú shēng, no arising).
故作此釋也。次結束之雖有四種中假合但成一中一假。非真俗為體。故名為中。真俗為用。故稱為假。問何故以非真俗為中。真俗為假。答寄於兩非息二邊之見。故名為中。實非真俗為眾生故強作真俗名說。故真俗名假。二者體用悉名為中。以中是正義。以具有非真俗及以真俗。此義始正故悉名為中。三者真俗非真俗皆是假。所以皆稱假者並是如來假名字說。故皆悉是假。所以然者道門未曾真俗。假說真俗。故真俗是假。亦未曾非真俗。假說非真俗。故非真俗亦是假。又真俗不自真俗。是非真俗真俗真俗既是假。非真俗不自非真俗由真俗。由真俗故非真俗即非真俗亦是假。問俱中俱假復得合為一假。合成一中以不。答具足真俗非真俗義乃圓正。始成一圓中。真俗非真俗不自始是一圓假也。問單明真俗是何中何假。直明非真俗復是何假何中。答一往目之非真俗為體假。真俗為用假。真俗為用中。非真俗為體中。所以作此語者為欲釋論文中假。故一往立於體用。復為對由來真俗是體。無有非真俗體故。明真俗是用。非真俗方是體。令其舍真俗二見得迥悟耳。若守此語作解者其過更深。師又云。直稱體用即無復縱跡。所以然者既稱體用。即是因緣。因緣體用即寂滅性。云何更守此言耶。如體用一事既爾。六根所對四儀動靜常
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此作這樣的解釋。其次，總結來說，雖然有四種中道和假名，但最終合成一個中道和一個假名。不是以真諦和俗諦為本體，所以稱為『中』（madhyamaka）。以真諦和俗諦為作用，所以稱為『假』（prajna）。 問：為什麼以非真諦非俗諦為『中』，而以真諦和俗諦為『假』？ 答：寄託于否定兩邊的見解，息滅二邊之見，所以名為『中』。實際上並非真的有真諦和俗諦，爲了眾生的緣故，勉強安立真諦和俗諦的名稱來說明，所以真諦和俗諦的名稱是『假』。 兩者本體和作用都稱為『中』，因為『中』是正義，因為它具有非真諦非俗諦以及真諦俗諦。這個意義才是真正的正義，所以都稱為『中』。 第三，真諦、俗諦、非真諦、非俗諦，都是『假』。之所以都稱為『假』，是因為這些都是如來假借名字的說法，所以都是『假』。之所以這樣說，是因為在道門中，本來就沒有真諦和俗諦，只是假借安立真諦和俗諦，所以真諦和俗諦是『假』。也未曾有非真諦非俗諦，只是假借安立非真諦非俗諦，所以非真諦非俗諦也是『假』。而且，真諦和俗諦不是自己成為真諦和俗諦，是非真諦非俗諦使真諦和俗諦成為真諦和俗諦。真諦和俗諦既然是『假』，那麼非真諦非俗諦也不是自己成為非真諦非俗諦，而是由真諦和俗諦而來。由於真諦和俗諦的緣故，非真諦非俗諦就是非真諦非俗諦，也是『假』。 問：都是『中』，都是『假』，還能合為一個『假』，合為一個『中』嗎？ 答：具足真諦、俗諦、非真諦、非俗諦的意義，才圓滿正直，才成為一個圓滿的『中』。真諦、俗諦、非真諦、非俗諦不自己開始，而是一個圓滿的『假』。 問：單獨說明真諦和俗諦，是什麼『中』什麼『假』？直接說明非真諦非俗諦，又是什麼『假』什麼『中』？ 答：一般而言，非真諦非俗諦是本體『假』，真諦和俗諦是作用『假』。真諦和俗諦是作用『中』，非真諦非俗諦是本體『中』。之所以這樣說，是爲了解釋論文中的『假』，所以姑且安立本體和作用。又是爲了對治由來認為真諦和俗諦是本體，沒有非真諦非俗諦的本體的觀點，所以說明真諦和俗諦是作用，非真諦非俗諦才是本體，使他們捨棄真諦和俗諦的二邊見解，從而獲得徹底的覺悟。如果執著于這種說法來解釋，那麼過失就更深了。老師又說：直接稱本體和作用，就沒有縱跡可尋了。之所以這樣說，是因為既然稱為本體和作用，就是因緣。因緣的本體和作用就是寂滅的本性，怎麼還能執著于這種說法呢？如同本體和作用是一回事一樣，六根所對的四種威儀，動靜常
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, this explanation is made. Secondly, to conclude, although there are four kinds of the Middle Way (madhyamaka) and provisional names (prajna), they ultimately combine into one Middle Way and one provisional name. It is not based on Truth (satya) and Convention (samvriti) as its substance, so it is called 'Middle'. It takes Truth and Convention as its function, so it is called 'Provisional'. Question: Why is it that non-Truth and non-Convention is taken as 'Middle', while Truth and Convention are taken as 'Provisional'? Answer: It relies on negating the views of both sides, extinguishing the views of the two extremes, so it is called 'Middle'. In reality, there are no real Truth and Convention. For the sake of sentient beings, the names of Truth and Convention are provisionally established to explain, so the names of Truth and Convention are 'Provisional'. Both substance and function are called 'Middle', because 'Middle' is the correct meaning, as it possesses non-Truth and non-Convention as well as Truth and Convention. This meaning is the truly correct meaning, so all are called 'Middle'. Thirdly, Truth, Convention, non-Truth, non-Convention are all 'Provisional'. The reason why they are all called 'Provisional' is because these are all provisional names spoken by the Tathagata (Thus Come One), so they are all 'Provisional'. The reason for this is that in the path of the Tao, there was originally no Truth and Convention, but Truth and Convention were provisionally established, so Truth and Convention are 'Provisional'. There has also never been non-Truth and non-Convention, but non-Truth and non-Convention were provisionally established, so non-Truth and non-Convention are also 'Provisional'. Moreover, Truth and Convention do not become Truth and Convention by themselves; it is non-Truth and non-Convention that makes Truth and Convention become Truth and Convention. Since Truth and Convention are 'Provisional', then non-Truth and non-Convention does not become non-Truth and non-Convention by itself, but comes from Truth and Convention. Because of Truth and Convention, non-Truth and non-Convention is non-Truth and non-Convention, which is also 'Provisional'. Question: If all are 'Middle' and all are 'Provisional', can they still be combined into one 'Provisional' and combined into one 'Middle'? Answer: Possessing the meaning of Truth, Convention, non-Truth, and non-Convention is complete and upright, and only then does it become a complete 'Middle'. Truth, Convention, non-Truth, and non-Convention do not begin by themselves, but are a complete 'Provisional'. Question: Explaining Truth and Convention alone, what is 'Middle' and what is 'Provisional'? Directly explaining non-Truth and non-Convention, what is 'Provisional' and what is 'Middle'? Answer: Generally speaking, non-Truth and non-Convention is the substance 'Provisional', and Truth and Convention is the function 'Provisional'. Truth and Convention is the function 'Middle', and non-Truth and non-Convention is the substance 'Middle'. The reason for saying this is to explain the 'Provisional' in the treatise, so the substance and function are provisionally established. It is also to counter the view that Truth and Convention are the substance and there is no substance of non-Truth and non-Convention, so it is explained that Truth and Convention are the function, and non-Truth and non-Convention is the substance, so that they abandon the two-sided view of Truth and Convention and attain thorough enlightenment. If one clings to this statement to explain, then the fault will be even deeper. The teacher also said: Directly calling substance and function, there is no trace to be found. The reason for this is that since it is called substance and function, it is cause and condition. The substance and function of cause and condition is the nature of stillness and extinction, so how can one still cling to this statement? Just as substance and function are one thing, the four dignities of the six senses, movement and stillness are constant
須識。其是因緣若精識因緣則知。因緣四儀未曾四與不四。無復下心處。所以於此四儀不起愛見。即常與道合。師又云。凡有所說皆為息病。病息則語盡。如雹摧草草死而雹消。不得復守言作解。守言作解還覆成病。無得解脫。又師云。以觀心發言即言不動觀。言不動觀竟何嘗言。師又云。寄言以顯道實無言可寄即知。言不異道既無言可寄。何道可寄言。即心下一無所依。若復依此無所依即無依還是依。冀迥悟之賓望玄指而一變。舉一可例諸耳。問師何故立於中假。復以何義破中假耶。答上已釋竟。今當重說對由來性義。是故立假治學教偏病。所以明中。令舍偏不著中。性去不留假。即須知。偏舍無所舍。性去無所去。昔山中學士名慧靜法師。云惑去論主去。此去無所去。而遂舍偏著中。除性立假。以此安心即畢竟不見佛。所以然者佛心無所依。汝心有所寄。乃與佛隔。何由見佛。為此義故須破之。又須破中假者人未學三論。已懷數論之解。今聽三論又作解以安於心。既同安於心即俱是有所得。與舊何異。又過甚他人。所以然者昔既得數論舊解。今復得三論新智。即更加一見。師云。此是足載耳。可謂。學彌廣倒彌多。而經論意在息心達本源。故號為沙門。又息之以至於無息矣。所言不破中假者。體道之人達此性假本
來是道不須破之。既欲破之豈非破于道耶。最須深見此意。而今言破者為其不知所立性假本來是道。故用道為非道。今還令其悟非道為道。故云破耳。實不破也。二者又須知。性即是假。凡夫顛倒謂假成性。諸佛觀之性常是假。故云一切世諦。若於如來常是第一義諦。三者體道之人知此道未曾假性。假性出自兩緣。亦如一道未曾真俗。真俗出自二緣。四者尋教之流須識諸佛菩薩內得無礙之觀。外有無方之辨。說假為性。說性為假。說性假為非性假。非性假為性假。若守片言便喪圓意。非學三論者矣。
中觀論疏卷第二(本畢)
中觀論疏卷第二(末)
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
淺深門第五。問他亦云。有為世諦。空為真諦。與今何異。答須初章語簡之。他云。有有可有則有無可無。故有不由無即無不由有。有是自有。無是自無。今無有可有即無無可無。無有可有由無故有。無無可無由有故無。由無故有有不自有。由有故無無不自無。有不自有故非有。無不自無故非無。非有非無假說有無。故與他為異。問非有非無假說有無。是中假義不。答非也。此明有無義耳。良由有不自有故非有。無不自無故非無。非有非無假說有無。即有無始成也。故是始明有無義耳。不言非有非無是中。有無即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：道本來就是道，不需要去破除。如果想要破除它，豈不是在破除道本身嗎？最需要深刻理解這個道理。現在說『破』，是因為他們不知道所立的自性本就是假，而本來就是道。所以用道來否定道。現在讓他們領悟非道即是道，所以才說『破』，實際上並沒有破除。第二，要知道，自性就是假。凡夫顛倒，認為假成了自性。諸佛觀察，自性本來就是假。所以說一切世俗諦，對於如來來說，常常是第一義諦。第三，體悟道的人知道這個道未曾離開過自性，假自性出自兩方面的因緣。也像一道未曾有真俗之分，真俗出自兩方面的因緣。第四，尋教之人必須認識到諸佛菩薩內在有無礙的觀照，外在有無窮的辯才。說假為自性，說自性為假，說自性和假為非自性非假，說非自性非假為自性和假。如果拘泥於片面的言辭，就會失去圓滿的意義，那就不是學習三論的人了。
《中觀論疏》卷第二（本畢）
《中觀論疏》卷第二（末）
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
淺深門第五。問：其他人也說，有為世俗諦，空為真諦，與現在所說的有什麼不同？答：需要用第一章的簡要語言來區分。他們說，有有可有，則有無可無，所以有不依賴於無，即無不依賴於有。有是自有，無是自無。現在沒有有可有，即沒有無可無。沒有有可有，因為無所以有；沒有無可無，因為有所以無。因為無所以有，有不是自有；因為有所以無，無不是自無。有不是自有，所以非有；無不是自無，所以非無。非有非無，假說有無。所以與他們不同。問：非有非無，假說有無，這是中觀的假義嗎？答：不是。這只是說明有無的意義。因為有不是自有，所以非有；無不是自無，所以非無。非有非無，假說有無，即有無開始形成。所以這是開始說明有無的意義，不是說非有非無是中觀。有無即...
【English Translation】 English version: 'Coming' is the Dao (the Way, the Truth), which needs no refutation. If you intend to refute it, aren't you refuting the Dao itself? It is most important to deeply understand this meaning. The reason for saying 'refute' now is that they do not know that the established nature is inherently false, and is originally the Dao. Therefore, they use the Dao to negate the Dao. Now, we make them realize that non-Dao is Dao, so we say 'refute,' but in reality, there is no refutation. Secondly, one must know that nature is falsity. Ordinary people are deluded, thinking that falsity becomes nature. Buddhas observe that nature is always false. Therefore, it is said that all worldly truths are always the ultimate truth for the Tathagata (the Thus-Come One, Buddha). Thirdly, those who embody the Dao know that this Dao has never been separated from nature, and false nature arises from two conditions. It is also like one Dao that has never had true or false distinctions; true and false arise from two conditions. Fourthly, those who seek teachings must recognize that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas internally have unobstructed contemplation, and externally have boundless eloquence. They speak of falsity as nature, speak of nature as falsity, speak of nature and falsity as non-nature and non-falsity, and speak of non-nature and non-falsity as nature and falsity. If one clings to partial words, one will lose the complete meaning, and one will not be a student of the Three Treatises.
《Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti (Commentary on the Middle Treatise)》, Volume 2 (End of this section)
《Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti (Commentary on the Middle Treatise)》, Volume 2 (End)
Composed by Master Jizang
Chapter 1: Conditions
Fifth: Shallow and Deep. Question: Others also say that existence is conventional truth (samvrti-satya), and emptiness is ultimate truth (paramartha-satya). How is this different from what is being said now? Answer: It is necessary to use the concise language of the first chapter to distinguish. They say that if there is existence that can exist, then there is existence that cannot not exist. Therefore, existence does not depend on non-existence, and non-existence does not depend on existence. Existence is self-existent, and non-existence is self-non-existent. Now, there is no existence that can exist, meaning there is no existence that cannot not exist. There is no existence that can exist because of non-existence, so there is existence; there is no existence that cannot not exist because of existence, so there is non-existence. Because of non-existence, there is existence, so existence is not self-existent. Because of existence, there is non-existence, so non-existence is not self-non-existent. Existence is not self-existent, so it is non-existence. Non-existence is not self-non-existent, so it is non-non-existence. Non-existence and non-non-existence are provisionally called existence and non-existence. Therefore, it is different from them. Question: Non-existence and non-non-existence are provisionally called existence and non-existence. Is this the meaning of provisionality in Madhyamaka (the Middle Way)? Answer: No. This only explains the meaning of existence and non-existence. Because existence is not self-existent, it is non-existence. Because non-existence is not self-non-existent, it is non-non-existence. Non-existence and non-non-existence are provisionally called existence and non-existence, which is the beginning of the formation of existence and non-existence. Therefore, this is the beginning of explaining the meaning of existence and non-existence, not saying that non-existence and non-non-existence are Madhyamaka. Existence and non-existence are...
是假。得意密取此語名為中假。亦無所妨。問初章與中假何異。答若總詺此一章。為初學之章門皆是初章。一切法不離中假。故皆是中假。而師分之一往異。初章者他有有可有即有無可無。今無有可有即無無可無。他有有可有不由無故有。有無可無不由有故無。今無有可有由無故有。無無可無由有故無。他不由無故有有是自有。不由有故無無是自無。今由無故有有不自有。由有故無無不自無。他有是自有名有故有。無是自無名無故無。今有不自有名不有有。無不自無名不無無。此四節語為初章也。不有有則非有。不無無即非無。非有非無假說有無。此是中假義也。問初章中假明何物義耶。答初章是伏。中假是斷。初明假有無。是伏性有無。次明假有無。入非有非無。即性有無永斷也。故初章中假為破性病。性病若去此語亦不留。若守初章中假者是中假師耳。又云。初章是動執生疑。謂動性有無之執。令疑性有無。中假即破性執釋疑。中破性執。假為釋疑。明假說有無。何失有無義耶。二者他但以有為世諦。空為真諦。今明若有若空皆是世諦。非空非有始名真諦。三者空有為二。非空非有為不二。二與不二皆是世諦。非二非不二方名為真諦。四者此三種二諦皆是教門。說此三門為令悟不三。無所依得始名為理也。問以前
【現代漢語翻譯】 是『假』（Prajñapti，方便安立）。得意而秘密地取用此語，名為『中假』（Madhyama-prajñapti，中道假）。也沒有什麼妨礙。問：『初章』（Prathama-prakarana，初始之章）與『中假』有什麼不同？答：如果總括地稱這一章為『初學之章』，那麼所有章門都是『初章』。一切法不離『中假』，所以一切法都是『中假』。然而，師承和分際有所不同。『初章』是『他有有可有，即有無可無』（他者有，則可能有，即是有，無則不可能有，即是無）。『今無有可有，即無無可無』（現在沒有，則可能有，即是無，無則不可能有，即是無）。『他有有可有，不由無故有』（他者有，則可能有，不是因為無而有）。『有無可無，不由有故無』（有則不可能無，不是因為有而無）。『今無有可有，由無故有』（現在沒有，則可能有，是因為無而有）。『無無可無，由有故無』（無則不可能無，是因為有而無）。『他有是自有，名有故有』（他者有是自有，名為有，所以有）。『無是自無，名無故無』（無是自無，名為無，所以無）。『今有不自有，名不有有』（現在有不是自有，名為不有，所以有）。『無不自無，名不無無』（無不是自無，名為不無，所以無）。這四節語是『初章』的內容。『不有有則非有』（不認為有就是有，那麼就不是有）。『不無無即非無』（不認為無就是無，那麼就不是無）。『非有非無，假說有無』（既不是有也不是無，只是假說有和無）。這是『中假』的意義。問：『初章』和『中假』闡明了什麼義理？答：『初章』是『伏』（降伏），『中假』是『斷』（斷除）。最初闡明假有和假無，是爲了降伏自性的有和無。其次闡明假有和假無，是爲了進入非有非無的境界，從而永遠斷除自性的有和無。所以，『初章』和『中假』是爲了破除自性的病。自性的病如果去除，這些言語也不應執著。如果執著『初章』和『中假』，那就只是『中假』的老師而已。又說，『初章』是引發執著和疑惑，指的是引發對自性有無的執著，從而使人對自性有無產生疑惑。『中假』是破除自性的執著，解釋疑惑。通過破除自性的執著，假說有無，有什麼失去有無的意義呢？二者，他們只是以『有』為世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理），以『空』（Śūnyatā，空性）為真諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義真理）。現在闡明，無論是『有』還是『空』，都是世俗諦，非空非有才稱為真諦。三者，空和有是二，非空非有是不二。二與不二都是世俗諦，非二非不二才稱為真諦。四者，這三種二諦都是教門，說這三種門是爲了使人領悟不三，無所依才能稱為理。問：以前 現代漢語譯本
【English Translation】 It is 'Prajñapti' (假, provisional designation). To take this term with satisfaction and secrecy is called 'Madhyama-prajñapti' (中假, middle provisional designation). There is no harm in that. Question: What is the difference between 'Prathama-prakarana' (初章, the initial chapter) and 'Madhyama-prajñapti'? Answer: If we generally call this chapter the 'chapter for beginners,' then all chapters are 'Prathama-prakarana.' All dharmas are inseparable from 'Madhyama-prajñapti,' so all dharmas are 'Madhyama-prajñapti.' However, the lineage and distinction are different. 'Prathama-prakarana' is 'If there is something else, then there is possibility of existence, which is existence; if there is no possibility of existence, then there is no existence.' 'Now, if there is no existence, then there is possibility of non-existence, which is non-existence; if there is no possibility of non-existence, then there is no non-existence.' 'If there is something else, then there is possibility of existence, not because of non-existence.' 'If there is existence, then there is no possibility of non-existence, not because of existence.' 'Now, if there is no existence, then there is possibility of non-existence, because of non-existence.' 'If there is existence, then there is no possibility of non-existence, because of existence.' 'If there is something else, then existence is self-existent, named existence, therefore there is existence.' 'If there is no existence, then non-existence is self-non-existent, named non-existence, therefore there is non-existence.' 'Now, existence is not self-existent, named not existence, therefore there is existence.' 'Non-existence is not self-non-existent, named not non-existence, therefore there is non-existence.' These four sections of speech are the content of 'Prathama-prakarana.' 'If existence is not considered as existence, then it is not existence.' 'If non-existence is not considered as non-existence, then it is not non-existence.' 'Neither existence nor non-existence, provisionally speaking of existence and non-existence.' This is the meaning of 'Madhyama-prajñapti.' Question: What principles do 'Prathama-prakarana' and 'Madhyama-prajñapti' elucidate? Answer: 'Prathama-prakarana' is 'subduing,' and 'Madhyama-prajñapti' is 'severing.' Initially elucidating provisional existence and provisional non-existence is to subdue the existence and non-existence of self-nature. Secondly, elucidating provisional existence and provisional non-existence is to enter the realm of neither existence nor non-existence, thereby permanently severing the existence and non-existence of self-nature. Therefore, 'Prathama-prakarana' and 'Madhyama-prajñapti' are for breaking the illness of self-nature. If the illness of self-nature is removed, these words should not be clung to either. If one clings to 'Prathama-prakarana' and 'Madhyama-prajñapti,' then one is merely a teacher of 'Madhyama-prajñapti.' Furthermore, it is said that 'Prathama-prakarana' is to provoke attachment and doubt, referring to provoking attachment to the existence and non-existence of self-nature, thereby causing people to doubt the existence and non-existence of self-nature. 'Madhyama-prajñapti' is to break the attachment to self-nature and explain doubts. By breaking the attachment to self-nature, provisionally speaking of existence and non-existence, what meaning of existence and non-existence is lost? Secondly, they only take 'existence' as Saṃvṛti-satya (世俗諦, conventional truth) and Śūnyatā (空, emptiness) as Paramārtha-satya (真諦, ultimate truth). Now it is elucidated that whether it is 'existence' or 'emptiness,' both are Saṃvṛti-satya, and neither emptiness nor existence is called Paramārtha-satya. Thirdly, emptiness and existence are two, and neither emptiness nor existence is non-dual. Both duality and non-duality are Saṃvṛti-satya, and neither duality nor non-duality is called Paramārtha-satya. Fourthly, these three kinds of two truths are all teaching methods. Saying these three doors is to enable people to realize non-three, and only when there is nothing to rely on can it be called principle. Question: Before English version
三皆是世諦。不三為真諦以不。答得如此也。問若爾與理教何異。答自有二諦為教不二為理。若以二為世諦。不二為第一義。世諦是教。第一義為理。皆是轉側適緣無所妨也。問何故作此四重二諦耶。答利根聞初即悟正道。不須后二。中根聞初不悟。聞第二方得入道。下根轉至第三。始得領解也。又為釋于經論。經論之中或言。有是世諦。空為第一義。如大品云。菩薩住二諦中。為眾生說法。為著有者說空。爲著空者說有。即初重意。大品又云。若有若無世諦故說。非有非無第一義諦。即第二重意。華嚴云。不著不二法以無一二故。即第三重意。華嚴又云。諦了分別諸法時無有自性假名說。悉欲分別世諦義。菩薩因此初發心。一切諸法語言斷心行寂滅如虛空。悉欲分別真諦義。菩薩因此初發心。此以一切言說為世諦。言妄慮絕為第一義諦。即第四重意也。又為對由來但有一重二諦。故今明此四重意。又為破四病故說四門。初明於凡夫是有名為世諦。于聖人是空名第一義諦。次明為破有故言空耳。諸法未曾是有。亦未曾是空。空有並出兩情。故皆是世諦耳。知未曾空有名為真諦。次明為破空有故言非空有耳。竟未曾是空是有。何曾是非空非有。故空有非空有二不二皆是世諦。非空非有非不空非不有方是真諦。次明說四句
為俗。非四句方乃是真。問此四重二諦云何釋八不耶。答初以生滅為俗。不生滅為真。次生滅不生滅皆俗。非生滅非不生滅為真。第三生滅為二。不生滅為不二。二不二皆俗。非二非不二為真。次明此三皆俗。不三為真。問但應釋八不。云何乃云非生非不生。何名釋八不耶。答真俗既通四重。不生亦具四種。一者初開生無生為二。次則生無生皆是生。非生無生始是無生。三則生無生二。非生無生不二。二與不二皆生。非二不二始是無生。四者此之三種皆是名言。並悉是生。言妄慮息方是無生。故八不之言其旨深遠也。問此出何文。答智度論釋無生法忍云。不生不滅不不生不不滅不共非不共是名無生法忍。此明生無生四句畢竟不生始是無生忍。故知。無生通此四句。問攝山大師何故以二諦為教也。答須深得此意。正道未曾真俗。為眾生故作真俗名說。故以真俗為教。此是望正道為言也。二者拔由來二諦之見。故明二諦為教。由來理二諦根深。言二諦有兩理故成畫石二見。二心不可除。睿公云。道俗之不夷。二際之不泯。菩薩之憂也。大師無生內充。慈風外扇。為拔二理之見故言真之與俗皆是教也。至道未曾真俗。即末學者遂守二諦是教。還是投語作解。由來二諦是理為理見。今二諦為教覆成教見。若得意者境之與教皆無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 認為是世俗的。不是這四句才算是真諦。問這四重二諦如何解釋八不呢？答：最初以生滅為世俗，不生滅為真諦。其次，生滅和不生滅都是世俗，非生滅和非不生滅為真諦。第三，生滅為二，不生滅為不二，二和不二都是世俗，非二和非不二為真諦。再次說明這三種都是世俗，不三為真諦。問：只應該解釋八不，為什麼說非生非不生呢？這怎麼能解釋八不呢？答：真諦和俗諦既然貫通四重，不生也具備四種含義。一是最初分開生和無生為二。其次，生和無生都是生，非生非無生才是無生。第三，生和無生是二，非生非無生是不二，二與不二都是生，非二非不二才是無生。第四，這三種都是名言，都屬於生，言語妄念止息才是無生。所以八不的含義深遠。問：這出自什麼經文？答：《智度論》解釋無生法忍說：『不生不滅，不不生不不滅，不共非不共，是名無生法忍。』這說明生和無生的四句最終都不生才是無生忍。所以知道，無生貫通這四句。問：攝山大師為什麼以二諦為教義呢？答：必須深刻理解這個意思。正道本來沒有真諦和俗諦的區別，爲了眾生的緣故才假立真諦和俗諦的名稱來說明。所以用真諦和俗諦作為教義，這是針對正道而言的。二是拔除由來已久的二諦之見，所以闡明二諦作為教義。由來已久的理二諦根深蒂固，認為二諦有兩重道理，因此形成畫石二見的執著。這種二元對立的心態難以消除。睿公說：『道與俗不能等同，真與妄不能泯滅，這是菩薩所憂慮的。』大師無生的智慧充盈內心，慈悲之風向外傳播，爲了拔除執著於二理的見解，所以說真諦和俗諦都是教義。至高的道本來沒有真諦和俗諦的區別，但後來的學習者就固守二諦是教義，還是停留在語言文字上做解釋。由來已久的二諦是道理，因此產生了對道理的執著，現在把二諦作為教義又形成了對教義的執著。如果領悟了真意，境界和教義都將消融。
【English Translation】 English version It is considered mundane. Only that which is not these four statements is true. Question: How do these four levels of the two truths explain the Eight No's? Answer: Initially, birth and death are considered mundane, while non-birth and non-death are considered true. Secondly, both birth/death and non-birth/non-death are mundane, while neither birth/death nor non-birth/non-death are true. Thirdly, birth/death is duality, non-birth/non-death is non-duality. Both duality and non-duality are mundane, while neither duality nor non-duality are true. Furthermore, these three are all mundane, while 'not three' is true. Question: One should only explain the Eight No's, why speak of neither birth nor non-birth? How does this explain the Eight No's? Answer: Since the true and mundane pervade the four levels, 'no-birth' also possesses four meanings. First, initially separating birth and no-birth into two. Secondly, both birth and no-birth are birth; only neither birth nor no-birth is truly no-birth. Thirdly, birth and no-birth are duality, neither birth nor no-birth is non-duality; both duality and non-duality are birth; only neither duality nor non-duality is truly no-birth. Fourthly, these three are all verbal expressions, and all belong to birth; only when verbal delusions cease is there no-birth. Therefore, the meaning of the Eight No's is profound. Question: From what text does this come? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (智度論) explains the forbearance of no-birth (anutpattika-dharma-kshanti) (無生法忍) saying: 'No birth, no death, not no-birth, not no-death, not common, not not-common, this is called the forbearance of no-birth.' This explains that the four statements of birth and no-birth ultimately not arising is the forbearance of no-birth. Therefore, know that no-birth pervades these four statements. Question: Why does Master Sheshan (攝山大師) use the two truths as his teaching? Answer: One must deeply understand this meaning. The true path has never had true or mundane. For the sake of sentient beings, the names of true and mundane are made to explain. Therefore, the two truths are used as the teaching, this is in relation to the true path. Secondly, to eradicate the long-held view of the two truths, therefore clarifying the two truths as the teaching. The long-held view of the two truths as principles is deeply rooted, believing that the two truths have two reasons, thus forming the attachment of 'drawing stones' (畫石二見). This dualistic mindset is difficult to eliminate. Master Rui (睿公) said: 'The path and the mundane cannot be equal, the true and the false cannot be extinguished, this is what the Bodhisattva worries about.' The Master's wisdom of no-birth fills his heart, and the wind of compassion spreads outward. To eradicate the view of attachment to the two principles, therefore saying that both the true and the mundane are teachings. The supreme path originally has no true or mundane, but later learners cling to the two truths as the teaching, still stopping at linguistic explanations. The long-held view of the two truths as principles creates attachment to principles, now taking the two truths as the teaching again forms attachment to the teaching. If one understands the true meaning, both the realm and the teaching will dissolve.
妨也。以真俗通理。故名為教。真俗生智。即名為境。如來說二諦。故二諦為教。如來照二諦。即二諦為境。然二諦未曾境教。適時而用之。同異門第六。什師未至長安本有三家義。一者釋道安明本無義。謂無在萬化之前。空為眾形之始。夫人之所滯滯在未有。若詫心本無則異想便息。睿法師云。格義迂而乖本。六家偏而未即。師云。安和上鑿荒途以開轍。標玄旨于性空。以爐冶之功驗之。唯性空之宗最得其實。詳此意安公明本無者。一切諸法本性空寂。故云本無。此與方等經論什肇山門義無異也。次琛法師云。本無者未有色法。先有于無故從無出有。即無在有先有在無後。故稱本無。此釋為肇公不真空論之所破。亦經論之所未明也。若無在有前則非有本性是無。即前無後有。從有還無。經云。若法前有後無即諸佛菩薩便有過罪。若前無後有亦有過罪。故不同此義也。第二即色義。但即色有二家。一者關內即色義。明即色是空者此明色無自性。故言即色是空。不言即色是本性空也。此義為肇公所呵。肇公云。此乃悟色而不自色。未領色非色也。次支道林著即色游玄論。明即色是空。故言即色游玄論。此猶是不壞假名。而說實相。與安師本性空故無異也。第三溫法師用心無義。心無者無心於萬物。萬物未嘗無。此釋意云
。經中說諸法空者。欲令心體虛妄不執。故言無耳。不空外物。即萬物之境不空。肇師詳云。此得在於神靜。而失在於物虛。破意云。乃知心空而猶存物有。此計有得有失也。此四師即晉世所立矣。爰至宗大莊嚴寺曇濟法師著七宗論。還述前四以為四宗。第五於法開立識含義。三界為長夜之宅。心識為大夢之主。今之所見群有皆于夢中所見。其于大夢既覺長夜。獲曉即倒惑識滅三界都空。是時無所從生而靡所不生。難曰。若爾大覺之時便不見萬物。即失世諦。如來五眼何所見耶。第六壹法師云。世諦之法皆如幻化。是故經云。從本已來未始有也。難曰。經稱幻化所作無有罪福。若一切法全同幻化者。實人化人竟何異耶。又經借虛以破實。實去而封虛。未得經意也。第七于道邃明緣會故有名為世諦。緣散故即無稱第一義諦。難云。經不壞假名而說實相。豈待推散方是真無。推散方無蓋是俗中之事無耳。次齊隱士周顒著三宗論。一不空假名。二空假名。三假名空。不空假名者經云。色空者此是空無性實。故言空耳。不空于假色也。以空無性實故名為空。即真諦。不空于假故名世諦。晚人名此為鼠樓栗義。難云。論云。諸法后異故知。皆是無性。無性法亦無。一切法空故。即性無性一切皆空。豈但空性而不空假。此與前即色
【現代漢語翻譯】 經中說諸法空（諸法皆空：一切事物和現象都沒有永恒不變的實體）的目的是要讓人們的心體不再執著于虛妄。所以說『無耳』，但並不是說外在的事物是空的，也就是說萬物的境界並不是空的。鳩摩羅什的弟子僧肇詳細解釋說，這種觀點的優點在於強調了精神的寧靜，而缺點在於認為物質是虛無的。破意法師批評說，這種觀點認為心是空的，但仍然承認物質的存在，所以既有可取之處，也有失誤之處。這四位法師的學說在晉代就已經確立了。 到了宗大莊嚴寺的曇濟法師，他寫了《七宗論》，仍然沿用了之前的四宗，作為其中的四宗。第五位是於法開，他提出了『識含義』的觀點，認為三界（欲界、色界、無色界）是漫長黑夜的住所，心識是巨大夢境的主宰。現在我們所看到的一切事物，都是在夢中所見。當從大夢中醒來，漫長的黑夜過去，迎來黎明時，顛倒的迷惑和心識就會消滅，三界都會變成空無。這時，沒有什麼東西是從中產生的，但又好像什麼東西都可以從中產生。有人反駁說，如果這樣，那麼大覺悟的時候就什麼也看不見了，那就失去了世俗諦（相對於真諦，指世間事物的表象和規律）。如來的五眼（肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼、佛眼）又用來做什麼呢？ 第六位是壹法師，他說世俗諦的法都像是幻化出來的。所以經書上說，『從根本上來說，從來就沒有存在過』。有人反駁說，經書上說幻化所產生的事物沒有罪也沒有福。如果一切法都完全等同於幻化，那麼真實的人和幻化出來的人又有什麼區別呢？而且經書是借用虛幻來破除實在，如果破除了實在卻又固守虛幻，那就沒有理解經書的真正含義。 第七位是于道邃，他認為因為因緣聚合，所以才有名為世俗諦；因為因緣離散，所以就沒有了，這被稱為第一義諦（真諦，指事物和現象的真實本質）。有人反駁說，經書上說不破壞假名（事物和現象的名稱）而闡述實相（事物的真實本質），難道要等到推散了才算是真正的空無嗎？推散了才空無，這只是世俗中的事情罷了。接下來，齊代的隱士周顒寫了《三宗論》，分為三種觀點：一是不空假名，二是空假名，三是假名空。不空假名是指經書上說，『色（物質）是空的』，這指的是空無自性（事物本身沒有獨立的、永恒不變的性質），所以才說是空。並不是說假借的色是空的。因為空無自性，所以稱為空，也就是真諦；不空于假借的色，所以稱為世俗諦。晚近的人把這種觀點稱為『鼠樓栗義』。 有人反駁說，論中說，諸法（一切事物和現象）後來會發生變化，所以知道它們都是沒有自性的。沒有自性的法也是空無的，一切法都是空無的。難道只是空無自性，而不空無假借的色嗎？這和前面所說的『即色（物質）』
【English Translation】 The sutra says that all dharmas (諸法) are empty (空) in order to make the mind-body (心體) not cling to falsehoods. Therefore, it says 'no ear,' but it does not mean that external things are empty. That is to say, the realm of all things is not empty. Sengzhao (僧肇), a disciple of Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什), explained in detail that the advantage of this view lies in emphasizing the tranquility of the spirit, while the disadvantage lies in considering matter to be illusory. Po Yi (破意法師) criticized that this view believes that the mind is empty, but still acknowledges the existence of matter, so it has both merits and demerits. The doctrines of these four masters were established in the Jin Dynasty (晉代). Later, Dharma Master Tanji (曇濟法師) of Zong Dazhuangyan Temple (宗大莊嚴寺) wrote the 'Treatise on the Seven Sects' (七宗論), still using the previous four sects as four of them. The fifth is Yu Fakai (於法開), who proposed the view of 'meaning of consciousness' (識含義), believing that the Three Realms (三界 - Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) are the dwelling of the long night, and consciousness (心識) is the master of the great dream. All things we see now are seen in the dream. When awakened from the great dream, the long night passes, and dawn arrives, the inverted delusion and consciousness will be extinguished, and the Three Realms will become empty. At this time, nothing is born from it, but it seems that everything can be born from it. Someone retorted that if this is the case, then nothing will be seen at the time of great enlightenment, and the mundane truth (世俗諦 - relative to the ultimate truth, referring to the appearance and laws of worldly things) will be lost. What are the Five Eyes (五眼 - physical eye, heavenly eye, wisdom eye, dharma eye, buddha eye) of the Tathagata (如來) used for? The sixth is Dharma Master Yi (壹法師), who said that the dharmas of mundane truth are all like illusions. Therefore, the sutra says, 'From the beginning, there has never been existence.' Someone retorted that the sutra says that things produced by illusion have neither sin nor merit. If all dharmas are completely identical to illusions, then what is the difference between a real person and a person transformed by illusion? Moreover, the sutra uses illusion to break through reality. If reality is broken through but illusion is clung to, then the true meaning of the sutra has not been understood. The seventh is Yu Daosui (于道邃), who believed that because of the aggregation of causes and conditions (因緣), there is the name of mundane truth; because of the dispersion of causes and conditions, it ceases to exist, which is called the ultimate truth (第一義諦 - the true essence of things and phenomena). Someone retorted that the sutra says that it expounds the real aspect (實相 - the true essence of things) without destroying the provisional name (假名 - the names of things and phenomena). Does it mean that it is only truly empty when it is dispersed? Being empty only when dispersed is merely a matter of the mundane world. Next, the recluse Zhou Yong (周顒) of the Qi Dynasty (齊代) wrote the 'Treatise on the Three Sects' (三宗論), dividing it into three views: first, not empty provisional name; second, empty provisional name; third, provisional name is empty. Not empty provisional name refers to the sutra saying, 'Form (色 - matter) is empty,' which refers to the emptiness of self-nature (自性 - things themselves have no independent, eternal and unchanging nature), so it is said to be empty. It does not mean that the borrowed form is empty. Because of the emptiness of self-nature, it is called emptiness, which is the ultimate truth; not empty of the borrowed form, so it is called mundane truth. Later people called this view 'rat-lou-li meaning' (鼠樓栗義). Someone retorted that the treatise says that all dharmas (一切事物和現象) will change later, so it is known that they are all without self-nature. Dharmas without self-nature are also empty, and all dharmas are empty. Is it only the emptiness of self-nature, and not the emptiness of borrowed form? This is the same as the previously mentioned 'that form (即色)'
義不異也。空假名者一切諸法眾緣所成。是故有體。名為世諦。折緣求之都不可得。名為真諦。晚人名之為安菰二諦。菰沈為真。菰浮為俗。難曰。前有假法然後空之還同緣會。故有推散即無之過也。第三假名空者即周氏所用。大意云。假名宛然即是空也。尋周氏假名空原出僧肇不真空論。論云。雖有而無。雖無而有。雖有而無所謂非有。雖無而有所謂非無。如此即非無物也。物非真物也。物非真物於何而物。肇公云。以物非真物故是假物。假物故即是空。大朗法師關內得此義授周氏。周氏因著三宗論也。今總詳之。然若封執上來有所得皆須破之。若心無所寄無所得。適緣取悟皆得用之。亦但府經論者。釋道安本無。支公即色。周氏假名空。肇公不真空。其原猶一。但方言為異。斯可用之。攝法門第七。自上以來都是就二諦以釋八不。然八不言約義豐。意深理遠。總攝一切大乘經論甚深秘密義。今略歷約十條以解釋之。一者八不明十二因緣不生不滅。大涅槃經亦云。十二因緣具足十不。具五性義。以十二因緣不生不滅能生觀智。故即境界佛性。能發無生滅觀。即是觀智佛性。觀智明瞭謂菩提果性。斷常諸邊畢竟寂滅。即大涅槃果果佛性。然十二因緣未曾境智。亦非因非果。即中道正性。此五性非是五體。即一十二因緣
不生不滅具足五種。故知。八不具五性也。二者八不即是雪山全如意珠偈。偈云。諸行無常是生滅法。生滅滅已寂滅為樂。此偈上半即無生滅生滅義。下半偈謂生滅無生滅。若但有生滅無無生滅。則但有生滅義猶未足。亦不成生滅。故稱為半。若但有無生滅無有生滅義亦未足。又無生滅義亦不成。故復呼為半。若生滅無生滅義方具足。故名全如意珠。八不不性實生滅。始得顯無生滅生滅。故成上半偈意。八不明無假生滅。故是生滅不生滅。即下半偈意。然此偈但就心觀行作之。即顯然可解。此心本性不生不滅。以顛倒故無生滅于眾產生生滅。故言諸行無常是生滅法。今以正觀求此生滅不可得。即生滅心便息。故云生滅滅已也。問云何求生滅而生滅便息。答通明破假性意。生若實生不應待滅。以待滅故生即生無自性。故自性生便息。生無自性由滅故生即是因緣生。因緣生即是寂滅性。故假生滅便息。以有生滅是故無常。以生滅滅已所以為常。以無常故苦。即知。常名為樂。故言寂滅為樂。以無常故苦。苦故不自在名無我。以無常苦無我為智人所惡。故稱不凈。今生滅既滅。所以為常。常故即樂。既有常樂即自在為我。諸佛菩薩之所欣樂名之為凈。故八不大宗具八行觀。以具八行觀故便除八倒。以識無生滅生滅故。于生死
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『不生不滅』具備五種特性。因此可知，『八不』也具備五種特性。第二，『八不』就是雪山全如意珠偈。偈語說：『諸行無常，是生滅法，生滅滅已，寂滅為樂。』這偈語的上半部分就是無生滅的生滅之義，下半部分偈語說的是生滅的無生滅。如果只有生滅而沒有無生滅，那麼只有生滅的意義仍然不足，也不能成就生滅，所以稱為『半』。如果只有無生滅而沒有生滅的意義，也是不足的，而且無生滅的意義也不能成立，所以又稱為『半』。只有生滅和無生滅的意義都具備了，才稱為『全如意珠』。『八不』的『不』，實際上是生滅，才能夠顯現無生滅的生滅，所以成就了上半偈的意思。『八不』不承認虛假的生滅，所以是生滅的不生滅，也就是下半偈的意思。然而這偈語只是就心觀修行而言，就顯然可以理解。這顆心的本性是不生不滅的，因為顛倒的緣故，無生滅在眾生那裡產生了生滅。所以說『諸行無常，是生滅法』。現在用正確的觀察來尋求這生滅，卻不可得，那麼生滅的心就停止了，所以說『生滅滅已』。問：如何尋求生滅而生滅就停止了呢？答：通達明白破除虛假性的意義。生如果是真實的生，就不應該等待滅。因為等待滅的緣故，生就是生沒有自性。所以自性的生就停止了。生沒有自性，是因為滅的緣故，所以生就是因緣生。因緣生就是寂滅性，所以虛假的生滅就停止了。因為有生滅，所以是無常。因為生滅已經滅了，所以是常。因為無常，所以是苦，因此知道，常就叫做樂。所以說『寂滅為樂』。因為無常所以是苦，苦所以不自在，叫做無我。因為無常、苦、無我，為有智慧的人所厭惡，所以稱為不凈。現在生滅既然滅了，所以是常。常所以就是樂。既然有常樂，就是自在，為我。諸佛菩薩所欣樂的，稱之為凈。所以『八不』大宗具備八行觀。因為具備八行觀的緣故，就能夠去除八倒。因為認識到無生滅的生滅的緣故，對於生死
【English Translation】 English version 『Non-arising and non-ceasing』 possesses five characteristics. Therefore, it is known that the 『Eight No』s』 also possess five characteristics. Secondly, the 『Eight No』s』 are the complete Mani jewel verse of Snow Mountain. The verse says: 『All conditioned things are impermanent, they are subject to arising and ceasing; having ceased, their cessation is bliss.』 The first half of this verse is the meaning of arising and ceasing without arising and ceasing, and the second half of the verse speaks of the non-arising and non-ceasing of arising and ceasing. If there is only arising and ceasing without non-arising and non-ceasing, then the meaning of only arising and ceasing is still insufficient, and arising and ceasing cannot be accomplished, so it is called 『half』. If there is only non-arising and non-ceasing without the meaning of arising and ceasing, it is also insufficient, and the meaning of non-arising and non-ceasing cannot be established, so it is again called 『half』. Only when the meanings of both arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing are complete is it called the 『complete Mani jewel』. The 『no』 of the 『Eight No』s』 is actually arising and ceasing, which can then reveal the arising and ceasing of non-arising and non-ceasing, thus accomplishing the meaning of the first half of the verse. The 『Eight No』s』 do not acknowledge false arising and ceasing, so it is the non-arising and non-ceasing of arising and ceasing, which is the meaning of the second half of the verse. However, this verse is only spoken from the perspective of mental contemplation and practice, and it can be clearly understood. The inherent nature of this mind is non-arising and non-ceasing, but because of delusion, non-arising and non-ceasing gives rise to arising and ceasing in sentient beings. Therefore, it is said, 『All conditioned things are impermanent, they are subject to arising and ceasing.』 Now, using correct observation to seek this arising and ceasing, it cannot be found, and then the mind of arising and ceasing ceases, so it is said, 『having ceased, their cessation』. Question: How does seeking arising and ceasing cause arising and ceasing to cease? Answer: By thoroughly understanding the meaning of breaking through false nature. If arising were truly arising, it should not await cessation. Because it awaits cessation, arising is arising without self-nature. Therefore, the arising of self-nature ceases. Arising has no self-nature because of cessation, so arising is dependent arising. Dependent arising is the nature of quiescence, so false arising and ceasing ceases. Because there is arising and ceasing, it is impermanent. Because arising and ceasing has ceased, it is permanent. Because of impermanence, there is suffering, and therefore it is known that permanence is called bliss. Therefore, it is said, 『their cessation is bliss.』 Because of impermanence, there is suffering, and because of suffering, there is no freedom, which is called no-self. Because impermanence, suffering, and no-self are detested by the wise, they are called impure. Now that arising and ceasing has ceased, it is permanent. Because it is permanent, it is bliss. Since there is permanence and bliss, there is freedom, which is self. What the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas rejoice in is called purity. Therefore, the great doctrine of the 『Eight No』s』 possesses the eightfold contemplation. Because it possesses the eightfold contemplation, it can remove the eight inversions. Because of recognizing the arising and ceasing of non-arising and non-ceasing, regarding birth and death
中不起常等四倒。以識生滅無生滅。即悟涅槃不起無常等四倒。不起常倒故非常。不起無常倒故非無常。非常非無常。故名中道。以中道故即有正觀。佛為眾生如實說名正經。菩薩如實而說名為正論也。又識無生滅生滅故不起常倒。異凡夫人。了生滅無生滅不起無常倒。異二乘行。故非凡夫行。非賢聖行。是菩薩行也。問此論欲示菩薩正行故標八不在初者。由來亦作如此破八倒。與今何異。答今是因緣義。故云無生滅生滅生滅無生滅。無生滅生滅豈是生滅。生滅無生滅豈是無生滅。故未曾生滅。亦非無生滅。謂是法不可示。言辭相寂滅。詳此意上窮霄漢。下漏淵泉。無復縱跡。不煩作之。貴得意也。三者八不偈即涅槃本有今無偈。偈云。本有今無本無今有三世有法無有是處。廣釋如涅槃疏。今略辨之。上半即無三世三世義。下半三世無三世義。無三世三世即是無生滅生滅義。謂破性實有所得三世。即一重八不。下半明三世無三世。即生滅無生滅。即第二重八不。無三世三世豈是三世。三世無三世豈是無三世。故非三世非無三世。故名為中道。若得此悟名為正觀。宣之於言。故稱為論。即第三重八不。四者此偈即是三種般若。故論引般若無盡品云。菩薩坐道場時。觀十二因緣如虛空不可盡。以觀十二因緣不生不滅能生觀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不起常、樂、我、凈四顛倒（四種錯誤的知見）。因為認識到識（意識）的生滅和無生滅，就能領悟涅槃，不起無常等四顛倒。不起常顛倒，所以不是常；不起無常顛倒，所以不是無常。既不是常，也不是無常，所以叫做中道。因為是中道，所以就有正確的見解。佛為眾生如實宣說，叫做正經。菩薩如實宣說，叫做正論。此外，認識到識的無生滅和生滅，所以不起常顛倒，這與凡夫不同。瞭解生滅和無生滅，不起無常顛倒，這與二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的修行不同。所以既不是凡夫的修行，也不是賢聖的修行，而是菩薩的修行。問：這部論想要展示菩薩的正行，為什麼一開始不標明『八不』呢？以往也有用這種方式來破除八倒（八種顛倒的知見）的，和現在有什麼不同？答：現在強調的是因緣的意義，所以說『無生滅生滅，生滅無生滅』。無生滅生滅，怎麼會是生滅呢？生滅無生滅，怎麼會是無生滅呢？所以既不是曾經生滅，也不是沒有生滅。這就是所謂的法不可言說，言語道斷。仔細體會這個意思，上至天界，下至深淵，都找不到任何痕跡，所以不需要刻意造作，重要的是領會其中的意義。第三，『八不』偈（偈頌）就是《涅槃經》中『本有今無，本無今有』的偈頌。偈頌說：『本有今無，本無今有，三世有法，無有是處。』詳細的解釋在《涅槃經疏》中。現在簡單地解釋一下。上半句是無三世（過去、現在、未來）的三世義，下半句是三世無三世義。無三世的三世，就是無生滅生滅的意義，這是爲了破除認為實有可得的三世，即第一重『八不』。下半句說明三世無三世，就是生滅無生滅，即第二重『八不』。無三世的三世，怎麼會是三世呢？三世無三世，怎麼會是無三世呢？所以既不是三世，也不是無三世，所以叫做中道。如果能夠領悟到這一點，就叫做正觀。用語言表達出來，就叫做論，即第三重『八不』。第四，這個偈頌就是三種般若（實相般若、觀照般若、文字般若）。所以論中引用《般若經·無盡品》說：『菩薩坐在道場時，觀察十二因緣（十二種相互依存的條件）如同虛空一樣不可窮盡。因為觀察十二因緣不生不滅，所以能夠產生觀照。』 現代漢語譯本：不起常、樂、我、凈四顛倒。以識生滅無生滅，即悟涅槃不起無常等四倒。不起常倒故非常，不起無常倒故非無常。非常非無常，故名中道。以中道故即有正觀。佛為眾生如實說名正經。菩薩如實而說名為正論也。又識無生滅生滅故不起常倒，異凡夫人。了生滅無生滅不起無常倒，異二乘行。故非凡夫行，非賢聖行，是菩薩行也。問：此論欲示菩薩正行故標八不在初者，由來亦作如此破八倒，與今何異？答：今是因緣義，故云無生滅生滅，生滅無生滅。無生滅生滅豈是生滅？生滅無生滅豈是無生滅？故未曾生滅，亦非無生滅，謂是法不可示，言辭相寂滅。詳此意上窮霄漢，下漏淵泉，無復縱跡，不煩作之，貴得意也。三者八不偈即涅槃本有今無偈。偈云：本有今無，本無今有，三世有法，無有是處。廣釋如涅槃疏。今略辨之。上半即無三世三世義，下半三世無三世義。無三世三世即是無生滅生滅義，謂破性實有所得三世，即一重八不。下半明三世無三世，即生滅無生滅，即第二重八不。無三世三世豈是三世？三世無三世豈是無三世？故非三世非無三世，故名為中道。若得此悟名為正觀。宣之於言，故稱為論，即第三重八不。四者此偈即是三種般若。故論引般若無盡品云：菩薩坐道場時，觀十二因緣如虛空不可盡。以觀十二因緣不生不滅能生觀。
【English Translation】 English version: Not arising from the four inversions of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity (four kinds of erroneous views). Because of recognizing the arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing of consciousness (識), one can realize Nirvana and not arise from the four inversions of impermanence, etc. Not arising from the inversion of permanence, therefore it is not permanent; not arising from the inversion of impermanence, therefore it is not impermanent. It is neither permanent nor impermanent, therefore it is called the Middle Way. Because it is the Middle Way, there is correct view. The Buddha's truthful explanation for sentient beings is called the Sutra. The Bodhisattva's truthful explanation is called the Treatise. Furthermore, recognizing the non-arising and non-ceasing and arising and ceasing of consciousness, therefore not arising from the inversion of permanence, which is different from ordinary people. Understanding arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, not arising from the inversion of impermanence, which is different from the practice of the Two Vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘). Therefore, it is neither the practice of ordinary people nor the practice of the wise and holy, but the practice of Bodhisattvas. Question: This treatise intends to show the correct practice of Bodhisattvas, so why doesn't it mark the 'Eight No's' at the beginning? In the past, there have also been ways to break the eight inversions (八倒) like this, what is the difference from now? Answer: Now the emphasis is on the meaning of dependent origination, so it says 'non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing non-arising and non-ceasing'. Non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing, how can it be arising and ceasing? Arising and ceasing non-arising and non-ceasing, how can it be non-arising and non-ceasing? Therefore, it is neither ever arising and ceasing, nor is it non-arising and non-ceasing. This is what is meant by the Dharma being unspeakable, the path of words being extinguished. Carefully understand this meaning, reaching up to the heavens and down to the depths, there are no traces to be found, so there is no need to deliberately create it, the important thing is to grasp the meaning. Third, the 'Eight No's' Gatha (偈頌) is the Gatha in the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) 'originally existing now not, originally not existing now existing'. The Gatha says: 'Originally existing now not, originally not existing now existing, the Dharma existing in the three times, there is no such place.' The detailed explanation is in the Nirvana Sutra Commentary (涅槃經疏). Now briefly explain it. The first half is the meaning of the three times (past, present, future) without the three times, the second half is the meaning of the three times without the three times. The three times without the three times is the meaning of non-arising and non-ceasing arising and ceasing, which is to break the three times that are considered to be truly existing and attainable, which is the first 'Eight No's'. The second half explains the three times without the three times, which is arising and ceasing without arising and ceasing, which is the second 'Eight No's'. The three times without the three times, how can it be the three times? The three times without the three times, how can it be the non-three times? Therefore, it is neither the three times nor the non-three times, so it is called the Middle Way. If one can realize this, it is called correct view. Expressing it in words is called a treatise, which is the third 'Eight No's'. Fourth, this Gatha is the three Prajnas (實相般若, 觀照般若, 文字般若). Therefore, the treatise quotes the 'Endless Qualities' chapter of the Prajna Sutra (般若經·無盡品) saying: 'When the Bodhisattva sits in the Bodhimanda, he observes the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣) as inexhaustible as space. Because of observing the twelve links of dependent origination as non-arising and non-ceasing, he can generate contemplation.'
智。所觀十二不生不滅即實相般若。生於觀智謂觀照般若。然十二因緣與境智更無二法。十二本無生滅。于顛倒成生滅十二。今了悟生滅十二本不生不滅。故名為無生滅十二。約所觀義故十二為境。約能觀義故十二是菩薩觀。故迷悟更無二體。境智非別兩法。以得如此悟為眾生說法。故稱為論。即文字般若。五者即此八不是凈名入不二法門。然不二法門是不可思議之本。如肇公云。語經宗極即不二為言。以一道清凈故名不二。真極可軌。所以云法。至妙虛通目之為門。蓋是眾教之旨歸。群聖之靈府。凈名現病之本意。文殊問疾之所由。問何以知不二法門即是八不。答三十餘菩薩說不二法命初即云。生滅為二。法本自不生。今亦無滅。得此無生法忍者。是為入不二法門。然此入不二法門即是中觀論三字。不二法門故名為中。能生觀智。所以稱入。諸菩薩說入不二。即是論也。然彼品有三階明不二。一者眾人假言明不二。未辨不二無言。二者文殊雖明不二無言而猶言于不二。三者凈名辨不二無言。而無言于不二。不二既有三階。八不亦爾。初假言明八不。未辨八不無言。二者明八不無言。而猶言於八不。三明八不無言。而無言於八不也。六者此之八不即是妙法蓮華經。何以知然。藥草品云。究竟涅槃常寂滅相終歸於空。光
宅之流謂。此空是灰身滅智。小乘之法不喜聞之。下云。復有住禪得神通力。聞諸法空心大歡喜放無數光。度諸眾生。是名大樹而得增長。光宅謂。此空為未極。蓋是小草之流耳。問此空云何是八不。答橫論則理超八事。豎則四句皆絕。不知何以目之。強稱為空耳。故知。此空即是八不。問何故言終歸於空。答道超四句理絕百非。蓋是諸法本體。言三乘一乘常無常等。皆是方便之用耳。若息一切用則歸於此本體。故言終歸於空。又說一切教令悟此理。故是終歸於空。肇公論云。九流於是乎交歸。群聖於是冥會。甚深若斯。而謂是灰身滅智。一何可傷。問云何名此為妙法蓮華。答以道超四句理絕百非。故名為妙。妙體可軌。目之為法。不為一切諸邊所染。畢竟清凈喻之蓮華。問以萬善為乘。乘名妙法。妙法喻若蓮華。云何乃說空義。答經云終歸於空。終歸於空者雖復說萬行終令得此凈悟。不爾者成有所得不動不出。不名為乘。七者此之八不即是正法。如華嚴經雖有七處八會大宗為明正法。故云正法性遠離一切言語道一切趣非趣悉皆寂滅性。正法為華嚴之本。故收前能化所化因果。歸非因非果正法。從正法非果非因。更出生因果等用。故正法為本。正法即是中道。中道即是不生不滅不斷不常。故八不若成正法即顯。正法顯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 光宅法師評論說：『這種空是灰身滅智，小乘的修行者不喜歡聽聞。』下文說：『又有人安住禪定獲得神通力，聽聞諸法空性的道理，內心非常歡喜，放出無數的光芒，度化各種眾生，這就像大樹一樣得以增長。』光宅法師認為，這種空還不夠究竟，大概只是小草之流罷了。 問：這種空為什麼說是『八不』（不生不滅，不斷不常，不一不異，不來不去）呢？ 答：橫向來說，這個道理超越了八種對待；縱向來說，四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）都無法描述它。不知道用什麼來稱呼它，勉強稱之為『空』罷了。所以說，這種空就是『八不』。 問：為什麼說最終歸於空呢？ 答：道超越了四句，理斷絕了一切錯誤的知見，這大概就是諸法的本體。所說的三乘、一乘、常、無常等等，都是方便的運用罷了。如果停止一切作用，就回歸到這個本體，所以說最終歸於空。又說一切教法都是爲了領悟這個道理，所以是最終歸於空。鳩摩羅什的《中論》說：『九流百家都在這裡交匯歸宿，眾聖賢也在這裡默默會合。』如此深奧，卻說是灰身滅智，真是太可惜了。 問：為什麼稱此經為《妙法蓮華經》呢？ 答：因為這個道超越了四句，理斷絕了一切錯誤的知見，所以稱為『妙』。這個微妙的本體可以作為軌範，所以稱之為『法』。不被一切諸邊所污染，畢竟清凈，所以比喻為蓮華。 問：以萬善為乘，乘名為妙法，妙法比喻為蓮華，為什麼卻說空義呢？ 答：經中說『終歸於空』。『終歸於空』的意思是，即使說了萬種修行，最終也要讓人得到這種清凈的覺悟。否則，如果執著于有所得，不動不搖，就不能稱為『乘』。 七者，這『八不』就是正法。如《華嚴經》，雖有七處八會這樣的大規模集會，其宗旨也是爲了闡明正法。所以說，正法的體性是遠離一切言語道的，一切趣向和非趣向都完全寂滅。正法是《華嚴經》的根本，所以收攝了前面能教化者、所教化者、因和果，歸於非因非果的正法。從正法（非果非因）中，又出生因果等作用。所以正法是根本。正法就是中道，中道就是不生不滅、不斷不常。所以『八不』如果成就，正法就顯現，正法顯現。
【English Translation】 English version: Guangzhai commented: 'This emptiness is the annihilation of body and wisdom. Practitioners of the Hinayana do not like to hear it.' The following says: 'Moreover, some dwell in meditation and attain supernatural powers. Hearing the emptiness of all dharmas, their hearts are filled with great joy, and they emit countless rays of light, liberating all sentient beings. This is like a great tree that grows.' Guangzhai believes that this emptiness is not ultimate enough, probably just like small grass. Question: Why is this emptiness called the 'Eight No's' (no birth, no death; no cessation, no permanence; no oneness, no difference; no coming, no going)? Answer: Horizontally speaking, this principle transcends the eight dualities; vertically speaking, the four phrases (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) cannot describe it. I don't know what to call it, so I reluctantly call it 'emptiness.' Therefore, this emptiness is the 'Eight No's'. Question: Why is it said that ultimately it returns to emptiness? Answer: The Dao transcends the four phrases, and the principle cuts off all wrong views. This is probably the essence of all dharmas. The so-called Three Vehicles, One Vehicle, permanence, impermanence, etc., are all expedient means. If all functions cease, they return to this essence, so it is said that ultimately it returns to emptiness. Furthermore, it is said that all teachings are for the sake of realizing this principle, so it is ultimately returning to emptiness. Kumarajiva's Madhyamaka-karika says: 'The nine streams of thought converge and return here, and all the sages silently unite here.' It is so profound, yet it is said to be the annihilation of body and wisdom, which is a great pity. Question: Why is this sutra called the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Dharma? Answer: Because this Dao transcends the four phrases, and the principle cuts off all wrong views, it is called 'wonderful'. This subtle essence can be used as a standard, so it is called 'Dharma'. It is not contaminated by all sides, and it is ultimately pure, so it is likened to a lotus flower. Question: With myriad virtues as the vehicle, the vehicle is called the Wonderful Dharma, and the Wonderful Dharma is likened to a lotus flower, so why talk about the meaning of emptiness? Answer: The sutra says 'ultimately returning to emptiness'. 'Ultimately returning to emptiness' means that even if you talk about myriad practices, ultimately you must enable people to attain this pure enlightenment. Otherwise, if you are attached to something to be attained, unmoving and unshakable, it cannot be called a 'vehicle'. Seventh, these 'Eight No's' are the Right Dharma (Zhengfa). Like the Avatamsaka Sutra, although there are large gatherings such as the Seven Locations and Eight Assemblies, its purpose is to clarify the Right Dharma. Therefore, the nature of the Right Dharma is far from all verbal paths, and all tendencies and non-tendencies are completely extinguished. The Right Dharma is the root of the Avatamsaka Sutra, so it collects the former educator, the educated, the cause and the effect, and returns to the Right Dharma of non-cause and non-effect. From the Right Dharma (non-effect and non-cause), the functions of cause and effect are born again. Therefore, the Right Dharma is the root. The Right Dharma is the Middle Way (Zhongdao), and the Middle Way is no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence. Therefore, if the 'Eight No's' are accomplished, the Right Dharma will appear, and the Right Dharma will appear.
故因果便立。即七處之經蘊在八不之內。八者八不即是如來真應二身。大經云。中道之法名之為佛。故八不明中道。即是明佛義也。以了悟生滅無生滅名為跡本。故佛真法身猶如虛空。悟無生滅生滅即是本跡。故應物現形。如水中月。勿作真應二解。即生滅宛然如虛空。雖如虛空而生滅宛然。問見佛法身不生滅。見己身生滅即成眾生佛二見。云何得道耶。答既見佛身不生。即見己身本來不生。故即是法身。故凈名云。觀身實相觀佛亦然。既悟己身生滅無生滅名為法身。即悟己身無生滅生滅名為應身。故無量義經云。無相之相有相身。眾生身相相亦然。既見己身具真應二身。即見十方諸佛真應二身。問此乃是高位所行。下凡云何能學。答從初發心之人即習此觀。所以云發心畢竟二無別。初發心之人即是佛也。九者此八不亦是一體三寶。何以知然。既稱悟法不生諸佛現前。當知。法即是佛。此法佛未曾相乖。名之為僧。故知。無生一句具足三寶。以具足三寶標在論初。即是歸敬三寶。三寶是歸宗之地。不識八不豈識歸宗地耶。又大經云。我亦不說三寶無有異相。但說常義無差別耳。以三寶同不生不滅故名為常。常故三寶一體。即此無生滅覺義為佛。軌義為法。和義為僧。凈名經云。三寶同無相。亦是同無生滅也。十者師云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此因果便成立了。七處九會所說的五蘊，都包含在『八不』之內。這『八不』即是如來真身和應身。如《大般涅槃經》所說：『中道之法名為佛』。所以，明白『八不』的中道，就是明白佛的真義。因爲了悟了生滅和無生滅的道理，就明白了本和跡的含義。所以，佛的真法身猶如虛空，悟到無生滅的生滅就是本跡。因此，應物現形，就像水中的月亮。不要將真身和應身作兩種不同的理解，要知道生滅宛然如虛空。雖然如虛空，但生滅依然歷歷分明。 問：見到佛的法身是不生滅的，見到自己的身是生滅的，這樣就形成了眾生和佛的兩種對立的見解，如何才能得道呢？ 答：既然見到佛身不生，也就見到了自己的身本來也不生，所以這就是法身。所以《維摩詰經》說：『觀身實相，觀佛亦然。』既然領悟到自己的身生滅即無生滅，這就是法身；領悟到自己的身無生滅即生滅，這就是應身。所以《無量義經》說：『無相之相是有相身，眾生身相的實相也是如此。』既然見到自己的身具足真身和應身，也就見到了十方諸佛的真身和應身。 問：這乃是高位菩薩所修行的，下凡之人如何能夠學習呢？ 答：從最初發心之人就開始修習這種觀法。所以說『發心畢竟二無別』，最初發心之人就是佛。九者，這『八不』也是一體三寶。為什麼這樣說呢？既然稱悟法不生，諸佛就會現前，應當知道，法即是佛。此法和佛未曾相違背，名為僧。所以知道，『無生』一句具足三寶。以具足三寶標在論的開頭，就是歸敬三寶。三寶是歸宗之地，不認識『八不』，怎麼能認識歸宗之地呢？又《大般涅槃經》說：『我也不說三寶沒有不同的相，只是說常義沒有差別罷了。』因為三寶同不生不滅，所以名為常。因為常，所以三寶是一體的。即此無生滅的覺悟之義為佛，軌範之義為法，和合之義為僧。《維摩詰經》說：『三寶同無相』，也是同無生滅的意思。十者，師父說：
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, cause and effect are established. The five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) mentioned in the seven locations and nine assemblies are all contained within the 'Eight No's'. These 'Eight No's' are the true body (Dharmakaya) and the manifested body (Nirmanakaya) of the Tathagata (Buddha). As the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says: 'The Dharma of the Middle Way is called Buddha.' Therefore, understanding the Middle Way of the 'Eight No's' is understanding the true meaning of the Buddha. Because of realizing the principle of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, one understands the meaning of the original (本, origin) and the trace (跡, manifestation). Therefore, the true Dharmakaya of the Buddha is like empty space; realizing that arising and ceasing is non-arising and non-ceasing is the original and the trace. Therefore, it manifests forms in response to beings, like the moon in the water. Do not understand the true body and the manifested body as two different things; know that arising and ceasing is clearly like empty space. Although it is like empty space, arising and ceasing is still distinct. Question: Seeing that the Dharmakaya of the Buddha is non-arising and non-ceasing, and seeing that one's own body is arising and ceasing, this forms two opposing views of sentient beings and the Buddha. How can one attain the Way? Answer: Since you see that the Buddha's body does not arise, you also see that your own body originally does not arise, so this is the Dharmakaya. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Observing the real aspect of the body, observing the Buddha is also like that.' Since you realize that your own body's arising and ceasing is non-arising and non-ceasing, this is the Dharmakaya; realizing that your own body's non-arising and non-ceasing is arising and ceasing, this is the Nirmanakaya. Therefore, the Infinite Meaning Sutra says: 'The form of no-form is the body with form; the real aspect of sentient beings' bodies is also like this.' Since you see that your own body possesses both the true body and the manifested body, you also see the true body and the manifested body of all Buddhas in the ten directions. Question: This is what high-level Bodhisattvas practice; how can ordinary people learn it? Answer: From the very beginning of aspiring to enlightenment, one should practice this contemplation. Therefore, it is said that 'the initial aspiration and the ultimate attainment are not different.' The person who initially aspires to enlightenment is the Buddha. Ninth, these 'Eight No's' are also the One Body Three Jewels (Triratna). Why is this so? Since it is said that realizing the Dharma is non-arising, the Buddhas will appear; one should know that the Dharma is the Buddha. This Dharma and the Buddha have never contradicted each other, and are called Sangha (community). Therefore, know that the phrase 'non-arising' fully contains the Three Jewels. By placing the complete Three Jewels at the beginning of the treatise, it is paying homage to the Three Jewels. The Three Jewels are the place of returning to the source; if one does not recognize the 'Eight No's', how can one recognize the place of returning to the source? Furthermore, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says: 'I also do not say that the Three Jewels have no different aspects, but only say that the meaning of permanence has no difference.' Because the Three Jewels are the same in non-arising and non-ceasing, they are called permanent. Because of permanence, the Three Jewels are one body. That is, this meaning of awakening to non-arising and non-ceasing is the Buddha, the meaning of the norm is the Dharma, and the meaning of harmony is the Sangha. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'The Three Jewels are the same in no-form', which also means the same in non-arising and non-ceasing. Tenth, the master said:
。標此八不攝一切大小內外。有所得人心之所行口之所說。皆墮在八事中。今破此八事即破一切大小內外有所得人。故明八不。所以然者一切有所得人生心動念即是生。欲滅煩惱即是滅。謂己身無常為斷。有常住可求為常。真諦無相為一。世諦萬像不同為異。從無明流來為來。返本還原出去為出。裁起一念心即具此八種顛倒。今一一歷心觀此無從。令一切有所得心畢竟清凈。故云不生不滅乃至不來不出也。師常多作此意。所以然者為三論未出之前。若毗曇成實有所得大乘。及禪師律師行道苦節。如此之人皆是有所得生滅斷常。障中道正觀。既障中道正觀。亦障假名因緣無方大用。故一向破洗令畢竟無遺即悟實相。既悟實相之體。即解假名因緣無方大用也。問若作如此十條者豈非立義。師云。三論無義。云何更立。答三論有破有申。破即無言不窮。申即無義不具。不應作斯問也。又作十條者由來言。八不但是一遣相明空。竟有何義。今為對此故八不在言雖略無義而不備。豈是空耶。又作十條者令得一正觀。即徹悟一切佛法。故釋迦于華嚴城內四衢道頭。見燃燈佛悟一不生。即是具足一切佛法。況了八事不具足一切法乎。然此十條釋八不。一一皆須將自心來承取之。如破假實二生前須自看己心。若見此身心有實生實滅即是
實病。求之無從。故自實病得差。若為他說者還為他檢實病無從。則他實病亦差。若自心中聞說因緣即作因緣假解成因緣病。以檢假生無縱跡處所。假病即差。為他說亦爾。如此之人于唸唸中自他俱益。凈名云。譬如勝怨乃可為勇。如此兼除老病死者菩薩之謂也。又此人若自如此悟名聖默然。還為眾生如此說者名聖說法。故語默之間常順佛教。為諸佛護念。于唸唸中身心得住無生。名之為住。回一切假實顛倒心。向于實相名為迴向。得此心不可動。故名為地。所以常須看心。作此釋者不違三世佛。真龍樹門人矣。問常看自心者大師何故斥外道。折毗曇排成實呵大乘耶。答若自心起外道見墮在外道。名為外道。乃至自心起大乘見即名大乘執。故遍呵眾人。即是遍呵自心也。又大師云。自心無所依。今呵一切有所得人。此是隨他意語。若自有病無觀力而呵者即是呵自他。是隨自意語。亦是隨他意語。問但應釋八不。云何乃遍呵自他耶。答以遍破自他有所得心。畢竟不生即是釋於八不。所以然者。論主為學佛教人著語言名字故失無生。今聞八不無生還復作義解者。即八不還覆成病。如此之人即不可化。所以然者。以尋經作有所得解即佛不能化。學論復起依著之心即菩薩不能化故。若經若論佛與菩薩所不能化人。即知。其人鈍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 實病（真實的疾病）。想要找到它的根源無從下手。所以從真實的疾病中得到痊癒。如果為他人說（此法），也無法為他檢查真實的疾病，那麼他的真實疾病也會痊癒。如果自己心中聽到因緣之說，就按照因緣之說假立解釋，形成因緣之病。檢查這種虛假的產生，沒有縱跡處所，虛假的疾病就會痊癒。為他人說也是如此。這樣的人在念念之中，自己和他人都能得到利益。《維摩詰經》說：『譬如戰勝怨敵，才可以稱為勇士。』像這樣兼能去除老病死的人，才可稱為菩薩。還有，這個人如果自己如此領悟，就叫做聖默然（聖人的沉默）。如果還為眾生如此宣說，就叫做聖說法（聖人的說法）。所以，在言語和沉默之間，常常順應佛教的教義，為諸佛所護念。在念念之中，身心能夠安住于無生之境，這叫做住（安住）。迴轉一切虛假和真實的顛倒之心，趨向于實相，這叫做迴向（迴轉趨向）。得到這種心，就不可動搖，所以叫做地（地）。因此，常常需要觀照自心。這樣解釋，就不違背三世諸佛，是真正的龍樹（Nagarjuna）門人。問：常常觀照自心的人，大師為什麼還要斥責外道，駁斥毗曇（Abhidharma），排斥成實（Satyasiddhi），呵斥大乘呢？答：如果自心生起外道見解，墮落在外道之中，就叫做外道。乃至自心生起大乘見解，就叫做大乘執著。所以普遍呵斥眾人，也就是普遍呵斥自心。還有，大師說：『自心無所依。』現在呵斥一切有所得的人。這是隨順他意的說法。如果自己有病，沒有觀照的力量，卻去呵斥別人，那就是呵斥自己和他人，這是隨順自己意和隨順他意的說法。問：只應該解釋八不中道（不生不滅等八種否定），為什麼還要普遍呵斥自己和他人呢？答：因為普遍破除自己和他人有所得的心，畢竟不生，就是解釋八不中道。為什麼這樣說呢？論主（龍樹）因為學佛的人執著于語言名字，所以失去了無生。現在聽到八不中道無生，還又作義理解釋的人，那麼八不中道又會成為疾病。這樣的人就不可教化。為什麼這樣說呢？因為尋經作有所得的解釋，佛也不能教化。學習論典又生起依著之心，菩薩也不能教化。如果經和論，佛與菩薩都不能教化的人，就知道這個人很遲鈍。
【English Translation】 English version Real sickness. Seeking its origin is impossible. Therefore, one recovers from real sickness. If one speaks (this Dharma) to others, and it's impossible to examine their real sickness, then their real sickness will also be cured. If one hears about the causes and conditions in one's own mind, and then falsely interprets them according to causes and conditions, forming the sickness of causes and conditions. Examining this false arising, there is no trace or place to be found, and the false sickness will be cured. It is the same when speaking to others. Such a person benefits both themselves and others in every moment. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'For example, only one who conquers enemies can be called a warrior.' One who can remove old age, sickness, and death can be called a Bodhisattva. Furthermore, if this person realizes this on their own, it is called Holy Silence (arya-tūṣṇīmbhāva). If they also proclaim this to sentient beings, it is called Holy Dharma Teaching (arya-dharma-deśanā). Therefore, in speech and silence, they always accord with the teachings of Buddhism and are protected by all Buddhas. In every moment, their body and mind can abide in the state of non-arising, which is called abiding (sthiti). Turning away from all false and real inverted minds, and turning towards reality, this is called turning towards (parināma). Obtaining this mind, it cannot be shaken, so it is called ground (bhūmi). Therefore, it is always necessary to observe one's own mind. Explaining it in this way does not contradict the Buddhas of the three times and is a true disciple of Nagarjuna. Question: If one constantly observes one's own mind, why does the master still rebuke external paths, refute Abhidharma, reject Satyasiddhi, and scold Mahayana? Answer: If one's own mind gives rise to external path views and falls into external paths, it is called an external path. Even if one's own mind gives rise to Mahayana views, it is called Mahayana attachment. Therefore, universally rebuking everyone is universally rebuking one's own mind. Furthermore, the master said: 'One's own mind has nothing to rely on.' Now, he rebukes all those who have something to gain. This is speaking according to others' intentions. If one is sick and does not have the power of observation, but rebukes others, then one is rebuking oneself and others, which is speaking according to one's own intentions and speaking according to others' intentions. Question: One should only explain the Eight No's (the eight negations of no birth, no death, etc.), why universally rebuke oneself and others? Answer: Because universally destroying the mind of gaining something in oneself and others, and ultimately not arising, is explaining the Eight No's. Why is this so? The author (Nagarjuna) is because those who study Buddhism are attached to language and names, so they lose non-arising. Now, those who hear the Eight No's of non-arising and then interpret them according to meaning, then the Eight No's will become sickness again. Such people cannot be taught. Why is this so? Because seeking the sutras and making interpretations with something to gain, the Buddha cannot teach them. Studying the treatises and giving rise to a mind of reliance, the Bodhisattva cannot teach them. If the Buddha and Bodhisattva cannot teach those who study the sutras and treatises, then know that such a person is dull.
根罪重。若經若論佛與菩薩即于其人並是毒藥。是以常須心無所依。即是悟八不也。問心云何有所依耶。答心如步屈蟲。舍一取一必定不得無所依。故舍外道著小乘。舍小乘著大乘。捨生還覆住無生。故有所住著非八不意。問有二種人。一者悟大乘無所得意。不解數論名教。二者精識一切名教。不學大乘無所得意。此二人中何者為勝。答耳目之徒言識一切名教者勝。今以理論之雖二人並失而前者為勝。何以知然。佛雖說一切名教。意在無所得一相一味。謂離相解脫相。問弘經通論須科文釋義次第生起。詳定違負會諸同異。云何一向作無所得觀耶。答考尋聖人興世諸所施為為顯中道。令因中發觀滅諸煩惱。若存著語言傷佛意也。又百年之壽朝露非奢。宜以存道為急。而乃急其所緩。緩其所急。豈非一形之自誤耶。次第門第八。問八不是無畏之中心方等之要觀。文既重出。豈非繁哉。答再周明八不者極有深致。今略述六牒。一者初標八不明中實義。次牒八不明中假義。初明中實者域一切大小內外。有所得人心之所行。皆是生滅斷常一異來出。障中道正觀。故當命初宜須洗之。以求其生滅不得故云不生不滅。乃至來出亦然。所以名之為中實者。計有如此生滅斷常悉是虛妄。實無此顛倒橫謂生滅斷常。故名為實。以橫謂有此生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：根本的罪過很重。如果把佛經或論典，佛和菩薩，都看作是毒藥，那麼就應該常常保持內心無所依，這就是領悟『八不』的道理。問：心怎麼會有所依呢？答：心就像尺蠖蟲一樣，捨棄一個就取一個，必定不能做到無所依。所以捨棄外道而執著于小乘，捨棄小乘而執著于大乘，捨棄有生還反而安住于無生。因此有所執著就違背了『八不』的本意。問：有兩種人，一種人領悟了大乘無所得的道理，但不瞭解數論和名教；另一種人精通一切名教，但不學習大乘無所得的道理。這兩種人中哪一種人更勝一籌呢？答：在那些只看重表面的人看來，懂得一切名教的人更勝一籌。但如果從義理上來說，雖然這兩種人都有缺失，但前者更勝一籌。為什麼這麼說呢？佛陀雖然宣說了各種名教，但其本意在於無所得、一相一味，也就是離相和解脫相。問：弘揚佛經，通達論典，需要按照科文釋義的次第來生起，詳細審定其中的差異，會通各種異同。怎麼能一味地作無所得觀呢？答：考察聖人出世的各種作為，是爲了顯明中道，使人們在因地中發起觀照，滅除各種煩惱。如果執著于語言文字，就會違背佛陀的本意。而且，百年的壽命就像朝露一樣短暫，不值得奢侈浪費，應該以修道為急務。如果急於那些不重要的事，而怠慢了重要的事，豈不是自己耽誤了自己的一生嗎？次第門第八。問：『八不』既是無畏的中心，又是方等經的重要觀法，文中已經重複出現，難道不是顯得繁瑣嗎？答：再次詳細地闡明『八不』，其中蘊含著極深的道理。現在簡略地敘述六種解釋。一是初次標明『八不』，闡明其中實之義；其次闡明『八不』，闡明其中假之義。初次闡明中實之義，是說一切大小內外，有所得之人的心之所行，都是生滅、斷常、一異、來出，障礙了中道正觀。所以應當一開始就洗滌這些觀念，以求其生滅而不可得，所以說不生不滅，乃至來出也是如此。之所以稱之為中實，是因為計較有這些生滅斷常，都是虛妄的，實際上並沒有這些顛倒的橫生妄想，認為有生滅斷常。所以稱之為實，因為橫生妄想認為有這些生
【English Translation】 English version: Fundamental sins are grave. If one regards sutras, treatises, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas as poison, then one should always keep the mind without any reliance. This is to realize the principle of the 'Eight No's'. Question: How does the mind have reliance? Answer: The mind is like a looper caterpillar, abandoning one thing to take another, inevitably unable to be without reliance. Therefore, abandoning external paths, one clings to the Hinayana; abandoning the Hinayana, one clings to the Mahayana; abandoning birth, one returns to abide in non-birth. Thus, having attachment goes against the intention of the 'Eight No's'. Question: There are two kinds of people. One understands the meaning of non-attainment in Mahayana but does not understand Samkhya (a system of Hindu philosophy) and the teachings of names (名教, mingjiao, teachings emphasizing social roles and norms). The other is well-versed in all the teachings of names but does not study the meaning of non-attainment in Mahayana. Which of these two is superior? Answer: To those who value superficial knowledge, the one who knows all the teachings of names is superior. But from the perspective of principle, although both are flawed, the former is superior. How do we know this? Although the Buddha spoke of all kinds of teachings of names, his intention was in non-attainment, one form, one flavor, which is to say, the formless and the liberation form. Question: To propagate sutras and understand treatises, one needs to follow the order of subject headings, explanations of meaning, and sequential arising, carefully examining the differences and reconciling the similarities. How can one single-mindedly practice the contemplation of non-attainment? Answer: Examining the actions of sages in the world, all their endeavors are to reveal the Middle Way, enabling people to develop contemplation in the causal stage and extinguish all afflictions. If one clings to language, one violates the Buddha's intention. Moreover, the lifespan of a hundred years is as fleeting as morning dew, not worth extravagance. One should prioritize cultivating the Way. If one rushes to what is unimportant and neglects what is urgent, is this not self-deception for a lifetime? Chapter 8 on Gradual Stages. Question: The 'Eight No's' are both the center of fearlessness and the essential contemplation of the Vaipulya Sutras (方等, fangdeng, a category of Mahayana sutras). Since the text has already repeated this, isn't it redundant? Answer: To explain the 'Eight No's' again in detail contains extremely profound meaning. Now, I will briefly describe six explanations. First, it initially marks the 'Eight No's', explaining the meaning of the real in the middle. Second, it explains the 'Eight No's', explaining the meaning of the provisional in the middle. The initial explanation of the real in the middle is that all things, large and small, internal and external, the actions of the minds of those who have attainment, are all arising and ceasing, permanence and impermanence, sameness and difference, coming and going, obstructing the correct contemplation of the Middle Way. Therefore, one should wash away these concepts from the beginning, seeking their arising and ceasing but finding them unattainable, so it is said that there is no arising and no ceasing, and so on for coming and going. The reason it is called the real in the middle is that calculating these arising and ceasing, permanence and impermanence, are all false. In reality, there are no such inverted, falsely conceived notions, thinking there is arising and ceasing, permanence and impermanence. Therefore, it is called real, because falsely conceiving that there are these
滅斷常。故是偏邪。無如此生滅斷常。故名為中。所以初牒八不明中實義。次重牒八不明中假者。既破洗有所得生滅斷常。畢竟無遺。始得辨假名因緣二諦。此假名因緣二諦能通不二中道。故是中假義具足。二者前標八不。即是假前中義。未辨于假。前破此性生滅有無不可得。故言非有非無稱為中道。次重牒八不得辨而有而無。而有而無即是假說有無名中后假。假有無豈是有無。假有無非有非無。名為中道。謂假后中。故再牒八不義乃圓備。又初牒八不是破無不圓。後重牒八不申無不備。三者初牒八不以經生論。次牒八不以論申經。初經生論者八不即是方等經。論主體八不中道發生正觀。方得作論。故是經生論。后牒八不而申釋之。謂論申于經。四者初牒八不明八不意。後重假八不釋八不文。初明八不意者謂。佛為大心人說此八不。福德利根之徒並皆得悟。像末眾生薄福鈍根迷此八不。論主出世破此等迷還申八不。次重牒八不釋八不之文。問重牒八不釋八不文治何人病耶。答即不上求五陰十二入等決定相者。又不上聞畢竟空生見疑者。如此等人皆墮生滅斷常一異來出之中。是故不之。五者初牒八不即應解釋。但外人問造論意。竟去前文遠。故重牒將來。六者初牒八不標中道。次問答釋中道。後重牒八不結中道。料簡門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『滅』、『斷』、『常』，這些都是偏頗邪見。沒有像『生』、『滅』、『斷』、『常』這樣的執著，才可稱為『中道』。所以一開始列舉八不，是爲了闡明中道的真實含義。接著再次列舉八不，是爲了闡明中道的假有之義。既然徹底破除了有所得的『生』、『滅』、『斷』、『常』等執著，毫無遺漏，才能開始辨明假名因緣二諦。這假名因緣二諦能夠通達不二的中道，所以是中假之義具足。 其次，前面標出八不，就是假有之前的『中』的含義，尚未辨明假有。先前破斥自性『生』、『滅』、『有』、『無』不可得，所以說『非有非無』，稱為中道。接著再次列舉八不，辨明『而有而無』。『而有而無』就是假說『有』和『無』，名為中后假。假說的『有無』豈是真的『有無』？假說的『有無』既非『有』也非『無』，名為中道，這是假有之後的『中』。所以再次列舉八不的意義才算完備。而且，初次列舉八不不是破斥不圓滿，後面再次列舉八不申明無不完備。 第三，初次列舉八不以經文生髮論述，接著列舉八不以論述申明經文。初次以經文生髮論述，八不就是方等經（Mahāvaipulya Sūtra）。論主體會八不中道，生髮正觀，才能作論，所以是經文生髮論述。後面列舉八不而申明解釋，就是論述申明經文。 第四，初次列舉八不，闡明八不的意旨；後面再次假借八不，解釋八不的文句。初次闡明八不的意旨，是說佛為大心人宣說這八不，有福德、利根的人都能領悟。末法時代的眾生，福薄根鈍，迷惑于這八不。論主出世，破除這些人的迷惑，重新申明八不。接著再次列舉八不，解釋八不的文句。問：再次列舉八不，解釋八不的文句，是爲了醫治什麼人的病呢？答：就是那些不能向上尋求五陰（Skandha）、十二入（Ayatana）等決定相的人，以及那些不能向上聽聞畢竟空，因而產生懷疑的人。這些人都會墮入『生』、『滅』、『斷』、『常』、『一』、『異』、『來』、『出』的執著之中，所以要破斥這些執著。 第五，初次列舉八本應立即解釋，但外人問造論的意圖，竟遠離了前面的經文，所以再次列舉八不，以便接續前面的內容。 第六，初次列舉八不，標明中道；接著問答解釋中道；後面再次列舉八不，總結中道。這是料簡門（Liaojian men）。
【English Translation】 English version 『Cessation』 (nirodha), 『annihilation』 (uccheda), and 『permanence』 (śāśvata) are all biased and erroneous views. Only by being free from such attachments as 『birth』 (utpāda), 『death』 (vyaya), 『annihilation』, and 『permanence』 can one be said to be on the 『Middle Way』 (madhyamā-pratipad). Therefore, the initial enumeration of the Eight No's (aṣṭā-nāsti) is to clarify the true meaning of the Middle Way. The subsequent re-enumeration of the Eight No's is to clarify the meaning of the Middle Way's provisional existence (prajñapti). Only after thoroughly refuting the attachments to 『birth』, 『death』, 『annihilation』, and 『permanence』 that arise from clinging to something as real, without any omission, can one begin to discern the Two Truths (dve satye) of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) based on dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and provisional names (prajñapti-nāma). These Two Truths of dependent origination and provisional names can lead to the non-dual Middle Way, thus fully embodying the meaning of the provisional Middle Way. Secondly, the initial indication of the Eight No's represents the meaning of the 『Middle』 before provisional existence, without yet distinguishing provisional existence. Previously, the inherent nature of 『birth』, 『death』, 『existence』 (asti), and 『non-existence』 (nāsti) was refuted as unattainable, hence the saying 『neither existence nor non-existence』 (nāsti nāsti), which is called the Middle Way. Subsequently, the Eight No's are re-enumerated to discern 『both existence and non-existence』. 『Both existence and non-existence』 are provisionally spoken of as 『existence』 and 『non-existence』, named the Middle Way after provisional existence. Are provisionally spoken of 『existence and non-existence』 truly 『existence and non-existence』? Provisionally spoken of 『existence and non-existence』 are neither 『existence』 nor 『non-existence』, called the Middle Way, which is the 『Middle』 after provisional existence. Therefore, the meaning of re-enumerating the Eight No's is complete. Moreover, the initial enumeration of the Eight No's is not an incomplete refutation, and the subsequent re-enumeration of the Eight No's declares that nothing is incomplete. Thirdly, the initial enumeration of the Eight No's uses the sutras (sūtra) to generate the treatise (śāstra), and the subsequent enumeration of the Eight No's uses the treatise to expound the sutras. Initially, the sutras generate the treatise; the Eight No's are the Mahāvaipulya Sūtra. The author of the treatise comprehends the Middle Way of the Eight No's, generating correct views (samyag-dṛṣṭi), and can then compose the treatise, thus it is the sutras generating the treatise. Later, the Eight No's are enumerated and explained, which is the treatise expounding the sutras. Fourthly, the initial enumeration of the Eight No's clarifies the intent of the Eight No's; later, the Eight No's are borrowed to explain the sentences of the Eight No's. The initial clarification of the intent of the Eight No's is to say that the Buddha (buddha) spoke these Eight No's for people with great minds, and those with merit (puṇya) and sharp faculties (tīkṣṇa-indriya) can all understand. Sentient beings (sattva) in the Dharma-ending Age (matsya), with little merit and dull faculties, are confused by these Eight No's. The author of the treatise appears in the world to dispel the confusion of these people and re-declare the Eight No's. Subsequently, the Eight No's are re-enumerated to explain the sentences of the Eight No's. Question: Re-enumerating the Eight No's and explaining the sentences of the Eight No's, what kind of illness is being treated? Answer: It is for those who cannot seek the definitive characteristics of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), the twelve sense bases (dvādaśa-āyatana), etc., and those who cannot hear about ultimate emptiness (śūnyatā), thus giving rise to doubts. Such people will fall into the attachments of 『birth』, 『death』, 『annihilation』, 『permanence』, 『one』 (ekatva), 『different』 (nānātva), 『coming』 (āgama), and 『going』 (nirgama), so these attachments must be refuted. Fifthly, the Eight No's should have been explained immediately after the initial enumeration, but outsiders asked about the intention of writing the treatise, thus deviating far from the preceding text, so the Eight No's are re-enumerated to connect with the preceding content. Sixthly, the initial enumeration of the Eight No's marks the Middle Way; then the Middle Way is explained through questions and answers; later, the Eight No's are re-enumerated to conclude the Middle Way. This is the discerning gate (Liaojian men).
第九。問成實論師云。無生無滅者此明真諦。此論二十七品。皆明遣俗入真。故八不但是真諦。是事云何。答若八不但是真諦。則一部外人立生滅斷常。皆應是世諦。若然者一論之中外人立邪義。亦皆應是世諦。論主之破應是真諦。此則不然。夫論二諦皆是佛之正義。豈得以外立邪為俗。內明破為真。又成實師明有此真諦四絕之理即成有見。若是有見便名為常。若無此理則便是斷。又絕四句即四句斷。名為斷見。有此真理即名為常。乃是斷常。何名八不。復有人言。不生不滅明真諦義。不常不斷等六明世諦義。今謂。若得意者此亦無妨。然今八不通具二諦。如瓔珞經說之。故亦不同此釋。復有北主三論師。釋此八不凡有三義。一就空理釋。明畢竟空理非起非出。是故不生。非終非盡所以無滅。非定有故不常。非定無故不斷。一相無相故不一。無差別故不異。前際空故不來。后際空故不去。第二就緣起事釋。緣合故生。緣離故滅。既生滅假緣無有實性生滅。故云不生不滅。因緣起法即因壞果生。因壞故不常。果生故不斷。因果不同。不得言一。無有兩體。不得言異。不從外來故言不來。因內未有果故不從內出。第三就對執釋。對於二乘外道執也。薩婆多雲。大生生八法。小生生一法。大滅滅八法。小滅滅一法。故云生滅
。外道僧佉云。因中有果生。衛世師云因中無果生。今對破二人生滅。故云不生不滅也。小乘人云。無為是常。得道入無餘涅槃。是時五陰都滅。故名斷。外道言。虛空時方微塵等不從因生。故名為常。從因生法必當歸盡。故名為斷。或言。過去有故為常。未來無故為斷。此皆不然。故云不常不斷。小乘人云。諸法同皆無常。是其相故一。諸法各自相故異。外道云。因果俱有故一。性別故異。此實不然。故云不一不異。小乘雲。未來有法流入現在名來。后入過去名出。外道云。從微塵世性梵天等邊來故名來。復還歸本故云出。今破此病。故云不來不出。今明。若得意用之則義亦無夫。以初是第一義門。次是世諦門。后破性實病。還是世諦性空義耳。但詳此釋意謂空理無生滅則有理存。焉還同成實真諦義。又若有理存。焉則心有所依。名有所得義。又空理無生滅者即空理自然而有。若自然有則是無因見義。第二若云緣起故無生者是亦不然。今請問。為本無今有釋生。已有還無解滅不耶。若言本無今有者既是本無。今何得有。若本無今有兔角龜毛亦是本無。今皆應有。彼釋云。兔角等無可生之理。故不得生。因中果有可生之理。是故得生。今問。此可生之理為異空。為未異空。如其異空即是已有。此乃是本有今有為生。何
得言本無今有為生耶。若不異空則與兔角無異。兔角既不生。果亦應爾。果既得生兔角亦應爾。故雖有緣起之言義亦不成也。第三云對執釋者此亦不然。此論無法不窮。無言不洗。何得止對外道及毗曇耶。故不同此釋。新通門第十。余至關內。得三藏師用無上依經意釋八不。今略述之。八不為四人說。亦得為八人說。為四人說者為闡提說不生不滅中道。闡提有二。一邪見闡提。撥一切法言諸法皆滅。即雖未滅必當歸滅。二嬰兒闡提。執諸法決定有。故名為生。所以名嬰兒者其見諸法生不敢言無。故執諸法有生名為嬰兒。為治此二闡提說不生不滅。以諸法本來未曾生故不生。破嬰兒闡提。諸法今亦無滅。故破邪見執滅闡提。次不常不斷為破聲聞人。聲聞人亦有二執。即名二人。其人既怖畏生死。急欲斷之。名為斷見。欲住無為寂靜涅槃。故是常見。為破此二執故云不常不斷。次不一不異治外道。外道有二。一計我與陰一。二計我與陰異。為破此二人故明不一不異。次明不來不出。為破獨覺及初發心菩薩。此二人異者。獨覺一向樂觀因緣。不樂觀利他事。始行菩薩一向求利他行。不樂觀因緣。此二人所行乃異。而並謂乘因至果為來。從三界出為出。故來有所從。去有所至。為此二人故明諸法不來不出也。所以束八不為四對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得言（認為）本無今有，是為生嗎？如果和空沒有區別，那就和兔角沒有區別了。兔角既然不生，果也應該如此（不生）。果既然得生，兔角也應該如此（得生）。所以，即使有緣起的說法，道理也講不通。第三種解釋說，這是針對外道和毗曇的辯論，這種說法也不對。這部論著窮盡了一切法理，洗滌了一切言論，怎麼能僅僅對外道和毗曇呢？所以不同意這種解釋。新通門第十。其餘內容到關內再說。三藏法師用《無上依經》的意旨解釋八不，現在簡略地敘述一下。八不，是為四種人說的，也可以說是為八種人說的。為四種人說，是為闡提（斷善根者）說不生不滅的中道。闡提有兩種：一是邪見闡提，否定一切法，說諸法都會滅亡，即使現在沒有滅亡，將來也一定會滅亡；二是嬰兒闡提，執著諸法決定存在，所以名為生。之所以稱為嬰兒，是因為他們看到諸法生起，不敢說沒有，所以執著諸法有生，名為嬰兒。爲了對治這兩種闡提，所以說不生不滅。因為諸法本來未曾生起，所以不生，破斥嬰兒闡提。諸法現在也沒有滅亡，所以破斥邪見執滅的闡提。其次，不常不斷，是爲了破斥聲聞人。聲聞人也有兩種執著，即兩種人。他們既害怕生死，急於斷滅生死，名為斷見。又想住在無為寂靜的涅槃中，所以是常見。爲了破斥這兩種執著，所以說不常不斷。其次，不一不異，是爲了對治外道。外道有兩種：一種認為我（ātman）與陰（skandha）是一，一種認為我與陰是異。爲了破斥這兩種人，所以說明不一不異。其次，說明不來不出，是爲了破斥獨覺（pratyekabuddha）和初發心菩薩。這兩種人不同之處在於，獨覺一味地樂觀因緣，不樂觀利他之事；始行菩薩一味地追求利他之行，不樂觀因緣。這兩種人所行不同，但都認為乘因至果是為來，從三界出是為出。所以來有所從，去有所至。爲了這兩種人，所以說明諸法不來不出。所以將八不歸納為四對。
【English Translation】 English version Is it said that originally there was nothing, and now there is something, which is called 'birth'? If it is no different from emptiness, then it is no different from a rabbit's horn. Since a rabbit's horn is not born, the result (fruit) should also be like that (not born). Since the result can be born, the rabbit's horn should also be like that (be born). Therefore, even if there is the saying of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), the meaning cannot be established. The third explanation says that this is a debate against the heretics (tīrthika) and the Abhidharma masters, but this is also not correct. This treatise exhausts all the principles of Dharma and washes away all arguments. How can it be only directed at the heretics and the Abhidharma masters? Therefore, I do not agree with this explanation. The tenth of the New Access Gate. The rest will be discussed after entering the pass. The Tripiṭaka Master explains the Eight No's (aṣṭānirodha) using the meaning of the Anuttarāśraya Sūtra. Now, I will briefly describe it. The Eight No's are spoken for four types of people, or it can be said that they are spoken for eight types of people. Speaking for four types of people means speaking the Middle Way of neither birth nor death for the icchantika (those who have cut off their roots of goodness). There are two types of icchantika: one is the icchantika with wrong views, who denies all dharmas and says that all dharmas will perish. Even if they have not perished now, they will surely perish in the future. The second is the infant icchantika, who clings to the belief that all dharmas definitely exist, so it is called 'birth'. The reason they are called infants is that when they see dharmas arise, they dare not say that they do not exist, so they cling to the belief that dharmas have birth, and they are called infants. To counteract these two types of icchantika, it is said that there is neither birth nor death. Because dharmas have never been born originally, therefore there is no birth, refuting the infant icchantika. Dharmas do not perish now either, therefore refuting the icchantika who clings to the belief in annihilation with wrong views. Secondly, neither permanent nor impermanent is to refute the śrāvakas (listeners). The śrāvakas also have two attachments, that is, two types of people. They are afraid of birth and death and are eager to cut off birth and death, which is called the view of annihilation. They also want to dwell in the unconditioned, quiet nirvāṇa, so it is the view of permanence. To refute these two attachments, it is said that it is neither permanent nor impermanent. Secondly, neither one nor different is to counteract the heretics. There are two types of heretics: one believes that the self (ātman) and the aggregates (skandha) are one, and the other believes that the self and the aggregates are different. To refute these two types of people, it is explained that it is neither one nor different. Secondly, explaining neither coming nor going is to refute the pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers) and the newly aspiring bodhisattvas. The difference between these two types of people is that the pratyekabuddha always optimistically views conditions and does not optimistically view benefiting others; the bodhisattva who has just begun to practice always seeks to benefit others and does not optimistically view conditions. The practices of these two types of people are different, but they both believe that riding the cause to the result is called 'coming', and exiting the three realms is called 'going'. Therefore, coming has a place from which to come, and going has a place to which to go. For these two types of people, it is explained that dharmas neither come nor go. Therefore, the Eight No's are summarized into four pairs.
。為對四人亦為八人也。次明八不對治四障。亦治八障。治四障者治闡提憎背大乘障。故說不生不滅。闡提人憎背大乘。如五百婆羅門云。大乘經典是無所有。云何令人同於虛空。故今明諸法本來不生不滅。令其信樂大乘也。次不一不異治外道計執一異障。以外道於五陰計即離我故。今明無此一異之我。故言治外道執一異障。三者不斷不常治聲聞怖畏生死障。以小乘人畏生死欲斷之故。是斷見。樂於涅槃無為。即是常見。故今明不斷不常治此斷常。使不怖生死不樂涅槃。四者不來不出治獨覺及始行菩薩來去障。此二人行處乃異而同。謂來有所從去有所至。故名為障。故說不來不出以治之。若言八不治八障者。闡提中有生滅為二。外道中一異為二。聲聞中斷常為二。獨覺中來出為二。故成八也。此皆順釋。若逆釋者說不來不去。治始行及獨覺戲論障。言有來有出即是戲論。經云。若言如來有去有來。不解我所說義。如來者無所從來。亦無所去。云何始行謂佛實有來去。故名戲論也。次不常不斷治聲聞相違障。言常即違斷。言斷則害常。云何汝具計斷常耶。故說不斷不常治相違障。次不一不異治外道增損障。若云人法一即是損。既稱為人法。豈可一耶。若言人法異即是增。以人法無別二體。謂有二體豈非增耶。故說不一不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：對於四種情況，也可以說是八種情況。接下來解釋八不否定對治四種障礙，也能對治八種障礙。對治四種障礙是指對治闡提（icchantika，斷善根者）憎恨、背離大乘的障礙。因此說『不生不滅』。闡提之人憎恨、背離大乘，就像五百婆羅門所說：『大乘經典是虛無所有的，怎麼能使人等同於虛空呢？』所以現在闡明諸法本來不生不滅，使他們信樂大乘。其次，『不一不異』對治外道計執『一』『異』的障礙。因為外道對於五陰計執『即我』『離我』，所以現在闡明沒有這種『一』『異』之『我』，所以說對治外道執『一』『異』的障礙。第三，『不斷不常』對治聲聞（śrāvaka，小乘修行者）怖畏生死的障礙。因為小乘之人畏懼生死想要斷除它，這是斷見。樂於涅槃無為，這就是常見。所以現在闡明『不斷不常』對治這種斷常，使他們不怖畏生死，不樂於涅槃。第四，『不來不出』對治獨覺（pratyekabuddha，緣覺）以及始行菩薩的來去障礙。這兩種人的行處雖然不同但本質相同，都認為『來』有所從，『去』有所至，所以稱為障礙。所以說『不來不出』來對治它。如果說八不否定對治八種障礙，那麼闡提中有生、滅為二，外道中一、異為二，聲聞中斷、常為二，獨覺中來、出為二，所以構成八種。這些都是順向解釋。如果逆向解釋，說『不來不去』，對治始行菩薩及獨覺的戲論障礙。說有來有去就是戲論。經中說：『如果說如來有去有來，是不理解我所說的意義。如來無所從來，也無所去。』為什麼說始行菩薩認為佛真實有來去，所以名為戲論呢？其次，『不常不斷』對治聲聞的相違障礙。說『常』就違背『斷』，說『斷』就損害『常』。為什麼你既計執『斷』又計執『常』呢？所以說『不斷不常』對治相違障礙。其次，『不一不異』對治外道的增損障礙。如果說人法『一』，那就是損減。既然稱為人法，怎麼能說『一』呢？如果說人法『異』，那就是增加。因為人法沒有分別的二體，認為有二體豈不是增加嗎？所以說『不一不 異』
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the four cases, it can also be said to be eight cases. Next, it explains that the eight negations counteract the four obstacles and can also counteract the eight obstacles. Counteracting the four obstacles refers to counteracting the obstacles of the icchantika (those who have severed their roots of goodness) hating and turning away from the Mahayana. Therefore, it is said 'neither arising nor ceasing'. Icchantikas hate and turn away from the Mahayana, just as the five hundred Brahmins said: 'The Mahayana scriptures are empty and without substance, how can they make people equal to emptiness?' Therefore, it is now clarified that all dharmas are originally neither arising nor ceasing, so that they may believe in and be joyful in the Mahayana. Secondly, 'neither one nor different' counteracts the obstacles of the tirthikas (non-Buddhists) clinging to 'one' and 'different'. Because the tirthikas cling to 'identity with self' and 'separation from self' regarding the five skandhas, it is now clarified that there is no such 'one' or 'different' 'self', so it is said to counteract the obstacles of the tirthikas clinging to 'one' and 'different'. Thirdly, 'neither permanent nor impermanent' counteracts the obstacles of the śrāvakas (small vehicle practitioners) fearing birth and death. Because the śrāvakas fear birth and death and want to cut it off, this is a view of annihilation. Rejoicing in Nirvana and non-action is a view of permanence. Therefore, it is now clarified that 'neither permanent nor impermanent' counteracts this annihilation and permanence, so that they do not fear birth and death and do not rejoice in Nirvana. Fourthly, 'neither coming nor going' counteracts the obstacles of the pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers) and the newly practicing Bodhisattvas regarding coming and going. Although the practices of these two types of people are different, their essence is the same, both believing that 'coming' has a source and 'going' has a destination, so it is called an obstacle. Therefore, it is said 'neither coming nor going' to counteract it. If it is said that the eight negations counteract the eight obstacles, then in the icchantikas there are arising and ceasing as two, in the tirthikas there are one and different as two, in the śrāvakas there are annihilation and permanence as two, and in the pratyekabuddhas there are coming and going as two, thus forming eight. These are all forward explanations. If explained in reverse, saying 'neither coming nor going' counteracts the discursive obstacles of the newly practicing Bodhisattvas and pratyekabuddhas. Saying there is coming and going is discursive. The sutra says: 'If it is said that the Tathagata comes and goes, it is not understanding the meaning of what I have said. The Tathagata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.' Why is it said that the newly practicing Bodhisattvas believe that the Buddha truly comes and goes, so it is called discursive? Secondly, 'neither permanent nor impermanent' counteracts the contradictory obstacles of the śrāvakas. Saying 'permanent' contradicts 'annihilation', and saying 'annihilation' harms 'permanence'. Why do you cling to both 'annihilation' and 'permanence'? Therefore, it is said 'neither permanent nor impermanent' to counteract the contradictory obstacles. Secondly, 'neither one nor different' counteracts the obstacles of increase and decrease of the tirthikas. If it is said that person and dharma are 'one', that is a decrease. Since it is called person and dharma, how can it be said to be 'one'? If it is said that person and dharma are 'different', that is an increase. Because person and dharma do not have separate two entities, isn't it an increase to think there are two entities? Therefore, it is said 'neither one nor
異以治之。次不生不滅治闡提有無障。邪見者謂無有見者執有。今明不生不滅即治此有無障也。此並是用二悉壇意。謂各各為人及對治也。次明以四法為四人治四障。一者信樂大乘。為闡提人破背大乘障。二以無分別般若治外道執我一異障。以外道執我一異是有所得分別。故今明無分別般若即是無所得般若。次以破虛空三昧破聲聞人怖畏生死障。聲聞人滅身智住無為虛空中。故今得破虛空三昧。破除此障也。四者菩薩修習大悲。為獨覺及始行菩薩。破獨覺不利益眾生。及始行菩薩有佛道可求。破佛有來去障。明菩薩修習大悲。自利利人自他不二。此四法即是八不。初信樂大乘謂不生不滅。以悟不生不滅故起信心也。次無分別般若即是不一不異。息一異之心名無分別。次破虛空三昧即是不斷不常。既破聲聞人住無為空中。即是不常。不斷亦無灰身滅智之斷。次修習大悲即是不來不去。以菩薩修習大悲。自利利人自他不二。知來去無來去無來去來去也。次明以四法為因。得如來四德之果。以信樂大乘為因。破于闡提不信得於凈果。果即不生不滅也。次行無分別般若為因。破外道一異分別得如來我德果。果即非一非異。以非外道一異之我故得於佛我。故此我非一非異也。次以行破虛空三昧為因。破聲聞得如來樂果。聲聞雖言
住無為樂此于大乘是生死苦。今破斷常得不斷不常究竟樂果也。次修習大悲為因。破獨覺自為及始行謂佛有去來。明菩薩常行大悲。窮生死際以建此因故。得如來常住之果。真諦三藏用無上依經及攝大乘論意。釋八不甚廣。今略取大意耳。初為各四人。次破四障。次行四因。后得四果。八不之要義顯於斯。與上諸解釋無相違背也。
中觀論疏卷第二(末畢) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第三(本)
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
以此二偈嘆佛下第二次明釋八不。開為二。第一青目釋八不。第二龍樹自釋八不。就初為二。第一總釋兩偈意。第二別釋二偈。初問答釋第二偈。從不生者以下釋初偈。以此二偈者標二偈也。嘆佛略說第一義者釋二偈意也。龍樹所以標二偈在論初者。有二種意。一為嘆佛。二明第一義。嘆佛者嘆能說之人也。明第一義諦辯所說之法也。在義雖多唯有人法。故標斯二。又嘆佛者明教用也。辯第一義者明教體也。教用謂顯正破邪。教體即八不中道。又嘆佛明二智中道。辯第一義明二諦中道。又嘆佛明說教意。辯第一義正明說教也。二諦二智有二種之母。若二諦生二智即二諦為生母。二智為子。故瓔珞經佛母品二諦為母也。若二智說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：執著于無為之樂，對於大乘菩薩來說，就是生死之苦。現在通過破除斷見和常見，可以獲得既非斷滅也非恒常的究竟之樂果。其次，修習大悲心作為根本原因，破除獨覺只為自己以及初學者認為佛有來去的錯誤觀念。闡明菩薩恒常實踐大悲，窮盡生死輪迴，以此建立成佛之因，所以能獲得如來常住不變的果報。真諦三藏依據《無上依經》和《攝大乘論》的意旨，對八不的解釋非常廣泛。現在只簡略地提取其主要意思。最初是針對四種人，其次是破除四種障礙，再次是實踐四種原因，最後是獲得四種果報。八不的要義在此顯現，與以上各種解釋沒有互相違背的地方。
《中觀論疏》卷第二（末尾） 大正藏第42冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》
《中觀論疏》卷第三（本）
釋吉藏 撰
因緣品第一
用這兩句偈頌讚嘆佛陀之後，第二次闡明解釋八不。分為兩個部分。第一部分是青目（Qingmu，人名）解釋八不，第二部分是龍樹（Longshu，人名）自己解釋八不。在第一部分中，又分為兩個部分。第一部分是總的解釋兩句偈頌的含義，第二部分是分別解釋兩句偈頌。首先是問答解釋第二句偈頌，從『不生者』以下解釋第一句偈頌。『以此二偈者』是標明這兩句偈頌。『嘆佛略說第一義者』是解釋這兩句偈頌的含義。龍樹之所以在論的開頭標明這兩句偈頌，有兩種用意。一是讚歎佛陀，二是闡明第一義。讚歎佛陀是讚歎能說法的人。闡明第一義諦是辨明所說的法。在意義上雖然很多，但只有人法兩種，所以標明這兩種。又，讚歎佛陀是闡明教的作用。辨明第一義是闡明教的本體。教的作用在於顯揚正法、破斥邪說，教的本體就是八不中道。又，讚歎佛陀是闡明二智中道。辨明第一義是闡明二諦中道。二諦、二智有二種母親。如果二諦產生二智，那麼二諦就是生母，二智就是兒子。所以《瓔珞經·佛母品》中說二諦是母親。如果二智說法
【English Translation】 English version: Clinging to the joy of non-action (Wuwei) is, for a Mahayana Bodhisattva, the suffering of Samsara. Now, by breaking through the views of annihilation and permanence, one can attain the ultimate joy that is neither annihilation nor permanence. Secondly, cultivating great compassion as the fundamental cause, dispels the erroneous notions of the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) who only seeks self-benefit, and the beginner's view that the Buddha has coming and going. It clarifies that Bodhisattvas constantly practice great compassion, exhausting the cycle of birth and death, thereby establishing the cause of Buddhahood, so that they can attain the constant and unchanging fruit of the Tathagata. Tripitaka Master Paramartha, based on the meaning of the Anavatapta Sutra and the Mahayana-samgraha, explains the Eight No's very extensively. Now, only the main ideas are briefly extracted. Initially, it is aimed at four types of people, secondly, it is to break through four obstacles, thirdly, it is to practice four causes, and finally, it is to attain four fruits. The essential meaning of the Eight No's is revealed here, and there is no contradiction with the above explanations.
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Scroll 2 (End) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42 No. 1824 Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Scroll 3 (Beginning)
Composed by Jizang
Chapter 1: Conditions
After praising the Buddha with these two verses, the second time is to explain the Eight No's. It is divided into two parts. The first part is Qingmu's (Qingmu, a person's name) explanation of the Eight No's, and the second part is Nagarjuna's (Longshu, a person's name) own explanation of the Eight No's. In the first part, it is further divided into two parts. The first part is a general explanation of the meaning of the two verses, and the second part is a separate explanation of the two verses. First, the second verse is explained through questions and answers, and the first verse is explained from 'no birth'. 'With these two verses' indicates these two verses. 'Praising the Buddha and briefly explaining the first meaning' explains the meaning of these two verses. The reason why Nagarjuna marked these two verses at the beginning of the treatise is for two purposes. One is to praise the Buddha, and the other is to clarify the first meaning. Praising the Buddha is praising the person who can speak the Dharma. Clarifying the first meaning is to distinguish the Dharma that is spoken. Although there are many meanings, there are only two types: person and Dharma, so these two are marked. Also, praising the Buddha is clarifying the function of the teaching. Clarifying the first meaning is clarifying the essence of the teaching. The function of the teaching lies in revealing the right Dharma and refuting the wrong views, and the essence of the teaching is the Middle Way of the Eight No's. Also, praising the Buddha is clarifying the Middle Way of the Two Wisdoms. Clarifying the first meaning is clarifying the Middle Way of the Two Truths. The Two Truths and the Two Wisdoms have two kinds of mothers. If the Two Truths give rise to the Two Wisdoms, then the Two Truths are the birth mother and the Two Wisdoms are the sons. Therefore, in the Bodhisattva Ground Sutra, it is said that the Two Truths are the mother. If the Two Wisdoms speak
二諦即二智為能說。二諦為所說二智為說母。智度論以波若望佛具二種因。即是二母。波若望佛能生於佛。即是生母。佛說波若佛是說母。然斯言有離有合。若合而言之二偈俱嘆佛。初偈嘆佛法身。法身即是中道。故涅槃經以中道為佛。后偈嘆佛應身。謂應身能為眾生演說于教。又初之一偈明二身體。法身則俱離假實生滅。應身則不生而生。非滅而滅。離實生滅。故一八不具真應兩身。后偈嘆佛能為眾生說此二身。滅諸戲論令一切眾生得佛二身。故二偈俱嘆佛也。二偈俱第一者初偈法第一。次偈人第一。初偈教體第一。次偈教用第一。又初偈明諦第一。次偈明智第一。正意初偈明中道。后偈明正觀及經。此並明佛之中觀經也。佛因中發觀觀辯於心演之於口。故云經也。若離而言之初偈正明第一義。次偈正明嘆佛。問初偈具明三種中道。何故偏言正明第一義耶。答三種中道並是第一。以其最上莫過故稱第一。深有所以目之為義。故偈中雲。諸說中第一。則知。不偏主真諦。又云。八不雖具明二諦但第一義諦為本。故略明第一義。是以觀十二因緣品初云。上以聞摩訶衍入第一義。今欲聞谷聞法入第一義。故諸佛雖依二諦說法意在第一義諦。又此八不正是第一義悉檀。故名第一。智度論釋第一義悉檀。而引中論八不。故知。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二諦（Satya-dvaya，兩種真理）即二智（兩種智慧）為能說（能夠詮釋真理）。二諦為所說（被詮釋的真理），二智為說母（詮釋的根源）。《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra）以般若（Prajñā，智慧）看待佛陀，具備兩種因，即是二母。般若看待佛陀，能夠生出佛陀，即是生母。佛說般若，佛是說母。然而這些話有離有合。如果合而言之，兩偈（詩偈）都在讚歎佛陀。初偈讚歎佛陀的法身（Dharmakāya，法性之身）。法身即是中道（Madhyamā），所以《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）以中道為佛。后偈讚歎佛陀的應身（Nirmāṇakāya，化身），謂應身能夠為眾生演說教法。又初之一偈明二身體，法身則俱離假實生滅，應身則不生而生，非滅而滅，離實生滅，故一八不具真應兩身。后偈讚歎佛能為眾生說此二身，滅諸戲論，令一切眾生得佛二身。故二偈俱嘆佛也。二偈俱第一者，初偈法第一，次偈人第一，初偈教體第一，次偈教用第一。又初偈明諦第一，次偈明智第一。正意初偈明中道，后偈明正觀及經。此並明佛之中觀經也。佛因中發觀，觀辯於心，演之於口，故云經也。若離而言之，初偈正明第一義（Paramārtha，勝義諦），次偈正明嘆佛。問：初偈具明三種中道，何故偏言正明第一義耶？答：三種中道並是第一，以其最上莫過故稱第一，深有所以目之為義，故偈中雲：『諸說中第一』，則知不偏主真諦（Tathatā，真如）。又云：『八不』雖具明二諦，但第一義諦為本，故略明第一義。是以觀十二因緣品初云：『上以聞摩訶衍（Mahāyāna，大乘）入第一義，今欲聞谷聞法入第一義』。故諸佛雖依二諦說法，意在第一義諦。又此『八不』正是第一義悉檀（Siddhānta，宗），故名第一。《智度論》釋第一義悉檀，而引《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）『八不』，故知。
【English Translation】 English version The two truths (Satya-dvaya) are the two wisdoms (two kinds of wisdom) that can explain. The two truths are what is explained, and the two wisdoms are the source of explanation. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra views the Buddha through Prajñā (wisdom), possessing two causes, which are the two mothers. Prajñā views the Buddha as being able to give birth to the Buddha, which is the birth mother. The Buddha speaks of Prajñā, and the Buddha is the speaking mother. However, these words can be separated or combined. If combined, both gāthās (verses) praise the Buddha. The first gāthā praises the Dharmakāya (body of the Dharma) of the Buddha. The Dharmakāya is the Madhyamā (Middle Way), so the Nirvana Sutra considers the Middle Way to be the Buddha. The second gāthā praises the Nirmāṇakāya (transformation body), saying that the Nirmāṇakāya can expound the teachings for sentient beings. Furthermore, the first gāthā clarifies the two bodies; the Dharmakāya is free from the illusion of reality, birth, and death, while the Nirmāṇakāya is born without being born and ceases without ceasing, free from the illusion of reality, birth, and death. Therefore, the eight negations do not fully encompass the true and manifested bodies. The second gāthā praises the Buddha's ability to speak of these two bodies for sentient beings, eliminating all frivolous debates and enabling all sentient beings to attain the two bodies of the Buddha. Thus, both gāthās praise the Buddha. The two gāthās are both the first; the first gāthā is the first in Dharma, the second gāthā is the first in person, the first gāthā is the first in the essence of the teaching, and the second gāthā is the first in the application of the teaching. Also, the first gāthā clarifies the first truth, and the second gāthā clarifies the first wisdom. The main idea is that the first gāthā clarifies the Middle Way, and the second gāthā clarifies the correct view and the scriptures. This clarifies the Buddha's Middle Way scriptures. The Buddha develops insight from the Middle Way, contemplates and discerns in the mind, and expresses it through speech, hence the term 'scripture'. If separated, the first gāthā directly clarifies the Paramārtha (ultimate truth), and the second gāthā directly praises the Buddha. Question: The first gāthā fully clarifies the three Middle Ways, so why specifically mention the direct clarification of the Paramārtha? Answer: The three Middle Ways are all the first, because they are the highest and most excellent, hence the term 'first'. There is a profound reason for designating it as 'meaning', so the gāthā says: 'The first among all teachings', thus knowing that it does not exclusively emphasize Tathatā (suchness). It also says: 'The eight negations' fully clarify the two truths, but the Paramārtha is the foundation, so the first meaning is briefly clarified. Therefore, the beginning of the chapter on contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination says: 'Previously, one entered the first meaning by hearing the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle), and now one wishes to enter the first meaning by hearing the valley and hearing the Dharma'. Therefore, although the Buddhas teach according to the two truths, their intention lies in the Paramārtha. Furthermore, these 'eight negations' are precisely the Siddhānta (doctrine) of the Paramārtha, hence the name 'first'. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra explains the Siddhānta of the Paramārtha and cites the 'eight negations' from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), thus knowing.
八不是第一義悉檀。問第一義悉檀是何等法。答南方云。是真諦頑境。北土稱實相。亦是無知。今明不爾。智度論云。緣是一邊。觀是一邊。因是一邊。果是一邊。乃至中偏虛實並是二邊。第一義悉檀非緣非觀非因非果。乃至非虛非實。故論云一切言語道斷心行處滅。但無名相中為眾生故強名相說。隨義目之對三悉檀故名第一義。待偏稱中。形虛為實。能發觀智稱之為境。生觀智之果。是故名因。故波若是一法。佛說種種名也。問何故偏明第一義悉檀耶。答三悉檀可破可壞。第一義不可破不可壞。今欲明究竟不可破不可壞。最上無過法。故明第一義悉檀也。又第一義悉檀是本。由第一義悉檀故發如實觀。故有三世佛。為眾生如實而說。故有十二部經及八萬法藏。今欲令末世眾生棄末尋本。是故偏明第一義悉檀也。師又云。此非世諦之第一義。乃是中道第一義耳。故仁王經云。有諦無諦中道第一義諦。所以明中道第一義者。雖牒八不明二諦。為欲開不二道。若不為開不二之道。諸佛終不說於二道。以道未曾真俗故名為第一。問曰諸法無量者第二偏釋后偈。所以知初問答釋后偈者答曰。略以八事破。以八不破不八戲論。故偈云。善滅諸戲論。破即滅也。此釋定宜用之。就初前問后答。問從第二偈上半生。上云。能說是因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八不是第一義悉檀（Paramārtha-siddhānta，勝義諦）。問：第一義悉檀是何等法？答：南方說，是真諦頑境。北方稱實相，也是無知。現在說明不是這樣。《智度論》說：『緣是一邊，觀是一邊，因是一邊，果是一邊。』乃至中、偏、虛、實都是二邊。第一義悉檀非緣、非觀、非因、非果，乃至非虛、非實。所以《智度論》說：『一切言語道斷，心行處滅。』但在無名相中，爲了眾生，勉強用名相來說。隨著意義來命名，針對三悉檀（三種教義）的緣故，稱為第一義。對待偏頗，稱中道。將虛假視為真實，能夠引發觀智，稱之為境。產生觀智的果，所以稱為因。所以般若是唯一之法，佛陀說了種種名稱。問：為什麼特別闡明第一義悉檀呢？答：三悉檀可以破除、可以破壞，第一義不可破除、不可破壞。現在想要闡明究竟不可破除、不可破壞，最上無過的法，所以闡明第一義悉檀。又，第一義悉檀是根本。由於第一義悉檀的緣故，才能發起如實觀，所以有三世佛，為眾生如實而說，所以有十二部經及八萬法藏。現在想要讓末世眾生捨棄末節，尋求根本，所以特別闡明第一義悉檀。師父又說：『這不是世俗諦的第一義，乃是中道第一義。』所以《仁王經》說：『有諦、無諦，中道第一義諦。』所以闡明中道第一義的原因，雖然只提八不，沒有明說二諦，是爲了開顯不二之道。如果不爲了開顯不二之道，諸佛終究不會說二道。因為道未曾有真俗之分，所以名為第一。問：諸法無量，是第二種偏頗的解釋，對應後面的偈頌。憑什麼知道最初的問答是解釋後面的偈頌呢？答：略以八事來破除，用八不來破除不八的戲論。所以偈頌說：『善滅諸戲論。』破除就是滅除。這個解釋一定適用。就最初的前問后答來說，問題從第二偈頌的上半句開始。上面說：『能說是因緣』
【English Translation】 English version Eight is not the Paramārtha-siddhānta (ultimate truth). Question: What kind of dharma is Paramārtha-siddhānta? Answer: The South says it is the immutable realm of true reality. The North calls it true reality, which is also ignorance. Now, it is explained that it is not so. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: 'Condition is one extreme, observation is one extreme, cause is one extreme, effect is one extreme.' Even the middle, partial, false, and real are all two extremes. Paramārtha-siddhānta is neither condition, nor observation, nor cause, nor effect, and even neither false nor real. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: 'All paths of language are cut off, and the realm of mental activity is extinguished.' But in the absence of names and forms, for the sake of sentient beings, names and forms are reluctantly used to speak. It is named according to the meaning, and it is called Paramārtha-siddhānta because it is directed at the three siddhāntas (three doctrines). Treating partiality, it is called the Middle Way. Regarding the false as real, it can inspire contemplative wisdom, and it is called the realm. The fruit of generating contemplative wisdom is called the cause. Therefore, Prajñā is the only dharma, and the Buddha spoke of various names. Question: Why specifically explain Paramārtha-siddhānta? Answer: The three siddhāntas can be broken and destroyed, but Paramārtha-siddhānta cannot be broken or destroyed. Now, I want to explain the ultimate unbreakable and indestructible, the supreme and faultless dharma, so I explain Paramārtha-siddhānta. Moreover, Paramārtha-siddhānta is the root. Because of Paramārtha-siddhānta, one can develop true observation, so there are Buddhas of the three times, who speak truthfully for sentient beings, so there are the twelve divisions of scriptures and the eighty-four thousand dharma treasures. Now, I want to let sentient beings in the last age abandon the trivial and seek the root, so I specifically explain Paramārtha-siddhānta. The master also said: 'This is not the Paramārtha of conventional truth, but the Paramārtha of the Middle Way.' Therefore, the Ninkō-kyō (Benevolent Kings Sutra) says: 'There is truth, no truth, the Middle Way Paramārtha-siddhānta.' Therefore, the reason for clarifying the Middle Way Paramārtha is that although only the eight negations are mentioned, the two truths are not explicitly stated, it is to reveal the non-dual path. If it were not for revealing the non-dual path, the Buddhas would never speak of the two paths. Because the path has never had a distinction between true and conventional, it is called the first. Question: The immeasurable nature of all dharmas is the second biased explanation, corresponding to the later verses. How do you know that the initial question and answer explain the later verses? Answer: Briefly, it is refuted with eight things, and the non-eight fabrications are refuted with the eight negations. Therefore, the verse says: 'Skillfully extinguish all fabrications.' Refutation is extinction. This explanation must be used. In terms of the initial question and answer, the question begins with the first half of the second verse. Above it says: 'Able to speak of causes and conditions.'
善滅諸戲論。問意云。戲論諸法無量。如外道九十六內學五百論師。何故但說八事便能滅耶。此問凡有二意。一者將法以徴不。法既無量。不亦應然。如病多故藥亦應多。二者將不以徴法。若不唯有八法亦應然。今何故法多不小耶。若法多不少。則破病不盡申教未圓。又有此問來者法門無量。云何止取汝所解八事。欲釋一切大乘經耶。答曰法雖無量者。第二釋法多而不少意也。在法雖多略說八事。則病無不破。教無不申也。總破之言亦是偈云。善滅諸戲論。諸是不一之名故也。不生者下第二次釋初偈。即是釋八不文。此文有二義故來。一者釋上總破一切法。以無生無滅故餘六事亦無。則二不遍破一切法。況復八不耶。二為釋八不文故來。就文為二週解釋。山中舊云。前周就第一義門釋。後周就世諦門釋。所以就二諦釋者。諸佛說法常依二諦。八不既是佛說。亦是二諦。故就二諦門釋也。前釋第一義。后釋世諦者。第一義為本。世諦為末。故前釋其本。次釋其末也。問何以知。前為第一義。后為世諦。答后云。世間現見故則知。是世諦。后既是世諦。則知。前是第一義諦。山中大學士道安法師處餘年十九聽之。彼人云。前第一義諦借生以顯無生。故舉諸論師生以明無生。次世諦則借無生以顯生。故云后次萬物無生也。舉
【現代漢語翻譯】 善於止息各種戲論。有人問：『戲論的法門無量無邊，比如外道的九十六種學說，內學的五百位論師。為什麼只說這八件事就能止息一切戲論呢？』 這個問題包含兩層意思。一是想用法來質疑『不』。既然法是無量的，那麼『不』也應該是無量的。就像疾病很多，所以藥也應該很多一樣。二是想用『不』來質疑法。如果『不』只有八種，那麼法也應該只有八種。為什麼法很多，而『不』卻很少呢？如果法很多，而『不』很少，那麼就不能完全破除疾病，也不能圓滿地闡述教義。 還有人這樣問：『法門無量無邊，為什麼只取你所理解的這八件事，就想解釋一切大乘經典呢？』 回答是：『法雖然無量，但簡略地說這八件事，就能破除一切疾病，也能圓滿地闡述教義。』總括地破除一切戲論，也就是偈頌所說的『善滅諸戲論』。『諸』是不一的意思。 『不生』以下是第二次解釋最初的偈頌，也就是解釋『八不』的含義。這段文字包含兩層含義。一是解釋上面總括地破除一切法，因為無生無滅，所以其餘六件事也都不存在。那麼，兩個『不』就能普遍地破除一切法，更何況八個『不』呢？二是為解釋『八不』的含義而來。就文義而言，分為兩週進行解釋。山中的舊說認為，前一週是從第一義諦的角度來解釋，后一週是從世俗諦的角度來解釋。之所以用二諦來解釋，是因為諸佛說法常常依據二諦。『八不』既然是佛所說，也是二諦，所以用二諦的角度來解釋。先解釋第一義諦，后解釋世俗諦，是因為第一義諦是根本，世俗諦是末端，所以先解釋根本，再解釋末端。 有人問：『怎麼知道前面是第一義諦，後面是世俗諦呢？』 回答是：『後面說「世間現見」，所以知道是世俗諦。既然後面是世俗諦，那麼就知道前面是第一義諦。』山中的大學士道安法師在那裡十九年，聽聞此事。他說，前面的第一義諦是藉由『生』來顯示『無生』，所以舉出各種論師的『生』來闡明『無生』。後面的世俗諦則是藉由『無生』來顯示『生』，所以說後面接著是萬物無生。
【English Translation】 Skilled in extinguishing all disputations. Question: 'The dharmas of disputation are immeasurable, such as the ninety-six heterodox schools and the five hundred teachers of internal learning. Why is it that speaking of only these eight matters can extinguish them all?' This question contains two meanings. First, it uses the Dharma to question the 'not'. Since the Dharma is immeasurable, shouldn't the 'not' also be immeasurable? Just as there are many illnesses, so there should be many medicines. Second, it uses the 'not' to question the Dharma. If there are only eight 'nots', then shouldn't there also be only eight Dharmas? Why are there many Dharmas but few 'nots'? If there are many Dharmas but few 'nots', then it cannot completely eradicate illnesses, nor can it fully expound the teachings. There are also those who ask: 'The Dharma doors are immeasurable, why only take these eight matters that you understand and try to explain all the Mahayana sutras?' The answer is: 'Although the Dharma is immeasurable, speaking briefly of these eight matters can eradicate all illnesses and fully expound the teachings.' To comprehensively refute all disputations is what the verse says, 'Skilled in extinguishing all disputations.' 'All' is a name for non-duality. 'No birth' below is the second explanation of the initial verse, which is the explanation of the 'Eight No's'. This passage contains two meanings. First, it explains the above comprehensive refutation of all dharmas, because there is no birth and no death, so the remaining six matters also do not exist. Then, the two 'no's' can universally refute all dharmas, let alone the eight 'no's'? Second, it comes to explain the meaning of the 'Eight No's'. In terms of the text, it is divided into two rounds of explanation. The old saying in the mountains believes that the first round is explained from the perspective of the first noble truth (Paramārtha-satya), and the second round is explained from the perspective of the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya). The reason for using the two truths to explain is that the Buddhas often rely on the two truths when speaking the Dharma. Since the 'Eight No's' are spoken by the Buddha, they are also the two truths, so they are explained from the perspective of the two truths. The first explains the first noble truth, and the second explains the conventional truth, because the first noble truth is the root, and the conventional truth is the end, so the root is explained first, and then the end. Someone asks: 'How do you know that the front is the first noble truth and the back is the conventional truth?' The answer is: 'The back says "seen in the world", so we know it is the conventional truth. Since the back is the conventional truth, then we know that the front is the first noble truth.' The great scholar Dao'an (Dharmarakṣa) in the mountains was there for nineteen years and heard this matter. He said that the first noble truth in the front is to show 'no birth' by borrowing 'birth', so he cited the 'birth' of various teachers to clarify 'no birth'. The conventional truth in the back is to show 'birth' by borrowing 'no birth', so it says that the back is followed by the non-birth of all things.
萬物無生欲顯成因緣生也。問上云。真諦破假生。俗諦破實生。若爾前破諸論義師計生。應是破假生後方是破實生也。答真諦則假實俱絕具破二生。諸論師則假實俱立。故破諸論師計生。則是明真諦中道也。初既假實雙破。后則但破于實義。亦無失也。師又云。諸論師所計生於如來即是第一義。如經云。一切世諦若於如來即第一義諦。又二週釋八不。同破一切有所得人顛倒定執。同申佛二諦中道。但初周總釋。約為三根人作四對釋之。後周別據一現事以解釋之。所以為異也。又初周直釋。後周證釋。證釋者外人聞初釋不生而不信受。故舉即目眼之事以顯釋之。故是證釋也。又初周直明即事不生。次周明本來不生。故後文據劫初明不生及以不來出等。興皇有學士云。初周破諸論師實生明不生。就世諦門釋。次周始得從性起假息假明於真諦。故后就真諦門釋。就初作四對釋之。即為四別。初對為二。前正釋不生不滅。次明攝法。就初文二。前釋不生。次例明不滅。釋不生為二。初牒不生章門。次釋章門。不生者標章門也。諸論師下第二釋章門也。就文為二。前釋生次釋不生。釋生為二。初總明諸論師所計。次別出九計。問此論破迷大乘義。大乘人亦稟八不。云何乃明其計生耶。答彼雖言學大乘但作二諦定解。謂世諦自有生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 萬物並非獨立產生，而是依賴因緣和合而生。有人問：前面說，真諦破除虛假的『生』，俗諦破除真實的『生』。如果是這樣，那麼之前破斥各宗論師所主張的『生』，應該是破除虛假的『生』，之後才是破除真實的『生』嗎？ 回答是：真諦能使虛假和真實都消泯，同時破除兩種『生』。而各宗論師則堅持虛假和真實都存在。所以，破斥各宗論師所主張的『生』，就是爲了闡明真諦的中道。既然一開始就同時破除了虛假和真實，那麼之後僅僅破除真實的含義，也沒有什麼不妥。 慧遠法師又說：各宗論師所主張的『生』，對於如來而言，就是第一義諦。正如經中所說：『一切世俗諦，如果對於如來而言，就是第一義諦。』兩次對『八不』的解釋，都是爲了破除一切有所得之人的顛倒執著，共同闡明佛陀的二諦中道。但第一次是總體的解釋，大約是為三種根器的人做了四種對治的解釋。第二次是分別根據一個現實的事例來解釋。這就是它們不同的地方。 而且，第一次是直接解釋，第二次是舉例證明。舉例證明是因為外人聽了第一次的解釋，不相信『不生』的道理，所以舉出眼前所見的事物來顯明解釋，所以是舉例證明。而且，第一次是直接說明當下之事不生，第二次是說明本來就不生。所以後面的文章根據劫初來說明不生，以及不來不出等等。 興皇寺的有學之士說：第一次破斥各宗論師的實生，是爲了闡明不生，這是就世俗諦的層面來解釋的。第二次才開始從自性生起假象，止息假象，從而闡明真諦。所以後面就從真諦的層面來解釋。第一次做了四種對治的解釋，也就是四種區別。第一對分為兩部分，前面是正式解釋不生不滅，後面是說明攝法。就前面的文章分為兩部分，前面解釋不生，後面舉例說明不滅。解釋不生分為兩部分，前面是標出不生這一章的綱領，後面是解釋這一章的綱領。『不生者』，就是標出章的綱領。『諸論師下』，是第二部分解釋章的綱領。就文章分為兩部分，前面解釋『生』，後面解釋『不生』。解釋『生』分為兩部分，前面總的說明各宗論師所主張的，後面分別列出九種主張。有人問：這部論破除迷於大乘的含義，大乘人也信奉『八不』，為什麼還要闡明他們所主張的『生』呢？回答是：他們雖然說是學習大乘，但只是對二諦作了固定的理解，認為世俗諦自有生。
【English Translation】 English version All things do not arise independently, but are born from the aggregation of causes and conditions. Someone asks: Above it says, 'The ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) breaks the false arising, and the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) breaks the real arising.' If that is the case, then the previous refutation of the 'arising' asserted by various schools of philosophers should be breaking the false arising, and only later breaking the real arising? The answer is: The ultimate truth can eliminate both the false and the real, simultaneously breaking both kinds of 'arising.' But the various schools of philosophers insist that both the false and the real exist. Therefore, refuting the 'arising' asserted by various schools of philosophers is to clarify the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. Since both the false and the real were broken simultaneously at the beginning, there is nothing wrong with merely breaking the meaning of the real later on. Master Huiyuan also said: The 'arising' asserted by various schools of philosophers is, for the Tathāgata (如來), the first principle (Paramārtha). Just as it is said in the sutra: 'All conventional truths, if they are for the Tathāgata, are the ultimate truth.' The two explanations of the 'Eight No's' (八不) are both to break the inverted attachments of all those who have something to gain, and to jointly clarify the Buddha's Middle Way of the Two Truths. But the first time is a general explanation, roughly making four counteractive explanations for people of three capacities. The second time is to explain separately based on a real-world example. This is where they differ. Moreover, the first time is a direct explanation, and the second time is a proof by example. The proof by example is because outsiders, after hearing the first explanation, do not believe in the principle of 'no arising,' so they cite things seen before their eyes to clearly explain, so it is a proof by example. Moreover, the first time is a direct explanation of the non-arising of the present event, and the second time is an explanation of the original non-arising. Therefore, the later text uses the beginning of the kalpa (劫初) to explain non-arising, as well as non-coming and non-going, etc. A scholar from Xinghuang Temple (興皇寺) said: The first refutation of the real arising of various schools of philosophers is to clarify non-arising, which is explained from the level of conventional truth. Only the second time does it begin to generate false appearances from self-nature, and stop false appearances, thereby clarifying the ultimate truth. Therefore, the latter is explained from the level of ultimate truth. The first time, four counteractive explanations were made, which are four distinctions. The first pair is divided into two parts, the first is the formal explanation of non-arising and non-extinction, and the second is the explanation of the Dharma (攝法). The previous text is divided into two parts, the first explains non-arising, and the second exemplifies non-extinction. The explanation of non-arising is divided into two parts, the first is to mark the outline of the chapter on non-arising, and the second is to explain the outline of this chapter. 'Non-arising' is to mark the outline of the chapter. 'Under the various schools of philosophers' is the second part explaining the outline of the chapter. The text is divided into two parts, the first explains 'arising,' and the second explains 'non-arising.' The explanation of 'arising' is divided into two parts, the first is a general explanation of what the various schools of philosophers assert, and the second is a separate listing of nine assertions. Someone asks: This treatise refutes the meaning of being deluded about Mahayana (大乘), and Mahayana practitioners also believe in the 'Eight No's,' so why is it necessary to explain what they assert about 'arising'? The answer is: Although they say they are studying Mahayana, they only have a fixed understanding of the Two Truths, believing that conventional truth has its own arising.
真諦自無生。佛只說生者無生。而彼謂生異無生。故須破之也。有所得人明生與無生。望無所得義並皆是生。是故破生也。又有所得人不知無生生。而作世諦生義不成。是故今破生也。又小乘論師執諸法決定有生。不信大乘無生。則障八不無生。今欲破于小乘障申八不無生。是故破生。生病既去則無生不留。故五句一無所依。問今申佛八不二諦中道。云何破諸論師生辯真諦中道耶。答此可兩望之。若就佛二諦中道。則明因緣生即是不生。故名第一義中道。即顯非是異生而有不生。即生者不生。故名不生。若就破迷教之病。則破諸論師計生義不成。不生自屬外人。然後始得明因緣生即是不生。名為第一義也。師又云。佛只破眾生橫計生。故名無生。即名此為第一義。何處離此生別有第一義。論主今只申佛破生之教。故申第一義耳。亦言。破病故申教。亦可即是申此破故名申教也。問諸論師有幾種迷耶。答諸論師不知生無生。故迷第一義諦。亦不知無生生。故迷於世諦。問今列諸論師。與前八謬何異。答前八謬是外道所計。為佛所破。今諸論師是內道學。為龍樹所破。或謂因果一。或謂因果異者第二別列九計。就此文雖正破是內迷。今具明內外所立。以此論正破內傍破外故也。僧佉人謂因果一體。衛世人執因果異體。勒沙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 真諦本身就是無生的。佛陀只是說有生之法實際上是無生的。但那些人認為生與無生是不同的，所以需要破斥這種觀點。執著于有所得的人，認為生與無生都是生，因此要破斥生。而且，有所得的人不明白無生之生，他們所理解的世俗諦的生是不成立的，所以現在要破斥生。另外，小乘論師執著于諸法決定有生，不相信大乘的無生，這就障礙了八不中道的無生。現在爲了破斥小乘的這種障礙，闡明八不中道的無生，所以要破斥生。生的病根去除后，無生也不會停留，所以五句都是無所依。有人問：現在闡明佛陀的八不中道二諦，如何破斥諸論師關於生的辯論，從而闡明真諦中道呢？回答是：這可以從兩個方面來看。如果就佛陀的二諦中道而言，那麼闡明因緣生就是不生，所以稱為第一義中道。這表明並非在生之外還有不生，而是生本身就是不生，所以稱為不生。如果就破除迷惑的教義之病而言，那麼破斥諸論師認為生是成立的觀點。不生自然屬於外道。然後才能闡明因緣生就是不生，稱為第一義。論師又說：佛陀只是破斥眾生橫加計度的生，所以稱為無生。這就是第一義。哪裡有離開這種生而另外存在的第一義呢？論主現在只是闡明佛陀破斥生的教義，所以闡明第一義罷了。也可以說，因為破除病根所以闡明教義，也可以說正是因為闡明這種破斥，所以稱為闡明教義。有人問：諸論師有多少種迷惑呢？回答是：諸論師既不瞭解生無生，所以迷惑于第一義諦，也不瞭解無生生，所以迷惑於世俗諦。有人問：現在列舉諸論師的觀點，與前面的八種謬誤有什麼不同呢？回答是：前面的八種謬誤是外道所持的觀點，為佛陀所破斥。現在的諸論師是內道學者，為龍樹所破斥。或者認為因果是一體，或者認為因果是異體，這是第二種分別列出的九種計度。就本文而言，雖然主要是破斥內道的迷惑，但同時也闡明了內外道所立的觀點，因為這部論既正面破斥內道，又順帶破斥外道。僧佉（Samkhya）人認為因果是一體，衛世（Vaisheshika）人執著于因果是異體，勒沙（Laksha）
【English Translation】 English version: The ultimate truth is inherently unborn. The Buddha only speaks of the born as unborn. But those who claim that birth is different from the unborn need to be refuted. Those attached to 'something to be gained' see both birth and non-birth as birth, hence the need to refute birth. Moreover, those attached to 'something to be gained' do not understand the birth of the unborn, and their understanding of conventional truth regarding birth is untenable, so birth is refuted now. Furthermore, the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) teachers cling to the notion that all dharmas (phenomena) are definitely born, and do not believe in the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) concept of non-birth, which obstructs the non-birth of the Eight Negations (eightfold negation). Now, to refute this obstruction of the Hinayana and to expound the non-birth of the Eight Negations, birth is refuted. Once the disease of birth is removed, non-birth will not remain either, so the five statements are all without reliance. Someone asks: Now that you are expounding the Buddha's Eight Negations, the Middle Way of the Two Truths, how do you refute the arguments of the various teachers regarding birth, thereby clarifying the Middle Way of ultimate truth? The answer is: This can be viewed from two perspectives. If we consider the Buddha's Middle Way of the Two Truths, then clarifying that conditioned arising is non-birth is called the Middle Way of the First Principle. This shows that non-birth does not exist apart from birth, but rather birth itself is non-birth, hence it is called non-birth. If we consider it from the perspective of curing the disease of deluded teachings, then we refute the view of the various teachers that birth is established. Non-birth naturally belongs to external paths. Only then can we clarify that conditioned arising is non-birth, which is called the First Principle. The teacher also says: The Buddha only refutes the birth that beings arbitrarily conceive, hence it is called non-birth. This is called the First Principle. Where is there a First Principle separate from this birth? The author of the treatise is now only expounding the Buddha's teaching of refuting birth, so he is expounding the First Principle. It can also be said that because of refuting the disease, the teaching is expounded. It can also be said that it is precisely because of expounding this refutation that it is called expounding the teaching. Someone asks: How many kinds of delusions do the various teachers have? The answer is: The various teachers neither understand birth and non-birth, so they are deluded about the ultimate truth, nor do they understand the birth of the unborn, so they are deluded about the conventional truth. Someone asks: How is the listing of the various teachers now different from the previous eight errors? The answer is: The previous eight errors are views held by external paths, which were refuted by the Buddha. The current teachers are internal path scholars, who are refuted by Nagarjuna (Longshu). Some believe that cause and effect are one, while others believe that cause and effect are different. This is the second separately listed nine views. Although this text mainly refutes the delusions of the internal path, it also clarifies the views established by both internal and external paths, because this treatise both directly refutes the internal path and incidentally refutes the external path. The Samkhya (Samkhya) school believes that cause and effect are one, the Vaisheshika (Vaisheshika) school clings to the idea that cause and effect are different, and Laksha (Laksha)
婆明亦一亦異。亦一猶是屬一。亦異猶是異。若提子明非一非異。非一猶是異。非異猶是一。故此中但列二家。則具含四執。佛法內根本二部。一大眾部謂因果一。故變種子為牙。轉少為老。二上座部明無轉變義。故種滅於前牙生於后。少滅於前老生於后。則是因果異義。毗曇同上座部義。成實同大眾部執也。或謂因中有果或謂因中無果者僧佉明一。一猶是有。衛世辯異異猶是無。上座明二世有。即是因中有果。大眾明二世無。即是因中無果。毗曇同上座。成實同僧祇。若言成實不同二世有無者是義不然。成實論文唯有二世有無兩品。故知。破有立無同僧祇義也。或謂自體生他生共生者問自他之外既有共生。一異有無何不爾耶。答互文現意也。外道計自效能生眾生。眾生若滅還歸自性。自性即是世性。此是從眾生種類還生眾生。外物亦爾。佛法中如毗曇從性大生事大。成實從理大生事大。並是從自性生義也。他生者十二門論云。有外道。謂我自作五陰苦名為自生。或云自在天作名為他生。毗曇人立所作因因果。一法生時萬法不障。萬法生時一法不障。亦是從他生義。成實云。學習頑境生於靈智亦是他生。又二世有義有果性。是自體生。二世無無有果性。一向假緣是他生義。共生者外道尼揵子計。未有天地萬物。前有一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 婆明：『一』和『異』是否相同？『一』仍然屬於『一』的範疇，『異』仍然屬於『異』的範疇。如果提子（Tittha，宗派）闡明『非一』和『非異』，『非一』仍然屬於『異』的範疇，『非異』仍然屬於『一』的範疇。因此，這裡只列出兩家（兩種觀點），就包含了四種執見。佛法內部根本分為兩大部派：一是大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika），認為因果是『一』，所以種子會轉變為牙，幼年會轉變為老年；二是上座部（Sthavira），闡明沒有轉變的意義，所以種子在前滅去，牙在後生起，幼年在前滅去，老年在後生起，這就是因果『異』的意義。《毗曇》（Abhidhamma）的觀點與上座部相同，《成實》（Satyasiddhi）的觀點與大眾部相同。或者說，認為因中『有』果，或者認為因中『無』果。僧佉（Sāṃkhya）學派闡明『一』，『一』就是『有』；衛世（Vaiśeṣika）學派辯論『異』，『異』就是『無』。上座部闡明二世『有』，就是因中『有』果；大眾部闡明二世『無』，就是因中『無』果。《毗曇》的觀點與上座部相同，《成實》的觀點與僧祇部（Saṃghika）相同。如果說《成實》不同於二世『有』和『無』的觀點，這種說法是不對的。《成實論》中只有二世『有』和『無』兩品，因此可知，破『有』立『無』與僧祇部的觀點相同。或者說，是自體生、他生還是共生？如果問，在自他和之外既然有共生，那麼『一』和『異』、『有』和『無』為什麼不能這樣呢？回答說，這是互文見義。外道認為自效能生眾生，眾生如果滅亡還會迴歸自性，自性就是世性。這是從眾生的種類還生眾生，外物也是這樣。佛法中，比如《毗曇》從性大（Prakṛti-dhātu）生事大（Viṣaya-dhātu），《成實》從理大（Tattva-dhātu）生事大，都是從自性生的意義。他生，《十二門論》中說，有外道認為我自身造作五陰（Pañca-skandha）的苦，這叫做自生；或者說自在天（Īśvara）造作，這叫做他生。《毗曇》的人立所作因（Kāraṇa-hetu）因果，一法生起時萬法不障礙，萬法生起時一法不障礙，也是從他生的意義。《成實》說，學習頑固的境界生出靈敏的智慧，這也是他生。另外，二世『有』的意義是有果性，這是自體生；二世『無』沒有果性，一向假借因緣，這是他生的意義。共生，外道尼揵子（Nigaṇṭha）認為，在沒有天地萬物之前，有一個……
【English Translation】 English version 婆明：Are 'one' and 'different' the same? 'One' still belongs to the category of 'one,' and 'different' still belongs to the category of 'different.' If Tittha (Tittha, sect) clarifies 'not one' and 'not different,' 'not one' still belongs to the category of 'different,' and 'not different' still belongs to the category of 'one.' Therefore, only two schools (two viewpoints) are listed here, which contain four attachments. Within Buddhism, there are two fundamental schools: first, the Mahāsāṃghika (大眾部), which believes that cause and effect are 'one,' so the seed transforms into a sprout, and youth transforms into old age; second, the Sthavira (上座部), which explains that there is no meaning of transformation, so the seed perishes before, and the sprout arises after, youth perishes before, and old age arises after, which is the meaning of cause and effect being 'different.' The viewpoint of the Abhidhamma (毗曇) is the same as that of the Sthavira, and the viewpoint of the Satyasiddhi (成實) is the same as that of the Mahāsāṃghika. Or, it is said that there 'is' a result in the cause, or that there 'is no' result in the cause. The Sāṃkhya (僧佉) school explains 'one,' 'one' is 'existence'; the Vaiśeṣika (衛世) school argues 'different,' 'different' is 'non-existence.' The Sthavira explains that the two times 'exist,' which means there 'is' a result in the cause; the Mahāsāṃghika explains that the two times 'do not exist,' which means there 'is no' result in the cause. The viewpoint of the Abhidhamma is the same as that of the Sthavira, and the viewpoint of the Satyasiddhi is the same as that of the Saṃghika (僧祇部). If it is said that the Satyasiddhi is different from the viewpoint of the two times 'existence' and 'non-existence,' this statement is incorrect. There are only two chapters on the two times 'existence' and 'non-existence' in the Satyasiddhi Treatise, so it can be known that breaking 'existence' and establishing 'non-existence' is the same as the viewpoint of the Saṃghika. Or, is it self-origination, other-origination, or co-origination? If asked, since there is co-origination outside of self and other, then why can't 'one' and 'different,' 'existence' and 'non-existence' be like this? The answer is that this is understanding the meaning through mutual text. The heretics believe that self-nature can generate sentient beings, and if sentient beings perish, they will return to self-nature, and self-nature is the world-nature. This is from the kind of sentient beings still generating sentient beings, and external objects are also like this. In Buddhism, for example, the Abhidhamma generates Viṣaya-dhātu (事大) from Prakṛti-dhātu (性大), and the Satyasiddhi generates Viṣaya-dhātu from Tattva-dhātu (理大), which are all the meaning of originating from self-nature. Other-origination, the Dvādaśanikāya-śāstra (十二門論) says that there are heretics who believe that I myself create the suffering of the Pañca-skandha (五陰), which is called self-origination; or it is said that Īśvara (自在天) creates it, which is called other-origination. The people of the Abhidhamma establish Kāraṇa-hetu (所作因) cause and effect, when one dharma arises, the myriad dharmas do not obstruct, and when the myriad dharmas arise, one dharma does not obstruct, which is also the meaning of other-origination. The Satyasiddhi says that learning stubborn realms gives rise to sensitive wisdom, which is also other-origination. In addition, the meaning of the two times 'existence' is that there is result-nature, which is self-origination; the two times 'non-existence' has no result-nature, and always relies on conditions, which is the meaning of other-origination. Co-origination, the heretic Nigaṇṭha (尼揵子) believes that before there were heaven and earth and all things, there was a...
男女。共和合生於眾生。數人云。八相相扶共起。則展轉相生。成實云。四微和合有柱。五陰和合成人也。並共生義。或謂有生無生者有人言。此是猶結上七計。七計不同不出有無。故總結也。今謂不然。此文稱于或謂。則是別計。非結上也。次解云。有即是有因。無是無因。眾計既多不可具舉。是以最後以有因無因域之。亦不同此釋。破如前也。今明可有兩義。一者上七計明法體。此兩執辯生相。如薩婆多及毗婆阇婆提計法體外別有生相。故言有生。無生者僧祇及即法沙門部明法體外無別有生相。故言無生也。又有生者計生相是有為。如數論也。無生者計生相是無為。如毗婆阇婆提也。二者上明果有無義。今明因有無。或謂因是有法。以有為因能生諸法。因是無法。以無為因能生諸法。故異有因無因。無因乃是無有于因。今明以無為因也。問此是誰義。答內外法中具有此執。外道中有二師。如服水外道。計水能生一切萬物。即是從有生也。口力外道計太虛能生四大。四大能生藥草。藥草能生眾生。此從無生也。佛法中亦有此計。如琛法師計諸法本來是無從無生有。即是無生也。地論人計本有佛性。從此能生萬物違順等用。謂從有生。又釋。以世諦為體。真諦為義也。即有生也。真諦為體世諦為義。謂無生也。如是等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 男女共同結合而產生眾生。有些學派說，『八相』相互扶持共同生起，於是輾轉相生。《成實論》說，『四微』和合有柱子，『五陰』和合成為人。這些都是共同產生的含義。或者說，有人認為有生和無生，有人說，這就像總結前面的七種計度一樣。七種計度不同，不出有和無的範圍，所以進行總結。現在我認為不是這樣，這段文字稱作『或者說』，那麼就是另外一種計度，不是總結前面的內容。接下來的解釋說，有就是有因，無就是無因。各種計度很多，不能全部列舉，因此最後用有因和無因來概括。我也不同意這種解釋，駁斥的理由和前面一樣。現在我說明可能有兩種含義。第一種，前面的七種計度說明法的本體，這兩種執著辯論生的相狀。例如薩婆多部和毗婆沙婆提部認為法的本體之外另有生的相狀，所以說有生。無生，是指僧祇部和即法沙門部認為法的本體之外沒有另外的生的相狀，所以說無生。還有，有生是指認為生的相狀是有為法，例如數論。無生是指認為生的相狀是無為法，例如毗婆沙婆提部。第二種，前面說明果的有無的含義，現在說明因的有無。或者說，認為因是有法，因為有為的因能夠產生諸法；認為因是無法，因為無為的因能夠產生諸法，所以區分有因和無因。無因就是沒有因。現在我說明以無為因。問：這是誰的觀點？答：內外法中都有這種執著。外道中有兩位老師，例如服水外道，認為水能夠產生一切萬物，這就是從有生。口力外道認為太虛能夠產生四大，四大能夠產生藥草，藥草能夠產生眾生，這是從無生。佛法中也有這種觀點，例如琛法師認為諸法本來是無，從無生有，這就是無生。地論的人認為本來有佛性，從此能夠產生萬物的違順等作用，認為是『從有生』。又解釋說，以世諦為本體，真諦為作用，就是有生。真諦為本體，世諦為作用，就是無生。像這樣等等。
【English Translation】 English version Men and women, combining together, give rise to sentient beings. Some schools say that the 'Eight Aspects' (eight aspects of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing) mutually support each other and arise together, thus generating each other in a cycle. The Satyasiddhi Shastra (Treatise on the Completion of Truth) says that the 'Four Subtle Elements' (earth, water, fire, and wind) combine to form a pillar, and the 'Five Skandhas' (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) combine to form a person. These all share the meaning of arising together. Or, some say there is arising and non-arising. Some say that this is like summarizing the previous seven calculations. The seven calculations are different, but do not go beyond the scope of existence and non-existence, so they are summarized. Now, I don't think so. This passage is called 'or so', then it is another calculation, not summarizing the previous content. The following explanation says that existence is with cause, and non-existence is without cause. There are many kinds of calculations, and they cannot all be listed, so in the end, they are summarized by with cause and without cause. I also disagree with this explanation, and the reasons for refuting it are the same as before. Now I will explain that there may be two meanings. First, the previous seven calculations explain the substance of the Dharma (law, principle), and these two attachments debate the appearance of arising. For example, the Sarvastivada (the school that asserts everything exists) and the Vaibhashika (commentators on the Mahavibhasha) schools believe that there is a separate appearance of arising outside the substance of the Dharma, so they say there is arising. Non-arising refers to the Samghika (the majority school) and the Ekavyavaharika (the school of single expression) schools, which believe that there is no separate appearance of arising outside the substance of the Dharma, so they say there is no arising. Also, arising refers to the belief that the appearance of arising is conditioned (samskrita), such as the Samkhya (enumeration) school. Non-arising refers to the belief that the appearance of arising is unconditioned (asamskrita), such as the Vaibhashika school. Second, the previous explanation clarifies the meaning of the existence or non-existence of the result, and now explains the existence or non-existence of the cause. Or, it is believed that the cause is an existing Dharma, because the conditioned cause can produce all Dharmas; it is believed that the cause is a non-existing Dharma, because the unconditioned cause can produce all Dharmas, so the cause with cause and without cause are distinguished. No cause is the absence of cause. Now I explain that the unconditioned is the cause. Question: Whose view is this? Answer: Both internal and external Dharmas have this attachment. There are two teachers in the external paths, such as the water-drinking heretics, who believe that water can produce all things, which is arising from existence. The verbal power heretics believe that the great void can produce the four elements (earth, water, fire, and wind), the four elements can produce herbs, and herbs can produce sentient beings, which is arising from non-existence. There are also such views in Buddhism, such as Dharma Master Chen, who believes that all Dharmas are originally non-existent and arise from non-existence, which is non-arising. The people of the Dashabhumika Sutra (Ten Stages Sutra) believe that there is originally Buddha-nature (the potential for Buddhahood), from which the actions of compliance and opposition of all things can arise, which is considered 'arising from existence'. Another explanation is that mundane truth (samvriti-satya) is the substance, and ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) is the function, which is arising. Ultimate truth is the substance, and mundane truth is the function, which is non-arising. And so on.
說生相皆不然者第二釋不義。又開三別。一總非。二指后。三結成不義。總非有三意。一明夫論無生者生宛然而無生。亦無生宛然而生。外人既不識生無生。豈識無生生。故生義不成。二者外人既不識無生生。顛倒橫計有性實生。世諦之中亦無此生。故云不然。三者此之九計自相是非。如計一者破異執異者破一。則知。一異並是虛妄。故皆不成。問佛破八計生辯無生。龍樹破九計亦明無生。與佛何異。答經云。四依出世當知如佛。以同悟無生故無異也。而開師弟子不同者佛說無生。論主申無生。是故異也。是事後當廣說者第二指后破。即是釋無生義。通而為論二十五品並是明無生。所以知然者破三相品云。求生相不可得。故名無生。次破住滅云。當知住法即是無生。滅義亦爾。故知求一切法不可得。即一切法並無生。若別而為言。自他共三計指龍樹釋八不偈破。因中有果無果指四緣偈破。因果一異指因果品破。有生無生指三相品破。生相決定不可得者第三結成不義。二諦中決定無實性之生。故云決定不可得。問如此生相云何不可得。答今且寄近事以曉遠旨。就此中略破九家。若因果一則因自生因。果自生果。米自生米。飯自生飯。若異者米飯無有兩體。云何得異。若飯異米而飯從米生。飯亦異土應從土生。若米異飯而
生飯。土亦異飯何不生飯。若米中已有飯。飯中已有不凈食不凈物也。若米中無飯。雖複用米終不成飯。又米中無飯而生飯者。亦無衣物何不生衣物。若飯還從飯自體生。則不從米生。若米是飯他而飯從米生。米中無飯自體。待誰為他耶。若飯從飯體生。復從米生則二俱有過。若言飯從本無生者。則轉無作有。若以有為因從有生者。有因復從誰生。是故九計決定不成。問外云決定有生。此是有生見。論主言決定無生。應是無生見也。答論主懷中未曾生無生。但為外人言決定有。求彼決定有無所有。故言決定無生耳。不滅者此第二破滅。若例上者亦應出諸論師種種計滅相。如九家不異。但生義已出不待煩文。此文意非是別破于滅。但明生無故即是無滅。凡有三意一相待破生有故滅有。生無故滅無。二者當有生時未有滅用。生義若廢則無生可滅。三者以生類滅。無生計生既是虛妄。無滅計滅義亦同然。以無生無滅故餘六事亦無下第二次明攝法。攝法者非是別破六事。但明以無生故即無有六。故攝六在無生之中。都是為顯無生義。所以明無生義者。欲顯八不無法不窮無言不盡。但明無生一句。尚無法不窮無言不盡。況具明八不耶。即是釋上總破一切法也。問云何無生滅即無六事。答二義。一者生滅是有為。既無有為亦無無為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生飯（未經烹煮的米飯）。土地不同，為什麼不直接從土裡生出米飯呢？如果米中已經有米飯，那麼米飯中也應該有不乾淨的食物和不乾淨的東西。如果米中沒有米飯，即使使用米，最終也無法變成米飯。而且，如果米中沒有米飯卻能生出米飯，那麼沒有衣服等物品，為什麼不能直接生出衣服等物品呢？如果米飯是從米飯自身產生的，那就不是從米產生的。如果米是米飯的『他』（所依賴之物），而米飯是從米產生的，那麼米中沒有米飯的自體，又依賴誰作為『他』呢？如果米飯從米飯的自體產生，又從米產生，那麼兩者都有過失。如果說米飯是從本來沒有的狀態產生的，那就是將沒有轉變為有。如果以『有』作為原因，從『有』產生『有』，那麼『有』的原因又從哪裡產生呢？因此，這九種推論最終都不能成立。 外道說決定有生，這是『有生』的見解。論主說決定無生，這應該是『無生』的見解嗎？答：論主心中從未產生過『生』或『無生』的念頭，只是爲了對外道說『決定有』，從而追問他們所認為的『決定有』到底是什麼，所以才說『決定無生』。不滅，這是第二次破斥『滅』。如果按照上面的例子，也應該列出各種論師關於『滅』的種種見解，就像前面九家一樣，沒有什麼不同。但是，因為『生』的道理已經闡述過了，所以不必再重複繁瑣的文字。這段文字的意思並不是要單獨破斥『滅』，而是要說明因為沒有『生』，所以也就沒有『滅』。總共有三種含義：一是相互對待而破斥，因為有『生』，所以有『滅』；因為沒有『生』，所以沒有『滅』。二是當有『生』的時候，還沒有『滅』的作用；如果『生』的意義被廢除，就沒有『生』可以被『滅』。三是以『生』來類比『滅』，既然認為『生』是虛妄的，那麼認為『滅』的意義也是同樣的虛妄。因為沒有『生』也沒有『滅』，所以其餘六事（指地、水、火、風、空、識）也沒有了。下面第二次說明攝法。攝法，不是要單獨破斥六事，而是要說明因為沒有『生』，所以也就沒有六事。所以將六事包含在『無生』之中，都是爲了彰顯『無生』的意義。之所以要闡明『無生』的意義，是爲了顯示八不（不生不滅，不常不斷，不一不異，不來不去）的道理，沒有哪種法不能窮盡，沒有哪種言語不能表達。僅僅說明『無生』一句，尚且沒有哪種法不能窮盡，沒有哪種言語不能表達，更何況是完整地闡明八不呢？這就是解釋上面總破一切法的意思。問：為什麼沒有『生滅』就沒有六事呢？答：有兩個含義。一是『生滅』是有為法，既然沒有有為法，也就沒有無為法。
【English Translation】 English version Raw rice. If the soil is different, why doesn't rice grow directly from the soil? If rice already exists within the rice grain, then there should also be unclean food and unclean things within the rice. If there is no rice within the rice grain, then even if you use rice, you will ultimately not be able to make rice. Moreover, if rice can be produced from rice grains even though there is no rice within them, then why can't clothes and other items be produced directly when there are no clothes and other items? If rice is produced from its own rice essence, then it is not produced from rice grains. If rice grains are the 'other' (that which is relied upon) of rice, and rice is produced from rice grains, then there is no self-essence of rice within the rice grains, so who is relied upon as the 'other'? If rice is produced from its own rice essence and also from rice grains, then both are at fault. If it is said that rice is produced from a state of originally not existing, then that is transforming non-existence into existence. If 'existence' is taken as the cause, and 'existence' is produced from 'existence', then from where is the cause of 'existence' produced? Therefore, these nine arguments ultimately cannot be established. The heretics say that birth is definitely real, this is the view of 'real birth'. Does the proponent saying that birth is definitely unreal mean that it is the view of 'unreal birth'? Answer: The proponent has never had the thought of 'birth' or 'unbirth' in his mind, but only in order to say 'definitely real' to the heretics, and then ask them what they consider to be 'definitely real', that is why he says 'definitely unreal'. Non-cessation, this is the second refutation of 'cessation'. If following the above examples, various views of 'cessation' from various teachers should also be listed, just like the previous nine schools, there is no difference. However, because the principle of 'birth' has already been explained, there is no need to repeat the tedious text. The meaning of this text is not to refute 'cessation' separately, but to explain that because there is no 'birth', there is also no 'cessation'. There are three meanings in total: one is to refute each other, because there is 'birth', so there is 'cessation'; because there is no 'birth', so there is no 'cessation'. Second, when there is 'birth', there is no function of 'cessation'; if the meaning of 'birth' is abolished, there is no 'birth' that can be 'ceased'. Third, 'cessation' is analogous to 'birth', since it is considered that 'birth' is false, then it is also considered that the meaning of 'cessation' is also false. Because there is no 'birth' and no 'cessation', the remaining six elements (referring to earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness) are also gone. Below, the second explanation is the collection of dharmas. The collection of dharmas is not to refute the six elements separately, but to explain that because there is no 'birth', there are also no six elements. Therefore, including the six elements in 'non-birth' is all to highlight the meaning of 'non-birth'. The reason for explaining the meaning of 'non-birth' is to show the principle of the eight negations (neither birth nor death, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going), there is no dharma that cannot be exhausted, and no language that cannot express it. Just explaining the sentence 'non-birth', there is still no dharma that cannot be exhausted, and no language that cannot express it, let alone fully explaining the eight negations? This is the explanation of the above general refutation of all dharmas. Question: Why are there no six elements without 'birth and death'? Answer: There are two meanings. One is that 'birth and death' are conditioned dharmas, since there are no conditioned dharmas, there are also no unconditioned dharmas.
。有為無為無故一切法畢竟空。二者因果相生此是世諦。世諦無故真諦亦無。二諦無故二智亦無。故一切法空便無六事也。問曰不生不滅。以總破一切法者。第二次釋不常不斷。前問次答。問有四意。不生不滅已總破一切法者此牒前也。何故復說六事者此問后也。前問疑不太少。今問疑不太多。前問見所不多嫌能不太少。即是見病多疑藥少。今問論主以無生無滅故餘六則無。見少藥能治多病嫌不太多。若然者前問答明不不少。此一問答明不非多。即是折中說也。二者以後難前。今明不生不滅已足。而更說六者。前八事雖足亦應更說。若前八事為足不更說者今二事以足。不更說六也。三者若言不生不滅足不應更說六事。若更說六則六事不無。四者責上說。上明無生義。為成為不成。若成不應更說。若不成則諸法非是不生也。答曰為成不生不滅者此答。明不生不滅于義實足。而更說六者為成不生不滅義故耳。余之三難可以意知不須答也。就文為二。初標為成。次釋為成。標為成者約法為言。無生已攝一切法。故菩薩唯得無生法忍。實不須說六。更說六者為人故說六耳。有人不受不生不滅者此第二釋為成義。論主破諸法生滅明無生滅。外人聞此便不肯受。論主破諸法斷常明不斷不常。外人聞之則便生信。為成此人無生信是故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『有為』（saṃskṛta，指有條件的事物）、『無為』（asaṃskṛta，指無條件的事物）沒有原因，一切法畢竟是空。二者因果相生，這是『世諦』（saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦，相對於真諦的世俗認知）。『世諦』沒有了，『真諦』（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦，對事物本性的真實認知）也沒有了。『二諦』都沒有了，『二智』（dve jñāne，兩種智慧，指世俗智和勝義智）也沒有了。所以一切法皆空，也就沒有六事了。 問：用『不生不滅』來總破一切法，第二次又解釋『不常不斷』。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問有四種意思：既然用『不生不滅』已經總破了一切法，為什麼還要再說六事呢？前面提問是懷疑太多而見解太少，現在提問是懷疑不多而見解太多。前面提問是見解不多而嫌棄能力太少，這就是見解上的病多而藥少。現在提問是論主用『無生無滅』的道理，其餘六事就沒有了，見解少而藥能治多種病，嫌棄藥不多。如果這樣，前面問答說明不應該太少，這一個問答說明不應該太多，這就是折中的說法。二者是用後面的來反駁前面的，現在說明『不生不滅』已經足夠了，而還要再說六事。前面的八事雖然足夠，也應該再說。如果前面的八事足夠而不應該再說，那麼現在的二事足夠了，也不應該再說六事。三者是如果說『不生不滅』足夠了，就不應該再說六事；如果再說六事，那麼六事就不是沒有。四者是責備上面的說法。上面說明『無生』的意義，是爲了成就還是不成就？如果成就了，就不應該再說；如果不成就，那麼諸法就不是不生。 答：爲了成就『不生不滅』。這是回答，說明『不生不滅』在意義上確實足夠，而還要再說六事，是爲了成就『不生不滅』的意義。其餘的三種責難可以意會，不需要回答。就文義來說分為兩部分，首先標明爲了成就，其次解釋爲了成就。標明爲了成就，是從法的角度來說，『無生』已經涵蓋了一切法，所以菩薩唯獨證得『無生法忍』（anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti，對諸法不生不滅的證悟）。實際上不需要說六事，再說六事是爲了人的緣故。有人不接受『不生不滅』，這是第二部分解釋爲了成就的意義。論主破斥諸法的生滅，闡明沒有生滅。外人聽到這些就不肯接受。論主破斥諸法的斷常，闡明不斷不常。外人聽到這些就產生了信心。爲了成就這些人對『無生』的信心，所以...
【English Translation】 English version: 'Saṃskṛta' (conditioned things) and 'asaṃskṛta' (unconditioned things) have no cause; all dharmas are ultimately empty. The two arise from each other through cause and effect; this is 'saṃvṛti-satya' (conventional truth). If 'saṃvṛti-satya' does not exist, then 'paramārtha-satya' (ultimate truth) also does not exist. If the 'two truths' do not exist, then the 'two wisdoms' (dve jñāne, the two kinds of wisdom, referring to mundane wisdom and ultimate wisdom) also do not exist. Therefore, all dharmas are empty, and there are no six things. Question: Since 'non-arising and non-ceasing' is used to generally refute all dharmas, why is 'neither permanent nor impermanent' explained a second time? The former is a question, and the latter is an answer. There are four meanings to the question: Since 'non-arising and non-ceasing' has already generally refuted all dharmas, why is it necessary to speak of the six things again? The previous question was that doubt was too much and understanding too little, and now the question is that doubt is not much and understanding is too much. The previous question was that understanding was not much and the ability was too little, which means that there were many diseases in understanding and little medicine. Now the question is that the master uses the principle of 'non-arising and non-ceasing', and the remaining six things do not exist, understanding is little and the medicine can cure many diseases, and it is suspected that there is not much medicine. If so, the previous question and answer explained that it should not be too little, and this question and answer explained that it should not be too much, which is a compromise. The second is to refute the former with the latter. Now it is explained that 'non-arising and non-ceasing' is sufficient, and the six things are still spoken of. Although the previous eight things are sufficient, they should also be spoken of again. If the previous eight things are sufficient and should not be spoken of again, then the current two things are sufficient and should not be spoken of again. The third is that if it is said that 'non-arising and non-ceasing' is sufficient, then the six things should not be spoken of again; if the six things are spoken of again, then the six things are not non-existent. The fourth is to blame the above statement. The above explains the meaning of 'non-arising', is it to achieve or not to achieve? If it is achieved, it should not be spoken of again; if it is not achieved, then the dharmas are not non-arising. Answer: In order to achieve 'non-arising and non-ceasing'. This is the answer, explaining that 'non-arising and non-ceasing' is indeed sufficient in meaning, and the six things are still spoken of in order to achieve the meaning of 'non-arising and non-ceasing'. The remaining three accusations can be understood and do not need to be answered. In terms of the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts: first, it is stated that it is for achievement, and second, it is explained that it is for achievement. Stating that it is for achievement is from the perspective of the Dharma. 'Non-arising' has already encompassed all dharmas, so the Bodhisattva only attains 'anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti' (the realization of the non-arising and non-ceasing of all dharmas). In fact, there is no need to speak of the six things, and speaking of the six things again is for the sake of people. Some people do not accept 'non-arising and non-ceasing'. This is the second part explaining the meaning of achievement. The master refutes the arising and ceasing of dharmas and explains that there is no arising and ceasing. Outsiders hear this and refuse to accept it. The master refutes the permanence and impermanence of dharmas and explains that it is neither permanent nor impermanent. Outsiders hear this and generate faith. In order to achieve the faith of these people in 'non-arising', therefore...
說六。所以然者彼謂諸法有因滅果生。聞說不生不滅。即破其因果成闡提邪見。是故不受。若聞因滅故不常。果續故不斷不失因果。是故生信。此人謂不生不滅與不斷不常異。故作此計也。問何人作此計耶。答有二種人作如此計。一者僧佉衛世乃至若提子等立有因果義。聞說不生不滅。則謂無復因果。是故不受。若言因果相續不斷不常則不失因果。所以生信。二者正是上九種論師及五百部義。智度論云。五百部聞畢竟空如刀傷心。畢竟空即是不生不滅。是故不受。若聞因果不常不斷是故生信。預是得眾生空。不得法空並作斯執。曇影法師述羅什言。亦作此解。彼云。不生則無法可寄。不常則法體猶存故受。無生難信不常易也。但須作此一釋。更有異解者並不依文義。是人情自推斥耳。若深求不常不斷即是不生不滅者。前句出外人謂異。汝謂不生滅異不常不斷。是故信一不信一耳。今不常即是不生。既信不常。即應信不生。若不信不生亦不信不常也。有三。初標即次釋即后結即。所以云深求者。明外人所以謂異者。以不深求故也。若深求之則知不異。何以故法若實有則不應無者次釋即也。此釋意明所不無異故能不無別。初句將滅配斷。法若實有不可令無。而前是有後遂無者。當知是斷。前有今無即斷前有今無即是滅。若
斷即滅當知不斷即是不滅。若前有性者此將生配常。前有生性當知此生即是于常。故知。不常即是不生。此中以體為性。下云。自性即是自體。是故說不常不斷下第三結即也。問此文何故作斯釋耶。答論其大意者法實有故墮斷常。亦實有故墮生滅。不實故不斷不常。不實故有何生滅。故知即也。問生滅云何是斷常。答若兼論斷常者神不滅。更受後身為常。神滅不受後身為斷。蓋是小乘中斷常耳。今大乘中才起一念有所得心即墮斷常。裁言有生即常。裁言有滅即斷。如金剛波若云。若裁取人相即著我人眾生。非但取人相著我人眾生。若起心取法相即著我人。以佛弟子諱著我故舉來顯之。有人雖聞四種破諸法下釋第三不一不異。問青目何故作四對釋之。答詳青目意。初破論師生明無生。顯無生破一切法盡。而後更說三對法者。為上中下三種根緣。上根聞不生不滅不悟無生。若聞不常不斷方悟無生。中根聞不常不斷不悟無生。聞不一不異方悟無生。下根聞六種並不悟。聞一切法根本無來無出方悟無生。故知。初對正顯無生。破病已周顯道事足。但為三根人故說餘六不也。就初文為二。雖聞四種破法者領前破也。猶以四門成諸法者此立后義也。此明不受前四破立后之四法。是亦不然者第二論主答也。又開四句。第一總非。凡有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『斷』（duàn）即是『滅』（miè），應當知道『不斷』（bù duàn）即是『不滅』（bù miè）。如果先前有『自性』（zì xìng，intrinsic nature）存在，那麼這個『將生』（jiāng shēng，about to be born）就與『常』（cháng，eternal）相配。先前有『生性』（shēng xìng，nature of being born），應當知道這個『生』（shēng，birth）就是『常』。所以知道，『不常』（bù cháng，not eternal）就是『不生』（bù shēng，not born）。這裡以『體』（tǐ，essence）為『性』（xìng，nature）。下面說，『自性』就是『自體』（zì tǐ，self-essence）。所以說『不常不斷』。下面第三是總結。問：這篇文章為什麼這樣解釋呢？答：從大意上來說，認為法是實有的，所以會墮入『斷』和『常』的邊見；也因為認為是實有的，所以會墮入『生』和『滅』的邊見。因為不是實有的，所以就『不斷不常』；因為不是實有的，又有什麼『生滅』呢？所以知道就是這樣。問：『生滅』怎麼會是『斷常』呢？答：如果兼論『斷常』，神識不滅，再次接受後世的身體，就是『常』；神識滅了，不再接受後世的身體，就是『斷』。這大概是小乘中的『斷常』。現在大乘中，才生起一念有所得的心，就墮入『斷常』。才說有『生』，就是『常』；才說有『滅』，就是『斷』。如《金剛般若經》（Jīngāng Bōrě Jīng，Diamond Sutra）所說：『如果執著於人相，就執著於我、人、眾生。』不僅僅是執著於人相才執著於我、人、眾生，如果生起心執著於法相，就執著於我、人。因為佛弟子避諱執著于『我』，所以舉出來顯明這一點。有人雖然聽聞四種破斥諸法的說法。下面解釋第三個『不一不異』（bù yī bù yì，neither identical nor different）。問：青目（Qīngmù，a commentator）為什麼用四種對立的方式來解釋它呢？答：詳細考察青目的意思，最初破斥論師認為『生』是明智的，『無生』（wú shēng，non-birth）也是明智的，顯示『無生』能破斥一切法。然後又說三種對立的法，是爲了上、中、下三種根器的眾生。上根器的人聽聞『不生不滅』（bù shēng bù miè，neither birth nor death）不能領悟『無生』，如果聽聞『不常不斷』才能領悟『無生』。中根器的人聽聞『不常不斷』不能領悟『無生』，聽聞『不一不異』才能領悟『無生』。下根器的人聽聞六種說法都不能領悟，聽聞一切法根本無來無去才能領悟『無生』。所以知道，最初的對立正是爲了顯示『無生』，破除病根已經周全，顯示道理已經足夠。只是爲了三種根器的人才說其餘六種對立。就最初的文句來說，分為兩部分。『雖聞四種破法者』，是領會前面的破斥。『猶以四門成諸法者』，這是建立後面的意義。這說明不接受前面的四種破斥，而建立後面的四種法。『是亦不然者』，是第二位論主的回答。又開出四句。第一句是總體的否定。凡是
【English Translation】 English version 'Cessation' (duàn) is 'extinction' (miè), one should know that 'non-cessation' (bù duàn) is 'non-extinction' (bù miè). If there was 'intrinsic nature' (zì xìng) previously, then this 'about to be born' (jiāng shēng) corresponds to 'eternality' (cháng). If there is a 'nature of being born' (shēng xìng) previously, one should know that this 'birth' (shēng) is 'eternality'. Therefore, know that 'non-eternality' (bù cháng) is 'non-birth' (bù shēng). Here, 'essence' (tǐ) is taken as 'nature' (xìng). Below it says, 'intrinsic nature' is 'self-essence' (zì tǐ). Therefore, it is said 'non-eternal, non-cessation'. The third below is a conclusion. Question: Why is this article explained in this way? Answer: In general, thinking that phenomena are real, one falls into the extremes of 'cessation' and 'eternality'; also because they are thought to be real, one falls into the extremes of 'birth' and 'extinction'. Because they are not real, they are 'neither cessation nor eternal'; because they are not real, what 'birth and extinction' are there? Therefore, know that it is so. Question: How are 'birth and extinction' 'cessation and eternality'? Answer: If discussing 'cessation and eternality' together, the spirit does not perish, and again receives the body of the next life, which is 'eternality'; the spirit perishes and no longer receives the body of the next life, which is 'cessation'. This is probably 'cessation and eternality' in the Hinayana. Now, in the Mahayana, as soon as a thought of having something to gain arises, one falls into 'cessation and eternality'. As soon as one says there is 'birth', it is 'eternality'; as soon as one says there is 'extinction', it is 'cessation'. As the Diamond Sutra (Jīngāng Bōrě Jīng) says: 'If one is attached to the characteristic of a person, one is attached to self, person, sentient being.' It is not only being attached to the characteristic of a person that one is attached to self, person, sentient being; if one gives rise to a mind attached to the characteristic of phenomena, one is attached to self, person. Because Buddhist disciples avoid being attached to 'self', it is brought up to make this clear. Some people, although they hear the four kinds of refutations of all phenomena. Below explains the third 'neither identical nor different' (bù yī bù yì). Question: Why does Qingmu (Qīngmù) explain it using four kinds of oppositions? Answer: Examining Qingmu's meaning in detail, initially refuting the debaters who think 'birth' is wise, and 'non-birth' (wú shēng) is also wise, showing that 'non-birth' can refute all phenomena. Then saying three kinds of opposing phenomena is for beings of superior, intermediate, and inferior capacities. People of superior capacity cannot realize 'non-birth' upon hearing 'neither birth nor death' (bù shēng bù miè), but can realize 'non-birth' upon hearing 'neither eternal nor cessation'. People of intermediate capacity cannot realize 'non-birth' upon hearing 'neither eternal nor cessation', but can realize 'non-birth' upon hearing 'neither identical nor different'. People of inferior capacity cannot realize it upon hearing all six, but can realize 'non-birth' upon hearing that all phenomena fundamentally have no coming and no going. Therefore, know that the initial opposition is precisely to show 'non-birth', and the eradication of the root of the disease is complete, and the showing of the principle is sufficient. It is only for people of the three capacities that the remaining six oppositions are spoken. Regarding the initial sentence, it is divided into two parts. 'Those who hear the four kinds of refutations of phenomena' are understanding the previous refutations. 'Those who still use the four doors to establish all phenomena' are establishing the later meaning. This explains not accepting the previous four refutations, but establishing the later four phenomena. 'That is also not so' is the second debater's answer. And opening up four sentences. The first sentence is a general negation. All that are
二義。一者明今雖立后四。已漏前四門中故不應立。二者前四既其虛妄。驗后四亦非真實。若一則無緣若異則無相續者第二略破。釋上總非。因果若一則不由因有果。亦不由果有因。緣謂緣由義也。又因果既一但有于果更無別因。故云一則無緣。緣猶是因也。異無相續者牙與谷種異。而牙續谷者牙與樹異亦應續樹。又因果若異因時未有果。則有所續無能續。若有果時則無復有因。則有能續無所續也。然異既無續。一亦無續。一既無緣異亦無緣。谷與牙異豈是牙緣。若爾樹與牙異。應是牙緣。成實師云。假有即實義。有異實義。今問四微為成即實之柱。為成異實之柱。若成即實之柱即是實義。有何因果相成耶。若成異實之柱實與柱相離。云何相成耶。后當種種破者第三指后品。破一異處處有文。破相續現行業二品。是故復說不一不異者第四總結。有人雖聞六種破諸法下釋第四對。此中但標立而不出破者。一則例上可知。二去來品近其文易見不煩破也。問來出中何故不舉即事乃明根本耶。答此有深旨。上來六不不其現事。而惑者不受。今欲窮其根本都無來處無有出處。是故當知。無有生滅及以一異也。問破來出中何故但明外道立義。答此論正破于內傍破于外。以正破內故前三對廣破。以傍破于外故后一對略破。又此是點同
破。成實師有流來反去之義。地論師有乖真起妄之來息妄歸真之去。如此來去悉同外道。今列外道即是破內。問云。何破彼義。答汝若有眾生曾經得佛可言至本處。今既未有得佛者。云何言還至本處。彼解云。眾生本有佛性。本有如來藏。為生死作依持建立。今斷煩惱故得佛。故是還至本處。今問。為佛性自作佛。眾生作佛耶。若言眾生作佛者如經云。昔時鹿王我身是也。為鹿至佛耶不至耶。若至佛則猶是鹿。若不至佛鹿滅於前。誰作佛。若佛性自作佛者眾生應不得佛。問經亦云。從無住本立一切法。若了悟還歸無住。乃至顛倒從空而起。了悟還原本凈。與外道何異。答若必定作此解與外道亦無異。但今明來無所從去無所至。蓋是不來來不去去未曾二相也。複次萬物無生下第二週釋八不。生起如前。問青目何所承。而作兩週釋耶。答青目見論主因緣品一週就理解八不。去來品一週就事釋八不。今影此意還作二週也。二週異義上以具論。今更略敘之。前周約為人釋。此周顯法釋。前周為人者無生一句破病已周。顯道已足。但為人受悟不周故須具說八不。此周顯法者直顯萬法是不生不滅等也。釋八不即為八。初為二。前總標總釋。次別標別釋。萬物無生總標也。問何故唱萬物無生。答稟教之流安置無生義謬。今欲周正無生
。故唱萬物不生。問何人謬耶。答五義。一者小乘不得法空。謂無為無生有為有生。又小乘人計有為無為異。智度論云。聲聞法中不說生死即是涅槃。唯大乘中說即是耳。今破此病故云有為無為一切不生。二者昔有不空假義。謂性實法是空故不生耳。因緣假不空故有生。今破此病故性之與假一切不生。三者心無之論謂心法不生耳。外萬物有生。今破此病故云萬物無生。初周約人辯無生。可是心無生。今明外物無生。故知。心之與境一切物不生。四者空假名義謂二諦異體。世諦自是生為體。真諦以無生為體。但不相離故言即耳。今對此病故云一切物即是不生。非是真不生也。五者真俗一體者終起二見。若聞有生安世諦三假之中。若聞無生即入真諦四絕之中。今泯其二見。若聞生即須知無生。聞無生即須知宛然生。故肇師云。道遠乎哉觸事而真。聖遠乎哉體之即神。何以故下第二總釋無生也。乃舉世間現見者。上標萬物舉境也。今釋舉智也。凡有三義。一無生之言難信。故舉現釋之。令其易解。然論主見無生者。此是現見生者無生。既見生無生即見無生生。見生無生是方便波若。見無生生是波若方便。外人不見生無生。亦不見無生生。故無二慧也。二者智度論云。諸論義師利智巧言。有能令無無能令有。恐龍樹同之實是有
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "故說萬物不生。問：是什麼人理解錯了呢？答：有五種情況。第一種是小乘佛教徒沒有領悟到法空的道理，認為無為法是無生的，有為法是有生的。而且小乘佛教徒認為有為法和無為法是不同的。《智度論》說：『聲聞乘的教法中不說生死就是涅槃，只有大乘佛教中才這樣說。』現在爲了破除這種錯誤觀念，所以說有為法和無為法一切都不生。第二種是過去存在一種不空假有的觀點，認為自性真實的法是空性的，所以不生；因緣和合的假有是不空的，所以有生。現在爲了破除這種錯誤觀念，所以說自性和假有一切都不生。第三種是心無之論，認為心法是不生的，外在的萬物是有生的。現在爲了破除這種錯誤觀念，所以說萬物無生。前面一週是就人來辯論無生，或許可以理解為心無生。現在說明外物無生，所以可知，心和境一切事物都不生。第四種是空假名義，認為二諦是不同的本體，世俗諦自身是以生為本體，真諦是以無生為本體，但是二者不相分離，所以說是『即』。現在針對這種錯誤觀念，所以說一切事物就是不生，不是說真諦不生。第五種是真俗一體的觀點最終會產生二元對立的見解。如果聽到有生，就安立在世俗諦的三假之中；如果聽到無生，就進入真諦的四絕之中。現在泯滅這兩種對立的見解，如果聽到生，就應該知道無生；聽到無生，就應該知道宛然有生。所以僧肇大師說：『道離我們很遠嗎？接觸事物就能認識真理。聖人離我們很遠嗎？體會它就能達到神妙的境界。』為什麼呢？下面第二部分總的解釋無生。這是舉世間現見的例子。上面標出萬物是舉境，現在解釋是舉智。總共有三種含義。第一，無生之說難以令人相信，所以舉出現實的例子來解釋，使人容易理解。然而論主所見的無生，是現見生者無生。既然見到生無生，就見到無生生。見到生無生是方便般若（Prajna，智慧），見到無生生是般若方便。外人不見生無生，也不見無生生，所以沒有二種智慧。第二，《智度論》說：『各種論義的老師，憑藉敏銳的智慧和巧妙的言辭，有能力使無變成有，使有變成無。』恐怕龍樹（Nagarjuna）也和他們一樣，實際上是有。" , "english_translations": [ "English version", "Therefore, it is said that all things are not born. Question: Who misunderstands this? Answer: There are five cases. First, Hinayana (small vehicle) Buddhists do not comprehend the principle of Dharma-sunyata (emptiness of phenomena), believing that unconditioned dharmas are unborn and conditioned dharmas are born. Moreover, Hinayana Buddhists consider conditioned and unconditioned dharmas to be different. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'The Sravaka (hearer) vehicle does not say that samsara (birth and death) is nirvana (cessation), only the Mahayana (great vehicle) says so.' Now, to dispel this misconception, it is said that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are unborn. Second, there was a past view of 'not empty provisional existence,' which held that dharmas with real essence are empty, hence unborn; while provisional existences arising from conditions are not empty, hence born. Now, to dispel this misconception, it is said that essence and provisional existence are all unborn. Third, there is the theory of 'mind is non-existent,' which holds that mental dharmas are unborn, while external things are born. Now, to dispel this misconception, it is said that all things are unborn. The previous week's discussion on non-birth focused on people, which might be understood as the mind being unborn. Now, it is clarified that external things are unborn, so it can be known that the mind and its objects, all things, are unborn. Fourth, there is the concept of 'empty provisional names,' which considers the two truths (two aspects of reality) to be different entities. The conventional truth (relative truth) itself takes birth as its essence, while the ultimate truth (absolute truth) takes non-birth as its essence, but they are inseparable, hence the term 'is.' Now, addressing this misconception, it is said that all things are precisely unborn, not just that the ultimate truth is unborn. Fifth, the view of 'the unity of the true and the conventional' ultimately gives rise to dualistic views. If one hears of birth, one establishes it within the three provisionalities of the conventional truth; if one hears of non-birth, one enters the four negations of the ultimate truth. Now, to eliminate these two opposing views, if one hears of birth, one should know of non-birth; if one hears of non-birth, one should know of manifest birth. Therefore, Master Sengzhao said: 'Is the Tao (the Way) far away? Encountering things reveals the truth. Are the sages far away? Embodying it leads to the divine.' Why is this so? The second part below provides a general explanation of non-birth. This uses examples of what is seen in the world. The above statement about all things refers to the realm of objects, while this explanation refers to the realm of wisdom. There are three meanings in total. First, the saying of non-birth is difficult to believe, so it uses real-world examples to explain it, making it easier to understand. However, what the author sees as non-birth is the present seeing that what is born is non-born. Since one sees birth as non-born, one sees non-birth as born. Seeing birth as non-born is expedient prajna (wisdom), and seeing non-birth as born is prajna expedient. Outsiders do not see birth as non-born, nor do they see non-birth as born, so they lack the two kinds of wisdom. Second, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says: 'Various teachers of doctrines, relying on keen wisdom and skillful words, have the ability to make non-existence become existence, and existence become non-existence.' It is feared that Nagarjuna (Dragon Tree) is the same as them, but in reality, it is existence." ] }
生而言無生。是故今明現見無生非妄談也。三者稟教之流聞說無生望崖不習。是故舉近世事即是無生令取信。為易習而行之。故云即目所見皆是無生。汝可諦觀察之。如大品云菩提易得耳。以一切法無生即得菩提也。問為是波若眼故見不生。為是世間顛倒眼故見不生。答釋此語始終凡有五轉。一者且開二轍。一者波若世間眼故見萬物無生。顛倒世間眼自見谷生。故以無生滅智照無生滅境。生滅智照生滅境。無生滅智不見生滅境。生滅智不見無生滅境。故師舊語云。聖見凡所不見。不見凡所見。凡見聖所不見。不見聖所見。第二轉意稟教之流聞於此言。便起二見。是故今明。波若之與世間更無有二。若見世間不生即名波若。見波若生便名世間。故波若世間更無二也。第三轉意稟教之流聞向所說。便作一解同於外道。猶如一人亦父亦子。亦同地論師義。猶如一舍若有相心取則成妄想之舍。若無相心取則畢竟空舍。是故今對此病。明萬物未曾是波若及以顛倒。亦何嘗生與無生。約了悟名曰無生。于不了者目之為生。外道有一人兩望成父子。地論有一物兩觀成真妄。今不同此說也。第四轉意稟教之流便謂。若約了不了故成波若之與世間。若然終有一物可從二性。今對此病故明未曾有物及以不物。於物者為物。不物者為不物耳。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生來就是無生的。（無生：指事物本性不生不滅）因此，現在明白地看到無生並非虛妄之談。那些遵循教義的人，聽到『無生』就望而卻步，不肯學習。所以，舉一些近世的事情來說明什麼是無生，讓他們容易相信，容易學習和實踐。所以說，『眼睛所見的一切都是無生』。你可以仔細觀察。如《大品般若經》所說：『菩提容易證得。』因為明白一切法無生，就能證得菩提。問題：是因為般若之眼才能見到不生，還是因為世間顛倒之眼才能見到不生？回答：解釋這句話，總共有五層轉折。第一層，先分開兩條路。一條路是，用般若和世間之眼都能見到萬物無生。顛倒的世間之眼，自己看到穀物生長。所以，用無生滅的智慧照見無生滅的境界，用生滅的智慧照見生滅的境界。無生滅的智慧看不到生滅的境界，生滅的智慧看不到無生滅的境界。所以，以前的老師說過：聖人看到凡人看不到的，也看不到凡人所看到的。凡人看到聖人看不到的，也看不到聖人所看到的。第二層轉折，那些遵循教義的人聽到這些話，就產生了兩種見解。所以現在說明，般若和世間並沒有什麼不同。如果看到世間不生，就叫做般若；如果看到般若生，就叫做世間。所以，般若和世間並沒有什麼不同。第三層轉折，那些遵循教義的人聽到前面所說的，就只作一種解釋，和外道一樣。就像一個人既是父親又是兒子。也和《地論》的觀點一樣，就像一間房子，如果有相之心去執取，就成了虛妄的房子；如果沒有相之心去執取，就成了畢竟空的房子。所以，現在針對這種毛病，說明萬物從來沒有是般若或者顛倒，也何嘗有生或者無生。從了悟的角度來說，就叫做無生；對於不了悟的人來說，就稱之為生。外道有一個人兩種身份，既是父親又是兒子。《地論》有一個事物兩種觀察，既是真又是妄。現在我們不同意這種說法。第四層轉折，那些遵循教義的人就認為，如果是從了悟或者不了悟的角度來說，才有了般若和世間，那麼終究有一個事物可以有兩種性質。現在針對這種毛病，所以說明從來沒有事物或者非事物。對於認為是事物的人來說，就是事物；對於認為不是事物的人來說，就不是事物罷了。
【English Translation】 English version Born, it is without birth. Therefore, now clearly seeing 'no-birth' (無生: the nature of things being neither born nor destroyed) is not empty talk. Those who follow teachings hear of 'no-birth' and shy away, not practicing it. Therefore, citing recent events to illustrate what 'no-birth' is, makes it easier to believe, learn, and practice. Thus, it is said, 'Everything seen by the eyes is no-birth.' You can carefully observe it. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'Bodhi is easily attained.' Because understanding that all dharmas are without birth, one can attain Bodhi. Question: Is it because of the prajna (般若: wisdom) eye that one sees no-birth, or is it because of the inverted worldly eye that one sees no-birth? Answer: Explaining this statement has five turns in total. First, let's separate two paths. One path is that with both prajna and worldly eyes, one can see that all things are without birth. The inverted worldly eye sees grains growing. Therefore, use the wisdom of no-birth and no-death to illuminate the realm of no-birth and no-death; use the wisdom of birth and death to illuminate the realm of birth and death. The wisdom of no-birth and no-death does not see the realm of birth and death; the wisdom of birth and death does not see the realm of no-birth and no-death. Therefore, the former teacher said: 'Sages see what ordinary people do not see, and do not see what ordinary people see. Ordinary people see what sages do not see, and do not see what sages see.' Second turn: Those who follow teachings, upon hearing these words, develop two views. Therefore, it is now clarified that prajna and the world are not different. If one sees the world as not being born, it is called prajna; if one sees prajna as being born, it is called the world. Therefore, prajna and the world are not different. Third turn: Those who follow teachings, upon hearing what was said earlier, make only one interpretation, which is the same as that of the heretics. It is like one person being both father and son. It is also like the view of the Treatise on the Ten Stages (地論), like a house: if one grasps it with a mind of form, it becomes an illusory house; if one grasps it with a mind of no-form, it becomes an ultimately empty house. Therefore, now, addressing this problem, it is clarified that all things have never been prajna or inverted, nor have they ever been born or unborn. From the perspective of enlightenment, it is called no-birth; for those who are not enlightened, it is called birth. The heretics have one person with two identities, being both father and son. The Treatise on the Ten Stages has one thing with two observations, being both true and false. Now, we do not agree with this view. Fourth turn: Those who follow teachings then think that if prajna and the world are based on enlightenment or non-enlightenment, then ultimately there is one thing that can have two natures. Now, addressing this problem, it is clarified that there has never been a thing or a non-thing. For those who consider it a thing, it is a thing; for those who do not consider it a thing, it is simply not a thing.
第五轉意境既如此。在心亦然。未曾心未曾不心。心者為心不心者為不心。故肇師云。心生於有心。像出於有像。肇又云。聖人了達諸法于外無數。于內無心。彼已寂滅。浩然大均乃曰涅槃。問經中何處有世聞眼見語。而青目引之。答華嚴云世間凈眼品。即是事也。世間眼見劫初谷不生者第二別標別釋。即是舉別釋總也。問現見眼見此有何異。答亦得言異。亦得不異。言不異者現見如此。眼見如此。欲令分明故重說也。言異者現見語總。眼見語別。又現見語[貝*奈]。眼見語切。又現見舉境就心。眼見偏就於心。又現見簡因緣。故成論云。現見事中因緣無用。現見諸法無生。不假因緣證據方無生也。眼見簡傳聞眼親。見無生非傳聞所說。問既言現見無生。只應眼見現谷無生。何故遠舉劫初。答有二義。一欲窮生之本。本在劫初。本既不生。末豈生耶。二者欲顯諸法先來無生。非今始無生也。問何故舉谷耶。答世間共知。如雲禾者二月種八月就。以調和時生就故也。季歲稔祀載並就禾立之。如禾下於為年。以一年知禾故也。歲者穢也。一年必為禾所穢。故禾邊作之。一年念得禾為稔。一年得禾以為祀。一年載禾為載。又禾是資身本。顯無生是成法身本。何以故離劫初谷今谷不可得者前總標無生。此別釋無生。又開三別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第五轉的意境既然是這樣，那麼在心也是如此。未曾有心，也未曾沒有心。認為心存在的就是心，認為心不存在的就不是心。所以僧肇大師說：『心產生於有心，形象出現于有像。』僧肇又說：『聖人通達一切諸法，對外不執著于無數現象，對內沒有妄心。』他們已經寂滅，廣大而均平的狀態就叫做涅槃（Nirvana）。 問：經文中哪裡有『世聞眼見』的說法，而青目（指鳩摩羅什的弟子僧肇）引用它呢？ 答：《華嚴經》的《世間凈眼品》就是這件事。『世間眼見劫初谷不生』是第二種分別標示和解釋，也就是用個別的例子來解釋總體的原則。 問：『現見』和『眼見』有什麼不同？ 答：可以說有不同，也可以說沒有不同。說沒有不同，是因為『現見』是這樣，『眼見』也是這樣，爲了更清楚地說明，所以重複說一遍。說有不同，是因為『現見』是總體的說法，『眼見』是具體的說法。而且，『現見』的語氣比較舒緩，『眼見』的語氣比較急切。另外，『現見』是就境界來談心，『眼見』則偏重於心。還有，『現見』是簡略因緣，所以《成實論》說：『在現見的事實中，因緣沒有用處。』現見諸法無生，不需要藉助因緣來證明才是無生。『眼見』是簡略傳聞，強調親眼所見的無生，不是傳聞所說。 問：既然說『現見無生』，只應該眼見現在的穀物無生，為什麼還要遠舉劫初（Kalpa）的例子？ 答：有兩個原因。一是想要追溯生之本源，本源在於劫初。本源既然不生，末端怎麼會生呢？二是想要顯示諸法本來就是無生的，不是現在才開始無生的。 問：為什麼舉穀物為例呢？ 答：這是世間普遍知道的。比如稻禾，二月播種，八月成熟，因為調和了時節才能生長成熟。年、歲、稔、祀、載這些概念都是根據稻禾而建立的。比如『禾』字下面加上『于』就是『年』字，因為一年之中知道有稻禾。『歲』字的意思是污穢，一年之中必然被稻禾所污穢，所以在『禾』字旁邊加上『戈』。一年收穫稻禾叫做『稔』，一年祭祀稻禾叫做『祀』，一年運載稻禾叫做『載』。而且，稻禾是資養身體的根本，顯示無生是成就法身（Dharmakaya）的根本。為什麼這樣說呢？因為離開劫初的穀物和現在的穀物都不可得。前面是總的標示無生，這裡是分別解釋無生。又開出了三種分別。
【English Translation】 English version The state of the fifth turning is thus. It is the same with the mind. There has never been a time when there was mind, nor has there ever been a time when there was no mind. To consider that mind exists is mind; to consider that mind does not exist is not mind. Therefore, Master Zhao said, 'Mind arises from having mind; images appear from having images.' Zhao also said, 'Sages understand all dharmas; externally, they are not attached to countless phenomena; internally, they have no deluded mind.' They have already attained extinction; the vast and equanimous state is called Nirvana (Nirvana).' Question: Where in the scriptures is there the saying 'heard by the world, seen by the eyes,' which Qingmu (referring to Sengzhao, a disciple of Kumarajiva) quotes? Answer: The 'Pure Eye of the World' chapter in the Avatamsaka Sutra (Hua Yan Jing) is about this matter. 'The world sees with its eyes that no grain was produced at the beginning of the kalpa (Kalpa)' is the second separate indication and explanation, which is to explain the general principle with a specific example. Question: What is the difference between 'directly seeing' and 'seeing with the eyes'? Answer: It can be said that there is a difference, and it can be said that there is no difference. To say that there is no difference is because 'directly seeing' is like this, and 'seeing with the eyes' is like this. To make it clearer, it is repeated. To say that there is a difference is because 'directly seeing' is a general statement, and 'seeing with the eyes' is a specific statement. Moreover, the tone of 'directly seeing' is more relaxed, while the tone of 'seeing with the eyes' is more urgent. In addition, 'directly seeing' discusses the mind in terms of the realm, while 'seeing with the eyes' focuses on the mind. Furthermore, 'directly seeing' simplifies the causes and conditions, so the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (Cheng Shi Lun) says, 'In directly seen facts, causes and conditions are useless.' Directly seeing that all dharmas are unproduced does not require the aid of causes and conditions to prove that they are unproduced. 'Seeing with the eyes' simplifies hearsay, emphasizing that what is seen with one's own eyes is unproduced, not what is said by hearsay. Question: Since it is said 'directly seeing unproduced,' one should only see that the present grain is unproduced. Why go so far as to cite the example of the beginning of the kalpa (Kalpa)? Answer: There are two reasons. One is to trace the origin of production, which lies at the beginning of the kalpa. Since the origin is unproduced, how can the end be produced? The second is to show that all dharmas are originally unproduced, not just now beginning to be unproduced. Question: Why take grain as an example? Answer: This is commonly known in the world. For example, rice, sown in February and ripe in August, can only grow and ripen when the seasons are harmonized. The concepts of year, age, harvest, sacrifice, and load are all based on rice. For example, adding '于 (Yu)' below '禾 (He)' forms the character '年 (Nian),' because one knows there is rice in a year. The meaning of '歲 (Sui)' is filth; in a year, it is inevitably defiled by rice, so '戈 (Ge)' is added next to '禾 (He).' Harvesting rice in a year is called '稔 (Ren),' sacrificing rice in a year is called '祀 (Si),' and transporting rice in a year is called '載 (Zai).' Moreover, rice is the root of nourishing the body, showing that unproduction is the root of accomplishing the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya). Why is this so? Because neither the grain at the beginning of the kalpa nor the grain now can be obtained. The former is a general indication of unproduction, and the latter is a separate explanation of unproduction. It also opens up three distinctions.
。初明不離故不生。第二縱離即應生。第三明奪離故不生。此文難明。講者多加以私意。遂不釋文致成紛謬。今直釋之使煥然可領。不復得從諸異解也。此文正是釋劫初谷不生。而舉今谷者將今谷顯劫初谷不生耳。離劫初谷今谷不可得者。此是因劫初谷有今谷耳。故不離。即是因義。既因劫初有今谷。則今谷有因故今谷有生。則知。劫初無因故劫初不生。意正爾也。若劫初有因則不名初。既其稱初則無所因。無所因故不生也。問云何釋眼見劫初不生耶。答眼見今谷有因。故今谷有生。亦眼見劫初無因。故劫初無生。此零然可解。第二句縱離則應生者。離劫初谷只是不因劫初耳。若今谷不因劫初而今谷得生者。亦劫初無所因。而劫初應得生也。而實不爾第三句奪離。眼見今谷不因劫初。而今谷畢定不生者。亦眼見劫初無所因。則劫初亦畢竟不生也。問若爾論主乃不許劫初生。許其今谷生耶。答今因劫初。劫初尚不生。今豈得生耶。蓋是借今以破古。古既去今亦不存耳。是故古今畢竟無生矣。論文正爾。今就文外泛破之。古為因今為不因今。如其因今既未有。今何所因耶。又待後有初則后在初前。初在後后。若以古有今即是一時。何名今古。又當古時未稱為古。至今無復古。云何待耶。又若待今則應在今。若不在今則不待
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『初明不離故不生』，意思是最初的明瞭不離開『故』（因緣），所以不生起。『第二縱離即應生』，意思是如果離開了『故』，就應該生起。『第三明奪離故不生』，意思是明明地斷絕了離開『故』，所以不生起。這段文字難以理解，講解的人大多加入了自己的主觀臆斷，因此不能解釋原文，造成了許多謬誤。現在直接解釋它，使它煥然一新，可以領會，不再採用其他的解釋。 這段文字正是解釋劫初（kalpa's beginning）穀物不生起，而舉出現今的穀物，是爲了顯示劫初穀物不生起。離開劫初穀物，現今的穀物是不可得的，這是因為劫初穀物才有現今的穀物。所以『不離』就是『因』的意思。既然因為劫初才有現今的穀物，那麼現今的穀物有因，所以現今的穀物會生起。那麼就知道，劫初沒有因，所以劫初不生起。意思正是這樣。如果劫初有因，就不叫『初』了。既然稱之為『初』，就沒有所因。沒有所因，所以不生起。 問：如何解釋眼見劫初不生起呢？答：眼見現今的穀物有因，所以現今的穀物會生起。也眼見劫初沒有因，所以劫初不生起。這很容易理解。第二句『縱離則應生』，意思是離開劫初穀物，只是不依賴劫初而已。如果現今的穀物不依賴劫初而現今的穀物能夠生起，那麼劫初沒有所因，而劫初也應該能夠生起。但實際上不是這樣。第三句『奪離』，眼見現今的穀物不依賴劫初，而現今的穀物必定不生起，也眼見劫初沒有所因，那麼劫初也畢竟不生起。 問：如果這樣，論主是不允許劫初生起，允許現今的穀物生起嗎？答：現今的穀物依賴劫初，劫初尚且不生起，現今的穀物怎麼能夠生起呢？這正是借用現今來破斥古代，古代既然已經去除，現今也不存在了。因此，古代和現今畢竟都是不生起的。論文正是這樣。現在就從文外廣泛地破斥它。古代作為因，現今作為不因現今。如果因為現今，現今既然還沒有，現今依賴什麼呢？又等待後面有最初，那麼後面在最初之前，最初在後面之後。如果認為古代有現今，那就是同一時間，怎麼能叫古代和現今呢？又當古代的時候還沒有稱為古代，到現在沒有古代了，怎麼能等待呢？又如果等待現今，就應該在現今。如果不在現今，就不等待。
【English Translation】 English version 'The initial clarity does not depart from the 'cause' (hetu) therefore it does not arise.' This means that the initial understanding does not separate from the 'cause' (condition), so it does not originate. 'Secondly, if separated, it should arise.' This means if it is separated from the 'cause', it should arise. 'Thirdly, clearly severing the separation from the 'cause', therefore it does not arise.' This means that clearly cutting off the separation from the 'cause', it does not arise. This passage is difficult to understand, and most commentators add their own subjective interpretations, thus failing to explain the original text and causing many errors. Now, I will directly explain it to make it clear and understandable, and no longer adopt other interpretations. This passage precisely explains that the grains at the beginning of the kalpa (kalpa's beginning) do not arise, and mentioning the present grains is to show that the grains at the beginning of the kalpa do not arise. Separating from the grains at the beginning of the kalpa, the present grains are unattainable, because the present grains exist due to the grains at the beginning of the kalpa. Therefore, 'not separating' means 'cause'. Since the present grains exist because of the beginning of the kalpa, then the present grains have a cause, so the present grains arise. Then it is known that the beginning of the kalpa has no cause, so the beginning of the kalpa does not arise. That is exactly the meaning. If the beginning of the kalpa had a cause, it would not be called 'beginning'. Since it is called 'beginning', it has no cause. Without a cause, it does not arise. Question: How to explain that the eye sees that the beginning of the kalpa does not arise? Answer: The eye sees that the present grains have a cause, so the present grains arise. Also, the eye sees that the beginning of the kalpa has no cause, so the beginning of the kalpa does not arise. This is easy to understand. The second sentence, 'If separated, it should arise,' means that separating from the grains at the beginning of the kalpa is only not relying on the beginning of the kalpa. If the present grains do not rely on the beginning of the kalpa and the present grains can arise, then the beginning of the kalpa has no cause, and the beginning of the kalpa should also be able to arise. But in reality, it is not so. The third sentence, 'Severing the separation,' the eye sees that the present grains do not rely on the beginning of the kalpa, and the present grains certainly do not arise, and also the eye sees that the beginning of the kalpa has no cause, then the beginning of the kalpa also ultimately does not arise. Question: If so, does the author not allow the beginning of the kalpa to arise, but allow the present grains to arise? Answer: The present grains rely on the beginning of the kalpa, and the beginning of the kalpa does not arise, how can the present grains arise? This is precisely using the present to refute the ancient, and since the ancient has been removed, the present also does not exist. Therefore, both the ancient and the present ultimately do not arise. The essay is exactly like this. Now, let's broadly refute it from outside the text. The ancient is the cause, and the present is not the cause of the present. If it is because of the present, and the present does not yet exist, what does the present rely on? Also, waiting for the later to have the initial, then the later is before the initial, and the initial is after the later. If it is thought that the ancient has the present, then it is the same time, how can it be called ancient and present? Also, when it was ancient, it was not yet called ancient, and now there is no ancient, how can it be waited for? Also, if waiting for the present, it should be in the present. If it is not in the present, it does not wait.
今。又古因於今古無自性。無自性是則無古。又古更有古則無窮。無窮則無因。又古生今者為滅已而生。為不滅生耶。滅則無古。誰生今耶。不滅則常。問若無生應有滅有此一問者。可有四義。一者外人曆法而立不必次第。第二無生對有滅名㿲角並。三者本立有生。論主遂破生令不生。則生便滅壞。故應有滅也。四者生是法始滅是法終。既有物終。寧無物始。故致問也。答曰即答四問。若外人曆法而立。內亦曆法而破。若有無相對此猶是生滅相對。無生故無滅可對。無有故無無可對也。生若前有產生可壞生令滅。生本不成。何所滅耶。若有法始可有物終。既無物始。何有物終。問曰不滅應常者。成論者許相續是常。但非是實常耳。然實常則是實病。假常則是假病。終是病耳。但此問有總有別。總者上既明無生滅。即是常也。別者若有滅可非常。既不滅則應常也。答曰具酬總別。若有無常可得有常。既無無常則無復常也。別答者應有四句。一以今難今。二以古難古。三以今難古。四以古難今。但文唯有二句。上兩番以今難古。此文以古難古。若是常者種應不壞。現見種壞則古谷不常。問曰不常應斷者問亦具總別。總者既無生滅無常。亦無不生滅常。豈非大斷。別者若以種壞言不常者。此之種壞豈非斷耶。總答意云。若有
于常可得言斷。竟無有常。何所斷耶。別答若言斷者牙不應續。以互續故知不斷也。問此與他實法不常相續不斷者。有何異耶。答此是他用今義。非今用他。如百論說。續故不斷。壞故不常。問若今他俱有。有何異耶。答三義不同。一者此是兩彈。非是雙取。言其不常者明其非是常。非謂是非常。斷亦爾。若他人明不斷則便是常。不常則便是斷也。二者此並是借外人義以破外人。借其種壞破其常見。借其互續彈其斷見。不如常人有假實道理。三者明不常不斷即是無生無滅。而汝謂不常不斷為世諦。不生不滅為真諦。故不同也。問曰若爾萬物是一亦有總別。無生無滅無斷無常豈非萬物渾然為一。別意既相續不斷便相續是一。答曰有四意。一者谷若作牙則牙時無谷。如泥作瓶瓶時無復泥。今現見牙時谷猶在。故知。谷不作牙也。二者正破性義。谷守谷性不復作牙。牙守牙性不轉作谷。若不守性則無谷牙。以無性故則無法也。三者谷體若滅是則無谷。以何作牙。谷若不滅常。是常法不得作牙。四者谷不作牙。牙不作谷。故云不作。作猶是也。問曰若不一則應異者問有兩意。一者若不許谷牙相作。則谷牙有異。二者論主上借異破一。外便謂有異。答四意。一者就名難之。牙名谷牙。何得異谷。谷亦爾也。二者牙若異谷名谷牙者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於『常』，本來就可以用『斷』來否定它。既然根本沒有『常』，又從何處『斷』起呢？如果用『斷』來回答，那麼牙就不應該相續。因為互相連續的緣故，就知道不是斷滅的。 問：這和外道所說的實法不常、相續不斷，有什麼不同呢？ 答：這是我方借用對方的意義來闡明我方的觀點，而不是我方採用對方的觀點。正如《百論》所說：因為相續，所以不是斷滅；因為壞滅，所以不是常。 問：如果現在你方和對方都有『不常』和『不斷』的說法，那有什麼不同呢？ 答：有三重意義不同。第一，我方是雙重否定，而不是雙重肯定。說它『不常』，是爲了說明它不是『常』，並不是說它是『非常』。『斷』也是如此。如果對方認為『不斷』，那就是『常』；『不常』，那就是『斷』了。第二，我方是借用外道的意義來破斥外道。借用他們所說的種子壞滅來破斥他們的常見，借用他們所說的互相連續來否定他們的斷見。不像常人那樣有假和實的道理。第三，說明『不常不斷』就是『無生無滅』。而你認為『不常不斷』是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya），『不生不滅』是真諦（Paramārtha-satya），所以不同。 問：如果這樣，萬物是一，也有總和別的區分。無生無滅、無斷無常，難道不是萬物渾然為一嗎？既然個別的意義是相續不斷的，那麼相續就是一。 答：有四重意義。第一，如果谷變成了牙，那麼在牙產生的時候就沒有谷了。就像泥變成了瓶子，瓶子產生的時候就沒有泥了。現在明明看到牙產生的時候谷還在，所以知道谷並沒有變成牙。第二，主要是破斥自性的意義。谷保持谷的自性，不會變成牙；牙保持牙的自性，不會轉變成谷。如果不保持自性，就沒有谷和牙了。因為沒有自性，就沒有法（Dharma）了。第三，如果谷的本體滅了，那就沒有谷了，用什麼來產生牙呢？如果谷不滅，是常，那麼常法就不能產生牙。第四，谷不變成牙，牙不變成谷，所以說『不作』。『作』就是『是』的意思。 問：如果不一，那麼就應該是異。這個問題有兩種含義。第一，如果不承認谷和牙互相作用，那麼谷和牙就是不同的。第二，論主（Nagarjuna）先前借用『異』來破斥『一』，外道就認為有『異』。 答：有四重意義。第一，就名稱來反駁。牙的名字是谷牙，怎麼能和谷不同呢？谷也是如此。第二，牙如果和谷不同，那麼牙的名字是谷牙，
【English Translation】 English version Regarding 'permanence', it can always be negated by 'cessation'. Since there is fundamentally no 'permanence', from where does one 'cease' it? If one answers with 'cessation', then the sprout should not continue. Because of mutual continuation, it is known that it is not cessation. Question: How is this different from the externalists' assertion that real entities are impermanent and continuously connected? Answer: This is our side using the other side's meaning to clarify our view, not our side adopting the other side's view. As stated in the Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise): Because of continuation, it is not cessation; because of destruction, it is not permanent. Question: If both you and the other side have the statements of 'impermanence' and 'non-cessation' now, what is the difference? Answer: There are three different meanings. First, our side is a double negation, not a double affirmation. Saying it is 'impermanent' is to explain that it is not 'permanent', not to say that it is 'not permanent'. The same goes for 'cessation'. If the other side thinks 'non-cessation', then that is 'permanence'; 'impermanence', then that is 'cessation'. Second, our side is borrowing the meaning of externalists to refute externalists. Borrowing their so-called destruction of seeds to refute their view of permanence, borrowing their so-called mutual continuation to negate their view of cessation. It is not like ordinary people who have the principles of false and real. Third, explaining that 'non-cessation and impermanence' is 'no arising and no ceasing'. And you think that 'non-cessation and impermanence' is conventional truth (Samvriti-satya), and 'no arising and no ceasing' is ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya), so it is different. Question: If so, all things are one, and there are also distinctions of totality and difference. No arising, no ceasing, no cessation, no permanence, isn't it that all things are completely one? Since the individual meanings are continuously connected, then the continuation is one. Answer: There are four meanings. First, if the grain becomes a sprout, then when the sprout arises, there is no grain. Just like mud becomes a pot, when the pot arises, there is no mud. Now it is clear that when the sprout arises, the grain is still there, so it is known that the grain has not become a sprout. Second, it mainly refutes the meaning of self-nature. The grain maintains the self-nature of the grain and will not become a sprout; the sprout maintains the self-nature of the sprout and will not turn into grain. If it does not maintain self-nature, there will be no grain and sprout. Because there is no self-nature, there is no Dharma. Third, if the substance of the grain is destroyed, then there is no grain, what is used to produce the sprout? If the grain is not destroyed, it is permanent, then the permanent Dharma cannot produce the sprout. Fourth, the grain does not become a sprout, and the sprout does not become a grain, so it is said 'not made'. 'Made' means 'is'. Question: If not one, then it should be different. This question has two meanings. First, if it is not admitted that the grain and the sprout interact, then the grain and the sprout are different. Second, the proponent (Nagarjuna) previously borrowed 'difference' to refute 'one', and the externalists think there is 'difference'. Answer: There are four meanings. First, refute it by name. The name of the sprout is grain-sprout, how can it be different from the grain? The same goes for the grain. Second, if the sprout is different from the grain, then the name of the sprout is grain-sprout,
。牙亦異樹應名樹牙。此是俱異難也。三者牙若異谷牙從谷生。牙既異樹應從樹生。此俱生難也。四者牙若異谷牙能生谷。牙既異樹應能生樹。又責其異。若言異者牙在谷外則有東西之別。又若言異者應在谷內如果在器。既不如此。何名為異。問曰應有來者釋不來不出。異三論師云。來應對去。但義相兼。舉來兼去。顯出兼入。欲示破義無窮。故云來出也。今謂可具兩義。一者相兼如上出者還去至本處。宜以來兼去也。二者外人雖聞六不而終謂有谷牙。以世諦之法不可無故。是以最後兩不領其大要。必謂有牙。若不從外來應從內出。是故次明不來不出。問叵有計內出者不。答外人見種生于牙便謂內出。見假水土時節人功而生故謂外來。又谷牙是眾生業行所感為內出。復云。是那羅延天所賜。故云外來。以諸外道事彼天者。謂世間好物及男女等皆是彼天所賜。今破此事故云不來不出。又計外來是外道無因生義。計內出是內道有因生。如十二門論因果門。果於因緣中畢竟不可得。是破內道計有因義。亦不餘處來。破外道無因生義。凡論有生不出斯二。是故最後兩不攝之。文易明也。初之二不偏就古谷。明不生滅次一不偏就今谷明不常。次一不偏就牙顯不斷。一異兩不總約牙谷。來出二不偏約牙辯。問曰汝雖釋不生。此是第
【現代漢語翻譯】 牙（芽的古稱）如果和樹不同，應該叫做『樹牙』。這是『俱異難』（兩者完全不同所導致的困難）。第三，牙如果和穀子不同，牙是從穀子生出來的；牙既然和樹不同，就應該從樹生出來。這是『俱生難』（兩者來源不同所導致的困難）。第四，牙如果和穀子不同，牙能生出穀子；牙既然和樹不同，就應該能生出樹。這又是責難它們不同的地方。如果說它們不同，牙在穀子外面，就有東西的區別。又如果說它們不同，應該在穀子裡面，如果在容器里。既然不是這樣，怎麼能叫做不同呢？ 問：應該有『來』（從別處來）的說法吧？（答：）解釋為『不來』、『不出』。異於三論師的觀點，三論師認為，『來』應該對應『去』，但義理上可以兼顧，舉『來』就兼顧了『去』，顯示『出』就兼顧了『入』，想要顯示破斥的意義是無窮無盡的，所以說『來』、『出』。現在我認為可以兼顧兩種意義。一是義理相兼，如上所述，『出』了還會回到原來的地方，應該用『來』兼顧『去』。二是外道雖然聽說了『六不』，但始終認為有谷牙，因為世俗諦的法不可能沒有。因此，最後兩種『不』沒有領會到其中的大要，必定認為有牙。如果不從外面來，就應該從裡面出。所以接著說明『不來』、『不出』。 問：難道有人認為是從內部出來的嗎？答：外道看見種子生出牙，就認為是內部出來的；看見憑藉水、土、時節、人工而生，就認為是外面來的。又，谷牙是眾生業行所感，所以是內部出來的。又說，是那羅延天（Narayana，印度教主神之一，毗濕奴神的化身）所賜予的，所以說是外面來的。因為那些侍奉那羅延天的外道，認為世間美好的事物以及男女等，都是那羅延天所賜予的。現在破斥這種說法，所以說『不來』、『不出』。又，認為從外面來，是外道無因生的觀點；認為從內部出，是內道有因生的觀點。如《十二門論》的因果門所說，果在因緣中畢竟不可得，這是破斥內道認為有因的觀點。也不從其他地方來，這是破斥外道無因生的觀點。凡是討論有生，都離不開這兩種觀點。所以最後兩種『不』概括了這些觀點。文義容易明白。 最初的兩種『不』，偏重於古谷，說明不生滅；接著一種『不』，偏重於現在的谷，說明不常；接著一種『不』，偏重於牙，顯示不斷；『一』、『異』兩種『不』，總括牙和谷；『來』、『出』兩種『不』，偏重於牙來辯論。問：你雖然解釋了『不生』，這是第
【English Translation】 If the sprout (ancient term for bud) is different from the tree, it should be called 'tree sprout'. This is the 'difficulty of complete difference' (difficulties arising from two things being completely different). Third, if the sprout is different from the grain, the sprout comes from the grain; since the sprout is different from the tree, it should come from the tree. This is the 'difficulty of simultaneous arising' (difficulties arising from different sources). Fourth, if the sprout is different from the grain, the sprout can produce grain; since the sprout is different from the tree, it should be able to produce a tree. This is again questioning their difference. If you say they are different, the sprout is outside the grain, then there is a distinction between east and west. Also, if you say they are different, it should be inside the grain, if it is in a container. Since it is not like this, how can it be called different? Question: Shouldn't there be a statement of 'coming' (coming from elsewhere)? (Answer:) It is explained as 'not coming', 'not going out'. Different from the views of the Three Treatise School, the Three Treatise School believes that 'coming' should correspond to 'going', but the meaning can be inclusive, mentioning 'coming' includes 'going', showing 'going out' includes 'entering', wanting to show that the meaning of refutation is endless, so it says 'coming', 'going out'. Now I think it can encompass two meanings. One is the inclusion of meaning, as mentioned above, 'going out' will also return to the original place, 'coming' should include 'going'. Second, although outsiders have heard of the 'six negations', they still believe that there is grain sprout, because the Dharma of worldly truth cannot be without it. Therefore, the last two 'negations' did not grasp the main point, and must believe that there is a sprout. If it does not come from the outside, it should come from the inside. So then explain 'not coming', 'not going out'. Question: Could it be that someone thinks it comes from the inside? Answer: Outsiders see the seed producing a sprout, and think it comes from the inside; seeing it produced by relying on water, soil, season, and human effort, they think it comes from the outside. Also, the grain sprout is felt by the karma of sentient beings, so it comes from the inside. It is also said that it is bestowed by Narayana (one of the main gods of Hinduism, an avatar of Vishnu), so it is said to come from the outside. Because those outsiders who serve Narayana believe that the good things in the world, as well as men and women, are all bestowed by Narayana. Now refuting this statement, so it says 'not coming', 'not going out'. Also, thinking it comes from the outside is the outsider's view of causeless arising; thinking it comes from the inside is the insider's view of arising with cause. As the chapter on cause and effect in the Twelve Gate Treatise says, the result is ultimately unattainable in the conditions, which is refuting the insider's view of having a cause. It also does not come from other places, which is refuting the outsider's view of causeless arising. Whenever discussing arising, it cannot be separated from these two views. Therefore, the last two 'negations' summarize these views. The meaning of the text is easy to understand. The first two 'negations' focus on the ancient grain, explaining non-arising and non-ceasing; the next 'negation' focuses on the current grain, explaining non-permanence; the next 'negation' focuses on the sprout, showing non-discontinuity; the two 'negations' of 'one' and 'different' summarize the sprout and the grain; the two 'negations' of 'coming' and 'going out' focus on the sprout to argue. Question: Although you explained 'non-arising', this is the
二章論主自釋八不。問青目釋與論主釋此有何異。答大意是同。略有三異。一者青目具釋八不。論主但釋一不。二者注人生起八不次第。論主直釋而已。三者青目次第釋。論主括始領終。因緣一品明無生。釋八不之始。去來一品明無去。解八不之終。此中前問后答。問意有兩。一結前二生后。注人所以作此問答者凡有三義。一者恐子本不分。後人便謂偈與長行並是龍樹自作。欲分令異故作此問。二者無生理深。恐不中詣故注人自謙仰推龍樹。三者羅睺羅法師是龍樹同時人。釋八不乃作常樂我凈四德明之。今青目據破病而釋。今欲引龍樹證同故生此問。又云。恐后不信注者之言。引龍樹證。汝前雖破生明無生論主意何必然耶。今明龍樹亦作此說。即我言可信。答曰諸法不自生者。此下正是論主自釋八不。開為二章。第一因緣一品釋八不之始。第二去來一品釋八不之終。括始領終中間可類。釋八不之始為三。第一兩偈舉四門釋無生。問曰阿毗曇下。第二外人立四緣證有生。果為從緣生下。第三破四緣顯無生。舊分不詣。故今正之也。就兩偈為二。初偈開章門。第二偈釋章門。前牒八不即是標方等之中心。今之兩偈吐龍樹之妙悟。以龍樹撿四句生不得悟于無生。既不受生亦不受不生。乃至不受亦不受。無得無依名無生忍。今
為眾生吐其所悟。故作四句覓生不得也。然直讀此文未覺其妙。師子吼以此偈嘆佛。佛能悟四不生即是大覺。又此四不生即是無相之相名為實相。凡有二種四句。一無自相等四。二無為自相等四。外道雖復破粗未能除細。若無此四句不生。無猶得攝邪歸正明實相耶。問前有八謬。次有九家。論主云何但破四句。答八謬不出有因無因。三句破其有因。一句破無因。則攝八在四。九計並計有因生。今三句破有因。則三攝於九。問誰執自生等四句耶。答眾人立義多墮此四。如牙有可生之自體故自生。可生之理。可生之義。可生之性。猶是一例義耳。雖有可生理復假緣生。即從他生義。有可生理復假于緣即共生義。考此生遠由無明。無明無因即無因生義。生既具四句。滅亦爾。如或有可滅之理故得滅。是自滅義。若假治道方滅是他滅義。有可滅復假治道謂共滅。從來無滅因今始滅。是無因滅義。問何故不破一異有無。而破自他共耶。答有三義。一者下偈云。因緣所生法。我說即是空。亦為是假名。亦是中道義。外人執自性則具失因緣中假。若失其因緣中假則破一切法。是故命初破自即識因緣。識因緣即是中假。乃至有佛菩薩世間樂具也。二者破自即苞攝一切。以一切諸法無出自者指自為他。自無即無他。三者欲顯一切法本自無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了眾生宣說他所領悟的道理，所以才作了這四句偈，目的是爲了使眾生不再執著于生。然而，直接讀這段文字可能不會覺得有什麼奧妙。師子吼菩薩用這首偈來讚歎佛陀，佛陀能夠領悟『四不生』，就是大覺悟。而且，這『四不生』就是無相之相，名為實相。總共有兩種『四句』：第一種是『無自生』等四句，第二種是『無為自生』等四句。外道雖然能夠破除粗顯的執著，卻不能去除細微的執著。如果沒有這『四句不生』，又怎麼能夠使邪見歸於正道，明白實相呢？ 問：前面有『八謬』，接著又有『九家』的說法，論主（指龍樹菩薩）為什麼只破斥『四句』呢？ 答：『八謬』沒有超出有因和無因的範圍。三句破斥了『有因』，一句破斥了『無因』，這樣就把『八謬』都包含在『四句』之中了。『九計』都認為有因生，現在用三句破斥『有因』，那麼三句就包含了『九計』。 問：是誰執著于『自生』等四句呢？ 答：很多人在建立自己的觀點時，常常會落入這四種情況。例如，牙齒有可以生的自體，所以是『自生』。『可生』的道理、『可生』的意義、『可生』的性質，都只是一個例子的不同說法而已。即使有『可生』的道理，仍然要依靠因緣才能生，這就是『他生』的意義。有『可生』的道理，又依靠因緣，就是『共生』的意義。考察這種生的根源，是由於無明（avidya）。無明沒有原因，就是『無因生』的意義。生既然具備這四句，滅也是一樣。例如，或許有可以滅的道理，所以能夠滅，這是『自滅』的意義。如果依靠修道的方法才能滅，這就是『他滅』的意義。有可以滅的道理，又依靠修道的方法，就叫做『共滅』。從來沒有滅的原因，現在才開始滅，這就是『無因滅』的意義。 問：為什麼不破斥『一異』（eka-aneka，同一與差異）、『有無』（asti-nasti，存在與不存在），而要破斥『自他共無因』呢？ 答：有三個原因。第一，下面的偈頌說：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦為是假名，亦是中道義。』外道執著于自性（svabhava），就會完全失去因緣、中道、假名。如果失去了因緣、中道、假名，就會破壞一切法。所以一開始就破斥『自生』，就是要認識因緣，認識因緣就是認識中道、假名，乃至認識佛、菩薩、世間的快樂。 第二，破斥『自生』就包含了破斥一切。因為一切諸法沒有出自自身的，把『自』指為『他』。『自』不存在，『他』也就不存在。 第三，想要顯示一切法本來就是沒有的。
【English Translation】 English version: To expound what he realized for the sake of sentient beings, he composed these four lines of verse, aiming to free beings from clinging to birth. However, reading this passage directly may not reveal its subtlety. The Lion's Roar Bodhisattva praises the Buddha with this verse, stating that the Buddha's realization of the 'Four Non-Arisings' is Great Enlightenment. Moreover, these 'Four Non-Arisings' are the formless form, known as the true reality (real nature of phenomena). There are two types of 'four lines': the first is the four lines of 'no self-arising' (svayamkrta) etc., and the second is the four lines of 'no uncaused self-arising' etc. Although externalists can break down gross attachments, they cannot remove subtle attachments. If there were no 'Four Non-Arisings,' how could one lead heretical views back to the right path and understand true reality? Question: Earlier, there were 'eight errors,' and then there were the 'nine schools' of thought. Why does the author (Nagarjuna) only refute the 'four lines'? Answer: The 'eight errors' do not go beyond the scope of having a cause and having no cause. Three lines refute 'having a cause,' and one line refutes 'having no cause,' thus encompassing the 'eight errors' within the 'four lines.' The 'nine views' all believe in arising from a cause. Now, by refuting 'having a cause' with three lines, the three lines encompass the 'nine views.' Question: Who clings to the four lines of 'self-arising' etc.? Answer: Many people, when establishing their own views, often fall into these four situations. For example, a tooth has a self-nature that can arise, so it is 'self-arising.' The principle of 'can arise,' the meaning of 'can arise,' the nature of 'can arise,' are just different ways of saying the same thing. Even if there is a principle of 'can arise,' it still relies on conditions to arise, which is the meaning of 'other-arising' (parakrta). Having a principle of 'can arise' and also relying on conditions is the meaning of 'both-arising' (ubhayakrta). Examining the origin of this arising, it is due to ignorance (avidya). Ignorance has no cause, which is the meaning of 'no-cause arising' (ahetukrta). Since arising possesses these four lines, so does ceasing. For example, perhaps there is a principle of being able to cease, so it can cease, which is the meaning of 'self-ceasing.' If one relies on the path of practice to cease, that is the meaning of 'other-ceasing.' Having a principle of being able to cease and also relying on the path of practice is called 'both-ceasing.' There has never been a cause for ceasing, and now it begins to cease, which is the meaning of 'no-cause ceasing.' Question: Why not refute 'one and different' (eka-aneka), 'existence and non-existence' (asti-nasti), but refute 'self, other, both, and no cause'? Answer: There are three reasons. First, the following verse says: 'The dharmas that arise from conditions, I say are empty, and are also provisional names, and are also the meaning of the Middle Way.' Externalists who cling to self-nature (svabhava) will completely lose conditions, the Middle Way, and provisional names. If one loses conditions, the Middle Way, and provisional names, one will destroy all dharmas. Therefore, the initial refutation of 'self-arising' is to recognize conditions, and recognizing conditions is recognizing the Middle Way and provisional names, and even recognizing the Buddha, Bodhisattvas, and worldly happiness. Second, refuting 'self-arising' includes refuting everything. Because all dharmas do not originate from themselves, 'self' is referred to as 'other.' If 'self' does not exist, then 'other' does not exist either. Third, the intention is to show that all dharmas are originally non-existent.
生。以一切法本無其自體。是故諸大乘經皆明本自不生今亦無滅。所以不破有無一異者。自體生是有。他生為無。共生是亦有亦無。計一是自生。計異是他生。今破自他共則攝得一異有無也。第八有生第九無生還是有無。入自他門破。偈為二。上三句正破于生。下一句結明無生。上三句明無生即是中義。下明無生即是觀義。為眾生說之。即是論。論主聞八不即如說行。今此一偈即如行而說。自有中發於觀觀發於中。中發觀者悟中道發生正觀。觀發中者眾生見諸法是自是他。則非中道。今以觀撿自他畢竟不可得。則是觀察中也。又上三句明諸法無生。下句明無生忍。又上三句是境界性。次句是觀智性。如是三波若等。萬義可知。問云何不自生。答下長行自釋。此既是龍樹偈首。宜寄之遊心。智度論釋無生品云。以眾生無生故諸法無生。悟二種無生故名無生法忍。眾生無生者依此四門求之不得。是故無生。五陰內若有眾生自體。可從眾生自體而生眾生。以五陰內無眾生自體。云何從眾生自體而生眾生。又從眾生自體而生眾生。是則眾生不假五陰。既假五陰。故知。不從眾生自體生眾生也。不他生者。惑者既聞不從眾生自體生於眾生則謂。假於五陰而生眾生。五陰望眾生則便是他。故是從他生義。今明。陰內若有眾生自體。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：生。因為一切法的根本沒有它自身的體性。因此，所有的大乘經典都闡明了本來就沒有產生，現在也沒有消滅。之所以不破斥有、無、一、異，是因為自體產生是有，從他產生是無，共同產生是亦有亦無。認為一是自體產生，認為異是從他產生。現在破斥了自、他、共生，就涵蓋了一、異、有、無。第八種是有生，第九種是無生，仍然是有無。進入自他之門來破斥。偈頌分為兩部分。前面三句是正面破斥產生，下一句總結說明沒有產生。前面三句說明沒有產生就是中道的意義。下面說明沒有產生就是觀的意義。為眾生解說，就是論。論主聽聞八不，就如所說的那樣修行。現在這一偈頌就是如實修行而說。自然從中道生髮出觀，從觀生髮出中道。從中道生髮觀，是領悟中道而發生正觀。從觀生髮中道，是眾生見到諸法是自生是他生，就不是中道。現在用觀來審視自生他生，畢竟不可得，這就是觀察中道。另外，前面三句說明諸法沒有產生，下一句說明無生忍。再者，前面三句是境界性，下一句是觀智性。像這樣，三般若等等，萬種意義都可以理解。問：為什麼不是自體產生？答：下面的長行文字會自己解釋。這既然是龍樹（Nagarjuna）菩薩偈頌的開頭，應該寄託于游心。智度論解釋無生品說：因為眾生沒有產生，所以諸法沒有產生。領悟兩種沒有產生，所以叫做無生法忍。眾生沒有產生，是依據這四種方式尋求而不可得。因此，沒有產生。五陰（Skandha，色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）之內如果有眾生自體，可以從眾生自體而產生眾生。因為五陰之內沒有眾生自體，怎麼能從眾生自體而產生眾生呢？又從眾生自體而產生眾生，那麼眾生就不需要藉助五陰。既然需要藉助五陰，所以知道，不是從眾生自體產生眾生。不是從他產生，迷惑的人聽聞不是從眾生自體產生眾生，就認為藉助五陰而產生眾生。五陰對於眾生來說就是他，所以是從他產生的意義。現在說明，五陰之內如果有眾生自體。
【English Translation】 English version: Birth. Because all dharmas fundamentally lack their own inherent nature. Therefore, all Mahayana sutras clarify that originally there was no arising, and now there is no ceasing. The reason for not refuting existence, non-existence, oneness, and difference is that self-origination is existence, origination from others is non-existence, and joint origination is both existence and non-existence. Considering oneness as self-origination and difference as origination from others, now refuting self, other, and joint origination encompasses oneness, difference, existence, and non-existence. The eighth is arising with existence, and the ninth is arising without existence, which are still existence and non-existence. Enter the gate of self and other to refute them. The verse is divided into two parts. The first three lines directly refute arising, and the next line concludes by clarifying no arising. The first three lines explain that no arising is the meaning of the Middle Way. The following explains that no arising is the meaning of contemplation. Explaining it for sentient beings is the treatise. The author of the treatise, upon hearing the Eight No's, practices as described. Now, this verse is spoken in accordance with actual practice. Naturally, contemplation arises from the Middle Way, and the Middle Way arises from contemplation. Contemplation arising from the Middle Way is realizing the Middle Way and giving rise to right contemplation. The Middle Way arising from contemplation is when sentient beings see dharmas as self-originated or other-originated, which is not the Middle Way. Now, using contemplation to examine self-origination and other-origination, ultimately they are unattainable, which is observing the Middle Way. Furthermore, the first three lines explain that dharmas do not arise, and the next line explains the forbearance of no arising (Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti). Moreover, the first three lines are the nature of the realm, and the next line is the nature of contemplative wisdom. Like this, the three Prajnas (Tri-prajna) and so on, myriad meanings can be understood. Question: Why is it not self-originated? Answer: The following prose will explain itself. Since this is the beginning of Nagarjuna's verse, it should be entrusted to wandering thought. The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom (Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra) explains the chapter on No-Birth, saying: Because sentient beings do not arise, all dharmas do not arise. Realizing the two kinds of no arising is called the forbearance of no arising. Sentient beings do not arise because they cannot be found by seeking in these four ways. Therefore, there is no arising. If there were an inherent nature of sentient beings within the five skandhas (Skandha, the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), sentient beings could arise from the inherent nature of sentient beings. Because there is no inherent nature of sentient beings within the five skandhas, how can sentient beings arise from the inherent nature of sentient beings? Moreover, if sentient beings arise from the inherent nature of sentient beings, then sentient beings would not need to rely on the five skandhas. Since they need to rely on the five skandhas, it is known that sentient beings do not arise from the inherent nature of sentient beings. Not arising from others, those who are deluded, upon hearing that sentient beings do not arise from the inherent nature of sentient beings, then think that sentient beings arise by relying on the five skandhas. The five skandhas are 'other' in relation to sentient beings, so it is the meaning of arising from others. Now it is explained that if there were an inherent nature of sentient beings within the five skandhas.
可望五陰為他。竟無眾生自體。誰望為他。故不從他生。又五陰內無人假五方有。此是團空作有。又五內無人假五成人。五中無柱何不成柱。又五中無一能生一者。亦無有多何不生多。又五狗無師子何不生之。不共生者。惑者聞向二關求眾生不得。便謂陰內本有眾生自性。復假五陰而成。故是共生。今明。若是共生即合有二過。一從眾生自體生眾生過。二有無自有他過故不共生。無因生者惑者既聞眾生不從自體生。復不假五陰他生。若爾則是無因而有眾生。是亦不然。尚不從此二因生。豈得無因有眾生耶。以四處求眾生不得。故名眾生無生。悟眾生無生名眾生忍。諸法無生者今略據二法。一因成法如四微成柱。類上四句責之不煩作也。二相待法如長不自長。待短故長。長非自生。短中亦無長。故不從他生。若短中有長則不名短。若自他共有長者具前二過。一有自待長之過。二短中有長之過。而長不自長。又不因短。不可無因有長。故非無因生義。如長短既爾。生死涅槃等一切法皆以四門求之不得。以四處求法生不得。即是諸法無生。悟法無生名為法忍。問論主何以但云諸法不生。不云人不生。答法難破人易破。又法為人本。又此論正破內人。內人多計有法。又是略示一途。問若執有生四門求之不得。計有無生云何破耶
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 希望從五陰（色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）中找到『他』（指眾生），但實際上並沒有獨立的眾生自體。那麼，又該希望誰來作為『他』呢？所以說，眾生不是從『他』而生的。而且，五陰之內並沒有人，卻假借五陰來說有。這就像是把空無一物捏造成有。此外，五陰之內沒有人，卻假借五陰說成人。如果五陰中沒有柱子的成分，為什麼能形成柱子呢？而且，五陰中沒有一個能生出一個的因素，也沒有多個因素能生出更多的因素。如果五隻狗中沒有獅子的成分，為什麼能生出獅子呢？ 關於不共生：迷惑的人聽說從自體和他體兩個方面都找不到眾生，就認為五陰內本來就有眾生的自性，再假借五陰而形成，所以是共生。現在要說明的是，如果是共生，就會有兩個過失：一是眾生從眾生自體而生的過失，二是有自體和從他體而生的過失。所以說，眾生不是共生的。 關於無因生：迷惑的人聽說眾生不是從自體生的，也不是假借五陰他體而生的，就認為眾生是無因而有的。這也是不對的。尚且不能從自體和他體這兩種因緣而生，怎麼可能無因而有眾生呢？因為在四個方面都找不到眾生的生，所以說眾生是無生的。領悟到眾生無生，就叫做眾生忍。 關於諸法無生：現在簡略地根據兩種法來說明。一是因緣和合而成的法，比如四微塵和合而成柱子。可以用上面四句來責難，這裡就不再贅述了。二是相對待的法，比如長不是自己長，而是因為有短才顯得長。長不是自己產生的，短中也沒有長。所以說，長不是從他體而生的。如果短中有長的成分，就不叫做短了。如果說長是自體和他體共同作用產生的，就具有前面兩種過失：一是有自體等待長成的過失，二是短中有長的過失。然而，長不是自己長成的，也不是因為短而產生的。不能說無因而有長，所以說，長不是無因生的。就像長短這樣，生死涅槃等一切法都可以用這四種方式來探求，都是找不到的。在四個方面都找不到法的生，這就是諸法無生。領悟到法無生，就叫做法忍。 問：論主為什麼只說諸法不生，而不說人不生呢？ 答：法難以破斥，人容易破斥。而且，法是人的根本。而且，這部論正是爲了破斥內人（指執著于內在自我的人）。內人大多執著于有法。而且，這只是簡略地展示了一條途徑。 問：如果執著于有生，用四種方式來探求都找不到，那麼，如果執著于無生，又該如何破斥呢？
【English Translation】 English version Hoping to find 'other' (referring to sentient beings) from the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), but in reality, there is no independent self-nature of sentient beings. Then, who should be hoped for as 'other'? Therefore, it is said that sentient beings are not born from 'other'. Moreover, there is no person within the five skandhas, yet it is falsely said that there is based on the five skandhas. This is like creating something out of nothing. Furthermore, there is no person within the five skandhas, yet it is falsely said that it becomes a person based on the five skandhas. If there is no pillar component in the five skandhas, how can a pillar be formed? Moreover, there is not one factor in the five skandhas that can produce one, nor are there multiple factors that can produce more. If there is no lion component in the five dogs, why can a lion be born? Regarding non-co-arising: Confused people, hearing that sentient beings cannot be found from both self and other, believe that the self-nature of sentient beings is originally within the five skandhas, and then formed by borrowing the five skandhas, so it is co-arising. Now, it must be explained that if it is co-arising, there will be two faults: one is the fault of sentient beings arising from the self-nature of sentient beings, and the other is the fault of having self and arising from other. Therefore, it is said that sentient beings are not co-arising. Regarding arising without cause: Confused people, hearing that sentient beings are not born from self, nor are they born by borrowing the other of the five skandhas, believe that sentient beings exist without cause. This is also incorrect. It cannot arise from the two causes of self and other, how can sentient beings exist without cause? Because the birth of sentient beings cannot be found in four aspects, it is said that sentient beings are unborn. Realizing that sentient beings are unborn is called sentient being forbearance. Regarding the unborn nature of all dharmas: Now, briefly explain based on two dharmas. One is the dharma formed by the combination of conditions, such as four subtle dust particles combining to form a pillar. The above four sentences can be used to question it, so there is no need to repeat it here. The second is the relative dharma, such as long not being long by itself, but appearing long because there is short. Long is not produced by itself, and there is no long in short. Therefore, it is said that long is not born from other. If there is a long component in short, it is not called short. If it is said that long is produced by the joint action of self and other, it has the previous two faults: one is the fault of self waiting to grow long, and the other is the fault of having long in short. However, long is not grown by itself, nor is it produced because of short. It cannot be said that there is long without cause, so it is said that long is not born without cause. Just like long and short, all dharmas such as birth, death, and nirvana can be sought in these four ways, and they cannot be found. The birth of dharma cannot be found in four aspects, which is the unborn nature of all dharmas. Realizing that dharma is unborn is called dharma forbearance. Question: Why does the author of the treatise only say that all dharmas are unborn, and not say that people are unborn? Answer: Dharma is difficult to refute, and people are easy to refute. Moreover, dharma is the root of people. Moreover, this treatise is precisely to refute the inner person (referring to those who are attached to the inner self). Inner people are mostly attached to having dharma. Moreover, this is just a brief demonstration of a path. Question: If one is attached to having birth, and cannot find it by seeking in four ways, then how should one refute if one is attached to being unborn?
。答破有多門。一者還用生破。若四門有生可有無生。四門生義不成。云何有無生乃至亦生無生非生無生。五句自崩。如此了悟方是無生。故智度論釋無生忍云。不生不滅非共非不共是名無生法忍。二者既以四門求生不得。還以四門求無生亦不得。若自無生應不待生。以待生說無生。故知。非自無生。若待生說無生便是從他無生。而生無生本無二體。豈是他耶。共則有二過。無生不自因。復不因於生云何有無生。以四門求無生不得。亦生無生非生無生諸句壞。故於一切法心無愛著。則悟無生忍。就此長行唯釋破四句生。未解第四句結無生。至后偈長行方乃釋之。破四句生即成四別。就破四句生有離有合。離為四難。合成二關。四難者一理奪破。二二體破。三失因緣破。四無窮破。合為二難者前一為奪。后三縱關。無有從自體生者。佛法大小乘無有從自體生。小乘雲。至竟無能生。用離等侶故大乘雲。未曾有一法不從因緣生。今既大小不攝。故直撥之。必待眾因者上標奪。今釋奪也。又上明無自。今借不自以破于自也。問何故言必待眾因耶。答外人但謂從己體一因生。今奪之萬化藉于眾因。豈獨從自己一因生耶。所言眾因者。一切諸法有三種因。一正因謂穀子。二緣因謂水土。三者生相因。既必待三因方乃得生者。豈從
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：回答破除『有』的多種方法。第一種是反過來用『生』來破除。如果四句（四門）中有『生』，就可能有『無生』。如果四句的『生』的意義不能成立，怎麼會有『無生』，乃至『亦生』、『無生非生』、『無生』呢？這五句就自然崩潰了。如此領悟才是真正的『無生』。所以《智度論》解釋『無生忍』說：『不生不滅，非共非不共，這叫做無生法忍。』第二種是既然用四句尋求『生』而不可得，反過來用四句尋求『無生』也同樣不可得。如果自身就是『無生』，就不應該等待『生』。因為依賴於『生』才說『無生』，所以知道，不是自身『無生』。如果依賴於『生』來說『無生』，那就是從他而來的『無生』。而『生』和『無生』本來就沒有兩個實體，怎麼會是從他而來呢？如果是『共』，就會有兩個過失：『無生』不自己作為原因，又不依賴於『生』，怎麼會有『無生』呢？用四句尋求『無生』而不可得，『亦生無生』、『非生無生』等各種說法都破滅了。所以在一切法中心無愛著，就能領悟『無生忍』。這段長行文字只解釋了破除四句『生』，沒有解釋第四句總結『無生』。要到後面的偈頌長行文字才解釋。破除四句『生』就形成了四種區別。就破除四句『生』來說，有分離有結合。分離是四個難點，結合是兩個關卡。四個難點是：一、理奪破；二、二體破；三、失因緣破；四、無窮破。結合爲兩個難點是：前一個是奪，后三個是縱關。沒有從自體產生的。佛法大小乘都沒有從自體產生的說法。小乘說：『最終沒有能生的。』用分離等同類的說法。所以大乘說：『未曾有一法不是從因緣生的。』現在既然大小乘都不包括，所以直接否定它。必定等待眾多因緣，這是上面標出『奪』，現在解釋『奪』。又上面說明沒有『自』，現在借用不『自』來破除『自』。問：為什麼說必定等待眾多因緣呢？答：外道只是認為從自己的本體一個因產生。現在否定它，萬物的變化依賴於眾多因緣，難道僅僅是從自己一個因產生的嗎？所說的眾多因緣，一切諸法有三種因：一是正因，比如穀子的種子；二是緣因，比如水土；三是生相因。既然必定等待三種因才能產生，難道是從 自己
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: There are many ways to refute 'existence'. The first is to use 'birth' to refute it. If there is 'birth' in the four statements (four gates), then there may be 'non-birth'. If the meaning of 'birth' in the four statements cannot be established, how can there be 'non-birth', or even 'also birth', 'non-birth non-non-birth', 'non-birth'? These five statements will naturally collapse. Only such understanding is true 'non-birth'. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra explains 'non-birth forbearance' as: 'Neither birth nor death, neither common nor uncommon, this is called non-birth Dharma forbearance.' The second is that since 'birth' cannot be obtained by seeking with the four statements, conversely, 'non-birth' cannot be obtained by seeking with the four statements either. If it is 'non-birth' by itself, it should not wait for 'birth'. Because 'non-birth' is spoken of in dependence on 'birth', it is known that it is not 'non-birth' by itself. If 'non-birth' is spoken of in dependence on 'birth', then it is 'non-birth' from others. And 'birth' and 'non-birth' originally have no two entities, how can it be from others? If it is 'common', there will be two faults: 'non-birth' does not cause itself, nor does it depend on 'birth', how can there be 'non-birth'? 'Non-birth' cannot be obtained by seeking with the four statements, and various statements such as 'also birth non-birth', 'non-birth non-non-birth' are all destroyed. Therefore, without attachment in the mind towards all Dharmas, one can realize 'non-birth forbearance'. This long passage only explains the refutation of the four statements of 'birth', and does not explain the fourth statement summarizing 'non-birth'. It will be explained in the subsequent verses and long passages. Refuting the four statements of 'birth' forms four distinctions. Regarding the refutation of the four statements of 'birth', there is separation and combination. Separation is four difficulties, and combination is two barriers. The four difficulties are: 1. Refutation by reason; 2. Refutation by two entities; 3. Refutation by loss of cause and condition; 4. Refutation by infinity. The combination of two difficulties is: the first is deprivation, and the last three are longitudinal barriers. There is no arising from self-nature. Neither Hinayana nor Mahayana Buddhism has the saying of arising from self-nature. Hinayana says: 'Ultimately, there is no one who can give rise.' Use separation and other similar statements. Therefore, Mahayana says: 'There has never been a Dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions.' Now that neither Hinayana nor Mahayana is included, it is directly denied. It must wait for many causes, which is the 'deprivation' marked above, and now the 'deprivation' is explained. Also, the above explains that there is no 'self', and now the non-'self' is borrowed to refute the 'self'. Question: Why is it said that it must wait for many causes and conditions? Answer: Outsiders only think that it arises from one cause of their own nature. Now deny it, the changes of all things depend on many causes and conditions, how can it only arise from one cause of its own? The so-called many causes and conditions, all Dharmas have three kinds of causes: one is the direct cause, such as the seed of grain; the second is the conditional cause, such as water and soil; and the third is the cause of the arising aspect. Since it must wait for three causes to arise, is it from itself
自體生耶。若從自體生者第二縱破。縱汝從自體生則有自體可從。有物從之。便成因果不同能所兩別。何得稱自。問今但轉性牙成事牙。寧有兩體。答若爾如隱名佛性。顯名法身。但是一體。則不得稱從自體生。故得一體則失其能從所從。不成生義。若有能生所生則生義得成。而失其一體。若離余因此第三失因緣破。此文若從自體生者。前責其一體成二體。今復破其二體責能生之體。為更有所從為無所從。若更有所從則從從無窮。墮第四難。若無所從即墮無因第三難。所生亦爾。若更能生他即生生無窮。若不能生則所生亦爾。此文若迥生者初難明無有自生必待眾因。今明若不待因而自生者則失因緣。所言余因者如牙自從牙體。而生。則牙體以外悉名為余。谷則是其因。水土為緣。並不從此因緣生也。若生更有生是則無窮第四無窮難。無窮有五種。一遍從無窮。如谷內無牙能生牙者。一切物亦無牙亦應遍從眾物生。二遍生無窮。谷內無牙能生牙者。亦無眾物應遍生眾物。三逆推無窮。牙既從谷。谷復從他。四順推無窮。谷既生牙復生物。是則無窮。五常生無窮。以自體常在生無息時。此中無有遍生遍從二種無窮。若望更責二體則有逆推順推兩無窮。逆推是因無窮。順推是果無窮。若就自體常有則是常生無窮。既本有自體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是自體產生嗎？如果說是從自體產生，那麼就犯了第二重過失（縱破）。縱然你說是從自體產生，那麼就存在一個可以從中產生的自體。有東西從中產生，就變成了因和果不同，能和所是兩個不同的東西。怎麼能稱之為『自』呢？ 有人問：現在只是轉變性質，從種子牙成為事物牙，難道會有兩個自體嗎？ 回答：如果像隱沒時名為佛性，顯現時名為法身一樣，只是一個自體，那麼就不能稱之為從自體產生。如果是一個自體，那麼就失去了能從中產生和所從中產生的關係，不能成立『生』的意義。如果有能生的和所生的，那麼『生』的意義才能成立，但就失去了『一體』的性質。 如果離開其餘的因，那麼就犯了第三重過失（失因緣破）。這段文字如果說從自體產生，前面責難它一體變成二體，現在又破斥它的二體，責問能生的自體，是更有所從，還是無所從？如果更有所從，那麼就無窮無盡，墮入第四重困難（無窮難）。如果無所從，就墮入無因的第三重困難。 所生的也是一樣。如果更能生其他，那麼就生生無窮。如果不能生，那麼所生的也是一樣。 這段文字如果說是迥然不同地產生，最初的責難是說明沒有自體產生，必定要依靠眾多的因。現在說明如果不依靠因而自體產生，那麼就失去了因緣。所說的『其餘的因』，比如牙齒從牙齒的本體而生，那麼牙齒本體以外的所有東西都可以稱為『其餘』。穀物是它的因，水土是它的緣，但並不是從此因緣而生。 如果產生更有產生，那麼就是無窮無盡，這是第四重困難（無窮難）。無窮有五種：一是普遍從中產生無窮，如果穀物內沒有牙齒能生出牙齒，那麼一切事物也應該普遍地從眾物中產生。二是普遍產生無窮，如果穀物內沒有牙齒能生出牙齒，那麼也沒有眾物應該普遍地產生眾物。三是逆向推論無窮，牙齒既然從穀物產生，穀物又從其他產生。四是順向推論無窮，穀物既然產生牙齒，又產生其他事物，那麼就是無窮。五是常時產生無窮，因為自體常在，產生沒有停止的時候。 這裡面沒有普遍產生和普遍從中產生兩種無窮。如果希望進一步責難二體，那麼就有逆向推論和順向推論兩種無窮。逆向推論是因無窮，順向推論是果無窮。如果就自體常有來說，那就是常時產生無窮。既然本來就有自體。
【English Translation】 English version Is it self-produced? If it arises from itself, then there is the second fault (rejection of dependence). Even if you say it arises from itself, then there exists a self from which it can arise. Something arises from it, and thus cause and effect become different, the able and the caused are two separate things. How can it be called 'self'? Someone asks: Now it is merely a transformation of nature, from seed-tooth to object-tooth, are there really two selves? Answer: If it is like the Buddha-nature when hidden, and the Dharma-body when manifest, being just one self, then it cannot be said to arise from itself. If it is one self, then it loses the relationship of that which can arise from and that from which it arises, and the meaning of 'arising' cannot be established. If there is that which can cause arising and that which is caused to arise, then the meaning of 'arising' can be established, but it loses the nature of 'oneness'. If it is apart from other causes, then it commits the third fault (rejection of conditions). If this passage says it arises from itself, the previous criticism was that one self becomes two selves, now it refutes its two selves, questioning whether the self that can cause arising arises from something else or from nothing? If it arises from something else, then it is endless, falling into the fourth difficulty (endlessness). If it arises from nothing, then it falls into the third difficulty of no cause. The same is true for that which is caused to arise. If it can cause something else to arise, then arising arises endlessly. If it cannot cause arising, then the same is true for that which is caused to arise. If this passage says it arises distinctly differently, the initial criticism is to explain that there is no self-arising, it must rely on many causes. Now it explains that if it does not rely on causes and arises from itself, then it loses the conditions. The 'other causes' mentioned, such as the tooth arising from the tooth-essence, then everything outside the tooth-essence can be called 'other'. Grain is its cause, water and soil are its conditions, but it does not arise from these causes and conditions. If arising produces further arising, then it is endless, this is the fourth difficulty (endlessness). There are five types of endlessness: first, universal arising from endlessness, if there is no tooth in the grain that can produce a tooth, then all things should universally arise from all things. Second, universal production of endlessness, if there is no tooth in the grain that can produce a tooth, then there are no things that should universally produce all things. Third, reverse inference of endlessness, since the tooth arises from grain, and grain arises from something else. Fourth, forward inference of endlessness, since grain produces a tooth and also produces other things, then it is endless. Fifth, constant arising of endlessness, because the self is always present, and arising has no cessation. Here there are no two types of endlessness: universal production and universal arising from. If one wishes to further criticize the two selves, then there are two types of endlessness: reverse inference and forward inference. Reverse inference is the endlessness of cause, forward inference is the endlessness of effect. If one speaks of the self as always existing, then it is the constant arising of endlessness. Since there is originally a self.
而能生一牙者。此自體應更能生無窮牙也。以自體只是自性自性不可改。則應常生。如業品云。受于果報已則應更復受。汝若言自體生牙竟即滅無者。既已有還無。則應本無今有。體既本無今有。牙亦本無今有。何得從本自體生。若本有自體則是常。常故常生無窮也。此無因無窮二難具破由來二家義。第一家釋無始無明云。以無有始於我者故名無始。此立無明有始義。破云。第二念從第一念生。可得有因。第一念既在初則墮無因。第二家云。無明無有始。故云無始無明。若爾第二念有始。初念復更從他生。此則無窮。自無他亦無者。前自中具有四以為兩雙。初雙自而非生。生便非自。次雙從則無窮。窮則無因。他生亦然。他而非生如牛馬梨㮈。生而非他如泥瓶蒲廗。既從於他。復有從。從則無窮。窮則無因也。三論破他有三門。一總門。一切法無非是自。自外無復有他。若破自即破他。二相即。如他於他即是自。破自即破他。三相待可解。共生則有二過。此破共有兩。一者明無有共。本合自他名之為共。自他有故共有。自他無故共無。二者縱有共生便合兩過為共過也。無因者問何人起無因計。答鈍根人多起有因見。利根推斥起無因見。又有所得人計因即是無因。以其立因不成。雖言有因即是無因也。問山門有無因義不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果自體能夠生出一顆牙齒（danta），那麼這個自體就應該能夠生出無窮無盡的牙齒。因為自體只是自性（svabhava），自性是不可改變的，那麼就應該永遠地生。如同《業品》（Karma-prakarana）所說：『已經承受了果報，就應該再次承受。』如果你說自體生出牙齒后就滅亡了，歸於虛無，既然已經有了又歸於虛無，那麼就應該是本來沒有現在有。自體既然本來沒有現在有，牙齒也應該是本來沒有現在有。怎麼能說牙齒是從本來的自體所生呢？如果本來就有自體，那就是常（nitya）。因為是常，所以就應該永遠地生出無窮無盡的牙齒。這用無因（ahetu）和無窮（ananta）兩種難點，同時破斥了由來已久的兩家宗義。 第一家解釋無始無明（anadi-avidya）說：『因為沒有在我之前開始的，所以叫做無始。』這是立論無明有開始的意義。破斥說：第二念（dvitiya-citta）從第一念（prathama-citta）產生，還可以說是有因。第一念既然在最初，那就落入了無因。第二家說：無明沒有開始，所以叫做無始無明。如果這樣，第二念有開始，那麼第一念又從其他產生，這就導致無窮。自己沒有，其他也沒有。前面『自』中具有四種情況，分為兩對。第一對是『自』而不是『生』，一旦是『生』就不是『自』。第二對是『從』就導致無窮，無窮就等於無因。他生也是這樣。『他』而不是『生』，比如牛、馬、梨、㮈。『生』而不是『他』，比如泥瓶、蒲廗。既然是從『他』產生，又有從『他』產生，『從』就導致無窮，無窮就等於無因。 三論（Trika）破斥他有（parabhava）有三個方面：一是總門，一切法（dharma）沒有不是自（svabhava）的，在自之外沒有其他。如果破斥了自，就破斥了他。二是相即，比如『他』對於『他』就是『自』，破斥了『自』就破斥了『他』。三是相待，可以理解。共同產生就有兩種過失。這是破斥共有（samanya）兩種情況：一是說明沒有共同，本來合在一起的自他和他，叫做共同。自他和他有，所以共有。自他和他沒有，所以共無。二是縱然有共同產生，就合成了兩種過失，成為共同的過失。關於無因，問：什麼人會產生無因的見解？答：遲鈍的人大多產生有因的見解，聰慧的人推究斥責而產生無因的見解。又有有所得（labhin）的人認為因就是無因，因為他們所立的因不能成立，雖然說是『有因』，實際上就是『無因』。問：山門（shān mén）有沒有無因的意義？
【English Translation】 English version: If a self-nature (svabhava) can produce one tooth (danta), then this self-nature should be able to produce infinite teeth. Because the self-nature is just self-nature, and self-nature cannot be changed, then it should always produce. As the Karma-prakarana says: 'Having received the retribution, one should receive it again.' If you say that the self-nature ceases to exist after producing a tooth, returning to nothingness, then since it has already existed and then returned to nothingness, it should be that it originally did not exist but now exists. Since the self-nature originally did not exist but now exists, the tooth should also be that it originally did not exist but now exists. How can it be said that the tooth is produced from the original self-nature? If the self-nature originally exists, then it is permanent (nitya). Because it is permanent, it should always produce infinite teeth. This uses the two difficulties of no cause (ahetu) and infinity (ananta) to simultaneously refute the doctrines of the two schools that have existed for a long time. The first school explains beginningless ignorance (anadi-avidya) by saying: 'Because there is no beginning before me, it is called beginningless.' This establishes the meaning that ignorance has a beginning. The refutation says: The second thought (dvitiya-citta) arises from the first thought (prathama-citta), so it can be said to have a cause. Since the first thought is at the beginning, it falls into no cause. The second school says: Ignorance has no beginning, so it is called beginningless ignorance. If so, the second thought has a beginning, then the first thought arises from something else, which leads to infinity. If self does not exist, then other does not exist either. The previous 'self' contains four situations, divided into two pairs. The first pair is 'self' but not 'arising'; once it 'arises', it is not 'self'. The second pair is 'from', which leads to infinity, and infinity is equal to no cause. The arising from other is also like this. 'Other' but not 'arising', such as cows, horses, pears, and jujubes. 'Arising' but not 'other', such as clay pots and cattails. Since it arises from 'other', there is also arising from 'other', 'from' leads to infinity, and infinity is equal to no cause. The Three Treatises (Trika) refutes other-existence (parabhava) in three aspects: First, the general aspect, all dharmas (dharma) are not non-self (svabhava); there is no other outside of self. If self is refuted, then other is refuted. Second, mutual identity, such as 'other' for 'other' is 'self'; if 'self' is refuted, then 'other' is refuted. Third, mutual dependence, which can be understood. Co-arising has two faults. This refutes the two situations of commonality (samanya): First, it explains that there is no commonality; the self and other that are originally combined are called common. If self and other exist, then there is commonality. If self and other do not exist, then there is no commonality. Second, even if there is co-arising, it combines the two faults and becomes a common fault. Regarding no cause, the question is: What kind of person would have the view of no cause? The answer is: Dull people mostly have the view of having a cause, while intelligent people investigate and refute, leading to the view of no cause. Also, those who have attainment (labhin) think that cause is no cause, because the cause they establish cannot be established; although they say 'having a cause', it is actually 'no cause'. Question: Does the mountain gate (shān mén) have the meaning of no cause?
。答他因無因二唯是因。不得無因。不得無因豈成因耶。今只因是無因。故因無因不二也。問無因有幾種。答有二種。一者計無有于因。故名無因。二者計有因是無因。如初章云。有有可有。有是自有。故不因無也。破無因事有四過。一常過。二理奪。三反並。四倒感果。常過者既不因緣合而生。亦不從緣離而滅。不生不滅故是常也。又虛空不從因而是常者。萬物不從因亦應常也。是事不然者第二理奪破。道理之中非是無因。故大論云。諸法實有因緣。但愚癡故不知。如人從扇求風從木求火。豈是無因。無因則無果第三反並破。因無故果即無。亦應果有故因即有。若無因有果亦可無果有因也。若無因有果者第四倒感果破。理實應云無惡因得惡果。無善因得善果。而今不得爾者。持戒之人無地獄因。應生地獄。五逆之人無生天因。應生天也。複次如諸法自性。此偈望前偈可為三義。一者為利根唱四無生即解。今為鈍根重論不自生義。又三偈可為三根。上根聞佛八不即悟。中根聞論主唱四不生便解。下根待釋方悟。二者上破非因緣自生義。故直云不自生。今破因緣自生義。如毗曇有自性。而假緣生。故文云。如諸法自性不在於緣。一切諸法自不出不假緣自及假緣之自。故兩偈破之盡矣。三者初偈正破自他等病生。后偈則申
【現代漢語翻譯】 答：『他因』（由其他事物產生的因）和『無因』（沒有原因）這兩種觀點，實際上都只是『因』。不能說沒有『因』。如果說沒有『因』，又怎麼能形成『因』呢？現在說『因』就是『無因』，所以『因』和『無因』不是對立的。問：『無因』有幾種？答：有兩種。第一種是認為根本沒有『因』，所以稱為『無因』。第二種是認為『有因』就是『無因』。就像《初章》里說的，『有有可有，有是自有』，所以不是因為『無』。破斥『無因』生事有四種過失：一是『常過』，二是『理奪』，三是『反並』，四是『倒感果』。『常過』是指既然不是因緣和合而生，也不會因為因緣離散而滅。不生不滅，所以是常。又比如虛空不是從『因』產生的，所以是常，那麼萬物如果不是從『因』產生的，也應該是常。這件事是不對的。第二種『理奪破』是指，道理上來說，沒有無『因』的情況。所以《大論》說，諸法實際上有因緣，只是愚癡的人不知道。就像人從扇子求風，從木頭求火，怎麼能說是沒有『因』呢？沒有『因』就沒有果，這是第三種『反並破』。因為沒有『因』，所以果也應該沒有；反過來說，果有，所以『因』也應該有。如果無『因』而有果，也可以無果而有『因』。如果無『因』而有果，這是第四種『倒感果破』。道理上應該說，沒有惡『因』，就不會得到惡果；沒有善『因』，就不會得到善果。如果不是這樣，那麼持戒的人沒有下地獄的『因』，也應該下地獄；作五逆罪的人沒有生天的『因』，也應該生天。再次，就像諸法的自性。這句偈語相對於前面的偈語，可以有三種意義。一是為利根之人宣說『四無生』，他們就能理解；現在為鈍根之人重新討論不自生的意義。又，這三句偈語可以對應三種根器的人：上根之人聽佛說『八不』就能領悟；中根之人聽論主說『四不生』就能理解；下根之人要等待解釋才能領悟。二是前面破斥非因緣自生的意義，所以直接說『不自生』；現在破斥因緣自生的意義。比如毗曇宗認為有自性，但要假借因緣而生，所以經文說，『如諸法自性不在於緣』，一切諸法不是自己產生，也不是假借因緣而自己產生。所以這兩句偈語把這些都破斥乾淨了。三是第一句偈語主要破斥自生、他生等錯誤觀點，後面的偈語則是申明。 現代漢語譯本：答：『他因』（由其他事物產生的因）和『無因』（沒有原因）這兩種觀點，實際上都只是『因』。不能說沒有『因』。如果說沒有『因』，又怎麼能形成『因』呢？現在說『因』就是『無因』，所以『因』和『無因』不是對立的。問：『無因』有幾種？答：有兩種。第一種是認為根本沒有『因』，所以稱為『無因』。第二種是認為『有因』就是『無因』。就像《初章》里說的，『有有可有，有是自有』，所以不是因為『無』。破斥『無因』生事有四種過失：一是『常過』，二是『理奪』，三是『反並』，四是『倒感果』。『常過』是指既然不是因緣和合而生，也不會因為因緣離散而滅。不生不滅，所以是常。又比如虛空不是從『因』產生的，所以是常，那麼萬物如果不是從『因』產生的，也應該是常。這件事是不對的。第二種『理奪破』是指，道理上來說，沒有無『因』的情況。所以《大論》說，諸法實際上有因緣，只是愚癡的人不知道。就像人從扇子求風，從木頭求火，怎麼能說是沒有『因』呢？沒有『因』就沒有果，這是第三種『反並破』。因為沒有『因』，所以果也應該沒有；反過來說，果有，所以『因』也應該有。如果無『因』而有果，也可以無果而有『因』。如果無『因』而有果，這是第四種『倒感果破』。道理上應該說，沒有惡『因』，就不會得到惡果；沒有善『因』，就不會得到善果。如果不是這樣，那麼持戒的人沒有下地獄的『因』，也應該下地獄；作五逆罪的人沒有生天的『因』，也應該生天。再次，就像諸法的自性。這句偈語相對於前面的偈語，可以有三種意義。一是為利根之人宣說『四無生』，他們就能理解；現在為鈍根之人重新討論不自生的意義。又，這三句偈語可以對應三種根器的人：上根之人聽佛說『八不』就能領悟；中根之人聽論主說『四不生』就能理解；下根之人要等待解釋才能領悟。二是前面破斥非因緣自生的意義，所以直接說『不自生』；現在破斥因緣自生的意義。比如毗曇宗認為有自性，但要假借因緣而生，所以經文說，『如諸法自性不在於緣』，一切諸法不是自己產生，也不是假借因緣而自己產生。所以這兩句偈語把這些都破斥乾淨了。三是第一句偈語主要破斥自生、他生等錯誤觀點，後面的偈語則是申明。
【English Translation】 Answer: 'Hetu from others' (hetu arising from other things) and 'no hetu' (without a cause) are both actually just 'hetu' (cause). It cannot be said that there is no 'hetu'. If it is said that there is no 'hetu', how can 'hetu' be formed? Now it is said that 'hetu' is 'no hetu', so 'hetu' and 'no hetu' are not dualistic. Question: How many kinds of 'no hetu' are there? Answer: There are two kinds. The first is to think that there is no 'hetu' at all, so it is called 'no hetu'. The second is to think that 'having hetu' is 'no hetu'. Just like what is said in the 'First Chapter', 'Having having can have, having is having itself', so it is not because of 'no'. Refuting the arising of things from 'no hetu' has four faults: first, 'permanence fault'; second, 'reason deprivation'; third, 'reversal'; fourth, 'inverted feeling of result'. 'Permanence fault' means that since it is not born from the union of conditions, it will not be destroyed by the separation of conditions. Not being born and not being destroyed, so it is permanent. Also, for example, emptiness is not produced from 'hetu', so it is permanent, then if all things are not produced from 'hetu', they should also be permanent. This matter is not right. The second 'reason deprivation' means that in terms of reason, there is no situation of no 'hetu'. So the 'Great Treatise' says that all dharmas actually have causes and conditions, but ignorant people do not know. Just like people seeking wind from a fan and seeking fire from wood, how can it be said that there is no 'hetu'? Without 'hetu', there is no result, this is the third 'reversal'. Because there is no 'hetu', the result should also be absent; conversely, if there is a result, then there should also be a 'hetu'. If there is a result without 'hetu', there can also be a 'hetu' without a result. If there is a result without 'hetu', this is the fourth 'inverted feeling of result'. In terms of reason, it should be said that without an evil 'hetu', one will not get an evil result; without a good 'hetu', one will not get a good result. If it is not like this, then a person who upholds precepts, without the 'hetu' for going to hell, should also go to hell; a person who commits the five rebellious acts, without the 'hetu' for being born in heaven, should also be born in heaven. Furthermore, like the self-nature of all dharmas. This verse, compared to the previous verse, can have three meanings. First, it is to proclaim the 'four no-births' for people with sharp roots, and they can understand; now it is to re-discuss the meaning of not self-arising for people with dull roots. Also, these three verses can correspond to people of three kinds of capacities: people with superior roots can understand when they hear the Buddha say the 'eight no's'; people with medium roots can understand when they hear the treatise master say the 'four no-births'; people with inferior roots have to wait for explanation to understand. Second, the previous one refutes the meaning of non-causal self-arising, so it directly says 'not self-arising'; now it refutes the meaning of causal self-arising. For example, the Sarvastivadins think that there is self-nature, but it has to borrow conditions to arise, so the scripture says, 'Like the self-nature of all dharmas is not in conditions', all dharmas are not produced by themselves, nor do they borrow conditions to produce themselves. So these two verses refute all of these completely. Third, the first verse mainly refutes the wrong views of self-arising, other-arising, etc., and the following verses clarify. English version: Answer: 'Hetu from others' (hetu arising from other things) and 'no hetu' (without a cause) are both actually just 'hetu' (cause). It cannot be said that there is no 'hetu'. If it is said that there is no 'hetu', how can 'hetu' be formed? Now it is said that 'hetu' is 'no hetu', so 'hetu' and 'no hetu' are not dualistic. Question: How many kinds of 'no hetu' are there? Answer: There are two kinds. The first is to think that there is no 'hetu' at all, so it is called 'no hetu'. The second is to think that 'having hetu' is 'no hetu'. Just like what is said in the 'First Chapter', 'Having having can have, having is having itself', so it is not because of 'no'. Refuting the arising of things from 'no hetu' has four faults: first, 'permanence fault'; second, 'reason deprivation'; third, 'reversal'; fourth, 'inverted feeling of result'. 'Permanence fault' means that since it is not born from the union of conditions, it will not be destroyed by the separation of conditions. Not being born and not being destroyed, so it is permanent. Also, for example, emptiness is not produced from 'hetu', so it is permanent, then if all things are not produced from 'hetu', they should also be permanent. This matter is not right. The second 'reason deprivation' means that in terms of reason, there is no situation of no 'hetu'. So the 'Great Treatise' says that all dharmas actually have causes and conditions, but ignorant people do not know. Just like people seeking wind from a fan and seeking fire from wood, how can it be said that there is no 'hetu'? Without 'hetu', there is no result, this is the third 'reversal'. Because there is no 'hetu', the result should also be absent; conversely, if there is a result, then there should also be a 'hetu'. If there is a result without 'hetu', there can also be a 'hetu' without a result. If there is a result without 'hetu', this is the fourth 'inverted feeling of result'. In terms of reason, it should be said that without an evil 'hetu', one will not get an evil result; without a good 'hetu', one will not get a good result. If it is not like this, then a person who upholds precepts, without the 'hetu' for going to hell, should also go to hell; a person who commits the five rebellious acts, without the 'hetu' for being born in heaven, should also be born in heaven. Furthermore, like the self-nature of all dharmas. This verse, compared to the previous verse, can have three meanings. First, it is to proclaim the 'four no-births' for people with sharp roots, and they can understand; now it is to re-discuss the meaning of not self-arising for people with dull roots. Also, these three verses can correspond to people of three kinds of capacities: people with superior roots can understand when they hear the Buddha say the 'eight no's'; people with medium roots can understand when they hear the treatise master say the 'four no-births'; people with inferior roots have to wait for explanation to understand. Second, the previous one refutes the meaning of non-causal self-arising, so it directly says 'not self-arising'; now it refutes the meaning of causal self-arising. For example, the Sarvastivadins think that there is self-nature, but it has to borrow conditions to arise, so the scripture says, 'Like the self-nature of all dharmas is not in conditions', all dharmas are not produced by themselves, nor do they borrow conditions to produce themselves. So these two verses refute all of these completely. Third, the first verse mainly refutes the wrong views of self-arising, other-arising, etc., and the following verses clarify.
因緣假生。故長行雲。但眾緣和合故有名字也。問何故不言初偈標章門。后偈釋章門。答青目不作標章及釋章故也。今若作標章門釋章門者。此是第二解釋章門。論主前開四句釋八不。謂以論釋經。今此偈釋前偈。謂以論釋論。此偈中但釋不自不釋餘三。所以然者龍樹牒八不釋一。餘七可明。上雖標四解一餘三可領。問何故爾耶。答有四義。一者欲顯一切法只是無生。一切有所得並是生義。佛雖說八不則束歸一無生。如常云生起為生。只滅始起。何故非生。只生謝復是滅。故知。法起滅即是生。又一切法中皆有心生。假令言四絕之理。即有四絕心生。乃至聞想謂之言。即有想謂心生。故於一切法中皆有心生。今破生則一切想心不生。故悟無生法忍也。二者一切眾生以有生故。則有老病死繫縛等。今若息生則老病死便息。是故但明無生。三者生法既無。餘七自壞。四者既開四門破生。餘七亦類。今偈亦三義。一者欲明自攝一切法。若無自體則一切法無。二眾緣中無自性。亦無餘之三性。三無自可待。故無有三。如諸法自性不在於緣中者。此文可以三義釋之。一約就緣假破。二對緣假破。三並決破。就緣假破者就眾緣內撿無有自。如五陰內無人四微內無柱。尚無有自性。云何言從自性生耶。二對緣假者借于緣自牙兩斥之。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因緣和合而虛假產生。所以長行中說，只是因為眾多因緣和合，才有了名字（概念）。 問：為什麼不說第一個偈頌是標示章節的門徑，後面的偈頌是解釋章節的門徑？ 答：因為青目（註釋者）沒有做標示章節和解釋章節這樣的工作。 現在如果要做標示章節的門徑和解釋章節的門徑，那麼這就是第二種解釋章節的門徑。論主（龍樹）前面開出四句來解釋八不（八不中道）。這是用論來解釋經。現在這個偈頌解釋前面的偈頌，這是用論來解釋論。這個偈頌中只解釋了『不自生』，沒有解釋其餘三個『不』。 之所以這樣，是因為龍樹（Nagarjuna）列舉八不來解釋其中一個，其餘七個可以明白。上面雖然標示了四種解釋，解釋了一個，其餘三個可以領會。 問：為什麼這樣呢？ 答：有四個原因： 一、想要顯示一切法只是無生（anutpāda）。一切有所得都屬於生的範疇。佛雖然說了八不，但最終歸結於一個『無生』。如常說『生起』就是『生』，只是滅的開始。為什麼不是生呢？只是生滅相續，就是滅。所以要知道，法的生滅就是生。而且一切法中都有心生。假設說四絕（四種斷滅）的道理，就會有四絕的心生。乃至聽到想法，稱之為言語，就會有想法的心生。所以在一切法中都有心生。現在破除生，那麼一切想法的心就不生。所以領悟無生法忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti）。 二、一切眾生因為有生，所以有老、病、死、繫縛等等。現在如果停止生，那麼老、病、死就停止了。所以只說明無生。 三、生法既然沒有，其餘七個自然壞滅。 四、既然開了四個門來破除生，其餘七個也可以類推。 現在的偈頌也有三個含義： 一、想要說明『自』（ātman）包含一切法。如果沒有自體，那麼一切法都沒有。 二、眾緣之中沒有自性（svabhāva），也沒有其餘三種自性。 三、沒有『自』可以依賴，所以沒有三種（關係）。 如『諸法的自性不在於緣中』，這句話可以用三種方式來解釋： 一、就緣假（pratītyasamutpāda）來破除。 二、針對緣假來破除。 三、並列決斷地破除。 就緣假來破除，就是在眾緣內部檢查沒有『自』。如五陰（skandha）內沒有人，四微內沒有柱子。尚且沒有自性，怎麼能說從自性生呢？ 針對緣假，就是藉助於緣和自、牙和兩者的關係來駁斥它。
【English Translation】 English version They are falsely produced by conditions. Therefore, the prose section says, 'They only have names because of the aggregation of various conditions.' Question: Why not say that the first verse marks the chapter's gateway, and the subsequent verses explain the chapter's gateway? Answer: Because Qingmu (commentator) did not create marking chapters and explaining chapters. Now, if we were to create marking the chapter's gateway and explaining the chapter's gateway, this would be the second explanation of the chapter's gateway. The author of the treatise (Nagarjuna) previously opened four sentences to explain the Eight No's (Eightfold Negation). This is using the treatise to explain the sutra. Now, this verse explains the previous verse, which is using the treatise to explain the treatise. This verse only explains 'not self-produced' and does not explain the remaining three 'not'. The reason for this is that Nagarjuna lists the Eight No's to explain one of them, and the remaining seven can be understood. Although the above marks four explanations, explaining one, the remaining three can be comprehended. Question: Why is this so? Answer: There are four reasons: First, it is to show that all dharmas are simply non-arising (anutpāda). Everything that is attained belongs to the category of arising. Although the Buddha spoke of the Eight No's, they ultimately converge on one 'non-arising'. As it is often said, 'arising' is 'birth', just the beginning of cessation. Why is it not birth? Just the continuous arising and ceasing is cessation. Therefore, know that the arising and ceasing of dharmas is birth. Moreover, in all dharmas, there is the arising of mind. Suppose we speak of the principle of the Four Extremes (four kinds of annihilation), there will be the arising of the mind of the Four Extremes. Even hearing thoughts, calling them words, there will be the arising of the mind of thoughts. Therefore, in all dharmas, there is the arising of mind. Now, if we destroy birth, then all thoughts of the mind will not arise. Therefore, we realize the non-arising dharma-ksanti (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti). Second, all sentient beings have old age, sickness, death, bondage, etc., because of birth. Now, if we stop birth, then old age, sickness, and death will cease. Therefore, we only explain non-arising. Third, since the dharma of birth does not exist, the remaining seven will naturally be destroyed. Fourth, since we have opened four gates to destroy birth, the remaining seven can also be inferred. The current verse also has three meanings: First, it is to clarify that 'self' (ātman) encompasses all dharmas. If there is no self-nature, then all dharmas do not exist. Second, there is no self-nature (svabhāva) in the aggregation of conditions, nor are there the remaining three self-natures. Third, there is no 'self' to rely on, so there are no three (relationships). As in 'The self-nature of dharmas is not in conditions,' this sentence can be explained in three ways: First, to refute based on conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda). Second, to refute against conditioned arising. Third, to refute by parallel determination. To refute based on conditioned arising is to examine within the aggregation of conditions and find no 'self'. Just as there is no person within the five skandhas (skandha), and no pillar within the four elements. Since there is no self-nature, how can it be said to arise from self-nature? To refute against conditioned arising is to refute it by using the relationship between conditions and self, teeth and both.
若有自性則不假緣。若必假緣則無自性。三並決破者既本有自體不假緣。有亦應自體本生不假緣生也。而言如諸法者。若諸法實有性而言無性者。則不如諸法。今實無性而言無性。故言如諸法也。則顯外人計有自性不如諸法矣。又還就汝五陰緣中。無有人體性。故云如諸法也。以無自性故者下半非是破他。乃顯不須破他耳。所以不須破他者以自無故他即無。即詺此為破他亦得也。就緣中既無自性。指自為他即無他性。指自他為共即無共性。指有者為無即無無因性。此是切論無四句。並就果門辯無四句也。若奢論待於人自故有五陰之他。既無人自何所待故有陰他耶。合人與陰名之為共。竟無人自陰他。云何有共耶。人自因人復因於陰名為有因。竟無此二因。云何有無因耶。又作一勢釋此偈上半借緣破自。下半借自破緣。上半借緣破自。明有眾緣則無有自。下半明無自故則無眾緣。借緣以破自此是借有以破無。借自以破緣借無以破有。故云自無故他亦無也。又一勢釋此偈寄卷指顯之。卷由指有故卷無自性。若言由指有卷故是他性者是亦不然。指望卷不得是他。以更無別體故也。若卷望指為他而卷由指。卷望柱是他應從柱有。故得他則失自。得自則失他。又捲于卷是自而卷無自性。指于指是自指亦無自性。無自性則無指。云
何以指而為卷他。長行為三。第一釋偈本。第二顯偈意。第三追釋前一句。就釋偈中前解上半次釋下半。諸法自性不在眾緣中者。如人體不在陰中柱體不在微中也。但眾緣和合故有名字者此有二。一為釋疑故來。若五陰中無人體者。何故五眾和合有人名。四微和合有柱名。既有別名。則知。別有自性。在眾緣中。是故釋云。但眾緣和合故有名字耳。眾緣中實無體也。二者此是借名以彈四家義。一外道計五陰中有實人。二犢子計我在五陰中。眼法在四大中。三毗曇人木中有火性。四莊嚴云。眾緣和合別有假體用。是故破云。眾緣和合但有名字。無體用也。在體既無。名無所附。若破開善義云。汝五陰未合時未有人用。亦合即有人用。此用屬眾緣。何得離五別有人用。若別有用則是自性也。自性即自體者。此句釋前章彈異計。前章破自體。今文破性。恐人不解。復會之。偈中言自性者。此是體性之性。非是理性之性。復有人執體而避性。復有避性而執理。今明性體理乃猶是異名耳。自性無故下釋下半。有二意。一待自說他無自故無他。二者他即是自。無自即無他。若破自性他性下第二顯偈意。應有問云。章門偈既具標四。后偈何故唯釋自他。不釋共與無因。答此問云。破自他即是破共。不須釋共。有因尚可破。何況無因。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如何解釋『指』而成為『卷他』（Paravadin，辯論者）呢？長行分為三部分：第一，解釋偈頌的文字；第二，闡明偈頌的意義；第三，追溯解釋前一句。在解釋偈頌中，先解釋上半部分，再解釋下半部分。 『諸法自性不在眾緣中』，例如人體不在五蘊（Skandha，構成人身的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）中，柱體不在微塵中。『但眾緣和合故有名字』，這有兩層含義：一是爲了解釋疑惑。如果五蘊中沒有人體的自性，為何五蘊和合就有了人的名字？四大（地、水、火、風）和合就有了柱子的名字？既然有不同的名字，就說明有不同的自性存在於眾緣之中。因此解釋說：『但眾緣和合故有名字而已』，眾緣中實際上沒有實體。二是借用這個名義來駁斥四家的觀點：第一，外道認為五蘊中有實在的人；第二，犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）認為『我』存在於五蘊中，眼識存在於四大中；第三，毗曇宗（Abhidharma）認為木頭中有火性；第四，莊嚴論師認為眾緣和合後會產生一個虛假的實體作用。因此破斥說：眾緣和合只有名字，沒有實體作用。實體既然不存在，名字也就無所依附。如果破斥開善義的觀點，就會說：你們的五蘊未和合時，沒有人體作用，和合后就有人體作用。這個作用屬於眾緣，怎麼能離開五蘊而另外有人體作用呢？如果另外有作用，那就是自性了。『自性即自體』，這句話解釋前一章破斥異端邪說。前一章破斥自體，本文破斥自性，恐怕人們不理解，所以再次會通。偈頌中說的『自性』，是體性的『性』，不是理性的『性』。又有人執著于體而回避性，又有人迴避性而執著于理。現在說明性、體、理實際上只是不同的名稱而已。 『自性無故』，下面解釋下半部分，有兩種含義：一是依賴於自來說明他沒有自性，所以沒有他性；二是他性就是自性，沒有自性就沒有他性。『若破自性他性』，下面是第二部分，闡明偈頌的意義。應該有人會問：章門和偈頌既然都完整地標明了四種關係（自、他、共、無因），後面的偈頌為什麼只解釋自性和他性，而不解釋共性和無因性呢？回答這個問題說：破斥了自性和他性，就是破斥了共性，不需要解釋共性。有因尚且可以破斥，何況無因呢？
【English Translation】 English version How to explain 'pointing' to become 'Paravadin' (卷他, debater)? The long passage is divided into three parts: First, explain the text of the verse; second, clarify the meaning of the verse; third, trace back and explain the previous sentence. In explaining the verse, first explain the first half, and then explain the second half. 'The self-nature of all dharmas is not in the aggregation of conditions (眾緣)', for example, the human body is not in the five aggregates (五蘊, Skandha, the five elements that constitute the human body: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), and the pillar is not in the dust particles. 'But names exist because of the aggregation of conditions', which has two meanings: one is to explain doubts. If there is no self-nature of the human body in the five aggregates, why is there a human name when the five aggregates are combined? Why is there a pillar name when the four elements (四大, earth, water, fire, wind) are combined? Since there are different names, it shows that there are different self-natures existing in the aggregation of conditions. Therefore, it is explained: 'But names exist only because of the aggregation of conditions', and there is actually no entity in the aggregation of conditions. The second is to use this name to refute the views of the four schools: first, the heretics (外道) believe that there is a real person in the five aggregates; second, the Vātsīputrīya (犢子部) believes that 'I' exists in the five aggregates, and eye-consciousness exists in the four elements; third, the Abhidharma (毗曇宗) believes that there is fire nature in wood; fourth, the Zhuangyan (莊嚴) theorists believe that a false entity function will be produced after the aggregation of conditions. Therefore, it is refuted: the aggregation of conditions only has names, but no entity function. Since the entity does not exist, the name has nothing to rely on. If the view of Kaisanyi (開善義) is refuted, it will be said: when your five aggregates are not combined, there is no human body function, and there is a human body function when they are combined. This function belongs to the aggregation of conditions, how can there be another human body function apart from the five aggregates? If there is another function, that is self-nature. 'Self-nature is the self-entity (自體)', this sentence explains the previous chapter refuting heresies. The previous chapter refutes the self-entity, and this article refutes the self-nature, for fear that people will not understand, so it is connected again. The 'self-nature' mentioned in the verse is the 'nature' of the entity, not the 'nature' of reason. Some people cling to the entity and avoid the nature, and some people avoid the nature and cling to the reason. Now it is explained that nature, entity, and reason are actually just different names. 'Because there is no self-nature', the following explains the second half, which has two meanings: one is to rely on the self to explain that he has no self-nature, so there is no other-nature; the second is that other-nature is self-nature, and without self-nature, there is no other-nature. 'If self-nature and other-nature are refuted', the following is the second part, clarifying the meaning of the verse. Someone should ask: since the chapter and the verse have completely marked the four relationships (self, other, common, and without cause), why do the following verses only explain self-nature and other-nature, but not explain common-nature and without-cause-nature? The answer to this question is: refuting self-nature and other-nature is refuting common-nature, and there is no need to explain common-nature. Even with cause can be refuted, let alone without cause?
故不須釋無因也。又無因不無無。但無于因。故名無因。竟不見有因。何所無因耶。破莊子自然義云。汝因不自然得自然。則是相因。不自何名自然。又問汝有不自然則自然理不遍。若無不自然云何有自然。若言實是自然。但妄執成不自者。是亦不然。即此妄執亦是自然。云何有不自然。於四句求生不可得。此第三追解初偈是故知無生。以前未結撮故未得釋之。今標釋都竟始得解也。又欲發下救端。以四句無生則生義盡矣。
中觀論疏卷第三(本)
中觀論疏卷第三(末)
釋吉藏撰
因緣品第一
問曰阿毗曇人云諸法從四緣生下。第二外人舉四緣救義。此救從三處生。一者從八不生。論主引經明八不無生。外人亦引經明法從四緣生。生與無生俱是佛說。破則俱破。申則俱申。若偏破生而申無生。亦應偏破無生而申生。是故經云。寧起身見不惡取空。不以是身見墮惡道中。又若破生則無世諦。無世諦云何有第一義耶。二者從上如諸法自性不在眾緣中生。外人云。以眾緣中有自性故假緣得生。若無自性雖復假緣終不得生。如涅槃經答琉璃光難云。有漏之法以有生性故生能生。無漏之法無有生性故生不能生。佛大乘經親說有性假緣得生。汝何故言性不在眾緣中耶。三者從最後長行末生。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此不需要解釋『無因』（hetu-pratyaya）了。而且，『無因』並非完全沒有，只是沒有『因』（hetu）。所以才叫做『無因』。最終沒有發現有任何『因』，又何來『無因』呢？ 駁斥莊子的『自然』之義說：你因為不自然而得到自然，這就是相互依存。如果不依靠什麼，又憑什麼叫做『自然』呢？又問：如果你有不自然，那麼自然的道理就不普遍。如果沒有不自然，又怎麼會有自然呢？如果說確實是自然，只是妄執才成為不自然，這也是不對的。因為這種妄執也是自然，怎麼會有不自然呢？在四句中尋求『生』（utpāda），是不可得的。這第三次追問解釋了最初的偈頌『是故知無生』。因為之前沒有總結，所以沒有得到解釋。現在標明解釋完畢，才得以解釋。 又想引發下面的救護之端，用四句『無生』，那麼『生』的意義就窮盡了。 《中觀論疏》卷第三（本） 《中觀論疏》卷第三（末） 釋吉藏撰 《因緣品》第一 問：阿毗曇（Abhidhamma）人說諸法從四緣（catvāri pratyayāh）生等等。第二，外人舉出四緣來救護『生』的意義。這種救護從三個方面產生。一是，從『八不』（aṣṭāni）生。論主引用經典說明『八不』沒有『生』。外人也引用經典說明法從四緣生。『生』與『無生』（anutpāda）都是佛所說。破斥就一起破斥，闡明就一起闡明。如果偏袒破斥『生』而闡明『無生』，也應該偏袒破斥『無生』而闡明『生』。所以經典說：寧願起身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi），也不要錯誤地執取『空』（śūnyatā），不因為這種身見而墮入惡道中。而且如果破斥『生』，就沒有世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）。沒有世俗諦，又怎麼會有第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）呢？二是，從上面所說『諸法自性不在眾緣中生』。外人說：因為眾緣中有自性（svabhāva），所以憑藉因緣才能產生。如果沒有自性，即使憑藉因緣最終也不能產生。如《涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra）回答琉璃光（Virudhaka）的提問說：有漏之法因為有生性所以生能生，無漏之法沒有生性所以生不能生。佛在大乘經典中親自說有自性憑藉因緣才能產生。你為什麼說自性不在眾緣中呢？三是，從最後長行末尾的『生』。若...
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, there is no need to explain 'without cause' (hetu-pratyaya). Moreover, 'without cause' is not entirely non-existent; it simply lacks a 'cause' (hetu). That's why it's called 'without cause.' Ultimately, no cause is found, so how can there be 'without cause'? Refuting Zhuangzi's meaning of 'nature,' it says: You obtain nature because of non-nature, which is mutual dependence. If it doesn't rely on anything, how can it be called 'nature'? It is also asked: If you have non-nature, then the principle of nature is not universal. If there is no non-nature, how can there be nature? If it is said that it is indeed nature, but delusion makes it non-natural, that is also incorrect. Because this delusion is also nature, how can there be non-nature? Seeking 'arising' (utpāda) in the four possibilities is unattainable. This third questioning explains the initial verse, 'Therefore, know there is no arising.' Because there was no conclusion before, it was not explained. Now that the explanation is marked as complete, it can be explained. It also intends to initiate the following means of rescue, using the four possibilities of 'no arising,' then the meaning of 'arising' is exhausted. Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 3 (Beginning) Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 3 (End) Composed by Śīlaskandha (Jizang) Chapter 1: Conditions Question: The Abhidharma (Abhidhamma) followers say that all dharmas arise from the four conditions (catvāri pratyayāh), etc. Secondly, the outsider cites the four conditions to defend the meaning of 'arising.' This defense arises from three aspects. First, it arises from the 'eight negations' (aṣṭāni). The author of the treatise quotes scriptures to explain that the 'eight negations' have no 'arising.' The outsider also quotes scriptures to explain that dharmas arise from the four conditions. 'Arising' and 'non-arising' (anutpāda) are both taught by the Buddha. Refute them together, or explain them together. If you partially refute 'arising' and explain 'non-arising,' you should also partially refute 'non-arising' and explain 'arising.' Therefore, the scripture says: Rather have the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) than wrongly grasp 'emptiness' (śūnyatā), and not fall into evil paths because of this view of self. Moreover, if you refute 'arising,' there is no conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). Without conventional truth, how can there be ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya)? Secondly, from the above statement that 'the self-nature of all dharmas does not arise from the conditions.' The outsider says: Because there is self-nature (svabhāva) in the conditions, it can arise by relying on conditions. If there is no self-nature, even if relying on conditions, it ultimately cannot arise. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra answers Virudhaka's question, it says: Conditioned dharmas arise because they have the nature of arising, and unconditioned dharmas do not arise because they do not have the nature of arising. The Buddha personally said in the Mahayana scriptures that having self-nature can arise by relying on conditions. Why do you say that self-nature is not in the conditions? Thirdly, from the 'arising' at the end of the last prose passage. If...
言四句求生不得故無生者。今亦明諸法從四緣生故應有生也。問此論既稱破迷大乘人。應大乘人引四緣救義。云何乃引毗曇立耶。答關內影法師云。此偈為問。蓋是青目傷巧處耳。所以然者論主直引四緣遍攝眾師。破四緣生亦遍破眾師。但青目意局故偏主毗曇。失在注人不應問也。今曲為青目通者凡有八義。一者毗曇通大小。如阿含通大小故。迦葉云方等阿含。又攝大乘論云。分別大乘義是大乘毗曇。羅什云。吾若造大乘阿毗曇有勝迦旃延子。以此推之則毗曇通於大小。二者此是點同破。如前八不不來不出。顯內若作此立則同外道。今顯大乘人若執四緣實有生則同小乘。故有所得小猶是外道。有所得大猶是小乘。三者部雖二十而五部盛興於世。五部中薩婆多偏行於世。小乘法中有三藏教。正量部偏弘于律。律是住持佛法之本。上座部偏弘經。經是三藏根本。佛滅后二百年中。從上座部出薩婆多部偏弘毗曇。毗曇是真實法。故佛滅后三百五十年。迦旃延解佛毗曇作八健度。六百年釋八健度造毗婆沙。七百年為婆沙太廣故法勝造毗曇。為法勝太略千年之間達磨造于雜心。如此皆是薩婆多部毗曇義。故毗曇盛行。問此部何故盛行。答此部明三世是有見有得道。與凡夫心相應故世多信之。又時數應爾。前五百年多說無相法。后
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說用四句（四種條件）來尋求生，但最終無法得到生，所以說沒有生。現在也闡明諸法從四緣（四種因緣）而生，所以應該有生。問：這部論既然說是爲了破斥執迷不悟的大乘人，那麼大乘人應該引用四緣來救助他們的觀點，為什麼反而引用《阿毗曇》（Abhidhamma，佛教論藏）的觀點呢？答：關內的影法師說，這首偈頌是用來提問的，大概是青目菩薩（釋經者）賣弄聰明的地方。原因是論主直接引用四緣來概括所有的宗派，破斥四緣生也就能普遍破斥所有的宗派。只是青目菩薩的理解過於侷限，所以偏重於《阿毗曇》。錯誤在於註釋的人不應該提出這樣的問題。現在勉強為青目菩薩解釋，總共有八個方面的意義：第一，《阿毗曇》通於大乘和小乘，就像《阿含經》（Agama，早期佛教經典）通於大乘和小乘一樣。如迦葉（Kasyapa，佛教弟子）所說，方等（Vaipulya，大乘經典）和《阿含經》都是如此。又《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha，大乘論書）說，分別大乘的意義就是大乘的《阿毗曇》。鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva，著名譯經師）說，我如果造大乘的《阿毗曇》，一定會勝過迦旃延子（Kātyāyanīputra，論師）。由此推斷，《阿毗曇》是通於大乘和小乘的。第二，這是點到為止的破斥。如前面的八不（不生不滅等），不來不出。表明如果內在（大乘）也這樣立論，那就和外道一樣了。現在表明大乘人如果執著於四緣的真實存在，那就和小乘一樣了。所以有所得的小乘仍然是外道，有所得的大乘仍然是小乘。第三，部派雖然有二十個，但有五個部派在世間盛行。五個部派中，薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）尤其盛行於世。小乘法中有三藏教（Tripiṭaka，經律論三藏）。正量部（Sammitīya，正量部）偏重弘揚律藏（Vinaya，戒律），律藏是住持佛法的根本。上座部（Sthavira，上座部）偏重弘揚經藏（Sūtra，經藏），經藏是三藏的根本。佛陀滅度后二百年中，從上座部中分出薩婆多部，偏重弘揚《阿毗曇》。《阿毗曇》是真實法。所以佛陀滅度后三百五十年，迦旃延（Kātyāyana，論師）解釋佛陀的《阿毗曇》，寫成八健度（Aṣṭaskandha，論書名）。六百年時，解釋八健度，造《阿毗婆沙》（Abhidharma-vibhāṣā，論書名）。七百年時，因為《阿毗婆沙》過於廣博，所以法勝（Dharmaśreṣṭhin，論師）造《阿毗曇》。因為法勝的《阿毗曇》過於簡略，所以在千年之間，達磨（Dharman，論師）造《雜心論》（Abhidharmahṛdaya，論書名）。這些都是薩婆多部的《阿毗曇》的意義。所以《阿毗曇》非常盛行。問：這個部派為什麼如此盛行？答：這個部派闡明三世（過去、現在、未來）是真實存在的，能見到，能得到道，與凡夫的心相應，所以世人大多相信它。又時運也應該是這樣。前五百年大多說無相法（animitta，不著相的法），后
【English Translation】 English version To say that seeking birth through the four conditions (four causes) ultimately fails to attain birth, hence there is no birth. Now, it is also clarified that all dharmas arise from the four conditions (four causes), so there should be birth. Question: Since this treatise claims to refute deluded Mahayana practitioners, Mahayana practitioners should cite the four conditions to defend their views. Why then is the view of the Abhidhamma (Buddhist philosophical texts) cited? Answer: The Shadow Dharma Master of Guan Nei said that this verse is for questioning, probably a display of cleverness by Qingmu Bodhisattva (commentator). The reason is that the author of the treatise directly cites the four conditions to encompass all schools, and refuting the arising from four conditions also universally refutes all schools. However, Qingmu Bodhisattva's understanding is too limited, so he focuses on the Abhidhamma. The mistake lies in the commentator not raising such a question. Now, to reluctantly explain for Qingmu Bodhisattva, there are eight aspects of meaning: First, the Abhidhamma is common to both Mahayana and Hinayana, just as the Agamas (early Buddhist scriptures) are common to both Mahayana and Hinayana. As Kasyapa (Buddhist disciple) said, both Vaipulya (Mahayana scriptures) and the Agamas are so. Also, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Mahayana treatise) says that distinguishing the meaning of Mahayana is the Mahayana Abhidhamma. Kumārajīva (famous translator) said, 'If I were to create a Mahayana Abhidhamma, it would surpass Kātyāyanīputra (commentator).' From this, it can be inferred that the Abhidhamma is common to both Mahayana and Hinayana. Second, this is a pointed refutation. Like the previous eight negations (neither arising nor ceasing, etc.), neither coming nor going. It shows that if the internal (Mahayana) also establishes this view, it would be the same as the external paths (non-Buddhist religions). Now it shows that if Mahayana practitioners cling to the real existence of the four conditions, they would be the same as Hinayana. Therefore, the small vehicle with attainment is still an external path, and the large vehicle with attainment is still a small vehicle. Third, although there are twenty schools, five schools are prevalent in the world. Among the five schools, the Sarvāstivāda (the school that asserts everything exists) is particularly prevalent in the world. In Hinayana Dharma, there are the three baskets of teachings (Tripiṭaka, the three divisions of the Buddhist canon). The Sammitīya (the school of the Sammatiyas) emphasizes the Vinaya (discipline), which is the foundation for upholding the Buddha's Dharma. The Sthavira (the elders) emphasize the Sūtra (discourses), which is the root of the three baskets. Two hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, the Sarvāstivāda emerged from the Sthavira, emphasizing the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma is the true Dharma. Therefore, three hundred and fifty years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, Kātyāyana (commentator) explained the Buddha's Abhidhamma and wrote the Aṣṭaskandha (name of a treatise). In the sixth century, he explained the Aṣṭaskandha and created the Abhidharma-vibhāṣā (name of a treatise). In the seventh century, because the Abhidharma-vibhāṣā was too extensive, Dharmaśreṣṭhin (commentator) created the Abhidhamma. Because Dharmaśreṣṭhin's Abhidhamma was too brief, Dharman (commentator) created the Abhidharmahṛdaya (name of a treatise) within a thousand years. All of these are the meanings of the Sarvāstivāda's Abhidhamma. Therefore, the Abhidhamma is very prevalent. Question: Why is this school so prevalent? Answer: This school clarifies that the three times (past, present, and future) are real, can be seen, and can attain the path, which corresponds to the minds of ordinary people, so most people believe in it. Also, the times should be like this. In the first five hundred years, most people spoke of the signless Dharma (animitta, dharma without characteristics), and later
五百年多說有相法。故有正像二時。今是像法中故多學毗曇有相法也。四者此部唯得人空不得法空。見諸法有生不信諸法無生。故障大乘無生。如五百部聞大乘畢竟無生如刀傷心。此皆是薩婆多部之枝流。今破毗曇定實有生。則遍破五百部也。問此部立四緣生有幾義。答有二義。一者執小乘生撥大乘無生。大乘無生非佛說。是調達作。余親聞彼僧云。大乘方等經是龍樹道人作故不信也。二執小乘四緣疑大乘經明無生。若言無生者經何故說從四緣生。如上云。聞大乘法說畢竟空即生見疑等也。五者此論破小乘生明諸法無生。即是具申佛大小乘權實兩教。今求生不可得。即知本性無生。故實有生是方便。無生是真實。無生是真實即顯真實相。生是方便即開方便門。故法華云。諸法從本來常自寂滅相。故知本性無生是真實義。我雖說涅槃是亦非真滅。故知生滅是方便也。六者問此論何處有斯文耶。答緣緣章云。真實微妙法此即可信。隨宜所說不可為實。此分明釋法華也。七者示破有次第。如百論初舍罪次舍福。今亦爾也。外道障小乘故破外道而申小乘。小乘障大乘故破小乘而申大乘。所以偏破毗曇也。問不得法空小乘不信無生。故破生申無生。如舍利弗毗曇明於二空。成實論等亦明二空。應不被破。答無生有二種。一破生明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五百多年來盛行有相法。因此有正像二個時期。現在是像法時期，所以很多人學習《毗曇》（Abhidharma，論藏）中的有相法。第四點，這個部派只證悟人空，不證悟法空。他們認為諸法是有生滅的，不相信諸法是無生滅的。因此障礙了大乘的無生之理。比如五百部派聽到大乘的畢竟無生，就像刀割心臟一樣痛苦。這些都是說一切有部（Sarvastivada）的支流。現在破斥《毗曇》所說的『定實有生』，就等於普遍破斥了五百部派的觀點。問：這個部派所立的四緣生有幾種含義？答：有兩種含義。一是執著小乘的生滅，否定大乘的無生。他們認為大乘的無生不是佛陀所說，而是提婆達多（Devadatta）所造。有人親自聽到那個僧團說，大乘方等經典是龍樹（Nagarjuna）菩薩所作，所以不相信。二是執著小乘的四緣，懷疑大乘經典所說的無生。如果說是無生，那麼經典為什麼說從四緣而生？就像上面所說，聽到大乘法說畢竟空，就產生見解和疑惑等等。第五點，這部論破斥小乘的生滅，闡明諸法無生，就是全面地闡述了佛陀大小乘的權巧和真實兩種教義。現在尋求生是不可得的，就知道本性是無生的。所以，真實有生是方便說，無生是真實義。無生是真實義，就顯現了真實相。生是方便說，就開啟了方便門。所以《法華經》說：『諸法從本來，常自寂滅相。』因此知道本性無生是真實義。我雖然說涅槃，但那也不是真正的滅。因此知道生滅是方便說。第六點，問：這部論的什麼地方有這樣的文句？答：緣緣章說：『真實微妙法，此即可信。隨宜所說，不可為實。』這分明是解釋《法華經》。第七點，顯示破斥的次第。比如《百論》先舍罪，再舍福。現在也是這樣。外道障礙小乘，所以破斥外道而闡明小乘。小乘障礙大乘，所以破斥小乘而闡明大乘。所以偏重破斥《毗曇》。問：不證得法空的小乘不相信無生，所以破斥生而闡明無生。比如舍利弗（Sariputra）《毗曇》闡明二空，成實論等也闡明二空，應該不會被破斥。答：無生有兩種。一是破斥生而闡明無生。
【English Translation】 English version For more than five hundred years, the doctrine of characteristics (lakshana) has been prevalent. Therefore, there are two periods: the Correct Dharma and the Semblance Dharma. Now is the period of the Semblance Dharma, so many people study the doctrine of characteristics in the Abhidharma. Fourth, this school only realizes the emptiness of persons (pudgala-sunyata), not the emptiness of phenomena (dharma-sunyata). They believe that all dharmas have arising and ceasing, and do not believe that all dharmas are without arising. Therefore, they obstruct the non-arising of the Mahayana. For example, when the five hundred schools hear the ultimate non-arising of the Mahayana, it is like a knife cutting their hearts. These are all branches of the Sarvastivada school. Now, refuting the 'definitely real arising' of the Abhidharma is equivalent to universally refuting the views of the five hundred schools. Question: How many meanings are there in the four conditions of arising established by this school? Answer: There are two meanings. First, they cling to the arising and ceasing of the Hinayana and deny the non-arising of the Mahayana. They believe that the non-arising of the Mahayana was not spoken by the Buddha, but was created by Devadatta. Someone personally heard that sangha say that the Mahayana Vaipulya sutras were written by Nagarjuna Bodhisattva, so they do not believe it. Second, they cling to the four conditions of the Hinayana and doubt the non-arising explained in the Mahayana sutras. If it is said to be non-arising, then why do the sutras say that it arises from four conditions? As mentioned above, when hearing the Mahayana Dharma saying ultimate emptiness, they generate views and doubts, etc. Fifth, this treatise refutes the arising and ceasing of the Hinayana and clarifies the non-arising of all dharmas, which is a comprehensive exposition of the Buddha's two teachings of expedient and real in both the Hinayana and Mahayana. Now, seeking arising is unattainable, and it is known that the fundamental nature is non-arising. Therefore, real arising is an expedient teaching, and non-arising is the true meaning. Non-arising is the true meaning, which reveals the true aspect. Arising is an expedient teaching, which opens the expedient gate. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'All dharmas from the beginning constantly have the aspect of tranquil extinction.' Therefore, it is known that the fundamental nature of non-arising is the true meaning. Although I speak of Nirvana, it is not true extinction. Therefore, it is known that arising and ceasing are expedient teachings. Sixth, question: Where in this treatise are there such statements? Answer: The chapter on conditions says: 'The true and subtle Dharma, this can be believed. What is said according to circumstances cannot be taken as real.' This clearly explains the Lotus Sutra. Seventh, it shows the order of refutation. For example, the Sata-sastra first abandons sins and then abandons blessings. It is the same now. The non-Buddhists obstruct the Hinayana, so they are refuted to clarify the Hinayana. The Hinayana obstructs the Mahayana, so it is refuted to clarify the Mahayana. Therefore, the Abhidharma is particularly refuted. Question: The Hinayana, not realizing the emptiness of dharmas, does not believe in non-arising, so it refutes arising and clarifies non-arising. For example, Sariputra's Abhidharma clarifies the two emptinesses, and the Tattvasiddhi-sastra, etc., also clarify the two emptinesses, so it should not be refuted. Answer: There are two kinds of non-arising. One is to refute arising and clarify non-arising.
無生。二本性無生。小乘之人先有生拆之。方得無生非本性無生。是故宜破。故大品云。若法先有後無者諸佛菩薩即有過罪。問毗曇先出可得洗之。成實后興應不被破。答但令病同則便被破何論先後。若先論不破今迷則古方不治今病也。八者小乘有二。一不可轉入大。二可轉入大。今為可轉人即轉為大乘人。故法華云。為聲聞說大乘。當知。聲聞是回小入大之人也。不可轉凡有二人。一聖人謂斷惑已盡所得究竟。故不可轉。二凡夫保小不受于大。又恐喪一生學業失於名利。如此之人憎惡大乘以大乘好破之。故大乘人不與聲聞而相違背。恒起憐愍心得神通智慧。當除其小見也。問大乘人何故不出救義。答有二種大乘人。一如方廣之流。聞無生乃更增其執心。故不救義。二者有所得大乘若聞無生便謂是真諦。若聞四緣生便言是世諦。則起生無生二見。如此之流併入小乘救內攝之。又有不空假生大乘人。但言空無性實生不空假生。亦入小乘救攝。就立中有三。一長行二偈本三解釋。長行有二。初立四緣生。次斥無生。問阿毗曇是佛說。云何秤阿毗曇人耶。此非毗曇人造作四緣。云何作此救耶。答佛說四緣如炎如夢。故四緣是非緣。緣雖緣非緣故不引佛說。今聞四緣作緣緣定實而執。故名阿毗曇人。如呵迦旃延無以生滅心行說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無生（Anutpāda，不生）。二本性無生。小乘之人先執著于『有生』，然後通過『拆解』的方式來達到『無生』，這並非本性上的無生。因此，這種觀點應該被破斥。所以《大品般若經》中說：『如果法是先有後無的，那麼諸佛菩薩就犯了過錯』。問：毗曇（Abhidharma，論藏）先出現，是否可以被洗刷？成實論（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）后興起，是否不應該被破斥？答：只要病癥相同，就會被破斥，何必論先後呢？如果先論不破，那麼現在迷途的人，古代的藥方就無法醫治現在的疾病了。八者，小乘有兩種人：一種是不可轉入大乘的，一種是可轉入大乘的。現在是爲了可轉入大乘的人，所以將他們轉為大乘人。所以《法華經》中說：『為聲聞（Śrāvaka，聲聞乘）說大乘』。應當知道，聲聞是回小向大的人。不可轉的人有兩種：一種是聖人，他們認為斷盡了煩惱，獲得了究竟的果位，所以不可轉。另一種是凡夫，他們保守小乘，不接受大乘，又恐怕喪失一生的學業，失去名利。這樣的人憎惡大乘，所以大乘很容易破斥他們。所以大乘人不與聲聞相互違背，而是恒常生起憐憫心，以神通智慧來去除他們的小見。問：大乘人為什麼不出來救助那些執著于『無生』的人呢？答：有兩種大乘人：一種是像方廣（Vaipulya，方廣經典）之流，聽聞『無生』反而更加增強了他們的執著心，所以不救助。另一種是『有所得』的大乘，如果聽聞『無生』，就認為是真諦；如果聽聞『四緣生』，就認為是世諦，於是生起『生』和『無生』的二見。這樣的人都進入了小乘的範疇，應該救助並攝受他們。還有不空假生的大乘人，他們只說空無自性，而實際上執著于不空假生，也應該納入小乘的救助範圍。就『立中』（establishing the Middle Way）有三種：一是長行（prose），二是偈本（verse），三是解釋（commentary）。長行有兩種：一是先建立四緣生，二是斥責無生。問：阿毗曇是佛說的，為什麼要去衡量阿毗曇人呢？而且這四緣並非毗曇人造作的，為什麼要用這個來救助呢？答：佛說的四緣如火焰如夢幻，所以四緣是非緣。緣雖然是緣，但也是非緣，所以不引用佛說。現在聽聞四緣，就認為緣是真實的，並執著於此，所以稱為阿毗曇人。如同呵斥迦旃延（Kātyāyana）一樣，不要用生滅心行來說法。
【English Translation】 English version Anutpāda (無生, non-arising). Two kinds of Anutpāda based on inherent nature. Those of the Hinayana (小乘, Lesser Vehicle) first cling to 'arising' and then attain 'non-arising' through 'dismantling' it, which is not Anutpāda based on inherent nature. Therefore, this view should be refuted. Hence, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (《大品般若經》) says: 'If a dharma (法, teaching, principle) is first existent and then non-existent, then all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (菩薩, enlightened beings) would be at fault.' Question: The Abhidharma (毗曇, scholastic treatises) appeared first, can it be cleansed? The Satyasiddhi-śāstra (成實論, Tattvasiddhi-śāstra) arose later, should it not be refuted? Answer: As long as the illness is the same, it will be refuted, why discuss the order of appearance? If we first argue that it cannot be refuted, then for those who are now lost, ancient remedies cannot cure present illnesses. Eighth, there are two types of people in the Hinayana: one cannot be converted to the Mahayana (大乘, Greater Vehicle), and the other can be converted to the Mahayana. Now, it is for those who can be converted to the Mahayana that they are transformed into Mahayana practitioners. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra (《法華經》) says: 'Preach the Mahayana to the Śrāvakas (聲聞, Hearers).' It should be known that Śrāvakas are those who turn from the small to the great. There are two types of people who cannot be converted: one is the Arhat (聖人, saint), who believes that they have exhausted their afflictions and attained the ultimate fruit, so they cannot be converted. The other is the ordinary person (凡夫, common person) who clings to the Hinayana, does not accept the Mahayana, and fears losing their lifelong studies and losing fame and profit. Such people hate the Mahayana, so the Mahayana can easily refute them. Therefore, Mahayana practitioners do not contradict the Śrāvakas, but constantly generate compassion and use supernatural powers and wisdom to remove their small views. Question: Why don't Mahayana practitioners come out to rescue those who cling to 'non-arising'? Answer: There are two types of Mahayana practitioners: one is like those of the Vaipulya (方廣, expansive) school, who, upon hearing 'non-arising', further strengthen their clinging, so they do not rescue. The other is the 'attaining' Mahayana, who, upon hearing 'non-arising', consider it the ultimate truth; upon hearing 'four conditions arising', consider it the conventional truth, thus giving rise to the dualistic view of 'arising' and 'non-arising'. Such people all fall into the category of the Hinayana and should be rescued and embraced. There are also Mahayana practitioners who believe in unreal arising, who only say that emptiness has no self-nature, but actually cling to unreal arising, and should also be included in the scope of the Hinayana's rescue. Regarding 'establishing the Middle Way' (立中), there are three parts: first, the prose (長行); second, the verse (偈本); and third, the commentary (解釋). There are two aspects to the prose: first, establishing the four conditions arising; second, refuting non-arising. Question: The Abhidharma is spoken by the Buddha, why measure the Abhidharma practitioners? Moreover, these four conditions were not created by the Abhidharma practitioners, why use this to rescue them? Answer: The four conditions spoken by the Buddha are like flames and dreams, so the four conditions are non-conditions. Although conditions are conditions, they are also non-conditions, so the Buddha's words are not cited. Now, upon hearing the four conditions, they consider the conditions to be real and cling to them, so they are called Abhidharma practitioners. Just like rebuking Kātyāyana (迦旃延), do not speak with a mind of arising and ceasing.
實相法。生滅心猶是斷常心耳。又小乘名為半字。以但得緣不得非緣故也。問阿毗曇文前明六因后辨四緣。今何故不舉六因但舉四緣耶。答毗婆沙中有種種釋。一解云。四緣是佛說。六因非佛說。但迦旃延子作六因解佛四緣義耳。六因既非佛說故不引之。今欲引佛誠言以難論主。次解云。六因亦是佛說。但文脫落。故應在增一阿含六數法門說也。次解云。六因實是佛說。但佛散說。旃延後集之耳。真諦三藏云。佛在天上說六因經。諸天見旃延欲造毗曇故送將來。旃延以宿命智觀知是佛說。然終不定。故不引來也。第二偈本凡有三意。上半列四緣名。第二一句明四緣用。四緣總攝有為無為。而但生有為。故雜心云。從是六種因轉生有為法也。更無第五緣者第三辨四緣體。以四緣攝一切緣盡。即以一切法為體。故云更無第五緣也。故此一偈立三義。謂名用及體也。又分為二。三句立有生義。第四句明無生義。外人云。我亦有無生義。所言無生者乃是無第五緣生耳。非無四緣生也。第五緣生即品初八謬是也。又言更無第五緣者。論主欲總攝一切生義。凡有生者並在四緣之中。若四緣生義不成即一切畢竟無生。故言更無第五緣也。長行從后釋向。前偈中前列名。次用后體。則自末至本。長行前體次用后名。自本至末。各示一體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 實相法（一切事物真實不虛的性質）。生滅心仍然是斷滅或常恒之心罷了。而且小乘（Hinayana，佛教的一個主要分支）被稱為『半字』，因為它只理解因緣，而不理解非因緣的道理。 問：在《阿毗曇》（Abhidhamma，佛教論藏）的文字中，先闡明六因，后辨析四緣。為什麼現在不提六因，而只提四緣呢？ 答：在《毗婆沙》（Vibhasa，對佛教經論的註釋）中有多種解釋。一種解釋是：四緣是佛陀所說，而六因不是佛陀所說。只是迦旃延子（Katyayaniputra，一位著名的佛教論師）對佛陀所說的四緣作了六因的解釋。既然六因不是佛陀所說，所以不引用它。現在想引用佛陀的真實言語來駁難論主。另一種解釋是：六因也是佛陀所說，但文字脫落了，應該在《增一阿含經》（Ekottara Agama，佛教經典）的六數法門中提到。還有一種解釋是：六因確實是佛陀所說，但佛陀是分散地說的，迦旃延後來才收集起來的。真諦三藏（Paramartha，一位印度佛教僧侶和翻譯家）說，佛陀在天上說了《六因經》，諸天看到迦旃延想要造《毗曇》，所以送了下來。迦旃延以宿命智觀察到這是佛陀所說。然而，最終不能確定，所以沒有引用它。 第二首偈頌原本有三重含義。上半部分列出四緣的名稱。第二句說明四緣的作用。四緣總攝有為法（conditioned phenomena）和無為法（unconditioned phenomena），但只產生有為法。所以《雜心論》（Samkhyakarika，數論頌）說：『從這六種因轉化產生有為法。』沒有第五種緣。 第三部分辨析四緣的體性。因為四緣涵蓋了一切緣，所以以一切法為體性。因此說『更無第五緣』。所以這首偈頌確立了三種含義，即名稱、作用和體性。又可以分為兩部分，前三句確立有生義，第四句闡明無生義。外道說：『我們也有無生義，所說的無生是指沒有第五緣產生，而不是沒有四緣產生。』第五緣產生就是品初的八種謬誤。 又說『更無第五緣』，論主想要總攝一切生義。凡是有生起的，都在四緣之中。如果四緣的生起義不能成立，那麼一切就畢竟沒有生起。所以說『更無第五緣』。長行從後向前解釋。前面的偈頌中，先列名，次說作用，后說體性，是從末到本。長行先說體性，次說作用，后說名稱，是從本到末。各自展示一體。
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma of True Reality (the true and unfalsified nature of all things). The mind of arising and ceasing is still a mind of annihilation or permanence. Moreover, the Hinayana (a major branch of Buddhism) is called 'half a word' because it only understands conditions but not the principle of non-conditions. Question: In the Abhidhamma (Buddhist philosophical treatises) texts, the six causes are clarified first, and then the four conditions are analyzed. Why are the six causes not mentioned now, but only the four conditions? Answer: In the Vibhasa (commentaries on Buddhist scriptures and treatises), there are various explanations. One explanation is: the four conditions were spoken by the Buddha, while the six causes were not spoken by the Buddha. It was only Katyayaniputra (a famous Buddhist master) who explained the four conditions spoken by the Buddha in terms of six causes. Since the six causes were not spoken by the Buddha, they are not cited. Now we want to cite the Buddha's true words to refute the treatise's author. Another explanation is: the six causes were also spoken by the Buddha, but the text is missing, and it should be mentioned in the six-number Dharma teachings of the Ekottara Agama (Buddhist scriptures). Another explanation is: the six causes were indeed spoken by the Buddha, but the Buddha spoke them scattered, and Katyayana later collected them. Paramartha (an Indian Buddhist monk and translator) said that the Buddha spoke the Sutra of Six Causes in heaven, and the gods saw that Katyayana wanted to create the Abhidhamma, so they sent it down. Katyayana observed with his past-life wisdom that this was spoken by the Buddha. However, it could not be determined in the end, so it was not cited. The second verse originally had three meanings. The first half lists the names of the four conditions. The second sentence explains the function of the four conditions. The four conditions encompass conditioned phenomena and unconditioned phenomena, but only produce conditioned phenomena. Therefore, the Samkhyakarika (Verses on Enumeration) says: 'From these six causes, conditioned phenomena are transformed and produced.' There is no fifth condition. The third part analyzes the nature of the four conditions. Because the four conditions encompass all conditions, they take all dharmas as their nature. Therefore, it is said 'there is no fifth condition'. So this verse establishes three meanings, namely name, function, and nature. It can also be divided into two parts, the first three sentences establish the meaning of arising, and the fourth sentence explains the meaning of non-arising. Outsiders say: 'We also have the meaning of non-arising, and the so-called non-arising refers to the absence of a fifth condition arising, not the absence of four conditions arising.' The arising of the fifth condition is the eight fallacies at the beginning of the chapter. It is also said 'there is no fifth condition', and the author of the treatise wants to encompass all meanings of arising. Whatever arises is within the four conditions. If the meaning of arising from the four conditions cannot be established, then everything will ultimately not arise. Therefore, it is said 'there is no fifth condition'. The long passage explains from the end to the beginning. In the previous verse, the name is listed first, then the function, and then the nature, which is from the end to the beginning. The long passage first says the nature, then the function, and then the name, which is from the beginning to the end. Each shows one entity.
也。又偈正舉四緣救義。前列名次辨用后明體。長行示鉤鎖相生。故接后句文仍即解釋。一切所有緣皆攝在四緣者。此有二意。一者欲明無外道等所計之緣。二者欲明佛經雖說種種緣並在四緣中。又如舍利弗毗曇乃明十緣。亦攝四緣之內。地持十因亦爾也。以是四緣萬物得生釋第三句。辨四緣用也。因緣名一切有為法釋上半。列四緣名也。此中帶出體以釋名。非正釋其名字。釋四緣名為二例。初別釋二緣名。次總釋后二緣。別釋初二緣者以初二緣體有廣狹故也。因緣緣果俱攝三聚。次第緣果通二聚。若心滅心生則緣果俱心。若心滅二定補處。則心是緣而果是非色非心也。就心中更有除取。所言除者除二世羅漢最後心。問此之二心何故非也。答有人云。過去是已滅心。故非也。現在是羅漢最後心。將入涅槃心無果可生。故亦非也。有人約成實義有三句。一緣而非果。即過去無明初念是也。二果而非緣。即羅漢最後心也。三亦緣亦果。從無明第二念已去至阿羅漢最後第二心。自此中間諸心是也。今並不同此釋。今明。此文既稱阿毗曇救。還用毗曇釋之。就文為二。初明所除。謂簡非次第。二所取。辨是次第緣也。言所除者二世羅漢最後心。但是次第緣果。無後心可生。故非緣也。不言未來羅漢。數人未來世亂凡聖心都無次
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。又用偈語正式提出四緣（catvāri pratyayāḥ）救濟之義。前面列出名稱和次序，辨別作用，後面闡明本體。長行文說明鉤鎖相生的關係，所以緊接著後面的句子仍然是解釋。一切所有的緣都包含在四緣之中，這裡有兩層意思。一是想要說明沒有外道等所計度的緣。二是想要說明佛經雖然說了種種的緣，但都包含在四緣之中。又如《舍利弗毗曇》中說明了十緣，也包含在四緣之內。《地持論》中的十因也是如此。『以是四緣萬物得生』，解釋第三句，辨別四緣的作用。『因緣名一切有為法』，解釋上半句，列出四緣的名稱。這裡順帶引出本體來解釋名稱，不是正式解釋它的名字。解釋四緣的名稱有兩種情況。首先分別解釋前兩種緣的名稱，其次總括地解釋后兩種緣。分別解釋前兩種緣的原因是前兩種緣的本體有廣狹的差別。因緣（hetu-pratyaya）和緣果都包含三聚（過去、現在、未來）。次第緣（samanantara-pratyaya）和緣果貫通二聚。如果心滅心生，那麼緣果都是心。如果心滅而進入二定（saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha）或補處（bhava-agra），那麼心是緣，而果是非色非心。在心中更有除取。所說的『除』，是除去二世阿羅漢的最後心。問：這兩個心為什麼不行呢？答：有人說，過去是已經滅的心，所以不行。現在是阿羅漢的最後心，將要進入涅槃，心沒有果可以產生，所以也不行。有人根據成實宗的義理有三種說法。一是緣而非果，即過去無明的最初一念。二是果而非緣，即阿羅漢的最後心。三是既是緣又是果，從無明的第二念開始，到阿羅漢的倒數第二個心。從此中間的各種心都是。現在並不採用這種解釋。現在說明，這篇文章既然稱為《阿毗曇救》，就還是用《毗曇》來解釋它。就文分為兩部分。首先說明所要排除的，即簡別非次第緣。二是所要選取的，辨別是次第緣。所說的排除，是說二世阿羅漢的最後心，只是次第緣果，沒有後心可以產生，所以不是緣。不提未來的阿羅漢，因為數人的未來世混亂，凡夫和聖人的心都沒有次序。 English version: Also, the verse formally presents the meaning of the four conditions (catvāri pratyayāḥ) for salvation. It lists the names and order first, distinguishing their functions, and then clarifies the substance. The long passage explains the relationship of interdependent origination, so the following sentences continue to explain. All existing conditions are included within the four conditions, which has two meanings. First, it aims to clarify that there are no conditions conceived by non-Buddhist paths. Second, it aims to clarify that although the Buddhist scriptures speak of various conditions, they are all included within the four conditions. Furthermore, as in the Śāriputra Abhidharma, which explains ten conditions, these are also included within the four conditions. The ten causes in the Bodhisattvabhūmi are also like this. 'Because of these four conditions, all things are born,' explaining the third sentence, distinguishing the functions of the four conditions. 'Causal condition is the name for all conditioned dharmas,' explaining the first half of the sentence, listing the names of the four conditions. Here, the substance is brought out to explain the name, not formally explaining its name. There are two cases for explaining the names of the four conditions. First, explain the names of the first two conditions separately, and then explain the last two conditions generally. The reason for explaining the first two conditions separately is that the substance of the first two conditions has differences in breadth. The causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) and the result of the condition both include the three aggregates (past, present, future). The immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya) and the result of the condition penetrate the two aggregates. If a mind ceases and a mind arises, then the condition and the result are both mind. If a mind ceases and enters the two attainments (saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha) or the peak of existence (bhava-agra), then the mind is the condition, and the result is neither form nor mind. Within the mind, there is further exclusion and selection. The so-called 'exclusion' is the exclusion of the last mind of an Arhat in the two times. Question: Why are these two minds not valid? Answer: Some say that the past is a mind that has already ceased, so it is not valid. The present is the last mind of an Arhat, who is about to enter Nirvana, and the mind has no result to produce, so it is also not valid. Some, according to the meaning of the Satyasiddhi School, have three statements. First, a condition but not a result, which is the first thought of past ignorance. Second, a result but not a condition, which is the last mind of an Arhat. Third, both a condition and a result, from the second thought of ignorance onwards, to the second to last mind of an Arhat. All the minds in between are like this. Now, this explanation is not adopted. Now it is explained that since this article is called Abhidharma Rescue, it is still explained using the Abhidharma. The text is divided into two parts. First, it explains what is to be excluded, which is to distinguish what is not an immediate condition. Second, what is to be selected, distinguishing what is an immediate condition. The so-called exclusion refers to the last mind of an Arhat in the two times, which is only an immediate condition and result, and there is no subsequent mind to produce, so it is not a condition. The future Arhat is not mentioned because the future lives of many people are chaotic, and the minds of ordinary people and sages have no order.
【English Translation】 English version: Also, the verse formally presents the meaning of the four conditions (catvāri pratyayāḥ) for salvation. It lists the names and order first, distinguishing their functions, and then clarifies the substance. The long passage explains the relationship of interdependent origination, so the following sentences continue to explain. All existing conditions are included within the four conditions, which has two meanings. First, it aims to clarify that there are no conditions conceived by non-Buddhist paths. Second, it aims to clarify that although the Buddhist scriptures speak of various conditions, they are all included within the four conditions. Furthermore, as in the Śāriputra Abhidharma, which explains ten conditions, these are also included within the four conditions. The ten causes in the Bodhisattvabhūmi are also like this. 'Because of these four conditions, all things are born,' explaining the third sentence, distinguishing the functions of the four conditions. 'Causal condition is the name for all conditioned dharmas,' explaining the first half of the sentence, listing the names of the four conditions. Here, the substance is brought out to explain the name, not formally explaining its name. There are two cases for explaining the names of the four conditions. First, explain the names of the first two conditions separately, and then explain the last two conditions generally. The reason for explaining the first two conditions separately is that the substance of the first two conditions has differences in breadth. The causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) and the result of the condition both include the three aggregates (past, present, future). The immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya) and the result of the condition penetrate the two aggregates. If a mind ceases and a mind arises, then the condition and the result are both mind. If a mind ceases and enters the two attainments (saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha) or the peak of existence (bhava-agra), then the mind is the condition, and the result is neither form nor mind. Within the mind, there is further exclusion and selection. The so-called 'exclusion' is the exclusion of the last mind of an Arhat in the two times. Question: Why are these two minds not valid? Answer: Some say that the past is a mind that has already ceased, so it is not valid. The present is the last mind of an Arhat, who is about to enter Nirvana, and the mind has no result to produce, so it is also not valid. Some, according to the meaning of the Satyasiddhi School, have three statements. First, a condition but not a result, which is the first thought of past ignorance. Second, a result but not a condition, which is the last mind of an Arhat. Third, both a condition and a result, from the second thought of ignorance onwards, to the second to last mind of an Arhat. All the minds in between are like this. Now, this explanation is not adopted. Now it is explained that since this article is called Abhidharma Rescue, it is still explained using the Abhidharma. The text is divided into two parts. First, it explains what is to be excluded, which is to distinguish what is not an immediate condition. Second, what is to be selected, distinguishing what is an immediate condition. The so-called exclusion refers to the last mind of an Arhat in the two times, which is only an immediate condition and result, and there is no subsequent mind to produce, so it is not a condition. The future Arhat is not mentioned because the future lives of many people are chaotic, and the minds of ordinary people and sages have no order.
第。故不說耳。智度論明次第緣有三句。一是次第亦是次第緣。除過去現在羅漢最後心也。二是次第不與次第緣。即二世羅漢最後心是也。又未來欲生心心數法亦是也。三非次第亦不與次第緣者。除未來欲生心心數法。余未來心心數法是也。問二世羅漢無後果可生。云何名意根。答意根當體立名。雖無後果可生得名為根。如地雖不生草得名為。地次第緣從果立名無果可生。故不名次第緣。緣緣增上緣一切法者。第二總釋后二緣。以此二緣體無廣狹故總釋之。但緣緣之果是心。增上緣果通於三聚耳。問六因四緣云何開合。答有四句。因是親義。六因即開親合疏。合疏者合三緣為所作因。開親者開因緣為五因也。二緣門是疏義。故四緣合親開疏。開疏者開所作因為三緣。合親者合五因為因緣也。三俱開。即十二因緣。因之與緣俱有十二也。四俱合。經云。略說一有為法。婆沙亦然也。答曰。果為從緣生為從非緣生下。第三破四緣生明無生義。問為但破四緣生明無生。為明四緣生即是無生。答具有二義。阿毗曇人不得法空。不知諸法無生。謂有定性之生。此是不知第一義諦。既不得第一義亦不知世諦。故毗曇執生出二諦外。今破無此定性之生。故云無生。如智度論云。問曰。欲學四緣應學毗曇。云何乃學波若。論主答云。初
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此不說它（次第緣）。《智度論》闡明次第緣有三種情況：一是次第，也是次第緣，這不包括過去和現在的阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟者）的最後心念。二是次第，但不屬於次第緣，即過去和現在的阿羅漢的最後心念。此外，未來想要生起的心和心所法（mental factors）也屬於這種情況。三是非次第，也不屬於次第緣，這不包括未來想要生起的心和心所法，其餘的未來心和心所法屬於這種情況。問：過去和現在的阿羅漢沒有後果可以產生，為什麼還稱為意根（manas-indriya，意識的根源）？答：意根是根據其本體而立名，即使沒有後果可以產生，也可以稱為根，就像土地即使不生長草，也可以稱為土地。次第緣是從果的角度來立名，沒有果可以產生，因此不稱為次第緣。緣緣（samanantara-paccaya，等無間緣）、增上緣（adhipati-paccaya，增上緣）是一切法，這是第二部分，總的解釋后兩種緣。因為這兩種緣的本體沒有廣狹之分，所以總的解釋它們。但是，緣緣的果是心，增上緣的果則通於三聚（善、惡、無記）。問：六因（hetu，因）四緣（paccaya，緣）如何開合？答：有四種情況。因是親近的意思，六因是展開親近，合併疏遠。合併疏遠是指合併三種緣為所作因（kāritra-hetu，作用因）。展開親近是指展開因緣（hetu-paccaya，因緣）為五因。二，緣門是疏遠的意思，因此四緣合併親近，展開疏遠。展開疏遠是指展開所作因為三種緣。合併親近是指合併五因為因緣。三，俱開，即十二因緣（dvadasanga-pratitya-samutpada，十二緣起）。因和緣都有十二種。四，俱合。經中說：『簡略地說，一個有為法（samskrta-dharma，有為法）。』《婆沙論》也是這樣說的。答：果是從緣而生，還是從非緣而生？這是第三部分，破斥四緣生，闡明無生之義。問：僅僅是破斥四緣生，闡明無生，還是闡明四緣生就是無生？答：兩者都有。阿毗曇（Abhidhamma，論藏）學者不瞭解法空（dharma-sunyata，諸法空性），不知道諸法無生，認為有固定不變的生。這是不瞭解第一義諦（paramartha-satya，勝義諦）。既然不瞭解第一義諦，也不瞭解世俗諦（samvriti-satya，世俗諦）。因此，阿毗曇認為生存在於二諦之外。現在破斥這種固定不變的生，所以說無生。如《智度論》所說：問：想要學習四緣，應該學習阿毗曇，為什麼反而學習般若（prajna，智慧）？論主回答說：最初
【English Translation】 Therefore, it is not discussed. The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra explains that sequential conditions have three aspects: first, it is sequential and also a sequential condition, excluding the last thought moments of past and present Arhats (Arhat, one who has attained enlightenment). Second, it is sequential but not a sequential condition, which refers to the last thought moments of Arhats in the two times (past and present). Also, the mind and mental factors that will arise in the future are included. Third, it is neither sequential nor a sequential condition, excluding the mind and mental factors that will arise in the future; the remaining future mind and mental factors are included. Question: Arhats in the two times (past and present) have no consequences that can arise, so why are they called manas-indriya (manas-indriya, the root of consciousness)? Answer: Manas-indriya is named based on its own nature. Even though there are no consequences that can arise, it can still be called a root, just as land can be called land even if it does not grow grass. Sequential condition is named from the perspective of the result; since there is no result that can arise, it is not called a sequential condition. Condition-condition (samanantara-paccaya, immediately preceding condition), dominant condition (adhipati-paccaya, adhipati condition) are all dharmas, which is the second part, a general explanation of the latter two conditions. Because the nature of these two conditions has no breadth or narrowness, they are explained together. However, the result of condition-condition is mind, while the result of dominant condition extends to the three categories (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). Question: How are the six causes (hetu, cause) and four conditions (paccaya, condition) opened and closed? Answer: There are four situations. Cause means closeness; the six causes open the close and combine the distant. Combining the distant means combining the three conditions into the acting cause (kāritra-hetu, acting cause). Opening the close means opening the causal condition (hetu-paccaya, hetu condition) into the five causes. Second, the condition gate means distance; therefore, the four conditions combine the close and open the distant. Opening the distant means opening the acting cause into three conditions. Combining the close means combining the five causes into the causal condition. Third, both are opened, which is the twelve links of dependent origination (dvadasanga-pratitya-samutpada, twelve links of dependent origination). Both cause and condition have twelve. Fourth, both are combined. The sutra says: 'Briefly speaking, a conditioned dharma (samskrta-dharma, conditioned dharma).' The Vibhasa also says the same. Answer: Does the result arise from conditions or from non-conditions? This is the third part, refuting the arising from four conditions and clarifying the meaning of non-arising. Question: Is it merely refuting the arising from four conditions and clarifying non-arising, or is it clarifying that arising from four conditions is itself non-arising? Answer: Both are included. Abhidhamma (Abhidhamma, scholastic treatises) scholars do not understand the emptiness of dharmas (dharma-sunyata, emptiness of dharmas), do not know that dharmas do not arise, and believe that there is a fixed arising. This is not understanding the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya, ultimate truth). Since they do not understand the ultimate truth, they also do not understand the conventional truth (samvriti-satya, conventional truth). Therefore, Abhidhamma believes that arising exists outside the two truths. Now, refuting this fixed arising, it is said to be non-arising. As the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says: Question: If one wants to learn the four conditions, one should learn Abhidhamma, why learn prajna (prajna, wisdom) instead? The author answers: Initially
學毗曇似如可解。轉久推求即成邪見。是故須學波若。又若諸法從四緣生誰復生四緣。若更有所從是則無窮。若無所從而自生者法亦如是。以此推之。故不應學毗曇也。又破諸小乘得法空義。雖知無生不知四緣本自無生。拆生而明無生。故今破之。二者今申假名四緣生義。良由諸法從四緣生故是無生法。若定實即不假緣。既其假緣即無性。無性故無生。又他若聞四緣即言有生。若聞無生即無四緣。今須反之。若聞四緣即知無生。亦聞真諦即須知有生。問諸法既空。云何諸法從四緣生。答如水中月雖空要從月從水生。雖從此二生而實無生。一切法亦爾也。答曰下第三破四緣生義。余聽師講及自講已來恒恨分此品文句不好。既是舊說。不敢改之。今依論意宜別科也。破中為三。第一破四緣能生果。果不從四緣生義。第二明非緣不能生果。果不從非緣生義。第三雙結二門。結果不從緣非緣生故無果。果無故結緣非緣亦無。詳論文正爾。至后當現也。就初又三。初三偈總破四緣生義。次四偈別破四緣生。后一偈結破四緣生。前三偈為二。初偈雙定二關。后兩偈俱設兩難。就初雙定二關即為二別。上半定果明破果義。下半定緣明破緣義。所以知爾者長行雲。若謂有果是果為從緣生。為從非緣生。明知。上半定果明破果義。下半亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 學習阿毗曇（Abhidhamma，論藏）似乎可以理解，但如果長期推敲探求，就會形成邪見。因此，必須學習般若（Prajna，智慧）。此外，如果一切諸法都是從四緣（四大要素）而生，那麼又是誰產生了這四緣呢？如果還有其他的來源，那麼就會無窮無盡。如果沒有來源而能自己產生，那麼一切法也都可以這樣。通過這樣的推論，所以不應該學習阿毗曇。此外，破斥小乘（Hinayana）只得到法空的意義。雖然知道無生，卻不知道四緣本身就是無生的。他們拆解生來闡明無生，所以現在要破斥它。第二點，現在闡述假名四緣生起的意義。正是由於一切諸法從四緣生起，所以才是無生的法。如果它是真實存在的，就不需要依賴因緣。既然依賴因緣，那就是無自性。沒有自性，所以就是無生。此外，其他人如果聽到四緣，就說是有生；如果聽到無生，就說沒有四緣。現在需要反過來，如果聽到四緣，就應該知道是無生；如果聽到真諦（Paramārtha，勝義諦），就應該知道是有生。問：既然一切諸法都是空的，為什麼說一切諸法從四緣生起呢？答：就像水中的月亮，雖然是空的，但也要從月亮和水而生。雖然從這兩者而生，但實際上並沒有生。一切法也是如此。回答說，下面第三部分是破斥四緣生起的意義。我聽老師講解以及自己講解以來，一直遺憾于這一品文章的結構不好。既然是舊的說法，不敢改動。現在根據論的意義，應該另外分科。破斥之中分為三部分。第一，破斥四緣能夠產生果，果不是從四緣生起的意義。第二，闡明不是緣就不能產生果，果不是從非緣生起的意義。第三，總結兩個方面。結論是果不是從緣和非緣生起的，所以沒有果。因為沒有果，所以結論是緣和非緣也沒有。詳細研究文章正是如此，到後面會顯現出來。就第一部分又分為三部分。最初三偈總的破斥四緣生起的意義。接著四偈分別破斥四緣生起。最後一偈總結破斥四緣生起。前面的三偈分為兩部分。最初一偈同時確定兩個關鍵點。後面的兩偈都設定兩個難題。就最初同時確定兩個關鍵點又分為兩個部分。上半部分確定果，闡明破斥果的意義。下半部分確定緣，闡明破斥緣的意義。之所以知道是這樣，是因為長行中說：『如果說有果，那麼這個果是從緣生起的，還是從非緣生起的？』，明確知道上半部分確定果，闡明破斥果的意義。下半部分也是如此。
【English Translation】 Learning Abhidhamma (Abhidhamma, the collection of treatises) seems understandable, but prolonged investigation and pursuit will lead to wrong views. Therefore, one must study Prajna (Prajna, wisdom). Furthermore, if all dharmas arise from the four conditions (four great elements), then who produces these four conditions? If there is another source, then it will be endless. If there is no source and it arises by itself, then all dharmas can also be like that. Through such reasoning, one should not study Abhidhamma. Moreover, refuting the Hinayana (Hinayana) only obtains the meaning of emptiness of dharma. Although knowing no-birth, they do not know that the four conditions themselves are without birth. They dismantle birth to explain no-birth, so now it must be refuted. Secondly, now expound the meaning of nominal four-condition arising. It is precisely because all dharmas arise from the four conditions that they are unborn dharmas. If it is truly existent, it does not need to rely on conditions. Since it relies on conditions, it is without self-nature. Without self-nature, therefore it is unborn. Furthermore, if others hear of the four conditions, they say there is birth; if they hear of no-birth, they say there are no four conditions. Now it needs to be reversed, if one hears of the four conditions, one should know it is no-birth; if one hears of the Paramārtha (Paramārtha, ultimate truth), one should know there is birth. Question: Since all dharmas are empty, why say that all dharmas arise from the four conditions? Answer: Like the moon in the water, although it is empty, it must arise from the moon and water. Although it arises from these two, it actually does not arise. All dharmas are also like this. The answer says that the third part below is to refute the meaning of four-condition arising. Since I listened to the teacher's explanation and my own explanation, I have always regretted that the structure of this article is not good. Since it is an old saying, I dare not change it. Now, according to the meaning of the treatise, it should be classified separately. The refutation is divided into three parts. First, refute that the four conditions can produce fruit, the meaning that the fruit does not arise from the four conditions. Second, clarify that if it is not a condition, it cannot produce fruit, the meaning that the fruit does not arise from non-conditions. Third, summarize the two aspects. The conclusion is that the fruit does not arise from conditions and non-conditions, so there is no fruit. Because there is no fruit, the conclusion is that conditions and non-conditions also do not exist. A detailed study of the article is exactly like this, and it will appear later. The first part is divided into three parts. The first three verses generally refute the meaning of four-condition arising. Then the four verses separately refute the four-condition arising. The last verse summarizes the refutation of four-condition arising. The preceding three verses are divided into two parts. The first verse simultaneously determines two key points. The following two verses both set two difficulties. The first verse simultaneously determines two key points and is divided into two parts. The first half determines the fruit and clarifies the meaning of refuting the fruit. The second half determines the condition and clarifies the meaning of refuting the condition. The reason for knowing this is because the long line says: 'If it is said that there is a fruit, then does this fruit arise from conditions or from non-conditions?', clearly knowing that the first half determines the fruit and clarifies the meaning of refuting the fruit. The second half is also like this.
然。問外人前偈云。四緣生諸法。即是立果從四緣生義。云何更定為從緣為從非緣。答有三義。一者外人雖立果從緣生不立非緣。今責其緣成非緣。即謂非緣生義。今欲明緣與非緣並不能生。故須雙定。此即是帶破定也。二者內人立果從緣生。外道立果從非緣生。如八謬等。今欲遍破內外故雙定二關。三者論主雙定兩關者。大意欲使執生見摧無生義顯。不必須問答相對也。又恐破緣不成緣轉執非緣。則逆防人所以雙定。問緣非緣有幾種。答凡有三種。一者一法名緣非緣。如責外人緣義不得成於非緣。二者二法明緣非緣。如乳是酪緣非是瓶緣。三者內外明緣非緣。內人立四緣是緣。外道八謬是非緣。下半是定緣破緣。縱外人是緣能生果。故就緣內責之。問為是二關定一執。二關定兩執。答若外人但立緣能生果。論主即開有無二關破其生果一執。若立二世有無即設二關雙定兩計。長行為三。一者雙定。二者雙非。三者雙釋。一定如文。二俱不然者第二雙非。有三種二。並皆不然。一者上半定果。下半定緣。則緣果二俱不然。二者上半有緣非緣二。三者下半有果無果二也。何以故下第三雙釋。發起后偈也。因是法生果下第二兩偈俱設二難。講者多謂。初偈釋前偈上半破緣。次偈釋前偈下半破果。蓋是見近不見遠作此釋之。今
【現代漢語翻譯】 然（是的）。問：外人在之前的偈頌中說，『四緣生諸法（一切事物由四種條件產生）』，這便是立論結果從四緣而生的意義。為何還要進一步確定是從緣而生還是從非緣而生？ 答：有三種意義。 一者，外人雖然立論結果從緣而生，但不承認非緣的作用。現在責問他們緣的成立離不開非緣，也就是包含了非緣而生的意義。現在想要闡明緣與非緣都不能單獨產生結果，所以需要同時確定。這便是帶有破斥的確定。 二者，內人（佛教徒）立論結果從緣而生，外道立論結果從非緣而生，如八謬等。現在想要普遍破斥內外兩方的觀點，所以同時確定兩種觀點。 三者，論主（作者）同時確定兩種觀點，主要目的是想使執著于『生』的見解被摧毀，從而彰顯『無生』的真義。不一定需要問答相對。 又恐怕破斥『緣』不成，對方反而轉而執著于『非緣』，所以預先防範，因此同時確定兩種觀點。 問：緣和非緣有幾種？ 答：總共有三種。 一者，同一法既是緣也是非緣。例如，責問外人的『緣』的定義無法脫離『非緣』而成立。 二者，兩種法分別說明緣和非緣。例如，牛奶是奶酪的緣，但不是瓶子的緣。 三者，內外兩方分別說明緣和非緣。內人（佛教徒）所說的四緣是緣，外道所說的八謬是非緣。 下半部分是確定『緣』並破斥『緣』。即使外人認為『緣』能產生結果，也要就『緣』的內部進行責問。 問：這是用兩種觀點來確定一種執著，還是用兩種觀點來確定兩種執著？ 答：如果外人只承認『緣』能產生結果，論主就設立『有』和『無』兩種觀點來破斥他們『生果』的單一執著。如果他們立論二世（過去世和未來世）的有和無，就設立兩種觀點來同時確定兩種計較。 長行（散文部分）分為三部分：一是同時確定，二是同時否定，三是同時解釋。 一是確定，如文中所述。 二者，『俱不然』是第二種同時否定。有三種『二』，並且都不能成立。 一者，上半部分確定結果，下半部分確定緣，那麼緣和果都不能成立。 二者，上半部分有緣和非緣兩種。 三者，下半部分有果和無果兩種。 『何以故』以下是第三種同時解釋，是爲了發起後面的偈頌。 『因是法生果』以下，第二部分的兩首偈頌都設立了兩種詰難。講解的人大多認為，第一首偈頌解釋前一偈頌的上半部分，破斥『緣』；第二首偈頌解釋前一偈頌的下半部分，破斥『果』。這大概是隻見近處，不見遠處而作出的解釋。現在
【English Translation】 Yes. Question: The previous verse of the outsider says, 'All dharmas (phenomena) arise from the four conditions (Si Yuan) (four conditions that give rise to all phenomena),' which is to establish the meaning that the result arises from the four conditions. Why is it necessary to further determine whether it arises from conditions or from non-conditions? Answer: There are three meanings. First, although the outsider establishes that the result arises from conditions, they do not acknowledge the role of non-conditions. Now, they are questioned that the establishment of conditions cannot be separated from non-conditions, which includes the meaning of arising from non-conditions. Now, it is intended to clarify that neither conditions nor non-conditions can independently produce a result, so it is necessary to determine both simultaneously. This is a determination with refutation. Second, the insider (Buddhist) establishes that the result arises from conditions, while the outsider establishes that the result arises from non-conditions, such as the eight fallacies (Ba Miu). Now, it is intended to universally refute the views of both inside and outside, so both views are determined simultaneously. Third, the reason why the author (Lun Zhu) simultaneously determines both views is mainly to destroy the view that clings to 'arising' and to highlight the true meaning of 'non-arising'. It is not necessarily required that the questions and answers be relative. Also, fearing that the refutation of 'conditions' will fail, and the opponent will turn to clinging to 'non-conditions', so to prevent it in advance, both views are determined simultaneously. Question: How many kinds of conditions and non-conditions are there? Answer: There are three kinds in total. First, the same dharma (phenomenon) is both a condition and a non-condition. For example, questioning the outsider's definition of 'condition' cannot be established without being separated from 'non-condition'. Second, two dharmas (phenomena) separately explain conditions and non-conditions. For example, milk is the condition for cheese, but not the condition for a bottle. Third, the inside and outside parties separately explain conditions and non-conditions. The four conditions (Si Yuan) mentioned by the insider (Buddhist) are conditions, and the eight fallacies (Ba Miu) mentioned by the outsider are non-conditions. The second half is to determine 'conditions' and refute 'conditions'. Even if the outsider believes that 'conditions' can produce results, they must be questioned about the inside of 'conditions'. Question: Is this using two views to determine one clinging, or using two views to determine two clingings? Answer: If the outsider only admits that 'conditions' can produce results, the author will set up two views of 'existence' and 'non-existence' to refute their single clinging to 'producing results'. If they establish the existence and non-existence of the two worlds (past and future lives), they will set up two views to simultaneously determine the two calculations. The long line (prose part) is divided into three parts: one is simultaneous determination, the second is simultaneous negation, and the third is simultaneous explanation. One is determined, as described in the text. Second, 'both are not so' is the second simultaneous negation. There are three 'two', and none of them can be established. First, the first half determines the result, and the second half determines the condition, then both the condition and the result cannot be established. Second, the first half has two kinds of conditions and non-conditions. Third, the second half has two kinds of results and no results. The following 'Why' is the third simultaneous explanation, in order to initiate the following verses. Below 'Because this dharma produces results', the two verses in the second part both set up two kinds of difficulties. Most of the lecturers believe that the first verse explains the first half of the previous verse, refuting 'conditions'; the second verse explains the second half of the previous verse, refuting 'results'. This is probably an explanation made by only seeing the near and not seeing the far. Now
明。初偈釋前偈上半。明破果義。次偈釋前偈下半破緣義。問此偈文正是難外緣成非緣。正是破緣。云何破果耶。答須長觀偈意。外人云。果從緣生。是故有果。破云。果未生時有緣果可從緣生。是故有果。果未生時不名緣。云何果從緣生而有果耶。果未生時非緣。非緣云何能生果而有果耶。故是正破果矣。就偈為二。上半作緣無定性破。下半作緣成非緣破。上半緣無定性破得緣名而失前後。下半緣成非緣破得前後而失緣名。故進退墮負也。上半有三意。一者緣若有定性應不由果有緣。由果有緣無定性。緣無定性是故無緣。二者破緣定在果前義。汝由緣有果緣前而果后。亦由果有緣則果前而緣后。三者破緣能生果義。汝由緣有果緣生果者亦由果有緣。則果生於緣。下半緣成非緣破。還翻上半三義。一者緣有定性則不由果有緣。則不名緣應名非緣。二者若果不在緣前而緣在果前。則緣不由果何得名緣。三者若緣生於果果不生緣。則不由果有緣。亦名非緣。此偈具得破數論大乘等前因後果義。如毗曇云。報無記果未起時。云何名善惡為因。大乘佛果未起時。云何名金剛心萬行為因耶。又並之。未生果已名緣者生果。竟應名非緣。又並。汝若未生果已名緣緣不由果者。亦未有緣時已有果。果應不由緣也。
長行為二。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
解釋《明》：最初的偈頌解釋了前一個偈頌的上半部分，闡明了破除果的意義。接下來的偈頌解釋了前一個偈頌的下半部分，破除了緣的意義。有人問：這個偈頌的文字正是爲了駁斥外道所說的外緣產生，並非緣產生，這正是破除緣。為什麼說是破除果呢？回答：必須長久地觀察偈頌的含義。外道說：『果從緣而生，所以有果。』破斥說：『果未產生時，有緣，果可以從緣而生，所以有果。』果未產生時，不稱為緣，為什麼果從緣而生而有果呢？果未產生時不是緣，不是緣又怎麼能產生果而有果呢？』所以這是真正地破除果。就偈頌分為兩部分。上半部分論證緣沒有固定的自性，進行破斥。下半部分論證緣產生非緣，進行破斥。上半部分緣沒有固定自性的破斥，得到了緣的名字，卻失去了前後關係。下半部分緣產生非緣的破斥，得到了前後關係，卻失去了緣的名字。所以進退兩難，陷入失敗。上半部分有三個意思：一是如果緣有固定的自性，就不應該因為果而有緣。因為果而有緣，緣就沒有固定的自性，緣沒有固定的自性，所以沒有緣。二是破除緣一定在果之前的觀點。你因為有緣才有果，緣在前而果在後，也因為有果才有緣，那麼果在前而緣在後。三是破除緣能夠產生果的觀點。你因為有緣才有果，緣生果，也因為有果才有緣，那麼果生於緣。下半部分緣產生非緣的破斥，反過來論證上半部分的三個意思。一是緣有固定的自性，那麼就不應該因為果而有緣，那麼就不應該稱為緣，應該稱為非緣。二是如果果不在緣之前，而緣在果之前，那麼緣不是因為果而有，怎麼能稱為緣呢？三是如果緣生於果，果不生緣，那麼不是因為果而有緣，也稱為非緣。這個偈頌完整地破除了數論（Samkhya）和大乘等前因後果的觀點。如《毗曇》（Abhidhamma）所說：『報應的無記果（avyākrta-phala）未產生時，怎麼能稱善惡為因？』大乘的佛果未產生時，怎麼能稱金剛心（vajra-citta）和萬行為因呢？』又進一步說，未產生果實就已經稱為緣，那麼產生果實后，就應該稱為非緣。又進一步說，你如果未產生果實就已經稱為緣，緣不是因為果實而有，那麼在沒有緣的時候就已經有果實了，果實應該不是因為緣而產生的。
長行分為兩部分。
【English Translation】 English version:
Explanation of 'Ming': The initial verse explains the first half of the preceding verse, clarifying the meaning of refuting the 'fruit' (phala). The subsequent verse explains the second half of the preceding verse, refuting the meaning of 'condition' (pratyaya). Someone asks: 'The text of this verse is precisely to refute the externalists' claim that external conditions generate, not non-conditions. This is precisely refuting conditions. Why is it said to be refuting the fruit?' The answer is: 'One must observe the meaning of the verse for a long time.' The externalists say: 'The fruit arises from conditions, therefore there is a fruit.' The refutation says: 'When the fruit has not yet arisen, there are conditions, and the fruit can arise from conditions, therefore there is a fruit.' When the fruit has not yet arisen, it is not called a condition. How can the fruit arise from conditions and there be a fruit? When the fruit has not yet arisen, it is not a condition. How can a non-condition generate a fruit and there be a fruit?' Therefore, this is truly refuting the fruit. The verse is divided into two parts. The first half argues that conditions do not have a fixed self-nature, and refutes it. The second half argues that conditions generate non-conditions, and refutes it. The first half's refutation of conditions not having a fixed self-nature obtains the name of 'condition' but loses the relationship of before and after. The second half's refutation of conditions generating non-conditions obtains the relationship of before and after but loses the name of 'condition'. Therefore, advancing or retreating, one falls into failure. The first half has three meanings: First, if conditions have a fixed self-nature, then they should not exist because of the fruit. Because conditions exist because of the fruit, conditions do not have a fixed self-nature. Conditions do not have a fixed self-nature, therefore there are no conditions. Second, it refutes the view that conditions must be before the fruit. You have a fruit because of conditions, conditions are before and the fruit is after. Also, you have conditions because of the fruit, then the fruit is before and the conditions are after. Third, it refutes the view that conditions can generate the fruit. You have a fruit because of conditions, conditions generate the fruit, also you have conditions because of the fruit, then the fruit generates the conditions. The second half's refutation of conditions generating non-conditions reverses the three meanings of the first half. First, if conditions have a fixed self-nature, then they should not exist because of the fruit, then they should not be called conditions, they should be called non-conditions. Second, if the fruit is not before the conditions, but the conditions are before the fruit, then the conditions do not exist because of the fruit, how can they be called conditions? Third, if conditions generate the fruit, and the fruit does not generate the conditions, then conditions do not exist because of the fruit, and they are also called non-conditions. This verse completely refutes the views of the Samkhya and Mahayana schools regarding the cause and effect relationship of before and after. As the Abhidhamma says: 'When the result of retribution (avyākrta-phala), which is neither good nor bad, has not yet arisen, how can good and evil be called causes?' When the Buddha-fruit of Mahayana has not yet arisen, how can the vajra-citta and myriad practices be called causes?' Furthermore, if something is called a condition before the fruit has arisen, then after the fruit has arisen, it should be called a non-condition. Furthermore, if you call something a condition before the fruit has arisen, and the condition does not exist because of the fruit, then there is already a fruit when there are no conditions, and the fruit should not arise because of conditions.
The long passage is divided into two parts.
一者釋此偈本。二者釋前章門偈。釋此偈本為二。第一總釋。第二據事別釋。總釋之中前釋上半緣無定性破也。諸緣無決定者標無定也。何以故下釋無定也。緣成由於果結無定也。以果後緣前故者有人言。由果有緣則果墮在緣前。緣墮在果后。有人言。緣成由果。此是由果有緣。故緣無定性則緣不定前。果後緣前故此是由緣故果。果無定性緣不定后。今並不然。自前已來釋上半竟。從此文去方釋下半也。就釋下半中此文即是牒外人義。若如上半所明緣得成由自於果。則緣不在前果不居后。汝今果遂居后。緣遂在前。所以牒之也。若未有果何得名為緣者正舉下半破之。若果遂在後緣自在前既未有果。何得名為緣。故上半得成緣而失緣前果后。下半若得緣前果后則緣成非緣。故進退屈也。如瓶下第二週據事別釋。亦前釋上半。若瓶未生時者釋下半也。是故果不從緣生者。此第二結此偈意即釋前章門偈。結此偈意者上來二週責緣成非緣。是故果不得從緣生。所以前章云。果為從緣生義則不成也。何況非緣者。所以有此文來為欲釋疑。疑雲。章門雙定緣非緣。今何故但破不從緣生。不破從非緣生。是故釋云。緣尚不生何況非緣。無別非緣。但責外人果未生時不名緣。故緣成非緣。緣尚不生非緣豈生。即顯此偈不破非緣意也。果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一、解釋此偈的根本含義。 二、解釋前一章節的偈頌。解釋此偈的根本含義分為兩部分：第一是總體的解釋，第二是根據具體事例分別解釋。在總體解釋中，首先解釋上半部分，說明諸緣沒有固定的自性，從而破除『有』的觀點。『諸緣無決定者』，是標明『無定』的含義。『何以故下釋無定也』，以下解釋『無定』的原因。『緣成由於果結無定也』，緣的成立依賴於果，因此沒有固定的自性。『以果後緣前故者』，有人說，由於果的存在才有緣，所以果在緣之前，緣在果之後。有人說，緣的成立依賴於果，這是因為果的存在才有緣，所以緣沒有固定的自性，緣不是一定在果之前。『果後緣前故此是由緣故果。果無定性緣不定后』，這是因為緣的存在才有果，果沒有固定的自性，緣不是一定在果之後。現在並非如此。 從前面開始已經解釋了上半部分。從這段文字開始，才解釋下半部分。在解釋下半部分中，這段文字是引用外道（指佛教以外的學說）的觀點。如果像上半部分所說，緣的成立依賴於果，那麼緣不在果之前，果也不在緣之後。你們現在果卻在後，緣卻在前，所以要引用他們的觀點。『若未有果何得名為緣者』，這是正式舉出下半部分來破斥。如果果在後，緣在前，既然還沒有果，怎麼能稱為緣呢？所以上半部分成立了緣，卻失去了緣在前果在後的關係。下半部分如果成立了緣在前果在後，那麼緣的成立就不是緣了，所以進退兩難。 『如瓶下第二週據事別釋』，接下來第二週根據具體事例分別解釋，也是先解釋上半部分。『若瓶未生時者』，解釋下半部分。『是故果不從緣生者』，這是第二週總結此偈的含義，也就是解釋前一章節的偈頌。總結此偈的含義是，上面兩週都在責備緣的成立不是緣，所以果不能從緣而生。所以前一章節說，果是從緣而生的觀點是不成立的。『何況非緣者』，之所以有這段文字，是爲了解釋疑問。疑問是，章節中同時否定了緣和非緣，現在為什麼只破斥不從緣而生，而不破斥從非緣而生呢？所以解釋說，緣尚且不能產生，更何況非緣呢？沒有另外的非緣，只是責備外道在果未產生時就稱之為緣，所以緣的成立不是緣。緣尚且不能產生，非緣怎麼能產生呢？這表明此偈不是爲了破斥非緣的含義。果（Phala，結果）
【English Translation】 English version First, to explain the root meaning of this verse. Second, to explain the verses of the previous chapter. Explaining the root meaning of this verse is divided into two parts: first, the overall explanation; second, the separate explanation based on specific examples. In the overall explanation, first explain the first half, stating that all conditions (Hetu, cause) do not have a fixed nature, thereby refuting the view of 'existence'. 'The various conditions are not fixed' indicates the meaning of 'non-fixity'. 'Why is this so, the following explains non-fixity', the following explains the reason for 'non-fixity'. 'The formation of conditions depends on the result, therefore there is no fixed nature', the formation of conditions depends on the result, so there is no fixed nature. 'Because the result is after and the condition is before', some say that because there is a result, there is a condition, so the result is before the condition, and the condition is after the result. Some say that the formation of conditions depends on the result, this is because there is a result, there is a condition, so the condition does not have a fixed nature, and the condition is not necessarily before the result. 'Because the result is after the condition, this is because there is a condition, there is a result. The result does not have a fixed nature, and the condition is not necessarily after the result', this is because there is a condition, there is a result, the result does not have a fixed nature, and the condition is not necessarily after the result. Now it is not like this. From the beginning, the first half has been explained. From this text onwards, the second half is explained. In explaining the second half, this text is quoting the views of externalists (referring to doctrines other than Buddhism). If, as the first half says, the formation of conditions depends on the result, then the condition is not before the result, and the result is not after the condition. Now you have the result after and the condition before, so you must quote their views. 'If there is no result, how can it be called a condition', this is formally raising the second half to refute it. If the result is after and the condition is before, since there is no result yet, how can it be called a condition? Therefore, the first half establishes the condition, but loses the relationship of the condition being before the result and the result being after. If the second half establishes the condition being before the result and the result being after, then the formation of the condition is not a condition, so it is a dilemma. 'Like the second round below, according to the specific explanation', next, the second round explains separately according to specific examples, also first explaining the first half. 'If the bottle is not yet produced', explains the second half. 'Therefore, the result is not produced from the condition', this is the second round summarizing the meaning of this verse, which is to explain the verses of the previous chapter. The summary of the meaning of this verse is that the above two rounds are blaming the formation of the condition as not being a condition, so the result cannot be produced from the condition. Therefore, the previous chapter said that the view that the result is produced from the condition is not valid. 'Moreover, what about non-conditions', the reason for this text is to explain the question. The question is that the chapter simultaneously denies conditions and non-conditions, so why only refute not being produced from conditions, and not refute being produced from non-conditions? Therefore, the explanation is that conditions cannot be produced, let alone non-conditions? There are no other non-conditions, but only blaming the externalists for calling it a condition when the result has not yet been produced, so the formation of the condition is not a condition. Conditions cannot be produced, how can non-conditions be produced? This shows that this verse is not intended to refute the meaning of non-conditions. Phala (果, result)
前于緣中下第二偈次破緣。釋章門偈下半。就偈為二。上半牒而呵。下半責而難。果前于緣中者牒也。有無俱不可者非呵也。不可凡有五義。一者本安有無置緣非緣中耳。緣非緣既不生果。安有無置何處耶。二者上緣非緣既不可。今有無亦不可。三者為外人密救前破故生。上破云。得緣名即失前後。得前後即失緣名。外救云。得緣名亦不朱前後。未有果時而緣中既有果理。待于理果故得現緣之名。即是現緣待當果。此是當現待。亦是因果相待。是故二義俱成。為此一救故更研緣中之果。為有為無。即是破其現因當果相待之義。故二偈相成也。四者有無俱壞因果道理。不稱可因果道理故云不可。五者不稱可三寶故云不可。如涅槃云。若言因中有果。當知是人謗佛法僧。若言無果亦有亦無非有非無亦謗三寶也。前無為誰緣者責也。既其無果不得稱為果緣。又不生非果復不得名為非果之緣。此之一責無言可對。前有何用緣者難也。若未有果可須緣。辨果已有。竟何用緣耶。立無果家得緣用而失緣名。立有果家得緣名而失緣用。是以二傢俱不可。釋上半也。破地論人云。本有阿梨耶者何用藉十地緣修耶。破成實者本有涅槃何用修萬行耶。若言本有于當者當與空未異耶。若異空何用緣。未異空何能辨耶。長行為二。一雙非。二雙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 前面在『緣中』（pratyaya-madhya，緣起之中）破斥的第二個偈頌，接下來解釋章門偈的下半部分。就偈頌本身分為兩部分。上半部分是照錄並呵斥，下半部分是責問和詰難。「果前于緣中者」是照錄。「有無俱不可者」並非呵斥，而是說『不可』，有五個方面的含義：第一，本來安立『有』（asti，存在）或『無』（nāsti，不存在）于緣中，並非緣或非緣的中間狀態。緣和非緣既然不能產生果，那麼安立『有』或『無』又放在哪裡呢？第二，上面已經說了緣和非緣都不可取，現在說『有』和『無』也是不可取的。第三，這是爲了外道秘密地補救之前的破斥而提出的。之前破斥說：『得到緣的名字就失去了前後，得到前後就失去了緣的名字。』外道辯解說：『得到緣的名字也不會失去前後，因為在果還沒有產生的時候，緣中就已經有了果的道理，等待著理果的出現，所以才得到現緣的名字。』這就是現緣等待著當來的果，是當來和現在的相互等待，也是因果的相互依存，所以兩種意義都能成立。爲了駁斥這種補救，所以進一步研究緣中的果是有還是無，這就是破斥他們所說的現因和當果相互等待的意義，所以這兩個偈頌是相互關聯的。第四，『有』和『無』都會破壞因果的道理，不符合因果的道理，所以說『不可』。第五，不符合三寶（triratna，佛法僧）的教義，所以說『不可』。如《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）所說：『如果說因中本來就有果，應當知道這個人是在誹謗佛、法、僧。如果說沒有果，或者說亦有亦無，或者說非有非無，也是在誹謗三寶。』「前無為誰緣者」是責問。既然沒有果，就不能稱為果的緣。又不產生非果，又不能稱為非果的緣。這一責問讓人無言以對。「前有何用緣者」是詰難。如果還沒有果，或許需要緣來產生果，但如果果已經存在，那麼緣還有什麼用呢？如果立足於沒有果的立場，雖然得到了緣的作用，卻失去了緣的名字；如果立足於有果的立場，雖然得到了緣的名字，卻失去了緣的作用。所以說這兩種立場都是不可取的。以上是解釋上半部分。破斥《地論》（Dasabhumika-sastra）的人說：『如果本來就有阿梨耶識（ālaya-vijñāna，藏識），為什麼還要憑藉十地（dasabhumi，菩薩修行的十個階段）的因緣來修行呢？』破斥《成實論》（Satyasiddhi-sastra）的人說：『如果本來就有涅槃（nirvana，寂滅），為什麼還要修萬行呢？』如果說本來就有的東西和空（sunyata，空性）沒有什麼區別，那麼要緣做什麼呢？如果沒有和空不同，又怎麼能分辨出來呢？長行分為兩部分：一是雙重否定，二是雙重肯定。
【English Translation】 English version The second verse refutes 『pratyaya-madhya』 (the middle of conditions), and then explains the second half of the chapter's verse. Regarding the verse itself, it is divided into two parts. The first half is a quotation and rebuke, and the second half is a questioning and challenge. 『果前于緣中者』 (The result precedes in the middle of conditions) is a quotation. 『有無俱不可者』 (Both existence and non-existence are unacceptable) is not a rebuke, but rather states 『unacceptable,』 which has five meanings: First, originally establishing 『asti』 (existence) or 『nāsti』 (non-existence) in the middle of conditions is not the middle state of condition or non-condition. Since condition and non-condition cannot produce a result, where is 『existence』 or 『non-existence』 established? Second, since it has been said that condition and non-condition are unacceptable, now it is said that 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 are also unacceptable. Third, this is proposed by outsiders to secretly remedy the previous refutation. The previous refutation said: 『Obtaining the name of condition loses the before and after; obtaining the before and after loses the name of condition.』 Outsiders argue: 『Obtaining the name of condition does not lose the before and after, because when the result has not yet arisen, there is already the principle of the result in the middle of conditions, waiting for the appearance of the principle-result, so the name of the present condition is obtained.』 This is the present condition waiting for the future result, which is the mutual waiting of the future and the present, and also the mutual dependence of cause and effect, so both meanings can be established. To refute this remedy, the question of whether the result in the middle of conditions exists or does not exist is further investigated, which is to refute their so-called mutual waiting of the present cause and the future result, so these two verses are related to each other. Fourth, 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 both destroy the principle of cause and effect, which does not conform to the principle of cause and effect, so it is said to be 『unacceptable.』 Fifth, it does not conform to the teachings of the Triratna (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), so it is said to be 『unacceptable.』 As the Nirvana Sutra says: 『If it is said that the result originally exists in the cause, it should be known that this person is slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. If it is said that there is no result, or that it both exists and does not exist, or that it is neither existence nor non-existence, it is also slandering the Three Jewels.』 『前無為誰緣者』 (If there is no prior result, what is the condition for?) is a question. Since there is no result, it cannot be called the condition for the result. And since it does not produce a non-result, it cannot be called the condition for the non-result. This question leaves one speechless. 『前有何用緣者』 (If there is a prior result, what is the use of the condition?) is a challenge. If there is no result yet, perhaps a condition is needed to produce the result, but if the result already exists, then what is the use of the condition? If one stands on the position that there is no result, although the function of the condition is obtained, the name of the condition is lost; if one stands on the position that there is a result, although the name of the condition is obtained, the function of the condition is lost. Therefore, both positions are unacceptable. The above is an explanation of the first half. Refuting the person of Dasabhumika-sastra (Treatise on the Ten Stages) who says: 『If the alaya-vijñāna (store consciousness) originally exists, why is it necessary to rely on the conditions of the ten bhumis (ten stages of Bodhisattva practice) to cultivate?』 Refuting the person of Satyasiddhi-sastra (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth) who says: 『If nirvana (extinction) originally exists, why is it necessary to cultivate myriad practices?』 If what originally exists is no different from sunyata (emptiness), then what is the use of condition? If it is not different from emptiness, how can it be distinguished? The long passage is divided into two parts: one is double negation, and the other is double affirmation.
釋。不生余物故者此有三意。一者泥中無瓶亦無餘物。若二俱無即二俱不生。二者二俱是無二俱應生。三者俱無不生余物而生瓶者。亦可生於余物而不生瓶。問曰以總破一切因緣下第二別破四緣。曇影法師云。龍樹論意無總別破。但前四偈破因緣。后三偈破三緣。四偈破因緣為三。初偈開章門雙定。次兩偈釋章門雙難。后一偈結破也。問何故獨以四偈破因緣。后三偈各破一緣耶。答次第緣冥昧世所希知。緣緣增上疏而少計。故須略破。四偈偏破因緣凡有五義。一者因緣在初。二者因緣攝因廣。謂攝五因。一者相應因。心王與心數同起同緣不相違背。二者共有因。心王心數與四相等同時共起名共有因。三自分因。善還生善。惡無記亦然。四遍因。十一偏使生一切煩惱。故名為遍。五報因。善惡之法能生苦樂果報。為報為因。攝此五因為緣故言因緣廣也。三者因緣親密。三緣即疏。四者因緣事顯。五者眾生多計。是以四偈破之。下三緣不爾。故但一偈破也。問青目何所見聞開于總別。答見下文云廣略眾緣中。即知結于總別。又見三偈各破三緣。即知一偈別破因緣。影師云。青目勇於取類劣於尋文。今撿智度論應如影師所說。影師又言。假令有總別意者。因緣一偈入于總中。下三偈各破也。今且依青目以三偈為總。四偈為別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：解釋：『不生其他事物』有三種含義。第一，泥土中沒有瓶子，也沒有其他事物。如果兩者都沒有，那麼兩者都不會產生。第二，如果兩者都是『無』，那麼兩者都應該產生。第三，如果兩者都沒有，卻能產生瓶子，那麼也可以產生其他事物，而不產生瓶子。 問：用總論破斥一切因緣之後，接下來分別破斥四緣。曇影法師說：龍樹菩薩的《中論》沒有總論和別論的區分，只是前四偈破斥因緣，后三偈破斥三緣。這四偈破斥因緣分為三個部分：第一偈開啟章節，雙重肯定；接下來的兩偈解釋章節，雙重否定；最後一偈總結破斥。 問：為什麼只用四偈破斥因緣，而後三偈各破斥一緣呢？答：次第緣隱晦難懂，世人很少了解；緣緣和增上緣疏遠，很少有人計較，所以需要簡略地破斥。四偈偏重破斥因緣有五個原因：第一，因緣在最開始；第二，因緣包含的『因』範圍廣，包括五種因：一是相應因，心王和心數同時生起，同時緣取，互不違背；二是共有因，心王心數與四相等同時共同生起，稱為共有因；三是自分因，善產生善，惡和無記也是如此；四是遍因，十一偏使產生一切煩惱，所以稱為『遍』；五是報因，善惡之法能產生苦樂果報，作為果報的因。因緣包含了這五種因，所以說因緣的範圍廣。第三，因緣親密，三緣則疏遠；第四，因緣的事相明顯；第五，眾生大多執著于因緣。因此用四偈破斥因緣，而後面的三緣則不然，所以只用一偈破斥。 問：青目菩薩根據什麼見聞來區分總論和別論呢？答：根據下文所說『廣略眾緣中』，就知道總結了總論和別論。又看到三偈各破斥三緣，就知道一偈分別破斥因緣。曇影法師說：青目菩薩勇於類比，卻不善於尋找原文。現在查閱《智度論》，應該像曇影法師所說。曇影法師又說：假設有總論和別論的區分，那麼因緣一偈就歸入總論之中，後面的三偈分別破斥。現在我們暫且依照青目菩薩的說法，以三偈為總論，四偈為別論。
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: 'Not producing other things' has three meanings. First, there is no bottle in the mud, nor are there other things. If both are absent, then neither will arise. Second, if both are 'non-existent', then both should arise. Third, if both are absent, yet a bottle can arise, then other things can also arise without the bottle arising. Question: After refuting all causes and conditions with a general argument, the next step is to refute the four conditions separately. Dharma Master Tan Ying said: According to Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way), there is no distinction between general and specific arguments. The first four gāthās (verses) refute hetupratyaya (causal condition), and the last three gāthās refute the three conditions. These four gāthās refuting hetupratyaya are divided into three parts: the first gāthā opens the chapter with a double affirmation; the next two gāthās explain the chapter with a double negation; and the last gāthā concludes the refutation. Question: Why are four gāthās used exclusively to refute hetupratyaya, while the latter three gāthās each refute one condition? Answer: Samanantarapratyaya (contiguous condition) is obscure and difficult to understand, and few people know about it. Ālambanapratyaya (object condition) and adhipatipratyaya (dominant condition) are distant and few people pay attention to them, so they need to be refuted briefly. There are five reasons why four gāthās are used to refute hetupratyaya: first, hetupratyaya comes first; second, the 'cause' included in hetupratyaya has a wide scope, including five causes: one is sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause), where the mind-king and mental factors arise simultaneously, cognize the same object, and do not contradict each other; two is sabhāga-hetu (homogeneous cause), where the mind-king and mental factors arise simultaneously with the four samanas (equal factors), called sabhāga-hetu; three is svabhāga-hetu (self-cause), where good produces good, and evil and indeterminate are the same; four is sarvatraga-hetu (omnipresent cause), where the eleven paryavasthānas (afflictions) produce all afflictions, so it is called 'omnipresent'; five is vipāka-hetu (retribution cause), where good and evil dharmas (teachings) can produce the results of suffering and happiness, as the cause of retribution. Hetupratyaya includes these five causes, so it is said that the scope of hetupratyaya is wide. Third, hetupratyaya is intimate, while the three conditions are distant; fourth, the phenomena of hetupratyaya are obvious; fifth, most sentient beings are attached to hetupratyaya. Therefore, four gāthās are used to refute hetupratyaya, while the latter three conditions are not like this, so only one gāthā is used to refute them. Question: According to what did Qingmu Bodhisattva (enlightenment being) distinguish between general and specific arguments? Answer: According to the following text, 'In the broad and concise conditions', we know that the general and specific arguments are summarized. Also, seeing that the three gāthās each refute the three conditions, we know that one gāthā separately refutes hetupratyaya. Dharma Master Tan Ying said: Qingmu Bodhisattva is brave in analogy, but not good at finding the original text. Now, examining the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom), it should be as Dharma Master Tan Ying said. Dharma Master Tan Ying also said: Assuming that there is a distinction between general and specific arguments, then the one gāthā on hetupratyaya is included in the general argument, and the latter three gāthās refute them separately. Now, let us temporarily follow Qingmu Bodhisattva's statement, taking the three gāthās as the general argument and the four gāthās as the specific argument.
。四偈破四緣為四章。第一偈就有無門破。第二三時門破。第三實相門破。第四無性門破。然此四門可有二義。一者互用。二者合用。合用者四門共破一也。互用者既得有無門破因緣。亦得有無門破次第緣。既得三時破次第緣。亦得三時破因緣。但逐義便。彼計泥能生瓶谷能生牙。是因緣義。故宜以有無責之。彼計前心滅後心生為次第緣義。宜以三時責之。彼計凡之與聖並以心是能緣境是所緣。宜以實相絕於能所責之也。彼計萬法有效能為他作緣。故以無性門破。所言因緣者品初以釋。又解云。攝五因為因緣故名因緣。有人言。親者為因如穀子。疏者為緣如地水。故名因緣。又言。即因是緣。但約義異。無而辨有。于果有親生力故為因。果可生之義故緣也。偈中上三句總非。下一句結破。所以總非者可有三義。一者前偈已破有無。今不須破。故直非之。二者因緣之法名為甚深。即是中道。豈得定有定無。彼今乃計于有無不計因緣。此之有無乃因緣家障。故但非之。三者有之與無乃是外道之類。如二世有義可類僧佉。二世無義方類于衛世。亦有亦無同勒沙婆部。問二世有無親。是佛說。云何同外道耶。答外道前興已計有無。今諸部后執。何名為異。若云異者今請責之。既稱二世有者。為作因時方有果性。未作因時已有果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 四句偈分別用來破斥四種緣，分為四個章節。第一偈用有無之門來破斥。第二偈用三時之門來破斥。第三偈用實相之門來破斥。第四偈用無性之門來破斥。然而這四種門可以有兩種理解。一是互相使用，二是合併使用。合併使用是指四門共同破斥一個觀點。互相使用是指既可以用有無之門破斥因緣，也可以用有無之門破斥次第緣。既可以用三時之門破斥次第緣，也可以用三時之門破斥因緣，只需根據意義來選擇。他們認為泥土能產生瓶子，穀物能產生牙齒，這是因緣的意義。所以應該用有無來責問他們。他們認為前一個心念滅去後一個心念產生是次第緣的意義，應該用三時來責問他們。他們認為凡人和聖人都是以心作為能緣，境界作為所緣，應該用實相超越能所來責問他們。他們認為萬法有自性，能夠作為他者的緣，所以用無性之門來破斥。所說的因緣，在品開始時已經解釋過。又解釋說，包含五種因為因緣，所以叫做因緣。有人說，親近的叫做因，比如穀子的種子；疏遠的叫做緣，比如土地和水，所以叫做因緣。又說，因就是緣，只是從意義上有所不同。從無而辨別有，對於果實有親生的力量，所以叫做因；果實可以產生的意義，所以叫做緣。偈中的前三句總的否定，最後一句總結破斥。之所以總的否定，可能有三種意義。一是前面的偈已經破斥了有無，現在不需要再破斥，所以直接否定。二是因緣之法名為甚深，就是中道，怎麼能確定是有還是無呢？他們現在卻執著于有無，不考慮因緣，這種有無是因緣家的障礙，所以只是否定。三是有和無是外道的觀點，比如二世有義可以類比僧佉（Samkhya，數論派），二世無義可以類比于衛世（Vaisheshika，勝論派），亦有亦無類似於勒沙婆部。問：二世有無親，是佛陀說的，怎麼能和外道相同呢？答：外道先興起就計較有無，現在各部后執著，有什麼不同呢？如果說有不同，現在請責問他們。既然稱為二世有，那麼在作為因的時候才有果性，未作為因的時候已經有果
【English Translation】 English version: The four verses are used to refute the four conditions (緣, Hetu-pratyaya, Samanantara-pratyaya, Alambana-pratyaya, Adhipati-pratyaya), divided into four chapters. The first verse refutes with the door of existence and non-existence. The second verse refutes with the door of the three times. The third verse refutes with the door of reality. The fourth verse refutes with the door of no-self-nature. However, these four doors can have two meanings. One is to use them interchangeably, and the other is to use them together. Using them together means that the four doors jointly refute one view. Using them interchangeably means that one can use the door of existence and non-existence to refute the causal condition (因緣, Hetu-pratyaya), and also use the door of existence and non-existence to refute the immediate condition (次第緣, Samanantara-pratyaya). One can use the three times to refute the immediate condition, and also use the three times to refute the causal condition, simply choosing according to the meaning. They believe that clay can produce a pot, and grain can produce teeth, which is the meaning of causal condition. Therefore, they should be questioned with existence and non-existence. They believe that the extinction of the previous thought and the arising of the next thought is the meaning of the immediate condition, and they should be questioned with the three times. They believe that ordinary people and sages both take the mind as the object that cognizes (能緣, grahaka) and the realm as the object that is cognized (所緣, grahya), and they should be questioned with the reality that transcends the cognizer and the cognized. They believe that all dharmas have self-nature and can act as conditions for others, so they are refuted with the door of no-self-nature. The so-called causal condition has been explained at the beginning of the chapter. It is also explained that including the five causes is called causal condition. Some say that what is close is called cause, such as the seed of grain; what is distant is called condition, such as land and water, so it is called causal condition. It is also said that cause is condition, but the meaning is different. Discriminating existence from non-existence, it has the power to give birth to the fruit, so it is called cause; the meaning that the fruit can be produced, so it is called condition. The first three lines of the verse generally negate, and the last line concludes the refutation. The reason for the general negation may be threefold. First, the previous verse has already refuted existence and non-existence, and there is no need to refute it again now, so it is directly negated. Second, the dharma of causal condition is called profound, which is the Middle Way, how can it be determined to be existence or non-existence? They now cling to existence and non-existence, and do not consider causal condition. This existence and non-existence is an obstacle to the family of causal condition, so it is only negated. Third, existence and non-existence are the views of externalists, such as the doctrine of existence in two lifetimes, which can be compared to Samkhya (僧佉, Samkhya); the doctrine of non-existence in two lifetimes can be compared to Vaisheshika (衛世, Vaisheshika); existence and non-existence are similar to the Lakshava sect. Question: Existence and non-existence in two lifetimes is what the Buddha said, how can it be the same as externalists? Answer: Externalists arose earlier and argued about existence and non-existence, and now the various schools cling to it later, what is the difference? If there is a difference, please question them now. Since it is called existence in two lifetimes, then there is the nature of the fruit when it acts as the cause, and there is already the fruit when it has not acted as the cause.
性。若作因時方有果性。未作因時即無果性。當知。果性團無為有。即是二世無義。若言未作因時已有果性。此是本來常有如涅槃。又未作五逆已有五逆性。未作十善已有十善性。問但有性未有事。有何過。答后當破之。問若言二世無者因云何引果起耶。若引果起即有果可引。何謂無耶。若引無者無法是無。云何可引。故師子吼云。空中無刺云何言拔。若言雖復是無而有有義。今問有義。為出有異無。為未出有未異無耶。若出有異無此即是有。何謂二世無耶。若未出有未異無何所論有義。故知。兩計同彼外道。長行為五。若緣能生果此牒也。應有三種下第二三關定也。如前偈中說第三破也。然破此三句只問其因內果之理耳。若因內有果理。即是已出空已入有不須生。若無果理。未出空未入有。與太虛兔角不異不可生。半有同有半無同無。若不受兩半隻是一理。理有不得無。理無不得有。以相害故即有無俱無。如是三種求不可得第四結也。云何言有因緣第五呵。即釋偈第四句也。次第緣者第二破次第緣。初立次破。釋次第緣有三家。第一成論師云。四心次第。如識滅想生。識滅為緣想生為果。第二毗曇人云。心王心數俱起俱滅以俱滅為緣。俱起為次第也。第三異部人云。善心滅還生善心。余心亦爾。故名次第緣。評家不
許此說。若不善心還生不善即無解脫也。但用前滅後生三世次第。不言三性次第也。問色法亦前滅後生。何故不立次第緣耶。答有三義故不立色也。一者心是神靈之法有相開避義。色是無知無有此能。故不立也。二者色得善惡並起其起即亂。心即不爾。三者眾生多計心神是常。故今明心念念生滅無有常也。問云何名次第緣耶。答五部雖異同以前滅為緣。後生為次第。次第是後果。以前滅心與後生次第果作緣故名次第緣。後心非越次而生。即次第而生。故名次第也。問叵有是心非次第緣不。答小乘義已如上釋。大乘中常住佛果。及地論人自性清凈心本來有義。非從前滅而後生。故是心而非次第。若作始有義佛果因金剛滅而生者。亦是次第緣家果。而非複次第緣也。果若未生時下第二正破。今先敘破次第緣意。涅槃云。諸行無常。是生滅法。生滅滅已寂滅為樂。此偈名全如意珠。諸行生滅故無常。無常故苦。苦故空。空故無我不凈。此談生死義周也。生滅滅已即名為常。常即有我樂與凈。此說涅槃究竟。故此一偈明義具足稱全如意珠。今此偈破次第緣。正令悟生滅滅已。以求此心生滅不可得故生滅便息。故知。此心本性不生不滅名無生滅觀。稱之為常。以常故即我樂凈。羅睺釋八不為四對。深有其意也。此偈為二。上之三
句破次第緣。下一句結破也。就前破緣有離合兩破。合破者正以前心滅為緣。後心生為果。難意云。後心未生即前不得滅前則非緣。假使前滅滅名無所有。何得為緣。是以二門俱無前滅為緣。既無前滅為緣。豈有後生為果。言離破者上半就果門破緣。下半就緣門破緣。果門破緣有三。謂果已生未生生時並不得成緣。緣門破緣亦三。謂緣已滅未滅滅時亦不成緣。今文相兼。果中舉未緣即舉已已未相兼。緣果既有已未。即兼第三時。所言果已起不須緣者。果若未生可得須緣辨之。今果已起何用緣為。所言後果未起前心不名緣者。前滅本為後果作緣。後果未起與誰作緣。生時還同已未不須破也。滅法何能緣此句就緣門破緣。亦三。所言已滅不能為緣者。已滅是無無所有。不能為後作緣。婆藪盤豆破薩婆多雲。已滅之法能為緣者。已死之雞應能伺晨而不爾也。所言未滅不能為緣者。本以前滅為緣。前既未滅。何能為緣。又且有為之法無有未滅。故不名緣。若未滅名緣亦應未生名果。未生不名果未滅豈名緣。滅時還同已未不須破也。問前心滅後心生即是緣義。所以然者前心礙後心後心不得生。前心亦滅即後心無礙。故後心是果前心為緣。答前心自滅非後心緣。後心自生非前心果。此乃自滅自生。豈關前引於後后酬於前耶。長行為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破除次第相依之緣。下一句總結破除之意。就之前的破除『緣』，有離合兩種破除方式。合破是指直接以前一念心的滅去作為『緣』，后一念心的生起作為『果』。難點在於，后一念心尚未生起，前一念心就不能滅去，那麼前一念心就不是『緣』。假設前一念心的滅去是無所有，又怎麼能作為『緣』呢？因此，從兩個方面來看，前一念心的滅去都不能作為『緣』。既然沒有前一念心的滅去作為『緣』，又怎麼會有後一念心的生起作為『果』呢？ 所說的離破，上半部分是從『果』的角度來破除『緣』，下半部分是從『緣』的角度來破除『緣』。從『果』的角度破除『緣』有三種情況，即『果』已經生起、尚未生起、正在生起時，都不能成為『緣』。從『緣』的角度破除『緣』也有三種情況，即『緣』已經滅去、尚未滅去、正在滅去時，也不能成為『緣』。現在這段文字兼顧了這兩種情況。在『果』的方面，舉出『未生』就包含了『已生』和『未生』兩種情況。『緣』和『果』既然有『已』和『未』，也就包含了第三種情況（正在生滅時）。 所說的『果』已經生起，不需要『緣』，如果『果』尚未生起，還可以用『緣』來辨別。現在『果』已經生起，還要『緣』做什麼呢？所說的『後果』尚未生起，『前心』不能稱為『緣』，前一念心的滅去本來是為后一念心作為『緣』，『後果』尚未生起，是為誰作『緣』呢？生起時的情況和已生、未生時相同，不需要再破除。 『滅法何能緣』這句是從『緣』的角度來破除『緣』，也有三種情況。所說的『已滅』不能作為『緣』，『已滅』是無，是無所有，不能為後來的事物作『緣』。婆藪盤豆（Vasubandhu）破斥薩婆多（Sarvastivada）時說，如果已滅之法能作為『緣』，那麼已死的雞應該能報曉，但事實並非如此。 所說的『未滅』不能作為『緣』，本來是以『前滅』作為『緣』，前一念心既然沒有滅去，怎麼能作為『緣』呢？而且有為法沒有未滅的情況，所以不能稱為『緣』。如果未滅可以稱為『緣』，那麼未生也應該可以稱為『果』。未生不能稱為『果』，未滅怎麼能稱為『緣』呢？滅去時的情況和已滅、未滅時相同，不需要再破除。 問：前一念心滅去，后一念心生起，這就是『緣』的意義。為什麼這樣說呢？因為前一念心阻礙后一念心，后一念心就不能生起。前一念心滅去，后一念心就沒有阻礙，所以後一念心是『果』，前一念心是『緣』。 答：前一念心是自己滅去的，不是后一念心的『緣』；后一念心是自己生起的，不是前一念心的『果』。這只是自滅自生，與前一念心引導后一念心，后一念心酬答前一念心有什麼關係呢？長行文如下：
【English Translation】 English version Break down the sequential dependent origination. The next sentence concludes the refutation. Regarding the previous refutation of 'condition' (緣, yuán), there are two ways to refute: combination and separation. Combination refutation refers to directly taking the cessation of the previous thought as the 'condition' and the arising of the subsequent thought as the 'result'. The difficulty lies in that if the subsequent thought has not yet arisen, the previous thought cannot cease, then the previous thought is not a 'condition'. Suppose the cessation of the previous thought is non-existent, how can it be a 'condition'? Therefore, from both perspectives, the cessation of the previous thought cannot be a 'condition'. Since there is no cessation of the previous thought as a 'condition', how can there be the arising of the subsequent thought as a 'result'? The so-called separation refutation, the first half refutes 'condition' from the perspective of 'result', and the second half refutes 'condition' from the perspective of 'condition'. Refuting 'condition' from the perspective of 'result' has three situations, that is, when the 'result' has already arisen, has not yet arisen, or is arising, it cannot become a 'condition'. Refuting 'condition' from the perspective of 'condition' also has three situations, that is, when the 'condition' has already ceased, has not yet ceased, or is ceasing, it cannot become a 'condition'. Now this passage takes both situations into account. In terms of 'result', mentioning 'not yet arisen' includes both 'already arisen' and 'not yet arisen'. Since 'condition' and 'result' have 'already' and 'not yet', they also include the third situation (when arising and ceasing). The saying that 'the result has already arisen, there is no need for a condition', if the 'result' has not yet arisen, it can still be distinguished by 'condition'. Now that the 'result' has already arisen, what is the need for 'condition'? The saying that 'the subsequent result has not yet arisen, the previous thought cannot be called a condition', the cessation of the previous thought was originally to serve as a 'condition' for the subsequent thought. If the 'subsequent result' has not yet arisen, for whom is it a 'condition'? The situation when arising is the same as when already arisen or not yet arisen, there is no need to refute it further. The sentence 'How can the ceased dharma be a condition?' refutes 'condition' from the perspective of 'condition', and there are also three situations. The saying that 'already ceased' cannot be a 'condition', 'already ceased' is non-existent, it is non-existent, and cannot serve as a 'condition' for later things. Vasubandhu (婆藪盤豆) refuted Sarvastivada (薩婆多) by saying that if the ceased dharma can be a 'condition', then the dead rooster should be able to crow at dawn, but this is not the case. The saying that 'not yet ceased' cannot be a 'condition', originally 'previous cessation' was taken as a 'condition'. Since the previous thought has not ceased, how can it be a 'condition'? Moreover, conditioned dharmas do not have a situation of not yet ceasing, so they cannot be called 'condition'. If 'not yet ceased' can be called 'condition', then 'not yet arisen' should also be able to be called 'result'. If 'not yet arisen' cannot be called 'result', how can 'not yet ceased' be called 'condition'? The situation when ceasing is the same as when already ceased or not yet ceased, there is no need to refute it further. Question: The cessation of the previous thought and the arising of the subsequent thought, this is the meaning of 'condition'. Why is this so? Because the previous thought obstructs the subsequent thought, and the subsequent thought cannot arise. When the previous thought ceases, the subsequent thought has no obstruction, so the subsequent thought is the 'result' and the previous thought is the 'condition'. Answer: The previous thought ceases by itself, it is not the 'condition' of the subsequent thought; the subsequent thought arises by itself, it is not the 'result' of the previous thought. This is just self-cessation and self-arising, what does it have to do with the previous thought guiding the subsequent thought, and the subsequent thought responding to the previous thought? The long passage is as follows:
二。初釋立次釋破。諸心心數法於三世中次第生者初簡三聚法。是次第緣故偏明心法也。而言心數法者簡無別心數部。故明心心數法也。諸部有二。一明有心數。二明無心數。無心數是成實佛陀提婆之義。若以前生為王后起為數者。成實亦得有之。今文正是立有心數義也。三世中者正取三世次第。簡非三性次第。問諸部無量。何故偏明此計。答此部盛行。故偏破也。未來法未生下第二釋破。前釋三句正破。次釋第四句結破。釋三句為二。前釋上半舉果破緣。次釋緣門破緣。釋舉果破緣二門。一就未生門破。二就已生門破。可具二義。一者以二關責一家。果既未生現在與誰為緣。果若已生即不須緣。次二關破二部義。未生破二世無義。未生是無。與太虛不異。與誰為緣。若已有即是生破二世有義。異大虛即是有異無生。即是已生。何用緣耶。現在心心數法無有住時下。釋第三句緣門破緣。此可有二義。一者是破現在心不得為未來作緣。但上就果門破。今就緣門破耳。二者前長行雲。心心數法於三世法中次第生。上破現在心不得為未來作緣。今破過去不得與現在為緣。不破未來與誰為緣者。數人未來法亂無次第緣。故不破也。就文為三。第一就未門難。二就已門。三就滅時門。就未門難有縱奪二意。奪意云。現在法若有一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二。初釋立次釋破。對於三世中各種心和心所法次第生起的問題，首先簡要說明三聚法（指善、惡、無記三種性質的法）。因為是次第緣故，所以側重說明心法。說到『心所法』，是爲了簡別沒有獨立心所的部派。因此，這裡說明的是心和心所法。各個部派有兩種觀點：一種認為有心所，一種認為沒有心所。沒有心所是成實宗（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）和佛陀提婆（Buddha-deva）的主張。如果以前一生作為『王』，後起為『數』，那麼成實宗也可以認為有心所。但本文正是要確立有心所的觀點。『三世中』，正是要取三世的次第，簡別於三性的次第。問：部派眾多，為何偏偏要說明這種觀點？答：因為這個部派盛行，所以著重破斥。 未來法未生下第二釋破。前面解釋的三句是正面破斥，接下來解釋第四句，總結破斥。解釋前三句分為兩部分：先解釋上半部分，用果來破斥緣；再解釋緣門，破斥緣。解釋用果破緣分為兩個方面：一是就未生門破斥，二是就已生門破斥。可以包含兩種含義：一是通過兩個關卡來責難一家，如果果還未生，那麼現在的法與誰作為緣？如果果已經生起，就不需要緣。其次，用兩個關卡破斥兩個部派的觀點：未生破斥二世（過去、未來）不存在的觀點，未生就是沒有，與虛空沒有區別，與誰作為緣？如果已經有，就是生，破斥二世存在的觀點，異於大虛空就是有，異於無生就是已經生起，還需要什麼緣呢？ 『現在心心數法無有住時下』，解釋第三句，從緣門破斥緣。這裡可以有兩種含義：一是破斥現在的心不能為未來作為緣，只是上面從果門破斥，現在從緣門破斥罷了。二是前面長行文說，心和心所法在三世法中次第生起，上面破斥現在的心不能為未來作為緣，現在破斥過去的心不能與現在作為緣。不破斥未來與誰作為緣，是因為數論派（Sāṃkhya）認為未來法混亂沒有次第緣，所以不破斥。就文義來說，分為三個方面：第一，就未生門責難；第二，就已生門責難；第三，就滅時門責難。就未生門責難，有縱奪兩種意思。奪的意思是說，現在的法如果有一
【English Translation】 English version II. First Explanation Establishes, Second Explanation Refutes. Regarding the sequential arising of all mental and mental concomitants (citta-caitta) in the three times (past, present, future), the initial explanation briefly outlines the three aggregates of dharmas (kusala, akusala, avyākrta - wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate). Because it is sequential causation, it emphasizes mental dharmas. The mention of 'mental concomitants' is to distinguish schools that do not recognize separate mental concomitants. Thus, it clarifies both mind and mental concomitants. There are two views among different schools: one that acknowledges mental concomitants and one that does not. The view that there are no mental concomitants is the doctrine of the Satyasiddhi-śāstra (成實宗) and Buddha-deva (佛陀提婆). If the prior life is considered the 'king' and the subsequent arising as the 'retinue,' then the Satyasiddhi school could also be seen as acknowledging mental concomitants. However, this text specifically aims to establish the existence of mental concomitants. 'In the three times' specifically refers to the sequence of the three times, distinguishing it from the sequence of the three natures (svabhāva). Question: There are countless schools; why specifically address this view? Answer: Because this school is prevalent, it is specifically refuted. 『Future dharmas, not yet arisen, below』 is the second explanation, refuting. The preceding explanation of the first three phrases is a direct refutation. The following explanation of the fourth phrase concludes the refutation. The explanation of the first three phrases is divided into two parts: first, the upper part, refuting the cause by means of the effect; then, explaining the causal aspect, refuting the cause. The explanation of refuting the cause by means of the effect is divided into two aspects: first, refuting from the perspective of the unarisen; second, refuting from the perspective of the arisen. This can encompass two meanings: first, using two challenges to question one school. If the effect has not yet arisen, with what does the present dharma have a causal relationship? If the effect has already arisen, then it does not need a cause. Second, using two challenges to refute the views of two schools: the unarisen refutes the view that the two times (past and future) do not exist; the unarisen is non-existence, no different from empty space; with what does it have a causal relationship? If it already exists, then it is arising, refuting the view that the two times exist; being different from great emptiness is existence, being different from non-arising is already arisen; what need is there for a cause? 『Present mind and mental concomitants have no abiding time, below』 explains the third phrase, refuting the cause from the perspective of causation. This can have two meanings: first, refuting that the present mind cannot act as a cause for the future; it is just that the above refutes from the perspective of the effect, and now it refutes from the perspective of the cause. Second, the preceding long passage said that mind and mental concomitants arise sequentially in the three times; the above refutes that the present mind cannot act as a cause for the future, and now it refutes that the past mind cannot act as a cause for the present. It does not refute with what the future has a causal relationship because the Sāṃkhya (數論派) school believes that future dharmas are chaotic and have no sequential causation, so it is not refuted. Regarding the meaning of the text, it is divided into three aspects: first, challenging from the perspective of the unarisen; second, challenging from the perspective of the arisen; third, challenging from the perspective of the time of cessation. Challenging from the perspective of the unarisen has two meanings: appropriation and deprivation. The meaning of deprivation is that if the present dharma has one
念未滅。可許未滅為緣。既無一念未滅。何得以未滅為緣。問諸部亦有明心法是不滅耶。答上座部中有一師云。色法亦生即滅。心法經十五剎那不滅。今破此義也。若有住即非有為此第二縱破也。縱有一念未滅即一念是常。一念非有為。汝義無有一念常。是云何一念未滅。若滅已此第二就已滅義破。亦兩。一正釋二取意。正釋云。滅是無所有。無有力能引起后。故非緣也。此句正順偈文。又正是破過去不得為現在作緣也。若言滅法猶有此取意也。彼意云。前心雖滅而有引后之力存。此是數人過去冥伏有義。又是迦葉鞞義。作因不滅住過去。待果起方謝。訶梨破之云。此是失已復失。又是成實人成就過去義。破云。若前心引后之力不滅者即是常。如前罪心不滅。即常是罪心。便無有福。福常是福即無有罪。故云無罪福也。又汝有此力附在何處。若附心體即心體已滅。引后之力何所附耶。又若引后力不滅。即力常心體自無常。即分一心為二半常半無常也。又若續來不滅不滅是一。一那是次第緣。又大論不出二意。若唸唸滅不自固。則何能生后耶。若不滅則常。如地論真識義。則無次第緣也。若謂滅時能與作次第緣。此第三破滅時。文亦二。初取意次破。彼意云。滅時為緣。非已滅未滅故二難壞矣。生時為果。非已生未生故
兩難不成也。問彼家云何立滅時。答前心欲滅後心欲生。欲滅能動欲生。欲生為欲滅所動。故欲滅為緣欲生為果。滅時名半滅半未滅此第二破。文有三義。一點同破。二徴經破。三防退破。點同破者雖立滅時還同已未。故半滅為已。半不滅同未。前乃是粗已未。今為細已未也。又欲滅已滅即屬已分。欲滅未滅屬前未分。欲生已生屬前已分。欲生未生還屬未分。又欲滅未滅後果不得生。欲滅已滅無前為後緣后亦不得生。欲生未生前為誰緣。欲生已生何用前緣。成實義云。識滅時想生。想生時識滅。只是一時。今問。若生滅兩時同是一時。亦生滅兩法同是一法。即識想同是一識同是一想。若兩法不可同一法。亦兩時不可同一時。若同時而有兩法。即離法別有時。又常云。識滅即想生。中間若空便是無心人。是故識想一時。今問。識滅則想不得生。想生則識不得滅。以一時故若一滅一生便是二時。常又云。心是體。善惡是心上用。今問。心非善惡亦應心非能緣。心是能緣心是善惡。彼答。心有時起善。有時起惡。不當善惡。今並之心亦有時能緣。有時不能緣。如小乘入滅定及入無餘。即不緣大乘冥真即真即不緣也。汝若言心是善惡者。既斷善惡亦應斷心。心畢竟不可斷。即心非惡惡自惡。若爾解自解心非解。若爾緣自緣心非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 兩難不成也。問他們家是如何確立『滅時』（niè shí, the moment of cessation）的。回答是：前一念心想要滅去，后一念心想要生起。想要滅去的心能動搖想要生起的心，想要生起的心被想要滅去的心所動搖。所以，想要滅去的心是『緣』（yuán, cause），想要生起的心是『果』（guǒ, effect）。『滅時』就叫做『半滅半未滅』。這是第二重破斥。 文中有三重含義：一、同等破斥；二、引用經文破斥；三、防止退轉破斥。同等破斥是指，即使確立了『滅時』，仍然等同於『已』（yǐ, past）和『未』（wèi, future）。所以，『半滅』等同於『已』，『半不滅』等同於『未』。之前說的是粗略的『已未』，現在說的是細微的『已未』。 再者，想要滅去的心已經滅去，就屬於『已』的部分；想要滅去的心尚未滅去，就屬於之前的『未』的部分；想要生起的心已經生起，就屬於之前的『已』的部分；想要生起的心尚未生起，仍然屬於『未』的部分。而且，想要滅去的心尚未滅去，那麼後果就無法產生；想要滅去的心已經滅去，沒有前因而作為後者的『緣』，那麼後果也無法產生。想要生起的心尚未生起，那麼前因是為誰而作為『緣』呢？想要生起的心已經生起，又何必需要前因而作為『緣』呢？ 成實宗（Chéngshí zōng, the Satyasiddhi School）的義理說：『識』（shì, consciousness）滅去的時候，『想』（xiǎng, perception）產生；『想』產生的時候，『識』滅去。這只是一瞬間的事情。現在我問：如果生滅兩個時間是同一時間，那麼生滅兩種法也是同一種法。那麼『識』和『想』就是同一個『識』，同一個『想』。如果兩種法不能是同一種法，那麼兩個時間也不能是同一時間。如果同一時間存在兩種法，那就是離開了法而另外存在時間。 而且你們常常說：『識』滅去的時候，『想』就產生。如果中間是空無的，那就是沒有心的人。所以，『識』和『想』是同時的。現在我問：『識』滅去，那麼『想』就不能產生；『想』產生，那麼『識』就不能滅去。因為是同一時間。如果一滅一生，那就是兩個時間。你們常常又說：心是『體』（tǐ, substance），善惡是心上的作用。現在我問：心不是善惡，也應該心不是能緣。心是能緣，心是善惡。他們回答說：心有時產生善，有時產生惡，不應當是善惡。現在並在一起說，心有時能緣，有時不能緣。例如小乘（xiǎochéng, Hinayana）進入滅盡定（mièjìn dìng, cessation attainment）以及進入無餘涅槃（wúyú nièpán, Nirvana without remainder），就是不能緣；大乘（dàchéng, Mahayana）冥合真如（zhēnrú, suchness），即真如即不能緣。你們如果說心是善惡，既然斷除了善惡，也應該斷除心。心畢竟是不可斷除的，那麼心不是惡，惡是自己惡。如果這樣，解脫是自己解脫，心不是解脫。如果這樣，緣是自己緣，心不是緣。
【English Translation】 English version This dilemma cannot stand. I ask how they establish the 'moment of cessation' (niè shí). They answer: the previous thought wants to cease, and the subsequent thought wants to arise. The thought that wants to cease can move the thought that wants to arise, and the thought that wants to arise is moved by the thought that wants to cease. Therefore, the thought that wants to cease is the 'cause' (yuán), and the thought that wants to arise is the 'effect' (guǒ). The 'moment of cessation' is called 'half-ceased and half-not-yet-ceased'. This is the second refutation. There are three meanings in the text: 1. Equal refutation; 2. Refutation by quoting scriptures; 3. Preventing regression refutation. Equal refutation means that even if the 'moment of cessation' is established, it is still equivalent to 'past' (yǐ) and 'future' (wèi). Therefore, 'half-ceased' is equivalent to 'past', and 'half-not-ceased' is equivalent to 'future'. Previously, we talked about the rough 'past and future', now we are talking about the subtle 'past and future'. Furthermore, if the thought that wants to cease has already ceased, it belongs to the 'past' part; if the thought that wants to cease has not yet ceased, it belongs to the previous 'future' part; if the thought that wants to arise has already arisen, it belongs to the previous 'past' part; if the thought that wants to arise has not yet arisen, it still belongs to the 'future' part. Moreover, if the thought that wants to cease has not yet ceased, then the consequence cannot arise; if the thought that wants to cease has already ceased, there is no prior cause to serve as the 'cause' for the latter, then the consequence cannot arise either. If the thought that wants to arise has not yet arisen, then for whom is the prior cause serving as the 'cause'? If the thought that wants to arise has already arisen, then why is there a need for a prior cause to serve as the 'cause'? The doctrine of the Satyasiddhi School (Chéngshí zōng) says: when 'consciousness' (shì) ceases, 'perception' (xiǎng) arises; when 'perception' arises, 'consciousness' ceases. This is only a moment. Now I ask: if the two times of arising and ceasing are the same time, then the two dharmas of arising and ceasing are also the same dharma. Then 'consciousness' and 'perception' are the same 'consciousness', the same 'perception'. If two dharmas cannot be the same dharma, then two times cannot be the same time. If there are two dharmas at the same time, then time exists separately from the dharma. Moreover, you often say: when 'consciousness' ceases, 'perception' arises. If the middle is empty, then that is a person without a mind. Therefore, 'consciousness' and 'perception' are simultaneous. Now I ask: if 'consciousness' ceases, then 'perception' cannot arise; if 'perception' arises, then 'consciousness' cannot cease. Because it is the same time. If one ceases and one arises, then that is two times. You often also say: the mind is the 'substance' (tǐ), and good and evil are the functions of the mind. Now I ask: if the mind is not good or evil, then the mind should also not be the able-to-condition. The mind is the able-to-condition, and the mind is good and evil. They answer: the mind sometimes produces good, and sometimes produces evil, it should not be good or evil. Now, putting it together, the mind is sometimes able to condition, and sometimes unable to condition. For example, when the Hinayana (xiǎochéng) enters the cessation attainment (mièjìn dìng) and enters Nirvana without remainder (wúyú nièpán), it is unable to condition; when the Mahayana (dàchéng) merges with Suchness (zhēnrú), that is, Suchness is unable to condition. If you say that the mind is good and evil, since good and evil are cut off, then the mind should also be cut off. The mind is ultimately impossible to cut off, then the mind is not evil, evil is evil itself. If that is the case, liberation is self-liberation, the mind is not liberation. If that is the case, conditioning is self-conditioning, the mind is not conditioning.
緣。又如佛說下第二徴經破。向作兩關破之彼必不受。故引佛經明一切有為法念念滅。豈有欲滅未欲滅名第三滅時。問此引何經破。答凈名云。汝今即時亦生亦老亦死。無量義經云。又復觀察一切諸法。即時生住異滅也。汝謂一念中無是欲滅者。此第三防退破。恐彼聞引佛經明亦生即滅便改義宗。是故還捉彼義防其退也。山中雲。此是長行第三涅槃破四相也。今明。此乃破滅時中第三防退。非涅槃破四相也。所言欲滅未欲滅者山中雲。滅是滅相。不滅是生相。欲滅是異相。不欲滅是住相。又解云。滅是滅相。不滅是生住兩相。欲滅是滅相所相法。不欲滅是生住所相法也。今依文並不如。此所言欲滅不欲滅者明有為之法。一念生時便有二義。一者始生。二者將滅。將滅之分名為欲滅。始生之分名不欲滅。但不欲滅語通故泛論四法。謂過去未來現在無為也。所以但釋欲滅不欲滅者。外人聞引經破便欲避之。故釋以示之。但釋此二法而泛論餘二。故不釋餘二也。又四法釋四。二法釋四。四法釋四者。欲滅者現在將滅分也。不欲滅現在始生分也。滅者過去法也。不滅未來及無為也。二法釋四法者如文。但取現在將滅為欲滅。除此以外皆是不欲滅也。是故無次第緣下第二結也。緣緣者第三破緣緣。今先敘破緣緣之意。無始來常有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣。又如佛說下第二徴經破。如果直接用兩個關卡來駁斥對方，他們一定不會接受。所以引用佛經來說明一切有為法念念生滅，哪裡會有『欲滅』、『未欲滅』，而稱之為第三個『滅時』呢？問：這是引用哪部經來駁斥的？答：《維摩詰經》說：『你現在即時也在生、也在老、也在死。』《無量義經》說：『又進一步觀察一切諸法，即時生、住、異、滅。』你說一念中沒有這個『欲滅』，這是第三個防止退縮的駁斥。恐怕對方聽到引用佛經說明『亦生即滅』，就改變原來的主張。所以還是抓住對方的觀點，防止他們退縮。山中說：『這是長行中第三個用涅槃來破四相。』現在說明，這只是在破『滅時』中的第三個防止退縮，不是用涅槃來破四相。所說的『欲滅』、『未欲滅』，山中說：『滅是滅相，不滅是生相，欲滅是異相，不欲滅是住相。』又解釋說：『滅是滅相，不滅是生住兩相，欲滅是滅相所相的法，不欲滅是生住所相的法。』現在根據經文來看，並不如此。這裡所說的『欲滅』、『不欲滅』，說明有為之法，一念生起時便有兩種含義：一是開始生起，二是即將滅去。即將滅去的部分稱為『欲滅』，開始生起的部分稱為『不欲滅』。但是『不欲滅』這個詞語含義寬泛，所以泛泛地談論四法，包括過去、未來、現在、無為。之所以只說『滅』、『不欲滅』，是因為外人聽到引用佛經來駁斥，就想回避。所以解釋來說明，只是解釋這兩種法，而泛泛地談論其餘兩種，所以不解釋其餘兩種。又用四法來解釋四法，用二法來解釋四法，用四法來解釋四法：『欲滅』是現在即將滅去的部分，『不欲滅』是現在開始生起的部分，『滅』是過去法，『不滅』是未來及無為法。用二法來解釋四法就像經文所說，只取現在即將滅去的部分作為『欲滅』，除此之外都是『不欲滅』。所以沒有次第緣下第二個結論。緣緣，是第三個破緣緣。現在先敘述破緣緣的意圖：無始以來一直存在。
【English Translation】 English version Cause. Furthermore, it's like the Buddha refuting in the second part of the Zheng Sutra. If we directly refute them with two arguments, they will certainly not accept it. Therefore, we cite the Buddha's words to clarify that all conditioned dharmas arise and cease in every moment. How can there be a 'desire to cease' (yuk-滅), a 'not yet desiring to cease' (wei-欲滅), and call it a third 'time of cessation'? Question: Which sutra is cited for this refutation? Answer: The Vimalakirti Sutra says, 'You are now, at this very moment, also being born, also aging, also dying.' The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra says, 'Furthermore, observe all dharmas, they arise, abide, change, and cease at this very moment.' You say that there is no 'desire to cease' in a single thought. This is the third refutation to prevent retreat. Fearing that the opponent, upon hearing the citation of the Buddha's words clarifying 'arising is ceasing,' would change their original argument, we still grasp their viewpoint to prevent their retreat. Shanzhong says, 'This is the third refutation of the four characteristics using Nirvana in the long passage.' Now, it is clarified that this is only the third prevention of retreat in refuting 'time of cessation,' not the refutation of the four characteristics using Nirvana. Regarding the 'desire to cease' and 'not yet desiring to cease,' Shanzhong says, 'Cessation is the characteristic of cessation, non-cessation is the characteristic of arising, desire to cease is the characteristic of change, not yet desiring to cease is the characteristic of abiding.' Another explanation says, 'Cessation is the characteristic of cessation, non-cessation is the characteristic of both arising and abiding, desire to cease is the dharma that is characterized by the characteristic of cessation, not yet desiring to cease is the dharma that is characterized by the characteristics of arising and abiding.' Now, according to the text, it is not so. The 'desire to cease' and 'not yet desiring to cease' mentioned here clarify that conditioned dharmas have two meanings when a thought arises: first, it begins to arise; second, it is about to cease. The part that is about to cease is called 'desire to cease,' and the part that begins to arise is called 'not yet desiring to cease.' However, the term 'not yet desiring to cease' has a broad meaning, so we generally discuss the four dharmas, including the past, future, present, and unconditioned. The reason why we only talk about 'cessation' and 'not yet desiring to cease' is because outsiders want to avoid it when they hear the citation of the Buddha's words for refutation. Therefore, we explain it to show that we only explain these two dharmas and generally discuss the other two, so we do not explain the other two. Furthermore, we use the four dharmas to explain the four dharmas, use the two dharmas to explain the four dharmas, and use the four dharmas to explain the four dharmas: 'Desire to cease' is the part of the present that is about to cease, 'not yet desiring to cease' is the part of the present that is beginning to arise, 'cessation' is the past dharma, and 'non-cessation' is the future and unconditioned dharma. Using the two dharmas to explain the four dharmas is as the sutra says, we only take the part of the present that is about to cease as 'desire to cease,' and everything else is 'not yet desiring to cease.' Therefore, there is no second conclusion under the sequential cause. Causal condition (緣緣), is the third refutation of causal condition. Now, let's first describe the intention of refuting causal condition: it has always existed since beginningless time.
此心。即有能緣所緣。凈名經云。心有攀緣即是病本。何所攀緣。謂之三界。云何斷攀緣。謂無所得。今求緣緣不可得。即是斷眾生病本令得解脫也。前立次破。解緣緣有五。一云。心是能緣。境是所緣。心境合說故名緣緣。二解云。心是能緣。復緣前境。故心名緣緣。第三解云。前境是緣。能生心緣。緣能生緣故名緣緣。從境受名。四解云。緣緣者是心緣之緣。即是果也。萬法為心緣作緣。從果受名故云緣緣。根本集阿毗曇師作此釋。何以知然。大品云。因次第緣增上。而次第及增上既是果。則知。緣緣亦是果。故從果受名。即此論云。無相無緣。無緣是無能緣。無相明無所緣。故知。以心為能緣。萬法為能緣之心作緣。故云緣緣。五解云。通別兩舉。所言緣者是生心之緣。謂別緣也。此緣復是四緣中之一緣是通緣也。故通別兩舉名為緣緣也。偈破中上半舉佛說實相。下半明無緣緣。呵外人也。問前破兩緣與今破何異。答前是縱破。今是奪破。奪破者明實相法中無此緣緣。諸法無性故無此增上緣。上縱破者縱有因緣為有為無。縱有次第為滅不滅。又前是就緣假。就彼外情求于因緣及以次第。今是對緣假。以佛正法對破邪也。問前破二緣何故曲碎窮之。今破二緣但總非耶。答本立四緣。兩緣既壞后二易折。故但非之。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此心，即有能緣（能夠認知的主體）和所緣（被認知的客體）。《凈名經》（《維摩詰所說經》）說：『心有所攀緣，就是產生疾病的根源。』攀緣什麼呢？就是所謂的『三界』（欲界、色界、無色界）。如何斷除攀緣呢？就是『無所得』（不執著于任何事物）。現在尋求『緣緣』（作為條件的條件）而不可得，就是斷除眾生疾病的根源，使眾生得到解脫。前面是先建立后破除。解釋『緣緣』有五種說法：第一種說法是：心是能緣，境是所緣，心和境合在一起說，所以叫做『緣緣』。第二種解釋是：心是能緣，又去緣前面的境，所以心叫做『緣緣』。第三種解釋是：前面的境是緣，能夠生起心緣，因為緣能生緣，所以叫做『緣緣』，這是從境的角度來命名的。第四種解釋是：『緣緣』是心緣的緣，也就是果。萬法作為心緣的條件，是從果的角度來命名，所以叫做『緣緣』。根本集阿毗曇師（佛教論師）這樣解釋。為什麼知道是這樣呢？《大品》（《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》）說：因、次第緣、增上緣。而次第緣和增上緣既然是果，就知道『緣緣』也是果，所以是從果的角度來命名。就像這部論典所說：無相、無緣。『無緣』是沒有能緣，『無相』說明沒有所緣。所以知道，以心作為能緣，萬法作為能緣之心的條件，所以叫做『緣緣』。第五種解釋是：這是通和別兩種情況一起說明。所說的『緣』是生起心的緣，這是指別緣。這個緣又是四緣（因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）中的一種緣，這是指通緣。所以通和別兩種情況一起說明，叫做『緣緣』。偈頌破斥中，上半部分是引用佛陀所說的實相，下半部分是說明沒有緣緣，這是呵斥外道。問：前面破斥兩種緣和現在破斥有什麼不同？答：前面是縱破，現在是奪破。奪破是說明實相法中沒有這種緣緣，諸法沒有自性，所以沒有這種增上緣。前面縱破是假設有因緣，是有為還是無為，假設有次第，是滅還是不滅。而且前面是就緣假，就那些外道的觀點，尋求因緣以及次第。現在是針對緣假，用佛陀的正法來破斥邪說。問：前面破斥兩種緣，為什麼要詳細地窮盡其理？現在破斥兩種緣，為什麼只是總的否定？答：因為一開始就建立了四緣，兩種緣既然被破壞，後面的兩種就容易摧毀，所以只是否定它們。 English version This mind possesses both the 'able to cognize' (the subject that cognizes) and the 'cognized' (the object that is cognized). The Vimalakirti Sutra states: 'When the mind clings to something, that is the root of illness.' What does it cling to? It clings to the so-called 'Three Realms' (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). How does one sever this clinging? By 'non-attainment' (not being attached to anything). Now, seeking 'conditioned condition' (the condition of a condition) and finding it unattainable, one cuts off the root of suffering for sentient beings, enabling them to attain liberation. The previous section established and then refuted. There are five interpretations of 'conditioned condition': First, the mind is the 'able to condition,' and the object is the 'conditioned.' The combination of mind and object is called 'conditioned condition.' Second, the mind is the 'able to condition,' and it conditions the preceding object; therefore, the mind is called 'conditioned condition.' Third, the preceding object is the condition that gives rise to the mind-condition. Because the condition gives rise to a condition, it is called 'conditioned condition,' named from the perspective of the object. Fourth, 'conditioned condition' is the condition of the mind's condition, which is the result. All phenomena act as conditions for the mind's condition, named from the perspective of the result, hence 'conditioned condition.' The Abhidharma masters of the Fundamental Collection explain it this way. How do we know this? The Large Perfection (Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra) states: cause, sequential condition, and dominant condition. Since sequential and dominant conditions are results, we know that 'conditioned condition' is also a result, named from the perspective of the result. As this treatise states: no-characteristic, no-condition. 'No-condition' means no 'able to condition,' and 'no-characteristic' clarifies no 'conditioned.' Therefore, we know that the mind is the 'able to condition,' and all phenomena act as conditions for the mind that is 'able to condition,' hence 'conditioned condition.' Fifth, this is a general and specific explanation. The 'condition' refers to the condition that gives rise to the mind, which is the specific condition. This condition is also one of the Four Conditions (causal condition, immediate condition, object-condition, dominant condition), which is the general condition. Therefore, the combination of general and specific is called 'conditioned condition.' In the verse of refutation, the first half quotes the Buddha's teaching on reality, and the second half clarifies the absence of 'conditioned condition,' rebuking outsiders. Question: What is the difference between the previous refutation of two conditions and the current refutation? Answer: The previous was a provisional refutation, and the current is a direct refutation. Direct refutation clarifies that there is no such 'conditioned condition' in the Dharma of reality. All phenomena lack inherent nature, so there is no such dominant condition. The previous provisional refutation assumed the existence of conditions, whether conditioned or unconditioned, and assumed the existence of sequence, whether it ceases or not. Moreover, the previous was based on the falsity of conditions, seeking causes and sequences from the perspective of those outsiders. The current is directed at the falsity of conditions, using the Buddha's true Dharma to refute heretical views. Question: Why was the previous refutation of two conditions so detailed and exhaustive, while the current refutation of two conditions is simply a general denial? Answer: Because the Four Conditions were initially established, and since two conditions have been destroyed, the remaining two are easily demolished, so they are simply denied.
【English Translation】 English translation line 1 English translation line 2
又且前二緣于義親密。故委悉破之。后二疏慢。故但總非也。又破因緣故無境。破次第緣是破心。既無心境云何有緣緣。今縱妄情言有故破之易折也。又前後二門相成。上明。既不得前滅後生。云何得緣境耶。即以前門成后。今明。既不得緣境云何得生滅耶。即以後門成前。又各逐義便。彼既立心前滅後生。宜一一就三世中責之。今立能緣所緣。故引實相畢竟空蕩之。問破次第緣與破緣緣云何廣狹。答常住佛智亦緣境而非生滅。故緣緣廣也。問何物是緣緣耶。答凡夫六識緣於六塵。聖人真俗兩慧緣一切境。並是緣緣義。如諸佛所說下第二破緣緣。上半牒正。下半破邪。真實微妙法者此法絕於境智。以絕境故無境可緣。絕於智故無有能緣。今引五事來證釋之。一者華嚴云。正法性遠離一切言語道。一切趣非趣悉皆寂滅性。豈有能緣所緣。二智度論釋集散品云。緣是一邊。觀是一邊。離是二邊名為中道也。三影法師云。夫萬化非無宗。而宗者無相。此明無境。虛宗非無契。而契之者無心。此明無智。故內外並冥緣觀俱寂。總無境智也。四肇師云。法無有無之相。此明無境。聖無有無之知。此辨無心。無數于外無心於內。總結無境智。五攝嶺大師云。緣盡于觀觀盡于緣。緣盡于觀者凡夫二乘有所得大乘此諸緣盡于正觀之內。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 而且前兩種因緣在義理上更為密切，所以詳細地破斥它們。后兩種因緣較為疏遠，所以只是總括地否定它們。又因為破斥了因緣，所以沒有了所緣的境界。破斥次第緣就是破斥了心。既然沒有了心和境界，又怎麼會有緣緣呢？現在姑且順著虛妄的情感說有，所以破斥起來也容易摧折。而且前後兩個方面是互相成就的。前面說明，既然不能得到前滅後生的現象，又怎麼能緣取境界呢？這就是用前面的道理來成就後面的道理。現在說明，既然不能緣取境界，又怎麼能有生滅呢？這就是用後面的道理來成就前面的道理。而且各自順著義理的方便。他們既然立論說心是前滅後生的，就應該一一就三世之中來責問他們。現在立論說能緣和所緣，所以引用實相畢竟空寂的道理來破斥他們。問：破斥次第緣和破斥緣緣，哪個範圍更廣？答：常住的佛智也能緣取境界，但不是生滅的，所以緣緣的範圍更廣。問：什麼是緣緣呢？答：凡夫的六識緣取六塵，聖人的真俗二智緣取一切境界，都是緣緣的含義。如諸佛所說以下是第二部分，破斥緣緣。前半部分是提綱挈領地肯定，後半部分是破斥邪說。『真實微妙法』，這種法超越了境界和智慧。因為超越了境界，所以沒有可以緣取的境界；因為超越了智慧，所以沒有能緣的心。現在引用五件事來證明和解釋它。第一，《華嚴經》說：『正法性遠離一切言語道，一切趣非趣悉皆寂滅性。』哪裡會有能緣和所緣呢？第二，《智度論》解釋集散品說：『緣是一邊，觀是一邊，離開這兩邊叫做中道。』第三，影法師說：『萬物的變化並非沒有根本，而這個根本是沒有相狀的。』這是說明沒有境界。『虛宗並非沒有契合，而契合它的是沒有心的。』這是說明沒有智慧。所以內外都寂靜，緣和觀都寂滅，總而言之是沒有境界和智慧的。第四，肇法師說：『法沒有有無的相狀。』這是說明沒有境界。『聖人沒有有無的知見。』這是辨明沒有心。『無數于外，無心於內。』總結來說就是沒有境界和智慧。第五，攝嶺大師說：『緣窮盡于觀，觀窮盡于緣。緣窮盡于觀，是指凡夫二乘有所得的，大乘的這些緣都窮盡于正觀之內。』
【English Translation】 English version Moreover, the first two conditions are more closely related in meaning, so they are refuted in detail. The latter two are more distant, so they are only generally negated. Furthermore, because the conditions are refuted, there is no object to be cognized. Refuting sequential condition is refuting the mind. Since there is no mind and no object, how can there be condition-condition? Now, let's follow the deluded emotions and say that there is, so it is easy to break. Moreover, the former and latter aspects complement each other. The former explains that since one cannot obtain the arising and ceasing of the former and latter, how can one cognize the object? This is using the former principle to accomplish the latter. Now it is explained that since one cannot cognize the object, how can there be arising and ceasing? This is using the latter principle to accomplish the former. Moreover, each follows the convenience of the meaning. Since they establish the theory that the mind arises and ceases in sequence, they should be questioned in each of the three times. Now, the theory of the cognizer and the cognized is established, so the principle of the ultimate emptiness of reality is cited to refute them. Question: Which is broader, refuting sequential condition or refuting condition-condition? Answer: The constant and abiding Buddha-wisdom can also cognize objects, but it does not arise and cease, so the scope of condition-condition is broader. Question: What is condition-condition? Answer: The six consciousnesses of ordinary beings cognize the six sense objects, and the two wisdoms of truth and convention of sages cognize all objects, all of which are the meaning of condition-condition. As the Buddhas said, the following is the second part, refuting condition-condition. The first half is a summary affirmation, and the second half is a refutation of wrong views. 'The true and subtle Dharma' transcends both object and wisdom. Because it transcends the object, there is no object to be cognized; because it transcends the wisdom, there is no cognizing mind. Now, five things are cited to prove and explain it. First, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'The nature of the true Dharma is far from all paths of language, all realms of existence and non-existence are of the nature of complete quiescence.' How can there be a cognizer and a cognized? Second, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra explains the chapter on gathering and scattering, saying: 'Condition is one side, contemplation is one side, leaving these two sides is called the Middle Way.' Third, Master Ying said: 'The myriad transformations are not without a root, but this root is without form.' This explains that there is no object. 'The empty principle is not without correspondence, but that which corresponds to it is without mind.' This explains that there is no wisdom. Therefore, both inside and outside are tranquil, and both condition and contemplation are quiescent, in short, there is no object and no wisdom. Fourth, Master Zhao said: 'The Dharma has no characteristics of existence or non-existence.' This explains that there is no object. 'The sage has no knowledge of existence or non-existence.' This distinguishes that there is no mind. 'Numberless outside, no mind inside.' In conclusion, there is no object and no wisdom. Fifth, Master Sheling said: 'Condition is exhausted in contemplation, and contemplation is exhausted in condition. Condition is exhausted in contemplation, referring to the ordinary beings and those of the two vehicles who have attainment; these conditions of the Mahayana are all exhausted within right contemplation.'
以正觀既生如此之緣即不生故。云緣盡于觀。在緣既盡正觀便息。故名觀盡于緣。非緣非觀不知何以美之。強名為中強稱為觀。問若無能緣所緣是實相者。今論主稟二諦教發生二智。則境是能生智是所生。智為能照。境是所照。應非真實也。答作如此解境智慧所者亦被破。今明。論主因緣境智境雖生而無發。智雖照而無知。此境智即是非境智。故不被破。問現有能緣所緣。云何言無緣緣耶。答既言能所則不所。既言所能則非能。以能所是因緣因緣即寂滅。故知無能所也。長行為三。初明無緣緣。二釋疑。三結無緣緣。就初又二。初法說次舉譬。法說之中前明緣緣。次明無緣緣。有色無色者問何故列色無色等法。答即此色是緣緣。求此色不可得。故無緣緣。而不無緣緣義。今只明緣緣即是無緣緣。若無緣緣者云何得言緣緣空耶。只言色空豈得無色方空耶。若聞色自安置世諦。聞空置第一義。此是空者自空。不空者自不空耳。則是斷常二見。今只是有者不有。豈得無有。只明空者不空。豈得無空。故知。空有不二。但破偏執定有定無。故言非有非無耳。成論十四種色。五根五塵及四大也。數人十一種色。謂五根五塵及無作假色也。無色者心及無為等總名無色。有形無形者形必是色。色未必形故數人有三種色。一可見有對色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以正確的觀察產生這樣的因緣，那麼就不會產生（煩惱）。（有人）說因緣在觀察中窮盡。在因緣窮盡時，正確的觀察也就停止了。所以說觀察在因緣中窮盡。既不是因緣也不是觀察，不知道用什麼來讚美它。勉強稱之為『中』，勉強稱之為『觀』。問：如果沒有能緣（能認識的主體）和所緣（被認識的客體），才是實相的話，那麼現在論主依據二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦）的教義，生起二智（世俗智和勝義智），那麼境是能生，智是所生；智是能照，境是被照，這應該不是真實的吧？答：如果這樣理解，境、智、能、所的關係也會被破斥。現在說明，論主因緣境智，境雖然生起卻沒有發起（作用），智雖然照了卻沒有知覺。這個境智就是非境智，所以不會被破斥。問：明明現有能緣和所緣，為什麼說沒有緣緣呢？答：既然說了能和所，就不是所；既然說了所和能，就不是能。因為能所是因緣，因緣就是寂滅，所以知道沒有能所。長行分為三部分。首先說明無緣緣，其次解釋疑問，最後總結無緣緣。在第一部分中又分為兩部分。首先是法說，其次是舉譬。在法說中，先說明緣緣，其次說明無緣緣。『有色無色』，問：為什麼列舉色、無色等法？答：就是這個色是緣緣，尋求這個色卻不可得，所以是無緣緣，但又不是沒有緣緣的意義。現在只是說明緣緣就是無緣緣。如果沒有緣緣，怎麼能說緣緣是空呢？只說色是空，難道要沒有色才空嗎？如果聽到色就安立在世俗諦，聽到空就安立在第一義諦，這就是空者自空，不空者自不空罷了。這就是斷見和常見兩種錯誤的見解。現在只是有者不有，怎麼能說沒有有呢？只是說明空者不空，怎麼能說沒有空呢？所以知道，空有不二。只是破除偏執的定有定無，所以說非有非無罷了。成論中說有十四種色，即五根、五塵以及四大。數論者說有十一種色，即五根、五塵以及無作假色。『無色』，心及無為法等總稱為無色。『有形無形』，有形必定是，未必有形，所以數論者有三種色，一是可見有對色。
【English Translation】 English version With right observation, such conditions arise, and thus (afflictions) do not arise. It is said that conditions are exhausted in observation. When conditions are exhausted, right observation ceases. Therefore, it is called observation exhausted in conditions. Neither condition nor observation, I do not know what to praise it with. It is forcibly called 'the Middle Way', forcibly called 'observation'. Question: If there is no perceiver (the subject that cognizes) and no perceived (the object that is cognized), and that is reality, then now the treatise master relies on the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) to generate two wisdoms (conventional wisdom and ultimate wisdom). Then the object is the generator, and wisdom is what is generated; wisdom is the illuminator, and the object is what is illuminated. Shouldn't this be unreal? Answer: If you interpret it this way, the relationship between object, wisdom, perceiver, and perceived will also be refuted. Now I explain, the treatise master relies on the conditions of object and wisdom. Although the object arises, it does not initiate (action); although wisdom illuminates, it has no awareness. This object and wisdom are non-object and non-wisdom, so they cannot be refuted. Question: Clearly there are perceiver and perceived, why say there is no condition of conditions? Answer: Since you speak of perceiver and perceived, it is not perceived; since you speak of perceived and perceiver, it is not perceiver. Because perceiver and perceived are conditions, and conditions are quiescence, therefore know that there is no perceiver and perceived. The long passage is divided into three parts. First, explain the absence of conditioned conditions; second, resolve doubts; and third, conclude the absence of conditioned conditions. In the first part, there are two sections. First is the Dharma explanation, and second is the analogy. In the Dharma explanation, first explain conditioned conditions, and then explain the absence of conditioned conditions. 'Having form and without form', Question: Why list phenomena such as form and formlessness? Answer: This very form is the condition of conditions. Seeking this form is unattainable, so it is the absence of conditioned conditions, but it is not without the meaning of conditioned conditions. Now it is only explained that conditioned conditions are the absence of conditioned conditions. If there is no absence of conditioned conditions, how can it be said that conditioned conditions are empty? Only saying that form is empty, does it require the absence of form to be empty? If hearing of form, one establishes it in conventional truth; hearing of emptiness, one establishes it in ultimate truth. This is just that the empty one is empty by itself, and the non-empty one is non-empty by itself. This is the two wrong views of eternalism and annihilationism. Now it is just that the existent is non-existent, how can it be said that there is no existence? It is only explained that the empty one is not empty, how can it be said that there is no emptiness? Therefore, know that emptiness and existence are not two. It only refutes the biased attachment to fixed existence and fixed non-existence, so it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent. The Tattvasiddhi Shastra says there are fourteen types of form, namely the five roots, the five objects, and the four great elements. The Samkhya school says there are eleven types of form, namely the five roots, the five objects, and non-manifested form. 'Without form', mind and unconditioned dharmas are collectively called formlessness. 'Having shape and without shape', having shape must be *. * may not have shape, so the Samkhya school has three types of form, one is visible and resistant form.
即青黃等。二不可見有對色謂五根等。三不可見無對色謂無作色。三種色中可見有對是有形。余是無形也。有漏者數人有緣縛相應縛名為有漏。無此二縛名為無漏。論人無相心名無漏。取相心名有漏。有為無為者三相所切名有為。無三相名無為。入於法性一切皆空者第二明無緣緣。問既有入法性。應有出法性。答有二義。就二門說之故名為出入。就差別門說故名為出。就無差別門說故名為入。二者約迷悟明其出入。以迷故名出。悟故名入。迷故言出實無所出。悟故言入實無所入。故華嚴云。一切眾生入真實無所入。亦一切眾生出真實無所出也。問誰是出法性人。答如薩婆多分別有色無色決定相者。即是出法性人也。無相無緣者無相無所緣。無緣無能緣也。譬如眾流下第二譬說也。從流入海。海是流海。從海出流。流是海流。無有異流之海。無有異海之流。若有異流之海則海非流海。若有異海之流則流非海流。實法可信下第二釋疑。疑有緣緣是佛說無緣緣亦是佛說。云何以無破有耶。是故釋云。無緣緣是真實說。有緣緣是隨宜說。所以用無以破有。問何故就此偈明權實耶。答此偈有二意。一者引正破邪。二者舉實顯權。偈既云真實微妙法。則知。有方便隨宜法也。是故無緣緣下第三結破也。增上緣者解有二家。一云。谷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即青色、黃色等。二、不可見有對色，指五根等。三、不可見無對色，指無作色（不由造作而生的色法）。這三種色中，可見有對的是有形質的。其餘是無形質的。有漏，是指與人相關的、有因緣和煩惱束縛的，稱為有漏。沒有這兩種束縛的，稱為無漏。論中說，沒有分別相的心稱為無漏。執取外相的心稱為有漏。有為和無為，是指被生、住、滅三相所影響的稱為有為。沒有這三相的稱為無為。『入於法性，一切皆空』，第二點是說明無緣緣。問：既然有『入法性』，應該有『出法性』。答：有兩種解釋。就二門（出、入二門）來說，所以說有出入。就差別門來說，所以說出。就無差別門來說，所以說入。第二種解釋是根據迷惑和覺悟來說明出入。因為迷惑所以說出。因為覺悟所以說入。因為迷惑所以說出，實際上沒有什麼可出。因為覺悟所以說入，實際上沒有什麼可入。所以《華嚴經》說：『一切眾生入真實，無所入，亦一切眾生出真實，無所出也。』問：誰是出法性的人？答：如果像薩婆多（Sarvastivada，一切有部）那樣分別有色無色，執著于決定的相狀，就是出法性的人。無相無緣，是指沒有相狀，沒有所緣。無緣，是指沒有能緣的心。譬如眾流下，第二點是譬喻說明。從河流流入大海，大海是河流匯聚而成的大海。從大海流出河流，河流是大海流出而成的河流。沒有與河流不同的海，沒有與海不同的河流。如果有與河流不同的海，那麼海就不是河流匯聚而成的大海。如果有與海不同的河流，那麼河流就不是大海流出而成的河流。實法可信下，第二點是解釋疑問。疑問在於，有緣緣是佛說的，無緣緣也是佛說的。為什麼用無來否定有呢？所以解釋說，無緣緣是真實之說，有緣緣是隨順機宜之說。所以用無來否定有。問：為什麼就這首偈頌來說明權實呢？答：這首偈頌有兩種含義。一是引正破邪。二是舉實顯權。偈頌既然說『真實微妙法』，就知道有方便隨宜法。所以無緣緣下，第三點是總結破斥。增上緣，有兩種解釋。一種說法是，谷
【English Translation】 English version Namely, blue, yellow, and so on. Second, invisible and tangible colors refer to the five roots (five sense organs). Third, invisible and intangible colors refer to uncreated colors (colors that arise without intentional creation). Among these three types of colors, the visible and tangible ones are those with form. The rest are formless. 'With outflows' refers to those associated with people, having conditions and the bondage of afflictions, which are called 'with outflows'. Without these two bondages is called 'without outflows'. The treatise says that a mind without characteristics is called 'without outflows'. A mind that grasps at characteristics is called 'with outflows'. 'Conditioned' and 'unconditioned' refer to that which is affected by the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, which is called 'conditioned'. That which is without these three characteristics is called 'unconditioned'. 'Entering the Dharma-nature, all is empty', the second point explains no-condition-condition. Question: Since there is 'entering the Dharma-nature', there should be 'exiting the Dharma-nature'. Answer: There are two explanations. In terms of the two gates (of entering and exiting), it is said that there is entering and exiting. In terms of the gate of difference, it is said that there is exiting. In terms of the gate of non-difference, it is said that there is entering. The second explanation is based on delusion and enlightenment to explain entering and exiting. Because of delusion, it is said that there is exiting. Because of enlightenment, it is said that there is entering. Because of delusion, it is said that there is exiting, but in reality, there is nothing to exit. Because of enlightenment, it is said that there is entering, but in reality, there is nothing to enter. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'All sentient beings enter the real, without entering anything, and all sentient beings exit the real, without exiting anything.' Question: Who are the people who exit the Dharma-nature? Answer: If, like the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivada, the 'all exists' school), one distinguishes between form and formlessness, clinging to fixed characteristics, then that is a person who exits the Dharma-nature. 'Without characteristics and without conditions' refers to having no characteristics and no object of cognition. 'Without conditions' refers to having no cognizing mind. For example, 'like the flow of rivers', the second point is an illustrative explanation. From rivers flowing into the sea, the sea is the sea formed by the confluence of rivers. From the sea flowing out rivers, the rivers are the rivers flowing out from the sea. There is no sea different from the rivers, and there are no rivers different from the sea. If there were a sea different from the rivers, then the sea would not be the sea formed by the confluence of rivers. If there were rivers different from the sea, then the rivers would not be the rivers flowing out from the sea. 'The real Dharma is believable', the second point is to resolve doubts. The doubt is that conditioned-condition is taught by the Buddha, and unconditioned-condition is also taught by the Buddha. Why use the 'without' to negate the 'with'? Therefore, it is explained that unconditioned-condition is the true teaching, and conditioned-condition is the teaching adapted to the occasion. Therefore, the 'without' is used to negate the 'with'. Question: Why use this verse to explain the provisional and the real? Answer: This verse has two meanings. First, to introduce the correct and refute the incorrect. Second, to present the real and reveal the provisional. Since the verse says 'real and subtle Dharma', it is known that there is expedient and adaptable Dharma. Therefore, 'without condition-condition', the third point is a concluding refutation. 'Dominant condition' has two explanations. One explanation is that grain
牙生時萬法不障。是以谷牙得生長增上。故萬法為增上果作緣。故云增上。此從果受名。次解云。谷牙生時萬法于牙各有增上勝力。如地有勝持空有容受。以萬法各有增上之力。故當體受增上名也。增上緣有通有別。所言通者一切法不障一法。故一法得生則一切法為一法作緣。一法不障一切法。故一切法得生則一法為一切法作增上緣義。但增上緣通為無為。而果但是有為。又雖不相障而終取一時因果及前緣後果。無有前後亂相生義也。別者如眼識從眼根生眼根望識。但是別相增上緣。若如成實云從勝受名。故云增上。如空明等生而名眼識不名色識。以從勝受名故名增上緣也。破增上緣者然緣緣具攝一切法。若破緣緣則已破一切法竟。但縱外情更復破耳。偈為二。上半破下半呵。破有三意。一者緣果無性。由果有緣緣無性也。由緣有果果無自性。即無自性即無法也。二者緣果無定。如萬法不障牙。牙是果萬法為緣。今牙不障萬法牙即是緣。萬法為果。故知緣果無有定性。三善惡無定。如施不障人天。故是善因者。施亦不障三塗施則是惡因。故無定性也。故無有有相者一有是緣有。一有是果有。恐外云雖無定性應有無性因果。故今明。有性乃有因果。無性則無因果。下半呵者說有是事故是事有此是牒。不然二字則呵之。長
行為三。初釋偈。二結無增上緣。三釋佛立有四緣之意。初又三。前牒下半。何以故下以上半釋破之。有相無故已下還取下半呵之。是故無增上緣第二結也。問何故就十二明無增上緣。答細論十二相生實具四緣。一往粗論十二相生正是增上緣。故就十二破增上緣也。又此論破四緣意欲顯十二無生。上以破十二中三緣故。今破十二中增上緣也。佛隨凡夫分別有無故說者。此釋破立之意。論主破之經不應明有。經若明有而須破者即是破經。故今明。若據理則無。但隨凡夫分別故說有耳。佛說有無則明不二。汝但見二故是愚人。論主了達無二名為智者。汝見因緣能所二不信不二。即是破經。論主知佛意說二為令悟不二。即是申經也。問此中雲何名分別有無耶。答若通約四緣則攝有為無為之體。故名有無。若偏據增上緣明有無者。有即是上是事有故是事有。無即是事無故是事無。蓋是隨凡夫分別十二是有無耳。十二本不生故不有。今亦不滅故不無也。略廣眾緣中此第三一偈結破。上半結下半呵責。青目意以前三偈總破為略。后四偈別破為廣。古三論師不用青目注。而四偈破因緣。三偈破三緣。此七偈破四緣。名之為廣。此下四偈結破四緣名之為略。什公云。會指無卷為略。散指亦無為廣。河西道朗師破四緣為略。破六因為廣。
曇影云。破四緣合生法為略。四緣各生法為廣。依毗曇心法具從四緣生。色法從二緣生。除緣緣及次第。非色非心法有二分。若無想定滅盡定從三緣生。除緣緣余非色不相應行如色說也。下半呵云。因緣中若無者。此是四緣中求果不可得言無。非是因中無果之無也。今且依青目意結上總別破者。發生下非緣決破意也。以廣略就緣中求果不可得。當知緣中無果。以緣中無果非緣亦無。若二俱是無則不應俱生果。是以結破也。又所以結廣略者欲生下半呵責故也。上雖破而未呵。夫欲呵者必須先騰其失方得呵失。故上半騰失下半呵失也。又有廣略者望十二門論意。上總別破並是廣。今略廣則是略。以攝上總別為今略廣。今略廣為上總別故也。若謂緣無果下自上來是第一破四緣生果竟。今第二舉非緣決之。問何故舉非緣決之。答四意。一者明非有非無義。四緣中求果不可得。故不可言有。又不從非緣出故則果不可無。破有無二見顯示中道故也。二者欲斷執生之心。雖破四緣生而意終謂果從四緣生。此心不去。故舉非緣決之。令計生心畢竟盡。三者欲防外人起邪見心。聞求四緣生果不得。便謂非四緣能生果。是故今明非緣亦不生。四欲令外人悟緣非緣不二。故俱破緣非緣生也。上半取意。意云。雖略廣求四緣中果無。而果終從四
緣生。若果不從四緣生。離四緣外更無復法。當從何處生耶。又眼見果從四緣中出。是故四緣必定生果。又緣非緣終有異。非緣既不生。緣則應生。下半舉非緣決者。四緣中無果非緣亦無。則應等生。不爾應等不生。若等無而緣生非緣不生者。亦應非緣生而四緣不生也。問此舉何處非緣以決之耶。答從初至略廣偈已來。破外立四緣偈上三句竟。今此一偈破外人更無第五緣。彼謂世性等為第五緣。故非緣中無果。所以今舉非緣決之。令知緣與非緣一切不生。又難其四緣產生非緣。此非緣亦不生果。又就四緣中互論緣非緣也。若果從緣生此是破四緣中第三結破。開為二別。初一行半結無所生之果。次半偈結無能生緣非緣。一行半為二。初五句結破果不從緣生。次一句結破果不從非緣生。五句為二。初四句列果不從緣生。次一句結果不從緣生。初四句為三門。第一句列所破門。第二句列能破門。下半列呵責門。若果從緣生即是上四緣生諸法。果即所生。緣是能生。總舉一切能所也。是緣無自性列能破也。彼計。以緣有生果自性果有從緣自性。上總別二門求緣無能生之性。求果無所生之性。故云無性。又緣由果有緣無自性。果由緣有果無自性。又緣復賴緣緣無性也。又果生緣壞。緣則改變。故無性也。下半呵云。從無自性生者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『緣生。』如果果不是從四緣（四大要素：地、水、火、風）產生，離開四緣之外再沒有其他法，那應當從何處產生呢？而且眼見果是從四緣中產生，所以四緣必定能生果。還有，緣和非緣終究是有區別的，非緣既然不能產生，緣就應該能產生。下半部分用非緣來決斷：四緣中沒有果，非緣中也沒有，那麼就應該平等地產生。如果不是這樣，就應該平等地不產生。如果平等地都沒有，而緣能產生，非緣不能產生，那麼也應該非緣能產生，而四緣不能產生。』 問：『這是用什麼地方的非緣來決斷呢？』答：『從最初到略廣偈以來，破斥外道建立四緣偈的前三句完畢。現在這一偈破斥外道再沒有第五緣。他們認為世性等是第五緣，所以非緣中沒有果。因此現在用非緣來決斷，讓他們知道緣與非緣一切都不能產生。』又責難他們的四緣產生非緣，這非緣也不能產生果。又就四緣中互相討論緣和非緣。如果果是從緣產生，這是破斥四緣中的第三個結，分開為兩個部分。最初一行半總結沒有所生的果，接下來半偈總結沒有能生的緣和非緣。一行半分為兩部分，最初五句總結破斥果不是從緣產生，接下來一句總結破斥果不是從非緣產生。五句分為三門，第一句列出所破斥的門，第二句列出能破斥的門，下半部分列出呵責的門。『如果果是從緣產生』，這就是上面四緣產生諸法。果就是所生，緣就是能生，總括一切能生和所生。『是緣無自性』，這是列出能破斥的。他們認為緣有產生果的自性，果有從緣產生的自性。上面總別兩個方面尋求緣沒有能生的自性，尋求果沒有所生的自性，所以說『無性』。還有，緣依靠果而有，緣沒有自性；果依靠緣而有，果沒有自性。還有，緣又依賴於緣，緣沒有自性。還有，果產生後緣就壞滅，緣就改變，所以沒有自性。下半部分呵責說：『從沒有自性產生的東西』
【English Translation】 English version 'Origination by conditions (緣生).』 If the result (果) does not arise from the four conditions (四緣) (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), and there is no other dharma apart from the four conditions, then from where should it arise? Moreover, it is seen that the result arises from the four conditions, therefore the four conditions must produce the result. Furthermore, there is ultimately a difference between condition and non-condition. Since non-condition cannot produce, condition should be able to produce. The latter half uses non-condition to decide: there is no result in the four conditions, nor is there in non-condition, then they should produce equally. If it is not so, they should equally not produce. If they are equally non-existent, but condition can produce while non-condition cannot, then it should also be that non-condition can produce while the four conditions cannot.』 Question: 『What kind of non-condition is used here to make the decision?』 Answer: 『From the beginning to the abbreviated and extended verses, the refutation of the first three lines of the heretics' establishment of the four conditions verse is completed. Now this verse refutes the heretics' claim that there is no fifth condition. They consider the inherent nature of the world (世性) etc. as the fifth condition, so there is no result in non-condition. Therefore, non-condition is now used to make the decision, to let them know that neither condition nor non-condition can produce anything.』 Furthermore, they are criticized for their four conditions generating non-condition, and this non-condition cannot produce a result either. Also, condition and non-condition are discussed mutually within the four conditions. If the result arises from condition, this is the refutation of the third knot in the four conditions, divided into two parts. The first one and a half lines summarize that there is no result that is produced, and the next half verse summarizes that there is no condition or non-condition that can produce. The one and a half lines are divided into two parts, the first five lines summarize the refutation that the result does not arise from condition, and the next line summarizes the refutation that the result does not arise from non-condition. The five lines are divided into three sections: the first line lists the door to be refuted, the second line lists the door that can refute, and the latter half lists the door of rebuke. 『If the result arises from condition,』 this is the above four conditions producing all dharmas. The result is what is produced, and the condition is what can produce, encompassing all that can produce and what is produced. 『This condition has no self-nature (自性),』 this is listing what can refute. They believe that condition has the self-nature of producing the result, and the result has the self-nature of arising from condition. The above general and specific aspects seek that condition has no self-nature of being able to produce, and seek that the result has no self-nature of being produced, therefore it is said 『no self-nature.』 Also, condition depends on the result to exist, condition has no self-nature; the result depends on condition to exist, the result has no self-nature. Also, condition relies on condition again, condition has no self-nature. Also, when the result arises, the condition decays, and the condition changes, so there is no self-nature. The latter half rebukes, saying: 『That which arises from no self-nature』
此意非是奪其自性。計其無自生。乃明都無能生所生性。云何乃于無生法中計有生耶。余並如文。影師釋此二偈二意。初偈列品。次偈結品。二云。初偈緣無故果無。后偈果無故緣無。觀長行如吾釋也。長行破緣故說非緣實無非緣法者。一意云。外人四緣攝一切法盡。四緣以外無復非緣。而言有者蓋是橫計有耳。二意云。以破汝緣故緣成非緣。何處別有非緣而能生耶。問何以故緣非緣並破。但破果不破非果。答內外同見一果故果則無異。而內計從四緣生。外執從世性等生。故有緣非緣也。
中觀論疏卷第三(末) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第四(本)
釋吉藏撰
去來品第二
問二十七品為有次第為無次第。若無次第則顛倒說法。若有次第何故次有去來品。答一切經論必有次第。但次第有二。一隨義次。二隨根次。隨根次者凡有三義。隨義次第則有七門。合十意也。隨根次有三義者。一曆法次第。令此觀心於一切法通徹無礙。前雖觀能生所生而不得。今次歷觀去來乃至涅槃。二者眾生取悟不同。自有聞破生滅不能得道觀去來即便了悟。乃至二十七條義亦如是。以根性不同是故論主開張諸觀。三者欲釋大乘中要觀。經中或就無生無滅明中道觀行
【現代漢語翻譯】 這意思不是要剝奪事物的自性（svabhāva）。而是要說明它們沒有自生（svayam-bhuta）。這是爲了闡明根本上沒有能生和所生的自性。為什麼要在無生的法中執著于有生呢？其餘部分都如原文所說。影師對這兩偈頌有兩種解釋。第一偈頌列出各個品，第二偈頌總結全品。另一種說法是，第一偈頌因為緣（pratyaya）不存在，所以果（phala）也不存在；后一偈頌因為果不存在，所以緣也不存在。詳細的解釋可以參考我對長行的解釋。長行破斥緣，所以說非緣（apratyaya）實際上並不存在非緣之法。一種意思是，外道認為一切法都包含在四緣（catvāri pratyayāh）之中，四緣之外沒有其他的非緣，說有非緣只是橫加臆測。另一種意思是，因為破斥了你的緣，所以緣就變成了非緣。哪裡還有其他的非緣能夠產生事物呢？問：為什麼緣和非緣都要破斥？只破斥果，不破斥非果呢？答：因為內外都看到同一個果，所以果沒有差別。但是內道認為果是從四緣產生的，外道則認為是從世性（prakṛti）等產生的，所以才會有緣和非緣的區分。
《中觀論疏》卷第三（末） 大正藏第42冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》
《中觀論疏》卷第四（本）
釋吉藏 撰
去來品 第二
問：二十七品是有次第的，還是沒有次第的？如果沒有次第，那就是顛倒說法。如果有次第，為什麼接下來是去來品？答：一切經論必然有次第，但次第有兩種：一是隨義次，二是隨根次。隨根次有三種意義，隨義次第則有七種門徑，合起來有十種意義。隨根次有三種意義：一是曆法次第，使這種觀心對於一切法都能通徹無礙。前面雖然觀察能生和所生而不得，現在接著歷觀去來乃至涅槃。二是眾生領悟不同，有些人聽了破斥生滅不能得道，觀察去來就能領悟。乃至二十七條義也是如此。因為根性不同，所以論主才開張各種觀法。三是想要解釋大乘中重要的觀法，經中或者就無生無滅來闡明中道觀行。
【English Translation】 This does not mean to take away their self-nature (svabhāva). It means to clarify that they do not arise from themselves (svayam-bhuta). This is to clarify that fundamentally there is no nature of that which can produce and that which is produced. Why, then, in the dharma of non-arising, do you cling to arising? The rest is as stated in the text. The Shadow Teacher explains these two verses with two meanings. The first verse lists the categories, and the second verse concludes the category. Another interpretation is that the first verse states that because conditions (pratyaya) do not exist, the result (phala) does not exist; the latter verse states that because the result does not exist, the conditions do not exist. For detailed explanations, refer to my explanation of the long passage. The long passage refutes conditions, so it says that non-conditions (apratyaya) do not actually exist as a dharma of non-conditions. One meaning is that externalists believe that all dharmas are contained within the four conditions (catvāri pratyayāh), and that there are no non-conditions outside of the four conditions; to say there are non-conditions is merely a contrived assumption. Another meaning is that because your conditions are refuted, the conditions become non-conditions. Where else could there be non-conditions that can produce things? Question: Why are both conditions and non-conditions refuted? Why only refute the result and not the non-result? Answer: Because both internalists and externalists see the same result, so the result has no difference. However, internalists believe that the result arises from the four conditions, while externalists believe that it arises from primordial nature (prakṛti) and so on, which is why there is a distinction between conditions and non-conditions.
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Scroll 3 (End) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42, No. 1824, Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Scroll 4 (Beginning)
Composed by Jizang
Chapter 2: Going and Coming
Question: Are the twenty-seven chapters in sequence or not? If they are not in sequence, then the teaching is disordered. If they are in sequence, why is the chapter on going and coming next? Answer: All sutras and treatises must have a sequence, but there are two kinds of sequence: one is according to meaning, and the other is according to the capacity of beings. The sequence according to the capacity of beings has three meanings, while the sequence according to meaning has seven approaches, totaling ten meanings. The sequence according to the capacity of beings has three meanings: first, the sequence of experiencing dharmas, so that this mind of contemplation can thoroughly penetrate all dharmas without obstruction. Although one previously contemplated that which can produce and that which is produced without success, now one continues to contemplate going and coming, and even nirvana. Second, beings have different understandings. Some cannot attain the Way by hearing the refutation of arising and ceasing, but they can attain enlightenment by contemplating going and coming. The same applies to the twenty-seven articles of meaning. Because beings have different capacities, the author of the treatise opens up various contemplations. Third, one wants to explain the important contemplations in the Mahayana, and the sutras explain the Middle Way contemplation based on non-arising and non-ceasing.
。或就無去來明中道觀行。但佛在世時眾生根利聞略說即得道。末世鈍根聞經略說未解故。論主廣釋之。方乃取悟。隨義次第凡有七門者。一明八不為論大宗。因緣品釋八不之始。謂不生不滅。此品解八不之終辨不來不去。始終既明則中間可領。故次因緣以明來去。二者上破四緣。遍破一切法名為總觀。今觀去來。去來是舉足下足色名為別觀。故前以明總今次別觀也。三者破于去來為成無生。外云因謝滅即是去。果續起即是來。既有去來寧無生滅。數人但有一種三世。謂從未來來現在。從現在謝過去。論人有二種三世。一實法三世。略同數。二假名轉變三世。從過去來現在現在轉作未來。若無四緣之生寧有三世來去。故舉去來以成生義。今破去來為成無生觀也。四者有二種觀。一約於事觀。事觀者觀即目所見動靜去來明無所有。二理觀者直觀四緣無有生義。問何故作事理二觀耶。答青目二週釋八不作事理二觀釋之。龍樹釋八不始終亦作二觀。良由事理總該萬化故也。又逐緣所宜也。五者望成實義前品破生。求實法無從。此撿無去。明假名相續不可得。六者上因緣品末結無能生之緣所生之果。外人云。若因果相生畢竟無者。何故現見有去來耶。故次前品末生此章也。七者上品求生不可得。外人便謂。生病息則是去。無生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：或者就以無去無來闡明中道觀行的道理。只是佛陀在世時，眾生的根器銳利，聽聞簡略的說法就能得道。末法時代，眾生的根器遲鈍，聽聞經文的簡略解釋也不能理解，所以龍樹菩薩廣泛地解釋它，才能領悟。按照意義的次第，總共有七個方面：第一，闡明『八不』（不生、不滅、不斷、不常、不一、不異、不去、不來）是本論的大綱。在《因緣品》中解釋『八不』的開端，即不生不滅。此品解釋『八不』的終結，辨析不去不來。既然始終都已明白，那麼中間的道理就可以領會。所以繼《因緣品》之後闡明來去。第二，前面破斥四緣（因緣、次第緣、緣緣、增上緣），普遍地破斥一切法，這叫做總觀。現在觀察去來，去來是舉足下足的動作，屬於色法，這叫做別觀。所以前面闡明總觀，現在接著闡明別觀。第三，破斥去來是爲了成就無生。外道認為，因謝滅就是去，果續起就是來。既然有去來，怎麼會沒有生滅？數論派的人只有一種三世（過去、現在、未來），即從未來來到現在，從現在謝滅到過去。論主有兩種三世，一是實法三世，大致與數論派相同；二是假名轉變三世，從過去來到現在，現在轉變為未來。如果沒有四緣的生，哪裡會有三世的來去？所以舉出去來以成立生義。現在破斥去來是爲了成就無生觀。第四，有兩種觀，一是約於事觀，事觀就是觀察眼睛所見的動靜去來，明白一切都是空無所有；二是理觀，直接觀察四緣，明白沒有生的意義。問：為什麼要做事觀和理觀這兩種觀呢？答：青目菩薩兩次解釋『八不』，都是用事觀和理觀來解釋。龍樹菩薩解釋『八不』的始終，也是用兩種觀。這是因為事和理總括了萬事萬物。又是順應根性的需要。第五，希望成就成實宗的義理。前一品破斥生，尋求實法而不可得。這一品考察無去，闡明假名相續是不可得的。第六，上一品《因緣品》的末尾總結說，沒有能生的因緣和所生的果。外人說，如果因果相生畢竟是虛無的，那麼為什麼現在能看到有去來呢？所以繼前一品之後生出這一章。第七，上一品尋求生而不可得，外人就認為，生病停止就是去，沒有生 現代漢語譯本：（的狀態）
【English Translation】 English version: Or, one can elucidate the practice of the Middle Way through the understanding of no going and no coming. However, when the Buddha was in the world, beings had sharp faculties and attained enlightenment upon hearing brief explanations. In the degenerate age, beings have dull faculties and do not understand even after hearing brief explanations of the scriptures. Therefore, Nāgārjuna (the author of the treatise) extensively explains it so that they can realize the truth. According to the order of meaning, there are seven aspects in total: First, it clarifies that the 'Eight No's' (no birth, no death, no cessation, no permanence, no oneness, no difference, no coming, no going) are the main principle of this treatise. The 'Conditions Chapter' explains the beginning of the 'Eight No's', which is no birth and no death. This chapter explains the end of the 'Eight No's', distinguishing no coming and no going. Since the beginning and the end are clear, the middle can be understood. Therefore, after the 'Conditions Chapter', it clarifies coming and going. Second, the previous chapter refuted the four conditions (hetu-pratyaya, samanantara-pratyaya, alambana-pratyaya, adhipati-pratyaya), universally refuting all dharmas, which is called the general contemplation. Now, contemplating going and coming, going and coming are the actions of lifting and placing the foot, belonging to the realm of form, which is called the specific contemplation. Therefore, the previous chapter clarified the general contemplation, and this chapter continues to clarify the specific contemplation. Third, refuting going and coming is to achieve no birth. Externalists argue that the cessation of the cause is going, and the continuation of the effect is coming. Since there is going and coming, how can there be no birth and death? The Samkhya school only has one kind of three times (past, present, future), that is, coming from the future to the present, and ceasing from the present to the past. The author of the treatise has two kinds of three times, one is the three times of real entities, which is roughly the same as the Samkhya school; the other is the three times of nominal transformation, coming from the past to the present, and the present transforming into the future. If there is no birth from the four conditions, where would the going and coming of the three times come from? Therefore, going and coming are used to establish the meaning of birth. Now, refuting going and coming is to achieve the contemplation of no birth. Fourth, there are two kinds of contemplation, one is contemplation based on phenomena, where one observes the movement, stillness, going, and coming seen by the eyes, understanding that everything is empty and without substance; the other is contemplation based on principle, where one directly observes the four conditions, understanding that there is no meaning of birth. Question: Why are these two kinds of contemplation, phenomenal and principle, done? Answer: Qingmu Bodhisattva (commentator of the Madhyamakakarika) explained the 'Eight No's' twice, using both phenomenal and principle contemplation to explain them. Nāgārjuna also used two kinds of contemplation to explain the beginning and the end of the 'Eight No's'. This is because phenomena and principle encompass all things. It is also to suit the needs of different capacities. Fifth, hoping to achieve the meaning of the Satyasiddhi school. The previous chapter refuted birth, seeking real entities but finding none. This chapter examines no going, clarifying that the continuous succession of nominal existence is unattainable. Sixth, the end of the previous chapter, the 'Conditions Chapter', concludes that there is no cause that can produce and no effect that is produced. Externalists say, if the mutual arising of cause and effect is ultimately empty, then why can we now see going and coming? Therefore, this chapter arises after the end of the previous chapter. Seventh, the previous chapter sought birth but could not find it, and externalists then thought that the cessation of illness is going, and no birth
觀生則是來。故生滅之執乃傾而去來之病便起。故次破去來明本無生病。何所論去。既無生可去豈有無生可來耶。問觀何法去來品名去來。答上因緣品明觀三種因緣。今品亦明三義。一者上品明十二因緣不生不滅。今還就因緣辨不來不去。過去二因滅為去。現在五果生為來。乃至現在三因滅為去。未來兩果起為來。故十二因緣但有二分。七分為來五分為去。今觀此去來故以目品。問何故觀因緣去來。答為五種人未達因緣是故觀之。一世俗人但見從此到彼為去。反彼還此為來。而不知生所從來死所趣向。二者九十六術不知因緣本末。謂從自在微塵等來去者還至本處。三者五百論師雖知十二因緣往還六趣。而執為定有不得法空。四如譬喻跋摩之流雖了因緣空無所有。而不能知本性寂滅。五者學大乘人雖知本性空寂。遂撥因果罪福報應。今破此五人示正因緣去來無去來義。故觀因緣來去。問何故破此五人。答經云。十二緣河深難得底。所言底者名為空相。達十二因緣本性空寂到于河底。故名𠌵王。今欲令斯五人了達因緣本無來去。亦到河底同成菩薩。以是義故破此五人。問二乘人亦了十二因緣空。空中有何法可異。答二乘但觀十二緣空不知因緣即有佛性不空之義。大士了達十二緣空復知佛性不空之義。故與二乘異也。問二乘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 觀察『生』（birth）就是『來』（coming）。所以執著于『生滅』（birth and death）的觀念就會消失，而『去來』（going and coming）的毛病就會產生。因此，接下來破斥『去來』，闡明本來沒有『生』（birth）的毛病。既然沒有『生』可以『去』（going），哪裡會有沒有『生』可以『來』（coming）呢？ 問：觀察什麼法，使得這一品命名為『去來』（going and coming）？ 答：上一品『因緣品』闡明了三種因緣。這一品也闡明三種含義。第一，上一品闡明了十二因緣不生不滅。這一品仍然就因緣來辨析不來不去。過去的兩個因滅了就是『去』（going），現在的五個果生了就是『來』（coming）。乃至現在的三個因滅了就是『去』（going），未來的兩個果生起就是『來』（coming）。所以十二因緣只有兩部分，七分是『來』（coming），五分是『去』（going）。現在觀察這『去來』（going and coming），所以用它來命名這一品。 問：為什麼觀察因緣的『去來』（going and coming）？ 答：爲了五種人沒有通達因緣，所以要觀察它。第一種是世俗人，只看到從這裡到那裡是『去』（going），從那裡回到這裡是『來』（coming），而不知道生命從哪裡來，死亡到哪裡去。第二種是九十六種外道，不知道因緣的本末，認為從自在天、微塵等處『來去』（going and coming）的，最終還要回到本處。第三種是五百論師，雖然知道十二因緣在六道中往還，但執著於它是定有的，不能證得法空。第四種是像譬喻跋摩之流，雖然瞭解因緣是空無所有的，但不能知道本性寂滅。第五種是學習大乘的人，雖然知道本性空寂，就否定因果罪福報應。現在破斥這五種人，顯示正確的因緣，『去來』（going and coming）是沒有『去來』（going and coming）的意義的。所以要觀察因緣的『來去』（going and coming）。 問：為什麼要破斥這五種人？ 答：經中說：『十二緣河深難得底』。所說的『底』，就是空相。通達十二因緣的本性空寂，到達河底，所以叫做𠌵王（釋迦摩尼佛的稱號之一）。現在想要讓這五種人通達因緣本來沒有『來去』（going and coming），也到達河底，共同成就菩薩。因為這個緣故，所以要破斥這五種人。 問：二乘人也瞭解十二因緣是空的，這空之中有什麼法可以不同？ 答：二乘人只觀察十二因緣是空的，不知道因緣就是有佛性不空的意義。大士（菩薩）瞭解十二因緣是空的，又知道佛性是不空的意義。所以與二乘人不同。 問：二乘人……
【English Translation】 English version Observing 'birth' (生) is 'coming' (來). Therefore, the attachment to the concept of 'birth and death' (生滅) disappears, and the ailment of 'going and coming' (去來) arises. Hence, the following section refutes 'going and coming', clarifying the fundamental absence of the ailment of 'birth'. Since there is no 'birth' to 'go', how can there be no 'birth' to 'come'? Question: What dharma is observed that makes this chapter named 'Going and Coming' (去來)? Answer: The previous chapter, 'Conditions' (因緣品), elucidated three types of conditions. This chapter also elucidates three meanings. First, the previous chapter clarified that the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣) are neither born nor extinguished. This chapter continues to analyze the absence of coming and going based on dependent origination. The extinction of the two past causes is 'going' (去), and the arising of the five present effects is 'coming' (來). Similarly, the extinction of the three present causes is 'going' (去), and the arising of the two future effects is 'coming' (來). Therefore, the twelve links of dependent origination have only two parts: seven parts are 'coming' (來), and five parts are 'going' (去). Now, observing this 'going and coming' (去來), it is used to name this chapter. Question: Why observe the 'going and coming' (去來) of dependent origination? Answer: It is for the sake of five types of people who have not understood dependent origination, so it is observed. The first type is worldly people, who only see going from here to there as 'going' (去), and returning from there to here as 'coming' (來), without knowing where life comes from and where death goes. The second type is the ninety-six non-Buddhist schools, who do not know the beginning and end of dependent origination, believing that those who 'go and come' (去來) from the Self-Existent One (自在), subtle particles (微塵), etc., will eventually return to their original place. The third type is the five hundred teachers, who, although knowing that the twelve links of dependent origination go back and forth in the six realms, are attached to it as being fixed and cannot attain the emptiness of phenomena (法空). The fourth type is like the followers of Vatsiputra (譬喻跋摩之流), who, although understanding that dependent origination is empty and without substance, cannot know the quiescence of the fundamental nature. The fifth type is those who study the Mahayana, who, although knowing that the fundamental nature is empty and quiescent, deny the retribution of cause and effect, sin and merit. Now, refuting these five types of people, the correct dependent origination is shown, and 'going and coming' (去來) has no meaning of 'going and coming' (去來). Therefore, one should observe the 'coming and going' (來去) of dependent origination. Question: Why refute these five types of people? Answer: The sutra says: 'The river of the twelve links is deep and difficult to reach the bottom'. The so-called 'bottom' is the aspect of emptiness. Attaining the fundamental nature of the twelve links of dependent origination as empty and quiescent, reaching the bottom of the river, is called 𠌵王 (Tathagata, one of the epithets of Shakyamuni Buddha). Now, wanting to enable these five types of people to understand that dependent origination originally has no 'going and coming' (去來), and also reach the bottom of the river, jointly accomplishing the Bodhisattva. For this reason, these five types of people are refuted. Question: The followers of the Two Vehicles (二乘) also understand that the twelve links of dependent origination are empty. What dharma is different in this emptiness? Answer: The followers of the Two Vehicles (二乘) only observe that the twelve links are empty, not knowing that dependent origination is the meaning of having Buddha-nature (佛性) and not being empty. The great Bodhisattva (大士) understands that the twelve links are empty and also knows that the Buddha-nature (佛性) is the meaning of not being empty. Therefore, it is different from the followers of the Two Vehicles (二乘). Question: The followers of the Two Vehicles (二乘)...
但知十二緣空墮于斷滅。大士具知空與不空應具墮二邊。答大士知十二本空。故異凡之有。知有中道佛性不空異二乘之空。又十二本空故非有。佛性妙有則非空非空非有。即是中道。問就此義宗云何立於二諦。答大明佛法凡有三種二諦。一者生死涅槃合為二諦。十二因緣虛妄本空名為世諦。佛性妙有不可說空名為真諦。二者就生死之法自論二諦。十二因緣猶如幻夢往還六道名為世諦。而本性空寂實無來去名為真諦。三者就涅槃之法。自論二諦。涅槃妙有名為世諦。而涅槃亦空名為真諦。問何處經明涅槃亦空。答明處甚多。略引二證。一者大品釋十八空云。第一義空者涅槃名第一義。涅槃亦空名第一義空。涅槃經云。迦毗羅城空。大般涅槃空。故知諸法未曾生死亦非涅槃。言忘慮絕也。問此品但據即事動靜明無去來。何以得知約十二因緣。答上品云。為已習大乘人說十二因緣具足八不。前品已釋因緣不生不滅。故今就因緣辨不來不去。但理法難明。故寄事釋之耳。問八不文云不來不出。今云何言不來不去。答八不欲破因果相生義。最後兩不窮其內外。若謂必有因生果者。果為從因內而出。為從因外而來。故明不來不出。此品欲即事觀之。以從此往彼為去。反彼還此為來。故云來去也。二者通觀一切法無去來義。故說此品
。計去來者乃復無窮。略明七。一世間人取耳目所見言實有人之動靜寒暑往來。二者外道謂。從自在天來為來。來還反為去。復云無因而來無因而去。三者二世有部從未來來現在。從現在謝過去。四者二世無部未來未有。而假緣故來緣離則去。五者成實大乘義云。從無明識窟流來入三界初起一念善因為來。反原而去。六者昔地論師義乖真起妄為來。息妄歸真故去。七者攝大乘師明。六道眾生皆從本識來。以本識中有六道種子故生六道也。從清凈法界流出十二部經。起一念聞熏習附著本識。此是反去之始。聞熏習漸增本識漸減。解若都成則本識都滅。用本識中解性成於報佛。解性不可朽滅。自性清凈心即是法身佛。解性與自性清凈心常合究竟之時。解性與自性清凈心相應一體。故法身常報身亦常也。如此等人並計來有所從去有所至必定封執。言有來去者則五眼不見故無此去來。三者如文。明觀即事去來故無有去來。明破去來品故肇師物不遷論云。觀方知彼去。去者不至方。又云。江河競注而不流日月曆天而不周。問江河競注。云何不流。既云不流雲何競注。答世俗之人之常情如所問也。二乘之人未得並觀。亦不能知然。大士得不二觀不壞假名而說實相。故注而不流。不動真際建立諸法。故不流而注。問此事難信云何曉之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：他們所計算的來和去，實際上是無窮無盡的。大致說明七種觀點： 一、世間之人認為，耳目所見的就是真實存在的，所以說有動靜、寒暑、往來。 二、外道認為，是從自在天（Maheśvara）而來，返回自在天就是去。又說，無緣無故地來，無緣無故地去。 三、二世有部（Sarvāstivāda）認為，從未來來到現在，從現在消失到過去。 四、二世無部認為，未來本來沒有，因為因緣聚合而來，因緣離散則去。 五、成實宗（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）和大乘義認為，從無明（avidyā）的識窟流出，進入三界，最初生起一念善因，這便是來；返回本源，便是去。 六、以前的地論師認為，背離真如而生起虛妄，便是來；止息虛妄迴歸真如，便是去。 七、攝大乘師認為，六道眾生都從本識（ālayavijñāna）而來，因為本識中有六道輪迴的種子，所以產生六道。從清凈法界流出十二部經，生起一念聽聞佛法的熏習，附著在本識上，這是返回的開始。聽聞佛法的熏習逐漸增加，本識逐漸減少，如果理解完全成就，那麼本識就完全滅盡。用本識中的解性成就報身佛（saṃbhogakāya）。解性是不可磨滅的，自性清凈心（prakṛti-citta-prabhāsvara）就是法身佛（dharmakāya）。解性與自性清凈心常常結合，在達到究竟的時候，解性與自性清凈心相應合為一體，所以法身常住，報身也常住。 像這樣的人，都認為來有所來，去有所去，必定執著於此。如果說有來去，那麼五眼（pañca-cakṣus）也看不見，所以沒有這種來去。 三、如經文所說，明明觀察到有來去這件事，所以實際上沒有來去。明明地破斥了《去來品》，所以僧肇大師在《物不遷論》中說：『觀察方向才知道它離去，離去者並沒有到達那個方向。』又說：『江河競相奔流卻不流動，日月經歷天空卻不周轉。』問：江河競相奔流，為什麼說不流動？既然說不流動，為什麼又競相奔流？答：這是世俗之人的常情，就像你所問的那樣。二乘之人沒有得到並觀，也不能知道真相。大士得到不二之觀，不破壞假名而說實相，所以奔流而不流動。不移動真際（bhūta-koṭi）而建立諸法，所以不流動而奔流。問：這件事難以置信，如何才能明白呢？
【English Translation】 English version: The coming and going that they calculate are actually endless. Briefly explaining seven viewpoints: 1. Worldly people believe that what they see with their eyes and hear with their ears is real, so they speak of movement and stillness, cold and heat, coming and going. 2. Non-Buddhists believe that it comes from Maheśvara (the自在天), and returning to Maheśvara is going. They also say that it comes without a cause and goes without a cause. 3. The Sarvāstivāda (二世有部) believes that it comes from the future to the present, and disappears from the present to the past. 4. The 無部 believes that the future does not exist originally, but it comes because of the aggregation of causes and conditions, and it goes when the causes and conditions are dispersed. 5. The Satya-siddhi-śāstra (成實宗) and the Mahāyāna meaning believe that it flows out from the cave of ignorance (avidyā, 無明), enters the three realms, and initially gives rise to a good cause in one thought, which is coming; returning to the origin is going. 6. The former Dilun masters believed that turning away from Suchness (真如) and giving rise to delusion is coming; stopping delusion and returning to Suchness is going. 7. The masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘) believe that all beings in the six realms come from the ālayavijñāna (本識), because there are seeds of the six realms in the ālayavijñāna, so the six realms arise. The twelve divisions of scriptures flow out from the pure dharmadhātu (法界), giving rise to a thought of hearing the Dharma, which attaches to the ālayavijñāna, and this is the beginning of returning. The hearing and learning of the Dharma gradually increases, and the ālayavijñāna gradually decreases. If the understanding is completely accomplished, then the ālayavijñāna will be completely extinguished. Use the nature of understanding in the ālayavijñāna to accomplish the saṃbhogakāya (報身佛). The nature of understanding is indestructible, and the prakṛti-citta-prabhāsvara (自性清凈心) is the dharmakāya (法身佛). The nature of understanding and the prakṛti-citta-prabhāsvara are often combined, and when the ultimate is reached, the nature of understanding corresponds to the prakṛti-citta-prabhāsvara and becomes one, so the dharmakāya is permanent, and the saṃbhogakāya is also permanent. People like this all believe that there is a place where coming comes from and a place where going goes to, and they are bound to cling to this. If it is said that there is coming and going, then the five eyes (pañca-cakṣus, 五眼) cannot see it, so there is no such coming and going. 3. As the text says, clearly observing that there is coming and going, so in fact there is no coming and going. Clearly refuting the chapter on coming and going, so Master Sengzhao said in the Essay on the Immutability of Things: 'Observing the direction, one knows that it is leaving, but the one who leaves does not reach that direction.' He also said: 'Rivers rush to flow but do not flow, the sun and moon pass through the sky but do not revolve.' Question: Rivers rush to flow, why do you say they do not flow? Since you say they do not flow, why do they rush to flow? Answer: This is the common sense of worldly people, just like what you asked. People of the Two Vehicles have not attained the simultaneous observation and cannot know the truth. The great bodhisattvas attain the non-dual observation, do not destroy the provisional names, and speak of the real aspect, so they flow without flowing. Without moving the bhūta-koṭi (真際), they establish all dharmas, so they do not flow but flow. Question: This matter is hard to believe, how can it be understood?
。答近而不可知者其唯物性乎。言動而靜似去而留。可以神會不可以事求。請陳近喻以況遠理。如吾身在他鄉夢還本土。既覺已後身竟不移。故知雖去不動不動而去。一切諸法喻之如夢。以有一夕之眠則有一朝之覺。既有長夜之寢亦有朗然大覺。周旋五道喻之如夢。正觀達之實無往反。稱之為覺。問前云此品釋經中無去來義云何釋耶。答經文甚多今略舉其要。凈名經云。不來相來不去相去。來無所來去無所去。即是今意。涅槃經云。琉璃先來。佛問云。汝為至來為不至來。答云至亦不來不至亦不來。至是已來不來。不至是未來不來。我觀是義都無去來。次大品經常啼疑佛去來。而法尚反折之云。炎中水從東海西海而來。南海北海而去。常啼答云。炎中尚無水云何有來去。因此則悟法身無來去義。次智度論解道品。釋菩薩正業亦明無有去來。席捲此文來也。直讀此品未覺為精。若望諸大乘經方知有其深味也。問且置余經。凈名既云不來相來。此就何義。釋之。答成論師云。實法無來相續有來。故云不來相來。又云。世諦有來真諦無來。故云不來相來。地論師云。法界體無來用即有來。中假師云。中道無去來。假名有去來。今悉不同此說。直須讀經。只來宛然而實無所來。不得分為二片也。品廣分為七。處中為四。略說二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：答：近在眼前卻難以理解的，大概就是事物的本性吧。言語行動卻又靜止不動，看似離去卻又停留在此。這隻能用心領會，不能用具體事物來尋求。請允許我用身邊的比喻來闡述深遠的道理。比如我們的身體在異鄉，夢中卻回到了故鄉。醒來之後，身體實際上並沒有移動。因此可知，雖然看似離去，實際上並沒有動；看似沒有動，實際上已經離去。一切諸法都可以用夢來比喻。因為有一晚的睡眠，就會有一早的醒來。既然有漫漫長夜的沉睡，也就會有光明清朗的大覺悟。在五道中輪迴，也可以用夢來比喻。用正觀來通達，實際上並沒有往來。這就可以稱之為覺悟。 問：前面說這一品解釋經典中沒有去來的含義，該如何解釋呢？答：經典中的內容非常多，現在只簡要地舉出其中的要點。《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）中說：『不來相來，不去相去。來無所來，去無所去。』（『不來相來』指沒有來的表相，卻有來的作用；『不去相去』指沒有去的表相，卻有去的作用；『來無所來，去無所去』指實際上沒有真正的來和去。）這就是現在的意思。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說：琉璃（一種寶石）先來了。佛陀問：『你是已經到達才來，還是沒有到達才來？』琉璃回答說：『到達也不是來，沒有到達也不是來。到達是已經來的不來，沒有到達是未來不來。』我觀察這個道理，根本就沒有去來。其次，《大品經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中常啼菩薩（Sadāprarudita）懷疑佛的去來，而法尚菩薩（Dharmodgata）反而責問他說：『火焰中的水從東海、西海而來，又向南海、北海而去。』常啼回答說：『火焰中尚且沒有水，哪裡會有來去呢？』因此就領悟到法身沒有來去的含義。其次，《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）解釋道品，解釋菩薩的正業也明確說明沒有去來。這些都概括了本文的含義。直接閱讀這一品可能覺得不夠精妙，如果參照其他大乘經典，才能知道其中蘊含的深刻意味。 問：暫且放下其他經典，《維摩詰經》既然說『不來相來』，這是就什麼意義來解釋的呢？答：成論師（Sthavira）說：實法（真實存在的法）沒有來，相續（因果相續）有來，所以說『不來相來』。又說：世俗諦（世俗的真理）有來，真諦（究竟的真理）沒有來，所以說『不來相來』。地論師（Bhumisastra）說：法界（宇宙萬法）的本體沒有來，作用卻有來。中假師（Madhyamaka）說：中道（不偏不倚的道路）沒有去來，假名（虛假的名字）有去來。現在我完全不同意這些說法。直接閱讀經典，只看到來是宛然存在的，但實際上並沒有真正的來，不能把它分為兩部分來理解。這一品廣泛地分為七個部分，處中分為四個部分，簡略地說為兩個部分。
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: What is near yet unknowable is perhaps the very nature of things. Speech and action, yet stillness; seemingly departing, yet remaining. This can only be understood through spiritual comprehension, not through seeking in concrete matters. Allow me to present a nearby analogy to illustrate a distant principle. For example, our body is in a foreign land, yet in a dream, it returns to its homeland. Upon awakening, the body has not actually moved. Therefore, it can be known that although seemingly departing, it has not actually moved; seemingly not moving, it has actually departed. All dharmas can be likened to a dream. Because there is one night of sleep, there will be one morning of awakening. Since there is a long night of slumber, there will also be a bright and clear great awakening. Revolving in the five paths can also be likened to a dream. Attaining it through right contemplation, there is actually no coming and going. This can be called enlightenment. Question: Earlier, it was said that this chapter explains that there is no meaning of coming and going in the scriptures. How should this be explained? Answer: There is a great deal of content in the scriptures, and now I will only briefly mention the key points. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'No coming in the aspect of coming, no going in the aspect of going. Coming with nowhere to come from, going with nowhere to go to.' ('No coming in the aspect of coming' refers to having the function of coming without the appearance of coming; 'no going in the aspect of going' refers to having the function of going without the appearance of going; 'coming with nowhere to come from, going with nowhere to go to' refers to the fact that there is actually no real coming and going.) This is the current meaning. The Nirvana Sutra says: Lapis lazuli (a type of gemstone) came first. The Buddha asked: 'Did you come after arriving, or did you come without arriving?' Lapis lazuli replied: 'Arriving is also not coming, and not arriving is also not coming. Arriving is the non-coming of what has already come, and not arriving is the non-coming of the future.' I observe this principle, and there is fundamentally no coming and going. Secondly, in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, Bodhisattva Sadāprarudita constantly doubted the Buddha's coming and going, and Bodhisattva Dharmodgata instead questioned him, saying: 'Does the water in the flames come from the Eastern Sea and the Western Sea, and then go to the Southern Sea and the Northern Sea?' Sadāprarudita replied: 'There is not even water in the flames, so how can there be coming and going?' Therefore, he realized that the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body) has no meaning of coming and going. Secondly, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra explains the Bodhipaksika-dharmas (factors of enlightenment), and the explanation of the Bodhisattva's right action also clearly states that there is no coming and going. These all summarize the meaning of this text. Reading this chapter directly may not feel subtle enough, but if you refer to other Mahayana scriptures, you can know the profound meaning contained within. Question: Let's put aside the other scriptures for now. Since the Vimalakirti Sutra says 'no coming in the aspect of coming,' what meaning is this explained in terms of? Answer: The Sthavira says: Real dharmas (truly existing dharmas) have no coming, continuity (causal continuity) has coming, so it is said 'no coming in the aspect of coming.' It also says: Conventional truth (mundane truth) has coming, ultimate truth (ultimate truth) has no coming, so it is said 'no coming in the aspect of coming.' The Bhumisastra says: The essence of the Dharmadhatu (universe of all dharmas) has no coming, but its function has coming. The Madhyamaka says: The Middle Way (the path of non-attachment) has no coming and going, but provisional names (false names) have coming and going. Now I completely disagree with these statements. Read the scriptures directly, only seeing that coming is clearly present, but in reality, there is no real coming, and it cannot be divided into two parts to understand. This chapter is broadly divided into seven parts, the middle is divided into four parts, and it is briefly said to be two parts.
周。所言七者。初以三時門破去法。二以三時門破去者。三以三時門破初發。四以三時門破住住者。五以一異門破去去者。六以因緣門破去去者。七以定不定門破去去者。次明處中開四門者。從能破門為名者。第一三時門破。二者一異門破。三者因緣門破。四者有無門破。大意令眾生悟無去來入于實相發生正觀滅諸煩惱。但受悟各異。故開多門。所以有此四門者。以計去來是起動之法必墮三世故。前就三時門破。外云。三世若無。眼不應見故就一異破眼所見。復謂因緣去來不可一異故次破因緣。病乃無窮觀門非一。今欲領其大要散其所封故次有無門也。次雖有四門合之為二者。初周略破去來。后三廣破去來。又初周總破去住。后三別破于去。又初周直破去來。后三破眼所見。又初周但就有為門破。後周為無為一切破。今宜依四門。就初為二。第一破去去者。第二破住住者。雖有四儀不出動靜故略觀此二。就初又三。一破法去。二破人去。三破去因。就破法去開為四別。初長行立。次偈破。三救四。破救。問曰世間眼見三時有作者。下此立義也。上品求四緣生果畢竟無從。外人理屈辭窮舌不能救。故今舉眼所見以立義。外道．數論．譬喻之流同明時不可見。故今但云見時中之法不言見時。去來是舉下足色為眼所見故云眼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 周。所說的七種破斥方法是：第一，用三時門破斥『去』這個法（dharma，佛法，此處指運動）；第二，用三時門破斥『去者』（pudgala，補特伽羅，此處指運動的主體）；第三，用三時門破斥『初發』（最初的運動）；第四，用三時門破斥『住住者』（持續停留的主體）；第五，用一異門破斥『去去者』（正在運動的主體）；第六，用因緣門破斥『去去者』；第七，用定不定門破斥『去去者』。 其次說明處於中間狀態時開啟的四種破斥方法：從能破斥的角度命名，第一是三時門破斥，第二是一異門破斥，第三是因緣門破斥，第四是有無門破斥。大意是讓眾生領悟沒有去來，進入實相（tathata，如是，真實不虛的性質），發生正確的觀照，滅除各種煩惱。但由於眾生領悟能力各不相同，所以開啟多種法門。之所以有這四種法門，是因為執著于去來是生起動搖的法，必定會落入三世（過去、現在、未來）的侷限。所以前面就用三時門來破斥。 外人辯駁說：『如果三世不存在，眼睛就不應該能看見。』所以就用一異門來破斥眼睛所見。外人又說：『因緣所生的去來，不能說是一，也不能說是異。』所以接著破斥因緣。病癥無窮無盡，觀照的法門也不止一種。現在想要把握其中的要領，解除其封閉性，所以接著用有無門來破斥。 其次，雖然有四種法門，但可以合為兩種：最初是概括地破斥去來，後面三種是廣泛地破斥去來。又，最初是總的破斥去和住，後面三種是分別破斥『去』。又，最初是直接破斥去來，後面三種是破斥眼睛所見。又，最初只是就『有為』（samskrta，有造作的，有生滅變化的）法門來破斥，後面是為『無為』（asamskrta，無造作的，無生滅變化的）一切法來破斥。現在應該依據四種法門，就最初的法門分為兩種：第一是破斥『去去者』，第二是破斥『住住者』。雖然有四種儀態（行、住、坐、臥），但不超出動和靜，所以概括地觀察這兩種狀態。就最初的破斥『去去者』又分為三種：一是破斥法的『去』，二是破斥人的『去』，三是破斥『去』的因。就破斥法的『去』又分為四種：最初是長行文立論，其次是偈頌破斥，第三是救護，第四是破斥救護。問：世間上眼睛看見三時存在，這是作者（指外道）的立論。 下面是立論：上品求四緣（因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）生果，畢竟無法找到。外人理屈詞窮，無話可說，所以現在舉眼睛所見來立論。外道、數論派、譬喻師之流都認為時間不可見，所以現在只說看見時間中的法，不說看見時間。『去來』是舉起腳和顏色，是眼睛所能看見的，所以說眼睛能看見。
【English Translation】 English version The seven refutations mentioned by Zhou are: First, refuting 'going' (dharma, here referring to movement) using the Three Times Gate; second, refuting 'the goer' (pudgala, here referring to the subject of movement) using the Three Times Gate; third, refuting 'initial arising' (the beginning of movement) using the Three Times Gate; fourth, refuting 'the stayer' (the subject that remains still) using the Three Times Gate; fifth, refuting 'the one who is going' (the subject in motion) using the One-and-Different Gate; sixth, refuting 'the one who is going' using the Condition Gate; seventh, refuting 'the one who is going' using the Determined-and-Undetermined Gate. Next, explaining the four refutations opened in the middle state: Named from the perspective of what can be refuted, the first is the Three Times Gate refutation, the second is the One-and-Different Gate refutation, the third is the Condition Gate refutation, and the fourth is the Existence-and-Nonexistence Gate refutation. The general idea is to enable sentient beings to realize that there is no going or coming, to enter into suchness (tathata, the true and unchanging nature), to generate correct contemplation, and to extinguish all afflictions. However, because sentient beings have different abilities to comprehend, multiple Dharma gates are opened. The reason for having these four gates is that attachment to going and coming is a Dharma that gives rise to movement and will inevitably fall into the limitations of the three times (past, present, and future). Therefore, the Three Times Gate is used to refute it first. The outsider argues: 'If the three times do not exist, the eyes should not be able to see.' Therefore, the One-and-Different Gate is used to refute what the eyes see. The outsider also says: 'Going and coming, which arise from conditions, cannot be said to be one, nor can they be said to be different.' Therefore, the Condition Gate is used to refute conditions. Illnesses are endless, and the methods of contemplation are not limited to one. Now, wanting to grasp the essentials and remove its closed nature, the Existence-and-Nonexistence Gate is used to refute it next. Next, although there are four gates, they can be combined into two: the first is to generally refute going and coming, and the latter three are to extensively refute going and coming. Also, the first is to generally refute going and staying, and the latter three are to separately refute 'going'. Also, the first is to directly refute going and coming, and the latter three are to refute what the eyes see. Also, the first is only to refute the 'conditioned' (samskrta, fabricated, subject to birth and death) Dharma gate, and the latter is to refute all 'unconditioned' (asamskrta, unfabricated, not subject to birth and death) Dharmas. Now, we should rely on the four gates and divide the first gate into two: the first is to refute 'the one who is going', and the second is to refute 'the one who is staying'. Although there are four postures (walking, standing, sitting, lying down), they do not go beyond movement and stillness, so we generally observe these two states. The initial refutation of 'the one who is going' is further divided into three: first, refuting the 'going' of the Dharma; second, refuting the 'going' of the person; and third, refuting the cause of 'going'. The refutation of the 'going' of the Dharma is further divided into four: first, establishing the argument in prose; second, refuting with verses; third, providing a defense; and fourth, refuting the defense. Question: In the world, the eyes see the existence of the three times, which is the argument of the author (referring to non-Buddhists). The following is the establishment of the argument: Seeking the fruit produced by the four conditions (causal condition, immediately preceding condition, object condition, and dominant condition) in the highest quality, it is ultimately impossible to find. The outsider is at a loss for words and has nothing to say, so now they cite what the eyes see to establish the argument. Non-Buddhists, Samkhya school, and Sautrantika masters all believe that time is invisible, so now they only say that they see the Dharma in time, not that they see time. 'Going and coming' refers to lifting the foot and color, which are visible to the eyes, so it is said that the eyes can see.
見。問上立四緣今立去來。云何廣狹。答上法廣人狹。四緣攝一切法。是故為廣。但內道所計。故云人狹。此品人廣法狹。大小內外同計去來。故是人廣。去來但是有為。故云法狹。問三時有幾種耶。答略有三種。一三劫。二三世。三三念。今就后立也。而言三時有作者。法墮三世流動起作。故稱為作。又作是業義。以去即是業故云作也。答曰已去無有去下。第二論主破外人明三時有。論主即明三時無。然直觀此破未覺其精。望凈名經文殊答曰。若來已更不來。去已更不去。此是三時門明無去來。但文殊既至方丈大眾則謂。來已名來。是故今略舉三時中一謂來已不來。佛在世時眾生利根聞一則解三。故不具舉也。琉璃光至亦不來。不至亦不來。至即是已。不至是未。三時之中舉二門也。次凈名彌勒章具舉三時以責無一生記。是故此門可以窮凡屈聖。則望經精巧也。上半明已未二門無去。下半明去時無去。已是過去息滅。是中無去。未是未來。未有去法亦無去。下半破意者。上半令其受已未無去。已是曾去即時無去。未是當去即時亦無去。下半即云。去時不離此二。既信此二無去。當知去時亦無去也。長行雲。離去去業不可得者。業是動之異名。已去則去息無復動義。若言已去有去者。此是離去而有動業耳。去法已滅猶
【現代漢語翻譯】 見（Jian）：問上文建立四緣，現在建立過去和未來，這是如何體現廣狹的？答：上文的『法』是廣，『人』是狹。四緣涵蓋一切法，所以說是廣。但只是內道所計，所以說是『人』狹。此品中，『人』是廣，『法』是狹。大小乘、內外道都計較過去和未來，所以說是『人』廣。過去和未來只是有為法，所以說是『法』狹。問：三時有幾種？答：略有三種：一、三劫；二、三世；三、三念。現在就后一種來立論。說三時有作者，是說法墮入三世的流動起作，所以稱為『作』。而且『作』是業的意思，因為過去就是業，所以說『作』。答：已經過去的沒有『去』的下文。第二位論主破斥外道，闡明三時存在。論主則闡明三時不存在。然而直接觀察這種破斥，還未覺察到它的精妙之處。參照《維摩詰經》，文殊菩薩回答說：『如果來過，就不會再來；去過，就不會再去。』這是用三時之門來闡明沒有過去和未來。但文殊菩薩既然來到方丈室，大眾就認為，來過就叫做來。所以現在略舉三時中的一種，說來過就不會再來。佛在世時，眾生根器銳利，聞一知三，所以不必全部列舉。琉璃光（Bhaisajyaguru）至，也是不來，不至也是不來。至就是已，不至就是未。三時之中舉出兩門。其次，《維摩詰經》彌勒（Maitreya）章中，完整地舉出三時來責難沒有一生補處之記。所以這個法門可以窮盡凡夫，折服聖人，因此說它比經文更加精巧。上半部分闡明已和未二門沒有『去』。下半部分闡明『去』時沒有『去』。『已』是過去，息滅了，其中沒有『去』。『未』是未來，沒有『去』法，也沒有『去』。下半部分破斥的意思是，上半部分讓他們接受已和未沒有『去』。『已』是曾經『去』過，當時就沒有『去』。『未』是將來要『去』，當時也沒有『去』。下半部分就說，『去』時沒有離開這二者。既然相信這二者沒有『去』，就應當知道『去』時也沒有『去』。長行中說：『離開『去』，『去』業不可得』，『業』是動的另一種說法。已經『去』了，『去』就停止了，沒有再動的意義。如果說已經『去』了還有『去』，這就是離開『去』而有動業了。『去』法已經滅盡，仍然 猶
【English Translation】 Jian: Asked, the previous text established the four conditions (hetupratyaya), now establishing the past and future, how is the breadth and narrowness reflected? Answer: In the previous text, 'dharma' is broad, and 'person' is narrow. The four conditions encompass all dharmas, so it is said to be broad. But it is only calculated by the inner path, so it is said that 'person' is narrow. In this chapter, 'person' is broad, and 'dharma' is narrow. Both Mahayana and Hinayana, internal and external paths, calculate the past and future, so it is said that 'person' is broad. The past and future are only conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta), so it is said that 'dharma' is narrow. Question: How many kinds of three times (trikāla) are there? Answer: Briefly, there are three kinds: 1. Three kalpas (kalpa); 2. Three lifetimes (tri-bhava); 3. Three moments (kṣaṇa). Now we establish the argument based on the latter. Saying that the three times have an author means that the dharma falls into the flow and arising of the three lifetimes, so it is called 'action' (karma). Moreover, 'action' means karma, because the past is karma, so it is said to be 'action'. Answer: There is no following text for what has already passed. The second debater refutes the external path, elucidating the existence of the three times. The debater elucidates that the three times do not exist. However, directly observing this refutation, one has not yet perceived its subtlety. Referring to the Vimalakirti Sutra, Manjushri (Mañjuśrī) Bodhisattva replied: 'If one has come, one will not come again; if one has gone, one will not go again.' This is using the gate of the three times to elucidate that there is no past and future. But since Manjushri Bodhisattva has come to the abbot's room, the assembly thinks that coming is called coming. So now, briefly citing one of the three times, it is said that if one has come, one will not come again. When the Buddha was in the world, sentient beings had sharp faculties, and they understood three things from hearing one, so it is not necessary to list them all. Bhaisajyaguru (Bhaisajyaguru) arrives, and it is also not coming, and not arriving is also not coming. Arriving is already, and not arriving is not yet. Among the three times, two gates are cited. Secondly, in the Maitreya (Maitreya) chapter of the Vimalakirti Sutra, the three times are fully cited to question the lack of a record of becoming a Buddha in the next life. Therefore, this Dharma gate can exhaust ordinary people and subdue sages, so it is said to be more ingenious than the sutra text. The first half elucidates that there is no 'going' in the two gates of already and not yet. The second half elucidates that there is no 'going' at the time of 'going'. 'Already' is the past, extinguished, and there is no 'going' in it. 'Not yet' is the future, there is no 'going' dharma, and there is no 'going'. The meaning of the second half of the refutation is that the first half makes them accept that there is no 'going' in already and not yet. 'Already' is that one has 'gone' before, and there is no 'going' at that time. 'Not yet' is that one will 'go' in the future, and there is no 'going' at that time. The second half says that the time of 'going' does not leave these two. Since one believes that there is no 'going' in these two, one should know that there is also no 'going' at the time of 'going'. The long line says: 'Apart from 'going', 'going' karma cannot be obtained', 'karma' is another way of saying movement. Having already 'gone', 'going' stops, and there is no meaning of moving again. If it is said that there is still 'going' after having already 'gone', this is having moving karma apart from 'going'. The dharma of 'going' has already been extinguished, still still
有動業。無有是處也。問曰動處即有去下第三救義。若作一人立義者上立三時有去。二關已窮。今但救去時有去。若作二家立義者上立三時有作。謂三世有部。今立二時無去一時有去。即二世無部。就偈為二。上半立有時法下半明於有無也。動處即有去者立有去法也。所以立有去法者。由論主前偈下半中明去時中無去。今對無去故云動處有去也。而言動者外人謂去粗而動細。去粗即墮已。而動細即非已。既稱為動亦非是未。欲簡除已未故云動也。處有二義。一從所履處名之為處。二者即目舉足動以為處。由上明無去外人云。即此動處有去。何故無耶。此中有去時第二句立有時也。以其動必賴時故將動以證時也。非已去未去者。下半明有無也。若作一人立義。上立三時有去既被破竟。今輸已未兩關也。若二人立義者。上半立現在是有。今非二世有義也。是故去時者第二結去時有去也。又分此偈上半立有時。第三句輸已未二關。第四句正立去時去。此分好。長行雲。隨有作業處者。隨於四衢八達動步即有去也。答曰下第四破救也。問此破與上何異。答今觀四番可為三類。初一問答是總立總破。后一問答是別立別破。初總明三時有去故是總立。總破三時有去故是總破。次但立去時有去故是別立。但破去時去故是別破。又初一
問答是立三世有破三世有。次一問答立二世無破二世無義。三者前破去時去是奪破。明離已未之外無有去時。故是奪也。今縱離已未別有去時去即開四關責之。故是縱破也。問前何故將已未奪去時。今縱有去時耶。答去粗而動細。去粗故可得將已未分之。動細故不得復就已未分之。故縱彼有動求動無從。如人靜坐直是人耳。正動一足便名去者。因此之動稱為去法亦名去業。將步之前名為未去。足動所經名為已去。取其現動名為去時。取其初動目之為發。當步之動名之為是去。餘步形此名為異去。足之所履稱為去處。然即眾緣和合虛受其名。諦觀察之無一可得。而著相者謂有決定。是故論主就而求之也。所言四關者。第一無體破。二各體破。師又詺為失因破。三二法破。四兩人破即是次第。初偈上半牒而不受。下半正破。云何于去時此牒外義也。外人明已未二時無有去義。第三時中有于去法故。此去法賴時而去。是以牒之。而當有去法者。不受其時中有法而法賴時去也。下半正作無體破者。此明時無別體故云無體破也。汝既稱去時。是即因去有時。即時無別體。若無別體法何所賴而得去耶。此非用數論因法假名時離法無別時以破外人。但外人自言去時有去即時因於去故時無別體。即法無所賴耳。又時無別體即是因緣時。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：建立三世（過去、現在、未來）的理論，就會被破斥三世的理論。其次，一個問答是建立二世（現在、未來）的理論，就會被破斥二世的理論。第三種破斥是先前破斥『去時』（正在行走的時間）的『去』，這是奪取式的破斥。明確說明離開『已去』（已經行走的時間）和『未去』（尚未行走的時間）之外，沒有『去時』，所以是奪取。現在假設離開『已去』和『未去』，另外有『去時』，那麼就開啟四關來責難它，所以是假設的破斥。 問：先前為什麼要把『已去』和『未去』奪走『去時』？現在假設有『去時』呢？答：去除粗略的，而動用精細的。去除粗略的，所以可以把『已去』和『未去』分開。動用精細的，所以不能再就『已去』和『未去』來分開。所以假設對方有動，尋求動卻無從找到。比如人，本來只是人而已。剛動一隻腳，就名為『去者』（正在行走的人）。因此的動，稱為『去法』（行走的方法），也名『去業』（行走的行為）。將要邁步之前，名為『未去』。腳動所經過的地方，名為『已去』。取其現在的動，名為『去時』。取其最初的動，稱之為『發』（開始）。將要邁步的動，稱之為『是去』（正在行走）。其餘的步子，依此稱為『異去』（不同的行走）。腳所踩的地方，稱為『去處』（行走的地方）。然而，這只是眾緣和合，虛假地承受這個名稱。仔細觀察，沒有一樣可以得到。而執著于表象的人，認為有決定性的存在。所以論主就此來尋求。 所說的四關是：第一，無體破（破斥沒有實體）。第二，各體破（破斥各自有實體）。師父又稱之為失因破（破斥失去原因）。第三，二法破（破斥兩種法）。第四，兩人破（破斥兩個人），這就是次第。 最初的偈頌，上半部分是照錄而不接受，下半部分是正式破斥。『云何于去時』（怎麼會有去時呢），這是照錄外人的意思。外人說明『已去』和『未去』二時沒有『去』的意義。第三時中有『去法』的緣故，這個『去法』依賴於時間而『去』，所以照錄它。『而當有去法者』（當有去法的時候），是不接受時間中有法，而法依賴於時間而『去』。下半部分正式進行無體破，說明時間沒有別的實體，所以說『無體破』。你既然稱『去時』，就是因為『去』而有時，即時間沒有別的實體。如果沒有別的實體，那麼法依賴什麼而能夠『去』呢？這不是用數論（Samkhya）的因法（原因）假名時（時間）離開法（事物）沒有別的時間來破斥外人。但外人自己說『去時』有『去』，即時間因為『去』的緣故，時間沒有別的實體，即法沒有所依賴的。 又，時間沒有別的實體，即是因緣時（由因緣產生的時間）。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Establishing the theory of the three times (past, present, and future) will be refuted by the theory of refuting the three times. Secondly, one question and answer is establishing the theory of the two times (present and future), which will be refuted by the theory of refuting the two times. The third type of refutation is the previous refutation of 'going' in 'going-time' (the time of walking), which is a depriving refutation. It clearly states that apart from 'gone' (the time already walked) and 'not-gone' (the time not yet walked), there is no 'going-time', so it is deprivation. Now, assuming that apart from 'gone' and 'not-gone', there is another 'going-time', then open the four gates to question it, so it is a hypothetical refutation. Question: Why did you previously take away 'gone' and 'not-gone' from 'going-time'? Now, why assume there is 'going-time'? Answer: Remove the coarse and use the fine. Removing the coarse allows separating 'gone' and 'not-gone'. Using the fine prevents further separation based on 'gone' and 'not-gone'. Therefore, even if the opponent assumes there is movement, seeking the movement will lead nowhere. For example, a person is just a person. Just moving one foot is called a 'goer' (the person walking). This movement is called 'going-dharma' (the method of walking), also known as 'going-karma' (the action of walking). Before taking a step, it is called 'not-gone'. The place the foot has moved through is called 'gone'. Taking the present movement is called 'going-time'. Taking the initial movement is called 'initiation'. The movement of taking a step is called 'is-going' (is walking). The remaining steps are called 'different-going' (different walking). The place where the foot steps is called 'going-place' (the place of walking). However, this is just the aggregation of various conditions, falsely bearing this name. Upon careful observation, nothing can be obtained. Those attached to appearances believe there is a definite existence. Therefore, the master of the treatise seeks it here. The four gates mentioned are: first, no-substance refutation. Second, each-substance refutation. The teacher also calls it loss-of-cause refutation. Third, two-dharma refutation. Fourth, two-person refutation, which is the order. The first verse, the first half is quoted without acceptance, and the second half is a formal refutation. 'How can there be going-time?' This is quoting the meaning of the outsider. The outsider explains that the two times of 'gone' and 'not-gone' have no meaning of 'going'. Because there is 'going-dharma' in the third time, this 'going-dharma' relies on time to 'go', so it is quoted. 'When there is going-dharma', it does not accept that there is dharma in time, and the dharma relies on time to 'go'. The second half formally conducts the no-substance refutation, explaining that time has no other substance, so it is called 'no-substance refutation'. Since you call it 'going-time', it is because of 'going' that there is time, that is, time has no other substance. If there is no other substance, then what does the dharma rely on to be able to 'go'? This is not using the Samkhya (Samkhya) theory of cause (cause) and name-only time (time) to refute the outsider by saying that leaving the dharma (thing) has no other time. But the outsider himself says that 'going-time' has 'going', that is, time has no other substance because of 'going', that is, the dharma has nothing to rely on. Also, time has no other substance, that is, conditioned time (time produced by conditions).
因緣時無有自性。若無自性是即無時。既其無時法何所賴。問此與數論有何異耶。答數論雖知因法假名時無有別時。未知因時假名法無有別法。是故異也。今責成論者云。法賴時去者時復賴誰生耶。若言因法有假名時而無別時。亦應因時而假名法無有別法。無有別法而法為時所生者。亦應無有別時時為法所生也。又若時是無無更有別法生時者。亦應法是無無有別時生法者。又離時外實有法。法尚不生時。今離法外無別時。云何時生法耶。又並外人。若時非法法非時而時法異者。亦時非法法非時。時法應相離。若言理不相離而終異。亦應理不異而終離。然不異只是不離。不離只是不異耳。長行前牒上半。何以故下釋下半。初明時無別體即是奪破。次明相離謂縱關也。第二偈各體破亦云獨去破。來意者初偈無體名為奪破。后之三偈並是縱關。縱關者縱其時法相離即難破之。又初偈無體破破無別時部。后三偈破有別時部。破此二即一切立窮。上半牒而標過。下半難而釋過。若言去時去此牒外立也。上明去時不得有去。今縱關去時有去。是故有若言之句也。是人即有咎者標過也。此偈與前進退成過。前明時無別體故法無所賴即不得去。今明若有時體可賴時而去。即時法有相離之咎。離去有去時者。下半正釋過也。既言法賴時去
。即離法別有時體也。去時獨去故者此傳顯相離之失。所以傳顯相離失者。內法中有二種計。如數論等因法假名時。離法無別時即無相離之失。如譬喻部等謂別有時體。法是色心。時非色心。故須顯相離之失。若爾上句破數論今斥譬喻人。若相離者去之與時並各獨去。獨去者兩各相離。去不因時是法獨義。時不因去是獨時也。又有人言。今去時獨自去故云獨去。此非文旨也。第三偈二法破。來意者初偈得相因而失去。次偈得去而失相因。故進退為過。外人今欲立相因復明有去。即俱免二失。所以然者。既言去時去即時前之去以為時體免無體之過。二時後去賴時而去。無獨去之咎也。上半牒而標過下半釋過。一謂為去時者。此是以一去法為時體也。二謂去時去者。復有一法假時而去。問此有何過耶。答既有二法即有二時。若有一時應有一法。豈一時之中而有兩去法耶。又去法名身動。既有兩動便有二身二色陰也。色陰既二。四心豈一耶。問曰二去有何咎此生第四兩人破。外人未覺兩法之失。是故致問。又雖知有失而著難便例。是故問也。答中為二。上半牒而正並。下半釋並。二去法是二色陰既有二色陰。即成於二人。若唯有一人亦但有一法。故復進退屈也。又若言法二而人一亦應人二法一也。下半釋並者。以離法無人故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即是說，離開法之外，另外存在一個『時』的實體。『去時獨去故』這句話是爲了揭示『相離』的過失。之所以要揭示『相離』的過失，是因為內法中有兩種不同的觀點。例如，像數論派等認為『因法』只是假名安立，離開法就沒有獨立的『時』，因此不存在『相離』的過失。而像譬喻部等則認為『時』是獨立存在的實體，法是色和心，而『時』既不是色也不是心，所以必須揭示『相離』的過失。如果這樣說，那麼前一句是破斥數論派，現在是駁斥譬喻部的人。如果『相離』，那麼『去』和『時』就各自獨立地執行。『獨去』意味著兩者互相分離，『去』不依賴於『時』，這是『法』的獨立性；『時』不依賴於『去』，這是『時』的獨立性。還有人說，現在『去』和『時』各自獨立執行，所以說是『獨去』，但這並非經文的本意。第三個偈頌是破斥兩種法。其意圖是，第一個偈頌是得到了『相因』而失去了『去』，第二個偈頌是得到了『去』而失去了『相因』，因此存在進退兩難的過失。外道現在想要建立『相因』，又想說明有『去』，這樣就能避免兩種過失。之所以這樣說，是因為既然說『去時去』，那麼『去』就在『時』之前，把『去』作為『時』的實體，從而避免了沒有實體的過失。其次，『時』之後的『去』依賴於『時』而執行，因此沒有獨立執行的過失。上半部分是重複並指出過失，下半部分是解釋過失。第一種觀點認為『去時』，這是以一個『去』法作為『時』的實體。第二種觀點認為『去時去』，這是另外有一個法作為『時』，然後『去』依賴於這個『時』而執行。問：這有什麼過失呢？答：既然有兩個法，那麼就應該有兩個『時』。如果只有一個『時』，那麼就應該只有一個法。難道在一個『時』之中會有兩個『去』法嗎？而且，『去』法名為身動，既然有兩個動，那麼就應該有兩個身，兩個色陰。色陰既然有兩個，那麼四種心又怎麼會是一個呢？問：兩個『去』有什麼過失呢？這裡產生了第四種人來破斥。外道沒有意識到兩種法的過失，所以才提出這個問題。而且，即使知道有過失，也因為執著于辯難而舉例說明，所以才這樣問。回答分為兩部分。上半部分是重複並糾正，下半部分是解釋糾正。兩個『去』法是兩個色陰，既然有兩個色陰，那麼就變成了兩個人。如果只有一個人，那麼就應該只有一個法。所以又陷入了進退兩難的困境。而且，如果說有兩個法而只有一個人，那麼也應該有兩個人而只有一個法。下半部分解釋糾正，因為離開法就沒有人。
【English Translation】 English version That is, apart from the Dharma (法, law, principle), there is another entity of 'time' (時). The phrase 'going and time go separately' (去時獨去故) is to reveal the fault of 'separation' (相離). The reason for revealing the fault of 'separation' is that there are two different views within the inner Dharma. For example, schools like the Samkhya (數論) school believe that 'causal Dharma' (因法) is merely a provisional designation, and without the Dharma, there is no independent 'time', so there is no fault of 'separation'. However, schools like the Sautrantika (譬喻部) believe that 'time' is an independent entity, Dharma is form (色) and mind (心), and 'time' is neither form nor mind, so the fault of 'separation' must be revealed. If this is the case, then the previous sentence refutes the Samkhya school, and now it refutes the people of the Sautrantika school. If there is 'separation', then 'going' (去) and 'time' each operate independently. 'Going separately' means that the two are separated from each other, 'going' does not depend on 'time', this is the independence of 'Dharma'; 'time' does not depend on 'going', this is the independence of 'time'. Some people also say that now 'going' and 'time' each operate independently, so it is said to be 'going separately', but this is not the original intention of the scripture. The third verse refutes the two Dharmas. The intention is that the first verse obtains 'interdependence' (相因) but loses 'going', and the second verse obtains 'going' but loses 'interdependence', so there is a dilemma of advancing and retreating. The externalists now want to establish 'interdependence' and also want to explain that there is 'going', so they can avoid the two faults. The reason for saying this is that since it is said 'going when time goes' (去時去), then 'going' is before 'time', and 'going' is taken as the entity of 'time', thus avoiding the fault of having no entity. Secondly, 'going' after 'time' depends on 'time' to operate, so there is no fault of independent operation. The first half repeats and points out the fault, and the second half explains the fault. The first view considers 'going time' (去時), which takes one 'going' Dharma as the entity of 'time'. The second view considers 'going when time goes' (去時去), which means that there is another Dharma as 'time', and then 'going' depends on this 'time' to operate. Question: What is the fault in this? Answer: Since there are two Dharmas, there should be two 'times'. If there is only one 'time', then there should be only one Dharma. How can there be two 'going' Dharmas in one 'time'? Moreover, the 'going' Dharma is called bodily movement, and since there are two movements, there should be two bodies, two form aggregates (色陰). Since there are two form aggregates, how can the four minds be one? Question: What is the fault of two 'goings'? Here, a fourth person arises to refute. The externalists have not realized the fault of the two Dharmas, so they ask this question. Moreover, even if they know there is a fault, they still give examples because they are attached to the debate, so they ask this way. The answer is divided into two parts. The first half repeats and corrects, and the second half explains the correction. The two 'going' Dharmas are two form aggregates, and since there are two form aggregates, it becomes two people. If there is only one person, then there should be only one Dharma. So it falls into a dilemma of advancing and retreating again. Moreover, if it is said that there are two Dharmas but only one person, then there should also be two people but only one Dharma. The second half explains the correction, because without Dharma, there is no person.
法二即人二也。又本是一人。由汝立去時中有去即成二人。既成二人即一人與去法往東。一人與去法往西西東。東人復于去時中去覆成二法二人。如是即一人成無量人。一法成無量法。若爾者即失一人一法。既失其一何有多耶。故一多俱壞。至此已來即立法窮矣。問曰離去者無去法可爾下第二次破去者。問此章為破去者為破去者去耶。答具有二意。一破去者二破去者去。問依觀門次第人空易得應先明。法空難得應后辨。今何得前破法后破人耶。答今中百二論相望者。百論依觀門次第故先破神次破法。以外道未識佛法觀門故示之以漸。又外道計神為主故先破其主也。中論破內學人。內學人多已知人空少信法空。已知人空故不先破人。未知法空故先破法。問內道既知人空何須破。答覆有不知者如犢子是也。又此論正破內傍破外。正破內故先破法。傍破外故后破人。又會法成人。法為人本故先破其本也。問云何名去者去耶。答總論去有二種。一者法去二者人去。前章已破法去今次破人去。人法俱無去即一切去盡矣。又去有二種。一非眾生類去如風行水流。二眾生類去。如從此到彼。上破法去兼破非眾生類去。今正破眾生類去。又上破法去破內道。今破人去破外道。又上破法去破無我部。今破人去破有我部。或開為四。一立二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法二即人二也：『法』和『人』實際上是二元的體現。 又本是一人：原本是一個人。 由汝立去時中有去即成二人：因為你設立了『去』這個概念，在『去』的過程中又包含了『去』，就變成了兩個人。 既成二人即一人與去法往東。一人與去法往西西東：既然成了兩個人，那麼一個人和『去法』向東，另一個人和『去法』向西，東西方向就產生了。 東人復于去時中去覆成二法二人：向東的人在『去』的過程中又包含了『去』，又形成了兩個『法』和兩個人。 如是即一人成無量人。一法成無量法：這樣一來，一個人就變成了無數個人，一個『法』就變成了無數個『法』。 若爾者即失一人一法：如果這樣，就失去了最初的一個人和一個『法』。 既失其一何有多耶：既然失去了一個，哪裡來的眾多呢？ 故一多俱壞：所以，『一』和『多』的概念都瓦解了。 至此已來即立法窮矣：到這裡，設立『法』的理論就走到了盡頭。 問曰離去者無去法可爾下第二次破去者：提問：離開了『去者』，就沒有『去法』，這是可以理解的。下面第二次破斥『去者』。 問此章為破去者為破去者去耶：提問：這一章是爲了破斥『去者』，還是爲了破斥『去者』的『去』呢？ 答具有二意。一破去者二破去者去：回答：兼具兩種含義。一是破斥『去者』，二是破斥『去者』的『去』。 問依觀門次第人空易得應先明。法空難得應后辨：提問：按照觀行的次第，『人空』容易證得，應該先闡明；『法空』難以證得，應該后辨析。為什麼現在先破斥『法』，后破斥『人』呢？ 答今中百二論相望者。百論依觀門次第故先破神次破法。以外道未識佛法觀門故示之以漸。又外道計神為主故先破其主也：回答：現在《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》相互參照。《百論》按照觀行的次第，所以先破斥『神』，再破斥『法』。因為外道不了解佛法的觀行法門，所以用循序漸進的方式來引導他們。而且外道認為『神』是主宰，所以先破斥他們的主宰。 中論破內學人。內學人多已知人空少信法空。已知人空故不先破人。未知法空故先破法： 《中論》是破斥內道修行人的。內道修行人大多已經瞭解『人空』，很少相信『法空』。因為已經瞭解『人空』，所以不先破斥『人』；因為不瞭解『法空』，所以先破斥『法』。 問內道既知人空何須破：提問：內道既然已經瞭解『人空』，為什麼還要破斥呢？ 答覆有不知者如犢子是也。又此論正破內傍破外。正破內故先破法。傍破外故后破人：回答：還有不瞭解『人空』的，比如犢子部就是這樣。而且這部論典主要是破斥內道，順帶破斥外道。因為主要破斥內道，所以先破斥『法』；因為順帶破斥外道，所以後破斥『人』。 又會法成人。法為人本故先破其本也：而且，『法』會合而成『人』，『法』是『人』的根本，所以先破斥它的根本。 問云何名去者去耶：提問：什麼叫做『去者』的『去』呢？ 答總論去有二種。一者法去二者人去。前章已破法去今次破人去。人法俱無去即一切去盡矣：回答：總的來說，『去』有兩種。一是『法去』，二是『人去』。前一章已經破斥了『法去』，這一章接著破斥『人去』。『人』和『法』都沒有了，那麼一切的『去』也就都消失了。 又去有二種。一非眾生類去如風行水流。二眾生類去。如從此到彼。上破法去兼破非眾生類去。今正破眾生類去：而且，『去』有兩種。一是非眾生類的『去』，比如風的流動、水的流淌。二是眾生類的『去』，比如從這裡到那裡。前面破斥『法去』，兼帶破斥非眾生類的『去』，現在主要破斥眾生類的『去』。 又上破法去破內道。今破人去破外道：而且，前面破斥『法去』，是破斥內道；現在破斥『人去』，是破斥外道。 又上破法去破無我部。今破人去破有我部：而且，前面破斥『法去』，是破斥無我部；現在破斥『人去』，是破斥有我部。 或開為四。一立二：或者可以分為四種。一是建立，二是...
【English Translation】 English version 'Dharma (法)' and 'Person (人)' are two aspects of the same thing. Originally, there is only one person. Because you establish the concept of 'going (去)', and within the process of 'going' there is also 'going', it becomes two persons. Since there are two persons, one person and the 'dharma of going' go east, and the other person and the 'dharma of going' go west. Thus, east and west arise. The person going east, within the process of going, again includes 'going', and thus two dharmas and two persons are formed again. In this way, one person becomes countless persons, and one dharma becomes countless dharmas. If that is the case, then the original one person and one dharma are lost. Since the one is lost, how can there be many? Therefore, both 'one' and 'many' are destroyed. Up to this point, the theory of establishing dharmas has reached its end. Question: 'Without the goer (去者), there is no dharma of going (去法),' that is understandable. Below is the second refutation of the goer. Question: Does this chapter refute the goer, or does it refute the 'going' of the goer? Answer: It has two meanings. First, it refutes the goer; second, it refutes the 'going' of the goer. Question: According to the order of the gates of contemplation, 'emptiness of person (人空)' is easy to attain and should be explained first. 'Emptiness of dharma (法空)' is difficult to attain and should be discussed later. Why is dharma refuted first and then person? Answer: Now, comparing the Madhyamaka-karika (中論), Sata-sastra (百論), and Dvadasanikaya-sastra (十二門論), the Sata-sastra follows the order of the gates of contemplation, so it first refutes the self (神) and then refutes dharma. Because the non-Buddhist (外道) do not understand the gates of contemplation in Buddhism, it shows them gradually. Also, the non-Buddhists consider the self as the master, so it first refutes their master. The Madhyamaka-karika refutes internal learners (內學人). Internal learners mostly already know the emptiness of person but few believe in the emptiness of dharma. Because they already know the emptiness of person, it does not refute person first. Because they do not know the emptiness of dharma, it refutes dharma first. Question: Since internal learners already know the emptiness of person, why is it necessary to refute it? Answer: There are still those who do not know it, such as the Vatsiputriyas (犢子部). Also, this treatise primarily refutes the internal and secondarily refutes the external. Because it primarily refutes the internal, it refutes dharma first. Because it secondarily refutes the external, it refutes person later. Moreover, dharma assembles to form a person. Dharma is the root of the person, so it first refutes its root. Question: What is meant by the 'going' of the goer? Answer: Generally speaking, there are two kinds of 'going'. One is the going of dharma, and the other is the going of person. The previous chapter has already refuted the going of dharma, and this chapter continues to refute the going of person. If both person and dharma are non-existent, then all going is exhausted. Moreover, there are two kinds of 'going'. One is the going of non-sentient beings, such as the movement of wind and the flow of water. The other is the going of sentient beings, such as going from here to there. The previous refutation of the going of dharma also refutes the going of non-sentient beings. Now, it primarily refutes the going of sentient beings. Moreover, the previous refutation of the going of dharma refutes the internal path. Now, the refutation of the going of person refutes the external path. Moreover, the previous refutation of the going of dharma refutes the school of no-self (無我部). Now, the refutation of the going of person refutes the school of self (有我部). Or it can be divided into four. First, establishing; second...
破三救四重破。今就文有二。初問次答。問有二。一領前無法。二立後有人。然此問意因論主生。論主上難云。離法無人以法二故人亦應二。此是借人破法。又所以借人破法者。欲借法破人人法病乃息耳。外人即云。離法無人。以人有故法即有也。答曰下五偈為二。初開奪破第二縱破。初奪破為二。上半牒其所受。下半正奪其立者。此不離之言凡三處用之。初用為難離法無人。法二人亦二。次外人用為立人有法即有。今還用為破法無人即無也。然外云。人有法有。論主云法無人無。論主之言已顯於前。外人之立未彰於後。故有屈申也。去者即不去此第二縱破。又開為二。初偈開三門而總非之。后三偈解章門以釋非。人多釋云。此偈猶是以三時破也。初句為已次句為末下半為去時。今謂不然。下外人救還救初句。豈得救已去耶。今所釋者此就三者門破。初句明去者于去時中不能用去法去。次句明不去者亦不能用去法去。離此已外無第三去也。下當釋之今且就此門破者。上來求去若得。可言去者用去法而去名去者去。上來求去無從者何所用。又上明法無人即無。云何于無人法中而謂人用法去。又既稱去者即者無自體。云何能用法去耶。又去者宛然而不去。如肇公云。觀方知彼去。去者不至方。亦如江河競注而實不流。故去
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破三救四重破。現在就文義分為兩部分。首先是提問，然後是回答。提問又分為兩部分。一是總結前面的無法成立，二是提出後面有人存在。然而這個提問的意圖是因論主而產生。論主之前反駁說，離開法就沒有人，因為法是二元的，所以人也應該是二元的。這是借用人來破斥法。之所以借用人來破斥法，是想借用破斥人來消除人法二元的病根。外人就說，離開法就沒有人，因為人存在，所以法就存在。回答在下面的五首偈頌中，分為兩部分。首先是開門見山地駁斥，第二是縱容假設地駁斥。首先，開門見山地駁斥又分為兩部分。前半部分是重複對方所接受的觀點，後半部分是正面駁斥對方的立論。這個『不離』的說法總共用了三次。第一次用在反駁『離開法就沒有人，法是二元的，所以人也應該是二元的』。第二次外人用在立論『人存在，所以法就存在』。現在又用在駁斥『離開法就沒有人，所以法就不存在』。然而外人說，『人存在，法就存在』。論主的觀點已經在前面闡明，外人的立論還沒有在後面充分展開，所以有屈有伸。『去者即不去』這是第二種縱容假設的駁斥。又可以分為兩部分。第一首偈頌開啟三個門徑而全部否定它們，後面的三首偈頌解釋這些門徑來解釋否定。很多人解釋說，這首偈頌仍然是用三時來破斥。第一句是已去時，第二句是未來去時，下半句是現在去時。我現在認為不是這樣。下面的外人反駁還是反駁第一句，怎麼能反駁已去時呢？我現在解釋的是，這是就三者之門來破斥。第一句說明去者在去時中不能用去法去。第二句說明不去者也不能用去法去。離開這些之外沒有第三種去。下面將要解釋，現在且就這個門徑來破斥。如果之前求去能夠成立，可以說去者用去法而去，名為去者去。之前求去無從下手，又用什麼去呢？而且之前說明法無人即無，怎麼能在無人法中而說人用法去呢？而且既然稱為去者，那麼去者就沒有自體，怎麼能用法去呢？而且去者明明存在卻不去。如肇公所說，『觀方知彼去，去者不至方』。也像江河競相奔流而實際上沒有流動，所以去。 English version Breaking Three and Saving Four is a Double Refutation. Now, regarding the text, there are two parts. First, the question, then the answer. The question is divided into two parts. One is to summarize the previous inability to establish, and the second is to propose that there are people later. However, the intention of this question arises from the debater. The debater previously refuted, saying that without the Dharma (law, principle), there is no person, because the Dharma is dualistic, so the person should also be dualistic. This is using the person to refute the Dharma. The reason for using the person to refute the Dharma is to eliminate the root cause of the disease of the duality of person and Dharma by refuting the person. The outsider then says, without the Dharma, there is no person, because the person exists, so the Dharma exists. The answer is in the following five verses, divided into two parts. First, directly refute, and second, refute by allowing assumptions. First, the direct refutation is divided into two parts. The first half repeats the opponent's accepted point of view, and the second half directly refutes the opponent's argument. This statement of 'not separate' is used a total of three times. The first time it was used to refute 'without the Dharma, there is no person, the Dharma is dualistic, so the person should also be dualistic.' The second time the outsider used it to argue 'the person exists, so the Dharma exists.' Now it is used again to refute 'without the Dharma, there is no person, so the Dharma does not exist.' However, the outsider says, 'the person exists, the Dharma exists.' The debater's point of view has already been clarified earlier, and the outsider's argument has not been fully developed later, so there is contraction and expansion. 'The goer does not go' is the second type of refutation by allowing assumptions. It can also be divided into two parts. The first verse opens three paths and denies them all, and the following three verses explain these paths to explain the denial. Many people explain that this verse is still using the three times to refute. The first sentence is the past time, the second sentence is the future time, and the second half is the present time. I now think this is not the case. The following outsider's rebuttal still refutes the first sentence, how can it refute the past time? What I am now explaining is that this is refuting from the perspective of the three entities. The first sentence explains that the goer cannot use the going Dharma to go in the going time. The second sentence explains that the non-goer cannot use the going Dharma to go either. Apart from these, there is no third type of going. I will explain below, but for now, let's refute from this path. If the previous seeking to go could be established, it could be said that the goer uses the going Dharma to go, which is called the goer going. If there is no way to start seeking to go before, what is used to go? Moreover, it was previously explained that without the Dharma, there is no person, so how can it be said that the person uses the Dharma to go in the non-person Dharma? Moreover, since it is called the goer, then the goer has no self-nature, how can it use the Dharma to go? Moreover, the goer clearly exists but does not go. As Master Zhao said, 'Observing the direction knows that it goes, but the goer does not reach the direction.' It is also like rivers rushing to flow but actually not flowing, so going.
【English Translation】 Breaking Three and Saving Four is a Double Refutation. Now, regarding the text, there are two parts. First, the question, then the answer. The question is divided into two parts. One is to summarize the previous inability to establish, and the second is to propose that there are people later. However, the intention of this question arises from the debater. The debater previously refuted, saying that without the Dharma (law, principle), there is no person, because the Dharma is dualistic, so the person should also be dualistic. This is using the person to refute the Dharma. The reason for using the person to refute the Dharma is to eliminate the root cause of the disease of the duality of person and Dharma by refuting the person. The outsider then says, without the Dharma, there is no person, because the person exists, so the Dharma exists. The answer is in the following five verses, divided into two parts. First, directly refute, and second, refute by allowing assumptions. First, the direct refutation is divided into two parts. The first half repeats the opponent's accepted point of view, and the second half directly refutes the opponent's argument. This statement of 'not separate' is used a total of three times. The first time it was used to refute 'without the Dharma, there is no person, the Dharma is dualistic, so the person should also be dualistic.' The second time the outsider used it to argue 'the person exists, so the Dharma exists.' Now it is used again to refute 'without the Dharma, there is no person, so the Dharma does not exist.' However, the outsider says, 'the person exists, the Dharma exists.' The debater's point of view has already been clarified earlier, and the outsider's argument has not been fully developed later, so there is contraction and expansion. 'The goer does not go' is the second type of refutation by allowing assumptions. It can also be divided into two parts. The first verse opens three paths and denies them all, and the following three verses explain these paths to explain the denial. Many people explain that this verse is still using the three times to refute. The first sentence is the past time, the second sentence is the future time, and the second half is the present time. I now think this is not the case. The following outsider's rebuttal still refutes the first sentence, how can it refute the past time? What I am now explaining is that this is refuting from the perspective of the three entities. The first sentence explains that the goer cannot use the going Dharma to go in the going time. The second sentence explains that the non-goer cannot use the going Dharma to go either. Apart from these, there is no third type of going. I will explain below, but for now, let's refute from this path. If the previous seeking to go could be established, it could be said that the goer uses the going Dharma to go, which is called the goer going. If there is no way to start seeking to go before, what is used to go? Moreover, it was previously explained that without the Dharma, there is no person, so how can it be said that the person uses the Dharma to go in the non-person Dharma? Moreover, since it is called the goer, then the goer has no self-nature, how can it use the Dharma to go? Moreover, the goer clearly exists but does not go. As Master Zhao said, 'Observing the direction knows that it goes, but the goer does not reach the direction.' It is also like rivers rushing to flow but actually not flowing, so going.
者宛然而實不去也。不去者不去破第二句。此是面目相違。不去人云何去。若不去人而去。如無罪人有罪無施人有施。又因去者有不去者。上求去者不可得云何有不去者。尚無不去者云何不去者去耶。又去者尚不去。不去者云何去。如明尚非明暗云何是明耶。去既不去不去亦不去。豈可亦去亦不去為去乃至非去不非去為去耶。此即破不有有義。他有既不得為有不有云何得有。若言不有有者應不去者去。即屈此破也。然去不得去不去亦不得去。即有不得為有不有亦不得為有。亦有亦不有非不有並不成有也。問曰若去者去有何咎。此下第二縱破釋章門。但釋初門不釋后二。以初破故后二自崩。又初門是通立通破。以三時有去者名為通立。破三時有去名為通破。從此文是別破別立。別立去者去為別立。破去者去為別破。上破法中亦有縱奪二門通別兩意也。初問次答。此問是外道犢子及成實等義。並明有人御去法而去。但成實二師。一云別有人體人用。二無體但有假用。此中含其二說也。答曰下三偈為三。初無體破。次兩法破。三各體破。初上半牒而不受下半正作無體破。若離法別有人體即人可御法而去。以離法無人體云何人御法而去。問論主用無體以破耶。答不爾。汝既云去者。即用去以成者則者無自體。如用指以成卷卷無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『去』宛然存在但實際上並沒有『去』。『不去』就是不破壞第二句所說的『去』。這是自相矛盾的。如果『不去』的人怎麼會『去』呢？如果『不去』的人卻『去』了，就像無罪的人被判有罪，沒有施捨的人卻有了施捨。而且因為有『去』的人，所以有『不去』的人。向上追尋『去』的人都不可得，怎麼會有『不去』的人呢？尚且沒有『不去』的人，又怎麼會有『不去』的人『去』呢？而且『去』的人尚且沒有『去』，『不去』的人又怎麼會『去』呢？就像光明尚且不是黑暗，黑暗又怎麼會是光明呢？『去』既然沒有『去』，『不去』也沒有『去』，難道可以是『亦去亦不去』作為『去』，乃至『非去非不去』作為『去』嗎？這便是破斥『不有有義』。他人的『有』既然不能成立為『有』，『不有』又怎麼能成立為『有』呢？如果說『不有有』，那麼就應該是『不去』的人『去』了，這便是用反證法來破斥。然而『去』不能成立為『去』，『不去』也不能成立為『去』，那麼『有』不能成立為『有』，『不有』也不能成立為『有』，『亦有亦不有』、『非有非不有』都不能成立為『有』。 問：如果『去』的人『去』了，有什麼過失？ 以下是第二部分，縱向破斥的解釋章節。但只解釋了第一個門，沒有解釋后兩個。因為第一個門被破斥了，后兩個自然崩塌。而且第一個門是通立通破。以三個時段都有『去』的人，稱為通立。破斥三個時段都有『去』，稱為通破。從這段文字開始是別破別立。單獨成立『去』的人『去』，作為別立。破斥『去』的人『去』，作為別破。上面破斥法中也有縱奪二門，包含通別兩種含義。 最初是提問，然後是回答。這個提問是外道犢子部（Vatsiputriya）以及成實宗（Satya-siddhi-ka）等的觀點。他們都認為有人控制著『去』法而『去』。但成實宗的兩位論師，一位認為另有一個人作為主體來使用『去』法，另一位認為沒有主體，只有假借的作用。這裡包含了他們的兩種說法。 回答在下面的三首偈頌中，分為三個部分。首先是破斥沒有主體，其次是破斥兩種法，第三是破斥各自的主體。首先，上半部分是照錄對方的觀點而不接受，下半部分正式進行沒有主體的破斥。如果離開『法』而另有人作為主體，那麼人就可以控制『法』而『去』。如果離開『法』就沒有人作為主體，那麼人怎麼能控制『法』而『去』呢？ 問：論主是用沒有主體來破斥嗎？ 答：不是的。你既然說『去者』，就是用『去』來成就『者』，那麼『者』就沒有自體。就像用手指來形成拳頭，拳頭沒有自體一樣。
【English Translation】 English version The 'going' appears to be there, but in reality, it is not 'going'. 'Not going' means not negating the 'going' stated in the second phrase. This is self-contradictory. If a person is 'not going', how can they 'go'? If a person who is 'not going' actually 'goes', it's like an innocent person being convicted, or someone who doesn't give alms receiving alms. Moreover, because there is a 'going' person, there is a 'not going' person. If we seek the 'going' person and cannot find them, how can there be a 'not going' person? If there isn't even a 'not going' person, how can the 'not going' person 'go'? Furthermore, if the 'going' person hasn't even 'gone', how can the 'not going' person 'go'? It's like light not being darkness, how can darkness be light? Since 'going' is not 'going', and 'not going' is also not 'going', can it be 'both going and not going' as 'going', or even 'neither going nor not going' as 'going'? This is refuting the 'non-existence exists' idea. If the 'existence' of others cannot be established as 'existence', how can 'non-existence' be established as 'existence'? If it is said that 'non-existence exists', then it should be the 'not going' person who 'goes', which is using reductio ad absurdum to refute it. However, 'going' cannot be established as 'going', and 'not going' cannot be established as 'going'. Therefore, 'existence' cannot be established as 'existence', and 'non-existence' cannot be established as 'existence'. 'Both existence and non-existence' and 'neither existence nor non-existence' cannot establish 'existence'. Question: If the 'going' person 'goes', what is the fault? The following is the second part, the chapter explaining the longitudinal refutation. However, it only explains the first gate and does not explain the latter two. Because the first gate is refuted, the latter two naturally collapse. Moreover, the first gate is a general establishment and general refutation. Having 'going' in three times is called general establishment. Refuting 'going' in three times is called general refutation. From this text onwards, it is a separate establishment and separate refutation. Separately establishing the 'going' person 'going' is the separate establishment. Refuting the 'going' person 'going' is the separate refutation. In the above refutation of the Dharma, there are also two gates of longitudinal seizure, containing both general and separate meanings. Initially, there is a question, followed by an answer. This question represents the views of the Vatsiputriya (犢子部) and the Satyasiddhi-ka (成實宗) schools of thought. They both believe that someone controls the 'going' (去) dharma and 'goes'. However, the two masters of the Satyasiddhi-ka school, one believes that there is another person as the subject to use the 'going' dharma, and the other believes that there is no subject, only a borrowed function. This includes their two statements. The answer is in the following three verses, divided into three parts. First, refuting the absence of a subject, second, refuting the two dharmas, and third, refuting the respective subjects. First, the first half is a verbatim record of the other party's point of view without acceptance, and the second half formally carries out the refutation of the absence of a subject. If there is another person as the subject apart from the 'dharma' (法), then the person can control the 'dharma' and 'go'. If there is no person as the subject apart from the 'dharma', then how can the person control the 'dharma' and 'go'? Question: Is the master using the absence of a subject to refute? Answer: No. Since you say 'the goer' (去者), it is using 'going' (去) to accomplish 'the goer' (者), then 'the goer' has no self-nature. Just like using fingers to form a fist, the fist has no self-nature.
自體。非用無體破外有體。又如人作師子師子不能去。須人御方去。今明。此二相離可得爾耳。離兩腳動無別有人。故不得去。此通得破外道犢子成實等義。既其易知不煩作也。第二偈二法破者。前偈是奪破。今二偈並是縱關。上半牒下半破。破意云。若避前無體而言有體。今縱有體墮二去。者前之去以為者體。者后之去為者所用。問二去有何過。答二去法是二色陰。即二身動。一人二身是為大過。又人法不相離。法二即人二。人一即法一。汝一人而法二亦可人二而法一也。又法二即人二。此之二人各往。東西。則東西去者複用去法去亦有二去。既有二法覆成二人。如是一人成無量人。具如前說。長行有二論。一本云。一以去法成去者。二去者成已然後用去法。此文為定餘本悉非。所以然者。初明以一去法為人體。次一去法為人用。故成一人二法過也。第三偈各體破。亦云獨去破。上半牒而標過。下半正明各體。離去有去者汝明去者用去法必先有去者而後用去法。即是離去法有去者體也。說去者有去。師云。離去有去者。外人懷中作如是解。離去別有去者。說去者有去。口中復說去者御去法而去。故云各體也。又此句意詺外義成上離過。汝先有者體而說者用於法。故知離法別有者體。此偈與破去法中各體破全同。但上
明時法各體。今明人法各體為異耳。問前各體破與無體破相次。今何故在二體后耶。答蓋是翻論者誤。何以知然。外人前立三時有去者。青目就二法破中以結三時中無去者竟。更說此偈者當知是誤也。若非翻論者誤則是梵文字失。複次若決定有去有去者應有初發。第三次以三時破發。發與去異者取其異靜之義稱之為發。動足成步目之為去。故去則是果。發則為因。世間云千里之行皆因發足。合抱之本起自毫端。故破發也。至此已來文三義四。文三者初破去法。次破去人。今破初發。義四者謂破人法因果義也。就文為二。初長行次偈本。長行為二。初序立。而於三時中求發不可得者序破也。就三偈為四。初偈開三時門。次偈釋三時門。第三半偈破三時。第四半偈總結破。初門為二。三句明三時無發。下一句呵之。問上云去是果發是因。云何就已去之果求覓初發之因耶。答此非果中求因。乃是三時門之名耳。上已用三時門求無去法。次就三時門求無去人。今就三時門求無初發。故三時門是能破。人法因果等是所破也。問何故就三時門破此等法耶。答去法去人及初發並是起動有為之法。必墮三世故就三世中求之也。何處當有發者三世中既無。三世外則是無為。無為亦無發。是故呵之。何以故三時中無發者。生下釋破偈也。前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『明時法各體』（過去、現在、未來三種時間狀態下的法各有其體性）。現在所說的『明人法各體』（對過去、現在、未來三種時間狀態下的人和法的體性進行辨析）只是對『明時法各體』的另一種說法而已。問：前面已經用『各體破』（對各種體性進行破斥）和『無體破』（對沒有體性的事物進行破斥）依次進行了破斥，為什麼現在又在『二體』（兩種體性）之後進行破斥呢？答：這大概是翻譯論著的人弄錯了。為什麼這麼說呢？因為外道先前立了『三時』（過去、現在、未來）的說法，其中有『去者』（運動者）。青目菩薩在用『二法破』（用兩種方法進行破斥）的過程中，已經總結了『三時中無去者』（在過去、現在、未來三種時間狀態下都沒有運動者）的結論。如果再來說這個偈頌，就應當知道是翻譯錯誤了。如果不是翻譯論著的人弄錯了，那就是梵文字身就缺失了。 其次，如果決定有『去』（運動）和『去者』（運動者），那麼就應該有『初發』（最初的出發）。第三次用『三時』來破斥『發』（出發）。『發』和『去』不同，『發』取的是『異靜』（不同於靜止）的含義，稱之為『發』。動腳成為步，用眼睛去看，這叫做『去』。所以『去』是果，『發』是因。世間說『千里之行，始於足下』，『合抱之木，生於毫末』。所以要破斥『發』。到這裡為止，文有三種，義有四種。文三種是指：先破斥『去法』（運動的法），再破斥『去人』（運動的人），現在破斥『初發』（最初的出發）。義四種是指：破斥人、法、因、果的含義。從文章結構來說，分為兩部分：先是長行，然後是偈頌。長行分為兩部分：先是序立，然後在『三時中求發不可得』（在過去、現在、未來三種時間狀態下尋求出發是不可得的）中進行破斥。 就三個偈頌來說，分為四部分：第一個偈頌開啟『三時門』（過去、現在、未來三種時間狀態之門），第二個偈頌解釋『三時門』，第三個半偈頌破斥『三時』，第四個半偈頌總結破斥。第一個偈頌開啟『三時門』，又分為兩部分：前三句說明『三時無發』（在過去、現在、未來三種時間狀態下都沒有出發），下一句呵斥這種觀點。問：上面說『去』是果，『發』是因，為什麼要在已經過去的『去』這個果中尋求『初發』這個因呢？答：這並不是在果中尋求因，而是『三時門』的名稱而已。上面已經用『三時門』求證沒有『去法』，然後就『三時門』求證沒有『去人』，現在就『三時門』求證沒有『初發』。所以『三時門』是能破，人、法、因、果等是所破。問：為什麼就『三時門』來破斥這些法呢？答：『去法』、『去人』以及『初發』都是起動有為之法，必定會落入三世（過去、現在、未來），所以就在三世中尋求它們。哪裡應當有『發』呢？三世中既然沒有，三世之外就是無為。無為也沒有『發』。所以要呵斥這種觀點。為什麼三時中沒有『發』呢？下面將解釋破斥的偈頌。前面……
【English Translation】 English version: 'Ming Shi Fa Ge Ti' (明時法各體) [Each state of Dharma in the past, present, and future has its own nature]. What is now called 'Ming Ren Fa Ge Ti' (明人法各體) [Analyzing the nature of people and Dharma in the past, present, and future] is just another way of saying 'Ming Shi Fa Ge Ti'. Question: Earlier, 'Ge Ti Po' (各體破) [Refuting various natures] and 'Wu Ti Po' (無體破) [Refuting things without nature] were used successively for refutation. Why is the refutation now done after 'Er Ti' (二體) [Two natures]? Answer: This is probably a mistake by the translator of the treatise. Why do I say that? Because the heretics previously established the 'Three Times' (三時) [past, present, and future], among which there is 'Qu Zhe' (去者) [the mover]. Bodhisattva Qingmu, in the process of using 'Er Fa Po' (二法破) [Refuting with two methods], has already concluded that 'San Shi Zhong Wu Qu Zhe' (三時中無去者) [There is no mover in the past, present, and future]. If this verse is mentioned again, it should be known that it is a translation error. Secondly, if it is determined that there is 'Qu' (去) [movement] and 'Qu Zhe' (去者) [the mover], then there should be 'Chu Fa' (初發) [the initial start]. The third time, 'San Shi' is used to refute 'Fa' (發) [starting]. 'Fa' and 'Qu' are different. 'Fa' takes the meaning of 'Yi Jing' (異靜) [different from stillness] and is called 'Fa'. Moving the foot becomes a step, and looking with the eyes is called 'Qu'. Therefore, 'Qu' is the result, and 'Fa' is the cause. The world says, 'A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,' and 'A tree that can be embraced grows from a tiny sprout.' Therefore, 'Fa' must be refuted. Up to this point, there are three types of text and four types of meaning. The three types of text refer to: first refuting 'Qu Fa' (去法) [the Dharma of movement], then refuting 'Qu Ren' (去人) [the person who moves], and now refuting 'Chu Fa' (初發) [the initial start]. The four types of meaning refer to: refuting the meanings of person, Dharma, cause, and effect. In terms of the structure of the text, it is divided into two parts: first the prose, then the verses. The prose is divided into two parts: first the introduction, and then the refutation in 'San Shi Zhong Qiu Fa Bu Ke De' (三時中求發不可得) [Seeking the start in the past, present, and future is unattainable]. Regarding the three verses, they are divided into four parts: the first verse opens the 'San Shi Men' (三時門) [the gate of the past, present, and future], the second verse explains the 'San Shi Men', the third half-verse refutes the 'San Shi', and the fourth half-verse summarizes the refutation. The first verse opens the 'San Shi Men', which is further divided into two parts: the first three sentences explain 'San Shi Wu Fa' (三時無發) [There is no start in the past, present, and future], and the next sentence rebukes this view. Question: Above it was said that 'Qu' is the result and 'Fa' is the cause, why seek the cause of 'Chu Fa' in the already past result of 'Qu'? Answer: This is not seeking the cause in the result, but merely the name of 'San Shi Men'. Above, 'San Shi Men' has been used to prove that there is no 'Qu Fa', and then 'San Shi Men' has been used to prove that there is no 'Qu Ren'. Now, 'San Shi Men' is used to prove that there is no 'Chu Fa'. Therefore, 'San Shi Men' is the refuter, and person, Dharma, cause, effect, etc. are the refuted. Question: Why refute these Dharmas based on 'San Shi Men'? Answer: 'Qu Fa', 'Qu Ren', and 'Chu Fa' are all active and conditioned Dharmas, and they will inevitably fall into the three times (past, present, and future), so they are sought in the three times. Where should there be 'Fa'? Since there is none in the three times, outside the three times is unconditioned. There is no 'Fa' in the unconditioned either. Therefore, this view must be rebuked. Why is there no 'Fa' in the three times? The following will explain the verse of refutation. Before...
唱三時無未釋所以無。今釋所以無故有此文也。未發無去時者第二釋三時無發。上半釋二時無發。下半釋未去無發。未發無去時釋上去時中無發。亦無有已去釋已去無發。章門偈則就三時次第故先已次未後去時。今釋就緩切次第先破其切。后破其緩。以正計去時有發及已去中有發故也。又是逐文勢鉤鎖接最後去時無發仍即釋之也。問云何未發無去時釋去時中無發耶。答若未發有時可從時中發。未發竟無時。從何處發耶。問未發何故無時耶。答發是動發之法。因法故有時。未發則無法。無法雲何有時耶。問若爾今因發故有時。可得從時中發耶。答若因發有時即時無自體。時無自體即發無所賴。云何得從時中發耶。問此與上破法何異。答初章門偈與破法中初偈三時求去法不可得全同今此偈與上破法中無體偈全同。好體破發亦應具有四破。一無體破。二各體。三二法。四兩人。但上以具明今略舉初門。即餘三可領也。亦無有已去釋已去中無發。亦具二義。一者若未發有已去之時可從已去時中發。未發竟無已時云何從已時中發。二者因發有時。時即無自體。法何所賴而得發耶。是二應有發者結上二義應有發。而今尚無。未去是未來。未來未有時云何得從時中發耶。無去無未去此第三次破無三時。破無三時者上來三處用三時破去
法去人及初發竟。今次破此三時。則前破所破今破能破。問何故破三時耶。答恐外人云若三時中盡無人法因果何故有此三時耶。既其有時必應有法。又既有能破應有所破。是故今明。法無故時無。所破無故能破亦無也。一切無有發者第四總結破。一切無者謂無去法去人等。但發最在後。故偏舉之耳。何故而分別者。不應分別有人法因果及三時也。長行雲。發無故無去此明因無故果無也。無去故無去者。法無故人無也。何得有已去未去去時。此是法無故無時。亦是所破無故能破亦無也。問何故呵外人耶。答此章破去事竟。故總結呵也。問曰無去無去者應有住住者。第二以三時門破住。破住二意。一先破動今破靜。令悟四儀宛然而未曾動靜。二破住為成破去。上就去門破去。今就住門破去。既其見住則去心必生。今破其住則無靜對動則去心都息。就中有二。前問次答。問有二。初領前無去次問後有住。作此問者凡有三義。一者外人雖知無去而未解無住。故請問之。二者欲舉住證去。三欲有無相待以無去對有住。則是有無相對也。答中三偈四章。初偈明三時門無住。次偈偏釋初門無住。三上半偈重以三時門破去者住。次下半偈類破余法。初偈上半明二門中無住。下半明無第三門。去者則不住此是正去則無有住。不去者不住無
去可待。故無有住。又世間有二種住。一者未住二者本住。本住者不去稱之為住。亦是去前住。未住者息去然後住。亦是去後住。去者不住破其未住。若正法即有去者而不得住。若其息去即無復去者。令誰住耶。如息五指即無卷可住。次句破本住。易知。第二偈破去者住。偏釋初門。又例上破去具通別。初門通破住。此門別破住也。又例上應有縱奪門。上奪今縱也。上半牒而不受。下半正破。破意云。離去法無去人。若有去人即有去法便不得住。若息去法即無復去人。令誰住耶。故人義若成便不得住。住義若成即無復有人。進退屈也。又離法無人。汝欲息法令人住者。亦應息人而法住耶。眾事推之畢竟無住。去未去無住第三舉三時門重破去者住。上是奪門。明去者不得住。今縱。汝必言去者息去法而住者。於何時中住。已去中是已滅。即無住。未去則未有住。去時還墮二門。此猶是捉上三時門破住。至此已來凡四過。用三時門破也。所有行止法者第四類破余法。問行止是何法耶。答生死流轉相續為行。涅槃滅生死流動為止。上以破動靜二儀。今破生死涅槃兩法。即一切諸法畢竟無遺也。問品題破去來而不破于來。不題破住及行止。何故破耶。答品欲釋八不之未故以去來相對。但去來更無兩體此望為去。彼觀為來故破去
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 可以這樣理解：因為有『去』（Gequ，going）這個動作，所以實際上並沒有真正的『住』（Zhu，abiding）。此外，世間存在兩種『住』：一種是『未住』（Weizhu，not yet abiding），另一種是『本住』（Benzhu，originally abiding）。所謂的『本住』，指的是沒有發生『去』這個動作的狀態，因此可以稱之為『住』。但實際上，這也是在之前的『去』之後的狀態。而『未住』，指的是停止了『去』的動作之後的狀態，因此也可以說是『去』之後的『住』。『去』這個動作本身就否定了『未住』的狀態。如果存在正當的『去』，那麼就不會有『住』。如果停止了『去』的動作，那麼就不會再有『去』這個動作，那麼又讓誰來『住』呢？就像停止了五指的彎曲，就不會有拳頭可以『住』。下一句是用來否定『本住』的，這很容易理解。第二個偈頌是用來否定『去者』（Quzhe，the goer）的『住』。這是對第一個問題的偏重解釋。此外，可以像之前一樣，通過縱奪門（Zongduo men，the gate of allowing and denying）來分析『去』，從而貫通地理解『別』（Bie，difference）。第一個問題是普遍地否定『住』，而這個問題是特別地否定『住』。此外，可以像之前一樣，使用縱奪門。之前是『奪』（Duo，denying），現在是『縱』（Zong，allowing）。上半部分是重複之前的觀點，但不接受。下半部分是正式地否定。否定的意思是：離開了『去』這個法（Fa，dharma），就沒有『去人』（Quren，the person who goes）。如果存在『去人』，那麼就一定存在『去』這個法，這樣就無法『住』。如果停止了『去』這個法，那麼就不會再有『去人』，那麼又讓誰來『住』呢？所以，如果『人』的意義成立，那麼就無法『住』。如果『住』的意義成立，那麼就不會再有『人』。這是一種進退兩難的境地。此外，離開了法，就沒有人。如果你想停止法而讓人『住』，那麼也應該停止人而讓法『住』嗎？通過各種情況來推論，最終都是無法『住』的。 『去』、『未去』（Weiqu，not going）、『無住』（Wuzhu，non-abiding），第三個問題是通過舉出三時門（Sanshi men，the three times）來再次否定『去者』的『住』。之前是『奪』，說明『去者』無法『住』。現在是『縱』，假設你一定要說『去者』停止了『去』這個法而『住』，那麼是在什麼時候『住』呢？已『去』（Yiqu，already gone）的狀態是已經滅亡的狀態，因此沒有『住』。未『去』（Weiqu，not yet gone）的狀態是沒有『住』。『去』的時候還是會落入之前的兩種情況。這就像是用之前的三時門來否定『住』。到目前為止，已經用了四次，用三時門來否定『住』。 所有『行』（Xing，going）、『止』（Zhi，stopping）的法，第四類是用來否定其他法的。問：『行』和『止』是什麼法呢？答：生死流轉相續是『行』，涅槃滅生死流動是『止』。之前是否定了動靜兩種狀態，現在是否定生死涅槃兩種法。也就是說，一切諸法最終都沒有遺漏。問：品題（Pinti，the title of the chapter）否定了『去』和『來』（Lai，coming），但沒有否定『來』。品題沒有否定『住』和『行止』，這是為什麼呢？答：品題想要解釋八不（Babu，the eight negations）的『未』（Wei，not yet），所以用『去』和『來』相對。但『去』和『來』並沒有兩個實體，從這個角度看是『去』，從那個角度看是『來』，所以否定『去』。
【English Translation】 English version It can be understood as follows: Because there is the action of 'Gequ' (去, going), there is actually no real 'Zhu' (住, abiding). Furthermore, there are two kinds of 'abiding' in the world: one is 'Weizhu' (未住, not yet abiding), and the other is 'Benzhu' (本住, originally abiding). The so-called 'Benzhu' refers to the state where the action of 'going' has not occurred, so it can be called 'abiding'. But in reality, this is also the state after the previous 'going'. 'Weizhu', on the other hand, refers to the state after stopping the action of 'going', so it can also be said to be 'abiding' after 'going'. The action of 'going' itself negates the state of 'not yet abiding'. If there is a proper 'going', then there will be no 'abiding'. If the action of 'going' is stopped, then there will be no more 'going', so who will 'abide'? Just like stopping the bending of the five fingers, there will be no fist to 'abide'. The next sentence is used to negate 'Benzhu', which is easy to understand. The second verse is used to negate the 'Quzhe' (去者, the goer)'s 'abiding'. This is a biased explanation of the first question. In addition, like before, we can analyze 'going' through the 'Zongduo men' (縱奪門, the gate of allowing and denying) to understand 'Bie' (別, difference) comprehensively. The first question is to universally negate 'abiding', while this question is to specifically negate 'abiding'. In addition, like before, we can use the gate of allowing and denying. Before was 'Duo' (奪, denying), now is 'Zong' (縱, allowing). The first half repeats the previous point of view, but does not accept it. The second half is a formal negation. The meaning of the negation is: without the 'Fa' (法, dharma) of 'going', there is no 'Quren' (去人, the person who goes). If there is a 'goer', then there must be the 'Fa' of 'going', so it is impossible to 'abide'. If the 'Fa' of 'going' is stopped, then there will be no more 'goer', so who will 'abide'? Therefore, if the meaning of 'person' is established, then it is impossible to 'abide'. If the meaning of 'abiding' is established, then there will be no more 'person'. This is a dilemma. Furthermore, without the dharma, there is no person. If you want to stop the dharma and let the person 'abide', then should you also stop the person and let the dharma 'abide'? Through various situations, it can be concluded that there is ultimately no 'abiding'. 'Going', 'Weiqu' (未去, not going), 'Wuzhu' (無住, non-abiding), the third question is to reiterate the negation of the 'goer's' 'abiding' by citing the 'Sanshi men' (三時門, the three times). Before was 'Duo', indicating that the 'goer' cannot 'abide'. Now is 'Zong', assuming you must say that the 'goer' stops the 'Fa' of 'going' and 'abides', then when does he 'abide'? The state of 'Yiqu' (已去, already gone) is a state that has already perished, so there is no 'abiding'. The state of 'Weiqu' (未去, not yet gone) is without 'abiding'. When 'going', it will still fall into the previous two situations. This is like using the previous three times to negate 'abiding'. Up to now, it has been used four times, using the three times to negate 'abiding'. All 'Xing' (行, going), 'Zhi' (止, stopping) dharmas, the fourth category is used to negate other dharmas. Question: What are the 'going' and 'stopping' dharmas? Answer: The continuous flow of birth and death is 'going', and Nirvana extinguishing the flow of birth and death is 'stopping'. Previously, the two states of movement and stillness were negated, and now the two dharmas of birth and death and Nirvana are negated. That is to say, all dharmas are ultimately without omission. Question: The title of the chapter negates 'going' and 'Lai' (來, coming), but does not negate 'coming'. The title does not negate 'abiding' and 'going and stopping', why is this? Answer: The title wants to explain the 'Wei' (未, not yet) of the 'Babu' (八不, the eight negations), so it uses 'going' and 'coming' relative to each other. But 'going' and 'coming' do not have two entities, from this perspective it is 'going', from that perspective it is 'coming', so it negates 'going'.
即破來也。今欲遍窮萬法故。動靜二儀生死涅槃兩法皆不可得。問今此破意在何耶。答令悟此身不動不靜。非生死流轉。亦非涅槃止息。即是以觀發中因中發觀。於此身心不起凡夫二乘有所得心常與道合也。問曰汝雖種種門下。若開四門初三時門已竟。今是第二一異門破也。若二週明義初周已竟。今是第二週。問何以知有二週意耶。答上破去住及類行止等竟。而今更破去去者。當知是重破。故有二週也。問何故明二週耶。答利根聞初周略破即解。鈍根未悟更廣破之。就文為二。初問次答。問有二。初領前無。而眼見下第二立有去住也。問品初已明眼見三時有作。今復云眼見。與前何異。答初明眼見。論主就三時門求之不得。外人云。汝雖巧難我不能答。而道理終有。以眼見故。二者上直舉眼見。而論主即破。外人今便反難論主。若三時中無眼不應見。今既眼見。則不應無。故無則不應見。見故非是無。所以異上也。又外人反問論主。有世諦以不。若有世諦即有去住。若無世諦則是邪見。又真諦可無。世諦云何是無。若言世諦中無則真諦應有。是則大亂。又若俗無真有。即色可聞聲可見眼應聞耳應見也。三者外人復云。若無而顛倒故見者有無俱倒。何故見有不見無耶。又等是顛倒見。無有一去而見一去。何故不於一人見
【現代漢語翻譯】 即是破除這種觀念。現在想要徹底瞭解萬法，所以動與靜、生死與涅槃這兩種對立的法都不可執著。問：現在這種破除的用意在哪裡呢？答：爲了讓人領悟到這個身體既非不動也非靜止，既非生死的流轉，也非涅槃的止息。這就是以觀照來啓發中道，又從中道來啓發觀照。對於這個身心，不生起凡夫和二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的有所得之心，常常與道相合。問：你雖然從種種門徑入手，如果說開啟四門，那麼初三時門已經結束。現在是第二一異門（同一與差異之門）的破斥。如果說二週明義，那麼初周已經結束，現在是第二週。問：憑什麼知道有二週的用意呢？答：前面破斥了去、住以及類似的行為、停止等等，而現在又再次破斥『去去者』（正在去的人），應當知道這是重複的破斥，所以有二週。問：為什麼要說明二週呢？答：利根的人聽了初周的簡略破斥就理解了，鈍根的人沒有領悟，所以更加廣泛地破斥。從文義上分為兩部分，先是提問，然後是回答。提問有兩點，第一是領會前面的『無』，而『眼見』以下是第二點，立『有去住』。問：品初已經說明眼見三時（過去、現在、未來）有作用，現在又說眼見，與前面有什麼不同？答：開始說明眼見時，論主就三時門來尋求，但沒有得到結果。外人說：『你雖然巧妙地為難我，我不能回答，但是道理終究是有的，因為眼見是事實。』第二，前面直接提出眼見，論主立即破斥。外人現在就反過來為難論主，如果三時中沒有眼，就不應該能看見。現在既然能看見，就不應該說沒有。所以，沒有就不應該能看見，能看見就不是沒有，所以與前面不同。另外，外人反問論主：『有世諦（世俗諦）嗎？』如果有世諦，就有去住。如果沒有世諦，那就是邪見。又，真諦可以沒有，世諦怎麼能說沒有呢？如果說世諦中沒有，那麼真諦就應該有，這就大亂了。又，如果俗諦沒有而真諦有，那麼顏色就可以被聽見，聲音就可以被看見，眼睛應該能聽見，耳朵應該能看見。第三，外人又說：『如果沒有，因為顛倒的緣故而看見，那麼有和無都顛倒了。為什麼只看見有，而不看見無呢？』又，同樣是顛倒的見解，沒有一個『去』（運動）卻看見一個『去』，為什麼不在一個人身上看見 現代漢語譯本 English version This is to refute such a concept. Now, wanting to thoroughly understand all dharmas, both movement and stillness, life and death, and Nirvana, these two opposing dharmas should not be clung to. Question: What is the intention of this refutation now? Answer: It is to make people realize that this body is neither unmoving nor still, neither the cycle of life and death nor the cessation of Nirvana. This is to use contemplation to inspire the Middle Way, and from the Middle Way to inspire contemplation. Regarding this body and mind, do not give rise to the mind of attainment of ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), and always be in harmony with the Tao. Question: Although you start from various paths, if you say opening the Four Gates, then the initial Three Times Gate has ended. Now it is the second One-Different Gate (the gate of sameness and difference) of refutation. If you say the Two Weeks of clarifying meaning, then the first week has ended, and now it is the second week. Question: How do you know there is an intention of Two Weeks? Answer: Previously, the refutation of going, staying, and similar behaviors, stopping, etc., and now again refuting 'the goer who is going', it should be known that this is a repeated refutation, so there are Two Weeks. Question: Why explain the Two Weeks? Answer: People with sharp roots understand after hearing the brief refutation of the first week, but people with dull roots have not realized it, so they refute it more extensively. From the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts, first the question, then the answer. There are two questions, the first is to understand the previous 'non-existence', and 'eye-seeing' below is the second point, establishing 'existence of going and staying'. Question: At the beginning of the chapter, it has been explained that eye-seeing has a function in the three times (past, present, future), now saying eye-seeing again, what is the difference from before? Answer: When explaining eye-seeing at the beginning, the debater sought from the Three Times Gate, but did not get a result. The outsider said: 'Although you cleverly embarrass me, I cannot answer, but there is still a reason, because eye-seeing is a fact.' Second, previously directly proposing eye-seeing, the debater immediately refuted it. The outsider now turns around to embarrass the debater, if there is no eye in the three times, one should not be able to see. Now that one can see, one should not say there is no eye. Therefore, non-existence should not be able to see, being able to see is not non-existence, so it is different from before. In addition, the outsider asks the debater: 'Is there conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya)?' If there is conventional truth, there is going and staying. If there is no conventional truth, then it is a wrong view. Also, ultimate truth can be non-existent, how can conventional truth be said to be non-existent? If you say there is no conventional truth, then there should be ultimate truth, which is a great mess. Also, if conventional truth does not exist and ultimate truth exists, then color can be heard, sound can be seen, the eyes should be able to hear, and the ears should be able to see. Third, the outsider also said: 'If there is no existence, because of the inverted view, then both existence and non-existence are inverted. Why only see existence and not see non-existence?' Also, the same is an inverted view, there is no 'going' (movement) but one sees a 'going', why not see in one person
【English Translation】 This is to refute that view. Now, wanting to thoroughly understand all dharmas (萬法), both movement and stillness, life and death, and Nirvana, these two opposing dharmas should not be clung to. Question: What is the intention of this refutation now? Answer: It is to make people realize that this body is neither unmoving nor still, neither the cycle of life and death nor the cessation of Nirvana. This is to use contemplation to inspire the Middle Way, and from the Middle Way to inspire contemplation. Regarding this body and mind, do not give rise to the mind of attainment of ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘), and always be in harmony with the Tao. Question: Although you start from various paths, if you say opening the Four Gates, then the initial Three Times Gate has ended. Now it is the second One-Different Gate (同一與差異之門) of refutation. If you say the Two Weeks of clarifying meaning, then the first week has ended, and now it is the second week. Question: How do you know there is an intention of Two Weeks? Answer: Previously, the refutation of going, staying, and similar behaviors, stopping, etc., and now again refuting 'the goer who is going', it should be known that this is a repeated refutation, so there are Two Weeks. Question: Why explain the Two Weeks? Answer: People with sharp roots understand after hearing the brief refutation of the first week, but people with dull roots have not realized it, so they refute it more extensively. From the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts, first the question, then the answer. There are two questions, the first is to understand the previous 'non-existence', and 'eye-seeing' below is the second point, establishing 'existence of going and staying'. Question: At the beginning of the chapter, it has been explained that eye-seeing has a function in the three times (past, present, future), now saying eye-seeing again, what is the difference from before? Answer: When explaining eye-seeing at the beginning, the debater sought from the Three Times Gate, but did not get a result. The outsider said: 'Although you cleverly embarrass me, I cannot answer, but there is still a reason, because eye-seeing is a fact.' Second, previously directly proposing eye-seeing, the debater immediately refuted it. The outsider now turns around to embarrass the debater, if there is no eye in the three times, one should not be able to see. Now that one can see, one should not say there is no eye. Therefore, non-existence should not be able to see, being able to see is not non-existence, so it is different from before. In addition, the outsider asks the debater: 'Is there conventional truth (世俗諦)?' If there is conventional truth, there is going and staying. If there is no conventional truth, then it is a wrong view. Also, ultimate truth can be non-existent, how can conventional truth be said to be non-existent? If you say there is no conventional truth, then there should be ultimate truth, which is a great mess. Also, if conventional truth does not exist and ultimate truth exists, then color can be heard, sound can be seen, the eyes should be able to hear, and the ears should be able to see. Third, the outsider also said: 'If there is no existence, because of the inverted view, then both existence and non-existence are inverted. Why only see existence and not see non-existence?' Also, the same is an inverted view, there is no 'going' (運動) but one sees a 'going', why not see in one person
於二去復於二人見一去耶。四者汝口說無。我眼見有則眼見是實。口說難信。有如是等義故。重舉眼見問論主也。答曰下第二破。就文為三。初偈雙牒雙定。次兩偈雙牒雙難。后一偈雙結雙呵。前長行呵云。肉眼所見不可信者。汝信眼所見不信論主口破者。宜撿口眼二因。外人以無明顛倒為因感得肉眼。諸佛菩薩以波若為因宣之於口。故眼不可信。我破即可信。又汝現世無明心流入眼故眼見不可信。我以觀辨我心論宣于口。蓋從二惠心流入此口。故口可信眼不可信。又眼不可信者。熱病人種種橫見故口言有物。汝無明熱病橫有所見故言有去來。又汝言見一何故不見二者。此見不見並是汝之倒情。汝見一既不可信。汝之不見亦不可信。如是五句也。又此是顛倒與顛倒相應。故所見不亂也。又若我言無而見有者可受此難。汝自見有。今就汝求有不得故汝有不可信。汝若執無而見有者我亦破之也。又云。既稱肉眼所見不可信。何得云佛見世諦與凡夫不異。但有著不著不同故分凡聖耶。又汝無始來作此信不得解脫。欲得解脫不應信此六情。故信波若則不信一切法。信一切法則不信波若。波若生則一切法不生。一切法生則波若不生。二河傾滿亦復如是。外人既舉眼所見可信。論主以一異類破顯即事可信。故就一異求之不成也。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『於二去復於二人見一去耶』？四者，汝口說無，我眼見有，則眼見是實，口說難信。有如是等義故，重舉眼見問論主也。 答曰下第二破。就文為三。初偈雙牒雙定。次兩偈雙牒雙難。后一偈雙結雙呵。前長行呵云：『肉眼所見不可信者，汝信眼所見，不信論主口破者，宜撿口眼二因。』外人以無明顛倒為因，感得肉眼。諸佛菩薩以般若（Prajna，智慧）為因，宣之於口。故眼不可信，我破即可信。又汝現世無明心流入眼故，眼見不可信。我以觀辨我心論宣于口，蓋從二惠心流入此口。故口可信，眼不可信。又眼不可信者，熱病人種種橫見故，口言有物。汝無明熱病橫有所見故，言有去來。又汝言見一，何故不見二者？此見不見並是汝之倒情。汝見一既不可信，汝之不見亦不可信。如是五句也。又此是顛倒與顛倒相應，故所見不亂也。又若我言無而見有者，可受此難。汝自見有，今就汝求有不得，故汝有不可信。汝若執無而見有者，我亦破之也。 又云：『既稱肉眼所見不可信，何得云佛見世諦與凡夫不異，但有著不著不同故分凡聖耶？』又汝無始來作此信不得解脫。欲得解脫，不應信此六情。故信般若（Prajna，智慧）則不信一切法。信一切法則不信般若（Prajna，智慧）。般若（Prajna，智慧）生則一切法不生。一切法生則般若（Prajna，智慧）不生。二河傾滿亦復如是。外人既舉眼所見可信，論主以一異類破顯即事可信。故就一異求之不成也。又
【English Translation】 English version 『If the two went, did the two see one going again?』 Fourthly, you say there is nothing with your mouth, but I see there is with my eyes, so what the eyes see is real, and what the mouth says is hard to believe. Because of such meanings, the argument is repeatedly raised based on what the eyes see to question the debater. The answer below is the second refutation. In terms of the text, there are three parts. The first verse repeats and affirms in pairs. The next two verses repeat and challenge in pairs. The last verse concludes and scolds in pairs. The preceding long passage scolds, saying: 『If what the physical eye sees is not believable, and you believe what the eye sees but do not believe the debater's refutation, then you should examine the two causes of mouth and eye.』 Outsiders, due to ignorance and delusion as the cause, perceive with the physical eye. All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, with Prajna (Wisdom) as the cause, proclaim it with their mouths. Therefore, the eye is not believable, but my refutation is believable. Moreover, because your present-day ignorant mind flows into the eye, what the eye sees is not believable. I proclaim with my mouth based on the treatise of observing and discerning my mind, which flows from the two wisdom minds into this mouth. Therefore, the mouth is believable, but the eye is not believable. Furthermore, the eye is not believable because a person with a fever sees all sorts of distorted things, so the mouth speaks of things that are there. Because you have ignorance and feverish illness, you see things that are not there, so you speak of going and coming. Moreover, you say you see one, so why don't you see two? This seeing and not seeing are both your distorted feelings. Since your seeing one is not believable, your not seeing is also not believable. Such are the five sentences. Moreover, this is delusion corresponding with delusion, so what is seen is not disordered. Furthermore, if I said there was nothing but saw something, I could accept this challenge. You yourself see that there is, but now I seek existence from you and cannot find it, so your existence is not believable. If you insist there is nothing but see something, I will also refute it. Moreover, it is said: 『Since it is said that what the physical eye sees is not believable, how can it be said that the Buddha's seeing of worldly truth is no different from that of ordinary people, but the difference lies in attachment and non-attachment, thus distinguishing between the ordinary and the holy?』 Furthermore, you have been making this belief since beginningless time and cannot attain liberation. If you want to attain liberation, you should not believe in these six senses. Therefore, believing in Prajna (Wisdom) means not believing in all dharmas. Believing in all dharmas means not believing in Prajna (Wisdom). When Prajna (Wisdom) arises, all dharmas do not arise. When all dharmas arise, Prajna (Wisdom) does not arise. The two rivers overflowing are also like this. Since the outsider raises that what the eye sees is believable, the debater uses a different category to refute and reveal that the matter itself is believable. Therefore, seeking it in terms of one and different is unsuccessful. Moreover,
一異撿不可得。當知慧眼所見現可信也。如因緣品世間現見故世間眼見也。問一異撿云何現可信耶。答汝言眼見有去人去法者。汝眼為見其是一物。為見是其二物耶。即事責之則外人于眼見事便爾無對。故眼見事不成也。又作一異破者然計有去者即是我見。我見為一異本。一異是斷常本。斷常是六十二見本。故大品云。譬如我見攝六十二見。故知我見為本。由有我故推我與陰一即陰滅我滅。成於斷見。陰與我異。陰滅我存故起常見。故一異是斷常本。既有斷常便起六十二見。從見則起愛。愛見因緣故有業苦。今破一異之本則枝末之見自傾。即令悟眾生累無不寂德無不圓。累無不滅不可為有。德無不圓不可為無。故得中道法身也。又一異是十四難。一異既傾十四難便壞也。問一異為破一人為破兩計。答若直舉眼見救義則一異破一立也。若執一異則破二人也。問何人執一異耶。答若直取色法為身動故名為去法。去法成人名為去者則非僧佉等四外道義。以四外道並計色與神異。而自執神與覺一異有四師耳。若總以五陰為身動名為去法者。即亦是四外道義也。而成論師明假有即實義異實義。即入今二門責之。又成論師計假人有體有用。是計異義。計假人無體還以五陰為體。是人法一義也。初偈雙牒雙非。易知也。次兩偈雙牒雙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 '一'和'異'（不同）的觀點都不可取。應當知道，慧眼所見才是真實可信的。正如《因緣品》所說，世間所見是真實存在的，所以世間的眼見也是可信的。問：如何證明對'一'和'異'的辨析是可信的呢？答：你說眼見有'去人'（正在離去的人）和'去法'（離去的行為），那麼你的眼睛是看到它們是一個東西，還是看到它們是兩個東西呢？用這個直接質問他，外道之人對於眼見之事便會無言以對。所以眼見之事是不能成立的。又，用'一'和'異'來破斥，是因為執著于'去'的觀念，這實際上是'我見'（認為有'我'存在的錯誤觀念）。'我見'是'一'和'異'的根本，'一'和'異'是'斷見'（認為人死後一切皆無）和'常見'（認為人死後靈魂永存）的根本，'斷見'和'常見'是六十二種邪見的根本。所以《大品般若經》說，譬如'我見'能涵蓋六十二種邪見，因此可知'我見'是根本。由於執著于'我'，所以推論'我'與五陰（構成人的五種要素）是一體的，那麼五陰滅亡，'我'也滅亡，這就形成了'斷見'。或者認為五陰與'我'是不同的，五陰滅亡，'我'仍然存在，這就產生了'常見'。所以'一'和'異'是'斷見'和'常見'的根本。有了'斷見'和'常見'，就會產生六十二種邪見。從這些邪見就會產生貪愛。因為貪愛和邪見的因緣，所以會有業和苦。現在破斥'一'和'異'的根本，那麼枝末的邪見自然就會崩潰。這就能使人領悟到眾生的煩惱沒有不寂滅的，功德沒有不圓滿的。煩惱沒有不滅的，但不能說它存在；功德沒有不圓滿的，但不能說它不存在。所以能證得中道法身。而且，'一'和'異'是十四難（十四種難以回答的問題）之一。'一'和'異'既然被破斥，十四難也就隨之瓦解。問：破斥'一'和'異'，是破斥一個人，還是破斥兩種計較？答：如果直接用眼見來救助義理，那麼破斥'一'和'異'就是破斥一種，確立一種。如果執著于'一'和'異'，那就是破斥兩個人。問：什麼人執著于'一'和'異'呢？答：如果直接認為色法（構成物質世界的要素）是身體，身體的運動叫做'去法'，'去法'成就人，叫做'去者'，那麼這就不是僧佉（Samkhya）等四外道的觀點。因為四外道都認為色法與神是不同的。只有他們自己執著于神與覺知是一體還是不同的四種主張。如果總的來說，以五陰為身體，身體的運動叫做'去法'，那麼這也是四外道的觀點。而成論師（Satyasiddhi-sastra）闡明假有即是實義，實義是不同的。這就進入了現在的二門責難。而且成論師認為假人有體有用，這是計較'異'的觀點。認為假人沒有體，還是以五陰為體，這是人法'一'的觀點。最初的偈頌是雙重陳述雙重否定，容易理解。接下來的兩個偈頌是雙重陳述雙重陳述。
【English Translation】 English version The views of 'one' and 'different' are both untenable. It should be known that what is seen by the eye of wisdom is truly believable. As the 'Conditions Chapter' says, what is seen in the world is real, so what the worldly eye sees is also believable. Question: How can the analysis of 'one' and 'different' be proven to be believable? Answer: You say that the eye sees a 'going person' (someone who is leaving) and a 'going action' (the act of leaving), then does your eye see them as one thing, or does it see them as two things? If you directly question him with this, the outsider will be speechless about what the eye sees. Therefore, what the eye sees cannot be established. Furthermore, using 'one' and 'different' to refute is because of clinging to the concept of 'going,' which is actually 'self-view' (the mistaken notion that there is a 'self'). 'Self-view' is the root of 'one' and 'different,' 'one' and 'different' are the root of 'annihilationism' (the belief that everything ceases to exist after death) and 'eternalism' (the belief that the soul is eternal), and 'annihilationism' and 'eternalism' are the root of the sixty-two heretical views. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that 'self-view' encompasses the sixty-two heretical views, so it can be known that 'self-view' is the root. Because of clinging to 'self,' it is inferred that 'self' and the five skandhas (the five elements that constitute a person) are one, then when the five skandhas perish, 'self' also perishes, which forms 'annihilationism.' Or it is believed that the five skandhas are different from 'self,' and when the five skandhas perish, 'self' still exists, which gives rise to 'eternalism.' Therefore, 'one' and 'different' are the root of 'annihilationism' and 'eternalism.' With 'annihilationism' and 'eternalism,' the sixty-two heretical views will arise. From these heretical views, greed will arise. Because of the conditions of greed and heretical views, there will be karma and suffering. Now, refuting the root of 'one' and 'different' will naturally collapse the branch-like heretical views. This will enable people to realize that the afflictions of sentient beings are all extinguished, and the merits are all complete. Afflictions are all extinguished, but it cannot be said that they exist; merits are all complete, but it cannot be said that they do not exist. Therefore, one can attain the Middle Way Dharmakaya (Dharma Body). Moreover, 'one' and 'different' are one of the fourteen difficulties (fourteen questions that are difficult to answer). Since 'one' and 'different' are refuted, the fourteen difficulties will also collapse. Question: Is refuting 'one' and 'different' refuting one person or refuting two calculations? Answer: If you directly use what the eye sees to help the meaning, then refuting 'one' and 'different' is refuting one and establishing one. If you cling to 'one' and 'different,' then you are refuting two people. Question: Who clings to 'one' and 'different'? Answer: If you directly think that form (the element that constitutes the material world) is the body, and the movement of the body is called 'going action,' and the 'going action' accomplishes a person, called 'goer,' then this is not the view of the Samkhya (Samkhya) and other four non-Buddhist paths. Because the four non-Buddhist paths all believe that form and spirit are different. Only they themselves cling to the four claims that spirit and awareness are one or different. If, in general, the five skandhas are taken as the body, and the movement of the body is called 'going action,' then this is also the view of the four non-Buddhist paths. And the Satyasiddhi-sastra explains that the provisional existence is the real meaning, and the real meaning is different. This enters the current two-door accusation. Moreover, the Satyasiddhi-sastra believes that the provisional person has substance and function, which is the view of calculating 'difference.' Believing that the provisional person has no substance and still takes the five skandhas as the substance is the view of the oneness of person and Dharma. The initial verse is a double statement and double negation, which is easy to understand. The next two verses are double statements and double statements.
破。破一中上半牒下半破。所以舉作作者並去去者。以去去者一義過昧。作作者一義過顯故將顯以並昧也。作是瓶此是色法。作者是人非色法。汝去亦是色法。去者非色法。去去者既一。則作作者亦一。若一者二俱有情二俱無情。二俱有色二俱無色也。師責成實義云。汝人起善惡。善惡是所作。人是能作。若一則無能所。若有能所則不得一。若一復有能所則是亦一亦異。亦異故有能所。亦一故無能所。又能所既一起善惡。既有兩法應當兩人。若人一則善惡應一。又如人起四心四心迭代。四人亦爾。若人一則四心應一。他又云。人能作善惡不當善惡。心為善惡體不當解惑。今問。若解惑與心一則心一。則解惑應一。善惡與人一人一。則善惡一。若人不當善惡何處離善惡色心別有人。若別有人人應在善惡色心外。柱應在四微外。又若異心別有善惡應異青黃別有色也。第二偈上半亦牒不半破。而將離以責其異者。亦離顯而異昧故也。汝既得異應得相離。相離有五。一者東西離。去若在東者應居西。二者有無離。未有去法應先有去人。未有去人應先有去法。三存亡離。去人死去法應存。去法亡去人應在。四去住離。去法自去而人自住。去人自去而去法應住。五不相成異。人法既異。則不相成。如牛二角。長行為二。初雙牒。總
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 破。『破』字，上半部分是『牒』字，下半部分是『破』字。之所以只舉『作作者』和『去去者』這兩個例子，是因為『去去者』的含義過於隱晦，而『作作者』的含義過於明顯，所以用明顯的例子來類比隱晦的例子。『作』是瓶子，這是色法（rupa，物質現象）。『作者』是人，不是色法。『汝去』也是色法，『去者』不是色法。『去去者』既然是一體的，那麼『作作者』也是一體的。如果是一體的，那麼兩者要麼都是有情（sentient beings），要麼都是無情（non-sentient beings），要麼都是有色（having form），要麼都是無色（formless）。 師父用成實宗（Satya-siddhi）的觀點責問：『你人』產生善惡，善惡是所作（what is made），『人』是能作（the maker）。如果是一體的，就沒有能作和所作的區分。如果有能作和所作的區分，就不能說是一體的。如果一體又同時有能作和所作，那就是既一又異。因為有異，所以有能作和所作；因為一體，所以沒有能作和所作。而且能作和所作既然一起產生善惡，既然有兩種法，就應該有兩個人。如果人是一體的，那麼善惡也應該是一體的。又比如人產生四種心，四種心交替出現，就像四個人一樣。如果人是一體的，那麼四種心也應該是一體的。』 他又說：『人』能作善惡，但不等同於善惡。心是善惡的本體，但不等同於解惑。現在我問：如果解惑與心是一體的，那麼心是一體的，解惑也應該是一體的。善惡與人，一人一體，那麼善惡就是一體的。如果『人』不等同於善惡，那麼在哪裡能離開善惡，在色（rupa，物質現象）心（citta，心識）之外找到『人』呢？如果另外有『人』，那麼『人』應該在善惡、色、心之外。就像柱子應該在四大（earth, water, fire, wind）微粒之外一樣。而且如果不同的心有不同的善惡，那麼就應該像不同的青色和黃色有不同的顏色一樣。 第二個偈頌的上半部分也是先陳述觀點，然後不完全地駁斥，而是用分離來責難他們的差異。這也是因為分離的含義明顯，而差異的含義隱晦。 你既然認為有差異，就應該認為可以分離。分離有五種：一是東西分離，如果『去』在東邊，那麼『去人』應該在西邊。二是有無分離，在沒有『去法』之前應該先有『去人』，在沒有『去人』之前應該先有『去法』。三是存亡分離，『去人』死去，『去法』應該存在；『去法』消失，『去人』應該存在。四是去住分離，『去法』自己執行而『去人』自己停留，『去人』自己執行而『去法』應該停留。五是不相成異，『人』和『法』既然不同，就不應該相互依存，就像牛的兩隻角。長行分為兩部分，首先是雙重陳述，總括全文。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Breaking.』 The upper half of the character 『breaking』 is 『dié,』 and the lower half is 『breaking.』 The reason for citing only 『maker and making』 and 『goer and going』 is that the meaning of 『goer and going』 is too obscure, while the meaning of 『maker and making』 is too obvious. Therefore, the obvious example is used to analogize the obscure one. 『Making』 is the bottle, which is rupa (form, material phenomena). 『Maker』 is the person, which is not rupa. 『You going』 is also rupa, 『goer』 is not rupa. Since 『goer and going』 are one, then 『maker and making』 are also one. If they are one, then both are either sentient beings or non-sentient beings, both have form or are formless. The master questions using the Satyasiddhi ( 成實宗 ) view: 『You person』 generates good and evil, good and evil are what is made, 『person』 is the maker. If they are one, there is no distinction between maker and what is made. If there is a distinction between maker and what is made, then they cannot be said to be one. If they are one and at the same time have maker and what is made, then it is both one and different. Because there is difference, there is maker and what is made; because there is one, there is no maker and what is made.』 He also says: 『Person』 can make good and evil, but is not equal to good and evil. Citta ( 心識 , mind) is the substance of good and evil, but is not equal to resolving confusion. Now I ask: If resolving confusion and mind are one, then mind is one, and resolving confusion should also be one. Good and evil and person, one person one entity, then good and evil are one. If 『person』 is not equal to good and evil, then where can one find 『person』 apart from good and evil, rupa ( 物質現象 , form), and citta ( 心識 , mind)? If there is another 『person,』 then 『person』 should be outside of good and evil, rupa, and citta. Just like a pillar should be outside of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) particles. Moreover, if different minds have different good and evil, then there should be different colors like different blue and yellow.』 The first half of the second verse also first states the view, then refutes it incompletely, but uses separation to criticize their differences. This is also because the meaning of separation is obvious, while the meaning of difference is obscure. Since you think there is difference, you should think there can be separation. There are five kinds of separation: First, east-west separation. If 『going』 is in the east, then 『goer』 should be in the west. Second, existence-nonexistence separation. Before there is 『going-dharma,』 there should first be 『goer-person.』 Before there is 『goer-person,』 there should first be 『going-dharma.』 Third, survival-death separation. When 『goer-person』 dies, 『going-dharma』 should exist; when 『going-dharma』 disappears, 『goer-person』 should exist. Fourth, going-staying separation. 『Going-dharma』 moves by itself while 『goer-person』 stays by itself. 『Goer-person』 moves by itself while 『going-dharma』 should stay. Fifth, non-interdependent difference. Since 『person』 and 『dharma』 are different, they should not be interdependent, like the two horns of a cow. The long passage is divided into two parts, first a double statement, summarizing the whole text.
唱有過。次何以故釋一異過。先釋一次釋異。一中為三。一標錯亂及破因緣過。因去有去者下第二雙釋。一中下第三雙結。釋中有二。初釋破因緣者。既因去有去者云何言一。故是破因緣。又去下釋錯亂有二。一人法二常無常。人通四儀是故為常。四儀迭代興廢。故名無常。非是破外道人常義也。若一應俱常俱無常。喚人應得法召法應得人。故是錯亂。一中有如是過者第三雙結。或解云。釋一中三過一結。三過者第一門法體亂過。又去名為法下第二名亂過。人常法無常下義亂過。夫論謬立不出三亂。謂體名義也。一中有如是過者第四結也。異中亦應有三離。一東西離。二有無離。三存亡離。四總結。今略無初離也。第三段上半雙牒下半雙呵。易知也。因去知去者第三因緣門破。有此門來凡有三意。一者前破一異破人法體。今因緣門破人法用。故二偈文並稱不能用則體用俱寂。二者上破一異。而犢子立人法不受此破。別有人體故不可言一。而因於陰故不可言異。如別有火體不可與薪一。而因托于薪不可言異。雖不可一異而人能御法法能成人。有人法用義故今破之也。三者上來破性人法。今破因緣人法。則性空因緣空義也。二偈為二。初偈破者不能用是去。次偈破者不能用異去。是去者是者所因。去者不能用。異去者非者
所因。去者亦不能用。而此二偈反覆相成。初偈免二去而墮無用。后偈若其有用便墮二法。又初偈破不得動第一步。第二偈破不得動第二步。尚不得動第二步。況千里行耶。故一切法無動轉者也。初偈上半明人不能用法。下半明法不能運人。因去知去者此牒外人義。若端拱靜坐此直是人耳。不知是去者。以其因動足即知是去人故云因去知去者。不能用是去者論主破也。是去即者所因去。而者不能用。若離去別有者體者可能用去法。今因去知者。則者無自體。云何能用去法。又無自體即無者。誰用去法耶。如因色心成人。若未有色心則本無有人。既因色心成人。離色心無人。人云何還能用色心耶。又不得色心成人。凡成必有能所。色心是能成人是所成。今離色心無人。云何色心是能成人為所成耶。先無有去法下半有二義。一釋上半。若去者之前別有去法。可因法知者者能用法。今因者有法者前無法。云何因法知者而言者能用法。此則上半破其者能用法。下半破其因法知者。次意上半破者能用法。下半破法能運者。去者之前別有去法可言法能運者。今因者有法。則去者之前無有去法。云何言法能運者。長行雲。是去法未有時無有去者。此明因法有去者。者無自體故不能用去法耳。亦無已去未去去時。未有去法非但無者亦無
三時。明因法有時耳。既因法有者者無自體。云何者於三時中用得去耶。如前有城下釋下半。初舉譬反釋。先有人後有城人可趣城。前有法後有人法可運人。而人法互相因不得先後。云何言先有法而能運人。復何得言先有法因法知人耶。第二偈破異去。上半牒下半破。外云初動一步是者所因去。以去法成者體者可不能用。今進第二步異於成者之去名為異去。此去既不成者體。則者應能用。是故破云。於一去者中不得二去故。初去以成者體。次去為者所用則是二去。二去則二動二身。如上無量過也。汝若言至第二步時初步已滅無有二法過者則但有後步。則唯有成者之去則者不能用。同初偈過故免二去則墮無用。得有用則成二去。又初步成者體者無自體。云何得運初步進至第二步。又縱將初步進至第二步。則至第二步時猶有初步。則一人有二去。無有是處。凡論有去要初步滅進至第二步。無有將初步至第二步第二步時猶有初步也。故偈云。於一去者中不得二去故。又初步滅則者亦滅不得至第二步。初步不滅猶有初步。亦不得至第二步。故一切人無有動步之義也。又一去成者體。此是前時去。一去成者用。此是后時去。但目前時去未有後時去。至后時去無有前時去。恒是一去只有成義無有用義。故偈云。於一去者中不得二去
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三時（過去、現在、未來）。如果說『明因法』在某個時候存在，既然『因法』存在，那麼『者』（能動者）就沒有自性。那麼，『者』如何在三時之中進行活動呢？就像前面『有城下釋』的下半部分所說的那樣，首先用比喻來反駁和解釋。先有人後有城，人可以去往城。先有法（規律）後有人，法可以引導人。但是，人和法是互相依存的，不能有先後順序。怎麼能說先有法，然後法就能引導人呢？又怎麼能說先有法，通過法才能認識人呢？ 第二個偈頌是破斥不同的觀點。上半部分是重複對方的觀點，下半部分是破斥。對方說，最初邁出的一步是『者』所憑藉的『去』（運動）。因為『去法』成就了『者』的本體，所以『者』就不能使用『去』。現在邁出第二步，不同於成就『者』的『去』，所以稱為『異去』。這個『去』既然沒有成就『者』的本體，那麼『者』就應該能夠使用它。所以破斥說：『在一個去者中，不能有兩個去。』最初的『去』成就了『者』的本體，第二次的『去』被『者』所使用，這就是兩個『去』。有兩個『去』，就有兩次運動，兩個身體，就像上面說的，有無數的過失。 如果你說，到達第二步的時候，第一步已經消失，沒有兩個『去』的過失，那麼就只有后一步。那麼就只有成就『者』的『去』，那麼『者』就不能使用它，和第一個偈頌的過失一樣。爲了避免兩個『去』的過失，就陷入了無用的境地。如果想要有用，就變成了兩個『去』。而且，第一步成就了『者』的本體，『者』沒有自性，怎麼能憑藉第一步前進到第二步呢？而且，即使將第一步前進到第二步，那麼到達第二步的時候，仍然有第一步，那麼一個人就有兩個『去』，這是不可能的。凡是討論有『去』，都要第一步消失，然後前進到第二步。沒有將第一步帶到第二步，第二步的時候仍然有第一步的情況。所以偈頌說：『在一個去者中，不能有兩個去。』 而且，第一步消失，那麼『者』也消失，不能到達第二步。第一步不消失，仍然有第一步，也不能到達第二步。所以，一切人都沒有動步的意義。而且，一個『去』成就了『者』的本體，這是前時的『去』。一個『去』成就了『者』的用，這是后時的『去』。但是，目前時的『去』還沒有後時的『去』，到達后時的『去』就沒有前時的『去』。始終只有一個『去』，只有成就的意義，沒有使用的意義。所以偈頌說：『在一個去者中，不能有兩個去。』
【English Translation】 English version The three times (past, present, future). If it is said that 『Mingyin Dharma』 exists at some time, since 『Yin Dharma』 (causal law) exists, then 『Zhe』 (the agent) has no self-nature. Then, how can 『Zhe』 act in the three times? Just like the latter half of the 『Youcheng Xia Shi』 (Explanation Below the City) mentioned earlier, first use a metaphor to refute and explain. First there is a person, then there is a city, and the person can go to the city. First there is Dharma (law), then there is a person, and the Dharma can guide the person. However, people and Dharma are interdependent and cannot have a sequential order. How can it be said that there is Dharma first, and then Dharma can guide people? And how can it be said that there is Dharma first, and then people can be recognized through Dharma? The second verse is to refute different views. The first half repeats the opponent's view, and the second half refutes it. The opponent says that the first step taken is the 『qu』 (movement) that 『zhe』 relies on. Because 『qufa』 (the law of movement) accomplishes the substance of 『zhe』, 『zhe』 cannot use 『qu』. Now taking the second step, which is different from the 『qu』 that accomplishes 『zhe』, is called 『yiqu』 (different movement). Since this 『qu』 does not accomplish the substance of 『zhe』, then 『zhe』 should be able to use it. Therefore, the refutation says: 『In one goer, there cannot be two goes.』 The initial 『qu』 accomplishes the substance of 『zhe』, and the second 『qu』 is used by 『zhe』, which are two 『qu』. With two 『qu』, there are two movements and two bodies, just like what was said above, there are countless faults. If you say that when reaching the second step, the first step has disappeared, and there is no fault of two 『qu』, then there is only the latter step. Then there is only the 『qu』 that accomplishes 『zhe』, then 『zhe』 cannot use it, which is the same fault as the first verse. In order to avoid the fault of two 『qu』, one falls into a useless situation. If you want it to be useful, it becomes two 『qu』. Moreover, the first step accomplishes the substance of 『zhe』, and 『zhe』 has no self-nature, how can it rely on the first step to advance to the second step? Moreover, even if the first step is advanced to the second step, then when reaching the second step, there is still the first step, then one person has two 『qu』, which is impossible. Whenever discussing 『qu』, the first step must disappear, and then advance to the second step. There is no situation where the first step is brought to the second step, and the first step is still there at the second step. Therefore, the verse says: 『In one goer, there cannot be two goes.』 Moreover, if the first step disappears, then 『zhe』 also disappears and cannot reach the second step. If the first step does not disappear, and there is still the first step, it cannot reach the second step either. Therefore, no one has the meaning of moving a step. Moreover, one 『qu』 accomplishes the substance of 『zhe』, which is the 『qu』 of the previous time. One 『qu』 accomplishes the use of 『zhe』, which is the 『qu』 of the later time. However, when the 『qu』 of the previous time does not yet have the 『qu』 of the later time, and when reaching the 『qu』 of the later time, there is no 『qu』 of the previous time. There is always only one 『qu』, only the meaning of accomplishment, and no meaning of use. Therefore, the verse says: 『In one goer, there cannot be two goes.』
故。又若后時去猶是前時去。當一人則有前後兩時去。亦一時中有前後兩法。前後兩時何有此義。又目前時去只有成者體。者用何物得至后時耶。如藉此五陰四微以成此人柱。即此人柱尚不能御此陰此微。云何能御后時之微陰耶。又前時之去成者體而未能去。則不名去法。若名去法則應能去。若能去何用后時去耶。又舉例。如前時之眼成者體者不能見。后時之眼被者用方能見。何有此義耶。又后時之眼不成我體則是他眼。何有此人用他眼耶。決定有去者第四有無破。亦云決定不決定破。夫論有去人去法要須具三。一假時而去。二有人法之體。三有人法之用。三時門破其假時而去。一異門破其人法之體。因緣門洗其人法之用。此三若無則一切盡矣。而汝意猶未已。今更以兩門領其大要。人法俱有則不成人法。人法俱無則不成人法。故有此門也。又初二門破性。因緣門破假。性假若空則一切都壞。若踟躕道門怏怏此旨。今更兩門令滯情永寂。若定有即常。常無有去。定無則斷。斷令誰去耶。又決定則不因法有人。人本實有。不決定即是因法有人。人本實無。此二即總該一切。不因法有人人是常人。因法有人人是無常人。又不因法有人人是實人。因法有人人是假人。破此二即一切皆盡。又不因法有人別有假體。因法有人則無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，如果后一時刻的『去』仍然是前一時刻的『去』，那麼一個人就有了前後兩個時刻的『去』。或者說，同一時刻中存在前後兩種『法』（dharma，佛法，事物）。前後兩個時刻怎麼會有這種道理呢？而且，目前一時刻的『去』只有『成者體』（已經完成的實體），那麼用什麼東西才能到達后一時刻呢？如果憑藉這五陰（skandha，色、受、想、行、識）四微（四大種，地、水、火、風）來構成這個人柱（比喻人），那麼這個人柱尚且不能駕馭這些陰和微，又怎麼能駕馭后一時刻的微陰呢？而且，前一時刻的『去』是已經完成的實體，卻未能離去，那麼就不能稱之為『去法』。如果稱之為『去法』，就應該能夠離去。如果能夠離去，又何必需要后一時刻的『去』呢？再舉例來說，如果前一時刻的眼睛是已經完成的實體，就不能看見；后一時刻的眼睛被使用才能看見。怎麼會有這種道理呢？而且，后一時刻的眼睛不是我的實體，那就是他人的眼睛。怎麼會有這個人用他人的眼睛呢？ 決定有『去者』（gata，行者）的第四種破斥是有無破，也叫做決定不決定破。要討論有『去』的人和『去』的法，必須具備三個條件：一是憑藉時間而『去』，二是有『人』和『法』的實體，三是有『人』和『法』的作用。三時門（過去、現在、未來）破斥其憑藉時間而『去』，一異門（同一、相異）破斥其『人』和『法』的實體，因緣門（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）洗滌其『人』和『法』的作用。這三者如果不存在，那麼一切都消失了。而你的意思似乎還沒有停止，現在再用兩門來概括其要點：『人』和『法』都存在，就不能成就『人』和『法』；『人』和『法』都不存在，也不能成就『人』和『法』。所以才有這個門（方法）。 而且，最初的兩個門破斥『性』（svabhava，自性，不變的本質），因緣門破斥『假』（prajñapti，假名，虛假的存在）。『性』和『假』如果都空，那麼一切都毀壞了。如果還在道門前猶豫不決，對這個宗旨感到不滿，現在再用兩個門讓滯留的情感永遠寂滅。如果確定有，那就是常（nitya，永恒），永恒就沒有『去』。如果確定沒有，那就是斷（uccheda，斷滅），斷滅又讓誰『去』呢？而且，決定有，就是不依靠『法』而有人，人本來就存在。不決定，就是依靠『法』而有人，人本來就不存在。這兩種情況就總括了一切。不依靠『法』而有人，人就是常人。依靠『法』而有人，人就是無常人。而且不依靠『法』而有人，人就是實人。依靠『法』而有人，人就是假人。破斥這兩種情況，那麼一切都消失了。而且不依靠『法』而有人，就另有假體。依靠『法』而有人，就沒有假體。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, if the 'going' of the later time is still the 'going' of the former time, then one person has the 'going' of both the former and later times. Or, within one time, there are two dharmas (laws, things) of before and after. How can there be such a meaning in the two times of before and after? Moreover, when the 'going' of the former time only has the 'accomplished entity' (that which is already completed), then what is used to reach the later time? If relying on these five skandhas (aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) and four elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) to form this person-pillar (a metaphor for a person), then this person-pillar cannot even control these skandhas and elements. How can it control the subtle skandhas and elements of the later time? Moreover, the 'going' of the former time is an accomplished entity but has not yet gone, then it cannot be called the 'going dharma'. If it is called the 'going dharma', it should be able to go. If it can go, then why is the 'going' of the later time needed? To give another example, if the eye of the former time is an accomplished entity, it cannot see; the eye of the later time can only see when it is being used. How can there be such a meaning? Moreover, the eye of the later time is not my entity, then it is someone else's eye. How can this person use someone else's eye? The fourth refutation of the determined existence of the 'goer' (gata, one who goes) is the existence and non-existence refutation, also called the determined and undetermined refutation. To discuss the person who 'goes' and the dharma of 'going', three conditions must be met: first, 'going' by relying on time; second, having the entity of 'person' and 'dharma'; and third, having the function of 'person' and 'dharma'. The three time gates (past, present, and future) refute the 'going' by relying on time, the one-and-different gate (same and different) refutes the entity of 'person' and 'dharma', and the condition gate (hetu-pratyaya, cause and condition) washes away the function of 'person' and 'dharma'. If these three do not exist, then everything disappears. And your meaning does not seem to have stopped, now I will use two more gates to summarize the main points: if both 'person' and 'dharma' exist, then 'person' and 'dharma' cannot be accomplished; if both 'person' and 'dharma' do not exist, then 'person' and 'dharma' cannot be accomplished. Therefore, there is this gate (method). Moreover, the first two gates refute 'svabhava' (self-nature, unchanging essence), and the condition gate refutes 'prajñapti' (provisional designation, false existence). If both 'svabhava' and 'prajñapti' are empty, then everything is destroyed. If you are still hesitant at the gate of the path and dissatisfied with this principle, now I will use two more gates to make the lingering emotions forever extinguished. If it is determined to exist, then it is nitya (eternal), and eternity has no 'going'. If it is determined not to exist, then it is uccheda (annihilation), and who does annihilation make 'go'? Moreover, determined existence means that the person does not rely on the dharma, and the person exists originally. Undetermined existence means that the person relies on the dharma, and the person does not exist originally. These two situations encompass everything. If the person does not rely on the dharma, the person is an eternal person. If the person relies on the dharma, the person is an impermanent person. Moreover, if the person does not rely on the dharma, the person is a real person. If the person relies on the dharma, the person is a false person. Refuting these two situations, then everything disappears. Moreover, if the person does not rely on the dharma, there is another false entity. If the person relies on the dharma, there is no false entity.
假體。此二亦收一切。二偈為三。初偈明定有人無人不能用法。次半偈明定有法無法人不能用。三半偈結人法能所一切都空。初偈為二。上半明定有人。不能用三去者。既決定有人體即不因去法成人。此人是常。常即不動。云何用三去。又不因法有人人獨自有。應獨自去不須用法。復是不用三。又決定有者者不因法成。者不因法成即無有此者。誰用三去。又既決定有者則決定有法。法自能去何須者用。又不因法有人人應常去無有息期。以無去法可息故。下半若因法有人則人無自體。無自體則無人誰用法耶。又無自體即同上不能用是去過也。此偈上下半進退破之。上半明有人即不因三去。下半若因三去即無有人。故上半有即不因。下半明因即不有。又上半破外義下半破內義。上半破犢子及假有體下半破假無體也。餘二段易知。長望論意不可思議。住而不靜去而非動。履地而無處豈非不可思議耶。長行釋三段即三。釋上半為二。初別釋三事謂人法時。以立中要具此三故也。若決定有去者此釋偈中不能用之辭。即是釋破也。夫因去有者者息去而住。既不因去有者者即無去可息。即者常應去都無住期。故云不應有住也。釋下半有二論本。今用一本云。因去法得名去者。若先無去法即無去者。此文為正餘本煩也。不得言定有不得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 假體（Pudgala，指不可分割的個體）。這兩種觀點都涵蓋了一切。這兩句偈頌可以分為三個部分。第一句偈頌說明了如果存在固定不變的『人』，那麼無論有沒有『法』（Dharma，指佛法、規律），都無法運用『三去』（指過去、現在、未來三時）。接下來的半句偈頌說明了如果存在固定不變的『法』，那麼無論有沒有『人』，『人』都無法運用『法』。最後半句偈頌總結說，『人』和『法』，能和所，一切都是空性的。 第一句偈頌又可以分為兩個部分。前半部分說明了如果存在固定不變的『人』，那麼就不能運用『三去』。既然已經確定存在一個『人』，那麼這個『人』的存在就不依賴於『去法』（指使人移動的法）而成立。這個『人』是常恒不變的。常恒不變的東西就是不動的。怎麼能運用『三去』呢？而且，如果不依賴於『法』而存在『人』，那麼『人』就應該獨自存在，獨自移動，不需要運用『法』。這又是不需要運用『三去』。而且，如果已經確定存在『者』（指能動者），那麼『者』的存在就不依賴於『法』而成立。『者』的存在不依賴於『法』而成立，那麼就不存在這個『者』。誰來運用『三去』呢？而且，既然已經確定存在『者』，那麼就一定存在『法』。『法』自己就能移動，何須『者』來運用？而且，如果不依賴於『法』而存在『人』，那麼『人』就應該永遠移動，沒有停止的時候。因為沒有可以停止的『去法』。 後半部分說，如果因為『法』而存在『人』，那麼『人』就沒有自體（Svalaksana，指事物自身獨有的性質）。沒有自體，那麼就沒有『人』，誰來運用『法』呢？而且，沒有自體，就如同上面所說，不能運用『三去』，這是個過失。這句偈頌的上下半部分互相推進，互相破斥。前半部分說明了如果存在『人』，那麼就不依賴於『三去』。後半部分說明了如果依賴於『三去』，那麼就不存在『人』。所以，前半部分說存在，即不依賴；後半部分說明依賴，即不存在。而且，前半部分破斥外道（指佛教以外的宗教或哲學）的觀點，後半部分破斥內道（指佛教內部的宗派）的觀點。前半部分破斥犢子部（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派之一）和假有體的觀點，後半部分破斥假無體的觀點。其餘兩段容易理解。長望論（Nagarjuna，龍樹菩薩）的意旨不可思議。安住而不靜止，移動而非動搖。行走在地上卻沒有固定的處所，這難道不是不可思議嗎？ 長行解釋分為三個部分，對應於三個偈頌部分。解釋前半部分又分為兩個部分。首先分別解釋『人』、『法』、『時』這三件事，因為建立中道（Madhyamaka，指不落兩邊的中觀思想）需要具備這三者。『如果已經確定存在去者』，這是解釋偈頌中『不能用』的辭句。也就是解釋破斥。如果因為『去』而存在『者』，那麼停止『去』就會安住。既然不因為『去』而存在『者』，那麼就沒有『去』可以停止。那麼『者』就應該永遠移動，沒有停止的時候。所以說不應該有安住。解釋後半部分有兩種論本。現在採用一種論本，說『因為去法而得到名為去者』。如果先前沒有去法，那麼就沒有去者。』這段文字是正確的，其餘版本比較繁瑣。不能說確定存在，不能說確定不存在。 English version Pudgala (假體, the hypothetical individual). These two also encompass everything. These two verses can be divided into three parts. The first verse states that if there is a fixed 'person', then whether there is 'Dharma' (法, the law, the teachings) or not, one cannot use the 'three goings' (三去, the three times: past, present, and future). The next half verse states that if there is a fixed 'Dharma', then whether there is a 'person' or not, the 'person' cannot use the 'Dharma'. The last half verse concludes that 'person' and 'Dharma', the agent and the object, everything is empty. The first verse can be further divided into two parts. The first half explains that if there is a fixed 'person', then one cannot use the 'three goings'. Since it is determined that there is a 'person', then the existence of this 'person' does not depend on the 'going Dharma' (去法, the Dharma that causes movement) to be established. This 'person' is constant and unchanging. What is constant and unchanging is immobile. How can one use the 'three goings'? Moreover, if the 'person' exists independently of 'Dharma', then the 'person' should exist and move independently, without needing to use 'Dharma'. This is again not needing to use the 'three goings'. Moreover, if it is determined that there is an 'agent' (者, the one who acts), then the existence of the 'agent' does not depend on 'Dharma' to be established. If the existence of the 'agent' does not depend on 'Dharma' to be established, then there is no such 'agent'. Who will use the 'three goings'? Moreover, since it is determined that there is an 'agent', then there must be 'Dharma'. The 'Dharma' itself can move, why does the 'agent' need to use it? Moreover, if the 'person' exists independently of 'Dharma', then the 'person' should move forever without stopping. Because there is no 'going Dharma' that can stop it. The second half says that if the 'person' exists because of 'Dharma', then the 'person' has no self-nature (Svalaksana, 自體, the unique characteristic of a thing). Without self-nature, then there is no 'person', who will use the 'Dharma'? Moreover, without self-nature, it is the same as above, unable to use the 'three goings', this is a fault. The upper and lower halves of this verse advance and refute each other. The first half explains that if there is a 'person', then it does not depend on the 'three goings'. The second half explains that if it depends on the 'three goings', then there is no 'person'. Therefore, the first half says existence, which is independence; the second half explains dependence, which is non-existence. Moreover, the first half refutes the views of external paths (外道, religions or philosophies outside of Buddhism), and the second half refutes the views of internal paths (內道, schools within Buddhism). The first half refutes the Vatsiputriya (犢子部, one of the Buddhist schools) and the view of a falsely existing entity, and the second half refutes the view of a falsely non-existing entity. The remaining two sections are easy to understand. The meaning of Nagarjuna's (長望論, Longshu Pusa) treatise is inconceivable. Abiding without being still, moving without being shaken. Walking on the ground without a fixed place, is this not inconceivable? The long explanation is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three verse parts. The explanation of the first half is further divided into two parts. First, explain the three things separately: 'person', 'Dharma', and 'time', because establishing the Middle Way (Madhyamaka, 中道, the Middle Way thought that does not fall into extremes) requires these three. 'If it is determined that there is a goer', this is explaining the phrase 'cannot use' in the verse. That is, explaining the refutation. If the 'agent' exists because of 'going', then stopping 'going' will abide. Since the 'agent' does not exist because of 'going', then there is no 'going' that can be stopped. Then the 'agent' should move forever without stopping. Therefore, it is said that there should be no abiding. There are two versions of the explanation of the second half. Now we use one version, which says 'Because of the going Dharma, one gets the name of goer'. If there was no going Dharma before, then there would be no goer.' This passage is correct, the other versions are more cumbersome. One cannot say that it is determined to exist, one cannot say that it is determined not to exist.
【English Translation】 Pudgala (假體, the hypothetical individual). These two also encompass everything. These two verses can be divided into three parts. The first verse states that if there is a fixed 'person', then whether there is 'Dharma' (法, the law, the teachings) or not, one cannot use the 'three goings' (三去, the three times: past, present, and future). The next half verse states that if there is a fixed 'Dharma', then whether there is a 'person' or not, the 'person' cannot use the 'Dharma'. The last half verse concludes that 'person' and 'Dharma', the agent and the object, everything is empty. The first verse can be further divided into two parts. The first half explains that if there is a fixed 'person', then one cannot use the 'three goings'. Since it is determined that there is a 'person', then the existence of this 'person' does not depend on the 'going Dharma' (去法, the Dharma that causes movement) to be established. This 'person' is constant and unchanging. What is constant and unchanging is immobile. How can one use the 'three goings'? Moreover, if the 'person' exists independently of 'Dharma', then the 'person' should exist and move independently, without needing to use 'Dharma'. This is again not needing to use the 'three goings'. Moreover, if it is determined that there is an 'agent' (者, the one who acts), then the existence of the 'agent' does not depend on 'Dharma' to be established. If the existence of the 'agent' does not depend on 'Dharma' to be established, then there is no such 'agent'. Who will use the 'three goings'? Moreover, since it is determined that there is an 'agent', then there must be 'Dharma'. The 'Dharma' itself can move, why does the 'agent' need to use it? Moreover, if the 'person' exists independently of 'Dharma', then the 'person' should move forever without stopping. Because there is no 'going Dharma' that can stop it. The second half says that if the 'person' exists because of 'Dharma', then the 'person' has no self-nature (Svalaksana, 自體, the unique characteristic of a thing). Without self-nature, then there is no 'person', who will use the 'Dharma'? Moreover, without self-nature, it is the same as above, unable to use the 'three goings', this is a fault. The upper and lower halves of this verse advance and refute each other. The first half explains that if there is a 'person', then it does not depend on the 'three goings'. The second half explains that if it depends on the 'three goings', then there is no 'person'. Therefore, the first half says existence, which is independence; the second half explains dependence, which is non-existence. Moreover, the first half refutes the views of external paths (外道, religions or philosophies outside of Buddhism), and the second half refutes the views of internal paths (內道, schools within Buddhism). The first half refutes the Vatsiputriya (犢子部, one of the Buddhist schools) and the view of a falsely existing entity, and the second half refutes the view of a falsely non-existing entity. The remaining two sections are easy to understand. The meaning of Nagarjuna's (長望論, Longshu Pusa) treatise is inconceivable. Abiding without being still, moving without being shaken. Walking on the ground without a fixed place, is this not inconceivable? The long explanation is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three verse parts. The explanation of the first half is further divided into two parts. First, explain the three things separately: 'person', 'Dharma', and 'time', because establishing the Middle Way (Madhyamaka, 中道, the Middle Way thought that does not fall into extremes) requires these three. 'If it is determined that there is a goer', this is explaining the phrase 'cannot use' in the verse. That is, explaining the refutation. If the 'agent' exists because of 'going', then stopping 'going' will abide. Since the 'agent' does not exist because of 'going', then there is no 'going' that can be stopped. Then the 'agent' should move forever without stopping. Therefore, it is said that there should be no abiding. There are two versions of the explanation of the second half. Now we use one version, which says 'Because of the going Dharma, one gets the name of goer'. If there was no going Dharma before, then there would be no goer.' This passage is correct, the other versions are more cumbersome. One cannot say that it is determined to exist, one cannot say that it is determined not to exist.
言定無者。若作破義結破上定有定無。俱不可得故云不得言定有及定無也。若作立義因緣義不可定有。不可定無也。又此即二諦義。真諦空故不得定有。世諦有故不得言定無。此用二諦互破其定有定無也。又世諦是因緣有不可得言自性有。真諦是因緣無不得言自性無。此破性有無明因緣二諦也。又不得言定有。不得言定無並就世諦世諦是假有。假有不可言定有。假有不可言定無。假有不可言亦有亦無。假有不可言非有非無。此是世諦假有絕性有無四句也。而絕假有者乃是真諦。世諦假有既絕四。真諦假無亦絕四。故二諦並四絕也。然二諦意乃多具上來諸義也。如幻如化幻為十喻之始。化為十喻之終。故舉初后也。幻去宛然豈是定無。幻去非去豈是定有。成上非定有無之言也。又求彼人法虛恍不能得故名如幻化耳。不執虛破實也。
中觀論疏卷第四(本)
中觀論疏卷第四(末)
釋吉藏撰
六情品第三
問何因緣故有此品耶。答二十七品猶是二十七門。所入更無異。為通入諸法實相之理。唯此一理名之為實。自斯以外並皆虛妄。故智度論云。唯除實相餘一切法併名為魔。所以然者。一切諸法皆是虛妄。又能生煩惱。煩惱生業。業生苦果。故名為魔。實相之法不可取著。是滅煩惱處。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果說『言定無』是爲了破除『定有』的觀點，那麼『定有』和『定無』都不能成立，所以說不能斷言『定有』或『定無』。如果從『立義』或『因緣』的角度來說，事物既不能被斷定為『定有』，也不能被斷定為『定無』。這實際上就是二諦（Two Truths）的含義：真諦（Ultimate Truth）是空性，所以不能斷定為『定有』；世諦（Conventional Truth）是存在，所以不能斷定為『定無』。這裡用二諦互相破除『定有』和『定無』的觀點。此外，世諦是因緣和合而生，不能說是自性有；真諦是因緣散滅而無，不能說是自性無。這是破除自性有無，闡明因緣和二諦的道理。而且，『不得言定有』和『不得言定無』都是就世諦而言的。世諦是假有，假有不能說是『定有』，假有不能說是『定無』，假有不能說是『亦有亦無』，假有不能說是『非有非無』。這是世諦的假有超越了自性有無的四句（四種可能性）。而超越假有的是真諦。世諦的假有既然超越了四句，真諦的假無也超越了四句，所以二諦都超越了四句。然而，二諦的含義包含了上述的多種意義。就像幻象和化現一樣，幻象是十喻（Ten Similes）的開始，化現是十喻的結尾，所以這裡舉了最初和最後兩個例子。幻象消失了，但曾經宛然存在，難道能說是『定無』嗎？幻象消失了，但並非真的消失，難道能說是『定有』嗎？這成就了上面所說的『非定有無』的觀點。而且，尋求那個人和法的虛幻不實之處而不可得，所以才說是如幻如化，這是不執著于虛幻而破除實有的觀點。 《中觀論疏》卷第四（本） 《中觀論疏》卷第四（末） 釋吉藏 撰 六情品 第三 問：因為什麼因緣而有這一品呢？答：二十七品仍然是二十七個門徑，所進入的道理並沒有什麼不同。爲了通達諸法實相（Reality of all Dharmas）的道理。只有這一個道理才被稱為『實』。除了這個之外，其餘一切都是虛妄的。所以《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）說：『除了實相，其餘一切法都稱為魔。』之所以這樣說，是因為一切諸法都是虛妄的，而且能產生煩惱。煩惱產生業，業產生苦果，所以稱為魔。實相之法是不可執著的，是滅除煩惱的地方。
【English Translation】 English version: If 'to say there is no fixed existence' is to refute the view of 'fixed existence', then both 'fixed existence' and 'fixed non-existence' cannot be established. Therefore, it is said that one cannot assert 'fixed existence' or 'fixed non-existence'. If viewed from the perspective of 'establishing meaning' or 'causal conditions', things cannot be determined as 'fixed existence' nor as 'fixed non-existence'. This is actually the meaning of the Two Truths (Dve Satye): the Ultimate Truth (Paramārtha-satya) is emptiness (sunyata), so it cannot be determined as 'fixed existence'; the Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) is existence, so it cannot be determined as 'fixed non-existence'. Here, the Two Truths are used to mutually refute the views of 'fixed existence' and 'fixed non-existence'. Furthermore, the Conventional Truth arises from the aggregation of causal conditions, so it cannot be said to have inherent existence (svabhava); the Ultimate Truth is the cessation of causal conditions, so it cannot be said to have inherent non-existence. This refutes inherent existence and non-existence, clarifying the principles of causal conditions and the Two Truths. Moreover, 'one cannot say fixed existence' and 'one cannot say fixed non-existence' both refer to the Conventional Truth. The Conventional Truth is provisional existence (prajñapti-sat), provisional existence cannot be said to be 'fixed existence', provisional existence cannot be said to be 'fixed non-existence', provisional existence cannot be said to be 'both existence and non-existence', provisional existence cannot be said to be 'neither existence nor non-existence'. This is the provisional existence of the Conventional Truth transcending the four possibilities (catuskoti) of inherent existence and non-existence. And what transcends provisional existence is the Ultimate Truth. Since the provisional existence of the Conventional Truth transcends the four possibilities, the provisional non-existence of the Ultimate Truth also transcends the four possibilities. Therefore, both Truths transcend the four possibilities. However, the meaning of the Two Truths encompasses the various meanings mentioned above. Just like illusions (maya) and transformations (nirmana), illusion is the beginning of the Ten Similes (Dasopama), and transformation is the end of the Ten Similes. Therefore, the first and last examples are cited here. When an illusion disappears, it was clearly present before, so how can it be said to be 'fixed non-existence'? When an illusion disappears, it is not truly gone, so how can it be said to be 'fixed existence'? This accomplishes the above-mentioned view of 'neither fixed existence nor fixed non-existence'. Moreover, seeking the illusory and unreal nature of that person and dharma and not finding it, it is therefore said to be like illusion and transformation. This is not clinging to illusion and refuting the view of substantial existence. Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Chapter 4 (Beginning) Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Chapter 4 (End) Composed by Shishi Jizang Chapter 3: The Six Senses Question: What is the cause and condition for having this chapter? Answer: The twenty-seven chapters are still twenty-seven gateways, and there is no difference in what is entered. It is to penetrate the principle of the Reality of all Dharmas (sarva-dharma-lakṣaṇa). Only this one principle is called 'real'. Everything else besides this is false. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says: 'Except for the Reality, all other dharmas are called demons.' The reason for this is that all dharmas are false and can generate afflictions (kleshas). Afflictions generate karma, and karma generates suffering results, so they are called demons. The dharma of Reality is not to be clung to, and it is the place to extinguish afflictions.
不名魔。問實相何故不可取著。答若以有心著實相實相竟非有。故有心不能著。若以無心著實相實相竟非無。如是亦有亦無非有非無四句內外並不能著。故不生煩惱。既不生煩惱會於實相能滅罪累。故論云。譬如蛇著一切物唯不能著火炎。波若如火炎四邊不可觸。以燒手故。是以眾生能著一切法不能著實相。實相既是滅煩惱處。是以二十七門併爲通於實相。實相若顯便發正觀。正觀若發戲論斯亡。是以論初云。能說是因緣善滅諸戲論。蓋是十方三世諸佛菩薩經論之大意也。問若爾何故有二十七門。答龍樹開諸門者但為入理。意不在門。若不取所入理為正而但尋究通理之門。或前或后或破或立者。如是之人住在門外竟不能入理。論主意在入理不在於門。而人在諸門不在入理。與論相違非師資之道。又尋究諸門既不入理。則舊惑不除更于門處起新煩惱。可謂服於甘露還成毒藥。故亦不應問次第也。而復須明次第者。上就動靜四儀顯于實相。令發生正觀滅諸煩惱。今就六根顯于實相。令發生正觀滅諸煩惱。若前門已悟不須此品。但為根性不同受悟各異曆法觀之。故復說也。問何故就此身心顯于實相發觀滅惑。答一切凡夫於此身心常起愛見煩惱。以煩惱故有業。業故受苦報。今觀察此身本來寂滅即是實相。既是實相便是法身。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不名魔問道：為什麼實相不可執著？回答說：如果以有心執著實相，那麼實相最終就不是有。所以有心不能執著。如果以無心執著實相，那麼實相最終就不是無。這樣，亦有亦無、非有非無這四句，內外都不能執著。所以不生煩惱。既然不生煩惱，契合于實相，就能滅除罪業。所以《大智度論》說：『譬如蛇執著一切東西，唯獨不能執著火焰。般若（Prajna）如火焰，四邊不可觸碰，因為會燒手。』因此，眾生能執著一切法，卻不能執著實相。實相既然是滅除煩惱的地方，所以二十七門都是通向實相的。實相如果顯現，便能生髮正觀。正觀如果生髮，戲論就會消失。所以《大智度論》一開始就說：『能說這因緣，善於滅除各種戲論。』大概這就是十方三世諸佛菩薩經論的大意啊。問道：如果這樣，為什麼有二十七門？回答說：龍樹（Nagarjuna）開立這些門，只是爲了進入真理，意不在門本身。如果不以所進入的真理為正，而只是尋究通向真理的門，或者向前向後，或者破除或者建立，這樣的人住在門外，最終不能進入真理。論主的意圖在於進入真理，而不是在於門，而人們卻執著于門，不在於進入真理，這與論主的意圖相違背，不是師生之間應有的態度。而且，尋究各種門卻不進入真理，那麼舊的迷惑不能消除，反而因為門而產生新的煩惱。這可以說是服用了甘露，反而變成了毒藥。所以也不應該問次第。而又必須明白次第的原因是：上面就動靜四種儀態來顯現實相，使人發生正觀，滅除各種煩惱。現在就六根來顯現實相，使人發生正觀，滅除各種煩惱。如果前面的門已經領悟，就不需要這一品。只是因為根性不同，接受領悟的方式各異，所以歷經各種方法來觀察。所以再次解說。問道：為什麼就此身心來顯現實相，生髮正觀，滅除迷惑？回答說：一切凡夫對於此身心，常常生起愛見煩惱。因為有煩惱，所以有業。因為有業，所以承受苦報。現在觀察此身本來就是寂滅，這就是實相。既然是實相，便是法身（Dharmakaya）。
【English Translation】 English version The nameless demon asked: 'Why is the true nature (real aspect, shixiang) not to be grasped?' The answer is: 'If one grasps the true nature with a mind of 'being' (existence), then the true nature ultimately is not 'being'. Therefore, a mind of 'being' cannot grasp it. If one grasps the true nature with a mind of 'non-being' (non-existence), then the true nature ultimately is not 'non-being'. Thus, the four statements of 'being and non-being', 'neither being nor non-being', both internally and externally, cannot be grasped. Therefore, afflictions do not arise. Since afflictions do not arise, being in accord with the true nature can extinguish sinful karma. Therefore, the Treatise says: 'It is like a snake grasping everything, but it cannot grasp flames. Prajna (wisdom) is like flames, which cannot be touched on any side, because it will burn the hand.' Therefore, sentient beings can grasp all dharmas (teachings, principles), but they cannot grasp the true nature. Since the true nature is the place where afflictions are extinguished, all twenty-seven doors lead to the true nature. If the true nature manifests, then right view (correct contemplation, zhengguan) will arise. If right view arises, then frivolous debates will cease. Therefore, the beginning of the Treatise says: 'Being able to speak of this cause and condition, one is good at extinguishing all frivolous debates.' This is probably the general meaning of the sutras (discourses) and shastras (treatises) of all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three times. The question is: 'If that is so, why are there twenty-seven doors?' The answer is: 'Nagarjuna (the author of the Treatise, Longshu) opened these doors only to enter the principle (truth), not for the sake of the doors themselves. If one does not take the entered principle as correct, but only seeks to investigate the doors leading to the principle, whether forward or backward, whether destroying or establishing, such a person dwells outside the door and ultimately cannot enter the principle. The author's intention is to enter the principle, not to dwell on the doors, but people dwell on the doors and not on entering the principle, which contradicts the author's intention and is not the way of a teacher and student. Moreover, investigating the various doors without entering the principle, then the old delusions are not eliminated, and new afflictions arise at the doors. This can be said to be like taking nectar and turning it into poison. Therefore, one should not ask about the order either. But it is necessary to understand the order because the above uses the four postures of movement and stillness to reveal the true nature, causing right view to arise and extinguishing all afflictions. Now, the six sense organs are used to reveal the true nature, causing right view to arise and extinguishing all afflictions. If the previous door has already been understood, this section is not needed. It is only because the nature of beings is different, and the ways of receiving understanding are different, that one observes through various methods. Therefore, it is explained again. The question is: 'Why is the true nature revealed through this body and mind, causing right view to arise and extinguishing delusions?' The answer is: 'All ordinary people constantly give rise to afflictions of love and attachment to this body and mind. Because of afflictions, there is karma. Because of karma, one receives suffering. Now, observing that this body is originally quiescent is the true nature. Since it is the true nature, it is the Dharmakaya (body of the Law).'
故凈名經云。觀身實相觀佛亦然。蓋是一論之通意也。次別明六情次去來者。因緣品釋八不之始去來品解八不之終。始終既彰則一切法畢竟不可得。外人不受斯旨。若一切畢竟空者。經明十二入攝一切法。云何言一切法空。若一切法空不應說十二入。故上二品總破一切法。今對論主總立一切法。故說此品也。二者接次鉤鎖相生者。上品初外人舉世間眼見三時有去。謂過去已去未來當去現在正去。論主即就三世舍無有去。過去既謝。去法已滅。即無有去。未來未有。亦無有去。現在一念不停。舉足便滅。亦無有去。惑者問云。若三世無去即眼不應見。既有眼所見不應無。論主更以三門求眼所見竟不可得。何所見耶。今外人復云。若無所見去來應無能見之眼。既有能見之眼寧無所見去來。故此品觀無能見之眼即入實相與實相相應。既與實相相應即不受此六根。以不受六根名為法身。為眾生故化生五道。說此法門使物了悟。亦得法身。是以次去來品觀於六情。問云何名于眼情。答計于眼情凡有七種。一者世俗之流但云眼能見色。而不能窮究本末原由。二者外道之人云五塵生五大五大成五根。但眼內火大偏多。故眼能見色。耳內空大偏多。故耳能聞聲。鼻根地大偏多。故鼻能聞香。舌根水大偏多。故舌能知味。身根風大偏多。
故身能覺觸。意根既是心識非五大所成。若是肉心為地大所成也。三者復有外道。謂但以一塵成一大。如色塵成火大。而火大成眼根。故眼能見色。聲塵成空大。空大成耳根。故耳能聞聲。味塵成水大。水大成舌根。故舌能知味。香塵成地大。地大成鼻根。故鼻能聞香。觸塵成風大。風大成身根。故身還覺觸。四者毗曇人云。眼耳鼻舌四根為十微共成。謂地水火風色香味觸及眼根為九。而此眼根附著身根。故有十微。身根但有九微無眼等四根。故論偈云。極微在四根十種。應當知身根九餘八。謂在有香地。五成實論云。四微成四大四大成五根。五根是假名無有實體。就三假辨者。四微是法假。五根為受假。眾生是名假。六者犢子部云。四大和合成眼。別有眼體異於四大。上來六部並云有眼。第七方廣道人云。但見四大無別總眼。總眼既無亦無四大。故一切法空。如龜毛兔角。問論主云何破此諸計。答凡有此眼根見於好色即起貪心。若見惡色便生瞋恚。見不好不惡即生無明。因三煩惱發於三業。三業因緣往來六趣。總上六部于眼起于有見。方廣于眼起于無見。有無是六十二見根本。有無既成諸見便立。若有諸見必有于愛見。愛見煩惱不得解脫。今破此有無二見即愛見不生便得解脫。問云何破耶。答觀此眼根本來空寂。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，身體能夠感覺到觸覺。意根既然是心識，就不是五大（地、水、火、風、空）所構成。如果是肉心，那就是由地大所構成。第三種是其他外道，他們認為僅僅用一種微塵就能構成一個大的元素，例如色塵構成火大，而火大構成眼根，所以眼睛能夠看見顏色。聲塵構成空大，空大構成耳根，所以耳朵能夠聽見聲音。味塵構成水大，水大構成舌根，所以舌頭能夠知道味道。香塵構成地大，地大構成鼻根，所以鼻子能夠聞到香味。觸塵構成風大，風大構成身根，所以身體能夠感覺到觸覺。第四種是毗曇宗的人說，眼、耳、鼻、舌四根是由十種微塵共同構成。這十種微塵是：地、水、火、風、色、香、味、觸以及眼根本身，共有九種。而這個眼根附著在身根上，所以有十種微塵。身根只有九種微塵，沒有眼等四根。所以論偈說：『極微在四根有十種，應當知道身根有九種，其餘的根有八種。』這是指在有香塵的地方。第五種是成實論說，四種微塵構成四大，四大構成五根。五根只是假名，沒有實體。就三種假來說，四微是法假，五根是受假，眾生是名假。第六種是犢子部說，四大和合構成眼睛，但另外存在一個眼睛的本體，不同於四大。以上六部都認為有眼睛的存在。第七種是方廣道人說，只能看到四大，沒有另外的總眼。總眼既然不存在，四大也不存在，所以一切法都是空，就像烏龜的毛和兔子的角一樣。問：論主如何破斥這些觀點？答：凡是擁有這種眼根，看到好的顏色就產生貪心，如果看到不好的顏色就產生嗔恚，看到不好不壞的顏色就產生無明。因為這三種煩惱而引發身、口、意三種業。因為這三種業的因緣而在六道輪迴。總而言之，以上六部對於眼睛都持『有』的觀點，而方廣道人對於眼睛則持『無』的觀點。『有』和『無』是六十二種邪見的根本。『有』和『無』一旦成立，各種邪見就隨之建立。如果有了各種邪見，必然會有愛見。有了愛見煩惱就無法得到解脫。現在破斥這種『有』和『無』的兩種觀點，那麼愛見就不會產生，就能得到解脫。問：如何破斥呢？答：觀察這個眼睛的根本，本來就是空寂的，所以。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the body is able to perceive touch. Since the root of mind (意根, yìgēn) is consciousness and not composed of the five great elements (五大, wǔdà) [earth, water, fire, wind, and space], if it is the physical heart, then it is composed of the earth element. The third is other non-Buddhist schools (外道, wàidào) who claim that just one dust particle can form a great element, such as the color dust (色塵, sèchén) forming the fire element, and the fire element forming the eye-sense faculty (眼根, yǎngēn), so the eye can see colors. The sound dust (聲塵, shēngchén) forms the space element, and the space element forms the ear-sense faculty (耳根, ěrgēn), so the ear can hear sounds. The taste dust (味塵, wèichén) forms the water element, and the water element forms the tongue-sense faculty (舌根, shégēn), so the tongue can know tastes. The scent dust (香塵, xiāngchén) forms the earth element, and the earth element forms the nose-sense faculty (鼻根, bígēn), so the nose can smell scents. The touch dust (觸塵, chùchén) forms the wind element, and the wind element forms the body-sense faculty (身根, shēngēn), so the body can feel touch. The fourth is the Sarvāstivāda school (毗曇宗, pítánzōng) who say that the four sense faculties of eye, ear, nose, and tongue are formed by ten subtle particles in common. These ten subtle particles are: earth, water, fire, wind, color, scent, taste, touch, and the eye-sense faculty itself, totaling nine. And this eye-sense faculty is attached to the body-sense faculty, so there are ten subtle particles. The body-sense faculty only has nine subtle particles, without the four sense faculties of eye, etc. Therefore, the verse in the treatise says: 『The ultimate subtle particles in the four sense faculties are ten kinds; one should know that the body-sense faculty has nine kinds, and the remaining [sense faculties] have eight.』 This refers to the place where there is scent. The fifth is the Satyasiddhi school (成實論, chéngshílùn) who say that four subtle particles form the four great elements, and the four great elements form the five sense faculties. The five sense faculties are merely provisional names, without any substance. Regarding the three kinds of provisionality, the four subtle particles are the provisionality of phenomena (法假, fǎjiǎ), the five sense faculties are the provisionality of reception (受假, shòujiǎ), and sentient beings are the provisionality of name (名假, míngjiǎ). The sixth is the Vātsīputrīya school (犢子部, dúzǐbù) who say that the four great elements combine to form the eye, but there is a separate entity of the eye that is different from the four great elements. The above six schools all claim that the eye exists. The seventh is the followers of the Vaipulya Sutras (方廣道人, fāngguǎng dàorén) who say that one can only see the four great elements, and there is no separate total eye. Since the total eye does not exist, the four great elements also do not exist, so all dharmas are empty, like the fur of a turtle or the horns of a rabbit. Question: How does the author of the treatise refute these views? Answer: Whoever possesses this eye-sense faculty will develop greed when seeing good colors, anger when seeing bad colors, and ignorance when seeing colors that are neither good nor bad. Because of these three afflictions, the three karmas of body, speech, and mind are generated. Because of the causes and conditions of these three karmas, one transmigrates through the six realms of existence. In summary, the above six schools all hold the view of 『existence』 regarding the eye, while the followers of the Vaipulya Sutras hold the view of 『non-existence』 regarding the eye. 『Existence』 and 『non-existence』 are the root of the sixty-two wrong views. Once 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 are established, various wrong views are established accordingly. If there are various wrong views, there will inevitably be attachment to views. With the afflictions of attachment to views, one cannot attain liberation. Now, by refuting these two views of 『existence』 and 『non-existence』, attachment to views will not arise, and one can attain liberation. Question: How to refute them? Answer: Observe that the root of this eye is fundamentally empty and still, therefore.
不同六家之有。雖畢竟空而眼見宛然。故異方廣之無。故凈名經云。有佛世尊得真天眼。悉見諸法不以二相義。華嚴經云。眼根入三昧耳根起正受。觀眼無生無自性。說空寂滅無所有。如此等文並明眼根宛然而無所見。雖無所見而無所不見。故空有無礙。空有既無礙一根為六用六根為一用。用能為無用。無用而能用。以用無礙是故唯佛得稱為我。我者謂自在義也。又雙破凡夫二乘兩病故說此品。凡夫見有此六根起諸煩惱如鳥投網。二乘有六根即不能無六。若入觀無六根。即不能為六用。如凈名呵阿那律云。眼若作相則同外道。若無作相即是無為。不應有見。故失對當時受屈於二難。今明。菩薩了六無六無有礙相。則越聖越凡故說此品也。又說此品者。法華明六根清凈普賢觀經懺六根罪。彼經云。若有眼根惡業障不清凈。當誦大乘經思念第一義。是名懺悔眼能盡諸惡業。故知欲為真實懺悔當依此品觀六根畢竟空。大集經云。若有說言。眼見色乃至意能知諸法。是人流轉生死中無量億劫受諸苦。如是諸大乘正以觀六根為入道之要。是故此品總而釋之。又有此品來者。從因緣品至此有三立三破。初引毗曇論立。次引去來事立。今引經立。以備破三立故有三破也。又有此品來者。上兩品求生滅去來畢竟不可得。外人便謂。論主
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不同於六師外道（不同於佛教以外的六種主要哲學流派）的觀點。雖然一切畢竟是空性，但眼睛所見卻是如此清晰。因此，它不同於方廣道經（指大乘佛教經典）所說的『無』。所以《維摩詰經》說：『有佛世尊，得真天眼（能看透一切事物的天眼），悉見諸法，不以二相（不以有和無兩種對立的相狀）』。《華嚴經》說：『眼根入三昧（禪定），耳根起正受（正確的感受）。觀眼無生無自性（觀察眼睛的本性是無生無自性的），說空寂滅無所有（宣說空性、寂滅，一切皆無所有）。』如此等等經文都表明眼根雖然清晰存在，但實際上並沒有真正的『見』。雖然沒有真正的『見』，但實際上又無所不見。所以空和有之間沒有障礙。空和有既然沒有障礙，那麼一根可以發揮六根的作用，六根可以發揮一根的作用。作用可以變為無用，無用可以變為作用。因為作用沒有障礙，所以只有佛才能被稱為『我』。『我』的意思是自在。此外，宣說此品是爲了同時破除凡夫和二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的兩種弊病。凡夫執著于這六根，從而產生各種煩惱，就像鳥兒自投羅網。二乘雖然有六根，但卻無法擺脫六根的束縛。如果進入觀想，沒有六根，就無法發揮六根的作用。就像《維摩詰經》呵斥阿那律（佛陀的弟子，以天眼著稱）說：『眼睛如果執著于相，就和外道一樣。如果沒有執著于相，那就是無為法（不造作的法）。不應該有見。』所以阿那律當時無法應對，陷入了兩難的境地。現在說明，菩薩了悟六根非有非無，沒有任何障礙，因此超越了聖人和凡夫，所以宣說此品。此外，宣說此品的原因是，《法華經》闡明六根清凈，《普賢觀經》懺悔六根之罪。該經說：『如果眼根有惡業障礙，不清凈，應當誦讀大乘經典，思念第一義（最高的真理）。這叫做懺悔，眼睛能夠消除一切惡業。』所以要知道，想要進行真實的懺悔，應當依據此品，觀六根畢竟空。《大集經》說：『如果有人說，眼睛能見色，乃至意能知諸法，這個人將在生死中流轉無量億劫，遭受各種痛苦。』所以這些大乘經典都以觀六根為入道的重要方法。因此，此品總括地解釋了這些道理。此外，此品出現的原因是，從《因緣品》到此品，有三次『立』（建立某種觀點）和三次『破』（破除某種觀點）。最初引用《毗曇論》（佛教論書）來建立觀點，其次引用過去和未來的事情來建立觀點，現在引用經典來建立觀點。爲了準備破除這三次『立』，所以有三次『破』。此外，此品出現的原因是，前面兩品論述了生滅、過去和未來畢竟不可得，外道便認為，論主
【English Translation】 English version It differs from the views of the six heretical teachers (referring to the six major philosophical schools outside of Buddhism). Although everything is ultimately emptiness, what the eyes see is so clear. Therefore, it differs from the 'nothingness' spoken of in the Vaipulya Sutras (referring to Mahayana Buddhist scriptures). Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'There is the World-Honored One, the Buddha, who has attained the true divine eye (the eye that can see through all things), and sees all dharmas (phenomena) without duality (not with the two opposing aspects of existence and non-existence).' The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'The eye-faculty enters samadhi (meditative absorption), and the ear-faculty arises with correct reception (correct feeling). Observe the eye as unproduced and without self-nature (observe that the nature of the eye is unproduced and without self-nature), and speak of emptiness, extinction, and non-existence (proclaim emptiness, extinction, and that everything is non-existent).' Such sutras all clarify that although the eye-faculty clearly exists, it does not actually have true 'seeing.' Although there is no true 'seeing,' it actually sees everything. Therefore, there is no obstruction between emptiness and existence. Since there is no obstruction between emptiness and existence, one faculty can function as six faculties, and six faculties can function as one faculty. Function can become useless, and uselessness can become function. Because function is unobstructed, only the Buddha can be called 'I.' 'I' means freedom. Furthermore, this chapter is expounded to simultaneously refute the two faults of ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle). Ordinary people are attached to these six faculties, thereby generating various afflictions, like birds throwing themselves into a net. Although those of the Two Vehicles have six faculties, they cannot escape the bondage of the six faculties. If they enter contemplation and have no six faculties, they cannot exercise the function of the six faculties. It is like the Vimalakirti Sutra rebuking Aniruddha (a disciple of the Buddha, known for his divine eye), saying: 'If the eye clings to form, it is the same as the heretics. If there is no clinging to form, then it is unconditioned dharma (uncreated dharma). There should be no seeing.' Therefore, Aniruddha was unable to respond at that time and fell into a dilemma. Now it is explained that Bodhisattvas understand that the six faculties are neither existent nor non-existent, and there is no obstruction, thus transcending both saints and ordinary people, so this chapter is expounded. Furthermore, the reason for expounding this chapter is that the Lotus Sutra clarifies the purity of the six faculties, and the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sutra repents for the sins of the six faculties. That sutra says: 'If the eye-faculty has evil karmic obstructions and is not pure, one should recite the Mahayana scriptures and contemplate the first principle (the highest truth). This is called repentance, and the eye can eliminate all evil karma.' Therefore, to truly repent, one should rely on this chapter and contemplate that the six faculties are ultimately empty. The Mahasamnipata Sutra says: 'If someone says that the eye can see form, and even the mind can know all dharmas, that person will transmigrate in samsara for countless eons, suffering various pains.' Therefore, these Mahayana scriptures all regard contemplating the six faculties as an important method for entering the path. Therefore, this chapter comprehensively explains these principles. Furthermore, the reason for the appearance of this chapter is that from the Chapter on Conditions to this chapter, there are three 'establishments' (establishing a certain view) and three 'refutations' (refuting a certain view). Initially, the Abhidharma treatises (Buddhist treatises) are cited to establish a view, then past and future events are cited to establish a view, and now the scriptures are cited to establish a view. To prepare for refuting these three 'establishments,' there are three 'refutations.' Furthermore, the reason for the appearance of this chapter is that the previous two chapters discussed that arising and ceasing, past and future, are ultimately unattainable, and the heretics then think that the author
能見諸法無生滅去來。故上云。世間眼見故。若爾終有能見之眼所見之境。是故今明。既無生滅去來。豈有能見所見。即上破于生滅今泯于境智。故有此品來也。品八偈為二。初偈立。次七偈破。立中先長行問。所以引經者。既是經說。則必有六情。若無六情佛不應說有。又論主若言無六則破佛經。若不破佛經則六情便有。既有六情。上因緣去來豈得無耶。又上品云肉眼所見不可信者。佛不應說之。既說六情即六情可信。偈為二。上半列六情體。下半明六情用。行者緣也。六情緣於六塵也。又上半明六情。下半明六塵。所以破十二入者。眾事分毗曇。婆羅門問佛。何法攝一切法耶。佛答。十二入攝一切法。今觀十二入空則一切法不可得也。問意可是情餘五云何是情。答意當體名情。餘五生情識之果從果受稱也。六情亦名六根。五根能生五識。意根能生意識。六情亦名六依。為六識所依。六塵亦名六衰。令善衰滅。亦名六慾。是人所欲故也。但解見義不同。外道以神我能見。犢子亦明我能見。論人以識托眼根故識能見。雖用識見要須人御然用識見。本是曇摩多羅人義。毗曇人以根能見。故眼根是清凈色能見外法。雖用根見要須識在根中根即能見。若無有識空根不見。故用識能了別。異部人云。慧數是能見。復有人云。諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 能見到諸法沒有生滅去來。所以前面說，『世間眼見』。如果這樣，終究有能見的眼和所見的境。因此現在說明，既然沒有生滅去來，哪裡會有能見和所見？這既是前面破斥生滅，現在泯滅境智。所以有這一品的出現。這一品八個偈頌分為兩部分。第一個偈頌是立論，後面七個偈頌是破斥。立論中先用長行提問，之所以引用經文，是因為既然是經文所說，就必定有六情（六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。如果沒有六情，佛就不應該說有。而且論主如果說沒有六情，就違背了佛經。如果不違背佛經，那麼六情就存在。既然有六情，前面的因緣去來怎麼能說沒有呢？而且前面一品說肉眼所見不可信，佛就不應該說六情。既然說了六情，就說明六情是可信的。偈頌分為兩部分，上半部分列出六情的本體，下半部分說明六情的作用。『行者』是緣的意思，六情緣於六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）。而且上半部分說明六情，下半部分說明六塵。之所以要破斥十二入（六根、六塵），是因為《眾事分毗曇》中，婆羅門問佛，什麼法能夠攝盡一切法？佛回答說，十二入攝盡一切法。現在觀察十二入是空，那麼一切法就不可得。提問的意思是，『意』可以說是情，其餘五根怎麼是情呢？回答的意思是，當體名為情，其餘五根是產生情識的結果，從結果而接受名稱。六情也叫六根，五根能生五識，意根能生意識。六情也叫六依，是六識所依。六塵也叫六衰，使善法衰滅，也叫六慾，是人所貪求的。只是對『見』的理解不同。外道認為神我能見，犢子部也認為我能見。論師認為識依託眼根，所以識能見。雖然用識見，需要人來主導才能用識見。這本來是曇摩多羅人的觀點。毗曇人認為根能見，所以眼根是清凈色，能見外法。雖然用根見，需要識在根中，根才能見。如果沒有識，空根就不能見。所以用識來了別。異部人說，慧數是能見。還有人說，諸 現代漢語譯本：能見到諸法沒有生滅去來。所以前面說，『世間眼見』。如果這樣，終究有能見的眼和所見的境。因此現在說明，既然沒有生滅去來，哪裡會有能見和所見？這既是前面破斥生滅，現在泯滅境智。所以有這一品的出現。這一品八個偈頌分為兩部分。第一個偈頌是立論，後面七個偈頌是破斥。立論中先用長行提問，之所以引用經文，是因為既然是經文所說，就必定有六情（六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。如果沒有六情，佛就不應該說有。而且論主如果說沒有六情，就違背了佛經。如果不違背佛經，那麼六情就存在。既然有六情，前面的因緣去來怎麼能說沒有呢？而且前面一品說肉眼所見不可信，佛就不應該說六情。既然說了六情，就說明六情是可信的。偈頌分為兩部分，上半部分列出六情的本體，下半部分說明六情的作用。『行者』是緣的意思，六情緣於六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）。而且上半部分說明六情，下半部分說明六塵。之所以要破斥十二入（六根、六塵），是因為《眾事分毗曇》中，婆羅門問佛，什麼法能夠攝盡一切法？佛回答說，十二入攝盡一切法。現在觀察十二入是空，那麼一切法就不可得。提問的意思是，『意』可以說是情，其餘五根怎麼是情呢？回答的意思是，當體名為情，其餘五根是產生情識的結果，從結果而接受名稱。六情也叫六根，五根能生五識，意根能生意識。六情也叫六依，是六識所依。六塵也叫六衰，使善法衰滅，也叫六慾，是人所貪求的。只是對『見』的理解不同。外道認為神我能見，犢子部也認為我能見。論師認為識依託眼根，所以識能見。雖然用識見，需要人來主導才能用識見。這本來是曇摩多羅人的觀點。毗曇人認為根能見，所以眼根是清凈色，能見外法。雖然用根見，需要識在根中，根才能見。如果沒有識，空根就不能見。所以用識來了別。異部人說，慧數是能見。還有人說，諸
【English Translation】 One can see that all dharmas have no arising, ceasing, going, or coming. Therefore, it was said above, 'The world sees with its eyes.' If that is so, there will ultimately be an eye that can see and an object that is seen. Therefore, it is now explained that since there is no arising, ceasing, going, or coming, how can there be a seer and something seen? This is both refuting arising and ceasing from before, and now extinguishing the realm of objects and wisdom. Therefore, this chapter appears. The eight verses of this chapter are divided into two parts. The first verse establishes the argument, and the following seven verses refute it. In establishing the argument, a lengthy question is first posed. The reason for quoting the scriptures is that since it is said in the scriptures, there must be the six senses (six roots, namely eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). If there were no six senses, the Buddha should not have said there were. Moreover, if the author of the treatise says there are no six senses, he would be contradicting the Buddhist scriptures. If he does not contradict the Buddhist scriptures, then the six senses exist. Since the six senses exist, how can it be said that the previous causes and conditions of going and coming do not exist? Furthermore, the previous chapter said that what is seen by the physical eye is not believable, so the Buddha should not have spoken of the six senses. Since the six senses were spoken of, it means that the six senses are believable. The verses are divided into two parts: the first half lists the substance of the six senses, and the second half explains the function of the six senses. 'Practitioner' means condition, the six senses are conditioned by the six objects of sense (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma). Moreover, the first half explains the six senses, and the second half explains the six objects of sense. The reason for refuting the twelve entrances (six roots and six objects of sense) is that in the Samgitisutra Abhidharma, a Brahmin asked the Buddha, 'What dharma can encompass all dharmas?' The Buddha replied, 'The twelve entrances encompass all dharmas.' Now, observing that the twelve entrances are empty, then all dharmas are unattainable. The meaning of the question is, 'Mind' can be said to be a sense, but how are the other five roots senses? The meaning of the answer is that the substance itself is called a sense, and the other five roots are the result of the arising of sense consciousness, and they receive their names from the result. The six senses are also called the six roots, the five roots can generate the five consciousnesses, and the mind root can generate mind consciousness. The six senses are also called the six supports, which are supported by the six consciousnesses. The six objects of sense are also called the six declines, which cause good dharmas to decline and perish, and they are also called the six desires, which are desired by people. It is just that the understanding of 'seeing' is different. The heretics believe that the self can see, and the Vatsiputriyas also believe that the self can see. The treatise master believes that consciousness relies on the eye root, so consciousness can see. Although seeing is done with consciousness, it requires a person to direct it in order to see with consciousness. This was originally the view of Dharmatrāta. The Abhidharma practitioners believe that the root can see, so the eye root is pure form and can see external dharmas. Although seeing is done with the root, it requires consciousness to be in the root for the root to see. If there is no consciousness, the empty root cannot see. Therefore, consciousness is used to discriminate. People of different schools say that the number of wisdom is what can see. Still others say that all English version: One can see that all dharmas have no arising, ceasing, going, or coming. Therefore, it was said above, 'The world sees with its eyes.' If that is so, there will ultimately be an eye that can see and an object that is seen. Therefore, it is now explained that since there is no arising, ceasing, going, or coming, how can there be a seer and something seen? This is both refuting arising and ceasing from before, and now extinguishing the realm of objects and wisdom. Therefore, this chapter appears. The eight verses of this chapter are divided into two parts. The first verse establishes the argument, and the following seven verses refute it. In establishing the argument, a lengthy question is first posed. The reason for quoting the scriptures is that since it is said in the scriptures, there must be the six senses (six roots, namely eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). If there were no six senses, the Buddha should not have said there were. Moreover, if the author of the treatise says there are no six senses, he would be contradicting the Buddhist scriptures. If he does not contradict the Buddhist scriptures, then the six senses exist. Since the six senses exist, how can it be said that the previous causes and conditions of going and coming do not exist? Furthermore, the previous chapter said that what is seen by the physical eye is not believable, so the Buddha should not have spoken of the six senses. Since the six senses were spoken of, it means that the six senses are believable. The verses are divided into two parts: the first half lists the substance of the six senses, and the second half explains the function of the six senses. 'Practitioner' means condition, the six senses are conditioned by the six objects of sense (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma). Moreover, the first half explains the six senses, and the second half explains the six objects of sense. The reason for refuting the twelve entrances (six roots and six objects of sense) is that in the Samgitisutra Abhidharma, a Brahmin asked the Buddha, 'What dharma can encompass all dharmas?' The Buddha replied, 'The twelve entrances encompass all dharmas.' Now, observing that the twelve entrances are empty, then all dharmas are unattainable. The meaning of the question is, 'Mind' can be said to be a sense, but how are the other five roots senses? The meaning of the answer is that the substance itself is called a sense, and the other five roots are the result of the arising of sense consciousness, and they receive their names from the result. The six senses are also called the six roots, the five roots can generate the five consciousnesses, and the mind root can generate mind consciousness. The six senses are also called the six supports, which are supported by the six consciousnesses. The six objects of sense are also called the six declines, which cause good dharmas to decline and perish, and they are also called the six desires, which are desired by people. It is just that the understanding of 'seeing' is different. The heretics believe that the self can see, and the Vatsiputriyas also believe that the self can see. The treatise master believes that consciousness relies on the eye root, so consciousness can see. Although seeing is done with consciousness, it requires a person to direct it in order to see with consciousness. This was originally the view of Dharmatrāta. The Abhidharma practitioners believe that the root can see, so the eye root is pure form and can see external dharmas. Although seeing is done with the root, it requires consciousness to be in the root for the root to see. If there is no consciousness, the empty root cannot see. Therefore, consciousness is used to discriminate. People of different schools say that the number of wisdom is what can see. Still others say that all
心數和合能見也。答曰無也第二論主破。就文為二。初長行標無。次偈本釋無。問外人引經明有六情。論主明無豈非破佛經耶。答然外計我與六情俱是妄。謂佛欲借於六妄止於我妄。執教之流遂言實有六情。故不解佛意。又佛說六情是妄者。意欲明六是空。而外人謂有妄。故亦不識佛意。又佛意說六是世諦。尋如來意欲令悟第一義。故說世諦。而小乘人謂實有六不知第一義。今言無六意。乃申佛說六意也。故涅槃云。為令眾生深識第一義故說世諦。若眾生不因世諦入第一義。諸佛終不說世諦也。佛說六者此明不六六義。欲令眾生因六悟不六。而外人謂是定情便成六故六。非但不知不六六。亦不能悟六不六。故外人是破經。論主明不六六。即是申於世諦。明因六悟不六。即是申第一義諦。既申二諦即發二智也。又佛說此六令悟不六。即於六內不起諸煩惱。而外人無始已來有此六根起諸煩惱。而稟佛教更復推斥諍於六根。故惑不除新病更起名破佛。論主與此相違。故名申教。問夫論說法不離二諦。今言無六依何諦耶。答二諦之中並無此六。世諦文中無性實六。第一義中無有假六。故云無也。偈本即是釋長行。泛論有四句。一偈釋偈。二長行釋偈。三長行釋長行。四偈釋長行。第二七偈破為二。初有六偈正破眼情。次有一偈
類觀餘五。六偈即分為六。第一偈正破。第二指前破。第三重破。第四法無故人無。第五人無故法無。第六偈因無故果無。今束此六偈為二。初之五偈正破見因義。第二一偈破見所生果。就五偈中復為三類。初三偈破眼見。第二半偈破色見。第三一行半破人見。三偈即三。初一偈舉不自見況破見他。第二偈三時門破見他。第三偈就對色義破見他。今是舉不自見以破見他。問上有五家立見今破何人。答遍破一切。以一切師同明眼不自見而能見他故。舉不自見以況破見他。即遍破一切也。破意云。汝自體是眼。應見自體。若不見自體即自體非眼。又若非見而是眼便見非眼也。若爾應有離見之眼。亦應云離眼之見。又此難毗曇最切。彼明根是色。既能見他者亦應自見。彼救云。眼根是不可見有對色。故不可見。今破云。眼體既不為他所見云何能見他。如百論云。四大非眼見云何生眼見也。次難識見者。識能見他識應能自見。若言識非是可見法雲何能自見。若爾非是可見法雲何能見他。破人見亦類同之。又總難眾師眼不自見能見他者。此即半見半不見。應半眼半不眼。若從半見作名名為見名為眼者。亦應從半不見作名名為不見名為不眼。所以然者。自即為親他即為疏。既從見疏名為見者。從不見親應名不見。又數人明眼具十微
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 類觀餘五。六偈即分為六。第一偈正破。第二指前破。第三重破。第四法無故人無。第五人無故法無。第六偈因無故果無。今束此六偈為二。初之五偈正破見因義。第二一偈破見所生果。就五偈中復為三類。初三偈破眼見。第二半偈破色見。第三一行半破人見。三偈即三。初一偈舉不自見況破見他。第二偈三時門破見他。第三偈就對色義破見他。今是舉不自見以破見他。問上有五家立見今破何人。答遍破一切。以一切師同明眼不自見而能見他故。舉不自見以況破見他。即遍破一切也。破意云。『汝自體是眼。應見自體。若不見自體即自體非眼。又若非見而是眼便見非眼也。若爾應有離見之眼。亦應云離眼之見。』又此難毗曇（Abhidharma，論藏）最切。彼明根是色。既能見他者亦應自見。彼救云。『眼根是不可見有對色。故不可見。』今破云。『眼體既不為他所見云何能見他。』如百論云。『四大非眼見云何生眼見也。』次難識見者。識能見他識應能自見。若言識非是可見法雲何能自見。若爾非是可見法雲何能見他。破人見亦類同之。又總難眾師眼不自見能見他者。此即半見半不見。應半眼半不眼。若從半見作名名為見名為眼者。亦應從半不見作名名為不見名為不眼。所以然者。自即為親他即為疏。既從見疏名為見者。從不見親應名不見。又數人明眼具十微
【English Translation】 English version The remaining five are observed. The six gathas are divided into six. The first gatha directly refutes. The second points to the previous refutation. The third repeats the refutation. The fourth states that if the dharma (law, teaching) is non-existent, then the person is non-existent. The fifth states that if the person is non-existent, then the dharma is non-existent. The sixth gatha states that if the cause is non-existent, then the effect is non-existent. Now, these six gathas are summarized into two. The first five gathas directly refute the meaning of the cause of seeing. The second gatha refutes the effect produced by seeing. Among the five gathas, they are further divided into three categories. The first three gathas refute eye-seeing. The second half of the gatha refutes form-seeing. The third one and a half lines refute person-seeing. The three gathas are thus three. The first gatha uses the example of not seeing oneself to refute seeing others. The second gatha uses the three times to refute seeing others. The third gatha refutes seeing others based on the meaning of facing form. Now, this uses the example of not seeing oneself to refute seeing others. Question: Among the five schools that establish seeing, whom are you refuting now? Answer: Refuting all of them universally. Because all teachers commonly explain that the eye cannot see itself but can see others. Using the example of not seeing oneself to refute seeing others means refuting all of them universally. The meaning of the refutation is: 『Your own self is the eye. It should see its own self. If it does not see its own self, then the self is not the eye. Also, if it is not seeing but is the eye, then it sees what is not the eye. If so, there should be an eye separate from seeing. It should also be said that there is seeing separate from the eye.』 Moreover, this difficulty is most pertinent to the Abhidharma (論藏). They explain that the root is form. Since it can see others, it should also see itself. They defend by saying: 『The eye-root is an invisible, opposing form. Therefore, it cannot be seen.』 Now, the refutation says: 『Since the eye-body is not seen by others, how can it see others?』 As the Hundred Treatise says: 『The four great elements are not seen by the eye, so how does eye-seeing arise?』 Next, the difficulty is for those who see with consciousness. If consciousness can see others, then consciousness should be able to see itself. If it is said that consciousness is not a visible dharma, how can it see itself? If so, if it is not a visible dharma, how can it see others? Refuting person-seeing is similar. Furthermore, it is a general difficulty for all teachers that the eye cannot see itself but can see others. This is half seeing and half not seeing. It should be half eye and half not eye. If the name 'seeing' and 'eye' are made from half seeing, then the names 'not seeing' and 'not eye' should also be made from half not seeing. The reason is that self is close, while others are distant. Since the name 'seeing' is made from seeing what is distant, the name 'not seeing' should be made from not seeing what is close. Moreover, several people explain that the eye possesses ten subtle elements.
而別有眼微。破云。眼是眾緣所成無有自性。云何言實有眼不自見而能見他。成論眼是假名無有自性。若無自性即是寂滅。云何執眼定能見耶。問曰眼雖不自見者救意云。燈能所俱是色入。故自照復照他。眼能見是眼入。所見是色入。是故見他不自見。此毗曇救也。依論人救者。眼能見是識所見為色。故能見他而不自見。犢子及外道同云。人是能見色是所見。同明人不可見色可見故。所以但見他不自見也。引火者依數人能燒是觸所燒具四微。故火不能自燒而能燒他。智度論亦云。色具能照觸具能燒。與數人大同也。答中為二。上半明火不能成見法。所以然者。眼即懸矚。火到薪方燒。不應舉合而救離也。又云。觀汝此義應是自燒不燒他自見不見他。何者火燒薪薪於火是自。所以能燒薪耳。若是他者何故不燒余薪耶。等是他等燒應。不爾等應不燒。而燒被燒之薪不燒余薪。即被燒之薪非他即是自燒義也。見義亦爾。眼見於色色于眼是自。故眼能見色。若是他者即不能見。若言是他而能見者。眼何故不見非見之色耶。而不見非見之色但見於見色。當知色于眼是自故見。於他即不見。此乃是見自不見他。何名見他不見自。又火喻不能成眼見法者。離眼有色離眼無火。故不應舉不離以救離義。如百論云。離泥無瓶而眼色異故也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 而且還有細微的差別。破除這種迷霧。『眼』（眼睛）是由眾多因緣和合而成，沒有獨立的自性。怎麼能說『眼』真實存在，不能自己看見自己，卻能看見其他事物呢？《成實論》認為，『眼』只是一個假名，沒有自性。如果沒有自性，那就是寂滅。怎麼能執著地認為『眼』一定能看見東西呢？ 有人問：『眼』雖然不能自己看見自己，救護之意是說，燈的光明既能照亮自身，也能照亮其他物體，因為燈的光明和被照亮的物體都屬於色入（色塵）。『眼』能看見東西，是因為『眼』屬於眼入（眼根），所看見的是色入（色塵）。所以『眼』能看見其他事物，卻不能自己看見自己。這是毗曇宗的解釋。 依據論典的人則辯解說，『眼』能看見東西，是因為『眼』的識所見的是色。所以能看見其他事物，卻不能自己看見自己。犢子部和外道也同樣認為，人是能見者，色是所見者。他們都認為人不可見，色可見。所以只能看見其他事物，而不能自己看見自己。引用火的例子的人，依據數論的觀點，認為火能燃燒是因為接觸了具有地、水、火、風四種微粒的物體。所以火不能自己燃燒，卻能燃燒其他物體。《智度論》也說，色具有照亮的功能，觸具有燃燒的功能，與數論的觀點非常相似。 回答分為兩部分。前半部分說明火不能成立『眼』的見法。為什麼這麼說呢？因為『眼』是懸空觀看，而火必須接觸到柴薪才能燃燒。不應該用結合的事物來救護分離的事物。而且，按照你的說法，應該是自己燃燒，而不是燃燒其他物體；自己看見自己，而不是看見其他物體。為什麼呢？火燃燒柴薪，柴薪對於火來說是自身，所以才能燃燒柴薪。如果是其他物體，為什麼不燃燒其他的柴薪呢？如果是相同的其他物體，就應該都燃燒；如果不是相同的其他物體，就應該都不燃燒。然而，火只燃燒被燃燒的柴薪，而不燃燒其他的柴薪。那麼，被燃燒的柴薪就不是其他物體，而是自身被燃燒。看見的道理也是一樣。『眼』看見色，色對於『眼』來說是自身，所以『眼』能看見色。如果是其他物體，就不能看見。如果說是其他物體卻能看見，那麼『眼』為什麼看不見非可見的色呢？『眼』看不見非可見的色，而只看見可見的色。由此可知，色對於『眼』來說是自身，所以能看見。對於其他物體就看不見。這實際上是看見自身，而不是看見其他物體。怎麼能說是看見其他物體，而不是看見自己呢？ 而且，火的例子也不能成立『眼』的見法。因為離開『眼』有色，離開『眼』沒有火。所以不應該用不分離的事物來救護分離的事物。正如《百論》所說，離開泥土就沒有瓶子，而『眼』和色是不同的。
【English Translation】 English version Moreover, there are subtle differences. Break through the clouds of illusion. 'Eye' (the eye) is formed by the aggregation of numerous causes and conditions, lacking an independent self-nature. How can one say that 'eye' truly exists, unable to see itself, yet able to see other things? The Satyasiddhi Shastra argues that 'eye' is merely a provisional name, devoid of self-nature. If it lacks self-nature, then it is quiescence. How can one stubbornly insist that 'eye' is definitely able to see? Someone asks: 'Although 'eye' cannot see itself, the intention behind the defense is that the light of a lamp can illuminate both itself and other objects, because both the light of the lamp and the illuminated object belong to the rupa-ayatana (sphere of form). 'Eye' can see things because 'eye' belongs to the caksu-ayatana (sphere of eye), and what is seen belongs to the rupa-ayatana (sphere of form). Therefore, 'eye' can see other things but cannot see itself.' This is the explanation of the Vaibhashika school. Those who rely on the treatises argue that 'eye' can see things because the consciousness of 'eye' perceives form. Therefore, it can see other things but cannot see itself. The Vatsiputriya school and non-Buddhists similarly believe that a person is the seer and form is what is seen. They both acknowledge that a person cannot be seen, while form can be seen. Therefore, one can only see other things but not oneself. Those who cite the example of fire, according to the Samkhya view, believe that fire can burn because it comes into contact with objects possessing the four subtle elements of earth, water, fire, and wind. Therefore, fire cannot burn itself but can burn other objects. The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra also states that form has the function of illuminating, and touch has the function of burning, which is very similar to the Samkhya view. The response is divided into two parts. The first part explains that fire cannot establish the principle of 'eye's' seeing. Why is this so? Because 'eye' gazes from a distance, while fire must come into contact with firewood to burn. One should not use things that are combined to defend things that are separate. Moreover, according to your argument, it should be self-burning rather than burning other objects; self-seeing rather than seeing other objects. Why is that? Fire burns firewood, and firewood is self to fire, so it can burn firewood. If it were other objects, why wouldn't it burn other firewood? If they were the same other objects, they should all be burned; if they were not the same other objects, they should not be burned at all. However, fire only burns the firewood that is being burned and does not burn other firewood. Then, the firewood that is being burned is not other objects but is self being burned. The principle of seeing is also the same. 'Eye' sees form, and form is self to 'eye', so 'eye' can see form. If it were other objects, it could not see. If you say that it is other objects but can see, then why doesn't 'eye' see non-visible forms? 'Eye' does not see non-visible forms but only sees visible forms. From this, it can be known that form is self to 'eye', so it can see. It cannot see other objects. This is actually seeing self, not seeing other objects. How can it be said to be seeing other objects and not seeing self? Moreover, the example of fire cannot establish the principle of 'eye's' seeing. Because there is form apart from 'eye', but there is no fire apart from 'eye'. Therefore, one should not use things that are not separate to defend things that are separate. As the Sata Shastra says, there is no pot without clay, but 'eye' and form are different.
。下半釋不能成。舉三時門破者。一欲遮其後救。論主引燈為並。外人舉火來救。今破火竟。或可更引刀指于自無能於他有用。故舉三時門遍破一切于自不能於他能也。二者欲令外人因前觀門通徹於後。是故指前而破於後。三者上奪不自見即不見他。今縱見他故開三時責。即前奪后縱也。複次見若未見時下。依偈數之此是第三重破。重破者。上三雙已周。初偈舉自破他。次偈正破他。即自他一雙。二者初偈就法說破。次偈喻說破。謂法譬一雙。三初偈正破。次偈指前破。即三週破竟。今復破之。故名重破也。就三義破眼見者。初偈舉不自見況破見他。次舉三時門正破見他。此二是就眼破眼也。今第三就色破眼見。眼未對色不名見。因對色方名見。即見義在色不在於眼。二者云。眼即是見見即是眼。既見未見常名為眼。即應見未見常名為見。今有時見有時不見。即有時是眼有時是非眼。三者若見未見常是眼。亦應眼未眼常見。四者難云。若眼是見眼遂有時見不見。亦應見是眼見遂有時眼不眼。若無有見而非眼。亦應無有眼而非見。五者難云。若眼有時見有時不見。即知眼未必是見義。汝不應言眼定是見義也。六者顛倒品云。色等未與心和合時空無所有。如色未與眼合時即無色。既無色亦無眼。未合既畢竟無。云何將無可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 下半部分的解釋無法成立。如果以外人舉出的三時（過去、現在、未來）之門來駁斥，一是想要阻止對方後續的辯解。論主（指《中論》的作者，龍樹菩薩 Nagarjuna）引用燈的例子來說明並列關係，而外人則舉出火來救燈。現在駁斥了火的說法。或許可以進一步引用刀的例子，說明刀對自己無用，但對他人有用。因此，舉出三時之門是爲了普遍駁斥一切對自己無用但對他人有用的事物。二是想要讓外人通過前面的觀門徹底理解後面的內容。所以，指著前面來駁斥後面的觀點。三是前面已經否定了『不自見』，即不能自己看見自己，也就不能看見他人。現在假設對方能看見他人，所以開啟三時來責難，即前面否定了後面假設的情況。 再次，如果『見』在未見時就存在，按照偈頌的順序，這是第三重破斥。所謂『重破』，是指前面的三對破斥已經完成。第一首偈頌舉出『自』來破斥『他』，第二首偈頌正式破斥『他』，這構成『自他』一對。第二對是第一首偈頌就法理進行破斥，第二首偈頌用比喻進行破斥，構成『法譬』一對。第三對是第一首偈頌正面破斥，第二首偈頌指著前面進行破斥，即三週破斥完畢。現在再次進行破斥，所以稱為『重破』。 就三種意義來破斥『眼見』的觀點。第一首偈頌舉出『不自見』的情況，更何況是『見他』。第二首偈頌舉出三時之門，正式破斥『見他』。這兩種都是就『眼』來破斥『眼』。現在第三種是從『色』的角度來破斥『眼見』。眼睛未與色塵相對時，不能稱為『見』，因為與色塵相對才稱為『見』。那麼，『見』的意義在於『色』，而不在於『眼』。第二種說法是，『眼』就是『見』，『見』就是『眼』。既然『見』在未見時也常被稱為『眼』，那麼就應該在未見時也常被稱為『見』。現在有時能見，有時不能見，那麼有時是『眼』，有時不是『眼』。 第三，如果『見』在未見時也常是『眼』，那麼也應該『眼』在未『眼』時也常見。第四，反駁說，如果『眼』是『見』，那麼『眼』有時能見，有時不能見，那麼『見』也應該有時是『眼』，有時不是『眼』。如果沒有『見』就不是『眼』，那麼也應該沒有『眼』就不是『見』。第五，反駁說，如果『眼』有時能見，有時不能見，那麼就知道『眼』未必是『見』的意義。你不應該說『眼』一定是『見』的意義。第六，《顛倒品》中說，色等未與心和合時，空無所有。如同色塵未與眼根和合時，就沒有色塵。既然沒有色塵，也就沒有眼根。未和合時既然畢竟空無，怎麼能將無可...
【English Translation】 English version The latter half of the explanation cannot be established. To refute by citing the three times (past, present, future) door raised by outsiders, one is to prevent the other party's subsequent arguments. The author of the treatise (referring to Nāgārjuna, the author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way)) cites the example of a lamp to illustrate the juxtaposition, while outsiders raise fire to save the lamp. Now the fire argument has been refuted. Perhaps one could further cite the example of a knife, illustrating that a knife is useless to itself but useful to others. Therefore, citing the three times door is to universally refute everything that is useless to oneself but useful to others. Second, it is to allow outsiders to thoroughly understand the subsequent content through the preceding gate of contemplation. Therefore, pointing to the front is to refute the subsequent view. Third, the preceding has already negated 'not seeing oneself,' that is, not being able to see oneself, and therefore not being able to see others. Now, assuming that the other party can see others, the three times are opened to question, that is, the preceding negates the subsequent hypothetical situation. Again, if 'seeing' exists when not seeing, according to the order of the verses, this is the third layer of refutation. The so-called 'repeated refutation' means that the preceding three pairs of refutations have been completed. The first verse cites 'self' to refute 'other,' and the second verse formally refutes 'other,' which constitutes a 'self-other' pair. The second pair is that the first verse refutes based on principle, and the second verse refutes using metaphor, constituting a 'principle-metaphor' pair. The third pair is that the first verse refutes directly, and the second verse refutes by pointing to the front, that is, the three rounds of refutation are completed. Now, refuting again, it is called 'repeated refutation.' Refuting the view of 'eye-seeing' from three meanings. The first verse cites the situation of 'not seeing oneself,' let alone 'seeing others.' The second verse cites the three times door to formally refute 'seeing others.' Both of these are refuting 'eye' from the perspective of 'eye.' Now the third is to refute 'eye-seeing' from the perspective of 'form' (rupa). When the eye is not in contact with form, it cannot be called 'seeing,' because it is called 'seeing' only when it is in contact with form. Then, the meaning of 'seeing' lies in 'form,' not in 'eye.' The second statement is that 'eye' is 'seeing,' and 'seeing' is 'eye.' Since 'seeing' is often called 'eye' even when not seeing, then it should also be called 'seeing' even when not seeing. Now, sometimes one can see, and sometimes one cannot see, then sometimes it is 'eye,' and sometimes it is not 'eye.' Third, if 'seeing' is always 'eye' even when not seeing, then 'eye' should also be seen even when not 'eye.' Fourth, the rebuttal says, if 'eye' is 'seeing,' then 'eye' can sometimes see and sometimes cannot see, then 'seeing' should also sometimes be 'eye' and sometimes not be 'eye.' If there is no 'seeing,' then it is not 'eye,' then there should also be no 'eye,' then it is not 'seeing.' Fifth, the rebuttal says, if 'eye' can sometimes see and sometimes cannot see, then it is known that 'eye' is not necessarily the meaning of 'seeing.' You should not say that 'eye' is definitely the meaning of 'seeing.' Sixth, the Reversed Views chapter says that when form and other elements have not yet combined with the mind, they are empty and non-existent. Just as when form has not yet combined with the eye-faculty, there is no form. Since there is no form, there is also no eye-faculty. Since it is ultimately empty and non-existent when not combined, how can one take what is non-existent...
令有耶。又何得因緣未合時無。只因緣合時亦無。如眼因色故有見見乃屬色。色因眼故可見可見乃屬眼。若爾豈得言見但屬眼可見屬色。見既不屬眼豈復屬色。可見既不屬色寧復屬眼。故知眼色無自性。無自性故空。所以華嚴云。觀眼無生無自性說空寂滅無所有也。七者依文難云。眼既是見義。未對色時能見可名見耳。未對色時畢竟不見。后對色云何得見。成論文云。同性不依時是眼而不見。同性者未見眼與見時眼同是眼性。識未依時即不見。若爾識依故見不依即不見。即見無自體。又眼是見義不見亦名眼。色是礙義不礙應是色。複次二處俱無見法者。依偈是第四明法無故人無。就義破者。上三門破眼無見義竟。今第四破色無見義。所以破色無見者。承第三偈生。上云對色方見不對色不見。即見義在色不在於眼。恐外人復云色應有見故。次破色無見也。今更騰前偈意他問。無眼時不能見云何屬色。答無色時不見。對色方見。遂言眼見色不見。亦應今色對眼方見。應是色見眼不見。又眼對色而云眼見色。亦應色對眼色見眼也。他救云。雖復相因而從勝受名。如因水土穀子而牙得生。而名谷牙不名余牙。今責云。汝無水土牙終不生。何故從勝受名耶。二處俱無見者有三義。一是眼處。二是色處。二俱無見。眼是能見尚無有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如有這樣的情況：為什麼在因緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）不具備的時候沒有（見），僅僅在因緣聚合的時候也沒有（見）呢？比如，因為眼睛和顏色的緣故，才有了見（darśana，視覺），見的功能屬於識（vijñāna，意識）。因為眼睛的緣故，才能看見，可見的功能屬於眼睛。如果這樣說，怎麼能說見僅僅屬於眼睛，可見屬於顏色呢？見既然不屬於眼睛，難道會屬於顏色嗎？可見既然不屬於顏色，難道會屬於眼睛嗎？所以要知道，眼睛和顏色都沒有自性（svabhāva，固有不變的性質）。因為沒有自性，所以是空（śūnya，空性）。所以《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）說：『觀察眼睛，無生無自性，說空寂滅無所有。』 第七點，根據經文來辯駁：眼睛既然是見的功能，在沒有面對顏色的時候，能夠見，才可以稱之為見。在沒有面對顏色的時候，畢竟不能見。後來面對顏色，怎麼才能見呢？《成唯識論》（Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi śāstra）中說：『同性不依時，是眼而不見。』同性是指未見時的眼睛和見時的眼睛，都是眼睛的性質。識在沒有依靠條件的時候，就不能見。如果這樣，識依靠條件才能見，不依靠條件就不能見，那麼見就沒有自體（ātman，獨立存在的實體）。而且，眼睛是見的功能，不能見也叫做眼睛。顏色是阻礙的功能，不阻礙也應該是顏色。 再次，兩個地方都沒有見的功能。依據偈頌，這是第四個說明法（dharma，構成世界的基本元素）不存在，所以人（pudgala，個體）也不存在。就義理上來說，前面三個方面已經破斥了眼睛沒有見的功能。現在第四個方面破斥顏色沒有見的功能。之所以要破斥顏色沒有見的功能，是因為承接第三個偈頌而生。上面說，面對顏色才能見，不面對顏色就不能見，那麼見的功能在於顏色，不在於眼睛。恐怕外人又說顏色應該有見的功能，所以接下來破斥顏色沒有見的功能。 現在更進一步引用前面的偈頌來提問：沒有眼睛的時候不能見，怎麼能說屬於顏色呢？回答說，沒有顏色的時候不能見，面對顏色才能見。於是就說眼睛見顏色，顏色不見眼睛。也應該現在顏色面對眼睛才能見，應該是顏色見眼睛，眼睛不見眼睛。對方辯解說：雖然互相依存，但是從殊勝的一方接受名稱。比如因為水、土、穀子的緣故，牙才能生長，但是叫做谷牙，不叫做其他牙。 現在責問說：如果沒有水土，牙終究不能生長，為什麼從殊勝的一方接受名稱呢？兩個地方都沒有見的功能，有三種含義：一是眼睛的地方，二是顏色的地方，兩個地方都沒有見的功能。眼睛是能見的主體，尚且沒有見的功能
【English Translation】 English version If there is such a thing: why is it that when the conditions (hetu-pratyaya, causes and conditions) are not met, there is no (seeing), and even when the conditions are met, there is still no (seeing)? For example, because of the eye and color, there is seeing (darśana, vision), and the function of seeing belongs to consciousness (vijñāna, consciousness). Because of the eye, one can see, and the function of being visible belongs to the eye. If this is the case, how can it be said that seeing belongs only to the eye, and being visible belongs to color? Since seeing does not belong to the eye, would it belong to color? Since being visible does not belong to color, would it belong to the eye? Therefore, one should know that the eye and color have no self-nature (svabhāva, inherent unchanging nature). Because there is no self-nature, it is emptiness (śūnya, emptiness). Therefore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Observe the eye, without arising, without self-nature, speaking of emptiness, stillness, and nothingness.' Seventh, refuting based on the text: Since the eye is the function of seeing, if it can see when not facing color, it can be called seeing. When not facing color, it ultimately cannot see. Later, when facing color, how can it see? The Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi śāstra says: 'Same nature does not depend on time, it is the eye but does not see.' Same nature refers to the eye when not seeing and the eye when seeing, both are the nature of the eye. Consciousness cannot see when it does not rely on conditions. If so, consciousness sees because it relies on conditions, and does not see when it does not rely on conditions, then seeing has no self-entity (ātman, independently existing entity). Moreover, the eye is the function of seeing, and not seeing is also called the eye. Color is the function of obstruction, and not obstructing should also be color. Again, there is no function of seeing in either place. According to the verses, this is the fourth explanation that the dharmas (dharma, basic elements that constitute the world) do not exist, so the person (pudgala, individual) also does not exist. In terms of meaning, the previous three aspects have refuted that the eye has no function of seeing. Now the fourth aspect refutes that color has no function of seeing. The reason for refuting that color has no function of seeing is because it arises from the third verse. The above says that one can see when facing color, and cannot see when not facing color, then the function of seeing lies in color, not in the eye. Fearing that outsiders would say that color should have the function of seeing, the following refutes that color has no function of seeing. Now, further quoting the previous verses to ask: When there is no eye, one cannot see, how can it be said to belong to color? The answer is, when there is no color, one cannot see, and one can see when facing color. Thus, it is said that the eye sees color, and color does not see the eye. It should also be that now color faces the eye to see, it should be that color sees the eye, and the eye does not see the eye. The other party argues: Although they depend on each other, they take the name from the superior side. For example, because of water, soil, and grain seeds, teeth can grow, but they are called grain teeth, not other teeth. Now questioning: If there is no water and soil, teeth will never grow, why take the name from the superior side? There are three meanings to the fact that there is no function of seeing in either place: one is the place of the eye, and the other is the place of color, and there is no function of seeing in either place. The eye is the subject that can see, and it does not even have the function of seeing
見。色體非見云何能見。二者見處非見處。上責見成非見恐外人云見不能見即非見應能見。故名非見亦不見。同前緣尚不生何況非緣。三者是眼處人處。上已責眼不能見恐外人云獨眼不能見須人御眼方乃得見。故明人亦不見。若人能見盲亦有人。應能見也。偈上半明法無下半辨人無。見不能有見指品初三偈破也。非見亦不見即此偈直非之。既稱非見云何能見。下半正明人無。即是第三破人見義。上破毗曇云眼見義。今破外道犢子及成論假人能見義。問云何是法無故人亦無耶。答眼既不能見。即知人亦不能見故是法無故人無也。若言人見盲既有人。何不用耳見耶。破成論云。識既能見。識托耳何不能見。若要用眼方見不用眼不見。此是眼見。何關人見。破識亦爾。識要托眼方見托余不見即是眼見。何關識見。長行前釋上半次釋下半。釋下半為三。初牒。何以故釋。有進退二難。初明人見即盲人應見。次明眼見即人墮盲。后舉偈結。易知也。複次離見不離見依偈是第五人無故法無也。若破三種見義猶屬第三破人見義。偈為二。上半明人無下半辨法無。上半舉離不離釋前偈下半法無故人無。若離見有見者盲人應能見。而盲不能見。即離見無見者。若不離見有見者。即見在眼而者便無見。即亦無者。下半明法無。本由者御眼見
色。既其無者。即無能御之人便無所御之眼。故無所取之色。長行雲有無即是離不離。有是不離。以有見即有見者。無見有者故無是離也。見可見無故者。依偈是第六明因無故果無。所言因者。眼色和合生於眼識乃至四取。故眼色為因識等為果。若望品意從品初都是破見因竟。謂求三種見不得即明無因。是故今第二次明無果。見可見無故近牒第五偈下半遠牒一品破也。識等四法無者破無果也。依成實義眼色和合生於眼識。識生想想生受受生行。次第取假實境。上既破無眼見色。即四心不生也。依毗曇義者。上以破無眼見色。今次破無四法。四法者眼色和合生於眼識。眼識所以得生。次由觸觸和合根塵。以觸和合根塵即生苦樂舍三受。三受后次生愛。雖生余心數但受是三界果報主故偏說生受。三受后次生三毒。但愛是三界受生本故偏說愛也。眾事分正明此四法。與今長行同。大品亦明眼觸因緣生受乃至意觸因緣生受也。四取者婆沙云。四方馳求名為四取。勝鬘經以四住地為四取。故云有漏業因四取為緣生三界內也。今此中別明四取。依毗曇總攝百八煩惱為四取體。三界有利鈍二使。各開二分。欲界鈍使取外五欲名為欲取。上二界鈍使不取外五欲不名欲取。但取內法名我語取。三界四見為見取。三界惑取名為惑取。鈍使就
界分二。利使約重輕為兩。惑取雖一但內外二人計非道為道。此過既深。故獨為一取。餘四見合為一取。成論明四取其體即局也。等諸緣者四取既無。即不起三業。三業無故未來二果亡。觀見可見空。即十二緣河竭佛性水生。此偈即明破六情之大意也。耳鼻舌身意下。第二類破五情等法。釋根塵合離有二師。數云。三根合謂鼻舌身。三根離即眼耳意。成論總六根四句。眼但離不合。鼻舌身但合不離。耳亦離亦合。聞外聲為離。聞耳鳴為合。意非離非合。以無形故。今此偈總明六情不可得離合之性即空也。
五陰品第四
上已觀六情。今復觀五陰者。以受悟不同宜歷明觀行也。二者諸方等經明陰入界空。今欲釋經歷諸空義故。上明界入空今次觀五陰。問經何故說陰入界空耶。答大集經諸魔子令舍利弗舞。身子答云。汝當舞我當歌。歌曰我今不求陰界入。無量世來虛妄故。若有貪求如是法是人終不得解脫。魔子聞之發菩提心。故知見陰界入不得解脫。知本性空便得道也。又如大品明菩薩習應波若。命初即云習色空受想行識空。是名與波若相應。佛在世利根直聞色空便能得道。今為鈍者廣解釋之。令與波若相應。是故觀於五陰。問大小乘經論皆前明五陰。次十二入后十八界。上六情品具破界入。偈云。此眼等六
情行色等六塵。則是十二入義。后偈云。識等四法無。即明無六識。即是破十八界。今何故先破界入后觀五陰。答因緣去來釋八不始末。即辨一切法空。外人不受一切法空故。引佛說十二入攝一切法證一切法是有。故前破十二入及十八界。界入既竟始得觀五陰空耳。二者鉤鎖接次相生者。因緣品明一切法無生。外人舉現事去來證有萬法。既破無所見去來。次舉能見之眼來救。是故次破六情之用。破用既竟復引五陰法體證有于用。故今破陰體也。陰入開合者。依毗曇十二入中十種色入並法入中少分無作色以為色陰意入即識陰。法入除無為。取想受為二陰。余即行陰也。陰與界開合者。十八界中十色界及法界少分無作色為色陰。七心界為識陰。法界中除無為取想受二數以為二陰余為行陰。界入開合者。五根五塵及法入二門相似。唯異開意入為七心界耳。問何故偏取想受二數為二陰。答略有二義。一者想能生見。受能生愛。二者想修無色受修初禪。有此強力。故偏取也。成實明十四種色為色陰。五根五塵及以四大。毗曇以四大是實法故屬觸塵。成實觸是實法四大是假。故離之也。曇摩多羅部但明十種色無有無作。俱異數論。次大乘有三釋。一云佛果有色故涅槃云。舍無常色獲得常色。二云佛果無色。而經云有者此是妙有炳然
。故云色耳。三釋云從七地已還此即有色。八地以上無復有色。亦無四心。故地經云。爾時過意界住在智業中也。通稱陰者謂陰蓋為義。有此五陰蓋於眾生不得解脫。如雀在瓶物覆其口故云陰。又云陰者陰殺也。其義主殺。以此五法能害慧命。是故經中喻旃陀羅。羅什后翻名為五眾。以此五法共聚成人目之為眾。又此五法各有眾多。如色陰有無量色。餘四亦爾。故名眾也。問云何觀五陰耶。答眾生已受五陰身常為所害。如涅槃云。觀察五陰如五旃陀羅。乃至過旃陀羅。而內道外道小乘大乘更封執五陰種種異說。或言前後或言一時。或言佛果有色或云無色。故內外大小互興諍論。各執己法為是他說為非。如此之人不能除旃陀羅。而於五陰復生諸見。即旃陀羅上更起旃陀羅。論主今觀五陰畢竟不可得。既無五陰亦無不五亦五不五非五不五。如大品云。行亦不受。不行亦不受。行不行亦不受。非行非不行亦不受。乃至不受亦不受。是名菩薩無受三昧。不與聲聞辟支佛共。問五句不受何所歸耶。答若能如此悟者歸於本鄉。是故經云。本際為鄉絕句為里。而眾生任運受此陰身已失本鄉。今大小學人於五陰法復起諍論。是為失內更復失矣。故去城逾遠岐路逾多。又若能知五陰空。即是舍旃陀羅。又是舍無常色獲得常色。受想行識亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所以叫做色陰。第三種解釋說，從七地菩薩及以下仍然有色陰，八地菩薩及以上就沒有色陰了，也沒有四種心。所以《地經》說：『那時，（菩薩的）意識超越了意界，安住在智慧的事業中。』總稱為『陰』，意思是覆蓋。因為這五陰覆蓋眾生，使他們不得解脫，就像麻雀在瓶子里，東西蓋住了瓶口一樣，所以叫做『陰』。又說，『陰』是陰暗殺害的意思，其主要含義是殺害。因為這五法能夠損害慧命，所以經中比喻為旃陀羅（賤民）。鳩摩羅什後來翻譯為『五眾』，因為這五法共同聚集形成人，所以稱之為『眾』。而且這五法各自都有眾多，比如色陰有無量色，其餘四陰也是這樣，所以叫做『眾』。問：應該如何觀察五陰呢？答：眾生已經承受了五陰之身，常常被其所害，就像《涅槃經》所說：『觀察五陰，如同五個旃陀羅，甚至超過旃陀羅。』而內道外道、小乘大乘，對於五陰有種種不同的說法，或者說有先後，或者說同時，或者說佛果有色，或者說無色。所以內外大小互相爭論，各自堅持自己的法是對的，說別人的法是錯的。這樣的人不能去除旃陀羅，反而對於五陰又產生各種見解，就像在旃陀羅之上又生起旃陀羅。論主現在觀察五陰，畢竟是不可得的。既然沒有五陰，也就沒有不五陰，亦五亦不五，非五非不五。如《大品般若經》所說：『行也不受，不行也不受，行不行也不受，非行非不行也不受，乃至不受也不受。』這叫做菩薩的無受三昧，不與聲聞、辟支佛共有。問：五句不受，歸向何處呢？答：如果能夠如此領悟，就歸於本鄉。所以經上說：『本際為鄉，絕句為里。』而眾生任憑業力承受這陰身，已經失去了本鄉。現在大小乘的學人，對於五陰之法又生起爭論，這是失去了內在的，又失去了外在的。所以離城越遠，歧路越多。又如果能夠知道五陰是空的，就是捨棄了旃陀羅，也就是捨棄了無常的色陰，獲得了常色。受、想、行、識也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is called the Skandha of Form (rupa-skandha). The third explanation is that from the seventh Bhumi (stage of a Bodhisattva's path) and below, there is still the Skandha of Form, while from the eighth Bhumi and above, there is no longer the Skandha of Form, nor are there the four minds. Therefore, the Land Sutra says: 'At that time, (the Bodhisattva's) consciousness transcends the realm of thought and dwells in the activity of wisdom.' Generally called 'Skandha (khandha)', it means to cover. Because these five Skandhas cover sentient beings, preventing them from attaining liberation, just like a sparrow in a bottle with its mouth covered, hence it is called 'Skandha'. It is also said that 'Skandha' means darkness and killing, its main meaning being killing. Because these five dharmas can harm the wisdom-life, they are likened to Chandala (outcastes) in the sutras. Kumarajiva later translated it as 'Five Aggregates (skandha)', because these five dharmas gather together to form a person, hence they are called 'Aggregates'. Moreover, each of these five dharmas has many aspects, such as the Skandha of Form having countless forms, and the other four are also like this, hence they are called 'Aggregates'. Question: How should one observe the five Skandhas? Answer: Sentient beings have already received the body of the five Skandhas and are constantly harmed by them, just as the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Observe the five Skandhas as five Chandalas, even more than Chandalas.' And the inner path (Buddhism), outer paths (non-Buddhist religions), Hinayana (Small Vehicle), and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) have various different views on the five Skandhas, either saying they are sequential or simultaneous, or saying that the Buddha-fruit has form or is formless. Therefore, inner and outer, small and great, argue with each other, each insisting that their own dharma is correct and saying that others' are wrong. Such people cannot remove the Chandalas, but instead generate various views on the five Skandhas, like creating Chandalas on top of Chandalas. The author of this treatise now observes that the five Skandhas are ultimately unattainable. Since there are no five Skandhas, there is also no non-five Skandhas, both five and non-five, neither five nor non-five. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Neither practice nor non-practice is accepted, neither practice nor non-practice is accepted, neither practice nor non-practice is accepted, neither non-practice nor non-non-practice is accepted, and even non-acceptance is not accepted.' This is called the Samadhi of Non-Acceptance of the Bodhisattva, which is not shared by Sravakas (Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas). Question: Where do the five negations lead? Answer: If one can realize this, one returns to one's homeland. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The original limit is the homeland, the cessation of all statements is the village.' But sentient beings, relying on karma, receive this Skandha-body and have already lost their homeland. Now, students of both the Small and Great Vehicles are again arguing about the dharma of the five Skandhas, which is losing the inner and losing even more. Therefore, the farther one goes from the city, the more forks in the road there are. Furthermore, if one can know that the five Skandhas are empty, that is abandoning the Chandalas, that is abandoning the impermanent Skandha of Form and obtaining the permanent Form. The same is true for sensation (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formations (samskara), and consciousness (vijnana).
復如是。問云何得爾。答以了悟色陰生滅不可得。即無常色不生。生滅色既不生。即無生滅色便現。故大品云。諸法若生波若即不生。波若生故諸法即不生。問若觀五陰畢竟空者。佛經何故分別五陰。答佛分別五者。欲因分別令知五陰是空。而封教之徒不領陰空但存分別。故失佛意。又有所分別障慧眼。障慧眼故不能如實分別。若息分別即除分別障。故正觀眼開得實智慧。既得實智。即得權智慧無分別中善巧分別。雖復分別未曾分別。故寶積嘆云。能善分別諸法相於第一義而不動。問毗曇亦知五陰無常苦空無我。五陰從因生故無常。五陰為四相刀切之。違其住性故苦。以無常切之不得自在故無我。無我故空。空與無我異者無離陰我故云空。無即陰我故為無我。與大乘觀行有何異耶。答毗曇觀察五陰但得人空未得法空。故五旃陀羅都未滅也。大乘不但知五內無我。亦知無有五陰。故始離於五也。問成實論云。知五陰所成假名人空。復明五陰實法亦空。與大乘何異。答三藏多明人空少明法空。大乘多明法空少明人空。所以然者。小乘尚知人空。何況大乘。是以大乘多明法空。是故為異。以三藏經多明人空少明法空。毗曇成實俱學三藏。有得人空有得法空。又小乘雖明二空未得五陰本來寂滅。如法華云。諸法從本來常自寂滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 復如是。問：如何才能達到這種境界？答：通過了悟色陰（Rupa Skandha，物質蘊）的生滅變化是不可得的，那麼無常的色陰就不會產生。生滅的色陰既然不產生，那麼不生不滅的色陰便會顯現。所以《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說：『諸法如果產生，般若智慧（Prajna，智慧）就不會產生；般若智慧產生，諸法就不會產生。』問：如果觀照五陰（Panca-skandha，五蘊）畢竟是空性的，那麼佛經為什麼還要分別五陰？答：佛陀分別五陰，是爲了通過分別使人知道五陰是空性的。但是那些固守教條的人不理解五陰是空性的，只是執著于分別，所以失去了佛陀的本意。而且，有所分別會障礙智慧之眼，因為障礙了智慧之眼，就不能如實地分別。如果停止分別，就能去除分別的障礙，所以正確的觀照能開啟智慧之眼，獲得真實的智慧。既然獲得了真實的智慧，就能獲得權巧的智慧，在沒有分別中善巧地分別。雖然還在分別，但實際上並沒有分別。所以《寶積經》（Ratnakuta Sutra）讚歎說：『能夠善於分別諸法的現象，但在第一義諦（Paramartha，最高真理）中卻不動搖。』問：毗曇宗（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩）也知道五陰是無常、苦、空、無我的。五陰從因緣而生，所以是無常的；五陰被生、住、異、滅四相所切割，違背了它的住性，所以是苦的；因為被無常所切割，不能自在，所以是無我的；因為無我，所以是空性的。空與無我的區別在於，沒有離開五陰的我，所以說是空；沒有包含在五陰中的我，所以說是無我。這與大乘的觀行有什麼不同呢？答：毗曇宗觀察五陰，只是證得了人空（Pudgala-sunyata，人無我），沒有證得法空（Dharma-sunyata，法無我），所以五種旃陀羅（Candala，賤民）都還沒有滅除。大乘不但知道內在沒有我，也知道沒有五陰，所以才開始脫離五陰。問：《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi Shastra）說，知道五陰所形成的假名是人空，又說明五陰的實法也是空性的，這與大乘有什麼不同？答：三藏（Tripitaka，三藏經）多說明人空，少說明法空；大乘多說明法空，少說明人空。之所以這樣，是因為小乘尚且知道人空，何況是大乘呢？所以大乘多說明法空，因此才有所不同。因為三藏經多說明人空，少說明法空，毗曇宗和成實論都學習三藏，有的證得了人空，有的證得了法空。而且，小乘雖然明白了二空，但沒有證得五陰本來就是寂滅的，就像《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）所說：『諸法從本來，常自寂滅。』
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, it is like this. Question: How is this attained? Answer: By realizing that the arising and ceasing of the Rupa Skandha (form aggregate) is unattainable, then the impermanent form does not arise. Since the arising and ceasing of form does not arise, then the non-arising and non-ceasing form manifests. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says, 'If dharmas arise, Prajna (wisdom) does not arise; because Prajna arises, dharmas do not arise.' Question: If one contemplates that the Panca-skandha (five aggregates) are ultimately empty, then why do the Buddhist scriptures differentiate the five aggregates? Answer: The Buddha differentiates the five aggregates in order to make people know that the five aggregates are empty through differentiation. However, those who adhere to doctrines do not understand the emptiness of the aggregates, but only cling to differentiation, thus losing the Buddha's intention. Moreover, having differentiation obstructs the eye of wisdom. Because the eye of wisdom is obstructed, one cannot differentiate truthfully. If one ceases differentiation, then the obstruction of differentiation is removed. Therefore, correct contemplation opens the eye of wisdom and obtains true wisdom. Having obtained true wisdom, one then obtains skillful wisdom, skillfully differentiating in non-differentiation. Although still differentiating, one has never differentiated. Therefore, the Ratnakuta Sutra praises, 'Being able to skillfully differentiate the characteristics of all dharmas, yet remaining unmoved in the Paramartha (ultimate truth).' Question: The Abhidharma (doctrine) also knows that the five aggregates are impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self. The five aggregates arise from causes, therefore they are impermanent. The five aggregates are cut by the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, violating their abiding nature, therefore they are suffering. Because they are cut by impermanence, they are not autonomous, therefore they are without self. Because they are without self, they are empty. The difference between emptiness and no-self is that there is no self apart from the aggregates, therefore it is called emptiness; there is no self within the aggregates, therefore it is called no-self. What is the difference between this and the Mahayana practice? Answer: The Abhidharma observes the five aggregates and only attains Pudgala-sunyata (emptiness of the person), not Dharma-sunyata (emptiness of phenomena). Therefore, the five Candala (outcastes) have not yet been extinguished. The Mahayana not only knows that there is no self within, but also knows that there are no five aggregates, thus beginning to depart from the five aggregates. Question: The Tattvasiddhi Shastra says that knowing that the imputed name formed by the five aggregates is the emptiness of the person, and also explaining that the real dharmas of the five aggregates are also empty, what is the difference between this and the Mahayana? Answer: The Tripitaka (three baskets of scriptures) mostly explains the emptiness of the person and rarely explains the emptiness of phenomena; the Mahayana mostly explains the emptiness of phenomena and rarely explains the emptiness of the person. The reason for this is that the Hinayana already knows the emptiness of the person, how much more so the Mahayana? Therefore, the Mahayana mostly explains the emptiness of phenomena, and that is why there is a difference. Because the Tripitaka mostly explains the emptiness of the person and rarely explains the emptiness of phenomena, the Abhidharma and the Tattvasiddhi Shastra both study the Tripitaka, some attaining the emptiness of the person, some attaining the emptiness of phenomena. Moreover, although the Hinayana understands the two emptinesses, it has not attained the original quiescence of the five aggregates, just as the Lotus Sutra says, 'All dharmas from the beginning are constantly in quiescence.'
性。佛子行道已來世得作佛。以未得本來寂滅故未到本鄉。是以二乘猶在門外。故猶受變易生死。又二乘雖知五陰空不知五陰即在佛性。涅槃經云。眾生佛性住五陰中。問若五陰中別有佛性。與外道陰內有我何異。答了其五陰本來寂滅名為佛性。不別有佛性住在陰身。品有九偈為二。初七偈求五陰畢竟空。第二兩偈嘆美畢竟空。小乘五百部聞五陰畢竟空如刀傷心。大士聞之即生歡喜。是故稱歎。法華云。復有住禪得神通力聞諸法空心大歡喜。是故嘆之。七偈為二。初六偈觀色陰空。次一偈觀四陰空。色陰粗顯。故前觀四心陰昧。即后破。又色陰在初四心居后。又去來六情觀色陰之用不可得。今次觀色體空。觀色為三。第一三偈作因果不相離門破。第二兩偈有因無因門破。第三一偈相似不相似門破。三偈又二。初偈標章門兩偈釋章門。章門為二。上半離因無果章門。下半離果無因章門。問云何是色因果耶。答若即事言。頭足為因七尺之身為果。若就義者如外道云。從五塵生五大。五大生十一根。十一根生色身。色身為果餘者為因。數人四大造五根。四大為因五根為果。成論四微成四大。四大成五根。五根成色陰。色陰是果。余併爲因。數論同以過去善惡業生此報果也。問因果不相離云何是破耶。答外人言。色與色因相因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 性（S性）。佛子（Buddha's disciples）修行得道后，來世可以成佛。因為還沒有證得本來的寂滅，所以還沒有到達本來的家鄉。因此，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）仍然在門外，所以仍然承受變易生死。而且，二乘雖然知道五陰（色、受、想、行、識）是空的，卻不知道五陰即是佛性（Buddha-nature）。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『眾生的佛性住在五陰之中。』問：如果五陰中另有佛性，與外道（non-Buddhist religions）在陰中認為有『我』有什麼區別？答：瞭解五陰本來就是寂滅的，就叫做佛性。並不是另外有一個佛性住在陰身之中。這一品有九首偈頌，分為兩部分。前七首偈頌是求五陰畢竟空，后兩首偈頌是讚美畢竟空。小乘（Hinayana）的五百部派聽到五陰畢竟空，如同刀割心一樣痛苦。大士（Bodhisattva）聽到后，就生起歡喜心。所以要稱讚它。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）說：『又有人住在禪定中，得到神通力，聽到諸法空，心中非常歡喜。』所以要讚歎它。七首偈頌又分為兩部分。前六首偈頌是觀察色陰空，后一首偈頌是觀察四陰空。色陰粗顯，所以先觀察；四心陰隱昧，所以在後面破斥。而且，色陰在最開始，四心陰在後面。又，過去、現在、未來六情觀察色陰的作用是不可得的，現在觀察色體的空性。觀察色陰分為三個部分。第一部分是三首偈頌，用因果不相離的門來破斥。第二部分是兩首偈頌，用有因無因的門來破斥。第三部分是一首偈頌，用相似不相似的門來破斥。這三首偈頌又分為兩部分。第一首偈頌是標明綱要，后兩首偈頌是解釋綱要。綱要分為兩部分。上半部分是離因無果，下半部分是離果無因。問：什麼是色陰的因果呢？答：如果就事論事，頭足是因，七尺之身是果。如果就義理來說，就像外道所說，從五塵（色、聲、香、味、觸）產生五大（地、水、火、風、空），五大產生十一根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意，以及它們的所對境），十一根產生色身。色身是果，其餘的是因。數論（Samkhya）認為四大（地、水、火、風）造五根。四大是因，五根是果。成論（Satyasiddhi）認為四微（極微）構成四大，四大構成五根，五根構成色陰。色陰是果，其餘都是因。數論也同樣認為過去善惡業產生現在的報果。問：因果不相離，如何破斥呢？答：外人說，色與色的因互相依賴。
【English Translation】 English version Nature (S nature). A Buddha's disciple, having practiced the path, can become a Buddha in the next life. Because they have not yet attained original quiescence, they have not yet reached their original home. Therefore, the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are still outside the gate, and thus still subject to changing birth and death. Moreover, although the Two Vehicles know that the Five Skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) are empty, they do not know that the Five Skandhas are identical to Buddha-nature. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings dwells within the Five Skandhas.' Question: If there is a separate Buddha-nature within the Five Skandhas, how is it different from the non-Buddhists who believe in a 'self' within the skandhas? Answer: Understanding that the Five Skandhas are originally quiescent is called Buddha-nature. There is no separate Buddha-nature dwelling within the physical body. This chapter has nine verses, divided into two parts. The first seven verses seek the ultimate emptiness of the Five Skandhas, and the last two verses praise ultimate emptiness. The five hundred schools of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) feel as if their hearts are being cut when they hear of the ultimate emptiness of the Five Skandhas. The Bodhisattva (Great Being) rejoices upon hearing it. Therefore, it is praised. The Lotus Sutra says: 'Again, there are those who dwell in meditation and attain supernatural powers, and upon hearing of the emptiness of all dharmas, their hearts greatly rejoice.' Therefore, it is praised. The seven verses are further divided into two parts. The first six verses contemplate the emptiness of the Form Skandha, and the last verse contemplates the emptiness of the Four Skandhas. The Form Skandha is coarse and manifest, so it is contemplated first; the Four Mental Skandhas are subtle and obscure, so they are refuted later. Moreover, the Form Skandha comes first, and the Four Mental Skandhas come later. Furthermore, the functions of the Form Skandha cannot be grasped by the six senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) in the past, present, and future; now, the emptiness of the substance of form is contemplated. The contemplation of the Form Skandha is divided into three parts. The first part consists of three verses, which refute using the gate of non-separation of cause and effect. The second part consists of two verses, which refute using the gate of having cause and no cause. The third part consists of one verse, which refutes using the gate of similarity and dissimilarity. These three verses are further divided into two parts. The first verse states the outline, and the last two verses explain the outline. The outline is divided into two parts. The first half is the chapter on no effect without cause, and the second half is the chapter on no cause without effect. Question: What are the cause and effect of the Form Skandha? Answer: If speaking literally, the head and feet are the cause, and the seven-foot body is the effect. If speaking in terms of meaning, it is like what non-Buddhists say: from the five dusts (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) arise the five elements (earth, water, fire, wind, space), the five elements give rise to the eleven faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, and their corresponding objects), and the eleven faculties give rise to the physical body. The physical body is the effect, and the rest are the causes. Samkhya (Enumeration) argues that the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) create the five roots. The four great elements are the cause, and the five roots are the effect. The Satyasiddhi (Establishment of Truth) argues that the four subtle elements (extremely small particles) constitute the four great elements, the four great elements constitute the five roots, and the five roots constitute the Form Skandha. The Form Skandha is the effect, and the rest are the causes. Samkhya also similarly believes that past good and bad karma produces the present retributive fruit. Question: If cause and effect are inseparable, how can it be refuted? Answer: Non-Buddhists say that form and the cause of form are mutually dependent.
故而有。論主明只為色因與色相因故無。以相因故無自性。無自性即畢竟空。色本無體因緣故生。以過去業行為因。今世四大為緣。藉此因緣是故有色。當知即是空也。如以面為因以鏡為緣。像于中現而像畢竟空。又四諦品云。果從罪福生。云何言不空。此釋經云色即是空。只以從因生故所以空也。長行雲。除縷即無布者。而縷布互得相因。而惑者多執一邊謂離縷無布布為縷所成。而不信離布無縷。云縷不為布所成。故除布有縷。今明縷布相因猶是一例耳。今問。汝既有即布之縷。復有異布之縷。亦應有即縷之布離縷之布。若即布之縷。此縷成布。離布之縷此不成布者。亦應有即縷之布此布成縷。異縷之布此布不成縷。問何者是即布之縷異布之縷也。答用縷織作布。是即布之縷。不用縷織作布。是異布之縷。今因布有縷。此是離布無縷。不因布有縷。此是離布之縷。問曰若離色因有色下生第二偈。故發問。若望數論報因因果因滅於前果生於后。即是離色因有色。若望毗曇。四大為能造色為所造。其體既異亦名為離。成實四塵是實法。四大及五根皆是假名。假實為異亦是離義也。答中為二。上半明相離即墮無因。下半傳顯無因之過。文易見也。長行前釋上半無因。從無因而有法次釋下半。開為六。一釋。二救。三破救。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此才會有這樣的說法。論主的觀點明確指出，因為只有色的『因』和色的『相』作為原因，所以『無』。因為『相』是相互依存的，所以沒有自性。沒有自性，也就是畢竟空。色本身沒有實體，是因緣和合而生。以過去的業行為『因』，今世的地、水、火、風四大為『緣』。憑藉這樣的因緣，所以才會有色。應當明白，這就是空。就像以面容為『因』，以鏡子為『緣』，面容的影像在鏡中顯現，而影像畢竟是空。又如《四諦品》所說：『果報從罪業和福業而生，怎麼能說不是空呢？』這裡解釋經文說『色即是空』，只是因為是從因緣而生，所以才是空啊。長行中說：『除去絲縷就沒有布』，絲縷和布互相依存。而迷惑的人大多執著於一邊，認為離開絲縷就沒有布，布是由絲縷造成的。卻不相信離開布就沒有絲縷，認為絲縷不是由布造成的。所以除去布還有絲縷。現在說明絲縷和布互相依存，只是一個例子罷了。現在問：你既然有『即布之縷』，又有『異布之縷』，也應該有『即縷之布』和『離縷之布』。如果『即布之縷』，這種絲縷能織成布；『離布之縷』，這種絲縷不能織成布。那麼也應該有『即縷之布』，這種布能織成絲縷；『異縷之布』，這種布不能織成絲縷。問：什麼是『即布之縷』和『異布之縷』呢？答：用絲縷織成布，就是『即布之縷』；不用絲縷織成布，就是『異布之縷』。現在因為有布才有絲縷，這就是『離布無縷』；不因為有布才有絲縷，這就是『離布之縷』。問：如果離開色因，色就會下生，這是第二首偈頌所提出的問題。如果從數論的角度來看，報應的『因』、『因果』、『因滅』在前，『果生』在後，這就是離開色因而有色。如果從毗曇的角度來看，四大是能造，色是所造，它們的體性既然不同，也稱為『離』。成實宗認為四塵是實法，四大和五根都是假名，假和實不同，也是『離』的含義。回答分為兩部分。上半部分說明相互分離就會墮入無因論，下半部分闡述無因論的過失。文義容易理解。長行前面解釋上半部分的無因論，從無因而有法，接著解釋下半部分，分為六個部分：一、解釋；二、救護；三、破斥救護。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, there is such a statement. The main point of the treatise clearly states that because only the 'cause' of form and the 'aspect' of form are the reasons, there is 'non-existence'. Because 'aspects' are interdependent, they have no self-nature. Having no self-nature means ultimately empty. Form itself has no substance; it arises from causes and conditions. Past karmic actions are the 'cause', and the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind in this life are the 'conditions'. Relying on these causes and conditions, form exists. It should be understood that this is emptiness. It is like using a face as the 'cause' and a mirror as the 'condition'. The image of the face appears in the mirror, but the image is ultimately empty. Furthermore, as the Chapter on the Four Noble Truths says: 'Retribution arises from sinful and meritorious deeds; how can it be said to be not empty?' This explains the sutra saying 'Form is emptiness', simply because it arises from causes and conditions, therefore it is empty. The prose passage says: 'Without threads, there is no cloth.' Threads and cloth are interdependent. However, those who are deluded mostly cling to one side, believing that without threads there is no cloth, and that cloth is made of threads. They do not believe that without cloth there are no threads, and that threads are not made of cloth. Therefore, removing the cloth, there are still threads. Now, explaining that threads and cloth are interdependent is just an example. Now I ask: Since you have 'threads that are identical to cloth' and 'threads that are different from cloth', there should also be 'cloth that is identical to threads' and 'cloth that is separate from threads'. If 'threads that are identical to cloth', these threads can be woven into cloth; 'threads that are different from cloth', these threads cannot be woven into cloth. Then there should also be 'cloth that is identical to threads', this cloth can be woven into threads; 'cloth that is different from threads', this cloth cannot be woven into threads. Question: What are 'threads that are identical to cloth' and 'threads that are different from cloth'? Answer: Using threads to weave cloth is 'threads that are identical to cloth'; not using threads to weave cloth is 'threads that are different from cloth'. Now, because there is cloth, there are threads; this is 'no threads without cloth'. Not because there is cloth, there are threads; this is 'threads that are separate from cloth'. Question: If one separates from the cause of form, form will be born below; this is the question raised by the second verse. If viewed from the perspective of Samkhya (數論), the 'cause' of retribution, 'cause and effect', and 'cessation of cause' are before, and 'birth of effect' is after; this is separating from the cause of form and having form. If viewed from the perspective of Abhidharma (毗曇), the four great elements are the active cause, and form is the passive effect; since their natures are different, it is also called 'separation'. The Tattvasiddhi School (成實宗) believes that the four dusts are real dharmas, and the four great elements and the five senses are all provisional names; the difference between provisional and real is also the meaning of 'separation'. The answer is divided into two parts. The first half explains that mutual separation will fall into the theory of no cause, and the second half elaborates on the faults of the theory of no cause. The meaning of the text is easy to understand. The prose passage first explains the theory of no cause in the first half, from no cause to having dharma, and then explains the second half, dividing it into six parts: 1. Explanation; 2. Defense; 3. Refutation of the defense.
四重救。五重破。六總結。初如文。問曰下第二救義。外道中識常者。有解云。識是神異名。統御為神。神了別名識。故神是無因常也。有解云。外道亦明識是常。如僧佉云。覺體是常。覺即是識也。成論文云。莎提比丘計有一識流轉五道。故識是常。答曰下第三破救。初總非之。有言無義。故云但也。次開二關責之。有因無因者。因名所以也。若有所以說常即是有因。不應云無因。若無所以即無事可證。何以知有。既不可知有。即無此法。同我上明無因法世間所無。問曰有二種因者。第四重救。總明因義有二。一作因即是生因。二言說因謂了因。上明無因無有作因。是故為常。有言說因。指示令前人知有此法。故有言說因。答上同我說之難也。然常法有二種了因。一總了因。即是言說。二別了因。如空以滅色為相。時假節氣華果等。今總證有無因法。故明有通了因也。答曰下第五破救。六種品破無虛空。即是破無言說因。又求虛空不可得。言說與誰為因。餘事后當破。時如時品。涅槃如涅槃品。識如行品。此論無有破方文。但邪見品末炎及之耳。複次現事尚可破者。現事是去來六情也。所以偏破微塵者。內外二家同以微塵為色本。今正破色陰故別破其本。問何故云微塵不可見。答外道計塵無十方分不可見。如百論破
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四重救：外道提出四種理由來辯護他們的觀點。 五重破：針對外道的辯護，佛家提出五種反駁。 六總結：總結辯論的要點。 初如文：第一點如同前文所述。 問曰下第二救義：外道提出第二個辯護理由。 外道中識常者：外道中認為『識』（Vijnana，了別作用）是常恒不變的人，有一種解釋是，『識』是『神』（Deva，具有超自然力量的存在）的另一種名稱，『神』具有統御萬物的能力，而『神』的了別作用就稱為『識』。因此，『神』是無因而常恒存在的。 有解云：還有一種解釋說，外道也認為『識』是常恒的。例如，數論派（Samkhya）認為，覺知的主體（覺體）是常恒的，而覺知的主體就是『識』。 成論文云：『薩提比丘』（Sati Bhikkhu）認為有一種『識』在五道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）中流轉。因此，『識』是常恒的。 答曰下第三破救：佛家提出第三個反駁，駁斥外道的辯護。 初總非之：首先，總的否定外道的觀點，認為他們的說法沒有意義，所以說『但也』。 次開二關責之：其次，從兩個方面進行責難。『有因無因者』，『因』指的是原因或理由。如果說常恒存在的事物有原因，那就是有因，不應該說是無因。如果說常恒存在的事物沒有原因，那就沒有證據可以證明它的存在。既然無法證明它的存在，那就沒有這種法。這和我上面所說的無因法在世間不存在的道理是一樣的。 問曰有二種因者：外道提出第四個辯護理由，總的說明『因』有兩種。 總明因義有二：總的來說，『因』有兩種含義。一是『作因』（Karana-hetu），也就是生因（Janaka-hetu），二是『言說因』（Kathana-hetu），也就是了因（Jnapak-hetu）。上面所說的無因，指的是沒有『作因』，所以才是常恒的。但有『言說因』，可以指示給他人，讓他們知道有這種法。 故有言說因：所以說有『言說因』。 答上同我說之難也：佛家的反駁和上面我所說的道理一樣。 然常法有二種了因：然而，常恒不變的法有兩種了因。一種是『總了因』，也就是言說。另一種是『別了因』，例如，虛空以滅色為相，時間以節氣、花果等為假借的標誌。現在總的證明有無因法，所以說明有通用的了因。 答曰下第五破救：佛家提出第五個反駁。 六種品破無虛空：在六種品中，駁斥了虛空不存在的觀點，也就是駁斥了沒有『言說因』的觀點。而且，尋求虛空是不可得的，那麼言說又以誰為因呢？其餘的事情將在後面駁斥。時間的問題將在時間品中討論，涅槃的問題將在涅槃品中討論，『識』的問題將在行品中討論。這部論典沒有駁斥方位的文章，只是在邪見品的末尾稍微提及了一下。 複次現事尚可破者：更進一步說，現在的事物尚且可以被駁斥。 現事是去來六情也：現在的事物指的是過去、未來和六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。 所以偏破微塵者：之所以特別駁斥微塵（Paramanu，物質的最小單位）的觀點，是因為內道（佛教內部）和外道（佛教以外）都認為微塵是色（Rupa，物質）的根本。現在正是要駁斥色陰（Rupa-skandha，色蘊），所以特別駁斥它的根本。 問何故云微塵不可見：有人問，為什麼說微塵是不可見的？ 答外道計塵無十方分不可見：外道認為微塵沒有十個方向的分割，所以是不可見的。如同《百論》（Sata-sastra）中所駁斥的那樣。
【English Translation】 English version Fourfold Defense: The heretics offer four reasons to defend their views. Fivefold Refutation: In response to the heretics' defense, the Buddhists offer five refutations. Sixfold Conclusion: Summarizing the key points of the debate. The first is as stated in the previous text. Question: The second defense is as follows. Among the heretics who believe that 『Vijnana』 (consciousness, the function of discernment) is constant, one explanation is that 『Vijnana』 is another name for 『Deva』 (god, a being with supernatural powers). 『Deva』 has the power to govern all things, and the function of discernment of 『Deva』 is called 『Vijnana』. Therefore, 『Deva』 is causeless and eternally existent. Another explanation is that the heretics also believe that 『Vijnana』 is constant. For example, Samkhya school believes that the subject of awareness (the essence of awareness) is constant, and the subject of awareness is 『Vijnana』. The 『Sati Bhikkhu』 in the Cheng Weishi Lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-only) believes that there is a 『Vijnana』 that transmigrates through the five realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods). Therefore, 『Vijnana』 is constant. Answer: The third refutation is as follows, refuting the heretics' defense. First, generally deny the heretics' views, believing that their statements are meaningless, so it says 『but also』. Secondly, question them from two aspects. 『Those with cause and without cause』, 『cause』 refers to the reason or justification. If it is said that something eternally existent has a cause, then it has a cause and should not be said to be causeless. If it is said that something eternally existent has no cause, then there is no evidence to prove its existence. Since its existence cannot be proven, then there is no such dharma. This is the same as the principle that I mentioned above that causeless dharmas do not exist in the world. Question: The fourth defense is that there are two kinds of causes. Generally speaking, there are two meanings of 『cause』. Generally speaking, there are two meanings of 『cause』. One is 『Karana-hetu』 (productive cause), which is 『Janaka-hetu』 (generative cause), and the other is 『Kathana-hetu』 (causal speech), which is 『Jnapak-hetu』 (cognitive cause). The causelessness mentioned above refers to the absence of 『Karana-hetu』, so it is constant. But there is 『Kathana-hetu』, which can be indicated to others so that they know that there is such a dharma. Therefore, it is said that there is 『Kathana-hetu』. The Buddhist refutation is the same as the principle I mentioned above. However, there are two kinds of 『Jnapak-hetu』 for constant dharmas. One is 『general Jnapak-hetu』, which is speech. The other is 『specific Jnapak-hetu』, for example, space takes the cessation of form as its characteristic, and time takes the seasons, flowers, and fruits as borrowed signs. Now, we generally prove that there are causeless dharmas, so we explain that there is a universal 『Jnapak-hetu』. Answer: The fifth refutation is as follows. In the six kinds of articles, the view that space does not exist is refuted, which is to refute the view that there is no 『Kathana-hetu』. Moreover, seeking space is unattainable, so who is speech the cause of? The rest will be refuted later. The issue of time will be discussed in the article on time, the issue of Nirvana will be discussed in the article on Nirvana, and the issue of 『Vijnana』 will be discussed in the article on aggregates. This treatise does not have an article refuting direction, but it is only slightly mentioned at the end of the article on wrong views. Furthermore, even present things can be refuted. Present things refer to the past, future, and the six senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). The reason why the view of 『Paramanu』 (the smallest unit of matter) is specifically refuted is because both the inner path (within Buddhism) and the outer path (outside Buddhism) believe that 『Paramanu』 is the root of 『Rupa』 (matter). Now, it is precisely to refute 『Rupa-skandha』 (the aggregate of form), so we specifically refute its root. Question: Someone asks, why is it said that 『Paramanu』 is invisible? Answer: The heretics believe that 『Paramanu』 does not have divisions in the ten directions, so it is invisible. As refuted in the Sata-sastra (Hundred Treatise).
塵品。內道明非肉眼見。故言不可見耳。第六章如文。問曰若離色有色因下。生第二釋離果無因章門。此義世間外道小乘大乘並言。未有果時有因。即是離果有因也。答中上半正破。下半傳破。長行言指前破緣品中。是結破四緣中第二若謂緣無果偈也。若已有色下。第二兩偈就有因無因門破。所以有此破來者。前三偈明因果不相離破其因果相離。外人便謂果必由因因必由果而有因果。是故今破其不相離也。就文為三。初就有因門破。次就無因門破。第三呵責。因者諸分也。果者總身也。若諸分之內已有總身即不假諸分所成。若諸分之內無有總身。雖假諸分終不能生。故有因無因俱不生果。破毗曇四大中已有色。有色即不須造。無色不可造。成論四微中已有四大。本無四大亦作此責。問曰若二處俱不然下。此生無因破也。外人既聞有無二門俱不由因。便墮無因之見。問上長行已立三家無因。今何故復立。答前立常法無因。今立無常法無因。問上云離色因有色。亦是立無常無因。答上云離耳。不言無也。外道計鄰虛塵圓而是常。不從因生。阿毗曇云。七微生阿耨塵。阿耨塵即是有因。七微極細是無因。與外道異者。一為四大所造有所作因。二為四相所遷是共有因。三從業起果報因生。但無十方分與外道同。成論師二解。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《塵品》。內在的道理並非肉眼所能見，所以說不可見。第六章如經文所述。問：如果離開色而有色的因（hetu），以下是生起第二種解釋，即離開果而無因的章節。這個道理世間外道、小乘、大乘都說，在果還沒有產生的時候就有因，這就是離開果而有因。答覆中，前半部分是正面破斥，後半部分是順著對方的說法破斥。長行文字說的是指前面破斥緣品的文字，是總結破斥四緣中的第二種，即認為緣沒有果的偈頌。『若已有色下』，第二兩句偈頌就從有因無因的角度來破斥。之所以要這樣破斥，是因為前面三句偈頌說明因果不相離，破斥了他們認為因果相離的觀點。外人就認為果必定由因產生，因必定由果而存在，所以才有因果。因此現在破斥他們認為因果不相離的觀點。就文義來說分為三部分。首先從有因的角度破斥，其次從無因的角度破斥，第三是呵責。因指的是各個組成部分，果指的是整體。如果在各個組成部分之內已經有整體，就不需要各個組成部分來構成。如果在各個組成部分之內沒有整體，即使依靠各個組成部分最終也不能產生。所以有因無因都不能產生果。破斥毗曇宗認為四大中已經有色，有色就不需要造作，沒有色就無法造作。破斥成論宗認為四微中已經有四大，本來沒有四大也可以這樣責難。問：如果兩個地方都不對，以下是生起無因的破斥。外人既然聽到有無兩種情況都不由因產生，就陷入了無因的見解。問：上面的長行文字已經立了三家無因，現在為什麼又要立？答：前面立的是常法無因，現在立的是無常法無因。問：上面說離開色因有色，也是立無常無因。答：上面說的是離開，沒有說沒有。外道認為鄰虛塵是圓的而且是常的，不是從因產生的。阿毗曇宗說，七微產生阿耨塵，阿耨塵就是有因的。七微極其細微是無因的。與外道不同的是，一是被四大所造，有所作因；二是為四相所遷移，是共有因；三是從業起果報因生。只是沒有十方分與外道相同。成論師有兩種解釋，一
【English Translation】 English version The 'Dust Chapter'. The inner truth is not seen by the physical eye, hence it is said to be invisible. Chapter Six is as stated in the text. Question: If, apart from form, there is a cause of form (hetu), the following gives rise to the second explanation, which is the chapter on the absence of cause apart from the effect. This principle is stated by worldly non-Buddhists, the Hinayana, and the Mahayana: when the effect has not yet arisen, there is a cause, which is to say there is a cause apart from the effect. In the answer, the first half is a direct refutation, and the second half is a refutation following the opponent's argument. The long passage refers to the previous refutation in the 'Conditions Chapter', which summarizes the refutation of the second of the four conditions, namely the verse that claims a condition has no effect. 'If there is already form below', the second two verses refute from the perspective of having a cause and not having a cause. The reason for this refutation is that the previous three verses explain that cause and effect are inseparable, refuting their view that cause and effect are separate. Outsiders then claim that the effect must arise from the cause, and the cause must exist because of the effect, hence there is cause and effect. Therefore, we now refute their view that cause and effect are inseparable. In terms of the meaning of the text, it is divided into three parts. First, refute from the perspective of having a cause; second, refute from the perspective of not having a cause; third, rebuke. The cause refers to the individual components, and the effect refers to the whole. If the whole already exists within the individual components, then it does not need the individual components to constitute it. If the whole does not exist within the individual components, then even if relying on the individual components, it ultimately cannot arise. Therefore, neither having a cause nor not having a cause can produce an effect. Refute the Sarvastivada school's view that form already exists within the four great elements; if there is form, then it does not need to be created; if there is no form, then it cannot be created. Refute the Satyasiddhi school's view that the four great elements already exist within the four subtle particles; even if there were originally no four great elements, one could still make this accusation. Question: If both places are incorrect, the following is the refutation of arising without a cause. Since outsiders have heard that both having and not having do not arise from a cause, they fall into the view of having no cause. Question: The long passage above has already established three schools of thought on having no cause, so why establish it again now? Answer: The previous establishment was of a permanent law of having no cause, and the current establishment is of an impermanent law of having no cause. Question: Above it says that apart from the cause of form there is form, which is also establishing impermanence and having no cause. Answer: Above it says 'apart from', but it does not say 'not having'. Non-Buddhists believe that the adjacent void dust is round and permanent, and does not arise from a cause. The Sarvastivada school says that seven subtle particles produce an anu-dust (anu: subtle particle), and the anu-dust has a cause. The seven subtle particles are extremely subtle and have no cause. What differs from non-Buddhists is that one is created by the four great elements and has a cause of action; two is migrated by the four characteristics and is a shared cause; three arises from karma and produces a cause of karmic retribution. It only lacks the ten directions, which is the same as non-Buddhists. The Satyasiddhi master has two explanations, one
釋云。有中折之不盡則細更復有細因更從因。此同上有無二門破之。次釋云。拆之即盡無復更細。故名鄰虛。乃無四大所造。而為三相所遷。以其極細不可分之為十方。而在物之東謂之為西。在物之西謂之為東。故名有十方分。此是無因而有色也。無明初念托空而起。兩家同是心無因義也。微塵以心為因。心無因即塵亦無因。答曰下直總呵之。以佛法無有無因之義故不須破之也。又有因尚可破何況無因。又上已云。無因法世間所無。故但總非而已。是故有智者不應分別色。第三呵責。分別者即上因果相離不相離有因無因等乃至分別。定有十一及與十四。今並呵之。長行雲。分別名凡夫者。雖有世間外道小乘大乘。此之四人並立有色。而分別之皆是凡夫也。以無明愛染者。此明從癡起愛。即愛煩惱也。然後以邪見分別三世有無。于舊惑上起新煩惱也。如此之人不能畢故更復造新。即為五旃陀羅之所害也。今觀五畢竟空。即新故二惑便斷。故得解脫也。複次相似不相似者。此第三似不似門破。上因果相離不相離及有因無因門窮之已遍。但無始來有此陰身空觀不成有心常現。故論主更開二門以觀察之。又此章來者外人云。今實見殺生短壽。是相似義。種羊角葦生。倒種牛毛蒲生。是不似義。水月映象是相似義。泥瓶縷布是不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 釋云：如果將『有』（bhava）不斷地分割，分割到不能再分割，就會越來越細微，因緣也越來越複雜。這和前面用『有』和『無』二門來破斥的觀點相同。 接著解釋說：如果分割到最終完全消失，無法再分割，就叫做『鄰虛』（paramāṇu，極微）。它不是四大（地、水、火、風）所造，而是受到三相（生、住、滅）的遷流變化。因為它極其微小，無法再分割，所以在十個方向上，在物體之東，卻說它在西；在物體之西，卻說它在東。所以叫做『有十方分』。這是一種沒有原因而產生色法（rūpa）的說法。無明（avidyā）的最初一念，依託于空（śūnyatā）而生起。這兩家的觀點都是認為心（citta）沒有原因。 微塵（paramāṇu）以心為因，如果心沒有原因，那麼微塵也沒有原因。回答說：下面直接全部呵斥這種觀點。因為佛法中沒有無因的道理，所以不需要破斥。既使是有因的說法尚且可以破斥，何況是無因的說法呢？而且前面已經說過，無因法在世間是不存在的，所以只需要全部否定就可以了。因此，有智慧的人不應該分別色法。 第三是呵責。『分別者』，就是指前面所說的因果相離不相離、有因無因等等，乃至種種分別，確定有十一種和十四種。現在一併呵斥。長行中說：『分別』叫做凡夫。雖然有世間的外道、小乘、大乘，這四種人都執著於色法，而分別它，都是凡夫。因為有無明（avidyā）和愛染（rāga），這是說明從愚癡（moha）生起愛（rāga），也就是愛煩惱。然後以邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi）分別三世的有無，在舊的迷惑上產生新的煩惱。這樣的人不能了結舊的煩惱，反而製造新的煩惱，就被五種旃陀羅（caṇḍāla，賤民）所害。現在觀察五蘊（skandha）畢竟空（atyanta-śūnya），那麼新舊兩種迷惑就會斷除，因此得到解脫。 再次，『相似不相似者』，這是第三個用相似不相似之門來破斥。前面因果相離不相離以及有因無因之門已經窮盡了各種可能性。但因為無始以來有此陰身（skandha-kāya），空觀（śūnyatā-darśana）不能成就，有心（citta）常常顯現，所以論主（Nāgārjuna）再次開啟兩個門來觀察它。又這一章的來意是，外人說：現在確實看到殺生短壽，這是相似的道理。種羊角長出蘆葦，倒種牛毛長出蒲草，這是不相似的道理。水中的月亮和鏡中的像是相似的道理，泥瓶和縷布是不相似的道理。
【English Translation】 English version It is explained: If 'bhava' (existence) is repeatedly divided, and the division is not exhausted, it will become increasingly subtle, and the causes and conditions will become more and more complex. This is the same as the previous refutation using the two gates of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Next, it is explained: If it is divided until it is completely exhausted and cannot be divided any further, it is called 'paramāṇu' (ultimate particle). It is not created by the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind), but is subject to the changing flow of the three characteristics (birth, duration, and cessation). Because it is extremely subtle and cannot be divided, in the ten directions, if it is to the east of an object, it is said to be to the west; if it is to the west of an object, it is said to be to the east. Therefore, it is called 'having ten directional divisions'. This is a statement that form (rūpa) arises without a cause. The initial thought of ignorance (avidyā) arises relying on emptiness (śūnyatā). Both of these schools of thought believe that the mind (citta) has no cause. If a particle (paramāṇu) has the mind as its cause, and if the mind has no cause, then the particle also has no cause. The answer is: Below, this view is directly and completely refuted. Because there is no principle of causelessness in Buddhism, there is no need to refute it. Even the statement of having a cause can be refuted, let alone the statement of having no cause? Moreover, it has already been said above that the law of causelessness does not exist in the world, so it only needs to be completely negated. Therefore, wise people should not discriminate form. The third is rebuke. 'Discriminators' refers to the aforementioned separation or non-separation of cause and effect, having a cause or having no cause, and so on, up to various discriminations, determining that there are eleven kinds and fourteen kinds. Now, all of these are rebuked. The prose passage says: 'Discrimination' is called an ordinary person (pṛthagjana). Although there are worldly non-Buddhists, Hīnayāna, and Mahāyāna practitioners, all four of these people are attached to form and discriminate it, and they are all ordinary people. Because of ignorance (avidyā) and attachment (rāga), this explains that love (rāga) arises from delusion (moha), which is the affliction of love. Then, with wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi), they discriminate the existence or non-existence of the three times, creating new afflictions on top of old delusions. Such people cannot end the old afflictions, but instead create new afflictions, and are harmed by the five caṇḍālas (outcasts). Now, observing that the five aggregates (skandha) are ultimately empty (atyanta-śūnya), then the two kinds of delusions, old and new, will be cut off, and thus liberation is attained. Again, 'similar and dissimilar' is the third gate used to refute. The previous gates of separation or non-separation of cause and effect, and having a cause or having no cause, have exhausted all possibilities. But because since beginningless time there has been this aggregate body (skandha-kāya), the contemplation of emptiness (śūnyatā-darśana) cannot be achieved, and the mind (citta) often appears, so the author of the treatise (Nāgārjuna) opens two more gates to observe it. Furthermore, the intention of this chapter is that outsiders say: Now we actually see that killing leads to a short life, which is a similar principle. Planting a sheep's horn grows reeds, and planting cow hair upside down grows cattails, which is a dissimilar principle. The moon in the water and the image in the mirror are similar principles, and a clay pot and woven cloth are dissimilar principles.
相似。一切因果既有似不似。即有因果何得言都無耶。若都無因果墮邪見。是故今次破其似不似明二俱不成。由外人倒見有。今求其倒見有不得故名無所有。若復執無還是倒見無耳。問似不似云何不成。答見身望頭足總別不同。一多為異云何相似。人別不成畜生之總云何不似。又似不似猶是一異義耳。頭足與身一身一即頭足一。若頭足與身異除頭足應有總身。受陰及想陰下。第二倒破四陰。色心相依。上求色不得。即心無所依。是故無心。又既已三門求色不可得。今還以三門求心亦不可得。五陰有三種次第。一依成論取境次第者。識得實法。想得假名。受領納好惡。行起善惡。依毗曇有二種次第。一粗細次第。色最粗故前說。受覺苦樂亦粗故次色。想取像貌故次受。行起貪瞋亦粗故次想。識唯得青黃境故最細。二觀行次第無始已來。男為女色女為男色。故前觀色陰。所以貪色者由樂受故。所以有樂受者。以想取像貌故。所以想取像貌者。由行心分別故。所以有行者根本由心識故最後說識。今此文正是毗曇及諸經明次第義也。今造論者欲嘆美空義而說偈下。第二次明嘆美空。問何故就此品末嘆美空耶。答一者隨寄一品末並得論之。二者大小乘經論多就陰門以作觀門。故就此品以嘆美之。如毗曇陰內無人故空。不自在故無
我。但空人不空陰。成實二聖行義于眾生中不見眾生為空行。見陰亦無為無我行。菩薩知人與陰本自不有今亦不無。以大小俱就五陰明觀行故。偏約此品嘆空。又外人以有身心故受論主之屈今令其觀此身心畢竟空。不受他屈而能屈他。是故嘆空令舍有身心見。又此論二十七品大明三解脫門。從因緣品至五陰品。並是破有明空門。今欲結于空義故。就此品末嘆美於空。從六種品去明無相門。作作者品已下辨無作門。蓋是文正意也。問上明有因無因二俱不成。今因中有果無果皆不可得。若爾空之與有不成問答。云何言執有不成問答執空能成問答。答實如所問。若空令人得道有亦令人得道。故經中或時嘆空破有。或時嘆有破空。如涅槃云。汝今勿謂如來唯修諸法本性空寂。故嘆大涅槃名為善有。而惑者不了各執一邊。故謂有是而空非。或謂空是而有非。故成於諍論。今明空有不二。有是即空是。空非即有非。空有既不二。空有與非空有亦不二。既言有即非復有。言空即非復空。寧可各執空有耶。今言空者是諸法實相理。不依空即是違理。問答豈得成耶。問理既非空有何故作空名說耶。答以無所得空為破有所得有。此是隔節破也。又明有所得人非但執有是有執空亦是有。今明無所得空無空亦無有。故說為空破其空有二見。又外
道小乘大乘人心有所依。言有所當。故為有。今說無依無所得故名空耳。如涅槃十對嘆無所得。無所得有四無礙有所得即無。故有所得不成問答。無所得成問答也。故初偈明有所得法師過失。如九十六種外道。小乘五百部之流。及有所得大乘。不悟諸法實相。心有所依言有所當。故答不成答。次偈明有所得論義人問不成問。又諸法師具二種義。一者申正。二者破邪。初偈明法師答不成答不能申正。次偈明問不成問不能破邪。二偈各四。初偈四者。初句若人有問者假設問辭。第二句假設答意。第三句明答不成答。第四句答同問疑。第二偈亦有四意。初句若人有難問。假設欲問。第二句正明發問。第三句問不成問。第四句問同答疑。長行為二。初釋兩偈文。次釋說兩偈意。初又二。前明不依空不成問答。次明依空成問答。前總釋二偈。如人言瓶是無常下別釋兩偈。即兩也。執無常是內外二道大小兩乘人。而正是內人也。答從無常因生者。瓶從四微成故瓶是無常。以假和合故有。即緣離故無。地持論云。此是不成實無常。多是大乘明也。若就毗曇體相門答者。瓶為四相遷之。是故無常。依成實人答者。由取相煩惱感得生死中一切無常法也。因緣中亦疑者。此有進退二過。因若無常即與果同疑。因若是常即果亦是常。即有違言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 小乘和大乘的修行者，他們的心有所依賴，言語有所執著，所以才認為『有』。現在我說的是無所依賴、無所得，所以才稱之為『空』。就像《涅槃經》中用十對來讚歎無所得的境界。因為無所得才能達到四無礙的境界，如果有所得，就無法達到。所以，有所得的觀點無法構成問答，而無所得的觀點才能構成問答。因此，第一個偈頌說明了有所得的法師的過失，就像九十六種外道、小乘五百部之流，以及有所得的大乘修行者，他們不明白諸法的真實相狀，心有所依賴，言語有所執著，所以回答不成回答。 第二個偈頌說明了有所得的論義者提問不成提問。而且，各位法師具有兩種職責：一是闡述正法，二是破斥邪說。第一個偈頌說明法師回答不成回答，不能闡述正法。第二個偈頌說明提問不成提問，不能破斥邪說。兩個偈頌各有四層含義。第一個偈頌的四層含義是：第一句『若人有問者』，假設有人提出問題；第二句假設回答者的意圖；第三句說明回答不成回答；第四句說明回答和提問一樣令人疑惑。第二個偈頌也有四層含義：第一句『若人有難問』，假設有人想要提出難題；第二句正式提出問題；第三句說明提問不成提問；第四句說明提問和回答一樣令人疑惑。 長行分為兩部分：首先解釋兩個偈頌的文義，然後解釋說明這兩個偈頌的意圖。首先又分為兩部分：前面說明不依據『空』的道理就無法構成問答，後面說明依據『空』的道理才能構成問答。前面是總的解釋兩個偈頌，例如有人說『瓶是無常』，下面是分別解釋兩個偈頌，也就是指這兩個偈頌。執著『無常』的觀點，是內外兩種外道以及大小兩種乘的修行者都持有的，而真正正確的是內道修行者。回答說『從無常的因產生』，瓶子是由四大微塵組成的，所以瓶子是無常的。因為是虛假的聚合，所以存在；因為因緣離散，所以消失。《地持論》中說，這是一種不真實的無常，這大多是大乘所闡明的道理。如果按照《毗曇》的體相門來回答，瓶子會經歷四相的變遷，所以是無常的。如果依據成實宗的觀點來回答，這是由於取相的煩惱所感得的生死中的一切無常法。『因緣中亦疑者』，這裡存在進退兩種過失。如果『因』是無常的，那麼就和『果』一樣令人疑惑；如果『因』是常的，那麼『果』也應該是常的，這就產生了自相矛盾。
【English Translation】 English version Followers of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) have attachments in their minds and cling to their words, therefore they perceive 'existence'. Now I speak of non-reliance and non-attainment, hence it is called 'emptiness' (sunyata). Like the Nirvana Sutra's ten pairs praising non-attainment. Because non-attainment leads to the four unhindered wisdoms; with attainment, it is impossible. Therefore, the view of attainment cannot form a question and answer, while the view of non-attainment can form a question and answer. Thus, the first verse explains the faults of a Dharma master who adheres to attainment, like the ninety-six kinds of heretics, the followers of the five hundred schools of Hinayana, and Mahayana practitioners who cling to attainment. They do not understand the true nature of all dharmas (phenomena), have attachments in their minds, and cling to their words, so their answers are not proper answers. The second verse explains that a debater who adheres to attainment cannot pose proper questions. Moreover, Dharma masters have two responsibilities: first, to expound the correct Dharma; second, to refute wrong views. The first verse explains that a Dharma master who gives improper answers cannot expound the correct Dharma. The second verse explains that improper questions cannot refute wrong views. Each of the two verses has four meanings. The four meanings of the first verse are: the first line 'If someone asks a question' assumes a question is posed; the second line assumes the intention of the answerer; the third line explains that the answer is not a proper answer; the fourth line explains that the answer is as doubtful as the question. The second verse also has four meanings: the first line 'If someone poses a difficult question' assumes someone wants to pose a difficult question; the second line formally poses the question; the third line explains that the question is not a proper question; the fourth line explains that the question is as doubtful as the answer. The long passage is divided into two parts: first, explaining the meaning of the two verses; second, explaining the intention behind the two verses. The first part is further divided into two parts: the first part explains that without relying on the principle of 'emptiness', question and answer cannot be formed; the second part explains that relying on the principle of 'emptiness', question and answer can be formed. The former is a general explanation of the two verses, for example, someone says 'a bottle is impermanent'; the latter is a separate explanation of the two verses, referring to these two verses. Holding onto the view of 'impermanence' is held by both external and internal heretics, as well as practitioners of both the Small and Great Vehicles, but the truly correct view is held by internal practitioners. The answer says 'it arises from an impermanent cause'; a bottle is composed of the four great elements, so a bottle is impermanent. Because it is a false aggregation, it exists; because the conditions disperse, it disappears. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that this is an unreal impermanence, which is mostly explained by Mahayana. If answering according to the Abhidharma's perspective of substance and characteristics, the bottle undergoes the change of the four marks, therefore it is impermanent. If answering according to the view of the Satyasiddhi School, this is due to the affliction of grasping at characteristics, which causes all impermanent dharmas in samsara (birth and death). 'Doubts in conditions' means there are two faults of advancing and retreating. If the 'cause' is impermanent, then it is as doubtful as the 'effect'; if the 'cause' is permanent, then the 'effect' should also be permanent, which creates a contradiction.
之失。今更卻責上三義也。如由四微緣成故無常。四微何故無常耶。乃至責取相亦爾。如智度論責毗曇云。諸法從四緣生者誰復生四緣耶。若更有所從即墮無窮。若無所從即墮無因。無因即常。又緣既不從緣即果亦不從緣。若欲說其過下釋第二偈。上明瓶是無常。是內道義。今明大小乘人執瓶無常。欲破外道執瓶是常。而反受外道破。上明不能申正。今明不能破邪。以僧佉人明種種果生時種種因不失故瓶是常。百論破因有果品外人云。若諸法但是常無有無常有何過耶。故知外道立瓶是常也。又外道二十五諦從細至粗從粗至細。都無所失即常。是彼大宗。故須就常以明之。汝因無常破我常者。內道云。現見瓶無常云何是常。外道今牒內此難也。我亦因常破汝無常者。立有性不失故常以破內生滅無常也。若生滅無常者泥滅於前。誰成瓶果。故是失業果報。又眼與瓶俱唸唸滅。汝眼云何能見瓶。是無常耶。以我有性不失故二義俱成也。又六根不能取六塵即失十二入。故諸法定無常一切法壞也。又眼唸唸滅。汝云何得見我欲難我耶。汝欲難我我畢已謝滅。云何受汝難耶。口亦無常云何得動口業而論義耶。故著外道難也。若依空破常下第二明依空成問答也。即是提婆破外道言而無當破而不執。不立無常迥破外道。以迥破外道則內
【現代漢語翻譯】 之失。現在反而責備之前的三個定義。如果說因為四大元素（地、水、火、風）的因緣和合而導致無常，那麼四大元素又為何無常呢？乃至責備『取相』也是如此。如同《智度論》責備毗曇宗說：『諸法由四緣而生，那麼誰又生出這四緣呢？』如果還有所從生，就會陷入無窮的循環。如果無所從生，那就是無因。無因就是常。而且，緣既然不從緣而生，那麼果也不從緣而生。下面解釋第二首偈頌，是爲了說明它的過失。前面說明瓶是無常，這是內道的觀點。現在說明大小乘人執著于瓶是無常，想要破斥外道執著于瓶是常的觀點，反而被外道所破斥。前面說明不能闡述正義，現在說明不能破斥邪說。因為僧佉派認為種種果產生時，種種因沒有喪失，所以瓶是常。百論在《破因有果品》中，外道說：『如果諸法只是常，沒有無常，有什麼過失呢？』由此可知外道主張瓶是常。而且外道的二十五諦，從細到粗，從粗到細，都沒有任何喪失，所以是常。這是他們的大宗。所以需要就常來闡明。你因為無常來破斥我的常，內道說：『現在明明看到瓶是無常，怎麼說是常呢？』外道現在引用內道的這個詰難。我也因為常來破斥你的無常，主張有自性不喪失，所以是常，以此來破斥內道的生滅無常。如果生滅無常，那麼泥土在前已經滅盡，誰來成就瓶的果呢？所以這是喪失業果報。而且眼和瓶同時唸唸滅，你的眼怎麼能看到瓶，是無常呢？因為我有自性不喪失，所以兩種觀點都能成立。而且六根不能取六塵，就是喪失十二入。所以諸法必定是無常，一切法都會壞滅。而且眼唸唸滅，你怎麼能看到我，想要詰難我呢？你想要詰難我，我已經謝滅，怎麼接受你的詰難呢？口也是無常，怎麼能動口業而論義呢？所以執著于外道的詰難。如果依靠空來破斥常，下面第二部分說明依靠空來成就問答。也就是提婆破斥外道的言論，沒有應當破斥的對象，也不執著，不立無常，完全破斥外道。因為完全破斥外道，那麼內道
【English Translation】 This is a loss. Now, instead, they criticize the previous three definitions. If it is said that impermanence arises due to the combination of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind), then why are the four great elements themselves impermanent? Even criticizing 'taking form' is similar. It's like how the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra criticizes the Abhidharma school, saying: 'If all dharmas arise from four conditions, then who gives rise to these four conditions?' If there is something else from which they arise, it falls into an infinite regress. If there is nothing from which they arise, then it is without cause. Without cause is permanence. Moreover, since conditions do not arise from conditions, then the result also does not arise from conditions.' The explanation of the second verse below is to illustrate its fault. The previous explanation that the pot is impermanent is the view of the inner path (Buddhism). Now, it explains that people of both the Hinayana and Mahayana schools cling to the impermanence of the pot, wanting to refute the outer path's (non-Buddhist schools) view that the pot is permanent, but instead are refuted by the outer path. The previous explanation showed an inability to expound the correct meaning, and now it shows an inability to refute the heterodox. This is because the Samkhya school believes that when various results arise, the various causes are not lost, so the pot is permanent. In the Shatasastra, in the chapter 'Refuting the Existence of Results from Causes,' the outer path says: 'If all dharmas are only permanent and there is no impermanence, what fault is there?' From this, it can be known that the outer path asserts that the pot is permanent. Moreover, the twenty-five tattvas (principles) of the outer path, from subtle to coarse and from coarse to subtle, have no loss, so they are permanent. This is their major tenet. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify based on permanence. You use impermanence to refute my permanence, but the inner path says: 'Now, it is clearly seen that the pot is impermanent, how can it be said to be permanent?' The outer path now quotes this difficulty from the inner path. I also use permanence to refute your impermanence, asserting that having a self-nature that is not lost is permanence, thereby refuting the inner path's arising and ceasing impermanence. If arising and ceasing is impermanent, then the clay has already ceased in the past, who will accomplish the result of the pot? Therefore, this is the loss of karmic retribution. Moreover, the eye and the pot cease simultaneously moment by moment, how can your eye see the pot and say it is impermanent? Because I have a self-nature that is not lost, both views can be established. Moreover, if the six sense organs cannot grasp the six sense objects, then the twelve entrances are lost. Therefore, all dharmas must be impermanent, and all dharmas will be destroyed. Moreover, the eye ceases moment by moment, how can you see me and want to challenge me? You want to challenge me, but I have already ceased and vanished, how can I receive your challenge? The mouth is also impermanent, how can it move and create verbal karma to discuss meaning? Therefore, clinging to the outer path's challenge. If relying on emptiness to refute permanence, the second part below explains relying on emptiness to accomplish questions and answers. That is, Deva refutes the outer path's words, without an object to be refuted, and without clinging, without establishing impermanence, completely refuting the outer path. Because completely refuting the outer path, then the inner path
能屈外道。不自立無常不為外所屈。不取空相者此釋疑故來。既言依空破常。即有空可依還為外道所屈。是故今明不取空相乃至四句心無所依。是故若欲問答第二釋兩偈意。世間問答尚須依空。況求至道而存有耶。非但求道。凡欲坐禪禮佛懺悔。並須依無所得也。又上就常無常二義論得失。萬義類之。如五百部各有所執不成問答。九十六道各有所執不成問答。如今世大小乘學人各有所執不成問答。
中觀論疏卷第四(末) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第五(本)
釋吉藏撰
六種品第五
所以有此品來者。佛隨虛妄眾生種種異說。或作五陰之名。或標六種之稱。而意在破我。令我見息法亦不留。滯教之人不領無我但取著於法。上已破其迷五。今復除其惑六故說此品。二者諸方等經歷法開道。或觀五陰即是實相。或檢六種令悟法身。今欲備釋眾經遍窮諸法故說此品。三者生死之身凡有二分。一者有分。二者空分。從因緣竟五陰破其有分。此之一品破其空分。令悟此身本自非有。今亦不無非有非無即是中道。因中發觀斷諸煩惱故說此品。四者經云諸法甚深。謂三解脫門。百論云若離空無相有若智若見者。空言無實也。上以明空門。今次說無相門。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：能夠駁倒外道（佛教以外的宗教或哲學派別）。不執著于無常，就不會被外道所駁倒。不執取空相，這是爲了消除疑惑。既然說依靠空來破除常，如果還有空可以依賴，那就仍然會被外道所駁倒。因此，現在闡明不執取空相，乃至四句（指四種判斷方式，即有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）心無所依。所以，如果想要問答，第二種解釋是這兩偈（佛經中的詩句）的意義。世間的問答尚且需要依靠空，更何況是追求至高的佛道而執著于有呢？不僅僅是求道，凡是想要坐禪、禮佛、懺悔，都必須依靠無所得（不執著于任何事物）。而且，上面就常和無常兩種意義討論了得失，萬種意義都可以以此類推。例如，五百部（指不同的佛教派別）各有自己的執著，不能形成問答；九十六道（指各種外道）各有自己的執著，不能形成問答；如今世上大小乘（佛教的兩種主要流派）的學人各有自己的執著，不能形成問答。 《中觀論疏》卷第四（末） 大正藏第42冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》 《中觀論疏》卷第五（本） 釋吉藏 撰 六種品第五 之所以有這一品出現，是因為佛陀隨著虛妄眾生種種不同的說法，或者設立五陰（色、受、想、行、識）之名，或者標舉六種（地、水、火、風、空、識）之稱，而其用意在於破除我執，使我見止息，法也不停留。執著于教義的人不領會無我的道理，只是執著於法。上面已經破除了他們對五陰的迷惑，現在又消除他們對六種的疑惑，所以說這一品。第二，各部方等經（大乘經典）經歷法門開示佛道，或者觀察五陰就是實相，或者檢查六種使人領悟法身。現在想要完備地解釋各種經典，普遍地窮盡各種法，所以說這一品。第三，生死之身大致有兩部分，一部分是有分，一部分是空分。從因緣的角度窮盡五陰，破除其有分。這一品破除其空分，使人領悟此身本來就不是實有。現在也不是完全沒有，非有非無就是中道。在因中發起觀照，斷除各種煩惱，所以說這一品。第四，經中說諸法甚深，指的是三解脫門（空、無相、無作）。《百論》中說，如果離開空、無相而有智、有見，那麼空就成了沒有實際意義的空談。上面已經闡明了空門，現在接著說無相門。如果
【English Translation】 English version: Able to subdue external paths (religions or philosophical schools outside of Buddhism). Not clinging to impermanence, one will not be subdued by external paths. Not grasping the aspect of emptiness, this comes to resolve doubts. Since it is said that relying on emptiness breaks permanence, if there is still emptiness to rely on, then one will still be subdued by external paths. Therefore, now it is clarified that not grasping the aspect of emptiness, up to the four sentences (referring to the four modes of judgment, namely existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), the mind has nothing to rely on. Therefore, if one wants to engage in questions and answers, the second explanation is the meaning of these two verses (poetic verses in Buddhist scriptures). Worldly questions and answers still need to rely on emptiness, let alone seeking the supreme path of Buddhahood while clinging to existence? Not only seeking the path, but also wanting to practice meditation, prostrate to the Buddha, and repent, one must rely on non-attainment (not clinging to anything). Moreover, the above discussed the gains and losses based on the two meanings of permanence and impermanence, and ten thousand meanings can be inferred from this. For example, the five hundred schools (referring to different Buddhist sects) each have their own attachments and cannot form questions and answers; the ninety-six paths (referring to various external paths) each have their own attachments and cannot form questions and answers; nowadays, scholars of both Mahayana and Hinayana (the two main schools of Buddhism) each have their own attachments and cannot form questions and answers. Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 4 (End) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42 No. 1824 Commentary on the Middle Treatise Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 5 (Beginning) Composed by Shì Jízàng Chapter 5: The Six Elements The reason for this chapter is that the Buddha, following the various different views of deluded beings, either establishes the name of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), or highlights the designation of the six elements (earth, water, fire, wind, space, consciousness), and the intention is to break the attachment to self, so that the view of self ceases, and the Dharma does not remain. Those who cling to the teachings do not understand the principle of no-self, but only cling to the Dharma. The above has already broken their delusion about the five skandhas, and now eliminates their doubts about the six elements, so this chapter is spoken. Second, various Vaipulya Sutras (Mahayana scriptures) experience the Dharma gate to reveal the Buddha path, either observing that the five skandhas are the true reality, or examining the six elements to enable enlightenment of the Dharmakaya. Now, wanting to comprehensively explain various scriptures and universally exhaust various dharmas, this chapter is spoken. Third, the body of birth and death roughly has two parts, one part is the aspect of existence, and one part is the aspect of emptiness. Exhausting the five skandhas from the perspective of conditions, breaking their aspect of existence. This chapter breaks their aspect of emptiness, enabling people to realize that this body is originally not truly existent. Now it is also not completely non-existent, neither existent nor non-existent is the Middle Way. Initiating contemplation in the cause, cutting off various afflictions, so this chapter is spoken. Fourth, the sutra says that all dharmas are very profound, referring to the three doors of liberation (emptiness, signlessness, non-action). The Hundred Treatises says that if one has wisdom and views apart from emptiness and signlessness, then emptiness becomes empty talk without practical meaning. The above has already clarified the door of emptiness, and now continues to speak of the door of signlessness. If
因空門悟入不須無相。但為取空相即便非門。今次破空相。令從無相門悟入發生正觀。故有此品。所以此品初前破虛空相者。意在於此也。又一切法有二。一內體。二外相。故經中明自性空自相空。上明無內體。今辨無外相。即一切法性相空寂也。所以明性相空寂正欲簡大小乘二空同異。小乘拆性相明空。是生滅教為生滅觀。大乘明自性空自相空。明無生滅教無生滅觀。故論辨性相空為大乘人說也。又即令小乘人回小入大。故明性相本來空寂。如釋法華經也。又智度論云。愛見等者從無相門入。愛即毒蟲見為惡鬼。何由離之當觀無相。一切境無相即不起取相心。愛見便斷得出三界。壞相而觀無相即出分段。了相本無相得出三界內外火宅。累無不寂德無不圓也。五者成論云。四大圍空識在其中。假名為人。空為四大本。四大為識本。識為眾生本。自上已來破其末竟。今此一品次破其本。以末顯故前破。本昧故后除。六者自上已來一週破其有以竟。四緣謂萬法之因。情陰為諸法之果。既破因果惑者便謂無因無果乃是虛空之論。故名龍樹為空論比丘。又如涅槃勸發菩提心諸婆羅門言。云何令人同於虛空。便謂虛空是無。大乘亦爾。是故今品破于虛空。七者從去來竟五陰破三有為法。此品次破三無為法。令有為無為畢竟空。故
十八空有為空無為空后辨畢竟空也。八者上五陰品末勸外人依空問答。外人便取空相。是故此品次破于空。九者諸大乘經多引虛空為喻。大品云。波若如虛空。涅槃云。佛性如虛空。金光明法身如虛空。惑者多不識虛空。即迷所喻法。今破邪虛空申正虛空。故有今品來也。今且就一事明之。佛身法身猶如虛空。若將常遍釋虛空。即是外道虛空。虛空喻佛法身即是外道法身。若取毗曇虛空是有法者。佛法身便是毗曇法身。若將成論虛空是無法。即是成實法身。在喻既壞即法說便壞。故一切大乘經皆壞矣。此品破邪虛空申正虛空。即一切大乘經論法喻皆成。此是大事。宜深照之。問六種五陰雲何同異。答五陰合色離心。六種合心離色。又依毗曇義五陰通漏無漏。六種但是有漏。若依成實釋者。五陰成人義親。六種成人義疏。如四微成四大。四大成五根。五根成色陰。色陰成眾生。故四大疏五陰親也。問數論明六種云何同異。答毗曇四大有二種。一者實法四大謂四觸也。二假名四大謂形相地等也。毗曇識種但是有漏。成論即通漏無漏。毗曇明虛空有二。一者有為虛空。如眾生身內及井穴門向等空。二無為虛空。鳥飛所不及處是也。成論明虛空是無法。但是無為。問云何觀此六種耶。答下云是故知虛空非有亦非無。餘五亦如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十八空：有為空、無為空，后辨畢竟空（一切皆空）。 八者：在前面的五陰品末尾，勸導外道之人依據空的道理進行問答。外道之人於是執取空的表相。因此，此品接著破斥對外空的執著。 九者：許多大乘經典都引用虛空作為比喻。《大品般若經》說：『般若如虛空。』《涅槃經》說：『佛性如虛空。』《金光明經》說法身如虛空。』迷惑的人大多不認識真正的虛空，就迷惑了所比喻的法。現在破斥邪見之虛空，闡明正見之虛空。所以有此品出現。現在且就一件事說明：佛身、法身猶如虛空。若將常、遍來解釋虛空，那就是外道的虛空。虛空比喻佛的法身，就成了外道的法身。若取《毗曇》的觀點，認為虛空是有法，那麼佛的法身就成了《毗曇》的法身。若將《成實論》的觀點，認為虛空是無法，那就成了《成實》的法身。在比喻上已經錯謬，那麼在法上的解說也就錯謬了。這樣一切大乘經都壞了。此品破斥邪見之虛空，闡明正見之虛空，那麼一切大乘經論的法喻都能成立。這是大事，應該深入瞭解。 問：六種（六界）與五陰（五蘊）有何同異？ 答：五陰是色法聚合，與心法分離。六種是心法聚合，與色法分離。又依據《毗曇》的義理，五陰通於有漏和無漏。六種只是有漏。若依據《成實論》解釋，五陰成就人（眾生）的意義更親近。六種成就人（眾生）的意義更疏遠。如四微（極微）成就四大（地、水、火、風），四大成就五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身），五根成就色陰（色蘊），色陰成就眾生。所以四大疏遠，五陰親近。 問：數論（Samkhya）所說的六種（六 तत्व）與此處的六種有何同異？ 答：《毗曇》所說的四大有兩種。一是實法四大，指四觸（觸覺）。二是假名四大，指形相地等。《毗曇》的識種只是有漏。《成實論》則通於有漏和無漏。《毗曇》認為虛空有兩種。一是有為虛空，如眾生身內以及井穴門向等空。二是無為虛空，鳥飛所不及之處。 《成實論》認為虛空是無法，只是無為。 問：應如何觀察這六種？ 答：下文說：『是故知虛空非有亦非無，其餘五種也是如此。』
【English Translation】 English version Eighteen Kinds of Emptiness: Conditioned Emptiness, Unconditioned Emptiness, followed by Discriminating Ultimate Emptiness (everything is empty). Eighth: At the end of the previous Skandha chapter, outsiders were encouraged to inquire and answer based on the principle of emptiness. Outsiders then grasped the appearance of emptiness. Therefore, this chapter continues to refute the attachment to external emptiness. Ninth: Many Mahayana sutras use space as a metaphor. The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says, 'Prajna is like space.' The Nirvana Sutra says, 'Buddha-nature is like space.' The Golden Light Sutra says, 'The Dharmakaya is like space.' Those who are confused often do not recognize true space and are confused by the dharma being compared. Now, we refute the heretical view of space and clarify the correct view of space. Therefore, this chapter appears. Now, let's explain one thing: the Buddha's body and Dharmakaya are like space. If we explain space with permanence and pervasiveness, that is the space of the heretics. If space is used as a metaphor for the Buddha's Dharmakaya, it becomes the Dharmakaya of the heretics. If we take the view of the Abhidharma, considering space to be an existing dharma, then the Buddha's Dharmakaya becomes the Dharmakaya of the Abhidharma. If we take the view of the Tattvasiddhi Shastra, considering space to be non-existent, then it becomes the Dharmakaya of the Tattvasiddhi Shastra. If the metaphor is already wrong, then the explanation of the dharma is also wrong. In this way, all Mahayana sutras are ruined. This chapter refutes the heretical view of space and clarifies the correct view of space, so that all the metaphors of dharma in Mahayana sutras and treatises can be established. This is a major matter and should be deeply understood. Question: What are the similarities and differences between the six elements (six dhatus) and the five skandhas (pancha-skandha)? Answer: The five skandhas are aggregates of form (rupa) and are separate from mind (citta). The six elements are aggregates of mind and are separate from form. Also, according to the meaning of the Abhidharma, the five skandhas include both defiled (sasrava) and undefiled (anasrava). The six elements are only defiled. If explained according to the Tattvasiddhi Shastra, the five skandhas are more closely related to the meaning of achieving a person (sentient being). The six elements are more distantly related to the meaning of achieving a person (sentient being). For example, four subtle particles (paramanu) constitute the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), the four great elements constitute the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), the five roots constitute the form skandha (rupa-skandha), and the form skandha constitutes sentient beings. Therefore, the four great elements are distant, and the five skandhas are close. Question: What are the similarities and differences between the six elements (six tattvas) mentioned in Samkhya (Samkhya) and the six elements here? Answer: The four great elements mentioned in the Abhidharma are of two kinds. One is the real dharma four great elements, referring to the four touches (tactile sensations). The other is the nominal four great elements, referring to the form and appearance of earth, etc. The seed of consciousness (vijnana) in the Abhidharma is only defiled. The Tattvasiddhi Shastra includes both defiled and undefiled. The Abhidharma considers space to be of two kinds. One is conditioned space (samskrita akasa), such as the space within the body of sentient beings and the space of well holes and doorways. The other is unconditioned space (asamskrita akasa), the place where birds cannot fly. The Tattvasiddhi Shastra considers space to be non-existent, only unconditioned. Question: How should these six elements be observed? Answer: The following text says: 'Therefore, know that space is neither existent nor non-existent, and the other five are also like this.'
。悟斯六種非有非無即是實相。發生正觀斷諸煩惱。不復更受六種之身。故云觀六種品。又若見六種是有是無。即生死身現法身不現。即法身現與法身相應。即名應身。既得如實悟還為眾生如實演說。即是化身。故文殊十禮經云。諸佛虛空相。虛空亦無相。離諸因果故敬禮無所觀。故知觀六種非有非無即是法身。與法身相應發生正觀名為應身。為物說即是化身。又中觀論三字即是三身。中即是法身。與中相應發生正觀即是應身。觀照于內言彰乎外。故名論即化身。品開為二。初立次破。立有二。前明其相次明法體。定相者如地堅相不可令不堅。火熱相不可令冷也。即有六種者。既有其相即有法體。此是體相非標相。故有相即有體也。問上諸品立與此立何異。答從因緣至五陰立於有義。今明立相義也。上以立有故論主破有明空解脫門。今立相故破相明無相解脫門。即次第也。答中八偈為二。初七偈破相明無相門。第二一偈呵責門破。就理實明無即呵其無而謂有。初又二。前六偈破虛空。次一偈類餘五種。破虛空為二。初五偈半破虛空之法。次半偈破知空之人。初有二。第一五偈破虛空是有。次半偈破虛空是無。破有中有五偈為四。初一偈半舉能相破所相。次一偈半舉所相破能相。第三一偈相可相相待破。第四一偈結束破
。初一偈半為二。前偈正破。次半偈傳破。初偈上半明空若待相即墮無空。下半明空不待相便墮無相。進退失也。上半破云汝前言六種各有定相者。若爾相有故虛空是有。相既無。虛空即無。問何者為空相。答空有二種相。一標相。二體相。如見柱有知柱外即無。因有知無。有是無家標相。二者除柱故得柱無。柱無之處為空體相。然此二相俱由於柱。若爾柱有故可得有空。若未有柱應未有空。又空與柱俱。柱既無常空亦應爾也。問上半明相無空即無。為是相待無。為是不相待無。答具于兩義。若是標相即相待故無。若是體相無相即無體也。下半破法不與相俱。汝若言未有柱時已有空者。空則無相。汝上言六種各有定相。此言則失。問虛空無何等相。答未有標相而有于空。故是無相有空耳。若言未有體相者。無相即無空也。故無標相則墮失相過。若無體相則有二過。一墮無相。二墮無體也。長行但釋下半。明空墮無相。不釋上半無法者。至第二偈方釋之。又一義無相即無法故復是釋上半也。問曰。下生第二半偈傳破無相有空。問外人初言六種各有定相。今何故改宗便謂無相有空耶。答外義有本有末。據本而言空是常法。相是無常。則未有相時先已有空。故空無相。據末而言後有色生。因滅色知空故言虛空有相。初言有相
據其末也。今無相有空約其本也。是故二言俱不相違。答曰下破無相有空。一切處無有者。此中明無是體相無非標相無。若無體相則無此物也。有二法攝一切法。一有為法二無為法。有為法以生住滅為相。二無為法以無生住滅為相。此二既各有相。是故有法。虛空若無相則非有為亦非無為。即無有法。故云一切處無有。何者虛空是三無為中一。豈得非有為無為耶。又約毗曇有為空無為空。今非有為非無為則無有法。故云一切處無有。下半屬第二一偈半。舉所相破能相。又開二別。初半偈明無所相故能相何所相。次一偈開二門重責能相。初半偈有二意。一者取意救于上半。空若畢竟無相可得無法。先雖無相后相來相之。是故有相。以有相故則復有法。今縱破之。若前無相后相來相之。相終不著。如常云。真諦無名。以名詺真去真彌遠矣。第二意云。若先無相即無有法。后相何所相耶。如柱以圓為相。若無圓相即無有柱。何所相耶。空以無色為相。若無無色則無虛空。何所相耶。長行若謂先無相下釋下半。仍生第三偈也。有相無相中下。第二偏破能相釋前偈下半。上半明有無二門相不可得。下半攝法。有相中相不住有二義。一者本已有相。不更須相。如柱本有圓相。不更須圓相以相於柱。二者若本有圓相復更須相者。一柱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根據它的末端來說。現在說『無相有空』是根據它的根本來說。所以這兩種說法並不矛盾。下面的回答是用來駁斥『無相有空』的觀點。『一切處無有』，這裡說明『無』是它的體性，『相無』並非是它的表相。如果沒有體性，那麼就沒有這個事物。有兩種法涵蓋一切法：一是有為法，二是無為法。有為法以生、住、滅為相。無為法以無生、住、滅為相。這兩種法既然各自有相，所以是有法。虛空如果沒有相，就既不是有為法，也不是無為法，那就沒有法了。所以說『一切處無有』。為什麼呢？虛空是三種無為法中的一種，怎麼能說它不是有為法或無為法呢？又根據毗曇的說法，有為空，無為空。現在如果既不是有為，也不是無為，那就沒有法了。所以說『一切處無有』。下半部分屬於第二偈的一半。舉出所要破斥的『相』和能破斥的『能』。又分開兩種區別。前半偈說明沒有所相，那麼能相又相什麼呢？接下來的一偈打開兩個門來再次責難能相。前半偈有兩種意思。一是取意來補救上半部分。空如果畢竟沒有相可以得到，就沒有法。先前雖然沒有相，後來相來相它。所以是有相的。因為有相，所以又有了法。現在即使破斥它，如果先前沒有相，後來相來相它，相最終也不會附著。如常說，真諦沒有名稱，用名稱來稱呼真諦，離真諦就越遠了。第二種意思是說，如果先前沒有相，就沒有法，後來的相又相什麼呢？比如柱子以圓形為相，如果沒有圓形，就沒有柱子，又相什麼呢？空以無色為相，如果沒有無色，就沒有虛空，又相什麼呢？長行『如果說先前沒有相』以下解釋下半部分，仍然產生第三偈。『有相無相中』以下，第二部分偏重於破斥能相，解釋前面偈的下半部分。上半部分說明有和無兩種門，相都不可得。下半部分涵蓋了法。『有相中相不住』有兩種意思。一是本來已經有相，不需要再有相。比如柱子本來有圓形，不需要再用圓形來相於柱子。二是如果本來有圓形，又需要再有相，那麼一根柱子
【English Translation】 English version According to its end. Now, saying 'non-appearance and emptiness' is based on its root. Therefore, these two statements are not contradictory. The following answer is to refute the view of 'non-appearance and emptiness'. 'There is nothing in all places,' here it is explained that 'non-existence' is its substance, and 'appearance of non-existence' is not its superficial appearance. If there is no substance, then there is no such thing. There are two dharmas that encompass all dharmas: one is conditioned dharma (有為法), and the other is unconditioned dharma (無為法). Conditioned dharma takes birth, abiding, and cessation as its characteristics. Unconditioned dharma takes non-birth, non-abiding, and non-cessation as its characteristics. Since these two dharmas each have characteristics, they are existent dharmas. If space (虛空) has no characteristics, then it is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, then there is no dharma. Therefore, it is said, 'There is nothing in all places.' Why? Space is one of the three unconditioned dharmas, how can it be said that it is neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Also, according to the Abhidharma (毗曇), existence is empty, and non-existence is empty. Now, if it is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, then there is no dharma. Therefore, it is said, 'There is nothing in all places.' The latter half belongs to the second verse. It raises the 'appearance' to be refuted and the 'ability' to refute. It also separates two distinctions. The first half of the verse explains that there is no object to be characterized, so what does the characterizing ability characterize? The following verse opens two doors to again question the characterizing ability. The first half of the verse has two meanings. One is to take the meaning to remedy the first half. If emptiness ultimately has no characteristic to be obtained, then there is no dharma. Although there was no characteristic before, later the characteristic comes to characterize it. Therefore, there is a characteristic. Because there is a characteristic, there is dharma again. Now, even if it is refuted, if there was no characteristic before, and later the characteristic comes to characterize it, the characteristic will ultimately not adhere. As it is often said, ultimate truth (真諦) has no name; using a name to call ultimate truth takes one further away from ultimate truth. The second meaning is that if there was no characteristic before, then there is no dharma, what does the later characteristic characterize? For example, a pillar takes roundness as its characteristic; if there is no roundness, there is no pillar, so what does it characterize? Emptiness takes non-color as its characteristic; if there is no non-color, there is no space, so what does it characterize? The prose 'If it is said that there was no characteristic before' below explains the latter half, and still produces the third verse. 'In appearance and non-appearance' below, the second part focuses on refuting the characterizing ability, explaining the latter half of the previous verse. The first half explains that in the two doors of existence and non-existence, characteristics cannot be obtained. The latter half encompasses the dharma. 'The characteristic does not abide in appearance' has two meanings. One is that there is already a characteristic, and there is no need for another characteristic. For example, a pillar already has roundness, and there is no need to use roundness to characterize the pillar. Second, if there is already roundness, and there is a need for another characteristic, then one pillar
便有二圓。一空便有兩相。若一柱二圓亦可一圓二柱。又既有二相則有第三。如是無窮也。無相中相不住亦有二義。一者本既無相復將相來相之。終自不著。二者只以無色為空體。既無無色相。則無空體。后相則無所相。此偈意深言遠。明有為無為二法俱作此責之。一切眾生並謂有為無為各有相。故起取相心。起取相心則是煩惱根。故便生煩惱。煩惱故有業苦。今責為無為相不可得。則無一切相故。不起取相心便得解脫。長行釋上半為四。初釋無相中相不住。次釋有相中相不住。後重釋無相中相不住。第四結。偈中先明有相不住。今先釋無相者二義。一是外人本宗。本立先無相后相來相之。二為成前偈故也。即以角峰為牛體。若無此相即無牛可相也。次釋有相中相不住。舉水火者前破眾生今破非眾生。蓋是互舉耳。複次下重破無相中相不住也。初標無因次釋無因。云無法而有相者。既言無相則無所相。所相是能相之因也。相可相常相因待者。前明無所相此明無能相。以無所相之法可待故無能相也。是故下第四舉偈結。相法無有故者。此第四偈相可相相待破。上半明可相待相相無故可相即無。下半相待可相。可相無故相即無。此亦明體相可相相待以體相無故可相即無。二者若就標相作相待破者。前三偈名別破。今一偈名
交絡破。前三明別破者。初二偈正破可相。次一偈正破能相。今此一偈能所合破。故名交絡。問前破可相后破能相。今何故前明相無故可相無。后明可相無故相無。答此是逐近勢破。第三偈正破于相。故乘破相之勢即破可相。下半乘上半破可相仍破相。是故今無相。第五結攝法破。上半結前下半攝法。是故今無相。結第四偈下半。亦無有可相。結第四偈上半。此是鉤鎖相生故從下起上。下半攝法者。上來破相可相既盡。今以相可相攝一切法。一切法不出體相可相標標可相。相可相既無則一切法皆無。長行雲。因緣本末者。有人言因相有可相。因可相有相。故名因緣。可相為本相為末。故名本末。又互相因故互為本末。今謂因緣者此是所以之名。本末者此是始終之目。以一品始終求此相可相畢竟不可得。煙亦復有相者。白日火為可相煙為相。夜煙為可相火為相。作此語者有二種義。一顯相可相無定。二顯相可相攝一切法。問曰若無有有應當有無者。自上已來五偈破空是有竟。今第二破虛空是無。此問有四義。一者上破毗曇外道虛空是有。今破成論虛空是無。成實明虛空是無法。然終有此法。若無此無法。謗無三無為應不得罪。又上破小乘計虛空是有。今破大乘計虛空是無。二者因論主第五偈生。第五偈云。無相無可相離
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 交絡破。前面三段分別破斥『可相』（可以被認識的相）的，最初兩偈是正面破斥『可相』，接下來一偈是正面破斥『能相』（能認識的相）。現在這一偈是將『能相』和『可相』合起來破斥，所以稱為交絡破。 問：前面破斥『可相』，後面破斥『能相』，現在為什麼前面說『明相』沒有了，『可相』也就沒有了；後面說『可相』沒有了，『相』也就沒有了？ 答：這是順著最近的趨勢來破斥。第三偈是正面破斥『于相』（對於相的執著），所以乘著破斥『相』的勢頭就破斥了『可相』。下半偈乘著上半偈破斥『可相』的勢頭仍然破斥『相』。因此現在沒有『相』。 第五偈總結並攝取法來破斥，上半偈總結前面所說，下半偈攝取法。因此現在沒有『相』。總結第四偈的下半偈，也是沒有『可相』。總結第四偈的上半偈。這是鉤鎖相生，所以從下往上推。 下半偈攝取法的意思是，上面破斥『相』和『可相』已經窮盡，現在用『相』和『可相』來攝取一切法。一切法都離不開體相、可相、標相、標可相。『相』和『可相』既然沒有了，那麼一切法也就都沒有了。 長行中說，『因緣本末』，有人說因為有『因相』，所以有『可相』；因為有『可相』，所以有『相』，所以稱為因緣。『可相』為本，『相』為末，所以稱為本末。又互相為因，所以互為本末。現在說『因緣』，這是所以然的名稱；『本末』，這是始終的綱目。用一品的始終來尋求這『相』和『可相』，畢竟是不可得的。 『煙也還有相』，白天火為『可相』，煙為『相』；夜晚煙為『可相』，火為『相』。說這話的人有兩種含義：一是顯示『相』和『可相』沒有定性；二是顯示『相』和『可相』攝取一切法。 問：如果沒有『有』，應當有『無』嗎？從上面以來的五偈破斥空是有，已經結束。現在第二段破斥虛空是無。這個提問有四種含義：一是上面破斥毗曇宗和外道認為虛空是有，現在破斥成論宗認為虛空是無。成實論說明虛空是無法，然而終究有此法。如果沒有此無法，誹謗沒有三無為，應該會獲罪。又是上面破斥小乘計較虛空是有，現在破斥大乘計較虛空是無。二是因論主第五偈而生。第五偈說：『無相無可相離』
【English Translation】 English version Interwoven Refutation. The previous three sections separately refuted 『Graspable Characteristics』 (those characteristics that can be recognized). The first two verses directly refute 『Graspable Characteristics,』 and the following verse directly refutes 『Grasping Characteristics』 (the characteristics that can recognize). This verse now combines 『Grasping Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics』 for refutation, hence it is called Interwoven. Question: Previously, 『Graspable Characteristics』 were refuted, and later, 『Grasping Characteristics』 were refuted. Why is it now said that if 『Manifest Characteristics』 (ming xiang) are absent, then 『Graspable Characteristics』 are also absent; and later, if 『Graspable Characteristics』 are absent, then 『Characteristics』 (xiang) are also absent? Answer: This refutation follows the nearest trend. The third verse directly refutes 『Attachment to Characteristics』 (yu xiang), so it takes advantage of the momentum of refuting 『Characteristics』 to also refute 『Graspable Characteristics.』 The latter half of the verse, riding on the momentum of the first half in refuting 『Graspable Characteristics,』 continues to refute 『Characteristics.』 Therefore, there are now no 『Characteristics.』 The fifth verse summarizes and encompasses the Dharma for refutation. The first half of the verse summarizes what was said earlier, and the second half encompasses the Dharma. Therefore, there are now no 『Characteristics.』 It concludes the latter half of the fourth verse, which also states that there are no 『Graspable Characteristics.』 It concludes the first half of the fourth verse. This is a chain-like arising, so it proceeds from the bottom up. The meaning of the latter half of the verse encompassing the Dharma is that, having exhausted the refutation of 『Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics』 above, we now use 『Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics』 to encompass all Dharmas. All Dharmas cannot be separated from Essence-Characteristics, Graspable Characteristics, Sign-Characteristics, and Sign-Graspable Characteristics. Since 『Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics』 are absent, then all Dharmas are also absent. The long passage says, 『Cause and Condition, Root and Branch.』 Some say that because there are 『Causal Characteristics』 (yin xiang), there are 『Graspable Characteristics』; because there are 『Graspable Characteristics,』 there are 『Characteristics,』 hence they are called Cause and Condition. 『Graspable Characteristics』 are the root, and 『Characteristics』 are the branch, hence they are called Root and Branch. Moreover, they are mutually causal, so they are mutually Root and Branch. Now, saying 『Cause and Condition』 is the name of the reason why; 『Root and Branch』 is the outline of beginning and end. Using the entirety of this chapter to seek these 『Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics,』 they are ultimately unattainable. 『Even smoke has characteristics.』 During the day, fire is the 『Graspable Characteristic,』 and smoke is the 『Characteristic』; at night, smoke is the 『Graspable Characteristic,』 and fire is the 『Characteristic.』 Those who say this have two meanings: one is to show that 『Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics』 are not fixed; the other is to show that 『Characteristics』 and 『Graspable Characteristics』 encompass all Dharmas. Question: If there is no 『Existence,』 should there be 『Non-existence』? The five verses from above refuting emptiness as existence have concluded. Now, the second section refutes emptiness as non-existence. This question has four meanings: one is that the above refutes the Sarvastivada school and externalists who believe that emptiness is existence, and now refutes the Satyasiddhi school who believe that emptiness is non-existence. The Satyasiddhi school explains that emptiness is not a Dharma, yet ultimately this Dharma exists. If this non-Dharma did not exist, then slandering the absence of the Three Unconditioned (asamskrta) would incur offense. Also, the above refutes the Hinayana's clinging to emptiness as existence, and now refutes the Mahayana's clinging to emptiness as non-existence. Two, it arises from the fifth verse of the treatise master. The fifth verse says: 『No Characteristics, no Graspable Characteristics, separate』.
相可相外更亦無有物。外人云即是此空也。若有相可相等物非謂為空。無此諸物故得此空。三者自上已來就本宗立義。今外人捉論主破即以為立。故未被破即執有。聞論主破即著無。以無始來煩惱罪重不能無所依。故涅槃經云。眾生如步屈蟲。要因有起無見。因無生有見也。然眾生於一切法中起有無見。今于虛空一法起有無見。起有無即障中道之本。又是諸見之根。何者本借虛空喻佛性法身一乘波若。今虛空既成斷常則佛性法身皆是斷常。皆是見根。悉成障道本。即道與非道並是非道。此所傷事。深宜須破洗也。四者如開善義。明虛空是二諦所攝。虛空是世諦故名為有。聞論主上破無空。謂真諦遣故無。是故立有無也答曰下然破無凡有二種。一者若有無異體無有可待。即無有于無。二者有無一體。有有故有無。若無有即無無。有無既已無自上已來破虛空法竟。今第二次破空所成人。如成論云。四大圍空識在其中。假名為人今檢空義不可得。即四大無所圍。既無四大識無依附。假何名為人。故上破能成之法。今破所成之人。以無法故名法無生。以無人故眾生無生。具二無生得無生忍。二者破境智義。上半破無所知之境。下半破無能知之智。故有無並夷緣觀俱寂。肇師用此明涅槃義。故云法無有無之相。聖無有無之知。法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『相可相外更亦無有物』。意思是說，除了可以被認知的事物之外，再也沒有其他東西存在了。外道之人說，『相外』指的就是空。如果存在可以被認知的事物，那就不能稱之為『空』。正是因為沒有這些事物，所以才有了『空』。這是第三點，從前面開始，論主都是在本宗的立場上立論。現在外道之人抓住論主的破斥，反而認為是論主的立論。所以，在沒有被破斥之前，就執著于『有』。聽到論主破斥，就執著于『無』。因為無始以來煩惱深重，不能做到無所依傍。所以《涅槃經》說：『眾生就像步屈蟲一樣，一定要依靠「有」才能生起「無」的見解，依靠「無」才能生起「有」的見解。』眾生在一切法中生起『有』和『無』的見解。現在對於虛空這一法，也生起『有』和『無』的見解。生起『有』和『無』的見解，就障礙了中道的根本，而且是各種見解的根源。為什麼這麼說呢？本來是借用虛空來比喻佛性、法身、一乘般若。現在虛空既然成了斷滅或常存，那麼佛性、法身也就成了斷滅或常存，都是見解的根源，都成了障礙修道的根本。這樣，道與非道，以及既是道又不是道，都會被混淆。這件事的危害很深，應該徹底破斥和洗清。第四點，就像開善的義理所說，虛空是被二諦所攝的。虛空是世俗諦，所以名為『有』。聽到論主前面破斥『無空』，就認為是真諦的遣除，所以是『無』。因此，就立『有無』。回答如下：破斥『無』，一般有兩種情況。一種是『有』和『無』是不同的本體，沒有可以互相依賴的關係，那就是『無』沒有依賴於『有』。另一種是『有』和『無』是一個本體，因為有『有』，所以有『無』。如果沒有『有』，也就沒有『無』。既然『有無』都已經不存在了，那麼從前面開始，破斥虛空之法就結束了。現在第二次破斥由空所成就的人。就像《成實論》所說：『四大圍著空，識在其中，假名為人。』現在考察空的意義，是不可得的。那麼四大就沒有所圍繞的對象。既然沒有四大，識就沒有依附之處。還假借什麼名為人呢？所以，前面破斥能成就之法，現在破斥所成就之人。因為沒有法，所以名為法無生。因為沒有人，所以眾生無生。具備了二種無生，就能得到無生忍。第二點是破斥境智的意義。前半部分破斥無所知的境界，後半部分破斥無能知的智慧。所以，『有』和『無』都被消除，緣觀也一起寂滅。鳩摩羅什大師用這個來闡明涅槃的意義。所以說，法沒有『有』和『無』的相狀，聖人也沒有『有』和『無』的知見。
【English Translation】 English version '相可相外更亦無有物' (xiāng kě xiāng wài gèng yì wú yǒu wù). This means that besides things that can be perceived, there is nothing else. Outsiders say that '相外' (xiāng wài - beyond appearance) refers to emptiness. If there are things that can be perceived, then it cannot be called 'emptiness'. It is precisely because there are no such things that there is 'emptiness'. This is the third point; from the beginning, the debater has been establishing arguments from the perspective of their own school. Now, outsiders seize upon the debater's refutations and consider them to be the debater's own assertions. Therefore, before being refuted, they cling to 'existence'. Upon hearing the debater's refutations, they cling to 'non-existence'. Because of the heavy burden of afflictions from beginningless time, they cannot be without something to rely on. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Sentient beings are like inchworms; they must rely on 'existence' to generate the view of 'non-existence', and rely on 'non-existence' to generate the view of 'existence'.' Sentient beings generate views of 'existence' and 'non-existence' in all dharmas. Now, regarding the single dharma of emptiness, they also generate views of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Generating views of 'existence' and 'non-existence' obstructs the root of the Middle Way and is the root of all views. Why is this so? Originally, emptiness was used as a metaphor for Buddha-nature, Dharmakaya (法身 - Dharma body), the One Vehicle Prajna (般若 - wisdom). Now that emptiness has become annihilation or permanence, then Buddha-nature and Dharmakaya also become annihilation or permanence, all being roots of views and all becoming the root of obstructing the path. In this way, the path and non-path, as well as what is both path and non-path, will be confused. The harm of this matter is profound and should be thoroughly refuted and cleansed. The fourth point, as in the meaning of Kaisan (開善), clarifies that emptiness is encompassed by the Two Truths. Emptiness is the conventional truth, so it is called 'existence'. Upon hearing the debater previously refuting 'non-existent emptiness', they consider it to be the elimination of the ultimate truth, so it is 'non-existence'. Therefore, they establish 'existence and non-existence'. The answer is as follows: Refuting 'non-existence' generally has two situations. One is that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are different entities, with no relationship of mutual dependence, which means that 'non-existence' does not rely on 'existence'. The other is that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are one entity; because there is 'existence', there is 'non-existence'. If there is no 'existence', then there is no 'non-existence'. Since 'existence and non-existence' no longer exist, then from the beginning, the refutation of the dharma of emptiness is finished. Now, the second time, the person who is formed by emptiness is refuted. As the Tattvasiddhi Shastra says: 'The four great elements surround emptiness, consciousness is within them, and it is falsely called a person.' Now, examining the meaning of emptiness, it is unattainable. Then the four great elements have nothing to surround. Since there are no four great elements, consciousness has no place to rely on. What is falsely called a person? Therefore, previously the dharma that can accomplish was refuted, and now the person who is accomplished is refuted. Because there is no dharma, it is called dharma non-arising. Because there is no person, sentient beings are non-arising. Possessing the two non-arisings, one can obtain the patience of non-arising. The second point is to refute the meaning of the object and wisdom. The first half refutes the realm of what is not known, and the second half refutes the wisdom of what cannot know. Therefore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are both eliminated, and the contemplation of conditions is also extinguished together. Master Zhao (肇師) uses this to explain the meaning of Nirvana. Therefore, it is said that the dharma has no characteristics of 'existence' and 'non-existence', and the sage has no knowledge of 'existence' and 'non-existence'.
無有無之相即無數于外。聖無有無之知即無心於內。于外無數于內無心。彼此寂滅浩然大均。乃曰涅槃。又所以破知者。虛空實非有無。但想知謂有無故破想知者使虛空義寂。是故知虛空下第二類破五種。上三句舉虛空下一句類五種。非有者結破上有即五偈也。非無者結破上無半行偈也。非相者結破相第三偈也。非可相結破可相品初二偈也。有人言。此是解正虛空義。邪計虛空是有是無。正虛空即非有非無。今明斥病得作此伴。對數論解虛空墮二邊故。今明虛空是中道。是以眾經將空喻法身。即中道法身中道波若等也。問中假師非為非非為非於有。若非有者本自無有。非何所非。若非非者。既言非有豈得非非。又問有對無不。汝信有對無。有既不成無即不成。今非有非無對於有無。有無既非。則非有非無並不成也。故肇公云。言其非有者。明其非是有。非謂是非有。言其非無者。明其非是無。非謂是非無。既結非有非無。亦結非遍不遍非常不常非記無記。此即遠離二邊不著中道。即知虛空絕四句。乃是正虛空。將此空喻法身佛性波若一乘。並皆正也。此所論事大可不留心。問何故云非有無是愚癡論。攝大乘論為戲論謗。何故復云是中道耶。答得非有無意如肇公意者是中道。復舍有無而著非有無者是愚癡論也。餘五同虛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無有無』的『相』，就是說『無數』存在於外在。聖人『無有無』的『知』，就是說內心沒有執著。在外不執著于『數』，在內沒有執著心，彼此寂靜，達到浩然大均的境界，這就叫做涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫）。 又為什麼要破除『知』呢？虛空（Śūnyatā，佛教術語，指空性）實際上並非『有』或『無』，只是因為人們妄想執著于『有』或『無』，所以要破除這種妄想執著，使虛空的真正含義得以顯現。因此，『知虛空』以下，第二類破除了五種執著。上面三句是舉例說明虛空，下一句是概括五種執著。『非有』是總結破除執著于『有』，即前面五個偈頌所說的。『非無』是總結破除執著于『無』，即前面半個偈頌所說的。『非相』是總結破除執著于『相』，即第三個偈頌所說的。『非可相』是總結破除執著于『可相』，即『可相品』最初兩個偈頌所說的。 有人說，這是解釋真正的虛空之義，因為錯誤的觀點認為虛空是『有』或是『無』，而真正的虛空既非『有』也非『無』。現在說明斥責這種錯誤的觀點，不要與這種觀點為伍。這是針對數論派（Sāṃkhya，古印度哲學流派）對虛空的解釋，他們墮入了二邊（指『有』和『無』）。現在說明虛空是中道（Madhyamaka，佛教術語，指不落兩邊的中正之道）。因此，許多經典都將空性比喻為法身（Dharmakāya，佛教術語，指佛的法性之身），也就是中道法身、中道般若（Prajñā，佛教術語，指智慧）等等。 問：中觀學派（Madhyamaka，佛教術語，又稱中道派）既否定『有』，也否定『非有』，那麼否定的是什麼呢？如果否定『有』，那麼『有』本來就不存在，又否定什麼呢？如果否定『非有』，既然已經說否定了『有』，怎麼又能否定『非有』呢？ 又問：『有』和『無』是相對立的嗎？你相信『有』和『無』是相對立的嗎？如果『有』不能成立，那麼『無』也就不能成立。現在既否定『有』，也否定『無』，這是針對『有』和『無』而言的。如果『有』和『無』都不成立，那麼『非有非無』也就都不成立了。所以肇公（僧肇，東晉高僧）說：『說它不是『有』，是爲了說明它不是執著于『有』，而不是說它不是『有』本身。說它不是『無』，是爲了說明它不是執著于『無』，而不是說它不是『無』本身。』 既然總結了『非有非無』，也就總結了『非遍非不遍』、『非常非不常』、『非記非無記』。這就是遠離二邊，不執著于中道，也就明白了虛空超越了四句（指『有』、『無』、『亦有亦無』、『非有非無』），才是真正的虛空。將這種空性比喻為法身、佛性（Buddha-nature，佛教術語，指眾生皆具的成佛的可能性）、般若、一乘（Ekayāna，佛教術語，指唯一能引導眾產生佛的教法），都是正確的。 這裡所討論的事情，大家不可不留心。 問：為什麼說執著于『非有非無』是愚癡的論調，《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha，佛教論著）說是戲論謗呢？為什麼又說是中道呢？ 答：如果能理解『非有非無』的真正含義，像肇公所理解的那樣，那就是中道。如果捨棄了『有』和『無』，卻又執著于『非有非無』，那就是愚癡的論調。其餘五種（指『非遍非不遍』、『非常非不常』、『非記非無記』、『非有非無』、『非一非異』）與虛空同理。
【English Translation】 English version The 『aspect』 of 『neither being nor non-being』 means that 『numberlessness』 exists externally. The sage's 『knowledge』 of 『neither being nor non-being』 means that there is no attachment in the mind internally. Externally, there is no attachment to 『number』; internally, there is no clinging mind. They are both tranquil, reaching the vast and even state, which is called Nirvana (Buddhist term, referring to liberation). Why is it necessary to eliminate 『knowledge』? Śūnyatā (Buddhist term, referring to emptiness) is actually neither 『being』 nor 『non-being』, but because people are deluded and attached to 『being』 or 『non-being』, it is necessary to eliminate this delusion and attachment so that the true meaning of emptiness can be revealed. Therefore, from 『knowing emptiness』 onwards, the second category eliminates five attachments. The above three sentences exemplify emptiness, and the next sentence summarizes the five attachments. 『Non-being』 summarizes the elimination of attachment to 『being』, as stated in the previous five verses. 『Non-non-being』 summarizes the elimination of attachment to 『non-being』, as stated in the previous half verse. 『Non-aspect』 summarizes the elimination of attachment to 『aspect』, as stated in the third verse. 『Non-apprehensible aspect』 summarizes the elimination of attachment to 『apprehensible aspect』, as stated in the first two verses of the 『Apprehensible Aspect』 chapter. Some say that this is an explanation of the true meaning of emptiness, because the wrong view is that emptiness is either 『being』 or 『non-being』, while true emptiness is neither 『being』 nor 『non-being』. Now it is explained that this wrong view should be denounced, and should not be associated with. This is in response to the Sāṃkhya (ancient Indian philosophical school) explanation of emptiness, which falls into the two extremes (referring to 『being』 and 『non-being』). Now it is explained that emptiness is the Middle Way (Madhyamaka, Buddhist term, referring to the middle path that does not fall into two extremes). Therefore, many scriptures use emptiness as a metaphor for Dharmakāya (Buddhist term, referring to the Dharma body of the Buddha), which is the Middle Way Dharmakāya, Middle Way Prajñā (Buddhist term, referring to wisdom), and so on. Question: The Madhyamaka school (Buddhist term, also known as the Middle Way school) denies both 『being』 and 『non-being』, so what is being denied? If 『being』 is denied, then 『being』 does not exist in the first place, so what is being denied? If 『non-being』 is denied, since it has already been said that 『being』 is denied, how can 『non-being』 be denied? Also, are 『being』 and 『non-being』 opposed to each other? Do you believe that 『being』 and 『non-being』 are opposed to each other? If 『being』 cannot be established, then 『non-being』 cannot be established either. Now, both 『being』 and 『non-being』 are denied, which is in response to 『being』 and 『non-being』. If neither 『being』 nor 『non-being』 can be established, then 『neither being nor non-being』 cannot be established either. Therefore, Venerable Zhao (Sengzhao, eminent monk of the Eastern Jin Dynasty) said: 『To say that it is not 『being』 is to clarify that it is not attachment to 『being』, not to say that it is not 『being』 itself. To say that it is not 『non-being』 is to clarify that it is not attachment to 『non-being』, not to say that it is not 『non-being』 itself.』 Since 『neither being nor non-being』 is summarized, 『neither pervasive nor non-pervasive』, 『neither constant nor non-constant』, and 『neither marked nor unmarked』 are also summarized. This is to stay away from the two extremes and not be attached to the Middle Way, which means understanding that emptiness transcends the four statements (referring to 『being』, 『non-being』, 『both being and non-being』, and 『neither being nor non-being』), which is true emptiness. Using this emptiness as a metaphor for Dharmakāya, Buddha-nature (Buddhist term, referring to the potential for all beings to become Buddhas), Prajñā, and Ekayāna (Buddhist term, referring to the only teaching that can guide all beings to become Buddhas) is all correct. The matters discussed here should not be taken lightly. Question: Why is it said that attachment to 『neither being nor non-being』 is a foolish argument, and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Buddhist treatise) says it is a frivolous slander? Why is it also said to be the Middle Way? Answer: If one can understand the true meaning of 『neither being nor non-being』, as Venerable Zhao understood it, then that is the Middle Way. If one abandons 『being』 and 『non-being』 but is attached to 『neither being nor non-being』, then that is a foolish argument. The other five (referring to 『neither pervasive nor non-pervasive』, 『neither constant nor non-constant』, 『neither marked nor unmarked』, 『neither being nor non-being』, and 『neither one nor different』) are the same as emptiness.
空者。如經云。無色無形無對一相無相。不知何以目之強稱實相。由實相故生波若故眾行立萬德成。長行料簡前破虛空意。一就本末。二約難易。又一義。五種是有為法。上情陰中已破。虛空是無為法。上來未破故今前破。問曰世間人盡見諸法是有是無下。此生第二呵責門。就文為二。初外呵內。次內呵外。問意云。世人又盡見五種為有虛空是無。汝云何言非有無。若非有無便是一種。何名五耶。又世諦有真諦無。今若言非有無即破二諦。又世人計虛空具有有無。如外道數人執空是有。成論明空是無。云何言非有無耶。今總問。虛空為遍不遍。答有二釋。一云遍故柱處有空。二云不遍故柱處無空。問若言空遍柱應客柱。彼答云。質質相礙。故不客柱。次問虛空既遍柱應與空一。空既無礙。柱亦應然。柱既是礙空亦應礙。若空無礙柱礙。即空與柱異。空不遍柱也。若空不遍空即不常。若不遍是常遍應無常。答曰淺智見諸法者此正呵責。以淺智故見五種為有空種為無。又見虛空有及見虛空無。又見世諦有及見真諦無。既見有見無即起斷常。故諸見即生。有見故有愛。愛見因緣即流轉生死不得安隱涅槃。數人言。見有得道此乃是有見。豈得道耶。亦是得有見道。實不得正道。成實人云。見無得道亦是無見。豈得道耶。又是見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『空』是什麼？正如經文所說：『無色、無形、無對，一相無相。』不知道用什麼來稱呼它，勉強稱之為『實相』（tathata, reality as it is）。因為有了『實相』，才能產生般若（prajna, wisdom），所以各種修行才能確立，各種功德才能成就。以下長篇解釋是爲了糾正之前對虛空（akasa, space）的錯誤理解。一是從根本和末節兩方面來分析，二是從難易程度來分析。還有一種解釋：五種是有為法（samskrta-dharma, conditioned phenomena），已經在前面的情陰中破斥過了。虛空是無為法（asamskrta-dharma, unconditioned phenomena），之前沒有破斥過，所以現在先破斥它。有人問：世間的人都認為諸法是有是無，這是生起第二道呵責之門。從文義上分為兩部分：先是外呵內，然後是內呵外。提問者的意思是：世人普遍認為五種（色、受、想、行、識）是有，虛空是無。你為什麼說它既非有也非無？如果既非有也非無，那就是一種東西，為什麼又叫五種呢？而且世俗諦（samvrti-satya, conventional truth）認為有，真諦（paramartha-satya, ultimate truth）認為無。如果現在說它既非有也非無，那就破壞了二諦。而且世人認為虛空既有有也有無，例如外道數論派（Samkhya）的人認為空是有，《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi Shastra）認為空是無。你為什麼說它既非有也非無呢？現在總的來問：虛空是遍佈一切還是不遍佈一切？回答有兩種解釋：一種說法是遍佈一切，所以柱子所在之處有空。另一種說法是不遍佈一切，所以柱子所在之處沒有空。有人問：如果說空遍佈一切，那麼柱子應該能夠穿過柱子。他們回答說：物質和物質之間相互阻礙，所以柱子不能穿過柱子。接著問：虛空既然遍佈一切，那麼柱子應該和空融為一體。空既然沒有阻礙，柱子也應該沒有阻礙。柱子既然有阻礙，那麼空也應該有阻礙。如果空沒有阻礙而柱子有阻礙，那麼空和柱子就是不同的。空就沒有遍佈柱子。如果空沒有遍佈一切，那麼空就不是常恒的。如果不是遍佈一切而是常恒的，那麼遍佈一切就應該是無常的。回答說：淺薄的智慧看待諸法就是這樣，這正是應該呵責的地方。因為智慧淺薄，所以認為五種是有，空是無。又認為虛空是有，又認為虛空是無。又認為世俗諦是有，又認為真諦是無。既然看到了有，看到了無，就會產生斷見和常見。所以各種見解就產生了。因為有見解，所以有愛。愛和見解相互作用，就會流轉生死，無法得到安穩的涅槃。數論派的人說：看到有就能得道，這實際上是有見。怎麼能得道呢？這實際上是得到了有見之道，實際上得不到正道。《成實論》的人說：看到無就能得道，這也是無見。怎麼能得道呢？這又是見解。
【English Translation】 English version What is 『emptiness』 (sunyata)? As the sutra says: 『Without color, without form, without opposition, one aspect without aspect.』 I don't know what to call it, so I tentatively call it 『tathata』 (reality as it is). Because of 『tathata』, prajna (wisdom) can arise, so various practices can be established, and various merits can be achieved. The following lengthy explanation is to correct the previous misunderstanding of akasa (space). One is to analyze from the root and the branch, and the other is to analyze from the degree of difficulty. There is also an explanation: the five skandhas are conditioned phenomena (samskrta-dharma), which have been refuted in the previous skandha of feeling. Space is unconditioned phenomena (asamskrta-dharma), which has not been refuted before, so it is refuted first now. Someone asks: People in the world generally think that all dharmas are existent or non-existent, this is the arising of the second door of rebuke. From the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts: first external rebuke internal, then internal rebuke external. The questioner means: People generally think that the five skandhas are existent and space is non-existent. Why do you say that it is neither existent nor non-existent? If it is neither existent nor non-existent, then it is one thing, why is it called five skandhas? Moreover, conventional truth (samvrti-satya) considers it existent, and ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) considers it non-existent. If we now say that it is neither existent nor non-existent, then it destroys the two truths. Moreover, people think that space has both existence and non-existence, for example, the Samkhya school of externalists thinks that space is existent, and the Tattvasiddhi Shastra thinks that space is non-existent. Why do you say that it is neither existent nor non-existent? Now, to ask in general: is space pervasive or not pervasive? There are two explanations for the answer: one is that it is pervasive, so there is space where the pillar is. The other is that it is not pervasive, so there is no space where the pillar is. Someone asks: If you say that space is pervasive, then the pillar should be able to pass through the pillar. They replied: Matter and matter hinder each other, so the pillar cannot pass through the pillar. Then ask: Since space is pervasive, then the pillar should be one with space. Since space has no hindrance, the pillar should also have no hindrance. Since the pillar has hindrance, then space should also have hindrance. If space has no hindrance and the pillar has hindrance, then space and the pillar are different. Space is not pervasive of the pillar. If space is not pervasive, then space is not constant. If it is not pervasive but constant, then pervasive should be impermanent. The answer is: Shallow wisdom sees all dharmas like this, this is exactly where it should be rebuked. Because of shallow wisdom, it is thought that the five skandhas are existent and space is non-existent. It is also thought that space is existent, and it is also thought that space is non-existent. It is also thought that conventional truth is existent, and it is also thought that ultimate truth is non-existent. Since you have seen existence and seen non-existence, you will have annihilationism and eternalism. Therefore, various views arise. Because there are views, there is attachment. Attachment and views interact with each other, and you will be reborn in samsara and will not be able to obtain peaceful nirvana. The Samkhya people say: Seeing existence can lead to enlightenment, this is actually a view of existence. How can you attain enlightenment? This is actually attaining the path of the view of existence, and you cannot actually attain the right path. The people of the Tattvasiddhi Shastra say: Seeing non-existence can lead to enlightenment, this is also a view of non-existence. How can you attain enlightenment? This is also a view.
于無道竟不得正道也。深智之人與此相違。見有知表不有見無知表不無。故華嚴云。一切有無法了達非有無也。問智淺何故但見有無耶。答六種之實即是實相。實相絕四句。今但見有無未能見亦有亦無。又不能見非有非無。況見絕四句耶。以不能徹見絕四之道。故是智淺。然本見絕四此得波若實觀。今不能見理。但是無明故名淺智也。又四句皆是見。今見有無乃作見猶未極。況得滅見之道耶。長行為三。前明無方便失。第二明有方便得。第三結得失。智者見諸法生。此第二明有方便得。問愚者見生起有見。見滅起無見。智者應見生不起有見。見滅應不起無見。若智者見生滅無見。見滅滅有見。亦應愚人見生起無。見滅起有。答解此不同。有人言。智者體悟生滅不二。知生是滅知滅是生。是以見生能滅無見。見滅能滅有見。有人言。此是智者跨節悟。非但知生而非有。亦即知生而非無。所以然者。生既非有。非有何所無。是故知生而非有。為初節悟即知生非無。是第二節悟。故言見生即滅無見。如師常云。假有不名有。假有不名無也。今謂此二意義亦有之。文少不便。今明此是直語。智者既見諸法從因緣生。何得斷無。豈得有生。是故見生即滅無見。緣離故滅。豈定有耶。問何故不言智者見生即知不有見滅即知不無。答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果執著于『無』的邪道，最終無法獲得正道。具有深刻智慧的人與此相反，他們能認識到『有』的存在，也能認識到『無』的存在。因此，《華嚴經》說：『一切有法和無法，都能了達其非有非無的本質。』 問：為什麼智慧淺薄的人只能看到『有』和『無』呢？ 答：六種真實（六種構成世界的元素）即是實相（宇宙的真實面貌）。實相超越了四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）。現在（智慧淺薄的人）只能看到『有』和『無』，不能看到『亦有亦無』，更不能看到『非有非無』，更何況是超越四句的境界呢？因為不能徹底領悟超越四句的道理，所以說是智慧淺薄。然而，本來應該看到超越四句的境界，才能獲得般若（智慧）的真實觀照。現在不能看到這個道理，只是因為無明（迷惑），所以稱為淺智。 又，四句都是一種見解。現在執著于『有』和『無』，這種見解還不夠徹底，更何況是滅除所有見解的境界呢？ 下面的長文分為三部分。第一部分說明沒有方便法門的過失，第二部分說明有方便法門的益處，第三部分總結得失。 『智者見諸法生』，這是第二部分，說明有方便法門的益處。 問：愚笨的人看到事物產生，就產生『有』的見解；看到事物滅亡，就產生『無』的見解。那麼，智慧的人應該看到事物產生，不產生『有』的見解；看到事物滅亡，不產生『無』的見解。如果智慧的人看到事物產生和滅亡都沒有見解，看到事物滅亡后產生『有』的見解，那麼也應該說愚笨的人看到事物產生沒有『無』的見解，看到事物滅亡后產生『有』的見解。 答：對這個問題的理解不同。有人說，智慧的人體悟到生滅是不二的，知道生就是滅，知道滅就是生，因此看到生就能滅除『無』的見解，看到滅就能滅除『有』的見解。有人說，這是智慧的人跨越階段的領悟，不僅知道生不是『有』，也知道生不是『無』。為什麼這樣說呢？生既然不是『有』，那麼『非有』又有什麼『無』呢？因此，知道生不是『有』，是第一階段的領悟；知道生不是『無』，是第二階段的領悟。所以說，看到生就能滅除『無』的見解。正如老師常說：『假有不稱為有，假有不稱為無。』 現在我認為這兩種意義都有道理。只是文字太少，表達不方便。現在說明這是一種直接的說法。智慧的人既然看到諸法從因緣而生，怎麼能斷定為『無』呢？又怎麼能斷定為『有』呢？因此，看到生就能滅除『無』的見解，因為因緣離散而滅亡，難道一定是『有』嗎？ 問：為什麼不說智慧的人看到事物產生就知道不是『有』，看到事物滅亡就知道不是『無』呢？ 答：
【English Translation】 English version: If one adheres to the wrong path of 'non-existence', one will ultimately fail to attain the right path. Those with profound wisdom are contrary to this. They see existence, knowing it represents existence; they see non-existence, knowing it represents non-existence. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing) says: 'All phenomena of existence and non-existence are understood as neither existence nor non-existence.' Question: Why do those with shallow wisdom only see 'existence' and 'non-existence'? Answer: The six elements of reality (six kinds of elements that constitute the world) are the true nature of reality (the true appearance of the universe). The true nature of reality transcends the four propositions (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence). Now, (those with shallow wisdom) can only see 'existence' and 'non-existence', unable to see 'both existence and non-existence', let alone 'neither existence nor non-existence', much less the state of transcending the four propositions. Because they cannot thoroughly understand the principle of transcending the four propositions, it is said that their wisdom is shallow. However, one should originally see the state of transcending the four propositions in order to obtain the true contemplation of Prajna (wisdom). Now, the inability to see this principle is simply due to ignorance (delusion), hence it is called shallow wisdom. Furthermore, the four propositions are all a kind of view. Now, clinging to 'existence' and 'non-existence' is not a thorough view, let alone the state of extinguishing all views? The following long text is divided into three parts. The first part explains the fault of not having expedient means, the second part explains the benefit of having expedient means, and the third part summarizes the gains and losses. 'The wise see the arising of all phenomena,' this is the second part, explaining the benefit of having expedient means. Question: Foolish people, seeing things arise, give rise to the view of 'existence'; seeing things perish, give rise to the view of 'non-existence'. Then, wise people should see things arise without giving rise to the view of 'existence'; seeing things perish without giving rise to the view of 'non-existence'. If wise people see no view in the arising and perishing of things, and give rise to the view of 'existence' after things perish, then it should also be said that foolish people see no view of 'non-existence' when things arise, and give rise to the view of 'existence' after things perish. Answer: The understanding of this question is different. Some say that wise people realize that arising and perishing are not two, knowing that arising is perishing, and knowing that perishing is arising. Therefore, seeing arising can extinguish the view of 'non-existence', and seeing perishing can extinguish the view of 'existence'. Some say that this is the enlightenment of wise people crossing stages, not only knowing that arising is not 'existence', but also knowing that arising is not 'non-existence'. Why is this so? Since arising is not 'existence', then what 'non-existence' is there in 'non-existence'? Therefore, knowing that arising is not 'existence' is the first stage of enlightenment; knowing that arising is not 'non-existence' is the second stage of enlightenment. Therefore, it is said that seeing arising extinguishes the view of 'non-existence'. Just as the teacher often says: 'Provisional existence is not called existence, provisional existence is not called non-existence.' Now I think both of these meanings make sense. It's just that there are too few words, making it inconvenient to express. Now, let me explain that this is a direct statement. Since wise people see that all phenomena arise from causes and conditions, how can they determine it to be 'non-existence'? And how can they determine it to be 'existence'? Therefore, seeing arising extinguishes the view of 'non-existence', because it perishes due to the separation of causes and conditions, is it necessarily 'existence'? Question: Why not say that wise people see things arise and know that it is not 'existence', and see things perish and know that it is not 'non-existence'? Answer:
理實應爾。但意欲破愚人。若直云生而非有滅而非無。取信即難。現見有生。云何非無。是故今明。以有生故知非定無。以有滅故知非實有。取信即易。如百論云。種滅壞故信知非常。牙相續生故知非斷。大智論云。見苦集時滅于無見。見滅道時滅于有見。即此意也。是故於一切法雖有所見下。第三雙結得失。前結得后結失。雖有所見者。恐外人云智者見生乃不起無見。而遂見於生即是生見。是故今明雖生如幻而見。幻生不生而生雖生不生也。乃至無漏見尚滅者。無漏是不生不滅中道正觀。本對邪觀故說正觀。既無邪觀豈在正觀耶。是故下此結失也。
染染者品第六
所以有此品來者凡有八義。一者上來諸品求身不可得。故情陰除此身之有。六種破身之無。有無既凈即身畢竟空。又情陰除身之末。六種破身之本。本末既凈即內外皆空。惑者復云。若言無身云何有心。既其有心必有身也。故十地經云。三界皆一心作。故心為六趣之本。本有故末不無也。但身相粗顯故前觀。心相微細即后檢也。二者生死患累有于因果。情陰為果三毒為因。上檢無果今觀無因。涅槃明十二因緣始不生滅終無因果。明五性義。大品觀十二因緣明三波若義。得上諸品波若佛性併成。若見十二因緣即緣河滿性河傾。今觀十二不因果即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：道理實際上應該是這樣的。但（我）意圖是爲了破除愚人的執迷。如果直接說『生』但並非實有，『滅』但並非實無，（他們）就很難相信。因為（人們）現在明明看到有生，怎麼能說它不是實有呢？所以現在闡明，因為有生，所以知道它不是絕對的無；因為有滅，所以知道它不是實在的有。這樣就容易讓人相信。如同《百論》所說：『種子滅壞，所以相信知道（事物）不是恒常的；牙相續而生，所以知道（事物）不是斷滅的。』《大智度論》說：『見到苦、集（二諦）時，滅除對『無』的見解；見到滅、道（二諦）時，滅除對『有』的見解。』說的就是這個意思。因此，對於一切法，雖然有所見解（以下），第三雙重總結得與失。前面總結得，後面總結失。『雖有所見』，是恐怕外人說智者見到生，就不會生起『無』的見解，於是就認為見到生就是『生見』。所以現在闡明，雖然生如幻象而顯現，見到幻生，（知道）不生而生，雖然生但不生。『乃至無漏見尚且要滅除』，無漏是既不生也不滅的中道正觀。本來是爲了對治邪見才說正觀，既然沒有邪見，哪裡還需要正觀呢？所以（以下）總結這種見解的過失。 染染者品第六 之所以有這一品，總共有八個意義。第一，前面各品探求身而不可得，所以情陰排除了對『身』的執有，六種方式破除了對『身』的執無。有和無都清凈了，那麼『身』就畢竟空。而且情陰排除了『身』的末端，六種方式破除了『身』的根本。根本和末端都清凈了，那麼內外都空。迷惑的人又會說，如果說沒有身，那怎麼會有心呢？既然有心，必定有身。所以《十地經》說：『三界都是一心所造。』所以心是六道的根本。根本存在，所以末端不會沒有。只是身相粗顯，所以前面觀察；心相微細，所以後面檢查。第二，生死患難在於因果。情陰是果，三毒是因。前面檢查沒有果，現在觀察沒有因。《涅槃經》闡明十二因緣，開始不生不滅，最終沒有因果，闡明五性義。《大品般若經》觀察十二因緣，闡明三般若義。得到前面各品，般若和佛性都成就。如果見到十二因緣，那麼緣河滿，性河傾。現在觀察十二（法）不因果，那麼（就）
【English Translation】 English version: The principle should indeed be like this. However, the intention is to dispel the delusion of foolish people. If one directly says 'birth' but not truly existent, 'cessation' but not truly non-existent, it would be difficult to gain their trust. Because people clearly see birth, how can one say it is not existent? Therefore, it is now clarified that because there is birth, we know it is not absolutely non-existent; because there is cessation, we know it is not truly existent. This makes it easier to gain trust. As the Śataśāstra (Hundred Treatise) says: 'Because the seed decays and is destroyed, we believe and know that (things) are not permanent; because the sprout continues to arise, we know that (things) are not annihilated.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Great Wisdom Treatise) says: 'When seeing suffering and accumulation (duhkha and samudaya), one extinguishes the view of non-existence; when seeing cessation and the path (nirodha and marga), one extinguishes the view of existence.' This is the meaning. Therefore, regarding all dharmas, although there is some seeing (below), the third double conclusion is about gain and loss. The former concludes gain, the latter concludes loss. 'Although there is some seeing' is for fear that outsiders might say that the wise, seeing birth, will not give rise to the view of non-existence, and thus see birth as the 'view of birth'. Therefore, it is now clarified that although birth appears like an illusion, seeing illusory birth, (one knows) it is not born but born, although born, it is not born. 'Even the undefiled seeing must be extinguished'; undefiled is the Middle Way correct view that is neither born nor ceases. Originally, correct view was spoken to counter wrong views. Since there are no wrong views, where is the need for correct view? Therefore, (below) this concludes the fault of this view. Chapter Six: The Dyer and the Dyed The reason for having this chapter is for a total of eight meanings. First, in the previous chapters, seeking the body is unattainable, so the emotional skandha (aggregate) eliminates the existence of this body, and six methods refute the non-existence of the body. With both existence and non-existence purified, then the body is ultimately empty. Moreover, the emotional skandha eliminates the end of the body, and six methods refute the root of the body. With both root and end purified, then both inside and outside are empty. Those who are deluded might say, if there is no body, how can there be mind? Since there is mind, there must be a body. Therefore, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra (Ten Stages Sutra) says: 'The three realms are all made by one mind.' Therefore, the mind is the root of the six realms. Since the root exists, the end cannot be non-existent. It is just that the body's appearance is coarse and obvious, so it is observed first; the mind's appearance is subtle, so it is examined later. Second, the suffering and troubles of birth and death lie in cause and effect. The emotional skandha is the effect, and the three poisons are the cause. The previous examination found no effect, and now the observation finds no cause. The Nirvana Sutra clarifies the twelve links of dependent origination (dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada), beginning with non-birth and non-cessation, and ultimately without cause and effect, clarifying the meaning of the five natures. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) observes the twelve links of dependent origination, clarifying the meaning of the three prajnas (wisdoms). Having obtained the previous chapters, both prajna and Buddha-nature are accomplished. If one sees the twelve links of dependent origination, then the river of conditions is full, and the river of nature is tilted. Now observing the twelve (dharmas) not as cause and effect, then (it)
性河滿緣河傾。本對緣河故有性河。緣河既傾性河亦息。即二河俱傾。為眾生故有緣性二方便。緣性二河俱滿義。是以此論觀十二因果義也。問何故先觀果后觀因。答果相顯因相隱。故先觀果。問智度論云。鈍根者從果觀。利根者從因觀。此論明大乘觀行雲何從果觀。答智度論云。菩薩為眾生故亦從果觀。今此論為末世鈍根故從果觀也。三者自上已來正明法空。今此一品人法雙泯。染法為因人者是果。四者的從上品末生。上云淺智見諸法若有若無相。長行雲。見諸法生時取相言有。見法滅時取相言無。外人云。若爾應有取相。取相煩惱。煩惱即是染法。起取相者即是染人。是故今品次破取相也。五者欲破一切內外大小乘人斷煩惱義。凈名經云。若須菩提不斷煩惱亦不與俱。乃可取食。明斷不斷凡有四人。一者在家凡夫。三毒現前不明除斷。二者出家外道。斷三空惑非想一地未能除之。故涅槃經云。是諸外道將盡三有而復回還。釋凡夫斷惑有二師。數家明凡夫斷惑。以數人見有得道凡夫亦見有故斷惑。成實明見空斷惑。凡夫不見空相。但就有中伏耳。三者二乘之人斷三界惑。而未除習氣及界外無明。四者大乘人具斷五住煩惱。總上四人以為二類。凡夫之人與煩惱俱。自後三種名為斷惑。若爾皆為凈名所呵。今明瞭煩惱本
不生故不與俱。今亦無滅即無所斷。乃免被呵。今此品求煩惱無從。即廣釋不斷不俱不之義。故有此品來也。六者又如諸部本有煩惱。更復種種推畫興于諍論。即于煩惱上重起煩惱。故惑不除新累更起。今此品觀煩惱畢竟皆空。即故惑既除而新惑不起名得解脫。故說此品也。七者遍釋諸大乘經甚深要觀。如無行經云。淫慾即是道恚癡亦復然。如是三法中無量諸佛道。涅槃經云心共貪生不共貪滅。若能依此品正觀煩惱即是心共貪生。不共貪滅不如此品觀。即心共貪生共貪俱滅。又法華呼斷結為除糞下賤人。今內外大小乘人言。有煩惱可斷有智慧斷。豈非除糞人耶。論主憐愍如此等人。並令成長者尊貴之子舍除糞之業。故說此品。問大品云一念相應慧斷煩惱及習。又云菩薩無礙道中行。佛在解脫道中行。諸大乘經皆明斷惑。又如地持論。菩薩斷惑障盡。佛斷智障盡。云何斷惑皆是除糞。答大乘經論明斷者。以了惑本不生故言除耳。非先有惑而後除之令無。大品又云。若先有後無諸佛菩薩即有過罪。又二十六卷最後云。諸法本有今無耶。以此推之知無所斷。無所斷即是斷耳。亦得有無礙解脫。前念知惑不生為無礙。后念無生為解脫也。八者遍釋諸大乘經方等懺悔義。如普賢觀云。十方諸佛說懺悔法。菩薩所行不斷結使不住使
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不生，所以不能與它同時存在。現在也沒有滅，所以無所斷絕。這樣才能免於被呵斥。現在這一品探求煩惱無從尋覓，就是廣泛解釋不斷、不俱、不之義。所以才有這一品的出現。六者，又如各部派原本就存在煩惱，更加以種種推演描畫，興起爭論，就是在煩惱之上又生起煩惱。所以迷惑不能消除，新的累贅又產生。現在這一品觀察煩惱畢竟皆空，就是舊的迷惑既然消除，而新的迷惑不產生，名為得到解脫。所以說這一品。七者，普遍解釋諸大乘經典甚深重要的觀察方法。如《無行經》說：『淫慾就是道，嗔恚愚癡也是如此。像這樣三種法中蘊藏著無量諸佛之道。』《涅槃經》說：『心與貪慾一同產生，不與貪慾一同滅亡。』如果能夠依照這一品正確地觀察，煩惱就是心與貪慾一同產生，不與貪慾一同滅亡。如果不像這一品這樣觀察，就是心與貪慾一同產生，也與貪慾一同滅亡。又《法華經》稱斷除煩惱為『除糞人』。現在內外大小乘人說，有煩惱可以斷除，有智慧可以斷除，難道不是除糞人嗎？論主憐憫這樣的人，並讓他們像成長者尊貴的兒子一樣捨棄除糞的行業。所以說這一品。問：大品（《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》）說：『一念相應的智慧能斷除煩惱以及習氣。』又說：『菩薩在無礙道中行走，佛在解脫道中行走。』諸大乘經典都闡明斷除迷惑。又如《地持論》，菩薩斷除惑障窮盡，佛斷除智障窮盡。為什麼說斷除迷惑都是除糞呢？答：大乘經論所說的斷除，是以瞭解迷惑的根本不生而說的斷除，並非先有迷惑，然後斷除它使之不存在。《大品》又說：『如果先有後無，諸佛菩薩就有了過失。』又第二十六卷最後說：『諸法本來有現在沒有嗎？』由此推斷可知無所斷。無所斷就是斷除。也可以得到無礙解脫。前念知道迷惑不生為無礙，后念無生為解脫。八者，普遍解釋諸大乘經典方等懺悔的意義。如《普賢觀經》說：『十方諸佛說懺悔法，菩薩所行是不間斷煩惱，不停止煩惱。』
【English Translation】 English version Not being born, it cannot exist simultaneously. Now there is also no cessation, so there is nothing to cut off. Only in this way can one avoid being reprimanded. Now this chapter explores that afflictions cannot be found, which is to extensively explain the meaning of non-cessation, non-concomitance, and non-. Therefore, this chapter exists. Sixthly, it is like various schools originally having afflictions, further elaborating and depicting them in various ways, giving rise to disputes, which is to generate afflictions on top of afflictions. Therefore, delusion cannot be eliminated, and new burdens arise. Now this chapter observes that afflictions are ultimately empty, which means that since old delusions are eliminated and new delusions do not arise, it is called obtaining liberation. Therefore, this chapter is spoken. Seventhly, it universally explains the profound and essential observations of various Mahayana sutras. For example, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Lust is the path, and so are anger and ignorance. In these three dharmas, there are immeasurable Buddha paths.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'The mind arises together with greed, and does not cease together with greed.' If one can correctly observe according to this chapter, afflictions arise together with greed in the mind, and do not cease together with greed. If one does not observe like this chapter, the mind arises together with greed and also ceases together with greed. Also, the Lotus Sutra calls those who cut off afflictions 'dung removers'. Now, people of both internal and external, small and large vehicles say that there are afflictions that can be cut off and there is wisdom that can cut them off. Are they not dung removers? The author pities such people and allows them to abandon the occupation of dung removal like the noble sons of elders. Therefore, this chapter is spoken. Question: The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says: 'Wisdom in accordance with a single thought can cut off afflictions and habits.' It also says: 'Bodhisattvas walk in the unobstructed path, and Buddhas walk in the path of liberation.' All Mahayana sutras elucidate the cutting off of delusions. Also, according to the Bodhisattva Bhumi Sutra, bodhisattvas exhaust the cutting off of the obscurations of affliction, and Buddhas exhaust the cutting off of the obscurations of knowledge. Why is it said that cutting off delusions is all dung removal? Answer: The cutting off mentioned in Mahayana sutras and treatises is spoken of in terms of understanding that the root of delusion does not arise, not that there is first delusion and then cutting it off to make it non-existent. The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra also says: 'If there is first existence and then non-existence, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas would have faults.' Also, the last part of the twenty-sixth volume says: 'Do dharmas originally exist and now not exist?' From this, it can be inferred that there is nothing to cut off. Not cutting off is cutting off. One can also obtain unobstructed liberation. Knowing that delusion does not arise in the previous thought is unobstructed, and non-arising in the subsequent thought is liberation. Eighthly, it universally explains the meaning of repentance in the Mahayana sutras. For example, the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sutra says: 'The Buddhas of the ten directions speak of the Dharma of repentance, and what bodhisattvas practice is not interrupting afflictions and not stopping afflictions.'
海。了此煩惱即是實相無煩惱可住。亦無惑可斷令此心與實相相應。於一彈指頃能滅百萬億阿僧祇劫生死之罪。況復多時。問何故爾。答夫乖理故為罪。罪即虛妄。若與實相相應即便符理。理是真實。以實治虛故滅眾罪。論主無緣大悲愍末世重罪眾生示真實方等大懺速滅三障法門。故說此品。釋染染者不同。一世間人但知有三毒不解尋究原由。外道亦明三毒。如僧佉覺諦不凈分中有黑染粗。衛世師求那諦中二十一法中有于愚者。愚即三毒中一。當知外道同明三毒。然覺與神既有一異等四家。染與者亦有一異等四計也。婆沙雜心出內學三部。謂三成部二成部一成部。犢子部具有三成。有六塵境能生三毒。故事成。有人能起三毒故人成。有煩惱為人所起故結成。薩婆多二成。實有六塵故事成。有所生三毒故結成。無人故不成。譬喻部人不成事不成。但有結成無人故人不成也。前境無定。如一女色貪人見之為凈。不凈觀人謂不凈。無預之人無所適漠故非凈不凈。悲心人見之起悲。空觀人即見其空。故境不定即境不成。唯識論及攝大乘明無有外境。是境不成義。唯有于識但是結成。今此品破染染者。即備破三種成義。以三部雖異不出人法故也。莊嚴師明有假人體。入三成部攝。光宅師明無人。入二成部攝。開善無體入二成。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 海。瞭解並超越這些煩惱，就是實相，沒有煩惱可以停留。也沒有迷惑需要斷除，使這顆心與實相相應。在一彈指的短暫時間裡，能夠滅除百萬億阿僧祇劫生死輪迴的罪業。更何況是更多的時間呢？問：為什麼會這樣呢？答：因為違背真理的緣故才產生罪業，罪業本身就是虛妄的。如果與實相相應，就符合真理。真理是真實的。用真實來對治虛妄，所以能夠滅除各種罪業。論主以無緣大慈悲之心，憐憫末世罪業深重的眾生，開示真實方等大懺悔法門，迅速滅除身口意三障的法門。所以宣說這一品。 解釋『染』和『染者』的不同。一種是世間人只知道有貪嗔癡三毒，不瞭解探究其根源。外道也明白三毒。例如，僧佉派認為覺諦的不凈部分中有黑染和粗糙。衛世師派認為求那諦中的二十一法中有愚癡。愚癡就是三毒中的一種。應當知道外道也同樣明白三毒。然而，覺與神既有一致也有差異，等等，共有四種說法。染與染者也有一致和差異，等等，共有四種計較。 《婆沙論》和《雜心論》區分了內學的三種『成』部，即三成部、二成部和一成部。犢子部具有三成：有六塵境界能夠產生三毒，所以事成；有人能夠生起三毒，所以人成；有煩惱為人所生起，所以結成。薩婆多部是二成：確實有六塵境界，所以事成；有所生起的三毒，所以結成；沒有人，所以人不成。譬喻部認為人不成，事也不成，只有結成。因為沒有人，所以人不成。前境沒有定性，例如一個女子，貪慾的人看到認為是美的，修不凈觀的人認為是不凈的，沒有關係的人則無所謂，所以既非凈也非不凈。有悲心的人看到會生起悲憫，修空觀的人則看到是空性的，所以境界沒有定性，即境不成。唯識論和《攝大乘論》闡明沒有外在的境界，這就是境不成的含義。只有識，所以只有結成。現在這一品破斥『染』和『染者』，就是全面破斥三種『成』的含義。因為這三個部派雖然不同，但都離不開人法。 莊嚴師認為有假的人體，歸入三成部所攝。光宅師認為沒有人，歸入二成部所攝。開善認為沒有實體，歸入二成。
【English Translation】 English version: Ocean. Understanding and transcending these afflictions is true reality (Skt: satya), there are no afflictions to dwell in. Nor is there delusion to be severed, causing this mind to correspond with true reality. In the space of a finger snap, one can extinguish the sins of birth and death for millions of billions of asamkhya (innumerable) kalpas (eons). How much more so with more time? Question: Why is that so? Answer: Because going against principle (Skt: dharma) is the cause of sin. Sin is illusory. If one corresponds with true reality, then one conforms to principle. Principle is truth. Using truth to cure illusion, one extinguishes all sins. The author of the treatise, with great uncaused compassion, pities sentient beings in the degenerate age who are burdened with heavy sins, revealing the true and vast repentance method of the Square and Equal (Vaipulya) scriptures, quickly extinguishing the three obstacles of body, speech, and mind. Therefore, this chapter is spoken. Explaining the difference between 'defilement' and 'the defiler'. One is that worldly people only know of the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion, without understanding and investigating their origins. Non-Buddhists also understand the three poisons. For example, the Samkhya school believes that the impure part of the awakened principle (Skt: buddhi) contains black defilement and coarseness. The Vaisheshika school believes that among the twenty-one categories (Skt: guna) in guna-tattva, there is ignorance. Ignorance is one of the three poisons. It should be known that non-Buddhists also understand the three poisons. However, the awakened principle and the self (Skt: atman) are both the same and different, etc., there are four views. Defilement and the defiler are also the same and different, etc., there are four calculations. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra and the Samyuktabhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra distinguish between the three 'accomplishment' schools of internal learning, namely the three-accomplishment school, the two-accomplishment school, and the one-accomplishment school. The Vātsīputrīya school has three accomplishments: there are six sense objects that can generate the three poisons, so the event is accomplished; there are people who can generate the three poisons, so the person is accomplished; there are afflictions generated by people, so the entanglement is accomplished. The Sarvāstivāda school has two accomplishments: there are indeed six sense objects, so the event is accomplished; there are the three poisons that are generated, so the entanglement is accomplished; there is no person, so the person is not accomplished. The Sautrāntika school believes that the person is not accomplished and the event is not accomplished, only the entanglement is accomplished. Because there is no person, the person is not accomplished. The preceding object is not fixed, for example, a woman, a greedy person sees her as beautiful, a person practicing impurity contemplation sees her as impure, a person who is unrelated is indifferent, so she is neither pure nor impure. A compassionate person will feel compassion upon seeing her, a person practicing emptiness contemplation will see her as empty, so the object is not fixed, that is, the event is not accomplished. The Yogācāra school and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-śāstra explain that there is no external object, which is the meaning of the event not being accomplished. There is only consciousness, so only the entanglement is accomplished. Now, this chapter refutes 'defilement' and 'the defiler', which is a comprehensive refutation of the meaning of the three 'accomplishments'. Because these three schools, although different, cannot be separated from person and dharma (phenomena). Master Zhuangyan believes that there is a false human body, which is included in the three-accomplishment school. Master Guangzhai believes that there is no person, which is included in the two-accomplishment school. Master Kaishan believes that there is no substance, which is included in the two-accomplishment school.
用入三成。斥同兩家之義。問既稱染染者為心性本凈故染。不凈故染。答僧祇及地論云。心性本凈如日在天本性清凈客塵煩惱染故不凈。成論師云。心有得佛之理不為煩惱所染。故云清凈。而言客塵者煩惱雖復牢固。始終可斷非永安義。故云客。薩婆多雲。本有不凈心及以凈心。但有同時染異時染義。如貪心與諸數並起。即縛同時心數。謂同時染義。復有前後染義。即是緣縛。謂貪心緣三世境縛三世境也。成論師明前三心未起貪瞋。但是無記。名之為凈。後行陰起煩惱。染前三心名為不凈。此但是前後相染無同時染。雖復有同時異時。終明有煩惱染心義。為今論主所破。問勝鬘經云。自性清凈心為客塵煩惱染。難可了知豈不同舊義耶。答此明即眾生心本清凈。于眾產生不凈。雖于眾產生不凈然未嘗不凈。即是不染而染。染而不染故云難可了知。不言實有煩惱以染心也。問煩惱為是心為非心耶。答數論同明煩惱是心法與心相應。毗婆阇婆提部明煩惱與心不相應。知雜心使品末說。今明相應不相應終有煩惱染心亦為今論所破。問文具破三毒。云何但題破染染者。答三毒俱黑行人故名染。又染是三毒初故。又生死本際有二。無明與愛。無明是前分本。已起不可治。愛是後分本。論主慈悲欲令不起三因得勉二果。故偏破染也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 用三種方式來闡述『染』的含義。駁斥僧祇律宗和地論宗兩家的觀點。問：既然稱『染染者』，那麼心性是因為本來清凈而被染污，還是因為本來就不凈而被染污？答：僧祇律宗和《地論》認為，心性本自清凈，就像太陽在天空一樣，其本性是清凈的，只是因為客塵煩惱的染污才變得不凈。成實論師認為，心具有成佛的道理，不會被煩惱所染污，所以說是清凈的。而說『客塵』，是因為煩惱雖然牢固，但終究可以斷除，不是永遠存在的，所以說是『客』。薩婆多部認為，本來就有不凈的心和清凈的心，只是有同時染污和異時染污的區別。比如貪心與各種心所同時生起，就束縛了同時的心和心所，這就是同時染污的含義。還有前後染污的含義，就是通過緣分來束縛，比如貪心緣於三世的境界，就束縛了三世的境界。成實論師認為，前三個心念未生起貪嗔時，只是無記，稱之為凈。後來行陰生起煩惱，染污了前三個心念，稱之為不凈。這只是前後相染，沒有同時染。雖然有同時和異時，最終說明有煩惱染污心的含義，這被本論的論主所破斥。問：《勝鬘經》說，自性清凈心被客塵煩惱染污，難以了知，難道不是和舊的觀點一樣嗎？答：這說明眾生的心本來是清凈的，在眾生身上才變得不凈。雖然在眾生身上變得不凈，但實際上未曾不凈，這就是不染而染，染而不染，所以說難以了知。並不是說真的有煩惱來染污心。問：煩惱是心還是非心呢？答：數論派認為煩惱是心法，與心相應。毗婆沙婆提部認為煩惱與心不相應。可以參考《雜心論》的〈使品〉末尾的說法。現在說明相應不相應，最終有煩惱染污心，也被本論所破斥。問：經文明明是破斥貪嗔癡三毒，為什麼只題為『破染染者』呢？答：因為貪嗔癡三毒都是黑色的，會使修行人墮落，所以稱為『染』。而且染是三毒的開端。另外，生死的根本有兩個，無明和愛。無明是前分的根本，已經生起就難以治療。愛是後分的根本。論主慈悲，想要讓眾生不起三因，從而避免二果，所以偏重於破斥『染』。
【English Translation】 English version Using three aspects to explain the meaning of 'staining' (染). Refuting the views of the Mahāsāṃghika (僧祇律宗) and the Daśabhūmika-sūtra school (地論宗). Question: Since it is called 'staining the stained,' is the nature of the mind stained because it is originally pure, or is it stained because it is originally impure? Answer: The Mahāsāṃghika and the Daśabhūmika-sūtra say that the nature of the mind is originally pure, like the sun in the sky, its nature is pure, but it becomes impure because of the staining of adventitious defilements (客塵煩惱). The Tattvasiddhi masters (成實論師) say that the mind has the principle of becoming a Buddha and is not stained by afflictions, so it is said to be pure. And saying 'adventitious defilements' is because although afflictions are firm, they can eventually be cut off, not eternally existing, so they are called 'adventitious.' The Sarvāstivāda (薩婆多) says that there are originally impure minds and pure minds, but there are differences between simultaneous staining and non-simultaneous staining. For example, when greed arises simultaneously with various mental factors, it binds the simultaneous mind and mental factors, which is the meaning of simultaneous staining. There is also the meaning of sequential staining, which is binding through conditions. For example, greed conditions on the realms of the three times, binding the realms of the three times. The Tattvasiddhi masters say that when the first three thoughts have not yet arisen with greed and hatred, they are merely neutral (無記), called pure. Later, when the aggregates of formation (行陰) arise with afflictions, they stain the first three thoughts, called impure. This is merely sequential staining, without simultaneous staining. Although there are simultaneous and non-simultaneous stainings, ultimately it is explained that there is the meaning of afflictions staining the mind, which is refuted by the master of this treatise. Question: The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經) says that the self-nature pure mind is stained by adventitious defilements, which is difficult to understand. Is it not the same as the old view? Answer: This explains that the minds of sentient beings are originally pure, and only become impure in sentient beings. Although they become impure in sentient beings, they have never been impure. This is staining without staining, and not staining while staining, so it is said to be difficult to understand. It does not mean that there are really afflictions to stain the mind. Question: Are afflictions mind or non-mind? Answer: The Sāṃkhya school (數論派) says that afflictions are mental dharmas, corresponding to the mind. The Vibhāṣāvadins (毗婆阇婆提部) say that afflictions do not correspond to the mind. Refer to the end of the 'Afflictions' chapter in the Abhidharma-samuccaya (雜心論). Now explaining corresponding and non-corresponding, ultimately there are afflictions staining the mind, which is also refuted by this treatise. Question: The text clearly refutes the three poisons (三毒) of greed, hatred, and delusion. Why is the title only 'Refuting the Stained'? Answer: Because the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion are all black, causing practitioners to fall, so they are called 'staining.' Moreover, staining is the beginning of the three poisons. In addition, there are two roots of birth and death: ignorance (無明) and craving (愛). Ignorance is the root of the former part, and it is difficult to cure once it has arisen. Craving is the root of the latter part. The treatise master is compassionate, wanting sentient beings not to arise with the three causes, thereby avoiding the two results, so he focuses on refuting 'staining.'
問三毒中初是貪。今云何名染。答貪雖是染染通三界。貪但欲界。今欲遍治三界惑故。破染。又貪染人故名染也。品為二。一長行立義。第二破立立中三。一總標。二解釋。三總結。初如文。貪慾有種種名下第二解釋。初名愛者如見一色初起想念名之為愛。心遂連矚爲著。纏綿深固名染。狂心發動名為淫慾。方便引取欲為己物名為貪慾。前三尚輕。即通於三有。后二遂重。但居欲界。以此三毒因緣下第三總結。三業有三種。大品經云。罪業因緣故三惡道中生。福業因緣故欲界人天中生。無動業因緣色無色界中生。成論及禪經明福業從欲界至三禪。第四禪已上名無動業。大品總相明義。后據別相說之。答曰下第二破十偈。開為六章。初兩偈前後門破。次一偈一時門破。第三兩偈一異門破。第四兩偈偏就異門破。第五兩偈呵責。第六一偈類破余法。此六門即是破斷煩惱法。大小內外言有煩惱以解斷之。今六門求煩惱得可許斷之。求既無從何所斷耶。又即是明斷煩惱法。以此六門求煩惱不得。即是正觀名無礙道。后念觀起稱為解脫道也。就初兩偈為二。一行半明前有前無人不能起染。次半偈前有。前無染不能染人。就初又二。前一偈雙縱次半行雙奪。若離於染法前自有染者。上半縱其離染法前自有人體。下半偈縱前有人體因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：三毒（貪嗔癡）中最初是貪，現在為什麼叫做染？ 答：貪雖然是染污，但染污通於三界（欲界、色界、無色界），而貪只在欲界。現在想要普遍對治三界的迷惑，所以說破染。而且貪能染污人，所以叫做染。 品分為二：一是長行立義，二是破立。破立中又分三：一總標，二解釋，三總結。首先如文所示：『貪慾有種種名』以下是第二解釋。最初名為愛，比如見到一種顏色最初產生想念，這叫做愛。心於是連續關注，這叫做著。纏綿深固，這叫做染。狂心發動，這叫做淫慾。用方便引取，想要據爲己有，這叫做貪慾。前面三種還輕微，而且通於三有（欲有、色有、無色有），後面兩種就嚴重了，只在欲界。』以此三毒因緣以下是第三總結。 三業（身口意）有三種。《大品經》說：『罪業的因緣，所以在三惡道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）中出生。福業的因緣，所以在欲界的人天中出生。無動業的因緣，在色界和無色界中出生。』《成論》和《禪經》說明福業從欲界到三禪（色界初禪、二禪、三禪）。第四禪以上叫做無動業。《大品經》是總相地說明意義，後面是根據別相來說的。 答曰以下是第二破十偈，分為六章。最初兩偈是從前後門來破，其次一偈是從一時門來破，第三兩偈是從一異門來破，第四兩偈是偏就異門來破，第五兩偈是呵責，第六一偈是類破其他法。這六門就是破除煩惱的方法。大小乘內外都說有煩惱，所以要用方法來斷除它。現在用這六門來尋求煩惱，如果能夠找到，就可以允許斷除它。既然尋求不到，又從哪裡斷除呢？ 又，這正是說明斷除煩惱的方法。用這六門來尋求煩惱而不可得，這就是正觀，叫做無礙道。后念觀生起，就稱為解脫道。就最初兩偈來說，分為二：前一行半說明前面有染法，前面沒有人就不能生起染污；後半偈說明前面有人，前面沒有染，染也不能染污人。就最初的又分為二：前面一偈是雙縱，其次半行是雙奪。如果離開染法，前面自然有染，上半偈是縱容其離開染法，前面自然有人體，下半偈是縱容前面有人體的原因。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Among the three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion), greed is the first. Why is it now called 'stain' (染)? Answer: Although greed is a stain, the stain pervades the three realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm), while greed is only in the desire realm. Now, wanting to universally treat the delusions of the three realms, we speak of breaking the stain. Moreover, greed stains people, so it is called 'stain'. The chapter is divided into two parts: first, establishing the meaning through prose; second, refuting and establishing. The refuting and establishing part is further divided into three: first, a general statement; second, an explanation; third, a conclusion. First, as the text says: 'Greed has various names.' The following is the second explanation. Initially, it is called 'love,' such as when seeing a color for the first time and generating a thought, this is called 'love.' The mind then continuously focuses on it, this is called 'attachment.' Entangled and deeply rooted, this is called 'stain.' When the mad mind is aroused, this is called 'lust.' Using expedient means to obtain it, wanting to possess it, this is called 'greed.' The first three are still slight and pervade the three existences (desire existence, form existence, and formless existence), while the latter two are more serious and only reside in the desire realm.' 'Because of these three poisons,' the following is the third conclusion. The three karmas (body, speech, and mind) are of three types. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Due to the karma of sins, one is born in the three evil paths (hell, hungry ghosts, and animals). Due to the karma of blessings, one is born among humans and gods in the desire realm. Due to the karma of non-movement, one is born in the form and formless realms.' The Chengshi Lun and Dhyana Sutra explain that the karma of blessings extends from the desire realm to the third dhyana (first dhyana, second dhyana, and third dhyana of the form realm). The fourth dhyana and above are called the karma of non-movement. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra explains the meaning in a general way, while the latter explains it according to specific aspects. The following, 'Answer,' is the second refutation of the ten verses, divided into six chapters. The first two verses refute from the front and back doors; the next verse refutes from the door of time; the third two verses refute from the door of sameness and difference; the fourth two verses refute specifically from the door of difference; the fifth two verses are a rebuke; the sixth verse refutes other dharmas by analogy. These six doors are the methods for eliminating afflictions. Both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles, internal and external, say that there are afflictions, so methods must be used to eliminate them. Now, using these six doors to seek afflictions, if they can be found, then it is permissible to eliminate them. Since they cannot be found, from where can they be eliminated? Moreover, this is precisely explaining the method for eliminating afflictions. Using these six doors to seek afflictions and not finding them, this is correct contemplation, called the unobstructed path. When the subsequent thought of contemplation arises, it is called the path of liberation. Regarding the first two verses, they are divided into two parts: the first one and a half lines explain that if there is a staining dharma in front, and there is no person in front, then staining cannot arise; the latter half of the verse explains that if there is a person in front, and there is no stain in front, then the stain cannot stain the person. Regarding the first part, it is further divided into two: the first verse is a double allowance, and the next half line is a double denial. If one leaves the staining dharma, and there is naturally stain in front, the first half of the verse allows that if one leaves the staining dharma, there is naturally a human body in front; the latter half of the verse allows the reason why there is a human body in front.
人起于染用。後半行雙奪者。初句奪上半離染前有人體。離法不得有人。故云若無有染者也。第二句奪下半因人起染用也。既無人誰起染。故言云何當有染。問前人後染此是誰義。答莊嚴云。前三心成人而未起染。即是前人後起染義。又大小內外多謂前有眾生而起于貪。今問既未有貪是何人耶。又未有貪而有人。如未有五指有卷。未有柱樑有舍。未有五陰而有人也。又莊嚴有人體。是上半有人用是下半。開善有人用是下半。若有若無染下第二次破染法。亦應有一行半偈。一行雙縱。半偈俱奪。今示存略故舉后例前。若有者初一行雙縱也。若無者半行俱奪也。所言染者亦如是者。若前有染若前無染。欲染于者同於上說故云亦如是。問前染後人此是誰義。答毗曇云。未有染法亦未有人名。因有染故方有人名。開善云。前三心有法而無人。並是前染後人也。長行前釋一行半次釋半行。釋一行半中初假設作前有前無以責外人。從要當下方順偈本。前無人則無人起染。長行前無人則無人受染。具二義也。要當先有染者。釋縱人有體。然後起染釋縱有用。若先無染者釋奪體。然則無下釋奪用也。次釋後半行易知也。問曰若染法染者先後下。第二一時門破。然此三偈如涅槃納衣梵志難也。彼難云。身為在前煩惱在前為一時有。身若在
前既無煩惱誰感身耶。若煩惱在前既未有身誰起煩惱。若言一時則不相因。佛答云。煩惱與身一時而有。雖一時有要因煩惱而有于身。終不因身有煩惱也。開善云。此正是流來無明初念同時義論因果。莊嚴云非流來義乃是明於過去身因果義耳。此二師同明一時有于因果。若爾即如今外人同受論主破也。他問。涅槃經作此說。若爾論主應是破經。答經中隨緣作如此說。何得執為定義。若定執經即為論破也。所以知者。前云經雖說有名字求實不可得也。問今云何通此經耶。答經乃是明無身亦無煩惱。何以得知。此中具破前後一時。但借一時破前後借前後破一時。煩惱與身一時而有。此是借一時破前後也。要因煩惱而有是身。此是借前後破一時。既不前不後亦不一時。豈可定執有身及以煩惱。是知虛妄不可檢責。又經明雖一時者。此是因緣假名人法一時。今外人謂有人法兩體一時並有。何以得知。若無人法兩體即無人法論何一時耶。故知有人法兩體論一時並有也。是以外人不解經意。論主深識經意。若因緣一時即無自性。無自性即人法皆空也。問人法一時是誰義耶。答成論師無明初念人法一時。又莊嚴云色識一時成人。併入此門所破。偈上半牒而非。下半作無待難以釋。並易見也。長行破一時有三過。一不相因過。不相因者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 先前既然沒有煩惱，是誰感受這個身體呢？如果煩惱在前，既然還沒有身體，是誰生起煩惱呢？如果說是同時，那就不是互相依存的關係了。佛陀回答說：『煩惱和身體是同時產生的。』雖然是同時產生，但根本上是因為煩惱才有了身體，終究不是因為身體才產生煩惱。開善法師說：『這正是流來無明（無明的最初念頭）同時產生，討論因果關係的意義。』莊嚴法師說：『不是流來無明的意義，而是闡明過去身體的因果關係。』這兩位法師都闡明因果是同時存在的。如果這樣，就和現在外道一樣，會受到論主的駁斥。 對方問：『《涅槃經》是這樣說的，如果這樣，論主豈不是在駁斥經典？』回答說：『經中是隨順因緣而這樣說的，怎麼能執著地認為是最終的定義呢？如果一定要執著于經文，就會被論主駁斥。』為什麼這樣說呢？前面說經文雖然說了有名字，但追求真實卻不可得。問：『現在如何理解這部經呢？』答：『經文是闡明既沒有身體，也沒有煩惱。』憑什麼知道呢？因為經中同時破斥了前後和一時。只是借用一時來破斥前後，借用前後破斥一時。煩惱和身體是同時產生的，這是借用一時來破斥前後。因為煩惱才有了這個身體，這是借用前後破斥一時。既不是在前，也不是在後，也不是一時，怎麼能執著地認為有身體以及煩惱呢？由此可知，這些都是虛妄的，不可追究。而且經文闡明雖然是一時，這是因緣假名的人法一時。現在外道認為有人法兩種實體同時並存。憑什麼知道呢？如果沒有人法兩種實體，就沒有人法論，又何來一時呢？所以知道有人法兩種實體，討論一時並存。因此外道不理解經文的意義，論主深刻地認識經文的意義。如果因緣一時，就沒有自性。沒有自性，那麼人法皆空。 問：『人法一時是誰的觀點呢？』答：『成實論師認為無明初念人法一時。』又莊嚴法師認為色識一時成人，都屬於這個門類所破斥的。偈頌的上半部分是照錄對方的觀點，下半部分用無待的困難來解釋，很容易理解。長行破斥一時有三個過失：一是不相因的過失。不相因就是說：
【English Translation】 English version If there was no affliction before, who feels this body? If affliction is before, and there is no body yet, who gives rise to affliction? If you say it's simultaneous, then they are not interdependent. The Buddha replied, 'Affliction and body arise simultaneously.' Although they arise simultaneously, fundamentally, it is because of affliction that there is a body; ultimately, it is not because of the body that affliction arises. Kaishan (a Buddhist master) said, 'This is precisely the meaning of the simultaneous arising of flowing ignorance (the initial thought of ignorance), discussing cause and effect.' Zhuangyan (another Buddhist master) said, 'It is not the meaning of flowing ignorance, but rather elucidates the causal relationship of the past body.' These two masters both elucidate that cause and effect exist simultaneously. If so, then it is the same as present-day outsiders, who will be refuted by the treatise master. The opponent asks, 'The Nirvana Sutra says this; if so, isn't the treatise master refuting the sutra?' The reply is, 'The sutra speaks in this way according to conditions; how can you stubbornly consider it the ultimate definition? If you insist on clinging to the sutra, you will be refuted by the treatise master.' Why is this so? Earlier, it was said that although the sutra speaks of names, seeking reality is unattainable. Question: 'How do we understand this sutra now?' Answer: 'The sutra elucidates that there is neither body nor affliction.' How do we know this? Because the sutra simultaneously refutes before and after, and simultaneous. It merely borrows simultaneous to refute before and after, and borrows before and after to refute simultaneous. Affliction and body arise simultaneously; this is borrowing simultaneous to refute before and after. Because of affliction, there is this body; this is borrowing before and after to refute simultaneous. Neither before, nor after, nor simultaneous, how can you stubbornly believe that there is a body and affliction? From this, we know that these are all illusory and cannot be investigated. Moreover, the sutra elucidates that although it is simultaneous, this is the simultaneous arising of conditioned, nominal person and dharma. Now, outsiders believe that there are two real entities of person and dharma existing simultaneously. How do we know this? If there are no two real entities of person and dharma, there is no person-dharma discourse, so how can there be simultaneous? Therefore, we know that there are two real entities of person and dharma, discussing simultaneous existence. Therefore, outsiders do not understand the meaning of the sutra; the treatise master deeply understands the meaning of the sutra. If conditions are simultaneous, there is no self-nature. If there is no self-nature, then both person and dharma are empty. Question: 'Whose view is person and dharma simultaneous?' Answer: 'The Tattvasiddhi Shastra masters believe that the initial thought of ignorance, person and dharma, are simultaneous.' Also, Zhuangyan (a Buddhist master) believes that color and consciousness simultaneously form a person, and both belong to the category being refuted. The first half of the verse is a transcription of the opponent's view, and the second half uses the difficulty of non-dependence to explain, which is easy to understand. The long passage refutes simultaneous existence with three faults: one is the fault of non-interdependence. Non-interdependence means:
有人法兩體並起即破因緣。若破因緣即破世諦及第一義。復破中道。如是世出世一切皆破。此是大過也。二明以不相因即有常過。三者以常故無解脫過。煩惱常即無有餘解脫。人常即無無餘解脫。又常是染人亦無有餘解脫。複次今當以一異法破下。第三兩偈一異門破。上前後一時並是一異。今欲相對更作一異破耳。又今作一異通破前後一時。又上三門直責人無起染之功染無染人之用。今即破無人法之體。若一若異俱無人法之體。云何有相染用耶。又前三門就人法前後豎破。今就一異橫破。就兩偈為二。前偈奪一異后偈縱一異。又前是章門。后偈解釋。又初直明不合。后出合過。初偈上半牒人法體一。一法雲何合。此破人法之用。人法既一。即無異染之人起染故。人不與染合。無異人之染以染於人故。染不與人合。下半牒人法體異。即二體各成不須合也。問一異是誰義。答莊嚴云。有假人體異實法體。是人染異義開善云。別有人用異實用。亦是異義。數義無別有人。但有人名起於五陰上即是一義。又假有即實義。假有異實義具通一異。問若人法悉有別體用。即人法並應是實。若一假一實即一有體一無體。次問開善。若假無體而有用。用本附體無體何所附。若假用附實體隨體相有實用。而假無用。又假用附實體亦應實體附
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果有人認為人（pudgala）和法（dharma）是兩個獨立的實體同時產生，這就破壞了因緣（hetupratyaya）。如果破壞了因緣，就破壞了世俗諦（saṃvṛtisatya）和第一義諦（paramārthasatya），進一步破壞了中道（madhyamā）。這樣一來，世間和出世間的一切都被破壞了，這是極大的過失啊！ 第二點說明，如果不相互依存，就會有常（nitya）的過失。第三點說明，因為是常，所以沒有解脫的可能。如果煩惱（kleśa）是常，就沒有煩惱的止息解脫；如果人是常，就沒有無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa）的解脫。而且，如果是常，那麼染污的人也沒有煩惱的止息解脫。 接下來，我將用一異（ekatva-anyatva）之法來破斥。第三部分的兩偈頌是用一異之門來破斥。上面所說的前後、一時都是一異。現在想要相對地再作一異的破斥。而且，現在所作的一異是普遍地破斥前後、一時。此外，前面三個部分只是責備人沒有生起染污的作用，染污也沒有染人的作用。現在就是要破斥無人和法的實體。無論是一還是異，都沒有人和法的實體，怎麼會有相互染污的作用呢？ 而且，前面三個部分是就人和法的前後關係進行縱向的破斥，現在是就一異的關係進行橫向的破斥。就這兩偈頌來說，分為兩個部分：前面的偈頌否定一異，後面的偈頌肯定一異。而且，前面的偈頌是總綱，後面的偈頌是解釋。此外，開始是直接說明不相合，後面指出相合的過失。第一個偈頌的上半部分是陳述人和法的本體是一，一個法怎麼能相合呢？這是破斥人和法的作用。人和法既然是一，就沒有不同於染污的人產生染污，所以人不能與染污相合；沒有不同於人的染污來染污人，所以染污不能與人相合。下半部分是陳述人和法的本體是異，既然是兩個不同的實體，各自成立，就不需要相合了。 問：一異是誰的觀點？答：莊嚴（Dignāga）說，有假名的人體是異，實有的法體是異，這是人染是異的觀點。開善（Kaidamva）說，別有假名的人的作用是異，實有的法的作用是異，這也是異的觀點。數論派（Sāṃkhya）認為沒有別於五蘊的人，只是在五蘊上安立人名，這就是一的觀點。而且，假有即是實有，假有異於實有，普遍地包含了一異。 問：如果人和法都有各自不同的本體和作用，那麼人和法都應該是實有的。如果一個是假有，一個是實有，那麼一個是有本體，一個是無本體。接下來問開善，如果假有無本體而有作用，作用本來是依附於本體的，沒有本體依附於什麼呢？如果假有的作用依附於實有的本體，那麼也應該實有的本體依附於假有的作用，而假有就無作用了。而且，假有的作用依附於實有的本體，也應該是實有的本體依附於
【English Translation】 English version: If someone claims that the pudgala (person) and dharma (phenomena) arise as two separate entities simultaneously, this destroys the hetupratyaya (causality). If causality is destroyed, then both the saṃvṛtisatya (conventional truth) and paramārthasatya (ultimate truth) are destroyed, further destroying the madhyamā (middle way). In this way, everything worldly and otherworldly is destroyed, which is a great fault! The second point explains that if there is no interdependence, there will be the fault of nitya (permanence). The third point explains that because it is permanent, there is no possibility of liberation. If kleśa (affliction) is permanent, there is no cessation of affliction and liberation; if the person is permanent, there is no nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (nirvana without remainder) liberation. Moreover, if it is permanent, then even the defiled person has no cessation of affliction and liberation. Next, I will use the principle of ekatva-anyatva (oneness and otherness) to refute. The two verses in the third part are used to refute through the gate of oneness and otherness. The previously mentioned before and after, and at the same time, are all oneness and otherness. Now, I want to relatively make another refutation of oneness and otherness. Moreover, the oneness and otherness now made is a universal refutation of before and after, and at the same time. In addition, the previous three parts only blamed that the person has no function of generating defilement, and the defilement has no function of defiling the person. Now, it is to refute the substance of no person and no dharma. Whether it is one or different, there is no substance of person and dharma, how can there be a function of mutual defilement? Moreover, the previous three parts are a vertical refutation of the relationship between person and dharma before and after, and now it is a horizontal refutation of the relationship between oneness and otherness. In terms of these two verses, they are divided into two parts: the previous verse denies oneness and otherness, and the following verse affirms oneness and otherness. Moreover, the previous verse is the outline, and the following verse is the explanation. In addition, the beginning is directly stating that they do not match, and the back points out the fault of matching. The first half of the first verse states that the substance of person and dharma is one, how can one dharma match? This is to refute the function of person and dharma. Since person and dharma are one, there is no person different from defilement that generates defilement, so the person cannot match with defilement; there is no defilement different from the person to defile the person, so the defilement cannot match with the person. The second half states that the substance of person and dharma is different, since they are two different entities, each is established, and there is no need to match. Question: Whose view is oneness and otherness? Answer: Dignāga (Dignāga) said that the body of the nominally existent person is different, and the substance of the really existent dharma is different, which is the view that the defilement of the person is different. Kaidamva (Kaidamva) said that the function of the nominally existent person is different, and the function of the really existent dharma is different, which is also the view of otherness. The Sāṃkhya (Sāṃkhya) school believes that there is no person different from the five skandhas, but only the name of the person is established on the five skandhas, which is the view of oneness. Moreover, nominal existence is real existence, and nominal existence is different from real existence, which universally includes oneness and otherness. Question: If person and dharma each have their own different substance and function, then person and dharma should both be real. If one is nominally existent and the other is really existent, then one has substance and the other has no substance. Next, ask Kaidamva, if the nominally existent has no substance but has function, the function is originally attached to the substance, what does it attach to without substance? If the function of the nominally existent is attached to the substance of the really existent, then the substance of the really existent should also be attached to the function of
假用。若互相附則應互假互實也。又若假用異實用。以實為假體者。亦應香用異色用以色為香體。若色不成香非色為香體者。色不成香可言其異。實既成假應不得異。若一有合者。第二偈縱一異也。上半縱一有合。下半縱異有合。上偈明一法無合。故是奪。今許一有合以顯其過。故是縱關。離伴應有合者。正難一合也。伴有親疏人為染伴。染為人伴。此親伴也。因六根六塵而起貪。此是疏伴。又依毗曇諸心相依共起。亦是伴。人染若一而言合者。則唯是人無有染伴。此應有合。不爾則唯是染無有人伴。此亦應合也。不爾則非是人亦非是染。直名一物都無人染二伴。此應有合也。下半破異有合者。凡有二過一者既異染而人自有體。不須染伴異人有染自體。染不須人伴。二者近異相須而遂合者。東西遠異亦應合也。問一異俱稱離伴有何異耶。答一明離伴此是獨合。以無伴故言其離。異明離伴。此是各合。有伴而合離伴各自合。有二伴而相離也。又一既無伴應與空合。而空不可合也。人與染異遂與染合。人與柱異應與柱合。又一則無伴異則非伴。猶如瓶衣。瓶非衣伴以伴是伴類義故。又問一物可得相離不。若不可相離豈得相成合也。又若一有合者亦應一法有伴。而一法無伴則一法無合。常解。四微成柱凡有二說。或言有間。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 假設使用。如果互相依附，就應該互相假設互相真實。又如果假設使用不同的實際作用，以實際作為假設的本體，也應該香的使用不同於顏色的使用，以顏色作為香的本體。如果顏色不能成為香，不是顏色作為香的本體，顏色不能成為香，可以說它們是不同的。實際已經成為假設，就不應該有不同。如果『一』有結合，那麼第二個偈頌就縱容了『一』和『異』的結合。上半部分縱容『一』有結合，下半部分縱容『異』有結合。上面的偈頌說明『一』法沒有結合，所以是奪取。現在允許『一』有結合，是爲了顯示它的過失，所以是縱容。離開伴侶應該有結合，這是正難『一』的結合。伴侶有親疏，人作為染污的伴侶，染污作為人的伴侶，這是親近的伴侶。因為六根六塵而生起貪慾，這是疏遠的伴侶。又依據《毗曇》，諸心相互依靠共同生起，也是伴侶。人與染污如果是一，而說結合，那麼就只有人，沒有染污的伴侶。這應該有結合。否則就只有染污，沒有人作為伴侶。這也應該結合。否則就不是人，也不是染污，直接稱為一個事物，都沒有人與染污這兩個伴侶。這應該有結合。下半部分破斥『異』有結合，凡是有兩個過失：一是既然染污是不同的，而人自有本體，不需要染污的伴侶；不同的人有染污的自體，染污不需要人的伴侶。二是近處不同的事物相互需要而結合，那麼東西遠處的不同事物也應該結合。問：『一』和『異』都稱為離開伴侶，有什麼不同呢？答：『一』說明離開伴侶，這是獨自結合。因為沒有伴侶，所以說它離開。『異』說明離開伴侶，這是各自結合。有伴侶而結合，離開伴侶各自結合。有兩個伴侶而相互分離。又『一』既然沒有伴侶，應該與空結合，而空是不可結合的。人與染污不同，就與染污結合。人與柱子不同，就應該與柱子結合。又『一』就沒有伴侶，『異』就不是伴侶，猶如瓶子和衣服。瓶子不是衣服的伴侶，因為伴侶是同類的事物。又問：一個事物可以相互分離嗎？如果不可相互分離，怎麼能夠相成結合呢？又如果『一』有結合，也應該『一』法有伴侶。而『一』法沒有伴侶，那麼『一』法就沒有結合。常有的解釋是，四微塵形成柱子，凡是有兩種說法，或者說有間隔。 English version: Hypothetical use. If they mutually adhere, then they should be mutually hypothetical and mutually real. Furthermore, if a hypothetical use employs a different actual function, with the actual being taken as the hypothetical substance, then the use of fragrance should also differ from the use of color, with color being taken as the substance of fragrance. If color cannot become fragrance, and color is not the substance of fragrance, then since color cannot become fragrance, it can be said that they are different. Since the actual has already become hypothetical, it should not be different. If 'one' has combination, then the second verse indulges in the combination of 'one' and 'different'. The first half indulges in 'one' having combination, and the second half indulges in 'different' having combination. The previous verse explained that 'one' dharma has no combination, so it is a deprivation. Now, allowing 'one' to have combination is to reveal its fault, so it is indulgence. To have combination while being apart from companions is a direct challenge to the combination of 'one'. Companions have closeness and distance; a person as a companion of defilement (raga) , and defilement as a companion of a person, this is a close companion. Because of the six sense bases (ayatana) and the six sense objects (visaya), greed arises; this is a distant companion. Also, according to the Abhidharma (毗曇), the various mental states (citta) rely on each other and arise together, which are also companions. If a person and defilement are one, and it is said that they combine, then there is only the person, and no companion of defilement. This should have combination. Otherwise, there is only defilement, and no person as a companion. This should also have combination. Otherwise, it is neither a person nor defilement, directly called one thing, without the two companions of person and defilement. This should have combination. The second half refutes 'different' having combination. There are two faults: first, since defilement is different, and the person has its own substance, it does not need a companion of defilement; a different person has the self-nature of defilement, and defilement does not need a companion of a person. Second, if things that are different in proximity need each other and then combine, then things that are different in distance, such as east and west, should also combine. Question: 'One' and 'different' are both called being apart from companions, what is the difference? Answer: 'One' explains being apart from companions, which is combining alone. Because there is no companion, it is said to be apart. 'Different' explains being apart from companions, which is combining separately. Having companions and combining, being apart from companions and combining separately. There are two companions that are separated from each other. Also, since 'one' has no companion, it should combine with emptiness (sunyata), but emptiness cannot be combined with. A person is different from defilement, so it combines with defilement. A person is different from a pillar, so it should combine with a pillar. Also, 'one' has no companion, and 'different' is not a companion, like a bottle and clothing. A bottle is not a companion of clothing, because a companion is of the same kind. Also, question: can one thing be separated from each other? If they cannot be separated from each other, how can they complete and combine with each other? Also, if 'one' has combination, then 'one' dharma should also have a companion. But 'one' dharma has no companion, so 'one' dharma has no combination. The common explanation is that four subtle particles (paramanu) form a pillar. There are two explanations: either there is space between them.
【English Translation】 English version:
謂色處無香故也。復言無間。謂色處有香。今問若言有間則色處無香。云何共合。以各二處故。若言無間則色處有香。便是一物。云何言異而共合耶。又人法二名。得是一者善惡亦二名。色心二名。亦應一也。長行雲余因緣者。人是染余染是人余。又假內根外塵故生於染。此亦是余因緣也。所以作此破者。既異染自有人體。則不須根塵因緣生染成人體也。問曰一不合可爾者。此生下第四重破異。衛世四合知生。是異合義。又外道染是無常人是常而共合。求那諦中義正爾也。又成論師云。境無淺深生滅。智自有淺深生滅。故智會於境。亦是異合義。數人根塵異而共合。成實云。人是假染為實。是故合。亦是異合。前問次答。問為二。一領上。次舉眼見異合者。舌立已窮。故舉眼救也。答中為二。初偈縱異有合。合則無用。后偈明無用故無合。即是奪異合也。就前有二。上半牒而責。何事者。若染不能自有須人起染。則人有起染之事。人不能自成。須染成人染有成人之事。今染既自有不須人起故人無起染之事。人亦自有不須染成。故染無成人之事。又人染異義已成。何事須合。此是直責之辭耳。下半釋成也。又異則水火何相預事。若染及染者下此第二奪異合也。上半牒異。下半破合易見也。異相無有成下。第五兩偈呵責破
。此兩偈可有二意。一者從品初長行竟於品末而釋之。外人品初長行知人法異為無成。立人法相依為欲合。品初五偈破為竟無成。眼見異法合為而復說異相。二者直依偈文次第釋者。就文為二。初偈序其失宗。次偈呵責其欲合。異相無有成者。牒品初二偈也。以二偈責法人前後相不成故也。是故汝欲合者序外人舍前後而立一時也。合相竟無成者。序破一時一偈並一異兩偈。覓合不成故云合相竟無成。此三都是責合相不成也。而復說異相者。序外人偏引眼見異相合也。異相不成故者。此第二偈呵之也。偈呵最後立異有合。又惑者多計異合故偏呵之。此偈上半牒二無。下半呵二有。二無者一者無異也。凡論有異不出前後一時及上離伴等異。上已明無此等異故言異相不成也。合相則不成者。次牒無合也。從品初來求先後一時及一異等。一切合義不得也。於何異相中下。此呵二有也。初句呵無異計異。夫論有異不出先後一時及一異中異。汝眼見何物異耶。上來諸門責心不見有合。今責眼即眼不能見也。既覓異不得故云於何異相中。而欲說合相次句呵其無合計合。如是染染者下。第六類破諸法。上半牒前。下半類法。又上半牒豎破五句。下半橫例萬法。上來破其合義不成。恐畏謂不合應有人法。故復破其不合也。又初兩偈明人法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這兩首偈頌可以有兩種解釋。第一種是從本品開頭的長行文，到本品末尾來解釋。外道在本品開頭的長行文中，認為人法不同，所以不能成就。建立人法相互依存的觀點，是爲了想要調和。本品開頭的五首偈頌，是爲了破斥『畢竟無成』的觀點。『眼見異法合為』，是指他們又說不同的表象。 第二種是直接按照偈頌的文句順序來解釋。就文句來說，分為兩部分。第一首偈頌敘述他們失去宗旨。第二首偈頌呵責他們想要調和。『異相無有成者』，是呼應本品開頭的兩首偈頌。因為這兩首偈頌責備外道在人法上的前後觀點不能自圓其說。所以，『汝欲合者』，是敘述外道捨棄前後觀點，而立足於一時的觀點。『合相竟無成者』，是敘述破斥一時觀點的一首偈頌，以及一異兩首偈頌。因為尋求調和不能成功，所以說『合相竟無成』。這三句都是責備調和的觀點不能成立。『而復說異相者』，是敘述外道偏執地引用眼見的不同表象來調和。『異相不成故者』，這是第二首偈頌對他們的呵斥。偈頌呵斥他們最後建立的『異』中有『合』的觀點。而且迷惑的人大多計較『異』和『合』，所以特別呵斥這一點。這首偈頌的上半部分呼應『二無』，下半部分呵斥『二有』。『二無』，一是無異。凡是討論『有異』，都離不開前後、一時，以及上文所說的離伴等『異』。上文已經說明沒有這些『異』，所以說『異相不成也』。『合相則不成者』，接著呼應『無合』。從本品開頭以來，尋求先後、一時，以及一異等，一切調和的意義都不能成立。『於何異相中下』，這是呵斥『二有』。第一句呵斥沒有『異』卻計較『異』。凡是討論『有異』，都離不開先後、一時，以及一異中的『異』。你用眼睛看到了什麼『異』呢？上文用各種方式責備他們的心，認為他們沒有看到『有合』，現在責備他們的眼睛，認為眼睛也不能看到『有合』。既然尋求『異』不能得到，所以說『於何異相中』。『而欲說合相』，下一句呵斥他們沒有『合』卻計較『合』。『如是染染者下』，第六類破斥諸法。上半部分呼應前文，下半部分類比其他法。又上半部分呼應豎向破斥的五句，下半部分橫向類比萬法。上文破斥他們調和的意義不能成立，恐怕他們認為不調和應該有人法，所以又破斥他們的不調和。又開頭兩首偈頌說明人法。 English version: These two verses can have two interpretations. The first is to interpret them from the long passage at the beginning of the chapter to the end of the chapter. Outsiders, in the long passage at the beginning of the chapter, believe that because the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma] are different, they cannot be accomplished. Establishing the view that the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma] are interdependent is to try to reconcile them. The five verses at the beginning of the chapter are to refute the view of 'ultimately no accomplishment'. 'Seeing different dharmas combined' refers to them speaking of different appearances again. The second is to interpret them directly according to the order of the sentences in the verses. In terms of the sentences, it is divided into two parts. The first verse narrates their loss of purpose. The second verse rebukes their desire to reconcile. 'Different appearances have no accomplishment' echoes the two verses at the beginning of the chapter. This is because these two verses blame the outsiders for the inconsistency of their previous and subsequent views on the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma]. Therefore, 'You who desire to combine' narrates the outsiders abandoning the previous and subsequent views and establishing themselves on the view of one time. 'Combining appearances ultimately has no accomplishment' narrates the verse refuting the view of one time, as well as the two verses of one and different. Because seeking reconciliation cannot succeed, it is said that 'Combining appearances ultimately has no accomplishment'. These three sentences all blame the view of reconciliation for not being able to be established. 'And again speak of different appearances' narrates the outsiders' biased citation of the different appearances seen by the eye to reconcile. 'Different appearances are not accomplished' is the second verse's rebuke of them. The verse rebukes the view of 'different' having 'combination' that they finally established. Moreover, confused people mostly dwell on 'difference' and 'combination', so this point is particularly rebuked. The first half of this verse echoes 'two non-existences', and the second half rebukes 'two existences'. 'Two non-existences' refers to one, the non-existence of difference. Whenever 'existence of difference' is discussed, it cannot be separated from before and after, one time, and the separation from companions, etc., mentioned above. The above has already explained that there are no such differences, so it is said that 'different appearances are not accomplished'. 'Combining appearances is then not accomplished' then echoes 'non-existence of combination'. Since the beginning of this chapter, seeking before and after, one time, and one difference, etc., all meanings of reconciliation cannot be established. 'In what different appearances below' is the rebuke of 'two existences'. The first sentence rebukes the dwelling on 'difference' without 'difference'. Whenever 'existence of difference' is discussed, it cannot be separated from before and after, one time, and the 'difference' in one difference. What 'difference' did you see with your eyes? The above used various methods to blame their minds, believing that they did not see 'existence of combination', and now blames their eyes, believing that the eyes cannot see 'existence of combination' either. Since seeking 'difference' cannot be obtained, it is said 'In what different appearances'. 'And desire to speak of combining appearances', the next sentence rebukes their dwelling on 'combination' without 'combination'. 'Thus, dyeing, dyeing, etc. below' is the sixth category of refuting all dharmas. The first half echoes the previous text, and the second half analogizes other dharmas. Also, the first half echoes the five sentences of vertical refutation, and the second half horizontally analogizes all dharmas. The above refuted that their meaning of reconciliation cannot be established, fearing that they would think that non-reconciliation should have person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma], so it also refutes their non-reconciliation. Also, the first two verses explain the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma].
【English Translation】 English version: These two verses can have two interpretations. The first is to interpret them from the long passage at the beginning of the chapter to the end of the chapter. Outsiders, in the long passage at the beginning of the chapter, believe that because the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma] are different, they cannot be accomplished. Establishing the view that the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma] are interdependent is to try to reconcile them. The five verses at the beginning of the chapter are to refute the view of 'ultimately no accomplishment'. 'Seeing different dharmas combined' refers to them speaking of different appearances again. The second is to interpret them directly according to the order of the sentences in the verses. In terms of the sentences, it is divided into two parts. The first verse narrates their loss of purpose. The second verse rebukes their desire to reconcile. 'Different appearances have no accomplishment' echoes the two verses at the beginning of the chapter. This is because these two verses blame the outsiders for the inconsistency of their previous and subsequent views on the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma]. Therefore, 'You who desire to combine' narrates the outsiders abandoning the previous and subsequent views and establishing themselves on the view of one time. 'Combining appearances ultimately has no accomplishment' narrates the verse refuting the view of one time, as well as the two verses of one and different. Because seeking reconciliation cannot succeed, it is said that 'Combining appearances ultimately has no accomplishment'. These three sentences all blame the view of reconciliation for not being able to be established. 'And again speak of different appearances' narrates the outsiders' biased citation of the different appearances seen by the eye to reconcile. 'Different appearances are not accomplished' is the second verse's rebuke of them. The verse rebukes the view of 'different' having 'combination' that they finally established. Moreover, confused people mostly dwell on 'difference' and 'combination', so this point is particularly rebuked. The first half of this verse echoes 'two non-existences', and the second half rebukes 'two existences'. 'Two non-existences' refers to one, the non-existence of difference. Whenever 'existence of difference' is discussed, it cannot be separated from before and after, one time, and the separation from companions, etc., mentioned above. The above has already explained that there are no such differences, so it is said that 'different appearances are not accomplished'. 'Combining appearances is then not accomplished' then echoes 'non-existence of combination'. Since the beginning of this chapter, seeking before and after, one time, and one difference, etc., all meanings of reconciliation cannot be established. 'In what different appearances below' is the rebuke of 'two existences'. The first sentence rebukes the dwelling on 'difference' without 'difference'. Whenever 'existence of difference' is discussed, it cannot be separated from before and after, one time, and the 'difference' in one difference. What 'difference' did you see with your eyes? The above used various methods to blame their minds, believing that they did not see 'existence of combination', and now blames their eyes, believing that the eyes cannot see 'existence of combination' either. Since seeking 'difference' cannot be obtained, it is said 'In what different appearances'. 'And desire to speak of combining appearances', the next sentence rebukes their dwelling on 'combination' without 'combination'. 'Thus, dyeing, dyeing, etc. below' is the sixth category of refuting all dharmas. The first half echoes the previous text, and the second half analogizes other dharmas. Also, the first half echoes the five sentences of vertical refutation, and the second half horizontally analogizes all dharmas. The above refuted that their meaning of reconciliation cannot be established, fearing that they would think that non-reconciliation should have person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma], so it also refutes their non-reconciliation. Also, the first two verses explain the person-dharma (ren fa) [person and dharma].
前後義。即是不合。從一時已下竟品是破合義。長行雲非前非後者。品初二偈也。非合非散者。從一時偈及一異也。
三相品第七
有此品來者。從因緣竟於染染者明無所相法。今此一品明無能相。以能相所相不可得則有為空。有為空故無為亦空。為無為空故一切法畢竟空。即是諸法實相。令因此實相發生正觀。滅諸煩惱。故得解脫。所以有此品也。問正得何解脫耶。答既明畢竟空即是佛行處。故智度論云。畢竟空是佛所行。而此論正明一切眾生並令成佛。但畢竟空觀未明故有菩薩。故序云于菩薩之行道場之照朗然懸解矣。二者就薩婆多義明法有三種。一者色法。二者心法。三者非色非心法。因緣已來破色。染者破心。今破三相。破非色非心。三聚名有為。滅此三名無為。有為無為此是法體。有法體故有名字。法體既無則名亦不立。故名無得物之功。物無應名之實。名無得物之功。則非名物無應名之實。即非物非名。非物名物安在。不知何以目之。強稱實相。因實相生實觀。為眾生故還如實說。故有正觀論三名也。三者上來六情五陰名為別法。三相通遷情陰稱為通法。上求別法無從。今明通相非有。通別既無即諸法皆畢竟空。所以明畢竟空者。此是十方三世諸佛出世。為一大事因緣。即是示真實相。而有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：前後矛盾，即是不合邏輯。從『一時』以下直到本品結束，都是爲了破除這種『合』的觀念。長行中說的『非前非后』，指的是本品開頭的兩個偈頌。『非合非散』，指的是從『一時』這個偈頌開始，以及『一異』的討論。
三相品第七
設立此品的目的是：從因緣品到染品，闡明了『無所相法』。現在這一品闡明『無能相』。因為能相和所相都不可得，所以有為法是空性的。因為有為法是空性的，所以無為法也是空性的。因為無有有為和無為，所以一切法畢竟空，這就是諸法的實相。爲了讓人們因此實相生起正確的觀想，滅除各種煩惱，從而得到解脫，所以設立此品。問：正確地能得到什麼樣的解脫呢？答：既然闡明了畢竟空，那就是佛所行之處。所以《智度論》說：『畢竟空是佛所行。』而此論正是要闡明一切眾生並令成佛。但畢竟空的觀想尚未明晰，所以還有菩薩。所以序言說：『對於菩薩的行道，道場的照耀，朗然懸解了。』第二，就薩婆多（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的觀點來說，法有三種：一是色法，二是心法，三是非色非心法。因緣品以來破斥色法，染品破斥心法，現在破斥三相，破斥非色非心法。這三種聚合稱為有為法。滅除這三種就稱為無為法。有為和無為是法的本體。因為有法體，所以有名字。法體既然沒有，那麼名字也無法成立。所以名字沒有獲得事物的功能，事物也沒有應合名字的實際。名字沒有獲得事物的功能，那麼就不是名字，事物也沒有應合名字的實際，那就既不是事物也不是名字。非物非名，物又在哪裡呢？不知道用什麼來稱呼它，勉強稱之為實相。因為實相產生真實的觀想，爲了眾生，所以還如實地說。所以《正觀論》有三種名稱。第三，上面所說的六情五陰稱為別法，三相普遍遷移情陰，稱為通法。上面尋求別法無從下手，現在闡明通相併非實有。通相和別相既然都沒有，那麼諸法都是畢竟空。所以闡明畢竟空的原因是，這是十方三世諸佛出世，爲了一件大事因緣，那就是揭示真實之相。 而有
【English Translation】 English version: Contradictory before and after means illogical. From 'at one time' downwards to the end of this chapter is to break the concept of 'combination'. The 'neither before nor after' mentioned in the prose refers to the first two verses of this chapter. 'Neither combined nor scattered' refers to the verse 'at one time' and the discussion of 'one and different'.
Chapter 7: Three Characteristics
The purpose of establishing this chapter is: from the chapter on conditions to the chapter on defilement, it clarifies the 'law of no characteristics'. This chapter now clarifies 'no able characteristic'. Because the able characteristic and the characterized are both unattainable, conditioned dharmas are empty. Because conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are also empty. Because there are no conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, all dharmas are ultimately empty, which is the true nature of all dharmas. In order to allow people to generate correct contemplation from this true nature, extinguish various afflictions, and thus attain liberation, this chapter is established. Question: What kind of liberation can be correctly attained? Answer: Since it clarifies ultimate emptiness, that is where the Buddha walks. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says: 'Ultimate emptiness is what the Buddha walks.' And this treatise is precisely to clarify that all sentient beings can become Buddhas. However, the contemplation of ultimate emptiness is not yet clear, so there are still Bodhisattvas. Therefore, the preface says: 'For the Bodhisattva's practice, the illumination of the Bodhimanda is clearly understood.' Second, according to the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada, the school of 'everything exists'), there are three types of dharmas: first, form dharmas; second, mind dharmas; and third, neither form nor mind dharmas. The chapter on conditions has refuted form dharmas, the chapter on defilement has refuted mind dharmas, and now it refutes the three characteristics, refuting neither form nor mind dharmas. These three aggregates are called conditioned dharmas. Eliminating these three is called unconditioned dharmas. Conditioned and unconditioned are the substance of dharmas. Because there is a dharma substance, there is a name. Since the dharma substance does not exist, then the name cannot be established. Therefore, the name has no function of obtaining things, and things do not correspond to the reality of the name. The name has no function of obtaining things, then it is neither a name nor a thing, and things do not correspond to the reality of the name, then it is neither a thing nor a name. If it is neither a thing nor a name, where are things? Not knowing what to call it, it is reluctantly called true nature. Because true nature produces true contemplation, for the sake of sentient beings, it is still spoken truthfully. Therefore, the Madhyamaka-karika has three names. Third, the six senses and five aggregates mentioned above are called separate dharmas, and the three characteristics universally migrate the senses and aggregates, which are called common dharmas. Above, seeking separate dharmas has no way to start, and now it clarifies that common characteristics are not real. Since both common and separate characteristics do not exist, then all dharmas are ultimately empty. Therefore, the reason for clarifying ultimate emptiness is that this is the appearance of Buddhas in the ten directions and three times, for the sake of a great cause and condition, which is to reveal the true nature. And there is
三相不同者。此是如幻如夢。隨凡夫故說耳。即是開方便門。三世十方佛唯有示真實開方便。龍樹正申此二意。所以明此二者。即令識權實二智。入佛知見故得成佛也。三相一品既明實權二事。二十七品及三論一切佛法皆亦如是。但今品一週觀行既竟。故寄此品論耳。四者依三解脫門來者。六種破身相。染染者品破心相。此二破于所相。今一品次破能相。即眾相都寂。又六種破空相。染品及三相品破于有相。破空有二相即一切相空。五者因緣品就四緣求生不得。釋八不無生。今此品觀三相不可得。亦為成無生。所以始終皆明無生者。為欲顯七品是一週大乘觀行已竟。都為顯無生故也。六者言次相接從染者品生者。染品明無世間之因。外云三相是一切有為法因。今既有三相即有萬化之果。故有此品來也。問云何為三相耶。答薩婆多雲。離法體外別有三相。故法體通於三聚。而三相但是非色非心。屬行陰攝。成實僧祇等云。離法體外無別有相。即法起為生法停為住。法謝稱滅也。問三相為是有為為是無為。答數論同云。三相是有為法。毗婆阇提云。有為之法體不自固。何能相他。遂能相他。當知三相是無為法。猶如虛空能生萬化。次曇摩崛云。生住二相是有為法。滅相是無為法。故三相亦有為亦無為也。問三相為一時為前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『三相不同』的說法，這只是如幻如夢的比喻，是隨順凡夫的說法。這實際上是開啟方便之門。三世十方諸佛只是爲了展示真實，才開啟方便之門。龍樹菩薩正是闡述這兩種意旨。所以闡明這二者，是爲了讓人認識權智和實智，進入佛的知見，從而成就佛果。『三相品』既然闡明了權實二事，那麼第二十七品以及三論的一切佛法也都是如此。只不過現在這一品的一週觀行已經結束，所以藉由這一品來討論而已。 第四，依據三解脫門來說，『六種破身相』，『染染者品』破心相，這兩者破的是所相。現在這一品接著破能相，也就是眾相都寂滅。另外，『六種破空相』，『染品』和『三相品』破的是有相。破空有二相，也就是一切相空。 第五，『因緣品』就四緣求生而不可得，解釋了八不中的『無生』。現在這一品觀察三相不可得，也是爲了成就無生。所以始終都闡明無生，是爲了顯示前七品是一週大乘觀行已經結束，都是爲了顯示無生。 第六，從文句的順序上來看，是從『染者品』產生的。『染品』闡明沒有世間的因。外面說三相是一切有為法的因，現在既然有三相，就有萬化的果，所以才有這一品的出現。 問：什麼是三相呢？ 答：薩婆多部（Sarvastivadins，一切有部）認為，在法體之外，另外有三相，所以法體貫通於三聚（過去、現在、未來），而三相只是非色非心，屬於行陰所攝。成實宗（Satyasiddhi school）和僧祇部（Mahasanghika）等認為，在法體之外沒有另外的相，法生起就是生相，法停住就是住相，法謝落就稱為滅相。 問：三相是有為法還是無為法？ 答：數論派（Samkhya）一致認為，三相是有為法。毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）認為，有為法的本體不能自固，怎麼能相他呢？既然能相他，應當知道三相是無為法，猶如虛空能生萬化。其次，曇摩崛多部（Dharmaguptaka）認為，生相和住相是有為法，滅相是無為法，所以三相既是有為法也是無為法。 問：三相是一時的還是前
【English Translation】 English version: The statement that 'the three characteristics are different' is merely a metaphor like illusion and dream, spoken to accommodate ordinary people. It is actually opening the door of expedient means. The Buddhas of the three times and ten directions only open the door of expedient means to reveal the truth. Nagarjuna (Longshu, a famous Buddhist philosopher) precisely expounds these two intentions. Therefore, clarifying these two is to enable people to recognize the wisdom of expedient means and the wisdom of reality, enter the knowledge and vision of the Buddha, and thus achieve Buddhahood. Since the 'Chapter on the Three Characteristics' clarifies the two matters of expedient means and reality, the twenty-seventh chapter and all the Buddha-dharma in the Three Treatises are also like this. However, since the one-week contemplation practice of this chapter has already ended, it is discussed through this chapter. Fourth, according to the Three Doors of Liberation, the 'Six Kinds of Breaking the Body Characteristic', the 'Chapter on the Defiled and the Defiler' breaks the mind characteristic, these two break the object characteristic. Now this chapter continues to break the subject characteristic, which is the quiescence of all characteristics. In addition, the 'Six Kinds of Breaking the Empty Characteristic', the 'Chapter on Defilement' and the 'Chapter on the Three Characteristics' break the existence characteristic. Breaking the two characteristics of emptiness and existence means that all characteristics are empty. Fifth, the 'Chapter on Conditions' seeks birth through the four conditions but cannot obtain it, explaining 'non-birth' among the Eight No's. Now this chapter observes that the three characteristics are unattainable, also to achieve non-birth. Therefore, the entire text clarifies non-birth, to show that the previous seven chapters are a one-week Mahayana (Dacheng, the Great Vehicle) contemplation practice that has ended, all to reveal non-birth. Sixth, from the sequence of sentences, it arises from the 'Chapter on the Defiled'. The 'Chapter on Defilement' clarifies that there is no cause of the world. Externally, it is said that the three characteristics are the cause of all conditioned dharmas. Now that there are three characteristics, there will be the result of myriad transformations, so this chapter appears. Question: What are the three characteristics? Answer: The Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins, a major early Buddhist school) believe that outside the dharma-body, there are three separate characteristics, so the dharma-body pervades the three periods (past, present, and future), while the three characteristics are only non-form and non-mind, belonging to the aggregate of formations. The Satyasiddhi school (Satyasiddhi school, a Buddhist school) and the Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika, an early Buddhist school) etc. believe that there are no separate characteristics outside the dharma-body, the arising of dharma is the characteristic of birth, the abiding of dharma is the characteristic of duration, and the decline of dharma is called the characteristic of cessation. Question: Are the three characteristics conditioned dharmas or unconditioned dharmas? Answer: The Samkhya (Samkhya, a school of Indian philosophy) school unanimously believes that the three characteristics are conditioned dharmas. The Vaibhashika (Vaibhashika, a school of Buddhist philosophy) believes that the essence of conditioned dharmas cannot secure itself, how can it characterize others? Since it can characterize others, it should be known that the three characteristics are unconditioned dharmas, like empty space that can generate myriad transformations. Secondly, the Dharmaguptaka (Dharmaguptaka, an early Buddhist school) believes that the characteristics of birth and duration are conditioned dharmas, and the characteristic of cessation is an unconditioned dharma, so the three characteristics are both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Question: Are the three characteristics simultaneous or prior?
后。答譬喻部云。前生次住后滅。故三相前後。成實論文云。三有為法皆在現在。凈名經云。汝等比丘即時亦生亦老亦死。觀此經論是一時有。阿毗曇云。體即同時用有前後。如三相與法必俱。法在未來相亦未來。法起現在相亦現在。法謝過去相亦同謝。故有為法必與相共俱。故言體同時而生用之時未有住用。住用之時生用已廢。故用前後也。問三相為是時名為是法稱。答諸部並計三相是法。但開善言。三相既能生法是時名也。小莊嚴榮法師云。三相是法體名。而時無別體。莊嚴云三相非法非時。是時中精義。問三相為當體受名。為從用為目。答一云三相能生。法體是所生。從所生作名也。次云從用受名以。有能生他之用故名生也。婆沙問云。若一切眾生悉有滅相者。一切眾生並應有死屍現。答若根法滅非根法生。即有死屍現。今根法滅還根法生故尸不現。二者眾生業力持故尸不現。問何故破三相耶。答有四義。一者執三相者。多是小乘。唯得生空不得法空。謂決定有三相。今令其信諸法空故破三相。二者復有小乘人。如成實等亦得法空。但不知三相本性空。今令其信三相本性自空。故破三相也。三者大小內外作三相義互相破斥。義自不成。今顯其不成之相。是故云破耳。其還是立相者自破。非論主破也。如執無別體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 后。答：譬喻部說，前一生的狀態是先生存，然後滅亡，所以生、住、滅三相是前後相續的。成實論的論文中說，所有有為法都存在於現在。維摩詰經中說，『你們這些比丘，即時也生，也老，也死。』觀察這些經論，三相是一時存在的。阿毗曇說，本體是同時存在，作用有先後。例如，生、住、滅三相與法必然同時存在。法在未來，相也在未來；法生起于現在，相也生起于現在；法消逝於過去，相也同樣消逝於過去。所以有為法必然與三相共同存在。因此說本體是同時產生，但產生的作用在住的作用還未發生時並沒有；住的作用發生時，產生的用處已經廢止，所以作用有先後。問：生、住、滅三相是時間的名稱，還是法的稱謂？答：各個部派都認為三相是法。但開善說，三相既然能夠產生法，就是時間的名稱。小莊嚴榮法師說，三相是法的本體的名稱，而時間沒有別的本體。莊嚴說三相既非法也不是時間，這是時間中的精義。問：三相是當體接受名稱，還是從作用來命名？答：一種說法是三相能夠產生法，法體是被產生的，從被產生的來命名。另一種說法是從作用接受名稱，因為有能夠產生其他事物的用處，所以叫做生。婆沙問：如果一切眾生都有滅相，那麼一切眾生都應該有死屍出現。答：如果根法滅亡而非根法產生，就會有死屍出現。現在根法滅亡而根法還產生，所以屍體不出現。二是眾生的業力在維持，所以屍體不出現。問：為什麼要破斥三相呢？答：有四種原因。一是執著三相的人，大多是小乘，只證得生空而不能證得法空，認為決定有三相。現在爲了讓他們相信諸法是空性的，所以破斥三相。二是還有小乘人，如成實宗等，也證得法空，但不知道三相的本性是空性的，現在爲了讓他們相信三相的本性本來就是空性的，所以破斥三相。三是大小乘、內外的三相的定義互相破斥，義理自身不能成立。現在顯現其不能成立的相狀，所以說是破斥。其實還是立相者自己破斥，不是論主破斥。例如執著沒有別的本體。
【English Translation】 English version: Reply from the Hetuvidya (P喩部): The previous life exists first and then ceases, therefore the three characteristics of arising (生, shēng), abiding (住, zhù), and ceasing (滅, miè) are sequential. The Treatise on the Establishment of Truth (成實論, Chéngshí lùn) states that all conditioned dharmas exist in the present. The Vimalakirti Sutra (凈名經, Jìngmíng jīng) says, 'You monks, at this very moment, are also born, age, and die.' Observing these sutras and treatises, the three characteristics exist simultaneously. The Abhidhamma (阿毗曇, Āpídámó) says that the substance is simultaneous, but the function has a sequence. For example, the three characteristics and the dharma must coexist. If the dharma is in the future, the characteristic is also in the future; if the dharma arises in the present, the characteristic also arises in the present; if the dharma ceases in the past, the characteristic also ceases in the same way. Therefore, conditioned dharmas must exist together with the characteristics. Thus, it is said that the substance arises simultaneously, but the function of arising does not exist when the function of abiding has not yet occurred; when the function of abiding occurs, the function of arising has already ceased, so the functions are sequential. Question: Are the three characteristics names of time or designations of dharma? Answer: All schools consider the three characteristics to be dharmas. However, Kaisan (開善) says that since the three characteristics can produce dharmas, they are names of time. Dharma Master Rong of Little Adornment (小莊嚴榮法師, Xiǎo Zhuāngyán Róng Fǎshī) says that the three characteristics are names of the substance of dharma, and time has no separate substance. Zhuangyan (莊嚴) says that the three characteristics are neither dharma nor time; this is the essence of time. Question: Do the three characteristics receive their names based on their own substance or based on their function? Answer: One view is that the three characteristics can produce dharmas, and the substance of dharma is what is produced, so the name is based on what is produced. Another view is that the name is based on function, because they have the function of producing other things, so they are called 'arising'. The Vibhasa (婆沙, Póshā) asks: If all sentient beings have the characteristic of ceasing, then all sentient beings should have corpses appearing. Answer: If the root dharma ceases and the non-root dharma arises, then a corpse will appear. Now, the root dharma ceases, but the root dharma still arises, so the corpse does not appear. Secondly, the power of sentient beings' karma sustains them, so the corpse does not appear. Question: Why are the three characteristics refuted? Answer: There are four reasons. First, those who cling to the three characteristics are mostly Hinayana practitioners, who only attain emptiness of self (生空, shēng kōng) and not emptiness of dharma (法空, fǎ kōng), believing that there are definitely three characteristics. Now, in order to make them believe that all dharmas are empty, the three characteristics are refuted. Second, there are also Hinayana practitioners, such as the Satyasiddhi School (成實宗, Chéngshí zōng), who also attain emptiness of dharma, but do not know that the inherent nature of the three characteristics is empty. Now, in order to make them believe that the inherent nature of the three characteristics is inherently empty, the three characteristics are refuted. Third, the definitions of the three characteristics by the Mahayana and Hinayana, internal and external schools, refute each other, and the meaning itself cannot be established. Now, the state of their non-establishment is revealed, so it is said to be a refutation. In fact, it is the proponents of the characteristics who refute themselves, not the author of the treatise. For example, clinging to the absence of a separate substance.
者。破有別體。執有別體者破無別體。四者有所得小乘人名半字教。所以然者。佛說生滅令遠離二邊不著中道。名為滿字。而有所得人雖破于常而著三相無常。故是半字。如呵迦旃延云。無以生滅心行說實相法。不生不滅是無常義。佛說無常為破于常。亦捨生滅無常。故不生不滅是無常義也。問佛說無常破常。復捨生滅無常。今何故偏云不生不滅是無常義也。答迦旃延已知無有于常。而未達無有生滅無常。今欲令其進捨生滅無常。故云不生不滅是無常義也。智度論與此意同。故云若無方便破常而著無常。若有方便即破常不著無常。龍樹破外人如凈名呵旃延不異。又諸部有二種失。一得語不得意。二語意俱失。得語不得意者。佛說三相令舍常不著無常。乃至亦常無常非常非非常。心無依止即便得道。而諸部但知舍常不能捨無常。故失佛意。二者語意俱失。非但不能兩舍。於三相中種種推斥更起愛見增長煩惱。是故失也。論主今直觀三相畢竟不可得。三相既去不三亦去。乃至此去無所去。即便得道。離上二失故破三相也。問佛凡有言說悉依二諦。論主隨佛學亦依二諦。今就何諦明無三相。答若就二諦門即破二種三相。一破性實三明世諦中道。二破假三明真諦中道也。品二。初長行立。次偈破。就立中通是一切部義。以諸部
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這四種人，執著于『有』的實體，破斥『無』的實體；執著于『有』的實體的人，則破斥『無』的實體。這四種有所得的小乘修行人，被稱為『半字教』。為什麼這麼說呢？佛陀教導眾生遠離生滅二邊，不執著于中道，這被稱為『滿字教』。而有所得的人，雖然破斥了『常』，卻執著於三相（生、住、滅）的無常，所以是『半字』。如同維摩詰經中呵斥迦旃延（佛陀十大弟子之一，以善於論議著稱）說：『不要用生滅的心行來說實相之法。』不生不滅才是無常的真義。佛陀說無常是爲了破斥常，也要捨棄生滅的無常，所以不生不滅才是無常的真義啊。 有人問：佛陀說無常是爲了破斥常，又要捨棄生滅的無常，現在為什麼偏偏說不生不滅才是無常的真義呢？ 回答說：迦旃延已經知道沒有『常』的存在，但還沒有領悟到沒有生滅的無常。現在想要讓他進一步捨棄生滅的無常，所以說不生不滅才是無常的真義啊。《智度論》與此意相同，所以說，如果沒有方便法門，破斥了常卻執著于無常；如果有方便法門，就能破斥常而不執著于無常。龍樹菩薩破斥外道，就像維摩詰呵斥迦旃延一樣，沒有什麼不同。 此外，各個部派有兩種過失：一是得其語而不得其意，二是語意俱失。得其語而不得其意是指，佛陀說三相是爲了讓眾生捨棄常，不執著于無常，乃至捨棄亦常亦無常、非常非非常，心中沒有依止，這樣才能得道。而各個部派只知道捨棄常，卻不能捨棄無常，所以失去了佛陀的本意。二是語意俱失，不僅不能捨棄常和無常，還在三相中種種推論，反而生起愛見，增長煩惱，所以是語意俱失。 論主現在直接觀察三相，發現它們畢竟是不可得的。三相既然去除，不三（非常非無常等）也隨之去除，乃至去除到無所可去，這樣就能得道，遠離了上述兩種過失，所以要破斥三相。 有人問：佛陀的一切言說都依據二諦（世俗諦和勝義諦），論主隨學佛陀，也依據二諦，現在就哪一諦來說明沒有三相呢？ 回答說：如果就二諦來說，就要破斥兩種三相：一是破斥性實的三相，闡明世俗諦的中道；二是破斥虛假的三相，闡明真諦的中道。品第二。先用長行文來建立，然後用偈頌來破斥。就建立來說，通用於一切部派的義理，因為各個部派...
【English Translation】 English version These four types of people cling to the separate entity of 'existence', refuting the separate entity of 'non-existence'; those who cling to the separate entity of 'existence' then refute the separate entity of 'non-existence'. These four types of Śrāvakayāna (small vehicle) practitioners who have something to attain are called the 'half-word teaching'. Why is this so? The Buddha taught beings to stay away from the two extremes of arising and ceasing, and not to cling to the Middle Way; this is called the 'full-word teaching'. But those who have something to attain, although they refute 'permanence', cling to the three characteristics (arising, abiding, decay) of impermanence, so it is 'half-word'. It is like Vimalakirti scolding Kātyāyana (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his skill in debate), saying: 'Do not use the mind of arising and ceasing to speak of the Dharma of true reality.' Non-arising and non-ceasing is the true meaning of impermanence. The Buddha said impermanence to refute permanence, and also to abandon the impermanence of arising and ceasing, so non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence. Someone asks: The Buddha said impermanence to refute permanence, and also to abandon the impermanence of arising and ceasing, so why now specifically say that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence? The answer is: Kātyāyana already knows that there is no 'permanence', but has not yet realized that there is no impermanence of arising and ceasing. Now, wanting him to further abandon the impermanence of arising and ceasing, it is said that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) has the same meaning, so it says that if there is no skillful means, one refutes permanence but clings to impermanence; if there is skillful means, one can refute permanence without clinging to impermanence. Nāgārjuna (an important figure in Mahayana Buddhism) refuting outsiders is like Vimalakirti scolding Kātyāyana, there is no difference. Furthermore, various schools have two kinds of faults: one is to obtain the words but not the meaning, and the other is to lose both the words and the meaning. To obtain the words but not the meaning means that the Buddha said the three characteristics to let beings abandon permanence and not cling to impermanence, and even abandon both permanence and impermanence, neither permanence nor non-permanence, with no reliance in the mind, then one can attain the Way. But the various schools only know to abandon permanence, but cannot abandon impermanence, so they lose the Buddha's original intention. The second is to lose both the words and the meaning, not only unable to abandon both permanence and impermanence, but also making various inferences in the three characteristics, instead giving rise to love and views, increasing afflictions, so they lose both the words and the meaning. The author now directly observes the three characteristics and finds that they are ultimately unattainable. Since the three characteristics are removed, the non-three (neither permanence nor impermanence, etc.) are also removed, and even removed to the point where there is nothing to remove, then one can attain the Way, and be free from the above two faults, so the three characteristics must be refuted. Someone asks: All the Buddha's words are based on the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth), and the author follows the Buddha's teachings, also based on the two truths, so which truth is used to explain that there are no three characteristics? The answer is: If based on the two truths, then two kinds of three characteristics must be refuted: one is to refute the three characteristics of inherent existence, and to clarify the Middle Way of conventional truth; the other is to refute the false three characteristics, and to clarify the Middle Way of ultimate truth. Chapter Two. First use prose to establish, and then use verses to refute. In terms of establishment, it is common to the doctrines of all schools, because all schools...
同計有為有三相。但解三相自不同耳。初標體。生住滅下列名。萬物下出用。是故下由三相故有諸法也。答曰下第二三十五偈破。大開為二。初三十四偈破有三相。次一偈破無三相。即顯三相不可定有。不可定無名世諦中道也。又初是破病次是申經。此既一週觀行已竟。寄此品略示破申之大旨也。又初是法說門破。次譬喻門破。總攝諸法破不出法喻。又初破三相體。次破三相名。令名體都寂。初段又二。第一正破三相。第二段次破法體。初又二。前總破三相。次別破。總別各三。總中三者初為無為門破。次聚散門破。三窮無窮門破。若直立三相即以六門責之。若諸部有此六計者。三偈即破此六人也。三相無決定者。一意云。佛破常病故說三相。常病既舍三亦不留。故三非決定。二者依下偈明此三相。如夢如幻無有定相。汝不應言決定有三。三者由所相故有能相。即能不自能故無能。所以無定。四者三相互相因待。即知無自性。故不可得也。五如下為無為聚散等門。求之不得故無定也。初偈上半就有為中求生不得。下半就無為中求生不得。即畢竟無生。故為無為空后明畢竟空。又上半破生是有為。此破毗曇成實及曇摩崛部義。下半破生是無為。破毗婆阇婆提義也。生是有為即有二失。一者法體是有為。既具三相。生是有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 同計有為有三相（sān xiàng）：都認為有為法具有三種相狀。但對三相的理解各自不同。首先是標明本體，在『生、住、滅』下列出名稱，在『萬物』下說明作用。因此，由於三相的緣故，才有了諸法。下面回答說，第二到三十五偈進行破斥。大致分為兩部分，首先三十四偈破斥有三相，其次一偈破斥無三相。這表明三相不可確定為有，也不可確定為無，這就是世俗諦的中道。此外，首先是破除執著，其次是闡述經義。這已經是一週的觀行結束，藉此品略微展示破斥和闡述的大旨。此外，首先是法說門破斥，其次是譬喻門破斥，總括諸法，破斥不出法和譬喻。此外，首先破斥三相的體性，其次破斥三相的名稱，使名稱和體性都寂滅。第一段又分為兩部分，第一部分是正式破斥三相，第二部分是依次破斥法體。第一部分又分為兩部分，前面是總破三相，其次是分別破斥。總破和別破各有三種。總破中的三種是：首先用有為無為門破斥，其次用聚集分散門破斥，第三用窮盡無窮盡門破斥。如果直接立論三相，就用六門來責難它。如果各部派有這六種計較，三偈就破斥這六種人。三相沒有決定的體性，一種意思是，佛陀爲了破除常的執著，所以說三相，常的執著既然捨棄，三相也不保留，所以三相不是決定的。第二種意思是，依據下面的偈頌說明這三相，如夢如幻，沒有一定的相狀，你不應該說決定有三相。第三種意思是，由於所相的緣故，才有能相，即能不自己能，所以沒有能，所以沒有定性。第四種意思是，三相相互因待，就知道沒有自性，所以不可得。第五種意思是，如下面用有為無為、聚集分散等門，求之不得，所以沒有定性。第一偈的上半部分就在有為中尋求生而不可得，下半部分就在無為中尋求生而不可得，即畢竟無生，所以有為無為空后說明畢竟空。此外，上半部分破斥生是有為，這是破斥毗曇（pí tán，論藏）、成實（chéng shí，成實宗）以及曇摩崛部（tán mó jué bù，法藏部）的義理。下半部分破斥生是無為，破斥毗婆阇婆提（pí pó shé pó tí，分別說部）的義理。生是有為即有兩個過失，一是法體是有為，既然具有三相，生是有為
【English Translation】 English version Those who adhere to the 'with-being' (yǒu wéi) all acknowledge the existence of three characteristics (sān xiàng). However, their understandings of these three characteristics differ. First, they identify the substance, listing 'arising, abiding, ceasing' as names, and under 'all things' they explain the function. Therefore, it is due to the three characteristics that all dharmas exist. The following reply, from the second to the thirty-fifth verse, refutes this. Broadly, it is divided into two parts: first, thirty-four verses refute the existence of three characteristics; second, one verse refutes the non-existence of three characteristics. This shows that the three characteristics cannot be definitively affirmed as existent, nor can they be definitively affirmed as non-existent, which is the Middle Way of conventional truth (shìsúdì zhōngdào). Furthermore, the first part is to dispel attachments, and the second part is to expound the sutra's meaning. This marks the end of a week of contemplation, using this chapter to briefly demonstrate the great purpose of refutation and exposition. Moreover, the first part is a refutation through the Dharma-teaching gate, and the second part is a refutation through the simile gate, encompassing all dharmas, and the refutation does not go beyond Dharma and simile. Furthermore, the first part refutes the substance of the three characteristics, and the second part refutes the names of the three characteristics, causing both name and substance to become quiescent. The first section is further divided into two parts: the first part is the formal refutation of the three characteristics, and the second part is the sequential refutation of the substance of dharmas. The first part is again divided into two parts: the first is the general refutation of the three characteristics, and the second is the separate refutation. Both the general and separate refutations have three aspects. The three aspects in the general refutation are: first, refutation through the 'with-being' and 'without-being' (wúwéi) gate; second, refutation through the aggregation and dispersion gate; third, refutation through the exhaustive and inexhaustible gate. If one directly establishes the three characteristics, then the six gates are used to challenge it. If the various schools have these six contentions, then the three verses refute these six types of people. The three characteristics do not have a definite nature. One meaning is that the Buddha spoke of the three characteristics in order to dispel the attachment to permanence; since the attachment to permanence is abandoned, the three characteristics are also not retained, so the three characteristics are not definite. The second meaning is that, according to the verses below, these three characteristics are like dreams and illusions, without a fixed appearance; you should not say that there are definitely three characteristics. The third meaning is that, due to the 'characterized' (suǒ xiàng), there is the 'characterizer' (néng xiàng), that is, the 'characterizer' cannot characterize itself, so there is no 'characterizer', so there is no definiteness. The fourth meaning is that the three characteristics are mutually dependent, and one knows that there is no self-nature, so they are unattainable. The fifth meaning is that, as below, using the 'with-being' and 'without-being', aggregation and dispersion, etc., gates, one cannot find them, so there is no definiteness. The first half of the first verse seeks arising within the 'with-being' and cannot find it; the second half seeks arising within the 'without-being' and cannot find it, that is, ultimately no arising, so the 'with-being' and 'without-being' emptiness later explain ultimate emptiness. Furthermore, the first half refutes that arising is 'with-being', which refutes the doctrines of the Sarvastivadins (pí tán), the Satyasiddhi School (chéng shí), and the Dharmaguptaka (tán mó jué bù). The second half refutes that arising is 'without-being', which refutes the doctrines of the Vibhajyavada (pí pó shé pó tí). Arising being 'with-being' has two faults: first, the substance of the Dharma is 'with-being', since it possesses the three characteristics, arising is 'with-being'.
為。亦具三相。即三中之一復更具三。是即無窮。二者生具三相即自相違。相違即都無三也。下半破生是無為有三失。一者無相破有為。有差別可得具三。無為無差別即無有三既無有三。用何物作有為相。二者彼計無為有別體能為有為作相。今明止生故名無生。如瓶破名無瓶。無有別物。為他作相。三者非相破無為法。自可為無為作相。不應為有為作相。若無為為有為作相。有為應為無為作相。又無為為有為作相。如馬為牛作相水為火作相。此墮非相過也。又上半明生是有為得有為而墮無窮及相違。下半明生是無為免無窮及相違而招前三失。故進退墮負厝情無地。第二聚散破來者。亦得通破為無為。汝言三相是無為者。為聚為散。若無為不可聚散。亦無為不可生滅。若別義者從此竟品但破有為不破無為。以計有為者多是小乘根本義。又符大小乘經。又盛行天竺也。又論破二種人。一不曾學問。但知自身有生老病死。外物生住變壞。於此內外起貪嗔癡。故造三有業受生老病死。論主直為此說無三相。汝言有三相者。為是有為為是無為。乃至聚之與散。以一切門求無從。即知內外諸法皆畢竟空。其人即便見實相生正觀斷煩惱。此是凈器人。翻易悟也。二者為內外學理之人種種推斥求並無從。以學問之流執有三相。不知無三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為。也具有三種相。即三種中的一種又各自具有三種。這就是無窮。二者，生具有三種相，這本身就自相矛盾。相矛盾就等於完全沒有三種相。下半部分破斥『生』是無為法的三種過失。一是，用『無相』來破斥『有為』。有差別可以得到三種相。無為沒有差別，就沒有三種相，既然沒有三種相。用什麼東西來作為有為的相呢？二是，他們認為無為有獨立的本體，可以作為有為的相。現在說明，因為止息生滅才叫做『無生』。如同瓶子破了叫做『無瓶』。沒有另外的物體，可以為其他事物作為相。三是，用『非相』來破斥無為法。自身可以作為無為的相，不應該作為有為的相。如果無為作為有為的相，有為就應該作為無為的相。又，無為作為有為的相，就像馬作為牛的相，水作為火的相。這落入了『非相』的過失。又，上半部分說明『生』是有為，得到有為而落入無窮和相違。下半部分說明『生』是無為，避免了無窮和相違，卻招致了前面的三種過失。所以進退兩難，無處立足。第二，用『聚散』來破斥『來者』。也可以用來破斥有為和無為。你說三種相是無為，是聚集還是分散？如果無為不可聚集和分散，也就無為不可生滅。如果另有含義，那麼從此品之後，只是破斥有為，不破斥無為。因為認為有為的人多是小乘的根本義。又符合大小乘的經典。又在天竺盛行。又，本論破斥兩種人。一種是不曾學習佛法的人。只知道自身有生老病死，外物有生住變壞。因此對內外之物產生貪嗔癡。所以造作三有（kāmadhātu, rūpadhātu, arūpadhātu）業，承受生老病死。論主直接為此說沒有三種相。你說有三種相，是有為還是無為？乃至聚集還是分散？用一切方法尋求都找不到，就知道內外諸法都是畢竟空（śūnyatā）。那人就能見到實相，生起正觀，斷除煩惱。這是清凈的根器，容易領悟。二是，對於內外學習佛理的人，種種推究駁斥，尋求也找不到。因為學習佛理的人執著于有三種相，不知道沒有三種相。
【English Translation】 English version: Because. It also possesses three characteristics. That is, one of the three, each further possesses three. This is endless. Secondly, 'birth' possessing three characteristics is self-contradictory. Contradiction is equivalent to having no three characteristics at all. The latter half refutes the three faults of 'birth' being unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). Firstly, using 'non-characteristic' (alakṣaṇa) to refute 'conditioned' (saṃskṛta). With difference, one can obtain the three characteristics. Unconditioned lacks difference, so it lacks the three characteristics. Since it lacks the three characteristics, what can be used as the characteristic of the conditioned? Secondly, they believe that the unconditioned has an independent entity that can serve as the characteristic of the conditioned. Now it is explained that it is called 'non-birth' (anutpāda) because of the cessation of birth and death. Just as a broken bottle is called 'no bottle'. There is no other object that can serve as the characteristic for other things. Thirdly, using 'non-characteristic' to refute the unconditioned dharma. It can itself serve as the characteristic of the unconditioned, but should not serve as the characteristic of the conditioned. If the unconditioned serves as the characteristic of the conditioned, the conditioned should serve as the characteristic of the unconditioned. Furthermore, the unconditioned serving as the characteristic of the conditioned is like a horse serving as the characteristic of an ox, or water serving as the characteristic of fire. This falls into the fault of 'non-characteristic'. Moreover, the first half explains that 'birth' is conditioned, obtaining the conditioned and falling into endlessness and contradiction. The latter half explains that 'birth' is unconditioned, avoiding endlessness and contradiction, but incurring the previous three faults. Therefore, there is no ground to stand on whether advancing or retreating. Secondly, using 'aggregation and dispersion' to refute the 'comer'. It can also be used to refute the conditioned and unconditioned. You say that the three characteristics are unconditioned, are they aggregated or dispersed? If the unconditioned cannot be aggregated and dispersed, then the unconditioned cannot be born and cease. If there is another meaning, then from this chapter onwards, only the conditioned is refuted, not the unconditioned. Because those who believe in the conditioned are mostly the fundamental meaning of the Hinayana. It also conforms to the sutras of both the Mahayana and Hinayana. Moreover, it is prevalent in India. Furthermore, this treatise refutes two types of people. One is those who have never studied the Dharma. They only know that they have birth, old age, sickness, and death, and external things have arising, abiding, changing, and decaying. Therefore, they generate greed, hatred, and delusion towards internal and external things. Thus, they create the karma of the three realms (kāmadhātu, rūpadhātu, arūpadhātu) and endure birth, old age, sickness, and death. The author directly says that there are no three characteristics for this reason. You say there are three characteristics, are they conditioned or unconditioned? Even aggregation or dispersion? Seeking in every way, one cannot find them, and one knows that all internal and external dharmas are ultimately empty (śūnyatā). That person can then see the true nature, generate right view, and cut off afflictions. This is a pure vessel, easy to awaken. Secondly, for those who study Buddhist principles internally and externally, various investigations and refutations, seeking also cannot find them. Because those who study Buddhist principles are attached to having three characteristics, not knowing that there are no three characteristics.
說三。亦不知說三為明無三。故不得二智。不入佛知見不得成佛。論主憐愍諸部求三無從。而說有三者此是無三說三。說三意在無三。即生二智入佛知見。三世十方佛出世大意如此。四依出世大意亦然。以是故開諸門破三相也。又執有三相多是小乘人。聞說三作三解。今破三明三相無。三相無故有為無。有為無故無為亦無。即諸法畢竟空是佛行處。令小乘人回小入大悟三相畢竟空得實智。即知佛昔于小乘中說有三是方便得權智。具解開方便顯真實也。又智度論云。昔說五眾是無常生滅。今說五眾是非常非無常分。則大小乘教經中直唱非常非無常。而利根者即悟學。大乘人鈍根者未了。今廣釋之。求三相有為不得非無常。無為亦無故非常。令始行菩薩悟解大乘非常非無常。識中道發生正觀。是故破三相。
中觀論疏卷第五(本)
中觀論疏卷第五(末)
釋吉藏撰
三相品之餘
問今聚散門求三相不得。佛大小乘經為說聚為說散。答昔羅什未度。未有正人之與正法。羅什至關人法既來。諸方勝人一時云聚。匡山遠法師不來。遣使問羅什三相聚散等義。羅什答云。佛直說內身生老病死唸唸不住。外物萎黃彫落亦非恒有。令人不起常見厭世修道耳。實不說一時異時。異時一時此是旃延等意。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 說三，卻又不知道說三是爲了闡明沒有三。因此無法獲得二智，不能進入佛的知見，也就無法成佛。論主憐憫各部派尋求三而不得，所以說有三，這實際上是用說三來表達沒有三。說三的意圖在於說明沒有三，這樣才能產生二智，進入佛的知見。三世十方諸佛出世的大意就是如此。四依出世的大意也是一樣。因此才要開啟各種法門，破除三相。而且執著于有三相的多是小乘之人，聽到說三就按照三來理解。現在破除三，是爲了闡明三相本無。三相既然沒有，有為法也就沒有了。有為法既然沒有，無為法也就沒有了。這就是諸法畢竟空，是佛所行之處。讓小乘之人回小向大，領悟三相畢竟空，獲得真實的智慧。這樣就知道佛過去在小乘中說有三，是方便之說，是爲了獲得權智。這完整地解釋了開方便門，顯真實相的含義。又如《智度論》所說，過去說五眾（Panca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）是無常生滅的，現在說五眾是非常非無常的。大小乘的經典中直接宣說非常非無常，利根之人立刻就能領悟，學習大乘佛法；而鈍根之人則不能理解。現在廣泛地解釋它：尋求三相的有為法而不可得，所以不是無常；無為法也沒有，所以不是常。讓初學的菩薩領悟大乘的非常非無常，在識中產生中道正觀。所以要破除三相。 《中觀論疏》卷第五（本） 《中觀論疏》卷第五（末） 釋吉藏撰 三相品之餘 問：現在用聚散之門來尋求三相而不可得，那麼佛在大小乘經典中是說聚還是說散？答：過去鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva，一位著名的佛教翻譯家）未來到中土時，沒有真正的人帶來真正的佛法。鳩摩羅什到達關中后，人和法都來了，各地的傑出人物一時雲集。慧遠（Huiyuan，東晉時期著名僧侶）法師沒有親自前來，而是派使者詢問鳩摩羅什關於三相聚散等義。鳩摩羅什回答說，佛只是說內身的生老病死唸唸不住，外物的萎黃凋落也不是恒常存在的，讓人不要生起常見，厭離世間，修習佛道罷了。實際上並沒有說一時或異時。異時或一時，這是迦旃延（Katyayana，佛陀的十大弟子之一）等人的意思。
【English Translation】 English version: To speak of the three characteristics, yet not know that speaking of the three is to clarify the absence of three. Therefore, one cannot attain the two wisdoms, cannot enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and thus cannot become a Buddha. The author of the treatise, pitying the various schools that seek the three characteristics without success, speaks of the existence of three, but this is actually using the speaking of three to express the absence of three. The intention of speaking of three is to explain the absence of three, so that one can generate the two wisdoms and enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision. The great intention of the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions appearing in the world is like this. The great intention of the Four Reliances (catvāri-pratisaraṇāni) appearing in the world is also the same. Therefore, various Dharma gates are opened to break the three characteristics. Moreover, those who cling to the existence of the three characteristics are mostly adherents of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle). When they hear of the three characteristics, they understand it as three. Now, breaking the three is to clarify that the three characteristics are non-existent. Since the three characteristics are non-existent, conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta) are also non-existent. Since conditioned phenomena are non-existent, unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛta) are also non-existent. This is the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas, the place where the Buddha walks. It allows those of the Hinayana to turn from the small to the great, to realize the ultimate emptiness of the three characteristics, and to attain true wisdom. Thus, one knows that the Buddha spoke of the existence of three in the Hinayana as a provisional means to attain expedient wisdom (upāya-kauśalya). This fully explains the meaning of opening the expedient and revealing the truth. Furthermore, as the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, in the past, it was said that the five skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five aggregates constituting an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are impermanent and subject to arising and ceasing. Now, it is said that the five skandhas are neither permanent nor impermanent. In the sutras of both the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Hinayana teachings, it is directly proclaimed that they are neither permanent nor impermanent. Those with sharp faculties immediately realize and learn the Mahayana Dharma, while those with dull faculties do not yet understand. Now, it is extensively explained: seeking the three characteristics in conditioned phenomena is unattainable, so it is not impermanent; unconditioned phenomena are also non-existent, so it is not permanent. This allows beginning bodhisattvas to realize and understand the Mahayana's neither permanent nor impermanent, to generate the correct view of the Middle Way in consciousness. Therefore, the three characteristics are broken. Madhyamaka-śāstra-ṭīkā (Commentary on the Middle Treatise), Volume 5 (Beginning) Madhyamaka-śāstra-ṭīkā (Commentary on the Middle Treatise), Volume 5 (End) Composed by Shi Jizang Remaining of the Chapter on the Three Characteristics Question: Now, using the approach of aggregation and dispersion to seek the three characteristics is unattainable. So, in the sutras of the Mahayana and Hinayana, does the Buddha speak of aggregation or dispersion? Answer: In the past, when Kumarajiva (Kumarajiva, a famous Buddhist translator) had not yet arrived, there was no true person to bring the true Dharma. After Kumarajiva arrived in Guanzhong, both the person and the Dharma came, and outstanding individuals from various places gathered at once. Dharma Master Huiyuan (Huiyuan, a famous monk of the Eastern Jin Dynasty) did not come in person, but sent a messenger to ask Kumarajiva about the meaning of the aggregation and dispersion of the three characteristics. Kumarajiva replied that the Buddha only spoke of the arising, aging, sickness, and death of the inner body as constantly changing, and the withering and decay of external things as also not being permanent, so that people would not give rise to the view of permanence, would be disgusted with the world, and would cultivate the path. In reality, he did not speak of one time or different times. Different times or one time, this is the meaning of Katyayana (Katyayana, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) and others.
云何將所破義來見問耶。今更責此言。無量義經三重明四相。初直說四相。次明唸唸不住。次明即時生住異滅。凈名亦云。即時生老病死。此是佛說四相一時。云何羅什言非佛說。答佛經明即時生住滅者。亦不立四相一時並起。但為破眾生保常心耳。眾生若聞一念暫住。即一念之常。即計常心不盡。今明無一念住即計常心盡。是故明即時生滅耳。佛意既明無有常寧有無常耶。即令悟非常非無常。二見永息也。又既明無一念住即是說無生義。夫論有一念住即有物。既無一念住即無物。無物即畢竟空。故云不生不滅是無常義。即佛一言之中常無常並破。上根者聞便得道。不達者便謂四相一時。是故為論主破。又論主破即是申一念不住之言。令諸部解佛經意也。上半牒而總非。下半作難釋也。破聚正破薩婆多義。以有為必三相扶共起故也。破散破譬喻部三剎那立三相義也。又此一偈並破毗曇。毗曇師二說。一云體同時用前後。用前後是散。體同時是聚。二云體用同時。但當生用時生用即強。余相用弱耳。故此偈具破之也。云何於一處釋上散義。一處者一所相法處。不得三相前後生也。若所相法處三相前後生者。即有不備三相過。如一念法。若有生時未有滅用。生用若廢即一念法便廢。當知此一念法但有于生。遂不經于住滅。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 你為何拿已經被駁倒的觀點來提問呢？我現在要進一步駁斥這種說法。《無量義經》三重闡明四相（生、住、異、滅）：首先直接說四相，其次說明唸唸不住，再次說明即時生、住、異、滅。《維摩詰經》也說：『即時生、老、病、死。』這都是佛陀所說的四相一時並存。為什麼鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）說不是佛說的呢？回答：佛經中說明即時生、住、滅，並不是要建立四相一時並起的觀點，只是爲了破除眾生執著常恒的心。眾生如果聽到一念暫時停留，就認為這一念是常恒的，這樣執著常恒的心就不會消失。現在說明沒有一念停留，這樣執著常恒的心就會消失。所以才說明即時生滅。佛陀的用意既然是闡明沒有常恒，又哪裡會有無常呢？這樣就能領悟到既不是常恒也不是無常，兩種偏見永遠止息。而且，既然說明沒有一念停留，就是說明無生的道理。如果說有一念停留，那就是有實物存在；既然沒有一念停留，那就是沒有實物存在。沒有實物存在就是畢竟空，所以說不生不滅就是無常的含義。這樣，佛陀一句話中，常恒和無常都被破除了。上根器的人聽了就能得道，不明白的人就認為四相一時並存。所以才被論主駁斥。而且，論主的駁斥正是爲了申明一念不住的觀點，讓各部派理解佛經的真意。前半部分是概括地否定，後半部分是設難解釋。『破聚』正是爲了駁斥薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）的觀點，因為有為法必定是三相扶持共同生起。『破散』是爲了駁斥譬喻部（Dārṣṭāntika）三剎那建立三相的觀點。而且，這一偈頌同時駁斥了毗曇宗（Abhidharma）。毗曇宗有兩種說法：一種認為體是同時的，用是前後的；用前後是散，體同時是聚。另一種認為體和用是同時的，但當生用的時候，生用就強，其餘相的用就弱。所以這一偈頌全部駁斥了這些觀點。為什麼在一個『處』解釋上面的『散』義呢？『一處』是指一個所相法的處所，不能有三相前後生起。如果所相法的處所三相前後生起，就會有不具備三相的過失。比如一念法，如果有生的時候還沒有滅用，生用如果廢棄，那麼這一念法就廢棄了。應當知道這一念法只有生，而沒有經歷住和滅。
【English Translation】 English version: Why do you bring up a refuted argument to question me? Now I will further refute this statement. The Infinite Meaning Sutra (Wuliangyi Jing) elucidates the Four Characteristics (birth, abiding, change, and extinction) in three ways: first, it directly states the Four Characteristics; second, it explains that thoughts do not stay for even a moment; and third, it explains the immediate arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. The Vimalakirti Sutra (Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa Sūtra) also says: 'Immediate birth, aging, sickness, and death.' These are all instances of the Buddha speaking of the Four Characteristics arising simultaneously. Why does Kumārajīva say that it is not spoken by the Buddha? The answer is: When the Buddhist scriptures explain immediate arising, abiding, and ceasing, they do not establish the view that the Four Characteristics arise simultaneously. They only aim to dispel the sentient beings' clinging to permanence. If sentient beings hear that a thought stays for a moment, they will consider that moment to be permanent, and their clinging to permanence will not cease. Now, by explaining that there is not a single moment of abiding, this clinging to permanence will cease. Therefore, it is explained that there is immediate arising and ceasing. Since the Buddha's intention is to clarify that there is no permanence, how can there be impermanence? This allows one to realize that it is neither permanent nor impermanent, and the two extreme views will be forever extinguished. Furthermore, since it is explained that there is not a single moment of abiding, it is explaining the meaning of non-arising. If one argues that there is a moment of abiding, then there is a thing. Since there is not a single moment of abiding, then there is no thing. No thing is ultimate emptiness, so it is said that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence. In this way, in one statement of the Buddha, both permanence and impermanence are refuted. Those with superior faculties will attain the Way upon hearing this, while those who do not understand will think that the Four Characteristics arise simultaneously. Therefore, it is refuted by the debater. Moreover, the debater's refutation is precisely to clarify the view of no moment of abiding, so that the various schools can understand the true meaning of the Buddhist scriptures. The first half is a general negation, while the second half poses a difficulty and explains it. 'Refuting aggregation' is precisely to refute the view of the Sarvāstivāda school, because conditioned phenomena must have the three characteristics supporting each other to arise together. 'Refuting dispersion' is to refute the view of the Dārṣṭāntika school that establishes the three characteristics in three moments. Moreover, this verse simultaneously refutes the Abhidharma school. The Abhidharma school has two views: one is that the substance is simultaneous, while the function is sequential; sequential function is dispersion, simultaneous substance is aggregation. The other is that substance and function are simultaneous, but when the function of arising occurs, the function of arising is strong, while the functions of the other characteristics are weak. Therefore, this verse refutes all these views. Why is the meaning of 'dispersion' explained in one 'place'? 'One place' refers to the place of one characterized dharma, where the three characteristics cannot arise sequentially. If the place of the characterized dharma has the three characteristics arising sequentially, then there will be the fault of not possessing the three characteristics completely. For example, in a single thought, if there is arising but no ceasing, and if the function of arising is abandoned, then this single thought is abandoned. It should be known that this single thought only has arising and does not experience abiding and ceasing.
故此一念法不備三相。然有為法必備三相。而今不備故非有為。又前念法體與生俱廢。后念滅起便無所滅。既無所滅之法雲何有能滅之相耶。又正意是破其三相不備三相義。當一剎那唯有生。即此生相不備三相。然有為法無有不備三相。汝生是有為云何不備三耶。若三相一時此即相違。俱無三也。又若體同時起得相扶之義而墮相違。若前後生乃免相違而招法體不備三相之失。亦進退墮負。問數論師云。體同時故勉不備三相用前後故離相違失。具此二門乃成彼義。云何破耶。今問體同時為有三相起為未起耶。若其已起即應已違。若未相違即應未起。若言體起而用未起。亦應體違而用未違。又問體起時為來現在。為未來現在。若來現在即是有用。何名為體。若未來現在即生是現在。滅是未來。何名同時。又問既一剎那時。云何有體起而用未起。此乃是三剎那。何名為一。彼答云。一剎那中有三分。初分為生。次分為住。後分為滅。故得為三相。問剎那初名生者。初有中后。為未有耶。若初未有中后即生時無住無滅。云何言三有為法皆現在耶。若皆現即皆初。若不皆初即不現。又無住滅即無中后。無中后即無初。又若初是生而中后非生亦應初有。而中后非有。又三相無異時何故生前滅后。不云滅前生后。又汝滅相已能扶生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，（按照你所說的）一個念頭的法不具備生、住、滅三相。然而，有為法必定具備三相。現在（你所說的念頭）不具備三相，所以不是有為法。而且，前一個念頭的法體與生同時消失，后一個念頭的滅起時，已經沒有可以滅的東西。既然沒有可以滅的法，又怎麼會有能滅的相呢？而且，我真正的意思是破斥你所說的三相不具備三相的說法。當一個剎那只有生的時候，這個生相就不具備三相。然而，有為法沒有不具備三相的。你所說的生是有為法，為什麼不具備三相呢？如果三相同時存在，這就自相矛盾，三者都不存在了。而且，如果法體同時生起，本來可以有互相扶持的意義，卻反而陷入自相矛盾。如果（三相）有先後順序，雖然可以避免自相矛盾，卻又會招致法體不具備三相的過失，也是進退兩難。有人問數論師說：『法體是同時存在的，所以可以勉強避免不具備三相的過失；作用有先後順序，所以可以避免自相矛盾的過失。具備這兩個方面，才能成就數論師的理論。』我該如何駁斥呢？現在我問你，法體同時存在的時候，三相是已經生起還是沒有生起呢？如果已經生起，那就應該已經自相矛盾了。如果還沒有自相矛盾，那就應該還沒有生起。如果說體已經生起而作用還沒有生起，那就應該體已經矛盾而作用還沒有矛盾。我又問你，體生起的時候是未來現在還是未來現在？如果是未來現在，那就是有作用，為什麼說是體呢？如果是未來現在，那就是生是現在，滅是未來，為什麼說是同時呢？我又問你，既然是一個剎那，為什麼會有體生起而作用沒有生起的情況？這明明是三個剎那，為什麼說是一個呢？』對方回答說：『一個剎那中有三個部分，最初的部分是生，中間的部分是住，最後的部分是滅，所以可以有三相。』我問：『剎那的最初部分稱為生，那麼最初的部分有中間和後面的部分嗎？如果沒有，那麼生的時候就沒有住和滅，怎麼能說三有為法都是現在呢？如果都是現在，那就都是最初的部分。如果不都是最初的部分，那就不是現在。而且，沒有住和滅，就沒有中間和後面的部分。沒有中間和後面的部分，就沒有最初的部分。而且，如果最初的部分是生，而中間和後面的部分不是生，也應該最初的部分存在，而中間和後面的部分不存在。而且，三相沒有不同的時間，為什麼生在前而滅在後，不說是滅在前而生在後呢？而且，你所說的滅相已經能夠扶持生。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, (according to what you say) a single thought-moment (nian, 念) does not possess the three characteristics (san xiang, 三相) [of arising (sheng, 生), abiding (zhu, 住), and ceasing (mie, 滅)]. However, conditioned dharmas (you wei fa, 有為法) must possess the three characteristics. Now, (the thought-moment you describe) does not possess them, so it is not a conditioned dharma. Moreover, the substance (ti, 體) of the preceding thought-moment vanishes simultaneously with its arising, and when the cessation of the subsequent thought-moment arises, there is nothing left to cease. Since there is no dharma to be ceased, how can there be a characteristic of ceasing? Furthermore, my true intention is to refute your claim that the three characteristics do not possess the three characteristics. When there is only arising in a single kshana (chana, 剎那), this characteristic of arising does not possess the three characteristics. However, there is no conditioned dharma that does not possess the three characteristics. Your 'arising' is a conditioned dharma, so how can it not possess the three characteristics? If the three characteristics exist simultaneously, this is self-contradictory, and all three cease to exist. Moreover, if the substance arises simultaneously, it could have the meaning of mutual support, but it falls into self-contradiction. If (the three characteristics) arise sequentially, although self-contradiction can be avoided, it incurs the fault of the substance not possessing the three characteristics, which is a dilemma. Someone asked the Samkhya (Shu lun shi, 數論師) philosopher: 'Because the substance exists simultaneously, you can barely avoid the fault of not possessing the three characteristics; because the function (yong, 用) is sequential, you can avoid the fault of self-contradiction. Possessing these two aspects allows you to establish your theory.' How should I refute this? Now I ask you, when the substance exists simultaneously, have the three characteristics arisen or not? If they have already arisen, then they should already be self-contradictory. If they are not yet self-contradictory, then they should not have arisen yet. If you say that the substance has arisen but the function has not arisen, then the substance should be contradictory while the function is not contradictory. I also ask you, when the substance arises, is it future-present or future-present? If it is future-present, then it has a function, so why do you call it a substance? If it is future-present, then arising is present, and ceasing is future, so why do you say it is simultaneous? I also ask you, since it is a single kshana, how can there be a situation where the substance arises but the function does not arise? This is clearly three kshanas, so why do you say it is one?' The other party replied: 'A single kshana has three parts: the initial part is arising, the middle part is abiding, and the final part is ceasing, so there can be three characteristics.' I asked: 'The initial part of the kshana is called arising, so does the initial part have the middle and final parts? If not, then when arising occurs, there is no abiding or ceasing, so how can you say that all three conditioned dharmas are present? If they are all present, then they are all the initial part. If they are not all the initial part, then they are not present. Moreover, without abiding and ceasing, there is no middle and final part. Without the middle and final part, there is no initial part. Moreover, if the initial part is arising, and the middle and final parts are not arising, then the initial part should exist, while the middle and final parts do not exist. Moreover, the three characteristics do not have different times, so why is arising before and ceasing after, and not ceasing before and arising after? Moreover, the characteristic of ceasing that you speak of is already able to support arising.'
即應已能滅生。未能滅即未能扶也。又能滅生方有滅。未能滅生即無有滅。如十二門論云。若能識即有識。不能識即無識。能熱故有火。不能熱即無火也。長行釋一處。云何於一處。或有有相或有無相。問譬喻部立三相前後不避此責。何以過之。答偈中已顯一意竟。然薩婆多立三相盛行天竺。五百羅漢評而用之。所以立一時者。彼云有為無獨起必須相扶。故雜心云。至竟無能生。用離等侶故。又與佛經多相應。凈名云。汝今即時亦生亦老亦死。無量義經云。菩薩又觀一切法即時生住異滅。成實亦云。三有為法皆在現在。即知三相是同時義。今借同時破其前後。汝若言三相前後者。即生時無有住滅。何得經言生時即有住滅耶。以違大小乘經即是破也。又前後者云何得相扶起耶。第三偈窮無窮破者。三句作無窮破。一句作有窮。法體是有為既必備三相者。三相是有為亦應復有三相。如是無窮。無窮即破一切智人。以不見其始既破一切智。即具破世出世一切法也。若三相無有三相。乃免無窮。而墮非有為過。以法體無三相。法體是無為。三相不備三。即三相非有為。故為即無窮。窮即無為進退無答矣。問此是何無窮。答是逆推無窮。法體不能自起。由生相而起。生不能自起。復更由生起。若最後能自起亦法體能自起。舊舉病
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即是說，如果已經能夠滅除生，就意味著已經能夠扶持（其他法）。如果未能滅除生，就意味著未能扶持。而且，只有能夠滅除生，才會有滅。如果未能滅除生，那就沒有滅。如同《十二門論》所說：『如果能夠認識，那就是有識；不能認識，那就是無識。』能夠產生熱，所以有火；不能產生熱，就沒有火。 長行解釋一處：『為什麼在一處，或者有有相，或者有無相？』問：譬喻部（Dārṣṭāntika）立三相，前後不避這個責難，憑什麼超過他們？答：偈頌中已經顯示了一個意思。然而，薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）立三相，在天竺（India）盛行，五百羅漢評議並採用了它。他們之所以立一時（同時），是因為他們認為有為法不能獨自生起，必須互相扶持。所以《雜心論》說：『最終沒有能生，因為遠離了同伴。』又與佛經多有相應。《維摩詰經》說：『你現在即時也生、也老、也死。』《無量義經》說：『菩薩又觀察一切法，即時生、住、異、滅。』《成實論》也說：『三有為法都在現在。』由此可知三相是同時的意義。現在借用同時來破斥他們的前後。你如果說三相是前後的，那麼生的時候就沒有住滅，怎麼能說經中說生時即有住滅呢？因為違背了大乘小乘經典，這就是破斥。而且，如果是前後，又怎麼能互相扶持生起呢？ 第三個偈頌用窮無窮來破斥：三句作為無窮破，一句作為有窮。法體是有為，既然必備三相，那麼三相是有為，也應該再有三相，像這樣無窮無盡。無窮就破斥了一切智人（Sarvajña），因為看不見它的開始，既然破斥了一切智，就完全破斥了世間和出世間的一切法。如果三相沒有三相，就能免於無窮，而墮入非有為的過失。因為法體沒有三相，法體是無為。三相不具備三相，那麼三相就不是有為。所以說無窮，窮盡就是無為，進退都沒有回答了。 問：這是什麼無窮？答：這是逆推無窮。法體不能自己生起，由生相而生起；生相不能自己生起，又更由生相生起。如果最後能自己生起，也就是法體能自己生起。舊的例子是舉病。
【English Translation】 English version That is to say, if one is already able to extinguish arising (生, shēng), it means one is already able to support (other dharmas). If one is unable to extinguish arising, it means one is unable to support. Moreover, only if one is able to extinguish arising, then there will be cessation (滅, miè). If one is unable to extinguish arising, then there is no cessation. As the Twelve Gates Treatise (十二門論, Shí'èr Mén Lùn) says: 'If one is able to recognize, then there is consciousness (識, shí); if one is unable to recognize, then there is no consciousness.' Being able to produce heat, therefore there is fire; being unable to produce heat, then there is no fire. The long commentary explains one place: 'Why in one place, is there either having characteristics (有相, yǒu xiàng) or not having characteristics (無相, wú xiàng)?' Question: The Dārṣṭāntika (譬喻部) school establishes three characteristics (三相, sān xiàng), not avoiding this criticism of before and after, how do they surpass it? Answer: The verse has already revealed one meaning. However, the Sarvāstivāda (薩婆多) school establishes three characteristics, which is prevalent in India (天竺, Tiānzhú), and five hundred Arhats evaluated and adopted it. The reason they establish one time (simultaneity) is because they believe conditioned dharmas (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) cannot arise independently and must support each other. Therefore, the Abhidharma-samuccaya (雜心論, Záxīn Lùn) says: 'Ultimately, there is no ability to arise, because of being separated from companions.' It is also very consistent with many Buddhist scriptures. The Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩詰經, Wéimójié Jīng) says: 'You are now, at this very moment, also born, also aging, also dying.' The Infinite Meaning Sutra (無量義經, Wúliàngyì Jīng) says: 'Bodhisattvas also observe all dharmas, at this very moment, arising, abiding, changing, ceasing.' The Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論, Chéngshí Lùn) also says: 'The three conditioned dharmas are all in the present.' From this, it can be known that the three characteristics are simultaneous in meaning. Now, using simultaneity to refute their before and after. If you say the three characteristics are before and after, then at the time of arising, there is no abiding and ceasing, how can it be said that the sutra says at the time of arising, there is abiding and ceasing? Because it contradicts the Mahayana and Hinayana scriptures, this is refutation. Moreover, if it is before and after, how can they support each other to arise? The third verse uses exhaustion and infinity to refute: three sentences are used as infinite refutation, and one sentence is used as finite. The substance of dharma (法體, fǎtǐ) is conditioned, since it must have three characteristics, then the three characteristics are conditioned, and there should also be three characteristics, like this endlessly. Infinity refutes the All-Knowing One (Sarvajña, 一切智人), because one cannot see its beginning, since one refutes all knowledge, one completely refutes all worldly and supramundane dharmas. If the three characteristics do not have three characteristics, one can avoid infinity and fall into the fault of being unconditioned. Because the substance of dharma does not have three characteristics, the substance of dharma is unconditioned. The three characteristics do not possess three characteristics, then the three characteristics are not conditioned. Therefore, saying infinity, exhaustion is unconditioned, there is no answer for advancing or retreating. Question: What kind of infinity is this? Answer: This is reverse inference infinity. The substance of dharma cannot arise by itself, it arises from the characteristic of arising; the characteristic of arising cannot arise by itself, it arises from the characteristic of arising again. If it can arise by itself in the end, that is, the substance of dharma can arise by itself. The old example is citing illness.
人喻。初病人不能自起。須第二病人扶起。第二不能自起。須第三扶起。故無窮。若最後病人能自起。即最初亦能自起也。開善立無窮義。莊嚴立有窮義。俱弊此一偈。開善云。以十方折一塵。十方中一復有十方。如是折之不窮。以剎那折一念。剎那中復有剎那。是亦折無窮。即破一切智。以佛不見其邊底故也。莊嚴云。折之即盡窮至鄰虛色。時窮至剎那。今明此是與論主語違。智度論云。若有十方分即不名極微。若無十方分即不名為色。云何無十方有鄰虛色耶。問成實師窮無窮。既爾責一切大小內外並無通矣。問曰下別破三相。即三。破生中又三。初破展轉相生。破薩婆多。次破不展轉相生破僧祇成實。三雜破五百部異計。上三門遍破眾師。今三門亦遍窮一切。具此三門即無生不破。所以前破展轉生者。雖有五百部而五部盛行。五部之中薩婆多偏復興世。又正障無生。又大小乘經多有此說。如涅槃經云。生不自生。賴生故生。故先破之也。
就文為四。初立次破。三救四破救。此立通救上六關。別正勉窮無窮二難。長行與偈合分為三。一牒論主無窮。是事不然下第二總非。三相雖是有為下第三正立二義釋非。就文為三。初標二義。次偈與長行釋二義。三長行末結二義。今先標二義。雖是有為通第二無為難。而
非無窮通無窮難也。何以故下第二偈立釋二義。偈略釋。長行廣釋。上半立小生大。通無為難。小不生大即大墮無為。以小生大故大是有為。下半立大生小通無窮難。小更須小可是無窮。以大還生小故不墮無窮。問外人何故作此立耶。答彼立因緣不自生義。大不自生由小故生。小不自生由大故生。故是四緣中因緣門。六因中是共有因也。問偈本何故云生生之所生。所生因何生耶。答生生是大生家所生。故云生生之所生也。此解好。又生生是能生也。之所生者此明小生之用。能有所生故名為用。如手能有作用也。生於彼本生正明用也。第二長行廣釋。今且大明彼宗。法體與相皆具四相。皆具四相故皆是有為。法體為大四相所遷。故具四相。大生具四相者。為小生生之故是生相。餘三大相所遷故具四相。小生具四相者。為大生所生故有生相。餘三大相所遷故有三相。法體具四與能相具四義即不同。問能相與法體何故有四相耶。答法體是有為。有可生性故生能生之。乃至有滅性故滅能滅之。所以具四相。以此四印於法體故名為相。無為體無起滅故無此相。所以稱無為也。大生亦是有為。有可生性小生生之。乃至有滅性大滅滅之。小生亦爾。故皆具四相也。問八相與法體何故一剎那同時起耶。答法體不能自起。須大生生之故法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『非無窮通無窮難也』（不是無窮盡地貫通無窮盡是困難的）。為什麼呢？下面的第二個偈頌確立並解釋了兩種含義。偈頌是簡略的解釋，長行是詳細的解釋。 上半部分確立了從小生大，貫通無為是困難的。小不生大，那麼大就會墮入無為。因為從小生大，所以大是有為。 下半部分確立了從大生小，貫通無窮是困難的。小更需要小，這才是無窮。因為從大還生小，所以不會墮入無窮。 問：外道為什麼要做這樣的確立呢？答：他們確立的因緣是不自生的含義。大不是自己產生的，由小而產生。小不是自己產生的，由大而產生。所以這是四緣（因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）中的因緣門。六因（能作因、俱有因、同類因、相應因、遍行因、異熟因）中是共有因。 問：偈頌的原本為什麼說『生生之所生』？所生因什麼而生呢？答：『生生』是大生家所生。所以說『生生之所生』。這個解釋很好。另外，『生生』是能生。『之所生』，這是說明小生的作用。能有所生，所以稱為作用。如同手能有作用一樣。生於彼本生，正是說明作用。 第二段長行是詳細的解釋。現在且大概說明他們的宗義。法體與相都具備四相（生、住、異、滅）。都具備四相，所以都是有為。法體為大的四相所遷移，所以具備四相。大生具備四相，是因為小生生它的緣故，所以是生相。其餘三大相所遷移，所以具備四相。小生具備四相，是因為大生所生的緣故，所以有生相。其餘三大相所遷移，所以有三相。法體具備四相與能相具備四相，含義是不同的。 問：能相與法體為什麼有四相呢？答：法體是有為。有可生性，所以生能生之。乃至有滅性，所以滅能滅之。所以具備四相。用這四印（生、住、異、滅）於法體，所以稱為相。無為體沒有起滅，所以沒有此相。所以稱為無為。大生也是有為。有可生性，小生生它。乃至有滅性，大滅滅它。小生也是這樣。所以都具備四相。 問：八相（生、老、病、死、生、住、異、滅）與法體為什麼一剎那同時生起呢？答：法體不能自己生起。需要大生生它，所以法
【English Translation】 English version 'Non-infinite penetration of infinity is difficult.' Why is this? The second verse below establishes and explains two meanings. The verse is a brief explanation, and the prose is a detailed explanation. The first half establishes that from the small comes the large, and penetrating non-action (Wuwei) is difficult. If the small does not produce the large, then the large will fall into non-action. Because the small produces the large, the large is action (Youwei). The second half establishes that from the large comes the small, and penetrating infinity is difficult. The small needs more small, and this is infinity. Because the large returns to produce the small, it does not fall into infinity. Question: Why do outsiders make this establishment? Answer: Their established cause is the meaning of non-self-generation. The large is not self-generated, but generated by the small. The small is not self-generated, but generated by the large. Therefore, this is the causal condition (Hetu-pratyaya) in the four conditions (Hetu-pratyaya, Samanantara-pratyaya, Alambana-pratyaya, Adhipati-pratyaya). Among the six causes (Karana-hetu, Sahabhu-hetu, Sabhaga-hetu, Samprayuktaka-hetu, Sarvatraga-hetu, Vipaka-hetu), it is the common cause (Sahabhu-hetu). Question: Why does the original verse say 'what is born of the born'? What does the cause of the born arise from? Answer: 'The born of the born' is born of the large-born family. Therefore, it is said 'what is born of the born'. This explanation is good. Furthermore, 'the born of the born' is the able to produce. 'Of the born' clarifies the function of the small-born. Being able to produce is called function. Just as the hand can have function. Being born from that original birth precisely clarifies the function. The second section of prose is a detailed explanation. Now, let's roughly explain their doctrine. The Dharma-body (Dharmakaya) and its characteristics both possess the four characteristics (birth, abiding, change, and extinction). Because they both possess the four characteristics, they are both conditioned (Samskrta). The Dharma-body is moved by the four characteristics of the large, so it possesses the four characteristics. The large-born possesses the four characteristics because the small-born gives rise to it, so it is the characteristic of birth. The remaining three large characteristics move it, so it possesses the four characteristics. The small-born possesses the four characteristics because it is born of the large-born, so it has the characteristic of birth. The remaining three large characteristics move it, so it has three characteristics. The Dharma-body possessing the four characteristics and the capable characteristic possessing the four characteristics have different meanings. Question: Why do the capable characteristic and the Dharma-body have four characteristics? Answer: The Dharma-body is conditioned. It has the potential to be born, so it gives rise to the able to produce it. And it has the potential to be extinguished, so it extinguishes the able to extinguish it. Therefore, it possesses the four characteristics. Using these four seals (birth, abiding, change, and extinction) on the Dharma-body is called characteristic. The unconditioned body has no arising or ceasing, so it has no characteristic. Therefore, it is called unconditioned (Asamskrta). The large-born is also conditioned. It has the potential to be born, and the small-born gives rise to it. And it has the potential to be extinguished, and the large-extinction extinguishes it. The small-born is also like this. Therefore, they all possess the four characteristics. Question: Why do the eight characteristics (birth, old age, sickness, death, birth, abiding, change, and extinction) and the Dharma-body arise simultaneously in one instant? Answer: The Dharma-body cannot arise by itself. It needs the large-born to give rise to it, so the Dharma
得起。此大生不能自起。須小生生故大得起。小復不能自起。須大生生之故小即起。大生生法體。而法體中有住異滅性。法體既起三大相即起。三大相復有住異滅性。須三相相之。三小復須三大相相之。大相既起小復起。故一時九法共起。問何故名小生大生。答以大生能生六法故名為大。小生但能生大生一法故名小也。問小生能生大生既名生生。大生亦能生小生何故不名生生。答小生但能生大生故名生生。大生非止生小生能生六法。故不偏受生生之名。問何故名為本生。答有為法體本有此生理故名本生。又親相法體故名為本。長行初唱七數。次列七名。本生除自體已下。辨相用即釋大小生名也。問文中雲。本生能生生生。此語似煩。上已明本生能生六法。即以明生小生竟。今何故復說。答上通明生六法。今欲別明大小互相生結成二義。通前兩責故別說也。又八相有二義。一者體同時用前後。二體用俱同時。若大生生三大相及三小相。即體同時用前後。若大生生小生即體用俱同時。上總明生六法。恐小生與余相併是體同時用前後。今簡出之明此二相體用一時也。是故三相雖是有為下第三結成二義也。答曰下二偈為二。初偈破小生生大。破其上半即有為義壞。次偈破大生生小破其下半。即破有窮不成。故還墮二難矣。初偈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能生起。這個『大生』（Dàshēng，指較大的生起）不能自己生起，必須依靠『小生』（Xiǎoshēng，指較小的生起）生起，所以『大生』才能生起。而『小生』也不能自己生起，必須依靠『大生』生起，所以『小生』才能生起。『大生』生起『法體』（fǎtǐ，指事物存在的本體），而『法體』中具有『住』（zhù，停留）、『異』（yì，變化）、『滅』（miè，消滅）的性質。『法體』既然生起，『三大相』（sān dà xiàng，指住、異、滅三種大的相）也就隨之生起。『三大相』也具有『住』、『異』、『滅』的性質，需要『三相』（sān xiàng，指住、異、滅三種相）相互作用。『三小相』（sān xiǎo xiàng，指住、異、滅三種小的相）也需要『三大相』相互作用。『大相』既然生起，『小相』也隨之生起。所以，一時之間，九法共同生起。問：為什麼稱作『小生』、『大生』？答：因為『大生』能夠生起六法，所以稱為『大』。『小生』只能生起『大生』這一法，所以稱為『小』。問：『小生』能夠生起『大生』，既然稱為『生生』，『大生』也能生起『小生』，為什麼不稱為『生生』？答：『小生』只能生起『大生』，所以稱為『生生』。『大生』不僅僅生起『小生』，還能生起六法，所以不專門接受『生生』的名稱。問：為什麼稱為『本生』（běnshēng，指根本的生起）？答：因為有為法的本體本來就具有這種生起的道理，所以稱為『本生』。又因為親近『相』（xiàng，現象）的法體，所以稱為『本』。長行開始唱誦七數，接著列出七個名稱。『本生』除去自身以外，辨別『相』的作用，就是解釋『大小生』的名稱。問：文中說，『本生』能夠生起『生生』，這句話似乎是多餘的。上面已經說明『本生』能夠生起六法，就已經說明了生起『小生』完畢。現在為什麼又說？答：上面是總的說明生起六法，現在想要分別說明大小互相生起，結成兩種意義。總合前面的兩種責難，所以分別說明。又，八相（bā xiàng，指八種現象）有兩種意義：一是體同時，用前後；二是體用都同時。如果『大生』生起『三大相』以及『三小相』，就是體同時，用前後。如果『大生』生起『小生』，就是體用都同時。上面總的說明生起六法，恐怕『小生』與其餘的相併列，是體同時用前後。現在簡別出來，說明這兩種相體用一時。因此，『三相』雖然是有為法。下面第三是總結成兩種意義。『答曰』下面兩偈頌分為兩部分。初偈頌破斥『小生』生『大生』，破斥它的前半部分，就是有為的意義壞滅。次偈頌破斥『大生』生『小生』，破斥它的下半部分，就是破斥有窮不成。所以還是會墮入兩種責難之中。初偈頌
【English Translation】 English version can arise. This 'Dàshēng' (大生, the greater arising) cannot arise by itself; it must rely on 'Xiǎoshēng' (小生, the lesser arising) to arise, so 'Dàshēng' can arise. And 'Xiǎoshēng' cannot arise by itself; it must rely on 'Dàshēng' to arise, so 'Xiǎoshēng' can arise. 'Dàshēng' gives rise to 'fǎtǐ' (法體, the essence of things), and 'fǎtǐ' has the nature of 'zhù' (住, abiding), 'yì' (異, changing), and 'miè' (滅, ceasing). Since 'fǎtǐ' arises, the 'sān dà xiàng' (三大相, the three great characteristics of abiding, changing, and ceasing) also arise. The 'sān dà xiàng' also have the nature of 'zhù', 'yì', and 'miè', and need the interaction of the 'sān xiàng' (三相, the three characteristics of abiding, changing, and ceasing). The 'sān xiǎo xiàng' (三小相, the three small characteristics of abiding, changing, and ceasing) also need the interaction of the 'sān dà xiàng'. Since the 'dà xiàng' arises, the 'xiǎo xiàng' also arises. Therefore, at one time, the nine dharmas arise together. Question: Why are they called 'Xiǎoshēng' and 'Dàshēng'? Answer: Because 'Dàshēng' can give rise to six dharmas, it is called 'Dà' (great). 'Xiǎoshēng' can only give rise to the one dharma of 'Dàshēng', so it is called 'Xiǎo' (small). Question: 'Xiǎoshēng' can give rise to 'Dàshēng', and since it is called 'arising-arising', 'Dàshēng' can also give rise to 'Xiǎoshēng', why isn't it called 'arising-arising'? Answer: 'Xiǎoshēng' can only give rise to 'Dàshēng', so it is called 'arising-arising'. 'Dàshēng' not only gives rise to 'Xiǎoshēng', but also gives rise to six dharmas, so it does not specifically receive the name of 'arising-arising'. Question: Why is it called 'běnshēng' (本生, fundamental arising)? Answer: Because the essence of conditioned dharmas inherently has this principle of arising, it is called 'běnshēng'. Also, because it is close to the dharma body of 'xiàng' (相, phenomena), it is called 'běn' (root). The long passage begins by chanting the seven numbers, and then lists the seven names. 'Běnshēng', apart from itself, distinguishes the function of 'xiàng', which is to explain the names of 'dà xiǎo shēng' (大小生, greater and lesser arising). Question: The text says that 'běnshēng' can give rise to 'arising-arising', which seems redundant. It has already been explained above that 'běnshēng' can give rise to six dharmas, which means that the arising of 'xiǎoshēng' has been completed. Why is it said again now? Answer: The above is a general explanation of giving rise to six dharmas, and now I want to separately explain the mutual arising of greater and lesser, forming two meanings. Combining the previous two criticisms, I will explain them separately. Also, the eight characteristics (bā xiàng, 八相) have two meanings: one is that the substance is simultaneous, and the function is sequential; the other is that the substance and function are both simultaneous. If 'Dàshēng' gives rise to 'sān dà xiàng' and 'sān xiǎo xiàng', then the substance is simultaneous, and the function is sequential. If 'Dàshēng' gives rise to 'Xiǎoshēng', then the substance and function are both simultaneous. The above is a general explanation of giving rise to six dharmas, and I am afraid that 'Xiǎoshēng' is listed together with the other characteristics, and the substance is simultaneous, and the function is sequential. Now I will briefly explain that these two characteristics are simultaneous in substance and function. Therefore, although the 'sān xiàng' are conditioned dharmas. The third below is to summarize into two meanings. The two verses below 'dá yuē' (答曰, the answer is) are divided into two parts. The first verse refutes 'Xiǎoshēng' giving rise to 'Dàshēng', refuting its first half, which is the destruction of the meaning of conditioned. The second verse refutes 'Dàshēng' giving rise to 'Xiǎoshēng', refuting its second half, which is to refute the incompleteness of having an end. Therefore, it will still fall into two criticisms. The first verse
牒其上半。即以其下半難之。第二偈牒其下半。即以上半難之。初偈難大意明。小乘羅漢心粗不覺言自相害。夫論能生他也則不從他。若從他也即不能生他。二義不併。而小乘人謂能生他復從他生。是故不覺其相害。今捉其從他難其生他也。小生既從大生生。即不能生大。若能生大即不從大也。又云小生若具三義可能生於大生。一者小生自有體。二者在大生之前。三者不由大生而有。若具此三義可許小能生大。而小生一不能自有。二不在大生之前。三由大生而有。闕此三義何能生大生耶。長行雲。生生法應生本生者。一有重生之名。一無重名。有重名尚不生況無重名耶。二者小生生大生大生生小生。此義是同。今已破小不能生大。即是破大不生於小。汝已知小不生大。云何言大能生小。三者小是大生之本。應生於大。今尚不能生大。而大是其末云何生小。四者生生從本生生。即未有自體。故不能生大。大豈能生小耶。后正意也。問既云生生法應生本生。結時應言是生生不能生本生。何因乃云本生不能生生生。答只生生不能生本生故無本生。既無本生將何生生生。故云本生不能生生生也。問何故論主破生生耶。答昔羅什法師至關初翻智度論竟。未有人作序。姚興天子時附書請匡山遠法師作序。遠前抄智度論為二十卷稱為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 牒取第一個偈頌的上半部分，然後用它的下半部分來詰難它。第二個偈頌則取其下半部分，用上半部分來詰難。第一個偈頌主要詰難其大意，表明小乘羅漢心粗，沒有覺察到自己言語的自相矛盾之處。如果說一個事物能夠產生另一個事物，那麼它就不應該依賴於那個被產生的對象。如果它依賴於被產生的對象，那麼它就不能產生那個對象。這兩種含義是不能並存的。但是小乘之人卻認為事物既能產生他物，又從他物而生，因此沒有覺察到其中的矛盾。現在抓住他們所說的『從他生』來詰難他們的『能生他』。小生既然是從大生而生，就不能再生大生。如果小生能夠生大生，那麼它就不應該從大生而生。 又說，小生如果具備三種條件，或許可以生出大生：一是小生自身具有實體；二是在大生之前就已存在；三不是由大生而產生。如果具備這三種條件，或許可以允許小生能夠生出大生。然而小生一不能自有實體，二不在大生之前存在，三是由大生而產生。缺少這三種條件，又怎麼能夠生出大生呢？ 長行中說：『生生法應該生本生』，一種情況是有『重生』之名，一種情況是沒有『重生』之名。有『重生』之名尚且不能生，更何況沒有『重生』之名呢？第二種情況是小生生大生，大生生小生，這個觀點是相同的。現在已經破斥了小生不能生大生，也就是破斥了大生不能生小生。你們已經知道小生不能生大生，為什麼還說大生能夠生小生呢？第三種情況是小生是大生的根本，應該能夠生出大生。現在尚且不能生出大生，而大生是小生的末端，又怎麼能夠生出小生呢？第四種情況是生生是從本生而生，也就是還沒有自體，所以不能生出大生，大生又怎麼能夠生出小生呢？後面是正面的意思。問：既然說『生生法應該生本生』，結論時應該說『是生生不能生本生』，為什麼卻說『本生不能生生生』呢？答：正因為生生不能生本生，所以沒有本生。既然沒有本生，又用什麼來生生生呢？所以說本生不能生生生。 問：為什麼論主要破斥生生呢？答：過去鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）法師到達關中，剛翻譯完《智度論》，還沒有人作序。姚興（Yao Xing）天子當時附信請廬山慧遠（Huiyuan）法師作序。慧遠先前抄錄《智度論》為二十卷，稱為《...
【English Translation】 English version Take the first half of the first verse and challenge it with its second half. Then take the second half of the second verse and challenge it with its first half. The first verse mainly challenges the general meaning, pointing out that the Śrāvakas (small vehicle arhats) are too coarse to realize the self-contradiction in their words. If something can produce another thing, then it should not depend on the thing it produces. If it depends on the thing it produces, then it cannot produce that thing. These two meanings cannot coexist. However, the followers of the Small Vehicle believe that things can both produce others and be produced by others, thus failing to perceive the contradiction. Now, seize upon their claim of 'being produced by others' to challenge their claim of 'being able to produce others'. Since the small birth is born from the great birth, it cannot give rise to the great birth. If the small birth could give rise to the great birth, then it should not be born from the great birth. Furthermore, it is said that if the small birth possesses three conditions, it might be able to give rise to the great birth: first, the small birth has its own substance; second, it exists before the great birth; and third, it is not produced by the great birth. If these three conditions are met, it might be permissible to allow the small to produce the great. However, the small birth neither has its own substance, nor exists before the great birth, nor is it produced independently of the great birth. Lacking these three conditions, how can it give rise to the great birth? The prose passage says: 'The birth-birth dharma should give rise to the original birth', one situation is having the name of 'rebirth', one situation is not having the name of 'rebirth'. If having the name of 'rebirth' still cannot give rise, how much more so for not having the name of 'rebirth'? The second situation is that the small birth gives rise to the great birth, and the great birth gives rise to the small birth, this view is the same. Now that it has been refuted that the small cannot give rise to the great, it is also refuted that the great cannot give rise to the small. You already know that the small cannot give rise to the great, why do you still say that the great can give rise to the small? The third situation is that the small is the root of the great, and should be able to give rise to the great. Now it still cannot give rise to the great, and the great is the end of the small, how can it give rise to the small? The fourth situation is that birth-birth is born from the original birth, that is, it does not yet have its own substance, so it cannot give rise to the great, how can the great give rise to the small? The latter is the correct meaning. Question: Since it is said that 'the birth-birth dharma should give rise to the original birth', the conclusion should be 'it is the birth-birth that cannot give rise to the original birth', why is it said that 'the original birth cannot give rise to birth-birth'? Answer: Precisely because birth-birth cannot give rise to the original birth, there is no original birth. Since there is no original birth, what is used to give rise to birth-birth? Therefore, it is said that the original birth cannot give rise to birth-birth. Question: Why does the treatise master refute birth-birth? Answer: In the past, when the Dharma Master Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什) arrived in Guanzhong (關中), he had just finished translating the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (智度論), and no one had yet written a preface. Emperor Yao Xing (姚興) at that time attached a letter requesting Dharma Master Huiyuan (慧遠) of Mount Lu (廬山) to write a preface. Huiyuan had previously copied the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra into twenty volumes, calling it the...
問論。而制論序。末睿師作序云。夫萬化本于生生。而生生者無生。變化肇乎物始。而始始者無始。無生無始蓋是物之性也。此語具破二家義。小乘以生生為萬物本。由生生故有大生。有大生故有有為。今求生生不可得。故云生生者無生。老子以無名為萬物始。有名為萬物母。故以有始為萬物本。今破此義故云始始者無始。無生無始畢竟空。乃是諸法實體。論主今欲論諸法實體破小乘橫謂。所以破生生也。問曰下第三救。外云八相有二分。一生望六相此是體同時用前後。二大小二生體同時用亦同時。只一剎那中大生生小生時。小生即生大生。猶如外道立拒支瓶三木一時共起互為因果。內法雲。猶如束竹亦一時而有。又涅槃經親說一時。汝初偈乃明前有大生後有小生。故小不能生大。次偈明前有小生後有大生。故大不能生小。此即非難。前後自是我之所斥。不待論主破也。以大生在前得能而失從。小生在後得從而失能。故前後屈二破。今小生從大生。生時即能生大。故小生具能從二義。大生亦爾。此捉甚急辨太精也。答曰下第四破救。初偈破其小生於大。次偈破其大生於小。上半牒下半破。上半牒二義。若生生生時。此牒小生從大生生時。此明小生之體也。能生於本生者。此牒小生能生大生也。即小生之用也。大意明。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問論。而作論序。末睿師作序說：『萬物的變化本源於生生不息，而生生不息的本源是沒有生。變化開始於萬物初始，而初始的初始是沒有開始。沒有生沒有開始，這大概就是萬物的本性。』這句話完全破斥了二家的觀點。小乘認為生生不息是萬物的本源，因為有生生不息，所以有大的生，因為有大的生，所以有有為法。現在尋求生生不息卻不可得，所以說生生不息是沒有生。老子認為『無名』是萬物的開始，『有名』是萬物的母親，所以認為有開始是萬物的本源。現在破斥這個觀點，所以說初始的初始是沒有開始。沒有生沒有開始，畢竟是空，乃是諸法的實體。論主現在想要論述諸法的實體，破斥小乘的橫加臆斷，所以破斥生生不息的觀點。 問：下文第三是救護之辭。外道說八相有二分：一是『一生』望『六相』，這是體同時而用有先後。二是大小二生，體同時而用也同時。只在一剎那中，大生生小生時，小生即生大生，猶如外道所立的拒支瓶和三木，一時共同生起，互相為因果。內法說，猶如束竹，也是一時而有。《涅槃經》親自說是一時。你最初的偈頌是說明前有大生，後有小生，所以小不能生大。其次的偈頌是說明前有小生，後有大生，所以大不能生小。這正是非難之處。前後本來就是我所要駁斥的，不需要論主來破斥。因為大生在前，得到了『能』卻失去了『從』；小生在後，得到了『從』卻失去了『能』。所以前後屈曲，用二種方式來破斥。現在小生從大生，生的時候就能生大，所以小生具有『能』和『從』二種含義。大生也是這樣。這是抓得很緊，辯論太精細了。 答：下文第四是破斥救護之辭。最初的偈頌是破斥小生生於大生，其次的偈頌是破斥大生生於小生。上半部分是牒，下半部分是破。上半部分是牒二種含義：『若生生生時』，這是牒小生從大生生的時候。『能生於本生者』，這是牒小生能生大生。大意是說。
【English Translation】 English version: Question on the treatise. And composing a preface to the treatise. Master Mo Rui's preface says: 'The transformations of all things originate from continuous arising (生生, sheng sheng, continuous arising), but the origin of continuous arising is without arising. Change begins with the beginning of things, but the beginning of the beginning is without beginning. No arising and no beginning, this is probably the nature of things.' This statement completely refutes the views of two schools. The Hinayana (小乘, xiǎo chéng, Lesser Vehicle) believes that continuous arising is the origin of all things, because of continuous arising, there is great arising, and because of great arising, there is conditioned dharma (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ, conditioned dharma). Now, seeking continuous arising is unattainable, so it is said that continuous arising is without arising. Lao Tzu (老子, Lǎozi, a Chinese philosopher) believes that 'non-name' (無名, wú míng, non-name) is the beginning of all things, and 'name' (有名, yǒu míng, name) is the mother of all things, so he believes that having a beginning is the origin of all things. Now, refuting this view, it is said that the beginning of the beginning is without beginning. No arising and no beginning, ultimately empty, is the substance of all dharmas. The author of the treatise now wants to discuss the substance of all dharmas, refuting the Hinayana's arbitrary assumptions, so he refutes the view of continuous arising. Question: The third part below is a defense. The outsider says that the eight aspects have two parts: first, 'one arising' (一生, yī shēng, one arising) looks at 'six aspects' (六相, liù xiàng, six aspects), this is substance simultaneous but function has sequence. Second, the arising of large and small, substance simultaneous and function also simultaneous. Only in one k剎那 (chà nà, kshana, an instant), when the great arising produces the small arising, the small arising immediately produces the great arising, just like the prop-up bottle (拒支瓶, jù zhī píng, prop-up bottle) and three supports (三木, sān mù, three supports) established by the outsider, arising together at the same time, mutually as cause and effect. The inner dharma says, like bundled bamboo, it also exists at the same time. The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經, Nièpán jīng, Nirvana Sutra) personally says it is at the same time. Your initial verse explains that there is a great arising before and a small arising after, so the small cannot produce the great. The second verse explains that there is a small arising before and a great arising after, so the great cannot produce the small. This is precisely the difficulty. Before and after were originally what I wanted to refute, there is no need for the author of the treatise to refute it. Because the great arising is before, it obtains 'ability' (能, néng, ability) but loses 'following' (從, cóng, following); the small arising is after, it obtains 'following' but loses 'ability'. Therefore, before and after are bent, using two ways to refute. Now the small arising follows the great arising, and when it arises, it can produce the great, so the small arising has both the meaning of 'ability' and 'following'. The great arising is also like this. This is grasping very tightly, the debate is too refined. Answer: The fourth part below is to refute the defense. The initial verse refutes the small arising producing the great arising, the second verse refutes the great arising producing the small arising. The first half is a restatement, the second half is a refutation. The first half restates two meanings: 'If arising arises when arising', this restates when the small arising arises from the great arising. 'That which can produce the original arising', this restates that the small arising can produce the great arising. The general meaning is.
當小生從大生生時即能生大生。故從他生。能生他一時而有具能從二義也。下半亦兩句。生生尚未有者。此捉其初小生從大生生也。何能生本生。破其第二句能生大生也。破意云。小生若有自體即不從大。既其從大則未有自體。尚未有自體何能有生大生之用耶。文正爾。便足不煩更厝余意。而寄文更有別難者。凡相生之理必能生是有所生是無。若二俱是有即俱是能生無所生。若二俱是無即俱是所生無能生。若有能生所生即一有一無。若得一時即失能所。得能所即失一時。汝言是一時復有能所。是事不然也。又問為有竟論相生相生然後有。若兩法有竟不須相生。若相生然後有。即未生未有。小生既被大生生。即知未有。云何能生大耶。又問小生生大為有體故生大。為體無故生大。若有體故生大。即于能生義成於被生義壞。若無體生大即于被生義成於能生義壞也。又總破云。汝大小相生即能所無定。以能為所即能不定能。以所為能即所不定所。以無定故即不可得。如燃可燃品若法有待成偈也。亦如百論生可生不能生。又大小之名此義不立。所以然者以小翻為大大仍成小。以大能生於小。今小能生此大。豈不力過於大耶。問曰如燈能自照下。前第一破展轉相生竟。今第二破不展轉相生。又前就法說門破生。今就譬說門破生。
即一切生盡矣。又初但破于生。後門兼破明暗及解惑等。就文為二。初偈立。后四偈破。立中上半譬下半合。有此立者可具二義。一者改宗。上破云。小既從大生。即不能生大。如其生大即不從大。今明小不由大而能生大。是故應有相生義也。二者此人不復立大小相生。但明法體由生相而生生相不更從他而有。此是即法沙門僧祇成論義。復是外道所立。如百論云。吉能自吉復能使他吉。如燈自照亦能照他。答中但破譬說。而法說自亡。又法說在後破之。又破燈即得遍破世間外道大乘小乘。破自生生他但偏破一家耳。所以破燈遍破眾師者。一切人見有燈即是有見。有見起著于燈上招于業苦。今令悟燈畢竟空。即愛見斷得解脫也。又即令見佛性。如經云。明與無明愚者謂二。智者了達其性無二。無二之性即是實性。今悟明暗不二故見實性。實性即中道。因中發觀也。四偈為兩初二偈破明到暗而能破暗。次兩偈破明不到暗而能破暗。二門各兩。初門二者。一破已成燈不見暗。不見暗故不破暗。次破初生燈不見暗故不破暗。又初偈總破明不見暗故不破暗。次別破初明不見暗故不破暗。就初偈為二。上半明自他兩處無所破之暗。下半結無能破之明。此中炎內為自。炎外為他。此之二處並皆無暗。無暗則無明也。前展轉家得從生即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『即一切生盡矣』（意思是說一切的生滅現象都終結了）。而且一開始只是破斥『生』這個概念，後面的論述兼破『明』（光明）、『暗』（黑暗）以及『解惑』（解除疑惑）等等。就文義而言，分為兩部分。首先是偈頌的立論，然後是四個偈頌的破斥。立論部分，上半部分是比喻，下半部分是合喻。之所以要立此論，可能有兩種含義。一是改變宗義。前面破斥說，小如果從大產生，就不能產生大；如果它能產生大，就不是從大產生。現在說明小不是由大而能產生大，所以應該有相生的道理。二是這個人不再立大小相生的觀點，只是說明法體由生相而生，生相不再從其他事物而來。這是即法沙門僧祇成論的觀點，也是外道所立的觀點。如《百論》所說：『吉（吉祥）能自己吉祥，也能使他人吉祥，如燈自己能照亮，也能照亮他人。』在回答中，只是破斥比喻，而法說自然消亡。而且法說在後面也會被破斥。而且破斥燈的比喻，就能普遍破斥世間外道、大乘、小乘的觀點。破斥自生生他，只是偏頗地破斥一家之言。所以破斥燈的比喻能普遍破斥眾師的觀點，是因為一切人見到有燈，就認為是有見（有所見），有見就會執著于燈上，招致業苦。現在要使人領悟到燈畢竟是空性的，愛見斷除就能得到解脫。而且也能使人見到佛性。如經中所說：『明與無明，愚者認為是二，智者了達其性無二。』無二之性就是實性。現在領悟到明暗不二，所以能見到實性。實性就是中道，因中而發觀。四個偈頌分為兩部分，前兩個偈頌破斥光明到達黑暗而能破除黑暗的觀點，后兩個偈頌破斥光明不到達黑暗而能破除黑暗的觀點。兩種觀點各有兩個方面。第一種觀點的兩個方面是：一是破斥已經存在的燈不能見到黑暗，因為不能見到黑暗所以不能破除黑暗；二是破斥初生的燈不能見到黑暗，所以不能破除黑暗。而且第一個偈頌總破光明不能見到黑暗所以不能破除黑暗，第二個偈頌分別破斥初生的光明不能見到黑暗所以不能破除黑暗。就第一個偈頌而言，分為兩部分。上半部分說明光明在自身和他身兩處都沒有可以破除的黑暗，下半部分總結沒有能破除黑暗的光明。這裡，火焰內部為自身，火焰外部為他身。這兩個地方都沒有黑暗，沒有黑暗就沒有光明。前面展轉家的觀點認為，從生即……
【English Translation】 English version 'That is, all births are exhausted.' (meaning that all phenomena of arising and ceasing come to an end). Moreover, initially, only the concept of 'birth' is refuted, and later discussions also refute 'brightness' (light), 'darkness' (dark), and 'dispelling doubts' (resolving confusion), etc. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. First, there is the establishment of the thesis in the verses, and then there are four verses of refutation. In the establishment of the thesis, the first half is a metaphor, and the second half is a combination of metaphors. The reason for establishing this thesis may have two meanings. One is to change the doctrine. The previous refutation said that if the small arises from the large, it cannot produce the large; if it can produce the large, it does not arise from the large. Now it is explained that the small is not produced by the large, so there should be a principle of mutual arising. Second, this person no longer establishes the view of mutual arising of large and small, but only explains that the Dharma body arises from the characteristic of arising, and the characteristic of arising does not come from other things. This is the view of the Sāmmitīya school of the Dharma, and it is also the view established by the heretics. As the Śataśāstra says: 'Auspiciousness (吉) can be auspicious by itself and can also make others auspicious, just as a lamp can illuminate itself and can also illuminate others.' In the answer, only the metaphor is refuted, and the Dharma explanation naturally disappears. Moreover, the Dharma explanation will be refuted later. Moreover, refuting the metaphor of the lamp can universally refute the views of worldly heretics, Mahayana, and Hinayana. Refuting self-arising and other-arising only partially refutes one school of thought. Therefore, refuting the metaphor of the lamp can universally refute the views of many teachers, because everyone who sees a lamp thinks that there is seeing (有所見), and having seeing will be attached to the lamp, leading to karmic suffering. Now, people should be made to realize that the lamp is ultimately empty, and liberation can be attained by cutting off love and views. Moreover, it can also enable people to see the Buddha-nature. As the sutra says: 'Brightness and ignorance, fools think are two, wise people understand that their nature is not two.' The nature of non-duality is the real nature. Now, realizing that brightness and darkness are not two, one can see the real nature. The real nature is the Middle Way, and contemplation arises from the cause. The four verses are divided into two parts. The first two verses refute the view that light reaches darkness and can dispel darkness, and the last two verses refute the view that light does not reach darkness and can dispel darkness. Each of the two views has two aspects. The two aspects of the first view are: first, refuting that an existing lamp cannot see darkness, and because it cannot see darkness, it cannot dispel darkness; second, refuting that a newly born lamp cannot see darkness, so it cannot dispel darkness. Moreover, the first verse generally refutes that light cannot see darkness, so it cannot dispel darkness, and the second verse separately refutes that newly born light cannot see darkness, so it cannot dispel darkness. As for the first verse, it is divided into two parts. The first half explains that light has no darkness to dispel in itself and in others, and the second half concludes that there is no light that can dispel darkness. Here, the inside of the flame is oneself, and the outside of the flame is others. There is no darkness in these two places, and without darkness, there is no light. The view of the previous evolving school is that from birth, that is...
失能生。得能生即失從生。此不展轉家自他俱失也。問曰下第二立初生燈有照義。問有二意。初非已未兩關。未生即有所照暗無能照明。已生即有能照明無所照暗。此二並無照義也。但生明能自照照彼者。立初生燈也。初生燈之時明體未足。故炎內有暗炎外亦昧。故自他處有暗。既有兩處之暗為所破。即有兩處之明為能破。故自照照他義還立也。而外人立初生燈二義俱成。以初生明能破自他兩處重暗。后大明能破自他兩處輕暗。即是上上智斷下下惑。下下智斷上上惑。未有小明時有自他兩處重暗。即是有暗義。小明若起自他兩處重暗即無。此是有自他兩處照義也。大明未生時有自他兩處輕暗。大明若生則破兩處輕暗。此是有照義。故立初生燈兩義俱成。一者已能破重暗。二者猶有輕暗。待后明破之。又直救前者汝言何故無暗耶。正以明生暗滅。此是破故無耳。非無暗可破也。答中上半總非。下半正破釋非。依智度論作有無門破初生燈。即破其兩義。初燈無重暗故無所破。與輕暗共住復不能破。故二義壞矣。今偈偏明不見重暗故無所破也。若謂燈雖不到闇下。第二兩偈破不到暗能破暗義。有此兩偈來者。論主上有二難。一明兩燈不見兩暗。二者不見故即不破。外人受不見之責。而不受不破之難。以明暗性隔理不相見。雖
不相見而能相破。兩偈為二。初近遠相決破。次明暗比並破。就一一中各有四難。初四者。一以遠從近。不見近而能破近。亦不見遠應能破遠。二以近從遠。不見遠不破遠者。不見近亦不破近也。三顛倒責。不見義齊。而破近不破遠。亦應破遠不破近也。四者明違近暗亦違于遠。若俱違應俱破。若有破不破應有違不違。此中即兼破常人反照智及自覺覺他義。常人解反照義不同。一云離出一智慧照于智名反照智。若別出一智為反照智者。此是智別照于智非謂反照智也。故如指端自觸指端名為反觸。如一刀自斫此刀名反斫刀。何得以兩刀相破名反斫刀耶。作反照智義不成也。又初智不能自知。何名一切智耶。次云自知其體名反照智也。問既言自知其體名反照智者。便應有能照所照即成境智二體。若無能所二者。云何名反照智耶。故反照成即墮二體。免二體即無反照。又破常義云。若燈自照照彼。導亦應自導導彼。解亦應自斷斷彼。識應自識識彼。又毗曇人八微恒俱。雖復共俱各自守性。今問火不令余物體成熱。亦應不能燒余物。又若色不熱遂令熱者。色性非緣應令成緣。複次燈不應自照照彼。此生第二偈。明暗並決破。亦有四難。一者云明不見暗而能懸破闇。亦應暗不見明而能懸破明。二者云暗不見明不能懸破明。亦明不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不（直接）相見卻能互相破斥。以下兩段偈頌分為兩部分。第一部分是關於近和遠的相互決破，第二部分是關於明和暗的對比破斥。每一部分都包含四個難點。第一部分的四個難點： 1. 如果憑藉遠（的力量）來破斥近（的事物），在沒有見到近（的事物）的情況下就能破斥近（的事物），那麼在沒有見到遠（的事物）的情況下也應該能破斥遠（的事物）。 2. 如果憑藉近（的力量）來破斥遠（的事物），沒有見到遠（的事物）就不能破斥遠（的事物），那麼沒有見到近（的事物）也應該不能破斥近（的事物）。 3. 顛倒責難：如果認為（近和遠的）道理是一樣的，那麼破斥近（的事物）卻不破斥遠（的事物），也應該破斥遠（的事物）卻不破斥近（的事物）。 4. 闡明違背近（的事物）也違背遠（的事物）。如果都違背，就應該都被破斥；如果存在破斥和不破斥的情況，就應該存在違背和不違背的情況。 這裡也兼破斥了常人的反照智以及自覺覺他的觀點。常人對反照智的理解不同。一種觀點認為，分離出一個智慧照見（其他的）智慧，這叫做反照智。如果另外分離出一個智慧作為反照智，那麼這是（一個）智慧照見（另一個）智慧，而不是所謂的反照智。就像指尖自己觸碰指尖叫做反觸，一把刀自己砍自己叫做反斫刀。怎麼能用兩把刀互相砍來叫做反斫刀呢？所以，把（分離出一個智慧）作為反照智的說法是不成立的。 而且，最初的智慧不能自己知道自己，怎麼能叫做一切智（Sarvajna）呢？另一種觀點認為，自己知道自己的本體叫做反照智。如果說自己知道自己的本體叫做反照智，那麼就應該有能照和所照，這就形成了境和智兩種實體。如果沒有能照和所照，怎麼能叫做反照智呢？所以，成立反照智就落入了兩種實體，避免兩種實體就沒有反照。 又破斥常義說，如果燈自己照亮自己，也照亮其他事物，那麼引導者也應該自己引導自己，也引導他人；刀也應該自己斬斷自己，也斬斷其他事物；意識也應該自己認識自己，也認識其他事物。而且，毗曇（Abhidharma）宗的人認為八種微粒恒常同時存在。即使同時存在，也各自保持自己的性質。現在問：火如果不使其他物體變熱，也應該不能燃燒其他物體。而且，如果顏色不熱卻使（物體）變熱，那麼顏色的性質不是緣（Pratyaya），也應該能成為緣。 再次，燈不應該自己照亮自己，也照亮其他事物。接下來是第二段偈頌，闡明光明和黑暗並列決破，也有四個難點。第一點是，如果光明沒有見到黑暗就能懸空破除黑暗，那麼黑暗也應該沒有見到光明就能懸空破除光明。第二點是，如果黑暗沒有見到光明就不能懸空破除光明，那麼光明也...
【English Translation】 English version Without meeting, they can mutually refute. The following two verses are divided into two parts. The first part is about the mutual refutation of near and far, and the second part is about the comparative refutation of light and darkness. Each part contains four difficulties. The four difficulties of the first part: 1. If one relies on the far (power) to refute the near (things), and can refute the near (things) without seeing the near (things), then one should also be able to refute the far (things) without seeing the far (things). 2. If one relies on the near (power) to refute the far (things), and cannot refute the far (things) without seeing the far (things), then one should also not be able to refute the near (things) without seeing the near (things). 3. Inverted accusation: If one thinks that the principles (of near and far) are the same, then refuting the near (things) but not refuting the far (things) should also mean refuting the far (things) but not refuting the near (things). 4. Clarify that what violates the near (things) also violates the far (things). If they all violate, they should all be refuted; if there are cases of refutation and non-refutation, there should be cases of violation and non-violation. Here, it also refutes the common people's reflective wisdom (反照智) and the view of self-awareness and awareness of others. Common people have different understandings of reflective wisdom. One view is that separating out an intelligence that can illuminate (other) intelligences is called reflective wisdom. If another intelligence is separated out as reflective wisdom, then this is (one) intelligence illuminating (another) intelligence, not the so-called reflective wisdom. Just like the fingertip touching the fingertip itself is called self-touch, and a knife cutting itself is called a self-chopping knife. How can two knives cutting each other be called a self-chopping knife? Therefore, the statement of (separating out an intelligence) as reflective wisdom is not valid. Moreover, the initial intelligence cannot know itself, how can it be called Sarvajna (一切智)? Another view is that knowing one's own essence is called reflective wisdom. If it is said that knowing one's own essence is called reflective wisdom, then there should be the able to illuminate and the illuminated, which forms two entities of object and wisdom. If there is no able to illuminate and the illuminated, how can it be called reflective wisdom? Therefore, establishing reflective wisdom falls into two entities, and avoiding two entities means no reflection. It also refutes the common meaning, saying that if a lamp illuminates itself and also illuminates other things, then the guide should also guide himself and also guide others; the knife should also cut itself and also cut other things; consciousness should also recognize itself and also recognize other things. Moreover, the people of Abhidharma (毗曇) believe that eight particles always exist simultaneously. Even if they exist simultaneously, they each maintain their own nature. Now ask: If fire does not make other objects hot, it should also not be able to burn other objects. Moreover, if color is not hot but makes (objects) hot, then the nature of color is not a condition (Pratyaya), it should also be able to become a condition. Again, the lamp should not illuminate itself and also illuminate other things. Next is the second verse, which clarifies that light and darkness are juxtaposed and refuted, and there are also four difficulties. The first point is that if light can dispel darkness in the air without seeing darkness, then darkness should also be able to dispel light in the air without seeing light. The second point is that if darkness cannot dispel light in the air without seeing light, then light also...
見暗亦不能懸破暗。三顛倒難。不見義齊。而明能破闇闇不破明。亦應暗能破明明不破暗。四者有破不破。即有違不違也。此四偈文意多含。今更敘其大意。初偈辨后明不見細暗故不能破暗。次偈辨初明不見粗暗故不破粗暗。第三偈意若不及粗細遠暗不能破遠。亦不及粗細近暗亦不破近。第四偈以暗不見明不能破明。即明不見暗亦。不破暗。即四偈都辨明不破暗明不破暗。即無自照照他故無自生生他義也。又初二偈奪破。以初后二明既不見暗。即不破暗也。第三一偈名為縱破。縱明能破暗應破近遠一切暗。第四偈縱明能破暗亦暗應破明。故初二奪其破。后二與其破也。又初三偈就明辨明不能破暗。后一偈舉暗顯明不破暗義也。又后二偈為二意。初偈縱明破暗即應遍破一切暗。第二偈奪暗既無破一毫明理。即明都無破一毫暗理。問何故破外人明暗義。答大小內外並言明能破暗。成明暗惑解二見。今欲息二令悟不二故寄破生門以破明暗耳。破生因緣未盡者。第三雜破眾師計生。以執生者既多故須更破。二者更開種種觀門破生令悟無生。以觀門未盡故名未盡。又上略破生。今廣破生。故云未盡。又病未盡故云未盡。又近接破燈生者。上但破譬猶未破法雲未盡也。九偈開為七門。初偈已未門。次三時門。三寂滅門。四三世門。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『見暗亦不能懸破暗。三顛倒難。不見義齊。而明能破闇闇不破明。亦應暗能破明明不破暗。四者有破不破。即有違不違也。』這四句偈文含義豐富，現在進一步敘述其大意。第一句偈文辨析後來的明（后明）不能破除黑暗，是因為它看不見細微的黑暗。第二句偈文辨析最初的明（初明）不能破除黑暗，是因為它看不見粗大的黑暗。第三句偈文的意思是，如果明不及於粗細遠處的黑暗，就不能破除遠處的黑暗；同樣，如果明不及於粗細近處的黑暗，也不能破除近處的黑暗。第四句偈文說，因為黑暗看不見明，所以不能破除明；同樣，因為明看不見黑暗，所以不能破除黑暗。這四句偈文都在辨說明不能破除黑暗，明不能破除黑暗，也就是說，沒有自己照亮自己、照亮他人的道理，因此也沒有自己產生、產生他人的道理。 另外，前兩句偈文是『奪破』，因為最初和後來的明都看不見黑暗，所以不能破除黑暗。第三句偈文稱為『縱破』，即使明能夠破除黑暗，也應該破除近處和遠處的一切黑暗。第四句偈文說，即使明能夠破除黑暗，那麼黑暗也應該能夠破除明。所以，前兩句偈文否定了明破除黑暗的可能性，后兩句偈文肯定了這種可能性。 此外，前三句偈文就明來辨說明不能破除黑暗，后一句偈文舉出黑暗來顯明不能破除黑暗的道理。而且，后兩句偈文包含兩層意思。第一句偈文說，如果明能夠破除黑暗，就應該普遍地破除一切黑暗。第二句偈文否定了黑暗能夠破除哪怕一絲光明的道理，也就是說，明根本沒有破除哪怕一絲黑暗的道理。有人問：為什麼要破除外道關於明暗的理論？回答說：外道普遍認為明能夠破除大小、內外一切黑暗，從而形成了明暗、迷惑和覺悟這兩種對立的觀點。現在想要消除這兩種對立，使人領悟不二的真理，所以借用破除生滅的方便法門來破除明暗的執著。破除生滅的因緣還沒有完盡，是因為還有第三種破除眾師關於生的計度。因為執著于生的人很多，所以需要進一步破除。其次，進一步開示種種觀門來破除生滅的觀念，使人領悟無生的道理。因為觀門還沒有窮盡，所以稱為『未盡』。而且，上面只是簡略地破除了生，現在要廣泛地破除生，所以說『未盡』。另外，因為病根還沒有除盡，所以說『未盡』。而且，緊接著上面破除燈的生滅，上面只是破除了比喻，還沒有破除法，所以說『未盡』。這九句偈文可以分為七個方面來闡釋。第一句偈文是已/未門，第二句是三時門，第三句是寂滅門，第四句是三世門。
【English Translation】 English version 'Seeing darkness also cannot dispel darkness from afar. The three inversions are difficult. Not seeing the equality of meaning. While light can dispel darkness, darkness cannot dispel light. Likewise, darkness should be able to dispel light, and light should not be able to dispel darkness. These four have dispelling and not dispelling, which means there is contradiction and no contradiction.' These four verses contain much meaning. Now, I will further explain their main idea. The first verse distinguishes that later light (hou ming) cannot dispel darkness because it does not see subtle darkness. The second verse distinguishes that initial light (chu ming) cannot dispel coarse darkness because it does not see coarse darkness. The meaning of the third verse is that if light does not reach coarse, subtle, and distant darkness, it cannot dispel distant darkness; likewise, if light does not reach coarse, subtle, and near darkness, it cannot dispel near darkness. The fourth verse says that because darkness does not see light, it cannot dispel light; likewise, because light does not see darkness, it cannot dispel darkness. These four verses all distinguish that light does not dispel darkness, meaning there is no self-illumination illuminating others, thus there is no self-generation generating others. Furthermore, the first two verses are 'destructive negation' (duo po), because both initial and later light do not see darkness, thus they cannot dispel darkness. The third verse is called 'affirming negation' (zong po), even if light can dispel darkness, it should dispel all darkness near and far. The fourth verse says that even if light can dispel darkness, then darkness should also be able to dispel light. Therefore, the first two verses negate the possibility of light dispelling darkness, and the latter two verses affirm this possibility. Moreover, the first three verses discuss light to distinguish that light cannot dispel darkness, and the last verse uses darkness to reveal the meaning that light does not dispel darkness. Furthermore, the latter two verses contain two meanings. The first verse says that if light can dispel darkness, it should universally dispel all darkness. The second verse negates the principle that darkness can dispel even a hair of light, meaning that light fundamentally has no principle of dispelling even a hair of darkness. Someone asks: Why refute the externalists' theories about light and darkness? The answer is: Externalists universally believe that light can dispel all darkness, large and small, internal and external, thus forming the two opposing views of light and darkness, delusion and enlightenment. Now, wanting to eliminate these two oppositions and make people realize the truth of non-duality, we borrow the expedient method of refuting arising and ceasing to refute the attachment to light and darkness. The causes and conditions for refuting arising and ceasing are not yet exhausted because there is a third refutation of the various teachers' calculations about arising. Because there are many who are attached to arising, it is necessary to further refute it. Secondly, further reveal various gates of contemplation to refute the concept of arising and ceasing, making people realize the principle of non-arising. Because the gates of contemplation are not yet exhausted, it is called 'not exhausted' (wei jin). Moreover, above, we only briefly refuted arising; now, we will extensively refute arising, so it is said 'not exhausted'. Furthermore, because the root of the illness has not yet been eradicated, it is said 'not exhausted'. Moreover, closely following the above refutation of the arising and ceasing of the lamp, above, we only refuted the metaphor, and have not yet refuted the Dharma, so it is said 'not exhausted'. These nine verses can be divided into seven aspects to explain. The first verse is the already/not yet gate (yi/wei men), the second is the three times gate (san shi men), the third is the extinction gate (ji mie men), and the fourth is the three worlds gate (san shi men).
五並決門。六有無門。七滅不滅門。此就能破作名也。若約所破立名者。初破已未生。乃至第七破滅不滅生。初偈上半作未門破。下半作已門破。此偈破其自生未破生他。自生是體生他是用。尚無自體安有用耶。但自他有二。依十二門即以小生自起為自。能生大生大生為他。依成實等生相自起為自。法體從生相生為他。已有自體即不須生。未有自體即不可生也。長行為六雙。一雙牒立。二雙定。三雙難。四雙結。五雙呵。六雙類。文處易知也。生非生已生者。第二三時門破。有此偈來凡有二義。一者上雖作已未破之恐必不受謂生時生是故此偈具開三門責無生也。二者欲示觀門通徹。外人于去來品已解三時無去。猶未知三時無生也。今明生之與去俱是有為法。既三時無去生亦如此。即引其前悟曉其未通。故指去來破也。去來六情品用三時者。破法體。今用三時破相也。偈為三。初一生字是牒。次以三門非之。第三指於前品。上既已說故今直非也。長行釋三章。即三。初釋上生字。次釋三門破。三釋指前品。生名眾緣和合有。是釋生字也。明此生是因緣假名不生生。非如汝定性生也。已生中無作故下。第二釋偈三時門。又開三。初略破。次廣破。后結破。亦是標釋結也。離生法生時不可得者。外人謂法賴時生。若時法別有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五並決門（五種並列的決斷之門）。六有無門（有和無的對立之門）。七滅不滅門（滅和不滅的對立之門）。這些都是就所破斥的對象來命名的。如果按照所破斥的觀點來命名，最初是破斥已生和未生，乃至第七是破斥滅和不滅的生起。第一個偈頌的上半部分作為『未』門來破斥，下半部分作為『已』門來破斥。這個偈頌破斥的是自生，並沒有破斥生他。自生是本體的生起，生他是作用的生起。如果連自體都沒有，哪裡來的作用呢？但自生和他生有兩種。依據十二門，就是以小生自身生起作為自生，能生大生，大生作為他生。依據成實論等，生相自身生起作為自生，法體從生相生起作為他生。如果已經有了自體，就不需要再生；如果沒有自體，就不可能生起。 長行分為六雙。第一雙是牒立（重複並確立觀點）。第二雙是定（確定觀點）。第三雙是難（提出質疑）。第四雙是結（總結觀點）。第五雙是呵（呵斥錯誤）。第六雙是類（類比說明）。文中的位置容易辨認。『生非生已生者』，這是用第二和第三時門來破斥。有這個偈頌出現，大致有兩個意義。一是上面雖然已經作了已生和未生的破斥，但恐怕對方一定不接受，認為生的時候才生，所以這個偈頌完整地展開三門來責難無生。二是想要顯示觀門的通徹。外人在去來品中已經理解了三時沒有去，但還不知道三時沒有生。現在說明生和去都是有為法。既然三時沒有去，生也是如此。就引用他之前領悟的道理來曉喻他未通達之處。所以指出去來破斥。去來六情品用三時，是破斥法體。現在用三時破斥相。偈頌分為三部分。第一句『一生』字是重複。其次用三門否定它。第三是指向前面的品。上面已經說過了，所以現在直接否定。長行解釋分為三章，也就是三部分。首先解釋上面的『生』字。其次解釋三門破斥。第三解釋指前品。『生名眾緣和合有』，這是解釋『生』字。說明這個生是因緣假名，不是真實的生，不像你所認為的定性生。『已生中無作故下』，第二部分解釋偈頌的三時門。又分為三部分。首先是略破，其次是廣破，最後是結破。也是標、釋、結。『離生法生時不可得者』，外人認為法依賴時間而生。如果時間和法是分別存在的
【English Translation】 English version Five Concurrent Decision Gates. Six Existence and Non-Existence Gates. Seven Extinction and Non-Extinction Gates. These are named according to what is being refuted. If named according to the views being refuted, the first is refuting already-born and not-yet-born, and the seventh is refuting the arising of extinction and non-extinction. The first half of the first verse is used as the 'Not-Yet' gate for refutation, and the second half is used as the 'Already' gate for refutation. This verse refutes self-origination, without refuting other-origination. Self-origination is the origination of the substance, and other-origination is the origination of the function. If there is no self-substance, where does the function come from? But there are two types of origination: self and other. According to the Twelve Gates, small origination arising from itself is considered self, and the ability to generate great origination, with great origination being other. According to the Satyasiddhi Shastra and others, the characteristic of origination arising from itself is considered self, and the dharma-body arising from the characteristic of origination is considered other. If there is already a self-substance, there is no need for further origination; if there is no self-substance, origination is impossible. The prose is divided into six pairs. The first pair is affirmation and establishment (repeating and establishing the viewpoint). The second pair is determination (determining the viewpoint). The third pair is difficulty (raising questions). The fourth pair is conclusion (summarizing the viewpoint). The fifth pair is rebuke (rebuking errors). The sixth pair is analogy (illustrating with analogy). The positions in the text are easy to recognize. 'That which is born, not born, already born,' this uses the second and third time gates for refutation. The appearance of this verse has roughly two meanings. First, although the refutation of already-born and not-yet-born has already been done above, it is feared that the opponent will certainly not accept it, thinking that birth only occurs at the time of birth, so this verse fully unfolds the three gates to criticize non-birth. Second, it is intended to show the thoroughness of the contemplation gate. Outsiders have already understood in the 'Going and Coming' chapter that there is no going in the three times, but they still do not know that there is no birth in the three times. Now it is explained that birth and going are both conditioned dharmas. Since there is no going in the three times, birth is also the same. It quotes the principles they understood before to enlighten them about what they have not yet understood. Therefore, it points to going and coming for refutation. The 'Going and Coming Six Emotions' chapter uses the three times to refute the dharma-body. Now the three times are used to refute the characteristics. The verse is divided into three parts. The first word 'birth' is a repetition. Secondly, it is negated with the three gates. Thirdly, it refers to the previous chapter. Since it has already been said above, it is now directly negated. The prose explanation is divided into three chapters, which are also three parts. First, explain the word 'birth' above. Secondly, explain the three-gate refutation. Thirdly, explain the reference to the previous chapter. 'Birth is named as existing due to the aggregation of various conditions,' this is explaining the word 'birth'. It explains that this birth is a provisional name based on conditions, not a real birth, not like the fixed-nature birth you believe in. 'Because there is no action in what is already born,' the second part explains the three-time gates of the verse. It is further divided into three parts. First is the brief refutation, second is the extensive refutation, and last is the concluding refutation. It is also labeling, explaining, and concluding. 'That which is separate from the law of birth cannot be obtained at the time of birth,' outsiders believe that the law depends on time for birth. If time and law exist separately
二體。可得法賴於時。時無別體。云何得賴。此即破數論人法賴於時。又數論但知。因法有時時無別體。不知因時有法法無別體。故為今所破。又破開善云。生若是時即時無自體。便無生也。又時以法為體。法復以何為體。若更有體即無窮。若窮即無體也。已生法不生下。第三廣破三時。即三初門又三謂標釋結。何以故下釋也。凡有三難。一無窮。二不定。三理奪。無窮者一物經無窮果生名為無窮。然已生物不應更生。汝遂言已生之物更生者。既得二生即應三四。故生無息時。若最後者遂息即最初者亦息也。複次下第二不定。破就文為五。一牒二定三難四釋五結。初是牒也。以何法生者。第二定也。有此一破凡有二義。一逆取外意。外云我言生已生者。從本未生。今始生已即名生。非生已竟更復生。此是未生生。豈有無窮及並例過耶。故更牒本宗而定之。汝于已未兩生中定以何生法生。若言本未經生今生已即名生。此乃是未生生乖本宗也。若欲依宗生已更生。即墮無窮過。故進退成失也。二意云要經初一生名為生已。更第二生名生已生。今但責其初生。此初生為是未生而生。為是生已生耶。初若未生而生后亦未生而生也。后若生已而生。初亦應爾。而汝立初是未生而生立后是生已而生一言之中自相違也又初生亦不定汝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二體：如果法可以依賴於時間，而時間本身沒有獨立的實體，那麼法又如何依賴於時間呢？這實際上是駁斥數論派（Samkhya）認為法依賴於時間的觀點。而且，數論派只知道因法存在於時間中，卻不知道因時間而有法，法本身沒有獨立的實體。因此，現在要駁斥他們。 又駁斥開善的觀點：如果生起依賴於時間，那麼時間本身就沒有自性，也就沒有生起。而且，時間以法為體，那麼法又以什麼為體呢？如果還有其他的體，就會導致無窮無盡。如果窮盡了，那就什麼體也沒有了。 『已生法不生下』：第三部分廣泛地駁斥了三種時間，也就是三個初門，又分為標、釋、結。『何以故下』是解釋部分。總共有三個難點：一是無窮，二是不定，三是理奪。無窮是指一個事物經歷無窮的果報生起，這被稱為無窮。然而，已經生起的事物不應該再次生起。如果你們說已經生起的事物再次生起，那麼就應該有第三次、第四次生起，所以生起沒有停止的時候。如果最後一次生起停止了，那麼最初的生起也應該停止。 『複次下第二不定』：破斥分為五個部分：一是牒，二是定，三是難，四是釋，五是結。『初是牒也』。『以何法生者』，這是第二部分『定』。這一破斥包含兩個含義：一是逆取外意。外道說：我說生已經生起的事物，是從原本未生起的狀態，現在開始生起，所以稱為生起。不是說生起已經結束了，又再次生起。這是未生而生，怎麼會有無窮和並例的過失呢？所以再次陳述本宗的觀點並加以確定：你們在已生和未生兩種生起中，確定以哪種生起方式生起？如果說是原本未經生起，現在生起才稱為生起，這乃是未生而生，違背了本宗的觀點。如果想要按照本宗的觀點，生起之後再次生起，就會陷入無窮的過失。所以進退兩難。二是說，必須要經過第一次生起才能稱為生已，再有第二次生起才稱為生已生。現在只是責難他的第一次生起，這第一次生起是未生而生，還是生已而生呢？如果第一次是未生而生，那麼之後也應該是未生而生。如果之後是生已而生，那麼最初也應該如此。而你們認為最初是未生而生，之後是生已而生，一句話之中自相矛盾。而且，最初的生起也不確定。
【English Translation】 English version Two Entities: If a dharma can rely on time, and time itself has no independent entity, then how can the dharma rely on time? This is actually refuting the Samkhya school's view that dharma relies on time. Moreover, the Samkhya school only knows that the causal dharma exists in time, but does not know that dharma arises because of time, and dharma itself has no independent entity. Therefore, we must now refute them. Also refuting Kai Shan's view: If arising depends on time, then time itself has no self-nature, and there is no arising. Moreover, time takes dharma as its substance, then what does dharma take as its substance? If there is another substance, it will lead to endlessness. If it is exhausted, then there is no substance at all. 'The already arisen dharma does not arise below': The third part extensively refutes the three times, which are the three initial gates, and is divided into mark, explanation, and conclusion. 'Why is it below' is the explanation part. There are a total of three difficulties: one is infinity, the second is uncertainty, and the third is rational deprivation. Infinity refers to a thing experiencing infinite karmic retributions arising, which is called infinity. However, things that have already arisen should not arise again. If you say that things that have already arisen arise again, then there should be a third and fourth arising, so the arising has no time to stop. If the last arising stops, then the first arising should also stop. 'Furthermore, the second uncertainty below': The refutation is divided into five parts: one is statement, two is determination, three is difficulty, four is explanation, and five is conclusion. 'The first is statement'. 'What dharma arises from', this is the second part 'determination'. This refutation contains two meanings: one is to take the external meaning in reverse. The heretics said: I say that the thing that has already arisen arises from the state of originally not arising, and now it begins to arise, so it is called arising. It is not that the arising has ended and arises again. This is arising from not arising, how can there be the fault of infinity and parallel examples? Therefore, restate the views of this sect and determine it: In the two kinds of arising, already arisen and not arisen, which kind of arising do you determine to arise? If you say that it was originally not arisen, and now it arises, it is called arising, this is arising from not arising, which violates the views of this sect. If you want to follow the views of this sect, arising again after arising will fall into the fault of infinity. So it is a dilemma. The second is to say that it is necessary to go through the first arising to be called already arisen, and then the second arising is called already arisen. Now it is only to blame his first arising, is this first arising not arisen and arising, or already arisen and arising? If the first is not arisen and arising, then the following should also be not arisen and arising. If the following is already arisen and arising, then the first should also be like this. And you think that the first is not arisen and arising, and the following is already arisen and arising, which is self-contradictory in one sentence. Moreover, the first arising is also uncertain.
立初生終是已生生。考此初生本未曾生。今始生。即是未生生故不定也。又作一種直責之。為是已者生為非已者生。若是已者生即屬無窮。若非已者生即墮未生生也。問何人執已生生耶。答毗曇云。未來性有。即是性生已異空。即是空即是已生而復更來現在。即是已者更生故名已生生。今正破此義也。複次如燒已下。第三奪破。前縱即令無窮過生。今奪即都無有生也。如是等下第三總結已生不生也。未生法亦不生下。第二破未生生。又開三別。一破二救三破救。破中三。一總唱不生。何以故下釋不生。是故下結不生法不生也。釋中三。第一以緣徴果。第二乘名責。三廣倒難。以緣徴果者。果既未生。即緣未合。緣未合果云何生耶。此即奪破也。若法未與生緣和合下。第二乘名責。即縱開也。若稱未生即是生。亦應無去即是去無癡即是癡。以未即是無之異名故作此破也。複次下第三廣舉並例。初就大乘門難。不壞羅漢下就小乘門難。兔等無角就世間門難。此三總攝一切事盡也。此三異者。初一令當生者即時現生。后二畢竟不生者令其生也。問曰下第二救為二。初正義宗通論主前二難。次結呵論主通第三並類難。我明未生法不得即生。待緣合未生方生。云何前難云緣未合令果即生耶。通第二難云。我不言未生即是生。何得
云無去法去無癡法癡耶。待生緣方生。亦待去緣合方去。是故若說下第二呵論主通第三難。未生法有二種。一有緣合即生。如凡夫菩提等。二未生法無緣合。故不得生。如不壞羅漢及兔角等。故知未生法有生有不生。汝不應言一切未生法悉應生。亦不應言一切法悉不生也。問未生法得緣合方生。此是誰義。答如成論未來當有若得緣合方起。亦如數人有性有在未來待現在緣和合方生。若是靈味法師云。已有法身體但用未圓。若除煩惱盡解脫波若方圓也。又如地論體用具足。妄覆故不見除妄即見。光宅云。本有如井中七寶。全同地論。答曰下第三破救。縱有待緣合而生。更開三門責。易見。又難舊義云。汝生待緣合方有。未合未有。體亦待緣合方有。未合應未有。若體不待緣而本有者生亦應爾。是故生已不生。第二總結已未無生。即欲攝生時不離已未。已未既無生生時亦無生也。生時亦不生下第三破生時生。四難。一指前破。二無體破。三二法破。四無依破。初一是奪。謂無有生時還同已未。即去來品中最初偈也。已出空即屬已。未出空即屬未。已入有屬已。未入有即屬未。故無生時也。複次下第二無體破。時若有體法可賴之而生。今因生法有時。時無自體法何所賴。同去來品第二偈無體破也。複次下第三二法破。既云生
時生即以一法為時體。一法賴時生即墮二法。故避上無體即墮二體。同去來品二法破。複次生法未發下第四無依破。無依破者。若避二生言時前無生者。即時無所依。時無所依即無時。既無時時後之生復何所附。故避於二生。仍墮無生之咎。同去來品破初發偈。此文少去來品二破。一獨去。二並決。而引取破初發偈作無依破也。問何故引破初發偈破耶。答評此中四難二關。前三明因法有時時無自體。即無時故不得生。后不因法有時。亦空無時故不得生。此二攝一切破盡。故為二也。如是推求。第三總結。總結為四。初結法無生。次例住滅。后類法體。次舉偈怙。問曰下第三破因緣生。即寂滅門破。前問次答。問避前三時故立因緣生。如今中假師等。既聞三論作三時門破。故避三時而立有生也。余有所得大小乘人立生。但立三時不及今外人立義也。答曰下兩偈為二。初偈奪破。次偈縱破。初偈上半舉前。下半況后。凡有五意。一者通呵外人。汝種種立生不成。今不應復立。二者迷語。汝立眾緣合時有生。猶是第三時。何故避三時耶。三者因緣不離三時。破三時竟即破因緣訖。云何更立。四者汝遂避三時即墮無為。無為中無生也。五者汝欲避三時生即生無三時。時無故豈有法。長行雲具足不具足者。具足是已有。未具足是
未有。又具足生時。不具足是未生時。故還同生破也。複次下第二縱破縱破者。上奪不許有因緣生。今縱汝有因緣生。即墮寂滅。又上既迷語。今是迷義。因緣義不如汝所謂。大小內外若聞因緣即言。乃無自性而執有此虛假生也。今諸佛菩薩所解即不然。若唱因緣生即無生不生。無真不真無中不中。故無縱跡無處所。即申正因緣破邪因緣。此一偈是佛法之大宗宜須留懷也。今敘大意者汝若識佛法是因緣。即須知因緣生畢竟寂滅。若不爾即不識因緣義。此進退之言定佛法之得失也。偈為二。上半因果寂滅。下半時法寂滅。問因緣生云何寂滅。答他云。因緣生是世諦。寂滅是真諦。于因緣寂滅中更起真俗二見也。今明。因緣生宛然而常寂滅。如因五指有卷。卷無自性。若有自性不應因指。既其由指即無自性。若有卷自可有卷他。以卷于卷是自。即是指家他。既無卷自亦無卷他。合自他為共。自他無故共即無。此三明卷不得有因。今因指有捲雲何復是無因。故知此卷不自不他。不共不無因。即卷畢竟空。若有卷有可言卷空。本不見卷有云何言空。加是四句。即知卷宛然而四句絕。四句絕而卷宛然。故言因緣所生法即是寂滅性。下半時法寂滅者。上半明所生法體寂滅。法體復假生相兼賴於時。故一法生要具此三。是以下半明生
【現代漢語翻譯】 未有。又具足生時，不具足是未生時，故還同生破也。——如果已經存在，那麼在產生的時候就已經完備；如果不完備，那就是未產生的時候，所以仍然和『生』的觀點一樣被破斥。 複次下第二縱破。縱破者，上奪不許有因緣生，今縱汝有因緣生，即墮寂滅。——接下來是第二重假設性的破斥。所謂『假設性的破斥』，是指之前已經否定了你『因緣生』的觀點，現在假設你的『因緣生』成立，那麼就會陷入寂滅。 又上既迷語，今是迷義。因緣義不如汝所謂。大小內外若聞因緣即言，乃無自性而執有此虛假生也。——之前是迷惑于語言，現在是迷惑于意義。你所理解的『因緣』的意義並非如此。無論大小內外，如果聽到『因緣』就認為是沒有自性而執著于虛假的產生。 今諸佛菩薩所解即不然。若唱因緣生即無生不生，無真不真無中不中，故無縱跡無處所。即申正因緣破邪因緣。——現在諸佛菩薩所理解的並非如此。如果宣揚『因緣生』，那就是既非『生』也非『不生』，既非『真』也非『不真』，既非『中』也非『不中』，所以沒有軌跡沒有處所。這才是闡述正確的因緣，破斥錯誤的因緣。 此一偈是佛法之大宗宜須留懷也。今敘大意者汝若識佛法是因緣，即須知因緣生畢竟寂滅。若不爾即不識因緣義。此進退之言定佛法之得失也。——這一偈頌是佛法的大綱，應該牢記在心。現在敘述其大意：如果你認為佛法是因緣，那麼就必須知道因緣生最終是寂滅的。如果不是這樣，那就是不理解因緣的意義。這進退兩難的話語決定了佛法的得失。 偈為二。上半因果寂滅。下半時法寂滅。——偈頌分為兩部分。上半部分說明因果寂滅，下半部分說明時法寂滅。 問因緣生云何寂滅。答他云，因緣生是世諦，寂滅是真諦。于因緣寂滅中更起真俗二見也。——問：因緣生怎麼會是寂滅呢？回答說：因緣生是世俗諦，寂滅是真諦。在因緣寂滅中又產生了真俗二見的分別。 今明。因緣生宛然而常寂滅。如因五指有卷。卷無自性。若有自性不應因指。既其由指即無自性。——現在說明：因緣生明明存在卻又是常寂滅的。比如因為有五個手指才有了捲曲。捲曲沒有自性。如果有自性就不應該依賴手指。既然它依賴手指，那就沒有自性。 若有卷自可有卷他。以卷于卷是自。即是指家他。既無卷自亦無卷他。合自他為共。自他無故共即無。——如果有捲曲的自體，那麼就可以有捲曲的『他體』。以捲曲相對於捲曲自身來說是『自』，相對於手指來說是『他』。既然沒有捲曲的自體，也就沒有捲曲的『他體』。把『自』和『他』合起來就是『共』，『自』和『他』都沒有，那麼『共』也就沒有。 此三明卷不得有因。今因指有捲雲何復是無因。故知此卷不自不他，不共不無因。即卷畢竟空。——這三種情況說明捲曲不可能有原因。現在因為手指而有捲曲，怎麼又說是沒有原因呢？所以要知道這捲曲既非『自』，也非『他』，既非『共』，也非『無因』。這捲曲畢竟是空。 若有卷有可言卷空。本不見卷有云何言空。加是四句。即知卷宛然而四句絕。四句絕而卷宛然。故言因緣所生法即是寂滅性。——如果存在捲曲的『有』，才可以談論捲曲的『空』。本來就沒有看到捲曲的『有』，怎麼能說捲曲的『空』呢？加上這四句，就知道捲曲明明存在卻又超越了四句的分別。超越了四句的分別，捲曲卻又明明存在。所以說因緣所生法就是寂滅性。 下半時法寂滅者。上半明所生法體寂滅。法體復假生相兼賴於時。故一法生要具此三。是以下半明生——下半部分說明時法寂滅。上半部分說明所生法的本體是寂滅的。法的本體又假借產生的現象，同時依賴於時間。所以一個法的產生需要具備這三者。因此下半部分說明『生』。
【English Translation】 『Not yet.』 Furthermore, when it is complete, it is at the time of arising; if it is incomplete, it is at the time of non-arising. Therefore, it is still refuted in the same way as the view of 『arising.』 Next, the second hypothetical refutation. 『Hypothetical refutation』 means that previously you denied the view of 『arising from conditions,』 but now, assuming that your 『arising from conditions』 is valid, it would fall into quiescence (Nirvana). Moreover, previously there was confusion in language, now there is confusion in meaning. The meaning of 『conditions』 is not as you claim. Whether large or small, internal or external, if one hears of 『conditions,』 they immediately say that it is without self-nature (Svasvabhava) but cling to this false arising. Now, the understanding of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is not like this. If one proclaims 『arising from conditions,』 then it is neither arising nor non-arising, neither true nor untrue, neither middle nor not-middle, therefore there is no trace, no location. This is to expound the correct conditions and refute the incorrect conditions. This verse is the great principle of the Buddha-dharma and should be kept in mind. Now, to explain the general meaning: if you recognize that the Buddha-dharma is conditions, then you must know that arising from conditions is ultimately quiescent. If not, then you do not understand the meaning of conditions. These words of advance and retreat determine the gain and loss of the Buddha-dharma. The verse is in two parts. The first half explains the quiescence of cause and effect. The second half explains the quiescence of time and phenomena. Question: How can arising from conditions be quiescent? Answer: Others say that arising from conditions is conventional truth (Samvriti-satya), and quiescence is ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya). In the quiescence of conditions, they further create the distinction of two truths, conventional and ultimate. Now, it is explained: arising from conditions is clearly present, yet it is always quiescent. For example, because there are five fingers, there is a curl. The curl has no self-nature. If it had self-nature, it should not depend on the fingers. Since it depends on the fingers, it has no self-nature. If there were a self-curl, then there could be an 『other-curl.』 The curl relative to itself is 『self,』 relative to the fingers is 『other.』 Since there is no self-curl, there is also no 『other-curl.』 Combining 『self』 and 『other』 is 『both,』 since 『self』 and 『other』 do not exist, then 『both』 also does not exist. These three situations explain that the curl cannot have a cause. Now, because of the fingers there is a curl, how can it be said to be without cause? Therefore, know that this curl is neither 『self,』 nor 『other,』 neither 『both,』 nor 『without cause.』 This curl is ultimately empty (Sunyata). If there were a 『being』 of the curl, then one could speak of the 『emptiness』 of the curl. Originally, one has not seen the 『being』 of the curl, how can one speak of the 『emptiness』? Adding these four statements, one knows that the curl is clearly present, yet it transcends the distinctions of the four statements. Transcending the distinctions of the four statements, the curl is still clearly present. Therefore, it is said that the phenomena arising from conditions are of a quiescent nature. The second half explains the quiescence of time and phenomena. The first half explains that the essence of the phenomena that arise is quiescent. The essence of phenomena also borrows the appearance of arising and relies on time. Therefore, the arising of a phenomenon requires these three. Therefore, the second half explains 『arising.』
相與時亦寂滅。寂滅者因所相故有能相。是因緣。因緣故寂滅。因法故有時。時即寂滅也。長行三。初釋上半。是故偈中下釋下半。類同上半。汝雖下第三結呵也。釋上半為四。初正釋。如因縷下第二舉事作之。三引燃可燃假喻顯之。是故下第四總結。此既是佛法大宗。今就身上作之。令煩惱清凈。即得道果。及遍通一切大乘經也。如五陰因緣和合故有眾生。眾生若有自體即不假五而成。既五假而成即無自體。無自體故眾生即畢竟空。然本對眾生有故言眾生空耳。眾生未曾有何得言眾生空。若有眾生是空是有。可言非空非有耳。竟未曾有二是。云何有兩非。故知因緣眾生本來四句絕。此是境絕也。有眾生有可生有我心耳。眾生未曾有云何生有心耶。乃至眾生未曾四句。寧起四句心。即知外無四句之相。內無四句之心外無四句之相。于外無數內無四句之心。于內無心。于外無數于內無心。彼已寂滅誥然大均。即是涅槃。故因緣眾生宛然即是大涅槃。法華明諸法從本來寂滅。即是涅槃。今亦爾。如是遍歷一切法。即是法不可示。言辭相寂滅。然即妙法蓮華唯此一極。名一道清凈。諸佛用此為身故名法身。即身無生滅。至人以此為壽。壽無始終。即一部法華也。失此一道清凈故有六道紛然。為眾生失本從此流出一切教。名無
量義經也。又即是中觀論。眾生宛然寂滅即是中。悟眾生本來寂滅即是觀。為物說之即是論。又即三波若。眾生本寂滅即是實相波若。如斯而悟謂觀照波若。為物說之即文字波若。又是涅槃五性。眾生宛然本來寂滅即境果佛性。如斯而悟謂觀智性。具足了達即菩提果性。累無不寂即果果性。既稱寂滅即言忘慮寂。寧有境智及以智斷即中道正性也。又是法華四智。眾生宛然本來寂滅即如來智。寂滅宛然眾生即是佛智。任運而知謂自然智。不從師得即無師智。又是法身父母。了眾生寂滅即波若母。寂滅眾生即方便父。三世佛由此而生。識因緣一句遍通一切佛法也。問長行雲寂滅名無此無彼無相。云何。答眾生既無自體畢竟空。望誰為彼。若有眾生之此可望他為彼耳。故言無此無彼。不可言說眾生相貌。故言無相也。斷言語道者。眾生絕四句不可以四句言眾生。滅諸戲論者。眾生既四句絕。四句愛論及四句見論不得生也。即是斷惑及大懺悔義也。又愛見即是因緣。亦本來四絕。從何處生耶。問因緣既爾。何故不即說之。答此論題因緣品。十二門初題因緣門。意在此也。又問此品初何不即說。答要須先破外人展轉及不展轉性實諸計。畢竟無遺方得略示因緣相耳。大業四年更作一勢釋之。如因五指有卷卷無自體。若有自體不應因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《量義經》也就是《中觀論》。眾生本來的寂滅狀態就是『中』（Madhyamaka）。領悟到眾生本來的寂滅狀態就是『觀』（Vipassanā）。為他人解說這種狀態就是『論』（Shastra）。 這也就是三種般若（Prajna）：眾生本來的寂滅狀態就是實相般若（Tathata-prajna）。像這樣領悟就是觀照般若（Vipassanā-prajna）。為他人解說就是文字般若（Akshara-prajna）。 這也是涅槃（Nirvana）的五種佛性（Buddha-dhatu）：眾生本來的寂滅狀態就是境界果佛性。像這樣領悟就是觀智性。完全通達就是菩提果性（Bodhi-phala-dhatu）。一切煩惱都寂滅就是果果性。既然稱為寂滅，就是言語止息，思慮寂靜。哪裡還有境界、智慧以及智慧的斷滅？這就是中道正性（Madhyama-pratipad）。 這也是《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）的四智：眾生本來的寂滅狀態就是如來智（Tathagata-jnana）。寂滅的本然狀態就是佛智（Buddha-jnana）。自然而然地知曉就是自然智（Sahaja-jnana）。不從師而得就是無師智（Asaiksa-jnana）。 這也是法身（Dharmakaya）的父母：瞭解眾生的寂滅狀態就是般若母（Prajna-mata）。寂滅的眾生就是方便父（Upaya-pita）。三世諸佛由此而生。認識到因緣（Hetupratyaya）這一句，就能通達一切佛法。 問：長行中說，寂滅名為『無此無彼無相』，這是為什麼？ 答：眾生既然沒有自體，畢竟是空（Sunyata）的，又以誰為『彼』呢？如果有眾生的『此』，才能以他為『彼』。所以說『無此無彼』。無法用言語描述眾生的相貌，所以說『無相』。 『斷言語道』，是因為眾生超越了四句（catuṣkoṭi），無法用四句來描述眾生。『滅諸戲論』，是因為眾生既然超越了四句，那麼基於四句的愛論和見論就無法產生。這就是斷惑和大懺悔的含義。 而且，愛見也就是因緣，本來就超越了四句，又從哪裡產生呢？ 問：因緣既然如此，為什麼不直接說明呢？ 答：這部論的題目是『因緣品』，十二門（dvadasanga）一開始就提出了因緣門，用意就在這裡。 又問：為什麼這一品一開始不直接說明呢？ 答：必須要先破斥外道（Tirthika）關於展轉和不展轉的自性實有的各種計較，徹底清除之後，才能略微揭示因緣的真相。 大業四年，我（作者自稱）又用另一種方式來解釋它。比如因為有五指才有捲曲，捲曲沒有自體。如果有自體，就不應該依賴於五指。
【English Translation】 English version The Liang Yi Jing is also the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way). The inherent quiescence of sentient beings is 'Madhyamaka' (the Middle). Realizing that sentient beings are inherently quiescent is 'Vipassanā' (Insight). Explaining this to others is 'Shastra' (Treatise). This is also the three Prajnas: The inherent quiescence of sentient beings is Tathata-prajna (True Nature Prajna). Realizing it in this way is Vipassanā-prajna (Contemplative Prajna). Explaining it to others is Akshara-prajna (Literal Prajna). This is also the five Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-nature) of Nirvana: The inherent quiescence of sentient beings is the Jingguo Buddha-dhatu (Realm-result Buddha-nature). Realizing it in this way is Guanzhi-xing (Nature of Insight Wisdom). Fully understanding it is Bodhi-phala-dhatu (Bodhi-fruit Buddha-nature). When all afflictions are quiescent, it is Guo-guo-xing (Result-result nature). Since it is called quiescence, it means that words cease and thoughts are still. Where are there realms, wisdom, and the cessation of wisdom? This is Madhyama-pratipad (the Middle Way). This is also the four wisdoms of the Lotus Sutra: The inherent quiescence of sentient beings is Tathagata-jnana (Tathagata Wisdom). The inherent quiescence is Buddha-jnana (Buddha Wisdom). Knowing spontaneously is Sahaja-jnana (Innate Wisdom). Not obtained from a teacher is Asaiksa-jnana (Wisdom without a Teacher). This is also the father and mother of the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body): Understanding the quiescence of sentient beings is Prajna-mata (Prajna Mother). The quiescent sentient beings are Upaya-pita (Skillful Means Father). The Buddhas of the three times are born from this. Recognizing the phrase Hetupratyaya (Cause and Condition) can lead to understanding all Buddhist teachings. Question: The long passage says that quiescence is called 'neither this nor that, without characteristics.' Why is that? Answer: Since sentient beings have no self-nature and are ultimately Sunyata (empty), who is 'that'? If there is a 'this' of sentient beings, then one can regard the other as 'that.' Therefore, it is said 'neither this nor that.' The appearance of sentient beings cannot be described in words, so it is said 'without characteristics'. 'Cutting off the path of language' is because sentient beings transcend the catuṣkoṭi (four alternatives), and sentient beings cannot be described with the four alternatives. 'Eliminating all discursive fabrications' is because since sentient beings transcend the four alternatives, then the love-based and view-based arguments based on the four alternatives cannot arise. This is the meaning of cutting off delusion and great repentance. Moreover, love and views are also Hetupratyaya (Cause and Condition), which originally transcend the four alternatives. Where do they arise from? Question: Since Hetupratyaya (Cause and Condition) is like this, why not explain it directly? Answer: The title of this treatise is 'Chapter on Conditions,' and the dvadasanga (twelve divisions) initially presents the door of conditions, and the intention is here. Question: Why not explain it directly at the beginning of this chapter? Answer: It is necessary to first refute the externalists' (Tirthika) various calculations about the inherent existence of self-nature, whether through transformation or non-transformation, and only after completely clearing them away can the true appearance of conditions be slightly revealed. In the fourth year of the Daye era, I (the author referring to himself) explained it in another way. For example, because there are five fingers, there is curling, and curling has no self-nature. If it had self-nature, it should not depend on the five fingers.
指。因指有卷卷無自體卷無自體。即無卷。故卷畢竟空。此空即是因緣空。空有自體不應因有。因有故空空無自體。無自體故無空。因空有故有亦空亦有。如因空故有有無自體因有故空空無自體。即無空無有。因空有故非空非有。若不因是豈得有非。故非無自體是即無非。故因緣卷本來絕空有四句。四句絕即四心斷四言滅。佛不能行佛不能到。無名相中為眾生隨處說之。或作實相法身中道波若等。興皇大師常以因緣建於言首。今復觸事當須識因緣。則觸事無非寂滅。則觸事無非是道。道遠乎哉。故長行舉縷布。被衣宛然而無一縷可服。眠席宛然而無一蒲可臥。人觸事皆與實相相應。問曰定有三世別異者。第四破三世生。外人既聞因緣生是寂滅故不復捉之。還立性有。外人初立性破性竟。便立因緣。上破因緣今還復立性。至此三回宗。故一切立義不離性假也。又道理應先破性后破假。而前破假后破性。顯顛倒之病無根本次第也。外人與論主諍因緣。論主云。因緣生是寂滅性。外人云因緣生非寂滅性。故未來有性而假因緣故生。豈是寂滅是畢竟空。畢竟空云何可生。故知有生性然後假緣生耳。又根本有性後方假緣。故今還立根本也。涅槃經亦有此言。故云有漏之法以有生性。故生能生無漏之法本無生性故生不能生也。定有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 指。因為指頭有彎曲，彎曲沒有自身，彎曲沒有自身，也就是沒有彎曲。所以彎曲畢竟是空。這個空就是因緣空。空如果有自身，就不應該由因產生。因為由因產生，所以空，空沒有自身。沒有自身，所以沒有空。因為空和有相互依存，所以有也是空也是有。如同因為空，所以有，有沒有自身；因為有，所以空，空沒有自身。也就是沒有空也沒有有。因為空和有相互依存，所以既不是空也不是有。如果不依靠『是』，怎麼會有『非』呢？所以『非』沒有自身，也就是沒有『非』。所以因緣所生的彎曲，本來就超越了空和有這四種說法。超越了四種說法，就是斷絕了四種心念，消滅了四種言語。佛無法行走，佛無法到達。在沒有名稱和形象之中，爲了眾生隨處說法。或者稱作實相、法身、中道、般若等等。興皇大師常常把因緣放在言語的開頭。現在再次接觸事物，應當認識因緣。那麼接觸事物沒有不是寂滅的。那麼接觸事物沒有不是道的。道還遙遠嗎？所以長行中舉例說縷布，做成的被衣看起來完整，卻沒有一根線可以用來穿。眠席看起來完整，卻沒有一根蒲草可以用來躺臥。人接觸事物都與實相相應。問：如果確定有三世的差別，第四（部分）就破斥三世的產生。外道之人既然聽聞因緣生是寂滅，所以不再執著它。反而建立『性有』。外道之人最初建立『性』，破斥『性』之後，就建立因緣。上面破斥因緣，現在又重新建立『性』。到這裡已經三次改變主張。所以一切建立的義理都離不開『性』和『假』。而且道理上應該先破斥『性』，后破斥『假』。而前面破斥『假』，後面破斥『性』，顯示了顛倒的毛病，沒有根本的次第。外道之人與論主爭論因緣。論主說：『因緣生是寂滅的性質。』外道之人說：『因緣生不是寂滅的性質。』所以未來有『性』，然後藉助因緣而產生。怎麼會是寂滅，是畢竟空呢？畢竟空怎麼可以產生？所以知道先有生的性質，然後藉助因緣而生。而且根本有『性』，然後才藉助因緣。所以現在重新建立根本。』《涅槃經》(Nirvana Sutra)也有這種說法。所以說『有漏之法因為有生的性質，所以生能夠產生；無漏之法本來沒有生的性質，所以生不能產生。』確定有
【English Translation】 English version The finger. Because the finger has a curve, the curve has no self-nature. Because the curve has no self-nature, it is ultimately without curve. Therefore, the curve is ultimately empty. This emptiness is the emptiness of dependent origination (因緣, Hetu-pratyaya). If emptiness had self-nature, it should not arise from causes. Because it arises from causes, therefore it is empty, and emptiness has no self-nature. Because it has no self-nature, there is no emptiness. Because of the interdependence of emptiness and existence, existence is also both empty and existent. Just as because of emptiness, there is existence, but existence has no self-nature; because of existence, there is emptiness, but emptiness has no self-nature. That is, there is neither emptiness nor existence. Because of the interdependence of emptiness and existence, it is neither empty nor existent. If it were not dependent on 'is', how could there be 'is not'? Therefore, 'is not' has no self-nature, which means there is no 'is not'. Therefore, the curve arising from dependent origination is originally beyond the four statements of emptiness and existence. When the four statements are transcended, the four thoughts are cut off, and the four languages are extinguished. The Buddha cannot walk, the Buddha cannot reach. In the absence of names and forms, for the sake of sentient beings, he speaks everywhere. Or it is called Reality (實相, Satya-laksana), Dharma-body (法身, Dharma-kaya), Middle Way (中道, Madhyama-pratipada), Prajna (般若, Prajna) and so on. Master Xinghuang often placed dependent origination at the beginning of his words. Now, when encountering things again, one should recognize dependent origination. Then, encountering things, there is nothing that is not Nirvana (寂滅, Nirvana). Then, encountering things, there is nothing that is not the Path (道, Marga). Is the Path far away? Therefore, the long passage gives the example of woven cloth. The robe made from it appears complete, but there is not a single thread that can be worn. The sleeping mat appears complete, but there is not a single reed that can be slept on. When people encounter things, they are all in accordance with Reality. Question: If it is certain that there are differences in the three times (三世, Tri-kala), then the fourth (part) refutes the arising of the three times. Since the outsider has heard that dependent origination is Nirvana, they no longer cling to it. Instead, they establish 'inherent existence' (性有, Svabhava). The outsider initially establishes 'inherent existence', and after refuting 'inherent existence', they establish dependent origination. Having refuted dependent origination above, they now re-establish 'inherent existence'. At this point, they have changed their position three times. Therefore, all established doctrines cannot be separated from 'inherent existence' and 'provisional existence' (假, Prajñapti). Moreover, logically, one should first refute 'inherent existence' and then refute 'provisional existence'. But previously, 'provisional existence' was refuted first, and 'inherent existence' was refuted later, revealing the fault of inversion, without a fundamental order. The outsider argues with the proponent about dependent origination. The proponent says: 'The arising from dependent origination is the nature of Nirvana.' The outsider says: 'The arising from dependent origination is not the nature of Nirvana.' Therefore, the future has 'inherent existence', and then it arises by means of dependent origination. How can it be Nirvana, which is ultimate emptiness (畢竟空, Atyanta-sunyata)? How can ultimate emptiness arise? Therefore, it is known that there is first the nature of arising, and then it arises by means of conditions. Moreover, there is fundamentally 'inherent existence', and then it relies on conditions. Therefore, now we re-establish the fundamental.' The Nirvana Sutra also has this statement. Therefore, it says, 'Defiled dharmas (有漏之法, Sasrava-dharma) arise because they have the nature of arising, so arising can produce. Undefiled dharmas (無漏之法, Anasrava-dharma) originally have no nature of arising, so arising cannot produce.' It is certain that there is
三世別異者。若畢竟無生。應無三世異。既有三世異即有生有未生。未來是未生。緣合即有生也。數人未來性有。現在事有。過去冥伏有。成論云去來體是無而有曾當義。現在是現有而有當無義也。偈為二。上半牒下半破。未來已異空已出有。即已是生竟。何須現在更復生耶。若未異空未出有即是二世無義。復失義宗。假令是無無豈可生耶。數人破成論云。若未來體無既生於義而體不生。終一有自生一無終不生。若俱生即俱有有即無生。長行問云。未來雖有非如現在相者。明未來是性有耳。不如現在事有也。以現在相故說生者。現在正見是事有。故說為生。即知未來性有。不得說生也。答曰現在相未來中無者。此明未來中畢竟無現在之相。此即是本無今有為生。云何言未來是有故得生耶。若未來中有現在相即不名未來也。又問若木中已有火性。性是不改義本來常有。云何改性成事。若不可改在緣雖合終不成事。又木中無事火。水中亦無即應俱生俱不生。又問既有性火。亦應有性緣。若以事緣發事火。亦應以性緣發性火。又事因於性性復因誰。複次汝謂下。第五重破自生生他。所以有此破者。有四義。一者上但破其自生未破生他也。破自生中而有諸偈者。初以已未門破自。不受已未謂生時生。故就三時門破。三時門破不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三世差別在於，如果畢竟沒有生，就不應該有三世的差別。既然有三世的差別，就說明有生和未生。未來是未生，因緣聚合就有了生。數論派認為未來有自性，是潛在的存在；現在是現實的存在；過去是隱沒的存在。《成實論》說，過去和未來，本體是『無』而有『曾當』的意義，現在是『現有』而有『當無』的意義。偈頌分為兩部分，上半部分是陳述，下半部分是破斥。如果未來已經和空不同，已經從無而出為有，那就是已經生完了，為什麼還需要現在再次生呢？如果還沒有和空不同，還沒有從無而出為有，那就是兩世都沒有意義，又失去了義理的根本。假設是『無』，『無』又怎麼能生呢？數論派反駁《成實論》說，如果未來本體是『無』，即使生了，本體也不會生。最終要麼一直有，要麼一直沒有，最終不會生。如果同時生，那就是同時有，有了就不能說是生。長行中問道，未來雖然有，不像現在的相狀那樣明顯，這說明未來是自性上的有，不如現在的事實上的有。因為有現在的相狀，所以說是生，現在正見是事實上的有，所以說是生，由此可知未來是自性上的有，不能說是生。回答說，現在相在未來中沒有，這說明未來中畢竟沒有現在的相狀，這就是本來沒有現在而現在有了，所以說是生。怎麼能說未來是有，所以才能生呢？如果未來中有現在的相狀，那就不叫未來了。又問，如果木頭中已經有火的自性，自性是不改變的，本來就常有，怎麼能改變自性成為事實呢？如果不可改變，即使因緣聚合，最終也不能成為事實。又，木頭中沒有事實上的火，水中也沒有，那就應該要麼同時生，要麼同時不生。又問，既然有自性上的火，也應該有自性上的緣。如果用事實上的緣來引發事實上的火，也應該用自性上的緣來引發自性上的火。而且事實依賴於自性，自性又依賴於誰呢？再次，你所謂的下文，是第五重破斥自生和他生。之所以有這種破斥，有四個原因。一是上面只是破斥了自生，沒有破斥他生。破斥自生中有很多偈頌，最初是用已生和未生來破斥自生，不接受已生和未生，認為是在生的時候生，所以就用三世來破斥。三世的破斥不
【English Translation】 English version The difference between the three times lies in that if there is ultimately no birth, there should be no difference between the three times. Since there is a difference between the three times, it indicates that there is birth and non-birth. The future is non-birth, and when conditions come together, there is birth. The Samkhya school believes that the future has its own nature, which is a potential existence; the present is a real existence; and the past is a hidden existence. The Tattvasiddhi Shastra says that the past and future, in essence, are 'non-existent' but have the meaning of 'having been' and 'going to be,' while the present is 'existing' but has the meaning of 'going to be non-existent.' The verse is divided into two parts, the first half being a statement and the second half being a refutation. If the future is already different from emptiness and has already emerged from non-existence into existence, then it is already completely born. Why is it necessary for it to be born again in the present? If it is not yet different from emptiness and has not yet emerged from non-existence into existence, then both times have no meaning, and the fundamental principle of meaning is lost. Assuming it is 'non-existence,' how can 'non-existence' give rise to anything? The Samkhya school refutes the Tattvasiddhi Shastra by saying that if the future is essentially 'non-existent,' even if it is born, its essence will not be born. Ultimately, it will either always exist or always not exist, and ultimately it will not be born. If they are born simultaneously, then they exist simultaneously, and if they exist, then it cannot be said to be birth. The long passage asks, although the future exists, it is not as obvious as the appearance of the present. This shows that the future is existence in its own nature, not as factual existence as the present. Because there is the appearance of the present, it is said to be birth. The present right view is factual existence, so it is said to be birth. From this, it is known that the future is existence in its own nature and cannot be said to be birth. The answer is that the appearance of the present is not in the future, which shows that the appearance of the present is ultimately not in the future. This means that originally there was no present, but now there is, so it is said to be birth. How can it be said that the future exists, so it can be born? If there is the appearance of the present in the future, then it is not called the future. It is also asked, if there is already the nature of fire in the wood, and the nature is unchanging and inherently constant, how can the nature be changed into a fact? If it cannot be changed, even if conditions come together, it will ultimately not become a fact. Also, there is no factual fire in the wood, and there is none in the water, so they should either be born simultaneously or not be born simultaneously. It is also asked, since there is fire in its own nature, there should also be conditions in its own nature. If factual conditions are used to ignite factual fire, then conditions in its own nature should also be used to ignite fire in its own nature. Moreover, the fact depends on the nature, and what does the nature depend on? Again, what you call the following is the fifth refutation of self-birth and other-birth. There are four reasons for this refutation. First, the above only refutes self-birth and does not refute other-birth. There are many verses in the refutation of self-birth. Initially, birth and non-birth are used to refute self-birth, not accepting birth and non-birth, believing that it is born at the time of birth, so the three times are used to refute it. The refutation of the three times does not
立。便舉因緣來救。捉因緣不立復捉三世性義來救。至此破其三世。始是破自生義竟。故今次破其生他也。二者自生生他是大眾部義。故婆沙中雲。僧祇明。如燈自照照他。心體自知知他。生相自生生他。是故今須重破也。三者成實師云生相不復假相。故是自生。而能生法體。故是生他。所以須重破也。四者欲顯顛倒亂起故亂破也。兩偈為二。初偈牒而責。第二偈設兩關難也。上半牒下半正責生相也。生相既能生法體。誰復生生相耶。第二偈上半以相從法相即墮無窮。下半將法從相即法墮自然。所以作此二關破者。正以外人義自相違。生相能自生法不能自生。故招此二失。複次有法不應生第六門。此有無門破。乃通破一切還重破自生生他也。複次下第七滅不滅門破。自上已來就生門破生。今就滅門破生也。亦還破自生生他也。上半就滅義無生。破數人四相同時。下半破不滅有生。破四相異時。即譬喻部義。又上半破數人體同時。下半破其用前後。若言當生用時未有滅用。即當生時未有滅相。若當生時已有滅相。即當生時已有滅用也。汝言減扶生相與生作扶者。今見滅相乃是生家之力。以害生故而言無有不滅法者。汝法體起時常與滅相俱何有不滅法耶。問曰若無生應有住下。第二破住。前問。次答。問三義。一既不許有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 立。便舉因緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）來救。捉因緣不立復捉三世（tri-kala，過去、現在、未來）性義來救。至此破其三世，始是破自生義竟。故今次破其生他也。 二者自生生他是大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）義。故《婆沙》（Vibhasa）中雲：『僧祇（Saṃgha）明，如燈自照照他，心體自知知他，生相自生生他。』是故今須重破也。 三者成實師云，生相不復假相，故是自生，而能生法體，故是生他。所以須重破也。 四者欲顯顛倒亂起故亂破也。兩偈為二。初偈牒而責，第二偈設兩關難也。上半牒下半正責生相也。生相既能生法體，誰復生生相耶？ 第二偈上半以相從法相即墮無窮。下半將法從相即法墮自然。所以作此二關破者，正以外人義自相違。生相能自生法不能自生，故招此二失。複次有法不應生第六門。此有無門破，乃通破一切還重破自生生他也。 複次下第七滅不滅門破。自上已來就生門破生，今就滅門破生也。亦還破自生生他也。上半就滅義無生，破數人四相同時。下半破不滅有生，破四相異時，即譬喻部（Dārṣṭāntika）義。 又上半破數人體同時，下半破其用前後。若言當生用時未有滅用，即當生時未有滅相。若當生時已有滅相，即當生時已有滅用也。汝言減扶生相與生作扶者，今見滅相乃是生家之力，以害生故而言無有不滅法者。汝法體起時常與滅相俱，何有不滅法耶？ 問曰：若無生應有住下。第二破住。前問，次答。問三義。一既不許有
【English Translation】 English version Established. Then they cite causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya, causes and conditions) to rescue themselves. If grasping at causes and conditions fails, they then grasp at the doctrine of the three times (tri-kala, past, present, future) to rescue themselves. Having refuted their three times, this is the end of refuting the doctrine of self-origination. Therefore, now we proceed to refute the doctrine of origination from others. Secondly, the doctrine of self-origination and origination from others is the doctrine of the Mahāsāṃghika school. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'The Saṃgha is clear, like a lamp illuminating itself and others, the nature of mind knowing itself and others, the characteristic of origination originating itself and originating others.' Therefore, it is now necessary to refute it again. Thirdly, the Satyasiddhi masters say that the characteristic of origination is not a borrowed characteristic, therefore it is self-origination, and it can originate the substance of dharma, therefore it is origination from others. Therefore, it is necessary to refute it again. Fourthly, because inverted views arise in confusion, therefore we refute it in confusion. The two verses are divided into two. The first verse cites and blames, and the second verse sets up two difficult points. The first half cites and the second half directly blames the characteristic of origination. Since the characteristic of origination can originate the substance of dharma, who then originates the characteristic of origination? In the first half of the second verse, if characteristics follow dharma, then characteristics fall into infinity. In the second half, if dharma follows characteristics, then dharma falls into naturalness. The reason for setting up these two difficult points is precisely because the outsiders' doctrine contradicts itself. The characteristic of origination can originate itself, but dharma cannot originate itself, therefore it invites these two faults. Furthermore, the sixth gate is 'Dharmas should not originate.' This gate of existence and non-existence refutes everything in general and also refutes self-origination and origination from others again. Furthermore, the seventh gate below is the gate of extinction and non-extinction. From above, we have been refuting origination from the perspective of origination. Now we refute origination from the perspective of extinction. It also refutes self-origination and origination from others again. The first half refutes origination from the perspective of extinction, refuting the simultaneous four characteristics of the Samkhya school. The second half refutes origination from non-extinction, refuting the different times of the four characteristics, which is the doctrine of the Dārṣṭāntika school. Also, the first half refutes the simultaneous substance of the Samkhya school, and the second half refutes the sequence of its function. If you say that when the function of origination occurs, there is no function of extinction, then when origination occurs, there is no characteristic of extinction. If when origination occurs, there is already a characteristic of extinction, then when origination occurs, there is already a function of extinction. You say that the decreasing and supporting characteristic of origination assists origination, but now we see that the characteristic of extinction is the power of the origination family, because it harms origination, and you say that there is no dharma that does not extinguish. When your dharma substance arises, it is always accompanied by the characteristic of extinction, so how can there be a dharma that does not extinguish? Question: If there is no origination, there should be abiding below. The second refutation is of abiding. First the question, then the answer. The question has three meanings. First, since you do not allow
生應有住。二者此是對無立有。以生既是無住便應有。三者上就生救生。今舉住救生。破亦爾。上就生門破生。今就住門破生也。答有四偈為三。初三時門。次偈就滅不滅。三自他門。所以偈有三門者。初當住破住。次就滅破住。三就生門破住。三處求住不可得。即住事盡矣。無生云何住者。有四義。一相待門破。既無生待何說住。二者破住為顯無生。故無生即無住。三者就三世中求住生不可得。即是無生。以外人言有住相從未來來現在。為生相生此住故住是所生也。下無生云何滅亦爾也。四者求生不得生即是如。求住不得住即是如。如無二故生住不異。如眾生如佛如無異故眾生佛不異。次兩偈滅不滅破住。為二。初就滅不滅破。第二偈偏釋。初偈下半明無有不滅法。云何不滅法而得住。初偈易見。第二偈云。一切法悉是老死相者。老是異相死是滅相。有生住兩相時即有異滅兩相。與之俱起故言無常常隨逐。若爾豈得言有住無有滅耶。故滅時有住得共起墮相違。住時無滅勉相違失共起。進退墮負也。住不自相住下第三自他破。上半正作自他破。下半指同生說。自相住是不展轉家義。成論僧祇所執也。異相住是展轉家義。毗曇所計也。下半指同生者。破生中前具破展轉等二家。今將以類住也。長行四。一牒為自相住下第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生應有所住嗎？有兩種情況：一是將『無』定義為『有』。既然生本無所住，那麼『有』又從何而來？二是之前討論的是『生』，現在討論的是『住』，但破斥的道理是一樣的。之前是從『生』的角度破斥『生』，現在是從『住』的角度破斥『生』。回答包含四句偈頌，分為三個部分：首先是三時門（過去、現在、未來），然後是關於滅與不滅的討論，最後是自體與他體的討論。偈頌分為三個部分的原因是：首先，針對『住』破斥『住』；其次，從『滅』的角度破斥『住』；第三，從『生』的角度破斥『住』。在三個時間段都找不到『住』，那麼『住』這件事就結束了。既然沒有『生』，又怎麼會有『住』呢？這裡有四層含義：一是通過相對待的角度來破斥。既然沒有『生』，又以什麼為基礎來說『住』呢？二是通過破斥『住』來彰顯『無生』。因此，沒有『生』也就沒有『住』。三是在過去、現在、未來三世中都找不到『住』，這就是『無生』。因為外人認為有『住』這個相，從未來到現在的過程中，產生了『生』這個相，因為有『生』，所以才有『住』，因此『住』是被『生』所生的。下面會說『無生』又怎麼會『滅』呢，道理是一樣的。四是求『生』而不得，那麼『生』就是『如』；求『住』而不得，那麼『住』就是『如』。『如』沒有二元對立，所以『生』和『住』沒有區別。如同眾生和佛的『如』沒有區別，所以眾生和佛沒有區別。 接下來的兩句偈頌是從『滅』與『不滅』的角度來破斥『住』，分為兩個部分：首先是從『滅』與『不滅』的角度來破斥，第二句偈頌是對此的詳細解釋。第一句偈頌的後半部分說明沒有不滅的法，那麼不滅的法又怎麼能『住』呢？第一句偈頌很容易理解。第二句偈頌說，一切法都是衰老和死亡的相。衰老是變化的相，死亡是滅亡的相。有『生』和『住』這兩個相的時候，就有變化和滅亡這兩個相，它們同時產生，所以說是無常，總是伴隨著我們。如果這樣，怎麼能說有『住』而沒有『滅』呢？所以在滅亡的時候有『住』，這兩種情況同時發生，是相互矛盾的。『住』的時候沒有『滅』，這兩種情況勉強發生，也是相互矛盾的，進退兩難。『住』不是自己就能『住』的，下面第三部分是從自體和他體的角度來破斥。上半部分是直接從自體和他體的角度來破斥，下半部分是指與『生』相同的情況來說明。自己『住』的相是不展轉的，這是成論和僧祇所堅持的觀點。異體『住』的相是展轉的，這是毗曇所計較的。下半部分是指與『生』相同的情況，破斥『生』的時候，之前已經破斥了展轉等兩種觀點，現在用類似的方法來破斥『住』。長行分為四個部分：一是說明自己『住』的相。
【English Translation】 English version Should there be a dwelling for birth? There are two situations: first, defining 'non-existence' as 'existence'. Since birth inherently has no dwelling, where does 'existence' come from? Second, previously we discussed 'birth', now we discuss 'dwelling', but the principle of refutation is the same. Previously, we refuted 'birth' from the perspective of 'birth', now we refute 'birth' from the perspective of 'dwelling'. The answer contains four verses, divided into three parts: first, the three times (past, present, future); then, the discussion of extinction and non-extinction; and finally, the discussion of self and other. The reason for dividing the verses into three parts is: first, refuting 'dwelling' with respect to 'dwelling'; second, refuting 'dwelling' from the perspective of 'extinction'; and third, refuting 'dwelling' from the perspective of 'birth'. If 'dwelling' cannot be found in the three time periods, then the matter of 'dwelling' ends. Since there is no 'birth', how can there be 'dwelling'? There are four meanings here: first, refuting through the perspective of relativity. Since there is no 'birth', on what basis can we speak of 'dwelling'? Second, revealing 'non-birth' by refuting 'dwelling'. Therefore, no 'birth' means no 'dwelling'. Third, 'dwelling' cannot be found in the past, present, and future three times, which is 'non-birth'. Because outsiders believe that there is a 'dwelling' aspect, in the process from the future to the present, the 'birth' aspect arises, and because there is 'birth', there is 'dwelling', so 'dwelling' is born from 'birth'. Below it will be said how 'non-birth' can be 'extinguished', the principle is the same. Fourth, seeking 'birth' and not obtaining it, then 'birth' is 'suchness (如)'. Seeking 'dwelling' and not obtaining it, then 'dwelling' is 'suchness'. 'Suchness' has no duality, so 'birth' and 'dwelling' are not different. Just as the 'suchness' of sentient beings and Buddhas is not different, so sentient beings and Buddhas are not different. The following two verses refute 'dwelling' from the perspective of 'extinction' and 'non-extinction', divided into two parts: first, refuting from the perspective of 'extinction' and 'non-extinction', the second verse is a detailed explanation of this. The second half of the first verse explains that there is no unextinguished dharma, so how can an unextinguished dharma 'dwell'? The first verse is easy to understand. The second verse says that all dharmas are aspects of aging and death. Aging is the aspect of change, and death is the aspect of extinction. When there are the two aspects of 'birth' and 'dwelling', there are the two aspects of change and extinction, which arise simultaneously, so it is said to be impermanent, always accompanying us. If so, how can it be said that there is 'dwelling' without 'extinction'? Therefore, when there is extinction, there is 'dwelling', these two situations occur simultaneously, which is contradictory. When there is 'dwelling', there is no 'extinction', these two situations barely occur, which is also contradictory, a dilemma. 'Dwelling' cannot 'dwell' by itself, the third part below refutes from the perspective of self and other. The first half is a direct refutation from the perspective of self and other, the second half refers to the same situation as 'birth' to explain. The aspect of self-'dwelling' is non-transformation, which is the view held by the Chengshi Lun (成論) and Sangha (僧祇). The aspect of other-'dwelling' is transformation, which is what the Vibhasa (毗曇) calculates. The second half refers to the same situation as 'birth'. When refuting 'birth', the two views of transformation etc. have been refuted before, and now a similar method is used to refute 'dwelling'. The long passage is divided into four parts: first, explaining the aspect of self-'dwelling'.
二定開。二俱然下第三總非也。若自相住第四作難也。破自相住有三。初明常過。法不假住相法既是常住。不更由住即是不從緣。故亦是常也。住若自相住。第二以法並破。若相自住即法亦不假相也。如眼下第三理奪。一切法無有自住也。若異相住下破異相住。為二。初無窮。以法不自住既從住得住。即住更從住。即免上三失。免上三失者。以更從住即是從緣故免常也。住既從住。法亦由住勉並決失。住不自住如眼不自見。勉理奪雖勉三失而墮無窮。易見也。複次見異法生異相者。第二作不定破釋此句者非一。今直出正意。此是立展轉相者免上無窮失。是故今破之。救云若大住從小住小住復更由小住可是無窮而還由大住住于小住。是故無無窮過也異法者大住也。異相者小住也。小住既能相於大住而異大住。故名異相。大住為小住所相而異於小住。故名異法。問何故並稱異。答立八相家謂八相各自有體。故名異也。今言見異法生異相者。眼見大住生於小住。不得不因異法有異相。必由大住方生小住。此並敘外人義也。異相不定故者。小住不能自有。由大住而有故名不定。小住尚不能自有。由大住而有。何由能住大住耶。又不能自有。既無自體便無小住。以何住大住耶。若舉法體以破相者。異法者所相法體也。異相者住相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二定開。二俱然下第三總非也。如果『自相住』（事物自身保持自身狀態）的觀點成立，那麼接下來第四部分就是爲了反駁這個觀點。駁斥『自相住』有三個方面。首先，闡明其常恒不變的過失。如果『法』（事物）不需要依靠『住相』（保持狀態的相）就能保持自身狀態，那麼這個『法』就是常住不變的。不需要依靠其他條件，也就是不從因緣而生，因此也是常恒的。如果『住』是依靠自身來保持狀態（自相住）。 第二，用『法』（事物）來一同駁斥。如果『相』（狀態）能自己保持自身狀態，那麼『法』也就不需要依靠『相』了，就像眼睛（能自己看東西一樣）。 第三，從道理上否定。一切『法』都沒有自己保持自身狀態的能力。如果『異相住』（依靠其他相保持狀態）的觀點成立，那麼接下來駁斥『異相住』分為兩部分。首先，會導致無窮的過失。因為『法』不能自己保持自身狀態，必須從『住』那裡獲得保持狀態的能力。那麼這個『住』又需要從另一個『住』那裡獲得保持狀態的能力，這樣就避免了前面三種過失。之所以能避免前面三種過失，是因為它依靠其他條件，所以避免了常恒不變的過失。『住』既然要依靠其他的『住』，那麼『法』也要依靠『住』，這樣就勉強避免了並決的過失。『住』不能自己保持自身狀態，就像眼睛不能自己看到自己一樣。雖然勉強避免了三種過失，但是卻陷入了無窮的循環。這一點很容易理解。 進一步說，『見異法生異相者』（看到不同的法產生不同的相）。解釋這句話的說法有很多種，現在直接說出其真正的含義。這是爲了讓那些主張『展轉相』（相互依存的相）的人避免上面無窮的過失，所以現在要駁斥它。對方辯解說，如果大的『住』依靠小的『住』，小的『住』又依靠更小的『住』，這樣確實會導致無窮的過失，但是小的『住』最終還是依靠大的『住』來保持狀態的，所以沒有無窮的過失。『異法』指的是大的『住』，『異相』指的是小的『住』。小的『住』既然能夠相對於大的『住』而存在，並且不同於大的『住』，所以叫做『異相』。大的『住』被小的『住』所依賴，並且不同於小的『住』，所以叫做『異法』。問：為什麼都稱為『異』？答：因為主張『八相』（生、住、異、滅等八種相）的人認為八相各自有其本體，所以稱為『異』。現在說『見異法生異相者』，就像眼睛看到大的『住』產生小的『住』，不得不因為不同的『法』而有不同的『相』，必定要由大的『住』才能產生小的『住』。這都是敘述外道（不信佛教的人）的觀點。 『異相不定故者』（不同的相是不確定的）。小的『住』不能自己存在，而是由大的『住』而存在，所以叫做不確定。小的『住』尚且不能自己存在，而是由大的『住』而存在，又怎麼能使大的『住』保持狀態呢？又因為不能自己存在，既然沒有自己的本體，就沒有小的『住』，用什麼來使大的『住』保持狀態呢？如果用『法體』（法的本體）來駁斥『相』，那麼『異法』就是所依賴的『法體』，『異相』就是『住相』。
【English Translation】 English version The second section establishes the determination. The third section, following 'both are so,' generally negates. If the fourth section, 'self-abiding' (Svalakshana-sthiti) is asserted, then it is a refutation. There are three aspects to refuting 'self-abiding.' First, it clarifies the fault of permanence. If a 'dharma' (phenomenon) does not rely on a 'sthiti-lakshana' (characteristic of abiding) to maintain its state, then that 'dharma' is eternally abiding. Not relying on conditions means it does not arise from causes and conditions, hence it is also permanent. If 'abiding' abides by itself (Svalakshana-sthiti). Second, it refutes together with the 'dharma' (phenomenon). If a 'lakshana' (characteristic) can abide by itself, then the 'dharma' also does not need the 'lakshana,' like the eye (seeing itself). Third, it refutes with reason. All 'dharmas' do not have the ability to abide by themselves. If the view of 'other-characteristic abiding' (Paralakshana-sthiti) is asserted, then the refutation is divided into two parts. First, it leads to infinity. Because a 'dharma' cannot abide by itself, it must obtain the ability to abide from 'abiding.' Then this 'abiding' needs to obtain the ability to abide from another 'abiding,' thus avoiding the previous three faults. The reason it avoids the previous three faults is that it relies on other conditions, thus avoiding the fault of permanence. Since 'abiding' relies on other 'abiding,' then 'dharma' also relies on 'abiding,' thus勉強avoiding the fault of simultaneous determination. 'Abiding' cannot abide by itself, just as the eye cannot see itself. Although it勉強avoids the three faults, it falls into an infinite cycle. This is easy to understand. Furthermore, 'seeing different dharmas give rise to different characteristics.' There are many ways to explain this sentence, but now I will directly state its true meaning. This is to allow those who advocate 'dependent characteristics' (mutual dependent characteristics) to avoid the above fault of infinity, so now I will refute it. The opponent argues that if the large 'abiding' relies on the small 'abiding,' and the small 'abiding' relies on an even smaller 'abiding,' this would indeed lead to the fault of infinity, but the small 'abiding' ultimately relies on the large 'abiding' to maintain its state, so there is no fault of infinity. 'Different dharma' refers to the large 'abiding,' and 'different characteristic' refers to the small 'abiding.' Since the small 'abiding' can exist relative to the large 'abiding' and is different from the large 'abiding,' it is called 'different characteristic.' The large 'abiding' is relied upon by the small 'abiding' and is different from the small 'abiding,' so it is called 'different dharma.' Question: Why are they both called 'different'? Answer: Because those who advocate the 'eight characteristics' (birth, abiding, change, extinction, etc.) believe that each of the eight characteristics has its own entity, so they are called 'different.' Now, saying 'seeing different dharmas give rise to different characteristics' is like the eye seeing the large 'abiding' give rise to the small 'abiding,' inevitably because different 'dharmas' have different 'characteristics,' and the small 'abiding' must be produced by the large 'abiding.' This is all a description of the views of non-Buddhists. 'Different characteristics are uncertain.' The small 'abiding' cannot exist by itself, but exists by the large 'abiding,' so it is called uncertain. The small 'abiding' cannot even exist by itself, but exists by the large 'abiding,' so how can it make the large 'abiding' maintain its state? Also, because it cannot exist by itself, since it does not have its own entity, there is no small 'abiding,' so what is used to make the large 'abiding' maintain its state? If the 'dharma-essence' (essence of dharma) is used to refute the 'characteristic,' then 'different dharma' is the 'dharma-essence' that is relied upon, and 'different characteristic' is the 'abiding-characteristic.'
也。體相互望有能所不同。故悉名為異也。今異相尚因法體而有不能自有。安能住法體耶。蓋是勢破耳。非正釋文。問曰無住應有滅下。第三次破滅。釋滅相有二家。一云現滅說滅。二云應滅說滅。然現滅說滅墮相違過。以生時即有滅。故若應滅說滅。成論文云。三有為法悉在現在。若應滅者即二相在現。而滅在未來。故並非也。破滅七偈為二。初四偈一週破滅。次三偈復一週破滅。四偈即四。初三時門破滅。次住不住門破滅。次就一時異時破滅。次就相待門破滅。初二偈及第四相待門並易見不須釋也。問已滅法是滅。何因云法已滅不滅。答外人計滅相是有。今法已滅是空無之滅。既其已無滅何所滅。故云法已滅不滅也。是法於是時下。第三一時異時破。上半牒一破一。下半牒異破異。是法者今隨寄一法。且就成論五陰作之。是法謂識心之法也。於是時正是識取實法時也。不於是時滅者。既正是識取實法時。云何得識心時滅耶。是法于異時。此是想取假名時。非復取實法時。故名異時。既是想取假名時。云何得言識滅耶。以非復識取實法時。不得言識滅。如是斷無明作明。變金剛為佛。並作二關責之。成實師金剛有實法義即滅假名相續即轉作佛。具轉滅二義。故以今二義責滅。滅不得滅。轉亦爾。攝論師各執轉滅。亦
以二義責之也。即一切義不得也。複次若法是有者。第二週三偈重破滅。初偈明。法體是有不得有滅相。有滅相即法體非有也。又若有一毫物有即有自體。便是常。常云何有滅。無自體即無物滅何所滅也。第二偈明。法體是無無無所滅。若有所滅不得稱無。此二偈舉法體破相也。第三偈舉生相破滅相。生相展轉不展轉二關責既不成。即滅亦如是並易見也。複次生住滅不成下。此品第二結破。上來第一破三相。今第二破法體。生起如品初也。上半明能相無故無所相。下半有為無故無無為。即畢竟空。能相無故所相無有四義。即法辨相相無法即無。異法辨相相無故無所待。亦無法。三者以法例相求相無從。法亦爾也。四者初六品求法無。今求相無也。下半有為無故無為亦無。亦即法異法。若為無為二體即相待門破之。若言無有為三相即是無無為。如成實所說。相即門破之。有為無故無為即無。三者無為例有為。求有為既無求無為亦爾。四上已明無無為。如六種品。今明無有為也。此偈釋經中有為空無為空易見也。長行雲。以理推求者。方廣盛談一切法無生滅。此是邪見謂無生滅也。今是正觀求之不得。故言以理也。如前說無有無相法者。此六種品中第二偈是無相之法一切處無也。所以作此語者。恐外人言雖復無有三相何妨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 用二義性來責難它。那麼一切意義都無法成立。再者，如果法是存在的，那麼第二週的三偈頌會再次著重破斥『滅』。第一偈頌說明，法的本體如果存在，就不應該有『滅』的現象。如果存在『滅』的現象，那麼法的本體就不是真實存在的。而且，如果有一絲一毫的物體存在，那麼它就應該有自己的自體，這樣就變成了永恒不變的。如果是永恒不變的，又怎麼會有『滅』呢？如果沒有自體，那麼就沒有物體，『滅』又從何而來呢？第二偈頌說明，法的本體如果是『無』，那麼就沒有什麼可以『滅』的。如果有什麼可以『滅』的，就不能稱之為『無』。這兩偈頌是用法的本體來破斥『相』。第三偈頌是用『生』相來破斥『滅』相。『生』相的展轉和不展轉兩種關係如果不能成立，那麼『滅』相也是如此，這很容易理解。再者，『生住滅不成』以下，是這一品的第二部分總結破斥。上面第一部分是破斥三相，現在第二部分是破斥法體。『生起如品初也』，指的是像品最初所說的那樣。上半部分說明，因為能相不存在，所以沒有所相。下半部分說明，因為有為法不存在，所以無為法也不存在，也就是畢竟空。能相不存在，所以所相不存在，有四種意義：一是通過法來辨別相，相不存在，那麼法也就不存在。二是通過異法來辨別相，相不存在，所以沒有所依賴，也沒有法。三是用法來類比相，尋求相卻無從找到，法也是如此。四是前六品尋求法而不得，現在尋求相也不得。下半部分，有為法不存在，所以無為法也不存在，也就是法和異法。如果認為有為和無為是兩個不同的實體，那麼就用相待門來破斥它。如果說沒有有為的三相，那就是沒有無為。就像《成實論》所說的那樣，用相即門來破斥它。有為法不存在，所以無為法也就不存在。三是用『無』來類比『有為』，尋求『有為』既然不存在，那麼尋求『無為』也是一樣。四是上面已經說明了沒有無為，就像六種品那樣，現在說明沒有有為。這偈頌解釋經文中有為是空，無為是空，很容易理解。長行中說：『用道理來推求』，方廣經典大談一切法沒有生滅，這是一種邪見，認為沒有生滅。現在是正確的觀察，尋求卻得不到，所以說是『用道理』。像前面所說的沒有有相和無相的法，這在六種品中的第二偈頌中說的是無相之法在一切處都不存在。之所以說這些話，是恐怕外人說，即使沒有三相又有什麼妨礙呢？
English version: Using ambiguity to challenge it, then all meanings cannot be established. Furthermore, if a dharma exists, then the three verses in the second week will again focus on refuting 'cessation'. The first verse explains that if the essence of a dharma exists, it should not have the phenomenon of 'cessation'. If there is a phenomenon of 'cessation', then the essence of the dharma is not truly existent. Moreover, if there is even a tiny bit of matter that exists, then it should have its own self-nature, which would then become eternal and unchanging. If it is eternal and unchanging, how can there be 'cessation'? If there is no self-nature, then there is no matter, so where does 'cessation' come from? The second verse explains that if the essence of a dharma is 'non-existence', then there is nothing that can 'cease'. If there is something that can 'cease', it cannot be called 'non-existence'. These two verses use the essence of dharma to refute 'characteristics'. The third verse uses the characteristic of 'arising' to refute the characteristic of 'cessation'. If the two relationships of 'arising'—transformation and non-transformation—cannot be established, then the characteristic of 'cessation' is also the same, which is easy to understand. Furthermore, 'arising, abiding, and ceasing are not established' below is the second part of this chapter, summarizing the refutation. The first part above refutes the three characteristics, and now the second part refutes the essence of dharma. 'Arising is like the beginning of the chapter' refers to what was said at the beginning of the chapter. The first half explains that because the 'able characteristic' does not exist, there is no 'characterized'. The second half explains that because conditioned dharmas do not exist, unconditioned dharmas also do not exist, which is ultimately emptiness. The 'able characteristic' does not exist, so the 'characterized' does not exist, with four meanings: first, using dharma to distinguish characteristics, if characteristics do not exist, then dharma also does not exist. Second, using different dharmas to distinguish characteristics, if characteristics do not exist, then there is no dependence, and there is no dharma. Third, using dharma to analogize characteristics, seeking characteristics but unable to find them, dharma is also the same. Fourth, the previous six chapters sought dharma but could not find it, and now seeking characteristics is also impossible. In the second half, conditioned dharmas do not exist, so unconditioned dharmas also do not exist, which is dharma and different dharma. If it is believed that conditioned and unconditioned are two different entities, then the interdependent gate is used to refute it. If it is said that there are no three characteristics of conditioned dharmas, then there is no unconditioned. Just as the Chengshi Lun says, the identity gate is used to refute it. Conditioned dharmas do not exist, so unconditioned dharmas also do not exist. Third, using 'non-existence' to analogize 'conditioned', since seeking 'conditioned' does not exist, then seeking 'unconditioned' is also the same. Fourth, it has already been explained above that there is no unconditioned, just like the Six Kinds chapter, and now it is explained that there is no conditioned. This verse explains that conditioned is empty and unconditioned is empty in the scriptures, which is easy to understand. The long passage says: 'Using reason to investigate', the Vaipulya sutras talk extensively about all dharmas having no arising and ceasing, which is a wrong view, believing that there is no arising and ceasing. Now it is correct observation, seeking but not obtaining, so it is said 'using reason'. Like what was said before about there being no dharmas with characteristics or without characteristics, the second verse in the Six Kinds chapter says that dharmas without characteristics do not exist everywhere. The reason for saying these words is to prevent outsiders from saying, even if there are no three characteristics, what harm is there?
二義 (two meanings/ambiguity) 法 (dharma/teachings/law) 三相 (three characteristics: arising, abiding, ceasing) 法體 (dharma essence/dharma nature) 自體 (self-nature) 生相 (characteristic of arising) 滅相 (characteristic of ceasing) 能相 (able characteristic) 所相 (characterized) 有為 (conditioned) 無為 (unconditioned) 畢竟空 (ultimately empty) 相待門 (interdependent gate) 相即門 (identity gate) 成實論 (Chengshi Lun/Tattvasiddhi Shastra) 方廣 (Vaipulya/extensive)
【English Translation】 English version: Challenging it with ambiguity, then all meanings cannot be established. Furthermore, if a dharma exists, then the three verses in the second week will again focus on refuting 'cessation'. The first verse explains that if the essence of a dharma exists, it should not have the phenomenon of 'cessation'. If there is a phenomenon of 'cessation', then the essence of the dharma is not truly existent. Moreover, if there is even a tiny bit of matter that exists, then it should have its own self-nature, which would then become eternal and unchanging. If it is eternal and unchanging, how can there be 'cessation'? If there is no self-nature, then there is no matter, so where does 'cessation' come from? The second verse explains that if the essence of a dharma is 'non-existence', then there is nothing that can 'cease'. If there is something that can 'cease', it cannot be called 'non-existence'. These two verses use the essence of dharma to refute 'characteristics'. The third verse uses the characteristic of 'arising' to refute the characteristic of 'cessation'. If the two relationships of 'arising'—transformation and non-transformation—cannot be established, then the characteristic of 'cessation' is also the same, which is easy to understand. Furthermore, 'arising, abiding, and ceasing are not established' below is the second part of this chapter, summarizing the refutation. The first part above refutes the three characteristics, and now the second part refutes the essence of dharma. 'Arising is like the beginning of the chapter' refers to what was said at the beginning of the chapter. The first half explains that because the 'able characteristic' does not exist, there is no 'characterized'. The second half explains that because conditioned dharmas do not exist, unconditioned dharmas also do not exist, which is ultimately emptiness. The 'able characteristic' does not exist, so the 'characterized' does not exist, with four meanings: first, using dharma to distinguish characteristics, if characteristics do not exist, then dharma also does not exist. Second, using different dharmas to distinguish characteristics, if characteristics do not exist, then there is no dependence, and there is no dharma. Third, using dharma to analogize characteristics, seeking characteristics but unable to find them, dharma is also the same. Fourth, the previous six chapters sought dharma but could not find it, and now seeking characteristics is also impossible. In the second half, conditioned dharmas do not exist, so unconditioned dharmas also do not exist, which is dharma and different dharma. If it is believed that conditioned and unconditioned are two different entities, then the interdependent gate is used to refute it. If it is said that there are no three characteristics of conditioned dharmas, then there is no unconditioned. Just as the Chengshi Lun says, the identity gate is used to refute it. Conditioned dharmas do not exist, so unconditioned dharmas also do not exist. Third, using 'non-existence' to analogize 'conditioned', since seeking 'conditioned' does not exist, then seeking 'unconditioned' is also the same. Fourth, it has already been explained above that there is no unconditioned, just like the Six Kinds chapter, and now it is explained that there is no conditioned. This verse explains that conditioned is empty and unconditioned is empty in the scriptures, which is easy to understand. The long passage says: 'Using reason to investigate', the Vaipulya sutras talk extensively about all dharmas having no arising and ceasing, which is a wrong view, believing that there is no arising and ceasing. Now it is correct observation, seeking but not obtaining, so it is said 'using reason'. Like what was said before about there being no dharmas with characteristics or without characteristics, the second verse in the Six Kinds chapter says that dharmas without characteristics do not exist everywhere. The reason for saying these words is to prevent outsiders from saying, even if there are no three characteristics, what harm is there?
二義 (two meanings/ambiguity) 法 (dharma/teachings/law) 三相 (three characteristics: arising, abiding, ceasing) 法體 (dharma essence/dharma nature) 自體 (self-nature) 生相 (characteristic of arising) 滅相 (characteristic of ceasing) 能相 (able characteristic) 所相 (characterized) 有為 (conditioned) 無為 (unconditioned) 畢竟空 (ultimately empty) 相待門 (interdependent gate) 相即門 (identity gate) 成實論 (Chengshi Lun/Tattvasiddhi Shastra) 方廣 (Vaipulya/extensive)
明法體耶。是故今明無有無相法。上既破相即知無法體也。問曰。若生住滅畢竟無者。云何論中得有名字。第二大段。上來破有三相。今一偈破無三相。又上破法體今破名字。合名體畢竟空。前問次答。此不引經。亦非毗曇成實之論。上並引已竟。破之又訖。今云若為無為一切無者。云何口中言論有此名字耶。若都無應無所論。既有所論不應無也。答如夢者口中亦說夢幻名字。豈可言有耶。二者上來明論中求三相非有。今明三相非無如幻化而有。豈可言無。前破有見今破無見。前破五百部立三相是有。今破方廣及諸邪見言無三相。即是顯中道義也。又上是中道。即假前中。今是假名。即中后假。名中道者求定性生滅。畢竟不可得故言無生無滅。故名中道。無生無滅。假名生滅故是假名。要先破性生滅然後始得辨假名生滅也。又上來是性空義。求此性生滅不可得。故是性空即世諦中道。今明如幻化生滅。即是因緣空。即此幻化有無所有名因緣空即真諦中道。又上來是破病。今是會經。若論中一向破無所有者。經中雲何說有三相耶。是故釋云。論破著有。是故言無。而經中明有者。必如幻化有也。問何故就此品明破申耶。答一週觀行既竟。故明破申。自從破因緣竟三相末已來是破。今一偈略明申也。將此例前三相既如幻夢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 明法體耶（明白法的本體嗎）？是故現在說明沒有無相法。上面既然破除了相，就知道沒有法的本體了。問：如果生、住、滅（一切有為法的生起、持續和消滅）畢竟是空的，為什麼論中會有這些名字呢？ 第二大段。上面破除了有的三相（生、住、滅），現在用一偈來破除無的三相。而且上面破除了法體，現在破除名字，合起來說明體和名字畢竟是空的。前面是提問，後面是回答。這裡不引用經文，也不是毗曇（論藏）或成實宗的論述，因為前面都已經引用過了，也已經破斥完畢。現在說如果認為無為法（不生不滅的涅槃）和一切有為法都是空的，為什麼口中還在言論中有這些名字呢？如果完全是空的，就不應該有所論述，既然有所論述，就不應該是空的。 答：就像夢中的人也會說夢幻的名字，難道可以說夢幻是真實存在的嗎？其次，上面說明在論中尋求三相是找不到的，現在說明三相併非完全沒有，而是像幻化一樣存在。難道可以說沒有嗎？前面破除的是有見，現在破除的是無見。前面破除的是五百部派所立的三相是真實存在的，現在破除的是方廣（大乘經典）以及各種邪見所說的沒有三相。這正是爲了彰顯中道之義。而且上面所說的中道，是依假立前的中道，現在所說的假名，是依中立后的假名。所謂中道，是指尋求定性的生滅是畢竟不可得的，所以說沒有生沒有滅，因此稱為中道。沒有生沒有滅，只是假名為生滅，所以是假名。必須先破除自性的生滅，然後才能辨別假名的生滅。 而且上面是性空之義，尋求這種自性的生滅是不可得的，所以是性空，即世俗諦的中道。現在說明像幻化一樣的生滅，就是因緣空，即這種幻化的有無都不是真實存在的，稱為因緣空，即真諦的中道。而且上面是破除病癥，現在是會通經義。如果論中一味地破除一切都是空無所有，那麼經中為什麼又說有三相呢？所以解釋說，論破除的是執著于有，所以說沒有。而經中說明有，必定是像幻化一樣的有。 問：為什麼就在這一品中說明破斥和申明呢？答：一週的觀行已經結束，所以說明破斥和申明。自從破除因緣之後，三相的末尾就一直是破斥，現在用一偈來簡略地申明。將此例比前面的三相，既然像幻夢一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Are you clear about the Dharma body (the essence of the Dharma)? Therefore, now it is explained that there is no formless Dharma. Since the characteristics have been refuted above, it is known that there is no body of Dharma. Question: If arising, abiding, and ceasing (the arising, duration, and cessation of all conditioned dharmas) are ultimately empty, why are there these names in the treatise? Second major section. Above, the three characteristics of existence (arising, abiding, and ceasing) have been refuted. Now, a verse is used to refute the three characteristics of non-existence. Moreover, the body of Dharma has been refuted above, and now the names are refuted, which together explain that the body and names are ultimately empty. The former is a question, and the latter is an answer. This does not cite scriptures, nor is it a discussion of the Abhidharma (collection of treatises) or the Satyasiddhi School, because the previous ones have already been cited and refuted. Now, it is said that if it is thought that unconditioned dharmas (Nirvana, which is neither arising nor ceasing) and all conditioned dharmas are empty, why are these names still mentioned in speech? If it is completely empty, there should be no discussion. Since there is discussion, it should not be empty. Answer: Just as a person in a dream also speaks the names of dreams and illusions, can it be said that dreams and illusions are real? Secondly, above it was explained that seeking the three characteristics in the treatise is not possible. Now it is explained that the three characteristics are not completely non-existent, but exist like illusions. Can it be said that they do not exist? The former refutes the view of existence, and the latter refutes the view of non-existence. The former refutes the three characteristics established by the five hundred schools as truly existing, and the latter refutes the absence of the three characteristics as stated in the Vaipulya (Mahayana scriptures) and various heretical views. This is precisely to highlight the meaning of the Middle Way. Moreover, the Middle Way mentioned above is the Middle Way established before based on the provisional, and the provisional name mentioned now is the provisional name established after based on the Middle. The so-called Middle Way refers to the fact that seeking the definitive nature of arising and ceasing is ultimately unattainable, so it is said that there is no arising and no ceasing, hence it is called the Middle Way. No arising and no ceasing are only provisionally named as arising and ceasing, so they are provisional names. It is necessary to first refute the self-nature of arising and ceasing, and then to distinguish the provisional names of arising and ceasing. Moreover, the above is the meaning of emptiness of self-nature. Seeking this self-nature of arising and ceasing is unattainable, so it is emptiness of self-nature, which is the Middle Way of the conventional truth. Now it is explained that arising and ceasing like illusions are emptiness of dependent origination, that is, the existence or non-existence of these illusions is not real, called emptiness of dependent origination, which is the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. Moreover, the above is to refute the disease, and now it is to reconcile the scriptures. If the treatise single-mindedly refutes that everything is empty and non-existent, then why do the scriptures say that there are three characteristics? Therefore, it is explained that the treatise refutes attachment to existence, so it says there is no existence. And the scriptures explain that existence must be like illusory existence. Question: Why is refutation and clarification explained in this chapter? Answer: The week of contemplation is over, so refutation and clarification are explained. Since the end of the three characteristics after refuting dependent origination has been refutation, now a verse is used to briefly clarify. Comparing this to the previous three characteristics, since they are like illusions and dreams.
。乃至四緣去來六情五陰等皆同十喻也。又正意上來顯實。今是開權。顯實者明十方三世佛皆為顯一道清凈。亦名畢竟空。亦名如法性實際等。今宜作畢竟空。以大小內外皆是有所得故。須以畢竟空洗之。今言開權者。經中說有三相四緣等。皆是隨緣方便說有此耳。又上來明無者。只明有者無所有。故是有不有義。今明有者只無所有有。即不有有義。此中明幻夢。舉幻引眾生覺中虛事。引夢引眾生夢中虛事。干城喻者。小乘鈍根但有芭蕉等喻。今為大乘利根人故說顯其畢竟空。以干城喻能成之因所成之果皆是空也。所以舉三喻者。為喻三相故也。問他亦云。世諦三假同於幻化。與今何異。答眾生信覺中所見是實夢中所見為虛。今欲借其所信之虛喻其所信之實。令其所信之實同其所信之虛。而實既非實復有何虛。故羅什師十喻贊云。十喻以悟空。空必待此喻。借言以會意。意盡無會處。既得出長羅。住此無所住也。長行為二。初玄答上問。如幻下釋偈文。初又二。前雙標得失。賢聖人下說三相。意前又二。初雙標得失。三相無決定者。標得也。凡夫下標失也。謂有別體。定有為定無為前後一時等皆由決定有三相。于有上更起諍論也。諸賢聖下釋得失也。即答上問。上問云。三相既無所有。何故論中得說三相名字耶。是故
云爲欲止常倒故說三。常倒若息三亦不留。此亦是止三故說三。非是說三便有三也。如智度論云。以聲遮聲非求聲也。言語同者同說三相也。其心異者。凡夫說三。聞三作三解。不知不三三。亦不知三不三。不知不三三故無實慧方便。不知三不三故無方便實慧。既無二慧豈有自然無師四智耶。是故凡夫但有無明不見佛性。無常樂我凈。聖人明三。知是不三三亦識三不三具四智。無復無明故見佛性有常樂我凈也。所以云語同心異。今聖人同其語者。亦令凡夫知不三三三不三。具四智入佛知見得成佛也。三相既爾。四緣乃至三論一切佛經一切論皆須作此識之也。又一種方言。聖心在四絕言同凡夫說三。所以同凡說三者。令悟四絕四絕者。本不曾有三何有不三。如是四句也。不應有難者。汝向不應難言。若無三何故說三耶。如幻下釋偈三喻。即三也。凡夫分別下第二通結得失也。又近結干城日出即有少時便滅。合云如凡夫分別為有。智者求之有即無。正以分別應別如日出也。
中觀論疏卷第五(末) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第六(本)
釋吉藏撰
作者品第八
上來七品一週略破人法明大乘觀行。此下十品重破人法明大乘觀行。略破為利根人說重
【現代漢語翻譯】 云爲欲止常倒故說三。常倒若息三亦不留。此亦是止三故說三。非是說三便有三也。如《智度論》云：『以聲遮聲非求聲也。』言語同者同說三相也。其心異者。凡夫說三。聞三作三解。不知不三三，亦不知三不三。不知不三三故無實慧方便。不知三不三故無方便實慧。既無二慧豈有自然無師四智耶。是故凡夫但有無明不見佛性。無常樂我凈。聖人明三。知是不三三亦識三不三具四智。無復無明故見佛性有常樂我凈也。所以云語同心異。今聖人同其語者。亦令凡夫知不三三三不三。具四智入佛知見得成佛也。三相既爾。四緣乃至三論一切佛經一切論皆須作此識之也。又一種方言。聖心在四絕言同凡夫說三。所以同凡說三者。令悟四絕四絕者。本不曾有三何有不三。如是四句也。不應有難者。汝向不應難言。若無三何故說三耶。如幻下釋偈三喻。即三也。凡夫分別下第二通結得失也。又近結干城日出即有少時便滅。合云如凡夫分別為有。智者求之有即無。正以分別應別如日出也。 《中觀論疏》卷第五(末) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》 《中觀論疏》卷第六(本) 釋吉藏撰 作者品第八 上來七品一週略破人法明大乘觀行。此下十品重破人法明大乘觀行。略破為利根人說重
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation: 據說，爲了停止持續的顛倒，才說『三』。如果持續的顛倒停止了，『三』也不會留下。這也是爲了停止『三』才說『三』，而不是因為說了『三』就真的有『三』。《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra）中說：『用聲音來遮蔽聲音，不是爲了尋求聲音。』語言相同的人，一同說『三相』（three characteristics）。心不同的人，凡夫說『三』，聽到『三』就理解為『三』，不知道『不三三』，也不知道『三不三』。因為不知道『不三三』，所以沒有真實的智慧方便。因為不知道『三不三』，所以沒有方便的真實智慧。既然沒有兩種智慧，哪裡會有自然無師的四智（four wisdoms）呢？因此，凡夫只有無明，看不見佛性，認為無常、無樂、無我、無凈。聖人明白『三』，知道這是『不三三』，也認識『三不三』，具備四智。不再有無明，所以能看見佛性，認為有常、樂、我、凈。所以說語言相同，心不同。現在聖人與凡夫使用相同的語言，也是爲了讓凡夫知道『不三三』和『三不三』，具備四智，進入佛的知見，得以成佛。既然『三相』是這樣，那麼四緣（four conditions），乃至三論（Three Treatises）、一切佛經、一切論，都必須這樣認識。 還有一種方言。聖人的心處於四絕言（four kinds of negation），與凡夫一樣說『三』。之所以與凡夫一樣說『三』，是爲了領悟四絕，四絕就是本來不曾有『三』，哪裡會有『不三』？就像這樣的四句。不應該有人提問：你先前不應該問，如果沒有『三』，為什麼說『三』呢？就像幻化下解釋偈頌的三個比喻，就是『三』。凡夫分別下第二段是總結得失。又比如近處總結，干城（mirage）日出，很快就會消失。合起來說，就像凡夫分別認為有，智者尋求它，有就變成沒有。正是因為分別才應該區別，就像日出一樣。 《中觀論疏》（Commentary on the Madhyamaka-karika）卷第五(末) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》 《中觀論疏》卷第六(本) 釋吉藏撰 作者品第八 前面七品用一週的時間簡略地破斥人法，闡明大乘觀行。下面十品重新破斥人法，闡明大乘觀行。簡略的破斥是為利根之人說的，重新
破為鈍根人說。問何以知前略破今重破耶。答以前後二文證之知有二週之說。三相品末二偈有三雙。一偈洗有為無為一切法體。一偈破有為無為一切名字。名體既無則人法悉空。故是一週。次一偈明法無從即法說門破一偈舉喻。謂譬喻門破。法譬既圓則一週究竟。次一偈結論破無三相所以。一偈明經說有三相所由。既釋論會經故。是一週究竟後文證者。長行序云。上來品品破一切法。悉無有餘。汝著心深故今當重說。既有重說之言。即知必是一週破也。所以破作作者。一切眾生無始來謂有善惡無記人作善惡無記業。今撿無三人造三業。悟無生畢竟空得解脫也。此意品品通用之。十品為二。初四品正破人傍破法。次六品正破法傍破人。所以爾者。一依觀門次第。人無生易得故初正破人。法無生難得故。后破法。二此周為鈍根人。故前破人後破法也。又二週互現。前周正破法后傍破人。利根內學人多知無人少知無法。又內學人多計法少計人。十八部中唯犢子計人耳。又前周從本至末。故前破法法是人本。後周從末至本。人是法末。互現文也。又前周約說門次第。多從深至淺。後門據行門次第。從淺至深。四品破人。六品破法者。人易法難故也。作作者破人法之用。本住品破人法體。燃可燃舉喻合破體用。本際品窮人法之原
。故四品正破人傍破法也。又初品通破即離二我。但破即為正。如先尼計作者是即陰。次品正破離陰計我。燃可燃品通破即離亦即離如是五句。本際釋疑。外疑雲。若三品無人法者無本際經何故說有故。名釋疑。問曰。何故次三相后破作作者耶。答上破有為無為一切悉空。外人云。三相是有為。有為名起作。故舉作作者證有三相。此是其傍意也。言正意者。從因緣品至五陰品破諸法有明空解脫門。從六種至三相求一切相不可得。名無相解脫門。從此品竟一論末求作者不可得。明無作解脫門。故次三相品末破作作者也。外人云。若三相品明有為無為一切空者。今現在造作施為。云何一切空耶。外謂。有六道眾生是作者。身口意是所用作法。起罪福不動三業名為作業。得六道苦樂名果報也。三乘人為作者。身口意為所用法。起三乘業為作業。得三乘果為果報。現見九道如此。云何言畢竟空耶。又三空次第者。前說空門竟。論主嘆美空說無相門明不取空相。今明無作正明菩薩生心動念即是作業。謂有作空無相觀之。菩薩為作者。作此觀得佛道為果報。故此一門可窮下極上。極上則法雲已還。下謂破世間造作施為。皆不可得也。二十七品立名有四。一從法受名。如情陰之流。二從人受稱。如本住品等。三從譬立名。如燃可燃品
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，四品（指《觀法品》、《觀陰品》、《觀界品》、《觀六入品》）是正面破斥人，側面破斥法。此外，初品（《觀因緣品》）通破，即破斥『即我』和『離我』兩種觀點，但破斥『即我』是主要的。例如，外道計執作者（指造作者）是五陰（色、受、想、行、識），這就是『即陰』。次品（《觀陰品》）正面破斥離開五陰而計執有『我』的觀點。《燃可燃品》通破『即離』和『亦即離』這五種說法。『本際釋疑』是爲了解釋對外道的疑問。外道懷疑說：『如果前三品沒有人和法，那麼《本際經》為何說有呢？』因此名為『釋疑』。有人問：『為什麼在《觀三相品》之後才破斥作者和所作者呢？』回答說：『前面已經破斥了有為法和無為法，一切皆空。』外道說：『三相（生、住、滅）是有為法，有為法名為起作。』所以舉出作者和所作者來證明有三相，這只是它的側面含義。說到正面的含義，從《觀因緣品》到《觀陰品》，破斥諸法實有，闡明空解脫門。從《觀六種品》到《觀三相品》，尋求一切相都不可得，闡明無相解脫門。從此品（《觀作作者品》）結束，一直到本論的末尾，尋求作者都不可得，闡明無作解脫門。所以緊接著《觀三相品》之後破斥作者和所作者。外道說：『如果《觀三相品》闡明有為法和無為法一切皆空，那麼現在正在進行的造作和施為，怎麼能說一切皆空呢？』外道認為，有六道眾生是作者，身口意是所用的作法，發起罪福不動的三業名為作業，得到六道苦樂的果報。三乘人（聲聞、緣覺、菩薩）是作者，身口意是所用的法，發起三乘業為作業，得到三乘果為果報。現在看到九道（六道加三乘）就是這樣，怎麼能說畢竟空呢？此外，三空（空、無相、無作）的次第是：前面說完空門之後，論主讚美空，說明無相門，闡明不執取空相。現在闡明無作，正是說明菩薩生起心念就是作業。意思是說，要有作空無相的觀想。菩薩是作者，作這種觀想得到佛道為果報。所以這一門可以窮盡下至極上。極上是指法雲地以上的菩薩，下是指破斥世間的造作和施為，都是不可得的。二十七品的立名有四種方式：一是根據法來命名，如《觀陰品》之類；二是根據人來稱呼，如《本住品》等；三是根據譬喻來立名，如《燃可燃品》。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the four chapters (referring to 'Contemplation on the Nature of Things', 'Contemplation on the Aggregates', 'Contemplation on the Realms', and 'Contemplation on the Six Entrances') directly refute the belief in a self and indirectly refute the belief in phenomena. Furthermore, the first chapter ('Contemplation on Conditions') universally refutes both the views of 'identity with self' and 'separation from self', but the refutation of 'identity with self' is primary. For example, the heretics' belief that the creator (referring to the agent) is the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) is 'identity with the aggregates'. The next chapter ('Contemplation on the Aggregates') directly refutes the view of clinging to a 'self' separate from the five aggregates. 'The Chapter on Burning and What Can Be Burned' universally refutes the five statements of 'identity and separation' and 'also identity and separation'. 'Explaining Doubts about the Original Nature' is to explain doubts to the heretics. The heretics doubt and say: 'If the previous three chapters have no person and no phenomena, then why does the 'Original Nature Sutra' say there are?' Therefore, it is named 'Explaining Doubts'. Someone asks: 'Why is the agent and what is acted upon refuted after 'Contemplation on the Three Characteristics'?' The answer is: 'Earlier, it has been refuted that conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are all empty.' The heretics say: 'The three characteristics (arising, abiding, ceasing) are conditioned phenomena, and conditioned phenomena are called arising and acting.' Therefore, citing the agent and what is acted upon is to prove that there are three characteristics, which is only its indirect meaning. Speaking of the direct meaning, from 'Contemplation on Conditions' to 'Contemplation on the Aggregates', refuting the existence of all phenomena clarifies the door of liberation through emptiness. From 'Contemplation on the Six Kinds' to 'Contemplation on the Three Characteristics', seeking all characteristics and finding them unattainable clarifies the door of liberation through no-characteristics. From the end of this chapter ('Contemplation on the Agent and What is Acted Upon') to the end of this treatise, seeking the agent and finding it unattainable clarifies the door of liberation through no-action. Therefore, the agent and what is acted upon are refuted immediately after 'Contemplation on the Three Characteristics'. The heretics say: 'If 'Contemplation on the Three Characteristics' clarifies that conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are all empty, then how can the actions and endeavors that are currently being carried out be said to be all empty?' The heretics believe that the sentient beings of the six realms are the agents, body, speech, and mind are the actions used, initiating the three karmas of merit and demerit is called action, and obtaining the suffering and happiness of the six realms is the result. The practitioners of the three vehicles (Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva) are the agents, body, speech, and mind are the actions used, initiating the karma of the three vehicles is called action, and obtaining the fruit of the three vehicles is the result. Now seeing the nine realms (six realms plus three vehicles) like this, how can it be said to be ultimately empty? Furthermore, the order of the three emptinesses (emptiness, no-characteristics, no-action) is: after explaining the door of emptiness, the treatise master praises emptiness, explains the door of no-characteristics, and clarifies not clinging to the characteristic of emptiness. Now clarifying no-action is precisely explaining that the arising of thoughts in a Bodhisattva is action. It means that there should be contemplation of emptiness, no-action, and no-characteristics. The Bodhisattva is the agent, and obtaining Buddhahood through this contemplation is the result. Therefore, this door can exhaust from the lowest to the highest. The highest refers to Bodhisattvas above the Cloud of Dharma stage, and the lowest refers to refuting the actions and endeavors of the world, which are all unattainable. There are four ways to name the twenty-seven chapters: one is to name them according to the Dharma, such as 'Contemplation on the Aggregates'; two is to name them according to people, such as 'Chapter on the Original Abode'; and three is to name them according to metaphors, such as 'The Chapter on Burning and What Can Be Burned'.
。四人法合目。如作作者品。問作作者染染者。此有何異。答染染者。但是意地。唯明不善。作作者通於三業及以三性。又染染者但是煩惱門。作作者明於業門。又染染者引經立義。作作者引事立義。謂現見造作施為之事也。問今破作作者與十六知見中作作者何異。答十六知見但是破外道義。今此中通破世間外道小乘大乘。身口意一豪以有所得心有所造作。悉入此門破也。問何以故破一切造作耶。答大品經云。菩薩有粗細二業。若見有身口意名為粗業。不得身口意名為細業。菩薩離於粗業。今欲辨菩薩清凈業故破一切有所得造作施為也。二者涅槃云。耆婆語世王云。大王若聞佛說無作無受。王之重罪即得清凈。無作者謂無人作無法作。無受者謂無人受無法受。又經中略標利根即解。末世罪重故論主廣破之。是以此品初明無作作者。后辨無受受者。即是諸方等經清凈懺悔法。四依菩薩憐愍末世造罪眾生。故申十方佛方等大懺也。品為二。第一長行序破立之由。第二偈本正明破也。初中前問次答。問者是不受前破而更立。答即申前破不受后立。立中雲。現有作有作者有所用作法者。上來橫窮豎破事無不周。外人無辭可救。但舉眼現所見事以問。若都畢竟空者。無現事可見。既有現事可見云何畢竟空。即不信前破故更立也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四人閉眼，如『作作者品』所說。問：『作作者』（karma maker）與『染染者』（defiler）有何不同？答：『染染者』僅指意地（mind ground），只說明不善（unwholesome）。『作作者』則通於身、口、意三業，以及善、惡、無記三性。此外，『染染者』僅是煩惱之門，『作作者』則闡明業之門。再者，『染染者』是引用經文來確立意義，『作作者』則是引用事件來確立意義，即指現前所見的造作施為之事。問：現在所破的『作作者』，與十六知見（sixteen kinds of knowledge）中的『作作者』有何不同？答：十六知見只是爲了破斥外道（non-Buddhist schools）的義理，而現在這裡則是普遍破斥世間、外道、小乘、大乘。凡是身、口、意稍微有所得之心，有所造作，都進入此門而被破斥。問：為何要破斥一切造作呢？答：《大品經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中說，菩薩有粗細二業。若見有身、口、意，名為粗業；不得身、口、意，名為細業。菩薩遠離粗業。現在想要辨明菩薩清凈之業，所以要破斥一切有所得的造作施為。其次，《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說，耆婆（Jivaka）對世王說：『大王，如果聽到佛說無作無受（no maker, no receiver），大王的重罪就能得到清凈。』無作者，是指無人作，無法作；無受者，是指無人受，無法受。又經中略微標示，利根之人立即就能理解。末世罪業深重，所以論主廣泛地破斥它。因此，此品一開始就闡明無作作者，之後辨明無受受者，這就是諸方等經（Vaipulya Sutras）中清凈懺悔之法。四依菩薩（Four Reliances Bodhisattvas）憐憫末世造罪眾生，所以陳述十方佛的方等大懺悔。此品分為二部分。第一部分是長行，敘述破立的緣由；第二部分是偈頌，正式闡明破斥。第一部分中，先是提問，然後是回答。提問者是不接受之前的破斥而重新立論。回答則是申述之前的破斥，不接受之後的立論。立論中說：『現有作，有作者，有所用作法者。』（There is action, there is an actor, there is a means of action.） 上來橫向窮盡，縱向破斥，事事無不周到，外人無話可說。只是舉出現前所見之事來提問：如果一切都畢竟空，就沒有現事可見。既然有現事可見，為何說是畢竟空？這就是不相信之前的破斥，所以重新立論。
【English Translation】 English version Four people close their eyes, as described in the 'Karma Maker Chapter'. Question: What is the difference between 'karma maker' (作作者) and 'defiler' (染染者)? Answer: 'Defiler' refers only to the mind ground (意地), and only describes unwholesome (不善). 'Karma maker' encompasses the three karmas of body, speech, and mind, as well as the three natures of good, evil, and neutral. Furthermore, 'defiler' is only the gate of afflictions, while 'karma maker' elucidates the gate of karma. Moreover, 'defiler' establishes meaning by quoting scriptures, while 'karma maker' establishes meaning by quoting events, referring to the actions and behaviors that are seen in the present. Question: What is the difference between the 'karma maker' being refuted now and the 'karma maker' in the sixteen kinds of knowledge (十六知見)? Answer: The sixteen kinds of knowledge are only for refuting the doctrines of non-Buddhist schools (外道), while here it is a general refutation of the world, non-Buddhist schools, Hinayana, and Mahayana. Any slight attainment-seeking mind (有所得心) with actions of body, speech, and mind enters this gate and is refuted. Question: Why refute all actions? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品經) says that Bodhisattvas have two kinds of karma, coarse and subtle. Seeing body, speech, and mind is called coarse karma; not attaining body, speech, and mind is called subtle karma. Bodhisattvas are apart from coarse karma. Now, wanting to distinguish the pure karma of Bodhisattvas, all actions and behaviors with attainment-seeking are refuted. Secondly, the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says that Jivaka (耆婆) said to the world king: 'Great King, if you hear the Buddha say no maker, no receiver (無作無受), the king's heavy sins will be purified.' No maker means no one makes, no dharma makes; no receiver means no one receives, no dharma receives. Moreover, the sutra briefly indicates, and those with sharp faculties immediately understand. In the degenerate age, sins are heavy, so the commentator extensively refutes it. Therefore, this chapter initially elucidates no karma maker, and then distinguishes no receiver, which is the pure repentance dharma in the Vaipulya Sutras (方等經). The Four Reliances Bodhisattvas (四依菩薩) have compassion for sentient beings who commit sins in the degenerate age, so they present the great repentance of the Buddhas of the ten directions. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part is the prose, narrating the reasons for refutation and establishment; the second part is the verses, formally elucidating the refutation. In the first part, there is first a question, then an answer. The questioner does not accept the previous refutation and establishes a new argument. The answer is to reiterate the previous refutation and not accept the subsequent establishment. The establishment says: 'There is action, there is an actor, there is a means of action.' Exhaustively exploring horizontally and refuting vertically, everything is thorough, and outsiders have nothing to say. They simply raise the events seen in the present to ask: If everything is ultimately empty, there is no present event to be seen. Since there is a present event to be seen, why say it is ultimately empty? This is not believing the previous refutation, so they re-establish the argument.
又如人習無生觀。力淺無生觀恒不現前。而顛倒事恒現。故舉現事問也。作是業。三條。一能作來果。二為人所作。三體是起作。故名為作也。作者亦三義。一體是起作法。二作前果。三能作于業。故名作者。所用作法有二。一內法謂手腳根能有所作故名所用。二外校具。如人手書要須用筆。故筆是所用法也。此二是因書字即是果。答申前破不受后立者。一欲顯前一週破已竟。二欲以前門破后。三顯鈍根無而立有。就答中有二。初奪次縱奪作作者。已入有為無為中破者。外道常遍我入無為中破。無常之我入有為中破。又外道具常身作身。內道有生死有為人法佛地無為人法。併入此二門破也。汝著心深下。第二縱破。據法則已無。約倒情謂有。是故破之。十二偈為二。初十一偈破作作者。即是破因中人法。次一偈破受受者。破果中人法。因果人法既無則一切空矣。又初破作作者破人法之用。后破受受者破人法之體。下云受名五陰。陰是法體也。體用若傾則一切空矣。破作作者中有二。初破有人法見。次破無人法見。就破人法中義五。文四。義五者。一人法俱有無相作義。二人法俱無亦無相作。三半有半無亦無相作。四一有一無亦無相作。五人一法三人三法一亦無相作。以此五門窮檢一切。造作義畢竟無縱。即釋經中無作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 又比如有人修習無生觀（anuppāda-nirodha-samādhi，不生不滅的禪定）。如果力量不夠，無生觀就不能持續顯現，而顛倒妄想卻總是出現。所以提出眼前的事實來發問。『作是業』，包含三層含義：一是能產生未來的果報，二是為人所造作，三是其本體是生起造作。所以稱為『作』。 『作者』也有三重含義：一是其本體是生起造作之法，二是造作之前的果報，三是能夠造作業。所以稱為『作者』。所使用的造作方法有兩種：一是內在的方法，指手腳等根能夠有所作為，所以稱為『所用』。二是外在的工具，比如人要用手寫字，必須使用筆，所以筆就是所用的工具。這兩種是因，書寫文字就是果。 回答是爲了闡明前面一週的破斥已經結束，二是爲了用前面的方式破斥後面的觀點，三是爲了顯示鈍根之人從無而立有。在回答中包含兩部分：首先是奪，其次是縱。奪作作者，已經進入有為（saṃskṛta，有生滅變化的事物）和無為（asaṃskṛta，無生滅變化的事物）之中進行破斥。外道（tīrthika，佛教以外的修行者）常說的遍我（ātman，神我）進入無為中進行破斥，無常的我進入有為中進行破斥。此外，外道認為有常身作身，內道（svaka，佛教徒）認為有生死有為人法，佛地（Buddha-bhūmi，佛的境界）沒有有為人法。這些都進入這兩個範疇進行破斥。你執著於心太深了。 第二是縱破。根據法則來說，本來就沒有，但根據顛倒的情感來說，就認為有，所以要破斥它。十二個偈頌分為兩部分：前面的十一個偈頌破斥作作者，也就是破斥因中的人法。最後一個偈頌破斥受受者，破斥果中的人法。因果中的人法既然都沒有，那麼一切就都是空了。 此外，前面破斥作作者，是破斥人法的作用；後面破斥受受者，是破斥人法的本體。下面說『受名五陰（pañca-skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）』，陰就是法的本體。如果本體和作用都傾覆了，那麼一切就都是空了。破斥作作者包含兩部分：首先破斥有人法見，其次破斥無人法見。在破斥人法見中，有五種含義，四種文句。五種含義是：一是人法俱有，沒有相作；二是人法俱無，也沒有相作；三是半有半無，也沒有相作；四是一有一無，也沒有相作；五是人一法三，人三法一，也沒有相作。用這五種方式來窮盡地檢查一切，造作的意義畢竟是虛妄的。這就解釋了經中所說的『無作』。
【English Translation】 English version For example, someone practices the Anuppāda-nirodha-samādhi (無生觀, contemplation of non-origination). If their strength is weak, the Anuppāda-nirodha-samādhi cannot consistently manifest, while inverted thoughts constantly appear. Therefore, the present situation is brought up as a question. 'Making this karma' has three meanings: first, it can produce future consequences; second, it is made by someone; and third, its essence is arising and making. Therefore, it is called 'making'. The 'maker' also has three meanings: first, its essence is the Dharma (法, law/phenomena) of arising and making; second, the consequences before making; and third, the ability to make karma. Therefore, it is called 'maker'. There are two kinds of methods used for making: first, internal methods, referring to the ability of the hands, feet, and roots to do something, so it is called 'used'. Second, external tools, such as when a person writes with their hand, they must use a pen, so the pen is the tool used. These two are the cause, and writing words is the effect. The answer is to clarify that the previous week's refutation has ended, second, to refute the later views with the previous method, and third, to show that those with dull roots establish existence from non-existence. There are two parts to the answer: first, deprivation; second, concession. Depriving the maker and the making, already entering into the Saṃskṛta (有為, conditioned/compounded) and Asaṃskṛta (無為, unconditioned/uncompounded) to refute. The Tīrthika (外道, non-Buddhist) often say that the Ātman (遍我, self/soul) enters into the Asaṃskṛta to refute, and the impermanent self enters into the Saṃskṛta to refute. In addition, the Tīrthika believe that there is a permanent body making a body, and the Svaka (內道, Buddhist) believe that there is the Dharma of birth and death and conditioned Dharma, and the Buddha-bhūmi (佛地, Buddha-land) has no conditioned Dharma. These all enter into these two categories to refute. You are too attached to the mind. The second is concessional refutation. According to the Dharma, it does not exist, but according to inverted emotions, it is considered to exist, so it must be refuted. The twelve verses are divided into two parts: the first eleven verses refute the maker and the making, which is to refute the person and Dharma in the cause. The last verse refutes the receiver and the receiving, refuting the person and Dharma in the effect. Since the person and Dharma in the cause and effect do not exist, then everything is empty. In addition, the previous refutation of the maker and the making is to refute the function of the person and Dharma; the later refutation of the receiver and the receiving is to refute the essence of the person and Dharma. Below it says 'receiving is named the Pañca-skandha (五陰, five aggregates, i.e., form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness)', the Skandha is the essence of the Dharma. If the essence and function are overturned, then everything is empty. The refutation of the maker and the making contains two parts: first, refuting the view of the existence of person and Dharma; second, refuting the view of the non-existence of person and Dharma. In the refutation of the view of the existence of person and Dharma, there are five meanings and four sentences. The five meanings are: first, both person and Dharma exist, without mutual making; second, both person and Dharma do not exist, without mutual making; third, half exists and half does not exist, without mutual making; fourth, one exists and one does not exist, without mutual making; fifth, one person and three Dharmas, three persons and one Dharma, without mutual making. Using these five methods to exhaustively examine everything, the meaning of making is ultimately false. This explains the 'non-making' mentioned in the Sutra (經).
門也。又是破外人一切造作義盡矣。文四者。初實有實無門。二半有半無門。三一有一無門。四一三門。初一門有六偈。又開為二。前有一偈標章門。次有五偈釋章門。初偈上半明人法俱有無作義。下半人法俱無亦無作義。上半初句明定有人。即僧佉等四外道。佛法犢子譬喻成實師。假有體及假有用等也。次句標破既決定有人。人不作決定業。定業內外通有。而正是薩婆多未來本有善惡等業。竟不復須人造作也。又今不論未來直明實有人體業體。無有作義。下半初句牒無人。次標破。問此為是執無有人。為計無為人耶。答非是執無有人。但言人體是無能起作業。問誰計人體是無而作業耶。答若執人是有為名之為有。計人是無為秤之為無。又假有體是執人有假無體是計人無。又犢子計人有。薩婆多明人無。但有假名而秤人作于業也。又上半不因業有人。不因人有業。故無相作。下半因業有人。因人有業。則人業皆無體。則無人業故無相作。問何以知計有是人計無是人耶。答顛倒品云。我法以有無。是事終不成。故知計人是有無也。第二偈以去是第二釋章門為三。初一偈釋章門。次一偈顯人法俱有則墮無因過。第三三偈傳釋無因過。初偈上半破定有業。下半破定有人。定有業體有二過。若實有業體。本來已有不得言本未作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這是關於『門』的討論。它也完全破斥了外道的一切造作之義。這裡有四種『門』：第一是實有實無門，第二是半有半無門，第三是一有一無門，第四是一三門。第一個『門』有六首偈頌，又可分為二部分。前面有一首偈頌標示總綱，後面有五首偈頌解釋總綱。第一首偈頌的上半部分闡明了人與法都是實有，因此沒有造作之義；下半部分闡明了人與法都是實無，因此也沒有造作之義。上半部分的第一句說明了確實存在『人』，這指的是僧佉派等四種外道，以及佛教中的犢子部、譬喻師、成實師，他們認為存在假有的自體以及假有的作用等。第二句標明了破斥，既然已經確定存在『人』，那麼人就不會造作決定的業。決定的業在內外道中都存在，而這裡指的是薩婆多部所說的未來本有的善惡等業，這些業不需要人來造作。這裡不是討論未來，而是直接說明實有的人體和業體，沒有造作之義。下半部分的第一句提到了『無人』，第二句標明了破斥。這裡要問，這是執著于沒有『人』，還是認為沒有『人為』呢？回答是，不是執著于沒有『人』，而是說人體沒有能力產生作業。這裡要問，誰認為人體是無而能作業呢？回答是，如果執著于『人』是『有』，就稱之為『有』；如果認為『人』是『無』，就稱之為『無』。此外，假有的自體是執著于『人有』，假無的自體是認為『人無』。犢子部認為『人有』，薩婆多部認為『人無』，但有假名，而稱『人』造作業。此外，上半部分說，不是因為業而有『人』，也不是因為『人』而有業，所以沒有互相造作。下半部分說，因為業而有『人』，因為『人』而有業，那麼『人』和業都沒有自體，所以沒有人業，因此沒有互相造作。這裡要問，怎麼知道認為『有』是『人』，認為『無』是『人』呢？回答是，《顛倒品》中說，『我法以有無，是事終不成』，所以知道認為『人』是有無的。從第二首偈頌開始是第二部分，解釋總綱，分為三部分。第一首偈頌解釋總綱，第二首偈頌顯示人與法都是實有，就會墮入無因的過失。第三首有三首偈頌，進一步解釋無因的過失。第一首偈頌的上半部分破斥了決定有業，下半部分破斥了決定有人。決定有業體有兩個過失：如果確實有業體，本來就已經存在，就不能說是本來沒有造作。
【English Translation】 English version This is a discussion about the 'Gate'. It also completely refutes the meaning of all fabrications by external paths. There are four types of 'Gates' here: first, the Gate of Real Existence and Real Non-existence; second, the Gate of Half Existence and Half Non-existence; third, the Gate of One Existence and One Non-existence; and fourth, the Gate of One-Three. The first 'Gate' has six Gathas (verses), which can be divided into two parts. The first Gatha indicates the general outline, and the following five Gathas explain the general outline. The first half of the first Gatha clarifies that both person (人, rén) and dharma (法, fǎ) are truly existent, therefore there is no meaning of fabrication; the second half clarifies that both person and dharma are truly non-existent, therefore there is also no meaning of fabrication. The first sentence of the first half explains that 'person' (人, rén) certainly exists, referring to the Samkhya (僧佉, Sēngqié) school and other four external paths, as well as the Pudgalavada (犢子部, Dúzi bù), Sautrantika (譬喻師, Pìyù shī), and Satyasiddhi (成實師, Chéngshí shī) schools in Buddhism, who believe in the existence of a provisionally existent self-nature and provisionally existent functions, etc. The second sentence indicates the refutation, since it has been determined that 'person' exists, then the person will not create determined karma (業, yè). Determined karma exists in both internal and external paths, and here it refers to the inherently existent good and evil karma of the future according to the Sarvastivada (薩婆多, Sàpóduō) school, which does not require a person to create it. Here, we are not discussing the future, but directly explaining the truly existent body of the person and the body of karma, without the meaning of fabrication. The first sentence of the second half mentions 'no person' (無人, wú rén), and the second sentence indicates the refutation. Here, the question is whether this is clinging to the absence of 'person', or thinking that there is no 'human action' (人為, rénwéi)? The answer is that it is not clinging to the absence of 'person', but saying that the human body has no ability to produce actions. Here, the question is who thinks that the human body is non-existent but can perform actions? The answer is that if one clings to 'person' as 'existent', it is called 'existence'; if one considers 'person' as 'non-existent', it is called 'non-existence'. In addition, a provisionally existent self-nature is clinging to 'person exists', and a provisionally non-existent self-nature is considering 'person does not exist'. The Pudgalavada school believes that 'person exists', and the Sarvastivada school believes that 'person does not exist', but there is a provisional name, and it is said that 'person' creates karma. Furthermore, the first half says that 'person' does not exist because of karma, and karma does not exist because of 'person', so there is no mutual fabrication. The second half says that 'person' exists because of karma, and karma exists because of 'person', then neither 'person' nor karma has a self-nature, so there is no person or karma, therefore there is no mutual fabrication. Here, the question is how do we know that considering 'existence' is 'person' and considering 'non-existence' is 'person'? The answer is that the Inverted Views Chapter says, 'I and dharma with existence and non-existence, this matter will ultimately not succeed', so we know that considering 'person' is existence and non-existence. Starting from the second Gatha is the second part, explaining the general outline, divided into three parts. The first Gatha explains the general outline, and the second Gatha shows that if both person and dharma are truly existent, one will fall into the fault of having no cause. The third part has three Gathas, further explaining the fault of having no cause. The first half of the first Gatha refutes the determined existence of karma, and the second half refutes the determined existence of person. The determined existence of karma has two faults: if the body of karma truly exists, it already exists originally, and it cannot be said that it was not originally created.
今始作。則世間唯有故業無新業也。二者本來已有。不須人起故復有離人過也。下半亦二。一者既本來有作者。不應更有造作。二既本來已有。不須作業成人。須精細取文意。有一豪業體則業有二過。有一豪人體人有二過。何者為一豪人體。則本來已有不假緣合而成。亦不假緣離而滅。故此人是常。則常已作竟。何須更作。復何須假業而成耶。業二過亦爾。長行初釋偈本。從不決定已下顯論主不破人法俱無意。二俱是有有尚無作。二俱是無無雲何有作。故不須破無也。複次若定有作者下。第二重顯人法俱有墮無因過。即是初章四對。若有人可人有法可法。有人可人人不因法。有法可法法不因人。故人是自人法是自法。故名無因也。然須細心觀文意。若有一豪人體則不因法。法亦爾。如是長短生死涅槃。有一豪無相因。無相因則破因緣。破中道也。若無一豪人法亦無可相因。可謂正觀微妙虛妄易傾也。問曰。下生第三傳顯無因過也。答中三偈為二。初別明無因過。次半行總結別明。中有十過。謂因果人法罪福及罪福報世出世也。則無因無果者。人不因法則無法因。無法因則無人。是果法亦爾。問前已明無因果。何故復云無罪福及罪福報耶。答前明無外法中瓶等因果。后明無內法因果。又約數人義。后但明無報因因果。前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在開始造作，那麼世間就只有舊業而沒有新業了。其次，新業和舊業本來就已經存在，不需要人去創造，所以又有了脫離人的過失。下半部分也是兩個方面：一是既然本來就有作者，就不應該再有造作；二是既然本來就已經存在，就不需要通過作業來成就人。需要仔細體會文意。如果有一絲一毫的『人』的實體，那麼『業』就有兩個過失；如果有一絲一毫的『人』的實體，那麼『人』就有兩個過失。什麼是一個毫末的『人』的實體呢？就是本來就已經存在，不依賴因緣和合而成，也不依賴因緣離散而滅。所以這個人是常住的，既然是常住的，就已經完成了，何須再造作？又何須藉助『業』來成就呢？『業』的兩個過失也是如此。長行部分首先解釋偈頌的根本。從『不決定』以下，顯示論主不破斥人法俱無的觀點。如果二者都是『有』，那麼『有』尚且沒有造作；如果二者都是『無』，那麼『無』又怎麼會有造作呢？所以不需要破斥『無』。再次，如果確定有作者，那麼就顯示人法俱有，會墮入無因的過失，也就是初章的四對：如果有人可以成為人，是因為人；有法可以成為法，是因為法。有人可以成為人，人不是因為法；有法可以成為法，法不是因為人。所以人是自身的人，法是自身的法，因此稱為無因。然而需要細心觀察文意。如果有一絲一毫的『人』的實體，那麼就不依賴於法，法也是如此。像這樣，長短、生死、涅槃，有一絲一毫的互不相干。互不相干，那麼就破壞了因緣，破壞了中道。如果沒有一絲一毫的人法，那麼也就沒有什麼可以互相依存的。可以說正觀微妙，虛妄容易傾斜。問：下面開始第三次傳達顯示無因的過失。答：回答中的三首偈頌分為兩部分。首先分別說明無因的過失，其次用半行總結分別說明。其中有十種過失，即因、果、人、法、罪、福以及罪福的報應、世間和出世間。那麼無因無果就是說，人不因為法，那麼就沒有法因；沒有法因，那麼就沒有人，這是果法也是如此。問：前面已經說明了無因果，為什麼又說沒有罪福以及罪福的報應呢？答：前面說明了沒有外法中的瓶子等因果，後面說明了沒有內法的因果。又從數量上來說，後面只是說明沒有報應的因果，前面是全部。
【English Translation】 English version If one starts creating now, then the world would only have old karma and no new karma. Secondly, both new and old karma already exist inherently, and there is no need for humans to create them, thus leading to the fault of being detached from humans. The latter half also has two aspects: first, since there is already an author inherently, there should be no further creation; second, since it already exists inherently, there is no need to achieve a person through actions. It is necessary to carefully understand the meaning of the text. If there is even a tiny bit of substance to the 'person', then 'karma' has two faults; if there is even a tiny bit of substance to the 'person', then the 'person' has two faults. What is a tiny bit of substance to the 'person'? It is that which already exists inherently, not relying on causes and conditions coming together, nor relying on causes and conditions separating to cease. Therefore, this person is permanent. Since it is permanent, it is already complete, so why create it again? And why rely on 'karma' to achieve it? The two faults of 'karma' are also like this. The prose section first explains the root of the verses. From 'undecided' onwards, it shows that the master of the treatise does not refute the view that both person and dharma are non-existent. If both are 'existent', then 'existence' still has no creation; if both are 'non-existent', then how can 'non-existence' have creation? Therefore, there is no need to refute 'non-existence'. Furthermore, if it is certain that there is an author, then it shows that both person and dharma are existent, which will fall into the fault of having no cause, which is the four pairs of the first chapter: if a person can become a person, it is because of the person; if a dharma can become a dharma, it is because of the dharma. If a person can become a person, the person is not because of the dharma; if a dharma can become a dharma, the dharma is not because of the person. Therefore, the person is the person of itself, and the dharma is the dharma of itself, hence it is called without cause. However, it is necessary to carefully observe the meaning of the text. If there is even a tiny bit of substance to the 'person', then it does not rely on the dharma, and the dharma is also like this. Like this, length, shortness, birth, death, and Nirvana, have not even a tiny bit of mutual dependence. If there is no mutual dependence, then it destroys the causes and conditions, destroying the Middle Way. If there is not even a tiny bit of person and dharma, then there is nothing to rely on each other. It can be said that the correct view is subtle, and falsehood is easily inclined. Question: Below begins the third transmission, showing the fault of having no cause. Answer: The three verses in the answer are divided into two parts. First, separately explain the fault of having no cause, and then summarize the separate explanations with half a line. Among them, there are ten faults, namely cause, effect, person, dharma, sin, merit, and the retribution of sin and merit, the mundane and the supramundane. So, no cause, no effect means that if a person is not because of the dharma, then there is no dharma cause; if there is no dharma cause, then there is no person, this is also the case for the effect dharma. Question: The absence of cause and effect has already been explained earlier, so why say again that there is no sin, merit, and the retribution of sin and merit? Answer: The previous explanation was about the absence of cause and effect in external dharmas such as bottles, and the latter explanation is about the absence of cause and effect in internal dharmas. Also, in terms of quantity, the latter only explains the cause and effect of no retribution, while the former is all.
通明餘五因因果。成實亦爾。后明無報因因果。前明習因因果及依因因果也。問論文或言天涅槃或言大涅槃。何者是耶。答大是矣。前罪福報已說天報竟故也。長行為二。初釋人法俱有墮無因。無因有十過。從問曰已下顯論主但明人法俱有之過。不彰俱無失意也。俱有尚有過況俱無耶。故不須顯無之失也。又青目欲具彰俱有俱無之失。發下破半有半無之端也。問若無作者無作業不能有所作下。第二門破半有半無。外人云人半有能起業。人半無為業成。業半有能成人。業半無須人起。若爾則應有人業也。問應立半有半無。云何但言有耶。答有二義。一者對長行兩無之言。故秤為有。二者略舉半有則半無可知。問半有半無是誰計耶。答人法具二諦。世諦義邊是則半有。真諦義邊則是半無。又開善云。假人無體有用。無體義是半無。有用義秤半有。假法亦無體有用。同人義說也。又一人具假實。實法滅為半無。假法相續為半有。此通眾師也。偈上半正牒而破。下半釋破也。言相違者凡有二種。一者人業各違。二者合違。各違者人有違人無。人無違人有。業亦爾也。合違者人有違業無。人無違業有。業無違人有。業有違人無也。複次有不能作無。第四一有一無門破無相作義。一有一無者謂。人是有而業是無。人亦是無而業是有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 通明：《餘五因因果》（Yuwu yinguo，指剩餘的五種因果關係）。《成實論》（Chengshi lun，佛教論書名）也是這樣認為的。後面闡明的是『無報因因果』（Wubao yinguo，沒有果報的因果關係），前面闡明的是『習因因果』（Xi yin yinguo，由習性產生的因果關係）以及『依因因果』（Yi yin yinguo，依賴於其他因素的因果關係）。 問：論著中或者說『天涅槃』（Tian niepan，天道的涅槃），或者說『大涅槃』（Da niepan，偉大的涅槃），哪個是正確的呢？ 答：『大涅槃』是正確的。因為前面已經說了罪福的果報，『天報』（Tian bao，天道的果報）已經結束了。 長行（Changxing，佛經的散文部分）分為兩部分。首先解釋人法（Ren fa，眾生和法）都墮入『無因』（Wu yin，沒有原因）的觀點。『無因』有十種過失。從『問曰』（Wen yue，提問說）以下，顯示論主（Lun zhu，論著的作者）只闡明了人法都有的過失，沒有彰顯人法都沒有的缺失。既然人法都有尚且有過失，更何況人法都沒有呢？所以不需要顯示『無』的缺失。 另外，青目（Qingmu，人名，註釋《中論》的作者）想要完全彰顯人法俱有和俱無的缺失，從而引發出破斥『半有半無』（Ban you ban wu，一半存在一半不存在）觀點的開端。 問：如果『無作者』（Wu zuozhe，沒有作者），『無作業』（Wu zuoye，沒有行為），就不能有所作為……以下是第二部分，破斥『半有半無』的觀點。外人（Wai ren，指佛教以外的人）說，人一半存在，能夠發起行為；人一半不存在，行為才能完成；行為一半存在，能夠成就人；行為一半不存在，需要人來發起。如果這樣，那麼就應該既有人也有業。 問：應該建立『半有半無』的觀點，為什麼只說『有』（You，存在）呢？ 答：有兩種含義。一是針對長行中『兩無』（Liang wu，兩者都不存在）的說法，所以稱之為『有』。二是省略地提到『半有』，那麼『半無』就可以知道了。 問：『半有半無』是誰的觀點呢？ 答：人法都具備二諦（Er di，真諦和俗諦）。從世俗諦（Shi su di，世俗的真理）的角度來說，就是『半有』。從真諦（Zhen di，終極真理）的角度來說，就是『半無』。另外，開善（Kaisan，人名）說，假人（Jia ren，虛假的人）沒有本體但有作用。沒有本體的意思是『半無』，有作用的意思是『半有』。假法（Jia fa，虛假的法）也沒有本體但有作用，和人的道理一樣。 另外，一個人具備假和實（Jia shi，虛假和真實）。實法（Shi fa，真實的法）滅亡是『半無』，假法相續是『半有』。這適用於所有的師父。 偈頌（Ji song，佛經中的詩歌部分）的上半部分是正面地列舉並破斥，下半部分是解釋破斥的原因。『相違』（Xiang wei，相互矛盾）有兩種。一是人業各自矛盾，二是合起來矛盾。各自矛盾是指人有和人無矛盾，人無和人有矛盾，業也是這樣。合起來矛盾是指人有和業無矛盾，人無和業有矛盾，業無和人有矛盾，業有和人無矛盾。 再次，有不能產生無。第四，『一有一無門』（Yi you yi wu men，一個存在一個不存在的門）破斥了『無相作義』（Wu xiang zuo yi，沒有相狀的行為的意義）。『一有一無』是指，人是存在的而業是不存在的，人也是不存在的而業是存在的。
【English Translation】 English version Tongming: 'Yuwu yinguo' (餘五因因果, the remaining five causes and effects). The 'Chengshi lun' (成實論, Tattvasiddhi Shastra) also holds this view. The latter clarifies 'Wubao yinguo' (無報因因果, causes and effects without retribution), while the former clarifies 'Xi yin yinguo' (習因因果, causes and effects arising from habits) and 'Yi yin yinguo' (依因因果, causes and effects dependent on other factors). Question: In the treatises, it is sometimes said 'Tian niepan' (天涅槃, Nirvana of the heavenly realm) and sometimes 'Da niepan' (大涅槃, Great Nirvana). Which is correct? Answer: 'Da niepan' is correct. Because the retribution of sins and blessings has already been discussed, and the 'Tian bao' (天報, retribution of the heavenly realm) has ended. The prose section (Changxing, 長行) is divided into two parts. First, it explains the view that both beings and phenomena (Ren fa, 人法) fall into 'Wu yin' (無因, without cause). 'Wu yin' has ten faults. From 'Wen yue' (問曰, Questioning says) onwards, the author of the treatise (Lun zhu, 論主) only clarifies the faults of both beings and phenomena existing, without highlighting the deficiencies of both beings and phenomena not existing. Since both beings and phenomena existing still have faults, how much more so if both beings and phenomena do not exist? Therefore, there is no need to show the deficiencies of 'non-existence'. In addition, Qingmu (青目, name of a person, the author of the commentary on the 'Madhyamaka-karika') wants to fully demonstrate the faults of both beings and phenomena existing and not existing, thereby initiating the beginning of refuting the view of 'Ban you ban wu' (半有半無, half existing and half not existing). Question: If there is 'Wu zuozhe' (無作者, no author), 'Wu zuoye' (無作業, no action), then nothing can be done... The following is the second part, refuting the view of 'Ban you ban wu'. Outsiders (Wai ren, 外人, referring to people outside of Buddhism) say that half of a person exists and can initiate action; half of a person does not exist, and action can be completed; half of an action exists and can accomplish a person; half of an action does not exist and needs a person to initiate it. If so, then there should be both person and action. Question: The view of 'Ban you ban wu' should be established, why only say 'You' (有, existence)? Answer: There are two meanings. First, it is in response to the statement of 'Liang wu' (兩無, both not existing) in the prose section, so it is called 'You'. Second, by briefly mentioning 'Ban you', then 'Ban wu' can be known. Question: Whose view is 'Ban you ban wu'? Answer: Both beings and phenomena possess two truths (Er di, 二諦, the two truths, conventional and ultimate). From the perspective of conventional truth (Shi su di, 世俗諦), it is 'Ban you'. From the perspective of ultimate truth (Zhen di, 真諦), it is 'Ban wu'. In addition, Kaisan (開善, name of a person) said that a false person (Jia ren, 假人) has no substance but has function. The meaning of no substance is 'Ban wu', and the meaning of having function is 'Ban you'. False phenomena (Jia fa, 假法) also have no substance but have function, the same as the principle of a person. In addition, a person possesses both false and real (Jia shi, 假實). The extinction of real phenomena (Shi fa, 實法) is 'Ban wu', and the continuation of false phenomena is 'Ban you'. This applies to all masters. The first half of the verse (Ji song, 偈頌) positively lists and refutes, and the second half explains the reason for the refutation. 'Xiang wei' (相違, contradictory) has two types. One is that beings and actions contradict each other individually, and the other is that they contradict each other collectively. Individually contradictory means that the existence of a person contradicts the non-existence of a person, and the non-existence of a person contradicts the existence of a person, and the same is true for actions. Collectively contradictory means that the existence of a person contradicts the non-existence of an action, and the non-existence of a person contradicts the existence of an action, the non-existence of an action contradicts the existence of a person, and the existence of an action contradicts the non-existence of a person. Again, existence cannot produce non-existence. Fourth, the 'Yi you yi wu men' (一有一無門, the gate of one existing and one not existing) refutes the meaning of 'Wu xiang zuo yi' (無相作義, action without characteristics). 'Yi you yi wu' means that a person exists and an action does not exist, and a person also does not exist and an action exists.
也。問此是誰義耶。答如本住云。未有眼耳等根前已有本住。此是有人而無業也。成論師云。前三心但有法未有人。此是有法無人也。又如世人云。未造作善惡業時已有於人。此是有人無法。毗曇云。未來有法未有人名。此是有法無人。又如經云。我無造無受者無。善惡之業不敗亡。亦是有法無人也。又如成論師釋滅度義云。法滅人度。又是有人而無法也。又造善故名善人。若未造善不名善人。餘二性亦爾。此是有法而無人也。偈為二。上半正破。下半指前破。云有不出全有半有。無不出全無半無。上已破竟既無有無。何有相作。作者不作定下。第四一三門。上來是離破今是合破。兩偈為二。初偈明一人不能作三業。次偈明三人不能作一業。一人不作三業者。三種中隨舉一人。或有人或無人。或半有半無人。有人不作三業者。人是有。業既無不可作。業已有不須作。半有同有半無同無。次偈三人不能作一業者。三人中隨一人也。問曰若無作無作者。自上已來破有人法見。此下第二破無人法見。若作申破意。上來破病今申經也。三相品末一偈申經。七品破執。良以執病既重。前須廣破未得。更為其作義。且引幻化曉之。至作者品執病稍除。品品之中時出一兩要句。令其識佛經因緣假名義也。就文為二。初問次答。問今外
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。問：『這是什麼意思？』答：如《本住》所說，『在還沒有眼耳等根之前，就已經有了本住。』這是有人而沒有業的情況。成論師說：『前三個心念只有法，還沒有人。』這是有法而沒有人的情況。又如世人所說：『在還沒有造作善惡業的時候，就已經有了人。』這是有人而沒有法的情況。《毗曇》說：『未來有法，還沒有人，名為有法無人。』又如經文所說：『我沒有造作，也沒有接受者，善惡之業不會敗亡。』這也是有法而沒有人的情況。又如成論師解釋滅度的意義說：『法滅，人度。』這又是有人而沒有法的情況。又因為造作善業，所以稱為善人，如果還沒有造作善業，就不能稱為善人，其餘兩種性質也是如此。這是有法而沒有人的情況。偈頌分為兩部分，上半部分是正面破斥，下半部分是指向前面的破斥。說『有』不能超出完全有或者部分有，說『無』不能超出完全無或者部分無。上面已經破斥完畢，既然沒有有也沒有無，哪裡會有相的造作？作者不造作是確定的。第四，一三門。上面是分開破斥，現在是合起來破斥。兩首偈頌分為兩部分，第一首偈頌說明一個人不能造作三種業，第二首偈頌說明三個人不能造作一種業。一個人不造作三種業，在三種情況中隨便舉出一種，或者有人，或者無人，或者半有半無人。有人不造作三種業，人是有，業既然沒有，就不能造作；業已經有了，就不需要造作；半有和有相同，半無和無相同。第二首偈頌，三個人不能造作一種業，在三種情況中隨便舉出一種。問：『如果沒有造作者，也沒有作者，從上面已經破斥了有人法見。』下面第二部分破斥無人法見，如果造作是申述破斥的意思，上面是破斥病癥，現在是申述經義。三相品末尾的偈頌是申述經義，七品破斥執著。實在是因為執著的病癥太重，前面需要廣泛破斥，沒有得到，再為他們作解釋，姑且引用幻化來曉喻他們。到作者品，執著的病癥稍微消除，品品之中時常出現一兩句重要的句子，讓他們認識佛經因緣假名的意義。就文義分為兩部分，先問后答。問：『現在外道
【English Translation】 English version: Also. Question: 'What does this mean?' Answer: As stated in 'Original Abode' (Ben Zhu), 'Before there were eyes, ears, and other senses, there was already an original abode.' This is a case of someone existing without karma. The Cheng Lun master said: 'The first three thoughts only have dharma, not yet a person.' This is a case of dharma existing without a person. Furthermore, as people say: 'Before good or bad karma is created, there is already a person.' This is a case of someone existing without dharma. The Vibhasa (Pi Tan) says: 'Future dharma exists, but there is not yet a person, called dharma existing without a person.' Also, as the sutra says: 'I have no creator, nor receiver, good or bad karma does not perish.' This is also a case of dharma existing without a person. Furthermore, as the Cheng Lun master explains the meaning of Nirvana (Mie Du): 'Dharma ceases, and the person is liberated.' This is another case of someone existing without dharma. Also, because of creating good karma, one is called a good person; if one has not yet created good karma, one cannot be called a good person, and the other two natures are the same. This is a case of dharma existing without a person. The verse is divided into two parts; the first half is a direct refutation, and the second half refers back to the previous refutation. Saying 'existence' cannot exceed complete existence or partial existence, and saying 'non-existence' cannot exceed complete non-existence or partial non-existence. The above refutation is complete; since there is neither existence nor non-existence, where would there be the creation of appearances? The creator not creating is certain. Fourth, the one and three doors. The above is separate refutation, and now it is combined refutation. The two verses are divided into two parts; the first verse explains that one person cannot create three karmas, and the second verse explains that three people cannot create one karma. One person does not create three karmas; in the three situations, randomly choose one, either someone exists, no one exists, or half exists and half does not exist. If someone exists and does not create three karmas, the person exists, but since the karma does not exist, it cannot be created; if the karma already exists, it does not need to be created; half existence is the same as existence, and half non-existence is the same as non-existence. The second verse, three people cannot create one karma; in the three situations, randomly choose one. Question: 'If there is no creator and no creation, from above, the view of someone and dharma existing has been refuted.' The second part below refutes the view of no one and dharma existing; if creation is the meaning of elaboration and refutation, the above is refuting the illness, and now it is elaborating the meaning of the sutra. The verse at the end of the Three Characteristics chapter is elaborating the meaning of the sutra, and the seven chapters refute attachments. It is truly because the illness of attachment is too heavy, and the above needs extensive refutation, which has not been achieved, so an explanation is made for them, and they are temporarily enlightened by using illusion. By the time of the Creator chapter, the illness of attachment has been slightly eliminated, and one or two important sentences often appear in each chapter, allowing them to recognize the meaning of the conditions and provisional names of the Buddhist scriptures. The meaning of the text is divided into two parts, first question and then answer. Question: 'Now the heretics'
道過論主無因。與上論主過外人無因。有何異。答外人前有人有法。人法各成不須相因故墮無因。今明都無人法故無可相因。所以為異。答曰是業從眾緣生下。第二答。前長行次偈。破此見凡有三勢。一云汝有因既不成。豈得有無因。如是五句悉不可得。二有無並出汝心。向謂有既覓有無從。便復見無。此並是汝有。汝無非關我也。三者上來明無者。無汝所見五種人法耳。非無假名因緣人法也。此之一答意有多門。一者上明無人無法。則破其有見。今明假名人法接其斷心。顯非有非無非斷非常之義。二者上明非人非法。即是中道。今明因緣人法。秤為假名。此即是假前中中后假義。三者上明非人非法。即是性空。今明因緣人法即是因緣空。故得有人法。故山中舊云。于性空中立一切法。四者上明無人法。此明世諦破性說空即是世諦中道。今明因緣人法即是中道。世諦因緣人法未曾人法。即是非人非法名因緣空。即是真諦中道。問此但明因緣人法。何處有非人非法文耶。答文顯在偈后長行。五者上明無五種人法即是破病。今明因緣人法即是申經。偈分為二。初有三句明有因緣人法。更無有餘事一句。此辨更無外人五種人法。一師初章中假語並是依作者品此文作之。初章四對之失。即是前過外人人法不相因義。四對之得。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道過論主無因，與上論主過外人無因，有何不同？答：外人面前有人有法，人和法各自成立，不需要互相依存，所以落入無因。現在說明根本沒有人法，所以無可互相依存，這就是不同之處。答：『是業從眾緣生下』，這是第二答。前面長行之後是偈頌。破斥這種見解，總共有三種方式。一是說：『你的有因既然不能成立，怎麼能有無因呢？』像這樣五句話都不能成立。二是說：『有和無都出自你的心。先前說有，既然尋求有而無所得，便又見到無。這些都是你的有和無，與我無關。』三是說：『上面說明的無，是沒有你所見的五種人法罷了，並非沒有假名因緣的人法。』這一個回答包含多種含義。一是上面說明無人無法，就破斥了他的有見。現在說明假名人法，接續他的斷滅之心，顯示非有非無、非斷非常的意義。二是上面說明非人非法，就是中道。現在說明因緣人法，稱之為假名，這就是假前中中后假的意義。三是上面說明非人非法，就是性空。現在說明因緣人法，就是因緣空，所以才有人法。所以山中舊說，于性空中建立一切法。四是上面說明無人法，這是說明世諦，破斥自性，說空就是世諦中道。現在說明因緣人法，就是中道，世諦因緣人法未曾是人法，即是非人非法，名為因緣空，就是真諦中道。問：這裡只說明因緣人法，哪裡有非人非法的文句呢？答：文句明顯在偈頌后的長行中。五是上面說明無五種人法，就是破除病癥。現在說明因緣人法，就是申述經義。偈頌分為二。開始三句說明有因緣人法，『更無有餘事』一句，這是辨明更沒有外人的五種人法。一師初章中的假語，都是依據作者品此文而作。初章四對的缺失，就是前面過外人人法不相因的意義。四對的獲得。
【English Translation】 English version What is the difference between the 'no cause' (wu yin) of the debater who transcends the principle (dao guo lun zhu) and the 'no cause' of the debater who transcends externalists (guo wai ren)? Answer: In the presence of externalists, there are persons (ren) and dharmas (fa). Persons and dharmas are each established independently and do not need to depend on each other, therefore they fall into 'no cause'. Now, it is explained that there are fundamentally no persons and dharmas, so there is nothing to depend on each other. This is the difference. Answer: 'These actions arise from various conditions (shi ye cong zhong yuan sheng xia),' this is the second answer. Following the preceding prose is a verse. There are three ways to refute this view. First, it is said: 'Since your 'having cause' (you yin) cannot be established, how can there be 'no cause'?' Like this, all five sentences cannot be established. Second, it is said: 'Having (you) and not having (wu) both come from your mind. Previously saying 'having', since seeking 'having' yields nothing, then you see 'not having'. These are all your 'having' and 'not having', and have nothing to do with me.' Third, it is said: 'The 'not having' explained above is merely the absence of the five kinds of persons and dharmas that you see; it is not the absence of nominally designated conditioned persons and dharmas.' This one answer contains multiple meanings. First, the above explanation of no persons and no dharmas refutes his view of 'having'. Now, explaining nominally designated persons and dharmas connects with his mind of annihilation, revealing the meaning of neither having nor not having, neither permanent nor impermanent. Second, the above explanation of neither persons nor dharmas is the Middle Way (zhong dao). Now, explaining conditioned persons and dharmas, calling them nominal designations, this is the meaning of provisional before, middle, and after. Third, the above explanation of neither persons nor dharmas is emptiness of inherent nature (xing kong). Now, explaining conditioned persons and dharmas is conditioned emptiness, therefore there are persons and dharmas. Therefore, the old saying in the mountains is, 'Establish all dharmas within emptiness of inherent nature.' Fourth, the above explanation of no persons and no dharmas explains conventional truth (shi di), refuting inherent nature, saying emptiness is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Now, explaining conditioned persons and dharmas is the Middle Way. Conditioned persons and dharmas of conventional truth have never been persons and dharmas, that is, neither persons nor dharmas, called conditioned emptiness, which is ultimate truth (zhen di) Middle Way. Question: Here, only conditioned persons and dharmas are explained, where are the sentences of neither persons nor dharmas? Answer: The sentences are clearly in the prose after the verse. Fifth, the above explanation of no five kinds of persons and dharmas is to eliminate the illness. Now, explaining conditioned persons and dharmas is to expound the meaning of the sutra. The verse is divided into two. The first three sentences explain having conditioned persons and dharmas, the sentence 'there is nothing else (geng wu you yu shi)' clarifies that there are no other externalists' five kinds of persons and dharmas. The false words in the first chapter of the one teacher are all based on this text of the Author (zuo zhe) chapter. The lack of the four pairs in the first chapter is the meaning of the aforementioned externalists' persons and dharmas not depending on each other. The attainment of the four pairs.
即是此文人法相因義。故初章語起自此文也。中假起此品者。明外人性人法不可得非人非法。即是假前中義。因緣人法即中前假義。因緣人法即是非人非法名假后中義。非人非法假名人法即中后假義。而三論師雖誦初章中假之言。而不知文處故今略示之。長行雲。業先決定無者。此是業先無決定耳。余並易知。複次如破作作者下。第二次破受受者。生起如前。
本住品第九
此品所以來者凡有八義。一者上破作作者。破人法用。今此品次破人法體。根本有神及以諸根。然後始有造作之用。上雖破其用未除其根故須破也。二者上別破即陰。今破離陰。三者上通破五種人法。一者人法俱有。二者人法俱無。三者人法半有半無。四者人有法無法有人無。五者人一法三法一人三。故遍破一切人法。今此一品重破初句。謂人法俱有。以有病難除二空難信。故此一品廣破人法有也。四者上來通破即離亦即亦離非即非離一切諸我。今此一品別破離陰計我。于即離中偏破離者。凡立人立法多言法異於人人異於法。蓋是惑者之常情內外之通計。又犢子云。五陰和合別有於人。成實師云。法則是實人則是假。故是離法有人之義。所以須偏破也。五者此論正破于內傍破于外。作作者已破內人法竟。今此一品次破外道人法。問何以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這就是文人法相因的意義。所以第一章的語言由此文開始。中間假借此品的原因是，要闡明外人性和人法是不可得的，非人非法也是不可得的。這就是假前中的意義。因緣人法就是中前假的意義。因緣人法就是非人非法，名為假后中的意義。非人非法假名人法，就是中后假的意義。而三論師雖然誦讀第一章中假的言論，卻不知道文句的出處，所以現在略微指明。長行中說：『業先決定無』，這是說業先前沒有決定而已。其餘的都容易理解。再次，如破作作者以下，第二次破受受者，生起的方式和前面一樣。
本住品第九
此品之所以出現，總共有八個意義。第一，上面破了作作者，破了人法的作用。現在此品接著破人法的本體，根本在於有神以及諸根，然後才會有造作的作用。上面雖然破了它的作用，但沒有去除它的根本，所以需要破除。第二，上面分別破了即陰，現在破離陰。第三，上面通破了五種人法。第一種是人法俱有，第二種是人法俱無，第三種是人法半有半無，第四種是人有法無、法有人無，第五種是人一法三、法一人三。所以普遍地破除了一切人法。現在這一品重新破除第一句，即人法俱有。因為有這種病難以去除，二空難以相信，所以這一品廣泛地破除人法的有。第四，上來通破了即離、亦即亦離、非即非離一切諸我。現在這一品分別破除離陰計我。在即離中偏重破除離者。凡是立人立法，大多說的是法異於人、人異於法。這大概是迷惑者的常情，內外普遍的計較。而且犢子部說，五陰和合，另外有於人。成實師說，法則為實，人為假。所以是離法有人的意義。所以需要偏重破除。第五，此論主要破除內在的，順帶破除外在的。作作者已經破除了內在的人法，現在這一品接著破除外道的人法。問：為什麼
【English Translation】 English version: This is the meaning of the 文人 (Wenren, literary person) 法相 (Dharma characteristics) 因 (cause). Therefore, the language of the first chapter originates from this text. The reason for borrowing this chapter in the middle is to clarify that external human nature and 人法 (human and Dharma) are unattainable, and 非人 (non-human) 非法 (non-Dharma) are also unattainable. This is the meaning of '假前中 (Jia Qian Zhong, provisional before middle)'. 因緣人法 (cause and condition human and Dharma) is the meaning of '中前假 (Zhong Qian Jia, middle before provisional)'. 因緣人法 (cause and condition human and Dharma) is 非人非法 (non-human non-Dharma), named '假后中 (Jia Hou Zhong, provisional after middle)'. 非人非法 (non-human non-Dharma) provisionally names 人法 (human and Dharma), which is '中后假 (Zhong Hou Jia, middle after provisional)'. However, the 三論師 (Sanlun masters, Three Treatise School) recite the words of '假 (provisional)' in the first chapter but do not know the source of the text, so I will briefly point it out now. The prose says: '業先決定無 (Karma is determined to be non-existent beforehand)', this means that karma was not determined beforehand. The rest is easy to understand. Furthermore, as in '破作作者 (refuting the maker of actions)' below, the second time is '破受受者 (refuting the receiver of experiences)', and the arising is the same as before.
Chapter Nine: 本住品 (Ben Zhu Pin, The Chapter on the Fundamental Abode)
The reason for the appearance of this chapter is for a total of eight meanings. First, the above refutes the '作作者 (maker of actions)', refuting the function of 人法 (human and Dharma). Now, this chapter continues to refute the substance of 人法 (human and Dharma). The root lies in having a 神 (shen, spirit) and the 諸根 (zhu gen, various roots), and then there will be the function of creation. Although the above refutes its function, it has not removed its root, so it needs to be refuted. Second, the above separately refutes '即陰 (Jiyin, identity with the skandhas)', now refuting '離陰 (Liyin, separation from the skandhas)'. Third, the above universally refutes the five types of 人法 (human and Dharma). The first is 人法俱有 (both human and Dharma exist), the second is 人法俱無 (both human and Dharma do not exist), the third is 人法半有半無 (human and Dharma are half existent and half non-existent), the fourth is 人有法無 (human exists, Dharma does not exist) and 法有人無 (Dharma exists, human does not exist), and the fifth is 人一法三 (one human, three Dharmas) and 法一人三 (one Dharma, three humans). Therefore, it universally refutes all 人法 (human and Dharma). Now, this chapter re-refutes the first sentence, which is 人法俱有 (both human and Dharma exist). Because this disease is difficult to remove and the two emptinesses are difficult to believe, this chapter extensively refutes the existence of 人法 (human and Dharma). Fourth, the above universally refutes '即離 (identity and separation)', '亦即亦離 (both identity and separation)', '非即非離 (neither identity nor separation)' of all 我 (self). Now, this chapter separately refutes '離陰計我 (calculating self as separate from the skandhas)'. Among '即離 (identity and separation)', it emphasizes refuting the '離者 (separatist)'. Whenever establishing 人法 (human and Dharma), most say that Dharma is different from human, and human is different from Dharma. This is probably the common sentiment of the deluded, and the universal calculation of both internal and external. Moreover, the 犢子部 (Duzi Bu, Vatsiputriya school) says that the five skandhas combine, and there is another human. The 成實師 (Chengshi Shi, Tattvasiddhi school) says that Dharma is real, and human is provisional. Therefore, it is the meaning of having a human separate from Dharma. Therefore, it needs to be emphasized and refuted. Fifth, this treatise mainly refutes the internal, and incidentally refutes the external. '作作者 (maker of actions)' has already refuted the internal 人法 (human and Dharma), now this chapter continues to refute the 人法 (human and Dharma) of the 外道 (Waidào, heretics). Question: Why
知此品破外道義耶。答后長行文云。有論師云此出入息視眴等是神相。即是優樓迦義。故知破外道也。六者自上已來破生死中假人造作義。此之一品的破大乘人謂世出世佛性依持。則是舉始終世出世也。如大乘人之言。本有如來藏為生死依持建立。生死則依如來藏名為本住。生死有于生滅如來藏不生不滅。而如來藏離陰而有。故涅槃云。我者即是如來藏義。故知神我佛性如來藏阿摩識等。悉是本住之異名。數論師云。不有心神而已。有心神必有得佛之理。故心神為本。不同草木盡在一化。又云真諦為本。真諦即是無住。故從無住本立一切法。問若爾此品應破涅槃經耶。答佛性實非有無亦非即離未曾始終。而惑者橫謂執之為有即是戲論佛性。今破其戲論謂性實。不破佛性。故涅槃云斷取著不斷我見。我見者即佛性也。七者因上接斷語來。上云有假人假法但無實人法。外云假實雖殊終有人法。汝言因法有人因人有法。我亦明因本住故有眼耳法由眼耳等法而有本住。亦是人法相因也。八者不受論主上破。汝不應言都無人法。今實有人名為本住。以有本住故有眼耳等根。若無本住誰有此耶。所言本住者凡有三義。一云本有于神故稱為本住。在諸根之前目之為住。此但是人名也。次云神為諸根作本。諸根依神得住。故云本住。此
從本立名也。三云本有于神故名為本。諸根後生依之得住。故稱為住。此人法通稱也。品十二偈為三。第一破本住明眾生空義。第二破諸根明法空義。第三呵責外人橫計人法。初二門檢有非有。次一門呵非有謂有。就初又三。第一就六根之前檢無本住。亦云六根之外。第二就六根之內檢無本住。第三就四大之中檢無本住。即是一切處求無我。小乘根性聞之得初果。大乘人聞得十住。就初又二。前立次破。就立為二。第一以法證人。第二以人證法。二門各兩。初文二者三句舉法為問。是則名本住。此一句即是答也。第二上半偈為問。以是故當知下半即是答也。所以作此問答者。並不受上論主破無作者作法。是故今舉人法有難論主無。即顯已宗明有義也。問論主何故不分明立義而但秤有人言。答若別出部計則不得通破眾家。今欲遍破眾家故秤有人言也。問何以得知此是真神佛性。答計真神佛性必是本有。生死虛妄名為始有。若俱是本有則俱真。俱是始有則俱妄。今文亦計本住是本有諸根為始有。故知是真神佛性義也。長行雲。命等根者。若數人別有非色非心法為命根。成論以業為命根也。答曰下第二破。開為三門。一責相破。二並決破。三徴宗破。生起三破。初偈迥責相。次偈並體。三徴宗。既立離陰之神故責覓離陰之相
。責相不得空立神體。故次並體。外滯並既急則便漫倒。故以徴宗也。又初一以相責體。次將法並人。次舉不離破離。偈為二。上三句責之。既未有六根先以有神者。以何相而知耶。以未有六根故不得用六根證有也。二問依根已後用何相知耶。苦樂等是心相見聞等是身相。除此二外以何為神相。若猶取此二相則猶是六根所得。不得別有本性。應別有相也。又終以陰為相。終不離陰陰外無神也。又陰外無別相。亦陰外無別體。若有神體異陰體。亦有神相異陰相。涅槃經云。是諸外道雖複種種說我。終不離陰界入也。又若無神相指陰為神相。牛指馬為相火指水為相。又並無相故無神。汝前以有法證人是有。我今以相無證人無。問舊云眾生本有得佛理者。得佛理既本有。則眾生亦本有。若眾生始有而得佛理本有者。此理屬誰也。長行初三。一標責相。如外法下第二齣責相。如經說下第三結責相。問曰下第二救。出入息是身相。苦樂等是心相。還以身心二相證有于神也。問此乃是外道優樓迦義。云何言破真神佛性耶。答計真神佛性與優樓迦義同。真神是常。妄是無常。優樓迦亦然。又今明外道出救義。即是破內人以外人作此救。即是明內義同於外道故是破內也。答曰下第三破救。又四。一責處破。若謂下第二取意破。複次若言
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：不能空立一個與現象無關的神的實體。因此，接下來討論併合實體的問題。如果對外在的執著過於急切，就會變得漫無邊際而顛倒。所以用『徴宗』來辨別。此外，第一點是用現象來責難實體。接下來是將法則與人併合。然後提出不離和破離，偈頌分為兩部分。前三句是責難。既然沒有六根，首先認為有神，那麼用什麼現象來認知呢？因為沒有六根，所以不能用六根來證明有神。第二問是，依賴六根之後，用什麼現象來認知呢？苦樂等是心的現象，見聞等是身的現象。除了這兩種之外，用什麼作為神的現象呢？如果仍然取這兩種現象，那麼仍然是六根所得到的，不能有其他的本性，應該有其他的現象。最後用陰作為現象。最終不離陰，陰外沒有神。此外，陰外沒有其他的現象，也沒有其他的實體。如果有神的實體不同於陰的實體，那麼也有神的現象不同於陰的現象。《涅槃經》說：『這些外道雖然種種說我，最終不離陰界入。』此外，如果沒有神的現象，就指陰為神的現象，就像指牛為馬的現象，指火為水的現象。此外，因為沒有現象，所以沒有神。你之前用有法來證明人是有，我現在用現象的無來證明人的無。問：舊說眾生本有得佛理的可能。得佛理既然是本有的，那麼眾生也是本有的。如果眾生是始有，而得佛理是本有的，那麼這個理屬於誰呢？長行初三。第一是標明責難現象。如外法下，第二是提出責難現象。如經說下，第三是總結責難現象。問曰下，第二是救護。出入息是身的現象，苦樂等是心的現象，還是用身心兩種現象來證明有神。問：這乃是外道優樓迦的義理，為什麼說是破真神佛性呢？答：認為真神佛性與優樓迦的義理相同。真神是常，妄是無常，優樓迦也是這樣。此外，現在說明外道提出救護的義理，就是破斥內人，以外人的觀點來做這種救護，就是說明內義與外道相同，所以是破斥內義。答曰下，第三是破斥救護。又分為四部分。第一是責難處所而破斥。若謂下，第二是取意而破斥。複次若言", "English version: It is not permissible to establish a divine entity independent of phenomena. Therefore, the discussion proceeds to the combination of entities. If attachment to external things is too urgent, it becomes boundless and inverted. Thus, 'Zhengzong' is used to distinguish it. Furthermore, the first point is to challenge the entity with phenomena. Next is the combination of Dharma and people. Then, the concepts of non-separation and separation are presented, with the verses divided into two parts. The first three lines are a challenge. Since there are no six senses, and one first believes in the existence of a god, what phenomena are used to recognize it? Because there are no six senses, one cannot use the six senses to prove the existence of a god. The second question is, after relying on the six senses, what phenomena are used to recognize it? Suffering and joy are phenomena of the mind, seeing and hearing are phenomena of the body. Besides these two, what is used as the phenomena of the god? If one still takes these two phenomena, then they are still obtained by the six senses, and there cannot be another inherent nature; there should be other phenomena. Finally, 'skandha' (陰) is used as the phenomena. Ultimately, one does not depart from 'skandha'; outside of 'skandha', there is no god. Furthermore, outside of 'skandha', there are no other phenomena, nor are there other entities. If there is a divine entity different from the entity of 'skandha', then there are also divine phenomena different from the phenomena of 'skandha'. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'These heretics, although they speak of 'self' in various ways, ultimately do not depart from the 'spheres of sense' (界) and 'entrances' (入).' Furthermore, if there are no phenomena of the god, then 'skandha' is pointed to as the phenomena of the god, just as pointing to a cow as the phenomena of a horse, or pointing to fire as the phenomena of water. Furthermore, because there are no phenomena, there is no god. You previously used the existence of Dharma to prove that people exist; now I use the non-existence of phenomena to prove that people do not exist. Question: The old saying is that sentient beings inherently have the potential to attain the principle of Buddhahood. Since attaining the principle of Buddhahood is inherent, then sentient beings are also inherent. If sentient beings are newly created, and attaining the principle of Buddhahood is inherent, then to whom does this principle belong? The first three of the long passage. The first is to clearly state the challenge of phenomena. As in 'external Dharma' (外法) below, the second is to present the challenging phenomena. As in 'the sutra says' (經說) below, the third is to conclude the challenging phenomena. 'Questioning' (問曰) below, the second is to provide protection. Inhalation and exhalation are phenomena of the body, suffering and joy are phenomena of the mind; one still uses the two phenomena of body and mind to prove the existence of a god. Question: This is the doctrine of the heretic Uluka (優樓迦), why is it said to be destroying the true divine Buddha-nature? Answer: It is believed that the true divine Buddha-nature is the same as the doctrine of Uluka. The true god is permanent, delusion is impermanent, and Uluka is also like this. Furthermore, now explaining the doctrine of the heretic offering protection is to refute the internal person, using the viewpoint of the external person to make this protection, which is to explain that the internal meaning is the same as the heretical doctrine, so it is refuting the internal meaning. 'Answering' (答曰) below, the third is to refute the protection. It is also divided into four parts. The first is to refute by challenging the location. 'If it is said' (若謂) below, the second is to refute by taking the meaning. 'Furthermore, if it is said' (複次若言) ] }
身大下第三無常門破。複次如風狂病下第四不自在破。四破顯四義。初責處以空門破無我。次取意以苦義顯無我。三無常門顯無我。四不自在顯無我。外道不達生死苦空無常。故以四義破之。如是種種下第四總結也。若必謂離眼已下第二決破。偈為二。上半牒。下半並之。一將人例法。汝人法相離則不相依。人離於法在法先有者。法亦離人在人先有也。人前法後人常法無常。法前人後法常人無常。又俱前則應俱常。俱后則俱無常。又汝言人前法后。亦應法前人後。二以法例人。法必定須依人。人亦必定須依法也。問既離法有人。理然離人有法。此乃是他義。何謂是並決破。答粗心觀文似如此耳。此意令離人前有法也。必須安先字。不爾非破。所以作此難者。以人是法人。法是人法。事如薪火。外道救云。如地前草木後者。此則不然。現見有地實不見神也。又法前不見人而言人在前。亦人前不見法應言法在前。又未有法而前有人事。如未有牛而前有角。即時有所得大乘人立真神佛性義亦大同。何以知之。彼謂佛性本有妄想非本有。則知未有妄眾生時前有佛性。若妄與真俱本有。則應俱常俱無常。今更問。既本有佛性未有妄眾生者。此佛性屬誰耶。是誰佛性耶。若言有眾生方有佛性。眾生既始有。佛性亦應始有。佛性既本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 身大下第三，用無常之門來破斥（外道）。再者，如同風狂疾病下第四，用不自在來破斥（外道）。這四種破斥方式顯明瞭四種含義。首先，責問處所，用空的法門來破斥無我（anatta）。其次，取其意，用苦的含義來顯示無我。第三，用無常之門來顯示無我。第四，用不自在來顯示無我。外道不能通達生死是苦、是空、是無常的，所以用這四種含義來破斥他們。像這樣種種下第四，是總結。 如果一定說離開眼（等感官）已下第二，是決然的破斥。偈頌分為兩部分。上半部分是陳述，下半部分是合併（人法）來破斥。一是將人比作法。你（所認為的）人與法相分離，則不應相互依存。如果人離開法，在法之前就存在，那麼法也應該離開人，在人之前就存在。人先於法則人是常，法是無常；法先於人，則法是常，人是無常。又或者，如果人法同時存在於前，則應同時是常；同時存在於后，則應同時是無常。而且，你說人先於法，也應該說法先於人。 二是以法比作人。法必定需要依靠人，人也必定需要依靠法。問：既然離開法而有人，按道理說，離開人也應該有法。這乃是他的（外道）觀點，怎麼說是合併決破呢？答：粗略地看文字好像是這樣。此處的用意是讓人離開（人）之前就有法。必須加上『先』字，不然就不是破斥。之所以提出這樣的詰難，是因為人是法人（dharmin），法是人法（dharma）。事情就像薪與火的關係。外道辯解說，就像地在前，草木在後一樣。但這樣說是不對的。現在能看到有地，卻實在看不到神。而且，法在前卻看不到人，卻說人在前；也應該像人在前卻看不到法，就應該說法在前。又，在沒有法之前就有人存在的事情，就像沒有牛之前就有角一樣。即時有所得的大乘人，所立的真神佛性義（Buddha-nature）也大同小異。憑什麼知道呢？他們認為佛性（Buddha-nature）本有，妄想（delusion）不是本有。那麼就知道在沒有妄想眾生的時候，之前就有佛性。如果妄想與真如（tathata）都是本有的，那麼就應該同時是常或者同時是無常。現在再問，既然本有佛性，在沒有妄想眾生的時候，這佛性屬於誰呢？是誰的佛性呢？如果說有了眾生才有佛性，眾生既然是開始有的，佛性也應該是開始有的。佛性既然是本有的……
【English Translation】 English version: The third [section] below on the Great Body uses the door of impermanence to refute [externalists]. Furthermore, like the fourth [section] below on wind-madness disease, it uses non-self-mastery to refute [externalists]. These four refutations reveal four meanings. First, it questions the location, using the door of emptiness to refute no-self (anatta). Second, it takes the meaning, using the meaning of suffering to reveal no-self. Third, it uses the door of impermanence to reveal no-self. Fourth, it uses non-self-mastery to reveal no-self. Externalists cannot understand that birth and death are suffering, empty, and impermanent, so these four meanings are used to refute them. Such are the various [points] in the fourth [section] below, which is a summary. If it is insisted that the second [section] below, 'apart from the eye' [etc.], is a decisive refutation, the verse is in two parts. The first half is a statement, and the second half combines [person and dharma] to refute. First, it compares a person to a dharma. If you [believe that] a person and a dharma are separate, then they should not depend on each other. If a person exists apart from a dharma, existing before the dharma, then the dharma should also exist apart from the person, existing before the person. If the person precedes the dharma, then the person is permanent and the dharma is impermanent; if the dharma precedes the person, then the dharma is permanent and the person is impermanent. Moreover, if the person and dharma both exist simultaneously in the past, then they should both be permanent; if they both exist simultaneously in the future, then they should both be impermanent. Furthermore, you say that the person precedes the dharma, so it should also be said that the dharma precedes the person. Second, it compares a dharma to a person. A dharma must depend on a person, and a person must depend on a dharma. Question: Since there is a person apart from a dharma, logically there should also be a dharma apart from a person. This is his [the externalist's] view, so how can it be said to be a combined decisive refutation? Answer: A superficial reading of the text may seem so. The intention here is that the dharma exists before the person leaves [the person]. The word 'before' must be added, otherwise it is not a refutation. The reason for raising such a challenge is that a person is a dharma-holder (dharmin), and a dharma is a person's dharma (dharma). The matter is like the relationship between fuel and fire. The externalist argues that it is like the earth existing before the grass and trees. But this is not correct. We can now see that there is earth, but we cannot actually see a god. Moreover, the dharma is before but the person is not seen, yet it is said that the person is before; it should also be said that the dharma is before, just as the person is before but the dharma is not seen. Also, the matter of a person existing before there is a dharma is like a horn existing before there is a cow. The true-god Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) doctrine established by those who immediately attain something in Mahayana is also very similar. How do we know this? They believe that Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) is inherently existent, and delusion (delusion) is not inherently existent. Then we know that before there were deluded beings, there was Buddha-nature. If delusion and suchness (tathata) are both inherently existent, then they should both be permanent or both be impermanent. Now I ask again, since Buddha-nature is inherently existent, to whom does this Buddha-nature belong when there are no deluded beings? Whose Buddha-nature is it? If it is said that there is Buddha-nature only when there are beings, and since beings are newly existent, then Buddha-nature should also be newly existent. Since Buddha-nature is inherently existent...
有眾生亦本有。若言佛不說眾生始者。然佛雖不說眾生始。佛說眾生是無常。無常則非本有。而佛性本有則未有眾生前有佛性。佛性屬何人耶。問曰二事相離可爾下。生第三徴宗。外人無以通並。遂難而回。故生此問也。答中上半牒宗。下半徴宗。以法知有人。牒其初偈。舉法證人也。以人知有法。牒第二偈。以人證有法也。下半雙徴者。離法何有人。徴第一宗也。離人何有法。徴第二宗也。有異三論師謂此是人法相待破。蓋是不看長行文耳。所以作此破者。上明俱離今明俱不離。前明其俱離者。離破其離義。今合離者。不離破其離義。故進退屈也。一切眼等根下。第二就六根內檢無本住。就文為三。初破。次救。三破救。上半標無。下半釋無。以上離不離覓並無。故云一切無。又一切根不出二十二根。此中若聖若凡。悉攝盡也。而實不見本住故云一切無。又上就六根之前覓本住不得。是根外無。今就六根內求亦不得也。又初偈責相。次兩偈責體。今破用。凡立神有相體用三。破此三則一切空矣。言責用者。今唯見六用無有神用。又神有六用則六識無用。六識無用應如木石。若六識有用則神無用神如木石。又上來奪破。今縱言有。更就能所中覓之。能取即是六根。六根中無神。所取唯有六塵故知無神。問曰下第二救。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有眾生本來就存在。如果說佛陀沒有說過眾生的起始，然而佛陀雖然沒有說眾生的起始，佛陀卻說眾生是無常的。無常就不是本來就有的。而佛性本來就存在，那麼在沒有眾生之前就有的佛性，這佛性屬於誰呢？問：『二事相離可爾下』，這是生第三重征宗。外人無法通達並理解，於是設難而回轉，所以產生了這個提問。回答中，前半部分是牒宗，後半部分是征宗。『以法知有人』，是牒其初偈，舉法來證明人也。『以人知有法』，是牒第二偈，以人來證明有法也。後半部分雙重征問：『離法何有人』，是征問第一重宗義。『離人何有法』，是征問第二重宗義。有些異於三論宗的論師認為這是人法相對待的破斥，這大概是沒有看長行文的緣故。之所以作這樣的破斥，是因為上面闡明了俱離，現在闡明俱不離。前面闡明其俱離，是爲了破斥其離義；現在合離，是爲了不離而破斥其離義，所以是進退維谷。『一切眼等根下』，第二，就在六根內檢查沒有本住。就文義來說分為三部分：首先是破斥，其次是救護，第三是破斥救護。前半部分標明沒有，後半部分解釋沒有。以上從離與不離來尋找都沒有，所以說一切都沒有。而且一切根不出二十二根，這裡面無論是聖人還是凡人，都全部包括在內了。但實際上沒有看見本住，所以說一切都沒有。而且上面就在六根之前尋找本住而不得，這是根外沒有；現在就在六根內求也得不到。而且初偈責問相，其次兩偈責問體，現在破斥用。凡是立神，有相、體、用三者，破斥這三者就一切皆空了。說到責問用，現在只看見六用而沒有神用。而且神有六用，那麼六識就沒有用了；六識沒有用，就應該像木頭石頭一樣。如果六識有用，那麼神就沒有用，神就像木頭石頭一樣。而且上面是奪破，現在縱然說有，更就在能所中尋找它。能取就是六根，六根中沒有神；所取只有六塵，所以知道沒有神。『問曰下』，第二是救護。
【English Translation】 English version Sentient beings are fundamentally existent. If it is said that the Buddha did not speak of the beginning of sentient beings, although the Buddha did not speak of the beginning of sentient beings, the Buddha said that sentient beings are impermanent (anitya). Impermanence is not fundamentally existent. And Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu) is fundamentally existent, then before there were sentient beings, there was Buddha-nature. To whom does this Buddha-nature belong? Question: 'The two things are separate, which is acceptable below,' this is the third level of questioning the doctrine. Outsiders cannot understand and comprehend, so they create difficulties and turn back, so this question arises. In the answer, the first half is stating the doctrine, and the second half is questioning the doctrine. 'Knowing that there are people through the Dharma,' is stating the first verse, using the Dharma to prove the existence of people. 'Knowing that there is Dharma through people,' is stating the second verse, using people to prove the existence of Dharma. The second half is a double questioning: 'Without the Dharma, how can there be people,' is questioning the first doctrine. 'Without people, how can there be Dharma,' is questioning the second doctrine. Some scholars who differ from the Three Treatise School (Sanlun School) believe that this is a refutation of the interdependence of people and Dharma, which is probably because they have not read the long commentary. The reason for making this refutation is that the above clarifies mutual separation, and now clarifies mutual non-separation. The previous clarification of mutual separation is to refute the meaning of separation; the current combination of separation is to refute the meaning of separation through non-separation, so it is a dilemma. 'Below, all the roots such as the eyes,' secondly, examine within the six roots (sadindriya) and there is no fundamental dwelling. In terms of the text, it is divided into three parts: first is refutation, second is rescue, and third is refutation of rescue. The first half indicates non-existence, and the second half explains non-existence. Above, searching from separation and non-separation, there is nothing, so it is said that everything is non-existent. Moreover, all roots do not go beyond the twenty-two roots (dvavimsati indriyani), which includes all, whether they are sages or ordinary people. But in reality, the fundamental dwelling is not seen, so it is said that everything is non-existent. Moreover, above, searching for the fundamental dwelling before the six roots was unsuccessful, which means there is nothing outside the roots; now, seeking within the six roots is also unsuccessful. Moreover, the first verse questions the characteristics, the next two verses question the substance, and now refute the function. Whenever a spirit is established, there are three aspects: characteristics, substance, and function. Refuting these three means that everything is empty. Speaking of questioning the function, now only the six functions are seen, and there is no spiritual function. Moreover, if the spirit has six functions, then the six consciousnesses (sad-vijnana) are useless; if the six consciousnesses are useless, they should be like wood and stone. If the six consciousnesses are useful, then the spirit is useless, and the spirit is like wood and stone. Moreover, the above is a forceful refutation, now even if it is said to exist, it is further sought within the subject and object. The subject is the six roots, and there is no spirit in the six roots; the object is only the six sense objects (sad-visaya), so it is known that there is no spirit. 'Question below,' the second is rescue.
上半牒論主無神。下半難論主之無以成己有。五根是無知之法不應能知塵。而今能知此是神用。故知有神。即如成實犢子等計有人御六根之用也。答曰下第三破救。就文為四。若爾者第一牒也。為一一根中下第二定也。二俱有過下第三總非也。何以故下第四舉偈作難也。兩偈為二。初偈一神破。第二偈就多神破。一神破者。若一神在六根中則有互用之過。如就眼中既能見色聞聲。即此眼中備得六塵。若爾者即此眼根具六根。是則根亂。在根既亂。即在塵亦亂也。偈上半牒。下半破。如文。第二偈多神破者。既言六神在六根中。則一人有於六神。復有並取六塵之過。亦上半牒。下半破也。舊地論人計一切眾生同一梨耶。若爾一人斷惑眾人悉斷。若人人各有佛理則是無常可算數法。又一心在六根中亦作此破。莎提云。一識往來生死與成實一何異。又一切眾生同一本住則應同障。若各各障則各有本住。又若同一本住則一時作佛。應同是利根。又若六神則應各各作佛。亦應存亡。以多神是數法故。複次眼耳等諸根下上以兩處覓無神。一謂六根之外覓無有神。次一神多神就根內檢無。今第三不復就根之內外。就成根諸微諸大檢無有神。所以然者。根之內外雖復無神。成根四大或可應有。故復責之。又上來即是果內撿無神。今就因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 上半部分辯論主張沒有神。下半部分反駁論主無法證明自己存在。五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）是無知覺的法，不應該能夠感知外在的塵境（色、聲、香、味、觸）。現在能夠感知，這一定是神的作用。所以可知有神存在。就像成實宗、犢子部等人認為有人在駕馭六根的作用一樣。回答如下，第三部分破斥這種觀點。就文義分為四部分。『若爾者』（如果這樣說）是第一部分，重述對方觀點。『為一一根中』（在每一個根中）是第二部分，確定過失。『二俱有過』（兩種說法都有過失）是第三部分，總的否定。『何以故』（為什麼呢）是第四部分，用偈頌來發難。兩首偈頌分為兩部分。第一首偈頌破斥一神論，第二首偈頌針對多神論進行破斥。破斥一神論：如果一個神存在於六根之中，就會有互相作用的過失。比如在眼睛中，既能看到顏色，又能聽到聲音，那麼這隻眼睛就具備了六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）。如果這樣，這隻眼根就具備了六根的功能，那麼根就會混亂。根混亂了，塵境也會混亂。偈頌的上半部分重述對方觀點，下半部分進行破斥，如文所示。第二首偈頌破斥多神論：既然說六個神存在於六根之中，那麼一個人就擁有六個神，又會有同時攝取六塵的過失。也是上半部分重述對方觀點，下半部分進行破斥。舊《地論》的人認為一切眾生擁有同一個阿賴耶識（第八識，含藏識）。如果這樣，一個人斷除迷惑，所有人都應該斷除迷惑。如果人人各自有佛性，那麼佛性就是無常的，可以被計算的法。又，一個心存在於六根之中，也可以用這種方式來破斥。莎提說，一個識往來生死，與成實宗的觀點有什麼不同？又，一切眾生如果擁有同一個本住（真如自性），就應該同時被遮障。如果各自被遮障，那麼就各自擁有本住。又，如果擁有同一個本住，就應該同時成佛，應該都是利根。又，如果是六個神，就應該各自成佛，也應該有存亡，因為多神是可計數的法。再次，眼耳等諸根，上下兩處尋找，都找不到神。一處是在六根之外尋找，沒有神。另一處是在一神論和多神論中，在根的內部檢查，也沒有神。現在第三點，不再從根的內外來尋找，而是從構成根的微小和大處來檢查，也沒有神。之所以這樣，是因為根的內外即使沒有神，構成根的四大（地、水、火、風）或許應該有。所以再次責問。又，上面是在果（結果）中檢查沒有神，現在從因（原因）上檢查。
【English Translation】 English version The first half of the treatise argues for the absence of a god. The second half challenges the debater to prove the existence of a god. The five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body - the five sense organs) are unconscious dharmas (elements of existence) and should not be able to perceive external dust (form, sound, smell, taste, touch). The fact that they can perceive implies the function of a god. Therefore, it is known that a god exists, just as the Satyasiddhi school (成實宗) and the Vatsiputriya school (犢子部) and others believe that someone is controlling the function of the six roots. The answer is given below, in the third section refuting this view. According to the text, it is divided into four parts. '若爾者' (ruò ěr zhě - If that is the case) is the first part, restating the opponent's view. '為一一根中' (wèi yī yī gēn zhōng - In each root) is the second part, identifying the fault. '二俱有過' (èr jù yǒu guò - Both have faults) is the third part, a general negation. '何以故' (hé yǐ gù - Why is that) is the fourth part, raising objections with verses. The two verses are divided into two parts. The first verse refutes the theory of one god, and the second verse refutes the theory of multiple gods. Refuting the theory of one god: If one god exists in the six roots, there will be the fault of mutual function. For example, in the eye, which can both see form and hear sound, this eye possesses the six dusts (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma). If so, this eye-root possesses the function of the six roots, then the roots will be confused. If the roots are confused, the dusts will also be confused. The first half of the verse restates the opponent's view, and the second half refutes it, as the text shows. The second verse refutes the theory of multiple gods: Since it is said that six gods exist in the six roots, then one person possesses six gods, and there will also be the fault of simultaneously grasping the six dusts. The first half also restates the opponent's view, and the second half refutes it. The old Dilun (地論) school believed that all sentient beings possess the same Alaya-vijnana (阿賴耶識 - storehouse consciousness). If so, when one person eradicates delusion, everyone should eradicate delusion. If each person has their own Buddha-nature, then Buddha-nature is impermanent and a countable dharma. Also, the idea of one mind existing in the six roots can be refuted in this way. Sati (莎提) said, what is the difference between one consciousness going back and forth between birth and death and the view of the Satyasiddhi (成實) school? Furthermore, if all sentient beings possess the same Bhūtatathatā (本住 - Suchness), they should be obstructed simultaneously. If they are obstructed individually, then they each possess Bhūtatathatā. Also, if they possess the same Bhūtatathatā, they should attain Buddhahood simultaneously and should all be sharp-witted. Also, if there are six gods, they should each attain Buddhahood, and they should also exist and perish, because multiple gods are countable dharmas. Furthermore, the eye, ear, and other roots are searched for a god in two places, above and below, but no god is found. One place is searching outside the six roots, and there is no god. The other place is in the theory of one god and multiple gods, examining inside the roots, and there is no god. Now, the third point is that instead of searching inside and outside the roots, we examine the small and large elements that constitute the roots, and there is no god. The reason for this is that even if there is no god inside and outside the roots, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) that constitute the roots might exist. Therefore, we question again. Also, the above is examining the absence of a god in the result (果), now we examine it from the cause (因).
內撿無神。故三法印云一切法無我也。又此是並決破。外人若言眼能見要是神御方見不使不見者。亦應火能燒神使方燒不使則不燒。而今四大自能不假神者。六根亦應爾也。又根從四大四大從塵。塵復從誰。若有從則無窮。若無從即無因。亦無果應無本住。問曰下此生第二次破諸根明諸法空義。前問次答。數論人云。本住等十六知見外道橫計。可得是無。眼等是世諦法。此即應有。是故今明。俱是橫計今數人眼定十微所成。體是實有。論人云眼是四大所成。此是假法。則不無也。今明若如數論決定執者。亦無此法。又上來是破外迷。今此破內執。又上來是借法破人。唯有六根並諸微四大。何處有我。今即是借我破法。有我可有法無我何有法。又上來是正破。今是簡破。數論人云。我亦作如此破外道與汝何異。故今釋云。汝破不盡猶留諸根乃至鄰虛之色。非畢竟空也。又上來求無本住。即是無所依之佛性。今無有諸根則無能依之生死。故道門未曾生死亦非涅槃。華嚴云。生死及涅槃二俱是虛妄。二俱不可得。又有所得人決定謂有佛性是所依有生死是能依。此並是生死耳。今亦不見能依所依。方是涅槃。又有所得人見能依所依。此是性義。道理畢竟無有此法。今破如此性病竟始得說經中假名能依所依義耳。複次眼等無本住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：內心不執著于神的存在。所以三法印中說一切法無我。（註：三法印指諸行無常、諸法無我、涅槃寂靜）而且這是並決破斥。外道如果說眼睛能看見，一定是神在操控才能看見，不讓看見就看不見。那麼也應該火能燃燒，是神在操控才能燃燒，不讓燃燒就不能燃燒。而現在四大（註：地、水、火、風）自身就能起作用，不需要神。六根（註：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）也應該是這樣。而且根源於四大，四大根源於塵，塵又根源於誰？如果追溯有根源，那麼就會無窮無盡。如果沒有根源，那就是沒有原因，也沒有結果，就不應該有本住（註：事物最初的住所或狀態）。 問：下面這一段經文，是爲了破斥諸根，闡明諸法皆空的道理。前面是提問，接下來是回答。數論派（註：古印度哲學流派）的人說，本住等十六知見（註：數論派的十六種基本原理）是外道虛妄的計較，可以認為是沒有的。眼等是世俗諦（註：佛教真理的兩種層次之一，指世俗層面的真理）的法，這應該是有的。所以現在要說明，這些都是虛妄的計較。現在數論派認為，眼睛是由十種微細的物質組成的，本體是真實存在的。論者說，眼睛是由四大組成的，這是虛假的法，不能說沒有。 現在要說明，如果像數論派那樣，決定執著於此，那麼也沒有這種法。而且上面是破斥外道的迷惑，現在這是破斥內心的執著。而且上面是借法來破斥人，認為只有六根以及各種微細的物質和四大，哪裡有我？現在就是借我來破斥法，有我才可能有法，沒有我哪裡有法？而且上面是正面破斥，現在是簡要破斥。數論派的人說，我也這樣做來破斥外道，這和你們有什麼不同？所以現在解釋說，你們破斥得不徹底，還留下了諸根乃至鄰虛之色（註：極微色，指物質的最小單位），不是畢竟空（註：徹底的空性）。 而且上面尋求無本住，就是沒有所依賴的佛性。現在如果沒有諸根，就沒有能依賴的生死。所以道門（註：指修行者）未曾經歷生死，也不是涅槃（註：佛教術語，指解脫）。《華嚴經》說，生死和涅槃，兩者都是虛妄的，兩者都不可得。而且有所得的人，決定認為有佛性是所依賴的，有生死是能依賴的，這些都是生死。現在既不見能依賴的，也不見所依賴的，才是涅槃。而且有所得的人，認為能依賴的和所依賴的，這是自性（註：事物自身本有的性質）的意義，道理上畢竟沒有這種法。現在破斥這種自性病之後，才能開始說經中假名能依賴和所依賴的意義。再次，眼等沒有本住。
【English Translation】 English version: Internally, do not cling to the existence of a 'god'. Therefore, the Three Dharma Seals state that all dharmas are without self (Anatman). (Note: The Three Dharma Seals refer to impermanence, non-self, and Nirvana). Moreover, this is a conclusive refutation. If externalists say that the eye can see only because a 'god' controls it, preventing it from seeing if the 'god' does not allow it, then fire should also burn only because a 'god' controls it, preventing it from burning if the 'god' does not allow it. However, now the Four Great Elements (Note: earth, water, fire, and wind) can function on their own without relying on a 'god'. The Six Roots (Note: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) should also be the same. Furthermore, the roots originate from the Four Great Elements, the Four Great Elements originate from dust, and from whom does the dust originate? If there is an origin, then it will be endless. If there is no origin, then there is no cause, and no result, and there should be no original abode (Note: the original dwelling or state of things). Question: The following passage is to refute the roots and clarify the principle that all dharmas are empty. The previous part is the question, and the following is the answer. The Samkhya school (Note: an ancient Indian philosophical school) says that the original abode and the sixteen knowledges (Note: the sixteen fundamental principles of the Samkhya school) are the false calculations of externalists and can be considered non-existent. The eye, etc., are dharmas of conventional truth (Note: one of the two levels of Buddhist truth, referring to truth on the conventional level), and these should exist. Therefore, it is now explained that these are all false calculations. Now the Samkhya school believes that the eye is composed of ten subtle substances, and its essence is truly existent. The commentator says that the eye is composed of the Four Great Elements, which is a false dharma and cannot be said to be non-existent. Now it must be explained that if, like the Samkhya school, one is determined to cling to this, then there is no such dharma. Moreover, the above is to refute the delusions of externalists, and now this is to refute internal clinging. Moreover, the above is to refute people by borrowing dharmas, believing that there are only the Six Roots and various subtle substances and the Four Great Elements, where is the 'self'? Now it is borrowing the 'self' to refute the dharmas. If there is a 'self', then there may be dharmas; if there is no 'self', where are the dharmas? Moreover, the above is a direct refutation, and now it is a concise refutation. The Samkhya school says, 'I also do this to refute externalists, what is the difference between you and me?' Therefore, it is now explained that you do not refute thoroughly, still leaving the roots and even the color adjacent to emptiness (Note: extremely subtle color, referring to the smallest unit of matter), which is not ultimate emptiness (Note: complete emptiness). Moreover, the above seeks no original abode, which is the Buddha-nature without reliance. Now, if there are no roots, there is no samsara (Note: cycle of birth and death) to rely on. Therefore, the Taoist school (Note: referring to practitioners) has never experienced samsara, nor is it Nirvana (Note: Buddhist term, referring to liberation). The Avatamsaka Sutra says that samsara and Nirvana are both false and unattainable. Moreover, those who have attainment definitely believe that there is Buddha-nature as the reliance, and there is samsara as the reliance, and these are all samsara. Now, neither the reliance nor the relied upon is seen, and this is Nirvana. Moreover, those who have attainment believe that the reliance and the relied upon are the meaning of self-nature (Note: the inherent nature of things), but there is ultimately no such dharma in principle. Now, after refuting this disease of self-nature, one can begin to speak of the meaning of the nominal reliance and the relied upon in the sutras. Again, the eye, etc., have no original abode.
。第三呵責。上半結無神。下半呵責之。眼等無者明眼等前無本住。所言今者明現在無本住。後者未來中無本住。問未有諸根前有本住。此是外道義。餘二是誰義耶。答論主具就三世內遍推覓本住。令畢竟無遺。不必須有其人也。又成實者有二師。一云具五陰方成眾生。則前有於法後有於人。此是未來有本住義。二云隨有一心一色即成眾生。眾生與法俱有。此是本住諸根。是一時而有。此是現在有本住義。若計本有佛性真神。則是未有諸根。前有本住義也。又此是結前。眼等無本住結前責相等二偈。明眼等前無本住。今之一字結前救后二偈六根中無本住。后之一字結前四大中無本住。外人謂由四大成色陰有色陰故成人。故前有四大身後有本住。亦如前有五指有卷前有梁椽有舍。下半呵責云。無有無分別者呵其品初兩偈。初偈以法證人。此是以法分別人。第二偈將人證法。此是以人分別法也。長行雲不應有難者。呵其品初難論主。若無本住誰有眼耳等也。如是問答戲論則滅者。品初偈上三句是問。下一句是答。第二偈上半是問。下半是答。如是問答並是戲論。上求之無從。故云則滅也。
燃可燃品第十
所以有此品來者。意亦多門。通而言之是根性不同法譬異悟。如浣衣金師之子。又泥洹法寶入有多門。是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第三次呵責。上半部分總結了沒有神我，下半部分進行呵責。『眼等無者』說明眼等之前沒有原本的住處。所說的『今者』說明現在沒有原本的住處。『後者』說明未來中沒有原本的住處。問：在沒有諸根之前有原本的住處，這是外道的觀點。其餘兩種是誰的觀點呢？答：論主全面地在三世之內推求尋找原本的住處，使其最終沒有遺漏，不一定非要有這樣的人。另外，成實宗有兩位論師，一位說具備五陰才成為眾生，那麼就是先有法而後有人，這是未來有原本住處的含義。另一位說，只要有一心一色就成為眾生，眾生與法同時存在，這是原本住于諸根，是一時而有的，這是現在有原本住處的含義。如果認為原本有佛性真神，那就是在沒有諸根之前，有原本住處的含義。這又是總結前文，『眼等無本住』總結了前文責難相等二偈，說明眼等之前沒有原本的住處。『今』字總結了前文，救了後文二偈，說明六根中沒有原本的住處。『后』字總結了前文，四大中沒有原本的住處。外道認為由四大構成色陰，因為有色陰所以成人，所以在前有四大，身後有原本的住處，也像先有五指才有拳頭，先有梁椽才有房屋。下半部分呵責說：『無有無分別者』呵責了本品最初的兩偈。第一偈用『法』來證明『人』，這是用『法』來分別『人』。第二偈將『人』來證明『法』，這是用『人』來分別『法』。長行中說『不應有難者』，呵責了本品最初難為論主，如果沒有原本的住處，誰有眼耳等呢？像這樣的問答戲論就會止息，本品最初的偈頌，前三句是問，下一句是答。第二偈上半部分是問，下半部分是答。像這樣的問答都是戲論，向上尋求也無從得到，所以說就會止息。 現代漢語譯本：第十 燃可燃品 現代漢語譯本：之所以有這一品，原因也有很多。總的來說，是因為根性不同，通過不同的法和譬喻而領悟。就像浣衣工和金匠的兒子一樣。另外，進入涅槃法寶之門有很多。
【English Translation】 English version: The third refutation. The first half concludes that there is no self, while the second half rebukes. 'Eye etc. without' indicates that there was no original dwelling before the eye etc. The 'now' indicates that there is no original dwelling in the present. The 'later' indicates that there is no original dwelling in the future. Question: Before the existence of the sense organs, there was an original dwelling. This is the view of the heretics. Whose views are the other two? Answer: The author of the treatise comprehensively searches for the original dwelling within the three periods of time, so that there is ultimately no omission, and it is not necessary to have such a person. Furthermore, there are two teachers in the Satyasiddhi School (成實宗). One says that only with the five skandhas (五陰) can one become a sentient being, so there is first the Dharma (法) and then the person, which means that there is an original dwelling in the future. The other says that as long as there is one mind and one form, one becomes a sentient being, and sentient beings and Dharma exist simultaneously, which means that the original dwelling is in the sense organs, which exist at the same time, which means that there is an original dwelling in the present. If one believes that there is an original Buddha-nature (佛性) or true self, then before the existence of the sense organs, there is an original dwelling. This is also a summary of the previous text. 'Eye etc. without original dwelling' summarizes the previous two verses that questioned equality, indicating that there was no original dwelling before the eye etc. The word 'now' summarizes the previous text and saves the following two verses, indicating that there is no original dwelling in the six sense organs (六根). The word 'later' summarizes the previous text, indicating that there is no original dwelling in the four great elements (四大). Heretics believe that the four great elements constitute the form skandha (色陰), and because there is a form skandha, one becomes a person, so there are the four great elements before, and an original dwelling after, just as there are five fingers before there is a fist, and beams and rafters before there is a house. The second half of the rebuke says: 'There is no non-discriminating one' rebukes the first two verses of this chapter. The first verse uses the 'Dharma' to prove the 'person', which is using the 'Dharma' to distinguish the 'person'. The second verse uses the 'person' to prove the 'Dharma', which is using the 'person' to distinguish the 'Dharma'. The long passage says 'There should be no difficult one', rebuking the initial difficulty for the author of the treatise in this chapter, if there is no original dwelling, who has eyes, ears, etc.? Such questioning and answering as playful arguments will cease. The first three lines of the initial verse of this chapter are questions, and the next line is the answer. The first half of the second verse is a question, and the second half is the answer. Such questions and answers are all playful arguments, and there is no way to obtain them by seeking upwards, so it is said that they will cease. English version: Chapter Ten: Fuel and Combustible English version: The reason for this chapter is also manifold. Generally speaking, it is because of different faculties, and enlightenment through different Dharmas and metaphors, like the sons of the washerman and the goldsmith. Furthermore, there are many ways to enter the gate of Nirvana Dharma Jewel.
以龍樹開二十七品。二者從論初已來多破因成假義。此品破于相待。三者若就四句計人法。作者破即本住除離。今破亦即離及非即離。四者若三品相望。破作作者通破人法之用。破本住破人法之體。體用既去則人法都寂。但惑者意猶未已。復引喻救之。火有燒薪之用名之為燃。薪有受燒之義名為可燃。喻神有御陰之功陰有受御之義。今就事求此喻無從。故以目品。五者觀俱舍論意。自上兩品破內外大小乘義。今此一品正破犢子。故俱舍論破我品明犢子部引燃可燃以立我義。今品破燃可燃。故知正破犢子。六者大乘觀行二十五品凡有二門。自論初已來就法說門求人法不可得。今此一品就喻說門求人法並空。七者此論始末破三種人。一者外道邪推。二內人異執。此之二種就上諸品破之。三者自有人無斯二計。直欲觀諸法實相。為此人故說於今品。示無生不遠即事而真。故就現見即事論之。喻如一火不得與薪一不可與薪異。不得言相因不得言不因。不內不外。若能如后觀之。使悟實相發生正觀。斷諸煩惱故說此品。八者上破本住破計我外道。今此一品破事火之徒。此天竺盛行故歷計而洗之。九者即此品窮深極淺。極淺者謂指因前之事。窮深者涅槃云。煩惱為薪智慧為火。以是因緣成涅槃飯令諸弟子悉皆甘嗜。大品明。非初炎
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此品以龍樹菩薩的《中論》第二十七品為基礎展開。前二十六品大多通過破斥因緣來闡明諸法皆空的假有之義。而此品則著重破斥相互依存的『相待』之關係。 從四句分別人法（五蘊和合而成的『人』，以及構成世界的『法』）的角度來看，之前的品破斥了『作者』（行為的主體）即是『本住』（常住不變的實體），以及『作者』與『本住』相分離的觀點。而此品則破斥了『作者』即是『離』（與『本住』分離），以及『作者』既非『即』（與『本住』相同）也非『離』的觀點。 如果將這三品（指前文提到的品）相互對照來看，破斥『作者』和『作者』的品，是普遍地破斥了人法的作用；破斥『本住』的品，是破斥了人法的本體。本體和作用都已破除，那麼人法就都歸於寂滅。然而，迷惑之人仍然心存疑惑，所以又引用比喻來救濟他們：火有燃燒柴薪的作用，所以稱為『燃』（能燃燒者）；柴薪有被火燃燒的性質，所以稱為『可燃』（能被燃燒者）。這比喻就像神（靈魂）有駕馭陰（五蘊）的功用，陰有接受神駕馭的性質。現在就事論事地尋求這個比喻，卻無從下手，所以用『燃可燃』來命名此品。 從《俱舍論》的觀點來看，之前的兩品破斥了內外大小乘的觀點。而此品則專門破斥了犢子部（一個佛教部派）。因此，《俱舍論》的破我品闡明了犢子部引用『燃』和『可燃』來建立『我』（靈魂）的理論。而此品破斥『燃』和『可燃』，由此可知此品正是爲了破斥犢子部。 大乘觀行的二十五品，總共有兩個門徑。從《中論》開始，就從法說的角度來探求人法，結果是不可得。而此品則從比喻的角度來探求人法，結果是人法皆空。 《中論》從始至終破斥三種人：第一種是外道的邪推；第二種是佛教內部的異端執著，這兩種人在之前的品中已經破斥過了。第三種人既沒有外道的邪推，也沒有佛教內部的異端執著，只是想觀察諸法的真實相狀。爲了這些人，才宣說此品，以顯示無生（不生不滅的真理）並不遙遠，就在現實事物之中。所以就現見的事物來論述，比如火不能與柴薪相同，也不能與柴薪相異，不能說是相互依存，也不能說是不相互依存，不內不外。如果能夠像這樣來觀察，就能領悟實相，生起正確的見解，斷除各種煩惱，所以宣說此品。 之前的品破斥了『本住』，破斥了計『我』的外道。而此品則破斥了事火之徒（拜火教徒）。這種信仰在天竺非常盛行，所以歷數他們的觀點並加以洗滌。 此品既窮盡了深奧的道理，也涉及了極淺顯的事物。極淺顯的事物是指因緣之前的事物。窮盡深奧的道理是指《涅槃經》所說：煩惱是柴薪，智慧是火焰，以這樣的因緣成就涅槃之飯，讓所有弟子都感到甘甜美味。《大品般若經》闡明，並非最初的火焰。
【English Translation】 English version: This chapter expands upon Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on the Middle Way), specifically chapter 27. The previous twenty-six chapters mostly refuted causality to clarify the meaning of emptiness (śūnyatā) as a provisional existence. This chapter focuses on refuting the 'relational dependence' (apekṣā). From the perspective of the fourfold negation concerning persons and dharmas (the 'person' composed of the five skandhas, and the 'dharmas' that constitute the world), previous chapters refuted the view that the 'agent' (kartṛ, the subject of action) is identical to the 'inherent entity' (dhruva, a permanent, unchanging substance), and the view that the 'agent' is separate from the 'inherent entity'. This chapter refutes the view that the 'agent' is identical to 'separation' (from the 'inherent entity'), and the view that the 'agent' is neither identical to nor separate from the 'inherent entity'. If we compare these three chapters (referring to the chapters mentioned above), the chapters refuting the 'agent' and 'agency' universally refute the function of persons and dharmas; the chapter refuting the 'inherent entity' refutes the substance of persons and dharmas. With both substance and function eliminated, persons and dharmas all return to quiescence. However, those who are deluded still harbor doubts, so analogies are used to aid them: Fire has the function of burning firewood, so it is called 'burner' (dāhaka, that which burns); firewood has the nature of being burned by fire, so it is called 'burnable' (dāhya, that which can be burned). This analogy is like the spirit (ātman) having the function of controlling the skandhas, and the skandhas having the nature of being controlled by the spirit. Now, seeking this analogy in reality is impossible, so this chapter is named 'Burner and Burnable'. From the perspective of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, the previous two chapters refuted the views of both internal and external, Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna schools. This chapter specifically refutes the Vātsīputrīyas (a Buddhist school). Therefore, the 'Refutation of Self' chapter in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya clarifies that the Vātsīputrīyas cite 'burner' and 'burnable' to establish the theory of 'self' (ātman). This chapter refutes 'burner' and 'burnable', thus it is known that this chapter is specifically intended to refute the Vātsīputrīyas. The twenty-five chapters on Mahāyāna contemplation have two approaches in total. From the beginning of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the approach of explaining the Dharma is used to investigate persons and dharmas, and the result is that they are unattainable. This chapter uses the approach of analogy to investigate persons and dharmas, and the result is that persons and dharmas are all empty. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā refutes three types of people from beginning to end: the first type is the incorrect speculations of externalists; the second type is the heterodox attachments within Buddhism. These two types have been refuted in previous chapters. The third type of people have neither the incorrect speculations of externalists nor the heterodox attachments within Buddhism, but simply want to observe the true nature of all dharmas. For these people, this chapter is taught to show that non-origination (the truth of non-arising and non-ceasing) is not far away, but is within the reality of things. Therefore, it discusses based on what is seen in reality, such as fire cannot be identical to firewood, nor can it be different from firewood, it cannot be said to be mutually dependent, nor can it be said to be not mutually dependent, neither internal nor external. If one can observe in this way, one can realize the true nature, generate correct views, and cut off all afflictions, so this chapter is taught. The previous chapters refuted the 'inherent entity' and refuted the externalists who cling to 'self'. This chapter refutes the fire-worshippers (Zoroastrians). This belief was very prevalent in India, so their views are enumerated and cleansed. This chapter exhausts both profound principles and extremely superficial things. The extremely superficial things refer to things before causes and conditions. Exhausting profound principles refers to what the Nirvana Sutra says: Afflictions are firewood, wisdom is fire, and with such causes and conditions, the meal of Nirvana is accomplished, making all disciples feel sweet and delicious. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra clarifies that it is not the initial flame.
燒非后炎燒。不離初炎不離后炎。而有燒義喻得菩提。故涅槃將薪火譬于果果。大品喻菩提果。故知極深。問何故明窮深極淺耶。答欲明淺深不二。得悟者即薪火是道。故道遠乎哉。觸事而真。不了者佛及涅槃皆是倒謂也。問諸大乘經借薪火為喻。今既破之何處借耶。答此品為外人執經語作解。故須破之。經中是假名因緣之說無喻而喻。喻無所喻。外人謂有法可法有喻可喻。翻是破經。今求薪火不得。乃明喻無所喻。令識無所喻喻。正是申經。十者眾生處處皆縛。如見有薪火。便起煩惱業苦。諸佛菩薩處處解眾生縛。故說此品也。品開為三。第一破外喻說。問曰何故說燃可燃下。第二破其法說。若人說有我下。第三法喻既窮而呵責之。初二門就正觀推無。次一呵邪心謂有。就破喻說凡有六門。初一異門。二相待門。三因不因門。四內外門。五三時門。六五求門。初門有二。初長行二偈本。長行為四。一立。二破。三救。四破救。立中有三。初法說。如燃可燃下第二喻說。燃是受者下第三合喻。答曰下第二破。俱不成者凡有四義。上來所喻既不成能喻即壞。以此能所如燃可燃。燃無故可燃亦無。二者上破有為無為一切物。燃可燃既是有為。以屬前破。故無可為喻不應引也。三者所見若實則一事。可知。上來諸立求悉無從
。今復更引之知虛妄。四者如下一異等六門求之無從。故不成也。今且懸就一異求無者。一則唯薪無火。無火雲何有薪。故云俱無。又一則唯火無薪。無薪云何有火。復是俱無。三則一物不可說其薪火。故復是俱無。異亦三失。一者既其異體便應相離。則有東西之之過。二者前後失。未有薪應先有火。三存亡過。薪亡火存是故俱無也。問曰下第三救也。此一問答乃明經論之大宗釋破立所以也。問何故就此品明破立大意耶。答隨寄一品可得言之。又此品通喻一切法。故就通品通明立破。又至此品來法譬已周。故明破立所以。就問為二。一請停一異。二論辨有無。所以停一異者。欲與論主論辨破立有無。故又外人知受一異之難。必辭理俱屈。今欲藏其所屈故請停之。又外人知答與不答二並無通。是故請停。又欲投論主之難以難論主。令同眾人。故請停也。又論初已來順宗立義。此之一問是反難立也。若言無燃可燃下。第二論辨有無。問有二意。一問所破燃可燃。二問能破之一異。問所破燃可燃有有無二關。若有而破有四種失。一者道理實有。強破令無則是邪見。故大品云。若法前有後無諸佛菩薩則有過罪。二者若實有則不可令無。喻如真無不可令有也。三者我見可燃有。汝亦見其有。既同是有。云何破令無。四者汝將有以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現在再次引用它來了解虛妄的本質。這四者，如下從一異等六個方面來尋求，都找不到依據，所以不能成立。現在姑且就一異來尋求『無』。如果『一』，那麼只有薪而沒有火，沒有火又怎麼會有薪呢？所以說是『俱無』。又如果『一』，那麼只有火而沒有薪，沒有薪又怎麼會有火呢？仍然是『俱無』。第三種情況，一個事物不能同時說是薪又是火，所以仍然是『俱無』。『異』也有三種過失。一是既然是不同的個體，就應該相互分離，那麼就會有東西分離的過失。二是前後顛倒的過失，未有薪就應該先有火。三是存亡的過失，薪滅亡而火存在，所以說是『俱無』。下面『問曰』是第三次救護。這一問一答，闡明了經論的大綱，解釋了破除和建立的道理。問：為什麼在此品中闡明破除和建立的大意呢？答：隨便寄託在哪一品都可以這樣說。而且此品通用於比喻一切法，所以就此通用的品來通明建立和破除。而且到此品為止，法和譬喻已經完備，所以闡明破除和建立的道理。就『問』來說，分為兩部分：一是請求停止討論『一異』，二是討論辨析『有無』。之所以請求停止討論『一異』，是因為想和論主討論辨析破除和建立『有無』。而且外人知道接受『一異』的困難，必定會理屈詞窮。現在想要隱藏自己的理屈詞窮，所以請求停止討論。而且外人知道回答與不回答兩種情況都無法通達，所以請求停止。而且想要用論主的困難來為難論主，使他和眾人一樣，所以請求停止。而且從論述開始以來，都是順著宗義來建立義理，這一個問題是反過來為難建立。如果說『無燃可燃』下面，第二部分討論辨析『有無』。『問』有兩個意思：一是問所破的『燃』和『可燃』，二是問能破的『一異』。問所破的『燃』和『可燃』有『有』和『無』兩種情況。如果『有』而破『有』，有四種過失：一是道理上確實存在，強行破除使之不存在，這是邪見。所以《大品般若經》說，如果法先前存在而後來消失，諸佛菩薩就會有過失。二是如果確實存在，就不能使之不存在，比如真正的『無』不能使之存在。三是我認為『可燃』是存在的，你也認為它是存在的，既然都認為是存在的，為什麼要破除使之不存在？四是你將『有』以……
【English Translation】 Now, it is again cited to understand the nature of illusion. These four, when sought from six aspects such as oneness and difference, are without basis, and therefore cannot be established. Now, let's tentatively seek 'non-existence' from oneness and difference. If 'one', then there is only fuel without fire. How can there be fuel without fire? Therefore, it is said to be 'both non-existent'. Also, if 'one', then there is only fire without fuel. How can there be fire without fuel? It is still 'both non-existent'. Thirdly, one thing cannot be said to be both fuel and fire, so it is still 'both non-existent'. 'Difference' also has three faults. First, since they are different entities, they should be separated from each other, then there will be the fault of separation between east and west. Second, the fault of reversing the order, there should be fire before there is fuel. Third, the fault of existence and extinction, fuel disappears while fire exists, so it is said to be 'both non-existent'. The following 'Question' is the third rescue. This question and answer clarifies the outline of the scriptures and treatises, and explains the principles of refutation and establishment. Question: Why is the main idea of refutation and establishment clarified in this chapter? Answer: It can be said that it is entrusted to any chapter. Moreover, this chapter is commonly used to illustrate all dharmas, so this common chapter is used to clarify establishment and refutation. Moreover, up to this chapter, the Dharma and metaphors have been completed, so the principles of refutation and establishment are clarified. Regarding the 'question', it is divided into two parts: first, a request to stop discussing 'oneness and difference', and second, a discussion and analysis of 'existence and non-existence'. The reason for requesting to stop discussing 'oneness and difference' is because they want to discuss and analyze the refutation and establishment of 'existence and non-existence' with the master of debate. Moreover, outsiders know the difficulty of accepting 'oneness and difference', and will inevitably be at a loss for words. Now, wanting to hide their own lack of words, they request to stop the discussion. Moreover, outsiders know that neither answering nor not answering can be understood, so they request to stop. Moreover, wanting to use the difficulties of the master of debate to embarrass the master of debate, making them the same as everyone else, they request to stop. Moreover, since the beginning of the discussion, they have been establishing righteousness in accordance with the doctrine, this question is a counter-difficulty to the establishment. If it says 'no burning is burnable' below, the second part discusses and analyzes 'existence and non-existence'. The 'question' has two meanings: first, it asks about the refuted 'burning' and 'burnable', and second, it asks about the refuting 'oneness and difference'. Asking about the refuted 'burning' and 'burnable' has two situations: 'existence' and 'non-existence'. If 'existence' is refuted, there are four faults: first, it actually exists in principle, and forcibly refuting it to make it non-existent is a wrong view. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that if a Dharma exists before and disappears later, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas will have faults. Second, if it actually exists, it cannot be made non-existent, such as true 'non-existence' cannot be made existent. Third, I think 'burnable' exists, and you also think it exists. Since both think it exists, why refute it to make it non-existent? Fourth, you will take 'existence' to...
破汝有。如五陰品末問不成問也。若言無燃可燃而欲破者。亦有四過。一者若無則不應破。破故則不應無。今現見汝破。故知不無。二者若無而破何不破兔角龜毛。而破燃可燃耶。三者我見其有汝見其無。有不失罪福無是邪見。故經云寧起身見不惡取空。四者以汝無破我有。亦用我有破汝無。如五陰品末問不成問也。從若言無燃可燃下。是有難文也。如兔角下是無難文。問意但見難無不見難有。若作二關難者少不便。如兔角下只是重釋無難耳。若汝計有一異下。第二問能破也。亦有四過。一者有能破必有所破。則論主有能外人有所。二俱是有則俱應破。不爾俱不被破。三若我破汝不破亦汝破我不破。四若有破不破則有有不有四難也。若無能破亦有四難。一無能破以何破他。二者內若無能外則有所。此是因內有外待無說有也。三者若無能破則是無見。四者無能破是大邪見。以無所破謂無外道。無能破則無內道。謂大邪見。而文中但就有難不云無者。既見論主從初品已來恒以一異破于外人。則謂論主有於一異。故言若汝許有一異則為已有。論主若無一異則不將一異以責外人。既用一異以責于外則知論主許有一異也。
中觀論疏卷第六(本畢)
中觀論疏卷第六(末)
釋吉藏撰
燃可燃品之餘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 駁斥你所主張的『有』。就像《五陰品》結尾提出的不成問題一樣。如果說沒有『燃』（燃燒者）和『可燃』（被燃燒物）而想要駁斥，也有四種過失：第一，如果沒有，就不應該駁斥。因為駁斥，所以不應該說沒有。現在清楚地看到你在駁斥，所以知道不是沒有。第二，如果沒有，為何不駁斥兔角、龜毛，而要駁斥『燃』和『可燃』呢？第三，我看到它有，你看到它無。認為有不會失去罪福，認為無是邪見。所以經中說，寧願持有身見，也不要惡取空見。第四，你用『無』來駁斥我的『有』，我也用我的『有』來駁斥你的『無』。就像《五陰品》結尾提出的不成問題一樣。從『如果說沒有燃和可燃』以下，是有難文。像『如兔角下』是無難文。提問的意圖只是看到難『無』，沒有看到難『有』。如果作為二關來提問，稍微有些不方便。像『如兔角下』只是重新解釋『無』的難點罷了。如果你們認為有一和異，這是第二個能破的提問，也有四種過失：第一，有能破，必定有所破。那麼論主有能破，外人有所破。二者都是有，那麼都應該被破。否則都不應該被破。第三，如果我破你，你不破我，也是你破我不破。第四，如果有破不破，那麼就有『有有不有』四種困難。如果沒有能破，也有四種困難：第一，沒有能破，用什麼來破斥他人？第二，內在如果沒有能破，外在就有所破。這是因為內在有，外在等待無來說有。第三，如果沒有能破，那就是無見。第四，沒有能破是大邪見。因為沒有所破，就認為沒有外道。沒有能破，就沒有內道，這是大邪見。而文中只是提出『有』的難點，沒有說『無』的難點，是因為看到論主從最初的品開始，一直用『一』和『異』來駁斥外人，就認為論主持有『一』和『異』。所以說，如果你們承認有一和異，那就是已經有了。論主如果沒有『一』和『異』，就不會用『一』和『異』來責難外人。既然用『一』和『異』來責難外人，就知道論主承認有一和異。
《中觀論疏》卷第六（本卷完）
《中觀論疏》卷第六（末）
釋吉藏 撰
《燃可燃品》之餘
【English Translation】 English version: Refuting your assertion of 'existence'. It's like the unanswerable question posed at the end of the Skandhas Chapter (Wuyin Pin 五陰品). If you claim there is no 'burner' (ran 燃) and 'burnable' (keran 可燃) and yet attempt to refute, there are four faults: First, if it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be refuted. Because it is being refuted, it shouldn't be said to not exist. Now, we clearly see you refuting, so we know it is not non-existent. Second, if it doesn't exist, why not refute rabbit horns or turtle hair, instead of refuting 'burner' and 'burnable'? Third, I see its existence, you see its non-existence. Believing in existence does not lose merit and blessings; believing in non-existence is a wrong view. Therefore, the sutra says, 'Better to hold a view of self (satkayadrishti 身見) than to wrongly grasp emptiness.' Fourth, you use 'non-existence' to refute my 'existence', and I also use my 'existence' to refute your 'non-existence'. It's like the unanswerable question posed at the end of the Skandhas Chapter. From 'If you say there is no burner and burnable' onwards, this is a text presenting difficulties regarding existence. Like 'as with rabbit horns' below, this is a text presenting difficulties regarding non-existence. The intention of the question is only to see the difficulty in 'non-existence', not to see the difficulty in 'existence'. If it were posed as a two-pronged question, it would be slightly inconvenient. Like 'as with rabbit horns' below, it is merely re-explaining the difficulties of 'non-existence'. If you posit one and different (ekatva-nanatva 一異), this is the second question that can refute, and it also has four faults: First, if there is a refuter, there must be something refuted. Then the proponent has the refuter, and the outsider has the refuted. If both are existent, then both should be refuted. Otherwise, neither should be refuted. Third, if I refute you and you don't refute me, it's also that you refute me and I don't refute you. Fourth, if there is refuting and not refuting, then there are four difficulties of 'existence existing and not existing'. If there is no refuter, there are also four difficulties: First, without a refuter, what is used to refute others? Second, if internally there is no refuter, externally there is something refuted. This is because internal existence causes external dependence on non-existence to speak of existence. Third, if there is no refuter, then it is a view of non-existence. Fourth, no refuter is a great wrong view. Because there is nothing to be refuted, it is thought that there are no external paths (外道). Without a refuter, there is no internal path (內道), which is a great wrong view. The text only presents the difficulties of 'existence' and does not mention the difficulties of 'non-existence' because it is seen that the proponent, from the very first chapter, has consistently used 'one' and 'different' to refute outsiders, and it is thought that the proponent holds 'one' and 'different'. Therefore, it is said, 'If you admit one and different, then you already have it.' If the proponent did not have 'one' and 'different', he would not use 'one' and 'different' to challenge outsiders. Since he uses 'one' and 'different' to challenge outsiders, it is known that the proponent admits one and different.
Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 6 (End of this volume)
Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 6 (End)
Composed by Shishi Jizang 釋吉藏
Remaining portion of the Chapter on Burner and Burnable (Ran Ke Ran Pin 燃可燃品)
答曰下第四論主答。外人前問所破次問能破。問所破中先問有次問無。今但總答也。就答中為四。一隨俗答。二引例通。三反擲酬。四伏宗難。然此答之大意者唯有二門。一者雖破而無。二者雖無而破。答外人問云。破故不無無則不破。故今明雖破而無。雖無而破。隨俗中五句即為五轉。初云隨俗語故無過者。我懷中有於一異及燃可燃。以破汝者。我則有過。以我懷中未曾有於一異及燃可燃。亦不言有無亦有亦無非有非無四句內外。故大品明五不受。行亦不受乃至不受亦不受。是菩薩無受三昧廣大之用。而口中言一異以破汝燃可燃者。以名生於俗隨而言之。此燃可燃及一異並是世俗之說。今隨俗說之則我無過也。燃可燃若說一異不名為受者。第二句釋上隨俗言耳。我心無所受也。又懸取外心。外人即云。既云隨俗言應隨俗受。故今答之。雖隨俗有言而不隨俗有受。即是語言雖同其心則異。若雜世俗言說則無所論者。此第三句。外人云汝心既不受。口何意言口遂有言。則心有所受。是故答云。若心無所受則心行處滅。若口無所言則語言道斷。則賓主杜默。何所論耶。今諸佛菩薩出世。正欲為物論于正道。若不隨俗言者。則不得論道也。若不說燃可燃云何眼有所破者。前句隨俗言為顯道。今隨俗言為破病。故統教意
以開道為宗。考聖心以息病為本也。次理既無言。何故於無言而強有言。豈非乖理耶。是故釋云。我若秤理無言則理不可明。汝云何得解耶。或云第五句意云。若無所說正合道理。何須言說。故云若無所說則義不可明。如有論者下。第二引例答。此是破有無之論者言有者。欲明非有言有而不受有。今亦然矣。若口有言下。第三反擲答。汝雖誦我破而不受我破。我口誦汝立豈受汝立耶。問外人何處誦論主破耶。答上云若無燃可燃云何以一異相破即是誦也。是故以一異下。第四伏宗難。就偈為二。初偈雙破一異。第二六偈偏破異。初偈上半破一。下半破異。此偈意多有所含。上下半並是責。上半就法說門責。汝現有人法能所云何一耶。下半就喻責。汝得今薪火相離可許汝異也。又上下俱是並。初舉譬並法。薪火若一人法便一。下半舉譬並譬。若火薪異應得相離。若不可離不可異。又上半是對緣假借異破一。下半是就緣假就異破異。又上半就一破一。下半借異破異。又俱是縱門。上半縱一。人法既一則天下無非一者。則便失異。失異亦無一。下半縱異。則一切皆異便無有一。又若執火薪一則有四過。一者破因緣。本因火有薪因人有法。一即無相因義便破因緣。破因緣即破假破假即破中道。又若見因緣名見佛。見佛即見佛性涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以開悟為宗旨，探究聖人的心意，以止息煩惱為根本。既然真理是無法用言語表達的，為何要在無法言說之處強行言說呢？這難道不是違背真理嗎？所以《維摩經》說：『我如果用言語來衡量真理，那麼真理就無法被闡明。』你又如何能夠理解呢？或者有人說，第五句的意思是：如果沒有什麼可說的，那才真正符合道理，又何必多費口舌呢？所以說，如果沒有什麼可說的，那麼真理的含義就無法被闡明。』 『如有論者下』，第二部分引用例子來回答。這是爲了駁斥那些執著于有無的論者。他們說『有』，是爲了表明『非有』，即雖然說『有』，但並不接受『有』的執著。現在也是這樣。 『若口有言下』，第三部分反過來駁斥。你雖然背誦我破斥的觀點，卻不接受我的破斥。我口中背誦你建立的觀點，難道會接受你建立的觀點嗎？ 問：外道在何處背誦論主的破斥呢？答：前面說『如果沒有燃料，火又怎麼能燃燒呢？』用『一』和『異』的相對關係來破斥，這就是背誦。 『是故以一異下』，第四部分用對方的宗本來進行詰難。就偈頌來說，分為兩部分。第一個偈頌同時破斥『一』和『異』，第二個偈頌（六個偈頌）則偏重於破斥『異』。第一個偈頌的上半部分破斥『一』，下半部分破斥『異』。這個偈頌包含了很多含義，上下兩部分都是責備。 上半部分從法（dharma）的角度責備。你現在有人（pudgala）、法，能（能取，graha）、所（所取，grahya），怎麼能說是一呢？下半部分用比喻來責備。你能夠讓現在的薪柴和火焰相互分離，才能允許你說它們是異。 而且，上下兩部分都是並列關係。開始用比喻來並列法。如果薪柴和火焰是一，那麼人和法就是一。下半部分用比喻來並列比喻。如果火焰和薪柴是異，就應該能夠相互分離。如果不能分離，就不能說是異。 而且，上半部分是針對因緣假借的『異』來破斥『一』，下半部分是就因緣假借的『異』來破斥『異』。 而且，上半部分是就『一』來破斥『一』，下半部分是借用『異』來破斥『異』。 而且，上下兩部分都是縱容的說法。上半部分縱容『一』，如果人和法是一，那麼天下就沒有什麼不是一的了。這樣就失去了『異』，失去了『異』也就沒有了『一』。下半部分縱容『異』，那麼一切都是異，就沒有『一』了。 而且，如果執著於火焰和薪柴是一，就會有四種過失。一是破壞因緣（hetupratyaya）。本來火焰有薪柴作為因，人有法作為因。如果是一，就沒有相互依存的意義，就破壞了因緣。破壞因緣就是破壞假（prajna），破壞假就是破壞中道（madhyamaka）。 而且，如果見到因緣，就名為見到佛（Buddha）。見到佛就是見到佛性（Buddha-dhatu），涅槃（nirvana）。
【English Translation】 English version Taking enlightenment as the principle, examining the mind of the sages, and taking the cessation of suffering as the foundation. Since the truth is beyond words, why force words where there are none? Isn't this contrary to reason? Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says, 'If I were to weigh the truth with words, then the truth could not be clarified.' How could you understand it? Or some say that the meaning of the fifth line is: 'If there is nothing to say, that is truly in accordance with reason, so why bother with words?' Therefore, it is said, 'If there is nothing to say, then the meaning of the truth cannot be clarified.' 'If there are debaters below,' the second part cites examples to answer. This is to refute those who cling to existence and non-existence. They say 'existence' in order to show 'non-existence,' that is, although they say 'existence,' they do not accept the attachment to 'existence.' It is the same now. 'If the mouth has words below,' the third part refutes in turn. Although you recite my refutations, you do not accept my refutations. If I recite the views you establish, would I accept the views you establish? Question: Where do the outsiders recite the refutations of the master of debate? Answer: The previous statement, 'If there is no fuel, how can there be fire?' uses the relative relationship of 'one' and 'different' to refute, and this is recitation. 'Therefore, using one and different below,' the fourth part uses the opponent's principle to question. In terms of the verse, it is divided into two parts. The first verse simultaneously refutes 'one' and 'different,' and the second verse (six verses) focuses on refuting 'different.' The first half of the first verse refutes 'one,' and the second half refutes 'different.' This verse contains many meanings, and both halves are reproaches. The first half reproaches from the perspective of the dharma. You now have person (pudgala), dharma, agent (graha), and object (grahya), how can you say they are one? The second half reproaches with a metaphor. You can only allow you to say they are different if you can separate the current firewood and flame. Moreover, both halves are parallel relationships. The beginning uses a metaphor to parallel the dharma. If firewood and flame are one, then person and dharma are one. The second half uses a metaphor to parallel the metaphor. If flame and firewood are different, they should be able to be separated. If they cannot be separated, they cannot be said to be different. Moreover, the first half is aimed at the 'different' borrowed from dependent origination to refute 'one,' and the second half is based on the 'different' borrowed from dependent origination to refute 'different.' Moreover, the first half is to refute 'one' based on 'one,' and the second half is to borrow 'different' to refute 'different.' Moreover, both halves are indulgent statements. The first half indulges 'one,' if person and dharma are one, then there is nothing in the world that is not one. In this way, 'different' is lost, and without 'different,' there is no 'one.' The second half indulges 'different,' then everything is different, and there is no 'one.' Moreover, if you cling to the idea that flame and firewood are one, there will be four faults. First, it destroys the causes and conditions (hetupratyaya). Originally, the flame has firewood as its cause, and the person has dharma as its cause. If they are one, there is no meaning of mutual dependence, and the causes and conditions are destroyed. Destroying the causes and conditions is destroying the provisional (prajna), and destroying the provisional is destroying the Middle Way (madhyamaka). Moreover, if you see the causes and conditions, it is called seeing the Buddha (Buddha). Seeing the Buddha is seeing the Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu), nirvana (nirvana).
槃。今破因緣即都無所見。又若一即火還燒火薪還傳薪。又一呼火應得薪。喚薪應得火。喚瓶應得陶師喚陶師應得瓶。又人法一。人常法無常。則俱常俱無常。若異亦有四過。一破因緣。因緣異無相因。無相因則非因緣。非因緣則非假。非假則非中。故如一中之過。又上下半凡破諸要義。一僧佉衛世一異。二真俗一體異體。三真妄一異。四心惑一異。又如問柱名與柱為一為異。若異者柱名非但異柱。亦異一切物。既喚得柱。應得一切物。不爾應都不得物。若一者柱應入口。問真俗一異有何過。答一有五過三節。五過者以真從俗。俗無常真亦無常。二以俗從真。真常俗亦常。三真不從俗。即真與俗異。四俗不從真。俗與真異。五若言體一義異。即是亦一亦異。體一故亦一義異故亦異。三節者。初二得一義。次兩是異義。三是亦一亦異。問今人多執體一義異有何過耶。答俗義異真義者。為即真為出真外。若即真乃是體一義一。若異真則出真外。佛及弟子知法性外無法。云何出真外。真俗異體一害經相即之言。二法性外應有法。佛及弟子便是妄談也。真妄水波一亦作五難三節。水波若異則波自動水不動。水自靜波不靜也。長行雲。分別是燃是可燃者。分為兩體。別使東西也。長行雲。處處離可燃應有燃。所以有此一句來者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 槃（涅槃）。現在如果破除了因緣，那就什麼都看不見了。而且如果是一，那麼火還會燒火，柴還會傳柴。而且一叫火就應該得到柴，叫柴就應該得到火。叫瓶子就應該叫來陶工，叫陶工就應該得到瓶子。而且人與法是一，人是常，法是無常，那麼就都是常或者都是無常。如果不同，也有四個過失。一是破除了因緣。因緣不同就沒有相互依存的關係。沒有相互依存的關係就不是因緣。不是因緣就不是假。不是假就不是中道。所以就像一中之過。而且上下半凡破除了各種重要的意義。一是僧佉（數論派）和衛世（勝論派）認為一和異。二是真諦和俗諦是一體還是異體。三是真和妄是一還是異。四是心和惑是一還是異。又比如問柱子的名稱和柱子是一還是異。如果不同，那麼柱子的名稱不僅僅是和柱子不同，也和一切事物不同。既然叫得了柱子，就應該得到一切事物。不然就應該什麼都得不到。如果是一，那麼柱子應該能入口。問真諦和俗諦是一還是異有什麼過失？回答說，一有五個過失和三個環節。五個過失是：用真諦來順從俗諦，俗諦是無常的，真諦也變成無常的。二是用俗諦來順從真諦，真諦是常的，俗諦也變成常的。三是真諦不順從俗諦，那麼真諦和俗諦就是不同的。四是俗諦不順從真諦，俗諦和真諦就是不同的。五是如果說本體是一，意義是不同的，那就是既一又異。本體是一所以是一，意義是不同所以是異。三個環節是：最初兩個得到一個意義，接下來兩個是不同的意義，第三個是既一又異。問現在人大多執著于本體一意義異，有什麼過失呢？回答說，俗諦的意義和真諦的意義不同，是在真諦之內還是在真諦之外？如果在真諦之內，那就是本體一意義一。如果異於真諦，那就是在真諦之外。佛和弟子知道法性之外沒有法，怎麼能在真諦之外呢？真諦和俗諦異體一損害了經文中相即的說法。二法性之外應該有法，佛和弟子就是妄談了。真和妄就像水和波浪，一也作五難三節。水和波浪如果不同，那麼波浪自己動，水不動。水自己靜，波浪不靜。長行中說：『分別是燃和可燃者』，分為兩個本體，分別使東西。長行中說：『處處離開可燃應該有燃』，所以有這一句來。
【English Translation】 English version Parinirvana (槃). Now, if the causes and conditions are broken, then nothing can be seen. Moreover, if it is one, then the fire will still burn the fire, and the firewood will still transmit the firewood. And if you call for fire, you should get firewood; if you call for firewood, you should get fire. If you call for a bottle, you should call the potter; if you call the potter, you should get the bottle. Moreover, if the person and the Dharma are one, and the person is permanent while the Dharma is impermanent, then they are both permanent or both impermanent. If they are different, there are also four faults. First, the causes and conditions are broken. If the causes and conditions are different, there is no mutual dependence. If there is no mutual dependence, then it is not causes and conditions. If it is not causes and conditions, then it is not provisional. If it is not provisional, then it is not the Middle Way. Therefore, it is like the fault of being one. Moreover, the upper and lower halves generally break various important meanings. First, the Samkhya (僧佉) (school of enumeration) and Vaisheshika (衛世) (school of particularity) consider oneness and difference. Second, are the ultimate truth (真) and conventional truth (俗) one entity or different entities? Third, are truth (真) and delusion (妄) one or different? Fourth, are the mind (心) and afflictions (惑) one or different? Also, for example, asking whether the name of a pillar and the pillar are one or different. If they are different, then the name of the pillar is not only different from the pillar but also different from all things. Since you can call for a pillar, you should get all things. Otherwise, you should not get anything at all. If they are one, then the pillar should be able to enter the mouth. Asking what faults there are in whether the ultimate truth and conventional truth are one or different? The answer is that there are five faults and three stages in one: The five faults are: using the ultimate truth to conform to the conventional truth, the conventional truth is impermanent, and the ultimate truth also becomes impermanent. Second, using the conventional truth to conform to the ultimate truth, the ultimate truth is permanent, and the conventional truth also becomes permanent. Third, if the ultimate truth does not conform to the conventional truth, then the ultimate truth and conventional truth are different. Fourth, if the conventional truth does not conform to the ultimate truth, then the conventional truth and the ultimate truth are different. Fifth, if it is said that the substance is one and the meaning is different, then it is both one and different. The substance is one, so it is one; the meaning is different, so it is different. The three stages are: the first two obtain one meaning, the next two are different meanings, and the third is both one and different. Asking what faults there are in people today mostly clinging to the substance being one and the meaning being different? The answer is, is the meaning of the conventional truth different from the meaning of the ultimate truth, within the ultimate truth or outside the ultimate truth? If it is within the ultimate truth, then it is the substance being one and the meaning being one. If it is different from the ultimate truth, then it is outside the ultimate truth. The Buddha and his disciples know that there is no Dharma outside of Dharma-nature (法性), how can it be outside the ultimate truth? The different substance of the ultimate truth and conventional truth harms the statement of interpenetration in the scriptures. Second, there should be Dharma outside of Dharma-nature, and the Buddha and his disciples would be talking nonsense. Truth and delusion are like water and waves, and oneness also creates five difficulties and three stages. If water and waves are different, then the waves move by themselves, and the water does not move. The water is still by itself, and the waves are not still. The long passage says: 'Distinguishing between what is burning and what is combustible', dividing them into two entities, separately causing things. The long passage says: 'Everywhere apart from the combustible, there should be the burning', so this sentence comes about.
前舉離以並外人。恐外亦云薪火相離如猛風吹于絕炎。則是離薪之火。故今明。處處皆離。一處為薪處一處為火處。既得離薪亦應離火。又處處者令其薪火各處東西之別也。複次如是應常燃下。第二偏破異。以燃可燃喻之人法。以多謂五陰是實人是假故偏破異也。又開三別。初破次救后破救。就初又四。一四失破。次二失破。三一失破。亦云取意破。四伏宗破。言四失者。一常燃。二失因。三失緣。四無作。常燃者若因薪有火則薪盡火滅。故不常燃。汝既火與薪異。在薪雖盡火終不滅。是故常燃。二失因者既有火體異薪。則火不因薪。失緣者緣謂人功。將護令火得燃。今火既離薪常燃。何假將護。無作者作謂用也。火以燒薪為用。今既常燃則無燒薪之用。故無作也。如是常應燃。從前偈下半生。既其相離。如是常應燃也。第二句舉無因釋常燃。又初句火自住火體。次句火不因於他。下半初句明人於火無功。次句火于薪無用無緣。釋于常義。如世間物不從因緣。是故為常。第四句明火無用。所以作此分者。青目釋第四句別作複次。故知異上三句。青目所以分為二意者。欲明火有二義。一者火體。二者火用。上三句明火體是常。后一句明無火用。既有體用不同故開為二意也。長行雲。是功現有者。事火之徒即事可撿。問曰
下。生第二明二失破。此偈釋前四失。前雖有四失但由失二事。一失因二失緣。是故有常燃及以無作之咎。故今但釋二失。則具釋上義也。偈上半明失因。下半明失緣。上半云既異薪自有火體。何須因薪。是故無因。下半云既不因薪火則常燃。何假將護。長行復次下。此釋下半。明不須緣義。又發起后偈。所以有何以故之言也。若汝謂燃時下。第三取意破。上二偈標四失釋四失。其過已成。但外人意云。無此四失。所以然者異有二種。一相因異。二不相因異。不相因異則有四失。相因之異無四失也。燃時名可燃者。此句有其反順。反者若未燃之時已是可燃。即可燃不因燃。燃亦不因可燃。則是不相因異。故有四失也。今燃時方是可燃。故可燃因燃。則知燃因可燃。既有因則有緣。若有因緣因緣盡則滅。故不常燃。以假因緣有火故火則燒薪無無用過。故勉四失也。問上來二偈顯燃有四失。今何故不救燃而救可燃。答舉可燃以救燃。可燃不因燃尚不成。況燃不因可燃而得成耶。問上明四失。今何故不備救耶。答今但舉因義成。三失自勉也。爾時但有薪下半破也。縱燒時還只應名薪。不應名可燃。以燒不燒俱異故也。明燒與不燒終異。則但是薪耳。此正破也。何物燃可燃者。燒與不燒終異。但有薪何得言燃時方名可燃。故上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 下。生第二明二失破。這首偈頌解釋了前面的四個過失。前面雖然有四個過失，但實際上是由於失去了兩件事。一是失去『因』，二是失去『緣』。因此，才會有常燃以及無作的過錯。所以現在只解釋這兩個過失，就包含了對上面所有意義的解釋。偈頌的上半部分說明失去『因』，下半部分說明失去『緣』。上半部分說，既然不同於薪柴，自有火的本體，又何須依賴薪柴呢？所以是無『因』。下半部分說，既然不依賴薪柴，火就應該常燃，又何必需要照料呢？長行『複次下』，這是解釋下半部分，說明不需要『緣』的意義。又發起後面的偈頌，所以有『何以故』的說法。『若汝謂燃時下』，這是第三種取意破斥。上面的兩首偈頌標示了四個過失，並解釋了這四個過失，其過錯已經成立。但外人認為，沒有這四個過失。之所以這樣認為，是因為『異』有兩種，一是相因的『異』，二是不相因的『異』。不相因的『異』則有四個過失，相因的『異』則沒有四個過失。『燃時名可燃者』，這句話有正反兩方面的含義。反過來說，如果未燃之時已經是可燃的，那麼可燃就不依賴於燃，燃也不依賴於可燃，這就是不相因的『異』，所以有四個過失。現在是燃燒時才成為可燃的，所以可燃依賴於燃，由此可知燃依賴於可燃。既然有『因』，那麼就有『緣』，如果有『因緣』，『因緣』盡了就會熄滅，所以不會常燃。因為憑藉『因緣』才有火，所以火才能燒薪柴，沒有無用之過。所以勉強避免了四個過失。問：上面兩首偈頌顯示燃燒有四個過失，現在為什麼不救燃而救可燃呢？答：舉可燃來救燃。可燃不依賴於燃尚且不能成立，更何況燃不依賴於可燃而能夠成立呢？問：上面說明了四個過失，現在為什麼不全部救護呢？答：現在只要舉出『因』的意義成立，三個過失自然就避免了。『爾時但有薪下』，這是下半部分的破斥。縱然燃燒時還只應該叫做薪柴，不應該叫做可燃。因為燒與不燒終究是不同的。說明燒與不燒終究是不同的，那麼就只是薪柴而已。這是正面的破斥。『何物燃可燃者』，燒與不燒終究是不同的，只有薪柴，怎麼能說燃燒時才叫做可燃呢？所以上面 English version: Here. The second section, 『Explaining Two Faults and Refuting,』 addresses the previous four faults. Although there are four faults, they arise from losing two things: first, losing the 『cause』 (hetu); second, losing the 『condition』 (pratyaya). Therefore, there is the fault of constant burning and the fault of being without action. So now, explaining only these two faults encompasses the explanation of all the above meanings. The first half of the verse explains the loss of 『cause,』 and the second half explains the loss of 『condition.』 The first half says, 『Since it is different from fuel and has its own fire-essence, why is fuel needed? Therefore, it is without cause.』 The second half says, 『Since it does not depend on fuel, the fire should burn constantly, so why is care needed?』 The long passage 『Furthermore, below』 explains the second half, clarifying the meaning of not needing 『condition.』 It also initiates the following verse, hence the saying 『What is the reason?』 『If you say that at the time of burning, below,』 this is the third refutation by taking the meaning. The above two verses indicate the four faults and explain them, and the faults are already established. But outsiders think that there are not these four faults. The reason for this is that 『difference』 (bheda) is of two kinds: difference due to interdependence and difference due to non-interdependence. Difference due to non-interdependence has four faults, while difference due to interdependence does not have four faults. 『That which is called combustible at the time of burning,』 this sentence has both direct and reverse meanings. Reversely, if it is already combustible before the time of burning, then the combustible does not depend on the burning, and the burning does not depend on the combustible. This is difference due to non-interdependence, so there are four faults. Now, it is only at the time of burning that it becomes combustible, so the combustible depends on the burning, and thus it is known that the burning depends on the combustible. Since there is a 『cause,』 then there is a 『condition.』 If there is 『cause and condition,』 and the 『cause and condition』 are exhausted, then it will be extinguished, so it will not burn constantly. Because there is fire by relying on 『cause and condition,』 then the fire can burn fuel, and there is no fault of being useless. Therefore, it barely avoids the four faults. Question: The above two verses show that burning has four faults, so why not save the burning but save the combustible? Answer: Use the combustible to save the burning. If the combustible not depending on the burning cannot be established, how can the burning not depending on the combustible be established? Question: The above explains the four faults, so why not protect all of them? Answer: Now, as long as the meaning of 『cause』 is established, the three faults will naturally be avoided. 『At that time, there is only fuel below,』 this is the refutation of the second half. Even at the time of burning, it should only be called fuel, not combustible. Because burning and not burning are ultimately different. It is explained that burning and not burning are ultimately different, then it is only fuel. This is the direct refutation. 『What burns the combustible?』 Burning and not burning are ultimately different, there is only fuel, how can it be said that it is called combustible only at the time of burning? So above
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation: Below. The second section, 'Explaining Two Faults and Refuting,' explains the previous four faults. Although there are four faults, they are actually due to the loss of two things. One is the loss of 'cause' (hetu), and the other is the loss of 'condition' (pratyaya). Therefore, there is the fault of constant burning and the fault of being without action. So now, explaining only these two faults includes the explanation of all the above meanings. The first half of the verse explains the loss of 'cause,' and the second half explains the loss of 'condition.' The first half says, 'Since it is different from firewood and has its own fire-essence, why is it necessary to rely on firewood? Therefore, it is without cause.' The second half says, 'Since it does not depend on firewood, the fire should burn constantly, so why is there a need for care?' The long passage 'Furthermore, below' explains the second half, clarifying the meaning of not needing 'condition.' It also initiates the following verse, hence the saying 'What is the reason?' 'If you say that at the time of burning, below,' this is the third refutation by taking the meaning. The above two verses indicate the four faults and explain them, and the faults are already established. But outsiders think that there are not these four faults. The reason for this is that 'difference' (bheda) is of two kinds: difference due to interdependence and difference due to non-interdependence. Difference due to non-interdependence has four faults, while difference due to interdependence does not have four faults. 'That which is called combustible at the time of burning,' this sentence has both direct and reverse meanings. Reversely, if it is already combustible before the time of burning, then the combustible does not depend on the burning, and the burning does not depend on the combustible. This is difference due to non-interdependence, so there are four faults. Now, it is only at the time of burning that it becomes combustible, so the combustible depends on the burning, and thus it is known that the burning depends on the combustible. Since there is a 'cause,' then there is a 'condition.' If there is 'cause and condition,' and the 'cause and condition' are exhausted, then it will be extinguished, so it will not burn constantly. Because there is fire by relying on 'cause and condition,' then the fire can burn firewood, and there is no fault of being useless. Therefore, it barely avoids the four faults. Question: The above two verses show that burning has four faults, so why not save the burning but save the combustible? Answer: Use the combustible to save the burning. If the combustible not depending on the burning cannot be established, how can the burning not depending on the combustible be established? Question: The above explains the four faults, so why not protect all of them? Answer: Now, as long as the meaning of 'cause' is established, the three faults will naturally be avoided. 'At that time, there is only fuel below,' this is the refutation of the second half. Even at the time of burning, it should only be called fuel, not combustible. Because burning and not burning are ultimately different. It is explained that burning and not burning are ultimately different, then it is only fuel. This is the direct refutation. 'What burns the combustible?' Burning and not burning are ultimately different, there is only fuel, how can it be said that it is called combustible only at the time of burning? So above
句是破。下句為呵。又燒與不燒終異。但有薪。爾時有何物燃及可燃耶。即是覓二物也。又釋。爾時但有薪者。此是牒外義。外人云。燃燒時薪名可燃。未燒之時此但有于薪。故今牒之。何物燃可燃者。此始是破也。舉其未燒之薪破其燒時名可燃。汝義未燃。爾時既但有薪。以何物來燃名為可燃。此明無有離薪之火之燒離火之薪名為可燃。若遂有離薪之火以燒離火之薪名可燃者。火則離薪薪亦離火。便不相因。既不相因則不須人功。故是釋人功空義。還具上四難也。后解為正。長行還徴異宗。汝既離燃別有可燃。云何言燃時始名可燃。若燃時方名可燃則不得異。若異不得言燃時名可燃也。複次若異則不至下。第四伏宗難。上雖云燃時名可燃。終是異義。若終是異則不相因。還伏四失也。只說不相因為不至耳。問曰下第二外人救義。外謂以其異故得有相至。如其不異何有至耶。問薪火異義誰所立耶。答內外二家並言體異。外道兩家一者遍造二者偏造。並云薪火異體。毗曇云。火是熱觸薪具四微。成實云色觸二法名之為火。火是假名薪是假名。而具四微。是故為異。以其異故火則燒薪名火至薪。薪則傳火謂薪至火。答曰下第三破救。汝男女前有不至許後有至。薪火無不至云何至耶。汝若前令薪火相離不至。燃后許汝至也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『句是破』，指的是前一句的論點需要被駁斥。『下句為呵』，指的是用反問來進一步質疑。又問：『燒與不燒終異』，燃燒和未燃燒的狀態終究是不同的，『但有薪，爾時有何物燃及可燃耶』，如果只有木柴，那麼燃燒的時候用什麼東西來燃燒，又有什麼東西可以被燃燒呢？這實際上是在尋找兩個不同的事物。 進一步解釋：『爾時但有薪者，此是牒外義』，這句是重複外道的觀點。外道認為，燃燒的時候，木柴被稱為『可燃物』，未燃燒的時候，只有木柴。所以現在重複他們的觀點。『何物燃可燃者，此始是破也』，這才是開始駁斥。用未燃燒的木柴來駁斥他們所說的燃燒時才稱為『可燃物』的觀點。如果按照你們的觀點，未燃燒的時候只有木柴，那麼用什麼東西來燃燒，才能稱之為『可燃物』呢？這說明沒有離開木柴的火，也沒有離開火的木柴可以稱之為『可燃物』。如果真的有離開木柴的火來燃燒離開火的木柴，才能稱之為『可燃物』，那麼火就離開了木柴，木柴也離開了火，兩者互不依賴。既然互不依賴，就不需要人為的努力，所以這是解釋人為努力是空無意義的。這裡仍然包含了之前的四個難點。 後面的解釋是正確的。長行中再次質問不同的宗派：如果你們認為燃燒之外還有『可燃物』，為什麼又說燃燒的時候才稱之為『可燃物』呢？如果燃燒的時候才稱之為『可燃物』，那麼『可燃物』就不能和燃燒是不同的。如果『可燃物』和燃燒是不同的，就不能說燃燒的時候才稱之為『可燃物』。 進一步說，如果『可燃物』和燃燒是不同的，那麼兩者就不會相互作用。第四個難點是伏宗難（指責對方自相矛盾）。雖然上面說燃燒的時候才稱之為『可燃物』，但終究還是認為『可燃物』和燃燒是不同的。如果終究是不同的，那麼兩者就不會相互依賴，仍然包含之前的四個錯誤。這裡只說了不相互依賴，所以說『不至』（不相互作用）。 『問曰下第二外人救義』，下面是外道試圖辯解他們的觀點。外道認為，因為『可燃物』和燃燒是不同的，所以才能相互作用。如果兩者沒有區別，怎麼會有相互作用呢？問：薪和火的體性不同是誰提出的觀點呢？答：內道和外道都認為體性不同。外道分為兩種，一種認為一切都是神創造的（遍造），一種認為部分是神創造的（偏造）。他們都認為薪和火的體性不同。毗曇宗認為，火是熱觸，薪包含了地、水、火、風四種元素（四微）。成實宗認為，色和觸兩種法合在一起稱為火。火是假名，薪也是假名，但包含了四種元素，所以是不同的。因為它們是不同的，所以火可以燃燒木柴，稱為火到達了木柴；木柴可以傳遞火，稱為木柴到達了火。 『答曰下第三破救』，下面是駁斥外道的辯解。你們之前承認男女在結合之前是不相互作用的，之後才相互作用，那麼薪和火一直都在一起，為什麼說它們不相互作用呢？如果你們之前認為薪和火是分離的，不相互作用，那麼燃燒之後才允許你們說它們相互作用。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The sentence is broken' refers to the point in the previous sentence that needs to be refuted. 'The following sentence is a question' refers to using a rhetorical question to further question. Furthermore, it asks: 'Burning and not burning are ultimately different.' The states of burning and not burning are ultimately different. 'But there is firewood, what burns and what is combustible at that time?' If there is only firewood, then what is used to burn when burning, and what can be burned? This is actually looking for two different things. Further explanation: 'At that time, there is only firewood, this is repeating the external meaning.' This sentence is repeating the views of externalists. Externalists believe that when burning, firewood is called 'combustible material'. When not burning, there is only firewood. So now repeat their point of view. 'What burns the combustible, this is the beginning of the refutation.' This is the beginning of the refutation. Use unburned firewood to refute their view that it is only called 'combustible material' when burning. According to your point of view, if there is only firewood when it is not burning, then what is used to burn to be called 'combustible material'? This shows that there is no fire that leaves the firewood, and there is no firewood that leaves the fire that can be called 'combustible material'. If there is really a fire that leaves the firewood to burn the firewood that leaves the fire to be called 'combustible material', then the fire leaves the firewood, and the firewood also leaves the fire, and the two do not depend on each other. Since they do not depend on each other, no human effort is needed, so this is an explanation that human effort is meaningless. This still contains the previous four difficulties. The following explanation is correct. The long line once again questions different sects: If you think there is 'combustible material' outside of burning, why do you say that it is only called 'combustible material' when burning? If it is only called 'combustible material' when burning, then 'combustible material' cannot be different from burning. If 'combustible material' is different from burning, it cannot be said that it is only called 'combustible material' when burning. Furthermore, if 'combustible material' is different, then the two will not interact. The fourth difficulty is the 'latent contradiction' (accusing the other party of contradicting themselves). Although it is said above that it is only called 'combustible material' when burning, it is ultimately believed that 'combustible material' is different from burning. If they are ultimately different, then the two will not depend on each other, and still contain the previous four errors. Here, it only says that they do not depend on each other, so it says 'not reaching' (not interacting). 'Question: The second externalist saves the meaning', below is the externalist trying to defend their point of view. Externalists believe that because 'combustible material' and burning are different, they can interact with each other. If there is no difference between the two, how can there be interaction? Question: Who proposed the view that the nature of firewood and fire is different? Answer: Both internal and external schools believe that the nature is different. Externalists are divided into two types, one believes that everything is created by God (universal creation), and the other believes that part is created by God (partial creation). They all believe that the nature of firewood and fire is different. The Sarvastivada school believes that fire is hot touch, and firewood contains the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind (four subtle elements). The Satyasiddhi school believes that the two dharmas of color and touch together are called fire. Fire is a false name, and firewood is also a false name, but it contains four elements, so it is different. Because they are different, fire can burn firewood, called fire reaching firewood; firewood can transmit fire, called firewood reaching fire. 'Answer: The third refutation of salvation', below is the refutation of the externalist's defense. You previously admitted that men and women do not interact before combining, and only interact after combining, then firewood and fire have always been together, why do you say that they do not interact? If you previously thought that firewood and fire were separated and did not interact, then you are only allowed to say that they interact after burning.
問曰燃可燃相待下。第二相待門破。從論初已來多破因成假義。此一章破相待假也。所以破相待者。相待通生死涅槃三乘一乘等萬義。相待若成萬義成。相待若壞一切皆壞。但內外大小謂實有相待。于中起乎愛見成於業苦。論主求相待無從。則顯煩惱使凈。故破相待也。前問次答。問云有燃可燃云何言一。相待而成豈可言異。亦得以相故不一待故不異。勉一異難也。但相待多門有通別定不定一法二法。通待者若長待不長。自長之外並是不長。別待者如長待短。一師亦名此為疏密相待。若長短相待名為疏待。長待不長翻是密待。以即長論不長故。不長望長此即為密。長短相望即是二法。是以名疏。故山中舊語云。成瓶之不瓶。成青之不青。即指瓶為不瓶故不瓶成瓶也。定待者如生死待涅槃。及色心相待。名為定待。不定待者。如五尺形一丈為短。待三尺為長。名不定待。一法待者。如一人亦父亦子。二法待者。如長短兩物。今此四偈遍破一切相待義。此四偈意多。今且開二章。初兩偈破成待。次兩偈破待成。破成待者。如內外大小乘人皆言。前有長短體成后論其相待。次待成者異三論師云。非前有長短然後相待。但明由相待故有于長短。此之二門總攝一切相待義盡。破此二宗諸待皆壞。二門各二。初門二者前偈定開即是
破。第二偈受定正破成待。定開為二。上半雙牒。下半正定。此義顯在長行今略釋之。若前有可燃後有燃則墮上異過。前燃后可燃亦爾。既其前後則便相離。如其相離還是異義。便非待也。若一時則薪火併有。亦不須相待。若薪火俱無無則無物。亦無有待。長行有四。謂雙牒。雙定。雙難。雙結。雙牒如文。是中下第二定今若因下第三難。難中為二。初難可燃在前。以惑人多計故也。次例難燃在前也。難中有四。一失因。二不成。三不前。四同壞。初如文。若燃不燃下。第二不成。恐外人受論主可燃失因而可燃得成。是故今明。若燃不燃可燃則可燃不成。又可燃不在余處下。第三明可燃不前。要在燃處方名可燃。實不在余處豈在前耶。余處者異火處也。則奪其在前義也。初縱在前故有失因不成之過。故今次奪之。若可燃不成下。第四同壞難。若先燃後有可燃下。第二次破于燃亦有四過。如上說也。是故下第四雙結。複次若因可燃燃下。第二受定破成待義。偈為二。上半明燃有重成過。下半明可燃有無燃過。此偈上下兩半意者。若前有燃體待于可燃則招二過。一者燃有重成之咎。二者可燃有不成之過。前有可燃體后待于燃。亦有兩過。上半為二。初句牒待。次句正辨重成。重成者未待可燃已有燃體。此是一成。次將燃復
待可燃。復是一成故未待已成。后待更成故重成也。問重成有何過。答唯一物但應一成。若重成便應二物。又一物而有再成。一成應有兩物。無有兩物一成。何有一物二成耶。下半明可燃有不成過者。既將燃待可燃。必先有可燃。則可燃不成。以汝待故方成。今可燃不待故可燃不成。故燃可燃相待。燃有重成可燃無成也。和上又云。當燃待可燃時。燃有重成之過。可燃有失待之咎。重成如上。失待者汝燃無待可燃。當知先已有可燃。既先有。則知不待燃而有。故是失待也。複次若法有待成下。第二兩偈破待故成。亦二。初正破。次釋破。又初是都無破。后是研竅破。所以有此破來者。外云若成竟更待。燃有重成可燃有失待過。今以待故方成。未待未成。則唯有一成。燃既待故成。無有重成。故可燃還待燃故成。燃故成則可燃無失待過。是故破待成也。問何以知破待成。答偈云。若法有待成則知是待故成也。成論師云。上半世諦。下半真諦。中假師云。上半不二二。下半二不二。此與舊何異。他亦云。不二而二。二諦引物。二而不二即一中道。今明此是何所破義。偈二上半牒。下半破。若法有待成者。燃法待可燃成也。是法還成待者。是燃法還成可燃家待也。今則無因待者。破可燃為燃因也。若自有可燃體不因於燃可燃
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：待可燃（指需要被燃燒的物體）。進一步說，一個物體如果已經具備了燃燒的條件，就不需要等待其他條件才能燃燒。如果已經燃燒了還需要等待，那就是重複燃燒。問：重複燃燒有什麼過失？答：唯一的物體應該只有一次燃燒的過程。如果重複燃燒，那就應該變成兩個物體了。或者說，一個物體被燃燒了兩次，一次燃燒應該對應一個物體，沒有一個物體對應兩次燃燒的情況。怎麼會有一個物體被燃燒兩次呢？下半部分說明了可燃物沒有完成燃燒的過失。既然將要燃燒的物體需要等待可燃物，那麼必須先有可燃物。那麼可燃物就沒有完成燃燒。因為你（燃）的等待，它（可燃物）才得以完成燃燒。現在可燃物不需要等待，所以可燃物沒有完成燃燒。所以燃燒和可燃物是相互等待的。燃燒有重複燃燒的過失，而可燃物沒有完成燃燒的過失。和上（指僧侶）又說，當燃燒等待可燃物的時候，燃燒有重複燃燒的過失，可燃物有失去等待的過錯。重複燃燒如上所述。失去等待是指你（燃）沒有等待可燃物。應當知道，先前已經有了可燃物。既然先前已經有了，那就知道它不需要等待燃燒而存在。所以這是失去了等待。再次，如果法（事物）有待而成，下面第二段用兩句偈語來破斥因為等待才能成立的觀點。也分為兩部分：首先是直接破斥，然後是解釋破斥。而且，首先是完全破斥，然後是研究細節的破斥。之所以有這樣的破斥，是因為外人說，如果燃燒已經完成還需要等待，那麼燃燒就有重複燃燒的過失，可燃物有失去等待的過失。現在因為等待才能成立，沒有等待就沒有成立，那麼就只有一次成立。燃燒既然因為等待才能成立，就沒有重複成立。所以可燃物還需要等待燃燒才能成立。因為燃燒才能成立，那麼可燃物就沒有失去等待的過失。所以這是破斥等待才能成立的觀點。問：怎麼知道這是破斥等待才能成立的觀點？答：偈語說，如果法（事物）有待而成，那麼就知道是因為等待才能成立。成論師說，上半句是世俗諦，下半句是真諦。中假師說，上半句是不二而二，下半句是二而不二。這和舊的說法有什麼不同？其他人也說，不二而二，二諦引導事物，二而不二就是一中道。現在說明這是破斥什麼意義。偈語的上下兩部分，上半部分是陳述，下半部分是破斥。如果法（事物）有待而成，是指燃燒的法（事物）等待可燃物才能成立。是法還成待者，是指燃燒的法（事物）反而成就了可燃物的等待。現在就沒有原因等待了，破斥了可燃物是燃燒的原因。如果可燃物自身有可燃的體性，不依賴於燃燒，那麼可燃物 English version: 'Awaitable fuel' (referring to an object that needs to be burned). Furthermore, if an object already possesses the conditions for combustion, it does not need to wait for other conditions to burn. If it still needs to wait after burning, then that is repeated burning. Question: What is the fault of repeated burning? Answer: A unique object should only have one combustion process. If it is repeatedly burned, then it should become two objects. Or rather, if an object is burned twice, one burning should correspond to one object; there is no situation where one object corresponds to two burnings. How can one object be burned twice? The latter half explains the fault of the combustible material not completing combustion. Since the object about to be burned needs to wait for the combustible material, then there must first be a combustible material. Then the combustible material has not completed combustion. Because of your (the burner's) waiting, it (the combustible material) is able to complete combustion. Now the combustible material does not need to wait, so the combustible material has not completed combustion. Therefore, burning and combustible material are mutually waiting. Burning has the fault of repeated burning, while combustible material has the fault of not completing combustion. The venerable monk also said that when burning waits for combustible material, burning has the fault of repeated burning, and combustible material has the fault of losing the waiting. Repeated burning is as described above. Losing the waiting refers to you (the burner) not waiting for the combustible material. It should be known that there was already combustible material beforehand. Since there was already combustible material beforehand, then it is known that it exists without waiting for burning. Therefore, this is losing the waiting. Furthermore, if a dharma (thing) is established by waiting, the second section below uses two verses to refute the view that it can only be established by waiting. It is also divided into two parts: first, direct refutation, and then explanatory refutation. Moreover, first is complete refutation, and then is the refutation of studying details. The reason why there is such refutation is because outsiders say that if burning is already completed and still needs to wait, then burning has the fault of repeated burning, and combustible material has the fault of losing the waiting. Now it can only be established by waiting, and it cannot be established without waiting, then there is only one establishment. Since burning can only be established by waiting, there is no repeated establishment. Therefore, combustible material still needs to wait for burning to be established. Because burning can be established, then combustible material does not have the fault of losing the waiting. Therefore, this is refuting the view that it can only be established by waiting. Question: How do you know that this is refuting the view that it can only be established by waiting? Answer: The verse says, if a dharma (thing) is established by waiting, then it is known that it can only be established by waiting. The Satyasiddhi School says that the first half of the verse is conventional truth (世俗諦), and the second half is ultimate truth (真諦). The Madhyamaka School says that the first half is 'not two but two,' and the second half is 'two but not two.' What is the difference between this and the old saying? Others also say that 'not two but two,' the two truths guide things, and 'two but not two' is the one middle way. Now explain what meaning this is refuting. The upper and lower parts of the verse, the upper part is a statement, and the lower part is a refutation. If a dharma (thing) is established by waiting, it refers to the dharma (thing) of burning waiting for combustible material to be established. 'Is the dharma still established by waiting' refers to the dharma (thing) of burning instead accomplishing the waiting of combustible material. Now there is no reason to wait, refuting that combustible material is the cause of burning. If combustible material itself has a combustible nature, not relying on burning, then combustible material
【English Translation】 Awaitable fuel (dài kě rán): Refers to an object that needs to be burned. Furthermore, it is said that if an object is already ready, it does not need to wait to be ready. If it is already ready and still needs to wait, then it is ready again. Question: What is the fault of being ready again? Answer: A single object should only be ready once. If it is ready again, then there should be two objects. Also, if an object is ready twice, one readiness should correspond to two objects. There are no two objects that are ready once. How can one object be ready twice? The latter half explains the fault of the awaitable fuel not being ready. Since the object that is about to burn needs to wait for the awaitable fuel, there must first be awaitable fuel. Then the awaitable fuel is not ready. Because you (the burning) are waiting, it (the awaitable fuel) is ready. Now the awaitable fuel does not need to wait, so the awaitable fuel is not ready. Therefore, the burning and the awaitable fuel are mutually waiting. The burning has the fault of being ready again, and the awaitable fuel has the fault of not being ready. The Venerable (hé shàng) also said, 'When the burning waits for the awaitable fuel, the burning has the fault of being ready again, and the awaitable fuel has the fault of losing the waiting.' Being ready again is as described above. Losing the waiting means that you (the burning) are not waiting for the awaitable fuel. It should be known that there was already awaitable fuel beforehand. Since there was already awaitable fuel, then it is known that it exists without waiting for the burning. Therefore, it is losing the waiting. Furthermore, if a dharma (fǎ) [phenomenon, thing] is ready by waiting, the second two verses below refute the readiness by waiting. It is also in two parts: first, the direct refutation, and second, the explanation of the refutation. Also, the first is a complete refutation, and the second is a detailed refutation. The reason for this refutation is that outsiders say, 'If the burning is already ready and still needs to wait, then the burning has the fault of being ready again, and the awaitable fuel has the fault of losing the waiting.' Now it is ready by waiting, and it is not ready without waiting, then there is only one readiness. Since the burning is ready by waiting, there is no readiness again. Therefore, the awaitable fuel still needs to wait for the burning to be ready. Since it is ready by the burning, then the awaitable fuel does not have the fault of losing the waiting. Therefore, this refutes the readiness by waiting. Question: How do you know that this refutes the readiness by waiting? Answer: The verse says, 'If a dharma is ready by waiting, then it is known that it is ready by waiting.' The Satyasiddhi School (Chéng lùn shī) says that the first half is conventional truth (sì dì), and the second half is ultimate truth (zhēn dì). The Middle School (zhōng jiǎ shī) says that the first half is 'not two and two,' and the second half is 'two and not two.' How is this different from the old? Others also say, 'Not two and two,' the two truths guide things, and 'two and not two' is the one middle way. Now, it is clear what meaning this refutes. The upper and lower halves of the verse, the upper half is a statement, and the lower half is a refutation. 'If a dharma is ready by waiting' means that the dharma of burning waits for the awaitable fuel to be ready. 'Is the dharma still ready by waiting' means that the dharma of burning still makes the awaitable fuel wait. Now there is no cause to wait, refuting that the awaitable fuel is the cause of the burning. If the awaitable fuel has its own awaitable nature and does not depend on the burning, then the awaitable fuel
。為燃作因耳。今可燃不能自有。待燃方有。何能為燃作因耶。故今則無因待也。亦無所成法者。此破燃也。若有可燃為燃因。燃因之而得成。既無可燃為燃因。云何燃因之而得成。故云亦無所成法也。今更一勢傳破釋之。若法有待成者。救重成也。若未待前成可有重成。今待方成故無重成。是法還成待者。外人防難也。汝待他成他應自成。是故釋云。我還成他作待故他不自成。今則無因待者。論主破也。汝有自體可為他作因。今因他而有無有自體。云何為他作因。故云今則無因待。亦無所成法者。汝既不能為他作因。云何有為他是汝之果。故無所成法也。又有此偈來者。前是縱待今是奪待。前縱待者縱其以長待短故長墮重成。今奪待。若汝長短互待則互失二因。都無兩界。云何待耶。又四偈為五。一雙定。二雙破。三雙救。四雙難。五雙結。雙定如文次偈雙破者。若先已有長待短。則長有重成短有失待。三雙通者。若法有待成。通上半重成難。是法還成待。通下半失待難也。今則無因待。第四雙難兩法互待。則俱無兩因俱無二果。次後一偈此是雙結有無二門俱無相待也。又初偈雙定前後。若先有長而待短。則長失待。若前無長以何待短。故前後二門俱無相待。次兩偈雙釋前後。初偈釋前有長而待短則長。墮重成短墮
失待。次偈釋先無長待短方有。則長短俱無因。長短並失果。后之一偈次雙結成前二偈。上半結前無長。下半結前有長。偈具含諸意。宜執詳文勿謂其煩也。何以下發起第二偈釋破也。所以須釋破者。論主上明更互相待則互失兩因俱無二果。今小乘大乘內道外道不受此破。如外道立拒舉瓶互為因果。數人大小二生義亦同之。成實師正引此文證相待義。乃至中假之流亦明無有可有由無。故有無無可無由有故無。此乃無定性因果。而更互為因則因義成。更互為果則果義立。云何言無因果耶。是故有此偈更開二關責之。上半就無門。下半據有門。若法有待成者。重牒立也。未成云何待者。既待故方成。則知未待時未成。既未待時未成。未成則無兩物。以何更互待耶。下半云。若成已有待。初句取意。汝謂未待時先已有長短兩物成。然後論相待勉上無待過者。成已何用待。此正破也。未待之時兩物已成。何用更互待耶。待本為成耳。今未待已成則不須復待也。問成實師云。前有長短兩體然後相待立名。以先有體勉未成兩無難相待立名。故離下半不須待之失。故莊嚴義云。因成為世諦體。相續為世諦用。相待為世諦名。開善云。因成當體續待為用也。今次責之。未待有長短體此體為待為不待。若相待云何言體未待耶。若不待何得
有此體名耶。又若體不待則相待假狹。而相待通一切法。云何名待體不待耶。又名待體不待。應名燒體不燒。又名法各有體。名在口以聲為體。法在𦀦以色為體。名法既各有體。則名法應各待。若一待一不待一有體一不有體。又名待他體不因他。何謂因成。若名體並待今未待未有名。亦應未待未有體。又名體是因緣義何容有體未有名。若於不知者故無名。亦于不知者故無體。道理有名而不知。道理有體而不知耶。若上古時有物未有名。故本無名者。亦上古本無物。如劫初谷不生。亦如諸法不生。是故因可燃下。第三因不因門破。上半因無因破燃。下半破可燃。此門二意故來。一者結上。因門逐近結相待四偈。不因結前一異諸偈。又因結上相待。不因破其絕待也。燃不餘處來下。第四內外門破。有此文來者。外人聞上因不因破無辭可通。但現見攢木火生。外緣合故有。所以論主更說此門。但火生有因有緣。手燧等為緣薪則為因。假緣而有故為外。藉因而生。秤之為內。今求並無從豈有內外。數人有性四大事四大。因事發性。如燈炷是也。此中有性火。后因外事火來炷之則發其體性火故照。此即有從外來義。有自性即內出義。若成實論云炷中有火理。是內出義。今因外火發生此理。若無此理火炷終不燃。此則余所來義。今
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有這樣的『體』（自性）的名稱嗎？如果『體』不依賴於其他事物，那麼『相待』（相互依賴）就顯得狹隘了，而『相待』是普遍存在於一切法（事物）之中的。為什麼說名稱是依賴的，而『體』是不依賴的呢？ 如果名稱是依賴的，而『體』是不依賴的，那麼就應該說『燒』（燃燒）是依賴的，而『體』（本質）是不燃燒的。又說諸法（一切事物）各自有『體』，名稱存在於口中，以聲音為『體』；法存在於心中，以色（現象）為『體』。既然名稱和法各自有『體』，那麼名稱和法就應該各自依賴。如果一個是依賴的，一個是不依賴的；一個是具有『體』的，一個是不具有『體』的，這又是什麼道理？ 又說名稱依賴於他物，而『體』不依賴於他物，那麼什麼是『因成』（由因緣和合而成）呢？如果名稱和『體』都依賴於因緣，那麼在沒有因緣的時候，既沒有名稱，也應該沒有『體』才對。 又說名稱和『體』是因緣的意義，怎麼可能在沒有名稱的時候就有『體』呢？如果因為有人不知道，所以沒有名稱；那麼也應該因為有人不知道，所以沒有『體』。難道道理上有名而人不知道，道理上有『體』而人不知道嗎？ 如果上古時代有事物但沒有名稱，所以本來就沒有名稱；那麼上古時代也應該本來就沒有事物，就像劫初（宇宙形成的初期）沒有穀物生長一樣，也像諸法（一切事物）不生一樣。所以，『因可燃』（因為有可燃物）是錯誤的。 第三個『因不因門』（依賴不依賴之門）破斥了這種觀點。上半部分用『因』（依賴）來破斥『無因』（不依賴），下半部分破斥『可燃』（可燃燒性）。這個門有兩種含義：一是總結前面的內容，『因門』總結了前面關於『相待』（相互依賴）的四句偈，『不因』（不依賴）總結了前面關於『一異』（同一與差異）的偈頌。二是『因』總結了前面關於『相待』的內容，『不因』破斥了那種絕對不依賴的觀點。 『燃不餘處來下』（燃燒不是從其他地方來的）是第四個『內外門』（內外之門）的破斥。之所以有這段文字，是因為外人聽了前面關於『因不因』（依賴不依賴）的破斥，找不到可以辯駁的理由，但他們親眼看到鉆木取火，認為這是外緣聚合的結果。所以論主（論的作者）進一步闡述這個『內外門』。燃燒的產生既有『因』（原因）也有『緣』（條件），手和燧石等是『緣』，木柴是『因』。憑藉『緣』而產生，所以是『外』；依靠『因』而產生，可以稱之為『內』。現在追究起來，內外都沒有，又怎麼會有內外之分呢？ 數論派認為有『自性』（事物自身具有的性質）、『四大事』（地、水、火、風四大要素）和『四大』（堅、濕、暖、動四大性質）。『因事發性』（通過事物來顯發自性），就像燈芯一樣。燈芯中本來就有『性火』（火的性質），後來因為外面的火接觸到燈芯，才顯發出它的『體性火』（本質的火），所以才能照亮。這就是有從外面來的意義。有『自性』就是從內部發出的意義。如果成實論認為燈芯中本來就有火的道理，這就是『內出義』（從內部發出的意義）。現在因為外面的火才發生這種道理，如果沒有這種道理，燈芯終究不會燃燒。這就是從其他地方來的意義。現在...
【English Translation】 English version Is there such a name for 『體』 (tǐ, essence/substance/self-nature)? Furthermore, if 『體』 (tǐ) does not depend on anything, then 『相待』 (xiāng dài, mutual dependence) seems narrow, while 『相待』 (xiāng dài) pervades all dharmas (things/phenomena). Why is it said that names are dependent, while 『體』 (tǐ) is not? If names are dependent while 『體』 (tǐ) is not, then it should be said that 『燒』 (shāo, burning) is dependent, while 『體』 (tǐ, essence) is not burning. It is also said that all dharmas (things) each have their own 『體』 (tǐ); names exist in the mouth, taking sound as their 『體』 (tǐ); dharmas exist in the mind, taking form/appearance as their 『體』 (tǐ). Since names and dharmas each have their own 『體』 (tǐ), then names and dharmas should each be dependent. If one is dependent and one is not, if one has 『體』 (tǐ) and one does not, what is the reason for this? Furthermore, it is said that names depend on others, while 『體』 (tǐ) does not depend on others. Then what is 『因成』 (yīn chéng, arising from causes and conditions)? If both names and 『體』 (tǐ) depend on causes and conditions, then when there are no causes and conditions, there should be neither names nor 『體』 (tǐ). Furthermore, it is said that names and 『體』 (tǐ) are the meaning of causes and conditions. How can there be 『體』 (tǐ) when there are no names? If there are no names because someone does not know, then there should also be no 『體』 (tǐ) because someone does not know. Is it that in principle there are names but people do not know, and in principle there is 『體』 (tǐ) but people do not know? If in ancient times there were things but no names, so there were originally no names, then there should also have been no things in ancient times, just as no grains grew at the beginning of the kalpa (劫初, jié chū, the beginning of the universe), just as all dharmas (things) do not arise. Therefore, 『因可燃』 (yīn kě rán, because there is something combustible) is wrong. The third 『因不因門』 (yīn bù yīn mén, the gate of dependence and non-dependence) refutes this view. The first half uses 『因』 (yīn, dependence) to refute 『無因』 (wú yīn, non-dependence), and the second half refutes 『可燃』 (kě rán, combustibility). This gate has two meanings: one is to summarize the previous content. The 『因門』 (yīn mén, gate of dependence) summarizes the previous four verses on 『相待』 (xiāng dài, mutual dependence), and 『不因』 (bù yīn, non-dependence) summarizes the previous verses on 『一異』 (yī yì, sameness and difference). The second is that 『因』 (yīn) summarizes the previous content on 『相待』 (xiāng dài), and 『不因』 (bù yīn) refutes the view of absolute non-dependence. 『燃不餘處來下』 (rán bù yú chù lái xià, burning does not come from elsewhere) is the refutation of the fourth 『內外門』 (nèi wài mén, gate of inner and outer). The reason for this passage is that outsiders, having heard the previous refutation of 『因不因』 (yīn bù yīn, dependence and non-dependence), could not find a reason to argue back, but they saw with their own eyes that fire was produced by drilling wood, believing that this was the result of the aggregation of external conditions. Therefore, the author of the treatise further elaborates on this 『內外門』 (nèi wài mén). The production of burning has both 『因』 (yīn, cause) and 『緣』 (yuán, condition). Hands and flints are 『緣』 (yuán), and firewood is 『因』 (yīn). It arises by relying on 『緣』 (yuán), so it is 『外』 (wài, external); it arises by relying on 『因』 (yīn), so it can be called 『內』 (nèi, internal). Now, upon investigation, there is neither inner nor outer, so how can there be a distinction between inner and outer? The Samkhya school believes in 『自性』 (zì xìng, self-nature), 『四大事』 (sì dà shì, the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), and 『四大』 (sì dà, the four great qualities: solidity, fluidity, warmth, and motion). 『因事發性』 (yīn shì fā xìng, self-nature is manifested through things), just like a lamp wick. The lamp wick originally has 『性火』 (xìng huǒ, the nature of fire), and later, because external fire comes into contact with the lamp wick, its 『體性火』 (tǐ xìng huǒ, the essential nature of fire) is manifested, so it can illuminate. This is the meaning of coming from the outside. Having 『自性』 (zì xìng) is the meaning of coming from the inside. If the Satyasiddhi school believes that the lamp wick originally has the principle of fire, this is the 『內出義』 (nèi chū yì, the meaning of coming from within). Now, this principle arises because of external fire. If there is no such principle, the lamp wick will never burn. This is the meaning of coming from elsewhere. Now...
總間。木有火理性為異薪為不異。若已異即已應能燒即無復薪也。若不異雖截木火終不生。又問木中無事火。與大虛不異。云何得生火。又炎炎是火而非薪。段段是薪而非火。雖相著而終異。則燃是燃故燃非是可燃燃。可燃是可燃故可燃非是燃可燃也。又木有火理者不然。今用作余物何必出火。如破泥有瓶性也。又燒木方名薪。則薪火一時。一時則非因果義。又木有火理。因果則並。若無火理則無可待。又問木有當燃理亦有當不燃理。若有可燃理名可燃者。有不可燃理應名不可燃。又木中無事燃說木為可燃。水中無事燃亦可說水為可燃。又木中無事燃遂得生事燃。水中無事燃水中亦應生。若一生一不生則一有事一無事。余如去來說。第五三時門。內出外來及內外和合有。墮三時門過。若可燃無燃下第六五求門破。問離一異為五求。合五求為一異。一異破竟。何故復說五求。答體雖無異為外道計二十五我故須離而破之。二十五我者即色是我離色是我。我中有色色中有我。我有於色五陰則二十五也。問何故無色有於我耶。答我有色此明我為主諦。我御於色故屬我。不得云色為主諦色御於我我屬於色。故無此句也。若可燃無燃此明即陰無我。離可燃無燃。明離陰無我。燃無有可燃。明我無有陰陰不屬我也。燃中無可燃者。我
中無有陰。可燃中無燃。明陰中無有我。長行雲三皆不成者。異釋云云。今明。初句為即。餘四句並是離。既破初句離。后三句同是異。同第二句破也。問何故說燃可燃下。第二破法說也。前問次答。所以作此問者。外人初立燃可燃為成受受者。但破既不成故失宗。迷恍便不知所云。故復問也。又不煩作此釋之。但為欲發起后偈生此問耳。答中上半喻內人法。次句喻外瓶衣。不言瓶衣一異。但瓶自有因果。不可一異。衣義亦爾。一切等諸法者。生死涅槃真妄空有同六門破。問偈破受受者等萬法。應備用六門。青目何故偏就五求門耶。答二義。一者略舉最後。二者五求正為破人法。是以偏舉求之。若人說有我下。第三呵責外人。以法喻既窮故須呵責。二者上五求破但是一異破。二十五我猶未破二十種我。言二十我者即色是我。離色有我。亦即亦離非即非離。一陰四句。五陰二十。二十我數少體廣。二十五我數多而義狹。上雖破即離未破亦即亦離非即非離。是故此偈總呵責之。即離之本既無。餘二是末。不須破也。又說此偈者。犢子部云。上來破于即離不破我宗。今所辨我乃是第五不可說藏。故不墮上破。是以論主今呵責之。第五藏內實無有我。而橫謂有。非佛弟子也。就偈為二。上半牒外所計。下半呵責。若人說有我者
。即作者本住假實等一切諸我也。諸法各異相者。作業及諸根並五陰等。下半呵責無人法而計人法。則不得佛法生法二空味也。又不識佛性真我而顛倒橫計假實等我。故不得佛性真我之味。故涅槃經以一味藥譬于佛性。又不得一相法味而計種種法。如法華云。悉是一相一味之法。究竟涅槃常寂滅相。終歸於空。不得斯味故計一異法。此是對外人計生法。故以二無生為佛性味耳。然佛法既非有人法。亦非無人法。如是四句皆非佛法味。故云不得寂滅味。寂滅即絕四句法也。長行雲諸法從本來無生畢竟寂滅相者。此句前示外人佛法真味。即序其所失也。又敘論主破人法意。論主所以破人法者。良由諸法本無生寂滅。而外人橫計有人法。所以失佛法味。宜須破之。又釋一切大乘經論破人法意。明諸法本來無生寂滅。但為止橫謂之心故云破耳。實非是破也。又約情立有約情悟無。故言破實不破也。是故品未說是偈。此第二正明失味之人。此中舉薩婆多及犢子者。舉犢子攝取一切計有我之部。明薩婆多攝取一切計有法之部。又薩婆多明計法之始。法有四句。一有一切法。二無一切法。三亦有亦無。四非有非無。此之四句悉是戲論。薩婆多計一切法有故名一切有部。一切有者明三世是有及三無為亦有。故名一切有部也。今舉計有既
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也就是說，作者本身執著于虛假和真實的『我』（ātman）。『諸法各異相者』指的是業（karma）、諸根（indriya）以及五蘊（skandha）等。下半部分是呵斥那些不瞭解『人』（pudgala）和『法』（dharma）的實相，卻執著于『人法』的人，這樣的人無法領略佛法中的『生法二空』（dharma and pudgala sunyata）的真諦。 此外，他們不認識佛性（Buddha-nature）和真我（true self），反而顛倒地執著于虛假和真實的『我』，因此無法領略佛性真我的真味。所以，《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）用『一味藥』來比喻佛性。他們也不得『一相法味』（the taste of the Dharma of one form），反而執著于種種法，正如《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）所說：『悉是一相一味之法，究竟涅槃常寂滅相，終歸於空。』因為不得這種真味，所以執著于『一』和『異』的法。這是針對外道之人執著于『生法』（samskrta dharma）而說的，所以用『二無生』（two non-arising）作為佛性的真味。 然而，佛法既不是『有人法』，也不是『無人法』。像這樣的四句（catuṣkoṭi）都不是佛法的真味，所以說『不得寂滅味』。『寂滅』（nirvana）就是超越四句的法。長行中說『諸法從本來無生畢竟寂滅相者』，這句話是先前向外道之人展示佛法的真味，也就是敘述他們所失去的。又敘述論主破斥『人法』的用意。論主之所以破斥『人法』，是因為諸法本來無生寂滅，而外道之人卻橫加執著于『有人法』，所以失去了佛法的真味，應該破斥它。又解釋一切大乘經論破斥『人法』的用意，說明諸法本來無生寂滅，只是爲了阻止橫加執著的心，所以說是破斥，實際上並非真正的破斥。又從情執的角度建立『有』，從覺悟的角度建立『無』，所以說破斥實際上並非真正的破斥。因此，品末才說是偈。 這是第二部分，正式說明失去真味的人。這裡舉出薩婆多（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）和犢子部（Vātsīputrīya），舉出犢子部是爲了涵蓋一切執著于『我』的部派，說明薩婆多是爲了涵蓋一切執著于『法』的部派。而且，薩婆多闡明了執著于『法』的開端。法有四句：一、有一切法；二、無一切法；三、亦有亦無；四、非有非無。這四句都是戲論（prapañca）。薩婆多執著於一切法『有』，所以被稱為『一切有部』。『一切有』說明三世（過去、現在、未來）是有，以及三無為法（虛空無為、擇滅無為、非擇滅無為）也是有，所以被稱為『一切有部』。現在舉出執著于『有』的部派，既然 English version: That is to say, the author himself clings to the false and real 'self' (ātman). 'The various characteristics of all dharmas' refer to karma, the senses (indriya), and the five aggregates (skandha), etc. The latter half rebukes those who do not understand the true nature of 'person' (pudgala) and 'dharma' and cling to 'person and dharma'. Such people cannot appreciate the true essence of 'emptiness of dharma and person' (dharma and pudgala sunyata) in the Buddha-dharma. Furthermore, they do not recognize the Buddha-nature and the true self, but instead, they cling to the false and real 'self' in a reversed way, so they cannot appreciate the true taste of the Buddha-nature and the true self. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra uses 'one flavor medicine' to compare the Buddha-nature. They also do not get 'the taste of the Dharma of one form', but instead, they cling to various dharmas, as the Lotus Sutra says: 'All are the Dharma of one form and one taste, ultimately Nirvana is the state of constant stillness and extinction, and ultimately returns to emptiness.' Because they do not get this taste, they cling to the Dharma of 'one' and 'different'. This is said to those of external paths who cling to 'conditioned dharmas' (samskrta dharma), so 'two non-arising' is used as the true taste of Buddha-nature. However, the Buddha-dharma is neither 'having person and dharma' nor 'not having person and dharma'. Such four sentences (catuṣkoṭi) are not the true taste of the Buddha-dharma, so it is said 'cannot get the taste of stillness and extinction'. 'Stillness and extinction' (nirvana) is the Dharma that transcends the four sentences. The long passage says 'All dharmas are originally unborn and ultimately have the characteristic of stillness and extinction', this sentence is to show the true taste of the Buddha-dharma to those of external paths, that is, to describe what they have lost. It also describes the intention of the commentator to refute 'person and dharma'. The reason why the commentator refutes 'person and dharma' is that all dharmas are originally unborn and still and extinct, but those of external paths cling to 'having person and dharma', so they lose the true taste of the Buddha-dharma, and it should be refuted. It also explains the intention of all Mahayana sutras and treatises to refute 'person and dharma', explaining that all dharmas are originally unborn and still and extinct, but only to stop the mind that clings to it, so it is said to be refuted, but in reality, it is not a real refutation. Also, 'having' is established from the perspective of emotional attachment, and 'non-having' is established from the perspective of enlightenment, so it is said that refutation is not a real refutation. Therefore, it is said in verse at the end of the chapter. This is the second part, formally explaining the person who lost the true taste. Here, Sarvāstivāda (the 'All Exists' school) and Vātsīputrīya (the Pudgalavada school) are mentioned. Mentioning Vātsīputrīya is to cover all schools that cling to 'self', explaining that Sarvāstivāda is to cover all schools that cling to 'dharma'. Moreover, Sarvāstivāda clarifies the beginning of clinging to 'dharma'. Dharma has four sentences: 1. All dharmas exist; 2. No dharmas exist; 3. Both exist and do not exist; 4. Neither exist nor do not exist. These four sentences are all conceptual proliferation (prapañca). Sarvāstivāda clings to the 'existence' of all dharmas, so it is called the 'All Exists' school. 'All Exists' means that the three times (past, present, and future) exist, and the three unconditioned dharmas (unconditioned space, extinction by choice, extinction by non-choice) also exist, so it is called the 'All Exists' school. Now, mentioning the school that clings to 'existence', since
【English Translation】 That is to say, the author himself clings to the false and real 'self' (ātman). 'The various characteristics of all dharmas' refer to karma, the senses (indriya), and the five aggregates (skandha), etc. The latter half rebukes those who do not understand the true nature of 'person' (pudgala) and 'dharma' and cling to 'person and dharma'. Such people cannot appreciate the true essence of 'emptiness of dharma and person' (dharma and pudgala sunyata) in the Buddha-dharma. Furthermore, they do not recognize the Buddha-nature and the true self, but instead, they cling to the false and real 'self' in a reversed way, so they cannot appreciate the true taste of the Buddha-nature and the true self. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra uses 'one flavor medicine' to compare the Buddha-nature. They also do not get 'the taste of the Dharma of one form', but instead, they cling to various dharmas, as the Lotus Sutra says: 'All are the Dharma of one form and one taste, ultimately Nirvana is the state of constant stillness and extinction, and ultimately returns to emptiness.' Because they do not get this taste, they cling to the Dharma of 'one' and 'different'. This is said to those of external paths who cling to 'conditioned dharmas' (samskrta dharma), so 'two non-arising' is used as the true taste of Buddha-nature. However, the Buddha-dharma is neither 'having person and dharma' nor 'not having person and dharma'. Such four sentences (catuṣkoṭi) are not the true taste of the Buddha-dharma, so it is said 'cannot get the taste of stillness and extinction'. 'Stillness and extinction' (nirvana) is the Dharma that transcends the four sentences. The long passage says 'All dharmas are originally unborn and ultimately have the characteristic of stillness and extinction', this sentence is to show the true taste of the Buddha-dharma to those of external paths, that is, to describe what they have lost. It also describes the intention of the commentator to refute 'person and dharma'. The reason why the commentator refutes 'person and dharma' is that all dharmas are originally unborn and still and extinct, but those of external paths cling to 'having person and dharma', so they lose the true taste of the Buddha-dharma, and it should be refuted. It also explains the intention of all Mahayana sutras and treatises to refute 'person and dharma', explaining that all dharmas are originally unborn and still and extinct, but only to stop the mind that clings to it, so it is said to be refuted, but in reality, it is not a real refutation. Also, 'having' is established from the perspective of emotional attachment, and 'non-having' is established from the perspective of enlightenment, so it is said that refutation is not a real refutation. Therefore, it is said in verse at the end of the chapter. This is the second part, formally explaining the person who lost the true taste. Here, Sarvāstivāda (the 'All Exists' school) and Vātsīputrīya (the Pudgalavada school) are mentioned. Mentioning Vātsīputrīya is to cover all schools that cling to 'self', explaining that Sarvāstivāda is to cover all schools that cling to 'dharma'. Moreover, Sarvāstivāda clarifies the beginning of clinging to 'dharma'. Dharma has four sentences: 1. All dharmas exist; 2. No dharmas exist; 3. Both exist and do not exist; 4. Neither exist nor do not exist. These four sentences are all conceptual proliferation (prapañca). Sarvāstivāda clings to the 'existence' of all dharmas, so it is called the 'All Exists' school. 'All Exists' means that the three times (past, present, and future) exist, and the three unconditioned dharmas (unconditioned space, extinction by choice, extinction by non-choice) also exist, so it is called the 'All Exists' school. Now, mentioning the school that clings to 'existence', since
非。當知余之三句亦失。故云舉始攝終也。破犢子者執我有四句。一即。二離。三亦即亦離。四非即非離。而犢子計非即非離。此既不成。當知前之三句亦壞。故舉終以攝始。又上來破我可說。今破不可說我。則一切我空。所言五法藏者。三世為三無為為四。第五名不可說。不可說者不可說有為無為也。問此品何故破犢子耶。答俱舍論破我品明犢子立我。正引燃可燃為喻。別有我體故不即陰。由陰合而生故不離陰。如別有火體故不即薪。托薪而生故不離薪。問犢子既計有我。云何作十六諦無我觀耶。答俱舍論云。后即出觀見有我。入觀則無有我。故得作十六諦觀也。問薩婆多犢子何時出耶。答佛滅后三百年中從上座部生薩婆多。從薩婆多出犢子部。玄義論以明之。論文舉二人釋上半。如是等人下釋下半也。
本際品第十一
此品六義故生。因上呵責偈故起。外人云。無本際經佛親說有眾生往來生死。汝何得呵云說有眾生及以諸法不得佛法味耶。二者外人因此生疑。若呵云無人法經何故說有人法。若經說有人法汝何故呵責耶。故請會通也。此是以論疑經以經疑論。又有以經疑經。經中既明無本際。云何有眾生及生死。若有眾生及生死。云何無本際耶。三者自論初已來直撿即事人法無從。此之一章窮推萬化。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不是的。應當知道我的前三句也錯了。所以說舉出開始就包括了結尾。破斥犢子部的人認為『我』有四句：一、即蘊（與五蘊相同）；二、離蘊（與五蘊相異）；三、亦即蘊亦離蘊；四、非即蘊非離蘊。而犢子部計執『非即蘊非離蘊』，既然這句不成立，應當知道前面的三句也壞了。所以舉出結尾來包括開始。又，上面破斥的是可以說的『我』，現在破斥的是不可說的『我』，那麼一切『我』都空了。所說的五法藏，三世為三，無為為四，第五個名稱為不可說。不可說指的是不可說有為法和無為法。問：這一品為什麼破斥犢子部呢？答：《俱舍論》破斥『我』品時，闡明犢子部立『我』，正是引用『燃』和『可燃物』作比喻，認為『我』的本體是獨立的，所以不等於五蘊；由於五蘊聚合而產生，所以不脫離五蘊。就像火的本體是獨立的，所以不等於柴薪；依靠柴薪而產生，所以不脫離柴薪。問：犢子部既然認為有『我』，為什麼又能作十六諦無我觀呢？答：《俱舍論》說，出觀后就見到有『我』，入觀時就沒有『我』，所以能夠作十六諦觀。問：薩婆多部（一切有部）和犢子部是什麼時候出現的呢？答：佛滅度后三百年中，從上座部產生薩婆多部，從薩婆多部產生犢子部。《玄義論》用這個來闡明。論文舉出兩個人來解釋上半部分，『如是等人』以下解釋下半部分。
本際品第十一
這一品由於六種原因而產生：一、因為上面呵責的偈頌而引起。外人說：『沒有本際』的經是佛陀親口說的，其中有眾生往來生死。你為什麼呵責說有眾生以及諸法，就不能得到佛法的真味呢？二、外人因此產生疑問：如果呵責說沒有人法，經中為什麼說有人法？如果經中說有人法，你為什麼要呵責呢？所以請求會通。這是用論來懷疑經，用經來懷疑論。又有用經來懷疑經，經中既然明明說沒有本際，為什麼又有眾生和生死？如果有眾生和生死，為什麼又沒有本際呢？三、自論從開始以來，一直檢點即事人法，無從入手。這一章窮盡推究萬物的變化。
【English Translation】 English version: No. It should be known that my previous three statements are also wrong. Therefore, it is said that mentioning the beginning includes the end. The Pudgalavādins (犢子部, Pudgalavāda) assert that the 'self' has four aspects: 1. Identity (identical with the five skandhas); 2. Difference (different from the five skandhas); 3. Both identity and difference; 4. Neither identity nor difference. The Pudgalavādins adhere to 'neither identity nor difference.' Since this statement is untenable, it should be known that the previous three statements are also invalid. Therefore, mentioning the end includes the beginning. Furthermore, the above refutes the 'self' that can be spoken of; now, it refutes the 'self' that cannot be spoken of, so all 'selves' are empty. The so-called five Dharma treasuries, the three times are three, the unconditioned is four, and the fifth is named 'ineffable.' 'Ineffable' refers to the inability to speak of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Question: Why does this chapter refute the Pudgalavādins? Answer: The Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) in the chapter refuting the 'self' clarifies the Pudgalavādins' establishment of the 'self,' precisely using the analogy of 'fuel' and 'what can be burned,' asserting that the substance of the 'self' is independent, so it is not identical to the five skandhas; it arises from the aggregation of the skandhas, so it is not separate from the five skandhas. Just as the substance of fire is independent, so it is not identical to firewood; it arises relying on firewood, so it is not separate from firewood. Question: Since the Pudgalavādins believe in the existence of a 'self,' how can they practice the sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths (十六諦) without a self? Answer: The Abhidharmakośa says that after emerging from meditation, they see the existence of a 'self,' but when entering meditation, there is no 'self,' so they can practice the sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths. Question: When did the Sarvāstivāda (薩婆多部, Sarvāstivāda) and the Pudgalavāda emerge? Answer: Three hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana, the Sarvāstivāda emerged from the Sthavira school (上座部), and the Pudgalavāda emerged from the Sarvāstivāda. The Profound Meaning Treatise (玄義論) uses this to clarify it. The text cites two people to explain the first half, and 'such people' below explains the second half.
Chapter Eleven: Original Boundary
This chapter arises due to six reasons: 1. It arises because of the verse of reproach above. Outsiders say: The sutra 'without an original boundary' was spoken by the Buddha himself, in which there are sentient beings coming and going in samsara (生死, saṃsāra). Why do you reproach that saying there are sentient beings and dharmas does not obtain the true taste of the Buddha's Dharma? 2. Outsiders therefore have doubts: If you reproach saying there are no beings and dharmas, why does the sutra say there are beings and dharmas? If the sutra says there are beings and dharmas, why do you reproach it? Therefore, they request a reconciliation. This is using the treatise to doubt the sutra, and using the sutra to doubt the treatise. There is also using the sutra to doubt the sutra. Since the sutra clearly says there is no original boundary, why are there sentient beings and samsara? If there are sentient beings and samsara, why is there no original boundary? 3. Since the beginning of the treatise, it has been directly examining the immediate beings and dharmas, with no way to begin. This chapter exhaustively investigates the transformations of all things.
根本不得則本末俱息。故一切無遺。四者釋諸大乘明生死畢竟空義。故說此品。如小乘人。自欲除生老病死。大乘人則兼除之。義今明。若見有生死則不能除生死。知生死本畢竟空方能離生死。如智度論云。生死人有生死。不生死人則無生死。問云何是生死耶。答小乘人但有一分段。大乘說者不同。依勝鬘經明二種生死。有漏業因四住為緣感分段生死。無漏業因無明為緣感界外變易生死。問無漏業云何感生死耶。答異釋云云。今明望凡夫界內為無漏耳。望法身實相猶是有漏。取其生心動念即名為業。不了了與實相相應故云無明。此二因緣生死未息也。成實者言有四種生死。一分段。二變易。三中間。即七地所受生死。四流來生死。依攝大乘論七種生死。三即三界。四方便生死。五因緣生死。六有有生死。七無有生死。今此品破大乘小乘人謂有決定生死。不得脫生死。故下文云。若使初后共是皆不成者。何故而戲論謂有生老病死。五者欲釋經三際空。如大品十無盡品發旨即云。菩薩先際不可得。中際后際皆不可得。故無菩薩。經直唱三際不可得未廣釋不可得。今廣欲釋之故說此品。六者欲釋十八空中無始空義故說此品。又大品四攝品云。菩薩住二空攝取眾生。一畢竟空。二無始空。上明畢竟空今辨無始空。故說此品。問
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根本上如果得不到，那麼本和末都會止息。所以一切都不會遺留。第四，解釋諸大乘經典，闡明生死畢竟空的意義。所以宣說這一品。如同小乘修行者，只是想去除生老病死。大乘修行者則兼顧去除這些。意義現在闡明，如果認為有生死，就不能去除生死。知道生死的本質畢竟是空，才能脫離生死。如《智度論》所說：『有生死的人才有生死，沒有生死的人就沒有生死。』問：什麼是生死呢？答：小乘人只有一種分段生死。大乘的說法不同，依據《勝鬘經》闡明兩種生死：有漏業因，以四住地為緣，感得分段生死；無漏業因，以無明為緣，感得界外變易生死。問：無漏業為什麼會感得生死呢？答：不同的解釋各有不同。現在說明，相對於凡夫的界內來說是無漏，但相對於法身實相來說仍然是有漏。取其生心動念，就稱為業。因為不完全與實相相應，所以稱為無明。這兩種因緣導致生死不能止息。成實宗認為有四種生死：一、分段生死；二、變易生死；三、中間生死，即七地菩薩所受的生死；四、流來生死。依據《攝大乘論》，有七種生死：三界生死，方便生死，因緣生死，有有生死，無有生死。現在這一品破斥大乘小乘人認為有決定的生死，無法脫離生死的觀點。所以下文說：『如果最初和最後都是共同的，那就不能成立。』為什麼還要戲論說有生老病死呢？第五，想要解釋經中所說的三際空。如《大品般若經》的《十無盡品》所闡述的宗旨，即說：『菩薩的過去際不可得，現在際和未來際都不可得。』所以沒有菩薩。經中直接宣說三際不可得，但沒有廣泛解釋不可得的含義。現在想要廣泛地解釋它，所以宣說這一品。第六，想要解釋十八空中無始空的意義，所以宣說這一品。又《大品般若經》的《四攝品》說：『菩薩安住於二空來攝取眾生，一是畢竟空，二是無始空。』上面闡明了畢竟空，現在辨析無始空。所以宣說這一品。問：
【English Translation】 English version If the root is not obtained, then both the root and the branches will cease. Therefore, nothing will remain. Fourth, to explain the various Mahayana sutras and clarify the meaning of the ultimate emptiness of birth and death. Therefore, this chapter is expounded. Like the Hinayana practitioners, they only want to eliminate birth, old age, sickness, and death. Mahayana practitioners also take into account the elimination of these. The meaning is now clarified that if one believes in the existence of birth and death, one cannot eliminate birth and death. Knowing that the essence of birth and death is ultimately empty, one can be free from birth and death. As the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says: 'Those who have birth and death have birth and death, and those who do not have birth and death do not have birth and death.' Question: What is birth and death? Answer: Hinayana practitioners only have one type of segmented birth and death. The Mahayana teachings are different. According to the Srimala Sutra, there are two types of birth and death: defiled karma as the cause, with the four abodes as conditions, resulting in segmented birth and death; undefiled karma as the cause, with ignorance as the condition, resulting in transformational birth and death beyond the realms. Question: Why does undefiled karma result in birth and death? Answer: Different interpretations vary. Now it is explained that it is undefiled relative to the realm of ordinary people, but it is still defiled relative to the Dharmakaya reality. Taking the arising of thoughts as karma. Because it is not fully in accordance with reality, it is called ignorance. These two causes and conditions lead to the non-cessation of birth and death. The Tattvasiddhi school believes that there are four types of birth and death: 1. Segmented birth and death; 2. Transformational birth and death; 3. Intermediate birth and death, which is the birth and death experienced by the seventh bhumi bodhisattvas; 4. Flowing birth and death. According to the Mahayana-samgraha, there are seven types of birth and death: the birth and death of the three realms, expedient birth and death, causal birth and death, birth and death of existence, and birth and death of non-existence. Now, this chapter refutes the view of Mahayana and Hinayana practitioners who believe that there is a definite birth and death, and that it is impossible to escape birth and death. Therefore, the following text says: 'If the beginning and the end are both common, then it cannot be established.' Why then do you playfully say that there is birth, old age, sickness, and death? Fifth, to explain the emptiness of the three times mentioned in the sutra. As the Ten Inexhaustibles Chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra states the purpose, it says: 'The past limit of a Bodhisattva is unattainable, and the present and future limits are unattainable.' Therefore, there is no Bodhisattva. The sutra directly proclaims that the three times are unattainable, but it does not extensively explain the meaning of unattainability. Now, wanting to extensively explain it, this chapter is expounded. Sixth, to explain the meaning of beginningless emptiness in the eighteen emptinesses, this chapter is expounded. Also, the Four Embracing Dharmas Chapter of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Bodhisattvas abide in the two emptinesses to embrace sentient beings, one is ultimate emptiness, and the other is beginningless emptiness.' The above clarifies ultimate emptiness, and now analyzes beginningless emptiness. Therefore, this chapter is expounded. Question:
生死定有始為無始耶。答內外計者不同。外道人謂冥初自在為萬物之本為諸法始。稱為本際。復有外道窮推諸法邊不可得。故云世間無邊。名無本際。老子云。無名為萬物始。有名為萬物母。亦是有始。佛法內小乘之人但明生死有終盡。在無餘涅槃不說生死根本之初際。名無本際。問何故爾耶。答佛說生死長遠本際不可知。令小乘人深生厭離。故不明始。令速滅煩惱早入無餘。故明生死之終。又上座僧祇同不說生死有始。大乘人云。若總論六道則不可說其始終。不知何者最初生。亦不測其最後滅故。故無有始終。若就一人則有始終。始自無明初念托空而起。終斷五住得成法身也。問云何破之。答生死有始即世間有邊。無始即是無邊。有邊無邊是十四難耶。大小乘經明佛不答。以是義故不應定執有始無始也。又智度論云。若破有始還說無始。譬如濟人以火還著深水。以是義故二俱有過。問佛是一切智人何故不答十四難耶。答如來出世本為拔眾生老病死苦。若答十四難則增諸結。故不答之。問有始無始二俱有過。何故十八空內有無始空。不明有始空耶。答龍樹云。有始無始俱為邪見。而佛多破有始明於無始。今說無始尚空何況有始。故但說無始空。即知有始亦空。智度論明有始無始雖皆邪見。而佛多說無始。不應云小乘明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：生死究竟是有開始還是沒有開始呢？ 答：內外道的觀點不同。外道認為冥初（宇宙最初的混沌狀態）和自在天（神）是萬物的根本，是諸法的開始，稱之為本際（根本的邊際）。還有外道窮盡推究諸法的邊際卻不可得，所以說世界是無邊的，名為無本際（沒有根本的邊際）。老子說：『無名，萬物之始；有名，萬物之母。』也是說有開始。 佛法內部，小乘之人只說明生死有終結，在於無餘涅槃（徹底寂滅的狀態），不說生死根本的最初邊際，名為無本際。 問：為什麼這樣呢？ 答：佛說生死長遠，本際不可知，令小乘人深生厭離（生死），所以不明說開始，令他們迅速滅除煩惱，早日進入無餘涅槃，所以明說生死的終結。又有上座部和僧祇部同樣不說生死有開始。大乘人說：如果總的來說六道輪迴，就不可說其始終，不知何者最初生，也不測其最後滅，所以沒有始終。如果就一個人來說，則有始終，開始於無明（迷惑）的最初一念，依託于空性而生起，最終斷除五住地煩惱（五種根本煩惱），成就法身（佛的真身）。 問：如何破斥有始的觀點呢？ 答：生死有始，即世間有邊；無始，即是無邊。有邊無邊是十四難（十四種難以回答的問題）嗎？大小乘經典都說明佛不回答。因為這個緣故，不應該一定執著于有始無始。又《智度論》說：如果破斥有始，還說無始，譬如救濟人卻用火去燒深水。因為這個緣故，兩種觀點都有過失。 問：佛是一切智人，為什麼不回答十四難呢？ 答：如來出世，本來是爲了拔除眾生的老病死苦。如果回答十四難，則會增加眾生的煩惱結縛，所以不回答。 問：有始無始兩種觀點都有過失，為什麼十八空（十八種空性）內有無始空，不明說有始空呢？ 答：龍樹菩薩說：有始無始都是邪見，而佛多破斥有始，闡明無始。現在說無始尚且是空，何況有始？所以只說無始空，就知道有始也是空。《智度論》說明有始無始雖然都是邪見，而佛多說無始，不應該說小乘明瞭。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Does birth and death definitely have a beginning, or is it without beginning? Answer: The views of internal and external schools differ. Externalists believe that primordial chaos (the initial chaotic state of the universe) and Ishvara (God) are the root of all things and the beginning of all dharmas, calling it the 'original limit' (fundamental boundary). Some externalists exhaustively investigate the boundaries of all dharmas but cannot find them, so they say the world is boundless, called 'without original limit' (no fundamental boundary). Lao Tzu said: 'Nameless, the beginning of all things; named, the mother of all things.' This also implies a beginning. Within Buddhism, those of the Hinayana only explain that birth and death have an end, which is in Nirvana without remainder (a state of complete extinction), and do not speak of the initial boundary of the root of birth and death, called 'without original limit'. Question: Why is this so? Answer: The Buddha said that birth and death are long and distant, and the original limit is unknowable, causing Hinayana practitioners to deeply loathe (birth and death), so he does not clearly state the beginning, so that they quickly extinguish afflictions and enter Nirvana without remainder early, so he clearly states the end of birth and death. Furthermore, the Theravada and Samghika schools also do not say that birth and death have a beginning. Mahayana practitioners say: If we speak generally of the six realms of reincarnation, we cannot speak of their beginning and end, not knowing which was born first, nor measuring which will be extinguished last, so there is no beginning or end. If we speak of an individual, then there is a beginning and an end, beginning with the initial thought of ignorance (delusion), arising dependent on emptiness, and ultimately cutting off the five abodes of affliction (five fundamental afflictions), accomplishing the Dharmakaya (the true body of the Buddha). Question: How to refute the view of having a beginning? Answer: If birth and death have a beginning, then the world has a boundary; if it is without beginning, then it is without boundary. Are having a boundary and not having a boundary the fourteen unanswerable questions? Both Hinayana and Mahayana scriptures state that the Buddha does not answer. For this reason, one should not be fixated on having a beginning or not having a beginning. Furthermore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says: If one refutes having a beginning and still speaks of not having a beginning, it is like helping someone by using fire to burn deep water. For this reason, both views have faults. Question: The Buddha is an omniscient being, why does he not answer the fourteen unanswerable questions? Answer: The Tathagata appeared in the world originally to remove the suffering of old age, sickness, and death from sentient beings. If he were to answer the fourteen unanswerable questions, it would increase the afflictions and bonds of sentient beings, so he does not answer. Question: Both views of having a beginning and not having a beginning have faults, why is there 'emptiness of no beginning' within the eighteen emptinesses (eighteen kinds of emptiness), and not clearly stating 'emptiness of having a beginning'? Answer: Nagarjuna said: Both having a beginning and not having a beginning are wrong views, but the Buddha mostly refutes having a beginning and elucidates not having a beginning. Now, saying that not having a beginning is still empty, how much more so is having a beginning? Therefore, only saying 'emptiness of no beginning' makes it known that having a beginning is also empty. The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra explains that although both having a beginning and not having a beginning are wrong views, the Buddha mostly speaks of not having a beginning, one should not say that the Hinayana understands.
無始大乘明有始。問涅槃云。十地菩薩見終不見始諸佛如來見始見終。云何言大乘不說生死始終耶。答涅槃經雖有此言亦不分明辨生死之始。河西道朗對曇無讖翻涅槃經釋此語。但據十二因緣明其始終。無明細故未觀其始。老死粗故以鑒其終佛則粗細俱明。則始終並見。問本住與本際何異。答本住是人名。本際為法秤。又本際都是人法始起處也。品開為二。前問次答。問有二意。初引經。次問論主。問品稱破本際。云何乃引無本際經。答有二義。一云外人初立有本際。佛說無本際經破之。以不受此言故問論主。二者外人疑于佛經言無本際。云何既說有生及以死應有本際。今申經無本際破外人謂有本際。故云破本際品也。是中說有眾生有生死第二外人引佛經難論主經說有眾生者有人也有生死者。有法也。以何因緣而作是說者。疑經有眾生有生死何故無本際。二難論主上品末呵責之言。經既說有人法。何得呵云計有人法不得佛法味耶。若見有人法不得佛法味者。何因緣故經說有八法耶。答曰。為二。初破無生死本際。第二末後兩偈例破無一切法本際。初為二。一破無生死始終中間。是故於此中下。第二破無生死。就初又二。前偈明無始終。次半偈辨無中間。上半明無始。下半辨無終。此則是申佛經明無始。以破外人計生死
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無始大乘表明有開始。問：在《涅槃經》中說，十地菩薩只能見到終點而見不到起點，諸佛如來則能見到起點和終點。為什麼又說大乘不說生死的始終呢？答：雖然《涅槃經》中有這樣的話，但並沒有明確分辨生死的開始。河西道朗在翻譯曇無讖的《涅槃經》時解釋這句話，只是根據十二因緣來說明生死的始終。因為無明細微，所以沒有觀察到它的開始；因為老死粗顯，所以能夠看到它的終點。佛則對粗細都明瞭，所以始終都能見到。問：本住和本際有什麼不同？答：本住是人的名稱，本際是衡量法的標準。而且本際是所有人和法開始的地方。這一品分為兩部分，先是提問，然後是回答。問題包含兩層意思，首先是引用經文，其次是質問論主。問：這一品名為『破本際』，為什麼卻引用『無本際』的經文？答：有兩種解釋。一是外道首先立論說有本際，佛說『無本際』的經文來破斥它。因為不接受這種說法，所以質問論主。二是外道懷疑佛經說『無本際』，既然說了有生和死，就應該有本際。現在闡述經文『無本際』是爲了破斥外道所說的『有本際』，所以說是『破本際品』。這裡說有眾生，有生死。第二，外道引用佛經來為難論主：經文說有眾生，這是指人；說有生死，這是指法。因為什麼緣故這樣說呢？這是懷疑經文既然說有眾生有生死，為什麼又說沒有本際。第二是為難論主在上品末尾的呵責之言。經文既然說了有人法，為什麼呵責說執著有人法就不能得到佛法的真味呢？如果認為見到有人法就不能得到佛法的真味，那麼因為什麼緣故經文又說了有八法呢？答：分為兩部分。首先破斥沒有生死的本際，第二，最後兩句偈語類比破斥沒有一切法的本際。首先分為兩部分，一是破斥沒有生死的始終中間，所以在此處以下；第二是破斥沒有生死。就第一部分又分為兩部分，前面的偈語說明沒有始終，後面的半句偈語辨析沒有中間。上半部分說明沒有開始，下半部分辨析沒有終結。這則是闡述佛經，說明沒有開始，以此來破斥外道執著于生死。
【English Translation】 English version The beginningless Mahayana clarifies that there is a beginning. Question: The Nirvana Sutra says that Bodhisattvas of the Tenth Ground see the end but not the beginning, while Buddhas and Tathagatas see both the beginning and the end. Why then is it said that the Mahayana does not speak of the beginning and end of birth and death? Answer: Although the Nirvana Sutra contains these words, it does not clearly distinguish the beginning of birth and death. Dao Lang of Hexi, when translating the Nirvana Sutra of Dharmakshema, explained this statement by referring to the Twelve Nidanas to clarify its beginning and end. Because ignorance is subtle, its beginning is not observed; because old age and death are coarse, its end can be seen. The Buddha is clear about both the subtle and the coarse, so he sees both the beginning and the end. Question: What is the difference between 'original abode' (本住) and 'original limit' (本際)? Answer: 'Original abode' is the name of a person, while 'original limit' is a standard for measuring the Dharma. Moreover, the 'original limit' is the place where all people and dharmas begin. This chapter is divided into two parts: first the questions, then the answers. The questions contain two meanings: first, quoting the sutras; second, questioning the author of the treatise. Question: This chapter is named 'Refuting the Original Limit,' so why quote the sutra of 'No Original Limit'? Answer: There are two explanations. First, the outsiders initially established the theory that there is an original limit, and the Buddha spoke the sutra of 'No Original Limit' to refute it. Because they do not accept this statement, they question the author of the treatise. Second, the outsiders doubt that the Buddhist scriptures say 'No Original Limit.' Since it is said that there is birth and death, there should be an original limit. Now, clarifying the sutra 'No Original Limit' is to refute the outsiders' claim that there is an original limit, so it is called the 'Refuting the Original Limit' chapter. Here it says that there are sentient beings, there is birth and death. Second, the outsiders quote the Buddhist scriptures to challenge the author of the treatise: the scriptures say that there are sentient beings, which refers to people; it says that there is birth and death, which refers to dharma. For what reason is this said? This is doubting that since the scriptures say that there are sentient beings and birth and death, why is it said that there is no original limit. The second is to challenge the author of the treatise's rebuke at the end of the previous chapter. Since the scriptures speak of people and dharma, why rebuke that clinging to people and dharma cannot obtain the true taste of the Buddha's Dharma? If it is thought that seeing people and dharma cannot obtain the true taste of the Buddha's Dharma, then for what reason do the scriptures say that there are eight dharmas? Answer: It is divided into two parts. First, refuting the original limit of no birth and death; second, the last two verses analogously refute the original limit of no all dharmas. First, it is divided into two parts: first, refuting the beginning, end, and middle of no birth and death, so from here below; second, refuting no birth and death. The first part is further divided into two parts: the preceding verses explain that there is no beginning and end, and the following half-verse distinguishes that there is no middle. The first half explains that there is no beginning, and the second half distinguishes that there is no end. This is to expound the Buddhist scriptures, clarifying that there is no beginning, thereby refuting the outsiders' clinging to birth and death.
有始。即是破本際。問小乘人亦言生死無始。破于有始與論主何異。答論主解說無始有四意。一者小乘人言有生死長遠始不可知。論主申佛意。佛經說無始者非是有生死長遠故無始。明生死始不可得。即是生死無有根本。二者佛意明無始者。即是兩舍明其無始者。辨其無有始非謂有無始。故始與無始五句不行。即令悟入實相。三者佛經明無始即無有終。亦無中間。如樹無根亦無枝葉。以無始及中間故無生死。亦無終故無涅槃。即顯六道本不生。今不滅不生死不涅槃。而大小乘人不解此意。四者復得說生死長遠。令大小乘起厭離勤習觀行斷諸煩惱也。問云。何是始終。答大乘人云。無明初品為生死之始。金剛心為生死之終。然復有生死之始。是涅槃之終。涅槃之始為生死之終。生死之終為大涅槃之始。涅槃之始為生死之終。生死之始為涅槃之終者。據迷情辨之。載起一念有所得心則是生死之始。而正觀不現故是涅槃終。若得一念正觀則是涅槃之始為生死之終。今總問之。為待終故言始為不待耶。若待終為始者。無明初念未有金剛心。何所待耶。若初念有金剛心則始終便並。云何成始終耶。又金剛心無復無明初品。何所待耶。若有初品則無金剛心。令誰待耶。是故當知無有始終也。第二半偈破中間易知。即是破中義。本對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有始，即是破本際（根本的實際）。問：小乘人也說生死無始，這和論主的破于有始有什麼不同？答：論主解釋無始有四種含義。一者，小乘人說有生死長遠，起始不可知。論主闡述佛意，佛經說無始，並非因為有生死長遠所以無始，而是說明生死之始不可得，即是生死沒有根本。二者，佛意說明無始，即是兩舍（舍有、舍無），說明其無始，辨明其沒有始，並非說有無始，所以始與無始五句不行，即使人悟入實相。三者，佛經說明無始即沒有終，也沒有中間，如樹沒有根也沒有枝葉。因為沒有始及中間，所以沒有生死，也沒有終，所以沒有涅槃。即顯示六道本來不生，現在不滅，不生死不涅槃。而大小乘人不理解這個意思。四者，又可以說生死長遠，令大小乘生起厭離心，勤奮修習觀行，斷除各種煩惱。 問：什麼是始終？答：大乘人說，無明初品（最初的無明）為生死之始，金剛心（堅固的心）為生死之終。然而又有生死之始，是涅槃之終。涅槃之始為生死之終，生死之終為大涅槃之始。涅槃之始為生死之終，生死之始為涅槃之終，這是根據迷惑的情感來辨別的。才生起一念有所得心，這就是生死之始，而正觀（正確的觀察）不顯現，所以是涅槃終。如果得到一念正觀，這就是涅槃之始，為生死之終。現在總的來問，是等待終才說始，還是不等待？如果等待終為始，那麼無明初念還沒有金剛心，等待什麼呢？如果初念有金剛心，那麼始終就並存了，怎麼能成為始終呢？又，金剛心沒有無明初品，等待什麼呢？如果有初品，就沒有金剛心，讓誰等待呢？所以應當知道沒有始終。第二半偈破中間容易理解，即是破中義，本對（原本相對）。
【English Translation】 English version Having a beginning is to break the original reality (the fundamental reality). Question: The Hinayana (Small Vehicle) also says that birth and death have no beginning. What is the difference between this and the treatise master's refutation of having a beginning? Answer: The treatise master explains 'no beginning' in four ways. First, the Hinayana says that birth and death are long and distant, and the beginning cannot be known. The treatise master elaborates on the Buddha's intention. The Buddha's sutras say 'no beginning' not because birth and death are long and distant, but to clarify that the beginning of birth and death cannot be obtained, meaning that birth and death have no root. Second, the Buddha's intention in explaining 'no beginning' is to abandon both existence and non-existence, clarifying that it has no beginning, and distinguishing that it does not mean having a 'no beginning.' Therefore, the five statements of 'beginning' and 'no beginning' do not apply, allowing people to awaken to the true reality. Third, the Buddha's sutras explain that 'no beginning' means there is no end and no middle, like a tree without roots, branches, or leaves. Because there is no beginning or middle, there is no birth and death, and because there is no end, there is no Nirvana. This reveals that the six realms are originally unborn, now unextinguished, neither birth nor death, neither Nirvana nor non-Nirvana. However, the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Hinayana do not understand this meaning. Fourth, it can also be said that birth and death are long and distant, causing the Mahayana and Hinayana to develop aversion, diligently practice contemplation, and cut off all afflictions. Question: What is the beginning and the end? Answer: The Mahayana says that the first moment of ignorance (Avidya) is the beginning of birth and death, and the diamond mind (Vajra citta) is the end of birth and death. However, there is also a beginning of birth and death, which is the end of Nirvana. The beginning of Nirvana is the end of birth and death, and the end of birth and death is the beginning of Great Nirvana. The beginning of Nirvana is the end of birth and death, and the beginning of birth and death is the end of Nirvana. This is distinguished based on deluded emotions. The moment a thought of attainment arises, this is the beginning of birth and death, and because correct observation (right view) does not appear, it is the end of Nirvana. If one obtains a moment of correct observation, this is the beginning of Nirvana, which is the end of birth and death. Now, to ask generally, does the beginning wait for the end, or does it not wait? If the beginning waits for the end, then the first moment of ignorance does not yet have the diamond mind, so what does it wait for? If the first moment has the diamond mind, then the beginning and the end coexist, so how can it be the beginning and the end? Furthermore, the diamond mind does not have the first moment of ignorance, so what does it wait for? If there is a first moment, then there is no diamond mind, so who is waiting? Therefore, it should be known that there is no beginning or end. The second half of the verse, breaking the middle, is easy to understand, which is breaking the meaning of the middle, originally relative.
偏病。是故有中。若無二邊何中可得。如是生死涅槃真之與妄義皆例然。然佛直唱無始一言。約今論文乃破四執。既言無始即破始也。二既言無始。始無故言無始。非謂有無始。即破無始見。三者既始無而無始亦無。即無終破於終見。四者二分既無。亦無中間往來。破中間見。既破四見即令人悟入實相。得解脫生死也。龍樹申佛說無始意。如此而今大小乘學人並不識佛說無始意。豈可與論主諍耶。像法決疑經云。末世法師如文取義。違背實相即其事也。是故於此中下第二段破生死。所以破生死凡有二意。一總釋無始終中間義。若有生死可有始終中間。竟無生死何有始終。二正為釋無中間義。涅槃經云。生死本際凡有二種。一者無明。二者有愛。是二中間則有生老病死。故今三門求生死不得。釋無中間也。就文為三。初半偈總標三種無。次釋三無。后結三無呵外說有也。次三偈釋三無為二。初二偈釋生死非前後義。次一偈釋生死非一時義。初偈破前生后死。上半牒。下半破。問云何為生死。答就四有明義。一本有。二死有。三中有。四生有。本有者百年之陰也。死有一剎那死陰也。中有者中陰也。生有者一剎那受正生也。二就十二因緣明生死者。識支一剎那為生。第二剎那便屬老死也。識支是實生。坐草初出胎是世俗生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 偏頗之病。因此才有所謂的『中』。如果不存在『二邊』，又從何處得到『中』呢？像這樣，生死、涅槃、真與妄的意義都可以以此類推。然而，佛陀只是說了『無始』一詞，根據現在的論文來看，這是爲了破除四種執見。既然說了『無始』，就是破除了『始』的觀念。其次，既然說了『無始』，『始』不存在，所以才說『無始』，並非說存在一個『無始』，這就破除了『無始見』。第三，既然『始』不存在，『無始』也不存在，這就破除了『終見』。第四，既然兩端都不存在，也就沒有中間的往來，這就破除了『中間見』。破除了這四種見解，就能使人領悟實相，得到解脫生死。龍樹菩薩闡述佛陀所說『無始』的用意，就是這樣。而現在大小乘的學人都不理解佛陀說『無始』的用意，怎麼能與論主爭辯呢？《像法決疑經》說，末世的法師按照字面意思理解經文，違背了實相，說的就是這種情況。因此，在這段文字中，第二段破除生死。之所以要破除生死，總共有兩種用意：一是總的解釋無始終中間的意義。如果存在生死，才會有始終中間。既然沒有生死，又哪裡來的始終呢？二是正是爲了解釋無中間的意義。《涅槃經》說，生死的根本在於兩種：一是無明（ignorance），二是有愛（craving）。在這兩者之間，就有了生老病死。所以現在從三個方面尋求生死而不可得，這就是解釋無中間。從文義上來看，分為三部分。前半偈總標三種『無』，其次解釋三種『無』，最後總結三種『無』，呵斥外道說『有』。接下來的三偈解釋三種『無』，分為兩部分。最初的兩偈解釋生死並非前後關係，最後一偈解釋生死並非一時關係。最初的偈頌破除先生后死的觀念。上半部分是牒，下半部分是破。問：什麼是生死？答：就四有（four types of existence）來說明其意義。一是本有（bhava，existence），二是死有（maraṇa-bhava，death existence），三是中有（antarābhava，intermediate existence），四是生有（upapatti-bhava，birth existence）。本有，指的是百年的陰影。死有，指的是一剎那的死亡陰影。中有，指的是中陰身。生有，指的是一剎那接受真正的生命。二是從十二因緣（twelve links of dependent origination）來說明生死，識支（consciousness）的一剎那為生，第二剎那就屬於老死了。識支是真實的生，坐草初出胎是世俗的生。
【English Translation】 English version The sickness of partiality. Therefore, there is a 'middle'. If there are no 'two extremes', how can one obtain the 'middle'? In this way, the meanings of birth and death, Nirvana, truth and falsehood, can all be inferred. However, the Buddha only uttered the word 'without beginning'. According to the current treatise, this is to refute four attachments. Since it is said 'without beginning', it refutes the concept of 'beginning'. Secondly, since it is said 'without beginning', and 'beginning' does not exist, therefore it is said 'without beginning', not that there is a 'without beginning', which refutes the 'view of without beginning'. Thirdly, since 'beginning' does not exist, and 'without beginning' also does not exist, this refutes the 'view of end'. Fourthly, since both ends do not exist, there is also no coming and going in the middle, which refutes the 'view of middle'. Refuting these four views enables people to realize the true nature and attain liberation from birth and death. Nāgārjuna (菩薩name) explains the Buddha's intention of saying 'without beginning' in this way. But now, scholars of both Mahayana and Hinayana do not understand the Buddha's intention of saying 'without beginning', how can they argue with the author of the treatise? The Sutra of Resolving Doubts in the Semblance Dharma says that Dharma masters in the degenerate age take the meaning literally, violating the true nature, which is the case. Therefore, in this passage, the second section refutes birth and death. There are two intentions for refuting birth and death: one is to generally explain the meaning of without beginning, end, or middle. If there is birth and death, there will be beginning, end, and middle. Since there is no birth and death, where does the beginning, end, and middle come from? The second is precisely to explain the meaning of without middle. The Nirvana Sutra says that the root of birth and death lies in two things: one is ignorance (avidyā), and the other is craving (tṛṣṇā). Between these two, there is birth, old age, sickness, and death. Therefore, now seeking birth and death from three aspects and not obtaining them is to explain without middle. From the perspective of the text, it is divided into three parts. The first half of the verse generally states the three 'withouts', then explains the three 'withouts', and finally concludes the three 'withouts', rebuking the heretics for saying 'existence'. The following three verses explain the three 'withouts', divided into two parts. The first two verses explain that birth and death are not before and after, and the last verse explains that birth and death are not at the same time. The first verse refutes the concept of first birth and then death. The first half is a restatement, and the second half is a refutation. Question: What is birth and death? Answer: Explain its meaning in terms of the four existences. First, existence (bhava), second, death existence (maraṇa-bhava), third, intermediate existence (antarābhava), and fourth, birth existence (upapatti-bhava). Existence refers to the shadow of a hundred years. Death existence refers to the shadow of death in an instant. Intermediate existence refers to the intermediate being. Birth existence refers to accepting true life in an instant. Secondly, explaining birth and death from the twelve links of dependent origination, the instant of consciousness (vijñāna) is birth, and the second instant belongs to old age and death. Consciousness is the real birth, and the initial emergence from the womb is the conventional birth.
。所以初破前生后死者。蓋是物之常理。如成實者云。無明初念托空而起。此但是生。爾前未有死。涅槃經云。功德天喻生。生秤為姊故生在前。黑闇女譬死。死喻于妹死在後故也。不老死有生者。法應先老死而後生。今不老死云何有生耶。不生有老死者。若老死不因生有亦此生之後應無老死。又得是並。若不老死而有于生。亦應不生而有老死也。次偈上半牒。下半破。初句明無因者。生是死因故也。第二句直呵之。既本來不生何有老死。第三偈破一時。上半牒而總非。下半作無因果義。無因有二。一無兩法可以為因。如生時有死。死時于生則無生可為死因。死亦爾。此是理奪明無因。二縱生死。一時並如牛二角不相因。長行具二無因。初文是兩無為無因。從若一時下縱有明有不須相因也。若使初后共下。第三一偈結三無。而呵外謂有。上半結無。下半呵有。問大小乘經俱明有生老死。論主何故呵之耶。答論主申佛意。佛意說生老死者。如三相品。諸賢聖欲止其顛倒。故說。語言雖同其心則異。佛是不言有生死故生死。令其因生死悟不生死。而惑者封執定有生死。故不識佛意所以呵之。複次下第二兩偈例破諸法。為二。初偈引法。次偈破法。破法二意。一明無始終中間。二例不得前後一時也。人謂因前果后。既未有果
前是誰因。人前法后等亦作此破也。
中觀論疏卷第六(末畢) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第七(本)
釋吉藏撰
苦品第十二
上云無生死及無本際。外云。經言生死是苦涅槃為樂。今既有苦即有生死。若有生死必有始終中間也。二者明如來初生即唱三界皆苦。故知此說是佛教之原。今既有斯教。即知有苦。有苦故則有生死。若無生死者佛說何物苦耶。三者原論主所以破者。必欲拔眾生苦與眾生樂故耳。若不欲拔苦與樂何事破耶。既欲拔眾生苦。苦即是生死。不應言無眾生及以生死。四者欲釋諸大乘甚深要觀如大品云。色非常非無常非苦非樂。又如凈名云。五受陰洞達空無所起是名苦義。菩薩解苦無苦。是故無苦而有真諦。故說此品。五者欲拔眾生苦與眾生樂故說此品。若實見有苦則不可離苦。良由解苦無苦方能離苦。問云何名苦耶。答釋迦一化略有三門。初明一苦。次明三苦。后明八苦。言一苦者佛初生墮地即行七步。一手指天一手指地而說偈言。天上天下唯我為尊。三界皆苦何可樂者。此即一苦教也。問云何名一苦耶。答一云三界皆有苦受故皆是苦苦。成論云。三界皆有苦受但重輕為異耳。二云三界皆一行苦成。以行苦故一切皆苦。三
【現代漢語翻譯】 前是誰因。人前法后等亦作此破也。
中觀論疏卷第六(末畢) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第七(本)
釋吉藏撰
苦品第十二
上文說沒有生死，也沒有本際（根本的邊際）。外道說：『經典上說生死是苦，涅槃是樂。現在既然有苦，就有生死。如果有生死，必定有始終中間。』 第二，說明如來（Tathagata）初生就唱言三界（Trialoka）皆苦。所以知道這是佛教的起源。現在既然有這樣的教說，就知道有苦。有苦，所以有生死。如果沒有生死，佛說的是什麼苦呢？ 第三，探究論主（指龍樹菩薩，Nagarjuna）之所以破斥，必定是想要拔除眾生的苦，給予眾生快樂。如果不想要拔苦與樂，為什麼要破斥呢？既然想要拔除眾生苦，苦就是生死，不應該說沒有眾生以及生死。 第四，想要解釋諸大乘（Mahayana）甚深重要的觀法，如《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）所說：『色（Rupa）非常非無常，非苦非樂。』又如《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）所說：『五受陰（Panca Skandha）洞達空無所起，是名苦義。』菩薩（Bodhisattva）理解苦無苦，所以無苦而有真諦（Paramartha）。所以說此品。 第五，想要拔除眾生苦，給予眾生快樂，所以說此品。如果真實見到有苦，則不可離苦。正因為理解苦無苦，才能離苦。問：『什麼叫做苦呢？』答：釋迦（Sakyamuni）一生的教化，略有三門。初明一苦，次明三苦，后明八苦。說一苦，是佛初生墮地，即行七步，一手指天，一手指地，而說偈言：『天上天下唯我為尊，三界皆苦何可樂者。』這就是一苦教。 問：『什麼叫做一苦呢？』答：一說三界都有苦受，所以都是苦苦（Duhkha-duhkha）。《成實論》（Satyasiddhi Shastra）說：『三界都有苦受，只是輕重不同罷了。』二說三界都是一行苦（Samkhara-duhkha）成就。因為行苦的緣故，一切都是苦。三
【English Translation】 What was the cause before? The refutations made against 'before people, after Dharma,' etc., are also done in this way.
Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Scroll 6 (Incomplete) Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 42, No. 1824, Commentary on the Middle Treatise
Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Scroll 7 (Beginning)
Composed by Jizang
Chapter 12: On Suffering
The previous text said there is no birth and death, and no original limit (ultimate boundary). An outsider says: 'The sutras say that birth and death are suffering, and Nirvana is bliss. Now that there is suffering, there is birth and death. If there is birth and death, there must be a beginning, an end, and a middle.' Second, it is explained that when the Tathagata (如來) was first born, he proclaimed that all three realms (Trialoka 三界) are suffering. Therefore, it is known that this is the origin of Buddhism. Now that there is such a teaching, it is known that there is suffering. Because there is suffering, there is birth and death. If there is no birth and death, what suffering is the Buddha speaking of? Third, the reason why the author of the treatise (referring to Nagarjuna 龍樹菩薩) refutes is certainly to remove the suffering of sentient beings and give them happiness. If one does not want to remove suffering and give happiness, why refute? Since one wants to remove the suffering of sentient beings, and suffering is birth and death, one should not say that there are no sentient beings and no birth and death. Fourth, one wants to explain the profound and essential contemplations of the Mahayana (大乘), such as the Prajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) which says: 'Form (Rupa 色) is neither permanent nor impermanent, neither suffering nor bliss.' Also, as the Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩詰經) says: 'Penetrating the emptiness of the five aggregates of perception (Panca Skandha 五受陰) without arising is called the meaning of suffering.' A Bodhisattva (菩薩) understands that suffering is without suffering, so there is no suffering but there is ultimate truth (Paramartha 真諦). Therefore, this chapter is spoken. Fifth, one wants to remove the suffering of sentient beings and give them happiness, so this chapter is spoken. If one truly sees that there is suffering, then one cannot be free from suffering. It is precisely because one understands that suffering is without suffering that one can be free from suffering. Question: 'What is called suffering?' Answer: Sakyamuni's (釋迦) teachings in his lifetime can be roughly divided into three categories. First, he explains one suffering; second, he explains three sufferings; and third, he explains eight sufferings. Speaking of one suffering, when the Buddha was first born and fell to the ground, he immediately took seven steps, pointing one finger to the sky and one finger to the earth, and said in a verse: 'Above and below the heavens, I alone am the honored one. All three realms are suffering, what can be enjoyed?' This is the teaching of one suffering. Question: 'What is called one suffering?' Answer: First, it is said that all three realms have the experience of suffering, so they are all suffering of suffering (Duhkha-duhkha 苦苦). The Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論) says: 'All three realms have the experience of suffering, but the severity is different.' Second, it is said that all three realms are accomplished by the suffering of conditioning (Samkhara-duhkha 行苦). Because of the suffering of conditioning, everything is suffering. Third,
云總說眾苦名為一苦。故法華云。三界無安猶如火宅。常有生老病死憂患。以三界同有此患名為一苦。眾事分阿毗曇欲界名苦苦。色界名壞苦。無色界有行苦。以三界具於三苦故云三界皆苦也。問何故爾耶。答依毗曇義。欲界有苦受故云苦苦。色界無苦受但有樂受。而樂受壞時生苦名為壞苦。無色界無復形質壞義不顯。但為無常遷役。故云行苦。此一苦教也。次說三苦者。有二種三苦。一僧佉人明苦如百論疏出。二涅槃經云。苦受者名為苦苦。餘二受者壞苦行苦。諸師穿鑿異論紛紜。竟未有知其門者。今僅依俱舍論三藏所說。言苦受生時苦住時苦滅時樂。以苦受生住二時皆苦。故與苦苦之名。樂受生時樂住時樂唯果報壞時苦。是故樂受名為壞苦。舍受生住壞三時苦義並皆不彰。但為無常所遷。是故舍受稱為行苦。成論師云。隨地判者三塗是苦受為苦苦。人天至三禪是樂受為壞苦。四禪至悲想非非想為舍受。是行苦。隨義判者一一地具三苦。但上二界三苦輕。地獄苦重耳。智度論云。上界死苦甚於人間。故知上界亦有苦受。不同數人上界並無苦受。若見親緣發樂受。若睹怨憎起苦受。非怨非親生舍受。此三緣發三受也。如寒遇火為樂。轉近燒則苦受。二中間為舍受。但一火緣具生三受。次八苦教者。十月處於胎獄備受煮
【現代漢語翻譯】 云總說眾苦名為一苦。因此，《法華經》中說：『三界無安，猶如火宅，常有生老病死憂患。』因為三界都有這些苦患，所以稱為一苦。根據《眾事分阿毗曇》，欲界稱為苦苦（dukha-dukkhata，苦上加苦），色界名壞苦（viparinama-dukkhata，變壞之苦），無色界有行苦（sankhara-dukkhata，行蘊之苦）。因為三界都具備這三種苦，所以說三界皆苦。問：為什麼會這樣呢？答：根據《阿毗曇》的解釋，欲界有苦受，所以稱為苦苦。色界沒有苦受，只有樂受，但樂受壞滅時會產生苦，所以稱為壞苦。無色界沒有形質壞滅的意義，不明顯，只是因為無常遷流，所以稱為行苦。這是關於一苦的教義。 接下來講述三苦。有二種三苦的說法：一是僧佉派所說的苦，如《百論疏》中所述；二是《涅槃經》所說，苦受稱為苦苦，其餘二受（樂受和舍受）分別為壞苦和行苦。諸位法師的穿鑿附會，異論紛紛，最終也沒有人真正瞭解其中的門道。現在僅依據《俱舍論》三藏所說：苦受生起時是苦，住留時是苦，滅去時是樂，因為苦受的生起和住留兩個階段都是苦，所以稱為苦苦。樂受生起時是樂，住留時是樂，只有在果報壞滅時才是苦，因此樂受稱為壞苦。舍受在生起、住留和壞滅三個階段，苦的意義都不明顯，只是被無常所遷流，所以舍受稱為行苦。成實論師認為，按照所處的境界來判斷，三塗（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）是苦受，為苦苦；人天至三禪是樂受，為壞苦；四禪至非想非非想處是舍受，為行苦。按照意義來判斷，每一地都具備三種苦，只是上二界的三苦較輕，地獄的苦較重。《智度論》說，上界的死亡之苦比人間更甚，由此可知上界也有苦受，不同於數論派認為上界沒有苦受的觀點。如果見到親近的人而產生樂受，如果看到怨恨的人而產生苦受，對於非怨非親的人則產生舍受。這三種因緣引發三種感受。比如寒冷時遇到火是樂受，轉而靠近被燒灼則是苦受，二者中間的狀態是舍受。只是一個火的因緣，就能產生三種感受。 接下來是八苦的教義：在母胎中十個月，備受煎煮
【English Translation】 Yun Zong (name of a Buddhist scholar) said that all sufferings are collectively called one suffering. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'The Three Realms are without peace, like a burning house, constantly having the anxieties of birth, old age, sickness, and death.' Because the Three Realms all have these sufferings, they are called one suffering. According to the Sangitisuttanta Abhidhamma, the Desire Realm is called dukha-dukkhata (suffering upon suffering), the Form Realm is called viparinama-dukkhata (suffering of change), and the Formless Realm has sankhara-dukkhata (suffering of conditioned existence). Because the Three Realms possess these three sufferings, it is said that all Three Realms are suffering. Question: Why is this so? Answer: According to the interpretation of the Abhidhamma, the Desire Realm has painful feelings, so it is called dukha-dukkhata. The Form Realm does not have painful feelings, only pleasant feelings, but when pleasant feelings are destroyed, suffering arises, so it is called viparinama-dukkhata. The Formless Realm does not have the meaning of physical destruction, which is not obvious, but it is subject to impermanent change, so it is called sankhara-dukkhata. This is the teaching about one suffering. Next, we discuss the three sufferings. There are two kinds of three sufferings: one is the suffering explained by the Samkhya school, as mentioned in the Shatashastra Commentary; the other is what the Nirvana Sutra says, that painful feeling is called dukha-dukkhata, and the other two feelings (pleasant feeling and neutral feeling) are respectively viparinama-dukkhata and sankhara-dukkhata. The interpretations of various teachers are speculative and diverse, and ultimately no one truly understands the key. Now, I will only rely on what the Tripitaka of the Abhidharmakosha says: when painful feeling arises, it is suffering; when it remains, it is suffering; when it ceases, it is pleasant. Because the arising and remaining stages of painful feeling are both suffering, it is called dukha-dukkhata. When pleasant feeling arises, it is pleasant; when it remains, it is pleasant; only when the karmic result is destroyed is it suffering, therefore pleasant feeling is called viparinama-dukkhata. The meaning of suffering is not obvious in the arising, remaining, and destruction stages of neutral feeling, but it is subject to impermanent change, so neutral feeling is called sankhara-dukkhata. The Chengshi school believes that, judging by the realm one is in, the three evil paths (hell, hungry ghosts, animals) are painful feelings, which are dukha-dukkhata; humans and gods up to the Third Dhyana are pleasant feelings, which are viparinama-dukkhata; the Fourth Dhyana to Neither Perception nor Non-Perception is neutral feeling, which is sankhara-dukkhata. Judging by meaning, each realm possesses the three sufferings, but the three sufferings of the upper two realms are lighter, and the sufferings of the lower realms are heavier. The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says that the suffering of death in the upper realms is even greater than in the human realm, from which it can be known that there are also painful feelings in the upper realms, which is different from the view of the Samkhya school that there are no painful feelings in the upper realms. If one sees close relatives and generates pleasant feeling, if one sees enemies and generates painful feeling, and for those who are neither enemies nor relatives, neutral feeling arises. These three conditions give rise to three feelings. For example, encountering fire when cold is pleasant feeling, but being burned when getting too close is painful feeling, and the state in between is neutral feeling. Just one condition of fire can produce three feelings. Next is the teaching of the eight sufferings: Being in the womb for ten months, enduring all kinds of cooking
燒。初生之時冷風觸身與地獄無異。名為生苦。法華經云。發白而面皺齒疏形枯竭。念其死不久名為老苦。一大不調百一病。總四大乖反四百四病稱為病苦。夫死者天下之極悲也。刀風解形身離神逝名為死苦。父東子西兄南弟北名愛別離苦。所不愛者而共聚會名怨憎會苦。所覓之事而不遂心名求不得苦。有斯五陰眾苦熾盛名五盛陰苦。又此五陰盛貯眾苦名五盛陰苦。問八苦云何攝三苦。答涅槃云。生具五種則生中具含三苦。老病死細論具三苦。粗判有行壞二苦。死與愛別離是壞苦。怨憎會是苦苦。求不得有二。一求善法不得此壞苦。二惡法未離是苦苦。此招提釋也。若以俱舍論三苦釋之則可知。此八苦中以有苦受必具二苦。則知八苦皆具三苦。但解苦數論不同。數人言。色心等三聚皆苦。所以然者。一切有為之法皆欲樂住。今為無常切之。是故皆苦也。若成論云。唯心是苦。餘二聚無苦。而經說色皆苦者。此是苦具故名苦耳。數人雖云色心皆苦然有漏之法為無常切故苦。以無漏為無常切則順於涅槃故不苦也。成論明有漏無漏皆悉苦也。依後文外道明苦最狹。唯苦受是苦。問生死為有樂為無樂。答開善云。生死實是苦都無樂。但于苦法中橫生樂想言有樂耳。莊嚴云。生死中雖無實樂而有虛樂。虛樂者雜行苦故。取相感無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 燒。初生之時冷風觸身，與地獄無異，名為生苦（出生的痛苦）。《法華經》云：『發白而面皺，齒疏形枯竭，念其死不久』，名為老苦（衰老的痛苦）。一大不調，百一病生；總四大乖反，四百四病，稱為病苦（生病的痛苦）。夫死者，天下之極悲也。刀風解形，身離神逝，名為死苦（死亡的痛苦）。父東子西，兄南弟北，名愛別離苦（與所愛之人分離的痛苦）。所不愛者而共聚會，名怨憎會苦（與所憎恨之人相聚的痛苦）。所覓之事而不遂心，名求不得苦（求而不得的痛苦）。有斯五陰眾苦熾盛，名五盛陰苦（由五蘊熾盛而產生的痛苦）。又此五陰盛貯眾苦，名五盛陰苦。 問：八苦云何攝三苦？ 答：《涅槃經》云：生具五種，則生中具含三苦。老病死細論具三苦，粗判有行壞二苦。死與愛別離是壞苦。怨憎會是苦苦。求不得有二：一求善法不得，此壞苦；二惡法未離，是苦苦。此招提釋也。若以《俱舍論》三苦釋之，則可知。此八苦中以有苦受必具二苦。則知八苦皆具三苦。但解苦數論不同。數人言：色心等三聚皆苦。所以然者，一切有為之法皆欲樂住，今為無常切之。是故皆苦也。若成論云：唯心是苦。餘二聚無苦。而經說色皆苦者，此是苦具故名苦耳。數人雖云色心皆苦，然有漏之法為無常切故苦。以無漏為無常切則順於涅槃故不苦也。成論明有漏無漏皆悉苦也。依後文外道明苦最狹。唯苦受是苦。 問：生死為有樂為無樂？ 答：開善云：生死實是苦，都無樂。但于苦法中橫生樂想，言有樂耳。莊嚴云：生死中雖無實樂而有虛樂。虛樂者，雜行苦故，取相感無。
【English Translation】 English version Burning. The cold wind touching the body at the time of birth is no different from hell, called the suffering of birth (Sheng Ku). The Lotus Sutra says: 'Hair turns white and face wrinkles, teeth become sparse and form withers, thinking that death is not far away', called the suffering of old age (Lao Ku). When one of the four elements is out of balance, hundreds of diseases arise; when the four elements are in disharmony, four hundred and four diseases are called the suffering of illness (Bing Ku). Death is the ultimate sorrow in the world. The wind of the sword dismembers the body, the body separates and the spirit departs, called the suffering of death (Si Ku). Father east, son west, elder brother south, younger brother north, called the suffering of separation from loved ones (Ai Bie Li Ku). Gathering together with those who are not loved is called the suffering of meeting with those who are hated (Yuan Zeng Hui Ku). Not getting what one seeks is called the suffering of not getting what one wants (Qiu Bu De Ku). With the five skandhas (Wuyin) and all sufferings blazing, it is called the suffering of the five aggregates (Wu Sheng Yin Ku). Furthermore, these five skandhas store all sufferings, called the suffering of the five aggregates. Question: How do the eight sufferings encompass the three sufferings? Answer: The Nirvana Sutra says: Birth has five aspects, thus birth contains the three sufferings. Old age, sickness, and death, when discussed in detail, contain the three sufferings; roughly speaking, there are the two sufferings of formation and decay. Death and separation from loved ones are the suffering of decay. Meeting with those who are hated is the suffering of suffering. Not getting what one wants has two aspects: first, not getting good Dharma, this is the suffering of decay; second, not being free from evil Dharma, this is the suffering of suffering. This is the explanation of Zhaoti. If explained by the three sufferings of the Abhidharma-kosa, then it can be understood. Among these eight sufferings, having painful feelings necessarily includes two sufferings. Thus, it is known that the eight sufferings all include the three sufferings. However, the explanations of the number of sufferings differ. Some say that the three aggregates of form, mind, etc., are all suffering. The reason is that all conditioned dharmas desire to abide in pleasure, but now they are cut off by impermanence. Therefore, they are all suffering. If the Chengshi school says: Only the mind is suffering. The other two aggregates have no suffering. But if the sutras say that form is all suffering, this is because it is a cause of suffering, hence it is called suffering. Although some say that form and mind are all suffering, the defiled dharmas are suffering because they are cut off by impermanence. If the undefiled is cut off by impermanence, then it accords with Nirvana, hence it is not suffering. The Chengshi school clarifies that both defiled and undefiled are all suffering. According to the following text, the heretics explain suffering in the narrowest sense. Only painful feelings are suffering. Question: Is there pleasure or no pleasure in birth and death? Answer: Kaishan says: Birth and death are truly suffering, there is no pleasure at all. But in the midst of suffering dharmas, people falsely generate the thought of pleasure, saying there is pleasure. Zhuangyan says: Although there is no real pleasure in birth and death, there is false pleasure. False pleasure is due to mixed actions and suffering, taking on appearances without feeling.
常。善則感樂。今以取相善感樂故樂是虛也。然二師明樂雖異同言生死有實苦也。俱舍論云。生死有樂但樂少苦多。故云皆苦耳。迦旃延用此義。婆沙四十二卷問云。陰中有樂不。若有者何故不說樂耶。若無者云何佛說三受。答應作是說。陰中有樂。但樂少故。如毒瓶一渧蜜墮中。不以一渧蜜故說為蜜瓶。以毒多故說為毒瓶。又解。實無有樂故但說苦諦。而說有三受者。受重苦時望輕苦為樂耳。如受地獄苦望畜生苦為樂。此二師與開善莊嚴異。開善莊嚴諍虛樂有無耳。今諍實有樂實無樂也。今言破者。物之大患莫過於苦。九十六術皆競求離不達其因生四種謬。五百異部雖識苦因未窮其本封執定性。則苦果不息更造苦因。今欲示其因緣之苦無有定性。令苦果得息不起苦因。故云觀苦品。此品十偈開為三章。初一偈總非四計。第二八偈釋破四計。第三一偈例破諸法。初偈上半牒。下半總非。但釋四計凡有二種。一計人四。二計法四。人四者外道四計。一云苦自作還是身內之我作此苦。二云大自在天造作六道之苦名為他作。三云劫初之時先有一男一女生一切眾生。即是共作。四云自然有此苦果名無因作。二者世俗人云。我自作罪我自受苦。又云。我不起過他人以苦加我名為他作。三云由我起過故他加我苦。名為共作。四云不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 常。如果行善就會感受到快樂。現在因為執著于表象而感受到快樂，所以這種快樂是虛假的。然而，兩位論師所闡明的快樂，雖然有所不同，但都認為生死是真實存在的痛苦。在《俱舍論》中說，生死中有快樂，但快樂少而痛苦多，所以才說一切皆是苦。迦旃延（Kātyāyana）使用了這個觀點。《婆沙論》第四十二卷中問道：『陰（skandha）中是否有快樂？如果有，為什麼不說快樂呢？如果沒有，佛陀所說的三種感受（三受）又是什麼呢？』回答應該是這樣：陰中有快樂，但快樂很少。就像一個毒瓶里掉進了一滴蜂蜜，不能因為這一滴蜂蜜就說它是蜜瓶，因為毒藥更多，所以說是毒瓶。』另一種解釋是：實際上沒有快樂，所以只說苦諦（duhkha satya）。而說有三種感受，是因為感受重大的痛苦時，會覺得輕微的痛苦是快樂。比如，在地獄中受苦，會覺得做畜生是快樂的。』這兩位論師與開善（Kāishàn）和莊嚴（Zhuāngyán）的觀點不同。開善和莊嚴爭論的是虛假的快樂是否存在，而現在爭論的是真實存在快樂還是真實不存在快樂。現在說要破除這些觀點，是因為萬物最大的禍患莫過於痛苦。九十六種外道都競相尋求脫離痛苦，卻不明白痛苦的根源，產生了四種謬誤。五百個不同的部派雖然認識到痛苦的根源，卻沒有窮盡其根本，固執地認為痛苦是固定不變的，那麼痛苦的結果就不會停止，反而會製造更多的痛苦原因。現在想要揭示這種因緣所生的痛苦是沒有固定不變的自性的，使痛苦的結果得以止息，不再產生痛苦的原因，所以說是『觀苦品』。這一品十個偈頌分為三個章節。第一個偈頌總的否定四種計較，第二八個偈頌解釋並破除四種計較，第三一個偈頌類比破除諸法。第一個偈頌前半部分是陳述，後半部分是總的否定。但解釋四種計較有兩種，一種是計較人有四種，一種是計較法有四種。計較人有四種，指的是外道的四種計較。第一種認為痛苦是自己造成的，還是身體內的『我』（ātman）造成的。第二種認為大自在天（Maheśvara）創造了六道（six realms）的痛苦，稱為他作。第三種認為在劫初的時候，先有一個男人和一個女人，他們生出一切眾生，這就是共作。第四種認為自然而然地有這種苦果，稱為無因作。第二種是世俗人認為，我自作罪，我自受苦。又說，我不犯錯，他人把痛苦加於我，這稱為他作。第三種認為，由於我犯錯，所以他人把痛苦加於我，這稱為共作。第四種認為，不 English version Constancy. Goodness brings the sensation of pleasure. Now, because of clinging to appearances, pleasure is felt, therefore this pleasure is false. However, the pleasure elucidated by the two teachers, although different, both agree that birth and death are real suffering. The Kośa states, 'In birth and death, there is pleasure, but pleasure is little and suffering is much, therefore it is said that all is suffering.' Kātyāyana (Kātyāyana) uses this view. Vibhāṣā, volume 42, asks, 'Is there pleasure in the skandhas (skandha)? If there is, why is pleasure not mentioned? If there is not, what are the three sensations (three feelings) that the Buddha speaks of?' The answer should be: 'There is pleasure in the skandhas, but pleasure is little. It is like a drop of honey falling into a bottle of poison; one cannot call it a honey bottle because of one drop of honey, because there is more poison, it is called a poison bottle.' Another explanation is: 'In reality, there is no pleasure, so only the duhkha satya (truth of suffering) is spoken of. The reason for saying there are three sensations is that when experiencing great suffering, one considers slight suffering as pleasure. For example, suffering in hell is considered pleasure compared to being an animal.' These two teachers differ from Kāishàn (Kāishàn) and Zhuāngyán (Zhuāngyán). Kāishàn and Zhuāngyán argue about whether false pleasure exists, while the current debate is whether real pleasure exists or real pleasure does not exist. Now, to say that these views are to be refuted is because the greatest affliction of all things is suffering. The ninety-six non-Buddhist schools all strive to escape suffering, but do not understand the root cause of suffering, giving rise to four errors. The five hundred different schools, although recognizing the root cause of suffering, have not exhausted its fundamental nature, stubbornly clinging to the fixed nature of suffering, then the result of suffering will not cease, but will create more causes of suffering. Now, the intention is to reveal that the suffering arising from these conditions has no fixed self-nature, so that the result of suffering can cease and no longer give rise to the cause of suffering, therefore it is called 'Contemplation of Suffering'. This chapter of ten verses is divided into three sections. The first verse generally negates the four calculations, the second eight verses explain and refute the four calculations, and the third verse analogously refutes all dharmas. The first verse, the first half is a statement, the second half is a general negation. But there are two kinds of explanations of the four calculations, one is to calculate that there are four kinds of people, and the other is to calculate that there are four kinds of dharmas. Calculating that there are four kinds of people refers to the four calculations of non-Buddhists. The first is that suffering is self-made, or is it made by the 'self' (ātman) within the body. The second is that Maheśvara (Maheśvara) created the suffering of the six realms (six realms), called 'other-made'. The third is that at the beginning of the kalpa, there was first a man and a woman, who gave birth to all beings, which is 'jointly made'. The fourth is that this suffering result naturally exists, called 'uncaused'. The second is that ordinary people think, 'I make my own sins, I suffer my own suffering.' It is also said, 'I do not commit mistakes, others inflict suffering on me,' this is called 'other-made'. The third is that because I commit mistakes, others inflict suffering on me, this is called 'jointly made'. The fourth is that not
【English Translation】 Constancy. Goodness brings the sensation of pleasure. Now, because of clinging to appearances, pleasure is felt, therefore this pleasure is false. However, the pleasure elucidated by the two teachers, although different, both agree that birth and death are real suffering. The Kośa states, 'In birth and death, there is pleasure, but pleasure is little and suffering is much, therefore it is said that all is suffering.' Kātyāyana (Kātyāyana) uses this view. Vibhāṣā, volume 42, asks, 'Is there pleasure in the skandhas (skandha)? If there is, why is pleasure not mentioned? If there is not, what are the three sensations (three feelings) that the Buddha speaks of?' The answer should be: 'There is pleasure in the skandhas, but pleasure is little. It is like a drop of honey falling into a bottle of poison; one cannot call it a honey bottle because of one drop of honey, because there is more poison, it is called a poison bottle.' Another explanation is: 'In reality, there is no pleasure, so only the duhkha satya (truth of suffering) is spoken of. The reason for saying there are three sensations is that when experiencing great suffering, one considers slight suffering as pleasure. For example, suffering in hell is considered pleasure compared to being an animal.' These two teachers differ from Kāishàn (Kāishàn) and Zhuāngyán (Zhuāngyán). Kāishàn and Zhuāngyán argue about whether false pleasure exists, while the current debate is whether real pleasure exists or real pleasure does not exist. Now, to say that these views are to be refuted is because the greatest affliction of all things is suffering. The ninety-six non-Buddhist schools all strive to escape suffering, but do not understand the root cause of suffering, giving rise to four errors. The five hundred different schools, although recognizing the root cause of suffering, have not exhausted its fundamental nature, stubbornly clinging to the fixed nature of suffering, then the result of suffering will not cease, but will create more causes of suffering. Now, the intention is to reveal that the suffering arising from these conditions has no fixed self-nature, so that the result of suffering can cease and no longer give rise to the cause of suffering, therefore it is called 'Contemplation of Suffering'. This chapter of ten verses is divided into three sections. The first verse generally negates the four calculations, the second eight verses explain and refute the four calculations, and the third verse analogously refutes all dharmas. The first verse, the first half is a statement, the second half is a general negation. But there are two kinds of explanations of the four calculations, one is to calculate that there are four kinds of people, and the other is to calculate that there are four kinds of dharmas. Calculating that there are four kinds of people refers to the four calculations of non-Buddhists. The first is that suffering is self-made, or is it made by the 'self' (ātman) within the body. The second is that Maheśvara (Maheśvara) created the suffering of the six realms (six realms), called 'other-made'. The third is that at the beginning of the kalpa, there was first a man and a woman, who gave birth to all beings, which is 'jointly made'. The fourth is that this suffering result naturally exists, called 'uncaused'. The second is that ordinary people think, 'I make my own sins, I suffer my own suffering.' It is also said, 'I do not commit mistakes, others inflict suffering on me,' this is called 'other-made'. The third is that because I commit mistakes, others inflict suffering on me, this is called 'jointly made'. The fourth is that not
覺自他所作而苦無端生。名無因作法。四者有言。五陰苦自體從自體生自體。如從火性生火事為自作。有言。五陰苦從前五陰生名他作苦。有言。共作從前五陰後有自體。故是名共作。無明初念托空而起。是無因作。下半云。于果皆不然者。四作為因果即是苦。法華經云。諸苦所因貪慾為本。今觀苦從緣生則無自性。便入實相斷于貪慾。故諸苦不生。問為無苦果故於果不然。為乖苦果故不然耶。答具二義。一者上四句不識苦果故云不然。二者論主正因緣生苦。因緣生苦即寂滅性。故明無苦。具此二也。次八偈釋破為二。初七偈釋不自不他。次一偈釋不共不無因。七偈為三。初兩偈明法不自他。次三偈明人不自他。第三兩偈結人法不自他。兩偈為二。初偈明法不自作。次偈明法不他作。初偈云。苦若自作則失因緣義。下半釋云。此五陰從前五陰生。云何名自作。若自作應自生。第二偈云。若言從前五陰生后五陰。名他作者。不然前五陰是因。后五陰是果。因果豈得言他。故非他作。若言是他則非因果義也。問曰自作者是人下。此三偈明人不自他。三偈為二。初偈明人不自。次兩偈明人不他。前二偈破法通破數論。今不破數。以數不計人故。但破外道成論異部明人作。此中三偈大意甚易。直明陰外無人誰自作誰他作耶。若
陰外有人可許此人自作他人作耳。問陰外無人可言不自他作。若許即陰為人得有自他作不。答若許即陰為人者。此猶是陰耳。上已破陰不自他竟。故不須破即陰自他。若苦他人作。此二偈破他人作。兩偈為二。初偈明陰外無人誰受苦耶。第二偈明陰外無人誰授苦耶。複次自作若不成此下。二偈結破自他。初偈結人不自他。次偈結法不自他。初偈上半就相待門。下半就相即門。相待門者待自故有他。自既不成他亦不成也。相即者他於他即是自。複次苦不名自作。此明法不自他。上半破自。下半破他。法不自作法者。舉例。如刀不自割眼不自見。苦豈自作耶。下半明彼無自體者。彼于彼即是自。若有彼之自體可言彼。既無彼自體豈有彼作耶。問曰下此生第二段一偈。破共作及無因作易見也。複次非但說于苦者。此是品第三一偈例破余法也。此偈不破數人苦義。數人明有漏五陰是苦。若破苦竟即有漏法盡也。今外山木等皆有漏。故今為成論人明唯心是苦色及無作非苦。成實師有二釋。一云識想二心未有苦。至受方有苦。次云識想二心已有苦。但判受陰在第三耳。而二師同明色無作非是苦但是苦具耳。外道人唯苦受是苦。樂受等非苦。此二人明苦既狹。是故破苦竟。更須例破余非苦法也。
行品第十三
三義故生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『陰』（skandha，蘊）之外是否有人可以允許這種『自作』（self-caused）或『他作』（other-caused）的說法呢？如果『陰』之外沒有人，那麼可以說既非『自作』也非『他作』嗎？如果允許『陰』之外有人，那麼『陰』成為人，難道可以有『自作』或『他作』嗎？回答：如果允許『陰』成為人，那麼這仍然是『陰』。上面已經破斥了『陰』既非『自作』也非『他作』的觀點，所以不需要再破斥『即陰自他』（self-and-other-caused in the skandhas）的觀點。如果認為是他人所作，那麼下面這兩偈是用來破斥『他人作』的。兩偈分為兩部分：第一偈說明『陰』之外沒有人，誰來承受痛苦呢？第二偈說明『陰』之外沒有人，誰來施加痛苦呢？ 進一步說，如果『自作』不能成立，那麼下面的兩偈總結性地破斥『自作』和『他作』。第一偈總結性地說明人既非『自作』也非『他作』，第二偈總結性地說明法既非『自作』也非『他作』。第一偈的上半部分是從相待門（relational perspective）來說的，下半部分是從相即門（non-dual perspective）來說的。相待門是指因為有『自』所以有『他』，既然『自』不能成立，那麼『他』也不能成立。相即門是指『他』在『他』之中就是『自』。 進一步說，『苦』（duhkha，痛苦）不能稱為『自作』。這說明法既非『自作』也非『他作』。上半部分破斥『自作』，下半部分破斥『他作』。法不是自己產生的，法是舉例說明，比如刀不能自己割，眼不能自己看，痛苦怎麼能自己產生呢？下半部分說明『彼』（that）沒有自體，『彼』在『彼』之中就是『自』。如果存在『彼』的自體，就可以說『彼』，既然沒有『彼』的自體，怎麼會有『彼』的產生呢？問：下面這一偈是第二段，破斥『共作』（both-caused）和『無因作』（uncaused），這很容易理解。 進一步說，不僅僅是說對於受苦者而言。這是品第三的一偈，用來舉例說明破斥其餘的非法（non-dhamma）。這偈並沒有破斥數論派（Samkhya）關於苦的意義。數論派認為有漏的五陰（five skandhas with outflows）是苦。如果破斥了苦，那麼有漏法就都盡了。現在外面的山木等都是有漏的，所以現在爲了成就論者，說明唯有心是苦，色（rupa，色法）及無作（non-action）不是苦。成實師（Satyasiddhi school）有兩種解釋：一種說法是識（vijnana，意識）、想（samjna，想蘊）這兩種心還沒有苦，到受（vedana，感受）才有苦。另一種說法是識、想這兩種心已經有苦，只是判定受陰在第三位。而這兩位論師都認為色和無作不是苦，只是苦的工具而已。外道（non-Buddhist）認為只有苦受是苦，樂受（pleasant feeling）等不是苦。這兩種人認為苦的範圍太狹窄了，所以破斥了苦之後，還需要舉例說明破斥其餘的非苦法。 行品第十三 三義故生
【English Translation】 English version Is there anyone outside the 『skandhas』 (aggregates) who can allow the assertion of 『self-caused』 (svayamkrta) or 『other-caused』 (parakrta)? If there is no one outside the skandhas, can it be said that it is neither 『self-caused』 nor 『other-caused』? If it is allowed that there is someone outside the skandhas, then the skandhas become a person; can there be 『self-caused』 or 『other-caused』? Answer: If it is allowed that the skandhas become a person, then this is still the skandhas. The above has already refuted the view that the skandhas are neither 『self-caused』 nor 『other-caused』, so there is no need to further refute the view of 『self-and-other-caused in the skandhas』. If it is thought to be caused by others, then these two verses below are used to refute 『other-caused』. The two verses are divided into two parts: the first verse explains that if there is no one outside the skandhas, who will bear the suffering? The second verse explains that if there is no one outside the skandhas, who will inflict the suffering? Furthermore, if 『self-caused』 cannot be established, then the following two verses conclusively refute 『self-caused』 and 『other-caused』. The first verse conclusively states that a person is neither 『self-caused』 nor 『other-caused』; the second verse conclusively states that a dharma (phenomenon) is neither 『self-caused』 nor 『other-caused』. The first half of the first verse is from the relational perspective (sāpekṣa-dvāra), and the second half is from the non-dual perspective (abheda-dvāra). The relational perspective refers to the fact that because there is 『self』, there is 『other』; since 『self』 cannot be established, then 『other』 cannot be established either. The non-dual perspective refers to the fact that 『other』 in 『other』 is 『self』. Furthermore, 『suffering』 (duhkha) cannot be called 『self-caused』. This explains that a dharma is neither 『self-caused』 nor 『other-caused』. The first half refutes 『self-caused』, and the second half refutes 『other-caused』. A dharma is not self-produced; a dharma is illustrated by examples, such as a knife cannot cut itself, and an eye cannot see itself. How can suffering arise by itself? The second half explains that 『that』 (tat) has no self-nature; 『that』 in 『that』 is 『self』. If there exists the self-nature of 『that』, then 『that』 can be spoken of; since there is no self-nature of 『that』, how can there be the arising of 『that』? Question: The following verse is the second section, refuting 『both-caused』 (ubhayakrta) and 『uncaused』 (adhetu), which is easy to understand. Furthermore, it is not just about those who suffer. This is a verse from the third chapter, used to illustrate the refutation of other non-dharmas. This verse does not refute the Samkhya school's meaning of suffering. The Samkhya school believes that the five skandhas with outflows (sāsrava-pañcaskandha) are suffering. If suffering is refuted, then all dharmas with outflows will be exhausted. Now, the external mountains, trees, etc., are all with outflows, so now, in order to establish the proponents, it is explained that only the mind is suffering, and form (rupa) and non-action (akriya) are not suffering. The Satyasiddhi school has two explanations: one explanation is that the two minds of consciousness (vijnana) and perception (samjna) do not yet have suffering; suffering only arises with feeling (vedana). The other explanation is that the two minds of consciousness and perception already have suffering, but feeling is judged to be in the third position. And these two teachers both believe that form and non-action are not suffering, but only instruments of suffering. Non-Buddhists believe that only painful feeling is suffering, and pleasant feeling, etc., are not suffering. These two types of people believe that the scope of suffering is too narrow, so after refuting suffering, it is necessary to illustrate the refutation of other non-suffering dharmas. Chapter 13 on Action ( 行品第十三 ) Arising from three meanings ( 三義故生 )
。一者上觀苦即破于果。今破行謂空其因。以眾生起於三行感三界果。如起罪行報生三途。若起福行生彼人天。作不動行生色無色界。以是義故知行是因也。二者釋上苦義。有為之法所以苦者。良由流動起作生滅所遷。是故為苦。今既有生滅之行當知有苦。三者自因緣品已來破實有人法。今此品洗其虛妄人法。外執云。實人實法乃不可得。虛妄人法斯事不無。以對生死虛妄人法故有出世真實人法也。問行但是因亦通果耶。答具有二義。若以流動起作唸唸不停以釋行義。則一切有為莫問因果並秤為行。是故經云。諸行無常是生滅法也。二者善惡等因將人常行生死故名為行。問此品云諸行名五陰。為是因行為是果行。答五陰名行具有二義。一者五陰從業行所生故名為行。二者即此五陰生滅起作故名為行。問十二因緣行支五陰內行陰此有何異。答十二因緣行支但是因行。五陰中行陰具有二義。一者行陰起作善惡之因名為行。二者除四陰以外一切有為法。皆攝在行陰中。故名為行。如雜心云。有為法多故一行陰非余。問觀行與業品何異。答業品但破其因。此章通觀流動之行。是故異也。復有三種行。出入息為身行。覺觀為口行。受為意行。通言行者凡有四種。一修習名行。則萬行善法是也。二造作名行。通善惡三性。三無常起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一者，向上觀察苦，即是破除果報。現在破除『行』，是指空掉產生果報的『因』。因為眾生髮起三種『行』，感得三界果報。例如，造作罪惡之『行』，報應是生於三惡道；如果發起福善之『行』，則會生於人道或天道；如果修作不動之『行』，則會生於色界或無色界。因為這個緣故，可知『行』是『因』。 二者，解釋上面所說的『苦』的含義。有為法之所以是苦，是因為它流動、生起、造作、生滅變化。因此是苦。現在既然有生滅之『行』，應當知道有苦。 三者，自從《因緣品》以來，都是在破除真實的人和法。現在這一品洗滌虛妄的人和法。外道執著說：真實的人和法不可得，但虛妄的人和法並非不存在。因為有對應生死的虛妄人法，所以才有出世的真實人法。 問：『行』只是『因』，還是也通於『果』呢？ 答：兼具兩種含義。如果用流動、生起、造作、唸唸不停來解釋『行』的含義，那麼一切有為法，無論因果，都可以稱為『行』。所以經中說：『諸行無常，是生滅法』。 第二種含義是，善惡等『因』，將人牽引，常常在生死中流轉，所以稱為『行』。 問：這一品說『諸行』就是『五陰』，是指作為『因』的『行』，還是作為『果』的『行』呢？ 答：『五陰』稱為『行』，兼具兩種含義。一是『五陰』是從業『行』所生，所以稱為『行』。二是『五陰』本身就是生滅起作的，所以稱為『行』。 問：十二因緣中的『行』支，和『五陰』中的『行陰』，有什麼不同呢？ 答：十二因緣中的『行』支，只是作為『因』的『行』。而『五陰』中的『行陰』，兼具兩種含義。一是『行陰』是生起善惡之『因』，稱為『行』。二是除了色、受、想、識四陰以外，一切有為法，都包含在『行陰』中，所以稱為『行』。如《雜心論》所說：有為法很多，所以一個『行陰』就包含了其餘的。 問：觀察『行』和《業品》有什麼不同？ 答：《業品》只是破除『因』，這一章則普遍觀察流動之『行』，所以不同。 還有三種『行』：出入息為身行，覺觀為口行，受為意行。 總的來說，『行』有四種含義：一是修習，稱為『行』，那麼萬種善法都是『行』。二是造作，稱為『行』，包括善惡無記三性。三是無常起滅，稱為『行』。
【English Translation】 English version Firstly, observing suffering upwards means breaking the result (of karma). Now, breaking 'deeds' (行, xíng) means emptying their cause. Because sentient beings initiate three kinds of 'deeds', they experience the results of the three realms. For example, committing sinful 'deeds' leads to rebirth in the three lower realms. If one initiates meritorious 'deeds', one will be born in the realms of humans or gods. Performing unwavering 'deeds' leads to rebirth in the Form Realm (色界, Sèjiè) or Formless Realm (無色界, Wúsèjiè). Therefore, it is known that 'deeds' are the cause. Secondly, explaining the meaning of 'suffering' mentioned above. The reason why conditioned dharmas (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) are suffering is because they are constantly flowing, arising, creating, and subject to birth and death. Therefore, they are suffering. Now that there are 'deeds' subject to birth and death, it should be known that there is suffering. Thirdly, since the chapter on 'Conditions' (因緣品, Yīnyuán pǐn), the text has been refuting the existence of real persons and dharmas. This chapter now washes away the false persons and dharmas. Externalists insist: real persons and dharmas are unattainable, but false persons and dharmas are not non-existent. Because there are false persons and dharmas corresponding to birth and death, there are also real persons and dharmas that transcend the world. Question: Are 'deeds' only a cause, or do they also extend to being a result? Answer: They have both meanings. If the meaning of 'deeds' is explained as flowing, arising, creating, and constantly changing from moment to moment, then all conditioned dharmas, whether cause or result, can be called 'deeds'. Therefore, the sutra says: 'All deeds are impermanent, they are dharmas of birth and death'. The second meaning is that good and evil causes lead people to constantly wander in birth and death, so they are called 'deeds'. Question: This chapter says that 'all deeds' are the 'five aggregates' (五陰, wǔyīn). Does this refer to 'deeds' as a cause or 'deeds' as a result? Answer: The 'five aggregates' being called 'deeds' has two meanings. Firstly, the 'five aggregates' are born from karmic 'deeds', so they are called 'deeds'. Secondly, the 'five aggregates' themselves are subject to birth, death, arising, and creation, so they are called 'deeds'. Question: What is the difference between the 'deeds' branch in the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (十二因緣, Shí'èr yīnyuán) and the 'deeds aggregate' (行陰, xíngyīn) in the 'five aggregates'? Answer: The 'deeds' branch in the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination is only 'deeds' as a cause. The 'deeds aggregate' in the 'five aggregates' has two meanings. Firstly, the 'deeds aggregate' is the cause of arising good and evil, called 'deeds'. Secondly, all conditioned dharmas other than the four aggregates of form, feeling, perception, and consciousness are included in the 'deeds aggregate', so they are called 'deeds'. As the Miscellaneous Abhidharma Heart Treatise (雜心論, Zāxīn lùn) says: There are many conditioned dharmas, so one 'deeds aggregate' includes the rest. Question: What is the difference between observing 'deeds' and the chapter on 'Karma' (業品, Yè pǐn)? Answer: The chapter on 'Karma' only refutes the cause, while this chapter universally observes the flowing 'deeds', so they are different. There are also three kinds of 'deeds': inhalation and exhalation are bodily deeds, initial thought and sustained thought are verbal deeds, and feeling is mental deeds. Generally speaking, 'deeds' have four meanings: Firstly, practice is called 'deeds', so all kinds of virtuous dharmas are 'deeds'. Secondly, creation is called 'deeds', including the three natures of good, evil, and neutral. Thirdly, impermanent arising and ceasing is called 'deeds'.
作秤行。通因果三聚三性等。四行緣名行。但是心用。問有階級次第不耶。答影師云。行有三階。思是真行身口為次。以思正能造故名行。身口由思能起作業。名之為次。余有為法二因緣名行。一從行生。二當體生滅所遷。是其末事故名為行。今品通觀一切行不可得。故云觀行品。開品三段。初破外人有虛妄人法。第二破外人執有空義。第三段空有非空非有一切皆破。就初有四。一立二破三救四破救。就初立義中又二。上半引經下半立義。問虛誑與妄取何異。答虛誑約境妄取據情。所見者不實名為虛誑。十八部內有二部。初名一說部。謂生死涅槃同是假名不實故名一說。從大眾部出也。二出世部明世間法從虛妄因生是故不實。出世間法不從虛妄因生名為真實。若據即時人義約四諦論之。苦集是虛妄因果故名虛妄。道為實因滅為實果非是虛妄。若為無為分者。三諦未勉有為故是虛妄。滅諦無為非虛妄也。又舊地論師以七識為虛妄八識為真實。攝大乘師以八識為妄九識為真實。又云八識有二義。一妄二真。有解性義是真。有果報識是妄用。起信論生滅無生滅合作梨耶體。楞伽經亦有二文。一云梨耶是如來藏。二云如來藏非阿梨耶。此一品正是破地論人義。不破數論等。數論等不明有為人法皆是妄謂所有也。下半立義如文。
答曰下第二論主破。兩偈為二。初偈釋經對其上半。第二破立對其下半。初偈申經者。明佛為破實有人法之見故明無有實。但是虛妄相謂有耳。此意在無實不在有虛。汝云何不領無實反存有虛耶。若言有一豪可取者則道理是有。云何為虛妄。以其名為虛妄故無一豪可取。既無一豪可取是則為空。然本對妄有真。在妄既無。寧有真實。即時攝大乘師等亦聞妄即作妄解。如釋地持八妄義等。今詳論主申佛說虛妄有四意。一者破計有實人法病故說妄。生死中無有實人法但是妄耳。二者如十地師等。聞妄作妄解。乃無有實人法而有虛妄人法。論主申佛意云。既言虛誑何所有耶。佛說此者欲示空。三者佛說虛誑既不存空。四者非但不存空有亦不存非空有。一切無所依得令悟實相。今聞妄作妄解。但得妄言耳。不解妄意。佛說苦亦有四意。一破樂。二不存苦。三不存空有。四一切無依。長行為三。一略釋偈二廣釋三總結。初如文。諸行名五陰下。第二廣釋偈本。就文為二。第一明諸行空即作二諦觀。次明得益。初又二。前總明所觀之行空。次別觀行空。總中四義故空。一虛誑故空。此明境無實。二妄取故空。此心不實。此二依名釋是空。次一不住故空。若有住則有物無住則無物故空。四無自體。無自體故空。后兩約義故空。初如文
。何以故第二別觀五陰行空即為五別。就觀色陰空為二。一正破二總結破。正破為二。初就無常門破。次就一異門破。無常破有二。前就粗無常門破。以十時改變故無定性。故知色空。如色唸唸不住下。第二細無常門破。所以就無常義破者。無常是入空之初門破病之要術也。明論主解無常與他異。他明無常無有于常而有無常。故是有物不空。論主明無常者無有于常。即是無物。所以空也。又有物暫住可言暫有。以不住故則無。是故空也。嬰兒色為即是下第二就一異門破。又開五別。一破。二救。三破救。四重救。五重破。就初為四。初定開。二俱有過下第二總標有過。何以故下第三作難。是故二俱有過下第四總結。作難之中前破一。次破異。大意為言。若老少是一則墮常過。老少若異則墮斷過。常則應恒是少遂無有老。無老亦無少。斷則失於父子乖世俗法。問何故次無常後有一異破耶。答有二義。一者外人云。雖具粗細二種無常終有色陰。是故今明。一異求色不得則無色陰。二者無常門破通大小乘。小乘亦言。色是無常而有。無常之色不空。是故今明。一異求色不得。前舉無常門破色。明色非是常。今就一異門破色。明色非無常。破色是常破外道義。破色無常破小乘義。故般若云。色非常非無常。如是習者與波若相應
。問色一異破誰義耶。答一破僧佉義異破衛世義。又一門破色破轉變部即大眾部義。異門破色破上座部義也。問曰色雖不定下第二外人救義。救意云。色具二義。一念念生滅。二者相續。以唸唸滅無有一色及以常過。老少始終相續名為一色。故無有異及以斷過。豈失父子乖世俗法耶。成實師釋相續有二家。一接續。二補續。接續有三釋。一開善云。前念應滅不滅。后念起。續於前唸作假一義。故名為續。莊嚴云。轉前念為后念。詺作后念起續前耳。如想轉作受。故言受與想續。實無別受以續想也。次琰師云。想起懸與受作一義故云續耳。次補續假。是光宅用。舊云。莊嚴是卷荷假。開善燈擔假。光宅是水渧補續假。此中通是三家義。別正同開善前滅後生故不一。相續轉作故不異。答曰下第三破救。大意但問前念。前念若滅則有能續無所續。若無所亦無能。前念不滅后念不生。有所續無能續。無能亦無所。又前念不滅何須後續。又若前念滅還墮異斷。如其不滅終是一常。此破意于理已足。但成實者不受斯破云。目前念時有其兩力有應滅力有應轉力。應滅力自滅。應轉力自轉。故舉體滅舉體轉。今作三節破之。初問汝識乃有兩力。今想為續汝滅為續汝不滅。若滅何得論續耶。若續不滅者識既不滅。想何由得起來續識耶。次
【現代漢語翻譯】 問：用色的一和異來破斥誰的觀點呢？答：一破斥僧佉（Samkhya，數論派，主張二元論）的觀點，異破斥衛世（Vaisheshika，勝論派，主張實在論）的觀點。進一步說，從『一』的角度破斥色，破斥轉變部（一種佛教部派，主張諸法轉變）即大眾部（Mahasanghika，佛教部派名）的觀點；從『異』的角度破斥色，破斥上座部（Sthavira，佛教部派名）的觀點。問：色雖然不定，下面是第二段，外人試圖挽救他們的觀點。挽救的意思是說，色具有兩種含義：一是念念生滅，二是相續不斷。因爲念念生滅，所以沒有一個不變的色，以及常恒的狀態。老、少、始終相續，被稱為一個色，所以沒有差異以及斷滅的過失。這樣難道會失去父子相傳的世俗法則嗎？ 成實師（Satyasiddhi-sastra，成實論師）解釋相續有兩種方式：一是接續，二是補續。接續有三種解釋。一是開善（指開善寺）的觀點，認為前念應該滅卻但沒有滅，后念生起，接續於前念，作為一種假象的『一』，所以叫做『續』。莊嚴（指《莊嚴論》）的觀點認為，轉變前念為后念，稱作后念生起接續前念。例如，想轉變成為受，所以說受與想相續，實際上沒有別的受來接續想。二是琰師（指琰法師）的觀點，認為想懸掛著與受構成一個整體，所以叫做『續』。補續假象，是光宅（指光宅寺）所用的觀點。舊的說法是，莊嚴的觀點是卷荷的假象，開善的觀點是燈擔的假象，光宅的觀點是水滴補續的假象。這裡概括了三家的觀點。特別要說明的是，開善的觀點是前滅後生，所以不是『一』；相續轉變，所以不是『異』。 答：下面是第三段，破斥這種挽救。大意是隻問前念。前念如果滅了，那麼有能續的，卻沒有所續的；如果沒有所續的，也就沒有能續的。前念如果不滅，后念就不會生起；有所續的，卻沒有能續的；沒有能續的，也就沒有所續的。而且前念如果不滅，又何須後續呢？而且如果前念滅了，還是會墮入『異』和『斷』的境地；如果前念不滅，終究會是常恒不變的。這種破斥在道理上已經足夠了。但是成實論者不接受這種破斥，認為目前念存在時，有兩種力量：一種是應滅的力量，一種是應轉變的力量。應滅的力量自行滅去，應轉變的力量自行轉變。所以是整體滅去，整體轉變。現在分成三個部分來破斥它。首先問你，識才有兩種力量。現在想是續，你是滅還是不滅？如果滅了，怎麼能談得上續呢？如果續而不滅，識既然不滅，想又怎麼能生起來接續識呢？其次
【English Translation】 Question: Whose views are refuted by the 'one' and 'different' aspects of color (rupa)? Answer: 'One' refutes the views of Samkhya (Samkhya, a school of thought advocating dualism), and 'different' refutes the views of Vaisheshika (Vaisheshika, a school of thought advocating realism). Furthermore, from the perspective of 'one', color is refuted, refuting the views of the Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school advocating the transformation of all dharmas), namely the Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika, a Buddhist school). From the perspective of 'different', color is refuted, refuting the views of the Sthavira (Sthavira, a Buddhist school). Question: Although color is uncertain, the following is the second section, where outsiders attempt to salvage their views. The meaning of the salvage is that color has two meanings: first, momentary arising and ceasing; second, continuous succession. Because of momentary arising and ceasing, there is no unchanging color, nor a constant state. Old, young, and the beginning and end are continuously succeeding, which is called one color, so there is no fault of difference and annihilation. Would this lose the secular law of father and son succession? The Satyasiddhi-sastra (Satyasiddhi-sastra, Treatise on the Accomplishment of Truth) explains succession in two ways: one is continuation, and the other is supplementation. Continuation has three explanations. First, the view of Kaisan (referring to Kaisan Temple) believes that the previous thought should cease but does not cease, and the subsequent thought arises, continuing the previous thought, as a false 'one', so it is called 'succession'. The view of Zhuangyan (referring to the Treatise on Ornamentation) believes that the previous thought is transformed into the subsequent thought, called the subsequent thought arising to continue the previous thought. For example, thought transforms into feeling, so it is said that feeling and thought succeed each other, but in reality, there is no other feeling to succeed thought. Second, the view of Master Yan (referring to Dharma Master Yan) believes that thought hangs together with feeling to form a whole, so it is called 'succession'. The illusion of supplementary succession is the view used by Guangzhai (referring to Guangzhai Temple). The old saying is that Zhuangyan's view is the illusion of rolled lotus leaves, Kaisan's view is the illusion of carrying a lamp, and Guangzhai's view is the illusion of water droplets supplementing each other. This summarizes the views of the three schools. In particular, it should be noted that Kaisan's view is that the previous ceases and the subsequent arises, so it is not 'one'; continuous transformation, so it is not 'different'. Answer: The following is the third section, refuting this salvage. The general idea is to only ask about the previous thought. If the previous thought ceases, then there is the ability to continue, but there is nothing to continue; if there is nothing to continue, then there is no ability to continue. If the previous thought does not cease, the subsequent thought will not arise; there is something to continue, but there is no ability to continue; if there is no ability to continue, then there is nothing to continue. Moreover, if the previous thought does not cease, why is there a need for subsequent continuation? Moreover, if the previous thought ceases, it will still fall into the realm of 'difference' and 'annihilation'; if the previous thought does not cease, it will ultimately be constant and unchanging. This refutation is sufficient in principle. However, the Satyasiddhi masters do not accept this refutation, believing that when the previous thought exists, there are two forces: one is the force of ceasing, and the other is the force of transforming. The force of ceasing ceases by itself, and the force of transforming transforms by itself. Therefore, it is the whole ceasing and the whole transforming. Now, let's break it down into three parts to refute it. First, ask you, only consciousness has two forces. Now, is thought continuing, are you ceasing or not ceasing? If it ceases, how can you talk about continuing? If it continues without ceasing, since consciousness does not cease, how can thought arise to continue consciousness? Secondly,
問前一念識為是一體為是兩體。彼答只是一體。今問若只是一體者。有想既其轉者則將汝轉去。何得有滅。不爾滅力將滅去。那得有轉耶。其云轉者自轉滅者自滅。若爾者則有兩體便不相開。何得是一法耶。三者汝識想是兩法共續為一假。故假是有。今言識想是兩不滅法。相續成一不滅法不耶。若爾既假常在不滅也。問曰下第四重救。救意云。不說滅不滅則離上滅不滅二過。但前色不住故非常非一。復相似相續而生故非斷非異。無上過也。又不暫住故非不滅。能生相似故非滅。答曰下第五重破救。則有定色而更生者。觀此破意非是破補續義。若立補續義前色去後色補。則有二過。一者墮上無父子失。前子色去後子色來則非復前子。豈非失父子耶。二者復有墮千萬種色。一色去一色來豈不千萬。而今乃云則有定色而更生。向但云前色不住后相似生不住之色。此言猶濫。或可轉來現在。或可謝於過去。若轉來現在。豈非定色而更生耶。復言后相似生則有千萬種色。以前色不住則是定色更生。后相似生則有千萬種色。破前二句有此二文也。又既有千萬種色。即千萬身千萬種人。不名相續始終為一色一身一人也。如是一切處下第二總結。又開五別。一法說門結。如芭蕉下第二譬說門結。如是智者下第三重就法說門結。如燈炎下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：前一念的『識』（Vijñāna，了別作用）是一個整體還是兩個整體？對方回答說：只是一個整體。現在問：如果只是一個整體，有『想』（Saṃjñā，概念作用）在運轉，那麼就會把你（識）也一起帶走，怎麼會有滅（Nirodha，止息）呢？如果不是這樣，是滅的力量將你（識）滅去，那又怎麼會有運轉呢？他們說：運轉的是它自己運轉，滅的是它自己滅。如果是這樣，那麼就有兩個整體，便不互相連通，怎麼會是一個法（Dharma，佛法）呢？第三，你們的『識』和『想』是兩種法共同延續成為一個假象，所以這個假象是存在的。現在說『識』和『想』是兩種不滅的法，相續成為一個不滅的法，不是嗎？如果是這樣，那麼這個假象就永遠存在，不會滅亡了。 問：下面是第四重的救護（辯護），救護的意思是說：不說滅或不滅，就離開了上面滅或不滅的兩種過失。只是前一個『色』（Rūpa，物質）不住留，所以不是常也不是一；又相似地相續而生，所以不是斷也不是異，沒有上面的過失。又因為不暫時停住，所以不是不滅；能生出相似的，所以不是滅。 答：下面是第五重的破斥救護。那麼就有固定的『色』而再次產生。觀察這個破斥的意思，不是破斥補續的意義。如果立足於補續的意義，前一個『色』去了，后一個『色』來補充，那麼就有兩種過失。一是墮入上面沒有父子的過失，前一個兒子的『色』去了，后一個兒子的『色』來了，那就不是原來的兒子了，豈不是失去了父子關係嗎？二是又會墮入千萬種『色』的境地，一個『色』去了，一個『色』來了，豈不是有千萬種？而現在卻說有固定的『色』而再次產生。先前只是說前一個『色』不住留，后一個相似的生起不住留的『色』，這種說法仍然含糊不清。或許可以轉來現在，或許已經謝於過去。如果轉來現在，豈不是固定的『色』而再次產生嗎？又說后一個相似的生起，那麼就有千萬種『色』。因為前一個『色』不住留，就是固定的『色』再次產生；后一個相似的生起，那麼就有千萬種『色』。破斥前面兩句話就有這兩種說法。 又既然有千萬種『色』，就是千萬個身體，千萬種人，不能稱之為相續始終為一個『色』、一個身體、一個人。像這樣一切處，下面是第二重總結。又開出五種差別。一是法說門總結。如芭蕉，下面是第二重譬說門總結。如是智者，下面是第三重就法說門總結。如燈炎，下面是第四重譬說門總結。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Is the previous moment's 『Vijñāna』 (consciousness, the function of distinguishing) one entity or two entities? The other party answers: It is only one entity. Now I ask: If it is only one entity, and there is 『Saṃjñā』 (perception, the function of conceptualization) in operation, then it will take you (Vijñāna) away with it, how can there be 『Nirodha』 (cessation)? If it is not like this, and the power of cessation extinguishes you (Vijñāna), then how can there be operation? They say: What operates, operates by itself; what ceases, ceases by itself. If it is like this, then there are two entities, which are not interconnected, how can it be one Dharma (Buddhist teaching)? Third, your 『Vijñāna』 and 『Saṃjñā』 are two Dharmas that continue together to become a false appearance, so this false appearance exists. Now you say that 『Vijñāna』 and 『Saṃjñā』 are two non-ceasing Dharmas, continuing to become one non-ceasing Dharma, isn't it? If it is like this, then this false appearance will always exist and will not cease. Question: Below is the fourth level of defense (justification), the meaning of the defense is: By not speaking of cessation or non-cessation, one avoids the two faults of cessation or non-cessation mentioned above. It is just that the previous 『Rūpa』 (form, matter) does not stay, so it is neither permanent nor one; and it arises in a similar continuous manner, so it is neither discontinuous nor different, without the above faults. Also, because it does not stay temporarily, it is not non-ceasing; it can produce something similar, so it is not ceasing. Answer: Below is the fifth level of refuting the defense. Then there is a fixed 『Rūpa』 that arises again. Observing the meaning of this refutation, it is not refuting the meaning of replenishment and continuation. If one stands on the meaning of replenishment and continuation, where the previous 『Rūpa』 goes and the subsequent 『Rūpa』 comes to replenish, then there are two faults. First, one falls into the fault of not having a father and son, where the previous son's 『Rūpa』 goes and the subsequent son's 『Rūpa』 comes, then it is not the original son, wouldn't it be losing the father-son relationship? Second, one would fall into the realm of ten million kinds of 『Rūpa』, where one 『Rūpa』 goes and one 『Rūpa』 comes, wouldn't there be ten million kinds? But now it is said that there is a fixed 『Rūpa』 that arises again. Previously, it was only said that the previous 『Rūpa』 does not stay, and the subsequent similar arising 『Rūpa』 does not stay, this statement is still ambiguous. Perhaps it can turn to the present, or perhaps it has already faded into the past. If it turns to the present, wouldn't it be a fixed 『Rūpa』 that arises again? It is also said that the subsequent similar arising, then there are ten million kinds of 『Rūpa』. Because the previous 『Rūpa』 does not stay, it is a fixed 『Rūpa』 that arises again; the subsequent similar arising, then there are ten million kinds of 『Rūpa』. The refutation of the previous two sentences has these two statements. Moreover, since there are ten million kinds of 『Rūpa』, there are ten million bodies, ten million kinds of people, it cannot be called a continuous beginning and end as one 『Rūpa』, one body, one person. Like this in all places, below is the second summary. It also opens up five distinctions. First is the Dharma teaching summary. Like the banana tree, below is the second simile teaching summary. Like this, the wise one, below is the third Dharma teaching summary. Like the flame of a lamp, below is the fourth simile teaching summary.
第四重就譬喻門結。是故色無定性故空下第五總結也。世俗言說者此為釋疑故來。疑雲。若無色者經何故說耶。是故釋云。隨俗說耳。非實有也。問云。何為世俗言說有耶。答佛說虛誑妄取實無此物。但隨世俗人強作色名耳。問若爾世諦唯有名耶。答于俗人有名物。聖人亦無有名。隨俗作名耳。受亦如是下第二次明觀受陰。還應如上無常門一異門破相續門說也。但以覺故說三受在身者此約凡夫。有所覺知假違順等緣生於三受故說有受耳。想因名相生下第三次觀想陰。又開為三。一法說。如影下第二喻說。想亦如是下第三合喻。破想陰正就無自性門。前破色陰就無常門也。因名相生者。因善惡名取好醜相。又因耳聞名因眼取相。假緣而有。無性即空。識因色下第四次破識陰。就文為三。初作無自性門破。次就一異門破。是故當知下第三總結。初如文。但生以識塵下第二一異門破。識此人識為即識彼人識為異者。更開二關責之。若識此人識猶是識彼人識者。則始終一識墮于常過。若識此人識非識彼人識。則今日識此人明日便不識。以其無復昨日識故復墮斷滅。或言一或言異者。莎提比丘言。六道往還常是一識。僧佉言。覺諦是常亦是一識。薩婆多等明。前識滅后識生則是異識。成實具一異義。實法滅則是異識。相續轉變名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第四重以譬喻之門作總結。因此，『色無定性故空』是第五個總結。『世俗言說者』是爲了解釋疑惑而提出的。疑惑是：如果沒有色，經典為何要說色呢？因此解釋說：只是隨順世俗的說法罷了，並非真實存在。問：為什麼世俗言說有色呢？答：佛說這是虛假的、欺騙性的，強行認為實際上沒有的東西是存在的，只是隨順世俗之人強行安立『色』這個名稱罷了。問：如果這樣，世俗諦就只有名稱嗎？答：對於世俗之人來說，有名和事物，但對於聖人來說，既沒有名也沒有事物，只是隨順世俗而安立名稱罷了。『受亦如是』以下是第二次觀察受陰。仍然應該像上面那樣，用無常門、一異門、破相續門來解釋。『但以覺故說三受在身者』這是針對凡夫而言的。因為有所覺知，假借違背、順從等因緣而產生三種感受，所以說有受。『想因名相生』以下是第三次觀察想陰。又分為三部分。第一是法說。『如影下』是第二個比喻說明。『想亦如是』是第三個合喻。破想陰主要是從無自性門入手。前面破色陰是從無常門入手。『因名相生者』，因為有善惡之名而取好醜之相，又因為耳朵聽到名而眼睛取相，是假借因緣而有的，沒有自性就是空。『識因色下』是第四次破識陰。從文義上分為三部分。首先，用無自性門來破。其次，用一異門來破。『是故當知下』是第三個總結。首先如經文所說。『但生以識塵下』是第二部分，用一異門來破。如果問：『識此人識』是同一個『識彼人識』還是不同的？進一步分為兩個方面來責問。如果『識此人識』仍然是『識彼人識』，那麼始終是一個識，就落入了常的過失。如果『識此人識』不是『識彼人識』，那麼今天認識這個人，明天就不認識了，因為沒有了昨天的識，又落入了斷滅。『或言一或言異者』，莎提比丘說，六道輪迴往返始終是一個識。僧佉說，覺諦是常，也是一個識。薩婆多等認為，前識滅后識生，就是不同的識。成實宗兼具一異的觀點，實法滅就是不同的識，相續轉變名為一。 English version The fourth layer concludes with the gate of analogy. Therefore, 'form has no fixed nature, hence emptiness' is the fifth conclusion. 'Conventional speech' comes to resolve doubts. The doubt is: if there is no form, why do the scriptures speak of form? Therefore, the explanation is: it merely follows conventional speech, it is not truly existent. Question: Why does conventional speech say there is form? Answer: The Buddha said this is false and deceptive, forcibly considering something that does not actually exist to be existent, merely following conventional people in forcibly establishing the name 'form'. Question: If so, does conventional truth only have names? Answer: For conventional people, there are names and things, but for sages, there are neither names nor things, merely establishing names according to convention. 'Sensation is also thus' below is the second contemplation of the sensation aggregate (vedanā-skandha). It should still be explained as above, using the gate of impermanence, the gate of oneness and difference, and the gate of breaking continuity. 'But because of awareness, it is said that the three sensations are in the body' This is in reference to ordinary people. Because there is awareness, and the three sensations arise through false conditions such as opposition and compliance, it is said that there is sensation. 'Conception arises from names and characteristics' below is the third contemplation of the conception aggregate (saṃjñā-skandha). It is further divided into three parts. The first is the Dharma explanation. 'Like a shadow below' is the second metaphorical explanation. 'Conception is also thus' is the third combined analogy. Breaking the conception aggregate mainly starts from the gate of no self-nature. The previous breaking of the form aggregate started from the gate of impermanence. 'Arising from names and characteristics' because there are names of good and evil, good and bad characteristics are taken, and because the ears hear names, the eyes take characteristics, which are falsely conditioned, and without self-nature, they are empty. 'Consciousness arises from form' below is the fourth breaking of the consciousness aggregate (vijñāna-skandha). It is divided into three parts in terms of the text. First, it is broken using the gate of no self-nature. Second, it is broken using the gate of oneness and difference. 'Therefore, know below' is the third conclusion. First, as the text says. 'But arising with consciousness-dust below' is the second part, breaking with the gate of oneness and difference. If asked: Is 'consciousness of this person' the same as 'consciousness of that person' or different? It is further divided into two aspects to question. If 'consciousness of this person' is still 'consciousness of that person', then it is always one consciousness, and it falls into the fault of permanence. If 'consciousness of this person' is not 'consciousness of that person', then today this person is recognized, but tomorrow he will not be recognized, because there is no consciousness of yesterday, and it falls into annihilation. 'Some say one, some say different', Sati Bhikkhu said that the cycle of the six realms is always one consciousness. The Samkhya (Sāṃkhya) said that the awakened truth (覺諦) is permanent and also one consciousness. The Sarvastivadins (Sarvāstivāda) and others believe that the previous consciousness ceases and the subsequent consciousness arises, which is a different consciousness. The Satyasiddhi School (成實宗) has both views of oneness and difference, the cessation of real Dharma is a different consciousness, and continuous transformation is called one.
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation The fourth level concludes with the gate of analogy. Therefore, 'form has no fixed nature, hence emptiness' is the fifth conclusion. 'Conventional speech' comes to resolve doubts. The doubt is: if there is no form, why do the scriptures speak of form? Therefore, the explanation is: it merely follows conventional speech, it is not truly existent. Question: Why does conventional speech say there is form? Answer: The Buddha said this is false and deceptive, forcibly considering something that does not actually exist to be existent, merely following conventional people in forcibly establishing the name 'form'. Question: If so, does conventional truth only have names? Answer: For conventional people, there are names and things, but for sages, there are neither names nor things, merely establishing names according to convention. 'Sensation is also thus' below is the second contemplation of the sensation aggregate (vedanā-skandha). It should still be explained as above, using the gate of impermanence, the gate of oneness and difference, and the gate of breaking continuity. 'But because of awareness, it is said that the three sensations are in the body' This is in reference to ordinary people. Because there is awareness, and the three sensations arise through false conditions such as opposition and compliance, it is said that there is sensation. 'Conception arises from names and characteristics' below is the third contemplation of the conception aggregate (saṃjñā-skandha). It is further divided into three parts. The first is the Dharma explanation. 'Like a shadow below' is the second metaphorical explanation. 'Conception is also thus' is the third combined analogy. Breaking the conception aggregate mainly starts from the gate of no self-nature. The previous breaking of the form aggregate started from the gate of impermanence. 'Arising from names and characteristics' because there are names of good and evil, good and bad characteristics are taken, and because the ears hear names, the eyes take characteristics, which are falsely conditioned, and without self-nature, they are empty. 'Consciousness arises from form' below is the fourth breaking of the consciousness aggregate (vijñāna-skandha). It is divided into three parts in terms of the text. First, it is broken using the gate of no self-nature. Second, it is broken using the gate of oneness and difference. 'Therefore, know below' is the third conclusion. First, as the text says. 'But arising with consciousness-dust below' is the second part, breaking with the gate of oneness and difference. If asked: Is 'consciousness of this person' the same as 'consciousness of that person' or different? It is further divided into two aspects to question. If 'consciousness of this person' is still 'consciousness of that person', then it is always one consciousness, and it falls into the fault of permanence. If 'consciousness of this person' is not 'consciousness of that person', then today this person is recognized, but tomorrow he will not be recognized, because there is no consciousness of yesterday, and it falls into annihilation. 'Some say one, some say different', Sati Bhikkhu said that the cycle of the six realms is always one consciousness. The Samkhya (Sāṃkhya) said that the awakened truth (覺諦) is permanent and also one consciousness. The Sarvastivadins (Sarvāstivāda) and others believe that the previous consciousness ceases and the subsequent consciousness arises, which is a different consciousness. The Satyasiddhi School (成實宗) has both views of oneness and difference, the cessation of real Dharma is a different consciousness, and continuous transformation is called one.
為一識。以實法念念滅故勉常一過。相續一故勉不識前人過。今明若假實義成可勉二過。今假實不成則俱二過也。實法若滅則假無所續。如其假續則實不得滅。故假成實壞實成假壞。假壞亦無實實壞亦無假。一切不立也。諸行亦如是下第五觀行。然五陰次第行在第四。但此品既稱觀行。欲廣破之故回在第五。就文為三。第一明身口意三行。有二種下第二明凈不凈二行。或增或減下第三明行增減義。就文為三。謂法譬合。初是法說。行陰乃含多法。今正取造善惡業名之為行。業能感果故名為增。受報極則減故名為減。如人有病下第二喻說。還喻上增減之義。諸行亦如是下第三合喻。以明增減不定是故行空也。因世諦故得見第一義諦下。自上已來總明觀五陰諸行空義作二諦觀竟。今第二明得利益。佛說五陰是行意令悟五陰空。即是因俗悟真生於波若得解脫五陰。而今聞五作五解。則不得第一義不生波若。云何斷煩惱得脫五陰身耶。又聞五作五解於五上更起愛見。或言一時或言前後。互相立破則於五上重起煩惱。煩惱有業。業故受苦。此人故惑不除于佛教上更造苦因。如此人不及不學問田舍人也。就文為三。初雙標真俗二章門。次釋二門。三結二門。因世諦故者標世諦門也。得見第一義者標真諦章門也。所謂無明緣諸行者釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為一識（唯一的意識）。因為真實存在的法念念生滅，所以勉強說它是常一的，這是錯誤的。因為相續不斷，所以勉強說它不認識之前的人，這也是錯誤的。現在如果明白假有的真實意義，就可以避免這兩種錯誤。如果現在假有的真實意義不成立，那麼兩種錯誤都會存在。如果真實存在的法滅亡了，那麼假有就沒有可以延續的基礎。如果假有可以延續，那麼真實存在的法就不能滅亡。所以假有成立，真實存在就會壞滅；真實存在成立，假有就會壞滅。假有壞滅，也就沒有真實存在；真實存在壞滅，也就沒有假有。一切都不能成立。諸行也是這樣。下面是第五觀行。 然而五陰（色、受、想、行、識，構成個體存在的五種要素）的次第，行陰（行為和意志）排在第四。但因為這一品稱為觀行，想要廣泛地破斥它，所以放在第五。從文義上分為三部分。第一部分說明身口意三種行為。有二種，下面第二部分說明清凈和不清凈兩種行為。或增或減，下面第三部分說明行為的增減意義。從文義上分為三部分，即法說、譬喻、合說。首先是法說。行陰包含多種法，現在只取造作善惡業的行為，稱為行。業能感果，所以稱為增；受報到了極點，就稱為減。如人有病，下面第二部分用比喻來說明。還是比喻上面增減的意義。諸行也是這樣，下面第三部分是合喻。說明增減不定，所以行是空的。因為世俗諦（相對真理），才能見到第一義諦（絕對真理）。 從上面開始，總共說明觀察五陰諸行空性的意義，作二諦觀完畢。現在第二部分說明得到的利益。佛說五陰是行，意在讓人領悟五陰是空的，這就是因為世俗而悟真，生出般若（智慧），得到解脫五陰。而現在聽聞五陰，就按照五陰來理解，就不能得到第一義，不能生出般若。怎麼能斷除煩惱，脫離五陰之身呢？又聽聞五陰，就按照五陰來理解，在五陰上更加生起愛見。或者說一時，或者說前後，互相建立又互相破斥，那麼在五陰上重新生起煩惱。因為煩惱而有業，因為業而受苦。這個人因此迷惑不能消除，在佛教上更加造作苦因。這樣的人還不如不學習的鄉下人。從文義上分為三部分。首先是雙標真俗二章門。其次解釋二門。第三總結二門。因世諦故，是標明世俗諦的章門。得見第一義者，是標明真諦的章門。所謂無明緣諸行者，是解釋。
【English Translation】 English version It is a single consciousness (識, shì, consciousness). Because the real dharmas (法, fǎ, laws/principles/phenomena) arise and cease moment by moment, it is a forced and incorrect assertion to say it is constant and one. Because it is continuously connected, it is a forced and incorrect assertion to say it does not recognize the person before. Now, if the real meaning of the provisional (假, jiǎ, provisional/temporary) is understood, these two errors can be avoided. If the real meaning of the provisional is not established, then both errors will exist. If the real dharmas cease, then the provisional has nothing to continue from. If the provisional can continue, then the real dharmas cannot cease. Therefore, if the provisional is established, the real is destroyed; if the real is established, the provisional is destroyed. If the provisional is destroyed, there is no real; if the real is destroyed, there is no provisional. Nothing can be established. All actions (諸行, zhū xíng, all conditioned things) are like this. The fifth contemplation of actions (觀行, guān xíng) is below. However, in the sequence of the five skandhas (五陰, wǔ yīn, the five aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), the skandha of formations (行陰, xíng yīn, mental formations) is fourth. But because this chapter is called 'Contemplation of Actions,' and it seeks to broadly refute it, it is placed fifth. The text is divided into three parts. The first part explains the three actions of body, speech, and mind. 'There are two kinds,' the second part below explains the two actions of purity and impurity. 'Increasing or decreasing,' the third part below explains the meaning of increasing and decreasing actions. The text is divided into three parts, namely, teaching, analogy, and synthesis. First is the teaching. The skandha of formations contains many dharmas, but now it specifically takes the actions of creating good and evil karma as 'actions.' Karma can produce results, so it is called 'increasing'; when the retribution reaches its extreme, it is called 'decreasing.' 'Like a person who is sick,' the second part below uses an analogy to explain. It still uses the analogy of the meaning of increasing and decreasing above. 'All actions are like this,' the third part below is the synthesis of the analogy. It explains that increasing and decreasing are uncertain, so actions are empty. Because of conventional truth (世俗諦, shì sú dì, relative truth), one can see the ultimate truth (第一義諦, dì yī yì dì, absolute truth). From above, it generally explains the meaning of contemplating the emptiness of the five skandhas and all actions, completing the contemplation of the two truths. Now, the second part explains the benefits obtained. The Buddha said that the five skandhas are actions, intending to make people realize that the five skandhas are empty, which is to awaken to the truth through the conventional, generating prajna (般若, bō rě, wisdom) and attaining liberation from the five skandhas. But now, hearing about the five skandhas, one understands them according to the five skandhas, then one cannot attain the ultimate meaning and cannot generate prajna. How can one cut off afflictions and escape the body of the five skandhas? Furthermore, hearing about the five skandhas, one understands them according to the five skandhas, and one further generates love and views on the five skandhas. Either at once or before and after, mutually establishing and refuting each other, then one newly generates afflictions on the five skandhas. Because of afflictions, there is karma; because of karma, one suffers. This person is therefore confused and cannot eliminate it, and further creates causes of suffering on the Buddha's teachings. Such a person is not as good as an uneducated farmer. The text is divided into three parts. First, it doubly marks the two chapters of truth and convention. Second, it explains the two chapters. Third, it concludes the two chapters. 'Because of conventional truth,' marks the chapter of conventional truth. 'One can see the ultimate truth,' marks the chapter of ultimate truth. 'The so-called ignorance conditions actions,' is the explanation.
二章門也。前明十二相生即是世諦也。所以就十二因緣明世諦者。欲顯十二相生根本由行故也。經云。十二因緣即是十二汲井。以老死為井唇。無明為井底。無明下有實相水。所謂甚深甚深。惑心始起名為無明。無明漸次造行乃至老死。從彼極深出至淺處。去水逾遠逾增枯竭。故有憂悲苦惱。從無住本立一切法亦爾。聖人知因繩量水因言量理。故立十二之繩以汲波若水。故云因世諦故得見第一義。問十二既喻井。云何復喻繩。答取十二言教為繩。十二法為井也。問十二云何為世諦見第一義。答大小乘有所得人聞十二作十二解。此不識佛意。佛意說十二令悟不十二。故以不十二十二為世諦。十二不十二為第一義也。若得第一義諦下第二釋第一義章門。既用十二因緣相生名為世諦。知十二因緣空即是第一義諦。悟第一義空即十二因緣便滅。不見第一義空則是無明。以無明故便起行乃至生老病死憂悲苦惱。此中明見諦思惟可通大小乘。釋小乘見思三師不同。一者依雜心明。十五心為見道。第十六心則屬修道。成實師云。第十六心猶屬見諦。復有人云。第十六心望前屬前望后屬后。大乘見道即是初地。二地已去名為修道。就十使煩惱。依毗曇宗可為三類。五見及疑但是緣理煩惱。貪瞋慢但是緣事煩惱。無明二分。與五見疑相應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第二章是『門』。前面闡明十二相生就是世俗諦。之所以藉助十二因緣闡明世俗諦，是爲了顯示十二相生的根本原因在於『行』。經中說：『十二因緣就是十二口水井，以老死為井口，無明為井底。』無明之下有實相之水，所謂『甚深，甚深』。迷惑之心開始產生叫做無明。無明逐漸造作『行』，乃至『老死』，從那極深之處出來到達淺處，離水越遠就越加枯竭，所以有憂愁悲傷苦惱。從無住的根本建立一切法也是這樣。聖人知道根據繩子來測量水的深淺，根據言語來衡量道理。所以設立十二因緣之繩來汲取般若之水。所以說因為世俗諦的緣故才能見到第一義諦。問：十二因緣既然比喻為井，為什麼又比喻為繩子？答：取十二因緣的言教作為繩子，十二法作為井。問：十二因緣如何是世俗諦，又如何是第一義諦？答：小乘和大乘中有所得的人，聽到十二因緣就按照十二因緣來理解，這是不認識佛的本意。佛的意思是說十二因緣，是爲了讓人領悟不是十二因緣。所以用『不十二』的十二因緣作為世俗諦，用『十二不十二』作為第一義諦。如果證得了第一義諦，下面第二章解釋第一義諦的『門』。既然用十二因緣相生叫做世俗諦，知道十二因緣是空，就是第一義諦。領悟第一義空，十二因緣就滅。不見第一義空，就是無明。因為無明，就產生『行』，乃至『生老病死憂悲苦惱』。這裡闡明見諦思惟可以貫通大小乘。解釋小乘的見思，三師的觀點不同。一種是依據《雜心論》闡明，十五心為見道，第十六心就屬於修道。《成實論》的論師說，第十六心仍然屬於見諦。還有人說，第十六心向前看屬於前面，向後看屬於後面。大乘的見道就是初地，二地以後叫做修道。就十使煩惱來說，依據毗曇宗可以分為三類。五見（sakkāya-ditthi, antagāhika-ditthi, ditthi, sīlabbataparāmāsa, and idameva saccābhinivesa）和疑（vicikicchā）只是緣理的煩惱。貪（lobha）、嗔（dosa）、慢（māna）只是緣事的煩惱。無明（avijjā）有二分，與五見和疑相應。
【English Translation】 English version: Chapter Two is the 『Gate』. The preceding explanation of the twelve interdependent origination is the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). The reason for explaining the conventional truth based on the twelve links of dependent origination is to reveal that the fundamental cause of the twelve interdependent origination lies in 『action』 (saṃskāra). The sutra says: 『The twelve links of dependent origination are like twelve wells. Old age and death (jarā-maraṇa) are the well's edge, and ignorance (avidyā) is the well's bottom.』 Below ignorance, there is the water of true reality (bhūta). It is said to be 『very deep, very deep.』 The initial arising of a deluded mind is called ignorance. Ignorance gradually creates 『action』 (saṃskāra), leading to 『old age and death』 (jarā-maraṇa). Emerging from that extremely deep place to a shallow one, the further away from the water, the more it dries up, resulting in sorrow, grief, and suffering. Establishing all dharmas from the root of non-abiding is also like this. Sages know to measure the depth of water with a rope and to measure reason with words. Therefore, they establish the rope of the twelve links to draw the water of prajna (prajñā). Hence, it is said that one can see the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) because of the conventional truth. Question: Since the twelve links are likened to a well, why are they also likened to a rope? Answer: Take the teachings of the twelve links as the rope and the twelve dharmas as the well. Question: How are the twelve links the conventional truth and the ultimate truth? Answer: Those who have attainments in the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions interpret the twelve links according to the twelve links. This is not understanding the Buddha's intention. The Buddha's intention in speaking of the twelve links is to make people realize that it is not the twelve links. Therefore, the 『not-twelve』 of the twelve links is taken as the conventional truth, and the 『twelve not-twelve』 is taken as the ultimate truth. If one attains the ultimate truth, the second chapter below explains the 『gate』 of the ultimate truth. Since the interdependent arising of the twelve links is called the conventional truth, knowing that the twelve links are empty is the ultimate truth. Realizing the emptiness of the ultimate truth, the twelve links cease. Not seeing the emptiness of the ultimate truth is ignorance. Because of ignorance, 『action』 (saṃskāra) arises, leading to 『birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering』 (jāti-jarā-vyādhi-maraṇa-śoka-parideva-duḥkha-daurmanasya-upāyāsa). Here, it is clarified that the contemplation of seeing the truth can connect both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions. Explaining the seeing and thinking in the Hinayana tradition, the views of the three teachers differ. One is based on the Abhidharma-samuccaya (雜心論) to explain that fifteen moments of thought are the path of seeing, and the sixteenth moment belongs to the path of cultivation. The teachers of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (成實論) say that the sixteenth moment still belongs to the seeing of truth. Others say that the sixteenth moment belongs to the previous when looking forward and belongs to the following when looking backward. The path of seeing in the Mahayana tradition is the first bhumi (初地), and the second bhumi onwards is called the path of cultivation. Regarding the ten fetters (daśa-saṃyojanāni), according to the Vaibhāṣika school (毗曇宗), they can be divided into three categories. The five wrong views (sakkāya-ditthi, antagāhika-ditthi, ditthi, sīlabbataparāmāsa, and idameva saccābhinivesa) and doubt (vicikicchā) are only afflictions related to reason. Greed (lobha), anger (dosa), and pride (māna) are only afflictions related to events. Ignorance (avijjā) has two aspects, corresponding to the five wrong views and doubt.
及獨頭無明則是緣理煩惱。與上三使相應迷事無明。是緣事煩惱。斷十使大開三位。一者五見及疑但見諦斷。餘四惑開為二分。若從五見疑後生則屬見道斷。緣六塵起者屬思惟斷。大乘見思斷者經論不同。依地持論明二障三處斷。初地至十地斷惑障盡。初地至佛地斷知障盡。若約見思者。初地所斷二障屬見諦。二地去斷二障屬思惟斷。問今作此釋與他何異。答大小乘有所得人並言前有煩惱斷之令無。若爾皆是罪過人也。大品云。若法先有後無。諸佛菩薩皆有罪過。今二門推之實無所斷。煩惱若有自體。即是本來是常。常不可斷。煩惱若無自體。即無煩惱可起。何所斷耶。而今言斷者。只悟煩惱本不起是名斷耳。是故欲示空義故下第三總結。複次下前釋第一偈申經意竟。此下生起第二。次明破立。就偈為兩。上半借異相破性。下半借性破無性。諸法后時變異故知無性。上偈以妄取故知無相。無相故空。今以無常故知無性。無性故空。若有性者有性是本有。體即是常不應變異。下半借性破無性者。本有于性可有無性。尚無有性。何有無性。此偈意多含。上半破外道。如僧佉二十五諦從細至粗從粗至細而體常有體即是性。下半斥內學。又上半破毗曇之性。下半斥成實之假。又上半破有所得攝大乘師三性義。下半破三無性理也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『及獨頭無明』（單獨產生的無明）則是緣理煩惱。與上文所說的三種煩惱相應，迷惑於事相的『無明』，是緣事煩惱。斷除十使（十種根本煩惱）會開啟三個階段：第一階段是斷除五見（五種錯誤的見解）及疑（懷疑），這屬於見諦斷（在見道位斷除）。其餘四惑（貪、嗔、癡、慢）分為兩部分，若從五見和疑之後產生，則屬於見道斷；若緣於六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）而生起，則屬於思惟斷（在修道位斷除）。 大乘對於見思惑的斷除，經論中的說法不同。依據《地持論》，二障（煩惱障和所知障）在三個階段斷除：從初地到十地斷除煩惱障，從初地到佛地斷除所知障。如果按照見思惑來劃分，初地所斷的二障屬於見諦斷，二地之後所斷的二障屬於思惟斷。 問：現在這樣解釋，與其他說法有什麼不同？答：小乘和大乘中有所得的人都說，先前有煩惱，斷除它使之不再存在。如果這樣，那諸佛菩薩豈不都有罪過了？《大品經》說：『如果法是先有後無，諸佛菩薩都有罪過。』現在用二門（空門和無相門）來推究，實際上沒有什麼可斷的。煩惱如果具有自體（獨立的實體），那就是本來就存在且是常有的，常有的東西是不可斷的。煩惱如果沒有自體，那就沒有煩惱可以生起，又有什麼可以斷除的呢？而現在說斷除，只是領悟到煩惱本來就不生起，這就叫做斷除。所以爲了顯示空義，下面第三部分進行總結。 其次，前面解釋了第一偈，闡述了經文的含義。下面生起第二部分，接下來闡明破立（破除錯誤的觀點，建立正確的觀點）。就偈頌分為兩部分，上半部分借用異相來破斥自性，下半部分借用自性來破斥無自性。諸法在後來的時間會變異，所以知道它是無自性的。上面的偈頌用妄取（虛妄的執取）來表明諸法無相，無相所以為空。現在用無常來表明諸法無自性，無自性所以為空。如果諸法有自性，那麼這種自性就是本有的，其體性就是常有的，不應該變異。下半部分借用自性來破斥無自性，如果本有自性，才可能存在無自性。現在連自性都沒有，哪裡來的無自性呢？ 這個偈頌包含多種含義。上半部分破斥外道，例如僧佉（數論派）的二十五諦，從細到粗，從粗到細，而其體性是常有的，這個體性就是自性。下半部分駁斥內學。上半部分破斥毗曇宗（說一切有部）的自性，下半部分駁斥成實宗（成實論師）的假有。另外，上半部分破斥有所得的攝大乘師的三性義（遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性），下半部分破斥三無性理（相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'And the independent ignorance' (Eka-mukha-avidya) is the affliction that arises from reasoning (hetu-klesha). The 'ignorance' that corresponds to the above three afflictions (greed, hatred, delusion) and is deluded about phenomena is the affliction that arises from events (vastu-klesha). Cutting off the ten bonds (dasa-samyojana) opens up three stages: the first stage is cutting off the five views (pancha-drishti) and doubt (vichikitsa), which belongs to the 'darshana-marga-prahana' (abandoning in the path of seeing). The remaining four afflictions (greed, hatred, delusion, pride) are divided into two parts. If they arise after the five views and doubt, they belong to the 'darshana-marga-prahana'; if they arise from the six sense objects (rupa, shabda, gandha, rasa, sparshtavya, dharma), they belong to the 'bhavana-marga-prahana' (abandoning in the path of cultivation). In Mahayana, the explanations of cutting off the 'darshana-marga-heya' and 'bhavana-marga-heya' differ in the sutras and shastras. According to the Yogacarabhumi-shastra, the two obscurations (kleshavarana and jneyavarana) are cut off in three stages: from the first bhumi to the tenth bhumi, the kleshavarana is cut off; from the first bhumi to the Buddha-bhumi, the jneyavarana is cut off. If divided according to 'darshana-marga-heya' and 'bhavana-marga-heya', the two obscurations cut off in the first bhumi belong to 'darshana-marga-prahana', and the two obscurations cut off from the second bhumi onwards belong to 'bhavana-marga-prahana'. Question: What is the difference between this explanation and other explanations? Answer: Those who have attainment in both Hinayana and Mahayana say that there were afflictions before, and cutting them off makes them no longer exist. If so, wouldn't all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have faults? The Prajnaparamita Sutra says: 'If a dharma exists first and then does not exist later, all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have faults.' Now, using the two gates (the gate of emptiness and the gate of no-characteristics) to investigate, there is actually nothing to cut off. If afflictions have their own self-nature (svabhava), then they are originally existent and permanent. What is permanent cannot be cut off. If afflictions do not have their own self-nature, then there are no afflictions to arise. What is there to cut off? But now, saying 'cutting off' only means realizing that afflictions do not arise originally, and this is called 'cutting off'. Therefore, in order to show the meaning of emptiness, the third part below summarizes. Secondly, the previous explanation of the first verse elucidated the meaning of the sutra. The second part arises below, and next it clarifies 'destruction and establishment' (prakriti and sthiti). The verse is divided into two parts. The first half uses different characteristics to refute self-nature, and the second half uses self-nature to refute no-self-nature. Because dharmas change at a later time, we know that they are without self-nature. The above verse uses false grasping (mithya-grahana) to show that dharmas are without characteristics, and because they are without characteristics, they are empty. Now, impermanence is used to show that dharmas are without self-nature, and because they are without self-nature, they are empty. If dharmas have self-nature, then this self-nature is originally existent, and its essence is permanent, and it should not change. The second half uses self-nature to refute no-self-nature. If there is originally self-nature, then there can be no-self-nature. Now, there is not even self-nature, so where does no-self-nature come from? This verse contains multiple meanings. The first half refutes external paths, such as the twenty-five tattvas of Samkhya (Samkhya), which go from subtle to coarse and from coarse to subtle, but their essence is permanent, and this essence is self-nature. The second half refutes internal learning. The first half refutes the self-nature of the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivada), and the second half refutes the hypothetical existence of the Satyasiddhi School (Satyasiddhi School). In addition, the first half refutes the three-nature doctrine (parikalpita-svabhava, paratantra-svabhava, parinishpanna-svabhava) of the Yogacara masters who have attainment, and the second half refutes the three no-self-nature principles (lakshana-nihsvabhavata, utpada-nihsvabhavata, agra-paramartha-nihsvabhavata).
。無性法亦無者。以此橫類萬義。如破相故說無相相既無。何有無相理耶。乃至破生死故說涅槃破妄說真。妄既不立何有真耶。若復言有一中道非真非妄非生死非涅槃。此亦是未悟耳。如其了悟則藥病俱去。則知無去所去。鈍根之流觸處皆著。如前破外道著邪常故說無常。三修比丘更執無常復以常樂破之。若悟者即悟。不悟者依常樂教更復保著故二處皆禁。前禁于常后禁無常。前有斷首之令後有舌落之言。故不應有所取著。問攝論親明有三無性。今云何破之。答天親一往對破性故言無性耳。而學人不體其意故執三無性。二者彼云無性者。明其無有性。非謂有無性。學人雖知無有性而謂有無性。故不解無性語也。又如明世諦虛假無性亦不解此語。一者佛明無性即無有體無有物。而人謂無有性實有于假體。二者佛對破性故言無性。此是對治說非究竟語。而人執為究竟。三者明無有性。非謂有無性。五句不依。而人但住一句。問曰下第三外人一偈救。上論主借變異破其性義。外人今捉破作立反難論主。若其無性不應有異。今既有異則應有性。外人所以作此計者。其明性有二種。一者不異之性。二者體性是異。今雖無不異之性而有體性之異也。答曰下第四三偈破救。破救大意但破其異。上以虛妄顯空而變著虛妄。今以後異顯無
復著于異。以彼執異救性故今明無異則無性也。三偈為二。第一偈就有性無性門以破于異。次兩偈就老壯一異門明無異性。有性無性門破異者。前偈借異破性。今還借性無性而破于異。諸法有性則定住無移。不可令異。又本有性即本有體。不從緣合而有。亦不假緣離而無。故是常。常不可變異。無性則無法體。以何為異複次下第二就老壯一異門破無有異。前是奪門明無異。今是縱門。故開二關責之。兩偈為二。初偈就二門破無異。第二偈偏破其即異。初偈上半開二門總非。下半釋二門。問何故云是法即無異。答上言后異。老時即是異故名是法即無異也。壯不作老釋異法無異。老不作老釋是法無異。所以壯不與老異者。壯時無老。與誰為異。老時無壯。復與誰異。是故壯老不得有異。此偈猶是三相品中是法於是時不於是時滅。是法于異時不于異時滅。亦應云是法於是時不於是時異。是法于異時不于異時異。又如因緣品不自生等四句。今亦不自異不從他異。問曰若法即異下此生起第二偈釋上二門無異。前問次答。救意云。眼見少年經日月即便變異。豈非是法即異。此云即異非上即異。上即異云老不即與老異。今明少經時即變異。答曰上半明即少無異。下半明離少無異。汝若言是法即異者。乳應即是酪。米應即是飯也。下半
【現代漢語翻譯】 複次，執著于異。因為他們執著於事物是不同的，爲了糾正這種錯誤，現在說明事物沒有自性，因此也沒有『異』（不同）的說法。接下來的三偈分為兩部分。第一偈從『有性』（有自性）和『無性』（無自性）的角度來破斥『異』的觀點。接下來的兩偈從『老』和『壯』（衰老和壯年）的一異關係來說明沒有『異性』（不同的自性）。 從『有性』和『無性』的角度破斥『異』的觀點：前面的偈頌借用『異』來破斥『性』（自性）。現在反過來，借用『性』的有無來破斥『異』。如果諸法（一切事物）有自性，那麼它們就會固定不變，不可能發生變化。而且，如果事物本來就有自性，那就是本來就有的本體，不是由因緣和合而產生的，也不會因為因緣離散而消失，所以是常住不變的。常住不變的事物不可能發生變異。 如果事物沒有自性，那就沒有本體，又拿什麼來說『異』呢？再次，下面的第二部分從『老』和『壯』的一異關係來破斥沒有『異』的觀點。前面是從否定（奪門）的角度來說明沒有『異』，現在是從肯定（縱門）的角度來說明。所以，先提出兩個問題來責問對方。這兩偈又分為兩部分。第一偈從兩個方面來否定沒有『異』的觀點，第二偈側重於破斥『即異』（就是不同）的觀點。第一偈的上半部分提出兩個問題，總的來說是否定。下半部分解釋這兩個問題。 問：為什麼說『是法即無異』（這個事物就是沒有不同）呢？答：上面說『后異』（後來的不同），衰老的時候就是不同，所以說是『是法即無異』。壯年不被認為是衰老，所以說『異法無異』（不同的事物沒有不同）。衰老不被認為是衰老，所以說『是法無異』（這個事物沒有不同）。壯年和衰老之所以沒有不同，是因為壯年的時候沒有衰老，和誰不同呢？衰老的時候沒有壯年，又和誰不同呢？所以，壯年和衰老不能說有不同。 這個偈頌類似於《三相品》中的『是法於是時不於是時滅』（這個事物在這個時候不等於不在這個時候滅），『是法于異時不于異時滅』（這個事物在不同的時候不等於不在不同的時候滅）。也應該說『是法於是時不於是時異』（這個事物在這個時候不等於不在這個時候不同），『是法于異時不于異時異』（這個事物在不同的時候不等於不在不同的時候不同）。又如《因緣品》中的『不自生』（不是自己產生）等四句，現在也可以說『不自異』（不是自己不同），『不從他異』（不是從其他事物不同）。 問：如果事物就是不同，那麼……（下面引出第二偈，解釋上面兩個方面沒有『異』的觀點）。前面是提問，接下來是回答。對方辯解說：眼睛看到少年經過一段時間就會發生變化，難道不是事物就是不同嗎？這裡說的『即異』（就是不同）不是上面說的『即異』。上面說的『即異』是指衰老不等於衰老。現在說明少年經過一段時間就會發生變化。答：上半部分說明『即少無異』（就是少年沒有不同），下半部分說明『離少無異』（離開少年沒有不同）。 如果你說事物就是不同，那麼牛奶就應該就是奶酪，米就應該就是飯。下半部分……
【English Translation】 Furthermore, clinging to 'difference' (異). Because they cling to the notion that things are different, in order to correct this error, it is now explained that things have no inherent nature (自性), therefore there is no concept of 'difference'. The following three verses are divided into two parts. The first verse refutes the view of 'difference' from the perspective of 'having inherent nature' (有性) and 'not having inherent nature' (無性). The next two verses explain that there is no 'different nature' (異性) from the relationship between 'old' (老) and 'youth' (壯). Refuting the view of 'difference' from the perspective of 'having inherent nature' and 'not having inherent nature': The previous verse used 'difference' to refute 'inherent nature'. Now, conversely, the presence or absence of 'inherent nature' is used to refute 'difference'. If all dharmas (諸法, all things) have inherent nature, then they will be fixed and unchanging, and it is impossible for them to change. Moreover, if something inherently has a nature, then that is its original substance, not produced by the combination of causes and conditions, nor will it disappear due to the separation of causes and conditions, so it is permanent. Things that are permanent cannot undergo change. If things have no inherent nature, then there is no substance, so what is there to talk about 'difference'? Again, the second part below refutes the view of no 'difference' from the relationship between 'old' and 'youth'. The previous part explained that there is no 'difference' from a negative (奪門) perspective, and now it is explained from an affirmative (縱門) perspective. Therefore, two questions are first raised to question the other party. These two verses are divided into two parts. The first verse negates the view of no 'difference' from two aspects, and the second verse focuses on refuting the view of 'immediate difference' (即異). The first half of the first verse raises two questions, which are generally negative. The second half explains these two questions. Question: Why is it said that 'this dharma is without difference' (是法即無異)? Answer: The above said 'later difference' (后異), old age is different, so it is said that 'this dharma is without difference'. Youth is not considered old age, so it is said that 'different dharmas have no difference' (異法無異). Old age is not considered old age, so it is said that 'this dharma has no difference' (是法無異). The reason why youth and old age are not different is because there is no old age in youth, so who is it different from? There is no youth in old age, so who is it different from? Therefore, youth and old age cannot be said to be different. This verse is similar to 'this dharma does not cease at this time when it is not this time' (是法於是時不於是時滅) and 'this dharma does not cease at a different time when it is not a different time' (是法于異時不于異時滅) in the Three Characteristics Chapter (三相品). It should also be said that 'this dharma is not different at this time when it is not this time' (是法於是時不於是時異) and 'this dharma is not different at a different time when it is not a different time' (是法于異時不于異時異). Also, like the four sentences such as 'not self-produced' (不自生) in the Conditions Chapter (因緣品), it can now also be said that 'not self-different' (不自異) and 'not different from others' (不從他異). Question: If things are different, then... (The second verse is introduced below to explain that there is no 'difference' in the two aspects above). The previous part is a question, and the next part is an answer. The other party argues that the eyes see a young person change after a period of time, isn't that things are different? The 'immediate difference' (即異) mentioned here is not the 'immediate difference' mentioned above. The 'immediate difference' mentioned above refers to old age not being equal to old age. Now it is explained that a young person will change after a period of time. Answer: The first half explains 'no difference in youth' (即少無異), and the second half explains 'no difference apart from youth' (離少無異). If you say that things are different, then milk should be cheese, and rice should be cooked rice. The second half...
云離乳有何法者。汝若乳不即是酪者。離乳外唯有于酪可言酪作酪耶。又離乳外語通亦得是酪。亦得言余物。但使非乳即以對是也。少既不作老者。離少之外唯只有老可言老作老耶。他問年少經時故便成老。何故言無老。答少經時者。為猶是少為非復少。若猶是少少應即是老。若非復少者便應老還作老也。不爾用余物作老。不爾用虛空作老。又問少滅故作老。不滅作老。滅則無少。誰作老。不滅則少在。云何作老。問曰破是破異下品第二章次破空義。所以須破空者凡有二義。一者論主上申佛經說虛妄此欲示空。外人即云。若爾應有空也。第二外人自起此迷。我本立有實法。汝既破云。無有定實人法。但是顛倒虛妄耳。次又破我虛妄人法明無人法。若爾有虛有實可言是有。無虛無實則應是空。故生此問也。所言破是破異者。是名是法異名異法。此是上是法則無異異法亦無異之言耳。又解云。是名為性實人法。異即是虛妄人法。既具破實之與虛。故知應有空也。答曰若有不空法下一偈直作相待破之。若有不空可待之說空。不空既無何有空耶。如空內名內空。內本不有。何有空耶。又前破性故說異。而性無即異無。今亦破異故言空。異無空即無。又汝上既知實無故虛即無。今何得猶言有無故空不無耶。他問論主既自云佛說欲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：有什麼方法可以離開乳的狀態呢？ 答：如果乳本身不是酪（一種乳製品），那麼離開乳之外，只能說酪變成酪了嗎？而且，離開乳之外，任何言語都可以指代酪，也可以指代其他事物。只要不是乳，就可以用來對比說明。 問：如果年少不變成年老，那麼離開年少之外，是不是隻有年老才能說是年老變成年老呢？ 答：有人問，年少經過時間就會變成年老，為什麼你說沒有年老呢？回答是，年少經過時間，是仍然是年少，還是不再是年少？如果仍然是年少，那麼年少就應該是年老。如果不再是年少，那麼就應該是年老又變成年老了。如果不是這樣，那就是用其他事物變成年老，或者用虛空變成年老。 問：年少滅亡所以變成年老，還是不滅亡變成年老？如果滅亡了，就沒有年少，誰來變成年老？如果不滅亡，那麼年少還在，怎麼變成年老？ 問：破是破異下品第二章，接下來要破除空義。為什麼需要破除空呢？原因有兩個：一是論主爲了闡明佛經所說的虛妄，想要揭示空性。外人就說，如果這樣，就應該有空的存在。二是外人自己產生了這種迷惑：我本來立足於實法，你既然破斥說，沒有固定的真實人法，一切都是顛倒虛妄。接下來又破斥我以及虛妄的人法，說明沒有人法。如果這樣，有虛有實可以說是有，無虛無實就應該是空。所以產生了這樣的疑問。 所說的『破是破異』，是指名稱和法不同，不同的名稱和法也不同。這是說，如果是法則沒有不同，不同的法也沒有不同的說法。另一種解釋是，『是』是指真實的性實人法，『異』是指虛妄的人法。既然已經破除了真實和虛妄，所以認為應該有空的存在。 答：如果存在不空的法，下一偈就直接用相對待的方式來破除它。如果存在不空，才能有待于不空而說的空。不空既然不存在，哪裡來的空呢？就像空內名為內空，內本來不存在，哪裡來的空呢？而且前面破除了自性，所以說不同。自性不存在，那麼不同也就不存在。現在也破除了不同，所以說空。不同不存在，空也就不存在。而且你之前已經知道真實不存在，所以虛妄也就不存在。現在怎麼還能說有無，所以空不會不存在呢？ 問：論主既然自己說佛說了欲（慾望）
【English Translation】 English version Question: What is the method to be apart from the state of milk? Answer: If milk itself is not cheese (a type of dairy product), then apart from milk, can it only be said that cheese becomes cheese? Moreover, apart from milk, any speech can refer to cheese, or it can refer to other things. As long as it is not milk, it can be used for comparison. Question: If youth does not become old age, then apart from youth, is it only old age that can be said to be old age becoming old age? Answer: Someone asks, youth will become old age over time, why do you say there is no old age? The answer is, after youth passes, is it still youth, or is it no longer youth? If it is still youth, then youth should be old age. If it is no longer youth, then it should be old age becoming old age again. If it is not like this, then it is using other things to become old age, or using emptiness to become old age. Question: Youth perishes and therefore becomes old age, or does it not perish and become old age? If it perishes, there is no youth, who will become old age? If it does not perish, then youth is still there, how does it become old age? Question: 'Breaking 'is' and Breaking 'different' Chapter Two, Lower Section', next is to refute the meaning of emptiness (śūnyatā). Why is it necessary to refute emptiness? There are two reasons: First, the author, in order to clarify the falsehoods mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures, wants to reveal emptiness. Outsiders then say, if so, there should be the existence of emptiness. Second, outsiders themselves have this confusion: I originally stood on real dharmas, since you refute that there are no fixed real person-dharmas, everything is inverted and false. Next, it also refutes me and the false person-dharmas, explaining that there are no person-dharmas. If so, having false and having real can be said to be 'having', having no false and having no real should be emptiness. Therefore, this question arises. The so-called 'Breaking 'is' and Breaking 'different'' refers to the difference between name and dharma, and the difference between different names and dharmas. This is to say that if it is a dharma, there is no difference, and different dharmas have no different statements. Another explanation is that 'is' refers to the real nature of person-dharmas, and 'different' refers to the false person-dharmas. Since both the real and the false have been refuted, it is believed that there should be the existence of emptiness. Answer: If there is a non-empty dharma, the next verse will directly use a relative way to refute it. If there is non-empty, then there can be emptiness spoken of in relation to non-empty. Since non-empty does not exist, where does emptiness come from? Just like the emptiness within is called inner emptiness, the inner originally does not exist, where does emptiness come from? Moreover, the self-nature was refuted earlier, so it is said to be different. If self-nature does not exist, then difference does not exist either. Now, difference is also refuted, so it is said to be emptiness. If difference does not exist, emptiness does not exist either. Moreover, you already knew earlier that the real does not exist, so the false does not exist either. How can you still say 'having' and 'not having', so emptiness will not not exist? Question: Since the author himself said that the Buddha spoke of desire (kāma)
示空。今何得言無空。答佛一往對有故今言空耳。一往有去空亦去。故不相違也。亦應云。若有於二我可有二無我。竟無有二我。何有二無我。若有於三性可有三無性亦爾。問曰下第三章一切破也。文為二。初問次答。問有二。一牒論主前偈。若爾者下第二外人難。又開二。初標無待無執二章門。次釋二門。無有無空名為空空。故對有之空名為小空。無有無空空有俱破乃是大空。如撥無二諦是大邪見也。但無相待者無待有之空耳不應有執者次標無執章門。實有無待之空但不許我執著耳。若有對下第二釋上章門也。前釋無待次釋無執。有對者對有說空也。無對者無待有之空也。相待無故下第二釋無執章門。以無空相無有相故無相可取著也。答曰下第二論主破。若就單空及以重空分破意者。外人前云破是破異應有空在。此立單空。論主前偈破單空也。次問曰明空與不空二種俱空。則是立於重空。今破其重空也。若就十八空及獨空義者。外人前立十八空。論主前偈破十八空。有十八不空可有十八空。竟無十八不空。云何有十八空。次外人立於獨空。何以知然。智度論云。十八空是相待空。獨空是不待空外人前立無相待義。故知立於獨空。今偈即是破于獨空。上半序佛說空意。明佛說單空及與重空為離諸見。說單空為離有見。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 示空。今何得言無空？答：佛一往針對『有』而說，所以現在說『空』罷了。一旦執著于『有』而去除『空』，那麼『空』也就不存在了，因此並不矛盾。也應該說，如果存在兩個『我』，那麼就可以存在兩個『無我』。既然根本不存在兩個『我』，又怎麼會有兩個『無我』呢？如果存在三種自性，那麼就可以存在三種無自性，道理也是一樣。問：下面第三章是一切破斥嗎？文分為兩部分：首先是提問，然後是回答。提問又分為兩部分：一是照錄論主的先前偈頌；二是外人的詰難。外人的詰難又分為兩部分：首先標出『無待』和『無執』兩章的門徑；其次解釋這兩個門徑。沒有『無有』和『無空』，才叫做『空空』。所以，針對『有』而說的『空』，叫做『小空』。既沒有『有』，也沒有『空』，『有』和『空』都被破斥，這才是『大空』。如果否定二諦，那就是大邪見。只是沒有相待的，是沒有對待『有』的『空』，不應該執著。其次標出『無執』章的門徑。確實存在無待的『空』，但不允許我執著它。如果存在對待，下面第二部分解釋上面的章門。先前解釋『無待』，然後解釋『無執』。『有對』，是針對『有』而說『空』。『無對』，是沒有對待『有』的『空』。相待沒有了，下面第二部分解釋『無執』章的門徑。因為沒有『空』相，也沒有『有』相，所以沒有相可以執著。答：下面第二部分是論主破斥。如果就單空以及重空來區分破斥的意義，外人先前說破斥是破斥異，應該有『空』存在。這裡立的是單空。論主先前的偈頌破斥的是單空。其次問：明白『空』與『不空』兩種都空，這就是立於重空。現在破斥的就是重空。如果就十八空以及獨空的意義來說，外人先前立的是十八空。論主先前的偈頌破斥的是十八空。有十八不空，就可以有十八空。既然根本沒有十八不空，怎麼會有十八空呢？其次外人立的是獨空。憑什麼知道是這樣呢？《智度論》說，十八空是相待的空，獨空是不待的空。外人先前立的是無相待的意義，所以知道立的是獨空。現在的偈頌就是破斥獨空。上半部分敘述佛說『空』的用意，說明佛說單空以及重空是爲了遠離各種見解。說單空是爲了遠離有見。
【English Translation】 English version Showing Emptiness. Now, how can it be said that there is no emptiness? Answer: The Buddha speaks of emptiness in contrast to existence. Therefore, we now speak of emptiness. Once we cling to existence and eliminate emptiness, then emptiness no longer exists, so there is no contradiction. It should also be said that if there were two 'selves', then there could be two 'non-selves'. Since there are no two 'selves' at all, how can there be two 'non-selves'? If there were three natures, then there could be three non-natures, and the principle is the same. Question: Is the third chapter below a refutation of everything? The text is divided into two parts: first the question, then the answer. The question is further divided into two parts: first, quoting the previous verses of the treatise master; second, the external challenge. The external challenge is further divided into two parts: first, marking the paths of the 'non-dependent' (anutpāda) and 'non-attachment' (anupalambha) chapters; second, explaining these two paths. Without 'non-existence' and 'non-emptiness', it is called 'emptiness of emptiness' (shunyata shunyata). Therefore, the 'emptiness' spoken of in contrast to 'existence' is called 'small emptiness' (alpa shunyata). Neither 'existence' nor 'emptiness' exists, and both 'existence' and 'emptiness' are refuted, and this is 'great emptiness' (maha shunyata). If one denies the two truths (satya-dvaya), that is a great wrong view. It is only without dependence that there is emptiness without dependence on existence, and one should not be attached to it. Next, mark the path of the 'non-attachment' chapter. There is indeed non-dependent emptiness, but I am not allowed to be attached to it. If there is a contrast, the second part below explains the above chapter. First explain 'non-dependence', then explain 'non-attachment'. 'Having a contrast' (sapeksa) means speaking of emptiness in contrast to existence. 'Without a contrast' (nirapeksa) means emptiness without dependence on existence. Since dependence is gone, the second part below explains the path of the 'non-attachment' chapter. Because there is no characteristic of emptiness and no characteristic of existence, there is no characteristic to grasp. Answer: The second part below is the treatise master's refutation. If we distinguish the meaning of refutation based on single emptiness and double emptiness, the outsider previously said that refutation is refuting difference, and there should be emptiness. Here, single emptiness is established. The treatise master's previous verses refuted single emptiness. Secondly, ask: Understanding that both emptiness and non-emptiness are empty is to establish double emptiness. What is now refuted is double emptiness. If we speak of the meaning of the eighteen emptinesses (astadasa sunyata) and the unique emptiness (ekaki sunyata), the outsider previously established the eighteen emptinesses. The treatise master's previous verses refuted the eighteen emptinesses. If there are eighteen non-emptinesses, there can be eighteen emptinesses. Since there are no eighteen non-emptinesses at all, how can there be eighteen emptinesses? Secondly, the outsider establishes unique emptiness. How do we know this? The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says that the eighteen emptinesses are dependent emptinesses, and unique emptiness is non-dependent emptiness. The outsider previously established the meaning of non-dependence, so we know that unique emptiness is established. The current verses refute unique emptiness. The first half describes the Buddha's intention in speaking of emptiness, explaining that the Buddha spoke of single emptiness and double emptiness in order to be free from all views. Speaking of single emptiness is to be free from the view of existence.
說于重空為破空見也。佛說十八空為破有見。說于獨空破于相待亦是破于空見。下半明佛不化者。以著單空不可以單空化之。又著重空不可以重空化之。著十八空不可以十八空化之。又著獨空不可以獨空化之。故云佛不化之。問說空云何離愛見。答眾生計有人法故起愛見。諸佛說人法皆空則無起愛見處也。問云何不化。答向于有起愛見。今于空起愛見。乃至於絕四句復起愛見。是佛不化也。又序此偈意來者。從因緣品至於此偈凡有四節破意。一者外人本立有實人法。自上已來求之無從。二者觀行品初立有虛妄人法。論主求之亦不可得。第三轉意外人云。若無實無虛此即是空。便應有空。論主答云。既無有法。云何有空。第四轉意外人復云。無有無空乃是大空。是故今云。大聖說空本離諸見。若如此而著則佛不能化。又有四門。借異破性是無常門。以空門破異是名空門。以相待破空是空空門。復著空空是不可化門。以說此不可化即以化外人也。問論主何故不云非待非絕非伴非獨以破之耶。答彼既著非空非有。聞說非待非絕非伴非獨。彌復是空則轉更生著。故不作此破之。問智度論釋菩薩住二諦中為眾生說法。為著有者說空。爲著空者說有。今既著空。何故不說有化之。答外人初本著有故言有實人實法及以虛妄人法。故不
可以有化之。今復著空故不可以空化之。長行前釋上半。為破二事是故說空。一破諸見二破諸愛。此愛見通內外大小。若人于空下釋下半。又開四別。初法說譬如下第二譬說。如空下第三合譬。若離是空下明佛教用空之意也。
中觀論疏卷第七(本)
中觀論疏卷第七(末)
釋吉藏撰
合品第十四
所以有此品來者具於六義。一者論主上明諸法無待無絕。外人信之云。若言有待有絕。不得應于波若心會實相。今若能無待無絕。空有俱凈始得與實相合。故今更破之明既無待絕豈有合散。故大品云。菩薩習波若時。不見合與不合亦不見應與不應。乃名與波若相應也。攝論師立應身佛與法身相應亦作此責之。二者上來有四種著者皆由有心作解。所以故破著。是故此品更復就事求撿身心及以人我竟不可得。誰作解耶。復以何物生於著耶。三者諸行名五陰。五陰品雖觀五陰空義猶未盡。更就行門而觀撿之。合義唯是六情。上六情品雖觀六情不可得義亦未盡。更就根塵和合求撿無從。故有此品。四者行品破無性五陰。今破緣合根塵。故上來已破其實有。今破其假有。問何故觀六根不與六塵合耶。答顛倒眾生謂根塵為二。故根與塵合。則生三毒煩惱。煩惱故業業則有苦果。今觀根塵本自無合。則煩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 可以有化之。現在又執著于空，所以不可以用空來轉化它。長行前文解釋了上半部分。爲了破除兩種執著，所以說空。一是破除各種見解，二是破除各種愛慾。這種愛見貫通內外大小。『若人于空』以下解釋下半部分，又展開為四個部分。首先是法說，然後是譬喻，如同空以下是第三部分，合譬。『若離是空』以下闡明佛教用空的意義。
《中觀論疏》卷第七(本)
《中觀論疏》卷第七(末)
釋吉藏撰
合品第十四
之所以有這一品，具備六種意義。一是論主前面闡明諸法無待無絕。外人相信了這種說法，認為如果說有待有絕，就不能與般若（Prajna，智慧）心相應，契合實相。現在如果能夠無待無絕，空有都清凈，才能與實相契合。所以現在進一步破除這種觀點，闡明既然沒有對待和斷絕，哪裡會有聚合和離散？所以《大品般若經》說，菩薩修習般若時，不見聚合與不聚合，也不見相應與不相應，才叫做與般若相應。攝論師建立應身佛與法身相應，也是基於這種責難。二是前面有四種執著，都是因為有心去作解釋，所以要破除這種執著。因此這一品進一步就事論事，尋求身心以及人我，最終都不可得。是誰在作解釋呢？又是什麼東西產生了執著呢？三是諸行名為五陰（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）。五陰品雖然觀察了五陰的空性，但意義還沒有窮盡。進一步從行門的角度來觀察。合義只是六情（六根所對的六種感覺）。前面的六情品雖然觀察了六情不可得，但意義也沒有窮盡。進一步就根塵和合來尋求，無從獲得，所以有這一品。四是行品破除了無自性的五陰，現在破除緣合的根塵。所以前面已經破除了它的實有，現在破除它的假有。問：為什麼觀察六根不與六塵聚合呢？答：顛倒的眾生認為根塵是二，所以根與塵聚合，就會產生三毒煩惱。因為有煩惱，所以有業，有業就會有苦果。現在觀察根塵本來就沒有聚合，那麼煩
【English Translation】 English version It can be transformed. Now, being attached to emptiness again, it cannot be transformed by emptiness. The preceding prose explains the first half. To break through two attachments, emptiness is discussed. First, to break through various views; second, to break through various desires. These desires and views pervade both internal and external, large and small. 'If one is in emptiness' below explains the second half, further dividing it into four parts. First is the Dharma explanation, then the analogy, like 'as emptiness' below is the third part, combining the analogy. 'If one departs from this emptiness' below clarifies the intention of Buddhism in using emptiness.
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā-vṛtti (Commentary on the Middle Treatise) Volume 7 (Beginning)
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā-vṛtti (Commentary on the Middle Treatise) Volume 7 (End)
Composed by Śīlabhadra (Jizang)
Chapter 14: On Combination
The reason for this chapter is sixfold. First, the author above clarifies that all dharmas are without dependence and without severance. Outsiders believe this, saying that if there is dependence and severance, it cannot correspond to the Prajna (wisdom) mind and accord with true reality. Now, if one can be without dependence and severance, both emptiness and existence are purified, only then can one accord with true reality. Therefore, now it is further refuted, clarifying that since there is no dependence or severance, how can there be aggregation and dispersion? Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, 'When a Bodhisattva practices Prajna, they do not see aggregation or non-aggregation, nor do they see correspondence or non-correspondence, only then is it called corresponding with Prajna.' The Mahāyānasaṃgraha establishes that the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha corresponds with the Dharmakāya, also based on this criticism. Second, there are four kinds of attachments mentioned above, all arising from the mind making interpretations, therefore these attachments must be broken. Therefore, this chapter further examines the matter at hand, seeking the body and mind, as well as the self and others, ultimately finding them unattainable. Who is making interpretations? And what is it that gives rise to attachment? Third, the aggregates are called the five Skandhas (the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Although the chapter on the five Skandhas observes the emptiness of the five Skandhas, the meaning is not yet exhausted. It further observes from the perspective of practice. The meaning of combination is only the six senses. Although the preceding chapter on the six senses observes the unattainability of the six senses, the meaning is also not yet exhausted. It further seeks from the combination of the sense bases and sense objects, finding nothing, hence this chapter. Fourth, the chapter on aggregates breaks through the five Skandhas without inherent nature, now it breaks through the conditionally combined sense bases and sense objects. Therefore, the real existence of it has already been broken through above, now its false existence is broken through. Question: Why observe that the six sense organs do not combine with the six sense objects? Answer: Deluded beings consider the sense organs and sense objects as two, therefore the sense organs combine with the sense objects, which then gives rise to the three poisons of afflictions. Because there are afflictions, there is karma, and with karma, there will be suffering. Now, observing that the sense organs and sense objects originally have no combination, then the
惱不生。故無業苦。五者上行品雖破異義。但是略破義猶未盡。此品中廣破一切諸法異義。所以破異者。合起于異。無異故則無合。故破異也。六者含識之流皆謂萬像為異。起于惑障不得解脫。今此品求一切法異義無從。則煩惱不起。故有此品問誰計合耶。答略有四師。一世間人常云六根與六塵合。二外道情神意塵四合生知。三毗曇人云別有觸數能和會根塵。四成論義直明根與塵合無別觸數。今求合義無從。故以目品。品開為二。初長行發起。二偈本正破無合。初又二。前發起品來意。次問無合所由。此品稱說曰者。交言曰論。直語名說。此品既重料簡六情品。非正是外人乘前問后。故稱說曰。又上品從虛實窮至破重空。外人口眼不能救但心下未悟。論主懸取外心提起而破之。故云說曰八偈為三。初兩偈縱異奪合。第二五偈正破無異。第三一偈明無異故無合。初又二。前偈明見等三法異故無合。第二偈明一切法異故無合。三法異故無合者。眼色是法。見者為人。人法既異云何合耶。就法中色為其外眼為其內。內外既異亦無合也。問世間外道大乘小乘但明眼色異而合。合者根塵相會故言合耳。今言異不合。乃似正是外義。何名破耶。答此有二義。一者根塵體異無相到義故無合。若言懸合者。既不到近色與近合。亦不到遠
應與遠合也。此中破異不得合。成實師假人與實異不得合。心與真諦頑境異亦不得合。攝論師應身體是無常與法身異不得合。長行為五。初釋偈本。我或在內或在外者。佛法學人計我在身內。如樹神依樹無的別處。複次下第二開二關責之。所以開二關責者。上明三事異故無合。外人不受此難。若三事無異是則無合。正以三事異故是則有合。故重開二關責之。又關為五。一牒二定三總非四正難五總結。文易知。問汝眼到方見火。見火應燒眼。又應見淵中魚石。又應水漬眼也。又數論云眼是離中知。於他何必爾。如魚等夜不因明得見。又大士眼根入正受。耳中三昧起。有何定離合耶。又持法華經人鼻遙聞香。三根何必定到方知。又汝言遙合則應遙到。不可遙到亦不可遙聞也。又數論六識了六塵者。汝若六根一識則一根具六用。六根六識則有並用。問曰下第三外人救義明四合生知。已有知生則驗我情塵意合。故舉果證因。答曰下第四破救。就文為二。初指前破。六情品中明三法無見。一眼不能見。二色不能見。三人不能見。以無見故是則無合。既其無合知則不生。故云識等四法無。此則具破因果。云何更以果證因。又根品中無見無見者及以可見法。今不應言有四合以生知也。今當更說下第二縱破。又開五別。一唱重說。次牒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 應與遠合也。此中破異不得合。成實師（佛教宗派）假人與實異不得合。心與真諦（佛教用語，指真實不虛的道理）頑境異亦不得合。攝論師（佛教宗派）應身體是無常與法身（佛的化身）異不得合。長行為五。初釋偈本。我或在內或在外者。佛法學人計我在身內。如樹神依樹無的別處。複次下第二開二關責之。所以開二關責者。上明三事異故無合。外人不受此難。若三事無異是則無合。正以三事異故是則有合。故重開二關責之。又關為五。一牒二定三總非四正難五總結。文易知。問汝眼到方見火。見火應燒眼。又應見淵中魚石。又應水漬眼也。又數論（古印度哲學流派）云眼是離中知。於他何必爾。如魚等夜不因明得見。又大士眼根入正受。耳中三昧（佛教用語，指止息雜念，使心平靜的狀態）起。有何定離合耶。又持法華經人鼻遙聞香。三根何必定到方知。又汝言遙合則應遙到。不可遙到亦不可遙聞也。又數論六識了六塵者。汝若六根一識則一根具六用。六根六識則有並用。問曰下第三外人救義明四合生知。已有知生則驗我情塵意合。故舉果證因。答曰下第四破救。就文為二。初指前破。六情品中明三法無見。一眼不能見。二色不能見。三人不能見。以無見故是則無合。既其無合知則不生。故云識等四法無。此則具破因果。云何更以果證因。又根品中無見無見者及以可見法。今不應言有四合以生知也。今當更說下第二縱破。又開五別。一唱重說。次牒 應與遠處的物體結合。這裡破除差異，認為不應該結合。成實師（Satyasiddhi school）認為假我與真實不同，不應該結合。心與真諦（paramārtha-satya，ultimate truth）和頑固的境界不同，也不應該結合。《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）的學者認為應身（nirmāṇakāya，emanation body）是無常的，與法身（dharmakāya，Dharma body）不同，不應該結合。長行分為五部分。首先解釋偈頌的原本含義。『我或在內或在外』，佛法學習者認為我在身體內部，就像樹神依附於樹木，沒有確定的處所。其次，下面開啟兩重關卡來責問對方。之所以開啟兩重關卡來責問對方，是因為上面說明三件事物不同，所以不能結合。外道不接受這種詰難，認為如果三件事物沒有差異，那麼就不能結合；正是因為三件事物有差異，所以才能結合。因此，再次開啟兩重關卡來責問對方。關卡又分為五個步驟：一、引述；二、確定；三、總的否定；四、正式的詰難；五、總結。文義容易理解。問：你的眼睛到達才能看到火，看到火應該燒傷眼睛。又應該能看到深淵中的魚和石頭，又應該被水浸濕眼睛。又數論（Sāṃkhya）認為眼睛是從分離中獲得知識。對於其他事物，何必如此呢？就像魚等在夜晚不依靠光明也能看見。又大士的眼根進入正受（samyak-pratilabdha，right reception），耳朵中生起三昧（samādhi，concentration）。有什麼確定的分離和結合呢？又持誦《法華經》（Lotus Sūtra）的人，鼻子能遙遠地聞到香味。三種根（感官）為什麼一定要到達才能知道呢？又你說遙遠地結合，那麼就應該能遙遠地到達。不能遙遠地到達，也不能遙遠地聞到。又數論認為六識（ṣaḍ-vijñāna，six consciousnesses）瞭解六塵（ṣaḍ-viṣaya，six sense objects），如果你認為六根（ṣaḍ-indriya，six sense organs）只有一個識（vijñāna，consciousness），那麼一個根就具備六種作用；如果六根有六識，那麼就有並用的情況。問：下面第三部分，外人援救其觀點，說明四種結合產生知覺。已經有知覺產生，那麼就驗證了我的情、塵、意結合。所以舉出結果來證明原因。答：下面第四部分，駁斥援救。就文義分為兩部分。首先指出前面的駁斥。在六情品中說明三種法沒有見性。一眼不能見，二色不能見，三人不能見。因為沒有見性，所以不能結合。既然不能結合，知覺就不會產生。所以說識等四法沒有。這便完全駁斥了因果關係。怎麼能再用結果來證明原因呢？又在根品中，沒有見者、沒有見性和可以被見之法。現在不應該說有四種結合來產生知覺。現在應當再說，下面第二部分，縱容對方的觀點進行駁斥。又開啟五種區別。一、重複陳述；二、引述
【English Translation】 English version It should combine with what is far away. Here, breaking the differences, it is considered that they should not combine. The Satyasiddhi school (Chengshi school) believes that the false self is different from the real, and they should not combine. The mind is different from the paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) and the stubborn realm, and they should not combine. The scholars of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) believe that the nirmāṇakāya (emanation body) is impermanent and different from the dharmakāya (Dharma body), and they should not combine. The prose section is divided into five parts. First, explain the original meaning of the verses. 'I am either inside or outside,' Buddhist learners believe that I am inside the body, like a tree spirit attached to a tree, without a fixed place. Secondly, below, open two gates to question the other party. The reason for opening two gates to question the other party is that the above explains that three things are different, so they cannot combine. Outsiders do not accept this challenge, believing that if three things have no difference, then they cannot combine; it is precisely because three things have differences that they can combine. Therefore, open two gates again to question the other party. The gates are further divided into five steps: 1. Citation; 2. Determination; 3. General negation; 4. Formal challenge; 5. Summary. The meaning of the text is easy to understand. Question: Your eyes must reach to see the fire, seeing the fire should burn the eyes. Also, you should be able to see the fish and stones in the abyss, and you should be able to get your eyes wet with water. Also, Sāṃkhya (Samkhya school) believes that the eyes gain knowledge from separation. Why is it necessary to be like this for other things? Just like fish, etc., can see at night without relying on light. Also, the eyes of a Bodhisattva enter samyak-pratilabdha (right reception), and samādhi (concentration) arises in the ears. What definite separation and combination is there? Also, people who uphold the Lotus Sūtra can smell the fragrance from afar with their noses. Why must the three indriya (sense organs) reach to know? Also, you say that combining from afar, then you should be able to reach from afar. You cannot reach from afar, nor can you smell from afar. Also, Sāṃkhya believes that the six vijñāna (consciousnesses) understand the six ṣaḍ-viṣaya (sense objects). If you believe that the six ṣaḍ-indriya (sense organs) have only one vijñāna (consciousness), then one organ has six functions; if the six organs have six consciousnesses, then there is a case of simultaneous use. Question: Below, in the third part, the outsider rescues his view, explaining that four combinations produce perception. Since perception has already arisen, then it verifies the combination of my feelings, dust, and intention. Therefore, the result is used to prove the cause. Answer: Below, in the fourth part, refute the rescue. The meaning of the text is divided into two parts. First, point out the previous refutation. In the section on the six emotions, it is explained that the three dharmas have no seeing nature. One eye cannot see, two colors cannot see, and three people cannot see. Because there is no seeing nature, they cannot combine. Since they cannot combine, perception will not arise. Therefore, it is said that the four dharmas such as consciousness do not exist. This completely refutes the relationship between cause and effect. How can the result be used to prove the cause again? Also, in the section on the organs, there is no seer, no seeing nature, and no dharma that can be seen. Now it should not be said that there are four combinations to produce perception. Now it should be said again, below, in the second part, refute by indulging the other party's views. Also, open five distinctions. 1. Repeat the statement; 2. Citation
外義。次開二關定之。第四作難。知無故下第五總結也。如是諸法中幻下長行第五舉喻曉之。染與于可染下第二偈明萬法異是故無合。上半明染等三法無合。所以偏破染等無合者。由眼見色故起貪心。前明眼見色尚無有合。貪從何生。故次破染。又上明眼色無合則五根無合義。今染等無合則意根無合義。下半更類破兩法。余入者謂耳等五入。余煩惱者瞋癡之流。複次異法當有合者第二破無有異。前借異破合。是故今次辨無異。又合由異生異為合本。今既無異。何所合耶。又例如上品。上品明以後異破性。外還捉異救性。今以異明不合。外還執異救合。是以二品俱有破異。五偈為二。初二偈總標無異。第二三偈別釋無異。初又二。前偈明三法無異。還對上三法無合。第二偈明一切法無異。對上一切法無合。文易知也。問何故唱萬法無異。答世間外道小乘大乘皆言眼與色異。故眼見色生三毒及業苦。今求異不得則三毒不生。此是大益也。問曰何故無異下生起第二三偈釋無異。此中三偈其文甚易知。而講者多有異釋遂翳其文。今直讀之使煥然易領。次三偈為二。初兩偈明無卷異。次一偈辨無指異。明無卷異謂無總異。辨無指異即無別異。夫論有異不出總別。總別無異則一切異空。又無卷異明無果。次無指異明無因。異因果攝
一切法也。又無卷異明無內學所計異。次無指異明無外道所計異。內外總攝一切。又前亦是無因緣異。次明無非因緣異。亦攝一切。約成實義者。前明無假異。謂假人假柱。次明無實異。謂五陰四微。以假實總攝一切。初二偈又二。第一偈明卷不與指異。即是果不與因異。亦是假不與實異也。第二偈明卷不與瓶柱等異。亦是果不與非因異。夫論卷異不出斯二。斯二既無則異義盡矣。異因異有異者。異即是卷異也。因異者因五指異也。有異者有卷異也。所以然者。見指五知卷一。見指散知卷合。見指是因知卷是果。故云異因異有異也。異辭異無異者。異即卷異也。離異者離五指異。無異者無卷異也。若法所因出是法不異因者。上半為外作因果義。今下半破之。若果從因出則果不異因。所以然者。若因壞果存果可異因。今因有則果有因無則果無。寧得卷果於因。就卷指作既爾。人望五陰柱與四微萬義皆類。問上明眼等三法無異。今亦得舉眼等三法作之以不。答可具二義。若望成實。眼是果四大為因。同卷指破。若望毗曇。眼亦是果四大造之。此亦是因。雖非假實既是因果。亦同卷指。二者以眼望色異。因色異故有眼異。離色異無眼異。若眼異從色異生。從色生則眼不異色。以眼是能見色是所見。既無所見亦無能見。能所之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一切法也是如此。『又無卷異明無內學所計異』，意思是說，沒有卷與指的差異，從而表明沒有內道學說所計較的差異。『次無指異明無外道所計異』，意思是說，沒有指與卷的差異，從而表明沒有外道學說所計較的差異。內外總攝一切，內外道學說涵蓋一切法。 『又前亦是無因緣異』，前面所說的也包含了沒有因緣的差異。『次明無非因緣異』，接下來闡明沒有非因緣的差異，這也涵蓋了一切法。從成實宗的意義上來說，前面說明沒有虛假的差異，比如虛假的人、虛假的柱子。接下來說明沒有真實的差異，比如五陰、四微。用虛假和真實總括一切。 最初的兩句偈頌又可以分為兩部分。第一句偈頌說明卷不與指相異，也就是果不與因相異，也可以說是假不與實相異。第二句偈頌說明卷不與瓶子、柱子等相異，也就是果不與非因相異。討論卷的差異，不會超出這兩種情況。這兩種情況既然不存在，那麼差異的意義也就窮盡了。 『異因異有異者』，『異』就是卷的差異。『因異者』，因是五指的差異。『有異者』，有卷的差異。之所以這樣說，是因為看到五個手指才知道卷是一個整體，看到手指分散才知道卷是組合而成，看到手指是因才知道卷是果，所以說『異因異有異』。 『異辭異無異者』，『異』就是卷的差異。『離異者』，離開五指的差異。『無異者』，沒有卷的差異。『若法所因出是法不異因者』，前半部分是為外道建立因果關係，現在後半部分來破斥它。如果果是從因產生的，那麼果就不異於因。之所以這樣說，如果因壞了果還存在，那麼果就可以異於因。現在因存在則果存在，因不存在則果不存在，怎麼能說卷這個果異於指這個因呢？ 就卷和指來說是這樣，人與五陰、柱子與四微，萬事萬物的道理都是類似的。問：上面說明眼等三種法沒有差異，現在也可以用眼等三種法來論證嗎？答：可以包含兩種意義。如果從成實宗的角度來看，眼是果，四大是因，和卷與指的論證相同。如果從毗曇宗的角度來看，眼也是果，四大造就了眼，這也是因。雖然不是假和實的關係，但既然是因果關係，也和卷與指的論證相同。 第二種情況，用眼來看待色塵的差異，因為色塵的差異所以有眼的差異，離開色塵的差異就沒有眼的差異。如果眼的差異是從色塵的差異產生的，從色塵產生，那麼眼就不異於色塵。因為眼是能見，色塵是所見，既然沒有所見，也就沒有能見，能見和所見的...
【English Translation】 English version All dharmas are like this. 'Moreover, the absence of difference in the roll demonstrates the absence of difference as conceived by internal schools.' This means that there is no difference between the roll and the fingers, thereby indicating that there are no differences as conceived by internal schools. 'Next, the absence of difference in the fingers demonstrates the absence of difference as conceived by external schools.' This means that there is no difference between the fingers and the roll, thereby indicating that there are no differences as conceived by external schools. Internal and external schools encompass everything; the doctrines of internal and external schools cover all dharmas. 'Furthermore, the preceding also implies the absence of difference due to cause and condition.' What was said before also includes the absence of difference due to cause and condition. 'Next, it clarifies the absence of difference due to non-cause and non-condition.' Next, it clarifies that there is no difference due to non-cause and non-condition, which also encompasses all dharmas. From the perspective of the Satyasiddhi School (Chengshi zong), the preceding explains the absence of false difference, such as a false person or a false pillar. Next, it explains the absence of real difference, such as the five skandhas (wuyin) or the four elements (siwei). Everything is encompassed by the false and the real. The initial two verses can be further divided into two parts. The first verse explains that the roll is not different from the fingers, which means that the effect is not different from the cause, and it can also be said that the false is not different from the real. The second verse explains that the roll is not different from a bottle, a pillar, etc., which means that the effect is not different from the non-cause. Discussing the difference of the roll does not go beyond these two situations. Since these two situations do not exist, then the meaning of difference is exhausted. 'The difference of cause, the difference of existence, the difference of difference,' where 'difference' is the difference of the roll. 'The difference of cause' is the difference of the five fingers. 'The difference of existence' is the existence of the difference of the roll. The reason for saying this is that seeing the five fingers, one knows that the roll is a whole; seeing the fingers scattered, one knows that the roll is a combination; seeing the fingers as the cause, one knows that the roll is the effect. Therefore, it is said 'the difference of cause, the difference of existence, the difference of difference'. 'The difference of words, the difference of non-existence, the difference of difference,' where 'difference' is the difference of the roll. 'Leaving the difference' is leaving the difference of the five fingers. 'Non-existence of difference' is the non-existence of the difference of the roll. 'If the dharma that is caused, the arising of this dharma is not different from the cause,' the first half is to establish the cause-and-effect relationship for external schools, and now the second half is to refute it. If the effect arises from the cause, then the effect is not different from the cause. The reason for saying this is that if the cause is destroyed and the effect still exists, then the effect can be different from the cause. Now, if the cause exists, then the effect exists; if the cause does not exist, then the effect does not exist. How can it be said that the roll, the effect, is different from the fingers, the cause? It is like this in the case of the roll and the fingers; the principle of a person and the five skandhas, a pillar and the four elements, and all things is similar. Question: Above, it was explained that there is no difference in the three dharmas of the eye, etc. Can the three dharmas of the eye, etc., be used to argue now? Answer: It can include two meanings. If viewed from the perspective of the Satyasiddhi School, the eye is the effect, and the four great elements (sida) are the cause, which is the same as the argument of the roll and the fingers. If viewed from the perspective of the Sarvastivada School (Pitan zong), the eye is also the effect, and the four great elements create the eye, which is also the cause. Although it is not a relationship of false and real, since it is a cause-and-effect relationship, it is also the same as the argument of the roll and the fingers. The second situation is to use the eye to view the difference of form (se), because of the difference of form, there is the difference of the eye; leaving the difference of form, there is no difference of the eye. If the difference of the eye arises from the difference of form, arising from form, then the eye is not different from form. Because the eye is the seer (nengjian), and form is the seen (suojian), since there is no seen, there is also no seer, the seer and the seen...
法有則俱有無則俱無。不得言所見雖無能見猶有。故所壞能即壞。當知能不異所。又問眼色本來未曾同。云何得說異耶。又問眼異因色異色異因眼異。若皆異即皆眼皆色。彼答良由眼異色色異眼故有眼色耳。云何作此難耶。問汝眼異為因色異生。為因色異不生。若異因異生。則異還待異長還待長。若因不異生。既稱眼色。云何不異耶。又問異為有別體。為無有別體。若異無別體還指色為體。亦眼無別體還指色為體。若眼自以眼為體。不以色為體。則異自以異為體。不以色為體。又色有體可名異。色竟無體。云何有異。又異指色為體。色復以誰為體。體復有體即無窮。無窮則無體。又異以色為體。只色是異。見色應見異。異是法塵。眼云何見。若不見則色非是異。應離色別有異。異應自有體。又眼異在眼為在色。若在眼眼何所從。異若在色此是色異。何關眼異。又眼異不自異則一不一。于瓶然一。還一于瓶不一于柱。則眼異還異於眼。何得在色。又破若法所因出。如因木生火。火不得還木。若火還木從木出者。火亦還水何不從水出。如因柱成舍不因空成舍。故知空異舍柱不異舍。若俱異應俱成。又生死涅槃凡聖等異皆作此破之。如因涅槃異故有生死異。離涅槃異無生死異。真妄等亦爾。問曰若有定異法有何咎第二偈破果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法如果存在，那麼一切都存在；法如果不存在，那麼一切都不存在。不能說所見之物雖然不存在，能見的能力仍然存在。因此，所被破壞的（所見之物）和能破壞的（能見的能力）同時被破壞。應當明白，能見的能力與所見之物沒有區別。又有人問：『眼和色本來就沒有相同過，怎麼能說它們是不同的呢？』又有人問：『眼的不同是因為色的不同，色的不同是因為眼的不同。如果都不同，那麼一切都是眼，一切都是色。』他回答說：『正是因為眼的不同，以及不同於眼的事物，所以才有了眼和色。』為什麼要這樣責難呢？問：『你的眼的不同，是因為色的不同而產生，還是因為色的不同而不產生？如果不同是因為不同而產生，那麼不同還需要依賴不同，增長還需要依賴增長。如果不是因為不同而產生，既然稱為眼和色，怎麼能說它們不是不同的呢？』又有人問：『不同是有獨立的實體，還是沒有獨立的實體？如果不同沒有獨立的實體，那麼還是指色為實體；眼也沒有獨立的實體，還是指色為實體。如果眼自己以眼為實體，不以色為實體，那麼不同自己以不同為實體，不以色為實體。』又色有實體，可以稱為不同；色竟然沒有實體，怎麼會有不同？又不同指色為實體，色又以什麼為實體？實體又有實體，那就是無窮無盡。無窮無盡就沒有實體。又不同以色為實體，只是色就是不同。見到色就應該見到不同。不同是法塵（Dharmadhātu），眼怎麼能見到？如果見不到，那麼色就不是不同，應該離開色另外有不同，不同應該有自己的實體。又眼的不同是在眼上，還是在色上？如果在眼上，眼是從哪裡來的不同？如果是在色上，這是色的不同，和眼的不同有什麼關係？又眼的不同不是自己不同，那麼就是一而不是一。對於瓶子來說是一，還是一于瓶子而不是一于柱子。那麼眼的不同還是不同於眼，怎麼能在色上？又破斥說：如果法是因為某種原因而產生，比如因為木頭而生火，火不能回到木頭。如果火回到木頭，從木頭出來，那麼火也應該回到水，為什麼不從水出來？比如因為柱子而建成房屋，不是因為空而建成房屋。所以知道空不同於房屋，柱子不不同於房屋。如果都不同，就應該都成立。又生死、涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）、凡夫、聖人等不同，都可以這樣破斥。比如因為涅槃的不同，所以有生死的不同；離開涅槃的不同，就沒有生死的不同。真和妄等也是這樣。問：『如果有確定的不同之法，有什麼過失？』第二偈破斥果報。
【English Translation】 English version If a Dharma (law, principle) exists, then everything exists; if a Dharma does not exist, then everything does not exist. It cannot be said that although what is seen does not exist, the ability to see still exists. Therefore, what is destroyed (the seen) and what can destroy (the ability to see) are destroyed simultaneously. It should be understood that the ability to see is not different from what is seen. Someone also asked: 'The eye and the color have never been the same, how can it be said that they are different?' Someone also asked: 'The difference of the eye is because of the difference of the color, and the difference of the color is because of the difference of the eye. If everything is different, then everything is eye, and everything is color.' He replied: 'It is precisely because of the difference of the eye, and the things that are different from the eye, that there are eye and color.' Why make this accusation? Question: 'Is your eye's difference produced because of the color's difference, or is it not produced because of the color's difference? If the difference is produced because of the difference, then the difference still needs to rely on the difference, and the growth still needs to rely on the growth. If it is not produced because of the difference, since it is called eye and color, how can it be said that they are not different?' Someone also asked: 'Does the difference have an independent entity, or does it not have an independent entity? If the difference does not have an independent entity, then it still refers to color as the entity; the eye also does not have an independent entity, and still refers to color as the entity. If the eye itself takes the eye as the entity, and does not take the color as the entity, then the difference itself takes the difference as the entity, and does not take the color as the entity.' Also, color has an entity, which can be called difference; color actually has no entity, how can there be difference? Also, the difference refers to color as the entity, what does color take as the entity? If the entity has an entity, then it is endless. If it is endless, then there is no entity. Also, the difference takes color as the entity, only color is the difference. Seeing color should see the difference. Difference is Dharmadhātu (realm of phenomena), how can the eye see it? If you can't see it, then color is not the difference, there should be difference apart from color, and difference should have its own entity. Also, is the eye's difference in the eye, or in the color? If it is in the eye, where does the eye's difference come from? If it is in the color, this is the color's difference, what does it have to do with the eye's difference? Also, the eye's difference is not different by itself, then it is one and not one. It is one for the bottle, and it is one for the bottle but not one for the pillar. Then the eye's difference is still different from the eye, how can it be in the color? Also, refuting says: If a Dharma is produced because of some reason, such as fire is produced because of wood, fire cannot return to wood. If fire returns to wood and comes out of wood, then fire should also return to water, why doesn't it come out of water? For example, a house is built because of pillars, not because of emptiness. So know that emptiness is different from the house, and the pillar is not different from the house. If everything is different, then everything should be established. Also, the differences between Samsara (birth and death), Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation), ordinary people, and saints can all be refuted in this way. For example, because of the difference of Nirvana, there is the difference of Samsara; without the difference of Nirvana, there is no difference of Samsara. The same is true for truth and falsehood. Question: 'If there is a definite Dharma of difference, what is the fault?' The second verse refutes retribution.
不與非因異。前問次答。外云。卷由指有。卷可不異指。卷不由柱有。卷應與柱異。故名定異法也。答中上半縱之下半奪破。所言縱者。若離五指異有于卷異。可將卷與瓶柱等異也。下半奪者。今離五指異既無卷異。將何物與瓶柱為異。如是五陰成人四微成柱悉作是破。長行二週釋。前總就一切法釋。后別寄卷指事釋。問曰我經說下第二次破五指異。具如前數條目之。初問次答。問意為兩。初總出其所是。次別明其所是。異相不從眾緣生者總出所是也。前二偈並是從因緣生義。初偈卷由指有卷不異指。次偈卷從指有即無卷可異瓶。此並從因緣生故無有異。今外人云。我經說異相都不從因緣生。此應當有定異法。無上破也。分別總相下第二別出其所是。總相者卷也。別相者五指長短相也。異法者五指體也。由分別總卷故有五指長短別異。由指長短異相故有五指之法。則是由指長短知長短指。故用指長短為異相。長短指名異法。問外既云從總相有別相從異相有異法。云何名不從因緣生。答曰下自作此破之。但外人義云。從五指生卷由別成總。故總從因緣生。以指別既壞總卷亦壞故也。不由總卷生於別指。以卷雖壞而指猶存故知不從總相成於別相。故知別相成於總相。故知別相不從因緣生。此義與成實等假實義大同。人柱從
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『不與非因異』是指異相不是由非因產生的。這是先提出問題，然後給出回答。外道辯論說：『卷』（書卷）是由『指』（手指）而有的，那麼『卷』可以不與『指』相異嗎？『卷』不是由『柱』（柱子）而有的，那麼『卷』應該與『柱』相異。因此，這被稱為『定異法』（確定差異性的方法）。 回答中的前半部分縱容了對方的觀點，後半部分則駁斥了它。所說的『縱』是指，如果離開五指，『卷』確實與五指不同，那麼就可以將『卷』與瓶子、柱子等區分開來。下半部分的『奪』是指，現在離開五指，既然沒有了『卷』的差異性，那麼用什麼東西來與瓶子、柱子區分開來呢？像這樣，五陰（色、受、想、行、識）構成人，四大（地、水、火、風）構成柱子，都可以用這種方式來駁斥。 長行（散文形式的經文）用兩週來解釋。前面總的來說是對一切法（一切事物）進行解釋，後面則特別借用『卷』和『指』的事例來解釋。提問說：『我的經書上說…』這是第二次駁斥五指的差異性。具體內容如同前面所列的條目。先提問，后回答。提問的意圖有兩個方面：首先總的提出他所主張的觀點，其次分別說明他所主張的觀點。『異相不從眾緣生』是總的提出他所主張的觀點。前面的兩個偈頌都是從因緣生的意義出發。第一個偈頌說『卷由指有，卷不異指』，第二個偈頌說『卷從指有，即無卷可異瓶』。這些都是從因緣生，所以沒有差異性。現在外道說：『我的經書上說，異相都不是從因緣生的。』這應當有確定的差異性，這是無上的駁斥。 『分別總相』以下是第二部分，分別說明他所主張的觀點。『總相』指的是『卷』，『別相』指的是五指的長短之相，『異法』指的是五指的本體。由於分別了總體的『卷』，所以有五指長短的差別。由於手指長短的差異，所以有五指的法。因此，是通過手指的長短來了解長短的手指。所以用手指的長短作為異相，長短的手指被稱為異法。外道既然說從總相有別相，從異相有異法，為什麼又說不是從因緣生呢？ 回答說：下面是自己對此進行駁斥。但外道的意義是說，從五指產生『卷』，由差別成就總體。所以總體是從因緣生的。因為手指的差別既然壞滅，總體的『卷』也壞滅了。不是由總體的『卷』產生個別的『指』，因為『卷』雖然壞滅，而『指』仍然存在，所以知道不是從總相成就個別相。所以知道個別相成就總體相。所以知道個別相不是從因緣生。這個意義與成實宗等所說的假實義非常相似。人、柱子從...
【English Translation】 English version 'Not different from non-cause' means that different characteristics are not produced by non-causes. This is first asking a question and then giving an answer. The heretics argued: 'A scroll (卷) [scroll] exists because of fingers (指) [fingers], so can the scroll not be different from the fingers? The scroll does not exist because of a pillar (柱) [pillar], so the scroll should be different from the pillar.' Therefore, this is called 'determining difference' (定異法) [the method of determining differences]. The first half of the answer indulges the opponent's point of view, while the second half refutes it. The so-called 'indulge' means that if the scroll is indeed different from the five fingers when separated from them, then the scroll can be distinguished from bottles, pillars, and so on. The 'refute' in the second half means that now that there is no difference in the scroll when separated from the five fingers, what can be used to distinguish it from bottles and pillars? In this way, the five skandhas (五陰) [form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness] that constitute a person, and the four great elements (四大) [earth, water, fire, and wind] that constitute a pillar, can all be refuted in this way. The long prose (長行) [prose form of scripture] uses two weeks to explain. The first part generally explains all dharmas (一切法) [all things], and the second part specifically uses the example of 'scroll' and 'fingers' to explain. The question says: 'My scripture says...' This is the second refutation of the difference of the five fingers. The specific content is the same as the items listed earlier. First ask a question, then answer it. There are two aspects to the intention of the question: first, generally present the viewpoint he advocates, and second, specifically explain the viewpoint he advocates. 'Different characteristics are not produced from various causes' is a general presentation of the viewpoint he advocates. The previous two verses are both from the meaning of arising from causes and conditions. The first verse says 'The scroll exists because of the fingers, the scroll is not different from the fingers,' and the second verse says 'The scroll exists because of the fingers, so there is no scroll that can be different from a bottle.' These all arise from causes and conditions, so there is no difference. Now the heretics say: 'My scripture says that different characteristics are not produced from causes and conditions.' This should have a definite difference, which is the supreme refutation. 'Distinguishing the general characteristic' below is the second part, specifically explaining the viewpoint he advocates. 'General characteristic' refers to 'scroll', 'separate characteristic' refers to the appearance of the length of the five fingers, and 'different dharma' refers to the essence of the five fingers. Because the overall 'scroll' is distinguished, there is a difference in the length of the five fingers. Because of the difference in the length of the fingers, there is the dharma of the five fingers. Therefore, it is through the length of the fingers that one understands the length of the fingers. Therefore, the length of the fingers is used as a different characteristic, and the length of the fingers is called a different dharma. Since the heretics say that there are separate characteristics from general characteristics, and different dharmas from different characteristics, why do they say that it is not produced from causes and conditions? The answer says: Below is a self-refutation of this. But the meaning of the heretics is that the 'scroll' is produced from the five fingers, and the whole is achieved by the difference. Therefore, the whole is produced from causes and conditions. Because the difference of the fingers is destroyed, the overall 'scroll' is also destroyed. The individual 'fingers' are not produced from the overall 'scroll', because although the 'scroll' is destroyed, the 'fingers' still exist, so it is known that the individual characteristic is not achieved from the general characteristic. Therefore, it is known that the individual characteristic achieves the overall characteristic. Therefore, it is known that the individual characteristic is not produced from causes and conditions. This meaning is very similar to the false and real meaning said by the Chengshi School and others. People, pillars from...
微陰成。微陰壞人柱即壞。微陰不從人柱成。人柱雖壞猶有四微五陰也。偈上半破無異相。下半明無異法上半開二關責之。汝以指長短為異相。長短指為異法。故以指長短為長短指作相者。為長短指本異須異相相之。為長短指本不異以異相相之。若長短指本異。竟何須異相相之。又若本異竟更須異相相者。則有重異之過。又有無窮之失。若長短指本不異將異相相者。是亦不然。若本無兩指異則無二指相。何所相。又汝以異相相不異法令異。亦應以不異法不異汝異相異相成不異也。又問汝異為異異。為異不異。若異異者。異已是異何須異耶。若異不異者。則無復不異。云何得有異。如火為熱。于熱為熱熱不熱。若熱于熱。已是熱竟何須熱。若熱不熱。則無不熱。云何有熱。下半云。因有長短異相故有此指彼指異法。既無異相。云何有此彼異法耶。長行為二。第一前迥破外人立義。次釋偈文。初文二。一者牒外義。若爾者下第二破也。既言分別總相故有異相。當知異相從總緣而生。云何言異相不從緣而生。成論人云。本有色心然後論其總別。如本有兩柱在中然後論其東西。今問汝別為別別。為別總。若別別。別已是別。何須別耶。若別總。則別從總生。又別既別總則失總。總亦爾也。是異相離異法不可得故者。前明別從總
生故別是因緣義。今明異相從異法生異相是因緣義。如指長短要從長短指生。是故異相即是因緣。故一切皆是因緣。若是因緣已入前二偈破之。今異法中無異相下第二釋偈本。文易見也。若異相在不異法中不名不異法者。破意不許其異在不異中。若異相在不異中則無不異法。尚無不異法。云何言不異中有異相耶。此意須翻取之。複次下品第三段明無異故無合。即釋上破異之意。品稱破合。而今破異者。意欲明無合故也。上半更開一異兩門明無合。下半結無合義。自有三義故無合。若是能合無所合。是所合即無能合。不爾則非能所。無有合。異法不合者。異則已成。不須複合。假使合者是亦不然。如指一方合三方不合。不合多故應合為不合。
有無品第十五
此品來有近遠兩義者。上來諸品處處已破有無。六種云。若使無有有。云何當有無。乃至行品云。若有不空法應當有空法。如是並已破竟。但上來是略破散破。今廣破是束破。所以具須作廣略破者。有無是諸見根障中道本。諸見根者如因有無成斷常。因斷常生六十二見。故有無是諸見之根。若有無病生則眾病並生。有無若滅諸患皆滅。障中道本者。近而為論。一切因果皆是中道。又佛性是中道。如佛呵迦葉。我先不說中道為佛性。汝何故失意更問。又中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
『生故別是因緣義』，意思是說，事物的產生和變化都是因緣和合的結果。現在要說明的是，不同的現象（異相）是從不同的事物（異法）產生的，這種『異相』的產生就是『因緣』的意義。比如，手指有長短，長短的產生依賴於不同的手指。因此，不同的現象（異相）本身就是『因緣』。所以說，一切事物都是因緣和合的產物。如果認為是因緣，那麼就已經在前兩首偈頌中被破斥了。現在解釋『異法中無異相』這句偈頌的根本含義，文字本身很容易理解。『若異相在不異法中不名不異法者』，這是爲了破斥認為『異相』存在於『不異法』中的觀點。如果『異相』存在於『不異』之中，那麼就不存在『不異法』了。既然連『不異法』都不存在，又怎麼能說『不異』之中存在『異相』呢？這個意思需要反過來理解。
其次，第三段說明因為沒有『異』，所以沒有『合』。這是爲了解釋上面破斥『異』的含義。這一品名為『破合』，但現在卻破斥『異』，目的是爲了說明沒有『合』。前半部分進一步從『異』和『不異』兩個方面來說明沒有『合』。後半部分總結沒有『合』的意義。因為有三種情況，所以沒有『合』。如果存在能合的事物，那麼就不存在所合的事物；如果存在所合的事物，那麼就不存在能合的事物。否則，就不是能合和所合的關係，也就沒有『合』。不同的事物（異法）不能合，因為它們已經是不同的，不需要再合。即使假設它們可以合，也是不合理的。比如，手指的一面和另外三面不能合。因為不能合的情況更多，所以應該認為『合』就是『不合』。
《有無論》第十五品
這一品討論『有』和『無』的問題，有近和遠兩種意義。在前面的章節中，已經多次破斥了『有』和『無』的觀點。例如，六種中說：『如果本來沒有『有』，那麼『無』又怎麼會產生呢？』，甚至在《行品》中也說：『如果存在不空的法，那麼就應該存在空的法。』這些都已經是破斥了『有』和『無』的觀點。但是，之前的破斥是簡略的、分散的，現在要進行廣泛的、集中的破斥。之所以需要進行廣泛和簡略的破斥，是因為『有』和『無』是各種錯誤的見解的根源，也是障礙中道的根本。『有』和『無』是各種見解的根源，例如，因為執著于『有』和『無』，就會產生斷見和常見，進而產生六十二種錯誤的見解。所以，『有』和『無』是各種見解的根源。如果『有』和『無』的病根產生，那麼各種疾病都會隨之產生；如果『有』和『無』的病根滅除，那麼各種疾病都會隨之滅除。『有』和『無』是障礙中道的根本，從近處來說，一切因果都是中道。此外，佛性也是中道。例如，佛呵斥迦葉說：『我之前不是說過中道就是佛性嗎？你為什麼還感到疑惑，再次提問呢？』此外
【English Translation】 English version:
'Birth and separation are the meaning of cause and condition (因緣, yin yuan)'. This means that the arising and changing of things are the result of the combination of causes and conditions. Now, it will be explained that different phenomena (異相, yi xiang) arise from different things (異法, yi fa), and the arising of this 'different phenomenon' is the meaning of 'cause and condition'. For example, fingers have different lengths, and the different lengths depend on different fingers. Therefore, the different phenomena (異相, yi xiang) themselves are 'cause and condition'. Therefore, it is said that all things are the product of the combination of causes and conditions. If it is considered a cause and condition, then it has already been refuted in the previous two verses. Now, the fundamental meaning of the verse 'in different things, there are no different phenomena' is explained, and the text itself is easy to understand. 'If different phenomena are in non-different things, they are not called non-different things', this is to refute the view that 'different phenomena' exist in 'non-different things'. If 'different phenomena' exist in 'non-difference', then there is no 'non-different thing'. Since even 'non-different things' do not exist, how can it be said that 'non-difference' contains 'different phenomena'? This meaning needs to be understood in reverse.
Secondly, the third paragraph explains that because there is no 'difference', there is no 'combination'. This is to explain the meaning of refuting 'difference' above. This chapter is called 'Refuting Combination', but now it refutes 'difference', the purpose is to explain that there is no 'combination'. The first half further explains from the two aspects of 'difference' and 'non-difference' that there is no 'combination'. The second half summarizes the meaning of no 'combination'. Because there are three situations, there is no 'combination'. If there is a thing that can combine, then there is no thing to be combined; if there is a thing to be combined, then there is no thing that can combine. Otherwise, it is not a relationship of what can combine and what is to be combined, and there is no 'combination'. Different things (異法, yi fa) cannot combine, because they are already different and do not need to be combined again. Even if we assume that they can combine, it is unreasonable. For example, one side of a finger cannot combine with the other three sides. Because there are more situations where they cannot combine, it should be considered that 'combination' is 'non-combination'.
Chapter Fifteen, 'On Existence and Non-Existence' (有無論, You Wu Lun)
This chapter discusses the issue of 'existence' and 'non-existence', with both near and far meanings. In the previous chapters, the views of 'existence' and 'non-existence' have been refuted many times. For example, in the six kinds, it is said: 'If there was no 'existence' originally, then how would 'non-existence' arise?', and even in the 'Chapter on Action', it is also said: 'If there is a non-empty dharma, then there should be an empty dharma.' These have already refuted the views of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. However, the previous refutations were brief and scattered, and now a broad and concentrated refutation is to be carried out. The reason why it is necessary to carry out broad and brief refutations is that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are the root of various wrong views and the foundation for obstructing the Middle Way. 'Existence' and 'non-existence' are the root of various views, for example, because of attachment to 'existence' and 'non-existence', the views of annihilation and permanence will arise, and then the sixty-two wrong views will arise. Therefore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are the root of various views. If the root of the disease of 'existence' and 'non-existence' arises, then various diseases will arise accordingly; if the root of the disease of 'existence' and 'non-existence' is eliminated, then various diseases will be eliminated. 'Existence' and 'non-existence' are the foundation for obstructing the Middle Way, and from a close perspective, all causes and effects are the Middle Way. In addition, Buddha-nature is also the Middle Way. For example, the Buddha rebuked Kashyapa, saying: 'Didn't I say before that the Middle Way is Buddha-nature? Why are you still feeling doubtful and asking again?' Furthermore
道為佛法身。如是一乘實相皆是中道。今起有無成斷常故障中道。又如來常依二諦說法。但二諦是因緣空有。而外人聞有作有解成自性之有。聞無作無解成自性之無。則障於二諦。既障二諦則二智不生。便無三世諸佛菩薩。斯病既深故須重破。又有此品來者。有人言。此論從始自末破洗諸法者。蓋是拆有入無遣俗歸真耳。今謂不然。既求有無從。何所拆耶。撿無不得。何所入耶。蓋是迷者執有惑人謂無。今責之不得。故云破有無。故作者品云。是業從眾緣生。假名為有無有決定。非如汝所說。故知外人無所見有亦無彼所見無乃至五句。故知此有無非二諦攝。不得言此論遣有入無。以無彼所見有無。方得起因緣假名有無始是佛真俗二諦。又大小乘學人聞有無是障道本諸見根。便欲滅有無二見。今為破此人病明有無本不生今何所滅耶。汝言有有無者。求之應得。求既不得云何有無耶。又一切行道坐禪學問人如言有道可求有禪可坐有義可學皆是有見。無有非道乃至無有非義即是無見。設言道未曾有無。終有非有無之道。還是有見。若無此非有無道即是無見。故有無病難捨。是以論主處處品慇勤破之也。次破合品明破有無者。惑者云。眾緣和合諸法便有。眾緣若散萬化便無。既有有無何由無合。又上品破無有異。外人云。無無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道是佛法的法身（Dharmakaya）。像這樣，一乘實相都屬於中道。現在執著于有和無，就會形成斷見和常見，從而障礙中道。而且，如來（Tathagata）總是依據二諦（Two Truths）說法，但二諦是因緣和合的空和有。然而，外道聽到『有』就理解為實有的『有』，聽到『無』就理解為實無的『無』，這樣就障礙了二諦。既然障礙了二諦，那麼二智（Two Wisdoms）就不會產生，也就沒有過去、現在、未來諸佛菩薩。這個病癥既然很深，所以需要再次破除。還有，這一品（指《中論》的某一品）的來由是，有人說，這部論從頭到尾都在破除和洗滌諸法，大概是拆解『有』而進入『無』，捨棄世俗而歸於真理。我認為不是這樣。既然要尋求『有』和『無』的來源，又從哪裡拆解呢？既然尋求『無』而不可得，又進入哪裡呢？大概是迷惑的人執著于『有』，迷惑他人說『無』，現在責問他們卻得不到答案，所以說是破除『有』和『無』。所以《作者品》說：『業從眾多因緣產生，只是假名為有和無，沒有決定性，不像你們所說的那樣。』由此可知，外道沒有見到『有』，也沒有見到他們所認為的『無』，乃至五句（指否定有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無等五種說法）。由此可知，這裡的『有』和『無』不屬於二諦所攝。不能說這部論是捨棄『有』而進入『無』，因為沒有他們所認為的『有』和『無』，才能生起因緣假名的『有』和『無』，這才是佛的真實和世俗二諦。還有，大小乘的學人聽到『有』和『無』是障礙修道的根本，是諸見的根源，就想要滅除『有』和『無』二見。現在爲了破除這些人的病癥，說明『有』和『無』本來就不生，現在要滅除什麼呢？你們說有『有』和『無』，尋求它應該可以得到，既然尋求而不可得，怎麼會有『有』和『無』呢？而且，一切行道、坐禪、學習的人，如果說有道可以求，有禪可以坐，有義可以學，這都是『有』見。沒有非道，乃至沒有非義，這就是『無』見。假設說『道』未曾有『有』和『無』，最終有非『有』非『無』的道，這還是『有』見。如果沒有這種非『有』非『無』的道，那就是『無』見。所以『有』和『無』的病難以捨棄，因此論主（指龍樹菩薩）在各品中慇勤地破除它。接下來破除《合品》，說明破除『有』和『無』的原因是，迷惑的人說，眾多因緣和合，諸法就產生；眾多因緣如果離散，萬物就消失。既然有『有』和『無』，怎麼會沒有和合呢？而且，上一品破除『無』的方式不同，外道說，沒有『無』
【English Translation】 English version The Way is the Dharmakaya (body of the Dharma). Thus, the One Vehicle Reality is all the Middle Way. Now, clinging to existence and non-existence creates the faults of permanence and annihilation, thus obstructing the Middle Way. Moreover, the Tathagata (Thus Come One) always teaches according to the Two Truths, but the Two Truths are emptiness and existence arising from conditions. However, outsiders, upon hearing 'existence,' interpret it as existence with self-nature; upon hearing 'non-existence,' interpret it as non-existence with self-nature, thus obstructing the Two Truths. Since the Two Truths are obstructed, the Two Wisdoms (of emptiness and provisional existence) will not arise, and there will be no Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the past, present, and future. Since this ailment is deep, it needs to be broken down again. Furthermore, the reason for this chapter (referring to a chapter in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) is that some say this treatise, from beginning to end, breaks down and washes away all dharmas, essentially dismantling existence to enter non-existence, abandoning the mundane to return to the truth. I say this is not so. Since one seeks the source of 'existence' and 'non-existence,' from where does one dismantle? Since seeking 'non-existence' is unattainable, where does one enter? It is probably that the deluded cling to 'existence,' misleading others by saying 'non-existence.' Now, questioning them yields no answer, so it is said to break down 'existence' and 'non-existence.' Therefore, the Act and Agent chapter says: 'Action arises from many conditions, merely nominally called existence and non-existence, without definiteness, not as you say.' From this, it is known that outsiders have not seen 'existence,' nor have they seen the 'non-existence' they believe in, and so on for the five statements (referring to the negation of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, etc.). From this, it is known that this 'existence' and 'non-existence' are not included in the Two Truths. It cannot be said that this treatise abandons 'existence' to enter 'non-existence,' because without their perceived 'existence' and 'non-existence,' one can give rise to the provisional existence and non-existence of dependent origination, which is the Buddha's true and conventional Two Truths. Furthermore, students of both the Great and Small Vehicles, upon hearing that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are the root of obstacles to the path, the root of all views, want to extinguish the two views of 'existence' and 'non-existence.' Now, to break down the ailment of these people, it is explained that 'existence' and 'non-existence' originally do not arise, so what is there to extinguish now? You say there is 'existence' and 'non-existence,' seeking it should be attainable. Since seeking it is unattainable, how can there be 'existence' and 'non-existence'? Moreover, all those who practice the Way, meditate, and study, if they say there is a Way to seek, there is meditation to sit, there is meaning to study, these are all views of 'existence.' There is no non-Way, and even no non-meaning, which is the view of 'non-existence.' Suppose it is said that the Way has never had 'existence' and 'non-existence,' ultimately there is a Way that is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence,' this is still a view of 'existence.' If there is no such Way that is neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence,' then that is a view of 'non-existence.' Therefore, the ailment of 'existence' and 'non-existence' is difficult to abandon, so the author of the treatise (referring to Nagarjuna) diligently breaks it down in each chapter. Next, breaking down the Combination chapter, explaining the reason for breaking down 'existence' and 'non-existence' is that the deluded say, when many conditions combine, dharmas arise; if many conditions disperse, all things disappear. Since there is 'existence' and 'non-existence,' how can there be no combination? Moreover, the way of breaking down 'non-existence' in the previous chapter is different; outsiders say, there is no 'non-existence.'
異相有法有異。既有有無雲何無異。又有與無異無與有異。既有有無則有異也。又外難論主。若言無異應無二諦。既有二諦則有有無異也。問云何是有無耶。答有無多門。若就因果明者。僧佉計因中有果為有。世師執因中無果為無。勒沙婆因中亦有果亦無果。是亦有亦無。佛法內薩婆多明三世有。名之為有。曇無德二世無名之為無。俱舍論出天親小乘義云。現在作因未來則有。現在若不作因未來則無。故未來亦有亦無。迦葉鞞義作因便謝過去。名之為有。待果起竟方乃滅無。是為過去亦有亦無。若就人法明有無者。三外道並計有人法。名之為有。邪見外道撥無人法。名之為無。迦羅鳩馱應物起見。人問有耶答言是有。人問無耶即答云無。名亦有亦無。佛法內亦有三部。犢子有人有法。名之為有。方廣計無人無法。名之為無薩婆多無人有法。稱亦有亦無。若就塵識論有無者。舊大乘義並明有塵有識。若方廣義明無塵無識。若心無義有塵無識。若唯識論則無塵有識。問眾生何因緣故起有無見。答智度論云。愛多者著有。見多者著無。一切眾生唯有愛見。如法華明毒蟲與惡鬼。又四見多者著有。邪見多者著無。今明如此等並是粗論有無。學大乘人精識菩薩微細礙相。若起有心則名為有。才起無心目之為無。今息如此等有無故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 異相是有差別的，法也是有差別的。既然存在『有』和『無』，為什麼說沒有差別呢？又，『有』與『無』是不同的，『無』與『有』也是不同的。既然存在『有』和『無』，那麼它們就是有差別的。此外，外道論主反駁說，如果說沒有差別，就不應該有二諦（satya-dvaya）。既然有二諦，那麼『有』和『無』就是有差別的。問：什麼是『有』和『無』呢？答：『有』和『無』有很多種說法。如果就因果關係來說明，僧佉（Samkhya）派認為因中存在果，這叫做『有』。世間師（Lokayatika）認為因中沒有果，這叫做『無』。勒沙婆（Rsabha）派認為因中既有果也沒有果，這既是『有』也是『無』。在佛法內部，薩婆多（Sarvastivada）部認為三世（過去、現在、未來）都存在，這叫做『有』。曇無德（Dharmaguptaka）部認為過去和未來不存在，這叫做『無』。《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakosa）引述天親（Vasubandhu）的小乘觀點說，現在造作了因，未來就會有果，現在如果不造作因，未來就不會有果，所以未來既是『有』也是『無』。迦葉鞞（Kasyapiya）部的觀點是，造作了因，因就消逝成為過去，這叫做『有』。等待果產生完畢后才滅盡，這叫做過去既是『有』也是『無』。 如果就人法（pudgala-dharma）來說明『有』和『無』，三種外道都認為存在人和法，這叫做『有』。邪見外道否定人和法，這叫做『無』。迦羅鳩馱（Kakuda Katyayana）隨事物而產生見解，有人問『有』嗎，他就回答『有』，有人問『無』嗎，他就回答『無』，這叫做既『有』也『無』。佛法內部也有三個部派，犢子（Vatsiputriya）部認為既有人也有法，這叫做『有』。方廣（Vaipulya）部認為既沒有人也沒有法，這叫做『無』。薩婆多（Sarvastivada）部認為沒有人但有法，這叫做既『有』也『無』。如果就塵識（rupa-vijnana）來討論『有』和『無』，舊的大乘觀點都認為既有塵也有識。方廣部的觀點認為既沒有塵也沒有識。心無義（Cittamattra）派認為有塵但沒有識。唯識論（Vijnanavada）則認為沒有塵但有識。問：眾生因為什麼因緣而產生『有』和『無』的見解呢？答：《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）說，愛慾多的人執著于『有』，見解多的人執著于『無』。一切眾生只有愛慾和見解，就像《法華經》（Saddharma Pundarika Sutra）中說的毒蟲和惡鬼。又有四見（catasro drstayah）多的人執著于『有』，邪見（mithya-drsti）多的人執著于『無』。現在說明這些都是粗略地討論『有』和『無』。學習大乘的人要精細地認識菩薩（bodhisattva）的微細障礙之相。如果生起『有』的心，就叫做『有』，才生起『無』的心就稱之為『無』。現在止息這些『有』和『無』的觀念。
【English Translation】 English version The characteristics are different, and the dharmas are also different. Since 'existence' and 'non-existence' exist, why is it said that there is no difference? Furthermore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are different, and 'non-existence' and 'existence' are also different. Since 'existence' and 'non-existence' exist, then they are different. Moreover, an external debater argues that if it is said that there is no difference, then there should be no two truths (satya-dvaya). Since there are two truths, then 'existence' and 'non-existence' are different. Question: What are 'existence' and 'non-existence'? Answer: There are many ways to explain 'existence' and 'non-existence'. If explained in terms of cause and effect, the Samkhya school believes that the effect exists in the cause, which is called 'existence'. The Lokayatika school believes that the effect does not exist in the cause, which is called 'non-existence'. The Rsabha school believes that the effect both exists and does not exist in the cause, which is both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Within Buddhism, the Sarvastivada school believes that the three times (past, present, and future) all exist, which is called 'existence'. The Dharmaguptaka school believes that the past and future do not exist, which is called 'non-existence'. The Abhidharmakosa quotes Vasubandhu's Hinayana view, saying that if a cause is created in the present, there will be an effect in the future; if a cause is not created in the present, there will be no effect in the future, so the future is both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. The Kasyapiya school's view is that when a cause is created, it disappears into the past, which is called 'existence'. Waiting for the effect to arise completely and then cease, this is the past being both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. If 'existence' and 'non-existence' are explained in terms of person and dharma (pudgala-dharma), three types of non-Buddhists all believe that person and dharma exist, which is called 'existence'. Non-Buddhists with wrong views deny person and dharma, which is called 'non-existence'. Kakuda Katyayana generates views according to things, if someone asks 'Does it exist?', he answers 'It exists', if someone asks 'Does it not exist?', he answers 'It does not exist', which is called both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Within Buddhism, there are also three schools, the Vatsiputriya school believes that both person and dharma exist, which is called 'existence'. The Vaipulya school believes that neither person nor dharma exists, which is called 'non-existence'. The Sarvastivada school believes that person does not exist but dharma exists, which is called both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. If 'existence' and 'non-existence' are discussed in terms of form and consciousness (rupa-vijnana), the old Mahayana views all believe that both form and consciousness exist. The Vaipulya school's view believes that neither form nor consciousness exists. The Cittamattra school believes that form exists but consciousness does not exist. The Vijnanavada then believes that form does not exist but consciousness exists. Question: What causes sentient beings to generate views of 'existence' and 'non-existence'? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra says that those with much desire are attached to 'existence', and those with many views are attached to 'non-existence'. All sentient beings only have desire and views, like the poisonous insects and evil spirits mentioned in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra. Also, those with many four views (catasro drstayah) are attached to 'existence', and those with many wrong views (mithya-drsti) are attached to 'non-existence'. Now, it is explained that these are all rough discussions of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Those who study Mahayana should finely recognize the subtle obstacles of a Bodhisattva (bodhisattva). If a mind of 'existence' arises, it is called 'existence', and as soon as a mind of 'non-existence' arises, it is called 'non-existence'. Now, cease these concepts of 'existence' and 'non-existence'.
云破有無品。品為二。一離破有無。二合破有無。離合各有四。離中四者。第一破自有。次破他有。第三破自他外有。第四破無。初破有者。一切眾生初本見有。后值邪師方起無見耳。又四句之中有是初句。初長行立明有性假緣得生。如其無性雖復假緣終不得生。答中上半牒總非。明眾緣與性兩義相乖。若有自性則不假緣。如其假緣則便失性。汝言有性復假眾緣。則義成鉾楯。下半破云。泥中瓶性非眾緣作。今若假緣則是作法。此是體性之性。若有自體則不假緣。假緣則無自體。問曰下生第二偈受論主責。若性從眾緣作。有何咎耶。以外人有為之法皆藉四緣。性既是有為。亦假眾緣所作答中上半牒而總非。下半釋出外人義。明性非因緣所作。由如事火。可假人功眾緣所生。木中火性誰造作耶。當知此性本來已有非眾緣生。若假眾緣生則是本無今有。墮二世無義也。問曰下生第二段次破他性。有自性即是二世有義。他性即是二世無義。以無有自性假于眾緣然後得生故。自性望眾緣。眾緣于自即是他也。答中上半以自況他。下半釋破。釋破意自性於他性亦名他性。既無自即無他性。望長行他於他即是自性。既無自性亦無他性。長行初以二義破自性。一就因成門破。次就相待門破。后亦引二義破於他性。如一柱具二假因四微
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 云破有無品。此品分為兩部分。第一部分是分離地破斥有和無的觀點，第二部分是結合起來破斥有和無的觀點。分離和結合各自有四種破斥。在分離的四種破斥中，第一種是破斥自有的觀點，其次是破斥他有的觀點，第三種是破斥自他之外有（既非自有也非他有）的觀點，第四種是破斥無的觀點。首先破斥有的觀點，一切眾生最初的根本見解是認為事物是存在的，後來遇到邪師才產生認為事物不存在的見解。此外，在四句（四種可能性）之中，『有』是第一句。前面的長行文已經闡明了『有』的性質是依賴於因緣而產生的。如果事物沒有自性，即使有各種因緣，最終也無法產生。回答中的前半部分總括地否定了這種觀點，說明眾緣和自性這兩種觀點是相互矛盾的。如果事物有自性，就不需要依賴因緣。如果依賴因緣，就會失去自性。你說事物有自性又依賴眾緣，這在道理上就成了矛和盾的矛盾。後半部分破斥說，泥土中的瓶子的性質不是眾緣造成的。如果現在依賴因緣，那就是人為製造的。這裡說的是體性的『性』。如果事物有自體，就不需要依賴因緣。依賴因緣就沒有自體。下面的『問曰』引出了第二首偈頌，論主受到了責難。如果事物的性質是從眾緣產生的，有什麼過錯呢？因為外道認為有為法都依賴於四種因緣。性質既然是有為法，也應該依賴眾緣而產生。回答中的前半部分總括地否定了這種觀點，後半部分解釋了外道的觀點，說明性質不是因緣所造成的。就像生火一樣，可以依賴人的努力和各種因緣來產生。但是木頭中的火性是誰創造的呢？應該知道這種性質本來就存在，不是眾緣產生的。如果依賴眾緣產生，那就是本來沒有現在有，就落入了二世（過去世和現在世）皆無的錯誤觀點。下面的『問曰』引出了第二段，進一步破斥他性。有自性就是二世皆有的觀點，他性就是二世皆無的觀點。因為沒有自性，依賴於眾緣然後才能產生。自性相對於眾緣來說，眾緣相對於自性就是他性。回答中的前半部分用自性來比況他性，後半部分解釋破斥。解釋破斥的意思是，自性對於他性來說也叫他性。既然沒有自性，就沒有他性。相對於長行文來說，他性對於他性來說就是自性。既然沒有自性，也沒有他性。長行文最初用兩種方式破斥自性，一是就因成門破斥，二是就相待門破斥。後面也引用兩種方式破斥他性，就像一根柱子具有兩種假因和四種微塵一樣。 云破有無品。品為二。一離破有無。二合破有無。離合各有四。離中四者。第一破自有。次破他有。第三破自他外有。第四破無。初破有者。一切眾生初本見有。后值邪師方起無見耳。又四句之中有是初句。初長行立明有性假緣得生。如其無性雖復假緣終不得生。答中上半牒總非。明眾緣與性兩義相乖。若有自性則不假緣。如其假緣則便失性。汝言有性復假眾緣。則義成鉾楯。下半破云。泥中瓶性非眾緣作。今若假緣則是作法。此是體性之性。若有自體則不假緣。假緣則無自體。問曰下生第二偈受論主責。若性從眾緣作。有何咎耶。以外人有為之法皆藉四緣。性既是有為。亦假眾緣所作答中上半牒而總非。下半釋出外人義。明性非因緣所作。由如事火。可假人功眾緣所生。木中火性誰造作耶。當知此性本來已有非眾緣生。若假眾緣生則是本無今有。墮二世無義也。問曰下生第二段次破他性。有自性即是二世有義。他性即是二世無義。以無有自性假于眾緣然後得生故。自性望眾緣。眾緣于自即是他也。答中上半以自況他。下半釋破。釋破意自性於他性亦名他性。既無自即無他性。望長行他於他即是自性。既無自性亦無他性。長行初以二義破自性。一就因成門破。次就相待門破。后亦引二義破於他性。如一柱具二假因四微
【English Translation】 English version The chapter on 'Breaking Down Existence and Non-Existence' (云破有無品). This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part separately refutes the views of existence and non-existence, and the second part collectively refutes the views of existence and non-existence. Separation and combination each have four refutations. Among the four separate refutations, the first is to refute the view of inherent existence (自有), the second is to refute the view of other-dependent existence (他有), the third is to refute the view of existence outside of self and other (自他外有) (neither inherent nor other-dependent), and the fourth is to refute the view of non-existence (無). First, refuting the view of existence, all sentient beings initially have the fundamental view that things exist, and only later, upon encountering evil teachers, do they develop the view that things do not exist. Furthermore, among the four possibilities, 'existence' is the first. The preceding extended passage has clarified that the nature of 'existence' arises dependently on conditions. If a thing has no inherent nature, even with various conditions, it ultimately cannot arise. The first half of the answer generally negates this view, explaining that the two concepts of conditions and inherent nature are contradictory. If a thing has inherent nature, it does not need to depend on conditions. If it depends on conditions, it loses its inherent nature. You say that a thing has inherent nature and also depends on conditions, which is logically contradictory like a spear and a shield. The second half refutes by saying that the nature of a pot in clay is not made by conditions. If it now depends on conditions, then it is artificially made. This refers to the 'nature' of the essence. If a thing has its own essence, it does not need to depend on conditions. Depending on conditions, it has no own essence. The following 'Question:' introduces the second verse, where the proponent of the theory is criticized. If the nature of things arises from conditions, what is wrong with that? Because externalists believe that conditioned phenomena all depend on four conditions. Since nature is a conditioned phenomenon, it should also arise from conditions. The first half of the answer generally negates this view, and the second half explains the externalist's view, clarifying that nature is not caused by conditions. Just like making fire, it can depend on human effort and various conditions to arise. But who created the fire nature in wood? It should be known that this nature originally exists and is not caused by conditions. If it arises from conditions, then it is originally non-existent and now exists, falling into the erroneous view of non-existence in both lifetimes (past and present). The following 'Question:' introduces the second section, further refuting other-dependent nature. Having inherent nature is the view of existence in both lifetimes, and other-dependent nature is the view of non-existence in both lifetimes. Because there is no inherent nature, it depends on conditions to arise. In relation to conditions, conditions in relation to inherent nature are other-dependent. The first half of the answer uses inherent nature to compare to other-dependent nature, and the second half explains the refutation. The meaning of the refutation is that inherent nature in relation to other-dependent nature is also called other-dependent nature. Since there is no inherent nature, there is no other-dependent nature. In relation to the extended passage, other-dependent nature in relation to other-dependent nature is inherent nature. Since there is no inherent nature, there is no other-dependent nature. The extended passage initially refutes inherent nature in two ways, first by refuting based on the door of causation, and second by refuting based on the door of relativity. Later, it also cites two ways to refute other-dependent nature, just as a pillar has two conditional causes and four subtle particles. The chapter on 'Breaking Down Existence and Non-Existence'. The chapter is divided into two parts: 1. Separately breaking down existence and non-existence. 2. Collectively breaking down existence and non-existence. Separation and combination each have four aspects. Among the four aspects of separation: First, breaking down inherent existence (自有). Second, breaking down other-dependent existence (他有). Third, breaking down existence outside of self and other (自他外有). Fourth, breaking down non-existence (無). Initially, breaking down existence: All sentient beings initially fundamentally see existence. Later, they encounter evil teachers and then arise the view of non-existence. Furthermore, among the four possibilities, existence is the first. The initial extended passage establishes and clarifies that the nature of existence arises dependently on conditions. If it has no nature, even if it depends on conditions, it ultimately cannot arise. The first half of the answer generally negates this, clarifying that the two meanings of conditions and nature are contradictory. If there is inherent nature, then it does not depend on conditions. If it depends on conditions, then it loses its nature. You say there is inherent nature and also depends on conditions, then the meaning becomes contradictory like a spear and shield. The second half refutes, saying: The nature of a pot in clay is not made by conditions. If it now depends on conditions, then it is an artificial creation. This is the nature of essence. If there is self-essence, then it does not depend on conditions. If it depends on conditions, then there is no self-essence. The following 'Question:' introduces the second verse, receiving the blame of the treatise master. If nature arises from conditions, what is the fault? Because externalists' conditioned phenomena all rely on four conditions. Since nature is conditioned, it also depends on conditions. The first half of the answer generally negates this. The second half explains the externalist's meaning, clarifying that nature is not caused by conditions. For example, like making fire, it can depend on human effort and conditions to arise. Who creates the fire nature in wood? It should be known that this nature originally exists and is not caused by conditions. If it depends on conditions, then it is originally non-existent and now exists, falling into the meaning of non-existence in both lifetimes. The following 'Question:' introduces the second section, further breaking down other-dependent nature. Having inherent nature is the meaning of existence in both lifetimes. Other-dependent nature is the meaning of non-existence in both lifetimes. Because there is no inherent nature, it depends on conditions to arise. In relation to conditions, conditions in relation to self are other-dependent. The first half of the answer uses self to compare to other. The second half explains the refutation. The meaning of the refutation is that self-nature in relation to other-nature is also called other-nature. Since there is no self, then there is no other-nature. In relation to the extended passage, other in relation to other is self-nature. Since there is no self-nature, there is also no other-nature. The extended passage initially breaks down self-nature in two ways: first, by breaking down based on the door of causation; second, by breaking down based on the door of relativity. Later, it also cites two ways to break down other-nature, like a pillar possessing two conditional causes and four subtle particles.
成。故無自性。無自性故空。即因成空。縱有柱必是長短短。若有自體不因於長。因長有短。短無自體。是故短空。然自有他有。須精論之。若守初章作解者云。他有有可有。不由無故有。此有既是自有。今無有可有。由無故有。應是他有。若今由無故有非他有者。他不由無故有應不自有。又他不由無故有。既是性義。今由無故有。稱為假義。既是性假相對。亦應自他相對也。問曰下生自他外有。前問意云。諸法乃不可自他。終應有世諦萬法。又汝乃不許自他定性有。應有不自不他因緣之有。答中上半明離自他外無更有法。下半舉自他攝一切法。有自有他是則有法。無自無他是則無法。所言自他者約二義論。一者如五陰中人體性為自五陰為他。二者以陰中人為自。自陰已外一切諸法並皆是他。是故自他攝法義盡。又自他門各攝法亦盡。如人當人是人自。法當法是法自。天下無非自。既言無自則無一切法。又他門相望無非是他。破他則一切亦盡。自他合亦盡。瓶為自。瓶外一切皆是他也。問曰下第四破無。亦無有三意。一者本宗立無。如謂世諦為有真諦定無。二者論主上求有無從。便計于無。三者論主上借無破有。外捉破為立。是故計無。答中上半正破。下半釋破。有無一體異體二俱不成。若一體者。有無無即無。有無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，事物沒有自性（Sva-bhāva，自身存在的性質）。因為沒有自性，所以是空性（Śūnyatā，空虛）。這就是因緣和合而成空性。即使有柱子，也必然有長有短。如果柱子有自身存在的性質，就不會依賴於長。因為有長，所以有短，而短沒有自身存在的性質，因此短也是空性的。然而，有自有和他有之分，需要仔細討論。如果有人堅持最初的章節來解釋，說：『他有』是可以存在的，不是因為『無』而存在。這種『有』既然是『自有』，現在『無』是可以存在的，因為『無』而存在，應該是『他有』。如果現在因為『無』而存在卻不是『他有』，那麼『他』不是因為『無』而存在，應該不是『自有』。而且，『他』不是因為『無』而存在，既然是『性』的意義，現在因為『無』而存在，稱為『假』的意義。既然是『性』和『假』相對，也應該是『自』和『他』相對。 問：下面說『生自他外有』，前面的問題意思是說，諸法既然不是『自』也不是『他』，最終應該有世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）的萬法。而且，你們不承認『自』和『他』有固定的性質，應該有非『自』非『他』的因緣之『有』。答覆中前半部分說明離開『自』和『他』之外，沒有其他的法。後半部分舉例說明『自』和『他』涵蓋一切法。有『自有』和『他有』，那麼就有法。沒有『自』和『他』，那麼就沒有法。所說的『自』和『他』，從兩個方面來討論。一是如五蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）中，人體的性質為『自』，五蘊為『他』。二是以五蘊中的人為『自』，自身五蘊之外的一切諸法都為『他』。因此，『自』和『他』涵蓋法的意義就完備了。而且，『自』和『他』各自涵蓋法也完備了。如人，當人是人的『自』。法，當法是法的『自』。天下沒有不是『自』的。既然說沒有『自』，那麼就沒有一切法。而且，從『他』的角度來看，沒有不是『他』的。破斥『他』，那麼一切也就都破斥了。『自』和『他』合起來也破斥了。瓶子是『自』，瓶子之外的一切都是『他』。 問：下面第四個問題是破斥『無』，也有三種意思。一是本宗（佛教）立『無』，如說世俗諦為『有』，勝義諦（Paramārtha-satya，絕對真理）是絕對的『無』。二是論主（中觀論的作者）向上尋求『有』而不可得，於是就執著于『無』。三是論主向上借用『無』來破斥『有』，外道抓住破斥作為立論。因此就執著于『無』。答覆中前半部分是正面破斥，後半部分是解釋破斥。『有』和『無』，一體和異體兩種情況都不成立。如果是一體，『有』就是『無』，『無』就是『有』。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, things have no Sva-bhāva (self-nature, inherent existence). Because there is no self-nature, there is Śūnyatā (emptiness). This is how conditions come together to form emptiness. Even if there is a pillar, it must have length and shortness. If the pillar had its own inherent existence, it would not depend on length. Because there is length, there is shortness, and shortness has no inherent existence, therefore shortness is also empty. However, there is self-existence and other-existence, which need to be carefully discussed. If someone insists on interpreting the initial chapters, saying: 'Other-existence' can exist, not because of 'non-existence'. Since this 'existence' is 'self-existence', now 'non-existence' can exist, because of 'non-existence', it should be 'other-existence'. If now it exists because of 'non-existence' but is not 'other-existence', then 'other' does not exist because of 'non-existence', it should not be 'self-existence'. Moreover, 'other' does not exist because of 'non-existence', since it is the meaning of 'nature', now it exists because of 'non-existence', called the meaning of 'provisional'. Since 'nature' and 'provisional' are relative, 'self' and 'other' should also be relative. Question: The following says 'existence outside self and other', the previous question means that since all dharmas are neither 'self' nor 'other', there should ultimately be the myriad dharmas of Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth). Moreover, you do not admit that 'self' and 'other' have fixed natures, there should be existence due to causes and conditions that are neither 'self' nor 'other'. The first half of the answer explains that apart from 'self' and 'other', there are no other dharmas. The second half gives an example to illustrate that 'self' and 'other' encompass all dharmas. If there is 'self-existence' and 'other-existence', then there is dharma. If there is no 'self' and 'other', then there is no dharma. The so-called 'self' and 'other' are discussed from two aspects. One is that in the Skandha (five aggregates constituting an individual), the nature of the human body is 'self', and the five aggregates are 'other'. The second is to take the person in the five aggregates as 'self', and all dharmas outside one's own five aggregates are 'other'. Therefore, the meaning of 'self' and 'other' encompassing dharmas is complete. Moreover, 'self' and 'other' each encompassing dharmas is also complete. For example, a person, when a person is the 'self' of the person. A dharma, when a dharma is the 'self' of the dharma. There is nothing in the world that is not 'self'. Since it is said that there is no 'self', then there is no all dharmas. Moreover, from the perspective of 'other', there is nothing that is not 'other'. Refuting 'other', then everything is also refuted. 'Self' and 'other' together are also refuted. A pot is 'self', everything outside the pot is 'other'. Question: The fourth question below is to refute 'non-existence', which also has three meanings. One is that this school (Buddhism) establishes 'non-existence', such as saying that Saṃvṛti-satya is 'existence', and Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) is absolute 'non-existence'. Second, the author of the treatise (the author of the Madhyamaka-karika) seeks 'existence' upwards but cannot obtain it, so he clings to 'non-existence'. Third, the author of the treatise borrows 'non-existence' upwards to refute 'existence', and the heretics seize the refutation as an argument. Therefore, they cling to 'non-existence'. The first half of the answer is a direct refutation, and the second half is an explanation of the refutation. 'Existence' and 'non-existence', neither identity nor difference is established. If they are identical, 'existence' is 'non-existence', and 'non-existence' is 'existence'.
異體者。無有可待故亦無無。又汝計有既是虛妄。執無亦出橫情。故二義俱非也。又汝本來無有。何所論無。若人見有無下第二合破有無。離破有四。合破亦四。就初偈序其四失而呵責之。第二偈引佛說勸舍有無。第三兩偈重破無有釋成舍義。第四兩偈出有無過釋破有無所以。長行雲必求有見者。此非是有無中有見。此乃是深著諸法必求有所見也。佛能滅有無下第二引經勸舍有無。恐外人云論主自破有無。何必可信。是故今明佛親勸舍宜應受之。問此是小乘經耶大乘經耶。答此是小乘經。所以引小乘經者。明小乘經中尚破有無。何況大乘。又若就著有無。非但大乘不攝。亦非學小乘人。故引小乘經也。大品經引先尼得信亦引小乘以況大。明小乘尚辨法空況大乘耶。若法實有性下第三兩偈重破有無釋成勸舍。若實有有無佛不勸舍。以求之無從。妄謂為有故佛勸舍。兩偈為二。初就有性門破異。第二偈俱就性無性門破異。問何故破異耶。答惑人謂內外諸法並皆變異故有有法。有有法故即有無法。今求變異無從即無有法。有法既無無法亦無。又破異者。或人謂本無今有為生。則無變為有。已有還無為滅。有變異為無。今既破于異則具破有無。第二偈上半重牒前有性門無異。此破外道毗曇等義。下半破成實及中假之流言有因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 異體者（指持不同見解的人）。既然沒有什麼是可以期待的，那麼也就無所謂『無』了。而且你所認為的『有』，本身就是虛妄的。執著于『無』，也是出於強加的情感。所以，『有』和『無』這兩種觀點都是錯誤的。況且你本來就一無所有，又有什麼可談論『無』的呢？如果有人執著于『有』或『無』，下面的第二部分將合併破斥『有』和『無』的觀點。 離開破斥『有』的四種方式，合併破斥也有四種方式。首先，第一首偈頌序述了四種過失，並加以呵責。第二首偈頌引用佛陀的教導，勸人捨棄『有』和『無』的觀念。第三首和第四首偈頌再次破斥『無有』，解釋並闡明捨棄的意義。第五首和第六首偈頌揭示了執著于『有』和『無』的過失，解釋了破斥『有』和『無』的原因。長行中說，『必定尋求有見的人』，這並非是在『有無』之中尋求見解，而是深深地執著于諸法，必定要尋求某種見解。 『佛能滅有無』，這是第二部分，引用經典勸人捨棄『有』和『無』的觀念。恐怕有人會說，論主自己破斥『有』和『無』，有什麼可信的？因此，現在闡明佛陀親自勸人捨棄，應該接受這個教導。有人問：『這是小乘經典嗎？還是大乘經典呢？』回答說：『這是小乘經典。』之所以引用小乘經典，是爲了說明小乘經典中尚且破斥『有』和『無』，更何況是大乘經典呢？而且，如果執著于『有』和『無』，不僅大乘佛教不接納，也不是學習小乘佛教的人。所以引用小乘經典。』《大品經》引用先尼（古代印度的一位比丘尼）獲得信仰的例子，也引用小乘來比況大乘，說明小乘尚且能辨別法空（一切事物皆空性的道理），更何況是大乘呢？ 『若法實有性』，這是第三部分，用兩首偈頌再次破斥『有』和『無』，解釋並闡明勸人捨棄的意義。如果『有』和『無』確實具有自性，佛陀就不會勸人捨棄。因為尋求也無從獲得，只是虛妄地認為存在，所以佛陀勸人捨棄。這兩首偈頌分為兩部分。第一部分從『有性』的角度破斥差異。第二首偈頌從『性無性』的角度破斥差異。有人問：『為什麼要破斥差異呢？』回答說：『因為迷惑的人認為內外諸法都不斷變化，所以才會有『有法』。有了『有法』，就有了『無法』。現在尋求變化卻無從獲得，那麼『有法』就不存在了。『有法』既然不存在，『無法』也就不存在了。而且破斥差異，是因為有人認為本來沒有現在有了，這就是生；已經有了又消失了，這就是滅；有了變化就變成了沒有。現在既然破斥了差異，也就完全破斥了『有』和『無』。第二首偈頌的上半部分再次重複前面『有性』的角度，沒有差異。這是破斥外道毗曇（佛教部派之一，以論藏著稱）等的觀點。下半部分破斥成實宗（佛教部派之一，主張『成實論』）以及中觀假名宗（佛教宗派之一，主張『假名安立』）等流派，他們認為存在因緣。
【English Translation】 English version Those who hold differing views (異體者). Since there is nothing to expect, there is also no 'non-being' (無). Moreover, your notion of 'being' (有) is itself illusory. Clinging to 'non-being' (無) also stems from imposed emotions. Therefore, both views of 'being' and 'non-being' are incorrect. Besides, you originally have nothing, so what is there to discuss about 'non-being'? If someone clings to 'being' or 'non-being', the following second part will jointly refute the views of 'being' and 'non-being'. There are four ways to depart from refuting 'being', and there are also four ways to jointly refute. First, the first verse introduces the four faults and rebukes them. The second verse quotes the Buddha's teachings, advising people to abandon the concepts of 'being' and 'non-being'. The third and fourth verses again refute 'non-being', explaining and clarifying the meaning of abandonment. The fifth and sixth verses reveal the faults of clinging to 'being' and 'non-being', explaining the reasons for refuting 'being' and 'non-being'. The long passage says, 'Those who must seek a view of being', this is not seeking a view within 'being and non-being', but deeply clinging to all dharmas, and must seek some view. 'The Buddha can extinguish being and non-being' (佛能滅有無), this is the second part, quoting scriptures to advise people to abandon the concepts of 'being' and 'non-being'. Fearing that someone might say, 'The author himself refutes 'being' and 'non-being', why should it be credible?' Therefore, it is now clarified that the Buddha personally advises people to abandon, and this teaching should be accepted. Someone asks, 'Is this a Hinayana (小乘) scripture? Or a Mahayana (大乘) scripture?' The answer is, 'This is a Hinayana scripture.' The reason for quoting a Hinayana scripture is to illustrate that even Hinayana scriptures refute 'being' and 'non-being', let alone Mahayana scriptures? Moreover, if one clings to 'being' and 'non-being', not only is it not accepted by Mahayana Buddhism, but it is also not a person who studies Hinayana Buddhism. Therefore, Hinayana scriptures are quoted.' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品經) quotes the example of Bhikkhuni Ksanti (先尼, an ancient Indian bhikkhuni) gaining faith, and also uses Hinayana to compare with Mahayana, illustrating that Hinayana can still distinguish the emptiness of dharmas (法空, the principle that all things are empty in nature), let alone Mahayana? 'If dharmas truly have self-nature' (若法實有性), this is the third part, using two verses to again refute 'being' and 'non-being', explaining and clarifying the meaning of advising people to abandon. If 'being' and 'non-being' truly have self-nature, the Buddha would not advise people to abandon them. Because seeking would also be impossible to obtain, it is only falsely believed to exist, so the Buddha advises people to abandon. These two verses are divided into two parts. The first part refutes differences from the perspective of 'having self-nature' (有性). The second verse refutes differences from the perspective of 'nature of non-nature' (性無性). Someone asks, 'Why refute differences?' The answer is, 'Because confused people believe that internal and external dharmas are constantly changing, so there is 'being-dharma' (有法). With 'being-dharma', there is 'non-being-dharma' (無法). Now seeking change but being unable to obtain it, then 'being-dharma' does not exist. Since 'being-dharma' does not exist, 'non-being-dharma' also does not exist. Moreover, refuting differences is because some people believe that originally there was nothing and now there is, this is birth; already there and then disappearing, this is extinction; having change becomes non-being. Now that differences have been refuted, 'being' and 'non-being' have also been completely refuted.' The first half of the second verse repeats the previous perspective of 'having self-nature', without differences. This is refuting the views of Sarvastivada (毗曇, one of the Buddhist schools, known for its Abhidhamma) and others. The second half refutes the Tattvasiddhi School (成實宗, one of the Buddhist schools, advocating the Tattvasiddhi Shastra) and the Madhyamaka-prajnaparamita (中觀假名宗, one of the Buddhist schools, advocating 'provisional designation') and other schools, who believe that causes and conditions exist.
無性之異。定有則著常下第四兩偈顯有無過釋次破有無意。所以諸佛菩薩經之與論破有無者。良由有無是諸見之根障正觀本。是故破耳。又顯有無過勸外人舍于有無。有無無過諸佛菩薩不勸舍之。以是大過故須舍也。初偈標有無是斷常。次偈釋有無是斷常。上半標有無是斷常。下半勸舍斷常。是十四難本。為六十二見根。有見則有愛。愛見既具足則纏垢又生。既有煩惱則便有業。以有惑業迴流六趣。有此大過故下半勸舍。長行雲如說三世者此是薩婆多義。又說因中先有果此是僧佉執。前內今外皆墮于常。斷滅名無相續因者。前念為因后念為果。前念既滅則無後因。后念果起何所酬耶。前破常破衛世與僧佉。今破斷破二世無及優樓迦義。又前別破二家。今總破先因後果義也。第二偈釋有無是斷常所以。粗論斷常凡有二種。一法斷常二人斷常。陰滅神滅此是人斷。陰滅神存名為人常。法斷常者。如三世有部名為法常。二世無義即是法斷。蓋並是粗論斷常。問云何有無是斷常。答且約人作。人因陰有則無自體。若有人自體不假陰成。陰雖斷滅則人存。故是常。瓶柱亦爾。故有是常。然因果相續名為不斷。今因遂滅無則果無所續。故無即是斷。若望大乘無所得觀。裁起有心即墮于常。徴起無念便入于斷。問起何等有無斷常耶。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無性之異』。『定有則著常下第四兩偈顯有無過釋次破有無意』。所以諸佛菩薩經之與論破有無者。良由有無是諸見之根，障正觀本。是故破耳。又顯有無過，勸外人舍于有無。有無無過，諸佛菩薩不勸舍之。以是大過故須舍也。初偈標有無是斷常。次偈釋有無是斷常。上半標有無是斷常。下半勸舍斷常。是十四難本。為六十二見根。有見則有愛。愛見既具足，則纏垢又生。既有煩惱，則便有業。以有惑業，迴流六趣。有此大過，故下半勸舍。長行雲『如說三世者，此是薩婆多義（一切有部）。又說因中先有果，此是僧佉（數論派）執』。前內今外，皆墮于常。斷滅名無相續因者。前念為因，后念為果。前念既滅，則無後因。后念果起，何所酬耶。前破常，破衛世與僧佉（數論派）。今破斷，破二世無及優樓迦義（勝論派）。又前別破二家。今總破先因後果義也。 第二偈釋有無是斷常所以。粗論斷常，凡有二種。一法斷常，二人斷常。陰滅神滅，此是人斷。陰滅神存，名為人常。法斷常者。如三世有部，名為法常。二世無義，即是法斷。蓋並是粗論斷常。問云何有無是斷常。答且約人作。人因陰有，則無自體。若有人自體不假陰成，陰雖斷滅，則人存，故是常。瓶柱亦爾。故有是常。然因果相續，名為不斷。今因遂滅，無則果無所續。故無即是斷。若望大乘無所得觀，裁起有心，即墮于常。徴起無念，便入于斷。問起何等有無斷常耶。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The difference of non-nature.' 'Defining existence leads to permanence, as shown in the fourth two verses below, which reveal the faults of existence and non-existence, and then explain the intention of refuting existence and non-existence.' The reason why the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, in scriptures and treatises, refute existence and non-existence is that existence and non-existence are the roots of all views, obstructing the basis of right view. Therefore, they are refuted. Furthermore, the faults of existence and non-existence are revealed to persuade outsiders to abandon existence and non-existence. If existence and non-existence were without fault, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas would not advise abandoning them. Because they are great faults, they must be abandoned. The first verse indicates that existence and non-existence are annihilation and permanence. The second verse explains that existence and non-existence are annihilation and permanence. The first half indicates that existence and non-existence are annihilation and permanence. The second half advises abandoning annihilation and permanence. These are the basis of the fourteen difficulties and the root of the sixty-two views. Having views leads to attachment. When attachment and views are complete, entanglements and defilements arise again. Having afflictions leads to karma. With delusion and karma, one revolves in the six realms. Because of this great fault, the second half advises abandoning them. The long passage says, 'As it is said about the three times, this is the meaning of the Sarvastivadins (those who believe in the existence of all dharmas in the past, present, and future). Also, saying that the effect exists in the cause beforehand is the view of the Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy)'. The former, internal, and the latter, external, both fall into permanence. Annihilation is called the non-continuous cause. The previous thought is the cause, and the subsequent thought is the effect. If the previous thought is extinguished, there is no subsequent cause. When the subsequent effect arises, what is the recompense? Previously, permanence was refuted, refuting Vaisheshika and Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy). Now, annihilation is refuted, refuting the meaning of non-existence in two times and the meaning of Uluka (founder of the Vaisheshika school). Also, previously, two schools were refuted separately. Now, the meaning of the prior cause and subsequent effect is refuted generally. The second verse explains why existence and non-existence are annihilation and permanence. Roughly speaking, there are two kinds of annihilation and permanence. One is the annihilation and permanence of dharmas, and the other is the annihilation and permanence of persons. The annihilation of the skandhas and the annihilation of the spirit is the annihilation of the person. The annihilation of the skandhas and the survival of the spirit is called the permanence of the person. As for the annihilation and permanence of dharmas, the Sarvastivadins (those who believe in the existence of all dharmas in the past, present, and future), who believe in the existence of the three times, are called the permanence of dharmas. The meaning of non-existence in two times is the annihilation of dharmas. These are all rough discussions of annihilation and permanence. Question: How are existence and non-existence annihilation and permanence? Answer: Let's talk about it in terms of a person. A person exists because of the skandhas, so there is no self-nature. If a person's self-nature does not depend on the formation of the skandhas, even if the skandhas are annihilated, the person survives, so it is permanence. The same is true for a pot and a pillar. Therefore, existence is permanence. However, the continuous succession of cause and effect is called non-annihilation. Now that the cause is extinguished, if there is no cause, the effect has nothing to continue. Therefore, non-existence is annihilation. If one looks at the view of non-attainment in Mahayana, the moment one arises with the mind of existence, one falls into permanence. The moment one arises with the thought of non-existence, one enters into annihilation. Question: What kind of existence and non-existence are annihilation and permanence?
答觸事皆得論之。舉其宗要正是道也。若言有道可求則墮有中名為常見。若無道可求則墮無中名為斷見。成壞品云。若有所受法則墮于斷常。
縛解品第十六
此一品生有遠近通別。所言遠者。小乘大乘外道內道並言有縛有解。外道有二。一者云。眾生縛解自然而有。無有因緣。一切眾生經八萬劫生死則盡便得解脫。如縛縷丸于高山縷盡則止。故不須修道斷縛得解。又有外道云。要修道斷惑方得解脫。如僧佉云知二十五諦即得解脫。不知是者不離生死。毗曇人云有子果二縛。果謂果報身。子縛名煩惱。煩惱有二。一者緣縛二相應縛。今括其大格凡有四句。一緣而不縛。謂無漏緣使及九上緣使。二縛而不緣。謂相應縛也。煩惱與心法俱起。是故縛之。既是同時不得相緣。故雜心云。不自緣不緣相應不緣共有也。三亦緣亦縛。即有漏緣使。四非緣非縛。除上諸句。成實義云。無有二縛。以無同時心數故無相應縛。煩惱緣境亦不縛境。故無緣縛。破數人云。貪心緣壁遂縛壁者。以識識壁壁應有識。但立煩惱迷境障智縛于眾生稱之為縛。大乘人云。二種生死名為果縛。五住煩惱名為子縛。北土諸大乘師亦立斯義。復有二障之說。四住煩惱名煩惱障。即二乘所斷。若無明住地名為智障。菩薩除之。所言解者。毗曇之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：回答說，接觸事物都能加以討論，抓住其根本要旨，那就是道。如果說有道可以追求，那就落入了『有』的範疇，被稱為常見；如果說沒有道可以追求，那就落入了『無』的範疇，被稱為斷見。《成壞品》中說，如果有所執受的法則，就會落入斷見或常見。
《縛解品》第十六
這一品討論了關於束縛和解脫的遠近、共通和差別。所謂『遠』，是指小乘、大乘、外道、內道都談論有束縛和解脫。外道有兩種觀點：一種認為，眾生的束縛和解脫是自然而然的，沒有因緣。一切眾生經歷八萬劫的生死輪迴，自然就會結束，從而得到解脫，就像纏繞的線團在高山上，線用盡了自然停止一樣。因此不需要通過修行來斷除束縛而獲得解脫。另一種外道認為，需要通過修行來斷除迷惑才能獲得解脫，比如僧佉派認為，瞭解二十五諦就能獲得解脫，不瞭解就無法脫離生死。毗曇宗的人認為有子縛（種子之縛）和果縛（果報之縛）兩種束縛。果縛指的是果報之身，子縛指的是煩惱。煩惱有兩種：一種是緣縛（以所緣為束縛），一種是相應縛（與心相應為束縛）。現在概括其主要框架，大致有四種情況：一是緣而不縛，指的是無漏的緣使（無漏的煩惱）以及九地之上的緣使。二是縛而不緣，指的是相應縛。煩惱與心法同時生起，因此束縛心法。既然是同時，就不能互相作為所緣。所以《雜心論》中說，心法不自緣，不緣相應法，不緣共有法。三是既緣又縛，即有漏的緣使。四是非緣非縛，即排除以上各種情況。成實宗的觀點認為，沒有兩種束縛，因為沒有同時生起的心數法，所以沒有相應縛。煩惱緣取境界，也不會束縛境界，所以沒有緣縛。反駁數論宗的人說，如果貪心緣取墻壁就能束縛墻壁，那麼以意識去認識墻壁，墻壁就應該有意識。只是因為煩惱迷惑了境界，障礙了智慧，從而束縛了眾生，才稱之為束縛。大乘的人認為，兩種生死稱為果縛，五住煩惱（五種根本煩惱）稱為子縛。北方的許多大乘法師也持這種觀點。還有二障（兩種障礙）的說法：四住煩惱稱為煩惱障，這是二乘所斷除的；無明住地（根本無明）稱為智障，這是菩薩所斷除的。所謂解脫，毗曇宗的……
【English Translation】 English version: The answer is that all matters encountered can be discussed. Grasping the essential principle is precisely the Dao (道, the Way). If one says that there is a Dao that can be sought, then one falls into the realm of 'existence,' which is called the 'common view' (常見). If one says that there is no Dao to be sought, then one falls into the realm of 'non-existence,' which is called the 'annihilationist view' (斷見). The 'Chapter on Formation and Destruction' (成壞品) says, 'If one adheres to any dharma (法則, law/principle), one will fall into either the annihilationist or the eternalist view.'
Chapter Sixteen: On Bondage and Liberation (縛解品)
This chapter discusses the distance, commonality, and differences regarding bondage and liberation. By 'distance,' it means that the Hinayana (小乘, Lesser Vehicle), Mahayana (大乘, Greater Vehicle), externalist (外道, non-Buddhist) and internalist (內道, Buddhist) paths all speak of bondage and liberation. There are two types of externalists: one believes that the bondage and liberation of sentient beings occur naturally, without any cause or condition. All sentient beings, after experiencing eighty thousand kalpas (劫, eons) of birth and death, will naturally come to an end and attain liberation, just like a ball of thread on a high mountain, where the thread runs out and stops. Therefore, there is no need to cultivate the path to sever bondage and attain liberation. Another type of externalist believes that one must cultivate the path to sever delusion in order to attain liberation, such as the Samkhya (僧佉) school, which believes that understanding the twenty-five tattvas (諦, truths) leads to liberation, and not understanding them keeps one bound to samsara (生死, cycle of birth and death). The Abhidharma (毗曇) school believes in two types of bondage: seed-bondage (子縛) and result-bondage (果縛). Result-bondage refers to the body of karmic retribution, while seed-bondage refers to afflictions (煩惱, kleshas). There are two types of afflictions: object-bondage (緣縛, bondage through objects) and co-arising bondage (相應縛, bondage through association). Now, summarizing the main framework, there are roughly four situations: first, object-related but not binding, referring to the unconditioned object-related defilements and the object-related defilements of the nine higher realms. Second, binding but not object-related, referring to co-arising bondage. Afflictions arise simultaneously with mental factors, thus binding them. Since they are simultaneous, they cannot be objects of each other. Therefore, the Samuccaya-hrdaya (雜心論) says that a mental factor does not cognize itself, does not cognize its associated factors, and does not cognize shared factors. Third, both object-related and binding, which is the conditioned object-related defilements. Fourth, neither object-related nor binding, excluding all the above situations. The Tattvasiddhi (成實) school believes that there are no two types of bondage, because there are no simultaneously arising mental factors, so there is no co-arising bondage. Afflictions cognizing objects do not bind the objects, so there is no object-bondage. Refuting the Samkhya school, if greed cognizing a wall could bind the wall, then the wall should have consciousness since it is cognized by consciousness. It is simply that afflictions delude the object, obstruct wisdom, and thus bind sentient beings, which is called bondage. Mahayana practitioners believe that the two types of samsara are called result-bondage, and the five aggregates of affliction (五住煩惱, five fundamental afflictions) are called seed-bondage. Many Mahayana masters in the north also hold this view. There is also the theory of the two obscurations (二障, two hindrances): the four aggregates of affliction are called the affliction obscuration (煩惱障), which is severed by the Shravakas (聲聞, Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (緣覺, Solitary Realizers) of the Two Vehicles (二乘, Hinayana). The fundamental ignorance (無明住地, fundamental ignorance) is called the knowledge obscuration (智障), which is removed by Bodhisattvas (菩薩). As for liberation, the Abhidharma school...
人見有得道以有解斷惑。成實之人見空成聖空解斷惑。大乘斷惑亦同成論用空解斷。問毗曇何故明凡夫斷惑。成實辨凡夫不斷但明伏耶。答以毗曇見有得道。外道亦見有。是故斷惑。成實見空得道。外不見空。故但伏不斷。今求如此內外縛解悉不可得。故名破縛解品。問何故無此縛解耶。答外人作縛解義並不成。故求之不得故也。又見有縛解則名為縛。撿縛解無從乃名為解。又內外大小乘乃除于縛不為縛所縛猶未除解而為解所縛。喻如雖脫鐵鎖猶著金鎖。論主今欲令其具脫縛解二縛故破縛解也。又內外大小乘人言縛解二並欲斷縛而修解。今欲令其了縛即是解知縛解不二故破縛解。又諸大乘經甚深要觀皆明無縛無解。如大品云。無縛無脫為大莊嚴。涅槃云。毗婆舍那不破煩惱。今欲釋如此等經故明觀縛解。問無縛無脫云何為大莊嚴。答有縛有脫是有見故不端嚴。今離此諸見故是妙嚴。又有縛可除為無見。有脫可得是有見。有無是斷常名為醜陋。離此即妙觀莊嚴。此品近生者。上明無有無無。外云。凡夫有縛無解。聖人有解無縛。云何言無有無耶。又若起有無見名之為縛。離有無是中道正觀。稱之為解。有無之見乃息縛解之執仍生。故次觀縛解品。品為二。第一破縛解根本。二正破縛解。破根本中為二。前破縛本次破解根
。以眾生及五陰為生死繫縛本。滅此眾生及以五陰稱為解本。本者體也。大品云。生死邊如虛空。眾生性邊亦如虛空。是中無生死往來亦無解脫者。即是明二本空。此是菩薩正憶念之大宗也。破縛本中為三。初作常無常破。二五求破。三者有身無身破。問曰生死非都無根本此立正縛根。縛根者。經說眾生及五陰是也。問此立與上來立何異。答上直立有人法。今舉往來證有人法。上直破人法。今破無往來故無人法。問何故立人法破人法。答楞伽云。眾生妄想所見不出人法。今破人法則明二無我。故得入初地乃至成佛也。又大小乘人常厭生死往來欲求解脫。今明若見有往來不得息往來。悟往來無往來方得息往來耳。答曰下第二正作常無常破。自上已來破五陰及眾生竟。今縱有之故開二關責也。問品破縛解。何故破往來。答外人以往來即是縛故破往來即破縛也。然往來之本不出人法。此二若實要墮斷常。常則天人無交謝。靜然不變。何有往來。無常則體盡於一世。誰復往來耶。莎提比丘計有一識往來生死。自餘數論及大乘人並云無常往來。又外道計眾生是常故往來。內學執無常是故往來。今破此內外義也。第二偈五求破者。良以計眾生是諸行根本故今偏破眾生。尚無眾生。誰往來耶。又惑者謂。五陰或舍或受。如受人陰則舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以眾生（sattva，有情）及五陰（panca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）為生死繫縛的根本。滅除此眾生及五陰，稱為解脫的根本。本，指的是本體。如《大品般若經》所說：『生死之邊際如虛空，眾生之自性邊際亦如虛空。』其中沒有生死的往來，也沒有解脫者。這便是闡明二本皆空。這是菩薩正確憶念的大綱領。破除繫縛之本，分為三部分：第一，以常與無常來破斥；第二，以五求來破斥；第三，以有身與無身來破斥。問：生死並非完全沒有根本，這裡建立正縛根。縛根，經中所說的眾生及五陰便是。問：此處的建立與之前的建立有何不同？答：之前只是直接建立人法（pudgala-dharma）。現在舉出往來作為證據，證明有人法。之前直接破斥人法，現在破斥沒有往來，因此沒有人法。問：為何要建立人法又破斥人法？答：《楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）說：『眾生妄想所見，不出人法。』現在破斥人法，便是闡明二無我（dvi-nairatmya，人無我與法無我），因此得以進入初地（prathama-bhumi），乃至成就佛果。又，大小乘人常常厭惡生死的往來，想要尋求解脫。現在闡明，如果認為有往來，便無法止息往來。領悟到往來無往來，才能止息往來。答：下面第二部分，正式以常與無常來破斥。從上面開始，已經破斥了五陰及眾生。現在縱然假設有，所以開啟兩道關卡來責問。問：品中破斥繫縛與解脫，為何要破斥往來？答：外道認為往來便是繫縛，所以破斥往來便是破斥繫縛。然而往來的根本不出人法。這二者如果真實存在，必定會墮入斷見（uccheda-drsti）或常見（sasvata-drsti）。如果是常，那麼天人之間便沒有交替，靜止不變，哪裡會有往來？如果是無常，那麼形體在一世便已消盡，誰又會往來呢？莎提比丘（Sati）認為有一識（vijnana，意識）往來生死。其餘數論派（Samkhya）及大乘人也認為無常往來。又有外道認為眾生是常，所以往來。內學執著無常，所以往來。現在破斥這些內外道的觀點。第二偈，以五求破斥，是因為認為眾生是諸行（samskara，意志）的根本，所以現在偏重破斥眾生。尚且沒有眾生，誰又會往來呢？又，迷惑的人認為，五陰或者捨棄或者接受，比如接受人陰，便捨棄... English version: Sentient beings (sattva) and the five aggregates (panca-skandha, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are considered the root of the bondage of birth and death. The extinction of these sentient beings and the five aggregates is called the root of liberation. 'Root' refers to the substance. As stated in the 'Perfection of Wisdom Sutra' (Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra): 'The boundary of birth and death is like space, and the boundary of the nature of sentient beings is also like space.' Within this, there is no coming and going of birth and death, nor is there a liberator. This clarifies that both roots are empty. This is the great principle of right mindfulness for Bodhisattvas. Breaking the root of bondage is divided into three parts: first, breaking with permanence and impermanence; second, breaking with the fivefold search; and third, breaking with having a body and not having a body. Question: Birth and death are not entirely without a root; here, the root of bondage is established. The root of bondage is what the sutras say are sentient beings and the five aggregates. Question: How does this establishment differ from the previous establishment? Answer: Previously, it was simply establishing the person and the dharma (pudgala-dharma). Now, coming and going are cited as evidence to prove the person and the dharma. Previously, the person and the dharma were directly refuted; now, the absence of coming and going is refuted, so there is no person and no dharma. Question: Why establish the person and the dharma and then refute them? Answer: The 'Lankavatara Sutra' says: 'What sentient beings see through delusion does not go beyond the person and the dharma.' Now, refuting the person and the dharma clarifies the two kinds of selflessness (dvi-nairatmya, selflessness of person and selflessness of phenomena), so one can enter the first ground (prathama-bhumi) and even attain Buddhahood. Furthermore, people of both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions often detest the coming and going of birth and death and desire to seek liberation. Now, it is clarified that if one sees coming and going, one cannot stop coming and going. Only by realizing that coming and going are without coming and going can one stop coming and going. Answer: The second part below formally breaks with permanence and impermanence. From above, the five aggregates and sentient beings have already been refuted. Now, even if we assume they exist, two gates are opened to question them. Question: In the chapter on breaking bondage and liberation, why break with coming and going? Answer: Outsiders believe that coming and going are bondage, so breaking with coming and going is breaking with bondage. However, the root of coming and going does not go beyond the person and the dharma. If these two truly exist, one will inevitably fall into nihilism (uccheda-drsti) or eternalism (sasvata-drsti). If it is permanent, then there is no exchange between gods and humans, it is static and unchanging, so where would there be coming and going? If it is impermanent, then the body is exhausted in one lifetime, so who would come and go? The monk Sati believed that one consciousness (vijnana) transmigrates through birth and death. Other Samkhya philosophers and Mahayana practitioners also believe that impermanence transmigrates. Furthermore, some non-Buddhists believe that sentient beings are permanent, so they transmigrate. Internal schools adhere to impermanence, so they transmigrate. Now, these internal and external views are refuted. The second verse, breaking with the fivefold search, is because sentient beings are considered the root of all formations (samskara), so now the emphasis is on refuting sentient beings. If there are no sentient beings, who would come and go? Furthermore, those who are deluded believe that the five aggregates are either abandoned or accepted, such as accepting the human aggregate and abandoning...
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese translation: Taking sentient beings (sattva) and the five aggregates (panca-skandha, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) as the root of the bondage of birth and death. Eliminating these sentient beings and the five aggregates is called the root of liberation. 'Root' refers to the substance. As stated in the 'Perfection of Wisdom Sutra' (Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra): 'The boundary of birth and death is like space, and the boundary of the nature of sentient beings is also like space.' Within this, there is no coming and going of birth and death, nor is there a liberator. This clarifies that both roots are empty. This is the great principle of right mindfulness for Bodhisattvas. Breaking the root of bondage is divided into three parts: first, breaking with permanence and impermanence; second, breaking with the fivefold search; and third, breaking with having a body and not having a body. Question: Birth and death are not entirely without a root; here, the root of bondage is established. The root of bondage is what the sutras say are sentient beings and the five aggregates. Question: How does this establishment differ from the previous establishment? Answer: Previously, it was simply establishing the person and the dharma (pudgala-dharma). Now, coming and going are cited as evidence to prove the person and the dharma. Previously, the person and the dharma were directly refuted; now, the absence of coming and going is refuted, so there is no person and no dharma. Question: Why establish the person and the dharma and then refute them? Answer: The 'Lankavatara Sutra' says: 'What sentient beings see through delusion does not go beyond the person and the dharma.' Now, refuting the person and the dharma clarifies the two kinds of selflessness (dvi-nairatmya, selflessness of person and selflessness of phenomena), so one can enter the first ground (prathama-bhumi) and even attain Buddhahood. Furthermore, people of both the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions often detest the coming and going of birth and death and desire to seek liberation. Now, it is clarified that if one sees coming and going, one cannot stop coming and going. Only by realizing that coming and going are without coming and going can one stop coming and going. Answer: The second part below formally breaks with permanence and impermanence. From above, the five aggregates and sentient beings have already been refuted. Now, even if we assume they exist, two gates are opened to question them. Question: In the chapter on breaking bondage and liberation, why break with coming and going? Answer: Outsiders believe that coming and going are bondage, so breaking with coming and going is breaking with bondage. However, the root of coming and going does not go beyond the person and the dharma. If these two truly exist, one will inevitably fall into nihilism (uccheda-drsti) or eternalism (sasvata-drsti). If it is permanent, then there is no exchange between gods and humans, it is static and unchanging, so where would there be coming and going? If it is impermanent, then the body is exhausted in one lifetime, so who would come and go? The monk Sati believed that one consciousness (vijnana) transmigrates through birth and death. Other Samkhya philosophers and Mahayana practitioners also believe that impermanence transmigrates. Furthermore, some non-Buddhists believe that sentient beings are permanent, so they transmigrate. Internal schools adhere to impermanence, so they transmigrate. Now, these internal and external views are refuted. The second verse, breaking with the fivefold search, is because sentient beings are considered the root of all formations (samskara), so now the emphasis is on refuting sentient beings. If there are no sentient beings, who would come and go? Furthermore, those who are deluded believe that the five aggregates are either abandoned or accepted, such as accepting the human aggregate and abandoning...
天陰。眾生是常無有取捨。是故別破眾生也。長行雲生死陰界入即是一義者。亦名生死亦名陰界入故云一義。又同是眾生之一義。約能破門同是五求不可得義。如就陰中五求不得。就界入亦然。第三有身無身破。所以有此破者。上明五種求無眾生故無往來。外人云。經說眾生舍一身受一身輪轉六道。云何言無眾生往來耶。今縱有眾生故以有身無身責之。上半云。若舍人身受天身。則往來之者便無身。如人舍東房入西房則往來者無房。下半云。若無有身則無生死。何物往來。又既其無身則無往來者。以有五陰身可有眾生。既無五陰身則無眾生。若無眾生則無往來。若舍五陰身令眾生往來。亦應除五指將捲往來。又上半破有身往來。此破人與陰異義。下半破無身往來。此破人與陰一義。以謂無五陰亦有眾生故是二義。謂有五陰身即有眾生名為一義。次問佛法內義。汝言從人身作天身者。為人滅故作天。為不滅而作天。若滅則無有人。誰作天身。此則無身可往來。若不滅者人身猶在。云何作天形耶。彼不受此責云。人身有兩力。實法舉體滅不得作天身。假名相續力轉人作天。何得作此難耶。今問實法滅義乃不作相續不滅邊而有作者。人形為猶在為不在耶。若不在者以何物轉作天身。若在者人身猶在云何作天。彼答我人身轉作
天。今問為前受天身後方轉人。為前轉人竟后受天身。若受天身竟。何須更轉人身。若前轉則非復人形。何得言從人身作天身耶。問曰經說有涅槃下生第二章次破解本。問意云。經說涅槃既滅人法。當知必有人法之生。何得上云無人及法往來生死。答意云。眾生及諸行本自不生故今無所滅。本自不生故無有縛本。今無滅則無解本。無縛本故不生死。無解本故不涅槃。華嚴云。生死非雜亂涅槃非寂靜。又如上求眾生及諸行不可得。故無可論其生滅。問若爾者下第二段次破縛解。又開三別。前總破縛解。次別破縛解。三總結無縛解。初問云應無縛解根本不可得者。外人云。生死是縛本涅槃是解根。若如上破無生死涅槃則便無根本。根本無故應無縛解。若無縛解則無凡無聖無因無果。而實有縛解故知根本不無。答中上半破法無縛解。下半破人無縛解。上半云。若五陰得一念暫住。可得縛之可得解之。今始欲縛便已謝滅。解亦如是。若一念得住。則非有為亦無縛解。下半明眾生畢竟空故無可論縛解。複次下第二別破縛解即為二。初破縛次破解。破縛二偈。前偈明不自縛。次偈明不他縛。凡有縛者不出自他。又初偈明法無有縛。次偈明人無有縛。凡論有縛不出人法。初偈明無果縛。次偈辨無因縛。凡有縛不離因果。初偈為三。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 天（Deva，天神）。現在我問，是先以天神之身死去然後才轉世為人，還是先以人身死去然後才轉世為天神？如果已經受了天神之身，為何還需要再轉世為人身？如果先轉世為人，那就已經不是原來的天神之形了，怎麼能說從人身修成天神之身呢？ 問：經書上說有『涅槃下生第二章』，接下來是破解其根本含義。提問者的意思是，經書上說涅槃已經滅盡了人法（關於人的規律和法則），那麼可以知道必定有人法的產生。為何上面又說沒有人和法在生死中往來呢？ 答：眾生和諸行（一切事物）本來就不曾產生，所以現在也沒有什麼可以滅盡的。本來就不曾產生，所以沒有束縛的根本。現在沒有滅盡，就沒有解脫的根本。沒有束縛的根本，所以沒有生死。沒有解脫的根本，所以沒有涅槃。《華嚴經》說：『生死不是雜亂無章的，涅槃也不是寂靜無聲的。』又如上面所說，尋求眾生和諸行是不可得的，所以無法討論它們的生滅。 問：如果這樣，那麼下面第二段就應該破解束縛和解脫，又可以分為三個部分。第一部分是總的破解束縛和解脫，第二部分是分別破解束縛和解脫，第三部分是總結沒有束縛和解脫。最初的問題是，如果沒有束縛和解脫，那麼根本就不可得。提問者說：生死是束縛的根本，涅槃是解脫的根源。如果像上面所說的那樣，沒有生死和涅槃，那麼就沒有根本。根本不存在，就應該沒有束縛和解脫。如果沒有束縛和解脫，就沒有凡人和聖人，沒有原因和結果。但實際上存在束縛和解脫，所以知道根本不是不存在的。 回答中，前半部分是破解法沒有束縛和解脫，後半部分是破解人沒有束縛和解脫。前半部分說：如果五陰（色、受、想、行、識）能夠在一念之間暫時停留，就可以束縛它，也可以解脫它。但剛想要束縛，它就已經消逝滅亡了。解脫也是如此。如果一念能夠停留，那就不是有為法（因緣和合而成的法），也沒有束縛和解脫。 後半部分說明眾生畢竟是空性的，所以無法討論束縛和解脫。接下來，第二部分分別破解束縛和解脫，分為兩個部分。首先是破解束縛，然後是破解解脫。破解束縛有兩句偈語。前一句偈語說明不是自己束縛自己，后一句偈語說明不是他人束縛自己。凡是有束縛，都離不開自己和他人。而且，第一句偈語說明法沒有束縛，第二句偈語說明人沒有束縛。凡是討論有束縛，都離不開人和法。第一句偈語說明沒有果的束縛，第二句偈語辨析沒有因的束縛。凡是有束縛，都離不開因和果。第一句偈語又可以分為三個部分。如果...
【English Translation】 English version Deva (天, Deva, a celestial being). Now I ask, is it that one dies as a Deva and then is reborn as a human, or does one die as a human and then is reborn as a Deva? If one has already received the body of a Deva, why is it necessary to be reborn as a human? If one is first reborn as a human, then it is no longer the original form of the Deva, how can it be said that one cultivates from a human body to become a Deva? Question: The scriptures say there is a 'Nirvana Lower Birth Second Chapter,' and next is to decipher its fundamental meaning. The questioner means that the scriptures say that Nirvana has extinguished the human dharma (人法, the laws and principles concerning humans), then it can be known that there must be a generation of human dharma. Why does the above say that no humans or dharmas come and go in birth and death? Answer: Sentient beings and all phenomena (諸行, all things) originally never arise, so now there is nothing to extinguish. Originally they never arise, so there is no root of bondage. Now there is no extinction, so there is no root of liberation. Without the root of bondage, there is no birth and death. Without the root of liberation, there is no Nirvana. The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Birth and death are not chaotic, Nirvana is not silent.' Also, as mentioned above, seeking sentient beings and all phenomena is unattainable, so there is no way to discuss their arising and ceasing. Question: If so, then the second section below should break down bondage and liberation, and it can be divided into three parts. The first part is the general breakdown of bondage and liberation, the second part is the separate breakdown of bondage and liberation, and the third part is the summary of no bondage and liberation. The initial question is, if there is no bondage and liberation, then the root is unattainable. The questioner says: Birth and death are the root of bondage, and Nirvana is the source of liberation. If, as mentioned above, there is no birth and death and Nirvana, then there is no root. If the root does not exist, there should be no bondage and liberation. If there is no bondage and liberation, there are no ordinary people and saints, no cause and effect. But in reality, bondage and liberation exist, so it is known that the root is not non-existent. In the answer, the first half breaks down that the dharma has no bondage and liberation, and the second half breaks down that humans have no bondage and liberation. The first half says: If the five skandhas (五陰, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) can temporarily stay for a moment, they can be bound and liberated. But as soon as one wants to bind, it has already vanished and perished. Liberation is also the same. If a moment can stay, then it is not conditioned dharma (有為法, dharma arising from causes and conditions), and there is no bondage and liberation. The second half explains that sentient beings are ultimately empty, so there is no way to discuss bondage and liberation. Next, the second part separately breaks down bondage and liberation, divided into two parts. First is breaking down bondage, and then breaking down liberation. There are two verses for breaking down bondage. The first verse explains that one does not bind oneself, and the second verse explains that others do not bind oneself. All bondage cannot be separated from oneself and others. Moreover, the first verse explains that the dharma has no bondage, and the second verse explains that humans have no bondage. All discussions of bondage cannot be separated from humans and dharma. The first verse explains that there is no bondage of result, and the second verse distinguishes that there is no bondage of cause. All bondage cannot be separated from cause and effect. The first verse can be divided into three parts. If...
身名為縛者。若言此五陰身是繫縛者此牒外義也。有身則不縛下第二正破有身縛。凡有四義故不得縛。一者身不自縛。如指不自觸。二若是能縛則無所縛。三者若是所縛則無能縛。四者若有能縛所縛便有二五陰身也。次無身則無能縛所縛。下句結呵外人。若可縛前縛下第二偈次破他縛。所以有此破者。上明有身無身俱無有縛。外今救云。有身故論縛。但縛義有二。一者五陰是能縛眾生是所縛。二者行陰中煩惱是能縛五陰是所縛。故有能縛所縛。不墮二身過。上半縱之。若可縛之前別有能縛。應將能縛來縛可縛。如離眾生前別有五陰。應將五陰來縛眾生。今離眾生之前無別五陰。云何將五陰以縛眾生。所以作此破者。正言五陰和合為眾生。未有眾生不得前有五陰。云何五陰以縛眾生。又眾生是總五陰之名。若取眾生也則無別五陰能縛眾生。涅槃經云。名色縛眾生眾生縛名色。名色成眾生即是名色縛眾生。眾生御名色即是眾生縛名色。智度論亦云。名色縛眾生眾生縛名色。只此眾生縛即此眾生解。如繩結繩解更無異物。不得云別有名色以縛眾生。亦不得云別有眾生受名色縛。問若可能前能。正破人縛法。正破法縛人。答通破。前是破人縛法。上既云五陰身不得有能縛所縛一人有二身。是故今取意明人是能縛身是所縛。則有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
『身』被稱為繫縛者。如果說這五陰之身是繫縛，這是採納了外道的觀點。『有身則不縛』，下面第二點正式破斥『有身』的繫縛。凡是有四種道理，所以不能成為繫縛。第一，身不能自己繫縛自己，就像手指不能自己觸碰自己。第二，如果是能繫縛者，就沒有被繫縛者。第三，如果是被繫縛者，就沒有能繫縛者。第四，如果既有能繫縛者，又有被繫縛者，那就有了兩個五陰之身了。其次，沒有身，就沒有能繫縛者和被繫縛者。下句總結並呵斥外道之人的觀點。『若可縛前縛』，下面第二首偈頌接著破斥他人的繫縛之說。之所以有這樣的破斥，是因為上面已經說明有身和無身都沒有繫縛。外道現在辯解說，因為有身，所以才說有繫縛。但繫縛的意義有兩種：一是五陰是能繫縛者，眾生是被繫縛者；二是行陰中的煩惱是能繫縛者，五陰是被繫縛者。所以有能繫縛者和被繫縛者，不會陷入有兩個五陰之身的過失。上半部分先姑且認可這種說法。如果被繫縛之前，另有能繫縛者，就應該將能繫縛者拿來繫縛被繫縛者。就像在眾生之前，另有五陰，就應該將五陰拿來繫縛眾生。現在在眾生之前沒有另外的五陰，怎麼能用五陰來繫縛眾生呢？之所以這樣破斥，是因為正確地說，五陰和合成為眾生，沒有眾生之前，不可能先有五陰，怎麼能用五陰來繫縛眾生呢？而且眾生是五陰的總稱，如果取眾生，就沒有另外的五陰能繫縛眾生。《涅槃經》說：『名色系縛眾生，眾生繫縛名色。』名色成就眾生，就是名色系縛眾生。眾生駕馭名色，就是眾生繫縛名色。《智度論》也說：『名色系縛眾生，眾生繫縛名色。』就是這個眾生被繫縛，也就是這個眾生解脫。就像用繩子打結，解開繩結，沒有其他的東西。不能說另外有名色來繫縛眾生，也不能說另外有眾生受到名色的繫縛。問：如果可能，先有能繫縛者。正式破斥人繫縛法，正式破斥法系縛人。答：通通破斥。前面是破斥人繫縛法。上面已經說五陰之身不可能有能繫縛者和被繫縛者，一個人有兩個身。所以現在取其意，說明人是能繫縛者，身是被繫縛者，那麼就有...
【English Translation】 English version:
'The body' is called the bound one. If it is said that this five skandha (five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) body is the binding, this adopts the view of externalists. 'Having a body, then not bound,' the second point below formally refutes the binding of 'having a body.' There are four reasons why it cannot be a binding. First, the body cannot bind itself, just as a finger cannot touch itself. Second, if it is the binder, then there is nothing to be bound. Third, if it is the bound, then there is no binder. Fourth, if there is both a binder and a bound, then there are two five skandha bodies. Secondly, without a body, there is neither a binder nor a bound. The following sentence summarizes and rebukes the views of externalists. 'If the bound precedes the binding,' the second verse below continues to refute others' claims of binding. The reason for this refutation is that it has been explained above that neither having a body nor not having a body has binding. Externalists now argue that because there is a body, there is binding. However, there are two meanings of binding: first, the five skandhas are the binder, and sentient beings are the bound; second, the afflictions in the formation skandha are the binder, and the five skandhas are the bound. Therefore, there is a binder and a bound, and there is no fault of falling into having two five skandha bodies. The first half temporarily acknowledges this statement. If, before the bound, there is another binder, then the binder should be brought to bind the bound. Just as before sentient beings, there are other five skandhas, the five skandhas should be brought to bind sentient beings. Now, before sentient beings, there are no other five skandhas, how can the five skandhas be used to bind sentient beings? The reason for this refutation is that, correctly speaking, the five skandhas combine to become sentient beings. Before there are sentient beings, it is impossible to have the five skandhas first, how can the five skandhas be used to bind sentient beings? Moreover, sentient beings are the general name for the five skandhas. If sentient beings are taken, there are no other five skandhas that can bind sentient beings. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Name and form (nama-rupa) bind sentient beings, sentient beings bind name and form.' Name and form accomplish sentient beings, which means name and form bind sentient beings. Sentient beings control name and form, which means sentient beings bind name and form. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra also says: 'Name and form bind sentient beings, sentient beings bind name and form.' This sentient being is bound, and this sentient being is liberated. Just like tying a knot with a rope, untying the knot, there is nothing else. It cannot be said that there are other names and forms to bind sentient beings, nor can it be said that there are other sentient beings who are bound by name and form. Question: If possible, there is a binder first. Formally refuting people binding the Dharma, formally refuting the Dharma binding people. Answer: Refuting all. The former is refuting people binding the Dharma. It has been said above that the five skandha body cannot have a binder and a bound, and one person has two bodies. Therefore, now taking its meaning, it is explained that people are the binder and the body is the bound, then there is...
能所。是故今云。離五陰可縛之前無人。誰縛五陰。文正爾。亦離五陰之前無別煩惱。云何言煩惱縛五陰。長行雲若離五陰別有眾生破外道犢子假有體義。破煩惱縛五陰破毗曇人義。前破有我部后破無我部。計縛解者不出斯二。問毗曇人云行陰心起煩惱縛餘五陰。云何言離五陰無煩惱。答云。彼明四陰同時而起。有能縛時即無別清凈五陰是可縛。有善無記五陰時則無有煩惱陰是能縛。又陰垢時不須復縛。陰凈之時無垢來縛。又煩惱即是垢陰。陰垢時體不自縛。陰凈時無垢來縛。云何言有能縛及所縛耶。複次亦無有解第二次破解。又分為二。第一偈破有為解。第二偈破無為解。初破有為解即是破其道諦義。第二破無為解是破其滅諦義。亦是破有為解脫無為解脫義。凡有解脫不出斯二。問涅槃與解脫何異。答涅槃必解脫。解脫不必涅槃。如有為解脫無為解脫。故解脫通二處。涅槃但是無為。大小乘義並爾也。破有為解脫中即是對縛破解開三時門。一者已縛無解者。此論斷惑義。已縛者在惑已謝。何所斷耶。又縛已謝則無縛。無縛云何有解。又當在我見時無無我解。二者未縛無縛可待亦無解。此明惑在未來解云何斷耶。三解惑一時則不得並。如計我見是惑無我心是解。正起我見時無有無我解。有無我解時無我見惑。云何一時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能縛與所縛。因此現在說，離開五陰（色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）被束縛之前，沒有人，誰來束縛五陰呢？文中的意思是，離開五陰之前，沒有其他的煩惱，怎麼能說煩惱束縛五陰呢？長行中說，如果離開五陰之外，另有眾生，就破斥了外道犢子部的假有實體的觀點。破斥煩惱束縛五陰，是破斥毗曇宗的觀點。前面是破斥有我部的觀點，後面是破斥無我部的觀點。認為有束縛和解脫的觀點，都離不開這兩種。有人問，毗曇宗認為行陰生起時，煩惱會束縛其餘的五陰，為什麼說離開五陰就沒有煩惱呢？回答說，他們認為四陰是同時生起的，有能束縛的時候，就沒有清凈的五陰可以被束縛。有善和無記的五陰時，就沒有煩惱陰來作為能束縛者。而且，五陰已經污垢的時候，不需要再次束縛。五陰清凈的時候，沒有污垢來束縛。而且，煩惱就是污垢的陰，陰污垢的時候，自身不能束縛自身。陰清凈的時候，沒有污垢來束縛。怎麼能說有能束縛和所束縛呢？ 其次，也沒有解脫，這是第二次破解。又分為兩部分。第一部分用偈頌破斥有為的解脫，第二部分用偈頌破斥無為的解脫。首先破斥有為的解脫，就是破斥道諦的含義。第二破斥無為的解脫，就是破斥滅諦的含義。也就是破斥有為的解脫和無為的解脫的含義。凡是解脫，都離不開這兩種。有人問，涅槃和解脫有什麼不同？回答說，涅槃必定是解脫，解脫不一定是涅槃。比如有有為的解脫和無為的解脫。所以解脫通於兩種情況，涅槃只是無為。大乘和小乘的含義都是這樣。破斥有為的解脫中，就是針對束縛和解脫，開立三種時間狀態。第一種是已經束縛，沒有解脫者。這是論述斷除迷惑的含義。已經束縛的，迷惑已經過去，斷除什麼呢？而且束縛已經過去，就沒有束縛了，沒有束縛怎麼會有解脫呢？而且當我在我見的時候，沒有無我的解脫。第二種是未被束縛，沒有束縛可以等待，也沒有解脫。這是說明迷惑在未來，怎麼能斷除呢？第三種是解脫和迷惑同時存在，這是不可能的。比如認為我見是迷惑，無我心是解脫。正在生起我見的時候，沒有無我的解脫。有無我的解脫的時候，沒有我見的迷惑。怎麼能同時存在呢？
【English Translation】 English version 'The able' and 'the bound'. Therefore, it is now said that before the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are bound, there is no one. Who binds the five skandhas? The text means that before the five skandhas are separated, there are no other afflictions. How can it be said that afflictions bind the five skandhas? The prose section says that if there are other sentient beings apart from the five skandhas, it refutes the view of the Vaibhashika school of external paths that there is a hypothetical entity. Refuting the binding of the five skandhas by afflictions refutes the view of the Sarvastivada school. The former refutes the view of the 'self' school, and the latter refutes the view of the 'no-self' school. The views that there are bondage and liberation cannot be separated from these two. Someone asks, 'The Sarvastivadins believe that when the mental formation skandha arises, afflictions bind the remaining five skandhas. Why is it said that there are no afflictions apart from the five skandhas?' The answer is that they believe that the four skandhas arise simultaneously. When there is an 'able' to bind, there are no pure five skandhas that can be bound. When there are wholesome and neutral five skandhas, there is no affliction skandha to act as the 'able' to bind. Moreover, when the five skandhas are already defiled, there is no need to bind them again. When the five skandhas are pure, no defilements come to bind them. Moreover, afflictions are defiled skandhas. When the skandhas are defiled, they cannot bind themselves. When the skandhas are pure, no defilements come to bind them. How can it be said that there is an 'able' to bind and a 'bound'? Furthermore, there is no liberation either. This is the second refutation. It is divided into two parts. The first part uses verses to refute conditioned liberation, and the second part uses verses to refute unconditioned liberation. The first refutation of conditioned liberation is the refutation of the meaning of the Truth of the Path (道諦, Dàodì). The second refutation of unconditioned liberation is the refutation of the meaning of the Truth of Cessation (滅諦, Mièdì). That is, it refutes the meaning of conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation. All liberations cannot be separated from these two. Someone asks, 'What is the difference between Nirvana (涅槃, Nièpán) and liberation?' The answer is that Nirvana is necessarily liberation, but liberation is not necessarily Nirvana. For example, there are conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation. Therefore, liberation applies to both situations, while Nirvana is only unconditioned. The meaning of both Mahayana and Hinayana is the same. In the refutation of conditioned liberation, three time states are established in response to bondage and liberation. The first is that there is no liberator for those who are already bound. This is the meaning of discussing the cutting off of delusion. Those who are already bound, the delusion has already passed, what is there to cut off? Moreover, the bondage has already passed, so there is no bondage. How can there be liberation without bondage? Moreover, when I am in the view of self (我見, wǒ jiàn), there is no liberation from no-self (無我, wú wǒ). The second is that there is no bondage to wait for those who are not bound, and there is no liberation. This explains that delusion is in the future, how can it be cut off? The third is that liberation and delusion exist simultaneously, which is impossible. For example, it is believed that the view of self is delusion, and the mind of no-self is liberation. When the view of self is arising, there is no liberation from no-self. When there is liberation from no-self, there is no delusion of the view of self. How can they exist simultaneously?
耶。又有三句。一者有縛時無解。二者無縛時又無解。三縛解並時亦無有解。他義備有此三。初起惑時正縛無解。次無礙道解惑一時。次解脫道有解無縛。此三句入今三門破。問曰下第二破無為解脫。前問次答。此是數論及大乘人並作此問。如言本有涅槃始有涅槃性凈方便凈皆是今外人問意。問何以知此文是破無為解脫。答立中雲有人修道現入涅槃。既稱為入。當知是無餘涅槃也。答曰下正破無為涅槃。若作二波若義。上破有為波若。今破無為波若。釋有為波若二師。南方云。十地解皆是有為。故名有為波若。攝論師云。波若是正體智是無為。此與經違。涅槃云。此常法稱要是如來。云何因中已是常。智度論云。波若變薩波若。常云何變耶。又正體智常者。十地解云何明昧耶。釋無為波若二家。一用實相境是也。二用三德中波若是也。上半牒外人義。下半正破之。無受有二。一以五陰名受。二以取著之心名之為受。入無餘時無此二受故言不受諸法。此人乃不受于受受于無受。故無受還成受名為受所縛。又此人云心無所受而終有所得。有所得則終有受。故為受所縛。如是離凡得聖聖還成凡也。生死涅槃真妄皆爾。複次不離生死下第三一偈總結無縛解耳。生死即涅槃故不縛。涅槃即生死故不解。故雙結無縛解也。三句正申
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 耶。又有三種說法。第一種是有束縛時沒有解脫。第二種是沒有束縛時也沒有解脫。第三種是束縛和解脫同時存在時也沒有解脫。其他宗義都具備這三種情況。最初生起迷惑時，正是被束縛而沒有解脫的時候。其次，在無礙道解脫迷惑的那一刻。再次，在解脫道中有解脫而沒有束縛。這三種說法可以歸入我所說的三種門來破斥。 問：下面第二部分是破斥無為解脫。前面是提問，後面是回答。這是數論者和大乘修行者都會提出的問題。例如，說本來就有涅槃，或者說開始有涅槃，或者說自性清凈，或者說方便清凈，這些都是外道想要表達的意思。 問：憑什麼知道這段文字是破斥無為解脫的呢？答：《中論》中說，有人修道，現在進入涅槃。既然說是『進入』，就應當知道這是指無餘涅槃。 答：下面正式破斥無為涅槃。如果按照二波若（Prajna，智慧）的意義來理解，上面是破斥有為波若，現在是破斥無為波若。解釋有為波若的有兩位論師。南方論師說，十地的解脫都是有為法，所以稱為有為波若。《攝大乘論》的論師說，波若是正體智，是無為法。這與經文相違。《涅槃經》說，這是常法，稱之為如來。怎麼能在因地時就已經是常呢？《智度論》說，波若會變成薩波若（Sarvajna，一切智），常怎麼會變化呢？又如果正體智是常，那麼十地的解脫怎麼會有明昧的差別呢？ 解釋無為波若的有兩家。一家認為實相境是無為波若，另一家認為三德中的波若是無為波若。上半部分是陳述外道的觀點，下半部分是正式破斥它。無受有兩種含義。一種是以五陰（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）來稱之為受，另一種是以執取的心來稱之為受。進入無餘涅槃時，沒有這兩種受，所以說不受諸法。這個人是不受于受，卻受于無受。所以無受反而成了受，名為被受所束縛。而且這個人說心中沒有所受，但最終還是有所得。有所得就終究還是有受，所以被受所束縛。這樣一來，離開凡夫而證得聖人，聖人反而又變成了凡夫。生死和涅槃，真和妄，都是如此。 再次，不離生死，下面第三部分用一偈來總結無縛解的道理。生死就是涅槃，所以沒有束縛。涅槃就是生死，所以沒有解脫。因此雙重總結了無縛解的道理。這三句話正是要闡明這個道理。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, there are three statements. First, when there is bondage, there is no liberation. Second, when there is no bondage, there is also no liberation. Third, when bondage and liberation exist simultaneously, there is also no liberation. Other doctrines encompass these three situations. Initially, when delusion arises, there is bondage without liberation. Next, at the moment of liberation from delusion through the path of unobstructedness. Again, on the path of liberation, there is liberation without bondage. These three statements can be refuted by the three gates I will present. Question: The second part below refutes unconditioned liberation (Asamskrta-moksha). The former is the question, and the latter is the answer. This is a question that both Samkhya philosophers and Mahayana practitioners would raise. For example, saying that Nirvana (Nirvana, the state of enlightenment) inherently exists, or that Nirvana begins to exist, or that self-nature is pure, or that expedient means are pure, these are all the intentions that externalists want to express. Question: How do we know that this passage refutes unconditioned liberation? Answer: The Madhyamaka-karika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) says that someone cultivates the path and now enters Nirvana. Since it is said 'enters,' it should be known that this refers to Nirvana without remainder (Anupadhisesa-nirvana). Answer: Below, we formally refute unconditioned Nirvana. If understood according to the meaning of two Prajnas (Prajna, wisdom), the above refutes conditioned Prajna, and now we refute unconditioned Prajna. There are two teachers who explain conditioned Prajna. The southern teacher says that the liberation of the ten Bhumis (Bhumis, stages of the Bodhisattva path) are all conditioned dharmas, so it is called conditioned Prajna. The teacher of the Mahayanasamgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) says that Prajna is the true essence of wisdom and is unconditioned. This contradicts the sutras. The Nirvana Sutra says that this is the constant dharma, called the Tathagata (Tathagata, 'Thus-gone,' an epithet of the Buddha). How can it already be constant in the causal stage? The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom) says that Prajna transforms into Sarvajna (Sarvajna, all-knowing), how can the constant change? Also, if the true essence of wisdom is constant, then how can there be differences in clarity and obscurity in the liberation of the ten Bhumis? There are two schools that explain unconditioned Prajna. One considers the realm of reality (Dharmadhatu) to be unconditioned Prajna, and the other considers Prajna among the three virtues to be unconditioned Prajna. The first half states the views of the externalists, and the second half formally refutes them. Feeling (Vedana) has two meanings. One is to refer to feeling by the five Skandhas (Skandha, aggregates), and the other is to refer to feeling by the mind of attachment. When entering Nirvana without remainder, there are no such feelings, so it is said that one does not receive any dharmas. This person does not receive feeling, but receives non-feeling. Therefore, non-feeling becomes feeling, and is called being bound by feeling. Moreover, this person says that the mind does not receive anything, but ultimately gains something. If there is something gained, then there is ultimately feeling, so one is bound by feeling. In this way, leaving the ordinary and attaining the sage, the sage becomes ordinary again. Samsara (Samsara, cycle of rebirth) and Nirvana, truth and falsehood, are all like this. Again, not apart from Samsara, the third part below uses a verse to summarize the principle of no bondage and liberation. Samsara is Nirvana, so there is no bondage. Nirvana is Samsara, so there is no liberation. Therefore, it doubly concludes the principle of no bondage and liberation. These three sentences are precisely to clarify this principle.
佛經。次一句呵責外人。惑者多謂斷縛得解除生死得涅槃。故起縛解二見。如愚者謂二。是故今明體悟生死即是涅槃。對前偈不了涅槃翻成生死。故經云。未得菩提菩提成生死。若得菩提生死成菩提也。問云何生死即是涅槃。答體悟生死本來四絕即是涅槃。以涅槃與生死同是四絕故。若迷悟論者。聖人悟生死本來四絕故生死即涅槃。凡夫謂四絕成不絕故涅槃成生死也。
中觀論疏卷第七(末) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第八(本)
釋吉藏撰
業品第十七
此品為五人故來。一有我部。謂有人能造業。業得果。有人作有人受。破此見故有此品。二者無我部。但謂有業體能感果。三小乘無人無法部亦知業空。但是拆法明空耳。四方廣邪見謂無業果。五學大乘無所得人令其進行。所以然者。法執難除。如雲初地猶有法我執。乃至十地菩薩見法有性故見佛性不了。亦言住十住故見不了了也。又此品來意有通別。所言通者有四。一者此論曆法明中道。因中發觀滅諸煩惱。今就業門顯于中道。故下偈云。雖空而不斷雖有而不常。長行釋云。此論所說義離於斷常。故知就業明於中觀。故說此品。二者諸大乘經皆明懺悔轉業障義。如涅槃師子吼云。一切諸業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：下一句呵責外道之人。迷惑的人大多認為斷除束縛就能得到解脫，了斷生死就能得到涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫后的境界）。因此產生了束縛和解脫這兩種對立的見解，就像愚笨的人認為有二元對立一樣。所以現在闡明體悟生死即是涅槃的道理，針對前面偈頌中不瞭解涅槃反而將其視為生死的觀點。所以經書中說：『未證得菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）時，菩提成為生死；如果證得菩提，生死就成為菩提。』問：『為什麼說生死就是涅槃呢？』答：『體悟到生死本來就是四絕（指斷、常、一、異四種錯誤的見解），那就是涅槃。』因為涅槃與生死同樣是四絕的境界。如果從迷悟的角度來說，聖人領悟到生死本來就是四絕，所以生死就是涅槃；凡夫認為四絕變成了不絕，所以涅槃就變成了生死。
《中觀論疏》卷第七（末） 《大正藏》第42冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》
《中觀論疏》卷第八（本）
釋吉藏 撰
業品第十七
此品是爲了五種人而說的。第一種是有我部（Atman school，相信存在永恒不變的『我』的學派），他們認為有人能夠造業，業會產生果報，有人造作，有人承受。爲了破除這種見解，所以有此品。第二種是無我部（Anatta school，不相信存在永恒不變的『我』的學派），他們只認為有業的本體能夠感生果報。第三種是小乘的無人無法部，他們也知道業是空的，但是隻是通過拆解法來闡明空性。第四種是方廣邪見，他們認為沒有業果報應。第五種是引導學習大乘無所得的人繼續前進。之所以這樣，是因為法執難以去除，比如初地菩薩仍然有法我執，乃至十地菩薩見到法有自性，所以對佛性的認識還不透徹。也有人說，因為住在十住的階段，所以見解不夠明瞭。此外，此品的來意有共通和不共通之處。所說的共通之處有四點：第一，此論通過歷經諸法來闡明中道（Madhyamaka，不落兩邊的中正之道），通過因中觀來滅除各種煩惱。現在就從業的角度來顯現中道。所以下面的偈頌說：『雖空而不斷，雖有而不常。』長行解釋說：『此論所說的意義是遠離斷常二邊的。』所以知道從業來闡明中觀，因此宣說此品。第二，各種大乘經典都闡明懺悔能夠轉變業障的道理，比如《涅槃經》的師子吼說：『一切諸業』
【English Translation】 English version: The next sentence rebukes those of external paths. Many who are deluded believe that severing bonds leads to liberation, and ending birth and death leads to Nirvana (Nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to the state after liberation). Thus, they give rise to the dualistic views of bondage and liberation, like foolish people who perceive duality. Therefore, it is now clarified that realizing birth and death is Nirvana, addressing the viewpoint in the previous verse that misunderstands Nirvana and instead regards it as birth and death. Hence, the scriptures say: 'Before attaining Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment), Bodhi becomes birth and death; if one attains Bodhi, birth and death become Bodhi.' Question: 'Why is it said that birth and death are Nirvana?' Answer: 'Realizing that birth and death are originally free from the four extremes (referring to the four erroneous views of permanence, impermanence, oneness, and difference) is Nirvana.' Because Nirvana and birth and death share the same state of being free from the four extremes. If viewed from the perspective of delusion and enlightenment, sages realize that birth and death are originally free from the four extremes, so birth and death are Nirvana; ordinary people believe that the four extremes become non-extinct, so Nirvana becomes birth and death.
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Scroll 7 (End) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42 No. 1824 Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti Scroll 8 (Beginning)
Composed by Shishi Jizang
Chapter 17 on Karma
This chapter is spoken for five types of people. The first is the Atman school (Atman school, a school of thought that believes in the existence of an eternal and unchanging 'self'), who believe that someone can create karma, karma produces consequences, someone acts, and someone receives. To refute this view, this chapter exists. The second is the Anatta school (Anatta school, a school of thought that does not believe in the existence of an eternal and unchanging 'self'), who only believe that the essence of karma can generate consequences. The third is the Hinayana school of no person and no dharma, who also know that karma is empty, but only clarify emptiness by dismantling the dharma. The fourth is the perverse view of Vaipulya, who believe that there is no karmic retribution. The fifth is to guide those who study Mahayana and have no attainment to continue forward. The reason for this is that attachment to dharma is difficult to remove, such as the fact that even a bodhisattva on the first ground still has attachment to the dharma-self, and even a bodhisattva on the tenth ground sees that dharmas have inherent existence, so their understanding of Buddha-nature is not thorough. It is also said that because they reside in the stage of the ten abodes, their views are not clear enough. Furthermore, the intention of this chapter has common and uncommon aspects. The common aspects are four: First, this treatise clarifies the Middle Way (Madhyamaka, the middle path that does not fall into either extreme) by traversing all dharmas, and extinguishes various afflictions through contemplation in the cause. Now, it reveals the Middle Way from the perspective of karma. Therefore, the following verse says: 'Although empty, it is not cut off; although existent, it is not permanent.' The commentary explains: 'The meaning spoken of in this treatise is to be apart from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence.' Therefore, it is known that clarifying the Middle Way from the perspective of karma is why this chapter is spoken. Second, various Mahayana sutras all clarify the principle that repentance can transform karmic obstacles, such as the lion's roar in the Nirvana Sutra: 'All karmas'
無有定性。唯有愚智。愚人則以輕為重無而成有。智者轉重為輕轉有令無。今明若執業決定則是愚人。如今品觀之名為智者。普賢觀云。一切業障海皆從妄想生。若欲懺悔者端坐念實相。眾生無始已來起六道業深而且大。故喻之如海。非實相觀無由滅之。今此品觀業即是實相故能滅業障。故說此品。三者內外大小雖立諸業義並不成。如須跋陀羅謂眾生果報皆由往業。無有現緣。尼乾子云。一切諸業必定受報。今雖修道不能斷之。二者如薩衛之流執三世是有。眾生未造善惡未來已有善惡之業。又善惡二業雖謝過去體終不無。如此名為于業門中起決定有見。不知此業本性自空。故不識第一義諦。亦不知業如幻夢而有。故亦迷世諦。今破此二諦所不攝業故云觀業品。成實之流雖知業假而拆業得空亦壞世諦。既壞世諦亦壞真諦。下偈云。諸業本不生。以無定性故諸業亦不滅。以其不生故。豈可拆業業方空耶。今破此等人業明業本性空。故云觀業品。四者又為一切有所得畏罪懺悔之人故說此品。所以然者。彼謂造作惡業心生怖畏。故依大小而行懺悔欲滅此罪。如此之人非唯犯罪不滅乃更增過。所以然者。其本起罪謂罪業為有名為有見。復欲行於懺悔滅除此罪。于罪起于無見。既起有無則是煩惱。煩惱因緣是故有業。以有惑業便受
業報。故凈名呵優婆離。無重增此二比丘罪。當直除滅。勿擾其心。直除滅者觀此罪性即畢竟空。如此品所明。是以為無方便有所得行懺悔人故說此品。問如此人有何過耶。答業本不生滅。今謂業生滅。豈非破第一義諦。既破真亦破俗。破二諦則無二慧。故無三世十方佛菩薩。亦破世間故其罪極大矣。問若爾但應有實相懺悔無有依篇聚法門行懺悔耶。答因緣品云。佛有二種說。一真實說二隨宜說。若作實相懺悔。為大利根眾生依真實說。若依篇聚令舍罪修福。此為凡夫薄福鈍根人說。故實法可信。隨宜說法不可為實。又說此品者為邪見外道。如六師等言。無有黑業無黑業報。白業亦爾。次方廣之流亦言一切皆空無有罪福。是故今明雖畢竟空而善惡之業宛然不失。故下偈云。如世尊神通所作變化人如是變化人復變化作人。豈無業耶。故九道業宛然而常四絕。如是悟則生波若與方便亦生四智。便入佛知見。故得成佛。今是大乘論。正令一切眾生因業門得成佛矣。次近生者。縛解品明無縛解。外人云。縛是煩惱。若無煩惱云何有業。以有業故必有煩惱。又業有二種。一有漏業二無漏業。有漏業者名之為縛。無漏業者稱之為解。既其有業即有縛解。問業有幾種。答業有多門。約身則有身口意。就界有罪福不動。就報則有現生后
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：業報。所以《凈名經》呵斥優婆離（持律第一的比丘）。不要加重這兩個比丘的罪過，應當直接消除，不要擾亂他們的心。『直接消除』是指觀察罪的本性，就是畢竟空。就像此品所闡明的。這是因為對於沒有方便、有所得心的人，才說懺悔。問：這樣的人有什麼過錯呢？答：業的本性是不生不滅的，現在說業是生滅的，豈不是破壞了第一義諦？既然破壞了真諦，也就破壞了俗諦。破壞了真俗二諦，就沒有二慧。所以就沒有三世十方佛菩薩，也破壞了世間，所以罪過極大。問：如果這樣，那麼只有實相懺悔，沒有依據篇聚法門而行的懺悔嗎？答：《因緣品》說，佛有兩種說法，一是真實說，二是隨宜說。如果作實相懺悔，是為大利根的眾生依據真實說；如果依據篇聚，令人舍罪修福，這是為凡夫、薄福、鈍根的人說的。所以實法是可信的，隨宜說法不可認為是真實的。又說此品，是為邪見外道，如六師（六個外道宗師）等，他們說沒有黑業，沒有黑業的果報，白業也是這樣。其次方廣之流也說一切皆空，沒有罪福。所以現在闡明，雖然畢竟空，而善惡之業依然不會喪失。所以下面的偈子說，如世尊神通所作的變化人，如此變化人又變化作人，難道沒有業嗎？所以九道之業宛然存在，而常四絕（斷絕四種顛倒見）。如此領悟，就生起般若和方便，也生起四智，便進入佛的知見，所以能夠成佛。現在這是大乘論，正是要令一切眾生因業門而得以成佛。其次是近生，縛解品闡明沒有束縛和解脫。外人說，束縛是煩惱，如果沒有煩惱，怎麼會有業？因為有業，所以必定有煩惱。又業有兩種，一是有漏業，二是無漏業。有漏業名為束縛，無漏業稱為解脫。既然有業，就有束縛和解脫。問：業有幾種？答：業有很多種。約身來說，有身口意；就界來說，有罪福不動；就報來說，有現生后。 English version: Karma and Retribution. Therefore, Vimalakirti scolds Upali (the foremost in Vinaya). Do not increase the sins of these two monks; they should be directly eliminated, and their minds should not be disturbed. 'Directly eliminated' means observing the nature of the sin, which is ultimately empty. This is as explained in this chapter. This is because repentance is spoken for those who have no expedient means and have an attachment to attainment. Question: What fault do such people have? Answer: The nature of karma is neither arising nor ceasing. Now, to say that karma arises and ceases is to destroy the First Noble Truth, isn't it? Since the Truth is destroyed, the conventional truth is also destroyed. If the two truths are destroyed, there is no dual wisdom. Therefore, there are no Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in the three times and ten directions, and the world is also destroyed, so the sin is extremely great. Question: If so, then is there only the repentance of true reality, and no repentance based on the Dharma methods of the sections and categories? Answer: The 'Conditions Chapter' says that the Buddha has two kinds of teachings: one is the teaching of truth, and the other is the teaching of expediency. If one practices repentance of true reality, it is based on the teaching of truth for beings of great capacity. If one relies on the sections and categories to renounce sins and cultivate blessings, this is spoken for ordinary people, those with little merit, and those of dull capacity. Therefore, the true Dharma is believable, and the teaching of expediency should not be regarded as true. Furthermore, this chapter is spoken for heretics with wrong views, such as the Six Teachers (six heretical masters), who say that there is no black karma and no retribution for black karma, and the same is true for white karma. Secondly, those of the Fangguang school also say that everything is empty, and there is no sin or merit. Therefore, it is now clarified that although it is ultimately empty, the karma of good and evil is still not lost. Therefore, the following verse says, 'Like the transformation person created by the supernatural power of the World Honored One, if this transformation person creates another transformation person, is there no karma?' Therefore, the karma of the nine realms is clearly present, while the four constant perversions (severing the four kinds of inverted views) are always cut off. If one awakens in this way, prajna and expedient means arise, and the four wisdoms also arise, and one enters the Buddha's knowledge and vision, so one can attain Buddhahood. Now, this is a Mahayana treatise, which is precisely to enable all beings to attain Buddhahood through the gate of karma. Next is near-birth, the 'Bondage and Liberation Chapter' clarifies that there is no bondage or liberation. Outsiders say that bondage is affliction. If there is no affliction, how can there be karma? Because there is karma, there must be affliction. Also, there are two kinds of karma: one is defiled karma, and the other is undefiled karma. Defiled karma is called bondage, and undefiled karma is called liberation. Since there is karma, there is bondage and liberation. Question: How many kinds of karma are there? Answer: There are many kinds of karma. In terms of body, there are body, speech, and mind; in terms of realms, there are sinful, meritorious, and immovable; in terms of retribution, there are present life and later life.
【English Translation】 Karma and Retribution. Therefore, Vimalakirti scolds Upali (the foremost in Vinaya). Do not increase the sins of these two monks; they should be directly eliminated, and their minds should not be disturbed. 'Directly eliminated' means observing the nature of the sin, which is ultimately empty. This is as explained in this chapter. This is because repentance is spoken for those who have no expedient means and have an attachment to attainment. Question: What fault do such people have? Answer: The nature of karma is neither arising nor ceasing. Now, to say that karma arises and ceases is to destroy the First Noble Truth, isn't it? Since the Truth is destroyed, the conventional truth is also destroyed. If the two truths are destroyed, there is no dual wisdom. Therefore, there are no Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in the three times and ten directions, and the world is also destroyed, so the sin is extremely great. Question: If so, then is there only the repentance of true reality, and no repentance based on the Dharma methods of the sections and categories? Answer: The 'Conditions Chapter' says that the Buddha has two kinds of teachings: one is the teaching of truth, and the other is the teaching of expediency. If one practices repentance of true reality, it is based on the teaching of truth for beings of great capacity. If one relies on the sections and categories to renounce sins and cultivate blessings, this is spoken for ordinary people, those with little merit, and those of dull capacity. Therefore, the true Dharma is believable, and the teaching of expediency should not be regarded as true. Furthermore, this chapter is spoken for heretics with wrong views, such as the Six Teachers (six heretical masters), who say that there is no black karma and no retribution for black karma, and the same is true for white karma. Secondly, those of the Fangguang school also say that everything is empty, and there is no sin or merit. Therefore, it is now clarified that although it is ultimately empty, the karma of good and evil is still not lost. Therefore, the following verse says, 'Like the transformation person created by the supernatural power of the World Honored One, if this transformation person creates another transformation person, is there no karma?' Therefore, the karma of the nine realms is clearly present, while the four constant perversions (severing the four kinds of inverted views) are always cut off. If one awakens in this way, prajna and expedient means arise, and the four wisdoms also arise, and one enters the Buddha's knowledge and vision, so one can attain Buddhahood. Now, this is a Mahayana treatise, which is precisely to enable all beings to attain Buddhahood through the gate of karma. Next is near-birth, the 'Bondage and Liberation Chapter' clarifies that there is no bondage or liberation. Outsiders say that bondage is affliction. If there is no affliction, how can there be karma? Because there is karma, there must be affliction. Also, there are two kinds of karma: one is defiled karma, and the other is undefiled karma. Defiled karma is called bondage, and undefiled karma is called liberation. Since there is karma, there is bondage and liberation. Question: How many kinds of karma are there? Answer: There are many kinds of karma. In terms of body, there are body, speech, and mind; in terms of realms, there are sinful, meritorious, and immovable; in terms of retribution, there are present life and later life.
。約垢凈則有黑白雜及無漏業。如是一業二業三業七業十業如文廣明也。問云何為業體。答毗曇取善惡色聲為身口二業體。以思為意業體。成實云。三業並以心為體。身口但是業具而非業也。問意地三煩惱與業云何異耶。答毗曇三煩惱起必與思俱。思自是業三煩惱則非業。此易見也。成實師破此義立正義。意即是業。離意之外無有別思。成實者云。善法習報二因。報因正是業。習因邊非業通名業耳。不善邊則有多釋。開善云。不善心亦是煩惱亦是業。若為治道斷之。則是煩惱而非業。若招生之義。但取前輕者為煩惱。取後重者為業。莊嚴光宅云。取決定者為業。不決定者為煩惱。如是十種決邊通名為業。十不決邊名為煩惱。次建初師云。不善還同於善。不善習因邊為煩惱。報因邊為業。又釋十使云。疑是煩惱而非業。五見是業而非煩惱。餘四使決者為煩惱。不決者為業。今不論同異。諸有計業。此品求之皆畢竟空。故以目品。品開七番。第一正破業體。問曰如牙等相續下第二破業相續。問曰今當復更說下第三破不失法。問曰若爾無業果報下第四破斷滅邪見。問曰若諸煩惱下第五破果報。問曰汝雖種種因緣破業下第六破起業人。問曰汝雖種種破業下第七破現所見事。一一章中皆有前立次破。故有七立七破。初立中有長行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 約垢凈則有黑白雜及無漏業。（約：大約，垢凈：染污與清凈，無漏業：沒有煩惱的業）像這樣，一業、二業、三業、七業、十業，如經文廣為說明。 問：什麼是業的本體？ 答：毗曇宗認為善惡的色、聲是身口二業的本體，以思為意業的本體。（毗曇：佛教部派之一，說一切有部之異名）成實宗說，三業都以心為本體，身口只是造業的工具，而不是業本身。（成實：成實宗，佛教宗派之一） 問：意地的三種煩惱與業有什麼不同？ 答：毗曇宗認為，三種煩惱生起時必定與思同時發生，思本身是業，而三種煩惱不是業。這很容易理解。成實宗破斥這種觀點，建立正確的觀點，認為意就是業，離開意之外沒有別的思。成實宗認為，善法有習因和報因兩種原因。報因正是業，習因則不完全是業，可以通稱為業。不善業方面則有多種解釋。開善法師認為，不善心既是煩惱也是業。如果爲了修道而斷除它，則是煩惱而不是業。如果從招感果報的意義上來說，就取前面的輕微者為煩惱，取後面的嚴重者為業。（開善：隋代僧人，善法師）莊嚴光宅法師認為，取決定性的為業，不決定性的為煩惱。像這樣，十種決定性的方面通稱為業，十種不決定性的方面稱為煩惱。（莊嚴光宅：唐代僧人，光宅寺的僧人）其次，建初法師認為，不善業與善業相同，不善的習因方面為煩惱，報因方面為業。（建初：南朝齊代僧人）又解釋十使說，疑是煩惱而不是業，五見是業而不是煩惱，其餘四使，決定性的為煩惱，不決定性的為業。（十使：佛教術語，指貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑、身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）現在不論同異，凡是計執有業的，這一品探求的都是畢竟空，所以用『業品』來命名。這一品分為七個部分。第一，正面破斥業的本體。 問：如牙等相續下，第二，破斥業的相續。 問：今當復更說下，第三，破斥不失法。 問：若爾無業果報下，第四，破斥斷滅邪見。 問：若諸煩惱下，第五，破斥果報。 問：汝雖種種因緣破業下，第六，破斥起業的人。 問：汝雖種種破業下，第七，破斥現在所見的事實。每一章中都有先立后破，所以有七立七破。最初的立論中有長行。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding defilement and purity, there are mixed black and white karma, as well as karma free from outflows (anāsrava-karma). (Approximate meaning of '約': approximately; '垢凈': defilement and purity; '無漏業': karma without afflictions). Thus, one karma, two karmas, three karmas, seven karmas, ten karmas, as explained extensively in the scriptures. Question: What is the substance (體) of karma? Answer: The Sarvāstivāda school (毗曇) considers good and bad forms (色) and sounds (聲) to be the substance of bodily and verbal karma, and thought (思) to be the substance of mental karma. The Satyasiddhi school (成實) says that all three karmas take the mind as their substance, and the body and speech are merely instruments of karma, not karma itself. (Sarvāstivāda: one of the early Buddhist schools; Satyasiddhi: a Buddhist school) Question: What is the difference between the three afflictions (煩惱) in the mental realm and karma? Answer: The Sarvāstivāda school believes that when the three afflictions arise, they necessarily occur simultaneously with thought (思). Thought itself is karma, while the three afflictions are not karma. This is easy to understand. The Satyasiddhi school refutes this view and establishes the correct view, believing that thought is karma, and there is no separate thought apart from the mind. The Satyasiddhi school believes that good dharmas have two causes: the cause of habit (習因) and the cause of retribution (報因). The cause of retribution is precisely karma, while the cause of habit is not entirely karma and can be generally called karma. There are various explanations regarding unwholesome karma. Dharma Master Kaishan (開善) believes that the unwholesome mind is both affliction and karma. If it is eliminated for the sake of cultivation, then it is affliction and not karma. If it is in the sense of attracting karmic results, then the earlier, lighter one is taken as affliction, and the later, heavier one is taken as karma. (Kaishan: a monk in the Sui Dynasty) Dharma Master Zhuangyan Guangzhai (莊嚴光宅) believes that the decisive one is taken as karma, and the indecisive one is taken as affliction. Thus, the ten decisive aspects are generally called karma, and the ten indecisive aspects are called affliction. (Zhuangyan Guangzhai: a monk of Guangzhai Temple in the Tang Dynasty) Next, Dharma Master Jianchu (建初) believes that unwholesome karma is the same as wholesome karma. The cause of habit of unwholesome karma is affliction, and the cause of retribution is karma. (Jianchu: a monk in the Southern Qi Dynasty) It is also explained that of the ten fetters (十使), doubt (疑) is affliction and not karma, the five views (五見) are karma and not affliction, and of the remaining four fetters, the decisive ones are affliction, and the indecisive ones are karma. (Ten fetters: greed, hatred, delusion, pride, doubt, view of self, extreme view, wrong view, view of holding to views, view of holding to precepts) Now, regardless of similarities and differences, all those who cling to the existence of karma, what is sought in this chapter is ultimately emptiness (空), so it is named the 'Karma Chapter' (業品). This chapter is divided into seven sections. First, directly refuting the substance of karma. Question: 'As the continuity of sprouts, etc.' (如牙等相續下), second, refuting the continuity of karma. Question: 'Now, let us speak again' (今當復更說下), third, refuting the non-loss of dharma. Question: 'If so, there is no karmic retribution' (若爾無業果報下), fourth, refuting the nihilistic wrong view. Question: 'If all afflictions' (若諸煩惱下), fifth, refuting karmic retribution. Question: 'Although you refute karma with various causes and conditions' (汝雖種種因緣破業下), sixth, refuting the person who creates karma. Question: 'Although you refute karma in various ways' (汝雖種種破業下), seventh, refuting the facts seen in the present. Each chapter has a preliminary establishment followed by a refutation, so there are seven establishments and seven refutations. The initial establishment contains prose.
與偈。長行有四。問曰汝雖破諸法者第一牒論主破也。而業決定有者第二外人立業因也。如法句中雲。非空非海中。避之不得脫。故稱決定有。故佛十力中業力最深。能令一切眾生受果報者。上辨業因今明得果。釋迦受於九罪。釋迦過去以九珠羅莿刺調達足。是故今受木鏘報。目連以神通拔不出。世尊避之莿亦遂去。以業報決定故莿刺如來化為金鏘。仲尼厄于陳蔡。賢聖不免。況復凡夫。故知決定得果。如經說下第三引經。略明三業。一下品業。謂惡者入地獄也。二中品業。修福者生天。三上品業。謂行道者得涅槃。前二有漏業后一無漏業。是故諸法不應空下第四結呵論主。就偈有五分為四章。初明一業。次明二業。第三一偈明三業。第四兩偈明七業。初一業者即一善業。于善業中但明慈業。慈為眾善之本。又知論主是菩薩。必有慈心不應破慈。故偏引也。人能降伏心利益於眾生者。此明慈業之用。能降伏惡利益於眾生。然慈業益物。益物即是行善。伏惡即是止善。又降伏是自行。利益是化他。是名為慈善者。以有慈故能伏惡益物。自行化他。二世果報種者。上辨行因今明得果。種謂因也。大聖說二業下第二明二業。前明一業謂別業。但明慈善業故。今明通業通於善惡。又前別明業用今明業體也。上半明二業而舉大聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 與偈。長行有四。 問：你雖然是破斥諸法的第一人（第一句是論主的自述），但業是決定存在的（第二句是外人立論業因）。 如《法句經》中所說：『非空非海中，避之不得脫。』所以說業是決定存在的。因此，佛的十力中，業力最為深邃，能使一切眾生承受果報。 上面辨析了業因，現在闡明得果。釋迦牟尼佛承受了九種罪報。過去世，釋迦牟尼佛用九珠羅莿刺傷了提婆達多的腳，所以今生要承受木槍刺傷的果報。即使是目犍連用神通也無法拔出。世尊躲避它，但莿仍然追隨而去。因為業報是決定不變的，所以刺傷如來的莿化爲了金槍。仲尼（孔子）也曾在陳國和蔡國受困。賢聖尚且不能免除業報，更何況是凡夫俗子。所以知道必定會得到果報。 如經文所說（第三句是引用經文），簡略地說明了三種業：下品業，指作惡者會墮入地獄；中品業，指修福者會升天；上品業，指修行者會證得涅槃。前兩種是有漏業，后一種是無漏業。所以諸法不應該是空的（第四句是總結並呵斥論主）。 就偈頌有五分，分為四章。首先闡明一種業，其次闡明兩種業，第三用一偈闡明三種業，第四用兩偈闡明七種業。最初的一種業，就是一種善業。在善業中只闡明慈業，因為慈是眾善的根本。而且知道論主是菩薩，必定有慈心，不應該破斥慈心，所以偏重引用慈業。 『人能降伏心，利益於眾生』，這闡明了慈業的作用，能降伏惡念，利益眾生。然而慈業是利益眾生的，利益眾生就是行善，降伏惡念就是止惡。而且降伏是自己修行，利益是教化他人。『是名為慈善者』，因為有慈心，所以能降伏惡念，利益眾生，自己修行，教化他人。 『二世果報種者』，上面辨析了行因，現在闡明得果。『種』指的是因。 『大聖說二業』（第二句闡明兩種業），前面闡明一種業，指的是別業，只闡明慈善業，現在闡明通業，通於善惡。而且前面分別闡明業的作用，現在闡明業的本體。上半句闡明兩種業，並且舉出大聖（佛陀）。
【English Translation】 English version With verses. The long prose has four parts. Question: Although you are the foremost in refuting all dharmas (the first sentence is the debater's self-introduction), karma is definitely existent (the second sentence is the outsider establishing the cause of karma). As it is said in the Dhammapada: 'Neither in the sky nor in the sea, can one escape from it.' Therefore, it is said that karma is definitely existent. Thus, among the ten powers of the Buddha, the power of karma is the deepest, capable of causing all sentient beings to receive karmic retribution. Above, the cause of karma is distinguished; now, the attainment of the result is explained. Shakyamuni Buddha endured nine kinds of retributions. In a past life, Shakyamuni Buddha used nine-beaded 羅莿 (a type of thorn) to injure Devadatta's (提婆達多 - a Buddhist figure known for opposing the Buddha) foot, so in this life, he must endure the retribution of being pierced by a wooden spear. Even Maudgalyayana (目犍連 - one of the Buddha's chief disciples, known for his supernatural powers) could not pull it out with his supernatural powers. The World-Honored One avoided it, but the thorn still followed. Because karmic retribution is definite and unchanging, the thorn that pierced the Tathagata (如來 - 'Thus Gone One', an epithet of the Buddha) transformed into a golden spear. Zhongni (Confucius) was also trapped in Chen and Cai. Even the virtuous and sages cannot escape karmic retribution, let alone ordinary people. Therefore, it is known that one will definitely receive the result. As the sutra says (the third sentence is a quote from the sutra), it briefly explains the three types of karma: inferior karma, referring to those who commit evil deeds and fall into hell; intermediate karma, referring to those who cultivate merit and are reborn in heaven; superior karma, referring to those who practice the path and attain Nirvana (涅槃 - liberation from the cycle of rebirth). The first two are karmas with outflows, and the last one is karma without outflows. Therefore, all dharmas should not be empty (the fourth sentence is a summary and rebuke of the debater). Regarding the verses, there are five parts, divided into four chapters. First, one type of karma is explained; second, two types of karma are explained; third, one verse explains three types of karma; fourth, two verses explain seven types of karma. The initial one type of karma is one type of good karma. Among good karmas, only loving-kindness karma is explained, because loving-kindness is the root of all good deeds. Moreover, it is known that the debater is a Bodhisattva (菩薩 - an enlightened being who postpones their own nirvana to help others), and must have loving-kindness, and should not refute loving-kindness, so loving-kindness karma is emphasized. 'If people can subdue their minds and benefit sentient beings,' this explains the function of loving-kindness karma, which can subdue evil thoughts and benefit sentient beings. However, loving-kindness karma benefits sentient beings, and benefiting sentient beings is doing good; subduing evil thoughts is stopping evil. Moreover, subduing is self-cultivation, and benefiting is teaching others. 'This is called a charitable person,' because one has loving-kindness, so one can subdue evil thoughts, benefit sentient beings, cultivate oneself, and teach others. 'The seeds of karmic retribution in two lifetimes,' above, the cause of action is distinguished; now, the attainment of the result is explained. 'Seeds' refers to the cause. 'The Great Sage speaks of two karmas' (the second sentence explains two types of karma), previously, one type of karma was explained, referring to specific karma, only explaining charitable karma; now, general karma is explained, encompassing both good and evil. Moreover, previously, the function of karma was explained separately; now, the essence of karma is explained. The first half of the sentence explains two types of karma, and cites the Great Sage (the Buddha).
者。恐論主破之故引佛說為證也。次半偈總為下三業七業作章門。次一偈開二業為三業。即是釋上二業義。上半明意業下半明身口業。二偈次明七業者。有人言。身口為二。作業無作業。故是四。善不善中隨取一故為五業。從用中有善惡。亦隨取一故為六。思即七也。二釋云。身中有作無作。口中有作無作。為四。善從用惡從用為六。思為七。影師又云。此青目釋也。又釋云。前二並有失。今明身中有作無作口中有作無作。此四句同第二釋。于善從用中自有事在善復有從用善。及思為七業。此釋就善中自七惡中自七。所以然者。身自有善作善無作。善口亦爾。從用中有事在善從用善。罪亦自有事在罪及從用罪。猶如造經。是事在善。若轉誦之即是從用善。望下長行具有此意。今所釋者開偈為二。一者正明七業之體。最後一句稱歎七業之用。就初又二。一行半偈明身口六業。次有一句明於意業。即是七也。就初又二。前一偈明身口內業。次半偈明身口外業。所言內者。自起身口業故名為內。從他而生目之為外。身口二業不出此內外也。就身口二業中又開為二。上半明業相下半辨業性。身業及口業者。此句總明身口二業。作與無作業者。別明身口二業。身有作無作口有作無作。故以作無作釋身口二業。如是四事中下第二明
業性。四事者身作無作口作無作名為四事也。亦善亦不善者。作無作但有善惡二性。是業無記雖有作不名為業。又善惡二業能發無作。無記力弱不發無作。故云善不善也。從用下上來明內四業竟。今次明外兩業。上內業有二。一業相門二業性門。今外業亦二。從用生三字是業相門。但從用有二。一身從用二口從用。身從用者如身運衣與他。他若受用著之便生無作之善屬於施主名身無作也。口無作者如法師講說學士覆述之。即生口無作屬於法師。問內業具有作無作外業亦有作無作。何故偏云身口二種無作為外業耶。答欲明一人具七業。然內業有身口作無作四業屬於行者。次復有外二無作業還屬行者。若從用二種作業則屬前人故不數之。所以但取二無作也。福德兩字已下第二明外業性門。內業性既有善不善。外業性亦有善不善。有人數罪福為二此事不然。若以罪福為二者。前內業中亦應數之。不應云如是四事中有善有不善也。以前既不取善不善。今亦爾也。此內外六種是身口業。第七名思即是意業。能了諸業相者第二稱歎。精識此七業者能了身口內外作無作等一切諸業。問彼何故立此七耶。答此七是一科之數。攝義事周。其猶善惡等三黑白等四之流類也。長行還依偈次第釋之。第一前釋七業。是七種下釋第二嘆業偈也。從
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 業性。四事者，身作、無作、口作、無作，名為四事也。亦善亦不善者，作、無作但有善惡二性。是業無記，雖有作不名為業。又善惡二業能發無作，無記力弱不發無作，故云善不善也。從用下上來明內四業竟。今次明外兩業。上內業有二：一、業相門，二、業性門。今外業亦二。從用生三字是業相門。但從用有二：一身從用，二口從用。身從用者，如身運衣與他，他若受用著之，便生無作之善，屬於施主，名身無作也。口無作者，如法師講說，學士覆述之，即生口無作，屬於法師。問：內業具有作、無作，外業亦有作、無作，何故偏云身口二種無作為外業耶？答：欲明一人具七業。然內業有身口作、無作四業，屬於行者。次復有外二無作業還屬行者。若從用二種作業則屬前人，故不數之。所以但取二無作也。福德兩字已下，第二明外業性門。內業性既有善不善，外業性亦有善不善。有人數罪福為二，此事不然。若以罪福為二者，前內業中亦應數之，不應云如是四事中有善有不善也。以前既不取善不善，今亦爾也。此內外六種是身口業。第七名思，即是意業。能了諸業相者，第二稱歎。精識此七業者，能了身口內外作、無作等一切諸業。問：彼何故立此七耶？答：此七是一科之數，攝義事周。其猶善惡等三，黑白等四之流類也。長行還依偈次第釋之。第一前釋七業。是七種下釋第二嘆業偈也。從
【English Translation】 English version The nature of karma. The 'four actions' are actions and non-actions of body and speech, these are called the 'four actions'. 'Also good and not good' means that actions and non-actions have only two natures: good and evil. This karma is neutral; although there is action, it is not called karma. Furthermore, good and evil karmas can generate non-action, while neutral karma is weak and cannot generate non-action, hence the term 'good and not good'. The above explains the four internal karmas. Now, we will explain the two external karmas. The above internal karma has two aspects: 1. the aspect of karma, and 2. the nature of karma. Now, the external karma also has two aspects. The phrase 'arising from use' refers to the aspect of karma. 'Arising from use' has two aspects: 1. arising from the use of the body, and 2. arising from the use of speech. 'Arising from the use of the body' refers to, for example, someone giving clothes to another person. If the other person receives and wears them, then non-action of goodness arises, belonging to the donor, called 'non-action of the body'. 'Non-action of speech' refers to, for example, a Dharma master lecturing and a scholar repeating it, which generates non-action of speech belonging to the Dharma master. Question: Internal karma has both action and non-action, and external karma also has both action and non-action. Why is it specifically said that the two kinds of non-action of body and speech are external karma? Answer: It is to clarify that one person possesses seven karmas. The internal karma has four karmas of body and speech, action and non-action, belonging to the practitioner. Furthermore, there are two external non-actions that also belong to the practitioner. If the two kinds of actions 'arising from use' belong to the previous person, they are not counted. Therefore, only the two non-actions are taken. From the words 'merit and virtue' onwards, the second part explains the nature of external karma. Just as the nature of internal karma has good and not good, the nature of external karma also has good and not good. Some people count sin and merit as two, but this is not correct. If sin and merit are counted as two, then they should also be counted in the previous internal karma, and it should not be said that 'among these four actions, there is good and not good'. Since good and not good were not taken previously, it is the same now. These six internal and external kinds are the karmas of body and speech. The seventh is called thought, which is the karma of mind. 'Those who can understand the aspects of all karmas' is the second praise. 'Those who are well-versed in these seven karmas' can understand all karmas, such as internal and external, action and non-action, of body and speech. Question: Why are these seven established? Answer: These seven are a category of numbers, encompassing the meaning completely, like the categories of good and evil as three, black and white as four. The prose explanation follows the order of the verses. First, the previous explanation is of the seven karmas. 'These seven kinds' explains the second verse praising karma. From
初文釋身口六業。第七名思下釋第二意業。就釋六義又二。第一正釋六業。如是名為六種第二總結六義。初又二。初釋內業。復有從用生下第二釋外業。釋內業中前釋上半業體相門。是二種有善不善下釋業性門。初又二。前釋第一句總明身口二業。是七種下釋第二別明作無作。答曰業住至受報下第二論主破。上雖一業乃至七業並明得果。今總問之。業為待果起方滅。為果未起時業已滅耶。若待果起方滅者則業是常。今業是有為法。一念尚不住。豈得待果起方滅。若果未起業已滅者則無復業。誰牽果耶。薩婆多雲。現在起善惡業。過現相而去入於過去。為得得之屬於行人。后若果起此得則斷然。此義具斷常。起而即謝為斷。在過去不滅為常。僧祇曇無德譬喻明。現在業謝過去體是無。而有曾有義。是故得果。此亦具斷常。謝過去為斷。有曾有義則常。次迦葉鞞雙用兩家義。彼云。現在業謝過去未得果時常在。此同薩婆多常義。後果起此業復謝滅無。同僧祇斷義。次成實師。莊嚴云。業謝過去體是無。而有曾有義故得果。引論文云。如過去諸禪曾於心有。若與果報則無所害。次開善云。業謝過去成就來現在故。現在心中有成就業有現起業。論文云。昔起貪心相續至今。今心不異昔。故言我有。如此等亦不離斷常。入今偈破
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 初文解釋了身、口所造的六種行為（六業）。第七（頌）名為『思』，以下解釋第二種意業。在解釋六義時，又分為兩部分。第一部分是正式解釋六業，如前所述的六種；第二部分是總結六義。第一部分又分為兩部分。首先解釋內業，『復有從用生』以下解釋外業。在解釋內業中，首先解釋上半部分的業的體相之門，『是二種有善不善』以下解釋業的性質之門。第一部分又分為兩部分。首先解釋第一句，總括說明身、口二業，『是七種』以下分別說明作與無作（業）。 （論主）回答說：『業住』直到『受報』以下是第二部分，論主進行破斥。上面雖然說一個業乃至七個業，並且說明了得到果報，現在總的提問是：業是等待果報生起才滅亡，還是果報未生起時業已經滅亡了呢？如果等待果報生起才滅亡，那麼業就是常恒的。現在業是有為法，一念之間尚且不能停留，怎麼能等待果報生起才滅亡呢？如果果報未生起時業已經滅亡，那麼就沒有業了，是誰牽引果報呢？ 薩婆多（Sarvastivadins，一切有部）說：現在生起善惡業，經過現在相而進入過去，爲了得到（果報的）『得』屬於修行人。之後如果果報生起，這個『得』就斷滅了。這個意義包含了斷與常。生起而立即消逝是斷，存在於過去而不滅是常。 僧祇（Mahasanghika，大眾部）、曇無德（Dharmaguptaka，法藏部）用譬喻來說明：現在的業消逝成為過去，體性是無，但有『曾有』的意義，所以能得到果報。這也包含了斷與常。消逝成為過去是斷，有『曾有』的意義則是常。 其次，迦葉鞞（Kasyapiya，飲光部）同時採用兩家的意義。他們說：現在的業消逝成為過去，在未得到果報時常在。這與薩婆多的常義相同。之後果報生起，這個業又消逝滅無，與僧祇的斷義相同。 其次，成實師（Satyasiddhi school，成實宗）。莊嚴（作者名）說：業消逝成為過去，體性是無，但有『曾有』的意義，所以能得到果報。引用論文說：『如過去諸禪曾於心有，若與果報則無所害。』 其次，開善（作者名）說：業消逝成為過去，成就了來（指未來）現在，所以在現在心中有成就業，有現起業。論文說：『昔起貪心相續至今，今心不異昔，故言我有。』像這些說法，也不離斷常。下面用偈頌來破斥。
【English Translation】 English version The initial text explains the six karmas (actions) of body and speech (kaya and vak). The seventh (verse), named 'Thought,' explains the second mental karma (manas). In explaining the six meanings, it is further divided into two parts. The first part is the formal explanation of the six karmas, as mentioned before; the second part is a summary of the six meanings. The first part is again divided into two parts. First, it explains the internal karma, and 'arising from function' below explains the external karma. In explaining the internal karma, it first explains the aspect of the nature of karma in the first half, and 'these two are good and bad' below explains the nature of karma. The first part is again divided into two parts. First, it explains the first sentence, summarizing the karmas of body and speech, and 'these seven' below separately explains the 'making' and 'non-making' (karma). The (author) replies: 'Karma dwells' until 'receives retribution' below is the second part, where the author refutes. Although it was said above that one karma or even seven karmas, and it was explained that one obtains the result, the general question now is: Does karma wait for the result to arise before it ceases, or has the karma already ceased when the result has not yet arisen? If it waits for the result to arise before it ceases, then karma is permanent. Now karma is a conditioned phenomenon (samskrta-dharma), and it cannot even stay for a moment, how can it wait for the result to arise before it ceases? If the karma has already ceased when the result has not yet arisen, then there is no karma, who is pulling the result? The Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins, 'those who assert that everything exists') say: Now good and bad karma arise, pass through the present phase, and enter the past, and the 'attainment' (of the result) belongs to the practitioner. Later, if the result arises, this 'attainment' is cut off. This meaning contains both cessation and permanence. Arising and immediately disappearing is cessation, and existing in the past without ceasing is permanence. The Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika, 'the Great Assembly') and Dharmaguptaka (Dharmaguptaka, 'protected by the Dharma') use a metaphor to explain: The present karma disappears into the past, and its nature is non-existent, but it has the meaning of 'having been,' so it can obtain the result. This also contains both cessation and permanence. Disappearing into the past is cessation, and having the meaning of 'having been' is permanence. Next, the Kasyapiya (Kasyapiya, 'those who drink light') simultaneously adopt the meanings of both schools. They say: The present karma disappears into the past and remains constant before the result is obtained. This is the same as the Sarvastivadin's meaning of permanence. Later, when the result arises, this karma disappears and ceases, which is the same as the Mahasanghika's meaning of cessation. Next, the Satyasiddhi school (Satyasiddhi school, 'establishment of truth'). Zhuangyan (author's name) says: Karma disappears into the past, and its nature is non-existent, but it has the meaning of 'having been,' so it can obtain the result. Quoting the treatise, it says: 'Like the past dhyanas (jhanas, meditation) that were once in the mind, if they give the result, there is no harm.' Next, Kaishan (author's name) says: Karma disappears into the past and accomplishes the coming (referring to the future) present, so in the present mind there is accomplished karma and arising karma. The treatise says: 'In the past, greed arose and continued until now, and the present mind is not different from the past, so it is said that I have it.' Like these statements, they are also inseparable from cessation and permanence. Below, a verse is used to refute them.
。攝論師云。梨耶持善惡世出世種子。是故得果。今依偈責之。種子為待果而滅。為未起而滅。若待果起而滅即常。未起而滅則無果報。問曰下第二番破業相續義。前立次破。立中為二。初通明業相續離斷常。第二別出十善業能得果報。初又二。前兩偈明外法相續離斷常。即是喻說。次兩偈即是內法相續離斷常。即是合喻。二偈為三。初偈正明相續。次半偈明相續故有果。三半偈結離斷常。文易知也。是善業因緣果報者下第二別出十善業能得果報。所以偏舉十善者同上慈業義也。慈是眾善業中之勝。十善亦爾。智度論云。有佛無佛常有十善故十善是舊善。若是余善有佛則有無佛則無。稱為客善。問文云十白業道。云何為業。云何為業道耶。答經論不同。優婆塞經云。如是十事三是業而非道七亦業亦道。智度論云。三道而非業七亦業亦道。今須會釋之。經正取意為業。但意不自通故是業而非道。論明三煩惱起業而非業。故云道而非業。各據一途也。論師明四句。一業而非道。如優婆塞經。二道而非業。如論明三煩惱也。三亦業亦業道。如七業是也。四非業非道。如身口色聲。毗曇師亦四句。與此大異。一道而非業。謂貪瞋邪見。能暢思為道。體非思故非業。二業而非道。即思是也。思造作故名業。無更有思故非思之道。
【現代漢語翻譯】 攝論師（Yogācāra masters）說，阿梨耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，藏識）持有善惡和世出世間的種子，因此能夠產生果報。現在根據偈頌來責難這種說法：種子是等待果報產生后才滅亡，還是在果報未產生前就滅亡？如果等待果報產生后才滅亡，那就是常恒不變的；如果在果報未產生前就滅亡，那就沒有果報了。 問：下面第二部分是關於破斥業相續的意義。先建立觀點，然後進行破斥。建立觀點分為兩個部分。第一部分總的說明業相續既不是斷滅的也不是常恒的。第二部分特別指出十善業能夠獲得果報。第一部分又分為兩個部分。前面的兩個偈頌說明外在事物的相續既不是斷滅的也不是常恒的，這是用比喻來說明。後面的兩個偈頌說明內在事物的相續既不是斷滅的也不是常恒的，這是比喻的結合。這兩個偈頌分為三個部分。第一個偈頌正面說明相續。第二個半偈說明因為相續所以有果報。第三個半偈總結說明既不是斷滅的也不是常恒的。文義容易理解。 『是善業因緣果報者』（因為這是善業的因緣果報）下面第二部分特別指出十善業能夠獲得果報。之所以特別舉出十善業，是因為它和前面的慈業的意義相同。慈愛是眾多善業中最殊勝的，十善也是如此。《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra）中說，無論有沒有佛，十善業都是常有的，所以十善是舊有的善業。如果是其他的善業，有佛則有，沒有佛則沒有，稱為客善。 問文中說『十白業道』（ten white karmic paths），什麼是業？什麼是業道呢？答：經論的說法不同。《優婆塞戒經》（Upāsakaśīla Sūtra）中說，這十件事中，有三種是業而不是道，有七種既是業也是道。《智度論》中說，有三種是道而不是業，有七種既是業也是道。現在需要會通解釋這些說法。《優婆塞戒經》主要是從意念出發來定義業，但是意念不能獨自起作用，所以是業而不是道。《智度論》說明三種煩惱產生業而不是業本身，所以說是道而不是業。各自是從一個方面來說的。 論師闡明了四句：一是業而不是道，如《優婆塞戒經》所說。二是道而不是業，如《智度論》所說的三種煩惱。三是既是業也是道，如七種業是。四是非業非道，如身口所產生的色聲。毗曇師（Abhidharma masters）也提出了四句，但與此大不相同。一是道而不是業，指的是貪、嗔、邪見。它們能夠引導思，所以是道，但其本體不是思，所以不是業。二是業而不是道，就是思本身。思能夠造作，所以稱為業，但沒有其他的思來引導它，所以不是思之道。
【English Translation】 The Yogācāra masters say that the Ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) holds the seeds of good, evil, mundane, and supramundane, and therefore can produce karmic results. Now, based on the verses, we challenge this statement: Does the seed perish after the fruit arises, or does it perish before it arises? If it perishes after the fruit arises, then it is permanent. If it perishes before it arises, then there will be no karmic result. Question: The second part below is about refuting the meaning of the continuity of karma. First, establish a viewpoint, and then refute it. Establishing a viewpoint is divided into two parts. The first part generally explains that the continuity of karma is neither annihilation nor permanence. The second part specifically points out that the ten virtuous karmas can obtain karmic results. The first part is further divided into two parts. The first two verses explain that the continuity of external phenomena is neither annihilation nor permanence, which is illustrated by metaphors. The following two verses explain that the continuity of internal phenomena is neither annihilation nor permanence, which is a combination of metaphors. These two verses are divided into three parts. The first verse directly explains continuity. The second half-verse explains that because of continuity, there are karmic results. The third half-verse concludes that it is neither annihilation nor permanence. The meaning of the text is easy to understand. 'Because these are the causes and conditions and results of good karma' The second part below specifically points out that the ten virtuous karmas can obtain karmic results. The reason for specifically mentioning the ten virtuous karmas is that it has the same meaning as the previous practice of loving-kindness. Loving-kindness is the most excellent among many virtuous karmas, and so are the ten virtuous karmas. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that whether there is a Buddha or not, the ten virtuous karmas are always present, so the ten virtues are old virtues. If it is other virtuous karma, it exists when there is a Buddha, and it does not exist when there is no Buddha, and it is called guest virtue. The question in the text says 'ten white karmic paths', what is karma? What is a karmic path? Answer: The scriptures and treatises say different things. The Upāsakaśīla Sūtra says that among these ten things, three are karma but not paths, and seven are both karma and paths. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that three are paths but not karma, and seven are both karma and paths. Now we need to reconcile these statements. The Upāsakaśīla Sūtra mainly defines karma from the perspective of intention, but intention cannot function independently, so it is karma but not a path. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra explains that the three afflictions produce karma but are not karma themselves, so they are called paths but not karma. Each is from one aspect. The masters elucidate four sentences: One is karma but not a path, as stated in the Upāsakaśīla Sūtra. The second is a path but not karma, such as the three afflictions mentioned in the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra. The third is both karma and a karmic path, such as the seven karmas. The Abhidharma masters also put forward four sentences, but they are very different from this. One is a path but not karma, referring to greed, hatred, and wrong views. They can guide thought, so they are paths, but their essence is not thought, so they are not karma. The second is karma but not a path, which is thought itself. Thought can create, so it is called karma, but there is no other thought to guide it, so it is not the path of thought.
三亦業亦道。即身口七。當體是業。又暢思為道。四非業非道。即思前三不善根。但能生思不能暢思故非道。而復非思故非業也。問依智度論三煩惱是道非業。今云何言十業道。論主答云。以少從多故皆名業道也。答曰下第二破。所以但總非者。一者外人雖有此救終不離於斷常。是故不受。二者欲至后總一時破之。是故此中但略非也。又知其義勢未盡。所以直非引其後救一時總破。長行為二。初奪破。複次下縱破也。問曰下第三番立不失法。前立次破。就立中為三。一序說二正說三解釋。問曰今當復更說順業果報義者。此品七番破立。初番立業體即破。次番辨業不斷不常救上立論主即破。今立持業果報總救上義。故云今當復更說也。順業果報者。謂己所立義符順因果不違法相。論主若破則逆因果理違法相也。以符順因果三乘賢聖所嘆。論主若破則佛菩薩所毀也。此一偈明序說竟。所謂不失法如券業如負財物下第二六偈正立義宗也。就文為二。初標二章門。次釋二門。不失法如券標不失法章門。業如負財物標業章門也。今總釋之。世人出債要具四種一有財主。二有負債人。三立券書持負債主令不失財。四債主必還財物。財主者六道眾生也。負債主六道善惡業也。作業之時必有一法隨業起。持業令不失果。如取財時必立券
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三亦業亦道：指的是身、口七支（即身三：殺、盜、淫；口四：妄語、兩舌、惡口、綺語）。它們的本體就是業。又，經過深思熟慮的行為才可稱為道。 四、非業非道：指的是思慮前三種不善之根（貪、嗔、癡）。它們只能產生思慮，而不能形成經過深思熟慮的行為，所以不是道；而且它們本身也不是思慮的結果，所以也不是業。 問：根據《智度論》，三種煩惱（貪、嗔、癡）是道而不是業。現在為什麼說有十業道呢？論主回答說：因為從少數服從多數的原則，所以都稱為業道。 答曰：下面是第二部分，進行駁斥。之所以只是總的否定，原因有二：一是外人雖然有這種辯解，最終也無法擺脫斷滅和常有的邊見，所以不接受。二是想要在後面總的進行破斥，所以這裡只是簡略地否定。 又因為知道對方的義理還沒有完全表達，所以直接否定，並引用後面的辯解，以便一次性總的破斥。長行分為兩部分：首先是直接破斥，其次是順著對方的思路進行破斥。 問曰：下面是第三番，建立不失法。前面是建立，後面是破斥。在建立的部分，分為三部分：一是序說，二是正說，三是解釋。 問：現在為什麼要再次闡述順業果報的意義呢？這一品有七番破立。第一番是建立業的本體，然後進行破斥。第二番是辨析業不是斷滅也不是常有，以此來挽救之前的立論，然後進行破斥。現在建立持業果報，總的挽救之前的義理，所以說『今當復更說』。 順業果報：指的是自己所建立的義理符合因果規律，不違背法相。如果論主進行破斥，那就是違背因果規律，違背法相。 因為符合因果規律，所以被三乘賢聖所讚歎。如果論主進行破斥，那就是被佛菩薩所譭謗。這一偈說明了序說部分。 所謂不失法如券業如負財物：下面六偈是正式建立義理宗旨。分為兩部分：一是標出兩個章節的門類，二是解釋這兩個門類。『不失法如券』，標明不失法這一章節的門類。『業如負財物』，標明業這一章節的門類。現在總的解釋它們。世人出借錢財，需要具備四種條件：一是有債主，二是有欠債人，三是立下字據，讓債主持有，以保證錢財不丟失，四是欠債人必須歸還錢財。債主指的是六道眾生。欠債人指的是六道善惡業。造業的時候，必定有一種法隨著業而生起，保持著業，使它不會失去果報。就像取錢財的時候，必定要立下字據一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Three also are karma and path: referring to the seven branches of body and speech (the three of body: killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct; the four of speech: false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter). Their very essence is karma. Furthermore, thoughtful consideration is considered the path. Four, neither karma nor path: referring to contemplating the three unwholesome roots (greed, hatred, and delusion). They can only generate thoughts but cannot form actions based on thoughtful consideration, so they are not the path; moreover, they themselves are not the result of thought, so they are not karma. Question: According to the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (智度論), the three afflictions (greed, hatred, and delusion) are the path but not karma. Why is it now said that there are ten paths of karma? The treatise master replies: Because the few are subsumed under the many, they are all called paths of karma. Answer: The second part below refutes. The reason for only generally negating is twofold: first, although outsiders have this defense, they ultimately cannot escape the views of annihilation and permanence, so it is not accepted. Second, the intention is to refute them all at once later, so this is only briefly negated here. Furthermore, because it is known that the meaning has not been fully expressed, it is directly negated, and the subsequent defense is cited in order to refute it all at once. The long passage is divided into two parts: first, direct refutation; second, refutation following the other party's line of reasoning. Question: The third round below establishes the non-loss of dharma. The former is establishment, the latter is refutation. In the establishment part, it is divided into three parts: first, introduction; second, main exposition; third, explanation. Question: Why is it now necessary to explain the meaning of karma and its corresponding results again? This chapter has seven rounds of establishment and refutation. The first round establishes the essence of karma and then refutes it. The second round distinguishes that karma is neither annihilation nor permanence, in order to salvage the previous argument, and then refutes it. Now, establishing the holding of karma and its results is a general salvage of the previous meaning, so it is said 'now we will explain again'. 'Karma and its corresponding results': refers to the meaning established by oneself that conforms to the law of cause and effect and does not violate the characteristics of dharma. If the treatise master refutes it, it violates the law of cause and effect and violates the characteristics of dharma. Because it conforms to the law of cause and effect, it is praised by the virtuous and sages of the Three Vehicles. If the treatise master refutes it, it is slandered by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. This verse explains the introduction part. 'So-called non-loss of dharma is like a contract, karma is like owing property': The following six verses formally establish the tenets of meaning. It is divided into two parts: first, marking out the categories of the two chapters; second, explaining the two categories. 'Non-loss of dharma is like a contract' marks out the category of the chapter on non-loss of dharma. 'Karma is like owing property' marks out the category of the chapter on karma. Now, explain them generally. When people lend money, four conditions are necessary: first, there is a creditor; second, there is a debtor; third, a written contract is made, held by the creditor, to ensure that the money is not lost; fourth, the debtor must repay the money. The creditor refers to the sentient beings of the six realms. The debtor refers to the good and evil karma of the six realms. When karma is created, there must be a dharma that arises along with the karma, maintaining the karma so that it does not lose its results. Just like when taking money, a contract must be made.
也。負債人必還財主物。善惡業必辨六道果。還行人受之也。論文唯明券與負債人。但舉其要事為存略故也。問財主出物與前人。前人然後還債。可得言果從眾生出與業。業然後辨果還行人耶。答大略舉喻。不必全合。若必全合。義亦有之。六道果報並從眾生心內所出故。地經云。三界皆一心作也。問外人舉此云何救上斷常耶。答現見事中具此四種。因果業行亦具此四。斯既合事符理賢愚並信。則知決定有于業果。但業是有爲念念生滅。是故不常。此不失法持之令果不失。所以不斷。不斷不常免上過也。問業是有爲念念生滅。不失法亦是有爲念念生滅。云何得不斷不常耶。答真諦三藏出正量部明不失法。是功用常。待果起方滅。中間無念念滅。譬如券還債竟然後乃裂破耳。此二章門俱有法譬。不失法謂法說也。如券譬說也。業法說也。如負財譬說也。善業如他負財。惡業如負他財。亦得通喻善惡業。必還報如負財也。此性則無記者第二釋二章門。前二偈半釋不失法有五門。一三性門。二系不繫門。三斷不斷門。四釋名門。五破異門。問何故獨破無記不失法。不破通三性得繩耶。答二義。一者通三性得亦能感果屬上業門破。無記不感果上未破今破也。二者得通三性此但小乘義耳。不足破。無記通大小。正量是小乘。阿梨
【現代漢語翻譯】 也。負債人必須償還財主的財物。善惡業必然在六道中區分果報。由修行人承受這些果報。這裡討論的重點在於債約和負債人，只列舉了重要的事項，因為內容有所省略。問：財主將財物借給前者，前者之後償還債務。是否可以說果報從眾生而出，通過業力，然後區分果報，由修行人承受呢？答：這只是一個大致的比喻，不必完全符合。如果一定要完全符合，道理也是有的。六道果報都從眾生的內心產生。《地經》說：『三界都是一心所造。』問：外道引用這些來如何避免斷見和常見呢？答：在現實生活中就具備這四種情況（因、果、業、行），因果業行也具備這四種情況。這既符合事實又符合道理，賢明和愚笨的人都相信，就知道業果是確實存在的。但是業是有為法，唸唸生滅，所以不是常。這種不失法能保持業力，使果報不失，所以不是斷。不斷不常，避免了上述的過失。問：業是有為法，唸唸生滅，不失法也是有為法，唸唸生滅，怎麼能不斷不常呢？答：真諦三藏所出的正量部認為，不失法是功用常，等待果報產生后才滅，中間沒有唸唸滅。譬如債約，在償還債務完畢后才會被撕毀。這兩個章節都有法說和譬喻。不失法是法說，如債約是譬喻。業是法說，如負債是譬喻。善業如他人負債，惡業如負他人財。也可以用這個比喻來概括善惡業，必然要償還果報，就像負債一樣。這個『性則無記』是第二個解釋章節的門徑。前面的兩偈半解釋了不失法的五種門：一、三性門；二、系不繫門；三、斷不斷門；四、釋名門；五、破異門。問：為什麼只破斥無記的不失法，而不破斥通於三性的『得』呢？答：有兩個原因。一是通於三性的『得』也能感果，屬於上面的業門，已經破斥過了，而無記的不感果，上面沒有破斥，現在破斥。二是『得』通於三性，這只是小乘的觀點，不值得破斥。無記通於大小乘，正量部是小乘，阿梨耶（Alaya）
【English Translation】 Also. Debtors must repay the property of the creditor. Good and evil karma will inevitably distinguish the fruits in the six realms. The practitioner receives these fruits. The focus of the discussion here is on the bond and the debtor, only listing the important matters because the content is somewhat abbreviated. Question: The creditor lends property to the former, and the former then repays the debt. Can it be said that the fruit comes from sentient beings, through karma, and then distinguishes the fruit, which is received by the practitioner? Answer: This is just a rough analogy, not necessarily completely consistent. If it must be completely consistent, there is also a reason. The fruits of the six realms all arise from the minds of sentient beings. The Di Jing (Earth Sutra) says: 'The three realms are all created by one mind.' Question: How do outsiders use these to avoid the views of annihilation and permanence? Answer: These four conditions (cause, effect, karma, action) are present in real life, and cause, effect, karma, and action also have these four conditions. This is consistent with both facts and reason, and both the wise and the foolish believe it, so it is known that karmic retribution is indeed real. However, karma is conditioned and arises and ceases moment by moment, so it is not permanent. This non-loss of dharma can maintain karma so that the fruit is not lost, so it is not annihilation. Neither annihilation nor permanence avoids the above faults. Question: Karma is conditioned and arises and ceases moment by moment, and the non-loss of dharma is also conditioned and arises and ceases moment by moment, how can it be neither annihilation nor permanence? Answer: The Zhengliang Bu (Sammitīya school) by Paramārtha (Zhendi Sanzang) believes that the non-loss of dharma is a constant function, which only ceases after the fruit arises, and there is no moment-by-moment cessation in between. For example, a bond is only torn up after the debt has been repaid. Both of these chapters have dharma teachings and metaphors. The non-loss of dharma is a dharma teaching, like a bond is a metaphor. Karma is a dharma teaching, like debt is a metaphor. Good karma is like others owing debt, and evil karma is like owing others property. This metaphor can also be used to summarize good and evil karma, which must be repaid like owing debt. This 'nature is indeterminate' is the second way to explain the chapter. The previous two and a half verses explain the five doors of non-loss of dharma: 1. The three natures door; 2. The bound and unbound door; 3. The continuous and discontinuous door; 4. The explanation of names door; 5. The refutation of differences door. Question: Why only refute the indeterminate non-loss of dharma, and not refute the 'attainment' that is common to the three natures? Answer: There are two reasons. First, the 'attainment' that is common to the three natures can also cause fruit, which belongs to the above karma door and has already been refuted, while the indeterminate does not cause fruit, which has not been refuted above, and is now refuted. Second, the 'attainment' is common to the three natures, which is only a Hinayana (small vehicle) view and is not worth refuting. The indeterminate is common to both Mahayana (great vehicle) and Hinayana, the Zhengliang Bu (Sammitīya school) is Hinayana, Alaya (阿梨耶)
耶不失法是大乘。阿梨耶翻為無沒識。無是不之異名。沒是失之別目故。梨耶猶是不失法。又梨耶體是果報無記。能持一切善惡種子。正是今外人義。又所以前明三性門者為對二部。一有券部二無券部。有券部如薩婆多人。亦有四種。謂假名眾生如財主。作善惡業如負財人。別有得繩得善惡業令果不失如券。業感果如還債人。無券部者佛陀提婆人譬喻成實等。但明三種無別得繩為券。但言眾生為能成就。善惡業為所成就也。若即以此為不失法則無別財主。故但有三也。曇無德明。心為能成就。亦無有別法為券也。正量部前對有券義故就三性分別。所以然者。薩婆多明得繩通三性。若爾得繩既是善惡。還復感報則與業同。並是負財之人。何名為券。是故今明。善惡業自感報。而不失法是無記不感報。如世間負財人自還債耳。而券不還債。是故立不失法為無記。問數人得繩感何報。答婆沙云。但逐業感受報耳。不能感生。又但是報因感果故不作業感果。四相亦爾。問何故不同無券部。答經中說有券義。如智度論引集法經諸羅漢說偈病老死券已裂破。此明羅漢還過去報債竟不復更取未來債。則不失法券便滅名為裂破。而佛陀訶梨既無別不失法則無別有券。但有負財人故不與經相應。所以不同無券部也。問與有券部幾種異耶。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 耶不失法（Yebushifa）是大乘的教義。阿梨耶（Aliye）翻譯為『無沒識』，『無』是不的另一種說法，『沒』是失的另一種說法，所以阿梨耶可以理解為『不失法』。此外，阿梨耶的本體是果報無記（guobao wuji，不善不惡的果報），能夠持有所有的善惡種子，這正是外道（wàidào，佛教以外的學說）的觀點。 之前闡明三性（sanxing，三種性質：善、惡、無記）的目的是爲了針對兩個部派：一是有券部（youquanbu），二是無券部（wuquanbu）。有券部，例如薩婆多部（Sarvastivadins），也有四種觀點：認為假名眾生（jiaming zhongsheng，由各種要素組合而成的生命體）就像財主；作善惡業就像欠債人；另外有一種『得繩』（desheng，獲得一種力量）的概念，獲得善惡業使得果報不會消失，就像券據（quànjù，憑證）；業感果就像還債人。無券部，例如佛陀提婆（Buddha-deva）的人、譬喻者（譬喻師）、成實論者（Satyasiddhi school）等，只闡明三種性質，沒有單獨的『得繩』作為憑證的說法，只說眾生能夠成就善惡業，善惡業是所成就的。 如果直接將這些（善惡業）視為不失法，那麼就沒有單獨的財主了，所以只有三種性質。曇無德（Dharmagupta）認為，心是能成就者，也沒有單獨的法作為憑證。正量部（Sammitiya）之前針對有券部的觀點，就三性進行分別。原因是，薩婆多部認為『得繩』貫通三性。如果這樣，『得繩』既然是善惡，還會感生果報，那麼就和業相同了，都成了欠債人，那還叫什麼憑證？因此現在闡明，善惡業自己感生果報，而不失法是無記，不感生果報，就像世間的欠債人自己還債一樣，而憑證並不還債。所以設立不失法為無記。 有人問，數人『得繩』會感生什麼果報？回答是，根據《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）的說法，只是隨著業感受果報，不能感生（新的生命）。而且只是作為果報的原因感生果，所以不作為業感生果。四相（sìxiàng，生、老、病、死）也是如此。有人問，為什麼和無券部不同？回答是，經典中說了有『券』的含義，例如《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）引用《集法經》（Ekottara Agama Sutra），說諸羅漢（Arhat）說偈，『病老死券已裂破』。這說明羅漢償還了過去的債務，不再獲取未來的債務，那麼不失法的憑證就滅掉了，叫做『裂破』。而佛陀訶梨（Buddha-haris）既然沒有單獨的不失法，就沒有單獨的『券』，只有欠債人，所以和經典不相應。所以和無券部不同。有人問，和有券部有幾種不同？
【English Translation】 English version Yebushifa is a doctrine of Mahayana. Aliye (Alaya), is translated as 'unlost consciousness'. 'Un' is another name for 'not', and 'lost' is another term for 'loss'. Therefore, Aliye can be understood as 'the unlost dharma'. Furthermore, the essence of Aliye is the result of karmic retribution that is neither good nor evil (guobao wuji), capable of holding all seeds of good and evil. This is precisely the view of externalists (wàidào, doctrines outside of Buddhism). The reason for previously clarifying the three natures (sanxing, three kinds of nature: good, evil, and neutral) is to address two schools: one is the school with vouchers (youquanbu), and the other is the school without vouchers (wuquanbu). The school with vouchers, such as the Sarvastivadins, also has four viewpoints: considering nominal beings (jiaming zhongsheng, life forms composed of various elements) as akin to landlords; performing good and evil deeds as akin to debtors; and having a concept of 'obtaining a rope' (desheng, gaining a power), obtaining good and evil karma such that the karmic retribution will not disappear, like a voucher (quànjù, certificate); karmic retribution is like a debtor repaying debts. The school without vouchers, such as the followers of Buddha-deva, the Parable Masters, the Satyasiddhi school, etc., only clarify the three natures, without a separate 'obtaining a rope' as a voucher, only saying that beings are capable of accomplishing good and evil karma, and good and evil karma are what is accomplished. If these (good and evil karma) are directly regarded as the unlost dharma, then there is no separate landlord, so there are only three natures. Dharmagupta believes that the mind is the accomplisher, and there is no separate dharma as a voucher. The Sammitiya school previously differentiated based on the three natures in response to the viewpoint of the school with vouchers. The reason is that the Sarvastivadins believe that 'obtaining a rope' pervades the three natures. If so, since 'obtaining a rope' is both good and evil, it will also generate karmic retribution, then it is the same as karma, both becoming debtors, so what is the point of calling it a voucher? Therefore, it is now clarified that good and evil karma generate karmic retribution themselves, while the unlost dharma is neutral and does not generate karmic retribution, just like a debtor in the world repays debts himself, while the voucher does not repay debts. Therefore, establishing the unlost dharma as neutral. Someone asks, what karmic retribution will be generated by several people 'obtaining a rope'? The answer is, according to the Vibhasa, one only experiences karmic retribution according to the karma, and cannot generate (new life). Moreover, it only generates results as the cause of karmic retribution, so it does not generate results as karma. The four marks (sìxiàng, birth, old age, sickness, and death) are also like this. Someone asks, why is it different from the school without vouchers? The answer is, the sutras mention the meaning of 'voucher', for example, the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra quotes the Ekottara Agama Sutra, saying that the Arhats recite a verse, 'the vouchers of sickness, old age, and death have been torn'. This explains that the Arhats have repaid their past debts and no longer acquire future debts, then the voucher of the unlost dharma is extinguished, called 'torn'. Since Buddha-haris does not have a separate unlost dharma, there is no separate 'voucher', only debtors, so it does not correspond to the sutras. Therefore, it is different from the school without vouchers. Someone asks, how many differences are there with the school with vouchers?
答一常無常異。薩婆多得繩是無常唸唸生滅。正量是功用常無念念滅。但有大期滅。二薩婆多券通善惡故感報。正量明但無記故券不感報。三薩婆多明感報故券義不成。正量明不感報券義得成。四薩婆多正明斷得繩而惑自去。正量得是無記。不斷無記。正斷不善惑也。但同明非色非心。與薩婆多不異也。釋此性無記不同。有人言。此猶是數義。數義得繩乃通三性。今但釋上券譬。數人明卷但是無記。如金石價殊而券無貴賤。故但是無記。若解法說則通三性。有人言。此非數義。乃是佛陀譬喻成實以眾生為能成就。故婆沙云。佛陀提婆說曰。眾生不離是法名為成就。眾生不當善惡故是無記。有人言。曇無德部辨心為能成就。心不當善惡名為無記。為能成就善惡。又依正量部義。正量本是律學。佛滅后三百年中從犢子部出。辨不失法。體是無記。明瞭論是覺護法師造。而依正量部義。論云。正量部有二種。一至得二不失法。不失法但善惡有之。外法則無。又但是自性無記。又待果起方滅。若是至得逐法通三性。通內外法皆有。果未起時若懺悔則至得便滅。而不失法雖懺悔罪不滅。要須更待果起方滅也。始終有五部。一薩婆多通三性。餘四部皆無記。一佛陀人二曇無德三正量四攝論並是無記。此四所以同是無記者。彼深有所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：『一』（ekatva，單一性）是常還是無常，相同還是相異？ 薩婆多（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）認為『得繩』（prāpti，獲得）是無常的，唸唸生滅。正量部（Vātsīputrīya，犢子部）認為功用是常的，沒有唸唸滅，只是有大限的滅。 二、薩婆多認為『券』（bandhana，繫縛）通於善惡，所以能感果報。正量部認為只是無記（avyākṛta，不可記說），所以『券』不感果報。 三、薩婆多認為能感果報，所以『券』的意義不能成立。正量部認為不感果報，『券』的意義才能成立。 四、薩婆多認為只要斷了『得繩』，煩惱自然去除。正量部認為『得』是無記，不斷無記，只是斷不善的煩惱。但都認為『得』非色（rūpa，物質）非心（citta，精神），與薩婆多沒有不同。解釋這種自性無記不同。有人說，這仍然是數論的意義。數論認為『得繩』通於三性（善、惡、無記）。現在只是解釋上面的『券』的比喻。數論的人認為『券』只是無記，就像金石價格不同，而『券』沒有貴賤，所以只是無記。如果從法來說，則通於三性。有人說，這不是數論的意義，而是佛陀用譬喻來成就真實，以眾生為能成就。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）說，佛陀、提婆（Deva，天）說：眾生不離這種法，名為成就。眾生不當于善惡，所以是無記。有人說，曇無德部（Dharmaguptaka，法藏部）認為心是能成就，心不當于善惡，名為無記，為能成就善惡。 又依據正量部的意義，正量部本來是律學。佛滅后三百年中從犢子部而出。辨別不失法（avināśa-dharma，不失法），體是無記。《明瞭論》（Abhidharmadīpa，阿毗達磨燈論）是覺護法師（Ācārya Dīpa，燈導師）造，而依據正量部的意義。《論》中說，正量部有兩種：一、至得（prāpti，獲得），二、不失法。不失法只有善惡才有，外法則沒有。又只是自性無記。又等待果報生起才滅。如果是至得，隨法通於三性，通於內外法都有。果報未生起時，如果懺悔，至得便滅。而不失法雖然懺悔罪不滅，要須更等待果報生起才滅。 始終有五部：一、薩婆多通於三性，其餘四部都是無記。一、佛陀人（Buddhānusmṛti，唸佛），二、曇無德，三、正量，四、《攝論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya，阿毗達磨集論）都是無記。這四部所以同是無記者，他們有很深的考慮。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Is 『one』 (ekatva, oneness) permanent or impermanent, the same or different? The Sarvāstivāda (everything exists school) believes that 『prāpti』 (attainment) is impermanent, arising and ceasing moment by moment. The Vātsīputrīya (犢子部) believes that function is permanent, without ceasing moment by moment, only ceasing at the end of its lifespan. Second, the Sarvāstivāda believes that 『bandhana』 (bondage) applies to both good and evil, so it can bring about karmic retribution. The Vātsīputrīya believes that it is only avyākṛta (undetermined), so 『bandhana』 does not bring about karmic retribution. Third, the Sarvāstivāda believes that it can bring about karmic retribution, so the meaning of 『bandhana』 cannot be established. The Vātsīputrīya believes that it does not bring about karmic retribution, so the meaning of 『bandhana』 can be established. Fourth, the Sarvāstivāda believes that as long as 『prāpti』 is severed, afflictions will naturally be removed. The Vātsīputrīya believes that 『prāpti』 is undetermined, and undetermined things are not severed, only unwholesome afflictions are severed. But both agree that 『prāpti』 is neither rūpa (form) nor citta (mind), which is no different from the Sarvāstivāda. The explanation of this self-nature of the undetermined is different. Some say that this is still the meaning of Samkhya. Samkhya believes that 『prāpti』 applies to the three natures (good, evil, and undetermined). Now it is only explaining the metaphor of 『bandhana』 above. Samkhya people believe that 『bandhana』 is only undetermined, just like the prices of gold and stone are different, but 『bandhana』 has no value, so it is only undetermined. If speaking from the perspective of Dharma, then it applies to the three natures. Some say that this is not the meaning of Samkhya, but the Buddha uses metaphors to accomplish reality, taking sentient beings as what can be accomplished. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra) says that the Buddha and Deva (god) said: Sentient beings are not separate from this Dharma, which is called accomplishment. Sentient beings are not subject to good and evil, so it is undetermined. Some say that the Dharmaguptaka (法藏部) believes that the mind is what can be accomplished, and the mind is not subject to good and evil, which is called undetermined, in order to accomplish good and evil. Furthermore, according to the meaning of the Vātsīputrīya, the Vātsīputrīya was originally a school of Vinaya. It emerged from the Vātsīputrīya three hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana. It distinguishes avināśa-dharma (non-loss Dharma), whose substance is undetermined. The Abhidharmadīpa (阿毗達磨燈論) was created by Ācārya Dīpa (燈導師), and according to the meaning of the Vātsīputrīya. The Śāstra says that there are two types of Vātsīputrīya: one is prāpti (attainment), and the other is non-loss Dharma. Non-loss Dharma only exists in good and evil, not in external Dharmas. Moreover, it is only self-nature undetermined. Furthermore, it only ceases when the karmic result arises. If it is prāpti, it applies to the three natures according to the Dharma, and it exists in both internal and external Dharmas. If one repents before the karmic result arises, prāpti will cease. However, even if one repents, the sin of non-loss Dharma will not cease, and one must wait for the karmic result to arise before it ceases. From beginning to end, there are five schools: one is Sarvāstivāda, which applies to the three natures, and the other four schools are all undetermined. One is Buddhānusmṛti (唸佛), two is Dharmaguptaka, three is Vātsīputrīya, and four is Abhidharma-samuccaya (阿毗達磨集論), all of which are undetermined. The reason why these four schools are all undetermined is that they have deep considerations.
以。善惡業自感報耳。此持業法不感報故是無記。如世間負債人自還債耳。券不還債。分別有四種者第二系不繫門。正是梨耶。梨耶通持三界內外種子。持三界內種子即三界系。持三界外種子即不繫。將攝論意釋之太易也。依數義。得繩通漏無漏。漏則三界系無漏則不繫。依論義。假人亦通漏無漏。亦得有四。六道眾生是有漏人。三乘賢聖是無漏人。依曇無德。心通漏無漏。亦得有四。有人言。四種謂報生威儀工巧變化四無記。今不失法是報無記也。正量部自有四無記。一根本無記。二自性無記。三有覆無記。四無覆無記。根本無記謂心王及心數也。自性無記者除善惡色余無記身口色及外一切色也。有覆無記者身邊二見及上二界煩惱也。無覆無記者白凈無記也。此四攝數人四無記者。威儀工巧報生變化此四中心屬根本。色則屬自性。故為二無記攝。今依青目明是不失法。三界系及不繫故云四種。所以通四種者。正量部云。隨起一念善惡則有不失法與之共起令不失果。若起三界系業則有三。界系不失法故。不失法為三界系。起無漏業亦有不失法與之共起。不失法名為不繫。問不失法為三界系可是無記。既稱不繫即是無漏。云何名無記耶。答有人言。此部立無記無漏故不妨也。例如薩婆多明一無為是無記而是無漏。成論明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以善惡業各自感受果報。這種『持業法』不感受果報，所以是『無記』（既非善也非惡）。就像世間欠債的人自己還債一樣，借據（券）並不能代替還債。 關於『分別有四種』，這是指第二種『系不繫門』。這裡說的正是『阿賴耶』（Ālaya，藏識）。阿賴耶通持三界（欲界、色界、無色界）內外的一切種子。持三界內的種子，就是三界所繫縛的；持三界外的種子，就是不被繫縛的。如果按照《攝大乘論》的意義來解釋，就太容易了。 依照數論的觀點，『得繩』（Gedeng，一種束縛）貫通有漏和無漏。有漏就是三界所繫縛的，無漏就是不被繫縛的。依照論的觀點，假人（虛構的人）也貫通有漏和無漏，也可以有四種情況。六道眾生是有漏的人，三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的賢聖是無漏的人。依照曇無德的觀點，心貫通有漏和無漏，也可以有四種情況。 有人說，這四種是指『報生無記』、『威儀無記』、『工巧無記』、『變化無記』這四種無記。現在所說的『不失法』是『報無記』。正量部（Sammitīya）自己有四種無記：一、根本無記；二、自性無記；三、有覆無記；四、無覆無記。『根本無記』指的是心王（主要的心識）和心所（心理活動）。『自性無記』指的是除了善惡色以外的其餘無記身口色，以及外在的一切色法。『有覆無記』指的是身邊二見（有身見、邊見）以及上二界（色界、無色界）的煩惱。『無覆無記』指的是白凈無記。 這四種攝數人所說的四種無記，即威儀、工巧、報生、變化這四種，其中『心』屬於『根本無記』，『色』則屬於『自性無記』，所以被兩種無記所涵蓋。現在依照青目（Vimalākṣa）的說法，『不失法』是三界所繫縛以及不被繫縛的，所以說是四種。之所以貫通四種，是因為正量部認為，隨著生起一個善念或惡念，就會有『不失法』與之共同生起，使善惡業不失其果。如果生起三界所繫縛的業，就會有三界所繫縛的『不失法』。因此，『不失法』是三界所繫縛的。如果生起無漏業，也會有『不失法』與之共同生起，這種『不失法』被稱為不繫縛。 有人問：『不失法』是三界所繫縛，可以說是無記。既然稱為不繫縛，那就是無漏。為什麼還說是無記呢？答：有人說，這個部派認為無記也可以是無漏，所以不妨礙。例如，薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）認為『一無為』是無記，但卻是無漏。成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra）認為……
【English Translation】 English version: Good and evil karma each bring their own retribution. This 'Dharma of Maintaining Karma' (持業法) does not experience retribution, therefore it is 'avyākṛta' (無記, neither good nor evil). It's like a debtor repaying their own debt; the promissory note (券) does not repay the debt. Regarding 'having four distinctions,' this refers to the second 'bound and unbound' (系不繫門). This refers precisely to 'Ālaya' (阿賴耶, store consciousness). Ālaya universally holds the seeds within and without the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). Holding the seeds within the three realms means being bound by the three realms; holding the seeds outside the three realms means being unbound. Explaining it according to the meaning of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (《攝大乘論》) is too easy. According to the Samkhya (數論) view, 'Gedeng' (得繩, a kind of bondage) connects the defiled and undefiled. The defiled is bound by the three realms, and the undefiled is unbound. According to the view of the treatises, hypothetical persons (假人) also connect the defiled and undefiled, and there can also be four situations. Sentient beings in the six realms are defiled persons, and the sages and saints of the Three Vehicles (聲聞乘, 緣覺乘, 菩薩乘) are undefiled persons. According to Dharmatrāta (曇無德), the mind connects the defiled and undefiled, and there can also be four situations. Some say that these four refer to the four kinds of avyākṛta: 'resultant avyākṛta' (報生無記), 'behavioral avyākṛta' (威儀無記), 'skillful avyākṛta' (工巧無記), and 'transformational avyākṛta' (變化無記). The 'non-loss Dharma' (不失法) mentioned now is 'resultant avyākṛta.' The Sammītiya school (正量部) itself has four kinds of avyākṛta: 1. fundamental avyākṛta (根本無記), 2. self-nature avyākṛta (自性無記), 3. obscured avyākṛta (有覆無記), and 4. unobscured avyākṛta (無覆無記). 'Fundamental avyākṛta' refers to the mind-king (心王, primary consciousness) and mental factors (心所, mental activities). 'Self-nature avyākṛta' refers to the remaining avyākṛta body and speech forms other than good and evil forms, as well as all external forms. 'Obscured avyākṛta' refers to the two views of the body (有身見, view of self) and the extreme views (邊見, extreme views), as well as the afflictions of the upper two realms (form realm, formless realm). 'Unobscured avyākṛta' refers to pure avyākṛta (白凈無記). These four avyākṛta mentioned by the four Samkhya persons, namely behavior, skill, resultant, and transformation, where 'mind' belongs to 'fundamental avyākṛta,' and 'form' belongs to 'self-nature avyākṛta,' so they are encompassed by two avyākṛta. Now, according to Vimalākṣa (青目), 'non-loss Dharma' is bound by the three realms and unbound, so it is said to be four kinds. The reason why it connects the four kinds is that the Sammītiya school believes that with the arising of a good or evil thought, there will be a 'non-loss Dharma' arising together with it, so that the good or evil karma does not lose its result. If one generates karma bound by the three realms, there will be a 'non-loss Dharma' bound by the three realms. Therefore, 'non-loss Dharma' is bound by the three realms. If one generates undefiled karma, there will also be a 'non-loss Dharma' arising together with it, and this 'non-loss Dharma' is called unbound. Someone asks: 'Non-loss Dharma' is bound by the three realms, so it can be said to be avyākṛta. Since it is called unbound, then it is undefiled. Why is it still called avyākṛta? Answer: Some say that this school believes that avyākṛta can also be undefiled, so it does not matter. For example, the Sarvāstivāda school (薩婆多部) believes that 'one unconditioned' (一無為) is avyākṛta, but it is undefiled. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra (成實論) believes...
羅漢識想受三心是無記是無漏。今雖得於無漏名為無漏。而是無記。故不失法亦是無記。今謂正量部唯善惡業起有不失法。若無漏及余法起但有至得無不失法。而云分別有四者。上總唱無記耳。今廣泛分別。則三界業之不失法是無記。所持之業既三界系。能持之法亦三界系。若不繫者此是至得通三性也。所以然者。若不失法通系不繫者便應通斷不斷。下不應偏言見諦不斷思惟所斷。而下偏言其斷不言不斷。則知無記偏釋不失法不釋至得也。攝論梨耶長觀是生死果報心。是有漏。而梨耶通三界內外故通漏無漏。故有四種也。見諦所不斷但思惟所斷者第三斷不斷門分別。攝論依大乘義判見思。初地為見道。二地至金剛為修道。梨耶至金剛心治際時本識都滅。梨耶既是果報心是苦諦攝。解漸明生死果報心漸滅。至治際時斷梨耶中集諦盡。梨耶苦諦邊亦滅。實不斷也。就見思解斷本識中見思惑種子但是斷集了。而梨耶苦諦邊都不被斷。而集滅故苦亦滅也。今文言見諦不斷思惟斷者。梨耶是生死苦諦報無記。被見思惑緣縛。見諦解斷緣縛不盡。思惟解斷緣縛盡。故言見諦不斷思惟斷。佛陀人眾生是果報無記。曇無德心是無記。正量不失法是無記。例同此義並不被斷。俱為二惑緣縛。見道斷不盡。思惟斷縛盡。故言斷耳。問亦得見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 阿羅漢的識、想、受這三種心，是無記性（既非善也非惡）的，還是無漏性（超越煩惱）的？現在雖然因為證得無漏而稱之為無漏，但實際上是無記性的。所以不失法（指已獲得的善法不丟失的性質）也是無記性的。 現在正量部認為只有善業和惡業的生起才會有不失法。如果無漏法以及其他法生起，只有至得（指新獲得的法）而沒有不失法。而說分別有四種情況，上面只是總括地說了無記性。現在廣泛地分別，那麼三界業的不失法是無記性的。所持有的業既然是系屬於三界的，能持有它的法也是系屬於三界的。如果不繫屬於三界，那麼這種至得就通於三性（善、惡、無記）了。為什麼這樣說呢？如果不失法通於系屬和不繫屬，那麼就應該通於斷和不斷。下面不應該只說見諦所斷，而沒有說思惟所斷。而下面只說了斷，沒有說不斷，那麼就知道無記性只是解釋不失法，沒有解釋至得。攝論中說的阿賴耶識（ālaya-vijñāna，藏識，根本識）是長久觀察的生死果報心，是有漏的。而阿賴耶識通於三界內外，所以通於有漏和無漏，所以有四種情況。 見諦所不斷，只是思惟所斷，這是第三個斷和不斷門的分別。攝論依據大乘的義理來判斷見惑和思惑。初地為見道，二地到金剛喻定為修道。阿賴耶識到金剛心治際時，根本識全部滅盡。阿賴耶識既然是果報心，是苦諦所攝。理解逐漸明白生死果報心逐漸滅盡，到治際時斷滅阿賴耶識中的集諦。阿賴耶識苦諦的方面也滅盡，實際上是沒有斷滅的。就見惑和思惑來理解斷滅根本識中的見思惑種子，只是斷滅了集諦。而阿賴耶識苦諦的方面都沒有被斷滅。因為集諦滅了，所以苦諦也滅了。現在經文中說見諦不斷，思惟斷，阿賴耶識是生死苦諦的果報無記性，被見思惑的緣縛。見諦解脫斷滅緣縛不盡，思惟解脫斷滅緣縛盡，所以說見諦不斷，思惟斷。佛陀（Buddha，覺者）、人、眾生是果報無記性。曇無德（Dharmaguptaka，法護部）的心是無記性。正量部的不失法是無記性。例子和這個意思相同，都沒有被斷滅。都因為被兩種惑的緣縛。見道斷滅不盡，思惟斷滅緣縛盡，所以說是斷滅。 問：也可能證得見道。
【English Translation】 English version Are the three mental aggregates of perception (saṃjñā), conception (saṃskāra), and consciousness (vijñāna) of an Arhat (arhant, one who has attained enlightenment) unrecordable (avyākṛta, neither good nor bad) or free from outflows (anāsrava, without defilements)? Although they are now called 'free from outflows' because of attaining freedom from outflows, they are actually unrecordable. Therefore, the non-loss of dharma (adharma-samprayoga, the quality of not losing the good dharmas already attained) is also unrecordable. Now, the Vātsīputrīyas (one of the early Buddhist schools) believe that only the arising of good and bad karma (karma, action driven by intention) leads to the non-loss of dharma. If the outflow-free dharmas and other dharmas arise, there is only attainment (prāpti, acquisition of new dharmas) but no non-loss of dharma. And to say that there are four kinds of distinctions, the above only generally speaks of the unrecordable. Now, broadly distinguishing, the non-loss of dharma of the karma of the three realms (tridhātu, desire realm, form realm, formless realm) is unrecordable. Since the karma held is bound to the three realms, the dharma that holds it is also bound to the three realms. If it is not bound, then this attainment is common to the three natures (good, bad, unrecordable). Why is this so? If the non-loss of dharma is common to the bound and unbound, then it should be common to the cut off and not cut off. Below, it should not only say what is cut off by seeing the truth (darśana-mārga, the path of seeing), but not what is cut off by thinking (bhāvanā-mārga, the path of cultivation). And below, it only speaks of cutting off, not speaking of not cutting off, then it is known that the unrecordable only explains the non-loss of dharma, not explaining the attainment. The Ālayavijñāna (ālaya-vijñāna, storehouse consciousness) in the Compendium of Abhidharma is the mind of the fruit of birth and death that is observed for a long time, and it is with outflows. And the Ālayavijñāna is common to the inside and outside of the three realms, so it is common to with outflows and without outflows, so there are four kinds of situations. What is not cut off by seeing the truth, but only cut off by thinking, this is the distinction of the third gate of cutting off and not cutting off. The Compendium of Abhidharma relies on the meaning of Mahayana (Mahāyāna, the Great Vehicle) to judge the afflictions of view and thought. The first bhumi (bhūmi, stage) is the path of seeing, and the second bhumi to the Vajra Samadhi (vajrasamādhi, diamond-like concentration) is the path of cultivation. When the Ālayavijñāna reaches the time of the Vajra heart's treatment, the fundamental consciousness is completely extinguished. Since the Ālayavijñāna is the mind of the fruit of retribution, it is included in the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya, the first noble truth). Understanding gradually clarifies that the mind of the fruit of birth and death gradually extinguishes, and when it reaches the time of treatment, it cuts off the truth of accumulation (samudaya-satya, the second noble truth) in the Ālayavijñāna. The aspect of the Ālayavijñāna's truth of suffering also extinguishes, but in reality, it is not cut off. Regarding the seeds of the afflictions of view and thought in the fundamental consciousness that are understood as cutting off view and thought, only the truth of accumulation is cut off. And the aspect of the Ālayavijñāna's truth of suffering is not cut off at all. Because the truth of accumulation is extinguished, the truth of suffering is also extinguished. Now, the text says that what is not cut off by seeing the truth, but cut off by thinking, the Ālayavijñāna is the unrecordable fruit of retribution of the truth of suffering of birth and death, and is bound by the conditions of the afflictions of view and thought. Seeing the truth does not completely liberate and cut off the conditions of bondage, and thinking liberates and cuts off the conditions of bondage completely, so it is said that seeing the truth does not cut off, but thinking cuts off. The Buddha (Buddha, the awakened one), people, and sentient beings are the unrecordable fruit of retribution. The mind of the Dharmaguptakas (Dharmaguptaka, one of the early Buddhist schools) is unrecordable. The non-loss of dharma of the Vātsīputrīyas is unrecordable. The examples are the same as this meaning, and they are not cut off. They are all bound by the conditions of the two afflictions. Seeing the path does not completely cut off, and thinking cuts off the conditions of bondage completely, so it is said to be cut off. Question: It is also possible to attain seeing the path.
諦解起損本識。本識未盡至治際本識都盡。詺此為見諦不斷思惟斷耶。答亦有此義。但今文論斷。而梨耶是報無記無有被斷義也。曇無德人都不斷業。但斷煩惱業種自枯。數人得繩通二斷及不斷。不得釋此文。成論假人無有被斷法。但無學道舍假人入涅槃亦非是斷。正量明見諦但斷八十八不善煩惱耳。不斷無記法故不斷不失法。明瞭論云。起一念惡有二。一者至得二不失法。至得既通三性。若起心懺悔則至得便滅。而不失法非是不善。治道起時不斷要必須得果。故羅漢之人受果者此是不失法持之故也。問見諦惑云何縛無記。答無記是苦集攝。見諦惑緣苦集理而縛苦集理。故縛無記也。問但應斷心上惑。云何斷所緣境上惑耶。答斷心上惑故所緣境上惑則斷。故言斷耳。以是不失法諸業有果報者第四釋名門。以見諦不斷但思惟斷則無記義成。能持業令不失果。故名不失法。此結成正義也。若見諦所斷而業至相似者第五破異門。影師云。見諦所斷都無無記一向得報。此不失法若為見諦所斷便得報。其已是無記復得無記報。故云至相似。無記得報名破業也。又釋。業至相似者。至是至得。至得通三性。就善惡邊亦感報。不失法但是無記則不感報。今見諦遂斷不失法。則不失法亦是不善便應感報。與至得相似故云而業至相似。又
一釋。四家並明不失法是無記不被斷。今遂言不失法被斷。則不失法便是惑性非復無記。若是惑性便能感報。即是業故言而業也。既是業便得果報名至相似。如善業得樂果名相似。惡得苦果亦名相似。此即相似因相似果。此釋最勝。問云何名破業耶。答不失法若被斷則感報。以無記感報故是破業。如令券書還債故名破業。一切諸行業下第二釋上業如負財物章門。就文八門分別。一似不似門。二三界門。三業果不俱門四輕重門。五三報門。六破異門。七二滅門。八漏無漏門。一切諸行業者總牒所持之業也。相似不相似者正分別業。前章牒不失法。次即就三性門分別。故云此性則無記。今前牒所持業。故亦次以三性門分別。善業還望善業為類。惡業亦爾。名之為似。善惡互望名為不似。又善得樂果名似。善望苦果名不似。具此二也。有人言。欲界同有男女。色界同無男女。無色界同無形色。名為相似。若互望為不相似。一界初受身第二三界門分別。前釋不失法三性門。后即辨界門。故云分別有四種。今亦爾。上似不似門釋業體性竟。今釋二業得報之義。三界業不可並受。隨感一界報。故言一界。爾時報獨生下第三業果不俱門。業是報因因果必先後隔世。故因滅於前果生於后。名報獨生。不失法待報起即滅。亦是報獨生義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一釋：四家（指對同一經文的不同註釋者）都明確說明『不失法』（指已經造作但尚未產生結果的業）是無記（非善非惡），不會被斷滅。現在卻說『不失法』會被斷滅，那麼『不失法』就成了具有迷惑性的本質，不再是無記。如果是具有迷惑性的本質，就能感生果報，那就是業，所以說是『業』。既然是業，就能得到果報，名稱上是相似的。比如善業得到樂果，名稱上是相似的；惡業得到苦果，名稱上也是相似的。這就是相似的因產生相似的果。這種解釋最為殊勝。 問：什麼叫做『破業』呢？ 答：『不失法』如果被斷滅，就不會感生果報。因為無記的『不失法』感生果報，所以說是『破業』。就像讓人把借據還了，債務就消除了，所以叫做『破業』。 『一切諸行業』以下是第二種解釋，以上是關於『業』就像負債的章節。 就文義分為八個方面來分別：一、相似與不相似門；二、三界門；三、業果不同時門；四、輕重門；五、三報門；六、破異門；七、二滅門；八、有漏與無漏門。 『一切諸行業者』，總括所持有的業。 『相似不相似者』，正是分別業。前一章總括『不失法』，接著就從三性（善、惡、無記）門來分別，所以說『此性則無記』。現在先總括所持有的業，所以也接著從三性門來分別。善業與善業相比是同類，惡業也是這樣，這叫做『相似』。善業與惡業相互比較叫做『不相似』。又，善業得到樂果叫做『相似』，善業期望得到苦果叫做『不相似』。具備這兩種情況。 有人說，欲界（kāmadhātu）共同具有男女的區分，界（此處原文有誤，應為色界rūpadhātu）共同沒有男女的區分，無界（此處原文有誤，應為無色界arūpadhātu）共同沒有形色，這叫做『相似』。如果相互比較，就叫做『不相似』。一界最初受生是第二種三界門來分別。前一種解釋是從『不失法』的三性門來分析，后一種解釋是辨別界門，所以說『分別有四種』。現在也是這樣。上面相似與不相似門是解釋業的體性完畢。現在解釋兩種業得到果報的意義。三界的業不能同時接受果報，隨著感應哪一界的果報，就接受哪一界的果報，所以說『一界』。 『爾時報獨生』以下是第三種業果不同時門。業是果報的因，因果必定有先後，隔了世。所以因在前滅去，果在後產生，叫做『報獨生』。『不失法』等待果報生起就滅去，也是『報獨生』的意義。
【English Translation】 English version First explanation: The four schools (referring to different commentators on the same scripture) all clearly state that 'non-loss dharma' (adṛṣṭa) (referring to karma that has been created but has not yet produced results) is indeterminate (neither good nor evil) and will not be cut off. Now it is said that 'non-loss dharma' will be cut off, then 'non-loss dharma' becomes a delusive nature, no longer indeterminate. If it is a delusive nature, it can generate retribution, which is karma, so it is said to be 'karma'. Since it is karma, it can obtain a result, which is similar in name. For example, good karma obtains a pleasant result, which is similar in name; evil karma obtains a painful result, which is also similar in name. This is a similar cause producing a similar result. This explanation is the most excellent. Question: What is called 'breaking karma'? Answer: If 'non-loss dharma' is cut off, it will not generate retribution. Because indeterminate 'non-loss dharma' generates retribution, it is called 'breaking karma'. It's like returning a loan note, the debt is eliminated, so it is called 'breaking karma'. 'All kinds of karma' below is the second explanation, above is about 'karma' like the chapter on owing debts. The meaning of the text is divided into eight aspects for distinction: 1. Similarity and dissimilarity gate; 2. Three realms gate; 3. Karma and result not simultaneous gate; 4. Lightness and heaviness gate; 5. Three retributions gate; 6. Breaking difference gate; 7. Two extinctions gate; 8. Defiled and undefiled gate. 'All kinds of karma' refers to all the karma that is held. 'Similarity and dissimilarity' is precisely distinguishing karma. The previous chapter summarizes 'non-loss dharma', and then distinguishes it from the three natures (good, evil, indeterminate), so it says 'this nature is indeterminate'. Now, first summarize the karma that is held, so it also distinguishes it from the three natures. Good karma compared to good karma is of the same kind, and so is evil karma, which is called 'similar'. Good karma compared to evil karma is called 'dissimilar'. Also, good karma obtaining a pleasant result is called 'similar', good karma expecting to obtain a painful result is called 'dissimilar'. It has both of these situations. Some say that the desire realm (kāmadhātu) commonly has the distinction of male and female, the ** realm (here the original text is wrong, it should be the form realm rūpadhātu) commonly does not have the distinction of male and female, the non ** realm (here the original text is wrong, it should be the formless realm arūpadhātu) commonly does not have form and color, this is called 'similar'. If compared to each other, it is called 'dissimilar'. The initial birth in one realm is the second three realms gate for distinction. The previous explanation analyzes from the three natures gate of 'non-loss dharma', the latter explanation distinguishes the realm gate, so it says 'there are four kinds of distinctions'. It is the same now. The above similarity and dissimilarity gate is the completion of explaining the nature of karma. Now explain the meaning of the two kinds of karma obtaining retribution. The karma of the three realms cannot be received at the same time, whichever realm's retribution is sensed, that realm's retribution is received, so it says 'one realm'. 'At that time, the result is born alone' below is the third karma and result not simultaneous gate. Karma is the cause of retribution, cause and effect must have a sequence, separated by lifetimes. So the cause disappears first, and the result is produced later, which is called 'the result is born alone'. 'Non-loss dharma' waits for the result to arise and then disappears, which is also the meaning of 'the result is born alone'.
如是二種業第四輕重門。一者即上似不似二業二者似不似二業中復有輕重二業。三者依后長行從業更生業亦名二業。后當釋也。現世受果報下第五三報業門。三報不可並受。隨重者前受。故且據一世。同上一界之義。故言現世受果報。或言受報已而業猶故在下第六破異門。此可具二義。一者對上業果不俱今明業果俱義。因必養果。如百年之果未滅。前三十年果雖受此業猶在。要至百年業方謝滅。十八部中有因果俱即分別部也。二依下長行釋者。上明果起業滅。則是二世無義。故業謝過去盡無所有。今明二世有義。雖複果起而業謝過去。冥伏性有不得是無。故下云。以不念念滅也。此猶是業果不俱。但據二世有無為異。若度果已滅第七二滅門。上來但偏釋業如負財物明凡夫有漏業義。今遍料簡凡聖漏無漏業果義。度果已滅得上果舍下果。亦是得果舍向義。死已而滅者。上明三果學人。今辨凡夫與羅漢。羅漢無上果可度。故業與報死已便滅。凡夫亦無果可度。一形之業與一形之報死已而滅也。於是中分別有漏及無漏者第八漏無漏門分別。可有三句。一得果舍果。此之二滅但是無漏。二者凡夫業果滅但是有漏。三者羅漢舍故業及報身是有漏。若舍智入涅槃是無漏。第三長行解。前釋四種后釋無記。與偈倒者。偈中正為對薩婆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如是二種業第四輕重門：一者，即上似不似二業；二者，似不似二業中復有輕重二業；三者，依后長行從業更生業，亦名二業，后當釋也。 現世受果報下第五三報業門：三報不可並受，隨重者前受，故且據一世，同上一界之義，故言現世受果報，或言受報已而業猶故在。 下第六破異門：此可具二義。一者，對上業果不俱，今明業果俱義，因必養果，如百年之果未滅，前三十年果雖受，此業猶在，要至百年業方謝滅。十八部中有因果俱，即分別部也。二，依下長行釋者，上明果起業滅，則是二世無義，故業謝過去盡無所有。今明二世有義，雖複果起而業謝過去，冥伏性有，不得是無，故下云：『以不念念滅也。』此猶是業果不俱，但據二世有無為異。 若度果已滅第七二滅門：上來但偏釋業，如負財物，明凡夫有漏業義。今遍料簡凡聖漏無漏業果義。度果已滅，得上果舍下果，亦是得果舍向義。死已而滅者，上明三果學人，今辨凡夫與羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢）。羅漢無上果可度，故業與報死已便滅。凡夫亦無果可度，一形之業與一形之報死已而滅也。 於是中分別有漏及無漏者第八漏無漏門分別：可有三句。一，得果舍果，此之二滅但是無漏。二者，凡夫業果滅但是有漏。三者，羅漢舍故業及報身是有漏，若舍智入涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）是無漏。第三長行解。前釋四種，后釋無記。與偈倒者，偈中正為對薩婆
【English Translation】 English version Such are the two types of karma, the fourth section on the weight of karma: First, the karma that is similar and dissimilar as mentioned above; second, within the similar and dissimilar karma, there are heavy and light karma; third, according to the subsequent prose, karma arises from karma, also called two karma, which will be explained later. The fifth section on the three retributions of karma, under the heading 'Receiving the fruit of retribution in the present life': The three retributions cannot be received simultaneously; the heaviest is received first. Therefore, it is based on one lifetime, with the same meaning as the previous realm. Hence, it is said, 'Receiving the fruit of retribution in the present life,' or it is said that 'even after receiving retribution, the karma still remains.' The sixth section on refuting differences: This can have two meanings. First, in contrast to the above, where karma and its fruit do not occur together, now it is clarified that karma and its fruit occur together. The cause must nourish the fruit. For example, if the fruit of a hundred years has not perished, even if the fruit of the first thirty years has been received, this karma still remains until the karma of a hundred years has been exhausted. Among the eighteen schools, there is the school of the Sarvastivadins where cause and effect occur together. Second, according to the explanation in the subsequent prose, the above clarifies that the arising of the fruit leads to the cessation of karma, which implies that there is no meaning in the two lifetimes, because karma has ceased in the past and is completely non-existent. Now it is clarified that there is meaning in the two lifetimes. Although the fruit arises and karma ceases in the past, the latent nature exists and cannot be considered non-existent. Therefore, it is said below: 'Because it does not cease from moment to moment.' This is still the non-simultaneous occurrence of karma and its fruit, but the difference lies in the existence or non-existence in the two lifetimes. The seventh section on the two cessations, 'If the fruit has been crossed over and ceased': The above only partially explains karma, like owing property, clarifying the meaning of defiled karma of ordinary beings. Now, the defiled and undefiled karma and its fruit of both ordinary beings and sages are comprehensively examined. 'If the fruit has been crossed over and ceased' means obtaining the higher fruit and abandoning the lower fruit, which is also the meaning of obtaining the fruit and abandoning the previous state. 'Cessation after death' refers to the learners of the three fruits mentioned above. Now, ordinary beings and Arhats (Arhat, 阿羅漢) are distinguished. Arhats have no higher fruit to cross over, so karma and its retribution cease after death. Ordinary beings also have no fruit to cross over, so the karma of one lifetime and the retribution of one lifetime cease after death. The eighth section on defiled and undefiled, 'Distinguishing between defiled and undefiled': There can be three sentences. First, obtaining the fruit and abandoning the fruit, these two cessations are only undefiled. Second, the cessation of the karma and its fruit of ordinary beings is only defiled. Third, the Arhat's abandonment of old karma and the retribution body is defiled, but entering Nirvana (Nirvana, 涅槃) by abandoning wisdom is undefiled. The third long passage explains. The first explains the four types, and the latter explains the unrecordable. The inversion with the verse is because the verse is precisely directed towards the Sarva-
多亦有券通三性故。初明券是無記。而後廣分別。故方釋四種。長行中欲取無記義釋成見諦不斷。故回無記在後也。複次不失法於一界諸業下釋上業如負財物章門。但應解業。更牒不失法來者。正量部明一切眾生隨起一念業必有不失法隨之起。如世間出債隨財多少必須立券。故釋業而舉不失法也。于現在身從業更生業者釋上如是二種義也。從作業生無作業。亦是從業更生業。又從業自分因相生。亦是從業生業。如前念善惡業生后念善惡業等。三從意業更生身口業。又從輕業生重業。如初習業輕習不已則重。是業有二種者釋現世受報也。謂從業更生業不出輕重二種。隨重前受報。然又有臨終猛利業受報而一生業不受報。又自有過去業熟則受報不用一生業亦不用臨終業。又自有一生業無輕重從現行滑利業受報也。或有言是業受報已業猶在以不念念滅故者。依薩婆多。業謝過去乃曾為四相所切。今不復更為四相所遷。故云不念念滅。又釋。復有業果俱。業則功用常無有唸唸滅。但有大期滅耳。答曰是義俱不離斷常過下第二破。問外有偈立。龍樹何故無偈破。答有二義。一者顯外人雖復重救終不離斷常。故論主不答之。如此不答即是答也。二者此論破義有多門。自有隨有一立即有一破。上來破立是也。自有待外諸部立義都竟至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 多亦有券通三性故（因為有很多憑證可以貫通三種性質）。最初說明憑證是無記（既非善也非惡），然後廣泛地分別，所以才解釋四種。長行中想要取無記的意義來解釋成就見諦（證悟真理）不會斷滅，所以把無記放在後面。 其次，『不失法於一界諸業下』，解釋上面的業，如同『負財物章門』。但應該解釋業，再次提到不失法的原因是，正量部（佛教部派之一）認為一切眾生隨起一個念頭，業必定有不失法隨之而起，如同世間借債，根據錢財多少必須立下字據。所以解釋業而舉出不失法。 『于現在身從業更生業者』，解釋上面所說的兩種意義。從作業（已造之業）產生無作業（未造之業），也是從業更生業。又從業的自分因相產生，也是從業生業。如前唸的善惡業產生后唸的善惡業等。 三是從意業（思想上的業）更生身口業（身體和語言上的業）。又從輕業生重業，如最初學習某種行為時很輕微，但如果不斷練習就會變得嚴重。『是業有二種者』，解釋現世受報的情況。所謂從業更生業，不出輕重兩種，隨重的先受報。然而又有臨終時猛烈的業受報，而一生所造的業不受報。又有過去的業成熟了就受報，不用一生所造的業，也不用臨終的業。又有一種一生所造的業，沒有輕重之分，從現行滑利的業受報。 或者有人說，這個業受報后，業仍然存在，因為它不是念念滅的。這是依據薩婆多部（佛教部派之一）的觀點。業已經謝落過去，曾經被四相（生、住、異、滅）所切割，現在不再被四相所遷移，所以說不是念念滅。又解釋說，還有業和果同時存在的情況。業的功用常常存在，沒有唸唸滅，只是有大限的滅亡而已。 回答說，這個意義都不離斷常的過失。下面第二部分破斥。問：外道有偈頌立論，龍樹菩薩（Nagarjuna）為什麼沒有偈頌來破斥？答：有兩個原因。一是顯示外道即使再三辯解，最終也不離斷常的邪見，所以論主不回答他。這樣不回答就是回答。二是這部論有很多破斥的方法，有隨有一個立論就有一個破斥，上面所說的破立就是這樣。有等待外道各部立義都完畢，才進行破斥。
【English Translation】 English version Because there are many 'vouchers' (quan 通) that can connect the three natures (san xing 故). Initially, it is explained that the 'voucher' is indeterminate (wu ji 無記, neither good nor evil). Then, it is broadly distinguished, so the four types are explained. The prose section wants to take the meaning of indeterminate to explain that achieving 'seeing the truth' (jian di 見諦, realization of truth) will not be cut off, so the indeterminate is placed at the end. Secondly, 'the non-loss dharma (bu shi fa 不失法) under the various karmas (zhu ye 諸業) in one realm (yi jie 一界)' explains the above-mentioned karma, like the 'chapter on owing property' (fu cai wu zhang men 負財物章門). But karma should be explained. The reason for mentioning the non-loss dharma again is that the Sautrantika school (zheng liang bu 正量部, a Buddhist school) believes that when all sentient beings have a thought, karma must have a non-loss dharma arising with it, just like borrowing money in the world, where a note must be made according to the amount of money. So, karma is explained by mentioning the non-loss dharma. 'From karma arising in the present body, more karma arises' explains the two meanings mentioned above. From created karma (zuo ye 作業, already created karma) arises uncreated karma (wu zuo ye 無作業, not yet created karma), which is also from karma giving rise to more karma. Also, from the self-dividing cause aspect of karma arises karma, which is also from karma giving rise to karma. For example, good and evil karma in the previous thought gives rise to good and evil karma in the subsequent thought, and so on. Thirdly, from mental karma (yi ye 意業, karma of thought) arises bodily and verbal karma (shen kou ye 身口業, karma of body and speech). Also, from light karma arises heavy karma, such as when initially learning a certain behavior, it is slight, but if one continues to practice, it becomes serious. 'That karma has two types' explains the situation of receiving retribution in the present life. The so-called karma giving rise to more karma does not go beyond the two types of light and heavy, with the heavier one receiving retribution first. However, there is also the case where intense karma at the time of death receives retribution, while the karma created throughout life does not receive retribution. There is also the case where past karma matures and receives retribution, without using the karma created throughout life or the karma at the time of death. There is also the case where karma created throughout life, without distinction between light and heavy, receives retribution from the currently smooth and easy karma. Or some say that after this karma receives retribution, the karma still exists because it is not extinguished moment by moment. This is based on the view of the Sarvastivada school (sa po duo 薩婆多, a Buddhist school). Karma has already declined into the past, having been cut by the four characteristics (si xiang 四相, birth, abiding, change, and extinction), and now it is no longer moved by the four characteristics, so it is said that it is not extinguished moment by moment. It is also explained that there are cases where karma and its result exist simultaneously. The function of karma always exists, without being extinguished moment by moment, but only has a great limit of extinction. The answer is that this meaning does not deviate from the faults of eternalism and annihilationism. The second part below refutes. Question: The heretics have verses establishing their arguments, why doesn't Nagarjuna (long shu 龍樹, a famous Buddhist philosopher) have verses to refute them? Answer: There are two reasons. One is to show that even if the heretics repeatedly defend themselves, they ultimately do not deviate from the wrong views of eternalism and annihilationism, so the author of the treatise does not answer them. Not answering in this way is answering. Second, this treatise has many methods of refutation, with a refutation immediately following each establishment of an argument, as seen in the above-mentioned establishment and refutation. There is also the method of waiting for the various schools of heretics to complete their establishment of arguments before refuting them.
后一時破之。即今文是也。問若爾青目何故答耶。答青目顯龍樹不答所以。非是破彼義也。龍樹所以不答者。雖有別救無有別通。已漏前關故不須答也。問云何不離斷常。答此法持業至果則墮于常。持業不至果墮于斷。又不失法若唸唸滅。與業同無則墮于斷。若不念念滅即是無為。何能持業。又不失法無念念滅則墮于常。有大期滅便入于斷。問曰若爾無業果報下第四門。次破斷滅之見。前問次答。問意云。前二番求無所持之業。次又破能持業法。若無能持所持則無因。無因則無果。故論主是方廣斷無。亦是六師邪見。答曰下第二七偈二章。前二偈申二諦中道明業離斷常。第二五偈破外人定性之業墮于常見。初又二。前偈明二諦不斷常。次偈明第一義諦無有生滅。雖空亦不斷者。外人謂論主執空故墮斷滅。是故今明業雖畢竟空非是斷滅。若外道邪見之空及方廣所謂空二乘人所明空皆是斷滅。涅槃經云。若以聲聞言無佈施。是則名為破戒邪見。智度論云。聲聞之空名為但空。故是斷滅。今明空是有空。有宛然而空。又空不住空名為不斷。雖有不常者。外謂若非是斷便應是常。故名雖有非常。破其常見。以有是空有故有非是常。若外道小乘及有所得大乘所計之有此即是常。問此文得具論三中不。答得也。雖空則知空非定空。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 后一時破之。即今文是也。（指之前的觀點在之後被推翻，現在所說的才是正確的。）問：如果這樣，青目（Vimalaksa，印度佛教論師，著有《毗婆沙論》）為什麼還要回答呢？答：青目是爲了表明龍樹（Nagarjuna，印度佛教中觀學派創始人）不回答的原因，並非是爲了反駁對方的觀點。龍樹不回答的原因是，雖然有其他的補救方法，但沒有普遍適用的方法，已經錯過了之前的關鍵，所以不需要回答。問：怎樣才能不落入斷見和常見呢？答：如果這種法執持續到結果，就會墮入常見；如果法執沒有持續到結果，就會墮入斷見。此外，如果不失去法，如果每個念頭都滅，與業一同消失，就會墮入斷見；如果念頭不滅，那就是無為法，怎麼能持續業力呢？如果不失去法，念頭又不滅，就會墮入常見；如果有一個大的期限滅亡，就會墮入斷見。問：如果這樣，在第四門（指《中論》的第四品）中，接下來要破除斷滅的見解。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問的意思是：前面兩次尋求沒有所依持的業，接下來又破除了能依持業的法。如果沒有能依持和所依持，就沒有因；沒有因，就沒有果。所以論主（指龍樹）是方廣斷無，也是六師（指古印度六個外道宗派）的邪見。答：在第二十七章的第二部分，前面的兩偈闡述了二諦中道，說明業遠離斷常；後面的五偈破斥了外人認為業是定性的，墮入常見的觀點。最初又分為兩部分。前面的偈頌說明二諦不斷常，後面的偈頌說明第一義諦沒有生滅。雖然是空，但也不是斷滅。外人認為論主執著于空，所以墮入斷滅。因此，現在說明業雖然畢竟空，但不是斷滅。如果外道邪見的空，以及方廣所說的空，二乘人所說的空，都是斷滅。《涅槃經》說：『如果以聲聞的觀點說沒有佈施，那就是破戒邪見。』《智度論》說：『聲聞的空叫做但空。』所以是斷滅。現在說明空是有空，有宛然而空，又空不住空，叫做不斷。雖然有，但不是常。外人認為如果不是斷，就應該是常，所以說雖然有，但不是常，破除他們的常見。因為有是空有，所以有不是常。如果外道、小乘以及有所得的大乘所認為的有，那就是常。問：這段文字是否包含了中論的三種觀點？答：是的。雖然是空，但知道空不是定空。
【English Translation】 English version Later, it is refuted. This is what the current text refers to. (Referring to the previous view being overturned later, and what is said now is correct.) Question: If that's the case, why did Vimalaksa (an Indian Buddhist scholar who wrote the Vibhasa) answer? Answer: Vimalaksa answered to show why Nagarjuna (the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Indian Buddhism) did not answer, not to refute the other party's point of view. The reason Nagarjuna did not answer is that although there are other remedies, there is no universally applicable method, and the previous key has been missed, so there is no need to answer. Question: How can one avoid falling into nihilism and eternalism? Answer: If this attachment to dharma continues to the result, it will fall into eternalism; if the attachment to dharma does not continue to the result, it will fall into nihilism. In addition, if the dharma is not lost, if every thought disappears, and disappears together with karma, it will fall into nihilism; if the thought does not disappear, then it is unconditioned dharma, how can it sustain karma? If the dharma is not lost and the thought does not disappear, it will fall into eternalism; if there is a great deadline for extinction, it will fall into nihilism. Question: If that's the case, in the fourth chapter (referring to the fourth chapter of the Mulamadhyamakakarika), the next step is to refute the view of annihilation. The former is the question, and the latter is the answer. The meaning of the question is: the first two times seeking karma that has no support, and then refuting the dharma that can support karma. If there is no supporter and supported, there is no cause; without cause, there is no effect. Therefore, the author (referring to Nagarjuna) is a nihilist of the Vaipulya sutras, and also the heretical view of the six teachers (referring to the six ancient Indian heretical sects). Answer: In the second part of the twenty-seventh chapter, the first two verses explain the Middle Way of the Two Truths, explaining that karma is far from nihilism and eternalism; the latter five verses refute the outsiders' view that karma is fixed, falling into the view of eternalism. Initially, it is divided into two parts. The former verse explains that the Two Truths are not nihilistic or eternal, and the latter verse explains that the ultimate truth has no birth or death. Although it is emptiness, it is not annihilation. Outsiders believe that the author is attached to emptiness, so he falls into annihilation. Therefore, it is now explained that although karma is ultimately empty, it is not annihilation. If the emptiness of heretical views, as well as the emptiness spoken of in the Vaipulya sutras, and the emptiness spoken of by the two vehicles, are all annihilation. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'If one says that there is no giving from the point of view of the Sravakas, then that is a violation of the precepts and a heretical view.' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says: 'The emptiness of the Sravakas is called mere emptiness.' So it is annihilation. Now it is explained that emptiness is existent emptiness, existence is clearly empty, and emptiness does not dwell in emptiness, which is called non-annihilation. Although there is existence, it is not permanent. Outsiders believe that if it is not annihilation, it should be permanent, so it is said that although there is existence, it is not permanent, refuting their view of eternalism. Because existence is empty existence, existence is not permanent. If the existence that outsiders, the Hinayana, and the Mahayana with attainment believe in, that is permanent. Question: Does this text contain the three views of the Mulamadhyamakakarika? Answer: Yes. Although it is empty, it is known that emptiness is not fixed emptiness.
既非定空豈復定有。又空故不有。有故不空。即真諦中道。俗亦爾。有故不著空。空故不住有。即俗中也。合辨易知也。又一勢作之。九道業宛然而四絕。豈是斷耶。雖四絕九道業宛然。寧是常耶。影師論序云。真諦雖空而有。俗諦雖有而空。雖空而有故不斷。雖有而空故不常。此釋甚好也。業果報不失者下半二意。一者明業具二諦故不斷常。令果報不失。無有別不失法持業令不失。蓋是如來依二諦說法。故云此是佛所說。二者若依下長行釋。上半正明業是二諦故不斷常。此是申中道正義。即是對偏之中。下半破邪義。汝不知二諦中道。言有不失法謂是佛所說耳。長行前釋上半。總標離於斷常。何以故下別釋離於斷常。別中為二。初釋上半。複次下釋下半。業本性畢竟空。非是前有業滅之然後方空。故不是斷。若前有業滅無方空。則是斷滅也。此釋初句也。顛倒因緣下次明業雖畢竟空于顛倒者宛然而有往來六道亦非是常。此釋第二句也。問為是于顛倒人是不常以不。答于顛倒是實有。多是常見。今不顛倒人識顛倒如幻夢。故是不常也。複次下釋下半。明外人橫謂有不失法謬引佛經也。諸業本不生下第二偈明第一義不生滅。然二諦俱得不生滅。但今明無生滅生滅故隨業往來六道名為世諦。若生滅無生滅不復往來六道名第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 既不是固定不變的空，又怎麼會是固定不變的有呢？因為空，所以不是有；因為有，所以不是空。這就是真諦中的中道。世俗諦也是如此，因為有，所以不執著于空；因為空，所以不執著于有。這就是世俗諦中的中道。合起來辨析就容易理解了。又如一股勢力運作，九道輪迴的業力清晰分明，看似斷絕，但哪裡是斷滅呢？雖然看似斷絕，九道輪迴的業力仍然清晰分明，難道是永恒不變嗎？ 影師論序中說：『真諦雖然是空，但其中有；俗諦雖然是有，但其中空。雖然是空而有，所以不是斷滅；雖然是有而空，所以不是永恒。』這個解釋非常好。『業果報不失』的下半部分包含兩層意思：一是說明業同時具備真諦和俗諦的性質，所以既不是斷滅也不是永恒，因此果報不會消失。並沒有另外一種『不失法』來保持業不消失，這實際上是如來依據真諦和俗諦來說法，所以說『這是佛所說』。二是如果按照下面的長行文來解釋，上半部分正是說明業是真諦和俗諦的結合，所以既不是斷滅也不是永恒，這是闡述中道的正義，是針對偏頗的觀點。下半部分是破斥邪見，你不知道真諦和俗諦的中道，認為存在『不失法』，還說是佛說的。 長行文前面解釋上半部分，總的來說是遠離斷滅和永恒。『何以故』（為什麼呢）下面分別解釋遠離斷滅和永恒。分別解釋又分為兩部分，首先解釋上半部分，『複次』（其次）解釋下半部分。業的本性畢竟是空，不是先有業滅亡，然後才空，所以不是斷滅。如果先有業滅亡，沒有空，那就是斷滅。這是解釋第一句。『顛倒因緣』下面說明業雖然畢竟是空，但在顛倒的人看來，仍然有往來六道輪迴的現象，所以也不是永恒。這是解釋第二句。問：對於顛倒的人來說，是不常還是不以不常為實有？答：對於顛倒來說是實有，多是常見。現在不顛倒的人認識到顛倒就像幻夢一樣，所以不是常。 『複次』（其次）下面解釋下半部分，說明外道錯誤地認為存在『不失法』，錯誤地引用佛經。『諸業本不生』下面第二個偈頌說明第一義是不生不滅。然而真諦和俗諦都可以達到不生不滅的境界，但現在說明沒有生滅的生滅，所以隨著業力往來六道輪迴，這叫做世俗諦。如果生滅和無生滅都不存在，就不再往來六道輪迴，這叫做第一義諦。
【English Translation】 English version It is neither a fixed emptiness, nor a fixed existence. Because of emptiness, it is not existence; because of existence, it is not emptiness. This is the Middle Way in ultimate truth (Zhen諦, the ultimate truth). Conventional truth (俗諦) is also like this: because of existence, one does not cling to emptiness; because of emptiness, one does not dwell in existence. This is the Middle Way in conventional truth. Understanding them together makes it easy to grasp. Furthermore, with one force in operation, the karmic activities of the nine realms (九道) are clearly manifest, yet seemingly cut off. But is this annihilation? Although seemingly cut off, the karmic activities of the nine realms are still clearly manifest. Can it be permanence? The preface to the Shadow Master's Treatise says: 'Although ultimate truth is empty, it contains existence; although conventional truth is existence, it contains emptiness. Although empty yet containing existence, it is not annihilation; although existent yet containing emptiness, it is not permanence.' This explanation is excellent. The latter half of 'karmic results are not lost' contains two meanings: first, it explains that karma possesses both ultimate and conventional truths, so it is neither annihilation nor permanence, thus karmic results are not lost. There is no separate 'non-loss dharma' that maintains karma to prevent its loss. This is actually the Tathagata (如來, another name for Buddha) teaching according to the two truths, so it is said, 'This is what the Buddha said.' Second, if explained according to the following long passage, the first half precisely explains that karma is a combination of the two truths, so it is neither annihilation nor permanence. This elucidates the correct meaning of the Middle Way, targeting biased views. The latter half refutes heretical views. You do not understand the Middle Way of the two truths, claiming that there is a 'non-loss dharma' and saying that it is what the Buddha said. The long passage first explains the first half, generally stating the separation from annihilation and permanence. 'Why?' (何以故) Below, it separately explains the separation from annihilation and permanence. The separate explanation is divided into two parts: first explaining the first half, and 'furthermore' (複次) explaining the second half. The inherent nature of karma is ultimately empty, it is not that karma exists first and then ceases before becoming empty, so it is not annihilation. If karma exists first and then ceases without emptiness, then it is annihilation. This explains the first sentence. 'Inverted conditions' (顛倒因緣) below explains that although karma is ultimately empty, to those who are inverted, there is still the phenomenon of going and coming in the six realms of reincarnation (六道), so it is not permanence. This explains the second sentence. Question: For those who are inverted, is it impermanent or not regarding impermanence as real? Answer: For inversion, it is real, mostly a common view. Now, those who are not inverted recognize inversion as like a phantom dream, so it is not permanent. 'Furthermore' (複次) below explains the second half, clarifying that externalists mistakenly believe there is a 'non-loss dharma', wrongly quoting Buddhist scriptures. 'All karmas are fundamentally unarisen' (諸業本不生) Below, the second verse explains that the first principle is non-arising and non-ceasing. However, both ultimate and conventional truths can attain the state of non-arising and non-ceasing, but now it explains that there is no arising and ceasing of arising and ceasing, so following karma to go and come in the six realms of reincarnation is called conventional truth. If arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing do not exist, then one no longer goes and comes in the six realms of reincarnation, which is called ultimate truth.
一義諦也。亦得云世諦本不生今不滅。以世諦本無性實生滅故也。然此文雖是一行之偈實是方等大懺悔法。六時之間常欲懺悔滅罪業者此為錯誤。故今明。諸業本自不生。何所滅耶。作此悟者罪自清凈也。今習無所得人懺悔懺悔。所以爾者。有所得人見罪生而懺悔。如是懺悔是破實相罪。今知業本不生今亦不滅懺有所得懺悔罪也。若業有性下第二破外人義。此從一業至七業乃至不失法。總破外人上三番義也。問此論常先破外邪后申正因緣義。今何故先申正後破邪。答論有多體。不應一途而取之也。又前申正明業不墮斷常。欲顯外人計業墮于常見。故此申即是破也。五偈為二。初四偈就業門破業。后一偈舉煩惱破業。初又二。前三偈破其未受果業。次一偈破其過去已受果業義。即是破其二世有義也。初三偈次第相生。前偈明無性故不生不滅。則顯有性者是于生滅。生則為常。滅則為斷。故今第一偈云。若業有性者是則名為常。以未來本有業性豈非常耶。又現在執業有性亦墮于常。此為正意。若執業有一毫自體。則一毫不假緣。則名之為常。若一毫之法假緣則無自體。無自體則無物。無物則本無生。云何有業。此言切要。一切法皆作此問之。不作亦名業者。未來本有善惡兩業。現在雖不造作亦名為業。又現在有一毫業自體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一義諦（Ultimate Truth）是說，世俗諦（Conventional Truth）原本不生不滅。因為世俗諦的本性是無自性的，所以沒有真實的生滅。然而，這段文字雖然只是一行偈頌，實際上是方等大懺悔法（Great Repentance Dharma of the Vaipulya Sutras）。那些總想在六個時辰里懺悔以滅除罪業的人，是錯誤的。所以現在說明，諸業（karma）原本就不生，又有什麼可以滅除的呢？如果能領悟到這一點，罪業自然就清凈了。現在那些修習無所得（non-attainment）的人還在懺悔，這是因為有所得（attainment）的人看到罪業產生才懺悔。這樣的懺悔是破壞實相（true nature of reality）的罪。現在明白業原本不生，現在也不滅，就能懺悔有所得的懺悔之罪。如果認為業有自性（inherent existence），下面第二部分是破斥外人的觀點。從『此從一業至七業乃至不失法』，總共破斥外人以上的三種觀點。問：這部論典通常先破斥外道的邪見，然後闡述正因緣義（right causes and conditions）。現在為什麼先闡述正義，后破斥邪見呢？答：論典有多種體裁，不應該只用一種方式來理解。而且前面闡述正義，說明業不會墮入斷滅和常恒，是爲了顯示外人認為業會墮入常見（eternalism）。所以這裡的闡述實際上就是破斥。五首偈頌分為兩部分。前四首偈頌從業的角度破斥業，后一首偈頌從煩惱的角度破斥業。前四首偈頌又分為兩部分。前三首偈頌破斥他們未受果報的業，后一首偈頌破斥他們過去已受果報的業，也就是破斥他們認為二世存在的觀點。前三首偈頌次第相生。前一首偈頌說明因為無自性，所以不生不滅，這就顯示出認為有自性的人，是執著于生滅。生就是常，滅就是斷。所以現在第一首偈頌說：『若業有性者是則名為常』（如果業有自性，那就是常恒）。因為未來本來就有業的自性，難道不是常恒嗎？而且現在執著業有自性，也是墮入常恒。這是正意。如果認為業有一毫的自體（intrinsic nature），那麼這一毫就不依賴於因緣，那就是常。如果一毫的法依賴於因緣，就沒有自體。沒有自體就沒有事物。沒有事物，原本就沒有生，怎麼會有業呢？這句話非常重要。一切法都可以這樣問。『不作亦名業者』（不造作也稱為業），未來本來就有善惡兩種業。現在即使不造作，也稱為業。而且現在有一毫的業自體。
【English Translation】 English version The One True Reality (Ekayana-satya) can also be described as the mundane truth (Samvriti-satya) which is fundamentally neither created nor destroyed. This is because the mundane truth inherently lacks intrinsic nature and therefore lacks real creation and destruction. Although this passage is a single verse, it is actually the Great Repentance Dharma of the Vaipulya Sutras (Fangdeng da chanhuifa). Those who constantly desire to repent and eliminate karmic debts during the six periods of the day are mistaken. Therefore, it is now clarified that all karmas (karma) are fundamentally uncreated, so what is there to eliminate? When one realizes this, one's sins are naturally purified. Now, those who practice non-attainment (wu suo de) are still repenting, and the reason for this is that those who have attainment (you suo de) see sins arising and then repent. Such repentance is a sin that destroys the true nature of reality (shixiang). Now, knowing that karma is fundamentally uncreated and does not cease, one can repent of the sin of repenting with attainment. If one believes that karma has inherent existence (zixing), the second part below refutes the views of outsiders. From 'This is from one karma to seven karmas and even the non-loss of Dharma,' it refutes the above three views of outsiders in general. Question: This treatise usually first refutes the heretical views of outsiders and then expounds the meaning of right causes and conditions (zhengyin yuan yi). Why does it now first expound the right meaning and then refute the heretical views? Answer: Treatises have various styles and should not be understood in only one way. Moreover, the previous exposition of the right meaning, explaining that karma does not fall into annihilation or permanence, is to show that outsiders believe that karma falls into eternalism (changjian). Therefore, this exposition is actually a refutation. The five verses are divided into two parts. The first four verses refute karma from the perspective of karma, and the last verse refutes karma from the perspective of afflictions (fan nao). The first four verses are further divided into two parts. The first three verses refute their karma that has not yet received its consequences, and the last verse refutes their karma that has already received its consequences in the past, which is to refute their view that the two worlds exist. The first three verses arise in sequence. The first verse explains that because there is no inherent nature, there is no creation or destruction, which shows that those who believe in inherent nature are attached to creation and destruction. Creation is permanence, and destruction is annihilation. Therefore, the first verse now says: 'If karma has inherent nature, then it is called permanence.' Because the future inherently has the nature of karma, is it not permanent? Moreover, holding onto the inherent nature of karma now also falls into permanence. This is the correct meaning. If one believes that karma has a single iota of intrinsic nature (ziti), then that iota does not depend on conditions, which is permanence. If a single iota of Dharma depends on conditions, then it has no intrinsic nature. Without intrinsic nature, there is no thing. Without things, there is fundamentally no creation, so how can there be karma? This statement is very important. All Dharmas can be questioned in this way. 'Those who do not act are also called karma,' the future inherently has both good and evil karmas. Even if one does not act now, it is also called karma. Moreover, there is now a single iota of karma's intrinsic nature.
則不假緣。便是本有故為常。常則不可作者。未來本自有業則名為常。常則不可作。此第一偈顯性有義有于常過。第二偈傳顯前下半不作業有過。上半總明不作有罪。下半別明罪過。第三偈上半破世俗法過。下半罪福無差別過。餘二偈易知。問曰下第五番次破業果報。前問次答。問意有二。一領因無。仍上最後以煩惱破業生也。二立果有也。答曰下第二破。汝以果有故證因有者。今以因空驗果是空。長行先釋上半。今諸煩惱下釋下半也。問煩惱與業望果云何異耶。答俱舍論云。煩惱直令果有。業能令六道果差別。與此文長行相應也。問曰下第六番破起業人義。前來五段並是破法。今次破人。法為人本。又內學多計有法。故前破法后破於人。前立次破。立為三。一者長行發起。二偈本正立。三解釋。長行有二。初領前因果無。而經說下立有人法。偈本正立人之因。毗婆沙云。無明覆其眼愛結縛其身。則是從癡有愛。癡愛因緣是故起業。業因緣受六道身。下半立作受二者不一不異。實法義人滅於前牛生於后是故不一。假名相續轉人作牛所以不異。亦得約人牛兩形是故不一。神明無別所以不異。答中二偈為兩。初偈明因人法無。次偈果人法無。前偈上半明所起法無。下半辨能起人無。第二偈上半明因人法無故果法無。下半明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 則不假緣，便是本有，故為常。常則不可作者。未來本自有業，則名為常。常則不可作。此第一偈顯性有義，有于常過。第二偈傳顯前下半不作業有過，上半總明不作有罪，下半別明罪過。第三偈上半破世俗法過，下半罪福無差別過。餘二偈易知。問曰：下第五番次破業果報。前問次答。問意有二：一領因無，仍上最後以煩惱破業生也；二立果有也。答曰：下第二破。汝以果有故證因有者，今以因空驗果是空。長行先釋上半，今諸煩惱下釋下半也。問：煩惱與業望果云何異耶？答：《俱舍論》云：『煩惱直令果有，業能令六道果差別。』與此文長行相應也。問曰：下第六番破起業人義。前來五段並是破法，今次破人。法為人本，又內學多計有法，故前破法后破於人。前立次破。立為三：一者長行發起，二偈本正立，三解釋。長行有二：初領前因果無，而經說下立有人法。偈本正立人之因。《毗婆沙》云：『無明覆其眼，愛結縛其身。』則是從癡有愛，癡愛因緣是故起業，業因緣受六道身。下半立作受二者不一不異。實法義，人滅於前，牛生於后，是故不一；假名相續轉，人作牛，所以不異。亦得約人牛兩形，是故不一；神明無別，所以不異。答中二偈為兩。初偈明因人法無，次偈果人法無。前偈上半明所起法無，下半辨能起人無。第二偈上半明因人法無故果法無，下半明
【English Translation】 English version Then it does not rely on conditions. It is inherently existent, therefore it is permanent. If it is permanent, then it cannot be created. If the future inherently has karma, then it is called permanent. If it is permanent, then it cannot be created. This first verse reveals the meaning of inherent existence, which has the fault of permanence. The second verse further reveals that the first half has the fault of non-action, the first half generally clarifies the fault of non-action, and the second half specifically clarifies the faults. The first half of the third verse refutes the faults of worldly laws, and the second half refutes the fault of no difference between merit and demerit. The remaining two verses are easy to understand. Question: The fifth section below refutes the retribution of karma. The question comes first, then the answer. The meaning of the question is twofold: first, to grasp the non-existence of causes, still using afflictions to refute the arising of karma as the last point; second, to establish the existence of effects. Answer: The second refutation is below. If you use the existence of effects to prove the existence of causes, then now use the emptiness of causes to verify the emptiness of effects. The prose explanation first explains the first half, and the section 'Now, all afflictions' explains the second half. Question: How do afflictions and karma differ in relation to their effects? Answer: The Abhidharmakośa says: 'Afflictions directly cause the existence of effects, while karma causes the differences in the effects of the six realms.' This corresponds to the prose explanation in this text. Question: The sixth section below refutes the meaning of the person who initiates karma. The previous five sections all refuted the Dharma, and now this section refutes the person. The Dharma is rooted in the person, and also internal schools mostly adhere to the existence of Dharma, therefore the Dharma is refuted first and then the person. Establishment comes first, then refutation. Establishment is threefold: first, the prose introduction; second, the verse itself establishes; third, the explanation. The prose introduction is twofold: first, it grasps the non-existence of previous causes and effects, and then the sutra says below to establish the existence of person and Dharma. The verse itself establishes the cause of the person. The Vibhasa says: 'Ignorance covers the eyes, and the bonds of love bind the body.' This means that love arises from ignorance, and due to the conditions of ignorance and love, karma arises, and due to the conditions of karma, one receives a body in the six realms. The second half establishes that the actor and the receiver are neither the same nor different. In terms of real Dharma, the person ceases before, and the cow is born after, therefore they are not the same; the false name continues to transform, the person becomes a cow, therefore they are not different. It can also be considered in terms of the two forms of person and cow, therefore they are not the same; the consciousness is not different, therefore they are not different. The two verses in the answer are divided into two parts. The first verse clarifies the non-existence of the cause, person, and Dharma, and the second verse clarifies the non-existence of the effect, person, and Dharma. The first half of the first verse clarifies the non-existence of the Dharma that arises, and the second half distinguishes the non-existence of the person who causes it to arise. The first half of the second verse clarifies that because the cause, person, and Dharma do not exist, the effect, Dharma does not exist, and the second half clarifies
果法無故果人無。涅槃經云聞無作無受五逆罪滅。今此兩偈明無人作法作無所受果能受人。五逆即滅。亦是生法二忍。人法兩無我。此是本性無。非折故無。長行為三。初釋偈本。即是破義。業有三種下別釋立義。身口意為三。亦是罪福無動等三。此別釋業義也。五陰中假名人。此釋起業人也。是業下釋果報也。受果人即是起業人。故不別釋之。若起業者下第三還結成破意。問曰下第七番破眼現見事。前問次答。外人譬理雖屈而惑心不除。故舉現所見事以問論主。問有二。一領上所破之事。而今現見下正舉現事以問論主。若人法都空眼不應見。如其眼見則人法不無。又聞前無今以現所見有請論主會通。故有云何之言。又上一舌已窮今舉兩眼來救。答下三偈為二。初兩偈別明法喻。次一偈總明法喻。前又二。初偈舉喻。次偈合喻。所以舉重化曉之者。汝言現見必有若不有應不見者。此事不然。眼亦見化可言有耶。眼雖見化既其不有。眼見六道事亦同然。又上來六番明業畢竟空無所有義。今舉十喻明不有有義。前明有無所有破著有之心。今明無所有有除斷無之見。即是就業義明中道。又上來破定性有。此一番始得申經。明世諦因緣如幻化有。此有無所有方是真諦。又上來就法說門破業。今此一番就喻說破業。具如三相品末
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『果法無故果人無』（因為果法沒有自性，所以承受果報的人也是不存在的）。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：『聽聞無作、無受的道理，五逆重罪也能消滅。』現在這兩句偈頌說明，如果沒有能造作的人，也沒有能造作的法，那麼就沒有承受果報的人，也沒有能承受的果報。這樣，五逆重罪就能消滅，也就是證得了生法二忍（對眾生空和諸法空的安忍）。人法兩無我（人無我和法無我），這是本性上的空無，不是通過破斥而達到的空無。 下面的長行分為三部分。首先是解釋偈頌的本意，也就是破斥有實體的意義。『業有三種』以下，分別解釋建立意義。身、口、意為三種業，也就是罪、福、無動等三種。這是分別解釋業的意義。『五陰中假名人』，這是解釋發起業的人。『是業下釋果報也』，這是解釋果報。承受果報的人就是發起業的人，所以不再單獨解釋。『若起業者下第三還結成破意』，如果發起業的人和業都不存在，那麼果報也就不存在。 『問曰下第七番破眼現見事』，下面是第七次破斥眼睛所見的事實。前面是提問，後面是回答。外道用比喻來辯論，雖然理屈詞窮，但迷惑之心仍然沒有消除，所以舉出現實所見的事物來詢問論主。問題分為兩部分。一是領會上面所破斥的道理，『而今現見下正舉現事以問論主』，現在明明親眼看見，這是舉出現實的事例來詢問論主。如果人法都是空，眼睛就不應該能看見。如果眼睛能看見，那麼人法就不是空無。又因為之前用舌頭來辯論已經失敗，現在舉出兩隻眼睛來救場。『答下三偈為二』，下面的三句偈頌分為兩部分。前兩句偈頌分別說明法和比喻，后一句偈頌總括說明法和比喻。前兩句偈頌又分為兩部分。第一句偈頌是舉出比喻，第二句偈頌是結合比喻。之所以舉出重大的事物來啓發開導，是因為你說親眼看見就一定存在，如果不存在就不應該能看見。這件事不是這樣的。眼睛也能看見幻化之物，難道能說幻化之物是真實存在的嗎？眼睛雖然能看見幻化之物，但幻化之物並不是真實存在的。眼睛看見六道輪迴的事情也是同樣的道理。 又，上面六次闡明業畢竟空無所有的意義，現在舉出十個比喻來闡明非有而有的意義。前面闡明有無所有，是爲了破除執著于有的心；現在闡明無所有有，是爲了去除斷滅的見解。這就是就從業的意義來闡明中道。又，上面是破斥定性有，這一次才開始闡述經義，闡明世俗諦的因緣如幻化般存在。這種有無所有才是真諦。又，上面是從法的角度來破斥業，現在這一次是從比喻的角度來破斥業。具體內容如同《三相品》末尾所說。
【English Translation】 English version 'Because the result-dharma (果法) has no cause, the result-person (果人) does not exist.' The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) says: 'Hearing the principle of non-action and non-reception, the five rebellious sins (五逆罪) are extinguished.' Now, these two verses explain that if there is no person who acts and no dharma that acts, then there is no person who receives the result and no result that can be received. In this way, the five rebellious sins can be extinguished, which is to attain the forbearance of the two dharmas of existence and non-existence (生法二忍, anutpattika-dharma-ksanti). The two non-selves of person and dharma (人法兩無我, pudgala-nairatmya and dharma-nairatmya) are emptiness in nature, not emptiness achieved through refutation. The following prose section is divided into three parts. First, it explains the original meaning of the verses, which is to refute the meaning of substantial existence. 'There are three types of karma' below, separately explaining the establishment of meaning. Body, speech, and mind are the three types of karma, which are also the three types of merit, demerit, and immovability. This is a separate explanation of the meaning of karma. 'A nominal person within the five aggregates (五陰中假名人)' explains the person who initiates karma. 'The karma below explains the karmic retribution' explains the karmic retribution. The person who receives the karmic retribution is the person who initiates the karma, so it is not explained separately. 'If the person who initiates karma' below, the third part concludes the meaning of refutation. If the person and karma that initiate karma do not exist, then the karmic retribution also does not exist. 'Question: The seventh refutation of things seen by the eye' below is the seventh time refuting the facts seen by the eye. The first part is the question, and the second part is the answer. Although the heretic's argument using analogies is logically flawed, the mind of delusion has not been eliminated, so they raise things seen in reality to ask the proponent. The question is divided into two parts. One is to understand the principles refuted above, 'Now, seeing with the eyes, the proponent is asked about the actual matter' is to raise actual examples to ask the proponent. If both person and dharma are empty, the eye should not be able to see. If the eye can see, then person and dharma are not empty. Also, because the previous argument using the tongue had failed, they now raise two eyes to rescue the situation. 'The following three verses are divided into two parts' The following three verses are divided into two parts. The first two verses separately explain the dharma and the analogy, and the last verse summarizes the dharma and the analogy. The first two verses are further divided into two parts. The first verse raises the analogy, and the second verse combines the analogy. The reason for raising significant things to enlighten and guide is because you say that seeing with your own eyes must mean existence, and if it does not exist, it should not be able to be seen. This is not the case. The eye can also see illusions, can it be said that illusions are real? Although the eye can see illusions, illusions are not real. The eye seeing the affairs of the six realms of reincarnation is the same principle. Furthermore, the above six times have clarified the meaning of karma being ultimately empty and without anything. Now, ten analogies are raised to clarify the meaning of non-existence and existence. The previous clarification of existence and non-existence was to break the mind that clings to existence; the current clarification of non-existence and existence is to remove the view of annihilation. This is to clarify the Middle Way from the meaning of engaging in karma. Also, the above was to refute fixed existence, and this time begins to expound the meaning of the sutra, clarifying that the causes and conditions of conventional truth exist like illusions. This existence and non-existence is the ultimate truth. Also, the above was to refute karma from the perspective of dharma, and this time it is to refute karma from the perspective of analogy. The specific content is as stated at the end of the Three Characteristics chapter (三相品).
委曲釋之。上來破外人斷常業竟。乃明如此等畢竟空破病始竟也。今始申經二諦。肇公用此文作不真空論。譬如幻化人非無幻化人。幻化人非真人也。非無幻化人即俗諦。幻化人非真人謂真諦也。又非無幻化人顯非無義。非真人顯非有義。都是明俗諦幻六道宛然而常四絕。四絕宛然而六道不失也。問何故舉世尊重化。答佛化與餘人化凡有三異。一佛能重化。余不能。二佛滅后能留化。餘人不能。三餘人化主語化人便默。化人若語化主便默。佛則能俱語俱默。第三偈上半廣法下半廣喻。長行初釋前偈。如是生死身下釋第二偈合譬。諸煩惱者釋第三偈。前釋上半。釋上半中四法。一釋煩惱。二釋業。三釋作者。四釋果報。分別有九十八使者。毗婆沙云。佛但說於七使。迦旃延聰明利根分別七使為九十八。與此文相應。又成論破九十八云。煩惱隨地不隨界。何止九十八。則知九十八非佛說。三毒九十八但是根本正使。九結者七使並慳嫉。根支合說也。十纏六垢但說支條也。無量諸煩惱者。略說百八。廣有八萬四千。業名為身口意業下釋偈中業也。初明三業。今世後世下就三性明業也。苦報下就三受門明業。現報下就三報門明業。如是等無量。上來但是四種三門明業。復有四業十業無量諸門也。作者釋偈中作者。異報下釋偈中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 委曲地解釋它。上面是破斥外道的斷見和常見的業的終結。於是闡明如此等等畢竟是空，破除執著于實有的病才算結束。現在開始闡述經中的二諦。鳩摩羅什用這段文字來作《不真空論》。譬如幻化出來的人並非沒有幻化人（maya person），但幻化人不是真人。『非無幻化人』即是俗諦，『幻化人非真人』謂之真諦。又，『非無幻化人』顯示了『非無』的意義，『非真人』顯示了『非有』的意義。都是闡明俗諦中幻化的六道宛然存在，而常寂光土的四種境界又是絕對的。四種境界的絕對性，六道輪迴的現象又不會消失。問：為什麼世人都如此尊重佛的化現？答：佛的化現與其餘人的化現，凡有三點不同。一，佛能重重化現，其餘人不能。二，佛滅度后能留下化現，其餘人不能。三，其餘人化現時，主語化人就沉默，化人若語，化主便沉默。佛則能同時說話，同時沉默。第三首偈的上半部分是廣義的法，下半部分是廣義的比喻。長行部分首先解釋前面的偈。『如是生死身』以下解釋第二首偈，合起來作比喻。『諸煩惱者』解釋第三首偈。前面解釋上半部分。解釋上半部分中的四法：一，解釋煩惱；二，解釋業；三，解釋作者；四，解釋果報。分別有九十八使（ninety-eight bonds）的說法。《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，佛只說了七使（seven bonds），迦旃延（Katyayana）聰明利根，將七使分別成九十八使，與此文相應。又，《成實論》（Satyasiddhi Shastra）破斥九十八使說，煩惱隨地不隨界，何止九十八？由此可知九十八使並非佛說。三毒（three poisons）、九十八使只是根本的正使。九結（nine fetters）是七使加上慳吝和嫉妒，是根本和枝末合起來說的。十纏（ten entanglements）、六垢（six defilements）只是說枝條。『無量諸煩惱者』，略說有一百零八種，廣說有八萬四千種。『業名為身口意業』，以下解釋偈中的業。首先闡明三業（three karmas）。『今世後世』，以下就三性（three natures）闡明業。『苦報』，以下就三受門（three kinds of feeling）闡明業。『現報』，以下就三報門（three retributions）闡明業。『如是等無量』，上面只是用四種三門來闡明業。還有四業、十業等無量諸門。『作者』，解釋偈中的作者。『異報』，解釋偈中的果報。
【English Translation】 English version Explain it in detail. The above is the end of refuting the externalists' views of permanence and annihilation regarding karma. Then it clarifies that such things are ultimately empty, and the illness of clinging to reality is then ended. Now begins the exposition of the two truths (two truths) in the sutra. Kumarajiva (Kumarajiva) used this passage to compose the Uncertainty of Emptiness (Bu Zhen Kong Lun). For example, a person conjured by illusion is not without the illusionary person (maya person), but the illusionary person is not a real person. 'Not without the illusionary person' is the conventional truth (relative truth), and 'the illusionary person is not a real person' is called the ultimate truth (absolute truth). Furthermore, 'not without the illusionary person' reveals the meaning of 'not without,' and 'not a real person' reveals the meaning of 'not existent.' All of this clarifies that in the conventional truth, the illusory six realms (six realms) manifestly exist, while the four aspects of Nirvana (four aspects of Nirvana) are absolute. The absoluteness of the four aspects, and the phenomena of the six realms of reincarnation do not disappear. Question: Why do people in the world respect the Buddha's manifestations so much? Answer: The Buddha's manifestations and the manifestations of other people have three differences. First, the Buddha can manifest repeatedly, while others cannot. Second, the Buddha can leave manifestations after his passing, while others cannot. Third, when other people manifest, the speaker manifests and the person being manifested is silent; if the manifested person speaks, the manifester is silent. The Buddha can speak and be silent simultaneously. The first half of the third verse is the Dharma (Dharma) in a broad sense, and the second half is a metaphor in a broad sense. The prose section first explains the preceding verse. 'Such is the body of birth and death' below explains the second verse, combining them as a metaphor. 'Those afflictions' explains the third verse. The preceding explains the first half. Explaining the four dharmas (four dharmas) in the first half: first, explaining afflictions; second, explaining karma; third, explaining the agent; fourth, explaining the retribution. There is the saying of ninety-eight bonds (ninety-eight bonds). The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) says that the Buddha only spoke of seven bonds (seven bonds), and Katyayana (Katyayana), being intelligent and sharp-witted, divided the seven bonds into ninety-eight, which corresponds to this text. Furthermore, the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (Cheng Shi Lun) refutes the ninety-eight bonds, saying that afflictions follow the realm, not the world; why only ninety-eight? From this, it can be known that the ninety-eight bonds were not spoken by the Buddha. The three poisons (three poisons) and the ninety-eight bonds are only the fundamental primary bonds. The nine fetters (nine fetters) are the seven bonds plus stinginess and jealousy, which are the root and branches combined. The ten entanglements (ten entanglements) and six defilements (six defilements) only speak of the branches. 'The immeasurable afflictions,' briefly speaking, there are one hundred and eight kinds, and broadly speaking, there are eighty-four thousand kinds. 'Karma is called the karma of body, speech, and mind,' below explains the karma in the verse. First, it clarifies the three karmas (three karmas). 'This life and the next life,' below it clarifies karma in terms of the three natures (three natures). 'Suffering retribution,' below it clarifies karma in terms of the three kinds of feeling (three kinds of feeling). 'Present retribution,' below it clarifies karma in terms of the three retributions (three retributions). 'Such and so forth are immeasurable,' the above only uses four kinds of three gates to clarify karma. There are also four karmas, ten karmas, and immeasurable gates. 'The agent' explains the agent in the verse. 'Different retribution' explains the retribution in the verse.
果報字。如是等下釋第三偈下半也。
中觀論疏卷第八(本)
中觀論疏卷第八(末)
釋吉藏撰
法品第十八
此品所以來者凡有三義。一明通方觀行。前觀業空今觀法空。二者破病故來。從初品至於觀業謂破法中之別。則是別觀。今總若人若法皆稱為法。名為總觀。故論有總別破於四緣。經明廣略二相說法。問為破顛倒法名為觀法。為觀諸法實相名為法也。答俱有二義。一者求顛倒之法不可得故云觀法。二者觀若人若法萬化不同皆是實相之法。使求理之徒因而悟入。故文云。若諸法畢竟空是實相者云何入耶。此正意也。問此論破一切虛妄偏邪顯正道實相。何故不命初即辨。不爾最後方明而中間說耶。答略有二義。一約破申次第。邪教覆正經其義不明照。要須破邪玄宗乃顯。故至此章方得說也。又此論二十五品大開三意。初十七品破洗人法明諸法實相。今此一品次明得益。從破時品已后更復破執重明實相。問何故作此分耶。答依智度論解習應品。初說菩薩習應波若。次中間明得益。謂重罪消滅諸天守護。辨得益竟明習應。如來說經既有此三。菩薩造論義亦如是。自上已來破邪顯正。而聞者不知破顯得何等利。是故此品明其得益。得益雖竟疑執未盡。更復破邪重明實相。又既聞得益便
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 果報字（指因果報應的文字）。像這樣等等，是解釋第三偈的下半部分。
《中觀論疏》卷第八(本)
《中觀論疏》卷第八(末)
釋吉藏 撰
法品第十八
此品之所以出現，總共有三重意義。一是闡明通達各方的觀行。前面觀察業是空的，現在觀察法也是空的。二是為破除病癥而來。從第一品到觀察業，是破除法中的差別，這是個別的觀察。現在總括人與法，都稱為法，這是總體的觀察。所以論中有總別之分，破除四緣。經書闡明廣略二相來說法。問：是爲了破除顛倒之法，所以稱為觀法嗎？還是爲了觀察諸法的實相，所以稱為法呢？答：兩者都有意義。一是尋求顛倒之法而不可得，所以說觀法。二是觀察人與法，萬千變化不同，都是實相之法。使尋求真理的人因此而領悟進入。所以文中說：『如果諸法畢竟空是實相，那麼如何進入呢？』這正是此品的用意。問：此論破除一切虛妄偏邪，彰顯正道實相，為什麼不一開始就辨明，不在最後才闡明，而要在中間說呢？答：大概有兩重意義。一是按照破邪顯正的次第。邪教遮蔽正經，其意義不明顯。必須要破除邪說，玄妙的宗旨才能顯現。所以到這一章才得以闡說。而且此論二十五品，大體上開啟三重意義。最初十七品破除人法，闡明諸法實相。現在這一品其次闡明得益。從破時品以後，再次破除執著，重新闡明實相。問：為什麼要作這樣的劃分呢？答：依照《智度論》解釋習應品。最初說菩薩習應般若（智慧）。其次中間闡明得益，說重罪消滅，諸天守護。辨明得益完畢，闡明習應。如來說經既然有這三點，菩薩造論的意義也是如此。從上面以來，破除邪說，彰顯正道。但是聽聞的人不知道破除邪說，彰顯正道能得到什麼利益。所以這一品闡明其得益。得益雖然闡明完畢，疑慮執著還沒有消除。再次破除邪說，重新闡明實相。又既然聽聞了得益，便
【English Translation】 English version The word 'Guobao' (果報) [karmic retribution]. Such as these, etc., are explanations of the latter half of the third verse.
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti (中觀論疏) Scroll 8 (Beginning)
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti (中觀論疏) Scroll 8 (End)
Composed by Shi Jizang (釋吉藏)
Chapter 18: The Dharma
The reason for this chapter's existence lies in three meanings. First, it clarifies the all-encompassing practice of contemplation. Previously, we contemplated the emptiness of karma; now, we contemplate the emptiness of dharma. Second, it comes to dispel illness. From the first chapter to the contemplation of karma, it breaks down the distinctions within dharma, which is a separate contemplation. Now, encompassing both people and dharma, all are referred to as 'dharma,' which is a general contemplation. Therefore, the treatise has general and specific aspects, refuting the four conditions. The sutras clarify the broad and concise aspects of teaching the Dharma. Question: Is it called 'contemplation of dharma' to refute the inverted dharma, or is it called 'dharma' to contemplate the true nature of all dharmas? Answer: Both meanings are present. First, because seeking the inverted dharma is unattainable, it is called 'contemplation of dharma.' Second, observing people and dharma, the myriad transformations are different, all are dharmas of true nature. It enables those who seek truth to awaken and enter. Therefore, the text says: 'If all dharmas are ultimately empty, which is true nature, then how does one enter?' This is precisely the intention of this chapter. Question: This treatise refutes all falsehoods, biases, and deviations, revealing the true path and true nature. Why not clarify it from the beginning, not explain it at the end, but in the middle? Answer: There are roughly two meanings. First, according to the order of refuting the false and revealing the true. Heretical teachings obscure the correct sutras, and their meaning is not clear. It is necessary to refute heresy for the profound doctrine to be revealed. Therefore, it is only in this chapter that it can be explained. Moreover, this treatise of twenty-five chapters broadly opens up three meanings. The first seventeen chapters refute people and dharma, clarifying the true nature of all dharmas. Now, this chapter secondly clarifies the benefits gained. From the chapter on refuting time onwards, it again refutes attachments, re-clarifying the true nature. Question: Why make this division? Answer: According to the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (智度論) [Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom] to explain the chapter on practice and response. Initially, it speaks of the Bodhisattva's practice and response to Prajna (般若) [wisdom]. Secondly, in the middle, it clarifies the benefits gained, saying that heavy sins are extinguished, and devas protect. After clarifying the benefits gained, it clarifies practice and response. Since the Thus Come One (如來) [Tathagata] speaks the sutras with these three points, the meaning of the Bodhisattva composing the treatise is also like this. From above, it has refuted heresy and revealed the truth. However, the listeners do not know what benefits can be gained from refuting heresy and revealing the truth. Therefore, this chapter clarifies its benefits. Although the benefits have been clarified, doubts and attachments have not been eliminated. It again refutes heresy, re-clarifying the true nature. Also, since one has heard of the benefits gained, then
樂欲聞。前雖得益后更進深悟。又雖后得益而得無所得。故更復破邪顯實相也。三者自上已來明實相體。此之一品明實相用。問云何為實相體。何者為實相用。答九十六術皆云。天下唯我一人。天下唯我一道。各謂已法實余並虛妄。阿毗曇人以四真諦理名之為實。成論云。唯一滅諦空平等理稱之為實。南土大乘以破諦之理稱為真實。北方實相波若名之為實。乃至攝大乘學者二無我理三無性理阿摩羅識稱真實余為虛妄。今總而究之。若有一理名為常見即是虛妄。不名為實。若無一理又是邪見亦為虛妄。非是真實。亦有亦無則具足斷常。非有非無是愚癡論。若具足四句則備起眾見。都無四句便為大斷。今明若能離此等計心無所依。不知何以目之。強稱為實相。此之實相是迷悟之本。悟之則有三乘賢聖。故涅槃云。見中道者凡有三種。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。中智觀故得緣覺菩提。上智觀故得無上菩提。迷此實相便有六道生死紛然。故凈名經云。從無住本立一切法。然實相體含眾德。無有出法性外。用窮善巧。備一切門。今略舉其二。一者約人明體用。二者約法明體用。人明體用者。下偈云。諸法實相中非我非無我。此就人明實相體。諸佛或說我或說于無我。我無我體用既爾。常無常真俗三乘一乘五部十八部涅槃經三十餘諍論
乃至五百部八萬四千法門皆是實相用。以四門通之無相違背。一者隨世界故說。二對治故說。三各各為人說。四依第一義門說。故學此論者遍悟一切佛教。二就法明體用者。下偈一切實不實亦實亦不實非實非非實。此之四門皆是實相方便。游心四門便入實相。故以四門為用不四為體。后當具足。近從業品生。前品舉重化明人法因果皆畢竟空即是諸法實相。外人云。若爾者云何得入。今答此問。明入實相之先須洗汝能入所入見乃可得入。故有此品來也。問法是何義。答以理言之。只是一正法。如雲正法性遠離等。又云。一切無礙人一道出生死等。若隨義用有三種法。一者軌則名法。即是佛理教法。二者自體名法。亦得通理教。謂色心等。三者意識所緣名之為法。此約境為言。眼所緣為色。乃至身所緣名觸。今是意之所緣故名為法。意識所緣通得上來十七界法故名法界也。大論十八明識所緣法智所緣法。諸外道亦有此三法。但外道更別有神所緣法。數論同明此之三法。但無別神所緣法耳。十地經云。爾時過意界住在智業中。故知顛倒所緣皆是幻化不可得也。問凈名經云。但除其病而不除其法。今品何故稱破法耶。答不除其法凡有二種。一者以病故見法。猶如眼病故見空華。無法可除故云不除其法。今云破法者破其病法耳。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：乃至五百部八萬四千法門，都是實相（真實存在的性質）的應用。用四門（四種方法或途徑）貫通它們，不會有任何衝突或矛盾。第一，因為要適應不同的世界而說；第二，爲了對治不同的煩惱而說；第三，針對不同的人而說；第四，依據第一義諦（最高的真理）而說。所以，學習這部論的人能夠全面領悟一切佛教的教義。 第二，就法（事物或現象）本身來闡明體（本體）和用（作用）：下面的偈頌說，『一切實不實，亦實亦不實，非實非非實』。這四門都是實相的方便法門。用心遊歷這四門，就能進入實相。所以，用四門作為應用，不執著於四門作為本體。後面會詳細解釋。靠近《從業品》產生。前一品列舉了重大的教化，闡明了人、法、因、果，一切都是畢竟空（最終的空性），這就是諸法實相。外人問道：『如果這樣，要如何才能進入實相呢？』現在回答這個問題，說明進入實相之前，必須先洗去你所能進入和所進入的見解，才能得以進入。所以才有這一品的出現。 問：法是什麼意思？答：從理上來說，只是一種正法。如經文所說『正法性遠離』等等。又說『一切無礙人，一道出生死』等等。如果隨順義用，有三種法。第一，軌則名為法，也就是佛理教法。第二，自體名為法，也可以通於理和教，比如色和心等等。第三，意識所緣名為法，這是從境界上來說。眼睛所緣的是色，乃至身體所緣的是觸。現在是意識所緣，所以名為法。意識所緣可以包括上面提到的十七界法，所以名為法界。大論十八明說了識所緣法和智所緣法。各種外道也有這三種法，但外道另外還有神所緣法。數論也同樣闡明這三種法，但沒有另外的神所緣法。十地經說：『爾時過意界，住在智業中。』所以知道顛倒所緣都是幻化，不可得。 問：《凈名經》說：『但除其病而不除其法。』這一品為什麼說破法呢？答：不除其法有兩種情況。第一，因為病而見法，比如因為眼病而看見空中的花。沒有法可以去除，所以說不除其法。現在所說的破法，是破除因為病而產生的法。
【English Translation】 English version: Even the five hundred sections and eighty-four thousand Dharma gates are all applications of Reality (the nature of what truly exists). Using the Four Gates (four methods or paths) to connect them, there are no conflicts or contradictions. First, they are spoken to adapt to different worlds; second, they are spoken to counteract different afflictions; third, they are spoken for different people; fourth, they are spoken based on the First Principle (the highest truth). Therefore, those who study this treatise can fully understand all Buddhist teachings. Second, explaining the essence (substance) and function (application) based on the Dharma (things or phenomena) itself: The following verse says, 'Everything is real and unreal, also real and also unreal, neither real nor not unreal.' These Four Gates are all expedient means to Reality. Wandering through these Four Gates with the mind, one can enter Reality. Therefore, the Four Gates are used as application, without clinging to the Four Gates as the essence. This will be explained in detail later. It arises close to the 'Karma Chapter'. The previous chapter listed major transformations, clarifying that people, Dharma, cause, and effect are all ultimately empty (the ultimate emptiness), which is the Reality of all Dharmas. An outsider asked: 'If so, how can one enter Reality?' Now, answering this question, it explains that before entering Reality, one must first wash away the views of what can be entered and what is entered, then one can enter. That's why this chapter appears. Question: What is the meaning of Dharma? Answer: From the perspective of principle, it is only one Right Dharma. As the sutra says, 'The nature of Right Dharma is far removed,' and so on. It also says, 'All unobstructed people, through one path, are born and die,' and so on. If following the meaning and application, there are three kinds of Dharma. First, rules are called Dharma, which are the Buddhist principles and teachings. Second, self-nature is called Dharma, which can also encompass principle and teaching, such as form and mind, and so on. Third, what is perceived by consciousness is called Dharma, which is from the perspective of the realm. What the eye perceives is form, and what the body perceives is touch. Now, it is what is perceived by consciousness, so it is called Dharma. What is perceived by consciousness can include the seventeen realms of Dharma mentioned above, so it is called the Dharma realm. The Great Treatise eighteen clarifies the Dharma perceived by consciousness and the Dharma perceived by wisdom. Various non-Buddhist paths also have these three Dharmas, but non-Buddhist paths also have a Dharma perceived by the spirit. The Samkhya school also clarifies these three Dharmas, but does not have a separate Dharma perceived by the spirit. The Ten Stages Sutra says: 'At that time, passing beyond the realm of intention, dwelling in the activity of wisdom.' Therefore, know that what is perceived by delusion is all illusion and unattainable. Question: The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Only remove the illness, but do not remove the Dharma.' Why does this chapter say to break the Dharma? Answer: There are two situations where the Dharma is not removed. First, seeing the Dharma because of illness, such as seeing flowers in the air because of eye disease. There is no Dharma to remove, so it is said that the Dharma is not removed. The breaking of Dharma mentioned now is breaking the Dharma that arises because of illness.
二者涅槃經云。但斷取著不斷我見。我見者即佛性也。今亦爾。但破外人取著之心。亦不破諸法實相。故但云觀法也。品為三。一長行發起。二偈本正明觀法。三長行解釋。初有二問答。前問意云。從因緣品至觀業品明一切法皆畢竟空。是名諸法實相者。此牒論主上來所說也。詳此牒意則詺諸法實相以之為法。今觀此法故云觀法品。云何入者。入是悟也證也。是故問入。然虛妄不可得入實相。實相復不得入實相。又求虛妄不可得。將何物入實相耶。若以實相入實相者。則應建立實際。于實際而實不爾。二門之中雲何得入。答曰滅我我所名為入者。外意云。有實相是所入。行人為能入。如今學大小乘人皆言。有人能證得菩提。菩提是所證。論主云。若能除能入之人所入之法畢竟無能入所入乃名為入。華嚴云。如來深境界其量齊虛空。一切眾生入真實無所入。大集云。無入之入乃名法入。亦如開波若宗身子問。云何菩薩行於波若。佛以五眼不見。而卻責之。若能不見能行菩薩體。不見菩薩字。不見波若。不見行。不見不行乃名菩薩行於波若。今爾。智度論第一卷摩犍提偈云。非見聞覺知。非持戒所得。亦非不見聞。非不持戒得。彼難云。若爾者行啞法得道。佛答云。若不見諸法。汝爾時自啞。並是今文意也。問上來以破我
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《二者涅槃經》中說：『只是斷除對事物的執著，而不是斷除我見（ātmadṛṣṭi）。』我見，就是佛性（Buddha-dhātu）。現在也是這樣，只是破除外道之人執著的心，而不是破除諸法實相（tattva）。所以只說是『觀法』。《觀法品》分為三部分：一是長行發起，二是偈頌正明觀法，三是長行解釋。開始有兩段問答。前面的提問意思是說，從《因緣品》到《觀業品》，闡明一切法都是畢竟空（atyanta-śūnya），這就是諸法實相。這是論主對前面所說內容的概括。詳細分析這個概括，就是將諸法實相稱之為『法』。現在觀察這個『法』，所以說是《觀法品》。『云何入者』，『入』是領悟、證得的意思，所以提問如何證入。然而虛妄（vikalpa）不可能證入實相，實相也不可能證入實相。又，追求虛妄是不可得的，用什麼來證入實相呢？如果用實相證入實相，那就應該建立實際（vastu），但實際上並非如此。在這兩種途徑中，如何才能證入？回答說：『滅我（ātman）我所（ātmīya），名為入者。』外道的觀點認為，有實相是所入，修行人是能入。現在學習大小乘的人都說，有人能夠證得菩提（bodhi），菩提是所證。論主認為，如果能夠去除能入之人和所入之法，畢竟沒有能入和所入，這才叫做『入』。《華嚴經》中說：『如來的深奧境界，它的量等同於虛空，一切眾生證入真實，而無所入。』《大集經》中說：『無入之入，才叫做法入。』也像《般若經》中，舍利弗（Śāriputra）問：『云何菩薩行於般若（prajñā）？』佛以五眼（pañca cakṣūṃsi）不見，反而責問他。如果能不見能行菩薩的體性，不見菩薩這個字，不見般若，不見行，不見不行，才叫做菩薩行於般若。現在也是這樣。《智度論》第一卷摩犍提（Māgaṇḍika）偈頌說：『非見聞覺知，非持戒所得，亦非不見聞，非不持戒得。』他反駁說：『如果這樣，那麼行啞法就能得道。』佛回答說：『如果不見諸法，你那時就自己啞了。』這些都是本文的意思。提問：前面以破除我
【English Translation】 English version The Er Zhe Nirvana Sutra says: 'Only cut off attachment, not the view of self (ātmadṛṣṭi).' The view of self is the Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu). It is the same now; only break the minds of outsiders that are attached, and do not break the true nature of all dharmas (tattva). Therefore, it is only said to 'contemplate the Dharma'. The chapter on 'Contemplating the Dharma' is divided into three parts: first, the prose introduction; second, the verses that directly explain the contemplation of the Dharma; and third, the prose explanation. At the beginning, there are two questions and answers. The first question means that from the Chapter on Conditions to the Chapter on Contemplating Karma, it is explained that all dharmas are ultimately empty (atyanta-śūnya), which is the true nature of all dharmas. This is the summary of what the author has said before. Analyzing this summary in detail, it means calling the true nature of all dharmas 'Dharma'. Now, contemplating this 'Dharma', it is therefore called the Chapter on Contemplating the Dharma. 'How to enter?' 'Enter' means to realize or attain, so the question is how to enter. However, delusion (vikalpa) cannot enter the true nature, and the true nature cannot enter the true nature. Moreover, pursuing delusion is unattainable, so what can be used to enter the true nature? If the true nature is used to enter the true nature, then reality (vastu) should be established, but in reality, it is not so. Among these two paths, how can one enter? The answer is: 'Extinguishing self (ātman) and what belongs to self (ātmīya) is called entering.' The outsider's view is that there is a true nature that is entered, and the practitioner is the one who enters. Now, those who study the Great and Small Vehicles all say that someone can attain bodhi (bodhi), and bodhi is what is attained. The author believes that if one can remove the person who enters and the Dharma that is entered, then there is ultimately no one who enters and nothing that is entered, and this is called 'entering'. The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'The profound realm of the Tathagata, its measure is equal to the void; all sentient beings enter the truth, and there is nothing to enter.' The Mahasamghata Sutra says: 'Entering without entering is called entering the Dharma.' It is also like in the Prajna Sutra, Shariputra (Śāriputra) asks: 'How does a Bodhisattva practice prajna (prajñā)?' The Buddha does not see with the five eyes (pañca cakṣūṃsi), but instead questions him. If one cannot see the nature of the Bodhisattva who practices, cannot see the word Bodhisattva, cannot see prajna, cannot see practice, and cannot see non-practice, then this is called a Bodhisattva practicing prajna. It is the same now. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra, Volume 1, the verse of Māgaṇḍika says: 'Not by seeing, hearing, knowing, or perceiving, not by keeping precepts is it attained, nor is it attained by not seeing, hearing, or perceiving, nor by not keeping precepts.' He retorts: 'If so, then practicing the Dharma of silence will lead to enlightenment.' The Buddha replies: 'If you do not see all dharmas, then you will be silent yourself.' These are all the meanings of this text. Question: Earlier, by breaking the self
。何故更破。答我病難除。又是眾惑之本。是故重破。又上來多破實有我義。今此中正明入實相觀除微細假名之我。若言有大乘之人名為菩薩。欲行實相觀。即是我我所見。故異上也。次問答如文。偈本關內舊分之為三。初五偈明聲聞稟教得益。次六偈明菩薩稟教得益。后一偈明緣覺得益。所以偏明聲聞次菩薩者。此二同稟佛教故一類明之。緣覺既出無佛世不稟佛教故在後別說也。猶如聲聞藏菩薩藏。不名緣覺藏。以緣覺不稟教故也。前之二章即是明二藏。亦是大小乘亦是半滿。故申一切教盡。稟此二教得益。明一切益周。不明人天教者。若明出世則具得世間。問既是大乘論。但應明菩薩得益。云何明二乘教及益耶。答示此論無迷不破無教不申無益不備。始是大乘。以大包小故也。所以先小后大者。示教益次第。復欲以示小是方便大為真實。前開方便門后示真實相也。近代人云。此是北土瑤師分之。蓋不遠尋古疏故有此謬耳。又依長行末。青目自作此文。講者宜用也。一師相承開之為五。初一行半明所離。次一行半明得無我慧。第三二行明兩種涅槃。第四五行廣序佛教。第五二行明三乘得益。今明作此分之於文則亂。宜用前意也。就五偈明聲聞觀以為二別。初一偈半序聲聞教。第二三偈半明稟教得益。就初又二。前一
【現代漢語翻譯】 何故更要破除呢？回答是，因為我的病難以去除，而且它也是各種迷惑的根本，所以要再次破除。而且，前面大多是破除『實有我』的意義，現在這裡正是要闡明通過觀察實相來去除微細的假名之我。如果說有大乘之人名為菩薩（Bodhisattva，追求覺悟的修行者），想要修行實相觀，但心中仍存有『我』和『我所』的見解，那就與前面的破除有所不同了。接下來的問答就像經文所說的那樣。偈頌原本在關內被分為三部分：最初的五偈說明聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教導而證悟的修行者）接受教導而獲得利益；接下來的六偈說明菩薩接受教導而獲得利益；最後一偈說明緣覺（Pratyekabuddha，靠自己力量證悟的修行者）獲得利益。之所以偏重說明聲聞，其次是菩薩，是因為這兩者都接受佛教的教導，所以歸為一類來闡明。緣覺既然出現在沒有佛陀的時代，不接受佛教的教導，所以放在後面單獨說明。這就好比有聲聞藏和菩薩藏，卻沒有緣覺藏，因為緣覺不接受教導。前面的兩章就是說明這兩個藏，也就是大乘和小乘，也是半教和滿教，所以申明一切教法都完備了，接受這兩種教法都能獲得利益，說明一切利益都周全了。沒有說明人天教，是因為如果說明了出世間的教法，自然就包含了世間的教法。 有人問：既然是大乘論，就應該只說明菩薩獲得利益，為什麼還要說明二乘的教法和利益呢？回答是：爲了顯示這部論沒有迷惑不能破除，沒有教法不能闡明，沒有利益不能完備。開始是大乘，因為大乘包含小乘。之所以先小后大，是爲了顯示教法和利益的次第，也是爲了顯示小乘是方便，大乘是真實。前面是開啟方便之門，後面是顯示真實之相。近代有人說，這是北土瑤師劃分的，這大概是因為沒有深入研究古代疏釋的緣故，所以才會有這樣的謬誤。而且，根據長行末尾的說法，青目（青目菩薩，論釋作者）自己創作了這段文字，講解的人應該採用。有一位老師相傳將它分為五部分：最初一行半說明所要遠離的；接下來一行半說明獲得無我智慧；第三兩行說明兩種涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）；第四五行廣泛地敘述佛教；第五兩行說明三乘獲得利益。現在如果按照這種方式來劃分，文章就會顯得混亂，應該採用前面的意思。就五偈說明聲聞觀來說，可以分為兩個部分：最初一偈半是敘述聲聞教；第二三偈半是說明接受教導而獲得利益。就最初的部分來說，又可以分為兩個部分：前一
【English Translation】 Why is it necessary to refute further? The answer is that my illness is difficult to remove, and it is also the root of all delusions, therefore it must be refuted again. Moreover, the previous refutations mostly targeted the meaning of a 'real self,' while here, the focus is on clarifying the removal of the subtle, falsely named 'self' through the contemplation of true reality (Śūnyatā). If someone claims to be a Mahayana practitioner called a Bodhisattva (a being who seeks enlightenment), desiring to practice the contemplation of true reality, but still harbors the views of 'I' and 'mine,' then it differs from the previous refutations. The following questions and answers are as stated in the text. The verses were originally divided into three parts within the Guān region: the first five verses explain how Śrāvakas (listeners who attain enlightenment through the Buddha's teachings) benefit from receiving teachings; the next six verses explain how Bodhisattvas benefit from receiving teachings; and the last verse explains how Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas who attain enlightenment on their own) benefit. The reason for emphasizing Śrāvakas first, followed by Bodhisattvas, is that both receive Buddhist teachings, so they are categorized together. Since Pratyekabuddhas appear in times without a Buddha and do not receive Buddhist teachings, they are discussed separately at the end. This is similar to having a Śrāvakayāna and a Bodhisattvayāna, but not a Pratyekabuddhayāna, because Pratyekabuddhas do not receive teachings. The previous two chapters explain these two Yānas, which are also the Mahayana and Hinayana, as well as the partial and complete teachings, thus declaring that all teachings are complete. Receiving these two teachings leads to benefits, indicating that all benefits are comprehensive. The teachings for humans and gods are not mentioned because if the teachings for transcending the world are explained, they naturally include the worldly teachings. Someone asks: Since this is a Mahayana treatise, it should only explain the benefits for Bodhisattvas. Why explain the teachings and benefits for the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna)? The answer is: to show that this treatise leaves no delusion unrefuted, no teaching unclarified, and no benefit unfulfilled. It begins with Mahayana because Mahayana encompasses Hinayana. The reason for presenting Hinayana first and then Mahayana is to show the order of teachings and benefits, and also to show that Hinayana is expedient while Mahayana is the ultimate truth. The former opens the door of expedient means, while the latter reveals the true nature. Some modern people say that this division was made by a Yao teacher from the Northern Lands, but this is likely due to not deeply studying the ancient commentaries. Moreover, according to the end of the prose section, Qingmu (the author of the commentary) himself created this passage, and lecturers should use it. One teacher traditionally divides it into five parts: the first one and a half lines explain what to abandon; the next one and a half lines explain obtaining the wisdom of no-self; the third two lines explain the two types of Nirvana (liberation); the fourth five lines extensively narrate Buddhism; and the fifth two lines explain the benefits for the Three Vehicles. Now, if we divide it in this way, the text will appear chaotic, so we should adopt the previous meaning. Regarding the five verses explaining Śrāvaka contemplation, it can be divided into two parts: the first one and a half verses introduce the Śrāvakayāna; and the second three and a half verses explain the benefits of receiving teachings. Regarding the first part, it can be further divided into two parts: the first one
偈明人無我教。次半偈明法無我教。亦是生法二空也。初偈又二。上半破即陰我。下半破離陰我。上半云。我既即陰。陰有生滅我亦應然。若爾但見五陰不見有我。又我是五陰。陰五我亦五則失一我。一無則多亦無。亦應例之。我既即陰。我一陰亦一則失五陰。多無故一亦無。但今正破我不破于陰。故但以我從陰不將陰等我也。下半云。既離陰有我體。亦應離陰有我相。若還以陰相為我相。亦應還以陰體為我體。計我是示相煩惱。又云。我有赤白等四色。又云我如凈珠燈炎。皆以陰相為相。是故今責。別不見我相令異陰相。不應還以陰相為我相也。問計我者何故陰相為我相。答陰攝有為。計我者聞以有為相證我。無為無有相貌。不得舉以證我也。若無有我者第二明法無我。亦是法空。前借陰以除我。此借我以除陰。問智度論明大小乘具二無我智。十八卷云。論主引小乘經云。何等是老病。謂法空。誰為老病死。謂人空。而楞伽攝論等明小乘但得人空。云何通會。答小乘有二。一鈍二利。利者具得二空。鈍者但得人空。即毗曇成實是也。二小乘多明人空少說法空。大乘多說法空少明人空。以少從多為論。故楞伽但明人空。三者小乘得人空盡。以皆知畢竟無我故說得人空。得法空不盡。不知法本性空。不知三界內外法空。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此偈的前半部分闡明了人無我（Pudgala-sunyata）的教義，後半部分闡明了法無我（Dharma-sunyata）的教義。這也就是眾生空（Sattvasunya）和諸法空（Dharmasunya）。 第一個偈頌又分為兩部分。前半部分破斥了『我』與五蘊（Skandha）等同的觀點，後半部分破斥了『我』與五蘊分離的觀點。前半部分說：『如果我與五蘊等同，五蘊有生滅變化，那麼我也應該如此。』如果這樣，就只能看到五蘊，而看不到『我』的存在。而且，如果『我』就是五蘊，五蘊有五個，『我』也有五個，那麼就失去了一個統一的『我』。如果一個『我』不存在，那麼多個『我』也不存在，這應該可以類推。如果『我』與五蘊等同，『我』是一個，五蘊也是一個，那麼就失去了五個五蘊。但現在主要是破斥『我』，而不是破斥五蘊，所以只是用『我』依附於五蘊來說明，而不是將五蘊等同於『我』。 後半部分說：『如果離開五蘊而存在『我』的實體，那麼也應該離開五蘊而存在『我』的相狀。』如果仍然用五蘊的相狀作為『我』的相狀，那麼也應該仍然用五蘊的實體作為『我』的實體。認為『我』是示現相狀的煩惱。又說：『我』有赤、白等四種顏色。』又說『我』像清凈的寶珠或燈焰。』這些都是用五蘊的相狀作為『我』的相狀。因此，現在責問：另外看不到『我』的相狀與五蘊的相狀有什麼不同，不應該仍然用五蘊的相狀作為『我』的相狀啊。 問：計執有『我』的人為什麼用五蘊的相狀作為『我』的相狀？答：因為五蘊包含有為法（Samskrta-dharma）。計執有『我』的人聽說可以用有為法的相狀來證明『我』，而無為法（Asamskrta-dharma）沒有相貌，所以不能用來證明『我』。 如果沒有『我』的存在，那麼第二部分闡明法無我（Dharma-sunyata），也就是諸法空（Dharmasunya）。前面是借用五蘊來去除『我』，這裡是借用『我』來去除五蘊。 問：《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）闡明大乘（Mahayana）和小乘（Hinayana）都具有二無我智（Dvi-sunyata-jnana）。第十八卷說：論主引用小乘經典說：『什麼是老病？』說是法空（Dharma-sunyata）。『誰會老病死？』說是人空（Pudgala-sunyata）。而《楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）、《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）等闡明小乘只證得人空（Pudgala-sunyata）。如何解釋才能融會貫通？答：小乘有兩種，一是鈍根，二是利根。利根者具足證得二空（Dvi-sunyata），鈍根者只證得人空（Pudgala-sunyata），也就是毗曇宗（Abhidharma）、成實宗（Satyasiddhi）。二是小乘多闡明人空（Pudgala-sunyata），少說法空（Dharma-sunyata），大乘多說法空（Dharma-sunyata），少明人空（Pudgala-sunyata）。以少從多來論，所以《楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）只闡明人空（Pudgala-sunyata）。三是小乘證得人空（Pudgala-sunyata）究竟，因為都知道畢竟沒有『我』，所以說證得人空（Pudgala-sunyata）。證得法空（Dharma-sunyata）不究竟，不知道法本性空（Dharma-svabhava-sunyata），不知道三界（Trailokya）內外諸法皆空（Sarva-dharma-sunyata）。
【English Translation】 English version The first half of this verse elucidates the teaching of Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person), and the second half elucidates the teaching of Dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of phenomena). This is also the emptiness of beings (Sattvasunya) and the emptiness of all dharmas (Dharmasunya). The first verse is further divided into two parts. The first half refutes the view that 'I' is identical to the five Skandhas (aggregates), and the second half refutes the view that 'I' is separate from the five Skandhas. The first half says: 'If I am identical to the five Skandhas, and the five Skandhas are subject to birth and death, then I should also be so.' If this is the case, one can only see the five Skandhas and not the existence of 'I'. Moreover, if 'I' is the five Skandhas, and the five Skandhas are five, and 'I' is also five, then one loses a unified 'I'. If one 'I' does not exist, then multiple 'I's also do not exist, which should be analogous. If 'I' is identical to the five Skandhas, and 'I' is one, and the five Skandhas are also one, then one loses the five Skandhas. But now the main point is to refute 'I', not to refute the five Skandhas, so it is only explained by 'I' being dependent on the five Skandhas, rather than equating the five Skandhas with 'I'. The second half says: 'If there is a substance of 'I' that exists apart from the five Skandhas, then there should also be an appearance of 'I' that exists apart from the five Skandhas.' If one still uses the appearance of the five Skandhas as the appearance of 'I', then one should still use the substance of the five Skandhas as the substance of 'I'. It is considered that 'I' is the affliction of manifesting appearances. It is also said: 'I' has four colors, such as red and white.' It is also said 'I' is like a pure pearl or a lamp flame.' These all use the appearance of the five Skandhas as the appearance of 'I'. Therefore, now the question is: One cannot see any difference between the appearance of 'I' and the appearance of the five Skandhas, and one should not still use the appearance of the five Skandhas as the appearance of 'I'. Question: Why do those who cling to the existence of 'I' use the appearance of the five Skandhas as the appearance of 'I'? Answer: Because the five Skandhas contain Samskrta-dharma (conditioned dharmas). Those who cling to the existence of 'I' have heard that the appearance of conditioned dharmas can be used to prove 'I', but Asamskrta-dharma (unconditioned dharmas) have no appearance, so they cannot be used to prove 'I'. If there is no existence of 'I', then the second part elucidates Dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of phenomena), which is also the emptiness of all dharmas (Dharmasunya). The previous part borrowed the five Skandhas to remove 'I', and this part borrows 'I' to remove the five Skandhas. Question: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Wisdom Sutra) elucidates that both Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Hinayana (Small Vehicle) possess Dvi-sunyata-jnana (the wisdom of two emptinesses). Volume 18 says: The author of the treatise quotes the Hinayana scriptures saying: 'What is old age and sickness?' It is said to be Dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of phenomena). 'Who will experience old age, sickness, and death?' It is said to be Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person). However, the Lankavatara Sutra (Descent to Lanka Sutra), the Mahayana-samgraha (Summary of the Great Vehicle), etc., elucidate that Hinayana only attains Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person). How can this be explained to reconcile the differences? Answer: There are two types of Hinayana practitioners, one with dull faculties and the other with sharp faculties. Those with sharp faculties fully attain Dvi-sunyata (the two emptinesses), while those with dull faculties only attain Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person), which are the Abhidharma and Satyasiddhi schools. Second, Hinayana mostly elucidates Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person) and rarely speaks of Dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of phenomena), while Mahayana mostly speaks of Dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of phenomena) and rarely elucidates Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person). Considering the lesser from the greater, the Lankavatara Sutra (Descent to Lanka Sutra) only elucidates Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person). Third, Hinayana attains Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person) completely, because they all know that there is ultimately no 'I', so it is said that they attain Pudgala-sunyata (the emptiness of person). They do not attain Dharma-sunyata (the emptiness of phenomena) completely, and they do not know that the nature of dharmas is emptiness (Dharma-svabhava-sunyata), and they do not know that all dharmas within and without the three realms (Trailokya) are empty (Sarva-dharma-sunyata).
故是以不說聲聞法空也。滅我我所故下第二明稟教得益又二。前明得二無我智益。次得兩涅槃益。前是因益次是果益。前智益后是斷益。前是得道后是證滅。又前是有為功德后無為功德。亦是為無為二解脫也。聲聞宗要不出斯二也。初又二。第一正明得無我智。次嘆法美人。初如文。得無我智者下第二章嘆法美人。上半嘆法下半美人也。內外我我所下第二明得二涅槃果。以修二無我智因故得兩涅槃果。蓋是聲聞義之大宗。就文為二。初偈明無餘。次偈明有餘。約修行次第。前得有餘次得無餘。今前明無餘后明有餘者凡有二義。一者今是說門。前說共深令慕仰求之。二者文勢鉤鎖既明滅我我所故即得無餘。上半牒前。內外我我所者。我為其內。所為其外。又即陰我為內。離陰我為外。所亦二種。五陰為內所。瓶衣為外所也。諸受則為滅者。我我所是見煩惱。受是取著愛使。亦初是見諦。次是思惟。諸見滅故諸受即滅。愛見滅故報身便滅。前是見滅故愛滅。受滅則身滅。此是因滅故果滅。業煩惱滅故第二明有餘涅槃。上半正明結業滅。下半釋滅所以。由業煩惱虛妄非實悟畢竟空則戲論斯滅。問余無餘有幾種耶。答略有三種。一小乘余無餘。二大乘余無餘。三大小合說余無餘。小乘余無餘者。一云。子縛盡名有餘。以其猶有
余累故名有餘。肇師云。余跡未泯余緣未盡故名有餘。若除報身無復余累名無餘。次云。斷子縛盡得無為未足故。無為猶有餘名曰有餘。若滅報身無為便足故名無餘。大乘余無餘者。滅五住煩惱名為有餘。二死報亡稱為無餘。但小乘得二涅槃有前後。大乘一時而得。五住惑盡二死便傾。又小乘前得有餘后得無餘。大乘前得無餘則是法身。後起應化二身名為有餘。又大乘就三身辨三涅槃。法身為無餘涅槃。應化兩身名有餘涅槃。合就三身是無住處涅槃。以法身故不住生死。應化兩身不住涅槃。以其俱滅二著名無住處涅槃。此並出七卷金光明經三身品。攝大乘明四涅槃。三如上。次明本性清凈名為涅槃也。大小合論余無餘者。小乘余無餘並是有餘。大乘余無餘並稱無餘。勝鬘經意也。諸佛或說我下第二明菩薩觀。問何故前明聲聞觀后辨菩薩觀耶。答欲明從淺至深故初小后大。又欲回小入大故前小后大也。問大小觀云何有異。答聲聞觀淺。以我為方便無我為真實。此中明我與無我皆是方便。非我無我方是真實。則菩薩觀深。既以我無我為方便。聲聞望菩薩則聲聞為方便。菩薩觀為真實。即是法華唯此一事實餘二則非真其文相會也。即時大乘人若以二我為方便無我是真實者。猶是聲聞觀耳。又本得大故小成。既不得大亦不成小
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『余累』這個名字的由來是因為『有餘』。肇法師說，『有餘的痕跡尚未消失，有餘的因緣尚未完結，所以叫做有餘。』如果去除報身，不再有剩餘的牽累，就叫做『無餘』。接下來又說，『斷除了分段生死的束縛，證得了無為的境界，但這還不夠，所以無為的境界仍然是有餘的。』如果滅除了報身，無為的境界才算足夠，所以叫做『無餘』。 大乘所說的『有餘』和『無餘』是：滅除了五住煩惱（五種根本煩惱），叫做『有餘』；分段生死和變易生死的果報都消亡了，稱為『無餘』。但是小乘證得兩種涅槃（有餘涅槃和無餘涅槃）有先後次第，而大乘是一時證得。五住煩惱斷盡，兩種生死就都消滅了。而且小乘是先證得有餘涅槃，后證得無餘涅槃；大乘是先證得無餘涅槃，這就是法身，之後生起應身和化身，稱為有餘涅槃。 另外，大乘就法身、應身、化身這三身來辨別三種涅槃。法身是無餘涅槃，應身和化身是名有餘涅槃。合起來就三身來說，就是無住處涅槃。因為法身的緣故，不住于生死；應身和化身的緣故，不住于涅槃。因為它們都滅除了兩種執著（生死和涅槃的執著），所以稱為無住處涅槃。這些都出自七卷本《金光明經》的三身品。《攝大乘論》闡明了四種涅槃，前三種如上所述，第四種是說明本性清凈，這叫做涅槃。 大小乘合起來討論有餘和無餘，小乘的有餘和無餘都是有餘，大乘的有餘和無餘都稱為無餘。這是《勝鬘經》的含義。 『諸佛或說我』以下第二部分說明菩薩的觀行。問：為什麼前面說明聲聞的觀行，後面辨析菩薩的觀行呢？答：想要說明從淺到深的次第，所以先說小乘后說大乘。又想要回小向大，所以先說小乘后說大乘。問：大小乘的觀行有什麼不同呢？答：聲聞的觀行淺顯，以執著『我』為方便，以證悟『無我』為真實。這裡說明執著『我』和『無我』都是方便，不執著『我』和『無我』才是真實，那麼菩薩的觀行就深奧。既然以執著『我』和『無我』為方便，那麼相對於菩薩來說，聲聞就是方便，菩薩的觀行才是真實。這就像《法華經》所說的『唯此一事實，餘二則非真』，文義是相通的。如果大乘人仍然以執著『二我』（人我、法我）為方便，以證悟『無我』為真實，這仍然是聲聞的觀行。而且本來就應該證得大乘，所以才能成就小乘。如果不能證得大乘，也就不能成就小乘。
【English Translation】 English version The name 'Yu Lei' (余累, Remaining Accumulations) comes from 'You Yu' (有餘, Remaining). Master Zhao said, 'The traces of 'You Yu' have not disappeared, and the conditions for 'You Yu' have not been exhausted, so it is called 'You Yu'.' If the Reward Body (報身, the body that experiences the results of karma) is removed, and there are no more remaining entanglements, it is called 'Wu Yu' (無餘, No Remaining). Furthermore, it is said, 'Having severed the bonds of segmented existence (分段生死, the cycle of birth and death in the desire, form, and formless realms) and attained the unconditioned (無為, Nirvana), it is still insufficient, so the unconditioned state still has something remaining, and it is called 'You Yu'.' If the Reward Body is extinguished, the unconditioned state is then sufficient, so it is called 'Wu Yu'. The 'You Yu' and 'Wu Yu' as described in Mahayana are: extinguishing the Five Afflictions (五住煩惱, the five fundamental defilements), which is called 'You Yu'; the retribution of both Segmented Existence and Variable Existence (變易生死, the subtle and continuous change of existence experienced by Bodhisattvas) ceasing, which is called 'Wu Yu'. However, the attainment of the Two Nirvanas (有餘涅槃, Nirvana with remainder; 無餘涅槃, Nirvana without remainder) in the Hinayana tradition has a sequential order, while in Mahayana, it is attained simultaneously. When the Five Afflictions are exhausted, both types of existence are extinguished. Moreover, Hinayana first attains Nirvana with Remainder and then attains Nirvana without Remainder; Mahayana first attains Nirvana without Remainder, which is the Dharmakaya (法身, the body of the Dharma), and then arises the Response Body (應身, the body that appears in response to the needs of sentient beings) and the Transformation Body (化身, the body that manifests in various forms to guide sentient beings), which are called Nirvana with Remainder. Furthermore, Mahayana distinguishes the Three Nirvanas based on the Three Bodies (三身, Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya). The Dharmakaya is Nirvana without Remainder, and the Response Body and Transformation Body are called Nirvana with Remainder. Combining the Three Bodies, it is Non-Abiding Nirvana (無住處涅槃, Nirvana that neither abides in Samsara nor in Nirvana). Because of the Dharmakaya, it does not abide in Samsara; because of the Response Body and Transformation Body, it does not abide in Nirvana. Because they both extinguish the two attachments (生死, attachment to Samsara; 涅槃, attachment to Nirvana), it is called Non-Abiding Nirvana. These all come from the 'Three Bodies' chapter of the seven-fascicle Golden Light Sutra (金光明經). The Treatise on the Summary of the Great Vehicle (攝大乘論) clarifies the Four Nirvanas. The first three are as described above, and the fourth explains that the fundamental nature is pure, which is called Nirvana. Combining the discussions of You Yu and Wu Yu in both Mahayana and Hinayana, the You Yu and Wu Yu of Hinayana are both You Yu, while the You Yu and Wu Yu of Mahayana are both called Wu Yu. This is the meaning of the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經). The second part, starting with 'The Buddhas may speak of self,' explains the contemplation of Bodhisattvas. Question: Why is the contemplation of the Sravakas (聲聞, Hearers) explained first, and then the contemplation of Bodhisattvas discussed? Answer: To illustrate the progression from shallow to deep, so the Hinayana is presented first and then the Mahayana. Also, to turn from the Hinayana towards the Mahayana, so the Hinayana is presented first and then the Mahayana. Question: How do the contemplations of Mahayana and Hinayana differ? Answer: The contemplation of the Sravakas is shallow, using attachment to 'self' as a means and realizing 'no-self' as the truth. Here, it is explained that attachment to both 'self' and 'no-self' are means, and non-attachment to both 'self' and 'no-self' is the truth. Therefore, the contemplation of Bodhisattvas is profound. Since attachment to 'self' and 'no-self' are used as means, then relative to Bodhisattvas, the Sravakas are the means, and the contemplation of Bodhisattvas is the truth. This is like what the Lotus Sutra (法華經) says, 'Only this one reality is true, the other two are not true,' the meaning is consistent. If Mahayana practitioners still use attachment to 'two selves' (人我, the self of person; 法我, the self of phenomena) as a means and realize 'no-self' as the truth, this is still the contemplation of the Sravakas. Moreover, one should originally attain the Mahayana, so that the Hinayana can be accomplished. If one cannot attain the Mahayana, one cannot accomplish the Hinayana either.
。故有所得人執二無我乃成虛妄見耳。又菩薩以我無我皆是方便非我無我乃是實。有所得人執無我皆是得方便耳。既不得實亦不得權。總而言之。有所得人執二無我。大小不收權實不取也。我無我既方便。三性三無性方便。非三性非三無性方是真實。一切皆例。問何以知前是聲聞觀后是菩薩觀。答即簡淺深之言證之。故知爾也。又聲聞之人修無我觀因欲求二涅槃果。但是自度之義。上來正明此法。故知是聲聞觀。今此章廣辨菩薩無方化物具一切教門。故知是菩薩觀。又下長行青目釋菩薩觀引大品故。菩薩有我亦非行無我亦非行。蓋是長行自作此引。非講者穿鑿。就文為二。第一三偈明菩薩所觀之法。第二三偈明菩薩得益人相。上聲聞法中亦作此二章也。一人無我教次法無我教。即是雙教。后明智斷兩益。今大乘中亦前明兩教后辨雙益也。三偈為二。初偈標方便實相二種章門。第二兩偈釋二章門。初上半標方便章門。下半標實相章門。問何故前明我無我方便耶。答正對聲聞以我為方便無我為真實。如毗曇十六諦空無我理。又如成實者云。世諦有我第一義諦無我。是故今明聲聞若我無我望菩薩皆是方便。所以命初辨我無我方便也。然我無我既是方便。常無常等例然。故昔說無常既是方便。今說常樂亦是方便。如是三乘一乘
萬義皆類。下半明真實章門。即是非我無我亦非常無常非三非一等萬義皆類。上半是世諦下半是第一義諦。上半為三悉檀。下半是第一義悉檀。亦得上半是真俗二諦。智度論云。人等世界故有。第一義故無。故知以我為世諦無我為真諦。下半非我無我則是中道一實諦也。又上半名為半字法門。下半究竟乃為滿字。若論具足滿者。上下二半皆是半字。非我無我我無我具足方圓滿稱為滿字。又上半即是教門。下半稱之為理。偈意多含不可一途取盡也。諸法實相者下第二兩偈釋章門。初偈逐近釋實相章門。第二偈釋方便章門。又前明從方便入實相。故前明方便后辨實相。今從實相起方便。故前實相後方便。諸法實相者牒前偈下半實相章門也。心行言語斷下釋實相義也。初就法說門釋實相。豎超四句故四句心亡。橫絕百非故百非心斷。在心既爾。言語亦然。四句之言不能言。百非之說不能說也。又非但實相不可言。即言亦是實相故雖言無言。故天女詰身子云。汝但知實相無言未悟言即實相。故言滿十方常是四絕。問云何爾耶。答若有言體即是本有。名之為常。常不可言。今因緣言言無自體。故無言。以雖言即本來不言故。業品云。諸業本不生。以無定性故。亦應言諸言本無言。以無定性故也。在言既爾。心行亦然。一者實相絕
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 萬義皆類。下半部分闡明『真實』章門，即『非我』(anatta, 無我) 『無我』、『非常』(anicca, 無常) 『無常』、『非三非一』等萬種意義都包含在內。上半部分是世俗諦，下半部分是第一義諦。上半部分為三悉檀（三種教導方式），下半部分是第一義悉檀。也可以說上半部分是真俗二諦。智度論說：『人等世界故有，第一義故無。』因此可知以『我』為世俗諦，『無我』為真諦。下半部分的『非我無我』則是中道一實諦。 又上半部分名為半字法門，下半部分究竟才是滿字。如果說具足圓滿，上下兩半都是半字，『非我無我』、『我無我』具足才圓滿，稱為滿字。又上半部分是教門，下半部分稱之為理。偈頌的含義豐富，不可只從一個方面理解。 『諸法實相者』，以下第二兩句偈頌解釋章門。第一句偈頌就近解釋『實相』章門，第二句偈頌解釋『方便』章門。前面說明從方便入實相，所以先說明方便，后辨別實相。現在是從實相開始方便，所以先說實相后說方便。 『諸法實相者』，是承接前面偈頌下半部分的實相章門。『心行言語斷』，是解釋實相的意義。首先從法說門解釋實相，豎向超越四句，所以四句之心消亡；橫向斷絕百非，所以百非之心斷絕。心如此，言語也是如此。四句之言不能表達，百非之說不能述說。不僅實相不可言說，言語也是實相，所以雖說無言。因此天女詰問舍利弗說：『你只知道實相無言，未領悟言即是實相。』所以言語充滿十方，常是四絕。問：『為什麼這樣說？』答：『如果有言語的本體，那就是本有的，名為常。常不可言說。現在因緣和合而有言語，言語沒有自體，所以無言。因為雖然有言語，但本來是不言說的。』業品說：『諸業本不生，以無定性故。』也應該說諸言本無言，以無定性故。言語如此，心行也是如此。一是實相斷絕
【English Translation】 English version All meanings are similar. The latter half clarifies the chapter on 'Truth', which includes all meanings such as 'non-self' (anatta), 'impermanence' (anicca), 'neither three nor one', and so on. The first half is the conventional truth (saṁvṛti-satya), and the second half is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). The first half represents the three kinds of teachings (threefold guidance), and the second half is the ultimate guidance. It can also be said that the first half is the two truths of conventional and ultimate reality. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says: 'People and the world exist because of conventional truth, but do not exist because of ultimate truth.' Therefore, it can be known that 'self' is the conventional truth, and 'non-self' is the ultimate truth. The 'neither self nor non-self' in the latter half is the one real truth of the Middle Way. Furthermore, the first half is called the half-word Dharma gate, and the second half is ultimately the full word. If we talk about complete perfection, both the upper and lower halves are half-words. Only when 'neither self nor non-self' and 'self and non-self' are complete, it is called the full word. Also, the first half is the teaching, and the second half is called the principle. The meaning of the verses is rich and cannot be understood from only one aspect. 'The reality of all dharmas', the following two verses explain the chapter gate. The first verse explains the 'reality' chapter gate in proximity, and the second verse explains the 'expedient means' chapter gate. The previous explanation was about entering reality from expedient means, so expedient means were explained first, and then reality was distinguished. Now, it starts with reality and then uses expedient means, so reality is explained first, and then expedient means. 'The reality of all dharmas' refers to the reality chapter gate in the latter half of the previous verse. 'The mind's activity and speech are cut off' explains the meaning of reality. First, explain reality from the Dharma-speaking gate. Transcending the four phrases vertically, the mind of the four phrases disappears; cutting off the hundred negations horizontally, the mind of the hundred negations is cut off. As it is in the mind, so it is in speech. The words of the four phrases cannot express it, and the sayings of the hundred negations cannot describe it. Not only is reality unspeakable, but speech is also reality, so although it is said to be without words. Therefore, the goddess questioned Sariputra, saying, 'You only know that reality is without words, but you have not realized that words are reality.' Therefore, words fill the ten directions and are always fourfold cut off. Question: 'Why is this so?' Answer: 'If there is a substance of words, then it is inherent, called constant. The constant cannot be spoken. Now, words arise from conditions, and words have no self-nature, so there are no words. Because although there are words, they are originally unspoken.' The Karma chapter says: 'All karmas are originally unborn, because they have no fixed nature.' It should also be said that all words are originally without words, because they have no fixed nature. As it is in speech, so it is in the mind's activity. One is that reality is cut off
四句四句心不能緣。二者即緣是實相。雖遍緣萬法亦常是四絕也。無生亦無滅者。下半就譬喻門說。四生不能生故稱無生。力負不能滅故稱無滅。又上言斷心滅者。明四句言本不生今亦無滅。非是有四句言生然後滅之。言既爾。心亦然。寂滅如涅槃者。惑者皆謂生死有生滅涅槃無生滅。故借涅槃喻其生死。汝所謂生死如汝涅槃。故云寂滅如涅槃。今明實相不同南方真諦之理北土實相波若。亦異舊地論梨耶晚攝論大乘阿摩羅識。如此等並同犢子計我有理存焉。今只論色是實相。如假名色不可有不可無。四句求色不可得。故色即是實相也。智度論四十二卷解。云何為色相。云何為識相。無所有為色相。無所有是受想行識相。又天主嘆須菩提所說。不壞假名而說實相。故知假名宛然而即是實相也。一切實非實下第二釋前方便章門。問前以我無我為方便。今云何以實不實釋之。又前以我無我二重為方便。非我非無我為實。今何以實不實四句解前方便。答余聽之累載。講之積年。未見符文釋此意者。今少分識之用簡來哲。前明我無我為方便者。此是對二乘以無我無實我為方便。故明二乘若權若實望菩薩皆成方便。非我非無我乃為真實。今此中論真實者。上明諸法實相者心行言語斷。此明菩薩所悟實相則絕於四句。實相雖絕四句之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四句四句，心不能緣。（四句：指存在、不存在、亦存在亦不存在、非存在非不存在四種邏輯可能性；緣：攀緣，執著）。二者即緣是實相。（二者：指存在與不存在；即緣：即是攀緣，執著；實相：諸法真實不虛的體性）。即使普遍攀緣萬法，也常常是四絕（斷絕四句）的境界。無生亦無滅者，下半句就譬喻的角度來說。四生（胎生、卵生、濕生、化生）不能生出它，所以稱為無生；業力無法使它消滅，所以稱為無滅。又前面說『斷心滅』，是說明四句言語本來不生，現在也沒有滅。不是先有四句言語產生，然後才滅亡。言語如此，心也是這樣。寂滅如涅槃者，迷惑的人都認為生死有生滅，涅槃沒有生滅。所以借用涅槃來比喻生死。你所說的生死就像你的涅槃一樣，所以說寂滅如涅槃。現在說明的實相不同於南方真諦的理論，也不同於北方實相般若，也不同於舊地論的阿賴耶識和晚期攝論、大乘阿摩羅識。這些都類似於犢子部的『我』的理論存在其中。現在只討論色（物質現象）是實相。就像假名色（由因緣和合而成的色法）不可說有，也不可說無。用四句來尋求色是不可得的。所以色就是實相。《智度論》第四十二卷解釋說：『什麼是色相？什麼是識相？無所有為色相，無所有是受想行識相。』又天主讚歎須菩提所說，『不壞假名而說實相』。所以知道假名宛然而就是實相。 一切實非實，下面第二段解釋前面的方便章門。問：前面用『我』、『無我』作為方便，現在為什麼用『實』、『不實』來解釋呢？又前面用『我』、『無我』二重作為方便，『非我非無我』為真實。現在為什麼用『實』、『不實』四句來解釋前面的方便呢？答：我聽了很多年，講了很多年，沒有見過符合經文來解釋這個意思的。現在稍微用我所理解的來啓發後來的學者。前面說明『我』、『無我』作為方便，這是針對二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）以『無我』、『無實我』作為方便。所以說明二乘無論是權（方便）是實（真實），相對於菩薩來說都成為方便。『非我非無我』才是真實。現在這裡討論真實，前面說明諸法實相是心行言語斷絕。這裡說明菩薩所悟的實相是斷絕於四句的。
【English Translation】 English version The mind cannot grasp the four statements (catuṣkoṭi) (Four statements: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence; grasp: cling to, be attached to). Grasping these two (existence and non-existence) is indeed grasping the true nature (tathatā) (true nature: the real and unchanging essence of all dharmas). Even if one universally grasps all dharmas, it is always the state of being beyond the four statements. 'Neither arising nor ceasing' – the latter half is explained from the perspective of analogy. The four births (womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born) cannot produce it, hence it is called 'no arising'; karmic force cannot destroy it, hence it is called 'no ceasing'. Furthermore, the previous statement 'cessation of mind' clarifies that the four statements originally do not arise, and now they do not cease either. It is not that the four statements first arise and then cease. As with speech, so too with the mind. 'Quiescence like Nirvāṇa' – those who are deluded all believe that birth and death have arising and ceasing, while Nirvāṇa has no arising and ceasing. Therefore, Nirvāṇa is used as an analogy for birth and death. What you call birth and death is like your Nirvāṇa, hence it is said 'quiescence like Nirvāṇa'. The true nature now explained is different from the theories of Paramārtha in the South, and also different from the true nature Prajñā in the North, and also different from the Ālaya-vijñāna of the old Daśabhūmika-sūtra and the later Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and the Āmalavijñāna of the Mahāyāna. These are all similar to the Vātsīputrīyas' theory of the existence of 'self' within them. Now, we only discuss that form (rūpa) (material phenomena) is the true nature. Just like the nominal form (the form arising from the aggregation of causes and conditions) cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. Seeking form using the four statements is unattainable. Therefore, form is the true nature. The forty-second chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains: 'What is the characteristic of form? What is the characteristic of consciousness? Non-existence is the characteristic of form. Non-existence is the characteristic of sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness.' Furthermore, the Lord of Gods praised what Subhūti said: 'Without destroying the nominal, he speaks of the true nature.' Therefore, know that the nominal is clearly and distinctly the true nature. 『All is real, all is unreal』 – the second section below explains the preceding chapter on expedient means. Question: Previously, 'self' and 'no-self' were used as expedient means. Why are 'real' and 'unreal' used to explain it now? Furthermore, previously 'self' and 'no-self' were used as a double expedient means, with 'neither self nor no-self' being the truth. Why are the four statements of 'real' and 'unreal' used to explain the preceding expedient means now? Answer: I have listened for many years and lectured for many years, but I have not seen anyone whose explanation aligns with the sutras. Now, I will use my limited understanding to enlighten later scholars. The previous explanation of 'self' and 'no-self' as expedient means is directed towards the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), using 'no-self' and 'no real self' as expedient means. Therefore, it is explained that whether the Two Vehicles are provisional (expedient) or real (true), they both become expedient means relative to the Bodhisattva. 'Neither self nor no-self' is the truth. Now, this discusses the truth, and the previous explanation of the true nature of all dharmas is the cessation of mental activity and speech. This explains that the true nature realized by the Bodhisattva is beyond the four statements.
言。要因四句之言方得悟入實相。故以絕四句為實。以四句為方便。此釋實是契文旨也。問何故以四句為方便。絕四句為真理耶。答欲攝一切理教盡。夫論教者不出四句。則四句攝一切言教盡。夫論至理極乎絕四。故以絕四明極理。雖是一章之論總攝一切佛法理教事圓也。問何故上以我無我為方便。今以實不實為方便。答欲示實相是體體更無二。故前明實相還牒實相。以釋實相。示方便是用用有多門。故前示我無我方便今示實不實方便。問上何故以我無我為方便。今明實不實方便耶。答上聲聞人我為方便無我為實。以法為方便無法為真實。上對聲聞明我無我皆方便非我無我為真實。今亦對聲聞有法無法皆方便非法無非法為真實。是故今明實不實也。就文為二。初三句正明方便。第四句總結教意。此中四句為三根菩薩說。一切實一切不實化中根人。喻如開善義。生死涅槃皆是世諦虛假。名為不實。入第一義非生死涅槃。名之為實。第二句亦實亦不實化下根人。如莊嚴義。生死是虛假故不實。涅槃非虛假故實。第三非實非不實為上根菩薩明生死涅槃未曾是實亦未曾不實。此部得是今龍樹所學意。若三句遣病次第。下根人云。生死不實涅槃是實。中根人云。此生死涅槃一切不實。非生死非涅槃一切實也。上根人云。非個非生
死非涅槃之實。亦非生死涅槃之不實也。又第一句是一說部義。謂生死涅槃皆是虛假故言一說。第二句是出世說部義。生死世間法從不真實因生。故名為實。又將此文望今攝大乘等學者備此二門。分別依他二性是名不實。分別無相依他無生名真實性。則同下根人義。若以三性為不實。三無性理稱為真實。是中根人義。彼不說非三性非三無性故無上根人義也。天親之意乃當有之。而學人不稟龍樹之風致闕此玄宗一句也。是名諸佛法者第二結四句教意。若因此四門悟入絕四之理。此則四種名為佛法。亦四種為門。若守其四句不能因四悟無四各執作解者。則此四句非是佛法。亦不名門。以其不能通入理故。若爾龍樹之風四論學者此之四句並是今時方便巧用。舊義但得方便用中之一枝。又不識此一是方便而執權為實。甚可傷哉。他云。毗曇見有得道。成實見空得道。今明作空有解並不得道。因空有悟實相方能得道。故下云。得實相者有三乘人耳。問三乘人同解實相何異。答二乘隨分見。菩薩盡其原。智度論云。二乘見人法空。如毛孔空。菩薩如十方空。問經何處有此三方便文。答大品如化品云。為新發意菩薩說生滅如化不生不滅不如化。此下根人義也。為久發意菩薩說生滅不生滅皆悉如化。此中根人義也。又云。菩薩不行真實
不行無真實法。上根人義也。問智度論亦引此偈解第一義悉檀。第一義悉檀既絕四句。云何將四句釋第一義悉檀。答智度論師亦無好通。今所明者如前釋之義。此四句是門。因此四門入第一義無言之理。故將四句以釋于無四。問何故將四句釋無四。答四句之道此不可言。凡論發言必有四句。要因四句之言得顯無言。如因指得月。又非但因四句言得顯無言。即須知此四句本來不四。名四句絕故。所詮之理絕言詮理之言常絕。故天女呵身子云。汝乃知解脫無言而未悟言即解脫。今亦爾。非但理絕於四。即言亦絕四。又言既絕四即絕四常言。勿謂絕四之理有理存焉而不可言。是故文殊之言常絕。凈名之默常言。在言既爾。心行亦然。所絕之理絕心即絕理之心常絕。須深得此意可用通方等經。問今文何故前明中根次辨下根后辨上根。答三根實應次第。但此中論四句次第不明三根次第也。問為三人有二根。一人三耶。答具此二義。一人三者。從下入中中轉為上也。自知不隨他第二示得解人相。前明方便實則是理教。今明稟教悟理故發生二慧。問何故明得解人相。答造論影傍大乘經。波若說菩薩所行之法亦明得解人相。故大品云。欲瞋癡斷是性相貌。論解云。三毒斷是悟波若人相。趣智品明行波若人有五種相。一于諸法不著。二不
為六弊所使。三具行六度。四不以他語為堅要。五聞波若信樂無厭。不以他語為堅要者。廣為種種說法其心不動。又大品就二種門說波若。一就法門說波若。二就人門說波若。今亦爾。上就法門說實相方便。今就人門說實相方便。就三偈開為二別。前二偈明得實方便二智益。次一偈明得中道大涅槃益。所以明此二者。為對前聲聞。聲聞初明生法二空教。次稟教得空無我智及二涅槃益。今菩薩亦爾。前明絕四之理四句之教。稟教悟理故亦得二益。謂權實二智及大涅槃。權實二智為因。大涅槃為果。又權實二智則是德無不圓。大涅槃果謂累無不寂。累無不寂不可為有。德無不圓不可為無。既稟中道發生正觀也。又前明二智則菩提果。后明大涅槃謂果果也。不開聲聞菩薩兩教及大小二人益者並失此文意也。自知不隨他者。天魔外道雖有形聲兩亂不能幹之。華嚴云。有所聞法即自開解不由他悟。寂滅無戲論者。無生死可舍無涅槃可取。故名寂滅。離愛見二種戲論名無戲論。無異無分別者。既無二種戲論。則知法無有無之異心無有無分別。以心無有無分別故無心於內。法無有無異相故無數于外。彼此已寂滅。浩然大均名為實相。若法從緣生下第二明得方便慧益。上了生滅無生滅。今悟無生滅生滅。即是世諦。世諦雖有萬化不同。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為六弊所驅使。（六弊：貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑、不正見） 三具行六度。（六度：佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧） 四不以其他言論為最重要。（不執著于其他說法） 五聽聞般若（Prajna，智慧）信樂而不知厭倦。 不以其他言論為最重要，是指廣泛地為他人宣說種種法義，內心卻不為所動。 另外，《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）從兩種途徑闡述般若，一是從法門的角度，二是從人門的角度。現在也是這樣。前面是從法門的角度闡述實相（Reality）方便，現在是從人門的角度闡述實相方便。將三句偈頌分為兩個部分，前兩句偈頌闡明獲得真實方便的兩種智慧的利益，后一句偈頌闡明獲得中道（Middle Way）大涅槃（Mahaparinirvana）的利益。闡明這兩種利益的原因，是爲了對應前面的聲聞（Sravaka，小乘修行者）。聲聞最初闡明生法二空（emptiness of self and phenomena）的教義，然後依教奉行，獲得空無我智（wisdom of emptiness and non-self）以及兩種涅槃的利益。現在菩薩（Bodhisattva，大乘修行者）也是這樣，前面闡明斷絕四句（否定四種可能性）的道理和四句的教義，依教悟理，因此也獲得兩種利益，即權智（expedient wisdom）和實智（real wisdom）以及大涅槃。權智和實智是因，大涅槃是果。而且權智和實智意味著功德無不圓滿，大涅槃的果意味著煩惱無不寂滅。煩惱無不寂滅不能說是存在，功德無不圓滿不能說是沒有。這正是依循中道而生起正確的觀想。 另外，前面闡明兩種智慧是菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）之果，後面闡明大涅槃是果之果。如果不闡明聲聞和菩薩兩種教義以及大小乘兩種人的利益，就無法理解這段經文的含義。 『自知不隨他者』，是指天魔（Deva Mara，天界的惡魔）外道（non-Buddhist religions）即使有種種擾亂，也不能干擾他。《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）說：『有所聞法，即自開解，不由他悟。』 『寂滅無戲論者』，是指沒有生死可以捨棄，沒有涅槃可以獲取，所以稱為寂滅。遠離愛見兩種戲論，稱為無戲論。 『無異無分別者』，既然沒有兩種戲論，就知道法沒有有無的差異，心沒有有無的分別。因為心沒有有無的分別，所以內心沒有執著。法沒有有無的差異，所以外在沒有執著。彼此已經寂滅，浩然廣大而平等，稱為實相。 『若法從緣生』以下，第二部分闡明獲得方便慧（skillful wisdom）的利益。前面了悟生滅和無生滅，現在了悟無生滅的生滅，這就是世諦（conventional truth）。世諦雖然有萬千變化的不同。
【English Translation】 English version Driven by the six flaws (Six flaws: greed, hatred, ignorance, pride, doubt, and wrong views). Three fully practice the six perfections (Six perfections: generosity, discipline, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom). Four do not regard other teachings as essential (not clinging to other doctrines). Five hear the Prajna (wisdom) with joyful faith and without weariness. 『Not regarding other teachings as essential』 means extensively expounding various Dharma teachings to others, yet the mind remains unmoved. Furthermore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra explains Prajna from two approaches: one from the perspective of the Dharma gate, and the other from the perspective of the human gate. It is the same now. The previous section explained the expedient means of Reality from the perspective of the Dharma gate, and now it explains the expedient means of Reality from the perspective of the human gate. Dividing the three verses into two parts, the first two verses clarify the benefits of obtaining the two wisdoms of true expedient means, and the last verse clarifies the benefits of obtaining the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) of Mahaparinirvana. The reason for clarifying these two benefits is to correspond to the previous Sravakas (Hinayana practitioners). The Sravakas initially clarified the teachings of the emptiness of self and phenomena, and then, following the teachings, obtained the wisdom of emptiness and non-self, as well as the benefits of the two Nirvanas. It is the same for Bodhisattvas (Mahayana practitioners) now. The previous section clarified the principle of cutting off the four sentences (negating the four possibilities) and the teachings of the four sentences. By following the teachings and realizing the principle, they also obtain two benefits, namely expedient wisdom and real wisdom, as well as Mahaparinirvana. Expedient wisdom and real wisdom are the cause, and Mahaparinirvana is the result. Moreover, expedient wisdom and real wisdom mean that merits are all complete, and the result of Mahaparinirvana means that afflictions are all extinguished. The extinction of all afflictions cannot be said to exist, and the completeness of all merits cannot be said to not exist. This is precisely arising correct contemplation by following the Middle Way. Furthermore, the previous section clarified that the two wisdoms are the fruit of Bodhi (enlightenment), and the latter section clarified that Mahaparinirvana is the fruit of the fruit. If the two teachings of Sravakas and Bodhisattvas, as well as the benefits of the two types of people of the Small and Great Vehicles, are not clarified, the meaning of this passage will be lost. 『Knowing oneself and not following others』 means that even if Deva Mara (demons of the heavenly realms) and non-Buddhist religions have various disturbances, they cannot interfere with him. The Avatamsaka Sutra says: 『Upon hearing the Dharma, one immediately understands it oneself, without being enlightened by others.』 『Extinction without conceptual proliferation』 means that there is no birth and death to abandon, and no Nirvana to attain, therefore it is called extinction. Being apart from the two conceptual proliferations of love and views is called without conceptual proliferation. 『Without difference and without discrimination』 means that since there are no two conceptual proliferations, one knows that the Dharma has no difference of existence or non-existence, and the mind has no discrimination of existence or non-existence. Because the mind has no discrimination of existence or non-existence, there is no attachment within. Because the Dharma has no difference of existence or non-existence, there is no attachment without. Both have already become extinct, vast and equal, and this is called Reality. 『If phenomena arise from conditions』 below, the second part clarifies the benefits of obtaining skillful wisdom. Previously, one realized arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, and now one realizes the arising and ceasing of non-arising and non-ceasing, which is conventional truth. Although conventional truth has myriad different transformations.
因果是立信之根諸法之本。故偏說之。上半明因緣因果不一不異。如卷指不同不可言一。更無兩體不可言異。故云若法從緣生不即不異因。即破僧佉衛世一異兩部。亦除上座大眾一異二宗。下半明因緣因果離於斷常。因果一即是常。異即是斷。此中言實相者蓋是世諦之實。以俗既稱諦故名為實。異上實也。又能如此解因果不常不斷不一不異名之為實。若異此者即名虛妄。不一亦不異下第二明得涅槃果益。上半法說。此明不一不異異上不一不異。上不一不異就世諦因果明不一不異。今明中道涅槃不一不異不常不斷。不見六道生死之異。亦不見涅槃滅六道為一。不一故不常。不異故不斷。下半舉譬說。明涅槃如天甘露。世間得甘露故無老病死。實相涅槃是真甘露味。服此味者累無不寂德無不圓。若佛不出世下。自上已來明聲聞菩薩二教兩益。今此一章辨緣覺得益。所以但明得益不辨教者。以緣覺自然悟道不稟于教故也。聲聞菩薩既同稟教則一類說之。今不稟教故在後別說。問何故明緣覺得益耶。答今為顯此論破邪申明實相之意。此論所以破邪顯實相者。三乘人皆得益故。又是勸信義。不信此論破邪顯正者。非但不得大乘之益。亦失小乘之利也。上半明出世時節。前佛已去後佛未興。辟支之人于中出世。華嚴云。菩薩將欲下
生前。以道眼觀大千界。有辟支佛放光照之。若覺知者即取滅度。不覺知者徒著他方。與此文同也。問其人何故不值佛耶。答其恥聲聞從師憚佛道長遠。二盈之間故出無佛世。問辟支既不值師。於何時中回小入大。答法華玄義已具辨之。今略論四句。一者緣覺果人既不值佛。於三界外聞法華經回三入一。二者緣覺因人及聲聞三果於三界內聞法華經回小入大。三者羅漢之人若值佛聞法華經界內入道。若不值佛生三界外聞法華經方受一乘。四者增上慢二乘保小拒大。于界內外並不入一乘。問劫初劫後緣覺何時出世。答雜心云。劫初轉輪王。劫末佛興世。二時間辟支佛也。問辟支有幾種。答略有五種。一本乘辟支。謂百劫修行乃至極疾四世成道。二者退菩提心辟支。智度論云。菩薩若證四諦成辟支佛。三聲聞辟支。如初果人。第七生中若不值佛法成小辟支。不及身子。問此人為在家為出家。答俱舍論云。往外道法中出家著木皮袈裟也。又云。往山林中凈居天等施其法服。四者有犀角喻辟支。獨自出世則大辟支也。五者有部行辟支。亦有部黨眷屬。問辟支亦有多人共出世不。答經云。五百辟支一時出世。別有因緣不具述。諸義委曲如法華玄章以論之也。長行釋聲聞菩薩緣覺即為三別。釋聲聞教中又二。前釋二無我教。修習八聖
道下次釋得益。釋二無我即二。釋人無我為三。初雙牒二我。次雙破二我。后結無二我。若五陰是神者第二雙破二我。即為二別。破即陰我為四。初正釋。如偈中下第二引偈證。何以故下第三解釋。解釋中又二。前以生滅二相驗五陰法體是無常。如五陰無常下第二明生滅二相亦是無常。所以明二相無常者凡有二義。一者欲顯五陰能相所相皆是無常。神與五陰一故神亦無常。二者欲破異部。如毗婆阇提明生滅相是常。曇摩崛明滅相是常。故今明生滅二相亦是無常。神若是五陰下第四總結。若離五陰下第二破離陰我。亦開為四。初正破。如偈中說下第二引偈證。而離五陰下第三解釋。就此文凡有五破。第一責相破。若謂神如虛空下第二取意破。前求神相不可得。外云。神如虛空無有相貌。故無相有神。是故今破虛空。若謂以信故下第三破外人以信故證神。前責相破有法中無神。次取意破虛空法無神。即是顛倒品云。我法有以無。是事終不成。外云。雖復空有求神不得。而終信有神。故今破其信。就文為四。初牒外義。是事不然下第二總非。何以故下第三釋非。就文又二。初列四信。是神於一切信中下第二釋四信無神。現事中亦無下釋第一現事可信。既是現事中無。不須解釋。比知中亦無下釋第二比知中無神。又開二別。初
略明比知中無神。若有三種比知下第二廣明比知中無神。即開三別。初列三種比知。如本下第二釋三種比知。第二釋中初借人日譬示比之相貌。如是苦樂下外人正舉共相比知證有神。如見人民依王下引類也。是事皆不然下第三釋比知中無神。但釋第三共相比知中無神不釋餘二比也。問此中破共相比知與百論何異。答百論許其將人比日。不許將人民依王苦樂覺知亦依神。今文直破。先明人與去法合。后見人即知去。此事許之。無有先見神與知合後見知即有神。此破之也。聖人所說中亦無下釋第四信無神。略不釋第三譬喻中無神也。是故於四信等下第四總結四信無神。複次破根品中下五破中第四指前破。又眼見粗法下第五舉況破。是故知無我下是破離陰我中第四結無我。此文兩屬。一者結前離陰中無我。二者總結即離二種俱無有我。欲發起法無我故前結人無我。因有我故下釋第二法無我。修習八聖道分下釋第二稟二無我教后得益。得益中本開二別。一明得二無我智益。二明得兩涅槃益。今此二則為二別。二無我益中為二。前正明得無我智。次嘆法美人。今前釋初也。小乘無我在於見諦。八聖道亦在見諦。故今云修習八聖道滅我我所得無我智。大乘人無我在十住。出攝論也。又無我我所者于第一義中亦不可得者。前明世諦中
無有我我所。今明第一義中亦無有我我所。故三法印云一切法無我得無我無我所者釋第二稱歎門。前釋上半嘆法。凡夫人下釋下半美人。初舉凡夫不能見。次嘆聖人能見。內外我我所下釋第二得二涅槃益。前釋無餘。問曰下釋有餘。釋有餘中前釋上半。是諸煩惱下釋前偈下半。實相法如是下此文結前生后。結前聲聞法生后菩薩法。諸佛以一切智下釋第二菩薩法。就釋菩薩法為二。前明菩薩理教。次明得益。今釋此二也。釋理教為二。前釋標二章門。次解釋章門。釋標章門前釋上半為二。初明佛內智察緣。種種為說下第二明赴緣說教。初又開三。謂標釋結。總明說我無我。若心未熟者下第二別釋我無我。初明為聖凡二人說有我。又有佈施下次為凡聖兩人說無我。生時空生者。此明不從我生。故云空生。非是明法空也。問為凡說我無我于凡有益。為聖說我無我于聖何利。答為令聖傳法利人。如為阿難令說如是我聞。如為聖人令傳無我教也。是故偈中說下第三總結。若於真實中下釋第二真實章門。又開四別。一正釋。問曰下第二小乘人問。毗曇人云。無我是實。世俗假名故說有我。成論亦然。故云世諦中有我第一義無我。是名正見。世諦無我第一義有我。是名邪見。有所得大乘人執二無我謂是實。亦同此問。故有所得大終是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無有我我所』（沒有『我』和『我所』的執著）。現在在第一義諦（勝義諦， परमार्थ ）中也沒有『我』和『我所』。所以三法印（त्रय लक्षण）說一切法無我（anatta），證得無我（nairātmya），就是解釋第二稱歎門。前面解釋了上半部分，讚歎佛法。『凡夫人』以下解釋下半部分，讚歎佛的美好。開始是說凡夫不能見到真理，然後讚歎聖人能夠見到真理。『內外我我所』以下解釋第二，獲得二種涅槃（निर्वाण）的利益。前面解釋了無余涅槃（निरुपधिशेष निर्वाण）。『問曰』以下解釋有餘涅槃（सोपधिशेष निर्वाण）。解釋有餘涅槃中，前面解釋了上半部分。『是諸煩惱』以下解釋前面偈頌的下半部分。『實相法如是』，這段文字總結前面，開啟後面。總結前面的聲聞法（śrāvaka-yāna），開啟後面的菩薩法（bodhisattva-yāna）。 『諸佛以一切智』以下解釋第二菩薩法。在解釋菩薩法中分為兩部分。前面說明菩薩的理和教，然後說明獲得的利益。現在解釋這兩部分。解釋理和教分為兩部分。前面解釋標示二章門，然後解釋章門。解釋標示章門，前面解釋上半部分，分為兩部分。開始說明佛以內在的智慧觀察因緣。『種種為說』以下第二說明應機說法。開始又分為三部分，就是標示、解釋、總結。總的說明說『我』和『無我』。『若心未熟者』以下第二分別解釋『我』和『無我』。開始說明為聖人和凡夫兩種人說『有我』。『又有佈施』以下其次為凡夫和聖人兩種人說『無我』。『生時空生者』，這是說明不是從『我』而生，所以說是『空生』，不是說明法空（dharma-śūnyatā）。『問為凡說我無我于凡有益，為聖說我無我于聖何利』（為凡夫說『我』和『無我』，對凡夫有益處，為聖人說『我』和『無我』，對聖人有什麼利益）？答：爲了讓聖人傳法利益他人。例如爲了阿難（Ānanda）而說『如是我聞』。例如爲了聖人而傳授『無我』的教義。『是故偈中說』以下第三總結。『若於真實中』以下解釋第二真實章門。又分為四個部分。一是正面的解釋。『問曰』以下是小乘人（Hīnayāna）的提問。毗曇（Abhidharma）的人說，『無我』是真實的，世俗是假名，所以說『有我』。成論（成實論，Satyasiddhi-śāstra）也是這樣，所以說世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）中有『我』，第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）中無『我』，這叫做正見。世俗諦中無『我』，第一義諦中有『我』，這叫做邪見。有所得的大乘人（Sarvastivadins）執著二種『無我』認為是真實的，也和這個問題相同。所以有所得的大乘最終是……
【English Translation】 English version 'Without 'I' or 'mine''. Now, in the ultimate meaning (first principle, परमार्थ ) there is also no 'I' or 'mine'. Therefore, the three dharma seals (त्रय लक्षण) say that all dharmas are without self (anatta), and attaining non-self (nairātmya) is the explanation of the second gate of praise. The first part explains the first half, praising the Dharma. 'Ordinary people' below explains the second half, praising the beauty. It begins by saying that ordinary people cannot see the truth, and then praises the saints who can see the truth. 'Inner and outer 'I' and 'mine'' below explains the second, obtaining the benefits of the two Nirvanas (निर्वाण). The first part explains Nirupadhisesha Nirvana (निरुपधिशेष निर्वाण). 'Question' below explains Sopadhisesha Nirvana (सोपधिशेष निर्वाण). In explaining Sopadhisesha Nirvana, the first part explains the first half. 'These afflictions' below explains the second half of the previous verse. 'The true nature of reality is thus', this passage summarizes the previous and opens up the following. It summarizes the previous Śrāvakayāna (śrāvaka-yāna) and opens up the following Bodhisattvayāna (bodhisattva-yāna). 'The Buddhas with all-knowing wisdom' below explains the second Bodhisattva Dharma. In explaining the Bodhisattva Dharma, it is divided into two parts. The first part explains the principle and teachings of the Bodhisattva, and then explains the benefits obtained. Now explain these two parts. Explaining the principle and teachings is divided into two parts. The first part explains the marking of the two chapter gates, and then explains the chapter gates. Explaining the marking of the chapter gates, the first part explains the first half, divided into two parts. It begins by explaining that the Buddha observes the causes and conditions with inner wisdom. 'Speaking in various ways' below, the second explains teaching according to the situation. It is further divided into three parts, namely marking, explaining, and summarizing. It generally explains speaking of 'self' and 'non-self'. 'If the mind is not yet mature' below, the second separately explains 'self' and 'non-self'. It begins by explaining 'self' to the two types of people, saints and ordinary people. 'Also, there is giving' below, the second explains 'non-self' to the two types of people, ordinary people and saints. 'Those who are born empty at birth', this explains that it is not born from 'self', so it is said to be 'born empty', not explaining dharma-śūnyatā (dharma-śūnyatā). 'Question: What is the benefit of explaining 'self' and 'non-self' to ordinary people, and what is the benefit of explaining 'self' and 'non-self' to saints?' Answer: To enable saints to transmit the Dharma and benefit others. For example, 'Thus have I heard' was spoken for Ānanda (Ānanda). For example, to transmit the teachings of 'non-self' for the saints. 'Therefore, it is said in the verse' below, the third summarizes. 'If in reality' below explains the second true chapter gate. It is further divided into four parts. The first is a positive explanation. 'Question' below is a question from the Hīnayāna (Hīnayāna). The people of Abhidharma (Abhidharma) say that 'non-self' is real, and the mundane is a false name, so it is said that there is 'self'. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra (成實論, Satyasiddhi-śāstra) is also like this, so it is said that there is 'self' in saṃvṛti-satya (saṃvṛti-satya), and there is no 'self' in paramārtha-satya (paramārtha-satya), this is called right view. There is no 'self' in saṃvṛti-satya, and there is 'self' in paramārtha-satya, this is called wrong view. The Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins) who cling to the two types of 'non-self' as real are also the same as this question. Therefore, the Sarvastivadins ultimately...
小乘。今既云若於實相中不說我非我相。故知無我未為極。答曰下第三破小乘人執。如波若中說下第三引大乘為證。問曰下此解第二釋章門偈。前釋實相章門。次釋方便章門。釋實相章門中前釋上半法說。次釋下半譬說。初有二問答為二。前一問答生起上半偈來意。次一問答料簡心行滅義。問中易解。答曰下有三義明聖心亦滅。一者涅槃名滅。滅聖心向涅槃故亦名為滅。第二引例通。初舉空定。次舉滅定。空定為心空。滅定辨心滅。又亦終歸涅槃下第三義。即是法華經終歸於空。故聖心亦滅。問此是何等聖心。答有為無漏小乘聖心亦滅也。諸法實相者下釋下半譬說。初正釋。次問答料簡。易見也。問曰若佛不說我非我下釋第二方便章門。就中為二。初一問答釋前三句。次一問答釋第四句。初問生起來意。問意云。實相既絕言。云何令人知于實相。答中為三。初總生起四句之意。次列四句章門。三解釋四句。總生起來意有二種。一者明佛有無量方便。二者諸法無決定相。為此因緣可得說於四句。為眾生故下第二列四章門。一切實者下第三釋四章門。前釋一切實一切不實章門即為二別也。一切實不實者下釋第三句。眾生有三品者。問何故不命初即為三根開於四句。至第三句方辨三根耶。答今欲依偈四句次第故次第而釋。但
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 小乘（Hinayana）。既然現在說如果在實相（reality）中不說我（self）和非我相（non-self），所以知道無我（no-self）還不是最終的境界。回答說：下面第三部分是爲了駁斥小乘人（Hinayana practitioners）的執著。如《般若經》（Prajna Sutra）中所說：下面第三部分引用大乘（Mahayana）作為證明。問：下面是解釋第二部分，解釋章門偈（chapter and verse）。前面解釋實相章門（chapter of reality）。接下來解釋方便章門（chapter of expedient means）。在解釋實相章門中，前面解釋上半部分的法說（teaching of the Dharma）。接下來解釋下半部分的譬說（teaching through parables）。開始有兩問兩答分為兩部分。前面一問一答是爲了引出上半部分偈頌的來意。接下來一問一答是爲了辨析心行滅（cessation of mental activity）的含義。問題容易理解。回答說：下面有三層含義說明聖心（noble mind）也會滅。第一，涅槃（Nirvana）名為滅，因為聖心趨向涅槃，所以也稱為滅。第二，引用例子來類比。首先舉空定（emptiness meditation）。其次舉滅定（cessation meditation）。空定是心空（emptiness of mind），滅定是辨心滅（cessation of mind）。而且最終也歸於涅槃：第三層含義，就是《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）中最終歸於空（emptiness）。所以聖心也會滅。問：這是什麼樣的聖心？答：是有為（conditioned）、無漏（without outflows）的小乘聖心也會滅。諸法實相者：下面解釋下半部分的譬說。首先是正式的解釋。其次是問答辨析。容易理解。問：如果佛不說我非我：下面解釋第二部分，方便章門。其中分為兩部分。首先一問一答解釋前三句。其次一問一答解釋第四句。首先提問引出來意。問題的意思是：實相既然無法用語言表達，如何使人瞭解實相？回答中分為三部分。首先總的引出四句的含義。其次列出四句章門。第三解釋四句。總的引出來意有兩種。一是說明佛有無量的方便（expedient means）。二是諸法沒有決定的相（fixed characteristics）。因為這個因緣，可以述說四句。爲了眾生故：第二部分，列出四章門。一切實者：第三部分，解釋四章門。前面解釋一切實（everything is real）和一切不實（everything is unreal）章門，即分為兩種區別。一切實不實者：下面解釋第三句。眾生有三品者：問：為什麼不一開始就說為三種根器（three roots）開啟四句，而到第三句才辨別三種根器呢？答：現在想要依照偈頌四句的順序，所以依次解釋。但是
【English Translation】 English version Hinayana (Small Vehicle). Now that it is said that if one does not speak of the self (I) and non-self (not-I) aspects in true reality (reality), then it is known that no-self (non-self) is not the ultimate state. The answer is: The third part below is to refute the attachments of Hinayana practitioners. As it is said in the Prajna Sutra (Sutra of Wisdom): The third part below cites Mahayana (Great Vehicle) as proof. Question: Below is the explanation of the second part, explaining the chapter and verse (chapter and verse). The chapter of reality (chapter of reality) is explained earlier. Next, explain the chapter of expedient means (chapter of expedient means). In explaining the chapter of reality, the teaching of the Dharma (teaching of the Dharma) in the first half is explained earlier. Next, explain the teaching through parables (teaching through parables) in the second half. At the beginning, there are two questions and two answers divided into two parts. The first question and answer are to elicit the intention of the first half of the verse. The next question and answer are to analyze the meaning of cessation of mental activity (cessation of mental activity). The question is easy to understand. The answer is: Below are three meanings to explain that the noble mind (noble mind) will also perish. First, Nirvana (Nirvana) is called extinction, because the noble mind tends to Nirvana, so it is also called extinction. Second, cite examples to analogize. First, give emptiness meditation (emptiness meditation). The second is cessation meditation (cessation meditation). Emptiness meditation is emptiness of mind (emptiness of mind), and cessation meditation is cessation of mind (cessation of mind). And ultimately it also returns to Nirvana: The third meaning is that in the Lotus Sutra (Lotus Sutra), it ultimately returns to emptiness (emptiness). So the noble mind will also perish. Question: What kind of noble mind is this? Answer: It is the conditioned (conditioned), without outflows (without outflows) Hinayana noble mind that will also perish. The true aspect of all dharmas: Below is the explanation of the parable in the second half. The first is the formal explanation. The second is question and answer analysis. Easy to understand. Question: If the Buddha does not speak of self and non-self: Below is the explanation of the second part, the chapter of expedient means. It is divided into two parts. The first question and answer explain the first three sentences. The next question and answer explain the fourth sentence. First, ask a question to elicit the intention. The meaning of the question is: Since reality cannot be expressed in words, how can people understand reality? The answer is divided into three parts. First, the general introduction of the meaning of the four sentences. The second is to list the four-sentence chapter. The third explains the four sentences. There are two kinds of general introductions. One is to explain that the Buddha has immeasurable expedient means (expedient means). The second is that all dharmas have no fixed characteristics (fixed characteristics). Because of this cause, the four sentences can be described. For the sake of sentient beings: The second part lists the four chapters. Everything is real: The third part explains the four chapters. The previous explanation of everything is real (everything is real) and everything is unreal (everything is unreal) chapters is divided into two distinctions. Everything is real and unreal: Below is the explanation of the third sentence. Sentient beings have three grades: Question: Why not say at the beginning that the four sentences are opened for the three roots (three roots), but only distinguish the three roots in the third sentence? Answer: Now I want to explain in order according to the order of the four sentences of the verse. But
第三句與前二句相違故以三根而解釋之明不相違。即是各各為人悉檀。若據教門應是相違。以為人不同故不相違也。即此一半偈具四悉檀。為三根不同即各各。治三根病為對治。此四句是世諦即世界悉檀。因四悟不四謂第一義。四悉檀通十二部經八萬法藏。今一半偈亦爾。非實非不實者釋第四句。問曰下釋偈中第四句是名諸佛法也。問曰知佛下此釋第二章菩薩得益。就文為二。前釋得二智益。后釋得斷益。初又二。前問次答。問中又二。一者領前四句之法。又得實相者云何第二問。后問中為二。初問得解人相。又實相云何問人內證之法。即發起偈二文。故生此二問。答曰下答其二問即為二別。答第一問釋偈自知不隨他一句。此中無法可取下釋偈下三句。答第二問。凡釋三義。初釋寂滅。寂滅相故下釋不戲論句。二戲論無故下釋無異無分別下兩句也。問曰下釋得方便智益。前問次答。問中作斷常二問。欲發起后不斷不常也。答中文二。一指前用第一義門答。第一義中無有斷常。得實相者下第二就世諦門答。一切答中不出二諦。又顯二諦並離斷常俱是中道。答文正釋偈本。問曰若如是解下第二釋得涅槃益。前問次答。答中前釋上半法說。得常樂涅槃者。問前以明涅槃。今何故復說。答前是小乘余無餘涅槃。今是菩薩大般涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第三句與前兩句似乎矛盾，因此用三根（三種根器：利根、中根、鈍根）來解釋，表明並不矛盾。這就是各各為人悉檀（為不同的人提供不同的教義）。如果按照教門（經教的規範）來看，似乎是矛盾的，但因為人的根器不同，所以並不矛盾。這半首偈頌包含了四悉檀（四種施教方法：世界悉檀、各各為人悉檀、對治悉檀、第一義悉檀）。因為三根不同，所以是各各為人。針對三根的病癥進行治療，是對治悉檀。這四句是世諦（世俗諦），即世界悉檀。通過四種領悟，達到不四（超越四種執著），即第一義悉檀。四悉檀貫通十二部經和八萬四千法藏。現在這半首偈頌也是如此。『非實非不實』是解釋第四句。『問曰』以下解釋偈頌中的第四句『是名諸佛法』。 『問曰知佛』以下解釋第二章菩薩得益。從文義上分為兩部分。前面解釋獲得二智（根本智和后得智）的利益，後面解釋獲得斷除煩惱的利益。初又分為兩部分。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問中又分為兩部分。一是領會前面四句的法義，二是『又得實相者云何』，這是第二個問題。後面的問題分為兩部分。首先是詢問獲得瞭解人相（對眾生根性的瞭解），其次是『又實相云何』，詢問人內證的法。因此，發起偈頌的兩個文義，產生了這兩個問題。『答曰』以下回答這兩個問題，分為兩個部分。回答第一個問題，解釋偈頌『自知不隨他』一句。『此中無法可取』以下解釋偈頌下面的三句。回答第二個問題，總共解釋三種含義。首先解釋寂滅，『寂滅相故』以下解釋『不戲論』句。『二戲論無故』以下解釋『無異無分別』下面的兩句。『問曰』以下解釋獲得方便智的利益。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問中提出斷常二見的問題，想要引出後文的不斷不常。回答分為兩部分。一是指出前面用第一義門來回答，第一義中沒有斷常。『得實相者』以下第二部分就世諦門來回答。一切回答都不超出二諦（真諦和俗諦）。又顯示二諦並離斷常，都是中道。回答的文義正是解釋偈頌的根本。『問曰若如是解』以下第二部分解釋獲得涅槃的利益。前面是提問，後面是回答。回答中前面解釋上半部分的法說，『得常樂涅槃者』。提問：前面已經說明了涅槃，現在為什麼又說？回答：前面是小乘的余無餘涅槃，現在是菩薩的大般涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version The third sentence seems contradictory to the previous two, so it is explained using the three roots (three types of faculties: sharp, medium, and dull) to show that there is no contradiction. This is the 'each for their own' siddhanta (providing different teachings for different people). If viewed according to the teachings of the doctrine (the norms of the scriptures), it seems contradictory, but because people's faculties are different, it is not contradictory. This half-verse contains the four siddhantas (four methods of teaching: the world siddhanta, the 'each for their own' siddhanta, the remedial siddhanta, and the first principle siddhanta). Because the three roots are different, it is 'each for their own'. Treating the illnesses of the three roots is the remedial siddhanta. These four sentences are the mundane truth (worldly truth), which is the world siddhanta. Through four kinds of enlightenment, reaching 'not four' (transcending the four attachments) is the first principle siddhanta. The four siddhantas permeate the twelve divisions of scriptures and the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures. This half-verse is also like this. 'Neither real nor unreal' explains the fourth sentence. 'Question:' below explains the fourth sentence in the verse, 'This is called the Dharma of all Buddhas'. 'Question: Knowing the Buddha' below explains the benefits gained by the Bodhisattva in the second chapter. From the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts. The first part explains the benefit of obtaining the two wisdoms (fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom), and the second part explains the benefit of obtaining the eradication of afflictions. The first is further divided into two parts. The first is the question, and the second is the answer. The question is further divided into two parts. One is to understand the meaning of the previous four sentences, and the second is 'And how does one obtain the real aspect?', which is the second question. The following questions are divided into two parts. First, ask about obtaining an understanding of the characteristics of people (understanding the faculties of sentient beings), and second, 'And what is the real aspect?', asking about the Dharma of inner realization. Therefore, the two meanings of the verse arise, giving rise to these two questions. 'Answer:' below answers these two questions, divided into two parts. Answering the first question, explaining the sentence 'Knowing oneself, not following others' in the verse. 'Here, there is no Dharma to be grasped' below explains the following three sentences of the verse. Answering the second question, explaining a total of three meanings. First, explaining quiescence, 'Because of the characteristic of quiescence' below explains the 'non-playful' sentence. 'Second, because there is no playfulness' below explains the following two sentences 'no difference, no discrimination'. 'Question:' below explains the benefit of obtaining expedient wisdom. The first is the question, and the second is the answer. The question raises the issue of the two views of permanence and impermanence, wanting to elicit the subsequent 'neither permanent nor impermanent'. The answer is divided into two parts. One is to point out that the first principle is used to answer, and there is no permanence or impermanence in the first principle. 'Those who obtain the real aspect' below, the second part answers from the perspective of the mundane truth. All answers do not go beyond the two truths (ultimate truth and conventional truth). It also shows that the two truths are both apart from permanence and impermanence, and both are the Middle Way. The meaning of the answer is precisely to explain the root of the verse. 'Question: If it is explained in this way' below, the second part explains the benefit of obtaining Nirvana. The first is the question, and the second is the answer. The answer explains the Dharma spoken in the first half, 'Those who obtain constant bliss Nirvana'. Question: Nirvana has already been explained before, so why is it said again now? Answer: The previous one was the Nirvana with remainder and without remainder of the Small Vehicle, and now it is the Great Nirvana of the Bodhisattva.
槃常樂我凈。若不作聲聞菩薩兩教分此文者則成煩重。故後代講者宜須依之。是故說下釋下半喻說涅槃。佛說實相有三種下釋第三段明緣覺得益。就文為二。一總標三種。若得諸法實相下第二別釋三種次第來意。即是偈中三章。初釋第一聲聞法。若生大悲釋上第二菩薩法。若佛不出世釋第三緣覺法益。是青目自開偈為三也。問三根俱入實相云何異。答二乘隨分。菩薩盡原也。
時品第十九
所以有此品來者。二十一品開為三章。第一十七品破洗迷情顯中道實相。第二法品迷執既破實相既顯。故有三乘得益。從此已后第三重破迷情重明實相。使未悟之徒因而得曉。已解之者觀行增明。故有此一章也。二者諸佛菩薩說經造論凡有三門。一者正說門。二者稱歎門。三者稱歎竟更復說之。上二門已竟。聽者既聞稱歎則悅耳。會心樂欲聞說。是故論主重複說也。問何故次法品后而破時耶。答上既觀法。今次觀時。時法相對。二者論初已來雖處處觀法。而別立一章名觀法品。雖品品破時。今亦別立一品以撿時也。三者法品末最後偈云。前佛已去後佛未興。辟支之人因而出世。既有三時惑者便執。是以破也。問兩品觀門何異。答法品多就因成門明三乘觀行。故初求五陰與假人一異不可得為聲聞觀。若不見我非我為大乘觀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 槃（涅槃，佛教術語，指解脫）常樂我凈。若不將此文分為聲聞（佛教術語，指聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的修行者）菩薩（佛教術語，指發菩提心，以利益眾生為目標的修行者）兩教來理解，則會顯得繁瑣重複。因此，後代的講解者應該依此來理解。所以下面用比喻來解釋涅槃。佛說實相（佛教術語，指事物真實的本性）有三種，下面解釋第三段，闡明緣覺（佛教術語，指不依師教，通過自身努力而覺悟的修行者）獲得利益。從文義上分為兩部分。第一部分總標三種實相。『若得諸法實相』，下面第二部分分別解釋三種實相的次第和來由，也就是偈頌中的三章。首先解釋第一種聲聞法。『若生大悲』，解釋上面第二種菩薩法。『若佛不出世』，解釋第三種緣覺法獲得的利益。青目（人名，即鳩摩羅什）自開偈分為三部分。問：三種根器的人都能進入實相，為什麼會有不同？答：聲聞和緣覺只是隨分證悟，菩薩則是徹底證悟本源。
時品第十九
之所以有這一品，是因為二十一品分為三章。第十七品破除迷惑，顯明中道實相（佛教術語，指不偏不倚，超越二元對立的真理）。第二法品，既然迷惑執著已經被破除，實相也已經顯明，所以有三乘（佛教術語，指聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）獲得利益。從此以後，第三次破除迷惑，再次闡明實相，使尚未覺悟的人因此而明白，已經理解的人觀行更加精進。所以有這一章。其次，諸佛菩薩說經造論，一般有三種方式。一是正說門，二是稱歎門，三是稱歎之後再重複講述。前面兩種方式已經結束，聽眾聽了稱讚之後感到悅耳，心領神會，樂於聽聞講述，所以論主重複講述。問：為什麼在法品之後要破斥時？答：上面已經觀察法，現在接著觀察時，時間和法是相對的。其次，從論的開始到現在，雖然處處都在觀察法，但是特別設立一章名為觀法品。雖然每一品都在破斥時，現在也特別設立一品來考察時。第三，法品末尾最後的偈頌說，『前佛已去，后佛未興，辟支之人因而出世』。既然有過去、現在、未來三時，迷惑的人就會執著於此，所以要破斥它。問：這兩品的觀門有什麼不同？答：法品多從因成門闡明三乘的觀行。所以最初探求五陰（佛教術語，指構成人的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）與假人（佛教術語，指由五陰和合而成的虛幻的『我』）是一還是異而不可得，這是聲聞的觀行。如果不見我非我，這是大乘的觀行。
【English Translation】 English version 'Nirvana (Sanskrit term for liberation) is characterized by permanence, bliss, self, and purity.' If this passage is not divided into the two teachings of Śrāvaka (Sanskrit term for a disciple who attains enlightenment by hearing the teachings) and Bodhisattva (Sanskrit term for one who seeks enlightenment for the benefit of all beings), it would become cumbersome and repetitive. Therefore, later commentators should follow this interpretation. Hence, the following uses a metaphor to explain Nirvana. The Buddha said that there are three aspects of true reality (Sanskrit term for the true nature of things), and the following explains the third aspect, clarifying the benefits gained by Pratyekabuddhas (Sanskrit term for one who attains enlightenment independently, without a teacher). In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts. The first part generally outlines the three aspects of true reality. 'If one attains the true reality of all dharmas (Sanskrit term for phenomena),' the second part below explains the order and origin of the three aspects of true reality, which are the three chapters in the verse. First, it explains the first Śrāvaka Dharma (Sanskrit term for the teachings for disciples). 'If great compassion arises,' it explains the second Bodhisattva Dharma above. 'If a Buddha does not appear in the world,' it explains the benefits gained by the third Pratyekabuddha. The verse of Qingmu (personal name, referring to Kumārajīva) is divided into three parts. Question: If beings of all three capacities can enter true reality, why are there differences? Answer: Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas only attain partial enlightenment, while Bodhisattvas attain complete enlightenment of the source.
Chapter 19: Time
The reason for this chapter is that the twenty-one chapters are divided into three sections. Chapter 17 breaks through delusion and reveals the Middle Way (Sanskrit term for the path between extremes) of true reality. In the second Dharma chapter, since delusion and attachment have been broken through and true reality has been revealed, the Three Vehicles (Sanskrit term for the three paths to enlightenment: Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Mahāyāna) gain benefits. From this point onwards, the third time, delusion is broken through and true reality is clarified again, so that those who have not yet awakened can understand, and those who have already understood can increase their practice. Therefore, there is this chapter. Secondly, when Buddhas and Bodhisattvas expound sutras and compose treatises, there are generally three methods. First, the method of direct explanation; second, the method of praise; and third, after praise, repeating the explanation. The first two methods have already been completed. The listeners, having heard the praise, find it pleasing to the ear, understand it in their hearts, and are happy to hear the explanation, so the author repeats the explanation. Question: Why is time refuted after the Dharma chapter? Answer: Above, Dharma has been observed, and now time is observed next. Time and Dharma are relative. Secondly, from the beginning of the treatise until now, although Dharma has been observed everywhere, a separate chapter is established called the 'Observation of Dharma' chapter. Although time is refuted in every chapter, a separate chapter is now established to examine time. Thirdly, the last verse at the end of the Dharma chapter says, 'The previous Buddha has passed away, and the next Buddha has not yet appeared, so Pratyekabuddhas appear in the world.' Since there are the three times of past, present, and future, those who are deluded will cling to this, so it must be refuted. Question: What are the differences between the observation methods of these two chapters? Answer: The Dharma chapter mostly explains the practices of the Three Vehicles from the perspective of the cause-and-effect door. Therefore, the initial inquiry into whether the five skandhas (Sanskrit term for the five aggregates that constitute a person: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are the same as or different from the false person (Sanskrit term for the illusory 'self' composed of the five skandhas) and cannot be obtained is the practice of the Śrāvakas. If one does not see 'I' or 'not-I', this is the practice of the Mahāyāna (Sanskrit term for the Great Vehicle).
也。今此品正就相待門以明實相。求三世之時一異等法相待不可得即顯實相。故三乘人見實相即便得道也。問若無三世及三乘人。上品何故說有耶。答說不三三欲令眾生悟不三三。而執著便作三故三解。是以破之。又上明不三三。今明三不三。互相成也。所言時者外道有二師。一云。時體常。但為萬物作于了因。不生諸法故非生因。次云。別有時體。是無常法。能為萬化作生殺因。故偈云。時來眾生就。時去則摧促。是故時為因。佛法中亦有二師。一者譬喻部云。別有時體。非色非心。體是常而法是無常。但法於是時中行。如人從房至房。如物從器至器。婆沙云。為止此說明法即是時法無常時即無常。辨因法假名時離法無別時。三世之時雖無別體。而時中之法則決定不無。薩婆多部中有四大師。立三世不同。一者相異。即是瞿沙人明九世義。一世兼有二也。如一人著青白黑三色衣。一色為正二色為傍。如未來有三世。一為正未來。傍有過去現在義。現在等亦爾。二者事異。即達摩多羅。只一法為三世。一法是有。而事為異。如金未作器名未來。正作器為現在。而金體是有也。第三時異。即和須蜜。如法有三世。迎送正望不同為三世。如今日為現在。昨日望今日為未來。明日望為過去。正現在曾未來當過去。正過去曾未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也。現在這一品正是就相待門來闡明實相。尋求三世的時間，一異等法，相互對待而不可得，就顯現了實相。所以三乘人見到實相就能得道。問：如果沒有三世和三乘人，上一品為什麼說有呢？答：說『不三三』是爲了讓眾生領悟『不三三』的道理。如果執著，就把它當作『三』來理解，所以要破除這種觀念。而且，上一品闡明『不三三』，現在這一品闡明『三不三』，兩者互相成就。所說的『時』，外道有兩種觀點。一種認為，『時』的本體是常住的，只是作為萬物的了因（輔助原因），不產生諸法，所以不是生因（主要原因）。另一種認為，另外有時的本體，是無常法，能為萬物的變化作生殺之因。所以偈語說：『時來眾生就，時去則摧促。』因此，『時』是原因。佛法中也有兩種觀點。一種是譬喻部認為，另外有時的本體，非色非心，本體是常住的，而法是無常的。只是法在這個『時』中執行，就像人從一個房間到另一個房間，像東西從一個容器到另一個容器。《婆沙論》說，爲了阻止這種說法，說明法就是時，法無常，時也就是無常。辨別因法假名，時離開法沒有別的『時』。三世的時間雖然沒有別的本體，而『時』中的法則決定不是沒有的。薩婆多部中有四大論師，立三世不同。一是相異，就是瞿沙（Ghosha）人闡明九世義，一世兼有二義。如一人穿著青、白、黑三種顏色的衣服，一種顏色為正，兩種顏色為傍。如未來有三世，一為正未來，傍有過去、現在義。現在等也是這樣。二是事異，就是達摩多羅（Dharmatrata）。只一法為三世，一法是有，而事為異。如金未做成器皿時名為未來，正在做成器皿時為現在，而金的本體是有。三是時異，就是和須蜜（Vasumitra）。如法有三世，迎送正望不同為三世。如今日為現在，昨日望今日為未來，明日望為過去。正現在曾未來當過去，正過去曾未
【English Translation】 English version Now, this chapter specifically clarifies the true nature of reality (實相, shixiang) based on the principle of interdependence (相待門, xiangdai men). Seeking the time of the three periods (三世, san shi) – past, present, and future – and the differences and similarities of phenomena, which are unattainable through interdependence, reveals the true nature of reality. Therefore, those of the Three Vehicles (三乘, san cheng) who see the true nature of reality attain enlightenment. Question: If there are no three periods or Three Vehicles, why does the previous chapter mention them? Answer: Saying 'not three-three' (不三三, bu san san) is to enable sentient beings to understand the principle of 'not three-three.' If they cling to it, they will understand it as 'three,' so this view must be refuted. Moreover, the previous chapter clarifies 'not three-three,' while this chapter clarifies 'three not-three' (三不三, san bu san), and the two complement each other. Regarding 'time' (時, shi), the non-Buddhist schools (外道, waidao) have two views. One view is that the substance of 'time' is permanent, only acting as the enabling cause (了因, liao yin) for all things, not producing phenomena, so it is not the generating cause (生因, sheng yin). The other view is that there is a separate substance of time, which is an impermanent dharma (無常法, wu chang fa), capable of being the cause of creation and destruction for all things. Therefore, the verse says: 'When time comes, beings gather; when time goes, they are destroyed.' Thus, 'time' is the cause. In Buddhism, there are also two views. One is the Sautrantika school (譬喻部, piyu bu), which believes that there is a separate substance of time, which is neither form (色, se) nor mind (心, xin), the substance is permanent, while the dharma is impermanent. It is just that the dharma operates within this 'time,' like a person going from one room to another, like an object going from one container to another. The Vibhasa (婆沙, posha) says that to prevent this view, it is explained that dharma is time, dharma is impermanent, and time is also impermanent. Distinguishing the imputed name of causal dharma, time is not separate from dharma. Although the time of the three periods does not have a separate substance, the dharma within 'time' is definitely not non-existent. Within the Sarvastivada school (薩婆多部, sarva stivada), there are four great masters who establish the differences of the three periods. First, difference in characteristics (相異, xiang yi), which is Ghosha (瞿沙, jusha) explaining the meaning of nine periods (九世義, jiu shi yi), one period encompassing two meanings. For example, a person wearing clothes of three colors – blue, white, and black – one color is primary, and the other two are secondary. For example, the future has three periods, one is the primary future, and the others are the past and present. The present, etc., are also like this. Second, difference in events (事異, shi yi), which is Dharmatrata (達摩多羅, damoduoluo). Only one dharma is the three periods, one dharma exists, but the events are different. For example, when gold has not yet been made into a vessel, it is called the future; when it is being made into a vessel, it is the present; but the substance of gold exists. Third, difference in time (時異, shi yi), which is Vasumitra (和須蜜, hexumi). For example, dharma has three periods, the difference in welcoming, sending, and observing is the three periods. For example, today is the present, yesterday looking at today is the future, and tomorrow looking at today is the past. The true present was once the future and will be the past, the true past was once not
來曾現在。正未來當現在當過去。第四異異。即是佛陀人義。亦三義為三世為十剎那無定。如一剎那為現在。餘九為未來。未有過去。第二剎那為現在。第一為過去。八為未來。如是第十為現在。九為過去。無未來時。今謂為大亂三世。今總求此時不可得。故云破時品。品開為二。一立二破。立中為二。初立有時。上中下一異等次立有法。問上品未明三世外人執有三世。何因緣故立上中下法及一異耶。答上明三乘人得益即執上中下義。對三乘之異辨一乘之法。故復執一異。大品云。諸法如中非但無有三乘異。亦無獨一菩薩乘。今欲釋經無一無三破外人定執有三一之理故今明上中下及一異也。答中六偈分為二章。初四偈就待不待門破。次兩偈就體相門破。初又二。前三偈半就待不待門破時。次半偈破法。三偈半為二。初三偈就待過去不待過去無有二時。次半偈例破餘二時。三偈為二。初二偈就相待門破。次一偈就不待門破。初二偈即二。前偈明相待則在。次偈明不相在。則不相待。初偈上半牒。下半破。破意云。法有自體不假因他。因他而有則無自體。若無自體則在他中。長行為四。一牒外義則牒偈上半。即過去時中下第二難牒偈下半。何以故下第三釋難。就初難中有五。一明相待即相在。二明若相在即同名過去。第三
若同名過去無有二時。第四若無二時亦無過去。第五明過去無因則無過去。以無未來可因故無過去。如是生死涅槃相待亦作此中五難。問燈明一時可得燈處有明。三世前後何得為類。答雖復前後一時不同。而相因無異故得作此責也。是故前說下第四結非。余文易知。若謂過去時中下生第二偈。明不相在則不得待。偈上半牒下半破。破意云。若不相在而各自有體。何假相因。如他義長短已成何須更待。問曰若不相因下生第三偈。不相待破。問待不待破何義。答待是因緣義。不待是自性義。一切義不出斯二。破相待明第一義中道。破不待明世諦中道。又待是相待。不待是絕待義。如十八空是相待空獨空為不待空。若爾破相待明第一義中道。破絕待明非真非俗中道也。答中上句牒。下三句破。破意云。汝上自言相待故有不待則無。若爾今既不待則無二時。然立三世義不得不待。以過現而去名為過去。現若不待過云何有現耶。如是義故第二半偈例破二時。前三偈就待過去不待過去門破無二時。今還捉未來現在為端。亦應各有三偈。合有九偈也。下半第二章。次例破其法。他云。一丈木有長短二理。形二丈則短。形五尺則長。今問以有此理則不須相形。若無此理雖形不出。又若須長方知有短。亦應須形方有長短理。理若自有者長
短事亦自有也。問曰如有歲月日下生第二就體相互相破。前問次答。上待不待二門責無有時。外無以答但舉眼現見事以問論主。若無時者云何有歲月等耶。今既有歲月等。當知有時。攝論約五種明時。一日時。二月時。三年時。四行時。五雙時。以明暗為異故以日夜為數名為日時。有黑白之異故分為兩半。兩半合論則虧盈事成。故有月時。十二月分為三分。一分有兩時。一時有二月。故說年時。日則六月從南行至北。故以六月為一行時。五年五月五日有兩潤以為一雙。故說雙時。次有一小劫時。十九小劫為中劫時。八十小劫為一大劫時。小乘六十數。大乘八十數。為一僧祇也。問幾許為一須臾時。答智度論一彈指六十生滅。康僧會云。一彈指有一百九十轉。僧祇律云。二十念名一眴。二十眴名一彈指。二十彈指名一羅頗。二十羅頗名一須臾。答中兩偈為二。初偈時體無故相無。第二偈時相無故時無也。上半明時無體。下半明體無故相無。若過去猶住則是現在。不名過去。過去若不住失自相。失自相則無時體。便無過去。同百論過去過去者不名為過去。未來亦爾。若未來未有則是無。無則無時。若未來已有則是現在。亦無未來。前二門責無過去。過去無故餘二時亦無。二門責無未來。未來無故餘二時亦無。又時體若住則
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 小事也有它自己的道理。有人問：如果歲月日下生第二就體相互相破（指時間概念中，過去、現在、未來相互依存又相互矛盾），之前的問題之後回答。上面等待不等待二門責難，沒有有時（指時間存在）的說法。外面沒有辦法回答，只能舉眼現見的事來問論主。如果沒有時（時間），怎麼會有歲月等呢？現在既然有歲月等，應當知道有時（時間存在）。 《攝大乘論》大約用五種方式來說明時間：一日時（一天的時間），二月時（一個月的時間），三年時（三年的時間），四行時（執行的時間），五雙時（成雙的時間）。因為光明和黑暗的差異，所以用日夜來計數，稱為日時。有黑和白的差異，所以分為兩半。兩半合起來討論，那麼虧盈的事情就成立了，所以有月時。十二個月分為三分，一分有兩時，一時有兩個月，所以說年時。太陽在六個月里從南向北執行，所以用六個月作為一行時。五年五月五日有兩個閏月，合為一個雙時，所以說雙時。 其次有小劫時（一個較短的時間單位），十九小劫為中劫時（一個中等的時間單位），八十小劫為一大劫時（一個較長的時間單位）。小乘佛教說是六十數，大乘佛教說是八十數，為一個僧祇（一個極長的時間單位）。有人問：多少算一個須臾時（極短的時間單位）？回答：《智度論》說一彈指有六十生滅。康僧會說：一彈指有一百九十轉。僧祇律說：二十念為一眴，二十眴為一彈指，二十彈指為一羅頗，二十羅頗為一須臾。 回答中的兩句偈頌分為兩部分。第一句偈頌說時間本體沒有，所以現象也沒有。第二句偈頌說時間現象沒有，所以時間本體也沒有。上半部分說明時間沒有本體，下半部分說明本體沒有，所以現象也沒有。如果過去仍然存在，那就是現在，不能稱為過去。過去如果不住留，就失去了它自身的相狀。失去了它自身的相狀，就沒有時間的本體，也就沒有過去。如同《百論》所說，過去的過去不能稱為過去。未來也是這樣。如果未來還沒有到來，那就是沒有，沒有就沒有時間。如果未來已經存在，那就是現在，也就沒有未來。前面兩門責難說沒有過去，過去沒有，其餘兩個時間（現在和未來）也沒有。後面兩門責難說沒有未來，未來沒有，其餘兩個時間（現在和過去）也沒有。又，時間本體如果住留，那麼...
【English Translation】 English version Even small matters have their own reasons. Someone asks: If the arising of the second entity under years, months, and days mutually breaks each other (referring to the interdependence and contradiction of past, present, and future in the concept of time), the previous question is answered after. The above waits for the two doors of waiting or not waiting to blame, and there is no saying of having time (referring to the existence of time). There is no way to answer from the outside, so one can only raise one's eyes to see the matter and ask the master of the treatise. If there is no time, how can there be years and months, etc.? Now that there are years and months, etc., it should be known that there is time. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains time in about five ways: first, a day-time; second, a month-time; third, a year-time; fourth, a course-time; and fifth, a pair-time. Because of the difference between light and darkness, days and nights are used to count, which is called day-time. Because there is a difference between black and white, it is divided into two halves. If the two halves are discussed together, then the matter of gain and loss will be established, so there is month-time. Twelve months are divided into three parts, one part has two times, and one time has two months, so it is said to be year-time. The sun travels from south to north in six months, so six months are used as a course-time. In five years, five months, and five days, there are two intercalary months, which are combined into a pair-time, so it is said to be pair-time. Next, there is a small kalpa (a relatively short unit of time), nineteen small kalpas are a middle kalpa (a medium unit of time), and eighty small kalpas are a great kalpa (a long unit of time). The Śrāvakayāna (small vehicle) says sixty numbers, and the Mahāyāna (great vehicle) says eighty numbers, which is one asaṃkhyeya (an extremely long unit of time). Someone asks: How much is a kṣaṇa (extremely short unit of time)? The answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that there are sixty arising and ceasing in one snap of the fingers. Kang Senghui said: There are one hundred and ninety turns in one snap of the fingers. The Saṃghāṭī-vinaya says: Twenty nian (thoughts) are called one kṣaṇa, twenty kṣaṇas are one snap of the fingers, twenty snaps of the fingers are one lava, and twenty lavas are one kṣaṇa. The two gāthās (verses) in the answer are divided into two parts. The first gāthā says that the substance of time does not exist, so the phenomena do not exist either. The second gāthā says that the phenomena of time do not exist, so the substance of time does not exist either. The first half explains that time has no substance, and the second half explains that if there is no substance, then there are no phenomena. If the past still exists, then it is the present, and it cannot be called the past. If the past does not stay, it loses its own characteristics. If it loses its own characteristics, there is no substance of time, and there is no past. As the Śataśāstra says, the past of the past cannot be called the past. The future is also like this. If the future has not yet arrived, then it is nothing, and if there is nothing, there is no time. If the future already exists, then it is the present, and there is no future. The first two doors blame that there is no past, and if there is no past, then the other two times (present and future) do not exist either. The last two doors blame that there is no future, and if there is no future, then the other two times (present and past) do not exist either. Also, if the substance of time stays, then...
常是一念無有歲月。既無歲月亦無一念。時若不住則唸唸各滅並無相續。何有歲數。汝本積時成日。積日成月。積月為歲。若一日滅則有後無前。云何積日成月。日若不滅則唯有一日則有前無後。復何得積日成月。故住不住並不可也。他義云。十劫為一念。此是佛智力爾。今問實有長短云何得爾。若以佛力令短長自在。亦應以佛力故色得為心。又問時若是常。常無三世。時無常。唸唸生滅亦無三世。又常言。無明初念未有四住地以名為初。既未有後何得有初。若未有後名初。亦可名為后。又若無後名初則是自然初。又若無後有初亦應無初有後。第二偈上半明因物有時。則物為時體。下半明物無故時無。如因華果等物知春秋時。華果等物上來種種破故無物。無物故時無也。爾問。時法互相待何不互為體。又問時無別體。意識緣應不得。亦應非是法塵。而意識緣之遂得。又是法塵。則應是別體也。若無體則無時。又現在若待未來則應相在。若不可在亦不可待也。
中觀論疏卷第八(末終) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第九(本)
釋吉藏撰
因果品第二十
問自上已來品品破因果竟。今何故重說。答因果是眾義之大宗立信之根本。惑者多謬。上雖略
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 常是一念之間沒有歲月流逝的概念。既然沒有歲月，也就沒有單獨的一念存在。時間如果不是持續的，那麼每一念都會各自消滅，不會有連續性，又怎麼會有歲數的概念呢？你原本是積累時間成為日，積累日成為月，積累月成為歲。如果一日消滅，就只有后而沒有前，怎麼能積累日成為月呢？如果日不消滅，就只有一日，只有前而沒有後，又怎麼能積累日成為月呢？所以說，時間是『住』或『不住』都是不可能的。另一種說法認為，十劫為一念。這只是佛的智慧力量所致。現在問，如果時間確實有長短，怎麼能這樣說呢？如果用佛的力量使短變長，長變短，也應該可以用佛的力量使色法變成心法。又問，如果時間是常，常就沒有過去、現在、未來三世。如果時間是無常，唸唸生滅，也沒有三世。還有人說，無明最初的一念還沒有四住地（指見一切處住地、欲愛住地、色愛住地、有愛住地）時，稱之為『初』。既然沒有後，怎麼會有初呢？如果未有後就稱為初，也可以稱為后。又如果無後而有初，也應該無初而有後。第二偈的上半部分說明因為有事物才有時，那麼事物就是時間的本體。下半部分說明事物沒有了，時間也就沒有了。比如因為有花果等事物才知道有春、秋時節。花果等事物，上面已經用種種方法破斥，所以沒有事物。沒有事物，時間也就沒有了。你問，時間和法互相依賴，為什麼不互相作為本體？又問，時間沒有單獨的本體，意識緣取時，應該得不到。也應該不是法塵，但意識緣取后卻可以得到。如果是法塵，就應該是單獨的本體。如果沒有本體，就沒有時間。還有，現在如果依賴未來，就應該互相存在。如果不可存在，也不可依賴。
《中觀論疏》卷第八（末終） 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 《中觀論疏》
《中觀論疏》卷第九（本）
釋吉藏 撰
因果品第二十
問：從前面各品已經破斥了因果，現在為什麼又要重新說呢？答：因果是各種義理的大綱，是建立信仰的根本。迷惑的人有很多謬誤。前面雖然簡略地
【English Translation】 English version Constantly, in a single thought, there is no concept of the passage of time. Since there is no time, there is also no single thought. If time is not continuous, then each thought will perish individually, without continuity, so how can there be a concept of age? Originally, you accumulate time to become days, accumulate days to become months, and accumulate months to become years. If one day perishes, there is only after and no before, how can you accumulate days to become months? If a day does not perish, there is only one day, only before and no after, how can you accumulate days to become months? Therefore, it is impossible to say that time is either 'abiding' or 'not abiding'. Another saying is that ten kalpas (aeons) are one thought. This is only due to the power of the Buddha's wisdom. Now I ask, if time truly has length, how can it be said like this? If the Buddha's power can make short become long and long become short, then it should also be possible to use the Buddha's power to transform form (rupa) into mind (citta). Furthermore, if time is permanent (nitya), then permanence has no three periods of time (past, present, future). If time is impermanent (anitya), with thoughts arising and ceasing, there are also no three periods of time. Some also say that the first thought of ignorance (avidya), before there are the four abodes (four grounds of attachment: the ground of attachment to seeing all places, the ground of attachment to desire-realm love, the ground of attachment to form-realm love, and the ground of attachment to existence-realm love), is called 'initial'. Since there is no after, how can there be a beginning? If what has no after is called initial, it can also be called after. Also, if there is no after but there is a beginning, there should also be no beginning but there is an after. The first half of the second verse explains that because there are things, there is time, so things are the substance of time. The second half explains that if things are gone, time is also gone. For example, because there are flowers and fruits, we know there are spring and autumn seasons. Flowers, fruits, and other things have been refuted in various ways above, so there are no things. Without things, there is no time. You ask, time and dharma (law, phenomena) are mutually dependent, why don't they become each other's substance? Also, you ask, if time has no separate substance, the consciousness (vijnana) should not be able to perceive it. It should also not be a dharma-dust (dharma-dhatu), but consciousness can perceive it. If it is a dharma-dust, it should be a separate substance. If there is no substance, there is no time. Also, if the present depends on the future, they should exist together. If they cannot exist together, they cannot depend on each other.
《Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti》 Scroll 8 (End) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 42, No. 1824, 《Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti》
《Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti》 Scroll 9 (Beginning)
Composed by Jizang
Chapter 20: Cause and Effect
Question: From the previous chapters, cause and effect have already been refuted. Why are they being discussed again now? Answer: Cause and effect are the main principles of all meanings and the foundation of establishing faith. Those who are confused have many errors. Although the previous
破宜須重論在次下也。如外道計邪因邪果四宗不同大小乘人十家所說。故知。因果難明須重辨也。二者上來雖破因果為成余法。如因緣品破四緣因果為成無生義。乃至五陰品破因果為成無五陰義。並未正論因果。今欲正論因果。故有此品來也。若逐近來者從時品生。外云。無三世之時寧有因果之法。而因果道理不可令無。故應有時也。問因果有幾種。答略有三種。一相生因果。如泥瓶之類。二相緣因果。如卷指之流。三者了因因果。如燈了物萬行了出法身。問此品為破因果。為申因果耶。答品品之中皆有申破二義。求內外大小性實因果皆悉無從。故名破因果。以計性實之人即破因果義。故論主須破之。二者性實因果既除始得辨因緣因果。既稱因緣。則因果宛然而常寂滅。故因中發觀則戲論斯忘也。品開為二。第一別破十家因果。第二總破一切因果。破十家因果則為十段。亦得束為五雙。第一有無一雙。第二與不與一雙。亦云滅不滅。第三一時前後一雙。第四滅變不滅變一雙。第五遍不遍一雙。初有無一雙凡有四偈。即為四別。初偈明因中有果何假緣生。第二偈因中無果緣何能生。第三偈重破有果。因中若有果果備四塵。則諸根取得。第四重破無。若因中無果則因同非因。所以四偈交絡破者。以破有竟外則執無是故破無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《破宜須重論》緊隨其後。例如，外道計較邪因邪果，有四種不同的宗派，大小乘人也有十家不同的說法。由此可知，因果難以明瞭，需要重新辨析。 其次，前面雖然破斥因果，是爲了成就其他法。例如，《因緣品》破斥四緣因果，是爲了成就無生之義；乃至《五陰品》破斥因果，是爲了成就無五陰之義。但並未正面論述因果。現在想要正面論述因果，所以有了此品。 如果按照最近的觀點，是從《時品》產生的。外道說：『沒有三世的時間，哪裡會有因果之法？』但因果的道理又不可使之沒有，所以應該有時。 問：因果有幾種？答：略有三種。一是相生因果，如泥和瓶子的關係；二是相緣因果，如捲起手指的動作；三是了因因果，如燈照亮物體，萬行了悟法身。 問：此品是破斥因果，還是闡述因果？答：每一品中都有闡述和破斥兩種含義。尋求內外大小、自性真實的因果，都找不到，所以名為破因果。因為執著于自性真實的人，就破斥了因果的意義，所以論主必須破斥它。其次，自性真實的因果既然去除，才能辨析因緣因果。既然稱為因緣，那麼因果就宛然而常寂滅。所以在因中發起觀照，那麼戲論就會消失。 此品分為兩部分。第一部分是分別破斥十家的因果，第二部分是總破一切因果。破斥十家的因果，分為十段，也可以歸納為五對。第一對是有和無；第二對是與和不與，也叫滅和不滅；第三對是一時和前後；第四對是滅變和不滅變；第五對是遍和不遍。最初的有無一對，共有四偈，即分為四種不同的破斥。第一偈說明因中如果有果，何必假借緣而生？第二偈說明因中如果沒有果，緣又怎麼能生出果？第三偈再次破斥有果，如果因中已經有果，果已經具備了地水火風四塵，那麼諸根就能取得。第四偈再次破斥無，如果因中沒有果，那麼因就和非因一樣了。所以用四偈交錯破斥的原因是，因為破斥了有之後，外道就會執著于無，所以要破斥無。
【English Translation】 English version The 'Breaking Down the Essential Discussion' (Po Yi Xu Zhong Lun) follows next. For example, external paths (外道, Waidào - non-Buddhist schools of thought) calculate wrong causes and wrong effects, having four different sects, and the people of the Great and Small Vehicles (大小乘人, Dàxiǎo Chéngrén - Mahayana and Hinayana practitioners) have ten different explanations. Therefore, it is known that cause and effect are difficult to understand and need to be re-examined. Secondly, although the previous sections refuted cause and effect, it was to accomplish other dharmas (法, Fǎ - teachings, principles). For example, the 'Conditions' (因緣, Yīnyuán - Hetu-pratyaya) chapter refutes the four conditions of cause and effect to accomplish the meaning of non-origination (無生, Wúshēng - non-arising); and even the 'Five Skandhas' (五陰, Wǔyīn - Five Aggregates) chapter refutes cause and effect to accomplish the meaning of no five skandhas. But it did not discuss cause and effect directly. Now, wanting to discuss cause and effect directly, this chapter arises. If following the recent view, it arises from the 'Time' (時, Shí - Time) chapter. Externalists say: 'Without the time of the three times (三世, Sānshì - past, present, and future), how can there be the dharma of cause and effect?' But the principle of cause and effect cannot be made to not exist, so there should be time. Question: How many kinds of cause and effect are there? Answer: Briefly, there are three kinds. First, mutually arising cause and effect, like the relationship between clay and a pot; second, mutually dependent cause and effect, like the action of curling a finger; third, illuminating cause and effect, like a lamp illuminating objects, and myriad practices illuminating the Dharmakaya (法身, Fǎshēn - Dharma Body). Question: Does this chapter refute cause and effect, or does it expound cause and effect? Answer: In each chapter, there are both expounding and refuting meanings. Seeking internal and external, great and small, self-natured (性實, Xìngshí - Svabhava) real cause and effect, none can be found, so it is named refuting cause and effect. Because those who cling to self-natured reality refute the meaning of cause and effect, the author of the treatise must refute it. Secondly, since self-natured real cause and effect are removed, one can then discern conditioned cause and effect. Since it is called conditioned, then cause and effect are clearly and constantly quiescent. Therefore, when contemplation arises in the cause, then discursive thoughts (戲論, Xìlùn - Prapanca) will be forgotten. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part is to separately refute the cause and effect of ten schools, and the second part is to generally refute all cause and effect. Refuting the cause and effect of ten schools is divided into ten sections, which can also be summarized into five pairs. The first pair is existence and non-existence; the second pair is giving and not giving, also called extinction and non-extinction; the third pair is simultaneous and sequential; the fourth pair is extinction-transformation and non-extinction-transformation; the fifth pair is pervasive and non-pervasive. The initial pair of existence and non-existence has four verses, which are divided into four different refutations. The first verse explains that if there is a result in the cause, why borrow conditions to arise? The second verse explains that if there is no result in the cause, how can conditions produce a result? The third verse again refutes having a result, if there is already a result in the cause, and the result already possesses the four elements (四塵, Sìchén - earth, water, fire, wind), then the senses can obtain it. The fourth verse again refutes non-existence, if there is no result in the cause, then the cause is the same as a non-cause. Therefore, the reason for refuting with four interwoven verses is that after refuting existence, externalists will cling to non-existence, so non-existence must be refuted.
。次破無竟外回宗執有。故重破有。破其有竟從徹捉無。以其所執不定故交絡破之。又此論破有多門。上來以有無各類。今是有無交絡。適緣不同故有破門非一。問何故十家之中前破有無。答有無是斷常之本。斷常為眾見之根。今欲窮其根故前破之也。又佛法因果正是中道。有無正障中道也。又僧佉衛世是外道之宗。上座僧祇為諸部之本。如此內外正執有無。故前破之也。問何故不破亦有亦無非有非無。答亦有之與非無猶是有義。亦無之與非有猶是無義。故但破二關則四宗便攝。初長行立。次偈破。即是僧佉之與上座明因中有果。執有果三義。一者現見果從因故因中有果。二者假緣則生。故知緣中有。緣中若無雖合不生。三者信佛語。如經云。以有生性故生能生。偈上半牒下半破。外救云。因中無果事。假緣合故生事果。云何難言不須緣合生耶。答因中無事果終是因中無果義。以因中無事而生於事。當知此事本無今有。故是因中無果。又若緣合發事亦應和合方有理。理若自有事亦應然。又若事因於理理應更有所因。又若事因理事可是有。理既無因則應無理。又問。為本有竟須緣合。為緣合竟然後有。若本有竟何須緣合。若緣合竟方有則未合便是無。雖假緣合果終不生。問曰下立因中無果義。蓋是衛世僧祇二世無義。答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 其次，破斥那些無休止地向外尋求，執著于『有』（bhava）的宗派。因此，要著重破斥『有』。破斥他們對『有』的執著，就是要徹底地抓住『無』（abhava）。因為他們所執著的東西是不確定的，所以要交錯地破斥他們。而且，這部論著從多個方面破斥『有』。前面是用『有』和『無』的各種類別來破斥，現在是用『有』和『無』交錯的方式來破斥。因為所依據的條件不同，所以破斥的方法不止一種。 問：為什麼在十家之中，首先破斥『有』和『無』？答：『有』和『無』是斷見（uccheda-di??hi）和常見（sassata-di??hi）的根本。斷見和常見是各種見解的根源。現在想要窮盡其根源，所以首先破斥它們。而且，佛法的因果正是中道（madhyama-pratipada）。『有』和『無』正是障礙中道的。 又，僧佉（Samkhya）和衛世（Vaisheshika）是外道的宗派，上座部（Sthavira）和僧祇部（Mahasanghika）是各部派的根本。這些內外宗派都執著于『有』和『無』，所以首先破斥它們。問：為什麼不破斥『亦有亦無』（asti nasti）和『非有非無』（naivasti nanasti）？答：『亦有』和『非無』仍然是『有』的含義，『亦無』和『非有』仍然是『無』的含義。所以，只要破斥『有』和『無』這兩個關口，那麼這四種宗派就被涵蓋了。 首先是長行文的立論，其次是用偈頌來破斥。這就是僧佉和上座部所主張的，在因（hetu）中存在果（phala），執著于因中存在果的三種理由：一是現見果是從因產生的，所以因中存在果；二是憑藉條件（pratyaya）就會產生，所以知道條件中存在果。如果條件中不存在果，即使聚合也不會產生；三是相信佛陀所說的話，如經中所說：『因為有生性（jati-svabhava），所以生能生。』偈頌的上半部分是陳述，下半部分是破斥。 外道辯解說：『因中沒有果的事實，憑藉條件的聚合才產生果的事實。為什麼責難說不需要條件的聚合才能產生呢？』回答說：『因中沒有果的事實，最終還是因中沒有果的含義。因為因中沒有事而產生了事，應當知道這件事本來沒有現在才有，所以是因中沒有果。』而且，如果條件的聚合能夠引發事，也應該和合才能有道理。如果道理是自身就有的，事也應該如此。而且，如果事依賴於理，理應該再有所依賴。而且，如果事依賴於理，理或許可以存在。理既然沒有原因，就應該沒有理。 又問：是本來就有，最終需要條件的聚合？還是條件的聚合最終完成之後才有？如果是本來就有，為什麼需要條件的聚合？如果是條件的聚合最終完成之後才有，那麼在未聚合之前就是沒有。即使憑藉條件的聚合，果最終也不會產生。問曰下，立因中無果義。大概是衛世和僧祇二世無義。答：
【English Translation】 English version Next, refuting those who endlessly seek externally, clinging to 『existence』 (bhava). Therefore, the emphasis is on refuting 『existence』. To refute their clinging to 『existence』 is to thoroughly grasp 『non-existence』 (abhava). Because what they cling to is uncertain, they are refuted in an intertwined manner. Moreover, this treatise refutes 『existence』 from multiple perspectives. Previously, 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 were refuted using various categories; now, 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 are refuted in an intertwined manner. Because the conditions relied upon are different, there is more than one method of refutation. Question: Why, among the ten schools, are 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 refuted first? Answer: 『Existence』 and 『non-existence』 are the root of annihilationism (uccheda-di??hi) and eternalism (sassata-di??hi). Annihilationism and eternalism are the source of various views. Now, wanting to exhaust their source, they are refuted first. Moreover, the Buddha's Dharma of cause and effect is precisely the Middle Way (madhyama-pratipada). 『Existence』 and 『non-existence』 are precisely the obstacles to the Middle Way. Furthermore, the Samkhya (Samkhya) and Vaisheshika (Vaisheshika) are the schools of external paths, and the Sthavira (Sthavira) and Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika) are the root of various schools. These internal and external schools all cling to 『existence』 and 『non-existence』, so they are refuted first. Question: Why not refute 『both existence and non-existence』 (asti nasti) and 『neither existence nor non-existence』 (naivasti nanasti)? Answer: 『Both existence』 and 『not non-existence』 still have the meaning of 『existence』, and 『both non-existence』 and 『not existence』 still have the meaning of 『non-existence』. Therefore, as long as the two gates of 『existence』 and 『non-existence』 are refuted, then these four schools are encompassed. First, the establishment of the argument in prose, and second, the refutation with verses. This is what the Samkhya and Sthavira schools assert, that the effect (phala) exists in the cause (hetu), clinging to the three reasons for the existence of the effect in the cause: first, it is directly seen that the effect arises from the cause, so the effect exists in the cause; second, it arises by means of conditions (pratyaya), so it is known that the effect exists in the conditions. If the effect does not exist in the conditions, it will not arise even if they are assembled; third, believing the words spoken by the Buddha, as it is said in the sutras: 『Because there is a nature of arising (jati-svabhava), arising is able to arise.』 The first half of the verse is a statement, and the second half is a refutation. The external path argues: 『The fact that there is no effect in the cause, the fact that the effect arises by means of the assembly of conditions. Why criticize saying that it does not need the assembly of conditions to arise?』 The answer is: 『The fact that there is no effect in the cause, ultimately still means that there is no effect in the cause.』 Because the effect arises from the absence of the effect in the cause, it should be known that this thing originally did not exist and now exists, so there is no effect in the cause.』 Moreover, if the assembly of conditions can trigger the effect, it should also be harmonious to be reasonable. If the reason is self-existent, the effect should also be so. Moreover, if the effect depends on the reason, the reason should depend on something else. Moreover, if the effect depends on the reason, the reason may exist. Since the reason has no cause, there should be no reason. Again, is it originally existent, ultimately needing the assembly of conditions? Or does it exist only after the assembly of conditions is ultimately completed? If it is originally existent, why is the assembly of conditions needed? If it exists only after the assembly of conditions is ultimately completed, then it is non-existent before the assembly. Even with the assembly of conditions, the effect will ultimately not arise. The following question establishes the meaning of no effect in the cause. It is probably the meaning of the two worlds of Vaisheshika and Mahasanghika. Answer:
中上半牒下半破。破意云。因中無果此無與太虛菟角無無有異。太虛菟角緣合不生。果亦如是。果逐可生。太虛不生太虛可無。果應非無。若二俱無太虛不生而果生者。亦可太虛應生而果不生。第三偈上半重牒有。下半正破。外道泥中之瓶具有五塵。則五根取之應得。內法瓶為四塵成。四根應知。又內法泥中之瓶若是假應為想心得。而並不爾。故知無也。第四偈上半重牒無。下半正破。破有三意。一相與俱無則因同非因。相與不生。又若皆是非因則無有因。以因無故非因亦無。二者相與俱無則非因同因。相與皆因無有非因。既無非因亦無有因。三者二俱是無而有因非因者。亦應二俱是因而有有無。又同皆是無亦應求火于冰求乳於水。則因果大亂。問曰因為果下第二破與果不與果一雙。前破因與果作因義。次破因不與果作因義。初立次破。立中外人避前有無二關。以因與果作因故非是因中都無。而因與竟便滅不得言因中有果。成論師云。因是有為凡有二義。一者性滅。二是轉變。以性滅故因滅果生。以轉變義故轉因作果。又云。一念之因辨果力足。故能生果。因是有為。故亦生便滅。亦是此義。以感果力足名為與果。性滅之義秤之為滅。故成論文云。是因與果作因。已滅報在後生。又云。作因已滅而成就力在。故能感果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中上半句重複說明，下半句進行破斥。破斥的含義是：因為因中沒有果，所以這種『無』與太虛（虛空）和兔角（不存在的事物）的『無』沒有區別。太虛和兔角因緣和合也不會產生任何事物，果也是如此。果是隨著條件成熟而產生的。太虛不會產生任何事物，所以可以認為太虛是『無』，那麼果應該不是『無』。如果兩者都是『無』，太虛不產生任何事物而果卻能產生，那麼也可以說太虛應該能產生事物而果卻不能產生。 第三個偈頌的上半句重複說明『有』，下半句正式進行破斥。外道認為泥中的瓶子具有五塵（色、聲、香、味、觸），那麼五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）應該能夠感知到它。內法認為瓶子由四塵（色、聲、香、觸）構成，那麼四根（眼、耳、鼻、身）應該能夠知曉它。而且，內法認為泥中的瓶子如果是虛假的，應該只是想像中的事物，但事實並非如此，所以可知它是『無』。 第四個偈頌的上半句重複說明『無』，下半句正式進行破斥。破斥有三種含義：一是如果因和果相互都是『無』，那麼因就和非因沒有區別，相互之間不會產生任何事物。而且，如果兩者都是非因，那麼就沒有因的存在。因為沒有因，所以非因也不存在。二是如果因和果相互都是『無』，那麼非因就和因沒有區別，相互之間都是因，沒有非因。既然沒有非因，也就沒有因。三是如果兩者都是『無』，卻有因和非因的存在，那麼也應該兩者都是因，卻有『有』和『無』的存在。而且，如果兩者都是『無』，也應該可以像在冰中求火、在水中求乳一樣，那麼因果關係就徹底混亂了。 問：因為果的緣故。下面第二段破斥『與果』和『不與果』這兩種情況。前面破斥因『與果』作為因的含義，接下來破斥因『不與果』作為因的含義。先確立觀點，再進行破斥。確立觀點時，外道爲了避免前面『有』和『無』兩種困境，認為因『與果』作為因，所以不是因中完全沒有果。而且因『與果』之後就消滅了，不能說因中有果。成論師（Sthiramati）說，因是有為法，通常有兩種含義：一是性質消滅，二是轉變。因為性質消滅，所以因滅果生。因為轉變的含義，所以轉變因成為果。又說，一念之因具備產生果的力量，所以能夠產生果。因是有為法，所以產生之後就會消滅，這也是這個含義。因為具備感生果的力量，所以稱為『與果』。性質消滅的含義可以比作秤的滅失。所以成論論文中說，是因『與果』作為因，已經消滅，報應在後面產生。又說，作為因已經消滅，但是成就的力量還在，所以能夠感生果。
【English Translation】 English version The first half of the sentence repeats the statement, and the second half refutes it. The meaning of the refutation is: Because there is no result in the cause, this 'non-existence' is no different from the 'non-existence' of the void (emptiness) and the rabbit's horn (a non-existent thing). The void and the rabbit's horn will not produce anything even if conditions are met, and so is the result. The result arises as conditions mature. The void does not produce anything, so it can be considered 'non-existent', then the result should not be 'non-existent'. If both are 'non-existent', and the void does not produce anything but the result can be produced, then it can also be said that the void should be able to produce things but the result cannot be produced. The first half of the third verse repeats the statement of 'existence', and the second half formally refutes it. The heretics believe that the vase in the mud has five dusts (rupa (form), shabda (sound), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), and sparsha (touch)), then the five senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) should be able to perceive it. The inner Dharma believes that the vase is composed of four dusts (rupa (form), shabda (sound), gandha (smell), and sparsha (touch)), then the four senses (eye, ear, nose, body) should be able to know it. Moreover, the inner Dharma believes that if the vase in the mud is false, it should only be an imaginary thing, but this is not the case, so it can be known that it is 'non-existent'. The first half of the fourth verse repeats the statement of 'non-existence', and the second half formally refutes it. The refutation has three meanings: First, if the cause and the result are mutually 'non-existent', then the cause is no different from the non-cause, and nothing will be produced between them. Moreover, if both are non-causes, then there is no existence of a cause. Because there is no cause, there is also no non-cause. Second, if the cause and the result are mutually 'non-existent', then the non-cause is no different from the cause, and both are causes, and there is no non-cause. Since there is no non-cause, there is also no cause. Third, if both are 'non-existent', but there is a cause and a non-cause, then it should also be that both are causes, but there is 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Moreover, if both are 'non-existent', it should also be possible to seek fire in ice and seek milk in water, then the relationship between cause and effect will be completely chaotic. Question: Because of the result. The second paragraph below refutes the two situations of 'giving the result' and 'not giving the result'. The previous paragraph refutes the meaning of the cause 'giving the result' as the cause, and then refutes the meaning of the cause 'not giving the result' as the cause. First establish the point of view, and then refute it. When establishing the point of view, the heretics, in order to avoid the two difficulties of 'existence' and 'non-existence' mentioned earlier, believe that the cause 'giving the result' is the cause, so it is not that there is no result in the cause at all. Moreover, the cause disappears after 'giving the result', and it cannot be said that there is a result in the cause. Sthiramati (成論師) said that the cause is a conditioned dharma (有為法), and usually has two meanings: one is the extinction of nature, and the other is transformation. Because of the extinction of nature, the cause ceases and the result arises. Because of the meaning of transformation, the cause is transformed into the result. It is also said that the cause of a single thought has the power to produce the result, so it can produce the result. The cause is a conditioned dharma (有為法), so it will disappear after it is produced, and this is also the meaning. Because it has the power to sense the result, it is called 'giving the result'. The meaning of the extinction of nature can be compared to the loss of a scale. Therefore, it is said in the Cheng Lun (成論) treatise that the cause 'giving the result' is the cause, and it has disappeared, and the retribution arises later. It is also said that the cause has disappeared, but the power of accomplishment is still there, so it can sense the result.
。亦是此義也。偈上半牒下半破。且問前性滅轉變義。汝只是一乳因若言其滅則無可轉之為酪。若言乳轉作酪果則不得言乳滅。今遂言作而覆滅者則乳有二體。一體滅於前。二乳體轉作酪。本立一乳。何有二耶。又問。因與果者若有果何須與耶。如其無者與誰作因。救云。有果道理故與果作因也。若理異空則不須與。若不異空則無可與。又汝果若有有理復有無理。如百論若當有有若當無無。又難開善義云。有成就現在。復有現起現在。成就現在為當能緣為不緣。若能緣則是現起不名成就。若不能緣同毗婆阇婆提不相應使。又開善亦是過去過去義。初念謝滅是一過去。成就來現在得果竟便滅。復是一過去。同迦葉鞞失已復失。又汝因是一有滅不滅者則有二體。一是現起因。二是成就來現在因。故是二體。若言唯是一體經二時者因法假名時。既有二時則有二法。便有二因二果。又問。若得果竟無覆成就者。亦應得果竟不名過去。若過去竟猶名過去。亦應得報竟猶名成就。問曰若謂因不與果下。第二破因不與果作因。外人避前二體。但立因滅果生。答中上半牒下半破。破意云。因滅無果之前是無因。果云何得起。假令果起則是無因之果。又前偈明果生已而滅。則有二因之過。今明因滅已而果生。則有無因之咎。前是破成實義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這也是同樣的道理。偈的上半部分是重複，下半部分是破斥。且問前面的『性滅轉變』的意義。你只說是一種乳，如果說它滅了，那就沒有可以轉變成酪的東西。如果說乳轉變成為酪這個結果，那就不能說乳滅了。現在卻說既產生又滅亡，那麼乳就有兩個本體。一個本體在前滅亡，第二個乳的本體轉變成酪。本來立論只有一個乳，怎麼會有兩個呢？ 又問：因和果，如果有果，為什麼還需要『與』呢？如果什麼都沒有，又與誰作為因呢？辯護說：有果的道理，所以『與』果作為因。如果道理與空性不同，就不需要『與』。如果不異於空性，那就沒有什麼可以『與』的。 又你的果，如果說有，既有道理，又有無道理。如《百論》所說，如果應當有，就應當有；如果應當無，就應當無。又難倒開善的觀點說：有『成就現在』，又有『現起現在』。『成就現在』是能夠緣取還是不能緣取？如果能夠緣取，那就是『現起』，不能稱為『成就』。如果不能緣取，就如同毗婆阇婆提的不相應使。 又開善所說的也是『過去過去』的意義。最初的念頭謝滅，這是一個『過去』。成就來現在，得到果報后便滅亡，這又是另一個『過去』。如同迦葉鞞失，已經失去又再次失去。 又你的因，如果是一種有滅不滅的東西，那麼就有兩個本體。一個是『現起因』，一個是『成就來現在因』。所以是兩個本體。如果說只有一個本體，經歷了兩個時間，那麼因法只是假名，既然有兩個時間，那麼就有兩個法，便有兩個因兩個果。 又問：如果得到果報后就沒有『成就』了，也應該得到果報后不稱為『過去』。如果過去之後仍然稱為『過去』，也應該得到果報后仍然稱為『成就』。問：如果說因不『與』果，下面第二點是破斥因不『與』果作為因。外人爲了避免前面所說的兩個本體的過失，隻立論因滅果生。回答中上半部分是重複，下半部分是破斥。破斥的意思是說：因滅亡，在沒有果之前是無因，果怎麼能夠生起？假如果生起，那就是無因之果。又前面的偈頌說明果生起后就滅亡，那麼就有兩個因的過失。現在說明因滅亡后而果生起，那麼就有無因的過失。前面是破斥成實宗的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version: This is also the same meaning. The first half of the verse repeats, and the second half refutes. Let's question the meaning of the previous 'cessation and transformation of nature'. You only say it's one kind of milk, if you say it ceases, then there is nothing that can be transformed into curd. If you say that milk transforms into the result of curd, then you cannot say that the milk ceases. Now it is said that it both arises and ceases, then the milk has two entities. One entity ceases in the front, and the second milk entity transforms into curd. Originally, the argument was that there was only one milk, how can there be two? Also asked: Cause (因, hetu) and effect (果, phala), if there is an effect, why is there a need to 'give' (與, dadāti)? If there is nothing, to whom is it given as a cause? The defense says: There is the principle of effect, so 'giving' the effect as a cause. If the principle is different from emptiness (空性, śūnyatā), then there is no need to 'give'. If it is not different from emptiness, then there is nothing to 'give'. Also, your effect, if you say it exists, it is both reasonable and unreasonable. As the Śataśāstra (百論, Bai Lun) says, if it should exist, then it should exist; if it should not exist, then it should not exist. Also, it is difficult to refute the view of Kaisan (開善, Kāishàn), saying: There is 'accomplishment present' (成就現在, chéngjiù xiànzài), and there is 'manifestation present' (現起現在, xiànqǐ xiànzài). Is 'accomplishment present' able to cognize or not able to cognize? If it is able to cognize, then it is 'manifestation', and cannot be called 'accomplishment'. If it is not able to cognize, it is like the non-corresponding forces of Vibhajjavāda (毗婆阇婆提, Pí Pó Shé Pó Tí). Also, what Kaisan said is also the meaning of 'past past' (過去過去, guòqù guòqù). The initial thought ceases, this is one 'past'. Accomplishment comes to the present, and after obtaining the result, it ceases, this is another 'past'. It is like Kāśyapī (迦葉鞞, Jiāshèpí), having lost and lost again. Also, your cause, if it is a kind of thing that both ceases and does not cease, then there are two entities. One is the 'manifestation cause' (現起因, xiànqǐ yīn), and the other is the 'accomplishment coming to the present cause' (成就來現在因, chéngjiù lái xiànzài yīn). So there are two entities. If you say there is only one entity, experiencing two times, then the cause-dharma (因法, yīn fǎ) is only a false name, since there are two times, then there are two dharmas, then there are two causes and two effects. Also asked: If there is no 'accomplishment' after obtaining the result, it should also be that after obtaining the result it is not called 'past'. If after the past it is still called 'past', it should also be that after obtaining the reward it is still called 'accomplishment'. Asked: If it is said that the cause does not 'give' the effect, the second point below is to refute that the cause does not 'give' the effect as a cause. Outsiders, in order to avoid the fault of the two entities mentioned earlier, only argue that the cause ceases and the effect arises. The first half of the answer is a repetition, and the second half is a refutation. The meaning of the refutation is: The cause ceases, and before there is an effect, there is no cause, how can the effect arise? If the effect arises, then it is an effect without a cause. Also, the previous verse explained that the effect arises and then ceases, then there is the fault of two causes. Now it is explained that the cause ceases and then the effect arises, then there is the fault of no cause. The former is to refute the view of the Satyasiddhi School (成實宗, Chéngshí zōng).
。后是破毗曇義。亦前破大眾部。后破上座部義。至長安見攝論師立二義。一立聞熏習不滅作報佛。二立聞熏習滅不作報佛。言作佛者墮二體過。一者聞熏轉作報佛。是無常作常義。二聞熏習是有為。復是滅義。故一聞熏習墮二體。次立滅者一切諸功德並從真如體上生。聞熏習但為增上緣生。實不作報佛。是故滅。如人工等但為金樸作出金緣。而金自從金樸出。此是因滅失義也。又成實師本執。金剛心有二義。一實法性滅。二相續轉作佛義。今聞熏習不滅家專是成實義。問曰眾緣合時下第三雙破一時前後。初偈破一時。問意云。眾緣合時即有果生。故無有無因之過。亦是成實五陰一時成人。薩婆多八相一時共起義。又數人未來已有因果。即是一時。但來現在生。而因前果后耳。答曰下上半牒下半破。破意云。夫相生之道以能生為有。故能生他。所生為無。故從他生。若立一時有則俱有。無則俱無。俱無則唯是所生失於能生。俱有則唯是能生失於所生。故若一時則失能所。得能所則失一時。破由來義者而汝人陰既一時。何不說人為陰因際為人果。又涅槃云。眾生名色更互相縛。應更互作因更互為體。又二法一時。離法無別時。時一則法一。法二則時二。若時一法二亦應時二法一。又他云。因滅時是果生時者。生則是有滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 之後是破斥毗曇（Abhidhamma，論藏）的義理。也先破斥大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）的觀點，后破斥上座部（Theravāda）的義理。到了長安，見到《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）的論師，他們立了兩種觀點：一是認為聞熏習（śruta-vāsanā，聽聞佛法所形成的習氣）不滅，可以作為報佛（saṃbhogakāya-buddha，報身佛）；二是認為聞熏習滅，不能作為報佛。認為可以成佛的觀點，會陷入二體過失：一是聞熏習轉變成為報佛，這是無常轉為常的說法；二是聞熏習是有為法（saṃskṛta，有生滅變化的法），而且是滅的。所以一個聞熏習就陷入了兩種體性。其次，認為聞熏習滅的觀點認為，一切功德都從真如（tathatā，事物的真實如是的狀態）本體上產生，聞熏習只是作為增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，強力的助緣）而生，實際上並不直接作為報佛。所以聞熏習是滅的。就像工匠等只是為金礦石製作成金器的助緣，而金器是從金礦石本身產生的。這就是因滅失義。另外，成實師（Satya-siddhi-śāstra）原本堅持，金剛心（vajra-citta，堅固的心）有兩種含義：一是實法性滅，二是相續轉變而成佛。現在認為聞熏習不滅的學派，專門是成實師的觀點。 問：眾緣聚合時，果就產生，所以沒有無因的過失。這也是成實師所說的五陰（pañca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素）一時成人，薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）所說的八相（aṣṭa-lakṣaṇa，生、住、異、滅等）一時共同生起。而且數論派（Sāṃkhya）認為未來已有因果，就是一時，只是來到現在才產生，因在前果在後罷了。 答：下面上半部分是解釋，下半部分是破斥。破斥的意思是：相生的道理，以能生者為有，所以能生他物；所生者為無，所以從他物而生。如果認為一時都有，那麼就都是有，或者就都是無。都是無，那麼就只有所生而失去了能生；都是有，那麼就只有能生而失去了所生。所以如果是一時，就失去了能生和所生；得到能生和所生，就失去了一時。破斥由來已久的觀點是：你們認為人陰是一時的，為什麼不說人為陰的因，陰為人的果？而且《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）說：『眾生名色（nāma-rūpa，精神和物質）更互相縛』，應該更互相為因，更互相為體。而且二法一時，離開法就沒有別的時。時是一，那麼法就是一；法是二，那麼時就是二。如果時是一而法是二，也應該時是二而法是一。而且他們說：因滅時就是果生時，生就是有滅。
【English Translation】 English version After that is the refutation of the meaning of Abhidhamma (commentaries). It also first refutes the views of the Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly Sect), and then refutes the views of the Theravāda (Elders Sect). Upon arriving in Chang'an, he saw the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahāyāna) masters establishing two views: one is that śruta-vāsanā (habitual energy of hearing, the habit formed by hearing the Dharma) does not cease and acts as the saṃbhogakāya-buddha (Enjoyment Body Buddha); the other is that śruta-vāsanā ceases and does not act as the saṃbhogakāya-buddha. Saying it becomes a Buddha falls into the fault of two entities: first, śruta-vāsanā transforms into the saṃbhogakāya-buddha, which is the meaning of impermanence becoming permanence; second, śruta-vāsanā is saṃskṛta (conditioned, fabricated) and is also the meaning of cessation. Therefore, one śruta-vāsanā falls into two entities. Next, those who assert cessation believe that all merits arise from the tathatā (suchness, the true nature of things) essence, and śruta-vāsanā only acts as an adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition), not actually acting as the saṃbhogakāya-buddha. Therefore, it ceases. Just as artisans only provide the conditions for gold ore to be made into gold objects, but the gold comes from the gold ore itself. This is the meaning of the cause ceasing and being lost. Furthermore, the Satya-siddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth) masters originally held that vajra-citta (diamond mind, indestructible mind) has two meanings: one is the cessation of the real dharma nature, and the other is the continuous transformation into Buddhahood. Now, the school that believes śruta-vāsanā does not cease is specifically the view of the Satya-siddhi-śāstra. Question: When all conditions come together, the result arises immediately, so there is no fault of having no cause. This is also like the Satya-siddhi-śāstra's view that the pañca-skandha (five aggregates, the five components of a being) become a person at the same time, and the Sarvāstivāda's view that the eight aṣṭa-lakṣaṇa (characteristics, such as birth, duration, change, and extinction) arise together at the same time. Moreover, the Sāṃkhya (Enumeration) school believes that the cause and effect already exist in the future, which is simultaneous, but they come into the present and arise, with the cause preceding the effect. Answer: The upper half below explains, and the lower half refutes. The meaning of the refutation is: the principle of arising depends on the ability to produce, so it can produce other things; what is produced is non-existent, so it arises from other things. If you assert that they both exist simultaneously, then they are both existent, or they are both non-existent. If they are both non-existent, then there is only what is produced and the ability to produce is lost; if they are both existent, then there is only the ability to produce and what is produced is lost. Therefore, if it is simultaneous, then the ability to produce and what is produced are lost; if you obtain the ability to produce and what is produced, then simultaneity is lost. Refuting the long-held view is: you believe that the aggregates of a person are simultaneous, why don't you say that the person is the cause of the aggregates, and the aggregates are the result of the person? Moreover, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) says: 'Sentient beings' nāma-rūpa (name and form, mind and matter) bind each other,' they should be the cause of each other and the substance of each other. Moreover, two dharmas are simultaneous, and there is no other time apart from the dharma. If the time is one, then the dharma is one; if the dharma is two, then the time is two. If the time is one and the dharma is two, then it should also be that the time is two and the dharma is one. Moreover, they say: when the cause ceases is when the effect arises, arising is existence and cessation.
則是無。云何一時。又一時言因果者。亦可一時有前後。破數義云。因法假名時。若九法共起則有九時。若言共一時亦應共一法。因果不得一法亦因果不得一時。問曰若先有果主下至此已來凡有三義。初二雙破前因後果。次一番破因果一時。今破前果后因。此之三義攝一切也。前立次破。經中及義並有斯執。如須達未修精舍之因。以有天堂之果。難陀實未持犯。而有苦樂之報。豈非前果后因。又影公云。前有舍法而後備柱樑。亦是此義。又經中雲。本有涅槃之果。而後修行取之。答曰上半牒下半破。破意云。本由因有果。未有因何得有果。若未有因已有果者。則名無因之果。問經中親作此說。何以破之。其論破經不應說耶。答經說別有深意。為勸人修福故說須達之事。為誡惡勸善故說難陀事。為對生死始有是無常。故說涅槃本有是常耳。涅槃未曾常無常。何曾是本始二有耶。又前果后因如數人命根獨生。而後用十使中隨一使潤生令一期堅固。命根是果報正主。通六道三界。今問。命根因何而來。答由業故生。問若爾則是前因後果。又前因滅命根果後生。則是無因有果。又若前有果後起煩惱潤即是倒潤。又已有命根等。竟何須十使隨一潤耶。又若前果后因則果生於因。因果倒亂。問曰因滅變為果下。第四番因滅變因滅不
【現代漢語翻譯】 則是無。如何能說一時？又說一時包含因果，也可能一時之中有先後。破斥數論的觀點說，因法只是假名安立的時，如果九法同時生起，就會有九個時。如果說它們共用一個時，也應該共用一個法。因果不能是同一個法，因果也不能是同一個時。問：如果先有果，從果主（果報的主體）降生到這裡，總共有三種意義。最初兩種是雙重破斥前因後果，接下來一番是破斥因果同時，現在破斥前果后因。這三種意義涵蓋了一切。先立論，然後破斥。經典中和義理上都有這種執著。例如，須達（Sudatta，給孤獨長者）還沒有修造精舍的因，卻已經有了生到天堂的果報；難陀（Nanda，佛陀的堂弟）實際上還沒有持戒或犯戒，卻已經有了苦樂的果報。難道不是前果后因嗎？又影公說，先有舍宅的規劃，然後才準備柱樑，也是這個意思。還有經典中說，本來就有涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）的果，然後才修行去證取它。答：上半部分是照錄對方的觀點，下半部分是破斥。破斥的意思是，本來是由因才有果，沒有因怎麼會有果？如果沒有因就已經有果，那就叫做無因之果。問：經典中親自這樣說，為什麼要破斥它？難道論典不應該破斥經典嗎？答：經典這樣說另有深意。爲了勸人修福，所以說了須達的事情；爲了警戒惡行、勸勉善行，所以說了難陀的事情；爲了對治生死最初就是無常的觀念，所以說涅槃本來就是常住的。涅槃未曾是常或無常，又怎麼會是本有或始有呢？又說前果后因，就像數論者認為命根（Jivaka，生命之根）獨自產生，然後用十使（Dasakusala，十種煩惱）中的任何一種來滋潤生命，使一期生命堅固。命根是果報的正主，通於六道三界。現在問，命根因何而來？答：由業而生。問：如果這樣，那就是前因後果。又前因滅，命根果後生，那就是無因有果。又如果先有果，然後才生起煩惱來滋潤，那就是顛倒的滋潤。又已經有了命根等，為什麼還需要十使中的任何一種來滋潤呢？又如果前果后因，那麼果就生於因，因果就顛倒錯亂了。問：因滅變為果下，第四番是因滅變，因滅不……
【English Translation】 Then it is nothing. How can it be at the same time? Furthermore, if 'at the same time' includes cause and effect, there can still be a sequence within that time. Refuting the Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy) view, it says, 'When a cause is nominally established, if nine dharmas (elements of existence) arise simultaneously, there will be nine times. If they share one time, they should also share one dharma. Cause and effect cannot be the same dharma, nor can cause and effect be the same time.' Question: If the effect exists first, from the lord of the effect (the subject of the result) descending here, there are three meanings in total. The first two doubly refute the prior cause and subsequent effect, the next refutes cause and effect being simultaneous, and now refutes the prior effect and subsequent cause. These three meanings encompass everything. First establish, then refute. Both in the sutras and in reasoning, there is this clinging. For example, Sudatta (Anathapindika, a wealthy merchant) had not yet created the cause of building a monastery, yet he already had the result of being born in heaven; Nanda (Buddha's cousin) had not actually upheld or broken the precepts, yet he already had the results of suffering and happiness. Isn't this a prior effect and subsequent cause? Also, Master Ying said, 'First there is the plan for the house, and then the pillars and beams are prepared,' which is also this meaning. Furthermore, the sutras say, 'Originally there is the effect of Nirvana (liberation), and then one cultivates to attain it.' Answer: The first half restates the opponent's view, the second half refutes it. The meaning of the refutation is, 'Originally, the effect comes from the cause. How can there be an effect without a cause? If there is an effect without a cause, it is called an effect without a cause.' Question: The sutras themselves say this, why refute it? Shouldn't treatises not refute the sutras? Answer: The sutras say this with a deeper meaning. To encourage people to cultivate merit, the story of Sudatta is told; to warn against evil and encourage good, the story of Nanda is told; to counter the idea that the beginning of samsara (cycle of rebirth) is impermanent, it is said that Nirvana is originally permanent. Nirvana has never been permanent or impermanent, so how can it be originally existent or newly existent? Furthermore, saying prior effect and subsequent cause is like the Samkhyas believing that the life-force (Jivaka, the root of life) arises independently, and then one of the ten defilements (Dasakusala, ten afflictions) nourishes the life, making the life-span stable. The life-force is the main subject of the result, pervading the six realms and three worlds. Now I ask, from what does the life-force arise? Answer: It arises from karma. Question: If so, then it is prior cause and subsequent effect. Also, the prior cause ceases, and the life-force effect arises later, then it is an effect without a cause. Also, if the effect exists first, and then afflictions arise to nourish it, that is inverted nourishment. Also, having already the life-force, etc., why is it necessary for one of the ten defilements to nourish it? Furthermore, if prior effect and subsequent cause, then the effect arises from the cause, and cause and effect are inverted and confused. Question: 'Cause ceases and transforms into effect,' the fourth is cause ceases and transforms, cause ceases not...
變一雙。立義云。因滅變為果者。觀外人義只詺滅即為變。故因滅即變作果。答中上半作因至果破。下半重生破。初句牒次句破。破云。既因變作果。則因體不滅。因體不滅故因至於果也。下半重生破者。為因之時是一生。至果時復是一生。故是重生。此直令其一物重生。所以成過。又破他義云。若因變作果者則果不異因。還是前因作於後果。如東方張人至於西方張人猶是張人。若因異果者則因自滅前。非因作果。又問。若因變作果因則異果。如其不異則應不變。又如變昔鹿王至佛。佛應是鹿。若非復鹿則果異於因。則因滅無果之前則是無因。無因云何有果。又問。為滅變不滅變耶。若滅則無可為變。若不滅則不變。又生已復生者如開善云。作因時是一生。后成就來現在復是一生。墮重生義。長行為二。初釋偈本次破異義。前生因共生因者前生因是相生因果。因在前生果在後生。故名前生因。共生因者相緣因果。如樑柱與舍一時而有。名共生因。此二種因總攝一切。又詳文相生因果自有二種。一者同時如大小生。二前後如報因因果。今欲破前生因故簡除共生。明前生之因墮重生過。問何故不釋上半耶。答因至於果猶是外義。故不須釋之。若謂是因即變下第二重破異義。凡破兩家。初破即變。外救云。因即變為果。唯有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 變為一雙。[立義]認為，因為滅而變為果，[觀外人]的觀點只是將滅視為變，因此因滅就變成了果。爲了反駁這種觀點，前半部分從因到果進行駁斥，後半部分駁斥重生。[初句]重複[次句]進行駁斥，駁斥道：既然因變成了果，那麼因的本體就不會滅亡。因的本體不滅亡，所以因才能到達果。後半部分駁斥重生，因為作為因的時候是一生，到達果的時候又是另一生，所以是重生。這直接導致一個事物重生，因此造成了過失。又駁斥[他義]說：如果因變成了果，那麼果和因就沒有區別，還是之前的因產生了後來的果，就像東方的[張人]到了西方的[張人]仍然是[張人]。如果因和果不同，那麼因在滅亡之前就不是因，不是因就不能產生果。又問：因是滅了之後才變的，還是沒有滅就變的？如果滅了，就沒有什麼可以變的；如果沒有滅，那就沒有變。又說，已經生了又再生，就像[開善]所說的那樣，作為因的時候是一生，後來成就顯現的時候又是另一生，就落入了重生的含義。[長行]分為兩部分，第一部分解釋偈頌，本次駁斥[異義]。[前生因]和[共生因]，[前生因]是相生因果，因在前生，果在後生，所以稱為[前生因]。[共生因]是相緣因果，就像樑柱和房屋同時存在一樣，稱為[共生因]。這兩種因概括了一切。又詳細分析，相生因果本身有兩種，一種是同時的，比如大小的產生；另一種是前後的，比如報應的因果。現在想要駁斥[前生因]，所以排除[共生因]，說明[前生因]落入了重生的過失。問：為什麼不解釋前半部分呢？答：因到達果仍然是[外義]，所以不需要解釋。如果認為因就是變，那麼第二重駁斥[異義]。總共駁斥兩家，首先駁斥[即變]。[外救]說：因即變為果，只有...
【English Translation】 English version Transforms into a pair. [Li Yi] states that because extinction transforms into a result, [outsiders'] view only considers extinction as transformation, therefore the cause of extinction becomes the result. To refute this view, the first half refutes from cause to result, and the second half refutes rebirth. [The first sentence] repeats [the second sentence] to refute, arguing: Since the cause transforms into the result, then the essence of the cause will not perish. Because the essence of the cause does not perish, the cause can reach the result. The second half refutes rebirth, because being a cause is one life, and reaching the result is another life, so it is rebirth. This directly leads to one thing being reborn, thus causing a fault. It also refutes [his view] saying: If the cause transforms into the result, then the result is no different from the cause, and the previous cause still produces the later result, just like [Zhang Ren] in the East arriving at [Zhang Ren] in the West is still [Zhang Ren]. If the cause and result are different, then the cause is not the cause before it perishes, and the non-cause cannot produce the result. It also asks: Does the cause transform after it perishes, or does it transform without perishing? If it perishes, then there is nothing to transform; if it does not perish, then there is no transformation. It also says that being born again after being born, as [Kai Shan] said, being a cause is one life, and later when the achievement manifests, it is another life, falling into the meaning of rebirth. [Long Xing] is divided into two parts, the first part explains the verses, and this time refutes [different meanings]. [Previous life cause] and [common life cause], [previous life cause] is the cause and effect of mutual generation, the cause is in the previous life, and the result is in the later life, so it is called [previous life cause]. [Common life cause] is the cause and effect of mutual dependence, just like beams and pillars and houses exist at the same time, called [common life cause]. These two kinds of causes summarize everything. Furthermore, in detailed analysis, the cause and effect of mutual generation itself has two kinds, one is simultaneous, such as the generation of size; the other is before and after, such as the cause and effect of retribution. Now wanting to refute [previous life cause], so excluding [common life cause], explaining that [previous life cause] falls into the fault of rebirth. Question: Why not explain the first half? Answer: The cause reaching the result is still [external meaning], so there is no need to explain it. If it is considered that the cause is transformation, then the second refutation [different meanings]. A total of two families are refuted, first refuting [immediate transformation]. [External rescue] said: The cause immediately transforms into the result, only...
一生無有重生。故今破云。既言其即不得稱變。若言其變不得稱即。如眼即目不得名變也。問曰因不盡滅下第二救云。名滅而體常存。體存故雖變而即。名滅故雖即而變。他云。昔日鹿王我身是也。鹿神明與佛神明不異。但鹿名滅佛名生。人天神明亦不異。但名失名生耳。又僧祇義心性本凈是非因非果。在因名因始終是一心。故言體一。名字有異則名失名生。又如外道從細至粗。從粗至細義亦如是。又攝論師云。梨耶體無生滅名用生滅。亦是此義。又此義違楞伽。楞伽明八證滅義也。答曰泥團前滅而後瓶生不名為變者。然以名名體以體應名。在名既滅體亦覆滅。是則前滅後生豈是變耶。又泥團不獨生者。此句明不但名生在體亦生。對前句不但名滅體亦滅也。又外人有二義。一者因體不滅。二者因中有果。前破體不滅。今破其有義也。又是破其泥團體定不滅。既合兩物則體不定也。若但有名者此一句云。汝若但云名滅名生者。則應但有名。則無有體何物變耶。變名如乳變為酪者。此句證名滅體亦滅名生體亦生。如百論形時力知名等五事異故俱滅俱生也。破他義云。汝一泥未作瓶具有諸物理。汝言泥作瓶時余理非數緣滅者。亦應有瓶差理瓶成理。答亦有瓶差理。如一泥隨作一物余物悉差。問既不得一時併成。亦不得一時並
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一生之中沒有事物會真正地重生。因此現在要破除這種錯誤的觀念。如果說它是『即』（不變），就不能稱之為『變』。如果說它是『變』，就不能稱之為『即』。就像眼睛就是眼睛，不能說它變成了其他東西。有人問：因為『不盡滅』，所以有第二種解釋說，名稱消失了，但本體仍然存在。因為本體存在，所以即使變化了，本質還是『即』（不變）。因為名稱消失了，所以即使是『即』，也表現爲『變』。其他人說：以前的鹿王就是我的前身。鹿的神明和佛的神明並沒有不同，只是鹿的名稱消失了，佛的名稱產生了。人和天人的神明也沒有不同，只是名稱的失去和產生而已。還有，《僧祇義》認為心性本自清凈，不是原因也不是結果。在『因』的階段，始終是一顆心，所以說是本體同一。名字不同，只是名稱的失去和產生。又如外道從細到粗，從粗到細的理論也是如此。還有，《攝大乘論》的論師說，阿賴耶識的本體沒有生滅，只有作用上有生滅，也是這個意思。而且這個觀點違背了《楞伽經》，《楞伽經》闡明了八種證滅的含義。回答說：泥團先消失，然後瓶子產生，這不能稱為『變』。因為用名稱來稱呼事物，用本體來對應名稱。名稱既然消失了，本體也隨之消失。那麼，先消失後產生，怎麼能說是『變』呢？而且泥團不是單獨產生的。這句話說明，不僅僅是名稱產生，本體也隨之產生。對應前面的句子，不僅僅是名稱消失，本體也隨之消失。還有，外道有兩種觀點：一是『因』的本體不會消失，二是『因』中包含著『果』。前面已經破斥了本體不會消失的觀點，現在要破斥『因』中包含著『果』的觀點。這也是爲了破斥泥團的本體是固定不變的觀點。如果混合兩種東西，那麼本體就不是固定的了。如果只是名稱的變化，那麼這一句說：如果你們只是說名稱消失和產生，那麼就應該只有名稱，而沒有本體，那麼是什麼東西在變化呢？『變名如乳變為酪者』，這句話證明了名稱消失，本體也隨之消失；名稱產生，本體也隨之產生。就像《百論》中說的，形狀、時間、力量、名稱等五種事物不同，所以一起消失，一起產生。破斥其他觀點說：你們說一塊泥土在沒有做成瓶子之前，就具有各種物理性質。你們說泥土做成瓶子的時候，其他的性質因為沒有因緣而消失了。那麼，也應該有瓶子的差異性質和瓶子形成的性質。回答說，也有瓶子的差異性質。就像一塊泥土隨之做成一種東西，其他的性質都隨之改變。有人問：既然不能同時全部形成，也不能同時全部消失。
【English Translation】 English version In one's lifetime, nothing truly is reborn. Therefore, we now refute this misconception. If it is said to be 'identical' (unchanging), it cannot be called 'transformation'. If it is said to be 'transformation', it cannot be called 'identical'. Just as the eye is the eye, it cannot be said to have transformed into something else. Someone asks: Because of 'non-complete extinction' (因不盡滅), there is a second explanation that the name disappears, but the substance remains. Because the substance remains, even if it transforms, its essence is still 'identical' (即). Because the name disappears, even if it is 'identical', it manifests as 'transformation'. Others say: The former Deer King was my previous life. The spirit of the deer and the spirit of the Buddha are not different, only the name of the deer disappeared, and the name of the Buddha arose. The spirits of humans and devas are also not different, only the loss and arising of names. Furthermore, the Saṃghāti (僧祇) doctrine believes that the nature of the mind is inherently pure, neither cause nor effect. In the stage of 'cause' (因), it is always one mind, so it is said that the substance is the same. Different names are just the loss and arising of names. Also, like the Tirthikas (外道) theory from subtle to coarse, from coarse to subtle is also like this. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論) masters say that the substance of the Ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識) has no arising or ceasing, only the function has arising and ceasing, which is also this meaning. Moreover, this view contradicts the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經), which elucidates the meaning of eight kinds of cessation. The answer is: A lump of clay disappears first, and then a bottle is produced, this cannot be called 'transformation'. Because names are used to call things, and substances correspond to names. Since the name has disappeared, the substance also disappears with it. Then, what disappears first and arises later, how can it be called 'transformation'? Moreover, the lump of clay is not produced alone. This sentence explains that not only does the name arise, but the substance also arises with it. Corresponding to the previous sentence, not only does the name disappear, but the substance also disappears with it. Also, the Tirthikas (外人) have two views: one is that the substance of the 'cause' (因) will not disappear, and the other is that the 'cause' contains the 'effect' (果). The view that the substance will not disappear has already been refuted, and now the view that the 'cause' contains the 'effect' will be refuted. This is also to refute the view that the substance of the lump of clay is fixed and unchanging. If two things are mixed, then the substance is not fixed. If it is only a change of name, then this sentence says: If you only say that names disappear and arise, then there should only be names, and no substance, then what is transforming? 'Transformation of name is like milk transforming into cheese', this sentence proves that when the name disappears, the substance also disappears; when the name arises, the substance also arises. Just like what is said in the Śataśāstra (百論), the five things such as shape, time, strength, and name are different, so they disappear together and arise together. Refuting other views, you say that a lump of clay has various physical properties before it is made into a bottle. You say that when the clay is made into a bottle, the other properties disappear because they lack conditions. Then, there should also be the differentiating properties of the bottle and the properties of the bottle being formed. The answer is, there are also the differentiating properties of the bottle. Just like a lump of clay is made into one thing, the other properties all change with it. Someone asks: Since they cannot all be formed at the same time, nor can they all disappear at the same time.
差。答成物在一事。難故不得一時併成。問諸理既並事亦並有。答事相妨礙故不得一時並有。理不相妨礙故得一時並有。問理有事有。則應理礙事礙。理若不礙理亦不有。問曰因雖滅失下第二破滅不變。前滅而後變既墮二生。是故今云。但因滅前而果生后無重生過。答中上半破因失。則無因誰生果耶。下半明因不失。即因在果云何生果。如米失則無可為飯。不失則米在亦無飯。所以重破其不失者。外人立因果唯有失不失二。若破不失則便立失。若破失便立不失。故進退破之。問此與前偈破何異。答上與其重生破。今集令不生。又如成論等一義之中具失不失。實法則失。相續不失。故具破之。實法失則無因生果。相續不失則因應在果。又此文開感應義。今問。當生善感者此善為是有耶。為是無耶。若是有者何須感耶。若謂理善感而事應者。則理因感事果。汝義不有眾生而已。有眾生則有一切善理。一切眾生常能感聖。則不須修事善以感事果。又問。未有事善已應者。亦應未有應已有事善。又問感義。若未有事不得感果。亦應未有事善不得感聖。又問。汝感應義何不相對。理應機理事應機事。而理機感事。亦應事機感理。次問。過去現在二世善能感者。在善已有。何須感耶。若言為增長生善是故感者。若爾未有善則不應感
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 差（cì）：問：『成就事物在於一件事。』答：『困難的緣故不能一時併成。』問：『諸理既然並存，事也應該並存。』答：『事相之間互相妨礙，所以不能一時並存。理不互相妨礙，所以能夠一時並存。』問：『理有，事有，那麼應該是理礙事礙。理若不礙，理也不應該存在。』 問：『因雖然滅失』，下面第二段破斥滅后變異的觀點。前面說滅后變異，已經落入二生（兩個階段）。所以現在說：『但因滅前而果生后，沒有重生的過失。』答：『上半部分破斥因的喪失，那麼沒有因，誰來產生果呢？下半部分說明因沒有喪失，既然因還在，果又如何產生呢？』例如米喪失了，就無法做成飯。沒有喪失，米還在，也沒有飯。所以再次破斥其不喪失的觀點。外人認為因果只有喪失和不喪失兩種情況。如果破斥不喪失，就設立喪失。如果破斥喪失，就設立不喪失。所以進退兩難。 問：『這和前面的偈頌破斥有什麼不同？』答：『前面是針對其重生的觀點進行破斥，現在是聚集起來使其不生。』又如成論等，在一個意義之中，既有喪失也有不喪失。實法則喪失，相續則不喪失。所以一併破斥。實法喪失，就沒有因產生果。相續不喪失，那麼因應該存在於果中。 又這段文字開啟了感應的含義。現在問：『當生善感者，這個善是有嗎？是無嗎？』如果是有，何須感應呢？如果說理善感應而事應驗，那麼理是因感應，事是果。你的觀點中只有眾生而已。有眾生就有一切善理，一切眾生常常能夠感應聖人，那麼就不需要修習事善來感應事果。 又問：『沒有事善就已經應驗，也應該沒有應驗就已經有事善。』又問感應的含義：『如果沒有事善就不能感應果，也應該沒有事善就不能感應聖人。』又問：『你的感應義為什麼不相對？理應機，事應機，而理機感應事，也應該是事機感應理。』 接著問：『過去現在二世的善能夠感應，在善已經存在的情況下，何須感應呢？』如果說爲了增長生善所以感應，如果是這樣，那麼沒有善就不應該感應。
【English Translation】 English version Ci (差, fault/difference). Question: 'Accomplishing things lies in one matter.' Answer: 'Due to difficulty, they cannot be accomplished all at once.' Question: 'Since all principles exist together, matters should also exist together.' Answer: 'Matters obstruct each other, so they cannot exist together at once. Principles do not obstruct each other, so they can exist together at once.' Question: 'If principle exists and matter exists, then it should be that principle obstructs and matter obstructs. If principle does not obstruct, then principle should not exist either.' Question: 'Although the cause is extinguished,' the second part below refutes the view of change after extinction. The previous statement of change after extinction has already fallen into two stages (two births). Therefore, it is now said: 'But the cause is extinguished before, and the effect is born after, there is no fault of rebirth.' Answer: 'The first half refutes the loss of the cause, then without the cause, who will produce the effect? The second half explains that the cause is not lost, since the cause is still there, how does the effect arise?' For example, if rice is lost, it cannot be made into rice. If it is not lost, and the rice is still there, there is no rice either. Therefore, the view of non-loss is refuted again. Outsiders believe that cause and effect only have two situations: loss and non-loss. If non-loss is refuted, then loss is established. If loss is refuted, then non-loss is established. Therefore, it is difficult to advance or retreat. Question: 'How is this different from the previous verse of refutation?' Answer: 'The previous one refuted the view of rebirth, and now it is gathered to prevent it from arising.' Also, like the Satyasiddhi Shastra (成論), within one meaning, there is both loss and non-loss. The real dharma (實法) is lost, while the continuity (相續) is not lost. Therefore, they are refuted together. If the real dharma is lost, then there is no cause to produce the effect. If the continuity is not lost, then the cause should exist in the effect. Also, this passage opens up the meaning of interaction and response (感應). Now ask: 'When a good response is produced, is this good existent or non-existent?' If it is existent, why is a response needed? If it is said that the principle of good responds and the matter is verified, then principle is the cause of the response, and matter is the effect. In your view, there are only sentient beings. If there are sentient beings, there is all good principle, and all sentient beings can always respond to sages, then there is no need to cultivate good deeds to respond to the effect of matter. Also ask: 'If there is no good deed, there is already a response, then there should be no response and already have a good deed.' Also ask the meaning of response: 'If there is no good deed, the fruit cannot be responded to, then there should be no good deed and the sage cannot be responded to.' Also ask: 'Why is your meaning of response not relative? Principle responds to the opportunity, matter responds to the opportunity, and the principle mechanism responds to the matter, it should also be that the matter mechanism responds to the principle.' Then ask: 'If the good of the past and present lives can respond, and the good already exists, why is a response needed?' If it is said that it is to increase the production of good, then if there is no good, there should be no response.
。云何得初生一念善耶。若一念善自生不須聖應者。后亦應自生不須應也。又問莊嚴。二世既是無義。那得成就過去。既成就過去云何言無。若過去因感未來果。亦應過去解應斷未來惑。若惑無不可斷。亦應果無不可感。又問光宅成就義。經云。有為無常。而汝言起一念善惡是功用常。豈不違經。又是無常中有常。常中有無常過也。問曰是因遍有果下第五遍不遍一雙。凡計因果各自不同。見蓮中有子便謂前有。見待緣始生便謂前無。見因滅果生即謂因在果前。仍為果作因便謂因在果后。見會指成卷便謂因果一時。見轉乳成酪便謂因變作果。見鏡中有像便謂因見於果。見種滅生牙便言因不見果。見麻中出油便言遍有。見母生子便言不遍。子但在腹中不在四支。故今欲備窮眾計。故具破之。此偈明遍則舉體全。是更生何物耶。如五指遍是卷更生何物卷。若不遍者汝能得卷在一邊指在一邊不。又捲不遍在指者為在指外。為在指內。為在中間。並不成也。見不見猶是遍不遍。遍亦是因中先有。不遍是先無也。以舉體即是故云遍。亦舉體則是故云見也。長行見是因中已有故不須生。不見是因中無不能生。可細尋文云見也。成論師云。眾生有遍生六道諸趣之理。數人云。未來是有。遍有五道三乘之性。至苦忍時三乘中二性及三惡道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如何才能獲得最初生起的一念善心呢？如果一念善心是自己產生的，不需要聖人的感應，那麼後來也應該自己產生，不需要感應啊。又問關於莊嚴的問題，前世和後世既然都是沒有意義的，那怎麼能成就過去呢？既然成就了過去，為什麼又說沒有呢？如果過去的因能感得未來的果，也應該過去就能解除和斷除未來的迷惑。如果迷惑沒有不可斷除的，也應該果報沒有不可感得的。又問光宅關於成就的意義，經書上說：『有為法是無常的。』而你說生起一念善惡是功用常，豈不是違背了經書？又是無常中有常，常中有無常的過失啊。問：關於因遍有果的第五種遍與不遍的說法，各種計算因果的方式各自不同。見到蓮花中有蓮子，就認為先前就有；見到等待因緣才產生，就認為先前沒有；見到因滅果生，就認為因在果之前；仍然為果作因，就認為因在果之後；見到會合手指形成拳頭，就認為因果是同時；見到牛奶變成酪，就認為因變化成了果；見到鏡子中有影像，就認為因見到了果；見到種子滅亡而生出牙，就說因沒有見到果；見到麻中出油，就說是遍有；見到母親生孩子，就說是不遍，孩子只在腹中，不在四肢。所以現在想要窮盡各種計算方式，所以全部破斥它們。這首偈頌說明，如果是遍，就是舉體全是，還再生出什麼東西呢？比如五指遍佈才是拳頭，還再生出什麼拳頭呢？如果不遍，你能把拳頭放在一邊，手指放在一邊嗎？而且拳頭不遍佈在手指上，是在手指外，還是在手指內，還是在中間？都不成立啊。見與不見仍然是遍與不遍的問題。遍也是因中先前就有的，不遍是先前沒有的。因為舉體就是，所以說是遍。也因為舉體就是，所以說是見啊。長行說，見是因中已經有了，所以不需要生。不見是因中沒有，不能生。可以仔細尋味文中的『見』字。成論師說，眾生有遍生六道諸趣的道理。數論師說，未來是有，遍有五道三乘的自性，到苦忍時，三乘中二性和三惡道。
【English Translation】 English version: How does one obtain the initial arising of a single thought of goodness? If a single thought of goodness arises on its own, without the need for a sage's response, then later it should also arise on its own, without needing a response. Furthermore, regarding the question of adornment (莊嚴, zhuāngyán, adornment/solemnity), if the past and future lives are both meaningless, how can the past be accomplished? Since the past is accomplished, why is it said to be non-existent? If the past cause can induce a future effect, then the past should also be able to resolve and sever future delusions. If delusions are not impossible to sever, then effects should also not be impossible to induce. Furthermore, Guangzhai (光宅, Guāngzhái, name of a monastery/person) is questioned about the meaning of accomplishment. The sutra says: 'Conditioned phenomena are impermanent.' But you say that the arising of a single thought of good or evil is a constant function, is this not contrary to the sutra? It is also the fault of having constancy within impermanence, and impermanence within constancy. Question: Regarding the fifth pair of pervasiveness and non-pervasiveness in the statement that the cause pervades the effect, various calculations of cause and effect differ from each other. Seeing a lotus flower with seeds, one thinks that it existed beforehand; seeing that it arises dependent on conditions, one thinks that it did not exist beforehand; seeing that the cause ceases and the effect arises, one thinks that the cause is before the effect; still making the cause for the effect, one thinks that the cause is after the effect; seeing the fingers joined to form a fist, one thinks that cause and effect are simultaneous; seeing milk turning into cheese, one thinks that the cause transforms into the effect; seeing an image in a mirror, one thinks that the cause sees the effect; seeing a seed die and sprout, one says that the cause does not see the effect; seeing oil coming out of sesame, one says that it is pervasive; seeing a mother giving birth to a child, one says that it is not pervasive, the child is only in the womb, not in the four limbs. Therefore, now wanting to exhaust all kinds of calculations, therefore, completely refute them. This verse explains that if it is pervasive, then the entire body is completely it, what else is born? For example, the five fingers are completely the fist, what else is born as the fist? If it is not pervasive, can you put the fist on one side and the fingers on the other side? Moreover, if the fist is not pervasive on the fingers, is it outside the fingers, or inside the fingers, or in the middle? None of them are established. Seeing and not seeing are still the question of pervasiveness and non-pervasiveness. Pervasiveness is also what was already in the cause beforehand, non-pervasiveness is what was not there beforehand. Because the entire body is it, therefore it is said to be pervasive. Also because the entire body is it, therefore it is said to be seeing. The long passage says that seeing is already in the cause, so it does not need to be born. Not seeing is not in the cause, it cannot be born. One can carefully ponder the 'seeing' in the text. The Chengshi (成論, Chénglùn, name of a Buddhist school) master says that sentient beings have the principle of pervasively being born in the six realms and all destinies. The Samkhya (數, Shù, refers to Samkhya school of thought) theorists say that the future exists, pervasively having the nature of the five paths and the three vehicles, until the moment of suffering endurance (苦忍, kǔrěn, a stage in Buddhist practice), the two natures in the three vehicles and the three evil paths.
皆非數緣滅。今問。涅槃破先尼云。若我遍諸趣者。何故為身更復造業。數人未來既遍有五趣身者。亦同此難也。彼救云。未來但有。性有異外道我。今問。此異空即是已有。若未異空以何為性。又問。何因有此未來性耶。故知本自有之。則是常見。複次若言過去因下第二總破因果。前別破十家五雙。今總破復有五雙。一合不合破。二空不空破。三一異破。四性無性破。五結合不合破。就初四偈為二。前三偈破合。后一偈俱破合不合。就三偈即三。皆明一世因不與三世果合。所以破合者。因能生果名因與果合。果能酬因名果與因合。問破他義云。過去因可得現在果者。過去是滅無。云何能生現在果。此破莊嚴成就義。若過去轉來現在則不名過去。若轉來則為是常。常云何得報。此破開善義也。又若過去有習因能生現在果者既其稱有則是現在不名過去。此通破眾家。問云。何是未來因得未來果。答他云。當得佛理。理在於當未來凈身當得菩提。又當修因得菩提。又當修因得當果。又言。一切眾生恒有未來當生善理為機。聖人應之為果。並是其事。問云何為未來因得理在果。答如未來機感而現在聖應。問云何未來因為過去果。答未來有得佛理為因故。未來現在二世斷煩惱求佛。今問。未來已能為斷煩惱作因。亦應未來已有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 皆非數緣滅（Samkhya-hetu-nirodha，指並非通過數論的原因而滅盡）。現在提問：涅槃破先尼（Nirvana-bhedani，指《涅槃經》中破斥先尼外道的論述）中說，『如果我遍及諸趣（gati，指六道輪迴），為何還要為自身再次造業？』數論者認為未來已經遍及五趣之身，也會面臨同樣的詰難。他們的辯解是：未來只有『性有』，不同於外道的『我』（atman）。現在提問：這種『異空』（different from emptiness）是已經存在，還是尚未存在？如果尚未『異空』，又以什麼作為它的『性』（nature）？又問：是什麼原因導致這種未來『性』的產生？由此可知，這種『性』本來就存在，這便是常見（sasvata-drsti，指認為事物恒常不變的邪見）。 其次，如果說過去因（hetu，指產生結果的原因）在下，第二部分總的破斥因果關係。前面分別破斥了十家五雙（dasa-koti-panca-yugala，指十種不同的理論，每種理論包含兩種對立的觀點）。現在總的破斥又有五雙：一、合不合破（samprayoga-asamprayoga-bheda，指結合與不結合的破斥）；二、空不空破（sunya-asunya-bheda，指空與不空的破斥）；三、一異破（ekatva-nanatva-bheda，指一與異的破斥）；四、性無性破（svabhava-nihsvabhava-bheda，指自性有與自性空的破斥）；五、結合不合破（samprayoga-asamprayoga-bheda，指結合與不結合的破斥）。 就最初的四句偈頌分為兩部分。前三句偈頌破斥『合』（samprayoga，指結合）。后一句偈頌同時破斥『合』與『不合』（asamprayoga，指不結合）。就這三句偈頌來說，又分為三點，都闡明一世的因（hetu，指原因）不與三世的果（phala，指結果）結合。之所以要破斥『合』，是因為因能夠產生果，所以說因與果『合』。果能夠酬報因，所以說果與因『合』。提問：破斥對方的觀點說，過去的因能夠得到現在的果，但過去已經是滅無（nirodha，指消滅）的狀態，如何能夠產生現在的果？這是破斥莊嚴成就的觀點。如果過去轉變為現在，就不應該稱為過去。如果轉變為現在，那就是常（nitya，指恒常不變）。恒常不變又如何能夠得到報應？這是破斥開善的觀點。又如果過去有習因（vasana-hetu，指習氣種子因）能夠產生現在的果，既然稱之為『有』，那就是現在，不應該稱為過去。這是普遍破斥各家的觀點。 提問：什麼是未來因（anagata-hetu，指未來的原因）得到未來果（anagata-phala，指未來的結果）？對方回答說：應當得到佛理（buddha-tattva，指佛的真理）。佛理存在於未來，清凈之身應當得到菩提（bodhi，指覺悟）。又應當修因（hetu，指原因）得到菩提。又應當修因得到當下的果。又說：一切眾生恒常具有未來應當產生的善理作為機（indriya，指根機），聖人應之作為果。這些都是事實。提問：如何理解未來因得到存在於果中的佛理？回答說：如同未來根機感應而現在聖人應答。提問：如何理解未來因成為過去果？回答說：未來有得到佛理作為因的緣故。未來現在二世斷除煩惱求取佛果。現在提問：未來已經能夠作為斷除煩惱的原因，也應該未來已經存在。
【English Translation】 English version These are not destroyed by Samkhya-hetu-nirodha (cessation through Samkhya reasoning). Now I ask: The Nirvana-bhedani (the section in the Nirvana Sutra refuting the heretics of Senika) says, 'If I pervade all the Gatis (realms of existence), why do I create karma again for myself?' The Samkhyas, who believe that the future already pervades the five Gatis, would face the same difficulty. Their defense is: the future only has 'Svadharma' (own nature), different from the 'Atman' (self) of the heretics. Now I ask: Is this 'different from emptiness' already existent, or not yet existent? If not yet 'different from emptiness,' what is its 'nature'? And I ask: What causes the arising of this future 'nature'? Therefore, it is known that this 'nature' exists from the beginning, which is the Sassata-ditthi (eternalism). Secondly, if the past cause is below, the second part generally refutes the cause-and-effect relationship. Previously, it separately refuted the ten Koti-panca-yugala (ten different theories, each containing two opposing views). Now the general refutation has five more pairs: 1. Samprayoga-Asamprayoga-bheda (refutation of combination and non-combination); 2. Sunya-Asunya-bheda (refutation of emptiness and non-emptiness); 3. Ekatva-Nanatva-bheda (refutation of oneness and difference); 4. Svabhava-Nihsvabhava-bheda (refutation of self-nature and no-self-nature); 5. Samprayoga-Asamprayoga-bheda (refutation of combination and non-combination). The initial four verses are divided into two parts. The first three verses refute 'Samprayoga' (combination). The last verse refutes both 'Samprayoga' and 'Asamprayoga' (non-combination). Regarding these three verses, they are further divided into three points, all explaining that the cause of one lifetime does not combine with the result of the three lifetimes. The reason for refuting 'Samprayoga' is that the cause can produce the result, so it is said that the cause and result 'combine.' The result can repay the cause, so it is said that the result and cause 'combine.' Question: Refuting the opponent's view, it is said that the past cause can obtain the present result, but the past is already in a state of Nirodha (cessation), how can it produce the present result? This refutes the view of ornate accomplishment. If the past transforms into the present, it should not be called the past. If it transforms into the present, then it is Nitya (eternal). How can the eternal obtain retribution? This refutes the view of opening goodness. Also, if the past has Vasana-hetu (habitual cause) that can produce the present result, since it is called 'existent,' it is the present, and should not be called the past. This is a general refutation of all schools. Question: What is the future cause obtaining the future result? The opponent answers: One should obtain Buddha-tattva (Buddha-nature). Buddha-nature exists in the future, and the pure body should obtain Bodhi (enlightenment). Also, one should cultivate the cause to obtain Bodhi. Also, one should cultivate the cause to obtain the present result. Also, it is said: All sentient beings constantly have the good principle that should arise in the future as the Indriya (faculty), and the sage responds to it as the result. These are all facts. Question: How to understand the future cause obtaining the Buddha-nature existing in the result? Answer: It is like the future faculty sensing and the present sage responding. Question: How to understand the future cause becoming the past result? Answer: Because the future has obtaining Buddha-nature as the cause. The future and present lifetimes cut off afflictions and seek Buddhahood. Now I ask: The future is already able to act as the cause of cutting off afflictions, so the future should already exist.
解斷現在惑。又未來當果已能為現在生心亦同此難。問云何現在果為過去作因。答此是續假因。因接前因令前不斷以作於後。則是現在因過去果。過去寧不因現在而得轉來現在耶。又問。云何為未來因過去果。答物情言無此義。今明。因未來為過去。即未來是因過去是果。云何現因現果。經言。即生此念時佛于空中現。現因當果可解。現因過去果者如現修因求本有法身也。長行明三世果不與三世因合。對偈中三世因不與三世果合。反覆相成也。複次若不和合者第二一偈合不合雙破。上半牒前不合義明無相生。下半破和合義。無有相生合是因已與果合。則是已有果不須相生。不合是因不與果合。是無果義。無不可生。若因空無果下第二空不空破。三偈為二。初偈就因空不空破。次兩偈就果空不空破。此猶是去來品決定不決定。及作者品實有實無破耳。皆領其大綱。故作此破文。易見也。因果是一者下第三一異門破。初偈雙牒雙非。第二偈雙牒雙難。一有四過。一者但是因則無果。無果亦無因。二但是果無因。無因亦無果。三既是一物不可說因果。四因果既一則作者作業亦一。陶師與瓶一也。異亦四難。一者因與果異亦與非因異。則俱成非因。二者因非因俱成因。三因成非因非因成因。四有因有非因則有異有不異。若果定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 解脫對現在的迷惑。還有，如果未來將要產生的果報，已經能夠成為現在生起的心念，也會遇到同樣的難題。有人問：『為什麼現在的果報會成為過去的因呢？』回答：『這是延續假立的因。因連線之前的因，使之前的因不會中斷，從而產生之後的果。這就是現在的因是過去的果。過去難道不是因為現在才得以轉變到現在的嗎？』又有人問：『什麼是未來的因，過去的果呢？』回答：『按照常理來說，沒有這種說法。』現在我來說明，因為未來而成為過去，就是未來是因，過去是果。什麼是現在的因，現在的果呢？經書上說：『就在生起這個念頭的時候，佛在空中顯現。』現在的因產生當下的果報，這可以理解。現在的因產生過去的果報，比如現在修行，是爲了求得本有的法身。』長行文說明三世的果報不與三世的因結合。對應偈頌中三世的因不與三世的果結合。這是反覆互相成就的說法。進一步說，如果不和合，那麼第二首偈頌就用和合與不和合兩種方式來破斥。上半部分引用前面不和合的觀點，說明沒有相生。下半部分破斥和合的觀點。沒有相生，和合就是因已經與果結合。既然已經有了果，就不需要相生。不和合就是因不與果結合，就是沒有果的意義，沒有就無法產生。如果因是空無果，那麼下面第二段就用空與不空來破斥。三首偈頌分為兩部分。第一首偈頌就因的空與不空來破斥。後面兩首偈頌就果的空與不空來破斥。這就像過去未來品中決定與不決定，以及作者品中實有與實無的破斥一樣。都是掌握了它們的大綱，所以才寫出這些破斥的文章，很容易理解。如果認為因果是一體，那麼下面第三段就用一與異的門來破斥。第一首偈頌同時引用並否定兩種觀點。第二首偈頌同時引用並提出疑問。如果認為因果是一，就會有四種過失。一是隻有因就沒有果，沒有果也就沒有因。二是隻有果沒有因，沒有因也就沒有果。三是既然是一物，就不能說是因果。四是因果既然是一，那麼作者和作業也是一，陶工和瓶子是一樣的。如果認為因果是異，也有四種難點。一是因與果不同，也與非因不同，那麼都會成為非因。二是因和非因都會成為因。三是因成為非因，非因成為因。四是有因有非因，那麼就有異有不異。如果果是確定的
【English Translation】 English version To resolve present confusions. Furthermore, if future consequences that are about to arise can already become the mind that arises in the present, it will also encounter the same difficulty. Someone asks: 'Why does the present consequence become the cause of the past?' The answer is: 'This is the cause of continuing the provisional. The cause connects the previous cause, so that the previous cause will not be interrupted, thus producing the subsequent consequence. This is the present cause being the past consequence. Is it not because of the present that the past is able to transform into the present?' Someone also asks: 'What is the future cause and the past consequence?' The answer is: 'According to common sense, there is no such thing.' Now I will explain, because of the future becoming the past, that is, the future is the cause, and the past is the consequence. What is the present cause and the present consequence? The scriptures say: 'At the very moment this thought arises, the Buddha appears in the sky.' The present cause producing the immediate consequence can be understood. The present cause producing the past consequence, such as cultivating in the present to seek the inherent Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body).』 The long passage explains that the consequences of the three times do not combine with the causes of the three times. Correspondingly, the verses state that the causes of the three times do not combine with the consequences of the three times. This is a reciprocal and mutually fulfilling statement. Furthermore, if they do not harmonize, then the second verse uses both harmony and disharmony to refute. The first half quotes the previous view of disharmony, explaining that there is no arising from each other. The second half refutes the view of harmony. Without arising from each other, harmony means that the cause has already combined with the consequence. Since there is already a consequence, there is no need for arising from each other. Disharmony means that the cause does not combine with the consequence, which means there is no consequence, and what does not exist cannot arise. If the cause is empty and there is no consequence, then the second section below uses emptiness and non-emptiness to refute. The three verses are divided into two parts. The first verse refutes based on the emptiness and non-emptiness of the cause. The following two verses refute based on the emptiness and non-emptiness of the consequence. This is like the determination and non-determination in the past and future chapter, and the reality and unreality in the author chapter. They all grasp the main points, so these refuting articles are written, which are easy to understand. If it is believed that cause and effect are one, then the third section below uses the gate of one and different to refute. The first verse simultaneously quotes and negates both views. The second verse simultaneously quotes and raises questions. If cause and effect are one, there will be four faults. First, there is only cause and no consequence, and without consequence, there is no cause. Second, there is only consequence and no cause, and without cause, there is no consequence. Third, since they are one thing, it cannot be said that they are cause and effect. Fourth, since cause and effect are one, then the author and the action are also one, the potter and the pot are the same. If it is believed that cause and effect are different, there are also four difficulties. First, the cause is different from the consequence, and also different from the non-cause, then both will become non-causes. Second, the cause and the non-cause will both become causes. Third, the cause becomes the non-cause, and the non-cause becomes the cause. Fourth, there is cause and there is non-cause, then there is difference and there is non-difference. If the consequence is certain
有性下第四有性無性破。初偈明果有性。無性因不能生。有性是有體。如本有人體不須陰成。本無人體陰合不成。第二偈結無因果。若從眾因緣第五結緣合不合不能生果。初偈正明和合不生云何能生果。因無故果無。第二偈結合不合並無生義。果無故因無。故云何處有合法。此二偈猶是因緣品末二偈意同也。長行但釋第五門兩偈。前二易解略不解之。
成壞品第二十一
此品來有六義。一者始自論初終。竟因果凡二十門求人法不得。外人便謂。眾義本成被破便壞。既有成壞則萬化不空。二者外人二十品立世間法。而上來別立世間法有二十科。今總立世間法並是無常敗壞相。則知有世間。則上來別立別破。今總立總破。故有此品。三者大小內外諸部悉壞則龍樹義成。若爾不無萬法。四者因果是眾義之宗。既其破之則因果理壞。有壞則應有成。是以有此品也。五者上來諸品多破內法。今品則破外法。如天地成壞。今明。世界本無成今亦不壞。吾凈土不壞而眾見燒盡。此是成者見成而壞者見壞。如二緣見一質凈穢。而諸法未曾成壞。六者世間外道大小乘人。聞經中五輪世界成三災世界壞。五陰和合眾產生散便眾生壞。乃至現見瓶衣成壞人死產生壞。已見有成壞故起愛見煩惱業苦不得解脫。諸佛菩薩憐愍此眾生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有性下第四有性無性破。初偈說明果的有自性。沒有自性的因不能產生果。有自性就是有實體。比如原本有人體，不需要陰（五陰，指色、受、想、行、識）的聚合而成。原本沒有人體，陰的聚合也無法形成。 第二偈總結沒有因就沒有果。如果從眾多的因緣出發，第五（句）總結緣分的聚合與不聚合都不能產生果。初偈正面說明和合不能產生，又怎麼能產生果呢？因為沒有因，所以沒有果。第二偈總結即使聚合或不聚合，都沒有產生的道理。沒有果，所以沒有因。所以怎麼會有法存在於何處呢？這兩偈與因緣品末尾的兩偈意思相同。 長行只是解釋第五門的兩個偈頌。前面的兩個容易理解，所以略過不解釋。
成壞品第二十一
此品出現有六個意義。一是開始於論的最初，終結于因果，總共二十個方面來探求人法，卻一無所得。外道之人就認為，眾多的意義原本是成立的，被破斥后就壞滅了。既然有成立和壞滅，那麼萬事萬物就不是空無的。 二是外道之人用二十品來建立世間法。而前面（的經文）分別建立世間法有二十個方面。現在總的建立世間法，都是無常敗壞的相狀。那麼就知道有世間。那麼前面是分別建立分別破斥，現在是總的建立總的破斥。所以有此品。 三是大小乘、內外道各部的觀點全部壞滅，那麼龍樹菩薩的義理就成立了。如果這樣，就不是沒有萬法。 四是因果是眾多意義的根本。既然破斥了因果，那麼因果的道理就壞滅了。有壞滅就應該有成立，所以有此品。 五是前面的各品大多破斥內法（佛教的教義），這一品則破斥外法（其他學說的教義）。比如天地的成立和壞滅。現在說明，世界原本沒有成立，現在也不會壞滅。我的凈土不會壞滅，而眾生所見的（世界）被燒盡。這是（對於）成立的人，（他們）見到成立，而（對於）壞滅的人，（他們）見到壞滅。如同兩個有緣分的人看到一個本質，一個是清凈，一個是污穢。而諸法從來沒有成立和壞滅。 六是世間的外道、小乘、大乘之人，聽到經中說五輪世界（指地、水、火、風、空五大元素構成的世界）成立，三災（指火災、水災、風災）世界壞滅，五陰（指色、受、想、行、識）和合眾生形成，離散就眾生壞滅。乃至現在看到瓶子、衣服成立和壞滅，人死亡和出生，成立和壞滅。已經見到有成立和壞滅，所以生起愛見煩惱業苦，無法得到解脫。諸佛菩薩憐憫這些眾生。
【English Translation】 English version The fourth section under 'Having Nature' discusses the refutation of 'having nature' and 'not having nature'. The first verse clarifies that the result has its own nature. A cause without nature cannot produce a result. 'Having nature' means having substance. For example, if a human body inherently exists, it doesn't need the aggregation of the skandhas (five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) to form. If a human body doesn't inherently exist, the aggregation of the skandhas cannot form it. The second verse concludes that without a cause, there is no result. If starting from numerous causes and conditions, the fifth (line) concludes that neither the aggregation nor the non-aggregation of conditions can produce a result. The first verse directly clarifies that if combination cannot produce, how can it produce a result? Because there is no cause, there is no result. The second verse concludes that even with aggregation or non-aggregation, there is no principle of production. Without a result, there is no cause. So, how can there be a law existing anywhere? These two verses have the same meaning as the last two verses of the 'Conditions' chapter. The commentary only explains the two verses of the fifth section. The first two are easy to understand, so they are omitted.
Chapter Twenty-One: Formation and Destruction
This chapter appears with six meanings. First, it starts from the beginning of the treatise and ends with cause and effect, seeking for beings and dharmas in twenty aspects, but finding nothing. Outsiders then think that the numerous meanings were originally established, but after being refuted, they are destroyed. Since there is formation and destruction, then all things are not empty. Second, outsiders use twenty chapters to establish worldly dharmas. And the previous (scriptures) separately establish worldly dharmas in twenty aspects. Now, the worldly dharmas are established in general, and they are all impermanent and decaying. Then we know there is a world. Then the previous was separate establishment and separate refutation, now it is general establishment and general refutation. So there is this chapter. Third, if the views of all schools of the Great Vehicle, Small Vehicle, internal and external paths are all destroyed, then Nāgārjuna's (龍樹) doctrine is established. If so, it is not that there are no dharmas. Fourth, cause and effect are the foundation of numerous meanings. Since cause and effect are refuted, then the principle of cause and effect is destroyed. If there is destruction, there should be formation, so there is this chapter. Fifth, the previous chapters mostly refuted internal dharmas (Buddhist teachings), this chapter refutes external dharmas (teachings of other schools). For example, the formation and destruction of heaven and earth. Now it is explained that the world was originally not formed, and now it will not be destroyed. My Pure Land will not be destroyed, but the (world) seen by sentient beings is burned. This is (for) those who see formation, (they) see formation, and (for) those who see destruction, (they) see destruction. Like two people with affinity seeing one essence, one is pure, and one is defiled. But the dharmas have never been formed or destroyed. Sixth, worldly outsiders, followers of the Small Vehicle, and the Great Vehicle, hear in the scriptures that the five-wheel world (the world composed of the five great elements: earth, water, fire, wind, and space) is formed, the three calamities (fire, water, and wind) destroy the world, the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) combine to form sentient beings, and separation destroys sentient beings. Even now, they see pots and clothes being formed and destroyed, people dying and being born, formation and destruction. Having seen formation and destruction, they give rise to love, views, afflictions, karma, and suffering, and cannot be liberated. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have compassion for these sentient beings.
明實無如此成壞。故下文云。若謂以現見而有成壞者則為是癡妄。然所見境既無。能謂之心亦如所謂。所謂無故無數于外。能謂無故無心於內。內外並冥緣觀俱寂。是名涅槃。故便得解脫。以此因緣故說此品。問云何名成壞。答成名眾緣合。壞名眾緣散。略舉四義。一者指目前之事。物合為成物散為壞。二者生住二相為成。異滅兩相為壞。三者五輪合為器世間成。三災劫起器世間壞。六種合衆生世間成。三小劫起眾生世間壞也。四者約義如外道壞佛法成。毗曇壞呵梨成。諸部壞龍樹成。又如地論人用六相義以釋眾經。謂總相別相同相異相成相壞相。今總求如此成壞不可得。明一切法本自不成今亦無壞。即是中道。因中發觀戲論斯滅。故以目品。品開為八門。一共離門。明無成壞。二盡不盡門。三體相門。四空不空門。五一異門。六生滅門。七斷常門。八三世門。就初為三。一雙標共離二門。次雙釋二門。三雙結二門。初外人問但舉世間者。二十一品破世間法。終此一章故偏問世間。又世間無常之法有于成壞。故偏問世間。現是敗壞相者。前二十章論主之難疑無不摧。外人之通言無不屈。故言現是敗壞相。又自上已來舉成門立義。今此一章就壞門立義。現見我眾義並壞必應有成。答中上半開共離二門明無有壞。所以前明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 實際上並沒有這樣的成和壞。所以下文說：『如果認為憑藉現見的緣故而有成和壞，那就是愚癡妄想。』然而，所見的境界既然沒有，能說的心也就像所說的那樣。所謂沒有原因，所以外面沒有數量；能說沒有原因，所以內心沒有心。內外都寂靜，緣觀也一起寂滅，這就叫做涅槃。』因此便能得到解脫。因為這個因緣，所以說這一品。問：『什麼叫做成壞？』答：『成叫做眾多因緣聚合，壞叫做眾多因緣離散。』簡略地舉出四種意義：一是針對眼前的事物，事物聚合叫做成，事物離散叫做壞；二是生和住兩種相叫做成，異和滅兩種相叫做壞；三是五輪聚合叫做器世間成，三災劫起叫做器世間壞，六種聚合叫做眾生世間成，三小劫起叫做眾生世間壞；四是就義理來說，比如外道破壞佛法，佛法成就；毗曇宗破壞呵梨宗，呵梨宗成就；各個部派破壞龍樹宗，龍樹宗成就。又比如《地論》的人用六相義來解釋各種經典，即總相、別相、同相、異相、成相、壞相。現在總的來求證，這樣的成和壞是不可得的，說明一切法本來就沒有成就，現在也沒有壞滅，這就是中道。因中發起觀照，戲論就會止滅，所以用這一品來概括。這一品展開為八個方面：一是共離門，說明沒有成壞；二是盡不盡門；三是體相門；四是空不空門；五是一異門；六是生滅門；七是斷常門；八是三世門。就第一個方面來說，分為三個部分：一是雙標共離二門；二是雙釋二門；三是雙結二門。最初外人問，只舉世間，是因為前二十一品破斥世間法，結束這一章，所以偏問世間。而且世間無常的法有成和壞，所以偏問世間。『現在是敗壞相』，是因為前面二十章，論主的詰難沒有不摧毀的，外人的辯解沒有不屈服的，所以說『現在是敗壞相』。而且從上面以來，舉成門來立義，現在這一章就壞門來立義，現見我和眾義都敗壞，必定應該有成。』回答中上半部分開啟共離二門，說明沒有壞。所以前面說明
【English Translation】 English version: In reality, there is no such thing as becoming and ceasing. Therefore, the following text says: 'If it is thought that becoming and ceasing exist because of what is directly seen, then that is foolish delusion.' However, since the seen realm does not exist, the mind that speaks of it is also like what is spoken of. So-called without cause, therefore there is no number outside; so-called without cause, therefore there is no mind inside. Both inside and outside are dark, and the conditions of observation are all silent. This is called Nirvana.' Therefore, one can attain liberation. Because of this cause and condition, this chapter is spoken. Question: 'What is called becoming and ceasing?' Answer: 'Becoming is called the aggregation of many conditions, and ceasing is called the dispersion of many conditions.' Briefly, four meanings are given: First, it refers to present matters, the aggregation of things is called becoming, and the dispersion of things is called ceasing; second, the phases of arising and abiding are called becoming, and the phases of change and extinction are called ceasing; third, the aggregation of the five wheels is called the formation of the vessel world (the physical world), and the arising of the three calamities is called the destruction of the vessel world, the aggregation of the six kinds is called the formation of the sentient being world, and the arising of the three minor kalpas is called the destruction of the sentient being world; fourth, in terms of meaning, for example, external paths destroy the Buddha-dharma (Buddha's teachings), and the Buddha-dharma is established; the Abhidharma school destroys the Harivarman school, and the Harivarman school is established; various schools destroy the Nagarjuna school, and the Nagarjuna school is established. Also, for example, the people of the Treatise on the [Ten] Stages use the six-aspect meaning to explain various scriptures, namely the general aspect, the specific aspect, the similar aspect, the different aspect, the becoming aspect, and the ceasing aspect. Now, in general, seeking such becoming and ceasing is unattainable, indicating that all dharmas (phenomena) originally have no becoming, and now there is no ceasing. This is the Middle Way. When contemplation arises in the midst of causes, discursive thoughts will cease, so this chapter is used to summarize. This chapter is unfolded into eight aspects: First, the common-separation gate, explaining that there is no becoming and ceasing; second, the exhaustion and non-exhaustion gate; third, the substance and appearance gate; fourth, the emptiness and non-emptiness gate; fifth, the one and different gate; sixth, the arising and ceasing gate; seventh, the permanence and impermanence gate; eighth, the three times gate. Regarding the first aspect, it is divided into three parts: First, the double marking of the common-separation two gates; second, the double explanation of the two gates; third, the double conclusion of the two gates. Initially, the external person asks, only mentioning the world, because the previous twenty-one chapters refuted the worldly dharmas, and this chapter concludes this section, so the world is specifically asked about. Moreover, the impermanent dharmas of the world have becoming and ceasing, so the world is specifically asked about. 'Now is the phase of decay', because in the previous twenty chapters, the debater's difficulties were all destroyed, and the external person's explanations were all subdued, so it is said 'Now is the phase of decay'. Moreover, from above, the becoming gate is used to establish meaning, and now this chapter uses the ceasing gate to establish meaning, seeing that both my meaning and the meaning of the multitude are decaying, there must be becoming.' In the first half of the answer, the common-separation two gates are opened, explaining that there is no ceasing. Therefore, the previous explanation
無壞者。由外人謂己義壞故前檢之。下半共離無成。可解。次三偈釋無成壞。開為三別。初偈釋離成無壞門。第三偈釋離壞無成門。中間一偈釋成壞共無成壞門。既是兩離所以離釋。以是其共所以共釋。並易見也。問文何故舉生死破外人耶。答外謂自立屈是死論主通是生。故破之亦不許外死。汝上來得生今可死耳。竟未曾生今云何死。可謂。求生不得。求死亦不得也。無常未曾有不在諸法時者。外人四相常俱既有生住。即有異滅隨之。上來就大期粗死生顯無成壞。今明唸唸細生滅亦無成壞。又即破此粗細二種生滅也。長行還依前章門偈次第釋之。不依后三偈釋之。初釋共離二門無有壞。若離即壞共壞下次釋共離二門無成。初為二別。前釋離成無壞有三。謂標釋結。釋中凡有二破。初作無因破。又成法下次作無果破。以壞是成果成為壞因。既無成因。故無壞果。是故下第三結。破共成有壞亦三。謂標釋結。釋中雲。法前別成而後有合者。明成與壞共則成壞。壞與成共則壞成。壞成故無成。無成則無壞。汝今若欲合者。要前兩體各成然後方得合耳。故云法前成而後有合也。汝既不得兩體各成。云何合耶。合法不離異者此縱其別成。而兩物共合則雖合而猶異。如二木共合終自是異。若終自是異終不合也。若壞離異壞則無因者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無壞者：因為外道認為自己的理論被破壞，所以前來辯論。下半部分講的是共同和分離都不能成立，可以理解。接下來的三首偈頌解釋了不成和壞。分為三個部分。第一首偈頌解釋了分離的成立沒有壞滅的道理。第三首偈頌解釋了分離的壞滅沒有成立的道理。中間一首偈頌解釋了成立和壞滅共同存在時，沒有成立和壞滅的道理。既然是兩種分離的情況，所以分開解釋。因為是共同的情況，所以共同解釋。這些都很容易理解。問：為什麼經文中要用生死來駁斥外道呢？答：外道認為自立的觀點是屈服，是死亡的論主，普遍是生。所以駁斥他們，也不承認外道的死亡。你上來得到了生，現在就可以死了嗎？最終沒有生，現在怎麼會死呢？可以說是求生不得，求死也不得。無常沒有不在諸法存在的時候。外道認為四相常時存在，既然有生住，就有異滅跟隨。上來就大的期限，粗的生死來顯示沒有成立和壞滅。現在說明唸唸之間細微的生滅也沒有成立和壞滅。又駁斥了這粗細兩種生滅。長行還是按照前面章節的門和偈頌的順序來解釋，不按照後面的三首偈頌來解釋。首先解釋共同和分離兩種情況都沒有壞滅。如果分離就是壞滅，共同就是壞滅。接下來解釋共同和分離兩種情況都沒有成立。開始分為兩個部分。前面解釋分離的成立沒有壞滅有三個部分，分別是標、釋、結。解釋中大概有兩種駁斥。首先是作為無因的駁斥，又是成立的法。接下來是作為無果的駁斥，因為壞滅是成立的成果，成立是壞滅的原因。既然沒有成立的原因，所以沒有壞滅的果。所以接下來第三個部分是總結。駁斥共同成立有壞滅也有三個部分，分別是標、釋、結。解釋中說，法在前面分別成立，然後在後面有結合的，說明成立和壞滅共同存在，就是成立和壞滅。壞滅和成立共同存在，就是壞滅和成立。壞滅成立所以沒有成立，沒有成立就沒有壞滅。你現在如果想要結合，就要前面兩個個體各自成立，然後才能結合。所以說，法在前面成立，然後在後面有結合。你既然不能讓兩個個體各自成立，怎麼結合呢？合法的結合不離開差異，這是縱容它們分別成立，而兩個物體共同結合，即使結合了仍然有差異。比如兩棵樹共同結合，最終還是有差異。如果最終還是有差異，最終就不能結合。如果壞滅離開差異，壞滅就沒有原因了。
【English Translation】 English version No destruction: Because externalists believe their own theories are being undermined, they come to argue. The latter half discusses that neither togetherness nor separation can be established, which is understandable. The following three verses explain non-establishment and destruction. They are divided into three parts. The first verse explains the principle that separation and establishment do not lead to destruction. The third verse explains the principle that separation and destruction do not lead to establishment. The middle verse explains the principle that when establishment and destruction coexist, there is neither establishment nor destruction. Since there are two separate situations, they are explained separately. Because it is a common situation, it is explained together. These are all easy to understand. Question: Why does the scripture use birth and death to refute externalists? Answer: Externalists believe that self-established views are submission, the master of death, and universally birth. Therefore, refuting them also denies the externalists' death. You came up and gained birth, can you die now? Ultimately, there was no birth, how can there be death now? It can be said that seeking birth is unattainable, and seeking death is also unattainable. Impermanence is always present in all dharmas. Externalists believe that the four characteristics always exist, and since there is arising and abiding, there is change and cessation following. Above, the large term, the coarse birth and death, is used to show that there is no establishment and destruction. Now it is explained that even the subtle arising and ceasing between thoughts has no establishment and destruction. It also refutes these two types of coarse and subtle birth and death. The prose still follows the order of the doors and verses of the previous chapter to explain, not according to the following three verses. First, it explains that there is no destruction in both togetherness and separation. If separation is destruction, togetherness is destruction. Next, it explains that there is no establishment in both togetherness and separation. It starts by dividing into two parts. The previous explanation of separation and establishment without destruction has three parts, which are the introduction, explanation, and conclusion. There are roughly two refutations in the explanation. The first is the refutation of no cause, and it is also the established dharma. The next is the refutation of no result, because destruction is the result of establishment, and establishment is the cause of destruction. Since there is no cause of establishment, there is no result of destruction. Therefore, the third part is the conclusion. Refuting that common establishment has destruction also has three parts, which are the introduction, explanation, and conclusion. The explanation says that dharmas are established separately in the front and then combined in the back, indicating that establishment and destruction coexist, which is establishment and destruction. Destruction and establishment coexist, which is destruction and establishment. Destruction and establishment, therefore there is no establishment, and without establishment, there is no destruction. If you want to combine now, the two individuals must be established separately before they can combine. Therefore, it is said that dharmas are established in the front and then combined in the back. Since you cannot let the two individuals be established separately, how can you combine? The combination of legitimate dharmas does not leave difference, which is to tolerate their separate establishment, and when two objects combine together, even if they combine, there is still difference. For example, if two trees combine together, there is still difference in the end. If there is still difference in the end, they cannot combine in the end. If destruction leaves difference, destruction has no cause.
。離異者是無異也。縱令成與壞兩合體無異壞便壞成。則是無成。誰為壞因。故云無因。故異則有因而不合。不異則合而無因。是故下第三結也。若離壞下第二釋共離二門無成義。前雙牒次雙釋。分別法者是阿毗曇人。謂八相與法體並起。是則生住相中常有異滅相。故今破之。若常有異滅則無生住。成壞共無成者第三一偈總結。上半雙結下半偈呵。上半云。成壞共無成者此成是義成就之成。以共離二門檢外成壞義並不成就。故云無成也。問曰下生第二盡不盡門破。前立義云。現有盡滅相者共離二門破之無辭可對。但舉現事以問論主。從阿毗地獄至大乘金剛心。並是無常盡滅之法。故云無常無奢促行苦無重輕。又上來立申義屈。今品初立屈義復屈。豈非現見盡滅相耶。是盡滅相亦說盡不盡者。前明通是無常。今就無常中有于假實。實法則滅盡。假名相續名為不盡。破意云。實法則一念不住。豈可欲成物耶。故云盡則無有成。若欲壞之久已謝滅。何所論壞耶。又不盡是常。常復何所論成。故云不盡亦無成。又大小乘盡滅義不同。小乘唸唸有法滅盡。大乘唸唸滅者無有法也。猶野馬走耳。地持論稱不成實無常。假名則盡續不斷此則是常。既其是常。常則無成。成無故壞亦無。救云。舉體續舉體滅。云何作此破。答須細心。汝
舉體續邊必不滅。是故名常。故假實二門俱無成壞。此盡不盡猶是常無常門。亦是決定不決定門破耳。長行釋甚分明。盡亦無有壞此相待破。向有成可有壞。竟無成何有壞耶。不盡亦無壞就常門破。問曰且置成壞下此生第三體相門破。自上二門並破成壞。外無以通之。故請停成壞立有法體。世間現見有於物不應無有成壞。若無成壞寧有物耶。又外謂成壞是生滅兩相。物是色心法體。故舉法體證有于相。答中上半就離相無法門。下半就離法無相門。此破薩婆多毗婆阇婆提。曇無崛等計法體外別有四相也。若破成實義者若色義非生義。亦色體非生體。若生義非色義以色為生體。亦生義非色義用生為色體。偈為二。上半離相無法。相無法則無。下半離法無相。法無相即無。外人謂離相有法。相雖無法不無。是以論主明離相無法。相無法即無。若爾上來求成壞相無。即是無即是無法體。竟不應復問也。長行雲。是法應或無或常者。若離成壞有法則二過。一者都無此法。二設有者則常也。若法性空下第四空不空門破。成壞性空有四種。八不中已說。一定性之空即是邪見空名為性空。二破性說空名為性空。三性有本空名為性空。四諸法因緣本性是空。此之四種悉皆是空。空中則無物成壞。不空是常亦無成壞。又此性是體性之性。若
有自體則不假緣。則名為常常無成壞。若無自體則無物。何所成壞。複次下第五一異門破。偈上半牒一非一。下半牒異非異。所以不破者因果品已有標釋竟。故此中但非也。問一異與前合離門何異。答上明離異若合通一異。長行釋一中有二過。初異相故就境。次種種分別約智。破異中亦有二過。初無有兩體別是奪破。若異得成在東邊壞居西面不。亦無因故縱其是異。則壞不壞成故成非壞因。故云無因也。若謂以現見下第六生滅門破成壞。三偈為二。初偈取意破。第二兩偈釋破。上半取意。論初至此有四種立。一者申義立成壞之前也。二受屈立品初是也。三屈申俱屈立現見盡滅相是也。今不復口根等救。但內心立故論主懸。取外謂眼實見有生滅。汝云何以言說破耶。此之一問通貫一切經論。明凡夫所見之失聖人破迷之意。外人云。眼見有世出世一切法。云何言說破耶。汝口道無我眼見有。寧信我眼見為實。豈用口虛言耶。下半呵責。明理無生滅生滅出自妄情。上來以窮其理。今復破窮理之言。汝以癡妄故上來破汝癡。今云何復以妄見為證耶。攝論無塵並皆是識。更復立於識。以破塵故云似根識似塵識似我識似識識。此論明。實無一切物。但是想謂有耳。此語勝彼立有識破塵。直破便足。何須更立別有識耶。又今論與楞伽
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有自體則不依賴因緣。那就名為常住不變，沒有產生和壞滅。如果沒有自體，那就什麼都沒有，又有什麼可以產生和壞滅呢？ 其次，下面第五，用一異門來破斥。偈頌的上半部分是『一』和『非一』，下半部分是『異』和『非異』。之所以不詳細破斥，是因為在因果品中已經標明和解釋過了，所以這裡只是否定。 問：『一異』與前面的『合離』門有什麼不同？答：前面說明離散和差異，如果聚合則通達『一異』。長行解釋『一』中有兩種過失：首先是異相，這是就境界而言；其次是種種分別，這是就智慧而言。破斥『異』中也有兩種過失：首先是沒有兩個獨立的實體，這是直接否定；如果『異』能夠成立，那麼產生在東邊，壞滅在西邊，行不行得通？也沒有原因，所以縱然是『異』，那麼壞滅不是產生的原因，所以說沒有原因。 如果說用現見……下面第六，用生滅門來破斥產生和壞滅。三首偈頌分為兩部分，第一首偈頌是取意破斥，第二兩首偈頌是解釋破斥。上半部分是取意。論初到這裡有四種立論：第一種是申義立論，在產生和壞滅之前；第二種是受屈立論，在品初；第三種是屈申俱屈立論，現見盡滅相；現在不再用口根等來辯解，只是內心立論，所以論主懸空。取外人認為眼睛確實看到有生滅，你為什麼要用言語來破斥呢？這一個問題貫穿一切經論，說明凡夫所見的錯誤，聖人破除迷惑的用意。外人說：眼睛看到有世間和出世間的一切法，為什麼要用言語來破斥呢？你口中說沒有我，眼睛卻看到有，寧可相信我眼睛所見為真實，難道要用口中的虛假言語嗎？ 下半部分是呵責，說明理體上沒有生滅，生滅出自虛妄的情感。上面已經窮盡了道理，現在又破斥窮盡道理的言語。你因為愚癡妄想，所以上面破斥你的愚癡，現在怎麼又用虛妄的見解作為證據呢？《攝大乘論》說，無塵都是識，更進一步建立識，用識來破斥塵，所以說相似於根識，相似於塵識，相似於我識，相似於識識。這部論說明，實際上沒有一切事物，只是想像認為有罷了。這句話勝過他們建立有識破斥塵，直接破斥就足夠了，何必再建立一個別的識呢？又，現在的論與《楞伽經》...
【English Translation】 English version If there is self-nature (svabhava), then it does not depend on conditions (pratītyasamutpāda). Then it is called permanent, without formation and destruction. If there is no self-nature, then there is nothing, so what can be formed and destroyed? Next, below in the fifth section, the one-and-different (ekatva-anyatva) gate is used to refute. The first half of the verse refers to 'one' and 'not one,' and the second half refers to 'different' and 'not different.' The reason why it is not refuted in detail is because it has already been indicated and explained in the chapter on cause and effect (hetu-phala), so here it is only negated. Question: What is the difference between 'one-and-different' and the previous gate of 'together-and-separate' (samyoga-viyoga)? Answer: The previous one explains separation and difference; if they come together, they penetrate 'one-and-different.' The long passage explains that there are two faults in 'one': first, the characteristic of difference, which refers to the object (viṣaya); second, various discriminations, which refer to wisdom (jñāna). There are also two faults in refuting 'different': first, there are no two independent entities, which is a direct negation; if 'different' can be established, then formation is in the east and destruction is in the west, is that feasible? There is also no cause, so even if it is 'different,' then destruction is not the cause of formation, so it is said that there is no cause. If it is said that using direct perception... Below in the sixth section, the gate of arising and ceasing (utpāda-nirodha) is used to refute formation and destruction. The three verses are divided into two parts: the first verse is a refutation by taking the meaning, and the second two verses are an explanation of the refutation. The first half is taking the meaning. From the beginning of the treatise to here, there are four kinds of establishing arguments: the first is establishing the meaning before formation and destruction; the second is accepting the refutation, which is at the beginning of the chapter; the third is the argument of both yielding and reasserting, which is the appearance of seeing cessation; now, the root of the mouth (vac-indriya) and so on are no longer used to argue, but only internal arguments are established, so the treatise master suspends. Taking the outsider's view that the eyes do see arising and ceasing, why do you use words to refute it? This one question runs through all the sutras and treatises, explaining the mistakes seen by ordinary people and the intention of the sages to dispel delusion. The outsider says: The eyes see all the dharmas of the world and beyond, why use words to refute it? You say in your mouth that there is no self (anatta), but the eyes see that there is, so it is better to believe what my eyes see as real, why use the false words of the mouth? The second half is a rebuke, explaining that there is no arising and ceasing in the principle (tattva), and arising and ceasing come from false emotions. The principle has already been exhausted above, and now the words of exhausting the principle are refuted again. Because of your ignorance and delusion, your ignorance was refuted above, so how can you use false views as evidence now? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that all dust (rajas) is consciousness (vijñāna), and further establishes consciousness, using consciousness to refute dust, so it is said to be similar to root consciousness (mūla-vijñāna), similar to dust consciousness, similar to self-consciousness, similar to consciousness-consciousness. This treatise explains that in reality there are no things, it is just imagined to be. This statement is better than their establishing consciousness to refute dust, direct refutation is enough, why establish another separate consciousness? Also, the current treatise and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra...
同。實無外四句境。並是妄心所見耳。故有心見有實無有。謂情見無亦無無。乃至謂情見非有非無。實無非有非無。然既無所見之境。亦無能見之四心。無有無四境無數于外。無有無四心無心於內。如斯悟者即是涅槃也。攝論師云。世諦無塵而有于識。今明。世諦俱無性實塵識。而有因緣假名塵識。真諦即假實俱無也。問何以知世諦俱有真諦俱無耶。答今問。識有自體。為無自體。若有自體則是常。無自體則無識。並現業品。識既爾塵亦然。故有則俱有。無則俱無。問若爾攝論何故言塵無而識有耶。答此是一往以識破塵耳。實無前境皆是想心謂有耳。然所謂既無。能謂亦爾。又就外義者生滅是法塵。十八界中意識得非五識得。云何眼見。數人云。眼見高下色。論云。此是相待假。想心所得。數云。眼見煙雲色。論云。此是因成假。亦是想得。今所明者眼見既是見倒。想心得亦是想倒。長行雲。眼見有生滅云何以言說破。此是牒外義耳。外云。我眼實見生滅。云何論主用言說破耶。故眼見是實。口說非可信。是事不然者釋下半。初總非。何以故下解釋。又開五別。一先序失。明外人是癡所見故不足可信。若眼見可信者與牛羊同。諸法性空下第二明得。但凡夫下第三重辨失。第一義中下第四重辨得。是事已於破相品中說下
第五指上品。以聖人于觀心中如理而說故說可信。若無言說破汝何由悟耶。汝癡妄故不可信也。正指三相品末一偈敘凡聖得失事也。從法不生法下第二兩偈釋無生義。顯外人無生見生故見是癡妄。顯論主悟生無生故說是真實。兩偈為二。初明四句無生。第二偈三門無生。偈如文。長行釋四句。即四別。釋從法不生法為三。謂標釋結。初文標也。若至若失下第二解釋。即開二別。一總標至失二門有斷常。若以至下第二釋二章門。釋至章門凡有三破。若前法不滅而至於后則為常。又生已更生者為因時已生。至果時復生。故一物有其重生。又亦無因生者此法不滅。遂經重生則為是常。常故無因。又滅為生因。遂不經滅而有重生。故是無因。次釋失中凡有二過。一者前法滅失而後自生故后法無因。又前法滅失則名為斷。后無因生則為是常。故標章中若至若失俱墮斷常。至是聞熏習不滅。失是滅義耳。又至是僧佉失是衛世。又至是大眾部失是上座。又至是成實失是毗曇。是故從法不生於法第三總結。然此中雲。有法不生無。云何他義云修無常因而得常果。無不生有。云何言真諦境能生心耶。又切論只一法論四句。泥不生瓶法不生法。泥不生非瓶法不生非法。非泥不生瓶。非法不生法。非泥不生非瓶非法不生非法。此窮一法生之原
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第五指上品。因為聖人在觀心中如理如實地說，所以說的話可以相信。如果沒有言語來破斥你，你又怎麼能領悟呢？你因為愚癡妄想，所以不可信。『正指三相品末一偈』是敘述凡夫和聖人得失的事情。從『法不生法』開始的第二段兩句偈頌解釋了無生的意義。揭示外道認為無生是癡妄的見解，揭示論主領悟了生即無生，所以說的是真實的。兩句偈頌分為兩部分。第一部分闡明四句無生。第二句偈頌闡明三門無生。偈頌的內容如原文。長行解釋四句，即四種區別。解釋『從法不生法』分為三部分，即標示、解釋、總結。第一句是標示。『若至若失下』是第二部分解釋，即展開為兩種區別。第一種總標示到達和失去兩種門徑都有斷滅和常恒的過失。『若以至下』是第二部分解釋兩種章門。解釋到達章門總共有三種破斥。如果前法不滅而到達后法，那就是常恒。又，已經生起的又再次生起，是因為在因位時已經生起，到達果位時又再次生起，所以一物有其重生。又，也沒有因能生起，因為此法不滅，於是經過重生，那就是常恒。因為是常恒，所以沒有因。又，滅是生的因，於是沒有經過滅而有重生，所以是沒有因。接下來解釋失去，總共有兩種過失。一是前法滅失，然後自己生起，所以後法沒有因。二是前法滅失，那就名為斷滅，后法沒有因生起，那就是常恒。所以標示章門中，到達和失去都落入斷滅和常恒的過失。到達是聞熏習不滅，失去是滅的含義。又，到達是僧佉派，失去是衛世派。又，到達是大眾部，失去是上座部。又，到達是成實論，失去是毗曇宗。所以說『從法不生於法』是第三部分總結。然而這裡說，『有法不生無』，為什麼他們的義理卻說修無常因而得到常果？無不生有，為什麼說真諦境能生心呢？又，切論只用一法論述四句：泥不生瓶，法不生法；泥不生非瓶，法不生非法；非泥不生瓶，非法不生法；非泥不生非瓶，非法不生非法。這是窮盡一法生起的根源。
【English Translation】 English version Fifth refers to the upper grade. Because the sage speaks truthfully and according to reason in contemplation, his words are credible. If there were no words to refute you, how could you awaken? Because of your ignorance and delusion, you are not to be believed. 'The last verse of the chapter on the three characteristics' describes the gains and losses of ordinary people and sages. The second two verses starting from 'Dharma does not arise from Dharma' explain the meaning of non-arising. It reveals that the externalists' view of non-arising is ignorant and deluded, and reveals that the author of the treatise understands that arising is non-arising, so what he says is true. The two verses are divided into two parts. The first part clarifies the four phrases of non-arising. The second verse clarifies the three gates of non-arising. The content of the verses is as in the original text. The long passage explains the four phrases, which are four distinctions. The explanation of 'Dharma does not arise from Dharma' is divided into three parts, namely, indication, explanation, and conclusion. The first sentence is the indication. 'If reaching or losing below' is the second part of the explanation, which is expanded into two distinctions. The first generally indicates that both the gates of reaching and losing have the faults of annihilation and permanence. 'If reaching below' is the second part explaining the two chapter gates. The explanation of reaching the chapter gate has a total of three refutations. If the previous dharma does not perish and reaches the later dharma, then it is permanent. Also, what has already arisen arises again because it has already arisen in the causal position, and it arises again when it reaches the result position, so one thing has its rebirth. Also, there is no cause that can arise, because this dharma does not perish, so it undergoes rebirth, which is permanent. Because it is permanent, there is no cause. Also, extinction is the cause of arising, so without undergoing extinction, there is rebirth, so there is no cause. Next, the explanation of losing has a total of two faults. One is that the previous dharma perishes and then arises by itself, so the later dharma has no cause. Two is that the previous dharma perishes, which is called annihilation, and the later dharma arises without a cause, which is permanence. Therefore, in the indication chapter gate, reaching and losing both fall into the faults of annihilation and permanence. Reaching is the non-perishing of hearing and熏習 (xun xi, habitual energy)， losing is the meaning of extinction. Also, reaching is the Samkhya school, and losing is the Vaisheshika school. Also, reaching is the Mahasanghika school, and losing is the Sthavira school. Also, reaching is the Satyasiddhi school, and losing is the Abhidharma school. Therefore, saying 'Dharma does not arise from Dharma' is the third part of the conclusion. However, it says here, 'Existing dharma does not arise from non-existence,' why do their doctrines say that cultivating impermanence results in permanent fruit? Non-existence does not arise from existence, why do they say that the realm of ultimate truth can generate the mind? Also, the 切論 (Qie Lun, a commentary) only uses one dharma to discuss the four phrases: clay does not give rise to a bottle, dharma does not give rise to dharma; clay does not give rise to a non-bottle, dharma does not give rise to non-dharma; non-clay does not give rise to a bottle, non-dharma does not give rise to dharma; non-clay does not give rise to a non-bottle, non-dharma does not give rise to non-dharma. This is exhausting the origin of the arising of one dharma.
底也。問曰下生第二三門破生。前開四句檢無生。但惑者多言從法生法。故更開三門檢責初句。又前開四門求無生。今以三門釋上四門。明一一門中皆得以三句責之。今但據初為言耳。長行雲。法未生時無所有故者。凡物生時要前未生而生。若未生則是無。無雲何得自生。又即自不生者如指不自觸也。未生無他。他亦是法。必未生是無。以何為他。下明自他相待。未生無自安得有他。問外人前眼見生滅。論主以二偈破生。何以不破滅耶。答既無有生滅不足破。又以前四后三例生求滅。故不別說也。若有所受法者第七斷常門破。所以有此破來者凡有二義。一近從破生滅起。上明道理實無生滅。若決定執有生滅則墮斷常。二者破世間法既將究竟。故領其大要。明內外大小一切有得之徒。凡計有一豪法則墮斷常。若墮斷常則是眾見根本。若有于見則便有愛。愛見因緣故有業苦不得解脫。是故不應於法起斷常見。又起斷常障中道不發正觀。愛見戲論何由滅耶。四偈為三。初破次救。后兩偈破救。初偈上半明有所得人受著諸法。下半明所受之法墮于斷常。上半序其能見之心。下半明其所計之法。如有見外道則是常見。無見外道則是斷見。三世有部則是常見。二世無部則是斷見。學大乘者斷除二死。滅於五住名為斷見。有常住果起
名為常見。乃至地論斷除妄想名為斷見。有真如法身則是常見。又云。不有心而已。有則相續至佛。則是常見。煩惱會真有斷期。則是斷見。又謂心不可朽滅是常見。草木一化便盡則是斷見。又云。煩惱成就未得治道。已來決定是有。則是常見。得治道斷之名為斷見。聞熏習不滅則常。滅則斷見。問曰下第二救義。上半總唱不墮斷常。下半舉因果相續釋非斷常。然中道難識。犢子亦說不即不離。方廣亦說不生不滅。魔亦說無有菩提及以涅槃。今外人一往明不斷常。不見龍樹論者言是至妙中道。以龍樹論觀之乃是用斷常作中道。實非中道也。長行釋上半。云信受分別者。論主前云受著之受。外云信受之受。如經說者外引經證不懼龍樹破之。然不斷不常可就三義解釋。一者就法明不斷常。如實法滅故不常相續故不斷。二就人明不斷常。如業品云。而於本作者不一亦不異。三人法合論不斷常。如此中引經云。五陰空無我故不斷。罪福不失故不常。故凈名云。無我無造無受者善惡之業不敗亡也。何以故下釋下半也。答曰下第三破救。二偈即二。初偈偏就斷滅破。第二偈具作斷常破。前偈二。上半牒下半破。破意云。因若不滅果則不生。若言果生是則因滅。如實有此物滅之。則此法永滅不復更生。豈非斷耶。攝論明。梨耶是果報
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名為常見。乃至地論斷除妄想名為斷見。有真如法身則是常見。又云：『不有心而已，有則相續至佛』，則是常見。煩惱會真有斷期，則是斷見。又謂心不可朽滅是常見，草木一化便盡則是斷見。又云：『煩惱成就未得治道，已來決定是有』，則是常見。得治道斷之名為斷見。聞熏習不滅則常，滅則斷見。 問曰：下第二救義。上半總唱不墮斷常，下半舉因果相續釋非斷常。然中道難識，犢子（Vatsiputriya，一個佛教部派）亦說不即不離，方廣（Vaipulya，大乘佛教經典）亦說不生不滅，魔亦說無有菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）及以涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。今外人一往明不斷常，不見龍樹（Nagarjuna，佛教中觀學派創始人）論者言是至妙中道。以龍樹論觀之，乃是用斷常作中道，實非中道也。 長行釋上半，云『信受分別』者，論主前云『受著之受』，外云『信受之受』。如經說者，外引經證不懼龍樹破之。然不斷不常可就三義解釋。一者就法明不斷常，如實法滅故不常，相續故不斷。二就人明不斷常，如業品云：『而於本作者不一亦不異』。三人法合論不斷常，如此中引經云：『五陰（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）空無我故不斷，罪福不失故不常』。故凈名（Vimalakirti，維摩詰）云：『無我無造無受者，善惡之業不敗亡也』。何以故下釋下半也。 答曰：下第三破救。二偈即二。初偈偏就斷滅破，第二偈具作斷常破。前偈二，上半牒下半破。破意云：『因若不滅，果則不生；若言果生，是則因滅。如實有此物滅之，則此法永滅不復更生，豈非斷耶？』攝論明：梨耶（Alaya，阿賴耶識）是果報。
【English Translation】 English version It is called 'common view' to consider something as permanent. Furthermore, in the Shastra on the Earth, the elimination of delusion is called 'annihilation view'. Having the Tathata Dharmakaya (Tathata-dharmakaya, the body of reality as it is) is called 'common view'. It is also said: 'It is not just the absence of mind; if it exists, it continues until Buddhahood', which is called 'common view'. The afflictions will truly have an end, which is called 'annihilation view'. It is also said that the mind cannot decay, which is 'common view'; when plants and trees transform and perish, it is 'annihilation view'. It is also said: 'When afflictions are accomplished and the means of treatment have not yet been obtained, they definitely exist', which is 'common view'. Obtaining the means of treatment and eliminating them is called 'annihilation view'. If the influence of hearing and learning does not cease, it is permanent; if it ceases, it is 'annihilation view'. Question: The second section below presents a defense. The first half generally proclaims not falling into annihilation or permanence, while the second half explains non-annihilation and non-permanence by citing the continuity of cause and effect. However, the Middle Way is difficult to recognize. The Vatsiputriya (Vatsiputriya, a Buddhist school) also speaks of neither identity nor difference, the Vaipulya (Vaipulya, Mahayana Buddhist scriptures) also speaks of neither arising nor ceasing, and demons also speak of the absence of Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment) and Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation). Now, outsiders superficially explain non-annihilation and non-permanence, failing to see that Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna, founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism) considers it the most subtle Middle Way. Examining it through Nagarjuna's treatises, it is actually using annihilation and permanence to create a Middle Way, which is not truly the Middle Way. The prose explains the first half, saying 'believing and distinguishing'. The author previously said 'the suffering of attachment', while the outsider says 'the believing of acceptance'. As the scriptures say, the outsider cites scriptural evidence without fearing Nagarjuna's refutation. However, non-annihilation and non-permanence can be explained in three ways. First, explaining non-annihilation and non-permanence in terms of the Dharma: because the true Dharma ceases, it is not permanent; because it continues, it is not annihilated. Second, explaining non-annihilation and non-permanence in terms of the person: as the chapter on karma says, 'The original doer is neither the same nor different'. Third, discussing non-annihilation and non-permanence by combining the person and the Dharma, as this passage cites the scripture saying: 'Because the Skandhas (Skandha, the five aggregates constituting an individual) are empty and without self, it is not annihilated; because merit and demerit are not lost, it is not permanent'. Therefore, Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti, a famous Buddhist figure) says: 'There is no self, no creator, and no receiver; the karma of good and evil is not lost'. The explanation below clarifies the second half. Answer: The third section below refutes the defense. The two verses are two. The first verse focuses on refuting annihilation, while the second verse refutes both annihilation and permanence. In the first verse, the first half cites and the second half refutes. The meaning of the refutation is: 'If the cause does not cease, the effect will not arise; if you say the effect arises, then the cause ceases. If this thing truly exists and is destroyed, then this Dharma will be permanently destroyed and will not arise again. Is this not annihilation?' The Compendium of Abhidharma clarifies that the Alaya (Alaya, storehouse consciousness) is the result of karma.
無記。能持無始來一切種子。今問。前念梨耶滅更生為不復生耶。若更生則常。是一念法經無量生則唯有一念耳。若不生者則是斷滅。又問。梨耶持種子。梨耶既滅則種子亦滅。誰生果耶。此不可通。第二偈上半就常門破。外人謂法有生滅。是故不常。今求法生滅不得。豈非常耶。以住自性故常。有無即是生滅。既無有無故無生滅也。下半云。涅槃永滅相續豈非大斷滅耶。汝亦實有生死可滅。寧非斷耶。問何故就涅槃破其成斷見耶。答有二義。一者是顯外人解是惑。故計涅槃成於斷見。二者欲顯一切法皆是斷常。為釋前偈以斷常攝法故也。此通破內外大小諸涅槃義。生死若斷名為斷見。涅槃是常即名常見。長行雲。隨有瓶時無失壞相無瓶時亦無失壞相者。如當谷種有時正是有故無壞。谷種無時無所有故無壞。既無壞云何有成。故云生滅相待也。複次若初有滅者下第八三世門破。問何以知此是三世門破。答下結云。三世中求有相續不可得也所以最後破三有相續者凡有四義。一者接上。外救云。因果相續不斷不常故今破之。二者二十一品破世間人法終此章。世間即是三有。是故破於三有。三者大小乘人見有三有之生。並欲滅於三有。論主云。若見三有生滅則不能滅於三有。悟三有本自不生今亦不滅。方能滅三有耳。又毗曇
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無記（既非善也非惡）。能執持無始以來的所有種子（一切事物潛在的可能性）。現在問：前一念的阿梨耶識（第八識，又稱藏識）滅去後，是重新產生還是不再產生呢？如果重新產生，那就是常，那麼一念之法經過無量次的產生，就只有一念而已。如果不再產生，那就是斷滅。又問：阿梨耶識執持種子，阿梨耶識既然滅去，那麼種子也滅去，誰來產生果呢？這說不通。 第二個偈頌的前半部分，是從常的角度來破斥。外人認為法有生滅，所以不是常。現在追尋法的生滅而不可得，難道不是常嗎？因為安住于自性，所以是常。有和無就是生滅，既然沒有有和無，所以沒有生滅。後半部分說：涅槃（解脫）永遠滅盡相續，難道不是大斷滅嗎？你們也確實認為有生死可以滅盡，難道不是斷嗎？ 問：為什麼從涅槃的角度來破斥他們成就斷見呢？答：有兩個原因。一是顯示外人的理解是迷惑的，所以認為涅槃成就了斷見。二是想要顯示一切法都是斷和常。爲了解釋前面的偈頌，用斷和常來涵蓋一切法。這通通破斥了內外大小乘的各種涅槃的意義。生死如果斷滅，就叫做斷見。涅槃如果是常，就叫做常見。 長行中說：當瓶子存在時，沒有失去損壞的相狀；當瓶子不存在時，也沒有失去損壞的相狀。比如當穀子的種子存在時，正是因為存在所以沒有損壞；穀子的種子不存在時，因為什麼都沒有所以沒有損壞。既然沒有損壞，怎麼會有成就呢？所以說生滅是相互對待的。 再次，如果最初有滅的話，下面第八個是從三世的角度來破斥。問：怎麼知道這是從三世的角度來破斥呢？答：下面總結說：在三世中尋求有相續是不可得的。所以最後破斥三有相續，總共有四個原因。一是承接上文。外人辯解說：因果相續不斷不常，所以現在破斥它。二是二十一品破斥世間人法，到此章結束。世間就是三有（欲界、色界、無色界），所以破斥三有。三是大小乘人認為有三有的產生，並且想要滅盡三有。論主說：如果認為三有有生滅，就不能滅盡三有。領悟到三有本來就不生，現在也不滅，才能滅盡三有。另外，毗曇（論藏）...
【English Translation】 English version Unspecified (neither good nor evil). It can hold all seeds (potentialities of all things) from beginningless time. Now I ask: When the previous thought of Ālaya-vijñāna (the eighth consciousness, also known as the storehouse consciousness) ceases, is it reborn or not? If it is reborn, then it is permanent. In that case, if a single thought-moment is reborn countless times, there would only be one thought-moment. If it is not reborn, then it is annihilation. Furthermore, I ask: The Ālaya-vijñāna holds the seeds. Since the Ālaya-vijñāna ceases, the seeds also cease. Who then produces the fruit? This is untenable. The first half of the second verse refutes from the perspective of permanence. Outsiders believe that dharmas have arising and ceasing, therefore they are not permanent. Now, if we seek the arising and ceasing of dharmas and cannot find them, is it not permanent? Because it abides in its own nature, it is permanent. Existence and non-existence are arising and ceasing. Since there is neither existence nor non-existence, there is no arising or ceasing. The second half says: Nirvāṇa (liberation) eternally extinguishes continuity. Is this not great annihilation? You also truly believe that there is birth and death that can be extinguished. Is this not annihilation? Question: Why refute their attainment of annihilationist views from the perspective of Nirvāṇa? Answer: There are two reasons. First, it is to show that the understanding of outsiders is deluded, so they believe that Nirvāṇa achieves annihilationist views. Second, it is to show that all dharmas are both annihilation and permanence. To explain the previous verse, annihilation and permanence encompass all dharmas. This thoroughly refutes the meanings of various Nirvāṇas of both internal and external, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. If birth and death are extinguished, it is called an annihilationist view. If Nirvāṇa is permanent, it is called a permanentist view. The prose passage says: When a jar exists, there is no appearance of loss or destruction; when a jar does not exist, there is also no appearance of loss or destruction. For example, when a grain seed exists, it is precisely because it exists that there is no destruction; when a grain seed does not exist, there is no destruction because there is nothing. Since there is no destruction, how can there be accomplishment? Therefore, it is said that arising and ceasing are mutually dependent. Furthermore, if there is cessation at the beginning, the eighth point below refutes from the perspective of the three times. Question: How do we know that this is a refutation from the perspective of the three times? Answer: The conclusion below says: Seeking continuity in the three times is unattainable. Therefore, the final refutation of the continuity of the three existences (the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) has four reasons. First, it connects to the previous text. Outsiders argue: Cause and effect continue without being either permanent or annihilated, so now we refute it. Second, the twenty-one chapters refute worldly human dharmas, and this chapter concludes it. The world is the three existences, so we refute the three existences. Third, both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna practitioners believe that there is arising of the three existences and want to extinguish the three existences. The author says: If you believe that the three existences have arising and ceasing, you cannot extinguish the three existences. Only by realizing that the three existences are originally unborn and are not ceasing now can you extinguish the three existences. Also, the Abhidhamma (collection of treatises)...
明四有。本有死有中有生有。又二生死為二有。謂分段與變易。又七生死為七有。今並求如此有不可得耳。如此生死本不生今無所滅得離七生死。見有七生死生滅者不離七生死也。故破三有也。四者欲顯論主二十一品破世間法意。所以破世間法。為令眾生知世間畢竟空。悟三有無所有得離三有也。四偈即四。初滅不滅破。第二一時二有破。三生死一有破。四總結破。初偈上半云。初有若滅後有無因。下半初有不滅則一時有二。初有若滅滅則是無。誰生后。初有不滅則礙後有。後有云何得起。問曰下生第二偈。問中初非上二破。但滅時生下正立已宗。答中上半。牒下半破。破意云。若初有滅時是後有生時者則二有一時。汝言滅時生則生滅同時。生有非死有是則一時有二。若一時無二有則一滅一生非滅時生也。問曰下生第三救。問中前非二破。但現見下外人無以理答。以答不出前後一時故但云眼見。眼見者此人若死彼處即生。答中上半牒下半破。破意云。汝欲令滅時無二有者則生死是一有。是為一陰亦生亦死。若死非即生還有二有。一時中有生死二陰。此死陰有生陰。第四偈結破。上半牒前破門。從欲生色則欲前色后。無色亦爾。下半呵外計有。以外人無有計有故三有不斷。若悟有非有故能滅三有。即顯論主破三有意也。
中觀論疏卷第九(本終)
中觀論疏卷第九(末)
釋吉藏撰
如來品第二十二
大乘觀行凡有二門。二十一品求世間人法不可得明大乘觀行。此下四品求出世人法不可得辨大乘觀行。世間人法粗易觀。故先明之。出世人法妙難破。是以後說。又自上已來外人舉世間以救世間。義既不立。今此一章舉出世間以救世間。既有出世便有世間。故論主次破出世。既無出世何有世間。又大小學人皆言世出世二。涅槃經云。明與無明愚者謂二。智者了達知其無二。今欲顯世出世無有二相。既無有二。亦無不二亦二不二非二不二。便入實相發生正觀則戲論斯滅。故次觀出世也。又惑者見世出世二故世與出世併成世間不能離世間。今了達世出世無二方名出世間。欲令外人因世間悟出世故破出世間。就此一章凡有四品。一破如來。二破顛倒。三破四諦。四破涅槃。破世間則廣。有二十一品。破出世則略。但明四品者欲明廣略互現。又顯執出世間猶是世間。上既破世間。即是破出世竟。故不須廣破。又世為出世本。在本既傾末則易破。故但有四品。又如來為出世之至人。涅槃是無上之極法。謂人法一雙。顛倒謂所破邪惑。四諦是能破之正教。謂邪正一雙。略明四門則理無不統。又破如來則破人。自下三
【現代漢語翻譯】 《中觀論疏》卷第九（本終） 《中觀論疏》卷第九（末） 釋吉藏 撰 如來品第二十二 大乘的觀行總共有兩個門徑。前面的二十一品是爲了說明世間人法不可得，從而闡明大乘觀行。接下來的四品是爲了說明出世間人法不可得，從而辨析大乘觀行。世間的人法粗淺容易觀察，所以先說明。出世間的人法精妙難以破斥，所以放在後面說。而且從前面開始，外道之人舉世間之法來救世間之法，義理不能成立。現在這一章舉出世間之法來救世間之法，既然有出世間，便有世間，所以論主接著破斥出世間。既然沒有出世間，哪裡會有世間？而且大小乘的學人都說有世間和出世間兩種。《涅槃經》說：『明與無明，愚者認為是二，智者了達，知道它們沒有二。』現在想要顯示世間和出世間沒有二相。既然沒有二，也就沒有不二，也沒有亦二亦不二，也沒有非二非不二，這樣便能進入實相，發生正觀，那麼戲論就會止息。所以接著觀察出世間。而且迷惑的人見到世間和出世間是二，所以世間和出世間並存，不能離開世間。現在了達世間和出世間沒有二，才叫做『出世間』。想要讓外道之人因為世間而領悟出世間，所以破斥出世間。就這一章來說，總共有四品：一、破如來（Tathagata，佛陀的稱號之一）。二、破顛倒（Viparyasa，錯誤的知見）。三、破四諦（Four Noble Truths，佛教的基本教義）。四、破涅槃（Nirvana，解脫的境界）。破斥世間則廣，有二十一品。破斥出世間則略，只說明四品，是想要說明廣略互相顯現。而且顯示執著出世間仍然是世間。上面既然已經破斥了世間，也就是破斥了出世間完畢，所以不需要廣泛地破斥。而且世間是出世間的根本，在根本已經傾覆的情況下，末節就容易破斥，所以只有四品。而且如來是出世間的至人，涅槃是無上之極法，說的是人法一雙。顛倒說的是所破的邪惑，四諦是能破的正教，說的是邪正一雙。略微說明這四門，那麼道理就沒有不統攝的。而且破斥如來就是破斥人，從下面三
【English Translation】 Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti, Volume 9 (End of this part) Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti, Volume 9 (The End) Composed by Shishi Jizang Chapter 22: The Tathagata (Tathagata, one of the titles of the Buddha) There are generally two approaches to Mahayana contemplation. The previous twenty-one chapters explain the Mahayana contemplation by demonstrating the unattainability of worldly beings and dharmas. The following four chapters analyze Mahayana contemplation by demonstrating the unattainability of transcendent beings and dharmas. Worldly beings and dharmas are crude and easy to observe, so they are explained first. Transcendent beings and dharmas are subtle and difficult to refute, so they are discussed later. Moreover, from the beginning, outsiders have used worldly things to save worldly things, but this argument cannot be established. Now, this chapter uses transcendent things to save worldly things. Since there is transcendence, there is the world, so the author of the treatise then refutes transcendence. Since there is no transcendence, where would there be a world? Furthermore, both Hinayana and Mahayana learners say there are two: the world and transcendence. The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Enlightenment and ignorance are considered two by the foolish, but the wise understand that they are not two.' Now, the intention is to show that the world and transcendence have no two aspects. Since there is no two, there is also no non-two, no both two and non-two, and no neither two nor non-two. Thus, one can enter reality, generate correct views, and then discursive thoughts will cease. Therefore, the next step is to contemplate transcendence. Moreover, those who are deluded see the world and transcendence as two, so the world and transcendence coexist, and they cannot leave the world. Now, understanding that the world and transcendence are not two is called 'transcendence.' The intention is to have outsiders realize transcendence through the world, so transcendence is refuted. In this chapter, there are four sections: 1. Refuting the Tathagata (Tathagata, one of the titles of the Buddha). 2. Refuting Viparyasa (Viparyasa, inverted views). 3. Refuting the Four Noble Truths (Four Noble Truths, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism). 4. Refuting Nirvana (Nirvana, the state of liberation). Refuting the world is extensive, with twenty-one chapters. Refuting transcendence is brief, with only four chapters, to show that the extensive and the brief mutually reveal each other. It also shows that clinging to transcendence is still the world. Since the world has already been refuted above, transcendence has already been refuted, so there is no need for extensive refutation. Moreover, the world is the root of transcendence. Since the root has been overturned, the branches are easily refuted, so there are only four chapters. Furthermore, the Tathagata is the ultimate person of transcendence, and Nirvana is the supreme dharma. This refers to a pair of person and dharma. Viparyasa refers to the evil delusions to be refuted, and the Four Noble Truths are the correct teachings that can refute them. This refers to a pair of evil and correct. Briefly explaining these four doors, then the principles are all-encompassing. Moreover, refuting the Tathagata is refuting the person, and from the following three
品則破法。出世雖多不出人法。總收一切。前世間亦爾。不出人法。總收一切也。即分為二。觀如來一品明出世人空。次三品明出世法空。前世間中直以廣略為二。今約人法分之。人但一品法有多者人則無二。法有多門。又人空易得法空難明故也。又四品次第者前有諸佛出世。故初觀如來。如來所以出世為破眾生煩惱。故次觀顛倒。顛倒所以得破由四諦教門。故次觀四諦。雖說四諦宗歸一滅。故后辨涅槃。具此四門包含萬義。又如來是出世之人。顛倒是如來所離。四諦是如來所觀。涅槃是如來所證。復是一途次第。又前破如來者世出世互現也。世間法中前破法后破人。出世法中前觀人後破法。二者外云。如來能說世出世法。既有能說之人。必有所說之法。三近從成壞品生者。世間是生滅之法。可得云無。如來是不生滅法。應當有也。又內壞結賊外破魔軍。既有如來則有成壞。四者上品末偈云。求三有不得。外云。若離三有則是如來。故應有佛也。所言如來者此品一切義中最為精要。今大小乘人發旨信佛唸佛禮佛歸依佛作佛弟子求佛道。若識佛則一切事義成。若不識佛不求佛一切事壞。故須精識佛也。據法而言體如而來。故云如來。約人為論如諸佛來名曰如來。就化物辨者如感而來。故云如來。釋如來不同。一外道。二
小乘。三方等。外道計實有我名曰如來。故論云。我有種種名人天如來等。小乘略有三說。一犢子部云。清凈五陰和合別有人法名為如來。二成實師明。以假名行人為如來體。或言假別有體有用有名。或言無體無用。或言無體有用。三者阿毗曇明二種如來。一者有漏五陰為生身如來。二者無漏五陰為法身佛。故三僧祇行行百劫修相好業。后三十四心成佛。在無漏心不為緣縛。出有漏則為緣縛。成論大乘師立五時教佛。初教以五陰身成佛。第二時以種智為佛。與初教佛同壽八十。招提云。第二時是特尊。第三時無量劫修行。第四時亦久劫修行。過去過塵沙。未來倍上數。第五時明。佛常住佛無有色。但有一圓智有總御用。故名為佛。若欲度物則應作色。但釋第五時總有四師。一云。如來體是世諦所攝。二釋。既云如來即是真如為佛。故大品云。如無去來如即是佛。次北土智度論師佛有三身。法身之佛即是真如。真如體非是佛以能生佛故。故名為佛。如實相非波若能生波若故名波若。報化二身則世諦所攝。故雖有三身攝唯二諦。四云。佛果靈智非二諦攝。體非虛假故非世諦。不可即空復異真無。是故法身超乎二諦。地論不真宗與數論無異。真宗明於三佛。以不住道為因。故有丈六化佛。以助道為因十地行滿得於報佛。證道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 小乘（Hinayana）。三方等（Three Equal Divisions）。外道（Non-Buddhist religions）認為真實存在『我』，並稱之為如來（Tathagata）。所以論中說：『我』有種種名稱，如人天如來等。小乘略有三種說法：一、犢子部（Vatsiputriya）認為，清凈的五陰（Skandhas）和合，另外有人法，名為如來。二、成實師（Satyasiddhi school）認為，以假名行人作為如來之體。或者說假名別有體有用有名，或者說無體無用，或者說無體有用。三、阿毗曇（Abhidharma）闡明兩種如來：一是有漏五陰為生身如來，二是無漏五陰為法身佛。因此，要經歷三大阿僧祇劫（Asankhyeya kalpas）修行，一百劫修習相好之業，之後在三十四心（moments of thought）成就佛果。在無漏心（unconditioned mind）中不被緣縛（conditioned），出離有漏（conditioned）則被緣縛。成論（Chengshi）大乘師（Mahayana）立五時教佛（Five Periods of Buddha's Teachings）。初教以五陰身成佛。第二時以種智（Buddha-gnosis）為佛，與初教佛同壽八十。招提（temple）說，第二時是特尊。第三時無量劫修行。第四時也久劫修行，過去超過塵沙，未來倍于上述。第五時闡明，佛常住，佛無有色，但有一圓智（perfect wisdom），有總御用（universal control），故名為佛。如果想要度化眾生，則應示現色身。但解釋第五時總共有四種說法。一說，如來體是世諦（conventional truth）所攝。二釋，既然說如來即是真如（Tathata）為佛，所以《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說，如無去來，如即是佛。其次，北土智度論師（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）認為佛有三身（Trikaya）：法身佛即是真如，真如體不是佛，因為能生佛的緣故，所以名為佛。如實相（Reality-aspect）不是般若（Prajna），因為能生般若的緣故，所以名為般若。報身（Sambhogakaya）和化身（Nirmanakaya）則為世諦所攝。所以雖有三身，攝唯二諦（Two Truths）。四說，佛果靈智（Buddha-fruit spiritual wisdom）不為二諦所攝，體非虛假，故非世諦，不可即空又異於真無，因此法身超越二諦。地論（Dasabhumika-sastra）不真宗（untrue school）與數論（Samkhya）無異。真宗（true school）闡明三佛（Three Buddha-bodies），以不住道（non-abiding path）為因，所以有丈六化佛（sixteen-foot transformation body of Buddha）。以助道（aiding path）為因，十地（Ten Bhumis）行滿，得到報佛（reward body of Buddha），證道
【English Translation】 English version Hinayana (Small Vehicle). Three Equal Divisions. Non-Buddhist religions consider that there is a real 'self' and call it Tathagata (Thus Come One). Therefore, the treatise says: 'I' have various names, such as human, heavenly being, Tathagata, etc. Hinayana roughly has three views: 1. The Vatsiputriya school believes that the pure five Skandhas (aggregates) combine, and there is another person-dharma, which is called Tathagata. 2. The Satyasiddhi school believes that the nominal practitioner is the body of the Tathagata. Or it is said that the nominal has a separate body with function and name, or it has no body and no function, or it has no body but has function. 3. The Abhidharma explains two kinds of Tathagatas: one is the conditioned five Skandhas as the Nirmanakaya (transformation body) Tathagata, and the other is the unconditioned five Skandhas as the Dharmakaya (dharma body) Buddha. Therefore, it takes three great Asankhyeya kalpas (incalculable eons) of practice and a hundred kalpas of cultivating the causes of the marks and characteristics, and then the fruit of Buddhahood is achieved in thirty-four moments of thought. In the unconditioned mind, it is not bound by conditions, and when it leaves the conditioned, it is bound by conditions. The Chengshi (Completion of Truth) Mahayana teachers establish the Five Periods of Buddha's Teachings. The first teaching is to achieve Buddhahood with the five Skandhas body. The second period is to take the Buddha-gnosis as the Buddha, and the Buddha of the first teaching has the same lifespan of eighty years. The temple says that the second period is particularly revered. The third period is countless kalpas of practice. The fourth period is also long kalpas of practice, the past exceeds dust and sand, and the future is more than the above. The fifth period clarifies that the Buddha is permanent, the Buddha has no form, but has a perfect wisdom and a universal control, so it is called Buddha. If you want to save sentient beings, you should manifest a physical body. However, there are four interpretations of the fifth period in total. One says that the body of the Tathagata is included in the conventional truth. The second explanation is that since the Tathagata is said to be the Tathata (suchness) as the Buddha, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says that if there is no coming and going, then the Tathata is the Buddha. Secondly, the North Land Master of the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra believes that the Buddha has three bodies: the Dharmakaya Buddha is the Tathata, and the body of the Tathata is not the Buddha, because it can give rise to the Buddha, so it is called Buddha. The Reality-aspect is not Prajna (wisdom), because it can give rise to Prajna, so it is called Prajna. The Sambhogakaya (enjoyment body) and the Nirmanakaya are included in the conventional truth. Therefore, although there are three bodies, they are included in the Two Truths. The fourth says that the Buddha-fruit spiritual wisdom is not included in the Two Truths, and the body is not false, so it is not the conventional truth, and it cannot be said to be emptiness or different from true non-existence, so the Dharmakaya transcends the Two Truths. The Dasabhumika-sastra's untrue school is no different from Samkhya (enumeration). The true school explains the Three Buddha-bodies, taking the non-abiding path as the cause, so there is the sixteen-foot transformation body of Buddha. Taking the aiding path as the cause, the practice of the Ten Bhumis is fulfilled, and the reward body of Buddha is obtained, and the path is attained.
為因得於法佛。今求此如來並不可得。故云觀如來品。問若具破一切佛應無佛也。答外人計佛是於四句故是破佛。今破如是四句佛。息眾生戲論乃是識佛耳。又大小乘人雖復異計不同終言有佛。故凈名呵善吉云。若須菩提不見佛不聞法乃可取食。此明善吉有佛可見有法可聞。名有所得不堪受食。若能無佛可見則是見佛。無法可聞始是聞法。乃可堪受食。又有所得人佛是正見外道為邪見。故起邪正二見。故凈名呵云。六師是汝之師。乃可取食。此明若見邪正為二。則七佛成六師不能受食。若乃邪正不二體悟六師即是七佛。今此品中正明眾生與佛無有二相。故下偈云。如來所有性即是世間性。能如是解乃是識佛。又論破十四種佛。謂空有四句。一計佛是世諦有。二計佛是真諦空。三計佛具為二諦攝。四計佛非空有出二諦外。次四句小乘計佛無常。大乘計佛是常。三三身合論具常無常。四計中道是佛非常無常。次四句計佛壽。一小乘人計佛壽盡一期為有邊。二大乘計佛壽常為無邊。三約三身亦邊亦無邊。四就中道非邊無邊。此為十二種也。論主具破十二種佛竟。外人謂都無佛。為十三。復破都無而終謂有佛不可說。為十四。此論破十四邪佛申正佛。故云觀如來品。問十四種佛何故被破。答三義故被破。一者彼互相是非故自破
。二佛非四句四句非佛。計非佛為佛故被破。三者佛有體有用。用則適化無方。四句隨物體則非四不四。彼不識用於用中各執一邊。是故被破也。又異三論師云。此中破如來者有二釋。一云。但遣著心實不破佛。二云。假令破佛者破外道小乘之佛耳。今明不爾。若但破著心名破佛者。彼終謂有佛但不許著耳。尋此品四句邪執如來義此皆要急。今學人不作意思量玄故不信。細心尋讀向心故著深有利益。所以觀如來者。大小學人為有佛值佛者言見佛。佛滅后謂不見佛。謂佛正見人。外道是邪見人作如此分別。並不識佛。今此品勸好觀察。何者是佛。何者非佛。今時人皆云。我是佛弟子。事佛后教化他。若不精識佛不佛定佛誰弟子定事誰。為此義故須此品。令學大小乘人實解法相。善通問難。且問。六時禮佛若為禮。多不安心此處也。大分為二。一問二答。初長行立云。佛於九道中尊。故名世尊。於法自在。名為法王。知一切法名一切智。初句明人。次句辨境。次句明有也。若有于佛則有世間。若言無佛則墮邪見。答曰下初長行總生起破意。若有應取者論主不答其有無。若答有無即受外屈。又佛非有無。若答有無即破佛也。但問覓外人之言有。汝既言有佛者許汝取佛。求汝有不可得。汝何所取耶。就偈本開為五章。初破有是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二、佛不是四句，四句也不是佛。如果認為不是佛的是佛，就會被駁倒。 三、佛有本體和作用。作用在於適應變化，沒有固定的方向。四句隨著物體而變化，既不是四，也不是不四。那些人不瞭解佛的作用，在作用中各自執著於一邊，所以會被駁倒。 還有三論宗的學者說：『這裡破如來有兩種解釋。一種說法是：只是遣除執著的心，實際上沒有破佛。另一種說法是：即使破佛，也只是破外道和小乘的佛。』現在說明不是這樣。如果只是破執著的心就叫做破佛，那麼他們最終還是認為有佛，只是不允許執著罷了。仔細研究這一品中四句邪執如來的含義，這些都是非常重要的。現在的學人不作意思考量其中的玄妙，所以不相信。如果細心尋讀，向內心探求，就會有很深的利益。所以觀察如來，大小乘的學人認為有佛，遇到佛的人說見到了佛。佛滅度后，就說沒有見到佛。認為佛是正見的人，外道是邪見的人，作這樣的分別，都是不認識佛。現在這一品勸人好好觀察，什麼是佛，什麼不是佛。現在的人都說：『我是佛弟子，事奉佛，然後教化他人。』如果不精通認識佛與非佛，確定誰是佛，確定誰是弟子，確定事奉誰，爲了這個意義，需要這一品，讓學習大小乘的人真正理解法相，善於通達問難。且問，六時禮佛應該如何禮拜？很多人不能安心於此。大體上分為兩部分：一問，二答。開始的長行文說：佛在九道中最為尊貴，所以叫做世尊（Bhagavan）。於法自在，名為法王（Dharmaraja）。知道一切法，名叫一切智（Sarvajna）。第一句說明人，第二句辨別境界，第三句說明有。如果認為有佛，那麼就有世間。如果說沒有佛，那麼就墮入邪見。回答在下面，開始的長行文總的生起破斥的意圖。如果認為可以取佛，論主不回答其有無。如果回答有無，就受制於外道。而且佛不是有，也不是無。如果回答有無，就是破佛。只是問外道所說的『有』。你們既然說有佛，就允許你們取佛。尋求你們所說的『有』，卻不可得。你們要取什麼呢？就偈頌的文字展開為五個章節。首先是破有。
【English Translation】 English version Two, the Buddha is not the four phrases, and the four phrases are not the Buddha. If one considers what is not the Buddha to be the Buddha, then one will be refuted. Three, the Buddha has a substance and a function. The function is to adapt to changes without a fixed direction. The four phrases change with objects, being neither four nor not four. Those who do not understand the function of the Buddha, each clinging to one side in the function, will be refuted. Furthermore, scholars of the Three Treatise School (Sanlun School) say: 'There are two interpretations of refuting the Tathagata (Tathagata) here. One says: It only dispels the clinging mind, and does not actually refute the Buddha. The other says: Even if it refutes the Buddha, it only refutes the Buddha of externalists and the Hinayana (Hinayana).' Now it is explained that this is not the case. If merely refuting the clinging mind is called refuting the Buddha, then they ultimately still believe there is a Buddha, but simply do not allow clinging. Carefully study the meaning of the four phrases' perverse clinging to the Tathagata in this chapter, these are all very important. Today's scholars do not contemplate the mystery within, so they do not believe. If one carefully reads and seeks within, there will be deep benefits. Therefore, in observing the Tathagata, scholars of both the Mahayana (Mahayana) and Hinayana believe there is a Buddha, and those who encounter the Buddha say they have seen the Buddha. After the Buddha's Parinirvana (Parinirvana), they say they have not seen the Buddha. Considering the Buddha to be a person of right view, and externalists to be people of wrong view, making such distinctions, they do not recognize the Buddha. Now this chapter encourages people to carefully observe what is the Buddha and what is not the Buddha. Today people all say: 'I am a disciple of the Buddha, serving the Buddha, and then teaching others.' If one is not proficient in recognizing the Buddha and non-Buddha, determining who is the Buddha, determining who is the disciple, determining who to serve, for this meaning, this chapter is needed, so that those who study both the Mahayana and Hinayana can truly understand the characteristics of the Dharma (Dharma), and be good at understanding questions and answers. And ask, how should one prostrate in the six periods of worship? Many people cannot find peace of mind here. Broadly divided into two parts: one question, two answers. The initial long passage says: The Buddha is the most honored among the nine realms, so he is called the World Honored One (Bhagavan). Being free in the Dharma, he is called the Dharma King (Dharmaraja). Knowing all Dharmas, he is called the All-Knowing One (Sarvajna). The first sentence explains the person, the second sentence distinguishes the realm, and the third sentence explains existence. If one believes there is a Buddha, then there is the world. If one says there is no Buddha, then one falls into wrong view. The answer is below, the initial long passage generally raises the intention of refutation. If one believes that the Buddha can be taken, the author does not answer whether it exists or not. If one answers whether it exists or not, one will be controlled by externalists. Moreover, the Buddha is neither existence nor non-existence. If one answers whether it exists or not, one is refuting the Buddha. It only asks about the 'existence' that externalists speak of. Since you say there is a Buddha, you are allowed to take the Buddha. Seeking the 'existence' you speak of, it is unattainable. What do you want to take? The text of the verses is unfolded into five chapters. The first is refuting existence.
佛。問曰汝謂受空受者空下次破空是佛。若如是破如來下第三料簡空有俱非佛所以。如來過戲論下第四呵責外人。后長行雲此如來品中下第五略示佛相。所以有此五章者。大小乘人並言有佛。故初破有。若計有是佛乃是有見。何名佛耶。又求有不可得。以何為佛。外人既聞有非是佛。便謂空應是佛。故次破空。若見空是佛乃是空見。何名為佛。又求空不得。以何為佛。外云。若空有俱非佛者應都無佛。不爾終應有佛。是故第三料簡明。若言無佛是粗邪見。若言終有是細邪見。自上已來破病既周。故次呵責之。佛實非空有。若執空有是佛者則是戲論。破于慧眼不能見佛。三門破病一門呵責。破邪已圓故第五略示佛相。欲識佛者世間是也。初又三。一破人是佛。又所受五陰下二破法是佛。以如是義故下三總結人法。人法皆空。呵外人謬謂人法。所以初破人次破法者凡有二義。一者佛是人名故先破。人破人既竟執法為佛。故次破法。二者生法二空難易次第。生空易得故前破人。法空難得故后破法。破人中開為四門。初明佛與陰不一不異門。問曰如是義下第二佛與陰不自不他門。若不因五陰下第三佛與陰非先非後門。若於一異中下第四總結佛不可得。此之四門可得通破內外大小乘執。就別而言初破外道佛。次破小乘佛。三破大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛陀問道：『你認為受（vedanā，感受）是空的，受者也是空的，接下來破斥空性就是佛陀嗎？』如果這樣，『如來過戲論』（Tathāgata atikrānto hi vāda-patham）以下第三部分就用來辨析空與有都不是佛陀的原因。『如來過戲論』以下第四部分是呵斥外道之人。後面的長行文字說：『此如來品中』以下第五部分是簡略地揭示佛陀的相貌。之所以有這五個章節，是因為大乘和小乘都說有佛陀，所以首先破斥『有』。如果認為『有』是佛陀，那就是有見（bhava-dṛṣṭi），怎麼能稱之為佛陀呢？而且追求『有』是不可得的，用什麼作為佛陀呢？外道之人聽聞『有』不是佛陀，就認為『空』應該是佛陀，所以接著破斥『空』。如果認為『空』是佛陀，那就是空見（abhava-dṛṣṭi），怎麼能稱之為佛陀呢？而且追求『空』也是不可得的，用什麼作為佛陀呢？外道之人說：『如果空和有都不是佛陀，那麼就應該完全沒有佛陀，否則最終應該有佛陀。』所以第三部分辨析說明，如果說沒有佛陀，那是粗淺的邪見；如果說最終有佛陀，那是細微的邪見。從上面以來，破斥各種病見已經周全，所以接著呵斥他們。佛陀實際上既不是空也不是有，如果執著空或有是佛陀，那就是戲論（prapañca），破斥了慧眼不能見到佛陀。三門破斥病見，一門呵斥。破斥邪見已經圓滿，所以第五部分簡略地揭示佛陀的相貌。想要認識佛陀，世間就是。最初又分為三部分：第一部分破斥人是佛陀；『又所受五陰』以下第二部分破斥法是佛陀；『以如是義故』以下第三部分總結人法，人法皆空，呵斥外道之人錯誤地認為人法是佛陀。之所以先破斥人再破斥法，凡是有兩種含義：一是佛陀是人的名稱，所以先破斥人；破斥人之後，就執著法為佛陀，所以接著破斥法。二是生空（pudgala-śūnyatā）和法空（dharma-śūnyatā）的難易次第，生空容易證得，所以先破斥人；法空難以證得，所以後破斥法。破斥人中又分為四門：首先闡明佛陀與五陰（pañca-skandha）不一不異門；『問曰如是義』以下第二闡明佛陀與五陰非自非他門；『若不因五陰』以下第三闡明佛陀與五陰非先非後門；『若於一異中』以下第四總結佛陀不可得。這四門可以普遍地破斥內外大小乘的執著。就個別而言，首先破斥外道的佛陀，其次破斥小乘的佛陀，第三破斥大乘的佛陀。
【English Translation】 English version The Buddha asked: 'Do you mean that feeling (vedanā) is empty, and the experiencer is also empty, and that refuting emptiness is the Buddha?' If so, the third part, 'Tathāgata atikrānto hi vāda-patham' (The Tathāgata has transcended the path of debate), is used to analyze why neither emptiness nor existence is the Buddha. The fourth part, following 'Tathāgata atikrānto hi vāda-patham,' is a rebuke to non-Buddhist practitioners. The subsequent long passage states: 'In this chapter on the Tathāgata,' the fifth part briefly reveals the characteristics of the Buddha. The reason for these five sections is that both Mahayana and Hinayana schools say there is a Buddha, so first, existence is refuted. If one thinks that 'existence' is the Buddha, that is a view of existence (bhava-dṛṣṭi), how can it be called the Buddha? Moreover, seeking 'existence' is unattainable, so what is used as the Buddha? When non-Buddhists hear that 'existence' is not the Buddha, they think that 'emptiness' should be the Buddha, so next, emptiness is refuted. If one sees 'emptiness' as the Buddha, that is a view of emptiness (abhava-dṛṣṭi), how can it be called the Buddha? Moreover, seeking 'emptiness' is also unattainable, so what is used as the Buddha? Non-Buddhists say: 'If neither emptiness nor existence is the Buddha, then there should be no Buddha at all, otherwise there should ultimately be a Buddha.' Therefore, the third part analyzes and explains that if one says there is no Buddha, that is a crude wrong view; if one says there is ultimately a Buddha, that is a subtle wrong view. Since the refutation of various wrong views has been comprehensive, they are then rebuked. The Buddha is actually neither empty nor existent. If one clings to emptiness or existence as the Buddha, that is conceptual proliferation (prapañca), which prevents the wisdom eye from seeing the Buddha. Three sections refute wrong views, and one section rebukes. The refutation of wrong views is complete, so the fifth part briefly reveals the characteristics of the Buddha. If you want to know the Buddha, it is the world. Initially, it is divided into three parts: the first part refutes that a person is the Buddha; the second part, following '又所受五陰' (and what is received, the five skandhas), refutes that the Dharma is the Buddha; the third part, following '以如是義故' (for this reason), summarizes that both person and Dharma are empty, rebuking non-Buddhists for mistakenly thinking that person and Dharma are the Buddha. The reason for first refuting the person and then refuting the Dharma is twofold: first, the Buddha is a name for a person, so the person is refuted first; after refuting the person, they cling to the Dharma as the Buddha, so the Dharma is refuted next. Second, the order of difficulty in realizing emptiness of self (pudgala-śūnyatā) and emptiness of phenomena (dharma-śūnyatā), emptiness of self is easier to attain, so the person is refuted first; emptiness of phenomena is difficult to attain, so the Dharma is refuted later. The refutation of the person is further divided into four sections: first, clarifying the gate of neither identity nor difference between the Buddha and the five skandhas (pañca-skandha); the second, following '問曰如是義' (asked, what is the meaning), clarifies the gate of neither self nor other between the Buddha and the five skandhas; the third, following '若不因五陰' (if not based on the five skandhas), clarifies the gate of neither prior nor posterior between the Buddha and the five skandhas; the fourth, following '若於一異中' (if in identity or difference), concludes that the Buddha is unattainable. These four sections can universally refute the attachments of both internal and external, Hinayana and Mahayana schools. Specifically, first, the Buddha of non-Buddhist schools is refuted, second, the Buddha of Hinayana is refuted, and third, the Buddha of Mahayana is refuted.
乘佛。從外至內前小后大。即淺深次第也。既破此三則通除眾執。故后總結也。初偈五求破。通破內外大小。遂文次第且破外道也。問今破佛。云何乃作五求破耶。答外人長行立義。佛是一切智人。計佛是我此猶是我見耳。上品既五求我不可得。今還五求佛也。又外人初立佛是我。復是有遂作有無以難論主。若言有佛則同我義。若言無佛則墮邪見。論主避其有無。而捉得外人二義。一捉得其明佛是有。二捉得其明佛是人。汝即明佛是人。必與陰一異。故就五求門破也。又欲申經。楞伽經有法身品。發旨即明如來法身與五陰不可論一異。今偈可具二義。一者五求破邪佛。二明如來法身非此五句。即申正佛也。若破佛法義者。若佛與陰一本跡應一。見跡應見本。亦本跡應俱常俱無常。若有常無常是則不一。若離陰有佛人法則並便不相成。本跡亦爾。如來中有陰者言如來大陰身小。如法身大應身小。余並易知。長行為五。一牒初文是也。為五陰下第二定。是事不然下第三非。五陰非是如來下第四破。即為五別。就初文有三。謂標釋結。初標。何以故下第二釋也。釋即陰中有二過。一者陰既生滅佛亦生滅。既是無常生滅。誰持功德智慧耶。又唸唸生滅。五眼不能見。三達不能知。如五陰品說。若是無常則眼耳等相不能分別。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 乘佛。從外至內，前小后大，即由淺入深的次第。既然破除了這三種執著，就能徹底消除各種固執己見，所以後面進行總結。最初的偈頌用五種方式來尋求並破除，普遍破除了內外大小的各種觀點，於是按照文義的順序先破斥外道。問：現在破斥佛，為什麼還要用五種方式來尋求並破除呢？答：外道在長行文中立論，認為佛是一切智人。如果認為佛是『我』(ātman)，這仍然是『我見』(ātma-dṛṣṭi)而已。前面已經用五種方式尋求『我』而不可得，現在仍然用五種方式尋求佛。此外，外道最初認為佛是『我』，後來又認為『有』(bhava)，於是就用『有』和『無』(abhava)來為難論主。如果說有佛，那就等同於『我』的觀點；如果說沒有佛，那就落入了邪見。論主避開『有』和『無』的說法，而抓住了外道的兩種觀點：一是承認佛是『有』，二是承認佛是『人』。既然你承認佛是『人』，那麼佛必然與『五陰』(pañca-skandha)是一體還是異體，所以就用五種方式來破斥。此外，也是爲了闡明經義。《楞伽經》(Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra)有《法身品》，其主旨就是闡明如來的『法身』(dharma-kāya)與『五陰』不能用一體或異體來討論。現在的偈頌可以包含兩種含義：一是五種方式破斥邪佛，二是闡明如來的法身不是這五句話所能概括的，即闡明真正的佛。如果要破斥佛法的意義，如果佛與『陰』(skandha)是一體，那麼『本』(mūla)和『跡』(lakṣaṇa)應該是一致的，見到『跡』就應該見到『本』，或者『本』和『跡』應該同時是常或者同時是無常。如果有常和無常，那就是不一致。如果離開『陰』而有佛，那麼『人』(pudgala)和『法』(dharma)都不能成立，『本』和『跡』也是如此。如果如來中有『陰』，那麼就說如來的『大陰身』(mahā-skandha-kāya)小，如『法身』大而『應身』(nirmāṇa-kāya)小，其餘的都容易理解。長行文分為五部分：一是照應前面的文義；『為五陰下』是第二部分，確定；『是事不然下』是第三部分，否定；『五陰非是如來下』是第四部分，破斥，即分為五種不同的情況。在第一部分中，有三個方面，即標示、解釋和總結。首先是標示，『何以故下』是第二部分，解釋。解釋中，『陰』中有兩種過失：一是『陰』既然生滅，佛也生滅，既然是無常生滅，誰來持有功德智慧呢？二是念念生滅，『五眼』(pañca-cakṣus)不能見，『三達』(tisro vidyāḥ)不能知，如《五陰品》所說。如果是無常，那麼眼耳等相就不能分辨。此外，
【English Translation】 English version Riding the Buddha. From outside to inside, from small to large, it is the order from shallow to deep. Since these three attachments are broken, all stubborn opinions are completely eliminated, so the following is a summary. The initial verses use five methods to seek and refute, universally refuting all views of inside and outside, large and small, and then refuting the heretics in the order of the text. Question: Now refuting the Buddha, why use five methods to seek and refute? Answer: The heretics establish their arguments in the prose, believing that the Buddha is omniscient. If one thinks that the Buddha is 'self' (ātman), this is still 'self-view' (ātma-dṛṣṭi). Since the 'self' has been sought and found unattainable in the previous section using five methods, now the Buddha is still sought using five methods. In addition, the heretics initially believed that the Buddha is 'being' (bhava), and then used 'being' and 'non-being' (abhava) to challenge the master of debate. If it is said that there is a Buddha, it is the same as the view of 'self'; if it is said that there is no Buddha, then one falls into heresy. The master of debate avoids the statements of 'being' and 'non-being', and grasps the two views of the heretics: one is to admit that the Buddha is 'being', and the other is to admit that the Buddha is 'person' (pudgala). Since you admit that the Buddha is a 'person', then the Buddha must be either identical to or different from the 'five aggregates' (pañca-skandha), so five methods are used to refute. In addition, it is also to clarify the meaning of the scriptures. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra has the chapter on Dharma-kāya, the main purpose of which is to clarify that the dharma-kāya of the Tathāgata cannot be discussed in terms of identity or difference with the 'five aggregates'. The current verses can contain two meanings: one is to refute the evil Buddha with five methods, and the other is to clarify that the dharma-kāya of the Tathāgata cannot be summarized by these five sentences, that is, to clarify the true Buddha. If one wants to refute the meaning of the Buddha's teachings, if the Buddha and the 'aggregates' (skandha) are one, then the 'root' (mūla) and the 'trace' (lakṣaṇa) should be consistent, and seeing the 'trace' should be seeing the 'root', or the 'root' and the 'trace' should be both constant or both impermanent at the same time. If there are both constant and impermanent, then it is inconsistent. If there is a Buddha apart from the 'aggregates', then the 'person' (pudgala) and the 'dharma' (dharma) cannot be established, and so are the 'root' and the 'trace'. If there are 'aggregates' in the Tathāgata, then it is said that the Tathāgata's 'great aggregate body' (mahā-skandha-kāya) is small, and the dharma-kāya is large while the nirmāṇa-kāya is small, and the rest are easy to understand. The prose is divided into five parts: one is to echo the previous text; 'For the five aggregates below' is the second part, to determine; 'It is not so below' is the third part, to deny; 'The five aggregates are not the Tathāgata below' is the fourth part, to refute, that is, to divide into five different situations. In the first part, there are three aspects, namely indication, explanation, and summary. First is the indication, 'Why is it so below' is the second part, explanation. In the explanation, there are two faults in the 'aggregates': one is that since the 'aggregates' arise and cease, the Buddha also arises and ceases, and since it is impermanent arising and ceasing, who will hold the merits and wisdom? Second, arising and ceasing in every moment, the 'five eyes' (pañca-cakṣus) cannot see, the 'three insights' (tisro vidyāḥ) cannot know, as stated in the Chapter on the Five Aggregates. If it is impermanent, then the characteristics of the eyes and ears cannot be distinguished. In addition,
受者下次人法亂過。既人法一喚人應得法。喚法應得人。故是亂也。是故下第三結也。釋第二句亦三。謂標釋結。釋中有二。一明佛有常過者。小乘人謂佛是假名行人。故是無常。今明是常。所以為過。又假令言佛是常住以今望之亦是過也。以常是一邊無常是一邊乃是邊見眾生。何名為佛。又眼等根不能見知者佛若是常則同太虛。涅槃經云。常法無知如來有知。是故非常。前明佛常墮邊見。今明佛無知墮無明過也。若謂佛常則不能知見。以常非色非心。非心故不能知。非色故眼不能見。佛既是常。常則凝然。不能用眼等諸根見知也。下三句一一中皆有標釋結也。釋中皆以異故有常等過。如是五種下第五總結。即釋偈第四句。問曰下第二不自不他門。破五陰和合有如來。則破小乘計人是如來。前問次答。問有二意。一者領前。而五陰和合下第二立有。即是犢子計五陰和合別有我法。四大和合別有眼法。但如來在第五不可說藏中。五藏者三世及無為並不可說也。故不受上五求破。又是成實假有體用等二師義也。答有三偈為三。初半偈破自。次二偈破他。後半偈雙結破自他。初句牒犢子及假有體用家。次句正破。既言假陰而有則無自體。若有自體何須假陰。又問。五陰中本有如來。故假陰耶。為本無佛假陰和合有耶。若本有
佛何須假陰。若本無者雖復假陰終無有佛。若本無佛假陰有者。亦無非佛何不陰合生非佛耶。又陰中無佛非陰亦無。若爾陰與非陰俱應成佛。俱應不成。若陰成佛非陰不成佛者。亦應非陰成佛而陰不成。下半偈第二章。合兩偈破他。所以須二偈者既言五陰和合有如來。必是犢子及有假體家。俱舍論出犢子義。有人體而因五陰。如有火體而因於薪。此即是因他義。故須廣破他。兩偈為三。初半偈奪破。次一偈縱破。三半偈相待破。初奪破者謂奪他人也。人既無自性。則陰他亦無自性。無自性則無他。而佛何所因耶。二者待佛之自故有陰他。既無佛自陰是誰他。故亦無他猶無有他。豈得因他生耶。第二偈縱破。為二。上半正破下半結破。初句縱因他。如犢子等因陰有人因薪有火也。第二句正破。既因他則無人自體。既無人自體故名無我也。下半結破。無佛者為釋疑故來。今品破如來。云何乃破我耶。是故今明。我是如來異名。既無有我即無如來。故常云。以御用釋人則凡聖皆有。以仁義釋人唯在人道。又欲顯外人計我為如來。猶是我執見耳。第三偈上半承前無自故無他。下半是第三章。總結無有自他故無如來。若不因五陰下第三前後破。即破大乘計人是佛。三偈為二。初兩偈破不得先人後陰故有人。第二一偈破不得前陰后
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛何須憑藉五陰（panchaskandha，色、受、想、行、識五種聚合的要素）？如果本來沒有佛，即使憑藉五陰也終究不會有佛。如果本來沒有佛，憑藉五陰卻能產生佛，那麼也應該有非佛，為何不通過五陰聚合產生非佛呢？而且，五陰中沒有佛，非五陰中也沒有佛。如果這樣，五陰和非五陰都應該成佛，或者都應該不成佛。如果五陰成佛而非五陰不成佛，那麼也應該非五陰成佛而五陰不成佛。這是下半偈的第二章，合併兩偈來破斥對方的觀點。之所以需要兩偈，是因為既然說五陰和合有如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一），那麼必定是犢子部（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派之一）以及主張有假體的宗派。在《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa，佛教論書）中闡述了犢子部的觀點，認為存在一種『人』的實體，它依賴於五陰，就像火的實體依賴於柴薪一樣。這便是因他義。因此需要廣泛地破斥他們。這兩偈分為三個部分：前半偈是奪破，接著一偈是縱破，最後半偈是相待破。首先，奪破是指奪取他人的觀點。既然人沒有自性（svabhava，事物自身存在的性質），那麼五陰的他性也沒有自性。沒有自性就沒有他性，那麼佛又因何而生呢？其次，等待佛的自性才會有五陰的他性。既然沒有佛的自性，五陰又是誰的他性呢？所以也沒有他性，就像沒有他一樣，怎麼能因他而生呢？第二偈是縱破，分為兩部分：上半部分是正破，下半部分是結破。第一句是縱因他，就像犢子部等人認為因五陰而有人，因柴薪而有火一樣。第二句是正破，既然因他，就沒有人的自體。既然沒有人的自體，就名為無我（anatman，佛教教義，指沒有永恒不變的自我）。下半部分是結破。『無佛』是爲了解釋疑惑而來。現在這一品破斥如來，為何卻破斥我呢？因此現在說明，『我』是如來的異名。既然沒有我，也就沒有如來。所以常說，以御用來解釋人，那麼凡夫和聖人都有。以仁義來解釋人，只存在於人道。又想顯示外道認為『我』就是如來，仍然是我的執見。第三偈的上半部分承接前面，因為沒有自性所以沒有他性。下半部分是第三章的內容，總結沒有自性和他性，所以沒有如來。『若不因五陰』是第三章的內容，前後破斥，即破斥大乘佛教認為人就是佛。這三偈分為兩個部分：前兩偈破斥不能先有人後有五陰，第二偈破斥不能先有五陰后
【English Translation】 English version Why does the Buddha need to rely on the skandhas (panchaskandha, the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness)? If there is no Buddha originally, even relying on the skandhas will ultimately not produce a Buddha. If there is no Buddha originally, but a Buddha can arise by relying on the skandhas, then there should also be non-Buddhas. Why don't the skandhas combine to produce non-Buddhas? Moreover, there is no Buddha within the skandhas, nor is there a Buddha outside the skandhas. If this is the case, both the skandhas and non-skandhas should become Buddhas, or both should not become Buddhas. If the skandhas become Buddhas but the non-skandhas do not, then it should also be that the non-skandhas become Buddhas while the skandhas do not. This is the second chapter of the latter half of the verse, combining two verses to refute the opponent's view. The reason why two verses are needed is that since it is said that the Tathagata (Tathagata, one of the titles of the Buddha) arises from the combination of the five skandhas, it must be the Vatsiputriya (Vatsiputriya, one of the Buddhist schools) and the schools that advocate a provisional entity. The Abhidharmakośa (Abhidharmakośa, a Buddhist treatise) explains the view of the Vatsiputriya, which believes that there is an entity of 'person' that depends on the five skandhas, just as the entity of fire depends on firewood. This is the meaning of 'dependent on others'. Therefore, it is necessary to refute them extensively. These two verses are divided into three parts: the first half of the verse is a 'seizing refutation', then a verse is a 'conceding refutation', and the last half of the verse is a 'relative refutation'. First, the 'seizing refutation' refers to seizing the views of others. Since a person has no svabhava (svabhava, the inherent nature of things), then the otherness of the skandhas also has no svabhava. Without svabhava, there is no otherness, so what does the Buddha arise from? Secondly, waiting for the Buddha's own nature will there be the otherness of the skandhas. Since there is no Buddha's own nature, whose otherness are the skandhas? So there is no otherness, just like there is no other, how can it arise from otherness? The second verse is a 'conceding refutation', divided into two parts: the first half is the direct refutation, and the second half is the concluding refutation. The first sentence is conceding dependence on others, just as the Vatsiputriya and others believe that there is a person because of the skandhas, and there is fire because of firewood. The second sentence is the direct refutation, since it depends on others, there is no self-entity of the person. Since there is no self-entity of the person, it is called anatman (anatman, Buddhist doctrine, referring to the absence of a permanent and unchanging self). The second half is the concluding refutation. 'No Buddha' is to explain doubts. Now this chapter refutes the Tathagata, why refute the self? Therefore, it is now explained that 'self' is another name for the Tathagata. Since there is no self, there is no Tathagata. Therefore, it is often said that if a person is explained in terms of governance, then both ordinary people and sages have it. If a person is explained in terms of benevolence and righteousness, it only exists in the human realm. It also wants to show that externalists think that 'self' is the Tathagata, which is still the attachment to self. The first half of the third verse continues from the previous one, because there is no self-nature, so there is no other-nature. The second half is the content of the third chapter, summarizing that there is no self-nature and other-nature, so there is no Tathagata. 'If not because of the five skandhas' is the content of the third chapter, refuting before and after, that is, refuting Mahayana Buddhism's view that people are Buddhas. These three verses are divided into two parts: the first two verses refute that there cannot be a person before the five skandhas, and the second verse refutes that there cannot be the five skandhas before
人故有人。初又二。前偈縱開次偈奪破。上半縱未受五陰前有如來。此可有三義。一者五陰成人人御五陰。人與五陰不得先後。初偈上半明縱法身佛昔未受五陰先有本身如來也。下半明縱今受五陰故名為跡身如來也。問此是誰義。答本住品未受諸根先有本住。後方受諸根。此是外道義也。自上二門直就陰中求假實如來不可得。今欲窮其根本故就前後責也。二者小乘人謂前有人修行滿后受相好之身。及受五陰法身故名為佛。三者大乘人云。未受王宮五陰之時前有本地法身。法身即是我身。然後以本垂跡故受王宮五陰之身。故今上半牒本下半牒跡。今實不受陰下第二偈奪破。具破三家義。破初義者上半還奪前上半。今者今本身也。明本身未受陰時無有如來。所以然者以會五陰故名如來。如未有指則前無有卷。下半奪下半。昔不受既無如來者。今將何物受五陰。故云。若以不受無今當云何有也。破第二小乘義者。在凡之時未受五陰既無如來。今將何物受妙五陰及五分身耶。破第三大乘義者以待跡故名之為本。未垂跡時則無跡可待。云何有本。既無有本。以何受王宮五陰名為跡耶。此正呵大乘人明以本垂跡。故肇師云。本跡雖殊不思議一也。既本跡皆不思議。故知。非定先有也。若其未有受下。第二章破法前人後而有人義。問
此是誰義。答佛法大小乘人云。要由五陰和合方有於人。故法在前而人在後。破云。人為能受法為所受。若未有人能受則不得有所受也。前兩偈即是借法破人。今借人破法也。無有無受法者承上所受不名受文生。所受既不名受則無所受五陰。既無所受五陰。又無能受之人。無能受所受以何為如來耶。故無有無受法而名為如來。又一意前既無受陰法。故后即無有如來也。若於一異中者此第四總結破。上來破人既竟。故須總結也。一異中求不得先結上第二自他門。自有佛體是異。因他有是一。五求不得卻結第一五求門也。云何受中有結第三先後門也。以上有三門破今還結三也。又此文逐近生者釋成先後也。凡論先後不出一異及以五種。一異五種求之既無。何得言五陰中有如來耶。又所受五陰下自上已來破人是如來竟。今第二次破法是如來。但此文來有近遠。遠者上四門借法破人竟。今次借人破法。即破假無體用家及數人謂有漏五陰是生身如來。無漏五陰是法身如來。次近來者此中五偈相逐。今重敘之。初二偈明無能受人。次一偈明所受非受。次一偈更舉一異及五求。重責受中無人。后一偈以自他門重檢無所受法。以五偈相逐故青目一處釋之。諸講論師不熟詳之。故種種異說。就偈為二。上半明無自性。下半明無他性。此中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：這是什麼意思？ 答：佛法大小乘都說，必須由五陰（色、受、想、行、識，構成個體經驗的五個要素）和合才能形成人。所以法在前，人在後。 破斥：人是能接受法的，法是被接受的。如果沒有能接受法的人，就不會有被接受的法。前面的兩句偈頌是借法來破斥人，現在是借人來破斥法。 沒有不受法的，承接上面所說的『所受』，就不能稱之為『受』，如果所受不能稱之為『受』，那就沒有所受的五陰。既然沒有所受的五陰，也就沒有能接受的人。沒有能接受的，也沒有被接受的，那用什麼來作為如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一）呢？所以，沒有不受法卻能被稱為如來的。 進一步說，前面既然沒有受陰的法，那麼後面也就沒有如來。『若於一異中者』，這是第四個總結性的破斥。上面破斥了人之後，需要進行總結。『一異中求不得』，首先總結上面的第二種自他門（自性和他性），認為自有佛體是『異』，因他而有是『一』。『五求不得』，總結第一種五求門（五種方式的尋求），即五陰中求如來不可得。 『云何受中有』，總結第三種先後門（先有和後有）。以上有三種破斥，現在進行總結。此外，這段文字是解釋『逐近生者』，說明先後關係。凡是討論先後關係，都離不開一異以及五種情況。一異和五種情況都無法成立，怎麼能說五陰中有如來呢？ 『又所受五陰下』，從上面開始破斥人是如來。現在第二次破斥法是如來。但這段文字有遠近之分。從遠處來說，上面四門借法破人已經結束，現在借人破法，就是破斥那些認為假有體用的人，以及那些認為有漏五陰是生身如來，無漏五陰是法身如來的人。 從近處來說，這五句偈頌是相互關聯的。現在重新敘述：前兩句偈頌說明沒有能接受的人，下一句偈頌說明所受不是受，再下一句偈頌再次提出一異和五求，再次責問受中無人。最後一句偈頌用自他門再次檢驗沒有所受的法。因為這五句偈頌相互關聯，所以青目（註釋者）在一處解釋。那些講論的法師沒有詳細研究，所以有各種不同的說法。就偈頌來說，分為兩部分：上半部分說明沒有自性，下半部分說明沒有他性。這裡面……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What does this mean? Answer: The Mahayana and Hinayana of the Buddha-dharma both say that a person can only be formed by the aggregation of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, the five elements that constitute individual experience). Therefore, the Dharma comes before the person, and the person comes after. Refutation: The person is capable of receiving the Dharma, and the Dharma is what is received. If there is no person capable of receiving the Dharma, then there will be nothing to be received. The previous two verses refuted the person by means of the Dharma, and now the Dharma is refuted by means of the person. There is no one who does not receive the Dharma. Continuing from what was said above about 'what is received,' it cannot be called 'receiving.' If what is received cannot be called 'receiving,' then there are no five skandhas that are received. Since there are no five skandhas that are received, there is also no person who is capable of receiving. Without someone capable of receiving and without something to be received, what can be used as the Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha)? Therefore, there is no one who does not receive the Dharma and can be called the Tathagata. Furthermore, since there was no Dharma of the skandha of receiving before, then there will be no Tathagata later. 'If in one or different,' this is the fourth concluding refutation. After refuting the person above, it is necessary to summarize. 'Seeking in one or different is unattainable,' first summarize the second gate of self and other (self-nature and other-nature) above, believing that having one's own Buddha-body is 'different,' and having it because of others is 'one.' 'Seeking in five ways is unattainable,' summarize the first gate of five ways of seeking, that is, it is impossible to find the Tathagata in the five skandhas. 'How can there be in receiving,' summarize the third gate of before and after (having before and having after). The above has three refutations, and now they are summarized. In addition, this passage explains 'those who are born nearby,' explaining the relationship of before and after. Whenever discussing the relationship of before and after, it cannot be separated from one or different and the five situations. Since one or different and the five situations cannot be established, how can it be said that there is a Tathagata in the five skandhas? 'Also, the five skandhas that are received below,' from above, the refutation of the person as the Tathagata is completed. Now, the second refutation is that the Dharma is the Tathagata. However, this passage has near and far distinctions. From a distance, the above four gates of borrowing the Dharma to refute the person have ended, and now borrowing the person to refute the Dharma is to refute those who believe that the false has substance and function, and those who believe that the five skandhas with outflows are the incarnate Tathagata, and the five skandhas without outflows are the Dharma-body Tathagata. From a closer perspective, these five verses are interrelated. Now, to restate: the first two verses explain that there is no one capable of receiving, the next verse explains that what is received is not receiving, and the next verse raises again the one or different and the five ways of seeking, again questioning that there is no one in receiving. The last verse uses the gate of self and other to re-examine that there is no Dharma that is received. Because these five verses are interrelated, Qingmu (the commentator) explains them in one place. Those Dharma masters who lecture have not studied in detail, so there are various different interpretations. Regarding the verses, they are divided into two parts: the first half explains that there is no self-nature, and the second half explains that there is no other-nature. In this...
自性他性可有二義。一者以所受法為自性。能受人為他性。明五陰不得自有。亦不由人而有。二者就五陰法自論自他也。以如是義故下第三結破人法。上半結空下半呵有。以如是義故者結上三門。謂不一不異。不自不他。不前不後三義求人法不得。又上求三種人法。一外道。二小乘三大乘。皆不可得。下半呵有。汝云何以空為受。以空為如來。問曰下生第二章偈。破空等四句是如來。前問次答。問有三意。一者上執如來是有。聞論主求有不得。便執無是如來。則是因有起空見。二者諸大小乘人執佛是有。今偏是大乘人執空是佛。如江南尚禪師北土講智度論者用真如是佛。三者外人執有是佛。聞龍樹上破人法皆空。謂龍樹用空為佛也。答中二偈。初破空等四句是佛。第二偈破常邊等八句是佛。初三句破四家佛義。已如品初述之。應此中說。並云不可說者凡有二義。一者無此四句。何所說耶。二者此四句是諸見戲論。不可說諸見戲論以之為佛。開善義佛具空有二句。彼云。金剛後心且冥且會。同真如等法性。今問。既同真如雲何應照。答至亡彌存。至亡義則冥真。故名為生。彌存義則有。應照稱之為有。今問。至亡與真理一不。答理然是一。問彌存時是真理彌存不。答真理不可彌存。智慧彌存耳。今問。真不能彌存。智慧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自性他性有兩種含義。第一種是以所接受的法（dharma）為自性（svabhava），能接受法的人為他性（paratva）。這表明五陰（skandha，色、受、想、行、識）不是自身產生的，也不是由他人產生的。 第二種是就五陰法本身來討論自性和他性。因為這個緣故，下面第三部分總結了對人法（pudgala-dharma）的破斥。前半部分總結了空性（sunyata），後半部分呵斥了有性（bhava）。 『以如是義故』總結了以上的三種觀點，即非一非異（na ekaṁ nānekaṁ），非自非他（na svato na parataḥ），非前非后（na pūrvāparaṁ）。用這三種觀點來尋求人法是不可得的。此外，上面尋求了三種人法：一是外道（tirthika），二是小乘（hinayana），三是大乘（mahayana），都是不可得的。下半部分呵斥了有性。你為什麼認為空性是受（vedana），空性是如來（tathagata）？ 問：下面第二章的偈頌破斥了空等四句是如來。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問有三種含義：一是上面執著如來是有，聽到論主尋求有而不可得，就執著無是如來，這是因為有而產生了空見。二是各個大小乘人執著佛是有，現在偏偏是大乘人執著空是佛，就像江南的尚禪師和北方講《智度論》的人用真如（tathata）是佛。三是外道執著有是佛，聽到龍樹菩薩上面破斥人法皆空，就認為龍樹菩薩用空作為佛。 回答中有兩個偈頌。第一個偈頌破斥了空等四句是佛。第二個偈頌破斥了常邊等八句是佛。第一個偈頌的前三句破斥了四家對佛的定義，已經在品初敘述過了，應該在這裡說明。並且說不可說，大概有兩種含義：一是沒有這四句，說什麼呢？二是這四句是各種見解的戲論，不能說用各種見解的戲論作為佛。 開善的觀點認為佛具有空有二句。他們說：『金剛後心且冥且會，同真如等法性。』現在問：既然與真如相同，為什麼應該照？回答說：『至亡彌存』。至亡的含義是冥真，所以名為生；彌存的含義是有，應照稱之為有。現在問：至亡與真理是一還是不是一？回答說：理上是一。問：彌存時是真理彌存嗎？回答說：真理不可彌存，智慧可以彌存。現在問：真不能彌存，智慧
【English Translation】 English version The nature of self and other can have two meanings. The first is to take the received dharma (法) as self-nature (自性, svabhava), and the person who receives the dharma as other-nature (他性, paratva). This clarifies that the five skandhas (五陰, 色、受、想、行、識) do not arise from themselves, nor do they arise from others. The second is to discuss self and other in terms of the five skandhas themselves. For this reason, the third part below summarizes the refutation of person and dharma (人法, pudgala-dharma). The first half summarizes emptiness (空性, sunyata), and the second half rebukes existence (有性, bhava). 'For this reason' summarizes the above three viewpoints, namely, neither one nor different (不一不異, na ekaṁ nānekaṁ), neither from self nor from other (不自不他, na svato na parataḥ), neither before nor after (不前不後, na pūrvāparaṁ). Seeking person and dharma with these three viewpoints is unattainable. Furthermore, the above seeks three kinds of person and dharma: first, the tirthikas (外道); second, the Hinayana (小乘); and third, the Mahayana (大乘), all of which are unattainable. The second half rebukes existence. Why do you consider emptiness to be sensation (受, vedana), and emptiness to be the Tathagata (如來, tathagata)? Question: The verses in the second chapter below refute that the four phrases such as emptiness are the Tathagata. The former is the question, and the latter is the answer. There are three meanings to the question: first, above, one clings to the Tathagata as existent, and upon hearing that the author of the treatise seeks existence but cannot attain it, one clings to non-existence as the Tathagata, which is to say that the view of emptiness arises from existence. Second, various Hinayana and Mahayana practitioners cling to the Buddha as existent, but now, Mahayana practitioners particularly cling to emptiness as the Buddha, just as the Chan master Shang of Jiangnan and those who lecture on the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (《智度論》) in the north use Suchness (真如, tathata) as the Buddha. Third, the tirthikas cling to existence as the Buddha, and upon hearing that Nagarjuna (龍樹菩薩) above refutes that person and dharma are all empty, they consider Nagarjuna to use emptiness as the Buddha. There are two verses in the answer. The first verse refutes that the four phrases such as emptiness are the Buddha. The second verse refutes that the eight phrases such as permanence are the Buddha. The first three phrases of the first verse refute the four schools' definitions of the Buddha, which have already been described at the beginning of the chapter and should be explained here. Furthermore, saying that it is unspeakable probably has two meanings: first, there are not these four phrases, so what is there to say? Second, these four phrases are the play of various views, and one cannot say that one uses the play of various views as the Buddha. The view of Kaishan holds that the Buddha possesses the two phrases of emptiness and existence. They say: 'The later mind of the Vajra is both obscure and convergent, the same as the dharma-nature of Suchness, etc.' Now I ask: Since it is the same as Suchness, why should it illuminate? The answer is: 'To the point of extinction, it remains.' The meaning of 'to the point of extinction' is to obscure the truth, so it is called arising; the meaning of 'it remains' is existence, and 'should illuminate' is called existence. Now I ask: Are 'to the point of extinction' and the true principle one or not one? The answer is: In principle, they are one. Question: When it remains, does the true principle remain? The answer is: The true principle cannot remain, only intelligence can remain. Now I ask: The true cannot remain, intelligence
彌存則智與真異。云何同真如耶。又彌存之時非復是真則出真外。若彌存與真一者真亦彌存也。但以假名說者上明四句不可說。今為釋疑。經中所以說有佛者。蓋是無名相中假名相說。如涅槃無名強名相說。涅槃是佛異名耳。又此中四句不可說。一句可說。如涅槃經生生等六句不可說。第七句有因緣故亦互得說。以十法為生作因是故可說也。長行雲。但破相違故以假名說者為釋疑故來。若言此中四句並不可說。前何故云以如是義故受空受者空說是空耶。是以釋云。空違于有故得假空破有。豈有此空。若有此空即墮諸難。此釋為正意也。又釋。此四句自相違。如有與空義相違。乃至執第三亦有亦無。與第四非空非有相違。既是相違則是諸見。今破此四種相違。故假名說佛耳。又釋。執佛是四句則與佛相違。今破此四句故假名說佛。如是正觀思惟下生第二偈。第二偈來凡有三意。一為釋前不可說義。以佛是寂滅相故。不可說佛是空有四句。若說佛是空有四句者。此猶是世間常邊等見十四難耳。二者此是舉況。然計此常邊等四句。既是邪見。則知。計空有等四亦是邪見。三者上破空等四句是佛。今破常等八句是佛。小乘人言。佛定無常。大乘言。是常住。本跡合論亦常無常。若用中道為佛則非常無常。上四句論佛身。次四句
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 彌存（持續存在）則智（智慧）與真（真如）相異。為何說它們與真如相同呢？而且，彌存之時，便不再是真如，那就超出真如之外了。如果彌存與真如是一體的，那麼真如也應該是彌存的。但以假名來說，是因為前面已經說明四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）是不可說的，現在是爲了解釋疑惑。經中所說的『有佛』，實際上是在無名相中假立名相來說的，就像《涅槃經》中本來沒有名字，勉強安立名稱來說明一樣。《涅槃經》是佛的另一個名字罷了。而且，這裡四句是不可說的，但一句是可以說的。比如《涅槃經》中『生生』等六句是不可說的，但第七句因為有因緣的緣故，可以互相地說。因為以十法作為生的原因，所以是可以說的。長行中說：『只是爲了破除相違，所以用假名來說』，這是爲了解釋疑惑而說的。如果說這裡四句都不可說，那麼前面為何說『以這樣的意義，接受空，接受者空，說的是空』呢？因此解釋說，空與有是相違的，所以可以用假空來破除有。難道真的存在這個空嗎？如果真的存在這個空，那就落入各種難題之中了。這個解釋是正確的。又解釋說，這四句自身是相違的，比如有與空在意義上是相違的，乃至執著于第三句『亦有亦無』，與第四句『非空非有』是相違的。既然是相違的，那就是各種見解。現在破除這四種相違，所以假名說佛罷了。又解釋說，執著佛是四句，那就與佛相違背。現在破除這四句，所以假名說佛。像這樣正觀思惟，下面產生第二個偈頌。第二個偈頌的出現，凡有三種用意。一是為解釋前面不可說的意義。因為佛是寂滅相，所以不可說佛是空有四句。如果說佛是空有四句，這仍然是世間的常邊等見，也就是十四難。二是這是舉例說明。既然認為常邊等四句是邪見，那麼就知道，認為空有等四句也是邪見。三是前面破除空等四句是佛，現在破除常等八句是佛。小乘人說，佛一定是無常的。大乘說，是常住的。本跡合論，既是常又是無常。如果用中道作為佛，那就既不是常也不是無常。上面四句是討論佛身的，接下來的四句
【English Translation】 English version If 'Mi Cun' (continuous existence) differs from 'Zhi' (wisdom) and 'Zhen' (Tathata, Suchness), how can they be the same as Tathata? Moreover, when 'Mi Cun' exists, it is no longer Tathata, thus it is outside of Tathata. If 'Mi Cun' and Tathata are one, then Tathata should also be 'Mi Cun'. However, speaking in provisional terms is because it has been explained earlier that the four sentences (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) are unspeakable; now it is to resolve doubts. The reason why the sutra says 'there is Buddha' is actually establishing a name provisionally within the nameless, just like in the Nirvana Sutra, where there is originally no name, but a name is forcibly established to explain it. The Nirvana Sutra is just another name for Buddha. Moreover, here the four sentences are unspeakable, but one sentence can be spoken. For example, in the Nirvana Sutra, the six sentences such as 'birth after birth' are unspeakable, but the seventh sentence can be spoken mutually because of the cause and condition. Because the ten dharmas are taken as the cause of birth, it can be spoken. The prose section says: 'It is only to eliminate contradictions that provisional names are used,' which comes to resolve doubts. If it is said that all four sentences here are unspeakable, then why did it say earlier, 'Because of such meaning, accepting emptiness, the receiver is empty, speaking of emptiness'? Therefore, it is explained that emptiness contradicts existence, so provisional emptiness can be used to eliminate existence. Does this emptiness really exist? If this emptiness really exists, then it falls into various difficulties. This explanation is the correct meaning. It is also explained that these four sentences contradict each other, such as existence and emptiness contradicting each other in meaning, even clinging to the third sentence 'both existence and non-existence' contradicting the fourth sentence 'neither existence nor non-existence'. Since they are contradictory, they are various views. Now, eliminating these four kinds of contradictions, so Buddha is spoken of provisionally. It is also explained that clinging to Buddha as the four sentences contradicts Buddha. Now, eliminating these four sentences, so Buddha is spoken of provisionally. Like this, with correct contemplation and reflection, the second verse arises below. The appearance of the second verse has three intentions. First, it is to explain the meaning of unspeakable mentioned earlier. Because Buddha is the aspect of quiescence and extinction, it is unspeakable that Buddha is the four sentences of existence and emptiness. If it is said that Buddha is the four sentences of existence and emptiness, this is still the worldly view of permanence, extremes, etc., which are the fourteen difficulties. Second, this is an illustration. Since it is considered that the four sentences of permanence, extremes, etc., are wrong views, then it is known that considering the four sentences of emptiness, existence, etc., are also wrong views. Third, earlier, the four sentences of emptiness, etc., were eliminated as Buddha; now, the eight sentences of permanence, etc., are eliminated as Buddha. The Hinayana people say that Buddha must be impermanent. The Mahayana says that it is permanent. The combined theory of original and manifested traces is both permanent and impermanent. If the Middle Way is used as Buddha, then it is neither permanent nor impermanent. The above four sentences discuss the Buddha's body; the following four sentences
明佛壽。小乘言。佛是無常。盡在一期名為有邊。大乘人言。佛常住名為無邊。本跡合論亦邊無邊。計中道是佛壽非邊無邊。攝論云。真如遍滿一切法中是無邊。余法是有邊。今並破也。問長行明常邊。既是兩世。何故不說現在四見。答上空有等四即現在也。問曰若如是破下第三章料簡如來。前問次答。問曰。若空有四句並非佛者應當無佛。外人云。佛若非世諦有則是真諦無。若非二諦便出二諦外非有非無。既具破此四句。應當無佛。則龍樹是邪見闡提。又夫論有佛不出小乘無常大乘常住。若無此大小之佛亦是邪見。答中二偈。初明如來現在非是有無。第二偈明如來滅后亦非有無。初偈上半破無。若大邪見人乃言無佛。我非邪見故不說無。又汝前執四句有佛名為有見。求汝四句有佛不得汝謂無佛。汝便墮邪見。下半明如來非有。外人既聞邪見者執無佛。則正見者應有佛。是故今明。執佛是無名重邪見。執佛是有謂輕邪見。長行前釋上半為二。前明二種邪見。是故若言無如來下次釋偈文。又初列二種邪見章門。從破世間樂者下釋二章門。前釋粗邪見。破涅槃道者下釋細邪見。此中明。粗邪見起惡滅善。故世出世俱失。細邪見起善滅惡。得世間樂而破于涅槃。行道坐禪講說之人宜常應以此文在意。勿一形苦節而破于涅槃。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 明佛壽（Buddha's lifespan）。小乘（Hinayana）說，佛是無常的，僅存在於一生中，這被稱為『有邊』（finite）。大乘（Mahayana）認為，佛是常住的，這被稱為『無邊』（infinite）。如果將本（根本）和跡（示現）結合起來討論，就是既有邊又無邊。認為中道（Middle Way）是佛的壽命，既非有邊也非無邊。《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）說，真如（Tathata）遍滿一切法中，是無邊的，其餘的法是有邊的。現在一併破斥這些觀點。 問：長行（散文部分）中說明常和邊，既然涉及兩世（過去和未來），為什麼不說現在的四見（四種錯誤的見解）？答：前面說的空、有等四種見解，就是指現在的四見。 問：如果像你所說，空、有四句（四種命題）都不是佛，那麼應該沒有佛。外道（非佛教徒）說，如果佛不是世俗諦（conventional truth）中存在，那麼在勝義諦（ultimate truth）中就是不存在的。如果不在二諦（two truths）之中，就超出了二諦之外，既非有也非無。既然已經破斥了這四句，那麼應該沒有佛，這樣龍樹（Nagarjuna）就是邪見者和闡提（icchantika，斷善根者）。而且，討論有佛，不外乎小乘的無常和大乘的常住。如果沒有大小乘的佛，這也是邪見。 答：用兩首偈頌來回答。第一首偈頌說明如來現在既非有也非無。第二首偈頌說明如來滅后也非有也非無。第一首偈頌的上半部分破斥『無』。如果大邪見者說沒有佛，我不是邪見者，所以不說沒有佛。而且你之前執著四句中有佛，這被稱為『有見』。如果你在四句中找不到佛，就認為沒有佛，那麼你就墮入了邪見。下半部分說明如來非有。外道既然聽到邪見者執著沒有佛，那麼正見者應該執著有佛。因此現在說明，執著佛是『無』是嚴重的邪見，執著佛是『有』是較輕的邪見。 長行前面解釋上半部分，分為兩部分。前面說明兩種邪見。『是故若言無如來』（因此如果說沒有如來）以下解釋偈文。又，首先列出兩種邪見的章節標題，從『破世間樂者』（破斥追求世間快樂的人）以下解釋兩個章節標題。前面解釋粗略的邪見，『破涅槃道者』（破斥破壞涅槃之道的人）以下解釋細微的邪見。這裡說明，粗略的邪見會引發惡行，消滅善行，因此世間和出世間都失去。細微的邪見會引發善行，消滅惡行，得到世間的快樂，但破壞了涅槃。修行、坐禪、講說的人應該經常注意這段文字，不要一生苦行卻破壞了涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version Ming Fo Shou (Clarifying Buddha's Lifespan). The Hinayana (Small Vehicle) says that the Buddha is impermanent, existing only for one lifetime, which is called 'finite' (You Bian). The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) believes that the Buddha is permanent, which is called 'infinite' (Wu Bian). If we combine the root (original nature) and traces (manifestations) for discussion, it is both finite and infinite. Considering the Middle Way (Zhong Dao) as the Buddha's lifespan is neither finite nor infinite. The Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) says that the Tathata (Suchness) pervades all dharmas and is infinite, while the remaining dharmas are finite. Now, all these views are refuted. Question: The prose section (Chang Xing) explains permanence and finiteness, since it involves two lifetimes (past and future), why not mention the four views (four erroneous views) of the present? Answer: The four views mentioned earlier, such as emptiness and existence, refer to the four views of the present. Question: If, as you say, the four propositions of emptiness and existence are not the Buddha, then there should be no Buddha. Non-Buddhists (outsiders) say that if the Buddha does not exist in conventional truth (Samsara), then he does not exist in ultimate truth (Nirvana). If he is not within the two truths (Dve Satya), then he is beyond the two truths, neither existent nor non-existent. Since these four propositions have been refuted, there should be no Buddha, so Nagarjuna (Long Shu) would be a heretic and an icchantika (Chan Ti, one who has severed their roots of goodness). Moreover, discussing the existence of the Buddha is nothing more than the impermanence of the Hinayana and the permanence of the Mahayana. If there is no Buddha of the Small or Great Vehicle, this is also a heretical view. Answer: Answer with two verses. The first verse explains that the Tathagata (Ru Lai) is neither existent nor non-existent in the present. The second verse explains that the Tathagata is neither existent nor non-existent after extinction. The first half of the first verse refutes 'non-existence'. If a great heretic says there is no Buddha, I am not a heretic, so I do not say there is no Buddha. Moreover, you previously clung to the existence of the Buddha in the four propositions, which is called 'existence view'. If you cannot find the Buddha in the four propositions and think there is no Buddha, then you have fallen into heresy. The second half explains that the Tathagata is not existent. Since outsiders have heard that heretics cling to the non-existence of the Buddha, then those with right views should cling to the existence of the Buddha. Therefore, it is now explained that clinging to the Buddha as 'non-existent' is a serious heresy, and clinging to the Buddha as 'existent' is a lesser heresy. The prose section explains the first half in two parts. The first part explains the two types of heresy. 'Therefore, if it is said that there is no Tathagata' (Shi Gu Ruo Yan Wu Ru Lai) below explains the verses. Also, first list the chapter titles of the two types of heresy, from 'those who break worldly pleasures' (Po Shi Jian Le Zhe) below explains the two chapter titles. The first part explains the coarse heresy, 'those who break the path to Nirvana' (Po Nie Pan Dao Zhe) below explains the subtle heresy. It is explained here that coarse heresy causes evil deeds and destroys good deeds, so both worldly and transcendental realms are lost. Subtle heresy causes good deeds and destroys evil deeds, gaining worldly pleasures but destroying Nirvana. Those who practice, meditate, and preach should always pay attention to this passage, and do not destroy Nirvana with a lifetime of asceticism.
是故若言無如來者下。第二正釋偈上半文。若言有如來下釋下半也。如是性空中第二明如來滅度非是有無。上半正明如來是性空。性空者體性畢竟清凈。橫絕萬非豎超四句也。是故不可作有無思惟。波若實際品云。前際亦性空。中際亦性空。后際亦性空。常性空。無不性空時。故如來在世及滅后常畢竟清凈。汝云何于性空中思惟佛是有無耶。故言思惟則不可。又諸法性常內外並冥。緣觀俱寂。猶不容思惟。何況起有無諸見。故云思惟則不可。又此偈是舉本況末。佛本來絕四句。況滅后是四句。故不可作四句思惟。問今此品正明如來法身。云何乃言性空耶。答大品云。性空名諸佛道。故知。是法身異名。亦名寂滅實相及以法身也。問今何故作性空耶。答惑者聞上來破謂遣著耳。而終有如來。是故今云。如來從本來畢竟清凈。故名性空也。問成論二世有無品云。如來在世不攝有無。與今何異。答生法二空有二種。一小乘二空。二大乘二空。有無不攝亦有二種。一小乘四句不攝。二大乘有無不攝。即以此破開善義。佛不攝有無何得言二諦攝耶。彼答云。非是自性之有。非是數滅之無。此有無不攝佛耳。今明。蓋是以義判文。非就文釋義。問若爾莊嚴明佛不攝有無。與今文何異。答上已破非有無竟。不應更復問也。又智度論云
【現代漢語翻譯】 是故，如果說沒有如來，這是解釋偈頌上半部分。如果說有如來，這是解釋下半部分。像這樣，在性空中，第二點是說明如來的滅度並非是有或無。上半部分正面說明如來是性空。所謂性空，是指其體性畢竟清凈，橫向截斷一切非，縱向超越四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）。因此，不可作有無的思惟。《波若實際品》說：『前際也是性空，中際也是性空，后際也是性空，常時性空，沒有不是性空的時候。』所以，如來在世和滅度后，常時畢竟清凈。你為何在性空中思惟佛是有或無呢？所以說思惟是不可行的。而且，諸法的本性常時內外皆冥合，緣起和觀照都寂靜，尚且不容許思惟，何況生起有無等見解？所以說思惟是不可行的。而且，這個偈頌是舉本況末，佛本來就超越四句，何況滅度后是四句？所以不可作四句思惟。 問：現在這一品主要闡明如來的法身，為何卻說性空呢？答：《大品般若經》說：『性空名為諸佛之道。』由此可知，性空是法身的異名，也叫做寂滅實相以及法身。問：現在為何要說性空呢？答：迷惑的人聽了前面破除執著的說法，認為最終還是有如來存在的。因此現在說，如來從本來就畢竟清凈，所以名為性空。問：《成實論》的《二世有無論》說：『如來在世不攝於有無。』這和現在說的有什麼不同？答：生法二空有兩種，一是小乘的二空，二是大乘的二空。有無不攝也有兩種，一是小乘的四句不攝，二是大乘的有無不攝。這就可以用來破斥開善的觀點，佛不攝於有無，怎麼能說被二諦所攝呢？他們的回答是：『不是自性之有，也不是數滅之無。』這只是有無不攝佛而已。現在說明，這大概是以義理來判斷文字，不是就文字來解釋義理。問：如果這樣，莊嚴論說明佛不攝於有無，和現在的文句有什麼不同？答：上面已經破斥了非有無，不應該再問了。又，《智度論》說。
【English Translation】 Therefore, if it is said that there is no Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One), this is the explanation of the first half of the verse. If it is said that there is a Tathagata, this explains the second half. In this way, in the emptiness of nature, the second point is to clarify that the extinction of the Tathagata is neither existence nor non-existence. The first half clearly states that the Tathagata is emptiness of nature. The so-called emptiness of nature means that its essence is ultimately pure, horizontally cutting off all 'non-' and vertically transcending the four phrases (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence). Therefore, one should not contemplate in terms of existence or non-existence. The Prajna Actualities Chapter says: 'The past limit is also emptiness of nature, the middle limit is also emptiness of nature, the future limit is also emptiness of nature, constantly emptiness of nature, there is no time that is not emptiness of nature.' Therefore, the Tathagata, whether in the world or after extinction, is always ultimately pure. Why do you contemplate whether the Buddha exists or does not exist in the emptiness of nature? Therefore, it is said that contemplation is not feasible. Moreover, the nature of all dharmas is always in harmony both internally and externally, with both dependent origination and contemplation being still. It does not even allow for contemplation, let alone giving rise to views of existence or non-existence? Therefore, it is said that contemplation is not feasible. Moreover, this verse is an analogy from the root to the branch. The Buddha originally transcends the four phrases, let alone being subject to the four phrases after extinction? Therefore, one should not contemplate in terms of the four phrases. Question: Now, this chapter mainly elucidates the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma Body) of the Tathagata, why does it speak of emptiness of nature? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Emptiness of nature is called the path of all Buddhas.' From this, it can be known that emptiness of nature is another name for the Dharmakaya, also called quiescent reality and the Dharmakaya. Question: Why is emptiness of nature spoken of now? Answer: Those who are confused, after hearing the previous teachings on breaking attachments, think that there is ultimately a Tathagata. Therefore, it is now said that the Tathagata is ultimately pure from the beginning, hence the name emptiness of nature. Question: The Two Worlds of Existence and Non-Existence Chapter of the Tattvasiddhi Shastra says: 'The Tathagata in the world is not included in existence or non-existence.' How is this different from what is said now? Answer: There are two types of emptiness of self and emptiness of dharmas, one is the emptiness of the two vehicles (小乘, Hinayana), and the other is the emptiness of the Mahayana (大乘, Great Vehicle). There are also two types of non-inclusion in existence and non-existence, one is the non-inclusion of the four phrases of the two vehicles, and the other is the non-inclusion of existence and non-existence of the Mahayana. This can be used to refute the views of Kaisan. If the Buddha is not included in existence or non-existence, how can it be said that he is included in the two truths? Their answer is: 'It is not existence by its own nature, nor is it non-existence due to numerical extinction.' This is only the non-inclusion of the Buddha in existence and non-existence. Now it is explained that this is probably judging the text by its meaning, not explaining the meaning by the text. Question: If so, how is the Shastra of Adornment explaining that the Buddha is not included in existence and non-existence different from the current passage? Answer: The refutation of non-existence and non-non-existence has already been done above, so there should be no further questions. Also, the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says.
。非有無名愚癡論。豈以愚癡為佛。大品云。佛及弟子知法性外更無有法。若佛出真諦外如此之人非是于佛亦非弟子。妄想之心作此釋也。又楞伽及此論明法界法性如實際涅槃是異名。云何言佛出涅槃外佛出真諦外耶。下半正呵外人。于如來滅後分別有無。問惑者何故於如來滅後分別有無。答眾生見佛滅度無復有佛。故種種推斥。小乘人言。佛灰身滅智同於太虛。是故無佛。大乘人言。法身常住。是故有佛。初亦是上座部義。后是僧祇所立。如來過戲論下品第四章呵責外人。若言佛是二諦攝或出二諦外。如此等皆是戲論。接上生者前明如來在世及以滅后並非有無。惑者戲論計于有無。下半出有無之過。興皇大師云。執如來決定是有無常無常。破法身而過五逆也。長行雲。此如來品中下生起第五章。示其如來相。而言初中後者品初破有是如來。中破空等四句是如來。后料簡如來非是都無亦非定有。即結上三章。第四段但是呵責。非是別破故不結也。偈為二。上半示如來性下半解釋上半。解如來性同世間性。所以作此說者凡有三義。一者外人品初舉出世證有世間。論主今舉世間以例出世。求世間有無四句既不可得。出世如來亦復例然。二者外人聞上破有無四句並皆非佛。便謂佛出四句之表居百非之外。是故今明。如來之性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非有無名愚癡論。豈以愚癡為佛？《大品般若經》（Da Pin banruo jing）云：『佛及弟子知法性外更無有法。』若佛出真諦外，如此之人非是于佛，亦非弟子，妄想之心作此釋也。 又《楞伽經》（Lengqie jing）及此論明法界、法性、如實際、涅槃（Nirvana）是異名。云何言佛出涅槃外、佛出真諦外耶？下半正呵外人，于如來滅後分別有無。 問：惑者何故於如來滅後分別有無？答：眾生見佛滅度，無復有佛，故種種推斥。小乘人言：『佛灰身滅智，同於太虛。』是故無佛。大乘人言：『法身常住。』是故有佛。初亦是上座部義，后是僧祇所立。 如來過戲論下品第四章呵責外人，若言佛是二諦攝或出二諦外，如此等皆是戲論。接上生者，前明如來在世及以滅后並非有無，惑者戲論計于有無。下半出有無之過。興皇大師云：『執如來決定是有無常無常，破法身而過五逆也。』 長行雲：此如來品中下生起第五章，示其如來相。而言初破有是如來，中破空等四句是如來，后料簡如來非是都無亦非定有，即結上三章。第四段但是呵責，非是別破故不結也。 偈為二。上半示如來性，下半解釋上半。解如來性同世間性。所以作此說者凡有三義：一者外人品初舉出世證有世間，論主今舉世間以例出世，求世間有無四句既不可得，出世如來亦復例然。二者外人聞上破有無四句並皆非佛，便謂佛出四句之表居百非之外，是故今明，如來之性
【English Translation】 English version It is not a doctrine of ignorance based on existence or non-existence. How can ignorance be considered the Buddha? The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Da Pin banruo jing) says, 'The Buddha and his disciples know that there is no dharma outside of the nature of dharma.' If the Buddha goes beyond the ultimate truth, such a person is neither the Buddha nor a disciple; this is a interpretation born of delusion. Furthermore, the Lankavatara Sutra (Lengqie jing) and this treatise clarify that Dharmadhatu, Dharmata, Suchness, and Nirvana are different names for the same thing. How can it be said that the Buddha goes beyond Nirvana or the Buddha goes beyond the ultimate truth? The latter half directly rebukes outsiders who distinguish between existence and non-existence after the Tathagata's passing. Question: Why do the confused distinguish between existence and non-existence after the Tathagata's passing? Answer: Sentient beings see the Buddha's parinirvana and believe that there is no longer a Buddha, hence their various refutations. The Hinayana followers say, 'The Buddha's body is reduced to ashes, and his wisdom is extinguished, becoming one with the void.' Therefore, there is no Buddha. The Mahayana followers say, 'The Dharmakaya is eternal.' Therefore, there is a Buddha. The former is also the meaning of the Sthavira school, while the latter is established by the Mahasanghika school. The fourth chapter of the section 'The Tathagata Transcends Conceptual Proliferation' rebukes outsiders, saying that if the Buddha is said to be contained within the two truths or outside the two truths, all such statements are conceptual proliferation. Connecting to the previous section, it clarifies that the Tathagata, both during his lifetime and after his passing, is neither existent nor non-existent; the confused engage in conceptual proliferation by speculating on existence and non-existence. The latter half points out the faults of existence and non-existence. Master Xinghuang said, 'Clinging to the idea that the Tathagata is definitely existent, non-existent, permanent, or impermanent is to destroy the Dharmakaya and commit offenses exceeding the five heinous crimes.' The commentary says: In this chapter on the Tathagata, the fifth section on the arising of the lower nature reveals the characteristics of the Tathagata. It states that the initial refutation of existence is the Tathagata, the middle refutation of emptiness and the four propositions is the Tathagata, and the final analysis clarifies that the Tathagata is neither completely non-existent nor definitely existent, thus concluding the previous three chapters. The fourth section is merely a rebuke and not a separate refutation, so it is not concluded. The verse is in two parts. The first half reveals the nature of the Tathagata, and the second half explains the first half. It explains that the nature of the Tathagata is the same as the nature of the world. There are three reasons for making this statement: First, in the initial section, outsiders cite the transcendent to prove the existence of the mundane. The author of the treatise now cites the mundane to exemplify the transcendent. Since the four propositions of existence and non-existence are unattainable in the mundane, the transcendent Tathagata is likewise. Second, outsiders, hearing the above refutation that the four propositions of existence and non-existence are not the Buddha, then assume that the Buddha is beyond the four propositions and resides outside of the hundred negations. Therefore, it is now clarified that the nature of the Tathagata
即是世間之性。非但佛出四句超于百非。世間亦爾。故凈名云。觀身實相。觀佛亦然。三者從第四章呵責生。前偈既云如來過戲論。外人便謂戲論自是世間。如來便為出世。則起世出世異見。是故今明。如來之性即世間性。非但如來超於四句。即此四句本來不四即是如來。是故經云。貪慾即是道。恚癡亦復然。下半釋上半。明如來與世間同絕四句。故二性無別性。無別性者體也。
觀顛倒品第二十三
問四品破出世法。何故乃破顛倒耶。答前破世間非無出世。但前多破世間。后多破出世耳。二者欲顯世出世不二。故就出世中破世也。三者又顯計有出世。即是顛倒故破出世法名破顛倒。四者二乘之人于如來身計苦無常名為顛倒。既于出世法中起倒。故於出世中破倒也。五者如來之身實非有無而計有無。即是顛倒。故今破此倒也。大小乘人唯有二法。一者世間。二出世間。前破世間竟舉出世救。今破出世間竟還舉世間來救。以外是有所得人心不能無所依著。故前後互舉立義。問染者品已破煩惱即是破顛倒。今何故復破。答煩惱難破。故須多破。又前破染是破愛。今破顛倒是破見。以一切眾生不出愛與見也。問何故破如來后次破顛倒。答就惑者為言凡有二義。一約自行。如來是能離之人。顛倒是所離之惑。就化
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這就是世間的本性。不僅僅是佛所說的四句超越了一切錯誤的觀點，世間也是如此。所以《維摩詰經》說：『觀察自身的真實相狀，觀察佛也是這樣。』第三點是從第四章的呵責而產生的。前面的偈頌既然說如來超越了戲論，外人就認為戲論本身就是世間的，如來就是出世的，因此產生了世間和出世的差異見解。所以現在說明，如來的本性就是世間的本性。不僅僅是如來超越了四句，這四句本來就不是四，也就是如來。所以經中說：『貪慾就是道，嗔恚和愚癡也是這樣。』下半部分解釋上半部分，說明如來和世間同樣超越了四句。所以兩種本性沒有區別。沒有區別的本性就是本體。
觀顛倒品第二十三
問：前面四品破斥了出世法，為什麼現在要破斥顛倒呢？答：前面破斥世間，並不是沒有出世法，只是前面更多地破斥世間，後面更多地破斥出世法罷了。第二，想要顯示世間和出世不是二元對立的，所以就從出世法中破斥世間。第三，又顯示執著于有出世法，就是顛倒，所以破斥出世法就叫做破斥顛倒。第四，二乘之人對於如來的身體，認為是苦、無常，這叫做顛倒。既然在出世法中產生了顛倒，所以就在出世法中破斥顛倒。第五，如來的身體實際上不是有也不是無，而認為是或者有或者無，這就是顛倒，所以現在破斥這種顛倒。大小乘人只有兩種法，一是世間，二是出世間。前面破斥了世間，就舉出出世法來救。現在破斥了出世間，就又舉出世間來救。因為外道是有所得的人，內心不能沒有所依靠和執著。所以前後互相舉出，來建立義理。問：在染者品中已經破斥了煩惱，也就是破斥了顛倒，為什麼現在又要破斥呢？答：煩惱難以破斥，所以需要多次破斥。而且前面破斥染，是破斥愛，現在破斥顛倒，是破斥見。因為一切眾生都離不開愛和見。問：為什麼在破斥如來之後，接著破斥顛倒呢？答：就迷惑的人來說，凡是有兩種含義。一是就自身修行來說，如來是能夠脫離的人，顛倒是所要脫離的迷惑。就教化
【English Translation】 English version: This is the nature of the world. It is not only that the four phrases spoken by the Buddha transcend all erroneous views, but the world is also like this. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Observe the true form of your own body, and observe the Buddha in the same way.' The third point arises from the rebuke in the fourth chapter. Since the previous verse said that the Tathagata (Thus Come One) transcends frivolous discussions, outsiders would think that frivolous discussions themselves are worldly, and the Tathagata is transcendent, thus giving rise to the different views of the worldly and the transcendent. Therefore, it is now explained that the nature of the Tathagata is the nature of the world. It is not only that the Tathagata transcends the four phrases, but these four phrases are originally not four, which is the Tathagata. Therefore, the Sutra says: 'Greed is the Dao (the Way), and so are hatred and ignorance.' The latter half explains the former half, explaining that the Tathagata and the world both transcend the four phrases. Therefore, the two natures have no separate nature. The nature without separate nature is the substance.
Chapter 23: On Contemplating Inversions
Question: The previous four chapters refuted the transcendent Dharma (teachings), why refute inversions now? Answer: The previous refutation of the world does not mean there is no transcendence, but the previous chapters refuted the world more, and the later chapters refute transcendence more. Second, it is intended to show that the world and transcendence are not dualistic, so the world is refuted from within transcendence. Third, it also shows that clinging to the existence of transcendence is inversion, so refuting transcendence is called refuting inversion. Fourth, people of the Two Vehicles consider the Tathagata's body to be suffering and impermanent, which is called inversion. Since inversion arises in the transcendent Dharma, inversion is refuted in the transcendent. Fifth, the Tathagata's body is actually neither existent nor non-existent, but it is considered to be either existent or non-existent, which is inversion, so this inversion is now refuted. People of the Great and Small Vehicles only have two Dharmas: one is the world, and the other is transcendence. Having refuted the world, transcendence is brought up to save it. Now that transcendence has been refuted, the world is brought up again to save it. Because outsiders are people who have something to gain, their hearts cannot be without reliance and attachment. Therefore, they are cited back and forth to establish meaning. Question: In the chapter on defilement, afflictions have already been refuted, which is to refute inversions, so why refute them again now? Answer: Afflictions are difficult to refute, so they need to be refuted many times. Moreover, the previous refutation of defilement is the refutation of love, and the current refutation of inversion is the refutation of views. Because all sentient beings cannot be separated from love and views. Question: Why is inversion refuted after refuting the Tathagata? Answer: In terms of those who are deluded, there are two meanings. First, in terms of one's own practice, the Tathagata is the one who can be liberated, and inversion is the delusion to be liberated. In terms of transformation
他而言前者有如來出世。后為斷眾生煩惱。是故前破如來。次破顛倒。二若接前文生者上品末云。如來所有性即是世間性。外云。世間以煩惱為性。如來以離染為體。云何言如來是世間性耶。是故今明。顛倒不生即是如來。問云何為顛倒。答顛倒有通有別。通者一切有所得皆是顛倒。故大品云。眾生以顛倒因緣故往來六道。別而為言有三倒四倒十二倒八倒。三倒者謂想心見。毗曇云。想心非倒體。但為倒所亂故名為倒。毗婆阇婆提人言。三種皆是倒體。成實師有二釋。一云。識迷實曰心倒。想迷假曰想倒。行陰心迷前二倒成即見倒也。二云。約一體判即心為三倒體。體僻為心倒。便生異想為想倒。僻決為見倒。此三倒重品屬見惑。輕屬修惑。下品屬習氣。今龍樹意凡厥有心則是心倒。有所想念皆是想倒。凡有所見皆是見倒。問三倒生斷二時云何同異。答智度論釋隨喜品。明三倒生時異斷時異。生時前起想心後起見倒。此從輕至重。斷時前斷見后斷想心。故見倒屬見諦斷。想心屬思惟斷。四倒者謂。于生死中起常樂我凈。問四倒以何為體。答婆沙云。以慧數為體。問五見幾倒幾非倒。答婆沙云。二見半是倒。我見中有我我所。我見是我倒。我所見非我倒。復有說言。我與我所合名為我倒。邊見之中有斷有常。以常見為常
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對他而言，前者如同如來出世（Tathagata's appearance in the world）。後者是爲了斷除眾生的煩惱。因此，先破斥如來，再破斥顛倒。如果聯繫前文所說眾生，上品末尾說：『如來所有的自性就是世間的自性。』而外面又說：『世間以煩惱為自性，如來以遠離染污為本體。』怎麼能說如來是世間的自性呢？因此現在說明，顛倒不生起就是如來。問：什麼是顛倒？答：顛倒有通有別。通而言之，一切有所得都是顛倒。所以《大品般若經》說：『眾生因為顛倒的因緣，所以在六道中往來。』別而言之，有三倒、四倒、十二倒、八倒。三倒是指想倒、心倒、見倒。《阿毗曇論》說：『想和心不是顛倒的本體，只是被顛倒所擾亂，所以稱為顛倒。』毗婆沙提人說：『三種都是顛倒的本體。』成實師有兩種解釋：一種認為，識迷惑了真實，叫做心倒；想迷惑了虛假，叫做想倒；行陰的心迷惑了前兩種顛倒，就形成了見倒。另一種認為，從一體的角度判斷，心就是三倒的本體。本體偏頗是心倒，因此產生不同的想法是想倒，偏頗而決斷是見倒。這三種顛倒，重品屬於見惑，輕品屬於修惑，下品屬於習氣。現在龍樹菩薩的意思是，凡是有心就是心倒，凡是有所想念都是想倒，凡是有所見都是見倒。問：三倒的生起和斷除的時間有什麼不同？答：《智度論》解釋隨喜品時，說明三倒的生起時間不同，斷除時間也不同。生起時，先起想和心，後起見倒，這是從輕到重。斷除時，先斷見，后斷想和心。所以見倒屬於見諦所斷，想和心屬於思惟所斷。四倒是指在生死中生起常、樂、我、凈的顛倒。問：四倒以什麼為本體？答：《婆沙論》說，以慧數為本體。問：五見中有幾個是顛倒，幾個不是顛倒？答：《婆沙論》說，二見半是顛倒。我見中有我與我所。我見是我倒，我所見不是我倒。還有一種說法，認為我與我所合起來叫做我倒。邊見之中有斷見和常見，以常見為常倒。
【English Translation】 English version To him, the former is like the Tathagata (Tathagata's appearance in the world). The latter is to cut off the afflictions of sentient beings. Therefore, first refute the Tathagata, and then refute the inversions. If we connect with the previous text about sentient beings, the end of the upper grade says: 'The nature of all Tathagatas is the nature of the world.' And outside it says: 'The world takes afflictions as its nature, and the Tathagata takes detachment from defilement as its essence.' How can it be said that the Tathagata is the nature of the world? Therefore, it is now explained that the non-arising of inversions is the Tathagata. Question: What are inversions? Answer: Inversions are general and specific. Generally speaking, everything that is attained is an inversion. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Sentient beings, because of the causes and conditions of inversions, go back and forth in the six realms.' Specifically speaking, there are three inversions, four inversions, twelve inversions, and eight inversions. The three inversions refer to the inversions of thought, mind, and view. The Abhidhamma says: 'Thought and mind are not the essence of inversion, but are disturbed by inversion, so they are called inversions.' The Vaibhashikas say: 'All three are the essence of inversion.' The Tattvasiddhi school has two explanations: one believes that the consciousness is deluded about reality, which is called the inversion of mind; the thought is deluded about the false, which is called the inversion of thought; the mind of the form aggregate is deluded about the first two inversions, which forms the inversion of view. The other believes that, judging from the perspective of one entity, the mind is the essence of the three inversions. The deviation of the essence is the inversion of mind, therefore the generation of different thoughts is the inversion of thought, and the deviation and decision is the inversion of view. These three inversions, the heavy grade belongs to the delusions of view, the light grade belongs to the delusions of cultivation, and the lower grade belongs to habitual tendencies. Now, Nagarjuna's (Nagarjuna) meaning is that all that have a mind are the inversion of mind, all that have thoughts are the inversion of thought, and all that have views are the inversion of view. Question: What are the differences between the arising and cessation of the three inversions? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra explains the chapter on rejoicing, explaining that the arising times of the three inversions are different, and the cessation times are also different. When arising, thought and mind arise first, and then the inversion of view arises, which is from light to heavy. When ceasing, view is ceased first, and then thought and mind are ceased. Therefore, the inversion of view belongs to what is ceased by the path of seeing, and thought and mind belong to what is ceased by the path of cultivation. The four inversions refer to the inversions of permanence, happiness, self, and purity that arise in samsara. Question: What is the essence of the four inversions? Answer: The Mahavibhasa says that the essence is the wisdom number. Question: How many of the five views are inversions, and how many are not inversions? Answer: The Mahavibhasa says that two and a half views are inversions. In the view of self, there is self and what belongs to self. The view of self is the inversion of self, and the view of what belongs to self is not the inversion of self. There is also a saying that the combination of self and what belongs to self is called the inversion of self. Among the extreme views, there are annihilationism and eternalism, with eternalism being the inversion of permanence.
倒。見取之中有獨頭足上。無樂凈計樂凈。是獨頭見取。名樂凈倒。餘二見半謂。邪見邊見中斷見惑取。此非是倒。問何故爾邪。答凡具五義方乃名倒。一是見性簡鈍使也。二緣真生。謂是迷理惑。簡迷事惑也。三果上起于苦諦上生也。四正相翻。苦諦下有苦無常理。今正翻苦諦。故計常樂我。五者是獨頭非足上。婆沙又云。具三義故名倒。一猛利性。二妄取。三同性倒。邪見斷見是猛利性非是顛倒。壞境界故戒取是猛利性及妄取非同性倒。餘二見半事具三義也。俱舍三義立倒。一增有如無我計我故也。二決定。三背境易解也。二見半具三義。餘二見半無增有也。次明十二倒。上座部及毗婆阇婆提明。四倒一一倒中具想心見。故名十二。八是見諦斷四修道斷。八見道斷者謂無常常。想倒無常見常倒。餘三亦爾。故此八屬見斷也。四屬修斷者四種心倒也。至苦忍時斷八倒盡。至金剛心斷四盡也。俱舍論更出一師云。十二種中四種見倒屬見諦斷。八屬修道斷。數人云。但見是倒。唯有四無十二倒。又但見斷非修斷。但苦諦下惑非三諦下惑也。問初二果人既無四倒。云何起染愛猶行夫婦之禮耶。答婆沙二釋。一云。起樂凈有二。一于諦理起。初二果人則無也。二於事中起則有也。次釋云。初二果人起染愛時。實起不凈苦想但
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 倒（顛倒）。在見取（錯誤的見解）之中，只有『獨頭足上』（獨立的、不依賴於其他因素的）『無樂凈計樂凈』（沒有快樂和清凈的錯誤觀念）才是獨頭見取，稱為樂凈倒（將不凈視為清凈的顛倒）。其餘的二見半，即邪見、邊見、中斷見惑取，這些不是倒（顛倒）。 問：為什麼這樣說呢？ 答：凡是具備五種意義才能稱為倒（顛倒）。一是見性簡鈍使（見解的性質是遲鈍的）。二是緣真生（以真理為對像而產生），指的是迷理惑（對真理迷惑），區別于迷事惑（對事物迷惑）。三是果上起（在果報上產生），在苦諦（苦的真理）上產生。四是正相翻（與正確的相反），苦諦的本質是苦和無常，現在正好顛倒了苦諦，所以認為常、樂、我。五是獨頭（獨立的）而非足上（依賴於其他因素的）。 《婆沙論》又說，具備三種意義才能稱為倒（顛倒）。一是猛利性（強烈的性質）。二是妄取（虛妄的執取）。三是同性倒（性質相同的顛倒）。邪見和斷見是猛利性，但不是顛倒。戒取是猛利性和妄取，但不是同性倒。其餘的二見半都具備這三種意義。 《俱舍論》用三種意義來確立倒（顛倒）。一是增有如無（增加本來沒有的，比如無我而計為我）。二是決定（確定的）。三是背境易解（背離了真相，容易理解）。二見半具備這三種意義，其餘的二見半沒有增有。 接下來闡明十二倒（十二種顛倒）。上座部和毗婆阇婆提認為，四倒（常、樂、我、凈）中的每一個都包含想、心、見，所以稱為十二倒。八種是見諦斷（見道所斷），四種是修道斷（修道所斷）。八種見道所斷指的是無常常，想倒（顛倒的想）是無常見常倒（將無常視為常的顛倒），其餘三種也是如此。所以這八種屬於見斷。四種屬於修斷的是四種心倒。到苦忍（對苦的忍耐）時，八倒全部斷盡。到金剛心（最堅固的心）時，四倒全部斷盡。 《俱舍論》又提出另一種說法，認為十二種倒中，四種見倒屬於見諦斷，八種屬於修道斷。數論者認為，只有見才是倒，只有四種倒，沒有十二倒。而且只有見斷，沒有修斷，只有苦諦下的迷惑，沒有三諦下的迷惑。 問：初果和二果的聖人既然沒有四倒，為什麼還會生起染愛，仍然行夫婦之禮呢？ 答：《婆沙論》有兩種解釋。一種說法是，生起樂凈有兩種情況。一種是對諦理（真理）生起，初果和二果的聖人沒有這種情況。另一種是對事物生起，這種情況是有的。另一種解釋是，初果和二果的聖人生起染愛時，實際上生起的是不凈苦想，但是...
【English Translation】 English version 『Dǎo』 (顛倒, Viparyāsa, meaning 'inverted' or 'perverted'). Among 『Jian Qu』 (見取, Skt. dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, meaning 'grasping at views'), only the 『Du Tou Zu Shang』 (獨頭足上, independent, not relying on other factors) 『Wu Le Jing Ji Le Jing』 (無樂凈計樂凈, absence of the erroneous conceptions of pleasure and purity) is 『Du Tou Jian Qu』 (獨頭見取, independent grasping at views), called 『Le Jing Dao』 (樂凈倒, the inversion of regarding the impure as pure). The remaining two and a half views, namely 『Xie Jian』 (邪見, false view), 『Bian Jian』 (邊見, extreme view), and 『Zhong Duan Jian Huo Qu』 (中斷見惑取, grasping at the view of annihilation), these are not 『Dao』 (顛倒, inversions). Question: Why is it said so? Answer: Generally, only when five meanings are complete can it be called 『Dao』 (顛倒, inversion). First, the nature of 『Jian Xing Jian Dun Shi』 (見性簡鈍使, the nature of view is dull). Second, 『Yuan Zhen Sheng』 (緣真生, arising from truth), referring to 『Mi Li Huo』 (迷理惑, delusion about truth), distinguishing it from 『Mi Shi Huo』 (迷事惑, delusion about things). Third, 『Guo Shang Qi』 (果上起, arising from retribution), arising on 『Ku Di』 (苦諦, the truth of suffering). Fourth, 『Zheng Xiang Fan』 (正相翻, opposite to the correct), the essence of 『Ku Di』 (苦諦, the truth of suffering) is suffering and impermanence, now it is precisely inverted, so it is considered permanent, pleasurable, and self. Fifth, it is 『Du Tou』 (獨立的, independent) and not 『Zu Shang』 (依賴於其他因素的, dependent on other factors). The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra also says that it can be called 『Dao』 (顛倒, inversion) when three meanings are complete. First, 『Meng Li Xing』 (猛利性, intense nature). Second, 『Wang Qu』 (妄取, false grasping). Third, 『Tong Xing Dao』 (同性倒, inversion of the same nature). 『Xie Jian』 (邪見, false view) and 『Duan Jian』 (斷見, annihilation view) are of intense nature, but they are not inversions. 『Jie Qu』 (戒取, grasping at precepts) is of intense nature and false grasping, but it is not an inversion of the same nature. The remaining two and a half views all possess these three meanings. The Abhidharmakośa establishes 『Dao』 (顛倒, inversion) with three meanings. First, 『Zeng You Ru Wu』 (增有如無, increasing what is not there, such as considering self where there is no self). Second, 『Jue Ding』 (決定, definite). Third, 『Bei Jing Yi Jie』 (背境易解, deviating from reality and easy to understand). The two and a half views possess these three meanings, the remaining two and a half views do not have 『Zeng You』 (增有, increasing what is not there). Next, clarify the twelve 『Dao』 (十二倒, twelve inversions). The Theravada and Vibhajyavāda schools believe that each of the four 『Dao』 (四倒, four inversions: permanence, pleasure, self, purity) contains thought, mind, and view, so it is called the twelve inversions. Eight are 『Jian Di Duan』 (見諦斷, severed by the path of seeing), and four are 『Xiu Dao Duan』 (修道斷, severed by the path of cultivation). The eight severed by the path of seeing refer to impermanence as permanence, the 『Xiang Dao』 (想倒, inversion of thought) is considering impermanence as the inversion of permanence, and the other three are also like this. So these eight belong to 『Jian Duan』 (見斷, severance by view). The four belonging to 『Xiu Duan』 (修斷, severance by cultivation) are the four inversions of mind. When reaching 『Ku Ren』 (苦忍, endurance of suffering), all eight inversions are completely severed. When reaching 『Jin Gang Xin』 (金剛心, diamond mind), all four inversions are completely severed. The Abhidharmakośa also puts forward another saying, believing that among the twelve inversions, the four inversions of view belong to 『Jian Di Duan』 (見諦斷, severance by the path of seeing), and eight belong to 『Xiu Dao Duan』 (修道斷, severance by the path of cultivation). The number theorists believe that only view is inversion, there are only four inversions, not twelve inversions. Moreover, there is only 『Jian Duan』 (見斷, severance by view), not 『Xiu Duan』 (修斷, severance by cultivation), there is only delusion under 『Ku Di』 (苦諦, the truth of suffering), not delusion under the three truths. Question: Since the saints of the first and second fruits do not have the four inversions, why do they still generate attachment and love, and still engage in marital relations? Answer: The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra has two explanations. One saying is that there are two situations for generating pleasure and purity. One is generating it towards 『Di Li』 (諦理, truth), the saints of the first and second fruits do not have this situation. The other is generating it towards things, this situation exists. Another explanation is that when the saints of the first and second fruits generate attachment and love, what actually arises is the thought of impurity and suffering, but...
不獲已而起。如婆羅門鍛指譬。孰知指不凈。但以苦痛故肉指安口中。彼亦爾也。十二倒者毗婆阇婆提云。想心見倒三為本。各起常樂我凈四成十二倒。若依雜心唯見心所起。名之為倒。如前說也。所言八倒者雜心師想心見。但起生死中常樂我凈四倒。不起后佛地苦無常四。成論師云。前後八倒皆是見惑。非思惟惑。見等中屬三使。我倒屬我見。常倒屬邊見。樂凈屬見取。常謂無常皆是有而言無。屬邪見攝。復有說云。后四倒屬無明攝。所以然者二乘之人斷見思惑。竟猶起后四倒。故知。屬無明所攝。此解應詣也。問昔外道凡夫于生死中計常等四倒。二乘之人於法身復起無常等四。凡聖合論故有八倒者。可得言二乘之人就今具八倒不。答亦具有也。以計佛地是無常故有無常等四。復執己涅槃是于常樂。此即是無常計常。所以然者。二乘涅槃實無常樂計為常樂。故有常等四倒。問二乘之人不計涅槃為我。云何有我倒耶。答我有二種。一人我二法我。雖無人我執有涅槃。即是法我。故有我倒。凡夫之人具足八倒此易知也。此品具破通別兩倒。故云破顛倒品。問云何是破通別顛倒。答此品中非但破八倒。亦破外人八行。故知。計生死常無常皆是倒。乃至四句悉是倒。即是破通倒。正破四倒等此是破別倒。問云何破顛倒耶。答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不得已才起身。好比婆羅門用牙咬疼痛的手指。誰都知道手指是不乾淨的，但因為疼痛難忍，才把帶著肉的手指放進嘴裡。他們也是這樣。十二倒，根據《毗婆沙婆提》所說，以想倒、心倒、見倒三種為根本，每一種又各自產生常、樂、我、凈四種，總共形成十二倒。如果按照《雜心論》，只有見和心所產生的才稱為倒，就像前面所說的。所說的八倒，按照《雜心論》的觀點，想倒、心倒、見倒只在生死輪迴中產生常、樂、我、凈四種顛倒，不會在成佛之後產生苦、無常四種顛倒。《成實論》的學者認為，前後的八倒都是見惑，不是思惟惑。在見惑等之中，屬於三使（貪、嗔、癡），我倒屬於我見，常倒屬於邊見，樂倒和凈倒屬於見取見。把無常的事物說成常，把沒有的說成有，屬於邪見。還有一種說法認為，后四倒屬於無明所攝。為什麼這麼說呢？因為二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）之人斷除了見思惑，最終還是會產生后四倒，所以知道它們屬於無明所攝。這種解釋應該是正確的。問：過去外道凡夫在生死輪迴中執著常等四倒，二乘之人在法身中又產生無常等四倒，凡夫和聖人合起來討論，所以有八倒。可以認為二乘之人現在也具有八倒嗎？答：也具有。因為他們認為佛的境界是無常的，所以有無常等四倒。又執著自己的涅槃是常樂的，這就是把無常的當成常。為什麼這麼說呢？因為二乘的涅槃實際上是無常的，但他們卻認為是常樂的，所以有常等四倒。問：二乘之人不認為涅槃是我，怎麼會有我倒呢？答：我有兩種，人我和法我。雖然沒有人我的執著，但執著于涅槃，這就是法我，所以有我倒。凡夫之人具足八倒，這很容易理解。這一品同時破斥了共通的顛倒和個別的顛倒，所以叫做破顛倒品。問：什麼是破共通的顛倒和個別的顛倒？答：這一品中不僅破斥了八倒，也破斥了外道的八行，所以知道，認為生死是常還是無常都是顛倒，乃至四句都是顛倒，這就是破共通的顛倒。專門破斥四倒等，這是破個別的顛倒。問：如何破顛倒呢？答：
【English Translation】 English version Compelled to rise. Like the Brahmin biting his finger. Who knows the finger is unclean? But because of the pain, he puts the fleshy finger in his mouth. It is the same for them. The twelve inversions, according to the Vibhasha-vadins, are rooted in the three inversions of perception (saṃjñā), mind (citta), and view (dṛṣṭi), each giving rise to the four qualities of permanence (nitya), pleasure (sukha), self (ātman), and purity (śubha), thus forming the twelve inversions. According to the Miscellaneous Abhidharma Heart Shastra (雜心論), only those arising from view and mind are called inversions, as mentioned earlier. The eight inversions, according to the Miscellaneous Abhidharma Heart Shastra, are that the inversions of perception, mind, and view only give rise to the four inversions of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity in the cycle of birth and death, and do not give rise to the four qualities of suffering (duḥkha), impermanence (anitya) in the Buddha-land. The scholars of the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論) believe that the eight inversions, both before and after, are all delusions of view (dṛṣṭi-kleśa), not delusions of thought (vicāra-kleśa). Among the delusions of view, they belong to the three bonds (tṛṣṇā, dveṣa, moha), the inversion of self belongs to the view of self (ātma-dṛṣṭi), the inversion of permanence belongs to the extreme view (anta-grāha-dṛṣṭi), and the inversions of pleasure and purity belong to the view of holding onto views (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa). Saying that what is impermanent is permanent, and saying that what is not exists, belongs to wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi). Some say that the latter four inversions belong to ignorance (avidyā). Why is this so? Because those of the Two Vehicles (śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha) have cut off the delusions of view and thought, but still give rise to the latter four inversions, so it is known that they belong to ignorance. This explanation should be correct. Question: In the past, ordinary non-Buddhists in the cycle of birth and death clung to the four inversions of permanence, etc., and those of the Two Vehicles in the Dharma-body give rise to the four inversions of impermanence, etc. Combining ordinary people and sages for discussion, there are eight inversions. Can it be said that those of the Two Vehicles now also possess the eight inversions? Answer: They also possess them. Because they consider the state of the Buddha to be impermanent, they have the four inversions of impermanence, etc. And they cling to their own Nirvana as permanent and pleasurable, which is taking what is impermanent as permanent. Why is this so? Because the Nirvana of the Two Vehicles is actually impermanent, but they consider it to be permanent and pleasurable, so they have the four inversions of permanence, etc. Question: Those of the Two Vehicles do not consider Nirvana to be self, so how can there be an inversion of self? Answer: There are two kinds of self: the self of person (pudgala-ātman) and the self of Dharma (dharma-ātman). Although there is no clinging to the self of person, there is clinging to Nirvana, which is the self of Dharma, so there is an inversion of self. Ordinary people possess all eight inversions, which is easy to understand. This chapter simultaneously refutes both common inversions and specific inversions, so it is called the chapter on refuting inversions. Question: What is refuting common inversions and specific inversions? Answer: This chapter not only refutes the eight inversions, but also refutes the eight practices of non-Buddhists, so it is known that considering birth and death to be permanent or impermanent are all inversions, and even the four statements are all inversions, which is refuting common inversions. Specifically refuting the four inversions, etc., this is refuting specific inversions. Question: How to refute inversions? Answer:
內外大小皆言有是顛倒。不知顛倒本性空寂。今求其顛倒不可得。即是實相。故云破顛倒品。又內外大小皆言有顛倒生。而欲滅之則顛倒不滅。今求顛倒本自不生。今亦不滅。故顛倒便滅。故名破顛倒。又外人見顛倒不顛倒二相。則是明與無明愚者謂二。若計倒不倒二。則倒與不倒皆成顛倒。今了倒不倒本無二相。則倒與不倒皆名不倒。故破顛倒。開此品者異釋云云多不中詣。今分為二。第一破煩惱顛倒生義。若煩惱性實下第二破滅顛倒煩惱義。所以開此二者大小內外皆言。前有顛倒煩惱生后修治道。斷之令滅。是故今明。煩惱本自不生。今亦不滅。又凈名經云。若須菩提不斷煩惱。亦不與俱乃可取食。與煩惱俱謂凡夫人也。斷煩惱謂二乘也。今初章求煩惱生不得釋不俱義。次章辨煩惱不滅明不斷義。普賢觀云。十方諸佛說懺悔法。不斷結使海。不住結使海。亦與此同耳。此二章即是方等大懺悔。于唸唸中能見普賢及十方佛滅重罪也。又此二章觀顛倒不生不滅即是中道發正觀也。又觀不生不滅即是法身涅槃。故無行經云。三毒是無量諸佛道也。初章又二。第一前破煩惱顛倒。如是顛倒滅下第二結破意。結破意者能如此品正觀。則煩惱顛倒畢竟永滅。異斯觀者則是邪觀。非但故惑不除。新倒更起。就初又二。初破煩惱次
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 內外大小都說有顛倒，這是顛倒的見解。卻不知顛倒的本性是空寂的。現在去尋求那顛倒，卻不可得，這就是實相。所以叫做『破顛倒品』。又內外大小都說有顛倒產生，想要滅除它，顛倒卻不能滅除。現在尋求顛倒，它本來就不生，現在也不會滅。所以顛倒就滅除了，所以叫做『破顛倒』。還有外道之人見到顛倒和不顛倒兩種相，這就是明與無明，愚笨的人認為這是二者。如果計較顛倒和不顛倒這二者，那麼顛倒和不顛倒都會變成顛倒。現在了知顛倒和不顛倒本來就沒有兩種相，那麼顛倒和不顛倒都可以稱為不顛倒。所以叫做『破顛倒』。解釋這一品的人有各種不同的說法，大多不中肯。現在分為兩部分：第一部分破除煩惱顛倒的生起之義，『若煩惱性實』；第二部分破除滅除顛倒煩惱之義。之所以這樣分，是因為大小內外都說，先前有顛倒煩惱產生，後來修治道，斷除它使之滅除。因此現在說明，煩惱本來就不生，現在也不會滅。又《維摩詰經》說：『如果須菩提不斷煩惱，也不與煩惱同在，才可以取食。』與煩惱同在說的是凡夫俗人，斷煩惱說的是二乘之人。現在第一章尋求煩惱的生起而不可得，解釋了不俱之義；下一章辨明煩惱不滅，闡明了不斷之義。《普賢觀經》說：『十方諸佛說懺悔法，不斷結使海（klesha-samudra，煩惱之海），不住結使海。』也與此相同。這兩章就是方等大懺悔，在念念之中能夠見到普賢菩薩以及十方諸佛，滅除深重的罪業。又這兩章觀察顛倒不生不滅，就是中道，發起正觀。又觀察不生不滅，就是法身涅槃。所以《無行經》說：『三毒（貪嗔癡）是無量諸佛之道。』第一章又分為兩部分：第一部分先前破除煩惱顛倒，『如是顛倒滅』；第二部分總結破除之意。總結破除之意是，能夠如此品一樣正確地觀照，那麼煩惱顛倒畢竟會永遠滅除。與這種觀照不同的，就是邪觀，非但舊的迷惑不能去除，新的顛倒還會產生。就第一部分又分為兩部分：先破除煩惱，次...
【English Translation】 English version To say that inside, outside, large, and small all have 'is' is a reversed view. They do not know that the nature of reversal is empty and still. Now, seeking that reversal, it cannot be found, which is the true reality (satya-lakshana). Therefore, it is called the 'Chapter on Destroying Reversals'. Furthermore, to say that inside, outside, large, and small all have reversals arising, and wanting to extinguish them, the reversals cannot be extinguished. Now, seeking the reversal, it originally does not arise, and now it will not be extinguished. Therefore, the reversal is extinguished, so it is called 'Destroying Reversals'. Also, outsiders see the two aspects of reversal and non-reversal, which is like light and ignorance; fools consider them as two. If one calculates reversal and non-reversal as two, then both reversal and non-reversal become reversals. Now, understanding that reversal and non-reversal originally have no two aspects, then both reversal and non-reversal can be called non-reversal. Therefore, it is called 'Destroying Reversals'. The explanations of this chapter by others are mostly not to the point. Now, it is divided into two parts: the first part destroys the meaning of the arising of afflictive reversals, 'If the nature of affliction is real'; the second part destroys the meaning of extinguishing reversed afflictions. The reason for this division is that inside, outside, large, and small all say that previously there were reversed afflictions arising, and later one cultivates the path, cutting them off to make them extinguish. Therefore, now it is clarified that afflictions originally do not arise, and now they will not be extinguished. Moreover, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'If Subhuti does not cut off afflictions, nor is he with them, then he may take food.' Being with afflictions refers to ordinary people; cutting off afflictions refers to those of the Two Vehicles (sravakas and pratyekabuddhas). Now, the first chapter seeks the arising of afflictions and cannot find it, explaining the meaning of 'not with'; the next chapter distinguishes that afflictions are not extinguished, clarifying the meaning of 'not cutting off'. The Universal Worthy Contemplation Sutra says: 'The Buddhas of the ten directions speak of the Dharma of repentance, not cutting off the sea of defilements (klesha-samudra), not dwelling in the sea of defilements.' This is also the same. These two chapters are the Great Repentance of the Vaipulya Sutras, in every moment being able to see Samantabhadra (Universal Worthy) Bodhisattva and the Buddhas of the ten directions, extinguishing heavy sins. Also, these two chapters contemplate the non-arising and non-extinguishing of reversals, which is the Middle Way, giving rise to right view. Furthermore, contemplating non-arising and non-extinguishing is the Dharma Body Nirvana. Therefore, the No-Conduct Sutra says: 'The three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion) are the path of countless Buddhas.' The first chapter is further divided into two parts: the first part initially destroys afflictive reversals, 'Thus, reversals are extinguished'; the second part concludes the meaning of destruction. The conclusion of the meaning of destruction is that if one can contemplate correctly like this chapter, then afflictive reversals will ultimately be extinguished forever. Different from this contemplation is a wrong view, not only will old delusions not be removed, but new reversals will arise. The first part is further divided into two parts: first, destroy afflictions, then...
破顛倒。所以破此二者。破煩惱則破在家起愛眾生。破顛倒則破出家起見外道。又天魔起煩惱。外道起顛倒。又鈍根眾故起于煩惱。利根眾生起于顛倒。又凡夫起于煩惱。二乘起于顛倒。問何故前破煩惱。后破顛倒。答前有在家起愛。後有出家起見。故火宅中前明毒蟲。后辨惡鬼。欲出火宅者。當依此品而觀察之。又依法華意凡有四人。一鈍根起愛眾生。不知厭不知出。二顛倒外道。知厭而不知出。三二乘人。知厭知出。但是曲出。四菩薩之人。依此品如實正觀知厭知出。名為直出。就初破煩惱開為四別。一立二破三救四破救。憶想分別者立三毒因也。生於貪恚癡所生三毒果也。凈不凈顛倒者釋上從因生果。以計凈不凈顛倒生於三毒。皆從因緣生者此明二種相生。一從憶想分別生顛倒。二從凈不凈倒生於三毒。故云皆從眾緣生。故凈名云。貪慾以顛倒為本。顛倒以想分別為本。想分別以無住為本。答中五偈。即為五別。初無自性門破。二以人例法破。三無屬破。四五求破。五以因況果破。初二。上半牒下半破。煩惱若有自體不應從因而生。若從因而生則無自性。為自性煩惱則空。經中明煩惱從因緣生。外人便謂有煩惱。論主申經意。若從因緣即是空也。第二偈以人例法破者。上偈將因顯果。此以果破果。以我見與三毒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破除顛倒。所以要破除這二者：破除煩惱，就能破除在家之人因愛慾而生的煩惱；破除顛倒，就能破除出家之人因邪見而生的外道思想。此外，天魔會引發煩惱，外道會引發顛倒。鈍根的眾生容易產生煩惱，利根的眾生容易產生顛倒。凡夫容易產生煩惱，二乘之人容易產生顛倒。有人問：為什麼先破除煩惱，后破除顛倒？回答是：因為先有在家之人因愛慾而生煩惱，後有出家之人因邪見而生顛倒。所以，在火宅之中，先說明毒蟲，后辨別惡鬼。想要出離火宅的人，應當依據此品進行觀察。此外，依據《法華經》的意旨，凡夫有四種：一是鈍根的、產生愛慾的眾生，不知厭離，也不知出離；二是顛倒的外道，知道厭離，但不知道出離；三是二乘之人，知道厭離，也知道出離，但只是曲折地出離；四是菩薩之人，依據此品如實地、正確地觀察，知道厭離，也知道出離，這叫做直接出離。就最初破除煩惱而言，可以分為四個方面：一是立論，二是破斥，三是救護，四是破斥救護。『憶想分別』是建立三毒之因。『生於貪恚癡』是三毒之果。『凈不凈顛倒』是解釋上面從因生果，因為執著于凈與不凈的顛倒，所以產生三毒。『皆從因緣生』是說明兩種相生關係：一是從憶想分別產生顛倒，二是從凈與不凈的顛倒產生三毒。所以說『皆從眾緣生』。因此，《維摩詰經》說：『貪慾以顛倒為根本，顛倒以想分別為根本，想分別以無住為根本。』回答中的五個偈頌，可以分為五個方面：一是無自性門破，二是以人為例破，三是無所屬破，四是五求破，五是以因比況果破。最初兩個偈頌，上半部分是陳述，下半部分是破斥。煩惱如果具有自體，就不應該從因而生；如果從因而生，就沒有自性。因為自性煩惱就是空。經中說明煩惱從因緣而生，外道之人就認為有煩惱。論主申明經文的含義，如果從因緣而生，那就是空。第二個偈頌是以人為例破，上面的偈頌是將因顯現果，這個偈頌是以果破果，以我見與三毒
【English Translation】 English version Breaking down the perverted views. Therefore, these two must be broken down: breaking down afflictions breaks down the afflictions arising from attachment of sentient beings at home; breaking down perverted views breaks down the heretical thoughts arising from the views of those who have left home. Furthermore, heavenly demons give rise to afflictions, and heretics give rise to perverted views. Moreover, sentient beings with dull faculties easily give rise to afflictions, while sentient beings with sharp faculties easily give rise to perverted views. Ordinary people easily give rise to afflictions, while those of the Two Vehicles easily give rise to perverted views. Someone asks: Why are afflictions broken down first, and then perverted views? The answer is: Because first there are afflictions arising from attachment of those at home, and then there are perverted views arising from the views of those who have left home. Therefore, in the burning house, poisonous insects are explained first, and then evil ghosts are distinguished. Those who wish to escape the burning house should observe according to this chapter. Furthermore, according to the meaning of the Lotus Sutra, there are four types of ordinary people: first, sentient beings with dull faculties who give rise to attachment, who do not know aversion, nor do they know escape; second, heretics with perverted views, who know aversion, but do not know escape; third, those of the Two Vehicles, who know aversion and know escape, but only escape in a roundabout way; fourth, Bodhisattvas, who, according to this chapter, truly and correctly observe, know aversion and know escape, which is called direct escape. Regarding the initial breaking down of afflictions, it can be divided into four aspects: first, establishing the argument; second, refuting; third, rescuing; and fourth, refuting the rescue. 『Recollection and discrimination』 establishes the cause of the three poisons. 『Arising from greed, hatred, and delusion』 is the fruit of the three poisons. 『Purity and impurity, perverted views』 explains the above, from cause to effect, because of attachment to the perverted views of purity and impurity, the three poisons arise. 『All arise from conditions』 explains the two types of arising: first, perverted views arise from recollection and discrimination; second, the three poisons arise from the perverted views of purity and impurity. Therefore, it is said, 『All arise from various conditions.』 Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 『Greed is rooted in perverted views, perverted views are rooted in thought and discrimination, and thought and discrimination are rooted in non-abiding.』 The five verses in the answer can be divided into five aspects: first, breaking down through the gate of no self-nature; second, breaking down by analogy with people; third, breaking down through non-belonging; fourth, breaking down through the fivefold search; and fifth, breaking down by comparing the cause to the effect. In the first two verses, the first half states the case, and the second half refutes it. If afflictions had their own nature, they should not arise from a cause; if they arise from a cause, they have no self-nature. Because afflictions with self-nature are empty. The sutra explains that afflictions arise from conditions, and heretics believe that there are afflictions. The author clarifies the meaning of the sutra, if they arise from conditions, then they are empty. The second verse breaks down by analogy with people. The verse above reveals the effect through the cause, this verse breaks down the effect through the effect, using the view of self and the three poisons.
皆是煩惱故皆是果也。所以將我例煩惱者大品多舉我例法。龍樹云。佛弟子多知無我故佛舉我為類。上半舉我有以無。下半類法亦無。我法有以無者我是有是無。前以破竟。問何處品中破我是無。答處處有文。即如來品四句求如來不可得。如來即是我也。又法品中破我如虛空。亦是破無。下半類法者我是利惑。此既是無。煩惱為鈍使云何得有。又我是根本既無。煩惱為末。以本無故末無也。又煩惱為我所。在我既無。何有我所。又我能起惑。既無我誰起惑耶。問云何是煩惱有無。答執三毒是有是無皆名煩惱。又現起煩惱名之為有。過未煩惱名之為無。亦作此計。即是煩惱也。何以故下生第三偈無屬破。上半求起煩惱人不得。下半正作無屬破。上半破起煩惱人。謂世間外道犢子及假有體用之流也。下半正作無屬破者。上半舉所依破能依。下半明有所依故有能依。所依既無能依亦無。又人是能起。惑是所起。能起既無所起亦無。犢子佛陀成實譬喻並云。人為能成就故煩惱屬人。既其無人何所屬耶。若謂雖無我下生第四偈五求破。前破煩惱不屬人破一切有我部。今五求破明煩惱不屬心破一切無我部。如曇無德僧祇毗曇等義。令此二人併成佛。又前偈破我。令外道知無我無煩惱。即悟人法二無生。令外道人聞論主語得成佛。后
破屬心。令一切小乘人及有所得大乘人悟法無生得成佛。以此論是大乘論。令一切人並乘大乘以至佛也。問何等大乘人言煩惱屬心耶。答如攝論師一切煩惱皆依本識是也。問攝論是大乘。今云何破之。答攝論明本識是依他性。即是從因緣生。因緣生無自性。即是寂滅。而攝論師云。依他性有假體。豈是解攝論耶。上半舉身見五求不得。下半類心及與煩惱。五陰名身。于中起見名為身見。若身見與五陰一陰五。身見則五陰。與身見一身見唯在行陰。則五陰皆在行陰。若身見與陰異則非陰所攝應是無為。餘三並皆是異。同異門破也。下半有二種五求。一者就垢心中五種求煩惱。即是就本求末。二就煩惱求垢心。即是就末求本。此欲明無有煩惱亦無垢心。即釋凈名經。明心空罪亦空。又即大乘人皆執。經中雲三界一心作。或云一貪心作。或云一梨耶心作。就垢心五種求煩惱者。若即垢心有煩惱者便無能屬所屬。既是一物。若是能屬便無所屬。若是所屬便無能屬。不爾非能屬亦非所屬。起義亦爾。又垢心與煩惱一斷煩惱即斷心。聖人便應無心。若不斷心亦不斷煩惱。聖人有心應有煩惱。若垢心與煩惱異離心應別有煩惱。則煩惱不惱心。亦不與心共生。又心自是心煩惱應非心法。餘三並是異。同異中破也。次就煩惱五種求垢心者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 破除執著于『心』（citta）的觀念，使一切小乘根性的人以及有所得的大乘根性的人，都能領悟到『法無生』（anuppāda）的真理，從而成就佛果。因此，此論是大乘論，旨在引導一切眾生乘坐大乘，最終到達佛的境界。 問：怎樣的大乘修行者會認為煩惱是屬於『心』的呢？ 答：比如《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）的論師，他們認為一切煩惱都依附於『本識』（ālayavijñāna）。 問：《攝大乘論》是大乘經典，現在為什麼要破斥它呢？ 答：《攝大乘論》闡明『本識』是『依他性』（paratantra-svabhāva），即是從因緣而生。因緣所生之法沒有自性，其本質是寂滅的。然而，《攝大乘論》的論師卻說，『依他性』具有虛假的自體。這難道是真正理解《攝大乘論》嗎？ 上半部分破斥『身見』（satkāya-dṛṣṭi）的五種求不得，下半部分類比破斥『心』以及煩惱。『五陰』（pañca-skandha）被稱為『身』，于其中生起執見，就稱為『身見』。如果『身見』與『五陰』是一個整體，那麼『身見』就是『五陰』，『五陰』就是『身見』。如果『身見』僅僅存在於『行陰』（saṃskāra-skandha）之中，那麼『五陰』就都存在於『行陰』之中。如果『身見』與『五陰』不同，那麼它就不應被『五陰』所包含，而應是『無為法』（asaṃskṛta-dharma）。其餘三種情況都是不同的。這是用『同異門』（ekatva-nānātva）來破斥。 下半部分有兩種五種求不得。一是就染污的『垢心』（mala-citta）中，五種尋求煩惱，這是就本求末。二是就煩惱中尋求『垢心』，這是就末求本。這旨在說明既沒有煩惱，也沒有『垢心』。這解釋了《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra），闡明『心』空則罪亦空。而且，大乘修行者都執著于經典中說的『三界唯心造』，或者說『一貪心造』，或者說『一阿賴耶識心造』。 就『垢心』五種尋求煩惱來說，如果煩惱存在於『垢心』之中，那麼就沒有能屬和所屬的關係。既然是同一事物，如果是能屬，就沒有所屬；如果是所屬，就沒有能屬。否則，就既不是能屬，也不是所屬。生起義也是如此。而且，如果『垢心』與煩惱是一個整體，那麼斷除煩惱就等於斷除『心』，聖人就應該沒有『心』。如果不斷除『心』，也就不斷除煩惱，那麼聖人有『心』就應該有煩惱。如果『垢心』與煩惱不同，那麼離開『心』就應該另外存在煩惱，那麼煩惱就不會惱亂『心』，也不會與『心』共同產生。而且，『心』本身就是『心』，煩惱就不應該是『心法』。其餘三種情況都是不同的。這是在『同異』中破斥。 接下來，就煩惱五種尋求『垢心』。
【English Translation】 English version To break the attachment to the concept of 'citta' (mind), enabling all individuals of the Hīnayāna disposition and those of the Mahāyāna disposition who have attained something, to awaken to the truth of 'anuppāda' (non-origination of phenomena), thereby achieving Buddhahood. Therefore, this treatise is a Mahāyāna treatise, aiming to guide all beings to ride the Mahāyāna vehicle and ultimately reach the state of Buddhahood. Question: What kind of Mahāyāna practitioners believe that afflictions belong to the 'citta'? Answer: For example, the teachers of the 'Mahāyānasaṃgraha' (Compendium of the Mahāyāna), who believe that all afflictions rely on the 'ālayavijñāna' (storehouse consciousness). Question: The 'Mahāyānasaṃgraha' is a Mahāyāna scripture, why is it being refuted now? Answer: The 'Mahāyānasaṃgraha' clarifies that the 'ālayavijñāna' is of 'paratantra-svabhāva' (other-dependent nature), which means it arises from conditions. That which arises from conditions has no inherent existence, and its essence is quiescence. However, the teachers of the 'Mahāyānasaṃgraha' say that 'paratantra-svabhāva' has a false entity. Is this truly understanding the 'Mahāyānasaṃgraha'? The first half refutes the five unobtainables regarding 'satkāya-dṛṣṭi' (view of self), and the second half analogously refutes the 'citta' and afflictions. The 'pañca-skandha' (five aggregates) are called 'self', and the arising of attachment within them is called 'view of self'. If the 'view of self' is one with the 'pañca-skandha', then the 'view of self' is the 'pañca-skandha', and the 'pañca-skandha' is the 'view of self'. If the 'view of self' exists only within the 'saṃskāra-skandha' (aggregate of mental formations), then the 'pañca-skandha' all exist within the 'saṃskāra-skandha'. If the 'view of self' is different from the 'pañca-skandha', then it should not be included in the 'pañca-skandha', but should be 'asaṃskṛta-dharma' (unconditioned dharma). The remaining three cases are all different. This is refuted using the 'ekatva-nānātva' (oneness and difference) approach. The second half has two types of five unobtainables. First, within the defiled 'mala-citta' (defiled mind), there are five ways of seeking afflictions, which is seeking the end from the root. Second, from afflictions, seeking the 'mala-citta', which is seeking the root from the end. This aims to illustrate that there are neither afflictions nor 'mala-citta'. This explains the 'Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra' (Vimalakīrti Sutra), clarifying that if the 'citta' is empty, then sins are also empty. Moreover, Mahāyāna practitioners are all attached to the saying in the scriptures that 'the three realms are created by the mind alone', or that 'they are created by a single greedy mind', or that 'they are created by a single ālayavijñāna mind'. Regarding the five ways of seeking afflictions within the 'mala-citta', if afflictions exist within the 'mala-citta', then there is no relationship of possessor and possessed. Since they are the same thing, if it is the possessor, then there is no possessed; if it is the possessed, then there is no possessor. Otherwise, it is neither the possessor nor the possessed. The arising of meaning is also like this. Moreover, if the 'mala-citta' and afflictions are one, then cutting off afflictions is equivalent to cutting off the 'citta', and the sages should have no 'citta'. If the 'citta' is not cut off, then afflictions are also not cut off, then the sages having 'citta' should have afflictions. If the 'mala-citta' and afflictions are different, then afflictions should exist separately from the 'citta', then afflictions will not trouble the 'citta', nor will they arise together with the 'citta'. Moreover, the 'citta' itself is the 'citta', and afflictions should not be 'citta-dharma' (mind-dharma). The remaining three cases are all different. This is refuted in 'oneness and difference'. Next, seeking the 'mala-citta' in five ways from afflictions.
。垢心與煩惱一煩惱既是行陰攝。則四心皆是行陰。無復四心。若垢心與煩惱異煩惱自垢。心應不垢。便煩惱不染心。餘三同異破。凈不凈顛倒下。第五段以因況果破。偈上半明無因自性。下半辨無有果。外謂因凈起貪因不凈起嗔。故凈不凈是三毒因。凈不凈既稱顛倒。則非實有。若是實有不名顛倒。今猶無倒因。寧有煩惱之果。問曰下第三救。此救來意有二。一者六塵是凈不凈本。凈不凈是三毒本。既有六塵寧無三毒及凈不凈。二近生者論主上以本況末。倒本無故貪瞋之末亦無。外人乘此破亦將本望末。以本有故末即有也。答曰下第四破。又開三別。第一破其六塵。第二破凈不凈倒。第三破其三毒。還破外救。救中從本至末三事也。兩偈為二。初偈明六塵體空。第二偈明六塵之中無凈不凈。兩偈並上半法說下半舉譬。取其大意者。若言對眼便是有者如炎中水。炎中實無水癡狩謂炎中有水。復謂水有凈不凈。因凈不凈生貪瞋。貪瞋生業。業故有苦。今猶無水。云何有凈不凈乃至煩惱業苦耶。釋境空有三家。一莊周明。境無定。如美色於人為美鳥見之高飛。二譬喻部明。人不成境不成。三攝論明。境亦空。而彼論文云。若經文中明空無所有者此辨分別性空。即是無境。若明幻化此明依他性。以世諦中不無此法也。今明。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『垢心』（被污染的心）與『煩惱』（精神上的困擾）是一回事嗎？如果『煩惱』屬於『行陰』（五蘊之一，指心理活動）所包含的，那麼所有四種心（指四種不同的心理狀態）都屬於『行陰』，就不再有四種心的區分了。如果『垢心』與『煩惱』不是一回事，那麼『煩惱』本身是污濁的，心不應該被污染。這樣，『煩惱』就不會沾染心。其餘三種（指其他三種心理狀態）的相同與不同之處，都可以用類似的邏輯來駁斥。接下來討論『凈』（純凈）、『不凈』（不純凈）和『顛倒』（錯誤的認知）。 第五段，用因果關係來駁斥。偈的上半部分說明沒有無因而生的自性。下半部分辨析沒有果。外道認為，因為『凈』而產生貪慾，因為『不凈』而產生嗔恨，所以『凈』和『不凈』是『三毒』（貪、嗔、癡）的根源。既然『凈』和『不凈』被稱為『顛倒』，那就不是真實存在的。如果是真實存在的，就不會被稱為『顛倒』。現在連顛倒的因都沒有，哪裡會有煩惱的果呢？ 下面是提問，這是第三次辯護。這次辯護的意圖有兩個：一是六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）是『凈』和『不凈』的根本，『凈』和『不凈』是『三毒』的根本。既然有六塵，怎麼會沒有三毒以及『凈』和『不凈』呢？二是，近生者（指持某種觀點的論者）認為，論主之前用根本來比喻末端，因為顛倒的根本不存在，所以貪嗔這些末端也不存在。外人利用這一點反駁，也用根本來推斷末端，因為根本存在，所以末端也存在。 下面是回答，這是第四次駁斥。又分為三個部分。第一，駁斥六塵。第二，駁斥『凈』和『不凈』的顛倒。第三，駁斥『三毒』。這是對外部辯護的反駁。辯護中涉及從根本到末端的三個方面。兩句偈語分為兩部分。第一句偈語說明六塵的本體是空性的。第二句偈語說明六塵之中沒有『凈』和『不凈』。兩句偈語都是上半部分說法理，下半部分舉例子。取其大意是，如果說對著眼睛就存在（六塵），就像熱焰中的水一樣。熱焰中實際上沒有水，愚癡的獵人卻認為熱焰中有水。又認為水有『凈』和『不凈』，因為『凈』和『不凈』而產生貪嗔，貪嗔產生業，因為業而有苦。現在連水都沒有，怎麼會有『凈』和『不凈』，乃至煩惱、業和苦呢？ 關於境空的解釋有三家：一是莊周認為，境沒有定性。比如美色，對人來說是美的，鳥看到就會高飛。二是譬喻部認為，人不成，境不成。三是攝論認為，境也是空的。而且那篇文章說，如果在經文中說明空無所有，這是在辨析分別性空，也就是沒有境。如果說明幻化，這是在說明依他性，因為在世俗諦中並非沒有這種法。現在說明。
【English Translation】 English version Are 『tainted mind』 (Gou Xin) and 『afflictions』 (Fan Nao) the same? If 『afflictions』 are included in 『form aggregate』 (Xing Yin) (one of the five aggregates, referring to mental activities), then all four minds (referring to four different mental states) are included in 『form aggregate』, and there would be no distinction between the four minds. If 『tainted mind』 and 『afflictions』 are not the same, then 『afflictions』 themselves are impure, and the mind should not be tainted. In this way, 『afflictions』 will not contaminate the mind. The similarities and differences of the remaining three (referring to the other three mental states) can be refuted with similar logic. Next, we will discuss 『purity』 (Jing), 『impurity』 (Bu Jing), and 『inversion』 (Dian Dao) (incorrect cognition). The fifth paragraph uses the relationship between cause and effect to refute. The first half of the verse explains that there is no self-nature that arises without a cause. The second half analyzes that there is no result. Externalists believe that greed arises from 『purity』 and hatred arises from 『impurity』, so 『purity』 and 『impurity』 are the root of the 『three poisons』 (greed, hatred, and delusion). Since 『purity』 and 『impurity』 are called 『inversion』, they are not real. If they were real, they would not be called 『inversion』. Now that there is not even the cause of inversion, how can there be the result of afflictions? The following is a question, which is the third defense. There are two intentions for this defense: First, the six sense objects (Se, Sheng, Xiang, Wei, Chu, Fa) are the root of 『purity』 and 『impurity』, and 『purity』 and 『impurity』 are the root of the 『three poisons』. Since there are six sense objects, how can there be no three poisons and 『purity』 and 『impurity』? Second, the near-born (referring to the advocate of a certain view) believes that the master previously used the root to compare the end, because the root of inversion does not exist, so the ends of greed and hatred do not exist either. Outsiders use this to refute, also using the root to infer the end, because the root exists, so the end also exists. The following is the answer, which is the fourth refutation. It is divided into three parts. First, refute the six sense objects. Second, refute the inversion of 『purity』 and 『impurity』. Third, refute the 『three poisons』. This is a refutation of the external defense. The defense involves three aspects from root to end. The two verses are divided into two parts. The first verse explains that the essence of the six sense objects is emptiness. The second verse explains that there is no 『purity』 or 『impurity』 among the six sense objects. Both verses have the upper half stating the principle and the lower half giving examples. The main idea is that if it is said that existence is present when facing the eyes (the six sense objects), it is like water in a heat haze. There is actually no water in the heat haze, but a foolish hunter thinks there is water in the heat haze. It is also thought that water has 『purity』 and 『impurity』, and greed and hatred arise from 『purity』 and 『impurity』, and karma arises from greed and hatred, and suffering arises from karma. Now that there is not even water, how can there be 『purity』 and 『impurity』, and even afflictions, karma, and suffering? There are three explanations for the emptiness of objects: First, Zhuang Zhou believes that objects have no fixed nature. For example, beauty is beautiful to humans, but birds will fly away when they see it. Second, the Sautrantika school believes that if humans do not exist, objects do not exist. Third, the Samgraha-sastra believes that objects are also empty. Moreover, that article says that if the sutras state that everything is empty, this is to distinguish the emptiness of discrimination, that is, there are no objects. If it explains illusion, this is to explain dependent nature, because there is no such dharma in conventional truth. Now explain.
此是一往破境耳。今論正將幻化喻境。故明。心境俱是幻化有。俱是第一義空也。長行雲。未與心和合時空無所有者。法之有無不假於心。而今未合既無。合豈有耶。此大意觀此論及楞伽經有二種意。一者從此想心謂有前境。實非有也。二者以從妄心生前境。故前境復誑惑於心。此二即是心生境境生心。但原本從妄心生。實無前境也。想心謂有前境。實非有也。不因於凈相下第二兩偈破凈不凈。並就無自性門破之。初偈破不凈。次偈破凈也。若無有凈者下第三一偈次破三毒。問曰經說下第二次破顛倒。前立次破。立中有三。初立倒不倒法。有顛倒故下第二立起顛倒之人。立起前四倒是凡夫人。起后四倒是二乘人。既有能起之人。必有所起之倒。何以言都無下第三呵論主。問何故但立前四倒不立后四耶。答一以前例后。二者此中所立正是小乘人義。小乘人但計前四是倒。后四為不倒。故但立前四。問若爾此品稱破顛倒。但應破前四倒不破后倒。答就文實爾。但破前倒以前例后故亦破后倒。又此品名破顛倒者。明外人倒與不倒皆成顛倒。所以然者。外謂無常見常名為顛倒。無常見無常名不顛倒。今明無此倒與不倒。故知。倒與不倒皆是顛倒也。昔倒與不倒既並是倒。今倒不倒亦並是倒。故成十六倒也。又計生死常無常亦常
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這只是一種破除境界的方法。現在討論的是以幻化的比喻來說明境界，所以要明白心和境都是幻化而有的，都是第一義空（Paramārtha-śūnyatā）的。長行中說：『在（妄）心未與（外）境和合時，（外）境空無所有』，意思是法的有無不依賴於心。現在（妄心與外境）未和合時，（外境）既然沒有，那麼和合后又怎麼會有呢？ 這個大意可以從這部論以及《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）中看到兩種意思：一是從此想心認為有前境，但實際上並非真有；二是以從妄心生出前境，所以前境又反過來誑惑於心。這兩種情況就是心生境，境生心。但根本上是從妄心生起，實際上並沒有前境。想心認為有前境，但實際上並非真有。 『不因於凈相』下第二部分的兩首偈頌破斥凈與不凈，並且就無自性（niḥsvabhāva）的方面來破斥。第一首偈頌破斥不凈，第二首偈頌破斥凈。 『若無有凈者』下第三部分的一首偈頌接著破斥三毒（貪嗔癡）。問：經中說……下第二部分破斥顛倒。前面立論，後面破斥。立論中有三點：一是建立顛倒與不顛倒的法。『有顛倒故』下第二點是建立生起顛倒的人。建立生起前四種顛倒的是凡夫，生起后四種顛倒的是二乘人。 既然有能生起顛倒的人，必定有所生起的顛倒。『何以言都無』下第三點是呵斥論主。問：為什麼隻立前四種顛倒而不立后四種呢？答：一是以前面的例子來推論後面的；二是這裡所立的正是小乘人的觀點。小乘人只認為前四種是顛倒，后四種是不顛倒，所以隻立前四種。 問：如果這樣，這一品名為破顛倒，就應該只破前四種顛倒，而不破后四種顛倒。答：就文句來說確實如此，但破前四種顛倒，就可以用前面的例子來推論後面的，所以也破了后四種顛倒。而且這一品名為破顛倒，是說明外人認為的顛倒與不顛倒，實際上都是顛倒。為什麼這樣說呢？外人認為無常見常名為顛倒，無常見無常名不顛倒。現在說明沒有這種顛倒與不顛倒，所以知道顛倒與不顛倒都是顛倒。 以前的顛倒與不顛倒既然都是顛倒，現在的顛倒與不顛倒也都是顛倒，所以就成了十六種顛倒。又認為生死是常還是無常，也都是常。
【English Translation】 English version This is merely one way to break through the realm. Now, we are discussing the realm using the analogy of illusion, hence clarifying that both mind and realm are illusory and empty in the ultimate sense (Paramārtha-śūnyatā). The prose section states: 'When the (deluded) mind has not yet merged with the (external) realm, the (external) realm is completely empty.' This means that the existence or non-existence of phenomena does not depend on the mind. Since it does not exist when (the deluded mind and external realm) have not merged, how could it exist after merging? The main idea is that in this treatise and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, there are two meanings: First, from this thinking mind, it is assumed that there is a prior realm, but in reality, it is not truly there. Second, because the prior realm arises from the deluded mind, the prior realm in turn deludes the mind. These two situations are the mind giving rise to the realm, and the realm giving rise to the mind. But fundamentally, it arises from the deluded mind, and in reality, there is no prior realm. The thinking mind assumes that there is a prior realm, but in reality, it is not truly there. The second part, starting with 'Not because of pure appearances,' refutes purity and impurity in two verses, and refutes them from the aspect of no self-nature (niḥsvabhāva). The first verse refutes impurity, and the second verse refutes purity. The third part, starting with 'If there is no purity,' then refutes the three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion) in one verse. Question: The sutra says... The second part refutes the inversions. First, there is the establishment, and then the refutation. There are three points in the establishment: First, establishing the dharmas of inversion and non-inversion. 'Because there are inversions,' the second point is establishing the people who give rise to inversions. It is established that ordinary people give rise to the first four inversions, and those of the Two Vehicles give rise to the last four inversions. Since there are people who can give rise to inversions, there must be inversions that are given rise to. 'Why say there are none at all,' the third point is scolding the author of the treatise. Question: Why only establish the first four inversions and not the last four? Answer: First, the later ones are inferred from the earlier examples; second, what is established here is precisely the view of the Small Vehicle. The Small Vehicle only considers the first four to be inversions and the last four to be non-inversions, so only the first four are established. Question: If that is the case, this chapter is called 'Refuting Inversions,' so it should only refute the first four inversions and not the last four. Answer: In terms of the text, that is indeed the case, but by refuting the first four inversions, the later ones can be inferred from the earlier examples, so the last four inversions are also refuted. Moreover, this chapter is called 'Refuting Inversions' to clarify that what outsiders consider to be inversion and non-inversion are actually all inversions. Why is this so? Outsiders consider seeing permanence in impermanence to be called inversion, and seeing impermanence in impermanence to be called non-inversion. Now it is clarified that there is no such inversion or non-inversion, so it is known that both inversion and non-inversion are inversions. Since the past inversion and non-inversion are both inversions, the present inversion and non-inversion are also both inversions, so they become sixteen inversions. Furthermore, considering whether birth and death are permanent or impermanent is also permanent.
無常非常非無常。四句皆倒。我樂凈亦四。則生死有十六倒。佛地亦十六合。三十二倒。一句中皆有想心見。計之可知。問小乘人亦破四倒。與今何異。答小乘明。所計倒法是無。能計之心為有。今明。能計同所計。所計既無。能計亦爾。是故異也。答曰下九偈三門。初四偈性空門破倒不倒。次三偈就三時門破倒不倒。后兩偈實不實門破倒不倒。初是空門。次是有門。后是依名門。就初四偈即四。第一偈破倒。次破不倒。第三破著。第四總結破。初偈上半牒下半破。性空門者即是實相異名。實相法中絕於四句。寧有常法名為倒耶。此即是就道理明無也。又有二種小乘人。一不信法空。小乘人言有顛倒體。二析法空小乘人不知顛倒本性空。今破二小乘人申大乘義。故明顛倒本性空。又令前二小乘人回小入大。故明本性空也。第二偈亦上半牒下半破。第三偈所以破著者前兩偈上半並云。于無常著常無常著無常。此則是由著故有倒不倒耳。空中無有此倒不倒也。外人便云。既由著有倒不倒。便應有著。故復破之。又外謂論主實有無常。但遣人著心故破無常耳。是故今明。都無有著何所遣耶。又前破倒不倒此是破末煩惱。著是取相。取相是根本煩惱。故次破本也。偈為三。上半牒外義。第三句破。第四句呵責。可著是常無常境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無常是非常，也非無常。這四句話都顛倒了。我、樂、凈也同樣有四種顛倒。那麼，在生死輪迴中，就有十六種顛倒。在佛的境界中，也有十六種符合正道的認知。加起來總共有三十二種顛倒。每一句話中都包含想、心、見。仔細推算就可以知道。有人問：小乘修行人也破除四種顛倒，這和現在所說的有什麼不同？回答：小乘修行人明白，他們所執著的顛倒之法是虛無的，但能執著的心是真實存在的。而現在所說的是，能執著的心和所執著的法都是虛無的。所執著的法既然是虛無的，能執著的心也是如此。所以兩者是不同的。回答說，下面的九個偈頌分為三個部分。最初的四個偈頌從性空的角度破除顛倒和不顛倒。接下來的三個偈頌從三時的角度破除顛倒和不顛倒。最後的兩個偈頌從真實和不真實的角度破除顛倒和不顛倒。最初的是空門，其次是有門，最後是依名門。就最初的四個偈頌來說，可以分為四個部分。第一個偈頌破除顛倒，第二個偈頌破除不顛倒，第三個偈頌破除執著，第四個偈頌總結破除。第一個偈頌的上半部分是引述，下半部分是破斥。性空門就是實相的另一種說法。實相之法超越了四種分別，哪裡會有常法可以稱為顛倒呢？這就是從道理上說明沒有顛倒。另外有兩種小乘修行人。一種是不相信法空的，他們認為顛倒的本體是存在的。另一種是分析法空的，他們不知道顛倒的本性是空性的。現在破斥這兩種小乘修行人的觀點，闡述大乘的義理，所以說明顛倒的本性是空性的。又爲了讓之前的兩種小乘修行人回小向大，所以說明本性空。第二個偈頌也是上半部分是引述，下半部分是破斥。第三個偈頌說明為什麼要破除執著，因為前兩個偈頌的上半部分都說：『對於無常執著為常，對於無常執著為無常。』這都是因為執著才會有顛倒和不顛倒。在空性中，沒有這種顛倒和不顛倒。外道就說：『既然因為執著才會有顛倒和不顛倒，那就應該有執著。』所以再次破斥這種觀點。外道認為論主實際上認為無常是存在的，只是爲了讓人放下執著的心才破斥無常。所以現在說明，根本沒有可以執著的東西，又有什麼可以放下呢？之前破除顛倒和不顛倒，這是破除末端的煩惱。執著是取相，取相是根本的煩惱，所以接著破除根本的煩惱。偈頌分為三個部分。上半部分引述外道的觀點，第三句破斥，第四句呵責。可以執著的，是常還是無常的境界呢？
【English Translation】 English version 'Impermanence is permanent' and 'Impermanence is not impermanent' are both inverted statements. The same applies to 'I', 'joy', and 'purity', each having four inversions. Thus, in the cycle of birth and death, there are sixteen inversions. In the realm of the Buddha, there are also sixteen corresponding correct perceptions. Combined, there are thirty-two inversions. Each statement contains thought, mind, and view. Calculation reveals this. Someone asks: 'The Hinayana practitioners also break the four inversions. How is this different from what is being said now?' The answer is: 'Hinayana practitioners understand that the inverted dharmas they cling to are unreal, but the mind that clings is real. Now, it is clarified that both the clinging mind and the clung-to dharmas are unreal. Since the clung-to dharmas are unreal, so is the clinging mind. Therefore, they are different.' The answer continues with nine verses in three sections. The first four verses, from the perspective of emptiness of nature (性空, xìng kōng), break down inversion and non-inversion. The next three verses, from the perspective of the three times (三時, sān shí), break down inversion and non-inversion. The last two verses, from the perspective of reality and unreality, break down inversion and non-inversion. The first is the gate of emptiness (空門, kōng mén), the second is the gate of existence (有門, yǒu mén), and the last is the gate of reliance on names (依名門, yī míng mén). Considering the first four verses, they can be divided into four parts. The first verse breaks down inversion, the second breaks down non-inversion, the third breaks down attachment, and the fourth summarizes the breakdown. The first verse's first half quotes, and the second half refutes. The gate of emptiness of nature is another name for true reality (實相, shí xiàng). In the dharma of true reality, which transcends the four statements, how can there be a permanent dharma called inversion? This explains the absence of inversion from the perspective of reason. There are also two types of Hinayana practitioners. One does not believe in the emptiness of dharmas, claiming that the substance of inversion exists. The other analyzes the emptiness of dharmas but does not know that the inherent nature of inversion is emptiness. Now, these two types of Hinayana practitioners are refuted to expound the meaning of Mahayana, clarifying that the inherent nature of inversion is emptiness. Furthermore, to guide the previous two types of Hinayana practitioners from small to great, the inherent nature of emptiness is clarified. The second verse also has the first half quoting and the second half refuting. The third verse explains why attachment is broken down because the first halves of the previous two verses both say: 'Attaching to permanence in impermanence, attaching to impermanence in impermanence.' It is because of attachment that there is inversion and non-inversion. In emptiness, there is no such inversion and non-inversion. Outsiders then say: 'Since inversion and non-inversion arise from attachment, there should be attachment.' Therefore, this view is refuted again. Outsiders believe that the author actually considers impermanence to exist but refutes impermanence only to make people let go of the clinging mind. Therefore, it is now clarified that there is nothing to cling to at all, so what is there to let go of? Previously, inversion and non-inversion were broken down, which is breaking down the end of afflictions. Attachment is grasping at characteristics, and grasping at characteristics is the root of afflictions. Therefore, the root is broken down next. The verse is divided into three parts. The first half quotes the outsider's view, the third line refutes, and the fourth line rebukes. What can be clung to, is it the realm of permanence or impermanence?
。著是取相煩惱。著者是起著之人。所用著法是諸根也。長行指如來品中寂滅相中無常無常等四偈也。若無有著法下第四偈結破。就偈為二。初三句結上三章。第四句呵責。若無有著法逐近結第三章。言邪是顛倒結第一章。言正不顛倒結第二章也。有倒不生倒下第二三時門破。上來就性空門無倒不倒。今就有法中亦無倒不倒。故空之與有二處求倒畢竟無從。又前是奪破今是縱開。三偈二章。初二偈就三時門破倒生義。次一偈破倒不生義。破倒生即是破倒。破倒不生破于不倒。故上性空門破倒不倒。今三時門亦破倒不倒。又生無生並皆破。則知。生無生皆倒。倒是無而謂有。正道未曾生無生。而計生無生故並皆是倒也。初二偈為兩。一行半正破。次半行呵責。初又二。一偈就已未二門明法與人無有倒義。次半偈明倒時亦無人法兩倒。若將此文望去來品則有五句。謂法三人二。法三者已去未去去時。人二者去者不去者。將此五破倒人倒法。亦有五也。然此得作已未。復得是有無。有無者本有顛倒不須復生。本無不可生。已未者已倒倒事已息。未倒則未起于倒也。上半有無門破法倒不生。下半已未門破人倒不生也。以此問迷悟義。為迷者迷為悟者迷。若迷者迷則是迷迷。又若爾應悟者悟。非是迷者悟耳。今迷者既悟亦應悟者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：執著于相是產生煩惱的原因。執著者是指那些產生執著的人。所執著的法是指諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。長行指《如來品》中寂滅相中的『無常無常』等四句偈頌。如果不存在執著之法，那麼就用第四句偈頌來總結破斥。就偈頌本身而言，分為兩部分。前三句總結了前三章的內容，第四句進行呵責。如果不存在執著之法，就緊接著總結第三章的內容。說『邪』是顛倒，總結第一章的內容。說『正，不顛倒』，總結第二章的內容。『有倒不生倒』，以下用第二、第三時門來破斥。之前是從性空門的角度來說無倒無不倒，現在從有法的角度來說，也沒有倒也沒有不倒。所以，空和有這兩個方面都去尋求『倒』，最終都是找不到的。而且，之前是奪破，現在是縱開。三句偈頌分為兩章。前兩句偈頌就三時門來破斥倒的產生之義，后一句偈頌破斥倒的不產生之義。破斥倒的產生，就是破斥倒本身。破斥倒的不產生，就是破斥不倒。所以，之前的性空門破斥倒和不倒，現在三時門也破斥倒和不倒。而且，生和無生都被破斥，那麼就知道，生和無生都是倒。倒是指沒有而認為是有的。正道從未產生過生和無生，卻計較生和無生，所以都是顛倒。前兩句偈頌分為兩部分，前一行半是正面破斥，後半行是呵責。正面破斥又分為兩部分，一句偈頌就已、未二門來說明法和人都沒有顛倒之義，後半句偈頌說明顛倒之時也沒有人和法的兩種顛倒。如果將這段文字與《去來品》相比，則有五句，即法三種，人兩種。法三種是指已去、未去、去時。人兩種是指去者、不去者。用這五種來破斥倒人、倒法，也有五種。然而，這裡可以理解為已、未，也可以理解為有、無。有無是指本來就有顛倒，不需要再次產生；本來沒有，則不可能產生。已未是指已經顛倒，顛倒之事已經停止；未顛倒，則未產生顛倒。上半部分用有無門來破斥法倒的不產生，下半部分用已未門來破斥人倒的不產生。用這個來詢問迷悟之義，是迷惑者迷惑，還是覺悟者迷惑？如果是迷惑者迷惑，那就是迷迷。又如果這樣，應該是覺悟者覺悟，而不是迷惑者覺悟。現在迷惑者既然覺悟，也應該是覺悟者... 以此問迷悟義。為迷者迷為悟者迷。若迷者迷則是迷迷。又若爾應悟者悟。非是迷者悟耳。今迷者既悟亦應悟者
【English Translation】 English version: Clinging to appearances is the cause of afflictions. Those who cling are the ones who give rise to clinging. The dharmas (phenomena) clung to are the six sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). The prose section refers to the four verses in the 'Nirvana' section of the 'Tathagata Chapter,' such as 'impermanent, impermanent.' If there is no dharma to cling to, then the fourth verse is used to conclude the refutation. Regarding the verses themselves, they are divided into two parts. The first three verses summarize the content of the previous three chapters, and the fourth verse is a rebuke. If there is no dharma to cling to, then it closely summarizes the content of the third chapter. Saying 'wrong' is inversion, summarizing the content of the first chapter. Saying 'right, not inverted' summarizes the content of the second chapter. 'Having inversion does not produce inversion,' below, the second and third time gates are used to refute. Previously, from the perspective of emptiness, there was no inversion or non-inversion. Now, from the perspective of existing dharmas, there is also no inversion or non-inversion. Therefore, seeking 'inversion' in both emptiness and existence ultimately yields nothing. Moreover, previously it was destructive refutation, now it is permissive opening. The three verses are divided into two chapters. The first two verses use the three time gates to refute the meaning of the arising of inversion, and the last verse refutes the meaning of the non-arising of inversion. Refuting the arising of inversion is refuting inversion itself. Refuting the non-arising of inversion is refuting non-inversion. Therefore, the previous emptiness gate refuted inversion and non-inversion, and now the three time gates also refute inversion and non-inversion. Moreover, both arising and non-arising are refuted, so it is known that both arising and non-arising are inversion. Inversion is considering what is not to be as existing. The right path has never produced arising or non-arising, yet it is concerned with arising and non-arising, so both are inversion. The first two verses are divided into two parts, the first one and a half lines are direct refutation, and the last half line is a rebuke. The direct refutation is further divided into two parts, one verse uses the past and future gates to explain that neither dharma nor person has the meaning of inversion, and the last half verse explains that even at the time of inversion, there is no inversion of both person and dharma. If this passage is compared to the 'Going and Coming Chapter,' then there are five sentences, namely three types of dharma and two types of person. The three types of dharma are past going, future going, and the time of going. The two types of person are the one who goes and the one who does not go. Using these five to refute the inverted person and inverted dharma, there are also five types. However, here it can be understood as past and future, or it can be understood as existence and non-existence. Existence and non-existence mean that there is originally inversion, so there is no need to arise again; if there is originally nothing, then it is impossible to arise. Past and future mean that if there has already been inversion, the matter of inversion has ceased; if there has not been inversion, then inversion has not arisen. The first half uses the existence and non-existence gate to refute the non-arising of dharma inversion, and the second half uses the past and future gate to refute the non-arising of person inversion. Using this to inquire about the meaning of delusion and enlightenment, is it the deluded who are deluded, or the enlightened who are deluded? If it is the deluded who are deluded, then it is delusion upon delusion. And if so, it should be the enlightened who are enlightened, not the deluded who are enlightened. Now that the deluded have become enlightened, it should also be the enlightened... Using this to ask about the meaning of delusion and enlightenment: Is it the deluded who are deluded, or the enlightened who are deluded? If the deluded are deluded, then it is delusion upon delusion. And if so, it should be the enlightened who are enlightened, not the deluded who are enlightened. Now that the deluded have become enlightened, the enlightened should also...
而迷。若悟者迷佛悟者應起迷。不可答也。文並易見。諸顛倒不生下第二破倒無生。若遠而為言通從上空有二門求倒不得。外人便謂倒是無生。若就別但從上三世門中求倒生不得。便謂無生故復破之。上半破倒法不生。下半破倒人不生。一師明。生滅無生滅二種煩惱。以生滅是虛妄為客煩惱。無生滅是根本舊煩惱。故上來破生滅煩惱。今破無生煩惱。又前借無生破生。生是病無生是藥。但外人執無生藥覆成病故須破之。又前破倒生滅破凡夫二乘人。以凡夫謂倒生二乘言倒滅。今破倒不生破大乘人。大乘人言倒不生故。今此三人並皆改迷。悉入大乘得成佛也。上破無生法。即破無生境及無生智。下破無生行人。如大品云。不見菩薩不見波若乃是行波若。今亦爾也。若常樂我凈第三依名破倒不倒。所以稱依名破者既名顛倒。云何有實。若是實有何名顛倒。故云依名破。初偈就倒破倒。第二偈就倒破不倒。初偈如文。長行從若謂下生。第二偈外人意云。四倒既無則四行應有。以有無是相待法故。偈本正破。汝以倒無故不倒是有。是有無相待者亦倒不倒相待。本有倒故可有不倒。無倒可待何有不倒。如是顛倒滅下自上以來第一段破煩惱顛倒。今第二章總釋破意。以能如上正觀煩惱顛倒則畢竟永滅。異斯觀者則不滅也。就文為二
【現代漢語翻譯】 而迷惑。如果覺悟的人迷惑，那麼佛覺悟的人也應該產生迷惑。這是無法回答的。文字都很容易理解。諸顛倒不生，下面第二部分是破除認為顛倒無生的觀點。如果從遠處來說，可以從空有二門來尋求顛倒，但都找不到。外人就認為顛倒是無生的。如果就具體情況而言，只從三世門中尋求顛倒，也找不到生，就認為無生，所以再次破除這種觀點。上半部分破除顛倒法不生，下半部分破除顛倒人不生。一師認為，有生滅和無生滅兩種煩惱。因為生滅是虛妄的，是客塵煩惱，而無生滅是根本的舊煩惱。所以前面破除生滅煩惱，現在破除無生煩惱。而且前面是借用無生來破除生，生是病，無生是藥。但是外人執著于無生這種藥，反而成了病，所以需要破除它。另外，前面破除倒生滅，是破除凡夫和二乘人。因為凡夫認為顛倒是生起的，二乘人認為顛倒是滅去的。現在破除倒不生，是破除大乘人。大乘人認為顛倒不生起。現在這三種人都改變了迷惑，全部進入大乘，得以成佛。上面破除無生法，也就是破除無生境和無生智。下面破除無生行人。如《大品般若經》所說：『不見菩薩，不見般若，才是行般若。』現在也是這樣。如果常樂我凈，第三部分是依名破除倒與不倒。之所以稱為依名破，是因為既然名為顛倒，怎麼會有真實存在？如果是真實存在，又怎麼能稱為顛倒？所以說是依名破。第一個偈頌是就顛倒破顛倒，第二個偈頌是就顛倒破不顛倒。第一個偈頌如文字所示。長行從『若謂』開始。第二個偈頌是外人的意思，認為既然四倒沒有了，那麼四行就應該存在，因為有和無是相對待的法。偈頌的本意是破除這種觀點。你認為因為倒沒有了，所以不倒就存在。但是有和無是相對待的，倒和不倒也是相對待的。本來有倒，所以可以有不倒。如果沒有倒可以相對待，哪裡來的不倒？像這樣顛倒滅盡，從上面以來是第一段，破除煩惱顛倒。現在第二章總的解釋破除的意義。如果能夠像上面那樣正確地觀察煩惱顛倒，那麼就能徹底地永遠滅除。如果不是這樣觀察，就不能滅除。就文義來說，分為兩部分。
【English Translation】 and are deluded. If an enlightened one is deluded, then the enlightened Buddha should also arise with delusion. This is unanswerable. The text is easy to understand. The 'non-arising of all inversions,' the second part below, refutes the view that inversions are without arising. If speaking from a distance, one can seek inversions from the two gates of emptiness and existence, but they cannot be found. Outsiders then claim that inversions are without arising. If speaking specifically, only seeking inversions from the three periods of time, arising cannot be found, and they claim non-arising, so this view is refuted again. The first half refutes the non-arising of inverted dharmas, and the second half refutes the non-arising of inverted people. One teacher believes that there are two kinds of afflictions: arising and ceasing, and non-arising and non-ceasing. Because arising and ceasing are false, they are guest afflictions, while non-arising and non-ceasing are fundamental old afflictions. Therefore, the previous section refuted arising and ceasing afflictions, and this section refutes non-arising afflictions. Moreover, the previous section borrowed non-arising to refute arising. Arising is the disease, and non-arising is the medicine. However, outsiders cling to the medicine of non-arising, which then becomes a disease, so it must be refuted. In addition, the previous section refuted the arising and ceasing of inversions, refuting ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles. Because ordinary people believe that inversions arise, and those of the Two Vehicles say that inversions cease. Now, refuting the non-arising of inversions refutes those of the Mahayana. Those of the Mahayana say that inversions do not arise. Now, all three of these people change their delusions, all enter the Mahayana, and are able to become Buddhas. The above refutes the non-arising dharma, which is to refute the non-arising realm and the non-arising wisdom. The below refutes the non-arising practitioner. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Not seeing the Bodhisattva, not seeing Prajna, is truly practicing Prajna.' It is the same now. If 'permanence, bliss, self, and purity,' the third part relies on names to refute inversion and non-inversion. The reason it is called relying on names to refute is that since it is called inversion, how can there be a real existence? If it is a real existence, how can it be called inversion? Therefore, it is said to rely on names to refute. The first verse refutes inversion based on inversion, and the second verse refutes non-inversion based on inversion. The first verse is as the text shows. The prose begins with 'If it is said.' The second verse is the meaning of outsiders, who believe that since the four inversions are gone, then the four correct perceptions should exist, because existence and non-existence are relative dharmas. The meaning of the verse is to refute this view. You think that because inversion is gone, therefore non-inversion exists. But existence and non-existence are relative, and inversion and non-inversion are also relative. Originally there was inversion, so there can be non-inversion. If there is no inversion to be relative to, where does non-inversion come from? Like this, the extinction of inversions, from above is the first section, refuting afflictive inversions. Now the second chapter explains the meaning of the refutation in general. If one can correctly observe afflictive inversions as above, then they can be completely and eternally extinguished. If one does not observe in this way, then they cannot be extinguished. In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts.
。初句逐近結顛倒滅。下三句結第一章明煩惱滅。煩惱顛倒既滅則十二緣河傾。佛性河滿。異斯觀者則佛性河傾。因緣河滿。若煩惱性實下自上以來第一破外人煩惱顛倒生義。今第二章破外人修治道斷煩惱義。大小內外有所得人于煩惱中有二種過。一者不知煩惱本自不生。而橫謂有生。二者復興治道欲滅此煩惱。則是于顛倒中更復起倒。是故前章明煩惱本自不生。今此一章辨今無所滅。不生不滅即是正觀。煩惱方滅耳。若逐近生此一章者上云。如是顛倒滅。外便謂有煩惱可滅。是故次破其滅。兩偈為二。初破性實煩惱不可滅。第二破假名煩惱則無所滅。一切煩惱不出性假。又初破煩惱屬人明不可滅。次破煩惱無人可屬。亦不得滅。又初破小乘人煩惱明不可滅。次破大乘煩惱明無所滅。皆上半牒下半破。文易知也。問若爾經云。一念相應慧斷煩惱及習。今云何言無斷。答若言有所斷則煩惱不斷。今此中求斷不可得。則煩惱便斷也。又見有煩惱修治道斷之。非唯煩惱不斷。于煩惱上更起能所病。謂有治道為能斷。煩惱是所斷。今悟煩惱性空則二病俱息也。
中觀論疏卷第九(末終) 大正藏第 42 冊 No. 1824 中觀論疏
中觀論疏卷第十(本)
釋吉藏撰
四諦品第二十四
所以有此品來者有所得心必有依著。前二十一品立世間人法。論主求之無從。仍舉出世如來證有世間。次求出世如來不得。便舉世間顛倒證有出世。上品求世間顛倒不得。外云。若爾應都無世出世。今實有四諦。則應有世與出世。故苦集二諦則是世間。滅道二諦名出世間。是故不應無世出世。今觀四諦不可得。則成前非世出世義。既非世出世即是中道。故因中發觀戲論此滅。二者外云。顛倒是如來所離。四諦是如來所證。亦是如來所說。如來一期出世初后不同同明四諦。故初教轉四諦法輪。乃至涅槃明心喜之說。所以初后皆明四諦者。四諦是迷悟之本。迷之則六道紛然。悟之則有三乘賢聖。是故始終皆明四諦。若爾不應無世出世。三近從顛倒品生者。顛倒是能迷之惑。四諦是所迷之境。以見四諦則破四倒。故前求能障無從。今責所迷不得。故有此品。但四諦有二種。一有量。二無量。三界苦果名苦諦。感三界苦業煩惱名集諦。無為涅槃名滅諦。治此煩惱名道諦。此有量也。釋有量四諦諸小乘論師不同。毗婆沙云。毗曇者說五盛陰苦名苦諦。有漏因是集諦。數滅是滅諦。學無學是道諦。譬喻部云。名色是苦諦。結業是集諦。結業滅是滅諦。止及觀是道諦。鞞婆阇婆提云。八苦是苦是苦諦。余苦雖苦非苦諦。感當來愛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所以，有這一品的原因是，如果有所得之心，必定會有所依賴執著。前面的二十一品確立了世間人法。論主尋求卻無從獲得。於是提出出世的如來，來證明世間的存在。接著尋求出世的如來也找不到，便提出世間的顛倒，來證明出世的存在。上一品尋求世間的顛倒也找不到。外人說：『如果這樣，那麼應該完全沒有世間和出世間了。』但現在確實有四諦，那麼就應該有世間和出世間。所以，苦諦和集諦就是世間，滅諦和道諦就叫做做出世間。因此，不應該沒有世間和出世間。現在觀察四諦卻不可得，那就成了前面所說的非世間非出世間的意義。既然非世間非出世間，那就是中道。所以，因為對中道生起觀察，戲論因此而滅。第二，外人說：顛倒是如來所捨棄的，四諦是如來所證悟的，也是如來所宣說的。如來一生出世，開始和最後都同樣闡明四諦。所以最初的教法是轉四諦法輪，乃至涅槃時宣說心喜之說。之所以從始至終都闡明四諦，是因為四諦是迷惑和覺悟的根本。迷惑了，就會有六道輪迴的紛亂；覺悟了，就會有三乘賢聖。所以始終都闡明四諦。如果這樣，就不應該沒有世間和出世間。 第三，（這一品）緊接著從顛倒品產生的原因是，顛倒是能夠迷惑人的惑，四諦是所迷惑的境界。因為見到四諦，就能破除四種顛倒。所以前面尋求能障礙的（顛倒）無從獲得，現在責難所迷惑的（四諦）也不可得。所以才有了這一品。但是四諦有兩種，一種是有量的，一種是無量的。三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的苦果叫做苦諦，感生三界苦果的業和煩惱叫做集諦，無為涅槃叫做滅諦，對治這些煩惱叫做道諦。這是有量的四諦。解釋有量的四諦，各個小乘論師的說法不同。《毗婆沙論》說：『《毗曇》的學者說，五盛陰的苦叫做苦諦，有漏的因是集諦，數滅是滅諦，有學和無學是道諦。』譬喻部的學者說：『名色是苦諦，結業是集諦，結業滅是滅諦，止和觀是道諦。』《鞞婆阇婆提》說：『八苦是苦，是苦諦，其餘的苦雖然是苦，但不是苦諦。感生當來的愛……』
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the reason for this chapter is that if there is a mind of attainment, there must be reliance and attachment. The previous twenty-one chapters established the worldly human laws. The author sought them but could not find them. So, he brought up the world-transcending Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) to prove the existence of the world. Then, seeking the world-transcending Tathagata also could not be found, so he brought up the worldly inversions to prove the existence of the world-transcending. The previous chapter sought the worldly inversions but could not find them. Outsiders said: 'If so, then there should be no world or world-transcendence at all.' But now there are indeed the Four Noble Truths (四諦), so there should be the world and world-transcendence. Therefore, the Truth of Suffering (苦諦, Dukkha) and the Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering (集諦, Samudaya) are the world, and the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (滅諦, Nirodha) and the Truth of the Path to the Cessation of Suffering (道諦, Magga) are called world-transcendence. Therefore, there should not be no world or world-transcendence. Now, observing the Four Noble Truths but finding them unattainable, then it becomes the meaning of neither world nor world-transcendence as mentioned earlier. Since it is neither world nor world-transcendence, that is the Middle Way (中道). Therefore, because of arising observation of the Middle Way, discursive thoughts are extinguished. Second, outsiders say: the inversions are what the Tathagata has abandoned, the Four Noble Truths are what the Tathagata has realized, and are also what the Tathagata has proclaimed. The Tathagata's appearance in the world throughout his life, from beginning to end, equally elucidated the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, the initial teaching was the turning of the Wheel of the Four Noble Truths (四諦法輪), and even at Nirvana (涅槃), the teaching of the joy of the mind was proclaimed. The reason why the Four Noble Truths are elucidated from beginning to end is that the Four Noble Truths are the root of delusion and enlightenment. If one is deluded, there will be the chaos of the six realms of existence; if one is enlightened, there will be the sages of the Three Vehicles. Therefore, the Four Noble Truths are elucidated from beginning to end. If so, there should not be no world or world-transcendence. Third, the reason why (this chapter) closely follows the chapter on inversions is that inversions are the delusions that can delude people, and the Four Noble Truths are the objects of delusion. Because seeing the Four Noble Truths, one can break the four inversions. Therefore, previously seeking the (inversions) that can obstruct but finding them unattainable, now criticizing the (Four Noble Truths) that are the objects of delusion but also finding them unattainable. That is why there is this chapter. But there are two kinds of Four Noble Truths, one is finite, and one is infinite. The suffering results of the Three Realms (三界, Trailokya) are called the Truth of Suffering, the karma and afflictions that cause the suffering results of the Three Realms are called the Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering, unconditioned Nirvana is called the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering, and the means to cure these afflictions is called the Truth of the Path to the Cessation of Suffering. These are the finite Four Noble Truths. Explaining the finite Four Noble Truths, the various Hinayana (小乘) teachers have different views. The Vibhasa (毗婆沙論) says: 'The scholars of the Abhidhamma (毗曇) say that the suffering of the five aggregates (五盛陰) is called the Truth of Suffering, the defiled causes are the Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering, cessation by discrimination is the Truth of Cessation, and the stages of learning and no-more-learning are the Truth of the Path.' The scholars of the Sautrantika (譬喻部) say: 'Name and form (名色) are the Truth of Suffering, the karma of bondage is the Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering, the cessation of the karma of bondage is the Truth of Cessation, and cessation and contemplation are the Truth of the Path.' The Vibhajyavada (鞞婆阇婆提) says: 'The eight sufferings are suffering, and are the Truth of Suffering, the remaining sufferings, although suffering, are not the Truth of Suffering. The love that causes future existence...'
是集諦。余愛及余有漏法雖是集非集諦。當來有愛儘是滅是滅諦。余愛及余有漏法盡非盡諦。八正是道是道諦。余學法及一切無學法非道諦。問四諦攝法盡不。答虛空及非數滅此非四諦攝。欣厭立四諦。彼非厭故非苦集。非可欣故非滅道。又此二無漏故非苦集。是無記故非滅道。又因果立四諦。彼非因果故非諦。問云何名諦。答二義。一者實是苦。二生不顛倒解故名諦。問云何名聖諦。答聖人所解。故名聖諦。又昔有凡夫與聖人諍諦。凡夫云。有常樂我凈。聖人云。無共至佛所決之。佛云。如聖人所知。以聖人諍得此諦故云聖諦。數論但解有量。而義不同。數明苦通三聚。成論但是心。論苦通漏無漏。數但有漏也。數集通三聚。成論但取業煩惱。數因集有緣酬前是果。生后為因。但能生義屬集。所生是苦。成論即此能生亦是苦報。毒蛇之瞋即是報法名苦諦也。數但取煩惱滅為滅諦。無漏法滅非滅諦。成論明無漏滅亦是滅諦也。數明方便道中永伏諸結是非數滅。成論明五方便中滅亦是滅諦也。數明一切無漏行是道諦。不取相似。成論明真似皆道諦也。數明無被導法義。成論明有被導之心。次無量四諦者二生死為苦。五住為集。滅二死五住為滅。治此五住惑真解為道諦也。而量無量複名作無作者。有量之後猶有所作。如分
段苦后更有變易苦可觀。名為有作。變易苦后無復余苦可觀。故名無作。餘三亦爾。今言破四諦者。一破學大乘人謂四諦是無。二者破小乘人謂四諦是性有。此大小攝一切迷盡。今破此二人所解。故云破四諦。所以然者。大乘人撥無四諦。是壞佛四諦義。小乘人計性有亦壞四諦。又有二人壞四諦義。一者謂。論主執空故壞四諦。二者自執性有故壞四諦。此二並是小乘人。而謂有他破之與自立。故成二種。今破此二事。故云破四諦也又顯此二人並不解佛大小義。小乘人不解佛因緣有成性有。大乘人不解佛大乘空成邪空。既迷大小俱惑二諦。論主明慧內充慈風外扇。救濟此大小乘人。故破彼兩迷明無如此空有。故云非空非有即是中實。中實者實無如此有無也。即申佛因緣有無。方是假名。假名故有中道。如下云。亦是假名。亦是中道。又破此大小。明無如此大小。是中實方是因緣假名大小。即是假名因此大小令識道未曾大小也。又觀論始末意從因緣品至四諦之前。外人執有難論主。此品初外人執空難論主。初執有難顯外人不識空。今執空難明外人不識有。即迷二諦也。亦是初執小乘難論主。今執大乘難論主。顯外人不識大小。又初已來執性有難論主。顯外人不識因緣有今執邪空難論主。顯外人不識正空。論主憐愍如此迷倒
。是故破此空有明畢竟無如此空有。后申因緣二諦空有也。又顯外人上來執有難論主。不依空難難不成難。今執空難論主取空相。難難亦不成難。執定性空有難不成難。執定性空有答不成答。問何故就此品顯外人空有俱破四諦。答自論初以來。單破世間或單破出世。但四諦既總攝世間出世間。為佛法大宗。故就此品顯外人空有俱破四諦。問論主有四諦不耶。答論主不曾有四。亦不曾無四亦四不四非四非不四。故法品云。諸法實相者心行言語斷也。問論主既不曾有四不四。何故佛經說有四諦。答雖非四不四為眾生方便說四不四。故下偈云。諸佛依二諦為眾生說法。大品云。二諦中眾生雖不可得。菩薩住二諦中為眾生說法。論釋云。為著有者說空。爲著空者說有。今亦爾。為著有四者說無有四。爲著無四者明有四諦。至論諸法未曾四不四也。品開為二。第一外人過論主執空為共。第二論主破外人執有為共。蓋是寄外人以破空見。息執教者之斷心。就論主破有除謂情之常見。四諦既是佛法之大宗。具攝世出世法。故就此品破斷常見。顯示中道令因中發觀也。就外人過論主中又開為二。一長行二偈。長行可有二義。一者生起從顛倒品。次有四諦品所由。二者將欲過論主空。故前立有四諦義。就偈為二。第一過論主無四諦三寶無
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，要破除這種空和有，就必須徹底明白空和有都不是最終的實相。後面會進一步闡述因緣和二諦（Two Truths）的空和有。此外，這也顯示了外道之人一直以來執著于『有』來為難論主（Nagarjuna）。如果不依據『空』的觀點來辯論，就無法構成真正的辯難。現在，如果執著于『空』來為難論主，這種辯難也同樣無法成立。執著於事物具有固定不變的自性（定性）的『空』或『有』來進行辯論，都無法構成有效的辯難，同樣，以此來回答也無法構成有效的回答。有人問：為什麼在此品中要對外道之人所執著的『空』和『有』都加以破斥，並且涉及四聖諦（Four Noble Truths）？回答是：從本論一開始，要麼單獨破斥世俗的觀點，要麼單獨破斥出世間的觀點。但四聖諦總攝了世間和出世間的一切，是佛法最重要的宗旨，所以在此品中對外道之人所執著的『空』和『有』都加以破斥，並且涉及四聖諦。有人問：論主是否承認四聖諦的存在？回答是：論主既不認為存在四聖諦，也不認為不存在四聖諦，既不是『四』，也不是『非四』，既不是『非四』，也不是『非不四』。所以《法品》中說：『諸法的實相是心行和言語都斷絕的境界。』有人問：論主既然不認為存在四聖諦或不存在四聖諦，為什麼佛經中又說有四聖諦？回答是：雖然諸法並非四聖諦或非四聖諦，但爲了方便教化眾生，所以才說有四聖諦或非四聖諦。所以下面的偈頌說：『諸佛依二諦（Two Truths）為眾生說法。』《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）中說：『在二諦中，眾生雖然不可得，但菩薩安住於二諦中為眾生說法。』論釋中說：『為執著于『有』的人說『空』，為執著于『空』的人說『有』。』現在也是這樣，為執著于『有四聖諦』的人說『沒有四聖諦』，為執著于『沒有四聖諦』的人說明『有四聖諦』。但從究竟的意義上來說，諸法從未曾是四聖諦或非四聖諦。這一品可以分為兩部分：第一部分是外道之人指責論主執著于『空』的觀點，第二部分是論主破斥外道之人執著于『有』的觀點。這實際上是借外道之人的觀點來破除對『空』的執著，止息那些執著于教義的人的斷滅心。就論主破斥『有』的觀點來說，是爲了消除那些認為事物具有永恒不變的常見。四聖諦是佛法最重要的宗旨，總攝了世間和出世間的一切，所以在此品中破斥斷見和常見，顯示中道，使修行者在因地就能生起觀智。在外道之人指責論主的部分，又可以分為兩部分：一是長行，二是偈頌。長行可以有兩種含義：一是說明從《顛倒品》到《四諦品》的緣起，二是說明爲了駁斥論主的『空』的觀點，所以先確立『有四諦』的觀點。就偈頌來說，又可以分為兩部分：第一部分是駁斥論主沒有四聖諦和三寶（Three Jewels）的觀點。
【English Translation】 Therefore, to refute this 'emptiness' and 'existence', one must thoroughly understand that neither emptiness nor existence is the ultimate reality. Later, the conditions and the emptiness and existence of the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) will be further elaborated. Furthermore, this shows that the outsiders have been clinging to 'existence' to challenge the proponent (Nagarjuna). If one does not rely on the view of 'emptiness' to argue, a true challenge cannot be formed. Now, if one clings to 'emptiness' to challenge the proponent, this challenge also cannot be established. Clinging to the 'emptiness' or 'existence' of things with fixed inherent nature (svabhava) to argue cannot constitute a valid challenge, and similarly, answering with this cannot constitute a valid answer. Someone asks: Why in this chapter are the 'emptiness' and 'existence' clung to by outsiders refuted, and the Four Noble Truths (Arya-satya) are involved? The answer is: From the beginning of this treatise, either worldly views are refuted alone, or supramundane views are refuted alone. However, the Four Noble Truths encompass everything worldly and supramundane, and are the most important tenet of Buddhism, so in this chapter, the 'emptiness' and 'existence' clung to by outsiders are refuted, and the Four Noble Truths are involved. Someone asks: Does the proponent acknowledge the existence of the Four Noble Truths? The answer is: The proponent neither believes that the Four Noble Truths exist, nor believes that they do not exist; it is neither 'four' nor 'not four', neither 'not four' nor 'not not four'. Therefore, the Chapter on Dharma says: 'The true nature of all dharmas is the state where mental activity and speech are cut off.' Someone asks: Since the proponent does not believe that the Four Noble Truths exist or do not exist, why do the Buddhist scriptures say that there are Four Noble Truths? The answer is: Although dharmas are neither the Four Noble Truths nor not the Four Noble Truths, for the sake of conveniently teaching sentient beings, it is said that there are the Four Noble Truths or not the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, the following verse says: 'The Buddhas rely on the Two Truths (Satya-dvaya) to teach sentient beings.' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'In the Two Truths, although sentient beings are unobtainable, Bodhisattvas abide in the Two Truths to teach sentient beings.' The commentary says: 'For those who cling to 'existence', emptiness is taught; for those who cling to 'emptiness', existence is taught.' It is the same now, for those who cling to 'there are Four Noble Truths', it is said 'there are no Four Noble Truths'; for those who cling to 'there are no Four Noble Truths', it is explained that 'there are Four Noble Truths'. But from the ultimate meaning, dharmas have never been the Four Noble Truths or not the Four Noble Truths. This chapter can be divided into two parts: The first part is the outsiders accusing the proponent of clinging to the view of 'emptiness', and the second part is the proponent refuting the outsiders' clinging to the view of 'existence'. This is actually borrowing the views of outsiders to refute the clinging to 'emptiness', and to stop the mind of annihilation of those who cling to the teachings. As for the proponent refuting the view of 'existence', it is to eliminate the common view that things have eternal and unchanging nature. The Four Noble Truths are the most important tenet of Buddhism, encompassing everything worldly and supramundane, so in this chapter, the views of annihilation and permanence are refuted, the Middle Way is shown, and practitioners can generate wisdom in the causal stage. In the part where the outsiders accuse the proponent, it can be divided into two parts: one is the prose, and the other is the verses. The prose can have two meanings: one is to explain the origin from the Chapter on Inversions to the Chapter on the Four Truths, and the other is to explain that in order to refute the proponent's view of 'emptiness', the view of 'there are Four Truths' is established first. As for the verses, it can be divided into two parts: the first part is to refute the proponent's view that there are no Four Noble Truths and Three Jewels (Tri-ratna).
出世法。第二過論主無因果罪福無世間法。初又二。前半行牒論主執空。如是則無有下。第二為論主生過。又開二別。初明無四諦。次明無三寶。以無生故則無苦集。以苦是所生集為能生故也。以無滅故則無滅道。道諦能滅。滅至滅諦。既其無滅。何有滅道。以無四諦故下第二明無三寶。又開二別。初別明無三寶。次半行總結無三。別明無三即為三別。就無僧寶中又開為二。初兩偈別明無僧。次半偈總結無僧。兩偈為二。初偈明無四行。次偈辨無向果。文並易見。又初一偈無四諦境。次一偈無四諦智。第三偈去明無僧寶。此解好宜依之。后論主還外人過。亦作此別之。空法壞因果下。第二過論主執空失因果罪福。問前已明無四諦。三寶總破世出世因果。今何故復說。答凡有三義。一者上來明執空之人。無佛趣鹿園所說四諦三寶。訖至雙林之教。今明無佛初成道。為提謂等說人天因果罪福。故執空之人備破五乘教也。二者上明無內法因果罪福。今明無外法因果罪福。謂世間仁義禮智等。三者上來明無罪福境。今明無有罪福三寶。四諦是罪福之境。信之則生福。謗之則招罪也。答中三十四偈。大開為三。第一十三行明外人迷空。汝上所說空法有過者下第二破外人著有。若無有空下第三二行誡勸。誡令舍定性空勸學于因緣。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 出世法。第二過論主認為沒有因果罪福，也沒有世間法。首先又分為兩部分。前半部分是依照論主的執空觀點。『如是則無有』以下，第二部分是為論主產生過失。又分為兩個小部分。首先闡明沒有四諦（苦、集、滅、道）。其次闡明沒有三寶（佛、法、僧）。因為沒有生，所以沒有苦和集。因為苦是所生，集是能生。因為沒有滅，所以沒有滅和道。道諦能夠滅除，滅至滅諦。既然沒有滅，哪裡會有滅道。『以無四諦故』以下，第二部分闡明沒有三寶。又分為兩個小部分。首先分別闡明沒有三寶，其次用半行總結沒有三寶。分別闡明沒有三寶，即分為三個小部分。在沒有僧寶中又分為兩個小部分。最初兩偈分別闡明沒有四行（四種修行階位，指聲聞乘的四向四果）。其次半偈總結沒有僧寶。兩偈分為兩部分。初偈闡明沒有四行，次偈辨別沒有向果。文義都很容易理解。又，初一偈沒有四諦之境，次一偈沒有四諦之智。第三偈闡明沒有僧寶。這個解釋很好，應該依從。後面論主反駁外人的過失，也作這樣的區分。『空法壞因果』以下，第二過失是論主執著空而失去因果罪福。問：前面已經闡明沒有四諦，三寶總破世間和出世間的因果。現在為什麼還要再說？答：總共有三種意義。一是上面闡明執著空的人，沒有佛在鹿野苑所說的四諦三寶，直到雙林（佛陀涅槃之地）的教誨。現在闡明沒有佛初次成道，為提謂等人說人天因果罪福。所以執著空的人全面破斥五乘（人天乘、聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘、佛乘）的教義。二是上面闡明沒有內法（佛法）的因果罪福，現在闡明沒有外法（世間法）的因果罪福，指世間的仁義禮智等。三是上面闡明沒有罪福之境，現在闡明沒有罪福三寶。四諦是罪福之境，相信它就產生福，誹謗它就招致罪。答覆中三十四偈，大體分為三部分。第一十三行闡明外人迷惑于空。『汝上所說空法有過者』以下，第二部分是駁斥外人執著于有。『若無有空』以下，第三部分是兩行誡勸。告誡要捨棄定性空，勸導要學習因緣。
【English Translation】 English version The transcendental dharma. The second fault is that the proponent argues there is no cause and effect, no merit or demerit, and no mundane dharma. The first part is further divided into two. The first half follows the proponent's adherence to emptiness. 'If this is the case, then there is no...' The second part points out the faults arising from the proponent's view. This is further divided into two sub-parts. First, it clarifies the absence of the Four Noble Truths (Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha, Magga). Second, it clarifies the absence of the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). Because there is no arising, there is no suffering (Dukkha) and origin (Samudaya), as suffering is what arises and origin is the cause of arising. Because there is no cessation (Nirodha), there is no cessation and path (Magga). The path (Magga) is what leads to cessation, reaching the truth of cessation (Nirodha). Since there is no cessation, how can there be a path to cessation? 'Because there are no Four Noble Truths...' The second part clarifies the absence of the Three Jewels. This is further divided into two sub-parts. First, it separately clarifies the absence of the Three Jewels; second, it summarizes the absence of the three in half a line. Separately clarifying the absence of the Three Jewels is divided into three sub-parts. Within the absence of the Sangha Jewel, it is further divided into two sub-parts. The first two verses separately clarify the absence of the four ranks (four stages of realization, referring to the four paths and four fruits of the Sravaka vehicle). The next half-verse summarizes the absence of the Sangha. The two verses are divided into two parts. The first verse clarifies the absence of the four ranks, and the second verse distinguishes the absence of the path and fruit. The meaning is easily understood. Also, the first verse lacks the object of the Four Noble Truths, and the second verse lacks the wisdom of the Four Noble Truths. The third verse clarifies the absence of the Sangha Jewel. This explanation is good and should be followed. Later, the proponent refutes the faults of the outsider, also making this distinction. 'The empty dharma destroys cause and effect...' The second fault is that the proponent clings to emptiness and loses the merit, demerit, and cause and effect. Question: Earlier, it was clarified that there are no Four Noble Truths, and the Three Jewels completely negate mundane and transcendental cause and effect. Why is it being discussed again now? Answer: There are three meanings in total. First, the above clarifies that those who cling to emptiness do not have the Four Noble Truths and Three Jewels taught by the Buddha in Sarnath, up to the teachings in Kushinagar (the place of Buddha's Parinirvana). Now it clarifies that there is no Buddha who initially attained enlightenment, teaching the cause and effect of humans and gods, merit and demerit, to Trapusa and Bhallika and others. Therefore, those who cling to emptiness completely refute the teachings of the five vehicles (human-deva vehicle, Sravaka vehicle, Pratyekabuddha vehicle, Bodhisattva vehicle, Buddha vehicle). Second, the above clarifies the absence of cause and effect, merit and demerit of the inner dharma (Buddhadharma), and now it clarifies the absence of cause and effect, merit and demerit of the outer dharma (mundane dharma), referring to worldly benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, etc. Third, the above clarifies the absence of the object of merit and demerit, and now it clarifies the absence of the Three Jewels of merit and demerit. The Four Noble Truths are the object of merit and demerit; believing in them generates merit, and slandering them invites demerit. In the reply, the thirty-four verses are broadly divided into three parts. The first thirteen lines clarify that outsiders are deluded by emptiness. 'Those who say that the empty dharma you mentioned above has faults...' The second part refutes the outsiders' clinging to existence. 'If there is no emptiness...' The third part is two lines of admonishment and encouragement. Admonishing to abandon fixed emptiness and encouraging to learn about dependent origination.
就初又二。第一明外人迷空橫生邪難。汝謂我著空下第二明論主悟空是故無失。二章各四。初章四者第一明外人不解三法橫生疑難。第二明外人不識二法故橫生邪難。第三敘外人不解一法故橫生邪難。第四以不解上三門。封執定性一法。障佛不得早說大乘。問何故敘外人不知三法。答凡欲答外問必須識是問非問。今敘外人不解三法。橫生疑問則不成問。即是答問也。初明不知三法者。一不知空。小乘人雖得人空。執諸法是有不知本性空也。二空因緣者。謂說空之意佛為治有病。是故說空。若復著空佛所不化。三空義者外人不解安處此空。佛說第一義為空。不言世諦亦空。汝不應聞空謂失因果罪福。故因緣品云。若都畢竟空云何有罪福報應等。如是則無二諦。又空義者說空為明不空。故下云。空亦復空。汝封執取空相故不知空義。諸佛依二諦下。第二明外人不解二法。故興邪難也。以不知有宛然而無所有。故不知第一義。不知雖無所有宛然而有。故不識世諦。是以興上邪難也。問外人何時失二諦耶。答從論初至四諦之前。執諸法有實性不信畢竟空。故不知第一義。從四諦品執畢竟空。謂無三寶四諦。不識世諦又敘說二諦。來還釋成上三法。上云不知空者。不知第一義本性空也。空因緣者。諸佛住二諦中。為眾生說法。為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 就初又二。第一，闡明外人迷惑于空性，橫生邪見和困難。你認為我執著于空性。第二，闡明論主悟空性，因此沒有過失。這兩章各分四部分。第一章的四部分是：第一，闡明外人不理解三法（三乘佛法），因而橫生疑問和困難。第二，闡明外人不認識二法（二諦），所以橫生邪見和困難。第三，敘述外人不理解一法（一實相），因而橫生邪見和困難。第四，因為不理解以上三門，固執地認為存在永恒不變的法性，阻礙佛陀過早宣說大乘佛法。 問：為什麼敘述外人不知道三法？ 答：凡是想要回答外人的提問，必須先辨別這是不是一個合理的問題。現在敘述外人不理解三法，橫生疑問，這些疑問本身不成問題，這就是對問題的回答。首先闡明不理解三法：一是不知空性（śūnyatā）。小乘修行者雖然證悟了人空（pudgala-śūnyatā），但執著于諸法實有，不知道其本性是空。二是空性的因緣。佛陀宣說空性的目的是爲了對治有病的執著，如果反而執著于空性，就無法被佛陀度化。三是空性的意義。外人不理解如何安住于空性。佛陀所說的第一義諦（paramārtha-satya）是空性，但並沒有說世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）也是空性。你不應該因為聽到空性就認為失去了因果報應和罪福。所以《因緣品》中說：『如果一切都畢竟空，怎麼會有罪福報應等？』這樣就否定了二諦。而且，空性的意義在於通過空性來闡明不空性。所以下文說：『空亦復空。』你固執地執取空相，所以不知道空性的意義。諸佛依二諦…… 第二，闡明外人不理解二法，所以產生邪見和困難。因為不知道『有宛然而無所有』，所以不理解第一義諦。不知道『雖無所有宛然而有』，所以不認識世俗諦。因此產生了上述的邪見和困難。 問：外人從什麼時候開始失去對二諦的理解？ 答：從本論開始到四諦（catvāri-ārya-satyāni）之前，他們執著于諸法實有，不相信畢竟空，所以不理解第一義諦。從四諦品開始，他們執著於畢竟空，認為沒有三寶（triratna）和四諦，不認識世俗諦。敘述二諦是爲了解釋和闡明上述的三法。上文說『不知空者』，是指不知道第一義諦的本性是空。『空因緣者』，是指諸佛安住於二諦之中，為眾生說法，爲了……
【English Translation】 English version Now, there are two aspects to this. First, it clarifies how outsiders, being deluded about emptiness, give rise to wrong views and difficulties. You claim that I am attached to emptiness. Second, it clarifies that the author understands emptiness, and therefore there is no fault. Each of these chapters is divided into four parts. The four parts of the first chapter are: First, it clarifies that outsiders, not understanding the three dharmas (three vehicles of Buddhism), give rise to doubts and difficulties. Second, it clarifies that outsiders, not recognizing the two dharmas (two truths), therefore give rise to wrong views and difficulties. Third, it narrates how outsiders, not understanding the one dharma (one reality), therefore give rise to wrong views and difficulties. Fourth, because of not understanding the above three doors, they stubbornly believe in the existence of an eternal and unchanging dharma-nature, hindering the Buddha from expounding the Mahayana teachings too early. Question: Why narrate that outsiders do not know the three dharmas? Answer: Whenever one wants to answer the questions of outsiders, one must first discern whether it is a valid question or not. Now, narrating that outsiders do not understand the three dharmas and give rise to doubts, these doubts themselves are not valid questions, which is the answer to the question. First, clarify the lack of understanding of the three dharmas: First, not knowing emptiness (śūnyatā). Although practitioners of the Small Vehicle have realized the emptiness of self (pudgala-śūnyatā), they are attached to the reality of all dharmas and do not know that their inherent nature is empty. Second, the causes and conditions of emptiness. The Buddha's purpose in expounding emptiness is to cure the disease of attachment to existence. If one becomes attached to emptiness instead, one cannot be transformed by the Buddha. Third, the meaning of emptiness. Outsiders do not understand how to abide in emptiness. The ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) spoken by the Buddha is emptiness, but it does not mean that conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) is also empty. You should not think that you have lost the retribution of cause and effect, and merit and demerit, because you have heard of emptiness. Therefore, the chapter on 'Causes and Conditions' says: 'If everything is ultimately empty, how can there be retribution of merit and demerit, etc.?' This would negate the two truths. Moreover, the meaning of emptiness lies in clarifying non-emptiness through emptiness. Therefore, the following says: 'Emptiness is also empty.' You stubbornly cling to the appearance of emptiness, so you do not know the meaning of emptiness. All Buddhas rely on the two truths... Second, it clarifies that outsiders do not understand the two dharmas, so they give rise to wrong views and difficulties. Because they do not know 'existence is clearly there but without any substance', they do not understand the ultimate truth. Because they do not know 'although there is no substance, it is clearly there', they do not recognize the conventional truth. Therefore, the above wrong views and difficulties arise. Question: When did outsiders lose their understanding of the two truths? Answer: From the beginning of this treatise to before the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni), they were attached to the reality of all dharmas and did not believe in ultimate emptiness, so they did not understand the ultimate truth. From the chapter on the Four Noble Truths, they were attached to ultimate emptiness, thinking that there were no Three Jewels (triratna) and Four Noble Truths, and did not recognize the conventional truth. Narrating the two truths is to explain and clarify the above three dharmas. The above says 'not knowing emptiness' refers to not knowing that the inherent nature of the ultimate truth is empty. 'The causes and conditions of emptiness' refers to the fact that all Buddhas abide in the two truths and expound the Dharma for sentient beings, in order to...
著有者說空。爲著空者說有。空義者正是第一義諦空。非世諦空也。又敘二諦來者外人著空失於世諦。既失世諦亦失第一義。如因緣品中敘之。今對外人無二諦。故明有二諦。所以今文述二諦也。又敘說二諦即是論主自免過。我有二諦義。第一義則空無三寶。世諦則有三寶。汝若就第一義難則成我義。若就世諦難我世諦有三寶。復何得作無三寶難耶。又敘說二諦意。上來明空者無汝所見因果等法。故言無耳。非無佛法因緣二諦也。又此品明四諦。二諦是諦之流類。故明二諦也。三偈即開為三別。初偈明論主識佛依二諦說法。故無上過。第二偈明外人不識二諦。故於空有中並皆有失。第三偈明釋疑難。初上半正明依二諦說法。下半列出二諦名。問何故云佛依二諦說法。答依世諦說法。則三寶四諦宛然不失。故無上過。即顯外人不知世諦故橫生過。以依第一義說法故。我上來明一切空。即顯外人執法有性失第一義。問云何稱依二諦義耶。答于凡聖所解空有皆實故稱二諦。依此二實而說故所說皆實。故云依二諦說也。問云何是二于諦。云何是教諦。答所依即是二于諦。以于凡聖皆是實故秤二于諦。亦是於二諦謂色未曾空有。於二解是實。故云二于諦。百論引棗㮈望菰皆不虛。智度論引無名指形有名指皆實也。能依即是教諦。
佛依此二諦為物說法。皆是誠諦之言。故稱為實也。問能依有異不。答依第一義說此是真實說。依俗說者此是方便隨宜說也。問說人天及二乘是方便說。今說大乘人法等。云何依俗說法皆是方便。答實相不可說方是真實。凡一切言說皆是方便也。問二于諦為是失為是得。答一往二于俱是得。于凡是實故於凡為得。于聖是實故於聖稱得。若以凡聖相望則凡失聖得也。問叵有凡聖皆失不。答若言一色未曾空有空有自出二情。則凡聖俱失。今文是總判凡聖。故以凡為失。以聖為得。又三句。一但失非得。謂凡於也。二但得非失。謂佛于也。如涅槃云。一切世諦若於如來即是第一義諦。三亦得亦失。即二乘之聖形凡為得。望大士為失也。講此文多有異說。慎勿信也。宜以長行為正也。下半明二諦名。而世俗稱諦者。此於世俗人是實故稱世俗諦。亦勿信人語也。第一義則有二實。一者體是諸法實相。故名為實。二于聖人了達有于實解。復是真實。世俗體非真實。但有于凡是實。故二諦實義異也。問俗但有于情為實。亦有法體實耶。答就俗之中亦有因果。不可差異。故名為實。但望第一義皆是妄謂皆是不實。亦第二偈顯得失者。外人不識空有二諦故失三利。謂自利他利共利。論主識二諦故具三利。以解第一義故生波若。了世俗故生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛陀依據這兩種真諦（二諦）為眾生說法，所說的都是真實可信的話語，所以稱之為『實』（真實）。 問：所依據的（真諦）有所不同嗎？ 答：依據第一義諦來說，這是真實之說；依據世俗諦來說，這是方便隨順時宜的說法。 問：說人天道和二乘是方便之說，現在說大乘的人法等等，為什麼依據世俗諦的說法都是方便呢？ 答：實相是不可言說的，能夠表達的都是方便。凡是所有的言說，都是方便之說。 問：對於二諦來說，是失去（失）還是得到（得）呢？ 答：一般來說，對於二者來說都是得到。對於凡夫來說是真實，所以對於凡夫來說是得到；對於聖人來說是真實，所以對於聖人來說是得到。如果以凡夫和聖人相互比較，那麼凡夫是失去，聖人是得到。 問：難道有凡夫和聖人都失去的情況嗎？ 答：如果說一種事物未曾離開空和有，或者空有自然產生兩種情狀，那麼凡夫和聖人都失去了（真諦）。現在本文是總的判斷凡夫和聖人，所以認為凡夫是失去，聖人是得到。又有三種情況：一是隻有失去而沒有得到，指的是凡夫（對於真諦）；二是隻有得到而沒有失去，指的是佛陀（對於真諦），如《涅槃經》所說：『一切世俗諦，若於如來，即是第一義諦。』三是既有得到也有失去，指的是二乘的聖者，相對於凡夫來說是得到，相對於大士（菩薩）來說是失去。 講解這段經文有很多不同的說法，不要輕易相信。應該以長行文（散文形式的經文）為準。 下半部分闡明二諦的名稱。而世俗被稱為『諦』，是因為對於世俗人來說是真實，所以稱為世俗諦。也不要輕易相信別人的說法。 第一義諦則有兩種真實：一是本體是諸法的實相，所以名為『實』；二是對於聖人來說，了達（實相）有真實的理解，又是真實。世俗諦的本體並非真實，只是對於凡夫來說是真實，所以二諦的真實意義是不同的。 問：世俗諦只是對於情識來說是真實，還是也有法體是真實的呢？ 答：在世俗諦中也有因果，不可顛倒錯亂，所以名為『實』。但是相對於第一義諦來說，都是虛妄的，都是不真實的。第二首偈頌顯示了得失，外道不認識空和有二諦，所以失去了三種利益，即自利、他利、共利。論主認識二諦，所以具足三種利益。因為理解第一義諦而生起般若（智慧），了達世俗諦而生起（慈悲）
【English Translation】 English version The Buddha relies on these two truths (Two Truths) to teach beings, and all his words are truthful, hence they are called 'real'. Question: Are the bases (truths) relied upon different? Answer: According to the first noble truth (Paramārtha-satya), this is a true statement; according to conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), this is a convenient and expedient statement. Question: Saying that the paths of humans and gods and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are expedient teachings, why are the teachings of the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle), including its people and dharmas, all expedient when based on conventional truth? Answer: The true nature (real aspect) is inexpressible, and whatever can be expressed is expedient. All speech is expedient. Question: With regard to the Two Truths, is it a loss (apāya) or a gain (adhih)? Answer: Generally speaking, both are gains. For ordinary beings, it is real, so it is a gain for ordinary beings; for sages, it is real, so it is called a gain for sages. If ordinary beings and sages are compared, then ordinary beings lose and sages gain. Question: Is it possible for both ordinary beings and sages to lose? Answer: If it is said that a phenomenon has never been apart from emptiness and existence, or that emptiness and existence naturally produce two states, then both ordinary beings and sages have lost (the truth). The present text is a general judgment of ordinary beings and sages, so it is considered that ordinary beings lose and sages gain. There are also three situations: first, only loss and no gain, referring to ordinary beings (regarding the truth); second, only gain and no loss, referring to the Buddha (regarding the truth), as the Nirvana Sutra says: 'All conventional truth, if it is with the Tathagata (如來), is the ultimate truth.' Third, there is both gain and loss, referring to the sages of the Two Vehicles, who gain relative to ordinary beings, and lose relative to the Bodhisattvas (大士). There are many different interpretations of this passage, do not easily believe them. The prose (long line text) should be taken as the standard. The second half clarifies the names of the Two Truths. That conventional truth is called 'truth' is because it is real for ordinary people, so it is called conventional truth. Do not easily believe what others say. The first noble truth (Paramārtha-satya) has two realities: first, the essence is the true nature of all dharmas, so it is called 'real'; second, for sages, understanding (the true nature) has a real understanding, which is also real. The essence of conventional truth is not real, but it is real for ordinary beings, so the real meaning of the Two Truths is different. Question: Is conventional truth only real for consciousness, or is there also a real dharma body? Answer: Within conventional truth, there is also cause and effect, which cannot be reversed or confused, so it is called 'real'. However, relative to the first noble truth (Paramārtha-satya), they are all delusions and unreal. The second verse shows gain and loss. Outsiders do not recognize the Two Truths of emptiness and existence, so they lose three benefits, namely self-benefit, other-benefit, and common benefit. The author of the treatise recognizes the Two Truths, so he possesses three benefits. Because he understands the first noble truth (Paramārtha-satya), prajna (wisdom) arises, and because he understands conventional truth, (compassion) arises.
方便。有波若方便則生三世諸佛。故凈名云。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。一切眾導師無不由是生也。自悟二諦名為自利。令他解謂他利。俱解即共利。又解第一義生實慧為自利。解世俗生方便為他利。具了為共利。問長行釋世諦何故舉本性空。答欲釋成於義。明理實性空但于凡謂有故名為諦也。又欲辨由空故有。所以釋有而舉空也。下釋第一義亦舉有釋空。賢聖了六道顛倒本性空。故於聖為實是諦。若謂一切法不生下。第三明二諦相資。若望百論釋疑故來。外人云。第一義有二實。一道理是實相故名實。二于聖人得如實解故名實。具此二實可得是諦。又佛可依之說法。以三世十方佛皆欲令人得實利故也。俗有二義故非實。一非實境。二非實解。云何名諦。佛復何故依之說法耶。問第一義二實文出何處耶。答前文云。于聖是實。此是解實。今文云。一切法本不生是第一義。此是境實。第一義既二實。世俗二不實可知也。偈上半正答問。世俗雖是二不實。但要因世俗為方便得顯第一義耳。如理雖無三要因三為方便得悟一。問云何世俗為方便耶。答一切言皆是世俗。因世俗言得無言。故以無言言為世俗。言無言為第一義也。問有幾種言耶。答有二種言。一者說世俗中言如瓶衣等。亦表第一義無言之道。故涅槃云。欲令眾生深
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：方便。有了般若（prajna，智慧）方便，就能產生過去、現在、未來三世諸佛。所以《維摩詰經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）說：『智慧是菩薩之母，方便是菩薩之父，一切眾生的導師都由此而生。』自己領悟二諦（two truths，真諦和俗諦）叫做自利，使他人理解叫做他利，共同理解就是共利。或者說，理解第一義（the ultimate truth）而生起真實的智慧是自利，理解世俗諦（conventional truth）而生起方便是利他，完全理解就是共利。問：長行解釋世俗諦，為什麼舉本性空（emptiness of inherent existence）？答：想要解釋成就這個意義，說明道理的真實本性是空，只是在凡夫看來是有的，所以叫做諦。又想要辨明因為空所以有，所以解釋有而舉空。下面解釋第一義，也舉有來解釋空。賢聖之人瞭解六道（six realms）顛倒的本性是空，所以在聖人看來是真實，是諦。如果說一切法不生等等，第三是說明二諦互相資助。如果參照《百論》（Śataśāstra）來解釋疑問，外道說：第一義有二種真實，一是道理是實相，所以名為實；二是在聖人那裡得到如實的理解，所以名為實。具備這兩種真實才可以稱為諦。而且佛可以依據它來說法，因為過去、現在、未來三世十方佛都想讓人得到真實的利益。世俗有二種意義，所以不是真實，一是非真實的境界，二是非真實的理解。憑什麼叫做諦？佛又憑什麼依據它來說法呢？問：第一義二實文出自哪裡？答：前面的文說：『在聖人看來是真實』，這是理解的真實。現在的文說：『一切法本來不生是第一義』，這是境界的真實。第一義既然有二種真實，世俗有二種不真實就可以知道了。偈頌的上半部分正面回答問題，世俗雖然是二種不真實，但是要依靠世俗作為方便才能顯現第一義。如理雖然沒有三，但要依靠三作為方便才能領悟一。問：憑什麼說世俗是方便呢？答：一切言語都是世俗，因為世俗的言語才能得到無言，所以用無言的言語作為世俗，言語和無言就是第一義。問：有幾種言語？答：有兩種言語，一是說世俗中的言語，如瓶子、衣服等，也表示第一義無言的道理。所以《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）說：想要讓眾生深刻 English version: Convenience. With prajna (wisdom) and skillful means, all Buddhas of the three times (past, present, and future) can be produced. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and skillful means are the father of Bodhisattvas. All the guides of beings are born from this.' Self-realization of the two truths (the absolute truth and the conventional truth) is called self-benefit, enabling others to understand is called benefiting others, and mutual understanding is called common benefit. Alternatively, understanding the ultimate truth and generating true wisdom is self-benefit, understanding conventional truth and generating skillful means is benefiting others, and complete understanding is common benefit. Question: In the prose explanation of conventional truth, why is emptiness of inherent existence mentioned? Answer: To explain and accomplish this meaning, to clarify that the true nature of the principle is emptiness, but it is considered to exist by ordinary people, so it is called truth. Also, to clarify that because of emptiness, there is existence, so explaining existence mentions emptiness. The following explanation of the ultimate truth also uses existence to explain emptiness. Wise and holy people understand that the inverted nature of the six realms is empty, so it is true and truth for the saints. If it is said that all dharmas are not born, etc., the third is to explain that the two truths assist each other. If we refer to the Śataśāstra to explain doubts, the heretics say: There are two kinds of truth in the ultimate truth, one is that the principle is the true form, so it is called truth; the second is that the saints get a true understanding, so it is called truth. Having these two truths can be called truth. Moreover, the Buddha can rely on it to preach the Dharma, because all the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions want people to get real benefits. There are two meanings in the mundane, so it is not true, one is the unreal realm, and the other is the unreal understanding. Why is it called truth? Why does the Buddha rely on it to preach the Dharma? Question: Where does the text of the two truths of the ultimate truth come from? Answer: The previous text says: 'It is true in the eyes of the saints', this is the truth of understanding. The current text says: 'The ultimate truth is that all dharmas are originally unborn', this is the truth of the realm. Since the ultimate truth has two truths, it can be known that the mundane has two untruths. The first half of the verse answers the question directly. Although the mundane is two untruths, it is necessary to rely on the mundane as a means to reveal the ultimate truth. Although there is no three in principle, it is necessary to rely on three as a means to realize one. Question: Why is the mundane a means? Answer: All words are mundane. Because of mundane words, one can get no words, so using the words of no words as mundane, words and no words are the ultimate truth. Question: How many kinds of words are there? Answer: There are two kinds of words, one is to say the words in the mundane, such as bottles, clothes, etc., and also to express the principle of no words in the ultimate truth. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: Wanting to make sentient beings deep
【English Translation】 English version: Convenience. With prajna (wisdom) and skillful means, all Buddhas of the three times (past, present, and future) can be produced. Therefore, the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Wisdom is the mother of Bodhisattvas, and skillful means are the father of Bodhisattvas. All the guides of beings are born from this.' Self-realization of the two truths (the absolute truth and the conventional truth) is called self-benefit, enabling others to understand is called benefiting others, and mutual understanding is called common benefit. Alternatively, understanding the ultimate truth and generating true wisdom is self-benefit, understanding conventional truth and generating skillful means is benefiting others, and complete understanding is common benefit. Question: In the prose explanation of conventional truth, why is emptiness of inherent existence mentioned? Answer: To explain and accomplish this meaning, to clarify that the true nature of the principle is emptiness, but it is considered to exist by ordinary people, so it is called truth. Also, to clarify that because of emptiness, there is existence, so explaining existence mentions emptiness. The following explanation of the ultimate truth also uses existence to explain emptiness. Wise and holy people understand that the inverted nature of the six realms is empty, so it is true and truth for the saints. If it is said that all dharmas are not born, etc., the third is to explain that the two truths assist each other. If we refer to the Śataśāstra to explain doubts, the heretics say: There are two kinds of truth in the ultimate truth, one is that the principle is the true form, so it is called truth; the second is that the saints get a true understanding, so it is called truth. Having these two truths can be called truth. Moreover, the Buddha can rely on it to preach the Dharma, because all the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions want people to get real benefits. There are two meanings in the mundane, so it is not true, one is the unreal realm, and the other is the unreal understanding. Why is it called truth? Why does the Buddha rely on it to preach the Dharma? Question: Where does the text of the two truths of the ultimate truth come from? Answer: The previous text says: 'It is true in the eyes of the saints', this is the truth of understanding. The current text says: 'The ultimate truth is that all dharmas are originally unborn', this is the truth of the realm. Since the ultimate truth has two truths, it can be known that the mundane has two untruths. The first half of the verse answers the question directly. Although the mundane is two untruths, it is necessary to rely on the mundane as a means to reveal the ultimate truth. Although there is no three in principle, it is necessary to rely on three as a means to realize one. Question: Why is the mundane a means? Answer: All words are mundane. Because of mundane words, one can get no words, so using the words of no words as mundane, words and no words are the ultimate truth. Question: How many kinds of words are there? Answer: There are two kinds of words, one is to say the words in the mundane, such as bottles, clothes, etc., and also to express the principle of no words in the ultimate truth. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra says: Wanting to make sentient beings deep
識第一義故宣說世諦耳。二者以言言于無言。即為第一義立名名為第一義。因此言欲顯無言。若不言于無言。眾生何由識理無言耶。問二言之中今用何言。答后意為正。若依百論答者俗雖具二不實。但于凡是實故稱諦也。若依今文生起此偈來者。我已知俗是凡諦。但應立聖諦。何須立凡俗諦耶。問此與舊何異。答舊是龍樹義。云何乃問與舊何異。問他亦作此釋。云何異耶。答須知。世諦雖說而未嘗言。真雖無言而教彌法界。下半云。不得第一義則不得涅槃者。亦異釋云云。今明。以見第一義生波若。滅諸煩惱故得有餘涅槃。滅報身得無餘涅槃。問涅槃與第一義何異。答不敢信人慢語。涅槃品云。亦名如法性實際涅槃。則知。涅槃是第一義異名耳。但對世故名第一義。對生死故名涅槃也。不能正觀空下。第三明有所得人不解一法。橫為生過。一法者謂一實相空也。由不善達空故自墮無三寶四諦。故為空見所害非是空義。破三寶四諦也。故失在於外人。過非是龍樹。故經云。寧起身見不惡取空。不以身見墮惡道中。世尊知是法下。第四偈明有所得人不善達前三門故。障如來初成道。不得早說大乘無所得法。上來敘外人障菩薩。不得說無所得法。今敘外人障佛。不得說無所得法。又接上文生者。上明咒術難作不如不為。今法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為認識第一義諦（Paramārtha-satya，最高的真理）的緣故，才宣說世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，相對的真理）。第二點，用言語來表達無法言說的，就是為第一義諦建立名稱，稱之為第一義諦。因此，通過言語想要彰顯無法言說的真理。如果不通過言語來表達無法言說的真理，眾生又如何能夠認識這無法言說的道理呢？ 問：這兩種言語之中，現在使用的是哪一種呢？ 答：后一種意思才是正確的。如果依照《百論》的回答，世俗諦雖然具備兩種（真實和虛妄），但對於凡夫來說是真實的，所以稱為諦。如果依照本文生起此偈頌的意義來說，我已經知道世俗諦是凡夫的真理，但應該建立聖諦（Ārya-satya），為何還要建立凡夫的世俗諦呢？ 問：這和以前的解釋有什麼不同？ 答：以前的解釋是龍樹（Nāgārjuna）的意義，怎麼反而問和以前的解釋有什麼不同呢？ 問：其他人也作這樣的解釋，有什麼不同呢？ 答：要知道，世俗諦雖然說了，但未曾真正言說；真諦雖然沒有言說，但教法遍佈法界。下半偈說：『不得第一義，則不得涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。』也是不同的解釋。現在說明，因為見到第一義諦而生起般若（Prajñā，智慧），滅除各種煩惱，所以得到有餘涅槃（Sa-upādisesa-nirvana，有餘依涅槃）；滅除報身，得到無餘涅槃（An-upādisesa-nirvana，無餘依涅槃）。 問：涅槃和第一義諦有什麼不同？ 答：不敢相信輕慢的言語。《涅槃品》說：『也名為如、法性、實際、涅槃。』由此可知，涅槃是第一義諦的異名而已。只是相對於世俗，所以名為第一義諦；相對於生死，所以名為涅槃。 『不能正觀空』以下，第三部分說明有所得的人不理解一法，反而橫生過失。一法指的是一實相空（Śūnyatā，空性）。由於不善於通達空性，所以自己墮落於無三寶（Tri-ratna，佛法僧）和四諦（Catur-āryasatya，苦集滅道）之中，所以被空見所害，而不是空性的過失。破三寶和四諦的過失在於外人，過失不是龍樹的。 所以經中說：『寧起身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，有身見），不惡取空（Dṛṣṭi，邪見）。』不以身見墮入惡道之中。 『世尊知是法』以下，第四偈說明有所得的人不善於通達前面三個法門，所以障礙如來（Tathāgata，佛）初成道時，不得早說大乘無所得法。上面敘述外人障礙菩薩（Bodhisattva，菩薩），不得說無所得法。現在敘述外人障礙佛，不得說無所得法。又接著上文來說，上面說明咒術難以成功，不如不做；現在說法。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of recognizing the Paramārtha-satya (the ultimate truth), one proclaims the Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth). Secondly, to express the inexpressible with words is to establish a name for the Paramārtha-satya, calling it Paramārtha-satya. Therefore, through words, one intends to reveal the inexpressible truth. If one does not express the inexpressible truth through words, how can sentient beings recognize this inexpressible principle? Question: Among these two kinds of speech, which one is being used now? Answer: The latter meaning is correct. If one answers according to the Śataśāstra, although the Saṃvṛti-satya possesses both (truth and falsehood), it is true for ordinary beings, so it is called satya. If, according to the meaning of this verse arising from this text, I already know that the Saṃvṛti-satya is the truth for ordinary beings, but the Ārya-satya (noble truth) should be established, why is it necessary to establish the mundane Saṃvṛti-satya? Question: What is the difference between this and the previous explanation? Answer: The previous explanation is Nāgārjuna's meaning, why do you ask what the difference is from the previous explanation? Question: Others also make this explanation, what is the difference? Answer: One should know that although the Saṃvṛti-satya is spoken, it has never been truly spoken; although the true truth is without words, the teachings pervade the Dharma realm. The second half of the verse says: 'Without attaining the Paramārtha-satya, one cannot attain Nirvana.' This is also a different explanation. Now it is explained that because of seeing the Paramārtha-satya, Prajñā (wisdom) arises, and various afflictions are extinguished, so one attains Sa-upādisesa-nirvana (Nirvana with remainder); by extinguishing the reward body, one attains An-upādisesa-nirvana (Nirvana without remainder). Question: What is the difference between Nirvana and Paramārtha-satya? Answer: I dare not believe in contemptuous words. The Nirvana Chapter says: 'It is also called tathatā, dharmatā, bhūtakoti, Nirvana.' From this, it can be known that Nirvana is just another name for Paramārtha-satya. It is only called Paramārtha-satya in relation to the mundane; it is called Nirvana in relation to birth and death. From 'Cannot rightly contemplate emptiness' onwards, the third part explains that those who have attainments do not understand one Dharma, but instead create faults. One Dharma refers to one reality of Śūnyatā (emptiness). Because they are not good at understanding emptiness, they fall into the absence of the Tri-ratna (Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and the Catur-āryasatya (Four Noble Truths: suffering, origin, cessation, path), so they are harmed by the view of emptiness, not the fault of emptiness. The fault of destroying the Three Jewels and Four Noble Truths lies with outsiders, the fault is not Nāgārjuna's. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Rather have Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self), than to wrongly grasp emptiness (Dṛṣṭi, wrong view).' One does not fall into evil paths with the view of self. From 'The World-Honored One knows this Dharma' onwards, the fourth verse explains that those who have attainments are not good at understanding the previous three Dharma gates, so they obstruct the Tathāgata (Thus Come One, Buddha) from speaking the Mahayana Dharma of non-attainment early when he first attained enlightenment. The above narrates how outsiders obstruct Bodhisattvas (enlightenment being) from speaking the Dharma of non-attainment. Now it narrates how outsiders obstruct the Buddha from speaking the Dharma of non-attainment. Furthermore, continuing from the previous text, the above explains that magical arts are difficult to succeed, so it is better not to do them; now it speaks of the Dharma.
相難說不如不說。上半正明空義甚深。如法華云。我所得智慧微妙最第一。大品亦云。我初成佛常樂默然不樂說法。下半明眾生鈍根障佛。不得早說大乘。亦如法華云。眾生諸根鈍著樂癡所盲。如斯之等類云何而可度。有人云。此論但釋波若不釋法華。蓋是不看論耳。汝謂我著空下。第二論主悟空自免過。七偈亦分為四。第一明空義無失。第二明空義為得。第三略出有過。第四引經證空為得。初又二。第一明空無失。第二明空為得。初偈上半牒下半正免過。若是邪見之空此則有過。若是二乘但空此亦有過。今是無所得空空不住空。故空有俱離。所以無失。又是不壞法說空。是故無過。第二偈上半明由空故一切法成。顯論主無過。下半明無空義一切不成。顯外人有失。問云何由空一切成耶。答前偈空亦復空。則是非空非有。今明非空非有空有得成。故云一切成。又由第一義空故有世諦。故二諦成則一切成。若無空則第一義不成。則世諦亦不成。故一切壞也。又以有空一切成者。由第一義空故生波若。由波若斷煩惱有三世佛。由佛故說世出世一切教。故長行雲。世出世皆成。汝今自有過下。第三略釋執有為過三偈為二。初偈明外人有過不自覺知回與論主。第二兩偈略出外過令外覺知。初偈上半法說。下半譬說。譬說云。乘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 相難說不如不說。（如果）爭辯（空的）相狀，不如不說。上半部分（經文）正是闡明空性的意義非常深奧。如《法華經》（妙法蓮華經）所說：『我所證得的智慧，微妙而且是最第一的。』《大品般若經》（摩訶般若波羅蜜經）也說：『我最初成佛時，常常安於寂默，不樂於說法。』下半部分說明眾生根器遲鈍，有業障遮蔽佛陀，（所以佛陀）不能早早地宣說大乘佛法。也如《法華經》所說：『眾生諸根遲鈍，被貪愛迷惑所矇蔽。像這樣的人，怎麼能夠度化呢？』有人說：『這部論只解釋《般若經》，不解釋《法華經》。』這大概是沒有讀過這部論著的緣故。『你說我執著于空』以下，是第二部分，論主悟空（Nagarjuna）自己來免除過失。七首偈頌也分為四個部分。第一部分說明空性的意義沒有過失。第二部分說明空性的意義是有所得。第三部分簡略地指出（對方）有過失。第四部分引用經文來證明空性是有所得。第一部分又分為兩個部分。第一部分說明空性沒有過失。第二部分說明空性是有所得。第一首偈頌的上半部分是概括，下半部分是正式地免除過失。如果是邪見的空，這就有過失。如果是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的但空，這也有過失。現在是無所得空，空也不執著于空，所以空和有都遠離。因此沒有過失。又是不破壞（世俗）法而說空，所以沒有過失。第二首偈頌的上半部分說明由於空性的緣故，一切法才能成立，顯示論主沒有過失。下半部分說明如果沒有空性的意義，一切法都不能成立，顯示外人有過失。問：『為什麼說由於空性，一切法才能成立呢？』答：『前一首偈頌說空也空。』這就是非空非有。現在說明非空非有，空和有才能成立。所以說一切法才能成立。又由於第一義空（Paramārtha-śūnyatā）的緣故，才有世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）。所以二諦（空和有）成立，那麼一切法才能成立。如果沒有空性，那麼第一義諦就不能成立，那麼世俗諦也不能成立，所以一切法都壞滅了。又以有空一切成來說，由第一義空故生般若（Prajna）。由般若斷煩惱有三世佛。由佛故說世出世一切教。故長行雲：『世間和出世間的一切法都能成就。』『你現在自己有過失』以下，是第三部分，簡略地解釋執著于有是過失，有三首偈頌，分為兩個部分。第一首偈頌說明外人有過失卻不自覺知，反而歸咎於論主。第二部分的兩首偈頌簡略地指出外人的過失，讓外人覺知。第一首偈頌的上半部分是法說，下半部分是譬喻說明。譬喻說明說：『乘坐（船隻）
【English Translation】 English version Arguing about the characteristics (of emptiness) is better left unsaid. The first half (of the text) precisely elucidates that the meaning of emptiness is very profound. As the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) says: 'The wisdom I have attained is subtle and the most supreme.' The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra) also says: 'When I first became a Buddha, I was always content in silence, not delighting in teaching the Dharma.' The second half explains that beings have dull faculties and are obscured by karmic obstacles, (therefore the Buddha) could not proclaim the Mahayana Dharma early on. As the Lotus Sutra also says: 'Beings' faculties are dull, blinded by attachment and delusion. How can such beings be saved?' Someone says: 'This treatise only explains the Prajna Sutra, not the Lotus Sutra.' This is probably because they have not read this treatise. 'You say I am attached to emptiness' below, is the second part, where the author Nagarjuna (Nagarjuna) himself exonerates himself from fault. The seven verses are also divided into four parts. The first part explains that the meaning of emptiness has no fault. The second part explains that the meaning of emptiness is something to be attained. The third part briefly points out (the opponent's) faults. The fourth part quotes scriptures to prove that emptiness is something to be attained. The first part is further divided into two parts. The first part explains that emptiness has no fault. The second part explains that emptiness is something to be attained. The first verse's first half is a summary, and the second half is a formal exoneration. If it is a heretical view of emptiness, then there is fault. If it is the emptiness of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), then there is also fault. Now it is the emptiness of non-attainment, where emptiness is not attached to emptiness, so both emptiness and existence are distanced. Therefore, there is no fault. Moreover, it is speaking of emptiness without destroying (conventional) reality, so there is no fault. The second verse's first half explains that because of emptiness, all dharmas can be established, showing that the author has no fault. The second half explains that without the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas cannot be established, showing that the outsider has fault. Question: 'Why is it said that because of emptiness, all dharmas can be established?' Answer: 'The previous verse said that emptiness is also empty.' This is neither empty nor existent. Now it explains that neither empty nor existent, emptiness and existence can be established. Therefore, it is said that all dharmas can be established. Also, because of the emptiness of the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-śūnyatā), there is conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). So, when the two truths (emptiness and existence) are established, then all dharmas can be established. If there is no emptiness, then the ultimate truth cannot be established, then the conventional truth cannot be established, so all dharmas are destroyed. Also, to say that everything is established by having emptiness, because of the emptiness of the ultimate truth, Prajna (Prajna) arises. Because of Prajna, afflictions are cut off, and there are Buddhas of the three times. Because of the Buddhas, all teachings of the world and beyond are spoken. Therefore, the long passage says: 'All dharmas of the world and beyond can be accomplished.' 'You yourself now have faults' below, is the third part, briefly explaining that attachment to existence is a fault, with three verses, divided into two parts. The first verse explains that the outsider has faults but does not realize it, instead blaming the author. The second part's two verses briefly point out the outsider's faults, allowing the outsider to realize them. The first verse's first half is a Dharma explanation, and the second half is an analogy. The analogy says: 'Riding (a boat)'
馬人自忘己所乘之馬。而謂他人乘馬。外人自有無三寶四諦等過。而不覺知謂他人有無罪福之失。若汝見諸法下。第二兩偈釋執有為過。即二。第一偈略明無因緣過。汝見法有自體則不須假緣藉因。故破因緣破因緣則破空。破空則破二諦及中道。第二釋前偈。廣明有三種過。一破因果。二破人法。此二破體。下半破相也。眾因緣生法下第四引經證。顯前有所得定性有過。顯論主無所得空無失。兩偈為二。初偈明因緣生法離斷常過。第二偈攝法。則顯外定性有為失。釋此一偈多種形勢。今略述數條。一者就破病漸舍釋之。因緣所生法者破自性故且言因緣。此一轉意也。我說即是空惑人復謂。乃無性有而有因緣。故今明。因緣生是無耳。何時因緣生是有。此二轉也。亦為是假名惑者復云。既是空。即作無解。故今明。只空是假。何故爾。成論師明真諦空非假。故今更反擲。只空即是假。即彈空心。彼即謂。若爾是二諦相即前有即空。今空即有。只是空有二諦義。故今明。此即是中道。何時是二諦。借中以彈二。二去不二亦舍。即了悟也。次直依因緣正義釋者。所言因緣所生法者。經說因緣或離或合。皆作因名猶如佛性。皆作緣名猶如四緣。亦因亦緣如十二因緣。如無明望行體未有。而為無明所辨。親義為因。行起望無明我
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 馬人忘記了自己所騎的馬，卻說別人騎馬。外道之人自有不信三寶（佛、法、僧），不信四諦（苦、集、滅、道）等過失，卻不自覺知，反而說別人有無罪無福的過失。『若汝見諸法下』，第二兩偈解釋執著有為法的過失，分為兩部分。第一偈簡要說明無因緣的過失。你認為法有自體，則不需要憑藉因緣，所以破斥因緣，破斥因緣就破斥了空性，破斥空性就破斥了二諦（世俗諦、勝義諦）以及中道。第二偈解釋前一偈，廣泛說明有三種過失：一是破斥因果，二是破斥人法。這兩種是破斥體性，下半部分是破斥相狀。 『眾因緣生法下』，第四部分引用經文來證明，顯示先前有所得的定性是有過失的，顯示論主（指中觀論的作者）的無所得空性沒有過失。兩偈分為兩部分，初偈說明因緣所生法遠離斷常二見的過失，第二偈總攝諸法，就顯示外道定性有為的過失。解釋這一偈有多種形式，現在簡要敘述幾條。一是就破除病態，逐漸捨棄來解釋。『因緣所生法』，因為破斥自性，所以暫且說因緣，這是一層轉折的意思。『我說即是空』，迷惑的人又說，沒有自性，但有因緣。所以現在說明，因緣生就是無自性罷了。什麼時候因緣生是有自性的呢？這是第二層轉折。『亦為是假名』，迷惑的人又說，既然是空，就當作什麼都沒有來理解。所以現在說明，只是空是假名。為什麼這樣說呢？成實論師認為真諦（勝義諦）的空不是假名，所以現在更反過來強調，只是空是假名，就彈撥了執著空的心。他們就說，如果這樣，就是二諦相互即是，先前有就是空，現在空就是有，只是空有二諦的意義。所以現在說明，這就是中道，什麼時候是二諦呢？借用中道來彈撥二諦，去除二，不二也捨棄，就了悟了。 其次直接依據因緣的正義來解釋，所說的『因緣所生法』，經中說因緣或離或合，都叫做因，猶如佛性，都叫做緣，猶如四緣（因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）。亦因亦緣，如十二因緣（無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死）。如無明相對於行，體性還沒有，而為無明所辨識，親近的意義是因，行生起相對於無明我
【English Translation】 English version The horseman forgets the horse he is riding and accuses others of riding horses. Outsiders have faults such as not believing in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and the Four Noble Truths (suffering, origin, cessation, path), yet they are unaware of it and instead accuse others of having faults of lacking merit and fortune. 'If you see all dharmas below,' the second two verses explain the fault of clinging to conditioned dharmas, divided into two parts. The first verse briefly explains the fault of lacking causes and conditions. If you believe that dharmas have inherent existence, then there is no need to rely on causes and conditions, so it refutes causes and conditions, refuting causes and conditions refutes emptiness, and refuting emptiness refutes the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) and the Middle Way. The second verse explains the previous verse, extensively explaining that there are three faults: first, refuting cause and effect; second, refuting person and dharma. These two are refuting the essence, and the latter half is refuting the characteristics. 'All dharmas arise from causes and conditions below,' the fourth part quotes scriptures to prove that the previously attained fixed nature is faulty, showing that the proponent's (referring to the author of the Madhyamaka-karika) non-attainment of emptiness is not faulty. The two verses are divided into two parts. The first verse explains that dharmas arising from causes and conditions are free from the faults of eternalism and nihilism. The second verse summarizes all dharmas, which reveals the fault of outsiders' fixed nature of conditioned existence. There are many forms of explaining this verse, and now briefly describe a few. One is to explain it in terms of eliminating the disease and gradually abandoning it. 'Dharmas arising from causes and conditions,' because it refutes inherent existence, it temporarily speaks of causes and conditions, which is a layer of turning meaning. 'I say it is emptiness,' confused people also say that there is no inherent existence, but there are causes and conditions. So now it is explained that arising from causes and conditions is simply without inherent existence. When does arising from causes and conditions have inherent existence? This is the second layer of turning. 'Also, it is a provisional name,' confused people also say that since it is emptiness, it should be understood as nothing. So now it is explained that only emptiness is a provisional name. Why is it said like this? The Satyasiddhi School believes that the emptiness of ultimate truth is not a provisional name, so now it is emphasized in reverse that only emptiness is a provisional name, which plucks the mind that clings to emptiness. They say that if this is the case, then the two truths are mutually identical, previously existence is emptiness, and now emptiness is existence, it is just the meaning of the two truths of emptiness and existence. So now it is explained that this is the Middle Way, when are the two truths? Borrowing the Middle Way to pluck the two truths, removing two, non-duality is also abandoned, and then one realizes. Secondly, directly according to the correct meaning of causes and conditions to explain, the so-called 'dharmas arising from causes and conditions,' the scriptures say that causes and conditions, whether separated or combined, are called causes, like Buddha-nature, are called conditions, like the four conditions (causal condition, immediately preceding condition, object-condition, dominant condition). Also cause and also condition, such as the twelve links of dependent origination (ignorance, karmic formations, consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, old age and death). Such as ignorance relative to karmic formations, the essence has not yet existed, but is distinguished by ignorance, the meaning of closeness is the cause, the arising of karmic formations relative to ignorance I
非都無。但假借汝起故無明是緣。所以無明亦因亦緣。今明。隨緣離合義無定也。所生法者數人六因四緣所生是實法。成論三因四緣所生也。此即是空者。以所生是能所能所不自所。不自則不所是故所空也。亦為是假名者。空所不自所故不所。所空不自空故不空。不知何以目之。故云假名說空所假名說所空。此空所所空。皆是無名相中為引導眾生故假名說耳。問何故假名說空所所空耶。答欲為令因空所悟不所。由所空悟不空。故言亦是中道義。以空所不所所空不空故即中道。次就中假義釋者。因緣所生法此牒世諦也。我說即是空明第一義諦也。亦為是假名釋上二諦並皆是假。既云眾緣所生法我說即是空。此是有宛然而空。故空不自空。名為假空。空宛然而有有不自有。名為假有。亦是中道義者。說空有假名為表中道。明假有不住有故有非有。假空不住空故空非空。非空非有即是中道。次依長行就三是義釋者。因緣所生法。大小乘人同知諸法從因緣生。我說即是空下。第二明因緣是三是義。小乘有所得人聞因緣所生法。唯知是有。不識因緣是於三是。今示因緣生法是於三是。一因緣生法是畢竟空。所以然者。若有自性則不從因緣。既從因緣生。即是無自性。所以是空。亦為是假名者示第二是。明因緣生法亦是假名。所以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非一切皆無。只是藉由你而生起，所以無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）是緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）。因此，無明既是因也是緣。現在闡明，隨緣離合的意義是不確定的。『所生法』（saṃskṛta-dharma，由因緣和合而成的法）指的是數論派（Sāṃkhya）所說的六因和四緣所生的實法（dravya-sat）。成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra）則說是三因四緣所生。這裡所說的『空』（śūnyatā，空性）是指，因為所生之法不是自己所生，能生和所生不是自己所能生。不自己所生，所以是空。也可以說是假名（prajñapti，方便安立的名稱），因為空不是自己所空，所以不是空。不知道用什麼來稱呼它，所以說是假名，說空所和假名說所空。這空所和所空，都是在沒有名稱和相狀中，爲了引導眾生而假名安立的。問：為什麼假名說空所和所空呢？答：爲了讓因空而悟到不所，由所空而悟到不空，所以說是中道義（madhyamā-pratipad，不落兩邊的中正之道）。因為空所不是所，所空不是空，所以就是中道。接下來就中假義來解釋，『因緣所生法』，這是指世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）。『我說即是空』，闡明第一義諦（paramārtha-satya，絕對真理）。『亦為是假名』，解釋以上二諦都是假。既然說眾緣所生法，我說就是空，這是有宛然而空，所以空不是自己空，名為假空。空宛然而有，有不是自有，名為假有。『亦是中道義』，說空有假名，名為表中道。說明假有不住于有，所以有非有。假空不住于空，所以空非空。非空非有就是中道。接下來依據長行文，就三是義來解釋，『因緣所生法』，大小乘人都知道諸法從因緣生。『我說即是空』以下，第二說明因緣是三是義。小乘有所得的人聽到因緣所生法，只知道是有，不認識因緣是於三是。現在揭示因緣生法是於三是。一，因緣生法是畢竟空（atyanta-śūnyatā，徹底的空性）。為什麼這樣說呢？如果有自性（svabhāva，事物自身不變的性質），就不會從因緣生。既然從因緣生，就是沒有自性，所以是空。『亦為是假名』，揭示第二是。說明因緣生法也是假名。所以
【English Translation】 English version It is not that everything is non-existent. But it is provisionally arisen because of you, therefore ignorance (avidyā, delusion about the true nature of things) is a condition (hetu-pratyaya, cause and condition). Therefore, ignorance is both a cause and a condition. Now clarifying, the meaning of arising and ceasing according to conditions is not fixed. 'The produced dharmas' (saṃskṛta-dharma, conditioned phenomena) refer to the real substances (dravya-sat) produced by the six causes and four conditions according to the Sāṃkhya school. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra says they are produced by three causes and four conditions. What is meant by 'emptiness' (śūnyatā) here is that because the produced dharma is not self-produced, the producer and the produced are not self-producing. Not self-produced, therefore it is empty. It can also be said to be a provisional name (prajñapti, a conventional designation), because emptiness is not self-emptied, therefore it is not empty. Not knowing what to call it, therefore it is said to be a provisional name, saying 'emptiness-produced' and 'provisional name-produced emptiness'. This 'emptiness-produced' and 'produced emptiness' are all provisional names established in the absence of names and forms, in order to guide sentient beings. Question: Why provisionally name 'emptiness-produced' and 'produced emptiness'? Answer: In order to let one realize 'not-produced' through the emptiness of the cause, and realize 'not-empty' through the emptiness of the produced, therefore it is said to be the Middle Way (madhyamā-pratipad, the path of non-duality). Because 'emptiness-produced' is not produced, and 'produced emptiness' is not empty, therefore it is the Middle Way. Next, explaining based on the meaning of 'provisional middle', 'Dharmas arise from conditions', this refers to conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, relative truth). 'I say they are empty', clarifying the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, absolute truth). 'Also, it is a provisional name', explaining that both of the above two truths are provisional. Since it is said that dharmas arise from conditions, I say they are empty, this is existence that is clearly empty, therefore emptiness is not self-empty, it is called provisional emptiness. Emptiness is clearly existent, existence is not self-existent, it is called provisional existence. 'Also, it is the Middle Way', saying that emptiness, existence, and provisional names are called the Middle Way. Clarifying that provisional existence does not abide in existence, therefore existence is non-existence. Provisional emptiness does not abide in emptiness, therefore emptiness is non-emptiness. Non-emptiness and non-existence are the Middle Way. Next, based on the prose text, explaining based on the meaning of the three 'is', 'Dharmas arise from conditions', both Mahayana and Hinayana practitioners know that all dharmas arise from conditions. 'I say they are empty' below, the second explains that conditions are the meaning of the three 'is'. Hinayana practitioners who have attachments only know that dharmas arising from conditions are existent, and do not recognize that conditions are the three 'is'. Now revealing that dharmas arising from conditions are the three 'is'. First, dharmas arising from conditions are ultimately empty (atyanta-śūnyatā, complete emptiness). Why is this so? If there were self-nature (svabhāva, the unchanging nature of things), it would not arise from conditions. Since it arises from conditions, it is without self-nature, therefore it is empty. 'Also, it is a provisional name', revealing the second 'is'. Explaining that dharmas arising from conditions are also provisional names. Therefore
秤假者。前明因緣生法我說是空。然因緣既本不有。今亦不空非空非有。不知何以目之。故假名說有亦假名說空。亦是中道義者示第三是。明因緣生法亦是中道。因緣生法無有自性故空。所以非有。既其非有亦復非空。非有非空故名中道。然小乘之人不知三是。即有三失。謂失空失假失中。若執諸法自性者亦不識因緣。故有四失。第二偈上半攝法。恐外人不信因緣謂眾緣中有性。是故明攝法也。下半結三是。既未曾有一法不從因緣生。亦未曾有一法不是空不是假不是中。今略舉一耳。問論主引何處經偈。答是華首經佛自說之。故稱我說即是空也。長行雲。汝上所說下。此生第二段還有所得定性人過也。又開二別。第一牒外人義。第二推過還外人。即對前兩章也。如是則無有下推過還外人。就文為二。第一對上還其無四諦三寶過。第二對上還無因果罪福過。然勿將此性有但安薩婆多上。今有所得大小乘人執有一豪人法體。則破世出世一切法也。初又二。第一對上還無四諦過。第二還無三寶過。就初又三。一總明無四諦。二別明無四諦。三總結無四諦也。以無生故則無苦集。以無滅故即無滅道。執自性有便無四諦。問論主說空。空可無有生滅。故無四諦。外人執有有生滅。便有四諦。云何無生滅四諦。答無所得無定性故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 秤假者（對衡量虛假之人的提問）。之前闡明因緣生法（dependent origination）時，我說它是空（emptiness）的。然而，因緣既然原本不存在，那麼現在說它不空也不有，既非空也非有。不知道該如何稱呼它。所以，假名說有，也假名說空，這才是中道（Middle Way）的意義，這是第三個『是』。闡明因緣生法也是中道。因緣生法沒有自性（own nature），所以是空。因此說它非有。既然它非有，也同樣非空。非有非空，所以名為中道。然而，小乘（Hinayana）之人不理解這三重意義，就會有三種過失，即失去空、失去假、失去中。如果執著于諸法的自性，就是不認識因緣，所以有四種過失。第二偈的上半部分是攝法（summarizing the Dharma）。恐怕外人不相信因緣，認為眾緣之中有自性，所以要闡明攝法。下半部分總結三重意義。既然未曾有一法不是從因緣生，也未曾有一法不是空、不是假、不是中，現在只是簡略地舉一個例子。問：論主引用的是哪部經的偈頌？答：是《華首經》，佛陀自己說的，所以稱『我說即是空』。長行中說：『你上面所說的』以下，這是第二段，還有所得定性之人的過失。又分為兩個部分。第一部分是照錄外人的觀點，第二部分是把過失推還給外人，即針對前面兩章。『如是則無有』以下，是把過失推還給外人。就文義來說，分為兩部分。第一部分是針對上面，把沒有四諦（Four Noble Truths）、三寶（Three Jewels）的過失推還給他們。第二部分是針對上面，把沒有因果（cause and effect）、罪福（demerit and merit）的過失推還給他們。然而，不要把這種自性有僅僅安在薩婆多（Sarvastivadins）之上。現在有所得的大小乘人執著于有一毫人法體，就會破壞世間和出世間的一切法。最初又分為兩部分。第一部分是針對上面，把沒有四諦的過失推還給他們。第二部分是把沒有三寶的過失推還給他們。就第一部分又分為三部分。一是總明沒有四諦，二是分別說明沒有四諦，三是總結沒有四諦。因為沒有生，所以就沒有苦集（suffering and its origin）。因為沒有滅，就沒有滅道（cessation and the path）。執著于自性有，就沒有四諦。問：論主說空，空可以沒有生滅，所以沒有四諦。外人執著于有，有生滅，便有四諦，為什麼說沒有生滅四諦？答：因為無所得，沒有定性。
【English Translation】 English version Questioner: Those who weigh falsely. Previously, when explaining dependent origination (因緣生法), I said it is emptiness (空). However, since dependent origination originally does not exist, then now it is neither empty nor existent, neither non-empty nor non-existent. I don't know how to name it. Therefore, provisionally name it existent, and also provisionally name it empty, this is the meaning of the Middle Way (中道), this is the third 'is'. Explaining dependent origination is also the Middle Way. Dependent origination has no own nature (自性), therefore it is empty. Therefore, it is said to be non-existent. Since it is non-existent, it is also non-empty. Non-existent and non-empty, therefore it is called the Middle Way. However, those of the Hinayana (小乘) do not understand these three meanings, and will have three faults, that is, losing emptiness, losing provisionality, and losing the Middle Way. If one clings to the own nature of all dharmas, then one does not recognize dependent origination, so there are four faults. The first half of the second verse is summarizing the Dharma (攝法). Fearing that outsiders do not believe in dependent origination, thinking that there is own nature in the midst of all conditions, therefore it is necessary to explain summarizing the Dharma. The second half summarizes the three meanings. Since there has never been a single dharma that is not born from dependent origination, and there has never been a single dharma that is not empty, not provisional, and not the Middle Way, now only a brief example is given. Question: Which sutra's verse does the author quote? Answer: It is the Avatamsaka Sutra (華首經), the Buddha himself said it, so it is called 'I said it is emptiness'. The long passage says: 'What you said above' below, this is the second paragraph, there are still the faults of those who have attained fixed nature. It is further divided into two parts. The first part is to record the views of outsiders, and the second part is to push the faults back to the outsiders, that is, in response to the previous two chapters. 'Thus, there is no' below, is to push the faults back to the outsiders. In terms of the meaning of the text, it is divided into two parts. The first part is in response to the above, pushing back the faults of not having the Four Noble Truths (四諦) and the Three Jewels (三寶). The second part is in response to the above, pushing back the faults of not having cause and effect (因果) and demerit and merit (罪福). However, do not simply place this own nature existence on the Sarvastivadins (薩婆多). Now, those of the Hinayana and Mahayana who have attained cling to having a hair's breadth of dharma substance, which will destroy all dharmas of the world and beyond. Initially, it is divided into two parts. The first part is in response to the above, pushing back the fault of not having the Four Noble Truths. The second part is to push back the fault of not having the Three Jewels. The first part is further divided into three parts. One is to generally explain that there are no Four Noble Truths, the second is to separately explain that there are no Four Noble Truths, and the third is to summarize that there are no Four Noble Truths. Because there is no birth, there is no suffering and its origin (苦集). Because there is no cessation, there is no cessation and the path (滅道). Clinging to own nature existence, there are no Four Noble Truths. Question: The author says emptiness, emptiness can have no birth and death, so there are no Four Noble Truths. Outsiders cling to existence, existence has birth and death, so there are Four Noble Truths, why say there are no birth and death Four Noble Truths? Answer: Because there is no attainment, there is no fixed nature.
未生可得生。不滅可得滅。有所得既是定性。則未生定未生。不可令生。故無生也。既其不可令生。豈得有滅耶。譬如定無無不可令有。既定有亦不可令無。故無生滅也。苦不從緣生下第二四偈。別明無四諦。則釋前章門。數人正以無常刀切有漏五陰。故是苦。無常刀亦切無漏五陰。但無漏被切順向涅槃。是故不苦。故能切則通漏無漏。所切則有苦不苦。今破云。有漏五陰既有定性。無常不能切之是故不苦。成論師明三苦各有通別。覺惱為別苦苦。領緣不覺為通苦苦。樂受壞為別壞苦。無常遷滅為通壞苦。後心追患前心為別行苦。無常所役為通行苦。今以二義破之。一者作通別六苦義不成。如前苦品引俱舍論釋之。以苦受具二時苦故名苦苦。樂受壞但一時苦名為壞苦。舍受為無常所役名為行苦。行苦則通。餘二則別。云何言三苦皆有通別。問行苦若通何故但約舍受。答舍受無前二時苦。但有行苦。故就別說通耳。二者縱汝有通別六苦。無常是行壞二苦具。前有無常未有苦。無常何所役耶。若即無常是苦。云何復云無常是苦具耶。苦若有定性下破無滅諦。成論師云。有餘滅二心。無餘滅空心。故滅三心名滅諦。問為壞有得滅。為本有滅。若本有滅則與數同。若壞有得滅滅則始生。又問滅既本有者為有因為無因。無因則自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 未生可以獲得生，不滅可以獲得滅。如果有所得，那就是確定了性質。那麼，未生的就確定是未生的，不能讓它產生，所以實際上沒有產生。既然不能讓它產生，怎麼會有滅亡呢？比如，確定沒有的東西，不能讓它有；既然確定有的東西，也不能讓它沒有，所以沒有生滅。『苦不從緣生』（《中論·觀苦品》）第二十四偈，分別說明沒有四諦（苦、集、滅、道），這是爲了解釋前面的章節。一些小乘論師認為，用無常的刀切割有漏的五陰（色、受、想、行、識），所以是苦。無常的刀也切割無漏的五陰，但無漏的五陰被切割后順著涅槃的方向，所以不是苦。因此，能切割的刀可以通於有漏和無漏，被切割的則有苦和不苦。現在反駁說，有漏的五陰如果已經有了確定的性質，無常就不能切割它，所以不是苦。 成實論師認為，三種苦各有通和別。覺察到惱怒是特別的苦苦，領受因緣但不覺察是普通的苦苦。快樂的感受壞滅是特別的壞苦，無常的遷流壞滅是普通的壞苦。後來的心追逐之前的心的患惱是特別的行苦，被無常所役使是普通的行苦。現在用兩種道理來反駁：一是說通別六苦的說法不成立，就像前面苦品引用《俱舍論》解釋的那樣，因為苦受具備兩個時期的苦，所以叫做苦苦；快樂的感受壞滅只有一個時期的苦，所以叫做壞苦；舍受被無常所役使，所以叫做行苦。行苦是普遍的，其餘兩種是特別的。怎麼能說三種苦都有通和別呢？問：如果行苦是普遍的，為什麼只針對舍受來說呢？答：舍受沒有前兩種苦，只有行苦，所以就特別地說了普遍的行苦。二是說，即使你認為有通別六苦，無常是行苦和壞苦的工具。在有無常之前還沒有苦，無常役使什麼呢？如果無常本身就是苦，為什麼又說無常是苦的工具呢？ 『苦若有定性』（《中論·觀苦品》）以下反駁沒有滅諦。成實論師說，有餘涅槃（nirvana）是滅二心，無餘涅槃是空心，所以滅三種心叫做滅諦。問：是爲了破壞而獲得滅，還是本來就有滅？如果是本來就有滅，那就和數論（Samkhya）相同了。如果是破壞而獲得滅，那麼滅就是新產生的。又問：滅如果是本來就有的，那麼是有原因的還是沒有原因的？如果沒有原因，那麼就是自然而然的。
【English Translation】 English version 'Unborn' can attain birth, 'unextinguished' can attain extinction. If there is attainment, then the nature is fixed. Then, the unborn is fixed as unborn, and cannot be made to be born, so there is actually no birth. Since it cannot be made to be born, how can there be extinction? For example, what is determined to be non-existent cannot be made to exist; since what is determined to be existent cannot be made to be non-existent, so there is no birth and extinction. The twenty-fourth verse of 'Suffering Does Not Arise From Conditions' (from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter on the Examination of Suffering) separately explains the absence of the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path), which is to explain the previous chapters. Some Hinayana (small vehicle) teachers believe that using the knife of impermanence to cut the contaminated five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) is suffering. The knife of impermanence also cuts the uncontaminated five skandhas, but the uncontaminated five skandhas are cut in the direction of nirvana (liberation), so it is not suffering. Therefore, the cutting knife can penetrate both contaminated and uncontaminated, and what is cut has both suffering and non-suffering. Now, it is refuted that if the contaminated five skandhas already have a fixed nature, impermanence cannot cut them, so it is not suffering. The Satyasiddhi (Establishing Reality) teachers believe that the three types of suffering each have common and distinct aspects. Perceiving annoyance is distinct suffering of suffering, experiencing conditions without perceiving is common suffering of suffering. The destruction of pleasant feelings is distinct suffering of change, the impermanent flow and destruction is common suffering of change. The later mind pursuing the afflictions of the previous mind is distinct suffering of formations, being employed by impermanence is common suffering of formations. Now, it is refuted with two reasons: one is that the theory of common and distinct six sufferings is not established, just as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Metaphysics) is cited in the previous chapter on suffering, because suffering feelings have suffering in two periods, so it is called suffering of suffering; the destruction of pleasant feelings only has suffering in one period, so it is called suffering of change; neutral feelings are employed by impermanence, so it is called suffering of formations. Suffering of formations is universal, and the other two are distinct. How can it be said that all three sufferings have both common and distinct aspects? Question: If suffering of formations is universal, why is it only discussed in relation to neutral feelings? Answer: Neutral feelings do not have the previous two types of suffering, only suffering of formations, so the universal suffering of formations is specifically discussed. The second is that even if you believe in common and distinct six sufferings, impermanence is the tool of suffering of formations and suffering of change. Before there is impermanence, there is no suffering, so what does impermanence employ? If impermanence itself is suffering, why is it said that impermanence is the tool of suffering? The following refutes the absence of the cessation truth, starting with 'If suffering has a fixed nature' (from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter on the Examination of Suffering). The Satyasiddhi teachers say that nirvana with remainder is the extinction of two minds, nirvana without remainder is the empty mind, so the extinction of three minds is called the cessation truth. Question: Is extinction attained by destruction, or is it originally existent? If it is originally existent, then it is the same as Samkhya (enumerationism). If extinction is attained by destruction, then extinction is newly produced. Also, question: If extinction is originally existent, then is it with or without cause? If it is without cause, then it is spontaneous.
然同外道。有因則無常。問毗曇滅是本有。苦集既有定性。則不可滅。云何滅苦集得本有滅耶。若無有苦諦下第三總結無四諦。觀此文是重破道諦。若苦定有性下第二還其無三寶過。就文為二。第一總明無三寶。第二別明無大乘因果。無三寶即為三別。無三寶中一一對上。初別明無僧寶。次總結無僧寶。初一行十二字明無四行。若如上分此無四諦智。從及四果始是無僧寶。問汝本來有境。亦應本來有智。若本不見今見者。亦本不境今境。若本境今亦境。亦本不見今不見。若心有可修理。若有理則是有。今不須修。今既須修則知無理。二若乘前破者本由境生智。前求境既不得。智由何生。及四果下第二還外人無四果。若無有四果下還外人無八賢聖。以無八聖故下還外人結無僧寶。次一行偈明無三寶。如文。問曰下第二別明無大乘因果。今觀此文猶是小乘中佛乘名大乘義耳。前問次答。問有二。初領前無也。究竟道下第二立後有。立中為二。一立極法。因是道故下立於至人。答中兩偈為二。初破其人法。第二破無因果。答意云。汝立人法自不成。則汝是破人法人也。大論第四卷迦旃延云。先有菩提果遣智慧信語身云。可修三十二相莊嚴身。我然後來。此先有果后修因。既先有果未有因。是何果耶。復何用修因耶。又先有菩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 然則如同外道一樣，認為有因就會導致無常。有人問：『毗曇宗認為涅槃是本有的，苦諦和集諦既然有其固定的自性，那麼就不可被滅除。如何滅除苦集而證得本有的涅槃呢？』如果不存在苦諦，那麼在下文第三部分總結時就會說沒有四諦。觀察這段文字，實際上是再次破斥道諦。如果苦諦具有固定的自性，那麼在下文第二部分就會反過來指出其沒有三寶的過失。這段文字可以分為兩部分。第一部分總的說明沒有三寶，第二部分分別說明沒有大乘的因果。沒有三寶又可以分為三個部分。在沒有三寶中，每一部分都對應於前面的內容。首先分別說明沒有僧寶，然後總結說明沒有僧寶。第一行十二個字說明沒有四行（指聲聞四果的修行）。如果按照上面的分析，這裡就沒有四諦的智慧。從『及四果』開始，就是說明沒有僧寶。有人問：『如果你的境界本來就存在，那麼你的智慧也應該本來就存在。如果本來沒有看見現在看見了，那麼也應該是本來沒有境界現在才有境界。如果本來有境界現在也有境界，那麼也應該是本來沒有看見現在也沒有看見。』如果心可以被修理，如果存在可以修理的道理，那麼就是有。現在不需要修理。現在既然需要修理，那麼就知道沒有可以修理的道理。第二，如果按照前面的破斥，智慧本來是由境界產生的。前面所尋求的境界既然沒有得到，那麼智慧又從何而生呢？從『及四果下』開始，第二部分反過來指出外道沒有四果。『若無有四果下』，反過來指出外道沒有八賢聖。『以無八聖故下』，反過來指出外道總結說沒有僧寶。接下來的一行偈頌說明沒有三寶，如文字所示。『問曰下』，第二部分分別說明沒有大乘的因果。現在觀察這段文字，仍然是小乘中的佛乘，只是名義上稱為大乘而已。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問分為兩個部分。第一部分是領會前面的沒有。『究竟道下』，第二部分是建立後面的有。建立分為兩個部分。一是建立極法（最高的法），『因是道故下』，是建立至人（達到最高境界的人）。回答中兩句偈頌分為兩個部分。第一部分破斥其人法，第二部分破斥沒有因果。回答的意思是說，你所建立的人法自身都不能成立，那麼你就是破斥人法的人。大論第四卷中，迦旃延（Kātyāyana）說：『先有菩提果（bodhi-phala），然後才遣智慧、信語、身云，可以修習三十二相（lakṣaṇa）來莊嚴自身，我然後才來。』這是先有果后修因。既然先有果還沒有因，這是什麼果呢？又何必需要修因呢？又先有菩提（bodhi）
【English Translation】 English version Then, like the heretics, they believe that if there is a cause, it will lead to impermanence. Someone asks: 'The Sarvāstivāda school believes that Nirvāṇa (滅, extinction) is inherently existent. Since the suffering (苦, duhkha) and accumulation (集, samudaya) have fixed natures, they cannot be extinguished. How can one extinguish suffering and accumulation to attain the inherently existent Nirvāṇa?' If there is no suffering, then in the third part of the following text, it will be concluded that there are no Four Noble Truths. Observing this text, it is actually refuting the Truth of the Path (道諦, marga) again. If suffering has a fixed nature, then in the second part of the following text, it will be pointed out that it has the fault of lacking the Three Jewels (三寶, triratna). This text can be divided into two parts. The first part generally explains that there are no Three Jewels, and the second part separately explains that there are no Mahāyāna (大乘) causes and effects. The absence of the Three Jewels can be further divided into three parts. In the absence of the Three Jewels, each part corresponds to the previous content. First, it separately explains the absence of the Sangha Jewel (僧寶, sangha), and then it summarizes the absence of the Sangha Jewel. The first line of twelve characters explains the absence of the four practices (referring to the four fruits of the Śrāvaka's practice). If analyzed according to the above, there is no wisdom of the Four Noble Truths here. Starting from 'and the four fruits,' it explains the absence of the Sangha Jewel. Someone asks: 'If your realm inherently exists, then your wisdom should also inherently exist. If you didn't see it before but see it now, then it should also be that you didn't have a realm before but have it now. If you had a realm before and still have it now, then you should also be that you didn't see it before and still don't see it now.' If the mind can be repaired, if there is a reason to repair it, then it exists. Now there is no need to repair it. Since there is a need to repair it now, then it is known that there is no reason to repair it. Second, if according to the previous refutation, wisdom is originally produced by the realm. Since the realm sought before has not been obtained, then from where does wisdom arise? Starting from 'and the four fruits,' the second part points out that the heretics have no four fruits. 'If there are no four fruits,' it points out that the heretics have no eight noble ones. 'Because there are no eight noble ones,' it points out that the heretics conclude that there is no Sangha Jewel. The following line of verse explains the absence of the Three Jewels, as the text shows. 'Questioning below,' the second part separately explains the absence of Mahāyāna causes and effects. Now observing this text, it is still the Buddha Vehicle (佛乘, buddha-yāna) in the Hinayana (小乘), only nominally called Mahāyāna. The former is the question, and the latter is the answer. The question is divided into two parts. The first part is to understand the previous absence. 'The ultimate path below,' the second part is to establish the subsequent existence. The establishment is divided into two parts. One is to establish the ultimate Dharma (法, dharma), 'because it is the path below,' is to establish the perfect person (至人, perfect person). In the answer, the two verses are divided into two parts. The first part refutes their person and Dharma, and the second part refutes the absence of cause and effect. The meaning of the answer is that the person and Dharma you established cannot be established by themselves, then you are the person who refutes the person and Dharma. In the fourth volume of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (大論), Kātyāyana said: 'First there is the fruit of Bodhi, and then the wisdom, faith, speech, and body clouds are sent, and the thirty-two marks (三十二相) can be cultivated to adorn oneself, and then I will come.' This is first having the fruit and then cultivating the cause. Since there is first the fruit and no cause yet, what kind of fruit is this? And why is there a need to cultivate the cause? Also, first there is Bodhi
提未有佛。故汝說不因菩提有佛。問但破小乘因果。亦破有所得大乘耶。答正破有所得大乘。傍破小耳。問云何破大乘因果。答汝言金剛心是無常生死位。後心是涅槃佛果常位。生死盡於前佛果起於後。因滅無果前。果起無因后。豈是因果。因果不成故即自破三寶。何關我破也。又問因果定二不。答因無常豈是果。果常豈是因。若爾經云。諸有二者無道無果。問經云。行因得菩提果。得果竟后入生死教化眾生。云何無也。答菩薩不為行因取果。但為引道眾生故。夜半逾城舍欲令悟無所有耳。若於菩薩何曾言有生死。亦不言有涅槃。亦不言有因。亦不說有果。並是教化眾生故開二耳。又問汝行因得菩提。為至果為不至。至則常不至則斷滅。並無因果。又菩提何時是因果。非因假名名之為因。非果假名名之為果。亦非四五。無四五果名四五。故云五菩提耳。為淺深假名淺深。故發心為淺佛為深。四為因佛為果耳。雖復勤精進下第二破因果。明汝謂凡夫修因得佛果。凡夫時未有佛。佛時無復凡夫。若凡夫時定無佛者。雖復勤修終不得佛。以不得定不得無佛定無佛。終不得為佛也。又此是用大乘破小乘義。大乘明一切眾生皆有佛性並皆成佛。小乘人不明一切眾生皆有佛性。若爾既無佛性。雖復修行終不成佛。問小乘人亦云。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：過去沒有佛，所以你說不是因為菩提才有佛。 答：是的。 問：只是破斥小乘的因果，也破斥執著于有所得的大乘嗎？ 答：正是破斥執著于有所得的大乘，順帶破斥小乘。 問：如何破斥大乘的因果？ 答：你說金剛心是無常生死的階段，後面的心是涅槃佛果的常住階段。生死在前一階段終結，佛果在後一階段生起。因滅于果之前，果生於無因之後，這怎麼能算是因果呢？因果不成，就自己破斥了三寶，與我破斥有什麼關係呢？ 又問：因果一定是二者嗎？ 答：因是無常的，怎麼能是果？果是常住的，怎麼能是因？如果這樣，經中說：『諸有二者，無道無果。』 問：經中說：『修行因得到菩提果，得到果後進入生死教化眾生。』怎麼能說沒有因果呢？ 答：菩薩不是爲了修行因來獲取果，只是爲了引導眾生進入正道，所以才夜半逾城，捨棄慾望，使他們領悟一切皆是空無所有罷了。對於菩薩來說，何曾說過有生死，也不曾說過有涅槃，也不曾說過有因，也不曾說過有果。這些都是爲了教化眾生才開示的方便說法。 又問：你修行因得到菩提，是到達果位還是沒有到達？到達就是常住，沒有到達就是斷滅，都沒有因果。而且菩提什麼時候是因果呢？不是因，只是假名為因；不是果，只是假名為果。也不是四果五果，沒有四果五果，只是假名為四五果，所以才說五菩提罷了。因為淺深而假名淺深，所以發心是淺，成佛是深。四果是因，佛果是果罷了。 雖然勤奮精進，下面第二點是破斥因果，說明你認為凡夫修行因得到佛果。凡夫的時候沒有佛，成佛的時候沒有凡夫。如果凡夫的時候一定沒有佛，那麼即使勤奮修行，最終也無法成佛。因為沒有得到（佛性），就一定不能得到佛果；沒有佛性，就一定不能成為佛。這也是用大乘的義理來破斥小乘的義理。大乘闡明一切眾生皆有佛性，最終都能成佛。小乘人不明白一切眾生皆有佛性。如果這樣，既然沒有佛性，即使修行，最終也無法成佛。 問：小乘人也說，一……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Since there was no Buddha in the past, you say that Buddha does not arise because of Bodhi (enlightenment). Answer: Yes. Question: Do you only refute the cause and effect of Hinayana (Small Vehicle), or do you also refute the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) that clings to attainment? Answer: I am precisely refuting the Mahayana that clings to attainment, and incidentally refuting the Hinayana. Question: How do you refute the cause and effect of Mahayana? Answer: You say that the Vajra mind (diamond mind) is the impermanent stage of birth and death, and the subsequent mind is the permanent stage of Nirvana Buddha-fruit. Birth and death end in the former stage, and the Buddha-fruit arises in the latter stage. The cause ceases before the fruit, and the fruit arises after the absence of cause. How can this be considered cause and effect? If cause and effect are not established, then you are refuting the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) yourself. What does it have to do with my refutation? Question: Is cause and effect necessarily two? Answer: If the cause is impermanent, how can it be the fruit? If the fruit is permanent, how can it be the cause? If that is the case, the sutra says: 'Those who have two have neither the path nor the fruit.' Question: The sutra says: 'Practicing the cause obtains the Bodhi-fruit, and after obtaining the fruit, one enters birth and death to teach sentient beings.' How can you say there is no cause and effect? Answer: Bodhisattvas (enlightened beings) do not practice the cause to obtain the fruit, but only to guide sentient beings onto the right path. That is why they left the city at midnight, abandoning desires, to make them realize that everything is empty and without substance. For Bodhisattvas, it has never been said that there is birth and death, nor has it been said that there is Nirvana, nor has it been said that there is cause, nor has it been said that there is fruit. These are all expedient teachings opened up for the sake of teaching sentient beings. Question: You practice the cause to obtain Bodhi. Do you reach the fruit or not? If you reach it, it is permanent; if you do not reach it, it is annihilation. There is neither cause nor effect. Moreover, when is Bodhi cause and effect? It is not a cause, but is falsely named a cause; it is not a fruit, but is falsely named a fruit. It is also not the four or five fruits. There are no four or five fruits, but they are falsely named the four or five fruits. That is why it is said to be the five Bodhis. Because of shallowness and depth, they are falsely named shallow and deep. Therefore, the initial aspiration is shallow, and becoming a Buddha is deep. The four fruits are the cause, and the Buddha-fruit is the fruit. Although diligently striving, the second point below is to refute cause and effect, explaining that you believe that ordinary people cultivate the cause to obtain the Buddha-fruit. When one is an ordinary person, there is no Buddha; when one becomes a Buddha, there is no longer an ordinary person. If there is definitely no Buddha when one is an ordinary person, then even if one diligently cultivates, one will ultimately not be able to become a Buddha. Because one has not obtained (Buddha-nature), one will definitely not be able to obtain the Buddha-fruit; without Buddha-nature, one will definitely not be able to become a Buddha. This is also using the meaning of Mahayana to refute the meaning of Hinayana. Mahayana elucidates that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature and can ultimately become Buddhas. Hinayana people do not understand that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature. If that is the case, since there is no Buddha-nature, even if one cultivates, one will ultimately not be able to become a Buddha. Question: Hinayana people also say, one...
切眾生有三乘性。至忍法時餘二性非數緣滅。故三乘中隨成一乘。云何言不明佛性。答大乘中明唯有佛性無有餘性。故得成佛。小乘不明唯有佛性。則破大乘佛性義。既無大乘佛性。云何成佛。又小乘人有佛性。佛性是無常破大乘佛性常義。故不得成佛。此偈即釋涅槃經文。故不應言但申波若。又依文釋此偈。小乘人謂六道性恒非佛性。性者體也。故凡聖體異。若爾非定非異定異。云何非得成是。凡得為聖耶。又問大乘人明有佛性。得成佛不。答有所得大乘人釋佛性皆不成。如雖有十家釋于佛性。皆云佛性定常。但當現為異。而眾生及心皆是無常。故心與眾生恒非佛性。云何成佛。若諸法不空下第二還其無罪福過。又開為兩別。初明無罪福因果。二明無世俗法。還對前二也。就初文二。前明無造罪福之人。次兩偈明無罪福之法。夫論罪福不出人法。既無何有罪福。汝云。我說空則無人能殺。亦無所殺亦無刀杖故無罪。亦無能施所施人。亦無物故無福。若汝今有定效能殺所殺及刀杖。各住自性不得動。故無罪也。各住性不得施亦無福也。汝于罪福中下第二明無罪福之法。兩偈為二。初明因果相離無罪福。次明因果不相離亦無罪福。凡有罪福不出此二此二。既無故知無也。初偈上半牒。言不生者此是未生為不生耳。下半破
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 眾生有三種根性（三乘性）。到了忍法的時候，其餘兩種根性就不是因緣生滅（非數緣滅）了。所以三乘之中，最終成就一乘。為什麼說小乘不明佛性呢？因為大乘經典中闡明只有佛性，沒有其他根性，所以能夠成佛。小乘經典不明說只有佛性，這就破斥了大乘佛性的意義。既然沒有大乘佛性，怎麼能夠成佛呢？而且小乘人認為有佛性，但佛性是無常的，這又破斥了大乘佛性是常的意義，所以不能成佛。這段偈頌是解釋《涅槃經》的經文，所以不應該說只是闡述《般若經》。 再根據經文解釋這句偈頌，小乘人認為六道眾生的根性永遠不是佛性。根性，指的是本體。所以凡夫和聖人的本體是不同的。如果這樣，就不是非定（非絕對）也非異（非不同），那麼非定非異，怎麼能說凡夫能夠成為聖人呢？ 又問，大乘人闡明有佛性，就能成佛嗎？回答是，有所得的大乘人解釋佛性，都是不能成就的。比如雖然有十家解釋佛性，都說佛性是恒定不變的（定常）。但認為佛性只是顯現為不同而已，而眾生和心都是無常的。所以心和眾生永遠不是佛性，怎麼能成佛呢？ 『若諸法不空』以下是第二部分，返回到沒有罪福的過失。又分為兩個部分。首先闡明沒有罪福的因果，其次闡明沒有世俗法。返回來對應前面的兩種情況。就第一部分而言，分為兩點。首先闡明沒有造罪福的人，其次用兩句偈頌闡明沒有罪福的法。通常來說，罪福離不開人和法。既然沒有人和法，哪裡會有罪福呢？ 你（小乘）說，我說空，就沒有人能殺，也沒有被殺的對象，也沒有刀杖，所以沒有罪。也沒有能佈施的人，也沒有接受佈施的人，也沒有佈施的物品，所以沒有福。如果你現在有固定的自性，能殺的對象、被殺的對象以及刀杖，各自安住于自己的自性，不能變動，所以就沒有罪。各自安住于自性，不能佈施，所以也沒有福。 『汝于罪福中』以下是第二部分，闡明沒有罪福的法。兩句偈頌分為兩點。首先闡明因果相離，沒有罪福。其次闡明因果不相離，也沒有罪福。凡是罪福都離不開這兩種情況，既然這兩種情況都沒有，就知道沒有罪福了。第一句偈頌的上半部分是重複，說『不生』，這是指未生，才是『不生』。下半部分是破斥。
【English Translation】 English version Sentient beings have three kinds of natures (Three Vehicles). When it comes to the Patience Dharma (Kshanti Dharma), the other two natures are not subject to conditioned arising and ceasing (Pratityasamutpada). Therefore, among the Three Vehicles, one ultimately attains one vehicle. Why is it said that the Small Vehicle (Hinayana) does not clarify Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhatu)? Because the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) scriptures clarify that there is only Buddha-nature, and no other natures, therefore one can attain Buddhahood. The Small Vehicle scriptures do not clarify that there is only Buddha-nature, which refutes the meaning of Buddha-nature in the Great Vehicle. Since there is no Great Vehicle Buddha-nature, how can one attain Buddhahood? Moreover, Small Vehicle practitioners believe that there is Buddha-nature, but Buddha-nature is impermanent, which again refutes the meaning of the Great Vehicle that Buddha-nature is permanent, so one cannot attain Buddhahood. This verse explains the text of the Nirvana Sutra, so it should not be said that it only expounds the Prajna (Wisdom) Sutra. Furthermore, according to the text, this verse explains that Small Vehicle practitioners believe that the nature of beings in the Six Realms is never Buddha-nature. Nature refers to the essence. Therefore, the essence of ordinary beings and sages is different. If so, it is neither non-fixed nor non-different, then how can it be said that an ordinary being can become a sage? Again, it is asked, can Great Vehicle practitioners who clarify that there is Buddha-nature attain Buddhahood? The answer is that Great Vehicle practitioners who cling to attainment and interpret Buddha-nature cannot achieve it. For example, although there are ten schools that interpret Buddha-nature, they all say that Buddha-nature is constant and unchanging. But they believe that Buddha-nature only manifests differently, while sentient beings and the mind are impermanent. Therefore, the mind and sentient beings are never Buddha-nature, how can one attain Buddhahood? 『If all dharmas are not empty』 below is the second part, returning to the fault of having no merit and demerit. It is further divided into two parts. First, it clarifies that there is no cause and effect of merit and demerit, and second, it clarifies that there are no worldly dharmas. It returns to correspond to the previous two situations. Regarding the first part, it is divided into two points. First, it clarifies that there is no one who creates merit and demerit, and second, it clarifies that there are no dharmas of merit and demerit using two verses. Generally speaking, merit and demerit cannot be separated from people and dharmas. Since there are no people and dharmas, where can there be merit and demerit? You (Hinayana) say, 'I say emptiness, then there is no one who can kill, no object to be killed, and no weapons, so there is no sin. There is also no one who can give, no one who receives, and no object to give, so there is no merit.' If you now have a fixed self-nature, the object that can kill, the object that is killed, and the weapons, each abiding in its own self-nature, cannot be moved, so there is no sin. Each abiding in its own nature, cannot give, so there is no merit. 『You in merit and demerit』 below is the second part, clarifying that there are no dharmas of merit and demerit. The two verses are divided into two points. First, it clarifies that cause and effect are separate, and there is no merit and demerit. Second, it clarifies that cause and effect are not separate, and there is also no merit and demerit. All merit and demerit cannot be separated from these two situations, since these two situations do not exist, it is known that there is no merit and demerit. The first half of the first verse is a repetition, saying 『not born』, this refers to not yet born, which is 『not born』. The second half is a refutation.
罪福因中未有于果。則是因果相離。云何因能生果。又以外人執有定性。故果報不應從罪福。若不從罪福生。則離罪福而有果報。偈文正爾也。第二偈直明因果不相離。則是由因有果果無自性。是故果空。由果有因因亦空也。又釋二偈二開破之。汝言有罪福果者。為從因生果為不從因而生。初偈破不從。第二偈破從。汝破一切法下第二還於世俗過。三偈為二。初偈為總后二為別。偈易知也。今問他義。汝世諦有因果。真無因果。則一邊有。一邊無。一邊破。一邊不破。若說真則破世諦因果。說世則破真諦無因果。若因果無因果二理並則如二角。又如畫石。若真俗混成一物則俱失二諦。若破于空義下第二別明無世俗。初偈明無人法之體。次偈失萬物之相。世俗法中不出體相也。又初偈無造作過。后偈有常住過。偈易知。今問他義。汝因若無果明因生果。則應將無作有。以兔角為牛角。若不將無作有便將有作有。既已有竟。何須作有。如已有因竟不應更作因。已有果竟者何須更生。又若因無果而無作有者。色應作心心應作色。常作無常無常作常。若有作有既已有。何須作。如是無不作有有不作有。亦有亦無亦不作有。又汝言從生死無常作佛果常。佛果常復應作生死無常。若不爾豈非定性。他問我。人法是世諦假有。何時是
{ "translations": [ "罪與福的因，在結果產生之前並不存在。這樣一來，因和果就是相互分離的。那麼，因如何能夠產生果呢？而且，外道之人執著於事物具有固定不變的自性（定性）。因此，果報不應該來自於罪與福。如果不是從罪與福產生，那麼果報就脫離了罪與福而存在。第一首偈頌正是這個意思。第二首偈頌直接說明因果不相分離，即由於有因而有果，果沒有自性，所以果是空性的。由於有果，因而因也是空性的。又解釋這兩首偈頌，將它們分開來破斥。你說有罪福的果報，是從因而生，還是不從因而生？第一首偈頌破斥不從因而生，第二首偈頌破斥從因而生。『你破一切法』之後，第二部分是返回到世俗的過失。這三首偈頌分為兩部分，第一首偈頌是總說，后兩首是別說。偈頌容易理解。現在問對方的觀點：你認為世俗諦有因果，而真諦沒有因果。那麼就是一邊有，一邊沒有；一邊破斥，一邊不破斥。如果說真諦，就破斥了世俗諦的因果；如果說世俗諦，就破斥了真諦的沒有因果。如果因果和沒有因果兩種道理並存，那就如同兩個角。又如同畫的石頭。如果真諦和俗諦混成一體，那麼就都失去了二諦。『若破于空義』之後，第二部分是分別說明沒有世俗諦。第一首偈頌說明沒有人法之體性，第二首偈頌失去萬物之相狀。世俗法不出體和相。而且，第一首偈頌沒有造作的過失，后一首偈頌有常住的過失。偈頌容易理解。現在問對方的觀點：如果因沒有果，卻能說明因能生果，那麼就應該將沒有的變成有的，用兔角當作牛角。如果不將沒有的變成有的，那麼就將已經有的變成有的。既然已經有了，何須再造作？如同已經有了因，就不應該再造作因；已經有了果，何須再生。而且，如果因沒有果，卻能將沒有的變成有的，那麼色（rupa）應該能變成心（citta），心應該能變成色。常（nitya）能變成無常（anitya），無常能變成常。如果有變成有，既然已經有了，何須再造作？像這樣，沒有不變成有，有不變成有，亦有亦無，亦不造作有。而且你說從生死無常造作佛果常。佛果常反過來應該造作生死無常。如果不這樣，豈不是成了定性？對方問我：人法是世俗諦的假有，什麼時候是空？", "現代漢語譯本：罪與福的因，在結果產生之前並不存在。這樣一來，因和果就是相互分離的。那麼，因如何能夠產生果呢？而且，外道之人執著於事物具有固定不變的自性（定性）。因此，果報不應該來自於罪與福。如果不是從罪與福產生，那麼果報就脫離了罪與福而存在。第一首偈頌正是這個意思。第二首偈頌直接說明因果不相分離，即由於有因而有果，果沒有自性，所以果是空性的。由於有果，因而因也是空性的。又解釋這兩首偈頌，將它們分開來破斥。你說有罪福的果報，是從因而生，還是不從因而生？第一首偈頌破斥不從因而生，第二首偈頌破斥從因而生。『你破一切法』之後，第二部分是返回到世俗的過失。這三首偈頌分為兩部分，第一首偈頌是總說，后兩首是別說。偈頌容易理解。現在問對方的觀點：你認為世俗諦有因果，而真諦沒有因果。那麼就是一邊有，一邊沒有；一邊破斥，一邊不破斥。如果說真諦，就破斥了世俗諦的因果；如果說世俗諦，就破斥了真諦的沒有因果。如果因果和沒有因果兩種道理並存，那就如同兩個角。又如同畫的石頭。如果真諦和俗諦混成一體，那麼就都失去了二諦。『若破于空義』之後，第二部分是分別說明沒有世俗諦。第一首偈頌說明沒有人法之體性，第二首偈頌失去萬物之相狀。世俗法不出體和相。而且，第一首偈頌沒有造作的過失，后一首偈頌有常住的過失。偈頌容易理解。現在問對方的觀點：如果因沒有果，卻能說明因能生果，那麼就應該將沒有的變成有的，用兔角當作牛角。如果不將沒有的變成有的，那麼就將已經有的變成有的。既然已經有了，何須再造作？如同已經有了因，就不應該再造作因；已經有了果，何須再生。而且，如果因沒有果，卻能將沒有的變成有的，那麼色（rupa）應該能變成心（citta），心應該能變成色。常（nitya）能變成無常（anitya），無常能變成常。如果有變成有，既然已經有了，何須再造作？像這樣，沒有不變成有，有不變成有，亦有亦無，亦不造作有。而且你說從生死無常造作佛果常。佛果常反過來應該造作生死無常。如果不這樣，豈不是成了定性？對方問我：人法是世俗諦的假有，什麼時候是空？" ], "english_translations": [ 'The cause of sin and merit does not exist in the result before it arises. In this way, cause and effect are separate. How can a cause produce an effect? Moreover, outsiders cling to the notion that things have a fixed nature (定性, ding xing). Therefore, karmic retribution should not come from sin and merit. If it does not arise from sin and merit, then karmic retribution exists apart from sin and merit. The first verse means exactly this. The second verse directly states that cause and effect are not separate, that is, because there is a cause, there is an effect; the effect has no self-nature, so the effect is empty. Because there is an effect, the cause is also empty. Furthermore, explain these two verses, breaking them apart to refute them. You say that there is a result of sin and merit; does it arise from a cause or not from a cause? The first verse refutes arising not from a cause, and the second verse refutes arising from a cause. After \'You refute all dharmas,\' the second part is returning to the fault of the mundane. These three verses are divided into two parts; the first verse is a general statement, and the latter two are specific statements. The verses are easy to understand. Now ask the other party\'s view: You believe that conventional truth (世俗諦) has cause and effect, while ultimate truth (真諦) has no cause and effect. Then it is that one side has, and one side does not have; one side refutes, and one side does not refute. If you speak of ultimate truth, you refute the cause and effect of conventional truth; if you speak of conventional truth, you refute the absence of cause and effect in ultimate truth. If the two principles of cause and effect and no cause and effect coexist, then it is like two horns. It is also like a painted stone. If ultimate truth and conventional truth are mixed into one, then both lose the two truths. After \'If you refute the meaning of emptiness,\' the second part is to separately explain that there is no conventional truth. The first verse explains the absence of the substance of persons and dharmas, and the second verse loses the appearance of all things. Mundane dharmas do not go beyond substance and appearance. Moreover, the first verse has no fault of fabrication, and the latter verse has the fault of permanence. The verses are easy to understand. Now ask the other party\'s view: If the cause has no effect, but can explain that the cause can produce an effect, then you should turn what is not into what is, using a rabbit\'s horn as a cow\'s horn. If you do not turn what is not into what is, then you turn what already is into what is. Since it already exists, why create it again? Just as there is already a cause, you should not create a cause again; there is already an effect, why generate it again. Moreover, if the cause has no effect, but can turn what is not into what is, then form (rupa) should be able to become mind (citta), and mind should be able to become form. Permanent (nitya) can become impermanent (anitya), and impermanent can become permanent. If there is becoming is, since it already exists, why create it again? Like this, there is no not becoming is, there is not becoming is, there is also is and is not, and there is also not creating is. Moreover, you say that from the impermanence of birth and death, you create the permanence of Buddhahood. The permanence of Buddhahood, in turn, should create the impermanence of birth and death. If not, wouldn\'t it become fixed nature? The other party asks me: Persons and dharmas are conventionally existent in mundane truth; when are they empty?', "English version: The cause of sin and merit does not exist in the result before it arises. In this way, cause and effect are separate. How can a cause produce an effect? Moreover, outsiders cling to the notion that things have a fixed nature (定性, ding xing). Therefore, karmic retribution should not come from sin and merit. If it does not arise from sin and merit, then karmic retribution exists apart from sin and merit. The first verse means exactly this. The second verse directly states that cause and effect are not separate, that is, because there is a cause, there is an effect; the effect has no self-nature, so the effect is empty. Because there is an effect, the cause is also empty. Furthermore, explain these two verses, breaking them apart to refute them. You say that there is a result of sin and merit; does it arise from a cause or not from a cause? The first verse refutes arising not from a cause, and the second verse refutes arising from a cause. After 'You refute all dharmas,' the second part is returning to the fault of the mundane. These three verses are divided into two parts; the first verse is a general statement, and the latter two are specific statements. The verses are easy to understand. Now ask the other party's view: You believe that conventional truth (世俗諦) has cause and effect, while ultimate truth (真諦) has no cause and effect. Then it is that one side has, and one side does not have; one side refutes, and one side does not refute. If you speak of ultimate truth, you refute the cause and effect of conventional truth; if you speak of conventional truth, you refute the absence of cause and effect in ultimate truth. If the two principles of cause and effect and no cause and effect coexist, then it is like two horns. It is also like a painted stone. If ultimate truth and conventional truth are mixed into one, then both lose the two truths. After 'If you refute the meaning of emptiness,' the second part is to separately explain that there is no conventional truth. The first verse explains the absence of the substance of persons and dharmas, and the second verse loses the appearance of all things. Mundane dharmas do not go beyond substance and appearance. Moreover, the first verse has no fault of fabrication, and the latter verse has the fault of permanence. The verses are easy to understand. Now ask the other party's view: If the cause has no effect, but can explain that the cause can produce an effect, then you should turn what is not into what is, using a rabbit's horn as a cow's horn. If you do not turn what is not into what is, then you turn what already is into what is. Since it already exists, why create it again? Just as there is already a cause, you should not create a cause again; there is already an effect, why generate it again. Moreover, if the cause has no effect, but can turn what is not into what is, then form (rupa) should be able to become mind (citta), and mind should be able to become form. Permanent (nitya) can become impermanent (anitya), and impermanent can become permanent. If there is becoming is, since it already exists, why create it again? Like this, there is no not becoming is, there is not becoming is, there is also is and is not, and there is also not creating is. Moreover, you say that from the impermanence of birth and death, you create the permanence of Buddhahood. The permanence of Buddhahood, in turn, should create the impermanence of birth and death. If not, wouldn't it become fixed nature? The other party asks me: Persons and dharmas are conventionally existent in mundane truth; when are they empty?'" ] }
性。問汝。名字為假實為有此假不。若實有此假豈非定性。若言非性可得假作無假義以不耶。次偈明無相。如文。若無有空者下論主答中第三總結誡勸。此品具破世出世。故須明誡勸。又得失是于大事。如波若云。波若為大事故起。所謂示是道非道。今亦爾。示有所得定性此非是道。示無所得因緣名之為道。故次明誡勸。前偈明誡。次偈明勸。前偈誡令舍一切有所得定性。汝若執有定性世出世一切得者不得。一切失者不失。故宜應舍性。偈中以定性故。所以未得不得無斷煩惱及盡苦也。次偈勸學因緣。一切得者。得一切失者。皆失偈中略明見因緣。有二種利益。一者見人則是見佛。次明見法則見四諦。長行雲。見因緣則見法身者。因緣即寂滅性。寂滅性則施四句超百非。故如來品以寂滅為法身。又只丈六即是法身。故高丈六而不見其頂。下豈定下耶。若言其高那復丈六。故知。不高不下非邊無邊。故肇師云。豈舍丈六而遠求法身。涅槃云。吾今此身即是法身也。問見因緣但見法身。亦見應身。答見因緣寂滅即見法身。見寂滅因緣即見應身也。若三身明義見七尺身具見三身。七尺本寂滅即法身見於法身。與法身相應即應身。而七尺宛然故是化身。見四諦者見寂滅因緣即見苦集。見因緣寂滅即見滅道。涅槃經見緣起為見法
【現代漢語翻譯】 性（xìng）：問你，名字是虛假的還是真實存在的？這個『假』是真實存在的嗎？如果『假』是真實存在的，那豈不是成了定性（dìng xìng）？如果說不是定性，那麼可以假裝沒有『假』的意義嗎？接下來用偈頌說明無相（wú xiàng），就像經文所說的那樣。『若無有空者』（ruò wú yǒu kōng zhě）之後，論主的回答中第三部分總結並勸誡。這一品完整地破斥了世間和出世間的觀點，所以需要明確地進行勸誡。而且，得失是大事。如《般若經》（Bō rě jīng）所說：『般若為大事故起，所謂示是道非道』（Bō rě wèi dà shì gù qǐ, suǒ wèi shì shì dào fēi dào）。現在也是這樣，顯示有所得的定性，這不是道；顯示無所得的因緣（yīn yuán），這被稱為道。所以接下來闡明勸誡。前面的偈頌闡明勸誡，後面的偈頌闡明勸學因緣。前面的偈頌勸誡人們捨棄一切有所得的定性。你如果執著于有定性，那麼世間和出世間的一切得都不能得到，一切失都不會失去，所以應該捨棄定性。偈頌中因為定性的緣故，所以沒有得到，不能斷除煩惱以及滅盡痛苦。後面的偈頌勸學因緣，一切得的人，得到一切；一切失的人，都失去。偈頌中簡略地說明了見因緣（jiàn yīn yuán）有兩種利益：一是見人就是見佛（jiàn fó）；二是見法則見四諦（jiàn sì dì）。長行中說：『見因緣則見法身者』（jiàn yīn yuán zé jiàn fǎ shēn zhě），因緣就是寂滅性（jì miè xìng），寂滅性則施四句超百非。所以《如來品》（Rú lái pǐn）以寂滅為法身（fǎ shēn）。而且，僅僅是丈六金身（zhàng liù jīn shēn）就是法身，所以高丈六卻看不見他的頭頂，難道一定是下嗎？如果說他高，那又怎麼是丈六呢？所以知道，不高不下，非邊無邊。所以肇法師（Zhào fǎ shī）說：『豈舍丈六而遠求法身』（qǐ shě zhàng liù ér yuǎn qiú fǎ shēn）？《涅槃經》（Niè pán jīng）說：『吾今此身即是法身也』（wú jīn cǐ shēn jí shì fǎ shēn yě）。問：見因緣只是見法身，也見應身（yìng shēn）嗎？答：見因緣寂滅就見法身，見寂滅因緣就見應身。如果三身（sān shēn）明義，見七尺之身就具見三身。七尺之身本是寂滅，就是法身，見於法身，與法身相應就是應身，而七尺之身宛然，所以是化身（huà shēn）。見四諦的人，見寂滅因緣就見苦集（kǔ jí），見因緣寂滅就見滅道（miè dào）。《涅槃經》見緣起為見法。
【English Translation】 Nature. Question: Is the name 'name' a false designation or a real existence? Is this 'false' truly existent? If this 'false' is truly existent, wouldn't it be a fixed nature (Ding Xing)? If you say it is not a fixed nature, can you falsely claim that there is no meaning of 'false'? Next, the verse explains no-form (Wu Xiang), as the text says. After 'If there is no emptiness' (Ruo Wu You Kong Zhe), the third part of the master's answer summarizes and exhorts. This chapter completely refutes worldly and other-worldly views, so it needs clear exhortation. Moreover, gain and loss are important matters. As the Prajna Sutra (Bo Re Jing) says: 'Prajna arises for great matters, namely, to show what is the path and what is not the path' (Bo Re Wei Da Shi Gu Qi, Suo Wei Shi Shi Dao Fei Dao). It is the same now, showing that having a fixed nature of attainment is not the path; showing the condition of no attainment (Yin Yuan) is called the path. Therefore, the following clarifies exhortation. The previous verse clarifies exhortation, and the following verse clarifies exhortation to learn the condition. The previous verse exhorts people to abandon all fixed nature of attainment. If you are attached to having a fixed nature, then all gains in the world and beyond cannot be obtained, and all losses will not be lost, so you should abandon fixed nature. In the verse, because of the fixed nature, one has not attained, cannot cut off afflictions, and extinguish suffering. The following verse exhorts learning the condition, all who gain, gain all; all who lose, lose all. The verse briefly explains seeing the condition (Jian Yin Yuan) has two benefits: first, seeing a person is seeing the Buddha (Jian Fo); second, seeing the Dharma is seeing the Four Noble Truths (Jian Si Di). The long passage says: 'Seeing the condition is seeing the Dharma body' (Jian Yin Yuan Ze Jian Fa Shen Zhe), the condition is the nature of stillness (Ji Mie Xing), and the nature of stillness applies the four sentences and transcends the hundred negations. Therefore, the Tathagata Chapter (Ru Lai Pin) takes stillness as the Dharma body (Fa Shen). Moreover, just the sixteen-foot golden body (Zhang Liu Jin Shen) is the Dharma body, so it is sixteen feet tall but you cannot see its top, is it necessarily below? If you say it is tall, then how is it sixteen feet? Therefore, know that it is neither high nor low, neither bounded nor unbounded. Therefore, Master Zhao (Zhao Fa Shi) said: 'Why abandon the sixteen feet and seek the Dharma body far away?' (Qi She Zhang Liu Er Yuan Qiu Fa Shen)? The Nirvana Sutra (Nie Pan Jing) says: 'This body of mine is the Dharma body' (Wu Jin Ci Shen Ji Shi Fa Shen Ye). Question: Seeing the condition only sees the Dharma body, does it also see the Response Body (Ying Shen)? Answer: Seeing the stillness of the condition sees the Dharma body, and seeing the condition of stillness sees the Response Body. If the three bodies (San Shen) are clarified, seeing the seven-foot body is seeing all three bodies. The seven-foot body is originally still, which is the Dharma body, seeing the Dharma body, and corresponding to the Dharma body is the Response Body, and the seven-foot body is clearly there, so it is the Manifestation Body (Hua Shen). Those who see the Four Noble Truths, seeing the stillness of the condition see suffering and accumulation (Ku Ji), and seeing the condition of stillness see cessation and the path (Mie Dao). The Nirvana Sutra sees the arising of conditions as seeing the Dharma.
。見法為見佛。見佛見佛性。即是今論所引。問論主何故明見因緣。答須識此論大意及佛法大宗。正破性申因緣。上破性有性空竟。今申因緣有。因緣有即畢竟空。故是因緣空。宜須以此為正意也。
涅槃品第二十五
問何故次四諦品破涅槃耶。答大小二乘並有四諦一諦。小乘明有量之四。宗歸一滅諦也。大乘說無量之四。亦宗歸一滅諦也。所以大小宗歸一滅者。三諦皆是有為。唯此一滅是無為常住。又此滅是究竟無餘極果故。三諦歸斯一極。故前破四諦今觀涅槃。又由稟四諦教生解。斷煩惱故得涅槃。故前觀四諦后觀涅槃。又成論者云。四諦平等即是涅槃。大品盛有此說。故上明四諦空即謂空是涅槃。是故今品具明四句並非涅槃。何得以空為涅槃耶。問何故二十五品最後破涅槃耶。答外謂涅槃是安神之本宅凡聖所同歸。故肇師云。九流於是乎交歸。群聖於是乎冥會。諸方等經亦盛談此說。故法華云。究竟涅槃常寂滅相終歸於空。是故最後論于涅槃。二者論佛出世大意。為令眾生舍于生死得大涅槃。若爾必有生死者可舍。涅槃可得。斯理不差。決定有故最後論之。三者外謂。龍樹出世作論。破病申經大宗。亦令眾生脫生死苦得涅槃。若不為脫生死苦令得涅槃。何事破病申佛教耶故知。造論終歸涅槃。故最
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：見到法就是見到佛，見到佛就是見到佛性。這就是現在所討論的內容所引用的。問：論主為什麼闡明見因緣？答：必須瞭解這部論的大意以及佛法的大宗旨，正是爲了破斥自性而闡明因緣。前面破斥了有自性和空自性，現在闡明因緣有。因緣有即是畢竟空，所以是因緣空。應該以此作為正確的理解。
涅槃品第二十五
問：為什麼在四諦品之後破斥涅槃呢？答：大乘和小乘都有四諦這一說法。小乘闡明有量的四諦，最終歸於一滅諦。大乘闡明無量的四諦，也最終歸於一滅諦。大小乘都歸於一滅諦的原因是，三諦都是有為法，只有這一個滅諦是無為常住的。而且這個滅是究竟無餘的極果，所以三諦歸於這一個極果。因此前面破斥四諦，現在觀察涅槃。又因為依四諦的教導產生理解，斷除煩惱才能得到涅槃，所以前面觀察四諦，後面觀察涅槃。又成論者說，四諦平等就是涅槃。《大品般若經》中有很多這樣的說法，所以上面闡明四諦空，就認為空就是涅槃。因此這一品詳細闡明四句，都不是涅槃。怎麼能以空作為涅槃呢？問：為什麼在二十五品最後破斥涅槃呢？答：外道認為涅槃是安頓精神的根本歸宿，是凡人和聖人共同歸向的地方。所以肇法師說：『九流都在這裡交匯歸宿，眾聖都在這裡冥合。』諸方等經也盛大地談論這種說法。所以《法華經》說：『究竟涅槃是常寂滅相，最終歸於空。』因此最後討論涅槃。第二，論述佛陀出世的大意，是爲了讓眾生捨棄生死，得到大涅槃。如果這樣，必定有可以捨棄的生死，有可以得到的涅槃，這個道理沒有錯，是決定存在的，所以最後討論它。第三，外道認為，龍樹（Nagarjuna）出世造論，破斥邪見，闡明佛經的大宗旨，也是爲了讓眾生脫離生死苦，得到涅槃。如果不為脫離生死苦而得到涅槃，為什麼要破斥邪見，闡明佛教呢？所以知道，造論最終歸於涅槃，所以最後討論它。
【English Translation】 English version: Seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. Seeing the Buddha is seeing the Buddha-nature. This is what is quoted in the current discussion. Question: Why does the author of the treatise explain the arising of conditions (因緣, Hetupratyaya)? Answer: It is necessary to understand the main idea of this treatise and the grand purpose of Buddhism, which is precisely to refute inherent nature (自性, Svabhava) and expound dependent origination (因緣, Hetupratyaya). The previous section refuted the existence and emptiness of inherent nature. Now, dependent origination is expounded. Dependent origination is ultimately emptiness (空, Shunyata), so it is the emptiness of dependent origination. This should be taken as the correct understanding.
Chapter Twenty-Five: Nirvana (涅槃)
Question: Why is Nirvana refuted after the Four Noble Truths (四諦, Catvāri-āryasatyāni)? Answer: Both Mahayana and Hinayana have the teaching of the Four Noble Truths. Hinayana explains the Four Noble Truths with limitations, ultimately returning to the one Truth of Cessation (滅諦, Nirodha-satya). Mahayana explains the Four Noble Truths without limitations, also ultimately returning to the one Truth of Cessation. The reason why both Mahayana and Hinayana return to the one Truth of Cessation is that the three truths are all conditioned (有為, Saṃskṛta), only this one Cessation is unconditioned (無為, Asaṃskṛta) and permanent (常住, Nitya). Moreover, this Cessation is the ultimate and complete result, so the three truths return to this one ultimate result. Therefore, the Four Noble Truths were refuted earlier, and now Nirvana is examined. Furthermore, understanding arises from the teachings of the Four Noble Truths, and Nirvana is attained by cutting off afflictions (煩惱, Kleshas). Therefore, the Four Noble Truths are examined first, and Nirvana is examined later. Also, the Tattvasiddhi School (成論者) says that the equality of the Four Noble Truths is Nirvana. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) has many such statements, so the emptiness of the Four Noble Truths was explained above, and it was thought that emptiness is Nirvana. Therefore, this chapter explains in detail that the four statements are not Nirvana. How can emptiness be taken as Nirvana? Question: Why is Nirvana refuted last in the twenty-fifth chapter? Answer: Outsiders think that Nirvana is the fundamental home for settling the spirit, the common destination for ordinary people and sages. Therefore, Master Zhao (肇法師) said: 'The nine streams converge and return here, and all the sages unite here in the dark.' The Vaipulya Sutras (方等經) also greatly discuss this view. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra (法華經) says: 'Ultimate Nirvana is the state of constant tranquility and extinction, ultimately returning to emptiness.' Therefore, Nirvana is discussed last. Second, the main purpose of the Buddha's appearance in the world is to enable sentient beings to abandon birth and death and attain great Nirvana. If so, there must be birth and death that can be abandoned and Nirvana that can be attained. This principle is not wrong, it is definitely existent, so it is discussed last. Third, outsiders think that Nagarjuna (龍樹) appeared in the world to write treatises, refute wrong views, and expound the grand purpose of the Buddhist scriptures, also to enable sentient beings to escape the suffering of birth and death and attain Nirvana. If it were not for escaping the suffering of birth and death and attaining Nirvana, why would he refute wrong views and expound Buddhism? Therefore, it is known that writing treatises ultimately leads to Nirvana, so it is discussed last.
后論也。四依經說雙林最後既說涅槃。是故論主最後論也。釋涅槃不同。外道七師小乘二說方等四計。外道七師者一執涅槃與無煩惱不異。二計涅槃是無煩惱因。三立涅槃是無煩惱果。四明畢竟無處名為涅槃。此如百論破常品說。次檀提婆羅門計於此身即是涅槃不須更滅。此明欲界為涅槃。次阿羅羅計無想為涅槃。此計色界為涅槃也。郁頭藍弗計非想為涅槃。此計無色界為涅槃也。此三外道以三有為涅槃。合前為七種也。小乘二師者。一毗曇計無為涅槃是常是善。本自有之在煩惱外。后斷煩惱起得得之屬於行者。二成實明涅槃但是無法。非三性攝。從善因得義說為善。大乘四種者。一者明涅槃性體是世諦之法。所以然者陶練小智終成大覺。累無不寂德無不圓。故涅槃名為有法。第二釋云。以空為涅槃。即是實相。實相名第一義諦。三釋云。涅槃非真非俗。世諦是粗有。真諦為妙無。涅槃異彼粗有。亦不同妙無。故出二諦外。四釋云。四句內並非至極起出四句方是涅槃。唯四師不同大明二種。成實者明本始有二種涅槃。十地師明性凈方便凈。方便凈修因所得。性凈則古今常有。然方便凈猶是始有異名。性凈則本有殊稱。攝大乘論四種涅槃。一本性寂滅。二有餘。三無餘。四無住處。釋無住處二。初依三身品法身不住生死
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 后論（對涅槃的討論）。《四依經》中說雙林入滅是最後的涅槃。因此，本論（指《涅槃經》）的論主最後才討論涅槃。 解釋涅槃的不同觀點：外道七師、小乘二說、方等四計。 外道七師： 一、執著涅槃與沒有煩惱沒有區別。 二、認為涅槃是沒有煩惱的原因。 三、主張涅槃是沒有煩惱的結果。 四、認為徹底沒有處所名為涅槃。這如同《百論·破常品》中所說。 其次，檀提婆羅門認為這個身體就是涅槃，不需要再滅度。這是認為欲界就是涅槃。 其次，阿羅羅認為無想是涅槃。這是認為（色界）為涅槃。 郁頭藍弗認為非想是涅槃。這是認為無（色）為涅槃。 這三位外道以三有為涅槃。合前面的四種，總共是七種。 小乘二師： 一、毗曇宗認為無為涅槃是常、是善。本來就存在，在煩惱之外。後來斷除煩惱才能獲得，屬於修行者的功德。 二、成實宗認為涅槃只是無法，不屬於三性所攝。從善因所得的角度來說，可以稱為善。 大乘四種： 一、認為涅槃的自性本體是世俗諦的法。原因是陶冶鍛鍊小智慧最終成就大覺悟，積累的功德沒有不寂靜的，具備的德行沒有不圓滿的。所以涅槃被稱為有法。 二、解釋說，以空為涅槃，就是實相。實相名為第一義諦。 三、解釋說，涅槃非真非俗。世俗諦是粗糙的有，真諦是微妙的無。涅槃不同於粗糙的有，也不同於微妙的無。所以超出二諦之外。 四、解釋說，四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）之內並非至極，超出四句才是涅槃。 只有這四位大師的觀點不同，大體上闡明了兩種涅槃。成實宗闡明本始有二種涅槃。十地師闡明性凈和方便凈。方便凈是修因所得，性凈則是古今常有。然而方便凈仍然是始有的另一種名稱，性凈則是本有的特殊稱謂。 《攝大乘論》中有四種涅槃：一本性寂滅涅槃，二有餘依涅槃，三無餘依涅槃，四無住處涅槃。解釋無住處涅槃有兩種說法。首先，依據三身品，法身不住生死。
【English Translation】 English version Later discussion (on Nirvana). The Fourfold Reliance Sutra states that the final Nirvana is the extinction in the Shuanglin Grove (grove of twin Sala trees). Therefore, the author of this treatise (referring to the Nirvana Sutra) discusses Nirvana last. Explaining the different views on Nirvana: the seven non-Buddhist teachers, the two views of the Hinayana, and the four theories of the Vaipulya. The seven non-Buddhist teachers: 1. They cling to the idea that Nirvana is no different from the absence of afflictions. 2. They believe that Nirvana is the cause of the absence of afflictions. 3. They assert that Nirvana is the result of the absence of afflictions. 4. They believe that complete absence of a location is called Nirvana. This is as stated in the Hundred Treatises, Chapter on Refuting Permanence. Secondly, the Brahmin Dandibhava believes that this body is Nirvana, and there is no need for further extinction. This is considering the desire realm as Nirvana. Secondly, Arada Kalama believes that the state of no-thought (asaṃjñā) is Nirvana. This is considering (the form realm) as Nirvana. Udraka Ramaputra believes that the state of neither perception nor non-perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana) is Nirvana. This is considering the absence of (form) as Nirvana. These three non-Buddhists consider the three realms of existence (trayo dhātavaḥ) as Nirvana. Combining with the previous four, there are a total of seven. The two teachers of the Hinayana: 1. The Sarvastivadins believe that unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) Nirvana is permanent and good. It exists inherently, outside of afflictions. Later, it can be attained by cutting off afflictions, belonging to the merits of the practitioner. 2. The Satyasiddhi School believes that Nirvana is merely the absence of dharma (abhāva), not included in the three natures (trisvabhāva). From the perspective of being obtained from good causes, it can be called good. The four types of Mahayana: 1. They believe that the self-nature essence of Nirvana is a conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). The reason is that refining and training small wisdom ultimately leads to great enlightenment, the accumulated merits are all tranquil, and the virtues possessed are all complete. Therefore, Nirvana is called an existing dharma (bhāva). 2. It is explained that taking emptiness (śūnyatā) as Nirvana is the same as reality (tathatā). Reality is called the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). 3. It is explained that Nirvana is neither true nor conventional. Conventional truth is coarse existence, and ultimate truth is subtle non-existence. Nirvana is different from coarse existence and also different from subtle non-existence. Therefore, it is beyond the two truths. 4. It is explained that what is within the four propositions (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) is not the ultimate, and only going beyond the four propositions is Nirvana. Only these four masters have different views, generally elucidating two types of Nirvana. The Satyasiddhi School elucidates two types of Nirvana: original and acquired. The Ten Bhumi School elucidates self-nature purity (prakṛti-pariśuddha) and expedient purity (upāya-pariśuddha). Expedient purity is obtained through the cause of cultivation, while self-nature purity exists from ancient times to the present. However, expedient purity is still another name for acquired, while self-nature purity is a special term for inherent. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha has four types of Nirvana: 1. Nirvana of self-nature quiescence (prakṛti-parinirvāṇa), 2. Nirvana with remainder (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa), 3. Nirvana without remainder (nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa), 4. Nirvana without abode (apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa). There are two explanations for Nirvana without abode. First, according to the Three Bodies chapter, the Dharmakaya (dharmakāya) does not abide in birth and death.
。應身化身不住涅槃。次用二無我理三無性理。無所住處為無住處。又此四師同釋。涅槃備於三德。謂法身般若解脫。所以立三德為涅槃者。略有四義。生死與涅槃相對生死有於三障。謂煩惱業苦。對報障故明於法身。對業障故辨于解脫。對煩惱障說于般若。二者欲顯如來三業自在。有法身故身業自在。具般若故口業自在。有解脫故意業自在。具如涅槃四相品明。三者德雖無窮三義足略。無境不照名為般若。無感不應名為法身。無累不盡稱為解脫。四者為對二乘三德不圓。有身智時解脫未足。解脫若足即無復身智。故明如來三德圓滿。問此品何故破涅槃耶。答略明四義。一者惑人執非涅槃為涅槃。故須破之。所以然者。涅槃不如惑者所謂種種推拆橫計涅槃。故須破之。二者惑人執涅槃為非涅槃。所以然者。生死本是涅槃。而謂生死非是涅槃。故須破之。故下文云。生死之實際及以涅槃際。如是二際者無毫釐差別。華嚴云。生死非雜亂涅槃非寂靜。三者雖有內外大小不同同言有涅槃。若爾便成有見。既成有見乃是生死。不名涅槃。故有所得人若生死若涅槃。皆是生死。今求此生死涅槃不可得乃名涅槃。又言有生死則為生死所繫。執有涅槃為涅槃所繫。涅槃名為解脫。既是繫縛。何名涅槃。今此品求生死涅槃不可得。脫于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：應身（應化之身）和化身（變化之身）不住于涅槃。其次運用二無我之理和三無性之理。無所住之處即為無住之處。又這四位論師共同解釋，涅槃具備法身、般若、解脫這三種功德。之所以建立三德為涅槃，略有四種意義。生死與涅槃相對，生死有三種障礙，即煩惱、業、苦。爲了對治報障，闡明法身。爲了對治業障，辨明解脫。爲了對治煩惱障，宣說般若。二是爲了彰顯如來三業自在。具有法身，所以身業自在。具備般若，所以口業自在。具有解脫，所以意業自在。如《涅槃四相品》所闡明。三是功德雖然無窮無盡，但三種意義足以概括。無境不照，名為般若。無感不應，名為法身。無累不盡，稱為解脫。四是爲了對治二乘三德不圓滿。有身智時，解脫不足。解脫若足，即無復身智。所以闡明如來三德圓滿。問：此品為何要破斥涅槃呢？答：略明四種意義。一是迷惑之人執著非涅槃為涅槃，所以需要破斥它。之所以如此，是因為涅槃不如迷惑之人所說的那樣，種種推測分析，橫加計度涅槃。所以需要破斥它。二是迷惑之人執著涅槃為非涅槃。之所以如此，是因為生死本來就是涅槃，卻說生死不是涅槃。所以需要破斥它。所以下文說：『生死之實際以及涅槃際，如此二際沒有絲毫差別。』《華嚴經》說：『生死非雜亂，涅槃非寂靜。』三是雖然有內外大小不同，都說有涅槃。如果這樣，就成了有見。既然成了有見，那就是生死，不名為涅槃。所以有所得之人，無論是生死還是涅槃，都是生死。現在尋求這生死涅槃不可得，才名為涅槃。又說執著有生死，則為生死所繫縛。執著有涅槃，為涅槃所繫縛。涅槃名為解脫，既然是繫縛，怎麼能叫涅槃呢？現在此品尋求生死涅槃不可得，脫離了
【English Translation】 English version: The manifested body (應身) and the transformation body (化身) do not abide in Nirvana. Next, the principle of two non-selves and the principle of three non-natures are applied. The place where there is no abiding is the place of non-abiding. Furthermore, these four teachers commonly explain that Nirvana is complete with the three virtues: Dharmakaya (法身), Prajna (般若), and Liberation (解脫). The reason for establishing the three virtues as Nirvana is briefly fourfold. Birth and death are opposite to Nirvana; birth and death have three obstacles: afflictions, karma, and suffering. To counter the retribution obstacle, the Dharmakaya is clarified. To counter the karma obstacle, Liberation is distinguished. To counter the affliction obstacle, Prajna is spoken of. Secondly, it is to reveal the three karmas of the Tathagata (如來) are at ease. Having the Dharmakaya, the body karma is at ease. Possessing Prajna, the speech karma is at ease. Having Liberation, the mind karma is at ease. As explained in the 'Four Aspects of Nirvana' chapter. Thirdly, although the virtues are infinite, the three meanings are sufficient to summarize. Without a realm that is not illuminated is called Prajna. Without a feeling that is not responded to is called Dharmakaya. Without a burden that is not exhausted is called Liberation. Fourthly, it is to counter the incompleteness of the three virtues of the two vehicles (二乘). When there is body and wisdom, Liberation is insufficient. If Liberation is sufficient, then there is no body or wisdom. Therefore, it is clarified that the three virtues of the Tathagata are complete. Question: Why does this chapter refute Nirvana? Answer: Briefly explain four meanings. Firstly, deluded people cling to what is not Nirvana as Nirvana, so it must be refuted. The reason for this is that Nirvana is not as the deluded people say, speculating and analyzing in various ways, and arbitrarily measuring Nirvana. Therefore, it must be refuted. Secondly, deluded people cling to Nirvana as non-Nirvana. The reason for this is that birth and death are originally Nirvana, but they say that birth and death are not Nirvana. Therefore, it must be refuted. Therefore, the following text says: 'The reality of birth and death and the boundary of Nirvana, these two boundaries have no difference of a hair's breadth.' The Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經) says: 'Birth and death are not chaotic, Nirvana is not tranquil.' Thirdly, although there are differences in inner and outer, large and small, they all say there is Nirvana. If so, it becomes a view of existence. Since it becomes a view of existence, it is birth and death, not called Nirvana. Therefore, for those who have attainment, whether it is birth and death or Nirvana, it is birth and death. Now, seeking this birth and death Nirvana is unattainable, and that is called Nirvana. Furthermore, saying there is birth and death means being bound by birth and death. Clinging to Nirvana means being bound by Nirvana. Nirvana is called Liberation, but since it is bondage, how can it be called Nirvana? Now, this chapter seeks birth and death Nirvana as unattainable, freed from
二系名為解脫。方是涅槃。四者欲釋諸大乘明涅槃義。如大品云。若得有法過涅槃者亦如幻夢。所以然者。諸法未曾生死。亦非涅槃。但為眾生虛妄故成生死。為止生死故強說涅槃。生死若除則涅槃亦息。故華嚴云。生死與涅槃二俱不可得。是法不可示。言辭相寂滅也。品開三章。第一論涅槃。第二論生死。第三總結。初二。第一論所證涅槃邪之與正。第二論能證之人邪之與正。初又二。第一略破邪涅槃申正涅槃。第二廣破邪涅槃申正涅槃。所以開此二章者。諸方等經大明涅槃橫絕百非。豎超四句。累無不寂德無不圓。初略破邪涅槃申正涅槃。明橫絕百非。次廣破邪涅槃辨正涅槃。豎超四句。初門為二。一者略破邪涅槃。二者略申正涅槃。初又二。初寄外破空非涅槃。次就論主顯有非涅槃。所以破此二者空有是諸見根。又是障道本。又是大小所執。大乘人多執空。小乘人多執有盛行於世。初偈上半牒空義。下半正破空。若一切法空則無煩惱生。故無所斷。則無有餘。若一切空則無五陰生。何所滅。故稱為無餘。此難通大小乘人。小乘斷四住惑。滅分段身名二涅槃。大乘斷五住惑。滅二生死名大涅槃。今既言無生無滅。則無此大小二種涅槃。是為邪見。問上品已云一切無生滅。今何故復問。答畢竟空義難解難入。作論將
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第二種體系名為解脫（vimoksha，從輪迴中解脫）。這才是真正的涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）。以下四點旨在解釋大乘（Mahayana，偉大的載具）經典中關於涅槃的意義。如《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）所說：『如果存在超越涅槃的法，那也如同幻象和夢境。』 為什麼這麼說呢？因為諸法（dharma，事物）從未真正經歷生死，也並非涅槃本身。只是因為眾生的虛妄執著，才產生了生死。爲了止息生死，才勉強宣說涅槃。生死如果斷除，那麼涅槃也就不存在了。所以《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）說：『生死與涅槃，二者都不可得。』 這種法是無法用語言表達的，言語和概念都寂滅了。 這一品分為三個部分。第一部分討論涅槃，第二部分討論生死，第三部分是總結。前兩部分又分為：第一部分討論所證得的涅槃是邪是正，第二部分討論能證得涅槃的人是邪是正。第一部分又分為：第一，簡略地破斥邪涅槃，闡明正涅槃；第二，廣泛地破斥邪涅槃，闡明正涅槃。之所以分為這兩個部分，是因為諸方等經（Vaipulya Sutra，廣大的經典）中，大肆闡明涅槃橫向斷絕一切錯誤，縱向超越四句（tetralemma，四種邏輯可能性），積累的功德無不寂靜，具備的德行無不圓滿。首先，簡略地破斥邪涅槃，闡明正涅槃，說明橫向斷絕一切錯誤。其次，廣泛地破斥邪涅槃，辨明正涅槃，說明縱向超越四句。第一個部分分為兩點：一是簡略地破斥邪涅槃，二是簡略地闡明正涅槃。首先又分為兩點：首先，以外道的觀點來破斥空（sunyata，空性）不是涅槃；其次，就論主的觀點來闡明有（bhava，存在）不是涅槃。之所以要破斥空和有，是因為空和有是各種見解的根源，也是障礙修道的根本，還是大小乘（Hinayana and Mahayana，小乘和大乘）所執著的對象。大乘修行者大多執著于空，小乘修行者大多執著于有，這兩種觀點在世間非常盛行。第一個偈頌的上半部分陳述了空的含義，下半部分正式破斥空。如果一切法都是空，那麼就不會有煩惱產生，因此也就沒有什麼需要斷除的，也就沒有剩餘。如果一切都是空，那麼就不會有五陰（skandha，構成個體的五種要素）產生，又有什麼可以滅除的呢？所以稱之為無餘（nirupadisesa，無餘涅槃）。這個難點可以適用於大小乘修行者。小乘斷除四住惑（four types of defilements，四種煩惱），滅除分段身（segmented body，受業力支配的身體），稱為二種涅槃。大乘斷除五住惑（five types of defilements，五種煩惱），滅除二種生死（two types of birth and death，兩種生死），稱為大涅槃。現在既然說無生無滅，那麼就沒有這大小二種涅槃，這就是邪見。有人問：前面已經說過一切無生滅，現在為什麼還要再問？回答是：畢竟空的意義難以理解和進入，所以作者將要著論。
【English Translation】 English version: The second system is called Vimoksha (解脫, liberation). This is truly Nirvana (涅槃, cessation). The following four points aim to explain the meaning of Nirvana in the Mahayana (大乘, Great Vehicle) scriptures. As the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經) says, 'If there is a dharma (法, phenomenon) that surpasses Nirvana, it is also like an illusion and a dream.' Why is this so? Because dharmas have never truly experienced birth and death, nor are they Nirvana itself. It is only because of the deluded attachments of sentient beings that birth and death arise. To stop birth and death, Nirvana is spoken of provisionally. If birth and death are eliminated, then Nirvana also ceases. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經) says, 'Birth and death and Nirvana, both are unattainable.' This dharma cannot be expressed in words; language and concepts are extinguished. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section discusses Nirvana, the second section discusses birth and death, and the third section is a summary. The first two sections are further divided into: the first section discusses whether the Nirvana attained is right or wrong, and the second section discusses whether the person who can attain Nirvana is right or wrong. The first section is further divided into: first, briefly refuting false Nirvana and clarifying true Nirvana; second, extensively refuting false Nirvana and clarifying true Nirvana. The reason for dividing into these two sections is that the Vaipulya Sutras (方等經, expansive sutras) extensively clarify that Nirvana horizontally cuts off all errors and vertically transcends the four statements (四句, tetralemma), and the accumulated merits are all tranquil, and the virtues possessed are all complete. First, briefly refute false Nirvana and clarify true Nirvana, explaining that it horizontally cuts off all errors. Second, extensively refute false Nirvana and distinguish true Nirvana, explaining that it vertically transcends the four statements. The first section is divided into two points: one is to briefly refute false Nirvana, and the other is to briefly clarify true Nirvana. The first is further divided into two points: first, refuting from the perspective of externalists that emptiness (sunyata, 空性) is not Nirvana; second, clarifying from the perspective of the author that existence (bhava, 有) is not Nirvana. The reason for refuting emptiness and existence is that emptiness and existence are the root of all views, and also the root of obstructing the path, and also the objects of attachment of the Hinayana (小乘, Lesser Vehicle) and Mahayana. Most Mahayana practitioners are attached to emptiness, and most Hinayana practitioners are attached to existence, and these two views are very prevalent in the world. The first half of the first verse states the meaning of emptiness, and the second half formally refutes emptiness. If all dharmas are empty, then there will be no afflictions arising, so there is nothing to be cut off, and there is nothing remaining. If everything is empty, then there will be no five skandhas (五陰, aggregates) arising, so what can be extinguished? Therefore, it is called Nirupadisesa (無餘, without remainder). This difficulty can be applied to Hinayana and Mahayana practitioners. The Hinayana cuts off the four types of defilements (四住惑) and extinguishes the segmented body (分段身, body subject to karma), which is called the two Nirvanas. The Mahayana cuts off the five types of defilements (五住惑) and extinguishes the two types of birth and death (二種生死), which is called the Great Nirvana. Now that it is said that there is no birth and no death, then there are no these two types of Nirvana, which is a false view. Someone asks: It has already been said earlier that everything is without birth and death, so why ask again now? The answer is: The meaning of ultimate emptiness is difficult to understand and enter, so the author is going to write a treatise.
竟故數數論之。如大品下帙已去說般若將竟。善吉頻問。若諸法畢竟空云何有六道。若諸法畢竟空云何有三乘。今亦然矣。答曰下第二就論主。破有非涅槃。上半牒有。下半破有。若爾大小內外裁有一毫法即是定性。不可斷滅。故亦無二涅槃也。長行雲。所名涅槃者發下略示正涅槃。然前破邪亦即是申正。以破有無二見得脫二見。即是解脫。名為涅槃。今申正涅槃亦是破邪涅槃。所以然者。正涅槃既成邪涅槃即破。如諸方等經直明因緣無所得義。而有所得即破。又上是就緣假破。就其覓有無涅槃皆不成。今是對緣假破。申正涅槃對破邪說。在邪既去正亦不留也。又前破其有涅槃故言無。即無汝所見。今破其無。是故言有。皆是對緣假破也。無得亦無至者就小乘義。有為果名得。無為果名至。盡相續為斷。不遷名常。諸行始起為生。諸行終為滅。今皆不爾。故云無得無至乃至不生不滅也。若破大乘者如來是能得之人。三德涅槃為所得之法。金剛心道諦因為能至。佛果為所至。五住惑斷為斷。常樂果為常。二死盡前心為滅。佛果起為生。涅槃皆悉不爾。是故云無得無至等也。涅槃既橫絕百非。亦應云非余非無餘。非性凈非不性凈。非本非始。今但非此六破病略周。類如八不也。複次經說涅槃下。第二廣破邪涅槃申正涅槃。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此須反覆討論。例如《大品般若經》下半部將要說完般若時，善吉（Subhuti，須菩提）屢次提問：『如果一切法畢竟空，為何有六道？』『如果一切法畢竟空，為何有三乘？』現在也是如此。回答如下：第二部分就論主的觀點，破斥『有』並非涅槃。上半部分陳述『有』的觀點，下半部分破斥『有』的觀點。如果這樣，無論大小內外，只要有一絲一毫的法，那就是定性，不可斷滅，因此也沒有二種涅槃。 長行中說：『所名涅槃者發下』，簡略地揭示真正的涅槃。然而，之前破斥邪見，實際上也是闡明正見。因為破除了『有』和『無』的二見，才能脫離二見，這就是解脫，名為涅槃。現在闡明真正的涅槃，也是爲了破斥邪涅槃。之所以這樣，是因為真正的涅槃一旦成立，邪涅槃自然就被破斥。如同諸方等經直接闡明因緣無所得的道理，而有所得的觀念自然就被破斥。而且，上面是就緣起假有來破斥，無論尋求『有』或『無』的涅槃，都不能成立。現在是對緣起假有進行破斥，闡明真正的涅槃，是針對破斥邪說而說的。邪見既然去除，正見也不應執著。 而且，之前破斥他們認為的『有』涅槃，所以說『無』，即沒有你所見到的。現在破斥他們認為的『無』，所以說『有』，這都是針對緣起假有來破斥的。『無得亦無至者』，就小乘的觀點來說，有為法的果報稱為『得』，無為法的果報稱為『至』。盡滅相續稱為『斷』，不遷變稱為『常』。諸行開始生起稱為『生』，諸行終結稱為『滅』。現在涅槃都不是這樣，所以說『無得無至，乃至不生不滅』。 如果破斥大乘的觀點，如來是能獲得的人，三德涅槃是所獲得的法。金剛心道諦是能到達的因，佛果是所到達的果。五住煩惱斷除是『斷』，常樂果是『常』。二死（分段生死和變易生死）盡前的妄心是『滅』，佛果生起是『生』。涅槃都不是這樣，所以說『無得無至』等等。涅槃既然橫絕百非，也應該說『非余非無餘，非性凈非不性凈，非本非始』。現在只是用這六種否定來破斥病態的執著，大致完備，類似於八不中道。 其次，經中說『涅槃下』，第二部分廣泛破斥邪涅槃，闡明正涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is necessary to discuss it repeatedly. For example, in the latter part of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (大品般若經), when Prajna (般若，wisdom) is about to be completed, Subhuti (善吉，one of the Buddha's principal disciples) repeatedly asks: 'If all dharmas (法，phenomena) are ultimately empty, why are there six realms of existence?' 'If all dharmas are ultimately empty, why are there three vehicles (三乘，three paths to enlightenment)?' It is the same now. The answer is as follows: The second part, from the perspective of the debater, refutes that 'existence' is not Nirvana (涅槃，liberation). The first half states the view of 'existence,' and the second half refutes the view of 'existence.' If this is the case, whether it is large or small, internal or external, as long as there is a trace of dharma, it is of a fixed nature and cannot be cut off and destroyed. Therefore, there are no two kinds of Nirvana. The long passage says: 'What is called Nirvana is revealed below,' briefly revealing the true Nirvana. However, refuting wrong views earlier is actually clarifying the right view. Because by breaking through the two views of 'existence' and 'non-existence,' one can escape from the two views, and this is liberation, called Nirvana. Now, clarifying the true Nirvana is also to refute the false Nirvana. The reason for this is that once the true Nirvana is established, the false Nirvana will naturally be refuted. Just as the Vaipulya Sutras (方等經，Mahayana sutras) directly explain the principle of the unattainability of conditioned arising, the concept of attainability is naturally refuted. Moreover, the above is to refute based on the false existence of conditioned arising. Whether seeking Nirvana in 'existence' or 'non-existence,' it cannot be established. Now, it is to refute the false existence of conditioned arising, clarifying the true Nirvana, which is said in response to refuting false views. Since false views are removed, right views should not be clung to either. Moreover, earlier, they refuted the Nirvana of 'existence,' so they said 'non-existence,' that is, there is no what you see. Now, they refute what they consider 'non-existence,' so they say 'existence,' which is all to refute based on the false existence of conditioned arising. 'No attainment and no arrival' means, from the perspective of the Hinayana (小乘，the early Buddhist tradition), the result of conditioned dharmas is called 'attainment,' and the result of unconditioned dharmas is called 'arrival.' The extinction of continuity is called 'cessation,' and non-change is called 'permanence.' The beginning of the arising of all phenomena is called 'birth,' and the end of all phenomena is called 'death.' Now, Nirvana is not like this, so it is said 'no attainment, no arrival, and even no birth, no death.' If refuting the view of Mahayana (大乘，the Great Vehicle), the Tathagata (如來，Buddha) is the one who can attain, and the Nirvana of the three virtues (三德，three aspects of Buddha's nature) is the dharma to be attained. The Vajra-heart path truth (金剛心道諦，the diamond-like wisdom) is the cause that can be reached, and the Buddha-fruit (佛果，Buddhahood) is the fruit to be reached. The cutting off of the five abodes of affliction (五住煩惱，five types of delusion) is 'cessation,' and the fruit of constant bliss is 'permanence.' The deluded mind before the exhaustion of the two deaths (二死，two kinds of death: 分段生死 and 變易生死) is 'death,' and the arising of the Buddha-fruit is 'birth.' Nirvana is not like this, so it is said 'no attainment, no arrival,' and so on. Since Nirvana transcends all negations, it should also be said 'neither other nor non-other, neither intrinsically pure nor not intrinsically pure, neither original nor beginning.' Now, only these six negations are used to refute morbid attachments, which is roughly complete, similar to the Eight No's (八不，the eight negations of the Middle Way). Secondly, the sutra says 'Nirvana below,' the second part extensively refutes false Nirvana and clarifies true Nirvana.
前長行發起。即引經為章門。下偈釋經即釋章門。所以引經者。以一切外人不信論主之言故也。具二意。一明涅槃絕四句。即是破四句邪涅槃。申絕四句正涅槃也。二者內滅者依楞伽。雲實無外有無四境可滅。但自由內起四句心。見外境有四耳。今息內心四見。即是涅槃。故名內滅也。偈文二意。一對前略破邪涅槃。今明廣破邪涅槃。二者對前略申正涅槃。今廣申正涅槃。今此二門常具二義。破邪中即申正。申正中即破邪。無別有申正文也。所以然者。此論破有二門。一迥破門。二破邪即申正門。申正門中亦有二門。一迥申門。二申正即破邪門。上來多就迥破申門。此品帶破申門。若不信此門意尋文自見也。所以破四句者。上辨橫絕百非。今明豎超四句。則于破申略盡。破四句應為四別。今以類例分為三章。初七偈破有無是涅槃。第二四偈破亦有亦無是涅槃。第三二偈破非有非無是涅槃。初七偈為二。前五偈別破有無是涅槃。第二兩偈合破有無是涅槃。五偈為二。初三偈破有是涅槃。次兩偈破無是涅槃。三偈即為三別。第一偈作老死相破。第二偈作有為破。第三作有受破。老死相破者。若破外道者此破三有涅槃。如上三師檀提欲有為涅槃。乃至計非想以無色有為涅槃。涅槃既是三有。便是老死。若破內法有所得義者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 前文以長行發起，即引用經文作為章節的開端。下面的偈頌解釋經文，也就是解釋章節的開端。之所以要引用經文，是因為所有外道都不相信論主的言論。這裡包含兩層意思：一是闡明涅槃超越四句（四種邏輯可能性：存在、不存在、既存在又不存在、既非存在也非不存在），也就是破斥四句的邪涅槃，闡述超越四句的正涅槃。二是『內滅』依據《楞伽經》所說，實際上沒有外在的有無四境可以滅除，只是內心生起四句的妄心，見到外境有四種狀態。現在止息內心的四種見解，就是涅槃，所以稱為『內滅』。偈頌的文義也有兩層：一是針對前面略微破斥邪涅槃，現在闡明廣泛破斥邪涅槃；二是針對前面略微闡述正涅槃，現在廣泛闡述正涅槃。現在這兩個方面常常包含兩種含義：破斥邪見中就包含闡述正見，闡述正見中就包含破斥邪見，沒有單獨闡述正見的文句。之所以這樣，是因為此論破斥有兩種方式：一是徹底破斥，二是破斥邪見即是闡述正見。闡述正見的方式中也有兩種：一是徹底闡述，二是闡述正見即是破斥邪見。前面大多采用徹底破斥和闡述的方式，這一品帶有破斥和闡述的方式。如果不相信這種方式的含義，仔細研讀經文自然會明白。之所以要破斥四句，是因為前面辨析橫向超越百非，現在闡明縱向超越四句，那麼對於破斥和闡述就大致完備了。破斥四句應該分為四個部分，現在以類似的情況分為三章。最初七個偈頌破斥有和無是涅槃，第二四個偈頌破斥亦有亦無是涅槃，第三兩個偈頌破斥非有非無是涅槃。最初七個偈頌分為兩部分：前五個偈頌分別破斥有和無是涅槃，第二兩個偈頌合併破斥有和無是涅槃。五個偈頌分為三個部分：最初三個偈頌破斥有是涅槃，其次兩個偈頌破斥無是涅槃。三個偈頌分為三個部分：第一個偈頌用老死相對破斥，第二個偈頌用有為相對破斥，第三個偈頌用有受相對破斥。用老死相對破斥，如果是破斥外道，這是破斥三有（欲有、色有、無色有）涅槃。如上文所說的三師檀提（Sāṃkhya，數論派）、欲有為涅槃，乃至計執非想非非想處為無色有為涅槃。涅槃既然是三有，便是老死。如果是破斥內法有所得義的人。
【English Translation】 English version: The preceding text initiates with a lengthy prose passage, which introduces the sutra as the chapter's opening. The subsequent verses interpret the sutra, thereby elucidating the chapter's commencement. The reason for citing the sutra is that all non-Buddhist schools of thought (外道, wàidào) do not trust the treatise master's words. This encompasses two meanings: first, it clarifies that Nirvana transcends the four logical possibilities (四句, sìjù: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), thereby refuting the erroneous Nirvana of the four possibilities and expounding the correct Nirvana that transcends them. Second, 'internal cessation' (內滅, nèimiè) is based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which states that there are actually no external realms of existence or non-existence that can be extinguished. It is merely that the mind arises with the deluded thoughts of the four possibilities, perceiving external realms as having four states. Now, ceasing the mind's four views is Nirvana, hence it is called 'internal cessation.' The meaning of the verses also has two aspects: first, in contrast to the previous brief refutation of erroneous Nirvana, it now clarifies the extensive refutation of erroneous Nirvana; second, in contrast to the previous brief exposition of correct Nirvana, it now extensively expounds correct Nirvana. These two aspects constantly contain two meanings: refuting erroneous views includes expounding correct views, and expounding correct views includes refuting erroneous views. There are no sentences that solely expound correct views. The reason for this is that this treatise has two methods of refutation: first, complete refutation; second, refuting erroneous views is equivalent to expounding correct views. The method of expounding correct views also has two aspects: first, complete exposition; second, expounding correct views is equivalent to refuting erroneous views. The preceding text mostly employs the methods of complete refutation and exposition, while this chapter incorporates both refutation and exposition. If one does not believe the meaning of this method, careful study of the text will naturally reveal it. The reason for refuting the four possibilities is that the preceding text analyzed the horizontal transcendence of the hundred negations, while now it clarifies the vertical transcendence of the four possibilities, so that the refutation and exposition are largely complete. Refuting the four possibilities should be divided into four parts, but now, based on similar situations, it is divided into three chapters. The initial seven verses refute that existence and non-existence are Nirvana, the second four verses refute that both existence and non-existence are Nirvana, and the third two verses refute that neither existence nor non-existence is Nirvana. The initial seven verses are divided into two parts: the first five verses separately refute that existence and non-existence are Nirvana, and the second two verses jointly refute that existence and non-existence are Nirvana. The five verses are divided into three parts: the first three verses refute that existence is Nirvana, and the next two verses refute that non-existence is Nirvana. The three verses are divided into three parts: the first verse refutes by contrasting old age and death, the second verse refutes by contrasting conditioned existence, and the third verse refutes by contrasting reception. Refuting by contrasting old age and death, if it is refuting non-Buddhists, this is refuting the Nirvana of the three realms of existence (三有, sāṃkhya: desire realm, form realm, formless realm). As mentioned above, the three teachers of the Sāṃkhya school (檀提, tāntu) consider the desire realm as conditioned Nirvana, and even hold the realm of neither perception nor non-perception as the conditioned Nirvana of the formless realm. Since Nirvana is the three realms of existence, it is old age and death. If it is refuting those within Buddhism who hold onto the idea of attainment.
必言有于涅槃則是有得義。有所得義便是二十五有。故有老死也。若破地論師亦粗可是有。妙可非有。又若有而非老死應老死而非有。若老死必有亦有必老死。又佛果有生有生必有滅。則是有老死。彼若云佛果生是常生非三相中生。亦應常老非三相中老。若言老是衰謝之法故無老者。亦應生是起動之法便無有生。若言常生非起動。亦應常老非衰謝。次地論師云。我性凈涅槃古今常定不起不滅。故無上過。問既不起滅有隱顯不。答有隱顯。問既其不生。亦應不顯。若取無惑妄為顯。亦取無惑妄為生。若生論體生亦顯論體顯。既是有所得義。設有言通而理致終屈。問此中但迥破有是涅槃。何處明申正涅槃非是有耶。答宜細詳偈文。偈云。涅槃不名有。此則帶申正而破邪也。長行意亦然。第二偈有為破者。若破外道義既是三有。便是有為。破內義者。若執涅槃是有則是有所得。有所得故不離有為。智度論三十一卷云。有人舍有爲著無為。以著無為即成有為。五十五卷云。汝無為從何而得。若因有為而得無為。亦因無為而得有為。若爾此兩相因。即更相為故皆是有為。若破常義者既稱妙有。應是妙為。若妙故非為亦妙故非有。彼云。有是法體。為即是相。佛果是法體之有。已離生滅之相。故非是為。並云。若涅槃離相故非為者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果必定說涅槃是『有』，那就是有『得』的含義。有『得』的含義，便是二十五『有』（三界中的二十五種存在狀態）。所以有衰老和死亡。如果破地論師的說法粗略地可以算是『有』，那麼精妙之處就不能說是『有』。又如果『有』卻不衰老死亡，就應該衰老死亡卻不是『有』。如果衰老死亡必定是『有』，那麼『有』也必定會衰老死亡。又如果佛果有生，有生必定有滅，那就是有衰老死亡。他們如果說佛果的生是常生，不是三相（生、住、滅）中的生，也應該常老，不是三相中的老。如果說老是衰敗消退的法則，所以沒有老，也應該生是起始變動的法則，便沒有生。如果說常生不是起始變動，也應該常老不是衰敗消退。其次，地論師說：『我的自性清凈涅槃，自古至今常恒不變，不起不滅，所以沒有超過之處。』問：既然不起滅，有隱沒和顯現嗎？答：有隱沒和顯現。問：既然不生，也應該不顯現。如果認為沒有迷惑妄想是顯現，也應該認為沒有迷惑妄想是生。如果生論述本體是生，顯現論述本體是顯現，既然是有所得的含義，即使有言語上的溝通，道理最終還是行不通。問：這裡只是專門破斥『有』是涅槃，哪裡明確說明真正的涅槃不是『有』呢？答：應該仔細詳察偈文。偈文說：『涅槃不名為有』，這便是帶著說明真正的涅槃而破斥邪見。長行的意思也是這樣。第二個偈是破斥『有為』的。如果破斥外道的義理，既然是三『有』，便是『有為』。破斥內義，如果執著涅槃是『有』，那就是有所得。因為有所得，所以不離『有為』。《智度論》第三十一卷說：『有人捨棄有為而執著無為，以執著無為就成了有為。』第五十五卷說：『你的無為從哪裡得到？如果因為有為而得到無為，也因為無為而得到有為。如果這樣，這兩者互相依存，就互相成為原因，所以都是有為。』如果破斥常義，既然稱為妙『有』，應該是妙『為』。如果因為妙所以不是『為』，也因為妙所以不是『有』。他們說：『有是法體，為就是相。佛果是法體的有，已經離開了生滅的相，所以不是為。』並且說：『如果涅槃因為離相所以不是為』。
【English Translation】 English version: If it must be said that Nirvana is 'being' (有), then it has the meaning of 'attainment' (得). Having the meaning of 'attainment' is the twenty-five 'existences' (二十五有) [the twenty-five states of existence in the Three Realms]. Therefore, there is old age and death. If the Dilun master's (地論師) [a school of Buddhism] statement can be roughly considered 'being', then the subtle aspects cannot be said to be 'being'. Furthermore, if there is 'being' but no old age and death, then there should be old age and death but no 'being'. If old age and death are necessarily 'being', then 'being' is also necessarily subject to old age and death. Moreover, if the Buddha-fruit (佛果) has birth, and birth necessarily has cessation, then there is old age and death. If they say that the birth of the Buddha-fruit is constant birth, not birth within the three characteristics (三相) [birth, duration, and cessation], then it should also be constant old age, not old age within the three characteristics. If it is said that old age is the law of decay and decline, so there is no old age, then birth should also be the law of arising and movement, so there is no birth. If it is said that constant birth is not arising and movement, then it should also be constant old age, not decay and decline. Secondly, the Dilun master says: 'My self-nature pure Nirvana (涅槃) is constant and unchanging from ancient times to the present, neither arising nor ceasing, so there is no surpassing it.' Question: Since it neither arises nor ceases, does it have concealment and manifestation? Answer: It has concealment and manifestation. Question: Since it does not arise, it should also not manifest. If taking the absence of delusion and illusion as manifestation, then also take the absence of delusion and illusion as birth. If birth discusses the substance as birth, manifestation discusses the substance as manifestation, since it has the meaning of attainment, even if there is verbal communication, the reasoning will ultimately fail. Question: Here, it only specifically refutes 'being' as Nirvana, where does it explicitly state that true Nirvana is not 'being'? Answer: One should carefully examine the verses. The verse says: 'Nirvana is not named being,' this carries the meaning of explaining true Nirvana while refuting wrong views. The meaning of the prose is also the same. The second verse refutes 'conditioned existence' (有為). If refuting the meaning of external paths, since it is the three 'existences', it is 'conditioned existence'. Refuting the internal meaning, if clinging to Nirvana as 'being', then there is attainment. Because there is attainment, it does not depart from 'conditioned existence'. The thirty-first volume of the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (智度論) says: 'Some people abandon conditioned existence and cling to unconditioned existence, by clinging to unconditioned existence, it becomes conditioned existence.' The fifty-fifth volume says: 'Where did you get unconditioned existence from? If unconditioned existence is obtained because of conditioned existence, then conditioned existence is also obtained because of unconditioned existence. If so, these two depend on each other, so they mutually become causes, therefore they are all conditioned existence.' If refuting the meaning of permanence, since it is called wondrous 'being' (妙有), it should be wondrous 'doing' (妙為). If because it is wondrous, it is not 'doing', then because it is wondrous, it is not 'being'. They say: 'Being is the substance of the Dharma, doing is the characteristic. The Buddha-fruit is the being of the substance of the Dharma, it has already departed from the characteristic of birth and cessation, so it is not doing.' And they say: 'If Nirvana is not doing because it is apart from characteristics.'
。亦應涅槃離始故非生。若始起故名生。亦始起故名為。又並。若有而非為亦為而非有。長行雲。以理推以無常法尚不有者。現無常求尚無蹤。何咒常不可見。而是有耶。當知。即是破有所得常義。舊人不應怪今難也。第三偈有受破者。若涅槃是有則是有受。受是煩惱根。何名涅槃。問涅槃是有云何名受。答汝若作有解即受著有。若不作有解不應言有是涅槃。唯有此二義。下半明無第三。無第三者無有不作受著而是有者。下諸受著門並作此三意也。大品云。菩薩得無受三昧。行亦不受乃至不受亦不受。汝今乃受于有。此是受中之受。何謂無受。問我妙有涅槃絕百非故是不受。答雖絕百非心有此有。故終是受也。問曰下生第二無是涅槃。前問次答。問中前領有非。次立無是。若作二外道義者。前三外道同立有是涅槃。今一外道立無是涅槃。故百論云。外曰。有涅槃是無。若就內外義者。前明外道立三有為涅槃。今是內法數論小乘立滅三有為涅槃。若作大小乘論者。前是小乘立事斷無為。即是世諦名之為有。今立真空第一義諦名為涅槃。若今昔明之前執今妙有。此執昔斷無。又外云。粗有妙有既非涅槃。無粗無妙應是涅槃也。答中兩偈為二。初相咒破次有受破。相況破者有之與無並是諸見。有見既非無見寧是。又有是初無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：同樣，涅槃也應是遠離起始的，因此不是產生出來的。如果因為有起始而稱為『生』，那麼也因為有起始而稱為『滅』。又，『有』和『非有』是並存的，如果存在『有』而不是『非有』，或者存在『非有』而不是『有』。長行中說：『以理推論，連無常之法尚且不存在，現在追求無常的軌跡都找不到，何況是常住不可見的呢？』應當知道，這正是爲了破除執著于『有』的常住之義。舊時的理解不應該奇怪今天的詰難。第三個偈頌是破斥『受』的。如果涅槃是『有』，那麼就是『有受』。『受』是煩惱的根源，怎麼能稱為涅槃呢？問：涅槃是『有』，為什麼說是『受』呢？答：如果你執著于『有』的理解，那就是執著于『有』。如果不執著于『有』的理解，就不應該說『有』是涅槃。只有這兩種含義。下半部分說明沒有第三種情況。『無第三者』，是沒有不執著于『受』而仍然是『有』的情況。下面的各種執著于『受』的門徑都包含這三種意思。《大品般若經》說：『菩薩得到無受三昧，行也不受，乃至不受也不受。』你現在卻執著于『有』，這是受中的受。什麼是無受呢？問：我的妙有涅槃超越了一切是非，所以是不受。答：雖然超越了一切是非，但心中有這個『有』，最終還是受。問曰下，生起第二種觀點，認為『無』是涅槃。前面的問題，後面的回答。問題中先領會『有』和『非有』，然後提出『無』是涅槃。如果按照二外道的觀點，前面的三個外道都認為『有』是涅槃，現在一個外道認為『無』是涅槃。所以《百論》說：『外道說：有涅槃是無。』如果就內外義來說，前面說明外道認為三種有為法是涅槃，現在是內法數論小乘認為滅除三種有為法是涅槃。如果按照大小乘的觀點，前面是小乘認為斷滅事相而達到『無』，這是世俗諦，名為『有』。現在提出真空第一義諦名為涅槃。如果用今昔的觀點來闡明，前面執著于現在的妙有，這是執著於過去的斷無。又有外道說：粗有和妙有既然不是涅槃，那麼無粗無妙應該是涅槃吧。』回答中的兩句偈頌分為兩部分，首先用相狀來比喻破斥，然後破斥『有受』。用相狀來比喻破斥，『有』和『無』都是各種見解。『有見』既然不是，『無見』怎麼會是呢？又有是起始，無 English version: Likewise, Nirvana should be free from beginning, therefore it is not produced. If it is called 'birth' because it has a beginning, then it is also called 'cessation' because it has a beginning. Moreover, 'existence' and 'non-existence' coexist. If there is 'existence' but not 'non-existence', or if there is 'non-existence' but not 'existence'. The prose passage says: 'Reasoning logically, even impermanent dharmas do not exist. Now, seeking the traces of impermanence cannot be found, how much more so for the permanent and invisible?'. It should be known that this is precisely to refute the meaning of clinging to the permanence of 'existence'. The old understanding should not be surprised by today's questioning. The third verse refutes 'reception' (受, shou). If Nirvana is 'existence', then it is 'having reception'. 'Reception' is the root of afflictions, how can it be called Nirvana? Question: Nirvana is 'existence', why is it said to be 'reception'? Answer: If you cling to the understanding of 'existence', then you are clinging to 'existence'. If you do not cling to the understanding of 'existence', you should not say that 'existence' is Nirvana. There are only these two meanings. The latter half explains that there is no third situation. 'No third' means that there is no situation where one does not cling to 'reception' and is still 'existence'. The various paths of clinging to 'reception' below all contain these three meanings. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'The Bodhisattva attains the Samadhi of Non-Reception, does not receive in action, and even does not receive non-reception.' You are now clinging to 'existence', this is reception within reception. What is non-reception? Question: My wonderful existence Nirvana transcends all right and wrong, therefore it is non-reception. Answer: Although it transcends all right and wrong, the mind has this 'existence', so it is ultimately reception. Question below, the second view arises, thinking that 'non-existence' is Nirvana. The previous question, the following answer. The question first comprehends 'existence' and 'non-existence', and then proposes that 'non-existence' is Nirvana. If according to the view of the two non-Buddhist paths, the previous three non-Buddhist paths all believe that 'existence' is Nirvana, now one non-Buddhist path believes that 'non-existence' is Nirvana. Therefore, the Shatashastra says: 'The non-Buddhist says: Having Nirvana is non-existence.' If in terms of internal and external meanings, the previous explanation is that non-Buddhists believe that the three conditioned dharmas are Nirvana, now the Samkhya school of internal dharma and the Hinayana believe that the extinction of the three conditioned dharmas is Nirvana. If according to the view of Mahayana and Hinayana, the previous is the Hinayana believing that the extinction of phenomena leads to 'non-existence', this is conventional truth, called 'existence'. Now, the ultimate truth of emptiness is proposed as Nirvana. If using the view of past and present to clarify, the previous clings to the wonderful existence of the present, this is clinging to the annihilation of the past. Also, a non-Buddhist says: 'Since coarse existence and subtle existence are not Nirvana, then non-coarse and non-subtle should be Nirvana, right?' The two verses in the answer are divided into two parts, first using characteristics to illustrate refutation, and then refuting 'having reception'. Using characteristics to illustrate refutation, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are all kinds of views. Since 'the view of existence' is not, how can 'the view of non-existence' be? Also, existence is the beginning, non-existence
【English Translation】 English version: Likewise, Nirvana should be free from beginning, therefore it is not produced. If it is called 'birth' because it has a beginning, then it is also called 'cessation' because it has a beginning. Moreover, 'existence' and 'non-existence' coexist. If there is 'existence' but not 'non-existence', or if there is 'non-existence' but not 'existence'. The prose passage says: 'Reasoning logically, even impermanent dharmas do not exist. Now, seeking the traces of impermanence cannot be found, how much more so for the permanent and invisible?'. It should be known that this is precisely to refute the meaning of clinging to the permanence of 'existence'. The old understanding should not be surprised by today's questioning. The third verse refutes 'reception' (受, shou). If Nirvana is 'existence', then it is 'having reception'. 'Reception' is the root of afflictions, how can it be called Nirvana? Question: Nirvana is 'existence', why is it said to be 'reception'? Answer: If you cling to the understanding of 'existence', then you are clinging to 'existence'. If you do not cling to the understanding of 'existence', you should not say that 'existence' is Nirvana. There are only these two meanings. The latter half explains that there is no third situation. 'No third' means that there is no situation where one does not cling to 'reception' and is still 'existence'. The various paths of clinging to 'reception' below all contain these three meanings. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'The Bodhisattva attains the Samadhi of Non-Reception, does not receive in action, and even does not receive non-reception.' You are now clinging to 'existence', this is reception within reception. What is non-reception? Question: My wonderful existence Nirvana transcends all right and wrong, therefore it is non-reception. Answer: Although it transcends all right and wrong, the mind has this 'existence', so it is ultimately reception. Question below, the second view arises, thinking that 'non-existence' is Nirvana. The previous question, the following answer. The question first comprehends 'existence' and 'non-existence', and then proposes that 'non-existence' is Nirvana. If according to the view of the two non-Buddhist paths, the previous three non-Buddhist paths all believe that 'existence' is Nirvana, now one non-Buddhist path believes that 'non-existence' is Nirvana. Therefore, the Shatashastra says: 'The non-Buddhist says: Having Nirvana is non-existence.' If in terms of internal and external meanings, the previous explanation is that non-Buddhists believe that the three conditioned dharmas are Nirvana, now the Samkhya school of internal dharma and the Hinayana believe that the extinction of the three conditioned dharmas is Nirvana. If according to the view of Mahayana and Hinayana, the previous is the Hinayana believing that the extinction of phenomena leads to 'non-existence', this is conventional truth, called 'existence'. Now, the ultimate truth of emptiness is proposed as Nirvana. If using the view of past and present to clarify, the previous clings to the wonderful existence of the present, this is clinging to the annihilation of the past. Also, a non-Buddhist says: 'Since coarse existence and subtle existence are not Nirvana, then non-coarse and non-subtle should be Nirvana, right?' The two verses in the answer are divided into two parts, first using characteristics to illustrate refutation, and then refuting 'having reception'. Using characteristics to illustrate refutation, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are all kinds of views. Since 'the view of existence' is not, how can 'the view of non-existence' be? Also, existence is the beginning, non-existence
是后。則有是無本。本尚非況末是耶。又有是妙有尚非。無是小乘斷無寧是。又有中有涅槃法尚非。無中無有法雲何是涅槃。又有是無本。本尚無。而無是有末。末寧有耶。又直云。有涅槃尚不可。況用無為涅槃耶。上半借有況無。即是以邪破邪。下半明涅槃俱離有無。則申正破邪。第二偈受著破者還同前也。上受著有今受著無。問曰下生第二合破有無是涅槃。問有無二句何故具離合二種破耶。答有無是眾見之根。障正觀之本。斯病難破。故須二門。又小乘人謂無三有為涅槃。外道執三有是涅槃。此內外巨患宜具離合二門。次答。問意云。外道計三有非是涅槃。佛法明滅三有復非涅槃者。離此二何等是涅槃耶。又今日妙有昔日斷無俱非者。離此以外更何處有涅槃耶。又有所得大乘人聞有無非是涅槃。便謂真諦洞遣。故有無俱非。若然世諦必應有也。又此是外難於內。若有無俱非便是方廣。又有無俱非行道。安心置何處耶。出家何所求耶。又外人云。粗有妙有二有俱非。無粗無妙二無又非何等是涅槃耶。答曰下兩偈為二。初偈直釋。次偈引經證釋。直釋者釋有無俱非之意。受於今昔大小內外等有無即名生死。不受有無等便是涅槃又然受生死既是生死。受于涅槃涅槃亦成生死。受亦生死亦涅槃乃至五句。皆是生死不受此五
。方是涅槃又受之五句。皆是生死不受之五。並是涅槃。非但涅槃是涅槃。生死亦是涅槃。汝上言安心置何處者。正為汝欲心安置有無便非涅槃。故須洗有無耳。對汝有無故言非有無耳。不言非有非無是涅槃也。故今明。裁動心則生死。不動則涅槃。如華嚴云。流轉則生死。不轉即涅槃。但對轉非言不轉是。然了轉既非不轉亦非。故非轉非不轉。可謂損之又損之。問曰何故作此百千轉耶。答斗藪眾生諸見耳。非是遣蕩也。然講法華云。小乘是化城。不知大亦是化城。望大故言小是化。望非大非小俱是化。乃至十地及以摩羅皆是化城。故空卷度一切也。第二偈引經證破。問此品何故多引經耶。答今欲論道此言不易。又涅槃是眾聖所歸之本。此義若正則眾義自明。故須依經。又論將竟明無自作之咎。始自八不終竟涅槃皆佛說也。不別標般若涅槃等經。而通依經者。以一切大乘經顯道無二。故不須別而引。若別引恐眾經意不同。假令是小乘經意亦終同此說。如種種乘宗歸一乘也。明若有若無並皆被斷。則知。有所得涅槃是無所得之生死。有所得佛是無所得罪過眾生。然既斷有斷非有者。亦斷妄不妄斷常無常。萬義皆例。問曰下第二破亦有亦無是涅槃。前問次答。問為兩。一領前無。二立後有。莊嚴云。今昔涅槃異。昔是斷無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這才是涅槃，又承受了那五句話，都是生死不受的五種狀態，這些都屬於涅槃。不僅僅是涅槃才是涅槃，生死也是涅槃。你之前問的『安心放在何處』，正是因為你想要把心安放在『有』或『無』上，那就不是涅槃了。所以需要洗去『有』和『無』的執著。針對你的『有』和『無』，所以才說『非有非無』。並不是說『非有非無』就是涅槃。所以現在說明，稍微動心就是生死，不動心就是涅槃。如同《華嚴經》所說：『流轉就是生死，不流轉就是涅槃。』只是針對流轉而言，並非說不流轉就是。然而，瞭解了流轉既不是，不流轉也不是，所以非流轉非不流轉，可以說是損之又損之。問：為什麼會有這百千種轉變呢？答：是爲了對治眾生的各種見解，不是爲了遣蕩。然而，講《法華經》說，小乘是化城（比喻為引導眾生進入真實涅槃的方便法門），不知道大乘也是化城。相對於大乘而言，所以說小乘是化城。相對於非大非小而言，都是化城。乃至十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）以及摩羅（惡魔），都是化城。所以空效能包容一切。第二偈引用經文來證明和破斥。問：為什麼這一品中多次引用經文呢？答：現在要論述『道』，這種說法不容易理解。而且涅槃是眾多聖賢所歸宿的根本。這個道理如果正確，那麼其他的道理自然就明白了。所以需要依據經文。而且論述將要結束，表明沒有自己妄作的過失。從最初的八不（不生不滅等八種否定）到最終的涅槃，都是佛所說的。不特別標明《般若經》、《涅槃經》等經典，而普遍依據經文，是因為一切大乘經典所顯明的『道』沒有差別，所以不需要分別引用。如果分別引用，恐怕各經典的意思不同。即使是小乘經典，最終也會歸於這種說法，如同種種車乘最終歸於一乘。說明如果有或無都被斷除，那麼就知道，有所得的涅槃是無所得的生死，有所得的佛是無所得的罪過眾生。既然斷除了『有』，斷除了『非有』，也斷除了妄和不妄，斷除了常和無常，萬種道理都可以以此類推。問：下面第二部分破斥『亦有亦無』是涅槃。前面是提問，後面是回答。問分為兩部分：一是領會前面的『無』，二是建立後面的『有』。《莊嚴經》說：『現在的涅槃和過去的涅槃不同，過去是斷滅的空無。』 English version: This is Nirvana, and it also receives those five phrases, all of which are the five states of not being subject to birth and death. All of these belong to Nirvana. Not only is Nirvana Nirvana, but birth and death are also Nirvana. You asked earlier, 'Where should one place the mind?' It is precisely because you want to place the mind on 'existence' or 'non-existence' that it is not Nirvana. Therefore, one needs to wash away the attachment to 'existence' and 'non-existence'. It is in response to your 'existence' and 'non-existence' that it is said 'neither existence nor non-existence'. It is not saying that 'neither existence nor non-existence' is Nirvana. Therefore, it is now explained that the slightest movement of the mind is birth and death, and the absence of movement is Nirvana. As the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Flowing is birth and death, and not flowing is Nirvana.' It is only in relation to flowing that it is said, not that not flowing is. However, understanding that flowing is neither, and not flowing is neither, therefore it is neither flowing nor not flowing, which can be said to be diminishing and diminishing again. Question: Why are there these hundreds of thousands of transformations? Answer: It is to counter the various views of sentient beings, not for the sake of dissipation. However, lecturing on the Lotus Sutra says that the Small Vehicle is a phantom city (a metaphor for expedient means to guide beings into true Nirvana), not knowing that the Great Vehicle is also a phantom city. Relative to the Great Vehicle, it is said that the Small Vehicle is a phantom city. Relative to neither Great nor Small, both are phantom cities. Even the Ten Grounds (ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) and Mara (demon) are phantom cities. Therefore, emptiness encompasses everything. The second verse quotes scriptures to prove and refute. Question: Why does this chapter quote scriptures so many times? Answer: Now we want to discuss the 'Tao', and this kind of statement is not easy to understand. Moreover, Nirvana is the root to which many sages return. If this principle is correct, then other principles will naturally become clear. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on the scriptures. Moreover, the discourse is about to end, indicating that there is no fault of one's own fabrication. From the initial Eight Negations (eight negations such as non-birth and non-death) to the final Nirvana, all are spoken by the Buddha. It does not specifically mark the Prajna Sutra, Nirvana Sutra, etc., but universally relies on the scriptures, because the 'Tao' manifested by all Mahayana scriptures is not different, so there is no need to quote separately. If quoted separately, it is feared that the meanings of the various scriptures will be different. Even if it is a Small Vehicle scripture, it will ultimately return to this statement, just as various vehicles ultimately return to the One Vehicle. It explains that if existence or non-existence are both cut off, then it is known that Nirvana with attainment is birth and death without attainment, and the Buddha with attainment is a sinful sentient being without attainment. Since 'existence' has been cut off, and 'non-existence' has been cut off, falsehood and non-falsehood have also been cut off, and permanence and impermanence have been cut off. Ten thousand principles can be inferred by analogy. Question: The second part below refutes that 'both existence and non-existence' is Nirvana. The former is the question, and the latter is the answer. The question is divided into two parts: one is to understand the previous 'non-existence', and the other is to establish the subsequent 'existence'. The Adornment Sutra says: 'The present Nirvana is different from the past Nirvana; the past was annihilation and emptiness.'
【English Translation】 This is Nirvana, and it also receives those five phrases, all of which are the five states of not being subject to birth and death. All of these belong to Nirvana. Not only is Nirvana Nirvana, but birth and death are also Nirvana. You asked earlier, 'Where should one place the mind?' It is precisely because you want to place the mind on 'existence' or 'non-existence' that it is not Nirvana. Therefore, one needs to wash away the attachment to 'existence' and 'non-existence'. It is in response to your 'existence' and 'non-existence' that it is said 'neither existence nor non-existence'. It is not saying that 'neither existence nor non-existence' is Nirvana. Therefore, it is now explained that the slightest movement of the mind is birth and death, and the absence of movement is Nirvana. As the Avatamsaka Sutra says: 'Flowing is birth and death, and not flowing is Nirvana.' It is only in relation to flowing that it is said, not that not flowing is. However, understanding that flowing is neither, and not flowing is neither, therefore it is neither flowing nor not flowing, which can be said to be diminishing and diminishing again. Question: Why are there these hundreds of thousands of transformations? Answer: It is to counter the various views of sentient beings, not for the sake of dissipation. However, lecturing on the Lotus Sutra says that the Small Vehicle is a phantom city (a metaphor for expedient means to guide beings into true Nirvana), not knowing that the Great Vehicle is also a phantom city. Relative to the Great Vehicle, it is said that the Small Vehicle is a phantom city. Relative to neither Great nor Small, both are phantom cities. Even the Ten Grounds (ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) and Mara (demon) are phantom cities. Therefore, emptiness encompasses everything. The second verse quotes scriptures to prove and refute. Question: Why does this chapter quote scriptures so many times? Answer: Now we want to discuss the 'Tao', and this kind of statement is not easy to understand. Moreover, Nirvana is the root to which many sages return. If this principle is correct, then other principles will naturally become clear. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on the scriptures. Moreover, the discourse is about to end, indicating that there is no fault of one's own fabrication. From the initial Eight Negations (eight negations such as non-birth and non-death) to the final Nirvana, all are spoken by the Buddha. It does not specifically mark the Prajna Sutra, Nirvana Sutra, etc., but universally relies on the scriptures, because the 'Tao' manifested by all Mahayana scriptures is not different, so there is no need to quote separately. If quoted separately, it is feared that the meanings of the various scriptures will be different. Even if it is a Small Vehicle scripture, it will ultimately return to this statement, just as various vehicles ultimately return to the One Vehicle. It explains that if existence or non-existence are both cut off, then it is known that Nirvana with attainment is birth and death without attainment, and the Buddha with attainment is a sinful sentient being without attainment. Since 'existence' has been cut off, and 'non-existence' has been cut off, falsehood and non-falsehood have also been cut off, and permanence and impermanence have been cut off. Ten thousand principles can be inferred by analogy. Question: The second part below refutes that 'both existence and non-existence' is Nirvana. The former is the question, and the latter is the answer. The question is divided into two parts: one is to understand the previous 'non-existence', and the other is to establish the subsequent 'existence'. The Adornment Sutra says: 'The present Nirvana is different from the past Nirvana; the past was annihilation and emptiness.'
。今是妙有。今詳此義今昔涅槃。但是有無二見。昔小涅槃為無名為無見。今涅槃是有。即是有見。有見即常。無見便斷。有無斷常乃是生死。豈是涅槃。又云。三德圓滿名為涅槃。亦是有無共合名為涅槃。開善云。今昔涅槃只是一句。就體用明異。昔日但示解脫無為未得辨體。今日始明妙有常樂。此還是顯昔涅槃體耳。此即是有無共合為涅槃。又開善云。至亡彌存義。彌存義為有至亡為無。亦是有無共合也。答曰下第二四偈即四。初即解脫破。次有受破。三有為破。四相違破。初上半牒下半破。破意云。縛時無解脫。時無縛亦有時無無。無時無有。不應有無共合而為涅槃。又經云。涅槃名為解脫。即脫于有無。云何以有無名為解脫。此乃取縛為解脫耳。又若以有無為脫。亦應脫有無為縛也。又涅槃是解脫異名。而解脫正是無累。非是有無義。不應以解脫為無也。第二偈上半牒下半破。破意同前也。第三偈上半牒而總非。下半正作有為破。汝受此有所得有無。則皆是有為法不勉生老死也。又此有無皆是眾累。豈非有為。又因有為有無為。既其有因則是有為。如百論云。汝有因故說常耶。無因故說常耶。若有因則無常。若無因說常亦可言無常也。第四偈上半牒非下半破。有無相害。都無二法。自破涅槃。以何共合為涅槃
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在是妙有（一種存在狀態）。現在詳細解釋這個意義，過去的涅槃和現在的涅槃，都只是有和無兩種見解。過去的小涅槃被認為是『無』，這是一種『無見』。現在的涅槃被認為是『有』，這是一種『有見』。有見就意味著常，無見就意味著斷。有無、斷常，這些都是生死輪迴，怎麼能是涅槃呢？ 又有人說，三德（法身德、般若德、解脫德）圓滿才叫做涅槃，或者說有和無共同結合才叫做涅槃。開善法師說，過去的涅槃和現在的涅槃只是一句話的區別，只是在體和用上有所不同。過去只是顯示解脫和無為，沒有能夠辨明本體。現在才開始闡明妙有和常樂。這還是在顯示過去涅槃的本體罷了。這就是說有和無共同結合成為涅槃。開善法師又說，達到消亡反而更加存在，更加存在就是『有』，達到消亡就是『無』，這也是有和無共同結合。回答如下，下面的第二十四偈頌分為四部分：第一部分是解脫的破斥，第二部分是有受的破斥，第三部分是有為的破斥，第四部分是相違的破斥。第一部分，上半部分是引述，下半部分是破斥。破斥的意思是說，被束縛的時候沒有解脫，沒有束縛的時候也沒有解脫，有時沒有『無』，沒有『無』的時候也沒有『有』。不應該把有和無共同結合作為涅槃。 而且經書中說，涅槃叫做解脫，就是脫離有和無。怎麼能用有和無來稱作解脫呢？這簡直是把束縛當成解脫了。而且，如果把有和無當作解脫，也應該把脫離有和無當作束縛。而且，涅槃是解脫的別名，而解脫正是沒有累贅，不是有和無的意義。不應該把解脫當作『無』。 第二偈頌，上半部分是引述，下半部分是破斥。破斥的意思和前面一樣。第三偈頌，上半部分是引述並全部否定，下半部分正式進行有為的破斥。你們接受這種有所得的有和無，那麼這些都是有為法，無法避免生老死。而且這種有無都是眾多的累贅，難道不是有為嗎？而且因為有有為，所以才有有無。既然有原因，那就是有為。如同《百論》所說：『你們因為有原因所以說常嗎？因為沒有原因所以說常嗎？如果有原因，那就是無常。如果沒有原因而說常，也可以說是無常。』 第四偈頌，上半部分是引述否定，下半部分是破斥。有和無互相妨害，根本沒有兩種法。自己破斥涅槃，用什麼共同結合成為涅槃呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Now is Miao You (妙有, a state of wondrous existence). Now, let's explain this meaning in detail. The Nirvana of the past and the Nirvana of the present are merely two views: existence and non-existence. The small Nirvana of the past was considered 'non-existence,' which is a 'view of non-existence.' The Nirvana of the present is considered 'existence,' which is a 'view of existence.' The view of existence implies permanence, while the view of non-existence implies annihilation. Existence and non-existence, permanence and annihilation, these are all part of the cycle of birth and death; how can they be Nirvana? Furthermore, some say that the perfection of the Three Virtues (法身德, Fa Shen De - virtue of the Dharmakaya; 般若德, Ban Ruo De - virtue of Prajna; 解脫德, Jie Tuo De - virtue of liberation) is called Nirvana, or that the combination of existence and non-existence is called Nirvana. Master Kai Shan (開善) said that the Nirvana of the past and the Nirvana of the present are different only in one sentence, differing only in essence and function. In the past, only liberation and non-action were shown, without being able to discern the essence. Now, the wondrous existence and eternal bliss are beginning to be elucidated. This is still merely revealing the essence of the Nirvana of the past. This means that the combination of existence and non-existence becomes Nirvana. Master Kai Shan also said that reaching extinction results in even greater existence; greater existence is 'existence,' and reaching extinction is 'non-existence.' This is also the combination of existence and non-existence. The answer is as follows: the following twenty-fourth verse is divided into four parts: the first part is the refutation of liberation, the second part is the refutation of acceptance, the third part is the refutation of conditioned existence, and the fourth part is the refutation of contradiction. In the first part, the first half is a quotation, and the second half is a refutation. The meaning of the refutation is that there is no liberation when bound, and there is no binding when there is no liberation. Sometimes there is no 'non-existence,' and when there is no 'non-existence,' there is no 'existence.' One should not combine existence and non-existence as Nirvana. Moreover, the scriptures say that Nirvana is called liberation, which is liberation from existence and non-existence. How can one call liberation existence and non-existence? This is simply taking bondage as liberation. Moreover, if one takes existence and non-existence as liberation, one should also take liberation from existence and non-existence as bondage. Moreover, Nirvana is another name for liberation, and liberation is precisely the absence of burdens, not the meaning of existence and non-existence. One should not regard liberation as 'non-existence.' In the second verse, the first half is a quotation, and the second half is a refutation. The meaning of the refutation is the same as before. In the third verse, the first half is a quotation and a complete negation, and the second half formally refutes conditioned existence. If you accept this attainable existence and non-existence, then these are all conditioned dharmas, and you cannot avoid birth, old age, and death. Moreover, this existence and non-existence are all numerous burdens; are they not conditioned? Moreover, because there is conditioned existence, there is existence and non-existence. Since there is a cause, it is conditioned. As the Hundred Treatise (百論, Bai Lun) says: 'Do you say permanence because there is a cause? Do you say permanence because there is no cause? If there is a cause, then it is impermanent. If you say permanence without a cause, you can also say it is impermanent.' In the fourth verse, the first half is a quotation and negation, and the second half is a refutation. Existence and non-existence harm each other, and there are no two dharmas at all. You refute Nirvana yourself; what do you combine to become Nirvana?
耶。下句明闇相違者成實云。明闇共處是安陀會人義耳。問曰下第三破非有非無是涅槃。前問次答。問有二。一領前二立后。是此中假師等用非有非無為涅槃。亦是立涅槃出二諦外名非有非無。又是地論師法界體非有無。又攝論師明無住涅槃有兩解。皆是非有無。答曰下兩偈為二。初偈責分別破。第二偈取意破。初偈上半牒下半責之。明第四非有非無是愚癡論。如世愚人不知分別好醜善惡。故云以何而分別。影師云。此雙非之言于亡有餘。存之不足。何者凡可造心不出斯二。斯二之表無可宅心。無可宅心則應遣之。而復言有。竟是何物。故云以何而分別。今依長行釋意者。此責非有無所因破非有無。二偈為四。初半偈牒次半偈責。第三半偈通。第四半偈破。初牒易知也。次責者懸標二關也。若因有無而分別者已破有無竟。不得因之。若因絕四句者。絕四句不可因也。既不得因此二。云何得分別非有無耶。第二偈上半牒外人之通。下半正破通。意云因前有無故有非有非無。此即是分別非有無。何故言不可分別是愚癡論耶。下半用前三句破者。若有有無可因可得分別非有無。竟無有無可因。云何得分別非有非無耶。智度論六十五卷釋無作品。以二義破非有非無。一用前三句破。同第二偈。二者用實相門破。實相絕四句故無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 耶。下句，關於『明』（光明）和『闇』（黑暗）是相違背的，成實論中說：『光明和黑暗共處，這是安陀會人的見解。』 問：下面第三個問題是破斥『非有非無』是涅槃的觀點。這是先提問后回答。問題有兩個：一是承接前面的觀點，二是建立後面的觀點。這裡是說，假名宗的法師等人用『非有非無』作為涅槃，也是爲了將涅槃建立在二諦之外，稱之為『非有非無』。另外，地論師認為法界本體既非有也非無。還有，攝論師解釋『無住涅槃』有兩種說法，都與『非有無』有關。 答：下面的兩首偈頌分為兩部分。第一首偈頌是責難和破斥，第二首偈頌是抓住要點進行破斥。第一首偈頌的上半部分是引述對方的觀點，下半部分是責難對方。說明第四種『非有非無』是愚癡的論調，就像世間的愚人不知道分辨好壞善惡一樣。所以說『以何而分別』（用什麼來分辨呢）？ 影師說：『這種雙重否定的說法，對於拋棄『有』還有剩餘，但要保留它又不足夠。』為什麼呢？凡是可以造作的心，都離不開『有』和『無』這兩種。在這兩者之外，沒有什麼可以安住的。既然沒有什麼可以安住的，就應該捨棄它。但又說『有』，這到底是什麼呢？所以說『以何而分別』？ 現在根據長行來解釋它的意思：這是責難『非有無』的根源，從而破斥『非有無』。兩首偈頌分為四個部分。第一個半偈是引述，第二個半偈是責難，第三個半偈是通達，第四個半偈是破斥。第一個半偈容易理解。第二個責難是懸設兩個關卡。如果因為『有』和『無』而進行分別，那麼『有』和『無』已經被破斥了，就不能再以此為依據。如果因為斷絕四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）而分別，那麼斷絕四句是不可作為依據的。既然不能依據這兩種，又怎麼能分辨『非有無』呢？ 第二首偈頌的上半部分是引述外人的通達之語，下半部分是正式破斥這種通達。意思是說，因為前面有『有』和『無』，所以才有『非有非無』。這也就是在分別『非有非無』。為什麼說不可分別，是愚癡的論調呢？下半部分用前面的三句（有、無、亦有亦無）來破斥：如果有『有』和『無』可以作為依據，就可以分辨『非有非無』。既然沒有『有』和『無』可以作為依據，又怎麼能分辨『非有非無』呢？ 《智度論》第六十五卷解釋『無作品』時，用兩種方法破斥『非有非無』。一是使用前面的三句來破斥，與第二首偈頌相同。二是使用實相之門來破斥。因為實相超越了四句，所以是『無』。
【English Translation】 English version Ye. The following sentence discusses the contradiction between 'Ming' (light) and 'An' (darkness). The Chengshi Lun (Tattvasiddhi Shastra) says: 'Light and darkness coexisting is the view of the Andhaka people.' (Andhaka: a Buddhist sect) Question: The third question below refutes the view that 'neither existence nor non-existence' is Nirvana. This is a question followed by an answer. There are two questions: one is to connect with the previous view, and the other is to establish the subsequent view. Here it means that the teachers of the Jiaming School (a Buddhist school emphasizing nominal existence) and others use 'neither existence nor non-existence' as Nirvana, also to establish Nirvana outside the two truths (relative and absolute), calling it 'neither existence nor non-existence'. In addition, the Dilun School (a Buddhist school emphasizing the Treatise on the Ten Stages) believes that the essence of Dharmadhatu (the realm of reality) is neither existence nor non-existence. Furthermore, the She Lun School (a Buddhist school emphasizing the Compendium of Abhidharma) explains 'non-abiding Nirvana' in two ways, both related to 'neither existence nor non-existence'. Answer: The following two verses are divided into two parts. The first verse is a rebuke and refutation, and the second verse is to grasp the key points for refutation. The first half of the first verse quotes the other party's view, and the second half rebukes the other party. It explains that the fourth 'neither existence nor non-existence' is a foolish argument, just like worldly fools who do not know how to distinguish between good and bad, good and evil. Therefore, it says 'With what do you distinguish?' Yingshi (a commentator) said: 'This double negation, for abandoning 'existence', there is still something left, but to retain it is not enough.' Why? All minds that can be created cannot be separated from the two, 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Outside of these two, there is nothing to dwell on. Since there is nothing to dwell on, it should be abandoned. But then it is said 'existence', what is this after all? Therefore, it says 'With what do you distinguish?' Now, according to the prose commentary, the meaning is explained: This is to question the origin of 'neither existence nor non-existence', thereby refuting 'neither existence nor non-existence'. The two verses are divided into four parts. The first half-verse is a quotation, the second half-verse is a rebuke, the third half-verse is a thorough understanding, and the fourth half-verse is a refutation. The first half-verse is easy to understand. The second rebuke is to set up two barriers. If one distinguishes because of 'existence' and 'non-existence', then 'existence' and 'non-existence' have already been refuted, and cannot be used as a basis. If one distinguishes because of the severance of the four sentences (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), then the severance of the four sentences cannot be used as a basis. Since these two cannot be used as a basis, how can one distinguish 'neither existence nor non-existence'? The first half of the second verse quotes the outsider's words of thorough understanding, and the second half formally refutes this thorough understanding. It means that because there is 'existence' and 'non-existence' before, there is 'neither existence nor non-existence'. This is to distinguish 'neither existence nor non-existence'. Why is it said that it cannot be distinguished and is a foolish argument? The second half uses the previous three sentences (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence) to refute: If there is 'existence' and 'non-existence' that can be used as a basis, then 'neither existence nor non-existence' can be distinguished. Since there is no 'existence' and 'non-existence' that can be used as a basis, how can one distinguish 'neither existence nor non-existence'? The sixty-fifth volume of the Zhi Du Lun (Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra) explains 'non-production' and refutes 'neither existence nor non-existence' in two ways. One is to use the previous three sentences to refute, which is the same as the second verse. The second is to use the door of reality to refute. Because reality transcends the four sentences, it is 'non-existence'.
非有非無。今論云。涅槃絕四句。即是實相也。今總問汝。為以非有無作藥用。為道理有此非有無耶。若作藥用病盡則藥消。若道理有非有無。我亦道理有有無。若言求有無不可得者。我亦求非有無不可得也。又所以有四句者涅槃絕四句。四句是表涅槃之門耳。云何用門為涅槃耶。肇公涅槃論破非有非無雲。若有此非有無則入有攝。若無此非有無則入無攝。故唯見有無無兩非也。如來滅度下第二就人門破涅槃。以能證之人顯所證之法。能證之人既非四句。所證之法義亦同然。又成論云。如來在世尚非有無。況滅度。小乘尚知如來非是有無。況學大乘。言佛在四句。問何故將如來以證涅槃。答如來品已顯如來非四句竟。故將已顯之人證未顯之法也。問何故但明二世如來不在四句。答過現已起。是故說之。未來末起。是故不說。問若爾未來末起者無諸見。答現在說未來故於未來見。問若爾現在說未來應言未來如來。答今論釋迦正辨二世。未來是彌勒。是故不說未來佛也。佛現在說離四句。佛滅后稟教之流執於四句。未來未有人法故不說。亦可存略故耳。涅槃與世問下自上已來第一正破邪涅槃。今第二次論生死。大少內外有所得人。聞涅槃高出百非之表。謂生死在四句之中。是故今明。只生死即是涅槃。如此方識生死耳。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非有非無。現在《涅槃經》中說，涅槃超越了四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無），這就是實相（真實存在的狀態）。現在我總的問你，是用『非有無』作為藥來使用呢？還是道理上存在這個『非有無』呢？如果作為藥來使用，病好了藥也就消失了。如果道理上存在『非有無』，那麼我也可以說道理上存在『有無』。如果說追求『有無』是不可得的，那麼我也同樣可以說追求『非有無』也是不可得的。而且，之所以有四句，是因為涅槃超越了四句，四句只是通往涅槃的門徑而已。怎麼能用門徑來當作涅槃呢？ 鳩摩羅什的弟子僧肇在《涅槃論》中破斥『非有非無』，說：如果存在這個『非有無』，那麼就歸於『有』的範疇；如果不存在這個『非有無』，那麼就歸於『無』的範疇。所以，只看到『有』和『無』，而沒有超越『有』和『無』的兩種對立。 『如來滅度下』第二部分從人的角度破斥涅槃。用能夠證悟的人來顯明所證悟的法。能夠證悟的人既然不是四句，那麼所證悟的法義也同樣不是四句。而且，《成實論》中說，如來在世時尚且不是『有』或『無』，更何況滅度之後呢？小乘尚且知道如來不是『有』或『無』，更何況學習大乘的人呢？說佛在四句之中。 問：為什麼用如來來證明涅槃？答：在《如來品》中已經闡明如來不是四句，所以用已經顯明的（如來）來證明尚未顯明的法（涅槃）。問：為什麼只說明過去和現在的如來不在四句之中？答：過去和現在已經發生，所以說它們。未來尚未發生，所以不說。問：如果這樣，未來尚未發生，就沒有各種見解嗎？答：現在說未來，所以在未來有見解。問：如果這樣，現在說未來，應該說未來的如來。答：現在討論的是釋迦牟尼佛，主要辨析過去和現在。未來是彌勒佛（Maitreya），所以不說未來的佛。佛現在說離開四句，佛滅度後接受教義的人執著於四句。未來沒有人法，所以不說，也可以說是省略了。 『涅槃與世問下』從上面開始，第一次正式破斥邪見中的涅槃。現在第二次討論生死。那些心胸狹隘、向外追求、有所得的人，聽到涅槃高出於一切對立之上，就認為生死在四句之中。所以現在說明，生死就是涅槃。這樣才能真正認識生死。而且
【English Translation】 English version 'Neither existent nor non-existent.' Now the Nirvana Sutra says, 'Nirvana transcends the four propositions (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), which is the true reality (ultimate reality). Now I ask you in general, is 'neither existence nor non-existence' used as medicine, or does this 'neither existence nor non-existence' exist in principle? If it is used as medicine, the medicine will disappear when the disease is cured. If 'neither existence nor non-existence' exists in principle, then I can also say that 'existence and non-existence' exist in principle. If it is said that seeking 'existence and non-existence' is unattainable, then I can also say that seeking 'neither existence nor non-existence' is unattainable. Moreover, the reason why there are four propositions is that Nirvana transcends the four propositions; the four propositions are only the gateway to Nirvana. How can the gateway be used as Nirvana?' Sengzhao (a disciple of Kumarajiva) refutes 'neither existence nor non-existence' in his Nirvana Treatise, saying: 'If this 'neither existence nor non-existence' exists, then it falls into the category of 'existence'; if this 'neither existence nor non-existence' does not exist, then it falls into the category of 'non-existence'. Therefore, only seeing 'existence' and 'non-existence' does not transcend the duality of 'existence' and 'non-existence'.' 'After the Tathagata's extinction' The second part refutes Nirvana from the perspective of people. Use the person who can realize it to show the Dharma that is realized. Since the person who can realize it is not the four propositions, the meaning of the Dharma that is realized is also not the four propositions. Moreover, the Tattvasiddhi Shastra says, 'The Tathagata is neither existent nor non-existent even when he is alive, let alone after his extinction?' Even the Hinayana knows that the Tathagata is neither existent nor non-existent, let alone those who study Mahayana? Saying that the Buddha is in the four propositions. Question: 'Why use the Tathagata to prove Nirvana?' Answer: 'In the Tathagata Chapter, it has already been clarified that the Tathagata is not the four propositions, so use what has already been clarified (the Tathagata) to prove the Dharma (Nirvana) that has not yet been clarified.' Question: 'Why only explain that the past and present Tathagatas are not in the four propositions?' Answer: 'The past and present have already occurred, so they are spoken of. The future has not yet occurred, so it is not spoken of.' Question: 'If so, if the future has not yet occurred, are there no various views?' Answer: 'The future is spoken of in the present, so there are views in the future.' Question: 'If so, since the future is spoken of in the present, it should be said that the future Tathagata.' Answer: 'Now the discussion is about Shakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni), mainly analyzing the past and present. The future is Maitreya (Maitreya), so the future Buddha is not spoken of. The Buddha now says to leave the four propositions, and those who receive the teachings after the Buddha's extinction cling to the four propositions. There is no Dharma of people in the future, so it is not spoken of, or it can be said to be omitted.' 'Nirvana and the world below' From above, the first formal refutation of Nirvana in heretical views. Now the second discussion of birth and death. Those who are narrow-minded, seek outward, and have attachments, upon hearing that Nirvana is higher than all oppositions, believe that birth and death are in the four propositions. Therefore, it is now explained that birth and death are Nirvana. Only in this way can one truly recognize birth and death. Moreover
有此章來者。上來破邪涅槃。今示正涅槃。外云。所證之法能證之人並非四句。今用何等為涅槃耶。是故今略示涅槃相。欲識涅槃者即生死是也。是故此章示正涅槃也。問此文乃明生死涅槃不二。云何名示正涅槃耶。答例如來品則知。如來品前破邪如來。后示正如來。故云如來所有性即是世間性。今亦爾。前破邪涅槃今示正涅槃。正涅槃所有性。即是世間性名為正涅槃。肇師妙存章亦同此意。又見生死涅槃為二。則是生死耳。達無二名為涅槃。故涅槃經云。智者了達即是無二。無二之性即是實性。又有此文來者。或聞上出世間人法絕於四句。言世間人法在於四句。若爾還是世出世二見。若是二見即成生死。是故今明。非但出世人法絕於四句。世間人法亦絕四句。能如此悟即是涅槃耶。就文為二。第一明世間涅槃平等。二明涅槃與諸見平等。初又二。前偈世間涅槃平等。第二明二際平等。所以世間與涅槃不二者。從因緣品至成壞品。求世間四句不可得。從如來品至涅槃品。求出世間法四句不得。世與出世既同絕四句。所以世與出世無有二也。既識無二即須知二。悟二無二名為方便般若。了無二二稱般若方便。法華明諸佛知見有四智。了生死涅槃二而無二謂如來智。悟不二而二名佛智。此二智任運現前謂自然無功用智。此
三不從師得名無師智。此之四智則是諸佛知見。為欲開示悟入此四知見故出現於世也。問就誰論二不二。答于道未曾二。于緣未曾一。于道未曾二生死常涅槃。于緣未曾一涅槃常生死也。次偈明兩際無二者前偈在言猶賒。此章切論不二。故辨二際無別。他云。從無間地獄上至大乘金剛心。是無常行苦位。金剛後心是常樂位。故二際常別。今泯此二見。故云不二。復為對真俗異體家。經云色即是空空即是色。而二體恒異。即是兩際常別。但不相離故稱為即。是故今明。兩無二則二體無別也。
中觀論疏卷第十(本畢)
中觀論疏卷第十(末)
釋吉藏撰
涅槃品之餘
滅後有無等下。第二明諸見與涅槃平等。所以有此一章者凡有五義。一者種種顯不二門。如凈名三十餘菩薩明於不二。今亦爾。上辨世間涅槃不二。今明諸見與涅槃無二。二者上通明不二。以世間是通。諸見是世間中之別。故前通明不二。今別明不二。三者上明世間涅槃不二。今明邪正不二。問世間與邪何異。答世間未必是邪。世諦名為世間。今別明邪見。異上世諦。是故重說。問何故諸見即是涅槃。答凈名經云。諸佛解脫當於六十二見中求。此欲明邪正不二泯寂異心故也。四者此是舉諸見為喻。以釋上世間涅槃不二義。佛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『三不從師』（指不盲從三種類型的老師）可以獲得『無師智』（不依賴老師也能獲得的智慧）。這四種智慧就是諸佛的知見。爲了開示、啓發、引導眾生領悟並進入這四種知見，諸佛才出現於世間。問：就什麼而言，『二』（差別）與『不二』（無差別）是相關的？答：就『道』（真理）而言，從未有『二』。就『緣』（因緣）而言，從未有『一』。就『道』而言，生死即是涅槃，從未有『二』。就『緣』而言，涅槃即是生死，從未有『一』。下面的偈頌闡明『兩際』（兩個極端）沒有差別。前面的偈頌還在言語的邊緣，這一章則直接論述『不二』，所以辨明兩個極端沒有差別。其他人說：從無間地獄向上直到大乘金剛心，這是無常、苦的階段。金剛後心是常、樂的階段。所以兩個極端始終有差別。現在泯滅這兩種見解，所以說『不二』。另外，這是爲了對治認為真諦和俗諦是不同實體的觀點。經中說：『色即是空，空即是色』，但二者本體始終不同，這就是兩個極端始終有差別。只是因為不相分離，所以稱為『即』。因此，現在闡明，兩個極端沒有差別，那麼兩個實體的本體也就沒有差別。 《中觀論疏》卷第十（本卷完） 《中觀論疏》卷第十（末） 釋吉藏 撰 《涅槃品》之餘 『滅後有無等下』，第二部分闡明各種見解與涅槃是平等的。之所以有這一章，總共有五個意義：一是通過種種方式來彰顯『不二』之門。例如《維摩詰經》中三十多位菩薩闡明『不二』。現在也是這樣，前面辨明世間與涅槃『不二』，現在闡明各種見解與涅槃沒有差別。二是前面是普遍地闡明『不二』，因為世間是普遍的，各種見解是世間中的個別。所以前面普遍地闡明『不二』，現在個別地闡明『不二』。三是前面闡明世間與涅槃『不二』，現在闡明邪見與正見『不二』。問：世間與邪見有什麼不同？答：世間未必是邪見，世俗諦可以稱為世間。現在單獨闡明邪見，與前面的世俗諦不同，所以重新闡述。問：為什麼各種見解就是涅槃？答：《維摩詰經》說：『諸佛的解脫應當在六十二見中尋求。』這是想要闡明邪見與正見『不二』，泯滅差別之心。
【English Translation】 English version 『Three Non-Compliances with Teachers』 (referring to not blindly following three types of teachers) can attain 『Wisdom Without a Teacher』 (wisdom gained without relying on a teacher). These four wisdoms are the knowledge and vision of all Buddhas. It is for the sake of revealing, enlightening, and guiding sentient beings to realize and enter these four knowledges and visions that the Buddhas appear in the world. Question: In what respect are 『duality』 (difference) and 『non-duality』 (no difference) related? Answer: In terms of the 『Dao』 (truth), there has never been 『duality』. In terms of 『conditions』 (causation), there has never been 『oneness』. In terms of the 『Dao』, birth and death are Nirvana, and there has never been 『duality』. In terms of 『conditions』, Nirvana is birth and death, and there has never been 『oneness』. The following verse clarifies that 『the two extremes』 (two extremes) have no difference. The previous verse was still on the edge of language, but this chapter directly discusses 『non-duality』, so it clarifies that there is no difference between the two extremes. Others say: From the Avici Hell upwards to the Vajra Mind of the Mahayana, this is the stage of impermanence and suffering. The post-Vajra Mind is the stage of permanence and bliss. Therefore, the two extremes are always different. Now, annihilate these two views, so it is said 『non-duality』. In addition, this is to counter the view that the true and conventional truths are different entities. The sutra says: 『Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form,』 but the two entities are always different, which is why the two extremes are always different. It is only because they are inseparable that they are called 『is』. Therefore, now it is clarified that if the two extremes have no difference, then the two entities have no difference in essence. Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 10 (End of this volume) Commentary on the Middle Treatise, Volume 10 (End) Composed by Shishi Jizang Remainder of the Nirvana Chapter 『After extinction, existence or non-existence, etc.』, the second part clarifies that various views are equal to Nirvana. The reason for having this chapter is for five meanings in total: First, to reveal the gate of 『non-duality』 in various ways. For example, in the Vimalakirti Sutra, more than thirty Bodhisattvas clarify 『non-duality』. It is the same now. Previously, it was clarified that the world and Nirvana are 『non-dual』, and now it is clarified that various views have no difference from Nirvana. Second, the previous explanation was a general clarification of 『non-duality』, because the world is general, and various views are specific within the world. Therefore, the previous explanation was a general clarification of 『non-duality』, and now it is a specific clarification of 『non-duality』. Third, the previous explanation clarified that the world and Nirvana are 『non-dual』, and now it is clarified that wrong views and right views are 『non-dual』. Question: What is the difference between the world and wrong views? Answer: The world is not necessarily wrong views, and conventional truth can be called the world. Now, wrong views are explained separately, which is different from the previous conventional truth, so it is restated. Question: Why are various views Nirvana? Answer: The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 『The liberation of all Buddhas should be sought in the sixty-two views.』 This is to clarify that wrong views and right views are 『non-dual』, and to eliminate the mind of discrimination.
法內大小乘人知六十二見畢竟空。不知世間即是大涅槃。是故今舉諸見為喻。汝既知諸見畢竟空者。涅槃亦畢竟空。例如大品恒舉我。以喻於色乃至種智。問今文何處作此釋耶。答顯在長行。尋文自見。五者上明涅槃世間平等無二。惑者便云。以了悟故平等。不了悟者便不平等。而起迷悟兩見。是故今明不但二際無別。亦迷悟不二。以諸法未曾迷悟故也。就文亦二。初偈列諸見。次兩偈明諸見空。初又二。上半明諸見體。下半辨起諸見處。上半明諸見體為二。初句明於出世人中起於四見。次句辨世間法中八見。所以俱明此二者。眾生起見不過世出世也。下半明起見處者。明出世四見依涅槃起。問計如來有無依如來起。云何依涅槃起。答惑者見如眾涅槃。是故推拆。或謂畢竟涅槃無復如來。或言法身常住猶有于佛。又云。應身無法身有。又云。佛是中道故非有非無。故計如來有無從涅槃起也。下明八見依二世起也。問此偈何故世出世二見合一處列耶。答此中舉涅槃四見等諸邪見。皆是一類。故並破之。如來品中亦爾。前明如來空不空四見。次及常邊等於八見合列之。如經中雲。佛見法見及斷常見。皆一類也。長行為四。前釋偈文次釋偈意。前釋上半。言三種十二見者。出世四見世間八見。此之三種為十二。如來滅後有無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法內大乘和小乘修行者都知道六十二種見解（指各種錯誤的觀點和執著）最終都是空性的。但是他們不知道世間本身就是大涅槃（指超越生死輪迴的境界）。因此，現在列舉各種見解作為比喻。既然你們已經知道各種見解最終都是空性的，那麼涅槃也最終是空性的。例如，《大品般若經》中經常用『我』來比喻色（指物質現象）乃至種智（指佛的智慧）。 問：現在這段經文在哪裡解釋了這個道理呢？ 答：這個道理明顯地體現在長行（指經文的散文部分）中，仔細尋找經文就能看到。 第五點，上面說明了涅槃和世間是平等不二的。迷惑的人就會說：因爲了悟所以平等，不了悟的人便不平等。從而產生迷惑和覺悟兩種對立的見解。因此，現在說明不僅二際（指生死兩端）沒有差別，而且迷惑和覺悟也沒有差別。因為諸法（指一切事物和現象）從來就沒有迷惑和覺悟的分別。 就經文來說，也分為兩部分。首先用偈頌列出各種見解，然後用兩個偈頌說明各種見解是空性的。首先，列出各種見解分為兩部分。前半部分說明各種見解的本體，後半部分辨別產生各種見解的地方。前半部分說明各種見解的本體分為兩部分。第一句說明在出世間人中產生四種見解。第二句辨別在世間法中產生八種見解。之所以同時說明這兩種見解，是因為眾生產生的見解不會超出世間和出世間。 後半部分說明產生見解的地方，說明出世間的四種見解是依涅槃產生的。問：計較如來（指佛）的有無是依如來產生的，為什麼說是依涅槃產生的呢？答：迷惑的人把如來看作眾多的涅槃，因此進行推測分析。或者認為畢竟涅槃后就沒有如來了，或者說，法身（指佛的法性身）常住，仍然有佛的存在。又說，應身（指佛的應化身）沒有，法身有。又說，佛是中道，所以非有非無。所以，計較如來的有無是從涅槃產生的。 下面說明八種見解是依二世（指過去世和未來世）產生的。問：這個偈頌為什麼把世間和出世間的兩種見解放在一起列舉呢？答：這裡列舉的涅槃四見等各種邪見，都是同一類。所以一起破斥。如來品中也是這樣。前面說明如來空和不空的四種見解，然後把常邊等八種見解合併列舉。如經中所說：佛見、法見以及斷見、常見，都是同一類。 長行分為四個部分。前面解釋偈頌的文字，然後解釋偈頌的意義。前面解釋偈頌的前半部分，說三種十二見，指出世間的四種見解和世間的八種見解。這三種加起來是十二種。如來滅後有無（指關於如來滅度后存在與否的各種觀點）。
【English Translation】 English version Those within the Dharma, both Mahayana and Hinayana practitioners, know that the sixty-two views (referring to various erroneous viewpoints and attachments) are ultimately empty. However, they do not know that the world itself is the Great Nirvana (referring to the state beyond the cycle of birth and death). Therefore, I now present these views as metaphors. Since you already know that all views are ultimately empty, then Nirvana is also ultimately empty. For example, the 'Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra' often uses 'self' as a metaphor for form (referring to material phenomena) and even the wisdom of the Buddha (Sarvajna). Question: Where in this text is this principle explained? Answer: This principle is clearly embodied in the prose section (referring to the prose portion of the sutra), find it yourself in the text. Fifth, the above clarifies that Nirvana and the world are equal and non-dual. Those who are deluded will say: because of enlightenment, they are equal; those who are not enlightened are not equal. Thus, they give rise to the dualistic views of delusion and enlightenment. Therefore, it is now clarified that not only are the two extremes (referring to the two ends of birth and death) not different, but delusion and enlightenment are also not dual. Because all dharmas (referring to all things and phenomena) have never had the distinction of delusion and enlightenment. Regarding the text, it is also divided into two parts. First, the verses list the various views, and then two verses explain that the various views are empty. First, listing the various views is divided into two parts. The first half clarifies the substance of the various views, and the second half distinguishes the places where the various views arise. The first half clarifying the substance of the various views is divided into two parts. The first sentence clarifies that four views arise among those who are transcendent. The second sentence distinguishes that eight views arise in worldly dharmas. The reason for clarifying both of these views is that the views that sentient beings generate do not exceed the worldly and the transcendent. The second half clarifies the places where views arise, clarifying that the four transcendent views arise based on Nirvana. Question: Contemplating the existence or non-existence of the Tathagata (referring to the Buddha) arises based on the Tathagata, so why is it said to arise based on Nirvana? Answer: Those who are deluded regard the Tathagata as numerous Nirvanas, and therefore speculate and analyze. Some believe that after ultimate Nirvana, there is no longer a Tathagata, while others say that the Dharmakaya (referring to the Dharma body of the Buddha) is permanent, and the Buddha still exists. Others say that the Nirmāṇakāya (referring to the manifested body of the Buddha) does not exist, but the Dharmakaya exists. Still others say that the Buddha is the Middle Way, so neither exists nor does not exist. Therefore, contemplating the existence or non-existence of the Tathagata arises from Nirvana. The following explains that the eight views arise based on the two times (referring to the past and future). Question: Why does this verse list the two views of the worldly and the transcendent together? Answer: The various wrong views listed here, such as the four views of Nirvana, are all of the same kind. Therefore, they are refuted together. It is the same in the 'Tathagata' chapter. The previous clarifies the four views of the Tathagata being empty and not empty, and then lists the eight views such as the eternal extreme together. As the sutra says: 'The view of the Buddha, the view of the Dharma, and the views of annihilation and permanence are all of the same kind.' The prose section is divided into four parts. The first part explains the words of the verses, and then explains the meaning of the verses. The first part explains the first half of the verses, saying that the three types of twelve views point out the four transcendent views and the eight worldly views. These three together make twelve. Existence or non-existence after the Tathagata's extinction (referring to various views on whether the Tathagata exists after passing away).
等下第二釋下半偈意。明起見處同。故知平等。四見既畢竟空。涅槃亦爾。第三從如來滅後有無等不可得。下明正觀撿察俱不可得故。是故下等四總結無異故平等也。一切法空故下。第二兩偈明諸見空。即舉一異者一異為本諸見為末。本來皆空也。諸法不可得下。此偈來有遠近三意。一者總結二十五品明大乘觀意。故長行雲。從因緣品來至涅槃品。橫破二十五條。豎窮四句皆不可得。即是諸法實相。名為中道。故云諸法不可得。以因中發觀故橫滅二十五條。豎除四句戲論。無人者下半略結無五事。一無九道所化眾生。無處者二無有凈穢五種國土。五種謂。一純凈。二純不凈。三前凈后不凈。四前不凈后凈。五凈穢雜土。報應各五名為十土。佛者三明無三世十方諸化主也。亦無所說者四無所化教門。略即五乘。廣即八萬法藏。皆不可得。五明無有三世時。此句出在長行。二者是此品第三。前之二門略廣破邪涅槃。申正涅槃。在義以竟。今是第三次明總結破申大意。上半還牒總破。如前釋。下半別結五事。一無稟涅槃教人。二無說涅槃教處。三無說涅槃教時。四無說涅槃教主。五無涅槃可說也。三者近結前之二偈。破六十二見也。長行釋三偈為二。前釋初兩偈。次釋第三偈。釋初偈一切法者謂。生死涅槃也。一切時者三世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 接下來解釋下半偈的意思，說明（眾生）生起見解之處是相同的，因此可知（諸法）是平等的。既然四見（常見、斷見、亦常亦斷見、非常非斷見）畢竟是空，那麼涅槃也是如此。第三部分從『如來滅後有無等不可得』開始，說明正觀審察都是不可得的，所以下面總結說沒有差異，因此是平等的。『一切法空故』以下，第二段兩偈說明諸見是空性的，即舉出一異（一和異）為例，一異是諸見的根本，諸見是末端，本來都是空性的。 『諸法不可得』以下，這句偈語有遠、近三種含義。一是總結二十五品，說明大乘觀的意義。所以長行中說，從《因緣品》到《涅槃品》，橫向破除二十五種見解，縱向窮盡四句（有、無、亦有亦無、非有非無）都是不可得的，這就是諸法的實相，名為中道。所以說諸法不可得，因為在因中生起觀照，所以橫向滅除二十五種見解，縱向去除四句戲論。『無人者』下半部分略微總結了沒有五件事：一、沒有九道所化的眾生。『無處者』，二、沒有清凈和污穢的五種國土。五種是指：一、純凈；二、純不凈；三、前凈后不凈；四、前不凈后凈；五、凈穢雜土。報應各有五種，合稱為十土。『佛者』，三、說明沒有三世十方諸化主。『亦無所說者』，四、沒有所化的教門，略而言之是五乘（人乘、天乘、聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘），廣而言之是八萬法藏，都是不可得的。五、說明沒有三世的時間。這句話出現在長行中。二是指此品第三部分，前面兩個部分略廣地破斥邪涅槃，闡述正涅槃，在意義上已經說完。現在是第三次說明總結破斥和闡述的大意。上半部分仍然是總破，如前所述。下半部分分別總結五件事：一、沒有稟受涅槃教義的人；二、沒有宣說涅槃教義的處所；三、沒有宣說涅槃教義的時間；四、沒有宣說涅槃教義的教主；五、沒有可以宣說的涅槃。三是指就近總結前面的兩偈，破斥六十二見。長行將三偈解釋為二，先解釋前兩偈，再解釋第三偈。解釋初偈，『一切法』是指生死涅槃。『一切時』是指三世。
【English Translation】 English version: Next, the latter half of the verse is explained, clarifying that the place where views arise is the same, hence knowing that (all dharmas) are equal. Since the four views (eternalism, annihilationism, both eternalism and annihilationism, neither eternalism nor annihilationism) are ultimately empty, so is Nirvana. The third part, starting from 'Whether the Tathagata exists or does not exist after extinction, etc., is unattainable,' explains that both correct contemplation and examination are unattainable. Therefore, the following summarizes that there is no difference, hence equality. 'Because all dharmas are empty' below, the second two verses explain that all views are empty, taking 'one' and 'different' as examples. 'One' and 'different' are the root of all views, and all views are the branches, originally all empty. 'All dharmas are unattainable' below, this verse has three meanings: distant, near, and immediate. First, it summarizes the twenty-five chapters, explaining the meaning of the Mahayana contemplation. Therefore, the long passage says that from the 'Causation Chapter' to the 'Nirvana Chapter,' horizontally breaking the twenty-five views, and vertically exhausting the four phrases (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence) are all unattainable. This is the true nature of all dharmas, called the Middle Way. Therefore, it is said that all dharmas are unattainable, because contemplation arises in the cause, so horizontally eliminating the twenty-five views, and vertically removing the four phrases of conceptual proliferation. 'No person' below, the latter half briefly summarizes the absence of five things: first, there are no sentient beings transformed by the nine realms. 'No place,' second, there are no pure or impure five kinds of lands. The five kinds refer to: first, purely pure; second, purely impure; third, pure before and impure after; fourth, impure before and pure after; fifth, mixed pure and impure lands. Each has five kinds of retribution, collectively called the ten lands. 'Buddha,' third, it explains that there are no transforming lords of the three times and ten directions. 'Also, nothing to say,' fourth, there is no teaching to be transformed, briefly speaking it is the Five Vehicles (human vehicle, deva vehicle, sravaka vehicle, pratyekabuddha vehicle, bodhisattva vehicle), broadly speaking it is the eighty-four thousand Dharma treasures, all unattainable. Fifth, it explains that there is no time of the three times. This sentence appears in the long passage. Second, it refers to the third part of this chapter, the previous two parts briefly and extensively refuting incorrect Nirvana, and expounding correct Nirvana, which has been explained in meaning. Now is the third time to explain the main idea of summarizing refutation and expounding. The first half is still a general refutation, as explained before. The latter half separately summarizes five things: first, there are no people who receive the teachings of Nirvana; second, there is no place to preach the teachings of Nirvana; third, there is no time to preach the teachings of Nirvana; fourth, there is no teacher to preach the teachings of Nirvana; fifth, there is no Nirvana that can be preached. Third, it refers to closely summarizing the previous two verses, refuting the sixty-two views. The long passage explains the three verses as two, first explaining the first two verses, then explaining the third verse. Explaining the first verse, 'all dharmas' refers to birth and death and Nirvana. 'All times' refers to the three times.
時也。此二列所觀之法。一切種者明觀門也。以觀門無量故云一切種。如智度論釋。一切種知一切法。論云。智慧門名為種。從眾緣生畢竟空者。初兩句空即是緣盡于觀。一切種空謂觀盡于緣。故非緣非觀。緣觀俱寂。如是法中下釋偈后三句也。何者是有邊謂法空也。誰為有邊者明人空也。何者是常釋第二偈。前總列諸見。從如是六十二見。下辨諸見空。六十二見阿含梵動品中明本劫本見末劫末見。數紙文。不可具述。今依智度論七十卷解佛母品。離十四難為六十二見。常無常四邊。無邊四。如去不如去四。合為十二。及身神一身異神異為十四難也。問此十四難約何世論之。答異解云云。今明。常邊等八句直辨神體。不約世故明神體是常無常等也。如去不如去此別明後世。所以別明後世者智度論云。後世事要惑者多迷。是故別說。開六十二者一陰四句。五陰二十。常無常二十。邊無邊如去不如去亦二十。故成六十。一異為本成六十二。諸有所得皆息下釋第三偈。從因緣品至涅槃品。橫絕百非豎起四句。名為諸法實相。即是中道。亦名涅槃者以超四句絕百非。即是累無不寂。德無不圓。累無不寂不可為有。德無不圓不可為無。非有非無則是中道。中道之法名為涅槃。又德無不圓名為不空。累無不寂稱之為空。即是智見空
及以不空。亦名佛性。以眾生橫起百非豎生四見。隱覆實相故名為佛性。若知百非本空四句常寂。即佛性顯稱為法身。楞伽經出法身五名。謂真如法性實際法界法身。今論出五名。初名實相。次如法性實際涅槃。問四句有幾種。答凈名玄義明十種四句。今略出三。一者單明四句。如此文說。生死涅槃一切有。生死涅槃一切無。亦有亦無。非有非無。二復明四句。有有有無名之為有。無有無無名之為無。亦有有有無。亦無有無無名亦有亦無。非有有有無。非無有無無名非有非無。三重複四句。有四句名之為有。無四句名之為無。亦有四句亦無四句名亦有亦無。非有四句非無四句名非有非無。今求此三種四句不可得。乃名實相涅槃也。
十二因緣品第二十六
論有二分。前二十五品破大乘人法。明大乘觀行。今第二兩品破小乘人法。明小乘觀行。佛在世時眾生根利。稟于兩教同悟一道。末世鈍根聞于兩教並皆起迷。是以四依出世雙破二迷俱申兩教。佛則雙說論主雙申。則知四依猶如佛也。問他亦云大小乘觀行。與今何異。答他道理實有大乘。但小是方便耳。今明正道未曾大小。為眾生故說于大小。一往大小相望則小為方便。大是真實。若望道非大非小則大小俱是方便。故與舊不同。問一往開大小者。有異大之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以及不空（Aśūnyatā，非空性）。也叫做佛性（Buddhatā，覺悟的本性）。因為眾生橫向生起百種錯誤觀念，縱向產生四種錯誤的見解，遮蔽了真實的相狀，所以叫做佛性。如果知道百種錯誤觀念本來就是空，四句（catuṣkoṭi，四種可能性）永遠寂靜，那麼佛性就顯現，稱為法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身）。《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）中提到法身的五種名稱，即真如（Tathatā，事物的真實本性），法性（Dharmatā，法的性質），實際（Bhūtakoti，真實的終極），法界（Dharmadhātu，法的界域），法身。現在本論中提出五種名稱，第一個名稱是實相（Tathatā，真實的相狀），第二個是如法性（Dharmatā，如其本性的法），實際（Bhūtakoti，真實的終極），涅槃（Nirvāṇa，解脫）。 問：四句（catuṣkoṭi，四種可能性）有幾種？答：《凈名玄義》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra's Profound Meaning）中闡明了十種四句。現在簡略地提出三種。第一種是單獨說明四句，就像本文所說的：生死涅槃一切有，生死涅槃一切無，亦有亦無，非有非無。第二種是重複說明四句：有有有無，名為有；無有無無，名為無；亦有有有無，亦無有無無，名為亦有亦無；非有有有無，非無有無無，名為非有非無。第三種是重複四句：有四句，名為有；無四句，名為無；亦有四句亦無四句，名為亦有亦無；非有四句非無四句，名為非有非無。現在尋求這三種四句都不可得，才叫做實相涅槃。 十二因緣品第二十六 本論分為兩部分。前二十五品破斥大乘人的法，闡明大乘的觀行。現在第二部分的兩品破斥小乘人的法，闡明小乘的觀行。佛陀在世的時候，眾生的根器銳利，接受兩種教法都能悟入同一道。末世的鈍根眾生，聽到兩種教法都會產生迷惑。因此，四依（catuḥpratisaraṇa，四種依靠）出世，同時破斥兩種迷惑，同時闡述兩種教法。佛陀同時宣說，論主同時闡述，就知道四依就像佛陀一樣。問：其他人也說大小乘的觀行，與現在有什麼不同？答：他們的道理實際上有大乘，但小乘只是方便。現在闡明正道本來就沒有大小，爲了眾生的緣故才說大小。從一方面來說，大小乘相互比較，小乘是方便，大乘是真實。如果從道的角度來看，非大非小，那麼大小乘都是方便。所以與舊的說法不同。問：從一方面來說，開顯大小乘，有什麼不同於大乘的...
【English Translation】 English version And also Aśūnyatā (不空, non-emptiness). It is also called Buddhatā (佛性, Buddha-nature). Because sentient beings horizontally give rise to a hundred wrong views and vertically produce four wrong views, obscuring the true nature, it is called Buddha-nature. If one knows that the hundred wrong views are fundamentally empty and the four statements (catuṣkoṭi) are always quiescent, then Buddha-nature manifests and is called Dharmakāya (法身, Dharma-body). The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經) mentions five names for Dharmakāya, namely, Tathatā (真如, suchness), Dharmatā (法性, Dharma-nature), Bhūtakoti (實際, the limit of reality), Dharmadhātu (法界, the realm of Dharma), and Dharmakāya. Now, this treatise presents five names. The first name is Tathatā (實相, true aspect), the second is like Dharmatā (如法性, Dharma-nature as it is), Bhūtakoti (實際, the limit of reality), and Nirvāṇa (涅槃, liberation). Question: How many kinds of four statements (catuṣkoṭi) are there? Answer: The Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra's Profound Meaning (凈名玄義) clarifies ten kinds of four statements. Now, briefly present three. The first is to simply explain the four statements, as this text says: Saṃsāra-Nirvāṇa all exist, Saṃsāra-Nirvāṇa all do not exist, both exist and do not exist, neither exist nor do not exist. The second is to repeatedly explain the four statements: Having existence and having non-existence is called existence; not having existence and not having non-existence is called non-existence; also having existence and having non-existence, also not having existence and not having non-existence, is called both existence and non-existence; neither having existence and having non-existence, nor not having existence and not having non-existence, is called neither existence nor non-existence. The third is to repeat the four statements: Having four statements is called existence; not having four statements is called non-existence; also having four statements and also not having four statements is called both existence and non-existence; neither having four statements nor not having four statements is called neither existence nor non-existence. Now, seeking these three kinds of four statements is unattainable, and this is called the true aspect of Nirvāṇa. Chapter Twenty-Six on the Twelve Nidānas (十二因緣品) This treatise is divided into two parts. The previous twenty-five chapters refute the Dharma of the Mahāyāna practitioners and clarify the practice of Mahāyāna contemplation. Now, the two chapters of the second part refute the Dharma of the Hīnayāna practitioners and clarify the practice of Hīnayāna contemplation. When the Buddha was in the world, sentient beings had sharp faculties, and they could understand the same path by receiving both teachings. In the degenerate age, sentient beings with dull faculties become confused when they hear both teachings. Therefore, the Four Reliances (catuḥpratisaraṇa) appear in the world, simultaneously refuting both confusions and simultaneously expounding both teachings. The Buddha speaks of both simultaneously, and the author of the treatise expounds both simultaneously, so it is known that the Four Reliances are like the Buddha. Question: Others also speak of the practice of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna contemplation, what is the difference from now? Answer: Their reasoning actually has Mahāyāna, but Hīnayāna is just a means. Now, clarifying the right path has never been large or small, but for the sake of sentient beings, it is said to be large or small. From one perspective, comparing Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, Hīnayāna is a means, and Mahāyāna is the truth. If viewed from the perspective of the path, it is neither large nor small, then both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are means. Therefore, it is different from the old saying. Question: From one perspective, revealing Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, what is the difference from Mahāyāna...
小異小之大不。答昔虛指大因以為小異。故名於一佛乘。方便說三。實無異大之小。今還空點小果。為大因名會三歸一。亦無異小之大。前論于大后論于小。具如初品所明。今略明一意。雖無道二徹但悟各有由。故明兩教。而著相者未能要期會歸。遂取信所見聞大乘法空不肯信受。故復就彼所見以明其空也。兩品即為二意。第一申正。第二破邪。申正則顯生死過患。破邪明斷惑入道。小乘之要唯此二門。問何故大乘觀行二十五章。小乘但有二品。答示大乘探奧。是以文多。小乘淺狹唯有二品。又示正論大乘故有多品。傍申小乘故有兩章。三者上大乘中以破一切邪。以明一切觀。小乘之觀小乘之邪廣在其中。今但略明則于義便足。是故唯有二品。四者佛說小乘。唯有二意。一示生死過患。二令斷惑得道。稟教之徒不尋其根。遂枝流蔓莚成五百部。今欲令舍末歸宗。故但明二品。所言觀十二因緣品者。問諸小乘論已明十二因緣觀。論主何故復說。答佛為破無因邪因。故說十二緣生。此是借妄止妄。當時即用此了悟。末世還又執著。求其定相非但用之通於小乘。亦用此解通方等教。是以論主須重論之。問諸部云何執此十二。答毗婆阇婆提定執十二是無為法。餘部皆言是有為法。于有為內復有三部。一犢子部雖明十二因緣。而
計有我法。二薩婆多雖知十二無我。而未知十二因緣亦空。三者成實論等明十二相生無我無法。此之三部是小乘中利鈍三品。初未得二空名為下品。次我空法有。名為中根。次無我無法。名為上根。問論主今明小乘觀行因何部。答前之三部各執一邊。互興諍論。論主知佛方便適化不同。悉可隨時而用。如大集云。雖有五部不妨法界。文殊問經十八及本二皆從大乘出。涅槃經三十諍論。論主申佛方便。並須用之。皆是執著應須破。但末世眾生多滯有病。今宜說空。故下破邪見品具破人法也。問以何文證具明人法二空。答智度論釋小乘生法二空。引大因緣經云。是中何等是老死。誰為老死。誰為老死即生空。何等是老死謂法空也。問論主為末世多執有故說二空。佛經說小乘雲何。答亦說二空。如法華信解品。聲聞法空無生無滅無大無小。大品云。須菩提不見檀。不見行檀者。問何故經論並明二空。答一切凡夫無始來常執有故也。問若具明人法二空與大何異。答小乘雖明二空而多說生空。少識法空不明諸法本性空寂。上已具論。是故為異。今重述之。大乘知無明本自不生。爾時見二種空。一者有所無空。謂無明不可得。二者即見佛性畢竟清凈無有煩惱。亦名為空。此亦即是見空不空二義。見二種空名見空。即見佛性妙有名見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 計有我法（認為存在『我』的實體和『法』的實體）。二、薩婆多部（Sarvastivadins，一切有部）雖然知道十二無我（十二種無我的觀點），但不知道十二因緣（十二因緣法）也是空性的。三者，成實論等闡明十二相生（十二緣起）是無我無法的。這三部是小乘（Hinayana）中根器有利鈍的三種類型。最初未證得二空（人空和法空）的稱為下品。其次，證得人空但認為法存在的，稱為中根。再次，證得人空和法空的，稱為上根。 問：論主現在闡明的小乘觀行是依據哪一部的？答：前面的三部各自執著於一邊，互相爭論。論主知道佛陀爲了適應不同的情況而施設不同的教法，都可以隨時採用。如《大集經》（Mahasamgraha Sutra）所說：『雖有五部不妨法界。』《文殊問經》（Manjushri Questions Sutra）說十八部以及根本二部都出自大乘（Mahayana）。《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）有三十種諍論。論主闡明佛陀的方便法門，都需要採用。一切執著都應該破除。但末世的眾生大多執著于『有』的病，現在應該說『空』。所以下面的《破邪見品》詳細地破斥了人法二執。 問：用什麼經文證明詳細闡明了人法二空？答：《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）解釋小乘的生空和法空，引用《大因緣經》（Maha-nidana Sutra）說：『這其中什麼是老死？誰是老死？誰是老死』，這就是生空（人空）。『什麼是老死』，這就是法空。 問：論主因為末世大多執著于『有』才說二空，佛經怎麼說小乘呢？答：也說二空。如《法華經·信解品》（Lotus Sutra, Chapter 4）說：『聲聞法空，無生無滅，無大無小。』《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）說：『須菩提不見檀（dana，佈施），不見行檀者。』 問：為什麼經和論都闡明二空？答：一切凡夫從無始以來常常執著于『有』的緣故。 問：如果詳細闡明人法二空，與大乘有什麼不同？答：小乘雖然闡明二空，但大多說生空（人空），很少認識法空，不明白諸法本性空寂。上面已經詳細論述過了，所以有不同。現在重新敘述一下。大乘知道無明（ignorance）本來就不生。這時見到兩種空：一者，有所無空，即無明不可得。二者，即見佛性（Buddha-nature）畢竟清凈，沒有煩惱，也名為空。這也即是見空不空二義。見二種空名為見空，即見佛性妙有（wondrous existence）名為見。
【English Translation】 English version There are those who adhere to the existence of 'I' (self) and 'dharma' (phenomena). Second, the Sarvastivadins (those who believe that everything exists) know the twelve aspects of no-self, but they do not know that the twelve links of dependent origination are also empty. Third, the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (Treatise on the Accomplishment of Truth) and others explain that the twelve interdependent arising is without self and without dharma. These three schools represent the three types of capacities, sharp and dull, within the Hinayana (Smaller Vehicle). The first, who have not attained the two emptinesses (emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), are called the inferior type. The second, who have attained emptiness of self but believe that phenomena exist, are called the intermediate type. The third, who have attained emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena, are called the superior type. Question: Which school's Hinayana contemplation does the author now explain? Answer: The previous three schools each cling to one side and argue with each other. The author knows that the Buddha established different teachings to adapt to different situations, and all can be used at any time. As the Mahasamgraha Sutra (Great Collection Sutra) says: 'Although there are five schools, it does not hinder the Dharma Realm.' The Manjushri Questions Sutra says that the eighteen schools and the two fundamental schools all come from the Mahayana (Greater Vehicle). The Nirvana Sutra has thirty disputes. The author explains the Buddha's expedient methods, and all need to be used. All attachments should be broken. However, most sentient beings in the degenerate age suffer from the disease of clinging to 'existence,' and now we should speak of 'emptiness.' Therefore, the 'Chapter on Refuting Wrong Views' below refutes the two attachments to self and phenomena in detail. Question: What scripture proves that the two emptinesses of self and phenomena are explained in detail? Answer: The Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Wisdom Sutra) explains the emptiness of self and phenomena in the Hinayana, quoting the Maha-nidana Sutra (Great Causes Sutra): 'Among these, what is old age and death? Who is old age and death? Who is old age and death,' this is the emptiness of self (emptiness of person). 'What is old age and death,' this is the emptiness of phenomena. Question: The author speaks of the two emptinesses because most people in the degenerate age cling to 'existence.' What do the Buddhist scriptures say about the Hinayana? Answer: They also speak of the two emptinesses. As the Lotus Sutra, Chapter 4 (Faith and Understanding) says: 'The Sravaka dharma is empty, without birth and without death, without large and without small.' The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says: 'Subhuti does not see dana (giving), does not see the giver of dana.' Question: Why do both sutras and treatises explain the two emptinesses? Answer: Because all ordinary people have always clung to 'existence' since beginningless time. Question: If the two emptinesses of self and phenomena are explained in detail, what is the difference from the Mahayana? Answer: Although the Hinayana explains the two emptinesses, it mostly speaks of the emptiness of self (emptiness of person), rarely recognizes the emptiness of phenomena, and does not understand that the nature of all dharmas is empty and still. This has been discussed in detail above, so there is a difference. Now I will restate it. The Mahayana knows that ignorance (avidya) is originally unborn. At this time, two kinds of emptiness are seen: first, the emptiness of something that is not, that is, ignorance cannot be obtained. Second, one sees that Buddha-nature is ultimately pure, without afflictions, and is also called emptiness. This is also seeing the two meanings of emptiness and non-emptiness. Seeing the two kinds of emptiness is called seeing emptiness, that is, seeing the wondrous existence of Buddha-nature is called seeing.
不空。小乘並不見此三事。但折無明有。是故言空耳。問小乘雲何不見無明空。答斷四住中無明。未斷無明住地。故無明不空。問智者見不空。與小乘何異。小乘亦見四住空。與大乘何異。答如上釋。但折四住言空。智者知四住本空也。今正觀因緣入於二空。十二緣滅得於涅槃。故以目品。品開為二。前問次答。問中為二。一領前大。二問后小。而言欲聞說聲聞法入第一義者。既樂欲聞小。當知。即是鈍根。不堪受大法。仍以此義破無小乘也。問上諸三部併入第一義不。答犢子部云。未入觀時此即有我。若入真觀便不見我。故以無我為第一義。薩婆多人本不執我。入觀之時故知無我。成論入于真空知無法無我。此之三人入第一義。即是深淺。若望大乘第一義者。上之三人得其少分。故智度論云。二乘之人得於二空如毛孔空。菩薩得二空如十方空也。答曰下第二正明十二因緣觀。問何故聲聞入道觀十二因緣耶。答欲明三乘同度十二緣河。故同觀此也。問觀十二因緣有幾種耶。答約三乘人亦得即成三品。又智度論釋無盡品亦明三品。一者下品。即是凡夫順十二因緣河。二者中品。所謂二乘逆十二緣河。三菩薩上品。悟十二緣不生不滅非逆非順。故異彼聖凡名獨菩薩法。問菩薩為從果觀十二。為從因觀。答智度論云。愛多者
從果觀。見老病死破著樂心。見多者從因觀。知因果相生不起邪見。菩薩是利根為眾生故亦從果觀。婆沙問云。菩薩於一切根中最上。何故前觀果耶。一解云。隨順法故菩薩見老病死作是思惟。此老病死何由而有。知從生有故前觀果。此解與智度論同。又解。為初學者前觀于果。菩薩于最後生名為初學。雖曾無數劫觀于因緣。復若觀時還從本起。如人雖數上樹。后若上時還從根上。問曰。此是何等菩薩。答此猶明三藏中小乘菩薩耳。若本大乘菩薩觀因果無定。亦不作因果而觀。如涅槃十二因緣具足十不。問若小乘菩薩既從果觀十二。今此文云何從因觀耶。答聲聞法中自有利鈍。鈍者從果觀。故四十四智。謂老死果老死集。老死滅老死滅道。一支有四故成四十四智。利根人觀十二有七十七智。無明緣行此是生法智也。非不無明緣行。此審法智也。一世有二三世為六。此六是法住智。並泥洹智。故稱為七。一枝有七故合七十七也。四十四除無明。七十七除老死。就文為二。第一明順觀。第二明逆觀。順觀為二。第一別明十二緣觀。第二總結。明十二支即十二別。眾生癡所覆者。此第一辨無明支。言無明者從所無受稱。謂無慧之明稱為無明。問今分別十二相生釋名辨體。與數論何異。答經云。無明體性本不有。妄想因緣和合
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 從結果來觀察（果觀）。見到衰老、疾病、死亡（老病死）而破除對快樂的執著（樂心）。見識多的人從原因來觀察（因觀），明白因果相生，不起邪見。菩薩是利根之人，爲了眾生的緣故也從結果來觀察。 《婆沙論》中問道：『菩薩在一切根器中最為上等，為何先觀察結果呢？』一種解釋是：『順應法理的緣故，菩薩見到衰老、疾病、死亡，便會思考，這衰老、疾病、死亡從何而來？』知道是從出生而來，所以先觀察結果。這種解釋與《智度論》相同。 另一種解釋是：『爲了初學者，先觀察結果。菩薩在最後一生中可稱為初學者。』雖然曾經無數劫觀察因緣，再次觀察時還是從根本開始。就像人雖然多次爬樹，之後再爬時還是從樹根開始。 問道：『這是什麼樣的菩薩？』回答說：『這還是說明三藏中的小乘菩薩。』如果是本來就是大乘的菩薩，觀察因果沒有定法，也不會執著于因果而觀察。如同《涅槃經》中十二因緣具備十種『不』（否定）。 問道：『如果小乘菩薩已經從結果來觀察十二因緣，那麼這段經文為何說從原因來觀察呢？』回答說：『聲聞法中也有利根和鈍根的區別。鈍根的人從結果來觀察，所以有四十四智，即老死果、老死集、老死滅、老死滅道。一支有四種，所以構成四十四智。利根的人觀察十二因緣有七十七智，無明緣行，這是生法智。非不無明緣行，這是審法智。一世有二，三世為六，這六種是法住智，加上泥洹智，所以稱為七。一支有七種，所以合起來是七十七智。四十四智去除了無明，七十七智去除了老死。』 就經文而言分為兩部分：第一部分說明順觀，第二部分說明逆觀。順觀又分為兩部分：第一部分分別說明十二因緣觀，第二部分總結，說明十二支即十二種區別。『眾生被愚癡所覆蓋』，這是第一部分辨析無明支。所謂『無明』，是從所無而稱呼，即沒有智慧的光明，稱為無明。問道：『現在分別十二相生的釋名辨體，與數論有什麼不同？』回答說：『經中說，無明的體性本來沒有，是妄想因緣和合而成。』
【English Translation】 English version: Observing from the result (fruit-view). Seeing old age, sickness, and death (old age, sickness, death) breaks attachment to pleasure (joyful mind). Those with extensive knowledge observe from the cause (cause-view), understanding the interdependence of cause and effect, and do not give rise to wrong views. Bodhisattvas are of sharp faculties and also observe from the result for the sake of sentient beings. The Vibhasa asks: 'Among all faculties, the Bodhisattva is the most superior. Why then do they observe the result first?' One explanation is: 'Because they accord with the Dharma, Bodhisattvas, seeing old age, sickness, and death, contemplate, 'From what do these old age, sickness, and death arise?'' Knowing that they arise from birth, they observe the result first. This explanation is the same as in the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra. Another explanation is: 'For beginners, they observe the result first.' The Bodhisattva in their last life can be called a beginner. Although they have observed conditions for countless kalpas, when they observe again, they still start from the root. Just as a person, although they have climbed a tree many times, when they climb again, they still start from the root. Question: 'What kind of Bodhisattva is this?' The answer is: 'This still refers to the Shravaka Bodhisattva of the Tripitaka in the Small Vehicle.' If it is a Bodhisattva of the Great Vehicle from the beginning, their observation of cause and effect is not fixed, and they do not observe clinging to cause and effect. Like the twelve links of dependent origination in the Nirvana Sutra, they possess ten 'nots' (negations). Question: 'If the Shravaka Bodhisattva already observes the twelve links from the result, then why does this text say to observe from the cause?' The answer is: 'Within the Shravaka Dharma, there are differences between sharp and dull faculties. Those with dull faculties observe from the result, hence the forty-four wisdoms, namely, the result of old age and death, the accumulation of old age and death, the cessation of old age and death, and the path to the cessation of old age and death. One link has four aspects, thus forming forty-four wisdoms. Those with sharp faculties observe the twelve links with seventy-seven wisdoms. Ignorance conditions action; this is the wisdom of the arising of phenomena. 'Not ignorance conditions action'; this is the wisdom of examining phenomena. One lifetime has two, three lifetimes have six; these six are the wisdom of the abiding of phenomena, along with Nirvana wisdom, hence they are called seven. One link has seven aspects, thus totaling seventy-seven wisdoms. The forty-four wisdoms exclude ignorance, and the seventy-seven wisdoms exclude old age and death.' In terms of the text, it is divided into two parts: the first part explains forward observation, and the second part explains reverse observation. Forward observation is further divided into two parts: the first part separately explains the observation of the twelve links, and the second part summarizes, explaining that the twelve links are twelve distinctions. 'Sentient beings are covered by ignorance'; this is the first part analyzing the link of ignorance. The so-called 'ignorance' is named from what is lacking, that is, the absence of the light of wisdom, called ignorance. Question: 'Now, distinguishing the explanation of names and identifying the substance of the twelve interdependent arisings, what is the difference from Samkhya philosophy?' The answer is: 'The sutra says that the nature of ignorance does not inherently exist; it is a combination of deluded thoughts and conditions.'
而生。無所有故假名無明。是故我說名無明。今分別空。謂眾生虛妄顛倒故作三世因果。此是無分別中善分別故。欲令虛妄眾生因此分別。悟無分別息虛妄心也。然顛倒眾生已有十二流轉。今復更執有定性而推折之。非但十二不除。而更增十二也。以此因緣不同他釋。問既不同數論所釋。應不用數論名教釋此品耶。答小乘法中亦有四句。一者若三藏所無眾師橫造則棄而不取。二若視經聖口得適化之言取而不破。三學教起迷得言失意。則破其能迷之情收其所惑之教。四若望道門無所破取四句之中。今用其二。一者若用佛經名教釋此品者是取而不破。二若用數論解其文者則亦破亦取。問十使中無明三毒中無明與無明支有何異也。答十使中無明唯取無明使為無明。三毒中無明除貪瞋二使。已外余皆是無明。今此中通取一切煩惱悉為無明。為發業故又雖通此一切煩惱。示無明是生死本故但說無明。為後起三行者第二次辨行支。行者以起作為義。謂起作生死果也。即身口意三行。亦是罪福不動等三行。問無明既具因緣二義。經中何故但說無明緣行不說因行。答婆沙云。亦得說因。如摩訶尼陀經明。如生為老死因。乃至無明為行作因。又解。若言無明因行但言是因緣。今說無明緣行具得四緣。成實者云。因義生於無法。緣義即二有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 而生。因為沒有真實自性，所以假名為無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）。因此我說名為無明。現在分別空性，是因為眾生虛妄顛倒，所以造作三世的因果。這是在無分別中善巧地分別，想要讓虛妄的眾生因此分別，領悟到無分別，止息虛妄的心。然而顛倒的眾生已經有了十二因緣的流轉，現在又執著于有固定不變的自性而加以推論分析，非但不能去除十二因緣，反而會增加十二因緣。因為這個因緣，我的解釋不同於其他人的解釋。 問：既然不同於數論（Sāṃkhya，古印度哲學流派）所解釋的，那麼應該不用數論的名相來解釋這一品嗎？ 答：小乘佛法中也有四句：一，如果三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教經典的總稱）中所沒有的，眾師隨意造作的，就捨棄而不取；二，如果依據佛經，是佛親口所說，適合教化眾生的言語，就取用而不破斥；三，學習教義后反而產生迷惑，執著于言語而失去本意，就破斥其能使人迷惑的情執，收攝其所迷惑的教義；四，如果從證道的角度來看，則無所破斥和取捨。這四句中，現在我用其中的兩種：一，如果用佛經的名相來解釋這一品，這是取用而不破斥；二，如果用數論來解釋其文義，則是亦破亦取。 問：十使（daśa-saṃyojanāni，十種煩惱）中的無明、三毒（trīṇi viṣāṇi，貪嗔癡）中的無明，與十二因緣中的無明支有什麼不同？ 答：十使中的無明，只取無明使作為無明。三毒中的無明，除了貪、嗔二使以外，其餘都是無明。現在這裡統攝一切煩惱都作為無明，爲了發起業力。又雖然統攝這一切煩惱，但顯示無明是生死根本，所以只說無明。爲了後面發起三行者，第二次辨析行支。行，是以起作為義，指發起造作生死之果。即身、口、意三行，也是罪、福、不動等三行。 問：無明既然具有因、緣二義，經中為什麼只說無明緣行，不說因行？ 答：《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）說：也可以說因，如《摩訶尼陀經》（Mahānidāna-sutta，長部經典）所說，如生為老死的因，乃至無明為行作因。又解釋說，如果說無明因行，只是說是因緣。現在說無明緣行，具足四緣。成實論者說：因的意義生於無法，緣的意義即二有。
【English Translation】 English version are born. Because there is no real self-nature, it is nominally called ignorance (avidyā, delusion about the true nature of things). Therefore, I call it ignorance. Now, distinguishing emptiness is because sentient beings are falsely inverted, so they create the cause and effect of the three times. This is skillfully distinguishing in non-distinction, wanting to make false sentient beings understand non-distinction through this distinction, and stop the false mind. However, inverted sentient beings already have the twelve links of dependent origination flowing. Now, clinging to a fixed nature and analyzing it will not only fail to remove the twelve links but will increase them. Because of this condition, my explanation differs from others'. Question: Since it differs from what is explained by Sāṃkhya (an ancient Indian philosophical school), should we not use the terminology of Sāṃkhya to explain this chapter? Answer: In the Hinayana (小乘, Lesser Vehicle) teachings, there are also four statements: First, if something is not in the Tripiṭaka (三藏, the Buddhist canon) and is arbitrarily created by teachers, it is discarded and not taken. Second, if it is based on the Buddha's words in the sutras and is suitable for teaching sentient beings, it is taken and not refuted. Third, if learning the teachings leads to confusion, clinging to words and losing the meaning, then the emotional attachment that causes confusion is refuted, and the teachings that are being clung to are taken back. Fourth, from the perspective of enlightenment, there is nothing to refute or take. Among these four statements, I now use two of them: First, if using the terminology of the Buddhist scriptures to explain this chapter, it is taken and not refuted. Second, if using Sāṃkhya to explain its meaning, then it is both refuted and taken. Question: What is the difference between ignorance in the ten fetters (daśa-saṃyojanāni, ten kinds of afflictions), ignorance in the three poisons (trīṇi viṣāṇi, greed, hatred, and delusion), and the ignorance link in the twelve links of dependent origination? Answer: Ignorance in the ten fetters only takes the ignorance fetter as ignorance. Ignorance in the three poisons, except for the fetters of greed and hatred, all the rest are ignorance. Now, here, all afflictions are collectively taken as ignorance, in order to initiate karma. Although all these afflictions are collectively taken, it is shown that ignorance is the root of birth and death, so only ignorance is spoken of. In order to initiate the three actions later, the second analysis is of the action link. Action means initiating and creating, referring to initiating and creating the result of birth and death. That is, the three actions of body, speech, and mind, which are also the three actions of merit, demerit, and immovability. Question: Since ignorance has both the meaning of cause and condition, why does the sutra only say 'ignorance conditions action' and not 'cause action'? Answer: The Vibhāṣā (婆沙論, a Buddhist treatise) says: It can also be said as cause, as stated in the Mahānidāna-sutta (摩訶尼陀經, a sutra in the Dīgha Nikāya), such as birth being the cause of old age and death, and ignorance being the cause of action. It is also explained that if it is said that ignorance causes action, it is only said to be a condition. Now, saying that ignorance conditions action fully obtains the four conditions. The Tattvasiddhi (成實論, Establishment of Truth) theorists say: The meaning of cause arises from non-existence, and the meaning of condition is the two existences.
相由。今說有有牽連即生死不絕。故說緣行不說因行。又因親緣疏。疏既牽連不絕。即因義不待說也。問大集經云。無明為因行為緣。此義云何。答然無明具因緣兩義。行亦義爾。但各舉一邊是故互說。問何故言無明緣行。不言行緣無明。答婆沙云。十二前後相生前為後緣。非后為前緣。故但無明生行。行不生無明。問無明皆為十二作緣。何故但言緣行。答近為行作緣。遠為十二作緣。今說近不說遠。問五陰中行。四識住中行。此因緣中行。三處何異。答五陰四識中行除四陰。餘一切有為法悉是行也。此中若別取行體。唯取善惡二業。若通相說之。亦攝一切善惡有為等法。以起是行故隨行墮六趣者。隨罪行墮三惡道。隨福無動二亦入三善道。以諸行因緣識受六道身者。第三明識支。識是當體受名。問五陰中識。十二因緣識。四食中識。六大中識。四空中識。有何等異。答五陰中識通攝一切有漏無漏。皆是識陰。為明攝法故也。六大四食中識唯取有漏。為成凡夫身牽有故論云。無漏識不立六界中。是四食說一切有漏。為長養當來有故說於四食。四空中識處體是四陰。緣識故名為識處。所緣之識通漏無漏。此中明識唯此受生一念染污識。為明受生故。若就時分論之。與識同時一切諸法皆名為識。成實論云。五陰中識名了別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 相由（xiāng yóu）：現在說『有』和『有』相互牽連，就是生死不會斷絕。所以說『緣行』，而不說『因行』。而且『因』是親近的，『緣』是疏遠的。既然疏遠的『緣』也牽連不斷，那麼『因』的意義就不必再說了。問：大集經中說，『無明』為『因』，『行』為『緣』，這是什麼意思？答：實際上，『無明』兼具『因』和『緣』兩種意義，『行』也是如此。只是各自強調了一方面，所以互相補充說明。問：為什麼說『無明緣行』，而不說『行緣無明』？答：婆沙（pó shā）中說，十二因緣是前後相生的，前一個為后一個的『緣』，而不是后一個為前一個的『緣』。所以只有『無明』生『行』，而『行』不生『無明』。問：『無明』都為十二因緣作『緣』，為什麼只說『緣行』？答：『無明』是『行』的近『緣』，是十二因緣的遠『緣』。現在說的是近『緣』，而不是遠『緣』。問：五陰（wǔ yīn）中的『行』，四識住（sì shí zhù）中的『行』，以及此因緣中的『行』，這三處有什麼不同？答：五陰和四識住中的『行』，除了四陰之外，其餘一切有為法都是『行』。這裡如果單獨取『行』的本體，就只取善惡二業。如果從普遍意義上來說，也包括一切善惡有為等法。因為『起』就是『行』，所以隨『行』墮入六趣（liù qù）的人，隨罪『行』墮入三惡道（sān è dào），隨福和無動二『行』也進入三善道（sān shàn dào）。因為諸『行』的因緣，識會承受六道之身。第三是說明『識』支，『識』是就其本體而得名。問：五陰中的『識』，十二因緣中的『識』，四食（sì shí）中的『識』，六大（liù dà）中的『識』，四空（sì kōng）中的『識』，有什麼不同？答：五陰中的『識』，普遍包括一切有漏和無漏，都是『識陰』，爲了說明攝法。六大和四食中的『識』，只取有漏，爲了成就凡夫之身，牽引有。論中說，無漏識不立於六界中。四食說一切有漏，爲了長養將來的有，所以說四食。四空中的『識』，其體是四陰，因為緣于『識』，所以名為『識處』。所緣的『識』，包括有漏和無漏。這裡所說的『識』，只是受生的一念染污識，爲了說明受生。如果就時間劃分來說，與『識』同時的一切諸法，都名為『識』。成實論（chéng shí lùn）中說，五陰中的『識』，名爲了別（liǎo bié）。
【English Translation】 English version: Xiang You (相由): Now it is said that 'existence' and 'existence' are interconnected, which means that birth and death will not cease. Therefore, it is said 'conditioned action' (yuan xing) and not 'causal action' (yin xing). Moreover, 'cause' is close, and 'condition' is distant. Since the distant 'condition' is also continuously connected, then the meaning of 'cause' need not be discussed further. Question: The Mahasamghata Sutra (大集經) says that 'ignorance' (wuming) is the 'cause' and 'action' (xing) is the 'condition'. What does this mean? Answer: In reality, 'ignorance' has both the meanings of 'cause' and 'condition', and so does 'action'. It's just that each emphasizes one aspect, so they supplement each other. Question: Why is it said 'ignorance conditions action' and not 'action conditions ignorance'? Answer: The Vibhasa (婆沙) says that the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣) are generated sequentially, with the former being the 'condition' for the latter, and not the latter being the 'condition' for the former. Therefore, only 'ignorance' gives rise to 'action', and 'action' does not give rise to 'ignorance'. Question: 'Ignorance' serves as the 'condition' for all twelve links, why is it only said to condition 'action'? Answer: 'Ignorance' is the near 'condition' for 'action' and the distant 'condition' for the twelve links. What is being discussed now is the near 'condition', not the distant 'condition'. Question: The 'action' in the five aggregates (wǔ yīn), the 'action' in the four abodes of consciousness (sì shí zhù), and the 'action' in this dependent origination, what are the differences between these three? Answer: The 'action' in the five aggregates and the four abodes of consciousness, except for the four aggregates, all other conditioned dharmas are 'action'. If we take the essence of 'action' alone here, we only take the two karmas of good and evil. If we speak in a general sense, it also includes all good and evil conditioned dharmas. Because 'arising' is 'action', those who fall into the six realms (liù qù) according to 'action', fall into the three evil paths (sān è dào) according to sinful 'action', and also enter the three good paths (sān shàn dào) according to meritorious and non-moving two 'actions'. Because of the conditions of all 'actions', consciousness receives the body of the six realms. The third is to explain the 'consciousness' link, 'consciousness' is named according to its essence. Question: The 'consciousness' in the five aggregates, the 'consciousness' in the twelve links of dependent origination, the 'consciousness' in the four kinds of nutriment (sì shí), the 'consciousness' in the six great elements (liù dà), the 'consciousness' in the four formless realms (sì kōng), what are the differences? Answer: The 'consciousness' in the five aggregates universally includes all defiled and undefiled, all are 'consciousness aggregate', in order to explain the included dharmas. The 'consciousness' in the six great elements and the four kinds of nutriment only takes the defiled, in order to accomplish the body of an ordinary person, drawing existence. The treatise says that undefiled consciousness is not established in the six realms. The four kinds of nutriment speak of all defiled, in order to nourish future existence, therefore it is said four kinds of nutriment. The 'consciousness' in the four formless realms, its essence is the four aggregates, because it is conditioned by 'consciousness', it is called 'consciousness realm'. The 'consciousness' that is conditioned includes both defiled and undefiled. The 'consciousness' spoken of here is only the one thought of defiled consciousness that receives birth, in order to explain receiving birth. If we divide it according to time, all dharmas that are simultaneous with 'consciousness' are called 'consciousness'. The Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論) says that the 'consciousness' in the five aggregates is called discernment (liǎo bié).
識。識支名染著識。問何故此識必是染污。答此識託生必與煩惱相應。故染污識也。問若爾何故復云識支是報耶。答識託生時分中有命根。眾生種類及精血此是報法。而識非報。今云報者詺命根等為報耳。精血等猶如輕毛。必須惑潤。然後得立。問中陰屬何支。答識支屬生陰攝。中陰屬行支攝。又釋。中陰雖未受生報。而屬識支攝也。以有識著故下第四辨名色支。一云。四陰名名色陰名色。以當名色支時。四陰微弱才有其名故云名也。阿含經云。痛想受樂思惟為名。四大所造為色。故知爾也。次云。即以色陰為名色。言此色受眾生之名。別異非眾生之色也。故成論牽經云。心依名色。問化生云何識緣名色。答婆沙云。識緣名色此說胎生不說化生。評云。化生亦識緣名色。如化生者初得諸根。未猛利時說是識。若諸根猛利名名色。問名色支於十時中具幾時耶。答婆沙云。未生四種色根。六入未具但有身根。此有五時。一者哥羅羅。二阿浮陀。三卑尸。四伽那。五婆羅奢。此時名名色支也。名色增長故下第五六入支。六入支即是六根。謂六根生六識為識所入之處也。數云。六根能發於識。名之為入。發者是根之功能。六者是數名也。故六入一支就數及功能兩義。得名色增長生於四根故有五入。名增長故有意入也。情塵識和
合下第六明觸支。觸以觸對為義。毗曇云。何別有觸數。能和合根塵及識使根識對塵。故名為觸。成論人無別觸數。但明心法觸對前緣也。婆沙云。諸根已能為觸作所依。但未能別苦樂。未能避火蛇毒藥及諸不凈。是名為觸。因於六觸故下第七明受支。受以領納為義。謂領納違順等緣。婆沙云。云何為受。謂能別苦樂能避火蛇。爾時但起食愛。即涅槃經云。染習一愛也。不起淫慾。於一切物不生染著。爾時名受。婆沙問。受與觸是相應共起法。云何觸緣受不說受緣觸也。答雖是相應共起法但觸為受因。如燈與照雖一時。燈為照因非照為燈因。又解。此中說前後法。觸是前生。受為後生。故非是觸時之受。但明觸后之受。故觸為受因也。以因三受故下第八次明愛支。愛以染著為義。然三受通為愛作緣。為苦受所逼故貪求於樂。以樂受故為愛所使。不苦不樂受亦能生愛。乃至如四禪以上不苦不樂受。能生於愛也。問三受生幾種愛耶。答有五種。於樂受中生二種愛。一未曾生樂受欲令生故生愛。二已生樂受心不欲離故生愛。于苦受生二種愛。一未生欲令不生故生愛。二已生苦受欲令滅故生愛。于舍受亦生二愛。一未生欲令生故生愛。二已生故欲令不失故生愛。此二名為能生於愚癡。故有五也。問何故過去以無明為本。現在以
愛為本。答婆沙云。無明有四事。一通緣漏無漏。二通緣為無為。三通緣三世遍不遍使。四通緣自界他界。故在前。愛但緣有漏。但緣有為。但不遍使。但自界緣。故在後。雖不通四事生未來苦為勝。故說為未來本。問愛與受何異。答受支唯有食愛。愛支復有欲愛。是故異也。因愛有四取下第九取支。以助業取果故名為取。問愛取何異。答婆沙云。初生名愛。愛增長名取支。又云。受為因愛為果。愛為因還以取為果。此但是一支。故分為二。成實者云。貪使為愛。餘九使名取。此文云。四取者五陰品已釋。婆沙云。云何名取。以貪境故四方追求。故名為取。此即以四方追求名四取。因取故有有者第十有支。謂能有來果名之為有。又能令後世三有相續故名為有。即從果立名也。婆沙云。追求之時起於三業。是名為有。若取者不取即解脫無有者此意明。若取者不取。便即解脫無復有有支也。從有而有生者第十一生支。數人生以起為義。故云世中起故生。成論是本無今有義。數人又云。生是生相。從相得名。從生有老死下第十二支。衰耄為老。終盡為死。數人云。老死是異滅兩相。從相立名。從老死故有憂悲諸苦惱者。此四于老死支中離出。故不別立支也。經云。將死之時戀生畏死名之為憂。發聲啼哭目之為悲。五根相對為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 愛是根本。答婆沙論說，無明有四個方面：一是普遍緣于有漏和無漏法，二是普遍緣于有為和無為法，三是普遍緣於三世且遍及或不遍及煩惱，四是普遍緣于自界和他界。因此無明在前。愛只緣于有漏法，只緣于有為法，不普遍緣及一切煩惱，只緣于自界。因此愛在後。雖然不能普遍緣及四事，但產生未來痛苦的力量更強，所以說是未來的根本。 問：愛和受有什麼不同？答：受支只有食愛，而愛支還有欲愛，所以它們是不同的。因為有愛，所以有四取（下第九支），因為幫助業而取得果報，所以稱為取。 問：愛和取有什麼不同？答：婆沙論說，最初生起名為愛，愛增長就名為取支。又說，受是因，愛是果；愛是因，取是果。這只是一個支，所以分為二。成實論認為，貪使是愛，其餘九使名為取。此文說，四取在五陰品中已經解釋。婆沙論說，什麼叫做取？因為貪著境界，四處追求，所以名為取。這就是以四處追求來命名四取。因為取，所以有有（第十支），指能夠帶來未來果報的稱為有。又能夠使後世三有相續，所以稱為有，這是從果報而立名。婆沙論說，追求的時候，生起三種業，這叫做有。如果取者不取，就解脫而沒有有，這說明如果取者不取，就立即解脫，不再有有支了。 從有而有生，這是第十一生支。數論認為，生是以起始為意義，所以說在世間起始，所以是生。成實論認為是本來沒有現在有的意思。數論又說，生是生相，從相而得名。從生有老死（第十二支），衰老為老，終結為死。數論認為，老死是異滅兩種相，從相而立名。從老死而有憂悲諸苦惱，這四種從老死支中分離出來，所以不另外立支。經中說，將要死的時候，貪戀生命，畏懼死亡，這叫做憂。發出聲音啼哭，這叫做悲。五根相對為
【English Translation】 English version Craving is the root. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that ignorance has four aspects: first, it universally conditions defiled and undefiled dharmas; second, it universally conditions conditioned and unconditioned dharmas; third, it universally conditions the three times and whether afflictions are pervasive or non-pervasive; fourth, it universally conditions one's own realm and other realms. Therefore, ignorance comes first. Craving only conditions defiled dharmas, only conditions conditioned dharmas, does not universally condition all afflictions, and only conditions one's own realm. Therefore, craving comes later. Although it cannot universally condition the four aspects, its power to produce future suffering is stronger, so it is said to be the root of the future. Question: What is the difference between feeling (vedanā) and craving (tṛṣṇā)? Answer: The feeling aggregate only has 'craving for food', while the craving aggregate also has 'craving for desire', so they are different. Because of craving, there are the four graspings (upādāna) (the ninth link below), which are called 'grasping' because they help karma to obtain its result. Question: What is the difference between craving and grasping? Answer: The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that the initial arising is called craving, and the increase of craving is called the grasping link. It also says that feeling is the cause and craving is the result; craving is the cause and grasping is the result. This is only one link, so it is divided into two. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra believes that the affliction of greed is craving, and the other nine afflictions are called grasping. This text says that the four graspings have already been explained in the section on the five aggregates. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says, 'What is called grasping? Because of greed for objects, one seeks in all directions, so it is called grasping.' This is naming the four graspings by 'seeking in all directions'. Because of grasping, there is becoming (bhava) (the tenth link), which refers to what can bring about future results. It can also cause the three existences (three realms) of future lives to continue, so it is called becoming, which is named from the result. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says, 'When seeking, the three karmas arise, this is called becoming.' If the grasper does not grasp, then he is liberated and there is no becoming, which explains that if the grasper does not grasp, he is immediately liberated and there is no longer the becoming link. From becoming comes birth (jāti), which is the eleventh link. The Samkhya school believes that birth means beginning, so it is said to begin in the world, so it is birth. The Satyasiddhi-śāstra believes that it means originally non-existent but now existent. The Samkhya school also says that birth is the characteristic of birth, named from the characteristic. From birth comes old age and death (jarā-maraṇa) (the twelfth link), decay and senility are old age, and termination is death. The Samkhya school believes that old age and death are two different characteristics of destruction, named from the characteristics. From old age and death come sorrow, grief, and other sufferings, these four are separated from the old age and death link, so they are not established as separate links. The sutra says that when one is about to die, clinging to life and fearing death is called sorrow. Crying out loud is called grief. The interaction of the five roots (five sense organs) is
苦。意根相對為惱也。如是等諸事下自上已來別明十二支。今第二總結過患也。然此總文廣分別十二。問十二支云何為三道。答過去無明現在愛取名煩惱道。過去世行現在世有名為業道。現在五果未來兩果名為苦道。問何故二世同是煩惱。而名字不同。苦業亦作此問。答過去煩惱以謝用相既陰故。但從無他受稱名為無明。現在用相顯目之為愛。過去業以謝遷流義顯。故名為行。現在交起相著。故就果立名名之為有。現果交起。但用有增微次第。故初彰識乃至說受。復後果未起其相既隱。故寄相彰名說為生死。又解。生與老死是八苦之名。物情所憚。現在以受不可復斷。從別標名謂識名色受等。不說為老死也。故經云。因時可防果時無可防。如何未來說生老死者。以此怖物令不起現在三因也。問何故三世之中。過未各立二支現在八耶。答過去已滅。未來未起。用相既微。故但立二。現在顯現故立於八。又過去但因未來唯果。故各立二。現通因果故立於八。問何故爾耶。答因義在前果義在後。過去前故但因。未來后故唯果。現在雙酬兩處。酬前故立果。感后故立因。是故因果雙說。問無明有因老死有果不。答婆沙二釋。一云。無明有因。謂不正憶念。老死有果。謂憂悲苦惱。但不在十二因緣中別說耳。二云。無明有因老死
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 苦，意根相對即為惱。像這樣等等的事情，從下到上已經分別闡明了十二支。現在第二部分總結其過患。然而，這個總體的文句廣泛地分別解釋了十二支。問：十二支如何歸為三道？答：過去世的無明（Avidya，對事物真相的迷惑）和現在世的愛（Trsna，渴愛）取（Upadana，執取）被稱為煩惱道。過去世的行（Samskara，業行）和現在世的有（Bhava，存在）被稱為業道。現在世的五果和未來世的兩果被稱為苦道。問：為什麼兩世同爲煩惱，而名字卻不同？苦業也可以這樣問。答：過去的煩惱因為已經消逝，其作用已經隱沒，所以只是從沒有其他感受的角度稱之為無明。現在的煩惱，其作用顯而易見，所以稱為愛。過去的業因為已經過去，其流變之義明顯，所以稱為行。現在世的業，交織而起，相互粘著，所以就其結果而立名，稱之為有。現在的果報交織而起，只是在作用上有細微的次第差別，所以最初彰顯識（Vijnana，意識），乃至說受（Vedana，感受）。而且，未來的果報尚未產生，其相狀隱沒，所以借用其相狀來命名，說為生死（Jati-jaramarana，生老病死）。又一種解釋是，生與老死是八苦的名稱，是眾生所畏懼的。現在世的感受不可斷絕，所以從不同的角度來標明名稱，稱為識、名色（Namarupa，名色）、受等等，而不說為老死。所以經中說：『因在發生時可以預防，果在成熟時無法預防。』為什麼說未來世有生老死呢？這是爲了用這些來恐嚇眾生，使他們不產生現在世的三種因。問：為什麼在三世之中，過去和未來各立二支，而現在立八支呢？答：過去已經滅亡，未來尚未產生，其作用和相狀都非常微弱，所以隻立二支。現在顯現，所以立八支。而且，過去只有因，未來只有果，所以各立二支。現在貫通因和果，所以立八支。問：為什麼這樣呢？答：因的意義在前，果的意義在後。過去在前，所以只有因。未來在後，所以只有果。現在兼顧前後兩方面，兼顧前面，所以立果；感應後面，所以立因。因此，因果雙重說明。問：無明有因，老死有果嗎？答：婆沙有兩種解釋。一種說法是：無明有因，叫做不正憶念；老死有果，叫做憂悲苦惱。只是不在十二因緣中分別說明罷了。另一種說法是，無明有因，老死 English version Suffering, the mind-root in opposition is vexation. Such and similar matters, from below to above, have separately clarified the twelve Nidanas (links of dependent origination). Now, the second part summarizes their faults. However, this general statement extensively explains the twelve Nidanas separately. Question: How do the twelve Nidanas fall into the three divisions (paths)? Answer: Past ignorance (Avidya, delusion about the true nature of things) and present craving (Trsna, thirst) and grasping (Upadana, clinging) are called the path of affliction (Klesa-marga). Past actions (Samskara, volitional formations) and present existence (Bhava, becoming) are called the path of action (Karma-marga). The five present results and the two future results are called the path of suffering (Duhkha-marga). Question: Why are two periods of time both afflictions, but with different names? The same question can be asked about suffering and action. Answer: Past afflictions have already passed, and their function is hidden, so they are called ignorance from the perspective of not having other sensations. Present afflictions, their function is obvious, so they are called craving. Past actions have already passed, and their meaning of change is clear, so they are called actions. Present actions arise intertwined and cling to each other, so they are named based on their result, called existence. Present results arise intertwined, but there are only subtle differences in the order of their function, so initially consciousness (Vijnana, awareness) is manifested, and even feeling (Vedana, sensation) is spoken of. Moreover, future results have not yet arisen, and their appearance is hidden, so they are named based on their appearance, called birth and death (Jati-jaramarana, birth, aging, death). Another explanation is that birth and death are the names of the eight sufferings, which are feared by sentient beings. Present sensations cannot be cut off, so names are marked from different perspectives, called consciousness, name and form (Namarupa, mind and matter), feeling, etc., and not called aging and death. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The cause can be prevented when it arises, but the result cannot be prevented when it matures.' Why is it said that there will be birth and death in the future? This is to frighten sentient beings with these, so that they do not produce the three causes in the present. Question: Why are two Nidanas established in the past and future respectively, while eight are established in the present among the three periods of time? Answer: The past has already perished, and the future has not yet arisen, and their function and appearance are very weak, so only two are established. The present is manifest, so eight are established. Moreover, the past only has cause, and the future only has result, so two are established respectively. The present connects both cause and result, so eight are established. Question: Why is this so? Answer: The meaning of cause is in the front, and the meaning of result is in the back. The past is in the front, so it only has cause. The future is in the back, so it only has result. The present considers both the front and the back, considering the front, so it establishes the result; responding to the back, so it establishes the cause. Therefore, cause and result are explained doubly. Question: Does ignorance have a cause, and does old age and death have a result? Answer: The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa, a major commentary on Abhidharma) has two explanations. One explanation is: ignorance has a cause, called improper recollection; old age and death have a result, called sorrow, grief, suffering, and distress. It is just that they are not separately explained in the twelve Nidanas. Another explanation is that ignorance has a cause, and old age and death
【English Translation】 English translation line 1 English translation line 2
有果。亦在十二因緣中說。無明有因所謂老死。老死有果所謂無明。現在愛取是過去無明。現在名色六入觸受。此四若在未來名為老死。如說受緣愛。當知。說老死緣無明也。故十二緣猶車輪轉。問三世各具八支。三因五果即成二十四。今何故但說十二。答約一身故說十二。實具二十四也。問三界具十二不。答婆沙一釋云。此中說欲界胎生具十二耳。又解。欲界具十二。色界有十一。除名色支。無色界有十。除名色六入。評云。三界皆具十二。如初生色界眾生。諸根未猛利名為名色也。無色界雖無色而有于名。雖無五入而有意入。應作是說。識緣名名緣意入意入緣觸。問十二因緣幾是一念。幾是相續。答婆沙云。現在世識未來世生但是一念。余並是相續。增一阿含三十卷云。識支具六識則時節長久非一剎那。若猶託生唯一意及身識無四識也。大福德人托胎則具六識。化生識支具六識六根頓足。大集經七七日前屬識支。智度論云。三七日屬識支。問五果幾在胎內。答觸受二果在胎外。餘三在內。問無間地獄具幾支。答極少有八。極多十一。問十二支具五陰不。答婆沙云。十二支以五陰為體。智度論云。十二時皆具五陰。但識支時名色未熟。未有所能故不說耳。余支亦爾。問十地經云十二因緣具三苦。云何是耶。答無明至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有果。也在十二因緣中說。無明有因，就是老死。老死有果，就是無明。現在的愛和取是過去（世）的無明。現在的名色、六入、觸、受，這四者如果在未來（世）就稱為老死。如經中所說，受緣于愛，應當知道，說老死緣于無明也是一樣的。所以十二因緣就像車輪一樣循環運轉。 問：三世各自具有八支，三因五果就成了二十四支，為什麼現在只說十二支呢？ 答：因為是就一身來說的，所以只說十二支，實際上是具有二十四支的。 問：三界都具有十二支嗎？ 答：《婆沙論》的一種解釋說，這裡說的是欲界胎生才具有十二支。另一種解釋是，欲界具有十二支，有十一支，除去名色支。無有十支，除去名色和六入。我的評論是，三界都具有十二支。比如初生的眾生，諸根還不猛利，就稱為名色。無雖然沒有色，但有名。雖然沒有五入，但有意入。應該這樣說：識緣名，名緣意入，意入緣觸。 問：十二因緣中有多少是一念（之間發生的），有多少是相續（一段時間發生的）？ 答：《婆沙論》說，現在世的識和未來世的生只是一念，其餘都是相續。《增一阿含經》第三十卷說，識支具有六識，那麼時節就長久，不是一剎那。如果只是託生，就只有意和身識，沒有其他四識。大福德的人托胎就具有六識。化生，識支具有六識，六根立刻具足。《大集經》說，前七個七日屬於識支。《智度論》說，三個七日屬於識支。 問：五果中有多少是在胎內的？ 答：觸和受這兩個果在胎外，其餘三個在胎內。 問：無間地獄具有多少支？ 答：最少有八支，最多有十一支。 問：十二支都具有五陰嗎？ 答：《婆沙論》說，十二支以五陰為體。《智度論》說，十二時都具有五陰，只是在識支的時候，名色還不成熟，沒有什麼能力，所以不說而已，其餘各支也是這樣。 問：《十地經》說十二因緣具有三苦，哪三苦呢？ 答：從無明到...
【English Translation】 English version There is a result. It is also discussed in the Twelve Nidānas (Twelve Links of Dependent Origination). Ignorance (Avidyā) has a cause, which is old age and death (Jarā-maraṇa). Old age and death have a result, which is ignorance. Present craving (Tṛṣṇā) and grasping (Upādāna) are past ignorance. Present name and form (Nāma-rūpa), six entrances (Ṣaḍāyatana), contact (Sparśa), and feeling (Vedanā)—these four, if in the future, are called old age and death. As it is said, feeling conditions craving, know that saying old age and death condition ignorance is the same. Therefore, the Twelve Nidānas are like a revolving wheel. Question: Each of the three times (past, present, future) has eight limbs (a hypothetical breakdown of the twelve nidanas), and three causes and five results would make twenty-four. Why are only twelve spoken of now? Answer: Because it is spoken of in relation to one body, only twelve are spoken of, but in reality, there are twenty-four. Question: Do the three realms (of desire, form, and formlessness) all have the twelve nidanas? Answer: One explanation in the Mahāvibhāṣā says that it is only the womb-born beings in the desire realm that have the twelve nidanas. Another explanation is that the desire realm has twelve, eleven, excluding the name and form limb. No has ten, excluding name and form and the six entrances. My comment is that all three realms have the twelve nidanas. For example, newly born beings, whose faculties are not yet strong, are called name and form. No although there is no form, there is name. Although there are no five entrances, there is the mind entrance. It should be said like this: consciousness conditions name, name conditions mind entrance, mind entrance conditions contact. Question: Among the twelve nidanas, how many occur in a single moment (ekacitta), and how many occur continuously (saṃtāna)? Answer: The Mahāvibhāṣā says that present consciousness and future birth are only a single moment, and the rest are continuous. The thirtieth chapter of the Ekottara Āgama says that the consciousness limb has six consciousnesses, so the time is long and not a single instant. If it is just rebirth, there are only mind and body consciousnesses, and not the other four consciousnesses. People with great merit have six consciousnesses at conception. In transformation birth, the consciousness limb has six consciousnesses, and the six faculties are immediately complete. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra says that the first seven weeks belong to the consciousness limb. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that three weeks belong to the consciousness limb. Question: How many of the five results are in the womb? Answer: The two results of contact and feeling are outside the womb, and the other three are inside. Question: How many limbs does the Avīci Hell have? Answer: At least eight, at most eleven. Question: Do the twelve limbs all have the five skandhas (aggregates)? Answer: The Mahāvibhāṣā says that the twelve limbs have the five skandhas as their substance. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says that all twelve times have the five skandhas, but at the time of the consciousness limb, name and form are not yet mature and have no ability, so it is not mentioned, and the same is true for the other limbs. Question: The Ten Stages Sutra says that the twelve nidanas have three sufferings. What are they? Answer: From ignorance to...
六入為行苦。觸受為苦苦。愛取至老死為壞苦。問十二並苦。亦得皆是集不。答亦得。前生為集後生為苦。問三道為論皆是苦者。亦得皆是業皆煩惱耶。答今言皆是苦者非三道中苦。乃明一切有為皆苦耳。故非例也。問四果具幾支耶。答羅漢不起三因。故無二果。唯有前七支也。三果具十二也。問化生人云何有老。答雖無頭白老亦有唸唸老。問八苦解義開老死為二苦。今云何合為一支。答八苦為欲明苦義是故開之。今總明過患。所以合也。問何故三相中開老死為二相。生為一相。今用生為一支。老死為一支耶。答三相欲明相差別各功用義。故開之為三。今此總明過患。合之為一。問病何故不立支。答今此一切眾生一切時一切處有立支。病非一切皆有。如薄拘羅云。我年過八十未曾頭病。欲界中尚有無病。況上二界耶。故病非一切有不立支也。問十二相生六因四緣為具幾耶。答今且就六因釋之。則四緣可解。十二既是前後復相生。相應共有是同世因果。非是十二之因緣也。有所作自分遍報四因。無明若生不善身口意三業者。是所作自分遍三因為因緣也。若生善身口意三業者。唯所作因為因緣也。行生識者所作及報二因為因緣也。識生名色所作自分二因為因緣也。名色生六入乃至觸緣受者。所作自分二因為因緣也。受生愛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 六入（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）是行苦（由遷流動變所帶來的苦）。觸受（接觸和感受）是苦苦（痛苦的感受）。愛（貪愛）、取（執取）直至老死是壞苦（變壞的苦）。 問：十二緣起（無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老死）都可說是集（苦的根源）嗎？ 答：也可以這樣說。前生是集，後生是苦。 問：如果說三道（見道、修道、無學道）都是苦，那麼它們也都是業（行為）和煩惱嗎？ 答：現在所說的『都是苦』，不是指三道中的苦，而是說明一切有為法（由因緣和合而成的法）都是苦，所以不能這樣類比。 問：四果（須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）各具多少支（構成要素）？ 答：阿羅漢不起三因（貪、嗔、癡），所以沒有二果（斯陀含果）。只有前七支（無明、行、識、名色、六入、觸、受）。三果（阿那含果）具足十二支。 問：化生的人怎麼會有老？ 答：雖然沒有頭髮變白的老，但也有唸唸老（剎那剎那的衰老）。 問：八苦（生、老、病、死、愛別離、怨憎會、求不得、五陰熾盛）的解釋將老死分為兩個苦，現在為什麼合為一支？ 答：八苦是爲了闡明苦的意義，所以分開來說。現在總的說明過患，所以合在一起。 問：為什麼三相（生、住、滅）中將老死分為兩個相，生作為一個相，現在卻用生作為一支，老死作為一支？ 答：三相是爲了闡明相的差別和各自的功用，所以分開為三個。現在這裡總的說明過患，所以合為一支。 問：為什麼病不立為一支？ 答：現在這裡說的是一切眾生在一切時一切處都有的才立為一支。病不是一切眾生都有的。比如薄拘羅（Bhakkula）說，我年過八十未曾頭痛。欲界（Kāmadhātu）中尚且有無病的，何況上二界（色界Rūpadhātu和無色界Arūpadhātu）呢？所以病不是一切都有的，因此不立為一支。 問：十二相生（十二緣起）的六因（能作因、俱有因、同類因、相應因、遍行因、異熟因）四緣（因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）各具多少？ 答：現在先就六因來解釋，那麼四緣就可以理解了。十二緣起既然是前後互相生起，相應共有的是同世的因果，不是十二緣起的因緣。有所作因、自分因、遍報因四因。無明如果生起不善的身口意三業，就是所作因、自分因、遍報因三因為因緣。如果生起善的身口意三業，只有所作因作為因緣。行生識，所作因和報因二因為因緣。識生名色，所作因和自分因二因為因緣。名色生六入乃至觸緣受，所作因和自分因二因為因緣。受生愛。
【English Translation】 English version The six entrances (six sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind) are the suffering of change (suffering caused by constant flux and alteration). Contact and sensation are the suffering of suffering (painful sensations). Craving (attachment), grasping, up to old age and death are the suffering of decay (suffering from deterioration). Question: Can the twelve links of dependent origination (ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, old age and death) all be considered as accumulation (the origin of suffering)? Answer: It can also be said that way. The previous life is accumulation, and the subsequent life is suffering. Question: If the three paths (path of seeing, path of cultivation, path of no more learning) are all suffering, are they also all karma (action) and afflictions? Answer: What is now said to be 'all suffering' does not refer to the suffering within the three paths, but rather explains that all conditioned phenomena (phenomena arising from causes and conditions) are suffering, so it cannot be compared in that way. Question: How many links (constituent elements) does each of the four fruits (Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi, Arhat) possess? Answer: An Arhat does not arise from the three causes (greed, hatred, delusion), so there is no second fruit (Sakadāgāmi). Only the first seven links (ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling) are present. The third fruit (Anāgāmi) possesses all twelve links. Question: How can beings born through transformation have old age? Answer: Although there is no aging with white hair, there is aging from moment to moment (decaying from instant to instant). Question: The explanation of the eight sufferings (birth, old age, sickness, death, separation from loved ones, association with the disliked, not getting what one wants, the flourishing of the five aggregates) divides old age and death into two sufferings, why are they now combined into one link? Answer: The eight sufferings are to clarify the meaning of suffering, so they are explained separately. Now, to generally explain the faults, they are combined together. Question: Why are old age and death divided into two aspects in the three characteristics (arising, abiding, ceasing), and birth as one aspect, but now birth is used as one link, and old age and death as one link? Answer: The three characteristics are to clarify the differences in aspects and their respective functions, so they are separated into three. Now, here, to generally explain the faults, they are combined into one link. Question: Why is sickness not established as a link? Answer: What is now being discussed is what all beings have at all times and in all places, and that is why it is established as a link. Sickness is not something that all beings have. For example, Bhakkula (Bhakkula) said, 'I am over eighty years old and have never had a headache.' Even in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) there are those without sickness, let alone the upper two realms (form realm Rūpadhātu and formless realm Arūpadhātu). Therefore, sickness is not something that everyone has, so it is not established as a link. Question: How many of the six causes (causal cause, co-existent cause, similar cause, concurrent cause, pervasive cause, resultant cause) and four conditions (hetu-paccaya, samanantara-paccaya, ārammaṇa-paccaya, adhipati-paccaya) of the twelve links of dependent origination are present? Answer: Let's first explain it in terms of the six causes, then the four conditions can be understood. Since the twelve links arise mutually one after another, and are concurrent and shared, they are the cause and effect of the same world, not the causes and conditions of the twelve links. There are four causes: the efficient cause, the own-nature cause, and the pervasive-result cause. If ignorance gives rise to unwholesome actions of body, speech, and mind, then the efficient cause, the own-nature cause, and the pervasive-result cause are the causes and conditions. If it gives rise to wholesome actions of body, speech, and mind, only the efficient cause is the cause and condition. Volitional formations give rise to consciousness, the efficient cause and the resultant cause are the causes and conditions. Consciousness gives rise to name and form, the efficient cause and the own-nature cause are the causes and conditions. Name and form give rise to the six sense bases up to contact conditioning feeling, the efficient cause and the own-nature cause are the causes and conditions. Feeling gives rise to craving.
者唯所作因為因緣也。愛生取者所作自分二因為因緣也。取生有者同無明生行也。有生生者同行緣識也。生生老死者同識緣名色也。問十二相生通三性不。答若正取次第相生支體者。無明支中通二性。欲界無明支中身邊二見是無記。余悉不善。上界無明唯是無記。若就時以說無明支起時。同時諸法皆是無明支。故亦有善惡無記等同時相續。皆是無明支攝也。行支亦通三性。別唯善惡也。識支若取一念托胎識是不善無記。若就時通於三性。名色六入觸受通別俱攝三性。愛取同無明說。有同行說。生同識說。老死同餘四果。問十二幾漏無漏。幾為無為。幾學無學。幾染不染。答同是有漏。同是有為。同是非學無學。婆沙云。此十二中若是心心數法染污。余通染不染。問十二因緣云何如樹。答樹有根體華果。二因為根。五果為體。三因為華。兩果為果。凡夫學人有華有果。羅漢無華無果。問十二因緣云何破除十使。答說此十二正除身邊二見。明過去二因現在五果破其常見。若是常者豈從因生耶。現在三因未來兩果破其斷見。既現在有因生未來果。云何斷耶。現在八支但是眾緣。故無有我。俱破十使者十二既是因果。故破除邪見。戒取謂苦為道。十二皆苦。故非是道。疑有苦無苦。既有十二則因果皎然。故破疑心。倚此身慢他
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這些唯有造作的行為才是因緣。愛生取，是造作的自身和分別兩種行為作為因緣。取生有，與無明生行相同。有生生，與行緣識相同。生生老死，與識緣名色相同。 問：十二相生是否貫通三性（三種性質：善、惡、無記）？ 答：如果嚴格按照次第相生的支體來說，無明支中貫通二界（欲界和色界）。色界無明支中，身見和邊見是無記，其餘都是不善。上界（無色界）的無明唯是無記。如果就時間來說，無明支生起時，同時生起的諸法都是無明支，所以也有善、惡、無記等同時相續，都屬於無明支所攝。 行支也貫通三性，但分別來說只有善和惡。 識支如果取一念托胎識，是不善或無記。如果就時間來說，貫通三性。名色、六入、觸、受，貫通分別和俱攝三性。 取與無明的說法相同。有與行的說法相同。生與識的說法相同。老死與其餘四果相同。 問：十二因緣中有幾個是有漏、無漏？幾個是有為、無為？幾個是學、無學？幾個是染、不染？ 答：全部都是有漏。全部都是有為。全部都不是學或無學。《婆沙論》說：這十二支中，如果是心和心數法，就是染污的，其餘的貫通染和不染。 問：十二因緣如何像一棵樹？ 答：樹有根、體、花、果。兩個因為根，五個果為體，三個因為花，兩個果為果。凡夫和學人有花有果，阿羅漢無花無果。 問：十二因緣如何破除十使（十種根本煩惱）？ 答：說這十二因緣，正是爲了破除身見和邊見。闡明過去二因和現在五果，是爲了破除常見。如果是常，怎麼會從因生呢？現在三因和未來兩果，是爲了破除斷見。既然現在有因能生未來果，怎麼會是斷滅呢？現在的八支都只是眾緣和合，所以沒有我。十二因緣既是因果關係，所以能破除邪見。戒取認為苦是道，十二因緣都是苦，所以不是道。疑是懷疑有苦或無苦，既然有十二因緣，因果關係就非常清楚，所以能破除疑心。依仗此身而輕慢他人。
【English Translation】 English version These are solely the actions done that serve as conditions. 'Love gives rise to grasping' (愛生取) is the action of creating oneself and distinguishing between two actions as conditions. 'Grasping gives rise to becoming' (取生有) is the same as 'ignorance gives rise to action' (無明生行). 'Becoming gives rise to birth' (有生生) is the same as 'action conditions consciousness' (行緣識). 'Birth gives rise to old age and death' (生生老死) is the same as 'consciousness conditions name and form' (識緣名色). Question: Do the twelve links of dependent origination (十二相生) pervade the three natures (三性: good, evil, and neutral)? Answer: If strictly considering the links in their sequential arising, within the link of ignorance (無明支), it pervades the two realms (二界: desire realm and form realm). Within the ignorance link of the form realm, the views of self and extremes (身邊二見) are neutral, while the rest are unwholesome. The ignorance of the upper realm (上界: formless realm) is solely neutral. If considering it in terms of time, when the link of ignorance arises, all dharmas arising simultaneously are part of the ignorance link. Therefore, there are also good, evil, and neutral qualities arising simultaneously and continuously, all encompassed within the ignorance link. The link of action (行支) also pervades the three natures, but specifically, it is only good and evil. If the consciousness link (識支) refers to the moment of conception, it is unwholesome or neutral. If considering it in terms of time, it pervades the three natures. Name and form (名色), the six sense bases (六入), contact (觸), and feeling (受) pervade the three natures both separately and collectively. Grasping (取) is explained the same way as ignorance. Becoming (有) is explained the same way as action. Birth (生) is explained the same way as consciousness. Old age and death (老死) are the same as the remaining four results. Question: Among the twelve links, how many are with outflows (有漏), without outflows (無漏)? How many are conditioned (有為), unconditioned (無為)? How many are in the stage of learning (學), beyond learning (無學)? How many are defiled (染), undefiled (不染)? Answer: All are with outflows. All are conditioned. None are in the stage of learning or beyond learning. The Vibhasa (婆沙) says: Among these twelve links, if they are mental states (心) and mental factors (心數法), they are defiled; the rest pervade both defiled and undefiled. Question: How are the twelve links of dependent origination like a tree? Answer: A tree has roots, a trunk, flowers, and fruits. The two causes are the roots, the five results are the trunk, the three causes are the flowers, and the two results are the fruits. Ordinary people (凡夫) and those in the stage of learning have flowers and fruits; Arhats (阿羅漢) have neither flowers nor fruits. Question: How do the twelve links of dependent origination destroy the ten fetters (十使: ten fundamental afflictions)? Answer: Speaking of these twelve links is precisely to destroy the views of self and extremes. Clarifying the two causes of the past and the five results of the present is to destroy the view of permanence (常見). If it were permanent, how could it arise from causes? The three causes of the present and the two results of the future are to destroy the view of annihilation (斷見). Since there are causes in the present that can give rise to results in the future, how could it be annihilation? The eight links of the present are merely the aggregation of various conditions, so there is no self. Since the twelve links are cause and effect, they can destroy wrong views (邪見). Holding to precepts wrongly (戒取) takes suffering as the path; the twelve links are all suffering, so they are not the path. Doubt (疑) is doubting whether there is suffering or not; since there are the twelve links, the relationship of cause and effect is very clear, so it can destroy doubt. Relying on this body to be arrogant towards others.
。既是生死法。何足自高。既是生死法。不足可貪。是故破貪。唯應速滅十二。何故生瞋。問緣生與緣起何異。答婆沙云。因是緣起果是緣生。又云。應作四句。一緣起非緣生。未來世法是也。二緣生非緣起。過去現在羅漢最後死五陰是也。亦緣起亦緣生者。除上二世羅漢死五陰。余過去現在法是也。四非緣起非緣生者無為法也。所言緣起者。體性可起待緣而起故名緣起。又一切眾生等從此緣起。故名緣起。又有緣生非十二。十二非緣生。亦緣生亦十二非緣生非十二。從緣生非十二謂羅漢五陰。十二非緣生謂未來十二。亦十二亦緣生即凡夫十二。俱非者虛空也。如涅槃迦葉章說。毗曇又有四種十二因緣。一無始十二。謂始不可知。二連瑣十二。謂展轉三世相縛。三剎那十二。明一使起時與諸數共起。一剎那中具十二也。四分段十二謂。過去二現在八未來二也。長行文既指毗曇。故今多就毗曇釋之。不必須頌示智而已。智者所不為下第二明逆觀。無明因滅故行果即不生。故云此事滅故是不生。此品大意明。此十二由癡惑生。則智者不為。故知非是真實。非實故所以即空。如是正觀便入真諦名為正滅。長行如文也。
觀邪見品第二十七
此是第二次破邪見也。問小乘前明因緣。次破邪見。大乘亦爾不。答前明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：既然是生死之法，又有什麼值得自高的呢？既然是生死之法，就不值得貪戀。因此，要破除貪念，唯一應該做的就是迅速滅除十二因緣。為什麼會產生嗔恨呢？ 問：緣生和緣起有什麼不同？答：《婆沙論》中說：『因』是緣起，『果』是緣生。又說：應該作四句分別：一是緣起而非緣生，指未來世的法；二是緣生而非緣起，指過去和現在阿羅漢最後死時的五陰；三是既是緣起又是緣生，指除了上述兩種情況之外，其餘過去和現在的法；四是非緣起也非緣生，指無為法。所說的緣起，是指其體性可以生起，依賴因緣而生起，所以叫做緣起。又因為一切眾生等從此緣起，所以叫做緣起。還有的是緣生而非十二因緣，有的是十二因緣而非緣生，有的是既是緣生又是十二因緣，有的既非緣生又非十二因緣。從緣生而非十二因緣，指的是阿羅漢的五陰。十二因緣而非緣生，指的是未來的十二因緣。既是十二因緣又是緣生，指的是凡夫的十二因緣。既非十二因緣又非緣生，指的是虛空。如《涅槃經·迦葉品》所說。《毗曇》中又有四種十二因緣：一是無始十二因緣，指開始不可知；二是連瑣十二因緣，指輾轉三世互相束縛；三是剎那十二因緣，說明一個煩惱生起時，與諸多數同時生起，一個剎那中具足十二因緣；四是分段十二因緣，指過去二支、現在八支、未來二支。長行文既然指明是《毗曇》，所以現在多依據《毗曇》來解釋，不必非要用頌文來顯示智慧。智者所不為，以下第二部分說明逆觀。無明因滅，所以行果就不生，所以說『此事滅故，是不生』。此品的大意是說明，這十二因緣由癡惑而生，所以智者不會去做。因此可知它不是真實的，因為不是真實的，所以就是空。這樣正確地觀察，便能進入真諦，叫做正滅。長行文的意思如字面所示。
觀邪見品第二十七
這是第二次破除邪見。問：小乘在前邊說明因緣，然後破除邪見，大乘也是這樣嗎？答：前邊說明了
【English Translation】 English version: Since it is the law of birth and death, what is there to be arrogant about? Since it is the law of birth and death, it is not worth being greedy for. Therefore, to break greed, the only thing that should be done is to quickly extinguish the twelve links of dependent origination (dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada). Why does anger arise? Question: What is the difference between 'dependent arising' (緣起, pratityasamutpada) and 'dependent birth' (緣生)? Answer: The Vibhasa (婆沙) says: 'Cause' is dependent arising, 'effect' is dependent birth. It also says: Four distinctions should be made: First, dependent arising but not dependent birth, referring to the laws of the future world. Second, dependent birth but not dependent arising, referring to the five aggregates (五陰, panca-skandha) of an Arhat (羅漢, arhat) at the moment of their final death in the past and present. Third, both dependent arising and dependent birth, referring to the remaining laws of the past and present, excluding the above two cases of the Arhat's death and five aggregates. Fourth, neither dependent arising nor dependent birth, referring to unconditioned dharmas (無為法, asamskrta-dharma). What is meant by dependent arising is that its nature can arise, depending on conditions to arise, hence it is called dependent arising. Also, because all sentient beings (一切眾生, sarva-sattva) and others arise from this condition, it is called dependent arising. Furthermore, there are things that are dependently born but are not the twelve links, things that are the twelve links but are not dependently born, things that are both dependently born and the twelve links, and things that are neither dependently born nor the twelve links. What is dependently born but not the twelve links refers to the five aggregates of an Arhat. What are the twelve links but not dependently born refers to the future twelve links. What are both the twelve links and dependently born refers to the twelve links of ordinary beings (凡夫, prthagjana). What is neither refers to space (虛空, akasa). As explained in the 'Kasyapa Chapter' of the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經·迦葉品). The Vibhasa also has four types of the twelve links of dependent origination: First, the beginningless twelve links, meaning the beginning is unknowable. Second, the chain-like twelve links, meaning the revolving three lifetimes are mutually bound. Third, the momentary twelve links, explaining that when one affliction arises, it arises together with all the numbers, possessing all twelve links in one moment. Fourth, the segmented twelve links, referring to the two links of the past, the eight links of the present, and the two links of the future. Since the prose text refers to the Vibhasa, we now mostly rely on the Vibhasa for explanation, and it is not necessary to use verses to show wisdom. 'What the wise do not do,' the second part below explains reverse contemplation. When the cause of ignorance (無明, avidya) is extinguished, the result of action (行, samskara) does not arise, so it is said, 'When this ceases, this does not arise.' The main idea of this chapter is to explain that these twelve links arise from delusion and confusion, so the wise do not engage in them. Therefore, it can be known that it is not real, and because it is not real, it is empty. Observing correctly in this way, one can enter the true reality, called right cessation (正滅, samyak-nirodha). The meaning of the prose text is as it appears.
Chapter 27: Observing Wrong Views (觀邪見品)
This is the second time to refute wrong views. Question: The Hinayana (小乘, Hinayana) explains dependent origination first, then refutes wrong views. Is the Mahayana (大乘, Mahayana) also like this? Answer: It explained earlier
八不。即辨十二因緣不生不滅。此是大乘因緣。從破四緣已后乃至涅槃名破邪見。問大小乘明因緣。有生滅無生滅二觀異者。大乘小乘明邪見。云何異耶。答若傳望者外道望小乘為邪見。小乘望大乘邪見。故涅槃明。二乘若空若有皆是邪見。如雲若以聲聞辟支佛心言無佈施。是則名為破戒邪見。此是二乘空觀為邪見。又云。若見菩薩八相成道。是則名為二乘邪曲之見。此是二乘有解名為邪見。故知。二乘空有望大乘皆是邪見。就文明異者。大乘法中明諸法實相畢竟空義。一切取相有所得無非邪見。故初破四緣終涅槃品。橫洗萬法豎窮四句稱破邪見。小乘法中但取五見及六十二見為邪見也。就今品意有三種邪見。一者斷常及我為邪見。二者別有我體。如犢子及假有體亦名邪見。三者若世諦中都無我亦是邪見。下偈云。非是無受。亦復非是都無也。問非都無是何言邪。答但假名有我。非無假名字我耳。非是有假我體我假用。故下結云。此是決定義。決定有二種。一者決定無即離二我。二者決定有于假名之我也。問論主何故唱決定耶。答有二種義。一者令眾生決定破我心。二者諸部邪亂。今欲整理小乘義。故須唱決定也。問整理何部。答犢子計我薩婆多計定法。今決定破此二。故明無我無法。問破我有文。破法出何文也。答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八不（指不生不滅等八種否定性的論斷）。即辨析十二因緣的「不生不滅」。這是大乘的因緣觀。從破斥四緣之後，乃至涅槃，都稱為破除邪見。問：大乘和小乘闡明因緣，有生滅和無生滅兩種不同的觀察，那麼大乘小乘闡明邪見，又有什麼不同呢？答：如果從傳承的角度來看，外道認為小乘是邪見，小乘認為大乘是邪見。所以《涅槃經》中說，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）無論是空觀還是有觀，都是邪見。例如經中說，『如果以聲聞或辟支佛的心說沒有佈施，這就被稱為破戒邪見。』這是說二乘的空觀是邪見。又說：『如果見到菩薩示現八相成道，這就是二乘邪曲的見解。』這是說二乘的有解是邪見。由此可知，二乘的空觀和有解，從大乘的角度來看都是邪見。從經文的表達方式來看，大乘佛法闡明諸法實相畢竟空的道理，一切執著于相、有所得的見解，沒有不是邪見的。所以從最初破斥四緣，到最終的《涅槃品》，橫向洗滌萬法，縱向窮盡四句，都稱為破除邪見。小乘佛法中，只取五見（身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）和六十二見為邪見。就本品的意義而言，有三種邪見：一是斷見、常見以及我見是邪見；二是認為存在一個獨立的我體，如犢子部所主張的，以及假有體也是邪見；三是如果在世俗諦中完全否定我的存在，也是邪見。下面的偈頌說：『不是沒有感受，也不是完全沒有。』問：『非都無』是什麼意思呢？答：只是假名有我，並非沒有假名字的我罷了。並非是有假我的本體，我假的作用。所以下面總結說：『這是決定義。』決定義有兩種：一是決定沒有，即遠離二我（人我、法我）；二是決定有，即在於假名的我。問：論主為什麼提倡『決定』呢？答：有兩種意義：一是令眾生決定破除我執；二是各部派的觀點混亂，現在想要整理小乘的義理，所以必須提倡『決定』。問：整理哪個部派的義理呢？答：犢子部計執有我，薩婆多部計執有定法，現在決定破除這二者，所以闡明無我無法。問：破除我見的經文已經有了，破除法見的經文在哪裡呢？答：
【English Translation】 English version The Eight Negations (referring to eight negative assertions such as non-arising and non-ceasing). That is, discerning the 'non-arising and non-ceasing' of the Twelve Nidanas (Twelve Links of Dependent Origination). This is the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) view of Dependent Origination. From the refutation of the Four Conditions onwards, up to Nirvana, it is called the destruction of wrong views. Question: The Mahayana and Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle) explain Dependent Origination with two different observations: arising and ceasing, and non-arising and non-ceasing. How do the Mahayana and Hinayana differ in explaining wrong views? Answer: From the perspective of transmission, outsiders (non-Buddhists) consider the Hinayana to be wrong views, and the Hinayana considers the Mahayana to be wrong views. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra states that both the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle), whether with emptiness or existence views, are wrong views. For example, the sutra says, 'If, with the mind of a Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha, one says there is no giving, this is called breaking precepts and wrong views.' This means that the Hinayana's view of emptiness is a wrong view. It also says, 'If one sees a Bodhisattva manifesting the eight stages of enlightenment, this is called the distorted view of the Two Vehicles.' This means that the Hinayana's understanding of existence is a wrong view. Thus, it is known that the Hinayana's views of emptiness and existence are, from the Mahayana perspective, all wrong views. In terms of textual expression, Mahayana Buddhism elucidates the principle of the ultimate emptiness of the true nature of all dharmas (phenomena). All attachments to characteristics and views of attainment are nothing but wrong views. Therefore, from the initial refutation of the Four Conditions to the final Nirvana chapter, the horizontal cleansing of all dharmas and the vertical exhaustion of the Four Statements are called the destruction of wrong views. In Hinayana Buddhism, only the Five Views (self-view, extreme view, wrong view, view of holding to views, view of holding to precepts) and the Sixty-two Views are taken as wrong views. In terms of the meaning of this chapter, there are three types of wrong views: First, the views of permanence, annihilation, and self are wrong views; second, the belief that there is an independent self-entity, as advocated by the Vatsiputriya school, and the belief in a hypothetical entity are also wrong views; third, if one completely denies the existence of self in conventional truth, this is also a wrong view. The following verse says: 'It is not that there is no sensation, nor is it completely non-existent.' Question: What does 'not completely non-existent' mean? Answer: It is merely a nominal existence of self, not that there is no nominal self. It is not that there is a real self-entity, but a self with a hypothetical function. Therefore, the following concludes: 'This is the definitive meaning.' There are two types of definitive meaning: first, the definitive non-existence, which is to be free from the two selves (self of person and self of phenomena); second, the definitive existence, which is in the nominal self. Question: Why does the author advocate 'definitive'? Answer: There are two meanings: first, to make sentient beings definitively destroy the attachment to self; second, the views of various schools are confused, and now one wants to organize the Hinayana doctrines, so it is necessary to advocate 'definitive.' Question: Which school's doctrines are being organized? Answer: The Vatsiputriya school clings to the existence of self, and the Sarvastivada school clings to the existence of fixed dharmas. Now, these two are definitively refuted, so the non-self and non-dharma are elucidated. Question: The sutras that refute the view of self already exist. Where are the sutras that refute the view of dharma? Answer:
下偈破生死無始破常法。又破無常亦常亦無常非常非無常。此四句法並破。故知。明決定無法也。問此品何故破我及斷常。答我是六十二本中之本。斷常是邊見。是六十二本。今正伐其本支末自傾。又一切凡夫不離我心。又斷常正障中道。如二夜經中常宣中道。故須破斷常也。又此品破三種邪見。一破外道。二破學小乘語意俱失。而自推折所立亦是邪見。三破得小乘語不得小乘意。如聞十二因緣法。計有實性等。就小乘法中凡有四句。一是見非邪。二是邪非見。三亦邪亦見。四非邪非見。是見非邪者世間諸正見等也。是邪而非見者五鈍使也。亦邪亦見者謂五見也。非邪非見者余殘法是也。就亦邪亦見中復有通別。通則五見皆名邪見。別則唯撥無因果稱為邪見。以撥無因果其過既重獨受邪名。余小輕更立稱。所言五見者謂。身見邊見邪見見取戒取。五陰名身。于中起見名為身見。執我斷常名為邊見。見取有二。一取前見為第一。故名見取。此足上見取也。二生死中無樂凈計樂凈。獨頭見取也。戒取亦二。一以雞狗等戒為正道。是獨頭也。二以邪見為道。此足上也。邪見如前釋。六十二見者上已一釋。今重述異解。一云。即色是我。離色是我。我中有色。色中有我。我有於色。一陰有五。五陰二十五。各除第二離句唯成二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以下偈頌旨在破除眾生對生死輪迴無始以來的執著，以及對『常』法的錯誤認知。同時，也破斥了『無常』、『亦常亦無常』、『非常非無常』這四種錯誤的觀點。這四句法全部都要破除，由此可知，佛法闡明的是一種決定的、無法執著的真理。 問：為何此品要破除『我』（ātman）以及『斷常』二見？ 答：『我』見是六十二種邪見中最根本的，『斷常』二見屬於邊見，也是六十二種邪見之一。現在正是要從根本上加以破斥，如同砍伐樹木，主幹被砍倒，枝葉自然傾覆。而且，一切凡夫都離不開『我』心。此外，『斷常』二見正是障礙中道的根本原因。正如《二夜經》中常常宣講中道，所以必須破除『斷常』二見。 此外，此品還破除三種邪見：一是破斥外道；二是破斥學習小乘佛法的人，因為他們既不理解小乘佛法的語言，也不理解其含義，反而自相矛盾，他們所建立的觀點也是邪見；三是破斥那些只理解小乘佛法的語言，卻不理解其含義的人，例如，聽聞了十二因緣法，卻認為其中存在真實的自性等等。 就小乘佛法而言，凡是有四句分別：一是『是見非邪』，二是『邪非見』，三是『亦邪亦見』，四是『非邪非見』。『是見非邪』指的是世間諸如正見等。『邪非見』指的是五鈍使（貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑）。『亦邪亦見』指的是五見（身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）。『非邪非見』指的是其餘殘餘的法。 在『亦邪亦見』中，又有通別之分。通而言之，五見都可稱為邪見。別而言之，只有撥無因果才稱為邪見。因為撥無因果的過失最為嚴重，所以單獨承受『邪』名，其餘較輕微的過失則另立名稱。所說的五見是指：身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見。五陰（色、受、想、行、識）名為身，于其中生起『我』的見解，稱為身見。執著『我』是斷滅或常存的，稱為邊見。見取見有兩種：一是認為之前的見解是最好的，所以稱為見取見，這是『足上見取』。二是在生死輪迴中，沒有快樂和清凈，卻計執為快樂和清凈，這是『獨頭見取』。戒禁取見也有兩種：一是認為雞狗等戒律是正道，這是『獨頭戒禁取』。二是以邪見為道，這是『足上戒禁取』。邪見的解釋如前所述。 關於六十二見，前面已經解釋過一次，現在重新敘述不同的解釋。一種說法是：『色即是我』，『離色是我』，『我中有（色）』，『（色）中有我』，『我有於色』。一陰有五句，五陰有二十五句，各自去除第二句『離』，只剩下二...
【English Translation】 English version The following verses aim to break through sentient beings' attachment to the beginningless cycle of birth and death, as well as the misconception of the 'eternal' (śāśvata) dharma. At the same time, they refute the erroneous views of 'impermanence' (anitya), 'both eternal and impermanent' (nityānitya), and 'neither eternal nor impermanent' (naiva nityo nānityaḥ). All four of these statements are to be refuted, from which it can be known that the Buddha-dharma elucidates a definitive truth that cannot be clung to. Question: Why does this chapter refute the 'self' (ātman) and the two extreme views of 'eternalism and annihilationism' (uccheda-śāśvata)? Answer: The 'self' view is the most fundamental of the sixty-two heterodox views. The views of 'eternalism and annihilationism' belong to the extreme views and are also among the sixty-two heterodox views. Now is the time to refute them from the root, just like felling a tree, when the trunk is felled, the branches and leaves will naturally fall. Moreover, all ordinary beings cannot be separated from the 'self' mind. In addition, the views of 'eternalism and annihilationism' are the fundamental obstacles to the Middle Way. Just as the Middle Way is often preached in the Two Nights Sutra, it is necessary to refute the views of 'eternalism and annihilationism'. In addition, this chapter also refutes three types of wrong views: first, refuting the non-Buddhist paths; second, refuting those who study the Hinayana (lesser vehicle) teachings, because they neither understand the language of the Hinayana teachings nor their meaning, but contradict themselves, and the views they establish are also wrong views; third, refuting those who only understand the language of the Hinayana teachings but do not understand their meaning, for example, hearing about the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda), but believing that there is a real self-nature in them, and so on. In terms of Hinayana Buddhism, there are generally four statements: one is 'it is a view and not wrong' (dṛṣṭi na mithyā), two is 'wrong and not a view' (mithyā na dṛṣṭi), three is 'both wrong and a view' (mithyā ca dṛṣṭi ca), and four is 'neither wrong nor a view' (naiva mithyā na dṛṣṭi). 'It is a view and not wrong' refers to worldly views such as right view. 'Wrong and not a view' refers to the five dull afflictions (greed, hatred, delusion, pride, doubt). 'Both wrong and a view' refers to the five views (belief in a self, holding to extreme views, holding to wrong views, holding to views as supreme, and holding to precepts as supreme). 'Neither wrong nor a view' refers to the remaining dharmas. Among 'both wrong and a view', there are general and specific distinctions. Generally speaking, all five views can be called wrong views. Specifically speaking, only denying cause and effect is called a wrong view. Because the fault of denying cause and effect is the most serious, it alone bears the name 'wrong', and other minor faults are given other names. The five views mentioned refer to: belief in a self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), holding to extreme views (anta-grāha-dṛṣṭi), holding to wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi), holding to views as supreme (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), and holding to precepts as supreme (śīla-vrata-parāmarśa). The five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) are called the body, and the view of 'self' arising within them is called belief in a self. Holding that the 'self' is either annihilated or eternal is called holding to extreme views. Holding to views as supreme has two types: one is thinking that the previous view is the best, so it is called holding to views as supreme, this is 'holding to views as supreme based on previous views'. The second is that in the cycle of birth and death, there is no happiness and purity, but clinging to happiness and purity, this is 'independent holding to views as supreme'. Holding to precepts as supreme also has two types: one is thinking that precepts such as those of chickens and dogs are the right path, this is 'independent holding to precepts as supreme'. The second is taking wrong views as the path, this is 'holding to precepts as supreme based on previous views'. The explanation of wrong views is as described earlier. Regarding the sixty-two views, it has been explained once before, and now a different explanation is re-narrated. One saying is: 'Form is me', 'Apart from form is me', 'In me there is * (form)', '* (form) is in me', 'I have form'. One aggregate has five statements, and five aggregates have twenty-five statements. Each removes the second statement 'apart', leaving only two...
十。欲界二十。色界二十。無色界唯有十六。以除色。除色陰四句故合成五十六。三界各以斷常為本。故有六十二。數人多用此解。又釋。世出世合論六十二。如前涅槃品說。于如來上起有無等四見。五陰合二十也。于凡夫上過去世起常等四見。五陰合二十。于未來世起邊等四見。五陰亦二十。斷常為本名六十二。問經何故云我見攝六十二見。或云斷常為本。或云一異為本。答我是本中之本。由起我見故推我一異。一則身滅神滅。名為斷見。異則身滅我存。名為常見。此之三本即是次第。故經論互說。問前破大乘迷。次申大乘教。此兩品破學小教迷申小乘教。云何乃破五見六十二見耶。答小乘障大乘故前多破小乘執。而申于大乘。外道邪見障小乘故今破邪見。即是申于小乘。問若爾前但是破小申大。非是破大迷而申大。后但是破外而申內。非是破內迷而申內。答有所得大猶是小乘。故前破小執則是破于大迷。有所得小即是外道。今破外道即破小乘。問前破小乘復有別破大乘。今破外道亦應即別破小乘。答亦有小乘人定執生死無始。下破生死無始。當知。亦破定性有所得。但小義也。問今破邪見。云何是小乘人入道義耶。答以有邪見是故不得入見諦道。今破此邪見即入見諦。乃至證於無學。故是小乘入道。開此品者多有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十。欲界二十（desire realm has twenty）。二十。無（twenty. none）唯有十六。因為去除了色，去除色陰四句，所以合成了五十六。三界各自以斷見和常見為根本，所以有六十二種見解。許多人使用這種解釋。另一種解釋是，世間和出世間合起來討論六十二種見解，如前面《涅槃品》所說。對於如來，產生有見、無見等四種見解，五陰加起來是二十。對於凡夫，在過去世產生常見等四種見解，五陰加起來是二十。在未來世產生邊見等四種見解，五陰也是二十。以斷見和常見為根本，稱為六十二種見解。問：經文中為什麼說『我見』涵蓋了六十二種見解，或者說以斷見和常見為根本，或者說以一見和異見為根本？答：『我』是根本中的根本。由於產生了我見，所以推論『我』是一還是異。『一』就是身滅神滅，稱為斷見。『異』就是身滅我存，稱為常見。這三個根本就是次第關係，所以經論互相說明。問：前面是破斥大乘的迷惑，接著闡述大乘的教義。這兩品是破斥學習小乘的迷惑，闡述小乘的教義。為什麼現在要破斥五見和六十二見呢？答：因為小乘會障礙大乘，所以前面多破斥小乘的執著，而闡述大乘。外道的邪見會障礙小乘，所以現在破斥邪見，就是闡述小乘。問：如果這樣，前面只是破斥小乘而闡述大乘，不是破斥大乘的迷惑而闡述大乘。後面只是破斥外道而闡述內道，不是破斥內道的迷惑而闡述內道。答：有所得的大乘仍然是小乘，所以前面破斥小乘的執著就是破斥大乘的迷惑。有所得的小乘就是外道，現在破斥外道就是破斥小乘。問：前面破斥小乘，另外也破斥大乘。現在破斥外道，也應該另外破斥小乘。答：也有小乘人執著生死是無始的，下面破斥生死無始，應當知道，也是破斥定性有所得，但只是小乘的意義。問：現在破斥邪見，怎麼是小乘人入道的意義呢？答：因為有邪見，所以不能進入見諦道。現在破斥這些邪見，就能進入見諦，乃至證得無學，所以是小乘入道。開解這一品的人很多。
【English Translation】 English version 10. The desire realm has twenty. Twenty. None. Only sixteen remain because 'rupa' (form) is removed. Because the four statements of 'rupa skandha' (form aggregate) are removed, fifty-six are formed. The three realms each take annihilationism and eternalism as their basis, thus there are sixty-two views. Many people use this explanation. Another explanation is that worldly and supramundane views combined discuss sixty-two views, as mentioned in the previous 'Nirvana Chapter'. Regarding the Tathagata (Thus Come One), four views such as existence and non-existence arise, and the five skandhas (aggregates) combined are twenty. Regarding ordinary beings, in the past, four views such as eternalism arise, and the five skandhas combined are twenty. In the future, four views such as finitude arise, and the five skandhas are also twenty. Taking annihilationism and eternalism as the basis is called sixty-two views. Question: Why does the sutra say that 'self-view' encompasses sixty-two views, or that it takes annihilationism and eternalism as the basis, or that it takes oneness and otherness as the basis? Answer: 'Self' is the basis of all bases. Because self-view arises, it is inferred whether 'self' is one or different. 'One' is the annihilation of body and spirit, called annihilationism. 'Different' is the survival of 'self' after the body's destruction, called eternalism. These three bases are sequential, so the sutras and treatises explain each other. Question: Previously, the delusions of Mahayana (Great Vehicle) were refuted, and then the teachings of Mahayana were expounded. These two chapters refute the delusions of studying Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and expound the teachings of Hinayana. Why are the five views and sixty-two views being refuted now? Answer: Because Hinayana obstructs Mahayana, the attachments of Hinayana were mostly refuted earlier, and Mahayana was expounded. Because the wrong views of externalists obstruct Hinayana, refuting wrong views now is expounding Hinayana. Question: If so, previously it was only refuting Hinayana and expounding Mahayana, not refuting the delusions of Mahayana and expounding Mahayana. Later, it was only refuting externalists and expounding internal teachings, not refuting the delusions of internal teachings and expounding internal teachings. Answer: The Mahayana with attainment is still Hinayana, so refuting the attachments of Hinayana earlier is refuting the delusions of Mahayana. The Hinayana with attainment is externalism, and refuting externalists now is refuting Hinayana. Question: Previously, Hinayana was refuted, and Mahayana was also refuted separately. Now that externalists are refuted, Hinayana should also be refuted separately. Answer: There are also Hinayana practitioners who are attached to the beginninglessness of samsara (cycle of rebirth). The refutation of the beginninglessness of samsara below should be understood as also refuting the fixed nature of attainment, but only in the sense of Hinayana. Question: Now that wrong views are being refuted, how is this the meaning of Hinayana practitioners entering the path? Answer: Because of wrong views, one cannot enter the path of seeing the truth. Now that these wrong views are refuted, one can enter the path of seeing the truth, and even attain the state of no more learning, so it is Hinayana entering the path. There are many who explain this chapter.
錯誤。今分為二。前問次答。問中有二。一者領前。今欲聞下生后。答曰下為二。初兩偈立邪見。次論主破邪見。問小乘初立邪見。次破邪見別有破邪見品者。大乘何不爾耶。答小乘邪見局。故初別立后則破。大乘橫收萬法豎窮四句皆是邪見。故無別品破之也。問若爾小乘可別有因緣品。大乘應無別因緣品。答大乘因緣亦通一切法。而別立因緣品者欲通別互現。立中初立過去四見。次立未來四見。問何故不立現在邪見。答去來冥漠難知。故須別立。現在顯了易解。故略不明。又解。此偈首我於之言即是明現在之我。於過去世為有為無。是故此文具三世邪見。問下云。略說則五見。廣說則六十二見。今何故但破邊見耶。答邊見是斷常。為六十二見本。在本既破條末自傾。問五見之中何故不破我見。答此中破二世見即破於我也。問何故不破邪見等耶。答蓋是存略故耳。我於過去世為有為無者。明現在之我於過去世為已有。於過去世為未有。若現在之我本來已有。則猶是本我。是則為常。若現在之我非是過去本我今我始生。是則為斷。不得云過去無我今始有我。若過去無我。則名正見非邪見也。下半明起見處也。第二偈為作不作者。亦據現在之我為更作未來世我。為不作。若更作則始終不異。則是無邊。若不更作則與身俱盡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在分為兩部分。前面是提問，後面是回答。提問中又分為兩部分。第一部分是承接前面的內容，現在想要聽聞關於下生之後的事情。回答分為兩部分。首先是兩首偈頌闡述邪見，然後是論主破斥邪見。有人問：小乘佛教先闡述邪見，然後破斥邪見，並且有專門的破邪見品。大乘佛教為什麼不是這樣呢？回答：小乘佛教的邪見是區域性的，所以先單獨闡述，然後再破斥。大乘佛教橫向涵蓋萬法，縱向窮盡四句，這些都是邪見，所以沒有單獨的品來破斥。有人問：如果這樣，小乘佛教可以有單獨的因緣品，大乘佛教應該沒有單獨的因緣品。回答：大乘佛教的因緣也貫通一切法，而單獨設立因緣品，是爲了使普遍性和特殊性相互顯現。在立論中，首先闡述過去四見，然後闡述未來四見。有人問：為什麼不闡述現在的邪見？回答：過去和未來是隱晦難以知曉的，所以需要單獨闡述。現在是顯而易見的，容易理解，所以簡略而不詳細說明。另一種解釋是，這首偈頌開頭的『我于』之言，就是說明現在的我。對於過去世是有還是無。因此，這段文字包含了三世的邪見。有人問：下面說，簡略地說有五見，詳細地說有六十二見。現在為什麼只破斥邊見呢？回答：邊見是斷見和常見，是六十二見的根本。根本既然被破斥，枝末自然傾倒。有人問：五見之中，為什麼不破斥我見呢？回答：這裡破斥二世見，就是破斥我見。有人問：為什麼不破斥邪見等呢？回答：大概是爲了存略的緣故。『我於過去世為有為無』，說明現在的我，對於過去世是已經存在，還是過去世未曾存在。如果現在的我本來就已經存在，那麼仍然是本來的我，這就是常見。如果現在的我不是過去本來的我，而是現在才產生的，這就是斷見。不能說過去沒有我，現在才開始有我。如果過去沒有我，那麼就叫做正見，而不是邪見。下半部分說明產生見解的地方。第二首偈頌『為作不作者』，也是根據現在的我，是會創造未來的我，還是不會創造。如果會創造，那麼始終沒有差異，這就是無邊。如果不創造，那麼就和身體一起消亡。
【English Translation】 English version Now it is divided into two parts. The first part is the question, and the second part is the answer. The question is further divided into two parts. The first part connects to the previous content, now wanting to hear about what happens after the next life. The answer is divided into two parts. First, two verses explain wrong views (邪見, xiéjiàn, heterodox views), and then the treatise master refutes wrong views. Someone asks: In Hinayana Buddhism, wrong views are first established, and then refuted, and there is a special chapter on refuting wrong views. Why isn't it like this in Mahayana Buddhism? The answer is: Wrong views in Hinayana Buddhism are localized, so they are first established separately and then refuted. Mahayana Buddhism horizontally encompasses all dharmas and vertically exhausts the four possibilities, all of which are wrong views, so there is no separate chapter to refute them. Someone asks: If so, Hinayana Buddhism can have a separate chapter on causation (因緣, yīnyuán, hetu-pratyaya), Mahayana Buddhism should not have a separate chapter on causation. The answer is: Causation in Mahayana Buddhism also penetrates all dharmas, and the separate establishment of a chapter on causation is to make the universality and particularity mutually manifest. In establishing the argument, the four views of the past are first explained, and then the four views of the future are explained. Someone asks: Why are the wrong views of the present not explained? The answer is: The past and the future are obscure and difficult to know, so they need to be explained separately. The present is obvious and easy to understand, so it is brief and not explained in detail. Another explanation is that the words 'I in' (我于, wǒ yú) at the beginning of this verse explain the present 'I'. Whether there was or was not in the past. Therefore, this passage contains the wrong views of the three times. Someone asks: Below it says that there are five views in brief and sixty-two views in detail. Why only refute the extreme views (邊見, biānjiàn, antāgraha-dṛṣṭi) now? The answer is: Extreme views are the views of annihilation and permanence, which are the root of the sixty-two views. Since the root is refuted, the branches will naturally fall. Someone asks: Among the five views, why not refute the self-view (我見, wǒjiàn, ātma-dṛṣṭi)? The answer is: Refuting the two views of the two times here is refuting the self-view. Someone asks: Why not refute wrong views (邪見, xiéjiàn, mithyā-dṛṣṭi) etc.? The answer is: It is probably for the sake of brevity. 'I was or was not in the past', explains that the present 'I' existed in the past, or did not exist in the past. If the present 'I' already existed, then it is still the original 'I', which is the view of permanence (常見, chángjiàn, śāśvata-dṛṣṭi). If the present 'I' is not the original 'I' of the past, but is only now produced, then it is the view of annihilation (斷見, duànjiàn, uccheda-dṛṣṭi). It cannot be said that there was no 'I' in the past, and now there is 'I'. If there was no 'I' in the past, then it is called right view (正見, zhèngjiàn, samyag-dṛṣṭi), not wrong view. The second half explains the place where views arise. The second verse 'Does or does not create' is also based on the present 'I', whether it will create the future 'I' or not. If it creates, then there is no difference from beginning to end, which is the view of no limit (無邊, wúbiān, ananta). If it does not create, then it will perish with the body.
。便是有邊。下半明起見處也。問此二偈既是立邪見。是決定義。云何乃言為有為無為作為不作。答上半明見本。見本即是邪疑。故云為有為無。下半明世間常等見。始是見也。何因緣故名邪見下生起第二破。開為二別。初一週就理破二世八見。次周指事破二世八見。破此八見不出事理二週。如青目解大乘八不。亦就事理二週。龍樹解八不始末。亦約事理二週。今破小乘八見即小乘八不。亦就此二也。就理破二世八見即為二別。前廣破初偈四見。次略類后偈四見。以世異見同故略類之耳。就初又三。前六偈破常有句。次四偈破斷無句。后一偈合破亦常亦無常亦有亦無二句。此三從廣至略者。一者前後互類。二者常為四句之初。在初既破余中后易除。故前廣而後略也。初六偈中前偈總非。下五偈別破。即是釋非。初偈為二。上半牒有而非有。下半正明過去不作今。過去世有我者。明我遍五道通於三世。故過去世本有現在之我。今總非之。故云不可得。下半明過去不作今者既古今一。寧有古我作今。若古作今則不常不遍。若是常遍便不作也。又若本有此我可得以本為今。本實無我。故本不為今。又外人謂古我猶是今我。故名為作今。非此作也。又古天應是今人。天人一體貴賤同質也。若謂我即是下第二五偈別破釋非。開為
四別。初一行半破離陰我。次一行半破即陰我。次一偈重破離陰。后復一偈總結非即離。就初又二。上半取意立義。次一偈正破。上半取意者我遍古今。不相作。但身異故說言作耳。次一偈破為二。初半正破次半結破。初半破云。若我遍五道而身不遍。我通三世身不通者。離身何處有我。又若言我是本我。而身非本身。則我離身何身處有耶。此即破小乘人犢子及假有體家。次半偈結者。上大乘觀中處處已破離陰我竟。今但略標故云此事為已成也。若謂身即我下第二次破即陰。亦開為二。初半牒外義。第二一偈正破。初有二句。第一句正改離捉即。若都無我者釋此句不同。有人言。此是破也。汝既避前離破立即義者等是避破。何不言無耶。故云若都無有我。又釋。彼計我是常身為無常。今身既是我便都無有我。但是無常身耳。何處有我。又釋。離身既無更不過二若即是若都無。此釋為正也。此偈望前合有二雙。謂即離一雙及有無一雙。合此二雙還成一雙。即離是有都無是無。謂有無一雙也。餘二章破如文可解。若離身有我下此第三重破離。以計我者多謂我唯是一但六道身異。如莎提比丘識唯是一而六道身異。故重破之。上半牒非。下半正破。前直明離身不見別有我。今明無身應當有我。故兩門破離其義異也。無身有我可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四別（四種不同的辨別方法）。首先用一行半破除『離開五蘊（陰），另有我』的觀點。其次用一行半破除『五蘊（陰）就是我』的觀點。再次用一個偈頌著重破除『離開五蘊（陰），另有我』的觀點。最後用一個偈頌總結『非即非離』的道理。就最初的辨別方法來說，又分為兩部分。前半部分是先確立對方的觀點，後半部分用一個偈頌正式破除。前半部分確立對方的觀點，認為『我』遍及過去、現在、未來，但彼此不互相作用，只是身體不同，所以才說有作用。後半部分的偈頌分為兩部分來破除。前半部分正式破除，後半部分總結破除。前半部分破除說：如果『我』遍及五道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天），而身體不能遍及，『我』貫通三世（過去、現在、未來），而身體不能貫通，那麼離開身體，『我』在哪裡呢？又如果說『我』是本來的『我』，而身體不是本來的身體，那麼『我』離開身體，又在哪裡呢？這便是破斥小乘佛教中犢子部（Vatsiputriya）以及主張假有實體的宗派。後半個偈頌總結說：以上大乘中觀（Madhyamaka）已經處處破除了『離開五蘊（陰），另有我』的觀點。現在只是略微提及，所以說這件事已經完成了。如果認為身體就是『我』，那麼下面第二次破除『五蘊（陰）就是我』的觀點，也分為兩部分。前半部分引用外道的觀點，後半部分用一個偈頌正式破除。前半部分有兩句。第一句是直接改變『離開』的觀點，轉而執著于『就是』的觀點。如果說根本沒有『我』，那麼對這句話的解釋就不同了。有人說，這是破斥。既然你避免了前面『離開』的破斥，立即轉而認為『就是』，這等於是逃避破斥。為什麼不直接說沒有『我』呢？所以說如果根本沒有『我』。又有人解釋說，他們認為『我』是常住不變的，而身體是無常變化的。現在身體既然是『我』，那麼就根本沒有『我』，只是無常的身體罷了。哪裡有『我』呢？又有人解釋說，離開身體就沒有『我』，所以不外乎兩種情況：要麼『就是』，要麼『根本沒有』。這種解釋是正確的。這個偈頌與前面的偈頌合起來有兩對，即『即』和『離』一對，以及『有』和『無』一對。這兩對合起來還是一對，即『有』和『無』一對。其餘兩章的破斥，按照文義就可以理解。如果離開身體有『我』，這是第三次著重破除『離開』的觀點。因為計執有『我』的人，大多認為『我』只有一個，只是在六道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天、阿修羅）中的身體不同。就像莎提比丘（Sati）認為識只有一個，只是在六道中的身體不同。所以再次著重破除這種觀點。前半部分引用錯誤的觀點，後半部分正式破除。前面直接說明離開身體，看不見另外有『我』。現在說明沒有身體，應當有『我』。所以從兩個方面破除『離開』的觀點，其含義是不同的。沒有身體，『我』就可以存在嗎？
【English Translation】 English version Four Distinctions. First, one and a half lines refute the view that 'there is a self separate from the skandhas (five aggregates)'. Second, one and a half lines refute the view that 'the skandhas (five aggregates) are the self'. Third, one verse strongly refutes the view that 'there is a self separate from the skandhas'. Finally, one verse summarizes the principle of 'neither identical nor separate'. Regarding the initial distinction, it is further divided into two parts. The first half establishes the opponent's view, and the second half uses a verse to formally refute it. The first half establishes the opponent's view, which is that 'the self' pervades the past, present, and future, but they do not interact with each other. It is only because the bodies are different that it is said there is interaction. The second half of the verse is divided into two parts for refutation. The first half formally refutes, and the second half concludes the refutation. The first half refutes by saying: If 'the self' pervades the five realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, gods), but the body cannot pervade, and 'the self' penetrates the three times (past, present, future), but the body cannot penetrate, then where is 'the self' apart from the body? Furthermore, if it is said that 'the self' is the original 'self', but the body is not the original body, then where is 'the self' apart from the body? This refutes the Vatsiputriya (犢子部) school of Hinayana Buddhism and schools that assert the real existence of hypothetical entities. The second half of the verse concludes by saying: The above Mahayana Madhyamaka (中觀) has already refuted the view that 'there is a self separate from the skandhas' everywhere. Now it is only briefly mentioned, so it is said that this matter has been completed. If it is thought that the body is 'the self', then the second refutation below refutes the view that 'the skandhas are the self', which is also divided into two parts. The first half quotes the externalist view, and the second half uses a verse to formally refute it. The first half has two sentences. The first sentence directly changes the view of 'separation' and instead clings to the view of 'identity'. If it is said that there is no 'self' at all, then the explanation of this sentence is different. Some say that this is a refutation. Since you avoid the previous refutation of 'separation' and immediately turn to thinking 'identity', this is equivalent to escaping the refutation. Why not directly say there is no 'self'? Therefore, it is said that if there is no 'self' at all. Others explain that they think 'the self' is permanent and unchanging, while the body is impermanent and changing. Now that the body is 'the self', then there is no 'self' at all, only an impermanent body. Where is 'the self'? Still others explain that apart from the body, there is no 'self', so there are only two possibilities: either 'identity' or 'no self at all'. This explanation is correct. This verse combined with the previous verse has two pairs, namely the pair of 'identity' and 'separation', and the pair of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. These two pairs combined are still one pair, namely the pair of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. The refutations in the remaining two chapters can be understood according to the meaning of the text. If there is a 'self' apart from the body, this is the third time to strongly refute the view of 'separation'. Because those who cling to the idea of a 'self' mostly think that there is only one 'self', but the bodies in the six realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, gods, asuras) are different. Just like Sati (莎提) Bhikkhu thought that there was only one consciousness, but the bodies in the six realms were different. Therefore, this view is strongly refuted again. The first half quotes the wrong view, and the second half formally refutes it. The previous directly stated that apart from the body, one cannot see another 'self'. Now it is stated that without a body, there should be a 'self'. Therefore, the view of 'separation' is refuted from two aspects, and its meaning is different. Can 'the self' exist without a body?
具二義。一者如本住品未受身前已有我。二者直令無身而有我也。第四章結破為二。上半結非即離。次句結非有無。即前兩雙之義也。又初句結第一破離門。第二句結破即門。非無受結第三重破離門。非無結前破即中若都無有我門。此是決定義者。非即非離非有非無此。是小乘中決定義也。以小乘中有假名我。故非是都無。長行釋總別二章則為二別。釋初偈為三。一牒二非三釋。初句如文。是事不然下第二總非。此二門釋上半。何以故下第三即釋下半。又開為二。一者正破。二取意破。正破中又三。初總標常過。何以故下次釋常過。有無常過故下第三結常過。就釋中又三。一法說。譬如下第二譬說。若先為天下第三合譬。此中大意明。古今我一者則天人一體貴賤同質也。若謂先世我不作今我下第二取意破。就文又三。一牒立。二總非。三釋難。就牒中文三。法譬合。初法說。如人浣衣時下第二譬說。如是我受天身下三合譬。是事不然下第二總非。何以故下第三釋非。就文又二。初破法說。今浣者下第二破譬。又開二別。初兩關定之。次設二難如文。問曰下釋第二段五偈。前分五偈開為四門。今釋四則四。初離門為二。第一上半偈取外人意。第二偈正破。今釋此二即二也。前釋第一。外云。古今我一。故今我猶是昔我。
今身非昔身。故不得貴賤同軀人天一體。答曰下釋第二一行偈。正破。偈本為二。初半行正破。次半行結破。今前釋第一。文開四別。一正破。二救。三破救。四總結。破中初總非。何以故下釋非。文三。初法說牒彼義作無用破。如治俗人罪下次舉喻破。五陰相續下合喻。問曰下破第二救。又三。謂法喻合。正明我有用非是無用。言有用者有二種用。一所依用。二造作用。法譬閤中皆有二用。細尋文易解知也。答曰下第三破救。十難開為五別。一破作者。二破見者。三重破作者。四重破見者。五總破有我。初又二。初奪破我。明無有作義。若我是作者第二縱破。若見者是我下破見者是我。亦二。初奪破但是眼見非是我見。若見者是我下第二縱破。縱我能見應不得余塵也。若謂如刈者下第三重破作者。亦二。初奪破。若謂作者下第二縱破。若謂右眼見下第四重破見者。亦二。第一併破。複次有我者言下第二自破。又為二。初釋非我用。次明自破。複次若有顛倒下第五總破有我。又開二別。一者正破。二遮通。正破又三。謂法譬合。如文。若謂無我下第二遮通。遮通者外云。汝若言始終一我有顛倒過者。汝義雖復無我而始終一五陰。亦應有顛倒過。若始終一陰無顛倒過者我義。亦然。今遮外此通名為遮通。就文為四。一牒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『今身非昔身，故不得貴賤同軀人天一體。』回答說，下面解釋第二行偈頌。正是破斥。偈頌原本分為兩部分。前半行是正面的破斥，後半行是總結性的破斥。現在先解釋第一部分。文分四個小節。一是正面破斥，二是救護，三是破斥救護，四是總結。破斥中先總的否定。『何以故』下面解釋否定。文分三部分。首先是法說，引用對方的觀點，作為無用的破斥。『如治俗人罪』下面舉例破斥。『五陰相續』下面是合喻。提問說，下面破斥第二種救護。又分三部分，即法、喻、合。正面說明『我』是有用的，不是無用的。說到有用，有兩種用處，一是所依之用，二是造作之用。法、譬、閤中都有兩種用處，仔細尋味文義容易理解。回答說，下面是第三種破斥救護。十難分為五個小節。一是破斥作者，二是破斥見者，三重破斥作者，四重破斥見者，五是總破有『我』。首先又分兩部分，先是奪取『我』，說明沒有造作的意義。『若我是作者』第二是縱容破斥。『若見者是我』下面破斥見者是『我』。也分兩部分，先是奪取破斥，只是眼睛看見，不是『我』看見。『若見者是我』下面第二是縱容破斥。縱容『我』能看見，就不應該看不到其他的塵埃。『若謂如刈者』下面是第三重破斥作者。也分兩部分，先是奪取破斥。『若謂作者』下面第二是縱容破斥。『若謂右眼見』下面是第四重破斥見者。也分兩部分，第一是並列破斥。『複次有我者言』下面第二是自我破斥。又分為兩部分，先是解釋不是『我』的作用，其次是說明自我破斥。『複次若有顛倒』下面是第五種總破有『我』。又分為兩個小節，一是正面破斥，二是遮止通途。正面破斥又分三部分，即法、譬、合，如文所示。『若謂無我』下面是第二種遮止通途。遮止通途是外道說，『你如果說始終如一的『我』有顛倒的過失，那麼你的意思雖然沒有『我』，但是始終如一的五陰（色、受、想、行、識，skandha）也應該有顛倒的過失。如果始終如一的陰沒有顛倒的過失，那麼『我』的意思也是這樣。』現在遮止外道的這種通途，稱為遮止通途。就文義分為四個部分，一是引用。
【English Translation】 English version 『The present body is not the same as the past body, therefore, nobility and lowliness cannot share the same body, and humans and gods cannot be one entity.』 The answer explains the second line of the verse below. It is a direct refutation. The verse is originally divided into two parts. The first half line is a direct refutation, and the second half line is a concluding refutation. Now, let's explain the first part first. The text is divided into four sections. First, direct refutation; second, rescue; third, refutation of rescue; and fourth, summary. In the refutation, first, a general negation. 『Why』 below explains the negation. The text is divided into three parts. First, Dharma explanation, citing the other party's view as a useless refutation. 『Like punishing ordinary people for crimes』 below gives an example of refutation. 『The continuity of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha)』 below is a combined analogy. The question says, below refutes the second rescue. It is also divided into three parts, namely Dharma, analogy, and combination. It positively states that 『I』 is useful and not useless. Speaking of usefulness, there are two kinds of uses: one is the use of reliance, and the other is the use of creation. Both Dharma, analogy, and combination have two uses. Carefully savoring the meaning of the text is easy to understand. The answer says, below is the third refutation of rescue. The ten difficulties are divided into five sections. First, refuting the creator; second, refuting the seer; third, re-refuting the creator; fourth, re-refuting the seer; and fifth, generally refuting the existence of 『I』 (ātman). First, it is divided into two parts, first taking away 『I』, explaining that there is no meaning of creation. 『If I am the creator』 the second is to indulge in refutation. 『If the seer is me』 below refutes the seer as 『I』. It is also divided into two parts, first taking away the refutation, only the eyes see, not 『I』 see. 『If the seer is me』 below the second is to indulge in refutation. Indulging 『I』 can see, then other dust should not be invisible. 『If it is said like a reaper』 below is the third re-refutation of the creator. It is also divided into two parts, first taking away the refutation. 『If it is said the creator』 below the second is to indulge in refutation. 『If it is said the right eye sees』 below is the fourth re-refutation of the seer. It is also divided into two parts, the first is a parallel refutation. 『Furthermore, those who say I exist』 below the second is self-refutation. It is also divided into two parts, first explaining that it is not the function of 『I』, and secondly explaining self-refutation. 『Furthermore, if there is inversion』 below is the fifth general refutation of the existence of 『I』. It is also divided into two sections, one is direct refutation, and the other is to stop the common path. Direct refutation is divided into three parts, namely Dharma, analogy, and combination, as shown in the text. 『If it is said there is no I』 below is the second type of stopping the common path. Stopping the common path is what the heretics say, 『If you say that the consistent 『I』 has the fault of inversion, then although your meaning does not have 『I』, the consistent five skandhas (form, feeling, thought, volition, consciousness) should also have the fault of inversion. If the consistent skandha does not have the fault of inversion, then the meaning of 『I』 is also like this.』 Now, stopping this common path of the heretics is called stopping the common path. The meaning of the text is divided into four parts, one is quoting.
外難而總非。何以故下正釋非。明五陰生滅非常。是非一陰。故無有顛倒過也。若始終一我下第三重顯外過。五陰相續下第四重顯內無過。汝前說離受別有受者下。第四大段總結。若謂離受別有我者下。釋偈中離身無有我是事為已成也。即是釋第二結破也。若謂離身無我下。釋偈中第二破即陰我。偈中為二。初半偈取意。次一偈正破。今還釋此二也。半偈取意中有二句。第一句云若謂身即我。次句云若都無有我。今還牒二句。若謂離身無我牒第一句。但身是我牒第二都無句。是亦不然下釋第二開兩門破即陰。文易知也。若謂離受下第三釋重破離。是故我不離受下釋第四總結破。是故當知下生起第二四偈。破前第二句過去世我不作今我。所以須此長行生起者。計過去世四句皆言過去世有我。然後方論其作不作亦作不作非作非不作。上來就即離門求我不可得。論何物作不作耶。是故前結過去世無我。然後始破其過去我不作今我。四偈亦開為二。第一偈總非。次三偈別破。初偈為二。上半牒不作總非不作。下半牒異非異。問上言我於過去世為有為無。今云何乃言過去世有我不作今我。答前明過去無者無現在我耳。又前偈云。我於過去世為無者。現在我於過去為無耳。不言過去都無有我現在新有我也。問前長行結云。過去世無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 外難而總非。為何要這樣解釋『非』呢？下面正式解釋『非』。說明五陰（蘊）的生滅是無常的，『是』和『非』只存在於一個陰（蘊）中，所以沒有顛倒的過失。如果始終認為有一個『我』，下面第三重顯示外在的過失。五陰相續，下面第四重顯示內在沒有過失。你前面說離開感受另外有感受者，下面是第四大段的總結。如果說離開感受另外有『我』，下面解釋偈頌中『離開身體沒有我』，這件事已經成立了。這就是解釋第二重結論性的破斥。如果說離開身體沒有『我』，下面解釋偈頌中第二重破斥，即陰（蘊）就是『我』。偈頌中分為兩部分，前半偈取其意，後半偈正式破斥。現在再來解釋這兩部分。前半偈取意中有兩句，第一句說『如果說身體就是我』，第二句說『如果根本沒有我』。現在再來重複這兩句，『如果說離開身體沒有我』，重複第一句，『但身體就是我』，重複第二句『根本沒有』。『這也是不對的』，下面解釋第二重，分開兩方面來破斥即陰（蘊）。文義容易理解。『如果說離開感受』，下面第三重解釋，再次破斥離開。『所以我不離開感受』，下面解釋第四重總結性的破斥。『所以應當知道』，下面引出第二組四句偈頌，破斥前面第二句『過去世的我不造作現在的我』。為什麼需要這段長行來引出呢？因為計較過去世的四句都說過去世有『我』，然後才討論他造作不造作，亦造作亦不造作，非造作非不造作。上面就即離的方面來尋求『我』，不可得，還討論什麼東西造作不造作呢？所以前面總結過去世沒有『我』，然後才開始破斥『過去的我』不造作『現在的我』。四句偈頌也分為兩部分，第一句偈頌總的否定，後面三句偈頌分別破斥。第一句偈頌分為兩部分，上半句重複『不造作』，總的否定『不造作』，下半句重複『異』和『非異』。問：上面說『我於過去世為有為無』，現在為什麼又說『過去世有我不造作現在的我』？答：前面說明過去沒有，是沒有現在的『我』罷了。又前面偈頌說『我於過去世為無者』，是說現在的『我』對於過去是『無』罷了，不是說過去根本沒有，現在『我』是新有的。問：前面長行總結說，過去世沒有『我』。
【English Translation】 English version External difficulties are generally incorrect. Why is it necessary to explain 'incorrect' in this way? The following formally explains 'incorrect,' clarifying that the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas (aggregates) are impermanent. 'Is' and 'is not' only exist within one skandha, so there is no fault of inversion. If one consistently believes in an 'I,' the third layer below reveals external faults. The continuous succession of the five skandhas, the fourth layer below, reveals that there are no internal faults. You said earlier that there is a feeler separate from feeling; the following is the summary of the fourth major section. If one says that there is an 'I' separate from feeling, the following explains the verse 'There is no I apart from the body,' which has already been established. This is the explanation of the second conclusive refutation. If one says that there is no 'I' apart from the body, the following explains the second refutation in the verse, that the skandhas are the 'I.' The verse is divided into two parts: the first half takes the meaning, and the second half formally refutes. Now, let's explain these two parts again. The first half, taking the meaning, has two sentences: the first sentence says, 'If one says that the body is the I,' and the second sentence says, 'If there is fundamentally no I.' Now, let's repeat these two sentences again: 'If one says that there is no I apart from the body,' repeating the first sentence, 'But the body is the I,' repeating the second sentence, 'fundamentally no.' 'This is also incorrect,' the following explains the second layer, separating two aspects to refute the skandhas. The meaning of the text is easy to understand. 'If one says apart from feeling,' the following third layer explains, again refuting separation. 'Therefore, I am not apart from feeling,' the following explains the fourth layer, the conclusive refutation. 'Therefore, one should know,' the following introduces the second set of four verses, refuting the previous second sentence, 'The past I does not create the present I.' Why is it necessary to introduce this long passage? Because the four sentences that consider the past all say that there was an 'I' in the past, and then they discuss whether it creates or does not create, both creates and does not create, neither creates nor does not create. Above, seeking the 'I' from the aspect of being identical or separate, it is unattainable; what thing is there to discuss creating or not creating? Therefore, the previous conclusion is that there is no 'I' in the past, and then one begins to refute that the 'past I' does not create the 'present I.' The four verses are also divided into two parts: the first verse is a general negation, and the following three verses refute separately. The first verse is divided into two parts: the first half repeats 'does not create,' generally negating 'does not create,' and the second half repeats 'different' and 'not different.' Question: Above, it was said, 'Was I in the past existent or non-existent?' Why is it now said, 'The past I does not create the present I?' Answer: The previous explanation that there was no past is merely that there is no present 'I.' Also, the previous verse said, 'For me in the past, was there non-existence?' It is saying that the present 'I' is 'non-existent' in relation to the past, not that there was fundamentally nothing in the past, and now the 'I' is newly existent. Question: The previous long passage concluded that there was no 'I' in the past.
我。今何故乃云過去我不作耶。答前長行是結上奪破明無。今縱有之即就其責覓又不可得。亦是無也。次三偈別破。即為三意。第一偈明有相離過。第二偈傳顯相離復有過。第三偈更廣出其二過。問云何失因果耶。答過去我造善惡因。竟不得果故是無果。現在受苦樂我非過去我。則不修因故失因果也。並易見也。複次如過去世中下第三章一偈。次破其第三亦作不作非作非不作二句。所以但有一偈破者。前二門十偈以廣破根本二句。后二句既是枝末。是故略破。又亦作亦不作猶是作不作耳。非作非不作亦是作不作耳。故以前攝后。既破前二后二即破也。問今但應破后二句。何故總非四句耶。答一欲以前攝后。二欲以前例后。前二既去則例后亦亡。我于未來世下。第二一偈次破未來世四見。問何故但一偈破。答一欲以前例后。二明世異見同。若破於前即是破后也。若天即是人下。第二週指事破二世八見。即為二別。初破過去世四見。又開二週。第一就即事破於四見。第二就道理破除四見。事理一雙。又初周就末破四見。次破無始義就根本破四見。謂本末一雙。又初破外道四見。次破小乘迷教墮於四見。即內外一雙。又初就人破四見。次就法破四見。謂人法一雙。故知。斷常等有二。一者人斷常。二者法斷常。即是小乘中生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：現在為什麼說過去的我沒有造作呢？答：前面的長行文字是總結上文，爲了破除『明無』的觀點。現在即使假設有過去的我，追究起來也找不到，也是『無』。接下來的三首偈頌分別破斥，包含三種意思。第一首偈頌說明有『相』的過失。第二首偈頌進一步顯示執著于『相』還有其他過失。第三首偈頌更廣泛地指出這兩種過失。問：為什麼會失去因果呢？答：過去的我造作善惡之因，最終卻得不到果報，所以是『無果』。現在承受苦樂的我，並非過去的我，那麼現在就不會修善因，所以失去了因果。這些都很容易理解。另外，如《過去世中》下第三章的一首偈頌。接下來破斥第三種觀點，即『亦作亦不作』和『非作非不作』兩種說法。之所以只用一首偈頌來破斥，是因為前面的兩門（『作』和『不作』）用了十首偈頌來廣泛地破斥根本的兩種觀點。後面的兩種說法是枝末，所以簡略地破斥。而且，『亦作亦不作』仍然是『作』和『不作』，『非作非不作』也是『作』和『不作』。所以用前面的破斥可以涵蓋後面的。既然破斥了前面的兩種說法，後面的兩種說法也就被破斥了。問：現在應該只破斥後面的兩種說法，為什麼全部否定這四種說法呢？答：一是想用前面的破斥涵蓋後面的，二是想用前面的例子來類推後面的。前面的兩種說法既然被否定了，那麼後面的兩種說法也就隨之消失了。『我于未來世下』，第二首偈頌破斥未來世的四種見解。問：為什麼只用一首偈頌來破斥？答：一是想用前面的例子來類推後面的，二是說明世間不同，但見解相同。如果破斥了前面的，也就等於破斥了後面的。『若天即是人下』，第二週，通過指明事物來破斥過去和未來二世的八種見解，分為兩個部分。首先破斥過去世的四種見解，又分為兩週。第一週就事物本身來破斥四種見解。第二週就道理來破除四種見解。事物和道理是成對的。而且，第一週從末端來破斥四種見解，接下來破斥『無始』的意義，從根本上破斥四種見解，根本和末端是成對的。而且，首先破斥外道的四種見解，接下來破斥小乘佛教徒迷失教義而墮入的四種見解，即外部和內部是成對的。而且，首先就人來破斥四種見解，接下來就法來破斥四種見解，即人和法是成對的。要知道，斷滅和常存等有二種：一是人的斷滅和常存，二是法的斷滅和常存，這就是小乘佛教中產生的。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Why do you now say that the past 'I' did not act? Answer: The preceding long passage summarizes the above to refute the view of 'manifest non-existence'. Even if we assume the existence of the past 'I', it cannot be found when investigated, so it is also 'non-existent'. The following three verses refute separately, containing three meanings. The first verse explains the fault of having 'characteristics' (相, lakshana). The second verse further shows that clinging to 'characteristics' has other faults. The third verse more broadly points out these two faults. Question: Why is cause and effect lost? Answer: The past 'I' created causes of good and evil, but ultimately did not receive the results, so it is 'without result'. The present 'I' who experiences suffering and joy is not the past 'I', so now I will not cultivate good causes, thus losing cause and effect. These are all easy to understand. Furthermore, as in the third chapter of 'In the Past World' (過去世中), there is one verse. Next, refute the third view, namely the two statements of 'also acts and also does not act' (亦作亦不作) and 'neither acts nor does not act' (非作非不作). The reason why only one verse is used to refute is that the previous two doors ('acts' and 'does not act') used ten verses to widely refute the fundamental two views. The latter two statements are branches, so they are briefly refuted. Moreover, 'also acts and also does not act' is still 'acts' and 'does not act', and 'neither acts nor does not act' is also 'acts' and 'does not act'. Therefore, the previous refutation can cover the latter. Since the previous two statements have been refuted, the latter two statements are also refuted. 'I in the future world below' (我于未來世下), the second verse refutes the four views of the future world. Question: Why use only one verse to refute? Answer: One is to use the previous example to infer the latter, and the second is to explain that the worlds are different, but the views are the same. If the former is refuted, it is equivalent to refuting the latter. 'If heaven is the same as man below' (若天即是人下), the second week, by pointing out things, refutes the eight views of the past and future two worlds, divided into two parts. First, refute the four views of the past world, and divide them into two weeks. The first week refutes the four views based on the things themselves. The second week refutes the four views based on reason. Things and reason are a pair. Moreover, the first week refutes the four views from the end, and then refutes the meaning of 'beginningless' (無始, anādi), refuting the four views from the root, the root and the end are a pair. Moreover, first refute the four views of the external paths (外道, tīrthika), and then refute the four views that the followers of the Small Vehicle (小乘, Hinayana) fall into due to being lost in the teachings, that is, the external and the internal are a pair. Moreover, first refute the four views based on people, and then refute the four views based on the Dharma, that is, people and Dharma are a pair. Know that annihilation and permanence, etc., are of two kinds: one is the annihilation and permanence of people, and the other is the annihilation and permanence of Dharma, which is what arises in the Small Vehicle.
法二空也。初四偈破四見。即為四別。初偈上半牒。明墮常過者。上四偈言奪破明過去我不作今。此偈縱開。若過去天作人天則為常。下半出常過者。外人明過去天作人即是常義。不以常義為過。故下半顯常有過。明天既是常。常則遍於五道。通在三世。云何有過去之天生人中耶。第二偈上半牒。明有無常過者。明過去天與現在人異。過去天不作今人。若爾則墮無常。下半出無常過者。外人既執人天異體。即是立無常義。不以無常為咎。故下半傳顯無常之過。問無常有幾過耶。答有上破過去世四偈中過。復有無相續過。如此文說。則昔天自住于昔不轉天為人。今人自生於今非人續天。故無相續也。第三偈上半牒。明墮二邊。其人見上有過故今明。天人相異故不即。非餘眾生故不異。而不知因果相續不即不異。便謂天分猶在人分更增。猶在故即是半天。故常。更增即是半人。故無常。天分由在則此分為天。人分更增則彼分是人。人天兩分合成一身。何得爾耶。故下半直非也。長行雲。半天是常半人無常者。此據天為言耳。若約人返上可解。外人避上二過。欲令立義明天雖有我不妨作人。論主若爾天有我故是常。作人故無常。故半天半人則墮常無常二過也。數人及光宅義明補續義。天滅於前後人補處。此同第二句義。開善
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法有二種空性。最初的四句偈頌是爲了破除四種錯誤的見解，即四種差別。第一句偈頌的上半部分是重複說明，闡明了墮入常見過失的人。前面的四句偈頌已經說明了破除認為過去的我不會變成現在的我的觀點。這句偈頌是縱向展開來說明。如果過去的天道眾生變成了人道眾生，那麼天道眾生就成了常。下半部分指出了常見的過失。外道認為過去的天道眾生變成人道眾生就是常的含義，不認為常的含義有什麼過失。所以下半部分特別指出了常的過失。既然天道眾生是常，那麼常就遍及五道，貫通三世。怎麼會有過去的天道眾生出生在人道中呢？ 第二句偈頌的上半部分是重複說明，闡明了有無常過失的人。認為過去的天道眾生和現在的人道眾生是不同的，過去的天道眾生不會變成現在的人道眾生。如果這樣，那就墮入了無常。下半部分指出了無常的過失。外道既然堅持人天異體，那就是建立了無常的含義，不認為無常有什麼過錯。所以下半部分特別指出了無常的過失。問：無常有幾種過失呢？答：有前面破除過去世的四句偈頌中的過失，還有沒有相續的過失。就像這段文字所說的那樣，過去的天道眾生自己住在過去，不會轉生為人道眾生。現在的人道眾生自己出生在現在，不是人道眾生接續天道眾生，所以沒有相續。 第三句偈頌的上半部分是重複說明，闡明了墮入二邊。這些人看到前面有這些過失，所以現在說明。認為天道眾生和人道眾生是不同的，所以不相同。不是其餘的眾生，所以不相異。但是不知道因果相續是不相同也不相異的。就認為天道眾生的部分仍然存在，人道眾生的部分又增加了。仍然存在，所以就是一半是天道眾生，所以是常。又增加了，所以就是一半是人道眾生，所以是無常。天道眾生的部分仍然存在，那麼這部分就是天道眾生。人道眾生的部分又增加了，那麼那部分就是人道眾生。人道眾生和天道眾生兩部分合成為一個身體，怎麼可以這樣呢？所以下半部分直接否定了這種說法。長行中說，一半是天道眾生是常，一半是人道眾生是無常，這是根據天道眾生來說的。如果根據人道眾生反過來理解也可以。外道爲了避免前面的兩種過失，想要建立這樣的義理：認為天道眾生雖然有我，不妨礙變成人道眾生。論主說，如果這樣，天道眾生有我，所以是常。變成人道眾生，所以是無常。所以一半是天道眾生，一半是人道眾生，就墮入了常和無常兩種過失。數論者和光宅的義理說明了補續的含義。天道眾生在前後滅亡，人道眾生在後面補充。這和第二句偈頌的含義相同。開善（指開善寺）
【English Translation】 English version There are two kinds of emptiness of Dharma. The initial four verses refute four views, which are the four distinctions. The first verse's first half repeats and clarifies those who fall into the fault of permanence. The previous four verses have explained the refutation of the view that the past 'I' does not become the present 'I'. This verse expands vertically. If beings from the past Deva (heavenly) realm become beings in the human realm, then the Deva realm beings become permanent. The second half points out the fault of permanence. Externalists believe that the past Deva realm beings becoming human realm beings is the meaning of permanence, and they do not see any fault in the meaning of permanence. Therefore, the second half specifically points out the fault of permanence. Since Deva realm beings are permanent, then permanence pervades the five realms and penetrates the three times. How can there be past Deva realm beings born in the human realm? The second verse's first half repeats and clarifies those who have the fault of impermanence. It holds that past Deva realm beings and present human realm beings are different, and past Deva realm beings do not become present human realm beings. If so, then it falls into impermanence. The second half points out the fault of impermanence. Since externalists insist on the difference between Deva and human bodies, they establish the meaning of impermanence and do not see any fault in impermanence. Therefore, the second half specifically points out the fault of impermanence. Question: How many faults are there in impermanence? Answer: There are the faults in the previous four verses refuting the past world, and there is also the fault of no continuity. As this text says, the past Deva realm beings reside in the past and do not transform into human realm beings. The present human realm beings are born in the present, and human realm beings do not continue from Deva realm beings, so there is no continuity. The third verse's first half repeats and clarifies falling into the two extremes. These people see the faults mentioned earlier, so they now explain. They believe that Deva realm beings and human realm beings are different, so they are not the same. They are not other beings, so they are not different. However, they do not understand that the continuity of cause and effect is neither the same nor different. They think that the Deva realm's part still exists, and the human realm's part has increased. Still exists, so half is Deva realm beings, which is permanence. Increased, so half is human realm beings, which is impermanence. The Deva realm's part still exists, so this part is Deva realm beings. The human realm's part has increased, so that part is human realm beings. The two parts of human and Deva realm beings combine into one body, how can this be? Therefore, the second half directly denies this statement. The long passage says that half is Deva realm beings, which is permanent, and half is human realm beings, which is impermanent. This is based on Deva realm beings. If understood conversely based on human realm beings, it can also be explained. Externalists, in order to avoid the previous two faults, want to establish this meaning: they believe that although Deva realm beings have a self, it does not prevent them from becoming human realm beings. The treatise master says, if so, Deva realm beings have a self, so it is permanent. Becoming human realm beings, so it is impermanent. Therefore, half is Deva realm beings, and half is human realm beings, which falls into the two faults of permanence and impermanence. The theories of the Samkhya school and Guangzhai explain the meaning of replenishment and continuation. Deva realm beings perish before and after, and human realm beings replenish later. This is the same meaning as the second verse. Kaishan (referring to Kaishan Temple).
明轉變續者則有二力。前舉體滅不作人。此是無常。復有不滅轉變作後人義。此則是常。同第三句義。第四偈用前第三句破第四句。以外人見前第三句過。便欲會之為一。以更增故非常。猶在故非無常。是故今偈上半還牒前二句不成。下半明第四句亦不成也。複次今生死無始下生第二週。就根本破於四見。佛為聲聞人令厭離生死故。說生死長遠無始。而稟教不了者聞過去世無始。便謂是常。故今破之。光宅云。眾生無頭。般若無底。何處有始耶。開善云。始於無明初念而言無始者。無復始於此者名無始耳。地論云。生死無始違真起妄。此妄與真同年。真既無始。妄亦復然。今偈正破無始。就文為二。初破無始辨無有常義。第二偈以無常故例破后之三句。初偈意云。求諸法往來義成可有無始。既無往來則無無始。此文分明辨小乘教中有法空義。又是破執小乘教起迷也。又亦得破外道計無始者也。第二偈舉初句例破后三句。前偈明合三句無故后句無也。既破無始墮于常見。亦破有始墮于斷見。如是亦始亦無始非始無始墮后二見也。長行雲。有邊無邊下生第二破未來世四見。前破過去世四見始終合有三週。初十一偈一週就理。破過去世四見。次一週四偈就事。破過去世四見。后一週兩偈就無始。破過去世四見。所以三週破者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 明轉變相續者則有二力。前面說的整體滅盡不再成為人，這是無常。還有不滅而轉變成為後來人的意義，這則是常。與第三句的意思相同。第四個偈頌用前面的第三句來破斥第四句。因為外人認為前面的第三句有問題，便想調和成為一體，因為不斷增加所以不是常，仍然存在所以不是無常。因此現在的偈頌前半部分還是重複前面兩句的不成立，後半部分說明第四句也不成立。 再次，現在從生死無始開始，進入第二週的論述，從根本上破斥四種邪見。佛陀爲了讓聲聞眾厭離生死，所以說生死長遠沒有開始。而領悟能力不足的人聽到過去世沒有開始，便認為是常。所以現在破斥它。光宅說：『眾生沒有頭，般若（Prajna）(智慧)沒有底，哪裡有開始呢？』開善說：『開始於無明（Avidya）(愚昧)的最初一念，說沒有開始，是沒有再比這更早的開始了，所以稱為沒有開始。』地論說：『生死沒有開始，違背真理而生起虛妄。這虛妄與真理同年，真理既然沒有開始，虛妄也同樣如此。』現在的偈頌正是破斥沒有開始，從文義上分為兩部分。首先破斥沒有開始，辨明沒有常的意義。第二個偈頌用無常的例子來破斥後面的三句。第一個偈頌說明合起來的三句沒有，所以後面的句子也沒有。既然破斥了沒有開始，就墮入了常見（Sasvata-dristi）(認為事物永恒不變的錯誤見解)。也破斥了有開始，就墮入了斷見（Uccheda-dristi）(認為事物死後斷滅的錯誤見解)。像這樣，亦有始亦無始，非始非無始，就墮入了後面的兩種邪見。 長行中說：『有邊無邊』以下，開始第二週的論述，破斥未來世的四種邪見。前面破斥過去世的四種邪見，始終合起來有三週。最初的十一偈為一週，從理上破斥過去世的四種邪見。接下來一週的四偈，從事上破斥過去世的四種邪見。最後一週的兩偈，從無始的角度破斥過去世的四種邪見。之所以用三週來破斥，
【English Translation】 English version Clearly, in the continuous transformation, there are two forces. The previously mentioned complete annihilation, ceasing to be a person, is impermanence (Anitya). There is also the meaning of not being annihilated but transforming into a subsequent person, which is permanence (Nitya). This is the same as the meaning of the third statement. The fourth verse uses the preceding third statement to refute the fourth statement. Because outsiders see the preceding third statement as flawed, they attempt to reconcile it into one, arguing that because it constantly increases, it is not impermanent, and because it still exists, it is not impermanent. Therefore, the first half of the current verse reiterates the failure of the preceding two statements, and the second half clarifies that the fourth statement is also untenable. Furthermore, now, starting from the beginninglessness of birth and death (Samsara), we enter the second cycle of discussion, fundamentally refuting the four wrong views. The Buddha, in order to make the Sravakas (Disciples) weary of birth and death, speaks of the length and beginninglessness of birth and death. Those who are not clear about the teachings, upon hearing that the past world is without beginning, consider it to be permanent. Therefore, now we refute it. Guangzhai says: 'Sentient beings have no head, Prajna (智慧) (wisdom) has no bottom, where is the beginning?' Kaishan says: 'Beginning with the first thought of Avidya (愚昧) (ignorance), saying there is no beginning means there is no earlier beginning than this, hence it is called without beginning.' Dilun says: 'Birth and death are without beginning, arising falsely against the truth. This falsehood is the same age as the truth. Since the truth has no beginning, so does the falsehood.' The current verse is precisely refuting the beginninglessness, dividing it into two parts in terms of the text. First, refute the beginninglessness, clarifying the meaning of no permanence. The second verse uses the example of impermanence to refute the subsequent three statements. The first verse clarifies that the combined three statements are non-existent, so the subsequent statement is also non-existent. Since the beginninglessness is refuted, it falls into the Sasvata-dristi (常見) (eternalism). It also refutes having a beginning, which falls into the Uccheda-dristi (斷見) (annihilationism). Thus, both having a beginning and not having a beginning, neither having a beginning nor not having a beginning, fall into the latter two wrong views. The long passage says: 'Having an end and not having an end' below, begins the second cycle of discussion, refuting the four wrong views of the future world. The previous refutation of the four wrong views of the past world, combined from beginning to end, has three cycles. The initial eleven verses are one cycle, refuting the four wrong views of the past world from the perspective of principle. The next cycle of four verses refutes the four wrong views of the past world from the perspective of phenomena. The final cycle of two verses refutes the four wrong views of the past world from the perspective of beginninglessness. The reason for using three cycles to refute is that
凡有三義。一者初十一偈名為廣破。次四偈明處中破。后兩偈是略破。破見之術不出此三。此三既無。眾見都滅。又初為上根。一聞則悟。次為中根。再聽方了。后為下根。三聞始達。又雖有三週合之為二。前兩週破外見。后一週除內迷。此二既除則眾見並息。今九偈破未來世四見。亦開三門。初五偈破邊無邊二句。次三偈破亦邊亦無邊一句。后一偈破非邊非無邊。初是廣破。次處中破。后是略破。又廣略互顯也。又初二句為本中之本。故須廣破。次第三句為末中之本。故須處中破。后為末中之末。是故略破。問前周明無未來。與今何異。答上明世異以見同故以當類過。非是正破未來。今此一週是正破未來故。前破過去既有三週。今破未來四見亦作三週破也。問破過去世四見。與破未來四見何異。答前破過去四見束為三類。六偈廣破初句。次四偈處中破第二句。后一偈略破后二句。今則分句與上不同。如前釋也。復有異義。文自顯之。就初五偈為四。初標破邪見章門。第二標正見章門。次兩偈釋邪見章門。次一偈釋正見章門。此是攝山大師作分也。又一意為三。初偈標非邊無邊。次三偈釋非邊無邊。次引四百觀論證非邊無邊。於三偈為二。初偈標章門。二偈釋章門。初偈意明。有邊無邊俱無後世。有邊則與陰同。盡故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『凡有三義』（「凡有三義」指《金剛經》中關於「凡所有相皆是虛妄」的三種意義）：第一，最初的十一頌（偈，jì）被稱為『廣破』，廣泛地破除各種錯誤的見解。第二，接下來的四頌闡明『處中破』，即從中間立場破除錯誤的見解。第三，最後的兩頌是『略破』，簡略地破除錯誤的見解。破除錯誤見解的方法不出這三種。這三種方法如果運用得當，所有的錯誤見解都會消失。 另外，最初的十一頌是為上等根器的人準備的，他們一聽就能領悟。接下來的四頌是為中等根器的人準備的，他們需要聽兩遍才能明白。最後的兩頌是為下等根器的人準備的，他們需要聽三遍才能理解。此外，雖然有三週（指三種破除見解的方法），但可以合併爲兩類：前兩週破除外道的見解，后一週消除內心的迷惑。這兩類問題如果都解決了，那麼所有的錯誤見解都會平息。 現在用九頌來破除未來世的四種見解，也分為三個部分。最初的五頌破除『有邊』（認為世界有邊際）和『無邊』（認為世界沒有邊際）這兩種說法。接下來的三頌破除『亦有邊亦無邊』（認為世界既有邊際又沒有邊際）這種說法。最後一頌破除『非有邊非無邊』（認為世界既不是有邊際也不是沒有邊際）這種說法。最初的五頌是『廣破』，接下來的三頌是『處中破』，最後一頌是『略破』。『廣破』和『略破』相互襯托，互相顯現。 另外，最初的『有邊』和『無邊』這兩種說法是根本中的根本，所以需要廣泛地破除。接下來的『亦有邊亦無邊』這種說法是末端中的根本，所以需要從中間立場破除。最後『非有邊非無邊』是末端中的末端，所以需要簡略地破除。 有人問：前面一週（指破除過去世見解的一週）說明沒有未來，和現在這一週有什麼不同？回答說：前面是說明世間的變化，因為見解相同，所以用相似的情況來類比，並不是直接破除未來。現在這一週是直接破除未來。前面破除過去世的見解有三週，現在破除未來世的四種見解也分為三週來破除。 有人問：破除過去世的四種見解和破除未來世的四種見解有什麼不同？回答說：前面破除過去世的四種見解歸納為三類，用六頌廣泛地破除第一種說法，用四頌從中間立場破除第二種說法，用一頌簡略地破除後面的兩種說法。現在則是分開來破除，和前面不同，就像前面解釋的那樣。還有其他的不同意義，文章會自己顯現出來。 就最初的五頌來說，可以分為四個部分。第一部分標明破除邪見的章節。第二部分標明樹立正見的章節。接下來的兩頌解釋破除邪見的章節。最後一頌解釋樹立正見的章節。這是攝山大師（一位佛教大師）所作的劃分。另外一種理解是分為三個部分。第一頌標明『非有邊非無邊』。接下來的三頌解釋『非有邊非無邊』。然後引用《四百論》（一部佛教論著）來證明『非有邊非無邊』。在三頌中又分為兩個部分。第一頌標明章節。第二頌解釋章節。第一頌的意思是說明，『有邊』和『無邊』都不能成立後世的說法，因為如果『有邊』，就和五陰（色、受、想、行、識）一樣，終究會消散。
【English Translation】 English version: 'All phenomena have three meanings.' ('All phenomena have three meanings' refers to the three meanings in the Diamond Sutra regarding 'All forms are illusory'): First, the initial eleven verses are called 'extensive refutation,' which extensively refutes various erroneous views. Second, the following four verses clarify 'middle refutation,' which refutes erroneous views from a middle ground. Third, the final two verses are 'brief refutation,' which briefly refutes erroneous views. The methods for refuting erroneous views do not go beyond these three. If these three methods are properly applied, all erroneous views will disappear. In addition, the initial eleven verses are prepared for people with superior faculties, who can comprehend upon hearing them once. The following four verses are prepared for people with intermediate faculties, who need to hear them twice to understand. The final two verses are prepared for people with inferior faculties, who need to hear them three times to understand. Furthermore, although there are three cycles (referring to the three methods of refuting views), they can be merged into two categories: the first two cycles refute the views of external paths, and the last cycle eliminates inner confusion. If both of these problems are resolved, then all erroneous views will subside. Now, nine verses are used to refute the four views of the future world, also divided into three parts. The initial five verses refute the two statements of 'finite' (believing the world has boundaries) and 'infinite' (believing the world has no boundaries). The following three verses refute the statement of 'both finite and infinite' (believing the world is both finite and infinite). The last verse refutes the statement of 'neither finite nor infinite' (believing the world is neither finite nor infinite). The initial five verses are 'extensive refutation,' the following three verses are 'middle refutation,' and the last verse is 'brief refutation.' 'Extensive refutation' and 'brief refutation' complement each other, mutually revealing each other. In addition, the initial two statements of 'finite' and 'infinite' are the root of the root, so they need to be extensively refuted. The following statement of 'both finite and infinite' is the root of the end, so it needs to be refuted from a middle ground. Finally, 'neither finite nor infinite' is the end of the end, so it needs to be briefly refuted. Someone asks: The previous cycle (referring to the cycle of refuting views of the past) explains that there is no future, how is it different from this cycle? The answer is: The previous one explains the changes of the world, because the views are the same, so it uses similar situations to make analogies, it is not directly refuting the future. This cycle is directly refuting the future. The previous refutation of views of the past had three cycles, now the refutation of the four views of the future world is also divided into three cycles to refute. Someone asks: What is the difference between refuting the four views of the past world and refuting the four views of the future world? The answer is: The previous refutation of the four views of the past world is summarized into three categories, using six verses to extensively refute the first statement, using four verses to refute the second statement from a middle ground, and using one verse to briefly refute the last two statements. Now, they are refuted separately, which is different from the previous one, just like the previous explanation. There are other different meanings, and the text will reveal them itself. Regarding the initial five verses, they can be divided into four parts. The first part marks the chapter on refuting wrong views. The second part marks the chapter on establishing right views. The following two verses explain the chapter on refuting wrong views. The last verse explains the chapter on establishing right views. This is the division made by Master Sheshan (a Buddhist master). Another understanding is to divide it into three parts. The first verse marks 'neither finite nor infinite.' The following three verses explain 'neither finite nor infinite.' Then, the Catuhsataka (a Buddhist treatise) is cited to prove 'neither finite nor infinite.' In the three verses, it is further divided into two parts. The first verse marks the chapter. The second verse explains the chapter. The meaning of the first verse is to explain that 'finite' and 'infinite' cannot establish the statement of the afterlife, because if 'finite,' it is like the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), which will eventually dissipate.
無後世。無邊便即是此身故無復後世。今實有後世。故非邊無邊。第二偈明陰陰相因故非今非后。所以然者陰陰相因。是故不斷。所以非邊。唸唸滅故非是無邊。即小乘正見也。次兩偈釋邪見章門又二。初偈明。若前陰壞不更生后可是有邊。前陰雖滅而生后陰故非是有邊。次偈明。前陰不滅不因前陰而生后陰。此則為常可名無邊。而實不爾故非無邊。長行雲。世間有二種。今說眾生世間者。小乘雖具明二空而多說生空。又國土可三災洞盡。物多不計之為常。眾生轉如尋環。物多計之常。故偏破眾生。複次如四百觀論中說下。此生第四釋正見章門。付法藏經云。提婆菩薩造四百論。今注人引之將來破二邊也。亦可是龍樹自引。例如龍樹智度論第十八卷嘆般若偈。此是羅[目只]法師所作。但龍樹羅[目只]提婆既是同時人。所以智度論引羅[目*只]所說。此處引提婆之言。亦可別有此論。今所未詳。偈意明。得真法說者及以聽者。則生死便盡故非定無邊。不得三事則非定有邊。問云何得耶。答其說法者無說無示。其聽法者無聞無得。如此之悟則無邊邊。與此相違邊而無邊。長行雲。今當更破下生第二破第三句。三偈為二。初偈牒而總非。即是章門。次兩偈正破。釋章門也。釋中為二初偈就人破。次偈就法破。就人
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無後世。沒有邊際便等同於此身，所以沒有來世。現在確實有來世，所以不是邊也不是無邊。第二首偈說明陰陰相因，所以不是現在也不是未來。之所以這樣，是因為陰陰相因，所以不會斷絕。之所以不是邊，是因爲念念滅去，所以不是無邊。這是小乘的正見。 接下來的兩首偈解釋邪見章門，又分為兩部分。第一首偈說明，如果前陰壞滅不再產生后陰，那就可以說是『有邊』。前陰雖然滅去，卻產生了后陰，所以不是『有邊』。第二首偈說明，前陰不滅，也不依靠前陰而產生后陰，這就可以稱為『無邊』。但實際上並非如此，所以不是『無邊』。 長行中說：『世間有兩種。』現在說的是眾生世間。小乘雖然具足闡明二空（人空和法空），但更多地談論生空（人空）。而且國土可能會被三大災難毀滅殆盡，事物大多不被認為是常。眾生輪迴就像尋找圓環一樣，事物大多被認為是常。所以偏重於破斥眾生。另外，如《四百觀論》中所說如下。此生第四，解釋正見章門。《付法藏經》中說，提婆菩薩造了《四百論》。現在註釋的人引用它，將來用來破斥二邊。也可能是龍樹菩薩自己引用。例如龍樹菩薩在《智度論》第十八卷讚歎般若的偈頌，說：『這是羅睺羅跋陀羅（Rāhula-bhadra）法師所作。』但龍樹菩薩、羅睺羅跋陀羅、提婆（Deva）既然是同時代的人，所以《智度論》引用羅睺羅跋陀羅所說。此處引用提婆的話，也可能另有此論，現在還不清楚。偈頌的意思是說，得到真法並宣說的人，以及聽聞的人，那麼生死就會終結，所以不是絕對的『無邊』。得不到這三件事，就不是絕對的『有邊』。問：『如何才能得到呢？』答：『說法的人無說無示，聽法的人無聞無得。』如此的領悟就沒有邊和無邊。與此相反，就是邊而無邊。 長行中說：『現在應當進一步破斥』，接下來是第二，破斥第三句。三首偈分為兩部分。第一首偈是總括地否定，也就是章門。接下來的兩首偈是正式破斥，解釋章門。解釋中分為兩部分，第一首偈就人來破斥，第二首偈就法來破斥。就人...
【English Translation】 English version There is no afterlife. Having no boundary is the same as this body, so there is no afterlife. Now there is indeed an afterlife, so it is neither boundary nor no boundary. The second verse explains that the skandhas (陰, aggregates) are the cause of each other, so it is neither now nor later. The reason for this is that the skandhas are the cause of each other, so they are not 끊임없이. The reason it is not a boundary is that thoughts are extinguished moment by moment, so it is not without boundary. This is the right view of the Hinayana. The next two verses explain the chapter on wrong views, which is further divided into two parts. The first verse states that if the previous skandha is destroyed and no subsequent skandha is produced, then it can be said to be 'having a boundary'. Although the previous skandha is destroyed, the subsequent skandha is produced, so it is not 'having a boundary'. The second verse states that if the previous skandha is not destroyed and the subsequent skandha is not produced because of the previous skandha, then this can be called 'without boundary'. But in reality, it is not so, so it is not 'without boundary'. The long passage says: 'There are two kinds of world.' Now we are talking about the world of sentient beings. Although the Hinayana fully explains the two emptinesses (emptiness of person and emptiness of dharma), it talks more about the emptiness of birth (emptiness of person). Moreover, the land may be completely destroyed by the three major disasters, and things are mostly not considered permanent. The cycle of sentient beings is like searching for a ring, and things are mostly considered permanent. Therefore, it focuses on refuting sentient beings. In addition, as stated in the Four Hundred Verses (Catuḥśataka-śāstra) below. This life is the fourth, explaining the chapter on right view. The Samgharaksa Sutra says that Deva (提婆) Bodhisattva wrote the Four Hundred Verses. Now the commentator quotes it to refute the two extremes in the future. It may also be that Nāgārjuna (龍樹) Bodhisattva himself quoted it. For example, Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva praised Prajna (般若, wisdom) in the eighteenth volume of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, saying: 'This was written by the Dharma master Rāhula-bhadra (羅睺羅跋陀羅).' But since Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva, Rāhula-bhadra, and Deva were contemporaries, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra quoted what Rāhula-bhadra said. Here, the words of Deva are quoted, and there may be another treatise, which is not yet clear. The meaning of the verse is that those who obtain and proclaim the true Dharma, and those who hear it, will end birth and death, so it is not absolutely 'without boundary'. If these three things are not obtained, it is not absolutely 'having a boundary'. Question: 'How can one obtain them?' Answer: 'The one who speaks the Dharma has nothing to say or show, and the one who listens to the Dharma has nothing to hear or gain.' Such an understanding has neither boundary nor no boundary. The opposite of this is having a boundary and no boundary. The long passage says: 'Now we should further refute', and then the second, refuting the third sentence. The three verses are divided into two parts. The first verse is a general negation, which is the chapter. The next two verses are formal refutations, explaining the chapter. The explanation is divided into two parts, the first verse refutes based on people, and the second verse refutes based on Dharma. Based on people...
破者明人不應一分破一分不破。不破是常破是無常。一人不得亦常無常。次偈就法易知也。長行雲。今當破下生第三章。破第四非有邊無邊。用第三句破第四句。文易知也。一切法空故下論有三分。初二十五品破大乘人法。辨大乘觀行。次兩品破小乘人法。明小乘觀行。此二竟前。今第三重明大乘觀行。生起來意具如初品。兩偈為二。初偈重廣明大乘觀行。次偈推功歸佛。又初偈明美法。次偈辨贊人。初偈來意者上說未盡。今略明之。一者初大后小。明小從大出。顯出生義。次前小后大。明收入義。出生則從實起權。收入則攝權順實。蓋是三世十方諸佛始終權實之大意也。又依攝大乘論乘有三種。一者小乘。二者大乘。三者一乘。一乘最勝。前兩品明小乘觀行。二十五章明大乘觀行。今此一章辨一乘觀行。則具破三種乘迷。具申三種乘教。又自前二章但破大小乘諸見。今此一偈通破大小乘諸見之根。問云何名為見根耶。答一有起見人。謂九道眾生。二起見處。凈穢諸土。三起見時。謂三世也。由此三種能生大小諸見。今此品中明此三畢竟皆空。故無起見根。以根無故諸見不起。又接此邪見品生者。小乘破我及斷常等雖復已竟。論主猶謂不盡。此但破凡夫見耳。未破二乘見及菩薩見。故不暢大士之懷。故復以大乘畢竟空
水洗之。令諸見時方見者一切無遺也。又自上已來破大小邪見。惑者便起邪正二心大小兩念。故今明邪正平等大小無二。方攝為理極。故說此偈也。又說法有二。前略后廣為解義故。前廣后略為易持。故今是示易持。故最後說大乘法空。就偈為二。初句標一切法空。謂橫周萬法豎窮四句畢竟皆空。即顯正也。次三句明於破邪。初句辨無所起見。次辨無起見處及起見時並起見人。瞿曇大聖主下第二推功于佛。所以推功者自上已來橫破萬法豎窮四句。物謂蓋是龍樹自作非佛誠言。便於此論不生信受。是故今推功歸佛。明上來之破皆是佛說非是我也。若不生信不信佛。二者總釋大小乘觀破邪見意。明上來作此破者但是佛破邪見耳。非有物可破。如百論云。愚人謂炎為水。知者告之言此非水也。為破水想。實無水可破。三者經有序正流通。今影大乘經亦明三義。初標宗稱歎致敬。次後造論破邪申教。破邪既訖還稱歎致敬也。偈分為二。一者稱歎。二者致敬。稱歎為二。初嘆人兩句嘆法。瞿曇者此雲泥土。即是姓也。有二因緣。一者釋迦先祖為王厭世出家事瞿曇仙人。時人呼師為大瞿曇。以資為小瞿曇。即從師姓也。次小瞿曇被害。以後大瞿曇以土和其血分為兩分。還遂各生男女。因是已來有瞿曇姓稱也。問何故不云釋迦而稱瞿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 用水洗滌，是爲了讓所有執著于見解的人，以及那些執著於時間概念的人，完全沒有任何遺漏。而且，從前面開始，就已經破除了大小乘的各種邪見。那些迷惑的人，容易產生邪正兩種心，以及大小兩種念頭。所以現在要闡明邪正平等，大小沒有分別，這樣才能達到理論的極致。因此說了這首偈頌。另外，說法的形式有兩種：前面簡略後面詳細，是爲了便於理解；前面詳細後面簡略，是爲了便於記憶。現在是爲了便於記憶，所以最後才說大乘法空。就偈頌本身來說，可以分為兩部分。第一句標明一切法空，意思是橫向包含萬法，縱向窮盡四句，最終都是空。這就是顯明正見。接下來的三句，是闡明破除邪見。第一句辨明沒有產生見解的地方。第二句辨明沒有產生見解之處，以及產生見解之時，還有產生見解之人。『瞿曇大聖主』以下是第二部分，將功勞歸於佛陀。之所以要歸功於佛陀，是因為從前面開始，橫向破除萬法，縱向窮盡四句，人們可能會認為這是龍樹菩薩自己所作，而不是佛陀的真實教言，因此對這部論典不產生信心和接受。所以現在將功勞歸於佛陀，說明以上所破除的，都是佛陀所說，而不是我（龍樹）自己說的。如果不相信，就是不相信佛陀。這兩點總的解釋了大小乘觀破邪見的意義，說明以上所作的破除，只是佛陀在破除邪見而已，並沒有什麼實際的東西可以破除。如同《百論》所說：『愚人把火焰當成水，智者告訴他說這不是水。』這是爲了破除把火焰當成水的想法，實際上並沒有水可以破除。第三，經典有經序、正宗、流通三個部分。現在借用大乘經典的結構，也闡明這三種意義。首先標明宗旨，稱讚致敬。然後造論破除邪見，闡述教義。破除邪見完畢后，再稱讚致敬。偈頌分為兩部分：一是稱讚，二是致敬。稱讚又分為兩部分：開頭兩句是讚歎人，後面兩句是讚歎法。『瞿曇』，翻譯成漢語是『泥土』，這是姓氏。有兩個因緣：一是釋迦牟尼佛的先祖是國王，厭倦世事出家，侍奉瞿曇仙人。當時人們稱老師為大瞿曇，稱侍者為小瞿曇，就從老師的姓氏了。二是小瞿曇被害后，大瞿曇用泥土混合他的血，分成兩份，各自又生出男女，因此就有了瞿曇這個姓氏。問：為什麼不稱釋迦牟尼佛為釋迦，而稱他為瞿曇呢？
【English Translation】 English version It is washed with water to ensure that all those who cling to views and those who cling to the concept of time are completely without omission. Moreover, from the beginning, various wrong views of the Hinayana and Mahayana have been refuted. Those who are confused easily generate two minds of right and wrong, and two thoughts of large and small. Therefore, it is now necessary to clarify that right and wrong are equal, and large and small are not different, so as to reach the ultimate of the theory. Therefore, this verse is said. In addition, there are two forms of Dharma teaching: the former is brief and the latter is detailed, which is convenient for understanding; the former is detailed and the latter is brief, which is convenient for memorization. Now it is for the convenience of memorization, so the emptiness of Mahayana Dharma is said at the end. As far as the verse itself is concerned, it can be divided into two parts. The first sentence indicates that all dharmas are empty, meaning that horizontally including all dharmas and vertically exhausting the four sentences are ultimately empty. This is to clarify the right view. The next three sentences are to clarify the refutation of wrong views. The first sentence distinguishes that there is no place to generate views. The second sentence distinguishes the place where no views are generated, as well as the time when views are generated, and the person who generates views. The following 'Gotama (Gautama) the Great Holy Lord' is the second part, attributing the credit to the Buddha. The reason for attributing the credit to the Buddha is that from the beginning, horizontally refuting all dharmas and vertically exhausting the four sentences, people may think that this was done by Nagarjuna (Longshu) himself, not the true teachings of the Buddha, so they do not generate faith and acceptance in this treatise. Therefore, now attribute the credit to the Buddha, explaining that what has been refuted above was said by the Buddha, not by myself (Nagarjuna). If you don't believe it, you don't believe the Buddha. These two points generally explain the meaning of the Hinayana and Mahayana views of refuting wrong views, explaining that the refutation made above is only the Buddha refuting wrong views, and there is nothing real to refute. As the Hundred Treatises says: 'A fool regards flames as water, and a wise man tells him that this is not water.' This is to refute the idea of regarding flames as water, but there is actually no water to refute. Third, the scriptures have three parts: the introduction, the main body, and the conclusion. Now, borrowing the structure of the Mahayana scriptures, it also clarifies these three meanings. First, state the purpose, praise and pay homage. Then compose treatises to refute wrong views and expound the teachings. After refuting wrong views, praise and pay homage again. The verse is divided into two parts: one is praise, and the other is homage. Praise is divided into two parts: the first two sentences praise the person, and the last two sentences praise the Dharma. 'Gotama (Gautama)', translated into Chinese is 'mud', which is the surname. There are two causes: one is that Shakyamuni Buddha's ancestor was a king, tired of worldly affairs and left home to serve the Gotama (Gautama) immortal. At that time, people called the teacher Great Gotama (Gautama), and the attendant Little Gotama (Gautama), and followed the teacher's surname. Second, after Little Gotama (Gautama) was killed, Great Gotama (Gautama) mixed his blood with mud, divided it into two parts, and each gave birth to sons and daughters, so there was the surname Gotama (Gautama). Question: Why is Shakyamuni Buddha not called Shakyamuni, but Gotama (Gautama)?
曇。答瞿曇是本姓故也。略說五見及六十二見者。此偏舉外道見耳。然二乘及有所得大乘皆是一切見也。
中觀論疏卷第十(末畢)
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 曇（Tan）。回答說瞿曇（Gotama）是本來的姓氏的緣故。簡略地說五見和六十二見，這只是偏面地舉出外道的見解罷了。然而二乘以及有所得的大乘，都是一切見。
《中觀論疏》卷第十（未完）
【English Translation】 English version: Tan (Tan). The answer is that Gotama (Gotama) is the original family name. Briefly speaking of the five views and sixty-two views, this is just a partial enumeration of the views of external paths. However, the Two Vehicles and the Mahayana with attainment are all 'all views'.
Madhyamaka-karika-vrtti, Volume 10 (incomplete)